Reformed orthodoxy and philosophy, 1625-1750...Driessen, Van Mastricht and Voetius: Original Texts ..... 333 3. Van Mastricht and Voetius: Modern Translations or ... burgh, and Piet

REFORMED ORTHODOXY AND PHILOSOPHY, 1625-1750

BRILL’S SERIES INCHURCH HISTORY

(Formerly known as Kerkhistorische Bijdragen)

EDITED BY

WIM JANSE, Leiden/Amsterdam

IN COOPERATION WITH

THEO CLEMENS, Utrecht/AntwerpenOLIVIER FATIO, Genève

ALASTAIR HAMILTON, LondonSCOTT MANDELBROTE, CambridgeANDREW PETTEGREE, St. Andrews

VOLUME XXVI


AZA GOUDRIAAN


Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen

BY

AZA GOUDRIAAN

LEIDEN • BOSTON2006

The research for this volume has been supported financially by the Netherlands Organisation forScientific Research (NWO).

Cover illustrations from left to right: Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676); Universiteitsmuseum, Utrecht (cf. J. Teeuwisse, Utrechtseuniversiteitsportretten, Zutphen/Utrecht: Walburg Pers/Universiteitsmuseum 1991, 37-38). Petrus van Mastricht (1630-1706); Universiteitsmuseum, Utrecht (cf. Teeuwisse, Utrechtseuniversiteitsportretten, 50). Anthonius Driessen (1684-1748); Universiteitsmuseum, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (cf.http://www.rug.nl/museum/galerij/portretten/hoogleraar/driessenA).

This book is printed on acid-free paper

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Goudriaan, Aza.Reformed orthodoxy and philosophy, 1625-1750 : Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van

Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen / by Aza Goudriaan.p. cm. — (Brill’s series in church history, ISSN 1572-4107 ; v. 26)

Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.ISBN-13: 978-90-04-15498-8ISBN-10: 90-04-15498-1 (hardback : alk. paper)1. Reformed Church—Doctrines. 2. Theology. 3. Voet, Gijsbert, 1589-1676. 4.

Mastricht, Peter van, 1630-1706. 5. Driessen, Anthonius, 1684-1748. I. Title.

BX9422.3.G68 2006230’.42492—dc22

2006049210

ISSN 1572–4107ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15498 8ISBN-10: 90 04 15498 1

© Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill,

Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written

permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personaluse is granted by Koninklijke Brill provided that

the appropriate fees are paid directly to The CopyrightClearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910

Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixAbbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. Dutch Reformed Theology and Its Broader Significance. . . . . 53. Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74. Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145. Anthonius Driessen (1684–1748) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206. Selected Theological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Chapter One: Holy Scripture, Human Reason, and NaturalTheology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292. Voetius’s Appreciation of Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292.1. Christian Aristotelianism in Support of Theology. . . . . . . . 292.2. Faith, Reason, and the Authority of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3. Van Mastricht’s anti-Cartesian Eclecticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544. Driessen’s Reason: Proving Scripture’s Divinity and

Illuminated by Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655. Natural Theology and Proofs for God’s Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Chapter Two: Creation, Mosaic Physics, Copernicanism, andDivine Accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852. Philosophy and Creation from Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863. Issues in Mosaic Physics: Creation in Six Days, Substantial

Forms, and Copernicanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043.1. Creation in Six Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053.2. Substantial Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133.3. Copernicanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

4. Theories of Accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

vi contents

Chapter Three: The Providence of God, Secondary Causality,and Related Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1431. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1432. The Relation Between the First Cause and Secondary

Causes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1452.1. Voetius on Divine Predetermination, Secondary

Causality, and Contingency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1452.2. Van Mastricht: Defending the Priority of the First

Cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1552.3. Driessen’s Insistence on Real Secondary Causality . . . . . . . 160

3. Freedom of the Human Will: Reservations and Defence . . . . . 1733.1. Voetius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1743.2. Van Mastricht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1793.3. Driessen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

4. Divine Providence and Human Sinful Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1885. Miracles: Reservations and Defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1976. Divine Providence and the View of History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2126.1. Providence in History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2126.2. History and Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2176.3. The Future of the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Chapter Four: The Human Being: His Soul and Body, SpecialStatus, and Conscience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2331. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2332. The Relationship between Soul and Body, and the

Immortality of the Soul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2342.1. Voetius’s Hylemorphist View of the Relationship

between Soul and Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2342.2. Van Mastricht’s Hylemorphist Opposition to

Cartesian Dualism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2432.3. Driessen’s Dualistic Defense of Soul-Body Interaction

and of the Soul’s Immortality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2493. The Image of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2594. The Special Status of Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2665. The Definition of Human Conscience and the Issue of

Synderesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2705.1. Voetius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2705.2. Van Mastricht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2755.3. Driessen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

6. Liberty of Conscience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

contents vii

Chapter Five: Divine and Natural Law: Theological andPolitical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2871. Introduction: Two Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2872. Theological Conceptions of Divine and Natural Law . . . . . . . . 2883. Law, Politics and the Issue of Toleration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Chapter Six: Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325Differences in Philosophical Alignments and in Theology . . . . . . 325Development and Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327The Priority of Christian Doctrine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3331. Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3332. Driessen, Van Mastricht and Voetius: Original Texts . . . . . . 3333. Van Mastricht and Voetius: Modern Translations or

Editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3424. Other Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3551. Reference Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3552. Other Secondary Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

PREFACE

This book results from a postdoctoral research project funded by theNetherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). The projectstarted with a research appointment in the Faculty of Theology at theUniversity of Leiden, Netherlands. This book has been completed sub-sequently, with the final stretch being undertaken during my currentjob at the Faculty of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam. I amvery much indebted to H.J. Adriaanse for the support he gave as super-visor of this project and for the comments he made on drafts of thechapters in this book. Han Adriaanse’s contribution to my educationstarted when I was a student at the University of Leiden. I owe him alot.

Wim Janse deserves a special word of thanks for his willingness topublish this book in Brill’s Series in Church History, for the careful way inwhich he commented on the manuscript, and for his good counsel.When the funding bid was initially submitted it was supported byErnestine van der Wall and Theo Verbeek. I am grateful for theirsupport. In writing this book I have continued to profit from their goodadvice, on literature and otherwise.

Part of the work for this book was done in the very inspiring andproductive environment of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton(USA). This occurred during the second term of 2002. I am indebtedto the faculty—to Jonathan Israel in particular—and to other membersand staff in the School of Historical Studies for their contribution towhat for me was a significant experience. The Institute for AdvancedStudy is a great venue for research and conversation. I have also prof-ited from visits to Edinburgh and Cambridge in 2000–2001, and Iappreciate the hospitality of Rutherford House, Edinburgh, and Tyn-dale House, Cambridge. I also appreciate conversations with variousindividuals, including M.A. Stewart, during these visits.

More generally, I am indebted to many individuals who offered var-ious kinds of help. These include Mark Dambrink, Fred van Lieburg,Geurt Henk van Kooten, Martin Mulsow, Andries Raath, Jacob vanSluis, and the late Theo Veen. I am indebted to all who made sugges-tions on literature, some of whom are mentioned in the footnotes. Abook is written in (and indebted to) a context, and I wish to thank my

x preface

former colleagues at the University of Leiden, Wim Drees, Theo Het-tema, Rico Sneller, Peter Bloemendaal, and Petruschka Schaafsma forwhat they contributed to my work. I am indebted to my current col-leagues at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, Wiep van Bunge, Hanvan Ruler, Henri Krop, Ruben Buys, Paul Schuurman, Bart Leeuwen-burgh, and Piet Steenbakkers, for a motivating environment, for theopportunity to complete this book, and for good advice received.

