The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective: Historical and Theological Investigations of the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619 [1 ed.] 9783666570704, 9783525570708

Citation preview

Frank van der Pol (ed.)

The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective Historical and Theological Investigations of the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619 Academic Studies

51

Refo500 Academic Studies Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In Co-operation with Günter Frank (Bretten), Bruce Gordon (New Haven), Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Bern), Tarald Rasmussen (Oslo), Violet Soen (Leuven), Zsombor Tóth (Budapest), Günther Wassilowsky (Linz), Siegrid Westphal (Osnabrück), David M. Whitford (Waco).

Volume 51

Frank van der Pol (ed.)

The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective Historical and Theological Investigations of the Synod of Dordt 1618–1619

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.de. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen 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. Typesetting: 3w+p, Rimpar Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-0165 ISBN 978-3-666-57070-4

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Herman J. Selderhuis „Schepken Christy“ in fremdem Hafen. Die Bedeutung Emdens für den Niederländischen Calvinismus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

Günter Frank Mittelalterliche Tendenzen der Lehre von der Erwählung des Menschen – Eine einführende Übersicht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

Erik A. de Boer Who are the “Predestinatores”? The Doctrine of Predestination in the Early Dutch Reformation (Joannes Anastasius) and Its Sources (Philip Melanchthon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

Antonie Vos Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

Fred van Lieburg Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile. The Acta Synodi Behind the Scenes or the Role of Emotions in the History of Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

Donald Sinnema The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) . . . . . . . . 115 Albert Gootjes The Theologian’s Private Cabinet: The Development and Early Reception of John Cameron’s Universalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

6

Contents

Thomas Kloeckner Die dogmen- und theologiegeschichtliche Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung in der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts am Beispiel Heinrich Alting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Frank van der Pol Genevan Mysteries defended. Two critical examinations of Remonstrant Positions against Calvinistic Perceptions of Predestination: a Comparison 185 Henk van den Belt Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Reformed Orthodox Doctrine of Predestination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Erik A. de Boer The Career of the Canones. An Inventory of Editions of the Canons of Dordt during the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Contributors of the volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Introduction

The 11 essays brought together in this volume originated as lectures from an international conference held at the Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek Emden on Oct. 29.–30. 2014. The conference theme The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective was formulated by the combined research group Early Modern Reformed Theology (EMRT) of the Theological University Apeldoorn and the Theological University Kampen, the Netherlands. The invitation was offered to individual researchers to present papers that with their subthemes reflect their ongoing investigations concerning the doctrine of election, with special focus on the Synod of Dort 1618–19. With the publication of these various contributions four centuries after the Synod of Dort we hope to stimulate further discussion on both this synod and on the doctrine of election. As the focal point for this conference ‘predestination’ was chosen and it is indeed a theme that enables the proceeding of this conference to complement the recent publication of volume one of Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619), an international project in which EMRT participates. The great importance of predestination for a scholarly understanding of Reformed orthodoxy cannot be denied. Important lines of demarcation between different Reformed orthodox groups and denominations find their root divergence, as well as historical concentration point, in relation to this very issue. These differences are both theological and ecclesiastical. New research can open up a fresh field of fertile investigation for ongoing theological discussion. Moreover, this then leads to the development of interdisciplinary perspectives and a cooperative approach to research, not only within, but also beyond the field of theology. This too is the field of historians, those who trace the history of Christianity as much as those studying early modern Europe. There is much that scholarship can derive from new research on this important topic. It was a pleasure to present and discuss these presentations in what was a highly stimulating environment. Because the EMRT-conference was held in the beautiful cultural centre of the Grosse Kirche in Emden, and the conference was a

8

Introduction

collaborative Refo500 project, the volume begins with an introductory contribution about the position of the city of Emden and its meaning for Dutch Calvinism by Herman Selderhuis, professor in church history at the Theological University in Apeldoorn, and director of Refo500. He clearly shows how important this city was for the development of the Reformed Netherlands. The rest of the volume consists of three sections. In the first part, three essays reflect historical and philosophical issues before the Synod of Dort. In ‘Mittelalterliche Tendenzen der Lehre von der Erwählung des Menschen – Eine ein˝ bersicht’ Gu˝nter Frank presents some introductory guidelines for an fu˝hrende U exploration of medieval discussion on the topic of predestination covering the time from Augustine (354–430) and the council of Trent (1545–1563). He concludes that even this council provides a compromise between a strong priority of God’s grace on the one side and a free and active collaboration of human beings with God’s grace on the other, and this compromise anticipated further controversies in the 16th and 17th century. The essay of Erik de Boer, ‘Who are the “Predestinatores”? The Doctrine of Predestination in the Early Dutch Reformation (Joannes Anastasius) and Its Sources (Philip Melanchthon)’ is dedicated to an important phase in the ascent of the doctrine of predestination became, coming to a head in the National Synod of Dort and in its Canons. With focus on one author – Joannes Anastasius Veluanus, who in 1554 published Der leken wechwyser (The Layman’s Guide) – he deals with the question: what is the doctrinal position on predestination in the 1550s in the Low Countries, that is in the period immediately preceding the adoption of the confessional and catechetical documents of the Confessio Belgica (1561) and the Heidelberg Catechism (1563)? In his philosophical contribution ‘Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God’ Antonie Vos focuses on what John Calvin thought on systematic issues and dilemmas, by close examination of Calvin’s counterattack against Pigge’s De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia (1542). Calvin’s Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae (1543) offers unique and detail insight into Calvin’s conceptual structures and systematic position. After comparing Calvin’s position with that of Luther, Vos puts the case that Calvin is explicit in his rejection of any proposition that suggests that predestination ever be said to be contingent. This is the ontological basis of his doctrine of predestination. Reformed scholasticism did not steer via this course. Part Two explores aspects of the Synod of Dort itself. The first paper of this section, written by Fred van Lieburg, concentrates on the dismissal of the Remonstrants. In his ‘Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile. The Acta Synodi Behind the Scenes or the Role of Emotions in the History of Theology’, Van Lieburg answers the question: what exactly happened? He does this by focusing upon just one element of this historical event: Bogerman’s angry exclamation to his opponents. Van Lieburg not only reconstructs this element of the historical event

Introduction

9

that left its mark on Dutch national memory of national and religious history, but he also offers a perspective on the role of emotions in the history of church and theology. Don Sinnema in ‘The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dort (1618– 1619’ investigates the answer that was given by the synod in response to the Arminian (Remonstrant) controversy in the Dutch Reformed churches. The synod, with the assistance of leading foreign theologians, formulated its judgment on the Remonstrant position in the Canons of Dort. The Remonstrant position of election based on foreseen faith, as found in Article I of the 1610 Remonstrance and other writings, was ultimately answered in chapter one of the Canons. Sinnema’s article focuses on the process by which the synod examined the Remonstrant views of election, and on the steps by which the synod formulated its own Reformed response to these views. Special attention is paid to the drafting process for the formulation of Canons article I.7 on the definition of election. The focus of the essays in Part Three is on the reception of the Synod of Dort. In his paper ‘The Theologian’s Private Cabinet: The Development and Early Reception of John Cameron’s Universalism’, Albert Gootjes examines the development, dissemination, and early reception of the universalism of John Cameron, the head of the ‘Saumur theology.’ From Cameron’s theological position, Dort’s view of predestination and the relationship between divine grace and human will in calling are the important issues. Scholars like Brian G. Armstrong and Walter Rex have assumed that Cameron’s universalism was tolerated during his lifetime and only attacked at a later time due to Reformed orthodoxy’s increasing rigidity. Yet on the basis of this analysis, the first ever historical reconstruction of Cameron’s universalism, Gootjes argues that very few of his contemporaries even knew that Cameron entertained universalist ideas while he was alive. It is furthermore demonstrated that when Cameron’s universalism did become known after his death, it was hardly tolerated, arousing immediate concerns. The article closes by offering an account of this initial response to Cameron’s theology. In ‘Die dogmen- und theologiegeschichtlichen Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung in der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts am Beispiel Heinrich Alting’ Thomas Kloeckner provides a reading of Locus IVof the Theologia Historica – an early history of dogma written by the 17th century theologian Heinrich Alting. The paper opens the discussion of Alting’s work by exploring the section entitled “De decretis Dei in genere, deque praedestinatione divina in specie.” Using elaborate argumentation à la Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele’s “gesture of legitimization”, Alting attempts a detailed and stringent portrayal of the orthodox-Reformed view of the doctrine of predestination. Frank van der Pol, in his ‘Genevan Mysteries defended – two critical examinations of Remonstrant Positions against Calvinistic Perceptions of Predestination: a Comparison’ explores two critical examinations of Remonstrant views in

10

Introduction

the debate about predestination the Synod of Dort dealt with. This investigation has particular reference to the Institutiones theologiae practicae, a three-part handbook in Practical Theology, written half a century after the synod by the 17th century Dutch doctor of theology Simon Oomius. His criticism is compared with the reaction of Hieronymus Vogellius, a Reformed minister from the time of the Synod of Dort itself, who had published an exhaustive response to a pamphlet of four Remonstrant ministers on the subject of predestination. In ‘Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Reformed Orthodox Doctrine of Predestination’ Henk van den Belt analyzes the relationship between the nineteenth century theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher and the orthodox Reformed doctrine of predestination. The source for his analysis is Schleiermachter’s essay Über die Lehre von der Erwählung; besonders in Beziehung auf Herrn Dr. Bretschneiders Aphorismen. Because Schleiermachter expressly mentions the Synod of Dort, his position is compared with the Leiden Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, which articulates the Reformed theology of the Synod, containing a ‘disputation’ on predestination. Finally, a second essay of Erik de Boer explores the character of the third confessional document of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands. In ‘The Career of the Canones. An Inventory of Editions of the Canons of Dort during the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Century’ De Boer answers the question: How were the Canons of Dort regarded in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth century, and what does the history of their editions tell us? As program leader of the Early Modern Reformed Theology research group, I had the opportunity to introduce the researchwork of the Apeldoorn and Kampen cooperation to those gathered at the Emden conference. This represents characteristically Reformed concerns. Our institutes, in connecting the disciplines of theology and history, contribute from a long tradition of Reformation research. This is a somewhat unique phenomenon in Early Modern Studies, since social history on the Reformation era and the following reception period often lacks a theological dimension. We are convinced that this dual line of research on history and theology of the Reformation tradition must continue and be strengthened. Reception of the Reformation and its impact upon Reformed Orthodoxy focuses upon theological texts, rooted in the work of early modern universities, but this research also opens the possibility for discussing how Reformed scholastic theology relates to the diverse pietistic movements of that era. We are convinced that the further elaboration of the character and contribution of 16th century Reformed theology in subsequent centuries is also important for Reformed theology today. The relevance of such Reformation-research and of the Reformed theological tradition associated with it, (that is to say via forms of scholasticism and pietism) remains evident for churches wishing to stand in this variegated tradition. But this also has strong relevance for reflection upon politics and

Introduction

11

culture in a society that, in its present state, is still strongly defined by Reformation and post-Reformation theological developments. We wish to do our research in a wider context with a wider dialogue. Therefore we make the proceedings accessible for more people and institutes by publishing them in this volume of the Refo500 Academic Studies Series. We especially thank Sir Christoph Spill of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht for helping to publish this volume. Financial support for the publication of this book came from the Theological University Kampen and from the Stichting Afbouw Kampen, for which we want to thank both institutes.

Kampen, Autumn 2018

Frank van der Pol

Herman J. Selderhuis

„Schepken Christy“ in fremdem Hafen. Die Bedeutung Emdens für den Niederländischen Calvinismus1

1.

Einführung

„Die Niederländischen Kirchen sollen der Kirche von Emden ewig dankbar sein“, so meinte der Groninger Professor für Philosophie in seiner 1651 erschienenen Verhandlung über die Kirchengüter, in der er eine Kirchengeschichte der Niederlande aufnahm.2 „Ewig“ ist zwar sehr lang, aber ein bestimmtes Recht hat diese starke Aussage doch. Emden ist in der Historiographie des Niederländischen Calvinismus ein Begriff und zwar so, dass viele Niederländer nicht mal wissen, dass es eine Deutsche Stadt ist. Ich möchte die Bedeutung Emdens für die Reformierte Kirche in den Niederlanden deutlich machen, indem ich einige wichtige Momente aus der Reformationsgeschichte Emdens verbinde mit den Entwicklungen in den Niederlanden. Damit muss ich aber den umgekehrten Einfluss, nämlich die der Niederlande und der Niederländer auf die Entwicklung von und in Emden beiseite lassen, obwohl dieser Einfluss in anderer Richtung ebenfalls sehr interessant und bedeutend ist.

2.

Luther, Anna und A Lasco 1520–1542

Schon kurz nach Veröffentlichung der 95 Thesen Luthers entstand eine reformatorische Bewegung in Emden. Ab 1520 wurden Werke Luthers öffentlich in Emden verkauft und das war Folge der reformorientierten Politik von Graf Edzard, der übrigens die Messfeier neben dem evangelischen Gottesdienst, der mehr zwinglianisch als lutherisch geprägt war, bestehen liess. Diese Situation 1 Der Vortrag erschien in einer leicht geänderten Fassung auch in Ulrich Wien (Hrsg.), Kirche und Politik an der Peripherie. Reformation und Macht an den „Grenzen“ der deutschen, protestantischen Einflusszone im Vergleich von Frühneuzeit und Gegenwart, Göttingen 2015. 2 Schoock: 1651, 515: „Ecclesiae Embdanae aeternum devotas se esse agnoscere debent ecclesiae Belgicae.“

14

Herman J. Selderhuis

endete, als Edzard 1528 starb, sein Nachfolger Graf Enno II sich gegen die katholische Kirche kehrte und das Luthertum förderte. Dadurch entstanden im Grunde zwei Gruppen, nämlich eine Lutherische und eine mehr auf Zwingli’s Theologie orientierte Gruppe. Nachdem die lutherische Partei kurze Zeit die Oberhand hatte, änderte sich das, als nach dem Tode von Graf Ennos 1542 seine Frau Anna von Oldenburg die Regentschaft übernahm und Gräfin von Ostfriesland wurde. Anna war dem Calvinismus zugeneigt und ernannte den Polen Johannes a Lasco (1499–1560) als Superintendent. Sie beauftragte ihn, die Kirche zu organisieren, damit diese unklare Lage von verschiedenen Sorten von reformatorischen Gruppen ein Ende nahm, musste aber dem Lutheranismus und dem Katholizismus eine konfessionelle Koexistenz erlauben. Der Polnische Adlige A Lasco, der erst aufgrund seines Wechsels zum reformatorischen Bekenntnis Polen verlassen und später auch aus Löwen wegziehen musste, war 1540 nach Ostfriesland gekommen. Er nahm seine Aufgabe ernst und sorgte für ein Konsistorium, den Coetus und die Kirchenzucht.3 Während seiner Amtszeit erreichte die erste Welle von Flüchtlingen die Niederlande. Zu diesen Flüchtlingen gehörten viele Täufer und einige Spiritualisten, die nicht nur in Emden Unterkunft fanden, sondern die Stadt als Basis für ihre Aktivitäten in den Niederlanden nutzten4 Dass Emden als Zufluchtsort gewählt wurde, war nicht so überraschend, weil es schon lange wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Verbindungen mit den Niederlanden gab. Dass Emden als Folge der reformatorischen Entwicklungen und besonders der Politik von Anna eine offene und deshalb besonders konfessionelle Struktur bekam, machte die Stadt für alle, die zwar reformatorisch waren aber nicht einer klaren Richtung angehörten interessant, besonders für solche aus den benachbarten Niederlanden. Schon in dieser kurzen Reformationsgeschichte Emdens lassen sich zwei wesentliche Momente erkennen, die für den niederländischen Protestantismus wichtig waren: Erstens die Tatsache, dass die Werke Luthers über Emder Druck in die Niederlande kamen; zweitens der Coetus, wo sich jeden Montagmorgen die Prediger von Emden versammelten, um gemeindliche Angelegenheiten zu besprechen, aber vor allem um zukünftige Pfarrer auszubilden.

3.

Die Täufer 1542–1549

Der berühmte Melchior Hoffmann (1495–1543) kam 1530 nach Emden, nachdem er dort auch schon im Frühhahr 1529 einmal kurz gewesen war. 1530 aber musste Hoffmann wegen seiner Auffassungen aus Straßburg fliehen, ging nach Emden 3 Jürgens: 2002; Strohm: 2000. 4 Schelven, van: 1909.

„Schepken Christy“ in fremdem Hafen

15

und stiftete dort eine Gemeinde, nachdem sich auf seine Predigten hin in der Grossen Kirche 300 Ostfriesen taufen ließen. Seine Aktivitäten in Emden waren von großer Bedeutung für das Aufkommen und die Verbreitung des Anabaptismus in den Niederlanden. Sein Auftritt zog niederländische Täufer nach Münster und besonders in Zeeland, Holland und Friesland entstanden von Emden aus Täufergemeinden. Hoffmann wurde 1533 aus Ostfriesland ausgewiesen, ging für kurze Zeit nach Amsterdam und von dort nach Strassburg. Schon früh hatte er die Leitung seiner Emder Gemeinde dem Niederländer Jan Volkerts Trypmaker überlassen. Dieser aber wurde schon 1531 ausgewiesen, ging von Emden nach Amsterdam und sorgte für einen großen Zuwachs der Täufer, was zur Gründung einer Gemeinde führte. Diese Gemeinde wurde eine Art Muttergemeinde, denn von hier entstanden in vielen niederländischen Städten Gruppen und Gemeinden von Täufern. In Amsterdam verkündete Trypmaker auch, dass das Ende der Welt nahe sei – was mit dazu beitrug, dass die Täufer hier sich begeisterten, das belagerte Jerusalem in Münster zu befreien und mit 3000 Männern, Frauen und Kindern Richtung Westfalen zogen, eine Aktion die bei Hasselt, nördlich von Zwolle, gestoppt wurde. Emden war auch der Ort, wo versucht wurde die niederländischen Täufer zum Übertritt zum Calvinismus zu bewegen. Im Kolloquium, das A Lasco am 22. Januar 1544 mit Nicholaus von Blesdijk (1520/21–1584), dem wichtigsten Assistenten von David Joris, führte, wurde nicht nur über die Taufe, sondern auch über die Rechtfertigungslehre, die Trinitätslehre und das Abendmahl gesprochen. Eine Woche später fand ebenfalls in Emden ein ähnliches Religionsgespräch statt und zwar mit Menno Simons. Hier wurde vor allem disputiert über die Inkarnationslehre, also über die Frage, ob mit der Inkarnation Christus wirklich Teil hatte am Fleisch Mariens. Die Calvinisten nämlich meinten, dass die Anabaptisten der menschlichen Natur Christi zu wenig Rechnung trügen. Außerdem wurde gesprochen über die Erbsünde, die Heiligung und die Berufung zum Pfarramt. Es gab auch noch andere Disputationen so wie die von Gellius Faber, dem reformierten Pfarrer von Norden in Ostfriesland, an der sich auch Martin Micron und Menno Simons beteiligten. Deutlich ist aber, welche Bedeutung Emden bei dieser Entwicklung hatte, denn nur wegen der offenen Konfessionspolitik Annas kamen Hoffmann sowie auch die Täufer nach Emden, und so wurde Emden zur wichtigen Basis des Niederländischen Täufertums. Hier soll auch der Spiritualismus erwähnt werden. Der einflussreiche Leiter der Spiritualisten Hendrik Niclaes (1502-circa 1580) verblieb nämlich 20 Jahre in Emden. 1540 hatte er in Amsterdam das „Haus der Liebe„ (Huys der Liefde, Familia caritatis) als einen Kreis von Geistesverwandten gestiftet. Von Amsterdam zog es ihn nach Emden, wo er ab den frühen 40er Jahren etwa 20 Jahre als

16

Herman J. Selderhuis

Geschäftsmann arbeitete und mit einem internationalen Briefwechsel seine Kontakte mit Geistesverwandten unterhielt. Nach seiner Zeit in Emden wohnte er noch einige Jahre in Kampen, Rotterdam und Köln. Niclaes sah sich selbst als der Prophet, der von Gott gesandt wurde, um die Welt zu erleuchten. Wie David Joris, rief Niclaes seine Nachfolger dazu auf, sich äußerlich an die örtliche Kirche anzupassen, obwohl er innerlich den Bruch mit ihr vollzogen hatte. Dennoch organisierte er ein Schattennetzwerk von Priestern und Ältesten, dessen Bischof er war. Er lehrte, dass die Bibel nicht Gottes Wort sei, sondern nur Zeugnis des Wortes Gottes. Von Beziehungen zwischen Niclaes und den Emder Täufern ist nichts bekannt. Die Lage in Emden änderte sich als Folge der protestantischen Niederlage im Schmalkaldischen Krieg. Ostfriesland musste am 16. Juli 1549 ein Interim akzeptieren, das A Lasco jedoch nicht anerkennen wollte. Er musste entlassen werden und ging nach London, wo er die Leitung der Flüchtlingsgemeinde übernahm. Anna wurde vom Kaiser verpflichtet, den Täufern die Aufenthaltserlaubnis wegzunehmen und auch diese mussten gehen.

4.

Hafen 1554–1560

In den 50er Jahren erlebte Emden eine erste Welle von niederländischen Flüchtlingen. Die Mitglieder der flämischen Gemeinde in London, die dort Zuflucht gefunden hatten gegen die Spanische Gewalt gegen den Calvinismus in den Niederlanden, wurden von dort 1553 vertrieben als Mary Tudor – auch bekannt als Bloody Mary – die Macht übernahm und mit der Verfolgung der Protestanten begann. Mitten im Winter kamen die Schiffe mit 179 Männern, Frauen und Kindern an die Küste Dänemarks. Dort jedoch verweigerte ihnen die Lutherischen Obrigkeit den Zugang, weil sie Calvinisten waren und also eine ketzerische Abendmahlsauffassung hegten. Die Flüchtlinge mussten wieder in See stechen. Sie beantragten Asyl in Hamburg, was ihnen aber auch dort verweigert wurde. Der lutherische Theologe Joachim Westphal beschimpfte die Flüchtlinge als Märtyrer des Teufels und sein Kollege Johannes Bugenhagen sagte, er würde lieber Papisten unterstützen als diese Calvinisten. Anträge in Lübeck, Rostock und Wismar wurden auf Raten der lutherischen Pfarrer ebenfalls abgelehnt, bis die Flüchtlinge schließlich im Frühling 1554 in Emden Aufnahme fanden5. Dort war 1553 auch A Lasco angekommen und hatte seine Aufgabe als Superintendent wieder aufgenommen. Auch über Land kamen Niederländer nach Emden, und obwohl einige auch aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen kamen, waren die Allermeisten doch Glaubensflüchtlinge. Die Kirche in Emden entwickelte sich bald zum „Genf 5 Pettegree: 1987, 223–252.

„Schepken Christy“ in fremdem Hafen

17

des Nordens„: Wie Genf für die reformierte Kirche in Frankreich, wurde Emden die auswärtige Zentrale für die Niederländische Kirche. Emden wurde von den in Bedrängnis lebenden, kleinen Gemeinden in den besetzten Niederlanden um finanzielle, theologische und personelle Hilfe gebeten. Die für den jungen reformierten Protestantismus so bedeutende Gemeinde in Antwerpen richtete ihre Augen fortwährend auf Emden, wie eine Zahl von Briefen zeigt, in denen die Emder gebeten wurden Rat und Bücher zu schicken. Der Antwerper Pfarrer Caspar van der Heyden, der Schuhmacher war und sich autodidaktisch zum Pfarrer entwickelt hatte, wurde von seiner Gemeinde nach Emden gesandt, um dort die Weiterausbildung zu empfangen. So reiste zum Beispiel in April 1563 auch Herman Moded von Antwerpen nach Emden, um den Brüdern dort eine Reihe von Fragen zur Ordination und Kirchenzucht vorzulegen.6 Aber nicht nur für Antwerpen und die südlichen Niederlande, sondern auch für den Aufbau der Gemeinden in Holland war Emden bedeutend, und auch aus Friesland kam die Anfrage, Pfarrer aus Emden zu schicken.7 Dass Emden Pfarrer auf Vorrat hatte, kam daher, dass diese Stadt der wichtigste Zufluchtsort für reformierte Pfarrer war, aber auch für katholische Geistliche, die zur Reformation wechselten und ihr eigenes Gebiet verlassen mussten. Mit Anfang des Aufstandes in den Niederlanden 1566 flohen tausende, hauptsächlich Calvinisten, sowohl aus den nördlichen als aus den südlichen Niederlanden nach Emden. Eine genaue Zahl dieser zweiten Welle gibt es nicht, aber in der Forschungsliteratur wird für das Jahr 1572 eine Gesamtzahl von 20.000 niederländischen Flüchtlingen genannt. In den 60er Jahren stammte ein Drittel der Emder Bevölkerung aus den Niederlanden, in den 70er Jahren war es sogar die Hälfte. Eine Flüchtlingsgemeinde im eigentlichen Sinne entstand jedoch nicht, weil diejenigen, die nach Emden kamen, sich der existierenden Gemeinde anschlossen, was sprachlich, liturgisch und theologisch kein Problem war.8 Emden funktionierte damit als auswärtiger Hauptsitz des Niederländischen Protestantismus und wurde zur „Mutterkirche„ der Kirchen in den Niederlanden.9 Nicht nur über diese kirchliche Schiene, sondern auch über die politische lief die Bedeutung der Stadt für die Kirche in den Niederlanden. Obwohl nämlich der Emder Handel, der vor allem von der Seefahrt abhängig war, die negativen Folgen des Aufstandes zu spüren bekam, hat Emden diesen Aufstand doch immer unterstützt und militärische und politische Vertreter von Wilhelm von Oranien oft Unterkunft gewährt. Damit hat die Stadt zum Erfolg des Aufstandes und damit 6 7 8 9

Schelven, van: 1909, 77. Schelven, van: 1909, 82. Fehler: 1999, 132. „(…) die zoo beroemde Moeder-gemeente te Emden.“ Harkenroth: 1726, 1.

18

Herman J. Selderhuis

auch zur Verfestigung des Niederländischen Calvinismus beigetragen. Allmählich wurden nämlich der Niederländische Calvinismus und der Aufstand gegen Spanien identifiziert, und es war die bei der Synode von Emden festgelegte Kirchenstruktur von Gemeinde, Classis und Synode, die dafür sorgte, dass sich über die lokalen und regionalen Rivalitäten eine nationale kirchliche Einheit und damit auch ein bestimmtes Nationalgefühl entwickelte. Aus dieser Perspektive zeigt sich der Wert Emdens für die niederländische Kirche über die politische Schiene.

5.

Buch und Bekenntnis: 1550–1570

Die geografische Lage Emdens, mit ihrem freien Hafenzugang und ihrer Nähe zur niederländischen Grenze, machte die Stadt zu einer strategischen Basis für den Calvinismus. Diese Lage und die Präsenz von Druckern, die von Antwerpen über London nach Emden gekommen waren, sorgten dafür dass diese Stadt, wo es vor 1550 keinen Buchdrucker gab, der zentrale Ort wurde für Druckwerke in niederländischer Sprache, und Emden überhaupt das Zentrum der reformierten Buchproduktion wurde. Zwischen 1554 und 1569 wurden hier mehr als 200 Niederländische Buchtitel gedruckt.10 Es ging dabei in vielen Fällen um Übersetzungen von Werken der bedeutenden Reformatoren. Margareta von Parma warnte die Gouverneure in Antwerpen, dass in Emden Übersetzungen von Werken Melanchthons gedruckt wurden, um diese dann in den Niederlanden zu verkaufen und zu verbreiten.11 Kurz nachdem Guido de Brès 1561 seine Confessio Belgica veröffentlichte, erschien 1562 in Emden die erste niederländische Übersetzung als die Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis. Die erste niederländische Übersetzung des Heidelberger Katechismus erschien bereits im Erscheinungsjahr der ersten Deutschen und Lateinischen Fassung 1563 in Emden bei Gillis van de Erven, der 1553 mit den niederländischen Flüchtlingen aus London nach Emden gekommen war. Die Übersetzung war dazu gedacht, den Verfolgten in den Niederlanden und den geflüchteten Niederländern in Deutschland zu helfen. 1566 erschienen in Emden bei zwei verschiedenen Buchdruckern zwei weitere niederländische Ausgaben dieser einflussreichen Ausgabe. Weil der Heidelberger hauptsächlich vom Melanchthonschüler Zacharias Ursinus verfasst wurde, kann gesagt werden, dass über Emden die Melanchthonische Theologie auch die Niederlande erreichte. Auch die erste Niederländische Übersetzung der Institutio

10 Pettegree gibt eine bibliografisch vollständige Übersicht der Bücher, die 1554–1585 in Emden gedruckt wurden. Pettegree: 1987, 252–311. 11 Sepp: 1889, 149.

„Schepken Christy“ in fremdem Hafen

19

Calvins wurde in Emden gedruckt, sowie der Psalter von Jan Utenhove (1520– 1565). Das von der Reformation ausgehende Interesse an der Bibel resultierte in einer Zahl von Bibelübersetzungen, die oft auf eine Privatinitiative zurückgingen. Die meisten niederländischen Übersetzungen wurden in Emden gedruckt. 1566 veröffentlichte Jan Utenhove seine eigene Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments. Drei Jahre später wurde eine verbesserte Ausgabe, bearbeitet von Johannes Dyrkinus, veröffentlicht. Was das Alte Testament betrifft war es Godfrey van Wingen, der eine bearbeitete Fassung von Luther’s Übersetzung des Alten Testaments veröffentlichte. Die beiden Ausgaben von Dyrkinus und Van Wingen wurde die Deux-Aesbibel (1561–1562) genannt, ein Name der sich auf doppelte Augen beim Würfelspiel bezog und zurückging auf Luthers Übersetzung von Nehemiah 3, Vers 5. Diese Deux-Aesbibel ist auch darum wichtig, weil durch sie Wörter aus Luthers Übersetzung im Niederländischen importiert wurden und sie dadurch die niederländische Sprache beeinflusste. Es geht um Wörter wie „gottselig„ und „kleingläubig„. Dass Emden mit diesem Druckbetrieb essentiell war für den Aufbau von Kirche und Glauben in den Niederlanden, braucht keiner weiteren Erläuterung.

6.

Kirche und Ordnung

Emden ist in den Niederlanden vor allem bekannt als Ort der ersten nationalen Synode. Nach Vorbild der Reformierten in Frankreich, wo 1559 in Paris die erste Nationalsynode stattfand, organisierten sich auch sonst in Europa calvinistische Gemeinden nach diesem Modell und organisierten Synoden als Versammlung von Abgeordneten der Ortsgemeinden. Synodale Treffen fanden vor 1571 alle in Antwerpen statt mit Ausnahmen einer Sitzung, die 1566 in Gent gehalten wurde. Wegen der Lage in den Niederlanden konnte man sich für eine Nationalsynode aber nur im Ausland treffen, und so wird berichtet von einem Convent das 1568 in Wesel stattfand, wo sich einige Personen aus Kirche und Politik aus den verschiedenen Flüchtlingsgemeinden trafen zur Vorbereitung einer Nationalsynode, die ein ordentliches kirchliches Leben in den Niederlanden vorbereiten sollte. Dieses Convent van Wesel war selbst noch keine Synode, aber ein Treffen von Personen wie Petrus Dathenus und Marnix von St. Aldegonde (1540–1598), der unter anderem als Bürgermeister von Antwerpen tätig war. Beim Treffen in Wesel wurde auch festgelegt, dass die erste nationale Synode nicht eine Zusammenkunft von Individuen, sondern von Abgeordneten der verschiedenen Gemeinden sein sollte. Auch wurde eine Struktur von Classes und Partikularsynoden beschrieben, die dann effektuiert werden konnte, sobald die Niederlande frei waren. Eine Classis (lateinisch für ‘Flottet’) umfasst eine Zahl von

20

Herman J. Selderhuis

Gemeinden in einer Region; eine Partikularsynode umfasst dann einige Classes. Weitere Absprachen wurden gemacht über die Ämter, die Predigt, die Ausübung der Zucht und die Art und Weise der Feier von Taufe und Abendmahl. Die Artikel von Wesel enthalten eine fast komplette Kirchenordnung, die als Grundsatzbedingung hatte, dass alle Pfarrer mit dem Inhalt der Confessio Belgica und des Heidelberger Katechismus zustimmten. In Wesel wurde auf diese Weise eine kirchliche Struktur vorbereitet, die 1571 in Emden festgelegt wurde, wo vom 4.–12. Oktober jenes Jahres die erste nationale Synode der niederländischen Kirche stattfand. Dass die Wahl auf Emden fiel, hatte verschiedene Gründe. Nah an der niederländischen Grenze war die Stadt wegen des Hafens verkehrstechnisch für die Engländer gut erreichbar. Natürlich war die massive Präsenz niederländischer Calvinisten wichtig, aber auch, dass man jene Tage im Oktober wählte, an denen in Emden Jahrmarkt war und die Ankunft und Anwesenheit von Fremden nicht auffiel. Außerdem gab es in der Emder Kirche Pfarrer und Älteste, die eine weniger strikte Linie in Sachen Kirchenzucht vertraten als diejenigen, die in Wesel die Synode vorbereitet hatten. Wo die Synode in Emden gehalten wurde, hatten diese keinen Grund wegzubleiben. Caspar van der Heyden wurde als Vorsitzender gewählt. Die Synode akzeptierte eine Kirchenordnung nach dem Modell der Französisch Reformierten Kirche. Als prinzipiell für den Verband der Kirchen wurde diese Ordnung als bindend für alle festgelegt. Auch wurde darin festgelegt, dass, was eine Synode beschließt, grundsätzlich Beschluss von jeder einzelnen Gemeinde ist. Dieser verpflichtende Charakter fällt auch deshalb auf, weil es unter den in Emden versammelten eine große theologische Vielfalt gab, die eine Reflektion der Breite innerhalb des europäischen Calvinismus war. Man schaffte es, eine gemeinsame Kirchenordnung aufzustellen, weil man sich zuerst gemeinsam auf die Confessio Belgica und den Heidelberger Katechismus als gemeinsame und bindende Bekenntnisgrundlage geeinigt hatte. Auch das Diakonenamt und die Organisation der Diakonie, wie sie in den Niederlanden gestaltet wurden, ist grundsätzlich durch die Entwicklungen in Emden beeinflusst worden.12 In Emden kamen das Gedankengut von Calvin, das von A Lasco sowie das der niederländischen Flüchtlinge zusammen. Emden bestimmte so das Profil der niederländischen protestantischen Kirche als ein Synodaler Verband von selbständigen Ortsgemeinden, die sich mit schriftlicher Unterzeichnung an Bekenntnis und Kirchenordnung gegenseitig verbunden erklärten und die sich zu Handhabung der Zucht über Lehre und Leben verpflichteten.

12 Fehler: 1999, 286–287.

„Schepken Christy“ in fremdem Hafen

21

Im Hintergrund dieser Synode stand übrigens die Diskussion zwischen einer mehr strikten und einer mehr lockeren Position in Sachen Kirchenzucht. Wilhelm von Oranien gehörte zu den „Rekkelijken„, brauchte aber die „Preciesen„ in seinem Streit gegen Spanien, auch weil diese einflussreich waren und weil sie mehr noch als andere den Aufstand als einen religiösen Streit begriffen, der Sache Oraniens treu und energisch verbunden waren. Dass die „Preciesen„ bei der Synode die Gewinner und die dort vertretenen „Rekkelijken„ die Beschlüsse von Emden ebenfalls unterzeichnet hatten als positive Folge, dass die Front gegen Spanien ungebrochen blieb: Auch dadurch gewann die Emder Synode für die Niederlande an Bedeutung. Dennoch soll die Bedeutung Emdens hinsichtlich dieser Synode nicht überbewertet werden. Emden war zwar der Ort wo diese Synode stattfand, Stadt und Kirche Emdens blieben dieser Synode jedoch fern, wahrscheinlich aus politischen Gründen, besonders aus Angst um Alva.13 So gibt es in den Kirchenratsprotokollen dieses Jahres keinen einzigen Hinweis auf diese Synode.14 Trotzdem ist Emden gerade wegen dieser Synode zum Lieu de Memoire für die niederländische Kirche geworden.

7.

Zum Schluss

Die Bedeutung Emdens für den niederländischen Calvinismus ist offensichtlich, aber nach Adriaen van Haemstede, dem Verfasser des bekannten Märtyrerbuches, sollte diese Bedeutung auch nicht überschätzt werden. Er schreibt Als wir nach Emden kamen, wurde mir die Stadt verboten. Es ist aber ein armer Vogel der nur ein Nest hat. Das Erdreich und alles was drin ist gehört dem Herrn. Verbietet man mir eine Stadt, mein Gott und Vater hat mehrere Tausend davon und ich werde wohnen wo er will.“15

Es gab tatsächlich mehr Nester als nur Emden, aber die Vögel des niederländischen Calvinismus flogen vor allem hier ein und aus. Wie wichtig Emden den Niederländern war, sieht man in dem Gedenkstein, der über einer Tür in der Großen Kirche, der heutigen Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek, bis heute zu sehen ist. Er zeigt ein Schiff, es ist das Schiff der Kirche Christi, und rund herum stehen die Worte: Gods kerk vervolgt, verdreven, Heft God hyr Trost gegeven. „Trost“, so heißt es, und nicht „Haven“, denn das Schiff war auf Durchreise. Ziel waren die

13 Fehler: 1999, 116. 14 Die Kirchenratsprotokolle wurden von Hein Schilling in 2 Bänden herausgegeben: Schilling: 1989–1992. 15 Hessels:1897, 145.

22

Herman J. Selderhuis

Niederlande, aber ohne diesen Zwischenhalt in Emden war dieses Ziel undenkbar.

8.

Bibliographie

Fehler, Timothy G. (1999), Poor Relief and Protestantism. The Evolution of Social Welfare in Sixteenth-Century Emden, Aldershot: Ashgate. Harkenroth, Eilardus Folcardus (1726), Geschiedenissen behoorende tot de Moeder-Kerke in Emden en Oost-Friesland, Harlingen: Frederik Schotsman. Hessels, Joannes Henricus (1887–1897), Ecclesiae Londino-Batavae Archivum, Tom. III, Cantabrigiae: Typis Academiae, sumptibus Ecclesiae Londino-Batavae. Jürgens, Henning P. (2002), Johannes a Lasco in Ostfriesland. Der Werdegang eines europäischen Reformators, (Spätmittelalter und Reformation; N.R. 18), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pettegree, Andrew (1987), The London Exile Community and the Second Sacramentarian Controversy, 1553–1560, in: ARG 78 (1987), 223–252. Schelven, van, A. A. (1909), De Nederduitsche vluchtelingenkerken der 16e eeuw in Engeland en Duitschland in hunne beteekenis voor de Reformatie in de Nederlanden, ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Schilling, Heinz und Schreiber, Klaus-Dieter (1989–1992), Die Kirchenratsprotokolle der Reformierten Gemeinde Emden, 1557–1620, 2 Bände, Ko¨ ln: Böhlau Verlag. Schoock, Marten (1651), Liber de bonis vulgo ecclesiasticis dictis, Groningen: J. Claessen. Sepp, Christiaan (1889), Verboden Lectuur: Een drietal Indices librorum prohibitorum, Leiden: E.J. Brill. Strohm, Christoph (2000), Johannes a Lasco (1499–1560). Polnischer Baron, Humanist und europäischer Reformator, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Günter Frank

Mittelalterliche Tendenzen der Lehre von der Erwählung des Menschen – Eine einführende Übersicht

1.

Grundlegung der lateinischen Prädestinationslehre bei Augustin

Die christliche Lehre von der Erwählung (electio) des Menschen zum ewigen Heil, bzw. der Verwerfung (reprobatio) zu einer ewigen Verdammnis hat ihren theologischen Ort in der Gnadentheologie und hier insbesondere in der Doktrin von der Prädestination des Menschen. Für die mittelalterlichen (und neuzeitlichen) Diskussionen richtungsweisend wurden die Leitlinien, wie sie Augustin, vor allem derjenige der antipelagianischen Kontroversen vermittelt hatte, wobei an dieser Stelle nicht weiter die Frage verfolgt werden muss, in welcher Hinsicht man von einem Bruch im Denken Augustins im Jahre 397 sprechen kann.1 Hatte der antimanichäische Trend, gerichtet gegen den manichäischen Determinismus, in den Schriften „Der freie Wille“ (388–395) und „Auslegungen einiger Sätze aus dem Römerbrief“ (394/395) noch seinen Ausdruck darin gefunden, dass Augustin im Horizont der Theodizeefrage die Freiheit des Willens entschieden betont hatte, und zwar als einzig mögliche Erklärung für das Böse, und in diesem auch jenen Verdienst gesehen hatte, der als Lohn das ewige Heil und als Strafe die ewige Verdammnis bewirke, so lässt sich ein Umschwung von dieser bedingten in eine unbedingte Prädestination in seiner Schrift „An Simplicianus über verschiedene Fragen,“ (396/397) feststellen. In seinen Anmerkungen zu Röm 9:10– 29, in denen Paulus über die Erwählung Jakobs und die Verwerfung Esaus handelt, findet sich eine deutliche Betonung der göttlichen Tätigkeit und eine Abwertung der menschlichen Fähigkeiten. Danach gründet der Beschluss Gottes

1 Vgl. die folgenden Einführungen und Übersichten: Kraus: 1977; ders.: 1995, 188–262; ders.: 1999, 468–474; Evans:1997, 110–118; Lamberigts: 1999, 677–679; Lange van Ravenswaay: 1990, 21–35; zur Entfaltung der augustinischen Gnaden- und Prädestinationslehre ausführlich auch Groh: 2003, 291–379.

24

Günter Frank

zur Erwählung nicht mehr in den Verdiensten des Menschen, sondern die Erwählung gründet allein im Beschluss Gottes (electio ex proposito).2 Augustin hatte diese These von der Erwählung allein aufgrund des Beschlusses Gottes durch zwei Grundprinzipien zu begründen versucht, einerseits durch die Vorgängigkeit und die Macht der Gnade Gottes, andererseits durch die weitgehende Ohnmacht des Menschen. Wenn er in seinem Schreiben „An Simplicianus“ festhält „vor allem Verdienst ist die Gnade“3, so drückt Augustin seine neu gewonnene Überzeugung von der Vorgängigkeit der Gnade aus, d. h. Gottes Wirken geht in jeglicher Hinsicht dem menschlichen Wirken voraus. Die göttliche Gnade ist in jeder Hinsicht ein vorausgehendes Inspirieren und Schenken. Hinzu kommt Augustins Überzeugung von der Unwiderstehlichkeit der Gnade, d. h., die Gnade wirkt niemals vergeblich, sie setzt sich gegenüber dem menschlichen Willen durch, so dass niemand Gottes Willen widerstehen kann. Das zweite, neue Grundprinzip der augustinischen Gnadenlehre besteht nunmehr in der Erkenntnis der Ohnmacht des Menschen infolge der Erbsünde, die Augustin in Auseinandersetzung mit Pelagius traduzianistisch mit der Schlussfolgerung deutet, dass die Menschen eine Masse der Sünde seien, die aufgrund dieser Sünde allein Verdammung verdienten. „So ergibt sich die endgültige, ständig wiederholte Formel: Aus Gerechtigkeit sind alle verdammt, aus Barmherzigkeit sind einige erwählt; den Erwählten kommt Gott durch die Gnade zu Hilfe, die Nicht-Erwählten belässt er in ihrem Zustand.“4 Damit hatte Augustin das Grundanliegen seiner Prädestinationslehre gefunden, das er Zeit seines Lebens kämpferisch verfochten hatte: Prädestination als die rein gnadenhafte und unwiderstehliche Erwählung (electio), die aus der verlorenen „massa damnata“ wenige Menschen zum ewigen Leben erwählt. In der über zwei Jahrzehnte anhaltenden Polemik gegen die Pelagianer und die seit dem Ende des 16. Jahrhundert als Semipelagianer bezeichnete Gruppe5 hatte Augustin seine Prädestinationslehre noch einmal präzisiert und radikalisiert, wie er sie insbesondere in seinen beiden Schriften der Jahre 428/429 „Die Vorherbestimmung der Heiligen“ (De praedestinatione sanctorum) sowie „Die Gabe der Beharrlichkeit“ (De dono perseverantiae) dargelegt hatte. Hier hatte Augustin vor allem das strikte Gegenüber zwischen Gott und dem Menschen weiter betont mit dem ausdrücklichen Ziel, „dass der Mensch erniedrigt und Gott allein erhöht werde.“6 Diese Perspektive wurde verstärkt durch seine Lehre einer absoluten Prädestination, die dazu führte, dass die Vorgängigkeit der Gnade zu ihrer absoluten Gratuität, die unbegrenzte Macht der Gnade zu ihrer absoluten Irresti2 3 4 5 6

Augustin, Ad Simplicianus, I.2.6 (CC 44, 31). Augustin, Ad Simplicianus, I. 2.7 (CC 44, 32). Kraus 1995, 211; Leeming: 1930, 58–91. Mahlmann: 1997, 118–160, hier: 133; vgl. darüber hinaus: Conrad Leyser: 1999, 761–766. Augustin, De praedestinatione sanctorum 5, 9 (PL 44, 967).

Mittelalterliche Tendenzen der Lehre von der Erwählung des Menschen

25

bilität sowie die Ohnmacht des Menschen zur völligen Verderbtheit übersteigert wurde. Die absolute Gratuität der Prädestination erreicht Augustin dadurch, dass er die Vorherbestimmung als ein reines Geschenkt begreift, den freien Willen des Menschen, an dem er zwar immer formal festhielt, letztlich aufhebt und selbst die „Vorbereitung des Willens“ (praeparatio voluntatis) als alleinige Aktivität Gottes begreift. Prädestination unter dieser Hinsicht bedeutet für Augustin, dass alle zur Erlangung des ewigen Heils notwendigen Gaben sich allein der Gnadeninitiative Gottes verdanken und dem menschlichen Willen keinerlei Verdienst zukommt. Indem in seinem Bemühen, die Infallibilität der Prädestination zu gewährleisten, die Allmacht Gottes unendlich ausgedehnt wird, tritt zweitens eine völlige Determinierung des Menschen zu Tage, die den Menschen nicht nur dem alleinigen Geschick der göttlichen Prädestination ausliefert, sondern sogar die Notwendigkeit zum Sündigen der Nicht-Erwählten in Kauf nimmt. Augustins mit der Erbsündenlehre verbundene Vorstellung, dass Gott nur eine bestimmte Zahl von Menschen zum ewigen Heil bestimmt hat, bedingt prinzipiell einen begrenzten göttlichen Heilswillen, denn alle nicht gnadenhaft zum ewigen Heil bestimmten Menschen verbleiben in der aufgrund der Erbsünde gerechten „massa damnata“. Die Synoden in Karthago 418 und Orange 529, denen die Lehrstreitigkeiten zwischen Augustin und den Pelagianern zur Entscheidung vorgelegt worden waren, entschieden zwar weitgehend zugunsten der augustinischen Anthropologie und Gnadentheologie; der Pelagianismus und Semipelagianismus waren damit keineswegs ausgelöscht, wie die anhaltenden Diskussionen in Südfrankreich (Johannes Cassian, ca. 360 – ca. 432, Faustus von Reji, ca. 410 – ca. 495, Vinzenz von Lérins, gest. vor 459) und im irischen Mönchtum zeigen sollten.7

2.

Grundlinien der mittelalterlichen Diskussionen

Im 9. Jahrhundert entbrannte der Streit um die Gnadenthematik erneut, ausgelöst durch Gottschalk den Sachsen, dessen Lehre von einer doppelten Prädestination großen Anstoß erregte. Gottschalk betonte mit dieser Lehre im vermeintlichen Anschluss an Augustin, dass Gott von Ewigkeit her die Einen zur Rettung, die Anderen zur Verdammnis bestimmt.8 Der zuständige Erzbischof Hinkmar von Reims beauftragte daraufhin den iro-schottischen Hoftheologen Johannes Scotus Eriugena mit der Erstellung eines Gutachtens „De divina

7 Ausführlich hierzu: Kraus: 1995, 218–221; Groh: 2003, 362–371. 8 Kraus: 1995, 222 f; Kottje: 1995, 955–957; Genke, 2010 Genke: 2010.

26

Günter Frank

praedestinatione“.9 Zwar wurden einige Aussagen des Eriugena selbst von den Synoden in Valence 855 und Langres 859 verurteilt; sein wichtigster philosophischer Beitrag jedoch zur Prädestinationsproblematik bestand in seiner Annahme, dass man von Vorherwissen und Vorherbestimmung im Blick auf Gott nur in einem uneigentlichen Sinn sprechen könne, da diese Begriffe nur unter der Voraussetzung einer zeitlichen Dimension sinnvoll seien, während es für Gott weder Vergangenheit, Gegenwart, noch Zukunft gebe. Eriugena kommt zu dem Schluss, dass eine doppelte Prädestination unhaltbar sei, weil sie nicht nur den freien Willen des Menschen aufhebe, sondern auch Gott in Verbindung mit dem Ursprung des Bösen bringe. Anselm von Canterbury (gest. 1109) behandelt in seinen beiden Schriften „Über die Willensfreiheit“ (De libertate arbitrii10) und „Über die Vereinbarkeit des Vorherwissens, der Vorherbestimmung und der Gnade Gottes mit dem freien Willen“ (De concordia praescientiae et praedestinationis et gratiae Dei cum libero arbitrio11) die Prädestinationsproblematik unter einer zweifachen Fragestellung: dem Verhältnis von göttlicher Gnade und menschlicher Freiheit sowie die Beziehung von göttlicher Vorherbestimmung und menschlicher Willensfreiheit. Die erste Fragestellung ergibt sich für ihn aufgrund des Schriftbezugs, denn manchen Aussagen der heiligen Schrift zufolge sei der freie Wille im Hinblick auf das Heil nutzlos, geschenkt vielmehr allein aus Gnade, während manche andere Stellen wiederum das menschliche Heil auf den freien Willen gründen.12 Anselm hingegen will zeigen, dass der freie Wille mit der Gnade zugleich bestehe und mit dieser in vielem zusammenwirke.13 Dafür geht er alle Schriftstellen durch mit dem Ergebnis, „dass die Heilige Schrift, wenn sie etwas zugunsten der Gnade sagt, keineswegs den freien Willen ausschaltet, und wenn sie zugunsten des freien Willens redet, sie nicht die Gnade ausschließt.“14 Dieses Zusammenwirken von Gnade und Willensfreiheit wird daraufhin näher bestimmt, wobei Anselm davon ausgeht, dass durch den Sündenfall die Willensfreiheit nicht grundlegend zerstört ist. Aber der Wille ist unfähig geworden, sich dieser Freiheit recht zu bedienen. Hier setze dann die Notwendigkeit der Gnade an, und zwar in zwei Phasen. Zunächst schenke Gott in der Taufe die Gnade der Rechtheit des Willens ohne jegliches vorausgehendes Verdienst. In der zweiten Phase wird die Gnade als nachfolgende Hilfe gewährt, damit der Wille auch die empfangene Rechtheit 9 Goulven Madec (ed.): 1978, Iohannis Scotti, De divina praedestinatione liber; vgl. hierzu Schrimpf: 1982, 819–865. 10 Anselm von Canterbury, Opera omnia, I, 201–226; dt. Teilübersetzung: Allers: 1936, 499–524; lat.-engl. Ausgabe Hopkins and Richardson: 1967. 11 Anselm von Canterbury, Opera omnia, II, 243–288; dt. Teilübersetzung Allers, 525–563. 12 Anselm von Canterbury, De Concordia, III, 1. 13 Ebd. 14 Anselm von Canterbury, De Concordia, III, 5.

Mittelalterliche Tendenzen der Lehre von der Erwählung des Menschen

27

bewahren könne. So gelte also: „wie also niemand die Rechtheit ohne das Zuvorkommen der Gnade empfängt, so bewahrt sie auch keiner außer durch das Nachfolgen dieser Gnade (…). Denn der freie Wille besitzt und bewahrt sie nur durch zuvorkommende und nachfolgende Gnade.“15 Die Vereinbarkeit von göttlicher Vorherbestimmung und menschlicher Freiheit wird von Anselm eng an die Frage nach dem Vorherwissen Gottes gebunden, das von ihm insofern näher bestimmt wird, als er erklärt, dass Gott jedes Geschehen nach dessen wesensgemäßer Art vorausweiß. Und so wisse er die Handlungen des freien Willens gerade als freie Handlungen voraus, d. h. „Gott weiß etwas als zukünftig voraus, das ohne jede Notwendigkeit eintritt.“16

3.

Die Systematisierung der Prädestinationslehre bei Thomas von Aquin

Mit dem 13. Jahrhundert gewinnt im Zusammenhang mit der Neuentdeckung der Schriften des Aristoteles eine Synthese von Augustinismus und Aristotelismus Bedeutung auch in der Theologie, wie sie besonders in der Dominikanerschule sichtbar wird. Als ihr Hauptkennzeichen hatte Georg Kraus eine Ontologisierung der Gnadenlehre beschrieben, d. h. die Fragestellungen in der Gnadenlehre wurden mit Seinsbestimmungen der aristotelischen Philosophie zu bestimmen versucht. Nach dem Form-Materie-Schema wird die Gnade als die übernatürliche Form verstanden, welche die Materie der menschlichen Natur bestimmt. Dieses Konzept hat wirkungsgeschichtlich Thomas von Aquin entfaltet; es wurde im 16. Jahrhundert, aber auch in der Neuscholastik des 19. Jahrhunderts innerhalb der katholischen Tradition neu belebt. Gleichwohl hatte man lange Zeit übersehen, dass sich in dem umfangreichen Œvre des Aquinaten durchaus beachtliche Differenzen zeigen, die sichtbar machen, dass er selbst eine Entwicklung in seinem Verständnis von Gnade, Prädestination und freiem Willen durchgemacht hat. Georg Kraus hat in einem umfangreichen Kapitel diese Entwicklung rekonstruiert.17 Ich fasse hier seine wesentlichen Aspekte zusammen. Danach zeige sich ein thomanisches Frühstadium im Sentenzenkommentar (1254–1256), in dem die menschliche Leistungsfähigkeit im Gnadengeschehen betont werde und Thomas mithin eine bedingte Prädestination lehre. In einem Übergangsstadtium der „Untersuchungen zur Wahrheit“ (1256–1259) und der „Summe wider die Heiden“ (1258–1260) verlagere sich der Schwerpunkt der thomanischen Diskussion auf die Allwirksamkeit Gottes, die 15 Anselm von Canterbury, De Concordia, III, 4. 16 Ebd. I, 1. 17 Kraus: 1977, 59–96.

28

Günter Frank

ihn zu einer unbedingten Prädestination führe. In seinem Endstadium der „Summe der Theologie“ (1267–1273) entfalte Thomas ein geschlossenes Lehrsystem, in dem die Prädestination in einem streng geschlossenen System expliziert wird, die Prädestination selbst als Teil der Providenz, als alleiniges und unfehlbares Werk des göttlichen Willens, als liebende Erwählung weniger und das Gegenteil, die Reprobation, als zulassende Verwerfung verstanden werde. In seinem Frühstadium des Sentenzenkommentars plädiert Thomas entschieden für eine positive natürliche Vorbereitung des Menschen auf die Rechtfertigungsgnade und für eine bedingte Prädestination. Da die Gnade hier verstanden wird als habituelle Form, gilt nach dem aristotelischen Form-Materie-Schema, dass die Form nur wirksam werden kann, wenn die Materie, d. h. der Mensch oder der menschliche Wille dazu disponiert. In voller Autonomie disponiert also der Wille zur Gnade, so dass hier mit einer gewissen Notwendigkeit gilt: „Dem, der tut, was in seinen Kräften steht, folgt von Gott die Gnade.“18 Zwar ist auch in dieser Vorbereitung eine gewisse göttliche Hilfe notwendig, aber nur indem Gott als Erstursache wirke. Aber grundsätzlich gilt für Thomas in dieser frühen Phase seiner Theologie, dass der Mensch auch nach dem Sündenfall das sittlich Gute aus eigenem Vermögen, d. h. ohne Gnade tun kann.19 Dies zeige sich exemplarisch am Beispiel des Glaubens: sobald der Mensch die Inhalte des Glaubens durch äußere Belehrung oder Erleuchtung genügend erkenne, liegt es in der Fähigkeit seines Willens, zum Akt des Glaubens überzugehen.20 In dieser Phase steht für Thomas also fest, dass es eine natürliche Vorbereitung auf die Gnade gebe und Gott nur in einem allgemeinen, nicht in einem speziellen Sinn wirke, d. h. Gottes Wirken ist nur mittelbar und äußerlich für den Willen. Wiederholt wurde in der Forschung Thomas‘ Position in dieser Zeit in die Nähe des Semipelagianismus gerückt.21 Daneben mündet Thomas‘ Position in dieser Phase in die Lehre einer bedingten Prädestination, denn in der Erörterung der Frage, wie es zur Vorherbestimmung und zur Verwerfung Einzelner komme, lehrt er vor dem Hintergrund des neuplatonischen Prinzips des Dionysios „Gott verhält sich, soweit es an ihm liegt, gleich gegenüber allen“22 dass die positive oder negative Wahl Gottes bedingt sei durch das verschiedene Verhalten der Menschen. Zur Erklärung, wie der allgemeine Heilswille Gottes zu einem partikularen wird, unterscheidet 18 Thomas von Aquin, Sent. II, d. 28, q. 1 a 4. 19 Thomas von Aquin, Sent. II, d. 28 q. 1 a: „Et ideo aliis consentiendo dicimus, quod ad gratiam gratum facientem habendam ex solo libero arbitrio se homo potest praeparare: faciendo enim quod in se est, gratiam a Deo consequitur. Hoc autem solum in nobis est quod in potestate liberi arbitrii constitutum est.“ 20 Thomas von Aquin, Sent. II, d. 28, q. 1 a. 4 ad 4. 21 Vgl. hierzu die Hinweise bei Kraus: 1977, 63 f; ders.: 1995, 230. 22 Thomas von Aquin, Sent. I d 40 q 2 a. 1 arg. 6.

Mittelalterliche Tendenzen der Lehre von der Erwählung des Menschen

29

Thomas zwischen einem „vorausgehenden Willen“ (voluntas antecedens) und einem „nachfolgenden Willen“ (voluntas consequens). Während sich der „vorausgehende Wille“ auf die Menschen allgemein bezieht, ist der „nachfolgende Wille“ konkret auf die Zustimmung und Vorbereitung zum Heil bzw. dessen Ablehnung zu beziehen.23 Weil aber die Prädestination diesen „nachfolgenden Willen“ mit einschließt, erhalten die menschlichen Leistungen den Charakter meritorischer Akte und bedingen folglich die Prädestination.24 In der zweiten Phase der thomanischen Theologie läßt sich eine stärkere Betonung der Allwirksamkeit Gottes unter Einschränkung der menschlichen Willensfreiheit und eine Tendenz zu einer unbedingten Prädestination beobachten. In den „Quaestiones disputatae de veritate“ erachtet Thomas zur Vorbereitung eine besondere Wirksamkeit Gottes für notwendig, auch wenn den natürlichen Kräften des Menschen hier noch ein positiver Ursachencharakter (causa dispositiva) zukommt.25 In der „Summa contra gentiles“ werden nunmehr und bleibend die natürlichen menschlichen Kräfte wesentlich bestritten.26 In den Kapiteln 147–163 des dritten Buches hält Thomas vielmehr fest, dass der Mensch sich durch seine natürlichen Kräfte nicht die Glorie verdienen könne, ebenso wenig wie die Gnade auch am Anfang der Rechtfertigung und des Glaubens. Dem freien Willen komme nunmehr nur noch ein kleiner Spielraum von Autonomie zu. Für die Vorbereitung der Gnade ist nunmehr eine besondere Hilfe Gottes (auxilium divinum; auxilium divinae gratiae27) nötig. Die positiven natürlichen Kräfte des Menschen zur Vorbereitung der Gnade werden nunmehr deshalb herausgestellt, um die Allwirksamkeit Gottes zu betonen, die auch zu einer Neuformulierung der Prädestinationslehre führt. Denn die Betonung der Allwirksamkeit Gottes führt unverkennbar zu einer völligen Unabhängigkeit und Unfehlbarkeit bei der Prädestination, mithin zur unbedingten Prädestination. Die Unabhängigkeit Gottes in der Wahl zwischen den „electi“ und den „reprobati“ begründet Thomas

23 Thomas von Aquin, Sent. I d 46 q. 1 a 1. 24 Thomas von Aquin, Sent. I d 41 q. 1 a 3 ad 5: „Ad quintum dicendum, quod in intellectu praedestinationis includitur voluntas consequens quae respicit opera non quasi causam voluntatis, sed sicut causam meritoriam gloriae, et sicut praeparationem ad gratiam.“ 25 Thomas von Aquin, De veritate q 24 a 15: „Unde, si homo per liberum arbitrium non potest se ad gratiam praeparare, facere quod in se est, non erit praeparare se ad gratiam. Si autem per gratiam gratis datam intelligant divinam providentiam, qua misericorditer homo ad bonum dirigitur; sic verum est quod sine gratia homo non potest se praeparare ad habendum gratiam gratum facientem.“ 26 Thomas von Aquin, Summa contra Gentiles, III, cap. 147: „Per hoc autem excluditur error Pelagianorum qui dixerunt quod per solum liberum arbitrium homo poterat Dei gloriam promereri.“ 27 Thomas von Aquin, Summa contra Gentiles, III, c. 149.

30

Günter Frank

nun ausdrücklich darin, dass es „von Ewigkeit her durch Gott angeordnet“28 sei. Allein der Wille Gottes gilt fortan als Grund für die unterschiedliche Bestimmung des Menschen zum Heil oder zur Verdammnis.29 Gleichzeitig lehrt Thomas entschieden die Unfehlbarkeit Gottes bei der Erwählung oder der Verwerfung. Diese Unfehlbarkeit wird nun in der willensmäßigen Anordnung Gottes begründet, weil Gott hier in absoluter Macht (potentia absoluta) handele. Dass eine solche Position in eine starke Spannung mit der menschlichen Willensfreiheit gerät, hat Thomas klar gesehen. Um das daraus entstehende Dilemma zu beseitigen, beruft er sich auf folgende Prinzipien: Gott bewege alles nach seiner Art (secundum modum suum), den freien Willen des Menschen nach Art der Kontingenz, d. h. der Freiheit und nicht der Notwendigkeit. Diese Art ist aber von Gott selbst gewollt, also bleibt sowohl die Unwiderstehlichkeit des göttlichen Willens als auch die menschliche Willensfreiheit anerkannt.30 In den Quaestiones 22 und 23 seines ersten Buches der „Summa theologiae“ fasst Thomas nunmehr in einer späten Phase seine unbedingte Prädestinationslehre in einem kohärenten System zusammen. Die Allwirksamkeit Gottes wird in der Providenz als „Plan der Hinordnung der Dinge auf das Ziel“31 begründet, der alles „unterliegt, nicht nur im allgemeinen sondern auch im besonderen“32 Da aber die Wirkweise der Providenz zu unterscheiden sei hinsichtlich eines Planes der Ordnung (ratio ordinis) und ihrer Ausführung (executio ordinis), die auch „gubernatio“ genannt werde, wirkt Gott von Ewigkeit her unmittelbar schöpferisch alles, während in der Zeit erfolgende Wirkungen über Mittelinstanzen verlaufen.33 Damit glaubt Thomas auch, die Freiheit des Ge28 Thomas von Aquin, Summa contra Gentiles, III, c. 163: „(…) omnia autem quae a Deo aguntur, ab aeterno per eius sapientiam provisa et ordinata sunt, (…).“ 29 Thomas von Aquin, Summa contra Gentiles, c. 161: „Hoc enim ex simplici voluntate eius dependet: (…)“ 30 Thomas von Aquin, De veritate q 6 a 3 ad 3: „Ad tertium dicendum, quod corpus caeleste agit in haec inferiora necessitatem quasi inducens, quantum est de se; et ideo effectus eius necessario provenit, nisi sit aliquid resistens. Sed Deus agit in voluntate non per modum necessitatis, quia voluntatem non cogit, sed movet eam non auferendo ei modum suum, qui in libertate ad utrumlibet consistit: et ideo, quamvis nihil divinae voluntati resistat, tamen voluntas, et quaelibet alia res, exequitur divinam voluntatem secundum modum suum, quia et ipsum modum divina voluntas rebus dedit, ut sic eius voluntas impleretur; et ideo quaedam explent divinam voluntatem necessario, quaedam vero contingenter, quamvis illud quod Deus vult, semper fiat.“ 31 Thomas von Aquin, Summa theologiae, I, 22, 1: „Ipsa igitur ratio ordinis rerum in finem, providentia in Deo nominator.“ 32 Thomas von Aquin, Summa theologiae, I, 22, 2: „Sed necesse est dicere omnia divinae providentiae subiacere, non in universali tantum, sed etiam in singulari.“ 33 Thomas von Aquin, Summa theologiae, I, 22, 3: „Quantum igitur ad primum horum, Deus immediate omnibus providet. Quia in suo intellectu habet rationem omnium, etiam minimorum, et quascumque causas aliquibus effectibus praefecit, dedit eis virtutem ad illos effectus producendos. Unde oportet quod ordinem illorum effectuum in sua ratione pra-

Mittelalterliche Tendenzen der Lehre von der Erwählung des Menschen

31

schehens innerhalb der Providenz zu sichern. Die Prädestination wird als ein spezieller Teil der Providenz betrachtet (pars providentiae), und zwar als ein Plan der Hinüberführung (ratio transmissionis) der vernünftigen Kreatur zum Ziel des ewigen Lebens, so dass Thomas definiert: „Die Prädestination ist ein gewisser, im Geist Gottes existierender Plan der Hinordnung einiger zum ewigen Heil.“34 Alles Geschehen, auch die Erwählung des Menschen zum Heil bzw. seine Verwerfung, ist damit begründet in der Allwirksamkeit des göttlichen Willens, deren einziger Grund die Güte ist35, ohne dass gleichzeitig – vermittelt durch Zweitursachen und Zwischeninstanzen – der freie Wille des Menschen aufgehoben wäre, auch wenn der Mensch den verdienstlichen Charakter seiner Willensakte nicht als Grund oder Voraussetzung der Prädestination verstehen kann36 wie Thomas ausdrücklich im Gegensatz zu den Pelagianer betont. Die Prädestination vollzieht sich mithin in einer absoluten Gratuität. Der Zusammenhang von Allwirksamkeit des göttlichen Willens und der menschlichen Willensfreiheit steht bei Thomas auf einem schmalen Grad. Denn auf der einen Seite behauptet er, dass „die Prädestination (…) auf sicherste und unfehlbare Weise ihre Wirkung“ erreiche, ohne jedoch irgendeine Notwendigkeit aufzuerlegen.37 Dabei wird der Zusammenhang bestimmt durch die Unterscheidung, dass Gott auf die Dinge nach ihrer Eigenart einwirke, und zwar auf kontingente Weise. Daher werde die Willensfreiheit auch nicht aufgehoben.38 Diese unfehlbare Sicherheit der Prädestination schließt nach Thomas ausdrücklich auch die Zahl der Prädestinierten und der Verworfenen ein. Im Anschluss an Augustin legt er sich sogar fest, dass aufgrund der allgemeinen Ursünde nur die „wenigen“ das ewige Heil erlangen, während die „meisten“ dieses

34 35

36 37 38

ehabuerit. Quantum autem ad secundum, sunt aliqua media divinae providentiae. Quia inferiora gubernat per superiora; non propter defectum suae virtutis, sed propter abundantiam suae bonitatis, ut dignitatem causalitatis etiam creaturis communicet.“ Thomas von Aquin, Summa theologiae, I, 23, 2: „Unde manifestum est quod praedestinatio est quaedam ratio ordinis aliquorum in salutem aeternam, in mente divina existens.“ Thomas von Aquin, Summa theologiae, I, 23 a. 5 ad 3: „Ad tertium dicendum quod ex ipsa bonitate divina ratio sumi potest praedestinationis aliquorum, et reprobationis aliorum. (…) Sed quare hos elegit in gloriam, et illos reprobavit, non habet rationem nisi divinam voluntatem.“ Thomas von Aquin, Summa theologiae, I, 23, 5: „Unde et id quod est per liberum arbitrium, est ex praedestinatione.“ Thomas von Aquin, Summa theologiae, I, 23, 8: „Respondeo dicendum quod praedestinatio certissime et infallibiliter consequitur suum effectum, nec tamen imponit necessitatem, ut scilicet effectus eius ex necessitate proveniat.“ Thomas von Aquin, Summa theologiae, I, 23, 6: „Dictum est enim supra quod praedestinatio est pars providentiae. Sed non omnia quae providentiae subduntur, necessaria sunt, sed quaedam contingenter eveniunt, secundum conditionem causarum proximarum, quas ad tales effectus divina providentia ordinavit. Et tamen providentiae ordo est infallibilis, ut supra ostensum est. Sic igitur et ordo praedestinationis est certus; et tamen libertas arbitrii non tollitur, (…).“

32

Günter Frank

Ziel verfehlten.39 Und zur Begründung, wie diese „electio“ der wenigen mit dem universalen Heilswillen (1 Tim 2:4) zusammenzuschauen ist, greift er die im Sentenzenkommentar entwickelte Unterscheidung zwischen dem vorausgehenden (antecedenter) und dem nachfolgenden (consequenter) Willen auf. Während der vorausgehende Wille auf etwas nur irgendwie (secundum quid) bezogen ist, bezieht sich der nachfolgende Wille auf etwas in seiner Bestimmtheit (simpliciter). Für die Prädestination bedeutet dies: vorausgehend will Gott, dass jeder Mensch gerettet wird; nachfolgend, entsprechend seiner Gerechtigkeit und unter Berücksichtigung aller Umstände, will er, dass manche verdammt werden.40

4.

Die „voluntaristische“ Prädestinationslehre der Franziskanerschule

Nun gab es neben dieser eher an augustinisch-aristotelischen Kategorien angelehnten Tradition, wie sie in dem Lehrgebäude des Aquinaten ihren systematischen Höhepunkt fand und die bei diesem seit seinen mittleren und späteren theologischen Überlegungen immerhin auch zu einer unbedingten Prädestination geführt hatte, noch eine zweite, eher an augustinisch-franziskanischen Überlegungen orientierte Tradition vor allem unter Franziskanertheologen selbst.41 Während man in der ersten Richtung gewöhnlich von einem Vorrang des göttlichen Verstandes auch in der Prädestinationslehre spricht, gelte in der zweiten Richtung, die man auch nach deren Begründer als scotistische Schule bezeichnet, der Vorrang des göttlichen Willens. Hinsichtlich dieser zweiten Richtung, die seit dem Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts und im 14. Jahrhundert weit verbreitet war, hatte man in der Vergangenheit nicht selten von einem göttlichen Voluntarismus gesprochen, in dem alle moraltheologischen einschließlich der prädestinationstheologischen Überlegungen letztlich allein auf einem Willkürakt 39 Thomas von Aquin, Summa theologiae, I, 23, 7: „Et ideo oportet dicere quod numerus praedestinatorum sit certus Deo non solum formaliter, sed etiam materialiter. (…).Cum igitur beatitudo aeterna, in visione Dei consistens, excedat communem statum naturae, et praecipue secundum quod est gratia destituta per corruptionem originalis peccati, pauciores sunt qui salvantur. Et in hoc etiam maxime misericordia Dei apparet, quod aliquos in illam salutem erigit, a qua plurimi deficiunt secundum communem cursum et inclinationem naturae. 40 Thomas von Aquin, Summa theologiae, I, 23, 4 ad 3: „Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri antecedenter, quod non est simpliciter velle, sed secundum quid, non autem consequenter, quod est simpliciter velle.“ 41 Vgl. zum Folgenden ausführlich: Dettloff: 1959, 17–28; ders.:1963; ders.: 1964, 197–210; Ernst: 1972.

Mittelalterliche Tendenzen der Lehre von der Erwählung des Menschen

33

Gottes beruhen sollten.42 Hier werde dann die Frage nach Gottes Freiheit, seiner Allmacht und die Vernunftbezogenheit seiner Entscheidungen zugespitzt, nicht zuletzt auch in einer neuen Profilierung der in der Scholastik allgemein vertretenen Unterscheidung zwischen einer „potentia dei absoluta“ und der „potentia dei ordinata“, die zu dem im Scotismus geläufigen Axiom führte, „nihil creatum formaliter est a deo acceptandum“. Daraus wurde dann bei Duns Scotus, Wilhelm Ockham und Gabriel Biel das voluntaristische Prinzip abgeleitet, „Gott will etwas nicht, weil es recht oder gerecht ist, sondern es ist recht oder gerecht, weil Gott es will.“43 Und vor diesem Hintergrund müsse dann die Prädestinations-, Akzeptations- und Verdienstlehre im Scotismus begriffen werden. Allerdings hat sich in der Forschung auch gezeigt, dass die Kritiker dieser voluntaristischen Tradition in unzulässiger Weise die göttlichen Attribute auseinander gerissen haben. Denn der Hintergrund aller Überlegungen dieser Tradition besteht in der Annahme der absoluten Simplizität Gottes, die darin kulminiert, dass im Gottesbegriff Wesen, Intellekt und Wille real und formal nicht unterschieden sind. Wille und Verstand können also in Gott nicht gegenübergestellt werden, weil sie mit dem Wesen Gottes identisch sind. Dies zeige sich schon in der Rechtfertigungslehre des Duns Scotus, dessen Kernstück die sog. Akzeptationstheorie darstellt, die vor allem die Fragen zu beantworten suchte, worauf es letztlich beruhe, dass Gott einen Menschen zum ewigen Leben erwähle und ob es bestimmte menschliche Handlungen gebe, die als für das ewige Leben meritorisch gelten können.44 Denn vor dem Hintergrund des scotistischen Axioms „nihil creatum formaliter est a Deo acceptandum“ scheint klar, dass nichts Geschaffenes, d. h. nichts Außergöttliches im strengen Sinne Gott nötigen könnte, den Lohn des ewigen Lebens zu verleihen. Schon Duns Scotus hatte die Rechtfertigungs- und Prädestinationslehre eng mit der Gotteslehre verbunden: der erste und einzig notwendige Gegenstand des göttlichen Willens ist das Wesen Gottes, ist Gott selbst. D. h., allein Gott ist absolut vollkommen; dies darf jedoch nicht als eine Art Willkür verstanden werden, denn da das Wesen Gottes seine absolute Gutheit ist, kann er im eigentlichen Sinn auch nicht über einen zu einem verkehrten Wollen fähigen Willen verfügen. Der mit dem Wesen Gottes identische Wille Gottes kann also nichts anderes sein als ein absolut guter Wille. Angewandt auf das scotistische Axiom „nihil creatum formaliter est a deo acceptandum“ bedeutet dies, dass für Gott – absolut gesehen – keinerlei Notwendigkeit bestehe, einen Menschen, selbst wenn er in der Gnade stehe, mit dem ewigen Leben zu belohnen. Da zu dem 42 Ausführlich mit entsprechenden Belegen bei Ernst, bes. 182 f, Anm. 150. 43 Gabriel Biel, Epithoma pariter et collectorium circa quattuor sententiarum libros, I d. 17 q. 1 a 3 dub. 4 coroll. 1 L: „Nec enim quia aliquid rectum est aut iustum ideo vult, sed quia deus vult ideo iustum et rectum.“ (Zit. nach Ernst, 208, Anm. 215). 44 Ausführlich hierzu Werner Dettloff: 1954.

34

Günter Frank

Gnadenhabitus, wie er dem Menschen eingegossen ist, jedoch auch das Gutsein gehört und jedes Gute das Gutsein des göttlichen Wesens nachahme, „müsse“ Gott gewissermaßen wegen dieses Gutseins das ewige Leben schenken. Das geschehe aber so, weil Gott es so angeordnet habe (de potentia dei ordinata) und nicht weil es absolut so sein muss (de potentia dei absoluta). An sich könne es auch sein, dass Gott einen rein natürlichen, nicht unter Beteiligung der Gnade stehenden Menschen mit dem ewigen Leben belohne. D. h. der eigentliche Grund für die Verdienstlichkeit der menschlichen Handlungen (ratio meriti) besteht in der göttlichen Akzeptation. Strittig war in diesem Zusammenhang die Frage, in welcher Hinsicht der Mensch überhaupt über einen freien Willen, vor allem nach dem Sündenfall verfügt, der ihn dann auch dazu befähigte, verdienstliche Akte zu setzen. In einem allgemeinen Sinn war man in der Scholastik von einem solchen freien Willen überzeugt. Thomas von Aquin begründete diese Willenfreiheit darin, dass ohne sie Rat, Ermahnung, Gebot, Verbot, Lohn und Strafe vergeblich wäre.45 Ähnlich argumentierte auch Wilhelm Ockham, wenn er hervorhob, dass Lob und Tadel, Verdienst und Schuld ein freies Subjekt voraussetzen würden.46 Dieser Überlegung hatte sich auch Gabriel Biel angeschlossen.47 Für dieses Freiheitsverständnis konnte man sich auf Johannes Damascenus berufen, für den jene Dinge, die hinsichtlich unseres Handelns oder Nichthandelns in unserer Macht stehen, Objekte des freien Willens waren.48 Diese Freiheit zum nicht notwendigen Handeln wurde dann auch als das Prinzip von meritum und demeritum begriffen. Im Raum stand jedoch gleichzeitig die theologische, von Augustin radikal zugespitzte Frage, ob der Mensch durch den Sündenfall eine solche Verkehrung zum Schlechten erfahren hatte, dass er in dieser Situation zu nichts anderem als der Sünde fähig sei. Diese Frage – dies hat gerade die jüngere Forschung herausgestellt – wurde auch in der Philosophie heftig diskutiert unter dem Stichwort der Willensschwäche (akrasia).49 Gabriel Biel etwa hatte – nicht anders als Thomas von Aquin – die Erbsünde als das Fehlen der Urstandsgerechtigkeit verstanden, die jedoch nicht dazu geführt hätte, dass die natürliche Rechtheit und Freiheit verloren gegangen sei, auch wenn es in diesem Status eine Neigung zum Bösen gäbe.50 Zur Ausübung dieser Freiheit ist jedoch die von Gott unverdient verliehene „gratia gratis data“ unerläßlich.

45 Thomas von Aquin, Summa theologiae I q. 83 a. 1. 46 Wilhelm Ockham, Quodlibeta septem una cum tractati de sacramento altaris, 1 q. 16. 47 Gabriel Biel, Epithoma pariter et collectorium circa quattuor sententiarum libros, II d. 25 q. u. a. 3 dub. 2 M. 48 Johannes Damascenus, De fide orthodoxa, lib. 2 cap. 22 (PG 94, 946, 962). 49 Tobias Hoffmann: 2006; Risto Saarinen: 1994; Idem: 2011. 50 Ausführlich hierzu Ernst: 1972, 310–320.

