Philip Henry (1631-1696)A Strongly Calvinistic Puritan
Today, many Christians are turning back to the puritans to, “walk in the old paths,” of God’s word, and to continue to proclaim old truth that glorifies Jesus Christ. There is no new theology. In our electronic age, more and more people are looking to add electronic books (ePubs, mobi and PDF formats) to their library – books from the Reformers and Puritans – in order to become a “digital puritan” themselves. Take a moment to visit Puritan Publications (click the banner below) to find the biggest selection of rare puritan works updated in modern English in both print form and in multiple electronic forms. There are new books published every month. All proceeds go to support A Puritan’s Mind.
The end, indeed, of election to life is the glory of saving power, wisdom, and grace (Romans 9:22-23; Ephesians 1:6): but the end of election to the means is holiness (Ephesians 1:4, 2:10): just as the end of this, the terminus of election, is life. (1 Corinthians 9:24-25).
Biography of Franciscus Gomarus (1563-1602):
It is a surprising fact of history that oftentimes, in doctrinal controversy, the heretic is a nice man, while the defender of the faith is, from many points of view, a miserable character. Athanasius vs. Arius: Arius the suave, diplomatic, likeable denier of Christ’s divinity; Athanasius the stubborn and implacable defender of the Nicene Creed. Cyril vs. Nestorius: Cyril the haughty and cruel defender of the unity of Christ’s natures in the one divine person; Nestorius the popular, gifted heretic who insisted that Christ had two persons. Augustine the crabby defender of the sovereignty of grace; Pelagius the urbane and witty defender of freedom of the will. Gottschalk the stern and unfriendly follower of Augustine who rotted in prison for his recalcitrance; Hincmar the learned and powerful archbishop of Rheims. And so the list could go on: Luther vs. Erasmus the humanist; Calvin vs. Bolsec the heretic; Knox vs. Mary Queen of the Scots. And those who know their history can find others, perhaps within their own particular denominational history.
So it was also with Gomarus. Even his friends found him obnoxious at times and barely tolerable. His opponent, Jacobus Arminius, popular with students and ministers, gracious, kind, tolerant, filled with concern for friend and foe alike, presents quite a contrast. But Arminius was the heretic, and Gomarus stood for the truth.
Why does God work this way in the history of the church? Why is the nice guy so often the enemy of the faith, while the old curmudgeon is the champion of the truth of God? I do not think that we can find a complete answer to this question. But part of it is that the truth is not popular and defenders of the truth can sometimes become crabby because of the fierce and unrelenting attacks of opponents. Sometimes the deceit and double-tongued language of heretics who hide their heresy with honey-coated words can only be exposed by sharp and impolitic language. Sometimes the defense of the faith requires a stubborn man who will not budge no matter what the consequences; and he is presented by his enemies as being unreasonable and wickedly stubborn, so that the truth for which he fights may be maligned along with him. But always God uses weakest means to fulfill his will.
There is an important truth here — a truth to which few pay attention. So many are persuaded of their position by the character of the men involved: the nice guy has got to be right; the nasty fellow cannot possibly be correct. Yet the truth must be decided on other grounds than that of personalities: it must be decided by the Scriptures alone, regardless of any personal likes and dislikes. Without excusing what is sometimes wicked conduct on the part of orthodox men, it is important that the church remember that the truth is determined by God’s Word alone. Gomarus, for all his shortcomings, was a champion of the Reformed faith. And one must, for the truth’s sake, overlook personal faults.
Early Life And Education
The family into which Gomarus was born lived in Bruges, a city in the province of Flanders, which was then a part of the Lowlands but is now a part of Belgium. Gomarus was the oldest in the family, born on January 30, 1563. He had two younger brothers and possibly a younger sister. Sometime before 1570, although probably after Gomarus’ birth, his family embraced the Reformed faith.