This book could not have been written without assistance of varioussorts provided by libraries in many places. I am indebted especiallyto all libraries who provided microfilms, microfiches or photocopies ofrare works. While I am unable to mention all who deserve gratitude, Iwish to thank Ida G. Boers, Louise Yeoman, Jef Murray, and Bart JanSpruyt. The bibliography of this book is also indebted to output fromthe Utrecht research group ‘Oude gereformeerde theologie,’ mentoredby Willem van Asselt and Antoon Vos. I am very indebted to LynnQuigley for her close reading of the manuscript and for her correctionsof my English. For all remaining mistakes, in English and any otherlanguage, I am responsible. I also wish to thank Hendrik van Leusenfrom Brill Academic Publishers for his co-operation.

At a number of conferences and meetings I have given talks whosecontent, to a greater or lesser extent, found its way into this book. At ameeting of the philosophical society ‘Medium Aevum’ in 2001 I spokeon Voetius’s and Van Mastricht’s views on conscience. In 2002 a dis-tributed paper on ‘Divine and natural right in Voetius, Van Mastrichtand Driessen: theological and political perspectives’ was discussed inthe Early Modern History Workshop that Jonathan Israel organised inthe School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Prince-ton. At the Society for Reformation Studies conference of 2003, held inCambridge, I read a paper about ‘Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676): OnReformed Orthodoxy, Creation and Philosophy,’ and in the same yearI offered a communication on ‘Miracles in Post-Reformation Theology:The Case of Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676)’ at the Summer Conferenceof the Ecclesiastical History Society in Exeter. I thank the participantsin all of these meetings for their questions, remarks, and recommenda-tions.

This book in part builds upon, continues, and corrects earlier workon the relation between Reformed orthodoxy and philosophy laid downespecially in my dissertation on Suárez and Descartes, in the editionof early texts in which Jacobus Revius criticised Descartes’s philoso-phy, and in lexicon entries on Voetius, Van Mastricht, and Driessen.

preface xi

My dependence on these earlier works is acknowledged here. In thisbook some material is carried over (with improvements) from articlesthat I wrote earlier: ‘Anthonius Driessens theologische kritiek op deleibniziaans-wolffiaanse filosofie,’ in: A.H. Huussen (ed.), Onderwijs enonderzoek. Studie en wetenschap aan de Academie van Groningen in de 17e en 18eeeuw, Hilversum: Verloren 2003, 185–206, and ‘Anthonius Driessen con-tra Jacob Wittich: over God, de schepping en causaliteit,’ in: G. Cop-pens (ed.), Spinoza en de scholastiek, Leuven/Leusden: Acco 2003, 53–68.I thank the publishers, Verloren (Hilversum) and Acco (Leuven), fortheir permission to carry over material from these earlier publishedtexts. Insofar as there are any overlaps in formulation and content Ithank Thoemmes Continuum (publisher of The Dictionary of Seventeenthand Eighteenth Century Dutch Philosophers, edited by Wiep van Bunge andothers) and Metzler Verlag (publisher of the Lexikon christlicher Denker,edited by Markus Vinzent) for the permission to use, and quote from,my lexicon entries on Van Mastricht, Driessen, and Voetius that arementioned in the footnotes in the introduction. For permission to quotefrom articles that I published earlier and that are mentioned in thisbook I also thank Uitgeverij Damon (Budel), Foedus Verlag (Wupper-tal), and Verlag Walter de Gruyter & Co. (Berlin).

ABBREVIATIONS

AT Ch. Adam/P. Tannery (eds.), Œuvres de Descartes, new ed.,Paris: J. Vrin (various dates) 1996.

AV Authorized (King James) Version of the BibleBLGNP D. Nauta et al. (eds.), Biografisch Lexicon voor de Geschiedenis van

het Nederlandse Protestantisme, I–VI, Kampen: J.H. Kok 1978–2006.

CO J. Calvin, Opera quae supersunt omnia.Copac http://www.copac.ac.uk (British digital catalogue)CTJ Calvin Theological JournalDNR Documentatieblad Nadere ReformatieDThC A. Vacant/E. Mangenot/É. Amann (eds.), Dictionnaire de

théologie catholique, 14 vols., Paris: Letouzey & Ané 1930–1941HWPh J. Ritter et al (eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, I–

XII, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1971–2004.

JSTOR The Journal Storage. The Scholarly Journal Archive(http://www.jstor.org)

KB Koninklijke Bibliotheek (Royal Library), Den HaagKnuttel Pamphlet collection described by W.P.C. KnuttelKVK Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog (http://www.ubka.uni-

karlsruhe.de/kvk.html)NAK(/DRCH) Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis (/Dutch Review

of Church History)NCC Nederlandse Centrale Catalogus (Dutch Central Catalogue)

(via www.kb.nl etc.)NTT Nederlands Theologisch TijdschriftPE G. Voetius, Politica ecclesiastica, I/1, I/2, II, IIIRGG K. Galling et al. (eds.), Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart,

3rd ed., 6 vols. plus index vol. (1957–1965), repr. Tübingen:J.C.B. Mohr 1986; H.D. Betz et al. (eds.), Religion in Geschichteund Gegenwart. Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswis-senschaft, 4th ed., 8 vols., Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (PaulsSiebeck) 1998–2005

SD G. Voetius, Selectae disputationes, VSDTh G. Voetius, Selectae disputationes theologicae, I–IVTRE G. Krause/G. Müller (eds.; from vol. 13: Müller, ed.), Theolo-

gische Realenzyklopädie, 36 vols., Berlin/New York: De Gruyter1977–2004

ThPTh P. van Mastricht, Theoretico-practica theologiaWTJ Westminster Theological Journal

INTRODUCTION

1. Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy

The study of post-Reformation Reformed theology has developed sig-nificantly over the past few decades. This is not least due to the fact thatseventeenth- and eighteenth-century Protestant theology has becomeless perceived as rigid in method and content, or as a deviation ofthe purer lines that would have been drawn by the Reformation. Theview that ‘Calvin against the Calvinists’—the title of an article by BasilHall—provides a correct motto for understanding Reformed orthodoxyhas increasingly been abandoned. Studies by Richard A. Muller andothers suggest a far greater amount of continuity between the Reform-ers and their successors, and an understanding of “scholasticism” as a“neutral” term referring to a method in the first instance.1

The depreciative view of “scholasticism” was to some extent relatedto a more negative appreciation of the influence of philosophy, espe-cially Aristotelianism, on post-Reformation orthodoxy.2 This, however,in itself is a difficult approach to evaluating theology, for many Chris-tian writers since the Early Church period have in one way or anotherintegrated philosophical views. Even the Reformers themselves are nounivocal exception in this regard—Calvin, for example, has been called

1 See especially Muller’s monumental Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. The Riseand Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 4 vols., Grand Rapids 2003(on Calvin and Calvinists, for example I, 45), and also Muller’s collection of essays,After Calvin. Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition, Oxford/New York 2003(for a review, see Ch.B. Van Dixhoorn in WTJ 66 [2004] 227–230); C.R. True-man/R.S. Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism. Essays in Reassessment, Carlisle 1999 (esp.the editors’ ‘Introduction,’ xi–xix); W.J. van Asselt/E. Dekker (eds.), Reformed Scholasti-cism. An Ecumenical Enterprise, Grand Rapids 2001 (esp. the editors’ ‘Introduction,’ 11–43);W.J. van Asselt/T.T.J. Pleizier/P.L. Rouwendal/P.M. Wisse, Inleiding in de gereformeerdescholastiek, Zoetermeer 1998.

