[Dry disputatien, d'eerste van de fundamentele articulen, d'andre twee Vande Nootsakelijckheyt ende Nuttigcheyt van het Leer-stuck van de H. Dry-Eenicheyd (Utrecht: E.W. Snellaert, 1641)]
Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676) was a stalwart of Reformed orthodoxy, a theologian, pastor, and professor whose life bore testimony to the rigorous scholastic discipline of the Nadere Reformatie. Born in Heusden in the Dutch Republic, Voetius studied at Leiden and served as pastor in Vlijmen and later in his native city. As the youngest delegate at the Synod of Dort (1619), he stood resolutely against Arminian innovations, defending the sovereign grace of God with unflinching clarity. In 1634, Voetius was appointed professor of theology and oriental languages at the newly founded University of Utrecht, where he also served as pastor. There, he became a chief architect of what is now called “Voetian scholasticism”—a robust and academic articulation of Calvinist doctrine infused with the precision tools of Aristotelian logic and the experiential zeal of Reformed piety. Voetius is perhaps most famous for his fierce opposition to the Cartesian philosophy. In 1642, he led Utrecht's condemnation of Descartes’ rationalism, which he viewed as undermining both theological authority and metaphysical orthodoxy. For Voetius, reason was a servant, not a sovereign, and truth could only be known rightly when reason bowed before the majesty of divine revelation. Cartesianism, to him, represented a subtle encroachment of human pride against the revealed mysteries of God. Among his many works, Politica Ecclesiastica stands as a magisterial treatment of Reformed church order and discipline. Until his death in 1676, Voetius remained a guardian of confessional clarity, a bulwark against rationalist encroachments, and a faithful doctor of sacred theology.
Table of Contents:
<aside>
</aside>
And examine ye whether the searching out of the fundamental or grounded doctrines and errors be both weighty and difficult, yet also necessary: for hereupon depend and are fastened many disputations, deliberations, and considerations, of the liberty of prophesying, of mutual toleration and moderation, of heresy, of separation or withdrawal, of schism, of the unity and union of churches and congregations, of the ban or excommunication. Certain things pertaining unto this inquiry have been, as it were in passing, here and there pointed out by our teachers, who against our adversaries in points of difference, and also those who unto ours write books for instruction, under the titles of Faith, of the Church and her infallibility, marks and succession, of Heresy and Schism: the interpreters upon 1 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 5 and 6, 2 Timothy 1:13, the writers of heresies, of whom I shall set forth and give a catalogue in my Disputation of Heresy: the Popish schoolmen upon the Third Distinction, 24 and 25, and upon 2.2, Question 1, Articles 7, 8, 9, and Question 2, Articles 5, 7, 8. The Casuists (or they that write of the cases of conscience) under the title of Heresy, Schism, Faith, etc. The Canonists, or they that expound and adorn the Papal laws (called the Ius Canonicum), upon the titles of Heretics, Schism, Apostasy, upon 6 and C.L. and Extravagantes. The writings of the Brownists (as they are called) or Separatists, that is, the separated, and their adversaries: All the writers that treat or write of the union of divided churches, especially betwixt the Popish and the Reformed, again betwixt ours and the Lutherans, of whom one may see a prolix register or catalogue at the end of the book of Cassander, De Officio Pii, etc., printed at Lyons in the year 1612, and another register at the end of the book of Johannes Duraeus, De Pace Ecclesiastica, published in the year 1636. Unto which now setting forth and adding, Gerson, Part 1, Numbers 11 and 14, and Part 4, Number 12. Admonitio Neostadiana de Libro Concordiae with its Apology; Philippus Heimachtius, Epanorthotes; Roma Irreconciliabilis by Joseph Hall; Aubigny, a noble Frenchman, Dissertatio de Componendis Religionis Dissidiis; the Dialogue of Coornhert to diminish sects, with the Refutation of the Preachers of Delft; the Acts of the Synods in the Netherlands with Coolhaes and Hermannus Herberts; the present-day writings of the English, namely, of Hall, Burton, Spencerus, Butterfield, Hugo Cholmiey, of the state and condition of the present-day Roman Church, whether it be the true Church: with which may be compared the things which Montacutius hath in his tract with this title, Appello Caesarem, and his adversaries: the Refutatio Tertiae Collationis Iesuitae Fisheri; Christophorus Potterus in his tract with the title Defectus Caritatis, Section 7. Very many writings of the Socinians, Libertines, Remonstrants, Orthodox, published in the time of the Remonstrant schism and contention, whose names herein this work, for their multitude’s sake, shall not be set forth: yet he that desireth a short comprehension, summary, extract, and the marrow of all these, let him peruse, upon the latest writings, the Apologia, Responsum ad Excerpta DD. Professorum Leydensium, Vedelius’s Rhapsodus, with D. Vedelii’s Arcana Arminianismi. But forasmuch as the greater part of these authors and writers, having other things in hand and doing, do rather touch upon or point out this matter, handling so much as serveth their purpose and sufficeth, than treat thereof with intent and search it out: so we deem it not unprofitable to touch briefly and cursorily upon certain things of the fundamental doctrines, that we may somewhat satisfy the desire of the studious, and give unto others occasion and cause for a closer and more diligent searching and consideration of the same. We shall then set forth and establish, First, certain foundations and ground-rules. Secondly, certain distinctions or differences. Thirdly, we shall note the ground-positions of others and show their insufficiency. Fourthly, we shall conclude and pronounce upon this difference, what and of what sort the fundamental doctrines and errors be.
