DR. JOHANNES MACCOVIUS (1588–1644)

Bom in 1588 at Lobzenic, Poland to a well-to-do Reformed family, Johannes Maccovius studied philosophy at Danzig (under Keckerman), and theology at Prague, Coblenz, Heidelberg, Marburg, Leipzig, Wittenberg, and Franeker. In 1614, he received his doctorate from Franeker. In 1615, he became professor at Franeker and was married for the first time. Three times Dr. Maccovius had to bear the burden of bringing a spouse to the grave.

From 1615 until his death in 1644, Dr. Maccovius served as a strongly Calvinistic professor, noted for his erudition in championing a scholastic method of theology. He taught that all that logically flows forth from Scripture may also be regarded as God’s Word. Hence he reckoned philosophy as essential to an understanding of theology, and attributed a high place to reason as being supported by faith in systematic theology.

This intense scholastic method allowed Maccovius to take his strong supralapsarianism beyond the boundaries of Scripture at times. Hence he made several strong statements which created much controversy. For example, he openly criticized the Reformed distinction of the will of God’s decree and the will of His command, stating that only the former is the proper will of God.

Maccovius ardently opposed the Socinians and Jesuits of his day, and was certainly used by God on several fronts to defend the truths of sovereign grace. Like Lubbertus (cf. last month’s cover biography), however, Maccovius’ fiery character was such that he was often embroiled in unnecessary controversy due to making or defending statements that bordered on the extreme. Sadly, Lubbertus and Maccovius became intense opponents as fellow-professors at Franeker, though of one “household of faith.” Lubbertus spread opposition to Maccovius’ walk of life and his strong supralapsarian statements to others. Eventually, Maccovius’ opponents developed a list of formal accusations against him, numbering fifty in all, in which it was stated that his teachings were “akin to the errors of Lutheranism, Pelagianism, Socinianism, Papism, and even Paganism — indeed worse than the doctrines of Arminius and Vorstius.” In 1617–1618 these theses were debated for several months before the Franeker classis, the provincial synod, and the States of Friesland.

Eventually Maccovius’ case was brought before the Synod of Dort which exonerated him from all doctrinal heresy. The judgment of the Dort fathers was “that Maccovius cannot be proved guilty of any Socinianism, Paganism, or Pelagianism, or any other heresies from the alleged statements and theses, and he has been reproached unjustly with this accusation.” Nevertheless, Maccovius was warned by Synod to be more discreet in his teaching lest he give offense to the young. He was particularly warned against making statements that approached “unyielding determinism,” the most notable being “that God does not wish all men to be saved” and that God was in some sense the Author of the fall. Maccovius was the primary theologian Synod had in view when the Canons conclude with the admonition “to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the holy Scriptures.”

After the Synod of Dort, Lubbertus and Maccovius continued to oppose each other theologically, but then on the resurrection of Christ, the last judgment, justification, and the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Sadly, their battles only ceased with Lubbertus’ death in 1625. Subsequently, Maccovius entered into a series of doctrinal conflicts with the renowned William Ames over issues related to the will of God, preparatory grace, and the receiving of Christ into the soul.

Despite Maccovius’ controversial statements and character — for which history unfortunately remembers him best and often does him injustice — God blessed his labors and teachings to the hearts of many students. Among others, Maccovius drew numerous Polish and Magyar students to Franeker to study.

The only substantial work on Maccovius in English is the unpublished dissertation (1986) of Dr. Michael Bell, which, generally speaking, defends Maccovius against many charges and examines his theological contributions with excellent precision.

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen