[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:
Two Disputations: Concerning the Necessity and Utility of the Doctrine of the Trinity Held on the 16th and 23rd of February, in the Year of Our Lord 1639
Preface:
Those who secretly seek to undermine and overthrow the truth of Christian doctrines commonly begin by casting doubt upon their weightiness and gravity, that men, lulled into a slumber of carelessness, might the more easily be robbed of the same truth, and not strive for that faith which was once delivered unto the saints, as it is written in Jude 1:3. It is manifest that the present-day Antitrinitarian heretics employ such subtle devices not altogether uncommonly; and not wholly in vain, seeing that the Epicureanism and Libertinism of our heedless age aid them herein and lend them a hand. Wherefore, standing for the truth, for righteousness, and for the Author of both, the Triune God, so long as breath remaineth in us, we shall strive, and, according to the measure of our understanding and the requirement of our service, we shall labour to treat of these matters in this disputation:
First Proposition:
<aside>
</aside>
For a closer and more precise examination of the first question, two things are to be noted. First: what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and of what sort it is. Second: what a necessary doctrine is, or (as it is called) a fundamental article.
Firstly, the doctrine of the Trinity signifieth not so much a denying, rejecting, or opposing theology, as rather an affirming and consenting one: not so much this or that reason thereof, as the matter, propositions, and consents themselves: not so much the foundations which are set forth, or other propositions which are not principal, as the principal propositions themselves: not so much the manner, order, or form of setting forth that doctrine according to the art of grammar, rhetoric, or logic, to expound and declare it, as the expounded and declared matter itself: not so much the force and method of defending this doctrine against all manner of obstinate reasoners with philosophical and logical terms, distinctions, reasons, and rules, to refute their subtleties and sharp-wittedness, and to bring them to absurdities: contrariwise, not so much any evil works or superstructures, as the city or fortress of the truth itself, which all Christians, even children and novices, through simplicity and steadfastness of faith, inhabit and maintain, and are taught to inhabit and maintain: not so much an exposition of this or that schoolmaster, church teacher, ancient or modern (albeit in this part the most orthodox), as the common and general faith, and the confession of ancient and present-day Christianity (howsoever in many other points it is lamentably divided), both publicly and privately prevailing everywhere: of which one may truly and rightly apply the saying of Vincentius Lyrinensis: That which all, that which everywhere, that which always, to wit, teach and believe.
These oppositions we would have understood thus: not that we despise or lightly esteem the other or the first part; by no means: but only to show when the sincere confession of a godly man, especially of a simple and unlearned person, concerning this first and altogether fundamental doctrine is well established and sound, and when the same is justly suspected of holding the contrary or inclining thereto, that oftentimes the doubts, ignorances, hesitations, and confusions of the stronger Christians concerning the other part of this opposition are long and much endured by the faithful: both because, bewailing his lack of knowledge, he showeth himself teachable; and also because with a true faith he hath and holdeth that mustard seed, that is, that least part of the saving truth, which is necessary for ecclesiastical fellowship and the salvation of souls. This consisteth in these principal propositions:
But it is altogether another matter with the mature and perfect (as they are called, Hebrews 5:14, Philippians 3:15), especially the teachers; particularly when the church is outwardly encompassed with heresies, or inwardly beginneth to be troubled, or if it be obstinately and wilfully opposed. Their considerations and opinions they eagerly, seasonably, and unseasonably cast forth and against those points which by consequence are necessary. For although they have the same foundation of faith with the simple, yet their ignorances and doubts must not be so passed over that they should not, by just objections and suspicions, be compelled to a clearer declaration of the first fundamental doctrines, and to a nearer knowledge of the secondary doctrines which by consequence are also necessary; lest at length the first foundational or fundamental doctrine be shaken off, and the mask of hypocrisy cast aside, those evil and sinful humours break forth into a grievous and dangerous disease of the whole ecclesiastical body. Yea, what is more, we judge that a teacher, by reason of this relapse or intrusion of ignorance and doubt, so long as he is thus afflicted, is altogether unprofitable and unfit for the unfolding of the mysteries of the faith. For how shall he rightly and fully declare the faith? How shall he steadfastly defend it against gainsayers?
Yet we understand not hereby that the doctrine of the Trinity, or desire that it be brought unto, the false foundations of some, who propose bold and more uncertain conjectures than proofs; those trifling and entangled arguments, if any such be, whereby the good cause seemeth more betrayed than defended; those unprofitable and vain subtleties, wherein they more entangle than edify; all which we distinguish as blemishes, stains, and wens of the body of this doctrine.
How great the error of those who hold such things, or who deliver them to others as necessary in the first or second degree, it is not here fitting to say. It sufficeth that it be known from the outset that these things are neither part nor appendage of this fundamental doctrine, much less that they should be the foundation or groundwork of this doctrine itself.