A Landmark in Turbulent Times: The Meaning and Relevance of the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) [1 ed.] 9783666560569, 9783525560563

Citation preview

Henk van den Belt /  Klaas-Willem de Jong / Willem van Vlastuin (eds.)

A Landmark in Turbulent Times The Meaning and Relevance of the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

Academic Studies

84

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Refo500 Academic Studies Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In co-operation with Christopher B. Brown (Boston), Günter Frank (Bretten), Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Bern), Tarald Rasmussen (Oslo), Violet Soen (Leuven), Zsombor Tóth (Budapest), Günther Wassilowsky (Frankfurt), Siegrid Westphal (Osnabrück).

Volume 84

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Henk van den Belt / Klaas-Willem de Jong / Willem van Vlastuin (eds.)

A Landmark in Turbulent Times The Meaning and Relevance of the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. © 2022 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Theaterstraße 13, 37073 Göttingen, Germany, an imprint of the Brill-Group (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany; Brill Österreich GmbH, Vienna, Austria) Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Cover design: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen Typesetting: le-tex publishing services, Leipzig

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197–0165 ISBN 978–3–666–56056–9

Contents

Henk van den Belt, Klaas-Willem de Jong, Willem van Vlastuin Introduction .........................................................................................

9

Part A: Diverse Contexts Alec Ryrie 1. The Ecumenical Council of Dordt ...................................................... 23 Polly Ha 2. Discovering Orthodoxy? Rethinking the Purpose and Impact of the Synod of Dordt ....................................................................... 37 Fred van Lieburg 3. Communicating Calvinist Concord. The Synod of Dordrecht as a Public Event .............................................................................. 55 Ole Peter Grell 4. The Dutch communities in England and the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619 .. 69 Jacob van Sluis 5. The Franeker Academy and the Synod of Dordrecht ............................. 85 Jeannette Kreijkes 6. Did the Synod of Dordt Consider Chrysostom a Semi-Pelagian? Continuity and Discontinuity in the Interpretation of Patristic Theology in the Reformed Tradition .............. 95 Harm Goris 7. Stripped and Wounded. The Medieval Background of Roman Catholic Views on the Effects of the Fall in (Post)-Tridentine Theology... 113

6

Contents

Part B: Theology at the Synod Dolf te Velde 8. Justified by Faith? Franciscus Gomarus on the Crucial Issue with Jacob Arminius ........................................................................ 131 Ariane Albisser 9. The Statement of Gelderland, Utrecht and Groningen on the First Remonstrant Article ................................................................. 147 Corné Blaauw 10. Divine Foreknowledge, Possible Worlds, and the Decree. Investigating the Reformed Position on God’s Willing Knowledge from 1588 to 1685 ........................................................... 155 Donald Sinnema 11. Doctrinal Dissension among Delegates at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) .................................................................................... 173 Pieter Rouwendal 12. A Slight Modification of a Classic Formula. The Extent of the Atonement in the Judicia at the Synod of Dordt ................................... 193 Bert Koopman 13. Preparatory work. Rejected at the Front Door, Stealthily Admitted through the Back Door....................................................... 199 Wim Moehn 14. Debating Regeneration. From Baptismal Water to Seed of Rebirth ......... 211 Willem van Vlastuin 15. Retrieving the Doctrine of the Apostasy of the Saints in the ‘Remonstrance’ ................................................................................ 225 Erik A. de Boer 16. The Absence of Israel in Dordt’s Doctrine of Divine Election. On Anna Walker’s Prophecy, Brought to (But not Heard at) the National Synod of Dordrecht............................................................. 243

Contents

Part C: Dordt’s Church Order and its Reception Johannes Smit 17. The Church Order of Dordrecht 1619. Order for a New Dispensation..... 261 Sjaak Verwijs 18. The Synod of Dordt and the Ius Patronatus ......................................... 277 Leon van den Broeke 19. Dangerous Deputies? The Transition from Reformed Deputies to Netherlands Reformed Bodies of Assistance .................................... 291 Dolf Britz 20. The Footprint of the Church Order of Dordt at the Cape of Good Hope? An Investigation of Primary Ecclesiological Documents..... 309 Klaas-Willem de Jong 21. The Ideal versus the Reality. The Influence of the Wesel Articles on the Reception of the Dordt Church Order in the Doleantie Movement ...................................................................................... 327

Part D: After the Synod Henk van den Belt 22. Reformed Theology on the Brink of Modernity. The Predestinated Thief (1619) and the Remonstrant Accusation of Determinism................................................................................... 345 Joke Spaans, Pauline Wegener 23. Practical Theology after Dordt. Lambertus de Beveren and Wilhelmus van Irhoven .................................................................... 363 Pierrick Hildebrand 24. Dordt at the edge of High Orthodoxy. The Reception of the Canons of Dordt in the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675).................. 383 Volker Leppin 25. A Disliked Doctrine. Predestination, Dordt, and the Lutherans.............. 393

7

8

Contents

Arnold Huijgen 26. The Lasting Value and Limitations of the Canons of Dordt .................... 411 Information about the Authors ................................................................ 427 Index ................................................................................................... 431

Henk van den Belt, Klaas-Willem de Jong, Willem van Vlastuin

Introduction

In 1618 and 1619 the Synod of Dordt was held, upon the authority of the StatesGeneral of the Dutch Republic, to resolve a conflict within the Reformed Church in the Netherlands about the doctrine of predestination. Although the roots of this conflict go further back, it became particularly visible in a dispute which had arisen within Leiden’s theological faculty in 1602. The synod was intended to re-establish the unity of the young state of the United Provinces in a crucial stage of the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648), which was part of the broader confrontation between Catholic and Protestant powers in Europe after the Reformation. Both goals were achieved in the presence of congenial foreign theologians from friendly states, while other ecclesiastical questions were then decided by the synod with only the Dutch delegates present. In the past two decades much research has been done on Reformed orthodoxy in general and the theology of Dordt in particular. An example of the first category is the bilingual publication of the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (Synopsis of Purer Theology) (2014, 2016, 2020). An example of the second category is the publication of the Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619) (2015, 2017). The republication of these classically Reformed sources went hand in hand with new research into the history and theology of Dordt (Milton: 2005; Goudriaan and van Lieburg: 2011; van der Pol: 2018; de Young: 2019; Godfrey: 2019; van Lieburg: 2019; Beeke and Klauber: 2020). As a counterpart to the interest in Dordt, new attention has also been paid to Jacobus Arminius (1560- 1609) (Stanglin: 2007 and den Boer: 2010). In the context of this interest in the history, the theology and the ecclesiology of Dordt, several international conferences were held in commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the Synod. Contributions from two of these conferences, namely in Dordrecht (2018) and Groningen (2019), have been collected in this volume. The conference in Dordrecht was prepared by a committee in which Fred van Lieburg played an important and stimulating role, and we are thankful for his efforts to commemorate the Synod academically. In recent decades not much has been published about the Church Order, which the Synod of Dordt established on May 28, 1619. Much research was done earlier, in particular between 1880 and 1940 by scholars such as F.L. Rutgers (1836–1917) and H. Bouwman (1863–1933). On the basis of this research, various commentaries were released, some of which are still authoritative. However, a thorough study of

10

Henk van den Belt, Klaas-Willem de Jong, Willem van Vlastuin

the history of the Dordt Church Order (DCO) and its predecessors did not yet exist. Anja van Harten-Tip filled this gap with the dissertation she defended in 2018 (Van Harten-Tip: 2018). In the field of Reformed church polity, especially in regard to the Dordt Church Order, the diversity of publications in the past decades is particularly striking. On the one hand, there are denominations and theologians who, out of a deeply rooted conviction, want to remain as close as possible to the original text of the Church Order. However, the practices are very diverse, as the recent Dutch handbook illustrates (Selderhuis: 2019, 8, 186–206). This handbook deals more with church polity in the Dordtian tradition than with the DCO itself and its proper explanation. On the other hand, there are those who do not want to deny the historical connection with the DCO and who recognize its historical and even principled value, but they believe that, in line with Reformed polity principles against the background of changing contexts, new approaches should be considered. A good example of this is the conference held in Utrecht in 2011 under the title, ‘Protestant Church Polity in Changing Contexts’ (Janssen and Koffeman: 2014; Koffeman and Smit: 2014).

A.

Diverse Contexts

This new volume places the Synod of Dordt in a broad variety of contexts. From the ecclesial perspective, the synod can be seen as a Protestant attempt to organize an ecumenical council, an international assembly of all the Reformed churches. In the first chapter, Alec Ryrie compares the Synod to the historic model of ecumenical councils. It indeed had many of the characteristics of a Reformed General Council and was seen by some contemporaries in that light. This helps to explain the enduring international authority not only of the Canons and the Church Order, but also of its rulings on slavery which led to a delay of the emancipation of slaves in the Dutch empire. Ryrie, however, concludes that the synod failed to function in this conciliar role and illustrates that general councils are incompatible with Protestant church structures. How did the delegates themselves understand their role? Polly Ha explores the synod’s debates about its conciliar authority. Conflicting views over its purpose and nature had already surfaced before the synod began. The Remonstrants and the Contra-Remonstrants were divided over the nature of ecclesiastical liberty and jurisdiction, not only regarding toleration of diversity and the role of the civil magistrate, but also with respect to the very nature of the church itself. In her chapter, Ha also reflects on arguments over conciliar authority which developed after the synod, for instance in the Leiden Synopsis of Purer Theology (1625). The historical and political context of the synod is that of Early Modern confessionalization. Fred van Lieburg highlights the public sphere in which the Synod of

Introduction

Dordt received its authority and influence. In order to re-establish peace and unity in the Dutch Republic’s church and society, the States General provided that the general public could have free access to the great assembly, making this possible by two galleries in the hall where the synod gathered. Popular interest and national tourism were stimulated by the appearance of name lists, prints and reports in pamphlets. Besides, publicity was challenged by negative reactions of Roman-Catholic and Arminian visitors to the synod, reputation damage by the president’s emotional dismissal of the cited Remonstrants from the scene, and risks of misinformation about the doctrinal deliberations among the delegates. After a phase of mainly private sessions, the final presentation of the synod’s results was completely public, as were the written results in several languages. Without the open policy, state restoration and church reform would have missed their goal. With regards to the international political context, the influence of the civil authorities was not only prominent in the Dutch Republic. In 1618, King James I (1566–1625) let the States General know that he would not accept an official representation by the Dutch churches in England, and contrary to their expectations, these Dutch churches in England were not invited to the synod, notwithstanding their strong Contra-Remonstrant position. Ole Peter Grell shows how the leaders of the Anglo-Dutch communities expected an invitation and even selected three delegates, but in the end were only represented by a single observer. They were deeply disappointed, because they considered themselves to be the mother church of the Dutch Reformed and had provided financial, military and religious support for the Dutch Revolt. The Anglo-Dutch churches, however, stood under the authority of the English government and could not participate in or accept decrees of the Dutch national synods without its consent. Jacob van Sluis reflects on the synod’s academic context, not from the perspective of Leiden University, the nursery of Arminianism, but of the Frisian University of Franeker, a stronghold of Contra–Remonstrant orthodoxy. Sibrandus Lubbertus (c.1555–1625) was a fierce opponent of Arminius, and after the Synod, president Johannes Bogerman (1576–1637) and his advisor William Ames (1576–1633) were appointed as professors. These three professors, however, were not able to impose a strict discipline on students as a practical further reformation, in line with the Reformed doctrines formulated at the synod. Before the volume turns to the theological issues debated at the synod itself, two chapters place Dordt in the broader theological context. The doctrinal discussions on the doctrines of grace are rooted in the debates between Augustine and Pelagius. It is interesting that the church father John Chrysostom is mentioned and not considered a Semi-Pelagian, as Jeannette Kreijkes argues from the Acta. John Calvin was sometimes more critical of Chrysostom’s position in this respect. In any case it is important to avoid anachronism and to realize that the relation between grace and human freedom was not yet a matter of controversy in Chrysostom’s time.

11

12

Henk van den Belt, Klaas-Willem de Jong, Willem van Vlastuin

Harm Goris places the theology of Dordt against the medieval context. The Synod holds a pessimistic view of human moral capability apart from divine grace, often labeled as ‘total depravity‘. In contrast, Roman Catholic theology has the tendency to downplay the effects of the fall, and interprets original sin as the loss of supernatural gifts and a return to a natural state. Goris argues that this view became dominant only during the Council of Trent and, although it is often attributed to Thomas Aquinas, it has roots in the theology of Duns Scotus. His reading of Aquinas integrates Aristotelian and Augustinian views of ‘human nature’ and does justice to Augustine’s view that human beings are intrinsically affected by original sin, while keeping their human nature as such. He concludes that this Thomist view on original sin is compatible with the theology of Dordt.

B.

Theology at the Synod

Rejecting the Remonstrance is one thing; formulating clear and sharp theological statements about the right understanding of predestination and related point is quite another. The theological chapters in this book show how colorful the themes surrounding election are. Not only are there numerous themes related to it, but each theme can also be highlighted from different angles. All in all, these issues show that theology is about a living reality that cannot be reduced to simple formulas. First of all, in speaking of the secret of God’s grace, we must relate to the ‘article with which the church stands or falls’. Dolf te Velde introduces us to the debate that Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641) and Arminius had about this doctrine of justication. From his contribution, it becomes clear that Arminius ultimately gives a different interpretation of faith. In his interpretation, faith is not an instrument to receive the complete righteousness of Christ, but it is itself part of our righteousness for God. Although the Canons of Dordt do not explicitly deal with the doctrine of justification, it is clear that they implicitly distance themselves from Arminius’ concept of faith. It is striking that in the nineteenth century Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge (1803–1875) would claim that the Reformed theologians at the Synod of Dordt had let themselves be deceived by debating election instead of justification (Van Vlastuin: 2019). In this way, they had not only become entangled in the discussion about eternal election, but also in the debate about the processes in the soul of man. In this way, the Christocentric theology and spirituality of the Reformation had given way to an anthropocentric approach to the Further Reformation (Nadere Reformatie). We see this reflected in the theological subjects in this volume. On the one hand, the Synod of Dordt had to deal with election, while regeneration on the other hand required the attention of the theologians in Dordrecht. Albisser shows that

Introduction

delegates turned against the First Article of the Remonstrance about God’s election. The Gelderland, Utrecht and Groningen delegations were unanimous in rejecting this Remonstrant article, but their arguments clearly differed. A close reading of the iudicia of Utrecht and Groningen, for instance, reveals a predominant interest in election instead of reprobation. The background of the discussion of divine grace and human free choice lies in the Molinist concept of scientia media. Corné Blaauw argues that this concept is incompatible with Reformed theology as it is articulated in the Synod of Dordt, while investigating some primary texts from de Molina, Arminius, Maccovius, Ames, Turretin, and Westminster Confession of Faith. Reformed theologians in our day who use the concept of possible worlds, however, can be inspired by the discussions in the seventeenth-century Reformed sources. Reflecting on eternal election, the issue of supralapsarianism had to be addressed. Did God elect humans considered as sinners or considered merely as humans? Donald Sinnema explores the disagreements that emerged among the delegates themselves at the Synod of Dordt with regard to this and other issues. These also included the issue of Christ’s relationship to election. What does Ephesians 1:4 mean? Is Christ the author of election? Is Christ the foundation of election? Is he the first elected? Is there a difference in his being the foundation of election and the foundation of salvation? Or is Christ only involved in the execution of the election? If we reflect on Christ’s relationship to election, we also have to reflect on the extent of the atonement. Did Christ die for every human being on earth? Or did he die only for the elect? What do the universal texts in Scripture indicate? How do these texts relate to the texts in Scripture that indicate particular redemption? These issues were not completely new. Theologians of the Middle Ages came to a balanced view that Christ died sufficiently for everybody on earth and efficiently for the elect. Calvin also could accept this approach. At Dordt, this approach became problematic. Matthias Martinius (1572–1630) from Bremen proposed to distinguish between a twofold love of God: a more general love for all people and a special love for the elect. He understood this distinction as a framework for the interpretation of Christ’s redemptive work. This interpretation implied that Christ in a certain sense died for sinners outside Christ. For Theodore Beza (1519–1605) this was not acceptable. He denied strongly that one drop of Christ’s blood was shed for the non-elect. While Sinnema treats this issue in a general sense, Pieter Rouwendal treats this issue more specifically. He argues that the classic distinction of the Middle Ages was no longer suitable for the new situation. The other side of a focus on God’s eternal decision and the extent of Christ’s redemptive work was the attention paid to the spiritual processes in regeneration. Bert Koopmans clarifies that this focus led to the theme of the preparatory work in the soul of the sinner. While this concept of preparation on regeneration was not commonly accepted at the Synod of Dordt, it was advocated by some of the Puritans

13

14

Henk van den Belt, Klaas-Willem de Jong, Willem van Vlastuin

and influenced several theologians in the Netherlands. Voetius, van Mastricht, à Brakel, Teellinck, Ridderus and Hellenbroek put this preparatory work before effectual calling. According other theologians, such as Witsius, Smijtegelt and Leydecker, this preparatory work had to be interpreted as part of God’s grace. For this reason, they put this work after the effectual call of sinners. Wim Moehn researched what this attention to the interior meant for the understanding of regeneration. He found that Martin Luther (1483–1546), Calvin, the Heidelberg Catechism and Guy de Brès (1522–1567) connected regeneration and baptism. In their understanding, baptism puts us in a new relationship with Christ, which can be indicated as regeneration. In the Canons of Dordt, the concept of regeneration was used for the renewal or conversion of the heart of sinners. Moehn advocates rediscovering the historical meaning of regeneration. Willem van Vlastuin interacts also critically with the Canons of Dordt. Investigating the Biblical texts about apostasy of saints, he wonders whether the Canons really answered the appeal to these texts. Without criticizing the irrevocability of God’s grace in the Canons of Dordt in the personal life of believers, he proposes to give apostasy its due place. This also implies a reevaluation of the church and its corporative election. Finally, Erik de Boer calls attention to the fact that Dordt spoke about election without considering the election of Israel, taking his starting point with the surprising presence and prophecies of Anna Walker. Her eschatological vision is assessed from her Danish roots and from the commentary on Romans by Niels Hemmingsen (1513–1600) and other expositions of Romans 11 that express an expectation of the conversion of the Jews. Some Remonstrants were open to a general conversion of the Jewish people, like Hugo de Groot (1583–1645), in his advice to the States of Holland and West-Friesland on the status of the Jews in the Netherlands. Finally, de Boer turns to the Dutch context and discusses a pamphlet, translated from the English original, which brings Anna Walker’s vision close to home. The question remains why the Canons of Dordt hardly ever mention Israel and its election.

C.

Dordt’s Church Order and its Reception

The number of articles regarding the DCO is limited to five. There are several reasons for this relatively small number. For example, at the conference in Dordrecht Anja van Harten-Tip gave an introduction to her research for the dissertation she defended on November 20, 2018 at the Theological University Apeldoorn. What she presented can be found more extensively in her dissertation (Van Harten-Tip: 2018). Johan Schütte presented a contribution entitled ‘The day Dordt caused a storm in Africa (1666)’, but before he could submit his article for this publication, he lost it along with much other valuable research material as a result of a robbery

Introduction

in the summer of 2019. Jan Dirk Wassenaar offered insight into the development of church visitation in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, which resulted in an obligation in the DCO to visit each congregation regularly. His article is to be published in another publication.1 More similar examples like these three could be given. Still, the number of presentations on Dordtian church polity was comparatively limited at both conferences too. The probable reasons for this are of a more substantive nature. First, the focus of research into historical church polity has changed in recent decades. In the course of the nineteenth century, the DCO enjoyed a growing interest due to a renewed attention to the synod that established it, and to the fact that various ecclesiastical denominations both in the Netherlands and in countries to which the Dutch migrated re-established this church order. As indicated above, scholars have left impressive publications on Reformed and more specifically on Dordtian church polity. However, partly because the influence of Dordtian theology on mainstream Reformed churches in the Netherlands had faded away during the last half century, and partly as a result of commemorations and publications on the occasion of the fourth centennial of assemblies and (national) synods (Wesel 1568; Emden 1571; Dordrecht 1574 and 1578; Middelburg 1581; ‘s-Gravenhage 1586), the historical-academical interest has shifted. The awareness grew that the DCO is largely a revised version of the church order of ‘s-Gravenhage (1586). This church order, in turn, depended to a large extent on the regulations of the synod of Emden (1571) and the following synods. These developments have put the value of the DCO into perspective. Second, some aspects relating the reception of the DCO must be mentioned. More emphasis has been placed on the fact that the DCO was fully introduced in only a few provinces of the Netherlands, whereas in the past the conviction dominated that all provinces followed it in general (e.g. van Lieburg: 2014, 124f; cf. Selderhuis: 2019, 166–169). Furthermore, it has become clear that after its introduction, the DCO and similar provincial church orders were frequently adapted and supplemented over the years. As a result, the nationwide successor, the 1816 General Regulations of the Dutch Reformed Church, to a much lesser extent than has been claimed before constitutes a break with the past (Van Lieburg and Roelevink: 2018, esp. 19–57). The third reason also regards the reception of the DCO, but should be mentioned separately because of its importance. The number of denominations that have organized their church life according to the DCO, or to the DCO in slightly adapted form, has steadily declined (cf. Selderhuis: 2019, 189–204). Adjustments had to be made, for example, to ensure the acceptability of ecclesiastical disciplinary rulings in secular courts. Apart from these more or less forced alterations, churches wanted to enable innovations in ecclesiastical life.

1 In: Deddens Kerkrecht, Serie 5, to be published in 2021.

15

16

Henk van den Belt, Klaas-Willem de Jong, Willem van Vlastuin

Slowly but surely the DCO lost its normative character. So, the DCO has become a source to be studied academically. What do the church polity contributions in this volume offer against the background of the developments outlined above? Johannes Smit reflects on the first part of the first sentence of the DCO (art. 1): ‘for the maintenance of good order in the church of Christ.’ He establishes its meaning and value in a South African context. Based on this, he defines some principles for a contemporary Reformed ecclesiology. What ties Reformed churches with various church orders together? Both Sjaak Verwijs and Leon van den Broeke discuss articles which are new in the DCO compared to the 1586 church order. In choosing these articles they focus on the decisions of the Dordt synod. Verwijs deals with the ius patronatus (art. 5). The synod took a middle course between those who wanted to abolish the old patronage rights on the one hand and the political authorities which demanded its preservation. In so doing, it took into account its position as (the new) public church. Van den Broeke links up with previous research he has done on church deputies (art. 49). He tries to clarify the position of two Reformed scholars in church polity, D. Nauta (1898–1994) and G.M. den Hartogh (1899–1959), regarding the introduction of the so-called ‘bodies of assistance’ in the Dutch Reformed church order of 1951. Like Smit, Dolf Britz explicitly takes into account the South African context he works in when he depicts the reception of the DCO at the Cape of Good Hope. He concludes that the DCO neither guided nor inspired the contextualization process of the South African Reformed churches for more than two hundred years after the inception of the churches in 1652. Klaas-Willem de Jong takes the revival of the DCO in the late nineteenth century as a starting point and investigates what most influenced F.L. Rutgers (1836–1917) in his emphasis on the autonomy of the local church. His analysis reveals that Rutgers hardly refers to the DCO to substantiate his opinion. The basis of his vision is to be found in the Wesel articles (1568), which differ substantially from the DCO in this respect. The changing significance of the DCO in the past fifty years also effects the nature of the articles. Except for the contribution of Smit, they are to a great extent descriptive. Yet a significant part of the themes raised still plays a role in today’s ecclesiastical life. For example, both van den Broeke and de Jong offer insights into arguments that have been exchanged in historical debates about the relationship between the local church and the church beyond the local. Contributions like theirs may help to put the ongoing debate about this theme into perspective. They may serve to clarify what is at stake in current discussions ecclesiologically and theologically.

Introduction

D.

Reactions and Reflections After the Synod

The Synod of Dordt and its Canons and Church Order – let alone the initiative to publish a new translation of whole Bible – have exerted a strong influence on religious life, theological tradition, and cultural identity in the Netherlands and its overseas territories up to the present day. The later development of Reformed theology reveals a continuous struggle to understand and apply the theological principles of Dordt in new cultural and historical contexts. The final chapters of this book reflect on some contemporary reactions to the synod and some later reflections about its theological content. Immediately after the synod, a Remonstrant minister, Henricus Slatius (1585–1623), published a pamphlet, titled The Predestinated Thief. From this source text, Henk van den Belt assesses the issue of determinism, of which the Remonstrants accused the synod. He concludes that, although the accusation is incorrect, the popularity of the pamphlet and the difficulty from the Reformed side to refute it do indicate a major cultural shift towards a modern, monistic – and therefore deterministic–understanding of the relationship between the Creator and his creatures. In the context of modernity, it is difficult to maintain the theological notion of a divine and a human level of causality that operate simultaneously (concursus). The unnuanced satire of Slatius demonstrates the growing difficulty with the combination of divine providence and human freedom. Van den Belt argues that the Arminians seemed to defend human liberty, but in fact bound the will of God to the contingent choices of human beings in history, whereas the orthodox Reformed upheld human liberty while maintaining the Augustinian doctrines of sovereign grace. Joke Spaans and Pauline Wegener describe the interesting story of practical theology after Dordt. Initially, preachers were only academically trained and as a result, they considered preaching and public catechising to be the core of their duties. After the Synod of Dordt, there was also another development. The message of Perkins’ ‘golden chain’ had its influence in the Dutch Republic. Initially, these experiential aspects were dealt with by lay preachers, school masters and comforters of the sick. But in the course of time, more interest in the spiritual experience grew in the pulpit as well. Voetius, Hoornbeeck and à Brakel are more important representatives of this tendency. In addition, de Beveren and van Irkhoven can be mentioned. Some time later, this meant that practical theology became an academic discipline. The Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675) arose in Switzerland as a failed attempt at the end of the seventeenth century to safeguard orthodoxy from the growing influence of the School of Saumur, and especially from the teachings of Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664). Pierrick Hildebrand sheds new light on the reception of the Canons in Switzerland during the period of late Reformed Orthodoxy. He shows

17

18

Henk van den Belt, Klaas-Willem de Jong, Willem van Vlastuin

how the Consensus Formula met strong resistance within and outside Switzerland in a time where a pan-Protestant union in Europe was strongly supported. Remarkably, the Canons of Dordt were hardly mentioned in this confession, and when the Formula was abandoned, its major detractors were not yet prepared to question the Canons. The theology of the Synod of Dordt not only influenced later debates among the Reformed, but was also important for the development of Lutheranism. Volker Leppin argues that the doctrine of predestination was not very popular in the Wittenberg reformation. Notwithstanding Luther’s strong views expressed in De Servo Arbitrio, in the following decades predestination was not among the heavily discussed questions, for instance in the Formula of Concord. A deeper interest came in the 1680s, when predestination served as an identity marker for the Calvinists. According to Aegidius Hunnius (1550–1603) faith was a cause of election, be it only a foreseen causa instrumentalis. Before the Synod of Dordt, this was just one Lutheran position among others. But after the Synod, many Lutherans saw the rejection of election based on foreseen faith as an anti-Lutheran statement. This brought them to embrace the position of Hunnius, turning this into the peculiar Lutheran doctrine of predestination. Thus, Dordt helped the Lutherans to clarify their own position. In the final chapter Arnold Huijgen offers a critical evaluation and a positive appropriation of the Canons of Dordt through a hermeneutical approach to Reformed confessions. An emphasis on the historical nature of confessions does not diminish their authority, but it opens up avenues for appropriation through creative reinterpretation. He suggests emphasizing the Christ-centered, and eschatological, nature of predestination, thus articulating the doctrine of predestination in a more balanced way than do the Canons. The Canons exemplify a truly catholic, and biblical, confession of God’s effective grace. Still, the place of Israel, and the relation between the election of God’s people and the election of the individual presently require more attention. If the Synod of Dordt had not been drawn into the Arminian frame of thought, it would have been possible that the Canons would have centered more on justification than on predestination. For justification was the primary point where the Remonstrants parted ways with the Reformed faith. Huijgen argues for placing justification at the heart of contemporary debates on predestination. On the whole, we can conclude that the Synod of Dordt was an important moment in the history of theology, spirituality and church, which has changed this landscape definitively. The study of this event is useful and necessary for today in order to interpret the biblical message, replay the meaning of the church, nurture spirituality and point the way to the future.

Introduction

Bibliography Beeke, J.R./M.I. Klauber (ed.) (2020), The Synod of Dort: Historical, Theological, and Experiential Perspectives. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Den Boer, W.A. (2010), God’s Twofold Love: The Theology of Jacob Arminius (1559–1609). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. DeYoung, Kevin (2019), Grace Defined and Defended: What a 400-Year-Old Confession Teaches Us about Sin, Salvation, and the Sovereignty of God. Wheaton: Crossway. Godfrey, W. Robert (2019), Saving the Reformation: The Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dort. Orlando: Reformation Trust. Goudriaan, Aza/Fred van Lieburg (ed.) (2011), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619). Leiden: Brill. Harten-Tip, A. van (2018), De Dordtse Kerkorde 1619: Ontwikkelingen, context en theologie. Utrecht: KokBoekencentrum Academic. Janssen, Allan J./Leo J. Koffeman (ed.) (2014), Protestant Church Polity in Changing Contexts I: Ecclesiological and Historical Contributions. Proceedings of the International Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 7–10 November, 2011. Zürich: LIT Verlag. Koffeman, Leo J./Johannes Smit (ed.) (2014), Protestant Church Polity in Changing Contexts II: Case Studies. Proceedings of the International Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 7–10 November, 2011. Zürich: LIT Verlag. Milton Anthony (ed.) (2005), The British Delegation and the Synod of Dordt (1618–19) Suffolk: Boydelland & Brewer. Selderhuis, Herman J. (ed.) (2019), Handboek gereformeerd kerkrecht. Heerenveen: Groen. Sinnema, Donald, Christian Moser and Herman Selderhuis (ed.) (2015, 2017), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stanglin, Keith D. (2007), Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation: The Context, Roots, and Shape of the Leiden Debate, 1603–1609. Leiden: Brill. Van der Pol, F. (ed.) (2018), The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective: Historical and Theological Investigations of the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Van Lieburg, Fred (2014), Re-Understanding the Dordt Church Order in its Dutch Political, Ecclesiastical and Cultural Context (1559–1816), in: Allan J. Janssen/Leo J. Koffeman, Protestant Church Polity in Changing Contexts I: Ecclesiological and Historical Contributions. Proceedings of the International Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 7–10 November, 2011. Zürich: LIT Verlag, 117–136. Van Lieburg, Fred/Joke Roelevink (ed.) (2018), Ramp of redding? 200 jaar algemeen Reglement voor het Bestuur der hervormde Kerk in het Koninkrijk der nederlanden 1816–2016. Utrecht: Boekencentrum. Van Lieburg, Fred (2019), Synodestad: Dordrecht 1618–1619. Amsterdam: Prometheus.

19

20

Henk van den Belt, Klaas-Willem de Jong, Willem van Vlastuin

Van Vlastuin, W. (2019), Dort Outwitted by the Remonstrants. Kohlbrugge’s Evaluation of the Canons of Dort, in Church History and Religious Studies 99 (2019), 228–247.

Part A: Diverse Contexts

Alec Ryrie

1.

The Ecumenical Council of Dordt

Abstract This article examines the Synod of Dordt by comparing it to the historic model of General or Ecumenical Councils. This was a category of church assembly which Reformed Protestants venerated and often aspired to, but which also posed vexing ecclesiological problems, and despite much talk of it, they never succeeded in gathering such a council. However, the article argues that the Synod had many of the characteristics of a Reformed General Council; that it was seen by some contemporaries, including some of its participants, in that light; and that this helps to explain its enduring international authority. This applies not only to its canons on predestination, but also to its less well-known rulings on slavery, which it is argued unwittingly helped to delay the conversion and emancipation of slaves in the Dutch empire. The article concludes with a discussion of the Synod’s failure to serve the function which enthusiasts for its conciliar role had hoped, and an argument that the episode demonstrates the incompatibility of General Councils with Protestant church structures.

1.1

General Councils and Conciliarism

Ever since Martin Luther distinguished between himself and the Schwärmer, the fanatics, Protestant historiography has recognised a distinction between the respectable Reformations of the Reformed and Lutheran worlds and the disreputable Reformations of Anabaptism, Spiritualism and assorted other gathered and minority movements. The problem has been how to define that distinction. The most commonly cited dividing line in the Reformation era and since has been the practice of believers’ baptism, with the pejorative label “Anabaptist” sometimes applied indiscriminately to the disreputable Reformation, despite the fact that radical groups included some paedobaptists (like the Congregationalists of New England) and others (like the Schwenckfelders or the Quakers) who rejected water-baptism altogether. In recognition of those problems, most modern historiography has settled instead on the distinction between “magisterial” and “radical” Reformations: the magisterial being those who pursued reform in alliance with the State and the radical those who chose or were compelled to strike out alone. This too, however,

24

Alec Ryrie

has come under increasingly sustained attack, for once again the exceptions and the borderline cases are too numerous to allow it to stand. Was the kingdom of Münster not a magisterial Reformation? Was Balthasar Hubmaier not trying to create an Anabaptist magisterial Reformation: as he put it, “a Christian government at whose side God hung the Sword”, in 1526–7 in the Moravian town of Nikolsburg? Were the semi-separatists of Elizabethan and Jacobean England radical or magisterial? In what sense were the Calvinist cell churches in France and in the Low Countries in the 1550s and 1560s “magisterial”, Luther having famously called underground conventicles “the work of rats and sects”? And Luther of course classed Zwingli amongst the Schwärmer (Ryrie: 2016; Heal: 2017; Collinson: 1982, 242–83). In this brief essay I want to consider another possible litmus test to distinguish the Reformation’s sensible mainstream from its lunatic fringe, a test which provides a useful lens through which to examine the Synod of Dordt. This is neither a ritual nor a political test, but an ecclesiological one: the notion of the General or Ecumenical Council. Dordt was not (let us be clear) such a Council, but it had some of the characteristics of one, and the category was potent enough for Protestants that those echoes deserve to be heard. In the fourth and fifth centuries of the Christian era, Ecumenical Councils gathered at Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), and formulated a set of credal definitions that have remained touchstones of Christian orthodoxy (and shibboleths of division) down to the present. Their authority is recognised by Orthodox and Catholic Christians, and by many Protestants – although not in the same sense. We might then distinguish between conciliar Protestants, meaning those who are willing to place themselves in that tradition and to acknowledge those four councils’ rulings as definitive; and radical Protestants, meaning those who make no such acknowledgement and are therefore prepared to reopen basic matters of Christology and the doctrine of God which Christendom had long thought settled. This conciliar/radical distinction, however, is not merely about reopening old quarrels; it is about how to settle new ones. Conciliar Protestants are committed in some sense, if only in theory, to the notion that conciliar proceedings have a normative, ideal place within the Christian life. The place of the General Council in the Protestant imagination is too easily overlooked, not least because we know that no Protestant General Council has ever assembled, nor can we imagine how one ever could have done. In modern times, it is hard for the phrase not to conjure up bodies such as the World Council of Churches, which are generally more dignified than efficient. As such, it is easy to ignore the ubiquitous early modern appeals to Councils, the offers of submission to the decisions of future Councils and the invocation of imagined Councils as rhetorical devices, or as mere genuflections before an idol which was never earnestly expected to stir into life. This does the subject a disservice.

The Ecumenical Council of Dordt

The point about the classical Councils was not that they were very successful in practice – the opposite, in fact: Nicaea manifestly failed to stamp out Arianism, and Chalcedon produced a genuinely catastrophic three-way schism. However, their combination of state power and dignified ecclesiastical procedure made it possible for later generations sincerely to believe that this was a moment when the whole Church had spoken with a single voice and had settled a momentous question so decisively it would never need to be revisited. Once settled into the Christian imagination as the model of how doctrinal and other disputes ought to be resolved – and, equally importantly, as a model of how even the most intractable disputes apparently could be resolved – the General Council proved immensely adaptible, and was projected back and forwards in time. The gathering to resolve the status of Gentile Christians described in chapter XV of the Acts of the Apostles became the Council of Jerusalem. The councils of the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries were invested with the same authority. Then in the Latin West, the post-reform papacy underwrote the conclusion of the Investiture Controversy by assembling in 1123 the body we call the First Lateran Council, which it boldly decided to declare was another General Council, the first such for over two hundred and fifty years. The papacy’s claim to control the power of council-making would be crucial to the western Church and to papal power for centuries to come, until the Council’s hitherto exclusive power to define doctrine was delegated to the papacy at Vatican I. Papal control over the Council was too important to be uncontested, however. The Protestant Reformation took place in the shadow of what must long have seemed like a far more serious crisis, the Great Schism of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century. The most immediate doctrinal consequence of the Schism was the flowering of conciliarism. The Council of Constance’s success in resolving an interminable, intractable crisis was powerful proof that the Niceo-Chalcedonian model worked, and that when the entire Church assembled together under the government of the Holy Spirit it could speak with one voice. Conciliarism as a practical project was outmanoeuvred and defeated by the Renaissance papacy during the 1430s and 1440s, but its defeat had consequences. As the idealistic hopes raised by Constance evaporated, they left a bitter residue. Nor should we forget how long the conciliarist flame was kept burning. Theologians such as John Mair continued to press the case deep into the sixteenth century (Burns: 1963). The kings of France remained openly conciliarist until Francis I finally conceded to reality in the Concordat of Bologna in 1516, and even in 1511 the French made an earnest attempt to convene a non-papal General Council at Pisa. In this context, when Martin Luther appealed over the Pope’s head to a General Council in 1518, it was neither an empty gesture nor merely a legal and political manoeuvre. It was a truth universally acknowledged that a General Council was the means by which major doctrinal disputes ought to be resolved. The position which the papacy was in between 1518 and 1545, of refusing to assemble such a council, appeared a baffling,

25

26

Alec Ryrie

craven and dangerous dereliction of duty to many otherwise sympathetic observers. As historians we may conclude that all this talk of a General Council was a mirage, but we must also recognise that this mirage was for decades a steady vision before European Christians of all kinds. Not that there was any mystery as to why it did not happen. Plainly, the outcome of any putative General Council would be determined by how it was summoned, who attended, who set the agenda and ratified the outcome. We should not forget how risky the project of summoning a Council to the Italian city of Trento seemed, even after Charles V’s conciliatory projects had failed and he had hammered out an agreed approach to the Council with Rome (O’Malley: 2013). Paul III feared it might slip out of his control. Paul IV refused to re-convene a Council which had already shown alarming signs of independence. In 1562–3 the outcome genuinely hung in the balance. Still, the outcome was successfully to reclaim the principle of the General Council, and to do so by delegating sufficient authority to Rome that it was more than three centuries until another pope felt compelled to roll the conciliar dice again.

1.2

Protestantism and the Dangerous Allure of the General Council

For Protestants matters were much harder. The appeal to a Council was all very well, but the likelihood that any such Council would be under papal control meant that this sincere desire was also a hostage to fortune. Very quickly Luther and his allies’ calls for a Council began to be hedged with conditions – they were looking for a general, free council in the German lands. These attempts to squeeze a timeless ideal within the tight confines of what was politically possible were uncomfortable. But they were sincere, for all that. In 1526, the Recess of the Diet of Speyer famously permitted that each of the princes of the Empire, “while waiting for the Council … would so live, govern, and carry himself, in matters concerning the edict published … at the Diet held at Worms, as he hopes and trusts to answer to God and his Imperial Majesty”: I do not think we can make sense of that ruling without hearing the sense of provisionality, of emergency measures for a temporary situation. The gathering dismay of good churchmen during the 1520s that a Council was not yet assembling is authentic (Edwards: 1983, 70–82; Lund: 2002, 56). In retrospect we might assume that this provisionality favoured the reformers. It is after all the space that Protestants have lived in ever since. Yet it was scarcely more agreeable for them than for the papacy. It meant that there was nothing to interrupt the drift to schism and geographical partition, an outcome of the Reformation which nobody wanted. So, with a proper council, even a free council in the German lands, out of reach, Protestants did the best they could, pursuing quasi-conciliar methods on a smaller scale. That most characteristic event of the early civic Reformations,

The Ecumenical Council of Dordt

the public disputation under the eye of a city council, is a kind of miniature Nicaea presided over (and predetermined) by a local Constantine. There is also a conciliar spirit behind the repeated resort to theological summit conferences during the middle half of the sixteenth century: Marburg, Regensburg, Poissy, even the process that produced the Zurich Consensus, were councils in miniature, convened in the faith that open debate, the guidance of the Spirit and political pressure could produce a decisive result. The repeated attempts despite repeated failure show that this is more than just the triumph of hope over experience. It is confidence that the correct model is being used, if only it can be made to work. The most momentous of these quasi-councils was not a theological summit, but the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, which Charles V explicitly summoned in an attempt definitively to resolve the schism within the Empire: a conciliar project if ever there was one. As the elector of Saxony explained, the hope was that at this Diet, “divisions are to be reconciled and brought toward one united Christian truth … This Diet will perhaps take the place of a council” (Lund: 2002, 59). It was that ambition which produced the document we call the Augsburg Confession. It is easy to be misled by the Augsburg Confession’s title into believing that it is a parallel document to the Belgic, Helvetic or Westminster confessions. It was, or quickly became, a document of a different order. Within a decade Georg Spalatin was claiming that the act of confession of faith that had taken place at Augsburg was “the most significant act which has ever taken place on earth”. That was perhaps a little incautious. Johann Mathesius merely called it the most important act since the time of the apostles. By the time of the Formula of Concord in 1577, orthodox Lutherans had gained a little perspective and were simply classifying the Confession as a document with status equivalent to the ancient Creeds (Kolb: 1986, 36). The Diet had, indeed, as the Elector foresaw, taken the place of a Council. It had produced the first authorised Christian creed since the one ascribed to Athanasius. This was a different answer to the problem of the lack of General Councils: the concept of the status confessionis, the notion that a doctrinal crisis can spur quasiconciliar action by the Church, formulating by irregular means a new confession of faith that has the capacity to become binding. The authority of such a confession derives from its providential circumstances and its own moral force rather than some form of institutional assurance. The most important such emergency formulation is the Barmen Declaration of 1934, a joint Lutheran-Reformed production (or rather, given Karl Barth’s dominant role in it, a Reformed confessional statement dressed in Lutheran institutional clothes). Like Augsburg, this statement derived quasi-credal status not from the body that produced it but from the circumstances of its crisis. But whereas Philip Melanchthon, the primary author of the 1530 Confession, understood that statement as a contextual document arising from a particular historical moment, and was willing to revisit and amend it (much to the horror of his more doctrinaire colleagues), Barth quite consciously positioned the

27

28

Alec Ryrie

Barmen Declaration not as a local and temporary text but as a timeless statement of faith intended to endure, something akin to a creed. His success in producing this Reformed-Lutheran hybrid was sealed when in 1982 the World Alliance of Reformed Churches declared a status confessionis in South Africa, and in 1986 the Dutch Reformed Mission Church in that country produced the Belhar Confession, consciously modelled on the Barmen Declaration: a deliberately timeless credal statement, the Canons of Dordt for our age (Hockenos: 2004, 23–7; de Gruchy: 2011, 313–15; Fortein: 2013, 312–13). Whether such a statement can actually attain credal status, it is too early to say. In the early modern period, however, the Reformed did not produce such momentous statements. There was a French Confession, a Belgic Confession, a Scots Confession, two Helvetic Confessions, the Heidelberg Catechism and somewhere between Thirty-eight and Forty-two English Articles of Religion. But none of these had credal status, and all of them by definition were local and provisional: positive and descriptive statements of what national churches did believe, rather than normative and prescriptive statements of what all Christians must believe. This locality and provisionality was not, however, a rejection of the conciliar ideal. It was a manifestation of it: an awareness that a local confession of faith must be provisional, and that, as the 1560 Scots Confession put it, a General Council was the appropriate setting “for confutatioun of heresies and for geuing publict confessioun of thair faith to the posteritie following”. But the same confession hedges this about with caveats, talking of councils which “merite the name of counsellis”. It does not make clear what these might be, and speaks of them as events in the past without even a nod to the future (www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1560/1). Scotland had of course been the last ditch that medieval conciliarism had died in, with conciliarist-flavoured official documents being produced by the Catholic hierarchy even in the 1550s (Ryrie: 2004). So, it is maybe no surprise that in 1578 Scotland’s Second Book of Discipline offered a little more clarity. It postulated four sorts of assemblies in God’s church: congregational, local, national, and then, almost as an afterthought at the end of this list: There is besides these, another more generall kinde of Assemblie, which is of all Nations, and all estates of persons within the kirk, representing the universall kirk of Christ, which may be called properly the General Assembly, or General Council of the kirk of God. These Assemblies were appointed and called together specially, when any great schisme or controversie in Doctrine did arise in the kirk, and were convocate atcommand of godly Emperours being for the time, for avoiding of schisme within the Universall kirk of God, which because they appertain not to the particular estate of any Realm we cease further to speak of them (First and second booke: 1641, 89).

The Ecumenical Council of Dordt

It is an intriguing statement. The first sentence is couched in the present tense, but the second has slipped into the past. This speaks to a persistent cognitive dissonance on this subject in Reformed Protestant thought. General Councils are fundamental building blocks of orthodoxy and in theory they remain possible. Yet in practice they are no longer to be expected. Like the age of miracles, the age of Councils is past. Conciliar thinking persisted nevertheless. W. Brown Patterson has shown King James VI and I tried to revive talk of a General Council soon after his accession to the English throne, talk which plainly served his political ends but which was neither insincere nor ridiculous. Patterson’s case that James understood the Hampton Court Conference of 1604 as a quasi-conciliar event is compelling; he was certainly open to the naive plans for pan-Reformed and wider unity conferences that French and other Reformed idealists were pursuing. The idea may have been no more plausible than before, but it stubbornly refused to die (Patterson: 1997, esp. 37–50).

1.3

Dordt as a Reformed “General Council”

And then the Reformed Church in the Netherlands was overtaken by a fierce dispute over predestination. The response to it was uncomfortably close to the conciliar model, in that the crisis was actually resolved by power politics rather than by theological debate. A national synod was indeed summoned to resolve the matter, but as ever, the outcome of a synod is predetermined by how it is assembled and its agenda determined. The Contra-Remonstrants were not so simple as to allow their opponents a level playing field. The purpose of the Synod of Dordt was to seal a victory rather than to arbitrate the dispute. Even so, it was a high-profile event: national synods, like papally-approved General Councils and for much the same reason, were already becoming rare and would soon become rarer. And given the whole Reformed world’s attention to the doctrinal issues raised and its shared and compelling interest in restoring as much unity as possible in the Dutch church, it is no surprise that a series of outsiders were willing to lend what support they could to the project. Their support was more than simply political. James VI and I, who pressed for a synodal proceeding to seal the issue, was arguing as early as March 1617 that a national synod is “le remede ordinaire, et le moyen le plus legitime et efficacieux auquel de temp en temp on a eu recours en la Chrestienté sur l’occurance de tels accidents” (Milton: 2002, 8). The actual remedy applied was, however, in no way ordinary. According to that four-stage typology from the Scots Book of Discipline, what happened in Dordt was more than a (stage-three) national synod. If it was also less than a (stage-four) General Council, it was the closest the Reformed world had ever come to it.

29

30

Alec Ryrie

The foreign representatives at Dordt made up just under a quarter of all those present, not counting the French delegates who were invited, elected, and barred from coming by Louis XIII, for whom chairs were left symbolically empty. That balance is not all that different from the numerical dominance of Italian bishops at Trent. The non-Dutch members were, at least formally, foreign representatives at a Dutch synod. But they also saw the assembly as standing in the tradition of the ancient Councils. Joseph Hall preached a sermon before the Synod in which he compared the Remonstrants to the Novatians who defied Nicaea. When the Remonstrants denounced the Synod in December 1618, the British delegation cited the precedent of the ancient councils to justify the Synod’s proceedings. On the question of whether it was legitimate for the Synod to introduce new items of technical theological vocabulary, the precedent of Nicaea’s introduction of the word homoousios was invoked. The foreign delegates also ensured that the Synod’s horizons were firmly international. “So notable an assembly”, wrote the French delegate Pierre du Moulin from over the border, “ought not to content itself with appeasing the troubles of the Church of the Netherlands.” This led the Synod’s president and some of his confidantes to approach Bishop Carleton, the head of the British delegation, and Abraham Scultetus, head of the Palatine delegation, with a view to drafting “a form of publick Confession” which could potentially serve as an international statement of Reformed orthodoxy: a Reformed answer to the Book of Concord (Milton: 2002, 127, 165, 202; Patterson: 1997, 269–70; Hales: 1673, II.85–6). This was of course not done in the end, but the Synod’s Canons were more than just a local matter. The French Reformed church resolved from 1623 on to eject ministers who refused to accept the canons of Dordt. The Genevan Company of Pastors required its members to subscribe to the canons. The churches of the Swiss Confederation did not formally incorporate the canons, but the Helvetic Consensus of 1674 was absolutely firm in holding to Dordt’s line and in condemning the challenge to it mounted by Moïse Amyraut. The grouping of the canons of Dordt with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism as the Reformed Standards of Unity became and remained widespread in the non-Anglophone Reformed world, not quite the Augsburg Confession but as close as we can get. The church ordinances adopted by John Philip Boehm for the German Reformed of Pennsylvania in the 1720s made adherence to the canons a requirement for admission to the sacrament. The Anglophone Reformed never gave Dordt quite the same status, and the canons’ potential place as a touchstone has been taken by the Westminster Confession, but it was still widely recognised as, as Peter Heylyn put it in 1660, “a Representative of all the Calvinian churches in Europe”. Closer to the time, Archbishop Abbot, not exactly an axe-wielding Presbyterian, was comparing the Remonstrants’ recalcitrance after the Synod to that of the Arians after Niceae. And that slippery proto-Anglican Sir Thomas Browne wrote in Religio medici in

The Ecumenical Council of Dordt

1642 that “I condemne not all things in the Councell of Trent, nor approve all in the Synod of Dort”: an intriguing pairing of two bodies, neither of which he recognised as authentic General Councils, but whose pretensions to that status seemed to him parallel (Hart: 2013, 82, 90, 129; Milton: 2002, xvii, 371; Browne: 1964, 5).

1.4

Dordt and Slavery in Conciliar Perspective

It is naturally the Synod’s Canons on the disputed soteriological questions which have received the most attention at the time and since, but they do not exhaust its supranational, quasi-ecumenical significance. The Synod’s business was of course not exclusively to rebut the Remonstrants. Like any such gathering, it dealt with multiple issues, and its international flavour gave its debates on those other questions additional authority, even if they were not included in its formal canons. To consider just one of those issues, whose global impact was if anything more profound than that of the Canons themselves: in 1609, Adriaan Hulsebos, presiding minister at the Reformed church in Batavia, wrote to the Amsterdam classis with a knotty question. Should household slaves owned by Dutch Christians in the East Indies be baptised, and if so under what circumstances? The question was sent on to the provincial synod of North Holland, who sent it up to the next national synod, which happened to be that at Dordt. And with all these foreign delegates present, why not ask their views too? The fact that the foreign delegates took part in all the Synod’s debates as full members – not merely on the politically explosive central issue – reinforces the sense that this was more than just a national synod. On this issue, with a Dutch East India Company fleet delaying its departure in order to have an answer, the Synod struggled to come to one mind. The dispute was over whether enslaved children whose parents were not Christian, or who were the illegitimate children of Dutch slave-holders and enslaved women, should be baptised before or after they received instruction in Christianity. The majority view reached on 5 December 1618 was that such infants ought not to be baptised until they had reached years of discretion. This position dismayed the British and some other delegates who thought that the decision served “as much to undervalue the necessity of Baptism as the Church of Rome doth overvalue it”. Partly because of this lack of consensus, this decision did not form part of the Synod’s canons. Instead, the eighteen different opinions submitted – some by national delegations, some by individuals – were collated, and published in summary in 1621. This summary held that baptising such infants was a question for individual slave-holders, but momentously, it also declared that “baptized slaves should enjoy equal right of liberty with other Christians and ought never to be handed over again to the powers of the heathens”. It did not spell out what this “equal liberty” meant (Shell: 1994, 333–5; Hales: 1673, II.20–1, 26–7).

31

32

Alec Ryrie

This vague decision was to have momentous consequences. The baptism of enslaved children did in fact become fairly commonplace in the Netherlands’ Indian Ocean empire, but in the eighteenth century, the Synod’s principles of safeguarding Christian slaves’ rights began to be remembered. In 1706 a minister at Drakenstein, north of Stellenbosch, wrote to the Amsterdam classis to denounce the practice of selling baptized slaves. In 1714–15 the council at Batavia issued fresh legislation on this issue, citing Dordt, to forbid any sale of Christian children, and permitting the sale of Christian adults only to Christian masters. This helped to reinforce an already-growing conviction that baptised slaves could not be freely sold. The result, naturally, was that slaveholders increasingly refused to allow their slaves to be baptised, in keeping with the discretion Dordt had granted them. “Only such children as are intended for emancipation are baptized,” wrote a Dutch observer at the Cape in the 1740s. In the 1770s Dutch legislation required that all baptised slaves throughout the Dutch empire be manumitted. The Synod’s rulings, then, had unintended and almost wholly malign consequences. The Netherlands had established a “free soil” doctrine for its European territory as early as 1596, and the Synod had likewise appeared to lay down potentially liberating principles. But by affirming that Christians should not be treated as slaves, it simply ensured that slaves would not be permitted to be Christians (Shell: 1994, 339–42; Drescher: 2009, 69–70). It is the opposite of the position taken in the English and Danish slave territories, where early rumours that baptism ought to mean freedom were firmly rebutted in both law and practice. Those slave empires therefore found themselves with a growing population of Christian slaves. And they then discovered that the slave-holders’ reluctance to contemplate the evangelisation of slaves was well-founded: for Christianity turned out, in practice, to be corrosive towards chattel slavery, both by making the moral claims of the enslaved easier to articulate and harder to ignore, and by providing the enslaved with a set of ideological and practical tools that could be used to challenge their condition (Gerbner: 2018). It is no coincidence that Denmark was the first European imperial power to prohibit the slave trade, nor that Britain became the driving force behind abolitionism, nor that the Netherlands was the last European power to outlaw slavery, in 1863. That was perhaps the most bitterly ironic consequence of the Synod of Dordt.

1.5

Dordt and the Impossibility of Protestant Conciliarism

The Synod’s greater irony is better known: that it failed. Not simply in the sense that the Remonstrants did not vanish, and that, for all the legislation, a public Remonstrant church existed again soon enough. Nor only in the sense that anti-predestinarian ideas surged back in the English, French and other Reformed churches in the decades after the Synod. Dordt failed on a deeper level, and for the

The Ecumenical Council of Dordt

same reason that Reformed Protestants could and can never assemble a true General Council, whatever the Scots might have said. For at the same time as the Scots Confession praised the historic role of General Councils, it added that “without Just examinatioun dar we not ressaue quhatsauer is obtrudit vnto men vnder the name of generall counsellis for plane it is as thay wer men sa haue sum of thame manifestlie errit” (www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1560/1). Lest anyone suspect that is just Scottish orneriness, the English Articles of Religion – which by reputation ought to be the most moderate and orderly statement of faith in the Reformed world – state bluntly that General Councils, “forasmuch as they be an assembly of men … they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God”, and should always be tested against Scripture (Bray: 1994, 297). And in 1537 Calvin, a brash and overconfident young man, tried to mount a public defence of the doctrine of the Trinity using bare Scripture and refusing to cite or use the terminology of the classical Councils, or even to sign the Athanasian Creed (MacCulloch: 2011). We know that Calvin was a respectable, magisterial reformer. We know that when the Remonstrants at Dordt argued for decrees which consisted of nothing but mere Scripture, “and not any mens glosses”, they were showing themselves to be dangerous radicals. Likewise, when Simon Episcopius, in the wake of the Synod, insisted that the Apostles’ Creed and the decrees of the first General Councils were simple confessions of faith, not binding on later generations (Hales: 1673, II.14–15; Milton: 2002, 189). But this was almost precisely Calvin’s point from a long lifetime earlier, and also an undeniable factual observation about how Reformed Protestantism actually worked. The point had been made with characteristic subtlety in the 1590s by a Reformed theologian of a somewhat different hue, Richard Hooker, who directly asked the question anyone thinking of organising a General Council ought to ask: how can an argument ever be definitively settled? Hooker’s Presbyterian opponents were using their own consciences as the sovereign test of doctrine. He argued that “if God be not the author of confusion but of peace”, there must be a means of imposing a definitive sentence to which all submit even if they believe it to be in error. “To small purpose,” he says, “had the Council of Jerusalem been assembled, if once their determination being set down, men might afterwards have defended their former opinions. When therefore they had given their definitive sentence, all controversy was at an end” (Hooker: 1977, 30). As a simple matter of history, Hooker’s claim is false, but that hardly matters. More to the point: Hooker is here drawing a distinction between conciliar and nonconciliar Christians, and that distinction ends up with not only the Remonstrants, but with the English Presbyterians, Calvin, the great Reformed Confessions and even the Thirty-Nine Articles on the radical side. This is not to claim, with Luther, that the Reformed were all Schwärmer, although he perhaps had more of a point than is normally allowed. Rather, I am claiming that, like all other attempts to draw

33

34

Alec Ryrie

a sharp and definitive line between radical and respectable Protestants, my litmus test of conciliarism has failed. Reformed Protestants thought and believed, in a safely abstract way, that they accepted the authority of General Councils. It took the Pyrrhic victory of Dordt to prove that, in truth, they did not and could not. All Reformed Protestants were radicals, or carried the seeds of radicalism within themselves. Which is to say: we should not imagine that the great issues of our own age, the ones supposedly settled by the Barmen Declaration and the Belhar Confession, are settled for all time. As Christians learned after Nicaea, after Chalcedon and after Dordt, no such thing is possible.

Bibliography Bray, Gerald (1994), ed., Documents of the English Reformation, Cambridge: James Clarke. Browne, Thomas (1964), Religio Medici and Other Works, ed. L. C. Martin, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Burns, J. H. (1983), “The Conciliarist Tradition in Scotland” in: The Scottish Historical Review, vol. 42, 89–104. Collinson, Patrick (1982), The Religion of Protestants, Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Gruchy, John W. (2011), Calvin(ism) and Apartheid in South Africa in the Twentieth Century, in: Irena Backus and Philip Benedict (ed.), Calvin and his Influence, 1509–2009, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drescher, Seymour (2009), Abolition: A History of Slavery and Antislavery, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, Mark U. (1983), Luther’s Last Battles: Politics and Polemics 1531–46, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. First and Second Booke (1641), The first and second booke of discipline, as it was formerly set forth in Scotland by publicke authoritie, Wing C4224C. London: [s.n.]. Fortein, Eugene (2013), Allan Boesak and the Dutch Reformed Mission Church between 1976–1990, in: Mary-Anne Plaatjies-Van Huffel and Robert Vosloo (ed.), Reformed Churches in South Africa and the Struggle for Justice: Remembering 1960–1990, Stellenbosch: Sun Press. Gerbner, Katharine (2018), Christian Slavery: Conversion and Race in the Protestant Atlantic World, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hales, John (1673), Golden remains of the ever memorable Mr. John Hales, Wing H271. London: Tho. Newcomb. Hart, D.G. (2013), Calvinism: A History, New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Heal, Bridget/Anorthe Kremers (ed.) (2017), Radicalism and Dissent in the World of Protestant Reform, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

The Ecumenical Council of Dordt

Hockenos, Matthew D. (2004), A Church Divided: German Protestants Confront the Nazi Past, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Hooker, Richard (1977), Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: Preface, Books I to IV, ed. Georges Edelen, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Kolb, Robert (1986), Luther, Augsburg, and the Concept of Authority in the Late Reformation: Ursinus vs. the Lutherans, in: Derk Visser (ed.), Controversy and Conciliation: The Reformation and the Palatinate, 1559– 1583, Allison Park, PA: Pickwick. Lund, Eric (ed.) (2002), Documents from the History of Lutheranism, 1517–1750, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2011), Calvin: Fifth Latin Doctor of the Church?, in: Irena Backus and Philip Benedict (ed.), Calvin and his Influence, 1509–2009, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33–45. Milton, Anthony (ed.) (2002), The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–19), Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. O’Malley, John W. (2013), Trent: What Happened at the Council, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Patterson, W.B. (1997), King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ryrie, Alec (2004), Reform without frontiers in the last years of Catholic Scotland, in: English Historical Review, 119, 27–56. Ryrie, Alec (2016), ‚Protestant‘ as a Historical Category, in: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 6th ser. 26, 59–77. Shell, Robert C.-H. (1994), Children of Bondage: A Social History of the Slave Society at the Cape of Good Hope, 1652–1838, Hanover & London: Wesleyan University Press.

35

Polly Ha

2.

Discovering Orthodoxy?

Rethinking the Purpose and Impact of the Synod of Dordt

Abstract The Synod of Dordt represents one of the most dramatic moments in the definition of post-Reformation Protestantism. However, its role in conciliar history tends to be overshadowed by ecumenical commitment in the Roman Catholic and Anglican traditions. This essay explores the Synod of Dordt’s debates over conciliar authority itself. Conflicting views over the purpose and nature of the Synod of Dordt had already surfaced before it convened on 13 November 1618. These generated competing interpretations of the Synod which reveals that beyond the Remonstrants’ Five Articles, the Dutch participants were equally divided over the nature of ecclesiastical liberty and jurisdiction. This extended beyond the mere plea for toleration of doctrinal diversity and the role of the civil magistrate in settling ecclesiastical conflict. It struck at the very heart of how the participants understood conciliar authority, the discovery of orthodoxy, and the very nature of the church itself. This essay not only revisits debate over the purpose and nature of the Synod of Dordt, but further reflects on its inspiration and anticipation of some of the lengthiest arguments over conciliar authority which developed alongside the contestation over orthodoxy later in the seventeenth century.

2.1

Introduction

The Synod of Dordt represents one of the most dramatic moments in the definition of post-Reformation Protestantism. As the Synod was well aware, no other Protestant church had convened an assembly of its size and stature. While it was conceived as a national synod, its inclusion of international delegates amplified its ambitions, its deliberations, and its ultimate reach beyond the Netherlands. Setting firm boundaries for Reformed Orthodoxy, the Synod definitively condemned the views of the Remonstrants and affirmed Calvinist teachings on the contested doctrines of grace. Yet for over four centuries, the doctrines debated at the Synod of Dordt have not ceased to provoke heated theological controversy. Neither is there an historical consensus on the purpose and nature of the Synod itself. Nor have we yet fully grasped the longer-term impact of the Synod. This is unsurprising. Conflicting

38

Polly Ha

views over the purpose and nature of the Synod had already surfaced before it convened. And these views have continued to generate competing interpretations of the Synod ever since. All parties agreed on at least one thing: the discovery of orthodoxy. They believed in the idea of a cumulative understanding and unfolding of divine truths throughout the history of the post-apostolic church.1 It was true that theological understanding could equally become obscured over time with the introduction of human error and corruption of church councils. But the modern church and its theology had clearly progressed in its understanding since the first four ecumenical councils. Protestant divines saw their orthodoxy as having further developed through its protracted struggle with the papacy.2 However, contemporaries violently disagreed over the Synod of Dordt’s precise role in that process, on the boundaries of orthodoxy, and on the authority of the synod itself. Unlike the soteriological questions examined by the synod, the ecclesiastical assumptions of the Dutch participants are often understood to be relatively uncontested.3 However, closer scrutiny of their debates reveals that what divided the parties were not only their different theological views over the five points presented in the Remonstrance. What equally divided them were questions about the nature of ecclesiastical liberty and jurisdiction. This extended beyond mere toleration of doctrinal diversity and the role of the civil magistrate in settling ecclesiastical conflict. It struck at the very heart of how they understood the nature of the church itself.

2.2

Reformed Conciliarism in the Sixteenth Century

Scarcely anyone would have disagreed with the idea that the chief means of resolving theological controversy was through the convening of an ecclesiastical assembly. For Luther, the main task of a church council was “to defend pure doctrine and to banish heresy” (Luther: 1966, 3–178; Avis: 2006, 118). Calvin likewise saw the convening of a synod to be “the best and surest remedy” for settling doctrinal disagreement (Calvin: 1960, 1176). Arminius and the Remonstrants had also long appealed to the idea in the early seventeenth century for settling the theological disputes which had erupted in the Dutch Reformed churches. Resigning from his

1 “They should use their utmost endeavours in discovering or enquiring after Truth, and promoting Unity and mutual Toleration.” (Brandt: 1721, II:481). 2 For one discussion of a reformed view of historical contingency see my introductory chapters in Ha: 2021. 3 “Arminius’ understandings of grace and predestination arose over the thought of theologians who were Reformed in terms of their ecclesial or confessional location but whose thought contradicted basic statements of the Reformed confessions.” (Muller: 2011, 18).

Discovering Orthodoxy?

Professorship at the University of Leiden in February 1606, Arminius publicly affirmed his commitment to Christian union as “the chief good”. The remedy for controversial matters, according to Arminius, was an ecclesiastical assembly, “an orderly and free convention of the parties…called by the Greeks a Synod, and by the Latins a Council”4 (Arminius: 1853, I:149, 183). Likewise, the chief spokesman for the Remonstrants at Dordt, Simon Episcopius, declared in his oration at the Synod that “nothing could be more agreeable to our views and wishes, than the convocation of a synod according to the letter of those [original] resolutions” (Episcopius: 1837, 295). Reformed Protestant conciliarism, however, tends to be overlooked, understated, or overshadowed by those represented in the Roman Catholic and Anglican traditions. Recent work on Protestant councils dismisses the Synod of Dordt outright as falling short of conciliar ideals (Avis: 2006, 152; Valliere: 2012, 166). Why is that? The assumptions behind this omission appear to be at least twofold. First is the objection that Dordt was insufficiently comprehensive and ecumenical in scope to count among the chief post-Reformation councils. It divided rather than united. Yet, the nature and scope of church councils were fiercely contested during this period. And there was far from any consensus on the criteria for determining what constituted a legitimate church council, or even how unity itself was supposed to be constructed. Secondly, there is an assumption that the reformed had little theoretical commitment to conciliarism; the Synod of Dordt was essentially an ecclesiastical tool to justify a political coup. This interpretation follows a longer tradition of conspiracy theory linking Calvinism with political sedition. It is true that Calvinists tended to end up at the centre of political rebellion. It is also true that some magisterial reformers such as Zwingli were intensely sceptical of church councils and their routine abuse of power. Furthermore, it is true that Presbyterians in England tended to be relatively silent in their printed tracts on the authority of church councils. This has suggested a weak conciliarism in contrast with the robust view of councils defended by Richard Hooker in his apology for The Church of England.5 But historians in recent years have revealed these assumptions to be mistaken. There were no inherent links between Calvinism and political rebellion as suggested in the polemical caricatures which tended to minimize other factors involved in these political controversies (Skinner: 1978, vol. 2, Ch. 7). Neither has the assumption based on silence held up to historical scrutiny. It is worth briefly pausing

4 The end of the assembly was for “the illustration, preservation, and propagation of the truth; the extirpation of existing errors, and the concord of the church” (Arminius: 1853, I:185). 5 For renewed focus on Hooker’s conciliarism see Patterson: 1997, 283–303.

39

40

Polly Ha

here to consider the development of English views at the end of the sixteenth century, because they serve as a helpful way into the ecclesiastical questions in the Remonstrant controversy. One relevant body of literature has scarcely drawn any attention because historians have had no reason to search for its existence. Following the official suppression of leading puritan spokesmen by the crown in 1592, English presbyterianism appeared to have disappeared from the historical record until its sudden resurgence in the mid-seventeenth century. The recent recovery of manuscripts along with further investigation into wider presbyterian networks has challenged this view. Much of their activity took place underground and abroad or through the circulation of manuscripts (Ha: 2011). However, there was also printed literature that remained committed to advocating a reformed model of government by translating continental reformed texts into English in the final decade of Elizabeth’s reign. Some English Presbyterians and their sympathizers persisted in advocating further reform by energetically publishing the systematic works of continental reformed divines through the 1590s. These translations not only rehearsed the utility of synods and councils, but also began to entertain an expanded role and more systematic treatment of them.6 Following the publication of the scurrilous Marprelate tracts, which mercilessly lampooned English Bishops, John Penry translated Beza’s Propositions and Principles of Divinitie which outlined a four-fold purpose of synods & councils: to preserve religion, appease controversy, pre-emptively settle troubles, and to help the church make further progress (Beza: 1591). The former Presbyterian activist John Oxenbridge was involved in the translation of Amandus Polanus’ Substance of Christian Religion in 1595 which systematically outlined synodical procedure, where the positions “must be definitions, distributions, short axiomes. The manner of disputating must be alwayes by syllogismes”7 (Polanus: 1595, 186–187). By the end of the sixteenth century, the godly were still translating highly developed works which contained a sophisticated treatment of councils. These divinely ordained means for settling ecclesiastical matters only drew attention to the coercive nature of the bishops’ recent proceedings against nonconformity (Ha: 2021). But as I have argued elsewhere, we can begin to recover a more robust view of reformed conciliarism by turning to alternative sources other than public petitions and printed works, which not only assumed agreement over conciliar authority but deliberately pitched arguments for ecclesiastical reform as involving minimal change to the existing national Church of England. Indeed, some of the most extensive writings

6 The radical puritan printer Robert Waldegrave was involved in printing the Geneva Professor Lambert Daneau’s Defence of Ecclesiastical Discipline (Daneau: 1590; STC 6228). He also produced an edition of Andreas Hyperius’ Foundation of Christian Religion in 1583 (STC 11756). 7 A second edition appeared in 1597 (STC 20083.9), followed by further editions in 1600 (STC 20084) and 1608 (STC 20085).

Discovering Orthodoxy?

on conciliar authority among English divines can be retrieved by studying one of England’s foremost reformed leaders, Walter Travers, who took copious notes on Heinrich Bullinger’s De Conciliis and produced lengthy arguments for the authority of church councils to counter congregational autonomy in the early seventeenth century (Ha: 2011, 57–76; Ha, Moore and Frankot: 2017). Travers is of course more often recognized for his role in provoking Richard Hooker to embark on writing his Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity which also began to circulate in the early 1590s. These debates in some respects anticipated the Remonstrant and Contra-Remonstrant controversies over the nature of civil and ecclesiastical authority. Travers had urged the necessity of further ecclesiastical reform in accordance with the biblical model found in Scripture. In response to the argument for conforming to a single model of ecclesiastical polity, Hooker insisted on its mutability. Church government under the New Testament was a secondary matter which was not essential to salvation and faith. It was therefore an indifferent matter and could be left to the discretion of the Prince. Here Hooker crucially developed an argument for a unity in civil and ecclesiastical polity, arguing that “new lawes of government[.] What common wealth or Church is there which maketh not eyther at one time or another?” (Hooker: 1604, 153). Historians have identified a parallel between Hooker’s novel position and the Erastianism of the Dutch Remonstrants (Nobbs: 1938, 58). Like Hooker, Arminius himself had argued that ecclesiastical laws concerned secondary matters, and were therefore mutable and subject to “abrogating, enlarging, diminishing or of changing.”8 Church power solely concerned positive and circumstantial laws in secondary matters, not adverse to God, or good order.9 This became a standard line for the Remonstrants who followed after Arminius. Drawing a clear line between essential and secondary matters, Remonstrant apologists tended to argue that the task of monitoring doctrine was reserved for God alone. Princes on the other hand could oversee and exercise power over indifferent and secondary matters in the church. This served at least two purposes. It enabled the Remonstrants, like Hooker, to challenge the spiritual autonomy and authority of the church claimed by his puritan critics. Secondly, by disarming the church’s monopoly over theology and worship, it positioned them to make bold claims to mutual toleration and the acceptance of

8 “The church neither has a right, nor is she bound by any necessity, to enact necessary laws, and those which essentially concern the acts of faith itself, of hope and of charity. For this belongs most properly to God and Christ; and it has been so fully exercised by Christ.” (Arminius: 1853, II:139). 9 “That she do not assume to herself the authority of binding, by her laws, the consciences of men to acts prescribed by herself; for she will thus invade the right of Christ, in prescribing things necessary, and will infringe Christian liberty, which ought to be free from snares of this description.” (Arminius:1853, II:139).

41

42

Polly Ha

greater theological diversity. These are the chief pillars which have most often defined or characterized the Remonstrant ecclesiastical agenda (Nobbs: 1938, 91–107). But there is a danger in reading the Remonstrants through these two positions alone, a danger which becomes apparent when we interrogate their main purposes at the Synod of Dordt. When studied in isolation, their Erastianism and plea for toleration can too easily be reduced to a loser’s creed and pragmatic attempt to allow for their own dissent. On closer inspection, what emerges is a distinctive view of ecclesiastical liberty which gave a particular shape to the Remonstrants’ understanding of conciliar authority.

2.3

The Freedom of Deliberation

Freedom for the Reformers was a chief mark of a true and godly church council. In contrast to popish synods, they insisted on the freedom of the synod to determine truth according to Scripture without domination by a Pope or prelate. This meant that learned laity had permission to speak, following late Medieval conciliarists who included the participation of academic theologians (Valliere: 2012, 128–130). Indeed, they insisted that lay counsel must be duly weighed. For Calvin, the weight of their counsel was not based on status and sheer number. It had to do with the quality of those who offered the counsel, coming from among the most learned and pious men in the church (Calvin: 1960, 1173–1175). This obligation to seek out and relatively weigh godly counsel, as opposed to proceeding without it, or by counting sheer numbers, also surfaced in reformed conciliar views following Dordt. We gain further insight into these developments in the Synopsis of a Purer Theology, a theological handbook produced under the oversight of four Leiden theology professors, including Polyander and Walaeus in their academic disputations from 1620–1624.10 The weight and reception of the Synopsis beyond the Netherlands can be seen by extant copies of different editions in Britain. John Hacket, later Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, owned and inscribed his name into a 1625 edition currently held at the Cambridge University Library.11 This was not merely a collectable work or required reading. Some readers studiously annotated their copies. For example, an extant copy of a 1632 edition in the British Library belonged to “Samuelis Celerii”, which he dated in 1637. This edition is littered with annotations on Disputations 12–15 on good and bad angels, the creation of man in the image of God, and origi-

10 The author wishes to thank the editors of the Synopsis of a Purer Theology for permission to consult and cite their work in progress in preparing this essay. 11 John Hacket (1592–1670), bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. (Polyander, et al.: 1625) Cambridge University Library B*.6.31.

Discovering Orthodoxy?

nal sin.12 What did the Synopsis say about church councils following the Synod of Dordt? According to the Synopsis, ordained officers in the church were the “first and foremost” in the Synod (Polyander, et al.: 2020, 429 [disp. 49.28]). However, it also allowed that “if from among the laity of whatever status or circumstance there are men distinguished for their piety, their knowledge of sacred things, their wisdom and prudence, modesty, pursuit of peace and outstanding gentleness, they can be invited and come to attend” to offer “their counsel and opinion” (Polyander, et al.: 2020, 431 [disp. 49.29]). It further noted that “votes should not always be counted, but rather weighed in the balance”. The same of course was true for ecclesiastical decision making within the particular congregation. The chief men in the congregation, together with the informed consent of the congregation, and if in question, the recommendation of neighbouring officers, in a mixed polity, were to guard against clerical or oligarchic abuse of power, as well as mere democratic vote by numbers (Polyander, et. al: 2020, 443 [disp. 49.49]). On the surface, Arminius and the Remonstrants’ call for a free church council appears to be congruent with their opponents’ appeal to a synod as the arbiter of theological controversy. The orthodox reformed assumed that councils were prone to introduce human error, especially in light of Roman Catholic abuses. Scripture was the sole authority for weighing conciliar decrees. This was standard emphasis in antiquity. The Synopsis also instructed that “synods…have only as much authority as they borrow and receive from Scripture, as the moon does from the sun” (Polyander, et al.: 2020, 457 [disp. 49.72]). This, in turn, meant that besides the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, there was never to be an absolute and definitive nature accorded to Reformed conciliar decisions in and of themselves: it was always to be measured by Scripture. However, the orthodox reformed nonetheless adopted a relatively exalted view of conciliar authority, believing it to be a divinely appointed means for resolving controversy, guided by the Holy Spirit, endowed with spiritual authority, and binding on the church until proven otherwise from Scripture (Polyander, et al.: 2020, 455 [disp. 49.70]). Arminius followed the Reformers’ caution in weighing the conclusions of ecclesiastical councils. He believed scripture should be physically placed at the head of the assembly. Stressing human error, he insisted that councils were “liable to error, corruption, and defection from the truth of doctrine” (Arminius: 1853, II:145). But he went much further. He was not simply worried about the possibility of human error. He and the Remonstrants adopted a desacralized view of the synod which assumed

12 (Polyander, et al.: 1632, 136–164) British Library 3558.b.25. There is scope for further investigations into extant copies and annotations, including 1652 and 1658 editions produced during the period that coincided with the Cromwellian Protectorate.

43

44

Polly Ha

that its decision-making was merely human in nature.13 The Remonstrants objected during the Synod of Dordt that their “consciences were not to be satisfy’d with any merely humane authority, whether by Synodical Censures, or Civil Resolutions” (Brandt: 1722, III:75). In short, the assumptions behind their conciliar vision were that it should be characterised by a free, impartial, equal deliberation of contested doctrines akin to an academic disputation or political debate. Arminius laid particular stress on the free nature of conciliar deliberations over theological matter. Let “none of us say, that he has discovered the truth; But rather let us seek it, as though it were unknown to each of us.”14 The Remonstrants likewise assumed that the Synod of Dordt ought to be conducted as though between two equal parties.15 They objected to the restrictions placed on their speech. They insisted that they be allowed to refute the position of their opponents (Brandt: 1722, III:75). And they were sharply rebuked for suggesting that the purpose of the synod was for the “discovery” of the truth, as if such truths had not already been established. The president famously thundered that it was they, the Remonstrants, and not the Synod or its other delegates, who stood on trial (Brandt: 1722, III:73). The Remonstrants took particular issue with this domination of the Synod by their opponents. Contemporary satire portrayed the Contra-Remonstrants represented by Gomarus tipping the scale with Calvin and the sword (Van den Vondel: 2015, 151). Here, it is significant that they appealed to Dutch civil jurisprudence in their objections and plea to be heard by neutral judges (Brandt: 1722, III:47, 69). As they complained, “the suspicion of partiality, was one of the principal reasons for challenging a Judge in all civil courts”16 (Brandt: 1722, III:153). This meant that their default expectation was that ecclesiastical proceedings would follow Dutch civil law. In short, it meant that their objections to the synod, and their understanding of what constituted a free ecclesiastical council, were driven by their commitment to free and equal deliberation, and more generally, to the idea of non-domination.

13 As he explained, “Religion…belongs to the Deity”, and this in turn exempted individuals “from the jurisdiction of men”. He warned of the dangers of becoming subjected to ecclesiastical assemblies and “slavishly subservient to the wills of men” (Arminius: 1853, I:57, 151–152). 14 Arminius: 1853, I:188). For Arminius, “no council can prescribe to its successors, that they may not again deliberate about that which has been transacted…because the matter of religion does not come under the denomination of a thing that is prejudged” (Arminius: 1853: II, 148). 15 “The Lay Commissioners reply’d: That it was never the intention of the States, that there should be a conference or disputation holden as between two parties or adversaries, or so as the custom was in the Schools, but that they the Remonstrants should propose, explain, and defend their Doctrines in writing, and then expect the determination of the Synod.” (Brandt: 1722, III:81). 16 For the English delegates’ disagreement with these Remonstrant objections to partiality see Milton: 2005, 163.

Discovering Orthodoxy?

2.4

Conciliar Authority Contested

If the Synod of Dordt brought to light conflicting views over ecclesiastical decision making, so too did it expose sharp divisions over its authoritative nature. The fallibility of church councils had long been stressed by Protestants to affirm the chief authority of scripture, especially in response to Roman Catholic apologists (Black: 1979, 210). However, in response to Remonstrant challenges to conciliar authority, the Contra-Remonstrants emphasized the divine nature of synods. Citing Mt 18: 17, 18, 20, the Synopsis rehearsed the crucial point in their view that conciliar authority “does not arise by human right but by divine right” (Polyander, et al.: 2020, 419 [disp. 49.10]). Indeed, “ecclesiastical authority and power reaches its highest point at the Synod…insofar as it is outward it conveys the unity of God’s entire church, and it is also the basis and binding element for its position and good order” (Polyander, et al: 2020, 417 [disp. 49.9]). Ecclesiastical discipline was therefore “a means and instrument whereby the church returned to a better state, and the morals were restored with greater integrity” (Polyander, et al: 2020, 393 [disp. 49.31], emphasis added). So inspired and exalted were conciliar judgments that Magistrates were expected to obey and reinforce such judgments. Civil force could be used to back conciliar decrees insofar as the Magistrate was a “defender of the church and of good public order” (Polyander, et al.: 2020, 451 [disp. 49.63]). Although the church and state “have distinct functions”, it argued that “[such] distinction does not conflict with collaboration, and nothing blocks those who are in charge of different offices from together taking care of many tasks in a common endeavour and rolling one boulder” (Polyander, et al.: 2020, 453 [disp. 49.66]). Arminius and the Remonstrants had of course acknowledged the synod’s “right of examining and forming a judgment upon doctrines.” But they obviously departed from their opponents by arguing against an enforced uniformity and insisting on mutual toleration. Behind the plea for toleration, however, was an ecclesiastical view which had far more reaching implications: a rival definition of the nature of conciliar authority and the dissolution of the obligation to be bound by its determinations. The preservation of individual liberty was necessary to guard against the domination of conscience by human invention. Arminius argued that “the authority of councils is not absolute, but dependent on the authority of God; for this reason, no one is simply bound to assent to those things which have been decreed.” Instead, “every one may, nay, he is bound, to examine, by the word of God, those things which have been concluded in the council…if they are not [agreeable to Scripture], then he may express his disapprobation” (Arminius: 1853, II:147). Arminius went so far as to point to “the genius of all separatists, not to enter into any treaties of concord with their adversaries, unless they be permitted to have life at least, and liberty, secured to them inviolate” (Arminius: 1853, I:152). On the one hand, he warned against anyone “easily…reject[ing] that which has been determined by the

45

46

Polly Ha

unanimous consent of so many pious and learned men” (Arminius: 1853, II:147). But rather than simply praising separatists for guarding their liberty before entering into any compact of covenant, he argued that even after consenting to ecclesiastical authority individuals could exempt themselves from its ruling. “But the Synod will not assume to itself the authority of obtruding upon others, by force, those resolutions which may have been passed by unanimous consent” (Arminius: 1853, I:189). For this reflection should always suggest itself, “though this Synod appears to have done all things conscientiously, it is possible, that, after all, it has committed an error in judgment…according to Lactantius, ‘To recommend faith to others, we must make it the subject of persuasion and not of compulsion’” (Arminius: 1853, I:189). Episcopius was particularly worried about clerical domination over individual conscience. Here he granted the civil magistracy authority over the church to ensure liberty for tender consciences. Rather than expecting the Magistrate to enforce uniformity in orthodoxy, he reminded Princes that “Religion must be defended not by slaying but by admonishing, not by ferocity but by patience, not by crime but by faith” (Nobbs: 1938, 103). Indeed, one of the chief roles of the Magistrate was to secure toleration for tender consciences. This amounted to more than a merely permissive toleration to worship as an individual saw fit. Freedom of conscience assumed non-domination of public discourse and deliberation, even against the collective ruling of a synod. “To forbid what a citizen feels is his duty and to deny him the right to present it to his neighbours would violate the free activity of the conscience” (Nobbs: 1938, 97). This “exception,” as the Contra-Remonstrants later objected in their Censura, would do nothing less than allow any manner of heresy and theological error to creep into and be taught in the church (Polyander, et al.: 1626, 328–332). This raises a crucial question: if the Remonstrants essentially delegated responsibility to the civil magistrate for preserving religious toleration, and relativized the nature and authority of ecclesiastical decrees, what did they hope to gain from the Synod of Dordt? It would seem that their chief aim was equal theological status. One of their main objectives was to seek acknowledgement of the legitimacy of alternative theological views within the reformed church. In short, the Remonstrants sought a “deliberative synod” which would sanction competing views on the doctrines of grace. Unity was established by embracing theological diversity. According to the Remonstrants, it was the Contra-Remonstrants who had invented a fictitious and restrictive orthodoxy among the Reformed which was uniform in nature. The synod was full of “Innovators, and Introducers of Novelties” (Brandt: 1722, III:69). For the Contra-Remonstrants, it was the Remonstrants who introduced novelty into the Reformed church, seeking to re-negotiate the boundaries of orthodoxy by taking issue with its established confession and catechism. Theirs was the ‘‘old religion’’, and the Remonstrants, ‘‘the new’’ (Brandt: 1721–22, II:381, III:49). Indeed, the

Discovering Orthodoxy?

Remonstrants to some degree admitted that they believed the task of reformation and discovery of truth to be ongoing.17 All this meant that the Contra-Remonstrants viewed the purpose of the Synod of Dordt to be different in its scope from their opponents. Rather than broadening the boundaries of orthodoxy and accepting a more generalized theological view, the purpose of the Synod of Dordt, according to the Contra-Remonstrants, was to derive “from the Word of God…[a] unity of the church in doctrine and discipline.”18 Its vision of ecclesiastical unity was to be established through substantive doctrinal agreement and the use of reformed ecclesiastical polity. Reformed writers had earlier criticized the argument for unity established by embracing diversity arbitrated by the civil magistrate to create stability. The implication was that it was reductive and ultimately compromised substantive truths for the sake of civil peace and order, abandoning its distinctively divine nature by deferring ecclesiastical determinations to human discretion.19 Instead, they understood the Synod of Dordt to be constructively deepening theological understanding. As the Synopsis later emphasised, conciliar determinations left the church in “a better state” and “with greater integrity” (Polyander, et al.: 2020, 393 [disp. 49.31], emphasis added). However, not only did the Contra-Remonstrants believe Dordt to be declarative, but also a “judicial synod.” It was tasked with examining the Remonstrants on account of sowing divisions and disturbing the peace of the church.20 This dual deliberative and judicial function of the synod meant that it was in a position to use a special censure against the Remonstrants: the “suspension and removal from office [of dissident clergy, and even teachers]…even without the hope ever of recovering it”21 (Polyander, et al.: 2020, 451 [disp. 49.59]).

17 Contra-Remonstrants took exception with this “expression of enquiring after Truth,” which “might occasion scandal, as if the Reformed Churches had not yet found out Truth” (Brandt: 1721, Vol II, 481). 18 “It is a deliberative synod when it deals with those things that pertain to the good status of the church…and herein it is the synod’s study to derive form the Word of God the formulation of its decision and agreement, and of the unity of the church in doctrine and discipline.” (Polyander, et al.: 2020, 443 [disp. 49.50]). 19 For a recent discussion of a response to Hooker’s argument for unity and diversity see Ha, Moore, and Frankot: 2021. 20 “A judicial synod takes place when questions are posed concerning the facts or case of this or that person, especially of a pastor who is causing great offence, trouble or division in the church…and when sufficient, full examination is made of them and when lawful judgment is passed on the basis of known facts.” (Polyander, et al.: 2020, 445 [disp. 49.51] and Brandt: 1721, II:41–43). 21 See also Sinnema: 2011, 314–333.

47

48

Polly Ha

2.5

Functional Illegitimacy and the Purpose of the Synod of Dordt

The Synod of Dordt’s legitimacy, its legacy, and its history hinge on these competing definitions of the nature of conciliar authority. For the Contra-Remonstrants, it was “a public and lawful assembly of the Church, and a more venerable and larger one, ordained by Christ…represented by persons whom a lesser assembly has delegated for a specific place and time…gather[ed]…to treat, judge and determine from God’s Word those matters which concern the circumstances common to the churches” (Polyander, et al.: 2020, 417 [disp. 49.7]). On this view, its legacy was not simply doctrinal, but also disciplinary. It consolidated contested theological points. But it also established unity in the church through the use of a reformed ecclesiology.22 It also became a robust example of reformed conciliarism when that authority came under fierce attack in England over the course of the seventeenth century. It was not long after the synod concluded that Walter Travers engaged in what would become one of the lengthiest defences for conciliar authority to appear in post-Reformation England. He repeatedly referred to the example of Dordt to argue that “particular Churches have beene allwayes in with other churches & subject to their just authorities as it …appeareth [by the Synods]…in the Church from the first at Jerusalem to this that was lately held at Dordt in Holland.”23 In sharp contrast with all this, the Remonstrants held freedom as non-domination to be essential for the synod’s institutional legitimacy. Their concept of liberty not only fuelled their objections to the synod, but also defined their objectives in the synod. For Contra-Remonstrants, freedom served as an index for the truth of conciliar determinations. For the Remonstrants, it held a supreme role and became necessary for legitimizing its authority. This surfaced before the synod had even convened in 1618 as the Remonstrants feared “that the Synod would cease to be free, and their transactions become useless” (Brandt: 1721, II:481). However, they articulated this view even more explicitly in their 1621 Confession. Here they stated that a synod might only be usefully held “if indeed a legitimate order and manner be preserved in them.” They spelled out exactly what they believed this legitimate order to be, further defining ecclesiastical liberty. In order to have “full liberty,” they wrote in their confession, such liberty to speak must be given without any threat of interference, “without scruple or fear of danger.” They further insisted that the synod must be “truly free…bound to no one, whether a person, church or confession.” (Episcopius: 1622, Ch. 25)

22 For an overview of the synod’s procedures and ruling on church polity and discipline, see Selderhuis: 2015, XV–XXXII. 23 He further hailed it as a chief example of the restoration of peace to the church “to the great comfort of such are found orthodox and faithful” (Ha, Moore, and Frankot: 2017, 226, 406).

Discovering Orthodoxy?

This distinctive view of liberty did not pass without comment by the ContraRemonstrants. Taking issue with Remonstrant claims to liberty in their Confession, the Contra-Remonstrants criticized its general nature which would know no bounds, and essentially destroy all ecclesiastical authority (Polyander, et al.: 1626, 326). It was with this view of liberty in mind that the Remonstrants obstinately refused to acknowledge the synod’s authority and legitimacy. They infuriated the President of the Synod even further by claiming a legitimacy of their own, referring to themselves as a collective body. That the Contra-Remonstrants scornfully referred to their meeting together in an ‘Anti-Synod’ highlighted their view of its inauthenticity and misrule which inverted divine order by mimicking legitimate ecclesiastical authority.24 But it was entirely consistent with Remonstrant understanding of ecclesiastical legitimacy. On this view they could argue that the Synod was functionally illegitimate because of its violation of liberty. And on the other, they could also constitute themselves as a self-authenticating body in their own right.25 Here the legacy of their radical view of ecclesiastical liberty would become most visible in the Revolutionary events in England during the mid-seventeenth century. It is curious, but perhaps unsurprising of the English, how infrequently the Westminster Assembly referred to the Synod. But it is equally striking how closely their proceedings echoed the ecclesiastical controversies in the Netherlands. Many of the same objections against ecclesiastical authority flowed from the press by apologists for ecclesiastical independence. The concept of non-domination enabled English Independents to re-define the nature of the church. It fuelled their objections to the authority of church councils. It emboldened their claims to freedom of conscience. It also enabled them to advance the notion of self-authenticating ecclesiastical bodies based on free deliberation and the consent of all its members (Ha: 2019). The English example cautions against drawing a necessary and direct correlation between the Remonstrants’ five points and their anti-conciliar views. The pastor to the Leiden English congregation, John Robinson, vigorously defended the Synod of Dordt’s doctrinal decrees. Robinson’s ecclesiastical views changed over time, and his rigid separation became more muted over the course of his ministry in Leiden. However, he remained deeply committed to Contra-Remonstrant theological views without entirely renouncing his former separatist ecclesiology (Robinson: 1624; Burgess: 1920, 123–142). The theological orthodoxy of John Owen is the

24 As Bogerman raised, “he had been told, that they had formed an Anti-Synod; that they had a President, with two Assessors and two Scribes, and acted in all points like a little Council, doing all things by a general or common consent” (Brandt: 1721, II:85, 108). 25 While the “President and the Secretary Heinsius…declared that the cited persons did not compose a body or society. Episcopius, on the other hand, answered: That he had a great deal to say against that assertion.” (Brandt: 1721, II:85, 108).

49

50

Polly Ha

most obvious example of the co-existence of reformed orthodoxy and ecclesiastical independence in the mid-seventeenth century. Yet, it is worth considering the ecclesiastical nature of Owen’s repeated efforts to establish a “public profession” in the absence of an authoritative national confession under the Cromwellian Protectorate. It curiously amounted to the same position that the Remonstrants agitated for at the Synod of Dordt. He proposed a declarative creed which was non-coercive and wide enough to include the Remonstrants’ theological views on predestination. Radical discontents found Owen’s efforts to maintain orthodoxy to be just as problematic as the coercive ecclesiastical authority of the presbyterian or episcopal church. More ecclesiastically conservative puritans like Richard Baxter exploited the relative liberty under the Protectorate to pursue godly reformation to their own ends. But others were less certain that this arrangement could prevent orthodoxy from stretching beyond breaking point.26 Some radicals in gathered independent congregations were not simply rejecting the authority of church councils, but coming under discipline for questioning more fundamental theological questions, including Trinitarian orthodoxy.27 Did contemporaries associate the rejection of representative ecclesiastical authority with the rejection of Christ’s representative headship through substitutionary atonement? The Contra-Remonstrants had originally used the Socinian sympathies of Vorstius as leverage to claim that their dispute was “about the defence of Christianity as a whole”, not simply predestination. If Socinianism signalled the dangers of disputed doctrines of grace sliding into anti-Trinitarianism, its anti-clericalism could also be linked to the Remonstrants’ heterodoxy as “the Socinian objections to clerical and ecclesiastical authority could be taken up and echoed by the Remonstrants.” Contra-Remonstrants continued to insist on the association between the Remonstrants and Socinianism in their Censura, and even uncovered private associations long after the Synod of Dordt (Mortimer: 2010, 42–50, 230–231; Polyander, et al.: 1626, 48–58, 141). Of course, neither the Remonstrants’ anti-clerical views nor the rejection of conciliar authority by English Independents were necessarily linked to anti-Trinitarian heterodoxy. But they nonetheless invited theological diversity and demanded alternative mechanisms to compensate for the absence of authoritative synods.

26 For overviews of the effort to define a ‘public profession under the Cromwellian Protectorate’, see Coffey: 2015, 452–456 and Hughes: 2017, 444–456. 27 Among the many examples in the church court records see the case of Captain John Lawrence in 1655 (Old Meeting Congregational Church Book, Norfolk Record Office, FC19/1). I am grateful to Joel Halcomb for sharing his insight on heterodoxy in English gathered churches with me.

Discovering Orthodoxy?

2.6

Conclusion

The Synod of Dordt inspired some of the lengthiest and most energetic defences of conciliar authority. It also anticipated radical objections against it and broadened the application of those competing ideas. But there was a far-reaching impact which not only included but also reverberated beyond continued theological and conciliar development. The Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants disagreed over many things. But what they both agreed to in principle was the idea of incremental discovery of divine truths. For the Remonstrants, the synod’s purpose was to accommodate diversity through the continued discovery of theological views. For the Contra-Remonstrants, the synod’s role was also expansive. However, its understanding of theological augmentation was characterised by unification in the pursuit of further definition through an exacting dissection of knowledge rather than through greater theological variation. Historians are beginning to explore how the ecclesiastical controversies, which culminated at the synod, which brought the Dutch Republic to the brink of civil war, nonetheless energized the intellectual and political debates as well as the creative, literary, and broader public discourse in the seventeenth century (Sierhuis: 2015, chs 2–3). In this respect, the synod was emblematic of the Dutch Golden Age. After the theological autopsy performed by the synod, the issues it opened up, examined, placed under intense scrutiny, and dare we say “discovered”, could never be put back or viewed the same way.

Bibliography Primary Sources Arminius, James (1853), The Works of James Arminius, D.D. ed. James Nichols, vol. I–II, Auburn: Derby and Miller. Beze, Theodore (1591), Propositions and principles of diuinitie. Tr. out of Latine [by J. Penry.] Edinburgh. Brandt, Geeraert (1721–1722), The History of the Reformation, vol. I–II, London. Calvin, John (1960), Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. McNiell and F. Battles, Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Daneau, Lambert (1590), Defence of Ecclesiastical Discipline, Edinburgh. Episcopius, Simon (1622), Confessio, sive declaration, sententiae, Herder-Wiici. Episcopius, Simon (1837), Memoirs of Simon Episcopius, London: Simpkin and Marshall. Ha, Polly/Jonathan D. Moore/Edda Frankot (ed.) (2022), Reformed Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ha, Polly/Jonathan D. Moore/Edda Frankot (ed.) (2017), The Puritans on Independence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

51

52

Polly Ha

Hooker, Richard (1604), Laws of Ecclesiastical polity, London. Hyperius, Andreas (1583), Foundation of Christian Religion, London. Luther, Martin (1966), Luther’s Works, Vol 41, Philadelphia: Foretress Press. Milton, Anthony (ed.) (2005), The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort, Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Polanus, Amandus (1595), The substance of Christian Religion, by definitions and partitions. Polyander, Johannes/André Rivet/Antonius Walaeus/Antoine Thysius (1625), Synopsis purioris theologiæ, disputationibus quinquaginta duabus comprehensa, ac conscripta per J. Polyandrum, A. Rivetum, A. Walæum, A. Thysium, Lugduni Batavorum. Polyander, Johannes/André Rivet/Antonius Walaeus/Antoine Thysius (1626), Censura in Confessionem siue Declarationem, Lugduni Batavorvum. Polyander, Johannes/André Rivet/Antonius Walaeus/Antoine Thysius (1632), Synopsis purioris theologiæ, disputationibus quinquaginta duabus comprehensa, ac conscripta per J. Polyandrum, A. Rivetum, A. Walæum, A. Thysium, Lugduni Batavorum. Polyander, Johannes/André Rivet/Antonius Walaeus/Antoine Thysius (2020), Synopsis purioris theologiæ, Vol III, ed. Harm Goris, Riemer A. Faber, Andreas J. Beck, and Willem den Boer, Leiden: Brill. Robinson, John (1624), A defence of the doctrine propounded by the synode at dort against Iohn Murton and his associates, Amsterdam.

Secondary Sources Avis, Paul (2006) Beyond Reformation, London: T&T Clark. Black, Anthony (1979), Council and Commune, London: Patmos Press. Burgess, Walter (1920), John Robinson: Pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers, London: Williams and Norgate. Coffey, John (2015), Religious Thought, in: Michael Braddick (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the English Revolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ha, Polly (2011), English Presbyterianism, 1590–1640, Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Ha, Polly (2011), Puritan Conciliarism: Why Walter Travers Read Bullinger’s De Conciliis, Sixteenth Century Journal XLII:1 (2011) 57–76. Ha, Polly (2019), The Freedom of Association and Ecclesiastical Independence, in: Michael Davies/Anne Dunan-Page/Joel Halcomb (ed.), Church Life: Pastors, Congregations, and the experience of dissent in seventeenth-century England, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hughes, Ann (2017) The Cromwellian Church, in: The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Vol I, ed. Anthony Milton, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mortimer, Sarah (2010), Reason and Religion in the English Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Discovering Orthodoxy?

Muller, Richard (2011), Diversity in the Reformed Tradition: A Historiographical Introduction, in: Michael A.G. Haykin/Mark Jones (ed.), Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Nobbs, Douglas (1938), Theocracy and toleration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Patterson, W.B. (1997), Hooker on Ecumenical Relations, in: Arthur Stephen McGrade (ed.), Richard Hooker and the Construction of Christian Community, Temple, AZ: Arizona State University. Sierhuis, Freya (2015), The Literature of the Arminian Controversy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Selderhuis, Herman J. (2015), Introduction to the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), in: Donald Sinnema/Christian Moser/Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sinnema, Donald (2011), The Canons of Dordt: From Judgment on Arminianism to Confessional Standard, in: Aza Goudriaan/Fred van Lieburg (ed.), Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), Leiden: Brill. Skinner, Quentin (1978), The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Valliere, Paul (2012), Conciliarism: A history of decision making in the Church, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

53

Fred van Lieburg

3.

Communicating Calvinist Concord

The Synod of Dordrecht as a Public Event

Abstract This article highlights the public sphere in which the Synod of Dordt received its authority and effect. In order to re-establish peace and unity in the Dutch Republic’s society and church, the States General provided for free access of the great assembly, of the great assembly, making this possible by two galleries in the hall where the synod gathered. Popular interest and national tourism were stimulated by the appearence of namelists, images and even pamphlet reports. Besides, publicity was challenged by negative reactions of Roman-Catholic and Arminian visitors of the synod, reputation damage by the emotional dismissal of the Remonstrant representatives from the scene by the president, and risks of misinformation about the doctrinal deliberations among the delegates. After a phase of mainly private sessions, the final oral presentation of the synod’s results was completely public, as was the written advertisement in several languages. Without the open policy, state restoration and church reform would have missed the goal.

3.1

Introduction

The National Synod of the Reformed Church in the Republic of the United Provinces was held in the city of Dordrecht in the province of Holland from November 13, 1618, to May 29, 1619.1 The meeting was only in progress for a few days when an engraver from Leiden, Nicolaas Geelkercken (1585–1656), published an illustrated list of the names of the delegates (Afbeeldinghe, first print). The drawing showed the meeting room with the various benches of the participants: the political committee members of the States General, the pastors and elders from the provincial synods and the Walloon churches, and the invited representatives of a number of foreign states and churches. The table of the Synod board (president, assessors, and

1 This paper is largely based upon my research of the social history of the Synod of Dordt, published as Fred van Lieburg, Synodestad: Dordrecht 1618–1619 (Amsterdam, 2019). An English translation of this book is forthcoming. In the footnotes hereafter, I will refrain from references to archival and other primary sources such as diaries and letters from synod participants.

56

Fred van Lieburg

secretaries) was also included. However, one part of the room could not be depicted but only indicated by words in the picture. The sentence “Above the entrance there are two more galleries for the listeners” was added to the overview of the Synod chamber.2 This printed edition of the Afbeeldinghe of the Synod of Dordt demonstrates the character of this meeting as a public event in a twofold way. The reference to the galleries made it clear that the Synod was accessible to interested spectators. And the publication of the pamphlet assumed there was a market for current information about the event in Dordrecht. This news function was confirmed by the fact that it was reprinted within a week. The first version still omitted the Remonstrants who were being called to account for their controversial views regarding Reformed doctrine and only appeared before the Synod on 6 December 1618. Their names were mentioned in the second version, and the picture showed a table in the middle of the hall where the Remonstrants were allowed to sit. Moreover, the French king had refused permission for the French ministers initially invited to attend, so the benches reserved for them remained empty. This fact was also corrected in the revised engraving. The Synod of Dordt was obviously more than an independent meeting of ecclesiastical authorities about the doctrine, life and order of the Dutch Reformed Church. The presence of political observers and foreign theologians confirmed that the activities of this meeting took place in a larger social and cultural space than just the Synod chamber. This article deals with this communicative context of the Synod of Dordt, a context that partly determined the course and outcome of the Synod itself. To support this assumption, we will discuss the practical facilities of the local conference, the influence of the audience in the galleries, and the role of the media in the publicity about the Synod. The gap in the iconography of the Synod of Dordt – the invisibility of the spectators in the galleries – is also a gap in its historiography, which deserves to be filled after four centuries when we look back at this immensely important historical event.

3.2

Communicative Space

The universal space of the Synod of Dordt reaches even further than the abovementioned triangle of government, church and people.3 The premodern worldview also included the heavenly sphere, in which God communicates with his earthly subjects by rewarding good behavior and punishing sins. There was a collective

2 “Boven desen ingank syn noch 2 galerien voor de toehoord[e]rs” 3 See for this paragraph in the context of this chapter van Lieburg: 2014.

Communicating Calvinist Concord

ritual in which this interaction was also experienced in the Dutch Republic. Almost every year, the States General organized a general day of fasting and prayer for the people. All Reformed ministers were given written instructions on the urgent prayer points, often in relation to the religious wars that plagued Europe at that time. In the Northern Netherlands the Day of Prayer was an appeal to the unity of the Christian community, of which at least a third had remained faithful to traditional Catholicism and at most a quarter had consciously chosen Calvinism. A large middle group remained still in doubt, while others had joined other Protestant movements, such as Lutheranism, Anabaptism and Spiritualism. The decision of the States General, taken on September 29, 1617, to convene a National Synod to settle the long-running dispute between Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants, was also aimed explicitly at God’s honour and the restoration of peace and unity in church and state (Smit: 1975, 223–224). The first point of the Synod draft stipulated that a general day of fasting and prayer would be declared a few weeks before the opening. One thorny issue was the legitimacy of the Synod itself. In fact, the unanimity of the seven provinces, which were sovereign in religious matters according to the Union of Utrecht (1579), was a condition for convening a national synod. Major cities in four provinces voted against it. As an all-time low, uniformity was enforced in a lengthy process of political and military pressure by Prince Maurice (1567–1625), with the arrest of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (1547–1619) and other powerful opponents on August 29, 1618. Thus, the National Synod was in fact part of a coup d’état or state reform. Under these tense circumstances, public access to the National Synod was not only an ecclesiastical custom but also of political interest. Social support for the “true Christian Reformed religion” had to be strengthened. Renewed recognition of Dutch Calvinism by European allies and sister churches was the only desired outcome of the Synod. The international reputation of the Republic as a stable partner in the Protestant Coalition also had to be restored, especially since the war with Spain was to be resumed in 1621, at the end of the Twelve Years’ Truce. At the beginning of 1618, the uprising in Bohemia led to a confrontation with the Catholic League. Prince Maurice supported the uprising. The Dutch “Eighty Years’ War” became linked to the German “Thirty Years’ War.” This made the urgency of resolving the domestic religious conflict even greater.4 After the decision to hold the National Synod, the States General chose the city of Dordrecht on November 20, 1617 as the location for the event (Smit: 1975, 272–275). This choice fit the objective of a free and open summit of European Calvinism, to which 58 Dutch and 28 foreign participants were invited. The city was situated on an island at a junction of major rivers. It was a safe location, easily

4 See in general van Eijnatten/van Lieburg: 2021.

57

58

Fred van Lieburg

accessible by water. Due to seniority, the city had the first voice in the States of Holland. For a long time, the city council had taken a neutral stance on the religious differences, but eventually followed the majority in the States General in seeking to hold a national synod. The six local pastors were all on counter-Remonstrants and thus the majority of the congregation were as well. On October 13, 1618, Prince Maurice expressed his preference for The Hague as the location for the Synod with a view to direct consultation with the high benches of state (Smit: 1975, 521). The choice for Dordrecht, however, persisted. In the meantime, the large gate at the harbour of Dordrecht had been provided with a new facade with a striking contemporary inscription: Pax civium et concordia tutissime urbem muniunt, i.e., “Peace and unity among the citizens are the safest protection of a city.” A large number of inns and spacious public houses facilitated the month-long stay of the Synod participants and the occasional tourism of many interested and curious visitors to the Synod. The National Synod was opened on November 13, 1618, with a Dutch service in the Great Church, which was attended by many inhabitants of the city. For the international guests, there was a prayer service in French in the Augustinian Church. The sessions took place in the Kloveniersdoelen, a large building of the civic guard. In the upper chamber – 10 x 20 meters including the fireplace – a special bench ensemble had been built by the city carpenter. The two galleries above the entrance to the hall, of which no picture exists, completed the auditorium. They too were furnished with benches with cushions and oil lamps.

3.3

Public Gallery

The kind of listeners who were welcome at this great synod were aptly described by a foreign delegate shortly after the opening as “people of honour and letters” (Fornerod: 2012, Annexe 32). Such a designation suggests that visitors with a different social or cultural profile, such as women and children, were rejected. On November 28, 1618, a “prophetess,” Anna Walker (c. 1567/74–1620), born in Denmark and who had lived in Germany and the Netherlands before moving to England, came to Dordrecht.5 She had already made contact with political and ecclesiastical authorities several times to inform them of her special revelations from the Holy Spirit. She submitted a petition to the Synod board and spoke with delegates outside the sessions about theological matters. Though her request has

5 See Beyer/Penman: 2011. The letter I found in the Dutch Old Synod Archives will be published in Donald Sinnema et al. (ed.), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619), vol. 2–1 (Göttingen, 2021), in press.

Communicating Calvinist Concord

fortunately been preserved, the Synod did not deal with it. We do not know if she was admitted to the gallery in the Synod chamber itself. A few days later, on December 1, 1618, a woman from the nobility, Princess Charlotte Brabantine of Nassau (1580–1631), attended a session (e.g. Hales: 1659, 16). She was a half-sister of Prince Maurice and the widow of Duke Claude of Trémoille (1566–1604) and had many contacts with French Huguenots and her interest in ecclesiastical matters was well known. Her visit to the Synod was noted by some Synod reporters as an honourable gesture. A few weeks later, some prominent Dutch women sat in the stands, who were suspected of simply being curious (Dwinglo: 1623, fol. 69re). Among them were the wife of Hugo van Muys van Holy (1565–1626), sheriff of Dordrecht and urban host of the Synod, two sisters of the knight Walraven van Brederode (1596–1620) who, like Muys van Holy, represented the States of Holland at the Synod, and the wife of Professor Daniel Heinsius, who acted as secretary for the political delegates. Since their visit on 21 December 1618, women were regularly spotted in the galleries. Dominant among the Synod visitors were undoubtedly the aforementioned “people of letters.” Knowledge of Latin was a practical prerequisite for being able to follow the deliberations because they were held in that lingua franca. Ministers were the most obvious group interested in the acts. Although certainly in the early days of the Reformed Church, laypeople were also admitted to the preaching ministry, by now most (younger) ministers had received an academic education. According to the initial plan of the States General, every minister was free to speak in the Synod, but not every minister made use of this opportunity. However, they were amply represented in the stands. Ministers from the city and the classis of Dordrecht were given explicit access to the Synod. Remonstrants were also present to witness with their own ears and eyes the crucial handling of their case. A category of Synod delegates who were assigned to the stands consisted of the delegates’ personal assistants, who mainly carried out writing tasks. In particular, the foreign delegates had brought several assistants with them. The Remonstrants who were cited before the Synod were also accompanied by students and friends. Casparus Barlaeus (1584–1648), professor and subregens of the States College in Leiden, sat in the stands from the first day on and advised the Remonstrants outside the sessions. John Hales (1584–1656), chaplain of the British Embassy in The Hague, kept notes in the gallery on behalf of the ambassador, Dudley Carleton (1573–1632). A young and ambitious amanuensis was Johann Heinrich Waser (1600–1669) from Zurich, who worked for the Swiss delegation. He was one of the first to record an album amicorum to collect signatures and sayings from as many Synod delegates as possible. Numerous delegates and other visitors followed his example. Most challenging was the interest of Roman Catholics. The quarrel among the Calvinists caused them some distress. The replacement of the old clergy by Reformed ministers had apparently led to great problems. Although the Roman Curia

59

60

Fred van Lieburg

now regarded the Northern Netherlands as a missionary area, the political and religious future of the Republic was still open. Local secular clergy and itinerant regular priests were active more or less in secret. In Dordrecht both Jesuits and Dominicans were spotted in the galleries of the synod hall (Fornerod: 2012, Annexe 23; Hales: 1659, 18). The city was not far from the Southern Netherlands – especially Ghent, Antwerp, Brussels and Leuven. Apart from political struggles and religious divisions, the revival of scholastic theology may have aroused interest in the debate between Calvinists and Arminians. Predestination was also a topic of interest among Roman Catholic theologians.

3.4

Unexpected Dynamics

Downstairs in the Synod chamber, the members paid close attention to who was sitting above in the galleries or standing at the back of the room. The board, in particular President Johannes Bogerman (1576–1637), could clearly see the back of the room from their seats at the table in front of the fireplace. Already two weeks after the start of the Synod, the mixed composition of the audience caused a great deal of concern. On December 3, 1618, Bogerman applied to the delegates of the States General with the question of what to do about the presence of Jesuits and others (Roelevink: 2015, 478). The politicians replied that they were allowed to stay. In making that decision, the government of the Republic emphatically confirmed open access to the National Synod. No reason was given, but they were apparently convinced of the importance of this aspect. This was a few days before the arrival of the thirteen Remonstrants who had been summoned. They appeared in the Synod chamber on December 6, 1618. Nobody foresaw that, immediately after the arrival of the Remonstrants, the public would play a crucial role in provoking an issue that thoroughly spoiled the atmosphere of the Synod. On Friday morning, December 7, 1618, Professor Simon Episcopius (1583–1643) gave an unsolicited speech. In terms of content, it was a frontal attack on the ecclesiastical assembly with the intention of winning the politicians and foreigners over to his side. Bogerman immediately asked him for the text, and Episcopius gave him a manuscript. Only at the end of the session did people in the galleries report to the president that they had seen that the copy the Remonstrant speaker had handed over was not the one he had read from. After an investigation by the political secretary Heinsius, the Synod adopted an accusation of deception against him. This was followed by unsavory discussions between Bogerman and Episcopius until the political delegates put an end to it (Roelevink: 2015, 479–480). The psychological warfare between Bogerman and Episcopius developed literally and figuratively into a field of tension between the Synod, the Remonstrants and the

Communicating Calvinist Concord

audience in the Kloveniersdoelen. Episcopius’ speech – both its sharp content and the incident surrounding the text – also caused unrest among the city’s inhabitants, which was fueled by the city pastors. On Sunday, December 9, 1618, some preachers in the pulpit fiercely opposed the doctrine and behavior of the Arminians (Dwinglo: 1623, 30vo and 31re). The city council even issued a placard to keep the agitation in the city under control. Sheriff Hugo Muys of Holy, also a political delegate at the Synod as indicated above, gave orders to the doorkeepers of the galleries to keep an eye on Remonstrant visitors. Some ministers who came from elsewhere to watch and listen were removed from the benches and took counter-Remonstrant colleagues with them. Negotiations between the Synod and the defendant Remonstrants were extremely difficult. Because of the procedural delaying tactics of the Remonstrants, it was not possible to discuss the content of the controversial positions. Partly under pressure from the political delegates, the Synod leaders tried many times to achieve this goal anyway. During yet another stalemate on December 28, 1618, President Bogerman was frank about his quandary regarding the persistent Remonstrants. He argued that, if they kept them there, they would remain an obstacle to the proceedings; if they were released, however, the Synod would lose credibility among the people (Hales: 1659, 52). The same dilemma was at the center of a lengthy discussion in the States General on December 31, 1618, and January 1, 1619 (Smit: 1975, 598–599; Smit and Roelevink: 1981, 4–5). It was not for nothing that the two stadholders, Maurice and his cousin William Louis of Nassau-Dietz (1560–1620), were present at this crisis meeting at the Binnenhof in The Hague. The highest political and military authorities in the Republic allowed the National Synod the freedom to send the summoned Remonstrants away and to judge their doctrine on the basis of their writings. The risk of a negative reaction in public opinion increased. Nevertheless, the Remonstrants were given another chance to cooperate in the Synod that week and to consult with the political delegates. The failure here led to the notorious removal of the Remonstrants from the Synod chamber in front of a full public gallery on Monday morning, January 14, 1619 (Van Lieburg: 2018). The emotional way in which President Bogerman did this, without first drawing up a statement endorsed by all delegates, did not do the image of the Synod any good. It was not the story about the recalcitrant Remonstrants that spread like wildfire throughout the Netherlands but that of the intolerant theologians. The angry Bogerman became the negative face of the Synod of Dordt.

3.5

Controlled Publicity

The escalation of the process in the Synod only gave new impetus to the international interest in the actions and tourism to Dordrecht. The political and ecclesiastical

61

62

Fred van Lieburg

leaders realised that the authority of the Synod had to be restored in a fragile relationship with the public. On January 16, 1619, a closed session discussed the question of whether listeners would still be admitted to the further discussion of Arminian doctrines. Some members of the Synod were strongly opposed to the disturbing presence of all kinds of undesirables. Closing the galleries, however, seemed too risky a measure. The question ended in a compromise. There would be private sessions in the morning for discussions among the Synod delegates. The afternoons remained free for public readings by doctors and professors on the controversial theological themes (cf. Hales: 1659, 68). From 17 January 1619 on, listeners were only allowed to attend these lectures, which were held approximately twice a week until March 20, 1619. They had the character of an academic oration or an ecclesiastical sermon. Synod tourism soon declined, to the chagrin of innkeepers and wine merchants in the city, and they complained to the synod leaders about declining clientele. The authorities appeared to be willing to make an additional compromise. From February 1, 1619 on, everyone was allowed to enter at the beginning of the morning sessions and stay in the room until the opening prayer by the president. Bernardus Dwinglo (1582–1652), one of the Remonstrant ministers sent away, remarked that the synod thus turned into a kind of theatre for silly spectators (Dwinglo: 1622, I:63–64). He found it insulting to the many people who came to Dordrecht to be taught and guided by words and not by the faces and clothing of vain theologians who demonstrated their power and glory by sitting in their benches. Within the Synod, the question of publicness was put back on the agenda on March 6, 1619, when a start was made on reading the decisions of all nineteen delegations on the five articles of the Remonstrants. President Bogerman had decided to do this after consulting with the assessors, but the British delegation immediately protested. Their spokesman John Davenant (1576–1641) wanted the opinions of foreign theologians in particular, especially the Remonstrants, to be heard in full. He also foresaw that some points of view would not be included in the final conclusions of the Synod, in which the Dutch ecclesiastical delegates had the majority. During a suspension of the session, the political delegates decided that no listeners would be allowed to read out the judgments. Otherwise, critics in the galleries could prematurely bring the dogmatic considerations into the public domain. The Synod delegations agreed with this cautious course (Hales: 1659, 17–18). The Canons of the Synod – the Five Articles against the Remonstrants – were drawn up by a small committee over a period of three weeks (March 28 -April 16, 1619) and finally approved by the entire Synod (April 17–23, 1619). After that, another two weeks were needed for the elaboration of a prologue and for additional statements about the Confession, Catechism and the opinions of Conradus Vorstius (1569–1622). In the meantime, supervision of public communication about the

Communicating Calvinist Concord

Synod results had been completely taken over by politicians. On March 28, 1619, the States General prescribed – for the first time in a printed pamphlet – a general day of fasting and prayer, in which the condemnation of the Remonstrants was dubiously anticipated (Smit/Roelevink: 1981, 82; Kist: 1848–1849, I:183–187 and II:113–116). On the same day, the political delegates at the Synod decided that the canons would be read to the people with the doors of the church open – thus in public (Roelevink: 2015, 498). This was followed by a consultation in The Hague, on April 26 and 27, 1619, of the delegates with the States General and the two stadholders about this public celebration of the Calvinistic victory in the United Provinces (Smit/Roelevink: 1981, 108–109). The public presentation took place on Monday morning, May 6, 1619, in the Great Church in Dordrecht (among many other accounts, see Dwinglo: 1623, 212re). The May market was being held here, so many people from the city and region were already in the city. But many guests from the country had also come to Dordrecht. Maurice and William Louis were not there, but the son and intended successor of the latter, Count Ernest Casimir of Nassau-Siegen (1573–1632) and his wife SophieHedwig Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel (1592–1642) were. In addition, diplomats, nobles, ministers and many ordinary citizens attended the meeting. The city council took part in the procession of the Synod members from the Kloveniersdoelen to the Great Church and back. Later that week, on Ascension Day, May 9, 1619, the Synod was officially closed in a public session and the participants were offered a grand farewell dinner (Dwinglo: 1623, 213re–215vo). The Dutch delegates met for another two weeks on internal church matters, after which, on Wednesday morning, May 29, 1619, another public, well-attended service took place in the Great Church to close the entire Dordrecht ecclesiastical assembly (Dwinglo: 1623, 218re-vo).

