MAJT 30 (2019): 85-99 THE THEOLOGICAL DISPUTATION DE DIVINA HOMINUM PRAEDESTINATIONE (1643), WITH JOHANNES MACCOVIUS PRESIDING AND JOHANNES FRIDERICUS HERBST RESPONDING A Translation by R. M. Hurd BELOW IS A TRANSLATION of a disputation held at the University of Franeker under the presiding Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644): Disputatio theologica de divina hominum praedestinatione, held 2 September 1643, with Johannes Fridericus Herbst as respondent. Drafted and defended the year before Maccovius’s death, the fifty-one theses disputation yields insight into Maccovius’s views on predestination, which throughout his career as a theologian caused no small angst for him and other Reformed theologians. The man himself was born Jan Makowski in Poland, and was the first to receive a doctorate from Franeker University; upon this, there he eventually took a chair as doctor of theology, a seat he occupied the rest of his career. As is well-known, the inimitable Maccovius comes down to us historically as something of a rabble-rouser, a portraiture in large part due to his extended debate on predestination with Sibrandus Lubbertus (1555–1625) at Franeker—discussed even at the great 1618–1619 Synod of Dordt, where Maccovius was brought forward under charge of heresy. It would not be the only dispute of Maccovius’s career; prior to his appearance at the Synod, prior to his seat at Franeker, Maccovius would already show himself a theologus polemicus. Educated early on under the important Bartholomew Keckerman at Gdansk, the young Pole then debated Jesuits at Prague; Socinians at Lublin; Jesuits again at Heidelberg while tutoring—and all this before taking his doctorate at twenty-six. He came to Franeker as a doctoral student 24 October 1613, and took his degree 8 March 1614. The old theology professor Lubbertus was there; and while early on relations between the two theologians were cordial, this would change.1 The infralapsarian Lubbertus took issue with the young Maccovius—or, perhaps, vice versa; they would engage the topic of predestination in future years, facing-off in earnest starting roughly in 1616. 1. For the biography on Lubbertus, see C. van der Woude, Sibrandus Lubbertus. Leven en werk, in het bizjonder naar zijn correspondentie (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1963). 86 Mid-America Journal of Theology I will not survey all historical details2 of what would become a “Maccovius affair.”3 Things began in 1616: a student under the presiding Maccovius disputed on a number of themes bearing on predestination in his de praedestinatione—at which Lubbertus likely filed a complaint with the ecclesiastical authorities at Franeker. More critically, 1 April 1617 saw another Maccovian student, Thomas Parker, dispute seventy theses de traductione hominis peccatoris ad vitam,4 with Lubbertus again opposed. The result was Maccovius charged with and pronounced guilty of heresy in 1618 by local ecclesiastical authorities, with the case making its way to the Great Synod of Dordt. On 25 April 1619, Maccovius read his defense. The day following heard the specifics of the charge, “containing fifty points already known from the theses presented by Parker and Makowski.”5 The Synod issued its verdict 4 May. Kiedron summarizes the three points the Synod proposed: (1) Maccovius was in fact not a heretic; (2) Maccovius was “reprimanded” to avoid hard formulae in the future but seek “select topics of disputations that would reaffirm young people in the orthodox doctrine” (as Kiedron says)—roughly speaking, he ought to avoid declaring the infralapsarian position as straightforwardly in error—and (3) any future charges against him should be supported by graviora documenta.6 This ought to have settled things; but it did not. The year following saw an outbreak again between Lubbertus and Maccovius; the extended conflict was to last, with flashes and fireworks, until Lubbertus’s death in 1625, after which it subsided somewhat. It was not with Lubbertus only that Maccovius had issues. By the time of Lubbertus’s death, the Puritan William Ames had already arrived to sit on the faculty of theology (1622), giving opportunity for tensions between him and Maccovius that lasted until Ames left in 1633 for Rotterdam. Between the two theologians at least two basic things stood at issue: per Ames’s opinion, Maccovius lacked marks of outward piety required of a Christian and certainly a theologian; and Maccovius held a number of theological issues at-odds with Ames’s own views. The latter, for Ames, stemmed from Maccovius’s (over?) philosophical commitments, especially to Aristotelianism. All told, after Ames left, and after two other sitting professors had passed away— 2. For a good introduction, see especially the translator’s Introduction to Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, tr. and ed. William J. van Asselt, Michael D. Bell, Gert van den Brink, Rein Ferwerda (Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009). I have made use of this source for much of the bibliographical data in this introduction. 