Mittelalterliche Tendenzen der Lehre von der Erwählung des Menschen

35

Was in dieser Tradition im Einzelnen für die natürlichen Möglichkeiten des menschlichen Willens abgeleitet wurde, hatte schon bei Thomas Bradwardine und Gregor von Rimini, dann aber auch in der neueren Forschung zu der Annahme geführt, dass diese offen oder verdeckt zu einem Semipelagianismus führe, weil sie im Blick auf die Erwählung des Menschen zu viel auf die natürlichen Fähigkeit des menschlichen Willens setze.51 Luther jedenfalls sah in Biels Lehre von der Willensfreiheit im Zusammenhang der Vorbereitung auf die Gnade eine Verfälschung der biblischen Lehre vom göttlichen und menschlichen Zusammenwirken und hatte diese deshalb verworfen.52 Biels Antworten auf die in diesem Zusammenhang in der Scholastik breit diskutierten Fragen, ob der freie Wille ohne die Gnade sittlich gute Akte wählen, die Gebote erfüllen, neue Todsünden meiden, Gott über alles lieben und sich auf den Empfang der Gnade disponieren kann, sind nicht frei von einer semipelagianischen Tendenz.53 Bei der Beurteilung dieser Fragen muss jedoch berücksichtigt werden, dass – wie Biel von Scotus und Ockham übernommen hatte54 – ein Akt der menschlichen Freiheit nur deshalb meritorisch ist, weil der Grund nicht im Akt als solchem liegt, sondern im Willen Gottes, der angeordnet hat, dass er in Freiheit diesen Akt als einen meritorischen akzeptiert.55 D. h., die göttliche Akzeptation ist der alleinige Grund für die Verdienstlichkeit von Akten der menschlichen Freiheit. Im spätmittelalterlichen Augustinismus wurden die Fragen der Prädestination im Zusammenhang der Gnadenlehre breit diskutiert.56 Dies gilt auch für den Augustinertheologen Johannes von Staupitz, der an dieser Stelle aufgrund seiner Bedeutung für die persönliche und theologische Entwicklung Martin Luthers wenigstens Erwähnung finden soll.57 Adolar Zumkeller hat vor dem Hintergrund von teilweise unedierten Quellen zeigen können, dass Staupitz wie Augustin die Prädestination als Ausfluss der göttlichen Barmherzigkeit gesehen hatte, die zum Lobe Gottes beitrage. Gegenüber einer Betonung dieser Barmherzigkeit trete dagegen die Reprobation ganz in den Hintergrund. In seiner Schrift „Libellus de exsecutione aeternae praedestinationis“ aus dem Jahr 1517 versteht Staupitz unter der göttlichen Prädestination die Erwählung (electio) und Vorherbestim51 Zur Diskussion Ernst: 1972, 320–322. Darüber hinaus: Evans: 1997, 110–118, bes. 117 f; Leff: 1957; Burger: 1981, 195–240; Vignaux: 1934. 52 Luther, WA 1, 147 f; WA 1, 224–227; WA 7, 38–148; WA Br 1, 65, 18. 53 Ernst diskutiert Biels Thesen im Gegenüber zur weit radikaleren Position Gregors von Rimini. Ernst: 1972, 325–334. 54 Dettloff: 1963. 55 Biel, Epithoma pariter et collectorium circa quattuor sententiarum libros, I d. 17 q. 3 a. 3 dub. 1 F: „Admisso quod actus meritorius et non meritorius possunt esse eiusdem rationis essentialis sed non accidentalis, est tamen ratio diversitatis sola divinia voluntas dei sic ordinantis.“ 56 Vgl. hierzu: Zumkeller: 1984; Wriedt: 2007, 9–38. 57 Ausführlich hierzu: Zumkeller: 1994, bes. 72–80.

36

Günter Frank

mung (praedestinatio) einer Anzahl von Menschen zur Verähnlichung mit dem Bild des Sohnes Gottes (ad conformitatem imaginis Filii Dei). Prädestination ist für ihn die „prima gratia“, die der Natur und jedem Werk vorausgehe, die niemand erbitten oder verdienen könne, die weder wegen vorausgesehener noch wegen vollbrachter guter Werke geschuldet ist. Sie hat ihren Grund allein im gütigsten und freisten Willen Gottes (sola benignissima liberrimaque Dei voluntas). Das Konzil von Trient stellt einen gewissen lehramtlichen Abschluss dieser breiten mittelalterlichen Debatte vor dem Hintergrund der reformatorischen Gnadenlehre (sola gratia) dar. In dem 1547 publizierten „Dekret über die Rechtfertigung“58 verfolgte das Konzil eine zweifache Intention. Auf der einen Seite betonte es die bedingungslose Priorität der Gnade, die christologisch und pneumatologisch begründet wird59, und verwirft ausdrücklich pelagianische und semipelagianische Vorstellungen60. Auf der anderen Seite lehrte es das freie, aktive Mitwirken des Menschen mit der Gnade Gottes.61 Dass mit diesen lehramtlichen Entscheidungen gleichwohl dies Diskussionen um die Prädestination keinesfalls beendet waren, zeigen die Gnadenstreitigkeit seit dem Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts.62

5.

Literatur

Allers, Rudolf (1936), Anselm von Canterbury. Leben, Lehre, Werke, Wien: ThomasVerlag Jakob Hegner. Aquin, Thomas von, Summa theologiae, I, Sent.II, De veritate. Summa contra Gentiles, in: Opera Omnia, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog: 1980 Augustin, Aurelius (1970), De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, CC 44, Mutzenbecher (ed.), Almut: Brepols. Augustin, Aurelius (1865), De praedestinatione sanctorum, PL 44, Paris: Migne. Biel, Gabriel (1501), Epithoma pariter et collectorium circa quattuor sententiarum libros, Tübingen: Otmar. Burger, Christoph P. (1981), Der Augustinschüler gegen die modernen Pelagianer: Das ‚auxilium speciale dei‘ in der Gnadenlehre Gregors von Rimini, in: Gregor von Rimini. Werk und Wirkung bis zur Reformation (hrsg. v. Heiko A. Oberman), Berlin / New York: De Gruyter. Damascenus, Johannes, De fide orthodoxa, lib. 2 cap. 22, PG 94, Paris: Migne.

58 59 60 61 62

Vgl. hierzu: Jedin: 1957, bes. 258–262; Jedin: 1985, bes. 491–495; Kraus: 1995, 248–251. DH 1528. DH 1551–1553, 1572. DH 1521; 1525 f; 1554; 1556; 1576. Kraus: 1995, 253–257.

Mittelalterliche Tendenzen der Lehre von der Erwählung des Menschen

37

Dettloff, Werner (1959), Die Geistigkeit des hl. Franzismus in der Christologie des Johannes Duns Scotus, in: WiWei 22, 17–28. Dettloff, Werner (1963), Die Entwicklung der Akzeptations- und Verdienstlehre von Duns Scotus bis Luther mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Franziskanertheologen, Münster: Asschendorff. Dettloff , Werner (1964), Das Gottesbild und die Rechtfertigung in der Schultheologie zwischen Duns Scotus und Luther, in: WiWei 27, 197–210. Dettloff, Werner (1954), Die Lehre von der acceptatio divina bei Johannes Duns Scotus mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtfertigungslehre, Werl: Coelde. Ernst, Wilhelm (1972), Gott und Mensch am Vorabend der Reformation. Eine Untersuchung zur Moralphilosophie und –theologie bei Gabriel Biel, (EThSt 28), Leipzig: St. Benno Verlag. Evans, Gillian R. (21997), Art. Prädestination IV. Alte Kirche und Mittelalter, in: TRE 27 110–118. Genke Victor (2010), (ed. and transl.), Gottschalk and a medieval predestination controversy. Texts translated from the Latin, Milwaukee/Wis.: Marquette University Press. Groh, Dieter (2013), Schöpfung im Widerspruch. Deutungen der Natur und des Menschen von der Genesis bis zur Reformation, Frankfurt a.M.: Nikolaus Häring. Hoffmann, Tobias u. a. (2006), Das Problem der Willensschwäche in der mittelalterlichen Philosophie, Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales, Bibliotheca 8, Leuven: Peeters. Hopkins, Jasper, and Richardson, Herbert Warren (ed. and transl.) (1967), Anselm of Canterbury: Truth, Freedom and Evil. Three Philosophical Dialogues, New York: Harper & Row. Jedin, Hubert (1957), Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, Bd. II: Die Erste Trienter Tagunsperiode (1545/47), Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Jedin, Hubert (1985), Katholische Reform und Gegenreformation, in: HKG 4. Kottje, Raymund (1995), Art. Gottschalk der Sachse, in: LThK 4, 955–957. Kraus, Georg (1977), Vorherbestimmung, (Ökumenische Forschungen II., V.), Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Kraus, Georg (1995), Gnadenlehre – Das Heil als Gnade, in: Glaubenszugänge. Lehrbuch der Katholischen Dogmatik, Bd. 3 (hrsg. v. Wolfgang Beinert), Paderborn: F. Schöningh. Kraus, Georg (31999), Art. Prädestination. II. Theologie- und dogmengeschichtlich – III. Systematisch-theologisch, in: LThK 8, 468–474. Lamberigts, Mathijs (1999), Art. Predestination, in: Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, gen. Ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, 677–679, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Lange van Ravenswaay, J. Marius (1990), Augustinus totus noster. Das Augustinverständnis bei Johannes Calvin, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, Bd. 45), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht. Leeming, Bernard (1930), Augustine, Ambrosiaster and the Massa Perditionis, in: Gregorianum 11, 58–91. Leff, Gordon (1957), Bradwardine and the Pelagians, Cambridge: University Press. Leyser, Conrad (1999), Art. Semi-Pelagianism, in: Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, gen. Ed. Allan D, Fitzgerald, 761–766, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Martin, Luther (1883), Kritische Gesamtausgabe, WA 1; 7; WA Br 1, Weimar 1883f.

38

Günter Frank

Mahlmann, Theodor (21997), Art. Prädestination. V. Reformation bis Neuzeit, in: TRE 27 118–160. Ockham, Wilhelm (1491), Quodlibeta septem una cum tractati de sacramento altaris, Argentinae: s. ind. typ. Saarinen, Risto (1994), Weakness of the Will in Medieval Thought: From Augustine to Buridan, Leiden: E.J. Brill. Saarinen, Risto (2011), Weakness of Will in Renaissance and Reformation Thought, Oxford: University Press. Schrimpf, Gangolf (1982), Der Beitrag des Johannes Scotus Eriugena zum Prädestinationsstreit, in: Die Iren und Europa im frühen Mittelalter (hrsg. von Heinz Löwe), 819– 865, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Scotti, Iohannis (1978), De divina praedestinatione liber, (CCCM, Bd. 50), Goulven Madec (ed.), Turnhout: Brepols. Vignaux, Paul (1934), Justification et Prédestination au XIVe siècle. Duns Scot, Pierre d’Auriole, Guillaume d’Occam, Grégoire de Rimini, (Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Sciences Religieuses, Vol. 48), Paris: E. Leroux. Wriedt, Markus (2007), Via Augustini – Ausprägung des spätmittelalterlichen Augustinismus in der observanten Kongregation der Augustinereremiten, in: Luther und das monastische Erbe (hg. v. Christoph Bultmann, u. a.), 9–38, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Zumkeller, Adolar (1984), Erbsünde, Gnade, Rechtfertigung und Verdienst nach der Lehre der Erfurter Augustinertheologen im Spätmittelalter, (Cassiciacum, Bd. 35), Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag. Zumkeller, Adolar (1994), Johannes von Staupitz und seine christliche Heilslehre, (Cassiciacum, Bd. 45), Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag.

Erik A. de Boer

Who are the “Predestinatores”? The Doctrine of Predestination in the Early Dutch Reformation (Joannes Anastasius) and Its Sources (Philip Melanchthon)

What is the trajectory of theological development in which the doctrine of predestination, defined as election and reprobation, became so prominent in the Remonstrant and Contra-Remonstrant debates in the Netherlands, coming to a head in the National Synod of Dordrecht 1618–1619 and in its Canons? From an early date this doctrine featured in article 16 of the Confessio Belgica (1561) and, more soft spoken, in the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), where election is mentioned in the context of ecclesiology (Lord’s Day 21). The Remonstrants pleaded revision of these two “forms of unity” of the Reformed Church, primarily keeping in mind the development of the doctrine of predestination. The present essay is dedicated to the question: what is the doctrinal position on predestination (in relation to other heads of doctrine) in the 1550s in the Low Countries, preceding the adoption of the confessional and catechetical documents mentioned?1 Only very few theological, didactical, or devotional works were published in the first decades of the Dutch Reformation. For example, the catechetical Corte Instruccye ende onderwijs by Cornelis van der Heyden (1545) did not mention predestination. The first work to address this topic is Der leken wechwyser (The Layman’s Guide), published in 1554, by the former priest Jan Gerritsz. Versteghe in 1554, who published under the name Joannes Anastasius Veluanus. We thus try to answer the research question while focusing on one author, and tracing the theological discourse in which he engaged. The theme of Anastasius’ position on predestination may seem a trodden path to Dutch theologians. After all, was he not hijacked by the Remonstrants as 1 See Van Oppenraaij: 1906, 44–48. During the English Reformation in 1538, an English translation of one of Erasmus Sacerius’ works (published in 1538; again in 1553 and 1557) only touches upon predestination and free will (Hargrave: 1966, 30f). During the reign of Edward VI a Bartholomew Traheron, following John Calvin’s lead, corresponded with Bullinger on providence and predestination and published on the matter in 1557 (Hargrave: 1966, 40f). In the county Kent in 1549, John Lambert published a short treatise, Of Predestination & Election, in which he expounded a double predestination. In the same year the so-called “Freewillers” established themselves in Kent and Essex (Hargrave: 1966, 50f).

40

Erik A. de Boer

witness to a broad Dutch (and not foreign), Erasmian kind of theology and, therefore, scolded by Trigland as “the patriarch of the Arminians”? Was he not rediscovered in the 19th and early 20th century and presented as an example of Erasmian domestic theology (F. Pijper, G. Oorthuijs, J. Lindeboom)?2 It is worthwhile to revisit Der leken wechwyser on predestination and free will, and to address the question of Anastasius’ sources. The focus of earlier studies has been on Heinrich Bullinger’s influence.3 Recent study into Anastasius’ later works has pointed to his own study of the Church Fathers and his study of other Reformers (Morsink: 1986). The present theological-historical essay is structured as follows. 1. Biography: Jan Gerritsz Versteghe – Joannes Anastasius Veluanus. 2. Theology: free will and foreordination. 3. Anastasius’ sources: Philip Melanchthon & John Calvin. 4. Cyril, Augustine and the auctoritas patrum. 5. History of editions and readership of Der leken wechwijser. 6. “Wirkungsgeschichte”: Veluanus as “patriarch of the Remonstrants”? 7. Inventory of extant editions of Der leken wechwijser in the Netherlands.

1.

The author of The Layman’s Guide (Der leken wechwijser)

Jan Gerritsz. Versteghe (John, son of Gerrit, of the Steeg) was born c. 1520 in the hamlet Stroe, in the Veluwe region in the County of Gelderland. He was chaplainpriest (“vice–cureyt”) in the village Garderen. Under pressure by inquisitor Franciscus Sonnius he renounced the reformed faith which he had begun to preach in early 1550. Out of remorse over his abjuration he rewrote the book Der leken wechwyser, of which the earlier manuscript had been confiscated, and he published it in 1554 as Joannes Anastasius Veluanus, as a testimony of his rebirth (It was printed in Wesel by Joost Lambrecht).4 Anastasius Geldrus, as he henceforth called himself, went to serve the reformed cause in the German territories (Rostock, Wesel, and Düsseldorf). Around that time he began his work as 2 For an evaluation of the historiographical school see Blom and Misset 1989, 221–232. For the place attributed to Joannes Anastasius Veluanus in Dutch historiography of the Reformation see Nauta: 1981, 206–227. 3 Veluanus’ critique of Menno Simons and other Anabaptists has been discussed in Zijlstra: 2000, 63–65, 181. 4 The “Ordonnantie ende edict des Keysers Kaerle die 5.” of September 1554 already listed as last item under the heading “Duytsche Boucken” the title “Kort bericht in allen principalen puncten des Christen geloves, mit claer getuichnis der Heyliger scrifturen und guede kuntschaft der alden doctoren, mit antwysung, wanneer und duren welcke personen die erroren opgestanden unde vermeert synen, bereit vur den simpelen ongeleerdenden Christen, und is deshalven genant der leken wechwyser, Autore Joanne Anastasio Veluano” (Van Loon: 1701, 172).

Who are the “Predestinatores”?

41

minister in the Lower Palatinate (different from the Upper Palatinate in Bavaria). While the earlier phase of Anastasius’ life has been well researched (see Morsink), his final fifteen years in Bacharach and the three works he published in German have only been studied recently by the present author. A plan to bring out a revision of Der leken wechwyser, suggested to Anastasius by Peter van Gent (also called Overd’haege, Gandavus, or Hyperphragmus) in March 1558, did not materialize. The Roman-Catholic authorities reacted to Anastasius’ disappearance from Gent and to the publication of Der leken wechwyser with a refutation. In 1556 Johannes van den Bundere (Bunderius, 1481–1557), Dominican and inquisitor, published his “Shield of the Orthodox Faith against the Most Poisonous Arrows of John Anastasius Veluanus, Shot to Rip Apart the Faith, Sacraments and Church Service.”5 Written in Latin, the book was a theological and ecclesiastical refutation. The index librorum prohibitorum of Leuven noted in 1558: “Ioannis Athanasii (sic) Veluani, Omnia opera.”6 One year later the index of Rome also noted: “Johannes Athanasius Veluanus: all his works are suppressed in Louvain.”7 The Layman’s Guide does not have the form of a catechism (a form which Anastasius would use for his Die alte Catholische Leyenbücher of 1566). Although the book aims at instructing the lay men and women, it has the structure of loci communes, resembling the order of Melanchthon’s Loci. The book, an in-8º of some 200 leaves, can be regarded as a systematic exposition of Reformed doctrine and ethics. The author was educated in a Latin school, probably for a period of ten years, but we do not know of any academic or monastic theological training that he might have received. The fact that inquisitor Sonnius offered him three years of theological study at Leuven University also indicates that the former priest Jan Gerritsz. was not a trained theologian, but a preacher with an inquisitive mind who had been forced to account for his religious development. In this popular, vernacular work every now and then a Latin term occurs. This is also the case with the term “predestinatores”, which occurs twice in Der leken wechwyser and once more in Vom Nachtmal Christi (1558). If we can discover the background and intended targets of this pejorative term, we may be aided in our 5 Johannes Bunderius, Scutum fidei orthodoxae adversus venenosa tela Ioannis Anastasii Veluani, fidem, sacramenta, ritumque ecclesiasticum explodere contendentis, autore F. Ioanne Bunderio, ord. Predica. Gandavensium haereticae pravitatis inquisitore (Gent: Cornelius Manilius, 1556). According to the analysis by Morsink: 1986, 92–102. A Dutch translation appeared in 1561: De scilt des gheloofs teghen tfeninich ghescut Joannis Annastasii Velvani (Gent: Cornelius Manulius). 6 Bujanda: 1986, 139 (no. 134); BRN 4, 118. 7 Rome 1559: “Johannes Athanasius Veluanus opera eius omnia Lovanii reprobantur” (Vat. Lat. 6207, f. 228a), in: Bujanda: 1990, 518 (no. 453); idem in: Bujanda: 1993, 907 (no. 391).

42

Erik A. de Boer

understanding of Anastasius’ own position. It is for this reason that we now proceed with the theological structure of the paragraphs on free will and foreordination (“predestination”, both in the Saxon version and the Dutch translation).

2.

Anastasius on free will and foreordination

Joannes Anastasius introduced the passages “On free will and on foreordination” in Der leken wechwyser (1554) after his treatment of sin and its consequences. He followed the order of the tertia aetas of Philip Melanchthon’s Loci: “On God”, “On creation”, “On the origin of sin (and contingentia)”, and “On human power and free will”. However, where the Praeceptor Germaniae proceeded with the doctrine of sin, Anastasius developed his doctrine of conversion in the chapter following the one on free will. What is his line of reasoning, first in that chapter on the human will? The effect from the fall of man on the human will is “that it is also corrupted with evil desires, which live in soul and body (Romans 7), and it is totally disinclined and unwilling to serve God, more willing and prone to evil” (a formulation not unlike Q/A. 5 of the Heidelberg Catechism).8 Anastasius instructs the faithful to pray daily “for enlightenment of our blind mind through the holy Spirit and for reform of our evil will.” Even the most holy men, such as David and Peter, have fallen into the most terrible sins. These examples should lead us to humility and incite us to conversion, hoping for God’s mercy and trusting in Jesus’ blood. It is fair to conclude that in the passages on the human will Anastasius does not minimize the effects of sin on the will. But “reason and will are given to us to restrain the lasting evil lusts”, with reference to Romans 6. The chapter on sin ends with the observation that sometimes God let even the most holy men, like David and Peter, fall into sin in order to show his mercy. At this point in the early chapters of The Layman’s Guide (Der Leken Wechwijser), Anastasius (unlike Melanchthon) inserts the topic of “free will and predestination”, before proceeding with the chapter on conversion. He lists four points for discussion: First, a discussion on the power (“macht”) to refrain from some sins and to do some good (“deugden”). Secondly, a discussion on the possibility (“macht”) of following when we are called by God’s Word. Thirdly, a discussion on the possibility of turning oneself from this blessed state into misery (“onsellicheit”). 8 BRN 4, 148.

Who are the “Predestinatores”?

43

Fourthly, a discussion on the hardening of human hearts. Finally, Anastasius turns to predestination in the literal sense of foreordination. There are two elements which demand special attention: first Anastasius’ concept of a relative freedom of the will, and secondly the aspect of necessity. Joannes Anastasius illustrates his first point by referring to the manner in which Christ and St Paul speak of the righteousness of the Pharisees, which preceded their rebirth. To choose against evil things and for good things lies to a certain extent (“etlicker maten”) within the possibilities of the human will and its natural powers (“macht”). Otherwise both evil and good deeds would be done by necessity (“vyt noot”). The example of Jews and Turks who refrain from drunkenness, sexual license and the like proves the real possibility of the choice (“vermuegen des wal”). Veluanus returns to this example at the end of The Layman’s Guide. The very last paragraph is a warning against drunkenness. Again he states: “If someone says: ‘It is impossible for me not to get drunk’, he is a big liar, for that is even possible for pagans and Turks, with only natural powers which God created in us. How could this be impossible for the Christian who can have Christ’s Spirit at their aid?”9 Veluanus speaks five times of “the little free will” or “the (very) small power (of your free will).”10 It seems that the author is not borrowing an existing distinction but is coining the phrase as a theological term. Before conversion, the little free will can further our salvation or hinder it. Also when we fall from our rebirth into great sin, the will, together with the Word of God, can help us to be called again. After our fall into sin, God graciously kept part of our created will alive: “In fact, we have absolutely nothing of ourselves but sin.” Therefore Anastasius does not want to say that it is by the work of our free will that we deserve the help of the Holy Spirit. Pelagians and others sects think too much of the human will. The only room Anastasius gives to our small free will is that we can either stay under the influence of the Holy Spirit in good deeds, or be separated from him and leave our standing in faith behind. Did not St Paul warn those who stand not to fall (with reference to Romans 11, although the quote is from 1 Cor 10:12)? Having on the one hand rejected the Pelagian position, Anastasius on the other hand rejects the position of the “predestinatores”. They teach that, once being called, man can do nothing to help or hinder his salvation. “Being elect, he must follow; when he is not elect, he must stay in damnation.”11 The author of The Layman’s Guide rejects the idea “that all sins and virtues are by sheer ne9 BRN 4, 375. 10 BRN 4, 151 (“den kleinen frien willenˮ), 153 (“die des menschen kleine vermueghenˮ), 154 (“De menung des kleynen fryen willensˮ), 155 (“des kleynen frien willensˮ),156 (“onse seer kleine vermuegenˮ). 11 BRN 4, 153.

44

Erik A. de Boer

cessity” (“gantz vyt not”).12 This is harmful for men and would hinder their prayers, as if God’s hidden will would conflict with his public announcements and punishments, which command the good and forbid all sin. But the call to repent goes to all people without discrimination. The difference between devils and humans is that humans can be called and can repent. The notion of the small free will incites us to prayer, so that we hear and follow the call. The same notion features in Veluanus’ fourth point on the hardening of the heart. We are warned by preaching, by the knocking Spirit, or by our conscience against unbelief, or as punishment against unwillingness. Scripture sometimes explicitly says that we harden our own hearts, sometimes that God does this to us. When God hardens our hearts, we are robbed of even our small free will.13 Anastasius concludes the chapter on free will, as already announced in the title, with a passage on predestination/foreordination. Claiming the authority of the early Church he provides the following definition: that God in eternity decided to help and redeem such people who as much as possible (‘muegelicker wys”) let themselves be learned, when they are called and remain obedient. Also to secure some unto salvation who pray this most fervently. And that he also in the same way decided to damn the others who do not heed their being called. Also to harden some (as has been said).14

On the aforementioned condition, the people who are called may be chosen or rejected “as Chrysostom said elsewhere: the election by Christ is not by violence but by persuasion.” Veluanus claims that the definition concurs with biblical sayings like Acts 13, verse 48: “All who were appointed to eternal life believed.” When Christ speaks of God’s “drawing” in John 6, this means “that our very small ability must be aided by God’s Word and the Holy Spirit.” When Veluanus finally moves to his chapter on conversion, he urges his readers: “Pray to God for help every day and use the small power of your free will (“de kleyne macht dynes fryen willes”). You will see that many of us are not able to do one tenth part of what we can do with God’s help.”15 In his second book, which he published pseudonymously as Adamus Christianus in the (then Lutheran) Palatinate, Anastasius once voiced his critique on the thought of eternal reprobation. In Vom Nachtmal Christi (1557) he wrote that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper may be appropriated personally 12 The distinction between necessitas consequentis (absoluta) and necessitas consequentiae, used by Melanchthon (Loci communes theologici (Wittenberg, 1535), 50), seems unknown to Veluanus (cf. Vos: 2011, 175. 13 BRRN 4, 155. 14 BRN 4, 156. The line “Item etlicke to verharden, als gesacht is” refers to the second form of hardening, which Anastasius discussed earlier, “that we cannot hope for forgiveness in the hour of death and die in misery”, as Pharao and Judas (p. 155). 15 BRN 4, 160.

Who are the “Predestinatores”?

45

as “letter and seal of God himself.” He then rephrased the words of institution, introducing Jesus speaking: This mark or this seal I give to you because I grant you eternal salvation wholeheartedly. I have not predestined you unto eternal damnation (“zur verdamnuz gepredestinieret”), I grant you eternal salvation wholeheartedly, I wish to help you to attain it. As my Word sounds externally, so it is meant internally by me. Be assured of this, let me help you, let me only rule and teach you by my Word and Spirit.16

It [?With / In?] the same vein Anastasius phrases the meaning of baptism, as administered to children and elderly people. “Therefore the sacraments are very comforting testimonies from God against the dangerous temptation of the discriminate foreordination by God (“wider die geferliche anfechtung von der parteischen Predestination Gottes”), an invention that confuses many people.”17 That is why Anastasius addressed this issue in the context of the sacraments as token and seal of God’s promising and reliable Word.

3.

References to Melanchthon and Calvin

Anastasius shows in his work that he is aware of Melanchthon’s Loci and Calvin’s Institutio. Writing about Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and rejection of the other given sacraments of the Roman-Catholic Church, he refers to “Melanchtonem in locis communibus” and to “Calvinum in Jnstitutione”. The same double reference is found in the passage on Scripture. There he recommends a “good Catechism” to learn the main articles of faith, and mentions “Philip’s Loci and Calvin’s Institutiones”. Even more generally, the names of Melanchthon and Calvin are included in a list of Protestant witnesses. The last and most explicit reference to Calvin is to one of the Epistolae duae: the De [fugiendis impiorum] illicitis sacris [et puritate Christianae religionis observandae] of 1537.18 That Anastasius valued this early work by Calvin is understandable, given Anastasius’ own abjuration and recent re-conversion. However, these are the only explicit references to the work of the reformer of Geneva. Was Anastasius in the 1550s aware of Calvin’s other Latin writings and did he – however silently – see Calvin as one of the “predestinatores”? In medieval theology this epitaph “praedestinator” was used for God, who as Creator is master of his creatures’ destiny. Thus it is no small thing when such an epitaph is used pejoratively for men. One place where one would expect such a qualification to appear is in the debates on election as foreordination, which took 16 BRN 4, 418. 17 BRN 4, 418. 18 BRN 4, 190, 258, 267, 344, 364.

46

Erik A. de Boer

place in the early 1550s in and around Geneva. I have only found one example of pejorative use of the term “predestinator(es)”. In 1552 Calvin published De aeterna Dei praedestinatione, in which he advertised the more popular “Consensus Genevensis” among the ministers to the wider theological audience. This consensus had been presented to the people of the city on 18 December 1551 after the verdict against Jerome Bolsec. In his work, dedicated to Philip Melanchthon, Calvin responded mainly to the critique of the Roman-Catholic theologian Albert Pighius and, in doing so, tried to disarm the influence of Bolsec. At the end of the book he also refuted a treatise from 1550 by the Italian monk Giorgio Siculo (1517–1551). In this work Siculo took divine foreknowledge as his theological point of departure, and stated that Scripture does not contain any foreknowledge of damnation of individuals. The teachings of those who say that Scripture does teach a “damnatione particolare” he called the philosophy of “the predestinatori”.19 Yet, while Calvin may have read this explicitly in Siculo’s booklet, he did not quote the term itself in his reply. What this occurrence of “the philosophy of the predestinators” does prove is that such pejorative use is found in the context of the debates surrounding the (Genevan) doctrine of predestination. Maybe Anastasius did not want to break ranks with the Protestant theologians and therefore did not voice critique on Calvin and the Institutio (while still regarding him as one of the “predestinatores”). With his definition of predestination (see above at note 14) Anastasius followed Erasmus’ view of the will. “By free choice (…), we mean a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from them.”20 The phrase “vis humanae voluntatis” and the twofold effect of choice remind of De libero arbitrio and Erasmus’ reply to Luther’s De servo arbitrio in Hyperaspistes diatribae liber primus (1526). Also the few direct references to (aspects of) predestination correspond with their place in Der leken wechwyser. For example in the following line: “Thus they investigate [in the Schools] the question of foreordination, which is related to free choice, if it is possible that a predestined person can be damned and someone rejected can be saved” (Erasmus: 1969, 258), followed by the conviction that such questions should not be treated in front of the people. Calvin’s developing and defensive treatment of the doctrine of predestination was of recent date. It may be that Veluanus did not (yet) include him in the “predestinatores”. Philip Melanchthon, however, may have been his teacher also on the role of free will and the place of foreordination in soteriology.21 The 19 COR III/1, 192 n. 848. 20 Erasmus: “Porro liberum arbitrium hoc loco sentimus vim humanae voluntatis, qua se possit homo applicare ad ea, quae perducunt ad aeternam salute, aut ab iis avertereˮ (Erasmus: 1969, 36; translation from Graybill: 2010, 52). 21 Morsink: 1986, 66–70.

Who are the “Predestinatores”?

47

question is, however, which edition of Melanchthon’s Loci Veluanus used and thus with what stage of the former’s development he interacted. The last revision of the Loci was from 1553, when Melanchthon published its German translation called Hauptartikel Christlicher Lere. Veluanus’ reference to the Loci seems to indicate that he used an earlier Latin edition. In his analysis of Melanchthon’s development of the doctrine of free will, Gregory Graybill points to quite a shift in the former’s position on predestination in the 1543 edition, the Saxon confession (1551), and the Examen ordinandorum (German edition, 1552). Predestination was regarded as a posteriori, and was therefore seen as following justification by faith. “All in all, predestination was an illustration of justification by grace” (Graybill: 2010, 244). By his will man has to seize grace. In the 1543 Loci Melanchthon wrote: God begins and draws us by His Word and the Holy Spirit, but it is necessary for us to hear and learn, that is, to take hold of the promise and assent to it, not to fight against it or be hesitant and filled with doubt (Melanchthon: 1992, 173).

Melanchthon then extended his chapter on free will by developing the notion of contingency. Now contingency has some room not only in the realm of temporal things, but also in the spiritual realm: Consequently, human free choice in civil works (argued in order to prevent God from being responsible for sin and evil, and to maintain a subjective moral imperative for works of civil righteousness), could sound quite similar to human free will in choosing to have faith (argued in order to prevent God from being responsible for reprobation).22

Our conclusion is that it is this Melanchthonian position with which Veluanus concurs. Even though he also speaks of the power of free will before conversion, Morsink claims that this is very different from the later Melanchthon (Morsink: 1986, 68).

4.

Studying the Fathers: Cyril of Alexandria

Veluanus rejects the position of the “predestinatores” who, regarding the calling to faith, distinguish between those who are and who are not chosen (BRN 4, 153). This is his label for Augustine, “as among the Catholic writers the first” of this opinion, even though he taught free will for the first twenty years after his conversion (BRN 4, 154). Compared to Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria (†444) is the better theologian. Veluanus’ view of the early Church on some freedom of the human will is as follows: “Ancient Christendom in its first four hundred years 22 Graybill: 2010, 247.

48

Erik A. de Boer

remained unanimous of this opinion; all old theologians, both Greek and Latin, testify to this” (transl. 59). Regarding his third point Anastasius quotes as proof of four hundred years consensus in the church: “Cyril said on John 6 (super Joh. 6) that these articles are founded in divine truth and upon the general consent of the churches.” Having written that even Augustine taught free will when he was younger, Anastasius states: “The Greek Church has always held this opinion, even after Augustine’s age, as can be established by Theophilact and more others. The Latin church has done so as well for the most part, even though some writers have adopted Augustine’s position” (this part follows Anastasius’ praise of Philip Melanchthon). On predestination he then quotes Chrysostom: “Christi electio non est violentia, sed suasoria.” Where did the village priest read these quotes by the Church Father? In the first half of the sixteenth century there had already been two important clashes on the issue of free will. In the 1520s Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther had exchanged the Diatribe and De servo arbitrio. In his De libero arbitrio, Erasmus did mention Cyril (of Alexandria) and Theophylact in a string of men who defended the doctrine of Christ, but in that passage the idea of free will is not mentioned. In the 1540s Albert Pigghe had published his De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia (1542) against Calvin’s 1539 Institutio, and the latter had responded with his Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitude et liberation humani arbitrii (1543). Did inquisitor Sonnius provide Jan Gerrtitsz. Versteghe with a copy of the work by Pigghe from Kampen during Versteghe’s incarceration in Hattem? Pighius had indeed quoted Cyril in his attack on John Calvin: “Nor can we in any way deny the free power of man (which we call free choice) according to the dogmas of the church and of truth.”23 This could be what Anastasius meant when he wrote: “Cyril said – on John 6 – that these articles are divine truth and are founded upon the general consent of the churches.” The very context of Pighius’ line is a discussion on the meaning of John 6:44, where Jesus says “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” This explains how Anastasius could explicitly say “Cyril said on John 6”, a specification that is not found in the preceding line of Pighius: We should not think – says Cyril – when He [Jesus] says ‘No one can to him, unless the Father draws him’ [Joh 6:44], that the faithful are pushed or drawn by whatever power, but by urging, teaching, revelation, performed in an unspeakable manner, as only He had known whom He had known to be worthy.

23 Albert Pighius: “non enim possumus, secundum ecclesiae veritatisque dogmata liberam potestatem hominis (quod liberum arbitrium appellamus) ullo modo negareˮ, quoted from the facsimile of De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia, Libri decem. Nunc primum in lucem editi in: COR IV/3, 442; transl. Calvin: 1996, 234.

Who are the “Predestinatores”?

49

In the margin the summary reads: “Cyrillus. Qualis tractus ille”. This corresponds to Anastasius’ earlier distinction between the “primus patris tractio” and the “secundus tractus patris” in John 6, a distinction he made in relation to his second point (that man has the power to follow when he is called by God’s Word). God’s first drawing is that our will must be stimulated by preaching or Bible reading (cf. Rom 10).24 The second level of drawing is that this will is strengthened by the Holy Spirit to eager willingness. Anastasius adds: “In both pulls we can give in or resist.”25 It is possible that he read Cyril’s Commentarius in evangelium Johannis, published in Latin, himself. There the Greek Church Father had commented on John 6:45: “For the word of doctrine requires that free-will and free choice be preserved to the soul of man, in order that it may ask the just rewards of its good deeds, and if it have fallen from right (…), it may receive the doom of its transgression and that most reasonable.”26 And later in Joh 6:67f: “For in man is free-will and choice to go to both, either to the right hand or to the left, that is to virtue or vice.”27 While Anastasius seems to have read Albert Pighius’ attack on Calvin, he shows no acquaintance with the latter’s reply to Pighius, nor to the following revision of the Institutio (1543). Did Anastasius encounter Cyril of Alexandria in the theological discourse of the day? In the biographical preface to his The Layman’s Guide he declared that during his imprisonment in Hattem, inquisitor Sonnius provided him with a bible and “various old doctors” and that in preparation of his book he “read so many of the old doctors to have a firm knowledge of early Christianty.”28 So he may have studied the Greek Father as published by Oecolampadius in Basle, 1528 (Cyrillus: 1528). Yet it is more likely that he read the Latin translation of Cyril’s commentary, the Opus insigne in Evangelium Joannis in one of the early Parisian editions (Cyrillus: 1520). In 1557 Anastasius would introduce his second book, Vom Nachtmal Christi, with the statement: “one must also declare to the people the wonderful mystery of the power, brought forth from the body and blood of Christ, as it has been done in this booklet and as the old teacher Cyril has done in

24 Cf. Erasmus in De libero arbitrio: “Hoc mihi videtur praestare illorum sententia, qui tractum, quo primum exstimulatur animus, totum attribuunt gratiae; tantum in cursu tribuunt nonnihil hominis voluntati, quae se non subduxerit gratiae deiˮ (Erasmus: 1969, 170). Erasmus writes that this could have been a shared position on free choice, but that Luther attributes from the three stages “initium, progressus et summaˮ the first (beginning) and third (result) to divine grace and leaves only a role for human choice to the middle stage of advancement. 25 BRN 4, 152. 26 Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarius in Joannis Evangelium, in: PG 73, 553. 27 PG 73, 632. 28 BRN 4, 126.

50

Erik A. de Boer

the exposition of John, Chapter 6” (Cyril is the only one of the Fathers mentioned in the preface).29 In his last paragraph on predestination, Anastasius also quoted Chrysostom: “Christi electio non est violentia, sed suasoria.” This line, quoted in Latin, is not found within the same context in Pighius’ work, but it was a very well-known line.30 Anastasius ended the passage on the interpretation of John 6 in the context of free will by stating: “Therefore Philip Melanchthon is, according to me, praiseworthy, because he fought for this article in his Loci communes.”31

5.

Later editions and readership

Another way to assess the influence of Der leken wechwyser is to take a closer look at the editions and distribution. After the first edition in the Saxion dialect (1544),32 the book was soon translated into the more common Dutch and came out in Antwerp (1555). The publisher was Frans Fraet (under the name “Magnus van der Moerberghe van Oosterhout”), who was executed in 1558 for his protestant leaning (Roose: 1969–1970). In the same year, 1558, Pauwels Daelman, “chirurgijn” in Axel, ordered copies of Der Leecken Wechwyser to distribute them among his followers (Decavele: 1968–1969, 3f, 35; Decavele: 1975, 365). When he fled shortly afterward and joined the refugees in London, the trail was lost. It is probably also the 1555 edition which we encounter in the trial acts from Axel (in States Flanders) in 1564, in which cobbler Lucas Cleene is interrogated and refers to an earlier punishment (in 1556). In relation to the fourth charge of “possessing and reading of evil, forbidden books”, he admits “that he had been punished earlier for having read in a certain book called ‘den leecken wechwijsere’ [The Layman’s Guide], handed to him by Mr. Pauwels Daelman, his neighbor”, now a fugitive (Wesseling: 1966, 84, 430, 434 (appendix II)). Thus his acquaintance with Der leken wechwijser in that part of the Low Countries called “States Flanders”, close to Antwerp, predates the year 1564. Another example of distribution is an inventory of suspect and forbidden books which had been in the possession of father Maarten Formerius and which had been confiscated in Alkmaar. The second title on the list, following a work by 29 BRN 4, 394. 30 Chrysostom, Homiliae in Joannem 6:53–70, in: PG 59, 268. 31 Morsink ended his reading of Anastasius on free will with the question: “Zijn de voorgedragen meningen van Anastasius en Melanchton ident? Het spreken van primus en secundus tractatus patris in de exegese van Johannes 6:44–45 verdient nader onderzoek” (Morsink: 1986, 35). See also Graybill: 2010, 282f (on Chrysostom and Basil). 32 Already on 6 September 1554 condemned in an edict (Van Loon: 1701, 157–172).

Who are the “Predestinatores”?

51

Sebastian Franck, is ‘Den leecken wech wijser autore Johanne Veluano’ (Vis: 1992, 130 (appendix II)). Other authors of mostly biblical commentaries and sermons are Marten Micron, Martin Luther, Conrad Pellikan, Wolfgang Musculus, and others. The listing of Der leken wechwyser probably refers to the 1555 edition. However, before the publication of his first work, Joannes Anastasius had sought refuge in the Palatinate. There seems to have been a plan, suggested to him by Petrus Gandavus in 1558, to publish a rewritten version of Der leken wechwyser, but this did not materialize. In 1566 Veluanus intended to dedicate his next book to the people of the Low Countries, as he announced in Die Alte Catholische Leijenbücher, but he did not live to fulfill this promise. Joannes Anastasius’ death in 1570 was probably never noticed in the country of his birth. It was only in 1591,33 some thirty-five years after the first Dutch edition from Antwerp, that Der Leken wechwyser was reprinted, now by Jasper Troyen, who may have known the work from his years in Antwerp. Migrated to Dordrecht in 1589, Troyen published Een corte onderrichtinghe (…), ghenaemt der Leecken wech-wijzer in 1591. While still working in Antwerp he had published Reformed works, which were printed by Jan Canin in Dordrecht.34 The book went its course further North in the 1594 edition published in Leiden by Jan Paedts Jacobsz (1569–1629). With the slogan “scrutinamini” (“let us investigate”), the Academy’s printer, who had fled to England in his younger years, published, among other works, Dutch translations of Caspar Olevianus, (Den Vasten Grondt in 1605), Jacobus Arminius’ pamphlet on providence (Corte ende grondighe verclaringhe uyt de Heylighe Schrift (…) vande Cracht ende Rechtvaerdicheyt der Voorsienigheyt Godts omtrent het quade, 1609), and also Petrus Bertius’ address held at Arminius’ funeral (1609). Further editions of The Layman’s Guide appeared in 1597 in Den Haag at Aelbrecht Heyndrickzoon’s (Hendrixksz., c.1545–1613), whom in 1590 had been appointed as the “ordinaris printer” of the States General.35 A striking feature is that all further editions are almost identical to the 1591 edition from Dordrecht: same letter, same number of pages, and same layout. Apart from the layout of the “Voorreden”, the contents of the pages are identical (with only minor orthographical variations). Pijper wrote on the 1591 edition: “Six years later Aelbrecht Heyndricksoon falsely imitated this edition (with the 33 In the literature editions from Leiden 1587 and Amsterdam 1651 are mentioned as well, but no surviving copies have been identified (cf. Morsink: 1986, 105; Pettegree – Walsby: 2010, no. 1011). 34 Briels: 1974, 476. 35 F. Pijper states that Aelbrecht Heyndricksoon “falsely imitated this edition” (with the same letter, an identical number of letters on every page, and thus the same number of pages in total) (BRN 4, 119).

52

Erik A. de Boer

same letter, an equal numbers of letters on each page, so that in both editions the pages begin and end with the same words), with no other difference than putting his own shield and name below the title” (BRN 4, 119). The near-identity with the preceding editions can also be seen in the editions of 1605 and 1610 by Hillebrandt Jacobsz. No more reprints were published until the National Synod of Dordrecht. Only later, in 1631–1632 two more editions would appear (Amsterdam and The Hague).36 In the last edition the typesetting extended somewhat towards the end of the book, resulting in one page of extra print. What is the bearing of this near-identity of the editions from 1591 to 1632? Did the printers try to make The Layman’s Guide look like a Reformed classic? This question should be answered by someone with a more expert eye of book history. To summarize: how widely disseminated has Der leken wechwyser been? The 1554 edition was written in the Saxion dialect, followed by a translation into Dutch in 1555 (Antwerp: Magnus van den Merberghe [= Frans Fraet]) which appeared both in-quarto and in-octavo format, the text being the basis of all following editions (all in-8º). These, however, only began to appear three decades later, from 1591 until 1610 in five editions in Dordrecht (Jasper Troyen, 1591), Leiden (1594), and The Hague (Aelbrecht Heyndricksz., 1597; Hillebrandt Jacobsz, 1605 and 1610).

6.

The Remonstrants’ patriarch?

The first clear appeal to Anastasius’ work was made during the so-called Schriftelijke conferentie (epistolary conference) held in The Hague in 1611, following the publication of the Remonstrantie. At the very end of the protracted exchange of writings on the five points of the Remonstrants, the latter defended themselves against the accusation that their teaching was a novelty.37 They claimed that since the beginning of the Reformation in the Low Countries the 36 For the editions see Morsink: 1986, 105f. For copies of the various editions, see Pettegree – Walsby: 2010, 42 (nos. 1008–1014). An edition in Leiden 1587 is mentioned in 19th century literature, but the year 1597 probably is meant since no copy has been identified (cf. Morsink: 1986, 105). 37 “D. Henricus Anthony tegenwoordich Professor tot Franeker, inde voorrede van sijn Theses nu versch uyt ghegheven, ende den Hooch-Mogende Heeren Staten Generael ghedediceert, prijst seer t’boecxken van wijlen Iohannes Anastasius, in zijn leven Pastoor tot Garderen op Veluwe, gheintituleert der Leecken wech-wijser, dat dickwils in dese landen herdruckt, ende in veler Luyden handen is, stellende denselven Anastasium onder d’eerste Reformateurs, hem noemende een geleert Godtvruchtich Man, ende sijn boeck Utilem & pium librum, een nut ende Godtvruchtich Boeck: men leese dat, ghelijck het by ontallicke Menschen ghelesen, ende int begin vande Reformatie by den luyden de Reformatie toeghedaen, voor een juweelken, ghehouden is, men sal daer uyt sien, of ons gevoelen nieuw is: Hoewel wy opt stuck van den Vryen-wille niet en spreecken als hy spreeckt” (Schriftelicke conferentie: 1612, 430).

Who are the “Predestinatores”?

53

teachers held different opinions on the disputed points and had the freedom to do so. As an example, the six Remonstrant representatives quoted from a recent publication of Henricus Anthonius, professor at the Franeker academy since her founding days, who highly praised the booklet of the late Johannes Anastasius, during his life in Garderen on the Veluwe, entitled Guide for the Unlearned, which has been reprinted many times and is in many people’s hands.

The said professor “placed the same Anastasius among the first Reformers, calling him a learned and godly man, and his book “utilem et pium librum”, a useful and pious book.”38 This one (and only) example of a “homemade” theological work seems to take the place of references to Dutch translations in Bullinger’s Huysboeck. That the Franeker doctor had recommended Der leken wechwyser can be explained by the fact that the most recent edition had appeared in 1610, and provided the Remonstrants with a golden opportunity to refer publicly to the book. In 1613 Hugo Grotius published his defense of the edict of tolerance by the States of Holland as The Piety of the States of Holland and West-Friesland. Having discussed the articles of the Remonstrance he provides a sketch of the early Reformation in the Low Countries. His line of reasoning is: “The majority of the population was, of its own accord, more inclined towards Erasmus’ opinion, and consequently the book written by a certain Anastasius Veluanus, which argued the same point, was also cheerfully received (…)”, as was the case with Dirck Coornhert’s teachings (Grotius: 1995, 107 in § 61).39 Ministers from France and the Palatinate imported other teachings on predestination and free will. Until Jacobus Arminius came to Leiden, Grotius continued, there were a variety of positions on these doctrines.40 This impression of the early Reformation was countered by Johannes Bogerman who, in his reply of 1614, commented: “In what synod, I ask you, has the teaching of Erasmus, Veluanus or Coornhert ever been approved?”41 38 Henricus Anthonius of Naarden, mentioning many names from the early Reformation in the Low Countries: “in Gelr. doctums et pius vir Ioannes Anastasius, edit utilem et pius libtum titulo Laicorum hogèdon [in Greek characters]. Secedunt pii à papismo, conveniënt ad se per scriptas sanctas mutuo docendos, exhortandosˮ (Anthonius: 1611, f. B2r). 39 This popular passage is, according to Rabbie, also found in Grotius’ Annales et historiae and in his Apologeticus (Grotius: 1995, 10). 40 Keith D. Stanglin stated: “Arminius was in some ways part of the non-Calvinist Dutch Protestant tradition that goes back to the spirit of Anastasius Veluanus” (Stanglin: 2007, 240). 41 Grotius: 1995, 582 (App. VI: Grotius’ manuscript notes in his copy of Bogerman, Ad scripti magnifici et clarissimi viri D. Hugonis Grotii […], Franeker 1614). Cf. letter no. 475 of F. van der Sande to Hugo Grotius, 17 September 1616: “similes ego positiones ante paucos annos ex Melanchtonis, Anastasii, Henningii, Snecani atque Arminii scripti mihi privatim collegeram …” (Grotius: 1928, 528). Also in Grotius: 1622, 56.

54

Erik A. de Boer

In 1617 Grotius, as speaker of the States of Holland in Middelburg, stated that there was no previous definition or ruling on the doctrine of predestination as taught in the Remonstrantie, but rather: the Guide for the Unlearned, produced by Anastasius Veluanus more than sixty years ago and dedicated to the Lords of the States of Gelderland, on this matter has been in the hands of many people, as long ago were the books of Philip Melanchthon and many others.42

This claim provoked a furious response from Jacobus Trigland, minister in Amsterdam. As he had done before, he published a new pamphlet, Klaer ende grondich Tegen-vertoogh van eenige kercken-Dienaren van Hollant (1617), rejecting the charge of novelty and change against the Dutch Reformation. He informed his readers that the Remonstrants scouted the various provinces to look for Remonstrant teachers in the early days: And beginning with the principality Gelderland and the County Zutphen, they produce in this place a certain Anastasius Veluanus, who seems to be held by them as the first patriarch of the Dutch Remonstrants. It is true that in his book Guide for the Unlearned he favors somewhat the opinion of the Remonstrants regarding predestination and free will (Trigland: 1617, 28).

Then Trigland continues undermining the appeal to Veluanus. First, because he wrote the book only a short time after he had been priest in the papal church, it is no wonder that there remained some grains of Roman-Catholic reasoning in his teachings. Secondly, Anastasius was a simple man, untrained in debate. Moreover, not grounded deep enough in doctrine, he had been forced to recant. Lastly, the book which he then wrote, was not written while Anastasius was serving the Reformed Churches of Gelderland, but, fearing for his life, was fleeing to Strasbourg (all facts are to be found in the preface to Der leken wechwyser). So, when Henricus Anthonius from Franeker praised the little book, he did not do so regarding predestination and free will, for in his disputations he rejects the Remonstrant teaching. Trigland then concludes, arguing that we can clearly prove that long before this Anastasius, already in the year 1522, “there were Henricus of Zutphen, Wilhelmus van Swol, Gerardus Noviomagus and many more others who accepted how we think in the Reformed Churches in said principality and county. And Anastasius’ opinion has never been accepted by the

42 Grotius: “wesende der leeken Wegwijser over de tsestig jaeren gemaekt bij Anastasius Veluanus, en aen de Heeren Staeten van Gelderlandt gedediceert, op die materie in alle mans handen geweest, gelijk lange te vooren de boeken van Philippus Melanthon en meer anderen” (quoted in: G. Brandt: 1674, 577). On the critique on, or appeal to Melanchthon in the decades leading up to the national synod of Dordt, see Selderhuis: 2001, 32–37.

Who are the “Predestinatores”?

55

said Churches.”43 In 1618, Johannes Uytenbogaert replied in detail to all Trigland’s points against Veluanus.44 In 1646 the same Uytenbogaert gave his own account of the first century of the Reformation, and retold the story of Joannes Anastasius Veluanus’ preface to Der leken wechwyser, ending in the claim that the latter treated all chapters of the Christian religion according to the Augsburg confession and according to Melanchthon (Uytenbogaert: 1646, 145–147). Uytenbogaert then presented extensive quotes from the chapter on free will and predestination, claiming identity with Remonstrant teaching since 1611. “This book was also read by the people in the beginning of the Reformation and has been reprinted often”, Uytenbogaert stated (while emphasizing that he himself used the 1610 edition).45 Both parts of this line are true, but read in one sentence this line obscures that some thirty-five years lie between the first Dutch edition (1555) and all subsequent reprints (1591ff). When the national Synod of Dordt was over, a long preface was added to the edition of the Acta, in which the history leading to the synod of Dordt was described. When the story came to the year 1612, in which the Contra-Remonstrants held a “secret” meeting in Amsterdam and tried to convince the States to write out a national synod, the Remonstrant counter actions are described. One example of such actions is: To this end they competed to spread booklets among the people, written in the vernacular, with titles like ‘Fire Alarm’, (Brant-clocken), ‘Further Message’ (Naerder-bericht), ‘Road Map’ (Wech-wijser), etcetera, in which they not only presented their doctrine and excused [Conrad] Vorstius, but also the received doctrine of the Dutch Churches’ is being contradicted.46

43 Hendrik van Zutphen (1488–1524), prior of the Augustinian monastery in Dordrecht, was forced to flee in 1518 because of his Lutheran leanings (cf. J.W. Pont: 1911). 44 For his detailed answer to Trigland, see Uytenbogaert: 1618, 39–44. His biographer Rogge claims that no book, read by Uytenbogaert in his youth, influenced him as much as Der leken wechwyser did. “De studie van dit geschrift heeft zijne opvatting bepaald van de leerstukken, waarover in de Nederlandsche kerk zoo heftig is gestreden” (Rogge: 1874, 18). 45 In 1618 Wtenbogaert wrote: “Ende hoe heeft men dit Boecxken soo onbeschreumt doen loopen onder ’t ghemeyne Volck, zijnde soo menichmael herdruckt ende soo neerstich ghelesen van alle sorten van luyden sonder de minste waerschouwinge daer teghen, in dien men het soo schaelijck heilt als men nu hier schijnt te doen?” (Wtenbogaert: 1618), Tweede deel van de Noodighe Antwoorde op der Contra-Remonstr. Teghen-Vertooch, 43). He disclaims what Trigland in his Klaer ende grondich Tegen-vertoogh had written on Hendrik van Zutphen and others in Gelderland (Tweede deel van de Noodighe Antwoorde op der Contra-Remonstr. Teghen-Vertooch, 43f; De Kerckelicke Historie, 146). Uytenbogaert’s pamphlet was followed by Gerhard Brandt: 1677, 173–181 (with a long quotation on the death sentence in cases of heresy). 46 Acta ofte Handelinghen 1618–1619: 1621, f. ††8v. The Latin edition reads: “Hunc in finem certatim magno numero in vulgus spargebant libellos, lingua populari conscriptos, sub ti-

56

Erik A. de Boer

In later historiography this line is taken as referring to the various editions of Veluanus’ The Layman’s Guide. The fact, however, that the occasion of this statement is not only the circumstances of the year 1612, but also specifically the troubles surrounding Conrad Vorstius as candidate-professor for Leiden, points to another work, the pamphlet Cleynen Wechwijser by Geerhaard van Vriburch of 1612, written in defense of Vorstius (Van Vriburch: 1612). It may be that “Der leecken Wechwijser” was secondarily implied, but we should not forget that the real title of Veluanus’ work was in all editions Brief Instruction. The preface of the Acts of Dordt, read as railing against Der leken wechwyser, is putting historiography on the wrong foot. The Dordt Fathers were not so small-minded that they would target a book written in the early years of the Dutch Reformation.

7.

Conclusions

In The Layman’s Guide (1554) Joannes Anastasius Veluanus writes as a man who, even without academic training, was educated enough to read both the works of Church Fathers and contemporary theologians in Latin. The former RomanCatholic priest, who had become a reformed preacher, does not show the mindset of the Schoolmen, but of a pastor counseling his congregation. His reference to “predestinatores” remains vague, because he did not want to write polemically against the leading reformers, especially not after his recantation and recent reconversion. The doctrine of predestination was not in dispute between RomanCatholic and Protestant theology, but would turn into a matter of debate within both confessional camps. This early systematic theology, written for lay men and women, testifies to an early interest in the doctrinal discussions on free will and predestination. Veluanus’ patristic quotations and references show an awareness of the theological debate between Roman-Catholic and Protestant scholars (especially between Pighius and Calvin), and a pastoral sensitivity in communicating doctrine. Having studied the emergence of the doctrine of free will and predestination in Joannes Anastasius Veluanus’ first work, Der leken wechwyser, some questions remain. 1. Was the term “predestinatores” coined by Veluanus (and used to distinguish the older Augustine from other Fathers) or was it used more broadly in sixteenth century polemic? 2. Is the distinction between a “primus” and a “secundus patris tractus” on the basis of John 6:44 original or familiar in systematic theological discourse? tulis, Campanae incendiariae, Pressioris declarationis, Viae directionis, aliisque […]” (Acta synodi nationalis: 1620, f. ††† 4r).

Who are the “Predestinatores”?

57

3. How original is Veluanus’ phrase “den kleinen frien willen”? 4. What does the fact that all later printers of Der leken wechwyser followed the format and layout of the 1591 edition imply? Such questions invite further research into the intriguing career of Joannes Anastasius, a former priest who became a protestant pastor in his native country. His later years in the Palatinate during the adoption and diffusion of the Heidelberg Catechism testify to his later development.47

8.

Bibliography of Der leken wechwyser

The following bibliography is based on an inspection of all copies of the various editions which are located at present in libraries in the Netherlands.48 Alas, a copy of the 1605 edition could not be located. The purpose of this inventory for this essay is the comparison of the layout, number of pages, number of words per page, and letter type in the various editions. 1554 Joannes Anastasius Veluanus, Kort Bericht / in allen principalen pun- / ten des Christen geloves, mit klair ghe- / tuichnis der hilligher Schriftturen und / guede kuntschafft der alden docto- / ren, mit anwysung wanneer / unde durch welcke perso- / nen die erroren opgestan- / den unde vermeert / zijnen, bereyt vur / den simpelen / ongeler- / den / Christen, unde is des / halven genant der / Leken Wechwyser. / Auth. Ioan. Anastasio Veluano. / Des HEREN Christus Jesus bloet / reynicht ons van allen sunden. 1. Joh. 1 (Straatsburg [Wesel]: Balthasar von Klarenbach [Joost Lambrecht], 1554. Bibliogr.: Typ. Batava 151; Heijting E 20.1IA. Copy used: UB AvA (K 61 46449). 1555 Joannes Anastasius Veluanus, Een cort onder- / richt van allen principalen punc- / ten des Christen gheloofs, met claer ghetuychnisse / der heyligher Schriftueren ende goede bekentenisse / der ouder Doctooren, met aenwijsinghe wanneer ende / door welcke persoonen die errueren opghestaen / ende vermeerdert zijn, bereyt voor den sim- / pelen ongeleerden Christenen ende is / daeromme ghenaemt der Lee- / ken Wechwijser. / Auth. Joan. Anastasio Veluano / 1 Johan. 1 / Des Heeren Christus Jezus bloet reynicht / ons van 47 Cf. De Boer: 2013; De Boer: 2014; De Boer: 2015; id., ‘Joannes Anastasius Geldrus on the Lord’s supper and Christology against the Gnesio-Lutherans in relation to the Heidelberg Catechism’, forthcoming in Andreas J. Beck (ed.), The Heidelberg Catechism in Oecumenical Perspective. Papers from the International conference on the Occasion of its 450th Anniversary (1563–2013) at ETF Leuven, 18–19 April 2013, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 48 Cf. earlier descriptions in BRN 4, 118f; Morsink (1986), 105f. 49 Copy University Library UvA with handwritten bibliographic notes on blank pages (among others reference to Grotius, Annales (Amsterdam: 1658, 552).

58

Erik A. de Boer

allen sonden. ([Antwerpen: Frans Fraet] Magnus vanden Meerberghe van Oosterhout, 1555), A iir–iiiiv, fol. I–CCCLXXXVIII [4] = [6] p., 388 fol., [4] p. In-8. Bibliogr.: Netherlandish Books, no. 1010. Copy: UB Utrecht (Rariora F. Oct. 217550); KB Den Haag, sign. KW 1712 G 19 (new binding, no notes on provenance) 1591 Joannes Anastasius Veluanus, Een corte onder- / richttinghe van alle de principale punc- / ten des Christen geloofs, met clare ghetuyghenisse / der heyligher Schriftueren ende goede bekentenisse der ouder Doctoren, met / aenwijsinghe wanneer ende door / welcke persoonen de erreuren / op ghestaen ende ver- / meerdert zijn. / Bereyt voor den simpelen ongheleerden Christe- / nen ende daaromme ghenaemt der / Leecken Wech wijser. / Door Ioan. Anastasio Veluano. / I. Ioan. I. / Des Heeren Christus Iesus bloet, reynicht / ons van allen sonden. /(Dordrecht: Jasper Troyen,1591)51 [2], 372, [3] pp. In-8º. Bibliogr.: Typ. Batava 153; Netherlandish Books, no. 1012. Copies in: UB UvA (K 61–232), UB Gent (sign. BIB.MEUL.000743);52 KB ’s-Gravenhage: sign. KW 1702 F 553 1594 Joannes Anastasius Veluanus, Een corte onder- / richttinghe van alle de principale / puncten des Christen geloofs, met clare ghe- / tuyghenisse der heyligher Schriftueren ende / goede bekentenisse der ouder Doctoren / met aenwijsinghe wanneer ende door / welcke persoonen de erreuren / op ghestaen ende ver- / meerdert zijn. / Bereyt voor den simpelen ongheleerden Christe- / nen ende is daaromme ghenaemt der / Leecken Wechwijser. Door Ioan. Anastasio Veluano / I. Ioan. I. / Des Heeren Christus Iesus bloet, reynicht / ons van allen sonden. / (Leiden: Jan Paedts Jacobszoon,1594), [2] 3–372 [3]. In-8º. Bibliogr.: Typ. Batava 154; Netherlandish Books, no. 1013. Copies: UB AvA (sign. OK 61 1973); KB’s-Gravenhage (sign. KW 1702 F 49);54 UB Leiden (sign. N.H.K. 683). 1597 Joannes Anastasius Veluanus, Een corte onder- / richtinge van alle de principale punc- / ten des Christen geloofs, met clare getuygenisse / der heyligher Schriftueren en de goede be- / kentenisse der ouder Doctoren met / aenwijsinghe wanneer ende door / welcke persoonen de erreuren / op ghestaen ende ver- / meerder zijn. / Bereyt voor een simpelen ongheleerden Christe- / nen, ende is daeromme ghenaemt der / Leecken Wech wijzer. / Door Ioan. Anastasio Veluano / I. Ioan. I. / Des Heeren Christus Iesus bloet, reynicht / ons van allen sonden. / (’s-Gravenhage: Aelbrecht Heyndricksoon, 1597), [2], 3–372, [3] p. In-8º. Bibliogr.: Typ. Batava 155; Netherlandish Books, no. 1014. 50 Provenance: N.J. Kist; J.I. Doedens; handwritten note by P. Hofstede de Groot. 51 Tot Dordrecht. / by Jasper Troyen wonende inden Gulden Grif- / foen, by de wijnbrugghe Anno 1591. 52 Digitally accessible: http://lib.ugent.be/nl/catalog/bkt01:000005837?i=0&q=anastasius+velua nus (last accessed on 23 December 2014). 53 Provenance: J.I. Doedes. 54 Provenance: Ex libris L. Knappert; last page of index is missing.

Who are the “Predestinatores”?

59

Copy: UB Utrecht, sign. E. oct. 1740a.55 1605 Joannes Anastasius Veluanus, Een corte onderrichttinge van alle de principale puncten des christen geloofs, met clare ghetuygenisse der heyligher Schriftueren ende goede bekentenisse der ouder Doctoren, met aenwijsinghe wanneer ende door welcke persoonen de erreuren op ghestaen ende vermeerdert zijn. Bereyt voor den simpelen ongheleerden christenen ende daaromme ghenaemt der Leecken Wech-wijser. / Door Ioan. Anastasio Veluano / I. Ioan. I. / Des Heeren Christus Iesus bloet, reynicht / ons van allen sonden. (‘s-Gravenhage: Hillebrandt Jacobsz, 1605), [2], 372, [3] p. In-8º. Copy: Bibliotheca Orphanotrophei, Halle, Germany (cf. BRN 4, 119f n. 3; Morsink (1986), 106).56 1610 Joannes Anastasius Veluanus, Een corte onder- / richttinge van alle de principale punc- / ten des Christen geloofs, met clare ghetuygenisse / der heyligher Schriftueren ende goede be-/ kentenisse der ouder Doctoren, met / aenwijsinghe wanneer ende door / welcke persoonen de erreuren / op ghestaen ende ve- / meerdert zijn. / Bereyt voor den simpelen ongheleerden Christe- / nen ende daaromme ghenaemt der / Leecken Wech-wijser. / Door Ioan. Anastasio Veluano / I. Ioan. I. / Des Heeren Christus Iesus bloet, reynicht / ons van allen sonden. (‘s-Gravenhage: Hillebrandt Jacobsz., 1610), pp. [2], 3–372, [2+1] (last page missing). In-8º. Copy: UB Leiden (1367 G 22)57; Ambrose Swasey Library, Rochester NY (USA). 1631 Joannes Anastasius Veluanus, Een korte onder- / richtinghe van alle de principale / puncten des Christen geloofs, met clare / ghetuijgenisse der heijligher Schriftueren, ende / goede bekentenisse der ouder Doctoren, met aenwij- / singhe wanneer ende door welcke persoonen / de erreuren op ghestaen ende / vermeerdert zijn. / Bereijt voor den simpelen ongheleerden Christe- / nen, ende is daeromme ghenaemt der / Leecken Wechwijser. / Door Ioan. Anastasio Veluano / I. Ioan. I. / Des Heeren Christus Iesus bloet, reynicht / ons van allen sonden. (Amsterdam: Jan Evertsz., 1631), [2], 3–372, [4]. In-8º. Copy: UB UvA (K 61 7016; Remonstrantse Gemeente Amsterdam). 1632 Joannes Anastasius Veluanus, Een korte onder- / richtinge van alle de principale punc- / ten des Christen Gheloofs met klare getuygenisse / der Heyliger Schriftuyren ende goede bekentenisse / der ouder Doctoren met aenwijsinge wanneer / ende door welcke persoonen de erreuren / op-gestaen ende vermeerdert zijn. / Bereyt voor den simpelen ongeleerden / Christenen ende is daeromme genaemt der / Leecken Wegh-wijser. Door Ioan. Anastasio Veluano. / Op nieus oversien ende van veel Druck-fouten verbetert. / I.

55 Provenance: anno 1635 “Bij mij, Mathijs Adriaenssen Enolaert”. 56 The holdings of this library in Halle from the Prussian period from the 19th century have not been located. 57 The title page reads: Velvano. Again, the pages are set identical to the 1591 and 1594 edition.

60

Erik A. de Boer

Ioan. I. / Des Heeren Christus Iesus bloet, reynicht / ons van allen sonden. (‘s-Gravenhage: Weduwe van Hillebrant Jacobssz van Wouw, 1632). Pp. 3–373 [3]. In-8º. Copy: UB UvA (K 61 5835); UB Utrecht (E. oct. 1740b). The following editions were at some point in time mentioned in secondary literature, but without reference to an extant copy. No copy could be located by the present author. Antwerp, 1555, in-4º. Netherlandish Books, no. 1009 mentioned a quarto edition of Frans Fraet, Antwerp 1555, referring to the Wolffenbüttel Herzog August Bibliothek (Pettegree – Walsby: 2010). The catalogue, however, does not show that such a variant edition exists. Leiden, 1587.Mentioned in Morsink ((1986), 105), referring to Schultz Jacobi, who probably meant the 1594 edition from Leiden. Amsterdam, 1651, in-8 º. “Veluanus (J.A.), onderregting der Punten des Geloofs /8. Amst. 1651.”, as listed in J. van Abkoude, Naamregister of verzaameling van Nederduytsche boeken die zedert de jaaren 1640 tot 1741 zyn uytgekomen, vol. 1 (Leiden: J. van Abkoude, 1743), 377. The title is not listed in the revised and enlarged edition by R. Arrenberg of J. van Abkoude, Naamregister van de bekendste en meest in gebruik zynde Nederduitsche boeken welke sedert het jaar 1600 tot het jaar 1761 zyn uitgekomen (Rotterdam: Reinier Arrenberg, 1773).58

9.

Bibliography of works quoted in this study

Acta ofte Handelinghen 1618–1619 (1621), Acta ofte Handelinghen des Nationalen Synodi, inden name onsesHeeren Jesu Christi gehouden (…) tot Dordrecht Anno 1618 ende 1619, Dordrecht: Isaac Jansz. Canin. Acta synodis nationalis (1620), Acta synodi nationalis, in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi (…) Dordrechti habitae, Dordrecht: Isaac Joh. Canin. Anthonius, H. (1611), Systema theologicum disputationibus publicis propositum in Academia Fran., Franeker: Gilles van der Rade. Blom, J.C.H./C.J. Misset (1989), “Een onvervalschte Nederlandsche geest.” Enkele historiografische aantekeningen bij het concept van een nationaal-gereformeerde richting, in: E.K. Grootes/J. den Haan (ed.), Geschiedenis godsdienst letterkunde. Opstellen aangeboden aan dr. S.B.J. Zilverberg, Roden: Nehalennia, 221–232. BRN 4 F. Pijper (ed.), Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica, vol. 4, Leerstellige en stichtelijke geschriften van Ioann. Anastasius Veluanus e.a., ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Bujanda, J.M. de (1986), Index des livres interdits, vol. 2, Index de l’Université de Louvain: 1546, 1550, 1558, n.p. Bujanda, J.M. (1993), Index des livres interdits, vol. 6, Index de l’inquisition Espagne, Sherbrooke – Geneva. 58 Cf. Morsink: 1986, 106.

Who are the “Predestinatores”?

61

de Boer, E.A. (2013), “Een Nederlander als peetvader van de Heidelberger. Joannes Anastasius Geldrus, de Pfalz en de Catechismus”, in: F. van der Pol – W. van Vlastuin (red.), Leven met de Heidelbergse Catechismus. 450-jaar omgang met het troostboek, Gouda: Driestar Educatief, 9–30, 135–137. de Boer, E.A. (2014), ‘Liturgical Reform in the “Breaking of the Bread” in the Lord’s Supper in the Palatinate and its Resonance in the Heidelberg Catechism’, in: Acta Theologica Supplementum 20 (2014), 194–210. de Boer, E.A. (2015), Adoration or idolatry? HC 80 in the Context of the Catechetical Teaching of Joannes Anastasius in the Palatinate, in: A. Huijgen (ed.), The Spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism. Papers of the International Conference on the Heidelberg Catechism Held in Apeldoorn 2013, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 129–147. Brandt, G. (1674), Historie der Reformatie en andre kerkelyke geschiedenissen in en omtrent de Nederlanden, vol. 2, Amsterdam. Brandt, G. (1677), Historie der Reformatie en andere kerkelyke geschiedenissen in en omtrent de Nederlanden, vol. 1, 2e ed., Amsterdam: Jan Rieuwertsz, Hendrik en Dirk Boom. Briels, J.G.C.A. (1974), Zuidnederlandse boekdrukkers en boekverkopers in de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden omstreeks 1570–1630. Een bijdrage tot de kennis van de geschiedenis van het boek, Bibliotheca Bibliographica Neerlandica 6, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf. Calvin, J. (1996), The Bondage and Liberatio of the Will. A defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human choice against Pighius, A.N.S. Lane – G.I. Davies (ed.), Carlisle: Paternoster Press. COR Ioannis Calvini opera Omnia denuo recognita, series III. Scripta ecclesiastica, vol. 1. De aeterna Dei praedestinatione / De la predestination eternelle, Wilhelm H. Neuser – Olivier Fatio (ed.), Genève: Librairie Droz, 1998. COR Ioannis Calvini opera Omnia denuo recognita, series IV. Scripta didactica et polemica, vol. 3. Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitude et liberation humani arbitrii, Anthony N.S. Lane – Graham I. Davies (ed.), Genève: Librairie Droz, 2008, p. 442). Cyrillus, A. (1528), Opera, in tres partita tomos, in quibus habes non pauca antehac Latinis non exhibita, Basel: Andreas Cratander. Cyrillus, A. (1508; 1520), Opus insigne in Evangelium Joannis, transl. Georgius Trapezuntius, Paris: Wolfgang Hopylius; 2. ed. [1520]. https://download.digitale-sammlun gen.de/pdf/ 1410855093bsb10197602.pdf (accessed on 16 September 2014). Decavele, J. (1968–1969), “De reformatorische beweging te Axel en Hulst”, in Bijdragen voor de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 22/1, 1–42. Decavele, J. (1975), De dageraad van de reformatyie in Vlaanderen (1520–1565), vol. 1, Brussel: Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone kunsten van België. Erasmus, D. (1969), Ausgewählte Schriften. Ausgabe in acht Bänden: Lateinisch und Deutsch, Werner Welzig (eds.), vol. 4, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Graybill, G. (2010), Evangelical Free Will. Philip Melanchthons Doctrinal Journey on the Origins of Faith, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grotius, H. (1622), Apologeticus eorum qui Hollandiae Westfrisiaeque et vicinis quibusdam nationibus ex legibus praeferunt ante mutationem quae evenit anno 1618, Paris.

62

Erik A. de Boer

Grotius, H. (1928), Briefwisseling Hugo de Groot, ed. P.C. Molhuysen, deel 1 (1597–1618), ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Grotius, H. (1995), Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae Pietas (1613). Critical Edition with English Translation and Commentary [SHCT 66], ed. Edwin Rabbie, Leiden-New YorkKöln: E.J. Brill. Hargrave, O.T. (1966), The Doctrine of Predestination in the english Reformation, diss. Vanderbilt University; Ann Arbor MI: University Microfilms. Loon, W. van (1701), Groot Gelders Placaet-boeck, vol. 1, Nijmegen: Suerus van Goor. Melanchthon, Ph. (1992), Loci communes 1543 Philip Melanchthon, transl. Jacob Preuss, ST. Louis: Concordia. Melanchthon, Ph. (1553), Hauptartikel Christlicher Lere. Melanchthons deutsche Fassung seiner Loci Theologici, nach dem Autograph und dem Originaldruck von 1553, Ralf Jenett/Johannes Schilling, Leipzig: Evangelischer Verlagsanstalt. Morsink, G. (1986), Joannes Anastasius Veluanus. Jan Gerrtisz. Versteghe. Levensloop en ontwikkelingsgang, Kampen: J.H. Kok. Nauta, D. (1981), “De reformatie in Nederland in de historiografie”, in: P.A.M. Geurts/ A.E.M. Janssen, Geschiedschrijving in Nederland, dl. 2: Geschiedbeoefening [Geschiedenis in veelvoud 20], Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981, 206–227. Oppenraaij, T. van (1906), La doctrine de la prédestination dans l’Église réformée des Pays-Bas depuis l’origine jusqu’au synode national de Dordrecht en 1618 et 1619. Étude historique, Leuven: Josephus van Linthout. Pettegree, A./M. Walsby (2010), Netherlandish Books Published in the Low Countries and Dutch Books Printed Abroad before 1601, vol. 1, Boston/Leiden: Brill. PG Patrologiae cursus completes, Series Graeca prior (ed. J.-P. Migne), vol. 73, Paris, 1864. Pont, J.W. (1911), Geschiedenis van het Lutheranisme in de Nederlanden tot 1618, Haarlem: Bohn. Rogge, H.C. (1874), Johannes Wtenbogaert en zijn tijd, vol. 1, Amsterdam: Y. Rogge. Roose, L. (1969–1970), “De Antwerpse hervormingsgezinde rederijker Frans Fraet”, in: Jaarboek De Fonteine, 95–106. Schriftelicke conferentie (1612), Schriftelicke conferentie gehouden in s’Gravenhaghe inden Jare 1611, tusschen sommighe Kercken-dienaren: Aengaende de Godlicke Praedestinatie metten aencleven van dien, ’s-Gravenhage: Hillebrandt Jacobsz. Selderhuis, H.J. (2001), Melanchthon. Zijn betekenis voor het protestantisme – Melanchthon en de Nederlanden in de 16e en 17e eeuw [Apeldoornse Studies 41], Apeldoorn: Theologische Universiteit. Stanglin, K.D. (2007), Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation. The Context, Roots, and Shape of the Leiden Debate, 1603–1609 [BSCH 27], Leiden-Boston: Brill. Trigland, J. (1617), Klaer ende grondich Tegen-vertoogh van eenige kercken-Dienaren van Hollant ende West-Vrieslandt, gestelt tegen seker Vertoogh der Remonstranten, den Ed. Mog. Heeren Staten der selver Landen in Aprili voorleden overgegeven, ende daer na door den Druck gemeen gemaeckt, 2. ed., Amsterdam: Marten Jansz. Brandt, Boeckverkooper in de Ghereformeerde Catechismus. Vis, G.N.M. (1992), Jan Arentsz, de mandenmaker van Alkmaar, voorman van de Hollandse reformatie, Hilversum: Verloren. Vos, A. (2011), Melanchthon over wil en vrijheid, in: Frank van de Pol (ed.), Philippus Melanchthon, bruggenbouwer, Utrecht: Kok.

Who are the “Predestinatores”?

63

Vriburch, G. van (1612), Cleynen Wech-wijser ghestelt tot onder-richtinghe der eenvoudighen, om de harten die in desen tijdt nopende verscheyden verschil-poincten, ontrust zijnde, nauwlijcks en weten hoe sy haer draghen sullen, claerlijck aen te wijsen, wat wegh sy moeten in-gaan om van de selve en de ghenen die d’een of d’ander Parthy zijn toe-gedhaen, recht te oordelen (1612). Wesseling, J. (1966), De Geschiedenis van Axel, Groningen: Uitgeverij J. Niemeijer. Wtenbogaert, Joh. (1618), Tweede deel van de Noodighe Antwoorde op der ContraRemonstr. Teghen-Vertooch, vervattende klaer ende vast bewijs dat de leere der Remonstranten in dese landen ende ten opsien van de Reformatie inde selve niet Nieu, maar Oudt is, ’s-Gravenhage: Hillebrant Jacobssen. Wtenbogaert, Joh. (1646), De Kerckelicke Historie Vervatende verscheyden gedenckwaarderige saecken, inde Christenheyt voorgevallen, van het jaer vierhondert af, tot in het jaer sesthienhondert ende negenthien, voornamentlick in dese Geunieerde Provintien, n.p. Zijlstra, S. (2000), Om de ware gemeente en de oude gronden. Geschiedenis van de dopersen in de Nederlanden 1531–1675, Hilversum/Leeuwarden: Uitgeverij Verloren/ Fryske Akademy.

Antonie Vos

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

1.

Introduction

At the beginning of the previous century Heinrich Denifle launched a violent attack on Luther1 In the course of the last century of Reformation research both sides became more objective and moderate, but it seems still to be difficult to assess some combatants with gentleness. John Calvin (1509–1564) once called Albert Pigge “a dead dog.” Protestant research is often still not very favorable to the Kampen theologian and mathematician. Authors like Schulze and Melles have realized this and tried to be more restrained in their descriptions and assessments of Pigge and his thought, but they conceded to find it difficult to do so.2 But who was Pigge/Pighius (§2)? In 1542 Pigge published his De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia (§3). The fundamentals of his thinking direct his attacks on Calvin’s philosophy and he claims that he can refute this philosophy. The young Calvin was not amused. Already the next year Calvin reacted to Pigge’s criticisms (§4). A comparison of both sets of theories tells exactly which model of thinking Calvin endorsed: Calvin’s model does not allow any real contingency. This stance explains how Calvin rejects freedom and freewill (§5). In (§6) I discuss Anthony Lane’s benevolent interpretation of Calvin’s philosophy in his Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae, by showing that Lane is mistaken in analyzing Calvin’s explanation of the concepts of necessitas. I also deal with the distinction between necessitas and coactio. The basic question is which way of thinking Calvin adhered to, but eventually we have also to face difficult questions: Was Calvin right, and was he consistent, or not? If not, he was not only wrong, but then it would also be impossible that he was right (§7). How did Luther deal with such matters (§8)?

1 Denifle: 1904a; Denifle: 1904–1909b; Cf. Grisar: 1926. 2 Melles: 1973, 2–3; Schulze: 1971, 17.

66

2.

Antonie Vos

Albert Pigge (1490–1542)

Albert Pigge was born in Kampen in 1490. His father and brothers were in Russia on a regular basis. Probably, it was a merchant family. In February 1507 the brilliant young man went to Louvain University in order to study philosophy and in Louvain one of his teachers in theology was Adrian Floriszn. Boeyens. After his baccalaureate in theology he might have gone to Cologne, but he did not receive the degree of Doctor of Theology there.3 He familiarized himself with mathematics and astronomy. In 1516 Pigge treated problems of the calendar in Louvain and in 1518, 1520 and 1522 he busied himself with scientific and medical issues in Paris. In 1522 Adrian Boeyens became Pope Adrian VI (January 1522–September 1523) and he called Albert Pigge to Rome, where Pigge became chamberlain (cubicularius) in 1522, and he was also chamberlain under Clement VII (1523– 34). Under Adrian VI and Clement VII Pigge was regularly employed in ecclesiastical-political embassies. He also taught mathematics to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, the later Pope Paul III (1534–49). Paul III (* 1468) appointed him to be provost of the Janskerk in Utrecht in 1535. Pigge’s writings since 1518 dealt with astronomical subjects. In the years 1537– 38 he wrote an unpublished manuscript against Henry VIII (1509–1547). In 1538 the impressive Hierarchiae ecclesiasticae assertio appeared. In the same period John Calvin worked and lived in Strasbourg during the years 1538–41. The second edition of his Institutio appeared in 1539. Bernardus Cincius, bishop of Aquila, showed this book to Cardinal Marcello Cervini and they showed it to Pigge.4 Pigge was immediately surprised and exhilarated by Calvin’s determinism, as he saw it, and concentrated on chapter 2: De cognitione hominis et libero arbitrio and chapter 8: De praedestinatione et providentia Dei. De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia (August 1542) runs against these chapters, but Pigge had already died in the same year on 29 December.5 Pigge is definitely not the nitwit, as he is depicted in some Calvin literature. Thus, Pigge (Pighius) is not a valuable name in the Calvin literature. In the splendid book Calvijn en de Nederlanden no Dutch opponents of Calvin are dealt with and the famous Pigge is conspicuous by his absence.6 In general, it is a weak aspect of much Reformation literature that the Counter Reformation opponents are not dealt with. In this way we are unable to identify the forefront of the battle of the Reformation. It is still the old story: there 3 Melles: 1973, 3. 4 Lane and Davies: 2008, 16. This splendid edition (idem: 331–450) also contains a reprint of the first six books of (Pigge: 1542), which is not indicated in the table of contents. For Lane’s comments on the decision to include this Pigge-text, see (Lane: 2008, 16, cf. 10). 5 Lane and Davies: 2008, 12; Lane: 2000, 327–42. 6 Selderhuis: 2009.

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

67

was the darkness of the Middle Ages, and now the light shines. This is not an academic and critical approach: it is mythical, and ‘pre-historical.’ However, probably during the Worms colloquy Pigge laid his hands on the second edition of Calvin’s Institutio (1539). Willem Balke writes: Hij vond het nodig de oude controverse tussen Luther en Erasmus over de vrije wil weer op te halen en hij viel 17 jaar later nu zowel Luther als Calvijn aan met zijn ‘Tien boeken over de vrije wil van de mens en over de goddelijke genade’ (De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia).7

3.

Albert Pigge’s doctrine of God and his ontology

In De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia Pigge defends that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man are correlated, but the basis of the knowledge of God is the natural knowledge of God.8 We know a priori that God is our Creator and our relationship with Him is also known. God is good, but He is not only good for himself, but because He is good, He lets us participate in his goodness.9

3.1

The relationship between God’s nature and agency

In defence of the freedom of God and man Pigge starts with God’s goodness. It is necessary and essential for God that He is good and just. God is necessarily good.10 For Pigge, divine goodness and justice belong closely together. God is also necessarily and essentially righteous: I know that God is necessarily righteous and good.11 Pigge is convinced that he knows that God is good and righteous. It is also necessary for God that He wills and does and works what is good and righteous, in a righteous way, but why is God necessarily good and just? God is so, since He is good by nature and He is righteous by nature (natura).12 7 Visser and Balke: 2009, xviii. 8 Lane and Davies: 2008, 338b (344–58). “Dei et nostri cognitio mutua quadam inter se correlatione respondeant, et ex se mutuo dependeant. Deinde adversissimam divinae bonitati sententiam explicat, qua nonnulli plane tollunt liberum hominis arbitrium.” On Pigge’s notion of the natural knowledge of God (idem: 344–7). 9 Ibid., 345 (Liber primus, ib–iia). 10 Ibid., 384b (xlia). ‘[…] de Deo nobis obiiciunt, qui necessario bonus est.’ 11 Ibid., 385a (xlib). ‘Ipsum necessario iustum et bonum esse intelligo.’ 12 Ibid., 391b (xlviiia). ‘Utique me dicere audere, natura, non voluntate iustum et bonum Deum esse.’ (Cf. Pighius in Lane and Davies : 2008, 370b, [xxviia]): ‘Nam bonus natura Deus solus, qui quod est, sine initio est, non institutione, sed natura habet illud. Homo autem qui totus ex institutione est habens initium.’

68

Antonie Vos

Be it necessary that God is righteous and that his willing is righteous, according to Pigge, God does not will the external reality (extra Deum) in a necessary way, but in virtue of his freedom. He acts in a purely free way (mere libere).13 If God wills something, then He wills it in a righteous way and, so, what He wills is righteous and He necessarily wills in a righteous way what is righteous that He wills. He does not will what is righteous as righteous freely, since He cannot will what is unjust and evil.14 However, what He wills and does, He wills freely, and contingently and if He wills and does something contingently, it is possible that He does not will, what He wills in fact. Pigge writes in 1542: It is possible, that He does not will the same.15 Here, we meet the famous and decisive notion of synchronic contingency. It is the key for an open ontology. Pigge is also convinced that determinism is heretical. God is perfectly righteous and, therefore, it is impossible that He can will and can do something that is not good and not just. God cannot act in an unrighteous way: As far as God’s will is concerned, yet He does no other things which differ from Him, although they are just, in a necessary way, but in a purely free way, although He cannot do or will anything in an unrighteous way. It is so that He has it in his power that He does not will them.16 Pigge stresses again and again that it is impossible that God wills or acts in ways which are not good and just, but does this position not entail that then God’s acts and the acts of his will are also necessary? Is it not necessary to derive that something good is necessary, if it [is?] impossible that it is not good? Pigge explains that if God wills something, it is still in his power not to will it. The fact of willing does not make it necessary. For this reason, the act of willing is contingent, but if He wills something s, then s is good. It is essential for s to be good, although s itself is not absolutely necessary. Therefore, the crucial impossibility It is impossible that God either wills to sin, or wills to act in an unrighteous way17 does not imply necessitarianism. The point everything hinges on, is that God’s works and activities are as such acts of will. If something belongs to his will, 13 Ibid., 385a (xlib). “Nihil tamen omnium aliorum a se, etsi iusta sint, necessario agit aut vult, sed mere libere.” 14 Ibid., 391b (xlviiia). “Utique me dicere audere natura – non voluntate – iustum et bonum Deum esse, tametsi intuitus talis non sit: audere me dicere ea quae iuste et iusta vult, non necessario, sed libere velle, et eadem posse non velle, tametsi non possit aut velle peccare, aut iniuste agere.” 15 Ibid., 391b (xlviiia). “Et eadem posse non velle.” 16 Ibid., 385a (xlib). “Quanquam, quod ad Dei voluntatem attinet, tametsi iniuste agere aut velle nihil possit, nihil tamen omnium aliorum a se, etsi iusta sint, necessario agit aut vult, sed mere libere. Ita ut non velle eaipsa in potestate habeat.” (Cf. Melles: 1973, 18–19, 43). 17 Ibid., 385a (xlib). “Tametsi non possit aut velle peccare aut iniuste agere.”

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

69

which is as such good and just, it cannot be unrighteous. He cannot will and he cannot do what is unrighteous, but is anything God wills or does also essential for him? There is no trace of doubt in Pigge’s answer: Yet, God does or wills nothing of all things which are different from him, although they are just, in a necessary way, but in a purely free way.18 The only things God can will and do are good and righteous things, but it is also impossible that God does or wills anything he does or wills, in a necessary way. He can only act in a free way. It is possible, that He does not will the same: It is possible that He does not will the same.19 Therefore, God can only do what he does in a contingent way. Melanchthon had already accepted this assertion in the second edition of his Loci communes (1535).20

3.2

Albert Pigge and necessitarianism

Pigge’s main objection to Luther’s and Calvin’s theology concerns their ontological foundation: If all things happen entirely by absolute necessity, if we can walk neither on our good, nor on our bad ways of life, but God also works the bad deeds for the godless, if we live and do, and if we all undergo everything too just in the way as He wills it, there is no room for deliberation.21

Pigge is convinced that this necessity view cannot be true: If one says that God wills necessarily, but still freely what is just and good, I do not see that this is true22 He also believes that it is at variance with the common tradition of the Church.23 Pigge refutes that everything happens by necessity, but Pigge’s fun-

18 Ibid. “Quanquam, quod ad Dei voluntatem attinet, tametsi iniuste agere aut velle nihil possit, nihil tamen omnium aliorum a se, etsi iusta sint, necessario agit aut vult, sed mere libere.” (Cf. Melles: 1973, 18–19, 43). 19 Ibid., 391b (xlviiia). “Eadem posse non velle.” 20 Vos: 2011, 167–186. 21 Lane and Davies: 2008, 359a (xvb) at the beginning of Book II: “Si […] universa absoluta prorsus necessitate eveniant, si nec bonas nec malas vias nostras facere possumus, sed et mala opera impiis operatur Deus, si sicut vult, ita vivimus, facimus, patimur omnes et omnia.” Cf. ibidem: “Quae enim necesse est fieri, ut fiant necesse est’ and ‘cuncta absoluta necessiate eveniunt.” 22 Ibid., 385a (xliia). “Si dicatur: necessario, attamen libere, se velle iustum et bonum, non video ut hoc verum est.” 23 For his view that this stance is incompatible with the whole of orthodox doctrine and tradition, see chapter 3 of Book II.

70

Antonie Vos

damental opposition to necessitarianism does not entail that he subscribes to extreme nominalism, as Descartes would do in the 1630s.

3.3

No extreme nominalism

The cornerstone of Pigge’s doctrine of God is that God is good by nature and that He is righteous by nature (natura), so that Pigge has also the courage to say that God is not good in virtue of his will (voluntate).24 His righteousness is naturebased, not will-based: Therefore, God has not the will, but the necessity of being so righteous that it is impossible that He wills to sin.25 Given the manner of Pigge’s linking God’s nature and will, we conclude that he rejects the extremely nominalist option. He does so very explicitly: I do not understand (that they can say) that God wills that He is righteous and good.26 The extremely nominalist option adheres to the view that God’s righteousness is based on his will, for natures do not exist. Just this option is incompatible with Pigge’s main thesis that God is good and righteous by nature. God’s essence or nature constitutes his righteousness and goodness. So, God does not constitute his own goodness by his will. He is not good, because He wills to be so, but He is good, because he is essentially so. He does not act righteously, because He wills to be righteous so that his will constitutes his righteousness, but it is impossible for him not to be righteous and it is impossible to be unrighteous. God can will in different ways and He can will different things, but He cannot will in an unrighteous way. What is essential for God, cannot be changed and, so, it cannot be constituted by his will, although He certainly wills to be so. What is constituted by will, is contingent. What is necessary cannot be constituted by will. However, the constitution of what is necessary, by God’s will is just met in extreme nominalism. It is usually linked with necessary truths, but what is essential for God, is necessary. Can ‘necessary truth’ be contingent for God: Can He tell jokes and can He tell lies? Descartes can state that God can even abolish his own existence and reconstitute it later on. God’s almightiness reaches so far that nothing is impossible – even the impossible is not impossible which is clearly impossible. Apparently such an extreme nominalism did already exist in the days of Pigge and it is rejected by Pigge. 24 Lane and Davies: 2008, 391b (xlviiib): “Utique me dicere audere […] non voluntate iustum et bonum Deum esse.” (Cf. idem: xliia). 25 Ibid., 391b (xlviiib). “Ideo Deum non voluntatem, sed necessitatem habere iustitiae, quia non potest velle peccare.” 26 Ibid., 385a (xliia). “[…] ut autem velit se iustum et bonum esse non intelligo.”

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

71

The issue of Pigge’s rejection of the extreme nominalism is an interesting aspect of the battle with Calvin, because Calvin’s sharp criticisms of Pigge’s view turn around the charge that Pigge’s view is untenable, because it entails extreme nominalism. We shall see that Calvin is mistaken in this matter.

3.4

Freedom

According to Pigge, there is the crucial freedom of human will, because otherwise no divine judgment is possible. Such freedom is necessary: without such freedom there would not be any place for merit, for reward, neither for God’s just judgment. Yet, the arguments of Calvin do not establish what we admit him to accept further.27 Calvin tries to construe his concept of the will along the lines of the happiness of the blessed ones. The will by which the blessed ones are free, is not free in our case by that freedom. Here, Pigge’s line of reasoning is strict. On the one hand, he argues that Calvin’s view excludes essentials of human life, and on the other hand, that even what Pigge is prepared to concede to Calvin, cannot be defended on the basis of his own premises.

3.5

Where does Pigge stand?

We have seen that Pigge rejected the extremely nominalist option and that he accepted true contingency, but yet we do not know which stance Pigge took in the early modern situation. We have also to know how Pigge looks at the operationality of God’s will. The absolute role which Pigge ascribes to the natural knowledge of God, already indicates that there is a shift in comparison with the classic theology of the Middle Ages. Then they had a nuanced approach to science and proof: see the elaborate theory of science of Duns Scotus.28 Pigge assumes a fundamental function of what we know in general and we can prove in general. Such a view refers to the duplex ordo model.

27 Ibid., 385a (xliia). “[…] necessaria: sine qua nec merito, nec praemio, nec iusto Dei iudicio locus foret. Argumenta tamen Calvini neque hocipsum conficiunt quod ultro illi admittimus.” 28 In general, the medieval theory of knowledge does not follow the source pattern. Provability is seen as something variable: proving is possible in the case of some articles of faith, but not in other cases. What we cannot prove to-day, we may be able to prove to-morrow.

72

Antonie Vos

3.5.1 God’s neutrality Pigge stresses very much the self-sufficiency of God, but his point gets a function very different from the traditional one. God is so mighty and so self-sufficient that there is no need for him to have an additional relationship. He created creatures so that they profit from it and profit from each other, but there is no need for God to profit from them. He only asks obedience. God gave every possible good to man to succeed.29 God is omniscient and omnipotent so that He has pre-science (praescientia) and ‘pre-potence’ (praepotentia) in order to intervene, but God does not do so: The consequent was that God would withdraw from the freedom once granted to man, that is, He would contain both prescience and ‘prepotence’ in himself by which He could have had intervened, the less man would fall in danger landed in danger to use badly his freedom,30

But why does He not do so? If He were to have intervened, then He would have destroyed the freedom of the judgment of the will (arbitrium), which He had permitted in a reasonable way and from his goodness.31

God gives way to the freedom of man. He makes his knowledge and power neutral, because they would be incompatible with true human freedom and independence: God recedes from the freedom which He had once allowed to humans.32 Here, we meet a type of position that returns later with Arminius. The new – early modern – ‘Renaissance’ – way of thought is at stake. We have also to be aware that the key terms receive different semantical contents. Semantical shifts have to be taken into account when we deal with the way Calvin discusses and assesses such positions. Calvin’s texts against Pigge are no friendly texts. In 1552 he remarked that first he decided not to insult ‘a dead dog’. Melles only notes that this was a popular humanist metaphor. However, just the books against Pigge enable us to describe in more precise ways, how conceptual structures molded Calvin’s thinking.

29 Lane and Davies: 2008, 370a-b. 30 Ibid., 371a (xxviib). “Igitur consequens erat, ut Deus secederet a libertate semel concessa homini, id est, contineret in ipso et praescientiam et praepotentiam suam per quas intercessisse potuisset, quo minus homo male sua libertate uti aggressus in periculum laberetur.” 31 Ibid., 371a (xxviib). “Si enim intercessisset, rescidisset arbitrii libertatem quam ratione et bonitate permiserat.” 32 Ibid. “Deus secederet a libertate semel concessa homini.” (Cf. Melles: 1973, 19–20, 43).

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

4.

73

John Calvin

Calvin’s pencil is sharp, but is his mind also sharp? What Calvin thought on systematic issues and dilemmas, cannot easily be explained. His is not an elusive character, but, in general, his expositions are of an introductory nature and his terminology is basic and general. Calvin is not an analytical thinker who abounds in sharp distinctions and lucid arguments, but there is an interesting exception to be observed, namely his Pigge-book: the counterattack he wrote against Pigge: Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae (1543). Calvin’s Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae offers unique opportunities to expound Calvin’s conceptual structures and systematic position in more detail. Some important cross roads in Calvin’s development and some issues which have a special methodological impact are to be selected. Thus, we shall improve our knowledge of Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. This also delivers a new starting point for understanding the development of Reformation theology in the second half of the sixteenth century. John Calvin’s was a unique life. Born in Noyon in 1509 he could have listened to Dutch when he was a boy. He received two benefices (ecclesiastical foundation endowments) in order to finance his education. At an early age he went to Paris in order to study the liberal arts – in 1523. After John’s master of arts degree Gérard Cauvin, his father, sent him on to the University of Orléans for advanced studies in law. After his father’s death in 1531 Calvin returned to Paris. There he wrote the learned book on Seneca’s De Clementia financing himself the publication of it in 1532. The 23–years old Calvin failed to become a famous humanist scholar, but this study shows Calvin’s great interests in rhetorical skills in contrast with an interest in logical analysis. By then the religious interests of the young Calvin were still rather limited, but contacts with Christian humanists and reform circles gradually changed his mind until he was suddenly converted. Calvin’s subita conversio is to be put somewhere in the summer of 1533. The Gospel was the starting point. He ‘got taste for true piety.’ This sphere is mirrored in the first edition of the Institutio which appeared in Basel in March 1536, whereas he had finished it at the end of the summer of 1535. A most incisive change in Calvin’s life took place when Guillaume Farel religiously forced him to become a theological teacher in Geneva in July 1536. Some months later Calvin openly declared himself to support a radical Reformation during the disputation of Lausanne. There he left his anonymity in October 1536 (Erik de Boer). Before Calvin was a scholar, not a preacher. After the fundamental switch in the autumn of 1536 the Institutio needed a new edition (21539). The title tells us that this edition “corresponds for the first time with its true intentions.” After the collapse of his reformation endeavors in Geneva in 1538 Calvin went to Strasbourg (1538–41), “where he became minister to a church of French refugees

74

Antonie Vos

for a period of three years.”33 In his Strasbourg years Calvin participated in the religious colloquies called in Frankfort, Hagenau, Worms, and Ratisbon (1539– 1541). Albert Pigge also attended the interconfessional colloquies of Worms – in the winter of 1540–1541 –and Ratisbon (Regensburg) – in 1541 aan –, where he may have met John Calvin. At any rate, at some moment Calvin saw him in Worms.34

5.

Calvin against Pigge

In order to discern the crucial points of Calvin attacking Pigge, we have to see what the core of Pigge’s ontology is up to: Yet, God does or wills nothing of all things which are different from him, although they are just, in a necessary way, but in a purely free way.35 Calvin precisely quotes the line we have cited, but by dropping some phrases the Calvinian line of argumentation becomes even more lucid: Moreover, he adds that God does or wills necessarily nothing of all things which are different from him.36 Calvin exactly comments on this fundamental statement and his comments are very sharp, because he cannot live by this position: This philosophy has to be repudiated, not only because of its shallow and worthless curiosity, but also because it introduces an ungodly separation of God’s righteousness from his works.37

Calvin resolutely denies Pigge’stance. Pigge is adamant on this ontological point: If God wills something else, then it is not necessary. Pigge’s assertion implies: If God wills something else, then it is possible that it is not true. The ontological cornerstone of Pigge’s philosophy is synchronic contingency, but according to Calvin this is godless and worthless philosophy. Calvin wholeheartedly rejects contingency. The philosophical position Calvin rejects in his Defensio, implies that God contingently acts in his creative activity: God’s activity ad intra is 33 Kingdon: YEAR?, s.v. “John Calvin,” III 672 (671–675). Kingdon leaves aside the Piggeconflicts. On the Strasbourg years, see Cortret: 2005, chapter 7. 34 Lane and Davies: 2008, 73–74. 35 Ibid., 385a (xlib). “Quanquam, quod ad Dei voluntatem attinet, tametsi iniuste agere aut velle nihil possit, nihil tamen omnium aliorum a se, etsi iusta sint, necessario agit aut vult, sed mere libere.” (Cf. Melles: 1973, 18–19, 43. 36 Ibid., 222. “Addit praeterea, Deum nihil aliorum omnium a se necessario agere aut velle.’ (Cf. the French translation: “Dieu ne fait ou veut necessairement rien de toutes autres choses hors soymeme.” See note 27). 37 Ibid. “Quae philosophia, non modo propter levem et frivolam curiositatem, sed etiam quia profanam iustitiae Dei ab eius operibus divisionem inducit, repudienda est.”

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

75

necessary and this necessity is based on his own nature, and according to the ad extra viewpoint it is not necessary, but contingent. However, Calvin wholeheartedly rejects the dual model of necessity and contingency. This option of God’s contingent activity is detestable. “This philosophy has to be renounced and to be denounced.” It is a thoughtless position, based on “shallow and worthless (frivolous) curiosity.” According to the young Calvin, 33 years of age, this theory drives a wedge between the righteousness of God, on the one hand, and, the deeds and works of God, on the other hand. It introduces “a godless and impious separation (profana divisio) between the righteousness of God and his works.” This move has to be rejected, since God is by nature (natura) what He is so that He wills to be so. In this way He wills whatever He wills, as He has this by his nature.38 The fact that Calvin rejects the classic priority of divine nature coheres with this thesis. He identifies the structures of divine nature and divine agency: The will – he (= Pigge) says – is posterior to his nature, for God is good by nature. Therefore, it is unfit to say that God wills to be righteous, who is such by nature.39 Calvin’s Defensio decides the burning issue concerning which model of thinking Calvin adhered to: Calvin was a necessitarian thinker. This result is rather painful, because it refutes the title: This doctrine is not sound, nor orthodox. It is important for more reasons. It has often been said that Pigge’s anthropology was not orthodox. That is correct: he was a radical Counter-Reformational thinker and he sharpened the debate very much in a way which was profitable for the sake of the Reformation, but this fact does not disculpate Calvin. His necessitarianism is certainly false. Fortunately, it is also clear that Reformed scholasticism did not follow in the footsteps of the great Reformer.40

6.

Calvin’s Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae

Anthony Lane sketches a much more nuanced and much milder picture of Calvin’s stance than Pigge did: Sin corrupts the will and only the bondage of the will to sin matters, and Calvin was willing to affirm that the will is free in the sense that it is not coerced but at all times self-determined (spontaneus), willing of itself (ultro), of its own accord (sponte) and wilfully (voluntate). The choices of the will are voluntary or willful (voluntarius).41 38 Ibid. “At tale quidpiam in Deo imaginari, sacrilegum est commentum: qui sic est natura id quod est, ut talis velit esse; sic etiam vult quidquid vult, ut illud habet a natura.” (Cf. Melles: 1973, 55, 86). 39 Ibid. “Voluntas (inquit) natura posterior est. Deus autem natura est bonus. Ergo ineptum est Deum dicere velle iustum esse, qui talis est natura.” 40 Vos: 2013, 121–176. 41 Lane and Davies: 2008, 46. (Cf. idem, 137–139 [pp. 136–156 deal with the Fathers]).

76

Antonie Vos

The yoke of sin means the corruption of the will and the involved necessity is only the bondage of the will: “Thus bondage brings necessity, but is nonetheless a voluntary rather than coerced bondage.”42 But how are the key terms to be interpreted?

6.1

Meanings of ‘necessitas’

What does the young Calvin understand by “necessitas?” The traditional meaning of necessitas is seen to be the first meaning for Calvin, when he proposes to define necessitas. Calvin joins Aristotle by opposing sometimes to necessitas. “Firm stability reigns,” where something cannot be different from what it is.43 Something has to be so and so where alternative possibility and possible alternativity are excluded. We also read in his Defensio: The common meaning expresses that anything is judged to be necessary, if it must be and if it cannot be different.44 Calvin’s next step correctly subsumes immutability under necessity: In this way necessity implies immutability and hence – and permanently – it follows that God is necessarily good.45 There is also the distinction between necessitas as such and necessitas in the sense of coercion/compulsion (coactio). The Calvinian interpretation of this distinction works as follows: God is necessarily (necessario) what He is by nature; so, his goodness is necessary.46 but no coercion can be implied here: When He – being so stable – perseveres, He is necessity for himself in some way. He is not compelled from elsewhere and He does not compel himself, but He is inclined spontaneously and as a willing person towards what He does necessarily.47

If God is necessarily good, He is not compelled to be good and there cannot be something else forcing God to be good. So, when we say that God is necessarily good, the compulsion/coercion (coactio) meaning of necessitas cannot help us 42 Ibid., 47. 43 Ibid., 224.5–6. “Quod ut fiat, necessitatem definiamus. An autem mihi non concederet Pighius, statam esse ac firmam stabilitatem ubi res aliter esse non potest quam sit?” 44 Ibid., 224.7–8. “Atque id dictat sensus communis, ut necessarium censeatur quidquid sic esse oportet nec aliter esse potest.” 45 Ibid., 224.8–10. “Hoc modo immutabilitas sub necessitate continebitur, unde et continuo sequetur Deum necessario bonum esse.” 46 Ibid., 224.10–12. “Quod si necessaria est eius bonitas, cur non inde mihi colligere liceat necessario tam bene velle quam bene facere?” 47 Ibid., 224.12–15. “Cum vero ita stabilis perseverat, ipse sibi quodammodo necessitas est, non aliunde cogitur nec tamen seipsum cogit, sed sponte et voluntarius ad id quod necessitate agit inclinat.”

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

77

out. There must be another meaning of necessitas than coercion (coactio), and this meaning must be coherent with sponte and voluntarie. Surprisingly, the meaning selected by Calvin to perform this job is precisely the fundamental meaning of necessitas we have already met: being impossible that something is different. Calvin still adds a diabolical comparison to clarify and to affirm this move: On the opposite side, the Devil is both necessarily bad and acts necessarily badly, yet not less willingly. Hence, it certainly seems to me that I have achieved what I willed to do: what is voluntary does not differ so much from necessary that they do not admit some companionship.48

These steps express the view that, according to Calvin, sponte and voluntarius, on the one hand, and necessitas, on the other hand, are compatible. Precisely the semantical moment of being impossible that it is different is linked by Calvin with the notions of willful and being willing (voluntarie). The Calvinian interpretation of the distinction between necessitas as such and necessitas as coactio (= compulsion) proves – together with the combination of will/ willingness and necessity – that according to Calvin will and willingness imply the impossibility to be different – that is, the primary essential meaning of necessario in virtue of which we can say: God necessarily exists and God is necessarily good. A stronger meaning of ‘necessary’ is impossible. The use of will and willingness can be accompanied by the fact that something cannot be different from what it is.

6.2

The distinction between necessitas and coactio

Anthony Lane’s hypothesis was the starting point: the distinction between necessity and coercion is fundamental for Calvin, but there is also the crucial question whether this distinction is enough to safeguard the role of the human will.49 We have already seen that necessitas primarily means for Calvin: The common meaning of ‘necessary’ expresses that anything is judged to be necessary, if it must be and if it cannot be different.50 This common meaning is distinguished from necessity in the sense of coactio – the original meaning in ancient Latin and in ancient thought. Moreover,freedom is opposed to coercion,51 but what is coercion/compulsion (coactio)? 48 Ibid., 224.16–19. “Diabolus contra necessario et malus est et male agit, nihilo tamen minus voluntate. Hinc liquido confici mihi videtur quod volui: non adeo dissidere a necessario voluntarium quin societatem aliquando admittant.” 49 Ibid., n129. (For more on this distinction, see 221–5). 50 Ibid., 224.7–8. 51 Ibid., 137. “Coactioni opponitur libertas.”

78

Antonie Vos

We call a will under coercion which does not incline this way or that way by its own spontaneity or internal movement of choice, but is forcibly driven by an external change.52

Calvin builds his approach on the opposition between freedom and slavery. What matters is freedom from. The opposite of coactus is spontaneus: spontaneus is non invitus – not against the one’s own preference or wishes or will. But such wants and wishes and likings are not willing in the proper sense of willing. External forces can thwart our wishes, but such differences have nothing to do with the ontological nature and modal status of freewill. Luther could say that God’s left hand drives us to sin. Calvin does not say that we are forced by God to sin, but neither does he say that we will and act contingently, for God’s will acts in a necessary way. The way Calvin’s basic distinction between two kinds of necessity functions, is to be compared with Anselm’s way of doing so. They have the first basic point in common. Necessitas, in the sense of coactio, is the original meaning of necessitas in classical Latin, for necessitas derives from cedo and ne (ne-cedere): “there is no escape.” Now, Anselm observes that we say: Necesse est Deum non esse iniustum,53 but there is no force which prohibits God from being unrighteous, and if we say Necesse est Deum esse iustum,there is no internal or external power or force which compels God to be righteous, or coerces Him to be good. So, the traditional meaning of necessitas cannot help us. There must be another meaning which we might call the theological meaning with Anselm. However, this story is not the ferment of what Anselm is doing. He adds the distinction between necessitas praecedens and necessitas sequens and the crucial nature of willing is to be spotted precisely on the level of the necessitas sequens.54

6.3

Conclusion

If God wills necessarily, then He knows necessarily. Then, the only possibility is that God wills necessarily, and He wills well; God acts necessarily, and He acts well. Moreover, according to Calvin, God knows necessarily, and He is omniscient, Therefore, everything is necessary, but if the whole of reality is necessary, then God acts and works necessarily too.

52 Ibid., 138. “Eam ergo sic vocamus quae non sponte sua nec interiore electionis motu inclinatur huc vel illuc, sed externo motu violenter fertur.” 53 Schmitt, 1946, 247. 54 Ibid., Chapter 2. (Cf. Vos: 1981, 45–46).

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

6.4

79

The tenability of Calvin’s doctrine of freewill

The distinction between the goodness of God in the sense that He is good, and that He wills and does well, is for Calvin “impious and diabolical imagination”: Because God wills to be whatever He is – namely in a necessary way – there is no doubt whether He wills to be in such a way just as He is necessarily good. He is as far away from coercion (coactione) as He is maximally willing (voluntarius) there.55

Calvin refuses to take seriously the difference between, on the one hand, properties on the level of which God enjoys them in an essential way, and on the other, on the level of his agency, namely, his deeds and works – his opera ad extra.56 Classic theology does not only subscribe to the rule that the opera ad intra sunt divisa and the opera ad extra sunt indivisa, but also to the ontological difference between what God is necessarily and what God wills and does contingently. The upshot is that Calvin equates the dimension of divine nature and the dimension of divine agency. So, God’s acts of will immediately flow from his nature. According to Calvin, it is not only essential for God that He wills, but also what He wills and does what He does. Pigge’s philosophy is based on the duality of necessity and contingency: God acts contingently. This position shall also be the position of Reformed scholasticism, but Calvin’s philosophy is one-dimensional. For him, Pigge is only guilty of lies, blasphemy and fantasies, for he denies that God is by nature (natura) what He is so that He wills to be so. In this way He wills whatever He wills as He has that willing from his nature. The young – and the old – Calvin cannot grasp the point of the duality of necessity and contingency, because he thinks that this model implies that God can act in unjust and unrighteous ways. This mistaken thought rests on a logical error. We could call it: the theological fallacy. Now we clearly see the difference between the positions of Pigge and Calvin: If his goodness is necessary, why be it not allowed for me to conclude hence that He necessarily wills well as well as He acts well?57 Thus, we get Calvin’s decisive move: When He being so stable perseveres, He is necessity for himself in some way, He is not compelled from elsewhere and He does not compel himself, but He is inclined spontaneously and as a willing person towards what He does necessarily.58 55 Ibid., 222–3. “Cum ergo velit esse Deus quidquid est, idque necessario, non dubium quin sicut necessario bonus est, ita et talis velit esse – quod tam procul a coactione abest ut maxime sit in eo voluntarius.” 56 Ibid., 222. “Nam cum circulari (ut sic dicam) quodam nexu inter se cohaereant Dei bonitas, sapientia, virtus, iustitia, voluntas, hoc vinculum disrumpere impiae et diabolicae est imaginationis.” 57 Ibid., 224.10–12. “Quod si necessaria est eius bonitas, cur non inde mihi colligere liceat necessario tam bene velle quam bene facere?” 58 Ibid., 224.12–15. “Cum vero ita stabilis perseverat, ipse sibi quodammodo necessitas est, non

80

Antonie Vos

Lane stresses that the distinction between necessitas as such and necessitas as compulsion is important, but this fact does not exclude that the use Calvin made of this distinction is paradoxical, for if no coercion is implied, Calvin’s use of the distinction leads back to the strongest meaning of necessitas. The modal complex is decisive. The interpretation of Lane precisely assumes the way of thinking on Calvin’s side which he rejects himself. In Calvin’s conceptual framework there is no room for freewill, and no room for self-determination. Moreover, a doctrine of permission is missing in the theology of Calvin’s De aeterna Dei praedestinatione (1552), but he also stresses again and again that God is not the author of sin so that we have to point out what is implied by the denial of the view that God is the author of sin.59 At any rate, the absence of a doctrine of permission entails: God wills that a sins, which is explicitly accepted by Calvin. However, the presence of the doctrine of permission must the agency of God free from the charge that He wills sin and that He wills that a sins. So, a doctrine of permission entails: God does not will that a sins. How is it possible that a sins and is rejected by God, whereas God is not responsible for a’s sins? This possibility only arises, if there is also valid reprobation, and not only election. If there is only possible election, reprobation is impossible and election necessary and the whole of history must be necessary. However, that is impossible. So, there has also to be a doctrine of reprobation. According to the permission-line, the basis of such a doctrine of reprobation is: God does not will that a receives eternal life. If this possibility is not present, then it is impossible that a is lost. In that situation it would be impossible that there were to be persons like Judas: only persons like Peter and John could pop up. For this reason, the doctrines of reprobation and permission are ruled by negative acts of God’s will. However, the status of these negative acts of will are different. Rejecting is a positive act which is based on a negative act of will and permission is a negative act of will: God does not will that a receives eternal life.This proposition expresses a contingent possibility, and if this possibility is missing, then election is necessary. The corner stone of all this is that election is not necessary. So, why is God does not will that a sins true? It is true, because God wills that a sins is false, but why is God wills that a sins false? God wills that a sins is false, because it cannot be true. It is impossibly true and it aliunde cogitur nec tamen seipsum cogit, sed sponte et voluntarius ad id quod necessiatate agit inclinat.” 59 According to Calvin, none of his doctrines entails: God is the author mali/peccati.

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

81

is necessarily false, because God cannot will sin and He cannot will that anyone sins, because God can only will what is good. So, although the doctrines of permission and reprobation are tightly intertwined, their logical bases are quite different: the basis of reprobation is a contingent possibility and the basis of permission is an impossibility: God is so good that He cannot sin and that He cannot cause sin and cannot will sin. Here, the basic differences between John Duns and John Calvin are to be located and these differences are contingencybased. As far as there is coherence in Calvin’s thought it must be necessitarian, and if it is necessitarian, it is inconsistent. Conclusion: Calvin’s doctrine of predestination rests on a contradiction. I know that there are many colleagues in theology whose reaction will be: no problem, but, surely, then there is a problem.

7.

Predestination, Calvin and the Calvinists

From the start John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination aroused amazement – not only from the side of his opponents, but also from the side of his friends. However, the remakable thing is that in general the truth value of his doctrine is not discussed, but the allegation, whether his supralapsarianism and his doctrine of reprobation are harsh and rigid. Moreover, in most cases there is little room between an exposition which is lavishly adorned with quotations, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, either a stern judgement blaming his cruelty, or admiring praise stressing the biblical character of his teaching. The effect is that it is not easy to propound the theoretical contents of Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, because his theories are hardly analyzed and the conceptual structures of what he teaches are seldom investigated. Then there is still another context of telling us what Calvin did and taught – namely the context of Post-Reformation Studies. Of course, here we also have several movements and approaches. One remarkable approach is the Calvinism of Calvin against the Calvinists. Basil Hall made a firm case of Calvin against the Calvinists.60 Paul Helm defended against Hall and Kendall what is still a truism for him: Calvin was a Calvinist.61 The remarkable thing is that the Calvin of the view of Calvin against the Calvinists is a nice guy: pastoral and practical, biblical, humanistic, exuberant, evangelical and unspeculative, in defence of universal atonement, no limited grace and not a supralapsarian – so, broad-minded. However, according to Brian Armstrong, for instance, the orthodox Calvinists are 60 Hall: 1966; cf. Armstrong: 1969; Kendall: 1997. For many years, a similar approach was very influential at Utrecht University by the teachings of S. van der Linde, H. Jonker and C. Graafland, although I have to add that the situation was eventually: Van der Linde and Graafland against Calvin and the Calvinists. 61 Helm: 1981; idem: 1982.

82

Antonie Vos

bad guys, legalistic and harsh, rigid metaphysicians and narrow-minded bigots. Of course, such theological fiction does not rule out that Jean Cauvin was a good guy and that the so-called orthodox Calvinists were warm-hearted theologians and profound thinkers.

7.1

Predestination

For almost one century and a half the view that the doctrine of predestination was the central theory and the heart of Calvin’s theology reigned.62 However, the first edition of the Institutio (1536) has no independent treatment of the doctrine of predestination, but this fact holds for many doctrines.63 This booklet is a simple introduction to faith – in fact a kind of extended catechism. However, from the French Catechism onwards Calvin wrote in 1537 in Geneva, the point of departure is the fact that preaching of the Gospel does not equally move those who hear it, for it only bears fruit in the elect.64 In the decades to come Calvin accorded a growing importance to the doctrine of predestination and he continuously stressed its spiritual and practical interests. It is clear that he taught double predestination in a strict sense. The war with Bolsec led to the Consensus Pastorum Genevensis (1552).65 The short writing Congrégation faite en l’église de Genève par Jean Calvin, en laquelle a esté traité la matière d’élection éternelle de Dieu was again published in 1562.66 Around 1555 several pamphlets appeared attacking Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. Calvin wrote a first answer in 1557: Brevis responsio ad diluendas nebulonis cuiusdam calumnias, quibus doctrinam de aeterna Dei praedestinatione foedare conatus est. The next reaction followed in 1558: Calumniae nebulonis cuiusdam, quibus odio et invidia gravaraconatus est doctrinam Johannis Calvini de occulta Dei providentia. In addition to the predestination chapters in Institutio (41559) and Institution (1560) Calvin published a last reaction in Réponse à certaines calomnies et blasphèmes, dont quelques malins s’efforcent de rendre la doctrine de la prédestination de Dieu odieuse (1562). All these writing are laden with immoderate vehemence.67 Christian Link regrets that John Calvin 62 For a survey of the history of research of Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, see Otten: 1968; idem: 1938, 11–15. 63 Otten: 1968, 16–19. 64 Ibid., 19–20. 65 Calvin: 1552. 66 Busch et al: 2002, 79–149. 67 Little attention is given to these writings in the biographical and theological literature on Calvin. Moreover, all these individual writings are missing in the Opera Selecta by Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niesel. (Cf. Christian Link’s Introduction to Congrégation faite en l’église de Genève par Jean Calvin, in Busch et al: 2002, 83–85. On the Bolsec affair, see Holtrop: 1993.

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

83

did not follow more the lines of Congrégation faite en l’église de Genève par Jean Calvin in the last edition of his Institutio, because they were more biblical and christocentric without applying causal thinking.68 However, such elements do not change the basic structure of the reprobation: Just as God has chosen some from mankind, he has reprobated all those who are destined to be so after his measures, and the one flows from the other.69 Here, the style is moderate, but the ideas are the same; so, the implied dilemmas are the same too. According to Calvin, there is a tight connection between providence and predestination too, but the fourth edition of the Institutio deals with the doctrine of predestination at the conclusion of Book III in order to show that it is in Christ that election takes place. This structure also fits in with the supralapsarian point of view, but it still raises acute questions about reprobation. Calvin does not only say that there are chosen ones and reprobates, but the covenant of life is not preached equally to everyone, and even where it is preached, it is not equally received by all – in all diversity there appears a wonderful secret of the judgment of God, for there is no doubt that this variety serves his good pleasure.70

That salvation is given to some, takes place by the will of God and that the rest is excluded from it, also takes place by the will of God, but how do we have to understand this? As far as Luther and Zwingli are concerned,71 the strategy of avoiding a necessitarian interpretation is not reasonable, but that is no proof as far as Calvin is concerned. The fact that he avoids the phrases duriores of Luther and, likewise, necessity language with respect to God’s agency, whereas he also denies explicitly that God is the author peccati, do not prove that the lines of his thinking are not necessitarian.72 Luther, Zwingli and Calvin accept Augustine’s adage: “Voluntas Dei est necessitas rerum.” There is an eternal and immutable providence and there is an eternal and immutable predestination. What takes place, including sin and the fall, is not only known by God (praescientia), for Calvin substantially disagrees with those who defend: This only happens by God’s permission, and not also by his will.73 68 69 70 71

Busch et al : 2002, 86–89. Ibid., 129. Institutes 3.21.1 Dijk: 1912, 12–21; Vos: 1981, 105–114, 275–278. (Cf. Urban, 1971, 113–139). In De servo arbitrio Luther not only defends that everything happens necessarily (omnia fieri necessario), but he also states that Judas became necessarily a traitor (necessario Judas fiebat proditor). 72 Wendel: 1997; Otten: 1968. At any rate, what Armstrong tells us about Calvin’s doctrine of predestination is sheerly incomprehensible in comparison to the evidence of Calvin’s oeuvre, but understandable in the light of Amyraut’s interpretation of Calvin’s doctrines of atonement and predestination. 73 Institutio 1.18.1: “Dei tantum permissione, non etiam voluntate hoc fieri.”

84

Antonie Vos

The tight connection which there is for Calvin between doing and willing, is evident from the fact that Calvin not only has the distinction between willing and permitting, but he also calls this distinction the distinction between doing and permitting.74 Institutio 3.23 deals with objections to a strict theory of predestination, but, for, Calvin objections are insults and aspersions. In dealing with them Calvin brings forward the distinction between will and permission. The distinction between will and permission is not only rejected in the doctrine of providence, but also in the doctrine of predestination. Some state that the ungodly are lost by permissio, and not by voluntas. This distinction is unacceptable for Calvin: If the ungodly are lost by permission, they are lost by the will of God. For Calvin, the concept of permission is an escape (effugium). Permitting is not a notion different from willing: permitting implies willing.75 The will of God is the necessity of reality. The things God wills, must necessarily happen. The reprobate persons are subjected to the necessity to sin, because God’s ordination imposes this necessity. The fact that Calvin denies that God imposes compulsion, does not imply that he does not impose necessity in the sense of synchronic necessity. Although the Calvin of the fourth edition of the Institutio accepts in principle the distinction between necessitas consequentis and necessitas consequentiae, he does not apply this distinction in his theory of reprobation and neither in his doctrine of election. Calvin is still not interested in precise argumentation and subtle analyses, for what is at stake for him, is always clear for him.76 Calvin underscores the point that the Old Testament tells us that God wills that Achab is deceived and that Job is bereaved from his children. Indeed, Calvin’s doctrine of divine all-causality is in harmony with the Old Testament all-causality, but from the viewpoint of the history of theology the striking fact is that a doctrine of permissio is missing in Calvin’s theology – in sharp contrast with the over-whelming majority of classic Christian theology, both in the Middle Ages and in the early modern centuries. Therefore, when Calvin states that the fall is to be located in the counsel of God, we have to eliminate the distinction between permissio and voluntas in interpreting the role of God’s counsel: “Dominus ita expedire censuerat” (Institutio 3.23.8). This implies that God does not only will the reprobation and that there are reprobates who are peccatores, but also that he wills that the peccatores sin.77 74 Institutio 1.18.1. 75 Institution 1.23.8 (1560): “Il le permet, sinon pource qu’il le veut.” 76 In the case of Calvin’s doctrine of predestination even the distinction between necessitas consequentiae and necessitas consequentis cannot help us out, because Calvin sees no difference between the eternal will of God and God acting in time and history. If we apply the necessitas consequentiae to acting in time and history, necessitarianism is still unavoidable. There is no distinction between actus and opus. 77 Institutio 1.22.1.

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

85

Calvin sees election and reprobation as eternal and immutable acts of the divine will, but what first strikes me, is the stress on the symmetry of the acts of election and reprobation: God wills a priori both eternal life and eternal death. This structure is not only seen in his God talk, but is also evident from his radical rejection of a doctrine of permission. The consequences of this strategy are farreaching. The alternative theory of will just stresses: God permits that a sins, but it also upholds the opposition between permitting and willing: If God permits that a sins, then God does not will that a sins, However, whoever rejects the distinction between permission and will, ignores the distinctive denial that God wills that a sins. So, the entailment concerning Calvin’s theory of will is: God wills that a sins, if a sins, Therefore, if we have an instance of divine willing, then, according to Calvin’s theory of will, God wills that p entails It is impossible that God does not will that p, for Calvin does not acknowledge the possibility of not-willing. There is no room for an alternative possibility, but this implies that God’s willing is necessary. Now, we know that Calvin both affirms that God’s will is the necessity of reality (voluntas Dei, necessitas rerum) and denies that God necessitates to sin (against Bolsec). The reason for this denial is that Calvin takes necessitas in the original Latin sense of coactio (= coercion, compulsion) and, then, it is true that God does not coerce people to sin, and, of course, God cannot be coerced himself. So, there is no necessity in that sense. However, it is still a fact that there is necessity in another sense, namely in the sense of synchronic necessity – that sense is implicated in Calvin’s doctrine of God and his theory of reality. Calvin utilizes a concept of will tightly connected with necessity so that the will of God is the necessity of reality.78 Necessitarianism is the outcome of an analysis of Calvin’s theory of will and permission. This also solves the paradoxical position of scholars who, on the one hand, linked Calvin with John Duns Scotus, because he also puts the will of God in the center of his thinking, whereas, on the other hand, it is difficult to find concrete Scotist elements in Calvin’s doctrines. The reason is that their worlds of thinking are worlds apart, because Scotus’ 78 Institution 3.23.8 (1560): “La volonté de Dieu est la necessité de toutes choses. Il faut nécessairement que cequ’il a ordonné et voulu advienne.” Therefore: “Ils ne peuvent évader la necessité de pecher.”

86

Antonie Vos

theory of will is internally connected with contingency thought. However, the necessitarian option is contradictory in itself. This is also to be observed in Calvin’s theology. On the one hand, he accepts God wills that a sins, but he also denies that God is the author peccati (against Bolsec), and this view implies: God does not will that a sins, for if God wills something, he does so, since there is an internal connection between willing and doing what God wills. However, now we earn the simple contradiction: God wills that a sins and God does not will that a sins. A contradiction entails that every proposition can be derived. So, we can believe everything. It is chaos, for we can tell everything. We also see this versatility with Calvin. Armstrong thinks that such rhetoric is great, but I know that it has to be avoided. For although the young Calvin had already embraced necessitarianism, the classic tradition of Christian thought had not, and neither did Reformed scholasticism. However, can necessitarianism be true? First of all, if necessitarianism is true, then it is impossible that God exists. So, if God exists, then necessitarianism must be false, but necessitarianism cannot be true, for it is impossible that contingency is impossible.

7.2

Luther on the will of God

Luther’s diagnosis of the main spiritual and the theological illness of his time presupposes the classic view of grace and faith, but these views are not the whole of the fundamental doctrines of Luther. Luther’s continuity with the classic tradition is based on his doctrines of faith and grace, sin and repentance. However, there are also lines of fracture. In all matters Luther’s writings dating from the second decade of the sixteenth century are a main source in order to discover what mattered by then. His diagnosis is very sharp, but which position is referred to? In spite of Harnack and Holl, the forefront is no medieval theory. The identification of Luther’s criticisms with the position of John Duns Scotus can only lead to the conclusion: they who assert such things, are not familiar with Duns Scotus’ theology and philosophy. Luther’s Letter to the Romans(1515–1516) already preludes his De servo arbitrio (1525). In a sharp way Luther deals with the distinction between the necessitas consequentiae (implicative necessity) and the necessitas consequentis

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

87

(ontological/real necessity).79 Luther rejects this distinction and if this distinction is denied, the necessity of reality is accepted. For this reason this rejection has farreaching consequences for Luther’s doctrine of God, and for his doctrine of grace. Luther connects his view of the righteousness by faith with his rejection of contingency: What is then our righteousness? What are good works? Where are the freedom of our judgment and the contingency of reality? There must be preached in this way. This is the right way of preaching. We have to cut off the rationality of the flesh (prudentia carnis). […] Be-cause the apostle Paul sees that he is nothing in himself and that all his goods are only in God. I do not know which great things our theologians have invented, when they have adduced their contingency. They say in an over-ingenious way: ‘The elect are saved in a necessary way’, namely by implicative necessity, but not by the necessity of the consequent. These words are empty words, when they understand by this sentence ‘This happens by the necessity of the consequent or occasionally interpret it in this way, that salvation occurs by our judgment or it does not occur. I once understood it in this way. The contigency of the consequent has nothing to do with these matters and we do not ask whether that consequent be contingent, as if it could be necessary. The reason why we do not ask this, is that only God is necessary. For this reason elect persons are saved in a necessary way by implicative necessity, but not by the necessity of the consequent, that means: The consequent is not God, or: because the consequent is not God, they are saved by implicative necessity.80

What is now Luther’s conclusion? According to Luther, the introduction of the implicative necessity does not make any difference. It is a superfluous distinction. From The contingency of an event cannot prevent the certain predestination of God. Luther concludes that it occurs in a necessary way, because according to our view, there is no contingency with God at all.81 In Ad Romanos contingency is eliminated in precisely the same way as later in De servo arbitrio. In De servo arbitrio Luther also concludes, that this position has consequences for his theory of divine knowledge. For the whole of the classic tradition and for Luther divine omniscience is crucial. Luther’s view can be formulated as follows: (1)

p → (God knows that p).

Because Luther eliminates on God’s side all contingency, contingent knowledge of God is impossible. So, Luther’s variant of (1) is:

79 Vos: 1981, 3.1; Idem: 1994, 39.53. 80 Luther: 1883–1929, WA 56, 382–383. 81 Ibid., WA 56, 383.

88 (2)

Antonie Vos

p → N (God knows that p).82

Moreover, (3) is also true: (3)

(God knows that p) → p,

and likewise: (4)

N ((God knows that p) → p),

and (5)

N (God knows that p) → N p.

Now we can derive: (6)

p →N p.

Luther’s doctrine of God entails that everything is necessary and Luther himself asserts explicitly: omnia necessitate fieri (everything happens in a necessary way).83 Can this necessity thinking of Luther be true? Luther’s motive is clear: Luther thinks that he needs the basis of the whole of history in God’s necessary will and knowledge in order to safeguard the certainty of faith. Contingency and the liberum arbitrium are dangerous and the liberum arbitrium has to be eliminated. However, this move also eliminates divine freedom. There can only be divine freedom, if there is true alternative freedom.

8.

The untenability of necessitarianism

In ontology and logic at work in the conceptual structures of ontology, the heart of Western philosophy is at stake. The history of medieval thought shows a cultural and philosophical battle. The riddle is that it seems to be impossible that the philosophical newcomer, the philosophia christiana, might win, because philosophical rationality was already checked by the opponent. We see this historical field of force mirrored in the fact that the great non-Christian philosophers of the second and third centuries were not worried at the rise of Chris82 N (God knows that p) =DEF It is necessary that God knows that p. 83 Vos: 1981, 110–112 and 434n11.

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

89

tianity and its thought, if they were interested in it at all. They simply believed that this sad madness would pass away. We may think of a cultural analogy: the battle of faith evidenced by the Old Testament. There, we observe a desperate battle of faith. We understand its tension and despair much better when we realize that the Old Testament is not the fruit of a political and cultural unity, because the people of the Israelite kingdoms themselves were polytheistic. There is no people, or culture, or nation, standing behind the Old Testament. Only the voice of God their Lord stands behind the Old Testament, where we also hear the voice of them who listened. Nevertheless, the Old Testament is a historical datum. The new ways of medieval thinking were excluded by their ancient philosophical alternatives as much as Old Testament faith was excluded by the polytheistic religions of ancient Palestine. Nevertheless, the new medieval way of ideas won, but it did not do so in the same way as the Old Testament won. Schools are no prophets. In contrast to faith and discipleship, Christian philosophy is not revealed. The alternative theories of Christian theology and philosophy are discovered on the basis of faith – fides quaerens intellectum – and within the realm of Revelation, but they are not revealed themselves. They were invented and developed in a profound process of emancipation from ancient thought patterns ongoing for centuries. The young John Duns Scotus realized that there was still a problem, although there was no problem at all for Bonaventure and Henry of Ghent. For them, it was evident that the alternative of Aristotle and Averroes is simply inconsistent, because it is incompatible with the Christian faith. However, Duns Scotus did not begrudge the fact that the opponent enjoyed his own self-evident starting point – in the vein of the ars obligatoria. So, the question remains whether Aristotle can be beaten. Duns hesitates, but he thinks that the Aristotelian option has to yield to the change argument: there is change; so, there is contingency. However, the ahistorical way of thinking is playing tricks on Duns, when he writes: I argue against the philosophers as follows: some effect is caused contingently in what there is (Lectura I 8.256). For contingency and change have different meanings in both models. The philosophers do not mean by contingency what Duns means by it, as he himself expounds extensively in Lectura I 8 and Ordinatio I 8. If we cannot prove that purely diachronic contingency entails synchronic contingency, then Duns Scotus’ option does not refute the necessitarian alternative when we stick to this premiss of diachronic contingency. Of course, diachronic contingency in its Aristotelian sense excludes synchronic contingency, since what is diachronically contingent in this sense is in itself necessary.84 Several courses are open to us in order to decide 84 Duns Scotus is quite aware of this fact, but he neglects it, when he frames his crucial counter-

90

Antonie Vos

the battle. First, we may steer a strict course by attacking fundamental hypotheses and patterns of thought espoused by the opponent. Second, we may try to prove the contingency stance by starting from a premiss the opponent also accepts. The third course consists of proving directly that the contingency position is reasonable. Most ancient and modern philosophical systems join the necessitarian club – from Parmenides to Foucault and Hawkins. If we can refute the logical kernel of the necessitarian position, the philosophical field of force differs substantially from what most systems claim. We focus on the necessitarian notion of necessity. The impossibility of this notion of necessity can be shown. If this notion were to hold, then all structural variability would be excluded. Something can change over time, but if something does not happen, then it cannot happen. So, accordingly, the meaning of the symbol of negation boils down to impossibility: If it is not true that p, then it is not possible that p. However, it is impossible that not only means: impossibly. If Duns Scotus is not a bishop, then this negative fact does not entail the impossibility of Scotus being a bishop. Many masters of theology have become a bishop in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and their common essential properties do not exclude becoming a bishop. So, there is the possibility that Duns Scotus is a bishop and this possibility is not barred by the fact he was not. Along the same lines, we argue that the fact that he was never a bishop does not entail that it is impossible for him to be a bishop. If not entails impossibility and being the case entails necessity, then p is necessarily true or necessarily false and not-p is also necessarily true or necessarily false. One may recall the truth tables of non-modal propositional logic. If necessitarianism were to hold, then only truth tables containing columns of T(rue) or F(alse) are possible. We are familiar with the philosophical dilemma whether modal thinking is acceptable – some philosophers do not think so. However, the necessitarian is bound to hold that only modal thinking is possible. Necessitarian conceptual structures not only exclude contingency, but they also exclude the possibility of contingency. If the possibility of contingency is excluded, then necessity and impossibility are the only viable modal key notions. Then, the conjunctive property not being necessary and not being impossible would be an impossible property, although both being necessary and being impossible are acceptable properties. However, if P is an acceptable and possible arguments in Lectura I 8.257–259. We have to focus on purely diachronic change in order to reach synchronic contingency, for synchronic contingency can be derived from purely diachronic change/contingency. (Cf. Vos: 2007, the last paragraph of §16.5.1).

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

91

property, then not-P is also an aceptable and possible property. A transcendent term like being is a universal term, but this datum does not entail that not being is an impossible notion. If necessitarianism were to be right, the opposition square would collapse and be transformed into a line: necessary *—* impossible. However, contingency itself is a necessary feature of reality. If contingency itself be not a necessary characteristic of contingent reality, then it is possible that it is necessary. However, what is contingent, cannot be necessary, because it is as such not necessary, and the contingent cannot be necessary.85 If not, the modal opposition square would collapse into a line and the modal possibility operator M in M p would collapse into the modal necessity operator N in N p. On the one hand, modal thinking is possible, but on the other hand, modal theory formation would be impossible. So, we can conclude that necessitarianism cannot be maintained. Necessitarianism entails the impossibility of true contingency, but modal logic demonstrates the possibility of contingency. The whole of modern elementary logic is based on contingency and modern elementary logic is taught all over the world. This logic symbolizes a rare world-wide consensus, but, intrinsically, it only agrees with types of ontology and theology which incorporate the Scotian innovations. The possibility of synchronic contingency is necessary and what is necessary cannot be abolished or eliminated. This entails that Calvin’s and Luther’s views cannot be true.

9.

Bibliography

Armstrong, Brian G. (1969), Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press. Barth, Peter and Wilhelm Niesel (1963–1974), Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta, Monachii : C. Kaiser. Calvin, Jean (1552), De aeterna Dei praedestinatione, qua Consensus Pastorum Genevensis, Genf : Jean Crespin. – (1562), Congrégation faite en l’église de Genève par M. Jean Calvin, Geneve. – (2002), Congrégation faite en l’église de Genève par M. Jean Calvin, in: Calvin-Studienausgabe IV. Reformatorische Klärungen, Eberhard Busch et al (eds.), NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener.

85 For the modal square of opposition, see Vos: 1981, 408–11. For epistemological opposition squares, see idem:142–145, 175–179, 211–214.

92

Antonie Vos

– (1863–1900) Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, Eduardus Reuss (eds.), Corpus Reformatorum, Vol. 30 Institutio Christianae religionis. – (1960), Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, in two volumes, John T. McNeill (ed.) and Ford Lewis Battles (trans.), The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 20, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Cortret, Bernard (2005), Calvijn. Kampen: Kok. Dijk, Klaas (1912), De strijd over Infra- en Supralapsarisme in de Gereformeerde Kerken van Nederland, Kampen: Kok., 12–21. Denifle, Heinrich S. (1904a), Luther in rationalistischer und christlicher Beleuchtung, Mainz: Vlg. Von Kirchheim. – (1904–1909b), Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwicklung, Mainz: Vlg. Von Kirchheim. Grisar, Hartmann (1926), Martin Luthers Leben und sein Werk, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder & Co. GmbH Verlagsbuchhandlung, Lwd. Hall, Basil (1966), “Calvin against the Calvinists,” in G. E. Duffield and Ford Lewis Battles (eds.), John Calvin, Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans. Helm, Paul (1981), “Calvin, Calvinism and the Logic of Doctrinal Development,” Scottish Journal of Theology (34). – (1982), Calvin and the Calvinists, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. Holtrop, Philip C. (1993), The Bolsec Controversy on Predestination, from 1551 to 1555, Vol. 1, Theological currents, the setting and mood, and the trial itself, Lewiston, NY: Mellen. Kendall, R.T. (1976), The Nature of Saving Faith from William Perkins (d. 1602) to the Westminster Assembly (1643–9), Oxford PhD diss., Oxford: University of Oxford. – (1997), Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, Carlisle: Paternoster. Kingdon, Robert M. (2005), ‘John Calvin,’ Encyclopaedia Britannica III 672 (671–675). Lane, Anthony N.S. (2000), “When did Albertus Pighius Die?,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis. Lane, Anthony N.S. and Graham I. Davies (2008), Ioannis Calvini Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii, (eds), Geneva: Droz. Luther, Martin (1883–1929), D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesammtausgabe (Weimarer Ausgabe). Melles, Gerard (1973), Albertus Pighius en zijn strijd met Calvijn over het liberum arbitrium, Kampen: Kok. Otten, Heinz (1938), Calvins theologische Anschauung von der Prädestination, PhD diss., University of Halle, Mu¨ nchen. Otten, Heinz and Ernst Wolf (1968), Prädestination in Calvins theologischer Lehre, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins. Schmitt, F.S. (1946), S. Anselmi De Concordia praescientia et praedestinationis et gratiae Dei cum libero arbitrio, Edinburgh: Apud Thomam Nelson et Filios. (Vol. 2: 243–288). Schulze, L. (1971), Calvin’s Reply to Pighius, Potchefstroom : Pro Rege, 1971. Scotus, John Duns (1994), John Duns Scotus: Contingency and Freedom, Lectura I 39. Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Vos et al (trans.), The New Synthese Historical Library 42. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Pigge and Calvin on the Will of God

93

Selderhuis, Herman and Karla Apperloo-Boersma (2009), Calvijn en de Nederlanden, Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek. Urban, Linwood (1971), “Was Luther a thoroughgoing determinist?,” Journal of Theological Studies, N. S. XXII, 113–139. Visser and Balke (2009), Calvijn: De eeuwige voorbeschikking Gods, Amsterdam: Boom Religie. Vos, Antonie (1981), Kennis en Noodzakelijkheid, Kampen: Kok. – (2007), The Philosophy of John Duns Scotus, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. – (2011), “Melanchthon over wil en vrijheid,” in Frank van der Pol (ed.), Philippus Melanchthon. Bruggenbouwer, Kampen: Kok. – (2013), “Reformed Orthodoxy in The Netherlands 1575–1700,” in Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, Leiden: Brill, 121–176. Wendel, François (1997), Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, Philip Mairet (trans.), Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books.

Fred van Lieburg

Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile The Acta Synodi Behind the Scenes or the Role of Emotions in the History of Theology

1.

Introduction

A large memorial window in the Great Church of Dordrecht proclaims to visitors several local events in the history of Dutch Protestantism (Van Duinen: 2004, 17– 18). The middle section of the window is devoted to the “Synodus Dordracena”, represented by a group of major figures in the political and ecclesiastical spheres of the early seventeenth century, including the stadholders Maurice of Orange (1567–1625) and Willem Lodewijk of Nassau (1560–1620). Johannes Bogerman (1576–1637), the ecclesiastical president of the great Reformed assembly, features as the man with a long beard. His face looks grave, his eyes are sparkling, and his hands are raised. To be sure, no despair, nor surrender, nor blessing prompted this raising of his hands. Rather, this depicts the moment suprême of the Synod: the dismission of the Remonstrants in session 57 in the forenoon of Monday 14 January 1619. The definitive word was uttered by the president, on behalf of 107 delegates, to the fifteen Remonstrants: “Ite!”1 This moment was the culmination of a confrontation between the Synod and the Remonstrants that had taken six weeks to build up. We may also say that it was the outcome of a conflict between theological scholarship and the confessional state which had arisen over sixteen years. It is not my task here to recapitulate the historical events leading to the calling of the Synod, beginning with the disputes between Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) and Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641) in 1602. On the aforementioned Monday morning, it was exactly nine years since the Remonstrantio had been submitted to the States of Holland by a group of Dutch Reformed ministers, on 14 January 1610. Nor will I be dealing here with the ins and outs of the international conference which the Synod was, nor with the 1 There is not much English-language literature on the Synod. In general, see Goudriaan & van Lieburg: 2011.

96

Fred van Lieburg

actual details of Session 57. I intend only to focus on the outburst by President Bogerman at the end of his dismissal speech to the Remonstrants, being as it is such an influential moment in the history of European Calvinism and of the Dutch nation as well. In calling the dismissal of the Remonstrants from the Synod of Dordt a decretum horribile – merely for the sake of the scope of the present conference volume – I am of course giving a nod to the well-known expression of John Calvin (1509–1564) in his Institutio christianae religionis (III, 23, 7), referring to the doctrine of double predestination. It is needless to say here that this is not a negative qualification of God’s election and condemnation of people, but rather a positive indication of God’s sovereign will as the first cause of all things. If we apply the expression of the “horrible decree” to the Synod of Dordt, it would, strictly speaking, refer to the maintenance of double predestination among the doctrines of the Reformed Church and the rejection of the Arminian modification of its theological conception. These two sides of the medal were represented by the “Five Articles against the Remonstrants”, or the Canons drawn up and signed by the Synod delegates in sessions 135 and 136 on Tuesday 23 April 1619, and publicly announced in the Great Church of Dordrecht on 6 May 1619. This prosaic use of the term of the decretum horribile for the dismissal of the Remonstrants encapsulates the emotional significance and the symbolic impact of Bogerman’s act, which has become famous in Dutch church history as the example par excellence of religious intolerance and denominational discord. The president’s thundering speech, his angry exclamation to his opponents in the meeting, and their exclusion from the room are the dramatic elements making up this view, one which has left its mark on Dutch national memory, of national and religious history. However, we can be sure that a shudder of horror touched all participants in the Synod at that very moment. As I will quote later, Reformed minister and professor Jacobus Trigland (1583–1654) still quivered many years later while recalling the body language of President Bogerman. In that sense, the dismissal cry might well be called a decretum horribile. The question is, however, what exactly happened, without any considerations as to righteousness or justice of what happened. That is the question which I would like to address over the following pages. The answer will inevitably be a reconstruction based on several sources. This contribution results from the fortuitous opportunity presented by the official launch of the new edition of the Acta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (Sinnema et al.: 2015). It is an edition which challenges us to discover the historical background, and indeed the historical reality, behind the story of these official minutes of the Synod, or in other words, the historical dynamics and perspectives behind the well-known picture we all have in mind of the Synod of Dordt at its decisive hour. I shall seek here to explore the research possibilities by focusing on just one element of the historical

Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile

97

event, offering meanwhile a perspective of the role of emotions in the history of church and theology.

2.

Tradition of church organisation

Let me start with a reference to one of the earlier Dutch national synods, which were held by Reformed churches since their origins in the Southern Netherlands in the middle of the sixteenth century. During the reign of King Philip II (1527– 1598), Calvinist ministers and elders gathered in clandestine meetings in Antwerp and other locations from 1563 onwards. In 1571, a general synod of Netherlands churches was held in the city of Emden, one which anticipated a quick success for the Dutch Revolt in the home countries. After the change of government in the provinces of Holland and Zeeland, a first synod was held in Dordrecht in 1574, followed by larger meetings of church delegates at the national synods of Dordrecht in 1578, Middelburg in 1581, and The Hague in 1586. It was at these synods that the basis was laid for a set of provincial church orders, which went on to shape ecclesiastical life in the Dutch Republic until the beginning of the nineteenth century (Rutgers: 1899; Van Lieburg: 2014). One of the articles of the National Synod of Dordrecht 1578 dealt with the task of the president at ecclesiastical assemblies. I quote this article, number 38, with an eye to the later action of Bogerman: “The office of President is to order that everybody takes his turn in speaking, to warn the vehement and quarrelsome members to desist, and should they fail to do so, to dismiss them from the assembly so that they might be censured appropriately according to the judgement of the brethren.”2 The same article was included in the National Synod or Church Order of The Hague in 1586, except for the clause regarding the dismissal of argumentative participants.3 After that, no further Dutch Reformed church orders were promulgated before the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618–1619. However, formal and informal rules on the management of meetings and conduct in them must have been common among the ministers of the Reformed churches. 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. 2 “Het ambt des presidis is te bevelen dat een yeghelick sijnen keer houde in het spreken, den heftighen ende twistighen tot stilswijghen te vermanen ende, soo sij hetselve niet nakoemen, te doen gaen uut der versamelinghe opdat se na het oordeel der broederen behoorlick ghestraft moghen worden.” National Synod of Dordt 1578, Art. 38 or Chapter II, Art. xxiii; cf. Rutgers: 1899, 244; Nauta/Van Dooren: 1978, 151. 3 National Synod of Dordt 1586, Art. 32; cf. Rutgers: 1899, 494.

98

Fred van Lieburg

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. This observation is especially true for the man who was elected on 14 November 1618 to be the president of the great synod. At that moment, Johannes Bogerman (1576–1637), minister of the Reformed congregation in the city of Leeuwarden, the capital of the province of Friesland, was 42 years old and had a ministerial experience of some 18 years. During this period, he had already presided over many meetings of the Presbytery of Sneek and some synods of the Frisian provincial church. Now he was charged with the job of his life. Being praeses synodi nationalis was indeed a very difficult job, as the eyes of the Dutch church, public and politics were fixed upon Dordrecht, and even those of the international community, in this “Cold War” of the European confessions (Van Itterzon: 1980). In addition to his personal experience of church management in his home province, Bogerman must have been acquainted with international Protestant church polity. The same is true of his fellow moderators, the assessores and scribae of the Synod. As far back as 1610, when the Reformed church was challenged by the Remonstrant party, the Amsterdam minister Johannes Lydius (1577–1643) had published a Dutch translation of three Latin treatises on the organization of annual synods, written by Heinrich Büllinger (1504–1574) and Andreas Hyperius (1511–1564).4 During and after the Council of Trent, an extensive criticism of Catholic assemblies was developed by Protestant theologians. At the same time, Protestant church leaders were having to firm up their own meeting conventions in line with Biblical principles. As the basic findings of this positive reflection found expression in church orders of various confessions, some Reformed theologians wrote further commentaries and guidelines on councils and synods in order to defend the position of church administration as independent of political government. Once more, the right of the Reformed church to self-government was at stake in the gathering gloom of trouble between Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants in the Dutch Republic. Just before the prominent Calvinists convened in Dordrecht, another contribution to the knowledge of the tradition of eccle4 Hyperius, 1570, 768–869. Cf. Dry tractaetgens van de Ordre int beroepen ende beleydinge der jaerlijcsche Synoden, [translated from the Latin by Johannes Lydius,] Amsterdam 1610; Een boecxken Andreae Hyperii. Van de jaerlijcksche Synoden, eerst int Latijn beschreven ende nu in de duytsche tale overgeset, Amsterdam 1612. For bibliographical details, see Krause: 1977, 151. On the Synod tractate, see Hovius: 1958.

Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile

99

siastical polity was delivered by several observers of the procedures to be followed by the National Synod. While ministers from Delft and Leiden – among them Festus Hommius (1576–1642), one of the Synod’s clerks – published compilations of former Dutch church orders, Simeon Ruytinck (c.1576–1621), minister of the exile community in London, provided a summary of synodal decisions over the past fifty years (Hommius resp. Ruytinck: 1618). It is not the right place here to explain how he invented a false historiographical tradition by including the decisions of ministers meeting in Wesel in 1568, framing this ‘Convent’ as the first in the series of ‘national synods’ of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands. At this time, the ‘harmony’ of ecclesiastical decisions strengthened the participants’ awareness of following in the footsteps of their fathers who had founded the Dutch ecclesiastical organizational body.

3.

Political preparation

In spite of there being a generally-shared knowledge of European Protestant church polity, in particular in the Dutch Reformed context, the Synod of Dordt faced a long and fierce debate on the right way to deal with the Arminian issue in the political and ecclesiastical situation of the day. The States-General succeeded well in mobilizing the national and international partners of the confessional state. They invited the British crown, German princes and Swiss authorities to send their theologians to Dordrecht. However, they failed in their aim of forming a group of representatives of the Arminian party in the church. As soon as they had called a number of Remonstrant ministers to the Synod, the question arose as to whether they were to be allowed to appear as a group of church officials or as colleagues who had to defend their unorthodox personal opinions. The only professor in the group, Simon Episcopius (1583–1643) of Leiden, initially asserted that he would join the delegation of theological faculties before instead taking up the leadership of the ‘cited Remonstrants’, sitting around a table in the middle of the assembly room. Another point of divergence of opinion was the question whether the group of Remonstrants should be allowed to answer in written form. Some of them admitted that they were not well versed in Latin or able to respond quickly on theological issues. At any rate, the Remonstrants repeatedly handed response papers to the president or asked him to deliver his interrogations in writing. At this point, we may usefully quote from the minutes (also known as the Acta, like those of the Synod itself) of the States delegates (hereinafter ‘the Acts of the Delegates’), which have now been made available by Johanna Roelevink of the Huygens Institute in The Hague for the editorial project of the Johannes à Lasco Library in Emden. On 27 December 1618, President Bogerman was received by

100

Fred van Lieburg

the States delegates, who held separate meetings besides attending the plenary sessions of the Synod. Discussing the impasse in the Remonstrant procedures, Bogerman was assured by his political patrons that the Remonstrants were obliged to obey the state and the Synod, and that they were under a duty to answer orally and individually.5 On the same day, the Acts of the Synod itself mention the self-confident actions of the Remonstrants in the synod chamber, insisting on their own liberty to explain their opinions, to defend their convictions and to attack the opinions of other theologians. I now quote from the Dutch translation of the Latin minutes of Session 39 on the morning of Thursday 27 December 1618, edited by Don Sinnema and his assistants. On that occasion, the Remonstrants declared “that the whole of their case was bound up with [the issue of] the manner of proceedings, and that they consequently would prefer to remove themselves from the Synod’s deliberations and leave the city [of Dordrecht] if it was not conceded and permitted to them in advance to have liberty of action to conduct their own case as they judged proper and necessary” (Sinnema et al.: 2015, 69–71). This was a clear message. Before the Remonstrants were eventually expelled from the Synod, they anticipated more than once leaving this assembly which they refused to acknowledge. They knew that if they did so, they would be risking being sentenced by the political authorities for their disobedience as well as being condemned by the Synodal delegates for their heterodoxy. However, the Remonstrants played the card of church polity until the very end of the drama. To cut a long story short here, a crucial moment was the decision in the private meeting of the States delegates on Friday 28 December 1618 to send a commission to the States-General. Five politicians and churchmen were sent to The Hague to discuss how to proceed, i. e. to glean support for the forcing of a solution in Dordrecht. The next day, after protracted and wearisome sessions in the synod, the States delegates announced to the cited Remonstrants this invocation of the supreme civil authority (Sinnema et al.: 2015, 483). On Sunday 30 December 1618, the five commissioners travelled to The Hague, and on Thursday 3 January 1619 they returned to Dordrecht. In the meantime, on the first of January, the States-General had made a resolution which, among other points, stipulated that if the Remonstrants remained unwilling to cooperate, the Synod would be authorized to judge them by their publications and by the opinions they had expressed heretofore at synods. In fact, it was this reso5 Sinnema et al. 2015 (ADSDN 1), 483: “Is oock geresolveert, dat de Remonstranten op de interrogata die in het synode voorgestelt souden worden dadelick souden moeten antwoorden, sonder dat de selve haer in schrift op haer versoeck gegeven souden worden. / Is oock door den Praesidem ecclesiasticum aengedient geweest, dat de Remonstranten, in plaetse van capitatim, als geseyt was, op het gene dat haer voorgestelt soude mogen worden te antwoorden, sochten een collegium te maecken. Het welcke oock de heeren verstonden niet te behooren.”

Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile

101

lution that paved the way for the eventual expulsion of the Remonstrants from the National Synod by President Bogerman (Sinnema et al.: 2015, 483). In essence, the dismissal of the group of Reformed critics as obstructors of proceedings was already legitimized in the back room before it was presented in the public hall, leaving aside the emotional manner of the President’s performance.

4.

Ecclesiastical preparation

The political side of the careful preparations for the dismissal of the Remonstrants should be obvious by now. On the ecclesiastical side, the possibility of judging the Remonstrants without the Remonstrants being present was discussed in the aforementioned Synod sessions on Saturday 29 December 1618, when, essentially, the Synod acquiesced in the principle of removing the Remonstrants from the proceedings. Given this decision, it looks to be a long exercise of patience that their final removal was in fact delayed for more than two weeks. During those weeks, several efforts were made to find a way out of the crisis while salvaging the honor of the state, the Synod and its participants. The Remonstrants wrote a request to the States-General, the Synod composed a summary of Remonstrant feelings in hope of an open and fair discussion, but all efforts failed. An interesting meeting occurred on Saturday 12 January 1619, which is extensively reported in the Acts of the Delegates (Sinnema et al.: 2015, 485–488). The previous day, the Remonstrants had been given the weekend for reflection until the next official Synod session on the Monday. Meanwhile, the States delegates invited them to a private meeting for an ultimate deliberation, presided over by elder statesman Rochus van den Honert (1572–1638). The Remonstrants insisted on freedom of conscience and freedom of discussion, while the politicians required unconditional submission to the judgment of the Synod. Bogerman and the other moderators were sitting in an adjacent room and were frequently consulted by Van den Honert, intermediated by his secretary Daniel Heinsius (1580–1655). If the tension between sense and emotion had already been growing for weeks, it considerably increased at this meeting. According to a later report from the Remonstrants, the politicians continuously urged them to obedience and reproached them for their ‘disobedience’. They were shouting in altogether a confusing, aggressive and disorderly way. The President could not stop this quarrelling, neither by pounding on the table nor by blandishing the gentlemen, so that he sat a whole hour without speaking, ashamed and embarrassed at the turbulence of this discussion (Wtenbogaert: 1646). Monday 14 January 1619 was the Remonstrants’ D-Day. In the early morning, Session 57 started with a report by the States delegates of what had happened the

102

Fred van Lieburg

previous Saturday. They reported having dealt with the Remonstrants the whole afternoon, admonishing, begging and ordering them, even ‘to public scorn’ – all in vain. Now they wished to assure the Synod that they had done everything they could to carry out the resolution of the States-General to restore calm, peace and order in the United Provinces. If the Synod agreed, they advised that the Remonstrants be called and interrogated just one more time. Indeed, the Synod’s vice-presidents, clerks and attending foreign theologians were unanimous, after consultation with Bogerman, in their conviction that there was no hope of reconciliation and that the Remonstrants should be removed from the Synod. Interestingly, the foreign delegates proposed that this news be broken to the Remonstrants “in brief words, not prolonging time and quibbling again, and then [that they be] solemnly dismissed from the Synod.” After the entrance of the Remonstrants, Bogerman and Episcopius proceeded with a power play, pokering about an oral and written statement of their opinion. The relationship between the different groups in the Synod chamber had become very brittle in terms of performance, participation and management. Bogerman first intended to have each individual Remonstrant come up to his table to sign a declaration. When he noticed discontent among the delegates, he changed his mind and allowed them to sign at their own table. The final dismission was preceded by Bogerman’s speech in which the famed imperative was uttered. His aim was to draw attention to the Remonstrants’ obstinacy so disapproved of by the politicians and clerics and by the foreign theologians as well. As for the evidence of this, he referred to some instances in procedure that proved the continuous mendacity of the Remonstrants. What happened at the end of this speech will be observed in more detail below. Session 57 all told was completed by noon, so it was time for all those left in the building to knock off for a more or less convivial lunch. No doubt emotions were running high that midday, whether each individual’s mood was dejected or relieved. The great question now was how to proceed. The next session, Session 58, was scheduled for the same afternoon. The official Synod records mention a long-drawn-out consultation and deliberation about how to deal with the Remonstrants’ papers. The Synod directors instructed the copyists to duplicate enough copies of the papers in anticipation. Session 59 on the Tuesday morning was devoted to agreeing the minutes, that is, the text regarding this episode which was to be included in the final edition of the Acta Synodi when the time came. Not until Wednesday 16 January 1619 was the Synod ready to proceed to the main business of the assembly, which was the scrutiny of the Five Articles that would make up the final Canons of Dordt.6

6 For the Acta authentica of sessions 58–60, see Sinnema et al.: 2015, 109–114.

Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile

5.

103

What Bogerman actually said

Remarkably, the published Acta Synodi report Bogerman’s address to the Remonstrants only in indirect citation and in a lightly summarized version. If the speech was an improvisation, then the record of it was incomplete and possibly inaccurate. The final sentence reflects a maximum of objectivity: ‘When this had been said to them by the President, they rose up and departed from the synod.’7 In distinction to the indirect account of Bogerman’s speech, some utterances by the Remonstrants on their way out are quoted verbatim. Finally, the Acta mention the politicians’ spoken order to the Remonstrants, forbidding them to leave from the city without their consent. Incidentally, this order was given outside the Synod chamber and therefore in fact did not form part of the proceedings of the ecclesiastical assembly. Here, we see a gray zone in the Acta Synodi on the boundary of the public and private communications between the delegates and other participants in the event. What really did overcome President Bogerman that ‘Black Monday’? Unfortunately, he himself did not leave any personal account. However, there are several testimonies, memories and rumors dating from that very day through to a couple of decades afterwards. Most interesting among them is the letter written by Sir Dudley Carleton (1573–1632), Ambassador of the Kingdom of England in the Dutch Republic, to his assistant, John Chamberlain (1553–1628), on 19 January 1619. Having just reported the difficulties provoked by the Remonstrants in the Synod sessions, Carleton continues: So as on Monday last they were cast out of the Sinode somwhat rufly, I must confesse, the President beginning with them that they were Indigni quibuscum ulterius agatur [unworthy of being dealt with any further] and concluding with these words quam ob rem vos Delegatorum et Sinodi nomine dimitto. Exite [For which reason I dismiss you in the name of the Delegates and the Synod. Go.]8

An additional account is known from the diary notes of Swiss delegate Wolfgang Meyer (1577–1653): ”Geht fort. Geht hin, wo ihr hergekommen sind (Dimittimini, exite! Quo eopistis pede, eodem cedite)!” (Graf: 1825, 83). Here, the Latin words actually uttered by Bogerman are provided by the source only in parenthesis after first being recollected in the observer’s native language, and the final clause, new to us in this account, means, ”Go back to where you came from!” Are we still to assume that the President used exclusively the scholarly lingua franca, or could we use this recollection (coupled with the fact that a Swiss German speaker would have understood the Dutch words if they were indeed uttered) to 7 Acta authentica: “Haec cum illis a d. Praeside dicta essent, surrexerunt atque ex synodo discesserunt.” (Sinnema et al.: 2015, ADSND 1, 113). 8 Sir Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain, 9/19 Jan 1619; see Milton: 2005, 189–190.