3.6

Indomitable Press

The oral dimension of the Dordrecht Synod as a pubic event is inseparable from its written dimension. It was precisely in the 1610s that the Dutch book market experienced enormous growth (Pettegree/Der Weduwen: 2019). As in other countries, there was no freedom of the press in the Republic, but the decentralized organization of the state and the free commercial spirit made it difficult to maintain censorship of political or ecclesiastical books. The discussions about peace with Spain and the strife within the Reformed Church resulted in numerous polemical publications. In 1615, the States General issued yet another placard against “licentious book printing.” However, this did not stop the stream of pamphlets, songs and cartoons the Arminians and Gomarists bombarded each other with. Never before had the power of the printed word been so great in public space as it was during the

63

64

Fred van Lieburg

Twelve Years’ Truce. The government feared sedition by the people and derailment into violence through the spread of arguments for and against and fake news. In 1618, the first newspapers appeared in the Netherlands, published by former reporters in Maurice’s army (Der Weduwen: 2017). Between reports on international politics, they also published reports about the Synod in Dordrecht. Hardly had the Synod begun before the first prints and lists of participants appeared in print. Geelkercken was first, but others soon followed his example, even a Roman Catholic bookseller in Antwerp (Naem-register: 1619). Of course, negative publicity was also to be expected. On November 29, 1618, there was a rumour going around in Dordrecht of a certain Jesuit book deriding the Synod that had been published (Hales: 1659, 11–12). President Bogerman raised the subject in the context of various aspects of the confessional state. The foreign delegations explained in detail how book censorship was regulated in their country. On the advice of the Synod, on December 18, 1618, the political delegates sent a request to the States General to take preventive measures. Four days later, a new placard against the printing of unauthorized books indeed appeared. It was precisely in those days that the public gallery of the Synod was visited by Willem Berends, a bookseller from Kampen (Roelevink: 2015, 481–483). He was recognized as a suspect in the publication of the Remonstrant-inclined Tafereel, in which the theory of predestination was even compared to texts from the Qur’an. The sheriff of Dordrecht, Hugo Muys van Holy, had him arrested and interrogated. In his bag they found about a hundred copies of another pamphlet that he wanted to sell in the city. This case illustrated how difficult it was to control the book market. Even the Remonstrants kept in touch from their lodgings with correspondents and book printers. In the spring, a “blue booklet” circulated with a list of 53 points of criticism of the Synod, and a Dutch translation of the previously submitted defense of the Remonstrants against their removal from the Synod also appeared in print. The political delegates investigated the translator and printer in vain (Dwinglo: 1619; cf. Hales: 1659, 15 and 21). As with the proclamation of the Canons, the counterattack was the best defense against negative media attention. The verdict of the Synod, together with the verdict on the political prisoners, marked the completion of the coup d’état or state reform. Exactly one week after the presentation of the Canons in the city church in Dordrecht, Oldenbarnevelt was beheaded at the Binnenhof in The Hague. Thousands of people, including some synod members, witnessed this drama on Monday morning, May 13, 1619. A day later, the States General arranged for the decisions of both the Synod and the court to be printed in Dutch, Latin and French (Smit/Roelevink: 1981, 124). Subsequently, the recent placard about book censorship was issued in sharpened form to prevent any trade in Remonstrant writings (Smit/Roelevink: 1981, 126–127). In the meantime, one of the publishers of newspa-

Communicating Calvinist Concord

pers and newsletters provided an eyewitness account of Oldenbarnevelt’s execution (Verhael: 1619). Apparently, an international publishing offensive was part of the restoration efforts of the new Dutch gouverners. Friend and foe had to know that the political, religious and military order in the Republic had been reestablished. Prince Maurice even sent his messenger to Dordrecht on May 27, 1619, to urge one of the book printers to speed up the printing process (Smit: 1979, 148). It was not until July 5, 1619, that the synodal canons were ratified by all Provincial States. In the preceding days, the States General had also issued placards about the banishment of the Remonstrants and the banning of Arminian meetings (Smit/Roelevink: 1981, 168–172). In the second half of July 1619, the various central texts were published in large editions and in various languages – in the midst of the inevitable and more popular pamphlets and prints (Oordeel: 1619; Iudicium: 1619; Jugement: 1619). The composition of the Acta Synodi was more thorough. The Latin version was presented to the States General on April 2, 1620 (Acta Synodi: 1620; Smit/Roelevink: 1981, 415, note 2842a). A Dutch translation followed later, as well as corrective and complementary works by Remonstrants (Acta ofte handelinghen: 1621; Acta et Scripta: 1620; Dwinglo: 1622; Dwinglo: 1623).

3.7

Conclusion

We may conclude that the Synod of Dordt was an important episode not only in political and ecclesiastical history but also in the history of communication. Apart from the role of printed media on a large scale, the involvement of the general public was remarkably high. From a long-term historical perspective, this aspect is at least as relevant as, for example, the increasing attention to the human subject in the theological reconstruction of God’s plan of salvation or the growing democratic content of the Calvinist order of church and state. The religious conflict in the Dutch Republic at the time of the Twelve Years’ Truce can be seen as one of the cyclical constellations that – in line with Jürgen Habermas’ theory – preceded the Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit at the time of the Enlightenment.6 The Synod of Dordt was a specific manifestation of such an early modern communicative space and as such an intriguing moment in a joint learning process of government and people about the role of new media in public opinion. In general, the cultural universe of the Synod of Dordt was thoroughly traditional. The supernatural frame of reference clearly functioned with the appearance of a

6 See about these temporarily, and conjunctural, public spheres in early modern Europe: Briggs/Burke: 2005, 62–86.

65

66

Fred van Lieburg

comet during the first weeks of the Synod (Jorink: 2010). Scholars and believers guessed at the actual message of the celestial sign, but also warned against all too human interpretations in favor of some religious interest. Divine providence and political policy were in the same vulnerable relationship because of the daring coup that had to be brought to a successful conclusion through the Synod. The government greatly benefited from popular support for the radical reorganisation of the still young reformed state and church. This explains both the initial emphasis on the publicness of the Synod and the patience with the Remonstrants and the later curtailment of that publicness and the resolute condemnation of the disrupters of church and state. The organisation of a public closing meeting of the Synod and the involvement of the printing press in the publication of the decisions illustrated a new proactivity in the government’s pursuit of social peace. Finally, the dynamics of the Synod of Dordt as a public event can also be represented visually. As we saw at the beginning, Nicolaus Geelkercken produced an image of the meeting room with the delegates in their benches immediately after the opening of the Synod. A rival artist, François Schillemans (1575–1630), published his own drawing in that same month. He was the first to depict spectators in the foreground of his drawing, behind the fence in the synod hall, all men, young and old, even accompanied by a dog. Since Schillemans managed to acquire a patent from States General, his drawing appeared on the commemorative medal that was brought into circulation by the mint in Dordrecht (Smit: 1975, 571; Smit/Roelevink: 1981, 18). But after the synod, the city council commissioned the painter Pouwels de Weyts (c.1590–1629) to immortalize the local event on a large canvas (Briels: 1987). This led to a beautiful depiction of the Synod in color, with the same setting of delegates and spectators as in Schillemans’s drawing, now enriched with four women. The galleries, however, remained invisible, left to the imagination of posterity.

Bibliography Acta ofte Handelinghen des Nationalen Synodi … ghehouden … tot Dordrecht, anno 1618. ende 1619 (1621), Dordrecht: Canin. Acta et Scripta Nationalia Dordracena Ministrorium Remonstrantium in Foederato Belgio (1620), s.l. Acta Synodi Nationalis in nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi … Dordrechti habitae (1620), Dordrecht: Canin. Afbeeldinghe Des Synodi Nationael, met de sidtplaetsen der E.E. Hooch M.H.H. Staten Generael, als in heemsche ende uytheemsche professoren ende predicanten, gehouden binnen Dordrecht an. 1618 (1618), Leiden: Niclaes Geelkerck.

Communicating Calvinist Concord

Beyer, Jürgen/Leigh T.I. Penman (2011), The Petitions of “a Supposed Prophetesse.” The Lübeck Letters of Anna Walker and Their Significance for the Synod of Dordt. A Linguistic and Contextual Analysis, in: Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (ed.), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), Leiden: Brill. Briels, Jan (1987), Peintres flamands en Hollande au début du siècle d’or, 1585–1630, Paris: Albin Michel/Anvers: Fonds Mercator. Briggs, Asa/Peter Burke (2005), A social history of the media: From Gutenberg to the Internet, Cambridge: Polity. Der Weduwen, Arthur (2017), Dutch and Flemish newspapers of the Seventeenth Century, 1618–1700, 2 vol., Leiden: Brill. [Dwinglo, Bernard] [1619], Nulliteyten, mishandelinghen ende onbillijcke proceduren des Nationalen Synodi ghehouden binnen Dordrecht Anno 1618, 1619, s.l. [Dwinglo, Bernard] (1622), Grouwel der verwoestinghe staende in de heylighe plaetse, 2 vol., Enkhuizen: s.n. [Dwinglo, Bernard]. (1623), Historisch verhael van’t ghene sich toeghedraeghen heeft binnen Dordrecht, in de Jaeren 1618 ende 1619, s.l. Fornerod, Nicholas (ed.) (2012), Registres de la Compagnie des pasteurs de Genève. Tome 14. et dernier, Le synode de Dordrecht 1618–1619, Genève: Droz. Hales, John (1659), Golden Remains, London: T. Garthwait. Iudicium Synodi Nationalis Reformatarum Ecclesiarrum Belgicarum, habitae Dordrechti, (1619) s.l. Jorink, Eric (2010), Reading the book of nature in the Dutch Golden Age, 1575–1715, Leiden: Brill. Jugement du Synode National, des Eglises Reformees du Pays-Bas (1619), tenu a Dordrecht, Dordrecht: Canin. Kist, N.C. (1848–1849), Neêrlands bededagen en biddagsbrieven, 2 vol., Leiden: Luchtmans. Naem-Register van alle de ghecommitteerde, so politijcke als kerckelijcke, opt Nationael Synode van de Nederlantsche gepretendeerde Ghereformeerde Kercke, d’welcke ghehouden wordt binnen der Stede van Dordrecht int jaer 1618 (1619), Antwerpen: Abraham Verhoeven. Oordeel des Synodi Nationalis der Gereformeerde kercken van de Vereenichde Nederlanden (1619), Dordrecht: Canin. Pettegree, Andrew/Arthur der Weduwen (2019), The bookshop of the world: making and trading books in the Dutch Golden Age. New Haven: Yale University Press. Roelevink, Johanna (2015), Acts of the Delegates of the States General, in: Donald Sinnema et al. (ed.), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619), vol. 1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Smit, J.G. (1979), Prins Maurits en de goede zaak. Brieven van Maurits uit de jaren 1617–1619, in: Nederlandse Historische Bronnen, vol. I, The Hague: Nijhoff. Smit, J.G. (ed.) (1975), Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal, Nieuwe Reeks 1610–1670, Derde deel 1617–1618, The Hague: Nijhoff.

67

68

Fred van Lieburg

Smit, J.G., and J. Roelevink (ed.) (1981), Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal, Nieuwe Reeks 1610–1670, Vierde deel 1619–1620, The Hague: Nijhoff. Verhael vanden Doodt des Advocaets van Hollandt, Iohan van Olden-Barnevelt, hoe hy op den 13. mey 1619. inden Haghe onthooft is, alsoo ick’t selve ghesien hebbe (1619), Amsterdam: Broer Jans. Van Eijnatten, Joris/Fred van Lieburg (2021), Dutch Religious History, Leiden: Brill. Van Lieburg, Fred (2014), Re-understanding the Dordt Church Order in Its Dutch Political, Ecclesiastical and Cultural Context (1559–1816), in: Allan J. Janssen & Leo J. Koffeman (ed.), Protestant Church Polity in Changing Contexts, Berlin: LIT Verlag. Van Lieburg, Fred (2018), Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile. The Acta Synodi Behind the Scenes and the Role of Emotions in the History of Theology, in: Frank van der Pol (ed.), The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective: Historical and Theological Investigations of the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Van Lieburg, Fred (2019), Synodestad: Dordrecht 1618–1619. Amsterdam: Prometheus.

Ole Peter Grell

4.

The Dutch communities in England and the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619

Abstract In June 1618 the Dutch Reformed Churches in England had no doubt that they would be invited to send delegates to the forthcoming National Synod in Dordt. They proceeded to select three prominent delegates. That eventually no invitation materialised proved deeply disappointing to the leaders of the Anglo-Dutch communities who considered themselves to be the mother church of the Dutch Reformed Church. They had after all provided important financial, military and religious support for the Dutch Revolt. However, the history of the previous National Synods of the Dutch Reformed Church in the sixteenth century might have reminded them that these events were never straight forward for the Anglo-Dutch churches. The issue of conflicting authority made participation in, and adherence to decrees issued by the National Synods, difficult and sometimes impossible. After all, the Anglo-Dutch churches owed their existence to the English government and self-preservation forced them not to participate in or accept decrees of the National Synods without the consent of the English government. That King James I let it be known in 1618 that he would not accept official representation by the Anglo-Dutch churches guaranteed that no invitation was issued, despite the strong Counter-Remonstrant position of the churches and the friendships between their leading ministers and prominent Dutch Calvinists such as Festus Hommius and Franciscus Gomarus. Consequently, the Anglo-Dutch churches were only represented in Dordt by a single observer, Carolus Liebaert, whose presence was quietly ignored, even if subsequently efforts were made to gloss this over by the Synod.

4.1

Introduction

When the National Synod of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands was announced in 1618 the Dutch Reformed churches in England fully expected to receive an invitation to dispatch a number of delegates. After all, the influential London Church was considered to be the mother-church of the Dutch Reformed Church.

70

Ole Peter Grell

The importance of the foundation of the London Dutch Church in 1550 for members of the Reformed faith in the Netherlands, who could then only gather in persecuted communities under the cross, had proved paramount. This had been the first time Dutch-speaking evangelicals had been able to establish their own church free of persecution.1 As such the Anglo-Dutch communities became model churches for their Dutch brethren across the sea. Two churches, one Dutch and one Walloon were established in London under their own superintendent, the Polish reformer Johannes a Lasco. This had been encouraged by leading figures within the English government and the Church of England who wanted to carry the English Reformation further. Prominent leaders such as Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop John Hooper considered the exiled, Reformed communities beneficial examples for the English church both in terms of theology and discipline, while simultaneously serving as a shield against the spread of Anabaptism. In other words, these churches served not only as a practical ideal and example for the Reformed communities in the Netherlands, they also provided a matrix for those Englishmen who wanted to carry the reformation of the Church of England further. The accession of the Catholic, Queen Mary (1553–59), meant that the existence of the foreign Reformed Churches proved short-lived in the first instance, and that most of their members sought sanctuary on the continent. Six years later in 1559, however, the accession of Elizabeth offered the foreign communities an opportunity for re-founding their churches in London (Grell: 1996, 1). After fairly protracted negotiations with the English government the Dutch and Walloon communities were allowed to re-establish themselves with their own church discipline, but this time under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London. That this in the first instance, turned out to be Edmund Grindal, who admired their congregations, having himself spent years in exile under Mary within continental Reformed communities, undoubtedly made the restrictions easier to accept for the Dutch and Walloons. Importantly, however, the attraction of the Reformed exiles to the English government no longer proved their religion and discipline, but rather the potential for economic growth their communities of highly skilled craftsmen and wealthy merchants offered. Their re-settlement was expected to transfer important skills and capital, which would prove beneficial to the English economy. But whereas the Dutch church in London had served as an example to follow by the leaders of the Church of England at its foundation in 1550, at its re-foundation it became a beacon for the Puritan opposition inside and outside the Church of England during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Thus, the separatist

1 For the early Reformation in the Netherlands, see Duke: 1990; for the development of early Reformed, Dutch Protestantism, see Pettegree: 1992.

The Dutch communities in England and the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619

minister Henry Jacob saw the Dutch and French congregations as models for how separatist communities could be allowed to exist in England (Grell: 1996, 55–56). Likewise, the Anglo-Dutch churches admired many of the Puritan undertakings within and without the Church of England. Several of their ministers attended Puritan ‘academies’ which provided training for future ministers. The minister to the Dutch community in Colchester, Jonas Proost, who was among the delegates chosen by the Anglo-Dutch churches to represent them at the Synod of Dordt in 1618, had attended Richard Blakerby’s seminar. Wilhelm Thilenius, who was elected minister to the London Dutch community in 1624 had attended Thomas Gataker’s ‘academy’ in Surrey (Grell: 1989, 58–59). Not surprisingly, the anti-Calvinists within the Church of England took a less favourable view of the foreign Reformed churches. In 1610, the proto-Arminian controversialist, David Owen, chaplain to Sir John Ramsey, Viscount Haddington, published a pamphlet, Herod and Pilate reconciled: or The concord of papist and puritan (against Scripture, fathers, councels, and other orthodoxall writers) for the coercion, deposition, and killing of kings, where he implicated the Dutch Church in London with those he labelled ‘Modern Puritans’, claiming that both were dangerous to Crown and Church. The pamphlet alarmed the leaders of the London Dutch community who vigorously denied the accusations and complained to the then Bishop of London, George Abbot (Owen: 1610; Grell: 1989, 5 note 11). Interestingly, this work was translated into Dutch by the Remonstrant leader Johannes Wtenbogaert on the request of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt only a couple of years later, according to the frontispiece of the published Dutch version from 1660. Evidently, Oldenbarnevelt and Wtenbogaert were already then gathering all the support they could find for their Arminian views while lobbying sympathetic clergy within the Church of England for support for their cause (Owen: 1660).

4.2

Migration and Inter-Traffic between the Netherlands and England

The economic rationale, which after some hesitation had convinced Queen Elizabeth and her chief minister William Cecil, that the re-settlement of the foreign Reformed churches in London would prove beneficial to the country, came to provide the basis for a close cooperation between the leaders of the Reformed communities in London and the English government over the next decade. Together they established new Reformed churches for Dutch and Walloon refugees from the Netherlands throughout the 1560s. The new churches were founded within the urban communities in south-east England which had witnessed economic stagnation and demographic decline during the sixteenth century and which were keen to receive an injection of highly skilled craftsmen and merchants who could help reinvigorate the local economy. At the same time establishing new Dutch and

71

72

Ole Peter Grell

Walloon communities in the provinces served to take the demographic pressure from mass-emigration off London. Thus, the Dutch Church in London was instrumental in setting up new churches in Sandwich (1561), and Maidstone (1567), and undoubtedly assisted in the creation of Reformed Dutch and Walloon communities in Norwich (1565) and Colchester (1568–69). Of the more than 100.000 thousand people who fled the Netherlands in the period 1567–1590 around 10.000 settled in London while a further 10.000 settled in the English provinces. It should be emphasised that the immigrant population fluctuated widely in this period and may well have declined during the 1590s when the economic and political fortune of the United Provinces improved dramatically (Grell: 1996, 1–6). By then some of the smaller provincial Dutch churches, such as those in Yarmouth and Dover were close to collapse and relied on financial support from the London Dutch community (Pettegree: 1986, 256). By the early seventeenth century the immigrant population of Dutch and Walloons in England had stabilised, and while fewer refugees arrived a greater number of the immigrants already settled took up membership of the foreign Reformed churches, not least because the churches by then dealt with social and economic matters negotiating with local and central governments. Even so, it is important to note that for those Reformed immigrants who made England their permanent home, many, especially within the merchant elite who dominated these refugee churches towards the end of the sixteenth century, retained close family contacts and business interests in the Netherlands. Post 1585 and the fall of Antwerp the focus of these contacts shifted away from the cities of the southern Netherlands, which by then seemed irrevocably lost to the Spaniards, and from where most of the Dutch and Walloon exiles originated, to the province of Zeeland and the city of Middelburg in particular. Not surprising when born in mind that this proved popular as a new place of residence for many of the refugees from Brabant and Flanders.2

4.3

Financial, Military and Religious Support for the Dutch Revolt

The refugee Dutch and Walloon communities in England, especially the wealthy London Churches provided considerable support for the Dutch Revolt from 1566 onwards. Thus, when the Sea Beggars landed in Flushing in April 1572 the Dutch Churches in England quickly raised 500 troops, while the London community alone provided £500 to buy arms. Support for individual towns such as Flushing was also

2 Grell: 1989, 27, 55. See also Pettegree: 1990, 297–312, and Esser: 1995, 139–52. See also the University of Kent PhD 2017 by Muylaert (2017, 629–43).

The Dutch communities in England and the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619

considerable, no less than £1400 was raised and used to equip 200 soldiers while some of the wealthier members of the London community fitted out fifty soldiers from their own pockets (Pettegree: 1986, 253–54). Similarly, the London communities took the lead in supplying ministers to the many new Reformed churches in the Netherlands which were established in the early 1570s as a result of the success of the Revolt. Even some of their own ministers left to serve the new churches such as Bartholdus Wilhelmi and Godfried van Winghen, as did some of their elders such as Jan Lamoot and Peter Carpenter. By 1577 the London church felt it necessary to point out to the Antwerp minister Jean Taffin that they could not continue supplying ministers for the new Reformed churches in the Netherlands without putting the stability and continuation of their own church in danger. A year earlier, in 1576, the Dutch church in London had created a fund providing bursaries for the education of students who wanted to achieve the necessary qualifications to become ministers to make sure that they had a steady supply of qualified candidates. Most of these students came to serve the communities in England, but throughout the 1580s many also served in the newly established, Reformed churches in the Netherlands (Grell: 1989, 120–28; Boersma: 1994, 212–20).

4.4

The Anglo-Dutch Communities and the National Synods of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Sixteenth Century

Bearing in mind the significance of the Dutch Reformed Church in London for the establishment of Reformed churches in the Netherlands it is surprising that the preparations for the first National Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church which began in 1569 did not involve the London community. Undoubtedly the London church had seen its reputation damaged after a recent and protracted internal strife. A bitter dispute had arisen in 1560 around the theology of the controversial minister Adriaan van Haemstede who had argued for a tolerant approach to Anabaptists. This politically highly charged issue eventually led not only to van Haemstede’s excommunication, but also to that of a number of his prominent supporters within the church. Haemstede was excommunicated on 14 November 1560 by the Bishop of London, Edmund Grindal, after the Dutch Church in London reluctantly had referred his case to the Bishop. Many of van Haemstede’s supporters refused to recant and were eventually excommunicated in April 1561 after protracted negotiations. The divisions this incidence caused within the London Dutch community lingered on throughout the 1560s (Pettegree: 1986, 164–81). The first National Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church took place in 1571 in order that points of doctrine and discipline could be settled. It aimed to establish a more uniform worship among the exiled churches in Germany and England and the

73

74

Ole Peter Grell

communities in the Netherlands. The refugee churches in England were regarded as a separate province of the Dutch Reformed Church. They were invited to elect their delegates to attend the meeting of this first General Synod to meet in Emden. Subsequently representatives of the Dutch and Walloon churches in England met in London where they elected the two experienced London ministers, Godfrey van Winghen from the London Dutch Church and his colleague Jean Cousin from the Walloon/French Church in the City, to represent them. However, they never attended the Synod having been forbidden to participate by the Elizabethan government. In March the following year the London Dutch Church informed their sister community in Emden that in future it would not be possible for the refugee churches in England to take part in such synods. They were not even sure that their communities would be allowed to formally meet to discuss confessional and disciplinary issues in England. The meeting of the exiled churches which had been called to subscribe to the decrees of the Synod of Emden had evidently displeased the English authorities on whose goodwill the communities depended; simultaneously their application for permission to establish a Classis in accordance with the decree of the National Synod of Emden was rejected (Pettegree: 1986, 269; Boersma: 1994, 197–205). When in 1575 the Anglo-Dutch communities finally decided to hold triennial meetings they cautiously labelled them Colloquia rather than Classis, the more formal Reformed term for such a gathering. Evidently the fact that the proposal for a Classis had displeased the Elizabethan government in 1571 had not been lost on the leaders of the Anglo-Dutch churches. Attendance at, as well as adherence to the decrees issued by the National Synods of the Dutch Reformed Church continued to pose a problem of conflicting authority for the Dutch communities in England. The exiled churches owed their existence to the English government; they acknowledged, that if conflict arose self-preservation would force them to obey the English government and to disregard the Synods (Grell: 1996, 58). This was recognised by the subsequent National Synod meeting in Dordt in 1578, which accepted that synodal decrees could not be implemented among the Dutch Churches in England without the consent of the English authorities. The Dutch congregations in England were once more invited to send their representatives to the next National Synod which met in Dordt in 1578. They elected the minister to the community in Sandwich, Isebrand Trabius, and the elder and trainee-minister to the Dutch Church in London, Johannes van Roo, who both attended the Synod. This time round the English government did not object to the Anglo-Dutch Churches being represented. This change of position may well have been due to the fact that the English government had by then become increasingly involved in the Dutch Revolt. When Trabius and van Roo made a report to a special gathering of the Anglo-Dutch Colloquium in September 1578 about the decrees of the National Synod, it was decided to stick with the earlier decision of the Collo-

The Dutch communities in England and the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619

quium not to implement anything decided by the Synod unless it had subsequently been authorised by their superintendent, the Bishop of London (Grell: 1989, 32; Toorenenbergen: 1872, 47–49). Once again in 1581 the Anglo-Dutch churches were encouraged to send a couple of representatives to the forthcoming National Synod in Middelburg. The colloquium decided that a minister from the London community accompanied by either an elder or the minister of the Sandwich community should represent them. They are likely to have been Johannes van Roo, by then a fully qualified minister to the London community and the minister to the Sandwich community Johannes Soillot. The delegates provided their colleagues with a detailed report of the events and decrees of the Synod at a specially convened meeting in London that August (Toorenenbergen: 1872, 59–67). Surprisingly the Colloquium of the Anglo-Dutch Churches did not send representatives to the last National Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in the sixteenth century. They decided not to participate in the National Synod in The Hague in 1586, because of what they described as a ‘peculiar danger’ (Grell: 1989, 32; Toorenenbergen: 1873, 124). This may well have been a reference to the growing conflict between church and state in the Netherlands about the right to control doctrine and church appointments and the fact that the recently arrived Earl of Leicester was the actual convenor of the National Synod of The Hague (Israel: 1995, 220–21 and 370). Thus, of the four National Synods of the Dutch Reformed Church in the sixteenth century, the Anglo-Dutch communities only attended two. They were prevented from attending the first in 1571 by the Elizabethan government and chose not to take part in the last in The Hague in 1586 for unknown reasons, but may have found participation on that occasion too politically sensitive. From the instructions issued to the delegates from the Anglo-Dutch communities for the two Synods they attended, it would appear that they were fairly open forums for discussions about how to create uniformity in discipline and doctrine within the Dutch Reformed Church. The representatives of the Anglo-Dutch Churches at Dordt in 1578 were even tasked with exploring the possibility of formally introducing the position of superintendent within the Dutch Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Toorenenbergen: 1872, 59–60; Boersma: 1994, 209). These Synods differed in both spirit and approach to the National Synod of Dordt in 1618–1619, the only National Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church to be held in the seventeenth century, which met with the overriding objective of condemning the Arminians or Remonstrants and having them expelled from the Reformed Church. Perhaps there were antecedents to the Synod of Dordt in the National Synod of The Hague in 1586 where a hardline Calvinist church order was drawn up, seeking to remove the influence of town councils in the affairs of the church while at the same time strengthening the role of the State in the public church. It proved divisive and was rejected by most

75

76

Ole Peter Grell

towns in Holland even if accepted by Amsterdam, Dordt and Enkhuizen (Israel: 1995, 370–72).

4.5

The National Synod of Dordt 1618–1619

For the Anglo-Dutch Churches the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619 came to differ in one important aspect from its predecessors. It proved to be the first National Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church for which they were not invited to send delegates. This was unexpected and the triennial Colloquium of the Anglo-Dutch Churches which met on 5 June 1618 evidently had no doubt that it would be invited to send delegates, and accordingly proceeded to elect no less than three representatives, namely the prominent London minister, Simon Ruytinck, Jonas Proost, minister to the congregation in Colchester, and Carolus Liebaert, a minister who served the London community as an elder (Toorenenbergen: 1872, 237–40). Bearing in mind the close links that existed between the leaders of the Anglo-Dutch communities and leading Counter-Remonstrants such as Franciscus Gomarus and Festus Hommius it is surprising that the Anglo-Dutch Colloquium appears to have been oblivious to the political machinations behind the National Synod. At the beginning of June 1618, they clearly had no doubt that an invitation would be issued to send their delegates to the Synod. Festus Hommius had dedicated his work: De Jesu Christo servatore libri IV contra Faustum Socinum, written in opposition to the appointment of the pro-Remonstrant professor of theology at the University of Leiden, Conrad Vorstius, to the Dutch Church in London in 1611 (Hommius: 1611; Lindeboom:1950, 94). Franciscus Gomarus was a regular correspondent of the London minister Simon Ruytinck, who had studied at the University of Leiden, as was the Leiden minister, Festus Hommius. The London consistory boarded a number of their students with Gomarus, while he was professor at the University of Leiden, and made sure that all their students were tutored by staunch Calvinists in Leiden. Likewise, the London consistory regularly sought the advice of both Hommius and Gomarus when ministerial vacancies occurred within their congregation (Grell: 1989, 53–60 and 135–48; Grell: 1996, 109–10). Franciscus Gomarus in particular was well acquainted with England and the religious situation there. He had studied in England from 1582 to 1584 where he had attended the lectures of the two Calvinist churchmen, John Reynolds in Oxford and William Whitaker in Cambridge, finally graduating from Cambridge. Gomarus’s English was evidently good enough for him to occasionally preach to the English Reformed congregation in Leiden (Sprunger: 1982, 125 and 362). Links between the leading Counter-Remonstrants and the leaders of the Anglo-Dutch Churches could hardly have been closer. So, what happened between early June

The Dutch communities in England and the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619

when the Anglo-Dutch Colloquium met, and when the invitations to the Synod of Dordt were finally issued, and they found themselves excluded? The fact that the Synod was being promoted and controlled by the States General with the encouragement and support of James I of England may well explain why an invitation to send delegates failed to materialise. The political implications of the Synod were in many respects greater than the theological, which would have served to rule out official participation of the Anglo-Dutch communities, who, as far as James I was concerned, fell under the jurisdiction of their local English bishops. Furthermore, the presence of official delegates from the Church of England could be seen to obviate the presence of other delegates from England; and finally, James I, always alert to the issue of conflicting authority, let it be known that he would be dis-inclined to allow the Anglo-Dutch communities to send delegates to the Synod (Sprunger: 1982, 94; Grell: 1989, 32–33).

4.6

Festus Hommius’s Letters to Simon Ruytinck

This clearly embarrassed leading Counter-Remonstrant theologians such as Festus Hommius, Secretary to the Synod, who was heavily involved with its organisation and a friend of the Dutch churches in England. He felt obliged to write two letters during the summer and early autumn of 1618 to his friend and colleague in London, Simon Ruytinck, seeking to offer some sort of explanation and excuse. Hommius claimed in his first letter, that he had repeatedly put pressure on the States General to have an invitation issued to the Anglo-Dutch Churches to send delegates, but had been told that no one had thought about it, whereby the whole thing had been left too late. Furthermore, it had been pointed out to him that if the Anglo-Dutch communities were to be represented so did the German-Dutch; and since the latter where unable to attend it had been decided not to invite the Anglo-Dutch communities. Having offered this far from convincing explanation Hommius then went on to inform Ruytinck that if they still wanted to attend the Synod, they should contact him, and he would then approach the States General on their behalf. In this second letter to Simon Ruytinck, however, Hommius backtracked on his offer to intervene with the States General if asked, claiming that an approach by the States General to King James to secure their participation would prove counterproductive on political grounds. Having finally come closer to the truth Hommius then proceeded to recommend that the exiled Dutch Churches approach King James for permission to send delegates, which, if granted, would be supported by the States General through their London ambassador, Noel de Caron (Toorenenbergen: 1873, 321–23; Lindeboom: 1950, 94–95). Bearing in mind that de Caron had been a member of the Dutch Church in London since he had settled there in 1590, and that he regularly served the community in a variety of capacities, the consistory

77

78

Ole Peter Grell

in London would at this stage have been well informed about the political manoeuvrings around the Synod, where de Caron was repeatedly used by the States General. They would have recognised Hommius’s attempt to offer an acceptable explanation for the fudge it was.3 Despite having had to disappoint his friend Simon Ruytinck, Festus Hommius clearly did not feel embarrassed to ask him to use his influence with the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot, to make sure that the English delegates to be appointed to attend the Synod proved to be good Calvinists, and well-informed about the controversies of the Dutch Reformed Church, in other words men who according to Hommius “loved truth more than peace” (Toorenenbergen: 1873, 322; Lindeboom: 1950, 93–94). Hommius expressed his preference for men such as the Bishop of Chester, Thomas Morton, who had studied under William Whitaker at Cambridge, and who had condemned Dutch Arminianism as early as 1609, and Andrew Willett. As opposed to Thomas Morton the choice of Andrew Willett, a Calvinist controversialist with a fairly modest ecclesiastical pedigree, might seem surprising; but Willet, who had served as chaplain to Prince Henry and preached regularly at Court, had clearly cemented his reputation among CounterRemonstrant theologians with his active opposition to the Spanish Match which had briefly seen him imprisoned by James I in early 1618. Hommius also wanted Ruytinck to try to actively prevent those English divines he considered positively inclined towards the Arminians from being selected. In particular he mentioned John Overall and John Richardson. It is noteworthy that despite the Vorstius affair the Arminians in the Netherlands still hoped to win over James I to their cause, and they had gradually begun to establish an Arminian following among the English clergy where their most active supporter turned out to be John Overall, who had become Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield in 1614 before he was promoted to the See of Norwich in 1618. Overall continued openly to defend the Arminians, pointing out their virtual agreement with the Church of England, until the start of the Synod of Dordt (Tyacke: 1987, 91 and 98). Sir Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador to The Hague, pointed out in September 1617 that the Dutch Arminians were receiving letters from England which not only backed them, but also promised that King James was likely to change his mind about the Synod (Milton: 2005, xxix). Counter-Remonstrants such as Hommius had in other words reasons to be concerned. John Richardson, a fellow of Emmanuel College Cambridge, had succeeded John Overall as Regius Professor of Divinity in 1607. From his lecture notes on predestination, it is clear that Richardson was leaning towards Arminianism and believed in universal grace, but he managed to stay out of any religious controversy

3 Grell: 1989, 48–49; for Noel de Caron’s role in connection with the Synod, see Milton: 2005, 13.

The Dutch communities in England and the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619

for the next decade. Richardson was one of only two Arminian supporters in Cambridge in this period, but by 1617 his religious views forced him to resign his Regius professorship of Divinity. The fact that Festus Hommius was aware of Richardson’s theology despite his works having been circulated only in manuscript demonstrates how well informed and connected he was with the Church of England and its theologians (Tyacke: 1987, 37, 41, and 101). Furthermore, that Hommius thought he might influence the selection of the English delegates for the Synod tells us that his first letter to Simon Ruytinck must have been written before the end of September when the English delegates were appointed (Milton: 2005, xxxviii, note 44). Simon Ruytinck offered no comments to Hommius’s letters in his History where he reproduced them. He only stated that since they were late – the invitations to the Synod were sent out by the States General by 25 June only twenty days after the Anglo-Dutch colloquium had selected its three delegates – and had failed to include them, the Anglo-Dutch communities had decided to send no delegates to the Synod, but only one observer, Carolus Liebaert (Toorenenbergen: 1873, 323). However, it would appear that the decision to send Liebaert as an observer was not taken until a couple of month later, around Christmas 1618, more than a month after the Synod had started.4 When he finally arrived in Dordt Carolus Liebaert caught the eye of the prominent Calvinist hardliner and anti-Arminian Gisbertus Voetius who was the youngest delegate to the Synod, and who strongly disapproved of the lack of recognition granted Liebaert by the Synod. Voetius found it scandalous that Liebaert was neither publicly introduced into the assembly, nor had his credentials recognised. Liebaert was ignored and given no role in the proceedings and his name was not included in ‘the catalogue of the Synod’ (Voetius: 1676, 360). Liebaert may have been deliberately ignored by the officials who ran the Synod, but he would have found some support and recognition among the many Reformed theologians who attended the Synod in an unofficial capacity. Some he would have known from his time as a student in Leiden, others such as the recently appointed minister to the London, Italian Reformed Church, Cesar Calandrini, he would have been well acquainted with. Calandrini had arrived in Dordt on 13 January 1619 in the company of Archbishop Abbott’s chaplain, Dr Thomas Goad, who replaced Joseph Hall in the English delegation. Cesar Calandrini took up residence with his relation and former teacher, Jean Diodati, a prominent member of the Genevan delegation, at the house of the headmaster of the French school in Dordt, Jean de Grave. Like his colleague from the London Dutch Church Calandrini was a strong 4 Hessels: 1897, no 1775; The consistory of the London Dutch Church decided on 24 September 1618 to inform the Dutch communities in Norwich and Colchester that the Anglo-Dutch Churches had not been invited to send representatives to the National Synod in Dordt, see the Consistory Book of the Dutch Church in Austin Friars in London (MS 7397/7 [24 September 1618]).

79

80

Ole Peter Grell

supporter of the Counter-Remonstrant position. His experiences at the sessions of the Synod only served to reinforce his views. Writing to his friend Constantine Huygens on 24 April 1619 he accused the Arminians/Remonstrants of having appropriated all the tricks of the Jesuits, especially their leader Simon Episcopius, only to conclude a couple of months later in another letter that the Remonstrants should be expelled from the Dutch Reformed Church.5 Carolus Liebaert, however, despite his unofficial role as observer, had been supplied with a letter from the Anglo-Dutch communities to the Synod. Here they made it clear that they felt slighted by their treatment; as the ‘mother of the Netherlandish Churches’ they felt they deserved better. However, they raised seven points which they asked the Synod to discuss and resolve. First they wanted the Synod supported by the States General to facilitate an official translation of the Bible into Dutch on a par with what had just happened in England with the King James’ Bible (1604–1611), second they wanted a Church Order for the whole of the Netherlands, third they wanted the Synod to confirm or reject the laying on of hands when new ministers were ordained, fourth they asked for a confirmation of the office of elder which they themselves used, but which had been widely criticized, fifth they wanted to know whether or not the singing of the Psalms of David were acceptable, sixth they wanted clarity around whether or not the use of baptism at home of children who were too weak to attend church was acceptable, and finally seventh, they wanted sanctuaries for monks and priests who were leaving the Catholic Church to be established in each province in the Netherlands (Lindeboom: 1950, 96; Toorenenbergen: 1873, 324–26). If nothing else the letter generated an official response and apology from the Synod. A letter dated 29 May 1619 signed by all the elected officials of the Synod of Dordt stated that: We wish that you could have assisted in this Assembly by your Deputies, as you have done formerly, but as this has not been done for reasons known to you, we desire to indicate our mutual bond by this letter and to provide, by a special Act that your deputies may be invited to the next National Synod. By the Act it was decided to ask the States General to invite, to the next National Synod, the Dutch Churches of the Dutch and French language which are scattered throughout Germany and Great Britain, as members of the Dutch National Synod, they being acknowledged as such by this Synod (Hessels: 1897, no 1779). Whether this attempt to soothe the consciences of their co-religionists in England had the desired effect is doubtful. It is noteworthy that once again Simon Ruytinck decided to quote a letter in full in his History without adding any comments. One

5 Grell, (1996), 106–07. For the various influences on the Synod see Goudriaan/van Lieburg: Leiden, 2011.

The Dutch communities in England and the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619

is left with the feeling that Ruytinck felt that his Dutch ministerial colleagues and friends who presided over the Synod had fallen short of what he and the AngloDutch communities had expected of them (Toorenenbergen: 1873, 324–26). The following year Festus Hommius arrived in London with three beautifully bound presentation copies of the Acts of the Synod for King James, Prince Charles, and Archbishop Abbot respectively. The Acts contained a preface which underlined the significant role King James had played throughout the Arminian controversy and his support for the Synod. Not surprisingly Hommius was well received and given gifts as well as an honorary doctorate from Oxford University. He also found time to visit the London Dutch Church honouring them with copies of his work, LXX Disputationes and Specimen controversiarum belgicarum, to which had been added an essay written by Simon Ruytink, Harmonia synodorum belgicarum sive canones regiminis ecclesiae in synodum nationalem… (1618) (Milton: 2005, LiiLiii; Lindeboom: 1950, 96). Significantly, Hommius added a dedication on the titlepage of this latter volume, stating that the London church remained matrem et propagatricem omnium Reformatarum Ecclesiorum Belgicarum. Evidently the leading Dutch Counter-Remonstrants felt the need to reassure their brethren in London of their continued importance for the Reformed Church in the Netherlands after their exclusion from the Synod. The Anglo-Dutch Churches clearly felt slighted by this experience even if the theological issues around Arminianism had made little or no impact on their communities. The Colloquium of the Anglo-Dutch Churches which met in 1618 concluded that Arminianism was an issue geographically limited to the United Provinces, even if it recognised that there was a risk that ministers educated at the Dutch universities, whom the Anglo-Dutch congregations might employ in future, could turn out to be crypto-Arminians. It was discussed whether or not the Colloquium should select representatives to examine future candidates for the ministry in order to prevent Arminianism from sneaking into the churches via the back door. The Norwich congregation expressed concern about new members who had recently arrived from areas within the United Provinces which were known to have been served by Remonstrant ministers. The Colloquium decided that such newcomers would not be accepted as members until examined by a minster and two elders. Those who were willing to accept the Counter-Remonstrant position should be welcomed as members after a trial period, while those who persisted in their Arminian beliefs should be excluded until they had seen the error of their ways (Grell: 1996, 59). It would appear that the fears expressed by the Norwich Church at the Colloquium of 1618 proved groundless and the issue of the possible threat of Arminianism to the Anglo-Dutch Churches was not raised at subsequent Colloquia.

81

82

Ole Peter Grell

Bibliography Boersma, O. (1994), Vluchtig Voorbeeld, de Nederlandse, Franse, en Italiaanse vluchtelingenkerken in London 1568–1585, Kampen: Theologische Academie. Consistory Book of the Dutch Church in Austin Friars in London, MS 7397/7. London: London Metropolitan Archives. Duke, A. (1990), Reformation and Revolt in the Low Countries, Hambledon Press, London. Esser, R. (1995), News across the Channel: Contact and Communication between the Dutch and the Walloon Refugees in Norwich and their Families in Flanders 1565–1640, in: Immigrants and Minorities, 14, 2, 1995, 139–52. Goudriaan, A./ F. van Lieburg, (ed.) (2011), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), Leiden: Brill. Grell, O.P. (1989), Dutch Calvinists in early Stuart London. The Dutch Church in Austin Friars 1603–1642, Leiden: Brill. Grell, O.P. (1996), Calvinist Exiles in Tudor and Stuart England, Aldershot: Scolar Press. Hesselss, J.H. (1897) (ed.), Ecclesiae Londino-Batavae Archivum, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. III, part I. Hommius, F. (1611), De Jesu Christo Servatore libri IV contra Faustum Socinum, Franeker. Israel, J.I. (1995), The Dutch Republic. Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477–1806, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindeboom, J. (1950), History of the Dutch Reformed Church in London 1550–1950, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Milton, A. (ed.) (2005), The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), Church of England Record Society, 13, Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Muylaert, S. (2017), Reformation and Resistance: Authority and Order in England’s Foreign Churches, 1550–1585, University of Kent PhD. Owen, David (1610), Herod and Pilate reconciled: or The concord of papist and puritan (against Scripture, fathers, councels, and other orthodoxall writers) for the coercion, deposition, and killing of kings, Cambridge. Owen, David (1660), Herodes ende Pilatus Vereenight ofte d’Eendracht vande Papisten ende Puriteinen, n.p. Pettegree, A. (1986), Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-Century London, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pettegree, A. (1990), ‘Thirty Years On’: Progress towards Integration amongst the Immigrant Population of Elizabethan London, in: J. Chartres/D. Hey (ed.), English Rural Society 1500–1800, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pettegree, A. (1992), Emden and the Dutch Revolt. Exile and the Development of Reformed Protestantism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sprunger, K.L. (1982), Dutch Puritanism. A History of English and Scottish Churches of the Netherlands in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Leiden: Brill.

The Dutch communities in England and the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619

Toorenenbergen, J. J. van (1872) (ed.), Acten van de Colloquia der Nederlandsche gemeenten in Engeland, 1575–1609, Werken der Marnix-Vereening, Serie II, part I, Utrecht. Toorenenbergen, J. J. van (1873) (ed.), Gheschiedenissen ende Handelingen die voornemelick aengaen de Nederduytsche Natie ende Gemeynten wonende in Englant ende int bysonder tot Londen, Werken der Marnix-Vereening, Serie III, part I, Utrecht. Tyacke, N. (1987), Anti-Calvinists. The Rise of English Arminianism c.1590–1640, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Voetius, Gisbertus (1676), Politic Ecclesiastic. Pars Tertia et Ultima, Amsterdam.

83

Jacob van Sluis

5.

The Franeker Academy and the Synod of Dordrecht

Abstract As the University of Leiden was the nursery of Arminianism, the University of Franeker was a stronghold of Contra–Remonstrant orthodoxy. Its primarius Professor Sibrandus Lubbertus was a militant opponent of Arminius from the very beginning and he was delegated to the National Synod. After the Synod, Johannes Bogerman and William Ames were appointed as professors in Franeker; they had been president and advisor to the president of the Synod. But attempts to subject student life to a further reformation failed miserably in Franeker.

5.1

Prior to the Synod: Lubbertus as primarius

The small town of Franeker in the province Friesland was the home base of the second university founded in the Dutch Republic in 1585, ten years after Leiden. As a delegate to the Synod of Dordt on behalf of the Franeker Academy, Professor Sibrandus Lubbertus (1555?–1625) was appointed (Van der Woude: 1978a). This choice was self-evident. Lubbertus was the patriarch of Franeker theology, as he is correctly called by a modern scholar (Sprunger: 1972, 52). He had been professor of theology since the opening of the Academy, and by 1618 only he of the seven professors appointed in 1585 was to last. So, he was professor primarius, not only in the faculty of theology, but as an authority in the Academy as a whole. Lubbertus was born in East Frisia, modern Germany, studied in Geneva at Theodore Beza and in Neustadt at Zacharias Ursinus. In 1582 he was installed in Emden, not as a full-fledged minister, but as an assistant in comforting the sick. Here he ended up in a quarrel between the Reformed Church Council of Emden and Count Edzard II of East Friesland. The Church Council appealed to Lubbertus, partly in the hope that he could be appointed as the fifth minister in Emden. The town Emden was a Reformed enclave in the predominantly Lutheran East Friesland, and in the long-lasting conflict between the Church Council and the Count, Lubbertus’ position frequently returned as a point of contention (Smid: 1974, 222). His orthodox position aroused sufficient suspicion with the opposing party, and Lubbertus’ attitude was anything but submissive and restrained. In spite

86

Jacob van Sluis

of the support of the Church Council, his dismissal was inevitable (Van der Woude: 1963, 43ff; Bergsma: 1999, 182 note 152). At the same time, in November 1583, he was appealed as a minister by the Provincial States of Friesland, which was remarkable, for he was not nominated by a local congregation, but at the service of the highest government. Possibly this appointment was already in view of the coming establishment of a University in Franeker. Shortly afterwards, young Lubbertus was one of the three professors of theology appointed by the Provincial States when the Academy in Franeker was founded in 1585. In addition, two older and more experienced professors of theology were appointed: Martinus Lydius (1539–1601) (Van der Woude: 1978b) and Henricus Antonides Nerdenus (1546–1614) (Van der Woude: 1978c); both had a good reputation and were experienced for the practical training of pastors. Unlike Lubbertus, neither of them focused on apology and polemics with dissenters. Lydius was even an Erasmian. Lubbertus, on the other hand, did specialise in polemics, and he was soon engaged in apologetics of the Reformed doctrine against Socinians, Mennonites and Jesuits. From the very beginning Lubbertus was opposed to Arminius and his theological views. The conflict began in 1604 at the University of Leiden, where the professors Jacobus Arminius and Franciscus Gomarus disputed about predestination. Lubbertus quickly let himself be informed by Gomarus. In Leiden and Holland the dissension did not fade. On the contrary, the States General convened a conventus praeparatorius in The Hague in May 1607, which was to prepare a national synod on predestination. Two persons were delegated from each province: the Provincial States of Friesland appointed Lubbertus and Bogerman. At that time, Johannes Bogerman (1576–1637) was a minister in Leeuwarden, capital of the province (Van Itterzon: 1983a). During the convent Lubbertus played a main role and finally the majority formulated a verdict over the opinion of Arminius in their advice to the States General (Van der Woude: 1963, 156). Moreover, Lubbertus became the uncrowned leader of the anti-Arminian faction for years after Gomarus stepped down as a professor at Leiden in 1611, and he was described as “acerrimum vindicem et propugnatorem orthoxiae doctrinae” (most acute vindicator and defender of orthodox doctrine) by a supporter.1 In the years before the national synod, postponed from 1607 to 1618, Lubbertus continued his polemics by entering the arena contra Vorstius, Arminius’ successor as a professor at Leiden, and Hugo Grotius.

1 Cited by van der Woude: 1963, 307. See also van der Woude’s own opinion, ibid. 198 (“de voornaamste opponent van Vorstius”, the chief opponent of Vorstius), 307 (“algemeen erkende voorvechter”, generally recognized advocate) en 533 (“Gomarus heeft in het conflict met Arminius de spits af moeten bijten. Doch daarna heeft Lubbertus de volle last van de leiding van de strijd bijna alleen moeten dragen”, In the conflict with Arminius, Gomarus had to take the lead. Yet after that Lubbertus had to bear almost the entire burden of the dispute himself.).

The Franeker Academy and the Synod of Dordrecht

With Bogerman and Lubbertus as leading theologians, there was hardly any room for Arminian views in the province of Friesland. In 1618, with the designation of both men as deputies to the Synod of Dordt, a firm theological position was thus expressed, being a strict anti-Arminian position, which was widely supported in the province. After the Synod only three ministers were deposited in Friesland for their Arminian sympathies and only in Dokkum a small Remonstrant congregation arose, which in 1798 would merge with the local Mennonites (Bergsma: 1999: 236–239, 331ff). Before the Synod, Lubbertus was more or less directly challenged twice. From July 1609 to probably March 1610, Simon Episcopius enrolled as a student at the Franeker Academy (Fockema Andreae and Meijer: 1968, no. 1136; van der Woude: 1963, 181–184). He took courses with Lubbertus, but as he wrote to his mentor Arminius, without much appreciation. He opposed in various disputations defended under the supervision of Lubbertus (Postma/van Sluis: 1995, 9, numbers 1/1609.6, 1/1609.9, 1/1610.1–3). The criticism that Episcopius voiced in these disputations aroused Lubbertus’ suspicion, but he restrained himself and remained silent. Lubbertus’ second confrontation followed the publication of a booklet De officio hominis Christiani, published in Franeker in 1610. It was a text by Socinus with an open call to join a Socinian congregation (Van der Woude: 1963, 204–210; de Groot: 2002). Initially this booklet went unnoticed until a fierce reaction followed in July 1611, after the four students who had offered it to the printer were traced. One student, Bernhardus Forckenbeck, had defended disputations under Lubbertus (Postma/van Sluis: 1995, 8f, numbers 1/1609.3, 1/1609.8). All four had studied with Vorstius in Steinfurt and three of them fled back to Steinfurt in the first allegations. The four students formed their own collegium group to dispute theological subjects with each other. They had been annoyed by Lubbertus, who spoke out loudly against the Socinians in lectures, and who prepared his great work against Socinus during this period.2 The booklet that the students subsequently published contained a text by Socinus himself and thus posed a direct challenge to Lubbertus. Yet Lubbertus reacted with restraint. The States of Friesland launched an investigation – it is unclear on whose initiative this was done – and ordered that the entire circulation be seized. However, it was not Lubbertus who drew up the rebuttal, but the Church Council of Leeuwarden, with Bogerman being a member, though his name is not mentioned.3 The students were of course indicted, but Vorstius was considered to be the evil genius behind the affair. Vorstius vehemently denied these allegations, and so did his students during interrogations. Lubbertus ignored the booklet as 2 De Jesu Christo servatore, hoc est, cur et qua ratione Jesus Christus noster servator sit, libri quattuor, contra Faustum Socinum (Franeker: Aegidius Radaeus, 1611). 3 Waerschouwinghe, aen alle ghereformeerde kercken, ende vrome ingesetenen van de Vereenichde Nederlanden (Leeuwarden: Abraham vanden Rade, 1611).

87

88

Jacob van Sluis

much as he could and in next publications he turned directly against Vorstius and then against Grotius. For Lubbertus the polemic with the foremen of the Arminian party had a higher priority than what he might have considered a ballot of students. Lubbertus’ reserved attitude was characteristic of his temperament. He was fierce and anything but indulgent in his polemics, but he was always open and above board in his dealings and he acted preferably within formal frameworks. In 1612, when he noticed Arminian and Socinian traces in Theses de fide of Petrus Bertius, the regent of the Staten-College in Leiden, he acted cautiously in his personal correspondence with Bertius. Eventually this correspondence was published into a joint edition, in which the disagreements were not disguised, but not deepened either (Van der Woude: 1963, 185–197; Goudriaan: 2010, 164–171). In the proceedings against Maccovius at the Synod of Dordt – more about this below – we see a disposition of Lubbertus similar to the one he showed towards the four students mentioned above: he wanted to follow the official ecclesiastical procedures without being the prosecutor himself. Lubbertus was also in a friendly correspondence with Bonaventura Vulcanius, professor of Greek at Leiden University, who was known in theologicis as an indifferentist (Bergsma: 1999, 19, 320–323; Bergsma: 2004). On the other hand, Lubbertus did not avoid confrontation with his close colleagues. Johannes Drusius, professor of Hebrew at Franeker, was suspected of Arminian and Socinian feelings, but ultimately it was a difference in attitude and method towards Holy Scripture: Lubbertus was a dogmatist while Drusius was a philologist (Van der Woude: 1963, 309–337). With Drusius’ successor, Sixtinus Amama, a similar tension threatened, but in the end Amama and Lubbertus managed to meet each other in their joint plea for discipline among students.

5.2

During the Synod: Maccovius as Tormentor

At the start of the Synod in 1618, Lubbertus had two colleagues in the faculty of theology at Franeker, Acronius and Maccovius. Johannes Acronius (1565–1627), like Lubbertus and Bogerman, was born and bred in East Friesland (Nauta: 1983). From 1601 to 1611, he was a minister in the city of Groningen and as such he was delegated by the province of Groningen to the convent in 1607. So Lubbertus and Acronius had known each other for a long time, at least from 1607 onwards, and they were one of mind in their opposition to the Arminians. When the Synod started, Acronius had only recently been appointed professor of theology in Franeker, in 1617; before then he was based in the town of Deventer, where the magistracy had refused him to admit him as a minister because of his fierce anti-Arminian attitude (Ravensbergen: 2006b). When Lubbertus stayed in Dordrecht, Acronius posted in the town of Kampen as a minister. From there he was sent to the Synod of Dordt, where he complained about the other three ministers in Kampen, all

The Franeker Academy and the Synod of Dordrecht

Remonstrants, and against a printer located there (Ravensbergen: 2006a, 118f). Having returned from Kampen in 1619, it soon became apparent that he wanted to leave the Academy quickly. He confessed to Lubbertus that he wanted to serve the church more directly, and consequently he accepted a call as a minister in Haarlem (Van der Woude: 1963, 501). But possibly there was another reason for Acronius to leave the Franeker Academy so soon after joining: a tormentor called Maccovius. Far more problematic was the relationship between Lubbertus and his other colleague. Johannes Maccovius or Jan Makowsky (1588–1644) came from Poland and during his study in Franeker he had been a pupil of Lubbertus: he received his doctorate in theology under Lubbertus in 1614 (Van Itterzon: 1983b). In the next year he was appointed professor in Franeker. But young Maccovius did not defer to his mentor and senior colleague. Rather, he challenged the primarius by scheduling his lectures simultaneously with those of Lubbertus, making use of his great popularity among the students. In terms of character, both professors collided head-on. Maccovius also allowed his students a looser lifestyle than Lubbertus did, who pleaded for a strict discipline. Maccovius and Lubbertus also clashed on the doctrine of predestination, even before start of the Synod. Remarkably, Maccovius was more rigorous in this respect than Lubbertus, because he took a supralapsarian position against the infralapsarian Lubbertus. Even more, Maccovius, with his scholastic method of argumentation, was diametrically opposed to Lubbertus’ appeal to biblical references. A dispute presided by Maccovius gave birth to a list of fifty errors, drawn up by Lubbertus among others, and in a first stage the Franeker Classis declared Maccovius guilty of heresy. But he protested and appealed to the provincial Synod of Friesland and then to the National Synod of Dordt. The Synod dealt with the case – causa frisica as it was called – in several sessions in April and May 1619 (Van Asselt: 2010). However, in his accusation of Maccovius, Lubbertus did not act straightforwardly, but he did so by hiding himself behind a formal indictment of the Classis Franeker. Lubbertus’ refusal to play the ball himself worked against him. Everyone knew the ins and outs of the matter, and during the Synod, when Maccovius was heard, Lubbertus tried to minimize his share. In vain, because he lost his temper after being challenged, so badly that he had to be silenced by the chairman, his friend Bogerman (Van der Woude: 1963, 358–361). The Synod eventually acquitted Maccovius of heresy, but condemned his excessive use of scholastic method and urged him to use more Biblical language. Within the Synod, Lubbertus’ infralapsarianism was norm, though the supralapsarian position as advocated by Maccovius and Gomarus was tolerated as orthodox, thus avoiding extreme positions inspired by scholasticism. Maccovius was admonished for condemning infralapsarianism, but not for being a supralapsarian himself (Van Asselt: 2011, 225). Furthermore, the Synod formulated a conciliation formula, which was accepted by both, but which did not have a lasting collegiality. Their relationship remained tense and Maccovius would continue to

89

90

Jacob van Sluis

undermine the position of his senior colleague, until Lubbertus’ death in 1625 (Van der Woude: 1963, 362–370). In the battle against the Remonstrants, Maccovius would not have taken up any position other than Lubbertus, but their relationship was too distorted to make a fraternal statement of support. In short, the University of Leiden had been the nursery of Arminius and other Arminians like Vorstius and Episcopius, but the University of Franeker with Lubbertus as primarius was a stronghold of orthodox Calvinism, before and during the Synod.

5.3

After the Synod: The President and His Advisor

So far I reconstructed the input of the Franeker Academy to the Synod of Dordt, which nearly coincides with the personal contribution of professor Sibrandus Lubbertus. But this does not tell the whole story. After the Synod had dispersed, its influences and effects became visible at Franeker Academy, although they did not always go back to a decision made by the Synod. The Synod’s spirituality became visible in the attempts made in the 1620s to subject the Franeker students to a stricter discipline, as an expression of the so-called Further Reformation (Nadere Reformatie) of public life. Its aim was to prevent excesses in student life, like drinking, parades of pranks, disturbances and general indecency. Two parties arose among the professors of the Academy: those who were in favour of a rigid regulation and those who granted the students more joy and freedom. Lubbertus headed the law-and-order party, and Maccovius took the helm of the other side. Maccovius frequently fraternized with the students, and to give an illustration, there is a known incident that after a student party the besotted professor was placed on his horse only to be found in the town of Bolsward the next day. This incident is recorded in a list of complaints that four professors recorded in a letter to a curator of the university in 1626.4 Complaints included fighting, insulting colleagues and drunkenness, but despite these charges Maccovius remained without an official suspension or reprimand being imposed on him (Sprunger: 1972, 87–88). However, this unruly image of Maccovius does merit some adjustment. His opponents had an interest in sharpening the image of him as a degenerated soloist and womanizer, and later historians were delighted to draw this steep Calvinist as a bon vivant. Maccovius was undoubtedly vain, just like Lubbertus, but he did not isolate himself completely.5 Maccovius was not the only professor who frustrated a 4 Boeles: 1878–1889, vol. I, 48f, cited full text at 479–483. The four professors who signed were Johannes Hachting (philosophy), Arnoldus Verhel (philosophy), Sixtinus Amama (Hebrew) and Ames. 5 Much later, in 1678, professor Johannes Wubbena was fired after similar incidents; Boeles: 1878–1889, vol. II, 237ff.

The Franeker Academy and the Synod of Dordrecht

further reformation of student life in the Academy: he was supported by four other professors.6 Once more the contradictions between the two factions of professors would lead to an open conflict, in 1629 (Engels: 1978), but from that moment on Maccovius’ conduct did not give rise to complaints anymore (Kuyper: 1899, 61). No polemics would arise with later colleagues in the faculty of theology – Johannes Bogerman, Sibrandus Menaldum, Johannes Cluto, Nicolaus Vedelius, Christianus Schotanus à Sterringa and Johannes Coccejus; Maccovius acted as promotor when Bogerman (1636) and Coccejus (1644) were granted doctoral degrees honoris causa after their introduction as professor of theology. But the most striking evidence of Maccovius’ charm is that he entered into a marriage with upper-middle class ladies three times, which would have been impossible if his conduct in daily life was truly offensive. His first wife was Antje Ulenborgh, daughter of a Leeuwarden burgomaster and sister of Saskia, who married Rembrandt; the second wife was the daughter of his colleague professor Cluto, and the third wife a daughter of a member of Provincial States of Friesland, the highest authority in the province. In short, Maccovius was both controversial and respected. The third colleague in the faculty of theology, who was the successor to Acronius, was William Ames (latinized Amesius; 1576–1633) (de Groot: 1978). He invariably chose the strict party and he even became its leader after the death of Lubbertus (1625). Ames was an English puritan and he was clearly present at the Synod of Dordt. Although he was not a direct member of the English delegation, he was part of the wider English circle. He frequently acted as a messenger between the Synod and the political circles in The Hague, and more importantly, he was personal advisor to Bogerman, president of the Synod. Within the English delegation, Ames was respected, but his puritan views did not make him beloved by King James I. After the Synod, the Leiden Academy attempted to offer him a chair of theology several times, but such plans met fierce opposition from the English ambassador, Sir Dudley Carleton. In Franeker, however, the English veto was ignored, and Ames was appointed professor of theology in the spring of 1622. This resulted in a friendly cooperation with Lubbertus. Both had undoubtedly met each other at the Synod of Dordt, and Lubbertus would certainly have supported the nomination of Ames. With Lubbertus’ successor, Meinardus Schotanus (1593–1644), Ames also achieved good cooperation, and they shared an antipathy towards Maccovius (Van Sluis: 2001). However, Schotanus had no direct connection to the Synod. In November 1632, Schotanus left Franeker, soon to be followed by Ames in the spring of 1633. It was said that both were sick and tired of the endless and infertile quarrels with Maccovius (Van der Woude: 1972). Yet once more the soul of the

6 The four other professors on his side were: Justus Reifenberg (law), Henricus Rhala (Latin), Menelaus Winsemius (medicine) and Adrianus Metius (geometry).

91

92

Jacob van Sluis

Synod of Dordt entered directly into the Franeker Academy. In 1633, Bogerman was appointed professor of theology. At several occasions before, Bogerman was offered a chair at Franeker University, even before the start of the Synod, but the church council of Leeuwarden had blocked these appointments by refusing his dismissal as minister there. Much later, after the closure of the Synod, those attempts from Franeker University were repeated, but Bogerman was still too occupied with the settlement of the Synod and the official translation of the Old Testament, which would be part of the States Translation (Statenvertaling). In 1633, at least, Bogerman accepted the call from Franeker, but the aforementioned responsibilities forced him to postpone taking up his chair repeatedly. Finally, in the late summer of 1636, he started teaching in Franeker, but his poor health made that he was hardly able to complete his first academic year. He died on 11 September 1637, hardly a week before the States Translation was officially presented to the States General in The Hague, on 17 September. Bogerman donated a signed copy of the Acta Synodi to the Franeker library, as a lasting token of the Synod of Dordt.7 Thus, in Franeker, after the Synod, the margins of the theological courses were strictly monitored by three professors, who had personally contributed to the orthodoxy established at the Synod. But these three professors – Lubbertus, Ames and Bogerman – were unable to impose a strict discipline on students as a practical consequence of the doctrine of Dordrecht. In the event, Maccovius outlasted all his detractors, until his death in 1644. Doctrinal affairs were well guarded, but all attempts to subject the students to a stricter discipline, in line with the spirit of the Synod, had failed.

5.4

Postscriptum

Lubbertus and Maccovius were present at the Synod of Dordt in their capacity as professors of the Franeker Academy, and Ames and Bogerman were appointed professors in Franeker after the Synod; all four were theologians. But another delegate at the Synod can be connected to the Franeker Academy. Johan van den Sande (or Sandius; 1568–1638) was delegated as an elder by the congregation of Leeuwarden. He had previously been a professor of law at Franeker, from 1598 to 1604, and was subsequently appointed as a judge at the Court of Friesland in Leeuwarden. He held this office until his death in 1638. In 1618, on behalf of Friesland, he was one of the 24 judges who pronounced the sentence over Johan 7 Acta Synodi Nationalis, in nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, autoritate illustr. et praepotentum DD. Ordinum Generalium Foederati Belgii Provinciarum, Dordrechti habitae anno MDCXVIII et MDCXIX. (Lugdunum Batavorum: Isaacus Elzevirus, 1620. Copy in Tresoar, Leeuwarden, shelfmark 4086 G fol).

The Franeker Academy and the Synod of Dordrecht

van Oldenbarnevelt (Den Tex: 1960–1972, vol. III, 677; vol. IV, 321). Van den Sande was an outspoken Counter-Remonstrant and confidant of the Frisian stadtholder William Louis, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg (1560–1620), who was a CounterRemonstrant too (Bergsma: 2019, 139–141, 145, 162).

Bibliography Bergsma, W. (1999), Tussen Gideonsbende en publieke kerk: Een studie over het gereformeerd protestantisme in Friesland, 1580–1650, (Fryske histoaryske rige, 17) Hilversum: Verloren/Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy. Bergsma, W. (2004), Een geleerde en zijn tuin: Over de vriendschap tussen Lubbertus en Vulcanius, in: Friese cultuur in de eeuw van Gysbert Japix. Theme-issue of: De zeventiende eeuw: Cultuur in de Nederlanden in interdisciplinair perspectief 20, 96–121 (reprint in Bergsma: 2019, 255–282). Bergsma, Wiebe (2019), Willem Lodewijk en het Leeuwarder hofleven, in: Gelovigen, dominees en geleerden: Opstellen over Friese en Nederlandse geschiedenis in de vroegmoderne tijd. Geredigeerd en ingeleid door Klaas van Berkel, Hans Cools en Hans Mol, m.m.v. Lydia Janssen, Hilversum: Verloren, 127–185. BLGNP = Biografisch lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlandse protestantisme. Six volumes; Kampen: Kok, 1978–2006. Boeles, W.B.S. (1878–1889), Frieslands Hoogeschool en het Rijks Athenaeum te Franeker, 2 volumes, Leeuwarden: H. Kuipers. De Groot, A. (1978), Article “Amesius, Guilielmus”, BLGNP 1, 27–31. De Groot, Aart (2002), Franeker als Irenopolis. F. Socinus, De officio hominis christiani, 1610, in: W. Otten/W.J. van Asselt (ed.), Kerk en conflict: Identiteitskwesties in de geschiedenis van het christendom (Utrechtse studies, 3), Zoetermeer: Meinema, 102–114. Den Tex, J. (1960–1972), Oldenbarnevelt, 5 volumes, Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink. Engels, M. (1978), Een tuchtkwestie aan de Franeker universiteit, 1627–1629, De vrije Fries 58, 101–109. Fockema Andreae, S.J./Th.J. Meijer (1968), Album studiosorum academiae Franekerensis (1585–1811, 1816–1844). I. Naamlijst der studenten, Franeker: T. Wever. Goudriaan, Aza (2010), Justification by faith and the early Arminian controversy, in: Willemien Otten/W.J. van Asselt/Maarten Wisse/Marcel Sarot (ed.), Scholasticism Reformed. Essays in Honour of Willem J. Van Asselt, Leiden: Brill, 155–178. Kuyper jr., A. (1899), Johannes Maccovius, Leiden: D. Donner. Nauta, D. (1983), Article “Acronius, Johannes”, BLGNP 2, 13ff. Postma, F./J. van Sluis (1995), Auditorium Academiae Franekerensis. Bibliographie der Reden, Disputationen und Gelegenheitsdruckwerke der Universität Franeker und des Athenäums in Franeker 1585–1843, (Minsken en Boeken, 23) Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.

93

94

Jacob van Sluis

Ravensbergen, Christiaan (2006a), Commotie in Kampen. De rechtzinnigheid en naaktloperij van Georgius Goykerus, predikant te Wilsum (1611–1623), in: Kamper almanak, 103–138. Ravensbergen, Christiaan (2006b), Het beroep op Johannes Acronius. Kerkelijke en politieke verhoudingen in Deventer (1614–1617), in: E.H. Bary/C.M. Hogenstein/H.J. Selderhuis/J.D. Snel (ed.), Lebuïnus en Walburgis bijeen. Deventer en Zutphen als historische centra van kerkelijk leven (Bijdragen van de Vereniging voor Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis; 16), Delft: Eburon, 51–81. Smid, M. (1974), Ostfriesische Kirchengeschichte (Ostfriesland im Schütze des Deiches, 6), Pewsum: Deichacht Krummhörn. Sprunger, K.L. (1972), The learned doctor William Ames. Dutch backgrounds of english and american puritanism, Urbana/Chicago/London: University of Illinois Press. Van Asselt, Willem J. (2011), On the Maccovius affair, in: Aza Goudriaan/Fred van Lieburg (ed.), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) (Brill’s Series in Burch History, 49), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 217–241. Van Itterzon, G.P. (1983a), Article “Bogerman(nus), Johannes”, BLGNP 2, 73ff. Van Itterzon, G.P. (1983b), Article “Maccovius (Makowsky), Johannes”, BLGNP 2, 311 ff. Van Sluis, J. (2001), Article “Schotanus, Meinardus”, BLGNP 5, 454f. Van der Woude, C. (1963), Sibrandus Lubbertus. Leven en werken, in het bijzonder naar zijn correspondentie, Kampen: Kok. Van der Woude, C. (1972), Amesius’ afscheid van Franeker, in: Nederlands Archief voor kerkgeschiedenis, nieuwe serie 52, 153–177. Van der Woude, C. (1978a), Article “Lubbertus, Sibrandus”, BLGNP 1, 143ff. Van der Woude, C. (1978b), Article “Lydius, Martinus”, BLGNP 1, 146ff. Van der Woude, C. (1978c), Article “Nerdenus (ook Van der Linden), Hemicus Antonides”, BLGNP 1, 206ff.

Jeannette Kreijkes

6.

Did the Synod of Dordt Consider Chrysostom a Semi-Pelagian?

Continuity and Discontinuity in the Interpretation of Patristic Theology in the Reformed Tradition1

Abstract John Chrysostom (ca. 349–407) has obtained a reputation as a “semi-Pelagian” in Protestant circles. This reputation requires correction since the interaction between divine grace and human freedom was not yet a matter of controversy in Chrysostom’s time. Furthermore, the Acta of the Synod of Dordt approvingly mention Chrysostom’s perspective on the role of human beings in salvation found in his exposition of Acts 13:48. John Calvin, however, is critical of this church father’s position. Some of Chrysostom’s statements are open to multiple interpretations, depending on the confessional context of the interpreter. This essay argues the need to avoid anachronism and to be mindful of the influence of reception history.

6.1

Introduction

It has been common for modern Protestants to classify the fourth-century church father John Chrysostom as a so-called “semi-Pelagian.”2 Not only was Chrysostom despised by Luther, also some Lutherans criticized his synergistic views on salvation (Ritter: 2008, 347), but John Calvin’s largely negative evaluation of Chrysostom’s view on free choice may have also contributed to this reputation. However, the claim that Chrysostom was a semi-Pelagian is controversial. The first reason is that “Pelagianism” or “semi-Pelagianism” are somewhat anachronistic terms to describe Chrysostom’s views. The Pelagian controversy broke out in 411 (Dupont 2013, 35), four years after his death in 407 (Young/Teal: 2010, 212; Rylaarsdam: 2014, 150n306). The so-called semi-Pelagian controversy followed even

1 The ongoing Ph.D. research on which this essay is based has received funding from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO, Doctoral Grant for Teachers, grant agreement number 023.004.106). In addition, I am grateful to Dr. Raymond A. Blacketer for his useful suggestions and comments on a previous version of this contribution. 2 This term was not coined until Molina’s debate with Bañes, 1589 (cf. Casiday: 2005, 272n3).

96

Jeannette Kreijkes

later (426).3 There was no reason for Chrysostom to provide a precise exposition of the interaction between divine grace and human freedom; it was not yet a matter of controversy. Consequently, both Augustine and Pelagius could cite Chrysostom to defend their own stances on the relationship between grace and the human contribution to salvation. According to Augustine, Pelagius “distorted Chrysostom’s meaning” (Young/Teal: 2010, 212; Rylaarsdam: 2014, 150n306; Kenny: 1960, 16; cf. Beatrice: 2013: 158–168). Second, the references to Chrysostom in the Acta do not indicate a negative evaluation of Chrysostom’s perspective on the role of human beings in salvation. Instead, the Palatine theologians cite Chrysostom’s explanation of Acts 13:48 (“When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed”4 ) immediately after their citation of Augustine to defend the position that only the predestined will ever have faith. This might imply that the Palatinate delegates to the Synod did not employ the dichotomy between Augustine and Chrysostom on free choice that Calvin posits in his Institutes.5 This essay analyzes the Synod’s use of Chrysostom’s exposition of Acts 13:48 as a historical witness. In addition, it assesses the Synod’s esteem for Chrysostom’s understanding of predestination and its relationship to Calvin’s critical evaluation. The following questions are subsequently addressed: 1) How do the Palatine theologians at the Synod refer to Chrysostom’s position based on his explanation of Acts 13:48? 2) How does Calvin evaluate Chrysostom’s view on free choice in relation to Augustine? 3) What does this imply for the way in which Protestants have dealt with their tradition? Strictly speaking, “free will” is an improper translation of the term liberum arbitrium, since the Latin word for “will” is voluntas. The historical theologian Richard A. Muller describes the will as “the faculty that operates with the intellect in an act of choosing any particular object.” He defines arbitrium as “the function or faculty of making a judgment, choice, or decision and can be identified either as belonging to the intellect or as belonging to both intellect and will” (2017a, 415). This leads Muller (2017a, 252f) to the following observation: Free choice, or liberum arbitrium, is typically defined in terms of the interaction of the faculties of intellect (intellectus) and will (voluntas), and it is therefore only improperly

3 The so-called semi-Pelagian controversy occurred between Augustine and the monks of Hadrumetum and Marseilles, beginning around 426 (See Weaver: 1996, ix). 4 All Biblical passages are cited from the New International Version (NIV, 2011). 5 See section 6.3 for passages in the Institutes in which this dichotomy occurs. The assumption that sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents “reproduce Calvin’s theology” is refuted by Muller (2012).

Did the Synod of Dordt Consider Chrysostom a Semi-Pelagian?

rendered “free will” and “free choice.” Many early modern writers define the freedom (libertas) involved in free choice as arising from the will, and the choice or judgment (arbitrium) as arising from the intellect: the intellect renders its judgment concerning an object, and the will freely engages the object. Others divide the case differently, placing both the libertas and the final arbitrium in the will, raising the question of whether the will can reject the last determinate judgment (iudicium) of the practical intellect (intellectus practicus).

Thus, in early modern writings, the term liberum arbitrium is often used to identify the intellective-volitional act. Liberum refers to the volitional aspect of the act of choosing or refusing; arbitrium denotes the intellective aspect, the determination of an object. The Lutherans and Reformed believe that the will (voluntas) always possesses an internal, essential freedom. After the fall, humans did not lose the faculty of the will (voluntas) nor its inward freedom (libertas) – no one is forced to sin – but the freedom of choice (arbitrium). This loss does not mean that the freedom of choice in general is lost, “but, specifically, the ability freely to choose the good in the sense of meritorious goodness before God and the ability freely to avoid that which is evil” (Muller: 2017a, 252; cf. Institutes 2.2.7, 3.5; OS 3: 249, 276–279).6 Because of its essential freedom, the will can still elect or choose and reject. However, it has been altered in its capabilities with reference to the good: the will is not able to choose the good that God requires (Muller: 2017a, 251ff, 415). Chrysostom regards the human being’s role in virtue as “an internal act of the will. We will, choose; we display diligence or keenness” (Kenny: 1960, 20f).7 The terms “will” and “choice” are interrelated in Chrysostom’s writings; he does not employ

6 Given that arbitrium (“judgment,” “adjudication,” or “decision”) is not the same as electio (“choice”), strictly speaking, the translation “free choice” is also improper. However, since “adjudication” implies a possibility to choose, it could be rendered “choice.” See also J.B. Korolec (1982, 630), who states a preference for translating liberum arbitrium as “free decision” or leaving it untranslated. 7 Kenny identifies the following terms in Chrysostom’s writings: προαίρεσις (“decision or choice”), σπουδη (“zeal, diligence, promptitude”), ἐπιμέλεια (“diligence, care”), γνώμη (“intention”), προθυμία (“keenness”), ἑλέσθαι, προελέσθαι, θέλειν, βούλεσθαι (“choose, will”), and εὐγνωμοσύνη (“goodwill”). Margaret M. Mitchell (2000, 440) explains that προαίρεσις, which she renders “free choice,” “free will,” or “the exercise of free will” is to be distinguished from προθυμια denoting “the eager will to act” in an ethical way; it can also be translated as “the will to act” or “willingness.” Mitchell shows that, in some contexts, προαίρεσις needs to be translated as “will,” which results in some overlap with προθυμία. The distinction, however, is the aspect of “fervency” that characterizes προθυμία and that of “volition” that applies to προαίρεσις. Raymond Laird (2012, 36) warns against an overestimation of προαίρεσις in Chrysostom’s writings. Laird argues that Chrysostom uses the term to denote a person’s mindset rather than as the controlling factor of one’s actions. Chrysostom especially pays attention to “the inner motivation and internal harmony rather than […] bare externals.”

97

98

Jeannette Kreijkes

Greek equivalents for the later Latin distinction between voluntas and arbitrium.8 Despite the interrelatedness of the various Greek terms used to denote will and choice, the translation “free choice” is employed throughout this essay to denote liberum arbitrium, unless the specific differences between voluntas and arbitrium are relevant for the argument that is presented. In the context of Dordt, but also in Calvin’s writings, the translation “free will” would be misleading, because the issue is not the freedom of the voluntas, but the freedom of the act of choosing or refusing, which belongs to will and to intellect.

8 As the different terms Chrysostom uses for describing free will or choice illustrate, he does not distinguish between any Greek equivalent of voluntas and arbitrium as the Lutherans and Reformed do. It is still a matter of debate whether Greek philosophy even had a concept of “will.” According to Muller (2017b, 86), Anthony Kenny (1979) and G.E.R. Lloyd (1968) argue that Aristotle had a concept of will “as distinct from intellect and appetite.” However, Albrecht Dihle (1982) defends the opposite, stating that the notion of a will distinct from the intellect has Jewish and Christian origins. Greek philosophical theologians did not consider divine power to be problematic since they took it for granted that gods were mightier than humans. In Greek, there was no word to denote will in a modern sense, as “volition,” but this understanding was later invented by Augustine. Before him, words like θέλω merely denoted what was going to happen or indicated preparedness. Charles H. Kahn (1988, 236–242) argues that Augustine began, but did not completely develop, a Christian theory on the will. Kahn states that Aristotle’s theory of action involves four concepts, beside intellect or reason (νοῦς, λόγος): ἐφ’ ἡμῖν (an action that is “in our power to do or not to do”), ἑκούσιον (a voluntary, spontaneous action, “done neither in ignorance nor in compulsion”), προαίρεσις (actions “that result from προαίρεσις” are chosen), and βούλησις (often translated as voluntas, although προαίρεσις is also rendered that way). Aristotle regarded these four concepts as independent from one another. Aquinas unified them into a full theory of voluntas that differed from Aristotle’s or any Greek Hellenistic understanding of βουλήσις. Paradoxically, the debate between Luther and Erasmus on the question whether the will was enslaved or free took place already in antiquity, but without explicitly referring to the will. Sarah Byers (2006) demonstrates the Stoic background of Augustine’s notion of the will and its origins in ancient philosophy. Without referring to Byers and assuming that Aristotle did not have a notion of free will, Michael Frede (2011) also attributes the origins of free will to Stoicism, represented by Epictetus, and mentions another term which he considers to be of Stoic origin: τὸ αὐτεξούσιον (“the ability to act of one’s own initiative”). According to Muller (2017b, 195, 251f), it was with this Greek term that Vermigli associated free choice (liberum arbitrium). Also, according to Turretin, Greek philosophers, and Greek church fathers following them, used the word αὐτεξούσιος (understood as denoting “self-determining power”) for liberum arbitrium. Muller summarizes Turretin’s notion of liberum arbitrium as follows: “Properly understood, free choice is a ‘mixed faculty’ arising out of a conjunction and interaction of intellect and will understood as distinct powers of soul, with the judgment, or arbitrium, deriving from the intellect and the freedom or libertas belonging to the will. Having thus parsed arbitrium and libertas, Turretin, like other of the Reformed, also presses the issue of their interrelationship.”

Did the Synod of Dordt Consider Chrysostom a Semi-Pelagian?

6.2

The Palatine Theologians’ References to Chrysostom’s Explanation of Acts 13:48

How do the Palatine theologians evaluate Chrysostom, who is mentioned six times in the Acta and iudicia? In the 99th session, on March 5, 1619, the Palatine theologians refute the first of the “Five Articles of the Remonstrants.” This article states: that God […] has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ […] those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and to condemn them as alienated from Christ (Schaff/Schaff: 1931, 3: 545).

David Pareus, who was invited to the Synod but not able to attend due to old age, wrote a letter and statement against the Five Articles. The Synod accepted Pareus’s judgment (Pareus/Schotsman: 1819, 59–61; ADSND, xlviii, lxxii). His main concern about the first of the “Five Articles” is that this position secretly introduces Pelagianism into the church (Acta, 210). Pareus refers to Augustine’s era and lists the characteristics of this heresy as follows: 1. Adam’s sin harms no one but Adam himself. People are born just as Adam was created; 2. Christ was sent for the purification from sins committed in imitation of Adam; 3. Salvation in Christ is so proposed that all who want to come to faith and baptism can be saved; 4. However, God knew before the creation of the world, who were to believe and to perform good works, and who, helped by God’s grace, were to remain in the faith. He foresaw who were to believe and to be worthy election, as well as to depart from this life with a good end; 5. The grace of God is given to all on the basis of merit, to the extent to which they use their free choice [liberi arbitrii] well; 6. This grace is given so abundantly that people can be without sin in this life if they want (Acta, 210). According to Pareus, Jerome and Augustine extensively argued against this heresy, which is similar to the heresy of the Remonstrants in his time (Acta, 210f). Pareus especially emphasizes God’s election and immutability over against the Remonstrants. They hold that God has decreed in eternity to save those who will believe and persevere in time on the condition that they would believe and persevere. In their view, people who oppose faith or do not endure to the very end

99

100

Jeannette Kreijkes

are predestined to damnation on that basis. According to Pareus, this viewpoint exactly represents what the semi-Pelagians taught, based on his understanding of Augustine’s writings (Acta, 212f). Pareus cites Rom 8:30 (“And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified”). He interprets this verse to mean that God not only predestined specific persons but also the means to salvation, as well as the requirements for salvation, such as their outward and inward calling to faith, justification, conversion, and perseverance to the end. Pareus refers to Augustine, who says that the number of the predestined mentioned in Rom 8:30 is so certain that nobody can be added to or taken away from them (Acta, 213; Augustine, De correptione et gratia 13.39, PL 44: 940). According to Pareus, this explanation of Rom 8:30 is in harmony with Acts 13:48 (“When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed”). Pareus argues that Chrysostom’s interpretation of the words “appointed for” (ordinati) in this verse as “predestined for” (praedestinati) supports the connection between Acts 13:48 and Rom 8:30 (Acta, 213). Chrysostom also alludes to Rom 8, when he exposits Acts 13:48: “As many as were ordained to eternal life” (v. 48): this is also a proof that their having received these Gentiles was agreeable with the mind of God. But “ordained”, [τεταγμένοι] not in terms of necessity: “whom He foreknew [προέγνω],” says the Apostle, “He did predestine” [προώρισεν] (Rom. 8:29) (In Act. apost. hom. 30.2; PG 60: 224, NPNF1 11: 191, alt).

When Pareus very concisely summarizes the different theological positions between him and the Remonstrants, he states: We say: “Those who will believe and who consequently believe, that is, after their election”; they say: “those who will believe and who antecedently believe, that is, before their election.” Thus, this undoubtedly equals putting the cart before the horse. For, if faith cannot be there before vocation, which is later than election and predestination, how could faith be present before election? (Acta, 213).

Pareus’s argument in this logical rather than chronological discussion is clear: 1) faith follows vocation; 2) vocation follows election; thus, 3) faith is logically subsequent to election. The iudicia, in particular the judgment of the Palatine theologians on the first article of the Five Disputed Articles of the Remonstrants, also mention Chrysostom’s interpretation of Acts 13:48. The Remonstrants assert that the necessary and sufficient causes and prerequisites for election are faith, the obedience of faith, and the

Did the Synod of Dordt Consider Chrysostom a Semi-Pelagian?

perseverance of both. The Palatine delegates judge that the Remonstrants incorrectly consider faith to be the decisive cause of election, either as a meritorious or as an instrumental cause. According to the Palatine delegates, the Remonstrant claim that faith is a cause without which there is no election – or a prerequisite condition in those who will be elect – cannot be based on Scripture. The Palatine theologians, therefore, deem this Remonstrant thesis false. They argue that Scripture teaches that faith in Christ, the obedience of faith, and perseverance in both are fruits or effects of election and belong to the elect only. They suppose that Chrysostom’s interpretation that “appointed for” means “predestined for” represents the early church’s position: “generally the early church has rendered ‘appointed’ as ‘predestined’” (Acta, Iudicia Theologorum Exterorum, 18).

6.3

Calvin’s Evaluation of Chrysostom’s View on Free Choice in Relation to Augustine

The distinction between the way in which Calvin and the Synod represent Chrysostom’s position concerning election in relation to free choice is complicated. Whereas the Synod cites Chrysostom approvingly, according to Calvin, Chrysostom leaves too much room for synergism. This observation serves Calvin’s polemical purpose of refuting the late medieval perspective on facere quod in se est (cf. Lane: 1999, 3; Oberman: 1986, 84–103). Despite his agreement with Chrysostom in Institutes 2.2.9, that “every man is not only a sinner by nature, but wholly sin” (OS 3: 252; McNeill/Battles, 1: 267), Calvin has objections against at least three aspects of Chrysostom’s position: 1) Chrysostom’s synergistic understanding of salvation; 2) the assumption that reward or punishment is impossible without free choice; and 3) the thought that without the ability to choose between good and evil, there is nothing to distinguish good persons from evil. First, Calvin objects to the synergism he observes in Chrysostom’s statements, which is that grace and the human will collaborate as equal partners. In Institutes 2.3.7, Calvin first quotes Augustine approvingly: “As Augustine teaches, grace precedes every good work; while will [voluntate] does not go before as its leader but follows after as its attendant” (OS 3: 281; McNeill/Battles, 1: 298). Then, he contrasts Chrysostom’s position with Augustine’s and his own: But because the will reformed is the Lord’s work, it is wrongly attributed to man that he obeys prevenient grace with his will [voluntate] as attendant. Therefore Chrysostom erroneously wrote: “neither grace without will [voluntatem] nor will [voluntatem] without grace can do anything.” As if grace did not also actuate the will itself, as we have just seen from Paul [cf. Philippians 2:13]! Nor was it Augustine’s intent, in calling the human will

101

102

Jeannette Kreijkes

[voluntatem] the attendant of grace, to assign to the will in good works a function second to that of grace (OS 3: 281; McNeill/Battles, 1: 299).

Calvin perceives a similar position in Chrysostom’s frequent remark: “The one he draws is drawn willingly [volentem].” According to Calvin, Chrysostom means “that the Lord is only extending his hand to await whether we will be pleased to receive his aid.” Calvin refutes this statement, saying: “the apostle does not teach that the grace of a good will [bonae voluntatis] is bestowed upon us if we accept it, but that He wills to work in us” (Institutes 2.3.10; OS 3: 285; McNeill/Battles, 1: 303). The second objection is based on an argument that Calvin attributes to Chrysostom and Jerome, acknowledging that it is derived from Aristotle: reward and punishment become meaningless if the will is not able to choose. Praise is a reward for good deeds; persons who make the choice to perform such good deeds thereby reveal their good character.9 According to Calvin, Jerome cites the Pelagians, who often used this as an argument, as follows: “If it is the grace of God working in us, then grace, not we who do not labor, will be crowned.” Calvin rejects this opinion with several quotations of Augustine, for example: “How often does this thought recur in Augustine: ‘God does not crown our merits but his own gifts’; and ‘we call “rewards” not what are due our merits, but what are rendered for graces already bestowed’!” (Institutes 2.5.2; OS 3: 299; McNeill/Battles, 1: 318) Third, Calvin refutes the common objection used by his opponents that they have drawn from Chrysostom: “If to choose [eligere] good or evil is not a faculty of our will [voluntatis nostrae facultas], those who share in the same nature must be either all bad or all good.” Calvin deems it strange that a great man like Chrysostom would “have been so forgetful!” He wonders “How did it not occur to Chrysostom that it is God’s election which so distinguishes among men?” Calvin hastens to admit that “all men are both depraved and given over to wickedness [cf. Rom 3:10].” In this respect, all people are in the same predicament, but “it is through God’s mercy that not all remain in wickedness” (Institutes 2.5.3; OS 3: 300f; McNeill/Battles, 1: 319f). These quotations from the Institutes indicate that, although he agrees with Chrysostom on the sinfulness of human nature, Calvin finds Chrysostom’s position inconsistent. Moreover, he thinks Chrysostom pays insufficient attention to God’s rewards for His gifts and election. How does Calvin deal with Chrysostom’s interpretation of Acts 13:48 to which the Synod refers? Calvin’s commentary on Acts 13:48 does not explicitly mention Chrysostom. Neither does Calvin cite Chrysostom’s interpretation of Acts 13:48 in

9 See also Mitchell (2000, 106, 250), who explains that, according to Chrysostom, “the deeds which are most praiseworthy are those which come from the ‘free will’ [προαίρεσις] of the subject, since compulsory or accidental achievements are not necessarily signs of inner character.”

Did the Synod of Dordt Consider Chrysostom a Semi-Pelagian?

the Institutes. However, in one of the two sections in which Calvin cites Acts 13:48, he does mention Augustine and Chrysostom (Institutes 3.24.2, 13; OS 4: 412f, 424f). In Institutes 3.24.13, he first approvingly refers to Augustine: Why, then, does he [God] bestow grace upon these but pass over the others? Of the former, Luke gives the reason: because they “were ordained to life” [Acts 13:48]. Of the latter, what shall we think except that “they are the vessels of wrath for dishonor” [Rom 9:21–22 p.]? Therefore, let us not be ashamed to say with Augustine: “God could,” he says, “turn the will of evil men to good because he is almighty. Obviously he could. Why, then, does he not? Because he wills otherwise. Why he wills otherwise rests with him” (Institutes 3.24.13; OS 4: 424; McNeill/Battles, 2: 979).

Calvin had argued in the 1539 edition that Augustine’s reply to the problems people can encounter with God’s election is much better than Chrysostom’s solution: This is far more adequate than to say evasively with Chrysostom that God draws to himself him who is willing [volentem] and stretches out his hand. Otherwise, the distinction would seem to lie not in God’s judgment but solely in the decision of humans [solo hominum arbitrio]. Indeed, it does not so stand in one’s own impulse, and consequently even the pious and those who fear God still have need of the special prompting of the Spirit (Institutes 3.24.13; OS 4: 424; McNeill/Battles, 2: 979f, alt).

According to Calvin, Chrysostom regards the choice people make rather than God’s election as decisive for salvation. Although Chrysostom’s explanation of Acts 13:48 supports Calvin’s position, Calvin does not use it to strengthen his case. When Calvin interprets John 6:44 (“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day”) in his 1553 commentary on John, he repeats this critique of Chrysostom’s exegesis, although he does not mention Chrysostom by name: For this reason, it is false and impious to say that only the willing are drawn [nonnisi volentes trahi] as if people will yield obedience to God on their own initiative [proprio motu]. For when people follow God willingly, it is what they already have from Him who has formed their hearts to obey Him (COR II.xi.1: 210; Parker: 1961, 164, alt).

This clearly demonstrates that Calvin presumes that Chrysostom believes that willingness is a prerequisite for salvation. The sentence Calvin is referring to when he says quod volentem trahat et manum porrigentem (“God draws to himself him who is willing and stretches out his hand”) occurs in a homily on Paul’s conversion (De ferendis, 3; PG 51: 131–144). In the

103

104

Jeannette Kreijkes

1536 Chevallon edition, the title is De ferendis reprehensionibus & conversione Pauli (CHEV 3: fol. 238r E–fol. 241 v H).10 There, the Chrysostom passage Calvin seems to be quoting reads: Qui autem trahit volentem, trahit humique iacentem, ac manum porrigentem: “however, who is willingly drawn by him, is drawn while lying on the ground and stretching out his hand” (CHEV 3: fol. 241r E). If Calvin based his reference on a Greek text,11 he does not cite the words τὸν κάτω κείμενον (humi iacentem, “lying on the ground”), which add a different nuance to the phrase χεῖρα ὀρέγοντα (manum porrigentem, “stretching out his hand”). It is also possible that Calvin used a secondary source for the quotation. Yet an initial search for this quotation in sixteenth-century sources did not yield any clues about which specific source or sources Calvin might have used. Whereas it seems that, in Calvin’s interpretation, the willing person stretches out his hand to take salvation, Chrysostom’s wording depicts the person lying on the ground, totally dependent, and then he stretches out his hands to receive help. Chrysostom’s point is that God does not use force to draw people to himself against their will (De ferendis 3.6; PG 51: 144; CHEV 3: fol. 241r F; cf. Rylaarsdam: 2014, 181). Chrysostom intends his phrase τὸν κάτω κείμενον or humi iacentem (“lying on the ground”), which Calvin omits, to be understood in the context of Acts 9:4: “He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’” Chrysostom comments on this question: “Look, you lie on the ground; look you are bound without a chain.” He paraphrases the words of the voice that Paul heard: “What do you want to do now? Look, you have come under my hands.” He states that the Lord observes Paul lying on his back and trembling out of fear. Paul’s question “Who are you, Lord?” (Acts 9:5) reveals that Paul acknowledges Christ as Lord (De ferendis, 3.4; PG 51: 140; CHEV 3: fol. 240v G–H). Chrysostom repeatedly emphasizes that Paul now has come to faith in God, not out of compulsion, but with a sincere heart and good will (De ferendis, 3.5–6; PG 51: 142–143; CHEV 3: fol. 241r C). The way in which Chrysostom articulates his claim makes it clear that he considers Paul’s good will a characterization of his attitude after he came to faith rather than a prerequisite for faith. Chrysostom makes a similar assertion in his interpretation of John 1:11: Beloved, God, being loving towards man and beneficent, does and arranges all things in order that we may shine in virtue, and because He desires that we be well approved by Him. And to this end, He draws no one by force [βίᾳ, cogit] or compulsion [ἀνάγκῃ,

10 Oecolampadius’ Latin translation of this homily was previously published in Basel by Cratander in 1523 (cf. Dill: 2008, 261). 11 See De ferendis, 3.6; PG 51: 143: Ὁ δὲ ἕλκων, τὸν βουλόμενον ἕλκει, τὸν κάτω κείμενον καὶ χεῖρα ὀρέγοντα.

Did the Synod of Dordt Consider Chrysostom a Semi-Pelagian?

cogit] but by persuasion and benefits, He draws all who will [βουλομένους, assentiuntur], and wins them to Himself. For this reason, when He came, some received Him, and others did not receive Him. For He will have no unwilling [ἄκοντα, invitum] or forced [ἠναγκασμένον, coactum] servants, but all of their own will [ἑκόντας, sponte sua] and choice [προαιρουμένος, optant], and grateful to Him for their service. People, needing the ministry of servants, keep many in that state even against their will [μὴ βουλομένους, improbos & dicto non audientes], by the law of ownership; but God, being without needs, and not standing in need of anything of ours, but doing all only for our salvation, gives us the ability to decide [κυρίους, nosque ipsos nostri arbitrii & iuris esse libere permittit] in this matter, and therefore lays neither force [βίαν, cogit] nor compulsion [ἀνάγκην, cogit] on any of those who are unwilling [μὴ βουλομένων, nolentes]. For He looks only to our advantage: and to be drawn unwillingly [ἀκόντας, nolentes] into a condition of service like this is the same as not serving at all (In Ioh. hom. 10.1; PG 59: 73); CHEV 3: fol. 14v, L–M [= In Ioh. hom. 9]; NPNF1 14: 35, alt).

In this passage as well, Chrysostom seems to state that no one serves God unwillingly; God first gives people the ability to decide. Thus, in Calvin’s partial citation of Chrysostom, a person’s willingness appears to be a prerequisite for salvation, whereas Chrysostom emphasizes the fact that God does not save someone by force or compulsion. Although it is anachronistic to expect Chrysostom to articulate the origin of Paul’s good will as clearly as Dordt would later do,12 nonetheless, it is possible to relate Chrysostom’s position to the third and fourth heads of doctrine in the Canons of Dordt. In particular, the following passage from article 16 can be regarded as being substantially compatible with Chrysostom’s position in the passage that Calvin only incompletely cites: This divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and – in a manner at once pleasing and powerful – bends it back. As

12 Yet Chrysostom seems to relate Paul’s good will to his vocation, and, for Chrysostom, there might be some synergism between the vocation and Paul’s will. See, for example, Chrysostom, De ferendis, 3.6; PG 51: 143; CHEV 3: fol. 241r D: “not only has the vocation [κλῆσις, vocatio] drawn Paul but also his will [προαίρεσις, voluntas].” Moreover, in his exposition of Heb 7:10, Chrysostom states that people must first choose the good; then God will help to complete the good work they began: “all indeed depends on God, but not in such a way that our free will [τὸ αὐτεξούσιον] is hindered. […] It is both up to us [ἐφ’ ἡμῖν] and up to Him [ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ]. For we must first choose the things that are good, and when we have chosen, then He brings in His own part. He does not anticipate our acts of will, lest our free will should suffer indignity; but when we have chosen, then He brings great assistance” (In Heb. hom. 12.3; PG 63: 99; NPNF1 14: 425, alt. in Bradshaw: 2015, 32).

105

106

Jeannette Kreijkes

a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. In this, the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists (Canons of Dordt, III/IV.16; Our Faith, 133, emphasis added).

This article of the Canons also highlights the willingness that characterizes one’s service to God. While Chrysostom keeps soteriology and ethics closely together, in his exposition of Matt. 25:31–46, he considers grace more important than good works. In fact, he regards good deeds as a concrete form of faith (Brändle: 2008, 138). Nevertheless, Calvin would have preferred that Chrysostom were more specific about the cause of a person’s good will. The question remains whether Calvin would have still held the same opinion if he had bothered to quote the entire sentence since his representation of Chrysostom’s position does not reflect a thorough analysis of the whole homily. Yet Calvin’s interpretation of this passage may have been influenced by his reading of Chrysostom’s other writings. Chrysostom does have much in common with the semi-Pelagians or Massilienses. First, like them, Chrysostom holds that, in some way, God’s exercise of grace is not incompatible with a person contributing something of one’s own to the process of conversion, though whether this essay is entirely one’s own is unclear in Chrysostom. Second, both the semi-Pelagians and Chrysostom saw this parallelism: just as reprobation does not cause sin, so predestination does not cause salvation.13 Third, like the Massilienses, Chrysostom sometimes seems to say that humans alone take the initiative for salvation. Both the Massilenses and Chrysostom believed that Christ died for all people (Kenny: 1960, 27ff). However, in addition to the fact that Chrysostom lived before the Pelagian controversy, whereas the Massilienses lived in its aftermath, there are additional points of divergence. First, Chrysostom does not clearly distinguish between natural and supernatural actions, while the Massilienses claimed that a natural action could be the beginning of salvation. Second, although Chrysostom believed that human beings take the initiative for salvation, he does not explain whether he considered that initiative meritorious, while the Massilienses did consider it so. Finally, Chrysostom never explicitly distinguishes vocation and election; for the Massilienses, vocation was gratuitous, while election was a reward for merit. The difficulty with Chrysostom’s writings is that he does not openly reflect on the initium fidei (Kenny: 1960, 29).

13 Note that the Canons explicitly reject this parallelism in their conclusion, the “Rejection of False Accusations.” They deny “that in the same manner in which election is the source and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness.” (Our Faith, 143).

Did the Synod of Dordt Consider Chrysostom a Semi-Pelagian?

Moreover, the different theological threats that Chrysostom, Calvin, and the Synod of Dordt faced go a long way to explain their divergence in emphasis. Calvin was sensitive to anything that smacked of late medieval semi-Pelagianism. Dordt was concerned to counter Remonstrant views that made human choice the decisive factor in salvation. But while Calvin and Dordt were concerned to counter doctrines that attributed too much to human freedom and undermined divine sovereignty, Chrysostom faced the opposite error, one that Augustine would also combat: the heresy of Manicheism. The mirror image of Pelagianism, the Manichaeans, defended God’s sovereignty at the expense of human freedom. Chrysostom’s concern to avoid passivity is evident in his exposition of John 6:44: The Manichaeans spring upon these words, saying, “that nothing lies in our own power [ἐφ’ ἡμῖν, ex nobis ipsis]”; yet the expression shows that we are masters of our will [γνώμης, volumus]. “For if a person comes to Him,” says someone, “what need is there of drawing?” But the words do not take away our free will [ἐφ’ ἡμῖν, arbitrium], but show that we greatly need assistance. And He does not imply one who comes unwillingly [τυχόντα/ἄκοντα, invitum], but one who enjoys much assistance (In Ioh. hom. 46.1; PG 59: 257f; CHEV 3: fol. 56v L–M [= In Ioh. hom. 45]; NPNF1 14: 162, alt).

Thus, while people can do a considerable amount by themselves, they do need help to come to God. The Manicheans, however, regarded the Gospel as a form of fatalism. In his homily on 1 Tim 1:12f, Chrysostom also remarks that Paul divides the praise between God and humans for their actions to prevent people from using determinism as an excuse for not making any effort to live a Christian life. This pertains to believers rather than persons on the cusp of conversion (In 1 Tim hom. 3.1; PG 62: 515f; cf. Rylaarsdam: 2014, 150n303). The fact that Chrysostom’s polemical opponents were the Manicheans, before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy, explains why he was more concerned about underestimating human responsibility than overestimating it.

6.4

Implications for the Way in Which Protestants have Dealt with Their Tradition

In sum, the Synod of Dordt uses Chrysostom to refute synergism, not as an example of it. Calvin has some hesitations about Chrysostom’s views on free choice. He frequently warns his readers to be aware of what he considered to be Chrysostom’s

107

108

Jeannette Kreijkes

overestimation of human capacities.14 In his pre-Pelagian context, Chrysostom considered Manichean passivity a greater threat than ascribing too much power to the human will. Chrysostom wanted people to live a holy life. Because debates over the cause of such a life occurred after his lifetime, there was no need for him to express himself in detail on this matter. Chrysostom’s statements leave ample room for both advocates of semi-Pelagianism and their opponents to claim Chrysostom as an authority. For present-day Protestants, it is worthwhile to consider, first, the difference between the Synod’s and Calvin’s evaluation of Chrysostom’s views. Second, one has to be careful to avoid anachronism. In one sense, it is impossible for Chrysostom to be Pelagian or semi-Pelagian, given that these controversies occurred after his lifetime. Throughout the centuries, theologians of various and incompatible positions have credibly claimed Chrysostom’s support. One can only clarify Chrysostom’s views when one analyzes him in his own context, without anachronism, and with an awareness of the influence of reception history.

Bibliography Beatrice, Pier Franco (2013), The Transmission of Sin: Augustine and the Pre-Augustinian Sources, Adam Kamesar (trans.), New York: Oxford University Press. Bradshaw, David (2015), St. John Chrysostom on Grace and Fee Will, Common Ground Journal 12.2: 31–37. Brändle, Rudolf (2008), This Sweetest Passage: Matthew 25:31–46 and Assistance to the Poor in the Homilies of John Chrysostom, in: Susan R. Holman (ed.), Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 127–139. Byers, Sarah (2006), The Meaning of Voluntas in Augustine, Augustinian Studies 3.2, 171–189. Casiday, Augustine (2005), Rehabilitating John Cassian: An Evaluation of Prosper of Aquitaine’s Polemic against the ‘Semipelagians’, Scottish Journal of Theology 58.3, 270–284. Dihle, Albrecht (1982), The Theory of Will in Classical Antiquity, Berkeley: University of California Press.

14 Apart from the passages from the Institutes mentioned in section 3, see, e.g., Praef. In Chry. Hom. (COR VI.i.405ff; Hazlett: 1991, 145–150). There, Calvin warns his readers about passages in Chrysostom’s writings in which he “talked very vaguely about predestination and conceded so much to our free will.” Calvin understands that Chrysostom had good reasons for his position in his context, in which he had to deal with opposing philosophers and people who wanted to live a shameful life; cf. Calvin, Comm. II Cor. 6:6 (COR II.xv.110).

Did the Synod of Dordt Consider Chrysostom a Semi-Pelagian?

Dill, Ueli (2008), Johannes Chrysostomos im Basler Buchdruck des 16. Jahrhunderts, in: Martin Wallraff/Rudolf Brändle (ed.), Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren: Facetten der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 255–265. Dupont, Anthony (2013), Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones Ad Populum During the Pelagian Controversy: Do Different Contexts Furnish Different Insights? Leiden: Brill. Frede, Michael (2011), A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought, A.A. Long (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press. Hazlett, W. Ian P. (1991) Calvin’s Latin Preface to his Proposed French Edition of Chrysostom’s Homilies: Translation and Commentary, in: James Kirk (ed.), Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England and Scotland, 1400–1643: Essays in Honour of James K. Cameron, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 129–150. Kahn, Charles H. (1988), Discovering the Will: From Aristotle to Augustine, in: J.M. Dillon/A.A. Long (ed.), The Question of “Eclecticism”: Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, Berkeley: University of California Press, 234–259. Kenny, Anthony (1960), Was St. John Chrysostom a Semi-Pelagian? Irish Theological Quarterly 27.1, 16–29. Kenny, Anthony (1979), Aristotle’s Theory of the Will, London: Duckworth. Korolec, J.B. (1982), Free Will and Free Choice, in: Norman Kretzmann/Anthony Kenny/ Jan Pinborg/Eleanore Stump (ed.), The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism, 1100–1600, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 629–641. Laird, Raymond (2012), Mindset, Moral Choice and Sin in the Anthropology of John Chrysostom, Strathfield: St Pauls Publications. Lane, Anthony N.S. (1999), John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers, Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Lloyd, G.E.R. (1968), Aristotle: The Growth and Structure of His Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, Margaret M. (2000), The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. Muller, Richard A. (2012), Was Calvin a Calvinist?, in: Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 51–69. Muller, Richard A. (2017a), Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Muller, Richard A. (2017b), Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and Necessity in Early Modern Reformed Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Oberman, Heiko A. (1986), The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought, Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Parker, T.H.L. (trans.) (1961), John Calvin, The Gospel according to St. John 1–10, David W. Torrance/Thomas F. Torrance (ed.), Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company [1961], repr. 1995.

109

110

Jeannette Kreijkes

Pareus, David/Nicolaas Schotsman (1819), Academische redevoering over de Nationale Synode van Dordrecht: uitgesproken te Heidelberg, den 1sten februarij 1619, Leiden: Wed. D. du Saar. Ritter, Adolf Martin (2008), Das Chrysostomosbild im Pietismus am Beispiel Johann Albrecht Bengels, in: Martin Wallraff/Rudolf Brändle (ed.), Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren: Facetten der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 347–372. Rylaarsdam, David (2014), John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: The Coherence of His Theology and Preaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schaff, Philip (ed.)/David S. Schaff (rev.) (1931), The Five Arminian Articles, in: The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes, 3 vol., 6th ed., Grand Rapids: Baker [1931], repr. 1990, 3:545–546. Weaver, Rebecca Harden (1996), Divine Grace and Human Agency: A Study of the Semi-Pelagian Controversy, Macon: Mercer University Press. Young, Frances M./Andrew Teal (2010), From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background, 2nd ed., London: SCM Press.

Abbreviations Acta

Acta Synodi Nationalis, in nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, Illustr. et Praepotentum Authoritate DD. Ordinum Generalium Foederati Belgii provinciarum, Dordrechti habitae Anno MDCXVIII et MDCXIX, Dordrecht: Canin, 1620. Translations from the Acta are by the author. ADSND Acta et documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619), Donald Sinnema/Christian Moser/Herman Selderhuis/Janika Bischof/J. Roelevink/ Fred van Lieburg (ed.) (2015), vol. 1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. CHEV Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opera, 5 vol., Paris: Claude Chevallon, 1536. Translations from the Chevallon edition are by the author. COR Ioannis Calvini Opera omnia: denuo recognita et adnotatione, critica instructa, notisque illustrata, B.G. Armstrong et al. (ed.), Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1992–. De ferendis Chrysostom, De ferendis reprehensionibus et de mutatione nominum. McNeill/Battles John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, J.T. McNeill (ed.)/F.L. Battles (trans.), 2 vol., Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960. NPNF1 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Philip Schaff (ed)., 14 vol., Buffalo/New York: The Christian Literature Company [1886–1889], repr. 1952–1956.

Did the Synod of Dordt Consider Chrysostom a Semi-Pelagian?

OS Our Faith

PG PL

Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta, Peter Barth/Wilhelm Niesel/Dora Scheuner (ed.), 5 vol., Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1926–1962. Our Faith: Ecumenical Creeds, Reformed Confessions, and Other Resources: Including the Doctrinal Standards of the Christian Reformed Church in North America and the Reformed Church in America, Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2013. Patrologiae Cursus Completus Series Graeca, J.P. Migne (ed.), 161 vol., Paris: Garnier, 1857–1866. Patrologiae Cursus Completus Series Latina, J.P. Migne (ed.), 221 vol., Paris: Sirou, 1844–1865.

111

Harm Goris

7.

Stripped and Wounded

The Medieval Background of Roman Catholic Views on the Effects of the Fall in (Post)-Tridentine Theology

Abstract The Canons of the Synod of Dordt seem to offer a very pessimistic assessment of what human beings are morally capable of apart from divine grace. Often, this is identified with ‘total depravity’. In contrast, Roman Catholic theology has the tendency to downplay the effects of the fall. Original sin is said to constitute only the loss of the extra, supernatural gifts of original justice and a return to a purely natural state. In this paper, I argue that this view, which became dominant only during the Council of Trent and was attributed to Thomas Aquinas, has in fact its roots in the theology of Duns Scotus. I present a reading of Thomas Aquinas, which integrates the Aristotelian and the Augustinian views on the notion of ‘human nature’. For Augustine, ‘human nature’ is a historical-empirical term, describing human existence before the fall. Aristotle, on the other hand, uses ‘human nature’ as a metaphysical concept, which indicates what something should be in order to qualify as human. Aquinas combines both with the help of the notion of a ‘state of human nature’ (status humanae naturae), which differs before and after the fall. In his way, Aquinas can do justice to Augustine’s idea that human beings are intrinsically affected by original sin, while keeping their human nature as such. It seems that this Thomist view on original sin is not incompatible with the Canons of Dordt.

7.1

Introduction

The Canons of Dordt are rather pessimistic about the moral capacities of human beings after the fall. Adam lost the spiritual and moral gifts God had given him at creation and “in their place, he brought upon himself blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in his mind; perversity, defiance, and hardness in his heart and will; and finally impurity in all his emotions” (III/IV.1). The fall also affected his offspring:

114

Harm Goris

All people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform (III/IV.3).

The Canons acknowledge the existence of a “certain light of nature” in fallen human beings, but in reality that light is totally ineffectual: There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him – so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness (III/IV.4).

The negative view on what human beings can do apart from grace, seems to be at the heart of the theology of the Reformation. Calvin himself writes in Institutes 2.1.8: “for our nature is not only destitute and empty of good, but so fertile and fruitful of every evil that it cannot be idle” (Calvin: 2006, 252). Likewise, Question eight of the Heidelberg Catechism asks: “but are we so corrupt that we are totally unable to do any good and inclined to all evil?” And the answer is: “yes, unless we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.” Also Luther presents a rather pessimistic view on fallen humanity. In his commentary on Romans 5 he writes: “original sin … is his inclination to all that is evil, his aversion against what is good, his antipathy against (spiritual) light and wisdom, his love for error and darkness, his flight from and his loathing of good works, and his seeking after that which is sinful” (Luther: 1954, 95). In this paper I shall discuss what is usually portrayed as the opposite of the Reformed view, viz. the Catholic theology of original sin and its effects. Both Catholic (e.g. Rahner: 1970, 268; Grisez: 1991, 170–71; Ormerod: 2007, 72) and Protestant theologians (e.g. Bavinck: 2006, 95–97; McFarland: 2010, 36–39) alike present the Catholic interpretation of original sin as the mere loss of the supernatural gift of original righteousness without any added deterioration of the natural constitution or capacities of human beings. In other words, original sin does not affect human nature intrinsically and is nothing but a relapse into a purely natural state. After the fall, human beings are still human, and this implies that they remain free and capable of performing morally good acts, even in the absence of justifying grace. Bavinck (2006, 95–97) notes that this interpretation became dominant among Catholic theologians only after the Council of Trent (1545–1563) and that it was in

Stripped and Wounded

contrast with earlier medieval opinions. This paper intends to offer a systematic analysis and explanation of Bavinck’s statement. First, I shall sketch the meaning and function of Aristotle’s concept of human nature in medieval theology in contrast with Augustine’s use of the term ‘nature’. The second section deals with the consequences of the introduction of the Aristotelian understanding of ‘nature’ for the definition of original sin and with the major shift in the thought of Duns Scotus (c. 1266 – 1308). Third, I shall discuss the view on original justice in sixteenth and seventeenth Catholic theology, taking the view of the influential Dominican theologian Domingo de Soto (1494–1560) as exemplary.

7.2

The Concept of Human Nature in Medieval Scholastic Theology

One, if not the greatest innovation in theological anthropology during the middle ages was the introduction of the notion of ‘human nature’. Earlier, Augustine had developed his view on human beings on the basis of the dichotomy of sin versus grace. Sin and grace are for Augustine the only two categories he can use for articulating a Christian perception of humanity. This changed around the 1230s. In that time the great works of Aristotle had been rediscovered in the West and also his notion of ‘nature’, in particular of ‘human nature’. It became a third parameter, besides sin and grace, for developing a theological analysis and interpretation of human beings. What is distinctive of Aristotle’s notion of human nature is that it is what one could call a “metaphysical construct” and not “an empirical account of how human beings actually are” (Ormerod: 2014, 519).1 The term ‘human nature’ also occurs before the thirteenth century. In fact, Augustine uses it. However, he takes ‘nature’ as a descriptive term. For him, ‘human nature’ describes some actual state in which people exist or existed. According to Augustine, the true and proper sense of the word ‘human nature’ refers to the condition in which human beings were originally created by God. When we use the term ‘nature’ for the way people are born after the fall, we use it not in its true and proper sense but metaphorically. In Retractationes I, 10.3 (Augustinus 1984, 32–33) he writes: … nature … as it was originally created without fault is what is truly and properly called ‘human nature’. But we use the word metaphorically when call ‘nature’ as how man is

1 Likewise, Teske, who distinguishes the ‘philosophical’ concept of nature, used by Aristotle (and Avicenna), from the ‘historical’ concept of nature, used by Augustine (Teske: 2006, 240–245).