2 Otto Gründler, for instance, finished his book on Die Gotteslehre Girolamo Zanchisund ihre Bedeutung für seine Lehre von der Prädestination (Neukirchen 1965, 126) by saying:“In dem Maß, in dem unter dem Einfluß der thomistisch-aristotelischen Tradition diechristozentrische Ausrichtung der Calvinischen Theologie einer kausalen Metaphysikim Denken seiner Nachfolger Platz machte, hörte die reformierte Theologie auf, The-ologie der Offenbarung zu sein.” Cf. Muller, After Calvin, 66–67.

2 introduction

a “Platonist” in view of his conception of human soul and body.3 If itis true that orthodox Protestant theologians made more extensive useof philosophy than the Reformation itself, the question can be posedhow they actually used philosophy. Or it can be asked what theologicalpositions they held in areas that philosophers could also reckon to theirterritory. The present study attempts an investigation of this latter ques-tion with regard to a few selected Reformed theologians in the periodfrom, roughly speaking, 1625 through 1750.

This investigation focuses on three Dutch theologians: GisbertusVoetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen. All three ofthem belonged to the Reformed Church. Hence the question can beasked whether there is or needs to be anything specifically Reformedinvolved in this investigation.4 A first answer to this is that the authorsstudied adhered to a confession that in this period had become one ofthe main streams of Protestantism, distinct from Lutheranism. This factis enough to make the adjective ‘Reformed’ informative with regardto the theologians on whom the present study focuses. An interest-ing further question might be whether material differences are likelyto surface in a comparative study of Reformed and Lutheran atti-tudes towards philosophy—which, however, is not the intention of thisstudy. There are various theological differences between Reformed andLutheran theology, and these are not insignificant.5 When Otto Ritschlpublished a book in 1927 on the “development of Lutheran ortho-doxy” one of his viewpoints was precisely its “contrast with Reformedtheology.”6 One of the disagreements between Calvinists and Luther-ans concerned Christology, and at this point Lutherans argued thatReformed theology revealed an excessive confidence in human reason.7

3 G.H. Williams, The Radical Reformation, London 1962, 582. Cf. P. Helm, JohnCalvin’s Ideas, Oxford 2004, 129–132.

4 A question by William Connell stimulated me to discuss this issue.5 Cf. J.W. Hofmeyr, Johannes Hoornbeeck as polemicus (PhD thesis Theologische Acade-

mie uitgaande van de Johannes Calvijnstichting te Kampen, Kampen 1975), 151–161,and compare the areas of disagreement indicated in a modern document such as theLeuenberger Konkordie, and in the discussions about this document. In the nineteenthcentury a broad comparative study was written by M. Schneckenburger: VergleichendeDarstellung des lutherischen und reformirten Lehrbegriffs, Stuttgart 1855.

6 See O. Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus, IV, Das orthodoxe Luthertum imGegensatz zu der reformierten Theologie und in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Synkretismus,Göttingen 1927.

7 J. Rohls, Philosophie und Theologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Tübingen 2002, 311–312.

introduction 3

Yet Lutheran theologian Johannes Hülsemann did not need the dis-agreement in Christology in order to bolster his severe criticism ofVoetius’s inaugural disputation. In 1655 he regarded the “miscellaneousthemes (themata Quodlibetica)” that Voetius proposed in this disputationas “both useless in view of the object and entirely false in view ofthe principles of proof (tam ratione objecti inutilia, quam ratione principio-rum probandi, plane falsa).” Hülsemann himself wished to write with adecidedly biblical orientation.8 Some of the theological issues studiedin this investigation—such as God’s providence, the creation of thehuman soul,9 or the task of civil government—are likely to involvedifferences between Reformed and Lutheran theology. Doctrinal dif-ferences, of course, also exist between Reformed divinity and RomanCatholic theology, and these divergences also had philosophical impli-cations. Similar differences, however, do not constitute the object ofthis study. Moreover, the existence of confessional differences shouldnot obscure the fact that along with these divergences went a consid-erable amount of commonly shared philosophical concepts, doctrines,and terminology.10

“Reformed orthodoxy” never ceased to exist and is, up to the presentday, still a useful term to refer to those who adhere to the confessionalstandards of Reformed Christianity.11 The term can also, more specifi-cally, refer to Reformed Christians during a period starting in the six-teenth century and concluding in the eighteenth century. “ReformedOrthodoxy,” writes Richard Muller, “indicates both the confessionallydefined teaching of the Reformed churches and the era, circa 1565

8 Cf. J.F. Buddeus, Isagoge historico-theologica ad theologiam universam singulasque eius partes,I, Leipzig 1730, 358b, 375a, referring to Hülsemann’s preface in his book Diatribescholastica de auxiliis gratiae. See J. Hülsemann, Diatribe scholastica de auxiliis gratiae, Leipzig1655, preface; for the quote see [viii], and cf. also [ix]-[xii]. The index at the end of thevolume speaks of “Voetii perversa disputandi ratio.”

9 Williams, The Radical Reformation, 582: “Where Luther was a traducianist, Calvinwas a creationist, holding that each soul is created by God in the fetal stage” (see below,Chapter 4).

10 With regard to metaphysics, see modern studies such as J.-F. Courtine, Suarez et lesystème de la métaphysique, Paris 1990; U.G. Leinsle, Das Ding und die Methode. MethodischeKonstitution und Gegenstand der frühen protestantischen Metaphysik, 2 vols., Augsburg 1985 (seealso idem, Einführung in die scholastische Theologie, Paderborn 1995). More generally, seeMuller, Post-Reformation Refomed Dogmatics, I, e.g. 72.

11 Cf. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, I, 29 and, on the persistent “his-torical import of late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century elaborations of Reformedthought”: Ph. Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed. A Social History of Calvinism, NewHaven/London 2002, 298.

4 introduction

to circa 1725, during which Reformed theologians made their great-est effort in the definition and defense of that confessional teaching.”12

When used in this narrower meaning the term also refers to whathas been called an “institutional theology” that elaborated its adher-ence to Reformed doctrine with scholastic means.13 Reformed ortho-doxy thus designates a Church with a Reformed doctrine that is artic-ulated in confessional statements and explained with the help of themethods used in the schools at the time.14 The chronological aspectsof Reformed orthodoxy have been defined in different ways, and theyremain open for discussion. The beginning of orthodoxy has beendated at John Calvin’s death in 1564 and its end at the time when inGeneva the standards of Dordt were declared no longer binding, thatis in 1725.15 A more extended period has also been suggested, startingin about 1565 and ending in about 1775, when a final sub-period con-cluded that began in 1725.16 It seems indeed more plausible to extendthe age of orthodoxy beyond the year 1725: at least as far as the Nether-lands are concerned any account of Reformed orthodoxy should beable to include the work of, for instance, Bernhardinus de Moor, whocounts as the one of the latest exponents of Voetian theology.17 Thefinal decades of Reformed orthodoxy can be interpreted as revealing adecline in Reformed theology.18

12 Muller, After Calvin, 36.13 Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, I, 28 (cf. 30, 33, 37, 39, 42, 60, 63); on

scholasticism: 34–37 and idem After Calvin, 27–33, 75–78.14 Cf. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, I, 27–84.15 O. Fatio, ‘Orthodoxie II. Reformierte Orthodoxie,’ TRE XXV, Berlin/New York

1995, 485–497, here 488.16 Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, I, 30–32, 60–84, where a distinction

is made between “Early Orthodoxy” (with a subdivision extending from “ca. 1565–1618–1640”), “High Orthodoxy” (“ca. 1640–1685–1725”) and “Late Orthodoxy.” Theseperiods also in Muller, After Calvin, 4–7, where (7) the end of “Late Orthodoxy” is datedin 1775.