Gomarus began his studies in Bruges and at an early age learned Latin and Greek. But in 1577, because of the severity of the Spanish persecution in the Lowlands, the family sought refuge in Germany in the Palatinate. Because of the nearness of the family to the city of Strassburg, Gomarus was able to study there under Johann Sturm, a second-generation reformer, in the city where Calvin had lived in the years of his exile from Geneva.
When Frederick, the Calvinist elector of the Palatinate died, his brother Louis (Ludwig) came to the electorate. He was a Lutheran and hated Calvinism passionately. He drove out of the University of Heidelberg all the Calvinist professors, including Ursinus and Olevianus, the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism. Some of these professors settled in Neustadt, and to Neustadt Gomarus went to study under Ursinus and Zanchius. His studies included Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and philosophy.
From 1582 to 1584 Gomarus broadened his education by a trip to England where he studied first in Oxford, then in Cambridge. In 1885 Louis died, and his brother, prince Casimir, became elector. He restored to the university in 1584 the professors from Heidelberg who were still living. Gomarus returned there for two years.
Ministry And Professorship
Gomarus had received a wide and excellent education and had become an expert in languages, including Hebrew. But his education was first of all to be put to use in the pastoral ministry to which he also aspired. He became pastor of a Dutch congregation in Germany in Frankfort-on-the-Main. The church had been established by Marten Micronius and John à Lasco in 1555, two second-generation reformers, the latter of which had played a significant role in the formation of the liturgy of the Dutch Reformed Churches.
Work here did not last very long. The church was dissolved because of Lutheran persecution. The Lutherans were always angry that Calvinism had taken hold in Germany, which they considered their own private preserve.
While in Frankfort-on-the-Main, Gomarus married Emerentia, a daughter of Gilles and sister of Abraham Muysenhol. They did not have long together: she died in childbirth with their first child in 1591 very shortly after they were married. Two years later Gomarus married again: a woman named Maria, a daughter of local nobility. He lived with her for many years.
Although the congregation in Frankfort-on-the-Main was dissolved and Gomarus left without a job, within a few months he was asked to become professor of theology in the University of Leyden. His reputation for wide learning and his devotion to orthodoxy were already well known.
While it is not known exactly what was Gomarus’ wage while in Leyden, the town records indicate that he was probably rather well off. He owned a house adjacent to the University, and the taxes in the city were leveled on the basis of the number of chimneys on the house: Gomarus was charged for 11 chimneys.
The early years in the University were probably some of the happiest in Gomarus’ life. He enjoyed his work, had opportunity to advance his studies, and found a congenial home where his colleagues were all one with him in the faith. His students respected him, also for his vast learning, and his work was beneficial for the churches.
All this changed in 1603. In that year, over the strong protests of Gomarus, Jacobus Harmsen, known as Jacob Arminius, was appointed professor of theology in the University to work with Gomarus in that faculty of learning. This proved to be the beginning of the trouble which finally resulted in a country-wide split in the Dutch Churches and was only resolved by the great Synod of Dort.
Controversy With Arminius
It may surprise us somewhat that Gomarus fought hard against the appointment of Arminius as professor in theology. But this surprise will evaporate when we realize that Arminius was under strong suspicion for his views before he was considered for a professorship. After he completed his studies, Arminius became minister in the church of Amsterdam It was not long after the beginning of his ministry that he began a series of sermons on the book of Romans. In connection with his treatment of Romans 7:14-25, Arminius took the position that Paul was describing in this passage his spiritual state prior to his conversion. One can readily recognize that this implies that Paul, before being converted, was able to will the good: “The good that I would….” And such a view was a denial of the total depravity of man, and paved the way for the doctrine of the freedom of the human will in the work of salvation.
These views were challenged by Plancius, one of Arminius’ fellow ministers in Amsterdam. A controversy arose in the church there which intensified when Arminius got around to preaching on Romans 9. It was in the middle of the controversy that the appointment came which Gomarus, aware of the controversy, opposed. But Arminius had powerful friends in the highest reaches of government and his appointment went through.