115

116

Harm Goris

born. And according to this use the apostle has said: we were once children of wrath by nature just like the others [Eph 2:3].2

Likewise, in De natura et gratia 67, 81 (Augustinus: 1913, 296), it is said: we speak of nature itself in one sense when we talk properly about the nature of man in which he was first made blameless after his kind, and in another sense of that [nature] in which we are born both ignorant and subject to the flesh because of the punishment of that condemned man. According to that sense, the apostle says: we were children of wrath by nature just like the others.3

In De nuptiis et concupiscentia 2, 34, 57 (Augustinus: 1902, 315), Augustine uses a different way of characterizing the situation before and after the fall, and writes that after the fall human nature has changed: “by that great sin of the first man, our nature was changed for the worse and has not only become a sinner but also gave birth to sinners.”4 In contrast with this descriptive historical-empirical concept of ‘nature’, Aristotle’s metaphysical concept of ‘nature’ has a normative and analytical character. It indicates what something should have or should be in order to qualify as a specific kind of being. As a consequence, ‘natures’ or ‘essences’ are necessary and unchangeable. And that is also the reason why they are the object of science (cf. Aristotle, Posterior Analytics I, 6, 75a19–38, Aristotle: 1960, 58–60). Augustine’s suggestion that a nature can change would make no sense for Aristotle. If a nature changes, it would no longer be that nature; just like the number three would no longer be the number three if it had changed into the number four. Likewise, Aristotle states that ‘substances’, which indicate what kind of thing (essence) something is, and essential differences are spoken of univocally: “differentia and substance alike have this characteristic in common, that, wherever we predicate them, we predicate them univocally” (Aristotle, Categories 5, 3a34–35, Aristotle: 1938, 29). Aristotle would frown at Augustine’s suggestion that ‘human nature’ is said metaphorically or in a

2 “ … natura(m) … qualis sine vitio primitus condita est: ipsa enim vere et proprie natura hominis dicitur. Translato autem verbo utimur, ut naturam dicamus etiam qualis nascitur homo, secundum quam locutionem dixit apostolus: fuimus enim et nos aliquando natura filli irae sicut et ceteri.” 3 “[E]tiam ipsam naturam aliter dicimus, cum proprie loquimur naturam hominis in qua primum in suo genere inculpabilis factus est, aliter istam in qua ex illius damnati poena et ignari et carni subditi nascimur. Iuxta quem modum dicit apostolus: fuimus enim et nos naturaliter filli irae sicut et ceteri.” It is a quotation from a passage in De libero arbitrio 3, 19, 54. 4 “Unde illo magno primi hominis peccato natura ibi nostra in deterius commutata non solum est facta peccatrix verum etiam genuit peccatores.”

Stripped and Wounded

different sense of human beings before and after the fall. He would say that either something is a human being or it is not. On the basis of Aristotle’s metaphysical notion of human nature, scholastic theologians of the thirteenth century would not say that God created Adam and Eve in a truly and properly natural state as Augustine would have it, but rather that He created them in a kind of super-natural state of grace, usually referred to as ‘original justice’. Basically, this original justice consisted of two elements.5 First, sanctifying grace. At the moment of their creation, God in fact endowed Adam and Eve with habitual grace and with the infused theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. In this way, Adam and Eve were ordered to a supernatural end, usually called ‘the beatific vision’. God was under no constraint to create Adam and Eve in this way. Of course, God could have chosen not to create human beings at all. But moreover, theoretically, God could have chosen to create human beings without the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace, He could have chosen to create them with only the powers and capacities that belong by definition to human nature and with which they could achieve some kind of natural goal. Once God had decided to create human beings, God had to give them an organic body and reason, because these things belong to human nature; they are owed to human nature as such (debita naturae). But that does not go for sanctifying grace. This is what later theologians would call the double gratuity of grace. Out of pure love, God intended and created human beings for a supernatural goal they could never have reached through their merely natural capacities of reason and therefore God endowed them at their creation with the supernatural means of grace to reach that goal. However, original justice did not only consist of supernatural sanctifying grace. It also consisted of other extra gifts by which human nature worked perfectly in all respects, the so-called state of integral nature (status naturae integrae): the body was fully under control of the soul – granting immortality –, the bodily sensory powers, desires, and emotions functioned perfectly because they were totally under the guidance of the rational powers of the soul, while the human will was completely attuned to God as its supernatural end through sanctifying grace. In other words, together with sanctifying grace, Adam and Eve received perfect moral, intellectual, emotional and physical rectitude. From the perspective of Arisotle’s concept of human nature, these gifts are not part of human nature as such. For example, that Adam and Eve possessed full knowledge and all the skills and had all the natural virtues, is not natural in the sense that the actual possession of these properties and execution of these activities do not necessarily and by definition belong to human nature. On Aristotle’s view, it belongs to human nature only that we can (and should) acquire them; the task of moral and intellectual self-realization is

5 There has been some controversy about this divide: cf. Köster: 1979, 76–80.

117

118

Harm Goris

constitutive of human nature. In the nineteenth century, theologians would use the label ‘preter-natural’ – in contradistinction with ‘supernatural’ – for these extra gifts of the state of integral nature with which God had endowed Adam and Eve.

7.3

Original sin in scholastic theology

For Augustine human nature has been intrinsically affected and even changed by original sin. A key term in his ideas about original sin is ‘concupiscence’. It is a loaded term with the connotation of a wrongly ordered will, i.e. a will that is not ultimately directed to God, but it also has sensual and sexual overtones. How exactly one should understand concupiscence in Augustine remains a matter of debate, but we can safely assume that it means some kind of inner disordering that has become inherent in all human beings. In 1100 Anselm of Canterbury introduced a new definition of original sin in terms of a loss, or privation or destitution or as he calls it ‘nudity’ (nuditas)6 and ‘absence’ (absentia) of the justice that is due (to God), because of Adam’s disobedience. Anselm mentions Augustine’s concupiscence only once. Yet it is clear that like Augustine he does think that human nature is intrinsically corrupted, infected, changed by Adam’s fall: it became sinful (McMahon: 2004). Like Augustine, Anselm uses a historical-empirical notion of human nature. He is not familiar yet with the Aristotelian metaphysical notion of ‘nature’. Anselm’s definition of original sin became very popular in scholastic theology, starting with Alexander of Hales in the 1220s. Usually, Anselm’s definition was rendered as the lacking or robbing of original justice: carentia or privatio iustitiae originalis. However, the meaning of this definition changed when Aristotle’s notion of human nature was introduced. As mentioned before, against the background of the Aristotelian concept of nature, scholastic theologians no longer saw the existential situation of Adam and Eve as natural in the true and proper sense of the word, as Augustine would have it, but they saw it as supernatural. Hence, in theory it became possible to interpret Anselm’s privation definition of original sin as meaning that only the supernatural gift of original justice was taken away, leaving human nature in a kind of purely natural state, in puris naturalibus. This would mean that original sin does not intrinsically affect human nature. Human nature as such, in itself, is not worse off after the fall.

6 De Conceptu Virginali et de Originali Peccato c. 27 (1968, 170): “Hoc peccatum, quod originale dico, aliud intelligere nequeo in eisdem infantibus, nisi ipsam […] factam per inobedientiam Adae iustitiae debitae nuditatem, per quam omnes filii sunt irae factam per inobedientiam.”

Stripped and Wounded

In fact, the young Aquinas writes in his Commentary on the Sentences that after the fall, “the human being is left with only those good things which he has on the basis of natural principles.”7 However, Aquinas is not consistent. Later in the same discussion on original sin, he says in a strongly Augustinian sense: “from the act of nature that is carnal reproduction, there remains some disposition in the nature itself of the offspring which inclines to evil and is called ‘concupiscence’ … That corruption of nature has in it the power of the sin from which it is caused.”8 Apparently, the authority of Augustine is so great for Aquinas that a purely privative definition of original sin in combination with an Aristotelian concept of an unchangeable human nature, will not do for him. He juxtaposes it with the Augustinian idea of corrupted nature but without relating the one with the other. They remain two isolated views. This changes in Aquinas’s later works: original sin is not merely the absence of original justice but also involves a corruption.9 Maybe by taking his cue from the author of the Summa Halensis (Alexander de Hales: 1930, 237), written between 1236 and 1245, Aquinas uses the analogy of the composition of form and matter in analyzing the concept of original sin. In this way he manages to combine Anselm’s absence of original justice as the ‘formal element’ (formale) of original sin with Augustine’s concupiscence as its ‘material element’ (materiale).10 In elaborating how human nature is corrupted by original sin, Aquinas introduces the category of status naturae, the state of human nature, which indicates the concrete, historical condition or state in which human nature (as a metaphysical notion) actually exists.11 He explains that before the fall human nature existed in the state of integral nature, that is with all the extra gifts of grace, and after the fall it exists in a corrupted or fallen state: in statu naturae corruptae. Human nature now suffers from wounds, specifically the wounds of concupiscence (understood here as Aristotelian vice)12 ,

7 Super Libros Sententiarum liber 2 d. 30 q. 1 a. 1 (1929, 767): “relictus est homo in illis tantum bonis quae eum ex naturalibus principiis consequuntur.” 8 Super Libros Sententiarum liber 2 d. 32 q. 1 a. 1 (1929, 824): “ex actu naturae, qui est carnis propagatio, relinquitur quaedam dispositio inclinans ad malum in ipsa natura generati, quae concupiscentia … dicitur; … illa naturae corruptio in se virtutem peccati, ex quo causata est, continens …” 9 Summa Theologiae Ia–IIae, q. 82 a. 1 ad 1: “peccatum originale non est privatio pura sed est quidam habitus corruptus” (1964–1981, vol. 26, 30). 10 Summa Theologiae Ia–IIae, q. 82 a. 3 (1964–1981, vol. 26, 38). Likewise, in Quaestio Disputata De Malo q. 4 a. 2 resp. (1982, 111). 11 The concept of status naturae had already been used by William of Auvergne around 1240 (Teske 2006, 242–245). 12 As Aquinas indicates, Augustine took ‘concupiscence’ in a large sense as a turning away from God, the eternal good, to some perishable good (bonum commutabile) by all the human powers: Summa Theologiae Ia–IIae q. 82 a. 3 (1964–1981, vol. 26, 38). As an Aristotelian vice, ‘concupiscence’ refers to a disorientation in only one of the human powers, namely the desiring part (concupiscibilis) of the sensitive appetite.

119

120

Harm Goris

weakness, ignorance, and malice.13 These wounds affect the four human capacities that are morally relevant. Ignorance impairs reason and malice the rational will. Concupiscence and weakness imply a disordering of the two parts of the sensitive appetite, the so-called concupiscibilis (desiring part) and the irascibilis (agressive part). In line with Aristotle, Aquinas thinks that by nature the sensitive appetite and the accompanying emotions – precisely as human phenomena – conform to the guidance and kingly rule of reason so that they themselves may flourish (Miner: 2009, 88–96). Original sin implies that the two parts of the sensitive appetite lose their natural amenability to reason. In short, the fall means that human nature is deeply damaged but it is not destroyed. Introducing the notion of status naturae enables Aquinas to integrate the Aristotelian and the Augustinian concepts of (human) nature. Aristotle’s analytical concept explains the structure of what it is to be human as such, while the status of human nature describes how that structure is actually realized in history, which is what Augustine was after.14 It also makes clear that human nature never existed in some kind of neutral condition; there has never been a status naturae purae. Not only every individual human person, but also human nature itself in fact has always been related to God’s supernatural vocation, either positively – in its integral state– or negatively – in its fallen state. Finally, the notion of status naturae helps Aquinas and other scholastic theologians to differentiate between two functions of grace: it heals (by a lifelong process) the wounds inflicted on human nature insofar as these wounds exist in a person and it elevates the human person to a supernatural relation of faith, hope, and love with the triune God (at the moment of justification). When elaborating on the wounds caused by the fall in human nature, Aquinas often cites the phrase that because of original sin the human being is “both stripped from the gifts of grace and wounded in his natural endowments” (tum gratuitis expoliatus, tum vulneratus in naturalibus). In the Summa Theologiae Aquinas attributes the phrase to Bede the Venerable (672/673 ‒ 735). It is found in Bede’s Homily 105 for Palm Sunday (Beda Venerabilis: 1850, 507A).15 In this sermon Bede mentions the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10 and compares Christ with the Good Samaritan and Adam with the man who went down from Jerusalem (i.e. Adam’s state in paradise) to Jericho (i.e. Adam’s state after the fall). The man

13 Summa Theologiae I–IIae q. 85 a. 3 (1964–1981, vol. 26, 90): “haec autem originalis iustitia subtracta est per peccatum primi parentis … Et ideo omnes vires animae remanent quodammodo destitutae proprio ordine, quo naturaliter ordinantur ad virtutem, et ipsa destitutio vulneratio naturae dicitur.” 14 Patristic and medieval theologians commonly thought of paradise as an actual historical state. Modern science makes this conception very questionable. I shall not deal with this problem but focus on the present situation of fallen nature. 15 Modern scholars are not certain if Bede is the author. Aquinas mentions Bede in the Summa Theologiae Ia–IIae q. 85 a. 1 (1964–1981, vol. 26, 80).

Stripped and Wounded

was attacked by robbers, who stripped him of his clothes, beat him and left him half dead (Luke 10:30). Peter Lombard included the phrase in his Sentences, which were written around 1150 and became the standard theological textbook in the middle ages (Peter Lombard, Sentences, book two, dist. 25, c. 7, Lombard: 1971, 465). This contributed to the popularity of the phrase. The same metaphor of nudity is also found in the Glossa ordinaria, the collection of biblical glosses that was widely regarded as an authority in the middle ages.16 Commenting on Luke 10, the Gloss says that after the fall man “lost the clothes of spiritual grace” and suffered “injuries, that is sins, by which the integrity of human nature was wounded.”17 The stripped and wounded man became a key metaphor for characterizing the situation of humanity after the fall. Above, I argued that the young Aquinas juxtaposed the Anselmian-Aristotelian view of original sin as a relapse into a purely natural state because of the loss of original justice with the Augustinian idea of an intrinsic deterioration of human nature, while the mature Aquinas integrated the two. To my knowledge, Duns Scotus is the first theologian who unequivocally opts for the view of Anselm-through-thelense-of-Aristotle. Original sin is nothing but the loss of the supernatural original justice and, hence, a kind of relapse into a purely natural state. Characteristic for Scotus’s position is that he thinks that the fight (rebellio) between the sensitive appetite and reason in human beings is not caused by some added wound or corruption due to original sin, but is natural to human beings. By their very natures, the sensitive appetite desires what is pleasing to the senses, while reason must restrain (impediendum) and rein in (refrenando) this desire.18 This position has at

16 Aquinas attributes the phrase to the Gloss in the text of the Commentary on the Sentences mentioned earlier: In II Sent. d. 30 q. 1 a. 1 ad 3 (1929, 767) and d. 29 q. 1 a. 2 s.c. 1 (1929, 742). He mentions the Gloss as a source also in Quaestio Disputata De Malo q. 5 a. 5 arg. 11 (1982, 140), probably written around 1270, shortly before the redaction the Prima Secundae of the Summa Theologiae, which identifies Bede as its author. 17 Glossa ordinaria on Luke 10 (Glossa ordinaria 2016–2018): “homo iste Adam intelligitur in genere humano qui a beatitudine celestis Hierusalem prevaricationis prolapsione ad miserias et defectum huius vite mutabilis et erronee descendit, cum intumescere cepit … Qui etiam indumenta gratie spiritalis, immortalitatis scilicet et innocentie auferunt et sic vulnera inferunt, id est peccata, quibus humane nature integritas violatur et mors quasi fossis visceribus inducitur.” 18 Duns Scotus, Ordinatio II d. 29: “… ista rebellio videtur esse in homine existente in puris naturalibus … Naturale est unicuique appetitui ferri in suum appetibile … Ergo cum appetitus sensitivus, existens in puris naturalibus, habeat proprium appetibile et delectabile, summe haberet tendere in illud ex se, et illud ‘tendere’ impediret actum rationis, quid adhuc essent tunc istae potentiae in eadem essentia sicut modo, propter quam unitatem impedient se mutuo in actibus suis intensis, secundum Avicennam VI Naturalium. Ergo deberet ratio conari ad impediendum istam delectationem summam partis sensitivae … Esset igitur ibi rebellio, quia inclinatio potentiae inferioris ad delectandum contra iudicium rationis, et difficultas in refrenando illum appetitum” (2001, 309–310). Likewise, in Lectura II d. 30–32 q. 1–4: “… si homo fuisset in puris naturalibus … fuisset talis rebellio, quia tunc etiam

121

122

Harm Goris

least two serious consequences. First, it makes the doctrine of original sin ineffective as a (partial) solution to the problem of theodicy. Even before Augustine, the doctrine functioned as an answer to the Gnostic idea that evil is inherent to matter and corporality (McFarland: 2010, 29–32). In particular Irenaeus of Lyons argued that evil did not come about through God’s creation of Adam and Eve as corporeal beings. However, if the inner disharmony is already accounted for by human nature as such – which is created by God – and not only by Adam’s transgression, original sin can no longer exonerate God. Second, it tends to a dualistic anthropology with Platonic, if not even Gnostic, overtones. Instead of the natural compliance of the sensitive appetite to reason, which Aquinas held, Scotus thinks the sensitive desires and emotions have by nature an anti-rational inclination and need the bridle and whip of the despotic rule of reason.

7.4

Domingo de Soto and Post-Tridentine Theology

Although it is difficult to determine which view on original sin was dominant in Catholic theology during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it seems that at least in the beginning of the sixteenth century there was a strong tendency to downplay the effects of original sin on human nature and to follow the Scotist view. The Louvain theologian John Driedo (c. 1480–1535) complains that many of his colleagues underestimated or neglected the reality of original sin as presented by Augustine (Gielis/Schelkens: 2007, 428–429). Driedo himself combines the Augustinian and the Anselmian account of original sin (Driedo: 1537, 197). One of the most outspoken representatives of the view that original sin is a relapse into a purely natural state was Domingo de Soto. In 1547 he published a treatise entitled De natura et gratia. At that time, de Soto participated in the Council of Trent and his treatise originated from the preparatory work he did while the Council was drafting the decrees on original sin and on justification. In chapter 13, he discusses the effects of original sin and enumerates three such consequences. The first two have to do with the loss of supernatural gifts of grace, but the third one is “our defect and wounding, namely the unbridledness (effraenatio) of concupiscence, which from then on is no longer bound by reason or divine law and is drawn impulsively

sensus delectabiliter ferrentur in propria obiecta sicut modo … et tunc oporteret rationem reniti retrahendo sensum a proprio obiecto; igitur propter talem rebellionem non oportet ponere talem qualitatem morbidam causatam in carne” (1993, 299). In the early fourteenth century, also some Dominican theologians like Hervaeus Natalis and James of Metz mention the natural ‘rebellion’ of the senses against reason (Martin: 1930, 98, 197).

Stripped and Wounded

to sensory things, which is its nature.”19 De Soto insists that this unbridledness of the concupiscence is not a kind of extra, positive divine infliction of punishment; it is just the automatic result of the loss of supernatural grace. In fact, it is nothing but a kind of relapse into a purely natural state. Like Scotus, de Soto has to affirm that the “wrestling” (lucta) between the intellective and the sensitive part belongs to human nature as such, as it is composed of body and soul.20 Also in his 1538–1539 lectures on Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, de Soto writes that in their purely natural state, the lower powers “always fight against reason” because “it is the nature of the [sensitive] appetite to be drawn towards its object without bridle” (Becker: 1967, 118 note 30).21 However, de Soto refuses to acknowledge the Scotist origin of this own view. Apart from the metaphors of a fight between the senses and reason and the absence of the bridle of reason, de Soto also refers to Bede’s metaphor in De natura et gratia. He writes that because of original sin the human being is “both robbed from the gifts of grace and wounded in his natural endowments.”22 De Soto acknowledges that it is an authoritative statement and also that it suggests the opposite of what he had claimed: the statement seems to indicate that after the fall we are worse off than human beings who had been created in a purely natural condition because now our nature is wounded. But, de Soto claims, theologians unanimously deny this reading: for God, who clothed our nature with a supernatural gift, did not treat the sinner with a greater humiliation than leaving her naked. This is both because of his benignity and because we did not lose something by our own will [that is the difference between original sin and actual sin, H.G.]. Therefore, a human being in a purely natural situation is no different from a fallen human being in this respect (except for the notion of guilt) in the same way as a naked person who was never clothed does not differ from a person who was once clothed but is now stripped. Both are equally naked. The only difference is that in the first case the nudity was in no way a punishment, but only the natural absence of garments while in the second case it is a robbing because of guilt.23

19 De Natura et Gratia c. 5 (De Soto: 1549, 47): tertius effectus illius peccati, nosterque defectus, et vulneratio, est, effraenatio concupiscentiae, quae a ratione exinde, legeque divina religata, impetu (quae natura eius est) ad sensibilia fertur. 20 De Natura et Gratia c. 3 (De Soto: 1549, 7): “ex his consequens palam fit, luctam illam, cuius meminit Apostol. ad Galat. ut caro concupiscat adversus spiritum, et spiritus adversus carnem, esse homini à natura ingenitam: sanè quae ex his diversariis partibus innascitur.” See also de Soto 1549, 47. 21 “Si esset (read: essent) [vires] in puris naturalibus, pugnaret (read: pugnarent) semper adversus rationem. Natura enim appetitus est, quod feratur in obiectum suum sine freno.” 22 De Natura et Gratia c. 13 (De Soto: 1549, 48): “tum gratuitis expoliatus, tum vulneratus in naturalibus.” 23 “Quoniam Deus, qui supernaturali dono vestierat naturam nostram, non maiori supplicio peccatricem affecit, quam denudatam relinquere. Tum ob suam benignitatem, tum quod nihil nos nostra

123

124

Harm Goris

De Soto claims that the (Roman Catholic) theologians of his time are unanimous in asserting that original sin does not add an extra wound to human nature but leaves it in a state that is equivalent to a purely natural state.24 That seems to be an exaggeration. As we already saw, at least de Soto’s contemporary Driedo thinks that the fall affects human nature. The council fathers of Trent refrained from taking a stance in this matter. Canon 1 of the Tridentine decree on original sin states that Adam deteriorated according to body and soul but the comparison is only made with the state of original justice not with the (hypothetical) state of pure nature. A concept version of the decree had mentioned that “also no part of his soul had remained unhurt”, but this phrase was deleted from the final version.25 So Trent left it an open issue if and to what degree human nature itself was effected by original sin. It seems that most leading post-Tridentine theologians followed de Soto. Bellarmine (1542–1621), for example, writes “and when that gift was lost by sin [viz. the supernatural gift of original justice], our nature returned to that state in which it would have been if it had been created in a purely natural state.”26 And he claims: “Therefore, the state of man after the fall does not differ more from his purely natural state than someone who is stripped differs from someone who is naked. Nor is human nature worse off – setting aside original guilt – nor would it struggle with greater ignorance and weakness than when it had been and had struggled in a purely natural state.”27 Like Scotus and de Soto, Bellarmine has to admit that an internal struggle between the senses and the intellect belongs to human nature as such. Remarkably, he calls this natural tension in the human being “a sickness (morbus) or weakness (languor) of human nature, which arises from its material condition.” In the Augustinian view on original sin, these had been key terms for characterizing fallen human nature.28 But Bellarmine uses them to define

24 25 26 27

28

voluntate admisimus. Quare homo in puris naturalibus ab homine lapso non aliter (praeter rationem culpae) differt in hac parte, quam uti homo nudus, qui nunquam fuit indutus, ab homine nudato, quibus fuerat vestitus. Ambo enim sunt aeque nudi. Nisi quod nuditas in primo nulla fuisset poena, sed naturalis negatio ornamenti: in secundo verò est privatio propter culpam.” Köster makes the same claim (1982, 91). “… nulla etiam animae parte illaesa durante” (Concilium Tridentinum: 1911, 218). Bellarminus, De Gratia primi hominis c. 5 (1593, 19): “eo dono remoto mansisse naturam, qualis esset, si in puris naturalibus condita fuisset. ” Bellarminus, De Gratia primi hominis c. 5 (1593, 17): “quare non magis differt status hominis post lapsum Adae a statu eiusdem in puris naturalibus, quam differat spoliatus a nudo, neque deterior est humana natura, si culpam originalem detrahas, neque magis ignorantia, et infirmitate laborat, quam esset, et laboraret in puris naturalibus condita. Et iam dono illo per peccatum amisso, natura nostra ad eum statum redierit, in quo futura fuisset, si in puris naturalibus condita esset.” See, for example, Augustine, De nuptiis et concupiscentia 1, 25, 28 (1902, 240), for the term languor and 1, 31, 35 (Augustinus: 1902, 315), for the expression morbidus adfectus. Peter Lombard had listed these and similar terms for original sin in Sentences, book 2, dist. 31, c. 3 (1971, 506).

Stripped and Wounded

human nature as such. He continues by characterizing the extra gift of original justice as that “by which as if by a golden bridle, the lower part [i.e. the senses] was easily remained subjected to the higher part [i.e. the intellect].29 We find the same view expressed by the Jesuit theologians Martin Becanus (1563–1624) and Francisco Suarez (1548–1617).30 Is there an explanation why at least from de Soto onward, the dominant view among Catholic theologians on original sin became that it entails a reduction to a purely natural state? I have no definite answer to this question. It could be that a more optimistic view on the natural capacities of human beings fits in better with particular Renaissance ideas about human dignity (Steenbakkers: 2014). Or it could be that de Soto’s view is part of a larger tendency in Roman Catholic theology, viz. the tendency to separate the natural from the supernatural and to emphasize the autonomy and self-sufficiency of the former in the concept of natura pura. Or could it be part of a strategy to develop a theological Roman Catholic identity over and against the reformers, in particular when more Augustinian approaches became suspect after the Louvain professor Michael Baius (1513–1589), who held strong Augustinian views, was forced to recant? Probably, all of these factors (and maybe more) have played some role in the rise in (post-)Tridentine theology of the (Scotist) view that original sin comes down to a kind of relapse into a purely natural state.

7.5

Conclusion

It is common to define the Roman Catholic view on original sin in such a way that it does not really affect human nature. Fallen humanity lost the super- and preternatural gift of original justice, but is in fact not worse off than when existing in its purely natural state. I have argued that this view originated with Scotus and became dominant in Roman Catholic theology only during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Scotus developed his interpretation on a double basis. First, he reinterpreted Anselm’s definition of original sin as the loss of original justice

29 Bellarminus, De Gratia primi hominis c. 5 (1593, 16): sciendum igitur est primo, hominem naturaliter constare ex carne et spiritu … Ex his autem diversis, vel contrariis propensionibus existere in uno eodemque homine pugnam quandam, et ex ea pugna ingentem bene agendi difficultatem, dum una propensio alteram impedit. Sciendum secundo, divinam providentiam initiò creationis ut remedium adhiberet huic morbo, seu languori naturae humanae, qui ex conditione materiae oriebatur: addidisse homini donum quoddam insigne, iustitiam videlicet originalem, qua veluti aureo quodam fraeno pars inferior parti superiori, et pars superior Deo facile subiecta contineretur.” 30 Becanus, Summae Theologiae Scholasticae Pars Secunda c. 2 q. (1612, 104), c. 9 q. 11 (1612, 439), Suarez, Tractatus De Gratia, prol. IV, c. 8 (1857, 207).

125

126

Harm Goris

by substituting an Aristotelian analytical-metaphysical concept of nature for the historical-empirical concept that Augustine and Anselm had used. Second, Scotus presupposed that it belongs to human nature that the sensitive appetite rebels against reason and should be bridled by the latter. However, (post-)Tridentine Roman Catholic theologians did not acknowledge the Scotist origin of their view on original sin and tried to present it as Thomist. In contrast, I have tried to show that with the help of the notion of the state of nature (status naturae) the mature Thomas Aquinas managed to safeguard Augustine’s idea of an intrinsic wounding of human nature itself after the fall by arguing that our sensitive appetite and passions lost their natural amenability to reason. Moreover, Aquinas’s reconstruction of Augustine’s view through the Aristotelian concept of nature enabled him to refine Augustine’s dichotomy of sin and grace. The category of nature is not a real third alternative besides sin and grace. The human being is either in the state of grace, i.e. in the right relation to God and to his supernatural vocation, or in the state of sin, i.e. averted from God. Tertium non datur. But nature as a metaphysical notion is necessary for spelling out the different layers of grace both as healing created human nature and as elevating us to a form of deification, beyond our natural capacities If the Augustine-friendly interpretation of Aquinas’s theory of original sin that I have outlined here, is acceptable to Roman Catholic theologians, it would help the ecumenical discussion. Moreover, I think that Reformed theology could benefit from a re-evaluation of the notion of ‘nature’ when taken as a tool for analyzing the complex existential situation of human beings. It can liberate Reformed theology from a caricatured view on the total depravity of human beings. At the same time, such a notion of ‘nature’ would not do injustice to the intention of the fathers of the Synod of Dordt. At the beginning of this paper, I quoted from the Canons. In light of what I have said, it could be argued that when fallen human beings are said to be “unfit for any saving good” (Canons of Dordt, III/IV.3, italics H.G.), it is about the supernatural good and not about any good whatsoever. Furthermore, reintroducing ‘nature’ could vindicate the “certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall” (Canons of Dordt, III/IV.4), which has received so little appreciation, in particular after Barth.

Bibliography Alexander de Hales (attributed) (1930), Summa theologiae (Summa halensis), vol. 2, Quaracchi, Florence: Collegium S. Bonaventurae. Anselmus (1968), De conceptu virginali et de originali peccato, S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia vol. 1, F. S. Schmitt (ed.), Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag.

Stripped and Wounded

Aristotle (1938), Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, translated by H. P. Cooke, Hugh Tredennick, Loeb Classical Library 325. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Aristotle (1960), Posterior Analytics, Topica, translated by Hugh Tredennick, E. S. Forster, Loeb Classical Library 391, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Augustinus (1902), De Perfectione Iustitiae Hominis, De Gestis Pelagii, De Gratia Christi et de Peccato Originali Libri Duo, De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia Ad Valerium Comitem Libri Duo, Carolus F. Urba/Josephus Zycha (ed.), CSEL 42, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Augustinus (1913), De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, De spiritu et littera, De natura et gratia, De natura et origine animae, Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum, K. F. Vrba/J. Zycha (ed.), CSEL 60, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Augustinus (1984), Retractationum libri II, A. Mutzenbecher (ed.), CCSL 57, Turnhout: Brepols. Bavinck, Herman (2006), Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ, edited by John Bolt and translated by John Vriend, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Becanus, Martinus (1612), Summae Theologiae Scholasticae Pars Secunda, Paris: Apud Josephum Cottereau. Becker, Karl Josef (1967), Die Rechtfertigungslehre nach Domingo de Soto. Das Denken eines Konzilsteilnehmers vor, in und nach Trient, Analecta Gregoriana, vol. 156, Rome: Gregoriana. Beda Venerabilis (1850), Opera omnia vol. 5, Patrologia Latina 94, Paris: Migne. Bellarminus, Robertus (1593), De Gratia primi hominis, in Disputationum de Controversiis Christianae Fidei, T. 3, Ingolstadt: Ex officina typographica Davidis Sartorii. Calvin, John (2006), Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill, translated and indexed by Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Colish, Marcia (1994), Peter Lombard, vol. 1, Leiden: Brill. Concilium tridentinum (1911), Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, Actorum, Epistularum, Tractatuum Nova Collectio, T. 5. Acta post sessionem tertiam usque ad concilium Bononiam translatum, edited by Stephanus Ehses (Societas Goerresiana), Herder: Freiburg. De Soto, Domingo (1547), De Natura et Gratia, Paris: Apud Ioannem Foucher. Driedo, Joannes (1537), De gratia et libero arbitrio, Louvain, Rutgeri Rescii. Gielis, Marcel/Karim Schelkens (2007), From Driedo to Bellarmine. The Concept of Pure Nature in the 16th Century, Augustiniana 57, 425–448. Glossa Ordinaria (2016–2018), Glossae Scripturae Sacrae electronicae, ed. Martin Morard, IRHT-CNRS, consulted on September 4, 2019. (permalink: gloss-e.irht.cnrs.fr/php/ editions_chapitre.php?livre=../sources/editions/GLOSS-liber57.xml&chapitre=57_10). Grisez, Germain Gabriel/Russell B. Shaw (1991), Fulfillment in Christ: A Summary of Christian Moral Principles, Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.

127

128

Harm Goris

Ioannes Duns Scotus (1993), Lectura in Librum Secundum Sententiarum dist. 7–44, Opera Omnia vol. 19, Vatican: Typis Vaticanis. Ioannes Duns Scotus (2001), Ordinatio Liber Secundus dist. 4–44, Opera Omnia vol. 8, Vatican: Typis Vaticanis. Köster, Heinrich (1979), Urstand, Fall und Erbsünde in der Scholastik, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Band II, Fasz. 3b, Freiburg: Herder. Köster, Heinrich (1982), Urstand, Fall und Erbsünde. Von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Band II, Fasz. 3c, Freiburg: Herder. Luther, Martin (1954), Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, A New Translation by J. Theodore Mueller, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. Martin, Raymond Marie (1930), La controverse sur le péché originel au début du XIVe siècle: Textes inédits, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, Fasc. 10, Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense. McMahon, Kevin A. (2004), Anselm and the Guilt of Adam, The Saint Anselm Journal 2.1, 81–89. Miner, Robert C. (2009), Thomas Aquinas on the Passions: A Study of Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae 22–48, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ormerod, Neil (2007), Creation, Grace, and Redemption, Theology in Global Perspective, Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. Ormerod, Neil (2014), Grace-Nature Distinction, Theological Studies 75.3, 515–536. Petrus Lombardus (1971), Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae, 3rd ed., vol. 1, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 4, Grottaferrata (Romae): Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas. Rahner, Karl (2016), Original Sin, in: Sacramentum Mundi Online, General Editor Karl Rahner, SJ. First published online: 2016. Consulted online on 06 September 2019, dx.doi.org/10.1163/2468–483X_smuo_COM_003050. Steenbakkers, Piet (2014), Human Dignity in Renaissance Humanism, in Marcus Düwell et al. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 85–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511979033.009. Suarez, Francisco (1857), Tractatus De Gratia, Opera Omnia vol. 7, Paris: Vives. Teske, Ronald (2006), Studies in the Philosophy of William of Auvergne Bishop of Paris 1228–1249, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. Thomas Aquinatis (1929), Scriptum super libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi episcopi Parisiensis, t. 2, P. Mandonnet (ed.), Paris: Lethielleux. Thomas Aquinatis (1964–1981), Summa Theologiae, 61 vols., London: Blackfriars etc. Thomas Aquinatis (1982), Quaestiones disputatae de malo, P.-M. Gils (ed.), Leonine edition vol. 23, Paris: Vrin.

Part B: Theology at the Synod

Dolf te Velde

8.

Justified by Faith?

Franciscus Gomarus on the Crucial Issue with Jacob Arminius

Abstract Next to the well-known debates on predestination, the views of Jacobus Arminius on the doctrine of justification deserve attention. On several occasions, Arminius and his opponent Franciscus Gomarus discussed this topic, until shortly before Arminius’s death in October 1609. Arminius denied that the righteousness of Christ is the material cause of our justification, and instead held that the act of faith itself is, by God’s ‘gracious estimation’ counted as righteousness. Gomarus, on the contrary, insisted on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the ground of justification and on an merely ‘instrumental’ role of faith. In further analysis, it is shown that Arminius’s views show a remarkably similarity to those of Faustus Socinus, the notorious Italian freethinker. Though the Synod of Dordt did not make the doctrine of justification a central topic in its Canons, its ongoing teaching on election, grace and faith stands in clear contrast to the decisive role assigned to the human act of faith by Arminius, both in predestination and in justification.

8.1

Introduction

The Reformation of the sixteenth century arguably saw justification by faith alone as the crucial doctrine. How does this judgment function in the debates concerning predestination, grace and free will prior to the Synod of Dordt? According to the nineteenth century Reformed preacher Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge, the Counter-Remonstrants had been misled by their opponents in shifting the controversy to election and reprobation; instead, they should have confronted the Arminians on the crucial issue of justification.1

1 In a letter from the year 1835 to his friend Hermanus van Heumen, Kohlbrugge wrote: “waarom pakt men Arminius niet in de ribben aan? (…) En waarom heeft men zich laten verschalken en afbrengen van de justitia Christi tot de praedestinatie, waardoor de Synode van 1618 zulk een ongelukkige houding heeft verkregen, moetende de Remonstranten uitwerpen, waar zij met de prediking der justitia Dei et Christi de Remonstranten op den loop gejaagd zou hebben, en veler monden voor het toekomende gestopt waren geweest?” Kohlbrugge’s letter was published as Appendix B in van Lonkhuijzen: 1905, 22*–25*. See also van Vlastuin: 2019.

132

Dolf te Velde

Franciscus Gomarus did point out on several occasions that Jacobus Arminius held deviant views of the doctrine of justification. It is true, the public confrontation between the two professors at Leiden University started with the topic of predestination. As early as 1607, however, Gomarus expressed his worries about the views of his colleague Arminius on the central topic of justification by faith. In a letter from October 23, 1607 to the Franeker professor Sibrandus Lubbertus, Gomarus indicated several teachings of Arminius that deviate from the Reformed standard, including some aspects of justification.2 It seems that Arminius himself had changed his opinion over the course of the years. An early disputation defended under his presidency in 1603 by Theodore Carron contained the traditional, orthodox exposition of justification by faith alone.3 Three years later, however, a new disputation defended by Alard de Vries manifested important changes in Arminius’s thought

2 This letter was printed in van Itterzon: 1930, 395f (appendix 13). Gomarus knows that some students have gone from Leiden to Franeker for a richer doctrine of grace. The problem with Arminius is that his views remain hidden by the denials, additions, and changes he continues to make. Among the positions taken more openly by Arminius, Gomarus indicates three aspects related to the doctrine of justification: that the act of believing is accounted to us as faith in Romans 4, and thus is our righteousness (to credere nobis ad fidem imputari Ro. 4 eoque iustitiam esse nostram); that the righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us as righteousness, because it itself is righteous, while that which is imputed is not by law but by grace (Christi iustitiam nobis non imputari in iustitiam, quia est ipsa iustitia, imputatur autem quod non est iure sed gratia); and that nowhere in Scripture it is said that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us (Nullibi dici in s. lit. Ch. just. nob. imp.). 3 This disputation was not included in the printed collections of Arminius’s disputations from 1609, 1610, and 1615. It was found in the Leiden University Library, call number 236 A 9: 93, and published in Stanglin: 2010, 301–323. On pages 75–81, Stanglin reviews the evidence for the claim of Arminius’s friend Petrus Bertius against Gomarus, that the 1603 disputation on justification was not truly authored by Arminius himself, but rather by the student Theodore Carron. He concludes that style and content are largely consistent with the theology deployed by Arminius up to that moment. We therefore take it as an original statement of Arminius’s views on justification at that time, and reproduce a few key elements of the argument. Thesis seven states that God “imputes the actual righteousness of Christ for the sake of his own glory and of the eternal life of those who believe” (iustitiam Christi actualem imputat ad gloriam suam et vitam credentium aeternam). Thesis eighteen adds that “the material cause of our justification is, again, the righteousness or merit of Christ” (Materiale nostrae iustificationis est itidem iustitia sive meritum Christi). Thesis 32 explains how faith is the ‘instrument’ of justification: “it is said that we are justified by faith, not considered by itself as a quality, but inasmuch it is a related thing that pertains to and apprehends its correlate, Christ with his righteousness, metonymically taking that which contains for the thing contained, or rather of the apprehensive instrument for the apprehended object” (Hac fide iustificari dicimur, non ut consideratur absolute, ut qualitas, sed quatenus est relatum respiciens et apprehendens suum correlatum Christum cum ipsius iustitia, metonymia videlicet continentis pro re contenta, vel potius instrumenti apprehensivi pro obiecto apprehenso). According to thesis 35, the particle ‘alone’ (sola) in ‘by faith alone’ does not exclude “the grace of God, nor the righteousness of Christ, which are outside us, but it does exclude all our own merits, which are in us” (Excludit autem haec particula non gratiam Dei, non iustitiam Christi, quae extra nos, sed omnia merita nostra, quae in nobis).

Justified by Faith?

concerning justification.4 When the two professors were summoned to explain their differences before the High Council of the Netherlands in May 1608, and later before the States of Holland and West-Friesland in August 1609, Gomarus made it clear that for him the divergence concerning justification was the most far-consequential issue (see for this episode van Itterzon: 1930, 119–147). The famous exclamation by Gomarus before the High Council, that he would not dare to come before the Lord with the views held by his colleague does not relate to predestination, but to justification.5 It must have been a bit frustrating for him that in the exchange of 1608 Arminius from his side minimized the significance of the questions concerning justification, and shifted the debate to predestination and to supralapsarianism and reprobation in particular. While in a private letter to Hippolytus a Collibus Arminius had given an account of his understanding of justification,6 it was only through the publication of the Proeve by Gomarus that his opinions became a matter of public debate (Gomarus: 1610).

8.2

Opposing Views: Jacobus Arminius

What, then, is at stake?7 The newly developed views of Arminius can be summarized in five points, which altogether represented a coherent alternative framework. The first aspect arises in the exegesis of Romans 4:5, where the apostle Paul says that the faith of Abraham “was imputed for righteousness”. Here Arminius advocates a literal understanding, to the effect that it is the act of faith itself that counts as righteousness before God. Gomarus and other Reformed theologians had defended a metonymical interpretation of this statement: it is not the faith itself, but the promise of the covenant God establishes with Abraham that provides the ground for his righteousness. Or, stated in a slightly different way, it is the object of faith (the fides quae) that serves as the ground of justification. Similarly, the righteousness

4 The disputation was included in the collection issued by Thomas Basson just before Arminius’s death: Arminius: 1609, 193–200. Through the subsequent editions of Arminius’s disputations in 1610 and 1614, it became part of the Opera theologica published in 1629. 5 Graafland: 1987, 123, with reference to Trigland: 1650, 290–314 (Gomarus’s exclamation is quoted on page 314). 6 Hippolytus a Collibus was born from an ancient Italian family in 1561 in Zurich, where his father had found refuge because of his Protestant belief. In his early twenties, he became a doctor and professor of law in Basel and Heidelberg. From 1591 onward, he served as a lawyer and counselor to several German princes. As a delegate of the Prince Elector of the Palatinate, A Collibus sojourned in Switzerland, Poland, the Dutch Republic, England, and Bohemia. The letter written by Arminius on April 5, 1608 was later published as Arminius: 1613. 7 Previous discussion of the controversy on justification between Gomarus and Arminius is found in Graafland: 1987; Goudriaan: 2010; van den Brink: 2012; Fesko: 2014.

133

134

Dolf te Velde

of Christ as being apprehended by faith makes us righteous in the sight of God (Arminius: 1613, section 5; Arminius: 1611b, 55f; in more detail Arminius: 1611c, 151–154). A second element is needed to explain how the human act of faith, which is by itself imperfect and insufficient, can still count as righteousness before God. Arminius here employs the term ‘gracious estimation’ (gratiosa aestimatio). Our faith does not by itself fulfill the demands of God’s justice, but God freely and graciously decides to treat the act of faith as if it meets the demands of his law (Arminius: 1609, 196, 199 (theses seven and ten); Arminius: 1611c, 152; Arminius: 1613, section 5). In the third place, what then should be held of the sacrificial death of Christ on our behalf? In the traditional understanding, the death of Christ in our place is the material ground of justification: it is the reason for which God holds us righteous not in ourselves, but in Christ. Whereas Arminius does not speak of Christ’s death as a ‘material ground’ (causa materialis) of justification, he labels it as the ‘meritorious cause’ (causa meritoria) of justification. This means that the sacrifice of Christ creates a new situation in which it is possible for God to deal with us in a way that differs from the strict justice that is demanded in order to be righteous (Arminius: 1611b, 66). In a metaphorical expression derived from Hebrews 4:16, Arminius speaks of two ‘thrones’ of God. The first is the throne of justice. Here God is seated as a severe Judge, who maintains the demands of the Law that result in our condemnation. There is also another throne, however, which is the throne of grace: here God acts as the loving God who wants to redeem lost humans. As Arminius depicts the event of atonement, through the sacrifice of Christ, God switches from one throne to the other: He no longer treats us as the severe Judge according to the strict norms of justice, but He acts with us according to his grace, by accepting our faith and declaring us righteous on account of that faith (Arminius: 1609, 195, 198 (theses four and nine); Arminius: 1611c, 156). In his letter to Hippolytus a Collibus, Arminius makes a very subtle distinction concerning the righteousness achieved by Christ through his death. While he affirms that the righteousness of Christ is the object of our faith, he denies that it is also the object or the material ground for justification. Rather, the merit of Christ is “the cause by which God imputes our faith, which has Christ and his righteousness as its object and foundation, as our righteousness”.8 The fourth step in Arminius’s argument is to discuss the concepts of ‘satisfaction’ and ‘imputation’. While in the traditional understanding these concepts are complementary, since the satisfaction achieved by Christ is imputed to us and becomes our righteousness in faith, Arminius sees them as mutually exclusive. According to Arminius, the notion of ‘imputation’ implies that something is counted for that which it is not in actual reality. It has a

8 Arminius: 1613, section 5: “causa est cur Deus fidem nostram, quae Christus, ejusque justitiam habet pro objecto et fundamento, nobis in justitiam imputet”.

Justified by Faith?

‘fictional’ connotation. But if the obedience and death of Christ constitutes a full satisfaction for our sins, it cannot be held ‘as if ’ it is righteous, because it actually is righteous to the fullest extent. If something is ‘imputed’ as our righteousness before God, this should be something that is not righteous by itself, namely our faith (Arminius: 1609, 198f (thesis 9); Arminius: 1611c, 152f). In the fifth part of his explanation, Arminius returns to the concept of faith with which the discussion started. For him, the act of faith does not only consist of assent and trust attached to the promise of salvation offered in the Gospel; it also includes the obedience of faith that shows the veracity of faith and that becomes manifest in good works (Arminius: 1611c, 154–158, as an explanation of Arminius: 1609, 198 (thesis 9)). While for Arminius himself this is a relatively small aspect, we can see that for his followers, the Remonstrants, the character of faith as actual obedience becomes all the more important.

8.3

Opposing Views: Franciscus Gomarus

Franciscus Gomarus, for his part, dealt with the topic of justification on several occasions. One is the disputation defended under his presidency by Henricus Slatius in 1605 (Gomarus: 1605). In this disputation, a rather straightforward account of justification is given, with a number of polemical statements against the Roman Catholic view of justification on the basis of infused grace. Gomarus insisted that the material cause of justification is the obedience of Christ, both active and passive, including his entire life as the fulfilment of God’s law on our behalf (Gomarus: 1605, theses fifteen and sixteen). He also defined faith as the instrument by which the merit of Christ is apprehended and applied by us (Gomarus: 1605, thesis 20). With some emphasis, Gomarus explained that the particle ‘sola’ in sola fide does not exclude God’s grace or the righteousness of Christ, but that it does exclude any merit in us, even our faith inasmuch as it is a work or a quality.9 Gomarus further engaged the topic of justification in the several conferences that were held between him and Arminius before the High Council and the States of Holland and West-Friesland in 1608 and 1609. In the discourse (Vertooch) held before the States of Holland in December 1608, Gomarus briefly indicated the issues in which Arminius seemed to sympathize with the Catholics and with the Jesuits in particular. One of these issues is justification: Arminius agrees with the Jesuits that we are held righteous by God not on account of the righteousness of Christ, but on account of faith itself. In this document, Gomarus does not enter into the doctrinal

9 Gomarus: 1605, thesis 23. Note that this statement is almost identical with thesis 35 from Arminius’s disputation on justification from 1603; see footnote 3 above.

135

136

Dolf te Velde

details, but he reveals the tactical approach that Arminius had taken in order to introduces his deviant views to the university and to the Church. Gomarus also complains about the fact that in the earlier conference before the High Council, Arminius had refused to answer to the questions and objections made by Gomarus on the crucial doctrine of justification, and instead had attempted to shift the debate to the doctrine of predestination (Gomarus: 1609c, 50–56). The most extensive discussion by Gomarus is given in his Declaration (Verclaringhe) offered to the States of Holland and West-Friesland on September 8, 1609 (Gomarus: 1609b). We have to realize that this Declaration represents the final stage of the direct debate between Gomarus and Arminius. After the conference before the States had started in August, Arminius had become so ill that he could no longer be present. He promised to give a further explanation in writing, but because the illness got worse, he was unable to do so, and ultimately Arminius died on October 19, 1609 (Van Itterzon: 1930, 138–147). Gomarus discusses the question whether justification is based on the satisfaction by Christ or on faith in several steps. The first level of arguments comes from the agreement or unity with the Church. Here Gomarus appeals to article 22 of the Belgic Confession and to answers 60 and 61 of the Heidelberg Catechism to make it clear that the proper ground of justification is not faith as such – which is merely an instrument – but the complete satisfaction, obedience and righteousness of Christ (Gomarus: 1609b, 2f). In the context of the debate with Arminius and his followers, we should note that in addition to the substantial differences there was also the question of the authority of the confessions and the possibility to have the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism revised. As a second line of evidence, Gomarus lists a number of texts from Scripture, including references to Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians and Romans, but also to the famous prophecy on the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53. While Gomarus does not explain these texts in detail, the tendency of his appeal to Scripture is clear: Christ provided actual atonement for our sins, which is applied to us by faith. A third, additional, argument is that for God declaring us righteous only a perfect obedience to the demands of the law is sufficient. Such perfect obedience is achieved only by Christ (Gomarus: 1609b, 3). After articulating his own position, Gomarus then summarizes the view of his opponent Arminius in three points: first, Arminius teaches that our faith is counted as righteousness by God’s gracious estimation. Second, Arminius denies that the righteousness of Christ can be imputed to us. Third, instead the obedience of Christ is viewed by Arminius as the meritorious cause by which our justification is obtained (Gomarus: 1609b, 3f). In refuting Arminius, Gomarus offers two main arguments with some additional considerations. The first main argument is against the appeal made by Arminius to Romans 4:5 for his claim that it is the act of faith itself that is counted as righteous-

Justified by Faith?

ness. As we have seen before, Arminius insisted on a literal interpretation of this phrase. To the contrary, Gomarus argues that in the immediate context of Romans 3 and 4 faith is not described as the material cause of justification, but as the way in which or the means by which we are justified (Gomarus: 1609b, 4). Second, Gomarus confronts the claim made by Arminius that satisfaction and imputation are mutually exclusive. According to Gomarus, his colleague has misunderstood the biblical word for imputation, because he assumes that it has the connotation of being ‘gracious’ and without proper merit. Only if the definition of imputation is changed in this way, it can be denied that the satisfaction of Christ is imputed to us. Gomarus argues that the word itself only means that something is counted towards or reckoned as something that belongs to us. It is perfectly possible that the full merit of Christ is transferred – so to speak – to our account by the act of imputation. In this connection, Gomarus refers to the example that had been provided by Arminius to clarify his understanding of ‘imputation’: imagine a debtor and a creditor who deal with a debt of one hundred guilders in this way: the debtor cannot pay the full price, but only pays the first ten guilders; the creditor then is free to accept this small amount as if it were the full payment; and in this way the debt is acquitted (for this example, see Arminius: 1611c, 153). For Gomarus, this is not an adequate description of what happens in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The full price has been paid by Christ, and this is reckoned as our payment to God. What is paid by the one, can be imputed to the other (Gomarus: 1609b, 4f). In addition to these two central objections, Gomarus also claims that the view of Arminius detracts from the glory of Christ. He states that our imperfect faith can never be acceptable as righteousness before God. He points out that faith as the instrument is different from what is received by this instrument, namely the complete merit of Christ on our behalf (Gomarus: 1609b, 5). In the remainder of the Declaration, Gomarus responds to observations and objections made by Arminius to the disputation on justification of 1605. In his response, Gomarus makes it clear that indeed the satisfaction and death of Christ belong together with our justification before God. Arminius had separated the two parts: he saw the obedience and death of Christ in connection with the law, and justification and forgiveness in connection with the Gospel. Gomarus does not endorse a substantial difference, but only a distinction in the way or mode in which law and Gospel deal with God’s justice. In the law of God, perfect righteousness is indicated, but not achieved. The Gospel, in turn, gives us the righteousness which the law of God demands. In maintaining this intrinsic connection between legal and evangelical righteousness, Gomarus makes a polemical reference to the ‘Samosatenians’ and to Socinus, who denied that Christ achieved complete righteousness for us (Gomarus: 1609b, 6f). Gomarus also explains in what part the righteousness of Christ consists: first, in his holy conception and birth; second, in the perfect obedience of his life; third, in the satisfaction by his suffering and

137

138

Dolf te Velde

death. Again, Gomarus supports his statements by quotations from the Reformed confessions (Gomarus: 1609b, 7f). The next criticism by Arminius deals with the two ‘thrones’: the throne of severe justice and the throne of mercy. As we have seen before, Arminius depicts the event of justification as God moving from one throne to the other, occasioned by the merit of Christ’s death on the cross. The assumption behind this explanation by Arminius is that he thinks the two ‘thrones’ cannot exist together. In other words: satisfaction and forgiveness are two different acts that rest on two different grounds. In reply, Gomarus states that the two ‘thrones’ can and should be held together, but in different respects: in view of Christ as the Surety for his people, God exerts his severe justice in condemning Christ on account of our sins; in relation to us, however, God shows his mercy by giving Christ as the Surety to us and by forgiving our sins on account of his atonement. Gomarus does not fail to indicate that the disjunction of justice and mercy as proposed by Arminius is similar to the teachings of Faustus Socinus (Gomarus: 1609b, 8). One of Arminius’s questions to Gomarus was about the person who is justified: is this a faithful person or a righteous person? Gomarus replies that this question is inappropriate. In ourselves, we are unjust and godless, and we are justified as such. But because we are united by faith with Christ, we are righteous in him, as the apostle Paul indicates in Philippians 3:8–9. Note that Gomarus does not only advocate a strictly forensic understanding of imputation and justification here, but endorses the notion of the unio cum Christo as the underlying foundation by which it is possible that Christ’s righteousness becomes ours. The satisfaction made by Christ on our behalf needs to become valid by imputing it to us. We have to take on Christ with his righteousness, just as in Genesis 27 Jacob took on the clothes of his brother Esau in order to receive the blessing of his father Isaac. Gomarus here refers to the language of the Belgic Confession, which states in article 22 that by our faith we embrace Christ and all his benefits. In this strong way of uniting us personally with Christ, faith is the instrument of our justification (Gomarus: 1609b, 9).

8.4

A Broader Perspective

If we attempt to place Arminius’s understanding of justification in the historical and theological context, the problem we are facing is that Arminius hardly gives any clues as to his sources. From a comparative reading of some other disputations on justification by representative Reformed theologians such as Antoine de la Faye from Geneva, Johannes Piscator from Herborn, and Franciscus Junius from Leiden around 1600, it is clear that they were unanimous in stating that faith is the instrument by which the satisfaction and the perfect obedience of Christ are

Justified by Faith?

apprehended as the sole ground of justification. So, Arminius could not appeal to any of his direct colleagues in Reformed academia for his new insights.10 Franciscus Gomarus, in his critique of Arminius, is more explicit about the possible influences that made his colleague change his mind. To begin, Gomarus mentions the Roman Catholics and the Jesuits in particular. This holds at least for the broader framework of the doctrine of grace and faith. Among the Catholics, theologians from the Jesuit order stand out in advocating the free will of humans, to which they attributed a considerable role in contributing to faith and salvation. It is on purpose that in his Discourse (Vertooch) from December 1608, Gomarus starts his summary of Arminius’s views with the statement that faith comes in part from man’s own free will. From that starting point, the further claim of Arminius that we are justified by the act of faith itself becomes all the more suspect (Gomarus 1609c, 51). In the further elaboration of his ideas on justification, it seems that Arminius does not employ the notion of infused, habitual grace which the Catholic Church in the Council of Trent had defined as the ground of justification.11 He also differs from the early Protestant theologian Andreas Osiander, who had stated that we are righteous because the essential righteousness of Christ is communicated to us.12 In the Declaration (Verclaringhe) of September 1609, Gomarus repeatedly refers to Socinus as an antecedent to the positions taken by Arminius. It can hardly be accidental that in this connection Gomarus also mentions the ‘Samosatenians’. This label refers to a third century heresy in the doctrine of the Trinity, namely that the Son of God is not a distinct divine Person in the Trinity, but merely a manifestation of the one deity. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, such a denial of the true deity of the Son of God was revived by Socinus and his followers. As Reformed polemics of that era pointed out, this denial is intrinsically connected with a deviant view of satisfaction and atonement. According to Socinus, there is no need for God to receive full satisfaction in order to forgive our sins. God can also pardon us without the death of Christ as a substitutionary punishment. The human act of sincere penitence is sufficient (Socinus: 1594, 128, 317, 320–323, 330–333). This Socinian account of atonement was accompanied with a severe

10 De la Faye: 1604; Junius: 1599; Piscator: 1599. Arminius does appeal to Piscator for his understanding of imputare in Romans 4:5. It is true, Piscator defends a strictly forensic understanding of justification by means of imputation over against the Catholic view of justification by infused grace as advocated by Robert Cardinal Bellarmine. In Piscator, however, the fact that ‘to impute’ means ‘to count something for that which it is not’ is related to the human recipient of justification, while at the same time he maintains that the satisfaction of Christ is the formal ground of justification. 11 See the Tridentine ‘Decree on Justification’ in Denzinger: 2010, no. 1520–1583, esp. 1528ff and 1561. 12 A brief sketch of Osiander’s views on justification is given by Steinmetz: 2001, 64–69. Wengert: 2012 provides a comprehensive analysis of the debates on Osiander within Lutheran theology from 1551 to 1559. See also Strehle: 1995, 73–85.

139

140

Dolf te Velde

criticism of key notions of the traditional theory of satisfaction. In the argument offered by Arminius, we find at least three striking parallels with this Socinian way of thinking.13 One is the usage of the term ‘gracious estimation’ (gratiosa aestimatio) for God’s acceptance of our faith as sufficient for justification. Despite the wellsounding term ‘gracious’, this means that God declares us to be something we are not in reality, thus disconnecting the act of justification from God’s essential justice. By using this explanation, Arminius incorporates a strongly fictitious element in his account of imputation and justification. The next element that Arminius borrows from Socinian teaching is the stark contrast he construes between satisfaction and imputation, or between the ‘throne of justice’ and the ‘throne of mercy’.14 He stipulates that if full satisfaction is achieved by Christ, this is no longer something that can be graciously imputed to the believer. This second argument paves the way for the third part of a Socinian doctrine of salvation, namely that it is not the righteousness of Christ that makes us righteous before God, but something within ourselves, be it the act of penitence as Socinus states or the act of faith as Arminius phrases it. For Socinus, ‘justification’ is identical with ‘forgiveness’: God can simply pass by our sins without requiring full satisfaction according to the demands of God’s law (Socinus: 1594, 236–238, 378–382). For Gomarus and other Reformed theologians, the implicit Socinianism was the most dangerous ingredient of Arminius’s teaching. Generally speaking, in the final decade of the sixteenth century and in the first couple of decades of the seventeenth century, Socinianism was considered the most serious opponent of the Reformed faith, perhaps even more serious than the doctrinal differences they had with the Roman Catholics (see, for example, Rohls: 2005). The writings of Socinus and his followers posed a challenge on several frontiers: they advocated a radical rational criticism of the Christian faith that questioned the biblical evidence; they denied some of the central doctrines that define orthodox Christianity, such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ as the Son of God; they advocated a concept of God in which God becomes mutable and partly dependent on his creation; they proposed a view of salvation in which the moral holiness of humans is decisive. On the fundamental level of theology, key insights are turned upside down: from God’s side the essential connection between righteousness and atonement is loosened; on the human side the actual, moral righteousness becomes a crucial factor. Both are exactly opposite to what the Reformation of the sixteenth century stood for. In that sense, it is quite understandable that Franciscus Gomarus was heavily worried when seeing his collega proximus at Leiden university espouse key parts of Socinian theology.

13 For a similar analysis, see Goudriaan: 2010, 171–174. 14 Cf. Socinus: 1594, 224f, with a quotation from Wolfgang Musculus’s Loci communes.

Justified by Faith?

8.5

The Canons of Dordt on Justification

From the debate between Arminius and Gomarus, we now briefly turn to the Canons of Dordt, which were composed as an official solution to the earlier controversies and as a statement of the orthodox teaching of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands and abroad.15 The Canons address the topic of justification by faith only on a few occasions. It does not seem to be a central concern in their exposition of the Reformed faith in contrast with the Remonstrant teachings. On the one hand, this might come as a surprise given the strong insistence by Franciscus Gomarus on justification as the central area of debate with Arminius. On the other hand, the relative silence of the Canons can be understood since they were conceived in direct response to the Remonstrance of 1610.16 In the course of the debates, the controversy had become centered on these five topics: (1) eternal election and reprobation; (2) the death of Christ and the extent of the atonement; (3) the nature of grace and (4) the way of regeneration; (5) the perseverance of the saints. Still, it is worthwhile to briefly scan the places where the doctrine of justification is addressed. The first is found in chapter I ‘On God’s Election and Reprobation’, Rejection of Errors number III. First, the position to be rejected is sketched as follows: who teach that God’s good pleasure and purpose, which Scripture mentions in its teaching of election, does not involve God’s choosing certain particular people rather than others, but involves God’s choosing, out of all possible conditions (including the works of the law) or out of the whole order of things, the intrinsically unworthy act of faith, as well as the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a condition of salvation; and it involves his graciously wishing to count this as perfect obedience and to look upon it as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

In this summary, the opinion of Jacob Arminius on justification can be easily recognized. Two key elements come to the fore. First, the idea of the act of faith as being in itself unworthy and imperfect in obedience, and second, God’s ‘graciously wishing to count this’, which is a paraphrase of Arminius’s explanation of imputation by means of ‘gracious estimation’. What is also revealing is the framework in which Arminius’s account of justification is included here, namely in the doctrine of election. Cornelis Graafland, in his penetrating study on the doctrine of predestination, has noted that in the final analysis Arminius has no proper doctrine of election: for him, election coincides with justification. Only when the actual response of human

15 The text of the Canons is quoted from the edition by the Christian Reformed Church, Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions, 1988. 16 An English text of the Remonstrance is included in Dennison: 2014, 41–44.

141

142

Dolf te Velde

faith occurs, people are saved and thus elected.17 The statement in the Canons makes the same diagnosis: obviously there are people like Arminius who hold that the entire purpose and good-pleasure of God – which is commonly understood as the decree of election – consists of God’s selection of this particular configuration that leads to justification on the basis of faith. Then follows the response of the Synod: for by this pernicious error the good pleasure of God and the merit of Christ are robbed of their effectiveness and people are drawn away, by unprofitable inquiries, from the truth of undeserved justification and from the simplicity of the Scriptures. It also gives the lie to these words of the apostle: “God called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of works, but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Tim 1:9).

Compared to the earlier exchange of arguments between Arminius and Gomarus, this seems a rather indirect approach to the question of justification and the role of faith in it. Key words are ‘effectiveness’ and ‘undeserved’. To start with the latter, if the act of faith is described as the material cause of justification, then it is again something on our side that counts as righteousness before God; even if it is ‘unworthy’, it is still some sort of ‘merit’ – in late medieval terms one might say a ‘condign merit’.18 Second, and perhaps most decisive, the Synod states that the effectiveness of God’s good-pleasure and of the merit of Christ are at stake. This notion will be elaborated in the second chapter of the Canons on ‘Christ’s Death and Human Redemption Through It’. The intrinsic connection between God’s purpose in the decree of electing certain individual people, the execution of this purpose in the saving death of Christ, and the actual effect in the salvation of these very same elect people is broken if the satisfaction of Christ as a ground of justification is replaced by the feeble and uncertain act of human faith. Behind this fundamental disagreement on the role of faith is the question of how faith itself is defined: either as a divine gift and a fruit of election, or as – at least in part – a free human act that serves as a condition for being elect. Chapter II, article 8, for example, makes it clear in what sense the Canons use the word faith: “that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation.” Only if faith is granted by God, it leads without fail to salvation.

17 Graafland: 1987, 103f, 118f. In slightly different words, one could state that Arminius does not teach pre-destination, but only post-destination: the decree of specific, personal election does not precede actual, personal faith, but follows on it. 18 Cf. Muller: 2017, s.v. ‘meritum de condigno’.

Justified by Faith?

In the same chapter II of the Canons, Rejection of Errors number IV gives a more explicit statement on the topic of justification and faith. First, the opinion that is to be rejected: who teach that what is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with humanity through the intervening of Christ’s death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ’s merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

Again, two elements remind us of Arminius. First, the claim that faith is not saving in the sense that it accepts Christ’s merit – because in that case it would be the merit of Christ that is the proper ground of salvation. Second, the contrast drawn between the perfect obedience as demanded by the law and the imperfect obedience of faith which is counted sufficient by God – remember Arminius’s talk of the two thrones, one of justice, the other of mercy. Moreover, the opinion addressed in number IV should be seen in connection with the preceding Rejection, number III, where it says that the satisfaction of Christ “did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself […], but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with humanity and to impose such new conditions as he chose […]” – this is, in brief, what Arminius meant by defining the satisfaction of Christ as the ‘meritorious cause’ of justification. Again, the response of the Synod to this deviant teaching is condemnatory: for they contradict Scripture: “They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ, whom God presented as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood” (Rom 3:24–25). And along with the ungodly Socinus, they introduce a new and foreign justification of humanity before God, against the consensus of the whole church.

This is the only place in the Canons in which Socinus is mentioned, which means that the Synod saw this as the crucial and most dangerous part of his teachings that had influenced the Remonstrants within the Reformed Church. As we have seen before, the idea of ‘gracious estimation’ was borrowed from Socinus, which Arminius understood to mean that God justifies humans on the basis of an imperfect act of faith rather than the perfect satisfaction by Christ. What is also remarkable in the Synod’s response is the quotation from Romans 3:24–25. In reviewing the debate between Arminius and Gomarus, we have seen that Arminius appealed to Romans 4:5 to argue that the act of faith itself is counted as righteousness. In response,

143

144

Dolf te Velde

Gomarus had pointed to the wider context, including the verses from Romans 3 as quoted in the Canons. The underlying argument can be laid out in a few steps: the actual redemption comes by Jesus Christ; He is the sacrifice that brings atonement; the faith through which we are justified is not faith as an abstract act, but ‘faith in his blood’. Implicitly following the exegesis proposed by Gomarus, the Canons point to the intrinsic connection of faith to its object, namely the satisfaction in Christ’s blood, which is the proper ground of our justification.

8.6

Conclusion

We started with the question, what happened to ‘justification by faith alone’ since the Reformation of the sixteenth century defended it as the crucial doctrine of the Christian faith. The fact that justification by faith is not a central topic in the explicit structure of the Canons of Dordt can easily lead to the misunderstanding that the Synod did not consider it an important article of faith. The debates held prior to the Synod between Arminius and Gomarus shed light on this issue. In responding to the innovative positions of his colleague, Gomarus insisted on the doctrine of justification as the most crucial and fundamental part of the right teaching concerning our salvation. While in the course of these debates Arminius was quite reluctant to openly express his opinions, it became clear that he assigned a different role to the act of faith than the Reformed confessions had been teaching. Parallel to his proposal to consider faith as a condition in the decree of election, he changed the role of faith in justification from an instrument to apprehend the full satisfaction of Christ to a condition that in itself is counted by God as our righteousness. In this respect, the strong criticism of Cornelis Graafland (1987:125) seems justified, that in the final analysis Arminius lacked the antenna for what had been the heart of the Reformation. Even though the Canons of Dordt did not counter Arminius’s innovations on the explicit level of the doctrine of justification, their ongoing teaching on election, grace and faith left no room for doubt about their position: faith is not a human act which makes fit for election, but a divine gift and a fruit of election.

Bibliography Arminius, Jacobus (1609), Disputationes XXIV de diversis Christianae Religionis capitibus ab ipsomet totidem verbis compositae, Leiden: Thomas Basson. Arminius, Jacobus (1611a), Orationes, itemque tractatus insigniores aliquot: in quibus quidnam sentiat de quamplurimis in s. theologia hoc tempore controversis quaestionibus, ingenue atque aperte profitetur, Leiden: Thomas Basson.

Justified by Faith?

Arminius, Jacobus (1611b), Declaratio qua Auctor sententiam suam profitetur de Praedestinatione, Providentia Dei, Libero Arbitrio, Gratia Dei, Perseverantia Sanctorum, Certitudine salutis, Perfectione fidelium in hac vita, Divinitate Filii Dei, et de Iustificatione hominis coram Deo, apud Nob. et Praepotent. Ordines Hollandiae et Westfrisiae, in: Arminius 1611a, numbered separately. Arminius, Jacobus (1611c), Responsio ad XXXI Articulos in vulgus sparsos, in: Arminius 1611a, numbered separately. Arminius, Jacobus (1613), Epistola ad Hippolytum a Collibus illustrissimi Principis Palatini Friderici quarti ad Ordines foederatos Belgii Legatum scripta, Delft: Joannes Andreae. De la Faye, Antoine (1604), Theses theologicae de justificatione hominis coram Deo, Geneva: Petrus de la Rovière. Dennison, James T. (2014), Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: Volume 4, 1600–1693, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books. Denzinger, Heinrich (2010), edited by Peter Hünermann, based on the 32th edition by Adolf Schönmetzer, 1963, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, 43rd ed., Freiburg: Herder. [English translation, edited by Robert Fastiggi and Anne Englund Nash: Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012.] Fesko, John Valero (2014), Arminius on Justification: Reformed or Protestant?, CHRC 94/1, 1–21. Gomarus, Franciscus (1605), Theses theologicae de Iustificatione hominis coram Deo, Leiden: Johannes Patius. Gomarus, Franciscus (1609a), Waerschouwinghe over de vermaninghe aen R. Donteclock: Waer in bewesen wordt, 1. Hoe dat de vermaender veranderinghe in de Religie soeckt: 2. Wat het ampt zy, soo van d’Overheyt, als van de dienaeren des Goddelicken Woordts: 3. Een proef-stuck der leere D. Arminii, Leiden: Jan Janszn Orlers. Gomarus, Franciscus (1609b), Verclaringhe over de vier hoofstucken der leere, waer van hy met sijn weerde mede Professore D. Iacobo Arminio gheconfereert heeft, voor de E. E. moghende Heeren Staten van Hollandt ende Westvrieslandt, appended to: Gomarus 1609a, numbered separately. Gomarus, Franciscus (1609c), Vertooch over de leere ende beleydt D.I. Arminii: Aen de EE. Heeren, mij Heeren de Staten van Hollandt ende Westfrieslandt, mondelick de voorgaende winter gedaen, ende daer op schriftelick overgelevert, appended to: Gomarus 1609a, numbered separately. Gomarus, Franciscus (1610), Proeve van M. P. Bertii Aenspraeck, Leiden: Jan Janszn Orlers. Goudriaan, Aza (2010), Justification by Faith and the Early Arminian Controversy, in: Maarten Wisse/Marcel Sarot/Willemien Otten (ed.), Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 155–178. Graafland, C. (1987), Van Calvijn tot Barth: Oorsprong en ontwikkeling van de leer der verkiezing in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme, ‘s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum.

145

146

Dolf te Velde

Junius, Franciscus (1599), Disputatio theologica de iustificatione hominis coram Deo, Leiden: Johannes Patius. Muller, Richard A. (2017), Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Piscator, Johannes (1599), De justificatione hominis coram Deo, libri duo, oppositi sophismatis Roberti Bellarmini Jesuitae, Herborn: Christophorus Corvinus. Rohls, Jan (2005), Calvinism, Arminianism and Socinianism in the Netherlands until the Synod of Dordt, in: Martin Mulsow/Jan Rohls (ed.), Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History vol. 134, Leiden: Brill, 3–48. Socinus, Faustus (1594), De Iesu Christo Servatore, hoc est, Cur et qua ratione Iesus Christus noster servator sit, [Cracow:] Alexius Rodecius. Stanglin, Keith D. (2010), The Missing Public Disputations of Jacobus Arminius: Introduction, Tekst, and Notes, Brill’s Series in Church History vol. 47, Leiden/Boston: Brill. Steinmetz, David C. (2001), Reformers in the Wings: From Geiler von Kaysersberg to Theodore Beza, 2nd ed., Oxford: OUP. Strehle, Stephen (1995), The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel: Encounters between the Middle Ages and the Reformation, Studies in the History of Christian Thought vol. 60, Leiden: Brill. Trigland, Jacobus (1650), Kerckelycke geschiedenissen, begrypende de swaere en bekommerlijcke geschillen, in de Vereenigde Nederlanden voorgevallen, Leiden: Adriaen Wyngaerden. Van den Brink, G.A. (2012), ‘Elke daad is een werk’: Alexander Comrie (1706–1774) over de verschillen tussen de remonstrantse en de gereformeerde rechtvaardigingsleer, Theologia Reformata 55/2, 145–164. Van Itterzon, G.P. (1930), Franciscus Gomarus, ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Van Lonkhuijzen, J. (1905), Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge en zijn prediking, in de lijst van zijn tijd, Wageningen: Veenman. Van Vlastuin, W. (2019). Dort Outwitted by the Remonstrants. Kohlbrugge’s Evaluation of the Canons of Dort, in: Church History and Religious Studies 99 (2019), 228–247. Wengert, Timothy J. (2012), Defending Faith: Lutheran Responses to Andreas Osiander’s Doctrine of Justification, 1551–1559, Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation vol 65, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Ariane Albisser

9.

The Statement of Gelderland, Utrecht and Groningen on the First Remonstrant Article

Abstract The dispute about the correct understanding of election and predestination and the final decision to reject the Remonstrant position in the Five Articles against the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dordt is the famous result of this important Synod. During the debate, the different delegations submitted the declarations of their own opinion as a preparation for the discussion. These so-called “iudicia” are interesting documents to understand the final decision of the Synod. This article delivers an exemplary study of the iudicia on the first Remonstrant Article of the delegations of Utrecht, Gelderland and Groningen. A closer look at their structure and argumentation reveals a fascinating richness of theological thinking, which proves not only the rhetorical and homiletic skills of the delegates but also a large variety of different ways to the same solution: the rejection of the first Remonstrant article.

9.1

Introduction

400 years ago, the Synod of Dordt had to make the final decision about the correct understanding of election and predestination. This decision was strongly needed: the debate between the Remonstrants and the Contra-Remonstrants was becoming not only a public, but also a more and more a politically dangerous discussion, concerning no longer “only” the churches and theologians, but also political leaders.1 And even if the statement of Jan de Ouden, that the decision already had been clear before the synod may be over the top, most of the participating delegates

1 “The controversy over divine election became a public issue with the dispute in 1604 between two Leiden theologians, Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641) and Jacobus Arminius (1559–1609).” (Selderhuis: 2015, XVII). The controversy troubled politicians insofar, as the Netherlands were still at war with Spain. “The Remonstrants were predominantly seen as less loyal to Spain and the ContraRemonstrants as supporters of the Revolt, mainly to attain a free church in a free nation.” (Selderhuis: 2015, XXI).

148

Ariane Albisser

were for sure on Gomarus’ side.2 While it is common knowledge that the synod ended with the rejection of the Remonstrant position in the Five Articles against the Remonstrants, there is not yet much knowledge about the details from and around this final statement available. The ongoing critical edition of the Acta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae is aiming to fill this lacuna, and while the Acts of the Synod itself (Sinnema et al.: 2015), as well as some documents of the early session (Sinnema et al.: 2018), are already published, other documents, like for example the “iudicia”– the declarations of the opinions of the different delegations – are still “work in progress”.3 This essay tries to compare some of these iudicia on the first Remonstrant Article with a closer look at their structure, argumentation and theological elaborateness. However, this closer look will be limited to the statements of the deputies of Utrecht, Gelderland and Groningen only. The selection is neither representative nor on purpose, but randomly chosen to give an unbiased glimpse into and a comparison of the judgements of the delegates in general.4 The three exemplary iudicia will in the following be treated in the same order the delegates were speaking up at the synod with a brief look at each delegation and their iudicium, before the comparison will take place and open this case study for further research.

9.2

Three examples of iudicia

9.2.1

Gelderland

The Delegation of Gelderland was a mixed group of theologians and public authorities. As theologians there were Stephani Wilhelmus, a doctor in theology and minister in Arnhem and three other ministers, Eilardus van Mehen (Harderwijk), Sebastiaan Damman (Zutphen) and Johannes Bouillet (Warnsveld), part of the group. They were joined by the public and political representive Jacobus Verheiden, 2 “Hätte man das Problem der Kirche überlassen, wäre das Ergebnis schon im Voraus klar gewesen. Die grosse Mehrheit der Prediger und des Kirchenvolkes stand auf der Seite von Gomarus.” (De Ouden: 2018, 11). 3 “In between the general sessions, the various delegations met separately and formulated a judgement (iudicium) on the topic that was to be discussed at the synod the next day. […]. For the sake of the foreign delegates, Latin was the official language to be spoken and written. The officers of the synod would collect these iudicia and then formulate a proposal for a general iudicium, which was then presented to the synod for a vote […].” (Selderhuis: 2015, XXV). 4 There is one exception: the statement of Groningen was chosen to honour the host of the conference “The Theology of Dordt” which took place from 8–9 May 2019 in Groningen, where this paper was presented first.

The Statement of Gelderland, Utrecht and Groningen on the First Remonstrant Article

the rector of the school of Nijmegen and a church elder, as well as Hendrick van Hell, the Burgomaster of Zuypthen (cf. Sinnema et al. (ed.): 2015, XCf). The Iudicium Deputorum Synodi Geldricae de articulo primo Remonstrantium (Articulus primus: 1619, 1–8; Acta: 1620, III, 25–33) starts with a general rejection of the first Remonstrant Article followed by a more detailed explanation and especially a biblical foundation of the “right” understanding of the topic. Firstly, it discusses election, secondly reprobation. It is noteworthy, that the delegation uses Greek theological terminology in their statement but not for their argumentation. Also, they try to link their statement carefully with already available documents, like the Collatio Scripto Habita Hagae-comitis […] (1615) by Henricus Brandius.5 The argument itself works in the first, general part with logical terms to reject the first Remonstrant Article: “Praedestinatio quae in Euangelio relevata est, est Decretum practicum. Praedestinatio Remonstratium non est Decretum practicum, sed speculativum. Ergo: Praedestiantio Remonstrantium non est ea quae in Euangelio revelata est” (Articulus primus: 1619, 1).

The argument can be condensed into the following form: A=B C≠B Therefore A ≠C

Evangelical predestination = practical decree Remonstrant predestination ≠ practical decree Evangelical predestination ≠ Remonstrant predestination

So, the argument starts with a general remark on evangelical predestination, implying that only the Holy Scripture can set up rules and criteria for a correct understanding of predestination. Out of the Scripture one can see – and this is the premise, where the whole argument is depending on – that predestination is a practical decree. If one accepts this premise, the predestination-concepts which are to be discussed in the synod need only to be tested if they are according to the Scripture and therefore if they are practical as well. The Remonstrant teaching of predestination, according to the delegates of Gelderland, is not a practical decree and therefore not conform with the biblical teaching of predestination. Out of this, they can conclude, that the First Remonstrant Article needs to be rejected and replaced by a more biblical and therefore more practical decree on predestination. After this “simply logical” rejection, the second and third part on election and reprobation are not designed as a real “argument”, but moreover as the proof, that their (contra-Remonstrant) position is true to the Holy Scripture. Nevertheless, the

5 This translation of the “Schriftelicke Conferentie” by Brandius was published 1615.

149

150

Ariane Albisser

Gelderland-delegates structured this part strongly: this part always starts with the statement of their position, referenced with the biblical texts, which are continuously listed and followed by – but only if needed – some explaining comments. As a whole, the iudicium of Gelderland can be condensed in two parts. First the negative part of rejecting the Remonstrant Article, secondly the positive part – in the original sense of “positive” from the Latin word ponere (to place) of stating the correct view on election and reprobation. 9.2.2

Utrecht

The delegation of Utrecht was a somewhat special case. While the Remonstrants of Gelderland – Henricus Leo, Bernerus Vezekius and Henricus Hollingerus – were separately invited and therefore the delegation itself consisted of ContraRemonstrants only (cf. Sinnema et al. (ed.): 2015, CIVf), the delegation of Utrecht was first mixed. So, ministers Johannes Dibbertius and Arnoldus Oortcampus together with Lambertus Canterus, an elder at Utrecht, represented the ContraRemonstrants, while the ministers Isaacus Frederici and Samuel Naeranus, as well as councillor Helsdingen as elder, represented the Remonstrants (cf. Sinnema et al. (ed.): 2015, 46). The situation became complicated after the two Remonstrant ministers Isaacus Frederici and Samuel Naeranus left the group of the cited Remonstrants on the 10th of December.6 It is not yet clear, whether the substitutes, which were assigned for exactly such a case, were already at Dordt at the time the statement of Utrecht on the first Remonstrant Article was formulated, because they never get mentioned in the official list of participants (cf. Sinnema et al. (ed.): 2015, 46).7 The delegation of Utrecht structured their iudicium (Theses heterodoxiae: 1619, 1–13; Acta: 1620, III, 47–53) completely different than the delegation of Gelderland. They start with a contrast of the “Remonstrant heterodox thesis” with the “orthodox antithesis” first on election, second on reprobation. Only then, they start their “Ultraiectinorum Fratrum de suprapositis Thesibus, Antithesibusque Iudicium”. In this part, they go step by step through each thesis, reject it and argue then for their “orthodox antithesis”. In their argumentation, the biblical references, comments and arguments are intertwined. The length and the elaborateness diverge strongly between the different theses.

6 In advance, there was an extended discussion, if and under which conditions the Utrecht Remonstrants may remain part of their delegation (Cf. Sinnema et al.: 2018, 301–306). 7 Minister Laurentius Modaus (Wijk bij Duurstede), Minister Gerhardus Helmichius (Veenendaal) and Peter van Dam (elder of Amersfoort) (cf. Sinnema et al.: 2015, 46).

The Statement of Gelderland, Utrecht and Groningen on the First Remonstrant Article

9.2.3

Groningen

For the delegation of Groningen were the four ministers Cornelius Hillenius, Georgius Placius, Wolfgang Agricola and Johannes Longilius as well as the elders Egbert Halbes and Johannes Rufelaert elected. However, Johannes Longilius stayed from the beginning at home due to sickness and was replaced by Wigboldus Homerus (cf. Sinnema et al.: 2015, Cff). Finally, the De Primo Remonstrantium Articulo, qui est de praedestinatione deputatorum synodi civitatis Grongingae et Omlandiae Iudicium (De primo Remonstrantium: 1619, 1–9; Acta: 1620, III, 70–79) has again a different structure. Similarly to the delegates from Utrecht, they chose to work with contrast. However, instead of contrasting the “heterodox thesis” with the “orthodox antithesis” as the deputies of Utrecht did, they always contrast a Remonstrant “credimus”, with a strong “contra” and position themselves therefore already through the wording of their comparison of the two positions. However, in contrast to Utrecht, they decided to put the discussion – also called “ratio” – directly beyond the “Contra” of their judgement. Through this, their iudicium receives the following structure: A (“credimus”) vs. not A (“contra” = B) Legitimation (“ratio”) of B Two things in their argumentation are especially noteworthy. Firstly, the fact that like in the iudicium of Gelderland, they also make biblical references already in the presentation of their Contra-Remonstrant position and not only in the following part of reasoning.8 However, they do not limit biblical references to their position only. With the added references towards the Scripture in their presentation of the Remonstrant position, the delegates of Groningen admit, that the Remonstrants themselves believe to argue along and with the Holy Scripture. Secondly, the importance of the Holy Spirit in the process of election. As Donald Sinnema in his article on “The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt” has already mentioned before (2019: 126) several delegations and Groningen among them pointed towards the Holy Spirit: even though all believers can have certainty or assurance of their election through the fruits or effects, that the believers may discover in their life, the “real” certainty – so the delegates of Groningen – comes from the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believers.

8 Instead of superscript numbers they use the letters of the alphabet to insert references towards the Holy Scripture.

151

152

Ariane Albisser

Gelderland Structure: Situation Argument 1. A=B 2. C ≠ B 3. A ≠C

A: evangelical teaching of predestination B: evangelical teaching as practical decree C: Remonstrant teaching of predestination Definition of A in two parts: 1) election Holy Scripture comment 2) reprobation Holy Scripture comment

9.3

Utrecht Structure: A vs B (election) A vs B (reprobation)

Groningen Structure: A vs. not A (= B) Reasoning for B

A: Remonstrant position B: Contra-Remonstrant position

A: Remonstrant position B: contra-Remonstrant position

Thesis A Reasoning (includes Scripture) Conclusion (not A, but B)

Nota bene: Biblical references in both, A&B (and the elaboration of B)

Comparison

When we compare the three different iudicia, we receive a somewhat heterogenous image over the iudicia: A comparison of the three iudicia reveals on the first look many differences in the style and structure in which the delegates express their opinion on the First Remonstrant Article. While Gelderland puts the Holy Scripture as the only legitimate ruler at the top of their argument and establishes not only a Remonstrant and a Contra-Remonstrant teaching about predestination but also an “evangelical” teaching, the Holy Scripture is also in the other iudicia a relevant source for justification of one’s position. Only Groningen admits that the Remonstrant position can argue biblical as well, while only Utrecht limits the reference to Scripture to their part of reasoning. It is also interesting to see, that it is only the iudicium of Utrecht, which does not make the decision towards one out of the two discussed teachings on predestination already at the beginning of their statement, but waits until the end of their discussion with their decision towards the Contra-Remonstrant understanding of predestination. With the general argument of Gelderland and the strong “contra” of Groningen, these delegations make their position clear from the very beginning. Nevertheless, all three delegations come to the same conclusion, even though their way and style is different.

The Statement of Gelderland, Utrecht and Groningen on the First Remonstrant Article

9.4

Conclusion

After this closer look at the Judicia of Gelderland, Utrecht and Groningen one can definitely agree with Fred van Lieburg, that the delegates arrived well prepared and equipped with rhetorical and homiletic skills.9 These heterogenous ways of argumentation do not end up in different more or less theological elaborated positions. Moreover, it is extremely remarkable, how such different styles of theological reasoning all ended up on the same page: the rejection of the first Remonstrant article. However, to end up at the same page and with the same conclusion does not imply that all the arguments must be shared as well. It remains a task for further research to dive deeper into the differences of the iudicia – not only on the first but also on the rest of the Five Remonstrant Articles – to see which similarities and differences emerge. For example: the close-reading of the iudicia of Gelderland, Utrecht and Groningen reveals that the iudicium of Utrecht and Groningen have predominance towards “election” instead of “reprobation”. This becomes visible in the number of contraposed theses (Utrecht 7:4, Groningen 6:4) and in the number of pages and the elaborateness of the judgements in the iudicium-part itself. It would now be interesting to see, if this predominance is continued and/or intensified in the iudicia about the other Remonstrant Articles.10 Another interesting area for further research would be an analysis of the summaries of the Remonstrant Articles: most of the delegations present them in one way or the other in their iudicia, but the styles are very different – covering everything from almost literal reproduction with references to other available sources (e.g. Gelderland) to a very free summarizing of the position (e.g. Groningen). To sum up (“concludimus”): yes, there are differences in the theological arguments of the delegations in their iudicia on the Remonstrant Articles. However, these differences do not lead to “better” or “worse” theologians, but into a richness of theological thinking which is impressive.

9 “Although national synods were prohibited in the Dutch Republic with effect from 1588, many provincial synods and district presbytery (classis) meetings were held annually or seasonally, in addition to the weekly gatherings of consistorial bodies of the local congregations. Given this practice of ecclesiastical life during the first fifty years of existence of the Dutch Reformed church, the provincial delegates to the Synod of Dordt arrived well prepared and did act consciously or unconsciously according an established set of rules, conventions and personal experiences. Professors and ministers were not only equipped with rhetorical and homiletic skills, but also drew profitably on their own track record of activities and appointments in church polity.” (van Lieburg: 2019, 97f). 10 This aspect is especially interesting, since it is only a recent development of research history to admit that “Reformed Orthodoxy” is not only influenced by Calvin, but also by Zwingli, Bullinger and other reformers (cf. Selderhuis: 2013, 2). The dominance of election over reprobation in the teaching of predestination is especially characteristic for the Zurich reformation and mainly Heinrich Bullinger (cf. Walser: 1957).

153

154

Ariane Albisser

Bibliography Acta (1620), Acta Synodi Nationalis… Dordrechti habitae Anno MDCXVIII et MDCXIX, Leiden: Elzevir. Articulus primus (1619), Articulus primus Remonstrantium qui est de Praedistinatione…, in: Oud Synodaal Archief, vol. B: Utrecht, 1–8. Collatio Scripto Habita Hagae-comitis Anno ab Incarnato Domino 1611, inter quosdam Ecclesiastas de Divina Praedestinatione, et eius Appendicibus. Decreto N.P. Dominorum Ordinum Hollandiae et Westfrisiae Vernacule Impressa, Piorum aliquot Virorum Rogatu ex Sermone Vernnaculo Latina Facta Interprete Henrico Brandio (1615), Zierikzee: Johannes Hellenius. De Ouden, Jan (2018), Die Gnade Gottes. Jubiläumsausgabe der Dordrechter Lehrsätze, Reihe Bekenntnisschriften, vol. 1, Heidelberg: Reformations-Gesellschaft-Heidelberg e.V. De primo Remonstrantium (1619), De primo Remonstrantium Articulo, qui est de Praedestinatione Deputatorum Synodi Groningen et Omlandiae Iudicium, in: Oud Synodaal Archief, vol. B: Utrecht, 1–9. Selderhuis, Herman J. (2013), Introduction in: Herman Selderhuis (ed.) A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1–7. Selderhuis, Herman J. (2015), Introduction to the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) in: Donald Sinnema et al. (ed.), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, XV–XXXII. Sinnema, Donald et al. (ed.) (2015), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619), vol. 1: Acta of the Synod of Dordt, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sinnema, Donald et al. (ed.) (2018), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619), vol. 2,2: Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sinnema, Donald (2019), The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) in: Frank van der Pol (ed.), The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 115–125. Theses Heterodoxae (1619), Theses heterodoxae ex articulo Remonstrantium…, in: Oud Synodaal Archief, vol. B: Utrecht, 1–13. Van Lieburg, Fred (2019), Dordrechts own Decretum Horribile, in: Frank van der Pol (ed.), The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 95–113. Walser, Peter (1957), Die Prädestination bei Heinrich Bullinger im Zusammenhang mit seiner Gotteslehre, Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag.

Corné Blaauw

10.

Divine Foreknowledge, Possible Worlds, and the Decree

Investigating the Reformed Position on God’s Willing Knowledge from 1588 to 1685

Abstract In recent years some Reformed theologians have adopted the Molinist account of the scientia media. The question is whether the scientia media is compatible with Reformed theology as it is articulated in the Synod of Dordt, the Westminster Confession of Faith and several key Reformed theologians from the seventeenthcentury? If the answer is no, the question remains whether Reformed theology has room for discussions of possible worlds and God’s pre-volitional knowledge of the decree? This paper is a historical investigation into this question and will make use of the primary texts from the seventeenth-century including those of de Molina, Arminius, the Canons of Dordt, Maccovius, Ames, Turretin, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. The results strongly indicate that the Molinist scientia media is incompatible with Reformed theology according to the selected theologians and Confessions. Nevertheless, these theologians are open both to possible world semantics and discussions of God’s knowledge of the decree before the decree. The implication is that those Reformed theologians in our day who are interested in possible worlds and God’s pre-volitional knowledge can find these discussions in the seventeenth-century Reformed sources and would deviate from these sources if they were to embrace the scientia media.

10.1

Introduction

Scholarship on the scientia media has diverged in two inter-related streams.1 The first stream could be called “contemporary applications” and consists of the question of the usefulness of scientia media for contemporary philosophical theology,

1 As a working definition, Turretin defines middle knowledge: “to mean the foreknowledge of God about future conditional events, whose truth depends not upon the free decree of God (being anterior to this), but upon the liberty of the creature (which God certainly foresees), whether in itself or in the thing (how it will determine itself if placed in certain given circumstances)” (Turretin: 1992, 213).

156

Corné Blaauw

Arminian theology and most recently, Reformed theology. Such discussions began with Alvin Plantinga’s The Nature of Necessity (Plantinga: 1974a, cf. Plantinga: 1974b), and Robert M. Adams’ (Adams: 1977, cf. Perszyk: 2011) response to that book. This led to a growing body of literature on the Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina (1535–1600) and his scientia media in the broader context of modern discussions of possible worlds, such as in David K. Lewis (Lewis:1973, cf. Lewis: 1986).2 Among Arminians, the debate has raged on whether such a concept is truly Arminian and whether it should be accepted by contemporary Arminians or not (cf. Walls: 1990, 85–98; Olson: 2006, 196; Witt: 1993, 363–366; MacGregor: 2015, 18–24). Most recently, certain Reformed writers, like Bruce Ware, Terrance Tiessen, John Feinberg, and Luke van Horn have adopted a version of scientia media, with at least one of them (Tiessen) later forsaking it (Laing: 2018; Tiessen: 2000, 289–362; Ware: 2004, 27–28, 115–23; van Horn: 2012, 807–827). Simultaneous to these developments emerged a second stream which could be called “historical investigation” where detailed studies have been conducted on the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century sources on topics such as divine sovereignty, foreknowledge, and election in theologians such as Luis de Molina and Jacobus Arminius (cf. Kaufmann: 2013). These studies have shown continuity and discontinuity between these thinkers (Muller: 1989, 263–277; Muller: 1991, 154–166; Dekker: 1993, 76–103; Dekker: 1996, 337–352; Stanglin: 2012, 65–69). This finds its place in the larger discussion of the nature of divine foreknowledge in its relationship to human freedom in early modern sources, Protestant and Roman Catholic, and in turn, their relationship to medieval, and indeed Greco-Roman sources. Of particular importance in this context is ongoing debate between Antonie Vos, Paul Helm and Richard A. Muller concerning “synchronic contingency” and the place of Scotus in these discussions (Van Asselt: 2010; Muller: 2017a; Baylor: 2019). The scholarship sets up a variety of problems for our study of the early modern sources. Indigenous to these sources is the question of how the “CounterRemonstrant” camp dealt with the issues surrounding scientia media. This paper forms part of the second stream of scholarship which seeks to investigate these issues historically. In this paper we will not do a thorough investigation of de Molina’s

2 For the purposes of this paper, we will not impose modern discussions of possible worlds onto the early modern sources, rather we will use the words “possible worlds” to mean hypothetical states of affairs that God could have actualised which is part of God’s natural knowledge. As Leibniz wrote to Arnauld in 1683, “I think there is an infinity of possible ways in which to create the world, according to the different designs which God could form, and that each possible world depends on certain principal designs or purposes of God which are distinctive of it, that is, certain primary free decrees (conceived sub ratione possibilitatis) or certain laws of the general order of this possible universe with which they are in accord and whose concept they determine, as they do also the concepts of all the individual substances which must enter into this same universe.” (Leibniz: 1969, 333).

Divine Foreknowledge, Possible Worlds, and the Decree

or Arminius’s thought as such, nor, examine the full reception of or response to scientia media. Rather, we will examine one particular problem concerning the concept of scientia media, a problem which appears in de Molina, Arminius, and Reformed theology in the seventeenth century, namely, how does God’s omniscience relate to his decree? Stated even more precisely, did the Reformed during and after Dordt adopt a view which included God’s pre-volitional knowledge of all possible worlds and of the decree articulated in terms that still opposed the scientia media of de Molina and Arminius? Once more, did the Reformed insistence on the absolute nature of the decree exclude God’s knowledge of possible worlds before the decree and/or God’s knowledge of what he would decree before the decree; or does the absolute nature of the decree mean that the decree was only known to God after the act of the decree? If indeed God knew all the possible worlds before the decree, and the content of the decree before the decree, how is the Reformed position different from the Molinist scientia media? (cf. Goudriaan: 2015, 141–156; Muller: 2017, 103–122; Stanglin: 2019). To answer our question we will focus on the primary sources of de Molina, Arminius, the Canons of the Synod of Dordt, and the subsequent development of Reformed theology in a sampling of European theologians and the Westminster Confession of Faith. In this way, the paper seeks to show the difference between the Remonstrant and Counter-Remonstrant positions lie centrally in their respective doctrines of God.3 For the sake of this paper, Reformed sources around the time of the Synod will be primarily consulted, thus the perimeters of 1588 refers to the publication of de Molina’s “Concordia”, and 1685 to the publication of Turretin’s “Institutes”. The series of theologians selected, Maccovius, Ames, and Turretin have been selected because of their engagement with the questions above and because the Continental European encounter with Dordt is frequently neglected while the British engagement by writers like Samuel Rutherford, Stephen Charnock and John Owen can be studied elsewhere (for instance, Tyacke: 1987; Hampton: 2008). The Westminster Confession of Faith has been selected because of its prominence in the development of Reformed theology and since it seems to deny God’s pre-volitional knowledge of the decree. Concluding remarks will weigh in on the question of whether contemporary adherence of Reformed thinkers to scientia media is consistent with the Canons, and the received body of Reformed theology from the seventeenth century.

3 Some claim it lies in their anthropology: “but whilst the peculiarity of Calvinism is found in holding fast to the absolute idea of God in opposition to all ‘idolatry of the creature,’ the centre of gravity of the Arminian system is found in the sphere of anthropology. Its doctrine of man probably differentiates it more definitely from Calvinism than its doctrine of God.” (Platt: 1962, 812, italics mine). Conversely, contemporary Arminian theologian, Roger Olson, claims that the major difference lies in the doctrine of God. (Olson: 2006; cf. Olson: 2011).

157

158

Corné Blaauw

10.2

The Grounding of God’s Decree in the Debates at Dordrecht, 1610–1619

Even before the Synod was held, the Roman Catholic turned Protestant minister at The Hague, Johannes Uytenbogaert (1557–1644) drafted on behalf of the Remonstrants the Articuli Arminiani sive Remonstrantia of 1610. He defined the basis of God’s decree in this manner: “that God by an eternal and immutable decree has in Jesus Christ his Son determined before the foundation of the world to save …who by the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe in this his Son Jesus Christ…” (De Jong: 1968, 208, italics mine). The italics indicate that the grounds for the decree of God according to the Remonstrant position is those who “shall believe”. In 1611, the Counter Remonstrants replied with the seven articles, among which they responded to the above position in Article 3, “that God in his election has not looked to the faith or conversion of his elect, nor to the right use of his gifts, as the grounds of election…” (De Jong: 1968, 211, italics mine). Once the Remonstrants were summoned before the council, they presented their statement concerning the first article on December 13, 1618. On the grounds of election, they clarify, “The election of particular persons is decisive, out of consideration of faith in Jesus Christ and of perseverance; not, however, apart from a consideration of faith and perseverance in the true faith, as a condition prerequisite for electing” (de Jong: 1968, 223, italics mine). These articles demonstrate that salvation is based on the condition of faith in Christ which forms the grounds of God’s special decree. What these articles do not sufficiently explicate is a coherent theory for how this might be accomplished. Implicit in them is some notion of God’s foresight of faith and his response of election, but this is not clearly stated. In response to the first of the five articles (1610), the Synod of Dordt formulated, “The first head of doctrine” (1618). Concerning the grounding of God’s decree, the counsellors said, “the gift of faith… proceeds from God’s eternal decree…” (Article 6) and, election is based on “mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will…” (Article 7) rather than on foreseen faith as the Remonstrants had it. The result of God’s election is “to bestow upon them [the elect] true faith” (De Jong: 1968, 231–232). Along these lines, they argued “this election was not founded upon foreseen faith…as the prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it depended…” (Article 9). Again, they stated as clearly as possible that faith is not the condition of election; that election is not based on foreseen faith; and that the gospel is not sent to some rather than others because they are more worthy (Rejection of Errors, Par. three, five, and nine respectively). In defence of the last proposition, the counsellors cite Matthew 11:21 which states “And Christ said: woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” The citation of this passage indicates that the counsellors were aware of the different

Divine Foreknowledge, Possible Worlds, and the Decree

interpretation given by the Remonstrant party, Arminius, and finally de Molina. According to this group, passages like Matt 11:21 and 1 Sam 23:11–12 indicated that God knows how different states of affairs would come about as a result of different choices people make, thus God arranges his decisions in his general decree in light of these human choices, and in his special decree according to human responses. The debates surrounding Dordt concerned the special decree of God and the relationship of God’s knowledge to his will. The counsellors’ concluded that ultimately humans cannot ascribe a reason to God’s special decree apart from “God’s good pleasure”. This answer was in response to both the Arminian and Molinist scheme which attributed the scientia media as the cause of God’s special decree. So we now investigate their accounts.

10.3

The Grounding of God’s Decree in de Molina and Arminius, 1588–1618

For the sake of this paper, we will take the position that Arminius used some of de Molina’s thought on the scientia media to formulate his understanding of the grounding of God’s decree. Thus we briefly review first de Molina’s views and then Arminius’s. 10.3.1 De Molina The Spanish born Roman Catholic Professor at the University of Coimbra, Luis de Molina (1535–1600) articulated his position on the scientia media in his Concordia (1588) which sparked a great debate in the sixteenth century. In it, he was attempting to provide a reconciliation between divine necessity/predestination and creaturely counterfactual freedom, specifically attempting to avoid determinism and thereby uphold libertarian free will. De Molina defines scientia media as “in virtue of the most profound and inscrutable comprehension of each faculty of free choice, he [God] saw in his own essence what each such faculty would do with its innate freedom were it to be placed in this or that or, indeed, in infinitely many orders of things – even though it would really be able, if it so willed, to do the opposite, as is clear from what was said in Disputations 49 and 50” (De Molina: 1988, 168). In those sections, de Molina expressed his objections to Aquinas’ conception of God’s eternity (Disp. 49) and de Molina’s position on God’s pre-volitional knowledge (predetermination) as well as God’s relationship to the existence of evil (Disp. 50). De Molina elaborates that middle knowledge should not be called natural knowledge, nor free knowledge, but is only partly natural knowledge, and partly free knowledge (De Molina: 1988, 169). Throughout these sections on God’s knowledge, de Molina argues that God had to know both the options of the possible worlds and the one he

159

160

Corné Blaauw

would choose before he chose it (De Molina: 1988, 170–173). God’s pre-volitional knowledge of his will is known by hypothesis but not by determination. “God does not know, just by virtue of the knowledge that precedes the act of His will, which part His own will is going to determine itself to which regard to any object able to be created by Him, even though by virtue of that same knowledge he does know, on the hypothesis that His will should determine itself to one or another order of things and circumstances…” (De Molina: 1988, 174). Thus, the reason God needs this third kind of knowledge, scientia media, is to allow for creaturely freedom and secondary causation to be maintained. “Among all the things created… others emanate from created free choice or are able to undergo alterations because of it, God was, to bring with, a cause, whether particular or universal, of all human knowledge… complemented by the free determination of His will” (De Molina: 1988, 178). By this knowledge, God then decides what he ought to bring about and how creaturely free choices would unfold if he were to decree such a world. “It was also necessary for Him to have that middle knowledge through which, on the hypothesis that He should will to bring about this or that order of things, He foresaw with certainty all that would come to be because of angelic and human free choice in each one of those orders of things” (De Molina: 1988, 178). Thus God’s knowledge of the actual world is not based on God’s pre-volitional knowledge, but on God’s will combined with the secondary causes which he sets in motion as the first cause (De Molina: 1988, 179). Attacking the position of Francisco Zumel (1540–1607), and anything that seems to make God responsible for sin, de Molina posits that God uses his scientia media to arrange the order of things to place people in circumstances in which they would be saved through his predetermination and secondary causes which includes their ability to cooperate with grace (De Molina: 1988, 196–229). The Reformed would take issue with several features of de Molina’s account, not least of which his synergistic soteriology, nevertheless, the central issue here is that de Molina proposed a third kind of knowledge, scientia media, between God’s omniscience (natural knowledge) and God’s will (divine decree), which stands in the middle since it involves both God’s knowledge and God’s decree in God’s decision and actualisation of this world in order to preserve creaturely freedom and protect God from the charge of being the author of evil. 10.3.2 Arminius Not all scholars are convinced that the Professor at the University of Leiden, Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) held to the scientia media in the way that de Molina did. Olson points to the fact that most Arminians held to simple foreknowledge, while MacGregor highlights that only a very few passages can be cited from Arminius’s corpus where he utilises the scientia media (Olson: 2006, 185–195; MacGregor:

Divine Foreknowledge, Possible Worlds, and the Decree

2015, 245). What MacGregor downplays is the importance of the locations in which Arminius mentions the scientia media. The first citation is in his Twenty-Five Public Disputations which were printed and delivered at Leiden University during his tenure there. Disputation four “On the Nature of God” is where one would expect to find his detailed discussions on the grounding of God’s decree and it is in this context that we encounter the scientia media. Arminius argues that God’s knowledge includes self-knowledge and knowledge of possible things. The latter includes those things possible (not impossible) for God to actualise and those things (Arminius: 1956a, 122), by God’s preservation, motion, aid, concurrence and permission, may have an existence from the creatures, whether these creatures will themselves exist or not, and whether they might be placed in this or in that order, or in infinite orders of things; let it even consist of those things which might have an existence from the creatures, if this or that hypothesis were admitted. (1 Sam 23:11–12; Matt 11:21).

The cited text only speaks of God’s knowledge of possible worlds, which is not the same as scientia media, but on the next page, Arminius clarifies what he is really speaking about: “The Schoolmen say besides, that one kind of God’s knowledge is natural and necessary, another free, and a third kind [mediam] middle… (3.) Middle knowledge is that by which he knows, that “if this thing happens, that will take place” (Arminius: 1956a, 123). This knowledge is what moves the will of God to act upon the hypothetical knowledge with volition and power. “That ‘middle’ kind of knowledge must intervene in things which depend on the liberty of a created will” (Arminius: 1956a, 124). Thus, the creaturely freedom, foreseen within the scientia media moves the knowledge of God to act with will and power to actualise the possible world he desires. One might be tempted to say that such knowledge causes God’s will to move, but Arminius wants to be nuanced when he states “But though nothing from without be the cause of God’s volition,” and goes on to make the case for secondary causes, and so affirming “that an act of a creature, or the omission of an act, may be thus far the occasion or primary cause of a certain Divine volition, – that, without any consideration of that act or its omission, God [supersederet] might be set it aside by such a volition. (1 Sam. ii, 30; Jer. xviii, 7, 8.)” (Arminius: 1956a, 127). The second time we encounter God’s scientia media is in his Private Disputations when he writes, “The knowledge by which God knows anything [si hoc sit] if it be or exist, is [media] intermediate between the two [kinds] described in Theses IX & X: In fact it precedes the free act of the will with regard to intelligence. But it knows something future according to vision, only through its hypothesis” (Arminius: 1956b, 342). Arminius clarifies that this sits between the natural and free knowledge

161

162

Corné Blaauw

of God, since “The middle or intermediate [kind of] knowledge ought to intervene in things which depend on the liberty of created [arbitrii] choice or pleasure” (Arminius: 1956b, 342). Later, Arminius would explain that God’s foreknowledge of the exercise of this liberty becomes the grounds of God’s decree. “This [decree] rests or depends on the prescience and foresight of God by which He foreknew, from all eternity [quinam] what men would, through such administration, believe by the aid of preventing or preceding grace, and would persevere by the aid of subsequent or following grace; and who would not believe and persevere” (Arminius: 1956c, 719). Thus we see Arminius reappropriated the scientia media for his purposes in the debates with the Reformed at Leiden, but like de Molina, he used the concept to ground the direction of God’s will in the middle knowledge of creaturely freedom (Stanglin: 2012, 62–75). This meant that God determined to co-operate with creaturely free will in order to establish what would be decreed before the world began.

10.4

Reformed Theology after Dordt on the Grounding of God’s Decree, 1620–1685

10.4.1 Maccovius The significance of Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) for this debate is his proximity to the events surrounding and succeeding the Synod of Dordt. In 1615 he was appointed professor at Franeker University even though the school preferred someone more experienced, like Johannes Bogerman, who would chair the Synod of Dordt (Van Vliet: 2013, 164). Maccovius formulates God’s knowledge classically, distinguishing between God’s knowledge of vision and simple understanding. Part of God’s knowledge of simple understanding is “knowledge of possible things such as his knowledge of what is possible for him to do, although He is not going to do it; it rests on his absolute power” (Maccovius: 2009, 119). This indicates that already contained within God’s natural knowledge (or knowledge of simple understanding), God knows things that are possible but never actualised. This leads him to reject the possibility of middle knowledge since it is “conditioned knowledge according to which God knows a certain event He has never decreed. But this is absurd. Because nothing happens what God did not decree” (Maccovius: 2009, 119). According to this argument, God can foreknow things that would not be (natural knowledge), but he cannot foreknow conditioned events as if they would be if he has not decreed it, rather he foreknows future events with certainty according to his decree. Accordingly, God’s act of the decree “is free from an impulsive cause outside of God. If an impulsive cause would be moving God to act in one-way or another, He

Divine Foreknowledge, Possible Worlds, and the Decree

would be Himself a dependent cause” (Maccovius: 2009, 155). Likewise, “Predestination assumes nothing in those who are predestined” (Maccovius: 2009, 161). Thus the cause of God’s decree is not to be found outside God but alone within God. “Regarding the act of willing no cause is to be assigned in respect of the willed things, in so far, namely, God will that one thing is because of another thing” (Maccovius: 2009, 165). So, in the final analysis, Maccovius argues that God’s omniscience includes God’s knowledge of all possible, from which God made his decree which was based on his will to which no cause can be ascribed. Yet there remains one difficulty in Maccovius’ account concerning God’s will. Maccovius rejects the twin distinctions of absolute/conditional and antecedent/ consequent will in God since “For just as there is no distinction in God, so his will does not have them. For the will of God is God” (Maccovius: 2009, 155). This is expanded later in his discussion of the immutability of God’s decree. “Election is immutable. This is the most certain rule of theology. For if God is in no way mutable, He will also be immutable with respect to his will because God’s will is God himself ” (Maccovius: 2009, 163). This conclusion that God can be identified with his will is particularly troubling since it would make God’s decree and creation necessary, and by so doing challenge the aseity of God. Maccovius tempers this opinion slightly in his discussion on providence by saying, “Absolute necessity regards God’s internal works (ad intra). Necessity on the presupposition of the divine will regards his external works (ad extra)… For all things God works outside of Him, He does with the necessity of the presupposition of his decree, and yet He does them freely” (Maccovius: 2009, 169). This distinction clarifies some of the confusion, nevertheless, it does not clarify whether God was indeed free before his decree to do otherwise. Specifically, in light of Maccovius’ earlier identification of God with his will, the answer seems to be “no” which makes his position an anomaly among the Reformed. Ames’ position seems to be more standard when he writes, “What God wills to do outwardly he wills not out of natural necessity but by preceding choice, for there is no necessary connection between the divine nature and such acts” (Ames: 1968, 97). Thus we turn now to Ames. 10.4.2 Ames The English born, Professor at Franeker, William Ames (1576–1633) resources eclectically Thomistic semantics of possibles, impossibles, and ideas in the Divine mind in his classic work the Medulla (Muller: 2017b, 103–120; cf. Boland: 1992). According to Ames, God, as the object of our faith, cannot be known “face to face”, since, “God, as he is in himself, cannot be understood by any save himself,” thus whenever we speak of God, we do it “in our way of human comprehension.” Even the act of separating out God’s attributes into different categories is “because we are not able to take in this essence in one act of comprehension, it is explained as

163

164

Corné Blaauw

manifold, that is to say, as if consisting of many attributes” (Ames: 1968, 83–84). In describing this God who is simple, immutable, eternal and immeasurable Ames contended that we can divide God’s attributes into “faculties” and “virtues”. Of the faculties, God’s understanding is “simple, without composition, argument or classification” as well as “unchangeable … eternal … infinite” (Ames: 1968, 86–87). The will of God is described in the same terms. “We ought to conceive the nature of the divine will in the same way [as the understanding of God]” (Ames: 1968, 87). Concerning the relationship between God’s power, knowledge and will, Ames writes, “The proper order for conceiving these things is, first, to think of God’s posse, his power; second, his scire, knowledge, third, his velle, will; and lastly his efficere potenter, efficient power (which differs from the effectual will of God only in our thinking)… Thus the very will of God, as the effecting principles, is the cause [ratio] of power” (Ames: 1968, 92). This indicates the primacy of the will in God’s demonstration of his power in his act ad extra. Along these lines, the omnipotence of God must be seen to concern those things possible for God, not those things impossible, “The omnipotence of God deals with things possible in any sense, i.e., whatever God wills or can will … It is not concerned, therefore, about things which are altogether αδθvατα, impossible, and involve a contradiction, either in God or in created things” (Ames: 1968, 93). Here Ames distinguishes between God’s power as potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata sive actualis with the former relating God’s power as omniscience and the latter as the display of God’s power in what he wills (Ames: 1968, 93). What God wills ad extra is the decree which involves both God’s understanding and will. “The counsel of God is, as it were, his deliberation over the best manner of accomplishing anything already approved by the understanding and the will” (Ames: 1968, 95). Thus for Ames God’s predetermination of his will involved God’s pre-volitional knowledge of what he would actualise in accordance with his power of what he could do. Strikingly absent here is any discussion of God attempting to uphold creaturely freedom in his decision to actualise this rather than another world. This means that God’s decree is not grounded in the possibilities of creaturely freedom, but in the will of God informed by the divine foreknowledge of all things possible. 10.4.3 The Westminster Confession of Faith At several points in the history of early modern Reformed theology, writers went out of their way to deny belief in scientia media. The writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) substantially revised The Irish Articles on the point of scientia media by stating, “Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions” (WCF 3.2 italics mine). Each half of the statement is of particular interest. As proof of God’s

Divine Foreknowledge, Possible Worlds, and the Decree

knowledge of all possible conditions, the texts Acts 15:18, 1 Sam 23:11–12, Matt 11:21, 23 are cited. As we have already seen, these texts are the very passages that Molinists usually cite for God’s scientia media, but the confessors cited these merely to demonstrate God’s knowledge even of a possible state of affairs. In the second half of the statement, the texts Rom 9:11, 13, 18 are cited showing God’s decree is not based in anything good or bad Jacob or Esau did, but rather that God’s purposes in election would stand. It might be supposed that the phrase “not decreed anything because He foresaw” undermines the possibility of God’s pre-volitional knowledge of the decree. Yet this passage does not have to be read in this way, instead, WCF 3.2 could be read to mean that the sufficient cause of the decree is not the knowledge of God concerning future contingents, instead, it is the will of God. This leaves open the possibility that God’s pre-volitional knowledge of the decree is a necessary cause though not sufficient cause for the decree to be actualised. It could be argued that WCF 3.2 does not tell us what is the relationship between God’s pre-volitional foreknowledge and God’s decree beyond the fact that the former is not sufficient for the latter. Rather, in attempting to avoid overly speculative considerations such as God’s pre-volitional knowledge of the decree, the counsellors wrote from the perspective of God’s post-volitional knowledge of the decree which is evident in their discussion of God’s omniscience and foreknowledge (cf. WCF 5.2). 10.4.4 Turretin The developed theology of the Professor at Geneva, Francis Turretin (1623–1687) takes the best insights of his predecessors and synthesizes it into a more comprehensive picture. He has six points of criticism of the scientia media. First, middle knowledge is unnecessary since all its parts can be divided into the categories of God’s natural and free knowledge. Second, unlike the claims of middle knowledge, God does not know un-decreed things as if they were decreed. Third, if the providence of God does govern all the world, it must also govern the will of man. Fourth, we cannot ascribe partial or uncertain knowledge to God. Fifth, middle knowledge takes away God’s power over the free actions of the human will. Sixth, middle knowledge advocates seek to ascribe a reason to the will of God, but in Scripture, no reason can be given apart from the good pleasure of God (Turretin: 1992, 214–216). He goes on to answer the two main passages used by middle knowledge advocates. Concerning 1 Sam 23:11–12 he argues what is revealed to David is not a hypothetical future, but the intentions of Saul and the people of Keilah. Of Matthew 11:21 he argues again that Christ is not speaking about a possible reality that could have been (the repentance of Sodom and Gomorrah), rather he is primarily showing by comparison, the extent of the hardness of heart of those in Tyre and Sidon (Turretin: 1992, 216–217).

165

166

Corné Blaauw

Constructively, Turretin argues that the relationship between the power, knowledge and will of God places the knowledge of God logically prior to the willing of God. Concerning the mode of God’s knowledge, God knows things perfectly (by his essence), undivided (intuitively and noetically rather than discursively or by a process of reasoning), distinctly (singular vision), and immutably (no change in God’s knowing) (Turretin: 1992, 207). Concerning the object of God’s knowing, it contains God’s self-knowledge, and all things extrinsic to him, including those things possible, various states of orders, quantity (the great and small), quality (the good and bad), predications (universal and singular), temporal (past, present, and future), states (necessary, free or contingent) (Turretin: 1992, 207). If one might ask how God knows all things infallibly, Turretin answers because of his decree (Turretin: 1992, 208–209). Here are the reasons he gives for this proposition. First, Scripture attributes this kind of knowledge to God (e.g. John 21:17). Second, God is able to perfectly predict future contingent events, therefore he knows them infallibly. Third, the perfect nature of God demands the knowledge of future contingent events since his omniscience includes it in his knowledge, and in his omnipresence he directs creatures in their situatedness. Fourth, whatever God decreed immutably necessarily follows in providence, therefore God also foreknows these (Turretin: 1992, 209–210). If one were to ask how God’s knowledge becomes God’s act, Turretin answers that it is by God’s willing. The foundation of God’s certain knowledge concerning future contingencies cannot alone be in “the nature of secondary causes” or “simply the divine essence” but “the decree alone by which things pass from a state of possibility to a state of futurition” (Turretin: 1992, 210). But how can the will of God be responsible for selecting some state of possibility rather than another if Turretin earlier argued that God’s will is immutable? He writes, “The will of God could be indifferent before the decree, but after the decree it cannot be mutable” (Turretin: 1992, 210). This means that before God exercised his will in the decree, his will was mutable, and therefore he could have decided to create or not create, create this world or another. “It is one thing to inquire whether God might have determined himself to other objects than those he has decreed before he had resolved anything concerning them…we assert” (Turretin: 1992, 206). This is a significant advance upon the work of Maccovius who identifies the will of God with God. This means that Turretin argued for God’s knowledge of his decree before it was decreed as part of God’s omniscience (natural knowledge), but this was only known as decreed once God’s will acted upon the possible world he wanted to actualise. This decision, for Turretin, is not based on God’s determination to preserve creaturely freedom, rather it is based on God’s hidden will to which no reason can be ascribed except the glory of God.