17 Cf. J. van den Berg, ‘Het stroomlandschap van de Gereformeerde Kerk in Ned-erland tussen 1650 en 1750,’ in: F.G.M. Broeyer/E.G.E. van der Wall (ed.), Een richtin-genstrijd in de Gereformeerde Kerk. Voetianen en Coccejanen 1650–1750, Zoetermeer 1994, 9–27,here 21–23. Muller also mentions De Moor as a representative of “late orthodoxy,”Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 32, 83; for a discussion of characteristics and namespertaining to these periods, see 60–84. On De Moor, see D. Nauta, ‘Moor, Bernhardi-nus de,’ BLGNP III, 273–276.

18 Such a decline in theology was observed, for example, by Herman Bavinck(Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, I, 5th ed., Kampen 1967, 160–161, 163–164). Cf. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, I, 32, 84.

introduction 5

2. Dutch Reformed Theology and its Broader Significance

This investigation seeks to understand better how Dutch Reformedtheology integrated and responded to philosophical views in the periodfrom 1625 through 1750, or at least to reconstruct and analyse Re-formed theological reflections in several specific areas that can be re-garded as, more or less, falling within the competence of philosophyalso. The focus is more in particular on three theologians and onseveral areas of theological doctrine. Before introducing these, it may beappropriate to make a few remarks on the broader significance of theDutch university theologians’ work. Dutch theology had a considerableinternational significance, especially in the seventeenth century, andtheology itself was closely related to a Church that had a real impacton society.

One of the indications of the international significance of Dutch the-ology in the seventeenth century is the high amount of foreign stu-dents at Dutch universities during the second quarter of the seventeenthcentury.19 In the seventeenth century, Dutch universities “arguably out-stripped all other European countries, including England and France,in the scope and general significance of academic achievement.” More-over, “the three leading Dutch universities—Leiden, Utrecht, and Fra-neker—collectively formed an academic forum which was internation-al, and pan-European, at least within the Protestant sphere, to a greaterextent than was found anywhere else.”20 Discussions on Cartesian phi-losophy started in the Netherlands before they were shipped to otherEuropean countries.21

The central place of the Reformed Church within the State is anindication of the relevance of Dutch Reformed theology in wider soci-ety. The Reformed Church had been the public church in Holland andZeeland from 1575 and shortly thereafter also in the other provinces ofthe Republic.22 The special bond between government and Reformed

19 J. Israel, The Dutch Republic. Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477–1806, Oxford/NewYork 1995, 572. The number diminished significantly in the eighteenth century; see1049–1050.

20 Israel, Dutch Republic, 899.21 Israel, Radical Enlightenment, 29–30 (with respect to the eighteenth-century Enlight-

enment, see idem, Dutch Republic, 1045–1447).22 Israel, Dutch Republic, 362–363, 368, 378, 639, 709, 1019. A.Th. van Deursen, De

last van veel geluk. De geschiedenis van Nederland, 1555–1702, Amsterdam 2004, 100–104,

6 introduction

religion became apparent when civil authorities took sides in ecclesias-tical and philosophical matters. A few striking examples can be men-tioned. The States of Holland and West-Friesland adopted on 30 Sep-tember 1656 a resolution concerning how philosophy related to the-ology.23 On 16 January 1676 the Curators of Leiden University andthe burgomasters of Leiden rejected 21 propositions connected withCocceian theology and Cartesian philosophy.24 Moreover, on 19 July1674 the Hof of Holland prohibited books such as Leviathan (ThomasHobbes, 1651), Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres (Lodewijk Meijer, 1666),and the Tractatus theologico-politicus (Spinoza, 1670).25 Furthermore, bothwithin the Reformed Church and in society the purifying influences ofthe Further Reformation movement, of which Voetius was a key fig-ure, were felt.26 A historical reconstruction of the views of Dutch the-ologians on theology and its relation to philosophy is, therefore, notengaged with what was only an inner-theological affair. This is evenless so because philosophy itself had a clear theological or religiouscomponent.27 These factors converge in underlining the broad signifi-cance within society that Reformed religion and theology had duringthe period covered in this book. This broad significance was also pre-

148–150, 271. Cf. C. Huisman, Neerlands Israël. Het natiebesef der traditioneel-gereformeerdenin de achttiende eeuw, Dordrecht 1983, 51, 57.

23 Cf. Israel, Dutch Republic, 892–894; H.A. Enno van Gelder, Getemperde vrijheid. Eenverhandeling over de verhouding van Kerk en Staat in de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden en devrijheid van meningsuiting in zake godsdienst, drukpers en onderwijs, gedurende de 17e eeuw, Gronin-gen 1972, 232–234. For the text of this resolution, see e.g. A.S. de Blécourt/N. Japikse(eds.), Klein plakkaatboek van Nederland. Verzameling van ordonnantiën en plakkaten betreffenderegeeringsvorm, kerk en rechtspraak (14e eeuw tot 1749), Groningen/Den Haag 1919, 287–289.

24 Text in P.C. Molhuysen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis der Leidsche Universiteit, III, DenHaag 1918, 319–321.

25 Cf. J.Th. de Visser, Kerk en staat, II, Nederland (vóór en tijdens de Republiek),Leiden n.d., 482–483; Israel, Dutch Republic, 921 (see 915 on the Utrecht prohibition ofthese books in 1678). Jonathan Israel has argued that Spinoza’s Tractatus was forbiddenin certain places from 1670; ‘The Banning of Spinoza’s Works in the Dutch Republic(1670–1678),’ in: W. van Bunge/W. Klever (eds.), Disguised and Overt Spinozism Around1700, Leiden/New York/Köln 1996, 3–14; cf. idem, Radical Enlightenment, 275–278. Seealso Israel, Radical Enlightenment, 292–294, and on the eighteenth century, cf. Huisman,Neerlands Israël, 98–99. R. Tuck (ed.), Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. Revised Student Edition,Cambridge 2001.

