Three Forms of Unity Question

[bookslover]

Does anyone know what is the earliest use of the term "Three Forms of Unity" and who came up with the term? Did the Synod of Dort come up with it?

I'm curious to know.

 

[Claes Jacob Heijndericksz]

De formulis consensus ecclesiae Belgicae in doctrina orthodoxa

The description "forms of unity" was already widely employed in the acts of the synod of Dort of 1618-1619 to denote the confessions: the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. So this term must have been in use prior to this synod. The way it was used was rather flexible; instead of seeing it as a title for a fixed set of confessions is seems more like to simply denote "the doctrinal standards". So you can find besides 'forms of unity", also "our adopted forms", "the forms of the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism", "the forms of our unity", "the forms of ecclesiatical unity", "the forms of unity of our doctrine", etc. The acts of the synod were originally written in Latin; in latin “forms of unity” is “formulis consensus”.

This old usage of the term “forms of unity” as simply meaning doctrinal standards can be witnessed in Witsius. In the Pacific Address in his Oeconomy we read:

“Let no one by the authority of any man's name, bind the free consciences of the faithful but as Clemens Romanus once said, Let the meaning of truth be taken from the scriptures themselves: by these alone let it stand or fall in religious matters: by these let all controversies be settled: Let the sacred and undefiled gospel of Christ our God be laid as the foundation, as was wont to be done in the godly councils of the ancients. Nevertheless let not any one stubbornly on this pretence withhold his assent to such forms, which are taken from the word of God, are agreeable to the scriptures, are the bonds of church union, the tests of orthodoxy bars against heresies, and the limits of wanton wits; as if they were the relics of the Babylonish tower, by which through a human device, not to be approved of, men were obliged to think and speak alike in religion.”

In Latin the bold part reads: “Nemo tamen hoc praetextu formulis consensus, quae ex Dei verbo desumtae”

At the synod of Dort subscription to all three confessions, the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort, was made mandatory. So in the 17th and 18th century the forms of unity had become three documents. However these doctrinal standards never appeared in a single volume together.

Popularization of these three confessional standards as the “Three Forms of Unity” is more of a 19th century thing when liberals might argue against the inclusion of the Canons of Dort. Against those kind of arguments we can point to the approbation in the psalter of 1773 in which all three documents are clearly called the Forms of Unity. However Kuyper was the first one to bind our confessions in a single volume under this title in the second half of the 19th century.

 

[bookslover]

De formulis consensus ecclesiae Belgicae in doctrina orthodoxa

The description "forms of unity" was already widely employed in the acts of the synod of Dort of 1618-1619 to denote the confessions: the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. So this term must have been in use prior to this synod. The way it was used was rather flexible; instead of seeing it as a title for a fixed set of confessions is seems more like to simply denote "the doctrinal standards". So you can find besides 'forms of unity", also "our adopted forms", "the forms of the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism", "the forms of our unity", "the forms of ecclesiatical unity", "the forms of unity of our doctrine", etc. The acts of the synod were originally written in Latin; in latin “forms of unity” is “formulis consensus”.

This old usage of the term “forms of unity” as simply meaning doctrinal standards can be witnessed in Witsius. In the Pacific Address in his Oeconomy we read:

“Let no one by the authority of any man's name, bind the free consciences of the faithful but as Clemens Romanus once said, Let the meaning of truth be taken from the scriptures themselves: by these alone let it stand or fall in religious matters: by these let all controversies be settled: Let the sacred and undefiled gospel of Christ our God be laid as the foundation, as was wont to be done in the godly councils of the ancients. Nevertheless let not any one stubbornly on this pretence withhold his assent to such forms, which are taken from the word of God, are agreeable to the scriptures, are the bonds of church union, the tests of orthodoxy bars against heresies, and the limits of wanton wits; as if they were the relics of the Babylonish tower, by which through a human device, not to be approved of, men were obliged to think and speak alike in religion.”

In Latin the bold part reads: “Nemo tamen hoc praetextu formulis consensus, quae ex Dei verbo desumtae”

At the synod of Dort subscription to all three confessions, the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort, was made mandatory. So in the 17th and 18th century the forms of unity had become three documents. However these doctrinal standards never appeared in a single volume together.

Popularization of these three confessional standards as the “Three Forms of Unity” is more of a 19th century thing when liberals might argue against the inclusion of the Canons of Dort. Against those kind of arguments we can point to the approbation in the psalter of 1773 in which all three documents are clearly called the Forms of Unity. However Kuyper was the first one to bind our confessions in a single volume under this title in the second half of the 19th century.

Thanks! That's very interesting. So, basically, the term "forms of unity" just sort of became the formulation organically during those years, with the "three" being added during the 19th century.