Divine Foreknowledge, Possible Worlds, and the Decree

10.5

Discussion

From the above we can observe several lines of development from the condensed statements of the Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants, reading backwards the sophisticated arguments of de Molina, Arminius and forwards the Reformed arguments. Now we can condense the Reformed position on the relationship between God’s knowledge (taken as God’s omniscience) and will ad extra (taken as God’s decree) in the following six propositions. First, there is in God a specific relationship between his power, knowledge and will. By the power of God, we mean God’s ability to do all things possible. By God’s knowledge we mean God’s knowing himself and all things possible as possible (natural knowledge). By God’s will we mean God’s free decision to actualise by his power on one of the possible worlds according to his natural knowledge which when executed becomes his free knowledge. Second, the knowledge of God is necessary to the will of God but not a sufficient condition for it, rather the will of God itself is the sufficient condition for the decision of God in his decree. Third, this decision, though not temporal in sequence (because God is outside of time) is not immutable before the decree since this would identify God with the specific manifestation of his will ad extra, and the Reformed would maintain that there is more to God than his decree. Besides, if one identifies God with his will in the decree ad extra, this makes creation necessary to God. Rather, to maintain the absolute freedom of God, the Reformed argued that the general and special decrees of God are free decisions made at specific logical points (though not temporal points), and before these decisions were made, they were not part of God’s will. Fourth, God knows all future contingents of free creatures because these are already described in his will ad extra, but in addition, he also knows them in his omniscient natural knowledge before the decree (not as decreed, but as possible to decree), and after his decree he knows them temporally all at once since he stands outside of time which means his knowledge of vision simultaneously captures past, present, and future. Thus he knows future contingents in three ways, pre-volitional omniscience (only knowing as possible), post-volitional because of his decree (thus making him the first cause of all), and his presence in every moment (by his timelessness and omnipresence). Fifth, ultimately, no reason can be ascribed to the general and special decree of God since Scripture gives no such reason; if God’s will is based on anything, it is based on the “good pleasure” of God; and finally, such reasons are part of the ectypal knowledge of God not communicated to mankind (“the secret things belong to the Lord”, Deut 29:29), thus will remain a mystery. Beyond this veil we cannot peer, we can only worship. Sixth, these points apply equally across God’s general decree (to create this world rather than another, which is exercised in creation and providence), and his special decree (to predestine to salvation, and to actually save in time those elected). All these propositions are set against de Molina and Arminius’s understanding of God wherein God’s decree

167

168

Corné Blaauw

contains both a how (via scientia media) and a why (to maintain creaturely freedom of counterfactuals) in contrast to the Reformed who said that both the how and why of God’s will are mysterious – even when we factor in God’s knowledge of all possible worlds.

10.6

Conclusion

This paper aimed to investigate the differences between the positions of de Molina, Arminius and a selection of seventeenth-century reformed theologians concerning the doctrine of God, with the specific question of the relationship between God’s omniscience and decree. In the development of the de Molina-Arminius trajectory, we concluded that God’s will is conditionally dependent upon God’s knowledge of creaturely freedom of counterfactuals. Conversely, the Reformed granted to God equal hypothetical knowledge of future contingent events but denied that God’s will is governed by his foreknowledge (though it is informed by it). Rather, in the Reformed account, God’s natural knowledge does include all things laid down in hypothesis, and indeed, that God knows which of the possible worlds he would actualise, nevertheless, it is his will which decides and makes it certain. This finds its extreme form within some versions of Reformed theology which identifies God fully with his will (as in Maccovius), but in a more nuanced form in Turretin. Trickling down from Reformed prolegomena is their archetypal-ectypal dialect which constrains its speculative features of the doctrine of God – like what ultimately moved God’s will? – to the domain of unrevealed and therefore archetypal knowledge of God. In demonstrating the above, this paper has shown that the doctrine of God was a central feature of the debates between the Remonstrants and the Counter-Remonstrants. In the process of research, we have uncovered that a fruitful future area of inquiry would involve comparing de Molina’s and the Reformed different notions of divine eternity as it relates to the scientia media. Lastly, this paper has shown that those contemporary Reformed theologians who are interested in possible worlds and God’s pre-volitional knowledge of the decree do not have to turn to a Molinist account of scientia media, since the Reformed held that God’s natural knowledge already contained God’s knowledge of possible worlds, and the scientia media is incompatible to Reformed theology on account of making God conditional.

Divine Foreknowledge, Possible Worlds, and the Decree

Bibliography Adams, Robert M. (1977), Middle Knowledge and the Problem of Evil, APQ 14, 109–117. Ames, William (1968), Medulla, trans. in: John D. Eusden, The Marrow of Theology, Durham: The Labyrinth Press. Arminius, Jacob (1956a), Public Disputations, in: The Writings of Arminius, 3 vol., transl. James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall, Grand Rapids: Baker. Arminius, Jacob (1956b), Private Disputations, in: The Writings of Arminius, 3 vol., transl. James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall, Grand Rapids: Baker. Arminius, Jacob (1956c), Certain Articles to be Diligently Examined and Weighed, in: The Writings of Arminius, 3 vol., trans. James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall, Grand Rapids: Baker. Baylor, Jordan J., Et Al. (ed.) (2019), Beyond Dordt and the Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Leiden: Brill. Boland, Vivian (1992), Ideas in God according to Saint Thomas Aquinas: Sources and Synthesis, Leiden: Brill. De Jong, Peter Y. (ed.) (1968), Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dort, 1618–1619, Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, Inc. De Molina, Luis (1988), On Divine Foreknowledge: Part IV of the Concordia, trans. Alfred J. Freddoso, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Dekker, Eef (1993), Rijker dan Midas: Vrijheid, Genade en Predestinatie in de Theologie van Jacob Arminius (1559–1609), Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum. Dekker, Eef (1996), Was Arminius a Molinist?, SCJ, 27.2, 337–352. Goudriaan, Aza (2015), Samuel Rutherford on the Divine Origin of Possibility, in: Aaron Clay Denlinger (ed.), Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology 1560–1775, London: T&T Clark, 141–156 Hampton, Stephen (2008), Ant.i-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I, New York: Oxford University Press. Kaufmann, Matthias/Alexander Aichele, (ed.) (2013), A Companion to Luis De Molina, BCCT, Leiden: Brill. Laing, John D., Et Al. (ed.) (2018), Calvinism and Middle Knowledge: A Conversation, Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick. Leibniz, Gottfried W. (1969), Leibniz’s Philosophical Papers and Letters. ed. and trans. Leroy E. Loemker, 2nd ed., Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Lewis, David K. (1973), Counterfactual, Oxford: Blackwell. Lewis, David K. (1986), On the Plurality of Worlds, Oxford: Blackwell. Maccovius, Johannes (2009), Distinctiones et Regulae Theologicae ac Philosophicae, Auctae et Illustratae Studio Francisci Cnutii, Neomagensis Gelri, trans. and ed. in: Willem J. Van Asselt, Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek. Macgregor, Kirk R. (2015), Luis de Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge, Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

169

170

Corné Blaauw

Muller, Richard A. (1989), Arminius and the Scholastic Tradition, CTJ 24.2, 263–277 Muller, Richard A. (1991), God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy, Grand Rapids: Baker. Muller, Richard A. (2017a), Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and Necessity in Early Modern Reformed Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker. Muller, Richard A. (2017b), Calvinist Thomism Revisited: William Ames (1576–1633) and the Divine Ideas, in: Gary W. Jenkins/W.J.T. Kirby/Kathleen M. Comerford (ed.), From Rome to Zurich, between Ignatius and Vermigli: Essays in Honor of John Patrick Donnelly, SJ, Leiden: Brill, 2017, 103–120. Olson, Roger E. (2006), Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, Downers Grove: IVP. Olson, Roger E. (2011), Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Perszy, Ken (ed.) (2011), Molinism: The Contemporary Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Plantinga, Alvin (1974a), The Nature of Necessity, Oxford: Claredon Press. Plantinga, Alvin (1974b), God, Freedom and Evil, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Platt, Frederick (1962), Arminianism, in: James Hastings (ed.), ERE, Vol.1, New York: Charles Scribners. Stanglin, Keith D./Thomas H. Mccall (2012), Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace, New York: Oxford. Stanglin, Keith D. (2019), Scientia media: The Protestant Reception of a Jesuit Idea, in: Jordan J. Baylor, et al. (ed.), Beyond Dordt and the Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Leiden: Brill. Tiessen, Terrance (2000), Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World?, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Turretin, Francis (1992), Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. G. M. Giger, ed. J. T. Dennison, Vol. 1, Philipsburg: P&R. Tyacke, Nicholas (1987), Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c. 1590–1640, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Asselt, Willem J. Et Al., trans. (ed.) (2010), Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in the History of Early-Modern Reformed Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker. Van Horn, Luke (2012), On Incorporating Middle Knowledge into Calvinism: A Theological/Metaphysical Muddle?, JETS 55.4, 807–827. Van Vliet, Jan (2013), The Rise of Reformed System: The Intellectual Heritage of William Ames. Studies in Christian History and Thought, Eugene: Wipf & Stock. Walls, Jerry L. (1990), Is Molinism as Bad as Calvinism?, F&P 7.1, 85–98. Ware, Bruce A. (2004), God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith, Wheaton: Crossway Books.

Divine Foreknowledge, Possible Worlds, and the Decree

Witt, William G. (1993), Creation, Redemption and Grace in the Theology of Jacob Arminius, unpublished PhD diss., University of Notre Dame.

Abbreviations APQ BCCT CTJ ERE F&P JETS SCJ

American Philosophical Quarterly Brill’s Companion to the Christian Tradition Calvin Theological Journal Encyclopaedia if Religion and Ethics Faith and Philosophy Journal of Evangelical Theological Society Sixteenth Century Journal

171

Donald Sinnema

11.

Doctrinal Dissension among Delegates at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

Abstract In addressing the Arminian controversy, the Dutch and foreign delegates of the Synod of Dordt showed unusual unanimity when all approved and signed the Canons of Dordt as their response to Arminian views. Nevertheless, throughout the course of the synod the delegates of Dordt had differences of opinion on a wide variety of procedural as well as doctrinal matters, and sometimes these disagreements erupted into open dissension among some of the delegates. This article focuses on the four major doctrinal issues where there was open dissension: (1) the debate over the role of Christ in election; (2) the causa physica debate; (3) the supralapsarian debate; and (4) the debate over the extent of the atonement.

11.1

Introduction

The main reason the Synod of Dordt was convened was to settle the Arminian controversy that had agitated the Netherlands for about twenty years. In responding to this controversy, the 58 Dutch delegates at Dordt, assisted by 26 foreign theologians from eight foreign lands, showed unusual unanimity. The synod’s answer to the Arminians (Remonstrants), was the Canons of Dordt, approved and signed by every one of the Dutch and foreign delegates (Sinnema: 2015, I:144). The Canons were based on position papers (iudicia) submitted by all nineteen delegations (eleven Dutch and eight foreign) on each of the Five Articles of the Remonstrants that were at the heart of the controversy. After all these iudicia were read in the synod, the president, Johannes Bogerman, commented on how much harmony there was among all these statements presented by the various delegations (Sinnema: 2015, I:140; Balcanqual: 1673, 2:139).1 The delegates of Dordt were united by the funda-

1 John Hales and Walter Balcanqual reported on the synod’s deliberations to British ambassador Dudley Carleton in The Hague. Hales, who was Carleton’s chaplain, reported until early February 1619, when most sessions were closed to spectators like himself. Then British delegate Walter Balcanqual continued to send reports to Carleton.

174

Donald Sinnema

mentals of Reformed doctrine, and they remained unified against their common opponents who challenged certain basic Reformed teachings. Nevertheless, beneath the broad unity that the delegates of Dordt expressed against the Remonstrant threat, among themselves the delegates sometimes presented differing views on a wide variety of specific issues. And at times these differences erupted into open, and even bitter, dissension among some of the delegates on the floor of the synod. Though it is a matter of degree, one can distinguish between disagreements expressed by delegates on certain issues, and open dissension when the differences became personal and acrimonious. The delegates of Dordt expressed differences of opinion on a variety of procedural matters as well as doctrinal matters. There were moments when the procedural differences escalated to some level of dissension, for example, in the debate whether to appoint a drafting committee for the Canons. On a significant variety of doctrinal matters, the delegates also had differences, but these were mostly points of doctrinal disagreement where there was no evident dissension. This article focuses just on the four major doctrinal issues where disagreements erupted into dissension.

11.2

The Debate over the Role of Christ in Election

A week after the cited Remonstrants were expelled from the synod, a debate arose on 22 January about the meaning of Ephesians 1:4: “he elected us in Christ,” and the role of Christ in election. The issue was: in what sense is Christ said to be the foundation (fundamentum) of election? (Sinnema: 2015, I:119). Is God the Father alone the author of election and Christ only the “executor” of election, who carries out the decree of election? Or is Christ the foundation of election in that he is not only the executor of election, but also the author of election? In this session, delegates advocated various interpretations, that Christ is the foundation of election because he was the “first of the elect,” or because he is the “foundation of the elect,” or because he is the “foundation of the benefits” that believers receive. Franciscus Gomarus contended for the first of these positions. Matthias Martinius of Bremen said he had a scruple concerning the manner of Christ being the foundation of election; he thought Christ was not only the executor of election, but also the author of it. According to John Hales, as soon as Martinius finished speaking, Gomarus stood up and told the synod, “Ego hanc rem in me recipio [I take this to be against me].” Gomarus “therewithall casts his glove, and

Doctrinal Dissension among Delegates at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

challenges Martinius with this proverb, ‘Ecce Rhodum, ecce saltum,’2 and requires the synod to grant them a duel, adding that he knew Martinius could say nothing in refutation of that doctrine.” Martinius easily handled this affront. President Bogerman soon pacified the situation, and the session concluded with prayer. However, “immediatly after prayers, he renewed his challenge and required combat with Martinius again, but they parted for that night without blowes” (Hales: 1673, 2:87).3 Other reports of the incident vary in the details. In his journal, the Swiss delegate J.J. Breitinger states that Gomarus and Martinius were admonished to treat the matter with calmer spirits, since a “vehement contention (contentio vehemens)” had arisen between them about the meaning of “elected in Christ.” Martinius asserted that even though Christ is not the meritorious cause of election (the Remonstrant view), he is the meritorious cause of electibility (eligibilitatis) (Breitinger journal, 84v). An anonymous journal asserts that Martinius opposed some things Gomarus had said, and “thence they got a little heated and challenged each other to a duel (sese invicem ad certamen provocavare)” (Synodalia, 12/22 January). The Overijssel delegate Caspar Sibelius reported that Martinius stated that we are elected in Christ as the foundation, both of election to grace and to glory. Christ was first elected, and we were elected as members in him. When Martinius wished to prove this, Gomarus said this could be proved by no syllogism (Sibelius, 57r; Tronchin, 68r). While duels of honor were usually fought by sword, Gomarus’ challenge to Martinius appears to be a case of verbal dueling; in particular, a call for a personal disputation in the presence of the synod. Geeraert Brandt’s account of the incident interprets the duel in this sense;4 so does Gomarus’ biographer van Itterzon.5 Gomarus’ added comment that “he knew Martinius could say nothing in refutation of that doctrine” points in this direction, and the proverb uttered by Gomarus can best be interpreted as “Here is your chance. Let’s see you prove your position” in a disputation. Martinius was suspected of sympathizing with the Remonstrants on several points. To bring him to conformity, the next morning (23 January) British Bishop George Carleton took upon himself “a kind of episcopal authority” and arranged a

2 The proverb is explained by Erasmus (1541), 696–697. Literally, it means “Behold Rhodes; behold the leap.” Erasmus explains that it was first uttered in response to a young man who claimed he had once performed an incredible jump in athletic games on the island of Rhodes. Someone challenged him to prove that claim, with the words, “Hic Rhodus; hic saltus,” that is, “Here is your Rhodes; let’s see that leap.” I thank Joseph Tipton for this reference. 3 Since session 65 was a closed session, it is doubtful that Hales was present. He probably heard about the incident from a British delegate. 4 Brandt: 1704, 3:409: “Gomarus daegt Martinius ten disputen.” 5 Van Itterzon: 1929, 231: “dit duel met woorden.”

175

176

Donald Sinnema

private meeting at his own lodging with one theologian from each foreign delegation. In this “little synod,” he stressed the need for mutual consent, in order to avoid the scandal of conflicting views. In this meeting, Martinius would not change his views, but he promised moderation, so that there would be no dissension in the synod due to his opinions (Milton: 2005, 198–199; Hales: 1673, 2:87–88). Three days later, the session was closed to spectators, for fear that some diversity of opinion might arise and give occasion to dissension. Several theologians spoke on election, including John Davenant, Samuel Ward and Rudolphus Goclenius. Then Martinius again raised his concern about the sense in which Christ is the foundation of election, and he requested that the synod resolve the matter. This time Gomarus held his peace (Hales: 1673, 2:91; Sinnema: 2015, I:120). The issue of Christ’s role in election did not come up again until the iudicia of the nineteen delegations were read in early March. In their iudicia on Art. I, the various delegations spoke with some diversity on the role of Christ in election: Christ is the head and foundation of the elect (British, Gelderland); as God-man, head and mediator, Christ is the foundation of election (Drenthe); the Son, with the Father, is the cause, source and author of election (Gelderland); the decree of election was made in Christ as mediator and redeemer (Bremen); he is the foundation of election as executed (Swiss); Christ as mediator is the foundation of salvation (Emden, Gelderland); as mediator he is the first ordained means to execute election (Hesse, Nassau-Wetteravia, Emden, Zeeland); Christ as mediator is not the cause, but an effect of election (Emden) (Sinnema: 2018, 127). But there is no report of further dissension on the matter. When the Canons were being drafted, formulations of the issue also varied in different drafts. The draft dictated by President Bogerman seemed to connect “in Christ” to salvation. The first committee draft separated “in Christ” from election by adding that Christ is the mediator, head and foundation of salvation, and seemed to imply that only salvation was in Christ. The second committee draft more clearly reconnected “in Christ” to election. The formulation of the final version of the Canons deliberately connected “in Christ” to election, not just to salvation, while adding that Christ is “also” the mediator, head of the elect and foundation of salvation. Though not explicitly stated, the implication is that Christ is both the foundation of election and foundation of salvation (Sinnema: 2018, 132).6

6 The final version literally reads: “…to salvation he elected in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator and head of all those elected and the foundation of their salvation.”

Doctrinal Dissension among Delegates at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

11.3

The Causa Physica Debate

In discussions that led to the drafting of the Canons, a debate flared up among various members of the synod about the use of the scholastic category causa physica in theology. It was based on the scholastic distinction between physical and moral action. On 12 February, in deliberations on Art. III/IV concerning how God brings about human conversion, Matthias Martinius of Bremen posed the issue: “does God act physically (physice) in man’s conversion? Are the exhortations, promises and threats of the gospel a moral action?” (Breitinger, 89r). His answer was that God is the physical cause of conversion. The next day, the Franeker theologian Sibrandus Lubbertus took exception to what Martinius had said the day before, especially that God is the physical cause of conversion. He offered reasons against this idea and asked Martinius to address the reasons. Their exchange sounded to Walter Balcanqual like mere philosophical speculation. In this debate, Martinius appealed to Marburg philosopher Rudolphus Goclenius, who was present as a Hesse delegate. Goclenius pointed out that Themistius, Averroes, Alexander of Aphrodisias and many others shared Martinius’ opinion, and he asserted that this opinion was true in philosophy, but he would not prescribe it in theology. Lubbertus then confronted Goclenius also. After many words, the president cut them off (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:104–105; cf. Tronchin, 92r). When the synod returned to a discussion of Art. III/IV on 19 February, Lubbertus wanted to first add a few things to what he had said in the earlier session. This turned out to be a renewal of the strife between him and Martinius. Lubbertus mentioned two things: First, that he had been to Goclenius’ lodging to ask him whether God might be called the causa physica of human actions, and he mentioned certain statements of Goclenius tending to the negative. Goclenius confirmed he had said this. Second, although Martinius had cited a passage from the respected Heidelberg theologian David Pareus for the affirmative, Lubbertus read many passages from Pareus tending to the contrary. He appealed to the Palatine delegates who were colleagues of Pareus to speak what they knew of Pareus’ mind about the matter (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:110; Breitinger, 89r; Tronchin, 96r–97v). In what looked prearranged, Heidelberg theologian Abraham Scultetus gave a written speech, full of bitter words, according to Balcanqual. Scultetus copiously discussed Pareus’ opinion, and severely reproached (graviter perstringit) the Bremen delegates, without mentioning their names. He said he did not know if Pareus held the contrary of what had been falsely attributed to him at the synod, but he could not endure hearing his dearest colleague being so abused by some in the synod. Moreover, he was grieved that some in the synod would trouble sound theology by bringing in scholastic nonsense (tricas scholasticas), such as to make God the physical cause of conversion (contra Martinius). Against Ludwig Crocius, Martinius’

177

178

Donald Sinnema

Bremen colleague, he said it was hard to believe that the present controversies could not be defined without the monstrous new terms voluntas determinabilis, determinans, determinativa (used by Crocius), since in the Scriptures there are many clear ways of speaking. He said he was grieved in his soul that Jesuit metaphysics was being taught in Reformed schools, under the pretext of which youth were little by little given to drink papal poison. And he never thought it would happen that orthodox theologians would find anything lacking in Calvin, as if he had not fully treated the teaching of man’s conversion by free choice. Scultetus did not doubt that God would punish this contempt of the simplicity of Scripture, and said he would advise youth to avoid such teachers (Breitinger, 89r; Balcanqual: 1673, 2:111; Synodalia, 9/19 February). Martinius answered modestly that he would read Pareus’ own words, which he did. And he wondered why Lubbertus brought these things up in public, since out of his love for peace that very day he had sent his colleague Crocius to Lubbertus with a large explanation of the sense in which he had stated that God is the physical cause of conversion; Lubbertus had indicated that he was fully satisfied with the explanation, so he thought the matter was peacefully settled (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:111). Breitinger notes that Martinius loudly complained much about the injuries that Lubbertus and Scultetus had done to him and his colleagues, and he threatened that if a place was not given in the synod to the legitimate justification of their view, they would address the situation in writing. President Bogerman then warned him to act with a tranquil spirit (Breitinger, 89r). Finally, Gomarus spoke and directed himself against the Bremen theologians in a passionate speech. He noted that Martinius, in response to Scultetus, said he was sorry that he who had been a professor of theology for 25 years should be so treated for using a scholastic term. Gomarus told the synod that he himself had been a professor not only 25, but 35 years. Next, he took on Crocius and warned the synod to take heed of men who brought in these monstrosities of terms, the barbarisms of the schools of the Jesuits, determinare & non determinare voluntatem. When he ended, President Bogerman thanked the most renowned doctor Gomarus for his learned and accurate speech (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:111–112). Then Bishop Carleton spoke up, asserting that synodical discussion was intended for edification, not for anyone to show zeal for strife. This made Gomarus furious; he reminded Bogerman that in the synod matters were to be conducted not by authority, but by reasons. Bogerman replied that the most renowned doctor Gomarus had said nothing against persons, but only against their opinions, and therefore he said nothing worthy of reprehension. Next to speak was the Dutch theologian Antonius Thysius, who tried to soften the irritated feelings. He discretely told the synod that he was sorry Martinius was so agitated about a speech that he himself said was true. As Thysius was speaking, Gomarus and Lubbertus, who sat next to him, pulled him by the sleeve, and in the

Doctrinal Dissension among Delegates at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

hearing of all, chided him for saying so. Afterward, Thysius very modestly asked Martinius to give him satisfaction concerning one or two doubtful statements he had made. Thanking him for his courtesy, Martinius fully did so (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:112–113; Breitinger, 89r). At the same time, Bogerman publicly read from a paper a list of all the harsh statements Martinius had made (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:113). At last the session ended, not free from “acrimony and agitation of spirits,” according to Breitinger. It left Martinius angered, and he stayed absent from the synod for several sessions (Breitinger, 89v). By 23 February, the Bremen delegates were so offended that they were ready to leave for home, and publish a narration of the harsh treatment they had received at the synod. They also brought their complaints to the state delegates, who were expected to deal with Gomarus (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:114). On 22 and 23 February, the state delegates invited President Bogerman to meet with them to discuss how to restore unity (Sinnema: 2015, I:493–494). To help quell the crisis, some of the foreign theologians requested the English delegation to try to reconcile the opposing parties. Already that evening of the 23rd , the English took steps to reconcile the Bremen delegates with Scultetus. The same day Balcanqual wrote Ambassador Dudley Carleton suggesting that he offer counsel to President Bogerman in order to bring water to the fire (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:114). On 25 February, the ambassador wrote to Bogerman that he was anxious that some persons of hot-blooded temperament were causing a disturbance, and he urged Bogerman to introduce some moderation into the proceedings and restrain those of a more violent nature. He said it should not have been necessary to publicly chastise Martinius so fiercely for borrowing words from the schools. If he and his delegation would withdraw from the synod, this would severely tarnish the synod, since the whole Christian world was watching, and there was nothing that would be more prejudicial to it than their disagreements and contentions (Milton: 2005, 204–205; cf. 206, 207). Carleton’s advice had good effect. After receiving the letter, Bogerman entreated all delegates on 28 February to abstain from bitterness and show meekness and brotherly kindness in synod discussions. Having heard the ambassador’s advice, Gomarus and Lubbertus tempered their speech (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:115; Carleton: 1775, 342, 346). By 1 March, a private reconciliation was reached between the Bremen theologians and Scultetus, Gomarus and Lubbertus, through the efforts of President Bogerman and the state delegates. The Bremen delegates were content with a private settlement, and the other three said they were sorry for what they had done. No more is heard of this debate (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:117).

179

180

Donald Sinnema

11.4

The Supralapsarian Debate

Franciscus Gomarus was the only delegate at Dordt who openly held the supralapsarian position of Theodore Beza and William Perkins – that God predestined persons to eternal life or death without considering them as sinners.7 In this view, the object of predestination is man considered as not yet created and not yet fallen, homo creabilis. Virtually all other members of the synod held the infralapsarian position – that in predestining, God considered persons as fallen, homo lapsus. It was well known that Gomarus was a supralapsarian (Hales: 1673, 2:57, 83, 95; Balcanqual: 1673, 2:124, 129, 130.).8 But since he was very much in the minority, he was very cautious about openly presenting his position on the floor of the synod (Hales: 1673, 2:83, 95–96; Balcanqual: 1673, 2:126). So, when he gave a speech on election on 18 January, Gomarus did not bring up the supralapsarian issue, but simply refuted four Remonstrant arguments that foreseen faith is an antecedent condition for election.9 When the iudicia of the foreign delegations on Art. I were read in early March, all of them assumed that homo lapsus was the object of predestination. None directly disputed the supralapsarian view (Acta: 1620, 2:3–77; Balcanqual: 1673, 2:124, 130). When the five Dutch professors then presented their iudicia, there was little hope of full agreement. They drew up three separate iudicia – Polyander, Thysius and Walaeus together presented one (signed also by Lubbertus, but not by Gomarus); Lubbertus (signed also by the three professors) and Gomarus each presented their own. The first three professors argued, by using eight biblical proofs and a syllogistic argument, that God predestined persons from the human race fallen in sin and lost (prolapso ac perdito) (Acta: 1620, 3:4; Balcanqual: 1673, 2:124). After their statement was read, Gomarus stood up and testified verbally that he had read it and approved everything in the statement of his colleagues except the part that homo lapsus is the object of predestination. This, he said, had not yet been determined in the Dutch churches, nor in the French or English churches, and many others (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:126). The next iudicium of Lubbertus also emphasized that God predestined miserable sinners (Acta: 1620, 3:11). Gomarus again verbally approved his statement, but with the same exception.

7 Beza was the first to introduce the supralapsarian perspective (Sinnema: 2007, 225–229). 8 Hales: 1673, 2:95: “for being of the supralapsarii, as they term them, of those who bring the decree of God’s election from before the fall, and seeing the synod not willing to move that way, but to subside in a lower sphere, [Gomarus]….” 9 Gomarus’ speech is preserved in the Oud Synodaal Archief housed in the Utrechts Archief, vol. K (7 pages).

Doctrinal Dissension among Delegates at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

In his own iudicium, Gomarus focused on responding to the Remonstrant viewpoint, but his own supralapsarian view is more veiled than fully developed. The closest he came to expressing his position was to state that God elected and reprobated certain people “from the whole human race” (ex universo genere humano) (Acta: 1620, 3:21, 24). When his statement was read, Polyander testified on behalf of his colleagues that they approved everything of Gomarus, except his view of the object of predestination (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:126). In the afternoon session of 11 March, Bishop George Carleton asked to speak and confronted Gomarus: did he indeed say that morning that the issue whether homo lapsus is the subject of predestination had not been determined by the confession of the Church of England (the Thirty-Nine Articles)? Gomarus modestly answered that indeed he did say so, not out of any evil intent, but only to show that, like other churches, the Church of England had left the matter undetermined. He had read in his copy of the Syntagma Confessionum (Corpus: 1612, 129; Sibelius, 81v) that the English confession defined no more on the matter than “some out of the human race.” Bishop Carleton replied that he and his colleagues could only conclude that Gomarus’ answer was touched by temerity or ignorance, for since the British in their iudicium had identified homo lapsus as the subject of predestination, it was as if they presented in the synod something contrary to the Church of England. To show that this was not the case, Thomas Goad publicly read art. 17 of the ThirtyNine Articles. This article included the words “deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of the human race,” but Gomarus had left out the words “from curse and damnation.” Breitinger indicates that the bishop reprimanded Gomarus severely (reprehendit graviter) for raising doubts about the confession of a foreign church (Breitinger, 91v). Gomarus replied that if he had misunderstood the words of the confession, he would submit to the judgment of the synod. President Bogerman then roundly told Gomarus that every synod member was free to deliver his judgment on any question, but they should be very careful not to rashly meddle with the judgments of other churches. Carleton added that since all the foreign theologians and all the Dutch professors, except Gomarus, had already committed to homo lapsus in their iudicia, and he did not doubt that the other Dutch delegates would do the same, it would be very appropriate for the synod to determine the matter likewise. There was no reason for the synod to abstain from determining the question, for the sake of the particular opinion of one professor, who dissented on this point from the judgment of all the Reformed churches. Gomarus responded that Leiden University had never determined for homo lapsus, and that both William Whitaker and William Perkins had determined the contrary (supralapsarian position), both of whom did not dissent from the Thirty-

181

182

Donald Sinnema

Nine Articles of the Church of England. He said the issue should first be discussed, with arguments on both sides, before anything was determined. President Bogerman answered that after the iudicia of all the delegations were read, the synod would decide what should best be thought of this question. After the Canons were drafted, if Gomarus could show that anything contained in them was contrary to God’s Word, the synod would patiently hear what he had to say.10 Then the other Dutch iudicia on Art. I were read. South Holland was the only other delegation that did not mention that God predestined from the fallen human race. They emphasized that it was not necessary to define whether the object of predestination is man considered by God as fallen or as not-yet-fallen, since “in electing, he considered all people to be in an equal condition,” so no one was viewed as more worthy than another. Thus, they thought the differences over the object of predestination could be reconciled (Acta: 1620, 3:33–35; Sinnema: 2018, 126). Sometime before the Canons were drafted, Gomarus prepared a thorough defense of his supralapsarian stance, but he did not submit this document for discussion at the synod. The document argued that the synod should neither define the object of predestination nor reject the supralapsarian position.11 In the Canons of Dordt, God’s decree to predestine from eternity presupposes a fallen humanity. This is the infralapsarian stance that the Canons clearly assume. This is evident first of all in the order of chapter I, which begins with the fall. When art. I.7 of the Canons on election was drafted, from the very first draft, written by president Bogerman, to the later drafts of the drafting committee, persons are said to be elected “out of the entire human race fallen (ex universo genere humano…prolapso).” Throughout the entire drafting process (with eight drafts of Art. I), there was no change on this point (Sinnema: 2018, 128–131). Likewise, art. I.15 on reprobation speaks of God’s decree to leave some in the common misery (communi miseria) into which they had plunged. Hence the Canons are clothed in infralapsarian language, but they do not specifically define the object of predestination and do not condemn or exclude the supralapsarian position. Gomarus himself was able to sign the Canons, because the popular order and style of the Canons allowed him to interpret their infralapsarian formulations within his own supralapsarian perspective, as relating to the temporal execution of God’s decree, since God actually within history saves his chosen ones from the fallen human race (Sinnema: 1985, 431–432; Dijk: 1912, 185; Fesko: 2011, 120–121).

10 This whole exchange is described by Balcanqual 1673, 2:129–130; (cf. Sibelius, 81v; Synodalia, 1/11 March; Tronchin, 114r; Heppe: 1853, 301). 11 Printed in Dijk: 1912, Appendix A; analysis of the document, 177–186.

Doctrinal Dissension among Delegates at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

11.5

The Debate about the Extent of Christ’s Redemption

The toughest difficulties arose in formulating the synod’s response to the Remonstrant Article II on the extent of Christ’s redemption. The issue centered on how to interpret the universal passages of Scripture that seemed to teach that Christ died for all. Does this mean he died for every particular person, or was Christ’s death restricted to the elect? Much of the discussion revolved around the familiar distinction between the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all and its efficacy only for the elect. It was well known that Bremen theologian Matthias Martinius had some sympathies with the Remonstrants on the extent of Christ’s merit. As mentioned above, to bring him to some conformity, there was a private meeting of foreign theologians with him in Bishop Carleton’s lodging on 23 January, and he promised moderation (Hales: 1673, 2:87, 96). Bishop Carleton continued to seek to change Martinius’ mind on universal grace, by sending him a letter expounding on John 3:16, the passage on which Martinius especially relied (Hales: 1673, 2:92). On 5 February, as discussion on Art. II was beginning at the synod, it became apparent that there were significant differences about this issue. Not only Martinius, but also Samuel Ward had differences with other delegates concerning universal grace. To settle these doubts and avoid a public airing of them, many private meetings were held in Bishop Carleton’s lodging. There on 6 February, some theses were drawn up on the matter (Hales: 1673, 2:96–97). The differences emerged not only in the synod, but especially within the British delegation. There the difference focused on the interpretation of art. 31 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the English church, specifically the words that Christ’s redemption, propitiation and satisfaction was “for all the sins of the whole world.” Are the words “whole world” to be understood as all particular people, or only as the world of the elect consisting of all sorts of people? Davenant and Ward (like Martinius) thought they referred to all particular people. Bishop Carleton, Goad and Balcanqual thought they referred to the elect of all sorts. Each side thought they were right and neither side yielded. Meanwhile, on 9 February Balcanqual secretly requested that ambassador Dudley Carleton seek the advice of the English church leadership on the question (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:101). Carleton wrote back to the British delegation, advising them either to agree among themselves or to write to England (Milton: 2005, 200). President Bogerman also complained in a letter given to ambassador Carleton that one of the British delegates (Ward) was a “speculatif et demi,” who was more versed in scholastic disputes than in the practice of the church, and he was threatening to breed discord in the harmony among the foreign delegates. Bogerman requested that Carleton seek direction from Archbishop Abbot for the British

183

184

Donald Sinnema

delegation. On 15 February, the ambassador informed Abbot about the growing differences and asked for his direction (Milton: 2005, 199–200). Balcanqual drew up a statement that spelled out the precise state of the difference within the British delegation, and he sent this to ambassador Carleton on 15 February, with a request to forward it to Archbishop Abbot. The main issue, he stated, was whether the “whole world” referred to the world of the elect or the world of all particular people. Despite the controversy within the delegation, love and amity still prevailed among them, he asserted. He hoped the archbishop would provide speedy advice to help settle the matter (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:102–103).12 On 18 February, Bishop Carleton also sent a letter to Dudley Carleton describing the dynamics of the controversy within the British delegation. As they were preparing their iudicium on Art. II, he stated, Davenant and Ward could not agree with the three others, and they were at a standoff, which led to various conferences that only drew them further apart. Davenant and Ward held that the grace of Christ’s redemption was general to all without exception, and they thought this accorded with Scripture and the Church of England. But the other three took this to be neither the truth of Scripture, nor the doctrine of the Church of England. Bishop Carleton insisted that an agreement was necessary, and if they could not agree on everything, they should identify points on which all agreed. Carleton asked them if he could be free to remove things they could not agree on. To this the other British delegates yielded, and so they agreed on some points. Bishop Carleton further reported that in a private conference with Ward, he was led to admit that Scripture teaches that where there is grace of redemption, there is also remission of sins. So, if Ward insisted that the grace of redemption is common to all, he must also admit that all have remission of sins. To avoid this conclusion, Ward devised new words to express the generality – not redemptio, but redimibilitas, not reconciliatio, but reconciliabilitas. And he was not willing to say with the Remonstrants that impetratio (redemption accomplished) is general, but that impetrabilitas is general. Such invented scholastic terms were very suspect for Bishop Carleton. Ward, however, did not keep his ideas in the private conferences; he shared them with others and publicly presented them in the synod. President Bogerman was offended by some things that were presented, and he had asked the British to write their archbishop for his opinion. Bishop Carleton then told the other British delegates that it would be less trouble if they themselves altered some things that offended Bogerman rather than refer the matter to the archbishop. To this, Davenant answered that he would rather have his right hand cut off than to recall or alter anything. Hence, they were driven to seek the Archbishop’s advice.

12 The statement of differences is in Hales: 1673, 2:105–106; analyzed by Godfrey: 1974, 170–173.

Doctrinal Dissension among Delegates at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

Carleton was sure that the idea of universal grace of redemption would not be well received in the synod (Milton: 2005, 200–202; Hales: 1673, 2:179–182). By 26 February, Bishop Carleton could report to Dudley Carleton that the “stirs” had become “well composed” (Milton: 1673, 203–204). The bishop wrote to Archbishop Abbot on 28 February that he had cut off discussion of whether the grace of redemption is general to all. This he did with the consent of the whole British delegation. Yet he feared that his colleagues would not be silent if the matter would be disputed in the synod. So he suggested that a private admonition from Abbot to his colleagues might keep them all quiet. Despite the differences of opinion, he said the members of the delegation lived together in great love (Milton: 2005, 208; Hales: 1673, 2:182–183). The same day, the whole British delegation wrote to Archbishop Abbot. Noting that they had earlier requested Abbot for his advice on the authorized doctrine of the English church concerning the issue of universal redemption, they now did not want to press him further on it, since they had just reached a compromise among themselves on the issue. They no longer needed his advice, except for private advice (Milton: 2005, 209; Hales: 1673, 2:183–184). The agreement of the British delegation was stated in six Theses, which were then incorporated into the British iudicium on Art. II. This iudicium, which was read in the synod on 12 March, was signed by all five British delegates, but it clearly reflected a compromise. In the first two theses, the British iudicium affirms God’s special intention to efficaciously redeem the elect, an emphasis of Bishop Carleton, Goad and Balcanqual. But later theses relate the death of Christ to all human beings, reflecting the influence of Davenant and Ward. Thesis 3 affirms that Christ gave himself as a ransom for the sins of the whole world, and thesis four affirms the universal gospel promise that whoever believes in Christ shall have eternal life. Thesis 5 implies that some fruits of Christ’s death are afforded more generally than to the elect, as spiritual graces accompanying the gospel and conferred on some of the non-elect. The British iudicium did not explicitly mention the distinction between sufficiency and efficacy (Acta: 1620, 2:78–83; Hales: 1673, 2: 185, 186–187).13 When the Palatine delegation presented their iudicium on Art. II the same day, they spoke “most bitterly” about some things that Samuel Ward had mentioned in the synod concerning Art. II, according to a letter of Balcanqual to Dudley Carleton. He advised Carleton to send frequent admonitions to president Bogerman to keep the bond of peace (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:135, 141). Carleton in turn reported to Secretary of State Naunton that Scultetus and his Palatine colleagues had spoken with much bitterness and disrespect about what Ward had said, and he complained to the agent of the Palatine Elector about it (Milton: 2005, 214; Carleton: 1775, 347).

13 The British iudicium on Art. II is analyzed by Godfrey: 1974, 177–179, and Lynch: 2019, 143–147.

185

186

Donald Sinnema

In mid-March, the British delegation belatedly received instructions from Archbishop Abbot, after they had presented their iudicium on Art. II to the synod. Abbot said they were to conform to the received distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s redemption, and to the restriction of efficacy to the elect (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:135; Hales: 1673, 2:184; Milton: 2005, 215). About the same time, the British delegates received special directions from King James sent by Secretary Naunton on 8 March, that the British should seek to have the synod’s resolution on Art. II reflect the early Church Fathers, be agreeable to the confessions of the Church of England and other Reformed churches, and give as little offense to the Lutherans as possible. In contrast to the archbishop’s instructions, these directions pointed toward a more universal formulation (Milton: 2005, 212, cf. 210; Balcanqual: 1673, 2:135; Hales: 1673, 2:184–185). In response to the archbishop’s instructions, the British delegation on 21 March sent him an apologetic explanation to justify the fact that their iudicium on Art. II contained some universal emphases. This was accompanied by a statement of Davenant, containing their Theses, with explanations, and various reasons for affirming the universal emphases (Milton: 2005, 216–222; Hales: 1673, 2:184–190). On 13 March, it was the turn of the Bremen delegation to present their iudicium on Art. II, but the three Bremen delegates differed so much that each of them submitted a separate iudicium. That of Matthias Martinius inclined somewhat toward the Remonstrant position. He emphasized that Christ died for all people since there is a common love of God for the whole human race by which he seriously wills the salvation of all, and yet he died especially for the elect since there is a special decree by which the saving benefits of the death of Christ are applied to the elect alone. He critiqued views of the Remonstrants, but also the Contra-Remonstrant idea that Christ did not in any sense die for those who perish. Henricus Isselburg, on the other hand, defended the received distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death, and restricted the latter to the elect. Ludwig Crocius proposed a middle way between his two colleagues (Acta: 1620, 2:103–118; cf. Balcanqual: 1673, 2:131).14 When the Dutch iudicia on Art. II were read, Balcanqual noted that they accepted the received distinction, but he considered the statements of Gelderland, North Holland and Drenthe to be too rigid and even false (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:132, 134).15 When the Canons were being drafted, the difficulties remained especially with Art. II. In response to the first committee draft, the majority of the synod wanted to restrict the universal statements of Scripture to the elect alone. The British delegation, on the contrary, contended that such universal statements should neither

14 Godfrey: 2005, 196–202, analyzes the Bremen iudicia. 15 Milton: 2011, 155, points out that Balcanqual’s reaction was exaggerated.

Doctrinal Dissension among Delegates at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

be explained nor restricted to the elect. This would lay a foundation for preaching the gospel to all people, and it would in large part avoid giving offense to Lutherans (Limborch: 1684, 565–566). In preparing the final draft of the Canons, the final difficulties had to do with rejections two and six of the Rejection of Errors section. The debate on the last rejection six centered on the scholastic issue of the nature of the necessity – absolute or hypothetical – of Christ’s incarnation for the sufficiency of the price of human redemption. On 18 April, as the last changes were being made to the Canons, the British theologians debated the matter at length over against the rest of the synod. They thought rejection six was a matter of scholastic speculation, and so they argued that this rejection should be omitted from the Canons. Most other synod delegates wished to retain this rejection. The president proposed that it be expressed in such a way that everyone would be satisfied. On 23 April, the synod, on the recommendation of the drafting committee, finally decided to delete this last rejection (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:144, 148–150, 153–154; Sinnema: 2011, 304–306; Lynch: 2019, 169–172).16 The final version of chapter II of the Canons accepted the received distinction between the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all and the efficacy of his death only for the elect. But this chapter is also clothed with universal language and emphases, reflecting the influence of the British and Bremen theologians.

11.6

Conclusion

1. Despite the unanimity of all Dutch and foreign delegates at Dordt on the fundamentals of the Reformed faith and a desire to maintain a united front against a common Remonstrant threat, the Synod of Dordt was not a monolithic assembly. The Dutch delegates, along with leading Reformed theologians from other countries, had disagreements on many issues, on procedure as well as doctrine, and some of these disagreements erupted into open dissension, which sometimes became bitter and acrimonious. These differences at the synod should not be over-emphasized, but they were nevertheless real. 2. The dissensions that arose among some of the delegates emerged after the expulsion of the cited Remonstrants in January 1619. During the five weeks that the Remonstrants were present at the synod, open dissension on the floor of the synod was actually more intense, but this dissension was between the Remonstrants and the synod, particularly over procedural issues (Sinnema: 2019, 289–306).

16 On this issue, see also Gatiss: 2013, 143–163.

187

188

Donald Sinnema

3. The tensions among some of the delegates at the synod are scarcely mentioned in the official acta of the Synod of Dordt, since the acta hardly touch on the deliberations that led to synodical decisions, and the printed Acta (1620), as published by the States General, was edited to portray a favorable image of the synod (Sinnema: 2015, I:xliv–l). Therefore, information about the tensions can best be found in extant journals of some of the delegates and in contemporary letters about the synod. 4. The Hales and Balcanqual letters are the main source of information for all four issues of dissension at the synod. It is necessary to heed Anthony Milton’s caution about the Hales and Balcanqual letters, that they have a distorting effect on our understanding of the synod, with a tendency to highlight aspects that cast favorable light on the British delegates, while criticizing certain Dutch and continental delegates (Milton: 2011, 135–161; cf. Godfrey: 1974, 173–175; van der Woude: 1963, 467, 469). Moreover, written in an engaging style, these letters sometimes exaggerate and tend to express the personal attitudes and emotions of the letter writers about the events. Sometimes Hales relied on reports of others, when the synod sessions were closed to spectators such as himself. While it is important to use the letters with discretion, there is, however, no reason to doubt the veracity of the incidents that these letters describe. The Hales and Balcanqual letters provide a level of detail not found in most other journals or letters about the synod.17 The specific details lend credibility to reports in the Hales and Balcanqual letters. Where other accounts mention the incidents, they corroborate the essential story found in the Hales-Balcanqual letters. The biographers of Gomarus and Lubbertus, while recognizing moments of bias, also do not dispute the accounts of Hales and Balcanqual about the dissensions (Van Itterzon: 1929, 230–231; van der Woude: 1963, 466–467). In using these letters, I have sought to draw only on credible details, while avoiding comments where the writers express their personal attitudes. 5. On the four doctrinal issues where there was open dissension, some 15 of the 84 Dutch and foreign delegates were involved. Three of the delegates – Gomarus, Martinius and Bishop Carleton – were each at the heart of the dissension on three of the four issues. Scultetus and President Bogerman were each part of two issues. Martinius attracted controversy, since he pressed the limits of orthodox Reformed theology on some points. Part of the dissension was also due to the contentious personalities of certain persons, especially Gomarus, Lubbertus and Scultetus,18 and the strained relationships between some of the delegates.

17 The Tronchin journal provides as much detail, but the handwriting of Tronchin is extremely difficult to read, so this source has not been fully utilized. 18 On the contentiousness of Gomarus, Lubbertus and Scultetus, see also: Balcanqual: 1673, 114, 140–141; Limborch: 1684, 565; Carleton: 1775, 339, 340, 346; van der Woude: 1963, 462, 470, 566–572; Milton: 2011, 156; Historisch Verhael: 1623, 165r-v.

Doctrinal Dissension among Delegates at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

6. Because of the differences of opinion among the delegates on a wide variety of doctrinal issues, the Synod of Dordt decisions were sometimes compromises for the sake of unity in maintaining a common front against the Remonstrants. There was a need for unanimous consent in approval of the Canons of Dordt. The Canons were a committee document that sought to accommodate all the delegates so that all would approve and sign them. The Canons were deliberately written in a popular, rather than a scholastic style, so scholastic precision in defining doctrine was not necessary, leaving some flexibility for compromise. Hence, on a variety of doctrinal points, the Canons presented a compromise formulation by defining what was agreed in common while remaining silent on what was not, and avoiding a rejection of the differences. Recent studies confirm that the Canons thus became a more moderate confessional statement than is often recognized (Godfrey: 1974, 252–264, 268; Sinnema:1985, 447–450; Lynch: 2019, 174.

Bibliography Acta (1620), Acta Synodi Nationalis…Dordrechti Habita Anno MDCXVIII et MDCXIX, Leiden: Elzevir. Balcanqual, Walter (1673), Letters from the Synod of Dort, in: John Hales, Golden Remains, London: Robert Pawlet, 2:99–168. Brandt, Geeraert (1704), Historie der Reformatie en andre Kerkelyke Geschiedenissen in en ontrent de Nederlanden, Rotterdam: Barent Bos. Breitinger, Johann J., Journal: Profectio ad Synodum Nationalem Dordracenam, Zentralbibliothek Zürich, Ms B235. Carleton, Dudley (1775), Letters from and to Sir Dudley Carleton, Knt., during his Embassy in Holland, from January 1615/16 to December 1620, London. Corpus (1612), Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum Fidei, Quae in Diversis Regnis et Nationibus, Ecclesiarum Nomine Fuerunt Authenthice Editae, Geneva: Petrus & Iacobus Chouet. Dijk, Klaas (1912), De Strijd over Infra- en Supralapsarisme in de Gereformeerde Kerken van Nederland, Kampen: J.H. Kok. Erasmus, Desiderius (1541), Adagiorum Chiliades, Basel: Froben. Fesko, John (2011), Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort, in Michael Haykin/Mark Jones (ed.), Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gatiss, Lee (2013), The Synod of Dort and Definite Atonement, in David Gibson/Jonathon Gibson, (ed.), From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological and Pastoral Perspective, Wheaton: Crossway. Godfrey, W. Robert (1974), Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618–1619, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

189

190

Donald Sinnema

Hales, John (1673), Golden Remains, London: Robert Pawlet. Heppe, Heinrich (ed.) (1853), Historia Synodi Nationalis Dordracenae, Sive Literae Delegatorum Hassiacorum de Iis Quae in Synodo Dordracena Acta Sunt ad Landgravium Mauritium Missae, in Zeitschrift für die Historische Theologie 23, 226–327. Historisch Verhael (1623), [Bernardus Dwinglo], Historisch Verhael van’t ghene sich Toeghedraeghen Heeft, binnen Dordrecht, in de Jaeren 1618 ende 1619, [Amsterdam]. Kaajan, H. (1914), De Pro-Acta der Dordtsche Synode, Rotterdam: T. De Vries. Kuyper, H.H. (1899), De Post-Acta of Nahandelingen van de Nationale Synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619 Gehouden, Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser. Lynch, Michael (2019), John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy, Ph.D. dissertation, Calvin Theological Seminary. Milton Anthony (2005), The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Milton, Anthony (2011), A Distorting Mirror: The Hales and Balcanquahall Letters and the Synod of Dordt, in: Aza Goudriaan/Fred van Lieburg (ed.). Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), Leiden: Brill. Sibelius, Caspar, Journal: Annotationes ad Synodum Dordracenam, Regionaal Archief Dordrecht, GAD150, Ms 1113. Sinnema, Donald (1985), The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort in Light of the History of this Doctrine, Ph.D. dissertation, University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto. Sinnema, Donald (2007), Beza’s View of Predestination in Historical Perspective, in Irena Backus (ed.), Théodore de Bèze (1519–1605), Geneva: Librairie Droz. Sinnema, Donald (2011), The Drafting of the Canons of Dordt: A Preliminary Survey of Early Drafts and Related Documents, in: Aza Goudriaan/Fred van Lieburg (ed.), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), Leiden: Brill. Sinnema, Donald/ Moser, Christian / Selderhuis, Herman (ed.) (2015), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sinnema, Donald (2018), The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), in: Frank van der Pol (ed.), The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 115–135. Sinnema, Donald (2019), Procedural Wrangling in the Remonstrant Case at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), in Karla Boersma/Herman Selderhuis (ed.), More than Luther: The Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 289–306. Synodalia, Journal: Synodalia Hollandica, Centrale Bibliotheek Rotterdam, Bibliotheek der Remonstrantsch-Gereformeerde Gemeente te Rotterdam, Ms 58. Tronchin, Théodore, Journal, Archives Tronchin, Musée Historique de la Reformation, Geneva, vol. 16. Van Der Woude, Cornelis (1963), Sibrandus Lubbertus, Kampen: Kok. Van Itterzon, Gerrit (1929), Franciscus Gomarus, ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.

Doctrinal Dissension among Delegates at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

Van Limborch, Philippus (ed.) (1684), Praestantium ac Eruditorum Virorum Epistolae Ecclesiasticae et Theologicae, Amsterdam: Henricus Wetstenius.

191

Pieter Rouwendal

12.

A Slight Modification of a Classic Formula

The Extent of the Atonement in the Judicia at the Synod of Dordt

Abstract In the canons of Dordt, the common formula that Christ died sufficiently for all, though efficiently only for the elect, was used in a slightly modified form: Christ’s death was sufficient for all. This chapter investigates the backgrounds of and reasons for this slight modification. It shows that the questions concerning the extent of the atonement had changed and that the classic formula did not offer an adequate answer to the changed questions.

12.1

Introduction

In early Reformed theology, the common idea was that Christ died sufficiently for all men (sufficienter pro omnibus), though efficiently only for the elect (efficienter pro electis solus), an old phrase, already used by Prosper of Aquitania (ca. 390-ca. 455) and since then almost without any questions regarding its truth. For instance John Calvin used this distinction (Rouwendal: 2008 and Rouwendal: 2017, 28–31). In the Canons, the sufficiency of the death of the Son of God is stated, in II.3: this death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

A critical eye will perceive that the characteristic formula is not used in this article; it does not state that Christ “died sufficiently for the whole world”, but rather that His death “is sufficient for” the sins of the whole world. The efficiency for the elect alone is clearly stated in II.8:  for it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem

194

Pieter Rouwendal

from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father (…).

Again, the classic formula is not used in this article: it does not state that Christ “died effectively for the elect alone”, but rather that the effectiveness of His death should work itself out in the elect alone.  At first sight it might seem nit-picking to search for a reason behind the different way of formulating. Yet it is really strange that in a document like the Canons of Dordt such a formula, well known for centuries and used by Reformed theologians like Calvin, was not just taken as it was. I will argue that this is the result of a development in Reformed Theology that regarded the classic formula as less adequate to answer the question for whom Christ died.

12.2

Calvin

Calvin himself used the classic formula without hesitation, but also without satisfaction. In his commentary on 1 John 2:2, he acknowledges the truth of the distinction but denies that it was appropriate for this passage since “world” in this text refers only to believers and future believers who are scattered through various parts of the world and does not include the reprobate.  In his tract on predestination, he again argues that the distinction is true but does not help to untie the knot. For when it comes to the saving power of the Gospel, the question is not whether the Gospel is to be preached to all people but whether the power to believe is conferred on all people (Calvin: 1552, CO VIII, 299; COR III/i, 107–108). And the question with respect to Christ as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world is not what the virtue of Christ’s death is in itself but who those are who actually enjoy it, i.e., believers or the elect (Calvin: 1552, CO VIII, 336; COR III/i, 197–198). Although acknowledging the truth of the classic formula, Calvin either rejects its applicability to the actual question or denies that it was really helpful. Over against those who used the distinction to argue for a general will in God to save all people unconditionally, Calvin argues for one will in God to save the elect.  Richard Muller correctly concluded that Calvin stresses that God’s intention with Christ’s all-sufficient offer on the cross was to save the elect, while the notion of sufficiency provided the basis for God’s promise that whoever believes will be saved (Muller: 2012, 70–106).  In other words: the question for Calvin was not what could be done by Christ’s satisfaction, but what was God’s intention with Christ’s satisfaction, and to answer this question, the classic formula did not help Calvin.

A Slight Modification of a Classic Formula

12.3

Beza

At the Colloquy of Montbéliard in 1586, Beza’s Lutheran opponent Andreae had maintained that Christ “had satisfied sufficiently for the sins of all individuals,” and argued that this general accepted formula was in opposition with Beza’s doctrine of predestination. Beza accepted the formula as true, in the sense that even if there were many worlds and God would have decided to save all people, then Christ’s sacrifice would have been sufficient. He regarded it as “ambiguous as well as barbarous” to say that Christ actually died for the whole world. Since the preposition pro declares a plan, and God’s plan was only to save the elect, the statement “Christ died for …” can only be completed by “the elect.” Christ’s death would be sufficient for all individuals, but only if God willed to have mercy on all. We see that Beza’s question was the same as Calvin’s: what was the intention of God and of Christ with the death of the Son of God on the cross? For this question, the classic formula had not helped Calvin, but for Beza it was troublesome. For Beza took the word pro of the classic formula as meaning a plan or intention, and in that sense Beza denied that Christ died for the sins of all men. 

12.4

The Remonstrants

The second of the five articles of the Remonstrants reads: that (, agreeably thereto,) Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer (…)

This article interprets the classic formula that Christ died for all men sufficiently so that Christ actually obtained redemption and forgiveness of sins for all. It interprets the efficiency so that only believers enjoy the effects of Christ’s death. It does not explicitly mention the question of the intention of God and Christ, since the Remonstrants denied any intention to save specific individuals.  Their interpretation stated two things not stated before, at least not by reformed theologians: Christ, having died for all, obtained redemption and forgiveness of sins for all; Christ, having died for all, had no specific intention to redeem certain persons.

195

196

Pieter Rouwendal

12.5

Dordt

Hence, the theologians at Dordt had to face two interpretations of the classic formula Christus mortuus est sufficienter pro omnibus: 1. An actual obtaining of redemption for all men, without intention to save certain persons, like the Remonstrants said; 2. A sufficiency for all men, provided God had intended it for all men (which he had not), like reformed theologians such as Beza said. Seeing the two interpretations of the classic formula, the synod could not simply use it as it was, but should make clear which interpretation was orthodox. A simple statement in the canons that Christ died sufficiently for all would leave room for the interpretation of the Remonstrants. Among the delegates there was consensus that the interpretation of the Remonstrants was not orthodox. They all stated more or less clearly that it was God’s intention with Christ’s death to redeem the elect. For instance, the British delegation stated: out of a special love and intention of both God the Father and Christ, Christ has died for the elect.

And they denied as heterodox the thesis Christ’s death has obtained for all men restitution in the state of grace and salvation.

The British delegation indeed thought that Christ had also died for all men, but they explained this in such a way that all men can be called to take part in the remission of sins, although it is not given to all to do so by faith.  Other delegations all stated more or less clearly that it was God’s and Christ’s intention with Christ’s death to redeem the elect. They either did not use the phrase mortuus pro omnibus or they explained it in a similar way. For instance the delegates from Nassau: Christ is the expiation for the sins of the whole world, inasmuch as pertains to the dignity of his ransom.

Only two of the theologians from Bremen had a dissenting opinion. Matthias Martinus stated that God had a certain love for all men, hence wills the salvation of all, and hence that the benefit of Christ’s death is intended for all.

A Slight Modification of a Classic Formula

For how will from a benefit that is sufficient indeed, but not destined to me with a true intention, flow the necessity to believe that it pertains to me?

His colleague Ludwig Crocius stated, like the Remonstrants, a conditional redemption for all men. But these two were alone in their inclination towards the remonstrant interpretation. The third delegate from Bremen, Hendrik Iselburg, opposed their opinion. So the Bremen delegation was not unanimous concerning this point. Several delegations made a distinction between the endless worth of the ransom and the limited intention of God with it, like that of Hessen (Acta: 1620, II, 90–91). David Pareus was not present at the synod, but his judgment on the Remonstrant articles was read in session 99. He explicitly mentioned the ambiguity of the words Christ died for all. If you add the word ‘believers’, so Pareus, then it is true. If you add the word ‘men’ it remains ambiguous. For then one can take it either regarding the greatness and sufficiency of the ransom, or regarding its redeeming power. Pareus accepted the first interpretation, but rejected the latter (Acta: 1620, II, 90–91). Citing other delegates and their judgment of the second article would mean a repeating of statements. I just mention that some repeated the argument of Beza that pro declares an intention (North Holland) and that some made a distinction between dying for all (in general, which was accepted) and dying for each person (particular, which was rejected) (South Holland, Frisia). But as these observations do not serve the point of my argument, I will not elaborate on them.

12.6

Conclusions

I will conclude with four theses.  First, The classic formula that Christ died sufficiently for all, was regarded as insufficient to answer the question concerning the intention of his death, before the Synod of Dordt, for instance by Calvin and Beza, and at the Synod by most of the delegates. Second, The ambiguity of the formula, and especially its interpretation by the Remonstrants, prevented this formula to be literally recorded in the Canons of Dordt. It obviously was thought not to be efficient to use a formula that was deemed not to be sufficient to answer the question regarding the intention with Christ’s death. Third, This does not mean that the classic formula as such was regarded heterodox, for various delegates used it themselves, albeit in a specific interpretation. Fourth, Canons II.3 is an unambiguous interpretation of the classic formula that Christ died for all, given by the Synod of Dordt. It is the slightly modified answer to a slightly modified question concerning the extent of the atonement.

197

198

Pieter Rouwendal

Bibliography ACTA (1620), Acta Synodi Nationalis (…), 3 vol., Leiden: Elsevier. Beza, Theodore (1588), Ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgardensis (…), Geneva: Joannes Le Preux. Calvin, John (1552), De Aeterna Dei Praedestinatione, CO VIII, 299; COR III/i. Kang, Hyo J. (2018), The Extent of the Atonement in the Thought of John Davenant (1572–1641) in the Context of the Early Modern Era, PhD Dissertation, Aberdeen. Milton, Anthony (2005), The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Muller, Richard A. (2012), Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Rouwendal, Pieter L. (2008), Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position on the Extent of the Atonement: about Sufficience, Efficiency and Anachronism, Westminster Theological Journal 70-2, 317–335. Rouwendal, Pieter L. (2017), Predestination and Preaching in Genevan Theology from Calvin to Pictet, Kampen: Summum Academic Publications. Rouwendal, Pieter L. (2020), The Failure of Bremen’s irenicism at Dordt. Three Irenic Theologians Arguing about the Extent of the Atonement’ in: Ch. Auffahrt, J. van de Kamp (Hrsg.), Die “andere” Reformation im Alten Reich: Bremen und Nordwest-Europa, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 243–249. Thomas, G.M. (1997), The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536–1675), Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press [reprint: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006].

Bert Koopman

13.

Preparatory work

Rejected at the Front Door, Stealthily Admitted through the Back Door

Abstract The English theological concept of the preparatory work is the way in which early Puritans such as Richard Greenham, Richard Rogers, William Perkins and Thomas Hooker expressed the sinner’s preparation to conversion. This view was voiced by the British delegates to the Synod of Dort but was heard with suspicion by the Dutch theologians. The concept of preparatory work was most influentially voiced in a series of sermons by Thomas Hooker in New England in the 1630s, though his views were not accepted uncritically by all. Due to the translation into Dutch of works of English Puritan authors including William Perkins, Richard Rogers, Robert Bolton, Thomas Hooker and William Ames, the concept gained a wide influence in the Netherlands. This influence can be traced in the development of Dutch Reformed systematic theology as well as preaching. We encounter the concept of preparatory work most clearly in the disputations by Gisbertus Voetius and in the dogmatic works of Petrus van Mastricht and Wilhelmus à Brakel. In Dutch Reformed preaching, the concept of preparatory work can be found in the works of Willem Teellinck, Franciscus Ridderus, van Mastricht, and Abraham Hellenbroek. They discuss the distinct identity and necessity of contrition and humiliation prior to faith, issue a plea for holy despair, and place preparatory work before the inward calling of a sinner, as does Hooker. In the preaching of ministers such as Hermannus Witsius, Melchior Leydecker, and Bernardus Smijtegelt, however, preparatory work is placed after the inner calling.

13.1

Introduction

On Friday morning, 15 March 1619, at the 115th session of the Synod of Dordt, the theologians from Great Britain passed judgment on the third and fourth Articles of the Remonstrants. In their first point, the British theologians spoke of outward and inward operations which precede regeneration:

200

Bert Koopman

there are some internal effects or workings preceding conversion or regeneration by the power of the Word and the Spirit in the hearts of those who are not yet born again, such as the knowledge of the will of God, awareness of sins, the fear of punishment, contemplation of redemption, some hope of forgiveness. Divine grace does not bring people to the state of righteousness in which we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ through immediate dealings by God, but by many preceding actions, and by subduing and preparing them by the ministry of the Word (Acta: 1621, 2nd sect., 146f). These operations are also called preparatory work. The British theologians’ opinion was heard with something akin to suspicion and rejected. According to the Dutch theologians, this view of regeneration was dangerous, and they feared that if it were to be upheld, the Arminian opinions which had just been rejected would be reintroduced (cf. Canons III/IV. rej. 4). We know that the participation of the British delegates was a major part of the international contribution to the Synod of Dordt. King James I had delegated no fewer than four major theologians to the Dordt Synod to reverse the danger of Arminianism.1 The principal difference between the Arminian view and the view of the British delegates regarding preparatory work is that the Arminians deny the effectual operation of internal grace to be necessary to the working of conversion and faith. How did this British theological concept of the preparatory work, heard with suspicion at the Synod of Dordt by the Dutch theologians, nevertheless eventually gain influence in the Netherlands? To answer this question, I will first briefly examine the concept of preparatory work. Secondly, I will consider some critical responses to this concept. Thirdly, I will examine how and by whom preparatory work gained acceptance in Dutch theology through translations of Puritan works. Fourthly, I will look at how preparatory work functioned in Dutch preaching.

13.2

What is Meant by Preparatory Work?

The Puritans were not the first theologians to speak of a preparation of the human will. In his tract On Grace and Free Will, Augustine had already mentioned the concept when he stated: “And who was it that had begun to give him his love, however small, but He who prepares the will, and perfects by His co-operation what He initiates by His operation?” (Augustine: 1887, 458). Later medieval theologians

1 These were: George Carleton, John Davenant, Samuel Ward and Joseph Hall. When Hall was taken ill and had to return, he was replaced by Thomas Goad. The Scots clergyman Walter Balcanquhall and James I’s chaplain attended the Synod as well.

Preparatory work

such as Thomas Aquinas stated that a man cannot prepare himself to receive grace except by the grace of God preparing him (Beeke/Smalley: 2013, 21–23). According to Richard Muller, Protestant scholastics distinguished between five actualizations of grace: 1. gratia praeveniens, 2. gratia praeparans, 3. gratia operans, 4. gratia cooperans, and 5. gratia conservans. The second of these workings Muller defines as “the preparing grace, according to which the Spirit instills in the repentant sinner a full knowledge of his inability and also his desire to accept the promises of the gospel.” This stage in a sinner’s life can be called the praeparatio ad conversionem and is worked by the usus paedagogicus of God’s law (Muller: 1985, 129f). Gratia praeparans can be found not only in the theology of Theodore Beza or William Perkins but also in the works of John Calvin. In their struggle how to emphasize simultaneously the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in conversion, the concept of preparatory work was one of the solutions that the early Puritans found to deal with that tension. Their basic premise was the chain of salvation which they found in Romans 8:30 (kjv): “moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Preparatory work, then, consists in the workings of God that precedes the “effectual call”. Some of the early Puritans, such as Richard Greenham, Richard Rogers and William Perkins, strongly supported this concept. They saw a sharp contrast between law and gospel: the law exposes sin, it convicts the sinner, wounds, and kills him. The gospel heals from sin, quickens, and comforts the soul. Greenham states, The use [of the law] is, to bring us to a sound perswasion and feeling of our sinnes, because they have deserved so grievous punishment, as either the death of the sonne of God, or hell fire. […] it bringeth them to be truly humbled in themselves for their sinnes, and then sendeth them to Christ, in whome it is fully fulfilled (Greenham: 1612, 72; cf. Primus: 1998, 95f).

These early Puritans distinguished between general and special salvific operations of God’s Spirit. Both come from God and Christ, but not in the same manner. The fruits of His special grace can be worked in the elect only, and there is no union with Christ prior to saving faith. John Norton, a prominent theologian in seventeenth-century New England, gave a systematic explanation of preparatory work in his The Orthodox Evangelist. He traces the historical development of the views of the relationship between grace and human will back to Augustine’s controversy with Pelagius. According to Norton, the orthodox position is that the opening of the door of the soul is an act of faith worked by the Lord in the sinner. I quote his succinct description:

201

202

Bert Koopman

preparatory work, taken in its full Extent, is the whole frame of inherent Qualifications; coming between the Rest of the Soul, in the State of Nature, and Vocation. It is wrought distinctly, and in measure, in the Ministry both of the Law, and Gospel by the common work of the Spirit concurring therewith. Then the Soul is into a next disposition, or Ministerial Capacity of believing immediately; that is to say of immediate receiving of the Lord Jesus Christ (Norton: 1654, 141). Next, Norton states that the term “preparatory” is to be considered both in respect to God and in respect to man. In respect to God, those common works which are brought about in the elect are preparatory, because only with them will vocation or conversion follow. In respect to us, these common works are preparatory only by way of the judgment of charity. The secret of God’s intention to touch this or that person in particular is not revealed until his calling. The former aspect may be called preparatory in respect of God’s intention; the latter, in respect of the judgment of charity (Norton: 1654, 129f). Most of the theologians advocating preparatory work considered repentance and humiliation not as saving steps but as preparatory to salvation. Finally, Thomas Hooker influentially and authoritatively enunciated the concept of preparatory work in a series of sermons in the 1630s (Hooker: 1638a; Hooker 1638b; Hooker 1638c; Hooker 1638d; Hooker: 1640). He expressly elaborated on the distinction between contrition and humiliation. For modern readers, however, the length of Hooker’s discussion of preparatory work might seem disproportional to the attention he pays to conversion itself, because page after page, he describes the preceding exercises of the soul before it finds peace in Christ.

13.3

Criticism of the Concept of Preparatory Work

The Synod of Dordt cautiously criticized the concept of preparatory work. Its delegates were apprehensive at the thought that a man might be able by natural gifts or common grace to ascend towards the special grace of conversion. They also criticized the Roman Catholic view of preparation, which undermines the doctrine of justification by faith by making works prior to (and after) conversion meritorious. The Synod firmly opposed Arminian teaching that God promised to bestow grace on those who are better prepared for the gospel by their proper use of the “natural light” of reason. In the Canons of Dordt, the Synod criticized the concept of preparatory work in the refutation of the fifth error under the Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine: error: the corrupt and natural man can so well use the common grace (which for the Arminians is the light of nature), or the gifts still left him after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their good use a greater, that is, the evangelical or saving grace, and salvation itself. In this way God on His part shows Himself ready to

Preparatory work

reveal Christ to all men, since He administers to all sufficiently and efficaciously the means necessary for the knowledge of Christ, for faith and repentance. Refutation: not only the experience of all ages but also Scripture testifies that this is untrue. He has revealed his word to Jacob, His laws and decrees to Israel. He has done this for no other nation; they do not know His laws (Ps 147:19, 20). In the past, He let all nations go their own way (Acts 14:16). And Paul and his companions were kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to (Acts 16:6, 7).2 Other contemporary and later Reformed theologians also criticized the concept of preparatory work. For instance, Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye wrote a preface to Hooker’s Application of Redemption in which they criticize Hooker’s presentation of this concept in two ways. First, Hooker keeps his congregation laboring under preparatory work far too long, too extensively treating convictions of sin with only a few references to Christ. Secondly, they state that Hooker sometimes confuses preparatory work with true faith, for which reason his hearers do not come to assurance of faith (Goodwin/Nye: 2008, iv). Giles Firmin, another contemporary, criticized Hooker’s presentation of preparatory work in his book entitled The Real Christian, Or a Treatise of Effectual Calling. His main criticism relates first to the schematic description of conversion in detail, which does not take into account the free power of God. Secondly, Firmin rejects outright Hooker’s position that a soul should agree with its damnation if that were to accord with God’s will. To Firmin, this is one of the greatest obstacles Hooker puts in the way of awakened souls hindering them from fleeing to Christ (Firmin: 1670, 19, 47, 49, 104–107). Jakobus Koelman warns in 1678 in his preface to his Dutch translation of The Soul’s Humiliation against a number of issues in Hooker’s book. He states: “to the right humiliation of a soul he requires such a high staircase that the sinner must assuredly be content and meek to be lost, under power of abiding in sin, to go to hell, and to be condemned if the Lord desires not to show mercy” (Hooker: 1968, 30).

13.4

The Concept of Preparatory Work Accepted in Dutch Theology

Before the Synod of Dordt, the influence of preparatory work was already visible in the large number of translations of English theologians supporting it (Op ‘t Hof: 1987, 244–254, 257–263, 280–394). Despite the Synod of Dordt’s rejection

2 Canons of Dordt, see: www.providencereformed.ca/third-and-fourth-heads-of-doctrine.

203

204

Bert Koopman

of the doctrine of preparatory work, its influence on Dutch theology was abiding. Important factors in this influence were the continuing flow of translations, the influence of Ames’ writings, and the theological climate at the universities of Franeker, Utrecht, and Leiden. I focus here on the influence of preparatory work through Dutch translations and in Dutch dogmatic treatises. 13.4.1 Translations From the end of the sixteenth century onwards, books by Richard Rogers, William Perkins, John Dod and Robert Cleaver, Daniel and his brother Jeremiah Dycke, Robert Bolton, Thomas Hooker, and Thomas Shepard dealing with preparatory work were translated into Dutch. Here, I concentrate on titles by Perkins, Rogers, and Ames. First, we shall take Perkins. In 1606, Philippus Ruyl translated Perkins’ Golden Chaine, which expressly advocates preparatory work. This translation went through no fewer than five editions. Perkins states that God executes this effectual calling by certain means. The first of these means is the saving hearing of the word of God outwardly preached to a man dead in his sins, who at the time is giving not a single thought to his salvation: the first, is the sauing hearing of the word of God, which is, when the said word outwardly is preached, to such an one as is both dead in his sinnes, and doth not so much as dreame of his saluation. And first of all, the Law shewing a man his sinne, and the punishment thereof, which is eternall death, afterward the Gospel, shewing saluation by Christ Iesus, to such as beleeue. And inwardly the eyes of the minde are enlightened, the heart and eares opened that he may see, heare, and vnderstand the preaching of the word of God (Perkins: 1600, 117; 1659, 73).

At this stage of the ordo salutis, Perkins calls the “hearing of the word of God” “sauing” only in respect of God. Preaching as a means on the way to salvation can be called preparatory only in the elect, since in them alone is it followed by vocation or conversion. In respect of the second of these means, Perkins clearly advocates preparatory work: the second, is the mollifying of the heart, the which must be bruised in pieces, that it may be fit to receive Gods saving grace offered unto it. There are for the bruising of this stony heart, four principal hammers. The knowledge of the law of God, the knowledge of sin, both original, and actual, and what punishment is due unto them, the third compunction, […] a sense and feeling of the wrath of God for the same sins, and last an holy desperation of a man’s own power, in the obtaining of eternal life. (Perkins: 1600, 117; 1659, 74; italics original).

Preparatory work

The third of these means is faith, a supernatural faculty of the heart apprehending Christ Jesus by the work of the Holy Spirit: the third, is faith, which is a miraculous and supernaturall facultie of the heart, apprehending Christ Iesus, being applied by the operation of the holy Ghost, and reckoning him to it selfe. […] Christ is receiued, when euery seuerall person doth particularly apply vnto himselfe, Christ with his merits, by an inward perswasion of the heart, which commeth none other way, but by the effectuall certificate by the holy Ghost concerning the mercy of God in Christ Iesus (Perkins: 1600, 117–118; 1659, 74).

Secondly, we consider Richard Rogers. In 1620, Vincent Meusevoet – another translator, one who had already been translating Puritan works since the late sixteenth century – published a translation of Richard Rogers’ Seven Treatises. Rogers describes how, according to Acts 2, preparatory work ultimately transforms into faith in Christ by a process of seven steps: 1. God’s law should be preached, accompanied by an invigorating view of mercy. 2. Deliberation: “What should we do?” 3. This step starts with brokenness of heart and humiliation, which 4. Works a secret desire for the forgiveness of sins. 5. They confess their sins and pray for forgiveness, just like the Prodigal Son. 6. They forsake everything and praise forgiveness. 7. And finally, they accept Christ and His promises (Rogers: 1605, 3–16). Through the continual proclamation of the promises, God draws their hearts to Himself, so that they may appropriate Him in those promises as if they had been made to them personally. Lastly in our selection comes William Ames. Ames was an Englishman but was banished because he would not conform to the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer. He attended the Synod of Dordt and was appointed to Franeker University in 1622, where he stayed until 1632. In his disputation on preparatory work, held in 1634, he stated: in every sinner, preceding regeneration, there are disposals beforehand, making the subject more receptive to mercy. Just as the wood becomes more suitable as fuel for the fire due to the drought, the preparation of the sinner makes him more suitable for the burning of the spark of life. The preparation removes the obstacles. […] On the other hand, the preparation brings in things that are of the greatest importance in repentance, namely illumination, horror of sin and desire for salvation (Ames: 1658). Other works by Ames influential in the Netherlands were translations of his Marrow of sacred divinity and his Conscience with the power and cases thereof. The

205

206

Bert Koopman

most striking example of his influence in the Netherlands is the dogmatic work of Petrus van Mastricht, an extensive elaboration of Ames’ Marrow. 13.4.2 Dogmatic Treatises The doctrine of preparatory work can also be found in dogmatic treatises by Dutch theologians. I have selected the clearest examples for discussion: Gisbertus Voetius, van Mastricht, and Wilhelmus à Brakel. According to Voetius’ Disputationes Selectae, the internal calling is not sanctifying in itself, for it does not change the heart or will; regeneration does. How the process proceeds to the act of faith, he describes in meticulous detail. He distinguishes between vegetative or animal life and human life. Vegetative life is the living, but still unborn, fruit to which pertain preparatory matters like hearing the law, observing God’s judgments, and convictions of sin. On the other hand, the crushing, holy despair, and the like, pertain to the process of faith, which of itself belongs to preparatory work, and therefore they are anterior to faith. That process is God’s first grace. His second grace is regeneration itself, which arises when the Holy Spirit bends the will effectually – which is a physical process – and illuminates the mind, assuring it with the sweet conviction: “Christ is your Savior” (Voetius: 1995, 138–141). The quotations from the Puritans with which Voetius peppers his work show their influence on his theology. Secondly, we turn to Petrus van Mastricht. The greatest degree of influence by Ames is seen in the domain of van Mastricht’s dogmatics. Ames (1615, 118f) does speak of a physical change taking place in regeneration (van Mastricht: 1750, 6:182f [ch. 1.20]). Van Mastricht, in imitation of Ames and Voetius, devotes a full chapter to regeneration, in which he even describes that physical change. The inward calling in itself is insufficient; the physical operation of regeneration is what really counts. Regarding preparatory work, van Mastricht mentions contrition and holy despair. For him, these do not form part of regeneration but rather of the goal that is the converting change, namely faith and repentance. This preparation merely paves the way. By means of preparatory contrition, humiliation and despair, God is not gentle in impelling the convert to an absolute and boundless acceptance of the Savior (van Mastricht: 1730, 6:267f [ch. 4.12]; cf. Hooker: 1640, 8). My final case study is Wilhelmus à Brakel. Characteristic of à Brakel’s Redelyke Godtsdienst – published in translation as The Christian’s Reasonable Service – is that he combines his discussion of doctrine with the inward and outward practice of that doctrine. To him, the inner calling penetrates into the heart of man and irradiates the heart with a wondrous light, revealing the spiritual mysteries in their proper form, bending the will forcefully, and inducing an embracing of the mysteries of Christ, with the subject becoming obedient to them by faith (À Brakel: 1713, 1:703f

Preparatory work

[ch. 30.5]). Following Ames, à Brakel states that this is an act of the will and not of the mind: before the first act of faith, man is dead, however many preparatory movements he may have received. When we prepare, know, that we do not understand the principles of life, far from there; in all the preparations man is dead and his actions cannot please God, how virtuous they may seem (À Brakel: 1713, 1:748 [ch. 31.12]). À Brakel expressly states that before regeneration, man is dead, and that life only comes through regeneration. Even though convictions, an impression of salvation and damnation, fear of the wrath of God, etc. are “preparations” to regeneration, people in that state are still dead in their sin. The preparations are not the principles of life. This, then, is what the defendants of preparatory work taught: spiritual life commences no earlier than with the outgoing act of faith in union with Christ.

13.5

The Concept of Preparatory Work in Dutch Preaching

Finally, we shall look at a few examples of how preparatory work functioned in Dutch preaching. Ministers such as Willem Teellinck, Franciscus Ridderus, van Mastricht, and Abraham Hellenbroek mention in their sermons the distinct identity and necessity of contrition and humiliation prior to faith, issue a plea for holy despair, and place preparatory work before the inward calling. Hermannus Witsius, Melchior Leydecker and Bernardus Smijtegelt, however, place preparatory work after the inward calling. The former of the above groups emphasizes contrition to detach the soul from sin. Humiliation takes away all pride and humbles the sinner in order to work a conversion not to be repented of, accompanied by sorrow at the sinfulness of sin. In this manner, contrition and humiliation remove the obstacles that have previously prevented faith from entering the heart. The call to holy despair can be found primarily in the work of Voetius (1996, 2:168f) and his students; some of them, like Guiljelmus Saldenus (1655, 58–98), Hermannus Witsius (1874, 256–263), and Bernardus Smytegelt (1858, 36ff) even devote a whole chapter to it. This holy despair focuses primarily on despairing of all that is outside of Christ, such as one’s own works, self-help, self-righteousness, and the prayers of God’s people. Like Hooker, they see holy despair as a necessary step towards coming to Christ. Regarding the question of whether to place preparatory work before or after the inward call, however, these theologians differ. Voetius (1996, 2:168f), Simon Oomius (1660, 205f), and Guiljelmus Saldenus (1655, 58ff) to name just three, follow Perkins, Ames and Hooker in stating that without holy despair one cannot practice faith. In this scheme, preparatory work precedes the inward call. Some

207

208

Bert Koopman

theologians, although belonging to this group, warn against “excesses”, such as the notion that one must first consent to the justness of one’s own damnation. A second group of theologians, including Witsius (1686, 340ff [III.6.11]), Leydecker (1700, 354 [V.3.27]), and Smijtegelt (1858, 27–32) follow the line of Puritans such as John Cotton, Goodwin, and Firmin in placing preparatory work after the inward call, calling it a “first grace”, one preceding the renewal of the will.

13.6

Conclusion

We have briefly reviewed the development of the concept of preparatory work in Puritan theology and the debates generated by it. Despite the rejection of this concept at the Synod of Dordt, it gained influence in Dutch Reformed theology and preaching. An important factor in this influence was the translation into Dutch of many Puritan works advocating preparatory work, such as those by Perkins, Rogers, Hooker, Shepard and Ames. Of these theologians, Ames, being a professor at Franeker University, influenced a whole generation of students. Just as Hooker’s stance regarding preparatory work was mildly criticized by other Puritans such as Goodwin and Nye, and by Firmin, so in the Netherlands his extreme position on this concept was criticized by Koelman in a preface to his translation of a work by Hooker. The typical characteristics of preparatory work, however, such as contrition, humiliation, and holy despair as a preparation to faith, obtained an abiding place in Dutch Reformed theology. Due to this concept, regeneration obtained a more prominent place in Dutch seventeenth-century systematic theology. A prime example of this development is Petrus van Mastricht’s dogmatic theology. However, opinions differed as to whether preparatory work in a sinner should be considered a saving act of God. The Puritans treated above, as well as some Dutch Reformed theologians, considered it part of God’s common grace, because it is found in both the regenerate and the unregenerate; accordingly, they placed it prior to faith. Regeneration would then follow the internal calling and arises directly from God through an irresistible, physical, divine act. Other – mainly younger – theologians, like Witsius, Leydecker, and Smijtegelt, considered preparatory work as resulting from regeneration and therefore as pertaining to God’s saving grace. They argued that one cannot be contrite at his sin in the absence of saving grace. According to them, therefore, faith, and accepting Christ by faith, can only follow regeneration.

Preparatory work

Bibliography à Brakel, Wilhelmus (1713), Logikē latreia, dat is Redelyke Godtsdienst, Rotterdam: Hendrik van den Aak. Acta Ofte Handelinghen Des Nationalen Synodi. Inden name onses Heeren Jesu Christi. Ghehouden door authoriteyt der Hoogh: Mogh: Heeren Staten Generael des Vereenichden Nederlandts tot Dordrecht, Anno 1618. ende 1619 […], Dordrecht: Isaack Jansz. Canin, 1621. Amesius, Guilielmus (1615), Rescriptio Scholastica & brevis Ad Nicolai Grevinchovii, Amsterdam: Henricus Laurentius. Amesius, Guilielmus (1658[–1661]), Disputatio Theologica de praeparatione peccatoris ad conversionem, Amsterdam: Johannes Jansson. Augustine (1887), On Grace and Free will, in Philip Schaff (ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, vol. 5, Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Beeke, Joel R., and Paul M. Smalley (2013), Prepared by Grace for Grace. The Puritans on God’s Way of Leading Sinners to Christ, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books. Firmin, Giles (1670), The Real Christian, or A Treatise of Effectual Calling, London: for Dorman Newman. Goodwin, Thomas, and Philip Nye (2008), To the Reader, in Thomas Hooker, The Application of Redemption […]. The first Eight Books, Ames: International Outreach. Greenham, Richard (1612), The workes of the reuerend and faithfull seruant af Iesus Christ, M. Richard Greenham, minister and preacher of the Word of God, London: William Welby. Op ‘t Hof, W.J. (1987), Engelse Piëtistische Geschriften in het Nederlands, 1598–1622, Rotterdam: Lindenberg. Hooker, Thomas (1638a), The Unbeleevers Preparing for Christ, London: T. Cotes for Andr. Crooke. Hooker, Thomas (1638b), The Soules Preparation for Christ. Being A Treatise of Contrition. Wherein is discovered How God breaks the heart and wounds the Soule, in the conversion of a Sinner to Himselfe, [Leiden: Willem Christiaens van der Boxe]. Hooker, Thomas (1638c), The Soules Vocation of Effectual Calling to Christ, London: A. Crooke, 1638. Hooker, Thomas (1638d), The Soules Union with Christ, London: A. Crooke. Hooker, Thomas (1640), The Sovles Hvmiliation, London: Andrew Crooke and Philip Nevill. Hooker, Thomas (1968), De ware zielsvernedering en heilzame wanhoop, Houten: Den Hertog. Koopman, H. (not yet published), Article “Voorbereidend werk”, W.J. op ‘t Hof et al. (ed.), Encyclopedie Nadere Reformatie, Utrecht: De Groot Goudriaan, vol. 4–5.

209

210

Bert Koopman

Leydecker, Melchior (1700), De Verborgentheid des Geloofs Eenmaal den Heiligen overgelevert, of het Kort Begrip der Ware Godsgeleerdheid Beleden in de Gereformeerde Kerk, Rotterdam: Adrianus van Dyk. Mastricht, Petrus van (1750), Beschouwende en Praktikale Godgeleerdheid, Rotterdam: H. van Pelt et al. Norton, John (1654), The Orthodox Evangelist or a Treatise Wherein many Great Evangelical Truths […] are briefly discussed, London: Henry Cripps and Lodowick Lloyd. Oomius, Simon (1660), Prophylacticum Vitae Ofte Bescherminge des Levens Tegens Selfsmoorderye, Amsterdam: Jacob Benjamin. Perkins, William (1600), A Golden Chaine: or The description of Theologie, containing the order of the causes of Saluation and Damnation, according to Gods word. A view whereof is to be seene in the table annexed. Hereunto is adioyned the order which Mr. Theodore Beza used in comforting afflicted consciences, Cambridge: John Legat. Perkins, Wilhelm (1659), Werken van Mr. Wilhelm Perkins, Zeer vermaarde, en voortreffelijke Ghod-GHeleerde, En getrouwe Bedienaar des H. Euangeliums, in de Hooghe School, te Cambridge, vol. 1, Amsterdam: Johannes van Zomeren. Primus, John H. (1998), Richard Greenham. Portrait of an Elizabethan Pastor, Macon: Mercer. Rogers, Richard (1605), Treatises containing directions leading and guiding to true happiness both in this life and the life to come; and may be called the practise of Christianity, London. Saldenus, Guiljelmus (1655), De Wech des levens, of Kort en eenvoudigh Onderwijs, van de Natuer en Eygenschappen van de ware Kracht der Godsalicheyt. Den Schijn-heyligen tot beschamingh, en alle oprechte Christenen tot noodige Opweckingh en verstercking voor-gestelt, Enkhuizen: Jacob van Doeyenborch. Smijtegelt, Bernardus (1858), Maandagsche Katechisatien, Nijkerk: Malga. Voetius, Gisbertus (1995), De praktijk van het geloof, transl. C.A. de Niet, in: W.J. van Asselt/E. Dekker (ed.), De scholastieke Voetius. Een luisteroefening aan de hand van Voetius’ Disputationes selectae, Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 116–142. Voetius, Gisbertus (1996), Ascetica of de praktijk der Godzaligheid, transl. C.A. de Niet, Utrecht: De Banier. Witsius, Hermannus (1686), Vier Boecken van de Verscheyde Bedeelinge der Verbonden met de Mensch, Utrecht: Johannes van de Water. Witsius, Hermannus (1874), Praktikale Godgeleertheid, Zeist: J.J. Albers.

Wim Moehn

14.

Debating Regeneration

From Baptismal Water to Seed of Rebirth Abstract* This article analyzes how sixteenth century Reformed theology explored the theme of regeneration. In line with the traditional catholic treatment of regeneration, a reading of Luther, Calvin, the Heidelberg Catechism and De Bres suggests that regeneration is closely related to the sacrament of Baptism and the renewal of the Christian life. The Canons of Dordt reflects on the “seed of regeneration”, thereby shifting the focus to the beginnings of Gods saving work and reducing the interest in the classical connection of regeneration and Baptism. This essay argues for a renewed reflection on the classical view of regeneration linked to the sacrament of Baptism.

14.1

Introduction

One of the themes debated during the Synod of Dordt is regeneration. It is God who causes the conversion in his chosen ones. He not only enlightens the mind through the Holy Spirit, “but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, he also penetrates into the inmost being of man” (III/IV.11).1 This work of the Holy Spirit “is the regeneration, the new creation, the raising from the dead, and the making alive so clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures [secundum Scripturam], which God works in us without our help” (III/IV.12). The connection with the text of the Bible – however without mentioning specific texts – could not prevent intense debates, then and now, regarding the relation of faith and regeneration or the pastoral question whether one is regenerated or not. This article’s main question is how regeneration could receive such a prominent place in reformed theology, even though at the beginning of the Reformation there

* I am very grateful to Lyle Bierma for correcting the English of this paper. Any remaining errors are entirely my responsibility. 1 A critical edition of the original Latin text of the Canons is found in Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 256–257; see also Die Dordrechter Canones, 1619, 87–161. English translation from www.crcna.org/ sites/default/files/Canons%20of%20Dort_old.pdf (accessed July 17, 2019).

212

Wim Moehn

was scarcely any attention to regeneration as a theme in itself, because it was so closely related to the sacrament of baptism. Before turning to the Synod and the continuation of the theology of Dordt in the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, we will especially focus on Calvin, the Heidelberg Catechism and Guy De Bres.

14.2

Sixteenth-Century Voices

The Catholic tradition of the church can be detected through the window of the Canons of the Council of Trent (1545–1563). A sacramental concept of regeneration was normative, mainly based on Titus 3:5. The traditional view of regeneration is fixed in the Decretum de iustificatione of January 13, 1547: in these words there is a description of the justification of a sinner: how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as children of God through the agency of the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior; indeed, this transition, once the Gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the waters of rebirth or the desire for them, as it is written: ‘unless a person is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5) (Tanner: 1990, 672).

During the sixteenth century regeneration was not a much-debated issue among Catholic and Protestant theologians. Martin Luther It is not surprising that regeneration did not have a central place in Martin Luther’s theology. All emphasis was on the justification of the sinner – sola fide, sola gratia, solo Christo. From Titus 3:5 Luther underscores that baptism is the bath of regeneration and renewal. Baptism is a salvific dying to sin and rising in God’s grace. In his Sermon on Baptism he says: “the old man, which is conceived and born in sin, is there drowned, and a new man, born in grace, comes forth and rises. Thus St Paul, in Titus 3:5, calls baptism a ‘washing of regeneration,’ since in this washing man is born again and made new.”2 Only after this life baptism comes to its fulfillment, because during our lives we always have to struggle with our inclination to sin. The ritual of baptism only takes a short time during a service, but what baptism represents lasts a lifetime:

2 Luther: 1519, 4; see also Luther: 1520, 272–273. ET from www.checkluther.com/wp-content/uploads/ 1519-A-Treatise-on-the-Holy-and-Blessed-Sacrament-of-Baptism.pdf (accessed August 13, 2019).

Debating Regeneration

the lifting up out of baptism is quickly done, but the thing it signifies, the spiritual birth, the increase of grace and righteousness, though it begins indeed in baptism, lasts until death, nay, even until the Last Day. Only then will that be finished which the lifting up out of baptism signifies. Then shall we arise from death, from sins and from all evil, pure in body and in soul, and then shall we live forever. Then shall we be truly lifted up out of baptism and completely born [vnd vollkomlich geporn], and we shall put on the true baptismal garment of immortal life in heaven (Luther: 1519, 6).

Luther has an eye for the progress of regeneration, but his main emphasis is on faith that justifies sola gratia. By faith believers become children of God, and good works must follow to honor God. John Calvin Already in the first edition of his Institutes Calvin summarized with two words what believers receive through their faith in Christ: “we await with assurance whatever the Scriptures promise concerning him; we do not doubt Jesus is our Christ, that is, Savior. But as we obtain through him forgiveness of sins and sanctification, so also salvation has been given.”3 In subsequent editions of the Institutes, he uses the words “justification” and “regeneration” instead of remissio and sanctificatio. In doing so, Calvin gives his own color to the term regeneration. In the words of van den Brink and van der Kooi: “Calvin’s definition of regeneration was very appropriate, since it kept the new birth closely connected with the christian’s everyday life” (Van den Brink/van der Kooi: 2017, 681). Nevertheless, it is still difficult to connect the non-recurrent moment of one’s birth with the durative aspect of the renewal of one’s life. In discussions of Calvin’s view of regeneration, it is striking that there are mostly references to Institutes, book three.4 Already in the title of chapter three he expresses the close connection between regeneration and repentance: “our regeneration by

3 Calvin: 1536, 43, emphasis added (OS 1, 69). The children in Geneva already learned that the forgiveness of sin and the renewal of life are inextricably linked: “but can this righteousness be separated from good works, so that he who has it; may be void of them? – That cannot be. For when by faith we receive Christ as he is offered to us, he not only promises us deliverance from death and reconciliation with God, but also the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which we are regenerated to newness of life; these things must necessarily be conjoined so as not to divide Christ from himself ”, Genfer Katechismus 1542, 313, quest. 126; ET from www.reformed.org/documents/calvin/geneva_catachism/geneva_catachism.html (accessed July 17, 2019). 4 See among others Nüssel: 2004, 15, ll. 21–24 and Niesel: 1938, 127: “nachdem wir vernommen haben, daβ Christus das eine Gut ist, das wir empfangen, können wir jetzt nach den Gaben fragen, die wir zusammen mit ihm von Gott erhalten […]: die Rechtfertigung und die Wiedergeburt.”

213

214

Wim Moehn

faith: repentance.”5 This single line gives us good insight into Calvin’s motives: to parry the Roman Catholic reproach that the emphasis on justification by faith alone produces careless believers, who do not worry about the sanctification of their lives. Conversion consists of two parts: the dying of the flesh and the vivification of the spirit. For Calvin it is evident that “it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only constantly follows faith, but is also born of faith.” (Institutes 3.3.1, 593 [OS 4, 55, ll. 16–17]). We receive this repentance by participating in Christ. “Therefore, in a word, I interpret repentance as regeneration [Uno ergo verbo poenitentiam interpretor, regenerationem], whose sole end is to restore in us the image of God that had been disfigured and all but obliterated through Adam’s transgression.” (Institutes 3.3.9, 601 [OS 4, 63, ll. 6–14]). The final words in this quote indicate that it is not the first time that Calvin is writing on regeneration. Book two opens with our sins and misery, in order that we should know why salvation by Christ is necessary for us. Indeed, “unspeakable impiety occupied the very citadel of men’s mind, and pride penetrated to the depths of his heart.” (Institutes 2.1.9, 252 [OS 3, 238, ll. 17–20]). In this context Calvin thinks about the renewing through the Holy Spirit. A complete renewal of mind and will are necessary. When Jesus says in John 3 that a man must be born again, “he is not teaching a rebirth as regards the body. Now the soul is not reborn if merely a part of it is reformed, but only when it is wholly renewed.” [Institutes 2.3.1, 289 (OS 3, 272, ll. 7–9]). The beginning of repentance is situated in the will. It would be insufficient if God would only support the weakened will to make the choice for the good. Human cooperation is excluded: “I say that the will is effaced; not in so far as it is will, for in man’s conversion what belongs to his primal nature remains entire. I also say that it is created anew; not in meaning that the will now begins to exist, but that it is changed from an evil to a good will.”6 Regeneration is the beginning of the spiritual life and is very closely related to God’s renewal of the will. “God begins his good work in us, therefore, by arousing love and desire and zeal for righteousness in our hearts; or, to speak more correctly, by bending, forming, and directing, our heart to righteousness [corda nostra flectendo, formando, dirigendo in iustitiam]. He completes his work, moreover, by confirming us to perseverance.”7 Several scholars have noted that in the Canons of Dordt a shift has taken place from Calvin and other reformers, because Calvin emphasized that man is born again by faith and therefore faith does not follow the rebirth (see a.o. Polman:

5 Institutes 3.3.1, 592 (OS 4, 55, l. 1): “fide nos regenerari; ubi de poenitentia.” 6 Institutes 2.3.6, 297 (OS 3, 280, ll. 5–6). See also Wendel: 1950, 142. 7 Institutes 2.3.6, 297 (OS 3, 279, ll. 11–16). On Calvin’s discussion with Albert Pighius see Calvin: 2008, 284; see also Faber: 1999, 424: “nach Calvin (ist) der Wille jenes natürliche Vermögen des Menschen, welches sich zwar von sich her nicht mehr frei zum Guten entscheiden kann, aber doch das Organ ist, in welchem sich die Wendung zum Guten vollziehen muβ.”

Debating Regeneration

([1948–1953]), 3, 117–118 and Verboom: 1999, 239). However, when we also take his Institutes, book two into account, it is evident that Calvin too says that regeneration marks the beginning of the way of faith. This position is also discernible in his commentary on John 1:12–13. Here he states his position that we are regenerated by faith, but there is a certain flexibility, so that our new birth also can precede faith. That we do not have to pit both views against each other is clear in his conclusion: “for when [quum] the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive, by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption, but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. For since faith, as we have said, receives Christ, it puts us in possession, so to speak, of all his blessings.”8 The conjunction quum underlines the simultaneity. Meanwhile we have to realize that regeneration is not restricted to one moment in the life of the believer: “it is evident that our regeneration starts in this way, that the remains of the old man continue in us until death.”9 Therefore, believers learn to take up their cross (Institutes 3.8) and to live a genuinely Christian life, in which the exercise of eternal life (Institutes 3.9) has received a substantial place. Guy De Bres Without introducing its author, we now turn to The Belgic Confession of 1561. In article 24 Guy De Bres uses the faith–regeneration sequence: “this true faith, produced in man by the hearing of God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates him and makes him a ‘new man’.” The Belgic Confession10 was not De Bres’s first publication. In 1555 he published a little book entitled Le baston de la foy chrestienne, which is a small anthology of biblical and patristic quotations. With this book his intention was to equip reformed believers to refute questions being asked when they were interrogated by the Inquisition.11 In the first edition, we look in vain for the word regeneration. In the first revision of 1558 he inserted a new chapter on God the Father. This chapter contains mostly quotations from the Bible.

8 Comm. in Ioh., John 1:13, 29, ll. 7–9: “nam quum Dominus fidem inspirat, occulte nos et arcano quodam et incognito nobis modo regignit.” Oxford Latin Dictionary, 1:514, s.v. cum: “introducing a cl. determining the time at, about, or during which the action of the main vb. takes place.” 9 Comm. in 1 Ioh., 191: “atqui constat sic inchoari in nobis regenerationem, ut ad mortem usque, veteris hominis reliquiae maneant.” 10 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 60–146 and Confessio Belgica von 1561, 319–369. See also Gootjes: 2007. 11 Moehn: 2015, 296–309 and Moehn: 2016. For bibliographical data see Braekman: 1976, 321–323 and 335. We use the abbreviation BF, followed by the year of publication. The text of BF65/2 is available on www.e-rara.ch/doi/10.3931/e-rara-5951 (accessed July 16, 2019).

215

216

Wim Moehn

De Bres also quotes Titus 3:4–5 and 1 Peter 1:3 – well known texts with regard to regeneration. The new chapter on the Holy Spirit has a section entitled “By the Holy Spirit we are regenerated and baptized in him” (BF58, 157–158). Two texts are from Ezekiel and nine are from the New Testament. In the next year, 1559, De Bres prepared the second revision of his book and he added – among others – a new chapter on baptism. The book now got its final shape. Two things stand out in this chapter on baptism. First, there is only one short quote from a church father: “Augustine says that the sacraments in the Church of Jesus Christ are small in number, but great and excellent in meaning. These sacraments are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.”12 Secondly, a considerable part of this chapter is from his own pen. To be born of water and the Spirit – as Jesus taught Nicodemus in the night – is associated with baptism: “If someone is not internally washed with spiritual water and not purified by the power of the Holy Spirit, then he will never reach the eternal bliss.”13 In De Bres’s description of God’s plan to rescue the lost, faith and rebirth are closely linked: “because of this, the curse, death and condemnation have come upon all human beings. They would remain in their misery, if it did not please God to lift those whom he had elected and intended for salvation out of this misery and to rescue them in order that they might have eternal life. He regenerates them in Jesus Christ by faith and by the power of His Spirit and covers them with his nature, while taking away the old flesh of the old Adam and delivering them from the curse of Adam.”14 Baptism illustrates and makes visible the effect of the new birth. It is not just one moment at the beginning of the Christian life, but involves the sanctification of the whole life: “regeneration is presented to us under the sign of our Baptism.

12 De Bres: 1559, 197 (De Bres: 1565, 314); Augustin, Epist. 54.1 (ad Ianuarium), CCSL 31, 226, ll. 11–15 (PL 33, 200). De Bres has taken the quote from Calvin, Institutes 4.19.3, 1451 (OS 5, 438, ll. 6–10). 13 De Bres: 1559, 197 (De Bres: 1565, 314–315): “[…] suyvant ce que dit Jesus Christ parlant à Nicodeme, que si aucun n’est nay d’eau et d’Esprit, il ne peut entrer au royaume de Dieu, c’est à dire, que s’il n’est lavé interieurement d’eau spirituelle et purgé par la vertu du sainct Esprit, il ne parviendra | jamais à la felicité eternelle.” 14 De Bres: 1559, 198 (De Bres: 1565, 315): “c’est la cause pourquoy l’Apostre dit que la chair et le sang ne possederont point le Royaume de Dieu, appelant chair et sang tout homme tel qu’il est de sa nature corrompue, à cause du peché enraciné en icelle, tiré de la premiere origine en Adam, duquel tous sont issus, et auquel tous ont peché, dont la malediction, mort et condamnation est ensuyvie sur tout le genre humain, qui fust du tout demeuré en perdition, sinon qu’il eust pleu à Dieu par sa souveraine bonté et misericorde le retirer de ceste misere, et sauver ceux qu’il a eleus et predestinez à salut pour avoir vie eternelle; lesquels il regenere en Jesus Christ par la foy, et par la vertu de son Esprit, et les vest de la nature d’iceluy, les ayans despouillez de la vieille peau du vieil Adam, et delivrez de la malediction à laquelle ils estoyent sujets en Adam.”

Debating Regeneration

For this sacrament was ordained for us by Jesus Christ as a real mark and sure testimony to assure us of the washing away of our consciences and that we are cleansed and purified from our filthiness and blemishes by the blood of Christ and by the spiritual and Heavenly living water, which is the power of his Holy Spirit. In us the old man has died and the new spirit has been given to us to make us new creatures, to walk in righteousness and Holiness of a new life.”15 Romans 6:4 is one of the proof texts that De Bres quotes: “we were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” When we now turn to The Belgic Confession, we see a great resemblance between article 34 on baptism and the text of Le Baston: “[…] just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us and also is seen on the body of the baptized when it is sprinkled on him, so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally, in the soul, by the Holy Spirit. It washes and cleanses it from its sins and transforms [et nous regenerant] us from being the children of wrath into the children of God” (Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 132). In article 24 on sanctification and good works De Bres also deals with regeneration. Like his teacher John Calvin he underscores that the emphasis on the justification of the sinner does not necessarily create careless Christians: “we believe that this true faith, produced in man by the hearing of God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates him and makes him a ‘new man,’ causing him to live the ‘new life’ and freeing him from the slavery of sin.” This order demonstrates that being born again is a relational, organic complex, resulting from the relationship with Christ. Heidelberg Catechism In the Heidelberg Catechism there are only three questions which deal with regeneration: the beginning of HC eight and two questions in Lord’s Days 26–27 on baptism. HC eight asks: “but are we so corrupt that we are totally unable to do any good and inclined toward all evil? – Yes, unless we are born again by the Spirit of God” (Bierma: 2013, 134). What follows is not a Lord’s Day with an explanation of our rebirth, but a long introduction to why we need a Mediator. Only in Lord’s

15 De Bres: 1559, 198 (De Bres: 1565, 315–316): “Il est donc necessaire pour sortir de malediction et jouyr du fruict de benediction à salut, que nous soyons regenerez et faits nouvel- | les creatures, ce qui nous est proposé et enseigné par le Baptesme, car ce sacrement nous est ordonné par Jesus Christ comme une vraye marque et certain tesmoignage pour nous asseurer du lavement de nos consciences, et que sommes nettoyez et purifiez de nos ordures et souillures par le sang de Christ, et par l’eau vive spirituelle et celeste qui est la vertu de son sainct Esprit; aussi que le vieil homme est esteint et mortifié en nous, et l’esprit nouveau nous est donné pour nous faire nouvelles creatures, afin de cheminer en justice et saincteté de vie nouvelle.”

217

218

Wim Moehn

Days 26–27 is the theme picked up – “Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism the water of rebirth […]? – God wants to assure us, by this divine pledge and sign, that we are as truly washed of our sins spiritually as our bodies are washed with water physically.” It is important to note in this context the close connection of the new birth to the sacramental reality of the washing of our sins, as made visible in baptism.

14.3

Focus on the Seed of Regeneration in Dordt

Turning now to the Synod and the discussion of the new birth or regeneratio, we have to ask in what sense there was a shift in the fronts and positions. In the quotations from the sixteenth-century theologians, we saw a strong connection between new birth and the sacrament of baptism. In the Canons of Dordt we have to reckon with the fact that the focus is on only one part of the reformed doctrine16 and that that there is not an explicit interest in the sacraments in general and baptism in particular. One quote from Arminius’s Examen Perkensius suffices to illustrate the shift in interest toward the origin of faith and the human role: “God has determined to save believers by grace, that is, by gentle and sweet suasion, fitting or congruous to their own free choice; not by almighty action or motion, which they neither will nor can resist, nor can will to resist. Much less does the damnation of some proceed from irresistible necessity imposed by God” (den Boer: 2010, 181). On the other hand, the authors of the Canons stressed that God “works in us without our help,” to exclude every form of human participation in salvation. The Holy Spirit acts not only on the intellect but also on the human will. In the wording of article III/IV.12 we see the emphasis that grace must be grace and that suasion is not enough. We see this emphasis also expressed in the Rejection of errors III/ IV.7: “who teach that the grace by which we are converted to God is nothing but a gentle persuasion, or (as others explain it) that the way of God’s acting in man’s conversion that is most noble and suited to human nature is that which happens by persuasion.” The consequence of this emphasis is that there is less interest in the sacramental dimension of Titus 317 , and that they were especially concerned with the new birth at the beginning of the journey of faith, in order to combat Arminius’s intellectualism. Therefore, they reject those who “teach that corrupt and natural man can make such good use of common grace (by which they mean the light of nature) or of the gifts remaining after the fall that he is able thereby gradually to 16 Van den Brink: 2018, 17: “de Dordtse Leerregels beoogden niet de kern van de gereformeerde theologie samen te vatten, maar slechts één omstreden thema uit haar rijke overgeleverde gestalte nader te verhelderen.” 17 See also Heidelberg Catechism, question and answer 71 and 73.

Debating Regeneration

obtain a greater grace – evangelical or saving grace – as well as salvation itself ” (Rejection of errors III/IV.5). Here there arises a question relating to the human condition, and already in the iudicia of the Hesse and Swiss delegation we see the same tension as in the final text of the Canons: human beings did not cease to be man, and to have a will that functions is a condition sine qua non for humanity.18 But is humanity compromised too much here? Article III/IV.16 states: “just as sin, which has spread through the whole human race, did not abolish the nature of the human race but distorted and spiritually killed it, so also this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones.”19 We also can trace these accents to Calvin’s Institutes, Book 2. Even though regeneration is completely God’s work, the theologians at the Synod tried not to exclude human responsibility entirely.20 As a conclusion to our reading of Canons III/IV, we can say that the classical, catholic connection between regeneration and baptism is neglected. Only article 17 contains a reference to the sacraments in general terms: “[…] the holy admonitions of the gospel, under the administration of the Word, the sacraments, and discipline.”

14.4

The Synopsis of a Purer Theology

Soon after its publication the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (1625) became the standard theological handbook for a new generation of students. The disputations represent the renewed teaching articulated by the Synod of Dordt. Disputation 44 on the sacrament of baptism – presided over by Antonius Walaeus – contains only some references to regeneration. In the second article baptism is called the sacrament of our regeneration and entrance into the church.21 Article 28 rejects the opinion of those who claim that the baptism of adults is the sign of the accepted new birth, but that the baptism of children is only the means of initiating regeneration [instrumentum regenerationis inchoandae] (SPT 3, 152–153).

18 Hesse delegation, Handelingen, 488; Acta 2, 146: “nec tamen propterea hominis voluntas instar stipitis & trunci in sui regeneratione se habet, vel etiam invita ad conversionem & fidem cogitur.” Swiss delegation, Handelingen, 491; Acta 2, 148: “hominem tamen neque ante conversionem, neque in conversione, vel saxum, truncum aut stipidem facimus.” 19 Emphasis added. See for the anthropology in the Canons of Dordt Goudriaan: 2011. 20 See for the discussion on the nature of faith in relation to justification during the Synod of Dordt Goudriaan: 2010. 21 SPT 3, 136–137, thesis 2: “horum autem Sacramentorum primum est Baptismus, quod ideo Sacramentum regenerationis nostrae, et initiationis in Ecclesiam appellatur.”

219

220

Wim Moehn

A more comprehensive treatment of regeneration can be found in the disputations on free choice (17) and on repentance (32). We discern the same wrestling with grace and the human response: man does not, however, behave with his free choice like some block of wood; for God works in man as a subject endowed with the faculties of mind and will […]. Moreover, God herein works in his divine manner, and in fact with a grace, power, and efficacy of such a sort and degree that He effectively takes the depravity out of the will and implants uprightness in it, so that man is changed from unwilling to willing […]. This is obviously an act of the almighty God only, as expressed in Scripture by the words recreation, regeneration, awakening from the dead, and the like (SPT 1, 420–421, thesis 29–30).

In the next age of eternal life, the restoration and regeneration will be perfect (thesis 43). The most profound explanation of regeneration is in the disputation on repentance (32, thesis 1–26). Thus there is not a separate disputation on regeneration. Regeneration is seen as a part of repentance: “it is customary to consider this repentance in two ways: either as a spiritual disposition poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, or as an action from us that proceeds from that disposition. In the first way, it is, properly speaking and in its strict sense, called regeneration; in the second way, it is called repentance in a more restricted sense, or penitence” (SPT 2, 276–277, thesis 2). Although there are some hints to and citations of Titus 3:5 and surrounding verses, a reference to the sacrament of baptism is lacking here, because the focus is on the preparation for and very beginning of the way of faith. So we can safely conclude that the two disputations that deal with regeneration make clear that the Synopsis is in line with the Canons of the Synod.

14.5

Conclusion

Our reading of the source texts reveals that there was a consensus among the earlier Protestant theologians regarding regeneration. In line with the broader tradition of the church they underscored in their writings as well as in the confessions the close connection between the hidden work of the Holy Spirit and the visible sacrament. Due to the conflicts at the beginning of the seventeenth century among Dutch theologians, the reformed tradition showed a growing interest in the beginning of God’s salvific work in man, only loosely connected to baptism. The attention shifted from Titus 3 – with the classical connection of rebirth and baptism – to a text like 1 Peter 1:23, where the apostle wrote: “you have been born again, not

Debating Regeneration

of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.” In the classical manner of dealing with rebirth and baptism, the hidden effect of the Spirit is connected to the visible sacrament. In the last century, the Dutch theologian Arnold A. van Ruler pointedly underscored this coherence: “baptism ‘is’ the bath of rebirth; it takes place in and to me, standing in the community and in the tradition.”22 A discussion of the consequences of concentrating on the beginning of God’s salvific work in man for pastoral questions relating to the certainty of faith would require a new article.

Bibliography Primary Sources ACTA (1885), Acta of Handelingen der Nationale Synode […] gehouden door autoriteit der Hoogmogende Heeren Staten-Generaal der Vereenigde Nederlanden te Dordrecht ten jare 1618 en 1619, J.H. Donner/S.A. van den Hoorn (ed.), Utrecht: Den Hertog, repr. ed. ACTA (1620), Acta Synodi Nationalis […] Dordrechti habitae anno MDCXVIII et MDCXIXI, Leiden: Isaac Elzevir. [Bres, Guy de] (1555), Le baston de la foy chrestienne. Lyon/[Antwerpen]: [Christophe Plantin]. [Bres, Guy de] (1558), Le baston de la foy chrestienne. [Genève]: Nicolas Barbier, Thomas Courteau. [Bres, Guy de] (1559), Le baston de la foy chrestienne, [Genève]: Nicolas Barbier, Thomas Courteau. [Bres, Guy de] (1565), Le baston de la foy chrestienne, [Genève]: Thomas Courteau. Calvin, J. (1960), Institutes of the Christian Religion. The Library of Christian Classics 20–21, J.T. McNeill (ed.), trans. F.L. Battles, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Calvin, J. (1986), Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536 Edition, F.L. Battles trans. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Calvin, J. (1997), Ioannis Calvini in Evangelium secundum Johannem commentarius pars prior. COR II/11/1–2, H. Feld (ed.), Genève: Droz. Calvin, J. (2008), Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii. COR IV/3, A.N.S. Lane (ed.), Genève: Droz. Calvin, J. (2009), Ioannis Calvini Commentarii in Epistolas Canonicas. COR II/20, K. Hagen (ed.), Genève: Droz.

22 Van Ruler: 2011, 295: “de doop ‘is’ het bad van de wedergeboorte, het geschiedt in en aan mij, staande in de gemeenschap en in de traditie.”

221

222

Wim Moehn

Confessio Belgica von 1561, E. Busch (ed.), in: Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 2/1, 1559–1563, A. Mühling/P. Opitz (ed.), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2009, 319–369. Die Dordrechter Canones, 1619, H. Selderhuis (ed.), in: Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 3/2, 1605–1675, A. Mühling/P. Opitz (ed.), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2015, 87–161. Genfer Katechismus von 1542, E. Saxer (ed.), in: Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 1/2, 1535–1549, H. Faulenbach/E. Busch (ed.), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006, 279–362. Luther, M. (1519), Sermon vom heiligen hochwürdigen Sakrament der Taufe (1519), in: D. Korsch/J. Schilling (ed.) Martin Luther Deutsch-Deutsche Studienausgabe, Leizig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2015, vol. 2, 1–27. Luther, M. (1520), De captivitate Babylonicae ecclesiae (1520), in: W. Wartenberg (†)/M. Beyer (ed.), Martin Luther, Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2009, vol. 3, 173–375. Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, Synopsis of a Purer Theology (SPT), Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions 187, 204, 222, D. te Velde, H. van den Belt and H.J.M.J. Goris (ed.), R.A. Faber transl., vol 1: disputations 1–23, vol. 2: disputations 24–42, vol. 3: disputations 43–52, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015, 2016, 2020.

Secondary Literature Bakhuizen van den Brink, J.N. (ed.) (1976), De Nederlandse belijdenisgeschriften in authentieke teksten met inleiding en tekstvergelijkingen, 2nd ed., Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Ton Bolland. Bierma, L.D. (2013), The Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism. A Reformation Synthesis. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Braekman, E.M. (1976), Les éditions du ‘Baston de la foy chretienne’, Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 56, 315–345. Den Boer, W. (2010), God’s Twofold Love. The Theology of Jacob Arminius (1559–1609). Reformed Historical Theology 14. A. Gootjes transl., Göttingen: VandenHoeck & Ruprecht. Faber, E.-M. (1999), Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, Die responsorische Struktur von Vermittlung in der Theologie Johannes Calvins, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Glare, P.G.W. (ed.), (2012), Oxford Latin Dictionary, 2 vol., 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gootjes, N.H. (2007), The Belgic Confession. Its History and Sources. Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Goudriaan, A. (2010), Justification by Faith and the Early Arminian Controversy, in: Scholasticism Reformed. Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt. Studies in Theology and Religion 14, M. Wisse et al. (ed.), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 155–178.

Debating Regeneration

Goudriaan, A. (2011), The Synod of Dordt on Arminian Anthropology, in: Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619). Brill’s Series in Church History 49. A. Goudriaan/F. van Lieburg (ed.), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 81–106. Moehn, W.H.Th. (2015), Guido De Bres in de kaart gekeken. De bronnen van Le baston de la foy chrestienne als bouwstenen voor de reconstructie van zijn theologische bibliotheek, in: Godsvrucht in geschiedenis, E.A. de Boer/H.J. Boiten (ed.), Heerenveen: Groen, 296–309. Moehn, W.H.Th. (2016), Focus op de kerkvaders. Guido De Bres’ (ca. 1522–1567) theologische scholing in de vroegmoderne tijd, Amsterdam: PThU. Niesel, W. (1938), Die Theologie Calvins. Einführung in die evangelische Theologie 6, 2nd ed., München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag. Nüssel, F. (2004), Wiedergeburt III. Dogmatisch, TRE 36, 14–20. Polman, A.D.R. ([1948–1953]), Onze Nederlandsche Geloofsbelijdenis. Verklaard uit het verleden, geconfronteerd met het heden. 4 vol., Franeker: T. Wever. Tanner, N.P. (ed.), (1990), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2: Trent to Vatican II, London/Washington DC: Sheed & Ward Limited and Georgetown University Press. Van den Brink, G./C. van der Kooi (2017), Christian Dogmatics: an Introduction, R. Bruinsma with J.D. Bratt transl., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Van den Brink, G. (2018), Dordt in context. Gereformeerde accenten in katholieke theologie. Artios-reeks. Heerenveen: Uitgeverij Groen. Van Ruler, A.A. (2011), De wedergeboorte [1961], in: Verzameld werk deel IV-B. Christus, de Geest en het heil, D. van Keulen (ed.), Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 291–300. Verboom, W. (1999), Kostbaar belijden. De theologie van de Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis met preekschetsen, Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum. Wendel, F. (1950), Calvin. Sources et évolution de sa pensée religieuse. Études d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 41, Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

223

Willem van Vlastuin

15.