In the end, Gomarus agreed to the appointment. A conference was held, prior to the final approval of Arminius, sponsored by the States General of the Dutch government, between Gomarus and Arminius. The interpretation of Romans 7 was discussed, but Arminius so managed to hide his true beliefs that Gomarus was satisfied and approved the appointment. Gomarus later spoke of regretting that approval.
The controversy broke out again on February 7, 1604 when Arminius propounded various theses on the doctrine of predestination. The sum of these theses can be found in the following quote from them.
“Divine predestination is the decree of God in Christ by which he has decreed with himself from eternity to justify, adopt, and gift with eternal life, to the praise of his glorious grace, the faithful whom he has decreed to gift with faith. On the other hand, reprobation is the decree of the anger or severe will of God, by which he has determined from eternity, for the purpose of showing his anger and power, to condemn to eternal death, as placed out of union with Christ, the unbelieving who, by their own fault and the just judgment of God, are not to believe.”
It is my guess that the majority of our readers might be hard-pressed to find any fault with this statement of Arminius. The difficulty in finding its error is probably due in part to the fact that Arminius was capable of cloaking his error in a deceptive way to make it appear Reformed; but the difficulty in detecting what is wrong may also, sadly enough, be explained by the lack of theological sensitivity in today’s church.
At any rate, the problem lies in the fact that Arminius is teaching in this paragraph a conditional predestination: “[God] has decreed … to justify … the faithful….” That is, God has decreed to justify those who have faith — which makes faith a condition to election. And: “Reprobation is the decree … of God … to condemn … the unbelieving….” That is, also reprobation is a conditional decree, the condition of which is unbelief.
Gomarus attacked these statements, and the result was bitter and prolonged controversy. Arminius continued to present himself as a faithful defender of the Reformed faith, while attempting to cast Gomarus in the bad light of an enemy of true Calvinism. It is not hard to understand that Gomarus received a bad reputation for his opposition to Arminius. After all, the point seemed insignificant, as even the leaders in government were later to say. Why fight about it? And Arminius was such a nice man! He protested his innocence time and again and assured everyone that he was soundly Reformed and deeply committed to the confessions. How could Gomarus, that man who never smiled, be such a stubborn man?
The controversy raged for four years and finally engulfed the churches. In 1608 Gomarus and Arminius conducted a public debate before the Supreme Court of the Hague in an effort on the part of the government to resolve the problems. At the conclusion of the debate, Barneveldt, a friend of Arminius and head of the government, in a short address to the two combatants, declared that he thanked God that their contentions did not affect the fundamental articles of the Christian religion. To this Gomarus replied in characteristic fashion, “I would not appear before the throne of God with Arminius’ errors.” The Court judged the matters in dispute to be matters of little significance.
In further efforts to resolve the disagreements, a conference was arranged, at which Gomarus and Arminius were to submit papers outlining their respective positions on the doctrine of predestination. Each was given 250 guilders to cover the expense of preparing the papers. The conference was never held because Arminius died of what was probably tuberculosis in 1609.
It is not our purpose in this article to trace the history of the controversy any further than Gomarus’ involvement in it. As anyone with even a passing knowledge of the controversy knows, the issues were the great issues of salvation by sovereign grace alone vs. salvation based on the works of man. Ten years after the death of Arminius the controversy was settled at the Synod of Dordrecht, where Gomarus’ position was vindicated.
In 1611 Gomarus resigned from his position in the University of Leyden. The reason for his resignation is not known, but it may be that the controversy and the support of Arminius by the government wore beyond endurance the strength of the old warrior. At any rate, upon his resignation, he became pastor of a Reformed congregation in Middleburg where he also lectured in theology and Hebrew in the local University.
In 1614 he went to Saumur in France, where he became professor of theology. It is a bit disconcerting to know that the school in Saumur, not long after Dort, became a hotbed of Amyrauldianism, a heresy not unlike Arminianism.
