[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>
The Socinian theology, like unto the greater part of Christian doctrines, is libertine, profane, doubtful, and in many things altogether wanting; even so in its practice is it pitiably meager and barren, scarce surpassing the moral philosophy of Seneca, Plutarch, and the modern freethinkers and libertines, like unto the Turks. How well and thoroughly the Remonstrants understand and teach the practice of religion (which here we are not tasked to examine) I have shown in my book Of the Power of Godliness, against that blasphemous writing of Tilenus, published for the Remonstrants in our tongue in the year of our Lord 1628; whereunto, after some years of silence, they have answered nothing else but this: that they understood it not, and knew not what I meant thereby. So be it, I accept their answer. For in that treatise I deal with the utility of our doctrine of predestination and God’s grace unto the practice of consolation and renewed obedience, and of the unfitness of the Remonstrants’ doctrine for the same. But this is not here the concern of the Socinian rhetoric or barrenness.
The Remonstrants, in their Confession or Declaration, do indeed expound broadly and sufficiently upon the utilities of practice concerning the doctrine of the attributes of God (which they treat there) or of the one true God; but the practice concerning the doctrine of the Trinity they altogether pass over in silence. Whether this be because it is but unprofitable, or because it is merely speculative (according to the distinction of Episcopius in his Private Disputations, Disputation 2, Thesis 4), let them declare for themselves. This, when the Professors of Leiden in their Censure or Judgment upon the Remonstrants’ Confession, chapter 3, had objected against them, they received no other answer, amidst much scorn and reviling words, in their Apology, chapter 3, pages 52–53, than this: that the utilities which the concept of the Godhead brings forth had already been noted in the chapter on the nature of God, and that no other, particular, or new utilities could be derived from the Trinity of Persons.
We set forth directly against this, with all orthodoxy, that just as from all principal articles of faith, so also from the Holy Trinity, there are peculiar and particular utilities unto practice. All the principal propositions and doctrines are indeed united in their conjunction (as it is commonly said of the commandments of the Law) and in their coherence and operations they stand as a cause for a beginning; yet notwithstanding, each in itself, as particular causes or parts of the whole edifice and body of faith, each part works, moves, promotes, and impels unto practice through a peculiar power and property: not otherwise than as a living body, as a whole that is constituted, inspires to promote living works; and yet each part in that conjoined whole works nevertheless through its own power and form.
We confirm our position with these arguments:
All that is in any wise distinguished in the matter itself (whether really or essentially), and above that which in our understanding is comprehended with distinct concepts (though but partially and not in all things alike), the same yields us particular and in some wise distinct utilities, both in respect of the object and in respect of the effect and the utility itself. But the one divine essence and nature, and each divine Person, have distinct concepts or apprehensions, both in the operation of our understanding and in the matter itself; yea, what is more, the Persons are really or truly distinguished one from another, and must be so comprehended by us. Thus, this distinct vision and spiritual apprehension of the Persons, in respect of their splendor and order or manner of particular personal subsistence, and inwardly to act or work, I say, this same empowers the understanding and will of man with a distinct perfection and capacity, arising from the light of this contemplation or meditation. For why should not that divine truth (namely, that in the one God there is an ineffable Trinity) with its radiant beams stir us up unto the practice of a spiritual faith, of a peace of faith, of admiration, reverence, honor, and joy? For if all the Word of God must work in us a desire, a longing, love, and humility (Isaiah 61:1–2, 10; Psalm 19:8–9; Psalm 119:72), why then should not also this marvelous word (so to speak) of the Trinity?
The knowledge and faith (to wit, who the one and true God is) have utility and practice in the true (namely, Christian) religion, yea, they constitute and effect a great part thereof; and all its practice cannot be had nor maintained without the knowledge of this (namely, that there is a God, and who the true God is). But now only the doctrine of the Trinity points out and declares who that true God is. Therefore, etc.
If the particular and appropriated order and manner of the working of the Persons in the operations that go outward produce and instill, in a particular manner, a particular practice, to wit, humility, faith, prayer, love, trust, etc., then the doctrine of the Trinity has in our understanding and will particular utilities in practice. But the first is true, which is proved because those utilities would not be so understood under that designation if there were not first comprehended a distinct order of the Persons. The second is proved because this has a particular utility; if we, according to the testimony of Scripture, confess and believe God the Father to be the Creator, the Son the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit the Comforter. It is indeed one work and one workman, but the manner and order of working are distinct.