26 Cf. Israel, Dutch Republic, 690–699 (cf. 707–709).27 See for instance R.H. Popkin, ‘The Religious Background of Seventeenth-Centu-

ry Philosophy,’ in his The Third Force in Seventeenth-Century Thought, Leiden/New York/København/Köln 1992, 268–284.

introduction 7

supposed at the time by eighteenth-century Reformed theologians whowarned that the state would become essentially disrupted if pure reli-gion were forsaken.28

3. Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676)

This investigation focuses on Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht,and Anthonius Driessen—three Dutch theologians who all held aca-demic positions and who can be regarded as representing successivegenerations that worked from about 1625 until 1750. One of Voetius’sfirst publications was the Proeve vande Cracht der Godtsalicheyt from 1628.29

After Voetius’s death in 1676 his chair at the Utrecht faculty of theologypassed to Van Mastricht, who remained a professor there until he diedin 1706. At that time Anthonius Driessen was a Reformed minister inEysden. He died in Groningen in 1748. These three theologians werecertainly of different calibre, but every one of them was orthodox andhad an interest in philosophy.30

Gisbertus Voetius studied theology in Leiden. After having served asa minister—during which period he attended the synod of Dordrecht(1618–1619)—he became a professor in Utrecht in 1634. He died in1676. Voetius’s theological work has a wide scope. Informative abouthis reflections on theology and its study as well as on related aca-demic disciplines are a few collected disputations published in 1668 asDiatribae de theologia, philologia, historia et philosophia sacra, and the Exerci-tia et bibliotheca studiosi theologiae.31 In 1648 Voetius started to publishhis theological university disputations under the title of Selectae dispu-

28 Cf. Huisman, Neerlands Israël, 89–90 (cf. 103–104), 142–143; E.G.E. van der Wall,‘De Verlichting in Nederland kritisch bekeken. Het Examen van Het ontwerp van tolerantie(1753–1759),’ DNR 27 (2003) 1–17, here 17.

29 Repr. with introd. by A. de Reuver, Rumpt 1998. See Duker, Gisbertus Voetius, I,Leiden 1897, 381–388.

30 For references and biographical details, see below.31 I refer to the second edition of the Exercitia, published in Utrecht in 1651. On the

Exercitia, see for instance F.G.M. Broeyer, ‘Theological Education at the Dutch Univer-sities in the Seventeenth Century: Four Professors on Their Ideal of the Curriculum,’in: W. Janse/B. Pitkin (eds.), The Formation of Clerical and Confessional Identities in EarlyModern Europe, Leiden/Boston 2006 (NAK/DRCH 85), 115–132, here 122–126 (I thankWim Janse for bringing this article to my attention). The Diatribae were published inUtrecht (I am indebted to Andreas J. Beck for a photocopy of the copy that is keptin the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris). The Diatribae include a revised textof the disputation Introductio ad Philosophiam Sacram (Utrecht 1651); for a Dutch trans.,

8 introduction

tationes theologicae—a series that would be concluded by its fifth volumein 1669.32 The selected disputations comprise—as a later German the-ologian said—“such an incredibly sharp exposition of the Reformeddoctrine, as is nowhere else to be found (eine so unglaublich scharfe Darstel-lung des reformierten Lehrbegriffs …, wie nirgends anders).”33 Voetius countsas one of the “representative theologians” of post-Calvinian Calvin-ism34 and as unquestionably orthodox: The long dispute—roughly from1645 until 1669, with several interruptions—between Samuel Maresiusof Groningen and Voetius did not, as far as dogmatic positions wereconcerned and even in Maresius’s own view, affect core principles ofChristian doctrine.35

As a theologian, Voetius actively took interest in philosophy andaccordingly he “provides a significant index to the Reformed recep-tion of philosophy in the mid-seventeenth century.”36 His recommenda-tions for the library of the theological student included a considerable

see A. Goudriaan/C.A. de Niet, ‘Gisbertus Voetius’ Introductio ad Philosophiam Sacram,’published in 2005 in Geschiedenis van de wijsbegeerte in Nederland 14 (2003) 25–56.

32 The main study of Voetius’s life is still Duker, Gisbertus Voetius, I–III, Leiden 1897–1914 (with index volume, Leiden 1915). See also J. van Oort et al. (eds.), De onbe-kende Voetius. Voordrachten wetenschappelijk symposium, Utrecht 3 maart 1989, Kampen 1989;D. Nauta, ‘Voetius, Gisbertus (Gijsbert Voet),’ BLGNP, II, 443–449; W. van ’t Spijker,‘Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676),’ in T. Brienen et al., De Nadere Reformatie. Beschrijving vanhaar voornaamste vertegenwoordigers, ’s-Gravenhage 1986, 49–84; A. de Groot, ‘GisbertusVoetius,’ in: M. Greschat (ed.), Orthodoxie und Pietismus, Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln/Mainz1982, 149–162. My lexicon entry on Voetius, mentioned in footnote 54, is documentedand complemented here. For recent surveys of secondary literature see e.g. E. Wennekerin: F.W. Bautz/T. Bautz (eds.), Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, XII, Herzberg1997, 1551–1554 (via http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/v/voetius_g.shtml); A.J. Beck, ‘Gisber-tus Voetius (1589–1676). Basic Features of His Doctrine of God,’ in: W.J. van Asselt/E. Dekker (eds.), Reformation and Scholasticism. An Ecumenical Enterprise, Grand Rapids2001, 205–226, here 206 n. 3. For a list of Voetius’s extant correspondence, seeE.-J. Bos/F.G.M. Broeyer, ‘Epistolarium Voetianum I,’ NAK/DRCH 78 (1998) 184–215,here 209–215, with an addition in E.-J. Bos, ‘Epistolarium Voetianum II,’ NAK/DRCH79 (1999) 39–73, here 73.—At present four volumes of Voetius’s Selectae disputationes theo-logicae are digitally available via http://gallica.bnf.fr.

33 J.H.A. Ebrard, Christliche Dogmatik, I, Königsberg 1851, 74; on Ebrard and Voetius,see Van Asselt/Dekker, ‘Introduction,’ 16.

34 A.A. Hodge/B.B. Warfield, ‘Calvinism,’ in: J.E. Meeter (ed.), Benjamin B. Warfield,Selected Shorter Writings, II, Phillipsburgh (1973) 2001, 411–447, here 413.

35 D. Nauta, Samuel Maresius, Amsterdam 1935, 240–282, here 259 and 281. YetMaresius and Voetius accused each other of insufficiently orthodox views, see 278. Cf.Duker, Gisbertus Voetius, III, 245–262; here 247: “Beiden hartstochtelijke kampioenen derDordtsche rechtzinnigheid, beschuldigden zij niettemin elkander telkens van onzuiver-heden in de leer …”

36 Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, III, 133.

introduction 9

amount of philosophical works.37 He accepted in a both positive andcritical manner the ‘Aristotelian’ philosophy of his day, of which Fran-cisco Suárez—“Ubi bene, nemo melius”38—was one of the most promi-nent representatives.39 The same appreciation and reserve applied tomedieval and early modern Roman Catholic scholasticism.40 Voetiusdid not sympathise with the philosophy of Petrus Ramus,41 and is alsowell known for his early opposition to Cartesian philosophy, which hearticulated in publications from 1641.42 To these belong a corollaryand an appendix ‘On the natures of things and substantial forms,’which were added to a 1641 disputation.43 Moreover, Voetius referredto Descartes in the preface to the first volume of his Selectae disputa-tiones theologicae (1648). Implicit or explicit references to Descartes can befound, for instance, in his disputations ‘On atheism’ (1639), ‘On faith,conscience and doubting theology’ (1656), and on the knowledge ofGod (1665).44 Voetius also occasionally mentions the English philoso-

37 Voetius, Exercitia et bibliotheca studiosi theologiae, 2nd edition, Utrecht 1651.38 Voetius, ‘De modis cognoscendi Deum, pars secunda’ [L. vander Meer, 24 No-

vember 1665], SD V, 469; cf. ‘Problematum de Deo, pars quarta’ [16 July 1653, J. Leo-ninus], SD V, 76–83, here 83.

