R. Scott Clark has provided a historically lucid investigation into the life, theology, faith, and practice of Caspar Olevian, which is, but one example of orthodox Protestant scholarship and descriptive historical theology at its best.  Clark begins by placing Olevian within the theologically divisive context of the 16th century.  Attacked on both sides by gnesio-Lutherans and Tridentine Papists, the second-generation Reformed theologians endured persecution, slander, and accusations of heresy and schism. Both in Trier and Heidelberg, Olevian engaged in heated theological disputes with Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Roman Catholics.   This historical context provides Clark an opportunity in which to examine Olevian’s covenant theology and its relationship to the emerging Protestant identity in the 16th century. 

            Central to Olevian’s thought is the substance of the covenant (substantia foederis) as a kind of organizing principle in which his theology was systematized.  Building on Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ and the two-fold grace (duplex gratia), Olevian, remaining faithful to Calvin, cast his theological vocabulary in slightly different terms in order to best suit his immediate scholarly purposes.  Olevian used the phrase “double benefit” (duplex beneficium) to describe the substance of the covenant, this benefit being the twin, inseparable soteriological realities of justification and sanctification. Before examining Olevian’s understanding of justification and sanctification, Clark studies the influence of humanism and scholasticism in Olevian’s theological method, the underlying Trinitarian federalism that provided Olevian’s soteriology its ultimate significance, and the distinctive Calvinistic Christology and its connection to Calvinist and Lutheran Eucharistic controversies.

            First, Clark recognizes Olevian’s theological method as unashamedly Aristotelian in its approach.  For this very reason, Clark deems it necessary to label Olevian as a consciously Protestant Reformed scholastic.  The very word “substance” used to describe the nature of the covenant reveals Olevian’s commitment to Aristotelian categories.  Clark is quick to point out that Olevian’s Aristotelianism didn’t so much control his theology as much as it provided a needed framework in which to systematize biblical doctrine.  As such, Olevian’s scholasticism was subordinate to his primary allegiance to Holy Scripture.  Along similar lines, Clark classifies Olevian as a classical humanist in his approach to education and scholarship.

            Second, Clark examines Olevian’s Trinitarian theology and its underlying federalism.  Caspar Olevian was thoroughly Trinitarian in his theological commitments, writing three separate commentaries on the Apostles Creed during his life.  His doctrine of the Trinity was closely tied to his doctrine of the pre-temporal covenant of redemption wherein the Father unconditionally elects a people for himself and the Son covenants with the Father to accomplish redemption on behalf the elect.  Olevian’s Christology is important at this juncture in light of the necessary requirements for the accomplishment of redemption.  In order for Christ to fully satisfy the wrath of God on behalf of the church, Christ’s humanity must be consubstantial with that of mankind.  Caspar Olevian, faithfully defending orthodox Chalcedonian Christology, taught that Christ’s deity in no way poured its self over into his humanity so as to ontologically confuse the two natures.  Olevian’s doctrine of the hypostatic union infuriated the gnesio-Lutherans because they taught the very opposite.  Lutheran Eucharistic theology demanded an admixture of Christ’s two natures in order for his humanity to be omnipresent, local, and physically immanent.  According to Olevian, the Lutheran Christology dismantles the creator-creature distinction, contradicts the consensus of Chalcedon, fails to break from the errors of Rome, and ignores the absolutely crucial role of the Holy Spirit in mystical union and the reception of the holy Eucharist.

            After establishing Olevian’s broader theological context, Clark takes a detailed look into Olevian’s understanding of the double benefit.  The first and primary benefit of the covenant is justification, defined by Olevian as the “free remission of sins.” Justification, according to Olevian, is thoroughly legal, federal, objective, and alien.  Mankind’s fall in Adam’s necessitated both an active righteousness which met the terms of the covenant of works and a passive obedience which satisfied the wrath of God for the elect.  Christ’s accomplished these two stipulations, thus meritoriously earning the requisite righteousness for those given him in the covenant of redemption.  Faith alone in the Mediator is the only condition for justification, although faith itself, according to Olevian, is monergistic in its nature. 

            The second benefit of the covenant, which in Olevian’s mind is subordinate to the doctrine of justification, is the doctrine of Christian renewal or sanctification.  While justification is entirely objective and forensic, sanctification differs in that it is subjective, progressive, and incomplete in this age.  For Olevian, the doctrine of sanctification cannot be rightly understood apart from understanding the means of grace and their role within the individual life of a Christian.  The primary means of grace is the preaching of the Word, which begets faith through the monergistic agency of the Holy Spirit in effectual calling.  God himself speaks through the voice of the minister, remits sins, and assures his people with the covenant promises of the gospel.  After establishing Olevian’s understanding of the preached word, Clark discusses Olevian’s doctrine of the holy sacraments and their role within the process of sanctification.  In typical Calvinist fashion, Olevian regarded baptism as the sign and seal of God’s covenant promises to be administered to the children of believers.  The Lord’s Supper or “Holy Eucharist” differed substantially from baptism.  While baptism extends to believers and their children, the Lord’s Supper was instituted for those with a conscious faith in Christ.  Olevian also regarded baptism as the means of initiation and the Lord’s Supper as the divinely appointed means of spiritual nourishment and faith’s confirmation.  

            Clark’s contribution to the study of 16th century Protestantism is a welcome remedy to 21st century Protestantism at risk of losing its identity.  His study of Olevian provides a much-needed portrait of orthodox Protestantism at its best.