In 1618-1619 Gomarus was at the Synod of Dort along with other professor advisors. He took an active role in the Synod’s proceedings and was instrumental in the victory of the truth of Scripture on that great Synod meeting.
An interesting sidelight to Gomarus’ role at the Synod was his work on a committee to investigate the teachings of Maccovius. Maccovius also held strongly to the doctrine of sovereign predestination, but was charged with carrying the doctrine to such an extreme that he made God the author of sin. The Synod handed the case to government representatives who were unable to resolve the conflict. A committee was appointed to deal with the matter, on which committee Gomarus served. Later in the proceedings of the Synod, the committee reported that the matter had been amicably resolved and Maccovius was cautioned not to make radical and Biblically unwarranted statements.
After the Synod, Gomarus went to the University of Groningen where he became professor of divinity and Hebrew. In 1633 he took part in the revision of the translation of the Bible, which work was done in Leyden. During these meetings he argued strenuously against including the Apocryphal books in the Bible, but was overruled. This translation, authorized by the Synod of Dort, was for many years to the Dutch what the KJV was (and is) to the English. Gomarus stayed in Leyden till his death on January 11, 1641.
There can be no question about it that Gomarus was a difficult man, hard to get along with, prone to extreme statements, sometimes violent in his opposition to Arminius and Arminianism. He never “beat around the bush.” He never left any doubt in anyone’s mind as to what he believed. He never worried about “stepping on people’s toes” or offending them if they were not heart and mind committed to the truth.
Sometimes descriptions of him are biased, and bitterness against his staunch defense of the faith pours out in diatribes against his personality. Thus one author can write: “[He] displayed a most violent, virulent, and intolerant spirit, and endeavored by various publications to excite the indignation of the States of Holland against his rival.”
But some of this was true. Even Junius, later related to Gomarus through marriage, said: “That man pleases himself most wonderfully by his own remarks. He derives all his stock of knowledge from others; he brings forward nothing of his own: or, if at any time he varies from his usual practice, he is exceedingly infelicitous in those occasion changes.”
There is a story somewhere, whether true or apocryphal it is hard to say, that at the Synod of Dort, one elder was appointed to sit alongside Gomarus to tug him back into his seat when he leaped to his feet and rather too forcibly made a point.
In any case, Gomarus was a staunch defender of the faith. Perhaps it took a man such as he to stand against the growing tide of Arminianism. God’s providence prepares men who are “stubborn” about the right things. And if this seems to condone their sins, the fact is that, though it does not, God can, as the proverb has it, draw a straight line with a crooked stick. And sometimes only very strong language will do to put to flight the clever designs of heretics.
At the Synod of Dort Gomarus defended not only orthodoxy but supralapsarian orthodoxy. And, although his views in this respect did not prevail on the Synod, for the Canons are infralapsarian, his supralapsarianism was not condemned by the Synod and his defense of the faith was of inestimable service as the Synod struggled with the errors of Arminianism.
Gomarus cared only about one thing: the glory of God. Gomarus would allow only one book to determine his theology: the sacred Scriptures. In a sort of album in which he kept various letters, tokens of friendship, and something of a diary, he had written in Hebrew: “Thy (God’s) Word is Light.”
He was of the stripe of Calvin, Gottschalk, Augustine, and Athanasius. He was the forerunner of others to follow, of whom one has got to be Herman Hoeksema. We need not always approve of the way in which they did things (although we can take a long and hard look at ourselves in this respect), but we ought to thank God for them, for they were men of courage and conviction who fought for truth and right against all odds. To concentrate on their weaknesses and foibles, so as to condemn their defense of the faith is to be unfaithful to the truth. To look beyond personalities and weigh all in the light of Scripture is to be faithful. To fight is the courage of faith. May God grant men like these to the church today — even if they sometimes have difficult personalities. The church needs more than nice men.