39 For several modern translations of parts of Suárez’ Disputationes metaphysicae, seethe bibliography in this volume.

40 Voetius, ‘De theologia scholastica’ [E. Rotarius, 22 February 1640], SDTh I, 12–29.Cf. Th. Verbeek, Descartes and the Dutch. Early Reactions to Cartesian Philosophy, 1637–1650,Carbondale/Edwardsville 1992, 6–7 and references.

41 See for instance: Diatribae de theologia, philologia, historia et philosophia sacra, Utrecht1668, 22–27, 132–133; ‘De errore et haeresi’ [G. Baxcamp, 22 November 1656], SDTh,III, 753; ‘De docta ignorantia, pars altera’ [J. Sculperoort, 28 April 1655], SDTh III,686.

42 J. Koelman gives a survey of Voetius’s publications against Cartesian philosophy,in Het vergift van de cartesiaansche philosophie grondig ontdekt, Amsterdam 1692, 538–541.I am indebted to P.L. Trommel for making available his photocopy of Koelman’swork. Voetius’s relationship to Cartesian philosophy has been studied especially byTh. Verbeek, J.A. van Ruler, E.-J. Bos (see bibliography).

43 Voetius, Diatribe theologica de iubileo, ad iubileum Urbani VIII promulgatum hoc annoMDCXLI [L. vanden Waterlaet], Utrecht 1641. The corollaries and the appendixwere later included in the Testimonium academiae Ultrajectinae, et narratio historica qua defen-sae, qua exterminatae novae philosophiae, Utrecht 1643, trans. by Th. Verbeek, La querelled’Utrecht, Paris 1988, 100–101 (corollaries), 103–115 (appendix). They were also reprintedin Voetius, SDTh I, 869–881, i.e. as an appendix to the disputations on creation.Th. Verbeek suggests that someone other than Voetius—his son Paulus, for example—might have authored the appendix; De wereld van Descartes. Essays over Descartes en zijntijdgenoten, Amsterdam 1996, 64. This suggestion needs no discussion here becauseVoetius, by publishing the text in the volume of his selected disputations, took fullresponsibility for its contents.

44 Voetius, ‘De atheismo,’ four parts, SDTh I, 114–226 (see also ‘Paralipomena quae-

10 introduction

pher Thomas Hobbes.45 He does not seem to have formulated a specialreply to Spinoza’s Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670), which was publishedwhen the Utrecht theologian had already passed the age of eighty.46

A somewhat ambiguous source for Voetius’s critique of Cartesian-ism is a series of pamphlets published in Dutch in 1656 by a cer-tain Suetonius Tranquillus. To these texts the Leiden theologian Abra-ham Heidanus replied, writing under the pseudonym of Irenaeus Phi-lalethius. His reply provoked a reaction by Voetius to which Heidanusagain responded, which response received a final rebuttal.47 According

dam …’ in the same volume, 1153–1154, 1156, 1158–1161); ‘De fide, conscientia, theolo-gia dubitante,’ two parts, SDTh, III, 825–869 (here especially in an ‘Appendix de dubi-tatione philosophica,’ 847–869); ‘Disputatio theologica de modis cognoscendi Deum,’six parts, SD V, Utrecht 1669, 455–525. For references to places where Voetius in hisworks deals with the philosophy of Descartes see also Duker, Gisbertus Voetius, II, 200footnote 2. Cf. also ‘Diatriba de homine spirituali. Ad 1 Corinth. II vers. 15’ [M. Szo-boszlai, 15 February 1668], SD V, 418; also PE IV, 778; ‘Problematum de Deo, parsoctava’ [C. van Royen; 25 May 1661], SD V, 113–123, here 121; ‘Problematum deDeo, pars nona’ [J. vander Hagen; 12 June 1661], SD V, 126; ‘De selectis quibusdamproblematis, pars septima’ [P. Oosdorpius; 25 November 1648], SD V, 640–650, here640, 645, 649; ‘De selectis quibusdam problematis, pars undecima’ [C. van Thiel;20 December 1648], SD V, 686–698, here 694; ‘De selectis quibusdam problematis,pars duodecima’ [M. Neef; 22 December 1648], SD V, 698–716, here 713–714; andcf. the “Quaestiones miscellae” included in the ‘Syllabus quaestionum philosophico-theologicarum’ that Voetius appended to his Diatribae of 1668.

45 See for instance Exercitia et Bibliotheca, 439; Politica ecclesiastica (= PE), II, Amsterdam1669, 43, 222; PE IV (pars tertia), 400–401, 505–506 (Dutch trans. in: Godts-geleerdeVragen, en Antwoorden Wegens De Scheydingen, en Afwijckingen van de Kercken, Amsterdam1669, 21–22; on this trans. cf. Duker, Gisbertus Voetius, III, 216), 687, 701, 717, 800, 803;‘Problematum de creatione, pars nona’ [J.H. Sartor, 13 March 1661], SD V, 222; ‘Deforo poli et soli’ [J. Clapmuts, 16 September 1665], SDTh IV, 64–65 referring also to PEII (lib. 2, tr. 1, c. 1), 222; ‘Problemata de creatione, pars nona’ [J.H. Sartor, 13 March1661], SD V, 222; ‘Problemata de justificatione, pars quarta’ [S. Eszeki, 10 June 1665],SD V, 301. References to Hobbes in Voetius, PE I, 747 and 895 are quoted by F. Fries,Die Lehre vom Staat bei den protestantischen Gottesgelehrten Deutschlands und der Niederlande inder zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1912, 143–144 (cf. 169).—A Voetian minister,Gisbertus Cocquius, published criticisms of Hobbes in 1661 (see bibliography), 1668 and1680 (see E.H. Kossmann, Political Thought in the Dutch Republic. Three Studies, Amsterdam2000, 46; Th. Verbeek, Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise. Exploring ‘the Will of God,’Aldershot/Burlington 2003, 13). Voetius probably referred to Cocquius in ‘De foro poliet soli,’ SDTh IV, 65.

46 See, however, PE, III, Amsterdam 1676, 382.—Voetius would have had objec-tions not only to the content, but also to the method of Spinoza’s Ethica: “Neque enimdemonstrationes in prima Philosophia, aut in Theologia naturali, fieri debent ut geo-metricae per assumptas et fictas hypotheses; nec per opinata, nec per στ��ασμ��ς seuconjecturas”; ‘De modis cognoscendi Deum, pars quarta’ [A. Laeckervelt, 9 Decem-ber 1665], SD V, 477–483, here 483.