104

Fred van Lieburg

suppose that at moments of heightened drama such as this, Bogerman actually mixed his Latin words with Dutch, or, more precisely, that he first gave a gut response in his native language and only then translated it into Latin? Whatever the truth of the matter, Remonstrant minister Bernard Dwinglo (1582–1660), author of a ‘Historical Narrative of what happened in Dordrecht in the years 1618 and 1619’, also offered a bilingual quotation of what Bogerman said at the end of his crucial speech: ”And at once he commanded them most dishonorably to go out, saying with an indignation, dimittimini, exite: you may go, make yourselves scarce.”9 Eduard Poppius (1576–1624), another Remonstrant minister and author of a similar account, describes the events in Dutch only. According to him, Bogerman, after saying ”I dismiss you, get out,” also interrupted the hubbub of the murmuring Remonstrants with: ”You have said enough!”10 A most interesting eyewitness from the Reformed side was Jacobus Trigland, whom I earlier quoted in the introduction of this article. This Amsterdam city minister was an ecclesiastical member of the National Synod on behalf of the Synod of North Holland. Later on, he was appointed professor of theology at Leiden University. In 1650, the Synod of South Holland asked Trigland to compose a history of the Dutch Reformation in response to the voluminous work which had been produced by Remonstrant leader Johannes Wtenbogaert (1557– 1644) and published in 1646 and 1647. In this apologetic account, the central moment of the Synod had been reproduced on the basis of the account by Dwinglo (1646: 5, 1136). However, Trigland was impelled to give his own view from personal recollections. In the following reprise, he commented on and amended Wtenbogaert’s account: The minute-taker states (page 1136, column 1) that the President concluded with these words: Dimittimini, Exite [I dismiss you, go]. You are sent away; depart, go away. But [in fact,] in addition to this, he also said: Mendacio incepistis, Mendacio finivistis, and pulling his hands away from each other with the open and flat side towards them [i. e., the Remonstrants], he gave his last word Ite [Go], that is: You started with lies, you have finished with lies. Go away. Which I heard and saw with terror and horror, and still remember with dismay to this day.11 9 “Ende met eenen geboodt hy haer op’t smadelijcxste uyt te gaen, segghende met een verontwaerdiginge, dimittimini, exite: Ghy meucht wel gaen, maeckt u wech.” Wtenbogaert/ Dwingelo: 1646, 137. 10 “Ick ontslae u, gaet uyt. Dit afscheyt heeft ons de Praeses gegeven met toornighen ghemeoedt ende hevige woorden. Hierop werde uyt onse name gheantwoort, wy sullen met onsen Salighmaker Christo Jesu stil swijghen, ende Godt sal oordeelen, wat bedriegheryen ende leughenen wy ghebruyckt hebben. De Praeses viel terstont in de woorden, ende seyde, ghy hebt genoegh ghesproken. In ’t opstaan, seyde een van de onse, ick beroepe my op den Richterstoel Christi, alwaar oock geoordeelt sullen worden, die alhier sitten als Richters. Een seyde oock; gaat uyt de vergaderinghe der boosdoenders.” Poppius: 1649, 78. 11 “Den Histori-schrijver seydt Pag. 1136 Col. 1, Dat het de Praeses besloot met dese woorden

Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile

6.

105

What Bogerman may have been feeling

The scene pictured by Trigland as quoted above illustrates the connotation of this ‘horrible’ decision of the Synod of Dordrecht. Moreover, this author is the only eyewitness to have described Bogerman having made a gesture while sending away the Remonstrants. Surely, even in the absence of such an observer’s report, it would be hard to imagine that such a seasoned orator as Bogerman would have pronounced his Ite! without agitation or motion. Due to the imagination of many painters, many sketches and paintings of this dramatic apogee of the Synod depict Bogerman with one or even both arms outstretched and with wagging finger, including the memorial window in the Great Church of Dordrecht. In any case, the phrase provided by Trigland, written down more than twenty years after the event, indicates to us to the emotional pitch of the entire event, which had already been touched upon by Sir Dudley Carleton writing to Archbishop Abbot just five days after 14 January of 1619: I shall not neede to advertise your Grace what passeth at the Synode, from whence you will heare how the Remonstrants being excluded from further conference by reason of their opiniatretie [sic], their opinions are now collected owt of their bookes. The course is approved by the States, yet the manner of their dismission in very ruffe and uncivill termes, used by the President Bogermannus (who before wonne much commendation of modestie and temper) is generally misliked. Quanquam illi digni hac contumelia., the place and quality of the assemblie required another manner of proceeding; which would have wrought the same effect, and have bin lesse subject to censure. But it is not now in integro to looke backe and rectify what is amisse withowt much disparagement. They must therefore go forward and for the countenance of their action do the best they may leaveing the event to God.12

The same double criticism of Bogerman’s wrath, constrasting it with both his usual good mood and his grave ecclesiastical standing, was also offered by Remonstrant minister Casparus Barlaeus (1584–1648), the presumed author of a pamphlet addressed to the entire assembly in Dordrecht on 21 January 1619, just a week after the President’s contested action. ”The dismission was effected with such valedictory words as sufficiently revealed his passion and anger, although the Apostle James writes that such wrath [of man] works not the righteousness of

Dimittimini, Exite. Ghy wort wech gesonden, verlaten, Gaet henen. Maer daer dient by dat hy oock seyde: Mendacio incepistis, Mendacio finivistis, ende slaende sijn handen van malkanderen met het open ende platte na haer toe, ’t leste woordt dede zijn. Ite, Dat is Ghy luyden hebt met leugen begonnen, ghy hebt met leugen gheeyndicht, Gaet henen. ’t Welck ghelijck ick met een schrick ende ontsettinghe mijns gemoets ghehoort ende gesien heb, alsoo noch met een ontstellinge gedencke.” Trigland: 1650, 5, 1137. 12 Sir Dudley Carleton to Archbishop Abbot, 14/24 January 1619; Hales: 1659/1711, 74; Milton: 2005, 185.

106

Fred van Lieburg

God.” So Barlaeus adds the issue of (Christian) morality to the standards of good humor and honor: ”While enumerating the tricks, frauds and forgeries of the Remonstrants, Bogerman used propositions unbecoming of the dignity of himself and of the Synod, as they were contrary to the truth and mixed up with great bitterness and partiality.” According to Barlaeus, Bogerman should have remembered the apostolic admonition to ”put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth” (Col 3:8).13 The aforementioned chronicler Eduard Poppius summarized Bogerman’s final message to his fellow Remonstrants in one sentence: “The President gave us this departure in an angry mind and with violent words.”14 Our understanding of Bogerman’s emotionality is indeed hard to separate from our grasp of the prior decision to dismiss them from the Synod. In fact, the ecclesiastical president had just accomplished what had already been pre-cooked with the political appointees to the assembly. Even if Bogerman had somehow managed to exercise total self-restraint, that would still not have altered the intent of the StatesGeneral and the majority of the Synod. Meanwhile, on the day following the decisive session, one of the foreign delegates voiced the opinion of some participants in the Synod as to the President’s performance. According to John Hales (1584–1656), who stayed in Dordrecht to keep the English ambassador informed about the Synod, ”Ludovicus Crosius of Breme[n] signified that he perceived that Mister Praeses in that business had been paula commotior [a bit too impassioned], and had let slip verba quaedam acerba [some bitter words], which might well have been spared.”15 Hales was interested in how Bogerman could explain or defend his emotional intensity in addressing and dismissing the Remonstrants, but was unable to find out. “What his Apology was for his passionate speeches I know not.” (Hales: 1649/1711, 462). The only account we do have of Bogerman’s own evaluation of the matter comes from the Amsterdam minister Geeraert Brandt (1626–1685). Writing the history of the Remonstrants in the 1670s, he was able to draw on the publication of Hales’ and Balcanqual’s letters. Although he is perhaps not the best-informed source to rely on, Brandt claims to know at least an indication of Bogerman’s feeling about his hour of truth in 1619: that the Frisian church leader 13 Barlaeus: 1619, 3–4. “De dimissie is gheschiet met soodanighe scheytredenen, die sijn ghepassioneert ende door toornicheyt ontstelt ghemoet (welcke nochtans, ghelijck den Apostel Jacobus seyt, de gherechtigheyt Gods niet en werckt) ghenoechsaem te kennen gaf, want hij ons in deselve opdichte ende te laste leyde, van met practijcken, bedroch ende valscheden omgegaen te hebben, ghebruyckende propoosten, die noch hem, noch uwer Waere, doch ons eerlijck waeren, als gaende tegens waerheyt ende met groote bitterheyt ende partydicheyt ghemengt.” 14 Poppius: 1649, 78 (see the Dutch text in note 10). 15 Hales: 1649/1711, 461 (Letter to Carleton, 16 January 1619).

Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile

107

was said to have admitted to his friends that he had been somewhat vehement to the Remonstrants, but that his zeal for the Synod had gotten him in such a worked-up state.16 The story is somewhat vague, but this reported self-reflection by Bogerman seems not entirely implausible. His vocal outburst was sharp in form, but understandable in context.

7.

Post decretum

The manner in which President Bogerman dismissed the Remonstrants has been not very conducive to the reputation of the Synod of Dordt in national and international history. Even his admission that he had somewhat exceeded his powers has not made for much compassion in posterity for him. On the contrary, this apology was rejected by two influential Dutch church historians in the early nineteenth century – theology professor Annaeus Ypey (1760–1837) and court preacher Isaac Johannes Dermout (1777–1867). Not excelling in the impartiality that became a virtue in later historical scholarship, they couched the mainstream understanding of the Dutch Protestant Enlightenment in terms closer to Arminian theology than to Calvinist orthodoxy. Both authors sympathized with the Remonstrants while blaming Bogerman for his dismissal speech in the Synod: After the [document] handover, the President spoke to them in a tone that cut to their heart like a sword; these were sharp words, indicating the high emotions of the speaker, a haughtiness combined with contempt for the defendants, who were now banished from the assembly as being unworthy to be dealt with longer. The last words, which sum up succinctly the entire utterance, were these: You are dismissed! Get out! With lies you started! With lies you have finished! […] Nonetheless, Bogerman excused himself by confessing that his heart might have been too excited; one should to ascribe this[,Bogerman explained,] to the circumstances of the matter, [circumstances] which had upset him!17

16 Brandt: 1671–1704, 3, 301: “Dus verhaelt het Hales, die daer bij voegt, dat hij niet wist wat hij tot verantwoording van sijn gepassioneerde reden seide. Doch soo andere seggen, bekende hij onder sijne vrienden, dat hij wat te hevigh was geweest, maer sijn ijver voor den dienst der Synode hadt hem soo vervoert.“ 17 “Na deze overgave sprak hen de voorzitter aan op eenen toon, die hun door het hart sneed, als een zwaard; het waren scherpe woorden, den hoogen moed aanduidende van den spreker, eenen hoogen moed, gepaard met verachting van de gedaagden, die nu uit de vergadering, als onwaardig, om langer met hen te handelen, gebannen werden. De laatste woorden, die den korten inhoud behelsden van de geheele aanspraak, waren deze: Gijlieden wordt weggezonden! Gaat uit! Met leugens zijt gij begonnen! Met leugens hebt gij geëindigd!” (….) ‘Bogerman nogtans verschoonde zich met te belijden, dat zijn hart misschien wat al te zeer in drift ware geweest; men moest zulks aan de omstandigheden der zake toeschrijven, die hem beroerd hadden!” Ypeij/Dermout: 1819–1827, 2, 227; Appendix (“Aanteekeningen”), 2, 153,

108

Fred van Lieburg

According to Ypeij and Dermout, it was not just the final words of Bogerman’s speech but also his emotional outburst and gesticulating that confirmed the falseness of his entire action. Content and form were not to be separated, in this case being regarded negatively. Remarkably, the inseparability of reason from emotion was even acknowledged, though this time assessed positively, by the conservative lawyer Carel Marie van der Kemp (1799–1861), in a simultaneous defense in the face of Ypeij’s and Dermout’s criticism both of the resolution of the Synod of Dordt and of Bogerman’s honour. Obviously, the President failed to remain within the bounds of his rightful composure when confronted by the obdurate and raw audacity of the Remonstrants, but “in that he expressed his anger and indignation by [mere] words and gestures, there is nothing worthy of blame,” van der Kemp argued. “He had a very difficult task to fulfill, which makes such a petty failure, the cause of which was the most improper conduct on the part of the Remonstrants themselves, well excusable.”18 A similarly forgiving attitude towards Bogerman’s emotionality can be found in the first attempt to write a scholarly study of the Synod of Dordt, that undertaken by Barend Glasius (1805–1886). Was it the growing divergence between mainstream and left-liberal Protestantism after the first half of the nineteenth century that caused him to shift attention away from Bogerman’s moment of coming unstuck to focus rather on the Remonstrants’ provocative behavior? Certainly, they could not have been unaware of what they would face after having thrown up such long-winded objections to the procedure: The storm which had been threatening them had already announced itself at a far distance, and the fact that the moment had really come at which it would erupt was something which announced itself to them in the ominous countenance, the sparkling eyes of the President, his entire posture, testifying to inward wrath.

Glasius expresses his understanding and empathy for Bogerman in evocative language: “Long had he suppressed his rage; now, in his conviction, the uttermost limit had been reached; futile was all forbearance; and now also, he felt himself justified to crush the defendants with all the power of his fiery eloquence.”19 note 262. The authors failed to reference their source, but they must have read the work of Brandt (see note 16). 18 “Wij willen echter geenszins ontkennen, dat hij met toorn en verontwaardiging tegen de Remonstranten gesproken heeft. Al leerde ons Trigland bl. 1137 zulks niet, men zoue het lichtelijk uit de onverzettelijke en hardnekkige stoutheid der remonstranten kunnen besluiten. Dat hij dien toorn en verontwaardiging in zijne woorden en gebaren heeft doen blijken, daarin was niets berispenswaardig. (…) Hij had eenen zeer moeilijken post te vervullen, die hem zulk eene geringe feil, waarvan het alleronbehoorlijkst gedrag der Remonstranten zelf de oorzaak was, wel verschoonlijk maakte.” Van der Kemp: 1830–1833, 259– 260. 19 “Het kon den geciteerden niet duister zijn, wat hun boven het hoofd hing. De storm, die hen dreigde, had zich reeds uit de verte aangekondigd en dat het oogenblik dáár was, waarin deze

Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile

109

Echoed in many popular stories in the orthodox Protestant press, such a dramatic imagination of the issue of the horrible decree at the historical synod was to reach the mind of the artist who designed the memorial window in the Great Church of Dordrecht mentioned at the beginning of this article. The most balanced consideration of Bogerman’s conduct might, when all is considered, have been given by the church historian of cautious judgement Gerrit Pieter van Itterzon (1900–1992), who devoted a whole biography to the Synod’s foreman as recently as 1980. On the one hand, he emphasized the legitimacy of the dismissal of the Remonstrants, on the basis that the political committees, the foreign delegates and the greater part of the Dutch ministers assembled were united in their opinion that a reasonable meeting of minds between the parties had been proven to be impossible. On the other, he stressed the role played by the addled and stifling atmosphere, in light of which the President’s explosive outburst of frustration was as understandable as it was regrettable. “Bogerman had a heavy burden to bear, one which after many weeks had taken their toll found expression in emotional words.” (Van Itterzon: 1980).

8.

Concluding remarks

What does this case study ultimately contribute to the historiography of the Synod of Dordt? As noted above, this investigation was prompted by the editorial project of the Acta Synodi. Those involved in that endeavor are highly focused on that text of the Synod’s minutes. Yet we should not exclusively focus on the authorized Acta but ought also to take note of what was said and done according to other sources. It is interesting to consider what happened in the meeting chamber, but also in the common room and in the delegates’ social environment as well. At a background level, this detailed inquiry into the famous deed of Bogerman hints at what has become a burgeoning field of cultural studies, one which has come to be known as the history of emotions. Mainly originating from the English-speaking world, this multidisciplinary type of research is now also

zou losbarsten, zeiden hun het dreigende gelaat, de fonkelende oogen van den voorzitter, diens geheele houding, die van inwendige gramschap getuigde. Lang had hij zijne drift onderdrukt; thans was, naar zijne overtuiging, de uiterste grens genaderd; vergeefs was alle inschikkelijkheid; en nu ook achtte hij zich geregtigd om de gedaagden met al de kracht zijner vurige welsprekendheid te verpletteren.“ / “Zeker, wij zouden aan Bogerman, vooral bij zijne laatste rede, meer gematigdheid, meer zachtmoedigheid hebben toegewenscht, maar wij begrijpen het, hoe hem, nadat naar zijne zienswijze, de Remonstranten den loop der zaak zoo lang hadden vertraagd, de taak der Synode, vooral die van haren voorzitter, zoo lang vermoeijelijkt, de lang verkropte drift onverholen uitbarstte.” Glasius: 1860–1861, 152.

110

Fred van Lieburg

flourishing in the Netherlands and Germany.20 Its students explore the role played by feelings in the norms, values and practices of individuals, groups and societies in the past and present. Since the 1960s, our imagination of the history of emotions has been strongly influenced by the classic work of Norbert Elias (1897–1990) on the civilizing process. In short, he considers Western history as a history of increasing emotional restraint, moving from medieval childlikeness to the modern culture of self-discipline, control and suppression. As he has it, the Calvinist emphasis on the need to obtain proof of divine election – a drive confirmed not in the last place by the Synod of 1618–1619 – led to a systematic introspection of inner thoughts and feelings. The new history of emotions, however, does not work with such linear models. Each period and every tradition, it is now held, has its own rules to inform people how to feel and how to express those feelings in particular societies and situations. The historian’s task is to explain how and why standards and practices changed over time, by drawing on personal documents or popular evidence in addition to official sources or advisory literature. As regards Early Modern religion, an exemplary study in this discipline has been produced by Susan Karant-Nunn (2010) on the “reformation of feeling” in Lutheran Germany. Studies with that theme refer to the influences of Humanism and Neo-Stoicism, including the notion of self-control in ethics and education. They also delve into contemporary views of rhetorics and homiletics, as the art of speech and preaching was crafted to touch the minds and feelings of the audience, serving as it did for the proclamation of God’s message. A further step could be made by linking the discourses of ratio, ritual and emotion to the words used to define meeting conduct in its broadest sense. Sociologist Wilbert van Vree (2001) has pioneered the history of gathering the traditions of the Netherlands, spanning the political, legal, academic and ecclesiastical spheres. Leaning on the insights of Elias, he has stressed the importance of emotion in several kinds of assembly, such as parliaments, law courts, universities and councils, including the Synod of Dordt. It is clear that there was a degree of bleeding between the conference manners practised by the States-General, Provincial States and city councils and those conventional in the bodies of the public church, which for these purposes were the meetings of consistories, presbyteries and synods. Leading scholars in the history of emotions have introduced new concepts to enable fresh points of view. For example, the notion of “emotionologies” refers to frames of thought and feeling that are current in given societies and subcultures, 20 See the activities of, among others, the Queen Mary Centre for the History of the Emotions in London, the Center for the History of Emotions at the Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung in Berlin, and the Amsterdam Centre for Cross-Disciplinary Emotion and Sensory Studies (ACCESS).

Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile

111

defining the prevailing attitudes toward emotions and the approved means of controlling and expressing them (Stearns: 1985). Which kinds of emotionology, then, were at work when churches had to deal with theological debates and ecclesiastical tensions, in particular during the Synod of Dordt? In terms of “emotional communities”, conceived of as social communities in which people act and react in different ways and with varying registers of feelings and codes of expression (Rosenwein: 2006), a synod is a gathering with its own regime of meeting behavior, one anchored within a strong tradition of foregoing synods and councils. Did the delegates in Dordrecht succeed in keeping the manners of the theatre separate from other emotional communities? Did Bogerman viscerally realize that he was not preaching in a place of worship but speaking in a meeting room? Finally, the term “emotives” has been coined in emotion studies to include non-verbal communication (Reddy: 2001). Emotions are themselves tools for directly adjusting, building, concealing or intensifying emotions. Was Bogerman’s functional anger, then, a formidable emotive, a vector launched into posterity with far reaching consequences for the history of church and theology? Taking inspiration from the historians of emotions, I would safely conclude that the unassuming noun dicta found in the authorized Acta masks the reality of a combination of sayings and gestures delivered in support of the thrust of the message. After all, it seems too simplistic to consider Bogerman’s behavior as nothing more than the uncontrolled venting of a steamy head. This was more than an outward incident that distracted from the Synod’s core business or some mere accident that could better have been avoided or should have had the veil of charity cast over its recollection. My supposition is that form and content, style and effect, were intentionally all of a piece. Bogerman’s dramatic speech, the sharp words, the harsh inflection of the voice, the curt last sentences, the final flourish of a gesture – all these were actually appropriate in the context of the very moment. The Synod had to relieve itself of a problem that could not be solved by reason within the remaining possibilities of the political, social and financial situation. Perhaps we would be overdoing matters to think of it as a purification rite, but Session 57 was at any rate a rite of passage, one that made room for the Synod to progress to the matters at hand and ultimately for the continuation of church and state.

9.

Bibliography

Barlaeus, Caspar (1619), Vale houdende verclaringe, in wat voeghen de Sinodvs Nationael tot Dordrecht, den remonstranten afscheyt heeft ghegheven. S.l. [Barueth, Johannes] (1776), Korte historie van de Synode Nationaal, gehouden binnen Dortrecht, in de jaaren 1618 en 1619 door den procureur van de vaderlandsche kerke , Arnhem: Wouter Troost.

112

Fred van Lieburg

Brandt, Geeraert (1671–1704), Historie der Reformatie, en andre kerkelyke geschiedenissen, in en ontrent de Nederlanden, 4 vol. Amsterdam: Jan Rieuwertsz /Rotterdam: Barent Bos. Duinen, Herman A. van (2004), Dordrecht Minster – The Netherlands. Nine centuries in words and pictures, Dordrecht: Stichting Behoud Grote Kerk. Glasius, Bernardus (1860–1861), Geschiedenis der nationale synode, in 1618 en 1619 gehouden te Dordrecht, in hare vo´o´rgeschiedenis, handelingen en gevolgen, 2 vol., Leiden: Engels. Goudriaan, Aza/Fred van Lieburg ed. (2011), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618– 1619), Leiden: Brill. Graf, Matthias (1825), Beyträge zur Kenntnis der Geschichte der Synode von Dordrecht. Aus Doctor Wolfgang Meyer’s und Antistes Johann Jakob Breitinger’s Papieren gezogen, Basel: J.G. Neukirch. Hales, John (1659/1711), Golden remains of the ever memorable Mr. John Hales …, 4th ed., with additions from the author’s own copy, (…) also letters and expresses concerning the Synod of Dordt, London: G. Pawlet. Hommius, Festus (1618), Specimen controversiarvm Belgicarvm, seu Confessio Ecclesiarvm Reformatarvm in Belgio, Leiden: Elzevier. Dutch translation: Monster vande Nederlantsche verschillen ofte Belydenisse der Ghereformeerde Kercken in Nederlant : al waer onder elcken artijckel bygevoecht zijn de verschillende artyckelen inde welcke hedensdaechs sommighe leeraers der Nederlantsche kercken, vande aengenome leere schijnen te wijcken / tot gherief vande aenstaende Nationale Synode inde Latijnsche taele t’samen ghestelt ende uytghegheven van Festvs Hommivs … , Leiden: David Jansz. van Ilpendam. Hovius, J. (1958), Hyperius‘ geschrift ‚De synodis annuis‘ (Van de jaarlijkse synoden). Apeldoorn: Theologische School van de Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken. Hyperius, Andreas (1570), De synodis annuis, in Andreae Hyperii Varia opuscula Theologica (…), Basel: Johannes Oporin, 768–869. Hyperius, Andreas (1610), Dry tractaetgens van de Ordre int beroepen ende beleydinge der jaerlijcsche Synoden, [vertaald uit Latijn door Johannes Lydius] Amsterdam: Jan Evertsz. Cloppenburch. Hyperius, Andreas (1612), Een boecxken Andreae Hyperii. Van de jaerlijcksche Synoden, eerst int Latijn beschreven ende nu in de duytsche tale overgeset, Amsterdam: Jan Evertsz. Cloppenburch. Itterzon, G.P. van (1980), Johannes Bogerman, Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. Karant-Nunn, Susan (2010), Reformation of Feeling. Shaping the Religious Emotions in Early Modern Germany, Oxford: University Press. Kemp, C.M. van der (1830–1833), De eere der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk gehandhaafd tegen Ypey en Dermout, 3 vol., Rotterdam: Wed. Van der Meer en Verbruggen. Krause, gerhard (1977), Andreas Gerhard Hyperius. Leben – Bilder – Schriften, Tübingen: Mohr. Lieburg, Fred van (2014). ‘Re-understanding the Dordt Church Order in its Dutch political, ecclesiastical and cultural context (1559–1816), in: A. Janssen & L.J. Koffeman (ed.), Protestant Church Polity in Changing Contexts. Ecclesiological and Historical

Dordrecht’s Own Decretum Horribile

113

Contributions. Proceedings of the International Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 7–10 November, 2011, vol. II, Berlin etc.: LIT Verlag, 117–136. Nauta, D./J.P. van Dooren ed. (1978), De Nationale Synode van Dordrecht 1578. Gereformeerden uit de Noordelijke en de Zuidelijke Nederlanden bijeen, Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn and Ton Bolland. Poppius, Eduard (1649), Historisch verhaal, van ’t gene tusschen den Synode Nationaal ende de geciteerde Remonstranten in ende buyten de synodale vergaderinghe is ghepasseert: Mitsgaders ’t gene daar op gevolght is, en eenige andre dingen meer, Amsterdam: Cornelis de Leeuw. Reddy, William M. (2001), The navigation of feeling, Cambridge: University Press. Rosenwein, Barbara H. (2006), Emotional Communities in the Early Middle Ages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Rutgers, F.L. ed. (1899), Acta van de Nederlandsche synoden der zestiende eeuw, ’sGravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff (reprint Dordrecht: J.P. van den Tol, 1980). [Ruytinck, Simeon] (1618), Harmonie, dat is Overeenstemminge der Nederlandtse synoden, ofte regvlen naer de welcke de kercken worden gheregiert … / cortelick by den anderen ghestelt, door S.R., Leiden: David Jansz. van Ilpendam. 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. Stearns, Peter N. & Carol Z. (1985), Emotionology. Clarifying the History of Emotions and Emotional Standards, The American Historical Review 90, 813–830. Trigland, Jacobus (1650), Kerckelycke geschiedenissen, begrypende de swaere en bekommerlijcke geschillen, in de Vereenigde Nederlanden voor-gevallen, met derselver beslissinge, ende aenmerckingen op de kerckelycke historie van Johannes VVtenbogaert, Leiden: Adriaen Wyngaerden. Vree, Wilbert van (2001), Meetings, Manners, and Civilization: The Development of Modern Meeting Behaviour, Leicester: University Press. Wtenbogaert, Johannes & Bernardus Dwingelo (1623/1648), Oorspronck ende Voortganck der nederlantsche kerckelijcke verschillen/ tot op het nationale synodvs van Dordrecht. Mitsgaders Historisch Verhael van ’t ghene sich toegedraeghen heeft binnen Dordrecht in de jaren 1618. en 1619. tusschen de Nationale Synode der Contra-Remonstranten ende hare Geassocieerde ter eender. Ende De Geciteerde Kercken-Dienaren Remonstranten ter ander sijden [1623], second edition Amsterdam: Cornelis de Leeuw. Wtenbogaert, Johannes (1646), De kerckelicke historie, vervatende verscheyden gedenckwaerdige saecken, inde Christenheyt voorgevallen, van het jaer vierhondert af, tot in het jaer sesthienhondert ende negenthien : voornamentlick in dese Geunieerde Provintien, s.l.: s.n. Ypeij, A. & I.J. Dermout (1819–1827), Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk, 4 vol., Breda: Van Bergen.

Donald Sinnema

The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

1.

Introduction

The doctrine of election as promulgated by the Synod of Dordt is rather well known; it is presented in Chapter One of the Canons of Dordt, still used as a confessional standard in Reformed churches of Dutch heritage. I will approach this topic by focusing on the process by which the synod examined the Remonstrant views on election, which were at the center of the controversy in the Dutch churches at that time, and then on how the synod formulated its own response or judgment of these views, a process ending in the drafting of the Canons.1 At the time of the Arminian or Remonstrant controversy, the confessional basis for the doctrine of election in the Dutch Reformed churches was quite minimal. The main statement was art. 16 of the Belgic Confession: [God is] merciful in drawing and saving from this perdition those whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel, has elected in Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any consideration of their works. He is just in leaving the others in their fall and ruin into which they plunged themselves (Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 97–99).

The Heidelberg Catechism in Q. 54 merely describes the church as “a community elected to eternal life.” Although Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, and others in the Reformed tradition, had written quite extensively about election, with varying emphases, the confessional statements of the Dutch Reformed churches left a number of issues relating to election undefined.

1 In this article I do not focus on the related issue of reprobation, a topic that I examined in Sinnema: 1985. Translations in this article are mine.

116

2.

Donald Sinnema

Arminius

The Arminian controversy that led to the Synod of Dordt began with the views of Jacobus Arminius on predestination. While he presented his views in various writings, the clearest expression of his position was in his Verclaringhe of 1608. Here he identified a fourfold order of decrees in predestination (here abbreviated): 1. To save sinful man, God decreed to appoint his Son as Mediator. 2. He decreed to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ those who believe and persevere, but to leave in sin and damn unbelievers. 3. He decreed to administer the means necessary for repentance and faith. 4. He decreed to save and damn particular persons, based on his foreknowlege of who by grace would believe and persevere and who would not (Hoenderdaal: 1960, 104–106). Arminius also described faith as a necessary condition foreseen by God in those to be elected. This did not mean election was conditional upon human merit, since faith is a gift of God’s grace (Arminius: 1629, 138–140; 1610, 155).

3.

The Remonstrance of 1610

The basis of the debates that led to the Synod of Dordt was the Remonstrance of 1610, a summary of Arminius’ key ideas in Five Articles, formulated by Arminius’ followers after his death in 1609. Article I states: That God, by an eternal unchangeable decree, has in Jesus Christ his Son decreed, before the foundation of the world was laid, to save out of the fallen sinful human race those in Christ, for the sake of Christ, and through Christ, who by the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe in this his Son Jesus and persevere in the same faith and obedience of faith by the same grace to the end; and on the other hand, to leave the impenitent and unbelievers in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienated from Christ, according to the word of the holy Gospel in John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, and whoever is disobedient to the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him,” and also other passages of the Scriptures (Hoenderdaal: 1970–71, 74).

4.

The Hague Conference (1611)

In an attempt to settle the controversy over predestination and related ideas centering on the Five Remonstrant Articles, the States of Holland and WestFriesland arranged for a conference between six Remonstrant leaders and six

The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

117

Contra-Remonstrant leaders in The Hague in 1611. While this conference more clearly defined the issues, no agreement was reached between the two sides.2 It is important to recognize that several Remonstrant writings after the 1610 Remonstrance more clearly defined and developed, or drew out implications of the Remonstrant doctrine of election, in ways that went beyond statements of Arminius and the Remonstrance. Hence, for example, the idea that Art. I of the Remonstrance described the whole decree of election was first presented in Remonstrant writings at the Hague Conference (Schriftelicke Conferentie, 1612, 57), and the multiple distinctions within election between general and particular election, indefinite and definite election, incomplete and complete election, nonperemptory and peremptory election, revocable and irrevocable election, were first developed in later writings by Nicolaas Grevinchoven, Caspar Barlaeus, and the Gelderland Remonstrants (e. g. Grevinchoven: 1615, 105, 136–137). In the next seven years the controversy only escalated as the debates heated and many polemical writings were produced on both sides. Key figures for the Remonstrants included Johannes Uytenbogaert, Simon Episcopius, Nicolaas Grevinchoven, Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus, and Caspar Barlaeus and for the Contra-Remonstrants, William Ames, Franciscus Gomarus, Festus Hommius and Petrus Plancius.

5.

Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

To settle the religious controversy that agitated the Dutch churches and stirred up unrest in broader Dutch society, the States General finally convened the Synod of Dordt in 1618. Thirteen Remonstrant leaders were summoned before the synod, so that it might examine the disputed Remonstrant views. Before they arrived, the synod dealt with several other ecclesiastical matters in the so-called “Pro-Acta” sessions. After the Remonstrants arrived on 6 December 1618, there were six weeks of what may best be called procedural wrangling between the synod and the cited Remonstrants over how best to deal with the theological issues. During this period, the acrimony over procedure made discussion of the actual theological issues impossible. The Remonstrants wanted a conference between equal parties; the synod wanted a disciplinary procedure that would examine and judge the Remonstrant views. The Remonstrants wanted the discussion to focus on what they considered extreme Reformed views of reprobation; the synod wanted the discussion to focus on the Remonstrant view of election based on foreseen faith. While some procedural compromises were made, the Remonstrants did not 2 On the 1611 Hague conference, see Wijminga: 1899, 104–122; Rogge: 1874–1876, 2:70–102; and den Boer: 2003.

118

Donald Sinnema

fully cooperate with the questioning and procedures of the synod; this acrimonious period of procedural wrangling ended with the expulsion of the Remonstrants from the synod on 14 January 1619.3

6.

Summary of Remonstrant Views by the Dutch Professors

During this procedural period, however, steps were taken behind the scenes to draw up a summary of Remonstrant views on the Five Articles from their writings. This was done by the five Dutch professors of theology at the synod (Johannes Polyander, Sibrandus Lubbertus, Franciscus Gomarus, Antonius Walaeus and Antonius Thysius), and was submitted to the president on 8 December 1618.4 Their summary of the Remonstrant views on Art. I consisted of eight points (including references to sources), here presented in abbreviated form: 1. God decreed to save those in Christ who will believe and persevere; there is no other predestination to salvation. 2. In the general words of Art. I, they understand also individual persons. 3. Faith and perseverence are prior to election, since God in electing considered man as believing. 4. In electing God considered faith not as a cause giving rise to election, but as an antecedent condition. 5. Though they exclude from election a regard for works, yet they mention that in electing God considered faith and the obedience of faith. 6. They reject that God’s decree concerning the end and the means are one and the same. 7. They deny that calling is a means of executing predestination of individuals. 8. They say the cause why God considered one people rather than another worthy of the Gospel was only his good pleasure; nevertheless, they also say that God considered them worthy by a gracious valuing of them, by which he judges them suitable through a natural knowledge of his law and a better use of common grace.

3 For details, see Sinnema: 1985, ch. 4. 4 “Sententia Theologorum Remonstrantium de Quinque Articulis, quos in Collatione Hagiensi Defendere atque in Ecclesias Belgii Reformatas Introducere Conati Fuerunt. Collecta ex Scriptis Ipsorum a Quinque Sacrae Theologiae Professoribus Orthodoxis Belgis ad Synodum Nationalem Dordrechtanam Missis.” Printed in ADSND, 2018, 289–300.

The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

7.

119

The Remonstrant Sententia on Article I

In the citation letters by which they were summoned before the synod, the cited Remonstrants were asked to “state, explain and defend (proponant, explicent et defendant)” their own views of the Five Articles (ADSND, 2015, 1:15, 201). As a result, they presented three sets of documents on each of the Five Articles – a Statement, an Explanation, and a Defense. On 13 December 1618, the cited Remonstrants submitted the Statement (Sententia) of their views on the First Article of the Remonstrance.5 Of the ten theses of the Sententia, seven dealt with election; these are formulated partly in negative form that rejected Contra-Remonstant views, and partly in positive form that expressed their own opinions. Especially rejected is (a) the supralapsarian position, (b) the view that the decree of salvation is a decree of the end absolutely intended, with means that inevitably lead the elect to their destined end, (c) that God has ordained the fall, and (d) that Christ as mediator is solely the executor of election (Theses 1–3). Affirmed is the idea that Christ is not merely the executor of election, but also the foundation (fundamentum) of the decree of election. Also affirmed is that God has ordained that Christ should be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and by virtue of that decree he has determined to justify and to save those who believe in him, and to provide the means necessary and sufficient for faith (Theses 3 and 5). Especially pertinent is point seven: The election of particular persons is peremptory (peremtoria), out of consideration of faith in Jesus Christ and of perseverance, … as a condition prerequisite for electing (Acta, 1620, 1:114).

Regarding children, the Remonstrants affirmed that all believers’ children who die in infancy before they have committed any actual sin are sanctified in Christ and are not among the reprobate (Theses 9 and 10).

8.

The Articuli on Article I

With the synod and the Remonstrants deadlocked on procedure, the synod thought the only alternative was to examine the Remonstrant views from their writings, following the 1 January 1619 resolution of the States General to examine the Remonstrants from their writings if they did not cooperate. To facilitate this procedure, on 8 January President Bogerman dictated to the synod a number of 5 “Sententia Remonstrantium, quam in conscientia sua Verbo Dei consentaneam esse arbitrati sunt hactenus, & etiamnum arbitrantur, circa Primum de Praedestinationis Decreto Articulum,” in: Acta, 1620, 1:113–114.

120

Donald Sinnema

Theses on Article I, drawn up by him and the synod secretaries and assessors from Remonstrant writings. In drawing up these Theses, it is likely that the officers used, besides their own knowledge of the writings, the summary of Remonstrant views submitted by the five Dutch professors. The various delegations then gave their advice on the Theses, about whether they faithfully presented Remonstrant views. On 10 January Bogerman dictated a revised version of the Theses (now called Articuli), based on the advice received (Sinnema: 1985, 250–253). In its final version, the Articuli contained 12 articles in which the synod officers tried to summarize the Remonstrant view of election.6 In brief, these are the 12 points: 1. God made a four-part decree to save sinners: first, out of love for his creatures and to show mercy, he decreed to send his Son into the world to obtain redemption; second, he decreed to save those who repent and believe in Christ by a true persevering faith (in the Hague Conference they said this is the whole decree of predestination to salvation); third, he decreed the means necessary for repentance and faith; and fourth, he decreed to save individual believers. 2. Election to salvation is of many kinds: indefinite or definite; general (to save believers) or particular (to save individual believers); the latter either incomplete, non-peremptory and revocable, or complete, peremptory and irrevocable. 3. Election of individual persons is based on their foreseen faith, obedience of faith and repentance, as the condition of the New Covenant required by God and fulfilled by man, which, as a favored worthiness by which one elected is regarded as more worthy than one who is not, moves God to elect. 4. Faith, repentance, obedience and perseverance are not fruits or effects of election, but antecedents to it. 5. The decree of election is not absolute, nor is God’s good pleasure the only cause why he elects this person rather than that one. 6. The decree of election to faith is prior to the decree of election to glory. 7. Just as Christ is the foundation and the meritorious cause of salvation, he is also the foundation and the meritorious cause of election to glory. 8. Faith is the cause of justification and of election, and yet remains a gift of God. 9. Incomplete and non-peremptory election can be interrupted, and such elect persons can become reprobate and die. 6 “Articuli pertinentes ad Pleniorem Explicationem Sententiae Remonstrantium, circa I Hagiensem Articulum, Formati ex ipsorum Scriptis Editis, Declarationibus Authenticis, et Exhibitis Thesibus,” printed in De Groot: 1937, 144–151, and ADSND, 2018, 781–791.

The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

121

10. No one in this life is peremptorily elect until he dies in faith, so there is no certain awareness of election in this life. 11. Election in the Old Testament is different than in the New Testament. 12. We are uncertain whether there is an election of those unbelievers who have not heard the gospel, but who are corrected by common grace or have some faith in God without a knowledge of Christ. The Remonstrant sources on which Bogerman and the other synod officers based these points in the Articuli included the following: Jacobus Arminius, Articuli Nonnulli Diligenti Examine Perpendi, eo quod inter ipsos Reformatae Religionis Professores de iis aliqua incidit Controversia, appended to his Epistola ad Hippolytum (Delft, 1613), 21. Art. I of the 1610 Remonstrance. Writings of the Hague Conference (1611): Schriftelicke Conferentie, gehouden in s’Gravenhaghe inden Iare 1611, tusschen sommighe Kercken-dienaren, aengaende de Godlicke Praedestinatie metten aencleven van dien (The Hague, 1612; 2nd ed. 1617), 35, 82, 89, 93–94, 96, 109, 413; Henricus Brandius, transl., Collatio Scripto habita Hagaecomitis anno ab incarnato Domino 1611, inter quosdam Ecclesiastas de divina Praedestinatione, & eius appendicibus (Zierikzee, 1615) (Latin translation of Schriftelicke Conferentie by Contra-Remonstrant Henricus Brandius), 42, 109–110, 127, 492. “Declaratio super sex articulis Collationis Delphensis” (Remonstrant response to the six articles of the 1613 Delft Conference and submitted to the South Holland synod of Delft in 1618).7 Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus, Defensio Sententiae D. Iacobi Arminii de Praedestinatione, Gratia Dei, Libero Hominis Arbitrio, &c. (Leiden, 1613) (against Daniel Tilenus), 28, 52– 53, 56–57, 265. Nicolaas Grevinchoven, Dissertatio Theologica de Duabus Quaestionibus hoc Tempore Controversis, quarum Prima est de Reconciliatione per Mortem Christi Impetrata Omnibus ac Singulis Hominibus; Altera, de Electione ex Fide Praevisa (Rotterdam, 1615) (against William Ames), 29, 108, 111, 116–117, 132–133, 136–138, 140, 191. [Caspar Barlaeus], Epistola Ecclesiastarum, quos in Belgio Remonstrantes vocant, ad Exterarum Ecclesiarum Reformatos Doctores, Pastores, Theologos, qua Sententiam suam de Praedestinatione & annexis ei capitibus exponunt, 2nd ed. (Leiden, 1617) (against the Classis Walcheren letter to foreign theologians), 34–36, 46, 49.

7 Oud Synodaal Archief, housed in the Utrechts Archief (hereafter: OSA), vol. 5, 46–60. Printed in ADSND, 2018, 668–683.

122

Donald Sinnema

“Status Quaestionis super Quinque Articulis” (Gelderland Remonstrant points of agreement and disagreement with the Contra-Remonstrants of the Gelderland Synod of Arnhem in 1618).8 Simon Episcopius, Collegium Disputationum Theologicarum in Academia Leydensi privatim institutarum (Leiden, 1618) (published by Festus Hommius), 35, 38–42, 45, 64– 65. Sententia Remonstrantium on Art. I (theses submitted to the synod on 13 December 1618), theses 1, 2, and 7.

9.

The Remonstrant Declaratio on Art. I

The Remonstrants presented their Explanation (Declaratio) of Art. I on 14 January, the day they were expelled. In 32 pages they presented a more detailed explanation of Art. I than in the theses of their Sententiae. Episcopius was the author. Copies of the Declaratio were made by each delegation. The Declaratio consists of three sections. The first focused on the concepts of election and reprobation. A basic distinction is made between God’s general decree, by which he decided by his free choice to save believers and reprobate unbelievers, and his special decree, by which he decided to save certain individuals considered by God as believers destined to eternal life and to damn others considered as unbelievers. The cause of the general decree is God’s pure will; the special decree presupposes a consideration and regard for faith and unbelief. In this decree, faith and perseverance are conditions performed by humans, but they are not merits. The object of peremptory election to eternal life is all who believe (by the help of grace) and persevere in faith. And Christ is the foundation of the decree of election.9 The second section focused on the order of divine decrees in election. Here the Remonstrants identified seven decrees. This was an expanded version of the four decrees identified by Arminius. They added three decrees prior in order to his four: (1) God’s decree to create man; (2) the decree to establish the law; (3) when Adam transgressed the law, God decreed to deliver miserable humans; (4) the decree to appoint a mediator to atone for sinners; (5) the decree to save all who would believe and persevere in faith; (6) the decree to provide the necessary means for faith; and (7) the decree to save individuals who would believe and persevere in faith (Acta et Scripta, 1620, 2:10–11). This section also analyzed the 8 Musée Historique de la Réformation, Geneva, Archives Tronchin (hereafter: Archives Tronchin), vol. 17, 106r–108r. Printed in ADSND, 2018, 684–689. 9 “Declaratio Sententiae Remonstrantium circa Primum de Praedestinationis Decreto Articulum,” in: Acta et Scripta, 1620, 2:3–10.

The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

123

supralapsarian and infralapsarian (here called supralapsarii and sublapsarii) positions on the order of decrees, positions that the Remonstrants rejected (Acta et Scripta, 1620, 2:11–18). In the third section of the Declaratio, the Remonstrants considered the issue of the election and reprobation of infants. They contended that Contra-Remonstrants were accustomed to include among the reprobate not only children of unbelievers, but also certain children of believers who die in infancy (Acta et Scripta, 1620, 2:21–24). Appended to the Declaratio was a Syllabus Testimoniarum, 29 pages of quotations from writings of Reformed theologians, to demonstrate that these theologians indeed taught the ideas that the Remonstrants rejected in their Sententia. Many of these quotations focused on reprobation, since it was reprobation that the Remonstrants considered most offensive. Nevertheless, they also objected to certain Reformed statements on election, such as: “God decreed to elect some and reprobate others, before he decreed to create them,” “According to his good pleasure, God decreed to elect some to eternal life and reprobate others,” “Christ as mediator is not the foundation of the decree of election, but only the executor of this decree,” “The cause why some are called effectively, are justified, persevere in faith, and are glorified, is that they were elected absolutely to eternal life,” and “By his absolute decree, God destined to give Christ the mediator only to the elect” (Acta et Scripta, 1620, 2:25–26, 28, 34–35, 37).

10.

Speeches on Art. I

Soon after the Remonstrants were expelled from the synod, various Dutch and foreign theologians presented public speeches on the Five Articles, while the various delegations were at work formulating their judgments on these Articles. Eleven speeches were presented on the topic of election between 17 and 28 January 1619.10 Sibrandus Lubbertus examined whether Scripture supports the idea that God’s decree to save believers is the whole decree of predestination. Franciscus Gomarus explained the terms ‘eligere,’ ‘electio,’ and ‘electi’ and proved that the subject of election is not persevering believers. Bishop George Carleton and Paul Tossanus briefly addressed several biblical passages relating to election. Antonius Thysius also examined the question whether the decree to save believers is the whole decree of predestination, as well as the question whether faith is the prerequisite condition for election. Johannes Polyander focused on several biblical 10 ADSND, 2015, 1:116, 119, 120, 121. These speeches are preserved in OSA, vol. K. Lubbertus’ speech is missing.

124

Donald Sinnema

passages, especially concerning names written in the book of life. Antonius Walaeus focused mostly on Romans 9. John Davenant considered whether divine election is singular or of many kinds. Samuel Ward examined Remonstrant arguments that tried to prove that the decree to save believers is election to salvation since Christ is its foundation. The philosopher Rudolph Goclenius used principles of logic to refute a Remonstrant syllogism drawn from the execution of predestination. Finally, Abraham Scultetus focused on the awareness of election and its certainty.

11.

The Remonstrant Defensio on Art. I

On 7 February the Remonstrants submitted a lengthy 385 page Defense of their views on Art. I to the state delegates. Episcopius was the main author. Although parts of this Defensio were read to the synod between 18 and 23 February (ADSND, 2015, 1:124, 127, 129), it was not discussed, and its impact on synod deliberations seems to be minimal. The Defensio opened by defining the state of the controversy and then examined in detail the main passages used by the Contra-Remonstrants to support their view of election and reprobation. Included among the election passages were two expositions of Romans 9, a shorter one by Episcipius and a lengthy one by Adrianus Borrius. The document ended with a detailed discussion of reprobation by Carolus Niellius (Acta et Scripta, 1620, 2:47–278).

12.

The Iudicia on Art. I

During this time, the nineteen delegations prepared their own judgments (iudicia) on each of the Five Remonstrant Articles. Based on these, a single synodical judgment was to be drawn up. Since the Dutch professors Lubbertus and Gomarus each wrote their own judgments, there were actually 21 iudicia on Art. I. These iudicia were read in the synod from 6 to 12 March (ADSND, 2015, 1:132–135). The great majority of these iudicia focused on refuting the following points in the Remonstrant position: God’s decree to save those who believe (that is, Art. I) is the whole decree of predestination to salvation (Acta, 1620, 2:6, 15, 24, 26, 35, 38, 41, 54, 63; 3:3, 14, 20, 25, 36, 47, 54, 63, 70, 85). There are multiple forms of election: general and particular; the latter, either incomplete, non-peremptory and revocable, or complete, peremptory and irrevocable. The Remonstrant Art. I is then general election of believers in general, as distinct from

The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

125

particular election of individual persons (Acta, 1620, 2:7, 16, 28, 39, 42, 54, 64; 3:4, 15, 20– 21, 37, 47, 57, 63, 71, 85). The cause of the general decree is God’s good pleasure, by which he decided from many possible conditions to select faith as the condition for salvation (Acta, 1620, 2:10, 17, 25, 39, 43, 53, 54; 3:5, 44, 47, 57, 63). The cause or basis of the election of particular persons is God’s foreknowledge of their faith and perseverance in faith (Acta, 1620, 2:6, 17, 25, 35, 39, 43, 53–54; 3:5, 15, 21, 29, 34, 47, 56, 71, 80, 86). Faith and perseverance in faith are prerequisite conditions for election, not fruits of election (Acta, 1620, 2:6–7, 17, 24, 35, 39, 44, 56, 64; 3:15, 22, 34, 38, 48, 58, 64, 71, 80, 86). Non-peremptory (incomplete, until one’s death) election is changeable; during one’s life, an elect person can lose faith and become reprobate (Acta, 1620, 2:7, 18, 30, 39, 43, 53, 56, 71; 3:6, 16, 22, 39, 48, 65, 73, 79, 85). Since such election is changeable, there is no certainty of election in this life (Acta, 1620, 2:9, 18, 32, 39, 44, 54, 57, 72; 3:7, 17, 22, 30, 33, 39, 48, 59, 66, 74, 82, 86). Several iudicia also focused on the issue of the predestination of infants: There is no election or reprobation of infants who die, since they are too young to have faith (Acta, 1620, 2:10; 3:10, 19, 23, 49, 69).

The Hesse and Frisian iudicia pointed out that there was a difference between the Remonstrant Art. I and later explanations of it. Both stated that Art. I, in itself, is not unbiblical (though its ambiguity may hide errors); the fuller explanations are unbiblical. Both also pointed out a contradiction in the Remonstrant position: When Remonstrants (at the Hague Conference) claimed that God’s will to save believers is the whole decree of predestination to salvation, this contradicted Arminius’ and their own view of four decrees of predestination, including the particular decree; the decree to save believers is just the second of the four decrees (Acta, 1620, 2:24–26; 3:54–56; cf. North Holland, 3:26). For the iudicia, a key source for identifying Remonstrant errors was Bogerman’s Articuli, which attempted to summarize the Remonstrant view of election. While the delegations drew upon the Articuli to varying degrees,11 they did not slavishly follow Bogerman’s list. It is apparent that the delegations also made use of the Remonstrants’ own writings, at least to some extent. Where the iudicia cite the sources of heterodox opinions, these are sometimes drawn from the Articuli, but the references often appear to be based on actual study of the documents. The 21 iudicia also expressed the orthodox biblical view of election. Again, the great majority of them emphasized the following points:

11 North Holland specifically mentions using the Articuli, along with various Remonstrant writings (Acta, 1620, 3:36).

126

Donald Sinnema

A definition of election that focuses on particular persons and includes a decree regarding both the end (salvation) and the means to the end (Acta, 1620, 2:3, 16, 29, 35, 38, 41, 46, 54, 60; 3:11, 21–22, 27, 33, 36, 42, 47, 56, 62, 70, 79, 85). The cause of election is merely God’s good pleasure to save some and not others (Acta, 1620, 2:3, 17, 35, 39, 43, 47, 60; 3:5, 15, 22, 28, 34, 38, 44, 47, 57, 63, 72, 80, 86). All but three of the iudicia expressed an infralapsarian viewpoint: God elected from the fallen human race (Acta, 1620, 2:3, 16, 29, 38, 41, 46, 54, 60; 3:3, 11, 27, 36, 42–43, 47, 56, 62, 70, 79, 80, 85). Only Gomarus expressed his well-known supralapsarian position (in a weak form): God elected “from the whole human race (ex universo genere humano)” (Acta, 1620, 3:21). The South Holland delegation also stated that election was from the whole human race, but 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 (in pari statu),” so that one was not viewed as more worthy than another.12 The Swiss delegates spoke of God electing particular people “who would be delivered (liberandos) by Christ from the common misery,” rather than of God electing from the common misery (Acta, 1620, 2:35; see footnote 20). God predestined both the end and means to the end, both to glory and to grace, at the same time (Acta, 1620, 2:8, 29, 37, 39, 42; 3:11, 15, 21, 33, 56, 70, 83). Faith and perseverance in faith are fruits or effects of election, not conditions for election (Acta, 1620, 2:5, 17, 27, 35, 39, 44, 56, 68; 3:15, 22, 28, 34, 39, 48, 58, 64, 71, 82, 86). The decree of election is unchangeable and irrevocable, so none of the elect can become reprobate (Acta, 1620, 2:5, 18, 30, 37, 39, 43, 49, 56, 71; 3:6, 12, 22, 27, 34, 39, 42, 48, 57, 65, 73, 79, 86). Almost all iudicia emphasized that in this life believers can have certainty or assurance of their election. As for the source of assurance, more than half stated that this certainty derives from the fruits or effects of election that believers see in themselves (Acta, 1620, 2:9, 19, 32, 44, 51, 61; 3:7, 13, 60, 75–76, 86), or, as some described it, climbing from the effects to the cause (Gelderland called this becoming certain of one’s election a posteriori, and Nassau-Wetteravia called this the analytical method, Acta, 1620, 3:30; 2:44). Relating to this, Hesse and Gelderland presented a form of the syllogismus practicus (Acta, 1620, 2:32; 3:30). But several delegations (British, Hesse, Nassau-Wetteravia, Geneva, three Dutch professors, Gomarus, North Holland, Groningen and Walloon) added that certainty of election also comes from the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit in the heart of believers (Acta, 1620, 2:9, 32, 39, 50; 3:7, 23, 39, 75, 86). The British, Emden and Gomarus also mentioned relying on biblical promises to believers (Acta, 1620, 2:9, 72; 3:23).

About half of the iudicia also addressed the issue of the election of infants who die in infancy: 12 Acta, 1620, 3:33–35. Thus the South Holland delegates thought that the differences over the object of predestination could be reconciled.

The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

127

There is an election and reprobation of infants who die. Due to the promise of the covenant, such infants of believers are elect, or are reckoned to be elect (Acta, 1620, 2:10, 37, 58; 3:10, 19, 23, 36, 49, 69).

The iudicia rejected the Remonstrant position that Christ is the foundation (fundamentum) of election in the sense that he is the meriting cause (causa meritoria) of election (Acta, 1620, 2:31, 68; 3:16). But the various delegations themselves expressed some difference of opinion about what it means to be “elected in Christ” (Eph 1:4). Does it mean that Christ is the fundamentum of election, or the fundamentum only of salvation? The British and Gelderland affirmed that he is the head and foundation of the elect; only Drenthe specifically said Christ as God-man, head and mediator is the foundation of election (Acta, 1620, 2:4; 3:28, 80–81). Similarly, Gelderland asserted that, with the Father, the Son was the cause, source and author of election; Bremen said the decree of election was made in Christ as mediator and redeemer (Acta, 1620, 3:27; 2:55). On the other hand, Emden and Gelderland asserted that Christ as mediator is the foundation of salvation (Acta, 1620, 2:67; 3:28). In a similar vein, Hesse, NassauWetteravia, Emden and Zeeland stated that Christ as mediator is the first ordained means to execute election, the foundation of other means; the Swiss described him as the foundation of election as executed (Acta, 1620, 2:25, 39, 42, 60–61; 3:43, 2:35). Emden even asserted that Christ as mediator is not the cause, but an effect of election. God did not elect us because Christ died for us; Christ died for us because God elected us in him. Emden admitted that people were elected in Christ before the foundation of the world, but they were not in Christ before the foundation of the world, since being in Christ happens only in time when one is ingrafted in Christ through faith (Acta, 1620, 2:65, 68). The Palatine iudicium had a special section on the way to teach predestination popularly. The suggested order begins with the fall, moves to the promised Son as Savior from sin who is offered in the preached Word, then to faith as an unmerited gift of God given to whom he wishes, and finally rises from the horizon of time to election from eternity (Acta, 1620, 2:22). It is striking that this is the same way that Chapter One of the Canons begins. The beginning of Lubbertus’ judicium is somewhat similar (Acta, 1620, 3:11).

13.

Drafts of the Canons

After all nineteen iudicia on the Five Remonstrant Articles were read in the synod, it was time to draft the synod’s own judgment on the Remonstrant Five Articles, that is, the Canons. President Bogerman announced that he had prepared a draft of the Canons on Articles One and Two. These he dictated to the

128

Donald Sinnema

synod for its input. But especially some of the foreign delegations objected vigorously to this procedure of the synod basically confirming Bogerman’s version of the Canons. So a drafting committee of nine persons was appointed, including three foreign theologians (Bishop George Carleton, Abraham Scultetus and Jean Diodati), three Dutch theologians (Polyander, Walaeus and Trigland), along with President Bogerman and the assessors Faukelius and Rolandus. The synod did not formally meet for three weeks, from the last week of March to mid April 1619, while this committee worked at preparing the Canons, with input from all the delegations. The committee used Bogerman’s dictated draft to prepare its own first draft of Chapter One. Then each of the nineteen delegations had the opportunity to present suggestions for amendments to this draft. The committee used these amendment suggestions to prepare its second committee draft. This process went back and forth three times, including a third committee draft, before the synod approved the final version of the Canons.13 Bogerman had, in fact, prepared three earlier drafts of Chapter One of the Canons before dictating his fourth draft to the synod. Hence, with the three committee drafts, there are a total of seven preliminary drafts of Chapter One of the Canons.14 A survey of the various drafts of the Canons is very illuminating.15 This reveals that all of the positive articles of Chapter One of the Canons, except for one (art. 17), are based on Bogerman’s dictated draft of this chapter. In fact, the basic articles of the final Canons, except for art. 17, are all there already in Bogerman’s third draft. The drafting committee, which included Bogerman himself, did not start over; rather, the committee simply took over Bogerman’s draft with all his articles and modified it. Though they revised the formulations of his articles somewhat, they retained the basic topics. The only major structural changes they made were to split Bogerman’s art. 12 into two articles (later arts. 12 and 13), and more significantly, in their second committee draft, they added a new article (art. 17) on the salvation of children of believers who die in infancy. I will use Chapter One, article 7, which presents the definition of election, to illustrate the drafting process. Here is this article in Bogerman’s very first draft: Election to salvation is God’s eternal, free and unchangeable decree by which, by his sheer and gratuitous good pleasure, before the foundation of the world, out of the entire human race fallen by its own fault into sin and ruin, he elected in Jesus Christ, from 13 For the drafting process, see Sinnema: 2011a, 291–311. 14 Most of these drafts have been preserved, along with a variety of amendment suggestions from the various delegations and several drafting committee documents. Some 100 of these drafting documents will be published in Vol. III of the new critical edition of Dordt documents: ADSND. No copies of the second and third committee drafts are extant, but I have been able to reconstruct these two drafts from the available documents. 15 See the Appendix below on drafts of Chapter One of the Canons.

The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

129

eternity, a definite multitude of people to eternal salvation, according to his good pleasure by sheer and gratuitous grace, and decreed to effectively call them in time into the fellowship of his Son through his Word and Spirit, that is, to grant them faith, to justify, to sanctify, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them, for the demonstration of his mercy and the praise of his glorious grace.16

After revising this article three times, Bogerman dictated his fourth draft to the synod. In this draft, the definition of election in article 7 reads: Election to salvation is God’s unchangeable decree by which, from eternity or before the foundation of the world, out of the entire human race fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin, according to the very free good pleasure of his will and by sheer and gratuitous grace, he elected to salvation in Jesus Christ particular ones, who were neither better nor more deserving than the others but lay in the common misery, and decreed to give them to his Son to be saved and to call and draw them effectively into his fellowship through his Word and Spirit, that is, to grant them true faith in him, to justify, to sanctify, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them, for the demonstration of his mercy and the praise of the riches of his glorious grace.17

In its first committee draft, the drafting committee largely accepted Bogerman’s formulation of art. 7, but made several revisions: Election to salvation is God’s unchangeable decree by which, before the foundation of the world, out of the entire human race fallen by it own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin, according to the very free good pleasure of his will, by sheer grace, he elected definite particular people, who were neither better nor more deserving than the others but lay in the common misery, to salvation in Jesus Christ, whom he appointed from eternity to be the mediator and head of all those elected and the foundation of their salvation, and he decreed to give them to his Son to be saved and to call and draw 16 OSA, vol. 5, 723: Electio ad salutem est decretum Dei aeternum, liber[?] et immutabile, quo ex mero et gratuito beneplacito ante iacta mundi fundamenta, ex universo genere humano in peccatum et exitium sua culpa prolapso, certam multitudinem hominum, [ipso?] ab aeterno [et?] secundum beneplacitum, ex mera et gratuita gratia, ad vitam aeternam in Iesu Christo elegit, eosdem decrevit in tempore ad Filii sui communionem per Verbum et Spiritum efficaciter vocare, seu fide donare, iustificare, sanctificare, et in communione Filii potenter custoditos tandem glorificare, ad demonstrationem suae misericordiae et laudem gloriosae suae gratiae. 17 OSA, vol. 5, 744: Est autem electio ad salutem immutabile Dei decretum, quo ab aeterno sive ante iacta mundi fundamenta, ex universo genere humano ex primaeva integritate in peccatum et exitium sua culpa prolapso, secundum liberrimum voluntatis suae beneplacitum et ex mera gratuitaque gratia, quosdam aliis nec meliores nec digniores sed in communi miseria iacentes, in Iesu Christo ad salutem elegit, eosque Filio suo servandos dare et ad eius communionem per Verbum et Spiritum suum efficaciter vocare et trahere, seu vera in ipsum fide donare, iustificare, sanctificare, ac potenter in Filii sui communione custoditos tandem glorificare decrevit, ad demonstrationem suae misericordiae et laudem divitiarum gloriosae suae gratiae.

130

Donald Sinnema

them effectively into his fellowship through his Word and Spirit, that is, to grant them true faith in him, to justify, to sanctify, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them, for the demonstration of his mercy and the praise of the riches of his glorious grace.18

14.

Final Version of the Canons

After two more drafts, the synod unanimously approved and subscribed the final version of the Canons on 23 April 1619. Chapter One of the Canons begins with the fallen state of humanity, and proceeds to God’s gracious offer of the gospel. To explain why some respond in faith and others do not, this chapter then rises to the eternal decree of election and reprobation in art. 6. This pattern, moving from time back to eternity, follows the pattern presented in the Palatine iudicium. In its final form, the definition of election in article 7 of the Canons reads: Election is God’s unchangeable purpose by which, before the foundation of the world, out of the entire human race fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin, according to the very free good pleasure of his will, by sheer grace, 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) to salvation a definite multitude of particular people who were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery; and so he decreed to give them to him to be saved, and to call and draw them effectively into his fellowship through his Word and Spirit, that is, to grant them true faith in him, to justify, to sanctify, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them, for the demonstration of his mercy and the praise of the riches of his glorious grace.

If one compares the Latin of the final version of the Canons with Bogerman’s dictated draft, it is evident that most of art. 7 is taken from Bogerman’s draft (highlighted in italics). Est autem electio immutabile Dei propositum, quo ante iacta mundi fundamenta ex universo genere humano, ex primaeva integritate in peccatum et exitium sua culpa 18 Archives Tronchin, vol. 18, 55r-v: Est autem electio ad salutem immutabile Dei decretum, quo ante iacta mundi fundamenta, ex universo genere humano ex primaeva integritate in peccatum et exitium sua culpa prolapso, secundum liberrimum voluntatis suae beneplacitum, ex mera gratia, certos quosdam homines, aliis nec meliores nec digniores sed in communi miseria iacentes, in Iesu Christo, quem ab aeterno mediatorem et omnium electorum caput salutisque fundamentum constituit, ad salutem elegit, eosque Filio suo servandos dare et ad eius communionem per Verbum et Spiritum suum efficaciter vocare et trahere, seu vera in ipsum fide donare, iustificare, sanctificare, et potenter in Filii sui communione custoditos tandem glorificare decrevit, ad demonstrationem suae misericordiae et laudem divitiarum gloriosae suae gratiae.

The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

131

prolapso, secundum liberrimum voluntatis suae beneplacitum, ex mera gratia, certam quorundam hominum multitudinem, aliis nec meliorum, nec digniorum, sed in communi miseria cum aliis iacentium, ad salutem elegit in Christo, quem etiam ab aeterno mediatorem et omnium electorum caput salutisque fundamentum constituit, atque ita eos ipsi salvandos dare et ad eius communionem per Verbum et Spiritum suum efficaciter vocare et trahere, seu vera in ipsum fide donare, iustificare, sanctificare et potenter in Filii sui communione custoditos tandem glorificare decrevit, ad demonstrationem suae misericordiae et laudem divitiarum gloriosae suae gratiae (Bakhuizen van den Brink, 1976, 232).

It is interesting to see how changes were made in the drafting process of article 7. First, propositum was substituted for decretum in the final version of the Canons, probably to avoid violating the laws of logic, whereby in a definition a term is not to be defined by the same term.19 In this case, earlier drafts defined election as God’s “decree,” by which … he “decreed ….” Second, changes were made to how humans are identified as the object of election. From the very first Bogerman draft, they are elected “out of the entire human race fallen … (ex universo genere humano … prolapso),” reflecting the infralapsarian viewpoint. Throughout the drafting process, there was no change on this point.20 But there are significant changes in how the elect are described. The dictated Bogerman draft simply states that God elected “particular ones (quosdam).”21 The first committee draft changes this to “definite particular people (certos quosdam homines),” a move to further emphasize that a definite number of particular people are elected.22 In its suggestions on the first committee draft, the Swiss delegation emphasized that the elect are a definite but innummerable multitude, on the basis on Romans 5:15 and Revelations 7:9; their main concern was to counter the frequent Remonstrant criticism that the Re19 In their suggestions for amendments to the second committee draft of art. 7 (OSA, vol. 5, 143, 215), the Hesse and the Bremen delegations had both suggested that the terms elegit and decrevit should be changed, lest the synod violate the laws of logic, which prohibit defining a term by the same term. These changes were not made in the third committee draft. But in the final version of art. 7 the term decretum instead was changed. 20 In its suggestions to the first committee draft (Zurich Zentralbibliothek, MS. A111, 383–384), the Swiss delegation cautioned the synod against defining points that many ecclesiastical confessions prudently declined to define as matters about which there is freedom to think somewhat differently. Thus the Swiss taught that in election humans are to be considered “according to their condition and all together in all times, namely, as not yet created, as to be created, as created, as to be fallen, as fallen” (secundum rationem ipsorum et omnium temporum universam, videlicet nondum conditos, condendos, conditos, lapsuros, lapsos). Hence they suggested that it would be safer to say that man was elected from the common misery whether considered as fallen in it (prolapsus) or as to be going to fall in it (prolapsurus), since for God there is no past or future, but everything is always present to him. The drafting committee, however, did not change the infralaparian formulation of art. 7. 21 OSA, vol. 5, 744; Archives Tronchin, vol. 18, 49v. 22 Archives Tronchin, vol. 18, 55r.

132

Donald Sinnema

formed position advocated that God predestined by far the greatest part of humanity to eternal death.23 So the second committee draft changed the phrase to “a definite multitude of people (certam hominum multitudinem).”24 Responding to this draft, the Overijssel delegation suggested that the phrase did not clearly enough emphasize election of individual people.25 For the same reason, the Zeeland delegation suggested “a definite multitude of individual persons (certam singulorum personarum multitudinem).”26 To address this, the third committee draft changed the phrase to “a definite multitude of particular people (certam quorundam hominum multitudinem).”27 This remained the same in the final version of the Canons. Third, changes were made in how “in Christ” (Eph. 1:4) is related to election. The dictated Bogerman draft states that God “elected to salvation in Jesus Christ (in Iesu Christo ad salutem elegit).”28 This leaves it rather ambiguous whether salvation was in Christ, or election was in Christ. The first committee draft adds phrases describing Christ as mediator, head and foundation: “in Jesus Christ, whom he appointed from eternity to be the mediator and head of all those elected and the foundation of their salvation, he elected to salvation (in Iesu Christo, quem ab aeterno mediatorem et omnium electorum caput salutisque fundamentum constituit, ad salutem elegit).”29 Note that the insertion of these phrases separates “in Christ” from election and seems to emphasize that only salvation was in Christ, not election. Then, on the advice of Genevan delegate Theodore Tronchin, the second committee draft changed this to: “to salvation in Jesus Christ he elected, whom he also appointed … (ad salutem in Iesu Christo elegit, quem etiam … constituit).”30 This move more clearly reconnected Christ to election. This formulation remained the same in the third committee draft. But in the final version of the Canons, this formulation was again changed, this time to: “to salvation he elected in Jesus Christ, whom he also appointed … (ad salutem elegit in Christo, quem etiam … constituit)” (Bakhuizen van den Brink, 1976, 232). The final wording makes it clear that it is election that is in Christ, and not just salvation, an emphasis that reflects Ephesians 1:4. It is evident that, in its rejection of errors section, the Canons rejected the basic tenets of the Remonstrant position on election, especially the notion that from eternity God elected persons on the basis of his foreknowledge of their perse23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Zurich Zentralbibliothek, MS. A111, 384–385. OSA, vol. 5, 171; Caspar Sibelius’ journal, in Regionaal Archief Dordrecht, MS. 1113, 95v. OSA, vol. 5, 207. OSA, vol. 5, 135. Sibelius journal, 95v. OSA, vol. 5, 744; Archives Tronchin, vol. 18, 49v. Archives Tronchin, vol. 18, 55r. OSA, vol. 5, 161; Sibelius journal, 95v.

The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

133

vering faith. To remove confusion in the churches caused by the controversy and to establish them in the truth, the Canons also spelled out the orthodox Reformed view of election in its positive articles (Sinnema, 2011b, 331). With input from leading Reformed theologians from throughout Europe, the Canons were the product of the best Reformed thought of the day. However, while very carefully framed, the Canons were written as a popular document with a pastoral and Scriptural tone for use in the churches and they did not attempt to define the issues with scholastic precision.31 Moreover, due to some differences among members of the synod, both Dutch and foreign, the final Canons that were unanimously adopted by all members of the synod left some issues rather undefined. For example, while the basic formulation of the Canons is infralapsarian, they are framed in such a way that does not specifically define the object of election and does not exclude the supralapsarian viewpoint.32 What it means to be elected in Christ is not specifically explained. The precise sources of the assurance of election are not identified in detail. And avoided is any statement on the election or reprobation of dying children of unbelievers. As a committee-written document that tried to accommodate a moderate range of opinion among the orthodox Reformed, the Canons show some degree of latitude in its formulations.

15.

Bibliography

Acta (1620), Acta Synodi Nationalis … Dordrechti habitae Anno MDCXVIII et MDCXIX, Leiden: Elzevir. Acta et Scripta (1620), Acta et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena Ministrorum Remonstrantium in Foederato Belgio, Harderwijk. ADSND (2015), Sinnema, Donald/Christian Moser/Herman Selderhuis (2015), (ed.), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordechtanae (1618–1619), vol. 1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ADSND (2018), Sinnema, Donald/Christian Moser/Herman Selderhuis (2018), (ed.), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordechtanae (1618–1619), vol. 2/2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Arminius, Jacobus (1610), Disputationes … Publicae et Privatae, Leiden: T. Basson. Arminius, Jacobus (1629), Apologia adversus Articulos XXXI, in his Opera Theologica, Leiden: G. Basson.

31 On the Canons as a popular rather than scholastic document, see Sinnema: 1986, 495–498. 32 Franciscus Gomarus was able to sign the Canons since he was able to interpret the popularlyframed infralapsarian formulations of the Canons within his own supralapsarian perspective. On the infralapsarian-supralapsarian issue at Dordt, see Dijk: 1912, ch. 3, and Fesko: 2011, 99– 123.

134

Donald Sinnema

Bakhuizen van den Brink, J.N. (1976), (ed.), De Nederlandse Belijdenisgeschriften in Authentieke Teksten, Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. de Groot, D.J. (1937), “Stukken met Betrekking tot de Opstelling der Dordtsche Canones,” Bijdragen en Mededeelingen van het Historisch Genootschap (gevestigd te Utrecht) 59, 134–210. den Boer, William A. (2003), “Nederlandse Gereformeerde Theologie op Weg naar de Synode van Dordrecht 1618–1619: De Haagsche Conferentie van 1611,” (Doctoraalscriptie, Theologische Universiteit Apeldoorn). Dijk, Klaas (1912), De Strijd over Infra- en Supralapsarisme in de Gereformeerde Kerken van Nederland, Kampen: Kok. Fesko, J. (2011), “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dordt,” in: Michael Haykin/Mark Jones, (ed.), Drawn into Controversie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 99–123. Grevinchoven, Nicolaas (1615), Dissertatio Theologica de Duabus Quaestionibus hoc Tempore Controversis, quarum Prima est de Reconciliatione per Mortem Christi Impetrata Omnibus ac Singulis Hominibus; Altera, de Electione ex Fide Praevisa, Rotterdam: M. Sebastiani. Hoenderdaal, G.J. (1960), (ed.), Verclaring van Jacobus Arminius, Lochem: De Tijdstroom. Hoenderdaal, G.J. (1970–71), “Remonstrantie en Contraremonstrantie,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 51, 74. Rogge, H. (1874–1876), Johannes Wtenbogaert en zijn Tijd, Amsterdam: Y. Rogge. Schriftelicke Conferentie (1612), Schriftelicke Conferentie, gehouden in s’Gravenhaghe inden Iare 1611, tusschen sommighe Kercken-dienaren, aengaende de Godlicke Praedestinatie metten aencleven van dien, The Hague: H. Jacobsz. Sinnema, Donald (1985), “The Doctrine of Reprobation at the Synod of Dordt (1618–19) in Light of the History of this Doctrine,” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto). Sinnema, Donald (1986), “Reformed Scholasticism and the Synod of Dordt (1618–19),” in: B. van der Walt, (ed.), John Calvin’s Institutes: His Opus Magnum, Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 467–506. Sinnema, Donald (2011a), “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, 291–311. Sinnema, Donald (2011b), “The Canons of Dordt: From Judgment on Arminianism to Confessional Standard,” in: Aza Goudriaan/Fred van Lieburg, (ed.), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), Leiden: Brill, 313–333. Wijminga, P. (1899), Festus Hommius, Leiden: Donner.

The Doctrine of Election at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

Appendix Drafts of Chapter One of the Canons of Dordt

135

Albert Gootjes

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet: The Development and Early Reception of John Cameron’s Universalism

1.

Introduction

The private disputation that John Cameron (ca. 1579–1625),1 at the time professor of theology at the academy of Saumur, held with Daniel Tilenus (1563– 1633),2 who had recently left his post at the academy of Sedan due to troubles over his Arminian sympathies,3 ended in nothing short of a disaster for him. Although an account of the meeting, held from 24 to 28 April 1620 on the relationship between divine grace and human will in calling, would in 1622 be published under the title Amica collatio or ‘friendly conference’, Cameron in the preface described how, when their in-person meeting in Orléans had ended, they continued the conversation in writing, in the course of which Tilenus became very angry with him. The tensions reached such a pitch that Cameron, afraid Tilenus would publish a truncated and distorted account of their meeting, agreed to the publication of the full conference proceedings as recorded by his Saumur colleague Louis Cappel (ca. 1585–1658) and by a former student Théophile Brachet de la Milletière (1596–1665).4 Cameron may have thought that the publication of the Amica collatio would serve him well, but the opposite in fact proved true. He had participated in the conference as the champion of orthodoxy, pitted against Tilenus who had been forced from Sedan in the wake of the Synod of Dordt

1 For Cameron, see Wodrow: 1845, 81–223; Bonet–Maury: 1901; Bonet–Maury: 1910; and the unpublished Quick: n.d. For bibliographical details, see Swinne: 1972. 2 There is little on Tilenus, but see Haag/Haag: 1859; Mellon: 1911; and Sinnema: 2014, 99–100, 127–134. 3 There is considerable confusion in secondary – and derivative – scholarship concerning the date of Tilenus’s departure from Sedan and its academy, no doubt because it involved different phases, but I follow the account in Wtenbogaert: 1647, 4:122–125. According to Wtenbogaert’s account, Tilenus resigned from his post at the academy very late in 1616, and this became effective a year later; he finally left Sedan for Paris sometime in 1619, after the end of the Synod of Dordt. See also Hoenderdaal: 1975, 46–47. 4 Cameron: 1622, ††4r°–v°; (= Cameron: 1642, 610–611).

138

Albert Gootjes

(1618–1619), but ended up being accused himself of departing from the orthodoxy of Dordt. The accusations pertained to two topics, and came from two sides. The Leiden faculty of theology attacked the position on the operation of grace which Cameron had developed in his conversation with Tilenus, and said it would not provide the Amica collatio with an approbation unless Cameron added a brief caveat in which he explicitly acknowledged his agreement with Dordt – which Cameron refused to do.5 A second accusation related to the doctrine of predestination, and was made by none other than the less-than-orthodox Tilenus himself. In his Canones synodi Dordracenae, a brief work intended to adjust the picture sketched in the Amica collatio and published like it in 1622, Tilenus wrote that when they in their conference arrived at the point where they should have moved on to discuss predestination, Cameron “shunned that decree as if it were a cliff” and “firmly insisted that they deal with the manner of conversion instead, twice adding that well-known phrase: ‘To the rest I will not put my hand.’” Tilenus then commented: “With these words he greatly increased the suspicion which had already arisen in my mind, namely that he agreed with neither Genevan nor Dordtian predestination.”6 Tilenus returned to the topic of predestination later on, drawing the reader’s attention to Cameron’s statement in the Amica collatio that “God wills the conversion of all, but does not will all things equally”, and to his insistence that this “was not so much his doctrine as that of the church.” Tilenus cleverly argued that Cameron’s statement in fact placed the Genevan teachers outside the church, since they understood the ‘all’ in 1 Tim 2:4 (“God wants all men to be saved, and to come to a knowledge of the truth”) to refer not to “each individual of every class” but to “each class of every individual”, that is, not to “all people” but to “all kinds of people.”7 Tilenus concluded that the reader ought to see clearly that Cameron really did not follow Geneva or Dordt in the matter of predestination, and actually preferred his – that is, Tilenus’s – view!8 Tilenus’s identification of a universalism in Cameron that placed him in conflict with the Synod of Dordt is not only interesting because of the person who made it. It is also remarkable when we consider that official records from the French Reformed churches – including the registers of the academy of Saumur, as well as the acts of the national synods and of the provincial synod of Anjou to which the academy of Saumur belonged – are altogether silent on any conflict 5 There is at present no full account of the exchange between Cameron and the Leiden faculty, but see Gootjes: 2014, 37–42 and 153–162; and Gootjes: 2015, 177–181. 6 Tilenus: 1622, 188–189. 7 For this distinction, cf. Thomas Aquinas, ST 1a.19.6. For recent efforts towards a closer reading and definition of ‘hypothetical universalism,’ see Moore: 2007, 217–220; Moore: 2011; Muller: 2012, 126–160; Crisp: 2014; and Denlinger: 2015. 8 Tilenus: 1622, 201f; the reference is to Cameron: 1622, 261 (= Cameron: 1642, 692b).