3. Cf. Van Asselt, “On the Maccovius Affair,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), ed. Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden: Brill, 2011). 4. The disputation had been refused at Leiden, but Parker was permitted to defend it under Maccovius at Franeker. 5. Stefan Kiedron, “Jan Makowski (1588–1644). Polish Theologian in Frisian Franeker,” Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce (2013): 217. For the full documentation and reconstrution of the entire case as handled at Dordt, see Algemeen Rijksarchief, ‘s-Gravenhage, Tweede afdeling in the Oud Synodaal Archief, esp. inv. nr. 125, pp. 277–79. I owe this reference to Van Asselt, “On the Maccovius Affair,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt, 220, n. 12. Van Asselt also provides a helpful summary of this, pp. 220–22. 6. Kiedron, “Jan Makowski,” 218–19. Translation of the Theological Disputation De Divina Hominum Praedestinatione 87 Amama (d. 1629) and Hatching (d. 1630)—things settled. Maccovius was now a more senior professor, and things had gone the gambit. This portraiture would be amiss if it neglected to note Maccovius’s views “on several issues that became standard in seventeenth-century Reformed scholasticism,” as Van Asselt notes.7 While he was the subject of continual controversy, at least in part of his own making, it was not as though he was deeply at odds with “the Reformed.” But apart from issues of (im?)piety and a penchant for overweening about philosophy’s use in theology, what was, in fact, Maccovius’s controversial position? His fairly rigorous supralapsarianism. There is not place here to give more than a bare thumbnail sketch of Maccovius’s views on predestinary topics. His supralapsarianism stands out not because he was unique among Reformed systematicians in holding a “supra” view; he is known due to controversies that surrounded his holding the view, and for arguing it fairly consistently and tempestuously. What he offers can be summarized neatly by how he views the objectum praedestinationis. As laid out in his Loci communes (published by Maccovius himself in 1641, but expanded and republished in 1650, then again in 1658),8 the obiectum can be considered either ratione finis qua in intentione, or qua in executione: the former comports to man as creabilis, and the latter as man condendus, conditus, permittendus in lapsum, et lapsus. We will see this distinction made in the translation below. In fact, comparison between the Loci and its chapters dealing with predestination and the present, far shorter disputation unexpectedly reveal deep resemblance to each other. The value of this disputation, in contrast to the Loci or other works, is it offers avenue into Maccovius’s understanding of predestination that is concise, “boiled-down,” so to say. Disputations are important data for the presiding theologian’s views. And in Maccovius’s own case, student disputations held important place throughout the predestination debates at Franeker (not to mention the parallel happenings in Leiden).9 It is therefore of interest to examine a theses set far removed from the earlier controversy, held after the heat had cooled—held, in fact, the year before Maccovius died. Thus the translation of the disputation below: “The Divine Predestination of Men.”10 As mentioned, the respondent was one Johannes Fridericus Herbestius, and the disputation was held publicly 2 September 1643 with Maccovius presiding. The question of precise authorship of disputations is complex, specifically the relationship 7. Van Asselt, “On the Maccovius Affair,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt, 218. Van Asselt notes that at least Gisbertus Voetius, Franciscus Gomarus, Melchior Leydekker, John Owen, and Alexander Comrie “spoke very appreciately of [Maccovius’s] work.” 8. For a survey of Maccovius’s works, both those published during his lifetime and those published posthumously, see the helpful dissertation by Michael Daniel Bell, “Propter Potestatem, Scientiam, ac Beneplacitum Dei: The Doctrine of the Object of Predestination in the Theology of Johannes Maccovius” (PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1986), 29–37. 9. An interesting parallel to the predestination debates at Franeker is the more famous debates held at Leiden during roughly the same period between Arminius and Gomarus. 10. The text I have used for this translation is available at the ever-helpful prdl.org. 88 Mid-America Journal of Theology between the presiding professor and the responding student in the actual drafting of theses. This disputation lists Herbestius as both “author” and “respondent”; yet it is important to recall that Maccovius presiding entails some sort of sign-off on his part. It is also highly unlikely Maccovius would permit a student disputation at-odds with his own views, given his history with the topic. And, while I have not shown this here, the disputation below follows lines in the Loci communes. I therefore take this disputation to be at the least consistent with Maccovius’s own views, presented under his supervision, and therefore helpful to explicate Maccovius’s own thoughts on the matter.