47 Suetonius Tranquillus, Staat des geschils, over de cartesiaansche philosophie, Utrecht 1656;

introduction 11

to Jacobus Koelman, a former student of Voetius, Suetonius Tranquil-lus was the pseudonym of Voetius and the name Irenaeus Philalethiusprovided a cover for Heidanus.48 The authorship of Heidanus is prac-tically certain, also because he personally sent the pamphlet Bedenkingenop den staat des geschils to Holland’s prominent politician, Johan de Witt.49

Recently, however, Voetius’s authorship of the pamphlets associatedwith Suetonius Tranquillus has been considered “highly improbable,”for one of his pamphlets refers to Leiden as if the author lived there,whereas Voetius taught in Utrecht. In addition, a Leiden origin of thetracts is also intimated by a seventeenth-century list of manuscripts atthe University library of Utrecht which suggests that theology professorJohannes Hoornbeek and the Leiden minister Petrus Cabbeljauw couldbe plausible candidates for the authorship, perhaps together with otheranti-Cartesians.50 An additional indication for Hoornbeek’s involve-ment could be Abraham Heidanus’s remark in a letter to Johan de Wittthat his “colleague”—that is, most likely, Hoornbeek—is said “to havesomething in the press against the Bedenkingen.”51 However, Hoornbeek’s

idem, Nader openinge van eenige stucken in de cartesiaensche philosophie raekende de H. Theologie,Leiden 1656; Irenaeus Philalethus, Bedenkingen op den staat des geschils over de cartesiaenschephilosophie en op de Nader openinge over eenige stucken de Theologie raeckende, Rotterdam 1656;Suetonius Tranquillus, Den overtuyghden Cartesiaen, ofte clare aenwysinge uyt de bedenkingen vanIrenaeus Philalethius dat de stellingen en allegatien in de Nader openinge tot laste der cartesianen,in saecken de Theologie raeckende, nae waerheyt en ter goeder trouwe zijn by een gebracht, Leiden1656; Irenaeus Philalethius, De overtuigde quaetwilligheidt van Suetonius Tranquillus, blijkendeuit seker boeckjen genaemt den overtuigden cartesiaan, Leiden 1656; Verdedichde oprechticheyt vanSuetonius Tranquillus, gestelt tegen de Overtuyghde quaetwilligheyt van Irenaeus Philalethius, Leiden1656. On Heidanus, see J.A. Cramer, Abraham Heidanus en zijn cartesianisme, Utrecht1889.

48 Cf. C.L. Thijssen-Schoute, Nederlands Cartesianisme, 2nd ed. by Th. Verbeek,Utrecht 1989, 35–38; A. Vos, ‘Voetius als reformatorisch wijsgeer,’ in Van Oort et al., Deonbekende Voetius, 220–241, here 229. On the identifications of Suetonius as Voetius andIrenaeus as Heidanus, see J. Koelman, Het vergift, 192, 220, 282, 371, 531, 539, 595, 606,607, 622, 629, 636, 643, 644. Voetius, in Verdedichde oprechticheyt (11), seems to admit theassistance of other theologians in writing the Staat des geschils and the Nader openinge. OnKoelman, see D. Nauta, ‘Koelman (Koelmans), Jacobus,’ BLGNP III, 212–219; Th. Ver-beek, ‘Jacobus Koelman en de filosofie zijner dagen,’ DNR 20 (1996) 62–71.

49 Israel, Dutch Republic, 893. On Heidanus’s authorship, see also R. Vermij, TheCalvinist Copernicans. The Reception of the New Astronomy in the Dutch Republic, 1575–1750,Amsterdam 2002, 307–308.

50 Vermij, The Calvinist Copernicans, 307–308; quotes from 308. Vermij refers (307) tothe interesting seventeenth-century index of pamphlets, kept in the University Libraryof Utrecht, where initially the names of Hoornbeek and Cabeljauw were mentioned,afterwards the words “also others” were added, and where finally the names of Cabel-jauw and Hoornbeek were deleted.

51 Heidanus to De Witt, 27 July 1656: “… onse College niet, die ick verstae wat

12 introduction

œuvre is not particularly known for its devotion to explicit polemics withDescartes or Cartesian philosophy.52 Moreover, Petrus Cabbeljauw wasa Leiden minister who became a Regent of the States College in 1659,whereas the man who was Regent of that institution at the time of the1656 pamphlet disputes, Jacobus Revius, was far better versed in anti-Cartesian polemics than Cabeljauw ever was.53 Koelman’s testimony ofVoetius’s authorship remains, in my view, trustworthy at least in thesense that the Utrecht theologian was actually involved in what Sueto-nius published, although it is likely that others, especially persons fromLeiden—such as Hoornbeek and Revius—were also involved. In anycase, the pamphlets on behalf of Suetonius Tranquillus can be said toreflect Voetian thought around 1656.

Voetius set tones that found a broad resonance, and “in the 1640s”the term “Voetians” was minted as a designation for the “Calvinistorthodox who rejected liberal tendencies in theology, as well as Carte-sianism in science and philosophy, and championed rigorous enforce-ment of anti-Catholic legislation,” and who were at the same time“the champions of the ‘Further Reformation,’ the movement to leadsociety to be more godly in life-style.”54 The other party was formedby ‘Cocceians,’ named after the theologian Johannes Cocceius, who

onder de presse te hebben tegen de Bedenckingen,” cited in Cramer, Heidanus, 73, andcf. R. Fruin/N. Japikse, Brieven aan Johan de Witt, I, 1648–1660, Amsterdam 1919, 198.

52 Koelman, in Het vergift, 547, mentions the following places where Hoornbeekdiscussed Cartesian philosophy: “Miscellanea Sacra lib. 2, cap. 26, Theol. pract. lib.2, cap. 3, Irenicum cap. 6. et 9.” The index in the study of J.W. Hofmeyr, JohannesHoornbeeck as polemicus, is intentionally selective and lacks an entry on Descartes.

53 D. Nauta, ‘Cab(b)eljau(w) (Cabbeliavius), Pieter,’ BLGNP II, 114–115; for Revius’schronology, see B.A. Venemans, ‘Revius, Jacobus,’ BLGNP III, 300–304. For an editionof some early writings by Revius against Descartes, see Goudriaan, Jacobus Revius, ATheological Examination of Cartesian Philosophy. Early Criticisms (1647), Leiden/Boston 2002(here section 6 of the introduction can be complemented by references to M. Mathijsen,Naar de letter. Handboek editiewetenschap, Assen 1995, and P.H. Nidditch [ed.], John Locke,An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited with an Introduction, Critical Apparatus andGlossary, Oxford 1975, esp. xlii–xliii).

54 Israel, Dutch Republic, 662 (I made use of this characterisation in my entry ‘Voetius,Gisbert’ in: M. Vinzent [ed.], Metzler Lexikon christlicher Denker, Stuttgart/Weimar 2000,717–718; repr. in idem, Theologen. 185 Porträts von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Stuttgart/Weimar 2004, 240). Cf. Vermij, Calvinist Copernicans, 161, 245; E. Bizer in H. Heppe/E. Bizer, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt,Neukirchen 1958, lxiii. For a “definition” of the Further Reformation, see C. Graaf-land/W.J. op ’t Hof/F.A. van Lieburg, ‘Nadere Reformatie: opnieuw een poging totbegripsbepaling,’ DNR 19 (1995) 105–184. For a survey of research on the Nadere Refor-matie, see W.J. op ’t Hof, ‘Studie der Nadere Reformatie: Verleden en toekomst,’ DNR18 (1994) 1–50.

introduction 13

developed a particular historical, federal, and spiritual Bible exege-sis and theology.55 Ecclesiastical life and society were characterised byVoetian-Cocceian controversies until, and even beyond, the middle ofthe eighteenth century.56 Prominent among the Voetians were severalformer pupils of Voetius who also became university professors, such asJohannes Hoornbeek, Andreas Essenius, Matthias Nethenus, and Ger-ard de Vries.57

Outside the Dutch Republic Voetius also had a considerable repu-tation, such that G.W. Leibniz could speak of the “celebre Theologiend’Utrecht.”58 Scottish Presbyterians felt congenial with the Utrecht the-ologian.59 Voetius had also considerable influence on Hungarian stu-dents.60 The German jurist Christian Thomasius told in 1722 of his

55 Cf. Israel, Dutch Republic, 662–663; W.J. van Asselt, Johannes Coccejus. Portret van eenzeventiende-eeuwse theoloog op oude en nieuwe wegen, Heerenveen 1997, on later Cocceians,262–272.