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

139

surrounding Cameron’s universalism during his lifetime. This forms a striking contrast with what happened a decade after his death during the great controversy that broke out in France, when the opponents of the Saumur doctrine of ‘universal grace’ immediately identified him as the origin for the views espoused by Paul Testard (ca. 1596–1650) in his Ει᾿ρηνικόν seu Synopsis doctrinae de natura et gratia (1633) and especially by Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664) in his infamous Brief traitté de la prédestination (1634).9 The absence of any record of upheaval over Cameron’s universalism during his lifetime also seems puzzling given that he was no stranger to controversy. After all, the skirmishes over his view on the operation of grace and denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ do appear in official records from the period, as well as other contemporary source material.10 The apparent initial absence of opposition was no doubt what led Brian G. Armstrong in his Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy to remark about Cameron’s universalism: It is hard to see how this teaching could have been regarded as heretical. And it is perhaps significant that it was not so regarded until long after Cameron was dead. There is very little in it which differs from the orthodox expression found in the Canons of Dordt.11

Armstrong did not shrink from the thorny historical question facing him, namely why Cameron’s views would initially have been accepted or at least tolerated, only to meet with fierce opposition during the Amyraut controversy of the 1630s and 1640s. He argued that this must be attributed to the changing face of seventeenth-century Calvinism: as the orthodox became increasingly rigid due to the persistence of the Arminian struggles, they in the end branded also Cameron’s teaching as heresy.12 A similar albeit more moderate account had been given

9 See, for example, the letter (copy) from A. Rivet to the faculty of theology of Leiden, The Hague, 22. 4. 1633, in Leiden, UB, BPL 300, fol. 136r°; and the letter from Pierre du Moulin to the synod of Alençon (1637), Sedan, 27. 4. 1637, in Aymon: 1710, 2:617–618. 10 Cameron’s view on the operation of grace was discussed at the provincial Synod of Anjou 1618 (Saumur) and within the senate of the Leiden faculty of theology. See Boisson: 2012, 243–244; and the literature in n. 5 above. His refusal to sign a condemnation of Piscator’s view on justification is behind the “longue & mure Deliberation & Discution” referred to in the acts of the national Synod of Tonneins (1614) in Aymon: 1710, 2:13–14 (art. 19). For the latter controversy, see also G. Rivet: 1648, a4r°–b1v°; and Quick: n.d., 19–20. 11 Armstrong: 1969, 59. 12 Armstrong: 1969, 60: “It seems quite clear that the orthodoxy of the rigid Calvinists became more and more entrenched as their struggle with Arminianism dragged on. There is, for example, a noticeable narrowing of the front in the later writings of du Moulin […]. Because of this continuous withdrawal to a more and more defensible position, the orthodox […] finally brought heresy charges against Cameron’s teaching. This was done by du Moulin in a letter to the Synod of Alençon (1637), which synod was hearing the charges against Amyraut.”

140

Albert Gootjes

by Walter Rex in his remarkable Essays on Pierre Bayle. Noting that the universalist views expressed by the delegates from Bremen and Great Britain became “somewhat obscured just a few decades after Dordrecht”, he pointed out that the Saumur ‘liberals’ (i. e., Amyraut and company) nevertheless appealed to them for support with reason, and further suggested that they also could have pointed to Cameron’s installation at the academy only months before the opening of the Synod of Dordt, since he was appointed “with scarcely a word of protest” from the conservatives – specifying in the note that the objections that did surface to Cameron’s installation related to his adoption of Piscator’s view on justification,13 and thus not to his universalism. Notwithstanding the scepticism which one does well to maintain with such sweeping claims regarding the tolerance of seventeenth-century Reformed Protestantism to begin with, here it is above all important to observe that both Armstrong and Rex suppose that Cameron freely espoused his universalist views during his lifetime. And, in line with the very nature of assumptions, they do so without providing documentation for the circulation of these ideas prior to Cameron’s death in 1625. Yet there is every reason to consider in detail when and how Cameron developed his universalism, as well as the nature of its earliest reception, given the rumblings in other academic writings suggesting Cameron’s universalist views did elicit controversy while he was alive. Jonathan D. Moore thus states in the concluding chapter to his English Hypothetical Universalism that “Cameron’s own teaching first became widely known through the Synod of Dordt”,14 while Richard A. Muller in his treatment of ‘hypothetical universalism’ in Calvin and the Reformed Tradition suggests a brief response by the British divine John Davenant to a query from the French churches regarding Cameron’s universalism must be dated between 1621 and 1625.15 The need for greater clarity and thus for an examination of the early history of Cameron’s universalism becomes all the more poignant when one realises that the Dordt discussions noted by Moore actually pertained to the operation of grace rather than its extent,16 while Muller himself has since adjusted his dating of the Davenant piece and now argues for a date well after Cameron’s death.17 Briefly stated, the chronological particulars of Cameron’s universalism remain largely shrouded in mystery. After all, no comprehensive study of his thought is as yet available, and the scattered attention he has garnered from intellectual historians is primarily

13 14 15 16 17

Rex: 1965, 87f. Moore: 2007, 218. Muller: 2012, 129f. Gootjes: 2014a, 188 n. 65. Muller: 2015.

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

141

motivated by their interest in him as a forerunner to his followers, with chronology proving to be of secondary concern.18 In this article I will therefore offer a detailed reconstruction of the development, dissemination, and earliest reception of Cameron’s universalism. On this basis I will argue that the general thesis of an increasing doctrinal rigidity within the seventeenth-century Reformed camp fails to account for the early silence on and late attacks against Cameron’s universalism, and offer an alternative account that seeks to do justice to the complexity of the historical details.

2.

Cameron on the Death of Christ and the Divine Decrees

Amyraut may first have laid out his doctrine of ‘universal grace’ in a duodecimo tome numbering nearly 200 pages and then defended it in a series of even lengthier volumes, but one will be hard-pressed to find more than eight folio pages in the totality of Cameron’s 900-page posthumously published collected works in which he makes a case for an universalism. These pages contain the text of a series of four letters, an exegesis of Hebrews 2:9, and a brief position paper on the order of the divine decrees.19 In a brief notice prefixed to the letters, the editors of the Opera explain that Cameron as a minister to the church of Bordeaux had been so kind as to correspond with a certain ministerial candidate on a variety of theological issues.20 The candidate – and thus addressee of the letters – is only identified with the initials “L.C.,” but this undoubtedly is Louis Cappel, the main editor of Cameron’s works who had been assisted by Amyraut and Samuel Bouhéreau († 1630) in bringing them to publication.21 Since the letters printed by Cappel are clearly part of a larger correspondence, with the first letter, dated December 1610, the reader enters the conversation in medias res, as it were. The letter is largely devoted to the question of the necessary or voluntary character of God’s punishment of sin, and it is in addressing a final objection raised by Cappel and based on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ that Cameron argues that it involves no contradiction to say that “Christ satisfied for all, but God does not impute that satisfaction to all.” For, so Cameron states, Christ can be said to have 18 The few studies that, as an exception, do treat aspects of Cameron’s thought in some detail include Laplanche: 2002; Armour: 2005; Muller: 2006; and Gootjes: 2014a. 19 The following overview of Cameron’s universalism is largely based on Gootjes: 2014a, 182– 187. 20 Cameron: 1642, 529. The English translation in Wodrow: 1845, 92–105 is of limited use due to the translator’s failure to grasp the complexity of the content and language of Cameron’s letters. 21 For Cappel’s leading role in the publication of Cameron’s Opera, see Gootjes: 2014a, 176ff.

142

Albert Gootjes

made satisfaction for all, in the same way as a prize is held out and destined for all contestants, but conferred only upon the victor. A little further on in the letter, however, Cameron specifies: “If someone wants to speak properly, he will say that Christ satisfied only for those who believe, since they alone are his members.”22 That issues concerning the extent of Christ’s satisfaction and of God’s will to save had the attention of Cameron and Cappel at the time is evident when, in the next part of the letter, Cameron addresses the interpretation of the ‘all’ in 1 Tim 2:4. The letter to which Cameron responds unfortunately does not survive, but in light of Tilenus’s aforementioned charge against Cameron it would seem reasonable enough to suppose that Cappel had challenged him on a reading of the ‘all’ in this universalist locus classicus as “all people.” Yet the fact of the matter is that Cameron actually refutes an argument used by proponents of this interpretation. This is clear from the Myrothecium evangelicum, a posthumous collection of Cameron’s scattered exegetical comments on New Testament passages which Cappel took from his writings, edited, and organised by book and chapter. Under the heading 1 Tim 2:4 Cappel reproduced the discussion from Cameron’s letter to him nearly word for word, but for the sake of readability supplied also the context from his own letter. Cappel, it emerges, had noted that there are some who argue on the basis of 1 Tim 2:4 that Christ died equally (equaliter) for all individual people, and deny the common restrictive interpretation of the ‘all’ (as “all kinds of people”) by claiming that we are required to pray to God for the salvation of all individuals.23 Cameron responds that this conclusion is based on false reasoning. For prayers formulated for the salvation of others are either ‘absolute,’ as when we execrate the sworn enemies of the church or commit the church or the elect to God, or else ‘hypothetical,’ as when we appeal to God for a specific person to be given faith or to continue in it. When we pray for individuals, we must do so in the same mode (eodem modo) in which God wills their salvation, that is, with a condition: Indeed, if you think that God wills the salvation of all equally without any condition, you are most foolish – not to say anything worse. For do you think that God either does not want to effect what he wills absolutely (which is incoherent) or else cannot do it (which is blasphemous)? Therefore, if God wills absolutely the salvation of all, if he wills absolutely that all come to a knowledge of the truth, he will fully provide this effect.24

Cameron explains that this is why Scripture speaks of two degrees of God’s antecedent love. It has a first degree, described in the well-known words of John 22 J. Cameron to L. Cappel, Bordeaux, ?.12.1610, in Cameron: 1642, 530f. 23 Cameron: 1632, 230f. The explanation of 1 Tim 2:4 from the 1610 letter is reproduced nearly word for word, but the context has been helpfully supplied by Cappel who presumably here paraphrases a section from his original letter to Cameron. 24 J. Cameron to L. Cappel, Bordeaux, ?.12.1610, in Cameron: 1642, 531a–b.

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

143

3:16 (“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”), according to which Christ is said to have been given for both Gentiles and Jews, but with the condition that they believe. Cameron continues: “It is in respect to this first love that God is said to have given Christ for the life of the world [cf. 1 John 2:2], to will the salvation of all [1 Tim 2:4], inasmuch as he calls all to repentance – some by the law of nature, others by the written law, yet others by the preaching of the gospel.” Yet there is also another degree of divine antecedent love, and it is from this second degree that God gives faith. It is demonstrated by a passage no less famous than John 3:16, namely John 6:44, where Jesus says that “no one comes to me unless the Father has drawn him in.” According to this second degree of antecedent love, Christ is said to have been given to the elect alone and to will their salvation alone.25 This first letter to Cappel is important because it indicates that Cameron was seeking a satisfying or acceptable way to insist on Christ’s universal satisfaction or God’s will to save all as early as 1610 – that is, only two years after he had completed his theological studies in Paris, Geneva, and Heidelberg, and eight years before he began his career as professor of theology in 1618 at the academy of Saumur. At the same time, it needs to be recognised that what we find here are bits and pieces of reflection, and not a comprehensive and developed universalist system. After all, the majority of Cameron’s letter is devoted to the character of God’s punishment of sin, and, while he in addressing 1 Tim 2:4 may let on a certain universalism of his own, his main point there is in fact to refute those who use this text to conclude that Christ died equally for all. Similarly ad hoc in nature are Cameron’s universalist reflections in the third printed letter, dated 15 December 1611. For when he uses the sun as an analogy to explain how Christ can be said to have died for all, a careful reading of the passage reveals that – in spite of the editor’s marginal note singling out the universality of Christ’s death as the main point of the paragraph – here too the exposition forms a part of another argument, this time on the relationship between faith, Christ’s satisfaction, and the assurance of salvation.26 More to the point is the final letter from 16 May 1612, no doubt because, as the text makes clear, Cappel had challenged Cameron’s earlier insistence that Christ died for all.27 Quite probably Cappel was confused as to how Cameron could have stated in the third letter from 15 December 1611 that Christ died for all, while in his earlier letter from December 1610 he had, as we saw, criticised an argument 25 J. Cameron to L. Cappel, Bordeaux, ?.12.1610, in Cameron: 1642, 531b. 26 J. Cameron to L. Cappel, Bordeaux, 15. 12. 1611, in Cameron: 1642, 531b. 27 J. Cameron to L. Cappel, Bordeaux, 16. 5. 1612, in Cameron: 1642, 533b: “Tibi non probatur quod scripsi, Christum pro omnibus mortuum esse.”

144

Albert Gootjes

from those who insist that the ‘all’ of 1 Tim 2:4 should indeed be read as “all men” and not “all kinds of men.” Cameron’s first line of defence is to state that it is the confession of the entire church and the voice of the Holy Spirit himself that Christ died for all. All theologians recognise that Christ is the Saviour of the world, although they soften it by claiming that Christ died for all sufficiently, but efficiently only for believers. Cameron adds that he too recognises this distinction, as reflected in his insistence on the condition of faith for receiving the fruit of Christ’s death.28 Further on in the letter, however, he qualifies this agreement somewhat when he observes that he does understand the word ‘sufficiency’ to mean more than others appear to do when they say that Christ satisfied ‘sufficiently’ for the wicked: For also the treasury of the king of Great Britain is sufficient to make me rich; nevertheless, even if I believe it to be the king’s generosity to will the entire treasury to be mine unless I despise it, it will (I think) still not be mine.29

The key to understanding this difficult comparison is the silent, unexpressed proposal that sufficiency in Cameron’s mind must be connected to an intention on God’s part to extend it also to all. In the same way, to know that the opulence of the British treasury is enough to make me rich, and even to believe that the king will give it to me if I do not spurn it, does not really make it mine and is therefore of no use to me – unless, so I propose to read between the lines, the king also has the intention to give it to me if I believe he will do so.30 In countering Cappel’s charge of inconsistency, Cameron also addresses the wording the former had used in suggesting that his position implies that “the Saviour of the world died just as much for the traitor Judas as for Peter.” Cameron objects that the phrase “just as much” is out of place. Scripture does state that Christ died for and redeemed the wicked, as in 2 Pet 2:1 which speaks of false teachers who even deny “the Master who bought them” – and thereby he retains the position he enunciated in the 1611 letter, where he had stated that Christ died for all. Nevertheless, he fiercely insists that he has never said, written, or even thought that Christ died for the wicked just as much as for the good – which had, of course, been the formulation to which he responded in the first letter from December 1610.31 Cameron thus harmonises his earlier letters by making it clear

28 J. Cameron to L. Cappel, Bordeaux, 16. 5. 1612, in Cameron: 1642, 533b. 29 J. Cameron to L. Cappel, Bordeaux, 16. 5. 1612, in Cameron: 1642, 534b. 30 I thus suggest that Cameron here argues what James Ussher (1581–1656), bishop of Armagh and likewise a hypothetical universalist, argues in Ussher: 1660, 356f. For Ussher, see Moore: 2007, 173–213. 31 The point made in this letter is thus very close to what we find in the passage from the Amica collatio that Tilenus had highlighted in accusing Cameron of departing from the predestinarian view of Dordt.

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

145

that he does and did hold to a reading of the ‘all’ in 1 Tim 2:4 as “all people” (and not “all kinds of people”), but denies that Christ died for all equally. Another opportunity to explain how Christ can be said to have died for all was offered to Cameron in his private lectures on the epistle to the Hebrews, which he gave in Saumur in 1623–1624. In Heb 2:9 we read that Christ tasted death “for everyone”, which Cameron commented as follows: Therefore, Christ’s death pertains, under the condition of faith, in an equal degree [ex aequo] to all men; nevertheless, since all men fail to meet this fulfil this condition and Christ gives himself with all his benefits to be enjoyed only to those who believe, it happens that Christ is said in Scripture to have died only for a specific kind of people, namely for the church, for believers. In one word, Christ (as we might say) died absolutely for believers, conditionally (as I might say) for all.32

Against Cameron’s insistence a decade earlier in the last of the four letters to Cappel that he had never even dreamed of positing that Christ died equally for all, his statement here may at first seem striking. Nevertheless, the apparent conflict should not be made more than it is, especially because Cameron’s formulation of Christ’s equally universal satisfaction in his Hebrews lectures is explicitly placed within a framework subsumed under the condition of faith, which in a way actually deprives the word ‘equally’ of its import. If in the letters and lectures Cameron explored and explained how Christ can be said to have made satisfaction for all and how God willed to save all, his universalist thought comes to a head in his doctrine of predestination as outlined in a brief, undated position paper on the order of the divine decrees.33 Before presenting his fourfold decree structure, Cameron first lays the foundation for his division by distinguishing between two kinds of divine properties and acts: There are some properties whose actions require not only an object and matter in which they exercise themselves, but also certain qualities; such are justice and mercy. For justice, whether vindictive or remunerative, is occupied not in a person simply, but in a person affected by a certain state. […] Mercy, by which [God] forgives sins, likewise requires faith and repentance in him who experiences it.34

These properties must be distinguished from another set of properties, which Cameron describes as follows:

32 Cameron, Responsiones ad quaest. in Epist. ad Hebr. 2:9, in Cameron: 1642, 389b. 33 Cameron, De ordine decretorum Dei, in negotio salutis humanae, Ioh. Cameronis sententia, in Cameron: 1642, 529a–b; for an English translation, see Wodrow: 1845, 179ff. Swinne: 1972, 312 n. 519, may be correct to date this piece to 1623, but the evidence he offers for the association with the letters to James Galloway (which he places in 1622–1623) –i. e., their location in the posthumous works, and a correspondence in content – is hardly convincing. 34 Cameron, De ordine decretorum Dei, in Cameron: 1642, 529a.

146

Albert Gootjes

Similarly there are certain properties of God whose actions either require no object, or else if they do require an object, seek and demand no condition in it, like the power and wisdom of God, which exercised itself in the creation of the world, required no object (because there was nothing) but rather established it; and [it exercised itself] in the restoration of the world, even if those properties, or rather the acts that come forth from them (e. g., calling), have an object (that is, man dead in his sins), nevertheless they demand no condition in the object but they rather make [it], that is, faith and repentance.35

Having established this distinction in God’s properties and acts, Cameron remarks that there are “just as many kinds of decrees, one of those that require a condition, the other of those that require no condition” – such that the former can be called ‘conditioned’ decrees, and the latter ‘absolute’ decrees. With this foundation in place, Cameron presents four decrees pertaining to salvation: 1. The first decree, then, is about restoring the divine image upon the creature, in a way wherein the justice of God remains intact. 2. The second is about sending the Son who saves each and every one of those who believe in him, that is, who are his members. 3. The third is about rendering men fit to believe. 4. The fourth is about saving those who believe.36 It is not hard to see why Pierre du Moulin (1568–1658), professor theology at Sedan and a fierce opponent of the Saumur theology if ever there was one, would in his letter to the Synod of Alençon (1637) point to Cameron’s decree structure as being highly problematic.37 Indeed, although the last two decrees concern individuals and thus do allow Cameron a claim to particularity as encapsulated in the judgment of the Synod of Dordt, the first two decrees are universal in extent. Most specifically, according to the second decree the Son is sent for all believers or, otherwise stated, for all provided that they believe.38

35 Cameron, De ordine decretorum Dei, in Cameron: 1642, 529a. 36 Cameron, De ordine decretorum Dei, in Cameron: 1642, 529b: “Primum decretum est de restauranda imagine Dei in creatura, salua tamen Dei iustitia. Secundum est de mittendo Filio, qui servet omnes & singulos qui in eum credunt, hoc est, qui eius membra sunt. Tertium est de reddendis hominibus idoneis ad credendum. Quartum de servandis credentibus.” 37 See P. du Moulin to the synod of Alençon, Sedan, 27. 4. 1637, in Aymon: 1710, 2:617. 38 According to Cameron’s own definitions, only the last decree is ‘conditioned,’ while the first three decrees are all ‘absolute’—although the second decree clearly includes the implicit condition of faith, given that the actual bestowal of faith comes in the third decree. This makes Cameron’s decree structure somewhat less than intuitive, an element that was improved upon by his followers; see Gootjes: 2014a, 186f, 189–95.

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

3.

147

Between Pen and Press: The Dissemination of Cameron’s Universalism

The overview of the universalist passages in Cameron’s works thus reveals that he began his universalist reflection early on in his career, as is evident from the Cappel letters, and that this theme continued to hold his attention towards the end of it, as we saw in the private Saumur lectures and – if we assume a late date of composition – in his paper on the order of the decrees. The decade that passed between the letters and the lectures would have left ample time for Cameron’s universalist views to be disseminated and to become widely known. This is also what scholars like Armstrong and Rex assumed, while insisting that they passed without opposition until much later after his death. Yet a careful examination of the way Cameron’s views were disseminated suggests a different course of events. In spite of the considerable volume to which Cameron’s collected works amount, he himself published very little. There are several weighty factors that account for this paucity, not the least of which was the winding road his life took. As a result of conflict and political upheavals, he was repeatedly forced to relocate throughout his decade-and-a-half career as a theologian and especially during the last seven years of his life, beginning in 1618 with his appointment as professor of theology at Saumur, which intellectually ought to have been the most fruitful years for his reflection.39 To this must be added another factor reported by Cappel, who in the front matter to Cameron’s collected works explicitly notes that his late friend himself published little and that others likewise failed to bring much from his corpus to publication during his lifetime. He furthermore reports that in spite of Cameron’s natural ease in writing, it was actually very difficult to move him to do so.40 In preparing the first version of Cameron’s collected works, which appeared at Saumur in three volumes in 1626 and 1628 under the title Praelectiones, Cappel republished previously printed material, if need be in Latin translation; reconstructed Cameron’s lectures on the basis of student notes; and added other material he found among Cameron’s manuscripts, which had been left to him by his will and testament.41 And the works in which Cameron’s 39 One need only to recall the list of places where Cameron lived: Bordeaux (1608–1615), Tonneins (1615–1617), Bordeaux (1617–1618), Saumur (1618–1621), London (1621–1622), Glasgow (1622–1623), Saumur (1623–1624), and Montauban (1624–1625). 40 [Cappel], Ioh. Cameronis Icon, in Cameron: 1642, *3r°: “Nihil ferme ultro scripsit, sed vel ab aemulis & Adversariis provocatus & lacessitus, vel ab amicis incitatus & quasi exstimulatus, difficulter enim admodum ad scribendum manum admovit, licet facilius illi nil fuerit quam aliquid scribere, Pauca ipso vivente & procurante edita sunt in lucem, pleraque vel eo inscio & absente, vel post obitum eius ab amicis evulgata fuere.” 41 For details on the composition of Cameron’s complete works, see Gootjes: 2014a, 175–79. The later, one-volume Cameron: 1642 (i. e., the Opera) contains some additional material not found in the earlier, three-volume Cameron: 1626–1628 (i. e., the Praelectiones).

148

Albert Gootjes

universalism finds clear expression do not number among the ones that he had published himself or were published by others during his lifetime, but to those Cappel brought to light for the very first time. For the lectures on the epistle to the Hebrews, the “De ordine decretorum Dei”, and the Cappel letters are all found in the third volume of the Praelectiones, which appeared in 1628, three years after Cameron had passed away.42 While the late date of publication is a significant factor in the reception of Cameron’s universalism, it alone cannot account for the apparent absence of early controversy. After all, Cameron’s denial of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience did generate discussion and opposition,43 even though the writings in which he expressed these views remain unpublished to this very day.44 Furthermore, there was a group of people who knew of Cameron’s universalism prior to the appearance of the Praelectiones. This circle included Louis Cappel, the addressee of the letters, as well as the students of an unknown – but probably limited – number who sat under Cameron’s lectures on Hebrews during his second stay in Saumur. To them we may safely add such students from his first Saumur period as Testard and Amyraut, as well as Josué de la Place (ca. 1596– 1655), later on a colleague to Amyraut and Cappel at the academy, who would all reveal their universalist colours when they became established theologians in their own right. As Roger Nicole correctly posited in his study on Amyraut, Cameron must have emphasised the universal saving will of God when he came to Saumur to teach there in 1618, since it would otherwise be “difficult to understand how several of his students who acknowledged being beholden to him in this respect should have concurred precisely on this issue.”45 And indeed, in a letter written in 1648 to André Rivet (1572–1651), one of the most active opponents of the ideas emanating from Saumur, the Groningen professor Samuel des Marets (1599–1673) would look back on his studies at Saumur together with Amyraut, de la Place, and Testard in the late 1610s, and remark that they “drank in all of Cameron.”46 42 Respectively in Cameron: 1626–1628, 3:129–267; 569f; and 571–88. 43 See n. 10 above. 44 That Louis Cappel did have manuscripts on this topic from Cameron is evident from letters from his son Jacques Cappel to L. Tronchin, Saumur, 29. 11. 1666, 10. 7. 1678, and 21. 12. 1678, in Geneva, BGE, MHR, Archives Tronchin 41, fol. 15f and 26f; the first letter is printed in Chouet: 2008, 55. n. 2. See also the letters from J.-R. Chouet to L. Tronchin, Saumur, 25. 10. 1666 and 15. 12. 1666, in Chouet: 2008, 49–55; and Laplanche: 1986, 912 n. 153. Such manuscript material from Cameron was used by Guillaume Rivet to address his long-time opponent’s view at length in G. Rivet: 1648, 94–170. 45 Nicole: 1966, 32. The note identifies the students in question as Moïse Amyraut, Jean Daillé, Théophile Brachet de la Milletière, Josué de la Place, and Paul Testard. 46 S. Desmarets to A. Rivet, Groningen, 26. 11. 1648, in Nauta: 1935, 532: “Illi vero mei commilitones [= Amyraut, Testard, de la Place, AG] remanserunt Salmurij et deinde D. Cameronem totum imbiberunt.”

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

149

Yet the crucial question is, of course, whether knowledge of Cameron’s universalism ever escaped these limited confines while he was alive. If we go by the information available about Amyraut and Testard, at any rate, it appears that they were very careful in deciding with whom they would share this part of their master’s teaching. In a letter to Marie de la Tour d’Auvergne, duchess of Trémoille (1601–1665), Rivet complains that when these young theologians were in Leiden to study with him early in the 1620s after the completion of their studies at Saumur with Cameron, they never let on that they harboured the universalist views which they would openly profess later on.47 There is no doubt that Amyraut and Testard were aware of the long-standing tensions between Rivet and Cameron on various points of doctrine, and would have been vigilant in his presence. In fact, in his Specimen animadversionum of 1648 Amyraut explicitly states that soon upon his arrival in Leiden he discovered that his fellow students, in spite of a certain esteem in which held Cameron, believed that he unfortunately breathed the air of heretics and based themselves for this on “the testimony of a certain great man”.48 The tenure of Amyraut’s discourse leaves little doubt that this “great man” was Rivet, so that Amyraut – and by extension Testard, who arrived in Leiden some six months later49 – will have sought to save their champion further doctrinal controversy and avoided adding fuel to Rivet’s fire by the mention of his universalism. Rivet’s correspondence forms an excellent source for gauging the dissemination of Cameron’s universalist views. Throughout his life he closely followed the developments surrounding him, showed himself to be one of the foremost

47 A. Rivet to M. de la Tour d’Auvergne (Duchess of Trémoille), The Hague, 27. 8. 1646, in Leiden, UB, BPL 290, fol. 41ff: “Puisqu’il [= Amyraut, AG] vous dit, Madame, qu’il a esté de nos disciples, d’où vient que luy et Monsieur Testard lesquels ont esté ensemble en l’Académie de Leyden, en laquelle nous étions de leur temps quatre professeurs en théologie combien dès lors ils avoient eu le maistre [= Cameron, AG] qui leur a donné cette teinture, d’où vient di-je qu’ilz ne nous en ont jamais parlé, ny en public ny en particulier.” 48 Amyraut: 1648, preface, 31: “Offenderat quidem nonnihil animum meum quod ubi Leydam appuli, a studiosorum sermonibus statim collegi Cameronem ibi male audire. Laudabat enim certe eius eruditionem, & ingenii magnitudinem prolixe praedicabant; at testabantur dolendum esse tantum Virum vitium traxisse ex haereticorum halitu, quod se ex magni alicuius Viri testimonio comperisse dicebant.” 49 Amyraut matriculated at the university of Leiden on 26. 10. 1620, several weeks after Rivet arrived there as professor; see Du Rieu: 1875, 150. Testard came to Leiden as preceptor to the son of Daniel de Launay, sieur de la Ravinière, and Marguerite Phélypeaux, and arrived there mid-February 1621; see the letters from B. Aubery du Maurier to A. Rivet, The Hague, 11 and 19. 2. 1621, in Leiden, UB, BPL 2211b, fol. 84f. He never officially matriculated at the university, but on 13 and 16. 7. 1622 defended the disputation on “faith and the perseverance of the saints” from the Synopsis purioris theologiae-disputation cycle (Rivet: 1622; reprinted in Polyander/Rivet/Walaeus/Thysius: 1625, 395–420). For the Synopsis as a disputation cycle, see Sinnema/Van den Belt: 2012.

150

Albert Gootjes

opponents of the Saumur theology in the 1630s and 1640s50, and, as a preeminent member of the Republic of Letters, had an enormous network keeping him upto-date on all sorts of matters.51 Cameron’s name thus surfaces regularly in his correspondence, and not only in the letters the two exchanged with each other in 1621 as occasioned by the Amica collatio, but also elsewhere. In a 1618 letter to Tilenus, for example, Rivet describes concerns that had been raised during Cameron’s examination for his appointment at Saumur because of his view on the operation of grace52, and in a following letter draws attention also to his aberrant views on the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.53 In a 1624 letter David Primerose (1601–ca. 1682), whose father Gilbert († 1642) had served the church of Bordeaux together with Cameron, reports that Cameron is back in France in the hope of returning to teach at Saumur.54 Several months later Rivet’s brother Guillaume Rivet (1580–1651) writes from Taillebourg in France that Cameron is now indeed back in the country, and details a recent in-person meeting he had with him at which they managed to be civil to each other and pretended the past had never happened.55 But for all the talk of Cameron in the extant letters from and to Rivet written prior to the publication of volume three of the Praelectiones 50 See Honders: 1930, 107–129; and Van Stam: 1988. 51 See Honders: 1930, 165–169, and especially Cohen: 1920, 293–310. 52 A. Rivet to D. Tilenus, Thouars, 25. 8. 1618 (draft), in Leiden, UB, BPL 282, fol. 47r°: “Ex delegatis quidam eo inclinabant, moti praesertim phrasibus nonnullis & ambiguis propositionibus quas in thesibus ab eo [= Cameron, AG] ad disputandum propositis plerique notaverant; ut quod dicebat, moveri a gratia liberum arbitrium motu ethico, neque animo percipi posse, quo pacto aliter quam ethice moveretur, cum ethicum principium sit.” Contra Wodrow: 1845, 221, who writes that the objections from the provincial Synod of Poitou did not pertain to the question of grace but to “Mr. Cameron’s being of the same mind with Piscator.” 53 A. Rivet to D. Tilenus, Thouars, n.d. (draft), in Leiden, UB, BPL 282, fol. 48r°: “… de domino Camerone quale iudicium non solum postremae Vitriacensis, sed etiam penultimae Tonninensis, in qua de ἑτεροδοξία in negotio justificationis ex scriptis convictus, nusquam eo adigi potuit ut recantaret; pollicitus tantum se nullam contentionem excitaturum etiam si in materia justificationis secus sentiret.” 54 D. Primerose to A. Rivet, London, 18. 3. 1624, in Leiden, UB, BPL 301, fol. 192r°: “Vous sçavez aussi que Monsieur Cameron est en France, attendant s’il luy sera permis ou non d’exercer de nouveau sa profession à Saumur, ce que je souhaitterois de tout mon coeur pour le bien de l’académie & de toutes nos églises.” 55 G. Rivet to A. Rivet, Taillebourg, 29. 5. 1624, in Leiden, UB, BPL 287I, fol. 7r°: “Pour Monsieur Cameron dont vous m’avés escrit, nous vinsmes ensemble avec tous tesmoignages d’amitié, & passasmes le temps fort agréablement, sans jamais parler du passé.” The Rivet brothers at first got on well with Cameron, but the relationship later turned sour. Guillaume Rivet was rumoured to have been jealous of Cameron because he had been passed over by the academy of Saumur in 1618 when Cameron was appointed (Van Stam: 1988, 30 n. 2), but he himself insisted that his attacks on Cameron dated back to the controversy over the imputation of Christ’s active obedience and proceeded from his sense of obligation to the truth; see G. Rivet to A. Rivet, Taillebourg, 3. 2. 1649, in Leiden, UB, BPL 287II, fol. 152r°; and G. Rivet: 1648, a4r°– b1r°.

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

151

in 1628, not a single word can be found in them relating to Cameron’s universalism.56 This leads one to suppose that Rivet, and therefore the many others who were less informed than he was, simply did not know. That Rivet, as an examination of his correspondence up to 1628 suggests, was unaware of Cameron’s universalism while the latter was alive can in fact be proved from his own testimony. In a key letter that Rivet wrote to Frédéric Spanheim the Elder (1600–1649) in 1645 and that was printed by the latter in his Exercitationes de gratia universali against Amyraut, Rivet describes how the plan harboured by a group of people which included governor Philippe DuplessisMornay (1549–1623), the patron of the Saumur academy, for Cameron and him to become colleagues there failed, so that he ended up staying at the university of Leiden for more than the two years for which he had initially been loaned to it.57 It was during his extended stay there, so Rivet reports, that he found out Cameron had been a universalist, a discovery which he describes to Spanheim as follows: While I was performing my charge [in Leiden], I happened upon Cameron’s posthumous books, in which I then perceived for the first time what I had not known before, namely that in the doctrine of the universality of redemption and grace he departed from the path which had previously been beaten by others, and among them the most renowned Salmurians Franciscus Gomarus and Robert Boyd of Trocheredge.58

Rivet continues by pointing specifically to the letters to Cappel as the source for his discovery: I only observed it in his letters to the most renowned Louis Cappel. For, if elsewhere in his Praelectiones certain scattered passages may seem to tend in that direction, I in reading or rather skimming them noticed no such thing, since I was not curiously engaged in investigating the things that had not yet been the subject of controversy between us.59

In other words, Rivet acknowledges that there may be other things in the Praelectiones that in hindsight prove to be in line with Cameron’s universalism, but 56 I was able to consult the greatest part of Rivet’s correspondence up to and including 1628 listed in Dibon: 1971. 57 For further details on Rivet’s nomination to Leiden, see also Cohen: 1920, 293–310; and Honders: 1930, 23 n. 3. 58 A. Rivet to F. Spanheim, The Hague, 18. 12. 1645, in Spanheim: 1646, 1:(?)5r°: “Dum illic fungerer meo munere, incidi in libros posthumos D. Cameronis, in quibus tunc primum percepi, quod prius ignoraveram, eum in doctrina de universalitate redemptionis & gratiae ab eo transmite abire, quem antea triverant alii, & inter caeteros Salmurii Viri Clarissimi Franciscus Gomarus & Robertus bodius à Trochoregia.” 59 A. Rivet to F. Spanheim, The Hague, 18. 12. 1645, in Spanheim: 1646, 1:(?)5r°: “Id tantum observavi in Epistolis ad Clariss. virum Lud. Capellum. Nam, si alibi in eius praelectionibus quaedam sparsa videantur quae ad id spectent, ego in legendo, aut percurrendo nihil tale notaveram, qui curiosus non eram horum investigator, quae nondum apud nostros in controversiam venerant.”

152

Albert Gootjes

that it was only its explicit statement in the Cappel letters – and, presumably, his piece on the order of the decrees which immediately precedes the letters – that tipped him off, especially since his attention was primarily directed to discovering what his late opponent’s posthumous works might contain pertaining to their earlier disagreements on the operation of grace in conversion and perhaps the nature of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience. That the Cappel letters published in the Praelectiones were what first alerted Cameron’s contemporaries to his universalist views similarly emerges from what Spanheim writes in the preface to the Exercitationes in which he published Rivet’s letter to him. Here he addresses the accusation of inconsistency which Amyraut had launched against him in pointing out that he now attacked his universalism, but had earlier secured the publication of Cameron’s one-volume Opera in Geneva, in which the same universalism can be found.60 Spanheim responds that he “openly, and publicly, and often” had stated that his involvement hardly meant that he subscribed to all Cameron’s positions, and especially not to his “doctrine of universal grace.”61 He continues: I even added that some things out of the third volume [of the Praelectiones] – several letters, to be sure – could be removed from the rest of his works and omitted without any affront or damage to Cameron or to those who share his view because they were private letters written to friends and were to his mind not intended to become public property. Had these letters been removed, there would remain very little scattered in Cameron’s works that could be cited in favour of universal grace, nor would these [passages] be so easily noticed except by those who are curious for such matters.62

Like Rivet, Spanheim thus identifies Cameron’s letters to Cappel as the most incriminating part of his works with a view to his universalism, although he like him acknowledges that there are also other passages tending in the same direction. Moreover, Spanheim explicitly insists that without the publication of the

60 The accusation was first made in Amyraut: 1645. The publication of Cameron’s Opera by the Genevan printer Jacques Chouet did not pass without opposition; see Laplanche: 1965, 168; and Grohman: 1971, 132f and passim. 61 Spanheim: 1646, 1:(??????) 5v°–6r°. 62 Spanheim: 1646, 1:(??????)6r°: “Adjeci etiam, quaedam e Tertio Tomo, Epistolas nimirum aliquot, a reliquis Operibus recidi posse, & omitti, sine ulla Cameronis & eadem cum ipso sentientium sive contumelia, sive injuria etiam, eo quod privatae essent litterae ad amicos scriptae, nec eo animo, ut publici juris fierent. Quae Epistolae si abessent, paucissima exstarent sparsim in Cameronis Operibus, quae in causae istius de Universali Gratia favorem citari possent, nec ita facile, nisi ab harum rerum curiosis observarentur.” Spanheim’s desire to have some parts cut from Cameron’s works is also mentioned in L. Cappel to Th. Tronchin, Saumur, 20. 3. 1641, in Geneva, MHR, Arch. Tronchin 27, fol. 238 (which is transcribed – albeit rather imperfectly – in Swinne: 1972, 85). The debate between Amyraut and Spanheim over the latter’s role in bringing the Opera to publication would continue; see Gootjes: 2014a, 180f and the references there.

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

153

letters nobody would even have known of Cameron’s universalism, and that this really was how Cameron had intended it to be. A third voice to the same effect belongs to that other formidable opponent of Cameron, Pierre du Moulin. The quotation from Spanheim in fact amounts to a reproach against Cappel for publishing personal letters that were never intended to become public, and this charge was formulated explicitly by Du Moulin in a 1648 rejoinder to Amyraut’s Specimen animadversionum. Noting Cappel’s publication of several private letters written to him by Cameron when he was still a candidate to the ministry, he came with the following evaluation: In these letters there are many fallacious and impure things for which, since Cameron had committed them to his friend’s care in private letters and had not wanted them to be publicly known, Cappel would have acted more prudently and would not have injured the rights of friendship, if he had refrained from publishing them.63

In the pages that follow, Du Moulin demonstrates at length how the universalist statements (and other elements) in the letters involve numerous absurdities and falsities, concluding that Cameron had hardly been kidding when he wrote to Cappel that he had many other thoughts that he felt he could not yet reveal.64 To cite the paraphrase of John Quick: the famous Peter du Moulin taxed [Cappel] for indiscretion in letting such memoirs see the light, that had been better, as he thought, to have been everlastingly imprisoned with many other such like Άνεκδοτα of luxuriant wits within his own private cabinet, because they would prejudice the memory of Mr. Cameron.65

Rivet may have stated explicitly that he did not even know of Cameron’s universalism until he read the private letters published by Cappel, but this is the same tacit assumption hidden behind the regret expressed by both Spanheim and Du Moulin over the publication of the letters and their conviction that the contents should have remained buried forever among Cameron’s private papers. All of this means that for the period when Cameron was alive, at least, the absence of opposition to his universalism need not be explained by the thesis of a greater latitude on the part of the orthodox in the first decades of the seventeenth century, as Armstrong and Rex argued. Rather, it is explained by the simple fact that Cameron’s views on the extent of Christ’s satisfaction and on predestination were, with very few exceptions, simply not known to anybody. Nor is the fact that Tilenus in his Canones synodi Dordracenae of 1622 already accused Cameron of 63 Du Moulin: 1649, 216: “In his epistolis plurima sunt ὕπουλα & impura, quae cum Cameron privatis epistolis in sinum amici deposuisset, nec vulgari voluisset, prudenter fecisset Capellus, nec peccasset in amicitiae iura, si eas non emisisset in lucem.” 64 Du Moulin: 1649, 223f, citing J. Cameron to L. Cappel, Bordeaux, 16. 5. 1612, in Cameron: 1642, 535a. 65 Quick: n.d., 22f.

154

Albert Gootjes

departing from the orthodox position on predestination damaging to this thesis. The passage he noted, where Cameron claims that “God wills the conversion of all, but does not will all things equally,” was no doubt among those Rivet and Spanheim had in mind when they acknowledged that there are passages in Cameron’s works other than the Cappel letters that hint at his notion of universal grace. Yet the brevity of this one statement and the absence of further specification in the text of Cameron’s Amica collatio would have made it hard to make much of a case against him unless there was additional, more explicit evidence. When Rivet and the Leiden faculty read the manuscript prior to publication, they did not have such evidence and evidently were not struck by the potentially dangerous universalist overtones it contained, even though they did read the text with some care as is clear from their refusal to provide it with an approbation. Tilenus, on the other hand, did have such additional evidence in that Cameron – with good reason, we might add! – evaded the topic of the divine decrees during their conference. Nevertheless, his accusation of anti-Dordtian predestinarian sentiments in Cameron was readily prone to being ignored by the orthodox, given the overall polemical if not sarcastic tenor of his discourse in the Canones synodi Dordracenae that made it hard to take this embittered outcast seriously.66

4.

The Earliest Response: Rivet’s Ambivalence

For the period prior to 1628, when volume three of the Praelectiones appeared, the absence of early opposition to Cameron’s universalism thus need not be explained by an early orthodox latitude, but was simply due to the fact that his views had not yet disseminated outside of a highly restricted circle. Yet another aspect of the proposal of Armstrong and Rex that proves unsatisfying is their suggestion that his view was not considered suspect until the outbreak of the Amyraut controversies in the mid-1630s – whether the greater rigidity witnessed then be a result of the persistence of the Arminian threat (Armstrong), or explained by the fading memory of the latitude shown to the British and Bremen delegation at Dordt (Rex). The fact of the matter is that Cameron’s universalism did not just raise red flags in the mid-1630s, but soon after being unveiled in the third volume of the Praelectiones. For when Rivet in his aforementioned letter to Spanheim described his first encounter with Cameron’s views, he also intimated that he immediately took action: “Because of that sample [of Cameron’s universalism which I found 66 The “witty” and “stinging” nature of Tilenus’s work has also been noted by Sinnema: 2014, 128. Similarly, Moore: 2011, 144 n. 91, points out how Tilenus here gives a “gross caricature of the Canons” of Dordt.

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

155

in the letters to Cappel], I was led to mention that view in certain disputations.”67 These can be identified as the collection of disputations on “God’s just and gracious dispensation concerning the salvation of the human race” held in 1630 and published in 1631 under the title Disputationes tredecim.68 At least a part of Rivet’s specific design for this disputation set was to attack Cameron’s thought. In the ninth disputation, “On the efficacy of grace and the manner of conversion,” Rivet continued his long-standing assault on Cameron’s insistence on the moral nature of God’s work in conversion,69 which had been an issue between them ever since he and his Leiden colleagues refused to sign an approbation for the Amica collatio. Yet in the sixth disputation, “On the universality of the redemption accomplished through the death of Christ,” also Cameron’s universalism is addressed, and that for the very first time after its public revelation in the Praelectiones. Rivet begins the main part of this disputation by noting that there are some theologians who argue that redemption and salvation was obtained for all, whether that be according to the Father’s intention in sending his Son or according to the Son’s intention in being obedient unto the cross.70 He adds, however, that not all who hold this position actually share the same view. Some extend not only the sufficiency of Christ’s death but also its efficiency to all people insofar as they are people, and claim that Christ willed to die and really did die as much for Abel as for Cain, and for Peter as much as for Judas. Rivet rejects this view of the Remonstrants, noting also that they posit an absolute efficiency for the redemption won by Christ that precedes another decree by which the actual possession of redemption is said to depend on faith or unbelief.71 Having discarded this position, Rivet passes on to a variant view on the universality of the death of Christ, which is that of Cameron: There are others who reject that first absolute decree – and rightly so – and nevertheless make a conditioned decree that applies to all people in such a way that they assert that the counsel of God the Father in handing the Son over to death and of the Son in undergoing it, and also their intention and scope, was to acquire, obtain, and earn for all sinners individually by that most precious death and suffering that if, by the time they are capable of teaching, they repent and believe in Christ, they can be reconciled with God and receive the forgiveness of sins. Yet these men deny that an actual reconciliation

67 A. Rivet to F. Spanheim, The Hague, 18. 12. 1645, in Spanheim: 1646, 1:(?)5r°: “Ex illo tamen specimine adductus fui, ut in disputationibus quibusdam sententiae illius meminerim.” 68 A. Rivet: 1631; reprinted in Rivet: 1651–1660, 2:1153–1201. For the 1630 defence date, see Honders: 1930, 112, 123. 69 Rivet: 1631, 164–171 (= disp. 9, thes. 16–26), citing—without reference—on p. 165 (= disp. 9, thes. 18) from Cameron, Theses de efficacia gratiae Dei, thes. 10 (= Cameron: 1642, 332). 70 Rivet: 1631, 88 (disp. 6, thes. 4). 71 Rivet: 1631, 88f (disp. 6, thes. 5ff).

156

Albert Gootjes

with God or remission of sins or life eternal was really acquired and obtained for those who remain unrepentant.72

That with this final group of theologians Rivet was thinking of Cameron – even if he does not name him anywhere in the Disputationes tredecim – is evident not only from the position outlined, but also because it and the next two theses would become the object of tense discussions during the great universalist controversy instigated by Amyraut’s Brief traitté. The reason for the debate was the judgment with which Rivet finished his evaluation of Cameron’s universalism in the Disputationes tredecim. For after describing the broader understanding of the notion of ‘sufficiency’ which this view entails,73 Rivet wrote: Since they deny that Christ died equally [perinde] for the wicked and the godly and affirm that only the godly may boast of the satisfaction of Christ because it is to them that the particular fruit and efficacy of that satisfaction comes, they in terms of meaning agree with all the other orthodox, even though they may differ in their mode of speaking.

Rivet specified two reasons as to why he considered this view still to be on the right side of the divide: because they acknowledge a particular decree according to which Christ died particularly for the elect alone, by which they are brought not just to the common but also to the special benefits [of Christ’s death], namely the grace of regeneration and efficient calling, of justification and glorification; and [because] they ascribe the true and efficacious communication, bestowal, and application of saving grace, as well as the gift of that very faith by which application occurs, to the merit of Christ’s death.74

72 Rivet: 1631, 91 (disp. 6, thes. 9): “Alii sunt, qui primum illud absolutum decretum rejicientes, & merito, decretum tamen conditionatum, omnibus hominibus ita commune faciunt, ut asserant, consilium Dei patris filium in mortem tradentis, & filii eandem subeuntis, eorundem etiam intentionem & scopum fuisse, omnibus & singulis hominibus peccatoribus, pretiosissima ista morte & passione, acquirere, impetrare, ac promereri, ut si & in Christum credant, cum Deo reconciliari, & remissionem peccatorum accipere possint: negant tamen, actualem reconciliationem cum Deo, vel remissionem peccatorum, aut vitam aeternam, actu fuisse acquisitam vel impetratam iis qui permanent in impoenitentia.” 73 Rivet: 1631, 92 (disp. 6, thes. 10): “Distinctionem praeterea sufficientiae, & efficacitatis, sic accipiunt, ut sufficientiae vocabulum in hoc articulo, non solum rei valorem & pretium significet, sed etiam voluntatem possessoris, rem illam communicandi ei qui non neglexerit oblatam.” Cf. J. Cameron to L. Cappel, Bordeaux, 16. 5. 1612, in Cameron: 1642, 534b. 74 Rivet: 1631, 92f (disp. 6, thes. 11): “Isti cum negent, perinde pro impiis & piis Christum esse mortuum; affirmentque, solis piis de satisfactione Christi gloriari licere, quia ad eos praecipuus illius satisfactionis fructus & efficacia pervenit, sensu, cum aliis orthodoxis omnibus conveniunt, etsi modo loquendi differant: maxime cum speciale quoddam decretum agnoscant, secundum quo specialiter Christus pro solis electis est mortuus, quo non solum ad communia, sed ad singularia etiam beneficia, gratiam scilicet regenerationis & vocationis efficacis, justificationis & glorificationis perducuntur; & merito mortis Christi assignant, veram & efficacem, communicationem, largitionem, & applicationem gratiae salutaris; ipsiusque fidei qua fit applicatio, donationem.”

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

157

The mild judgment Rivet offered on Cameron’s universalism in this 1630 disputation on the universality of Christ’s redemption would come back to haunt him during the great controversy over the theology of Saumur. In 1648, when the polemics were at their most bitter peak, Amyraut published a Specimen animadversionum totalling nearly 1,000 pages to respond to the three-volume, 2,000page Exercitationes de gratia universali which Spanheim had published against him two years earlier. In this work Amyraut explicitly pointed to the assessment of Cameron’s universalism in the Disputationes tredecim, arguing that Rivet was now being inconsistent to attack him given that he had simply taken his doctrine over from Cameron.75 It is worthwhile for our purposes to consider how Rivet responded to Amyraut’s accusation, since it like the thesis offered by Armstrong and Rex supposes that Rivet at first was fine with Cameron’s universalism, and later on simply came back from this earlier latitude. Rivet’s mild judgment on Cameron in the Disputationes tredecim had obviously already proved problematic prior Amyraut’s accusation in the Specimen animadversionum, since he addressed it as early as 1645 in the same letter to Spanheim cited above in which he described his first encounter with Cameron’s universalism. There he explains: Because I did not in any way expect that [Cameron’s view] would be pressed and defended with such ardour, I treated these things with a soft arm when I gladly observed that the particular grace of election was still retained, as well as its invincible efficacy in the gift of faith and perseverance, and even a just decree of reprobation – and an absolute one at that! –pertaining to those who were passed over.76

Rivet thus insists that he had considered Cameron’s universalism to be just on the right side of the line because Cameron did insist on the particularity and invincibility of grace, as well as on reprobation – all three significant points against the background of the Remonstrant controversies. Yet Rivet of course also insinuates here that he would have refuted Cameron more thoroughly in 1630, if only he had known that his view would soon be promulgated so fiercely by others. In other words, when he first stumbled on Cameron’s universalism the best approach had seemed to be simply to mention this new view and to discard it, but for the rest to let sleeping dogs lie. This no doubt explains why Rivet did not 75 Amyraut: 1648, Preface, 52: “Fatetur ergo Vir Clarissimus [= Rivet, AG] ut iam supra observatum est, (est enim id, inquam dignum quod saepe repetatur) Cameronis istam, hoc est, meam sententiam convenire, & siquid est discriminis, id totum esse in modo loquendi constitutum.” See also Amyraut: 1648, Preface, 9f; and Generalium, 339. 76 A. Rivet to F. Spanheim, The Hague, 18. 12. 1645, in Spanheim: 1646, 1:(?)5r°: “& quia nullomodo expectabam tanto cum ardore inculcatam & defensam fore, levi brachio haec tractavi, cum viderem & gauderem, manere adhuc apud eum electionis gratiam singularem, & ejusdem invincibilem efficaciam in donanda fide & perseverantia. Iustum etiam reprobationis decretum, illudque absolutum, in praeteritos.”

158

Albert Gootjes

reference Cameron’s Praelectiones as his source in the Disputationes tredecim, since that would have given his students and readers a reference text and might even have encouraged them to see for themselves, given that Cameron in spite of everything enjoyed near universal admiration for his brilliance. Rivet’s hope for this new variant on the universality of Christ’s satisfaction in 1628 had been that it would pass unnoticed and gradually slip into oblivion. Yet when this did not happen and his earlier strategy proved to have backfired in that his gentle evaluation was now being quoted against him, Rivet intimates nearly two decades later, in 1645, that he in hindsight would have acted differently. In addressing Amyraut’s conniving use of the 1630 disputation text against him, Rivet also responded that his opponent actually had no right to claim his mild evaluation of Cameron’s doctrine for himself. After all, so he claimed, Amyraut conveniently left out the second of two conditions he had offered in his disputation according to which he judged Cameron’s universalism to be acceptable, namely that the proponents of this position assign the communication, bestowal, and application of saving grace, as well as the gift of faith, to the merit of Christ’s death. He added: Yet I now see not only that it is called into doubt by them (but also that the contrary is clearly affirmed by them), in that it could not even remain standing with a first and preceding decree concerning the sending of Christ and the offering of his death to all individual people prior to a decree that pertains to election to faith and salvation.77

In other words, when Rivet wrote his disputation in 1630, he assumed that Cameron did maintain a close connection between faith, by which the merit of Christ is apprehended, and the merit of Christ itself. Yet as the use of the word “now” makes clear, Rivet later came to realise that this close connection between faith and the merit of Christ’s death is necessarily shattered in that the gift of faith is distributed by a decree that follows a decree in which Christ’s death is offered to all. That Rivet seems to be admitting in somewhat disguised terms that he at first did not fully perceive all the implications of Cameron’s universalism is confirmed when he repeats his counter to Amyraut’s challenge three years later in a letter to 77 A. Rivet to F. Spanheim, The Hague, 18. 12. 1645, in Spanheim: 1646, 1:(?)5v°: “Sed vir doctus qui haec adduxit [= Amyraut, AG] non debuisset conditionem omittere sub qua id concessi, Non solum quia decretum agnoscebant, secundum quod specialiter Christus pro solis electis est mortuus, &c. Sed etiam, quia existimavi eos merito mortis Christi assignare veram & efficacem communicationem, largitionem & applicationem gratiae salutaris; ipsiusque fidei qua fit applicatio, donationem. Id tamen video nunc ab iis non tantum in dubium vocari, sed plane contrarium affirmari, quod etiam subsistere non posset cum primo & praevio decreto de Christo mittendo, & pro omnibus & singulis hominibus morti exponendo, ante decretum de electione ad fidem & ad salutem.” The quotation is from Rivet: 1631, 92f (disp. 6, thes. 11); that the word “Id” refers only to the second condition is evident from a nearly identical passage quoted below in n. 78.

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

159

his brother Guillaume. After citing again the supposition he had expressed in the 1630 disputation that Cameron assigned the communication, bestowal, and application of saving grace, and the gift of faith, to the merit of Christ’s death, he remarks: “Nevertheless, this is not what Amyraut believes, and so it is incorrectly that he seizes upon my testimony to prove that I felt the same about his doctrine as I did about that which I believed to be Cameron’s view.”78 That Cameron’s followers, including Testard and Amyraut, were understood to have gone further than their master is a conviction that emerges more frequently from the sources. For example, in his summary and refutation of the earliest works from Testard and Amyraut, Rivet already noted that in contrast to them Cameron did not hold Christ to have died equally for all,79 nor did he admit the possibility of salvation without knowledge of the gospel.80 Similarly, Jean-Maximilien de Langle (1590–1674), pastor of Rouen, concluded on the same basis that Cameron’s “disciples surpass by far the boundaries of their teacher.”81 Yet when Rivet reflects in these two letters from the 1640s on his 1630 disputation against Cameron, he goes even further. For he does not so much insist that Amyraut’s universalism went further than that of Cameron, but rather that he himself at first had not properly understood the implications of Cameron’s universalism, specifying to his brother Guillaume that his eyes were first opened when he saw how Cameron’s disciples like Amyraut and Testard understood Cameron’s – not so much their own – universalism!

5.

Conclusions

There is therefore no easy answer to the early reception of Cameron’s universalism. Yet if one thing is clear, it is that this reception cannot be cast into the facile mould of a general Reformed tolerance during the first two decades of the seventeenth century that was later on abandoned. Regardless of the rumblings in scholarship suggesting otherwise, it is doubtful whether anybody outside the 78 A. Rivet to G. Rivet, Breda, 14. 7. 1648, in Rivet/Rivet: 1648, 64 (= Rivet: 1651–1660, 3:889b): “Judicium meum de Cameronis sententia iterum repetit [Amyraldus]; Pag. 52. & iterum peccat verba illa refecando, quae tam in Thesibus meis, quam in Epist. ad D. Spanheimium ostendi causam fuisse cur in mitiorem illam partem tum inclinaverim, quia existimabam Cameronem merito mortis Christi assignare veram & efficacem communicationem, largitionem & applicationem gratiae salutaris; ipsiusque fidei qua fit applicatio, donationem. Hoc autem D. Amyr. non credit ac proinde immerito, meo testimonio abutitur, ut probet de doctrina sua idem me sensisse quod de ea quam putabam Cameronis sententiam”. 79 Rivet: 1649. This work, written in 1636 but not published until 1649 (Van Stam: 1988, 96 n. 68), was reprinted in Rivet: 1651–1660, 3:828–877; the quotation occurs at 3:839b. 80 Rivet: 1651–1660, 3:842a–b. 81 J.-M. de Langle to A. Rivet, n.p., 21. 11. 1635, in Rivet/Rivet: 1648, 26 (= Rivet: 1651–1660, 3:882b): “Discipuli longe procedunt ultra praeceptoris metas.”

160

Albert Gootjes

circle of Cameron’s closest followers even knew during his lifetime that he entertained universalist tendencies. One exception was Daniel Tilenus, who correctly guessed at this although, as argued above, the polemical demeanour of his Canones synodi Dordracenae undermined the credibility of his accusation among the Counter-Remonstrants. Cameron’s universalism did not in fact become public knowledge until Cappel in 1628 posthumously published several of Cameron’s more private papers testifying to his universalist thought: a handful of personal letters; Cameron’s brief statement on the order of the decrees, which he found among the papers Cameron had left to him at his death; and a series of private lectures on the epistle to the Hebrews given by Cameron towards the end of his life. Nearly two decades later Spanheim and Du Moulin, who in spite of everything admired Cameron for his intellectual acumen, still regretted the publication of material that they thought belonged in the theologian’s private cabinet. As for Rivet, he was immediately worried by what he read and addressed Cameron’s universalism—and other elements of his thought—in a series of disputations he wrote and presided over in 1630. The final judgment he offered there may have been rather mild, and he may indeed have reneged on it later on, but this too hardly fits the tolerance mould described by Armstrong and Rex. Rather, Rivet at first hoped or perhaps even expected that this small part of Cameron’s intellectual heritage found in scattered passages throughout his collected works would pass unnoticed and into oblivion. This illusion was soon shattered, however, when Amyraut in 1634 revived and developed Cameron’s universalism in his Brief traitté de la predestination, written in the French vernacular, causing Rivet to rethink his earlier modus operandi. Furthermore, the way Amyraut worked out the universalist notions he had inherited from Cameron in his own universalism had the additional effect of bringing Rivet to the conviction that he had perhaps not understood the full import of the scattered universalist passages in Cameron’s collected works when he first read them. Yet on a wider level this account of the development and public dissemination of Cameron’s universalism is also important for situating his work among the various ‘hypothetical universalisms’ that begin to emerge early in the seventeenth century with James Ussher and John Davenant, for example. This project has indeed been initiated by Moore,82 although unfortunately his reading fails insofar as the chronological particulars of Cameron’s thought on which he based himself are somewhat confused. In his defence it must be pointed out that Cameron’s case is indeed a rather complex one. After all, his universalist tendencies can be dated back to at least 1610, were not revealed to the public until 1628, and even then passed largely unnoticed until the mid-1630s when the negative publicity aroused by the work of his disciples led to renewed attention for Cameron. At the 82 Moore: 2007, esp. 173–213 and 217–220.

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

161

same time, the controversial nature of the universalist doctrine and the context of the Arminian controversies in the time leading up to the Synod of Dordt suggest that others who harboured similar sentiments will have been careful to keep them in their ‘private cabinet’. The source-materials for tracing the origins, diffusion, and possible cross-pollination of universalist accounts of divine grace in Reformed theology are therefore not likely to be found on bookshelves. Instead, it is above all in cartons and boxes containing correspondence and other private, unpublished papers that one must look.

6.

Bibliography

6.1

Primary Sources

Amyraut, Moïse (1645), Dissertationes theologicae quatuor, Saumur: Isaac Desbordes. Amyraut, Moïse (1648), Specimen animadversionum in Exercitationes de gratia universali, Saumur: Jean Lesnier. Aymon, Jean (1710), Tous les synodes nationaux des églises réformées de France auxquels on a joint des mandemens roiaux, et plusieurs lettres politiques, sur ces matières synodales, intitulées doctrine, culte, morale, discipline, cas de conscience, The Hague: Charles Delo. Cameron, John (1622), Amica collatio de gratiae et voluntatis humanae concursu in vocatione & quibusdam annexis, instituta inter Cl. V. Danielem Tilenum et Iohannem Cameronem, Leiden: Bénédict Mignon. Cameron, John (1626–1628), Ioh. Cameronis S. theologiae in academica Salmuriensi quondam professoris Praelectionum […] tomus primus (-secundus, -tertius) […], Saumur: Claude Girard & Daniel de Lerpinière. Cameron, John (1632), Myrothecium Evangelicum, hoc est, Novi Testamenti loca quamplurima ab eo, post aliorum labores, apte & commode vel illustrata, vel explicata, vel indicate, Geneva: Jacques Chouet. Cameron, John (1642), Ioannis Cameronis Scoto-Britanni theologi eximii Τα Σωζομενα sive Opera partim ab auctore ipso edita, partim post eius obitum vulgata, partim nusquam hactenus publicata, vel a Gallico idiomate nunc primum in Latinam linguam translata, Geneva: Jacques Chouet. Chouet, Jean-Robert (2008), La corrispondenza di Jean-Robert Chouet Professore di Filosofia a Saumur e a Ginevra, Mario Sina (ed.), Le Corrispondenze litterarie, scientifiche ed erudite dal Rinascimento all’età Moderna 11, [Firenze]: Leo S. Olschki. Du Moulin, Pierre (1649), De Mosis Amyraldi adversus Fridericum Spanhemium libro iudicium. Seu pro Dei misericordia, & sapientia, & iustitia apologia, Rotterdam: Arnold Leers. Polyander, Johannes/André Rivet/Antonius Walaeus/Antonius Thysius (1625), Synopsis purioris theologiae, disputationibus quinquaginta duabus comprehensa, ac conscripta […], Leiden: Elzevir.

162

Albert Gootjes

Quick, John (n.d.), Johannis Cameronis Icon, ms. held in: Paris, Société de l’histoire du Protestantisme français, BPF 294/1, pp. 1–48. Original held in: London, Paris, Dr. Williams Library, Icones sacrae gallicanae, Ms. 38.32 (with a copy at Ms. 38.36). Rivet, André (1622), Disputationum theologicarum trigesima-prima, de fide & perseverantia sanctorum, Leiden: Isaac Elzevir. Rivet, André (1631), Disputationes tredecim de iusta & gratiosa Dei dispensatione circa salutem generis humani, habitae publice in celeberrima Batavorum Academia, quibus accessit, ejusdem Collegium controversiarum inter Orthodoxos & Pontificios, brevibus positionibus comprehensum, Leiden: Bonaventura & Abraham Elzevir. Rivet, André (1649), Synopsis doctrinae de natura et gratia, excerpta ex Mosis Amyraldi […] “Tractatu de praedestinatione” et sex concionibus gallice editis, et Pauli Testardi […] Eirenico latine evulgato […]. Cum I. Iudiciis omnium federati Belgii academiarum. II. Examine epistolae […], Amsterdam: J. Janson. Rivet, André (1651–1660), Opera theologica, quae latine edidit, Rotterdam: Arnold Leers. Rivet, André/Guillaume Rivet (1648), Epistolae apologeticae, ad criminationes & calumnias Mosis Amyraldi, in praefatione virulenta, ad Reverendos ecclesiarum Reformatarum Galliae pastores, praefixa Animadversionibus de Gratia universali, Amsterdam: Johannes à Waesberge. Rivet, Guillaume (1648), Vindiciae evangelicae de iustificatione et annexis ei capitibus quibus praeter Pontificiorum errores, & Philippi Codurci sophismata, Ioh. Cameronis & Mosis Amyraldi placita varia examinantur, Amsterdam: Johannes Blaeu. Spanheim, Frédéric (1646), Exercitationes de gratia universali. Accessere L. erotemata auctori proposita, & ab eodem decisa, cum mantissa C. anterotematum, Leiden: Jean Maire. Tilenus, Daniel (1622), Canones synodi Dordracenae. Cum notis & animadversionibus Dan. Tileni. Adjecta sunt ad calcem Paralipomena ad Amicam collationem quam cum Dan. Tileno ante biennium institutam nuper publicavit Io. Camero, Paris: Nicolas Buon. Ussher, James (1660), Eighteen sermons preached in Oxford 1640. Of Conversion, unto God. Of Redemption & Justification, by Christ, London: S. Griffin, for John Rothwell. Wtenbogaert, Johannes (1647), De kerckelicke historie, vervatende verscheyden ghedenckwaerdige saken, in de christenheyt voor-gevallen, van het jaar vier hondert af tot in het jaer sesthien-hondert ende negenthien, voornamentlijck in dese Geunieerde Provintien, Rotterdam: Bastiaen Wagens.

6.2

Secondary Literature

Armour, Leslie (2005), Reason, Culture and Religion: Some Thoughts on the Foundations of the Calvinists “Heresies” of John Cameron and His Successors at Saumur, in Françoise Knopper/Jean-Louis Breteau/Bertrand van Ruymbeke (ed.), Protestantisme(s) et autorité. Protestantism and Authority (Anglophonia 17), Toulouse: Presses universitaires du Mirail, 147–162. Armstrong, Brian G. (1969), Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

The Theologian’s Private Cabinet

163

Boisson, Didier (ed.) (2012), Actes des synodes provinciaux. Anjou-Touraine-Maine (1594–1683), THR 501/AERF 2, Geneva: Droz. Bonet-Maury, Gaston (1901), Jean Cameron, pasteur de l’église de Bordeaux et professeur de théologie à Saumur, in: Études de théologie et d’histoire publiées par MM. les professeurs de la Faculté de théologie protestante de Paris en hommage à la Faculté de théologie de Montauban à l’occasion du tricentenaire de sa foundation, Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 77–117. Bonet-Maury, Gaston (1910), John Cameron: A Scottish Protestant Theologian in France, The Scottish Historical Review 7 no. 28, 325–45. Cohen, Gustave (1920), Écrivains français en Hollande dans la première moitié du XVIIe siècle, Paris: Edouard Champion. Crisp, Oliver D (2014), Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Denlinger, Aaron Clay (2015), Scottish Hypothetical Universalism: Robert Baron (c. 1596–1639) on God’s Love and Christ’s Death for All, in: Aaron Clay Denlinger, Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology 1560–1775, London: Bloomsbury Academic, 83–102. Dibon, Paul (1971), Inventaire de la correspondance d’André Rivet (1595–1650), AIHI 43, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Du Rieu, Guillaume (1875), Album studiosorum academiae Lugduno Batavae MDLXXV–MDCCCLXXV, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Eekhof, A. (1921), De theologische faculteit te Leiden in de 17de eeuw, Utrecht: G.J.A. Ruys. Gootjes, Albert (2014), Claude Pajon (1626–1685) and the Academy of Saumur: The First Controversy over Grace, BSCH 64, Leiden: Brill. Gootjes, Albert (2014a), John Cameron and the French Universalist Tradition, in: Martin I. Klauber (ed.), The Theology of the French Reformed Church: From Henri IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 169– 196. Gootjes, Albert (2015), Scotland and Saumur: The Intellectual Legacy of John Cameron in Seventeenth-Century France, in: Aaron C. Denlinger (ed.), Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology 1560–1775, Edinburgh: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 175–190. Grohman, Donald Davis (1971), The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrine of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635–1685, Th. D. dissertation: Knox College (University of Toronto). Haag, Eugène/Émile Haag (1859), Article “Tilenus”, FrPr 9, 1859, 383–387. Hoenderdaal, G.J. (1975), The Debate about Arminius outside the Netherlands, in: Th.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer/G.H.M. Posthumus Meyjes (ed.), Leiden University in the Seventeenth Century: An Exchange of Learning, Leiden: Brill, 137–159. Honders, H.J. (1930), Andreas Rivetus als invloedrijk gereformeerd theoloog in Holland’s bloeitijd, The Hague: Nijhoff. Laplanche, François (1965), Orthodoxie et prédication: l’oeuvre d’Amyraut et la querelle de la grâce universelle, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Laplanche, François (1986), L’Écriture, le sacré et l’histoire: érudits et politiques protestants devant la Bible en France au XVIIe siècle, Amsterdam: APA – Holland University Press.

164

Albert Gootjes

Laplanche, François (2002), Antiquité et vérité dans la controverse de Cameron, in: Ouzi Elyada/Jacques Le Brun, Conflits politiques, controverses religieuses: Essais d’histoire européenne aux 16e–18e siècles, Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS, 131–142. Mellon, Paul (1910), Tilenus, RChr 57, 903–12, 1005–15; and 58 (1911), 48–51. Moore, Jonathan (2007), English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Moore, Jonathan (2011), The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetical Universalism versus Particular Redemption, in: Michael A.G. Haykin/Mark Jones (ed.), Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within SeventeenthCentury British Puritanism, RHT 17, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 124–61. Muller, Richard A. (2006), Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology, Mid-America Journal of Theology 17, 11–56. Muller, Richard A. (2012), Calvin and the Reformed Tradition on the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Muller, Richard A. (2015), Dating John Davenant’s De Gallicana controversia sententia in the Context of Debate over John Cameron: A Correction, CTJ 50, 10–22. Nauta, Doede (1935), Samuel Maresius, Amsterdam: H.J. Paris. Nicole, Roger (1966), Moyse Amyraut (1596–1664) and the Controversy on Universal Grace, First Phase (1634–1637), Ph. D. diss.: Harvard University. Rex, Walter (1965), Essays on Pierre Bayle, The Hague: M. Nijhoff. Sinnema, Donald (2014), The French Reformed Churches, Arminianism, and the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), in: Martin I. Klauber (ed.), The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henry IV to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 98–136. Sinnema, Donald/Henk van den Belt (2012), The Synopsis purioris theologiae (1625) as a Disputation Cycle, CHRC 92, 503–537. Swinne, Axel Hilmar (1972), John Cameron, Philosoph und Theologe (1579–1625): Bibliographisch-kritische Analyse der Hand- und Druckschriften sowie der CameronLiteratur, 2nd printing, Marburg: N. G. Elwert. Van Stam, Frans Pieter (1988), The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 1635– 1650: Disrupting Debates among Huguenots in Complicated Circumstances, Amsterdam: APA - Holland University Press. Wodrow, Robert (1845), Collections Upon the Lives of the Reformers and Most Eminent Ministers of the Church of Scotland, vol. 2/1, Glasgow: Maitland.

Thomas Kloeckner

Die dogmen- und theologiegeschichtliche Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung in der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts am Beispiel Heinrich Alting

Alting behoorde onder de wetenschappelijke menschen van zijn tijd bij de eersten, en hij heeft zich op menig terrein van de theologie bewogen. Als beslist belijder der praedestinatie moet hij onder de Calvinisten worden gerekend. Van scholastieke spitsvondigheden was hij afkeerig; daarvoor was zijn geest te veel op het praktische gericht. Een eigenaardige positie neemt hij juist onder zijn tijdgenooten in door zijn voorstaan van de gedachte dat naast de theoretische, ook de praktische vakken der theologie moeten worden gedoceerd.1

Im Urteil des niederländischen Historikers Aart Arnout van Schelven gehört Heinrich Alting zu der wissenschaftlichen Theologen-Elite der Frühen Neuzeit, sein Name und Andenken sind allerdings in Vergessenheit geraten. Als besondere Charakteristika bezeichnet van Schelven – neben der beiläufig erwähnten Tatsache, dass Alting aufgrund seiner Prädestinationsanschauung unter die “Calvinisten” zu rechnen sei –, die Reserviertheit gegenüber scholastischen Spitzfindigkeiten und dagegen die Betonung der praktischen Dimension der Theologie als Wissenschaft. Trotzdem oder gerade deswegen muss er als “entschiedener Bekenner” der reformierten Prädestinationslehre bezeichnet werden, wie van Schelven keineswegs verschweigt und wie Altings Lebenslauf auch deutlich widerspiegelt. Nachfolgend soll daher die dogmen- und theologiegeschichtliche Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung in der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts am Beispiel Heinrich Alting untersucht werden. Jede Formulierung dieser zugegebenermaßen etwas lang geratenen Titelei verlangt dabei nach einer Erklärung. Diese wird geliefert, indem der Sachverhalt Schritt für Schritt eine Erläuterung erfährt. Zunächst folgen biografische Notizen zur Person Heinrich Alting, dann einige Sätze zur historischen Situierung seines unvollendet gebliebenen Hauptwerkes, der Theologia Historica, und schließlich eine Entfaltung der konkreten Legitimationsversuche der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung innerhalb dieser frühen Dogmengeschichte.

1 Schelven, A. A. van: 1911, 95f.

166

1.

Thomas Kloeckner

Biografische Notizen zur Person Heinrich Alting

Als Sohn des großen Menso Alting2 und seiner Frau Maria, geborene Bischoff 3, wurde Heinrich am 17. Februar 1583 in Emden geboren.4 Seine Taufe fand am 22. Februar in der Großen Kirche zu Emden statt5 (dem heutigen Standort der Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek). In dieser frühneuzeitlichen Stadt mit ihrem sich formierenden Bürgertum, die nicht unwesentlich durch den Einfluss des Vaters Menso zu einem Brennpunkt reformierter Konfessionalisierung im europäi2 BWPGN 1, 107–111 (mit älterer ndl. Literatur); NDB 1, 225; RGG4 1, Sp. 374f; BLO 1, 24–30. Einen ausführlichen Überblick über Leben und Werk bietet H. Klugkist Hesse, dessen Monografie allerdings hagiografische Elemente nicht abzusprechen sind. Denselben Vorwurf erhebt der Verfasser gegenüber einer unveröffentlichten Biografie von F. W. Cuno über Menso Alting (so in seinem Vorwort; Hesse: 1928,7; vgl. hierzu Menk: 2011, 886, Anm. 65). Eine Gesamtschau neueren Datums bietet der Begleitband zur Emder Ausstellung „Menso Alting und seine Zeit: Glaubensstreit – Freiheit – Bürgerstolz“, insbesondere der präzise Beitrag von Voß: 2012. 3 Maria Bischoff (auch Bischop oder latinisiert Episcopia) entstammt einer vornehmen Familie aus Gangelt im Jülichschen Gebiet. Hesses Schilderung zufolge – er greift hier auf U. Emmius zurück – stand sie Menso charakterlich in nichts nach, die Kampf- und Entbehrungsbereitschaft betreffend (Hesse: 1928, 74–77; vgl. zu Verlobung u. Hochzeit, Emmius: 1728, Kap. 5 und 6; vgl. auch die kurzen Angaben zum Stammbaum, in: Maresius: 1644, 8 – Die 40-seitige Schrift ist im Original nicht mit Seitenzahlen versehen, die hier verwendete Zählung setzt mit der ersten Seite des laufenden Textes ein). Zu den deutsch-niederländischen Heiratsbeziehungen, insbesondere im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, liegen einige Forschungen vor (vgl. Boekholt: 1992, 247–250, bes. 248f). 4 Von Reeken: 1975, 4. Die nachfolgenden biografischen Angaben richten sich vor allem nach der Haus- und Familienchronik der Familie Alting. Erich von Reeken hat eine zuverlässige Übersetzung besorgt, den lateinischen Text samt Anmerkungen bietet eine Edition Erich von Reekens aus dem Jahr 1978. Von Reeken: 1978. Uwe Claussen hat als Nachkomme der Familie Alting eine Zusammenstellung der bisherigen Daten (Faksimile und eigene Übersetzung der Chronik samt einführender Artikel) vorgelegt. Claussen: 1999. Im Falle der Familienchronik handelt es sich um eine eingeheftete Blattbeilage in ein Werk von Heinrich Pantaleon aus Basel mit Namen Chronographia ecclesiae Christianae (1550). Die Vermutung liegt nahe, dass Menso Alting diese tabellarische Darstellung der Kirchengeschichte schon als Student in Basel erworben hat (Von Reeken: 1978, 21) und dann als Ablage für seine persönliche Geschichte und die seiner Familie nutze. Auf Seite 13 beginnt die Weiterführung der Chronik durch H. Alting, an die sich ein Appendix ab Seite 43 anschließt, der von anderer Hand verfasst ist – wahrscheinlich durch einen Enkel, Heinrichs Sohn, Jakob Alting (BWPGN 1, 119–127; Van Schelven: 1911, Sp. 96f). Im Gegensatz zu seinem Vater Menso Alting schildert Heinrich neben den genealogischen Nachrichten über seine Familie und Verwandte auch kirchliche und zeitgeschichtliche Ereignisse, womit das Urteil Erich von Reekens “seine Darlegungen [seien] interessanter” nicht von der Hand zu weisen ist (Reeken, von: 1978, 23). Nachdem das Buch den Besitzer wohl mehrmals wechselte (s. ebd., 22f) befindet es sich jetzt in der JALB in Emden unter der Signatur “Theol 4º 0504 R”; die angegebenen Daten richten sich wohl noch nach dem julianischen Kalender, da der gregorianische neue Stil erst 1699 in Ostfriesland eingeführt wurde, in manchen ref. Territorien noch später (vgl. Deeters: 1994, 328, Anm. 98 u. die Hinweise hierzu im Text, in: Reeken, von: 1978, 27, 123 u. ebd., 34, 194). 5 Reeken, von: 1975, 7.

Die Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung

167

schen Kontext wurde,6 besuchte Heinrich mit sieben Jahren die Lateinschule.7 Weitere Bildungsstationen folgten, zunächst in der Heimat seiner Familie die Groninger Lateinschule unter dem Historiker und Kartografen Ubbo Emmius, der sich dem Ausbau dieser humanistischen Bildungsanstalt zu einer der neuen niederländischen Provinzial-Universitäten widmete.8 Von 1602 an studierte er in Herborn unter niemand Geringerem als Johannes Piscator. Daneben werden noch Wilhelm Zepper und Matthias Martinius als Dozenten Altings explizit genannt, Piscator soll in ihm einen wahrhaften Epigonen und Lieblingsschüler gefunden haben.9 Am Ende seiner Studienzeit an der Hohen Schule Herborn wurde er zum Präzeptor dreier Wetterauer Grafen bestimmt, was innerhalb der frühneuzeitlichen Bildungs- und Reisekultur keine Besonderheit darstellte. Immerhin begann er schon in Herborn erste theologische und philosophische Vorlesungen zu halten, ein impliziter Hinweis auf die Entdeckung seiner Begabungen vonseiten des Lehrkörpers.10 Altings bisherige Vita kulminierte in seiner Begleitung der Studienreise der Grafensöhne nach Sedan, wo auch der junge Pfalzgraf Friedrich, der spätere Kurfürst Friedrich V. von der Pfalz, ausgebildet wurde. Er übernahm dort an der Ritterakademie neben anderen Präzeptoren vor allem die konfessionelle Ausbildung des Kurfürsten in spe anhand des Heidelberger Katechismus’.11 1610 folgte er dann dem Pfalzgrafen bei seiner Rückkehr nach Heidelberg anlässlich des Todes des amtierenden Kurfürsten Friedrich IV. Alting schrieb sehr dezent und wenig anrüchig von “Schicksal” im Hinblick auf dessen Ende 6 Vgl. hierzu Deeters: 1994, bes. 277–279.284–287.288–296. 7 Hierbei handelt es sich wohl um keine gravierende Abweichung von dem regulären Alter für einen Schuleintritt in den dt. Territorien, der normalerweise mit sechs Jahren geschah (vgl. Ehrenpreis: 2008, 424 u. ausführlich dazu Ehrenpreis: 2007, 173–175. Eine ausführliche Darstellung über die Emder Lateinschule fehlt bis dato. 8 Die Entwicklung der Groninger Lateinschule in bildungs- und geistesgeschichtlicher Hinsicht bis zur Gründung der Universität Groningen und der Aufrichtung ihrer Statuten aus der Lateinschule heraus hat u. a. Zweder von Martels nachgezeichnet (Martels, von: 2003). Neuerdings die Beiträge im Sammelband Martels, von: 2014, sowie in nuce in der Jubiläumsschrift Van Berkel: 2014, 55–89. 9 Lewald: 1841 informiert (leider ohne Quellenangabe, unter Umständen im Rekurs auf Ihle: 1747, 4) über Piscators Vorliebe für H. Alting, der “ihn und den Conr. Vorstius als die beiden tüchtigsten unter seinen Schülern zu charakterisieren pflegte, mit dem pikanten Zusatz, jener (Alting) sey der beste, dieser (der arminianisch-gesinnte, ja sogar auch im Geruch des Socinianismus stehende Vorstius) dagegen der schlimmste theologus.” (vgl. zu Conrad Vorstius RE3 20, 762–764 u. zu den Auseinandersetzungen mit Piscator Bos: 1932, 208–217). 10 Reeken, von: 1978, 23f. 11 “Am 2. Juli wurde mir zusammen mit dem Doktor Colbius die Erziehung des berühmten Fürsten Friedrich von dem bedeutenden Doktor Kanzler von Grün aufgetragen und bald darauf vom Kurfürsten selbst persönlich bestätigt.” (Reeken, von, 8; s. die Bestallungsurkunde vom 26. November 1609, in: Schmidt: 1899, 70f – Instruktion Nr. 29); zu Zacharias Kolb’s Tätigkeit als Präzeptor s. a. a. O., XLIII–XLV u. Press: 1970, 488 (der auf die Praxis am kurfürstlichen Hof hinweist, eine Probezeit für Präzeptoren einzurichten; a. a. O., 156).