Retrieving the Doctrine of the Apostasy of the Saints in the ‘Remonstrance’

Abstract In the Remonstrance of 1610, the apostasy of the saints is given a separate chapter, a chapter which underlines the various texts in the Bible that insist on perseverance in the Christian life and warn against apostasy from faith. This doctrine of perseverance is defended in the Canons of Dordt without any reference being made to the appeal to Scripture which is so evident in the Remonstrance. In this article the texts that the Remonstrants appeal to are discussed. From this research it appears that it is impossible to completely refute the apostasy of saints. This conclusion leads to a constructive theological proposal to do justice to the notion of the apostasy of the saints in the context of a differentiated discussion about election and ecclesiology in the framework of Dordt’s doctrine of grace.

15.1

Introduction

In the Remonstrance of 1610, a separate chapter deals with the apostasy of the saints, which refers to various texts from the Bible that insist on perseverance in the Christian life and warn against apostasy from faith. The Synod of Dordt decided to follow the structure of the Remonstrance.1 Given this structure, the Canons of Dordt also had to treat the issue of apostasy. These Canons end with the claim that the flesh does not understand the doctrine of perseverance, Satan hates it, the world mocks it, hypocrites misuse it and false spirits fight it, but the bride of Christ loves this doctrine deeply and warmly defends it. 1 Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge criticised this approach: ‘why was Arminius not firmly taken to task? Why did the conferences at Delft and The Hague preach faith more than the Synod of Dort? And why did [the deputies] allow themselves to be outwitted and dissuaded from the iustitia Christi in favour of predestination, so that this 1618 Synod took on an unfortunate bearing when it had to cast the Remonstrants out, although they could have chased the Remonstrants away by preaching the iustitia Dei et Christi and silenced the mouths of many for the time to come?’ (Van Lonkhuijzen: 1905, 22–24; Graafland: 1987, 400–401). This translation is taken from van Vlastuin: 2014, 194–196. For a broader treatment of Kohlbrugge and Dordt, see van Vlastuin: 2019.

226

Willem van Vlastuin

In this contribution to the reflection on the theology of the Dordt, I investigate how Dordt dealt with the appeal of the Remonstrants to Scripture with regard to the doctrine of the apostasy of the saints.2  After this investigation, I look into the exegesis of the texts in the Remonstrance and use this material to make a constructive theological proposal which does justice to the notion of the apostasy of the saints, in the context of a differentiated discussion about election and ecclesiology in the framework of Dordt’s doctrine of grace.

15.2

The Appeal to Scripture in the Remonstrance

The fifth article of the Remonstrance concerned the issue of the perseverance of the saints and the apostasy from faith. This article acknowledges that believers are grafted in Christ and participate in his Spirit. The ingrafting in Christ offers believers the potential to conquer Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh on the one hand and, on the other, to win the spiritual fight. There is a positive reference to Christ’s words in John 10:28: ‘Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.’ The pivotal point is, however, whether this position in Christ and his Spirit can be lost. The Remonstrance does not offer a clear refutation of this possibility: but whether these [believers] cannot leave their principle of essence in Christ by negligence, accept again the present world, deviate from the holy doctrine, lose the good conscience and deny grace, must first be investigated more deeply in the Holy Scripture before we can affirm that with full assurance of our mind.3

In a sort of academic neutrality, the issue of perseverance or apostasy is left in the middle,4 with the suggestion that the doctrine of apostasy is a real option. The reality of this option is confirmed by the biblical references made to Hebrews 3:6 and 14, 2 Peter 2:20, Jude 3, 1 Timothy 1:19 and Hebrews 12:15.

2 Recent publications about the Canons of Dordt are DeYoung: 2019; van der Pol: 2018; Goudriaan: 2011. 3 Translated by the author from the original text of the Remonstrance: ‘(…) maer off deselve niet en connen door nalaticheijt het beginsel haers wesens in Christo verlaten, de tegenwoordige werelt wederom aennemen, vande heylige leere hen eentmael gegeven afwijcken, de goede conscientie verliesen, de genade verwaerloosen, soude eerst moeten naerder uijt de h. Schriftuyre ondersocht syn, eer wij tselve met volle versekeringe onses gemoets souden connen leeren’ (Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 289). 4 For a contemporary study of Arminius, see W.A. den Boer: 2010. Den Boer clarifies that we have to distinguish between Arminius and Arminians (den Boer: 2010, 279, 326–327). See also den Boer: 2010.

Retrieving the Doctrine of the Apostasy of the Saints in the ‘Remonstrance’

Hebrews 3:6 confesses that believers are Christ’s house if they hold fast their confidence and keep their hope in the rejoicing firm. Verse fourteen also has a conditional structure in the confession that states that believers are partakers of Christ. However the text in Jude 3 is less explicitly conditional, only implying the necessity of earnestly contending for faith. What these texts have in common though is their claim that perseverance is not a gift, but a condition required for reaching salvation (cf. Goudriaan: 2010). The other Bible texts in the Remonstrance mention apostasy. 2 Peter 2:20 treats the possibility that people have escaped the pollutions of the world through their knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are entangled in these pollutions again with the result that they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. Hebrew 12:15 mentions explicitly the possibility of man falling short of the grace of God. This text also clarifies that the springing up of bitterness is a means by which believers are defiled. 1 Timothy 1:19 can be interpreted as a text falling between these two emphases, because we read about keeping faith and a good conscience, but are reminded that not doing so results in the shipwrecking of their faith.

15.3

The Answer Given by the Canons of Dordt

The appeal to Scripture in the Remonstrance invites us to look into the Canons of Dordt to investigate how the Contra-Remonstrants dealt with this appeal to Scripture. The fifth chapter of the Canons of Dordt is intended to refute the Arminian position. The first article in this chapter confesses that elected people are redeemed from the reign and the slavery of sin, but they are not completely redeemed from the body of flesh and sin. It is clear – also from the following articles – that this approach offers the possibility of combining the definite position in Christ on the one hand and the reality of the old man on the other (cf. van Vlastuin: 2014, 155–187). If the Christian was left to his own powers, he would not be able to resist the temptations of sin and unbelief, the world and the devil, and he would never reach his heavenly destination. But God’s faithfulness in Christ guarantees the perseverance in the life of faith so that believers can be assured of their salvation. In this framework of interpreting the Christian life, stumbling and falling into sin is an understandable reality which does not exclude the Christian from a position in Christ. These stumbling and fallings into sin do not only refer to the internal fight with the power of indwelling sin, but Christians can be expected to fall into horrible public sin as the examples of David and Peter confirm (cf. Canons of Dordt V.4).

227

228

Willem van Vlastuin

In this sense, the theologians of Dordt concur with the last part of Article Five of the Remonstrance when they affirm that believers can ‘highly offend God, incur a deadly guilt, grieve the Holy Spirit, interrupt the exercise of faith, very grievously wound their consciences, and sometimes lose the sense of God’s favour for a time’ (Canons of Dordt V.5). The difference between the Remonstrance and the Canons of Dordt is not the possibility of falling into enormous sin, but the consequences of such a falling. According to the Remonstrance, believers can lose their faith, while the ContraRemonstrant position is that falling into sin does not imply falling from the position of justification (Canons of Dordt V.6). This conviction in the Canons is justified by two arguments (Canons of Dordt V.7). In the first place the Canons refer to the seed of regeneration in the believer. This means that the Canons are making a substantial ontological interpretation of regeneration. The second argument refers to God’s faithfulness which he exercises by Word and Spirit so that fallen believers are brought to repentance, they experience God’s favour again and they renew their fight for salvation. According to the Canons several issues are at stake in the apostasy of saints (Canons of Dordt V.8): God’s unconditional election, promise and irrevocable calling, Christ’s merit, intercession and preservation and the Spirit’s sealing.5 This means that the faithfulness of the triune God is involved in the Remonstrance’s approach. Therefore, the Contra-Remonstrants have deep theological motives underpinning their doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The theologians of Dordt also have a pastoral motive for supporting the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (Canons of Dordt V.9–10). Articles V.9–10 treat the assurance of salvation. We can appreciate how these pastors felt, given that the Remonstrance leaves believers completely alone and throws them entirely back on themselves.6 To redress the insecurity found in the Remonstrance, they confess the assurance of salvation. The pastoral character of this confession is also apparent in the following articles which explain that this assurance of salvation is an afflicted assurance (Canons of Dordt V.11). Against the accusation of the Remonstrants, they confess clearly that this personal assurance does not lead to superficiality in the Christian life (Canons of Dordt V.12–13). The Canons of Dordt do not deal with the appeal to Scripture found in the Remonstrance. Does the rejection of errors deal with this appeal? In the first rejection, the Canons refer to Romans 11:7 and Romans 8:32–35 to reject faith as the condition of the new covenant. After this rejection the Canons again confess the efficiency of Christ’s death. Christ does not simply offer a general possibility of 5 The ninth rejection also refers to Christ’s intercession with an appeal made to Luke 22:32 and John 17:11, 15, 20. 6 According to C. Graafland (1987, 117–119) the doctrine of free will denies the assurance of salvation.

Retrieving the Doctrine of the Apostasy of the Saints in the ‘Remonstrance’

salvation for the elect; his merits actually guarantee it.7 One can appreciate how this approach counters the conditionality of the Remonstrance. In the second rejection the Canons make an appeal to 1 Corinthians 1:8 to make clear that the ultimate perseverance of the saints does not depend upon a choice made by human beings. The issue that is at stake here is not a minor one, but concerns the question: does salvation depend on God or man? The Canons are convinced that salvation is ultimately guaranteed by God. The third rejection interprets the same issue, stating that the confession that Christ died for us means that he died for our ultimate salvation (Romans 5:8–9). This rejection also refers to 1 John 3:9 and John 10:28–29. According to the fourth rejection, real believers are saved from sin until death (1 John 5:16–18). The doctrine of the apostasy of faith would imply that believers cannot be assured of their perseverance and salvation. But by referring to Romans 8:39 and 1 John 3:24, the opposite is confirmed in the Canons of Dordt (fifth rejection). In the next rejection they also confirm that assurance of salvation increases godliness (1 John 3:2–3). Dordt does not deny the possibility of temporary belief, as they acknowledge this reality in Matthew 13:20 and Luke 8:13, but they also acknowledge that saving faith differs in character from this temporary belief (the seventh rejection). Therefore, temporary faith is not the same as saving faith for a particular length of time, because it differs in its essence. Because the understanding of temporary belief is related to the understanding of the character of regeneration, Dordt denies this possibility (the eighth rejection which appeals to 1 Peter 1:23). People are only regenerated once – and this cannot be lost. First, we can conclude that the Canons of Dordt are clear in their confession of faith when they state that there is no room for the apostasy of faith. Their understanding of God’s plan and promises, Christ’s merit and intercession, the Spirit’s indwelling and sealing deny the possibility of the apostasy of faith. Second, we can conclude that several statements are denied that are not included in the Remonstrance, but belong to the broader Arminian movement (Goudriaan: 2010, 84–85). In the third place, it can be concluded that the Canons chose their own texts to confirm the perseverance of the saints and did not interact with the texts of the Remonstrance.8 Fourth, the question can be raised as to whether its argument

7 For the distinction between sufficienctia and efficientia, see Rouwendal: 2017, 29. Rouwendal also explains that Beza criticised this classic distinction and that the Canons of Dordt followed Beza (2017, 82, 122–125, 147). 8 According to the Acta of the Synod of Dordt, the delegates from Great Britain problematised the apostasy from faith most and dealt with 2 Peter 2:20 and comparable texts (1620, 2:247). Matt 13:21, Luke 8:13, Heb 6:4–6, 10:29 are treated regularly by all the delegates. The delegates of Emden pleaded for the judgment of charity in relation to Simon the Magician (Acta: 1620, 2:320).

229

230

Willem van Vlastuin

is weakened by not interacting with the appeal made to Scripture in the Remonstrance. By appealing to other texts in Scripture the Canons leave the possibility of hermeneutical arbitrariness open which undermines the most distinctively reformed belief.9 Fifth, we can also see that the scriptural appeals in Dordt refer mostly to Romans and John, while the appeals to Hebrews, the letters of Peter and Jude, and the letter to Timothy, are all passed over. This omission could be redressed by a reconsideration of these texts in a reformed framework of the doctrine of grace. Stated in another way: how can these texts function in the Christian church without questioning the reformed understanding of the decisiveness of God’s choice in human life?

15.4

Investigating Apostasy Texts

In this paragraph I examine the exegesis of the apostasy texts that are mentioned in the Remonstrance. First, I delve into the commentary that Calvin produced before the time of the Synod of Dordt. Next, I look into the exegesis of a commentary of a high quality that was not prejudiced by the reformed movement. This led me to the series New International Commentary New Testament.10 I then consult another contemporary commentary and finally examine a number of biblical texts that indicate apostasy. Calvin’s Exegesis In this paragraph I investigate John Calvin’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:19, Hebrews 3:6 and 14, 12:15, 2 Peter 2:20 and Jude 3, texts which are relied upon by the remonstrance. Calvin interprets shipwrecking one’s faith in 1 Timothy 1:19 as losing sound doctrine because of bad conscience.11 Christian teachers can only persevere in a sound doctrine if they keep it in good conscience, which means in the fear of God. If we keep the Christian doctrine in a hypocritical or deceitful way, we fall easily back into believing former superstitions. Fearing God is the way to persevere in the confession of true faith.

9 According to Collier (2018, 10). He showed how the English delegates at the Synod of Dordt also tried to unite minority positions in relation to perseverance (2018, 59–72) by making an appeal to Augustine (2018, 14). Like Augustine, they were convinced that certain believers, for a time, believed without pretending the faith (2018, 72). They did not feign faith, but they did not remain in faith. 10 The volumes on 2 Peter and Jude are not available in this series. 11 CO (=Calvini Opera) LII:263–264, see also, www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom43.iii.iii.v.html (accessed April 11, 2019).

Retrieving the Doctrine of the Apostasy of the Saints in the ‘Remonstrance’

When we look at Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews 3:6 we can see that he acknowledges the conditional character of this text.12 The Christ-professing Jews are exhorted to persevere in faith so that they might be deemed members of God’s household. The perseverance of faith is not self-evident, but can be interpreted as a condition. This exegesis clarifies that the conditional character of faith is not foreign to the reformed tradition or the precursors of the Synod of Dordt. In his commentary on Hebrews 3:14, the reformer of Geneva presupposes that the addressees of this letter are partakers of the gospel.13 This beginning of the Christian life, however, is not enough. Believers should be steadfast, make progress and preserve the great blessing of faith until death. People who do not progress on the path of faith are in danger of stopping shortly after the starting post and turning back and seeking another way. John Calvin comments on Hebrews 12:15 remarking that it is easy to fall away from the grace of God.14 As soon as Satan identifies a believer as secure, he instantly conquers them. The slothfulness of our flesh makes continual incentives necessary. The Lord uses these exhortations to move and stir the hearts of believers. To Calvin it is self-evident that the use of exhortations does not imply that believers have the power of free will; all the positive effects of the exhortations are God’s gracious gifts. In his comment on 2 Peter 2:20 John Calvin remarks that it was not uncommon for people to leave God’s kingdom and return to the world.15 It would have been better if these people had never known the way of righteousness, because they are not ignorant of God’s kingdom. Wilfully denying God’s grace is behaving in an ungrateful way towards God and, as such, deserves double punishment; these people also abrogated the covenant of God. John Calvin interprets Jude 3 from its context of being assailed by ungodly people.16 This implies that their salvation is at stake. As it is Jude who wakens his readers from their torpor by sounding a trumpet. His readers have to strive to retain the faith and be courageous in defending themselves against the assaults of Satan. To persevere in faith, continuous warfare must be maintained. It is remarkable that Calvin’s interpretation of these apostasy-texts is not the opposite of the interpretation of the remonstrance. Although the reformer of Geneva was strongly convinced of the doctrine of personal election, he also acknowledges the possibility that people may fail in faith or lose it.

12 13 14 15 16

CO LV:38, see also www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom44.ix.i.html (accessed April 12, 2019). CO LV:43, see also www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom44.ix.iii.html (accessed April 12, 2019). CO LV:178–179, see also www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom44.xviii.iv.html (accessed April 12, 2019). CO LV:470–471, see also www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.vii.iii.vi.html (accessed April 12, 2019). CO LV:490, see also www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.viii.ii.ii.html (accessed April 12, 2019).

231

232

Willem van Vlastuin

New International Commentary New Testament Calvin’s exegesis that the pivotal texts in the remonstrance have to be interpreted as texts that indicate apostasy of faith is confirmed by the New International Commentary New Testament (Towner: 2006, 157–160). While Calvin saw personal faith as a means for keeping sound doctrine in his interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:19, Towner understands personal faith as an aim in itself; the difference with Calvin does not concern the fact that believers can lose their faith. It is striking that Towner understands this warning as a personal appeal to Timothy. Sound teachers can become false teachers who exchange Paul’s understanding of salvation and Christian living for a materialistic approach. We see the same in F.F. Bruce’s exegesis of the texts in Hebrews. On Hebrews 3:6 he comments that ‘nowhere in the New Testament more than here do we find such repeated insistence on the fact that continuance in the Christian life is the test of real godliness’ (Bruce: 1990, 94–95). The initial enthusiasm expressed by the Hebrews is in danger of being quenched. Referring to the parable about the sower of seeds, he compares the spiritual situation of the Hebrews to that of seeds sown on rocky ground. At first, they made a fair showing, but then soon weakened in the heat of the sun. The postponement of Christian hope is especially difficult. It threatens the steadfastness of faith which must be maintained ‘to the end’. The same message can be heard in Hebrews 3:14 (Bruce: 1990, 101). The Israelites of the old covenant started out well when they crossed the Sea of Reeds, but were reduced to a small number by the time they entered Canaan. Also, in his explanation of Hebrews 12:15, Calvin acknowledges that the evil heart of the unbeliever deserts the living God.17 Other Commentaries G.W. Knight’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:19 looks initially similar to Calvin’s, because faith here refers primarily to the content of faith, but it is the act of faith that is ultimately also involved (Knight: 1992, 109–110). G.L. Cockerill emphasises that the author of Hebrews does not state that true believers cannot fail in faith; the addressees of this letter are approached as real believers, they are called ‘brothers and sisters’, they are described as partakers of Christ, members of God’s house, they are enlightened, they experience the heavenly gifts and share in the Holy Spirit (Cockerill: 2012, 169–173). These people are urged to persevere, in the strongest terms, lest they suffer ultimate loss. The meaning of these warnings loses

17 F.F. Bruce (1990, 349–350). Chrysostom states that sin or ‘hardening’ leads to unbelief, E.M. Heen and P.D.W. Krey (2005, 55).

Retrieving the Doctrine of the Apostasy of the Saints in the ‘Remonstrance’

its relevance if it is inevitable that true believers will persevere. If this interpretation is acknowledged, the context of God’s people in the wilderness loses its meaning, because we have to conclude that the majority who died in the wilderness were not true people of God.18 In his exegesis of Hebrews 12:15 Cockerill connects this warning with the corporative responsibility that believers have (Cockerill: 2012, 635–639); members of Christ’s body are responsible for each other. If this mutual oversight is missing, the effect will be apostasy. The reality of apostasy is also found in Schreiner’s exegesis of 2 Peter 2:20 (Schreiner: 2003, 360–362). Confessors of Christ who had escaped the pollutions of the world fell again into its snares and repudiated Christ. The world they escaped recaptured them. This implies that their last state was worse than their first. We also find this same approach (Schreiner: 2003, 433–436) in his interpretation of Jude 3. In a certain sense the addressees already shared in God’s salvation but, at the same time, had not entered the eschatological rest. Contending for faith refers to a military or athletic context which is a clear indication of just how heavy the struggle is. Other Texts There are other texts which refer to apostasy. Although Matthew 8:12 does not refer directly to the situation of Christians in the New-Testament body of Christ, it is quite shocking that the sons of the kingdom are to be found outside (France: 2007, 316–319). If that can happen to the Jews – the original people of God, then it can happen to the new people of God. In Matthew 10:22 Christians are exhorted to maintain their loyalty to Jesus in the face of persecution and possible martyrdom (France: 2007, 394–395) as there is a real danger of them denying their faiths in such circumstances. According to Matthew 24:13, God only promises ultimate salvation to those who have stood firm in their discipleship (France: 2007, 907). In Mark 13:13 believers are also called upon to be steadfast in the face of persecution by a hostile world when they are surrounded by apostasy, in the consciousness that they will be vindicated by God’s judgement, while the condemnation of men in the world will be reversed (Lane: 1974, 463–465). In Jesus’ parable of the true vine we read about branches that do not remain in Christ (John 15:6). These branches will be cut away (Morris: 1995, 596). These are strong words that emphasise the necessity of remaining in vital contact with Christ. 2 Corinthians 6:1 indicates the possibility of people being caught in God’s eschatological and saving purpose in vain (Barnett: 1997, 315–318). Galatians 5:4

18 This approach is also characteristic of his interpretation of Hebrews 3:14, Cockerill (2012, 187–190).

233

234

Willem van Vlastuin

also refers to the possibility of people falling away from grace because they seek their salvation through the law instead of in the union with Christ (Fung: 1988, 223–224). In the epistle to the Hebrews, we see more examples of apostasy. Hebrews 2:2–3 states that the sanctions believers could face under the gospel are more awful than those they might face under the law.19 Hebrews 6:4–6 describes the privileges of the gospel.20 Members of Christ’s body taste the heavenly gift of the Eucharist.21 They are, in a real sense, partakers of the Spirit, perhaps when apostolic hands were laid upon them. The astonishing message is that people can arrive at a state of heart and life from which they can no longer repent. Deliberately renouncing the covenant privileges of the gospel is irremediable, because it is impossible to reclaim them. In this context it is necessary and relevant to be an overcomer – one who remains faithful to Christ (Mounce: 1977, 72). Evaluation This investigation has revealed that several Biblical-theological texts refer to the possibility of the apostasy of faith. The Remonstrants were not superficial Christians, but took the possibility of real apostasy very seriously, including its eternal consequences. The texts clarify that people can be baptised in Christ, partake in the Spirit, be people of God, and experience the power of God’s kingdom, but then be ultimately lost. Both Calvin’s interpretation of Scripture and the commentaries, which cannot be characterised as reformed commentaries in a direct sense, indicate that reformed theology should take apostasy seriously in its theology, its spirituality and its order of salvation. It is clear that falling from faith involves taking a great risk. Coming to Christ in faith for the first time is easier than it is a second. In general, Christians have to be convinced that their fall is irrevocable, because it is an irreversible process. This earnest reality compels Christians to understand that ultimate salvation is not a cheap grace, but a state that they have to fight for with all their powers and dedication. Israel in the wilderness acts as a warning for Christians; although this

19 F.F. Bruce (1990, 68). Chrysostomus’ remarks underline the easiness of falling and the difficulty of returning because of the willingness of the subject to fall, E.M. Heen and P.D.W. Krey (2005, 33). 20 F.F. Bruce (1990, 144–149). According to Tertullian, there is no conversion of sin after baptism, E.M. Heen and P.D.W. Krey (2005, 83). 21 Theologians in the early church interpreted the powers of the coming age as baptism, E.M. Heen and P.D.W. Krey (2005, 84). In the early church the issue of rebaptism after falling into sin was important (Heen and Krey: 2005, 83–87). Rebaptism was denied, because baptism refers to Christ who was crucified only once.

Retrieving the Doctrine of the Apostasy of the Saints in the ‘Remonstrance’

people of God left Egypt and crossed through the Red Sea, most of them nevertheless did not enter the promised land of Canaan. We can see here that the possibility of losing faith is often related to a context of persecution. The investigated texts presuppose a context in which a price must be paid in confessing Christ as Lord. In the early Christian communities, apostasy was a real phenomenon and not a theoretical option. As well as wrestling with earthly powers, Christians have to fight spiritual powers too. They are involved in a continuous heavy battle with Satan. The references in the investigated texts to the people of God who left Egypt and crossed through the Red Sea, and the references to the body of Christ remind us also of the fact that apostasy is related to a corporative interpretation of the Christian life. The Remonstrants made the mistake of appealing to corporative texts to defend the personal apostasy of faith and the Contra-Remonstrants only treated the personal category. The Contra-Remonstrants were right to demand that this personal category should receive attention, but ultimately this personal category can only function in a corporative reality.

15.5

Retrieving Remonstrant apostasy

The foregoing considerations reveal that reformed doctrine must include a doctrine of apostasy. The outcome of the exegetical approach clarifies that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints cannot nullify the strength of these notions. We need a more nuanced understanding of the reality of the apostasy of faith, one which honours certain aspects in Scripture and answers the appeal to Scripture made by the Remonstrants. I develop such a nuanced understanding from three perspectives. Historical perspective The first perspective is historical. It was a common conviction in the early reformed movement that God promises forgiveness of sin to the babies within the covenant. Some theologians understood this promise to be unconditional, while others interpreted a conditional aspect of the promise. Anyway, it was possible to think in terms of an amissible covenant holiness.22

22 J.N. Gerstner (1991, 7–10, 18). The English delegates at the Synod of Dordt wanted to include the Augustinian view of baptismal regeneration (Collier: 2018, 124–161).

235

236

Willem van Vlastuin

These early representatives of the reformed tradition meant that baptised children participate in the Holy Spirit, unless they reject it.23 In his Geneva Catechism, Calvin stated that ‘we are clothed with Christ in baptism if we do not through despising the promises given us by unbelief make them powerless’ (Catechism of Geneva Q&A 331). Beza interpreted birth in the covenant as a sign of election and thought that baptised children were ‘probably’ elected and regenerated after baptism by hearing God’s Word. Petrus Dathenus was ‘extremely optimistic’ about the state of the children of believers (Gerstner: 1991, 55), adding the phrase ‘sanctified in Christ’ to the baptism form of little children. In his debate with the Anabaptists he declared that ‘all children that are born of believing parents are saved, since they are taken up in God’s covenant’. In answer to the criticism that children of the covenant perish, he answered that ‘he indeed knew, that later many children through unbelief and unrepentant living fall out of the covenant and lose the divine grace’. While the reformed movement combined an amissible covenant holiness with double predestination, the Arminians used this understanding of the covenant to combat the doctrine of double predestination (Gerstner: 1991, 7, 23–24) using the concept of losable grace to deny the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The doctrine of the covenant gave them the theological opportunity to argue that people are saved in Christ and can apostate from faith. After the Canons of the Dordt, the concept of the amissible covenant disappeared in reformed tradition, while double predestination dominated the concept of the covenant (Gerstner: 1991, 24). According to his interpretation the theological concept of early baptism was also incompatible with the more developed orthodoxy of the Canons of Dordt (Gerstner: 1991, 55). So, one of the effects of the Canons has been that the notion of apostasy has disappeared from reformed consciousness. I wonder whether it is theologically necessary to deny the apostasy of faith because of the doctrine of perseverance in the Canons of Dordt, as the early reformed interpretation of the amissible covenant can be integrated into the orthodoxy of Dordt. This is implicitly accepted by the Synod of Dordt, although this Synod accepted the baptism form of the early reformed tradition, including the changes that entailed a strengthening of the covenant idea (Gerstner: 1991, 56). This leads one to draw the conclusion that the early reformed tradition did not decide to be for the perseverance of the saints and against an amissible covenant, but honoured both dimensions of the gospel. This means that the catholic historical understanding of the church and its doctrines argues for recovering the apostasy of

23 J.N. Gerstner (1991, 6–7). Compare the comments on the State translation of ‘household’ in Luke 19:9: ‘Because the whole family was counted in the covenant when the house father believed in Christ, according to the promises of Gen. 17:7, Acts 2:39 and 16:15, 33, unless they rejected this grace by unbelief.’

Retrieving the Doctrine of the Apostasy of the Saints in the ‘Remonstrance’

saints in a certain sense, namely the apostasy of baptised church members who are sanctified in Christ and fail in perseverance. Ecclesiastical perspective The historical perspective leads to the second perspective, the ecclesiastical. The historical perspective demonstrated that the apostasy of faith has ecclesiastical implications. Calvin distinguished several steps of election: creation that distinguishes men from animals, the election of the race of Abraham that distinguishes it from the rest of humanity, the election of the race of Jacob that distinguishes the church from the race of Esau and the personal election of Jacob (Institutes 3.21.5–7). This implies that there is a distinction between personal election and ecclesiastical election, a useful distinction enabling us to honour the ecclesiastical position as a degree of election.24 It is a great privilege to belong to the church, because the church is not a human organisation, but is the people of God, the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit and the first beginning of God’s eternal kingdom. Forgetting the ecclesiastical election is consistent with the weakening of the consciousness of the church. Without forgetting the personal application of faith and the assurance of personal election, the reformed tradition has openness for the notion of ecclesiastical election. If the church is reduced to the sum of individual members, the body of the church as a complete corpus disappears. It is understandable that the modern turn to the individual subject has caused a more individualistic interpretation of Christian faith to develop, one which is less aware of the corporate body of Christ (cf. Bonhoeffer: 2018, 61, 101, 122). It is clear that the Canons of Dordt originate from the church and seek the welfare of the church. The foreword confesses that Christ remains with his church and keeps the religion sound so that it can be passed on to posterity. Also, in the epilogue of the Canons, it is clear that the debate was about the doctrines of the church. The rumour in the church is called by its name and also the gracious preservation of the church by Christ. In the chapters of the Canons we find several references to the church and it appears that the sound doctrine of the church is related to the confession of faith and the norm for preaching. In the first chapter of the Canons we find God’s calling of sinners by the preaching of the gospel. The ecclesiastical context is also clear in chapters three, four and five when the calling of the gospel and the gospel as the means for regeneration are treated (Canons of Dordt III./IV..6, 8, 11, 17; 5.14). Apparently, God’s sovereign pleasure is exercised in the way of the church.

24 Without the consciousness of the body of Christ, discussions about the relationship between covenant and election, baptism and regeneration will divide the church, compare E. Smilde (1946).

237

238

Willem van Vlastuin

There is also a focus, in the Canons, on the church as a body. In the second chapter we read that the elected are gathered together into one community (Canons of Dordt II.9). The Canons also speak about the living members of the church, which implies the church as a whole (Canons of Dordt V.9). We also find the church as Christ’s bride (Canons of Dordt 5.15). Although there are some references to the church as Christ’s body, this theme is not really treated. The first paragraph in this chapter confesses the unio mystica cum Christo, but does not refer to its ecclesiastical consequences. This can give the impression that the union with Christ can be separated from the union with his body. Also, the way of wording that the elected are gathered in one community implies a starting point in the elected individual. In short, while chapter five has the most opportunities for the church to be treated as the body of Christ and its election, there are no instances of it. The Remonstrants used concepts of the ecclesiastical and covenantal structures in early reformed theology, but the Canons did not answer on this level. Were the theologians of Dordt insensitive to apostasy in the context of ecclesiology? This needs more research, but what we can say is that the Canons of Dordt stress the denial of the personal apostasy from faith and lack an ecclesiastical approach. Retrieving a twofold apostasy of faith implies making a re-appreciation of the church as the elected body of Christ. This will not only honour the communal and corporative aspects in Scripture, but will also act as a remedy against the rising individualism evident in (post)modern culture.25 The opposite is also true: by neglecting the apostasy from Christ’s body, reformed theology contributes to (post)modernity and behaves as if it were a part of a cultural movement without criticizing this movement. Practical-spiritual perspective In the investigation of the apostasy texts, we also saw that apostasy was relevant in a minority church under pressure. Although it cannot be concluded from the research in this article, it is possible that the Canons of Dordt were not sensitive to the corporative dimension of faith in their answer to the Remonstrance, because of the culture of their times, characterised as corpus christianum, which implies that it was common to belong to the church. Comparing these cultural contexts, we can see great differences which clarify that membership of the church is not self-evident in our postmodern culture. The church no longer belongs to the establishment of society, individuals must make a conscious choice to belong to the church. Sometimes this implies a sort of suffering for the individual, also in the Western world. In addition, we see baptised

25 B.S. Gregory speaks about ‘hyperpluralism’ (2012, 369).

Retrieving the Doctrine of the Apostasy of the Saints in the ‘Remonstrance’

members of the church apostate from its body. All these factors contribute to a new consideration of the issue of apostasy. Referring to baptised members in the foregoing paragraph also underlines the sensitive issue of infant baptism. Christians in reformed circles experience infant baptism as a critical issue. Several young Christians have been re-baptised which poses new questions for the Christian church and its related organisations: how should these issues be treated and how do we account for the baptism of infant children? One of the issues behind this issue is the appreciation of the Christian church; if the church is no more than the sum of individual believers, it is not strange for the baptism of children to decrease in relevance. In addition to the foregoing considerations, we should note that an individualistic understanding of Christian faith coheres with the focus on the invisibility of the church as the main interpretation of the church. There are, however, several reasons to argue for the visibility of the church (Berkouwer: 1970, 39–42). Exhortations concerning brotherly love are related to concrete members of the church (1 Thess 4:9; Phil 2:1 and Eph 4:3) and the tensions between several groups in Jerusalem and Corinth are practical (1 Thess 4:9; Phil 2:1 and Eph 4:3). The union between heathen and Jews is concrete and visible (Eph 2:14–15; Gal 3:28). When the reformed confessions speak about the church, they refer to the visible church that gathers for worship (Berkouwer: 1970, 10). It is also this unity of the visible church that is a light to the world. These considerations plead for a revaluation of the category of the visible church, as distinct from the category of personal faith. Retrieving the church as a special category in Christian faith is necessary in an individualistic culture so that the communion of saints can function and each member feels responsible for the other. In this time of the turn to the individualistic subject, we need a turn to ecclesiology so that the church is primary and the individual believer can be understood as part of the church (Bonhoeffer: 2018, 53–57, 63, 86, 94, 102; see also in the same volume van ‘t Slot: 2018, 204). This ecclesiological turn in theology will create a deeper understanding of the church’s place in the world and the spiritual powers that oppose it. Concrete prayer for its welfare coheres with appreciating it as the body of Christ. Understanding the special category of Christ’s body will also lead to a new understanding of the application of salvation in worship. While a flat, modernistic understanding of salvation implies that we have salvation only after its application, a catholic reformed understanding of the reality of the body of Christ reverses this order. This approach leads to a new interpretation of the church, preaching and spirituality. While the concentration on personal election puts a heavy spiritual weight on the soul of the individual believer, the understanding of the election of the church clarifies that personal election can be interpreted in the context of the elected church

239

240

Willem van Vlastuin

of Christ. This implies having a sensitivity to the privilege and responsibility of belonging to the church, while the issue of personal election is the application of the election of the church. This, in turn, means that personal election is not arbitrary and individualistic, but that it functions in the elected community.

15.6

Conclusion

We began with an analysis of the Arminian appeal to Scripture in the Remonstrance. Although reformed understanding of Scripture and historic reformed theology have an openness in regard to accepting an ecclesiological apostasy of faith, the Canons of Dordt did not interact with the Arminian appeal to this interpretation of apostasy. This observation leads firstly to the conclusion that interacting with the ecclesiological apostasy of faith should have made the Canons of Dordt more solid, balanced and credible. Secondly, without this interaction the Canons of Dordt strengthen an individualistic interpretation of faith, so it can be concluded that the concept of ecclesiastical apostasy of faith is necessary in an individualistic (post)modern culture and will enrich spiritual life within the church. Thirdly, we can conclude that balanced reformed theology is conscious of the tension between the denial of the personal apostasy of faith on the one hand and, on the other hand, the acknowledgement of the ecclesiological apostasy of faith. This leads to a dual concept of apostacy: on the one hand, no apostacy of saints from the perspective of personal election, and on the other hand, apostacy of saints from the perspective of the elected community of the church.

Bibliography Acta Synodi Nationalis, in Nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, etc, (1620), Dordrecht: Caninus. Bakhuizen Van Den Brink, J.N. (1976), De Nederlandse Belijdenisgeschriften in authentieke teksten met inleiding en tekstvergelijkingen, Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. Barnett, P. (1997), The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Berkouwer, G.C. (1976), The Church. Studies in Dogmatics, transl. J.A. Davison, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (originally Kampen: Kok, 1970). Bonhoeffer, D. (2018), De levende kerk. Teksten over de kerk 1932–1933, Utrecht: Boekencentrum. Bruce, F.F. (1990), The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Calvin, J. (1542), Catechism of Geneva, various editions. Calvin, J. (1559), Institutes, various editions. Calvin, J. CO=Opera quae supersunt omnia, Brunsvigae: Schwetschke 1895.

Retrieving the Doctrine of the Apostasy of the Saints in the ‘Remonstrance’

Cockerill, G.L. (2012), The Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Collier, J.T. (2018), Debating Perserverance: The Augustinian Heritage in Post-Reformation England, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Den Boer, W.A. (2010), God’s Twofold Love. The Theology of Jacob Arminius (1559–1609), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Den Boer, W.A. (2010), Defence or Deviation? A Reexamination of Arminius’s Motives to Deviate from the “Mainstream” Reformed Theology’, in A. Goudriaan e.a. (ed.), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 23–48. DeYoung, K. (2019), Grace Defined and Defended. What a 400-Year-Old Confession Teaches Us about Sin, Salvation, and the Sovereignty of God, Wheaton: Crossway. Fung, R.Y.K. (1988), The Epistle to the Galatians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. France, R.T. (2007), The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gerstner, J.N. (1991), The Thousand Generation Covenant. Dutch Reformed covenant theology and group identity in colonial South Africa, 1652–1814, Leiden: Brill. Goudriaan, A. (2010), Justification by Faith and the Early Arminian Controversy, in: M. Wisse, M. Sarot and W. Otten (ed.), Scholasticism Reformed. Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 155–178. Goudriaan, A. (2010), The Synod of Dordt on Arminian Anthropology, in: A. Goudriaan and F. van Lieburg (ed.), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 81–106. Graafland, C. (1987), Van Calvijn tot Barth. Oorsprong en ontwikkeling van de leer der verkiezing in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme, ‘s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum. Gregory, B.S. (2012), The Unintended Reformation. How a Religious Revolution Secularised Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heen, E.M. and Krey, P.D.W. (2005), Hebrew. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Downers Grove: IVP. Knight, G.W. (1992), The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek text, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lane, W.L. (1974), The Gospel of Mark, NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Morris, L. (1995), The Gospel according to John, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Mounce, R.H. (1977), The Book of Revelation, NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Pol, F. van der (ed.), (2018), The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective. Historical and Theological Investigations of the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Rouwendal, P.L. (2017), Predestination and Preaching in Genevan Theology from Calvin to Pictet, Kampen: Summum. Schreiner, T.R. (2003), 1, 2 Peter, Jude, Nashville: Broadman and Holman. Smilde, E. (1946), Een eeuw van strijd over verbond en doop, Kampen: Kok. Towner, H. (2006), The Letters to Timothy and Titus, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Van Lonkhuizen, J. (1905), Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge en zijn prediking in de lijst van zijn tijd, Wageningen: Vada, 22–24 (Appendix B).

241

242

Willem van Vlastuin

Van ‘t Slot, E. (2018), Dak en plaats, ambt en aanspraak, in: D. Bonhoeffer, De levende kerk. Teksten over de kerk 1932–1933, Utrecht: Boekencentrum, 195–212. Van Vlastuin, W. (2014), Be Renewed. A Theology of Personal Renewal, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Van Vlastuin, W. (2019), Dort Outwitted by the Remonstrants. Kohlbrugge’s Evaluation of the Canons of Dort, in: Church History and Religious Studies 99 (2019), 228–247.

Erik A. de Boer

16.

The Absence of Israel in Dordt’s Doctrine of Divine Election

On Anna Walker’s Prophecy, Brought to (But not Heard at) the National Synod of Dordrecht

Abstract The surprising presence of a woman at the beginning of the National Synod in Dordrecht confronted the delegates with the theme of ‘the calling of the Jews’ and, more pointedly, ‘the conversion of the Jews’. Although Anna Walker’s appearance has not remained unknown, the scope of her message, intended to be delivered to the synodical assembly, has not been researched before. This essay explores her eschatological vision by looking first at her Danish roots and the commentary on Romans by Niels Hemmingson. Against the background of the tradition of Augustine and the exegesis of Peter Lombard and Denis the Carthusian we investigate also the commentaries on Romans by Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli, especially in their appearance in England. At the turn of the sixteenth to the seventeenth century a remarkable number of English language expositions of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is found in which the expected conversion of the Jews is expressed. Then the question is raised if the Remonstrants, cited to appear before Synod, taught such an expectation. This line of inquiry is chosen to gauche whether or not the election of Israel had any place in the debate on predestination. It was Hugo de Groot who presented an intriguing openness for a general conversion of the Jewish people in his advice to the States of Holland and West-Friesland on the status of the Jews in the Netherlands. Finally we turn to the Dutch context and discuss a pamphlet, translated from the English original, which brings Anna Walker’s vision close to home. The question remains why the Canons of Dordt hardly ever mention Israel and its election in the broad discussion of the pressing questions of the National Synod in its European context.

16.1

Introduction

In the very first week of the National Synod, on 18 November 1618, a Danish woman, calling herself Anna [Walker], a widow living in England where her husband had died, presented herself in Dordrecht. In conversation with some delegates she told

244

Erik A. de Boer

them that the Holy Spirit had ordered her to go to the national synod and speak of ‘predestination, the conversion of the Jews and of the final judgement’. Her letter to the consistory of the Church (‘an den karcklicken radt alhir’) of Dordrecht, asking permission to address Synod, has been preserved in the city archive.1 Initially she seems to have been taken seriously. She ‘war wohl bekleidet und redete vernünftig’, reported Wolfgang Mayer, delegate from Basel in his Observationes Dordracenae (Graf: 1825, 55; Beyer/Pennan: 2011, 107).2 He seems to say that she showed no signs of strange behavior or madness, although she claimed to be a prophetess. However, Anna was not permitted to address Synod and is never mentioned in the Acts or the synodical archive. In a letter to the Basel magistrate, signed by Sebastian Beck and Wolgang Mayer, the first report is confirmed: she claims that the Holy Spirit sent her here to put an end to the quarrels in the Netherlands and to give full account to the world of the gracious election, the calling of the Jews, and the coming judgement. She goes from one gentleman to the other, wishes to be heard by Synod, and has submitted a request to this end. She talks very sensibly about various other topics, but will be refused without a doubt.3

Because her request was indeed not granted, her story remained in the very margins of the paper trail of the National Synod. This study starts with a review of recent scholarship on Anna Walker. From there we move on to the main question: what expectation of conversion of the Jews was current in European protestant thought and how the absence of this notion in Dordrecht’s presentation of divine election can be understood (against the background of the exegesis of Romans 9 in polemical theology of the early seventeenth century). 

1 Anna [Walker]’s letter will be published in ADSND 2/1. See on her: van Lieburg: 2019, 233f. 2 ‘Item kam diesen Tag ein Weib aus Dännemark bürtig und in England wohnhaft, da ihr der Mann gestorben, gen Dordrecht, mit Vermelden, der heilige Geist hab ihr befohlen, auf den Synodum zu ziehen, und von der Prädestination, von der Bekehrung der Juden und dem jüngstem Gericht eigentlich Bericht zu geben; war wohl bekleidet und redete vernünftig’ (Graf: 1825, 55). 3 ‘Sunst ist dieser Tagen ein Weib, so sich für ein Prophetin aussgibt, auss Engelland herkommen, welche aber auss Denmarck birtig, die gibt fir der Hl. Geist habe sie hieher gesendet diese Streidtigkeidten in Niderland richtig zu machen und von der Gnadenwahl, von der Beruffung der Juden und von dem jungsten Gericht grundtlichen Bericht der Welt zuthun. Sie geht von einem Herren zum andern, begehret vor dem Synodo angehöret zu werden, hadt zu dem End ein Supplication ubergeben. Redet sunsten von allerhand Sachen gantz vernünftig, wirt aber zweiffelsohn abgewisen werden’ (Sebastian Beck and Wolgang Mayer in their first letter to majors and council of Basel, 20 November 1618; sign. Staatsarchiv Basel, Eidgenossenschaft E 64a, fol. 205).

The Absence of Israel in Dordt’s Doctrine of Divine Election

16.2

‘There Was Also a Prophetess, Anna …’

Quoting a line from the Gospel of Luke, chapter 2 verse 36, may be suggestive, but is intended to make us sensitive to the fact that according to Basel delegate Sebastian Beck the woman presented herself as ‘ein Prophetin’ and that she signed her letter to the Dordrecht magistrate (or: consistory) as simply ‘Anna’. Thanks to the research of Jürgen Beyer and Leigh Pennan we know more about this intriguing woman than earlier scholars who quoted Beck’s report (Kaajan: 1914, 14; Beyer/Pennan: 2011, 107–133). Anna was born in Copenhagen, Denmark, as daughter of Jørgen Busk (Busch) around 1570. She grew up in Lübeck, northern Germany. As an adult she lived in England (c. 1607), the Netherlands, in Lübeck (c. 1616) and again in Copenhagen (1620). Probably in England she married a man by the name of Walker. She was able to express herself in English as testified by the manuscript A Sweet Savor of woman, composed of the flowers of the Holy Scripture, for the most worthy amongst women, Anna the Queene, by hur handmaide A[nna ] W[alker] (1607), a sermon on Colossians 4:5. Note that Queen Anne, the wife of James I, was her name sake. On the basis of three letters which Anna Walker wrote to the Lübeck magistrate in 1616 Beyer and Pennan concluded that Low German was her primary language. However, also some Dutch influence on her language is noticed, suggesting that she spent more than a brief period in the Netherlands. ‘This is particularly evident when Walker quotes scripture, apparently from memory. In most cases, she appears to rely on a Dutch translation, primarily the so-called Deux-Aes Bible of 1562’, using Low German spelling (2011, 115). Both in her sermon and in the letters Anna Walker quotes many Bible verses and does not refer to other sources. Especially the Lübeck letters show Anna as an itinerant prophetess who felt compelled to announce Christ’s second coming for the year 1621. Christ would come in a spiritual way and create his kingdom in the hearts of the faithful before his last and final coming (referring to Ezekiel 37:24–26). Walker seems to have been part of a chiliastic movement with strong eschatological expectations, especially for the years 1621–1623 (Beyer/Pennan: 2011, 122–128.4 This squares with the summary of her words by Sebastian Beck that she spoke ‘of gracious election, of the calling of the Jews and of the final judgment’. A spiritual reign of Christ would precede the imminent judgment. The conversion of the Jews (on the basis of Romans 11:26) is not mentioned in the Lübeck letters, but fits into a chiliastic expectation. Driven by her prophetic spirit Anna Walker saw the National Synod of

4 According to a later Danish Church history it was reported that ‘Anna Brusch, welche eine Zeitlang in Engelland gewesen’ was imprisoned in 1620 after she had predicted that the king would die within a few months and that soon afterward the end of the world would come (o.c., 109).

245

246

Erik A. de Boer

the reformed churches of the Low Countries as a platform to deliver her message.5 Swiss delegate Beck also heard her say that the Holy Spirit had sent her to the Netherlands ‘to set the quarrels straight’. Although the perspective of predestination (‘der Prädestination’, ‘die Gnadenwahl’) probably was not at the center of Walker’s vision, Christ’s expected reign of grace was. Was there a special interest in the Jewish people in Denmark, which might have influenced Anna Busk? A possible source of such formative influence is the commentary on Romans by Niels Hemmingson (1513–1600). His exposition may have stimulated preaching and discussion on the Jewish people in Christian doctrine. The reformer of Denmark starts his exposition of Romans 11:25 by noting that Paul calls God’s counsel in the rejection of the Jews and the acceptation of the gentiles a mysterium (Hemmingius: 1562, 405).6 He does so, according to Hemmingson, because Israel’s carnal understanding cannot grasp why the promises of the Messiah to the seed of Abraham do not pertain to the Jewish people only. Therefore Paul calls that multitude of heathens, converted by the gospel, the fullness of the nations. When the apostle adds Sic totus Israel salvabitur, this is explained differently. Hemmingsen describes first this exposition: ‘there are people who understand this saying of the conversion of the Jews in the very last period before judgment day and they think a vast multitude of them is called “all Israel” as a hyperbole.’ The other exposition, which he himself clearly favors, takes Israelem totum as the catholic Church in which Jews and gentiles shall be assembled.7 Hemmingson ends his brief exposition – on behalf of those who favor the first possible explanation – with the suggestion ‘that we commit this whole mystery on the conversion of the Jews to God’ (totum hoc de convertendis Iudaeis mysterium). While this important Danish commentary shows an awareness of a certain expectation regarding the conversion of the Jews, it does not advertise it. The itinerary of Anna Busk’s early years suggests that we turn to England for further influences. In 1577 an edition of Hemmingson’s commentary on Romans had appeared in London. Before turning to the issue of the conversion of Israel in biblical exposition in Britain as influence on Anna Walker, a brief glance backwards to the Augustinian tradition may be helpful. The Church father Augustine had written a brief line on the conversion of the Jews at the end of the chapter on the last judgment in De civitate Dei. ‘In connection with that judgment the following events shall come to pass, as we have learned: Elias the Tishbite shall come; the Jews shall believe; Antichrist shall persecute; Christ shall judge; the dead shall rise; the good and 5 Another example of people with a message, seeking an ecclesiastical platform, in: de Boer: 2012, 97f. 6 In 1577 an edition of Hemmingius’ commentary on Romans appeared in London. 7 ‘Alii Israëlem totum, Ecclesiam catholicam ex Iudaeis et gentibus congregandam interpretantur, ut supra ostensum est. […] Haec sententia verior esse videtur, et confirmatur tota huius disputationis serie’ (Hemmingius: 1562, 406).

The Absence of Israel in Dordt’s Doctrine of Divine Election

the wicked shall be separated; the world shall be burned and renewed’ (XX.30). The Latin text is even more staccato, enumerating without verbs which events are to come: ‘Helian Thesbiten, fidem Iudaeorum, …’ (Augustine: 1955, 758). That, however, is briefly and even ‘with hesitation’ (Ten Boom: 2002, 221). It is through this famous work that such expectation of a conversion of the Jews at the end of time may have been transmitted during the Middle Ages. The important biblical commentary Glossa ordinaria, which had collected the exposition of the Church fathers, contained another, more elaborate passage on Romans 11, verse 11. When the Jews are scattered throughout the world as a testimony that the prophecies of Christ were true – that they may be jealous of them. This has often happened, and it will happen more fully at the end of that age, when the Jews will imitate Christians by having faith in Christ. Then the hand of Moses will be called back to his bosom [Ex 4:7]; then our Moses will return to his mother and brothers [Ex. 2:9–11; 4:18] (Augustine: 1955, 758).

This beautiful passage is rooted in the exposition of Moses as a type of Christ and prepared in the Gloss on the book of Exodus. Since the print of the Glossa ordinaria by Rusch in Strasbourg in 1480/81 this exegesis and expectation was transmitted to the sixteenth century. We take a final example of biblical exegesis on the eve of the Reformation from Dionysius the Carthusian, who was born as Denis van Leeuwen in Rijckel (1402–1471). In his In omnes beati Pauli epistolas commentaria, which were also published during the sixteenth century, he commented on Romans 11:26: ‘“all Israel”’, that is the whole people of the Jews, “shall be saved” by believing in Christ. This will happen around the end-term of the world, when Elijah and Enoch shall preach, who will convert the then surviving Jewish people when the evil of Antichrist is revealed’ (Dyonisius Carthisianus: 1555, 69).

How was this tradition of expectation received in reformed Europe and, especially, in the Low Countries at the beginning of the seventeenth century?

16.3

‘… And in this Way All Israel Shall Be Saved’

There is clear evidence of eschatological expectation, also regarding the conversion of the Jews, from Anna Walker’s years in England. Reformation studies point to Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli as sources of inspiration in this regard (Van Elderen: 1992, 134). Vermigli, invited by Thomas Cranmer, worked in Oxford during the reign of Edward VI (1547–1553). Bucer, exiled from Strasbourg, found

247

248

Erik A. de Boer

refuge there until his death (1549–1551). Both men published commentaries on St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Vermigli cast his Oxford lectures on Romans of the years 1551–1552 into a commentary, which was published with delay in 1558 and also translated into English in 1568. Bucers commentary on Romans was published in 1536. A further edition appeared in 1562, of which many copies are found in England (Seebass: 2005, 155). On the ‘partial blindness’ of Israel Vermigli says that this may point either ‘at the remnant of Israel that is saved, or it may be referred unto the time’, that is the future (Vermigli: 1558, 506f; Vermigli: 1568, f. 360; cf. Shute: 2004, 159–176). He further explains that the word ‘fullness’ means ‘a definite and an appointed multitude’, so that ‘amongst the Gentilles shoulde be gathered a wonderfull great Churche’. Vermigli proceeds with the exposition of Romans 11:26: ‘as also all Israell is to be taken for a greate nomber of the Hebrues amongst whome Christe shoulde be publikelye acknowledged’. He teaches a particular election (‘a definite and appointed multitude’), while pointing at the same time at a representative sum of the elect (‘a definite universality’). He is aware that some expositors take ‘all Israel’ as the people of God gathered both out of the Gentiles and also of the Jews, even until the end of the world. They do not expect an abundance of Jewish converts However, counters Vermigli, the daily conversion of some Jews was no ‘mystery’ to the early Church of Rome. Already the prophets spoke not of some individual Jews, but of the multitude of the people of the Jews (Vermigli: 1568, f. 360). ‘Israel’ is thus not meant allegorically. Many of the Church Fathers read Romans 11 ‘this way that, the fulnes of the Gentils being entred in, the Jewes also shall returne unto Christ’ (with reference to Chrysostom, Hilary, Gennadius, and Augustine). But how does this square with Jesus’ rhetorical question: when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth (Luke 18:8)? Vermigli answers that the Antichrist will do his utmost to subvert the elect, but Christ shall conquer him with the spirit of his mouth. ‘Maybe then the Jews shall return again and acknowledge their Messiah, and shall confirm that the Gentiles wavered and were seduced’. Vermigli concludes his exposition by stating that it is not easy to judge which exposition has the most validity, but then ‘neither is the knowledge thereof necessary to salvation’. Still, he has a most outspoken interpretation of Romans 11:26, expecting a massive conversion of the Jewish people to Christ as their Messiah in the final days. Martin Bucer’s exposition of Romans 11:25–29 is more restrained. He starts with an enarratio, a paraphrase of that passage, consisting of four arguments why Christians from the gentiles should not look down upon the Jews. The first argument is the prophecy which the apostle voices concerning the return of the Jews (vaticinium de restituendis Iudaeis) (Bucer: 1536, 442–449). The statement of the passage as a whole is: ‘among the Jewish people remains until now God’s election, and the real posterity of the holy fathers’. “All Israel that shall be saved” (verse 26), ‘that is the whole people. And the reign of God shall flourish again in public, even

The Absence of Israel in Dordt’s Doctrine of Divine Election

though also then rejected ones from them will not be absent’ (Ubi enim plenitudo gentium ad Christum venerit, plenus scilicet ex gentibus electorum numerus, et Israel omnis, hoc est gens tota, salvabit, publique iterum regnum Dei apud eos florebit, quanquam etiam tunc non defuturi sunt ex eis repobi [Bucer: 1536, 442]). The doctrine of election thus qualifies the interpretation of totus Israel. The semen electionis that remains leads to the salvation of totus Israel. The enarratio of Romans 11:25–28 is followed by the interpretatio, where Bucer goes into more detail. He notes that some expositors take ‘all Israel’ as the one people of God which is an amalgam of Jews and gentiles. Bucer sees the plenitudio of the gentiles complemented by the totus of Israel in the one church of Christ, meaning ‘that very few of the gentiles remain outside the Church, and rarely someone from the Jews be shut out of salvation’ (Scriptura quia nos homines docet, humano nobis more loquit, eoque quod praedicit plenitudem Gentium ingressuram in Ecclesiam Christi, et totum Israelem servandum, nihil aliud praedicit quam fore, ut paucissimi ex Gentibus extra Ecclesiam maneant et rarissimus ex Iudaeis expers salutis sit [Bucer: 1536, 445]). While Bucer stresses that the conversion of many Jews to Christ leads to the salvation of Israel as a whole, he does not put this in eschatological perspective. In the early seventeenth century in England, however, various works appeared which exhibit more focus on a future conversion of the Jews. The monograph of R.J. van Elderen on the vision of the conversion of the Jews and the future of Israel among English protestants provides enough material to sketch the context of popular theology in which Anna – then – Walker – breathed. The first and fullest treatment on Israel is Andrew Willet (1562–1621), ‘On the universal and final calling of the Jews’ of 1590 (Willet: 1590; van Elderen: 1992: 127–134). Van Elderen calls this the most complete yet hardly studied work on this theme of eschatology. Already in the Old Testament Willet found evidence of a renewed calling of Israel and saw this confirmed in the New. Having analyzed Romans 11 in the third chapter of his book, he proceeded by collecting proof from the Church Fathers. Coming to his own age he refers to John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Peter Martyr, and Erasmus for support of his expectation of the conversion of the Jews at the end of time. He denied a return to an earthly kingdom in Palestine. Willet’s work is a specimen of Protestant expectant, non-chiliastic eschatology. In The Conversion of Salomon of 1613 John Dove (c.1560–1618) concluded on the basis of Romans 11:1 (‘Did God reject his people? By no means!’) that it is God’s purpose that the Jews will be called at the end of time. In The Revelation of St. John, published in Amsterdam in 1611, Thomas Brightman (1562–1607) also expressed his expectation of a coming general conversion of the Jews. In his Commentarie upon the most Divine Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans of 1614 Thomas Wilson (1563–1622) also taught ‘that the Jewes should in great number turne to Christ before the end of the world’ (Wilson: 1614, 965). That is the first reason why Paul

249

250

Erik A. de Boer

teaches us to expect the conversion also of the Jews, ‘by an apostolic oracle, or by his own testimony or rather by the testimony of God manifested to him, which is gravely set downe in verse 25’. Wilson’s commentary has the form of a dialogue between Timothy, asking the questions, and Silas providing the answers. Timothy asks: ‘What is the summe of this first reason, in verse 25?’ Silas answers: this: Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ (by the inspiration of the holy Ghost), being himselfe first taught that the Jewes should in great number turne to Christ before the end of the world, doeth affirme and propound it to be knowne of the church; therfor certainly and without all faile it must bee so.

The parts and members of the ‘mystery’ are that (first) Israel will be partially blinded, and that (secondly) until the fullness of the gentiles comes in, so that (thirdly) ‘at length all Israel shall be saved’ (Wilson: 1614, 965). Coming to the interpretation of ‘all Israel’, Timothy asks how this is meant. Silas answers: by ‘all Israel’ is meant ‘not every particular amongst them, but a great determinate number, namely the better and greater part of them’ (Wilson: 1614, 969). The dialogue on Romans 11:25 ends with the question: what is the doctrine from this? Answer: ‘that towards the end of the worlde, the nation of the Jewes shal be converted unto Christ, that they may believe in Christ, bee justified by faith, and bee saved’. Here Wilson points to the next two verses and also to Revelations 7:4ff, ‘which prophesie is literally to be understood of the Jewish conversion after Chrysostomes minde, because they are distinguished from the other nations, mentioned in verse 9’.8 Following Vermigli’s commentary on Romans various English preachers in the early seventeenth century clearly taught to expect the conversion of the Jewish people in great numbers as a mark of the end of times. Coming from England in the first decade of the seventeenth century, Anna Walker may very well have been influenced by this movement.

16.4

Remonstrants on Romans

What was the theological climate on Romans 9–11 in which Anna Walker found herself in Dordrecht in 1618? To my knowledge the expository patterns on Romans 9–11 in the Netherlands of the early seventeenth century have not yet been traced. For this paper I have chosen to confine myself to Remonstrant expositors.

8 Wilson ends his exposition of Romans 11:25 with a reference to and exposition of Revelations 21 as a vision not of a heavenly reality but of ‘that most pure Church that towards the end shall be gathered of Jewes and Gentiles’ on earth (Wilson: 1614, 970f).

The Absence of Israel in Dordt’s Doctrine of Divine Election

Carl Bangs calls the conflict in the Church of Amsterdam in 1593 on Jacobus Arminius’ sermons on Romans 9 ‘the first Arminian controversy’ (Bangs: 1998, 149). Fellow-minister Petrus Plancius raised objections, on which the consistory records inform us. It is especially from Arminius’ letter to Gellius Snecanus that we learn the former’s drift of his exegesis of Romans 9. The latter had published as Introduction to the ninth chapter of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Snecanus: 1596; cf. BLGNP, vol. 2, 214). Arminius responded to this publication in a long letter, which was published posthumously in 1609 (Arminius: 1609).9 ‘For when I saw that your idea of the scope of the Apostle and of the use of his principle arguments was the same as I had recently presented to my congregation in explaining the same chapter, I was greatly confirmed in that opinion […]’. Regarding Israel Arminius stated that Paul ‘had proposed a doctrine which necessarily included the rejection of the Jews to a very considerable extent, namely, righteousness and salvation are to be obtained by faith in Christ, not by the works of the law’ (Arminius: 1977, 527). This must be understood as: the rejection of nearly all the Jews (‘van meest alle de Joden’), that is by God, follows their rejection of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone. To summarize this work of Arminius, in William den Boer’s words: ‘the distinguishing feature of Arminius’ exegesis is that he considers that the overall scope of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, the justification by faith, should also govern the exegesis of chapters 9 through 11. Jacob is the type of those who seek to be justified by faith in Jesus Christ, while Esau stands for those who reject the gospel and try to be justified by their own works of the law’ (Den Boer: 2010, 15, 124). The Jews in Romans 9, arguing with the apostle Paul, are to Arminius the people of the New Testament period (and maybe of later Judaism). He does not address the Jewish people on his own times even though as minister in Amsterdam he must have been aware of a Jewish presence in the city. The next stage of this trajectory of exposition is the volume Acta et scripta synodalia, in which the Remonstrants collected their contributions to the Synod of Dordt, published in 1620. The three parts of this volumes also contain a discussion of Romans 9:13–33, followed by a ‘Clear Exposition of the Ninth Chapter of Romans’ (Explicatio dilucida capitis nona ad Romanos) of some hundred pages (Uyttenbogaert: 1620, 96–197). The ‘Clear Exposition’ has its place in the second part of the Acta et scripta synodalia, containing the scripta remonstrantium dogmatica, and follows the ‘declaration on the first article on the decree of predestination’ and the corresponding first syllabus of testimonies of the contra-remonstrant teaching. These sections are followed by a defence of the remonstrant position on the first article, in which various passages from Scripture are expounded, the fourth being

9 Another edition is: Rotterdam: Mattys Bastiaensen, [1610]. The letter was added in Latin to Arminius: 1612, 261-301. English translation in: Arminius: 1977, 527(–565).

251

252

Erik A. de Boer

Romans 9:13–33. Leading question is: does this passage teach an absolute and individual foreordination to either salvation or damnation? The answer is: God is true to his promises, ‘also to some believing Jews, albeit few, and – together with the Jews – to believing Gentiles, even though they are not Abraham’s offspring and have not served the Mosaic law, that they by a gracious vocation are regarded as his people’ (Uyttenbogaert: 1620, 77). It is intriguing that after a debunking discussion of the Contra-Remonstrant position of twenty five passages (pp. 69–95) another long and complete positive exposition of Romans 9 is added (pp. 96–192), ‘in which strongly and clearly is shown that the very same [chapter] does not at all produce what the ContraRemonstrants strive for in grounding the absolute predestination’, as the heading reads (Uyttenbogaert: 1620, 96).10 This straightforward Remonstrant exposition, however, offers no Israel theology whatsoever. Since from Romans 11 only a few verses are discussed briefly, no exposition of the verses which evoke the thought of a future conversion of the Jews is found. The ‘Clear Exposition’ has an appendix ‘in which is briefly proven that the apostle in chapters 9, 10, and 11 of the Letter to the Romans deals with the decree to justify, adopt and redeem both the faithful Jews and the Gentiles and, over against that, of the justice against the unfaithful who reject the sonship and the inheritance of eternal life, who stubbornly cling to the Mosaic service’.11 Our final stage in the trajectory of Remonstrant exposition is from 1649. Johannes Uyttenbogaert published a ‘Brief Exposition’ of Romans 9 over against the ‘predestinateurs’ of the Synod of Dordt (Uyttenbogaert: 1649). Also according to him Paul does not speak of election to eternal life or rejection unto death. In line with Romans 1–8 the following chapters treat God’s freedom to be merciful to other peoples next to Israel and to change the road of obedience to the law in Christ into a road of faith in Him. Briefly summarized, Romans 9 deals with ‘God’s plan to adopt as his people and to redeem all those who believe in Jesus, his Son, and obey him, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, without distinction. And on the other hand to reject and not count among his people all those who do not believe in Jesus and did not want to obey him, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, even though it seemed that earlier he adopted only the Jews as his people’ (Uyttenbogaert: 1649, 48).12 It is

10 On Romans 9:17 (on Pharoa) a long passage from Calvin’s commentary on the corresponding passage from Exodus (9:16) regarding the verb ‘raise’ (excitandi) is inserted (o.c., 144). 11 The heading reads:’Appendix, in qua breviter probatur Apostolum cap. 9, 10 et 11 Epistolae Romanos agere de decreto iustificandi, adoptandi et salvandi fideles tum Iudaeos tum Gentiles, et contra a iustitia, filiatione et haereditate vitae aeternae reiiciendi infideles, quique cultui Mosaico pertinaciter inhaerebant’ (Uyttenbogaert: 1620, 180). 12 The appendix to thee Korte verklaringe briefly touches on Romans 10 and 11 (in Acta et scripta, 186–197), but does not mention the expectation of a conversion of the Jews.

The Absence of Israel in Dordt’s Doctrine of Divine Election

telling that Uyttenbogaert only speaks of Paul and the ‘countrymen’ (lantslieden) of his days’ and does not mention the Jews in the Netherlands. At the very end of his exposition he adds a line on Romans 10–11: these chapters deal ‘with the wonderful, wise, merciful and just policy of God in this matter, especially in the rejection of the Jews because of their unbelief and on the calling on the Gentiles, and what appertains to that’ (Uyttenbogaert: 1649, 48). Our next section is focused on the Jews in the Netherlands of the early seventeenth century and brings us to a Remonstrant with a surprising glimpse of expectation of conversion of the Jews at the end of time.

16.5

The Truce and the Jews

Did the Dutch expositors of the Scriptures ever meet Jews in real life and be thus confronted with their existence? The history of the Jews in the Low Countries in the sixteenth century is marked by the decree of Charles V from January 1546 that all Jews should leave within a month. Since the Duke of Alva enforced this decree in 1570, no Jews remained in the Netherlands when the revolt began. Among the citizens who fled from Antwerp in 1585 and went north, however, were Marrano families who settled in cities like Amsterdam (Michman/Beem/Michman: 1999, 14f). In various cities Jewish families asked permission to reside. In his function as judicial adviser of Rotterdam, Hugo de Groot drafted an advice for the States of Holland and West-Friesland ‘regarding the Jews by descent and religion’ (1616). The influx of Jews in the cities is against the old placards, he stated, and leads to negotiated privileges which enrich individuals ‘without paying much attention to God’s honor and the common wealth’. Therefore general legislation is needed. Grotius first addresses the question if the Jews should be tolerated in the Netherlands. Secondly if their religion can be public. Finally, how it can be avoided that their presence and religious ceremonies cause trouble for the Christian religion and policy (de Groot: 1949, 107).13 De Groot’s premise is that unity of religion is the main strength of a state. Thus it is not wise to give access to people with so different ideas, ‘especially in a country where many people are bent on novelty and too eager delving in matters which are beyond human understanding, of which – God help us – there are already way too many in this country.’ A large section follows on the crimes of Jews against Christians, perpetrated throughout history. The main reason for these atrocities is ‘the general irreconcilable hatred of the Jews for the Christians.’ They were banished

13 See also Kromhout/Offenberg: 2019 (which could not yet be used for this paper).

253

254

Erik A. de Boer

from so many countries for good reason. The Jews took Jesus’ blood upon themselves and their children. In a surprising shifting of gears Grotius turns to grounds in Scripture and in the nature of true love that could plead for the admittance of Jews to our country and cities. The most important one is that always some Jews have converted to the true faith. This is according to what the prophets foretold that a remnant shall be saved. Immediately after this observation Grotius refers to Romans 11: moreover, the apostle Paul specifically said that in the end a general conversion of the Jewish people is yet to be expected, to which end God also in a miraculous way seems to preserve the Jewish nation among themselves and isolated from all other people, in order to demonstrate the certainty of his promises to them in his own time (de Groot: 1949, 110).

On the basis of this scriptural promise de Groot arrives at the conclusion: ‘For this individual and general conversion all Christians must do their utmost, which cannot happen if we cut off the Jew from the interaction with Christians. For how shall they believe without hearing, or hear without preaching’ (cf. Rom 10:14). Hospitality is a natural and Scriptural obligation. It is contrary to banishment, which is against nature. Regarding the Jews we should moreover remember Romans 9:4–5, quoted at length by de Groot.14 He also points out what Christians have in common with the Jews (different from Muslims) and how they can help us in the Hebrew language. ‘It is apparently God’s will that they live somewhere. Why then not here?’ This brings him finally to the intriguing claim: ‘the rule of the one religion cannot be practiced in this country. We have here many, and the least dangerous is the one that differs most.’ This influential Remonstrant spokesman, confronted with questions on the civil rights of Jews in the Netherlands, shows a remarkable expectation regarding the conversion of the Jews at the end of time.

16.6

The Synod of Dordt

The question remains if Anna Walker’s expectation of the conversion of the Jews could resonate in the context of the Synod of Dordt? The conclusion must be that neither the position of the Jews in the Netherlands nor the fierce debate on 14 ‘Sij zijn de kinderen Abrahams, Isaacs ende Jacobs, de Israeliten, der welcker is de aenneminge tot kinderen, de heerlickheijt, de verbonden, de wetgevinge, de Goodsdijenst ende beloften; der welcker zijn de voorvaderen ende vuijt de welcken Christus selffs is, nae den vleesche, de rechte bloetverwanten van de Apostelen en eerste leeraers van onse religie: jae de genen aen de welcken Godts Oraculen zijn vertrouwt’ (de Groot: 1949, 111).

The Absence of Israel in Dordt’s Doctrine of Divine Election

predestination offered fertile soil for an expectation for the Jewish people. Yet in the margin of theological debate in the Low Countries a seed from England was sown. W.J. op ‘t Hof pointed to an intriguing pamphlet from the year 1623, written by Henry Finch and translated from the English into Dutch: Een schoon Prophecye van de groote wederoprichtijnghe des Weirelts (A Beautiful Prophecy).15 In the Netherlands this seems to be the earliest writing on ‘The Great Restauration Or The Calling of the Jews’, as the original English title added. In fortysix short theses, divided in five chapters the author takes his reader through a detailed series of expected events. In the final days God will assemble a congregation from all tribes of Israel, although this does not pertain to every individual. The biblical prophecies provide information of the where and when, and on the enemies that have to be fought. In the end the Jewish church and republic will blossom. Finch refers to Romans 11:25ff and to Bucer’s exposition. This early popular publication points to a receptive readership, such as Anna Walker would have wanted to find at the eve of the Synod of Dordt. English puritanism, as op ‘t Hof noted, influenced the expectation concerning Israel in Dutch Protestantism (Op ‘t Hof: 1985, 44). Of course, a serious inquiry into the exposition of Romans 9–11 by the ContraRemonstrants and their authorities should balance the approach of this paper. For now it may suffice to point to the marginal notes on the translation, ordered by the States General of 1637, which say on ‘all Israel’ of Romans 11:25: ‘that is not a few, but a very large multitude and as it were the full Jewish nation’.16

16.7

Conclusion

In the end we have to realize that the Canons of Dordt are first and foremost the Iudicium […] de quinque docrinae capitibus in ecclesiis Belgicis controversis (‘Judgment on the Five Heads of Doctrine in Dispute in the Dutch Churches’), as the official title reads. They were not composed as a full and systematic exposition of all aspects of the doctrine of predestination. While salvation history is intoned in chapter I, no salvation historical account is developed. In the Canones Israel and the Jews, whether biblical-historical or contemporary, are hardly ever mentioned (only in Rejection of Errors IX of chapter I and in chapter 3/4, canon 5).17 The

15 Finch: 1621. Edition of the Dutch text in: op ‘t Hof: 1985, 35–45. 16 Het Nieuwe Testament (1657), Amsterdam: Weduwe Paulus van Ravensteyn, fol. 81 (‘Dat is niet eenige weynige, maer een seer groote meenighte ende gelijck als de gantsche Joodsche natie’). 17 Rejection of errors I.IX sets Deuteronomy 10:14–15 against the thesis that God sends the gospel more liberally to one nation than to the other, because that people is more worthy. That Old Testament Israel is in view is expressed in the objection: ‘For Moses denies this, addressing the people of Israel: …’ (Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 242f).

255

256

Erik A. de Boer

election or rejection of Israel are not specified, nor the notion of hardening (apart from Pharaoh). And while Romans 8–10 are frequently quoted, chapter 11 (apart from the doxology) remains closed. The big question, in the end, is: have we been posing the right questions? In his systematic-theological work on predestination Vermigli payed no attention to Israel at all, while in his exposition of Romans 11 he wrote at length on the future conversion of the Jews as a people (James III: 1998). But the exegetical and theological question regarding a future conversion of the Jews to Christ was not an issue between Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants. Both mentioned Israel only as the people of the Old covenant. It was from England that the hope for a future conversion of the Jews to Jesus came, also to be fostered in circles of the faithful in the Netherlands. If only the consistory, magistrate and Synod had overcome their prejudice against prophesying of women and listen to the perspective that Anna Walker had to add to their discourse…

Bibliography ADSND (2019), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (2/1), Christian Moser/Donald Sinnema/Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Arminius, Jacobus (1609), Copie van sekere brief eertijts gheschreven van Jacobo Arminio aen Gellium Snecanum, inhoudende, Een corte verclaringhe over het neghende Capittel tot den Romeynen, n.p.: n.n. Arminius, Jacobus (1612), Examen modestum libelli, quem D. Gulielmus Perkinsius, apprime doctus theologiae, edidit ante aliquot annos de praedestinationis modo et ordine, itemque de amplitudine gratiae divinae, Leiden: Godefridus Basson. Arminius, James (1977), The Writings of James Arminius, vol. 3, transl. James Nichols – W. R. Bagnall, Grand Rapids MI: Baker Book House. Augustine (1955), De civitate Dei, in: Corpus Christianorum series Latina XLVIII, Turnhout: Brepols. Bakhuizen van den Brink, J.N. (1976), De Nederlandse belijdenisgeschriften in authentieke teksten met inleiding en tekstvergelijkingen, 2nd ed., Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. Bangs, Carl (1998), Arminius. A study in the Dutch Reformation, Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Biografisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands Protestantisme (BLGNP), vol. 2, Kampen: Kok, 1983. Beyer, Jürgen/Penman, Leigh T.I. (2011), The Petitions of a “Supposed Prophetesse”. The Lübeck Letters of Anna Walker and their Signifinance for the Synod of Dordt. A Linguistic and Contextual Analysis, in: Aza Goudriaan/Fred van Lieburg (ed.), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), Brill’s Series in Church History 49, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 107–133 Bucer, Martin (1536), Metaphrases et enarrationes perpetuae epistolarum D. Pauli Apostoli, vol. I: in Epistolam ad Romanos, Strasbourg: Wendelin Rihel.

The Absence of Israel in Dordt’s Doctrine of Divine Election

Carthusianus, Dionysius (1555), In omnes beati Pauli epistolas commentaria, Paris: Audoënus Faruus. De Boer, E.A. (2012), The Genevan School of the Prophets. The congrégations of the Company of Pastors and its Influence in 16th Century Europe [Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 513], Genève: Librairie Droz. De Groot, Hugo (1949), Remonstrantie nopende die ordre dije in de landen van Hollandt ende Westvrieslandt dijent gestelt op de Joden, ed. J. Meijer, Amsterdam: n.n. Den Boer, William (2010), God’s Twofold Love. The Theology of Jacob Arminius (1559–1609), Reformed Historical Theology 14, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Finch, Henry (1623), Een schooner Prophecye, van de groote wederoprichtijnghe des Weirelts, n.p.: n.n. Graf, Matthias (ed.) (1825), Beyträge zur Kenntniss der Geschichte der synode von Dordrecht. Aus Doktor Wolgang Meyer’s und Antistes Johann Jakob Breitinger’s Papieren gezogen, Basel. Hemmingius, Nicolaus (1562), Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, Lypsia: n.n. James III, Frank A. (1998), Peter Martyr Vermigli and Predestination. The Augustinian Inheritance of an Italian Reformer, Oxford Theological Monographs, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kaajan, H. (1914), De pro-acta der Dordtsche Synode, Rotterdam. Kromhout, David/Offenberg/Adri (ed.) (2019), Hugo Grotius’s Remonstrantie of 1615. Facsimile, Transliteration, Modern Translations and Analysis, Leiden/Boston: Brill. Michman, Jozeph/Beem, Hartog/Michman, Dan (1999), Pinkas. Geschiedenis van de joodse gemeenschap in Nederland, Amsterdam-Antwerpen: Contact. Op ‘t Hof, W.J. (1985), Een pamflet uit 1623 betreffende de bekering der Joden, in: Nederlands Archief voor de Kerkgeschiedenis 65, 35–45. Seebass, Gottfried (ed.) (2005), Martin Bucer. Bibliographie, Gütersloh: Güterloher Verlagshaus. Shute, Dan (2004), And all Israel Shall Be Saved: Peter Martyr and John Calvin on the Jews According to Romans, chapters 9, 10 and 11, in: Frank A. James III, Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations: Semper reformanda, Studies in the history of Christian Thought 115, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 159–176. Snecanus, Gellius (1596), Isagoge in nonum caput Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos, [Leeuwarden]: n.n. Ten Boom, Wessel (2002), Profetisch tegoed. De Joden in Augustinus’ De Civitate Dei, Kampen: Kok. Uyttenbogaert, Johannes (1620), Acta et scripta synodalia Dordracena ministrorum remonstrantium in foederate Belgio [Johannes Uijttenbogaert (ed.)], Harderwijk [Antwerpen]. Uyttenbogaert, Johannes (1649), Korte verklaringe over ‘t negenste Capittel van den brief des apostels Pauli tot den Romeynen, ‘s-Gravenhage: Anthony Jansz. Tongerloo.

257

258

Erik A. de Boer

Van Elderen, R.J. (1992), Toekomst voor Israël. Een theologisch-historisch onderzoek naar de visie op de bekering der Joden en de toekomst van Israël bij engelse protestanten in de periode 1547–1670, tegen de achtergrond van hun eschatologie, Kampen: Mondiss. Vermigli, Peter Martyr (1558), In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos […] commentarii doctissimi, Basel: Petrus Pernas. Vermigli, Peter Martyr (1568), Most learned and Fruitfull Commentaries of D. Peter Martir Vermilius Florentine, Professor of Divinitie in the schole of Tigure, upon the episle of S. Paulto the Romanes, London: John Day. Wilson, Thomas (1614), A Commentarie upon the most Divine Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans, London: W. Jaggerd.

Part C: Dordt’s Church Order and its Reception

Johannes Smit

17.

The Church Order of Dordrecht 1619

Order for a New Dispensation

Abstract The focus of this article is mainly on the first part of the first sentence of the church order of Dordrecht 1619. What does this sentence indicate of the theology (church law or polity) of the church order within the broader framework of the church order? This article contributes to a much needed theological deepening of the reformed perspective on the church order within the ongoing development of a theologically (in casu: a church law) accountable view of the church order of Dordrecht 1619. To do justice to this encompassing aspect of the proposed theme of this article, however in a limited way, the approach here is to formulate independent points of view which illuminate different aspects of reformed church law underlying the church order of Dordt 1619.

17.1

Introduction

In the Church Order Tradition of Dordt 1619 there were, ever since the second half of the previous century calls from different church law scholars for a deepening of our knowledge of the foundations of the discipline. There still have not been many principle studies published about church law. Since Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676) published his Politica Ecclesiastica (1663–1676), the Dutch church law scholar, F.L. Rutgers (1836–1917), was one of the first to develop these thoughts in the times of turmoil and church schism during the Doleantie (1882) in the Netherlands. One may think for example of Rutgers’ reaction against the church law view of the German scholar Rudolph Sohm (1841–1917), who maintained that the essence of the church is spiritual and the essence of the law is worldly. “Das Wesen der Kirche ist geistlich das Wesen des Rechts ist Weltlich.” (Sohm: 1892, 1). In his “Het kerkrecht in zoover het de Kerk met het recht in verband brengt” (1894), Rutgers presented for the era an extraordinary well prepared answer to Sohm, ponating the reformed perspective on the law and order of the church as an institution of Christ. In the same vein of church law thinking H. Bouwman provided a systematic explication of reformed church law. This contribution is the core of what became known as the so-called Doleantie-church law (Doleantie-kerkrecht). Throughout

262

Johannes Smit

the twentieth century a faint stream of church law contributions saw the light, sometimes in the form of commentaries on the vast amount of church orders which had developed through schism in the Church Order Tradition of Dordt 1619. In most instances it provides valuable information to the church law practitioner, but cannot be presented as studies about the fundamental aspects of reformed church law. However, the Dutch church law scholars of the previous generations distinguished themselves mainly as church law historians of the sixteenth century Reformation, amongst whom, and second to none the Apeldoorn’s church historian and church politist, Willem van’t Spijker (1926-) with his focus on Martin Bucer (1491–1551), John Calvin (1509–1564) and the father of the sixteenth century Reformation, Martin Luther (1483–1546). Yet, the discipline, church law, seems to have seen revivals throughout history, especially in times when the churches were experiencing change and internal schism. A comparable situation developed in South Africa, but also in other countries. As the Dutch reformed people in previous centuries emigrated to other countries after turmoil in the churches in the Netherlands, i.e. the Afscheiding (1834) and the Doleantie (1886), the same pattern of church schism showed up in the designated countries shortly afterwards. Yet, with regard to the development of church law, more or less the same pattern exists when compared to that of the Netherlands. However, there is in general a remarkable difference between the approach to church law in the Netherlands and to that in South Africa. The Dutch seem to have a strong historical approach to church law studies. It can be typified, as it was already hinted above, to a historical-theological approach to church law (cf. in this regard the recent publication of A. van Harten-Tip’s doctoral thesis, De Dordtse Kerkorde 1619). Since about the middle of the previous century the reformed church law approach in South Africa developed more or less as a theological-historical one to church law, with a strong emphasis on independent exegesis and an integration of the church law developments of the sixteenth century Reformation. However, these contributions represent a very small stream in reformed church law development and are mainly only available in Dutch and Afrikaans. An exception to the rule was the publication of Pieter Coertzen’s book, Gepas en ordelik: ‘n teologiese verantwoording van die orde in en vir die kerk (1991), and the book of Leo Koffeman, Het Goed recht van de kerk (2009), which were both also published in English. However, much research can and should still be done to develop the foundations of reformed church law. This article gives a perspective on the church order of Dordt 1619, mainly as seen from a reformed perspective in South Africa. The emphasis is on the church order as an order for a new dispensation. With the resurrection of Christ the dispensation has commenced wherein the believers live by the Word and the Spirit. The believers are incorporated in the body of Christ to live according to the order of this new dispensation. Therefore the following question may be asked: how does the church order guide the believers to live by the Word and the Spirit? Different answers to this

The Church Order of Dordrecht 1619

question may be suggested from within the reformed tradition. An indication of the diversity within the church law of the broader reformed tradition finds expression in the book of D. de Vos, with the title Hervormd en gereformeerd kerkrecht Een vergelijking (2017), a comparison of these traditional Dutch church law traditions consisting of 972 pages. A question may also be asked to what extend the different church law systems within the broader framework of reformed church law were influenced by, for example Collegialism or the development of “club”-law as it finds expression from the side of the English speaking world. The secularising effect on the church is common ground in reformed church law. With regard to the latter possible influences on the church and church law are mentioned, but because of the time and space restrictions not expanded upon (cf. Smit: 2018). However, this article indicates that the church order of Dordt 1619 promotes the proclamation of the Word as guide for believers to live by the Word and the Spirit. The church order of Dordt 1619 adheres in this regard to the basic structure for the order of the church revealed by Scripture. The latter may be summarised as an order of the office bearers (the so-called munus triplex), responsible for the ministry of the Word according to their callings. The theme comprises different aspects fundamental to reformed church law, which may by itself justify an expansive explanation. Yet, the focus is here mainly on the first part of the first sentence of the church order. In this way this article contributes to the much needed, but ongoing development of a church law (theological) accountable view of the church order of Dordrecht 1619. To do justice to this encompassing aspect of the proposed theme of this article, however in a limited way, the approach here is to formulate independent points of view which illuminate different aspects of reformed church law underlying the church order of Dordt 1619. 1. The church order uses the term “church” in the same New Testament meaning of the term as the “local church”; the church order is concerned with the good order in the church of Christ in this dispensation, where the church finds a visible expression and needs to live by the order which is consistent with its origin and nature locally. The church order does not distinguish between the church and the congregations and does not introduce any regulations which make it possible to view the church assemblies as permanent church bodies or even as an expression of the church. The relationship between the churches mainly finds expression in the churches gathering in assemblies (Du Plooy: 1979; 1982). However, the assemblies come together on the basis of an agenda which finds its origin in the local churches. Issues which could not be dissolved by the local churches are attended to in the church assemblies. However, the assemblies do not have any permanent status. They dissolve when their agenda is concluded. The aim of the church order in this regard is to give expression to the way in which the local churches support one another in the government of the church. Yet, it is done on the basis of a spiritual bond between the churches and not of an institutionalised form of the church. H.

263

264

Johannes Smit

Bouwman emphasised the meaning of the local church for the reformed church order tradition of Dordt 1619, by calling it a “primordial” principle of reformed church government (Bouwman: 1970, 432). This approach of the church order is in line with the reformed exegesis of the time and has been applicable since about the first half of the twentieth century. Today the situation has changed dramatically. The order of the day comprises permanent church structures, synodical offices, permanent moderamina and their committees, permanent commissions of synods, etcetera. In the reformed world today we have to deal with a centralised concept of the church and there is merit in the call to get new focus on the local church. Where does the centralised concept of church find its origin in the church order tradition of Dordt 1619, and should it be accepted? Without a doubt, it became the warp-and-woof in most church communities that trace their church law origins back to the synod of Dordt 1619. The origin of this issue can then, at least from a South African perspective, be traced back to developments in reformed church law in the first half of the twentieth century in the Netherlands. At the core there were two disputes about church law, which can be typified as a dispute about the development of a new church law by the responsible church law scholars of the time. 2. It is remarkable that the church order does not begin with the organisation of the “church” – at least not in a widely accepted contemporary view of the church – by proposing a set of rules (constitution) to regulate the relationship between the so-called “church” and its different “congregations”. The church order starts with the regulation of the proclamation of the Word. In this regard the church order links up with the New Testament revelation of the kingdom of God. With the coming of Christ, He did not found a church or a religious society, but through His word and deeds, the central theme of His ministry (proclamation) revealed the kingdom of God. From the Gospels and the New Testament letters it becomes clear that the church is the result of the proclamation of the Word, i.e. the church is the fruit of the proclamation of the kingdom of God. In Paul’s letters we find a continuation of this theme. In Romans 10 the apostle emphasises the importance of the proclamation of the Gospel: “so then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom 10:17). A twofold purpose of the proclamation of the kingdom of God can be distinguished: the church is founded on the basis of the proclamation, yet, simultaneously, the proclamation of the Word has the purifying quality by which the church is built up to perfection (Eph. 4:11), viz. to be the salt and light in their mutual relationships and in society, as well as a city on a hill which cannot be hidden. In this process of sanctification the responsibility of the church to exercise priestly freedom to be witness to the Gospel, finds expression. From this perspective it is not necessary to involve the kingdom of God anew with the church as it is sometimes claimed in the contemporary missional theology. Witness of the kingdom is the bread and butter of the believers who are founded on and built

The Church Order of Dordrecht 1619

up by the proclamation of the kingdom. The new order (dispensation) that God provides with the coming of Jesus Christ, lives by the proclamation of the Word. 3. It is well-known that Calvin based his view of church order on 1 Corinthians 14:40: “let all things be done decently and in order.” The reformed tradition based their views traditionally on the path set by Calvin. It was with remarkable insight in Scripture that Calvin did not limit his view of order to a specific church order document or even a law for the churches. Calvin had a very broad view of the New Testament concept of order. In his view of order, the offices of the church, the ministry of the sacraments, the working of the Holy Spirit, etcetera, all find their organic place. For Calvin the order of the church is organised around the proclamation of the Word by called ministers of the Word (Calvin: 1991). However, through the proclamation of the Word a new order becomes visible in this world: the order of the kingdom of God which finds expression in this dispensation around the table of Holy Communion. There, the church as citizens of the kingdom of God, becomes visible (cf. Van’t Spijker: 1980, 7–10). In Calvin’s view of order there should be differentiation between the church as the expression of a new dispensation and the order of the church as the formal document which gives expression to the structuring and administration of this new order in the world, which is the church as the body of Christ. This perspective on the church order concurs with the New Testament use of the term “order”, which does not exclude the idea of a liturgical order, but rather gives expression to a quality of the church’s life. Order in the New Testament has the meaning of being reinstated to function in a person’s God- given place. Within this framework the church order has the character of an order which, as a regulatory tool of the church, gives expression to the opposite of “turmoil, tumult, chaos, division, quarrel and discord” (Smit: 1984, 6–19). The New Testament idea of order is also, viewed from a positive evaluation of the term, pertaining to “decent, becoming, fitting, appropriate and honest” (Smit: 1984, 6–19). It has the quality of building up, and while order is a gift of Christ to his church, the church also has the responsibility to maintain the order. The New Testament concept of order should be understood as a fruit of the peace which is realized to man because of the salvation in Jesus Christ (1 Cor 14, 40; Smit: 1984, 19). While Calvin never spelled out his specific view on the linguistic meaning and content of the concept of order, Book four of the Institutes of the Christian Religion is a clear explication of the New Testament content of order. However, Calvin did not, in most of his writings, refer to a church order as a regulatory instrument of the church. He made use of the term “law”. Yet, he sets the boundaries for his use of the term by indicating that the only laws which may apply in the church should be derived from Scripture. For Calvin church government is in toto extradited by Christ through His Word and Spirit (cf. Calvin: 1991, 4.2.4; 4.3.1, 2, 7, 8, 14; 4.7.23; 4.8.1–4, 7–8). Even the regulations which are regarded as important by the church in her specific context may not be contrary to Scripture, otherwise it

265

266

Johannes Smit

has no legitimacy for the church (cf. Calvin: 1991, 4.10.30). However, the point of continuation for this explication is that the church embodies a new dispensation and it finds expression in the order which is applicable to the government of the church. 4. This accentuates an important difference between the church order and any worldly regulatory system. The church is a community which lives by the proclamation of the Word, i.e. from man’s perspective the church lives by faith – the order it lives by, is an order of belief. But church law and church order cannot in this context be equated with force or coercion. It is an order which gives expression to a form of government based on persuasion by the proclaimed Word. It requires submission to the Word on the basis of the proclaimed Word and not a reaction based on the fear of punishment. The ontological difference between a law and the order of the church, therefore, directs to a fundamental difference in meaning as far as the application of the church order and a law is concerned. The church order requires obedience not because of coercion, but on the basis of free belief; the church order does not force itself on the believers, but directs and regulates the believers’ obedience to the Word. In the application of the church order the difference between the spiritual and worldly government finds its expression in that it goes to the core of the difference between church law and worldly law (cf. Smit: 1985). The application of the church order is determined by belief, conversion, and repentance to God. The norm the church order directs the believers to and as a ministerium adheres to is the love for God and the neighbour. It is the ultimate goal for the application of church government. Worldly law and corporate management techniques have no interest in these aims of the church order, but require retribution – here mainly referring to the criminal law meaning of the term “retribution”, with consideration of the cosmonomic philosophy’s much broader application of the term, – to harmonise the different interests of the parties which are involved with the relevant predicament needing attention. 5. It seems that the relationship between church and state, but more specifically, the relationship between church law and civil law, remains one of the most important fields of research and a field constantly submitted to the possibility of change. The main controversy which was to be decided at the Synod of Dordt 1619 was the doctrinal difference between the Arminians (the supporters of Jacob Arminius), and the reformed-minded, i.e. the question of free will and predestination. Yet, the lines of division also reflected in the different groups’ views of the church-state relationship. The Arminians were in favour of the system of state patronage of the church and did not see a need to change the prevailing system. The reformedminded people’s view of the relationship between church and state, namely that there is one kingdom with two jurisdictions which find expression in state (worldly) and church (spiritual) government respectively, was in line with John Calvin’s views (cf. van’t Spijker: 1987, 24, 25). They were in this regard inclined to support a

The Church Order of Dordrecht 1619

separation between church and state. However, at the time of approval of the church order, the synod accepted the ideal situation without state interference in the church order, but with insight into the socio-political situation in the early seventeenth century Netherlands and the position of the church, and as such they did not bring the issue to ahead. The difference in approach is however clear: for the reformedminded, church law is a discipline within the theological encyclopaedia; it is the sole responsibility of the church because it is by nature spiritual. It differs, as Karl Barth commented on in regard to the difference between church law and state law, in its ontological basis toto coelo from worldly law (Barth: 1955, §67:4, 822). Yet, it seems that church law does not escape the label of an ambivalent discipline which should be situated somewhere between theology and the juridical sciences (Koffeman: 2009, 28, 91ff). The animosity to law in post-modern societies has not yet found a new course in the post-postmodern era. However, this animosity towards order also reflects in a reaction against the order of the church as representing authority. a. The Anglican professor of law, Norman Doe, indicates in his book, Christian Law Contemporary principles (2014), that churches across the spectrum make use of the term “law” to describe their regulatory systems or aspects thereof. This includes numerous church communities within the reformed tradition in distinction from other church law traditions like the Presbyterian tradition and congregationalism. According to Doe, Christians are prolific law makers. However, the law of the church differs in comparison to other forms of law, specifically, because it is the law of the church and it should have a theological basis. Therefore law and theology combine in the discipline of church law. The Church has the responsibility to provide a theological basis to church law. This view entails that theology and law, respectively, are two different academic fields. However, in church law they are combined to function as a unity for the church. For Doe, church law can be described in this sense as applied theology. Yet, an important reason why church law should be law is, according to Doe, that the only way to coerce people in a legitimate way, is by the application of law. Church law re-garbs the law to give expression to the specific needs and functions which the church ascribes to it. b. There is a contemporary viewpoint in reformed theology that church law is the law of the church in a juridical meaning of the term “law”. A popular expression of this approach is that church law is only responsible for the creation of processes and procedures for the internal functioning of the church. Church law has nothing to say for church and theology; it is from that perspective that it has been denounced to be the church’s expression of a degraded analogy to the juridical discipline, and administrative law. Another contemporary approach to church law is to relativize the discipline as functional only with regard to its responsibility of providing a framework for church actions as it is expected in the context of the church. The church order is therefore submitted to a process

267

268

Johannes Smit

of change according to the demands of the context. This constant change of the church order seems to reflect upon the church’s attempts to be ever-relevant within a changing context. However, this approach de facto disengages with the idea of a normative regulatory church instrument, whether it is called an order, law, regiment, or whatever. The view that these documents are normative and that the actions of the community (in casu: the church) can be adjudicated by this standard, is rejected in principle. Instead, the context of the church is elevated to a norm, and the context becomes the de facto standard for the actions and different engagements of the church.1 . c. The law is presented as an important crutch for church law; without the law it would be rather difficult for church law to function in society with its excessive focus on procedures, human rights, etcetera. There are different variations to this view. Sometimes church law is situated in an ambiguous position between theology and law, or it is clearly regarded as a discipline of either law or theology. Yet, the presupposition seems to be that church law can only be normative if it has the same characteristics as civil law, which may even, inter alia, include the authority of coercion (see above [i]). Therefore the political system is regarded as an important point of orientation for the church order (Van den Broeke: 2018, 6 ff). However, church law history shows us that wherever the ontological basis of church law is not clearly based on Scriptural and confessional premises, it easily becomes absorbed by the dominant legal culture in a specific jurisdiction. The independence of church law in comparison to state law and, in our time, corporate law and the management sciences, becomes tainted and dissolves sooner rather than later (Smit: 2018). 6. In the reformed tradition of Dordt, reformed church law scholars agree, without hesitation, that there is a preference to refer to a church order rather than a church law. Yet, part of many reformed churches in this tradition’s regulatory systems entails sets of church regulations which may in nature rather compare to the regulations of societies and civil corporations. This is possibly related to the development of and acceptance of corporate business systems and the management sciences by church communities (cf. Smit: 2018). The influence of these developments upon the church over the spectrum of church law traditions, cannot be ignored. This contribution focuses on the first part of the first sentence of the church order of Dordt 1619 to elucidate the question which was stated above. In an organic way it serves as a limitation of the theme. The first line of the church order of Dordt 1 In the reformed tradition these views are expressed in different fields of Practical Theology, especially in the focus area “building up the church” (Gemeentebou). The sources are too much to calculate. Schalekamp gives in the Introduction to his thesis a valuable summary of some of these views on church polity (cf. Schalekamp: 2005).

The Church Order of Dordrecht 1619

1619 clearly states that it is the aim of the church order to maintain good order in the church of Christ. This view of the church order should be understood in relationship with the view of John Calvin. 7. Under the supervision of H.H. Kuyper, Marius Bouwman wrote a dissertation about Voetius’s views of the authority of the synods (Voetius over het gezag der synoden (1937); cf. de Vos: 2017, 446–448). This dissertation placed the Doleantie and the discipline of church law at the centre of the theological discussion of the day. Bouwman was of the opinion that Voetius did not, as the church law of the Doleantie, give the dominant place to the local church. He rejected the Doleantie’s interpretation of Voetius in favour of the view that Voetius gave the authority to synods to intervene in internal matters of the local church. Some of the theses he formulated, published with his dissertation, were inter alia the following: “er bestaat geen principieel verschil tusschen de meerdere vergadering (classis en synode) en den kerkeraad der plaatselijke kerk”, and “De meerdere vergadering heeft niet een mindere of lagere macht, doch een meerdere of hoogere macht dan de kerkeraad.” Bouwman qualified his view by indicating that a synod only has the authority to intervene with a local church if the local church does not submit to matters which are in contradiction with the doctrine of the church. This gave rise to an intense discussion about Bouwman’s dissertation in which S. Geijdanus wrote a series of articles to give an explication of Voetius’s view of the authority of the synod. Greijdanus, a child of the Doleantie, was of the opinion that Bouwman’s interpretation of Voetius was not only wrong, but a de facto rejection of the Doleantie (Greijdanus: 1938b).2 This history played out against a development of the views of the reformed church law scholars of the time. Greijdanus also wrote a series of articles against the development of what he indicated as a new church law (Greijdanus 1938a).3 Greijdanus showed that the well-known church law scholars of the time, i.e. H.H. Kuyper, H. Bouwman, and Joh. Jansen, had changed their viewpoint about the authority of the synods to a perspective which was in line with the views of M. Bouwman. Greijdanus ended his series of articles against the new church law, with the following remark: wanneer dit uit de Heilige Schrift en de grondbeginselen van het Gereformeerde kerkrecht degelijk bewezen wordt, mogen, en moeten, de meerdere vergaderingen ook alles doen, wat de kerkeraden moeten doen, en nog meer: censuur toepassen, personen tot het ambt roepen, dienaren des Woords zenden, mogelijk ook verplaatsen, de finantiën der

2 The eight articles of S. Greijdanus: 1938, “Het wezen der meerdere kerkelijke vergaderingen volgens Voetius”, are available at www.kerkrecht.nl/search/node/voetius%20greijdanus. 3 The six articles of S. Greijdanus: 1938, “De quaestie van het nieuwe kerkrecht”, are available at www.kerkrecht.nl/search/node/s%20greijdanus.

269

270

Johannes Smit

verschillende kerken regelen en met elkander verbinden. We hebben dan de hiërarchie, ook al verwerpt men nog zoozeer dit woord. Hoofdzaak is tenslotte niet, wat men mogelijk actui contrarie, in strijd met eigen handelen, verklaart, maar wat men wezenlijk leert en doet. Wanneer echter Gods Woord en het wezenlijk Gereformeerde kerkrecht van zulk eene macht der meerdere vergaderingen niet weten, is hare oefening slechts menschelijke overheersching van de kerk van Christus. (Greijdanus: 1938a).

The development of the new church law also had an important influence on the concept of church and the view of church law in South Africa. In 1951 O’Brien Geldenhuys wrote a dissertation with the title, “Die regsposisie van kerkraad, ring en sinode onder die Gereformeerde stelsel van kerkregering soos toegepas in die Gefedereerde Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid-Afrika”. In this thesis he followed M. Bouwman’s interpretation of Voetius to the letter without any indication in his bibliography that he had taken note of the dispute this thesis had imputed in the Netherlands. In 1973 Dirk Fourie followed in the footsteps of Geldenhuys (and M. Bouwman’s interpretation of Voetius), with the publication of his dissertation, “Die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk as regspersoon in die Suid-Afrikaanse privaatreg”, which acknowledges neither the dispute about M. Bouwman’s interpretation of Voetius nor the development of the new church law. An important point is that reformed church law always had the flexibility and room for different expressions of church law. The reformed branch in the English-speaking world places emphasis on the major assemblies (in casu: the presbytery), with a centralisation of church authority in the church assemblies which do not have an equivalent in the classical reformed view of church government. The reformed branch in Poland maintained a bishop, as well as did the reformed churches in Hungary. These reformed church law systems however maintain the principles of reformed church law in different forms and structures. There is in the English system still a fundamental place for the elder and his functions (cf. van’t Spijker: 1990, 338). Yet, the question is posed that if the new church law of the first part of the twentieth century had opened the door to a humanist-based interpretation of church and church law, was the foundation then laid to change the point of orientation for church law, as well as the content of the terminology? Studies indicated, with reference to the problematic texts in Scripture, that a reformed view as it finds expression in the Church Order of Dordt 1619, provides a better reading of these texts in comparison to the developments of reformed church law in the first half of the previous century (Du Plooy: 1979; 1982; cf. Smit, 1988). In the classic reformed view of church law and government the viewpoint promoted by M. Bouwman may be typified as an expression of a Collegialistic approach to church law. It sets the scene for reformed churches in the tradition of the Church Order of Dordt 1619 to revisit these historical developments

The Church Order of Dordrecht 1619

to provide guidance to the church on the basis of sound exegesis and church law principles. 8. The church belongs to Christ. The church is his body. The church is the new order which He calls into existence. He is the head of the body. The captions “head of the body” and “Christ as king” may in this context be used as interchangeable. The first part of the introductory sentence of the church order is not so much intended as a catch-phrase; it is a statement of belief, for the church order has a confessional basis and character. The church is the body of Christ. Doctrine and discipline may not be separated. The church order expressly states that Christ is the governor of His church and that He also provides an order for the existence of His body in this dispensation (cf. point 3). One of the first claims from within the reformed tradition against the presbyterial view of church government was that the church should be governed like a democracy. It raises the question why the church cannot be governed as a democracy? The Congregationalist approach to church law may serve as the best example of a democratic church law system as it has historically been developed within the broad ambit of reformed church law. In later years an appeal to a democratic form of church law and church government has sometimes been heard from within some of the reformed branches of practical theology. This claim is usually based on Martin Luther’s thesis of the priesthood of all believers, yet this may be without taking into consideration that there are, in Luther’s estimation, two lines of thinking about the office: the one line based on the assumption that the office originates from the priesthood of all believers, and the other line indicating that the office is a gift of God to the congregation (Smit: 2017, 111–125). The latter perspective in combination with the view of Zwingli, namely that an office-bearer can only be sent to fulfil his mandate after he has been called, was decisive in the development of reformed church law (cf. van’t Spijker: 1990, 124; Smit: 2017, 111–125). Christ calls people to the office and sends them to fulfil their mandate in the church and in society. The church order of Dordrecht does not regulate the expression of the Christ government in a democratic way. Christ does not transfer His authority to people or to an institution to exercise His authority. Yet, He makes use of people in His service and He, according to Calvin, shows in what high esteem God holds man by doing that (Calvin: 1848, 131, 132). But how does it find expression in the church of Christ? 9. Calvin was of the opinion that the method the New Testament church followed to appoint ministers indicated how the new dispensation finds expression in our day and time. The New Testament indicates two possible procedures by which to appoint office-bearers. The principle the reformers adhere to was that an office-bearer may not be forced onto a congregation, but similarly, the appointment of new officebearers is a responsibility of the persons who govern the church. Therefore, the members may take the initiative to appoint office-bearers, or the already-ordained

271

272

Johannes Smit

office-bearers may take the initiative, but neither can be ignored in the process. If the members took the initiative the result was referred to the apostles for their accord, but if the ordained office-bearers took the initiative, the matter was put before the believers for concurrence (Smit: 2017, 111–125). The church order of Dordt 1619 regulates the process of appointment as an initiative of the church council, where the members of the church have the responsibility to concur with a person presented by the church council, and after the input of the members, the church council finalises the process of calling. The church order integrates the office and the method which a person has to follow to be ordained in an office, i.e. what is true of the office is also true of the method the church order regulates to become an office-bearer. Within the context of order that Scripture provides, the church order does not create the offices, but presents them. The church order does not institute the church meetings, but gives orderly expression to them. The church order does not create the proclamation of the Word nor the ministry of the sacraments, but it safeguards and maintains them. The church order does not command church discipline, but systemises the demand of Scripture for church procedure. The church order does not create the church institution, but maintains and presents the principles that Scripture provides for the realisation of the new dispensation in Christ in this world (Smit: 2008a; Smit: 2008b). The external method of the church government does not give expression to a democratic form of government, neither does it promote or enhance an autocratic form of church government. Church and church office rather function in the equilibrium that Christ sets for his church in the believers’ execution of their liberty as prophets, priests, and kings, and the office-bearers’ execution of their responsibility as keepers of the house of the Lord (cf. Smit: 2006, 633–651). 10. In line with Calvin’s thinking the external order for the functioning of the church of Christ is not an elaborate document, but rather it is concisely and succinctly expressed. If the reformed church law presupposition is considered, namely that the church order enables the proclamation of the Word in all circumstances, the brevity of the church order statement makes sense. The new life is situated and regulated around the proclamation of the Word. However, the church order is not intended to be an agenda for the church. The church order rather posits the proclamation of the Word and directs the church to the Word. This approach finds inter alia expression in the letter of credentials in use with many churches in the reformed tradition. These letters do not give the responsibility to the local church to take decision on a point of the major assembly’s agenda or to mandate their delegate to promote their viewpoint at the assembly. Rather, the delegate has the responsibility to take decisions with the other delegates in light of their deliberations according to the Word of God. The light of the Word should be shone on all the matters. The reformed tradition has a deeply embedded belief in the power of the proclaimed Word. It is, therefore, not the church order which should provide the

The Church Order of Dordrecht 1619

decision in all circumstances, but all decisions and acts of church should be taken as they are illuminated by the Word of God. Yet does the reformed regulatory system possess enough legal zest to satisfy the needs of churches in secular society with its focus on individualism, individual rights, constitutionalism, democracy, good governance, technocracy, etcetera? 11. An essential part of the constitutional developments in state law, is that churches have the right to act according to church beliefs within the (broader) framework that the law provides. These rights are usually entrenched in laws about the separation of church (religion) and state and religious freedom. However, a short survey of court cases in i.a. the South African context, shows that church communities find themselves in court, often on the wrong side of the law, not because of the big church-state questions which we portray and which should supposedly be answered, but because church communities do not adhere to their internal order, as well as to basic aspects of justice and equity, like i.a. the rules of natural justice. This is not the place to argue a point against the sixteenth century reformers’ views of natural justice nor the twentieth century theological genius, Karl Barth’s, rejection of natural law in favour of an all Christological interpretation of the law. There are indications in Scripture of the existence of a natural law, at least in the application of the so-called rules of a so-called natural justice as a maxim for church internal process and actions. But the church order is not only focused on the disciplinary process. It is an order for life as was already mentioned above. More than any other religious or thought-system, the church lives by the “golden rule” or the so-called “rule of reciprocity” (cf. Venter: 2015). This rule states in the positive or directive form that one should treat others as one would like oneself to be treated. It is a basic maxim accepted by law and by different ethical systems. It also features in humanism; there is a school in humanism which prefers the directive formulation of this maxim because it is easier to apply, i.e. it isn’t difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering in others. Good processes and procedures may take humanism a bit too far away to realise the golden rule if interpreted in this way. Yet, the Christian perspective differs on this point, because the golden rule gives expression to a radical alteration in the existence of the believer and extends to the believer’s way of life. The New Testament uses the Golden rule as an echo of Jesus’ explanation of the second table of the law, namely that you should love your neighbour as you love yourself. The implication is obvious. Good processes and procedures may be a logical consequence of the application of the golden rule by the church, but it cannot be viewed as the fulfilment of the directive Jesus gave to his church. In the core passage Jesus gives this maxim in its positive formulation, because love demands infinitely more than to avoid causing suffering in others. It demands a new attitude towards life wherein the love of Christ should reign; it is eminently a love which gives expression to the fact that justice is not merciless or unkind, but rather

273

274

Johannes Smit

an expression of God’s love and grace. To provide a codification of the Golden Rule will be ultimately counter-productive, but why it has not been intentionally incorporated into reformed church law, remains a question. This maxim provides an important basis to view justice within the framework of the new life in Christ.

17.2

Conclusion

The church order of Dordt 1619 gives expression to an order of life, albeit the new life in Christ, which realises as the beginning of a new dispensation for the believers. The church is the embodiment of this new dispensation and should conduct itself according to the norms applicable to this dispensation. It is the basic concept of church which underlies the church order. The church is a community sui generis (in a class of its own) with an order which gives expression to the uniqueness of this community in a unique order (a ius sui generis). In every aspect the church order of Dordt aims to minister the imperative of Scripture – the offices, the church meetings, the sacraments and the church discipline. The church order provides therefore an order for the new life in Christ; in every aspect of the believer’s life the church order aims to regulate the ministry of the Word to the benefit of the “building up” and the expansion of the church not according to the will of man, but in line with the principle of church ministry through the ministry of the Word by the office bearers. The aim of the church order ministry is therefore deeply founded in the spiritual (and even material) wellbeing of the church, but the final aim is eschatological – the preservation of the bride for the coming of the bridegroom.

Bibliography Barth, Karl (1955), Dogmatik IV/2, Zollikon-Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag. Bouwman, H. (1970), Gereformeerd Kerkrecht I, Kampen: Kok. Bouwman, M. (1937), Voetius over het gezag der synoden, Amsterdam: Bakker. Calvin, J. (1848), Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, First Volume, translated by John Pringle, Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society. Calvyn, J. (1991), Institusie van die Christelike Godsdiens, Boek IV, transl.H.W. Simpson, Potchefstroom: Calvyn Jubileum Boekefonds. Coertzen, P. (1991), Gepas en ordelik: ‘n teologiese verantwoording van die orde in en vir die kerk, Pretoria: RGN. De Vos, D. (2017), Hervormd en gereformeerd kerkrecht Een vergelijking, Kampen: Brevier. De Wet, C.J.H. (1921), Die kollegiale kerkreg, Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. Doe, Norman (2014), Christian Law Contemporary principles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The Church Order of Dordrecht 1619

Du Plooy, A, Le R. (1979), Ekklesia en meerdere vergaderinge, Potchefstroom: PU vir CHO. Du Plooy, A. Le R. (1982), Kerkverband ʼn Gereformeerd-kerkregtelike studie, Potchefstroom: PU vir CHO. Fourie, D.C.G. (1973), Die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk as regspersoon in die SuidAfrikaanse privaatreg, Proefskrif, Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir CHO. Greijdanus, S. (1938a), De quaestie van het nieuwe kerkrecht VI, De Reformatie 19, 1. Greijdanus, S. (1938b), Het wezen der meerdere kerkelijke vergaderingen volgens Voetius, De Wachter 42. Koffeman, Leo J. (2009), Het Goed Recht van De Kerk. Een Theologische Inleiding op het Kerkrecht, Kampen: Kok. Rutgers, F.L. (1894), Het kerkrecht in zoover het de Kerk met het recht in verband brengt, Amsterdam: Wormser. Schalekamp, M.E. (2005), Missiones ecclesiae: ‘n Missionêre visie en strategie in Gemeentebou ten opsigte van multikulturele kerkplanting, Potchefstroom: Noordwes Universiteit Potchefstroom Kampus. Smit, C.J. (1984), God se orde vir sy kerk, Pretoria: NG Kerkboekhandel. Smit, C.J. (1985), Kerkreg en kerkorde in die lig van God se reg vir kerk, Potchefstroom: PU vir CHO. Smit, C.J. (1988), Weerwoord Die Grense van die kerk, in: H. Du Toit/P. Kruger (ed.), Geroep tot eenheid, Halfway House: NGKB, 126–142. Smit, C.J. (2008a), Is die idee van ‘n kerkorde nog byderwets?, In die Skriflig/In luce Verbi 42 (2), 225–238. Smit, C.J. (2008b), Sleutels vir die toepassing van die kerkorde, In die Skriflig/In luce Verbi 42 (2), 603–612. Smit, J. (2006), Die kerk se regsposisie in Suid-Afrika in die lig van godsdiensvryheid gereformeerd kerkregtelik gesien, NGTT (47(3/4), 633–651). Smit, J. (2018), The decline of reformed church polity in South Africa, In die Skriflig 52 (3), a2309. doi.org/10.4102/ids.v52i3.2309. Sohm, G.J.R. (1892), Kirchenrecht, München: Duncker & Humblot. Van den Broeke, L. (2018), The Composition of Reformed Church Orders: A Theological, Reformed and Juridical Perspective’, In die Skriflig 52(2), a2351. doi.org/10.4102/ ids.v52i2.2351. Van Harten-Tip, A. (2018), De Dordtse Kerkorde 1619: Ontwikkeling, context en theologie, Kampen: KokBoekencentrum. Van’t Spijker, W. (1980), Zijn verbond en woorden, Goudriaan: De Groot. Van’t Spijker, W. (1990a), Het presbyteriale-synodale stelsel, in: W. van’t Spijker/W. Balke/ K. Exalto/L. van Driel, De Kerk: Wezen weg en werk van de kerk naar reformatorische opvatting, Kampen: Goudriaan, 326–340. Van’t Spijker, W. (1990b), Zwingli’s staatskerk, in: W. van’t Spijker/W. Balke/K. Exalto/L. van Driel, De Kerk: Wezen weg en werk van de kerk naar reformatorische opvatting, Kampen: Goudriaan, 111–125.

275

276

Johannes Smit

Van’t Spijker, W. (1987), De Synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619, Houten: Den Hertog. Venter, F. (2015), Constitutionalism and Religion, Elgar Monographs in Constitutionalism and Administrative Law Series, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. Voetius, G. (1663–1676), Politica ecclesiastica 3 vol., Amsterdam: J.J. Waesberge.

Sjaak Verwijs

18.

The Synod of Dordt and the Ius Patronatus

Abstract The Synod of Dordt was asked to abolish the canonical patronage rights. In two sessions, the Synod decided to allow these rights a limited place in the church order. We can trace four reasons. First, the ius patronatus was an age-old legal institution. At this point, there is a remarkable similarity between Trent and Dordt. They both limited the right, but did not abolish it. Abolition would have only been possible with co-operation of the government. However, the reformed Dutch government did not abolish canon law. After the Reformation canon law continued to exercise influence in the Netherlands. Second, public support for the church was self-evident in Europe around 1600. The owners of patronage rights were often lower and local authorities. Third, the Reformed Church was not a new church but a reformation of the existing church. The Reformed Church in the Netherlands had taken the place of the Catholic Church. By utilizing ecclesiastical properties and patronage rights formerly used by the catholic clergy continuity with the past was confirmed. Fourth, the Reformed Church in The Netherlands had become a public church. Thanks to the choice of the higher and lower Dutch governments for the Reformation, the Reformed Church was given room and freedom. At the Synod of Dordt, the reformed church could decide on doctrinal matters. At the other side, the church was expected to accept the supervision and control of the authorities.

18.1

Dordt May 1619

The international part of the Synod of Dordt ended on Thursday, 9 May 1619. The city council offered the participants a grand dinner. The Dutch members said goodbye to the foreign deputies, who left the island of Dordt. The States General ordered the Admiralty of Rotterdam to prepare a war ship for the retreat of the English deputies. On Monday 13 May, some of the foreign Synod members visited The Hague to witness the execution of Johan van Oldenbarneveld at 10.00 a.m. (Smit/Roelevink: 1981, 123f). The Synod of Dordt continued on the same morning. The conference language switched from Latin into Dutch. The participants from the Netherlands discussed about their church order until Wednesday, 29 May. One of the first matters was a petition to abolish the right of patronage. The Synod discussed

278

Sjaak Verwijs

about this medieval canonical right in two sessions: on Monday afternoon and on Tuesday morning. The ius patronatus was not a typical Dutch issue; in Germany and England, it also survived the Reformation despite all its disadvantages. As a right of clergymen, governors, nobility and other laymen it went on from generation to generation. According to many, it did not serve the wellbeing of the church and limited the freedom of the church too much. The Synod of Dordt did not abolish this old right. On the contrary, the Synod decided to accept the canonical patronage right and to set rules about it in the Dutch church order.

18.2

The Ius Patronatus up to the Council of Trent

In the early Middle Ages, those who built a church on their own territory could appoint a priest without the intervention of the bishop. Other churches fell under direct jurisdiction of the bishop. This is called the system of own churches (German: ‘Eigenkirchen‘) (Post: 1928, 1f). The church needed nobles and landowners to build churches, to pay the costs of worship and the maintenance of the priests. Around 1200 canon law introduced the ius patronatus. It began as a favour (gratia or dispensatio) and at the same time as a limitation to the rights of ownership. From about 1200, patronage rights developed from a favour into a legal institution (Landau: 1975). Over time, the ius patronatus became a set of rights. First, the possessor of a so-called patronage right or collation placed a candidate priest in the possession of a beneficium or collatio (assets composed of real estate, tithes or other rights to provide maintenance for clergymen). Secondly, the patronus or collator presented the candidate to the bishop for his office. Finally, the bishop – almost always – ordained the candidate. A patronage right could only arise prior to the ordination of the church building and with consent of the bishop (Post: 1928, 137f; Landau: 1975, 145–155, 186). It was not freely transferable, and passed on only to the heirs in common. In case of emergency, the patrons could use revenues from the benefice to make a decent living. The benefices were part of a greater collection of ecclesiastical properties that were destined for the maintenance of church buildings, for the reading of masses for the deceased, for chapters and cloisters and so on. In the Netherlands, patronage rights determined the appointment of parish priests to a high degree. Around 1580, about a third of the parish churches fell under the patronage rights of monasteries, chapters or clergy. Two thirds of the patronage rights were in the hands of the laity: counts and knights, prominent families, urban administrations or the joint parishioners (Post: 1954, 84). In NorthBrabant, the proportions were different: about two-thirds of the patronage rights were in the hands of a clerical person or institution, and only a third was in the hands of the laity (Bijsterveld: 1993, 54; Post: 1954, 86). Friesland knew a collective patronage right, tied to a certain amount of land ownership (Van Apeldoorn: 1915,

The Synod of Dordt and the Ius Patronatus

5f, 57f). At the end of the Middle Ages emerging city councils strived for more control over parish churches and tried to acquire patronage rights (Kuys: 2004, 56). Because of all this, the bishop could hardly exert influence on the appointment of the lower clergy. Moreover, patrons often misused ecclesiastical properties for their own maintenance and personal interests (Post: 1954, 94ff). Use for public purposes was also possible. Emperor Charles V claimed the proceeds from the church benefices for dike restoration and warfare, which was not unusual in those times (Fühner: 2004, 134–142). Benefices and patronage rights formed an important theme in the reform program of the Counter-Reformation. Many pastors did not reside in their parishes. They hired a ‘vicar’ to perform their duties, and tried to collect benefices. The practice of patronage rights, the trade in benefices and the scanty income of parish clergy were important causes of the ecclesiastical abuses at that time. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) wanted to transform bishops and pastors from collectors of benefices to shepherds of souls, and stated that office and benefice were inseparable (O’Malley: 2013, 15f, 116ff). Abolition of the ius patronatus was not at issue; the rights were granted by the church itself in former times, and were recognized by the church for centuries. The Council was forced to respect the patronage rights of dioceses, sovereign princes and universities. Nevertheless, the Council limited the patronage rights. From now on patrons had to show an authentic act of establishment of their right. They had to prove that they had exercised their right of presentation for fifty years without interruption. The bishop could refuse unsuitable candidates. Patrons were not allowed to interfere with the collection of proceeds from the benefices, and the patronage rights expired upon transfer to third parties. The Council took measures, but not everyone followed them. After publication of the decrees of the council in the Netherlands by King Philip II (1564), all the provincial States protested against the limitations of the existing patronage rights (Willocx: 1929, 43ff, 100).

18.3

The Election and Payment of Ministers in Dutch Refugee Communities

The first national Dutch synod (Emden 1571) set the rules for the election of minsters in Dutch church law. The synod stipulated in article thirteen of the Acta that ministers have to be elected by the consistory and the classis, with the tacit consent of the congregation. The congregation would only elect the minister if this were the local custom. The members of the church had to pay the maintenance of the servants of the Word. There is no mention of interference or support by a patron or by local or higher authorities (Rutgers: 1899, 61f, 74f).

279

280

Sjaak Verwijs

The members of the Dutch refugee congregation in London were free to appoint their ministers, and took the responsibility for the maintenance of them. Those who were able to pay had to contribute both to the diaconal purse and to the so-called ‘service money’, which served to pay the salaries of the ministers. In 1576, the congregation in London even set up a student fund for the training of ministers, to support the church in the homeland (Boersma: 1994, 53, 217). The Dutch refugee congregations in Goch and Gennep (in the Rhineland) chose their own ministers without any interference from the authorities, and shared them. The congregation paid the ministers themselves. In Goch (1601–1610), the ministers got their income from the proceeds of legacies from members of the congregation (Van Booma: 2010 vol. 1, 28–32, 45 vol. 2, 87f, 200ff, 319). In Gennep (1601–1614) church members made annual commitments to provide amounts by instalments (Van Booma: 2010, vol. 2, 219, 345–397). In Emden, we find that there is a co-operation with the authorities. In 1575, the local congregation – in consultation with the Council – could appoint a fourth and a fifth minister for which revenues from excise duties were used. The Council of Emden possessed patronage rights, and used existing ecclesiastical properties to support the Dutch refugee community (Weerda: 2000, 167, 209–212). Aside from some help of governments, most refugee communities were selfsupporting. At the same time, governments had a duty to support the worship service: this was the communis opinio at the time of the Reformation. Christian governments were considered prominent members of the Church. All authorities were obliged to maintain both tables of the Ten Commandments. Kings and princes, earls and dukes, magistrates and local authorities had a task as nurturers (Dutch: ‘voedsterheren’ according to Isa 49:23) of the church.

18.4

The Election and Payment of Ministers in the Netherlands During the Revolt

On national soil, the synod of Dordt in 1574 followed the rule of Emden; ministers have to be elected by the consistory – with advice of the classis – and must be presented to the congregation. The synod instructed Jean Taffin to ask the Prince of Orange to mediate on some pastors who received insufficient treaty from their steward. So the income from patronage rights was assumed. According to this synod, the classis is also responsible for the livelihood of the pastor (Rutgers, 136f, 163, 166). The national synod of Dordt (1578) gave the diaconia a role. According to the synod, ministers must be elected by the consistory together with the diaconia. The advice of the classis could be replaced by the advice of two neighboring ministers. Finally, the chosen candidate is presented to the reformed government and the congregation (article 4). The congregation is obliged to provide its servants with

The Synod of Dordt and the Ius Patronatus

sufficient livelihood (article 6) (Rutgers: 1899, 235f). The synod does not tell us by what means this must take place: was everyone supposed to contribute or especially the patrons and the magistrates? Later synods (Middelburg 1581 and The Hague 1586) prescribed not only presentation but also approbation of the chosen minister by the local government. The synod of Middelburg (1581) again determined that the congregation would take care of the livelihood of the minister. If the congregation was negligent, the classis could move the minister (article 10). The synod of The Hague (1586) added the purpose of the approbation by the government. It was meant to object to the minister’s civil life when there were legal reasons (Rutgers: 1899, 377, 380, 488). In the cities and areas where the Dutch Revolt had been successful, the authorities decided to devote the medieval ecclesiastical properties henceforth to the Reformed worship and to the Reformed ministers. In terms of property law, the catholic parishes were not abolished but reformed (Van Apeldoorn: 1931, 22–63). The pastors became ‘reformed pastors’ (Van Beeck Calkoen: 1910, 150) who replaced the Catholic pastors. They lived from the same sources of income as the Catholic pastors before them. However, that was not always enough to support them. While a priest had to live celibate, a reformed pastor shared his life with his wife and children. Moreover, many patrons did not want to cooperate with the new religion. The provincial States accepted responsibility for the livelihood of the reformed pastors. In February 1573, the States of Holland and West-Friesland ordered the magistrates and residents to register all the church properties for the support of the servants of the Word, schoolmasters, and other servants. A year later, the States determined that the servants of the Word would be paid as a priority from the revenues of the ecclesiastical properties. The States of South-Holland set limits on the payments: in villages at 200 guilders, in cities at 300 guilders – as a kind of minimum and maximum – with free house rent and some family allowances (Van Beeck Calkoen: 1910, 112–156). To guarantee a reliable administration of the church properties Cornelis van Coolwijck was appointed to register and to receive the ecclesiastical properties and revenues in South-Holland (1578) (Van Beuningen: 1870, 43–51). As recipient of the ‘Geestelijk kantoor van Delft’, he had the task to pay salaries to the South-Holland ministers out of a third of the proceeds of all the ecclesiastical properties. This only happened if the local payment was insufficient. At most times he paid village pastors. Cities had their own collectors, or they remained independent. Ministers often complained, not without reason. At the local level, salaries were paid out too late or incompletely and often proved inadequate. That is why individual requests and collective rules with regard to the payment of ministers were on the agenda of the States of Holland and WestFriesland almost every year. When the revenues from ecclesiastical properties did not suffice for extra payment, the States decided to raise extra taxes, e.g. on beer (Van Deursen: 1998, 24).

281

282

Sjaak Verwijs

The patronage rights remained intact, just as canon law in general continued to exert influence in the Netherlands (Lokin: 1997, 11–31). In 1589, the States of South-Holland decided that the rights of nomination and presentation would not be shortened, if ministers would be examined by the classis (Van Beeck Calkoen: 1910, 86f). The States of Utrecht also appointed a recipient of the ecclesiastical properties. Patrons could present their candidate to the Utrecht States, who attended the ecclesiastical exam (Rengers Hora Siccama: 1905, 468–469, 500). At the Gelderse Landdag in 1581, it was decided to accept the right to collate, if nominated ministers endorsed the Reformed religion (Maris: 1939, 497). The way in which patronage rights were exercised often led to conflicts. The reformer Doede van Amsweer (1546–1621) met great resistance in Groningen. Landowners had a decisive influence on the management of ecclesiastical properties and on the appointment of ministers. The management of the revenues of the church often lacked any form of supervision (Steenbeek: 1966, 71–77). By order of the provincial synod of Groningen, Johannes Acronius (1565–1627) wrote a treatise on the ius patronatus: ‘Erinneringe an de beropinge der prediker’ (1604). He advocates a complete abolition of the patronage rights. He lists the abuses: many patrons are not devoted to the gospel. Candidates seek the favour of patrons and are guilty of simony. The patrons present incapable candidates. They use the benefices in their own favour. Last but not least ministers suffer poverty and live with their families on water and barley bread. The patrons are like the soldiers beneath the cross; they divide the skirt of Christ! The city of Groningen had already abolished the patronage rights. Acronius asked the Ommelanden to follow this example (Acronius: 1670, 84–96). The provincial synod of Groningen judged he had attacked the collators too hard, so the synod did not want to take responsibility for the writing. However, the classes were asked to report to the deputies about abuses. The private synod of South Holland in Schiedam in 1601 also spoke about abuses of the ius patronatus, and agreed with the complaints of the deputies from Groningen. They told about patrons who presented ‘unregulated preachers’ and did not allow ‘pious servants’, partly by religious reasons, partly from self-interest (Reitsma/van Veen: 1894, 192f). The right of presentation to and approval of the reformed government was widely accepted by reformed theologians during this period. Even Acronius – the strong opponent against patronage rights – wrote he could accept that noble people who are members of the religion have supervision of the appointment of pastors and the management of church property (Acronius: 1670, 110). The Utrecht minister Wernerus Helmichius (1550–1608) wrote around 1580 about the election of ministers. He sees the appointment of a pastor as a matter for the entire Christian congregation, consisting of government, church ministers, and people. Pastors and elders examine the candidate, and present him to the congregation and to the government for approval (Hania: 1895, 302f).

The Synod of Dordt and the Ius Patronatus

18.5

Patronage Rights at the Synod of Dordt

Until 1618, the reformed government and the reformed church did not succeed in designing a church order that was fully accepted by both sides. Nevertheless, church and government continued to strive for a generally accepted church order. The Staatskerkorde from Holland and West-Friesland (1591) that goes back to a design by William of Orange from 1583 was a special one, with equal rights for church and government. This church order stipulated election of ministers by a committee of four delegates from the local church and four delegates from the local government. In places where patronage rights applied, the patron should have a right to delegate (article 1, 2) (Rooyaards: 1843, 337–340, 380). An agreement between church and government was not reached. In the following decades, the relationship between church and state became a major point of contention. The Synod of Dordt offered the opportunity to reach an agreement. Church and society urgently needed stability. The young Republic was still at war with Spain (1568–1648), even though there was a ceasefire during 1609–1621. In the run-up to the Synod of Dordt, the discussion about patronage rights became interwoven with two developments within the church. First, there were different opinions about the task of the government in ecclesiastical affairs. The remonstrants found that the government had a special task in ecclesiastical matters (e.g. Uytenbogaert: 1674). Just like Uytenbogaerdt Hugo de Groot (1583–1645) was concerned with the role of governments as prominent church members. In his defence of the church policy of the States of Holland and West-Friesland, he also claimed that the Dutch authorities traditionally had patronage rights, that these privileges had a long history and that they should be respected (Rabbie: 1995, 213–219). Second, the theological controversy around Arminius and the remonstrants played a role. Dutch nobles and large landowners often used their patronage rights in favour of remonstrant proponents. Calvinist preachers sometimes declined when another congregation called them, in order not to give their own patron the chance to occupy the vacancy with an Arminian (Van Deursen: 1998, 257). On Monday, 29 May 1619, the ius patronatus appeared on the agenda of the Synod of Dordt. After the approbation of the church order of The Hague (1586), the gravamina were first dealt with. The provincial synod of South-Holland asked the Synod to pronounce a verdict on the ius patronatus because it caused unrest and confusion in many congregations. Could it be excluded from the churches, or at least, could it be stipulated that the church would not suffer any damage from it. On the other side, the provincial synod of Drenthe submitted a gravamen with the request that no one should be disadvantaged or shortened in his patronage rights (Donner/van Hoorn: 1887, 935f; Kuyper: 1899, 425, 450f). The state delegates played a crucial role. They had received secret instructions by the States-General. Through these instructions, the delegates had a right to veto.

283

284

Sjaak Verwijs

Instruction twelve read that the right of patronage in general and in private should remain and be not impaired (Brandt: 1787–1788, 19–22).1 The elder Heyngius from Amsterdam and member of the Synod kept a diary. He tells us that the state delegates gave a statement about the fundamental origin of the ius patronatus at the request of the preses (Kuyper: 1899, 103, 113). The delegates indicated at the Synod that the States-General would never allow legal rights to be taken by an ecclesiastical constitution. The Synod better could use means to prevent abuses (Donner: 1887, 935). The province of Groningen also had insisted on this point. Provincial deputies from Groningen reported half a year before these May sessions that they could not allow the Synod to put the ius patronatus into question (Smit/Roelevink: 1975, res. 3885). The discussion took two sessions. After the first session (156) preses Bogerman asked the members of the Synod to consider an enforcement of the articles 4 and 5 of the church order, that deal with the election of ministers – and the maintaining of the ius patronatus, provided that this would not be to the disadvantage of the churches. On the following day, the Synod discussed proposals for limiting the ius patronatus. The session (157) ended with an assignment to the scribae to write a draft text. This text was adopted three sessions later (160). The Synod reached a compromise; patronage rights should be maintained, but restricted. The Synod added to article 5 of the existing Church Order the next elements; rights of patronage will not be diminished, unless they are exercised for the benefit of the church, and under the oversight and ruling of the authorities and provincial synods. Patrons of a religion other than the reformed religion will not be excluded. The Synod decided to the following nine provisions, relating to the right of the patrons at one side, and the right of the churches at the other side: Patrons should be able to demonstrate their rights with authentic acts (1). They only have a right of presentation (2). The candidate to propose must get a decent maintenance (3). The presentation takes places without delay: within two, at most three months, otherwise the right will lapse (4). The candidate has to be a person beyond suspicion of learning and living (5). The church has the right to refuse the candidate (6) and to examine him (7). In cases of conflict, the church by way of the classis should judge (8). Finally, the patron has not the right to dismiss a minister (9) (Donner: 1887, 936). Regarding the appointment of ministers, the Synod of Dordt added an obligation to correspond with the government as soon as a vacancy arouse. The right of approbation by the government as stated by the Synod of The

1 In 2016 started the still on-going edition of the ‘Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae’. In these Acta the reports of the state delegates have been fullly published for the first time. The reports do not shed new light on the issue of the ius patronatus (Moser: 2014, 467–518).

The Synod of Dordt and the Ius Patronatus

Hague (1586) was maintained. This time without the restrictive clause about legal objections to the civil life of the ministers (article 4).

18.6

Patronage Rights Continued for Centuries

Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676) was the youngest Synod member. In his magnum opus, ‘Politica Ecclesiastica’ Voetius became a fierce opponent of patronage law. He calls it an evil for the church: a Trojan horse! (Voetius: 1669, 589). According to Voetius, the decision to maintain the ius patronatus was a concession by the church. The church deputies longed for one church order for the Netherlands with the approval of the States-General. They knew that the States-General would not accept abolition of the ius patronatus (Voetius: 1669, 629). The decisions of Dordt to limit the patronage rights have had little effect. For centuries, these rights continued to exert great influence on the appointment of ministers. Roman Catholic and other not-reformed patrons continued to exercise their rights. The Church Order of Dordt did not become the church order of all provinces of the Netherlands. Only Overijssel, Gelderland and Utrecht approved it. However, the last two retained some reserves (Deddens: 1988, 117–118). In Friesland, the pastors were strictly forbidden to appeal to the Church Order of Dordt (Bergsma: 1999, 192). The provincial synod of South-Holland in Leiden (August 1619) on the other hand decided to ask the States of Holland not to continue the patronage rights (Reitsma/van Veen: 1894, 330). The discussion went on. One of the strongest opponents to the decisions of Dordt about the patronage rights was Jacobus Koelman (1632–1695), a well-known representative of the Further Reformation in the Netherlands (Koelman: 1837, 128–135). Other reformed theologians like Samuel Maresius (1599–1673) accepted patronage rights as a reasonable and fair case (Ypeij: 1840, 545–547). Opinions were also divided on the government’s supervision on appointment and dismissal of ministers. The reformed theologian Antonius Walaeus (1573–1639) accepted supervision of the local government ‘to ensure that the spiritual power of the church is not misused.’ (Walaeus: 1728, 379–385). According to a famous Dutch handbook for systematic theology, the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (1625) the government has to maintain both tables of the Ten Commandments. Disputatio 42 states that “the consensus of the civil magistrate and of the people who profess the same faith as the presbytery is required for the election of elders and deacons no less than for the pastors” (Van den Belt: 2016, 620). A strong opponent to the right of approval – especially if there was no legal reason – was the Rotterdam minister Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635–1711), like Koelman a representative of the Further Reformation. He states that governments have no power to suspend and remove ministers, or to denounce godly and lawful chosen ministers (À Brakel: 1973, 693).

285

286

Sjaak Verwijs

The Dutch historian Schotel (1807–1892) concluded that until the eighteenth century the church practiced the work of calling ministers but the government really chose ministers with or without the use of the ius patronatus (Schotel: s.d., 272). He probably generalizes, but there was always some form of government supervision. In 1798, the Batavian Revolution – in the aftermath of the French Revolution – suddenly put an end to the old rights. It was only for a short time, in 1814 King William I restored them (Bos: 1999, 308–312). Patronage rights lasted until a revision of the Constitution in 1922. The state support in the payment of pastors changed into a system of rijkstraktementen for various denominations – to the extent that they were recognized by the government and ended finally in 1983 (Den Ouden: 2004, 149–150).

18.7

Conclusions

Why did the Synod of Dordt not abolish the patronage rights? Some would suggest because a more direct dependency of pastors from the members of their own congregation would not have been desirable (Den Ouden: 1994, 33, 140, 207). For this suggestion however, there is no evidence from the period of the Synod of Dordt. When asked why the Synod did not abolish patronage rights in spite of all the objections, we can give four answers: 1. The ius patronatus was a legal institution. Patronage rights were age-old rights. The Council of Trent failed to put an end to this institution. At this point, there is a remarkable similarity between Trent and Dordt. They both limited the right, but did not abolish it. Abolition would have only been possible with co-operation of the government. However, the reformed Dutch government did not want to abolish all canon law. 2. The Netherlands had a Christian government. Public support for the church was self-evident in Europe around 1600. The owners of patronage rights were often lower and local authorities. The support of Christian governments for the church was undisputed. 3. The Reformed Church was not a new church but a reformation of the existing church. The Reformed Church in the Netherlands had taken the place of the Catholic Church. By utilizing ecclesiastical properties and patronage rights formerly used by the catholic clergy continuity with the past was confirmed. 4. The Reformed Church in The Netherlands had become a public church. Thanks to the choice of the higher and lower Dutch governments for the Reformation, the Reformed Church was given room and freedom. At the Synod of Dordt, the reformed church could decide on doctrinal matters. At the other side, the church was expected to accept the supervision and control of the authorities.

The Synod of Dordt and the Ius Patronatus

Bibliography À Brakel, Wilhelmus Th. F. (1973), Redelijke Godsdienst, 3rd ed. Utrecht: De Banier. Acronius, Johannes (1670), Onderrichting van de beroepinge der predicanten, hoe en door wie deselve geschieden sal : als oock, wat van het Jus Patronatus, ofte collationsrecht over de kerckelijcke beneficien te houden zy / uyt naem ende last des Synodi van Groeningen, Omlanden en Drenthe, Zutphen: Hendrick Beerren. Beeck Calkoen, Jan F. van (1910), Onderzoek naar den rechtstoestand der geestelijke en kerkelijke goederen in Holland na de Reformatie, Amsterdam: J.H. de Bussy. Bergsma, Wiebe (1999), Tussen Gideonsbende en publieke kerk. Een studie over het gereformeerd protestantisme in Friesland 1580–1650, Hilversum: Verloren. Bijsterveld, Arnoldus J. A. van (1993), Laverend tussen kerk en wereld. De pastoors in Noord-Brabant 1400–1570, Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij. Boersma, Owe (1994), Vluchtig voorbeeld. De Nederlandse, Franse en Italiaanse vluchtelingenkerken in Londen, 1568–1585, Kampen: self-managed publication. Bos, David (1999), In dienst van het Koninkrijk. Beroepsontwikkeling van hervormde predikanten in negentiende-eeuws Nederland, Amsterdam: Prometheus. Brandt, Geeraert (1787–1788), Historie der Reformatie en andere kerkelijke geschiedenissen, in en omtrent de Nederlanden, Amsterdam: Willem Holtrop, Deddens, Detmer (1988), De Nederlandse Gereformeerde kerken in de periode 1560–1816, in: W. van ’t Spijker/L.C. van Drimmelen (ed.), Inleiding tot de studie van het kerkrecht, Kampen: Kok, 110–121. Den Ouden, Willem H. (1994), Kerk onder patriottenbewind, Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum. Den Ouden, Willem H. (2004), De ontknoping van de zilveren koorde. De geschiedenis van de rijkstraktementen in de Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk, Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum. Donner, Johannes H./van Hoorn, Simon A. (1883–1886), Acta of handelingen der Nationale Synode, in den naam Onzes Heeren Jezus Christus, gehouden door autoriteit der Hoogmogende Heeren Staten-Generaal der Vereenigde Nederlanden te Dordrecht, ten jare 1618 en 1619: Hier komen ook bij de volledige beoordeelingen van de Vijf artikelen en de Post-acta of nahandelingen, Rotterdam: Donner. Fühner, Jochen A. (2004), Die Kirchen – und die antireformatorische Religionspolitik Kaiser Karls V. in den siebzehn Provinzen der Niederlande 1515–1555, Leiden: Brill. Hania, Jan (1895), Wernerus Helmichius, Utrecht: Honig. Koelman, Jacobus (1837), Het ambt en de pligten der ouderlingen en diakenen, sGravenhage: J. van Golverdinge. Kuyper, Herman H. (1899), De Post-Acta of nahandelingen van de nationale synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619 gehouden, Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser. Kuys, Jan (2004), Kerkelijke organisatie in het middeleeuwse bisdom Utrecht, Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers. Landau, Peter (1975), Ius patronatus: Studien zur Entwicklung des Patronats im Dekretalenrecht und der Kanonistik des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts, Köln: Böhlau.

287

288

Sjaak Verwijs

Lokin, Johannes H. A. (1977), De doorwerking van het canonieke recht na de reformatie, in: G. R. Rutgers, Kerk recht en samenleving. Oldenhuis-bundel, Deventer: Kluwer, 11–31. Malley, John W. O’ (2013), Trent What Happened at the Council, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press. Maris, Adriana J. (1939), De reformatie der geestelijke en kerkelijke goederen in Gelderland. In het bijzonder in het kwartier van Nijmegen, ‘s-Gravenhage: De Residentie. Moser, Christian/Selderhuis, Herman J./Sinnema, Donald (ed.) (2014), Acta et Documenti Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae, vol. 1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Post, Regnerus R. (1928), Eigenkerken en bisschoppelijk gezag in het diocees Utrecht tot de XIIIe eeuw, Utrecht: Rijksuniversiteit. Post, Regnerus R. (1954), Kerkelijke verhoudingen in Nederland vóór de reformatie van ±1500 tot ±1580, Utrecht: Het Spectrum. Rabbie, Edwin (ed.) (1995), Hugo Grotius. Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae pietas (1613), Leiden: Brill. Reitsma Johannes/van Veen, Sietze D. (1894), Acta der Provinciale en Particuliere Synoden, gehouden in de noordelijke Nederlanden gedurende de jaren 1572–1620, vol.3, Zuid-Holland 1593–1620, Groningen: Wolters. Rengers Hora Siccama, Duco G. (1905), De geestelijke en kerkelijke goederen onder het canonieke, het gereformeerde en het neutrale recht. Historisch-juridische verhandeling voornamelijk uit Utrechtse gegevens samengesteld, Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon. Royaards Herman Johan (1843), De Staats-kerkorde van Willem I in: Nederlands archief voor kerkelijke geschiedenis, vol 14, Leiden: Brill, 305–384. Rutgers, Frederik L. (1899), Acta van de Nederlandsche synoden der zestiende eeuw, ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Schotel, Gilles D. J. (s.d.), De openbare eeredienst der Nederl. Hervormde Kerk in de zestiende, zeventiende en achttiende eeuw, 2nd ed., Leiden: Sijthoff. Smit J.G/Roelevink Johanna (ed.) (1981), Resolutiën der Staten-Generaal, Nieuwe reeks 1610–1670, vol. 4, 1617–1618, ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Steenbeek, Bendiks W. (1966), Doede van Amsweer, Wageningen: Veenman & Zonen. Uytenbogaert, Johannes (1647), Tractaet van ‘t Ampt ende Authoriteyt eener Hooger Christelijcker Overheydt in kerkelijcke saecken, 3rd ed., Rotterdam: Joannes Naeranus. Van Apeldoorn, Lambertus J. (1915), De kerkelijke goederen in Friesland, Leeuwarden: Meijer & Schaafsma. Van Apeldoorn, Lambertus J. (1931), Het voortbestaan der parochies na de reformatie, in: Christendom en Historie, Tweede Lustrumbundel van het Gezelschap van Christelijke Historici, Kampen: Kok, 22–63. Van Beuningen, Willem (1870), Het geestelijk kantoor van Delft, Arnhem: D.A. Thieme. Van Booma, Jan G. J. (2011), Communio clandestina. Archivalien der Konsistorien der heimlichen niederländischen reformierten Flüchtlingsgemeinden in Goch und Gennep im Herzogtum Kleve 1570– c. 1610, 2 vol., Bonn: Habelt.

The Synod of Dordt and the Ius Patronatus

Van den Belt, Henk (ed.) (2016), Synopsis Purioris Theologiae/Synopsis of a Purer Theology. Latin Tekst and English Translation, vol. 2, Leiden: Brill. Van Deursen, Arie Th. (1998), Bavianen en slijkgeuzen. Kerk en kerkvolk ten tijde van Maurits en Oldenbarneveld, 3rd ed., Franeker: Van Wijnen. Voetius, Gisbertus (1669), Politica ecclesiastica, vol. 2, 2nd ed., Amsterdam: J.J. à Waesberge. Weerda, Jan R. (2000), Der Emder Kirchenrat und seine Gemeinde. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte reformierter Kirchenordnung in Deutschland, ihrer Grundsätze und ihrer Gestaltung, Wuppertal: Foedus Verlag. Walaeus Antonius (1728), Het ampt der Kerkendienaren, mitsgaders de authoriteit en ‘t Opzicht ‘t geen de Hoge Christelijke Overheydt daar over toekomt, 2nd ed., Delft: Reinier Boitet. Willocx, Fernand (1929), L’introduction des décrets du concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principauté de Liège, Louvain: Libraire Universitaire. Ypeij, Annaeus (1829), Geschiedenis van het Patronaatregt anders genoemd Kollatieregt in verband met het Christelijk Kerkbestuur sinds de vroegste tijden tot op den tegenwoordigen tijd, second part, Breda: Broese en Comp.

289

Leon van den Broeke

19.

Dangerous Deputies?

The Transition from Reformed Deputies to Netherlands Reformed Bodies of Assistance

Abstract The Netherlands Reformed Church, one of the predecessors of the current Protestant Church in the Netherlands, did not include deputies in its new church order of 1951, but bodies of assistance. In the Netherlands Reformed Church there was in the genesis of this ecclesiological and church polity discussion a difference of opinion about the advantages and disadvantages of deputies and bodies of assistance. In this discussion it was said that two professors in Reformed church polity, Doede Nauta and Gerrit M. den Hartogh did not see any difference. This contribution aims to explore whether they were indeed of this opinion, what they really meant, and furthermore to understand the nature of both bodies in relationship to both the Reformed and Netherlands Reformed ecclesiology and church polity as well as to portray this in relationship to application in ecclesiastical practice. Attention will be drawn to the nature of the deputies to learn about their task, authority, appointment, and term, and to be able to understand the objection and decline of deputies in the Netherlands Reformed Church. This will be followed by paragraphs on the prohibition of lordship, authority, bodies of assistance, abuse of authority and power. The concluding paragraph demonstrates a more refined standpoint of Nauta and Den Hartogh and what it means for both the authority and its abuse of both deputies and bodies of assistance.

19.1

Introduction

The Protestant Church in the Netherlands which came into existence as the result of a merger in 2004 of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Netherlands Reformed Church and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, chose not to include deputies in its ecclesiology and church polity.1 This resembles the ecclesiology and church polity of the Netherlands Reformed Church of 1951. In that year a completely new church order became valid which

1 I would like to express my gratitude to Allan J. Janssen for his help with my grammar.

292

Leon van den Broeke

replaced the General Regulations of 1816 (Algemeen Reglement) which was far from theological in nature, and also did not include deputies. A deputy is a trustee of a major assembly to execute thereby the relevant major assembly given assignment in the period until the next meeting of this major assembly; when the major assembly, which appointed the deputy reconvenes, the deputy gives account and his role ends automatically; the relevant major assembly can reappoint the resigned deputy immediately with the same assignment for the period which ends when the next meeting of the major assembly will take place (Van Drimmelen: 2000, 32; cf. van ‘t Spijker/van Drimmelen: 1992, 168 and 183).

Instead of deputies the Netherlands Reformed church order of 1951 implemented bodies of assistance (organen van bijstand) in its church governance. Such a body assisted general assemblies, under their leadership and in responsibility to them, in the service to the care of the church for a certain aspect of its life. Depending on the level of the general assembly their names were kerkenraadscommissie (committee of the consistory), classicale commissie (classis committee), provinciale commissie (provincial committee), or raad (council), Ordinance 1–23–1.2 The institution of such bodies was not automatic, it had been subject of discussion. The advantages and disadvantages of both bodies of assistance and of deputies were discussed. Netherlands Reformed theologians Simon F.H.J. Berkelbach van der Sprenkel (1882–1967) and Egbert Emmen (1902–1985) were of the opinion that the two Reformed experts in church polity, Doede Nauta ([1898–1994] Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) and Gerrit M. den Hartogh ([1899–1959] Theologische Universiteit Kampen, Oudestraat) had thought that there was no difference between deputies and bodies of assistance. This topic touches upon authority in (Netherlands) Reformed ecclesiology, church polity and ecclesiastical practice, the fear for it, but also the attempt to extend authority. Leo J. Koffeman states: “the Reformed tradition mainly has rejected episcopacy, because of its hierarchical and exclusive tendency” (Koffeman: 2014, 124). Eddy van der Borght also explains the objection within the Reformed tradition to an office-bearer like a bishop and states that there is ‘a continuing sensitivity for the abuse of power’ (Van der Borght: 2000, 474–75). It is not only about the nature of the office, but also the way in which ecclesiastical authority is executed. So it is not only about ecclesiastical rules, but about its application in the ecclesiastical practice as well (Torfs: 2018). An episcopal-hierarchic church like the Roman-Catholic Church also has problems with the way authority is executed. It gives rise to the reflection on the Reformed tradition and the way

2 Accessed 26 December 2019, www.kerkrecht.nl/content/kerkorde-nhk–1951-ord–1–23–1.

Dangerous Deputies?

in which it considers its view on and its uneasy relationship with authority and power. The uneasiness with authority and hierarchy was and still is deeply rooted in protestant ecclesiology and church polity, and in protestant denominations. Jan Plomp (1911–1990) called this oversensivity ‘presbyterianitis’ (Plomp: 1967, 31). It also becomes apparent in deputies and bodies of assistance. This contribution aims to explore whether Nauta and Den Hartogh were indeed of the opinion that there was no difference between these bodies of assistance and deputies, what they really meant, and furthermore to understand the nature of both bodies in relationship to both the Reformed and Netherlands Reformed ecclesiology and church polity, and to portray this in relationship to the application in the ecclesiastical practice. First, attention will be drawn to the nature of the deputies in order to learn about their task, authority, appointment, and term, and to be able to understand the objection and decline of deputies in the Netherlands Reformed Church. This will be followed by paragraphs on the prohibition of lordship, authority, bodies of assistance, abuse of authority and power, and a concluding paragraph. Therefore I also elaborate on previous publications about deputies and bodies of assistance which I wrote on several occasions (Van den Broeke: 2019c, 2019b, 2019a, 2018b, 2018a, 2005).

19.2

The Nature of Deputies

The nature of deputies mirrors Reformed doctrine. In general, deputy means delegate, representative or replacement (Van Veen/van der Sijs: 1997).3 It comes from the Latin words deputatus (Pinkster: 2003, 287), deputatio4 and deputo5 (Stelten: 1995, 71). The above-mentioned definition mirrors article 49 of the Dordt Church Order of 1619 which states that every synod shall appoint some deputies.6 It also says that it is their task to execute what the synod has decided, with view to both the relevant classes and civil authorities. It includes the examination of candidates for the ministry (see also article 4 Dordt Church Order of 1619), and the assistance of the classes in case of problems to maintain and stabilize concord, order and sound doctrine. The deputies shall keep record of their acts and report to the synod. They will not be dismissed until the synod decides to do so. In the strict sense of the word it means that deputies can only be instituted by the particular synod and not by the general synod. Since the nineteenth century, 3 4 5 6

Accessed 31 July 2019, www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/deputaat. In English: deputation, assignment, appointment. In English: depute, appoint, count, number, assign, prune, condemn. Accessed 31 July 2019, www.kerkrecht.nl/node/488.

293

294

Leon van den Broeke

as the general synod in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands convened on a regular basis, unlike the situation in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-centuries when the States-General of the Dutch Republic prevented a regular gathering of the general synod, the general synods also appointed deputies to fulfil duties in between two gatherings of general synods. It was necessary because the synodical work increased. Classical church visitors can also be considered deputies, article 44 of the Dordt Church Order of 1619. Nevertheless, in the last two decades of the sixteenth-century it was feared that such visitors or deputies could easily become pseudo-bishops (cf. Rutgers: 1889, 440). It was the Synod of Dordt of 1618–1619 which gave church visitors an official status in its church order, in contrast to its predecessor, the Synod of the Hague of 1586 which had made the appointment of such visitors possible, albeit not mandatory (cf. Rutgers: 1889, 621; Rutgers: 1921, 353).7 The Synod of Dordt 1618–1619 made the rule of appointing church visitors with limited authority in its church order mandatory, article 44. It was up to the classes to continue the deputies, until they wished to be dismissed.8 This seems odd in contrast with the developments and the fear for authority in the previous decades. It needs to be put in the context of a young Reformed church which was developing. The fear for permanent supralocal officers was deeply rooted. At the same time, the synods also wanted to take responsibility for the church. The Task of Deputies Deputies execute the assignment given by the relevant major assembly in the period between meetings. Their task is to execute what the synod has decided and to assist the classes in case of special difficulties. Deputies are to keep proper record of their actions. They have to submit a written report to the synod. If required, they will give account of their actions. Although in general the task of the deputies might be clear, it remains somewhat vague. What kind of tasks do the deputies have to fulfil on behalf of the synod? Harm Bouwman (1863–1933) inferred from the general rule of article 49 (to execute what the synod has assigned them) three main tasks: to maintain correspondence with the political authorities, to assist and to advise the classis assemblies in case of problems, and to attend the examination of candidates for the ministry (cf. Bouwman: 1934, 220–226). These main tasks can be divided into a variety of specified tasks as Herman C. Rutgers (1880–1964) did (cf. Rutgers: 1910, 87–181): the relationship

7 Accessed 31 July 2019, www.kerkrecht.nl/node/6094. 8 Accessed 31 July 2019, www.kerkrecht.nl/node/483.

Dangerous Deputies?

with civil authorities and with (local) churches outside the province;9 the care of the synodical documents; the examination of candidates for the ministry and pastors; the care for the sound doctrine and life; the assistance to classes in case of emergency; responsibility for the meetings of the synod; and to act in transition periods. This overview highlights the relevance of deputies, especially for the daily ecclesiastical work in the period when no major assembly convenes. (Van Lieburg: 2014, 127). The Authority of Deputies It also states that deputies form neither a permanent nor an independent committee or board, but are installed by and work under supervision of the relevant assembly. H.C. Rutgers continually reiterated this in his doctoral dissertation (Rutgers: [1910]). He was absolutely right. Article 29 of the Dordt Church Order states that there are four, not five, general assemblies: the consistory, the classis, the particular synod and the general or national synod. Deputies do not form a general assembly, not even a committee and are far from being an autonomous college. Their authority is limited and temporary. They only execute what the synod has decided and/or assigned them to do. No more and no less. At the Particular Synod of Arnhem 1609 a question was raised about expanding the authority of the deputies. The synod’s answer was negative (cf. Reitsma/van Veen: 1895, 174). It was an affirmation of the rule that deputies did not have autonomous authority, but only limited authority. This synod asked the Synod of Dordt of 1618/ 1619 what the power of the deputies was (Kuyper: 1899, 422; cf. Reitsma/van Veen: 1895, 303). The synod did not respond. Rutgers explained that it would have been too difficult for deputies to provide a definition of the power of deputies which would be appropriate and applicable in all situations. This explanation is neither clear nor helpful, especially because Rutgers did not elaborate on the authority of deputies throughout his book. Another topic that dealt with the authority of deputies is whether they have a deciding or an advisory vote. Article 49 of the Dordt Church Order of 1619 does not provide an answer. The Particular Synod of Schoonhoven of 1597 stated that the delegates to the classis shall vote after having heard the advice of the deputies (cf. Reitsma/van Veen: 1893, 89). From the perspective of Reformed church polity it can be stated that deputies only have an advisory voice.

9 Article 48 of the Dordt Church Order of 1619 gives space to particular synods to maintain correspondence by sending deputies to each others meetings. Some of the deputies for Indies, maritime or foreign affairs had more authority than deputies in general; Van den Broeke/Schokkenbroek: 2019, 19–33.

295

296

Leon van den Broeke

The Appointment of Deputies Article 49 of the Dordt Church Order of 1619 does not make clear how the deputies are to be appointed: by election, in rotation or as a result of favouritism? In rotation would mean that every pastor or elder is entitled to be appointed as deputy, which was not the case. Not every office-bearer has the gift to function as deputy. The converse is the prevention of hierarchy because then the most gifted office-bearers are appointed over and over again. By election is another possibility. In ecclesiastical practice, favouritism also occurred. The Synod of Dordt of 1618/1619 considered the installation of regular deputies unnecessary since it could always appoint special deputies and it could assign a particular synod to fulfil one or more duties (cf. Jansen: 1952, 214). This was the seventeenth-century context. Since the civil authorities did not allow a new synod for about 200 years, a new situation arose in the nineteenth-century when general synods convened on a regular basis. These synods unofficially installed several deputies. This was in contrast with the previous context wherein a fixed set of deputies fulfilled its assignment. Close-reading of article 49 reveals something else: it is the synod and not the civil authorities who had the right to appoint deputies. The work of the deputies needed to be done by several groups of deputies, most probably two or three, including the so-called peremptoir, or decisive, examinations by the classis. This examination is for pastors who had received a call from a consistory. The classis of this congregation and the deputies of this particular synod examined the pastor. Moreover, the synod also needed to appoint a replacement in case of absence of deputies (Particular Synod of Amsterdam 1607; Reitsma/van Veen: 1892, 417). Being appointed as a deputy meant an upgrade in social status and even financial improvement (cf. Rutgers: 1910, 39–46). This was even more so for the chairman and the clerk (cf. Rutgers: 1910, 43; Bouwman: 1934, 218). No matter whether the extra income of deputies was lower or higher, it provided an extra motivation for office-bearers to be(come) appointed deputy. Such an appointment not only improved one’s financial status, but also one’s authority and social status, both in church and in society. For these reasons many of them desired appointment as deputy. In order to reach this goal they sometimes used less moral and faithful methods (cf. Rutgers: 1910, 46–53). Apparently, being appointed as a deputy was attractive.

Dangerous Deputies?

The Term of Deputies The synod appoints deputies annually. That prevents a permanent position of deputies. In the light of continuity, it became ecclesiastical practice to continue half of the (experienced) deputies and to appoint new deputies.10 Deputies cannot quit their ‘job’ and leave their task behind. They are in charge as long as the synod has not discharged them. It emphasizes the fact that it is not one or more deputies who can take decisions on their own, but the synod which has the authority. They had limited and temporary authority. This is in line with the limited authority of major assemblies. Only the consistory of the local church has full authority. The major assemblies only have limited and derived authority (potestas derivata). In that context the authority of deputies is also limited. They are not superintendents, but commissioners.11 Their position was made clear in the church order. It was also a reaction against Hugo de Groot (1583–1645) and for the sake of uniformity. De Groot had ranted against ecclesiastical deputies by calling them ‘interreges’ (cf. Grotius: 1995, par. 176, 226 and 390). This also places the topic of deputies in the context of the relationship of church and state, because there were special deputies assigned to visit the civil authorities and to submit requests. Outside the Netherlands, deputies were considered as (kind of) bishops (cf. Rutgers: 1910, 184). No lordship It made it necessary for the Reformed church to navigate between on the one hand the prohibition of lordship (article 84 of the Dordt Church Order of 1619) and on the other hand the limited authority of deputies as formulated in article 49 of the Dordt Church Order of 1619 and the golden rule of article 1 of the Synod of Emden of 1571 that no church, no pastor, no elder, no deacon shall lord one over another, but everyone shall be alert to suspicion and temptation to lord.12 This rule is rooted in the French Confessio Gallicana of 1559: “We believe that all true pastors, wherever they may be, have the same authority and equal power under one head, one only sovereign and universal bishop, Jesus Christ; and that consequently no Church shall claim any authority or dominion over any other” (de Jong: 2018, 2; Cochrane: 2003, 155; Cunitz/Baum/Reuss: 1870, 749). This confession also included the ‘superintendans’ (superintendent) (Cunitz/Baum/Reuss: 1870, 750). There was a bit more space for authority for the sake of unity of the church 10 For example: Particular Synod of Groningen 1603; Reitsma/van Veen: 1898, 70; and PS Amsterdam 1595: Reitsma/van Veen: 1892, 203. 11 In Dutch: lasthebbers. 12 Accessed 26 September 2018, www.kerkrecht.nl/node/5945.

297

298

Leon van den Broeke

in that context, because of extraordinary circumstances (cf. van der Borght: 2000, 189). The superintendent was not included in the Confessio Belgica of 1561 and subsequently also not in the Reformed denominations that adopted this confession. In the Dordt Church Order of 1619 the first article of Emden was placed at the very end. That did not mean that the rule of Emden had become less important. It still made clear that lording over one another was prohibited within the church.

19.3

Authority

It touches upon the concept of authority. The sixteenth- and early seventeenthcentury Reformed context gave space to a limited type of authority. The ‘problem’ with this kind of authority is that although they are, as pastors, assigned to proclaim the Word of God (ministerium docendi) and to administer the sacraments (ministerium sanctificandi), such are not part of their duty as deputies. It is their task to assist in guiding the life of the community (ministerium regendi) (cf. Koffeman: 2014, 123). According to Koffeman, ‘guiding the life of the community’ is not a separate task in itself, but it rather points to the fact that the administrion of Word and sacraments should have its consequences in terms of the life of the community. Therefore, the ordained ministers have a role in guiding the community, but what exactly that means and how this can be implemented is an issue in itself. The question how spiritual guidance is related to the adminstration of Word and sacraments, and what this implies in terms of authority, constitutes an important church polity issue, indeed (Koffeman: 2014, 121–22).

It can also be discussed whether deputies can always be considered as experts in their field since they have limited authority in the sense that they possess authority for a fixed term. At the same time, ecclesiastical practice shows that many deputies were in charge for a longer period since the major assemblies continued their appointment or did not end it. This questions the fear of hierarchy and authority. Moreover, sometimes deputies are qualified, because as deputies they are for example accountant by profession and deputy for financial matters of the denomination or a general in the navy who is a deputy for the pastoral care of the church in the army, the navy and the airforce. Authority is formal, legalized, power (Pinkster: 2003, 99). The second meaning of ‘authority’ is that someone or a body is the expert in a certain field, for example the financial authority (the accountant), or a general in the navy who is an authority in his field of research. It can easily be confused with authoritarian leadership, especially by church leaders, office-bearers and/or congregants who lack any sort

Dangerous Deputies?

of (self)reflection. Unfortunately, too often pastors, elders, deacons or congregants abuse their power. Koffeman states, history shows that especially in authoritarian times and cultures ordained ministry could easily be exercised in an authoritarian way as well. But in no way does ordained ministry necessarily imply an authority that stifles personal freedom and the co-responsibility of the believers for church life (Koffeman: 2014, 125).

This decoy of an authoritarian style of authority is also present today as authority has eroded in the current secularized, democratic and individualized Western societies. Legitimacy, accountability, and transparency have taken over the place of authority. An exception is when authority ‘is optimally based in the will of the community involved and, indeed, often as long as this is clearly the case: if the polls tells another story, authority can easily fade away. It might well be necessary to focus on ministry as a representation of Christ again, especially in such a missionary context’ (Koffeman: 2014, 125–126). This corresponds to what the psychologist Paul Verhaeghe states in his book Autoriteit (Verhaeghe: 2015). If authority has eroded it should not be restored. A new way, as he points out, is authority which is granted by a group to a certain leader. Applied to the church it means that authority should not only be covered by rules, but also need support from within the church.

19.4

Bodies of Assistance

The discussion in general synod about (the decline of) lording over one another was also an issue in the genesis of the Netherlands Reformed church order of 1951. The architect, H.M.J. Wagenaar (1901–1999), of the draft church order (Bouwplan) which in a revised version finally resulted in the Netherlands Reformed church order of 1951 considered that the Dordt Church Order of 1619 and the Reformed ecclesiology had an inward-looking perspective, and was not focussed on serving society (cf. van Ruler: 2018, 203; [Th.L. Haitjema] Balke/Oostenbrink-Evers: 1993, 284). Therefore, this church order was not applicable for the mid-twentieth-century Netherlands Reformed Church. Nevertheless, he implemented the four general assemblies from the Dordt Church Order of 1619. He also implemented a kind of bodies of assistence which he gave the name ‘deputies’ (deputaten-classicaal, deputaten-provinciaal, and deputaten-generaal). He did so, because he considered ‘deputies’ to be a nice antique name, but also because of the expression of its historical development (Balke/Oostenbrink-Evers: 1993, XLIII, 3, 13, 15, 17). Nevertheless, he was of the opinion that bodies of assistance could be an instrument to mitigate too great an emphasis on the offices (verambtelijking). Furthermore, he considered

299

300

Leon van den Broeke

that it was unjust to implement deputies who would be officers, and not just congregants. Nonetheless, he was willing to rebuild the bodies into deputies (Generale Synode: 1949, 135). In the end deputies were not implemented in the Netherlands Reformed church order of 1951, unlike the bodies of assistance. However, despite this implementation and the criticism of the concept of Reformed deputies there were others in the Netherlands Reformed Church who were afraid of the bodies of assistance and favoured the deputies, as would become clear from the small overview that follows. Van Ruler was frightened by the words of the president of the general synod, H.J.F. Wesseldijk, who would replace the title ‘bodies of assistance’ with ‘deputies’, because he saw deputies to the power of the church while the bodies of assistance suggest that it should serve the relevant general assembly, and that they were more moderate than deputies. Van Ruler boldly called the bodies of assistance ‘neutered deputies’ (Generale Synode: 1949, 136). J.C. van Dongen also considered it dangerous for the word ‘deputies’ to be used. Although he favoured bodies of assistance, he feared a wild proliferation of such bodies (Generale Synode: 1949, 137). H.J. Honders concluded that the fear for bodies of assistance also applied for deputies. The latter gave reason for misunderstanding, while they were facilitated by the civil authorities. So, he considered the bodies of assistance to be ‘refined deputies’ (Generale Synode: 1949, 138). So, bodies of assistance, were not episcopal in nature, unlike the remark of G. van der Zee who did not exclude the possibility that these bodies were an episcopal threat, and considered Reformed deputies advisory in nature (cf. Generale Synode: 1949, 133). J.J. Poldervaart questioned the absence of deputies in the draft church order. He thought that the number of bodies of assistance was too large and that it would have negative financial consequences (cf. Generale Synode: 1949, 133–34). Elder J.A. Kruithof stated that he had tremendous fear for the bodies of assistance, because it would not fit in the presbyterial-synodical system of governance (cf. Generale Synode: 1949, 136–37). S.F. van Veenen pointed to the fear of what he called ‘parallel governance’ by the bodies of assistance alongside the governance of general assemblies (Generale Synode: 1949, 134). Despite the fact that K.H.E. Gravemeyer was of the opinion that the church needed bodies of assistance, he asked whether it would be a good idea to choose deputies, as he considered the Reformed deputies as valuable, because the deputies were often businessmen who knew how to run an organization, and to work in an efficient way. According to him that was something that the Netherlands Reformed Church needed badly in a complex society (cf. Generale Synode: 1949, 134). J. Batelaan added that by using the word ‘deputies’ much fear would be taken away (cf. Generale Synode: 1949, 138). P. de Bruijn asked whether the relatiohship between deputies and bodies of assistance was not clear, and whether the assignment was not more limited and temporary in nature. Berkelbach van der Sprenkel informed his discussion partners

Dangerous Deputies?

that the two experts in Reformed church polity, Nauta and Den Hartogh, could not see any difference between deputies and bodies of assistance (cf. Generale Synode: 1949, 137). Both of them had stated that they could not find any difference between the Reformed deputies and the Netherlands Reformed bodies of assistance (cf. Bronkhorst: 1951, 77; Generale Synode 1948, 137). Although both of them had stated that, despite the fact that there is no principal difference between the deputies and the bodies of assistance because both of them were appointed by the same synod and discharged from liability, Den Hartogh kept on having difficulties with a too strong focus on the occupation of the church with the public domain (cf. Balke/ Oostenbrink-Evers: 1993, 595). He stated that the primary task of the church is to proclaim the Word of God. He concluded that his Netherlands Reformed discussion partners moved too much to the Roman-Catholic direction. Nauta declared that the societal work as a consequence of apostolate is not so much the task of the church, but of the believers (cf. Balke/Oostenbrink-Evers: 1993, 589). Van Ruler did not criticize the Reformed deputies so strongly, but considered that something new was necessary, a replacement which would better execute the notion of the apostolic church with the emphasis on apostolate within a post Second World War context. Therefore bodies of assistance were necessary to meet the external agenda of the church and the needs of society, and in the words of Emmen this required a church order of a missional church (Balke/Oostenbrink-Evers: 1993, 138). The Netherlands Reformed Church aimed to focus on the Kingdom of God, and on the world. Although this is understandable it easily surpasses the idea that (Reformed) general assemblies and deputies were bound by article 30 of the Dordt Church Order. It rules that nothing other than ecclesiastical affairs will be dealt with.13 It means that the church should not interfere with political affairs. This does not mean that a Reformed church cannot do or say something about the political and/or societal context, as long as it is related to the ecclesiastical assignment and to the very nature of the church. Van Ruler made the mistake that bodies of assistance were considered as service institutes while he associated deputies with power. Of course, there is always the danger of abuse of power when it comes to deputies, but the same goes for bodies of assistance while deputies can also be considered as service institutes. In the (post-)Second World War context the Netherlands Reformed Church moved with view to its ecclesiology and church order more towards the world than the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. Van Ruler considered that the relevance of bodies of assistance labor was ‘primarily connected with (…) the public prophecy of the church in the full life’ (Van Ruler: 2018, 320). These bodies of assistance formed not a constitutive, but a regulative principle. They were bodies of assistance

13 ‘geen ander dan Kerckelijcke saecken’; accessed 26 December 2019, www.kerkrecht.nl/node/469.

301

302

Leon van den Broeke

to assist the general assemblies. Despite the fact that Van Ruler did not ignore the shadow side of such bodies, the shift from Reformed deputies to Netherlands Reformed bodies of assistance was not a guarantee against abuse of power. Against van Ruler who considered the deputies to be focussed on the inwardchurch and connected with power, and from the perspective of the confessing nature of the church Bronkhorst stated that the prominent task of the church was not to govern, but to witness. He observed that the deputies resurrected and revived in the bodies of assistance (cf. Bronkhorst: 1951, 76 and 78). He did not ignore the difference between deputies and bodies of assistance, as the form of the bodies were twentieth-century in nature, but their content was identical. He objected to the idea that the bodies of assistance could be considered as an episcopal moment in the Netherlands Reformed Church Order of 1951 (cf. Bronkhorst: 1951, 77–78). Nevertheless, also bodies of assistance were also sensitive for abuse of power. Soon, the church discovered their shadow side as they were too dominant, worked too autonomously, were more offices than service institutes, and more focussed on the world including politics than on the church. Furthermore, as their names were also ‘committees’ and ‘councils’ the Netherlands Reformed Church was also called a ‘republic of councils’ (Blei: 2001, 199–205). Abuse However, the protestant problem is not only the issue of authority in general. It can be easily overlooked that authority and power can be positive and helpful instruments. What is problematic is the abuse of authority and power in daily practice. If deputies and members of bodies of assistance are ordained ministers, and other office-bearers they (have to) represent both Christ and the community. From the perspective of the priesthood of all believers the same would go for congregants. Believers bear the image of Christ. It means that protestant authority needs to be spiritual. Koffeman states that ordained ministry, rests in divine vocation, but it both requires recognition and is dependent on it (…) These three aspects of ordained ministry – vocation by God, recognition expressed in election/ vocation by the congregation, and spiritual authority – determine each other mutually: if one of them is lacking, the others are, indeed, void as well (Koffeman: 2014, 122).

That implies that ‘spiritual leadership should be transparent and should clearly reflect the authority of Holy Scripture’ (Koffeman: 2014, 123). However, although applying to the presbyterial-synodical system of church governance including the installation of deputies ‘substantially decreases the risk of a concentration and abuse of powers, it does not necessarily enhance spiritual leadership’ (Koffeman: 2014,

Dangerous Deputies?

124). Koffeman refers to the Presbyterian theologian Joseph D. Small who makes clear the issue of what he calls ‘democratic captivity of the church’ (Small: 2014, 49–63) and the erosion of authority. I would like to add: the decoy of the current ‘managerial or management captivity of the church’ (Koffeman: 2014, 124).

19.5

Conclusion

An instrument to safeguard the anti-hierarchical Reformed ecclesiology in the sixteenth-century was the installation of deputies. In Reformed denominations today they are still no autonomous body. They are also not an assembly, but their nature is to execute the decisions of such assemblies, no more and no less, as becomes clear from articles 29 and 49 of the Dordt Church Order of 1619. By no means they are a kind of parallel governance alongside general assemblies. The deputies do have a commission of the general assembly which has installed them. Also, they are not allowed to extend their assignment or authority on their own. They have to report and give account to the general synod of their acts and proceedings. They are neither bishops nor superintendents, also not pseudo-bishops or interreges. They (only) have limited authority. Nevertheless, ecclesiastical reality demonstrates a less than ideal picture: the greediness in the past to become deputy both to increase one’s social position and to earn extra income, simony, favouritism in cases of appointing of deputies, and abuse of power. Also today’s abuse of power and acting as pseudo-bishops remains an issue. From this perspective the objections within the Netherlands Reformed Church to deputies are understandable. In this church deputies were too associated with the power of the church, an expression of a church with a too inward perspective, and too little attention for politics and society. Some considered deputies even dangerous. Hence the title of this contribution. Therefore, they made a plea for bodies of assistance. They were called ‘neutered deputies’, ‘refined deputies’, and ‘resurrected and revived deputies’. There were also other opinions within the Netherlands Reformed. They associated bodies of assistance with power, feared the existence of too many of such bodies, their parallel governance alongside the general assemblies, and they missed the deputies in the renewed Netherlands Reformed ecclesiology and church polity. Even Wagenaar had his doubts whether he should include deputies. In the end the new Netherlands Reformed church order of 1951 did not include deputies. Bodies of assistance were needed since they were considered an expression of the apostolic nature of the church which would serve society. According to Netherlands Reformed theologians the two experts in Reformed church polity, Den Hartogh and Nauta, did not see any difference between bodies

303

304

Leon van den Broeke

of assistance and deputies. This was only partly true. They saw many resemblances between deputies and bodies of assistance. They were also of the opinion that bodies of assistance were an expression of a church which was too focussed on the world. For them this was the assignment of the believers in everyday life to witness Christ. The core business of the church is to proclaim the Word of God. It highlights the ecclesiological differences between the two Reformed denominations: the apostolic nature of the Netherlands Reformed Church for the benefit of the Dutch society, and the Kuyperian ecclesiology which made a distinction between the church as institute and the church as organism. Nonetheless, whether a church chooses for deputies or bodies of assistance there is for both of them the decoy of how to consider, receive and execute authority, and how to deal with the abuse of power. Churches need neither more and stronger leadership nor more democratization. They need spiritual leadership of office-bearers who express in their way of guiding the church their faith and awareness that they represent both Christ and the community, and resist the pitfall of governing the church in an authoritarian way. They need to witness, not (only) govern. Also, they need deputies to execute the daily job of the church in between sessions of synod(s). Also, the Reformed type of church governance in general and deputies specifically express a system of checks and balances to prevent abuse of and thirst for power, predominance, and arbitrariness as far as possible. Still, as van der Borght stated, Reformed, and also protestant, churches are and need to remain sensitive to the abuse of authority in the everyday life, to prevent or resist dangerous deputies, and even dangerous bodies of assistance.

Bibliography Baijense, B. (1995), De gemeenten op de ‘Vlaamse Olijfberg’, Tijdschrift voor Vaderlandse Geschiedenis, vol. 24. nr. 24, 123–133. Balke, W./H. Oostenbrink-Evers (1993), De commissie voor de kerkorde (1945–1950): Bouwplan, agendastukken en notulen van de vergaderingen ter voorbereiding van de nieuwe kerkorde (1951) van de Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk, Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum. Blei, Karel (2001), De kerkorde en de generale synode, in: W. Balke, A. van de Beek and J.D.Th. Wassenaar (ed.), De kerk op orde? Vijftig jaar hervormd leven met de kerkorde van 1951, Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 194–219. Bouwman, H. (1934), Gereformeerd Kerkrecht: Het recht der kerken in de practijk, vol. 2, Kampen: Kok. Bronkhorst, A.J. (1951), Inleiding tot het Nederlandse hervormde kerkrecht: De inrichting der kerk, ‘s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum (Practisch Theologische Handboekjes).

Dangerous Deputies?

Bronkhorst, A.J. (1945), Op weg naar een nieuwe kerkorde: De beteekenis van de komende Generale Synode voor de Nederlandsch Hervormde Kerk, Amsterdam: W. ten Have. Cochrane, A.C. (2003), Reformed confessions of the sixteenth century (…), Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Cunitz, Edouard/Johann-Wilhelm Baum/Eduard Wilhelm Eugen Reuss (ed.) (1870), Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, Brunsvigae: C.A. Schwetschke. De Jong, K.W. (2018), Een verkennend onderzoek naar de receptie van een anti-hiërarchisch beginsel in Nederlandse kerkorden van het gereformeerde type, In die Skriflig 52(2), a2350. doi.org/10.4102/ids. v52i2.2350. De Kerk aan het Werk: Een schets van de betekenis der organen van bijstand voor het leven der Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk en haar geschiedenis van 1945 tot 1955, samengesteld in opdracht van het moderamen van de generale synode der Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk door de Raad voor de Zaken van Pers en Publiciteit, ‘s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum. Grotius, Hugo (1995), Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae pietas, in: Edwin Rabbie (ed.), Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill (Studies in the History of Christian Thought, Heiko A. Oberman (ed.) 66), par. 176, 226 and 390. Generale Synode der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk (1949), Handelingen van de vergaderingen van de Generale Synode der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk 1948, ‘s-Gravenhage: Ned. Boek- en Steendrukkerij. Hulsbergen, S.J.M. (1984), De verhouding van Zeeland tot de protestanten in Vlaanderen van de XVIe tot de XIXe eeuw, in: M. P. de Bruijn (ed.), Zeeuws tijdschrift 34 nr. 1, 15–22. Jansen, Joh. (1952), Korte verklaring van de kerkorde der Gereformeerde Kerken, 3rd ed., Kampen: Kok. Koffeman, Leo J. (2014), In Order to Serve: An Ecumenical Introduction to Church Polity, Zürich/Münster: LIT Verlag, 2014 (Church Polity and Ecumenism Global Perspectives 1, ed. by Leo J. Koffeman, Allan J. Janssen and Johannes Smit). Kuyper, H.H. [1899], De post-acta of nahandelingen van de nationale synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619 gehouden: naar den authentieken tekst in het Latijn en Nederlandsch uitgegeven en met toelichtingen voorzien, voorafgegaan door de geschiedenis van de acta, de autographa en de post-acta dier synode … : Een historische studie, Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser. Pinkster, Harm (ed.) (2003), Woordenboek Latijn/Nederlands, 2nd. ed., Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Plomp, J. (1967), Presbyteriaal-Episcopaal? (Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar aan de Theologische Hogeschool te Kampen), Kampen, Kok. Rasker, A.J. (2000), De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795: Geschiedenis, theologische ontwikkelingen en de verhouding tot haar zusterkerken in de negentiende en twintigste eeuw, 6th ed., Kampen: Kok. Reitsma, J./S.D. van Veen (ed.) (1898), Acta der provinciale en particuliere synoden, gehouden in de noordelijke Nederlanden gedurende de jaren 1572–1620, vol. VII: Groningen 1595–1620, Groningen: J.B. Wolters.

305

306

Leon van den Broeke

Reitsma, J./S.D. van Veen (ed.) (1896), Acta der Provinciale en Particuliere Synoden, gehouden in de noordelijke Nederlanden gedurende de jaren 1572–1620, vol. V: Overijssel 1584–1620, Groningen: Wolters. Reitsma, J./S.D. van Veen (ed.) (1895), Acta der Provinciale en Particuliere Synoden, gehouden in de noordelijke Nederlanden gedurende de jaren 1572–1620, vol. IX: Gelderland 1579–1620, Groningen: Wolters. Reitsma, J./S.D. van Veen (ed.) (1893), Acta der Provinciale en Particuliere Synoden, gehouden in de noordelijke Nederlanden gedurende de jaren 1572–1620, vol. II: NoordHolland 1618–1620. Zuid-Holland 1574–1592, Groningen: J.B. Wolters. Reitsma, J./S.D. van Veen (ed.) (1892), Acta der provinciale en particuliere synoden, gehouden in de noordelijke Nederlanden gedurende de jaren 1572–1620, vol. I: NoordHolland 1572–1608, Groningen: J.B. Wolters. Rutgers, F.L. (1921), Kerkelijke adviezen, vol. 1, Kampen: Kok. Rutgers, F.L. (ed.) (1889), Werken der Marnix-Vereeniging Serie II, vol. III: Acta van de Nederlandsche Synoden der zestiende eeuw, Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon. Rutgers, H.C. [1910], Kerkelijke Deputaten, Kampen: J.H. Kok. Small, Joseph D. (2014), The Democratic Captivity of the Church, in: Allan J. Janssen/ Leo J. Koffeman (ed.), Protestant Church Polity in Changing Contexts I: Ecclesiological and Historical Contributions. Proceedings of the International Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 7–10 November, 2011, Zurich/Berlin: LIT-Verlag, 49–63. Stelten, Leo F. (1995), Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin, Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Torfs, Rik (2018), Alleen een reformatie kan de Rooms-Katholieke Kerk nog redden, Trouw, 10 November 2018. Van den Broeke, C. [Leon] (2019c), Deputaatschappen, in: H.J. Selderhuis (ed.), Handboek gereformeerd kerkrecht, Heerenveen: Groen, 337–341. Van den Broeke, Leon (2019b), Power, Abuse of Power, and Law in the Church: Apostolate, the Bodies of Assistance, and Church Polity for the World, in: Matthew van Maastricht (ed.), Remembrance, Communion, & Hope: Essays in Honor of Allan J. Janssen, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 167–183 (The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America 96). Van den Broeke, Leon/Joost Schokkenbroek (2019a), Quo patet orbis Dei: Dutch Deputies for maritime affairs and their global network in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Journal of Maritime History 31.1, 19–33; DOI: 10.1177/0843871418824964. Van den Broeke, Leon (2018b), Macht, machtsmisbruik en recht in de kerk, www.aavanruler.nl/dr-leon-van-den-broeke-macht-machtsmisbruik-en-recht-in-de-kerk-organenvan-bijstand-en-het-kerkrecht-voor-de-wereld/. Van den Broeke, Leon (2018a), Tussenregenten, uitvoerders of leiders met autoriteit? F.L. Rutgers en H.C. Rutgers over kerkelijke deputaten, in: Leon van den Broeke and George Harinck (ed.), Nooit meer eene nieuwe hiërarchie! De kerkrechtelijke nalatenschap van F.L. Rutgers, Hilversum: De Vuurbaak, 87–107.

Dangerous Deputies?

Van den Broeke, C. [Leon] (2005), Een geschiedenis van de classis: Classicale typen tussen idee en werkelijkheid (1571–2004), Kampen: Kok. Van der Borght, E.A.J.G. (2000), Het ambt her-dacht: De gereformeerde ambtstheologie in het licht van het rapport Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Lima, 1982) van de Theologische Commissie Faith and Order van de Wereldraad van kerken, Zoetermeer: Meinema. Van der Sijs, Nicoline (ed.) (2010), Etymologiebank, accessed 10 November 2018, www.etymologiebank.nl Van Drimmelen, L.C. (2000), Het ABC van SOW: Woordenlijst bij de vijf kerkordes, Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum. Van Lieburg, Fred (2014), Re-Understanding the Dordt Church Order in Its Dutch Political, Ecclesiastical and Cultural Context (1559–1816), in: Allan J. Janssen/Leo J. Koffeman (ed.), Protestant Church Polity in Changing Contexts I: Ecclesiological and Historical Contributions. Proceedings of the International Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 7–10 November, 2011, Zürich/Berlin: LIT-Verlag. Van Ruler, A.A. (2018), Verzameld Werk: Kerkorde, kerkrecht en ambt, vol. 5b, ed. by D. van Keulen, P. van den Heuvel, and J. Stelwagen, Utrecht: KokBoekencentrum. Van ‘t Spijker, W./L.C. van Drimmelen (ed.) (1992), Inleiding tot de studie van het kerkrecht, 2nd ed., Kampen: Kok. Van Veen, P.A.F./N. van der Sijs (1997), Etymologisch woordenboek: De herkomst van onze woorden, 2nd. ed., Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicographie; accessed 31 July 2019, www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/deputaat. Verhaeghe, Paul (2015), Autoriteit, Amsterdam/Antwerpen: De Bezige Bij.

307

Dolf Britz

20.

The Footprint of the Church Order of Dordt at the Cape of Good Hope?

An Investigation of Primary Ecclesiological Documents

Abstract Particularly, the Afrikaans church historiography in South Africa assumes the ruling of the Church Order of Dordt (1619) at the Cape of Good Hope since its inception in 1652. Consequently, it presupposes an unquestionable imprint of the Church Order in South African ecclesiastical practice and thinking. Based on the critical investigation of primary sources until the mid-nineteenth century, this contribution unfolds a different story. In consulting core primary sources, it profiled the development of a South African ecclesiology, and the historical advance of a typical colonial comprehension of the content, nature and authority of the church’s rules and regulations, as the configuration of identity and standing. At the Cape of Good Hope in the course of more than two hundred years, a typical contextualised ecclesiastical trajectory gave rise to, and provided the platform for the identity and standing of the South-African-Dutch reformed churches. This trajectory, the research concludes, was neither guided nor inspired by the Church Order of Dordt 1619.

20.1

Introduction

As a culmination of theological and ecclesiastical thought between 1571 and 1619, the Church Order of Dordt 1619, and its underpinning beliefs, provided the platform for Dutch reformed ecclesiology until the adoption of the General Regulation1 in 1816. The footprint of the Church Order of Dordt in the overseas territories, however, was yet again different. Transplanted to and sustained by the renowned Dutch East-India and West-India Companies in ultramarine regions, where a trade enterprise of consequence was established since the turn of the seventeenth century, reformed churches implemented a ministry aligned with the mandates and constraints of the authorities as demanded by the respective colonial settings (cf. 1 Algemeen Reglement voor het Bestuur der Hervormde Kerk in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. For the text with commentary, cf. Hoojier: 1846, 24–407.

310

Dolf Britz

Schutte: 2002). The reception of the Church Order of Dordt in overseas regions should thus be carefully distinguished from its enduring and direct impact in the Netherlands. What happened at the Cape of Good Hope? Incepted in April 1652 by the Dutch East-India Company as a refreshment and service post, the establishment received its first reformed congregation in 1665, followed by the second (Stellenbosch) in 1686 and the third (Drakenstein) in 1691. At the end of the eighteenth century the number rose to seven, with congregants living in remote districts up to 800 kilometres from Cape Town. The question is whether a clear imprint of the Church Order of Dordt 1619, as so often is assumed and underscored by the popular Afrikaans church historiography (e.g. Coertzen: 1991, 243; Strauss: 2015, 17–21), can be detected in this Cape ecclesiastical arrangement? What do the sources indicate? This contribution endeavours to demarcate an interesting South African reception history of the Church Order of Dordt 1619, unfolded from the primary Cape sources until the mid-nineteenth century.

20.2

The Reformed Ministry at the Cape of Good Hope

When the Cape settlement received a permanent minister in August 1665, an elder and deacon were appointed to serve as church council. A Kerken-boek van de Caap van Goede Hope was instigated. The Kerken-boek with its name lists and decisions, carefully kept by the successive Cape ministers, offers an inimitable perspective on the constituent contents of the earliest ecclesial ministry at the Cape of Good Hope. Fundamental was the Formulierboek, or Book of Formularies, used in Cape reformed congregations. The earliest extant Formulierboek in South Africa is the Catechismus, a Hendrik van der Putte-edition, published during the latter part of the eighteenth century in Amsterdam. This book served the congregation of Cape Town. As its precursors, like the 1695-Trommius edition of the Psalms of Dathenus, it contained the official ecclesiastical formularies, prayers, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Kortbegrip (or epitome) of the Christian religion, the doctrinal standard of the reformed churches in the Netherlands and a clarification of some main points of the confession as overseen and formulated by the National Synod at Dordrecht in 1618 and 1619,2 (i.e. the Canons). When Krotoa (Eve), the first from among the Khoina,

2 “ … ende naerder Verklaringe van eenige Hooft-Stukken desselven, overgesien ende gestelt in de Synode National der Nederlandsche Kercken, gehouden tot Dordrecht, in de Jaren 1618. en 1619.” Title page, Catechismus.

The Footprint of the Church Order of Dordt at the Cape of Good Hope?

was baptised on the 3rd May 1662 by Reverend Sybelius (Classis Amsterdam: 31–32), she listened and responded to the Formulary for the Baptism of Adult Persons as recorded in these books. All her children were baptised, including those born out of wedlock, after the violent death in 1667 of her husband Pieter van Meerhof, viz.: Jerome, 23 November 1870, Antonij, 6 August 1873 (Kerken-boek: 6 and 7 respectively). In these cases, the Formulary for the Baptism of Children of Believers was read. The same ruling applied when adults and children born from Christian families were baptised. At the Cape, children of slaves, belonging to either Christian families or the Company, were indeed baptised as well. On 25 June 1660, e.g. Pietertje and Reintje, children of the slaves of sick comforter Pieter van der Stael and Jan van Riebeeck correspondingly, were baptised by Reverend Francois Caron (Classis Amsterdam: 21). This custom was against the majority ruling of the National Synod of Dordt on the fifth of December 1618. On the issue concerning the baptism de infantibus etiam ethnicorum (ADNS I: 2014, 31.15), the majority was of the opinion that these small children should not be baptised, until such time that they could be taught in the first principles of the Christian faith (ADNSD I: 2014, 31.18–23). This decision excluded the new-born children of slaves from the sacrament. Visiting Reverend Buldaeus challenged the custom on 21st March 1666 by refusing to baptise the child of a slave that was the property of the Company. The Cape Commandeer appealed to an instruction from East-India, and enforced the baptism of the child the next Sunday, when Buldaeus already had left (Resolutions C. 4: 5−10). This incident illustrates to what extent the instructions, regulations and directives of the East-India Company determined the formation of the Christian ministry at the Cape. Article five of the 1617-Instruction (Spoelstra: 1907, 544–556) ruled that ministers and sick comforters in the service of the Company should restrict themselves to “Religion: and in the execution thereof, to act, faithfully and committed, according to the mandate and instruction, given to them by the respective Presbyteries.” (My translation – DB; Spoelstra: 1907, 546).3 The “mandate and instruction” received from the Classes, incorporated the official documents concerning the ecclesiastical examination, calling and ordination, the undersigning of the Catechism, the doctrinal standard of the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, as well as the Canons of Dordt. Candidates for the ministry were also indebted to keep the liturgy of the Reformed church, as contained in the Trommius-edition of Dathenus’s Psalms. As officials of the Company a service level agreement in addition stipulated that

3 “Godsdienst: ende hun in ‘t uytvoeren van dien getrouwelijck ende neerstelijcken sien te quyten naer d’Ordre ende Instructie, hunlieden … bij de respective Classen medegegeven”.

311

312

Dolf Britz

With regard to both public conversation and civil obedience, during their sojourn, as in accord to all officers and servants of the Company, be submitted to the sanctioned authorities, both at sea and at land, wherever they are, and that they should strictly keep to the General Code of Conduct and other instructions, made by the Governing Body here, or also by the Governor General and Council of India there, or still to be made. (My translation – DB).4

Consequently, they had to watch their footsteps. Their official ministry and its ecclesiastical formation would only be tolerated in as far as it was attuned to the range of the Dutch East-India Company interests and framework. The postponed baptism of the slave Susanna’s child Andrias, on 28 March 1666 (Kerken-boek: 2), demonstrated the point in case.

20.3

The Formal Structure of the Ministry at the Cape of Good Hope

The basic configuration of the Christian ministry at the Cape of Good Hope corresponded with the reformed tradition as incorporated in the Church Order of Dordt (1619), and, therefore, in accordance with the conventions in the fatherland. In the colonial set-up, the official and thus public structure of the reformed church as a recognized institution in and for the Cape establishment was, however, determined by a variety of political, ecclesial and official documents. Throughout the eighteenth century the instructions of the Dutch East-India Company, the Political Council, the Cape Governors and directives of visiting Commissioners, stipulated the ministry of the church. The considerations and decisions under direction of Governor General Joan van Hoorn (1653–1711) in February 1710 is a good example in this regard (Spoelstra: 1907, 608–613). These official requirements and obligations shaped, within the ranks of the established ecclesial leadership at the Cape, a trajectory of theological and ecclesial thinking and practices that eventually became the intellectual property of the Cape-Dutch church. A typical identity was founded. A public profile, theology and self-understanding anchored itself in these documents. In the Cape Corpus Christianum it motivated the prevailing intellectual, cultural and ecclesial practice and awareness. There was no reason to appeal to the reformed confession, nor to

4 “soo vele de civile conversatie ende borgerlijcke gehoorsaemheyt aengaet, gedurende haere reyse, gelijck als alle andere Officiers ende dienaers van de Compe., de gestelde Overicheden soowel te water als te lande daer sij hun vinden sullen onderworpen sijn, ende hun moeten reguleren near den Generaelen Artijckelbrieff ende andere Instructiën, bij de Bewinthebbere alhier ofte oock bij den Gouverneur Generael ende Raeden van Indiën aldaer gemaeckt of noch te maecken” (Spoelstra: 1907, 544).

The Footprint of the Church Order of Dordt at the Cape of Good Hope?

deliberately call on the Church Order of Dordt (1619). In the Christian cohesion state-church at the Cape, the Cape-Dutch reformed church(es) received a protected space for its household. The official and public structure of the church as a recognised institutum allowed for a reformed formation of the Christian ministry in the tradition of Dutch reformed thinking. The Church Order of Dordt as a predominant document determining the mutual life of the Cape reformed churches, is absent in the limited early Cape-Dutch theological and ecclesiastical corpus of literature.

20.4

Sowing the Seeds of Religion and Humanity: A New Administration 1802

The Dutch East-India Company collapsed during the nineties of the eighteenth century. This coincided with the inception of the Batavian Republic. The Cape of Good Hope transferred to British protection between 1796 and 1802. The peace of Amiens reversed the Cape to Dutch authority. This offered the Department of Indian Affairs the opportunity to draft an entire new charter for the Cape of Good Hope, now seen as a valuable Batavian settlement (“volkplanting”). An extensive Memorandum (De Mist: 1920, 2–158) of the Department, compiled by Commissary J.A. de Mist (1749–1823), outlined the future form and method of the Government of the Cape of Good Hope (De Mist: 1920, 15–16). This provided for liberty of trade, the implementation of well-defined laws and administration of justice, education, the right to acquire freehold property and full ownership and sharing in local government (De Mist: 1920, 34, 43). And, freedom of religion … In his 1802 Memorandum, de Mist noted that it requires no proof to show that no community can exist without religion. The public acknowledgement of a Supreme Being, he interprets a popular opinion, carries the obligation to observe all moral and social virtues associated with civilization (De Mist: 1920: 44). This functional notion of the Christian faith and its institutions are subsequently applied to the context of the Cape settlement. In this respect, de Mist was informed by John Barrow’s An Account of Travels into the Interior of Southern Africa, in the Years 1797 and 1798. Following Barrow (1764–1848), de Mist ascribed the rebellious conduct and unreasonable behaviour of white inhabitants of the country, in particular those in remote regions far away from Cape Town, to the corruption of their moral sense. The lack of social intercourse with civilised individuals, the monotonous life and the “ … since some years, the (what might be termed a hunting) war, conducted against the Bushmen and Kaffirs, which caused them to shoot down a human being

313

314

Dolf Britz

as if it was a hare or a wolf …” (My translation – DB; De Mist: 1920, 45)5 , are the obvious reasons why improved methods of civilisation should be provided for these “half-wild Europeans” and the colonists in general (De Mist: 1920, 45). The work of civilising the colonists and provoking their moral sense, should be encouraged by a beneficent religion, de Mist concluded (De Mist: 1920, 47). This relates to his conviction that civilisation should play a vital role in addressing the inhumanity of slave-trading at the Cape, the behaviour towards aborigines and former natives of the Cape with consistent cruelty by colonists, the ill-treatment of neighbouring tribes, acts of oppression, etc. This conduct should be remedied with justice, and by the “sowing of the seeds of religion and humanity” (De Mist: 1920, 109–116). The only instrument of restitution and rectification was – obviously – the Batavian administration, ready to govern the Cape of Good Hope. Like its predecessor, the Dutch East-India Company, this colonial authority would also incorporate and integrate the Christian faith and church to serve its governance functions. What this exactly entailed, became clear once the Batavian administration took responsibility for the Cape settlement. The effect this had on the public structure of Cape ecclesiological thought, cannot be underestimated.

20.5

A New Beginning: The Provisional Church Ordinance 1804

The Batavian era prompted the introduction of a new political and ecclesial dispensation at the Cape. De Mist led intellectually, and played a crucial role in establishing a new beginning. Partially because uncertainties and issues were raised, i.a. by Cape-Dutch congregations, de Mist provided the settlement with a significant Provisioneele Kerken-Ordre voor de Bataafsche Volkplanting aan de Kaap de Goede Hoop6 in 1804. This (Cape) legislation was drafted with a view to supervise and regulate the inauguration of the novel ecclesial state of affairs at Cape of Good Hope. There were now, after all, different churches, mission societies and missionaries which, side by side, all laid claim to the propagation and church planting of the ecumenical-divers Christian religion in and outside the Cape colonial setting. In the published extract from the Register of Acts and Decisions of Commissioner General de Mist, dated 25 July 1804, de Mist explicated the reasons for the KerkenOrdre. He stated again that no civilized society could exist without religion. It is, therefore, the duty of Government to ensure in all possible ways that the public religious exercises (services) of such church associations (“Kerk-genoodschappen”), 5 “sederd eenige jaaren, als het waare georganiseerde Jacht Oorlog, tegen de Boschjesmannen en Caffers, die hun een mensch doe doodschieten, als of het een haas of wolf waare” 6 Provisional Church Ordinance for the Batavian Settlement at the Cape of Good Hope. (My translation – DB).

The Footprint of the Church Order of Dordt at the Cape of Good Hope?

in endorsing virtue and good morals, honour a Highest Being, be encouraged and protected. This responsibility should be based on sound (consistent) and just principles. It must be amended by regular decrees and ordinances (“Wetten en Ordres”), without which the best and most useful institutions cannot exist in the long run and would ultimately lead to confusion, separations and divisions, effectuating the ruination of the state (De Mist: 1804, 1). The Kerken-Ordre should, therefore, also be read against the background of similar remarks in the earlier de Mist-Memorandum, as well as the envisaged and needed moral effect of religion on the Cape society, in particular with regards to injustices prevalent in slavery, the treatment of indigenous peoples, etc. Die Kerken-Ordre comprised two sections. The first was dedicated to general principles and stipulations (provisions) (De Mist: 1804, 1–3) and the second contained instructions regarding the proper regulation for ecclesiastical (church) associations in the Volkplanting (De Mist: 1804, 3–9). Careful reading of the Kerken-Ordre discloses its explication of the position of the state and its authority with regards to religious affairs, as carried by churches and mission societies. The rationale is to guarantee and protect the interests of civil society. Churches, as open associations, are allowed to teach and preach their particular doctrines (De Mist: 1804, 2). However, the state and government have the indisputable power to adjudicate the effect of believe systems on civil society. If it appears to be harmful, government is obliged to resist, prevent or restrain it (De Mist: 1804, 2). Ministers must submit to decisions of government in this regard. All opposition is seen as disobedience to the law and resisting the good order (De Mist: 1804, 2). Permission must be obtained at all times for the erection of church buildings, and missionary institutions, within and beyond the borders of the (colonial) establishment. Church societies are allowed by the Governor and must apply for approval. The government ensures that church governance and funds are managed properly (De Mist: 1804, 3). Being the most numerous and in the rural districts the only church association, particular provisions and stipulations were made for the (historic) Hervormde Kerk-genoodschap. This church, therefore, should receive the aid and assistance of the government (De Mist: 1804, 3). The stipulations ruled the election of church councils, the appointment of minsters as well as their remuneration from state funds (De Mist: 1804, 4). Article 30 determines the nature and content of home visitation and underpins the moral effect of religion. … to admonish, teach, and comfort, and thus, to acquaint themselves with the moral condition and conduct of the members of their congregation, and on all occasions to remind them of their obligation to comply with the Laws, respect for their Government, the erroneous and destructive ways of own directedness, and the criminality of the mis-

315

316

Dolf Britz

treatment of the Free Hottentots in their service, – as well as their servants, etc. (My translation – DB; De Mist: 1804, 5).7

The privileged Cape-Dutch reformed church thus received its conditional entitlements, rights and responsibilities, as stipulated and sanctioned by the law, i.e. the Kerken-Ordre. To ascertain that the stipulations are kept in good order, the KerkenOrdre authorised a General Assembly to meet in Cape Town, at least every two years, consisting of two ministers and elders of Cape Town, and one minister and elder from each of the rest of the congregations. In addition, two Commissionerspolitique would represent the government (De Mist: 1804, 8–9). The official sanctioning of a General Assembly would significantly consolidate the position of the Cape-Dutch reformed church. This initiated an amalgamated concept of the church. The congregations would be incorporated in a compacted, overarching and all-encompassing structure, legalised in terms of de Mist’s KerkenOrdre and thus authorised to be constituted in a right of their own. This (composite) church, as a public recognized institutum (Kerk-genoodschap), was entrenched in legislation, and at the same time also subject to that legislation. In a colonial context: an ideal position to hold. The foreseen General Assembly would provide the ecclesial structure that in future reinforced the concept of the colonial church as an accepted and even key institutum. Its composition could only be articulated in a range of rules, regulations, ordinances and ecclesial by-laws in so far as these did not contradict any public legislation. A new future dawned on the seven reformed congregations, a future in which they would be united in a single body. In the South African ecclesiastical landscape, the Church Ordinance of de Mist signified a meaningful development. The de Mist Ordinance did not pretend to establish a church order. It was legislation to manage the ecclesiastical dispensation for and in a “new” colony. It is a contextual document, and motivated by a religious and church concept that was far removed from the theology and ecclesiology of Dordt. Due to the continuation of European wars, the Cape of Good Hope was occupied by Great Britain in 1806. The Batavian interlude ended.

7 “… vermaanen, leeren, en troosten, en zich, zodoende, met den zedelyken toestand en het gedrag der Leden van hunne gemeente bekend maaken en by alle gelegenheden dezelve voorhouden hunne verpligting tot naakoming der Wetten, – eerbied jegens hunne Overheid – het verkeerde en verwoestende van eigen-richting, – en het misdadige dat gelegen is in het mishandelen der Vrye Hottentotten in hunnen dienst, – zo wel als van hunne Lyf-eigenen enz.”

The Footprint of the Church Order of Dordt at the Cape of Good Hope?

20.6

The Establishment of a Colonial Church: The Regulations of 1824

The 1804 legislation persisted the transition to a colony in the British Empire in 1806. It kept its validity in particular with regard to the Cape-Dutch Church. In terms of the 1804 Kerken-Ordre, the first General Assembly met in Cape Town in November 1824. The Assembly confirmed that the Kerken-Ordre of de Mist … shall be regarded as the constitution of the Reformed Church in this Settlement, of which these latter general provisions of church administration are merely modifications and additions, born of the conditions and circumstances of the changed times. (My translation – DB; Reglementen 1824: 35)8 .

The foundation for its legitimacy as a recognised Kerk-genoodschap (including its constituent congregations), as well as the right to draw up its rules and regulations within the limits of its legal basis, was thus safeguarded. The composed church was divided in three presbyteries: the first, Cape Town; the second, Tulbach and the third, Graaff-Reinet. The governance of the church was stipulated to be congregational, presbyterial and synodical (Reglementen 1824: 3). The main purpose of the Assembly was to design and formulate Reglementen voor het Bestuur der Nederduitsche Hervormde Kerk, in Zuid-Afrika (Regulations for the governance of Niederdutch Reformed Church, in South Africa). A General Regulation was thus drafted (Reglementen 1824: 3ff). In terms of the 1804 Kerken-Ordre, the Regulations were seen as “modifications and additions”, adjusted to the (colonial) “state of our affairs”, and officially approved by the British colonial authority. In the course of drawing up the Regulations, the Church Order of Dordt 1619 was not consulted. Neither were any references made to this historical document. However, in formulating its Regulations, the Cape Assembly was indeed informed by a contemporary Dutch ecclesiastical document, the Algemeen Reglement voor het Bestuur der Hervormde Kerk in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (1816). The inception and restauration of a constitutionally guided Kingdom in the Netherlands, required ecclesial legislation. Accordingly, the rationale for the General Regulation was to provide for the inevitable need for the effective and sustainable governance of the church as a judicially defined voluntary society, within the framework of reassuring government recognition and support. The demand was, therefore, for a new church order, adjusted to the state of affairs and adapted to the demands of time.

8 “… beschouwd zal moeten worden als de grondwet der Hervormde Kerk in deze Volkplanting, van dewelke deze later algemeene bepalingen van kerkbestier slechts modificatien en byvoegsels zyn, uit de veranderde gesteldheid der tyden en omstandigheden geboren”.

317

318

Dolf Britz

In southern Africa, the General Regulation was destined to fundamentally shape the ecclesiological thinking and practice of its reformed churches, as convincingly argued by Nel (2019, 147–187). It provided a framework of clear-cut stipulations, rules and regulations, fit for purpose to govern the church as an entity in colonial society. The General Regulation was the most appropriate example to follow, and to implement. The 1824 Regulations for the governance of the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk in South Africa offered the church a standing in the Cape Colony. Its identity became conceptualised in the Regulations. The Cape-Dutch church was now an establishment associated with the colony.

20.7

The Consolidation of a Colonial Reformed Church 1843: Laws and Stipulations

In November 1843, the outdated and irrelevant Kerken-Ordre of de Mist was annulled and replaced by a (church specific) Ordinance (Wetten en Bepalingen 1843: 3). This Ordinance offered a new legal framework for the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, as this church was now publicly identified and named. As such, the Ordinance was conforming to and aligned with the British administration and colonial legal system. The Ordinance provided the Dutch Reformed Church with the authority to determine its internal affairs (Wetten en Bepalingen 1843: 3). The General Assembly or Synod was, accordingly, designated as the natural and proficient authority to make such laws and regulations for the administration of the Church. These laws and regulations were, however, limited to the legitimacy of a validly recognised “voluntary society”. The Ordinance also protected the legal liability of persons, as well as the church and its assemblies, especially where the church would administer justice (in terms of procedures and verdicts) by a properly composed and competent ecclesial court of law (Wetten en Bepalingen 1843: 6–7). The church, as a “voluntary society”, was now appropriately and lawfully accommodated in the British colonial system. Official recognition would be in terms of the Ordinance (7/1843). Its attached Schedule (Wetten en Bepalingen 1843: 4) provided that any amendment or extension of the Schedule in violation of Ordinance, will be null and void (Wetten en Bepalingen 1843: 5). The Schedule comprised the Wetten en Bepalingen voor het Bestuur der Nederduitsche Gerefomeerde Kerk in Zuid-Afrika9 (cf. Wetten en Bepalingen 1843: 8ff). Although the Ordinance was embedded in British legislature and correspondingly

9 Laws and Stipulations for the Governance of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa.

The Footprint of the Church Order of Dordt at the Cape of Good Hope?

provided for church courts and church laws – concepts that indeed played a pivotal role later in the century (during the 1860’s) when the Dutch Reformed Church had to defend its judicature, procedures and jurisdiction in the Cape High Court – the Laws and Stipulations were nevertheless based on the Dutch General Regulation of 1816. For the Cape-Dutch church the transition to a British colonial order was accomplished and finalised with the promulgation of the Ordinance and its Schedule. The church found recognition in terms of its Laws and Stipulations, and could identify itself amongst the many other churches in the colony. With the Laws and Stipulations in place, the Dutch Reformed Church gained prestige, and was now able to deploy her ministry in new directions, of which the inception of its own Theological Seminary in 1859 is a speaking example. The trajectory that shaped the structure of the Cape-Dutch church, with its roots in the early Cape and Company instructions, directives and statutes, its exposure to the 1804 Kerken-Ordre of de Mist, and its formulated 1824-General Regulation, contextually adapted but informed by the notorious General Regulation, reached in the 1843 Laws and Stipulations its consolidation. This became its church order. The concept of the church as an institute, overshadowed its essence as a community with a ministry.

20.8

Reformed Churches in the Interior Distinguish Themselves

By now, South African history and church history were about to change. The region saw the political establishment of two Boer republics, (the South African Republic 1852, and the Republic of the Orange Free State 1854), a further British Colony (Natal), British protectorates, locations, reserves, kingdoms, etc. as the result of a third wave of colonisation. This further step in colonising the region were motivated, challenged, questioned and resisted. It created South Africa’s controversial past – and future. Ordinance 7/1843 legally limited the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa to the Cape Colony. The Church had no legal status or position outside the Colony and could not expand beyond its borders. Between 1853 and 1866, the historical Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa diverged into the establishment of differentiated Dutch Reformed Churches in the interior regions, in the South African Republic, in the Orange Free State and in Natal. This gave rise to the inception of separate Dutch Reformed Churches in Natal (1864), the Orange Free State (1865) and the South African Republic (1866). Two independent reformed churches additionally were formed. In the 1850’s the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk in de Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (1853) and the Gereformeerde Kerk in de Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek (1859) were instituted. The Boer Republics offered the opportunity for interested

319

320

Dolf Britz

Dutch individuals, groups or circles to engage in assistance, support and motivated development. Influential Dutch ministers (like Dirk van der Hoff [1814–1881] and Dirk Postma [1818–1890]) and missionaries (like Frans Lion Cachet [1835–1899]) played a pivotal role in the course of events and the establishment of the differentiated churches in the north. Notwithstanding the differentiation, these churches shared the same (Reformed) confessional standards and adhered to the Cape-colonial Laws and Stipulationstradition when articulating their standing, governance and character. The 1853 incepted Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk in de Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek published in 1862 its Regulations (Reglementen: 1862), which included an Algemeen Reglement. The first article stipulates that the Niederdutch Reformed Church comprises all the congregations in the South African Republic. The following articles specify membership. The highest legislative, judiciary and governing authority reside in the General assembly. The footprint of the 1816 General Regulation is clear. In 1870 the Regulations were replaced by Wetten en Bepalingen voor de Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk in de Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek. In these Laws and Stipulations, the confessional standards of the Church are listed. Their significance is clarified: the church is founded upon “ … the doctrine of the Bible, as God’s holy Word; the Heidelberg Catechism, the 37 Articles of the Dutch Confession and the five Canons of Dordt, as these were established in 1618 and 1619 at Dordrecht …” (My translation – DB; Wetten en Bepalingen 1870: 1).10 The addition of the standards of the Church must be explained as a reaction against the ‘liberal controversy’ in South Africa between 1837 and 1875. This controversy deeply affected the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa (in the Cape Colony) and stimulated a profound evangelical and missionary movement in the colonial Church. In the South African Republic, the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk was not untouched, and its General Assembly insisted upon clarification of its doctrinal foundation. When the Dutch Reformed Church of Natal was formed in 1864, it verbally took over, as applicable, the Laws and Stipulations of the Cape church. The next year the Dutch Reformed Church in the Orange Free State published its Wetten en Bepalingen. It contained a noteworthy Foreword, signed on behalf of the Synod by the Reverends Louw, van Broekhuizen and van de Wall. Against the current bombardment of the “God dishonouring unbelief,” they wrote,

10 “de leer van den Bybel, als Gods heilig Woord; den Heidelbergsche Categismus; de 37 Artikelen der Nederlandsche Geloofsbelijdenis en de 5 Dordtse leer-regels, zooals die zyn vasgesteld in 1618 en 1619 te Dordrecht…”.

The Footprint of the Church Order of Dordt at the Cape of Good Hope?

… in view of the grace of the Lord that creates faithfulness, … the Synod of the Dutch (Nederduitsch) Reformed Church of the Orange Free State, unconditionally adheres to the proven doctrine of the Dordrecht fathers, contained in the Confessional Standards of our Church. It regards this doctrine as its priceless inheritance, which the Lord determined her to gratefully possess and to uncontaminated hand it down to the descendants! This is evidenced i.a. by Art. 1 of the Laws, as well as the inclusion of the Form of Oath, approved by the Synod of 1618 and 1619, which the Ministers are obliged to sign. (My translation – DB; Wetten en Bepalingen 1865: Voorwoord).11

The first article comprised thus the confessional foundation of the Church. And then follows the traditional sequence. In 1866 the Dutch Reformed Church of the South African Republic received its Wetten en Bepalingen, Laws and Stipulations. The first article – drafted by Frans Lion Cachet, alumnus of the Scottish Seminary in Amsterdam – contains the confessional standards as well as the liturgical formularies of the Church. It then follows the Laws and Stipulations of the Cape Church. In 1870 the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa also amended its Laws and Stipulations to include the series confessional standards, i.e. the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the five Canons of Dordt. The Church Order of Dordt remained in the oblivion of history. With one exception, though.

20.9

The Exception: Endorsement of a Nineteenth Century Edition of Dordt

When, in February 1859, the Reformed Church in the South African Republic (Gereformeerde Kerk in de Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) was instituted, its standing was defined by a deliberate endorsement of the Church Order Dordt 1619. Reverend Dirk Postma, sent out by the 1834 Separated Reformed Church in the Netherlands, drafted the constitutive document of the newly formed South African church: Church Order for the Reformed Church in the South African Republic, followed as far as possible the Church Order of the Synod, held in Dordrecht, in the Netherlands, in the

11 “… met het oog op de getrouw makende genade des Heeren, … (hecht) … De Synode der Nederduitsch Gereformeerde Kerk van den Oranjevrijstaat zich onvoorwaardelijk … aan de beproefde leer der Dordtsche vaderen, vervat in de Belijdenis-schriften onzer Kerk. Deze leer beschouwd zij als hare onschatbare erfenis, welke de Heer haar verwaardige dankbaar te bezitten en ongeschonden aan het nageslacht over te leveren! Hiervan getuigen o.a. Art. 1 der Wetten, alsook de opname van het Eedsformulier, goedgekeurd door de Synode van 1618 en 1619, hetwelk de Leeraren gehouden zijn te onderteekenen”.

321

322

Dolf Britz

years 1618 and 1619. Adopted and established in our first general church meeting today, Feb. 10. 1859, held in Rustenburg. (My translation – DB; Coetzee: 2010, 17).12

This church order, adopted by the first General Assembly, was considered as the Church’s regulation. Although contextually adjusted to the state of local circumstances, the intentional appeal on the Church Order of Dordt 1619, in 1859 is remarkable. However, despite its pretence to be based on a seventeenth century Church Order, the South African document is embedded in a nineteenth century Dutch edition, as it was operationalised in the churches of the Separation. It is thus clear that the South African appeal to Dordt is framed by nineteenth century language, style and interpretation. In general, as was indicated in the previous paragraph, the insistence on and implementation of regulations for the governance of South Africa’s reformed churches, resulted in the drafting of Laws and Stipulations. The unforeseen (the Church Order of Dordt was unfamiliar in South Africa) appeal to Dordt in Rustenburg, constituted the exception to the rule. And, it raises questions like: why did this endorsement of the Church Order of Dordt appealed to a group of emigrant-settlers who struggled to organise (and regularise) a South African Republic? And why did the appeal carried to inspire church members who would not be confined to the South African Republic? After all, soon after the inception of the Reformed Church in the South African Republic, congregations were formed in the Free State and eastern parts of the Cape Colony as part of the Church. Who raised the Church Order of Dordt, as such, for the first time as a constitutional foundation for a church? Did it originate in the Dutch circle of entrepreneurs that migrated from the Netherlands at the time to engage with and serve in the establishment of a “Dutch” South African republics? Among those who were linked to the Separation and Reveille? Did the Church Order of Dordt gain approval and was welcomed as a document that would justify an own point of view, including the very popular ‘no equalisation’? These, and similar questions insist on and requires in-depth church historical investigation. Great care should be taken not to interpret the reception of the Church Order of Dort in 1859 in South Africa as a core document that presupposes church reformation and orthodox theology, and prevalently presented as a “return” to or “regeneration” of Dordt.

12 “Kerkorde voor de Gereformeerde Kerk in de Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek, zooveel mogelijk gevolgd naar de Kerkorde der Synode, gehouden te Dordrecht, in Nederland, in de jaren 1618 en 1619. Aangenomen en vastgesteld in onze eerste algemeene kerkvergadering van heden den 10 Febr. 1859, gehouden te Rustenburg”.

The Footprint of the Church Order of Dordt at the Cape of Good Hope?

20.10

Conclusion

This article traced the footprint of the Church Order of Dordt 1619 in early South African church and theology history. In consulting core primary sources, it profiled the development of a South African ecclesiology, and the historical advance of a typical colonial comprehension of the content, nature and authority of the church’s rules and regulations, as the configuration of its identity and standing. This development is rooted in the instructions, regulations, statutes and protocols that regulated the ministry of the church during the Dutch East-India period. The Kerken-Ordre of de Mist (1804) inspired a further development: it was accepted and legally considered as the constitution of the Cape-Dutch church, and provided for its legitimacy as a recognised Kerk-genoodschap, as well as the right to draw up its rules and regulations. Its formulated Regulations for the Governance of the Niederdutch Reformed Church in South Africa,13 were informed by the 1816 General Regulation for the Reformed Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.14 In November 1843, the Kerken-Ordre of de Mist was replaced by a colonial Ordinance. Aligned with the British administration, this Ordinance offered a legal framework for the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, to supersede the Regulations with a comprehensive set of Laws and Stipulations. It was a distinctive South African document, congruent with British colonial order, with an unmistakable association with and contextual accommodation of the 1816 General Regulation. With its Laws and Stipulations in place, the Dutch Reformed Church gained prestige, colonial identity and was able to deploy its ministry in new directions. The occupation of the interior, engendered ecclesiastical differentiation. Between 1853 and 1866 a number of Dutch and reformed churches were established in these regions. Strikingly all, but one, opted for a Laws and Stipulations-paradigm to govern and identify themselves. The addition of the confessional standards after 1860 indicated a unique endorsement: these Laws and Stipulations have received a typical South African signature. The 1859 incepted Reformed Church in the South African Republic accepted an adjusted format of the Church Order of Dordt as its constitutive document and ecclesial regulation. In doing so, it, however, appealed to a nineteenth century Dutch version and utilisation of the Church Order of Dordt. At the Cape of Good Hope an ecclesiastical trajectory over two hundred years gave rise to, and provided the platform for, the identity and standing of the SouthAfrican-Dutch reformed churches. This trajectory, in conclusion, was neither guided nor inspired by the Church Order of Dordt 1619.

13 Reglementen voor het Bestuur der Nederduitsche Hervormde Kerk, in Zuid-Afrika. 14 Algemeen Reglement voor het Bestuur der Hervormde Kerk in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden.

323

324

Dolf Britz

Bibliography Adsnd I, Cf. Sinnema, D./Moser, C./Selderhuis, H.J. (ed.), (2014). Catechismus, ofte Onderwysinge in de Christelyke Leere / die in de kercken ende scholen der Nederlandsche Gereformeerde kercken geleert werdt. Mitsgaders De Belydenisse des Geloofs, ende naerder Verklaringe van eenige Hooft-stukken desselven, overgesien ende gestelt in de Synode Nationael der Nederlandsche Gereformeerde Kercken, gehouden tot Dordrecht, in de Jaren 1618. en 1619. Als ook de Liturgie der selver kercken / ofte de Formulieren van de bedieninge der Verpligte Sacramenten / Bevestinge der Kerckendienaren / Oeffeninge der kerckelyke tucht / Siecken-troost / ende Christelycke Gebeden, Amsterdam: Hendrik vander Putte, Archives of the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa, Stellenbosch, GEM–1507. Classis Amsterdam, Archief van de Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk; Classis Amsterdam; 2.2.1.4: Kaap de Goede Hoop; 206–208: Ingekomen stukken betreffende kerkelijke zaken op Kaap de Goede Hoop 1655–1792, Gemeentelijke Archief Amsterdam Nr. 379, Amsterdam. Coertzen, P. (1991), Gepas en Ordelik. ‘n Teologiese Verantwoording van die Orde vir en in die Kerk, Pretoria: RGN-Uitgewers. Coetzee, P.A. (2010), “Dat nu ook het Eerste Werk zal sijn.” Ontstaan van die Eerste Gereformeerde Kerke in die Suid-Afrikaanse Republiek: 1859–1861, Pretoria: V&R Drukkers. De Mist, J.A. (1804), Extract uit het Register der Handelingen en Besluiten van de Commissaris Generaal Mr. J.A. de Mist, Archives of the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa, Stellenbosch, B–7. De Mist, J.A. (1920), The Memorandum of Commissary J.A. de Mist Containing Recommendations for the Form and Administration of the Government at the Cape of Good Hope, 1802, Cape Town: The Van Riebeeck Society 3. Hooijer, C. (1846), Kerkelijke Wetten voor de Hervormden in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. Verzameld en met Aanteekeningen voorzien, Zalt-Bommel: Noman en Zoon. Kerken-Boek, Kerken-boek van de Caap van Goede Hope behelzende de namen der gedoopten, lidmaten der gemeente en dergene die in de echtstaat aldaar verenigd zyn beginnende van de komst van eerste verblijf predikant Joan van Arckel, den 23 August 1665, Archives of the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa, Stellenbosch, GEM-K 1006. Reglementen (1824), Reglementen voor het Bestuur der Nederduitsche Hervormde Kerk, in Zuid-Afrika, Ontworpen en Genomen in de Algemeene Kerkvergadering, Gehouden Binnen de Kaapstad, op den 2 November, en Volgende Dagen van het Jaar 1824, Kaapstad: W. Bridekirk. Reglementen (1862), Reglementen voor de Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk in de ZuidAfrikaansche Republiek, Potchefstroom: J.P. Borrius. Resolutions, Resolutions of the Council of Policy of Cape of Good Hope, C.4, Cape Town Archives Repository, South Africa.

The Footprint of the Church Order of Dordt at the Cape of Good Hope?

Schutte, G.J. (ed.) (2002), Het Indisch Sion. De Gereformeerde Kerk onder de Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, Hilversum: Verloren. Sinnema, D./Moser, C./Selderhuis, H.J. (ed.) (2014), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618/1619) Vol. I. Acta of the Synod of Dordt, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Spoelstra, C. (1907), Bouwstoffen voor de Geschiedenis der Nederduitsch-Gereformeerde Kerken in Zuid-Afrika, vol. II, Amsterdam: Hollandsch-Afrikaansche UitgeversMaatschappij. Strauss, P.J. (2015), Gereformeerdes onder die Suiderkruis 1652–2011: die Verhaal van Vier Afrikaanse Kerke, Bloemfontein: Sun Media. Trommius, Abrahamus (1695), Sachte Verbetering der Psalm-rymen Datheni. Dat is, de CL. Psalmen Davids, Wel-eer door Petrus Dathenus op Nederlantsche Rijmen gestelt, ende in de Kercken van Nederlant tot noch toe gebruyckt: Doch nu op de sachste wijse, ende met de minste verandering soodanich verbetert, dat een menichte van Stop-woorden is wechgenomen, de Voet-mate der Rymen over al geholpen, ende de Sin doorgaens vloeybaerder gemaeckt. Tot dienst der Nederlantsche Kercken bereyt ende aen’t licht gegeven door Abrahamus Trommius, Dienaer Jesu Christi in de Gemeynte tot Groningen. Geheel met Noten gedruckt, ende op een Sleutel gestelt, zijnde den Text op de kant daerby gevoegt, vervattende oock de Christelicke Catechismus met de Kerckelicke Formulieren ende Gebeden, Amsterdam: Gerhardus Borstius. Van Boetzelaer van Dubbeldam, C.W.Th. (1906), De Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland en de Zending in Oost-Indië in de Dagen der Oost-Indische Compagnie, Utrecht: P den Boer. Wetten en Bepalingen (1843), Wetten en Bepalingen voor het Bestuur der Nederduitsche Gereformeerde Kerk in Zuid-Afrika, Gerevideerd in de Algemeene Kerkvergadering, Gehouden in de Kaapstad op den 1sten November en Volgende Dagen van het Jaar 1842 en Bekragtigd door eene Ordonnantie van den Wetgevenden Raad, op den 8sten November 1843, Kaapstad: Saul Solomon. Wetten en Bepalingen (1870), Wetten en Bepalingen voor de Nederd. Hervormde Kerk in de Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, Potchefstroom: J.P. Borrius. Wetten en Bepalingen (1865), Wetten en Bepalingen voor de Nederduitsch Gereformeerde Kerk in den Oranjevrijstaat, Bloemfontein: Thomas White. Wetten en Bepalingen (1867), Wetten en Bepalingen voor de Nederduitsch Gereformeerde Kerk van de Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, Pietermaritzburg: P. Davis en Zonen.

Abbreviations ADSND Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (cf. Sinnema/Moser/ Selderhuis: 2014).

325

Klaas-Willem de Jong

21.

The Ideal versus the Reality

The Influence of the Wesel Articles on the Reception of the Dordt Church Order in the Doleantie Movement

Abstract Jesse Spohnholz proves in his book The Event that Never was (2017) the so-called convent of Wesel (1568) never took place. The author of this article shows the consequences of this thesis for the evaluation of the reception of the Dordt church order in the Doleantie movement in the Netherlands. In their focus on the antihierarchical notions in the relationship between the local church and the classis the spokesmen of the Doleantie movement felt strongly supported by the principles set out in Wesel. The Wesel articles expressed their opinion more explicitly than the Dordt church order, which they highly valued and used as the basis for their ecclesiastical organization. Their approach not only strongly colored the Doleantie in the nineteenth century, but the history of their offspring in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands as well.

21.1

Introduction

The Event that Never was is the subtitle of a recently published book in which historian Jesse Spohnholz proves the so-called convent of Wesel (1568) never took place (Spohnholz: 2017). Probably one person compiled the document which was considered the minutes of a (synod) meeting. In Spohnholz’s opinion, this is most likely Petrus Dathenus (1531–1588). The document containing these minutes is to be characterized as a petition, for which signatures were collected in Wesel, Emden and London. As such, it is an impressive program of how the church in the Netherlands should be organized in the then coming years. Hence, based on Spohnholz’s revelations, the value of the Wesel articles has to be reconsidered. It is an individual’s outline of the future of the reformed church in the low countries, as a whole supported by only a part of the signatories, as Spohnholz demonstrates (Spohnholz: 2017, 66–93). In this article, I will show the consequences of Spohnholz’s thesis for the evaluation of the reception of the Dordt church order in the Doleantie movement in the Netherlands. I will focus on the anti-hierarchical notions in the relationship

328

Klaas-Willem de Jong

between the local church and the classis because, as I will argue, regarding this theme the spokesmen in the Doleantie felt strongly supported by the principles set out in Wesel. These articles expressed their opinion more explicitly than the Dordt church order itself. Firstly, I present the ideal of Dathenus in the Wesel articles and the reality in which it took shape at the synod of Dordt 1619. Secondly, I show how F.L. Rutgers, one of the foremen of the Doleantie, elaborated the Wesel articles in his plea for the independence of the local church. Moreover, I describe the reality of the church polity practice in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (RCN) forty years after this plea. Thirdly, I put the reception of the Dordt church order of both Rutgers and the RCN into perspective by giving a short outline of later developments. I finish with a few conclusions.

21.2

The Ideal

Dathenus – in my opinion Spohnholz has convincingly demonstrated he was the author – sets forth two aims for the future reformed church in the first article of the document: well-educated ministers and unity in doctrine, liturgy and discipline (Wesel, art. I–1).1 According to its title, this article and the sequel of the first chapter deal with the institution of major assemblies. Still, it can also be considered as the introduction to the following chapters. Similarly, the two last articles of the last chapter have the character of a conclusion (Bos: 1932, 355). In other chapters too the title does not always cover the content. In the first, introductory chapter against the background of the institution of major assemblies, Dathenus outlines the boundaries of the freedom of a local church in two ways. Firstly, a local congregation is free in its judgment of cases not directly related to the Word of God, the practices of the apostles and the tradition of the churches (Wesel, art. I–9, 10, 11; cf. I–6). But secondly, in cases which do relate directly to God’s Word, apostolic practices and ecclesiastical tradition, the local congregation should take the opinion of other congregations into account. It is not allowed to deviate from the common practice Dathenus globally describes without the consent of other congregations (Wesel, art. I–11). The assembly of these congregations, the classis, has to deal with marriage and divorce cases, as well as with cases regarding all churches (Wesel, art. I–6). For the time being, as long as setting up major assemblies is impossible, provisional measures shall be taken by distinguished men. These need the explicit approval of each local church (Wesel, art. I–7).

1 For the original texts of the Wesel articles in Latin see Goeters: 1968. I simply refer to the Wesel articles with ‘Wesel’.

The Ideal versus the Reality

Dathenus’s elaboration of these principles in the following chapters offers a varied picture. On the one hand, the classis has an important, decisive role in the ecclesiastical organization. The classis should not only examine the ministers, but also choose them (Wesel, art. II–3). Hence, it may to some extent intervene in the local church. Once a minister serves, in practical questions such as the length of his sermon, he should be willing to take advice from the classis (Wesel, art. II–24, 25). Neither he, nor others in ecclesiastical service, may leave his congregation without the consent of the classis. The same applies for a congregation wanting to part from one of them (Wesel, art. V–19, cf. V–18). In case of a novelty, it is up to the classis to decide unanimously whether it is beneficial to the churches (Wesel, art. IV–7). In disciplinary cases, members have the right of appeal to the classis (Wesel, art. VIII–11). In disciplinary cases regarding ministers, it is the classis itself which should rule usually, depending on the exact circumstances (Wesel, art. VIII–12–18). On the other hand, the influence of the classis is limited. In the last century, several scholars have proven beyond any doubt that the Genevan Ordonnances Ecclésiastiques (1559) underlie the articles of Wesel (Bos: 1932; Haitjema: 1925). However, certain passages have been consciously supplemented with anti-hierarchical notions. The introductory chapter itself can be seen as putting the authority of the major assemblies into perspective. In the elaboration in the following chapters, the before-mentioned crucial article prohibiting one from leaving an office without the consent of the classes is followed by a provision about the relationship between the classis and the local church (cf. Wesel, art. V–18). The classis has in this respect no jurisdiction over any church, unless this church or office consents to the decision of the classis; it shall not be deprived of its own right and authority to rule (Wesel, art. V–19). In the last chapter, about ecclesiastical discipline, in the list of heavy sins of ministers the evident attempt to bully church and colleagues has been inserted into the enumeration derived from Geneva (Wesel, art. VIII–14). The last provision concerning the classis I want to mention is the recommendation to rotate the venue of the classis, which is partly to avoid one church dominating the other (Wesel, art. VIII–20). But also within a local church domination must be prevented. In the chapter dealing with the elders, it can be read in the list of duties that they shall not dominate ministers or congregations. In a following separate article, this is underlined by a prohibition to organize a meeting of the consistory without the ministers (Wesel, art. IV–7, 9). How should these insertions and expansion of older texts be evaluated? It is striking that Dathenus does not use the famous phrase of the Parisian Discipline Ecclesiastique, which was the origin of a formula elaborated in the synod of Antwerp (1564) and of the first article of the Emden synod (1571), which reads: “no church shall in any way lord it over other Churches (…)” (cf. de Jong: 2018, 3f). This is probably because he mainly draws on other sources, such as the Genevan Ordonnances. Still, why does he insert these explicit anti-hierarchical notions? Perhaps

329

330

Klaas-Willem de Jong

there is a relationship with the revolt, which many scholars considered to have started in 1568, the very year the Wesel articles were conceived. The aversion to ecclesiastical hierarchy must have gone hand in hand with the aversion to domination by foreign powers in the political system at that time. The insertions may also be a result of Dathenus’s personal convictions, as Spohnholz seems to think (Spohnholz: 2017, 52–58). Moreover, Dathenus used, in Spohnholz’s opinion, the momentum of William of Orange’s military campaign to strengthen the position of the reformed church. The fact is, shortly beforehand provisional synods in the Southern Netherlands had adopted large parts of the French church order, but had omitted most regulations dealing with the ecclesiastical organization beyond the local level (Knetsch: 1991). Without excluding the other explanations completely, I suspect anti-hierarchical insertions originate in the introduction of major assemblies, each with its own authority. The insertions may have served to facilitate the implementation of this new phenomenon in the (Northern) Netherlands at that time. This suspicion is supported by the content of the Constitutiones of the Dutch congregation of Norwich, which the Dutch scholar A.A. van Schelven (1880–1954) discovered in Cambridge archives almost a century ago (Van Schelven: 1924). Van Schelven determined that approximately 80% of the Constitutiones is identical with the Wesel articles. Most references to both major assemblies and the anti-hierarchical notions have disappeared. Apparently they are strongly related.

21.3

The Reality

What has become of Dathenus’s aspirations, considering the provisions of the Dordt church order? The circumstances differed substantially both in ecclesiastics and politics then. The Netherlands was still at war with Spain, but the hostilities had ceased due to the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609–1621). Supported by the government, the reformed church had gained a leading position and it had a matching organizational structure with classes, provincial synods and a general synod, but it threatened to succumb as a result of growing internal tensions. The London minister Simeon Ruytinck (ca. 1576–1621) published a harmonized version of the church orders of the four national synods he knew in the year the Synod of Dordt got going, 1618 (S.R. [= Simeon Ruytinck]: 1618a; in addition to Spohnholz: 2017, 125). Shortly before the synod started, he discovered the Wesel document in the archives of his church, considered it to be the records of a synod and released it in Latin in a second print, as well as in Dutch (S.R. [= Simeon Ruytinck]: 1618b; cf. 1618c). Because of the harmonized versions, only of a few Wesel articles could be taken note of, for example the provision about prophecy. The emphasis of the Wesel articles on the freedom of the local church disappeared completely. However, Ruytinck’s publication hardly seems to have had any impact (cf. Spohnholz: 2017, 125). The

The Ideal versus the Reality

synod duplicated the last established church order of The Hague (1586) and made a limited number of changes (Van Harten-Tip: 2018, 160–67). As in 1586, when the organizational structure had taken full shape, the powers of the classes were described quite extensively, in particular towards education and examination of ministers, visitation and discipline. The church had more or less become what Dathenus had envisioned. The specific anti-hierarchical notions of the Wesel articles are lacking in the Dordt church order. Considering their purpose, this does not come as a surprise. Yet, several other elements must be mentioned in this regard. The Emden principle “No church shall in any way lord it over (…)” to start with, is to be found in the Dordt church order too (DCO, art. 84).2 In church orders prior to those of The Hague (1586) and Dordrecht (1619), this provision has been purposely situated as a part of discipline (De Jong: 2018, 3ff). In the Dordt church order, as in its direct predecessor, it has become a provision on its own. Therefore, in particular in contrast with the Wesel articles, this raises the question as to what its practical relevance exactly was. In practice, it still seems to function in particular in disciplinary matters. In the Dordt church order itself, at least three implications of this principle can be found. The first one commissions local churches to treat office bearers of the same office equally (DCO, art. 17). The second and most important one is the rule that a major assembly only deals with issues which cannot be settled by a lower assembly or concern all churches of the major assembly. However, one may appeal to the decision of a lower assembly. Decisions of a major assembly are binding, unless they conflict with the Word of God or the church order (DCO, art. 30f). The third and less significant one is the prohibition to choose the chairman of a classis twice in succession (DCO, art. 41). It resembles the obligation in the Wesel articles to rotate the venue of the classis. Though it is clear the structure of the Dordt church order is bottom up, an explicit provision about the inalienable rights and authority of the local church as recorded in the Wesel articles cannot be found. A special word is needed about the discipline. In the Wesel articles it is predominantly a task of the classis to remove a minister who has committed heavy sins (Wesel, art. VIII–16). According to the Dordt church order and its direct predecessor of 1586, this is a task of the consistory, needing consent from the classis (DCO, art. 79, cf. 80). In practice, however, the Synod of Dordt itself dismissed a number of remonstrant ministers because of their teachings, irrespective of the opinions of lower assemblies, let alone the consistories of these ministers (Sinnema/Moser/ Selderhuis: 2015, 144f; van Lieburg: 2019, 222–229). The synod requested the States General to confirm its verdict, which it did after some time.

