Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The Westminster divine, Daniel Featley, quoted the below letter of King James I to the French Reformed Synod of Privas in 1612, urging them to drop the controversy between Pierre Du Moulin and Daniel Tilenus (who later sided with the Arminians) concerning the imputation of Christ’s active obedience. While we believe that experience has proven James wrong on this subject, we publish this translation of his letter for reasons of historical interest:
The advice of the most Gracious Prince, James, King of great Britain, for the quieting and composing the ensuing Controversy.
God made man upright, saith Solomon, but he found out many inventions: the truth whereof hence appears, that there daily grow such infinite controversies which seem to tend to no other end, then to disturb the peace of the Church. Among which this late question sprung up within these forty years, which the Church of God knew not of for 1460 years and sustained thereby no detriment, but now hath been eagerly argued between two most learned men, may be ranked; whether the passive obedience of Christ, whereby he laid down his life for his sheep by the special command of his Father, be only imputed to us for righteousness, or together with the passive the active also whereby he rendered himself obedient to the law.
This question, and those that necessarily arise from it, (a glimpse whereof we may see in the propositions of Molinaeus [Pierre Du Moulin], and the oppositions of [Daniel] Tilenus) we have no mind either in general to discuss, or in particular to scale. But out of those things which we have read ourselves, or heard from others in our presence, we will give such advice as we think will not mis-beseem the Defender of the faith. ...
For more, see King James I and the controversy among the Huguenots over Christ’s active obedience.
The advice of the most Gracious Prince, James, King of great Britain, for the quieting and composing the ensuing Controversy.
God made man upright, saith Solomon, but he found out many inventions: the truth whereof hence appears, that there daily grow such infinite controversies which seem to tend to no other end, then to disturb the peace of the Church. Among which this late question sprung up within these forty years, which the Church of God knew not of for 1460 years and sustained thereby no detriment, but now hath been eagerly argued between two most learned men, may be ranked; whether the passive obedience of Christ, whereby he laid down his life for his sheep by the special command of his Father, be only imputed to us for righteousness, or together with the passive the active also whereby he rendered himself obedient to the law.
This question, and those that necessarily arise from it, (a glimpse whereof we may see in the propositions of Molinaeus [Pierre Du Moulin], and the oppositions of [Daniel] Tilenus) we have no mind either in general to discuss, or in particular to scale. But out of those things which we have read ourselves, or heard from others in our presence, we will give such advice as we think will not mis-beseem the Defender of the faith. ...
For more, see King James I and the controversy among the Huguenots over Christ’s active obedience.