168

Thomas Kloeckner

und verbarg damit die Tatsache, dass Friedrich IV. seinem exzessiven Lebenswandel mit nur 36 Jahren erlegen war.12 Auf der Englandreise 1612–1613 begleitete Alting den neuen Kurfürsten u. a. als Präzeptor zu dessen Vermählung mit Elisabeth Stuart, Tochter Jakobs I. von England und Schottland. Der Beschreibung dieser aufwendigen Reise kommt allerdings in der Alting’schen Chronologie keine große Bedeutung zu.13 Insgesamt darf man folgern, der Wechsel in die kurfürstliche Residenzstadt am Neckar bedeutete für Alting vor allem eins, nämlich den sozialen Aufstieg. Anders als noch sein Vater Menso verstand es jener wohl besser, sich auf dem höfischen Parkett zu bewegen.14 Allerdings war der junge Alting damit auch mit dem Auf- und Abstieg der Kurpfalz in jeder Hinsicht verbunden, sein “Schicksal” verlief entlang der Linienführung des kurfürstlichen Hofes, die bekanntlich im Dreißigjährigen Krieg mündete. Zurück in Heidelberg wurde ihm im Juli 1613 die dritte Professur angetragen als “professor locorum communium”,15 kurz darauf folgte dann die Vermählung mit Susanna Bélier, Tochter des Tuchhändlers Charles Bélier und seiner Frau Franziska, geb. Saureau. Im Jahr 1616 übernahm Alting die Leitung des Sapienzkollegs, mehrmals war er Dekan der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Heidelberg (1615, 1618–1622). Am 30. August 1614 überbrachte er den offiziellen Glückwunsch der Universität anlässlich der vollen Regierungsübernahme durch Friedrich V. Das Großereignis im November 1617, nicht nur in der Kurpfalz, die Jahrhundertfeier der Reformation unterstützte der junge Dozent mithilfe einer Festrede, die von “konfessionell reformiertem Selbstbewusstsein” getragen war.16 Es folgte ein Ruf die zweite Professur für das Alte Testament einzunehmen, er aber räumte diese dem kurfürstlichen Hofprediger Abraham Scultetus ein und bewies damit laut seiner Biografen ein “großes Beispiel von Bescheidenheit” ohne hier über die wahren Beweggründe spekulieren zu wollen.17 Als inzwischen etablierter und bekannter Hoftheologe wurde

12 “Anno 1610. 16. Decemb, Sedano dicessimus Heidelbergam, revocati propter obitum Electoris, qui 9. Septemb. fatis concesserat, Excepti fuimus in aula Electorali ab administratore illustrissimo principe D. Joanne Bipontino 28. Decemb.” (Reeken, von: 1978, 30, 55–59). 13 Im Gegensatz zu der zeitgenössischen Literatur, die sich hierherum gebildet hat, wie z. B. die kulturhistorisch herausragende deutsche Schrift Beschreibung Der Reiß: Empfahung deß Ritterlichen Ordens: Vollbringung des Heyraths: vnd gluecklicher Heimfuehrung (s. Anonymus: 1613); vgl. dazu ausführlich Rüde, England und Kurpfalz im werdenden Mächteeuropa, 273–295 u. neuerdings der kommentierte Abbildungskatalog, in: Apperloo-Boersma/ Selderhuis: 2013, 313–320, sowie der inhaltsreiche Wolfenbütteler Sammelband Smart/Wade: 2013, der allerdings Alting nicht erwähnt. 14 Vgl. hierzu BLO 1, 24 (W. Schulz) u. Hesse: 1928, 58f. 15 So laut Dekanatsbuch der Theologischen Fakultät (s. Theologische Fakultät Heidelberg: 1622, 194). 16 BLO 1, 22 (G. A. Benrath). 17 “Sed raro, magno tamen modestiae exemplo, maluit [sc. Alting] suam retinere; & qua pollebat

Die Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung

169

Alting im November 1618 mit Abraham Scultetus und dem Kirchenrat Paul Tossanus zur Synode von Dordrecht entsandt.18 Seine Heidelberger Periode, die man als Blütezeit bezeichnen kann, nahm nach seiner Rückkehr ein abruptes und weniger blühendes Ende mit der Eroberung Heidelbergs am 16. September 1622 durch die Truppen Tillys. Alting entkam den plündernden Soldaten nur mit knapper Not – eine ins Legendenhafte gehende Anekdote hat sich hierherum gebildet im Stile Hugo Grotius’ und seiner Bücherkiste. Über mehrere Zwischenstationen, “eine abenteuerliche und kostspielige Reise”, gelangte Alting schlussendlich nach Den Haag, wo sich die Familie des sogenannten Winterkönigs im Exil niedergelassen hatte. Er übernahm bis 1627 die Erziehung von, nun an nicht mehr Kur-Prinz Friedrich Heinrich, dem ältesten Sohn Friedrichs V., der durch einen Unfall auf der Harlemer See kurz darauf verschied.19 Nach einigem Hin und Her zwischen Emder Stadtrat – der alte Syndikus Johannes Althusius wurde hierzu extra beordert – und dem Kurfürsten im Exil, wurde Alting 1627 an die Universität Groningen berufen, wiederum an den Lehrstuhl für dogmatische Theologie. Seine dort gehaltenen Vorlesungen wurden erst postum veröffentlicht, und zwar durch seine Söhne Jakob und Menso (III.). Immer wieder aufgelegt, waren sie offenbar von Interesse für die orthodoxe reformierte Theologie des 17. Jahrhunderts. Gestorben ist Heinrich Alting am 25. August 1644 in Groningen, ein Epitaph wurde vor einiger Zeit wieder aufgefunden und befindet sich jetzt – ohne eine Diskussion anfachen zu wollen, wie geschmackvoll dies ist – im Keller des alten Groninger Universitätsgebäudes auf dem Weg in die Küche.

in aula gratia & authoritate effecit, ut id Coppenii munus in Cl. Abrahamum Scultetum transferretur.” (Maresius: 1644, 13; Hervorhebung im Original). 18 Vgl. hierzu en détail (wie auch zu den vorangehenden biografischen Notizen) die geplante Studie des Verfassers “Heinrich Alting (1583–1644): Lebensbild und Bedeutung für die reformierte Historiografie und Dogmengeschichtsschreibung des 17. Jahrhunderts.”, hierzu Kap. 2.5.4. 19 Der zu diesem Zweck entstandene Methodus studiorum illustrissimi principis, Friderici Henrici Palatini Rheni in annum 1623 et 24 ist als Teil der umfangreichen sog. Collectio Camerariana in der BSB vorhanden (abgedruckt in: Schmidt: 1899, 318–320). Der Lehrplan bietet einen Überblick über die drei Themenbereiche: “In Sacris”, “In Linguis”, “In Historiis” und schließt mit einem beinahe ebenso akribischen Wochen- und Zeitplan wie im Falle der Sedaner Unterweisung des Vaters Friedrich Heinrichs.

170

2.

Thomas Kloeckner

Historische Situierung der Theologia Historica

Die Forschung20 sieht in den voraufklärerischen Werken des Jesuiten Dionysius Petavius (1583–1652) und des reformierten Schotten Johannes Forbesius a Corse (1593–1648) mit seinen Instructiones Historico-Theologicae de Doctrina Christiana (1645) Vorläufer der Disziplin, die im ausgehenden 19. und Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts ihre Blütezeit erreichen sollte. Die generelle Frage steht im Raum, inwieweit Altings dogmengeschichtliches Werk hier ebenso der Erwähnung verdient.21 Es handelt sich bei der Theologia Historica allerdings nicht um ein gelehrtes Kompendium für den Gelehrten, sondern wie sein Sohn Jakob Alting schreibt, hat er jene verfasst, “um der akademischen Jugend zu nützen”.22 Nur etwa ein Fünftel des geplanten Stoffes – die ersten vier von voraussichtlich 20 Loci (die da wären: “De natura Theologiae”; “De verbo Dei, sive de sacra scriptura”; “De Deo, essentia uno, trino personis”; “De decretis Dei in genere, deque praedestinatione divina in specie”) – hat Alting zu Papier gebracht und wahrscheinlich im Jahr 1635 in Groningen vorgetragen.23 Dennoch ist es dem Umfang nach auch als unvollendetes Werk seine gewichtigste Schrift. Es hätte ohne Frage zu seinem Opus magnum werden können. Die These lautet nun: Alting begann, zumindest gedanklich, mit der Neuordnung des dogmatischen Stoffes bereits in seiner Heidelberger Periode, auch wenn die sogenannten Heidelberger Schriften noch keine Theologia Historica enthalten. Dies kann allerdings nicht explizit aus den Quellen belegt werden. Es zeigen sich jedoch erste Ansätze zur Historisierung in seinen frühen Werken. Haupttriebfeder hierfür war jedoch noch nicht die historische Fragestellung im Sinne von Lessings Rede vom “garstigen, breiten Graben der Geschichte,”24 sondern das pädagogische Interesse des Präzeptors, eine Profession, die ihn ein 20 Vgl. nur Hauschild: 1982, 116; May: 1999, 916 u. Loofs: 1898, 752–764, bes. 755. 21 In chronologischer Reihenfolge: Dogmatiken, wie die von Gaß: 1854, 434f und Schweizer: 1856, 163, 214–216, 389, 425, 430, 519 verweisen nur im Zusammenhang mit der Synode zu Dordrecht und in summarischer Form bzgl. der Prädestinationsanschauung nachreformatorischer Theologen auf Alting. Loofs: 1906, 931–942, bes. 936f weist auf keinen Beitrag Altings hin. Ritschl: 1908, 30–32 nennt zwar Alting als Begründer der Idee einer Dogmengeschichte, widmet sich aber nur in aller Kürze den konkreten Vorstellungen, die hiermit verbunden sind. Althaus: 1914 verweist nicht auf einen dogmengeschichtlichen Beitrag Altings. Seeberg: 1920, 676–700, bes. 682f erwähnt Alting generell nicht. Im Namensregister von Hauschild: 1999 fehlt der Name Alting ebenso gänzlich. Immerhin Filser: 2001, 384 erwähnt ihn „als Wegbereiter der historischen Theologie” und attestiert ihm Ansätze zur Dogmengeschichtsschreibung (Filser: 2001, 289.384–386). 22 Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, Praefatio, Bl. 2b (“maxime in usum Academicae juventutis”). 23 Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 7. 24 Vgl. zur Entwicklung der Dogmenkritik im 18. Jahrhundert im Rahmen des Korrelats von Glaube und Geschichte in nuce McGrath: 1997, 358–385, bes. 361–365.

Die Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung

171

Leben lang begleiten sollte – auch, wenn er diese spätestens mit dem Ausbruch des Dreißigjährigen Krieges und der Flucht ins niederländische Exil abzuschütteln versuchte.25 Lässt man sich von der These leiten, Alting lieferte mit seiner frühen Dogmengeschichte ein Werk, welches das Prädikat neuartig im Sinne eines Ansatzes sui generis verdient, dann könnte man in dieser Hinsicht von einer neuartigen vierdimensionalen Betrachtungsweise des dogmatischen Stoffes sprechen. Bieten die Heidelberger Schriften im deutlichen Rekurs auf den großen Ursinus26 die dogmatischen Themen noch dreifach geordnet: a) lehrhaftdidaktisch (Theologica didactica), b) argumentativ-überführend (Theologica elenchtica) und c) problemorientiert-konfessionell (Problemata theorica et practica),27 so ergänzte Alting diese Sichtweisen um eine vierte: d) die historische Perspektive (Theologica historica). Zu diesem Zeitpunkt in der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts steht er mit diesem Versuch dogmen- und theologiegeschichtlicher Darstellung der Loci noch recht alleine da.28 Der an dieser Stelle zu erwähnende Oberpfälzer Georg Horn, ein Schüler Altings in Groningen, mit seiner vielbeachteten Historia ecclesiastica et politica (1666, 2. Aufl.) muss hier als Nutznießer des Alting’schen Systems kritisch betrachtet werden.29 Ebenso kritisch steht aber auch Alting selbst mit seinem Periodisierungsversuch innerhalb der Theologia Historica auf dem Prüfstand, erschien doch zwei Jahre vor den dogmengeschichtlichen Vorlesungen in Groningen die Universalis Historiae Ecclesiasticae Medulla (1633) des Daniel Pareus, ein Enkel des langjährigen Rektors der Universität Heidelberg und maßgeblichen Theologen der sogenannten Heidelberger Irenik David Pareus’.30 Ein Werk – präziser eine kurze Schrift –, in dem Anklänge an die Theologia Historica in der Art und Weise der Stoffbehandlung nicht zu leugnen sind. 25 Vgl. hierzu nur den bisher nicht beachteten Brief des sog. Winterkönigs Friedrich V., der “seinen” Alting nicht aus den kurpfälzischen Diensten entlässt und ihm die Erziehung des Agnaten Friedrich Heinrich als maßgeblicher Präzeptor anvertraut (s. Friedrich: 1623, “Friederich von Gottesgnaden König zu Böhmen, Pfalzgrave bey Rhein und Churfürst […]. Datum in daß Gravenhagen des 17/27 Septembris Ao. 1623“ [Archiv der JALB]). Ich danke Herrn Dr. phil. Klaas-Dieter Voß für diesen wertvollen Hinweis. 26 Vgl. nur die akademische Antrittsrede Altings in Heidelberg, die unter den Namen Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus usw. insbesondere den Namen Ursins hervorhebt als prominenten Vertreter einer „Theologiae Topicae” (Alting: 1616, Oratio inauguralis, **3d–***). 27 S. die Strukturierung der ersten beiden Bände, in: Alting, Scripta Theologica Heidelbergensia, Tomus I & II, Amstelodami 1646 (2. Aufl. Amsterdam 1662). 28 Diese Feststellung betrifft naturgemäß nur den Mikrokontext des Werkes, das seiner grundsätzlichen Intention nach im Horizont und der Dynamik protestantischer Kirchengeschichtsschreibung seit den Tagen der Magdeburger Zenturien, des Chronicon Caironis usw. betrachtet werden muss. 29 Benrath: 1963, 66f. 30 Vgl. hierzu neuerdings Selderhuis: 2006, 238–249.

172

Thomas Kloeckner

In Summe und in aller Kürze handelt es sich im Hinblick auf Altings, wenn auch nur Fragment gebliebenes Werk, um eine frühe Dogmengeschichte. Es ist daher nicht vermessen, Heinrich Alting als einen der Begründer der Auffassung von Dogmengeschichte als einer selbstständigen Disziplin neben der Dogmatik zu verstehen, freilich in einem noch vorkritischen und vorhistorischen Stadium auf dem Weg zur Konsolidierung jener Disziplin.31 Das Aufkommen der Föderaltheologie des Johannes Cocceius, der zur Generation seines Sohnes Jakob Alting zählte,32 sowie die Anfänge der historischen Kritik an Bibel und Dogma sind ihm noch fremde Erscheinungen.33 Auch, wenn seine Lebensdaten beinahe identisch sind mit denen des Hugo Grotius, dessen epochale Annotationes in Libros Evangeliorum (Amsterdam 1641) nur drei Jahre vor dem Tod Heinrich Altings erschienen und eine Art Prototyp der kommenden Bibel- und letztlich Dogmenkritik darstellten.34

3.

Legitimationsversuche der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung innerhalb der Theologia Historica (Locus IV)

Alting beginnt diesen ungewollt letzten Abschnitt seiner Historischen Theologie mit einer Gottesdefinition: Das Sein Gottes entspricht nicht dem menschlichen Sein oder ist den Menschen ähnlich, die für eine geschaffene Sache Pläne fassen, die verschiedenartigen Interpolationen und Mutationen unterliegt: Er aber hat von Ewigkeit her alles bei sich festgesetzt, was in der Zeit sein soll und so sieht er voraus, wie es geschehen soll; denn durch ein unveränderliches Dekret und unfehlbares Vorherwissen ist es doch die Heilige Schrift, die durch alle Zeitalter und Wendungen der Kirche dies beständig bezeugt.35

31 Ritschl: 1908, 31f; vgl. auch Nauta: 1983, 22. 32 S. hierzu die kurzen Ausführungen von Ernst Bizer, in: Heppe: 1958, LXXI–LXXIII (Historische Einleitung des Herausgebers). 33 Vgl. auch zu Altings orthodoxer Haltung im Rahmen des Antrittes der Groninger Professur Berkel, van: 2014, 789, Anm. 32. 34 Vgl. zur dogmen- und theologiegeschichtlichen Bedeutung Hugo Grotius’ Benrath: 1998, in: HDThG2 3, 45–48 u. generell zur Problemstellung die Einleitung, in: Scholder: 1966, 7–14, bes. 14. 35 “Deum non esse ut hominem, sive hominibus similem, qui pro re nata capiunt consilia, ea varie interpolant & mutant: sed ab aeterno apud se constituisse omnia, quae fiunt in tempore, & ita praescire uti fiunt; immutabili nempe decreto, & infallibili praescientia, Scriptura Sacra per omnes Ecclesiae periodos & articulos constanter testatur.” (Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 244). Ich danke Frau Anne Brünner (M.A.) für die kritische Durchsicht der lat. Zitate und Paraphrasen.

Die Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung

173

Würde die in den ersten drei Kapiteln entfaltete historische Methode nicht stringent weiterverfolgt von Alting, so stände er nun in der Gefahr diese statische und orthodoxe36 Definition Gottes mit einem einfachen Anhäufen von Belegstellen zu untermauern und damit dogmatisch abzusichern. Zwar bleibt die Historie bei ihm Dienerin der Dogmatik, doch bewahrt ihn zum einen das melanchthonische Schema von “deformatio et reformatio,”37 bzw. “corruptio et restitutio”, zum anderen seine Art der Periodisierung des Stoffes vor einer totalen Nivellierung der historischen Zeugnisse. Die dogmen- und theologiegeschichtliche Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung geschieht bei Alting, indem er die sich selbst gestellten fünf Zeitalter durchwandert und dabei Ausschau hält nach Hinweisen für die Lehre von den “Dekreten Gottes im allgemeinen und der göttlichen Prädestination im besonderen.”38 Der Versuch im Sinne eines “historischen Legitimationsgestus” (Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele), der kulturanthropolgisch betrachtet schon immer Kennzeichen von Legitimationsversuchen der eigenen Konfession oder schlichtweg sozialen Gruppe war, verdichtet sich hier zu einer ausgefeilten historischen Beweisführung im Hinblick auf die reformierte Prädestinationsanschauung des 17. Jahrhunderts. Auf rund 65 Seiten entfaltet der Dogmenhistoriker Heinrich Alting seine Sicht der Dinge und bleibt dabei seiner bisherigen Einteilung innerhalb der Theologia Historica treu, hier grob schematisiert: 1. Die erste Periode des alten Bundes reicht von der Schöpfung bis zur Zeit Moses. 2. Die zweite Periode des alten Bundes reicht von Mose an bis zur babylonischen Gefangenschaft. 3. Die dritte Periode des alten Bundes reicht vom Beginn der babylonischen Gefangenschaft bis zur Geburt Christi. 4. Die erste Periode des neuen Bundes umfasst die Geschichte der Kirche bis zum Jahr 606 – dem Auftreten des Antichristen in Gestalt von Papst Bonifaz III.39 36 S. Piscator: 1618, Tractatus de divina praedestinatione, 11 (Aphorismus III); vgl. zu Piscators Definitionen Bos: 1932, 188–190 u. dem genannten Traktat, a. a. O., 222. 37 Vgl. zum kultur- und geistesgeschichtlichen Rahmen der dahinterstehenden Verfallsidee Schäufele: 2006, 7–43, bes. 28–43. 38 So gemäß dem Titel des vierten und letzten Abschnittes (s. Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 244). 39 Vgl. zu dieser Zäsur in der protestantischen Kirchengeschichtsschreibung schon seit Luther Benrath: 1963, 67, Anm. 45. Luther folgt hier in seiner Einschätzung wohl der frühen Wittenberger Ausgabe des Chronicon Carionis Philippicum (Wittenberg: Georgius Rhau, 1538), denn dort wird geäußert: “Bonifacius Tertius [und nicht wie in der Tabelle des Phrygio Bonifatius IV.] hat vom Keisar Foca durch grossen zanck erhalten, das der Papst zu Rom solt Oecumenicus und der höhist Bischoff inn der Christenheit sein (…)” (Bl. 107b). In gewohnter Art kann der Wittenberger in seiner Supputatio annorum mundi (1541/45) noch ergänzen, in ironischer Anspielung auf den Namen des kurzzeitigen Papstes, dass er ein bona facies habe,

174

Thomas Kloeckner

5. Die zweite Periode des neuen Bundes reicht vom Antichristen bis in die Gegenwart des Verfassers (1635) – hier entspringt der Datierungsversuch der zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch ungedruckten Theologia Historica. Alting zufolge bietet schon der Alte Bund luzide Beweise für die Lehre von der Prädestination, ja sie reichen zurück bis zur Schöpfung, auch wenn im Sinne einer progressive revelation erst der Neue Bund diese Lehre noch klarer und lichtvoller bezeugt.40 Über die ersten, eher versteckten Hinweise unter Bezugnahme auf die Patriarchen, die Könige und schließlich die Propheten gelangt Alting dann auch zu den antiken Philosophen und Poeten wie u. a. Phocilides, Sophocles, Euripides und Aristophanes. Gemäß der verschiedenen Schulmeinungen werden “Fortuna” und “Fatum” einander gegenübergestellt und als Vorstufe der Erkenntnis der göttlichen Prädestination benannt. Mit einer Absage gegenüber der Möglichkeit der natürlichen Gotteserkenntnis hält Alting allerdings fest, dass “allein das Evangelium uns für dieses Geheimnis die Augen geöffnet hat” (im Rekurs auf die loci classici Röm 9:10f und Eph Kapitel 1).41 Es folgt ein ausführliches Referat über die scheinbar nicht nur für Alting virulente Fragestellung, inwieweit das providenzielle Wirken Gottes letztlich einem stoischen Fatalismus Vorschub leistet oder eben auch nicht.42 Augenscheinlich besteht hier für den reformierten Theologen kein Gegensatz zwischen neustoizistischer Vernunftorientierung und wahrer biblischer Religion.43 Im Gegenteil, in der Verbindung beider Elemente sah man die eigene – darf man nun sagen – überlegene Gelehrsamkeit am Werke. Der neue Bund bietet nun, wie schon angedeutet, eine noch viel größere Anzahl an Illustrationen, “dass Gott alles Zukünftige bei sich nach gewissem Ratschluss festgesetzt hat, insbesondere hat er einige aus dem menschlichen

40

41

42 43

jedoch mit dieser schönen Ausstrahlung nur das Schlimmste über Gott und die Menschen bringe: “Nota: Bonifacius est nomen Papale bona facies, Quia bona specie pessima facit Deo et hominibus.” (WA 53, 142); vgl. Barr, Luther and biblical Chronology, BJRL, 62f u. Steiner: 2008, 97–102, bes. 99f. “Et licet clariora sint documenta Novi Testamenti, quam Veteris: evidentiora item quae a Mose & Prophetis, quam quae ante eorum aetatem tradita sunt (…). Prima Periodi Veteris Testamenti Articulo primo ita describitur Creatio, Conservatio, Gubernatio rerum omnium.” (Alting:1635 Theologia Historica, 244; Hervorhebung im Original). “Nam quod aeternam Dei Praedestinationem attinet, illa non modo ignota est rationi, latens in mysterio, & solo Euangelio nobis patefacta: Rom. 9, 10, 11. Eph. 1. cap.” (Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 252); vgl. auch Piscator: 1618, Tractatus de divina praedestinatione, 5 (“[N]emo etiam est qui naturali rationis lumine intelligere possit, cum justitia Dei consistere, quod aliquos ex hominibus praedestinavit ad aeternum exitium.”). S. Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 252–255; vgl. auch seine Ausführungen hierzu in seinen (Alting: 1616), Problemata Theologica, in: Scripta Theologica Heidelbergensia, Tomus II, 65– 67. Vgl. hierzu neuerdings Strohm: 2013, 264–266.

Die Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung

175

Geschlecht in Christus zum Leben erwählt, andere zum Tode verworfen.”44 Es folgt der Versuch dieses Dekret mit diversen neutestamentlichen Beispielen zu untermauern, Alting schreckt dabei nicht davor zurück, die eigenen subtilen Erkenntnisse in dem neutestamentlichen Befund wiederzuentdecken und verwechselt damit Exegese und Eisegese. So entdeckt er z. B. – aus der Vielzahl der dicta probantia – in Joh 10:26f, also in der Rede von dem Hirten und den Schafen, die seine Stimme hören und ihm folgen oder den Gehorsam verweigern das Prinzip von “tam reprobatio (…), quam electio (…)” unter konsequenter Auslassung des historischen Kontextes.45 Stand Alting noch im Hinblick auf die kanonischen Schriften der Heiligen Schrift der norma normans gegenüber, so ist sein Umgang mit den Kirchenvätern und ihren Werken um einiges unbekümmerter und deutlich wertend im Urteil. Die das Interesse leitende Fragestellung für ihn ist, ob und inwiefern sie die göttliche Vorsehung, Vorherbestimmung und Vorherwissen gelehrt haben. Er kommt dabei zu dem Schluss, dass in der patristischen Periode weniger die Lehre von der Prädestination, dafür aber umso mehr das Trinitätsdogma zur Diskussion stand.46 Nur und wesentlich Pelagius hat an dieser Stelle sein Veto eingelegt und die orthodoxe Prädestinationslehre bestritten.47 Nach Altings Auffassung besteht seit dem babylonischen Exil eine orthodoxe Fassung der Lehre von der Trinität und damit verbunden von den Dekreten Gottes.48 Generell muss Alting allerdings monieren, dass viele in dieser Epoche der Kirche den freien Willen zu hoch geschätzt haben aufgrund ihrer Beeinflussung durch heidnische Philosophie,49 auch wenn er selbst – wie angedeutet – offensichtlich ein profunder Kenner und Nutzer der antiken Philosophenschulen und ihrer Lehrmeinungen war. Unter den heterodoxen Theologen tritt für ihn dabei besonders der Erz44 “(…) Deum futura omnia certo consilio apud se definivisse: maxime vero ex genere humano alios in Christo ad vitam elegisse, alios ad mortem reprobasse;” (Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 257). 45 S. Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 257–260, das Zitat hier 258; vgl. hierzu die den ntl. Kontext beachtenden Scholien von Grotius: 1828 in seinen Annotationes in Novum Testamentum, 160f. 46 Zur Zeit Altings jedoch, bzw. seit dem “Anfang der Reformation”, haben “nicht wenige orthodoxe Theologen Beobachtungen und Anmerkungen” zu diesem Locus von sich gegeben; es folgt eine Auflistung inspiriert durch Bellarmins Kontroverse De gratia & libero arbitrio (bes. Kap. 11) mit folgender Reihenfolge: allen voran Melanchthon, dann Calvin (Inst. III, 23, [?]), Beza, Zanchius und Pareus zum Abschluss (Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 261; vgl. zur theologiegeschichtlichen Einordnung Hens: 1942, u. generell die ausführliche Verortung im Gesamtwerk des Kontroverstheologen Biersack: 1989, bes. 105–290). 47 Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 261. 48 Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 206f.255. 49 Er oder präziser die Editoren sehen hier die “Causa errotis” – so laut Marginalie – basierend auf einer Überschätzung der “ratio(..) humanae”, welche die maßgebliche Norm für den säkularen Theoretiker sei (Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 262).

176

Thomas Kloeckner

ketzer Origenes hervor und seine Anhänger, ihre Darlegungen werden in dieser Hinsicht scharf kritisiert.50 Der Abschnitt endet mit einer quellenreichen Darstellung der pelagianischen und semipelagianischen Streitigkeiten. Es verwundert kaum, dass Alting als reformierter Theologe die verschiedenen Positionen und den Verlauf des Disputs detailliert nachzeichnen kann.51 Er stellt sogar die Verfasserschaft einiger Werke Augustins in Frage, und schreibt beispielsweise zu Recht52 die Schrift De vocatione [omnium] gentium mit anderen dem Korrespondent Augustins Prosper Tiro von Aquitanien zu.53 Im Hinblick auf das Mittelalter weiß Alting klar zu differenzieren. Ganz der Lehrautorität Augustins verpflichtet im Sinne des calvinischen “Augustinus totus noster” (CO 8, 266, 9f)54 sieht er in Bernhard von Clairvaux, Petrus Lombardus und Honorius Augustodunensis Vertreter der Prädestinationslehre Augustins, indes der Lombarde an dieser Stelle deutlich zurücktritt.55 Unter den nachfolgend genannten Scholastikern wie Wilhelm Ockham, Gabriel Biel und Johannes Scotus sieht Alting nur in den Thomisten, allen voran dem Aquinaten selbst, “saniores & doctiores” Vertreter der reinen Anschauung der orthodoxen Prädestinationslehre.56 Besonders stechen für ihn aber die sogenannten Vorreformatoren Thomas Bradwardine, John Wyclif, Johannes Hus und schließlich 50 Der alte Vorwurf wird gegenüber dem Neuplatoniker erhoben mit Augustin, er hätte 42 Häresien zustande gebracht (Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 264), wovon allerdings nicht alle apostrophierten Lehrsätze bei Licht betrachtet wirklich auf den Alexandriner zurückzuführen sind (vgl. nur Vogt: 1987, 78–99). 51 Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 269–281 (zuvor werden noch in aller Kürze die griechischen Kirchenväter zumindest gestreift, der arianische Streit wird dabei nur am Rande erwähnt [a. a. O., 267] wurde er doch ausführlich unter Locus III innerhalb der Theologia Historica behandelt; s. a. a. O., 225–229). 52 Vgl. hierzu neuerdings Hwang: 2009, 11–36, bes. 19f. 53 Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 279 (mit ausführlicher Begründung: “Ergo ad Catholicae veritatis contra Semipelagianos defensores merito transimus: quorum a morte Augustini primi prinicipesque sunt Prosper Aquitanicus, & Hilarius Arelatensis. Prosper is est, qui certiorem fecit Augustinum de reliquiis Peligianorum, & ut contra eos quoque scriberet, ipsum excitavit.”; vgl. auch a. a. O., 272 zu weiteren Verfasserschaftsfragen bzgl. der Werke Augustins). 54 Vgl. hierzu Ravenswaay, Van: 1990, bes. 19–35 zur methodischen Eingrenzung der Thematik und den Differenzierungen der augustinischen Prädestinationslehre. 55 Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 284 (wiederum mit ausführlicher Begründung: “Tria vero sunt, quae in eo desiderantur. [1.] Primum, quid omittit doctrinam de Providentia, quae tamen genus est Praedestinationis. Quae causa fuit erroris non paucis, ut praescientiam cum providentia confunderent, & quaestiones de utraque miscerent; quae tamen sunt diversae. [2.] Secundum, quod Praedestinationem restringit ad solam Electionem, & reprobos praescitos nuncupat, non praedestinatos: nimirum, quia metuit, ne Deus autor [sic!] culpae, aut injuste damnare videatur. [3.] Tertium, quod in descriptione Reprobationis defecit, quam definit praescientia iniquitatis reproborum; item cessatione, permissione, & subtractione gratiae; non etiam justa Dei, peccata peccatis punientis, actione, decreto, & efficacitate.”) 56 Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 285f.

Die Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung

177

der geistige Vater des Groninger Reformhumanismus, Wessel Gansfort, als Zeugen und Verteidiger der “verae doctrinae” hervor.57 Letzteren kann Alting dabei, befand er sich doch gerade auf einem Katheder der Universität Groningen im 17. Jahrhundert, nicht ohne Stolz in seinen dogmengeschichtlichen Vorlesungen als “unseren Wessel Gansfort” bezeichnen, weiter als “lux mundi” wie er gemeinhin genannt wird.58 Person und Bedeutung des niederländischen Humanisten waren ihm wohl bestens bekannt durch seinen Vater Menso Alting, der seine humanistische Ausbildung in Groningen an der dortigen Lateinschule unter Regnerus Praedinius begonnen hatte, welcher wiederum ein glühender Verehrer des Wessel Gansfort war.59 Umfangreicher und sicher auch gewichtiger für Alting als der Rückblick auf die mittelalterliche Theologie- und Dogmengeschichte ist die abschließende Behandlung der Reformationszeit. Zentral in dieser nun unmittelbareren Periode ist die gegen die lutherischen Kontrahenten gerichtete Feststellung, dass Luther seine für die Thematik wesentliche Schrift De servo arbitrio nicht widerrufen hat, wie dies dem reformierten Lager gerne vorgehalten wurde.60 Melanchthon kann hier jedoch als Beispiel dienen, räumt Alting ein, für eine Veränderung der orthodoxen Position Luthers, allerdings ist diese eher formaler Natur und nicht sachlich begründet. Im Hintergrund steht für Alting die in den kursächsischen Visitationen von 1528 zum Vorschein kommende Fehlinterpretation der neuen Gnadenlehre,61 die Melanchthon quasi dazu zwang, seine Lehrmethode zu ändern.62 Noch einmal, dies bedeutet für Alting keine sachliche Preisgabe des Dogmas, sondern nur eine Variation der Ausdrucksweise dieser Doktrin.63 Auf den Reformator und seinen wohl begabtesten Anhänger folgt eine 57 58 59 60

Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 286f, das Zitat hier 286. Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 287. Vgl. Voß: 2012, 13f. Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 294f (so argumentiert auch schon Altings Herborner Lehrmeister Piscator in seiner Disputation mit Andreas Schaafmann [1595] in These 130; s. Bos: 1932, 207f). 61 S. hierzu den von Melanchthon aus diesem Anlass verfassten Unterricht der Visitatoren (1528), in: MStA I, 215–271. 62 “Tertia fuit exiguus profectus in studio pietatis, quem in visitatione Ecclesiarum Saxonicarum, anno 1527. decreta, sed sequente 28 demum institute, una cum Luthero deprehenderat, & ex abusu doctrinae Evangelicae de gratia Dei in Christo pullulare statuebat. Atque hae sunt praecipuae causae mutationis in hoc dogmate factae: quae quousque pateat, deinceps dispiciendum erit.” (Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 296). 63 “Dicemus autem distincte de Phrasi, de modo docendi sive Methodo, & denique de ipsa Doctrina, sive de ipso dogmate.” (Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 296; vgl. hierzu Lee: 2009, 32–38, bes. 37, der die nachfolgende Argumentation Altings kurz entfaltet und innerhalb der Melanchthonrezeption der Heidelberger Theologen von 1583 bis 1622 verortet (allerdings spricht die verwendete Quelle, eben die Theologia Historica, für das Jahr 1635ff, auch wenn die frühe Dogmengeschichte erste Reflexionen Altings aus seiner Heidelberger Phase unter Umständen widerspiegelt).

178

Thomas Kloeckner

Auflistung aller Rezipienten und Bekenntnisschriften, die im 16. Jahrhundert das Terrain der orthodoxen Prädestinationslehre verlassen haben.64 Alting kommt nicht umhin, dabei schließlich seinen Zeitgenossen Arminius zu erwähnen, dem er zwar keine diabolischen, aber dafür fragwürdige menschliche Motive unterstellt, namentlich: Heuchelei und Ehrgeiz.65 Ja, er kann ihm sogar in den Mund legen, jener wolle das Verdienst der im buchstäblichen Sinne aufrichtigen – “orthodoxen” – Gelehrten in jeder Hinsicht zerstören, “mit dem Ziel, dass Calvin von nun an nicht mehr so viel gelte in der Kirche wie bisher.”66 Vergessen werden darf nicht, dass Alting nicht nur als kurpfälzischer Delegierter an der Synode zu Dordrecht teilnahm, sondern auch während dieser am 17. Januar 1619 gemeinsam mit Abraham Scultetus zu Gast in Leiden war, um dort Johannes Polyander67, den deutlich milderen Nachfolger Gomarus’, zu promovieren.68 Mit anderen Worten: Heinrich Alting war wie viele andere Zeitgenossen seit seinen Studientagen in Herborn unter Piscator u. a. in die Auseinandersetzungen der sich mehr und mehr formierenden reformierten Welt gestellt und kannte sie als Student, Präzeptor, junger Professor der Dogmatik, Gutachter und schließlich Delegierter aus eigener Anschauung.

4.

Abschließende Betrachtungen

Die diachrone Betrachtungsweise der Theologia Historica endet hiermit, oder wie es Gustav Adolf Benrath so schön formuliert hat: “Damit ist Alting vor der eigenen Türe angelangt. Wollte man ihn über Gegenwart und Zukunft der Lehre [sc. von der Prädestination] befragen, so würde er wohl auf seine eigene Dogmatik verweisen, denn er ist ja Historiker und Dogmatiker in einer Person.”69 Historiker in dem Sinne, dass er die historische Methode als Hilfe zur Vermittlung des dogmatischen Stoffes ansieht und so einen didaktischen Weg eröffnet, um den Studenten einen Überblick über die umfangreiche Thematik zu geben. Historiker nicht in dem Sinne, dass er die historische Methode als vom Stoff selbst gefordert ansieht im Hinblick auf die Veränderungen, Nuancierungen und den 64 Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 297–306 (Alting behandelt ausführlich, hier in aller Kürze: Victor Strigelin, Johann Marbach, die Konkordienformel, Jakob Andreae, Samuel Huber, Ägidius Hunnius, Hieronymus Bolsec, Theodor Bibliander, Altings Sedaner Dozent und ehemaligen Freund Daniel Tilenus [!] u. Petrus Baro). 65 Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 308. 66 “Urebatur gloria Doctorum Orthodoxorum, quibus omnibus modis detrahebat; de Calvino id aperte professus: effecturum sese, ne deinceps tanti fieret in Ecclesia ipsius autoritas.” (Alting: 1635, Theologia Historica, 308). 67 Vgl. zu seiner Person BLGNP 2, 366–368 (A. J. Lamping). 68 S. Ihle: 1747, 11; Benrath: 1963, 76f. 69 Benrath: 1963, 78.

Die Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung

179

attestierten Verfall der Theologie- und Dogmengeschichte. Diese im Rahmen von “deformatio et reformatio” wahrgenommenen Veränderungen des Dogmas gelten ihm noch als Nebenumstände (Akzidentien), die “gleichbleibende Substanz der wahren Kirche und ihrer Lehre” wird dadurch jedoch nicht in Mitleidenschaft gezogen.70 Im Hinblick auf die zu verhandelnde Thematik der Prädestinationsanschauung erhärtet sich der Eindruck aufgrund des Befundes von Locus IV der Theologia Historica, dass weniger die genaue Lozierung des Lehrsatzes im Sinne eines Models (Infra- oder Supralapsarismus, a priori oder a posteriori) im Vordergrund steht, sondern eher das didaktische Vorgehen. Es besteht zwar ohne Frage ein metaphysisches Interesse an der Auflösung dieses doktrinären Geheimnisses,71 doch tritt dieses für die Heidelberger Reformierten am Ende des 16. und zu Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts in den Hintergrund gegenüber der didaktischen Methode.72 An anderer Stelle kann Alting jedoch postulieren, das Objekt der Prädestination könne nur ein “ens” und niemals ein “non ens” sein, ja der ganze Akt der Erwählung könne sich nicht auf den “homo non creatus” beziehen. Ungeschaffen ist der Mensch somit auch nicht in der Lage zu fallen im Sinne des “creabilis et labilis”, fehlen einem “non ens” doch jegliche Akzidentien, die dies erst ermöglichen würden.73 Somit tritt er hier in seinen Heidelberger Schriften als markanter Vertreter eines später sogenannten Infralapsarismus hervor,74 wohlgemerkt im Kontext seiner für den Studenten elaborierten problemorientierten Darstellung der Theologie- und Dogmengeschichte (Problemata Theologica). Ob diese Beobachtungen auch ein impliziter Hinweis sind auf die enge Verzahnung von Biografie und Theologie, die nicht nur Altings Vita betrifft, sei einmal dahin gestellt. Heinrich Alting weiß zumindest relativ am Ende seiner Haus- und Familienchronik zu berichten, von einer gewissen Müdigkeit gekennzeichnet: “Am 2. Mai [1640] wurde von Gomarus der unglückliche Streit um die Frage der Prädestination erregt, der Aufregungen hervorrief.”75 Wohl eine Anspielung auf die späten Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Gomarus und den Groninger Predigern Wessel Emmius (1589–1654) – ein Sohn des Ubbo Emmius

70 BLO 1, 23 (Sowohl Augustin als auch Thomas können in dieser Hinsicht festhalten: “Non est mutata fides, etsi variata sunt tempora“; zit. nach Spörl: 1935, 94). 71 Folgt man schlicht der Einteilung der Theologia Historica, so folgt auf eine Verhältnisbestimmung der Theologie als Wissenschaft, der Skriptologie, der Gotteslehre schließlich die Erwählungslehre, also noch vor der Soteriologie und Christologie; ob damit allerdings – wie angedeutet – ein bestimmtes prädestinatorisches Modell per se bevorzugt wird, und wie der Fortgang dieser Locus-Sequenz damit aussähe, ist damit noch nicht eindeutig zu verifizieren. 72 So auch Lee: 2009, 61. 73 Alting: 1646, Problemata Theologica, in: Scripta Theologica Heidelbergensia, Tomus II, 31. 74 Vgl. Ritschl: 1926, 378f. 75 Reeken, von: 1975, 19.

180

Thomas Kloeckner

– und Petrus Keuchenius (1603–1644).76 Damit stand circa ein Jahr vor dem Ableben des Groninger Theologieprofessors Franciscus Gomarus, der nach Hermann Ravensperger u. a. zur ersten Generation des Kollegiums zählte, die alte Frage nach dem Objekt der Prädestination in neuem Gewand vor der reformierten Welt Nordwesteuropas und ihren Parteigängern. Die Staaten von Groningen duldeten zunächst keine öffentliche Disputation hierüber, auch wenn Gomarus formal im Recht war. Eine schriftliche Dokumentation folgte jedoch postum, zu der Heinrich Alting von diversen Alterserscheinungen und einem langjährigen depressiven Leiden gekennzeichnet, das durch den Tod seiner Tochter Maria noch Verstärkung erfuhr,77 nicht mehr Stellung bezog.

5.

Literaturverzeichnis

(Die verwendeten Abkürzungen richten sich nach dem Verzeichnis der RGG4 u. des IATG2)

5.1

Quellen

Altingius, Henricus (1616), Oratio inauguralis de natura, ortu, usu, ordine, sive methodo locorum communium theologicorum, Heidelbergae 1616 (auch in: Ders., Scripta Theologica Heidelbergensia, Tomus I, Amstelodami 1646, **2–****3). (Altingius, Henricus, s.n.) (1623–1624), Methodus studiorum illustrissimi principis, Friderici Henrici Palatini Rheni in annum 1623 et 1624 (BSB, Collectio Camerariana, [Clm 10415] Bd. 65, Nr. 30, 93a–94b). Altingius, Henricus (1646), Scripta Theologica Heidelbergensia, Tomus I & II, Amstelodami 1646 (2. Aufl. Amsterdam 1662). Altingius, Henricus (1635), Theologia historica sive systematis historici loca quatuor [1635], Amstelodami: Johannem Janssonium, 1664. Anonymus (1613) [Tobias Hübner(?) & Abraham Scultetus], Beschreibung Der Reiß: Empfahung deß Ritterlichen Ordens: Vollbringung des Heyraths: vnd gluecklicher Heimfuehrung: Wie auch der ansehnlichen Einfuehrung: gehaltener Ritterspiel vnd Frewdenfests: Des Durchleuchtigsten, Hochgebornen Fuersten vnd Herrn, Herrn Friederichen deß Fuenften, Pfaltzgraven bey Rhein, deß Heiligen Roemischen Reichs Ertztruchsessen vnd Churfuersten, Hertzogen in Bayern, [et]c. Mit der auch Durchleuchtigsten, Hochgebornen Fuerstin, vnd Koeniglichen Princessin, Elisabethen, deß Großmechtigsten Herrn, Herrn Iacobi deß Ersten Königs in GroßBritannien Einigen 76 Vgl. BLGNP 2, 224 (G. P. van Itterzon). 77 “Am 2. Oktober [1639] entschlief um 1 Uhr nachts sehr fromm und sehr ruhig, in dem Herrn meine erstgeborene und mir sehr liebe Tochter Maria, nachdem sie 11 Tage an einem akuten andauernden Fieber darniedergelegen hatte. Sie wurde in einem ehrenvollen Leichenbegräbnis am 7. desselben Monats bestattet und in der Universitätskirche beigesetzt. Sie lebte 24 Jahre und 7 Monate.” (Reeken, von: 1975, 18).

Die Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung

181

Tochter: Mit schönen Kupfferstuecken gezieret, [Heidelberg, s.l.]: Gotthardt Voegelin, 1613 (Digitalisat: http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/scultetus1613a; Stand: 27. 8. 2018). Benrath, Gustav Adolf (Hg.) (1966), Die Selbstbiographie des Heidelberger Theologen und Hofpredigers Abraham Scultetus (1566–1624), VVKGB XXIV, Karlsruhe 1966. Claussen, Uwe (Hg.) (1999), Die Chronik der Familie Alting 1541–1644, Unterhaching 1999. Emmius, Ubbo (1728), Mensonis Altingii Pastoris Emdani (…) Vita, Descripta Per Ubbonem Emmium Nunc primum edita ex autographo, et Litterae. Accedunt Henrici Altingii (…) Historia de Ecclesiis Palatinis. (…) Adami Mensonis Isinck Brevis Historia de Reformatione in Urbe Groninga et Omlandia (…). Cura Adami Mensonis Isinck (…), Groningae 1728. Friederich (1623) von Gottesgnaden König zu Böhmen, Pfalzgrave bey Rhein und Churfürst (…). Datum in daß Gravenhagen des 17/27 Septembris Ao. 1623 (Archiv der JALB). Grotius, Hugo (1828), Annotationes in Novum Testamentum, Denuo emendatius editae, Volumen IV, Continens Annotationes ad Johannem, Groningae: W. Zuidema, 1828 (Digitalisat der BSB). Ihle, Johann Conrad (Hg.) (1747), Lebensbeschreibungen der 3 berühmten Gelehrten Heinrich Alting, Johann Freitag und Jacob Alting. Aus einem lateinischen Manuskript übersetzt von Johann Conrad Ihle, Conrector der Schule zu Leer und öffentlicher kaiserl. Notarius, 1747 (Exemplar aus der Sammlung der “Emder Kunst”; Signatur der JALB: Hs. 80). Lewald, Ernst Anton (Hg.) (1841), Catechetischer Unterricht des Pfalzgrafen Friedrich V. von Heinrich Alting, eine nach der Reihenfolge der Fragen in dem Heidelbergischen Catechismus geordnete Erläuterung desselben im Geist und Styl der Reformationszeit aus einem Manuscripte der alten pfälzischen Bibliothek, hrsg. und mit dogmengeschichtlichen Anmerkungen vers. von Ernst Anton Lewald, Heidelberg 1841. Maresius, Samuel (1644), Oratio funebris in luctuosissimum obitum theologi celeberrimi D. Henrici Altingii in academiis Heidelbergensi (…), Groningae 1644. Piscator, Johannes (1618), Tractatus de divina praedestinatione, Herbornae: Christophorus Corvinus, 1618 (Exemplar der JALB). Reeken, Erich von (Hg.) (1975), Handschriftliche Aufzeichnungen des Emder Predigers Menso Alting und seines Sohnes, des Professors der Theologie Dr. Heinrich Alting, in: Quellen und Forschungen zur Ostfriesischen Familien- und Wappenkunde 24. Jahrgang, Heft 1–2, 1–24. Reeken, Erich von (Hg.), (1978), Handschriftliche Aufzeichnungen des Emder Predigers Menso Alting und seines Sohnes, des Professors der Theologie Dr. Heinrich Alting, in: LIAS – Sources and Documents relating to the Early Modern History of Ideas 5/1, 19–48. Schmidt, Friedrich (Hg.) (1899), Geschichte der Erziehung der Pfälzischen Wittelsbacher: Urkunden nebst geschichtlichem Überblick und Register, Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica XIX, Berlin 1899. Stupperich, Robert (Hg.) (1951), Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, Bd. 1: Reformatorische Schriften, Gütersloh 1951 [MStA]. Theologische Fakultät Heidelberg (1622), Misch- und Lagerbücher, Buch 2–1622, UAH [Theol. Fak.].

182 5.2

Thomas Kloeckner

Sekundärliteratur

Althaus, Paul (1914), Die Prinzipien der deutschen reformierten Dogmatik im Zeitalter der aristotelischen Scholastik: Eine Untersuchung zur altprotestantischen Theologie, Leipzig: Deichert. Apperloo-Boersma, Karla/Selderhuis, Herman J. (Hg.) (2013), Macht des Glaubens: 450 Jahre Heidelberger Katechismus, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht. Barr, James, Luther and biblical Chronology, Bulletin of the John Rylands Liberary 72/1, 1990, 51–68. Benrath, Gustav Adolf (1963), Reformierte Kirchengeschichtsschreibung an der Universität Heidelberg im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, VVPFKG IX, Speyer. Benrath, Gustav Adolf (21998), Der niederländische Späthumanismus, in: Carl Andresen/Adolf Martin Ritter (Hg.), Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte, Bd. 3: Die Lehrentwicklung im Rahmen der Ökumenizität, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 45–48. Berkel, Klaas van (2014), Universiteit van het noorden: Vier euuwen academisch leven in Groningen, Deel 1: De oude universiteit, 1614–1876, Studies over de geschiedenis van de Groningse universiteit 8, Hilversum: Verloren. Biersack, Manfred (1989), Initia Bellarminiana: Die Prädestinationslehre bei Robert Bellarmin SJ bis zu seinen Löwener Vorlesungen 1570–1576, Historische Forschungen im Auftrag der Historischen Kommission der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz XV, Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag. Boekholt, Petrus Theodorus Franciscus Maria (1992), Die Beziehungen zwischen den Nordöstlichen Niederlanden und Nordwest-Deutschland, in: Otto S. Knottnerus/ Paul Brood u. a. (Hg.), Rondom Eems en Dollard – Rund um Ems und Dollart: Historische verkenningen in het grensgebied van Nordoost-Nederland en NoordwestDuitsland – Historische Erkundungen im Grenzgebiet der Nordostniederlande und Nordwestdeutschlands, Van Dijk & Foorthuis REGIO-Projekt Groningen, Groningen/ Leer, 244–255. Bos, Frans L. (1932), Johann Piscator: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der reformierten Theologie, (zugl. teilw. Diss. Heidelberg), Kampen: Kok. Deeters, Walter (1994), Geschichte der Stadt Emden von 1576 bis 1611, in: Jannes Ohling/Roelf Odens u. a. (Hg.), Geschichte der Stadt Emden, Bd. 1: Ostfriesland im Schutz des Deiches X, Leer: Rautenberg, 272–336. Ehrenpreis, Stefan (2007), Zeitkonzepte im frühneuzeitlichen Erziehungs- und Schulwesen, in: Arndt Brendecke/Ralf-Peter Fuchs u. a. (Hg.), Die Autorität der Zeit in der Frühen Neuzeit, Pluralisierung und Autorität 10, Münster: Lit, 171–186. Ehrenpreis, Stefan (2008), Bildung und Pädagogik, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (Hg.), Calvin Handbuch, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 422–430. Filser, Hubert (2001), Dogma, Dogmen, Dogmatik: Eine Untersuchung zur Begründung und zur Entstehungsgeschichte einer theologischen Disziplin von der Reformation bis zur Spätaufklärung, Studien zur systematischen Theologie und Ethik 28, Münster: Lit. Gaß, Wilhelm (1854), Geschichte der protestantischen Dogmatik in ihrem Zusammenhange mit der Theologie überhaupt, Bd. 1: Die Grundlegung und der Dogmatismus, Berlin: Georg Reimer.

Die Legitimation der reformierten Prädestinationsanschauung

183

Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter (1982), Art. Dogmengeschichtsschreibung, TRE 9, 116–125. Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter (1999), Lehrbuch der Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, Bd. 2: Reformation und Neuzeit, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Hens, Nikolaus (1942), Die Augustinusinterpretation des Hl. Robert Bellarmin bezüglich der wirksamen Gnade und der Vorherbestimmung nach der Kontroverse „De gratia et libero arbitrio“, Diss. Roma: Pontificia Universita Gregoriana. Heppe, Heinrich (21958), Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche, neu durchgesehen u. hrsg. v. Ernst Bizer, Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen: Erziehungsverein. Hesse, Hermann Klugkist (1928), Menso Alting: Eine Gestalt aus der Kampfzeit der calvinischen Kirche, Berlin: Furche-Verlag. Hwang, Alexander Y. (2009), Intrepid Lover of Perfect Grace: The Life and Thought of Prosper of Aquitaine, Washington: The Catholic University of America Press. Lee, Nam Kyu (2009), Die Prädestinationslehre der Heidelberger Theologen 1583–1622: Georg Sohn (1551–1589), Herman Rennecherus (1550–?), Jacob Kimedoncius (1554– 1596), Daniel Tossanus (1541–1602), RHT 10, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Loofs, Friedrich (1898), Art. Dogmengeschichte, RE3 4, 1898, 752–764. Loofs, Friedrich (41906), Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, Halle: Max Niemeyer. Menk, Gerhard (2011), Friedrich Wilhelm Cuno (1838–1904): Pfarrer, Historiker und Glaubenskämpfer – Eine Lebensskizze, in: Ders., Zwischen Kanzel und Katheder: Protestantische Pfarrer und Professorenprofile zwischen dem 16. und 20. Jahrhundert – Ausgewählte Aufsätze, 867–888, Marburg: Jonas Verlag. Martels, Zweder von (2003), De Groningse Latijnse school aan de beginperiode van de universiteit: Beschouwingen naar aanleiding van vier ‚Declamationes scholasticae‘ uit de jaren 1619, 1620 en 1621, in: Arend H. Huussen jr. (Hg.), Onderwijs en onderzoek: Studie en wetenschap aan de academie van Groningen in de 17e en 18e eeuw, Studies over de geschiedenis van de Groningse universiteit 1, 9–30, Hilversum: Verloren. Martels, Zweder von (Hg.) (2014)‚ ‘Oefenschool der Muzen, werkplaats der wetenschap’: De stichting van de Groninger Academie in 1614, Studies over de geschiedenis van de Groningse universiteit 7, Hilversum: Verloren. May, Gerhard, Art. Dogmengeschichte/Dogmengeschichtsschreibung, RGG4 1, 1999, 915–920. McGrath, Alister E. (21997), Christian Theology: An Introduction, Oxford: WileyBlackwell. Nauta, Doede (1983), Art. Alting, Hendrik, Biografisch Lexicon voor de Geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme, Deel 2, 22–24, Kampen: Kok [BLGNP]. Press, Volker (1970), Calvinismus und Territorialstaat: Regierung und Zentralbehörden der Kurpfalz 1559–1619, Kieler Historische Studien 7, Stuttgart: Klett. Ravensway, J. Marius J. Lange van (1990), Augustinus totus noster: Das Augustinverständnis bei Johannes Calvin, FKDG 45, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht. Ritschl, Otto (1908), Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus, Bd. 1, Leipzig: Hinrichsche Buchhandlung. Ritschl, Otto (1926), Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus, Bd. 3: Orthodoxie und Synkretismus in der altprotestantischen Theologie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.

184

Thomas Kloeckner

Schäufele, Wolf-Friedrich (2006), ‘Defecit ecclesia’: Studien zur Verfallsidee in der Kirchengeschichtsanschauung des Mittelalters, VIEG 213, Mainz: Philip von Zabern. Schelven, Aart Arnoulf van (1911), Art. Alting, Hendrik, Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek, Deel 1, 1911, 94–96 [NNBW]. Scholder, Klaus (1966), Ursprünge und Probleme der Bibelkritik im 17. Jahrhundert: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der historisch-kritischen Theologie, Forschungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Protestantismus Reihe 10/Bd. XXXIII, München: C. Kaiser. Schweizer, Alexander (1856), Die protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformierten Kirche, Bd. 2: Das 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Zürich: Orell u. Füssli. Seeberg, Reinhold (1920), Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bd. IV/2: Die Fortbildung der reformatorischen Lehre und die gegenreformatorische Lehre, Leipzig, etc.: Deichert, etc. Selderhuis, Herman J. (2006), Frieden aus Heidelberg: Pfälzer Irenik und melanchthonische Theologie bei den Heidelberger Theologen David Pareus (1548–1622) und Franciscus Junius (1545–1602), in: Günter Frank/Stephan Meier-Oeser (Hg.), Konfrontation und Dialog: Philipp Melanchthons Beitrag zu einer ökumenischen Hermeneutik, 235–257 Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Smart, Sara/Wade, Mara R. (Hg.) (2013), The Palatine Wedding of 1613: Protestant Alliance and Court Festival, Wolfenbütteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung 29, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Spörl, Johannes (1935), Grundformen hochmittelalterlicher Geschichtsanschauung: Studien zum Weltbild der Geschichtsschreiber des 12. Jahrhunderts, München: Hueber. Steiner, Benjamin (2008), Die Ordnung der Geschichte: Historische Tabellenwerke in der Frühen Neuzeit, Norm und Struktur 34, Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau-Verlag. Strohm, Christoph (2013), Theologie und Jurisprudenz im gelehrten Kosmos der Heidelberger Universität um 1600, in: Wilhelm Kreutz/Wilhelm Kühlmann u. a. (Hg.), Die Wittelsbacher und die Kurpfalz in der Neuzeit: Zwischen Reformation und Revolution, 259–266, Regensburg: Schnell u. Steiner. Vogt, Hermann J. (1987), Warum wurde Origenes zum Häretiker erklärt? – Kirchliche Vergangenheitsbewältigung in der Vergangenheit, Origeniana IV, Innsbrucker Theologische Studien 19, Innsbruck: Tyrolia. Voß, Klaas-Dieter (2012), Menso Alting: eine Kurzbiographie, in: Ders./Wolfgang Jahn (Hg.), Menso Alting und seine Zeit: Glaubensstreit – Freiheit – Bürgerstolz, (im Auftrag der Evangelisch-reformierten Gemeinde Emden, der Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek Emden und des Ostfriesischen Landesmuseums Emden) 13–79, Oldenburg: Isensee.

Frank van der Pol

Genevan Mysteries defended. Two critical examinations of Remonstrant Positions against Calvinistic Perceptions of Predestination: a Comparison

In this contribution we explore two critical examinations of Remonstrant views in the debate about predestination the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) dealt with.1 We firstly follow the interpretation of the conflict by a seventeenth-century Dutch doctor of theology, Simon Oomius (1630–1706), half a century after the synod.2 Oomius criticizes Remonstrant slander against the Reformed doctrine from the perspectieve of Reformed Orthodoxy, while also representing Dutch Reformed Pietism. In his polemics against Remonstrant positions, Oomius defends so-called Genevan mysteries and identifies Remonstrant openness to Socinian influences, which would have far-reaching consequences for the practice of belief. For him, as a representative of Reformed Pietism, the latter is a very important issue. Oomius wants to promote a pious way of life. According to him orthodoxy and orthopraxis are combined.3 Our investigation has particular reference to his key-publication Institutiones theologiae practicae (1672, 1676, 1680), a three-part treatise in Practical Theology, together with his Dissertatie (1672), a separately published prolegomena to this more than 2400 pp. voluminous handbook on the practice of theology (1). After having explored Oomius’s retrospective view on the (counter-)Remonstrant crisis, we look to the reaction of Hieronymus Vogellius of Hasselt (c.1579–1654), a Reformed minister from the time of the Synod of Dordt itself. For comparing Oomius’s opinion with that of Vogellius, there is a good opportunity, because Vogellius has published an exhaustive response to a pamphlet of 1 Elaboration of my paper ‘Genevan Mysteries defended. Simon Oomius’ Reformed Pietistic Repudiation of Remonstrant Positions, compared with that of Hiëronymus Vogellius’, First EMRT Conference, The Doctrine of Election in Reformed Perspective. Historical Trajectories and Contexts of Controversy, Oct. 29–30, 2014, JALasco Bibliothek, Emden, Germany. 2 More on the life, writings, importance, and influence of Simon Oomius, in: Pol, F. van der: 2016. 3 For Oomius there is no tension between, on the one hand, Reformed Orthodoxy and, on the other, Reformed Pietism: ‘The theology of Simon Oomius displays a strong orthodoxy (…) as well as a profound spirituality and an intensely practical drive.’ Schuringa: 2003, 2.

186

Frank van der Pol

four Remonstrant ministers of the city of Kampen on the subject of predestination. Amidst the vehement political and theological turmoil of the predestinarian conflict, Vogellius was assigned as a relieving minister to Kampen; the same town where Oomius later on served too as a minister (2). After our investigation of Oomius’s interpretation and Vogellius’s reaction to the pamphlet of the four Kampen Remonstrant ministers, we are able to compare both criticisms (3).

1.

Simon Oomius’s interpretation of the Remonstrant debate

As a representative of Reformed Pietism, Simon Oomius’s aim was to design a spiritual life curriculum and thereby to enhance the practice of a devout lifestyle. For him the application or practice of a doctrinal truth is the most important thing. In his opinion doctrine and praxis pietatis are close allies. Oomius is convinced that every concept of theology results in a special form of experienced belief. The truth on which people should base their lives, is the one articulated by the orthodox, Reformed doctrine, the one that promoted the sincere sanctification of life. An aberrant, contentious theology will result in a reduced and diminished practice of authentic belief.4 Living more than a half a century after the Synod of Dordt, Oomius looks back. He sympathizes with Reformed theologians in the line of this synod. The chairman is called “the enormous Bogerman” (de ontsaghelijke Johannes Bogermannus). Secretary Festus Hommius is mentioned “a reliable pastor and audacious defender of the true doctrine” (een betrouwbare herder en dappere voorstander van de ware leer).5 The Leiden professor Jacobus Trigland, who in his Kerckelycke Geschiedenissen delivered a counter-Remonstrant historiography of the synod, is characterized as “that wise and grey head in Leiden” (dat wijze en grijze hoofd te Leiden). David Pareus from Heidelberg, who sent the Synod of Dordt some objections against the Articles of the Remonstrants, is called “a great theologian” (een groot theoloog).6 Walaeus, a member of the editorial committee of the Canons of Dordt, is described as a man “of important judgment, a real heresy hammer, especially of the new Pelagians” (met een groot oordeel, een ware ketterhamer, in het 4 This subparagraph is an elaboration of F. van der Pol, ‘Een gereformeerd-orthodoxe, piëtistische benadering van remonstrantse posities en Geneefse mysteries’, in: J. van de Kamp, A. Goudriaan, W. van Vlastuin (ed.), Pietas reformata. Religieuze vernieuwing onder gereformeerden in de vroegmoderne tijd. Feestbundel voor prof.dr. W.J. op ’t Hof, (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015), 79–90. 5 This is very clear from his latest publication Cierlijke Kroon (Further: CK). Oomius: 1707. Citations: CK, 172, 175. 6 Oomius, CK, 175–176, 21.

Genevan Mysteries defended

187

bijzonder van de nieuwe pelagianen).7 From his student years Oomius had already aligned himself with the Canons of Dordt. On the 22th of May 1652, at the age of 22 years, he conducted a disputation: Disputatio theologica in Orationem Dominicam. Pars prior. On that day, under the direction of Johannes Hoornbeeck, he defended five theses, chosen by himself, in which the various chapters of the Canons of Dordt easily can be recognized. In these theses Oomius denies (1) that the cause of election is faith, and that faith is the antecedent of election; (2) that Christ by his death has satisfied God in way that is equally applicable for the sins of all human beiings; he further confirms (3) that God in the conversion of man works in such a way that one’s unwillingness and rebellion change, and that God is doing this infallibly and effectively to the end; and he denies (4) that God would permit believers to wholly fall away from him. Finally he denies (5) that man from nature is able to do anything good.8 How are the Remonstrants depicted? To anwer this question, we shortly refer to his Scriptural Prognostication. This treatise dates from 1666, and offers a view of the Dutch Reformation just one hundred years after the turbulence of the hedgepreaching and the iconoclastic riots in the Low Countries. There Oomius refers to Arminius within the framework, that “God had purified us from stones, and He delivered the Netherlands from the yoke of the Spanish Inquisition (…), and afterwards from so many false doctrines, which they have tried to impose on the churches of these Netherlands; Arminius, the first who was flying the flag.”9 In 7 Oomius, CK, 175. More positive remarks: Altingius, a delegate from Heidelberg to the Synod of Dordt, is called “far and wide famous”, about whom Oomius declares: “He everywhere gives evidence of his prudence” (CK, 173). About Scultetus, one more theologian from Heidelberg, who had theological thoughts in line with the synod, Oomius declares, that he “had come to this country, to attend the Synod of Dordt, the most holy ever held for many centuries” (CK, 413). Joh. Maccovius from Franeker, Oomius mentioned was “a man talented with a clever and lucid mind” (CK, 171). Baudartius, the translator of the Old Testament appointed by the Synod of Dordt, Oomius puts forward as “our” Baudartius (CK, 44). Regarding “our” Rivetus, one of the translators of the Dutch Authorized Version which was planned in Dordt, Oomius speaks laudatory words, calling him the “prominent” and “great” Rivetus (CK, 4, 159, 177, 307, 414). And then we also read of the “very learned” reviser of the Old Testament, pastor Revius of Deventer (CK, 42). 8 “1. An electio sit ex praevisa fide? Neg.; 2. An Christus morte sua satisfecet Deo pro omnium aeque hominum peccatis? Neg.; 3. An Deus in conversione hominum ita agat, ut nolentes & rebelles mutet, faciatque infallibiliter, effective, ut tales esse desinant? Aff.; 4. An Deus quidem sinat fideles omnino, nempe totaliter ac finaliter ab ipso deficere? Neg.; 5 An homo à natura possit praestare quodvis bonum? Neg.” The disputation and theses are published by the academic printer Johannes van Waesbergen. Oomius: 1652-a. 9 “Oock heeft hij [God] ons van steenen gesuyvert, ons verlossende van het jock der Spaensche Inquisity (…); en naderhant van soo vele valsche leeringen, die men getracht heeft op te dringen de Kercken van dese Nederlanden, de vlagge eerst opsteeckende Arminius.” Oomius, after a century looking back to the Dutch Reformation, with reference to Arminius as the

188

Frank van der Pol

these terms, Oomius formulates in general his criticism of Arminius and his followers. He considers him as the standard-bearer of a movement that imposes all kind of heresies on the churches in the Netherlands. To answer the question about the depiction of the Remonstrants more precisely, we now concentrate on chapter 5 of his Dissertatie, the introductory volume of Oomius’s theological magnum opus, Institutiones theologiae practicae (hereafter ITP).10 Both publications have a systematic structure. The method is as follows: first a description of a theological reality is given (doctrina), then an explanation, followed by a rejection or condemnation of a theological position. This means polemics against Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Remonstrants, and Socinians; and finally an application or practice of a doctrinal truth is given. With this Oomius uses a common pattern: expositio, explicatio, polemics, application.11 In the fifth chapter of Dissertatie Oomius criticizes the so called Remonstrant slander against the Reformed doctrine. The chapter starts with a reference to the treatise ‘The doctrine of the Synod of Dordrecht and Alez, tested with respect to practice’ (De leere der synoden van Dordrecht ende Alez ghestelt op de proeve van de practijcque). In that publication, so Oomius reports, the Remonstrant minded Daniel Tilenus (1563–1633) claims that the Reformed theology is not effective for bringing forth conversion, neither does it improve the practice of a devout lifestyle, and instead results in its decline. According to Oomius, Tilenus’s slander is that Reformed theology gives people an incitement to hate God, and prevents their belief and conversion.12 Elswhere, Oomius remarks, Tilenus has typified Reformed theology as “Genevan mysteries”. In the margin we find a reference to Tilenus’s Canones Synodi Dordracenae. Cum notis & animadversionibus13, a

10 11

12 13

figurehead of a movement that infected the Dutch churches wit all kind of false doctrines. Oomius: 1666, 143–151, citation p. 150. Oomius: ITP 1672; Oomius: ITP 1676; Oomius: ITP 1680; Oomius: 1672 Diss, chapter 5, 297– 325. For this Oomius gives the following account: “In every chapter we will keep this order, that we raise every truth in a short description, which we in all its aspects, will briefly explain, and concisely affirm the issue. After which we then reject the opposite disabuses, and finally we will display the practice of every truth.” (“In een yeder Hooft-stuck sullen wy dese order houden, dat wy een yedere waerheydt in een beknopte Beschrijvinge sullen voorstellen, welcke wy, nae alle haere leden, kortelick verklaeren, en de saecke bondig bevestigen sullen; Waerop wy dan de tegengestelde dwaelingen verwerpen, en eyndelick de Practijcke van yedere weaerheydt sullen toonen”). Oomius: 1672 Diss, 396–397. Tilenus: 1623; Oomius: 1672 Diss, 297. Tilenus: 1622, Dedicatio, a.iiij: “I abhor the Genevan doctrine predestinarian doctrine” (“Me (…) de Genevensi Praedestinatione doctrina abhorrerem); “that decree of reprobation” (“illo Reprobationis decreto”); “Of those five much debated articles is this the distinctive feature, the kernel, that they with that horrible decree of Calvin, necessarily, as a kind of liquor, will mingle” (“Est istorum quinque poluthrullètoon [Gr., much debated] articulorum ea indoles,

Genevan Mysteries defended

189

publication in which Tilenus declares that he abhors the Genevan predestinarian doctrine of John Calvin and detests his decree of reprobation. He writes that the transgressions of the Genevans against the Summum Bonum even exceeded those of the Manicheans. In this publication the five Reformed Canones are directly connected with the Genevan decrees, which in Tilenus’s opinion ought to be abhored, because these mysteries instruct people not to love God, and not to do justice. Instead, the Genevan oriented predestinarian theology of Dordrecht causes men to fall into an abominable desperation: He [Tilenus] undertook it to prove, that people, by and from the very character and nature of our doctrine, which he elsewhere mentioned Genevan mysteries, are driven to hate God, to reject all conversion and belief; that they by this doctrine, are not able, or do not want, to love God and justice; yes, that they by our doctrine must fall into horrible desperation and atheism.14

In his polemic, Oomius vehemently denies that the so-called Genevan mysteries result in a lack of pious devotion. Somewhat earlier he already underlined John Calvin’s spiritual leadership, stressing the God-fearing life of the Genevan reformer. The true God-fearing character of this “defender of God’s mercy” was clearly visible both in his life and teaching. The devoutness of “this excellent man of God” was even recognized by the Roman Catholics, and in Oomius’s opinion the Godfearing life was much better than that of Jacob Arminius (ca. 1560–1609) or Nicolaas Grevinchovius (1570–1632). The “admirable man” – as Oomius called the Genevan reformer – has mixed “the seeds, the rules and way of appropriation of practical theology” in such a way, “that all our blaspheming opponents ought to be ashamed.” For the foundation of this argument Oomius refers to John Calvin’s Institutes 3:6–10. These chapters contain themes as Christian lifestyle; self-denial; bearing the cross that comes with self-denial; the contemplation of the future life and enjoying God’s creation gifts. While the opponents reproach Calvin and Reformed theology for the lack of practical theology, Oomius is convinced that Calvin wrote in very practical terms about devout living, and with great profundity: “They should read Calvin’s Institutes themselves, for in the Institutes the practical theology is emphatically present.”15 Then later in his Dissertatie he declares, in the same line, that Calvin may have written his esteemed Institutes, but that “the Institutes of his Christian life” was is genius, ut cum horrendo illo Calvini decreto, tanquam necessario quodam cinno mixti coaluerint”). 14 Oomius: 1672 Diss, 297: “Hij [Tilenus] ondernam sigh te toonen, dat de menschen, door en uyt d’eygen aerdt en natuyre van onse leere, die hy elders Geneefsche mysteryen noemde, gedreven wierden om Godt te haeten, alle bekeeringe en geloove te verstooten; dat se door de selve niet konnen of willen Godt en Gereghtigheyt liefhebben, jae dat se oock tot grouwelicke desperatie en atheisterye moeten door onse leere vervallen.” 15 Oomius: 1672 Diss, 46–47, also 304–305; Oomius: 1672 Diss, 67, 486.

190

Frank van der Pol

even more praiseworthy.16 They are a living example of a theologia practica. Tilenus, however, ascribes to Calvin a logical system-God, the construction of a rationalistic person , a conviction that certainly contrasts with Oomius’s portrait of Calvin; for the latter portays the Genevan reformer as an outspoken spiritual person, a living example of practical piety. From this perspective it is easy to understand that the accusation of Tilenus, namely that the Genevan mysteries of the Reformed theology should diminish a godfearing lifestyle, would be typified as a very egregious slander. Additionally, Oomius gives another example of a “detrimental slander of Reformed theology”, that of Nicolaas Grevinchoven (1570–1632), a Remonstrant who – so Oomius says – was not ashamed to describe the God of some Reformed theologians as “a disguised Hypocrit, a Comedian, a Deceiver, a Tyrant; as a Fox, a Hyena, and an Alligator.”17 As a third example, the Remonstrant inclined minister Henricus Slatius (1585–1632) is mentioned as the author of a scandalous pamphlet in which the doctrine of the Reformed ministers is defamed maliciously, especially their doctrine of election. Oomius refers here to the several times reprinted Den ghepredestineerden dief, ofte Een t’samensprekinge ghehouden tusschen een predicant der Calvinus-gezinde, ende een dief, die gesententieert was om te sterven, one of the most violent satires against the Contra-Remonstrants.18 Shortly before his death in 1623 Slatius still wrote in a letter to his wife: “My soul abhors the Calvinists.”19

2.

Remonstrant openness to the Socinians

Simon Oomius declares that the above mentioned Slatius sympathized with the Socinians; a judgement that already can be found about him in the Acta of the Provincial Synod of South-Holland half a century before.20 However, in the time 16 Oomius: 1672 Diss, 486–487: “And truly, it is a work [the Institutes], just like he [Calvin] was himself, (…). However how esteemed his Institutes is by the church, by God, by me, yet still much more famous is the institute of his Christian life.” (“En waerlick ‘t is een werkc [the Institutes], gelijck hy [Calvin] selve was, (…) Dogh hoe hoogh geaght wordt die zijne Institutie, so is by de Kerck, by Godt, by my, nogh veel roem-weerdiger d’Institutie van zijn Christelick leven.”) 17 Oomius: 1672 Diss, 299: “een vermomden Hypocrijt, Bedrieger, Comediant, Tyran, by een Vos, Hyaena, Pardeel en Crocodil.” 18 Oomius: 1672 Diss, 299. Slatius: 1619. 19 This characteristic sentence of Slatius we find back in Van Deursen’s Bavianen en Slijkgeuzen, the well-known publication about the church and church people in the time of Stadholder Maurits and Grand Pensionary Oldenbarnevelt. Van Deursen starts his Preface with this sentence. Van Deursen: 1974. 20 Oomius: 1672 Diss, 299; PS Leiden, 1619.07.23, see Reitsma and Van Veen: 1894, 374–375.

Genevan Mysteries defended

191

of the (Counter-) Remonstrant crisis the Remonstrants and the Socinians were also connected in a more general way, for example by Nicolaus Bodecherus in his 1624 in Leiden printed Sociniano-Remonstrantismus.21 Oomius is well informed about the author of this work. For half a century later, in his handbook ITP, Oomius informs his readers, that the Remonstrants, besides by the Leiden professors, are also criticized by Bodecherus, because of their Socinian looking opinions about God’s simplicity and the spiritual Essence of God’s Being.22 In the introductory work Dissertatie to his handbook ITP we find the just mementioned more general connection between the Remonstrants and Socinians too. For this, Oomius refers to Abraham Heydanus (1597–1678), who in his ‘Test and refutation of the Remonstrant Catechism’, (Proeve en wederlegginghe des remonstrantschen catechismi) formulates the impact of the Remonstrant’s use of the same argumentation as used by the Socinians: “When they [the Remonstrants] continue to build on these arguments, namely those of the Socinians, then after a time this results in a strange kind of theology.”23 Oomius agrees with Heydanus’s words, by giving the following addition: “Really, with the maximum right”, and he asserts that many Reformed theologians have convincingly shown that the Remonstrants derived much of what they said from the Socinians.24 With this evaluation of the Socinians Oomius wholly agrees. Already during his academic education in Utrecht he twice defended the thesis that the Socinians cannot be regarded as Christians. Where they yet are mentioned as such, this must be qualified as a misuse, in a so-called way: “Sociniani non possunt dici Christiani, nisi aequivoce aut catachresticè.” He gave this judgment on the 6th. of December 1651, as the first of thirteen theses, to the exercise disputation Disputatio ex politia ecclesiastica de liturgiis. Pars secunda, held by him under the direction of Gisbertus Voetius. To this Oomius also added, that as a consequence a relationship of fraternity with the Socinians was impossible, and that the free exercise of religion should not be extended to them.25 Following this statement in a second thesis about the Remonstrants, Oomius declared that the Remonstrants were making a serious departure by giving support to the Socinians,– whether secretly or not – and by recommending them as good and pious Christians.26 21 22 23 24 25

Bodecher: 1624. Oomius: ITP 1676, 187. Oomius: 1672 Diss, 307; Heydanus: 1641. Oomius: 1672 Diss, 325. “Et consequenter fraternitas cum iis non est colenda nec liberum religionis excercitium ipsis concedendum.” Oomius: 1651. Also the first of four theses, added by Oomius to the disputation Disputatio theologia in orationem Dominicam. Pars altera, held under supervision of Johannis Hoornbeeck, on 22nd. May 1652. Oomius: 1652-b. 26 Disputatio ex politia ecclesiastica de liturgiis. Pars secunda, thesis 2, held by Oomius on 6th. Dec. 1651: “Unde sequitur admodum errare, & cum iis haut obscurè συγκρητιζεν hodiernos

192

Frank van der Pol

Oomius traces several dogmatic topics in which the Remonstrants are in line with Faustus Socinus (1539–1604), such as the construction of a new and strange understanding of justification, that diminishes the power of grace in man’s conversion, depriving God of the honor due to Him, by making ineffectual the believer’s regeneration and permanent preservation in Christ. He declares that such an Ethica Christiana of human morals lacks the power of the Holy Ghost and cannot be viewed as a genuine conversion. Such alien viewpoints were judged quite rightly by the national Synod, says Oomius. The Remonstrants have further degraded the Genevan mysteries, by modifying these godfearing mysteries by the standard of human reason. As a result, what emerged was: heaven can be merited; belief becomes a work; justification derives from the works; the corruption of mankind is repudiated; the human will is as free to do the good as to do evil; grace is subjected to human will. In summary: God depends on man with such an Ethica Christiana .27 He reports that he has found those opinions in publications of Caspar Barlaeus (1584–1648) and Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus (1582–1650), and in the Remonstrant documents of the Conference of the Hague, as well as in the Remonstrant’s Apology, written by Simon Episcopius (1583–1643).28 From the content of this Apology we can judge that Oomius had already a specific orientation at an early stage. During his theological study in Utrecht he criticized a special part of the document.29 The Remonstrants, like the Socinians, have taken human reason as the standard, while true theology is a mysterious devotion, a wisdom full of mysteries. Oomius is convinced that reason “is distorted through the fall, (…) and certainly too fallible to be a right standard. Furthermore there are mysteries in the Bible which go far above all understanding of reason.”30 Remonstrants like the Socinians do not reach further than the morals of the natural man. Both reject what the Christian religion formulates as a mystery and whatever does not agree with human reason: There they [the Socinians] have (which we also want to apply to the Remonstrants, because in this they follow the Socinians) either disallowed or submit to the number of

27 28 29

30

Remonstrantes, qui illos tanquam bonos & pios Christianos tantopere commendant.” Oomius: 1651. Oomius: 1672 Diss, 308–309. Oomius: 1672 Diss, 323, with sources in margin. Oomius criticized the Apology in his fourth thesis of Disputatio ex politia ecclesiastica de liturgiis. Pars secunda, on 6th. Dec.1651 under Gisbertus Voetius, as follows: “Primus homo à Deo fuit creatus, Justus & sanctus: neque hac inepta & inutilis quaestio habenda est, ut Remonstrantes sermocinatur in Apol. Cap. 5. pag. 60.” Oomius: 1651. Cf Apologia pro Confessione (…) contra Censuram quatuor Professorum Leidensium (s.n, s.l., 1630), Cap. 5, 60, 61; the Remonstrant expression “totam ineptam & inutilem” on 61. Citation from Gregory Schuringa: 2003, 209.