2 DCO = Dordt church order. See for the Dutch version Kercken-ordeninge: 1620. An English translation of the edition of Hooijer 1865 is to be found in: DeRidder e.a. 1987.

331

332

Klaas-Willem de Jong

21.4

A First Echo: The Ideal Three Centuries Later

I now jump to those in the Netherlands Reformed Church (NRC) of the nineteenth century who wanted a church based on Scripture and reformed confessions and therefore to return to the Dordt church order, in particular to the secession movement known as Doleantie. The same wish existed in the Afscheiding movement earlier that century, but the Wesel articles only played a minor role then (cf. van Lieburg: 2001, 45–48). Two spokesmen of the Doleantie movement, F.L. Rutgers (1836–1917) and A.F. de Savornin Lohman (1837–1924), underpin the rights of the local church in a brochure in 1886, inter alia referring to the Wesel articles (De Savornin Lohman/Rutgers: 1886). Ecclesiastical practices in previous centuries, the Dordt church order and the work of the seventeenth-century scholar G. Voetius (1589–1676) also play a role, but mainly as a further substantiation of the plea of the two. To the extent I can see, Voetius’s plea for the independence of the local church as far as church orders are concerned heavily depends on the above-cited Emden provision, not on the Wesel articles (cf. Spohnholz: 2017, 128). In the process of claiming the rights of the local church in both ecclesiastical and civil practice, in 1886, Rutgers and his co-author de Savornin Lohman put the Wesel article about the relationship between classis and local church at the heart of their argument (cf. Wesel, V–19). “No classical assembly has any right over any church and any person serving this church”. Subsequently he puts in italics, as they quite often do, “unless it [this church] consents with it”, continuing in all capital letters, which is the only time they do so in this brochure (cf. Kleyn: 1886, 15), “so it will not be deprived of its right and authority against its will” (De Savornin Lohman/Rutgers: 1886, 15 cf. 96f; cf. 1887, 21, 193f). With this strongly emotionally tinted and compelling statement, Rutgers and de Savornin Lohman respond to their readers’ sense of justice. They might have been struck by the similarity of the circumstances: the brothers gathered in Wesel, at the start of the Reformation in the Netherlands, while they and their associates were longing for a second reformation centuries later. The developments regarding the reformation of the NRC were in full swing, and tensions were heightened. Two months earlier (cf. De Standaard, nr. 4291 [March 12 1886]), the classis Amsterdam had suspended eighty office bearers of the Amsterdam congregation – among them Rutgers and de Savornin Lohman – because they refused to implement a decision of the classis. A few congregations already parted from the NRC in this period. A few hundred thousand members would eventually leave the NRC. Still, they were not able to secure the claim of a local church to its possessions. I will discuss this crucial citation from the Wesel articles from different angles of approach. I will focus on Rutgers, as he was the expert in Dutch church history and polity. De Savornin Lohman was a lawyer and his input focused primarily on aspects of secular law. In an older but similar publication of the two, the share of

The Ideal versus the Reality

each was clearly distinguished (De Savornin Lohman/Rutgers: 1882, 1–11, 12–28). The publication of Rutgers and de Savornin Lohman shows a close affinity with the approach of A. Kuyper (1837–1920) in his Tractaat van de Reformatie der Kerken, published one and a half year later than the 1882 co-publication of Rutgers and de Savornin Lohman (cf. Kuyper: 1883). Kuyper had met both of them in their then hometown ‘s-Hertogenbosch in the autumn of 1877 and kept in contact with both on a regular basis since then. They were involved in the founding of the Free University (VU, Amsterdam) and had been appointed professor, de Savornin Lohman from the end of 1883 after initial reservations. First, I will give a sketch of the broader context in which Rutgers uses the citation. The key theme in the brochure is the legal competence of the congregations which wanted – or already decided – to separate from the NRC and restore the association of reformed churches. Do these congregations have a justified claim to the ecclesiastical possessions? Rutgers answers the question in the affirmative by presenting an oversight of facts derived from church history and church polity. The historical arguments put a very heavy weight on the scale. After having dealt with the situation before the Reformation period, Rutgers reviews the developments after these period. In that context he discusses the consecutive church orders first. Rutgers begins to highlight the first article of the church order of Emden (1571): “No church shall in any way lord it over (…)”. Subsequently, extensively citing and almost uncritically following C. Hooijer (1804–1873) in his edition of Dutch church orders, he points to other sources, such as the 31st article of the Confessio Belgica (edition 1564), several of the Wesel articles and the French church order of 1559 (cf. Hooijer 1865, 59f, cf. also 5). In this connection, Rutgers mentions the cited Wesel article, giving the special circumstances and requirements: ministers, elders, deacons, teachers and schoolmasters shall not leave their congregation without consent of the classis; congregations shall neither be allowed to let these office bearers go without such consent. Thereafter, he establishes that the underlying principle is to be found in all older Dutch reformed church orders; he means what is expressed in the first article of Emden (1571) (cf. de Savornin Lohman/Rutgers: 1887, 193f-nt 1). Thus, the Wesel article must be understood as an elaboration of this principle, but in the way Rutgers presents it he also broadens it; it becomes a principle in itself too, irrespective of the special circumstances in which the Wesel articles introduce it. Subsequently, Rutgers offers some examples of how the independence of the local church should function according to both the Dordt and older church orders. Major assemblies are only of a temporary character and have an authority derived from the local churches. A local church must observe the rulings of major assemblies, unless, and that is decisive to him, they conflict with the Word of God (De Savornin Lohman/Rutgers: 1886, 23; cf. DCO art. 31). In doing so it becomes an essential element in the reasoning of Rutgers and de Savornin Lohman set out in

333

334

Klaas-Willem de Jong

the brochure that in certain circumstances a congregation is free to leave the NRC without giving up its right to its material assets. The way Rutgers deals in this brochure with the relationship between the Wesel articles and the consecutive church orders brings me to a second point to reflect on. In an earlier brochure he co-published with de Savornin Lohman in 1882, Rutgers characterizes the event in Wesel as “the first gathering of the Dutch Churches” and “the preparatory synod” (De Savornin Lohman/Rutgers: 1882, 5, 7f). In this position he agrees with older scholars, like Hooijer (Hooijer: 1865, 24, 33). He does not critically discern between the consecutive national church orders, the Wesel articles included, relating to his position that local churches are free to join an association of churches (cf. Rutgers: 1882, 30-nt1). He is of the opinion all reformed church polity experts are unanimous and clear with regard to this principle (cf. de Savornin Lohman and Rutgers: 1882, 9). In the cited publication of 1886, Rutgers changed his position in so far that he states the event in Wesel was a meeting of the “most distinguished” leaders designing a concept of the then-future church “in a preparatory meeting” (De Savornin Lohman/Rutgers: 1886, 13-nt1 (cf. 14), 96; 1887, 18 (cf. 19), 51-nt1; cf. also 1882, 30). He blames others for not consulting the original manuscripts as he did. However, Rutgers’s stance towards the relationship between the Wesel articles and other sources then remained unchanged. One of his opponents, H.G. Kleyn (1859–1896), made short work of Rutgers’s references to the Wesel articles. He considered it to be a concept church order only and hence did not pay any attention to it at all (cf. Kleyn: 1886, 7). In the second and largely extended edition of the brochure, published in 1887, Rutgers tried to eliminate the principle difference Kleyn observed between Wesel and Emden (De Savornin Lohman/ Rutgers: 1887, 55). Apparently Rutgers did not convince Kleyn; this opponent maintained his point of view in a comprehensive study afterwards (Kleyn: 1888, 38). Rutgers must have felt the need to reflect on his use of historical sources. He elaborated on this theme in a speech as dean of the Free University (VU, Amsterdam) on October 21, 1889. The brochure based upon this speech saw daylight a few months later, in 1890 (Rutgers: 1890). Rutgers consciously speaks of the validity of the old church order, singular (Rutgers: 1890, 10–12; cf. de Savornin Lohman/Rutgers: 1887, 60-nt1). In his opinion the consecutive national synods, from 1571 until 1619, did not invoke new church orders, but from 1574 onwards each elaborated and adjusted the last one, building further on the underlying base of Scripture and confession (Rutgers: 1890, 10f). Still, this did not devalue the replaced versions (Rutgers: 1890, 40). Rutgers reinforces the lasting value of all church orders from this period by pointing out to what extent the church order is valid. Deviation is allowed on three conditions (Rutgers: 1890, 42f). There must be a sufficient goal. The change must not implicitly impose obligations on other congregations. In case of disagreement, the individual – minister, congregation, classis, particular/provincial

The Ideal versus the Reality

synod – must conform to the greater whole. Yet, it is up to the local congregation to determine, whether it remains connected to the association of churches which subscribe to the prevailing church order (Rutgers 1890, 23–25). Rutgers carefully substantiates the value of the Wesel articles separately (Rutgers: 1890, 10; cf. de Savornin Lohman/Rutgers: 1886, 13; 1887, 18). It bears the character of a concept, meant to support the development of the church, but is far too detailed. Therefore, it has been left alone. Still, it was in Rutgers’s opinion drafted in accordance with the reformed principles of church law, after the example of similar church orders. Elsewhere in the brochure, he strengthens this approach by referring to G. Voetius (Rutgers: 1890, 40); provisions from the blossoming period of the church, when it was still persecuted or not long before had been persecuted, are sometimes purer and more in accordance with reformed church polity than later adjustments in which the will of the people or the government had been taken into account. Rutgers used this idea already in his first article in De Heraut, a reformed magazine (cf. De Heraut, nr. 1 [January 1, 1877]), but he then explicitly included the synod of Emden (1571) in the first, blossoming period of the church, emphasizing its connection with Wesel (1568) and loosening the bond with the posterior synods (cf. De Heraut, nr. 2 [January 8, 1877]). Whereas Rutgers’s argument for the approach and validity of the church orders is primarily of a formal nature in 1890, the argument for the value of the Wesel articles is more substantive. Unfortunately, Rutgers leaves the question unanswered as to why he highlighted one provision from the Wesel articles and kept silent about others. Nevertheless, it seems as if this all offers him the space to be even more reserved in the description of the Wesel event. In the brochure at stake, he speaks almost carelessly of a gathering of “some exiles, who could act as spokesmen”, and in another book, published at the same time of a meeting of “some ministers” (Rutgers: 1890, 10; Rutgers: 1889, 1; cf. Vree: 2018, 31). In establishing this, I note that the cited provision from the Wesel articles did not have any current relevance anymore. The reformation had taken place, the Dordt church order had been reintroduced. Reviewing this paragraph it is striking that the most powerful argument to realize the ideal of the Doleantie does not originate from the highly valued Dordt church order, but from a document conceived in the beginning period of the Dutch Reformation. Thanks to careful studies, Rutgers broke the spell of this document, at least partially. His findings urged him to be more precise in his stance towards the document, but that did not influence his appreciation of it. Until his retirement as a professor at the VU (Amsterdam) in 1910 he regularly referred to the Wesel articles in his lectures about the Dordt church order (Vree: 2018, 31f; Rutgers: 1892; 1918). He nuanced his point of view (Barnard: 1994, 15, 21, 24f). The starting point of the independence of the local church remains unaffected, but he regards a local church not willing to accept the ruling of a major assembly because of conflict with the Word of God as highly exceptional. In any case, it has consequences for the association of

335

336

Klaas-Willem de Jong

churches: whether the local church or the association of churches terminates the relationship. Rutgers’s pupils van Schelven and J. de Jong (1872–1928) obtained a doctorate under his guidance and kept his legacy alive (Vree: 2018, 33–35). They were not the only ones. The application of the Dordt church order with the help of the Wesel articles did not come to an end yet.

21.5

A First Echo: The Reality Three Centuries Later

The local churches supporting the Doleantie movement associated within a few years and subsequently merged with churches originating in the Afscheiding movement into the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (RCN) in 1892. In doing so both denominations continued using the Dordt church order as the basis for the church polity. The principles Rutgers outlined remained largely unopposed in the churches of the Doleantie and the RCN for almost forty years, both in practice and theological reflection (Barnard: 2001, 149–53; cf. more nuanced 1994, 41f). In all cases, disciplinary actions included, the local church had the final say. In theory, if a local church resisted the decision of a major assembly, at the utmost the other churches had to terminate the relationship with this church. A sign of the changes to come was the fact that in a disciplinary procedure against the Middelburg minister J.B. Netelenbos (1879–1934) in 1918 the classis took the initiative, whereas it was a common opinion that the consistory should do this (Barnard: 1994, 43–57). Yet, even against this background it was given the polity convictions of the period almost incomprehensible that the synod of the RCN in a disciplinary case in 1926 dismissed a minister, J.G. Geelkerken (1879–1960), and later on also his consistory, which refused to accept the synodal verdict. It has been observed as a state of emergency in which the salvation of the church set the church order aside (Barnard 2001, 153f). During the procedure some stated a new church polity had been introduced (Acta Der Voortgezette Buitengewone Generale Synode 1926, bijlage XLV). However, this was denied by the majority of leading theologians. Nevertheless, in the following years they reviewed the classic arguments thoroughly, such as those derived from historical events, the opinion of experts like Voetius, the interpretation of the church order, etc. (Barnard: 1994, 81–98). The value of Rutgers’s Rechtsbevoegdheid was downplayed as mainly meant for civil law proceedings (Barnard: 1994, 91).

The Ideal versus the Reality

21.6

A Second Echo

It would go beyond the bounds and constraints of this article to pay considerable attention to the further effects of Rutgers’s thinking and his attention to the Wesel articles in reformed church polity. The following must suffice here. The second pillar of Rutgers’s ecclesiology regarding major assemblies, Voetius’s Politica Ecclesiastica, came under fundamental attack in 1937. In his PhD thesis, M. Bouwman (1901–1961) secured the polity of the 1926 synod and argued that, according to Voetius, major assemblies had an authority of their own (cf. Bouwman: 1937). This dissertation in particular became the starting point of new series of publications, partially in response to other publications and certain incidents related to the theme discussed. One of Bouwman’s fiercest opponents was S. Greijdanus (1871–1948), a professor in Kampen. He belongs to a group of three theologians of almost the same age, who studied at the VU (Amsterdam), attended the lectures of Rutgers there in the 1890s and gained a PhD. The two others are W.A. van Es (1871–1959) and J. van Lonkhuyzen (1873–1942). All three did not agree at all with Geelkerken’s teachings, but had opposed the new polity in the disciplinary proceedings in 1926 (Barnard: 2001, 154f). Greijdanus had abstained from voting in the general synod, though he just had an advisory vote (Acta Der Buitengewone Generale Synode 1926, art. 234 and 244). In the course of time, he wrote numerous articles about the subject matter in RCN magazines such as De Bazuin, De Heraut and De Reformatie. In 1939 for example he promoted the work of Rutgers and de Savornin Lohman as representatives of the ‘old’ reformed church polity (Greijdanus: 1939). He demands attention for the Wesel article Rutgers used, stressing the right and authority of the local church. When the general synod of the NRC again dismissed a minister in 1944, in this case the Kampen professor K. Schilder (1890–1952), a schism followed, for which Greijdanus had provided the basis in church polity by returning to the guiding principles of Rutgers. However, the focus shifted; according to those who followed Schilder it was not the right of the local church as such that was at stake, but the right of the local church to deny a decisive ruling of a major assembly when in conflict with the Scripture (cf. DCO, art. 31). When tensions rose in this denomination in the 1960s and it split, the ecclesiastical procedures were of a principally different character (De Boer: 2018). Representatives of local churches which did not accept the decisions of major assemblies in fundamental issues were not accepted as members of major assemblies. Hence, they did not feel represented and expressed this. In the end, the major assemblies, i.e. the general synod, concluded they had terminated the association with the other churches. The consequences were the same as in 1944: the birth of a new reformed denomination.

337

338

Klaas-Willem de Jong

21.7

Concluding Observations

I conclude that there are similarities between the developments in the sixteenth–seventeenth and the nineteenth–twentieth centuries, between the ideals of Dathenus and Rutgers and between what has become of them in reality. Still, there are differences too. Dathenus probably uses the anti-hierarchical notions to smooth the introduction of a new type of church polity. Rutgers, in turn, refers to these notions to oppose the existing hierarchy in the Netherlands Reformed Church of his day. Furthermore, his view of the Dordt church order is strongly colored by some of the anti-hierarchical Wesel articles, one in particular about the independence of the local church. It is the key of his approach. In both cases the reality proves to be stronger over time; the ideals could not be realized. However, delegates of the Synod of Dordt 1618–19 hardly knew of the Wesel articles and the actions of the synod do not seem to be in conflict with the core of principles and provisions Dathenus proposed. This contrasts with the reception of Rutgers’s legacy by the synod of the RCN in 1926 as well as in 1944 when it exercised its powers. Still, further developments put this into perspective. The breach within the denomination which followed Schilder in the 1960s was inevitable; in spite of measures taken in accordance with Rutgers’s principles then, the result was the same in the end. At the conference, the question has been asked what makes Dutch reformed church polity so vulnerable to secessions, as many have taken place from the nineteenth century until now. In my opinion, it is not the independence of the local church as (in a limited way) expressed in the Wesel articles. The main reason is to be found in a principle closely related to Dutch reformed church polity, namely the possibility of appeal to a major assembly in case of conflict with Scripture. This is both the strength and the weakness of this polity.

Bibliography Acta Der Buitengewone Generale Synode (…) Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (1926). Acta Der Voortgezette Buitengewone Generale Synode (…) Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (1926). Barnard, Tjaard (1994), De Wissel Verlegd. Een Onderzoek naar het Denken over de Tuchtmacht der Meerdere Vergaderingen binnen de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland tussen 1880 en 1940 (MA thesis), Leiden. Barnard, Tjaard (2001), De Wissel Verlegd. Over het Gereformeerd Kerkrecht rond de Kwestie-Geelkerken, in: George Harinck, De Kwestie-Geelkerken. Een Terugblik na 75 Jaar, 147–59, ADChartas-Reeks 5, Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 147–159.

The Ideal versus the Reality

Bos, F.L. (1932), De Structuur van de Artikelen van Wezel (1586), Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 33, 353–388. Bouwman, M (1937), Voetius over het gezag der synoden, Amsterdam: S.J.P. Bakker. De Boer, Erik A. (2018), Actualisering van het Doleantiekerkrecht in de Gereformeerde Kerken Vrijgemaakt van de Zestiger Jaren van de Twintigste Eeuw, in: Leon van den Broeke/George Harinck (ed.), Nooit meer eene Nieuwe Hiërarchie! De Kerkrechtelijke Nalatenschap van F.L. Rutgers, 75–85, ADChartasreeks 34, Hilversum: De Vuurbaak, 75–85. De Jong, Klaas-Willem (2018), Een Verkennend Onderzoek naar de Receptie van een Anti-Hiërarchisch Beginsel in Nederlandse Kerkorden van tet Gereformeerde Type’, In Die Skriflig 52–2 (doi.org/10.4102/ids.v52i2.2350). DeRidder, Richard/Peter H. Jonker/Leonard Verduin (1987), The Church Orders of the Sixteenth Century Reformed Churches of the Netherlands Together with Their Social, Political, and Ecclesiastical Context, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Calvin Theological Seminary. De Savornin Lohman, A.F./F.L. Rutgers (1882), In Hoeverre heeft de Genootschappelijke Band, Die Sedert 1816 aan de Nederl. Gereformeerde Kerken Is Opgelegd, voor de Bijzondere Kerken Die Daarin Geplaatst Zijn, eene Bindende Kracht? Beantwoord op de Algemeene Vergadering der Ned. Vereeniging van Vrienden der Waarheid enz.; op 12 April 1882, Amsterdam: H.J. Winter. De Savornin Lohman, A.F./F.L. Rutgers (1886), De Rechtsbevoegdheid Onzer Plaatselijke Kerken, Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon. De Savornin Lohman, A.F./F.L. Rutgers (1887), De Rechtsbevoegdheid Onzer Plaatselijke Kerken, 2nd ed., Amsterdam: J.A. Wormser. Goeters, J.F. Gerhard (1968), Die Beschlüsse des Weseler Konvents von 1568, Schriftenreihe des Vereins für Rheinische Kirchengeschichte 30, Düsseldorf: Presseverband der Evang. Kirche im Rheinland. Greijdanus, S (1939), Dr F.L. Rutgers en Jhr Mr A.F. de Savornin Lohman over Het Oude, Gereformeerde, Kerkrecht, De Reformatie 19, 35–41. Haitjema, Th.L (1925), Calvijn En de Oorsprongen van Het Nederlandsche Gereformeerde Kerkrecht, in: Christendom en Historie, Amsterdam: Holland, 183–212. Hooijer, C. (1865), Oude kerkordeningen der Nederlandsche Hervormde Gemeenten (1563–1638), en het concept-reglement, op de organisatie van het hervormd kerkgenootschap in het Koningrijk Holland (1809), Zalt-Bommel: Joh. Noman. Kercken-ordeninge; Gestelt indê Nationalen Synode der Ghereformeerde Kercken, te samen beroepen, eñ gehouden by laste vande Hooghmo: Heeren Staten Generael van de Vereenighde Nederlanden. Binnen Dordrecht, inden Iare 1618. ende 1619 (…). 1620. Utrecht: Salomon de Roy. Kleyn, H.G. (1886), Feiten of verzinsels? Beschouwing der Rechtsbevoegdheid Onzer Plaatselijke Kerken contra Jhr. Mr. A.F. de Savornin Lohman en Dr. F.L. Rutgers, Dordrecht: C. Morks.

339

340

Klaas-Willem de Jong

Kleyn, H.G. (1888), Algemeene kerk en plaatselijke gemeente. Proeve van historisch onderzoek, naar de verhouding van beiden ten opzichte van de inwendige en van de stoffelijke belangen (…), Dordrecht: C. Morks. Knetsch, F.R.J. (1991), Church Ordinances and Regulations of the Dutch Synods “Under the Cross” (1563–1566) Compared with the French (1559–1563), in: J. Kirk (ed.), Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England, and Scotland, 1400–1643. Essays in Honour of James K. Cameron, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 187–205. Kuyper, A. (1883), Tractaat van de Reformatie der Kerken. Aan de Zonen der Reformatie Hier te Lande op Luthers Vierde Eeuwfeest, Amsterdam: Höveker & Zoon. Rutgers, F.L. (1882), Het Kerkverband der Nederlandsche Gereformeerde Kerken, Gelijk dat Gekend Wordt uit de Handelingen van den Amsterdamschen Kerkeraad in den Aanvang der 17e Eeuw, Amsterdam: J.H. Kruyt. Rutgers, F.L. (1889) (ed.), Acta van de Nederlandsche Synoden der zestiende eeuw, Dordrecht: J.P. van den Tol. Rutgers, F.L. (1890), De Geldigheid van de Oude Kerkenordening der Nederlandsche Gereformeerde Kerken. Rede, Gehouden bij de Overdracht van het Rectoraat der Vrije Universiteit, den 21 october 1889, Amsterdam: Wormser. Rutgers, F.L. (1892–1895), Bespreking Der Hoofdpunten van het Kerkrecht naar Aanleiding van de Dordtsche Kerkenorde (www.kerkrecht.nl/node/1278). Rutgers, F.L. (1918). Verklaring van de Kerkenordening van de Nationale Synode van Dordrecht van 1618–1619. Deel IV, Artt. 71–86. Van de Censuur en Kerkelijke Vermaning. Edited by J. de Jong. Rotterdam: Libertas. Sinnema, Donald W./Christian Moser/H. J. Selderhuis (2015), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Spohnholz, Jesse (2017), The Convent of Wesel. The Event That Never Was and the Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. S.R. [= Simeon Ruytinck] (1618a), Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum, Sive Canones Regiminis Ecclesiastici ex Quatuor Synodis Nationalibus in Belgio a Reformatione Celebratis, Breviter in Ordinem Digesti. S.R. [= Simeon Ruytinck] (1618b), Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum, sive Canones Regiminis Ecclesiastici in Synodis Nationalibus, a Reformatione in Belgio Celebratis, Constituti, & in Reformatis Ecclesiis Belgicis Hactenus Observati, Breviter in Ordinem Digesti, Leiden: Isaac Elzavier. S.R. [= Simeon Ruytinck] (1618c), Harmonie. Dat Is Overeenstemminge der Nederlandsche Synoden, ofte Regulen naer de Welcke de Kercken Worden Gheregiert (…), Leiden: David Jansz. Van Harten-Tip, A. (2018), De Dordtse Kerkorde 1619. Ontwikkelingen, Context en Theologie, Utrecht: Kok Boekencentrum Academic. Van Lieburg, Fred (2001), De Reformatorische Profetie in de Nederlandse Traditie, Reformatorische Stemmen 01/1, Apeldoorn: Willem de Zwijgerstichting. Van Lieburg, Fred (2019), Synodestad: Dordrecht 1618–1619, Amsterdam: Prometheus.

The Ideal versus the Reality

Van Schelven, A.A. (1924), Engelsch Independentisme en Hollandsch Anabaptisme, Nederlands Archief Voor Kerkgeschiedenis 17 (1): 108–26. Vree, Jasper (2018), Van L.G. van Renesse Tot D. Nauta (1664–1961), Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis na 1800 89, 17–38.

341

Part D: After the Synod

Henk van den Belt

22.

Reformed Theology on the Brink of Modernity

The Predestinated Thief (1619) and the Remonstrant Accusation of Determinism

Abstract Immediately after the synod, a Remonstrant minister, Henricus Slatius (1585–1623), published a pamphlet, titled The Predestinated Thief. This article uses this pamphlet to assess the issue of determinism, of which the Remonstrants accused the synod. It concludes that, although the accusation is incorrect, the popularity of the pamphlet and the difficulty from the Reformed side to refute it do indicate a major cultural shift towards a modern, monistic – and therefore deterministic–understanding of the relationship between the Creator and his creatures. In the context of modernity, it is difficult to maintain the theological notion of a divine and a human level of causality that operate simultaneously (concursus). The unnuanced satire of Slatius demonstrates the growing difficulty with the combination of divine providence and human freedom. The Arminians seemed to defend human liberty, but in fact bound the will of God to the contingent choices of human beings in history, whereas the orthodox Reformed upheld human liberty while maintaining the Augustinian doctrines of sovereign grace.

22.1

Introduction

Several grand narratives reflect on the roots of modernity, such as the discovery of the human subject as starting point of all knowledge, and the desacralization or disenchantment of the world that made modern science possible. This chapter places the discussions at the Synod of Dordt in the broader perspective of a third grand narrative, the rise of monism in modernity. Monism stands opposed to monotheism, which holds the will of God, the Creator of heaven and earth, to be the cause of creation. On the contrary, monism understands and interprets God and reality as substantially one. It can either take a pantheistic or a naturalistic and materialistic form; the latter is the most popular in secular monism. According to the theory of Amos Funkenstein (1986, 57–72, cf. Gregory: 2012, 25–73), modern monism is rooted in the concept of the univocity of being. This theory shows that it is at least plausible that pre-modern thought leans towards monism

346

Henk van den Belt

in which God becomes a being among other beings. The result is that divine and human agencies are understood as a zero-sum game; God, as the efficient cause of all things that happen, excludes creaturely liberty and annuls human responsibility. This monism and determinism culminates in the pantheistic identification of God and nature as expressed by Baruch de Spinoza’s Deus sive natura. Jonathan I. Israel values the monistic philosophy of Spinoza as the key to understand all the blessings of modernity, including democracy and liberty (Israel: 2006, 866). This is fascinating because pantheistic Spinozism and its materialistic modern counterpart have deterministic tendencies. It can be argued that the real problem with determinism in our modern or postmodern context lies with the strict naturalism or materialism of a secularized worldview rather than with the belief in an omniscient and almighty God. Modern monism puts the first article of the creed – “I believe in God the almighty Father, Creator of heaven and earth” – under pressure by a pantheistic or materialistic identification of creation with the Creator, or in other words by disregarding what Robert Sokolowski calls “the Christian distinction” (Sokolowski: 1982, 32). No doubt an analysis of the official documents of the Synod of Dordt and the ensuing theological debates also sheds light on this issue, but shifts in culture can also traced through the analysis of popular literature. Whereas the ability to apply specific scholastic distinctions helped the academically trained theologians to explain how God’s absolute sovereignty in predestination and human freedom went together, many of the uneducated had difficulty in understanding these subtle distinctions. This chapter will focus on a pamphlet, The Predestinated Thief (1619), written shortly after the synod.1 It is a polemical and satirical publication in the context of a controversy, and it is chosen because sharp controversies reveal cultural shifts most clearly (Israel: 2006, 23). The genre of a satire, although it lacks the nuances of official theological discourse, reveals where the problem really lies.2 The text, framed in the form of a dialogue between a pastor and a criminal who is sentenced to death, contains many quotations from contra-Remonstrant sources that suggest this position is open to the accusation of determinism (something that the Reformed theologians themselves denied). Moreover, the pamphlet remained popular in later debates between Arminians and Calvinists, and was even translated into Latin as Fur praedestinatus ([Slatius]: 1651) and a few years later from Latin into English ([Slatius]: 1658). For this reason the English translation is not used for the quotations, which are rather directly translated from the Dutch original. Below we 1 For a very short summary and discussion, see Frijhoff: 1996, 377–379 and the English translation Frijhoff 2002, 97–99. 2 On satire in the Arminian controversy, see Sierhuis (2015, 85–97), who says that Slatius exploits “the possibilities of the genre to a maximum” (90).

Reformed Theology on the Brink of Modernity

will summarize the pamphlet, analyzing the passages in which the Remonstrant author accused Reformed theology of being deterministic. We will compare these accusations with the original sources. After some short remarks regarding the reception of the pamphlet, we will close with a few analytic observations.

22.2

Henricus Slatius (1585–1623)

The Remonstrant minister Henricus Slatius (or Hendrick Danielsz Slaet), one of the most radical representatives of the Remonstrant party, was most likely the author of The Predestinated Thief.3 As a student, Slatius was supposed to become a missionary under the responsibility of the Dutch East India Company (V.O.C.), who paid for his studies in Leiden (Van Deursen: 1978, 345). He must have been aware of the underlying philosophical and theological distinctions, and could have known very well that the Reformed did not want to make God the author of sin nor deny human freedom. He had studied theology in Leiden and defended theses under the presidency of Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641) on justification (Gomarus: 1605). Slatius did not pass the classis exam in Middelburg because he was suspect of being a supporter of James Arminius (1560–1609). After succeeding in Utrecht, and refusing to go abroad, he became a pastor in Bleiswijk where he wrote a pamphlet against the Contra-Remonstrants; in this tract he blamed the latter of being “seceding pastors” who were friends of the doctrine “that God has rejected young children who die in their infancy – even those from believers – from eternity and damns them in the present time” (Slatius: 1617). In the Remonstrant Brotherhood after the Synod of Dordt, Slatius was too controversial to function as a minister. In 1621, he worked briefly in Antwerp but became involved in a conspiracy against Maurice, Prince of Orange (1567–1625), which seriously damaged the cause of the Remonstrants. Slatius fled, but he was caught, imprisoned, and executed. In a farewell letter to his wife he declared that his soul abhorred the Calvinists and that killing a tyrant was permitted. He encouraged her to raise their children as Christians and teach them about the wickedness of the Calvinists (Van Deursen: 1974, 421–422). According to the custom of those days, on the scaffold a Reformed pastor wanted to assist him in preparing for meeting with God, but unlike the thief in the satire, Slatius refused this pastoral help (Visscher: 1623). After his execution his beheaded body was exposed to the public, but his wife

3 The Remonstrant historian Gerard Brandt is the first to mention Slatius explicitly as the probable author (1704, 4:83, 1086, for the English translation, see Brandt: 1723, 4:42). One of the early reactions (Anon: 1649, 15, 17, 57) already alludes to the conspiracy, without mentioning Slatius’s name. It cannot be excluded that these references were the reason to ascribe the work to Slatius; there is therefore no absolute certainty regarding his authorship.

347

348

Henk van den Belt

took the body away and buried it. Apparently she even had to do this a second time because his secret grave was discovered the first time (Knappert: 1907, 152–154).

22.3

The Predestinated Thief

The preface to the reader claims that the words of the thief are “the very words of those teachers who are esteemed the best and purest among the Calvin-minded” ([Slatius]: 1619, 3).4 Their opinion is abominable, overthrowing evangelical piety, and opening a door to all kinds of ungodliness. After the preface, the pamphlet offers a list of names of those who are cited, beginning with John Calvin (1509–1564) and Theodore Beza (1519–1605), including Contra-Remonstrants such as Gomarus and Reginaldus Donteclock (ca. 1545–after 1611), and reformers such as Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531) and Martin Bucer (1491–1551). The list is not complete; for instance, Martin Luther (1483–1546), who is quoted several times in the pamphlet, is not included in this list. The dialogue can be divided into three parts: the biography of the thief, his argument that he was predestinated to his evil deeds and therefore innocent, and the thief ’s reaction to the encouragement of the pastor to believe the gospel. In the thief ’s view faith is unnecessary because he trusts he is elected anyway and therefore will be saved. The story ends with a few remarks by the thief ’s jailor. The accusation of determinism is explicit already on the title page. The subtitle accuses the Calvinists of stimulating wickedness and impiety and of hindering sinners to repent. A short poem on the title page is even more explicit: “of what help can Christ, or his Spirit, and the Word we learned, be to us / if God has predestinated the opposite / if Christ is to be our help with his Spirit and teaching us His Word, then God should not predestinate the opposite” (Slatius: 1619, titlepage). In other words, predestination excludes human responsibility to use the means of grace and even the ability of Christ and the Holy Spirit to save sinners. The opening phrases of the dialogue are also illustrative of the charge of determinism: “Preacher: may God grant you a good evening, young man. How are you doing?” The thief, who is sentenced to death, answers: “even as the almighty God, who does everything according to his will, effects in time what He decreed concerning me from eternity” (7). The pastor asks the thief to recount what sins he has committed in order to be able to address him properly concerning the way of salvation; the pastor declares, “because you will be hanged tomorrow and I have 4 Because the Dutch text is easily accessible via Google Books, or via www.prdl.org, the original is not copied in the footnotes. The Short-Title Catalogue, Netherlands (STCN) mentions three printings in 1619. They all have the same page numbers. All the references in the main text are to the 1619 editions. For the later reprints, see the discussion of the reception below.

Reformed Theology on the Brink of Modernity

been sent to you to see if I can help you to enter paradise, just as the murderer” (7). The reference is to the criminal on the cross next to Jesus who received mercy (Luke 23:42). Then the thief shares his story; his parents did not want to send him to Leiden to study theology, but preferred Franeker even though the students there were famous for drinking and fighting. Their minister advised for the Frisian university “because it was better to become a drunkard and fighter than a heretic” (8). He was sent to Paris because of his mischief, but there he became even worse. Then they sent him to Geneva, supposing that to be a holy city. He describes in detail how he lived in hypocrisy. The text is full of ambiguous and spicy details. He had a servant with whom he slept “and who, out of the trousers, looked more like a girl than a boy” (9). He and his friends danced at night on their socks and behind closed curtains. One time he was caught and had to creep on his hands and knees in the church, begging God and the congregation for forgiveness. In sum, the former theological student travelled throughout Europe as a thief and burglar, leading a pleasant life with prostitutes and robbers. The second part of the dialogue starts with the pastor’s question inquiring how such a horrible sinner, who deserves the gallows and damnation in hell, can face death with a smile on his face: Pastor: well tell me then where do you think you are going when you leave from here? Thief: to heaven, just like you who are not much better than I am. Pastor: my, o my, do you think you are just as good and decent as I am? Thief: yes and that according to your own confession, because your very best works are in themselves dirty, stinking, heinous and horrible, yes only abomination and sin (11–12).

In the margin, next to a full page of quotations that underline the unworthiness of the believer and the uselessness of good works, are references to Calvin’s commentaries and Institutes, to the prayers in the Reformed book of worship, to the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and to Willem Teellinck (1579–1629) who said that “just like a viper, toad or snake is hated by human beings, not because of committed evil, but because of the venom they contain, so you too are hated by God because of the natural venom in which you were conceived and born” (13, cf. Teellinck: 1619, 8).5 When the pastor replies that this is true, and that God wants his elect to be so sinful so that that they would not be proud but humble, the thief responds that he

5 Teellinck’s book is a translation of William Perkins, A Dialogue of the state of a Christian man, betweene Eusebius a perfect Christian, and Timotheus a wise Christian, and the most of it was gathered here and there out of the sweete and sauorie writings of Maister Tindall and Maister Bradford (Perkins: 1591, 55a–87b, there 58b–59a).

349

350

Henk van den Belt

knew this and therefore did not want to do any good at all. The pastor responds that God wants human beings to be saved by faith, and then the discussion takes a turn. The thief is curious what kind of faith is meant, and the pastor, answering with the words of the Heidelberg Catechism (Q&A 60) on justification, says this is faith that excludes all merit. The dialogue continues for some time on the uselessness of good works with many quotations of Luther given by the thief to underline the latter.

22.4

God’s Hidden and Revealed Will

Determinism again comes to the fore when the pastor turns to the will of God as a rule of obedience. The thief responds: the will of God is twofold: hidden and revealed. So that God wants many things which he has revealed not to want. For example, the Lord commands Pharaoh through Moses: ‘Let the people go!’ and still it was God’s hidden good pleasure and intention that he would not let the people go. That is not so strange, because God has ordained that those whom he commands to walk in the right way will go astray by his hidden decree (16).

The thief ’s response includes four quotations from or references to Reformed authors – these are indicated in the text by italics. In the margin, Slatius links the first two quotations to a work of Hubertus Sturmius (ca. 1547– ca. 1605), a professor of theology at Leiden from 1580–1584. The thief here refers to On the Eternal and Immutable Predestination of God: Discourse Regarding Election and Reprobation (1583); in this work, Sturmius (unlike the later synod of Dordt) places election and reprobation on par as the two species of predestination. Slatius’s reference to the distinction between the hidden (voluntas arcana) and revealed will (voluntas revelata) of God is rather common in Reformed theology (Muller: 1985, 331–332). In Sturmius’s work it functions to explain why Adam sinned, notwithstanding the fact that his fall was the will of God. We are obliged to obey the revealed will of God, but in a certain sense the impious can be said to do the hidden will of God (Sturmius, 1583, 117). The second reference is to the thesis in which Sturmius states that the efficient cause of reprobation is the eternal most free and most just decision of the will of God (76). In his argument Sturmius refers to Martin Luther’s debate with Erasmus on the free will and states that “God wants many things which through his Word he has not revealed to want, so he does not want the death of a sinner, by his word namely, but he does want it by his inscrutable will” (Sturmius, 1583, 81). The Scripture reference is most likely to Ezekiel 33:11 where the Lord declares that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Apparently for Sturmius, as for Luther, the hidden will of God is the will

Reformed Theology on the Brink of Modernity

of the Deus absconditus, the fundamentally unknowable essence of God as God. For the thief, however, the contradiction of God’s inscrutable will with what he commands is irrational. The third reference is to a work from William Perkins (1558–1602), A Treatise of Gods Free Grace, and Mans Free Will (1601); in this work, translated into Dutch, the Puritan states that the Pharaoh should have obeyed the command of God, and “yet the secret pleasure and purpose of God was, that he should not let them go” (Perkins: 1601, 38, cf. Perkins: 1611, 45). The fourth reference is to John Calvin’s response to Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563) in which the Genevan Reformer defends the position that sins are not only committed by God’s permission, but also according to God’s will: “Why however He freely lets those wander, who he commands to hold to the right way, and by a hidden decree gives them over to go astray, it is sober modesty not to know” (Calvin: 1870, 299; for an English translation see Calvin: 1927, 294; Slatius refers to Calvin: 1612, 858; for the original see Calvin: 1558, 64). Thus, whereas Calvin stresses the human inability to understand the tension, Slatius’s predestinated thief claims that according to Calvin, God has ordained sin by his hidden decree. These examples illustrate that Slatius combined several harsh sayings from Reformed authors (taken out of their contexts), and twisted them for his own purposes. Of course, this all belongs to the genre of a satirical writing, but the venom lies particularly in the fact that the tract leaves the impression not only that the Reformed position implies determinism, but also that the quotations accurately represent Reformed ideas. Indeed, some of these quotations make the Reformed position vulnerable for a deterministic misinterpretation or at least misrepresentation; this is especially the case when the will of God is immediately connected to evil. Reformed theologians consistently denied that God is the author of sin or the cause of moral evil by making distinctions, such as the one between the hidden and revealed will of God, or between his commands and his secret purposes. The underlying idea is that the divine and human spheres consist of two separate levels of causation, and that it is beyond human understanding to grasp how they go together. Nevertheless the Reformed maintained genuine human liberty of choice and still confessed that nothing happened or could be done against, or even without, the determining will of God. Recent research has demonstrated the compatibility of Reformed predestinarian views with human freedom (Van Asselt, Bac, and Te Velde: 2010), showing that the Reformed understanding of the medieval scholastic concept of divine concursus provides the ontological framework for upholding human liberty (Muller: 2017, 283–289). Slatius, having been educated in scholastic philosophy and theology, must have been aware of the theological distinctions used to avoid the position that God was the author of evil and to affirm human liberty. In this pamphlet, however, written in the vernacular for the common people, he purposely neglected

351

352

Henk van den Belt

these distinctions; rather, by highlighting phrases in which God is said to cause sin and in which sin is presented as something that happens necessarily, given the decree of God, he left the impression that Reformed theology is deterministic. These phrases are present, especially in Reformed polemical writings, and they make the Reformed position vulnerable for a deterministic misinterpretation or misrepresentation. Slatius’s thief confesses to the minister that these two wills in God were always grinding in his head as in a mill and that he therefore had not taken too much heed to God’s revealed will. In his answer, the pastor refers to Rippertus Sixtus (1583–1651) who says, “It is clear that God sometimes according to his hidden and omnipotent will and good pleasure does not want to happen what he commands humankind in his revealed will, and I do not deny that all things with regards to God and his decree happen necessarily, but confess that expressly to be my doctrine and opinion” (Slatius: 1619, 18, cf. Sixtus: 1617, 250, 752). If we look at the quotation in the original, it occurs within a debate that Sixtus had with his colleague, the Remonstrant Dominicus Sapma (1586–1635). There Sixtus says that the issue between them is not “whether all things with respect to God and his decree happen necessarily” – with which he indeed agrees – but, this only is our disagreement, whether all things with respect to God and his decree happen necessarily in such a way that a human being would not freely do the good he does and leave the evil that he leaves and therefore could not leave more evil than he leaves or do more good than he does, because of such a necessary decree of God, by which he would be necessitated to the good and evil that he does (Sixtus: 1617, 752–753).

Sixtus denied ever teaching anything like this. The underlying Aristotelian/ scholastic distinction is that between the necessity of the consequent thing and the necessity of the consequence, that depends on something else, in this case on the decree of God (Muller: 2017, 97). According to the Reformed, all things were ruled by God’s providence and therefore were merely necessary because of God’s decree (the necessity of the consequence) but not necessary in themselves or in an absolute sense (necessity of the consequent thing, that as such cannot be otherwise), because things could have been otherwise, if God had willed so. Thus sin is not absolutely necessary, Adam and Eve could have not sinned. Because God’s providence does not exclude but rather includes human liberty (the concept of divine concursus) God is not the efficient cause of human evil, although it would not have happened if God had not allowed it to happen. Slatius lets the pastor of the predestinated thief twist Sixtus’s meaning by quoting him partially and by neglecting the distinction Sixtus used to explain that God’s decree does not

Reformed Theology on the Brink of Modernity

annul human liberty. Thus, Slatius presents the Reformed view of the decree in a deterministic way.

22.5

Providence

The discussion between the pastor and the thief then turns to the Reformed doctrine of providence that, in the view of the thief, makes Adam’s fall something that God had predetermined. Human beings can desire nothing unless God inspires them to do so, and even when they do they act as mad beasts, steered as it were by a hidden bridle. Therefore you can say that God “wants and causes the godless to live in their lusts, and therefore that there is a necessity to sin with respect to God” (19). These rather harsh sayings are quoted from polemical works of Jacobus Trigland (1583–1654), a pastor in Amsterdam, and Cornelius Simonis de Ghesel (ca. 1579–1613), a pastor who was banned from Rotterdam because of his attitude against his Remonstrant colleagues. Placed in their original contexts, however, even these quotes do not have a deterministic meaning. Trigland refers to a quotation from Girolamo Zanchi’s (1516–1590) Miscellenies by the Remonstrant Johannes Wtenbogaert (1557–1644), and then explains that Zanchi distinguished between God as the author of everything that happens as far as the things themselves are concerned, but not as far as they are contrary to the law of God (Trigland: 1616, 171–172.) Ghesel (or Geselius) first states that there is a necessity to sin from the depravity of humankind, which is the cause of sin, and that there is a necessity to sin with respect to God who does not prevent it, but that God is not at all the cause of sin (De Ghesel: 1613, 62). Again, scholastic distinctions serve to explain the difference between the Reformed doctrine of providence and determinism that turns God into the author of sin or the effectual cause of evil. The treatise further discusses the question whether God is the author of sin and whether the thief could have known that he sinned. He denies this because his thoughts were also predestinated by God. When he felt the inclination to do something forbidden by God, he thought that it might be the hidden will of God to do it anyway. God might be prompting him to perform what He had from eternity (through an immutable decree) ordained and desired to do through him. The thief states, “I thought, if I resist this, it will appear as if want to oppose God just like Lucifer, therefore I let the sow wallow” (21). The reference here is to the sow that was washed but returned to her wallowing in the mire (2 Peter 2:22). The thief defends this position with references to Reformed expressions that state that God reveals his glory in justly punishing sinners.

353

354

Henk van den Belt

22.6

The Extent of the Atonement

When the pastor (almost desperately) asks whether the thief has always been without any concern, the thief responds that he trusts he is a chosen child of God, and even if not (if he is a reprobate), all his efforts would be without result anyway. The pastor replies that he should have responded to the call of Word and Spirit, but the thief answers that those who are truly called by the gospel and inwardly called by the Spirit cannot but obey, believe, and repent. With extensive quotations from the Canons of Dordt, the thief underscores the teaching that only those who are elect can respond to the call of the gospel. In turn, he reproaches the pastor for inconsistently blaming him that he is unconverted. How can someone respond to the outward call if the inward call is not added to it (24)? The remaining part of the discussion covers reprobation, the destiny of little children, the teaching that attendance to the means of grace makes judgement more severe, and the belief that the elect can fall badly and still persevere. When the pastor reminds his conversation partner that thieves and robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God, the thief replies: would you be able to recommend a medicine for my poor soul? Pastor: believe in Christ Jesus, repent for your sins and pray God for a blissful moment, in which He grants you forgiveness of sins and life everlasting. Thief: what should I believe in order to believe in Christ in the right way? Pastor: you must believe that Jesus Christ has purchased forgiveness of sins and life everlasting for you through his suffering and death. This is what you are commanded in the gospel. Thief: is everything the gospel commands the truth or a lie? Pastor: it is the very truth (31).

Instead of believing the gospel, the thief starts a discussion about the extent of the atonement, insisting that Calvinists teach that Christ is only a Redeemer for the elect, quoting, for instance, Canons of Dordt II.8, which deals with the effectiveness of Christ’s death. The thief wants to know if he is elect, otherwise he might believe a lie. It is even worse; the thief argues that if he is a reprobate and God commands him to believe the Gospel, while Christ’s atonement is for the elect only, God in that case condemns him for his unbelief and thus for not believing something that is a lie (33). The pastor offers to pray for the thief, but he refuses. If he is a reprobate, a thousand years of prayer will not help him, and if he is elect, he will be saved anyway. Instead of praying, he rather wants to sing a hymn entitled “Hymn of Praise for the Lord”. This hymn, written by Bernardus Busschoff (ca 1595–1639), was very

Reformed Theology on the Brink of Modernity

popular among the Contra-Remonstrants, and contained this line: “praised be God who elected me to salvation before I was born….” The most contested lines are printed in the pamphlet in bold: “devil or death, or deadly sins, will never appear so strong or mighty, that they will take away from me this sure pledge” (36). Finally, it is too much. Not for the pastor, but for the jailor, who exclaims: “is that a hymn of praise? It sounds more like a song of the gallows” (37). The story ends with the jailor drawing the sad conclusion that the Reformed doctrine is unable to bring the prisoner to repentance, but hardens him instead. The jailor concludes, “Is that a Reformed doctrine? If you would call it Deformed, that would be a true name, because in itself it can do nothing else than cause carelessness and give the people occasion to continue and persevere in sin” (38). The aim of Slatius is to present the Reformed doctrines of grace, as rejected by the Remonstrants and affirmed at the Synod of Dordt, as untenable because of internal contradictions. Slatius is especially concerned as he believes this Reformed teaching turns God into the author of sin and the cause of moral evil, and it gives sinners the excuse to not repent. For Slatius, the hidden decree of God necessitates sin and if the sinner is reprobate, repentance will be of no help to them anyway. In order to substantiate these claims, he neglects and purposely deletes the Reformed scholastic distinctions, claiming that the Reformed understanding of God’s overarching decree annuls human responsibility and even genuine liberty.

22.7

Reception

In the Netherlands, Slatius’s pamphlet was republished several times in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.6 One of the reprints (Slatius: 1642) is entitled The Reckless Thief (Den reuckeloosen dief). This reprint was dedicated to the academic theologians Jacobus Trigland (1583–1654), Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676), and the local pastors Caspar Streso (1603–1664) and Jacobus Laurentius (ca. 1585–1644), but the dedication is ironical. Most of the later editions also contain the pamphlet The Conversion of the Predestinated Thief published anonymously three years after Slatius’s first printing. It was most probably written by the Remonstrant pastor and jurist Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus, whose Dutch name was Johannes Arnoldsz Ravens (ca. 1581–1650).7 In this pamphlet a Remonstrant pastor disguised as a mason visits the thief and successfully leads him to conversion. Corvinus here wants to show that the Remonstrant 6 The Short-Title Catalogue Netherlands (STCN), a Dutch bibliography for the period 1540–1800, lists issues from 1619, 1642, 1658, 1666, 1670, 1676, 1708, 1718 and 1732, next to six issues without a date. This list is not complete; GoogleBooks also contains scans of the work printed in 1696 and 1725. 7 Brandt (1704, 818, cf. 1723, 409) mentions him as probable author.

355

356

Henk van den Belt

position positively leads to salvation, while the original pamphlet was negative in arguing that the Contra-Remonstrant position leads to ungodliness ([Ravens]: 1622, [2]). The true gospel is not the happy tiding of the Contra-Remonstrants, but a serious message that requires true repentance and conversion; he therefore warns the thief that without conversion and good works his faith is in vain and self-deceptive (23). In Corvinus’s view the Reformed doctrine is not an anchor but a cancer for the soul (48). Finally, the thief confesses that he “slept softly upon the pillow of carelessness, that is upon John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination” (64) and, according to the disguised pastor, his Contra-Remonstrant colleagues should know “how necessary it is to let a fallen sinner not only doubt about his salvation, but even to hold certainly that he will be damned unless he leads a different life” (69). In this pamphlet, Reformed preachers are surprisingly blamed for stimulating easy-believism and superficiality. Some of the later editions of the two conversations – Slatius’ Predestinated Thief and Corvinus’ Conversion – contain a third discussion, this time from the Reformed side. The pamphlet was first published separately as The Inquiring Thief and is dedicated to the members of the Society of the Remonstrants. It was written in reaction to The Reckless Thief reprint of 1642, and, without mentioning Slatius’s name, it accuses the Remonstrants of the conspiracy against Maurice, Prince of Orange (Anon: 1649, 15, 17, 57). The popularity of the book shows that the issue of predestination and the intriguing genre of satire remained attractive and influential for many generations after the Synod of Dordt. In England the booklet was published anonymously in Latin ([Slatius]: 1651) during the reign of Oliver Cromwell, and from the Latin translated into English ([Slatius]: 1658). For a long time the booklet was incorrectly ascribed to William Sancroft (1617–1693), Archbishop of Canterbury.8 The Latin edition evoked the publication of an extensive Latin refutation by George Kendall (1610–1663) who copied the whole work and showed from the context that the Reformed authors were falsely accused or erroneously quoted. He, for instance, demonstrated that the quotations from John Calvin were inaccurate. He did not realize however that this was due to the fact that the Latin translation from the Dutch differed from Calvin’s original Latin (Kendall: 1657, 145). A preface for this refutation was written by the Puritan John Owen (1616–1683). In light of our general thesis, it is interesting to note that the deterministic misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the doctrine of predestination, coined

8 Thomas Jackson (1822, 250) argued that Sancroft could not be the author of this originally Dutch work (cf. Jackson: s.d.). Later Cornelia W. Roldanus—without referring to Jackson—also argued that the Latin edition was merely a translation of the Dutch pamphlet (1948: 143). According to Collinson (2006, 175–176) there is no reason to think that Sancroft is responsible for the translation. The work, however, was still ascribed to Sancroft in the 1980s (Wallace: 1982, 122).

Reformed Theology on the Brink of Modernity

at the Synod of Dordt, occurred on the brink of modernity. In his Theodicy (1710), Gottfried Wilhelm (von) Leibniz (1646–1716) writes: an ingenious satire was composed against the Gomarists, entitled Fur praedestinatus (De Gepredestineerde Dief ), which tells of a thief condemned to be hanged, who attributes to God all the bad he has done, who believes himself predestined to salvation notwithstanding his wicked actions, who imagines that this belief is sufficient for him, and who attacks with ad hominem arguments a Counter-Remonstrant minister appointed to prepare him for death; but this thief is finally converted by a former pastor who had been deposed for Arminianism, whom the jailer, having pity for the criminal and for the weakness of the minister, had secretly brought to him (Leibniz and Strickland: 2014, 210; Leibniz refers to Bayle: 1706, 938).

According to Leibniz, the author incorrectly presupposed that the Reformed believed God to be the cause of evil, although for some of them, namely the supralapsarians, it was difficult to combine clearly the justice of God with the principles of piety and morals. Leibniz continues: but all those who acknowledge that God produces the best plan, that he chose it from among all possible ideas of the universe, that in it he finds man led by the original imperfection of creatures to misuse his free will and to plunge himself into misery, that God prevents sin and misery as much as the perfection of the universe, which is an outpouring of his perfection, may permit it: those, I say, show more distinctly that God’s intention is the most upright and holy in the world (211).

In other words, had the supralapsarian Calvinists only read Leibniz’s Theodicy, they would have acknowledged that this is the best of all possible worlds. It was this monism, however, that evoked this most satirical response of Voltaire’s Candide: “if this is the best of all possible worlds, what are the others?” (Voltaire: 1949 [1759], 230, 241).

22.8

Conclusions

The publication of The Predestianted Thief, its popularity, and the reactions to it (including the later discussion in the context of English Puritanism) all indicate an important shift at the brink of modernity towards a monistic and therefore deterministic understanding of the relationship of God the almighty Creator and humankind as his creature.

357

358

Henk van den Belt

The Reformed view of the relationship between God’s overarching decree – of which predestination is a part – and human liberty depends on a worldview characterized by two levels of causality, a divine and a human level that operate simultaneously (Muller: 2017, 289). This view generally concurred with the classic Christian view of the relationship between Creator and creature which implied that the omnipotent and omniscient Creator does not annul but guarantees genuine human freedom. In his satirical resentment of Reformed theology, the author of The Predestinated Thief, neglected the distinction between the two levels of causality, combined harsh sayings in an anthology from Reformed writings, lifted quotations out of their original contexts, and twisted them for his own purposes. If the underlying scholastic distinctions remain hidden, and the divine and human spheres or two separate levels of causation are not explained, some of the quotations make the Reformed position vulnerable to a deterministic misinterpretation or at least misrepresentation. This, however, is exactly what happens in the context of modernity, which interprets reality from naturalistic – though originally pantheistic – monistic presuppositions. These presuppositions leave no room for the medieval scholastic concept of divine concursus (cf. Insole: 2016, 120). Slatius, although familiar with the theological distinctions and aware that Reformed theologians sought to avoid turning God into the author of evil while maintaining human freedom, purposely presented their theology as deterministic. The common people, however, generally did not understand the nuances of these distinctions because of a lack of philosophical training. For the theological experts of Dordt, versed in scholastic distinctions, it was not impossible to combine a predestinarian view of salvation with a belief in true freedom. As the academic delegate from Zeeland, Antonius Walaeus taught the teenagers at the Latin School in Middelburg, “Man freely does what he does because God decreed that he should freely perform these actions rather than those […]. But these can scarcely be understood. My reply: I admit this freely. The ways and modes of action of a power and a wisdom which are infinite cannot be perfectly grasped by a finite intellect” (1643, 2:277, Cf. Monfasani: 1997, 127). The difficulties of human liberty and divine omnipotence were not only countered by scholastic distinctions, but also with the classical appeal to God’s incomprehensibility and by warnings against curiosity. In the context of modernity, however, these appeals and warnings did not seem to be convincing anymore. The unnuanced satire of Henricus Slatius illustrates the growing difficulty that was felt with this combination of providence and freedom. It is telling that the harshest sayings often come from vernacular literature in which the position of the Contra-Remonstrants was explained for a broader audience, even though in the original contexts of these quotations determinism is often denied. The scholastic solutions did not survive the cultural shift to modernity. This also

Reformed Theology on the Brink of Modernity

resulted in pastoral problems of sincere believers that truly struggled with questions and objections to the gospel, similar to those of the sentenced thief. Later generations tend to look at the two parties through the lenses of liberal Remonstrantism and Puritanized Reformed Orthodoxy. Within a generation or two the Contra-Remonstrant emphasis on free and sovereign grace was no longer experienced as a joyful message that undergirded the full assurance of salvation, but as a problematic source of anxiety regarding the trustworthiness of God’s promises. Developments within Reformed spirituality indicate that the common Reformed believer did not understand the subtleties of orthodox scholasticism either. The lay person had difficulties with Reformed doctrine similar to those of the thief in the satire. The cultural shift towards a monistic understanding of the relationship between the Creator and creatures leads to a deterministic misinterpretation of the doctrines of grace in Reformed spirituality. The remarkable concern of the jailor – that this “Deformed” doctrine leads to carelessness – is underlined by the pamphlet The Conversion of the Predestinated Thief as it blames Reformed preachers for stimulating easy-believism and superficiality. The Arminians, while they intended and pretended to defend true human liberty, bound the eternal will of God to the contingent choices of human beings in history. The Reformed orthodox rejected this position because it determined the will of God. If they had to choose between predestinated sinners – with all of the logical problems it evokes – and a predetermined God, their choice was not very difficult. It is an irony of history that in the later reception the Contra-Remonstrants were blamed of determinism, whereas the Remonstrants were seen as the champions of human liberty.

Bibliography Bayle, Pierre (1706), Réponses aux questions d’un provincial, vol. 3, Rotterdam, Leers. Brandt, Geeraert (1704), Historie der reformatie en andere kerkelyke geschiedenissen in en omtrent de Nederlanden, vol. 4, Rotterdam: Barent Bos. Brandt, Geeraert (1723), The history of the Reformation, trans. John Chamberlayne, 4 vol., London: John Nicks. Calvin, Jean (1558), Calumniae nebulonis cuiusdam, quibus odio & inuidia grauare conatus est doctrinam Ioh. Caluini de occulta Dei prouidentia. Iohannis Caluini ad easdem responsio, [Geneva]: Conradus Badius. Calvin, Jean (1612), Joannis Calvini Tractatus theologici omnes, in unum volumen certis classibus congesti, Geneva: Jacobus Stoer. Calvin, Jean (1870), Calumniae nebulonis cuiusdam adversus doctrinam Iohannis Calvini de occulta Dei providentia, in: G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss (ed.), Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. IX, Braunschweig: C.A. Schwetschke, 269–318.

359

360

Henk van den Belt

Calvin, John (1927), Calvin’s Calvinism: 1. the Eternal Predestination of God; 2. The Secret Providence of God, London: Sovereign Grace Union. Collinson, Patrick (2007), From Cranmer to Sancroft: Essays on English Religion in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, London: Continuum. De Ghesel, Cornelius Simonis (1613), Proefken vande schadelijcke verschillen over de christelijcke salichmakende leere, Amsterdam: Cornelis Fransz. Den ondersoeckenden dief (1649); zijnde een t’samen-sprekinge tusschen een arminiaans predicant ende een dief in’t gevanggen-huys: Antwoort op de Gepredestineerde of reuckeloosen dief, s.l.: s.n. Frijhoff, Willem (1996), De gepredestineerde boer. Leven en geloven in de vroege zeventiende eeuw, in E. Put (ed.), Geloven in het verleden: studies over het godsdienstig leven in de vroegmoderne tijd, aangeboden aan Michel Cloet, Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 375–391. Frijhoff, Willem (2002), Predestination and the farmer. An incident of life and faith in early seventeenth- century Holland, in: Willem Frijhoff, Embodied Belief: Ten Essays on Religious Culture in Dutch History, Hilversum: Verloren, 93–110. Funkenstein, Amos (1986), Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Gomarus, Franciscus (1605), Theses theologicae de iustificatione hominis coram Deo, respondent Henricus Slatius, Leiden: Johannes Patius. Gregory, Brad S. (2012), The Unintended Reformation, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Insole, Christopher J. (2016), The Intolerable God: Kant’s Theological Journey, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Israel, Jonathan I. (2006), Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man, 1670–1752, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, Thomas (1822), The Life of John Goodwin, A.m: Some Time Fellow of Queens College, Cambridge, and Vicar of Saint Stephens, Coleman-Street, London. Comprising an Account of His Opinions and Writings, and of the Controversies in Which He Was Engaged in Defence of Religious Liberty and of General Redemption. London: Longmans. Jackson, Thomas (s.d.), Archbishop Sancroft Not the Author of “the Predestinated Thief ” [a Translation of “den Ghepredestineerden Dief,” Which Is Generally Ascribed to H. Slatius], [for a scan, see books.google.nl/books?id=mHBaAAAAcAAJ&dq]. Kendall, George (1657), Fur pro tribunal: Examen dialogismi cui insribitur fur praedestinatus. Accesserunt, oratio de doctrina Neo-Pelagiana habita Oxonii in comitiis Julii IX. M.DC.LIV. Cl.V.G. Tuissii vita, & vindiciae ‘a calumniis & sophismatis Francisci Annati Jesuitae. Et dissertatiuncula de novis actibus immanentibus sint ne Deo ascribendi. / Authore Georgio Kendallo S.T.D. Disseratiuncula de novis actibus immanentibus sint ne Deo ascribendi. Disseratiuncula de novis actibus immanentibus sint ne Deo ascribendi, Oxford: Henry Hall.

Reformed Theology on the Brink of Modernity

Knappert, Laurentius (1907), Slatius en zijn libel “Den gepredestineerden dief ”, in: Historische avonden: Tweede bundel uitgegeven door het historisch genootschap te Groningen, Groningen: Wolters, 144–154. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, and Lloyd Strickland (2014), Leibniz’s Monadology : A New Translation and Guide, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Monfasani, John (1997), ‘Antonius de Waele’, in: J. Kraye (red.), Cambridge Translations of Renaissance Philosophical Texts, I, Moral Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 120–129. Muller, Richard A. (1985), Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker. Muller, Richard A. (2017), Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and Necessity in Early Modern Reformed Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Perkins, William (1591), A [t]reatise tending vnto a de[cl]aration, whether a man bee in the estate of damnation, or in the estate of grace and if he be in the first, how he may in time come out of it: if in the second, how he may discerne it, and perseuer in the same to the ende, London: Thomas Orwin, for Iohn Porter and Thomas Gubbin. Perkins, William (1601), A Treatise of Gods Free Grace, and Mans Free Will, Cambridge: Iohn Legat. Perkins, William (1611), Een tractaet van de vrye genaede Gods, ende vrye wille des menschen, Leiden: H. van Haestens. [Ravens, Johannes Arnoldsz] (1622), De bekeringe vanden ghepredestineerden dief: of, Tvveede t’samen-sprekinghe ghehouden tusschen een remonstrants-gezinde predicant […] ende een dieff, The Hague: [J. Alleman]. Roldanus, Cornelia W. (1948), De Gepredestineerde Dief Herrezen, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis/Dutch Review of Church History, 36(1), 135–148. Sierhuis, Freya (2015), The Literature of the Arminian Controversy: Religion, Politics and the Stage in the Dutch Republic, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sixtus, Rippertus (1617), Bespreck ofte onderhandelinge ghehouden over eenighe huydendaechsche kerckelijcke verschillen, Enkhuizen: Meyn. Slatius, Henricus (1617), Henrici Slatii Bewiis, Dat de Schuer-Predicanten zijn Vrienden ende Toe-standers van dese Leere: Dat Godt on-mondighe jonge Kinderkens, die in hare onbejaertheyt sterven, zelfs der Gheloovighen van eeuwigheyt heeft verworpen, ende in tijde verdoemt, Rotterdam: Matthijs Bastiaensz. [Slatius, Henricus] (1619), Den Gepredestineerden Dief, Ofte Een Samen-Sprekinge, ghehouden Tusschen Een Predicant Der Calvinus-Ghesinde Ende Een Dief, die ghesententieert was om te sterven: Waer in Levendigh werdt voor ooghen ghestelt, niet alleen hoe de Leere der Contraremonstranten ofte Calvinisten, in haer selven den mensche een voet ende oorsake gheeft om godlooselick te leven ende daer in te volherden, maer oock hoe de selve ten hooghsten hinderlicken is, om den sondaer tot de ware boetvserdigheydt en berouw sijnder sonden te brenghen, s.l.: s.n.

361

362

Henk van den Belt

[Slatius, Henricus] (1642) Den reuckeloosen dief. Zijnde eene t’samensprekinge tusschen een gheref. predicant en een dief, s.l.: s.n. [Slatius, Henry] (1651), Fur praedestinatus, sive, Dialogismus inter quendam ordinis praedicantium Calvinistam & furem ad laqueum damnatum habitus in quo ad vivum representatur non tantùm quomodo Calvinistrarum dogmata ex seipsis ansam praebent scelera & impietates quasvis patrandi, sed insuper quomodo eadem maximè impediunt quò minùs peccator ad vitae emendationem & resipiscentiam reduci possit, London: Impensis F.G., typis G.D. [Slatius, Henry] (1658), The predestinated thief. A dialogue betwixt a rigid Calvinian preacher and a condemned malefactor. In which is not onely represented how the Calvinistical opinion occasions the perpetration of wickedness and impieties; but moreover how it doth impede and hinder, nay almost impossibilitate the reducing of a sinner to emendation and repentance, London: R. Trott for Daniel Jones. Sokolowski, Robert (1982), The God of Faith and Reason: Foundations of Christian Theology, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Sturmius, Hubertus (1583), De aeterna et immutabili praedestinatione dei: electione atque reprobatione diatribe, Leiden: Johannes Patius. Teellinck, Willem (1619), Een dialogue, oft t’Samensprekinghe vanden staet van een christen mensche, Amsterdam: Jan Evertsz Cloppenborch. Trigland, Jacobus (1616), Verdediging van de Leere end Eere der Gereformeerde Kercken ende Leeraren, tegen verscheyden lasteringen, insonderheyt Johannis Wtenbogardi in zyn Boeck t ‘onrecht geintituleert, Amsterdam: Marten Jansz Brandt. Van Asselt, Willem. J./Martijn Bac/Dolf te Velde (ed.) (2010), Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Van Deursen, Arie Theodorus (1974), Bavianen en slijkgeuzen: Kerk en kerkvolk in de tijd van Maurits en Oldenbarnevelt, Franeker: Van Wijnen. Van Deursen, Arie Theodorus (1978), Slatius, Henricus, in: D. Nauta (ed.), Biografisch lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands protestantisme, vol. 1, Kampen: Kok, 345–346. Visscher, Claes Jansz. (1623), Terechtstelling van Henricus Slatius, Willem Perty en Jan en Abraham Blansaert, in: Frederik Muller, De Nederlandsche geschiedenis in platen : beredeneerde beschrijving van Nederlandsche historieplaten, zinneprenten en historische kaarten, 4 vol., Amsterdam: F. Muller, 1:199, number 1498a. For a scan, see the website of the Rijksmuseum: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.collect.190853 Voltaire (1949), The Portable Voltaire, ed. Ben Ray Redman, New York: Viking Press. Walaeus Antonius (1620), Compendium ethicae Aristotelicae ad normam veritatis Christianae revocatum, Leiden: Elsevier. Walaeus Antonius (1643), Opera omnia, Leiden: Franciscus Hackius. Wallace, Dewey D. (1982), Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology, 1525– 1695, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.

Joke Spaans, Pauline Wegener

23.

Practical Theology after Dordt

Lambertus de Beveren and Wilhelmus van Irhoven

Abstract At the synod of Dordt the delegates from Zeeland advocated training in practical pastoral skills for theology students. At the time, however, practice was not considered a proper subject for academic studies. Consequently, theological examinations did not include the practical aspects of ministry. We argue that the academic habitus of ministers encouraged lay agency. The latter received a boost in the ‘experiential turn’ from the later seventeenth century, when ministers and laymen introduced forms of mysticism and revivalism that were frowned upon by the synods. In this light we discuss Lambertus de Beveren’s annotations to Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress and Wilhelmus van Irhoven’s Gronden van het verzekert Christendom, both written for use in oefeningen (advanced catechesis), as symptoms of a wider tendency to correct the extremes of experientialism and regain control for the ordained ministry. We suggest that this tendency also led to the belated response to the proposals of the Zeeland classes at the synod of Dordt, in making practical theology a standard element in the academic training and examination of future ministers.

23.1

Reformed Practical Theology in the Dutch Republic

The synod of Dordt (1618–1619) not only discussed the doctrines at stake in the controversy against the Arminians, but also practical theology, especially catechetical instruction of the laity and the pastoral formation of ministers. This is not surprising. The Dutch Reformed Church was still a young church then, established under wartime conditions. For all practical purposes it still needed to be built up. Although the synod did formulate a concrete policy for catechising the laity, a series of recommendations for pastoral training for candidates for the ministry from the churches of Zeeland was taken under advisement only (Acta ofte Handelinghen: 1621, 58–60). Ministers were first of all considered public intellectuals, with public preaching, public prayers and public catechising as the core of their duties. This is not to say that the ministry did not have access to schools and families, private rooms and bedsides, but from the outset it was skewed heavily towards public teach-

364

Joke Spaans, Pauline Wegener

ing, imparting knowledge, rather than towards what nowadays we call spiritual care. Change in this respect would take over a century. In the 1620s an attempt to appoint William Ames in Leiden to teach practical theology floundered on the veto of James I of England but also on the unwillingness of the university itself to teach practical skills alongside theory (Broeyer: 2005, 120–121; Sinnema: 2013). Academic training was overwhelmingly theoretical, not only in theology but also in law and medicine. Practice was seen as a craft and left to “practitioners” (Dutch: “practizijns”) who acquired their skills in traineeships. In law, practical work was done by lawyers and attorneys, in medicine by barber-surgeons and midwives – and in theology by schoolmasters, teachers of catechism, and lay evangelists or “oefenaars” (Goudriaan: 2013). For most of the seventeenth century students of theology who wanted to enter the ministry were examined in three subjects: their proficiency in Hebrew and Greek, their skills in composing and delivering a sermon, and their ability to refute those of other confessions. The pulpit was the Archimedean point on which the ministry rested and from which it approached the congregation. Caspar Streso (1605/6–1664), who served the prestigious congregation of The Hague for thirty years, may have been the first to attempt a scholarly exposition on Reformed practical theology. In 1633 he published Technologia theologica, in which he advocated the practice of theology as a craft: based on independent analysis and interpretation of the Bible, and aimed at the engagement with the laity, rather than as a scholastic discipline only (Streso: 1633; see also Grell: 1989, 180, 290; Keller: 2015, 171–172). Streso volubly claimed he was inspired by the natural philosophy of Francis Bacon (1561–1626), based on observation and experiment rather than authority, but he may well have taken the same practical approach from the Ramism of Ames, with whom he had studied previously in Franeker (Gibbs: 1968; id. 1972, 238; Sprunger: 1968; Sprunger: 1972, 238). Around the middle of the seventeenth century Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676), professor of theology in Utrecht, experimented with practical theological tutorials for selected students. He also provided them with lengthy reasoned bibliographies of useful material, by authors from all over Christendom (Classis Utrecht: 5.6.1645; Voetius: 1644, 200–253, 482–495; Voetius: 1664, passim; see also Macek: 2005). For a more systematic approach, however, we should look at his pupil and colleague Johannes Hoornbeeck (1617–1666). Hoornbeeck produced a Latin compendium on practical theology, aimed at his students and at ministers. It was not a devotional book. Hoornbeeck insisted that students and the faithful should have a sound knowledge of Reformed doctrine, but also that this doctrine should go beyond mere speculation. It should be applied to life to produce a living faith, the contents of which could be summarised in five key points: heartfelt contrition and even a healthy desperation over sin; the

Practical Theology after Dordt

acknowledgement that one’s only hope is in Christ; spiritual regeneration through the Spirit; a constant effort to attain sanctity of life; and eventually peace of mind and spiritual joy. His Theologia practica first treats the common theological loci. The second volume has a substantial section on the state of grace. He refers to the work of Streso as his inspiration for this approach (Hoornbeeck: 1663–1666, quotation Prolegomena, 18; see also Brienen: 2008). A volume of miscellanea published posthumously contains texts on affliction, consolation, and the duties of the Christian towards the sick and dying, destined for a third volume (Hoornbeeck: 1672, book II, 459–538). Besides this academic work, with Voetius he published a vernacular treatise on spiritual barrenness, as a manual for “practizijns” or even a self-help book for the laity (Hoornbeeck: 1646) – a nice example of the distance between academic and practical theology at the time. Hoornbeeck arguably also had an impact on the development of practical theology through his advocacy for advanced catechization in his Tractaat van Catechisatie (1654). This went far beyond the basic instruction of schoolchildren and those who prepared for their public profession of faith in order to attain membership in the Reformed church. From the middle of the seventeenth century, enterprising ministers started to produce a host of companions to the catechism (Dutch: “catechismusverklaringen”) for already professing church members who took their faith seriously. These books came in a wide variety of styles, but practically all of them were substantial volumes of hundreds of pages. Many were reprinted repeatedly over a long series of years. All were composed of questions and answers. Life-long catechesis in turn created a lively market for vernacular theology. It also fostered the emergence of a Reformed minor clergy. Educated and pious lay people assumed more and more practical pastoral tasks. Formally they worked under the supervision of consistories and ministers, relieving the latter of some of their workload. In a highly stratified society they were considered better suited for practical spiritual care than the academically trained ministers. Schoolmasters and comforters of the sick worked in the public domain, in schools and hospitals, in the army and navy, in prisons and on scaffolds and in the mission fields overseas; teachers of catechism and “oefenaars” in the private domain. These professions were not strictly separated: ambitious schoolmasters could teach advanced catechism, and they and comforters of the sick could lead private meetings (Dutch: “oefeningen”) like the lay evangelists did (Spaans: 2019). Meanwhile, the universities remained aloof, and the classes continued to examine candidates in academic subjects only. The continued reluctance of theological faculties to teach practical theology, considered as a lowly skill, further stimulated the activities of theological lay practitioners. Professors like Voetius and Hoornbeeck had staunchly supported this lay agency as a valuable complement to the public teaching ministry of the academically trained minister. More influential by far, however, was the book that the Rotterdam minister Wilhelmus à Brakel (1637–1711) published in 1700: Logikè Latreia, dat

365

366

Joke Spaans, Pauline Wegener

is Redelyke godts-dienst [Reasonable Religion]. It was reprinted no fewer than 21 times before 1800 (Van Lieburg: 2009). After an overview of Reformed theology, à Brakel recommends his readers to examine their consciences carefully, to know the state of their soul from observation and experience, and describes how to live a Reformed life of devotion, according to one’s position in society. He thus followed the approach of Streso and Hoornbeeck, but popularised it for the laity. Above all, he called upon lay church members not only to attend the public functions of the church, but also to teach and edify each other, each according to his or her gifts. With this appeal to the “priesthood of all believers” it powerfully contributed to the popularity of “oefeningen” led by laypersons. By the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries the culture of catechism had taken deep roots in the Dutch Reformed church. It had created an elite of theologically articulate lay men and women within the church, but also had helped shift the provision of spiritual care for a large part towards lay practitioners. A constant element in all literature on practical theology was its insistence on a thorough grounding in Reformed doctrine combined with an almost scientific measurement of the state of one’s soul, as preconditions for a godly life. It is unclear whether ministers ordinarily spent much time discussing the personal appropriation of the faith with the members of their flocks. They may have cultivated pastoral as well as friendly relations with the social elite of their parish, but close familiarity with more ordinary church members seems unlikely – given their workload and the highly stratified nature of society.

23.2

The Experiential Turn

Yet in the first decades of the eighteenth century practical theology finally attained academic status – probably as a reaction to extreme interpretations of Reformed doctrine, and the threat of separatism. Early seventeenth-century Reformed theologians, who had confidently upheld the assurance of salvation for the elect against their Roman Catholic rivals, had done so philosophically and in the abstract. Over time it became a matter of practical theology, as both theologians and lay believers started to search for signs of either election or reprobation in themselves and in others, and thus to weigh the state of the souls of individuals on a Baconian basis of observable fact. The emphasis shifted from confessional religion, defined as knowledge of and assent to an established doctrine, to a much more experiential form of religion. In itself this turn towards experience could be encompassed within Reformed orthodoxy, as long as it retained its grounding in orthodox doctrine. An exclusive reliance on experience, however, was seen as a depreciation of the ministry of the church and eventually of Scripture itself.

Practical Theology after Dordt

Books like those of Hoornbeeck and à Brakel already show the drift of this “experiential turn”. Besides doctrine, they urged the need for a process of spiritual growth, along well-defined stages. They relied on predecessors who had described, or literally mapped out, the doctrine of predestination and all that depends from it as the core of Reformed theology. Highly influential was the system designed by William Perkins (1558–1602) in his Armilla Aurea (1590), translated into English as A golden Chaine, Or the Description of Theologie, Containing the Order of the Causes of Salvation and Damnation, According to Gods Word. As the title indicates, this treatise does not give a complete overview of theology, but focuses on double predestination, presenting its consequences for humanity as a chain of cause and effect. Perkins also illustrated this “golden chain” with a diagram that has been included in the editions of his collected Works published after his death, as an “ocular Catechisme to them which can not read”. It shows the inexorable consequences of the eternal decrees in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ and for the fates of the elect and the reprobate.

367

368

Joke Spaans, Pauline Wegener

The Golden Chain: Perkins’ Ocular Catechisme. From William Perkins (1608–1609), The workes. Copy University Library Free University Amsterdam, shelf nr. XI.05090. Foto: Joke Spaans.

Practical Theology after Dordt

The metaphor of the golden chain had struck immediate chords in the Dutch Reformed Church. The Canons of Dordt, no doubt referring to Perkins, called the Reformed doctrine of election, including double predestination: “this golden chain of our salvation” (Dutch: “deze gulden keten van onze zaligheid”) (Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1940, 232–233). A few decades later, Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) reinforced the “chain” by anchoring it in the notion of the covenants – the intertrinitarian covenant that was also called the Counsel of Peace and which contained the eternal decrees, and the covenants of works and grace with mankind. Cocceius’ system was an instant success in the Dutch Republic. His academic work was repeatedly republished in Latin and in Dutch. Covenant theology, with its emphasis on the sponsorship of Christ, spiritual regeneration (Dutch: “wedergeboorte”) of the faithful and the quest for conversion and a life of godliness gained central positions in preaching and academic theology. From the middle of the seventeenth century, regeneration and conversion, although theological evergreens, took on ever more personal meanings. This happened all over the Reformed world. German Pietism developed the concept of the Bußkampf, the experience of conversion as a spiritual struggle to overcome sin. In England John Bunyan (1628–1688) described this experience in his famous allegory The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678). He also produced a diagram: Mapp shewing the order and causes of Salvation & Damnation, which visualises the consequences of the doctrine of double predestination for the elect and the reprobate, after the example of Perkins. However, whereas in Perkins’ map the centre of the chain leading from the eternal decrees to the Last Judgement was Christological, in Bunyan it is psychological, showing the passage through salvation history of the progeny of Adam. And whereas Perkins’ map presented itself as a catechism to teach the illiterate, Bunyan exhorted its viewers to “look into thy Heart, as in a Book” to diagnose their state of grace (Campbell: 1981; Titlestad: 2008/2009). Here we see the shift from confessional to a much more experiential form of religion visualized.

369

370

Joke Spaans, Pauline Wegener

The Golden Chain: Bunyan’s Mapp (1691). Broadsheet engraving, London: William Marshall. British Museum, cat. nr. 1864,0813.291. © Trustees of the British Museum

Some Dutch theologians took the increased emphasis on the need for spiritual regeneration and an inwardly experienced and outwardly visible conversion to disturbing lengths. The Cocceian David Flud van Giffen (1653–1701) emphasised in

Practical Theology after Dordt

his preaching in Friesland in the 1680s the crucial difference between those reborn and those spiritually dead. Only the former could legitimately consider themselves God’s adopted children. He therefore discouraged all others from praying the Lord’s Prayer, calling God their Father in Heaven, and from partaking of the Lord’s Table. The Frisian classes and synods were apalled, but could not fault his orthodoxy (Brinck: 1685, 499–521). He would later be called as minister to the prestigious city of Dordrecht. Nor was Flud van Giffen the only one to think along these lines. Gerardus van Schuylenburg (1681–1770), minister of Tienhoven, held similar views in the 1710s (Van Lieburg: 1992). Federal theology intersected at this juncture with a shift in the conceptualisation of religion. While in the confessional states religion had been considered as a public moral order, the enlightened eighteenth century rather defined religion as a sentiment in the hearts of individual believers (Van Rooden: 1996, 78–120). The emphasis on spiritual regeneration also had consequences for notions on infant baptism. The 1720s witnessed a fierce debate on the standard liturgical questions to be answered by parents at the baptism of their infants. In the formulary these children were called “sanctified in Christ” (Dutch: “of gij niet bekent dat ze in Christus geheiligd zijn, en daarom als ledematen zijner gemeente behoren gedoopt te wezen.”). At the time of origin, this probably meant nothing more than that children should receive baptism, the admission into the religious community that would shape them into Christians. By the 1720s, however, some held that the formulary suggested that adoption as children of God and spiritual regeneration were presupposed in infants who were as yet unable to give signs of faith and conversion. The conflict was never resolved. The political authorities prohibited further public discussion for the sake of ecclesiastical and social concord (Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1946/1947; Broeyer: 1996). This new emphasis on the necessity of observable signs of conversion, without which people were to be considered reprobate, led to sharp controversy in the Dutch Republic in the 1740s. Prominent Reformed theologians grew increasingly alarmed about the tendency towards an exclusive reliance on religious feeling and spiritual experiences (Dutch: “bevinding”). They did consider the work of the Spirit essential in regeneration and conversion. However, without a thorough grounding in knowledge of Scripture, and without true repentance demonstrated in a conversion of life, excessive experientialism in their eyes constituted mysticism or enthusiasm. It tended towards idealization of the pure church of the visibly regenerate and from there towards separatism (Van Lieburg: 2019; van der Keessel: 1744). Public debate was provoked by books like Johannes Eswijler’s Ziels eensame Meditatien [Soliloquies] (1685) and Wilhelmus Schortinghuis’s Het Innige Christendom [Heartfelt Christianity] (1740). Their religiosity was compared to several heresies from the early church, to revolutionary Anabaptism, early modern esotericism and spiritualism, to the more recent Labadist separatism, and to contemporary groups like the

371

372

Joke Spaans, Pauline Wegener

Quakers and radical German Pietists (Van Lieburg: 1989; van der Keessel: 1746; de Vrijer: 1942). Lurking in the background of these controversies over enthusiasm was an equally divided field of opinions on revivals. Revivals probably went back to the early seventeenth century, if not beyond, but they became widespread and a topic of debate in the eighteenth century (Van Lieburg: 2001). Church members, whipped up by fervent experiential preaching, were collectively gripped by remorse for their sins and despair over their salvation, and soon afterwards suddenly experienced an overwhelming infusion of divine grace, regeneration and the gift of saving faith. Revival preaching overturned the usual decorum of church services and spilled over into noisy meetings of the penitent and the jubilant alike in the open air or the homes of church members, where “oefenaars” sometimes provided spiritual guidance. Usually the spiritual effervescence died down after some time, although often leaving a longer lasting intensification of religious life in the local church. Rarely have these incidents been recorded in local archives, either of churches or of political authorities. A wave of revivals spreading out from Nijkerk on the coast of the Zuiderzee in 1749–1751, however, provoked a storm of debate in pamphlets, between those who considered them signs of the workings of the Holy Spirit, repetitions of the miracle of Pentecost, and those who saw mere enthusiasm, insufficiently rooted in established traditions of biblical exegesis and confessional doctrine, corrosive of the authority of the institutional church as prescribed in the church ordinances, and of the social order in general (Van der Keessel: 1744, 478; see also Spaans: 2001). This was also a period of perceived external threats to the existence of Protestantism. Within the Republic, Catholics had remained numerically strong, and by the eighteenth century their ecclesiastical organisation, although formally clandestine, had become highly effective. There are indications that Reformed ministers started to see this as a threat to the viability of their own church and of the credibility of their confession. Some foresaw a bloody overthrow of the existing order (Frijhoff: 2002), others harboured deep concern over indifference, leading to easy conversions to Catholicism, especially in mixed marriages (Van den Honert: 1733, 31–32; Velse: 1732; Classis Leiden: 30.6.1738). International developments reinforced these fears. With the expulsions of Waldensians and Huguenots still fresh in the collective memory, the rising pressure on the Reformed in the German Empire and the expulsion of the Salzburgers raised doubts about the self-evidence of the confessional status quo, and undermined the certainty that Reformed Protestantism was the one true religion under divine protection. Before classes and synods introduced practical theology into the study programme of prospective ministers in the 1740s, individual ministers started experiments that seem to have been designed to counter the lure of separatism, and to arm their parishioners against doubt and despair of their salvation either from an

Practical Theology after Dordt

exclusive focus on the conversion experience or for other reasons. We briefly present two of these pioneers, and place their work within the context of the emerging discipline of practical theology.

23.3

Lambertus de Beveren

A minister in Hoorn from 1715 until 1742, Lambertus de Beveren (1673–1742) was one of a series of ministers in his family. His father had been a minister in the town of Tilburg and both his sons would become ministers as well. De Beveren’s mother was the only child of Lambertus van den Bos (1610–c.1698), deputy headmaster of the Illustrious School of Dordrecht, who was the first translator of Don Quichot into Dutch and who wrote poetry, prose, histories and plays before abandoning himself to a wild life (Zuidema: 1918; van Dalen: 1918). With his first wife Catharina Stegnerus, a minister’s daughter, de Beveren had six children, several of whom died in infancy. A daughter married Johannes Lemaan, minister at Amersfoort. A son, Antoni Willem de Beveren (1700–1782), became minister in Schellinkhout, Oostzaan, Naarden and Middelburg. With his second wife, Sophia Theodora Feltman, de Beveren had another son, Theodorus Feltman de Beveren (1706–1767) who succeeded his brother as minister in Schellinkhout, and who was later called as minister in Schipluiden, Vlissingen and Utrecht (Consistory Hoorn: 4.7.1732). During his ministry in Hoorn, de Beveren organized “oefeningen” with his parishioners, with a remarkable book as their guide: Johan Bunjans Christens Reize na de Eeuwigheit, the 1682 Dutch translation of The Pilgrim’s Progress. Though very popular, this book also had turbulent associations at the time. Its author, John Bunyan, was not a trained minister but preached to conventicles, and wrote The Pilgrim’s Progress while imprisoned by the Restoration government of England for his refusal to give up preaching. The Dutch translation used by de Beveren in his “oefeningen” had been, in 1682, the very first translation of The Pilgrim’s Progress, only four years after its publication in English was printed by Johannes Boekholt (1656–1693), the Amsterdam publisher known for his pietist selection of literature. The translation was possibly by Jacobus Koelman (1631–1695). Koelman published thirteen of his own works through Boekholt’s print shop and translated at least ten English books into Dutch. Like Bunyan, Koelman did not accept any authority from the regular church establishment, and he made the synods, classes and consistories very uneasy with the popular conventicles he held all over the country (Van Lieburg: 1989, 24–29). He was also a welcome guest in Hoorn, a town with a lively “oefeningen” culture. Bunyan’s “nonconformity” and the ambiguous status of religious house-meetings did not deter de Beveren from discussing Christens Reize with his parishioners. Since these meetings were not announced in church (Announcements) it is likely

373

374

Joke Spaans, Pauline Wegener

that they were meant for a rather select group of people only, although a larger part of the congregation must have been aware of them: in the preface de Beveren writes that people sneered at this “despised little book”, and ridiculed their “oefeningen”(De Beveren: 1729, Preface, pages not numbered). Nevertheless, he states that he rather wishes to be of use to the converted or the potentially convertible, than to be considered polite by worldly people. Inspired by the discussions at these meetings, de Beveren published a heavily annotated version of Christens Reize in 1729. His annotations, taking up at least half of each page, are a running commentary on Bunyan’s text; they elucidate the allegory and provide the theological framework on which it was built. Why would de Beveren have chosen this not exactly uncontroversial book? Before Christens Reize, de Beveren published a collection of sermons: De Gelukzaligheit van het volk wiens Got de Here is [The Bliss of the people who have the Lord as their God] (1713, 1725). The sermons discuss topics such as assurance of faith and conversion; topics that were major concerns for his contemporary Wilhelmus van Irhoven, too. The preface to the 1725 edition gives us some insight into de Beveren’s thoughts and the matters that preoccupied him. He writes that prosperity had led people to despise edifying books, both English and Dutch ones, to seek out ancient heresies and invent new ones, applaud attacks on orthodox ministers (Dutch: “schimpschriften tegen Voorstanders van ene ernstige bedieninge met toejuiching ontfangen”), and had fostered atheism. This preface indicates that already years before publishing Christens Reize, de Beveren was thoroughly aware of and engaging with recent Dutch and (translated) English devotional books and apprehensive of a waning of orthodoxy and of the authority of ministers (Dutch: “Leeraars”) (De Beveren: 1725, Preface, a recto). With his commentaries to Christens Reize de Beveren may have wished to restore traditional orthodoxy and show his readers the way to true repentance and conversion. In the annotations, de Beveren aims to demonstrate how the allegorical Christens Reize could be explained and how it tells us everything we need to know about spiritual rebirth and the pretended faith of the unregenerate (Dutch: “doen blyken, op wat wijze dit verbloemd Werkje konde uitgelegt werden, om er genoegzaam alles wat in Wedergeborene en Naam Christenen valt, aardig en wel aangeschakelt te vinden”) (De Beveren 1729, Preface, his italics). He also highlights what he sees as the role of the minister in John Bunyan’s allegory: typical for de Beveren’s comments to the Christens Reize is a relatively heavy emphasis on the minister’s role in furthering faith. This is what makes his comments especially interesting in the light of practical theology. De Beveren demonstrates how important the minister is for the congregation by clarifying the allegory, and also by providing the biblical context to Bunyan’s story, which concurrently displays de Beveren’s wide knowledge of the Bible. In addition, de Beveren explicitly equates the role of the character of Evangelist with

Practical Theology after Dordt

the role of the minister, both responsible for teaching about Christ as the way, the truth and the life; for strengthening those with a weak faith; for guiding Christians in their faith and for creating awareness of human sinfulness. For instance, when Christian, the protagonist, follows Worldly-Wise’s advice and takes the wrong path, de Beveren explains that Christian has left the way of evangelical truth, and when Christian subsequently encounters Evangelist, he confesses his sins immediately. Evangelist, writes de Beveren, is a minister, whose task it is to search for those who have gone astray (de Beveren: 1729, 51–53). The underlying message is that ministers are essential for Christians to expound Scripture, helping them to become aware of and repent their sins. In his annotations, then, de Beveren shows himself to be an early practical theologian, by uniting a minister’s profound knowledge of the Bible and of Reformed doctrine with spiritual care for his congregation. By employing a text with strong non-conformist connotations and explaining it with reference to the Reformed church structure, de Beveren may have tried to counter concrete non-conformist tendencies within his congregation. The schoolteacher Johannes Eswijler (life dates unknown) had been director of the municipal orphanage of Hoorn. Eswijler’s book Ziels eensame Meditatien (1685; reprinted in 1734) would cause fierce debate in the Reformed Church, and even be condemned by the Zuid-Holland synod in 1740, because of its experientialism, its antinomian disrespect for the church, and its depreciation of (most) ministers as worldly intellectuals who lacked heartfelt faith. Although there is no conclusive evidence about lingering sympathies for Eswijler’s opinions in Hoorn, the fact that the consistory called his son Wilhelmus as minister in 1718 – a call rejected by the burgomasters – the lasting fame of his book and the altercations of the Hoorn consistory with local schoolmasters about their “oefeningen” (Consistory Hoorn: 2.2.1718; 19.8.1719; 15.2.1720) all make such an influence quite probable.

23.4

Wilhelmus van Irhoven

Wilhelmus van Irhoven (1698–1760) was the son of the town secretary of ‘sHertogenbosch (Burmannus: 1760). He attended the Latin school there and also finished the two-year advanced course in the classical languages, Hebrew, philosophy and theology at the Athenaeum Illustre. From 1717 to 1722 he studied theology at the University of Leiden. He also immersed himself in Oriental languages and took a doctor’s degree in philosophy with a dissertation on the vacuum (Van Irhoven: 1721). From 1722 to 1737 he served the congregation of Ede as Reformed minister. He refused calls to several city churches (Sluis, Naarden, Rotterdam) and to the Illustrious School in Lingen. During his years in Ede he wrote a historical-philological study on the Book of Psalms, as well as a lengthy treatise on the notions on metempsychosis in Antiquity,

375

376

Joke Spaans, Pauline Wegener

comparing the ideas found with Pythagoras and in a number of antique religions – from the Indian Brahmins to the European druids – with those of Christianity (Van Irhoven: 1728; van Irhoven: 1733). Here, he also produced the first edition of his Gronden van het verzekert Christendom [Grounds of an assured Christianity] (1730), which would prove to be his magnum opus. He thus combined an orthodox Reformed worldview with a marked interest in those branches of scholarship – natural philosophy, philology and comparative religion – often identified as corrosive to the Christian faith. In 1737 van Irhoven was appointed to the chair of theology in Utrecht. Besides the further reworking of his Gronden for a second (1737) and third (1744) edition, he produced no substantial new publications. In 1740 he was appointed to a second chair in church history. His only historical publication was a new edition of the Canons of Dordt, which had long been out of print (Van Irhoven: 1752). Van Irhoven married twice, and his four surviving daughters married well. Wilhelmus died of heart failure in 1760, 62 years old. Both academically and socially his career was quite successful. Gronden van het verzekert Christendom was the fruit of weekly “oefeningen” van Irhoven had held for his parishioners in Ede, to answer their questions about how they were in a state of grace, and assured of future sanctity, and how to know the right attitude towards God and one’s neighbour (in Dutch: “de waarheid van de staat der Genade, zekerheid van toekomende zaligheid, de kennisse van onze oprechtheid voor de Here en onze evenmensch.” ). To his joy the people of Ede and the surrounding countryside had responded with eagerness, walking long distances, even in rainy weather, to attend his sessions, and copying out his text. Eventually he had it printed for the continued use and greater convenience of his audience (Van Irhoven: 1744, Preface and Approbation). Circumstantial evidence shows that a revival probably took place in Ede, a few years after van Irhoven arrived there as its minister (Van Lieburg: 2001, 34). The book and the “oefeningen” from which it grew may well have been meant as the pastoral answer to such an outburst of enthusiasm – both the theme and the remarkable (residual) piety in and around Ede could point in that direction. The reprints during his years as professor in Utrecht were probably meant as a textbook for his students. Each successive edition was longer than the previous one, until the third edition was more than twice the size of the first. At first sight the book is puzzling to modern readers (Broeyer: 2001, 49; van Asperen: 2008). In the first chapters the tone resembles that of the catechism, where the teacher poses the questions, and the answers are those expected of an accomplished pupil. In the later chapters, however, a fictive insecure parishioner questions the equally fictive minister and is reassured by him. With the exception of one reference to the Catechism and one to Ovid (Van Irhoven: 1744, 145, 672), van Irhoven quotes only the Bible, and never mentions theological authors. Yet he obviously took much of his material from traditional sources (Van Asperen: 2008,

Practical Theology after Dordt

62–70). In form the text follows the Ramist fashion of divisions and subdivisions, in a baroque exuberance where a modern reader may easily get lost (Ong: 1958; Hotson: 1994). Yet this overabundance does not completely obscure the carefully designed argument where one set of propositions leads to the next, as in a chain of reasoning, and syllogisms (Dutch: “sluitredenen”) lead to valid conclusions. Van Irhoven calls it a “redekaveling”, a technical term used in Dutch for a philosophical argumentation. The point under discussion is how Reformed Christians can attain assurance of faith. The book starts with four chapters on the promises and benefits of the Covenant of Grace: the adoption of the elect as children of God and heirs to the Kingdom, spiritual rebirth, faith, and conversion respectively (chapters I–IV). Remarkably, although he does not deny the possibility of the forceful conversions of the revivals, van Irhoven advocates lifelong conversion, through sustained efforts to overcome sin, with the help of Bible study and scrutiny of the conscience, diligently attending church services and seeking the company of pious church members (Van Irhoven: 1744, 63–65, and throughout). In two relatively short chapters van Irhoven argues that it is both possible and necessary to have full assurance of faith (chapter V and VI). These six first chapters basically explain the theology of “the golden chain”. The remaining six chapters contain an elaborate and detailed casuistry on the right ways to search one’s conscience as to whether one actually has grounds for assurance. The extensions in the later editions are overwhelmingly to the second, casuistical half of the book, especially the chapters on doubt and despair. Step by step, with an ironcast internal logic, both the false sense of security of the religously indifferent and the doubts and despair of the insecure believer are dispelled with recourse to the revealed truths of the Bible, demonstrated by biblical prooftexts. Each link in the chain must necessarily lead to the next, and signs of true conversion, therefore, are certain grounds for full assurance of election and salvation. Thus van Irhoven, like de Beveren before him, recalls his parishioners and readers to a practical use of confessional religion.

23.5

The Introduction of Practical Theology at the Universities

In the 1720s both de Beveren in Hoorn and van Irhoven in Ede appear to have reacted to extreme manifestations of the “experiential turn”. Both impressed their parishioners with the need to cultivate godliness within the context of Reformed congregational life under the close supervision of the ordained ministry. Like Bunyan’s Pilgrim, they should leave worldliness behind, and start the arduous journey to the Celestial City, heeding the advice of evangelists and interpreters of Scripture, seeking the support of the church and overcoming doubt and despair. De Beveren reinforced Bunyan’s insistence on the guidance of the ordained ministry

377

378

Joke Spaans, Pauline Wegener

against the antinomianism of Eswijler, while van Irhoven, in the aftermath of a revival, taught his flock (and later his students) to apply the truths of the “golden chain” of predestinarian doctrine to their personal lives, as the slow but sure way to assurance of faith. Perhaps van Irhoven did to theology in Utrecht what Herman Boerhaave had done for medicine in Leiden: make the application of academic knowledge in practice part of the academic curriculum. The time seemed ripe for change. Besides van Irhoven’s Gronden, the year 1730 also saw the publication of Beknopt onderrigt aan Studenten, Proponenten en Jonge Leraren, hoe zy in het Huis Gods konnen verkeeren [Short instruction to students, candidates for the ministry and newly ordained ministers how to behave in the House of God]. This was a little booklet, providing advice on all the aspects of pastoral practice as well as lists of useful books, as Voetius had done almost a century earlier. Its author was Henricus Ravesteyn (1678–1749), who over the next decade would republish it in successive, and each time considerably expanded versions as De Nasireer Gods [God’s Nazarene], now proudly bearing his name and dedicated to the professors of theology in all five Dutch universities who received it favourably and used it in their lessons. Compared to Ravesteyn’s general orientations on the field by way of reasoned bibliographies, van Irhoven’s book was more of a manual with direct model answers to the kind of questions ministers could get. The very extensive indices at the end of the work enabled readers to find answers to specific problems, while frequent cross-references connected the catechetical instruction of the first six chapters to the examination of the conscience treated in the second half of the book. And very, very slowly, synods started to follow up, making practical theology a compulsory subject in the examination of future ministers. In 1731, the Groningen synod proposed to do so, but the other universities preferred to leave this to the discretion of the professors (Classis Groningen: 10.4.1731; Classis Harderwijk: 17.4.1731; Classis Leiden: 25.6.1731; Classis Utrecht: 12.8.1732; Classis Franeker: 7.6.1734). The Synod of Utrecht finally prescribed examination in at least one subject of “theologica practica” in 1744 (Classis Utrecht: 10.3.1744, 11.8.1744). Conjoined with the call for attention to pastoral skills, there was a return to the foundational Formularies of the Faith, as reconfirmed at the Synod of Dordt (Ens: 1733). In Zeeland and Holland the classes and synod prescribed the original Heidelberg Catechism as the standard primer (Honert: 1741, Preface). In Friesland there were complaints that the Canons of Dordt were practically forgotten (Classis Franeker, 6.8.1742), and van Irhoven’s new edition made them easily available again. Simultaneously, de Beveren’s annotations to The Pilgrim’s Progress demonstrate a concern with what de Beveren sees as the indispensable role of the minister in strengthening the faith of the members of his congregation, in the elucidation of the Bible and in keeping his people on the “straight and narrow” path. Especially after the Nijkerk Commotion, ministers retook control over spiritual care from the hands

Practical Theology after Dordt

of lay practitioners. As the more extreme manifestations of the experiential turn became manifest, universities and synods appear to have joined forces in an effort to return to a more confessional type of religiosity, convinced that this provided the faithful with the only true and tested guideline to a heartfelt practice of their faith. At the same time, and for the same reasons, the recommendation presented at the synod of Dordt towards introducing practical theology as a mandatory subject in the training of ministers finally came into its own.

Archival sources Classis Franeker, Acta 1708–1734. Leeuwarden, Tresoar, archive Classis Franeker, inv. nr. 4. Classis Groningen, Acta 1726–1750. Groningen, Groninger Archieven, archive classis Groningen, inv. nr. 3. Classis Leiden, Acta 1728–1740. The Hague, Nationaal Archief, archive classis Leiden, inv. nr. 11. Classis Harderwijk, Acta 1718–1742. Arnhem, Het Gelders Archief, archive classis Harderwijk, inv. nr. 117. Classis Utrecht, Acta 1644–1660; Acta 1722–1750. Utrecht, Het Utrechts Archief, archive Classis Utrecht, inv. nr. 3, 8–9. Consistory Hoorn, Acta 1712–1766. Hoorn, Westfries Archief, archive Hervormde Gemeente Hoorn, inv. nrs. 51–52. Announcements to the congregation 1605–1756. Hoorn, Westfries archief, archive Hervormde Gemeente Hoorn, inv. nrs. 75–76.

Bibliography Acta ofte Handelinghen des Nationalen Synodi, Dordrecht, Isaac Jansz Canin, 1621. Bakhuizen van den Brink, J.N. (1940), De Nederlandsche belijdenisgeschriften, Amsterdam: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland. Bakhuizen van den Brink, J.N. (1946/1947), Het gezag van het doopsformulier voor synode en Staten van Utrecht 1723–1734, NAK, n.s. 35, 15–50. Brienen, T. (2008), Johannes Hoornbeeck (1617–1666), eminent geleerde en pastoraal theoloog, Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan. Brinck, Henricus (1685), Toet-steen der Waarheid en der Dwalingen, ofte Klaare en beknopte Verhandelinge van de Cocceaansche en Cartesiaansche Verschillen, Amsterdam: Gerardus Borstius. Broeyer, F.G.M. (1996), De onrust over de eerste doopvraag rond 1728, NAK 76, 46–75.

379

380

Joke Spaans, Pauline Wegener

Broeyer, Frits (2001), De Nijkerkse beroeringen als spiegel van de eigentijdse theologie, in: Joke Spaans (ed.), Een golf van beroering. De omstreden religieuze opwekking in Nederland in het midden van de achttiende eeuw, Hilversum: Verloren, 39–57. Broeyer, F.G.M. (2005), Theological Education in the Dutch Universities in the Seventeenth Century: Four Professors on Their Ideal of the Curriculum, in: Wim Janse/Barbara Pitkin (ed.), The Formation of Clerical and Confessional Identities in Early Modern Europe, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 115–132. Burmannus, Franciscus (1760), Oratio Funebris in obitum Viri Clarissimi ac Plurimum Reverendi Guilielmi Irhovii, Utrecht: Johannes Broedelet. Campbell, Gordon (1981), The Source of Bunyan’s Mapp of Salvation, JWCI 44, 240–241. De Beveren, L. (1725), De Gelukzaligheit van het Volk Wiens Got de Here is, in Twaalf Predikatien, Vermeerdert met den Toets-Steen der Gelukzaligheid van Gots Volk, 2nd ed., Hoorn: Jacob Duyn. De Beveren, L. (1729), Johan Bunyan’s Christens Reize na de Eeuwigheit. Met ophelderende aanmerkingen van Lambertus de Beveren, Predikant te Hoorn, Groningen: Pieter Bandsma. De Vrijer, M.J.A. (1942), Schortinghuis en zijn analogieën, Amsterdam: H.J. Spruyt. Ens, Johannes (1733), Kort Historisch Berigt van de Publieke Schriften, rakende de Leer en Dienst der Nederlandse Kerken van de Verenigde Nederlanden, zynde de Formulieren van Eenigheyt en de Liturgie, Utrecht: J. Wagens and J. Paddenburg. Frijhoff, Willem (2002), Prophecies in Society. The Panic of June 1734, in: id., Embodied Belief. Ten Essays on Religious Culture in Dutch History, Hilversum: Verloren, 181–213. Gibbs, Lee W. (1972), William Ames’s Technometry, JHI 33, 615–624. Goudriaan, Aza (2013), Theologia Practica: The Diverse Meanings of a Subject of Early Modern Academic Writing, in: Jordan J. Ballor/David S. Sytsma/Jason Zuidema (ed.), Church and School in early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, Leiden: Brill, 439–452. Grell, Ole Peter (1989), Dutch Calvinists in early Stuart London. The Dutch Church in Austin Friars 1603–1642, Leiden: Brill. Hoornbeeck, Johannes (ed.) (1646), Gisbertus Voetius, Disputaty van Geestelicke Verlatingen. Vervolgt door Johannes Hoornbeeck, Utrecht: Lambert Roege. Hoornbeeck, Johannes (1663–1666), Theologiae Practicae libri (duo), Utrecht/Leiden: Hendrick Versteegh/Daniel Willemsz van der Boxe/Willem Clerck. Hoornbeeck, Johannes (1672), Vetera et Nova, Utrecht: Hendrik Versteegh. Hotson, Howard (1994), Philosophical Pedagogy in Reformed Central Europe between Ramus and Comenius: a Survey of the Continental Background of the “Three Foreigners”, in: Mark Greengras a.o., Samuel Hartlib and Universal Reformation. Studies in Intellectual Communication, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 29–50. Irhoven, Guilielmus ab (1721), Disputatio philosophica inauguralis de Spatio Vacuo, Leiden: Daniel Goetval.

Practical Theology after Dordt

Irhoven, Guilielmus (1728), Conjectanea philologico-critico-theologica in Psalmorum titulos, Leiden: Daniel Goetval. Irhovius, Guilielmus (1733), De Palingenesia Veterum seu Metempsychosi sic dicta Pythagorica libri III, Amsterdam: Henricus Vieroot. Keller, Vera (2015), Knowledge and the Public Interest, 1575–1725, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macek, Ellen A. (2005), Advice Manuals and the Formation of English Protestant and Catholic Clerical Identities, 1560–1660, in: Wim Janse/Barbara Pitkin (ed.), The Formation of Clerical and Confessional Identities in Early Modern Europe, Leiden: Brill, 315–331. Ong, Walter J. (1958), Ramus. Method, and the Decay of Dialogue. From the Art of Dialogue to the Art of Reason, Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press. Sinnema, Donald (2013), The Attempt to Establish a Chair in Practical Theology at Leiden University (1618–1626), in: Jordan J. Ballor/David S. Sytsma/Jason Zuidema, (ed.), Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 415–441. Spaans, Joke (2001), Veranderende vroomheid, in: Joke Spaans (ed.), Een golf van beroering. De omstreden religieuze opwekking in Nederland in het midden van de achttiende eeuw, Hilversum: Verloren, 79–96. Spaans, Joke (2019), Between the Catechism and the Microscope: The World of Johannes Duijkerius, in: id./Jetze Touber (ed.), Enlightened Religion: From Confessional Churches to Polite Piety in the Dutch Republic, Leiden: Brill, 316–345. Sprunger, Keith L. (1968), Technometria. A Prologue to Puritan Theology, JHI 29, 115–122. Sprunger, Keith L. (1972), The Learned Doctor Ames. Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Titlestad, P.J.H. (2008/2009), From Beza to Bunyan: The Pilgrim Road Mapped?, BS 13, 64–81. Van Asperen, Ad (2008), Wilhelmus van Irhoven (1695–1760). Het leven en werk van een predikant en hoogleraar, Utrecht: Faculty of Theology (unpublished master thesis). Van Dalen, J.L. (1918), “Bos (Lambertus van den) of Bosch”, NNBW 4, 231–232. Van den Honert, Joan (1741), Het Kortbegrip der Christelike Religie, voor die sig willen begeven tot des Heeren Heilig Avondmaal, Leiden: Samuel Luchtmans. Van den Honert, T.H. (1733), Redevoering over de Onverschilligheit des Godsdiensts, Leiden: Samuel Luchtmans. Van der Keessel, Dionysius (1744), Oorsprong en Voortgang der Dwepery, Deventer: Abraham van Wezel. Van der Keessel, Dionysius (1746), Nodig Berigt van het geene Voorgevallen is, in den Jaare 1740–1745. Omtrent het Boek van D.W. Schortinghuis, genaamd het Innig Christendom, Deventer: Abraham van Wezel. Van Irhoven, Wilhelmus (1744), Gronden van het Verzekerd Christendom, ofte een Christen onderwezen, beproefd en verzekerd, aangaande den Staat der Genaade en toekomende

381

382

Joke Spaans, Pauline Wegener

Heerlijkheid. Tot byzonder gebruyk voor zyne Gemeente, The Hague: O. and P. van Thol, Utrecht: Jan Hendrik Vonk van Lynden. Van Irhoven, Wilhelmus (ed.) (1752), Canones synodi nationalis Dordracenae, Utrecht: Jan Hendrik Vonk van Lynden. Van Lieburg, F. (1989), Eswijlerianen in Holland, 1734–1743. Kerk en kerkvolk in strijd over de Zielseenzame meditatiën van Jan Willemsz. Eswijler (circa 1633–1719), Kampen: Uitgeverij de Groot Goudriaan. Van Lieburg, F. (1992), Gerardus van Schuylenburg (1681–1770). Een piëtistisch predikantenleven, DNR 16, 103–126. Van Lieburg, Fred (2001), De Libanon blijft ruisen. Opwekkingen in Nederland in de gereformeerde traditie, in: Joke Spaans (ed.), Een golf van beroering. De omstreden religieuze opwekking in Nederland in het midden van de achttiende eeuw, Hilversum: Verloren, 15–38. Van Lieburg, Fred (2009), De Redelijke godsdienst van Wilhelmus à Brakel, in: Jan Bos/ Erik Geleijns, Boekenwijsheid. Drie eeuwen kennis en cultuur in 30 bijzondere boeken. Opstellen bij de voltooiing van de Short-Title Catalogue, Netherlands, Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 186–194. Van Lieburg, Fred (2019), Warning against the Pietists: The World of Wilhelmus à Brakel, in: Joke Spaans/Jetze Touber (ed.), Enlightened Religion: From Confessional Churches to Polite Piety in the Dutch Republic, Leiden: Brill, 346–370. Van Rooden, Peter (1996), Religieuze Regimes. Over godsdienst en maatschappij in Nederland, 1570–1990, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. Velse, Henricus (1732), Professor Hoornbeeks Sorg en Raad, in: W. Hogerwaart, AfscheidsReden tot de gemeinte op Batavia, The Hague: Gerardus Winterswijk en Cornelis van Zanten. Voetius, Gisbertus (1644), Exercitia et Bibliotheca Studiosi Theologiae, Utrecht: Wilhelmus Strick. Voetius, Gisbertus (1664), Ta Askētika sive Exercitia Pietatis, Gorinchem: Paulus Vink. Zuidema, E. (1918), “Beveren (Lambertus de)”, NNBW 4, 143–144.

Abbreviations of journal titles BS DNR JHI JWCI NAK NNBW

Bunyan Studies Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie Journal of the History of Ideas Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek

Pierrick Hildebrand

24.

Dordt at the edge of High Orthodoxy

The Reception of the Canons of Dordt in the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675)

Abstract The Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675) arose in Switzerland as a failed attempt at the end of the seventeenth century to safeguard received orthodoxy in the Reformed states from the growing influence of the French School of Saumur, especially the teachings of Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664). This confessional document met strong resistance within and outside Switzerland in a time where a pan-Protestant union in Europe was strongly supported. An evaluation of the Formula, however, as well as the polemics surrounding it reveals that the Canons of Dordt were hardly explicitly mentioned in the arguments of the Confession. Most significantly, when the Formula was abandoned at the beginning of the eighteenth century, its major detractors were not yet prepared to question the Canons. This essay sheds new light on the reception of the Canons in Reformed Switzerland in the late HighOrthodoxy-period.

24.1

Introduction

“[Reformed] orthodoxy reached its highest peak with the [Helvetic] Consensus Formula” (Schweizer: 1856, 663), wrote nineteenth-century theologian Alexander Schweizer in his monumental history of dogma, Die protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformirten Kirche (1854–1856). In this view, the Helvetic Consensus Formula (later Formula) of 1675 should not be seen as merely a Swiss event, but as a climactic moment for the whole of Reformed orthodoxy. The Formula, however, remains a forgotten confessional document of the tradition. Schweizer’s study of the Confession’s historical background, written more than 150 years ago, remains unsurpassed.1 The peak-metaphor in Schweizer’s interpretation can signify at least two things. First, the rise of Reformed orthodoxy as outlined

1 For succinct introductions to the Formula in more recent time, see Campi: 2016, 437–451; Moser: 2013, 216–222. In this essay I rely mainly on Schweizer and these two sources for the historical background to the Formula.

384

Pierrick Hildebrand

at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) to its full development. And, secondly, the beginning of orthodoxy’s decline. Whether one agrees with Schweizer’s narrative of Reformed orthodoxy or not, his reading of the tradition is an invitation to look more closely at the relationship between the Canons of Dordt (later Canons) and the Formula. While the Swiss and the Genevan delegations at the Synod of Dordt approved the Canons, a thorough study on the ways the Swiss churches actually made use of the Canons in the aftermath of the Synod remains a desiratum (for Geneva, cf. Rouwendal: 2017). My contribution will briefly address this larger issue. This essay will follow the trend in historical-theological studies towards renewed interest in previously neglected sources, especially with regard to the seventeenthcentury Post-Reformation period. I will focus on the relationship between the Canons and the Formula from a reception-historical perspective. After a brief overview of the origins and the end of the Formula, I shall examine the relevant sources and consider the extent to which contemporaries of the Formula referred to either the Synod of Dordt or the Canons. After beginning with the Formula, I will consider two polemical writings related to the immediate controversy regarding the “new confession”. This essay concludes with an evaluation of the relationship between the two texts.

24.2

The Origin and the End of the Formula

As we shall see, the historical setting of the Formula differs in many respects from what occured more than fifty years earlier in Dordt (cf. Selderhuis: 2015, XV-XXXII). I will only mention the three most significant differences. First, while the synod took place as a reaction against the teachings of Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), the protagonists of the Formula responded (largely) to the teachings of Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664). Secondly, the Canons were sanctioned by a synod of the provinces from the Dutch Republic, which included delegations from all over the Reformed world. The Formula, in contrast, was a consensus document produced by the Diet of the Swiss Reformed Cantons and Geneva, and excluded international participation. Thirdly, the Canons were approved as a pan-Reformed confessional document by all non-Dutch delegations, while the Formula as a confessional document met with international resistance and remained binding only within Switzerland. The initiative for the Formula came from Geneva. A Professor of theology at the Académie, François Turrettini (1623–1687), wrote in 1669 to the Zurich professor Johann Heinrich Heidegger (1633–1698): “As once in 1549 Calvin and Bullinger, Zurich and Geneva, reached an agreement on the doctrine of the Holy Supper with the consensus tigurinus, of great benefit for the church, so should now a consensus formula be composed and embraced on the issues threatening [the church]” (Quoted in Schweizer: 1856, 469). Turrettini was, of course, referring to the peculiar

Dordt at the edge of High Orthodoxy

teachings of the School of Saumur in France, which had more readily found their way into French-speaking Switzerland than into the German-speaking states of the Swiss Confederation.2 The Genevan Turrettini, fearing the theological developments in his city, sought and found allies in the Swiss Reformed diet led by Zurich, which had for decades opposed Salmurian theology.3 The Swiss churches were concerned about developments in Geneva. An epistolary exchange followed between the magisterial, ecclesial and theological authorities of Geneva, Zurich, Basel, Bern, and Schauffhausen and became particularly intense during the years 1671 to 1674. Turrettini’s initiative was not welcomed by all with equal enthusiasm. Even among those who basically agreed with the need for a new confessional document, the extent of its content with regard to doctrine and the condemnation of opponents was far from agreed. The more radical parties sought to have Salmurian theology, as well as other schools of thought (such as Cartesianism), condemned as heterodox. In the end, however, the moderate Heidegger was commissioned to author the final draft of the Formula, which was dated 1675. The resulting document condemned the theological peculiarities of Saumur but without demanding excommunication. Three theological issues of the teachings of professors at the Academy of Saumur were addressed. First, the hypothetical universalism taught by the aforementioned Amyraut.4 Secondly, the mediate imputation of original sin as taught by Josué de la Place (1596–1655/56). And, thirdly, the late-dated addition (by the Masoretes) of the diacritical “vowels” in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, as taught by Louis Cappel (1585–1658). Amyraldianism, touching as it did on the doctrine of predestination – so crucial at the Synod of Dordt – remained the catalyst or the cornerstone of the Formula (cf. Heidegger: 2016, 453). Amyraut had “re-ordered” the decrees outlined at Dordt, so that Christ’s atonement preceded election (cf. Armstrong: 1969, 158–221). In his view, the divine decree of Christ’s atonement was not limited to the elect alone, but was universal on the condition of faith, which was met only by the elect by particular grace through the Holy Spirit. By this reordering Amyraut wanted to integrate two divine wills in God’s decrees: the universal will that all mankind might potentially be saved, and the particular will of effective salvation of the elect. Correlated to that so-called hypothetical universalism was the teaching that original sin does not affect the natural but only the moral ability to believe, and, further, that natural revelation can suffice as an external call to believe.