The first ground-rule is this: All things that are set forth and described in the Scripture are not equally necessary unto the saving faith, or unto the ecclesiastical union, communion, and brotherhood: nor need all doctrines be taught and impressed upon the faithful with equal necessity. Which we gather from 1 Corinthians 3:10-12, Philippians 3:15-16, 2 Timothy 1:13, Titus 1:1, 1 Timothy 6:3. And let this reason be brought forth: that, even as in all arts and sciences, so also in Scripture, distinction must be made betwixt the essential and proper sayings, parts, and commandments of religion, and the exposition thereof: for certain things are therein treated by occasion or in passing, not with such intent as if they would make them their chief work, to teach such things perfectly from beginning to end; but that they only make some relation thereof in respect unto God and spiritual things; to wit, as effects and workings in respect of the cause and the worker; as things appointed or established in respect of the object and aim; or also by manner of similitude, induction, and example.
Addition:
The second ground-rule: Neither all things that be in the theological systems, that is, that be contained in the books which describe religion and the parts thereof; nor all things that be taught in the schools and churches by voice and words, or by writing, be equally necessary unto salvation or unto the communion of the saints. Distinction must be made betwixt the being and the chief propositions of the doctrines, and betwixt their foundations, consequences or effects, and their full exposition, proofs, with the solutions and answers unto objections. Again, distinction must be set betwixt the doctrines properly so called, which pertain most nearly unto faith and manners of living, and betwixt particular matters that concern the practical governance and polity, with their ceremonies, observances, and customs. These distinctions be not universally by a common consent of all approved and held good. Hereupon ariseth and springeth among ours the distinction betwixt faith and theology: among them of the Papacy the distinction betwixt that which is of faith and belongeth thereunto, and betwixt theology or the learning of the schools: among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession the distinction betwixt the being and substance of the articles, and betwixt the expositions and declarations thereof. Balduinus, Casuum, Book 2, Chapter 1, Case 7. Yet ours again make distinction betwixt the doctrines of faith and the matters that concern ceremonies and the outward polity or governance of the churches. So do also certain theologians in England, who otherwise desire and wish for a purer and better established polity and manner of governance. In place of all others, we set forth here this one, namely, Parkerus, De Politia Ecclesiastica, Book 1, Chapters 11, 12, 13, 14.
Addition:
The third ground-rule: Herein is not treated the proper particular object and aim of the particular faith, insofar as it is a trust in Christ, or a particular application of the promises in Christ given; but rather the common object or aim of the common or general faith. Therefore, we must not here conceive or understand a foundation consisting in a single term or word, as for example, God, or Christ, or the Word of God: For God is the foundation and first principle of the being of our salvation, as it is written, John 14:1, "Believe in God." Christ is a subordinate foundation as a meritorious cause of the same our salvation, according to 1 Corinthians 3:11, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ," and Colossians 2:7, "Rooted and built up in him." The Word of God is an instrumental principle or foundation as a beginning of the knowledge of our salvation, as it is said, Ephesians 2:20, "Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." With this our ground-rule accordeth that which the masters of sentences in the Papacy dispute upon the Third Distinction, 24, of Lombardus: Where Durandus, in Question 1, maketh distinction betwixt that which is believed, and that of which it is believed, and addeth: Therefore, since faith is especially and principally of God, yet it is also of other things, insofar as they have respect unto God; and thus there may be unbelief concerning both. So also Cajetanus with Thomas, in 2.2, Question 1, Article 2 and 6, teacheth that the object and aim of faith on the part of the believer is a whole reason or proposition; for it is the proper manner of human understanding, through composition and division, to know the truth; wherefore the things which must be believed are distinguished by certain articles.
The fourth ground-rule: Therefore, those truths of faith, those articles or points, are not one or two, nor very few. These points, I say, are propositions and rules, not only those which are called first, as being the most general principles, nor only some axioms most nearly drawn from those propositions; but also the remaining and necessary conclusions or deductions and consequences, that the body of faith may be perfect. Even as in other arts and sciences, not only must the first and general principles and rules be learned and known, which virtually contain all the other points and doctrine; but also all those particular rules which are comprehended under the essential points and parts of that science.