Genevan Mysteries defended

193

those things which are not essentially, all what has something misterous in the Christian religion, and does not corresponds with the human reason.31

To these mysteries, Oomius declares, belong the doctrines of God’s providence and predestination.32 After this explanation he again connects Remonstrants and Socinians, by referring for a second time to Heydanus, who questioned the Remonstrants as follows: “What does Socianism mean others than a denial and apostasy of the Catholic Christian faith?”33

2.1

Further methodological and theological affinity

A central link between Remonstrants and Socinians, thus appeared in the prolegomena Dissertatie, is human rationalism. This link we find back in his manual of practical theology ITP, where Oomius discusses the doctrine of Scripture.34 There Remonstrant as well as Socinians are criticized for their rationalism, although with the Remonstrants it is found more hidden, according to him. He notes, that the Remonstrants too clearly presume that the right meaning and sense of Scripture has to agree with natural reason. Here then Oomius identifies a methodological consensus of both groups, a rationalistic hermeneutical approach of Scripture. Rationalism in exegesis is more about method than substantive argument. But there in ITP also specific doctrinal issues, in which Oomius detects Remonstrant openness to a Socinian direction. This is especially the case in the doctrine of God, where he considers the attributes of God’s Being. Setting out the simplicity of God (simplicitas Dei) he connects both, remarking, that the Remonstrants, by denying this attribute, come ever closer to the Socinian doctrine, as summarized 31 Oomius: 1672 Diss, 327: “Daer op hebben zy – ‘ t welcke wy oock van de Remonstranten verstaen willen hebben, nadien’se de Socinianen in desen vele volgen – alles wat nae eenige verborgentheyt smaeckt in de Christelicke religie, en met het verstant des menschen niet overeen-komt, ofte uytgemonstert, ofte gebraght tot het getal van die dingen, die niet noodtsaeckelick zijn.” 32 Oomius: 1672 Diss, 327: “The great and lovely mysteries of belief, (…), the doctrine of the providence of God, predestination, etc.” (“Die groote en aenbiddelicke verborgentheden des geloofs, (…), de Leere van de Voorsienigheyt Godts, Praedestinatie, &c”). 33 Oomius: 1672 Diss, 327. 34 For this he refers to his master Johannes Hoornbeeck (1617–1666), and to Nicolaus Vedelius (1596–1642). For both Oomius: ITP 1672, 900 gives an exact reference in margin; with regard to Vedelius he refers to De arcanis Arminianismi (libri duo. Seu quaestio, quaenam sit religio & fides theologorum Remonstrantium decisa ex confessione fidei et apologia ipsorum), 2th ed. (Lugduni Batavorum: Franciscus Hegerus, 1632), specifically “Part III of Lib.I, Cap. IVand Part IV of Lib. I, Cap V.”

194

Frank van der Pol

in the Racovian Catechism (1605). Due to this rapprochement the Remonstrants not only depart from the first article of the Confessio Belgica, but also from the doctrine of Christianity as a whole.35 This judgement is substantiated by referring a sentence of the Remonstrant Apology, where it says: “Nihil etiam de simplici Dei natura docent [Scriptures]: quid mirum?De ea ne Jota quidem in Scriptura est.”36 Against the Remonstrant opinion that in Scriptures the simplicity of God is totally absent, Oomius defends the theological use of the term ‘simplicity’, even if the word is not verbatim present in Scriptures. The word can legally be used for the purpose of clarification, to explain the essence of this biblical truth. The decisive point is the reality behind the word, the biblical understanding of the nature of God, because simplicity is one of God’s essential attributes.37 Oomius critically wonders, how it is possible that the Remonstrants in such a way take off and repudiate the simplicity of God.38 He is convinced, that in this point they could better learn from Arminius, who in his Disputationes De natura Dei abundantly asserted God’s simplicity. Oomius’s information to the case is relevant and very correct.39 Because the standpoint of Arminius conform Thesis quarta de Natura Dei (216– 231), is namely as follows: “Quia Dei essentia omnis causae expers est: hinc primo existunt Simplicitas & infinitas Entitatis in Essentia Dei.” (“Because the Being of God is free of all causality, to this first of all appear the simplicity and infinity of the Essence in the Being of God.”) The subsequent thesis even starts with: “Simplicitas est modus supereminens essentiae Dei.” (“The simplicity is the all superlative existence of God.”)40 In this matter, as with Oomius, Arminius has not wanted to be wise beyond the Scriptures. Oomius emphatically indicates, that Arminius in the margin of his philosophical-theological argument gives several references to the Scriptures. Oomius enumerates them all, and he concludes: “From this it is clear how they [the Remonstrants] have far deviated from Ar35 Concerning the Confessio Belgica, Art. 1, Oomius points at: “Nous croyons et confessons qu’il y a un seul Dieu: qui est une seule et simple essence.” 36 Oomius: ITP 1676, 187–189, with in the margin the Latin citation from the Remonstr. Apolog. Cap II, fol. 41. 37 Oomius: ITP 1676, 188 declares: “For the difference is not that the word ‘simplicity’ is used in the Holy Scripture, where is spoken about God, but that the issue itself, and its meaning is to be found there”. (“Want het verschil is niet, of het woordt Eenvoudigheyt, met soo vele letteren, voorkomt in de H: Schriftuyre, als van Godt gesproocken wordt, maer of de saecke selfs, en het beteyckende daer gevonden wordt.”) 38 Oomius: ITP 1676, 188: “How is it possible that the Remonstrants so eagerly remove and delete the simplicity of God?” (“Hoe konnen de Remonstranten soo uytmaecken en soo genoeghsaem uytstampen de Eenvoudigheyt Godts?”) 39 Oomius: ITP 1676, 188, in margin: “Arminius, Disput. De Nat.Dei, Thes. X (pag. mihi), 31.” Perhaps a misprint in the pagenumber, to which Oomius refers here, however his information to the case is very correct. 40 Arminius: 1629, 218.

Genevan Mysteries defended

195

minius’s theology, and have removed their un-practised audiences from his point of view.”41 Further Oomius indicates, that Arminius conciders this godly attribute of God’s simplicity as immensely useful for the practice of theology. However his followers, with the Socinians, exclude this, with all practical consequences for the practice of belief. Oomius indicates that in their Apology, the followers of Arminus have even declared that the dryness and aridity of the disputations about God’s simplicity are greater than that of the soil, and that the issue is a pure speculative doctrine, a dogma not necessary for salvation (“hic acumine toto Metaphysico opus est (…) non est necessarium ad salute dogma.”)42

2.2

Far reaching consequences for the practice of theology

ITP records more deviations from Arminius by his follower. With reference to their Apology, Oomius declares, that the Remonstrants – with Conrad Vorstius (1569–1622)43 and the Socinians – concerning God’s omnipresence and God’s omniscience have choosen the road of error, “although Arminius on this issue still spoke well.”44 According to Oomius, this derogation from Arminius by his disciples and successor Vorstius in Leiden has far-reaching consequences for the practice of theology. He illustrates this by referring to a sentence of Josephus (Contra Appionem), as follows: “One who believes that God is looking at his life, will not dare to sin.”45 The impact on the practice of piety of the Remonstrant’s rejection that God is omnipresent by his essence, is once more stressed by another phrase, one of the churchfather Hieronymus, that says, that the fact that 41 Rom 11:35–36; Hebr 2:10; Isa 40:12, 21; Ps 139:8–12; Jac :17; Oomius: ITP 1676, 188–189. 42 Oomius: ITP 1676, 188, in margin: “Rem. Apolog. Cap II, fol.41.” The sentence “non est necessarium ad salutem dogma” in Apologia fol. 42r. On fol. 41v. this sentence is introduced as a phrase from the Leiden Synopsis Purioris Theologiae , Disp. 3, par. 19, where this phrase indeed is used. Synopsis Purioris Theologiae / Synopsis of a Purer Theology: (2014), 86. So, here for their own opinion the Apologia of the Remonstrants appeals to a phrase of the Leiden Synopsis. 43 Conradus Vorstius with his alleged Socinianism, who had up to then taught at the Gymnasium Academicum of the Count of Bentheim at Steinfurt, was appointed to the chair formerly held by Arminius in Leiden. More about Vorstius, the Leiden Vorstius affair and the overlapping if his position with that of Socianism, see Rohls: 2005, 3–48, esp. 21–30. Explicit connection of Remonstrants and Socinians on the omnipraesentia Dei along with discrepancies between Arminius and his followers: Oomius: ITP 1676, 247–248 (In margine: “Apolog. Remonstr. Cap. III, pag. 43, Armin., Disp de Deo, Thes: XVI.”); see also Oomius: ITP 1676, 251. 44 Oomius’s explicit connection of Remonstrants and Socinians on the omnipraesentia Dei along with discrepancies between Arminius and his followers: Oomius: ITP 1676, 247–248 (In margine: “Apolog. Remonstr. Cap. III, pag. 43, Armin., Disp de Deo, Thes: XVI.”); see also Oomius: ITP 1676, 251. 45 Oomius: ITP 1676, 249, in margin: “Nam qui Deum respicere suam vitam credunt, delinquere non presumunt. Jos: c. Apion. Libr. I.”

196

Frank van der Pol

one is aware of God’s presence, excludes all depravity: “Memoria Dei excludit omnia flagitia.” One has to realize himself to live before an all-seeing and allknowing God.46 Another divine attribute on which Oomius connects the Remonstrants with Socinianism, is God’s foreknowledge. He indicates, that the Remonstrants have declared, that Simon Episcopius had spoken well and with wisdom by doubting God’s foreknowledge. For the service and worship of God it would not be necessarily to believe that God all things – not only the things that have happened, but also the future things – already has known from eternity. The consequences for the practice of belief are enormously, because one who beliefs that God does not know the future things, beliefs in a imperfect God, so Oomius. Further he informs, that Episcopius later on also has asserted, that the believe of divine foreknowledge is not absolutely necessary for one’s salvation. Also contrary to Vorstius Oomius replies, that belief in divine foreknowledge indeed is absolutely useful to the Christian religion and piety.47 Concerning the will of God, Oomius writes in ITP, that the Remonstrants believe that God’s will depends on human acts.48 On this point he renews criticism of their Apology, since this makes God’s power and authority over his creatures dependent on the benefits or the sins of men. Oomius points out, that divine power and authority over creatures is totally absolute and cannot be subject to limitation.49 In the discourse on the trinitarian doctrine within ITP we find a list of traditional heresies in the Christian tradition, in which the Remonstrants along with the Socinians are connected to Michael Servetus (1511–1553). After having cited Calvin’s critics on Servetus because of his denial of the trinitarian mystery, Oomius declares that the Remonstrants come ever closer to the Socinians, who disclaim the mystery and the actions of the three divine Persons. Because, wanting to please the Socinians as their loved brothers, the Remonstrants have declared the doctrine of the Trinity of no use for the practice of piety.50 Again we see that Oomius (like on the issues of the simplicitas, omnipraesentia and omniscientia Dei) makes a differentiation between Arminius and his followers. Arminius derives a real practice of piety from the trinitarian doctrine in his theological disputations, according to Oomius. In his theological disputations Arminius stated, that – worked out by the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost – this divine action brings forth not only a wonderful sweetness in the hearts of the believers, but also very abundant fruits of belief, hope, love, trust, fear and 46 47 48 49 50

Oomius: ITP 1676, 249, in margin: “Hieron. In Ezech. Libr. VII. Ad Cap XXII.” Oomius: ITP 1676, 344–345; with reference to Rem. Apolog. Cap II. Oomius: ITP 1676, 379–380. Oomius: ITP 1676, 591, with reference to Rem. Apolog. Cap IV. Oomius: ITP 1680, 39–46.

Genevan Mysteries defended

197

obedience, resulting in praise to God the Creator, to the Son as Redeemer, and to the Ghost as Sanctifier. After having so positively referred to the opinion of Arminius, Oomius adds with whole-hearted disapproval: “How far have his followers and disciples afterwards deviated from him!”51 A further link between the Remonstrants and Socinians follows where Oomius points to Episcopius’s denial of Christ’s eternal generation as the Son of God from the Father. This is labeled in the following terms: as something new and strange; as a monstrous opinion; as something never before accepted by the Reformed Church; as a form of the vilest idolatry. And in this way the view of Episcopius was consonant with the view of the Socinians.52 Oomius concedes that a Remonstrant like Eduard Poppius (c.1576–1624) and also the Remonstrant Catechism give honor to Christ. However this honor is not based on Christ’s divine nature. This means that an inferior kind of honor is ascribed, one that is essentially less in quality.53 According to Oomius, this doctrine of the Son involves a serious defamation of Christ. Against this Socinian minded Remonstrant position, Oomius clearly takes a stand, again by reference to John Calvin. Several times he cites the Genevan reformer’s commentary on Psalm 2 about the admonition to kiss the Son, to honor and adore Him, to acknowledge and obey Him, and to humbly serve Him.54

2.3

Essentials of Oomius’s Repudiation

Half a century after Dordt, the Dutch doctor of theology Simon Oomius (1630– 1706) criticized Remonstrant slander against the Reformed doctrine. He defended Reformed Orthodoxy while also representing Dutch Reformed Pietism. In his polemics against Remonstrant positions, Oomius defended the so-called Genevan mysteries and identified Remonstrant openness to Socinian influences, which would have far-reaching consequences for the practice of belief. He declared that the Remonstrants in their distance from the so-called Genevan mysteries are approaching the Socinian point of view in the hermeneutic method, in the doctrine of God, especially in the doctrine of divine attributes. Concerning the first, he identifies a methodological consensus of both groups, a rationalistic hermeneutical approach of Scripture. In the doctrine of divine attributes he notes similar opinions about God’s simplicity, omnipresence, omniscience, omnip51 Oomius: ITP 1680, 56; in margin: “[Arminius], Disput. Theolog. VI.” 52 Oomius: ITP 1680, 95. With this the Remonstrants, esp. Episcopius, dissociate from the Nicene Creed, in which the relation of origin is confessed by the church as the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. In the Athanasian Creed this confession is affirmed. 53 Oomius: ITP 1680, 98–99. 54 Oomius: ITP 1680, 107, 110–112.

198

Frank van der Pol

otence, and foreknowledge; furthermore he connects both movements concerning God’s sovereign divine, unchanging, steadfast and reliable will; moreover both groups approach each other in the trinitarian dogma and in the Christology. Working within the framework of his critics, Oomius points to several important differences between Arminius and his followers. In their criticism of the Genevan positions the Remonstrants have not only moved away from their leader Arminius, but also from the Christian doctrine as such. Their opinions have profound consequences for the practice of theology, because the Remonstrant position results in a decline of devotion and piety.

3.

Hiëronymus Vogellius about the disabuses of four Remonstrant ministers

From a second angle we now look at Hieronymus Vogellius’s repudiation of the Remonstrant pamphlet Sincere and Clear Message (‘Oprecht ende Clear Bericht’).55 Since the beginning of 1617 there was in the city of Kampen a Counter-Remonstrant church active.The pamphlet on the subject of predestination, written by four Kampen Remonstrant ministers, was published on 29 September 1617. Eight months later Vogellius responded with his exhaustive, nearly 300 pages counting Sincere and Clear Counter-Message (‘Opreght ende klaer Tegen-beright’, shortened as C–M).56 Both publications date from the vehement conflict between Calvinists and Remonstrants. The Counter-Message played an important part in the procedure of the ecclesiastical courts against the four Remonstrant ministers by the provincial Synod of Overijssel in 1618 and, one year later, by the national Synod of Dordrecht, where Vogellius, “pro tempore ecclesiae orthodoxae Campensis ecclesiastes” was a delegate.57 Finally the four ministers were expelled from office and the Synod of Dordrecht banned their 55 Title of their treatise: Oprecht ende Clear Bericht waer in cortelijck teghens een ander ghestelt is: I. Wat die Predicanten van Campen hier ondergeschreven van die hedensdaechsche verschillen over ‘t stuck van de Praedestinatie met den ancleve van dien, voor die oude Suyvere Waerheijt nae Godes woort, gevoelen. II. Wat die selvige oock daer tegens, als onwaerheijden ende niuwicheijden (uijt verschijdene Schriften van sommighe ten huidigendage Suijvergenoemde Leeraers getrouwelijck uijtgetrocken) van geheeler herten verwerpen, 20pp., small 4o, (Campen: Willem Berendtss in S. Lucas, 1617). A specimen of the treatise is in the city archive of Kampen. 56 Vogellius: (1618). 57 About Vogellius and his writing on the provincial synod, and his delegation to the national Synod of Dordrecht, see Reitsma and Van Veen: (1896), 299, 305f, 310. The citation about his function as a temporary minister in the orothodox church of Kampen, in ibid, 299. Detailed information about his curriculum vitae, social network and importance for the CounterRemonstrant Reformed church of Kampen, in: Groot, de (2016).

Genevan Mysteries defended

199

pamphlet. These depositions concerns (1) Thomas Goswinius, born in Kampen (minister in Kampen 1596–1619), deposit on 24 Apr. 1619; (2) Assuerus Matthisius (1617–1619), deposit on the same 24. Apr. 1619; (3) Johannes Schotlerus (1616–1619), deposit 22 May 1619; and (4) Everardus Voscuilius, (1610–1619), deposit the same date.58 In order to understand the Counter-Message, we firstly consider the pamphlet against which Vogellius writes. Then we focus on C–M. After that it is possible to compare Vogellius’s reaction with that of Simon Oomius.

3.1

Sincere and Clear Message

The pamphlet of the four Kampen Remonstrant ministers contains in the left column their arguments, consisting “the old pure truth, according to the Word of God”, supported by Biblical texts. On every topic, in the right column their sentences are contrasted with citations from Calvinistic theologians that they reject. That “falsehoods and novelties” proceed from publications of, among others, Beza, Calvin, Gomarus, Maccovius, Perkin, Piscator, Polanus, Sturm, Ursinus and Zanchius. In a joint declaration the four Remonstrant ministers “repudiated wholeheartedly” the statements of these theologians. The Remonstrant document has the character of a confession; the preface speaks about “our Confession”.59 Their pamphlet has an extend of 20 pages, printed in two columns, and distributed over fourteen paragraphs, in which they want to protect simple churchgoers against the disabuses of theological innovators. The titlepage mentions: “published, compelled by necessity; as an instruction of the simples, against all such calumny, by which they are falsely slandered about novelties and alteration in the doctrine.” In the prologue the authors characterize their document as “our warning”. The authors claim that their opponents had been “reliable quoted”, or, as they verbalize it on the title-page: “Falsehoods and innovations faithfully extracted from several writings of some nowadays purely-called ministers.”60 However my analysis of their recording and citation technique, especially of John Calvin and his interpretation of predestination, shows that his opinion is represented im58 A detailed rendering of the disciplinary case against the Kampen ministers is found in: Kuyper: 1899, 213–222. During the synod a parcel with one hundred copies of the treatise was seized. Brandt: (1704), 193. 59 Oprecht ende Clear Bericht (1617): “Our Confession” (“Onse Belijdenisse” and “onse Bekentenisse”). 60 “Onwaerheijden ende niuwicheijden (met verscheydene Schriften van sommighe ten huidigendage Suijver genoemde Leeraers getrouwelijck uytgetrocken) van geheeler herten verwerpen.”

200

Frank van der Pol

pure, even in a caricaturing way.61 At least this confirms with regard to Calvin, the being right of the provincial synod of Overijssel, that declared that the four Kampen Remonstrants have misrepresented the words of the criticized theologians: “the words of the true teachers abused, and giving them an opposite meaning.62 In four of the fourteen articles of Sincere and Clear Message they take up their position against Calvin’s interpretation of predestination. Firstly on article II, concerning their thesis that God has, from eternity, elected those who believe in Christ and persist in that belief. Persistency in belief becomes a precondition for election. The fides praevisio is obviously a point of relevance in their regard. On their article IV, Calvin is cited again, pertaining to their thesis that rejection originates from God’s will to demonstrate his power and wrath. God has decided to condemn the unbeliever and the unrepentant to eternal death. According to the Kampen ministers, the decree of rejection depends on the human being who sins and God rejects in unbelief. On article VI Calvin is criticized again, in respect of their thesis that man has been created that he might know his Creator, and live with him in eternal happiness. In paradise, man had the freedom to choose God and to reject evil. The Remonstrants suggest that this freedom continued after the Fall. Finally, on article XII, regarding their thesis that God calls man to salvation and gives everyone sufficient grace to answer this invitation. However, so the Kampen Remonstrants, some people do not make use of this opportunity. The thesius implies that the effect of God’s call depends on man. Our purpose is not to give a detailled description of the Remonstrant attack on Calvin’s doctrine of election. But it is clear that de Kampen Remonstrant in their article II reject unconditionel predestination, and that they teach that God’s decree of election depends on belief, which than manifests itself in good works. However Calvin resolutely rejects election as dependent on a human act of faith and any interpretation of election through Christ with faith as the precondition.63 Concerning the Remonstrant opinion in thesis IV about the basis for God’s reprobation, namely that actual belief is the sole cause of reprobation, it is obvious that they criticise Calvin, for the false new doctrine that reprobation only originates from the pleasure of God. According to them the Genevan reformer sees God’s will as absolute with regard to reprobation. However for Calvin, unbelief and disobedience have two reasons: The reprobates are predestinated to their refusal, at the same time they are responsable for the wickedness and fault of

61 More about their attack on Calvins interpretation of predestination as such in Pol, F. van der (2008), 244–256. 62 “Der getrouwe leeraeren woorden verkerende ende haer contrarie sin aendichtende.” Reitsma en Van Veen: 1896, 300. 63 Kroon, M. de (1996), 136–155, esp.139ff.

Genevan Mysteries defended

201

their hearts.64 Calvin emphatically rejects the notion of God as an absolute and arbitrary power. God is the remote cause, but man is still the proximate cause, in being responsible for his own sin. In his opinion the first and second causes go together and cannot be extricated. On the issue of reprobation he formulates a paradoxical line of God’s irrevocable decree of reprobation of man, who remains responsible. The reprobates are responsible for their own unbelief. In reprobation, God’s inscrutable but righteous judgment is manifest. The Remonstrant ministers unjustly suggest that Calvin chooses for the honor of God at the expense of man. On article VI the Remonstrants reject Calvin because of the false notion that God created the greatest part of man to eternal damnation, that means that some might be damned on purpose. They refer to Institutes 3:21:5 and 3:24:12, and to his interpretation of Romans 9:18. Calvin indeed uses the word creation, but provides sufficient indication that he deals there with the administration of reprobation, not about creation. They are created – here that means born – for eternal damnation. Calvin does not address the cause that moves God to create, but focuses on the destiny for which some are born.65 Finally, connected with article XII of Sincere and Clear Message about reprobation, preaching and the cause of unbelief, Calvin becomes accused, because he would have declared in Institutes 3:24:13 that the goal of God’s preaching was to inflict greater deafness, blindness, stupidity on the reprobates. Vogellius later declares, that the ministers have borrowed this point of criticism from a Remonstrant pamphlet that was reprinted time and again in Kampen, commonly referred to as the “blaspehemous, fire-worthy falsehood-leaflet of Kampen.”66 However Calvin does not speak here in a causal sense, but describes an occasional result through the preaching. In article XII the Kampen Remonstrants raise a second objection against Calvin, namely that God’s reprobation is the principal cause of ones unbelief. This means, that he makes God the author of unbelief. Calvin’s own account, however, is totally different: “The reprobates have to expect a more severe judgement, for they repudiate the evidence of God’s love.”67 According to 64 Calvin: 1559, Inst. 3:24:14 (CO 2, 724): “Quod igitur sibi patefacto Dei verbo non obtemperant reprobi, probe id in malitiam pravitatemque cordis eorum reiicientur”; Calvin, Inst. 3:24:12 (CO 2, 722): “Nobody is lost or victimised undeservedly” (“Affermimus nullos perire immerentes”). 65 See the more detailled explanation in Pol, F. van der: 2008, 251–253. 66 Vogellius: 1618, 183ff. Some time later, the provincial synod of Overijssel uses still more vehement terms against this pamphlet: it is an “ungodly leaflet, in which the doctrine of the Reformed churches has been calumniate in the highest way.” The synod accused the four Kampen Remonstrant authors of Sincere and Clear Message that they had not opposed themselves against the fact that copies of this pamphlet ware publicly showed and sold in their town. Reitsma/Van Veen: 1896, 301. 67 Calvin: 1559, Institutes, 3:24:2 (CO 2, 713): “Quia reprobos menet gravius iudicium, quod testimonium amoris Dei repudient.”

202

Frank van der Pol

him, we must not hold God responsible for disbelief and sin, but human decision and guilt. This Remonstrant attack on Calvin’s view on reprobation is also inaccurate.68 Sincere and Clear Message is a prime example of the pamphlet-genre, which was so popular in this ecclesiastical quarrel. It demonstrates the tactical use of the printing press by opinion leaders, an important issue in the predestinarian controversy in the Netherlands.69 By using Biblical texts for their own opinion, and the wrong interpretation, even distortion of the doctrines of theologians like Calvin, the Kampen ministers try to defend and promote the Remonstrant doctrine. With their pamphlet as basic tool of coloured information about their opponents, the four authors attempt to shape the society in which they live in the direction of their Remonstrant opinion.

3.2

Sincere and Clear Counter-Message

Hiëronymus Vogellius’s exhaustive answer Sincere and Clear Counter-Message (shortened as C–M) became fully involved in the popular pamphlet-genre. In 1619 an anonymous reaction against his C–M was published, with allegations of unfaithfulness. From his side Vogellius published in 1620 a counter-action.70 The Sincere and Clear Counter-Message addresses the fourteen articles of the Remonstrant pamphlet in their entirety, including the quotations from Scripture. Article by article, Vogellius defends the innovations of the Contra-Remonstrants in the form of contra-articles. He examines and responds the Remonstrants (“ondersoekinge ende beantwoordinge”; “naesoekingge ende verdedigingge”). Their pamphlet is mentioned “insincere and dark judgment, and a deception”.71 The authors of the Sincere and Clear Message claime that their opponents are “reliably quoted”. However, Vogellius argues to the contrary, and accuses the 68 A more detailled explanation in Pol, F. van der: 2008, 253–255. 69 Hakkenberg: 1989. More about the function of the pamphlet-genre: Harline: 1987; Harms: 2011. 70 Title of the anonymous pamphlet of 1619: Godslasterlike leere Hieronymi Vogellij, Predikant tot Hasselt, ter goeder trouwe getogen uyt syn boek tege die t’onrecht verworpene Leeraers van Campen, Thomam Goswinium, Everhardum Voscuilium, Assuerum Matthisium ende Iohannem Schotlerum. There are no copies remained, but Vogellius mentions this title on p. 2 of his written counter-action of 1620, published under the title: Korte ende grondige beantwoordingge over xij. artikelen, metten titel van Godslasterlike leere Hieronymi vogellij, tegen zyn Tegenberight, door seker mensche, met aenwas syner ontrouwigheden uytgegeven … tot waerschouwingge ende dienst der eenvoudigen (Amsterdam: voor Cornelis de Haes; Paulus Aertsz. van Ravesteyn, 1620). 71 Against the title Oprecht ende klaer bericht Vogellius labelles their pamphlet as “Onreght ende doncker berechtinge en bedrogh.” Directly after his dedication letter, the first sentence of his Counter Message opens with this label.

Genevan Mysteries defended

203

Remonstrant ministers of caricaturisation of Reformed theologians. On Calvin, for exemple, “false”, and “falsehoods perpetrated against Calvin”, are words that regularly return by him. My investigation of their critique on the Genevan reformer results in the statement, that the four Remonstrant ministers repeatedly have ignored the original purport of his words, and that they intentionally synthesized excerpts from his publications, or leave out parts thereof. Vogellius’s verdict on the incorrect rendering by the four Kampen ministers of their opponent I consider as quite fair and accurately made.72 We now are interested in some aspects of the antithetical line that runs through the Counter-Message of Vogellius, especially concerned to identify how he connects Remonstrantism with Socinianism. In what way does his polemic against the Remonstrant falsehoods differ from that of Simon Oomius? Or is his argument almost the same? So we will compare the manner in which the two Calvinistic critics have drawn a connection between Remonstrantism and Socinianism, one of which was made during the initial phase of the (Counter-) Remonstrant crisis, and the other that was argued half a century later. Already in his dedication-letter Vogellius places the Kampen Remonstrants in a list of heresy-traditions. On four occasions he makes a statement that will inform the political leaders of the province of Overijssel, that the four Kampen ministers are walking on a Pelagian and Socinian path of errors. On the title page and in the text, Vogellius remarks to have found more than “a third of one hundred” points where they can be said to have departed from their duty. He characterizes the influence of these deviating doctrines with a reference to Scriptures (2 Tim. 2, 16–17), calling it a cancer, and by using a biblical war metaphor, declares that he hopes to slay and to overcome the Kampen Remonstrants with the sword of Goliath. Again and again the four ministers are typified as Pelagian-Socinian enemies of the Reformed doctrine, and their articles are repeadedly labelled Pelagian-Socinian.73 With another war metaphor, he says that the Kampen ministers dare to fight in a pseudo-audacious way, a more covert Pelagianism, because they fear that otherwise their Pelagian weapons will shine too clearly and be seen by others.74 The four follow old and new

72 Recent investigation of some other issues than the above mentioned Calvin confirms this evaluation. Groot, de: 2016, 71–84 deals with the fifth chapter of Vogellius’s Counter Message concerning baptism and the issue of the Remonstrant denial of original sin. On p.71 De Groot declares: “Contrary to the Kampen Remonstrants, Vogellius reports the words of his opponents completely and correctly.” 73 For example: Vogellius: 1618, 68, 125, 140, 153, 157, 188, 198–199, 214, 233, 251, 263, and 266– 268. 74 Vogellius: 1618, 193. Vogellius also uses another war metaphor: he asserts that the storming of the Kampen Remonstrants against the unmovable solidity of salvation of the true believers is in vain. Ibid., 244.

204

Frank van der Pol

Pelagian schismatics, and the Polish Socinians are called “their brethren”.75 They are suspected of Vorstian heresies, against which, inter alia, Vogellius refers to Sybrandus Lubbertus (c.1555–1625).76 Lubbertus was a Dutch Calvinist theologian and professor of theology at the university of Franeker, and a prominent participant in the Synod of Dordt. In his De Jesu Christo Servatore libri quatuor contra Faustum Socinum, (Franeker, 1611), and Commentarii ad nonaginta errores, Lubberto a Vorstio (Franeker, 1613) he opposes Socinianism and Arminianism. With respect to the doctrinal debate, Vogellius declares, that the Remonstrants are in line with Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563), the most important author of their slander campaign. They derived their arrows from the man who, in the opinion of Vogellius, falsely accused the reformer of Geneva of having blasphemed God’s goodness with his doctrine of reprobation, by asserting that God created the greatest part of human beings in order to send them to eternal perdition.77 Regarding the doctrine of divine attributes, the Counter-Message informs its readers that within the framework of the doctrine of predestination the Remonstrants teach several heresies: they deny God’s eternal omniscience, his almighty power, the voluntariness of his will, and also the steadfastness of his will.78 With God’s eternal immutability corresponds his simplicity (“van de eenvoudigheyt Gods”), a theme on which Vogellius remarks that the Remonstrants should better learn to fight, because on this issue they could learn from their master Arminius, who in his theses De natura Dei explains that God’s will is the same as his unchangeable essence.79 Furthermore, where Vogellius discusses the irresistable power of God’s will in the work of regeneration, he stresses, that the Remonstrants again neglect the theses on the nature of God set forth by their “patriarch” Arminius. They make the satisfaction of God’s will in regeneration dependent on a people’s will, whereas their master Arminius had clearly explained that no creature can resist the will of God.80 Besides these critical remarks about the Remonstrant opinion of the divine attributes, Vogellius is convinced, that they only have an external, PelagianSocinian vocation; one without effective grace in man. They only speak of ex-

75 Vogellius: 1618, 19, 68, 192. 76 Vogellius: 1618, 7–8. Vogellius remarks influences of Vorstius on the Remonstrants, for example Ibid., 1, 3, 8, 11, 13, 19–20, 44–48, 112, 209–210, 216–217. 77 Vogellius: 1618, 93–96. More on this in Pol, F. van der (2008), 251–253. 78 Vogellius: 1618, 91. 79 Ibid., 5. 80 Ibid., 209, in margin: “De natura Dei, these 58.”

Genevan Mysteries defended

205

ternal preaching of law and gospel. Such a vocation without inward effectiveness lacks the regenerating power of the Holy Ghost.81 A further critical point is found in the Remonstrant thinking about atonement. They think man himself has the power and quality of reconciliation. They held to an atonement by human effort, just like the Socinians; that means a general atonement, with Christ only functioning as a moral example. To be moderate at this point, namely to hold to an atonement other than by Christ, so Vogellius asserts, would mean to fall into Socinianism.82 The Counter-Message informs that the Kampen Remonstrants openly have declared, that both, the act of salvation, as well as the act of believing, depends on man instead of on God and his will.83 They held to a conviction about conversion that it is based on the natural freedom of the human will, and they thus believe in a resistable grace.84 Vogellius asks: what does such a grace in addition to Christ mean other than to drive the boat with full sail to the Socinians?85 According to Vogellius such a sufficient grace, forthcoming out of the natural ability of the free will, is totally Socinian. This Christ-denying Socinian grace deprecates God’s honor, is blasphemous, and a pure deception of simple believers. With this the Remonstrants take away the certainty and firmness of salvation, because with such a conditional grace believers can sin in such a way that they can fall out of the state of grace.86 With their denial of the perseverance and salvation of those predestined, the Kampen Remonstrants take away God’s trustworthiness and they forsake Christ.87 God’s faithfulness is at stake, because his ultimate decision would be dependent upon creature. 81 Ibid., 156–157, 194–195. 82 Ibid., 131–132. 83 Ibid, 188: “With the Pelagians and Socinians belief and salvation are clearly ascribed to the human being, so that belief and salvation not depend upon God and his will, but belongs to the ability of man and his corrupted will.” (“Is opentlijck metten Pelagianen ende Socinianen het gheloove ende de salighwordinge te stellen aen den mensche, alsoo dattet niet aen Godt ende sijnen wille, maer aen den mensche ende sijnen verdorven wille sta, dat hy gheloove ende saligh worde.”) 84 Vogellius: 1618, 196: “and further, that man himself operates his conversion (…) by his remaining natural freedom of his will, and thus his conversion (as his action) wants, promotes, and completes.” (“ende dat de mensche selfs voorts zijne bekeeringe bewerket (…) door zijne overgeblevene natuerlike vryheyt des willens, ende also zijne bekeeringe (als zijn werk) willet, voorderet, ende voleyndet.”); C–M, 197: “that the human being is able to resist this action of the grace of God regarding his conversion.” (“dat de mensche dese werkinghe der ghenaden Godts tot zijne bekeeringhe (…) mede kan wederstaen.”); C–M, 198: “Ergo, thus, according to this Kampen Remonstrant doctrine, conversion and salvation is in man’s power and free choise.” (“Ergo so staet de bekeeringhe ende saligheyt, nae deser Kamper Remonstranten leere, in des menschen maght ende Vrijen-keur.”) See also Ibid., 204–205. 85 Ibid., 214: “Is this not travelling with big sails to the Socinianism (…)?” 86 Ibid., 227–228, 233. 87 Ibid., 245.

206

Frank van der Pol

In short, Vogellius finds that the Kampen Remonstrants have changed the Christian, Catholic religion in the hated Pelagian-Socinian direction. With their malicious and comfortless belief they are false guides, blind leaders, dark stars. They teach another gospel, a Christ-neglecting doctrine, about which Vogellius expresses a curse, the anathema of Galatians 1, 8 and also with the curse from 1 Corintians 16, 22.88

4.

Oomius and Vogellius: two repudiations of Remonstrant attacks on Calvinistic interpretation of predestination. A comparison

Now we have investigated Oomius’s retrospective interpretation of the (Counter-)Remonstrant conflict, and Vogellius’s reaction to the pamphlet of the four Kampen Remonstrant ministers, we are able to compare the views of both Calvinistic theologians. We have to keep in mind that there are important differences between both polemicists, because they are writing in a quite different theological context and with different interests. Unlike the ITP of Oomius, the central theme of Vogellius’s Counter-Message is not the practice of piety, but the issue of predestination within the context of the Remonstrant debate. We also should not ignore the fact that there are differing structures to both publications. Oomius produces a systematic handbook on practical theology. It was unfinished and restricted to the doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of God. Vogellius monitors four Kampen Remonstrant ministers and their fourteen articles, in the left column supported by Biblical texts, and in the right column contrasted with citations from Calvinistic theologians that they rejected. Vogellius’s CounterMessage attacks their “innovations” article by article, as anticritiques.

88 Ibid., 251: “However, they take this (grace of God) in the ability of man’s natural free will, and thus, with those Pelagians and Socinians, with the act of their doctrine, the grace of God in Christ, they take away Christ himself (as much as they can); and, in taking away the love to the Lord Jesus Christ by not teaching this, this their doctrine teaches another gospel. So, with the apostle we curse this doctrine with the Anathema, Maranatha, Galat. 1.8, 1 Cor. 16.22.” (“Maer die sy stellen in het gebruyk des natuerlijken vrijen willes des menschen, ende also met die Pelagianen ende Socinianen met die daet hearer leere die genade Gods in Christo, Christum selve (soo vele in haer is) weghnemen: ende alsoo dese haere leere, die liefde tot den Heere Jesum Christum niet en leert, leert een ander Evangelium, soo segghen wy die selve leere met den Apostel, den vloek. Anathema, Maran-atha, Galat. 1.8, 1 Cor. 16.22”).

Genevan Mysteries defended

4.1

207

Commonalties

Notwithstanding the difference in context, the main topic and the structure of both publications, a significant degree of commonalty can be identified between Oomius and Vogellius. Both speak of the Remonstrant slander against the Reformed doctrine, especially against the Genevan formulation of the doctrine of predestination, and both authors identify the Remonstrants as decided adversaries of the Genevan reformer, John Calvin. In their opinion the Remonstrants (like Tilenus, Slatius, Grevinchoven, and the four Kampen Remonstrants) have construed a self-satisfied tyrannical ruler from heaven as the ideal type of the Calvinistic God, a construction of Remonstrant thinking about the Genevan reformer. On the contrary, Oomius as well as Vogellius reject that God’s will is ‘complacent’, a term usually a synonym for ‘smug’ and ‘self-satisfied’; so an attribute that is usually negative in connotation. To both God’s pure will and free choise to save believers and reprobate unbelievers is not complacent, but decided or decisive. His will and decree is pure, steadfast, solid, trustworthy, and as such good.89 In both publications we find references to other Reformed theologians who have shown that the Remonstrants took over a lot of Socinian teaching. Focusing on that theme, both record that the Remonstrants refer to the Socinians as their loved brothers, and both place the Remonstrants with the Socinians in a heresytradition. Many of the same topics are mentioned by both to underpin the charge of Remonstrant openness to Socianism, such as justification by works, free choice of the human will, God’s dependency upon man, the lessening of the power of grace in human vocation and conversion. Both evaluate the Remonstrant vocation and conversion as being false since it makes ineffective the regeneration and preservation in Christ. Both mention as a consequence, that the Remonstrant conversion lacks the regenerating power of the Holy Ghost. Both declare that the Remonstrant’s atonement and salvation depends on man instead of upon God and his will; man himself has the power and quality of reconciliation; they held a general atonement by human efforts, a grace that is extra to Christ, just like the Socinians. This Christ-denying Socinian grace, with Christ only as a moral example, results in an Ethica Christiana, forthcoming out of the natural ability of the human will. Both link the Remonstrants with the Socinian trinitarian doctrine. Both see the Socinian influence especially at work in the attributes of God’s Being: his simplicity, omnipresence, omniscience, foreknowledge, omnipotence, his volun-

89 Just like the liberum beneplacitum of the voluntas Dei in the Dordt Canones I, 7 and III/IV, 7.

208

Frank van der Pol

tariness, the immutability and steadfastness of his will. Both declare, that the Remonstrants are convinced that man can resist the will of God. Both points to important differences between Arminius and his followers, and evaluate the Remonstrant position on the nature of God as a moving away from this foreman. In short: working within a different framework of their critics, Vogellius and Oomius have the shared opinion that the Remonstrant position with its Christ-neglecting doctrines teach another gospel. Like Socinianism this position means a denial and apostasy of the Catholic Christian faith.

4.2

Differences

When we compare Vogellius’s critique with that of Oomius half a century later, there are only a few differences. The recontextualisation primarily exists with more stress being given to the consequences for the practice of piety, which is understandably typical for the period of Reformed Pietism. A second point of difference is the greater attention to rationalism in the exegesis. Probably this is explicable in terms of the increasing criticism of the influence of the rationalism of René Descartes (1596–1650). The Institutiones theologiae practica of Simon Oomius is a specimen of Reformed Orthodoxy, and contends in an exhaustive way with the arguments of the Cartesian position. In his ITP Oomius provides exhaustive criticism of the Cartesian starting point, universal doubt and the primacy of an autonomous human spirit, which only recognizes as true what is clare and distincte.90 Here he repeatedly cites Descartes’s Discours de la méthode, his Meditationes de prima philosophiae, and Principia philosophiae. Oomius declares: “Philosophers should not be followed blindly in everything, because the light of nature and reason does not coincide with Scripture, Christian faith and the light of grace.” This argument leads to the rejection of a considerable number of propositions put forward by the followers of Descartes. According to Oomius the followers of “Sanctus Cartesius” clearly do violence to theology. “This results in an intolerable Cartesian correction of the Scriptures and theology.”91 Thirdly, there is a difference in emotional load. Vogellius’s polemic, dating from the initial phase of the Remonstrant crisis, has a more vitriolic tone than Oomius’s repudiation. The title-page of his Counter-Message give notice of “atrocious heresy”. The dedication already contains 18 exclamation marks, a strong indication of the persuasive intention of his treatise. The author condemns the Remonstrant rendering of for example John Calvin as “altogether a 90 Oomius: Diss 1672, 407, Oomius: ITP 1676, 84–94. 91 Pol, F. van der (2012), esp. ‘Cartesian innovations’ (329–333), citations from 329, 333, 335.

Genevan Mysteries defended

209

betrayal” (71), “a violent treachery” (72), “maliciously composed” (90). Their condemnation contains “untrue assertions” (90), is “cheating” (90), a “ungodly denial” (90), “pagan, even more than epicurean godlessness” (91). The Remonstrants are “very false” (92), “unjustly cursing” (94). They commit “shamefull dishonesty” (109), are “guilty of bad faith” and are “suspicious” (75). They “falsely sound the alarm” (114). Their opinion is a “scandalous deception” (71), etc. We already indicate that for Vogellius the doctrines of the Remonstrants are characterized as a cancer, and that he used several war metaphors against the Pelagian-Socinian enemies of the Reformed doctrine. Vogellius repeatedly uses the rhetoric of violence which relies upon persuasive phrases that were inherent in the actual tension of the period known as the predestinarian controversy.

4.3

Sophismatum Socinianorum

The comparative analysis of the two discourses clearly shows that both critics of the Remonstrants share in a common description of Remonstrant openeness to and connection with Socinianism. Looking to the four Remonstrant ministers of Kampen however, it is noteworthy that one of them, Johannes Schotlerus, shortly before he arrived in the Overijssel city, in a disputation defended several antiSocinian theses. The theses of this disputation, in 1613 held at the Gymnasium Illustre Arnoldinum in Steinfurt under Hermann Ravensberger (1586–1625), is published under the title Sophismatum Socinianorum.92 In this discourse Schotlerus – at that time preacher in the Westphalian Ladbergen – criticizes several Socinian fallacies and specious arguments (“speciose fluenta Socini”) of the “Novatores isti Sociniani”, especially their denial of Christ’s essential unity with the Father. Schotlerus is convinced, that “Christus cum Deo Patre unum est, non tantum unitate concordiae et voluntatis consensu, sed etiam unitate essentiae et nature”; “Summa et Scopus totius Disputationis (…) Ergo Christus unigenitus Dei Filius, est verus, aeternus & unus ille Deus Israëlis.” Schotlerus labels the opinion of Faustus Socinus cum suis – called “moderni Antitrinitarii”, with their “nova monstra novi Arianismi”, and “objecta Samosateniana ” – as blasphemous, a vain delusion (“somnium”), and the hissing of a serpent (“sibilus serpentinus”). In the disputation Schotlerus specifically attacks the Unitarian leader Christophorus Ostorodus (ca. 1566–1611), who – together with the minister Andreas Voidovius – in 1597/98 visited Amsterdam and Leiden. They were the first So92 Schotlerus (1613). I like to thank Erik A. de Boer, who presented me a copy of the text. The disputation was held under Hermann Ravensperger, the succeeder (1612) of Vorstius in Steinburg. About the affairs around Vorstius, the reputation of the Steinfurt school and her students as a result of these, and the activities of Ravensperger against supposed Socinian influences in Steinfurt: see Abels (2003), 99–129.

210

Frank van der Pol

cinians who came to the Netherlands. Their visit means the beginning of a vehement Socinian debate in the Dutch Republic. Socinian books Ostorodus and Voidovius brought with them, became sensured and should be burnt in their presence, and both were expelled from the Netherlands.93 Ostorodus was editor of the Polish Unitarian Confession, and also had written a critical disputation against the anti-Socinian Georgius Tradelius (1530–1598), who had previously attacked the Unitarian leader. In his theses Schotlerus refers to both publications and criticized them.94 In his denial of two sophisms of Ostorodus, Schotlerus also denounced Faustus Socinus’ Disputatio de unigeniti filii Dei existentia (1595). On the other hand, in his condemnation Schotlerus referred to several “devout and erudite men” (hoc viri pietate & eruditione insignes) like Zacharias Ursinus (1534–1583) and Franciscus Junius (1545–1602). The latter because of his defense of the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. He also refers to the commentaries of David Paraeus (1548–1622) of Heidelberg, and he makes reference to the Dutch antiSocinian Sybrandus Lubbertus (ca. 1555–1625), professor in Franeker. So it is rather inconceivable, that shortly afterwards this Schotlerus had become a Socinian-minded theologian. It seems more obviously, that the polemics of the counter-Remonstrant Vogellius against the four Remonstrant ministers, and in the same line Oomius half a century later too, have portrayed the Remonstrants in an exaggerated way as Socinians, more than they actually were.95 On this point their Calvinistic Reformed reaction looks like a somewhat excessive construct. Nevertheless, their critical analysis is quite right in linking both currents.96

93 Rohls (2005), 21–22. 94 “Sophisma Primum. Ostorodus in Confess. germ. & respons contra Tradelium.” Ostorodus wrote Unterrichtung von den vornembsten Hauptpuncten der Christlichen Religion, in welcher begriffen ist fast die gantze Confession oder Bekanntniss der Gemeinen im Königreich Polen, Großfu¨ rstenthumb Littawen, un[d] anderen zu der Kron Polen geho¨ renden Landschafften, welche … verächtlicher weise, wiewol mit höchster unbilligkeit, Arrianer un[d] Ebionite[n] genennet werde[n], Rackau: S. Sternatzki, 1604, repr.1612, 1625. Digital ed.Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, consulted 8. March 2016. Ostorodus also wrote a treatise against Tradelius in which he denied Christ’s devine nature: Disputatio Christophori Ostorodi, wider Georgen Tradeln (…). Zum andern mal gedruckt, (Rackau: S. Sternatzki, 1625). The addition “Zum andern mal gedruckt” means that Schotlerus must have used a more previous edition than that of 1625. Ostorodus’s disputation against Tradelius was printed too after 1625; (in 1652 there appeared still another edition in Rackau). 95 Although lateron Schotlerus, in his confession and reconsiliation with the Reformed church of Kampen, declared that some Remonstrants disbelieved the Trinity. Biesterveld (1900), 86– 101, esp. 94. 96 About the ‘in-betweens’ of Socianism and Arminianism of Dutch Remonstrants, inter alia the relationship of anti-Trinitarianism and the Dutch Remonstrants as a current in reformed Protestantism see Rohls (2005), 3–48.

Genevan Mysteries defended

5.

211

Bibliography

Abels, Paul, H.A.M. (2003), ‘Een kweekvijver met troebel water. De betekenis van het Arnoldinum te Steinfurt voor de Nederlandse en Bentheimse gereformeerde kerken in de jaren 1588–1618’, in: P.H.A.M. Abels, G.J. Beuker, Nederland en Bentheim. Vijf eeuwen kerk aan de grens, Delft: Eburon, 99–129. Arminius, Jacobus (1629), Opera Theologica, Lugduni Batavorum: Godefridus Basson. Biesterveld, P. (1900), ‘De herroeping en schuldbekentenis van Johannes Schotlerus, predikant te Kampen (1623)’, in: Tijdschrift voor Gereformeerde Theologie, 7 (1900), 86–101. Bodecher, N. (1624), Sociniano-Remonstrantismus, hoc est evidens Demonstratio, qua Remonstrantes cum Socinianis sive reipsa, sive verbis, sive etiam methodo in pluribus Confessionis suae partibus consentire ostenditur, Leiden: Jacob Marcus. Brandt, G. (1704), Historie der Reformatie, Bd. III, Rotterdam: Barent Bos. Calvin, J. (1559), Institutio Christianae religionis, III, (CO2), Geneva: Stephanus. Deursen, A.Th. van (1974), Bavianen en Slijkgeuzen, Assen: Van Gorcum. Groot, Jac. de (2016), Oprecht en duidelijk onderzoek naar de betekenis van Hieronymus Vogellius voor de oude ware gereformeerde kerk van Kampen, Kampen: onpubl. masterthesis, Theol Univ. Kampen. Hakkenberg, M.A. (1989), The predestinarian controversy in the Netherlands, 1600–1620, diss. Univ. California: Berkeley. Harline, C.E. (1987), Pamphlets, printing, and political culture in the early Dutch Republic, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. Harms, R. (2011), Pamfletten en publieke opinie. Massamedia in de zeventiende eeuw, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Heydanus, Abraham (1641), Proeve en wederlegginghe des remonstrantschen catechismi, (2th ed), Leyden: Paulus Aertsz van Ravesteyn, David Iansz van Ilpendam. Kroon, M. de (1996), ‘De predestinatie naar haar bipolaire structuur’in: M. de Kroon, De eer van God en het heil van de mens. Bijdrage tot het verstaan van de theologie van Johannes Calvijn naar zijn Institutie, Leiden: Groen, 136–155. Kuyper, H.H. (1899), De Post-Acta van de Nationale Synode Dordrecht 1618–19, Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser. Oomius, Simon (1651), Disputatio ex politia ecclesiastica de liturgiis. Pars secunda, Ultrajecti: Johannis à Waesberge. Oomius, Simon (1652-a), Disputatio theologica in Orationem Dominicam. Pars prior, Ultrajecti: Joannis Waesberg. Oomius, Simon (1652-b), Disputatio theologia in orationem Dominicam. Pars altera, Ultrajecti: Johannis à Waesberge. Oomius, Simon (1666), Schriftuerlijcke Prognosticatie, ofte Voor-beduydtselen van Godts naerderende Oordeelen over Landen en Luyden. Tot waerschouwinge voor d’Ingesetenen deser Nederlanden, 8o, (24), 328 pp, Amsterdam: Hieronymus Sweerts. Oomius, Simon (1672, Diss.), Dissertatie van de Onderwijsingen in de Pracktycke der Godgeleerdheid, Bolsward: Samuel van Haringhouk.

212

Frank van der Pol

Oomius, Simon (1672, ITP), Institutiones theologiae practicae, ofte onderwijsingen in de practycke der godgeleerdheid. Eerste deels, eerste boeck, vervattende de verhandelinge der theologia didactica, Bolsward: Samuel van Haringhouk. Oomius, Simon (1676, ITP), Institutiones Theologiae Practicae, ofte onderwijsingen in de practycke der godtgeleertheydt. Eerste tractaet des tweeden boecks van het eerste deel, vervattende de verhandelinge der theologia didactica, Bolsward: Weduwe van Samuel van Haringhouk. Oomius, Simon (1680, ITP), Institutiones theologiae practicae, ofte onderwijsingen in de practycke der godtgeleertheydt. Vervolgh van het eerste tractaet des tweeden boecks van het eerste deel, vervattende de verhandelinge der theologia didactica, Schiedam: Laurens van der Wiel. Oomius, Simon (1707), Cierlijke Kroon en Krans des grijsen en goeden Ouderdoms, so uit de Heilige Historien, als uit die der Hebreen, Grieken, Romeinen, Franse, Engelse, Hoogduitse, Nederlandse, en veele andere gevlogten, en seer kragtig toegepast tot betragtinge van een deftig leven, door Simon Oomius. In sijn leven S.S. Theol. Doctr. en Bedienaar des Goddelijken woorts in de Gemeente J.C. tot Campen, 8o, (12), 498 pp, Leiden: Daniel van den Dalen. Oprecht ende Clear Bericht (1617), waer in cortelijck teghens een ander ghestelt is: I. Wat die Predicanten van Campen hier ondergeschreven van die hedensdaechsche verschillen over ‘t stuck van de Praedestinatie met den ancleve van dien, voor die oude Suyvere Waerheijt nae Godes woort, gevoelen. II. Wat die selvige oock daer tegens, als onwaerheijden ende niuwicheijden (uijt verschijdene Schriften van sommighe ten huidigendage Suijver-genoemde Leeraers getrouwelijck uijtgetrocken) van geheeler herten verwerpen, 20pp., small 4o, Campen: Willem Berendtss in S. Lucas. Ostorodus, Christophorus (1604, repr. 1612, 1625), Unterrichtung von den vornembsten Hauptpuncten der Christlichen Religion, in welcher begriffen ist fast die gantze Confession oder Bekanntniss der Gemeinen im Königreich Polen, Großfu¨ rstenthumb Littawen, un[d] anderen zu der Kron Polen geho¨ renden Landschafften, welche … verächtlicher weise, wiewol mit höchster unbilligkeit, Arrianer un[d] Ebionite[n] genennet werde[n], Rackau: S. Sternatzki. Ostorodus, Christophorus (1625), Disputatio Christophori Ostorodi, wider Georgen Tradeln (…). Von der Gottheit des Sohns Gottes / vnsers Herren Jesu Christi / vnd des Heiligen Geistes. Zugleich auch von der reinigung vnser su¨ nden durch Jesum Christum (…). Zum andern mal gedruckt, Rackau: S. Sternatzki, 1625. Pol, F. van der (2008), ‘A “Sincere and Clear Message”. Four Remonstrant Ministers Against the Falsehoods and Innovations of Calvin’, in: H.J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres. Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 244–256. Pol, F. van der (2012), ‘The Orthodox Reformed Pietist Simon Oomius and his relationship to philosophy, esp. in his ‚“Dissertatie” (1672) and “Institutiones theologiae practicae” (1672–1680)’, in: G. Frank, H.J. Selderhuis (Hsg.), Philosophie der Reformierten, Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 323–336. Pol, F. van der (2015), ‘Een gereformeerd-orthodoxe, piëtistische benadering van remonstrantse posities en Geneefse mysteries’, in: J. van de Kamp, A. Goudriaan, W. van Vlastuin (ed.), Pietas reformata. Religieuze vernieuwing onder gereformeerden in de

Genevan Mysteries defended

213

vroegmoderne tijd. Feestbundel voor prof.dr. W.J. op ’t Hof, Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 79–90. Pol, F. van der (2016), ‘Simon Oomius’, in W.J. op ’t Hof e.a.(ed.), Encyclopedie Nadere Reformatie, Vol. II, Utrecht: De Groot Goudriaan, 151–159. Reitsma, J. and Van Veen, S.D. (1894), Acta der Provinciale en Particuliere Synoden, III, Groningen: J.B. Wolters. Reitsma, J. and Van Veen, S.D. (1896), Acta der Provinciale en Particuliere Synoden, V, Groningen: J.B. Wolters. Rohls, J. (2005), ‘Calvinism, Arminianism and Socianism in the Netherlands until the Synod of Dordt’, in: M. Mulsow, J. Rohls (ed.), Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists, and cultural exchange in seventeenth-century Europe, Leiden: Brill, 3–48. Schotlerus, Johannes (1613), Par unum sophismatum Socinianorum, ad amussim veritatis examinatorum. In lucem datum et censurae ulteriori in Illustri Schola Benthemica Steinfurtensi expositum. Praeside Hermanno Ravenspergero, Steinfurti: Theoph. Caesar. Schuringa, G.D. (2003), Embracing Leer and Leven: The theology of Simon Oomius in the context of Nadere Reformatie orthodoxy, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Mich. [s.n.]. Slatius, H. (1619), Den ghepredestineerden dief, ofte Een t’samensprekinge ghehouden tusschen een predicant der Calvinus-gezinde, ende een dief, die gesententieert was om te sterven, s.l., s.n., [1619]. Synopsis Purioris Theologiae / Synopsis of a Purer Theology (2014), Dolf te Velde (ed.), Leiden – Boston: Brill. Tilenus, Daniel (1622), Canones synodi Dordracenae. Cum notis & animadversionibus Dan. Tileni. Adjecta sunt ad calcem Paralipomena ad Amicam collationem quam cum Dan. Tileno ante biennium institutam nuper publicavit Io. Camero, Paris: Nicolas Buon. Tilenus, Daniel (1623), De leere der synoden van Dordrecht ende Alez ghestelt op de proeve van de practijcque, ofte ghebruyck, waer in onder andere verborgentheden ontdeckt wordt een seer licht middel, om den mensch onsterflijck te maecken in dese werelt, s.l, s.n. [Na de copye ghedruckt tot Parys]. Vogellius, H. (1618), Opreght ende klaer Tegen-beright tegen ’t Libel by den Kamperen Remonstrantschen leeraren Thomam Goswinium, Everardum Voscuilium, Assuerum Matthisium, Iohannem Schutlerum in druk verveerdight, onder den schonen titel van Opreght ende claer berigt (etc.), Amsterdam: Marten Jansz. Brandt, in de Ghereformeerde Catechismus.

Henk van den Belt

Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Reformed Orthodox Doctrine of Predestination

I have deliberately refrained from drawing any quotations and justifications from the Synod of Dordrecht. This I have done for in this confession there are really harsh statements that, rather than clarifying the matter in itself only obscure it, and that arose only on account of the fact that people there engaged with vacuous skill for disputation questions that were not derived from a clear perception of the matter.1

Exactly two hundred years after the Synod of Dort one of the leading theologians in Germany, Friedrich Schleiermacher, expresses this negative view of the Synod. Schleiermacher based his On the Doctrine of Election, a defense of the Reformed doctrine of election over against some Lutheran misrepresentations exclusively on John Calvin’s Institutes, because they were entirely free from the empty Disputirkunst that characterized the theology of the Canons of Dort. This makes one curious why this theological giant is so negative about the later Reformed theology and places Calvin against the Calvinists. Schleiermacher’s doctrine of election has recently been the object of scholarly research. This research understandingly focusses on Schleiermacher’s relationship to John Calvin, on the theological context of the union of Lutheran and Reformed churches, or compares Schleiermacher’s view with that of Karl Barth.2 Not much research, however, has been done on Schleiermacher’s assessment of Reformed Orthodoxy, the Post-Reformation Reformed theology of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This paper intends to analyze the relationship between the nineteenth century theologian and the orthodox Reformed doctrine of predestination. The source for this analysis is Schleiermacher’s essay U¨ ber die Lehre von der Erwa¨hlung; besonders in Beziehung auf Herrn Dr. Bretschneiders Aphorismen (1819). Given the fact that Schleiermacher expressly mentions the Synod of Dort 1 Schleiermacher: 2012, 97. Henceforth only the page numbers of the English translation of On the Doctrine of Election will be mentioned. For the German original of Über die Lehre von der Erwählung see Schleiermacher: 1990. 2 For some examples see Gockel: 2007; Hagan: 2014; Herms: 2009; and McDonald: 2012.

216

Henk van den Belt

this paper will compare his position with the Leiden Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (1625), which articulates the Reformed theology of the Synod and contains a specific disputation on predestination (Van den Belt: 2016). It will assess Schleiermacher’s view of Reformed Orthodoxy from the two angles of the relationship of election and foreseen faith and the place of election in the theological system.

1.

¨ ber die Lehre von der Erwa¨hlung U

In his response to the Lutheran theologian Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider (1776– 1848), Schleiermacher clearly shows that the Calvinian theory of election, as he calls it, flows consistently from the reformational principle of sola gratia, or as he emphasizes from “the complete incapacity of human beings to better themselves” (24). He agrees with Bretschneider that one has either to accept or reject both. His Lutheran opponent opts for the rejection and Schleiermacher for the acceptance. In his essay Schleiermacher proves that it is inconsistent to advocate “the antiPelagian Augsburg Confession as the safeguard of the Lutheran church but reject out of hand Calvin’s strict view of gracious election as a dangerous doctrine which can never be accepted” (26). The historical context of Bretschneider’s Aphorismen über die Union der beiden evangelischen Kirchen in Deutschland, ihre gemeinschaftliche Abendmahlsfeier, und den Unterschied ihrer Lehre and Schleiermacher’s response in his U¨ ber die Lehre von der Erwa¨hlung lies in the Prussian union of the Lutheran and Reformed churches effected by Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia (1770–1840). Though both theologians advocated the union, their views of the way in which the theological controversies should be solved, differed completely. Bretschneider argued that the Lutherans in general had drawn closer to a Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper by distancing themselves from the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that the Reformed in general had already abandoned the doctrine of predestination (Bretschneider: 1819, VI). Completely in line with the Enlightenment’s emphasis on human responsibility he proposed that both sides forget about the Lutheran and Reformed presupposition of the servum arbitrium and accept human freedom as a basis of true religion. Human beings must be able to effect their salvation by making the right choices and the Reformed doctrine of grace ultimately make ethics meaningless, “by destroying the moral nature of human beings” (Bretschneider: 1819, VI). His concept was in complete agreement with the view of Immanuel Kant that the natural religion rests in the human capacity for moral improvement (Cf. Herms: 2009, 220).

Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Reformed Orthodox Doctrine of Predestination

217

To understand the context of Schleiermacher’s remarks on Reformed Orthodoxy a very short summary of his U¨ ber die Lehre von der Erwa¨hlung might be helpful. In the first place he argues that the Lutheran concept of predestination grounded on foreseen faith does not differ from the Reformed view, provided that the faith God foresees is exclusively understood as a gift or work of God. Something foreseen by God is always also something ordained by God, if you trace it back far enough. It is important for the understanding of Schleiermacher’s view of Reformed Orthodoxy that he does not make a clear distinction between God’s foreknowledge and God’s will. This opinion seems to flow from his understanding of the way in which God’s eternal decree unfolds in the process of history. After proving that foreknowledge implies predestination Schleiermacher addresses four Lutheran objections against the implications of the Reformed view. 1) The objection that it is harmful for true piety is not correct because Calvin’s concept presupposes the union with Christ and the renewal of the Spirit. 2) The objection that it contradicts moral freedom is at least as true for the Lutheran position. 3) The many exhortations in Scripture do not contradict the Reformed view, for these incitements lead to the acknowledgement of one’s own inability and to the desire for their fulfillment. 4) Finally, he counters the main objection that the Reformed view of predestination conflicts with the universality of God’s redemptive will by showing that this is in fact only a difference in expression “the one church says that some will not be saved because God did not will to grant them faith whereas the other church says that some will not be saved because God foresaw that they would not accept faith” (51). And there is no real difference between these positions, because foreknowledge implies predestination. In his further analysis he expresses his feeling that the main reason for the Lutheran rejection of the Reformed doctrine of predestination might be the understandable hesitance to ground the damnation of certain people immediately in the will of God. This can be solved by distinguishing between the antecedent and consequent will of God – that is the antecedent general will to save all and the consequent will to save the believers – or by asserting that the will of God only pertains to those who are elected and not to the lost. Schleiermacher rejects these solutions because they either contradict the unity of God or lead to a Manichean limitation of the will of God and of God himself. At the end of the booklet U¨ ber die Lehre von der Erwa¨hlung Schleiermacher offers his own view, which he later unfolds in Der christliche Glaube. The most important renewal of the Reformed concept of election lies in Schleiermacher’s conviction that election and rejection are part of one single divine decree. Election and rejection do not apply to two groups of human beings, but “the election and rejection of individuals are simply the two contrasted yet in each

218

Henk van den Belt

instance correlated aspects of one and the same decree, whereby through divine power, yet in a natural way, the human race is to be transformed into the spiritual body of Christ” (75–76). This divine decree unfolds historically along with the spread of the Word of God by the church. Those who are grasped by the power of the gospel apparently are elect and those who are not yet grasped by it may be called reprobate. In his U¨ ber die Lehre von der Erwa¨hlung Schleiermacher presents his position as very congenial with Calvin’s theology. A close comparison of his views with Reformed Orthodoxy will prove helpful to assess his claim of continuity with Calvin.

2.

The Scholastic Method

In his U¨ ber die Lehre von der Erwa¨hlung Schleiermacher refers to some Lutheran theologians like Johann Gerhard (1582–1637), but does not engage explicitly with any representative of Reformed Orthodoxy, citing exclusively from John Calvin’s Institutes. The same is true in his paragraphs on election in the Christliche Glaube.3 Schleiermacher does, however, refer to the representatives of Reformed Orthodoxy more implicitly. At the very beginning of his essay he compares Calvin with the later Reformed theologians that defended him against Arminianism (22). Schleiermacher makes an insightful comparison between Augustine’s medieval follower Gottschalk of Orbais (c. 804–869) and the contra-Remonstrants, the Dutch opponents of the Arminians. The English translation is a not completely correct here, because Schleiermacher does not claim that the contra-Remonstrants at the synod of Dordrecht were inspired by Gottschalk, but that they differed as much from Calvin as Gottschalk from Augustine: “Und eben so wenig als Gottschalk Augustinus war, waren auch die späteren Vertheidiger des Kalvin gegen die remonstrantischen Angriffe ganz nur von ihm begeistert.” / “Just as little as Gottschalk was Augustine, were the later defendants of Calvin against the remonstrant attacks, inspired exclusively by him” (Schleiermacher: 1990, 149).4 Schleiermacher does not make clear in which sense the Reformed Orthodox theologians resemble Gottschalk. The Synod of Chiersy (849) charged Gottschalk 3 “It is instructive to note that, apart from John Calvin (1509–1564), individual Reformed theologians find no mention either in Schleiermacher’s essay or in the relevant propositions of Christian Faith.” Hagan: 2014, 72. 4 The translation says “Moreover, Gottschalk was no more an Augustine than were the later defenders of Calvin against the attacks of the Arminians, who were inspired by none other than Gottschalk himself” (22).

Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Reformed Orthodox Doctrine of Predestination

219

with heresy because of teaching gemina praedestinatio, an understanding of predestination in which election and reprobation run parallel. The major difference with Augustine lies in the fact that Gottschalk explicitly teaches that those who are not elect are predestined to a just condemnation, only because God willed so. The number of the non-elect is specified by predestination to death, which runs parallel to the election to life. In his Shorter Confession he says: I believe and confess that the omnipotent and immutable God has gratuitously foreknown and predestined the holy angels and elect human beings to eternal life, and that he equally predestined the devil himself, the head of all the demons, with all of his apostate angels and also with all reprobate human beings, namely, his members, to rightly eternal death, on account of their own future, most certainly foreknown evil merits, through his most righteous judgment. (Genke and Gumerlock: 2010, 71)

It is difficult to decide which aspects of Gottschalk’s theology Schleiermacher had in mind, but most likely he is referring to the way in which election and reprobation run parallel and to the implication of limited atonement. These are the elements Schleiermacher mentions in his discussion of Gottschalk’s doctrine of predestination in the Geschichte der christlichen Kirche (Schleiermacher and Bonnell: 1840, 406–413). He also claims that Gottschalk and of the Reformed Orthodox used ‘less pure sources’ and might be thinking of a philosophical understanding of God’s immutability, or more in general of Greek philosophy in the first case and of scholasticism in the second case. It is interesting that Schleiermacher presents his own view on election as a fourth attempt to formulate the doctrine. It is clear that the first and second attempts are those of Augustine and Calvin with which he agrees. It is not so clear, however, what the third attempt – that replaced the second – exactly is. Possibly Schleiermacher is referring to the Lutheran rejection of predestination and the Reformed adherence to it that presented only negations and restrictions and was a product of controversy (23). Later on the essay is more explicit about the faults of the Reformed Orthodox. Following the already quoted statement that there is no real difference between the Reformed position that some are not saved because God did not want to grant them faith and the Lutheran position that some are not saved because God foresaw that they would not accept faith, Schleiermacher blames the followers of Calvin of having been driven to make negative statements that they did not have to make, “this has to be attributed not to the doctrine but to its clumsy defense” (51). When he discusses the Lutheran objection that the Augustinian and Calvinian concept of election implies arbitrariness in God, Schleiermacher again distinguishes between Calvin and the Calvinists. The decretum absolutum cannot be found in the Institutes but first arose from controversy; even the Reformed

220

Henk van den Belt

Confession of Sigismund (1614) – to which Schleiermacher had subscribed (96 n146) – rejects this expression (60). He refers to the Institutes 1.17.2 where Calvin rejects the medieval scholastic concept of a voluntas absoluta in which God’s justice is separated from his power and insists on the fact that God’s providence is the determining principle of all things, although the reasons remain hidden from us. Again, it is not clear who of the later Reformed theologians Schleiermacher blames for using this misleading term, but he seems to suggest that in the development of Reformed Orthodoxy the Calvinianian doctrine of election became distorted by the explicit formulation of a decree of reprobation and the implication of the restriction of God’s redemptive will and the atonement of Christ to the elect. This development implies an inacceptable arbitrariness in God’s election. At least Schleiermacher later explains that “this appearance of blind arbitrariness against which Calvin so urgently and earnestly protests, largely arose from that scholastic method, which raised specific questions torn out of context” (65). According to Schleiermacher, this method distorts the real presuppositions of the Calvinian doctrine and makes the questions that this doctrine evokes irresolvable: This method has introduced well-nigh impenetrable confusion into almost every important point in the Christian body of doctrine. Together with all that it has produced this scholastic method cannot be banished too strongly, for the purpose that this era, along with the superficial resistance to it, can finally be closed and a new treatment of faith-doctrine developed that leaves no room for such questions but completely rejects them (65–66).

It is very clear from all these remarks and from the negative view of the Canons of Dort with its harsh statements and empty Disputirkunst – demonstrated in the opening quotation of this article – that Schleiermacher prefers Calvin above the Calvinists. His negative attitude towards Reformed Orthodoxy in general appears in remarks like “nothing but an utterly dead scholasticism could […] wish to represent the written word in its bare externality as a special product of inspiration” (Schleiermacher: 1999, 600) and “dogmatics are to be ever more completely purged of scholasticism” (Schleiermacher: 1999, 396). He views Reformed Orthodox theology as a dangerous deviation from its origins and wants to get rid of the scholastic method altogether. Still the question remains unanswered how his negative view can be explained and how it relates to the Reformed Orthodox sources.

Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Reformed Orthodox Doctrine of Predestination

3.

221

Reformed Orthodoxy on Election and Foreseen Faith

The reason why Schleiermacher was so negative about the theology of Reformed Orthodoxy might partly lie in the specific historical context of the union of the churches. Schleiermacher intended to demonstrate that the Lutheran position implies a Calvinian view of election, even if the Lutherans advocated election from foreseen faith and rejected reprobation. The Synod of Dort, however, explicitly rejected the Arminian concept of foreseen faith as a basis of election and also explicitly formulated a decree of reprobation. This was not very useful for the goal Schleiermacher had set for himself, namely to prove that there is no inconsistency between the Lutheran and the Reformed positions. After defining election, the Canons for instance state that Scripture underlines the undeserved grace of God when it further declares that not all men are elect but that some have not been elected, or have been passed by in the eternal election of God. […] These, having been left in their own ways and under His just judgment, God has decreed finally to condemn and punish eternally, not only on account of their unbelief but also on account of all their other sins, in order to display His justice. This is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes God the author of sin (the very thought is blasphemous!), but rather declares Him to be its awesome, blameless, and just judge and avenger (Canons of Dort 1.15).5

Although election and reprobation are not placed side by side, but reprobation is understood as the inevitable consequence of election and the twofold ultimate destination of sinners, either being saved by grace alone of being left alone in their sins, still the Canons do teach a double predestination and an explicit decree of reprobation. It is an intriguing fact however, that there is no difference here with similar statements in Calvin’s Institutes. Take for instance his remark that God condemns those whom He passes over “for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children” (Calvin, Institutes 3.23.1, Battles: 1960, 947). Schleiermacher can hardly have overlooked this similarity between Calvin and Dordrecht, although he might have had some difficulties with the explicit reference in the phrase in the Canons of Dort “hoc est decretum reprobationis”. Regarding foreseen faith the Canons also explicitly state that election is “not based on foreseen faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality of disposition, as a cause or condition in man required for being chosen, but men are chosen to faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, and so on” (Canons of Dort 1.9). This statement rather underlines Schleiermacher’s own view that God’s

5 The quotations from the Canons of Dort follow the translation of the Canadian & American Reformed Churches, www.canrc.org.

222

Henk van den Belt

foreknowledge implies predestination, provided that the foreseen faith is not understood as an independent act of free will, but as a gift of God. In the synod’s refutation of errors the emphasis is also on the meritory character of foreseen faith according to the Arminians. Their position is summarized as teaching that election occurs because of foreseen perseverance in faith and that “the person who is chosen is more worthy than the one who is not chosen. Therefore faith, obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are […] necessary conditions and causes required and foreseen as accomplished in those who are to be fully elected” (Canons of Dort 1, refutation 5). It should not have been too difficult for Schleiermacher to demonstrate that this rejection of foreseen faith is in harmony with his explanation of foreseen faith as a gift of God.

4.

The Synopsis of Purer Theology (1625)

If one turns to the theology behind the Canons of Dort the resemblance between Schleiermacher’s Calvin and the Calvinists whom Schleiermacher rejects becomes even more apparent. In 1625, six years after the Synod of Dort (1618–19) the theological faculty of Leiden University published an important summary of Reformed theology, titled Synopsis of Purer Theology. The Synopsis had its origins in a series of public disputations that were held at Leiden from 1620–1624, and the arrangement of its chapters reflects the order of these disputations.6 De twenty-fourth disputation, titled De praedestinatione was defended under the presidency of Antonius Walaeus (1573–1639), who had been a delegate to the Synod of Dort on behalf of Zeeland. He was one of the new professors of theology the States of Holland and West-Friesland had appointed in the 1619 reforming of the university next to Johannes Polyander à Kerckhoven (1568–1646). In the disputation on election Antonius Walaeus explicitly distinguishes reprobation from election. After eight introductory theses, the disputation discusses election in thirty-five theses and reprobation in the final eighteen theses. His discussion of the topic makes clear that he does not parallel the two sides of God’s decree. Predestination can refer to both reprobation and election, but these categories are not synonymous in every respect, but only analogous (Synopsis 24.6). Here Walaeus takes up a scholastic distinction between a genus univocum, that he also calls a genus synonymum, the strict meaning of the word, and a genus analogum which has a broader sense. By this distinction Walaeus stresses that 6 For an extensive introduction, see Sinnema/Van den Belt: 2012. The first two of the three volumes of the bilingual Latin and English text have been published (Te Velde, 2014 and Van den Belt, 2016). The references in the main text refer to the numbers of the disputations and the theses.

Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Reformed Orthodox Doctrine of Predestination

223

election and reprobation are dissimilar. Reprobation is an act of God, but not everything pertaining to reprobation stems directly from reprobation (Synopsis 24.6). In the theses on reprobation Walaeus explains this by a distinction between negative and affirmative reprobation or between ‘passing over’ and ‘pre-damnation’. The first simply means that God did not elect all, “Affirmative reprobation, however, is the act whereby He resolved to impose the punishments finally deserved upon those same people who had been left, justly, in the lump of perdition, or who abuse the light of nature and of the Gospel in various ways by their own free choice” (Synopsis 24.50). Negative reprobation is the logical consequence of election and affirmative reprobation is the just judgment of God upon sinners. Still Walaeus does not want to make the distinction too strong, because the two acts are not really different “for from eternity God within himself has determined everything in one single act” (Synopsis 24.52). The distinction only refers to the various objects and aspects of the same decree. This makes one curious how the Reformed Orthodox teaching with regard to the one act of God in election relates to Schleiermacher’s own solution. Walaeus phrases this point in scholastic language, claiming that in the infinite act of divine wisdom there is no place for succession as in human beings. But just as both the best goal and the most appropriate means to achieve it have, from eternity, been present simultaneously to God’s all-comprehending knowledge of mere understanding, also before any decree, so also the divine wisdom and will simultaneously have chosen and ordained this goal and the means that are best suited to his mercy and justice, within that same eternity, without any deliberative or consultative process (Synopsis 24.20).

At least formally this comes very close to Schleiermacher’s idea that election and reprobation belong to one and the same divine decree and that there is no real distinction between foreknowledge and predestination. The formal resemblance becomes even clearer when Walaeus’ discussion of foreknowledge as basis of predestination is taken into account. Of course he rejects the Arminian understanding of foreknowledge, but compared to the Canons he sounds rather mild and nuanced. Some, he says, who want to belong to the Reformed church, are of the opinion “that God decisively elected only those whose faith and perseverance He foresaw, at least as a prior, prerequisite quality, and as a cause sine qua non.” (Synopsis 24.34). But this view turns election into a reward based on the fulfillment of conditions and thus contradicts doctrine of free grace. If the Arminians would only acknowledge that faith and perseverance are gifts of God, there would be no problem at all, according to Walaeus. The difference would then case only regard the order of the decree and the way one speaks about it.

224

Henk van den Belt

In his philosophical treatise Compendium ethicae Aristotelicae Walaeus is even more explicit on the relationship between divine providence and foreknowledge. After having stated that only God has absolute freedom and that his providential rule over all our actions does not exclude that they are still made in liberty, because God’s decree does not exclude but includes freedom and contingency, Walaeus remarks: For everyone (unless they are even worse than Turks and pagans) acknowledges that God has had foreknowledge from eternity of the determination of the human will in all its actions. Can any human being understand how God has foreseen that something which is the effect of undetermined causes will definitely happen? Indeed, if anyone can explain to me how God, by the infinite light of his knowledge, has foreseen this without violating human liberty, I will by the same token explain to him how God decreed it from eternity by his supremely wise decree and executed it in time without violating human freedom. (Walaeus: 1620, II, 227, cf. Monfasani: 1997, 126).

Take as a final example what Walaeus writes on the will of God: “this will, however, is not absolute, as if it lacked a reason, nor is it a tyrannical will (even to use this word is blasphemy). Some interpret the term “absolute” in this manner, thereby trying to arouse hatred towards us.” (Synopsis 24.58). God’s will is absolute not in the sense that there is no reason for it, but in the sense of something that is independent, that exists in itself and thus is free. Walaeus refers to a similar quotation from Calvin’s as Schleiermacher above: “Therefore, I not only reject but also detest the triflings of the Scholastics about absolute power, because they separate God’s justice from his power.” (Synopsis 24.60, cf. Calvin, Responsio altera de occulta Dei providentia CO 9, 288). Indeed the supralapsarian Reformed theologians, like Theodore Beza (1519– 1605) and James Arminius’ opponent Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641) did place election and reprobation more on one line than the infralapsarian theologian Antonius Walaeus. At the Synod of Dort (session 107) Gomarus responded to the speeches by Polyander, Thysius and Walaeus on the first article of the Canons by stating publicly that he agreed with everything except the object of predestination, which in his opinion should be not only the fallen human race (hominem lapsum) but also the human race before the fall (ante lapsum) (De Lind van Wijngaarden: 1891, 107). Against the supralapsarians, who locate the decree concerning the decree of election (logically) ‘before’ the decree concerning the fall (so that the object of the decree concerns human beings who are not yet created or fallen), Walaeus maintains the infralapsarian position which holds that God in electing people views them as created and in the state of sin (such that the decree concerning election must be located “after” the decree concerning the fall). Schleiermacher might be referring to these supralapsarian views when he blames the later defenders of Calvin of defining predestination as a decretum

Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Reformed Orthodox Doctrine of Predestination

225

absolutum and interpreting the doctrine as a matter of arbitrariness in God by depending on “a vacuous skill for disputation questions” that resulted in “really harsh statements” but these accusations certainly do not apply to the nuanced infalapsarian Reformed theology behind the Canons of Dort. One might even claim that the Reformed Orthodox elaborated the doctrine of predestination more carefully than Calvin himself, whose expressions sometimes made him vulnerable for misinterpretation and for the later supralapsarian interpretation of predestination that prompted the Arminian reaction rejected by the Synod of Dort. Why would Schleiermacher blame Reformed Orthodox theology for a misrepresentation that Calvin himself was also vulnerable for? Most likely, for a formal reason, that is, because the later development was formulated in a more nuanced way making use of the scholastic method that Schleiermacher rejected.

5.

Election in the Theological System

A second angle from which Schleiermacher’s relationship to Reformed Orthodoxy can be assessed is from the place he gives to election in his theological system. Given the principles of his theology, it is not surprising that in The Christian Faith he discusses election in the context of the origin of the church “Von dem Entstehen der Kirche” (The Christian Faith, § 115–125). The exact place of predestination in the theological system is an often discussed theological issue. This discussion is basically prompted by the rather unusual decision of John Calvin to move predestination from its customary allignment with providence to the context of pneumatology in the final edition of the Institutes.7 The main issue in that discussion is whether predestination belongs in the context of the doctrine of God or in the context of soteriology. In the first case the doctrine is closely connected to creation and providence, while in the second case it is linked to saving faith as the work of the Holy Spirit. In general the first option is mostly ascribed to Reformed Orthodoxy while the latter is seen as the position of John Calvin, at least in the final edition of the Institutes. We will first turn to the placement of election in Schleiermacher’s Christliche Glaube and then return to Calvin and the Reformed Orthodox to compare both positions. Walter L. Moore sees a similarity between Calvin and Schleiermacher in the treatment of predestination within an ecclesiological context. “Many Reformed theologians had followed the arrangement of early editions of the Institutes, locating election within the doctrine of God. In making the shift Schleiermacher 7 For the discussion about how this relates to the theological systems of Reformed Orthodoxy cf. Muller: 2005, 184.

226

Henk van den Belt

is in agreement with Calvin’s final position.” According to Moore, Schleiermacher is faithful to the Reformer – and he implies more faithful that many Reformed theologians – by treating election “as the church’s reflection upon its origin” (Moore: 1971, 173, cf. Partee: 2008, 319). Dawn DeVries and Brian A. Gerrish are of the opinion that the order of topics in a systematic theology is not indifferent: “the sense of a doctrine is, at least in part, a function of its location.” They remark that Schleiermacher placed providence and justification conventionally, but “postponed election still further than Calvin, placing it under ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church” (DeVries and Gerrish: 2005, 189). Anette I. Hagan discusses the positioning of the doctrine in the sources Schleiermacher used and then concludes that “from the late eighteenth century onwards, predestination has been positioned either within or in the vicinity of Christology, and hence in a soteriological context” (Hagan, 2014, 95). Schleiermacher might not be original preferring soteriology as the right place in his theological system to discuss election, his specific choice for ecclesiology and the way in which he elaborates on the doctrine in The Christian Faith is original. He places the four paragraphs on election and predestination (§§ 117– 120) in the section regarding the “The Nature of the World in Relation to Redemption” (§§ 113–163) which he divides in three pieces: “On the Origin of the Church” (§§ 115–125), “On the Existence of the Church in Its Existing Together with the World” (§§ 126–156), and “On the Consummation of the Church” (§§ 157–163). The church is the community of regenerate people but it is also the world as far as it is already redeemed. Schleiermacher first treats the origin of the church or the way in which it is formed when the regenerate individuals are gathered together. He subdivides the origin of the church in two parts: Election (§§ 117– 120) and Communication of the Holy Spirit (§§ 121–122). The doctrine of election flows from the fact that all those living can never at the same time be included in the kingdom of God. It is not an insolvable problem that individuals are brought into this fellowship earlier or later – Schleiermacher’s idea of election and temporary rejection – but it would be unbearable for the Christian sympathy if “on the assumption of survival after death, we are to think of a part of the human race as entirely excluded from this fellowship” (Schleiermacher: 1999, 539). Next Schleiermacher defines election as a divine predestination to salvation in Christ (§ 119) and finally he summarizes his argument on foreknowledge and predestination from the essay On the Doctrine of Election in the final paragraph (§ 120) of the discussion in The Christian Faith, titled “Election, considered as influencing the divine government of the world, is grounded in the faith of the elect, foreseen by God: viewed as rooted in the divine government of the world, it is solely determined solely by the divine good-pleasure” (Schleiermacher: 1999, 551).

Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Reformed Orthodox Doctrine of Predestination

227

Schleiermacher thus takes his point of departure in the acceptance of individuals in the body of the church and the fellowship with Christ at the moment they are justified in time. Given the fact that God gathers human beings into his kingdom and given the fact that this historical process takes time, not all people living at a certain time can be redeemed and become part of the church. It is important that election is understood by Schleiermacher as the first stage in the historical process of the formation of the church. Election is not that which God has decided from eternity, but that which God appears to decide along with the unfolding of the process of the gathering of the church. Then Schleiermacher turns to the self-consciousness of the regenerate and here it becomes clear that Schleiermacher founds his whole system upon the experience of absolute dependence. The sanctified feeling of the Christian does not have to be uneasy about the fact that some join the church earlier and others later, provided that in the end all will be saved and the human race will not be split into a part that will exclusively possess salvation in the fellowship of God’s kingdom and a part that will for always remain excluded from it. Therefore the Christian consciousness can recognize only one form of predestination namely the election to participation in the blessedness of Christ. Although Schleiermacher places the doctrine of election in the context of ecclesiology – which as such is surprising given the traditional options in the doctrines of God and soteriology – election in the Christliche Glaube is determined by the historical development of the kingdom of God. Thus Schleiermacher’s concept of election is dominated by providence, although he deals with that topic in the first book. Or, as DeVries and Gerrish explain, Schleiermacher’s “thoughts on the relation of divine to natural causality in part one necessarily called, in part two, for some recasting of Christian beliefs about […] the divine good pleasure that draws a line between the elect and the non-elect” (DeVries and Gerrish: 2005, 190). Thus although it is placed in the context of ecclesiology, his concept of election is still determined by providence. Regarding the larger structure of his theology however, it is essential for his understanding of election that he founds his whole system in the experience of absolute dependence. This leads to his rejection of reprobation – or rather his reinterpretation of it as a temporal rejection – and to his universalism, resting upon the intuition that it is unbearable for the Christian sympathy that part of the human race would be lost forever because that would diminish the joy and happiness of those who are elect. It is interesting to compare that to Calvin’s switch in removing predestination in the final edition of the Institutes from the context of providence into the context of pneumatology. Richard Muller has argued that Calvin – who never explained the new placement of predestination explicitly – had a pedagogical intention with his choice. “In all of the editions prior to 1559, the chapter on

228

Henk van den Belt

providence and predestination remained in roughly the same place – while in 1559 […] not predestination but providence was moved” (Muller: 2005, 195). Regarding the content of his doctrine the connection between providence and predestination remains clear also after the shifting of 1559. If we now once again turn to the Synopsis as one of the important sources for the understanding of Reformed Orthodoxy, it is remarkable that the place of predestination was not that fixed as many discussions of Reformed Orthodoxy seem to imply. The survey of Heppe, for instance, suggests that its normal place in Reformed Orthodoxy was in the context of the doctrine of God and in connection with predestination (Heppe: 1861, 110). This was then easily interpreted as a deviation from the view of Calvin in the final edition of the Institutes. The series of disputations that resulted in the Synopsis continued an older tradition of cycles of theological disputations that began in 1596 (Van den Belt: 2015). Six cycles of disputations were held prior to the Synod of Dort, the first one of which was presided in 1596 and 1597 by Franciscus Junius (1545–1602), Lucas Trelcatius Sr. (1542–1602), and Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641). The cycle opens with a disputation on The Authority of Holy Scripture and ends with the one on The Magistrate.8 After this original cycle was completed, five repetitions (repetitiones) were held; the number of disputations and the topics in the later repetitiones vary from the original cycle and from each other. In the original cycle the disputation on predestination follows immediately after the Trinity, Christology, and providence. This is in line with the general impression that Reformed Orthodoxy linked predestination with the doctrine of God. But in the repetitiones the disputation on predestination moves back and forth between the doctrine of God and soteriology and the last part of soteriology. In the Synopsis the choice is interesting for two reasons. The authors do not connect predestination immediately with the doctrine of God or with providence, but with Christology. Before turning to Christ’s incarnation, offices, humiliation and exaltation, the Synopsis first explains for whom Christ did all his work. Or, as the opening thesis of the disputation on the incarnation says, having treated predestination, “it follows that we should next give separate treatments of what is the object of the Gospel and the basis for the new covenant, namely, the person of Christ, or the incarnation of the Son of God, and the personal union of the two natures of Christ” (Synopsis 25.1). The Synopsis places five disputations on the work of Christ between predestination (disputation 24) and the call (disputation 30). The disputations on the vocatio before the Synod of Dort often open with a reference to the previous disputation on predestination, defining the call as the execution of predestina8 For a complete list of the disputations see ‘Appendix A: List of the First Leiden Cycle of Theological Disputations’ (Sinnema/Van den Belt: 2012, 529).

Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Reformed Orthodox Doctrine of Predestination

229

tion. The disputations after the Synod of Dort – not only in the Synopsis-cycle, but also other disputations – however, prefer to speak of the call as the execution of election rather than as the execution of predestination (Van den Belt: 2012, 548). Thus the influence of the discussions at the Synod of Dort seems to appear in two ways in the structure of the Synopsis: 1) the confessional decision to limit the atonement of Christ to the elect is mirrored in the fact that Christology is governed by predestination, and 2) the infralapsarian approach of predestination leads to a stronger differentiation of election and reprobation as two dissimilar sides of predestination. Soteriology starting with the divine call to salvation is the execution of the electing grace of God, whereas the just damnation of the sinners is a result of the implication of election and the twofold human final destination; that all will not be saved and therefore some are passed over in God’s decree of election or thus reprobated. Thus the view that Calvin consciously separated providence and predestination, that Reformed Orthodoxy deviated from Calvin by reconnecting the two and that Schleiermacher returned to the original Calvinian position, must be corrected from the sources. Although Calvin in his final edition of the Institutes seemingly disconnects predestination from providence, this hardly effects the theological interrelationship of the two. Although Schleiermacher places election in the context of ecclesiology it still is determined by his view of providence. On the other hand, although the Reformed orthodox sometimes discuss predestination in the context of the doctrine of God, their view of the theological relationship of the two doctrines is more nuanced, especially with those theologians that hold the infralapsarian view of predestination which was the leading position at the Synod of Dort.

6.

Concluding Remarks

The assessment of the relationship between Schleiermacher and Reformed Orthodoxy from the angles of election out of foreseen faith and of the place of election in the structure of the theological system, shows that Schleiermacher does not do justice to the nuanced way in which the Reformed heritage was elaborated on by the later generations of theologians who made use of the scholastic method. His negative attitude might partly be explained from his passion for the unity of the Reformed and Lutheran churches for which the explicit formulation of reprobation and the explicit rejection of election out of foreseen faith in later

230

Henk van den Belt

Reformed theology was problematic.9 But if he had taken better notice of the underlying theological writings, he would not have had to be so negative about Reformed Orthodoxy. Neither would he have had to suggest such a gap between Calvin and the Calvinists. The most significant difference between Calvin and later Reformed theology seems to be that they used the classical scholastic method to explain some of the harsh sayings of Calvin by – for instance – differentiating between election and reprobation and arguing that divine providence does not imply the loss of human freedom as such. At least this is the case for the theologians at the Synod of Dort, as we have seen in the example of Walaeus. Schleiermacher, however, explicitly blames them of using harsh phrases and on the other hand systematizes Calvin’s position from his own perspective. The intention of the [Reformed] orthodox dogmaticians was to produce, not a modern, logically cohesive, system of theology on the pattern of Schleiermacher or Tillich, but a body of doctrine in which the topics of biblical teaching were gathered into a coherent and defensible whole for the sake of the life and salvation of the church. (Muller: 2003 IV, 392)

An essential difference between Schleiermacher and Calvin is that Schleiermacher approaches the theme of election from the perspective of history instead of from eternity and that he equates history with the unfolding of the divine decree. The consequence is that the difference between those who are elected and those who are rejected – because they are not yet elected – is a matter of time, of already and not yet, of being called sooner or later. Although the position of Schleiermacher might not necessarily lead to universalism, this approach of election and rejection makes the step towards universalism very small. Or perhaps one can turn the whole argument around: the real reason for Schleiermacher’s adaptation of the Calvinian and Reformed doctrine of election was his wish to get rid of the idea of eternal punishment. In his Geschichte der christlichen Kirche Schleiermacher states that the Augustinian discussion on predestination was reopened in the Reformation, but remained undecided “because of not willing to take leave from the concept of eternal damnation” (Schleiermacher and Bonnell: 1840, 414). That was exactly the point in which Schleiermacher wanted to transform the Augustinian and Calvinian traditions. Schleiermacher’s position comes closer to classical supralapsarian – be it in a universalistic form – than to the infralapsarian position10, and that makes his 9 According to Paul Thorsell Schleiermacher criticized the Canons of Dordrecht because they did not fit his aim to unify the Prussian church” Thorsell: 2016. 10 According to Gockel, Schleiermacher suggests that “God orders sin not in itself but in relation to the one divine decree of redemption, which encompasses the original perfection and the

Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Reformed Orthodox Doctrine of Predestination

231

negative comparison of the Reformed Orthodox defenders of Calvin with Augustine’s pupil Gottschalk the more remarkable. Why does Schleiermacher blame others of an interpretation of Calvin that is rather similar to his own? It is an interesting systematic theological question how Schleiermacher’s assessment of the Reformed tradition should be evaluated in the light of his claim to maintain and renew that tradition. Compared with the nuanced assessment of the Augustinian and Reformational heritage in Reformed Orthodoxy Schleiermacher seems to over-systematize the heritage – a fault of which he blames the Reformed Orthodox – leading to a position that can easily be interpreted as deterministic or even as pantheistic. Because of his maintenance of human responsibility it might be better to speak of a pantheistic tendency in his theology.11 Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) states that in the nineteenth century the Pelagian deism of the Enlightenment was replaced by a pantheistic or materialistic determinism that was too easily equated with the doctrine of predestination and exchanged the divine decree for blind fate. In principle, Schleiermacher also agrees with this viewpoint, for though he proceeds from the doctrine of the church and continues to hold onto the revelation in Christ he only distinguishes election and reprobation in relation to time. In the strict sense of the word there are no reprobates. (Bavinck: 2004, 370)

It is an interesting question for further research how Schleiermacher’s systematic assessment of Calvin and his negative view of Reformed Orthodoxy relate to the dominant view in the nineteenth century that Calvin’s theology was a predestinarian system and that the later Reformed Orthodox theology was primarily a further systematization of that single point. Schleiermacher’s pupil, Alexander Schweizer (1808–1888) was instrumental for this perspective. He corrected his master’s view of discontinuity between Calvin and the Calvinists, but interpreted the whole tradition from the idea of predestination as Zentraldogma.12 While Calvin research in the twentieth century corrected this view for the Reformer, the later Calvinists remained stained as harsh predestinarians, while in fact many of them where more nuanced than Calvin himself. original sinfulness of humankind. The result is a modified supralapsarianism and a rejection of the idea of an initial ‘fall’ of humankind.” (Gockel: 2007, 100). 11 According to Cooper it is difficult to decide whether Schleiermacher holds a pantheistic or a panentheistic view of the God-world relation, but he concludes that Schleiermacher is best classified as a panentheist who is close to pantheism. (Cooper: 2006, 80, 88). Gockel, however, concludes that “The sharp distinction between God and the world demonstrates that Schleiermacher’s theology is neither pantheistic, in the sense that it implies an identification of God and nature, nor panentheistic, as if the world somehow exists ‘in God’” (Gockel: 2007, 48). Schleiermacher states that pantheism is compatible with piety, as long as it is not a materialistic negation of theism. (Schleiermacher: 1999, 39). 12 On Schweizer’s reception of Reformed Orthodoxy, see Bachera: 2008.

232

Henk van den Belt

It remains an astonishing fact that the once so celebrated Reformed Orthodox theology came into such discredit within two hundred years, that a theological giant like Schleiermacher suggests to banish it altogether and hardly bothered to take notice of the sources. Again two hundred years later, the theology of Reformed Orthodoxy is regaining interest. Provided that it is not merely copied, but interpreted within the historical context of Christian Aristotelianism and its scholastic method, this theology can and should be understood as an expression the catholic Christian faith. It deserves a fair treatment instead of a complete banishment.

7.

Literature

Baschera, Luca (2008), Umstrittene Orthodoxie: Die historiographisch-theologische Kontroverse zwischen August Ebrard und Alexander Schweizer, in: Emidio Campi, Ralph Kunz, and Christian Moser (ed.), Alexander Schweizer (1808–1888) und seine Zeit, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 167–87. Battles, Ford Lewis, transl. (1960), John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Bavinck, Herman, John Bolt, and John Vriend (2004), Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, vol. 2, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb (1819), Aphorismen u¨ ber die Union der beiden evangelischen Kirchen in Deutschland, ihre gemeinschaftliche Abendmahlsfeier, und den Unterschied ihrer lehrer, Gotha: Perthes. Brockhaus, F.A. (1864), Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyklopa¨ die fu¨ r die gebildeten Sta¨nde, : Conversations-Lexikon, Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus. Cooper, John W. (2006), Panentheism, the Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. De Lind van Wijngaarden, J.D. (1891), Antonius Walaeus, Leiden: Los. DeVries, Dawn and Brian A. Gerrish (2005), Providence and grace: Schleiermacher on justification and election, in: Jacqueline Mariña (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, 189–208. Genke, Victor and Francis X. Gumerlock, ed., (2010), Gottschalk and a Medieval Predestination Controversy: Texts Translated from the Latin, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. Gockel, Matthias (2007), Barth and Schleiermacher on the Doctrine of Election: A Systematic-Theological Comparison, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hagan, Anette I. (2014), Eternal Blessedness for All?: A Historical-Systematic Examination of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Reinterpretation of Predestination, Cambridge: James Clarke. Heppe, Heinrich (1861), Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche, Elberfeld: Friderichs. Herms, Eilert (2009), Freiheit Gottes – Freiheit des Menschen. Schleiermachers Rezeption der reformatorischen Lehre vom servum arbitrium in seiner Abhandlung “Über

Friedrich Schleiermacher on the Reformed Orthodox Doctrine of Predestination

233

die Lehre von der Erwählung; besonders in Beziehung auf Herrn Dr. Bretschneiders Aphorismen”, in: Johannes Lu¨ pke, and Edgar Thaidigsmann (ed.), Denkraum Katechismus: Festgabe für Oswald Bayer zum 70. Geburtstag, Tu¨ bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 197–228. McDonald, Suzanne (2012), Calvin’s Theology of Election: Modern Reception and Contemporary Possibilities, in J. Todd Billings and I. John Hesselink (ed.), Calvin’s Theology and Its Reception: Disputes, Developments, and New Possibilities, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 121–139. Monfasani, John (1997), Antonius de Waele, in: J. Kraye (ed.), Cambridge Translations of Renaissance Philosophical Texts, I, Moral Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 120–129. Moore, Walter L. (1971), Schleiermacher as a Calvinist, A Comparison of Calvin and Schleiermacher on Providence and Predestination, Scottish Journal of Theology 24, 167–183. Muller, Richard A. (2005), The Placement of Predestination in Reformed Theology: Issue or Non-Issue?, CTJ 40, 184–210. Partee, Charles (2008), The Theology of John Calvin, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Polyander, Johannes, Andreas Rivetus, Antonius Walaeus, and Antonius Thysius (1625), Synopsis purioris theologiae, disputationibus quinquaginta duabus comprehensa ac conscripta, Leiden: Elzevier. Polyander, Johannes, Andreas Rivetus, Antonius Walaeus, and Antonius Thysius (1881), Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, H. Bavinck (ed.), Leiden: Donner. Sinnema, Donald and Henk van den Belt (2012), The Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (1625) as a Disputation Cycle, CHRC 92, 505–537. Schleiermacher, Friedrich, and Eduard Bonnell (1840), Sa¨ mmtliche Werke Abteilung 1 Zur Theologie, Literarischer Nachlass zur Theologie 1,11, Geschichte der christlichen Kirche, Berlin: Reimer. ¨ ber die Lehre von der Erwa¨ hlung; besonders in Schleiermacher, Friedrich (1990), U Beziehung auf Herrn Dr. Bretschneiders Aphorismen (1819), in: Friedrich Schleiermacher, Theologisch-dogmatische Abhandlungen und Gelegenheitsschriften, HansFriedrich Traulsen (ed.) [Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 1. Abt., Schriften und Entwu¨ rfe, Bd. 10], Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 147–222. Schleiermacher, Friedrich (1999), The Christian Faith, H.R. Mackintosh and James S. Stewart (transl.), Edinburgh: T & T Clark, Internet resource. This is a digital edition of Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1928. Schleiermacher, Friedrich (2012), On the Doctrine of Election: With Special Reference to the Aphorisms of Dr. Bretschneider, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Te Velde, Dolf (2014), Synopsis Puriosis Theologiae = Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation, vol. 1, Disputations 1–23, Willem J. van Asselt, William den Boer, Riemer A. Faber (gen. ed.) Leiden: Brill. Thorsell, Paul R. (2016), Schleiermacher’s Repudiation of Dordrecht in his Essay ‘On the Doctrine of Election’. International Journal of Systematic Theology, 18: 154–173. Van den Belt, Henk (2012), The Vocatio in the Leiden Disputations (1597–1631): The Influence of the Arminian Controversy on the Concept of the Divine Call to Salvation, CHRC 92, 539–559.

234

Henk van den Belt

Van den Belt, Henk (2015), Developments in Structuring of Reformed Theology: The Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (1625) as Example, Forthcoming publication in: A. Beck (ed.), Reformation und Rationalität, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Van den Belt, Henk (2016), Synopsis Puriosis Theologiae = Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation, vol. 2, Disputations 24–42, Andreas J. Beck, William den Boer & Riemer A. Faber (gen. ed.) Leiden: Brill. Walaeus, Antonius (1620), Compendium ethicae Aristotelicae ad normam veritatis Christianae revocatum, Leiden: Elsevier. Walaeus, Antonius, and Johannes Walaeus (1647), Antonii Walaei Opera Omnia, Leiden: Adrianus Wyngaerden.

Erik A. de Boer

The Career of the Canones. An Inventory of Editions of the Canons of Dordt during the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Century

Since the nineteenth century, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands call their confessional documents “the three forms of unity”. They are distinguished from the three ecumenical creeds of the early Church: the Creed of the Apostles and of Nicaea-Constantinople, and the Athanasian Creed. The ecumenical creeds are expressly included in the Belgic Confession, article 9, while the Heidelberg Catechism also expounds the Apostolic Creed. The three confessions of the Reformation era are, historically speaking, an early modern creedal mode in the context of diverging opinions. In the Netherlands, the Belgic Confession was adopted at the Synod of Emden in 1571, while the Heidelberg and Genevan Catechisms were adopted at the Dutch and French speaking congregations respectively. This essay explores the character of the third confessional document which was adopted at the Synod of Dordt. How were the Canons of Dordt regarded in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth century, and what does the history of their editions tell us?

1.

Revisiting Dordt

In recent essays, Jasper Vree states that the Canons of Dordt were not published as one volume including the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism until the late nineteenth century. During the seventeenth and eighteenth century, the latter two, the so-called “forms of unity”, were either published separately or together, but never included the Canons. When a minister added his signature to the confessional documents of the Reformed Church, he did so in a convolute into which – at the most – the three doctrinal documents were bound together. However, early Church books, meant for liturgical use, often included the Catechism and the liturgical texts, and sometimes also the Confession, but never the Canons of Dordt. Vree considers the question of how available the Canons were to the public; his answer being that at first, the Canons only appeared in separate editions. Vree’s thesis is that it was Abraham Kuyper who coined the term “three

236

Erik A. de Boer

forms of unity” and gave it credence by publishing them in one volume as The Three Formularies (De Drie Formulieren) (Vree: 2009, 119–129; Vree: 2007, 3–17). In the volume Revisiting the Synod of Dordt, Donald Sinnema describes how the Canons of Dordt as judgment on Arminianism in the early seventeenth century evolved into a confessional standard. “It is often assumed that the Synod of Dordt drew up the Canons as a new confessional standard for the churches. But at no point did the Synod ever make a decision declaring the Canons to be a new confession” (Sinnema: 2011, 313–325). According to Sinnema it was the requirement of subscription by pastors and other office bearers in the churches that steered this development. Initially, however, the Synod of Dordt had to deal with the Five Articles of the Remonstrants and their request to rectify the Confession and Catechism. It is Dordt’s new form of subscription in particular, drafted at the request of the Provincial Synod of South Holland, that specifies how the Canons of Dordt relate to the Confession and Catechism. The undersigned declare “[t]hat all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the Confession and Catechism of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, together with the explanation (Declarationem, verclaringe) of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made by the National synod of Dordt, 1619, agree in everything with the Word of God” (Sinnema: 2011, 326). The signature is related to the doctrine contained in the Confession and Catechism, and to the explanation of some points of that doctrine as given in Dordrecht. Sinnema concludes that by the requirement of subscription, the Synod of Dordt de facto gave their Canons confessional status, even though the text of the Church Order did not mention the Canons in articles 53–54 alongside the Confession and Catechism (Sinnema: 2011, 327). The term “forms of unity” stems from late sixteenth century Lutheran confessionalisation. Formulae consensus were important for overcoming theological dissent and expressing doctrinal unity. This mode of speaking was also used in the early seventeenth century in the Netherlands. The States General state in their letter in the 1620 Acta: “[W]e also saw to it that the very Forms of our Unity (unionis nostrae formulas), namely the Confession and Catechism used here until now, were carefully reviewed by them according to the norm of the divine Word.” This revision was in fact mainly ratification. Soon, however, the Canons were to be included under the heading “forms of unity” (Sinnema: 2011, 329f). To come back to our research question: what does the history of the publication of the Canons tell us about their status in Church life?

The Career of the Canones

2.

237

A printers’ consortium

The Canons were written in final and clean version, read, and signed on 23 April 1619. All versions of the published Acta therefore contain the full text of the Canons following the minutes of the sessions of that date (e. g. Acta: 1620a, 249– 283, 287–289; Acta: 1620b, 279–372, 332–334; Acta ofte Handelinghen 1621a, 294– 324, 329–331; 1621b, 335–375, 380–382). The text of the Canons on the Five Articles, however, was first published separately “in all three languages”, that is, in Latin, Dutch, and French. The printing as such was ordered by the States General on 26 June 1619. Since the Acta and other synodical documents do not report a decision to translate the Canones, the commission to print may have been included in the government’s orders. While Bogerman worked in The Hague on the Dutch translation, Daniel Colonius and Johannes Polyander, both born in Metz (France), translated the Canones into French.1 On 24 July, Hommius reported to Damman: “They are already printing the Canons in all three languages”, even though not all Provinces had consented yet (Kuyper 1899, 489).2 In the summer of 1619, Isaac Jansz. Canin of Dordrecht had founded a consortium of printers in order to produce and distribute the proceeding of the National Synod of Dordt. Their first task was the dissemination of the Canons, in Dutch the Oordeel van de Synodus Nationael (Judgment of the National Synod). Furthermore, the Latin translation (by Daniel Colonius) and the French one (by Johannes Polyander) had to be printed in order to cater to the international public and the French speaking brotherhood of the Walloon Churches respectively.3 The consortium, led by Canin, additionally was to publish three Latin editions of the Synod’s Acta in 1620 and two Dutch editions in 1621 (infolio and quarto). The States General had thus ordered a massive publicity campaign in order to make the Canones as well as the whole proceeding by means of the Acta available for a large domestic and international public. Of the Dutch version of the Canons, five prints by the socios Caninij can be distinguished from the year 1619. Willem Heijting describes these six versions of the Oordeel van het Synodus Nationael ghehouden binnen Dordrecht, (four bearing the title Synodus) with the names of the various printers Pieter Verhagen, Isaac Jansz. Canin, Joris Waters, Jan Lenaerstsz. Berewout (Jan Leendersz. Beerwout), Francoys Bosselaer, Niclaes Vincenten, Zacharias Jochemsz., and 1 “D. Colonius en D. Polyander zijn dagelijcks besigh om de fransche translatie Canonum op te maecken.” Letter by F. Hommius to S. Damman, 28 June 1619, in: Kuyper: 1899, 486f (bijlage II.1); Lamping: 1980, 91. 2 For more information about Hommius’ editing of the Canones “in alle dry Talen” (in all three languages), see Wijminga: 1899, 301–303. 3 Daniel Tilenus published his Canones Synodi Dodracenae cum notis et animadversionibus (1622) in Paris for the French theologians.

238

Erik A. de Boer

Francoys Boels.4 These eight entrepreneurs represented various European regions. Verhagen was from London, and had been a member of the refugee Church there, Joris Waters had British roots, and Bosselaer was from Lyon, France. The other five were all Dutch. The same consortium also published the revised version of the Belijdenisse des geloofs der Ghereformeerde Kercken in Nederlant and its French translation for the Walloon Churches, but never including the Canons in one publication.

3.

A provincial synod

One Latin edition has a title page, bearing in capital letters the word SYNODUS, and a woodcut from the synod in full session. Underneath the woodcut one can read: “Dordrechti, Apud Ioannem Berewout & Franciscum Bosselaer, Socios Caninij, 1619 (in-4º)”. The following recto has the long title: Iudicium Synodi Nationalis Reformatorum Ecclesiarum Belgicarum, habitae Dordrechti, Anno 1618 & 1619, followed by an enumeration of the European countries from which theologians partaking in the Synod of Dordt originated, ending with the subject matter: “de quinque doctrinae Capitibus in Ecclesiis Belgicis Controversis”.5 There are also four Dutch versions with the title SYNODUS and a similar title page from 1619. A striking feature in all editions is that every chapter is followed by eleven pages which render – in print – all personal subscriptions of the original edition by all delegates to the Synod and by all representatives of the provinces of the Low Countries. The delegates are listed after the country or city in Europe from which they originated. This list does not feature just once, but after every of the four Chapters of the Canons (I, II, III–IV, and V). Thus every chapter is signed and sealed by all participants of the Synod. This means that of the 128 pages, 44 contain the fourfold list of names, which amounts to one-third of all pages. This provides the Canones and their publication with a dignity and authority which every buyer and reader must have felt. Various copies of these editions that have been preserved were bound together with some blank pages on which a form was written, on which signatures could be added. One early example from Dordrecht is the copy of the Dutch translation of the Canons in Synodus (Isaac Ianssen Canin, ende zijne medestanders: 1619) including a handwritten text, expressing their approbation of the Canones, dated 4 Heijting: 2007, 167–193, with the editions of the Canons, numbers 5–10 on the list of p. 183v; the list with title pages in reproduction is found in Heijting: 1999, 117–183 (numbers 5–10 on p. 134–140). 5 A description of the Latin editions is not found in Heijting, who only seems to describe editions in which François took part. Our inventory provides the full title of one Latin edition.

The Career of the Canones

239

20 August 1619.6 This copy was used at the Provincial Synod of Overijssel. The list of signatures is introduced by the line “Ita polliceor, ita sentio” (As I promise, so do I feel). The minutes note: Hereafter the articles of the National Synod of Dordt, concluded on the five well-known articles between the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants (as they are called), are read by the delegates,7 carefully heard and considered by the brethren, and approved as being in everything according to God’s Word with one voice and display of special delight (article 15).

Furthermore, the representatives of the civil magistrates – the Venerable Lords of the Knightage and Cities – express their contentment, and promise to help maintain the Canons “so that only these shall be taught in public and everything contradictory be barred” (Reitsma – Van Veen: 1896, art. 15, p. 315). The first thirteen ministers were delegates to the Provincial Synod of August 1619. The other twenty-one were either delegated to the 1620 Provincial Synod, or entered the ministry in 1620 or 1621. The copy, used in the Provincial Synod of Overijssel to express the Synod’s agreement with the Canons of Dordt, is only one of many examples still preserved in various archives. The Canons were printed on a grand scale, so that even today many copies remain. But when did the stock expire and was there need for new editions? Vree concludes: “A study of the editions and their interdependence, including titles [‘titeluitgaven’] in which editions from 1619 are used, is lacking” (Vree: 2007, 14 n. 6). The following is intended as a first inventory.

4.

Copying the consortium

Seven years after the Synod of Dordt, the concession of the printers’ collective expired. This led to new editions which simply extended the authority of the Synod by copying the 1619 editions, for example the Oordeel des Synodi Nationalis der ghereformeerde Kercken van de Vereenighde Nederlanden over de bekende vijf hooft-stucken der leere. Uyt het Latyn (Aertsz. van Ravensteyn: 1628). Such re-editions copied the title page and read at the bottom “Following the

6 HCO, archief 0373, inv.nr. 54. Cf. The Acta synodi provincialis of 1619 in J. Reitsma – S.D. van Veen (ed.) (1896), Acta der provinciale en particuliere synoden, gehouden in de Noordelijke Nederlanden gedurende de jaren 1572–1620, vol. 5, 311–323. 7 The delegates representing Overijssel in the Synod were Caspar Sibelius from Deventer, Hieronymus Vogellius from Hasselt, and Hermannus Wijfferdingk from Zwolle: they are commended for their work in article 23 (Reitsma – Van Veen: 1896, 317).

240

Erik A. de Boer

Original, Printed in Dordrecht, 1619” (Nade Copye Ghedruckt tot Dordrecht. 1619), without place, publisher or year.8 This practice of imitating the 1619 edition of the Canons seems to have continued for some time. Another example is found in a volume containing the Belgic Confession (p. 1–43), followed by the Canons of Dordt (p. 45–120). The convolute contains first the Church Orders from the sixteenth century (in the 1648 edition by Andries Cloeting) and at the end, following the Confession and Canons, the Church order of Dordt in the 1636 edition by Jan Gerritsz. and Frans Jorrijaensz. This edition contains the Canons divided into five chapters, each chapter including a list of Remonstrant errors and their corrections (the socalled “Rejection of Errors”). The list of names of domestic and foreign representatives now only features once, at the end of the work (following the Oordeel and preceding the final Sententie). It is impossible to come to definitive conclusions regarding the diffusion of the Canons of Dordt without a fuller inventory of these (anonymous) re-editions, which simply copied the information of the 1619 editions and did not include a new name, place or year of edition. The two examples mentioned above suggest that others may come to light. Whenever only the Catechism and Confession were published as one book during the seventeenth and eighteenth century, the title page specified that it gave “further explanation of some chapters of these, inspected and set forth in the National Synod of the Dutch Reformed Churches, held in Dordrecht in the years 1618 and 1619.”9 This elaborate phrase means nothing more than that the Catechism and Confession were revisited by the Synod of Dordt. It does not mean that the Canons were ever included in such liturgical books for the public. Still, that this was suggested by the title is evident from the minutes of the Provincial Synod of South-Holland, held in Woerden in 1645. “According to the printing of the Canones Synodi Nationalis Dordracenae de Annis 1618 and 1619 following the Catechism and Confession of our Churches, as promised in the title of the Psalm Book according to the stated matter of the Classis of Gorichem, Synod had commanded the printer.’10

8 This copy can be found in the Library of University of Gent, Belgium. 9 For example Catechismus ofte Onderwijsinge in de Christelijcke Leere die in de Kercken ende Scholen der Nederlandtsche Gereformeerde Kercken geleert werdt. Mitsgaders De Belydenisse des Geloofs, ende naerder Verklaringe van eenige Hooft-stukken des selven, overgesien ende gestelt in de Synode Nationael der Nederlandsche Gereformeerde Kercken, gehouden tot Dordrecht, in de Jaren 1618 en 1619. This edition was published in Amsterdam by Everhard Cloppenborgh in 1639 (with 123 pages), and by Abraham van der Putte in 1754 (with 240 pages). 10 Acta Zuid-Holland 1621–1700, vol. 2, 508 (art. 55).

The Career of the Canones

5.

241

The Canons in French

An inventory of editions of the Canons of Dordt in the Netherlands must include translations into French, since the Walloon Church needed their own editions. The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 by King Louis XIV was followed by a second wave of Reformed and French-speaking immigrants coming to the Netherlands. In the edition of the Jugements of 1726, readers were informed about the origin of this “Judgment of the said-Synod on the Five Articles” and were given specifics on the history of the Belgic Confession, which differed somewhat from the French reformed Confession of La Rochelle. This edition of the Canons for the Walloon churches takes its readers back to the year following the Revocation. Included are parts of the acts of the Rotterdam Synod of the Walloon Churches of 1686. Regarding the controversies which are connected to what has been decided at the Synod of Dordrecht and which have for some time disturbed the peace of the churches in France, but since have happily been appeased, our assembly will demand a promise – very pointedly – not to dispute on these matters, neither publicly nor privately, against what is being held in these provinces” (Jugement: 1726, 107f).

The notion of “mediating grace” (grace médiate) is mentioned specifically as a newly-introduced Pelagian idea which cannot be tolerated. This declaration is signed and sealed by a long list of names of ministers who fled from oppression and sought refuge in the Netherlands.11 A new, somewhat expanded edition of this Jugement appeared in 1769.12 Several documents were added to this re-edition of the 1726 version. The Canons are included with “Rejection des erreurs” in French translation (p. 41–66). Then a declaration follows regarding a list of all prospective ministers (“les proposans”) who between 1708 and 1767 had signed the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dordt, following the decision of the Synod of Nijmegen of 1707 (p. 67–70). Before the year 1708, students who were admitted to the ministry only had to promise to follow the regulations – especially article 24 – of the Walloon Synod of The Hague of 1653. It seems that in the eighteenth century, the first French translation of the Canons was no longer available, and so a new version was produced, carefully contextualized for the French immigrants in Dutch ecclesiastical society.

11 Another list of six pages follows, with the names of Walloon ministers and their cities of origin in France (Jugement, 1726, 108–114). 12 Cf. our notice Jugement, 1769. This edition also contains the following: “Post-Actes du Synode National de Dordrecht; l’Acte d’Uniformité dressé en 1686 & sous signé des ministres Refugiés; Les Formulaires du Bateme des personnes agées ou des adultes; de celui des Anabatistes; des Juifs; des Mahométans; des Payens & des Idolatres.”

242

6.

Erik A. de Boer

Transposing Dordt into the eighteenth century

A hundred years after the Synod of Dordt, an interesting edition appears. It is the exception to the rule that the Canons do not appear in liturgical booklets alongside the Catechism and Confession.13 According to the title page this edition combines the Catechism, Confessions and Canons in Profession or Confession of Faith of the Dutch Reformed Churches, also the Heidelberg Catechism with Scripture Texts, and Finally the Judgment of the National Synod of Dordrecht on the Five Points of Doctrine, published in the very same Dordrecht in 1725.14 This edition was ordered by the classis Delft and Delftland, assembled in Gouda in 1723, with full support of the Provincial Synod of South-Holland. The classis envisioned “that the first edition of the forms [de eerste Druck der Formulieren] which has become very rare and hard to find, be reprinted to serve the churches and classes.” How did the printers achieve this aim? 1. The first 64 pages contain the Belgic Confession in two columns, the first presenting the Dutch text of 1563 and the second the text of the Synod of Middelburg of 1582. 2. Secondly a copy of the Belydenisse des gheloofs follows (30 pages), which includes a copy of the title page of the 1619 edition by François Borsaler, associate of Isaac Jansz Canin of Dordrecht 1619 (Heijting: 2007, 182, no. 3), followed by the Catechism (61 pages). The verso of this page includes a description of the woodcut of the Synod, specifying its representatives. 13 The following example shows the great care that publishers took: Nieuw Druck van den Catechismus, Ofte Onderwijsinge in de Christelyke Leere, die in de Kercken ende Scholen der Nederlandsche Gereformeerde Kercken geleerd werd. Mitsgaders De Belydenisse desGeloofs der Nederlandsche Gereformeerde Kercken, Als oock De Lyturgie der selve Kercken, ofte de Formulieren van de Bedieninge der Heylige Sacramenten, Bevestinge der Kercken-Dienaren, Oeffeninge der Kerckelijcke tucht, Siecken-troost, ende Christelijcke Gebeden, overgesien in de Synode Nationaal te Dordrecht gehouden in de Jaren 1618 en 1619. Nu Uytgegeeven volgens uytdruckelijcke last van de Christelijcke Synode van Zuyd-Holland van den Jaere 1734, na den Druck van ‘t Jaer 1639. te Amsterdam by Everhard Cloppenburg. Vergeleeken met een voorgaanden Druk van den Jaere 1611. by Everhard Schilders te Middelburg, als mede met de Correctie op de Lyturgie der Nederlandsche Kercken, dewelcke in den voorsz. Druck van 1611. gevonden werd, gemaakt by de Commissarissen door de bovengemelde Synode Nationaal van Dordrecht, tot het nazien der Lyturgie gemachtigt (Outman: 1737). (16) 148 (10) p. The preface provides a detailed account of the relationship between this and earlier editions in the quest for a correct text. 14 Vries, Matteus de (1725), Bekentenisse of Belydenisse des Gheloofs der Nederlantschen Gereformeerden kercken, In-4º contains first the Belgic Confession, following the Dutch edition of 1562 (and 1563) and the revised text of the 1566 edition in two columns “tot meerder claerheyt” ([3], 5–62 pp). Then follows the “Belydenisse des gheloofs” in the revision of Dordt, following the Dordt edition by François Borsaler, associate of Isaac Jansz. Canin (1619, [3], 1–30 p.), and finally the Catechism (1–55, [7] p.), with at the very end a print of the national Synod of Dordt 1618–1619.

The Career of the Canones

243

3. Lastly the Oordeel des synodi nationalis der Gereformeerde Kercken van de Vereenichde Nederlanden (78 pages) is included. At the bottom of the title page even the line “Permission to Print for Seven Years” (Met Privilegie voor seven Jaren) is copied. The preface explains that even though errors are corrected, the old spelling has been retained, “even keeping the names of the first printers and the old Privilege accorded to them so that the reader can see in this as it were a reprint of the old original one.” (Oordeel: 1725, p. [2]). This edition followed the Festivitas secularis, the centenary of the Synod of Dordt in 1719, initiated by four Leiden theologians.15 Leiden University was the heir to the Synopsis purioris theologiae, the systematic theological disputations in which the theology of Dordt was incorporated. However, regarding the first half of the eighteenth century Van Eijnatten said that “church leadership had another problem to contend with: the growing neglect of, and sometimes contempt for, the formularies of concord, particularly among the well-to-do clergy” (Van Eijnatten: 2003, 73).16 In 1733, a work by Johannes Ens (1684–1732) appeared posthumously, concerning the so-called “public writings, pertaining the doctrine and service of the Dutch Churches in the United Provinces” (rakende de leer en dienst der Nederduytze Kerken van de Vereenigde Nederlanden). The writings on doctrine concern “the forms of unity”. In his first chapter, Ens mentions which documents were meant when the Synod used the term “forms of unity” in session 163, as recorded in the Acts: the Confession and Catechism. However, according to session 175, the Canons fall in this category as well, even though the term is not explicitly used. In the chapters that follow, Ens traces the genesis of the Catechism, Confession, Canons, and liturgy. In this context he states that the Canons are not a new form of unity, but that he regards these “as an appendix to the two others” (Ens: 1773, 132). That is also why the Canons are not printed in the Psalm book, while the Catechism and Confession (revised by the same Synod) are. In a separate paragraph, Ens relates the history of the editions of the Canons until his own days, with the 1725 edition being the most recent one, “according to the

15 Honert, Taco H. van den / A Marck, Johannes / Fabritius, F. / Wesselius, Johannes (1719), Festivitas secularis Anni supra millesimum et septingentesimum decimi et noni. Celebrata a. d. XXIX. Maji, a professoribus theologiae in Academia Lugduno-Batava, Leiden; id., Eeuwvreugde van het jaer 1719, gevierd den 29sten dag van Mai , Leiden: Samuel Luchtmans, 1719. 16 Joan van den Honert (1693–1758) lectured in Utrecht extensively on the Canons of Dordt. See his De gratia Dei, non universali sed particulari (1725), translated as Verhandelingen van Gods, niet algemene, maar besondere genade (1726).

244

Erik A. de Boer

consent of the Synod of South-Holland, held in Gouda in the year 1723, article 34” (Ens: 1773, 132). A new edition of the Dutch text of the Canons appeared in Groningen as well, printed by Jurjen Spandaw and using both the Latin and Dutch title: Canones synodi Dordracenae of Oordeel des Synodi Nationalis, gehouden binnen Dordrecht, in den Jare 1618 en 1619 over de bekende vyf hoofdstukken der leere, daarvan in de gereformeerde kerken deser Vereenigde Nederlanden verschil gevallen is (Spandaw: 1747). This edition was commissioned by the provincial Synod of Groningen, “[n]ow published anew by synodical order, with a preface stating the importance of these Canons and the reasons for this new edition.” The context of this edition is the emergence of Reformed Pietism. In 1747, Willem Schortinghuis (1700–1750) of Midwolda had his The Old, Orthodox, Reformed Faith and Doctrine of the Dordt Fathers published, by the same Jurjen Spandaw. The original, long, title of this work explicitly mentions “the Canons, now Issued again on Orders of the Christian Synod of City and Land” (Schortinghuis: 1747). Schortinghuis’ work offers an intriguing discussion of the program of “further Reformation” from the perspective of Dordt’s anti-Remonstrantism. In the mid-eighteenth century, another edition was published in Utrecht by Wilhelmus van Irhoven. It was published with the same double title: Canones Synodi Nationalis Dordracenæ ofte Oordeel des Synodi Nationalis der Gereformeerde Kercken van de Vereenigde Nederlanden (1752). The preface states that “quite often copies of the Canons were lacking, even though they have been accepted as one of the forms of unity in the Netherlands and should therefore be available in all churches and signed by all ecclesiastical persons, so that they can be read by all.” The yearly visitation of the churches should inspect that every Church council has a copy of the “Forms of Unity”, the Confession, Catechism and Canones. Editor Van Irhoven states that he followed the Dutch text of Isaac Jansz Canin of 1619 and had added – in footnotes – some passages from the Latin edition of Berewout and Bosselaer from the same year. This edition contains the original preface, the texts of the Canons (with a full list of names of Dutch and foreign delegates following each chapter), the instruction of the States General to the national Synod, the final verdict (“Sententie”), and the final approval by the States General (“Approbatie”). Again, as during the seventeenth century, the full body of the 1619 edition has been added.17 Twenty years later, a Latin text, meant for students at the universities, is published by Gerardus Kuypers (1722–1798) in Groningen, again at the Spandaw 17 This edition was followed by the publication of Alexander Comrie – Nicolaas Holtius, Examen van het ontwerp van tolerantie (Examination of the plan concerning tolerance, to unite the teachings of the Synod of Dordt, established in the year 1619, with the condemned teachings of the remonstrants) 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1753–1756). Cf. Van Eijnatten: 2003, 72f.

The Career of the Canones

245

publishing house “in usum juventutis academicae” (1772). Kuypers had been a preacher during a revival in the 1750s, and became professor of theology in Groningen.18 He lamented that “copies of these [Latin] Canons are hard to come by in the publishers’ shops” and stated that he used the text of the 1620 Acta, published by Canin in Dordrecht. While it may be true that separate editions of the Latin or Dutch text were not always for sale during the seventeenth and eighteenth century, the Acta and Handelinge of the Synod of Dordrecht had been printed in many editions and copies, meaning that the text itself was always available. Professor Kuypers saw to it that a clean Latin text, containing only the Canons and the Rejection of Errors, was available again for his classes. In the second half of the eighteenth century, Jacob Amersfoordt (1748–1798) prepared a new translation of the Canons in Dutch and had it published in Amsterdam at an affordable price in 1780. He also referred to the Acta and to Petrus Hofstede’s “Short History of the National Synod” (1776). Amersfoordt aims his edition at the Church congregation: “For these Canons, added to the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, constitute the forms of unity in which the doctrine of our Church is confessed and confirmed and which we as members of our Church community are held to believe” (Amersfoordt:1780, p. VIII). In his preface, Amersfoordt states that even though the Dutch edition of 1619 has been reprinted in later years, it can be found only seldom among Church members. He mentions a specific example of why he deems it necessary to get to know the Articles of Dordt, namely “the sickening and repeated harshness which some pushed during the Synod regarding the reprobation of children; while you only have to look at article 17 of the first chapter to discover the true feelings of the Synod” (Cf. De Boer: 2011, 261–290). Amersfoordt’s edition contains the full body of texts that he found in the original. It is very interesting to see a first try to include the Canons into the liturgical book. The preface informs the buyer that a format was chosen “which is fit to be bound with the common Church book” (Amersfoordt: 1780, p. XIII). The last edition during the eighteenth century, shortly before the occupation of the Netherlands by Napoleon’s armies, was a reprint of Van Irhoven’s 1752 edition, published in 1788.

7.

Intermezzo in States Flanders

On the threshold of the nineteenth century there is yet one more story left to tell. As late as 1806, nearly two centuries after the Synod of Dordt, the classis Sluis, in the South-West of the province of Zeeland, had to start all over again. They were cut off from their classis Walcheren and had to reorganize themselves. From 1604 18 See Van Eijnatten: 2003, 61ff.

246

Erik A. de Boer

onwards, when Maurits recaptured Sluis, the city had belonged to States Flanders. From 1794 to 1814, however, it became part of the French Empire. The Reformed Church was forced to position herself under French law, including the separation of Church and state. The classis Sluis had to reorganize itself into a Consistorial Gathering (Consistoriaal vergadering), which included the congregations of Sluis and St. Anna ter Muiden, Aardenburg and Heijle, St. Kruis and Lede, Oostburg, Groede, Breskens, Zuidzande, Cadzand and Retranchement, and Nieuwvliet. The ministers also had to update the book which contained the confessions, the subscription form, and the names and signatures of the ministers. The library of VU University Amsterdam preserves a volume, bound in brown leather, with the title Catechismus en Formulieren printed on the spine. The book contains the Belgic Confession (but surprisingly not the Heidelberg Catechism), the liturgy of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, and the Canons of Dordt. There are two possible explanations for this collection. Either it had already served as the book of confessional subscription since the seventeenth century, or parts of that book were reused and bound into a convolute with the addition of many pages of fresh blank paper for the years to come. On the first blank pages the form of subscription, designed by the Synod of Dordt, was copied. Then each minister of the classis wrote his signature in this copy.19 By re-using the old copies of the Confession and the Canons of the year 1619, the ministers expressed their desire to connect with the confessional tradition of Dordt, especially now that they were under foreign rule.

8.

Nineteenth century

After the French occupation of the Netherlands (1795–1813), the Reformed Church was transformed into the State Church of King William I. In this new constellation of theology and Church, the Canons of Dordt were to receive a prominent role. This led to many new editions and a wider dissemination than ever before. In the nineteenth century, the Canons increasingly became an accepted confessional document, on a par with the Catechism and Confession. 19 The copy is preserved in the University Library of the VU University Amsterdam, sign. XV 05540.–, and has in one volume: Belydenisse des gheloofs (Dordrecht: Francois Borsaler, Mede-stander van Isaac Jansz Canin, 1619), 30 pp.; De liturgie der Gereformeerde Kercken in Nederland (n.p., n.y.), p. 119–236; Oordeel des synodi nationalis … uyt het Latyn ghetrouwelijck in ’t Nederduytsch vergeset. Met Privilegie voor seven jaren, X. [8] 78 (with “Approbatie. Gedruckt by Pieter Verhagen … Francois Boels. 1619”. The second half of the volume contains empty pages, bound into the book, with the first seven and last five pages containing handwritten text.

The Career of the Canones

247

All in all, in this period the title word “Judgment” (Oordeel, iudicium) seems to disappear from the editions in Dutch and the more positive word Leerregels (“rules for teaching”, as a translation of canones) takes pride of place. This is an effect of the theological movement which led to the Secession of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1834 and onwards. Minister Hendrik de Cock rediscovered the Canons of Dordt and decided to publish them again in Dutch: The Decisions of the National Synod of Dordt, Held in the Years 1618 and 1619 (1833).20 De Cock did not go back to an original print of 1619, but used the abbreviated version of 1747, Canones synodi Dordracenae of Oordeel des Synodi Nationalis. In his preface, De Cock referred to an edition of the classis Appingedam (which he used as his source text): “In the beginning of the previous century, the classis of Appingedam (…) did so already with consent and permission of the classis of Groningen.” The first general Synod of the Churches of the Secession, held on 2 March 1836 in Amsterdam, decided to commission the publication of “the already functioning edition of the forms of unity by Rev. H.P. Scholte, because this edition has already been realized.” The Synod cannot attach the label “with ecclesiastical consent” to this edition, because the text had already been prepared and given in print by Scholte before the Synod could commission it. However “the same decision had been taken regarding the already printed work by Rev. H. de Cock.”21 Scholte’s edition of 1836 was entitled, in English translation: The Forms of Unity of the Christian Reformed Church in the Netherlands, and includes the relevant subsection “The Five Articles Against the Remonstrants”. The editor stated that, together with two brothers in office, he had used “the very correct translation and edition which ha[d] been presented to His Majesty, our Honored King”, and which he compared to the original Latin text.22 Anyone interested in the history of the Forms of Unity can be referred to “the historical narrative of Ens, which is readily available”. Scholte’s edition was printed in four hundred copies, a hundred of which were distributed among poor members of the Amsterdam congregation (Soepenberg: 2016, 193).23 The edition by Scholte was reprinted several times, for example in 1854, when publisher Höveker returned to the Dutch Reformed Church (cf. Soepenberg: 20 See Vree: 1990, 17–47, (page 30 in particular); Veldman: 2009, 165v. 21 (1984), Handelingen en verslagen van de algemene synoden van de Christelijk Afgescheidene Gereformeerde Kerk (1836–1869), Houten/Utrecht: Den Hertog, 57v (art. 73). 22 (1836), Formulieren van eenigheid der Christelijk Gereformeerde Kerk in Nederland, ed. H.P. Scholte, p. V. 23 Soepenberg states: “Eén van de verdiensten van de Afscheiding is geweest dat voor de volle breedte van de gereformeerde gezindte – ook het deel dat achterbleef in de Hervormde Kerk – de Dordtse Leerregels weer onder het stof vandaan werden gehaald.” (Soepenberg: 2016, 193).

248

Erik A. de Boer

2016, 193). But as early as 1837 a fresh edition of the “Forms of Unity” appeared in circles of the Dutch Reformed Church, published by D. Molenaar. A separate edition of the Five Articles Against the Remonstrants was published by Simon van Velzen in 1856, “translated directly from the Latin text”. The teachers of the Theological School in Kampen supplied a preface to the edition: “The Canons of the Synod of Dordt are a true treasure of the Church, even though its contents are not fully appreciated by many, and the work itself is often passed by with scorn or indifference.” The publication is the answer to a request from the classis of the Dutch Reformed congregations in North-America. Regarding the confessional status of the churches of the Secession, the Synod decided in 1854 that all Christian Reformed Churches recognize the Confession of faith of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, the Catechism, and the Canons of the Synod of Dordt, held in the years 1618 and 1619, as complete expression of their faith. In accordance with these congregations and as her general synod we declare gladly that we feel and believe with all our hearts that all articles and sections of the doctrine, contained in the said three Forms of Unity, accord in everything with the word of God. Therefore we reject all teaching which is against it. We wish to bring all our actions in accordance to it, according to the accepted Church Order of Dordrecht of 1618–1619, and to accept everyone who agrees with this confession into our ecclesiastical community. May the King of the Church work and multiply this faith in many hearts (…).24

The title “Three Forms of Unity” may not have been used in collected editions: as Vree stated, the term itself was taken from the early history of the Synod of Dordt and subsequently reclaimed in the tradition of the Secession. In the nineteenth century, the Canons of Dordt became fully integrated into the Reformed tradition, especially in the churches of the Secession and, as Vree demonstrated, the Doleantie.25 Is was, indeed, Abraham Kuyper who coined the term “Three Forms of Unity” and who had all three confessional writings, as they were regarded in the nineteenth century, printed in one volume entitled The Three Formularies (Kruyt: 1883). A few years later he and his colleague F.L. Rutgers made a cheap edition in small print available, which was sold more than 200.000 copies.

24 See (1984), Handelingen en verslagen van de Algemene synoden van de Christelijk Afgescheidene Gereformeerde Kerk (1839–1869), Houten/Utrecht: Den Hertog, 589–90 = (1854), Handelingen van de Synode der Christelijk Afgescheidene Gereformeerde Kerk in Nederland, 1854 te Zwolle, Amsterdam: Hoogkamer & Comp., 9th session, art. 6, p. 3–4). 25 For later editions in the nineteenth century see: Vree (2009); Vree (2007); Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976) 46v (from H.E. Vinke to F.L. Rutgers).

The Career of the Canones

9.

249

Findings

What does our taking stock of the editions of the Canons of Dordt, presented in an inventory below, disclose? First, the Canons were formulated as doctrinal statements (“articles”) in response to the Remonstrant position, taken in the “Remonstrance” of the “Five Articles” of 1611. While at first a written rejection of errors was intended, the Synod also formulated positive statements on the disputed five heads of doctrine. These statements were regarded as being “taken from the Word of God and corresponding to the confession of the Reformed Churches” (Bakhuizen: 1976, 279). The positive articles and the rejection of errors were included in all investigated editions of the Canons. Sinnema is right that the Canons were not projected as a third confession, but as clarification of the disputed points of doctrine as contained in the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession. The following distinction may be helpful in understanding the character of each of these confessional texts: while the Catechism was intended for teaching the doctrine of the Reformed faith to older people and to children before admission to the Lord’s Supper, the Confession shows the Church speaking in the public domain, i. e. in politics on religion. The Canons were added in times of doctrinal crisis as clarification and, more specifically, as rules (Leerregels) for preaching, thus addressing the ministers. The separate edition of the Canons and the intended practice of subscription by ecclesiastical bodies show the importance of this doctrinal document and the effect that the Synod intended it to have on primarily the ministry of the Word. Secondly, the initial publication of the Canons of Dordt in Latin, Dutch and French editions in 1619 (together with the inclusion in the Latin and Dutch Acta in 1620f) provided a wide dissemination and availability of the text. The copy of the Provincial Synod of Overijssel served as an example of early reception of the Canons and of the use of the Dordt form of subscription for ministers. After the period of seven years’ right of print expired, the edition of 1628 and several anonymous editions without year of publication show that by copying the original edition of the Dutch version, an even larger public for the Canones was reached. Thirdly, our taking stock of the editions of the Canones confirmed Vree’s finding that the Canons were never included in a liturgical book during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. However, the title page of editions of the Catechism, Confession, and liturgical texts in the mid-seventeenth century (and the interpretation by the Provincial Synod of South-Holland in 1743) seemed to indicate

250

Erik A. de Boer

that this had been the intention of some printers (even though this intention was never realized). Fourthly, new editions in a format independent from the original 1619 print began to appear after a full century (maybe sparked by the centenary of the Synod of Dordt in 1719). On the one hand, French editions for the second wave of Refuge ministers and Church members appeared (1726, 1769). On the other hand there was the inclusion of the Dutch Canons in one book with Catechism and Confession (1725). Other editions, all Dutch (1747, 1752) exhibit a concern of a provincial synod or theology professor that the texts should be available to ministers to know and sign and should also be available to the congregation. A fifth observation concerns the status of the Canons according to Church policy. There is a noticeable tendency to regard Catechism, Confession and Canons as “the forms of unity” of the Dutch Reformed Church. The distinction in character, as noted at the end of our first point above, seems irrelevant when it comes to the doctrinal basis of the Reformed Churches. In the second half of the eighteenth century, we also observe a growing interest in, and awareness of the genesis of the confessional texts. Renewed interest in the Latin text (1772) may have triggered the new Dutch translation (1776). For official ecclesiastical use and subscription in the classis (as with classis Sluis, for example), the 1619 edition seems to have been favored over more recent editions (e. g. the 1788 one). In the Secession of the 1830s, and therefore in the wake of pietistic theology of the eighteenth century, the dissemination of the Canons gained new momentum. The term “three forms of unity” was already used at that point to define all three confessional texts of the Reformed Church. It was indeed Abraham Kuyper in his neo-Calvinist program who, with his 1883 publication, also stimulated the incorporation of the Canons in liturgical books. Kuyper’s edition “for public and private use” (voor kerkelijk en huiselijk gebruik uitgegeven) turned the Canons of Dordt into a text for catechetical and devotional use. The Canons received renewed attention not only in the Churches of the Secession, but also in the Dutch Reformed Church of the nineteenth century (see Höveker: 1836; Molenaar: 1837). In the course of the nineteenth century, the interest in critical editions arose as well, leading to the publications of Vinke (1846), Van Toorenenberg (1883), and the text established by Rutgers and used by Kuyper (1889). This, however, is beyond the scope of the present inventory and suggests future research into the career of the rich and contested Canons of Dordt.

The Career of the Canones

10.

251

Inventory of editions of the Canons of Dordt

The following inventory provides a bibliography of all editions, identified during the research of this study, from 1619 to approximately 1850. The full bibliographic description by Heijting of the Latin, Dutch, and French versions of 1619 is not repeated here. Only one Latin and one Dutch title, used in this study, are listed.26 Synodus 1619: Synodus [*2ʳ: Iudicium synodi nationalis Reformatarum Ecclesiarum Belgicarum habitae Dordrechti anno 1618 et 1619. Cui etiam interfuerunt plurimi insignes Theologi Reformatarum Ecclesiarum Magnae Brittaniae, Palatinatus Electoralis, Hassiae, Helvetiae, Correspondentiae Wedderavicae, Genevensis, Bremensis et Emdanae, de quinque doctrinae Capitibus in Ecclesiis Belgicis Controversis. Promulgatum VI May, 1619. Cum privilegio] Dordrechti, apud Joannem Berewout et Franciscum Bosselaer, Socios Caninii, 1619. 4°: [12] 3–128. Oordeel 1619: Synodus [*2ʳ: Oordeel des Synodi Nationalis der Gereformeerde Kercken van de Vereenichde Nederlanden, ghehouden binnen Dordrecht, inden jare 1618, ende 1619.] Tot Dordrecht, by Isaac Janssen Canin, ende zijne medestanders (Tot Dordrecht, Gedruckt by Pieter Verhagen, Isaac Jansz. Canin, Joris Waters, Jan leendertsz. Berewout, François Bosselaer, Niclaes Vincenten, Zacharias Jochemsz., François Boels), 1619. In-4° [Heijting, no. 8]. Acta 1620a: Acta synodi nationalis, in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, auctoritate DD. Ordinum Generalium Foederati Belgii provinciarum, Dordrechti habitae Anno 1618- et 1619, Dordrecht: Isaac Jansz. Canin. In-folio. Acta 1620b: Acta synodi nationalis, in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, auctoritate DD. Ordinum Generalium Foederati Belgii provinciarum, Dordrechti habitae Anno 1618- et 1619, Dordrecht: Isaac Jansz. Canin. In-4°. Acta 1621a: Acta ofte Handelinghen des Nationalen Synodi Inden name onzes Heeren Jesu Christi ghehouden door authoriteyt der Hoogm. Mogh. Heeren Staten Generael des Vereenichden Nederlandts tot Dordrecht Anno 1618 ende 1619. Hier comen oock by de volle Oordeelen vande vijf Artijckelen (Dordrecht: Isaack Jansz. Canin). In-folio. Acta 1621b: Acta ofte Handelinghen des Nationalen Synodi Inden name onzes Heeren Jesu Christi ghehouden door authoriteyt der Hoogm. Mogh. Heeren Staten Generael des Vereenichden Nederlandts tot Dordrecht Anno 1618 ende 1619. Hier comen oock by de volle Oordeelen vande vijf Artijckelen (Dordrecht: Isaack Jansz. Canin). In-4°.

26 For a full bibliographic description of Dutch and French versions, see Heijting: 2007, 182f. nos. 5–10.

252

Erik A. de Boer

Oordeel 1628: Oordeel des Synodi Nationalis der ghereformeerde Kercken van de Vereenighde Nederlanden over de bekende vijf hooft-stucken der leere. Uyt het Latyn (Amstelredam: by Paulus Aertsz. van Ravensteyn, [1628]). In-8º.27 Oordeel [n.y.] Copye: Oordeel des Synodi Nationalis der Gereformeerde Kercken van de Vereenichde Nederlanden, Ghehouden binnen Dordrecht Inden jare 1618, ende 1619 … Na de Copye Ghedruckt tot Dordrecht. 1619. ([n.p., n.y.].28 Oordeel [n.y.] Oordeel des Synodi Nationalis der Gereformeerde Kercken van de Vereenichde Nederlanden, Ghehouden binnen Dordrecht Inden jare 1618, ende 1619, bound in: De Kercken-Ordeningen der Ghereformeerder Nederlandtscher kercken in de vier Nationale Synoden gemaeckt ende gearresteert. Mitsgaders Eenige anderen in den Provincialen Synoden van holandt ende Zeelandt geconcipieert ende besloten. Waer by noch anderen, in bysondere Vergaderingen goedt gevonden, by gevoeght zijn, 5e druk (Delft: Andries Cloeting, 1648). In-4º.29 Oordeel 1725: Het oordeel van de Nationale Synode van Dordrecht over de vyf stucken der leere, in: Bekentenisse of belydenisse des geloofs der Nederlantsche gereformeerde kercken. Mitsgaders de Heydelbergsche Catechismus met de Schriftuur-Texten; En eyndelyck Het oordeel van de Nationale Synode van Dordrecht over de Vyf Stucken Der leere (Dordrecht: Mattheus de Vries, 1725). In-4º. Jugement 1726 : La confession de foy des Eglises Reformées des Païs-Bas, représentée en deux colomnes, l’une portant la Confession Ancienne, et l’autre, la Revision qui en été faite au Synode National de Dordrecht, l’An 1619: Avec le Jugement du dit Synode sur les 5. Articles & la Discipline Ecclesiastique; et une Préface sur l’Histoire de la dite Confession, où est jointe la Lettre écrite à Philippe II. Roy d’Espagne. Le tout publié par ordre du Synode des Eglises Walonnes, tenu à Leyden le 14. septemb. 1667 (Rotterdam: Jean Daniel Beman, 1726). 4º. (22), 192, (1) p.30 Canones 1747: Canones synodi Dordracenae of Oordeel des Synodi Nationalis, gehouden binnen Dordrecht, in den Jare 1618 en 1619 over de bekende vyf hoofdstukken der leere, daarvan in de gereformeerde kerken deser Vereenigde 27 Catalogue 8 of Den Hertog Bolland Rare Books (Houten) of November 2015 contains a bibliographic description of a rare edition of the Deux-Aes Bible, published in 1628 by Paulus Aertsz. van Ravensteyn. In this copy (no. 4) the Oordeel 1628 by the same publisher is bound together. Maybe Van Ravensteyn wanted to have his share of the market before the new translation, undertaken by the Synod of Dordt and commissioned by the States General, would be finished. 28 Copy UB VU, sign. XW.05909.– 29 Copy UB Theological University Kampen, sign. DD.2128. Earlier editions of this work do not contain any confessional texts. The third edition ends with the Synod of Middelburg of 1581 (Delft: Jan Andriesz, 1622). 30 Canons on p. 41–66, followed by the Church Order of Dordrecht (67–80) and a copy of the Acts, sessions 155–180 regarding the proceedings of 3–29 May 1619 (“after the foreign representatives had retired”, p. 81–107).

The Career of the Canones

253

Nederlanden verschil gevallen is. Thans uit Synodale last nieus uitgegeven, met een voorbericht, de agtbaarheid dezer Canones, en redenen van deze nieuwe uitgave vermeldende (Groningen: Jurjen Spandaw). Canones 1752: Canones Synodi Nationalis Dordracenæ ofte Oordeel des Synodi Nationalis der Gereformeerde Kercken van de Vereenigde Nederlanden: ghehouden binnen Dordrecht, in den jare 1618 ende 1619. Welcke geassisteert is gheweest met vele treflycke Theologen, uyt de Gereformeerde Kercken van groot Britagnien, de Keur-vorstelycke Paltz, Hessen, Switserlandt, de Wedderavische Correspondentie, Geneven, Bremen, ende Embden: over de bekende vyf hooftstucken der leere, daer van inde Gereformeerde Kercken deser Vereenigde Nederlanden verschil is gevallen. Uitghesproken op den 6. may 1619, ed. Wilhelmus van Irhoven.31 Utrecht: J.H. Vonk van Lynden. In-4º, (16) 120 pages. Jugement 1769 : La confession de foy des Eglises Reformées des Païs-Bas, représentée en deux colomnes, l’une portant la confession ancienne, et l’autre la Revision qui en été faite au Synode National de Dordrecht, l’An 1619: Avec le Jugement du dit Synode sur les 5. Articles & la Discipline Ecclesiastique; et une Préface sur l’Histoire de la dite Confession, où est jointe la Lettre écrite à Philippe II. Roy d’Espagne. Le tout publié par ordre du Synode des Eglises Walonnes, tenu à Leyden le 14. septemb. 1667 (Leiden: Elie Luzac, 1769). 4º. (22), 192, (1) p. Canones 1772: Canones Synodi Dordrechtanae in usum juventutis academicae, ed. Gerardus Kuypers (Groningen: Hajo Spandaw). In-8º, [7], 36 pages. Vijf artikelen 1780: De vijf artikelen tegen de remonstranten vastgesteld op de synoden, gehouden binnen Dordrecht in den jare 1618 en 1619, opnieuw uit het Latijn vertaald, en uitgegeven met een voorrede, ed. J. Amersfoordt (Amsterdam, 1780). In-8º, [32], 64, [5] p. Canones 1788: Canones Synode Nationalis Dordracenæ ofte oordeel des Synodi Nationalis der Gereformeerde Kercken van de Vereenigde Nederlanden: ghehouden binnen Dordrecht, in den jare 1618 ende 1619. Welcke geassisteert is gheweest met vele treflycke theologen, uyt de Gereformeerde Kercken van groot Britagnien, de Keur-vorstelycke Paltz, Hessen, Switserlandt, de Wedderavische correspondentie, Geneven, Bremen, ende Embden: over de bekende vyf hooftstucken der leere, daer van inde Gereformeerde Kercken deser Vereenigde Nederland verschil is gevallen. Uitghesproken op den 6. may 1619, ed. Willem van Irhoven, 2e druk. Utrecht: G.T. van Paddenburg en zoon. In-4º, (14) 146 (1) p. Besluiten 1833: Besluiten van de nationale Dordtsche synode, gehouden in den jare 1618 en 1619, te Dordrecht, uitgegeven en van eene voorrede van Hendrik de Cock, gereformeerd leeraar te Ulrum (Veendam: T.E. Mulder). Reprint: Hendrik 31 “Uytgegeven door, en met eene voorreden van Wilhelmus van Irhoven, in leven doctor en professor der H. Godgeleerdheid, als mede der Kerkelyke geschiedenissen in ‘s Lands Hooge School te Utrecht.”

254

Erik A. de Boer

de Cock, Verzamelde Geschriften, D. Deddens (ed.) (Houten: Den Hertog, 1984), 5–34. Formulieren 1836: Formulieren van eenigheid der Christelijk Gereformeerde Kerk in Nederland, ed. H.P. Scholte. Amsterdam: J. van Golverdinge / ’s-Gravenhage: H. Höveker (The Five Articles Against the Remonstrants on p. 65–123); 2 ed. 1837. Formulieren 1837: De Formulieren van eenheid, bij de Hervormde Kerk in Nederland gebruikelijk, zuivere bijbelleer, ed. D. Molenaar (AMSTERDAM: Den Ouden). 1846: Libri symbolici Ecclesiae Reformatae Nederlandicae, ed. H.E. Vinke. Utrecht: J.G. van Terveen (Iudicium synodi nationalis Reformatarum Ecclesiarum habita Dordrechti, 398–464). Canones 1854: Canones of Leerregels der Algemeene Synode, uit verschillende landen van Europa bijeenvergaderd te Dordrecht in de jaren 1618 en 1619, ed. Hendrik Petrus Scholte, 3e ed. (Amsterdam: Höveker). IV, 52 p.; 17 cm (text of the Five chapters and the “besluit”). Vijf artikelen 1856: De vijf artikelen tegen de Remonstranten, ed. S. van Velzen (’s-Gravenhage: Firma S. van Velzen). 4th ed. 1876. 1883: De Drie Formulieren van eenigheid met de kerkorde, gelijk die voor de Gereformeerde Kerken dezer landen zijn vastgesteld in haar laatstgehouden Synode. Voor kerkelijk en huiselijk gebruik uitgegeven, ed. A. Kuyper. Amsterdam: J.H. Kruyt (The Five Articles Against the Remonstrants, p. 63–96). 1895: J.J. van Toorenenberg (ed.), De symbolische schriften der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk in zuiveren kritisch bewerkten tekst haar aangeboden tot wettig gebruik (1e dr. Utrecht, 1895; 2e dr. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1906), 129–178.

10.1

Secondary literature

Acta Zuid-Holland 1645: Acta der Particuliere Synoden van Zuid-Holland 1621–1700, vol. 2, W.P.C. Knuttel (ed.) (Rijksgeschiedkundige Publikatiën 5), ’s-Gravenhage: Willem Nijhoff, 1908–1916. Bakhuizen van den Brink, Jan N. (1976), De Nederlandse Belijdenisgeschriften in Authentieke Teksten met Inleiding en Tekstvergelijkingen, 2e ed., Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. de Boer, Erik A. (2011), “O, Ye Women, Think of thy Innocent Children, When They Die Young!” The Canons of Dordt (First Head, Article Seventeen) Between Polemic and Pastoral Theology, in: Aza Goudriaan/Fred van Lieburg (ed.), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) (Brill’s Series in Church History 49), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 261–290. Ens, Johannes (1733), Kort Historisch Bericht van de Publieke Schriften, Rakende de Leer en Dienst der Nederduytze Kerken van de Vereenigde Nederlanden, Zynde de Formulieren van Eenigheyt ende Liturgie, doorgaans Gevoegt agter de Psalmboeken die in de Zelve Kerken Gebruykt Worden, Utrecht.

The Career of the Canones

255

Eijnatten, Joris van (2003), Liberty and Concord in the United Provinces. Religious Toleration and the Public in the Eighteenth-Century Netherlands (Brill’s Studies in Intellectual history 111), Leiden/Boston: Brill. Heijting, Willem (1999), “Voorsichtich ghelyck de slangen: en onnoosel als de duyven”. De Dordtse Uitgever François Boels, J. van der Haar Tachtig Jaar. Speciaal nummer van: Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie 23/2, 117–183. Heijting, Willem (2007), Profijtelijke Boekskens. Boekcultuur, Geloof en Gewin, Hilversum: Verloren. Hofstede, Petrus (1776), Korte Historie van de Synode Nationaal, Arnhem: Wouter Troost. Kuyper, H.H. (1899), De Post-Acta of Nahandelingen van de Nationale Synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619 Gehouden, Amsterdam/Pretoria: Höveker – Wormser. Lamping, A.J. (1980), Johannes Polyander. Een dienaar van Kerk en Universiteit (Kerkhistorische Bijdragen 9), Leiden: E.J. Brill. Schortinghuis, Wilhelmus (1747), Het Oude, Rechtzinnige, Gereformeerde Gelove en Lere der Dordregtsche Vaderen, Gerecipieert en Vast Gestelt in het Synodus Nationaal tot Dordregt, Gehouden in de Jaren 1618 en 1619. En de Overeenkomste van de Belijdenisse en Lere van Wilhelmus Schortinghuis, met Dezelve en Derzelver Canones die Thans Wederom uit Last van het Christelike Synodus van Stad en Lande het Ligt Sien. Tot Afweringe van Ongegronde Verdenkingen en Bevestiginge der Regtsinnige Waarheid, Die na de Godsaligheit Is, Openhartig, Verstaanbaar en Woorden Opgegeven en Voorgestelt, Groningen: Jurjen Spandaw. Sinnema, Donald (2011), The Canons of Dordt: from Judgment of Arminianism to Confessional Standard, in: A. Goudriaan/F. van Lieburg (ed.), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) (Brill’s Series in Church History 49), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 313–333. Soepenberg, H.J. (2016), Op Ongebaande Wegen. De Afscheiding in Amsterdam en Haar Betekenis voor het Kerkverband, Theological University Kampen (unpublished thesis). Veldman, Harm (2009), Hendrik de Cock (1801–1842) op de Breuklijnen van Theologie en Kerk in Nederland, Kampen: Uitgeverij Kok. Vree, J. (1990), H. de Cock en de Groninger Vrienden. Een Onderzoek naar de Overeenkomst en Samenhang tussen Afscheiding en Groninger Richting in Haar Oorsprong (I), Jaarboek voor de geschiedenis van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland 4, 17–47. Vree, J. (2007), De Drie Formulieren van Enigheid: een Vondst van Abraham Kuyper, Historisch Tijdschrift GKN no. 13, 3–17. Vree, J. (2009), Drie Formulieren van Enigheid, in: G. Harinck/H. Paul/B. Wallet (ed.), Het Gereformeerde Geheugen. Protestantse Herinneringsculturen in Nederland, 1850–2000, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 119–129. Wijminga, P.J. (1899), Wijminga, Festus Hommius, Leiden: D. Donner.

Contributors of the volume

Dr. Erik A. de Boer is professor of Church History at the Theological University Kampen, the Netherlands; professor in the history of the Reformation at the VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and affiliate professor at the Free State University Bloemfontein, South Africa. Email address: [email protected] Dr. Henk van den Belt is professor with a Special chair in Reformed Theology, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at University Groningen, the Netherlands. Email address: [email protected] Dr. Gu˝nter Frank is director of the European Melanchthon-Academy in Bretten, Germany, and teaches philosophy at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany. Email address: [email protected] Dr. Albert Gootjes (Ph.D., 2012), is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Email address: [email protected] Thomas Kloeckner (MTh) is a PhD-student at the Theological University Apeldoorn, the Netherlands. Email address: [email protected] Dr. Fred van Lieburg is professor of Religious History at VU University Amsterdam. Email address: [email protected] Dr. Frank van der Pol is professor of Church History emeritus at the Theological University Kampen, the Netherlands. Email address: [email protected] Dr. Herman J. Selderhuis is professor of Church History at the Theological University in Apeldoorn (The Netherlands), and director of Refo500. Email address: [email protected]

258

Contributors of the volume

Dr. Donald Sinnema is professor of theology emeritus at Trinity Christian College, Palos Heights, Illinois. Email address: [email protected] Dr. Antonie Vos is professor of historical theology at the Evangelical Theological Faculty at Louvain (Belgium). Email address: [email protected]