2 Geneva did not become a canton of the Swiss Confederation until 1815. 3 The Swiss corresponded with the French synod on this issue, cf. Stam: 1988, 291–328. 4 In relating hypothetical universalism to Amyraut in my essay, I do intend to say that he was the originator of this doctrine and had no precursor. Amyraut was, as he himself admitted, indebted to his former professor at Saumur, the Scottish theologian John Cameron (1579–1625). See further Gootjes: 2019.

385

386

Pierrick Hildebrand

Many Reformed theologians rejected Amyraut’s teaching as compromising with the Arminian view condemned at Dordt, but he was never excommunicated by French Reformed synods (cf. Stam: 1988). All Swiss Reformed states adopted the Formula in 1675. Geneva [and Neuchâtel], where the initiative had arisen, later assented but not without difficulty (Fatio: 2002). The Formula became a document to which preachers and teachers had to subscribe before being inducted into their offices. Significantly, the document first circulated only in handwritten form in order to avoid giving offense beyond Swiss borders, especially to the French Reformed. It was first printed in 1714 as an appendix to the Second Helvetic Confession, suggesting that the latter should be read in light of the Formula. We will note here the significant absence of the Canons in these prints. The Formula was not printed separately until the early 1720s, almost as a last breath before its “extinction”. From the beginning, the project met resistance not only in Switzerland but also in the broader Protestant world.5 The pressure from inside and outside the country did not lessen – quite the contrary. As early as 1706, it was once more Geneva that began the process that first abolished the obligation of pastors and teachers to subscribe to the Formula. In the early 1720s, the Swiss states were exhorted to repeal the Formula by English King George I (1660–1727), the King of Prussia Frederick William I (1688–1740) as well as by the German Corpus Evangelicorum, for the sake of Protestant unity. As a result, Basel and Schaffhausen gave in to international pressure on the issue of obligation of subscription. Zurich and Bern followed in the thirties (cf. Campi: 2016, 444).6 Ironically, the so-called consensus brought to light a strong disagreement within Reformed orthodoxy and Protestantism more generally in the late sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century. By the end of the century, the need for pan-Protestant union superseded the need for Protestant confessionalism.

24.3

The Canons in the Formula

The Formula began with a preamble followed by 26 articles and ended with a short petition coupled to a doxology. We will not go through the whole text, but rather identify the most significant references to the Synod of Dordt and its Canons. Only two passages are worth considering: one in the preamble and the other in the last

5 Even if the Formula was as local matter, the pressure from outside made it, ironically, to an international issue. 6 According to Kurt Guggisberg, however, the Formula did not fall into oblivion in Bern until the French invasion of 1798, cf. Guggisberg: 1958, 461.

Dordt at the edge of High Orthodoxy

article.7 The preamble passage is admittedly only an implicit [some might say even indirect] allusion to the Synod of Dordt. “We have intended with [our] document to create an effective and holy gate under the authority and command of [our] superiors to prevent false teachings, in particular the doctrine of the extension of divine grace, from spreading among our tender youths. For, in time, [our youths] might themselves corrupt our churches. [The Formula] shall also prevent worse [teachings] from arising, as there is hardly a more fruitful and fertile seed than deception when it is tolerated with excessive indulgence, such as we have seen in the sad example of Remonstrantism.”8 The reference to the Remonstrants was not incidental. The author(s) of the Formula deliberately sought to recall the history of Remonstrantism, whose condemnation by the Synod of Dordt was undoubtedly an essential part of their case.9 Although Amyraut’s teaching on universal grace was not identified with Arminius’ view, Amyraldianism was clearly paralleled to Arminianism and its history after Dordt, which was used to mirror the current doctrine and how its situation could develop. Amyraldianism was brought into a suspicious, even dangerous proximity to Remonstrantism. The reader would not miss the urgency of the situation mediated through this historical parallel. The second passage found in the last article virtually closed the Formula and had, therefore, a more formal character. And no one should be induced to propose either publicly or privately any dubious or new dogma of faith previously unheard of and contrary to the Word of God, to our Helvetic confession, to our books of confessions, or to the Canons of the Synod of Dordt, or not demonstrated nor sanctioned in a public assembly of brothers according to the Word of God.10

7 Klauber’s translation does not include the preamble and is unsatisfactory with regard to the relevant passage in article 26. I use, therefore, my own translation. Cf. Klauber: 1990, 13–123. 8 Heidegger: 2016, 453: “ne vero, quae alibi in Capitibus nonnullis, ac inprimis in doctrina de gratiae divinae amplitudine invaluere opiniones sequiores, nostram quoque teneram juventutem, atque inde ipsas etiam Ecclesias nostras successu temporis inficiant, neve, uti errore vix alia seges magis foeta et fertilis est, ex istis nimia indulgentia toleratis, deteriores alii subnascantur, uti alias factum esse vel Remonstrantismi triste exemplum, documento esse potest: de efficaci et sacro repagulo aliquo, Superiorum authoritate et jussu cogitandum nobis fuit.” 9 After their excommunication at the synod of Dordt, Remonstrant leaders were forced to go into exile. However, they were soon allowed to return and founded in 1634 an influential Remonstrant seminary in Amsterdam, cf. Hoenderdaal: 1979, 67. 10 Heidegger: 2016, 465: “Neve adeo quisquam animum inducat, sive publice sive privatim proponere dubium vel novum aliquod dogma fidei in Ecclesiis nostris hactenus inauditum, Verbo Dei, Confessioni nostrae Helveticae, libris nostris symbolicis, et Synodi Dordracenae Canonibus repugnans, et in publica [episynagoge] fratrum ex Dei Verbo non evictum atque sancitum.”

387

388

Pierrick Hildebrand

Clearly Heidegger and his colleagues understood their enterprise as being in continuity with the Reformation Sola Scriptura and Heinrich’s Bullinger (1504–1575) Second Helvetic Confession, as well as with the Canons. They did not ascribe to the Formula the same confessional status as to the former confessions, as it was not even listed at the end of the enumeration. Rather, the Formula should be considered as the orthodox interpretation of the previous confessions in response to the “innovations” from Saumur. However, the call to allegiance to the received tradition remained a general statement. Little attempt was made in the preceding articles of the Formula to demonstrate accord with the confessions listed at its end by, for example, providing explicit quotations.

24.4

The Canons in the post-Formula controversy

The claim to be in continuity with the received orthodoxy provoked both detractors and defenders of the Formula to put that assertion to the test. As criticism of the Formula reached its climax in the early 1720s, a significant literary dispute on theological grounds began between Barthélémy Barnaud (1693–1747), a pastor from the French-speaking Vaud (under Bern’s jurisdiction), and Heidegger’s successor Johann Jakob Hottinger (1652–1735). Insofar as this literary exchange reflected the Formula in light of the previous Reformed tradition, their writings serve as a case study in examining how both sides of the early post-Formula controversy viewed the confession in relation to the Canons. In 1722, Barnaud published anonymously in Amsterdam the Formulaire de Consentement des Eglises réformées de Suisse, a Latin-French bilingual edition bolstered by extensive critical remarques. These annotations were clearly intended to demonstrate the inconsistency of the Formula within the early Reformed tradition. In 1723 followed the response by Hottinger, called Verthaedigete Formula Consensus, with his intention to demonstrate the contrary. Significantly, Barnaud’s criticism offered virtually no annotation that demonstrated any incongruence of the Formula with the Canons. His remarks consisted mostly of quotations from various Reformation theologians, who, in Barnaud’s interpretation, contradicted the Formula.11 When referring to a Reformed confession, Barnaud only quoted from the Second Helvetic Confession. The only explicit reference to Dordt in the remarques concerning the Canons was in the 26th article of the Formula itself, as we have seen. In this comment, Barnaud aligned himself

11 It is noteworthy that Barnaud often referred to the more conservative Genevan Professor Benedict Pictet (1655–1724), who was a defender of the Formula in Geneva. Cf. Rouwendal: 2017, 245–299.

Dordt at the edge of High Orthodoxy

with the testimony of the Salmurian theologians, pointing to the fact that “the universalist Masters of France do receive the Synod of Dordt, but reject the Consensus.” (Barnaud: 1722, 130–131) Hottinger’s apologetic response began with a historic review intended to demonstrate the consistency of Reformed doctrine in Switzerland from the Reformation onward. When he came to the Synod of Dordt, the Zurich theologian emphasized the congruence of the Canons with Swiss Reformation theology with regard to both its content and to the approval of the Swiss churches of the Canons. It was only at this point in the whole document that Hottinger addressed Barnaud’s affirmation. The Antiformulists are nonetheless not afraid to say that they assent to the Canons and that neither [John] Cameron’s or Amyraut’s teaching is contrary to the Synod of Dordt. It is crucial to demonstrate first that the rejected teaching of Cameron and Amyraut would have also been proved false at Dordt. Secondly, [to show] that the truth of God’s grace as formulated in the Formula against Amyraut would have been considered acceptable at Dordt.12

In one page, Hottinger argued briefly for the incompatibility of Amyraldianism with the Canons on five issues. Against Amyraut, he held that the Canons taught that there is only one will for salvation in God, namely election [Canons of Dordt, I]. Secondly, that Christ is the mediator of the elect alone [Canons of Dordt, II]. Thirdly, that Christ atoned for the elect alone [Canons of Dordt, II]. Fourthly, that the external call cannot be mediated by natural revelation [Canons of Dordt, III/IV], And fifthly, that the inability to believe was not only moral but also natural [Canons of Dordt, III/IV] (Hottinger: 1723, 38–39). Hottinger was not pretending to shed new light from the Canons against Amyraut and at the end he even quoted André Rivet (1572–1651), one of Amyraut’s contemporary opponents (Hottinger: 1723, 39–40). Hottinger reiterated arguments that had been brought against Amyraut decades earlier.

12 Hottinger: 1723, 38: “die Antiformulisten zwahr scheuen sich nicht gleichwohl zu sagen, sie stimmen denen Canonibus Dordracenis bey, und seye die Lehr des Cameronis und Amyraldi Dordrechtischem Synodo nicht zuwider. Wird also nicht undienlich seyn, darzuthun: a) Dass die in der Formula verworffene Lehr Cameronis und Amyraldi, auch zu Dordrecht falsch erfunden worden seye. b) Dass die von der Gnad Gottes in der Formula dem Amyraldo entgegen gesetzte Wahrheit zu Dordrecht genehm gehalten worden seye.”

389

390

Pierrick Hildebrand

24.5

Conclusion

Our fundamental question has been: how did the Formula and its defenders refer to the Canons of Dordt? The sources considered in this essay are but a sample of a larger body of writings surrounding the theological debates concerning the Formula. In particular, we have the rich correspondence from before, during and after the adoption of the Formula. These letters provide us with considerably more material for a proper evaluation. A theological examination of the formulations of the Formula with regard to predestination in light of the positions expressed in the Canons would also be desirable. Nevertheless, I conclude by pointing to two observations, both of which are subjects for further research. In the first place, the scarcity of the references to the Synod of Dordt or the Canons is remarkable on both sides. First, there were only a few attempts to argue explicitly with or from the Canons themselves as well as for or against the Formula. Little effort was made by the aforementioned protagonists to relate the Formula directly to the Canons. The main confessional point of reference for defenders and detractors alike was the Second Helvetic Confession. However, and this is my second observation, both sides subscribed, at least formally, to the Canons. Even detractors of the Formula such as Barnaud did not dare to question the Canons. In late seventeenth-early eighteenth century Reformed Switzerland one could feel bound to the Canons and still argue against the Formula. Can the Formula be considered to be “the highest peak” of Reformed Orthodoxy, as in Schweizer’s formulation? We may want to rephrase it as “a peak” in a chain of other trajectories within High Reformed Orthodoxy.

Bibliography Barnaud, Barthélémy (1722), Formulaire de consentement des Églises Reformées de Suisse: sur la doctrine de la grace universelle et les matières qui s’y rapportent, comme aussi sur quelques autres articles. Traduit en François, avec des remarques, Amsterdam. Campi, Emidio (2016), Introduction to ‘Helvetische Konsensformel, 1675’, in: Emidio Campi and Torrance Kirby (ed.), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 3/2: 1605–1675, vol. 2: 1647–1675, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neuchirchener, 437–51. Fatio, Olivier (2002), Neuchâtel et Genève face au Consensus Helveticus, ou comment l’éviter?, in: Martin Rose (ed.), Histoire et herméneutique, Geneva: Labor et Fides, 161–173. Guggisberg, Kurt (1958), Bernische Kirchengeschichte, Bern: Haupt. Gootjes, Albert (2019), The Theologian’s Private Cabinet: The Development and Early Reception of John Cameron’s Universalism, in: Frank van der Pol (ed.), The Doctrine of

Dordt at the edge of High Orthodoxy

Election in Reformed Perspective: Historical and Theological Investigations of the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2019, 137–134. Heidegger, Johann Heinrich. (2016), Helvetische Konsensformel, in: Emidio Campi and Torrance Kirby (ed.), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 3/2: 1605–1675, vol. 2: 1647–1675, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neuchirchener, 452–465. Hoenderdaal, Gerrit Jan (1979), Arminius, Jacobus/Arminianismus, in: Horst Robert Balz et al., Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Vol. 4, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 63–69. Klauber, Martin I. (1990), The Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675): An Introduction and Translation, Trinity Journal 11, no 1. Moser, Christian (2013), Reformed Orthodoxy in Switzerland, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, 216–222. Rouwendal, Pieter L. (2017), Predestination and Preaching in Genevan Theology from Calvin to Pictet, Kampen: Summum. Selderhuis, Herman J.(2015), Introduction to the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) in: Donald Sinnema et al. (ed.), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, XV-XXXII. Schweizer, Alexander (1856), Die protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformirten Kirche: Zweite Hälfte, Das 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Zurich: Orell-Füssli. Van Stam, F. P. (1988), The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 1635–1650: Disrupting Debates amon the Huguenots in Complicated Circumstances, Amsterdam/Maarssen: APA-Holland University Press.

391

Volker Leppin

25.

A Disliked Doctrine

Predestination, Dordt, and the Lutherans

Abstract The doctrine of predestination was not that popular in the Wittenberg reformation. The first reason for this was Luther’s pastoral aim. Another reason was the anthropological structure of his theology, centered on the question of the free will. However, the latter conviction led him to a reasoning about predestination as given in De servo arbitrio. In the following decades, predestination was not among the questions heavily discussed in the foreground of the Formula of Concord. A deeper interest came in the eighties of the sixteenth century, when the doctrine of predestination served as a difference maker against Calvinists. Here, the pastoral aim was set forward, e.g. in the Loci of Leonhard Hutter, while Aegidius Hunnius gave a more rationalizing shape to it. To combine eternal predestination and election in Christ, he defined faith as a reason for election, even if only as a causa instrumentalis and on the way of foreseeing. Before Dordt, this was just one Lutheran position among others. But, against this background, many Lutherans saw the refusal of a praedestinatio praevisa fide in Dordt as a kind of Anti-Lutheran statement. In the end, this brought them to support especially the doctrine of Hunnius and to make this not one, but the peculiar Lutheran doctrine of predestination. This way, Dordt at least helped the Lutherans to clarify their own doctrine of predestination.

25.1

Introduction

In his comprehensive study about the distinction between Lutherans and Calvinists, Nicolaus Hunnius, superintendent of Lübeck and former professor of theology in Wittenberg, stated in 1626 that Lutherans taught God electing Christians because they were foreseen to maintain in faith (Hunnius: 1626, 374 [§ 520]). This teaching on predestination was attacked by David Pareus, as Hunnius added (Hunnius: 1626, 375 [§ 521]). So it marked one of the main distinctions between Lutheran and Calvinist belief. As Walter Sparn has pointed out, the “Diaskepsis” of Hunnius, in which we find this statement, established the idea of Lutheran-Calvinist dissensus as given in the fundamental articles of faith (Sparn: 2013, 142).

394

Volker Leppin

For Hunnius, Pareus was not the only one to be addressed. The Synod of Dordt gave the blueprint for his argumentation, even in this context, as Hunnius referred to Pareus’ interpretation of the synod of Dordt. The key point for Lutherans here was Dordt’s first doctrinal sentence, Article 9 which excluded that predestination was given “praevisa fide.”1 This was a standard position in Calvinist thought.2 In the context of Dordt, it could be understood as a blame against Lutherans,3 even if not all of them taught a praedestinatio praevisa fide in the beginning of the seventeenth century. Ironically, it was Dordt itself that helped this idea to become the predominant Lutheran answer to predestination and so made it a confessional boundary marker as it is used in Hunnius.4

25.2

Reluctance to Predestination in Lutheran Thought

There might be evidence sola gratia is not easy to explain without a strong doctrine of predestination; even more so if the doctrine of justification is based on Augustine. Nevertheless, in the Wittenberg reformation the doctrine of predestination was not universally popular. There might be a double reason for this: one is Luther’s pastoral focus. He did not want to trouble the consciences of the people by speculating about predestination. Another possibility, perhaps even more important, was the anthropological structure of his theology. What Luther asked for was what justification by grace alone meant for the human being – and here, he found the provocative answer: it meant the human being to be without any free will, as he stated in the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518: “the free will after the fall is a thing just by name.”5 From here a way led almost directly to predestination: the sentence was censured by the bull “Exsurge Domine” in 1520 (Dokumente: 1991, 384), and later on, newly attacked by Erasmus of Rotterdam (Erasmus: 1969). In his answer to Erasmus, De

1 Canons of Dordt, I.9: “eadem haec Electio facta non ex pravisa fide”; Söderlund (1983, 155) agrees with the opinion that here Lutheran position was condemned, even if only implicitly. However, the position of Hunnius was just one among others before Dordt. So, a special kind of Lutheran doctrine was attacked here, not the overall meaning of it. 2 Zanchi: 1577, 593 (l. V c. 3): „deinde praedestinatione non est ex praeuisis meritis (…), nec ex praeuisa fide nostra“; cf.Matthias: 2004, 142. 3 Quoted in this sense in: Stegmann: 1620, A 3r. 4 Sparn: 1992, 66: „nach einigen Anläufen, an denen insbesondere Matthias Hafenreffer, Leonhart Hutter, Johann Gerhard und Balthasar Meisner beteiligt waren, fand die lutherische Reaktion, vollends provoziert durch das Verfahren und die Ergebnisse der Dordrechter Synode von 1618/19, ihre endgültige Gestalt in Nicolaus Hunnius’ ‘Diaskepsis theologica de fundamentali dissensu doctrinae Evangelicae-Lutheranae, et Calvinianae, seu Reformatae’ von 1626.” 5 “Liberum arbitrium post peccatum res est de solo titulo” (Luther: 1883, 354, 5p).

A Disliked Doctrine

servo arbitrio, Luther developed his doctrine of the bound will and set it into the wider context of a cosmic struggle between God and devil. Both God and devil used the human being as their riding animal (Luther: 1908, 18, 635, 17–22), making human beings completely unable to decide about anything concerning her or his salvation, regardless that he or she would be able to decide about what Luther called the lower things (inferiora, Luther: 1908, 18, 638, 4–11). All this was a clear and severe doctrine of predestination. But this was also the only moment of Luther’s career where the Wittenberg reformer wrote comprehensively about predestination. In the order of his theology, predestination served as a supporting argument for the denial of the free will. It did not rank in a higher position. Like in Luther, we see in Melanchthon the reluctance of the Wittenberg reformation against the doctrine of predestination. The Praeceptor did not pass over it in his first edition of the Loci, which is remarkable having in mind that other terms like Trinity were skipped here. This could not happen with predestination, because Melanchthon knew this was a biblical term and so had to be regarded as a theological common place. Again, the connection between predestination and the free will is quite strong, while the core problem is the anthropological question of the free will. This changed somewhat in the last edition of the Loci, where Melanchthon inserted a peculiar section called de praedestinatione into the larger article on penitence. He highlighted that predestination derives from the Gospel and the promise of God (Melanchton: 1953, 594, 16–33). Obviously, the Praeceptor wanted to avoid any understanding of predestination that could associate despotism with God: “it is sure, that the reason for reprobation is the sin of human beings (…). And for sure, in them the reason of reprobation is their sin and human will, because it is fully true that God’s meaning cannot be the reason for sin.”6 Here, we find the reason why the Wittenberg reformation was so cautious of any speculation about predestination: being more than a supportive argument in anthropology, it could introduce a quite questionable image of God as an arbitrary judge. With this, any doctrine of double predestination was excluded. Predestination could explain why among the sinners some were elected without any reason, but it could not explain why human beings became sinners. Against this background it is no surprise that predestination was not among the heavily debated questions in the 1650s, when Lutherans defined their beliefs in a number of debates. The Formula of Concord aimed to end all these debates in 1577, even stated in its Article on predestination (Article XI), mainly written by Martin Chemnitz (Sparn: 1992, 63): “about this article, no public controversy raised

6 Melanchton: 1953, 596, 12–19: “causam igitur reprobationis certum est hanc esse, videlicet peccatum in hominibus […] In his certum est causam esse reprobationis peccatum ipsorum et humanam voluntatem. Nam verissima est sententia Deum non esse causam peccati nec velle peccatum.”

395

396

Volker Leppin

among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession.”7 Indeed, the first generation of reformers had no reason to debate critically about predestination, due to the “full agreement between the opinions of Martin Luther in De servo arbitrio (1525) and of John Calvin on the Institutio christianae religionis (1536) about the biblical basis, the religious meaning and the dogmatic content of comforting certainty of the believers about their destination to salvation,” as Walter Sparn observes.8 The Formula of Concord here ignores the controversy between Johannes Marbach and Hieronymus Zanchi in Strasbourg in 1561 (Kolb: 2005, 173–179; for the earlier controversies see Sparn: 2013, 134). Nevertheless, the Lutherans had been quiet about predestination in general. The Formula of Concord itself followed the lines of Philipp Melanchthon: “Predestination has to be taught as a consequence of the Gospel9 and does not affect the sinners but only the “good and beloved children of God.”10 These statements comprised what Lutherans had to say about predestination, carefully distinguished from foreknowledge (praescientia, FC 11, Bekenntnisschriften: 2014, 1287, 11–22). Rune Söderlund calls this, following Bengt Hägglund, a “broken doctrine of predestination” (“gebrochene Prädestinationslehre”, Söderlund: 1983, 13), because there is no rational reason given for the selection between those who come to faith and those who do not (Söderlund: 1983, 13). One might see a pastoral aim11 in this lack of argumentation, refraining from extreme consequences. With this, we have the double perspective Lutheran theology would follow in the next generation: on the one hand, Lutherans would stress even more the pastoral intention of predestination as Luther had done, and, on the other hand, the aim of some Lutherans would be to close the lack of rationality by introducing a predestination praevisa fide. Both strands can be seen after a new interest had come up in predestination thought.

7 FC 11 (Bekenntnisschriften: 2014, 1287, 2p): “de hoc articulo non quidem publice mota est controversia inter Augustanae Confessionis Theologos.” 8 Sparn: 2013, 133: „die Gründe dafür liegen in der Übereinstimmung der von Luther in De servo arbitrio (1525) und von J. Calvin in der Institutio christianae religionis (1536) niedergelegten Auffassungen von der biblischen Grundlage, der religiösen Bedeutung und dem dogmatischen Gehalt der tröstlichen Gewissheit der Gläubigen im Blick auf ihre Vorherbestimmung zum Heil“. 9 FC 11 (Bekenntnisschriften: 2014, 1289, 20); for the story behind see Kolb: 2005, 258–265. 10 FC 11 (Bekenntnisschriften: 2014, 1287, 22): “praedestinatio vero seu aeterna Dei electio tantum ad bonos et dilectos filios Dei pertinet.” 11 Actually, Söderlund: 1983, 25, sees a quite complicated relationship between the doctrine of predestination in the Formula of concord and in Luther, but at the end, he agrees, that the “broken predestination” of FC is equivalent to what Luther said about the revealed God, which means it agreed with Luther’s pastoral aim.

A Disliked Doctrine

25.3

New Interest in Predestination as a Difference-Marker to Calvinists

Actually, this new interest blossomed quickly: in 1586, Frederick, count of Württemberg and Mömpelgard, hosted a debate in his castle in Mömpelgard between Jacob Andreae and Lucas Osiander on the one side, and Théodore de Bèze and Andreas Musculus on the other.12 The assembly’s reason was the infiltration of reformed citizens in Württemberg and the question from the government of how to deal with them. Jacob Andreae, who had been one of the main authors of the Formula of Concord, posed the questions to discuss. Obviously, the traditional debate about the Lord’s Supper had to be reassumed. However, among the eight questions he wanted to dispute additionally, Andreae named “Of the eternal election of the elected children of God to eternal life.”13 There is good reason to assume that he answered the reevaluation of predestination by Théodore de Bèze whose Tractationes Theologicae had been published just four years ago with a clear supralapsarian doctrine of predestination: he, the same God has decided and decreed from eternity within himself to create all in its time for the sake of his glory, nominally certain human beings and this in two completely different ways: this way namely, that he would make some human beings, whoever seemed to be this according to his hidden will, participants of his glory according to his mercy. These we call vessels of his honor, elect, children of promise and predestinated to salvation by the Word of God. But the others, whoever he would like to take for this purpose, would serve to show his wrath and power. This way, he would be glorified also in them, whom we call vessels of despise and wrath and discarded for every good work.14

For those theologians coming from the Wittenberg point of view, the doctrine which Bèze had developed for a long time (Neuser: 1998, 319) was provocative, moving the point of election from Christ to God’s creational will and establishing a clear double predestination. However, in the Mömpelgard colloquy, the Württemberg theologians clearly agreed with a supralapsarian election, based on God’s

12 See the documentation in: Colloquium Mompelgartense: 1587; cf. Adam: 1970, 29–49. 13 Colloquium Mompelgartense: 1587, 5: “item von der ewigen wahl der außerwälten kinder Gottes zum ewigen Leben”. 14 Beza: 1582, 173: “IDEM ille Deus ab aeterno proposuit et decreuit in semetipso omnia suis temporibus ad gloriam suam creare, ac nominatim quidem homines, ídque duobus modis penitus diversis: ita nempe, vt alios quos sibi visum fuerit pro arcana sua voluntate faciat per misericordiam gloriae suae participes, quos vasa honoris, electos, filios promißionis, et praedestinatos ad salutem ex Dei verbo appellamus: in alteris verò, quos item placuerit in eum vsum suscitare, iram ac potentiam suam ostendat, vt in ipsis quoque glorificetur, quos vasa contumeliae et irae, et ad omne bonum opus reprobos vocamus.”

397

398

Volker Leppin

foreknowledge and founded in Christ (Colloquium Mompelgartense: 1587, 873), but regarding the double predestination they clearly stated: that there cannot be shown any word in the whole Holy Scripture, Old and New Testament, of such a secret eternal council of God, and that no one could prove that God not regarding human beings and their lack of dignity, just according to his inclination would decree any human being (…) to eternal condemnation.15

The debate here did not bring any convergence between both parties, so that at the end of the colloquy, as Irene Dingel states, predestination became one of the difference makers between Calvinists and Lutherans beside the Lord’s Supper and Christology (Dingel:1997, 654–682, 666; cf. Adam: 1970, 29). Thus, there was a new discussion about predestination among Lutherans, following the two branches named above: a pastoral one and a rationalizing one.

25.4

Pastoral Teaching

The developing of theology emphasizing soteriology with a pastoral aim can be seen in Leonhard Hutter’s Compendium locorum theologicorum, destined in 1610 to be the textbook for generations of Lutheran theologians. Hutter elaborated on the common place “predestination” immediately subsequent to the Locus de iustificatione. From the beginning on, he made clear that the true Lutheran understanding of predestination was not a Calvinist one, which meant it was a doctrine of positive election: “eternal election or God’s predestination to salvation do not concern good and evil in the same, but only God’s children, who are elected and ordained to get eternal life.”16 Most of the following paragraphs deal with the question of the evildoers and the reason for their fate. Coming back to the question of definition, Hutter adds an ablativus absolutus about the rejected to the accusativus cum infinitivo, telling that God would elect all believers (Hutter: 2006, 280, 14). Rejection is thus a given matter of fact, while positive election is God’s aim. Hutter distinguishes between God’s universal will of salvation ex parte Dei (Hutter: 2006, 294, 3–12) and

15 Colloquium Mompelgartense: 1587, 874: “dz in gantzer H. Schrifft / altes vnnd newes Testaments / von einem solchen heimlichen Raht Gottes von Ewigkeit her bey Gott beschlossen / kein wort k=nne gezeigt / noch erwiesen warden / daß Gott ohne alle betrachtung der Menschen vnwiridkeit / allein / daß es jhm also gefallen / einichen Menschen (…) zu der ewigen verdamnus verordnet habe.” 16 Hutter: 2006, 276, 9–11: „AEterna verò Electio sive Praedestinatio Dei ad salute, non simul ad bonos & ad malos pertinent, sed tantum ad filios DEI, qui ad aeternam vitam consequendam electi & ordinati sunt.“

A Disliked Doctrine

human impiety which is the real reason that election cannot be universal either (Hutter: 2006, 300, 1–8). Johann Gerhard also upheld the traditional position about predestination, as seen in the Formula of Concord and in Hutter. In 1611, Gerhard, distinct from Melanchthon as well as from Hutter, treated predestination adjunct to the issue of creation: in locus five, he dealt with creation and angels, in locus six with providence. Then, in locus 7, predestination follows. This chapter, obviously even if not polemically, is written against Calvinist teaching. Again and again Johann Gerhard refers to Guilelmus Bucanus as well as to Calvin, Zanchi, Bèze and others, to explain the rejected teaching. Like Andreae and Hutter, Gerhard combines supralapsarism with a Christological understanding of predestination, which again stresses the positive aim of election: God foresaw the fall of Adam and Eve, and, for this case, he added the decree of renewal (decretum instaurationis) to the decree of creation in eternity (Gerhard: 1864, 49). Like Hutter, Gerhard distinguishes the universal offer of Christ’s benefits from particular salvation which is possible by the apprehension of the offer in faith. This means neither election nor reprobation is something absolute17 – against Bèze’s teaching18 –, but related to the condition whether human beings are inflamed for faith by spirit or not (Gerhard: 1864, 49). To avoid any misunderstanding, Gerhard did not only emphasize that point. However conditioned the election was in relation to faith, faith itself was given by pure grace (Gerhard: 1864, 83), not being the foundation of election, but the medium. The only reason for election is Christ himself (Gerhard: 1864, 82). Against this background, Gerhard wrote, “it is absurd and not to excuse from blasphemy to say that God predestinated somebody to death or for the reasons of eternal death, meaning sins by absolute wrath.”19 Anything evil should be excluded from God by this framing of predestination. To secure his position with authority, Gerhard refers to Augustine, who called the elect praedestinati, but the reprobated praesciti (Gerhard: 1864, 49), thus addressing the distinction of foreknowledge and predestination. Gerhard might say many people are reprobate from eternity, not by an absolute decree of God, but by him foreknowing their disbelief (Gerhard: 1864, 91). In this context, Gerhard explicitly argues with pastoral care: teaching an absolute decree of reprobation would remove all consolation – what cannot be an adequate understanding of Scripture (Gerhard: 1864, 93). So, in the foregront of Dordt again, the pastoral question seems to be quite important for Lutheran 17 The question of absolute election was also the core of the critic in Cramer: 1622. 18 See the critique against Calvin, Bèze and others regarding the decretum absolutum in Gerhard: 1864, 57. 19 Gerhard: 1864, 49: “ergo absurdum est et a blaspheima vix excusari potest, dicere, quod Deus ad mortem, et causas mortis aeternae, id est ad peccata quosdam absoluto odio praedestinaverit”.

399

400

Volker Leppin

theologians – as well as the aim to make clear the distinction between Reformed and Lutheran theology. But this was not the only way to think about predestination among Lutherans.

25.5

Rationalizing: Aegidius Hunnius

Evolving predestination doctrine in a pastoral frame as Hutter and Gerhard did was not the only consequence of the new interest in this doctrine. The difference between Hunnius and Gerhard was a slight one, but important: where Gerhard had stressed the disbelief of the condemned as reason for their condemnation, Aegidius Hunnius, the father of Nicolaus Hunnius mentioned above, would elaborate the other side of the coin: faith as a reason for election. The new framing started with an inner Calvinist debate which later on became an inner Lutheran debate. Among those who found problems in the theology of Théodore de Bèze as articulated in the Mömpelgard colloquy was a pastor of Bern, Samuel Huber. He was upset about the sentence of Bèze that Jesus Christ had not suffered for the sins of the condemned (Huber: 1590, f [ii]). Huber felt obliged to take part in the debate, because two of his colleagues in Bern, the pastor Abraham Musculus und the philologist Petrus Hübner, officially agreed with Bèze (Actorum: 1597, 9f; Huber: 1597, D2v ). A new debate started in Bern in April 1588 (Huber: 1597, D 3r ; cp. Adam: 1970, 53–56), with the final result that Huber had to leave Switzerland (Huber: 1597, E2r) . When Huber Arrived in Württemberg, he confessed to be a Lutheran and became a pastor in Derendingen near Tübingen (Actorum: 1597, 11). He did not have a long period of peace, though. Huber found among his new colleagues pastors teaching in a Calvinistic manner (Actorum: 1597, 11; cf. Leppin: 2013, 12). He believed the teaching his colleagues espoused regarding predestination would mean God elected human beings because of his foreknowledge of their faith.20 Ironically, this was exactly the position refused by Zanchi at the same time and was seen later as a typical Lutheran position against Calvinists. However, now this debate ended with Huber’s absolution, according to the report of his adversaries based on Huber’s revocation.

20 Actorum: 1597, 13, Stephan Gerlach reports about his own position, blamed by Huber and his followers: “Electio est propositum Dei, quo misericordissimus pater, gratis, in filio, omnes, quos secundum praecognitionem suam peonitentia acta in eum perseueranter credituros praeuidit, ad vitam aeternam, ab aeterno praedestinavit, certo tempore per ministerium vocatos fide donat, iustificat, regenerat, vt sint sancti et irreprehensibiles coram eo, tandemque glorificat, vt gratiae illius gloria tanto fiat illustrior.”

A Disliked Doctrine

However, Huber was not seen as a deviant, but almost the polar opposite: he was called as professor to Wittenberg. But even there he did not find peace: elected the dean of the faculty, he refused some theses of his colleague Aegidius Hunnius about baptism (Actorum: 1597, 30f; Huber: 1597, J4v ). From here, a debate about predestination emerged again. One of the reasons might have been that Hunnius taught exactly the praedestinatio praevisa fide attacked by Huber in Tübingen. Hunnius introduced this doctrine quite carefully in his Propositiones de praecipius christianae religionis capitibus of 1585, when he explained: “in the decree of election also faith is included, as we are in Christ, in whom election is made, in no other way than by faith,”21 stressing that this did not mean any virtue in human beings but the existence in Jesus Christ and in relation to him (Hunnius: 1585, 53 [d. VI prop. 1 th. 17]). The decisive point however, was that the basis for predestination was God’s foreknowledge (praecognitio, Hunnius: 1585, 51 [d. VI prop. 1 th. 5]), which means there was no reason for election distinct in terms of time to God’s pure and absolute will. Evidently, Hunnius here drew the consequence from the distinction between predestination and foreknowledge in the Formula of Concord, even if he used the term praecognitio instead of praescientia (Adam: 1970, 130). As far as can be deduced from the sources, Huber’s aim was to highlight God’s will for universal salvation.22 Even if this was not his last intention, colleagues could get the impression he would teach universal salvation, and he was seen finally as a heretic instead of Hunnius.

21 Hunnius: 1585 (d. VI prop. 1 th 14): “porro electionis Decreto includitur quoque Fides, cùm in Christo, in quo facta electio est, aliter non simus, nisi per fidem.”; cf. Matthias: 2004, 142p. 145. 22 See his confession, given in 1597: „ich Samuel Huber habe bekent / vnd bekenne noch / Gott habe von Ewigkeit in seinem eingebornen lieben Son Jesu Christo / alle Menschen versehen / erwehlet vnd verordnet zum Leben vnd Seligkeit / Es werden aber allein diese des Lebens vnd der Seligkeit gnoß vnd theilhafftig / vnd komen also / allein in das Himelreich / welche solcher Gnadenordnung Gottes in Christo Jesu / gehorsamlich sich unterworffen / deroselben folgen / vnd mit gleubigen Hertzen das jenig annemen vnd behalten / dahin sie in jme versehen / erwehlet vnd verordnet sind. Denn auff solcher allgemeinen Gnadenwahl oder Verordnung zum Leben / ist erfolget die Erschaffung aller Menschen zum Ebenbild Gottes / Nemblich / zum Leben / Frewd vnd Seligkeit / vnd nach dem Fall die allgemeine Erlösung vom Tod zum Leben / gleich wie auch alle Menschen zum Leben / zur Herrligkeit / vnd zum Reich Gottes / durchs Euangelium beruffen werden / das sie demselbigen gleuben / vnd zur verordneten Seligket / Vnd zum Reich Gottes komen / vnd gehorsamlich sich einstellen sollen. Wie denn auch die H. Sacramenten deßhalben allgemein vnd allen Menschen zu gut von Gott geordnet vnd geboten sind. Deßwegen kann vnd soll der Mensch keine Gedancken haben / das er im ewigen Rath vnd Gnadenordnung Gottes vbergangen / oder außgeschlosssen seye / Sondern dieweil die Gnadenwahl vnd Verordnung zum Leben / laut angemeldter Gründe / vnd der Lehre S. Pauli / Rom. 5. Ephes. 1.2. Tim. 1. Tit. 2.1. Thess. 5. etc. vber alle Menschen ergangen ist / in Christo Jesu / zur Gerechtmachung des Lebens vber alle Menschen / so kann zu den verordneten Mitteln des Lebens in Christo / vnd in denselbigen mit festem Glauben annemen vnd empfangen. Heyl / Leben vnd Seligkeit.“ (Huber: 1597, D1v – D2r) ; cf. Söderlund: 1983, 59–62.

401

402

Volker Leppin

Lutheran theologians could not only reject Huber’s position as notoriously heretical; they also had to think anew about predestination. So, Aegidius Hunnius wrote a long treatise directed against the Heidelberg theologian Daniel Tossanus, who had been a member of the reformed party in Mömpelgard (Adam: 1970, 31), and Samuel Huber (Hunnius: 1597). As Markus Matthias has shown, Hunnius here adopted some thoughts of his Tübingen teacher Jakob Heerbrand about necessity and contingency (Matthias: 2004, 127, 137). To explain his position, Hunnius again referred to the distinction of praescientia and praedestinatio in the Formula of Concord, defining foreknowledge as a mere knowledge of things good or bad, and predestination as the reason of salvation of the elect (Hunnius: 1597, 121). More specific, predestination would mean to Hunnius: predestination is the purpose or decree of God’s will given from eternity, by which God the Father, by pure goodwill and free favor all those elects to eternal life and constitutes to save, how after they have done penitence really belief in Jesus Christ and stay in this faith until the end.23

Hunnius’s principal objective was to show how this predestination would proceed. On the one hand, as given “from eternity” it would be constituted before the creation of any human being. On the other hand, salvation as the purpose of election was bound to belief in Jesus Christ (Hunnius: 1597, 341). This brought the question how the eternal decision could be connected with something happening in time, namely the belief of the Christian, especially regarding the fact that in the beginning God himself wanted all human beings to be saved (Hunnius: 1597, 345). So, faith should be a reason for election, if not causa meritoria then causa instrumentalis (Hunnius: 1597, 350), which made no logical problem, as faith might have been the future for believers in the time of creation, but not for God, to whom all things are absolutely present (Hunnius: 1597, 354). To remain within the Lutheran understanding of justification, Hunnius added, this would not mean any habitus in the human beings as prerequisite, but a relation to Jesus Christ (Hunnius: 1597, 350). However, the solution indeed brought back what Huber had been blamed for in Württemberg: the predestination by foreknown faith.24 Thus, the Lutherans dealing with Dordt had two different options to think about predestination: one stressing the unconditional mercy of God in Christ, as devel-

23 Hunnius: 1597, 127: “praedestinatio est diuinae uoluntatis propositum seu decretum ab aeterno factum, quo Deus pater, ex mero beneplacito et gratuito favore, ad uitam aeternam in Filio elegit, et certo saluare constituit omnes, qui acta poenitentia in Christum Iesum vere credunt, et in hac fide ad finem usque perseverant”. 24 Hunnius: 1597, 355. Hunnius here states, “nos fidem in hac quaestione subijcere diuinae praescientiae”.

A Disliked Doctrine

oped by Johann Gerhard, and one stressing the foreknowledge of God as part of the process of predestination praevisa Dei, as can be seen in Aegidius Hunnius.

25.6

Implementation of Praedestinatio Praevisa Fide: Lutheran Reactions to Dordt

It was not a surprise that Lutherans started to attack reformed theologians immediately in the context of the Synod of Dordt, even less so if one takes into account that German Lutheranism was still in a process of self-definition that had not really closed with the Formula of Concord (Dingel: 1996). As early as in 1620, Johannes Donner, pastor in Gaildorf in the county of Limburg, wrote a Consideration of questions debated between Lutherans and Calvinists, drawn from the Synod of Dordt (Donner: 1620). A greater part of this treatise is devoted to polemics against what Donner understood as Calvinist teaching. For Donner, double predestination, including negative predestination of the condemned, distorted the Creator’s image. With this approach, Donner taught, the Creator would be seen as someone hating his own creation without any reason (Donner: 1620, 28). At the end, this would mean God should hate himself (Donner: 1620, 29), or as Theodor Thumm, a Tübingen professor, otherwise well known as a participant in the so called cryptic-cenotic controversy (Baur: 1993, 256), states: “they make the righteous the author of sins or non-righteous, the most merciful non-merciful, the most trustworthy, non-trustworthy.”25 To be sure, people speaking about God like this were seen as misanthropists themselves. This is the title of Thumm’s disputation about Dordt: ΜΙΣΑΝΘΡΩΡΊΑ Calvinistica (Thumm: 1619). Donner did not only polemize against Calvinists, though; he also saw the need to apologize for Lutherans. To him, it was clear – admittedly not so sure in historical terms (Hoek: 2014, 109) – that the condemnations of Dordt did not only affect the Arminians, but also the Lutherans (Donner: 1620, 11). Following the line of Lutheran theology, Donner argued that the only reason for Adam’s reprobation was his own sin, not God’s will which had been directed to eternal salvation of Adam (Donner: 1620, 17). On the other hand, election could only be an electing of those who would believe in Jesus Christ (Donner: 1620, 18), whom God the Father had sent to human beings by pure mercy to give them a new way of salvation after the fall (Donner: 1620, 17). The key term for Dordt for Lutherans was, following the debate in the decades before, the decretum absolutum or praedestinatio absoluta. For Lutherans, this

25 Thumm: 1619, A 2r: “ex justo peccatorum Authorem seu non-justum, ex misericordissimo nonmisericordem, ex veracissimo non-veracem faciunt”.

403

404

Volker Leppin

included an arbitrariness in God they did not want to accept. This might still be a consequence of the pastoral bias of Luther’s theology.26 For some of the authors, following Aegidius Hunnius (Hunnius: 1597, 135), it also reflected the late medieval distinction of absolute and ordained power. Absolute power had been a term to describe totally unlimited possibilities of God (Courtnay: 1990). Following this line, Thomas Weinrich, pastor at the Leipzig church of St. Nicholas, stated that God’s grace performing election was not an absolute one, but an ordained one in Christ, seized by faith.27 The problem of absolute predestination now was seen more clearly as a Christological one: for Donner, an absolute, supralapsarian predestination as taught in Dordt meant a predestination “without regarding of Christ the Lord.”28 This argument, as shaped by the Dordt doctrine, is slightly different to what Gerhard had pointed out. To Gerhard, the difference of the Lutheran understanding of predestination to absolute predestination was in relation to human sin. To Donner, the difference was given in Jesus Christ, whose mission had been the basis indeed for predestination in Gerhard, but not an inducement to it in any sense. Actually, the issue of the role of faith was raised. With this issue, we see the position of Aegidius Hunnius was far more attractive to Lutherans attacking Dordt than the more cautious position of Gerhard. Donner argues that predestination without regard to Christ would also mean a predestination without regard to faith (Donner: 1620, 27). Introduced this way, faith could become not only the medium of predestination, but also the reason for election. At least, faith had a more prominent role in the way of salvation than it was given to it in Gerhard’s Loci. Thus, in a definition of election, Donner wrote: those who let God be effective in them by those means, who get and draw true faith out of this, grasp Christ by it and preserve in it to the end, they shall be elect and have eternal live.29

Donner knows – this was also Gerhard’s understanding – that faith cannot be more than a medium of election, and in general, he agrees with it (Donner: 1620, 59).

26 Axmacher: 2009, 135–145, has shown, how predestination was used from Luther to Arndt and Gerhard as an argument of comfort in Lutheran pastoral literature. 27 Weinrich: 1624, F 3v: „ergò gratia Dei ad vitam nos ab aeterno eligentis itidem non erit absoluta: Sed ordinata in Christo fide apprehenso“. 28 Donner: 1620, 18: „ohne Anschawung“. 29 Donner: 1620, 39: “welche nun durch solche mittel Gott in jhnen wΦrden lassen wircklich seyn / waren Glauben auß solchem nemmen / vnnd sch=pffen: damit Christum ergreiffen / vnnd biß ans end in solchem / verharren / die sollten Ausserwehlet seyn / vnnd das Ewige Leben haben“.

A Disliked Doctrine

Nevertheless, here he sounds as if faith were the foundation and reason of election. This stronger position of faith in the doctrine of predestination was directed immediately against Dordt. Donner alleged Dordt had taught the election as happening without any “prerequisite medium” (“Bedingungsmittel” [Donner: 1620, 39] or “Mittelbeding” [Donner: 1620, 61]), and he brought up that Calvinist teaching would mean that faith was the effect of predestination. It was not part of the story of predestination and salvation (Donner: 1620, 40). To argue against this position, he argued in the line of Hunnius that faith in Lutheran understanding would not mean a quality like a habit within human beings, but a relation to Christ as the founder of the faith (Donner: 1620, 69). Nevertheless, this faith was to bless the believer (Donner: 1620, 69). In this argumentation, one sees a difficulty to counter Calvinist teaching of faith as a pure consequence of predestination on the one hand and to avoid interpreting faith as some human prerequisite for God’s action. Actually, the argument of Dordt against a determination praevisa fide somehow hit a problem in Lutheran theology, which lays deeper than just the Hunnius-Huber controversy and which goes back to an argument of Calvin himself. Calvin had argued: “If we cannot assign a reason why God dignifies his believers with mercy if not that he likes it, we don’t have a reason either for the reprobate besides his will.”30 Indeed, taken seriously, this was a sharp weapon against Lutheran approach to predestination. If in its core, predestination was not more than a supportive argument for justification and the absence of a free will – one had at least to ask what this would mean for both sides of actors that rule the will: God as well as the devil. If Lutherans wanted to argue against an unconditioned will in God as the basis for predestination, the answer that Jesus Christ was the core of predestination was not enough regarding individuals. Still the question of election maintained, why one was elected on the basis of Christ’s mercy, and the other not. Sure for Lutheran thought, the reason could not be works. Regarding them, even Lutherans could speak of a decretum absolutum, as Josua Stegmann, this time superintendent of Schaumburg-Lippe, did in an examination of Dordt, published in 1620 (Stegmann: 1620, A 3v). The most obvious answer would be that the reason for discrimination is faith. Stegmann explained, “What ever election made in Christ that has to be seized by faith cannot be an absolute one.”31 Answering this way, faith would get a more important role in the process of predestination and election, as can be seen in

30 “Ergo si non possumus rationem assignare, cur suos misericordia dignetur, nisi quoniam ita illi placet: neque etiam in aliis reprobandis aliud habebimus quam eius voluntatem” (Calvin: 1968, 393, 28–30, Institutes 3.22.11); quoted in Donner: 1620, 19. 31 Stegmann: 1620, A 4v, “Quaecumque electio in Christo fide apprehendendo facta est, ea non est absoluta”; cf. Thumm: 1619, 4.

405

406

Volker Leppin

Theodor Thumm who names three reasons (causae) of predestination: God’s mercy, Christ as causa meritoria, and faith.32 To classify the kind of causality given in faith, Thumm even introduced a special kind of cause: faith, according to him, would not be causa princeps, but causa organica (Thumm: 1619, 58; cf. Weinrich: 1624, E 2v ), or, as Thomas Weinrich named it according to Hunnius, causa instrumentalis (Weinrich: 1624, E 3v ). Actually, he also followed Hunnius, pointing out in 1624 that election was made by the foreknowledge of God (Weinrich: 1624, B 3r ). Even if he stresses more the foreknowledge of disbelief (Weinrich: 1624, D 1v ), in consequence he says: the future faith, foreseen by God (fides praevisa) gives the reason to his election.33 So, a tendency could grow to introduce the idea of a prerequisite for election in Lutheran thought, speaking of a Bedingungsmittel like Donner did, or, as Weinrich did, of a conditio antecedens (Weinrich: 1624, E 2v ) (meaning logically preceding God’s decree, while following chronologically). With this, Donner somehow stressed the prerequisite more than the medium. This indicates, how and why the theory of Hunnius became the favorite one in Lutheran teaching after Dordt (Mahlmann: 1997, 136). All of this might have not been more than a shift of emphasis compared to Gerhard, but at the end, it changed the whole understanding of relations and dependencies in predestination, giving much more weight to the anthropological side than Gerhard had done. The Lutherans went in a new direction with this argument. Some of them named a possible Calvinist argument referring to Luther’s statement in the preface to the Epistle to the Romans: “in the ninth, tenth and eleventh chapter he teaches about God’s eternal predestination (“versehung”) from which it originally flows who will come to faith and who will not.”34 Obviously, this was an argument for the Calvinist position holding that faith was an effect of predestination. The Lutherans had to re-explain Luther here, saying what Luther had in mind was not a straight causal relation, but an interdependent or mutual one. In general, all determined things were dependent from the determination itself and vice versa – so it was the case in faith and election (Stegmann: 1620, B 3v ; Weinrich: 1624, G 3v ). This argument was 32 Thumm: 1619, 8; cf. Weinrich: 1624, E 3v, who also clearly excludes the term causa meritoria from human faith. 33 Weinrich: 1624, E 2v: “Ubi nos vestigia Scripturarum secuti, disertè dicimus er docemus, causam impellentem Deum ad electionem fuisse Christum fide perseverante apprehensum, causam organicam veró sive conditionem antecedentem fidem illam praevisam, adeoque hoc respectu non esse absolutam electionem”. 34 WA.DB 7, 23, 26f: “Am ix. x. vnd xj. Cap. leret er von der ewigen versehung Gottes, Daher es vrsprunglich fleusset, wer gleuben, oder nicht gleuben sol”; quoted as an argument from the Calvinist side in Stegmann (1620), B 1v: “id quod probare conantur, ex Praefat. Lutheri in ep. ad Romanos, ubi dicit. Ex Praedestinatione originaliter fluere, quis credere aut non credere debeat”; cf. Weinrich: 1624, G 2v.

A Disliked Doctrine

more an Aristotelian one than a Lutheran one, showing how the Lutheran argument of predestination shifted under the impression of Dordt. So, here in the discussion about Dordt, we find a first glimpse of what later on would be important for Lutherans: faith as a reason for predestination. To put it in logical terms, Lutherans had a reason for reprobation, but in terms of predestination, reprobation was not an active deed of God. The active deed of God was positive predestination, but they had no reason for this. This might work as long, as predestination is mainly seen in pastoral contexts. But questioned and, as at least some Lutherans understood it, condemned, by the Synod of Dordt, Lutherans had to think about this in a new way, meaning they had to look for a reason for predestination.

25.7

Conclusion

The teaching of a praedestinatio praevisa fide became a common place in Lutheran theology of the seventeenth century (Mahlmann: 1997, 136). One cannot understand Hunnius’ success in this point without looking on the debate around Dordt: in a kind of paradoxical effect, Calvinist thought helped the Lutherans clarify their own doctrine of predestination. The concept of Hunnius, preferred in the controversy with Dordt, gave the possibility to connect a doctrine of predestination with the awareness of importance of faith in justification. Again, predestination this way became a supportive argument for Lutheran theology – not only to support the refusal of a free will, but mainly to support the justification by faith alone.

Bibliography Sources Actorum (1597): ACTORUM HV- | BERIANORVM | Pars prior. | Das ist /| DEr erste Theil des | Berichts / was in der newen Zwispalt /| die Praedestination / oder ewig Wahl Gottes be=| treffend / zwischen D. Samuel Hubern / vnnd den Württembergischen | Theologen (…) publiciert | Durch die Württembergische | Theologen, Tübingen: Georg Gruppenbach. Bekenntnisschriften (2014): Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche. Vollständige Neuedition, ed. by Irene Dingel, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Beza (1582): THEODORI | BEZAE VEZELII | VOLVMEN | PRIMVM | Tracationum Theologicarum, Geneva: Eustathius Vignon. Colloquium Mompelgartense (1587): COLLOQVIVM | Mompelgartense.| Gespr(ch/| (…)| Zwischen den Hochgelehrten/ D. IACOBO AKDREAE. (…) vnnd D. THEODORO

407

408

Volker Leppin

| BEZA (…)| Anno 1586. im Mertzen zu MΦmpelgart im Schloß | gehalten, Tübingen: Gruppenbach. Calvin (1968): Joannis Calvini Opera selecta, ed. by Peter Barth / Wilhelm Niesel. Vol. 4, München: Kaiser. Cramer (1622): THESES THE-| OLOGIC& | ex ijs qu# hactenus pr#lecta sunt, | (…) De | novâ & in Synodo Dordra-| cenâ, circa | ARICULUM DE PR&DESTINATIONE,| veteri opinione correcta (…) proposit# | à | M. JOHAN-JACOBO CRAME-| RO (…), Stettin: Duberian. Dokumente (1991): Dokumente zur Causa Lutheri [1517–1521]. Vol. 2, ed. by Peter Fabisch/ Erwin Iserloh, Münster: Aschendorff. Donner (1620): Christliche Betrachtung / | Etlicher zwischen den Lu-| therischen vnd Calvinischen streittigen | Religionsfragen;| Gezogen auß dem zu Dordrecht gehaltenem | Synode (…) Gestellt durch| IOANNEM DONNERVM (…), Frankfurt am Main. Eramus (1969): Erasmus von Rotterdam, Ausgewählte Schriften, ed. by Werner Welzig. Vol. 4, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Gerhard (1864): Ioannis Gerhardi Loci Theologici. Vol 2, ed. by Ed. Preuss, Berlin: Schlawitz. Huber (1590): Gründtliche Beweisung / | Daß Christus Jesus | gestorben seie / für die SÜnden | des gantzen menschlichen | Geschlechts. | Wider etliche fürnembste Caluinisten / |(…) Durch | Samuel Hubern von Burgdorff (…) geschriben, Tübingen: Georg Gruppenbach. Huber (1597): Historische Beschreibung | Des gantzen Streits /| zwischen D: Hunnen vnd D: Hu=| bern / von der Gnadenwahl (…) Durch | Samuel Hubern, S. Johann: Johann Eysenberger. Hunnius (1585): PROPOSITIONES | DE PRAECIPVIS | CHRISTIANAE RE-| LIGIONIS CAPITIBVS (…) AD DISPVTANDVM PROPOSIT& AC DEFENS& (…) AUTORE ET PRAESIDE | EGIDIO HVNNIO (…), Frankfurt: Spies. Hunnius (1597): ARTICVLVS | DE |PROVIDENTIA DEI; | ET | AETERNA PRAEDESTINA-|TIONE SEV ELECTIONE | filiorum Dei ad salutem, | (…) AVTHORE | AEGIDIO HVNNIO (….), Frankfurt: Spieß. Hunnius (1626): Διάσκεψις | THEOLOGICA | De | FUNDAMENTALI | dissensu doctrin# Evan-| gelic#-Lutheran#, & Cal-| vinian#| seu Reformatae,| Autore | NICOLAO HUNNIO; Wittenberg. Helwig. Hütter (2006): Leonhard Hütter, Compendium Locorum Theologicorum ex scripturis sacris et libro concordiae, ed. by Johann Anselm Steiger, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommannholzboog. Luther (1883): Martin Luther, Disputatio Heidelbergae habita, WA 1, Weimar, 350–374. Luther (1908): Martin Luther, De servo arbitrio, WA 18, Weimar, 551–787. Melanchthon (1997): Philipp Melanchthon, Loci communes 1521. Lateinisch-Deutsch, ed. By Horst Georg Pöhlmann, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Melanchthon (1953): Melanchthons Werke. II/2: Loci praecipui theologici von 1559 [2. Teil] und Definitiones, ed. by Hans Engelland, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.

A Disliked Doctrine

Stegmann (1620): (…) | SENTENTIA |SYNODI DORDRACEN& | De | DIVINA | PR&DESTINATI-| ONE ET REPROBATIONE. | Ad trutinam verbi divini appensa atque examinata (…) sub Pr#sidio | JOSU& STEGMANN; Stadthagen: Reineking. Thumm (1619): ΜΙΣΑΝΘΡΩΠΊΑ CAL-| VINISTICA,| Hoc est,| HORRENDORUM ET | BLASPHEMORUM ERRORUM,| QUOS CALVINIST& IN ARTICULO DE| Pr#destinatione fovent, brevis & methodica narratio, soli-| daque ex Dei verbo refutatio, in gratiam Synodi | Dordrechtan# nuper edit#: | SUB PR&SIDIO | THEODORI | THUMII (…) | Ad disputandum proposita,| RESPONDENTE, | M. JOHANNE SCHLATERO WILENSI (…), Tübingen: Werlin. Weinrich (1624): Examen sententi# | SYNODI DODRECHTAN& | De absoluto | PR&DESTINATIO-| NIS AC REPROBATIONIS | decreto | (…) à | M. THOMA WEINRICHIO, Leipzig: Lanckisch. Zanchi (1577): HIERONYMI ZANCHII | DE NATU-| RA DEI | SEV | DE DIVINIS ATTRIBUTIS | LIBRI V, Heidelberg: Mylius.

Research Adam, Gottfried (1970), Der Streit um die Prädestination im ausgehenden 16. Jahrhundert. Eine Untersuchung zu den Entwürfen von Samuel Huber und Aegidius Hunnius, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Axmacher, Elke (2009), Die Prädestination als Thema in der lutherischen Erbauungsliteratur, in: Wilfried Härle/Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (ed.), Prädestination und Willensfreiheit. Luther, Erasmus. Calvin und ihre Wirkungsgeschichte. FS Theodor Mahlmann, Leipzig, 135–145. Baur, Jörg (1993), Luther und seine klassischen Erben. Theologische Aufsätze und Forschungen, Tübingen: Mohr. Courtnay, William J. (1990), Capacity and Volition. A History of the Distinction of Absolute and Ordained Power, Bergamo: Lubrina. Dingel, Irene (1996), Concordia controversa. Die öffentlichen Diskussionen um das lutherische Konkordienwerk am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Dingel, Irene (1997), Article Religionsgespräche. IV: Altgläubig – protestantisch und innerprotestantisch, TRE 28, 654–682. Hoek, Jan (2014), Die Deutung der Prädestinationslehre in der Leuenberger Konkordie, in: Michael Beintker/Martin Heimbucher (ed.), Verbindende Theologie. Perspektiven der Leuenberger Konkordie, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 104–124. Kolb, Robert (2005), Bound Choise, Election and Wittenberg Theological Method. From Martin Luther to the Formula of Concord, Grand Rapids. Leppin, Volker (2013), Der calvinische Antichrist. Zur konfessionellen Auseinandersetzung bei Samuel Huber, in: Herman J. Selderhuis/Martin Leiner/Volker Leppin (ed.), Calvin-

409

410

Volker Leppin

ismus in den Auseinandersetzungen des frühen konfessionellen Zeitalters, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9–19. Mahlmann, Theodor (1997), Art. Prädestination. V. Reformation bis Neuzeit, TRE 27, 118–156. Matthias, Markus (2004), Theologie und Konfession. Der Beitrag von Ägidius Hunnius (1550–1603) zur Entstehung einer lutherischen Religionskultur, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Neuser, Wilhelm (1998), Dogma und Bekenntnis in der Reformation: Von Zwingli und Calvin bis zur Synode von Westminster, Carl Andresen/Adolf Martin Ritter (Ed.s), Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte. Vol 2, 2nd edition, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 167–409. Söderlund, Rune (1983), Ex praevisa fide. Zum Verständnis der Prädestinationslehre in der lutherischen Orthodoxie, Hannover: Lutherisches Verlagshaus. Sparn, Walter (1992), Die Krise der Frömmigkeit und ihr theologischer Reflex im nachreformatorischen Luthertum, Hans-Christoph Rublack (Hg.), Die lutherische Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 54–82. Sparn, Walter (2013), Die fundamentaltheologische Fixierung des Anticalvinismus im deutschen Luthertum, in: Herman J. Selderhuis/Martin Leiner/Volker Leppin (ed.), Calvinismus in den Auseinandersetzungen des frühen konfessionellen Zeitalters, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 127–150.

Arnold Huijgen

26.

The Lasting Value and Limitations of the Canons of Dordt

Abstract The present chapter aims at a critical evaluation and a positive appropriation of the Canons of Dordt through a hermeneutical approach of Reformed confessions. An emphasis on the historical nature of confessions does not diminish their authority, but it opens up avenues for appropriation through creative reinterpretation. By emphasizing the Christ-centered, and eschatological, nature of predestionation more than the Canons do, the doctrine of predestination is articulated in a more balanced way. The Canons exemplify a truly catholic, and Biblical, confession of God’s effective grace. Still, the place of Israel, and the relation between the election of God’s people and the election of the individual presently require more attention. If the Synod of Dordt would not have been drawn into the Arminian frame of thought, it would have been possible that the Canons would have centered more on justification than on predestination. For justification was the primary point where the Remonstrants parted ways with the Reformed faith. The present author advises to place justification at the heart of contemporary debates on predestination.

26.1

Introduction

The Canons of Dordt are a monument of Reformed theology. Not only is the decision of the Synod of Dordt to reject Arminianism a major landmark in Dutch church history; it also forms a hallmark of Reformed orthodoxy. In the twentieth century, they have been strongly criticized. Karl Barth, for instance, criticised both the Synod of Dordt and the Remonstrants for their discussion on Christ as foundation of election: “here, too, we stand at one of those points were unwittingly and unwillingly the older Protestant orthodoxy helped to dig its own grave.” (1957, 70; cf. Barth: 1959, 74). The question is, what the present relevance of the Canons can be, in light of contemporary theological challenges. To the mind of the present author, there is ample room for a critical re-evaluation and positive appropriation. The present contribution will emphasise the lasting value of the Canons as a catholic, biblical document that safeguards the gratuity of grace and God’s sovereignty. Meanwhile,

412

Arnold Huijgen

the Canons also have their limitations and there is reason to say things differently and also to say different things than the Canons did. The Canons belong to the confessional basis of many Reformed churches worldwide, although some, like the Reformed Church in America, do not give confessional status to the rejection of errors. This fact alone already indicates the special nature of the Canons among the Reformed confessions, since they are a judicial, legal document, used to reach a decision within the church, unlike other classic documents of Reformed unity, such as the Belgic Confession (1561) or the Heidelberg Catechism (1563). The Canons have a narrower scope than other confessions, since they are an in-depth explanation of a specific head of doctrine, namely election. The Canons are an elaboration of article 16 of the Belgic Confession, which discusses election rather briefly: we believe that – all Adam’s descendants having thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of Adam – God showed himself to be as he is: merciful and just. God is merciful in withdrawing and saving from this perdition those who, in the eternal and unchangeable divine counsel, have been elected and chosen in Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any consideration of their works. God is just in leaving the others in their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves.1

Given the specific nature of the Canons as legal document and elaboration of a specific head of doctrine, the question is raised about what their lasting value can be after four hundred years. Of course, the decision of the Synod remains a historic monument. Reformed churches affirm that in the seventeenth-century conflict, the Synod was in the right and the Remonstrants were not. The church back then clearly was in statu confessionis, a state in which in the church was pressed to confess. Still, the scholastic forms of thinking in the background and content of the Canons provoke the question whether these modes of thinking are still normative for the present day. Besides, the understanding of Biblical theology has made considerable progress since the seventeenth century: how should this bear on the implicit and explicit exegesis of the Canons? Moreover, the theological understanding of predestination, grace, and human responsibility has not come to a stop over the past centuries. In light of these developments, the question is whether the Canons can serve a more than merely historical and traditional function. Should Reformed theologians, and churches, move beyond the statements of Dordt, to recalibrate their theologies in the light of the Bible and present challenges? It is these kinds of questions that are

1 www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic–confession. All further quotations from the Belgic Confession in the present chapter are taken from this translation.

The Lasting Value and Limitations of the Canons of Dordt

addressed in the present contribution: the aim is not to contribute to the historical understanding of the Canons of Dordt, but to appropriate the Canons for the present time, with additions and adaptations. The set-up of this chapter is as follows. Four themes will be highlighted: the priority of God’s grace, the relation between time and eternity, the relation between the community and the individual, and the central theme of justification. With respect to each of these themes, it will be stated why the Synod took a right decision and in which respect, after which the limitations and/or shortcomings of that decision are highlighted, followed by directions on how these limitations might be overcome. But first, the hermeneutics of the confession implied in this enterprise need to be discussed.

26.2

Hermeneutics of the Confession

By accepting the Canons of Dordt as part of their authoritative heritage, as a ‘Form of Unity’, Reformed churches have accepted the historical decision of the synod of Dordt as a normative one. To substantiate this normative nature, a hermeneutic of the confession is needed. That is, the Canons need to be interpreted in their historical context, while being aware that ours is a different context. The Canons are a product of their time, not a timeless document. This timeliness is not a disadvantage, but is an inherent characteristic of such a document. Confessional documents do not appear out of a burst of atemporal creativity, but formulate answers to contemporary challenges, in which the church has reached a decision. An emphasis on the historical nature of the confession opens a way between two extremes. The one extreme is a literalist approach that copies and pastes the Canons’ answers without awareness of the questions to which these answers relate. The other extreme is relativism, which overemphasises the historical distance to the extent that every situation is different and we cannot use the Canons in our present situation. Rather, a hermeneutically sensitive approach will note that the doctrine in the Canons of Dordt is not merely a theory, but an expression of what the Dutch Reformed theologian Arnold van Ruler has rightly called “the religion of the confession.” (1948, 26) The truth of the confession lies in its faithfulness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it is a truth to be believed rather than noted in an exact formulation. A focus on the religion of the confession means that being true to the Reformed confessions does not mean that the confession is used to stop theological thinking, but rather to think further in the tracks of the Reformed tradition. The wisdom of the confessions can be valued no more than by pursuing their theological intentions in new contexts. In doing so, the Word of God is the primary authority. Fresh insights into the Word of God liberate the theologian from the anxiety that he might deviate

413

414

Arnold Huijgen

from the tradition, while the tradition keeps the theologian in catholic tracks. The more the theologian prays with Psalm 119:133 (NIV): “Direct my footsteps according to your word,” the more freely he can interact with the confessional tradition. Surely, this is in line with the Reformed confessions themselves, which stipulate the supreme authority of the Word of God (E.g., Belgic Confession, articles 3–7). The Reformed confessions blaze the trail of this kind of reinterpretation in light of new understandings of the Gospel. The Heidelberg Catechism, for instance, reinterprets Christ’s descent into hell as the “anguish, pain, terror, and agony” which he suffered on the cross (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. & A. 44). Of course, one could easily criticise this formulation as historically incorrect, because the early church understood this part of the Apostles’ Creed very differently (cf. Kelly: 2006, 378–383). But creative reinterpretation is part and parcel of the Reformed tradition. The Heidelberg Catechism follows the lead of John Calvin, whose interpretation is also guided by his emphatic denial of Aquinas’ idea of a limbo (Calvin, Institutes 2.16.9, against Aquinas, ST, III suppl. Q. 69, Art. 4–7). Genuine adherence to the confession is indicated by being prepared to continue thinking theologically. The alternatives of solidification and endless repetition of the same traditional material on the one hand, and outright rejection of the tradition on the other both imply that the tradition is dying. The only way to keep the Reformed tradition vital is by continuous creative reinterpretation in light of the Word of God. Let me provide an example of the combination of a historical reading and creative reinterpretation in a new context, outside the discussion of the Canons of Dordt. Article 36 of the Belgic Confession contains these much-disputed words: and the government’s task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

Churches have struggled with the ‘Constantinian’ language, in which the unity of state and church seems implied. Some churches have excised these words, have added a clarifying footnote, or have amended them (cf. Van der Zwaag: 1999). These kinds of emendations of the text, however, use the text as a regulating document for the church in our time, with insufficient respect for the original historical context. In other words, the text is appropriated as if it were some sort of ecclesial by-laws, instead of a confession. The intention of article 36 was to demonstrate to the contemporary authorities that the Reformed were not to be feared as potential revolutionaries, such as the world had seen in the Anabaptists’ revolt in Münster (1534). The author of the Belgic Confession, Guy De Bres, energetically emphasised the differences between

The Lasting Value and Limitations of the Canons of Dordt

the Reformed and the Anabaptists (De Bres: 1558; De Bres: 1565). The fact that he ‘published’ the confession by throwing it over the wall of the castle of Tournai, where Margaretha of Parma resided at the time, shows that he wished to bring the confession to the attention of the king (Busch: 2009). The message was: the Reformed are not Anabaptists, and they do not wish to overthrow the political status quo. They respect the king, even when he wields the sword in religious matters. Beyond the alternatives of rejection of the Constantinian language on the one hand, and its solidification on the other, creative reinterpretation delves deeper to note the expressed loyalty to the political system in general and to the magistrate in particular. Reformed Christians can nowadays express a similar loyalty by functioning wholeheartedly in Western liberal democracies, with the implied separation of church and state. The formalist can object that this reinterpretation does not conform to the literal text of the confession. Others may prefer to reject the Belgic Confession, at least at this point, altogether. But creative reinterpretation keeps the tradition alive in new contexts. To sum up, a hermeneutic of the Reformed confessions should be historically informed, wholeheartedly loyal to the religion of the confession, and creative in its contextual reinterpretations. These aspects are highly important in the reappraisal of the Canons of Dordt.

26.3

Priority and Efficacy of God’s Grace

The priority and efficacy of God’s grace are the prime concerns of the Canons of Dordt. God’s grace must be efficacious for at least five reasons. First, because God does not stop halfway, leaving it up to humans to complete his work or not. Second, because Christ actually saves people. He does not merely make salvation generally possible and available. Third, because of the nature of grace, which is no substance that is made available, but is a relational term, an expression of God’s love. God’s love is effective or it is not. Fourth, human total depravity implies that grace should be effective. Humans cannot and will not turn to God for salvation by themselves. Only by way of complete regeneration will their wills be rendered willing and able to do so.2 As Aza Goudriaan has demonstrated, a fundamental difference in theological anthropology between the Remonstrants and the Synod played an important role. “According to the Arminians the human will, of all mental faculties, is least affected by sin and does not really need to be repaired.” (2011, 101). The problem, according to the Arminians, lay primarily in the intellect. As Richard Muller writes, “Arminius

2 See Huijgen: 2018, 117. Parts of that article have been used for the present article.

415

416

Arnold Huijgen

consistently placed the problematic character of the fallen intellect and its need for proper illumination at the forefront of the discussion.” (1993, 71). Besides, the Arminians defined the freedom of the will as freedom from necessity, while the Synod emphasised that the will is free in the sense that it chooses spontaneously, but being dead in spiritual matters and inclined to evil, it will in effect always choose evil. For the Synod, “the Arminian position meant an overly optimistic view of the human status after the fall.” (Huijgen: 2018, 118). In retrospect, the Arminians’ case was a humanist argument of individual autonomy, of human freedom as the ultimate determination of one’s destiny. Although the Synod succeeded in rejecting Remonstrant doctrine, in the subsequent history of Western culture the Arminian viewpoint has actually won. For most Westerners, it is unthinkable that humans would be ultimately dependent on something other than their own will. The Arminian option of God kindly and benevolently offering the option of salvation, leaving it for us to decide freely, fits present moral intuitions like a glove. On the other hand, the idea that humans are utterly dependent on God’s decision over their lives, is at odds with the idea of autonomy that dominates Western culture. Is it possible (and necessary) to retrieve the substance of the Canons of Dordt? First of all, it is useful to return to the Biblical character of predestination, which surpasses modern moral intuitions. The apostle Paul’s statements on God’s free and sovereign grace, using the image of the potter’s right over the clay, “to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use,” (Rom. 9:21, NIV) are not a specialty of only Paul. In the Gospels, Jesus prefers publicans and sinners over decent, religious people (cf. Matt 9:10f). Already under the Old Testament, God chose Israel, a weak and despised people, without the military, economic, and cultural powers of Egypt or Mesopotamia (cf. Deut 7:6ff). The priority of God’s gracious choice over human preferences is evidently Biblical. Still, the Canons show a tendency to discuss predestination as an abstract, impersonal decree (Canons of Dordt, I.6, e.g.), besides the accent on election in Christ (e.g. Canons of Dordt, I.7), who is the “foundation of salvation” (Canons of Dordt, I.7). While the Synod was right not to accept the Remonstrant suggestion to call Christ the foundation of election (fundamentum electionis), because in their context, this was actually meant as an anthropocentric move (basing election on faith in Christ), there is reason to emphasise the election in Christ more than the Canons do. Christ is God’s love in concreto for actual people, and the fact that Christ is not yet discussed in I.6, indicates a problem. A stronger Christological focus is needed to prevent abstraction. This is particularly necessary in pastoral contexts. While it is hardly possible to relate to a decree, a decision, Calvin’s famous statement points a better way: Christ “is the mirror wherein we must, and without self-deception may, contemplate our own election.” (Calvin: 1960, 970; Institutes 3.24.5). Still, this does not mean that Karl Barth’s critique of the Canons, mentioned above, was

The Lasting Value and Limitations of the Canons of Dordt

correct, since the Canons are more Christ centered than Karl Barth acknowledges (cf. Berkouwer: 1960, Ch. 5). Although the priority and efficacy of God’s grace, which are highlighted by the Canons of Dordt, are very important, more can be said about the nature of God’s grace. John Barclay has argued that among the possible characteristics of grace, its incongruity is more important for Paul than its priority and efficacy: the unworthiness of the recipients of God’s grace dissolves criteria of worth and opens up a completely new reality (2015: 70–75). Broadening the scope of our understanding of grace can help to recontextualise the Canons of Dordt.

26.4

Causality, Eternity, History, Eschatology

The christocentric reorientation and the redefinition of what grace means do not yet meet the concern that predestination would tend to determinism and fatalism. Of course, scholastic theology is able to distinguish between primary and secondary causes, to think in terms of absolute and relative necessity, and synchronic contingency. But the uneasy question remains whether one should first learn these scholastic theologoumena before one can engage in the themes of the Canons of Dordt? Do not the pastoral problems in the history of Reformed Protestantism, and the struggle with questions of election and assurance, indicate a tendency in the Canons that needs reorientation? Causality and eternity are the directions in which the Canons seek solutions for the issues they discuss. Surely, each of the chapters begins with the history of redemption and the actual state in which fallen humans find themselves. But when faith and unbelief are addressed, the next step is: “the cause or guilt of this unbelief…” (Canons of Dordt, I.5). And as for faith, “this benefit comes only through God’s grace, given to them from eternity in Christ” (Canons of Dordt, II.7). The divine decree (consilium) is the intersection between the concerns of causality and eternity, that are at the very core of the Canons of Dordt. The fathers of Dordt should not be blamed for later developments, in theology but primarily in philosophy. René Descartes reduced causality to mere efficient causality, implying that causality equals agency and the effect is received passively (1994: 62f; cf. Van Ruler: 1995). Scepticism made any understanding of eternity problematic. These later developments are relevant for a theological evaluation of the Canons, whose view on predestination focuses more on the prae than on the destinatio. It should be underlined that the Canons are going in deeply catholic tracks. The notion that God is the primary cause of faith and that the eternal God differs qualitatively from his creation in time, are no inventions of some seventeenth century Reformed theologians, but are deeply rooted in the Augustinian tradition.

417

418

Arnold Huijgen

The fact that similar conflicts like that between Arminius and Gomarus broke out in Roman Catholic circles, underlines that predestination is no Reformed specialité de maison. Decades before the Synod of Dordt, the controversy De Auxiliis at the university of Louvain showed a similar dynamic between the Jesuit Leonard Lessius, whose theses were condemned as Pelagian, and the Augustinian Michael Baius (Matava: 2014, Ch. 4–5.). To some extent, the difference between the Dominicans and the Jesuits corresponds to that between the Gomarists and the Arminians. Still, the accents on causality and eternity are in need of adjustment and recontextualisation, mainly for Biblical reasons. This is most clearly manifest with respect to God’s way with Israel. Israel is a concrete people, and God leads them through a very challenging history. At times, God and Israel seem to lose each other, because of Israel’s unfaithfulness, but time and again, God shows his faithfulness to his covenant and his mercies for Israel. In Romans 9–11, Paul’s primary question is God’s plan with Israel in his days. Most Israelites rejected the Messiah who had come, Jesus Christ. Paul notes that not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel (Rom 9:6), and that there is a distinction between children of the flesh and children of the promise, between Esau and Jacob. This is how God’s sovereign, electing grace is manifested: in the concrete path of history. Paul’s question is one of finality (that is, eschatology): where is God leading his people? “God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.” (Rom. 11:2, NIV). Of course, this can be explained as a form of causality, in the sense of the Aristotelian causa finalis. God’s foreknowledge of Israel is used as underpinning for the belief that he will not reject or forsake the people now and in the future. The focus is at least as much on the destinatio as it is on the prae. It is remarkable that the Canons miss the point of Israel completely. Obviously, the horrors of the twentieth century have opened the eyes of many, but it is telling that the concrete Israel could be left out of a discussion of election. Speaking more broadly, New Testament eschatology is needed to balance the focus on pre-destination. The message of the New Testament (in line with the Old) is that God comes to his people and to the world in Jesus Christ. After the ascension, Jesus sends his Spirit, who comes to believers as a force from the future, to draw them towards Jesus Christ. The Spirit is the pledge of the future inheritance (Eph 1:14; 2 Cor 1:22). Even the entire Gospel has an eschatological structure, the structure of God’s promise. “According to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” (2 Pet 3:13, ESV). It is God who leads us to the destination of his Kingdom. This predominance of the coming Kingdom over the past shows in God’s predestination: he elects “things that are not,” calling them into a new existence. Therefore, it is only in retrospect that believers see that God “chose us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world.” (Eph 1:4, ESV). In this eschatological tension, predestination receives a balanced place; in other words, the primary causality at work in predestination is

The Lasting Value and Limitations of the Canons of Dordt

teleological causality, in the sense of eschatological causality: the destined end is not immanently present, but is an act of God’s freedom, who makes all things new (cf. O’Donovan: 2001, 64f). The eschatological outlook helps to recalibrate views on eternity. The statement that God elected us before the foundation of the world may well be understood in the sense that eternity is merely situated before time. Of course, this is not the case. If one defines eternity as merely pre-temporality, eternity is described in temporal terms – negations of time, but still temporal terms. Rather, ‘eternity’ refers to the eternal God: only He is truly eternal. This means that eternity relates to time as God the creator relates to his creation. Eternity is not merely a-temporal, pre-temporal or post-temporal, but qualitatively different from time. Therefore, as the Dutch theologian Oepke Noordmans wrote beautifully, “God’s eternal decisions are made at the very last moment.” (1949, 110). Of course, this accent is not absent from the tradition. A traditional formula states that the decree of God is the very same as the God who decrees (decretum Dei idem est ac Deus decernens). This means that there was no time when God began to love his people, no reason in them why he began to love them, but that he is his own reason and that he loves his people with an eternal love. Meanwhile, he really engages in history, staying faithful to his people under all circumstances and with all sorts of detours. In the context of the present culture, it is preferable to highlight the groundless nature of God’s love, his true interaction with his people in time, and the nature of the Gospel as promise. In a culture of unbelief with a strong focus on the present instead of the past, the eternal decree can best be understood in terms of the groundless love of God, which in the mode of the promise opens up the future.

26.5

Community and Individual

The Canons of Dordt balance the attention for the individual with an accent on the community, God’s people. Their theological structure is inherently nonanthropocentric and non-individualistic, for God is truly God, not dependent on any human decision to accept his offer of grace. The autonomous individual does not take center stage; that would fit the Arminian anthropology far better. Meanwhile, the Canons emphasise the division line between the elect and the reprobate, with eminent pastoral sensitivity. This shows, for instance, in chapter I, Article 16: those who do not yet actively experience within themselves a living faith in Christ or an assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God through Christ, but who nevertheless use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us – such people ought not to be alarmed at the

419

420

Arnold Huijgen

mention of reprobation, nor to count themselves among the reprobate; rather they ought to continue diligently in the use of the means, to desire fervently a time of more abundant grace, and to wait for it in reverence and humility. On the other hand, those who seriously desire to turn to God, to be pleasing to God alone, and to be delivered from the body of death, but are not yet able to make such progress along the way of godliness and faith as they would like – such people ought much less to stand in fear of the teaching concerning reprobation, since our merciful God has promised not to snuff out a smoldering wick or break a bruised reed. However, those who have forgotten God and their Saviour Jesus Christ and have abandoned themselves wholly to the cares of the world and the pleasures of the flesh – such people have every reason to stand in fear of this teaching, as long as they do not seriously turn to God.

This passage distinguishes between (1) those who do not experience living faith, but use the means; (2) those who do not progress as much as they would like; (3) those who have abandoned God. Each receives a separate advice. Still, this grouping of various spiritual conditions leads to questions of demarcation: how can each individual know to which group he or she belongs? Moreover, the underlying logic is primarily individual, not corporal or ecclesial. As already mentioned, the Canons of Dordt neglect Israel, which could have pointed towards a more corporate understanding of election. Compare Q. & A. 54 of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563): Q. What do you believe concerning “the holy catholic church”? A. I believe that the Son of God through his Spirit and Word, out of the entire human race, from the beginning of the world to its end, gathers, protects, and preserves for himself a community chosen for eternal life and united in true faith. And of this community I am and always will be a living member.

Here, election relates to the community; i.e., the church. The individuality of the living members of the church is secondary. In the face of individualism, stamped by the present “age of authenticity” (Taylor: 2007, 473–504), it is useful to underline that each and every individual exists in a community and because of a community that nourished and taught them. On a more theological note, the church is the community that precedes the individual believer, since it is Christ’s body existing as congregation, as community (Cf. Bonhoeffer: 1986, 76). As an alternative to other forms of community, from groups of friends to nation states, the church stands out as the chosen community by God. This makes the church unique, so the doctrine of election serves a critical function against nationalism, racism, and various ways of exclusion. Election makes the church unique. Awareness of election strengthens the church in the conviction

The Lasting Value and Limitations of the Canons of Dordt

that it is not merely a minor player in civil society, but God’s people. Particularly in times of declining numbers, the doctrine of election should not be individualised, or detached from ecclesiology. The ecclesiological accent should not imply a neglect of the personal character of election. Rather, the personal character can be intensified through an emphasis on the church. For the church, as Christ’s existence as community, frees the person of the reductionist tendencies that other communities entail: in the state, the person is a civilian; in nationalism, a Dutchman; in capitalism, a consumer; in a political party, a representative of a faction. Only in the church are persons confronted with who they are completely, as justified sinners. The encounter with Jesus Christ in person liberates from all frames and reductions, and makes one really free. Engaging in the debate whether predestination implies determinism or not, was important for earlier generations. Presently, however, the aspect that predestination leads to human freedom because of justification, is more important. In sum, the present challenges of the church necessitate that the communal, ecclesial aspect of predestination is highlighted more strongly than the Canons of Dordt have done, without losing the personal aspect.

26.6

Justification

Because the Remonstrance did not address the issue of justification, the Canons say relatively little about it. In fact, the Remonstrance set the agenda for the Canons of Dordt, not only on the formal level of the awkward setup of chapters (chapter III/IV reflects the response to the third and fourth articles of the Remonstrance), but on the level of theological substance: election and reprobation became the focal points of the discussion between the Remonstrants and the Reformed. Since the Canons of Dordt became a central confessional document, the debate on justification remained in the background, also in its reception.3 Meanwhile, Arminius’ teaching on justification was evidently not Reformed. In short, he taught that “faith itself – not the righteousness of Christ – is imputed for righteousness to believers.” (Goudriaan: 2010, 161). According to Arminius, faith is not merely instrumental, as Reformed theology generally teaches. Gomarus had already criticised Arminius on exactly this point. Once again, the emphasis on human activity shows in Arminius’ and the Arminians’ insistence on the qualities of faith. According to the Arminian Petrus Bertius, faith would be regarded by God as “the whole righteousness of the law that we are held to accomplish” (Goudriaan: 2010, 164). This is no less than a

3 Famously, Alexander Schweizer: 1854, 1:xiii described predestination as the “central dogma” of the Reformed tradition.

421

422

Arnold Huijgen

justification by works, albeit by the specific work of obedient faith. “Christ’s justice and sacrifice merely make this procedure of justification possible, and faith becomes a human virtue” instead of God’s gift (Huijgen: 2018, 122). The agenda set by the Arminians put the Synod in the defensive, and the Arminian frame led to a focus on the doctrines of predestination and election instead of justification. Of course, the theological decisions remain adequate, since the Arminian view of predestination deviated from the Reformed mainstream in a similar way their view of justification did. But a side-effect was the increasing centrality of the doctrine of regeneration, where earlier Reformed theology had focused on the doctrine of justification. The reason why justification received greater attention at Dordt was because of different polemical contexts. Still, the theme of justification is clearly closer to the main tenets of the New Testament, and to the broader Protestant tradition, than the former. The term ‘regeneration’, and the substance of the doctrine of regeneration as the very begin of spiritual life, are found in few New Testament texts (e.g., John 3:3; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 1:3.23). But the authors of the Canons did not aim at precisely reflecting the New Testament data, but at guaranteeing the gratuitous character of faith. Regeneration answers the question where faith ultimately comes from: from a human decision or from God’s gift. The Canons offer a thoroughly Reformed answer. The focus on regeneration instead of justification has consequences. Since God works regeneration “in us without us” (III/IV.12), as a “supernatural working” (III/ IV.17) in our “hearts” (III/IV.12) and believers “cannot fully understand the way in which God does this work” (III/IV.13), this evokes the typically modern pastoral question how the individual can know whether she is regenerated. The Canons give the pastorally sound advice to use the means of grace, and move entirely within the tracks of the broader tradition of the Western church, but the direction in which the Canons look is the supernatural inner renewal of regeneration (and its outward effects and fruits), rather than justification in Christ. The difference between a focus on regeneration and a concentration on justification should not be exaggerated, because the Arminian deviations from the mainstream (also of catholic theology) are similar in both areas. Meanwhile, the emphasis on regeneration may lead to problems, as it has done in the history of some Reformed churches after the Synod of Dordt. If regeneration instead of faith becomes the primary soteriological term, the theological focus is relocated from Christ outside us to a supernatural renewal inside us (Cf. Graafland: 1987, 158f). One cannot blame the Synod of Dordt for the pastoral problems that arose out of one-sided readings of the Canons, but in our time, a recalibration of the idea of regeneration is needed. The single Biblical place where Jesus himself uses the word palingenesia (regeneration) is Matthew 19:28 (NIV), “Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes

The Lasting Value and Limitations of the Canons of Dordt

of Israel.” Here, regeneration is not a merely personal or internal renewal, but the renewal of all things is primary. These eschatological and cosmic overtones are also present in the context of the designation of baptism as the “washing of rebirth” in Titus 3:5 (NIV), where justification and regeneration are kept in close connection: he saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

This eschatological reorientation of the idea of regeneration helps to prevent individualism and excessive introspection. Of course, there is a personal side to regeneration, as shown in the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus: Jesus emphasises that one must be “born again” (John 3:3) to enter the Kingdom of God. This renewal of the single person is not an isolated event, however. It is part of the renewal of the entire creation, and the full meaning of regeneration will only become clear when the Son of Man comes to judge the quick and the dead. This eschatological horizon opens up new possibilities to invite Christians in our time to experience their faith in terms of regeneration, in the Biblical sense. In fact, this reorientation may help to rid the Reformed tradition from the Arminian frame that the conflict was merely centered on predestination. Justification is and remains primary.

26.7

Conclusion

Seven theses summarise and conclude the present chapter. 1. Loyalty to the Reformed confessions in general, and the Canons of Dordt in specific, shows in ongoing, creative reinterpretation and re-evaluation in ever new contexts, to keep the confessional tradition alive. 2. Predestination as the effectiveness of God’s will and the effective character of grace are not a Reformed “in-house speciality,” but are thoroughly catholic and, more importantly, Biblical. A robust christocentrism is needed to prevent an abstraction from election in Christ to a less than personal decree, which impends in the Canons. 3. An eschatological recalibration of the Canons’ accents on causality and eternity brings the Canons closer to Biblical theology and helps to prevent a tendency to determinism that modern readers will likely sense when reading the Canons. 4. The Canons, and much of the Christian tradition, have not taken Israel sufficiently into account. A renewed focus on Israel, and a dialogue with the living

423

424

Arnold Huijgen

Israel, will keep the doctrine of election closer to the actual history of God’s ways with his people (cf. Huijgen: 2022). 5. It is important to emphasise both the election of God’s people and the election of individuals, in this order. 6. If the Canons had centered on the issue of justification, their place in the Reformed tradition would probably have been less disputed, and their pastoral effects more positive. 7. Regeneration should be understood in the eschatological sense of partaking in the newness of the life of the risen Christ, which will be revealed completely in the eschaton.

Bibliography Barclay, John (2015), Paul and the Gift, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Barth, Karl (1957), Church Dogmatics. Volume II: The Doctrine of God. Second HalfVolume., ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Barth, Karl (1959), Die Lehre von Gott: Die Kirchliche Dogmatik II.2, 4th ed., Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag. Berkouwer, Gerrit Cornelis (1960), Divine Election: Studies in Dogmatics, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1986), Sanctorum Communio: Eine dogmatische Untersuchung zur Soziologie der Kirche, ed. Joachim von Soosten, DBW 1, München: Chr. Kaiser [1927]. De Bres, Guy (1558), Le Baston de la foy chrestienne, propre pour rembarrer les ennemis de l’Euangile […], Genève: Nicolas Barbier & Thomas Courteau. De Bres, Guy (1565), La racine, source et fondement des anabaptistes […], Rouen: Abel Clémence. Busch, Eberhard (2009), Confessio Belgica von 1561: Einleitung, in: Andreas Mühling and Peter Opitz (ed.), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, Bd. 2/1, 1559–156, Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 319–323. Calvin, John (1960), Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vol., ed. John T. McNeill and Ford Lewis Battles, Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Descartes, René (1996). Discours de la Méthode […], ed. C. Adam and P. Tannery, Paris: J. Vrin. Goudriaan, Aza (2010), Justification by Faith and the Early Arminian Controversy, in: Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, and Willemien Otten (ed.), Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, STAR 14, Leiden: Brill, 155–178. Goudriaan, Aza (2011), The Synod of Dordt on Arminian Anthropology, in: Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (ed.), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt, 1618–1619, BSCH 49, Leiden: Brill, 81–106.

The Lasting Value and Limitations of the Canons of Dordt

Graafland, C. (1987), Van Calvijn tot Barth: Oorsprong en ontwikkeling van de leer der verkiezing in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme, ‘s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum. Huijgen, Arnold (2018), The Theology of the Canons of Dort: A Reassessment after Four Hundred Years, Unio cum Christo 4/2, 111–128. Huijgen, Arnold (2022), Israel as Question: A Reconsideration of Kornelis Heiko Miskotte’s Essay on Israel as Hermeneutical Challenge to the Church, in: Koert van Bekkum, Arnold Huijgen, and Michael Mulder (ed.), Israel as Hermeneutical Challenge, forthcoming. Kelly, J.N.D. (2006), Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed., London: Continuum [1972]. Matava, Robert Joseph (2016), Divine Causality and Human Free Choice: Domingo Báñez, Physical Premotion, and the Controversy De Auxiliis Revisited, BSIH 252, Leiden: Brill. Muller, Richard A. (1993), The Priority of the Intellect in the Soteriology of Jacob Arminius, Westminster Theological Journal 55, 55–72. Noordmans, Oepke (1949), Het Koninkrijk der hemelen: Toelichting op de Heidelbergse catechismus zondag 7–22, Nijkerk: Callenbach. O’Donovan, Oliver O. (2001), Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics, 2nd ed. [1994], Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Schweizer, Alexander (1854), Die protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der Reformirten Kirche, Zürich: Orell. Taylor, Charles (2007), A Secular Age, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Van der Zwaag, K. (1999), Onverkort of gekortwiekt? Artikel 36 van de Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis en de spanning tussen overheid en religie: Een systematisch-historische interpretatie van een “omstreden” geloofsartikel, Heerenveen: Groen. Van Ruler, A.A. (1948), De belijdende kerk in de nieuwe kerkorde, Nijkerk: Callenbach. Van Ruler, J.A. (1995), The Crisis of Causality: Voetius and Decartes on God, Nature, and Change, Leiden: Brill.

425

Information about the Authors

Alec Ryrie is Professor of the History of Christianity at Durham University. Polly Ha is Associate Professor of the History of Christianity at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Fred van Lieburg is Professor of Religious History at Faculty of Humanities at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Ole Peter Grell is Emeritus Professor of Early Modern History at Open University in the United Kingdom. Jacob van Sluis studied theology and philosophy at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Until his retirement, he worked as a subject librarian at this university and at Tresoar in Leeuwarden. Jeanette Kreijkes is a PhD student at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Besides, she is a teacher of Latin and Greek. Harm Goris is a senior lecturer systematic theology at the School of Catholic Theology at Tilburg University. Dolf te Velde is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Theological University Kampen and Associate Professor of Historical Theology at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit Leuven. Ariane Albisser is Teaching Assistent for Church History at the University of Zurich. Corné Blaauw is Senior Pastor of Kraaifontein Baptist Church, Cape Town, South Africa. Besides, he is PhD candidate at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Donald Sinnema is Professor of Theology Emeritus at Trinity Christian College, Palos Heights, Illinois. Pieter Rouwendal is publisher at Summum Academic, Methodologist at Theological University Apeldoorn, and Associate Researcher at the same institute.

428

Information about the Authors

Bert Koopman is PhD student at Theologische Universiteit Apeldoorn. Besides, he is active for the journal Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie and the Research Center Puritanism and Piety. Wim Moehn is Professor with a Special Chair in the History of Reformed Protestantism at Protestant Theological University in Amsterdam, and minister in Hilversum. Willem van Vlastuin is Professor of Theology and Spirituality of Reformed Protestantism at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Dean of the Hersteld Hervormd Seminarium and Research Associate at the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South-Africa. Erik A. de Boer is professor of Church History at Theological University in Kampen, the Netherlands, and research associate at the Faculty of Theology of Free State University in Bloemfontein, South Africa. Johannes Smit is assistant-professor in Church Polity at the North-West University (NWU), and connected to the Theological School of the Reformed Churches in South Africa. Sjaak Verwijs is PhD student at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Besides, he is director of the Bond van Nederlandse Predikanten. Leon van den Broeke is Extraordinary Professor Theology of Law and Church Polity at Theologische Universiteit Kampen and Associate Professor Religion, Law and Society at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Dolf Britz is Visiting Professor at the Theological University Kampen and Research Fellow at the Department Philosophy, University of the Free State. Klaas-Willem de Jong served four reformed congregations as a minister and is currently Assistent Professor of Church Polity at the Protestantse Theologische Universiteit in Amsterdam. Henk van den Belt is professor of Systematic Theology at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Director of the Herman Bavinck Center for Reformed and Evangelical Theology and of the Cornelis Graafland Center (Theological Institute of the Reformed League in the Protestant Church in the Netherlands).

Information about the Authors

Joke Spaans is Guest researcher with the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Utrecht University. Pauline Wegener is Research Master’s student Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Utrecht University. Pierrick Hildebrand is an associate researcher at the Swiss Reformation Studies Institute of the University of Zurich. His research and publications concentrate on the theology and history of the Swiss Reformers, especially on the development of early Reformed covenant theology. Volker Leppin is Professor for Church history in Tübingen until the end of July 2021. From August on, he will be Horace Tracy Pitkin Professor of Historical Theology at Yale Divinity School. Arnold Huijgen is Professor of Systematic Theology at Theological University of Apeldoorn.

429

Index

Subjects This index lists the most important occurrences of the selected topics, based on the suggestions by the authors of the chapters. Aborigines 314 Abuse of authority and power 39, 292, 299, 301, 302 Adiaphora 395 Afscheiding 262 Amyraldianism 385, 387, 389 Apostasy 225–242 Arminianism 78, 81, 200, 387, 411 Assurance 151, 203, 213, 228, 359, 368, 377, 417 Atonement 50, 132, 136–139, 141, 173, 183–187, 193–197, 354, 385 Augsburg, Diet and Confession of 27, 30, 396

Baptism 23, 31–32, 80, 211–221, 234, 236, 239, 311, 312, 371, 401, 423 Batavian Rule 313, 314, 316 Belgic Confession see Confessio Belgica Beneficium 278, 279, 282 Bodies of Assistence (organen van bijstand) 299–302 British Empire 317

Calvinism 39–40, 57, 90, 157 Cape of Good Hope/Cape Dutch Church 309–323 Catechesis 363–365, 376, 378 Causa finalis 418 Causa physica debate 173, 177f Cause, Material cause 130, 133, 135, 140

Cause, Meritorious cause 132, 134, 141, 175 Christ’s death, efficacy and sufficiency of 183, 186–187 Christ’s role in election 173f Church and state 266, 267, 273, 274 Collator 278, 282 Collegialism/istic 263, 270 Colonial 309, 312, 314, 316–320, 323 concurrence / concursus 17, 161, 345, 351, 352, 358 Confessio Belgica / Belgic Confession 134, 136, 215, 217, 298, 333, 412, 414 Congregationalists/ism 23, 41, 267, 271 Conscupiscence 115–117, 120 Counterfactual 159, 168–169 Covenant 133, 143, 193, 231–236, 369, 377, 418 Covenant theology 369–371, 377 Cromwellian protectorate 50

Decree 155–171, 350, 351, 352, 353, 355, 358, 399 Delegates Synod of Dordt, Bremen 176–179, 183, 186, 196, 197 Delegates Synod of Dordt, British 30, 62, 173, 183–186, 188, 196, 200 Delegates Synod of Dordt, Hessen 176, 177, 197, 219 Delegates Synod of Dordt, Nassau 176, 196

432

Index

Deputies 291–304 Determinism 107, 159, 345, 346, 348, 350, 351, 353, 359, 417, 421 discipline/disciplinary 45, 70, 90, 92, 262, 267, 268, 272, 328, 329, 331, 336, 337 Discipline Ecclesiastique (Paris, 1559) 329, 333 Doleantie 261, 262, 269, 327, 328, 332, 335, 336 Doctrinal dissension 173f Duel 175 Dutch East India Company 347

Ecclesiology 48, 225, 226, 237, 238, 239, 291, 293, 299, 301, 316, 337, 421 Election see Predestination Election, Fundamentum electionis 416 Emden (1571), synod of 15, 74, 279, 280, 297, 298, 327, 329, 331–335 Eschatology 249, 418 Experiential turn 368–371, 375, 377–378

Fall 97, 111–124, 180, 182, 202, 218, 350, 353, 399, 403, 416 Foreknowledge/God’s knowledge 155–157, 159–170, 396, 398, 399, 401, 402, 406 Forgiveness of sins 135, 136, 138, 195, 205, 213, 235, 354 Formula of Concord 27, 395, 396, 399, 401, 403 Franeker University 11, 85–93, 162, 208, 349, 364 Freedom 152, 156, 159–161, 164, 166–168, 170 Gelderland 13, 148–153, 176, 186, 285 General assembly 28, 292, 295, 300, 316, 320 God’s will 158–168

Golden rule (of reciprocity) 273, 274 Groningen 88, 150–152, 282, 284, 378

Heidelberg Catechism 30, 112, 134, 217f, 350, 378, 414, 420 Heidelberg disputation 394 Helvetic Consensus Formula 383–390 Humiliation 202, 207 Hypothetical universalism 385

Imputation 132, 135, 138 infant baptism 239, 371 Infralapsarianism 89, 180–182 Instrument, Faith as an 130, 133, 135, 421 Israel 243–256 Ius Patronatus 277–286

Justification

129–142, 213, 421–423

Kerken-Ordre 314–319 King James Bible 80

Leiden University 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 130, 138, 161, 181 London Dutch Church 69–73, 76 Lutherans 27, 97, 187, 393–407

Magisterial authority 46–47 Merit 99, 102, 106, 133, 135, 140, 141, 350 Middle Knowledge 155–157, 159–168, 160–162, 165, 167, 169, 170 Ministers, election 279–286 Ministers, payment 279–286 Mission Societies 314, 315 Mömpelgard, Colloquy of 397, 400, 402 Montbéliard, Colloquy of 195

Subjects

Necessity 100, 159, 163, 187, 218, 352, 354 Netherlands Reformed Church (NRC) 332–334, 337 Nicaea, Council of 24, 25, 27, 30, 34

Oefenaars/Oefeningen 365–368, 372–373, 375–376, 378 Ordonnances Ecclésiastiques (Geneva, 1559) 329 Original righteousness 112 Original sin 112, 113, 115–123, 385 Overseas territories 309, 310

Patronage rights 277–286 Perseverance 100, 158, 225–242 Possible worlds 155–157, 159, 167–168 Practical theology 17, 271, 365–368, 372, 374–375, 378–379 Predestination/Election 225–241, 368–370, 378 Preparatory work 199–208 Presbyterianism 40, 48 Preternatural 123 Providence 66, 163, 166, 345, 352, 353, 358 Puritans 70, 71

Quakers

23, 371

Ramism 366, 376 Reformed 155–157, 160, 162–164, 167–170 Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (RCN) 294, 301, 328, 336–338 Refugees 72 Remonstrance 152, 225–242, 421 Remonstrant Brotherhood 347

Repentance 165, 202, 205f 213f, 220, 266, 355, 371 Reprobation 139, 148, 149, 350, 395, 399, 407, 420 Revival 365, 371–372, 376–378

Satisfaction 132, 134–138, 141, 183, 194 Saumur, school of 385, 388 Scholastic terminology 177–178, 183–184, 187 Scientia media see Middle knowledge Scottish Confession 33 Second Book of Discipline 28 Slavery 31, 32, 315 Socinianism 50, 86, 87, 88, 138 South Africa(n) 262, 264, 270, 273, 309–323 State law 267, 268, 273 States-General 277, 283–285, 294 States, provincial 279, 281–283, 285 States Translation (Statenvertaling) 92 Status Confessionis 27, 28 Supernatural 106, 112, 115, 116, 118, 120, 204, 205, 422 Supralapsarianism 89, 173, 180f, 397 Synopsis of a Purer Theology 42–43, 45, 47, 219f, 285

The Hague (1586), synod of 75, 281, 283, 294, 331 Thirty-nine Articles 33, 182–183 Trent, Council of 26, 31, 112, 120–122, 137, 212, 279, 286

Univocity of being 345 Utrecht 148–149, 153, 154, 282

Wesel articles

327–338

433

434

Index

Names

Abbot, George, archbishop of Canterbury 71, 78, 79, 81, 183–186 À Brakel, Wilhelmus 14, 17, 199, 206, 207, 367–369 Acronius, Johannes 88, 89, 91, 282 A Lasco, Johannes 70 Albisser, Ariane 12 Amama, Sixtinus 88, 90 Ames, William 11, 13, 85, 90, 91, 92, 155, 157, 163–164, 169, 199, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 366 Amyraut, Moise 17, 30, 384–390 Andreae, Jacob 195, 397, 399 Anselm of Canterbury 118–122, 125–126 Aquinas Thomas 12, 98, 119–126, 159, 201, 414 Aristotle 98, 102, 115–118, 120–121 Arminius, Jacob 9, 11, 13, 38–39, 43–44, 85, 86, 87, 90,155–157, 159–162, 167–170, 218, 347 Augustine 96, 98–103, 107, 115–122, 126, 200–201, 216, 230, 246–248, 399

Bacon, Francis 364 Baius, Michael 125, 418 Balcanqual, Walter 173, 177–188, 200 Barnaud, Barthélémy 388–390 Barth, Karl 27, 267, 272, 411 Baxter, Richard 50 Becanus, Martin 125 Bede the Venerable 120–121 Beeke, Joel R. 201 Bellarmine, Robert 124–125, 139 Berends, William 64 Berkouwer, G.C. 239 Bertius, Petrus, 88

Beza, Theodore 13, 40, 85, 180, 201, 236, 348 Blaauw, Corné 13 Blakerby, Richard 71 Boekholt, Johannes 373 Boerhaave, Herman 378 Bogerman, Johannes 11, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 173, 175–176, 178–179, 181–182, 184 Bolton, Robert 199, 204 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich 237 Bouwman, H. 9, 261, 263v, 269, 296 Bouwman, M. 269, 270, 337 Brandt, Geeraert 175 Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, Sophia Hedwig 63 Brederode, Walraven van 59 Breitinger, Johann Jakob 175, 177–179, 181 Brink, Gijsbert van den 218 Britz, Dolf 16 Browne, Sir Thomas 30–31 Bucanus, Giulelmus 399 Bucer, Martin 262, 348 Buldaeus, Philippus 311 Bullinger, Heinrich 41, 153, 384–388 Bunyan, John 365, 370, 373, 377 Busschoff, Bernardus 354

Calandrini, Cesar 79 Calvin, John 11, 38, 42, 178, 201, 213–215, 230, 231, 232, 236, 237, 262, 265, 266, 271, 272, 348, 349, 351, 356 Cappel, Louis 385 Carleton, Dudley 78, 91, 173, 179, 183–185, 188

Names

Carleton, George, bishop of Llandaff 175, 181, 183–185, 188, 200 Carpenter, Peter 73 Cecil, William 71 Chemnitz, Martin 395 Chrysostom, John 11, 95–108 Cleaver, Robert 204 Cluto, Johannes 91 Coccejus, Johannes 91, 369 Coertzen, Pieter 262 Collibus, Hippolytus a 133–134 Coolwijck, Cornelis van 281 Corvinus, Johannes Arnoldi (Johannes Arnoldsz Ravens) 356 Cotton, John 208 Cousin, Jean 74 Cranmer, Thomas 70 Crocius, Ludwig 177–178, 186 Cromwell, Oliver 356

Dathenus, Petrus 236, 327–331, 338 Davenant, John 176, 183–185, 200 De Bres, Guy 14, 215–217 De Jong, J. 336 De Beveren, Lambertus 17, 365, 373–375, 377–378 De Boer, Erik 14 De Caron, Noel 77 De Grave, Jean 79 De Groot, Hugo see Grotius De Jong, Klaas-Willem 16 De la Faye, Antoine 138 De la Place, Josué 385 De Mist 313–319, 323 De Molina 313–319, 323 De Molina 13, 155–157, 159–160, 162, 167–169 Den Hartogh, Gerrit M. 301 De Savornin Lohmann, A.F. 332–334, 337 Descartes, René 417

De Soto, Domingo 263, 269 De Vos, D. 263 Diodati, Jean 79 Dod, John 204 Doe, Norman 267 Donner, Johannes 403–406 Donteclock, Reginaldus 143, 248 Driedo, John 122, 124 Drusius, Johannes 88 Du Moulin, Pierre 30 Duns Scotus, John 12, 115, 121–126, 156 Dwinglo, Bernardus 62–65 Dycke, Daniel 204 Dycke, Jeremiah 204

Earl of Leicester 75 Elisabeth, Queen 70, 71 Emden, Synod of 279 Episcopius, Simon 39, 46, 49, 80, 87, 90 Erasmus, Desiderius 175 Eswijler, Johannes 371, 375, 377

Firmin, Giles 203, 208 Flud van Giffen, David 370 Forckenbeck, Bernhardus 87 Fourie, Dirk 270 Funkenstein, Amos 345, 360

Gataker, Thomas 71 Geelkercken, Nicolaas 55, 64, 66 Geelkerken, J.G. 336, 337 Gerhard, Johann 399–400, 403–404, 406 Gerstner, J.N. 236 Ghesel, Cornelius Simonis de 353 Goad, Thomas 79, 181, 183, 185 Goclenius, Rudolphus 176 Gomarus, Franciscus 12, 69, 76, 86, 89, 173–176, 178–186, 188, 347, 348, 357 Goodwin, Thomas 203, 208

435

436

Index

Goris, Harm 12 Goudriaan, A. 227, 229 Greenham, Richard 199, 201 Greijdanus, S. 269, 337 Grell, Ole 11 Grindal, Edmund 70, 73 Grotius (de Groot), Hugo 14, 86, 88, 283

Ha, Polly 10 Habermas, Jürgen 65 Hachting, Johannes 90 Hales, John 59, 173–174, 176, 180, 188 Hall, Joseph 30, 79, 200 Heerbrand, Jakob 402 Heidegger, Johann Heinrich 384–385, 388 Heinsius, Daniel 49, 59, 60 Hellenbroek, Abraham 14, 199, 207 Helmichius, Wernerus 282 Hemmingsen, Niels 14 Heylyn, Peter 30 Hildebrand, Pierrick 17 Hommius, Festus 69, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81 Hooker, Thomas 204, 206, 207, 208 Hooker, Richard 39, 41 Hooijer, C. 331, 333, 334 Hooper, John 70 Hoornbeeck, Johannes 17, 366–369 Hottinger, Johann Jakob 388–389 Huber, Samuel 400–402 Hubmaier, Balthasar 24 Hübner, Petrus 400 Huijgen, Arnold 18 Hulsebos, Adriaan 31 Hunnius, Aegidius 18, 400–404 Hunnius, Nicolaus 393, 400 Hutter, Leonhard 398–400 Huygens, Constantine 80

Iselburg, Hendrik 197 Israel, Jonathan I. 78, 350, 361

Jacob, Henry 71 James VI and I, king of Great Britain 11, 69, 77, 81, 91, 186, 200, 366 Jansen, Joh. 269 Junius, Franciscus 138

Kendall, George 356 Kleyn, A.G. 334 Koelman, Jacobus 203, 208, 285, 373 Koffeman, Leo J. 262, 302 Kohlbrugge, H.F. 12, 131, 225 Koopman, Bert 13 Kreijkes, Jeanette 11 Krotoa, Eva 310 Kuyper, A. 333 Kuyper, H.H. 269

Lamoot, Jan 73 Laurentius, Jacobus 355 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 156, 169, 357 Leppin, Volker 18 Lessius,  Leonard 418 Leydecker, Melchior 14, 199, 207, 208 Liebaert, Carolus 69, 76, 79, 80 Lion Cachet, Frans 320–321 Lubbertus, Sibrandus 11, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 177–180, 188 Luther, Martin 14, 38, 212, 262, 348, 350, 351 Lydius, Martinus 86

Maccovius, Johannes 13, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 155, 157, 162–163, 166, 168–169 Marbach, Johannes 396

Names

Martinius, Matthias 13, 174–179, 186, 188 Mary, Queen 70 Maurice, Prince of Orange 57–59, 61, 63–65, 347, 356 Melanchthon, Philip 395 Menaldum, Sibrandus 91 Metius, Adrianus 91 Meusevoet, Vincent 205 Moehn, Wim 14 Morton, Thomas 78 Muller, Richard 156–157, 163, 169–170, 201 Musculus, Andreas 397, 400 Muys van Holy, Hugo 59, 61, 64

Nassau, Charlotte Brabantine of 59 Nassau-Siegen, Ernst Casimir of 63 Naunton, Robert 185–186 Nauta, D. 16, 303 Nerdenus, Henricus Antonides 86 Netelenbos, J.B. 336 Noordmans, Oepke 419 Norton, John 201, 202 Nye, Philip 203, 208

O’Brien Geldenhuys, F.E. 270 Of Orange, Henry 78 Of Orange, William 280, 283, 330 Oomius, Simon 207 Op ’t Hof, W.J. 203 Osiander, Andreas 139, 397 Osiander, Lucas 397 Overall, John 78 Owen, David 71 Owen, John 49–50, 157, 356 Oxenbridge, John 40

Pareus, David 99–100, 177–178, 197, 393–394 Parma, Margaratha of 415 Pelagius 96, 201 Penry, John 40 Perkins, William 16, 180–181, 199, 201, 204, 208, 349, 351, 16, 180–181, 199, 201, 204, 208, 349, 351, 369–370 Pighius, Albert 214 Piscator, Johannes 138–139 Plomp, Jan 293 Polyander, Johannes 42–47, 180–181 Postma, Dirk 320–321 Primus, John H. 201 Proost, Jonas 71, 76 Prosper of Aquitania 193

Ramsey, John 71 Ravesteyn, Henricus 378 Reifenberg, Justus 91 Rembrandt 91 Reynolds, John 76 Rhala, Henricus 91 Richardson, John 78 Ridderus, Fransiscus 14, 207 Robinson, John 49 Rogers, Richard 199, 201, 203, 204, 205, 208 Rouwendal, Pieter 13 Rutgers, F.L. 9, 16, 261, 328, 332–338 Rutgers, Herman C. 294 Ruyl, Philippus 204 Ruytinck, Simeon 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 330 Ryrie, Alec 10

Saldenus, Guiljenus 207 Sancroft, William 356 Sapma, Dominicus 352

437

438

Index

Schalekamp, M.E. 268 Schilder, K. 337, 338 Schillemans, François 66 Schortinghuis, Wilhelmus 371 Schotanus, Meinardus 91 Schotanus à Sterringa, Christianus 91 Schütte, Johan 14 Schweizer, Alexander 383–384, 390, 421 Scultetus, Abraham 177–179, 185, 188 Shepard, Thomas 204, 208 Sibelius, Caspar 175, 181–182 Sixtus, Rippertus 353, 353 Slatius, Henricus (Hendrick Danielsz. Slaet) 16, 17, 135, 345–354, 355–357, 358–362 Smalley, Paul M. 200 Smijtegelt, Bernardus 14, 207, 208 Smit, Johannes 16 Spinoza, Baruch de 350 Spohnholz, Jesse 327, 328, 330 Socinus, Faustus 87 Sohm, Rudolph 261 Sokolowski, Robert 350, 362 Spaans, Joke 17 Stegmann, Josua 406 Streso, Caspar 355, 366–368 Sturmius, Hubertus 350, 351 Suarez, Francis 125

Taffin, Jean 73, 280 Teellinck, Willem 14, 199, 207, 349 Te Velde, Dolf 12 Thilenius, Wilhelm 71 Thumm, Theodor 403, 406 Thysius, Antonius 178–180 Trabius, Isebrand 74 Travers, Walter 41, 48 Trémoille, Claude of 59 Turretin, Francis 13, 155, 157, 165–166, 168, 170

Tronchin, Théodore 175, 177, 182, 188 Trigland, Jacobus 353, 354

Ulenborgh, Antje 91 Ulenborgh, Saskia 91 Ursinus, Zacharias 85

Van den Belt, Henk 17 Van den Broeke, Leon 16 Van den Sande (Sandius), Johannes 92, 93 Van der Borght, Eddy 298 Van der Hoff, Dirk 320 Van Es, W.A. 337 Van Haemstede, Adriaan van 73 Van Harten-Tip, Anja 10, 14 Van Irhoven, Wilhelmus 17, 365, 374–378 Van Lieburg, Fred 9, 10 Van Lonkhuyzen, J. 337 Van Mastricht, Petrus 14, 199, 205, 206, 207, 208 Van Oldenbarneveldt, Johan 71, 93 Van Riebeeck, Jan 311 Van Roo, Johannes 74, 75 Van Ruler, A.A. 221, 300–302, 413 Van Schelven, A.A. 330, 336 Van Schuylenburg, Gerardus 371 Van Sluis, Jakob 11 Van ’t Spijker, W. 262 Van Winghen, Godfried 73, 74 Van Vlastuin, W. 14, 227 Vedelius, Nicolaus 91 Verboom, Wim 215 Verhel, Arnoldus 90 Verwijs, Sjaak 16 Voetius, G. 14, 17, 79, 199, 206, 261, 269, 270, 285, 332, 335–337, 355, 366–367, 378 Voltaire 357

Names

Vorstius, Conrad 76, 86, 87, 88, 90 Vulcanius, Bonaventura 88

Wagenaar, H.M.J. 15, 299 Walaeus, Antonius 180, 285, 358 Walker, Anna 14 Ward, Samuel 176, 183–186, 200 Waser, Johann Heinrich 59 Wegener, Pauline 17 Weinrich, Thomas 404, 406 Weyts, Pouwels 66

Whitaker, William 76, 78, 181 Wilhelmi, Bartholdus 73 Willett, Andrew 78 William Louis, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg, Frisian stadtholder 93 Winsemius, Menelaus 91 Witsius, Hermannus 14, 199, 207, 208 Wtenbogaert, Johannes 71, 158, 283, 353

Zanchi, Gyrolamo 353 Zwingli, Ulrich 24, 39, 154, 271, 348

439