56 On Voetians and their counterpart, the Cocceians, see Broeyer/Van der Wall(eds.), Richtingenstrijd; J. Rohls, Protestantische Theologie der Neuzeit, I, Die Voraussetzungenund das 19. Jahrhundert, Tübingen 1997, 106–109; Israel, Dutch Republic, 661–669, 839,889–899, 919, 924, 926–930, 932, 1030–1032. On Voetians in the later eighteenth cen-tury, see M. van der Bijl, ‘De tweedracht van voetianen en coccejanen in politiek per-spectief,’ in: Broeyer/Van der Wall (eds.), Richtingenstrijd, 74–94, here 93–94; cf. F.A. vanLieburg, Eswijlerianen in Holland, 1734–1743. Kerk en kerkvolk in strijd over de Zielseenzamemeditatiën van Jan Willemsz Eswijler (circa 1633–1719), Kampen 1989, 63–65, 134.

57 Cf. Hofmeyr, Johannes Hoornbeeck as polemikus; F.W. Bautz, ‘Essenius, Andreas,’ inF.-W. Bautz (ed.), Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, I, Hamm: Traugott Bautz1990, 1546–1547 [via www.bautz.de]; W. Schneemelcher, Matthias Nethenus. Leben undWerk, PhD diss. Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum 1972; W.J. Fournier, ‘Vries, Ger-ardus de,’ BLGNP I, 417.

58 G.W. Leibniz, Théodicée, Discours préliminaire de la conformité de la foy avec laraison, §20, in: C.I. Gerhardt, Die philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,VI, reprint Hildesheim/New York 1978, 62 (cf. A. Buchenau/M. Stockhammer [eds.],Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Die Theodizee, 2nd ed., Hamburg 1968, 49).

59 Cf. A.L. Drummond, The Kirk and the Continent, Edinburgh 1956, 108–109, 132–133,140. G.D. Henderson, Religious Life in Seventeenth-Century Scotland, Cambridge 1937, 74, 78,93, 131; D. Nobbs, Theocracy and Toleration. A Study of the Disputes in Dutch Calvinism from1600 to 1650, Cambridge 1938, 271–273.

60 G. Murdock, Calvinism on the Frontier, 1600–1660. International Calvinism and the Re-formed Church in Hungary and Transsylvania, Oxford 2000, 61. Cf. Israel, Dutch Republic, 665,901, here at 665: “… both Voetian and Cocceian methods and ideas were cultivatedwithin the Hungarian Reformed Church until deep into the eighteenth century, withVoetianism generally in the ascendant” (I used this information also in my entry‘Voetius, Gisbert’ in: Vinzent [ed.], Denker, 717–718, repr. in idem, Theologen, 240);Ö. Bánki, ‘De Utrechtsche universiteit in de Hongaarsche beschavingsgeschiedenis,’in: W.A.F. Bannier et al. (eds.), Jaarboekje van “Oud-Utrecht” 1940, Utrecht 1940, 87–117,where (99–101) Komáromi Csipkés, Pósaházi, and Buzinkai are mentioned as Voetianthinkers.

14 introduction

habit as a professor of recommending Voetius, yet he added the warn-ing that Voetius’s books should be read with caution, because of whathe called the “prejudices of precipitation and authority” by which, inhis view, these are characterised.61

4. Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706)

Petrus van Mastricht was born outside the Netherlands (in Cologne)and he worked as a minister and subsequently as a professor in variousplaces outside this country where he had spend a part of his studiesand where he later worked as a professor, from 1677 until his deathin 1706. Van Mastricht’s stay in Utrecht provides a link with Voetius:when Van Mastricht studied there, Voetius was a prominent professor,and when he himself became a professor in Utrecht, it was to succeedVoetius.62 Van Mastricht published various works in the field of sys-tematic theology. As a minister in Glückstadt, he published in 1666 hisTheologiae Didactico-Elenchtico-Practicae Prodromus, on three selected theo-logical issues: “1. On the creation of man, 2. On humility and pridewith respect to God, 3. On walking with God.”63 In 1671 Van Mas-tricht published in Duisburg a treatise on faith: De fide salvifica syntagmatheoretico-practicum, in quo fidei salvificae tum natura, tum praxis universa, luculen-ter exponitur. But he became especially well known for his work Theoretico-practica theologia, which appeared in two volumes in 1682 and 1687,was published in a revised and enlarged version in 1698/1699, and

61 Cf. J.F. Buddeus, Isagoge historico-theologica, I, 700. Chr. Thomasius, Historia contentio-nis inter imperium et sacerdotium breviter delineata, Halle 1722, 436: “Caeterum et ipse com-mendare meis Auditoribus soleo scripta Voëtii, sed ob variam ejus lectionem, et quodiis uti debeant tanquam locis communibus, caveant autem a praejudiciis praecipitantiaeet autoritatis, quae passim in illis scriptis regnant, et sic in controversiis Ecclesiasticiscircumspecte agant, ne absque judicio Voëtii Politiam Ecclesiasticam exscribant.”

62 The most recent reconstruction of Van Mastricht’s life is from A.C. Neele, TheArt of Living to God. A Study of Method and Piety in the Theoretico-practica theologia of Petrus vanMastricht (1630–1706), PhD diss., University of Utrecht 2005, 35–63. See also A.E. vanTellingen, ‘Het leven van Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706),’ DNR 28 (2004) 147–175.Cf. W.J. van Asselt, ‘Mastricht, Petrus van,’ BLGNP, V, 360–363. Van Mastricht workedin Xanten, Glückstadt, Frankfurt (Oder) and Duisburg.

63 Van Mastricht, Theologiae Didactico-Elenchtico-Practicae prodromus tribus speciminibus, 1.De creatione Hominis, 2. De humilitate et superbia erga Deum, 3. De conversatione cum Deo,Perpetuam, trium supra dictarum partium, in singulis Theologiae locis σ�ντα�ιν, exemplis ostendens,Ad Provocandas (juxta praefationem) virorum doctorum censurias consiliaque super universa hujusmodiTheologia, Amsterdam 1666. Cf. Neele, Living to God, 41–42.

introduction 15

subsequently reprinted in 1715 and 1724.64 Later it was also translatedinto Dutch, and published in four volumes in 1749.65 This comprehen-sive theological compendium, like Voetius’s main works, goes back touniversity disputations. One of the reasons why it was well regardedwas what has been called its “[c]omprehensiveness and good arrange-ment.”66 The work was appreciated not only on the European conti-nent, but also in America.67 The American theologian and philosopherJonathan Edwards had the highest esteem for Van Mastricht’s dogmaticwork, as is especially evident from a frequently cited letter.68 In thisrespect Edwards struck similar notes as did Cotton Mather earlier.69

64 Neele, Living to God, 59, 71–74, 268–270 (nos. 36, 43, 56, 58, 60, 62); cf. Van Asselt,‘Mastricht,’ 362.

65 I used both the Dutch translation with its indexes and the final Latin text, but inthis book I refer to page numbers of the 1724 Latin edition and to section numbers.

66 See a brief printed outline in English, written by an unknown teacher, of VanMastricht’s works ‘The Practical Theory of Theology,’ ‘A scheme of Moral Theology,’and ‘A Sketch of Ascetic Theology, or, the Practice of Piety.’ It is kept in CambridgeUniversity Library (according to the online library catalogue the book number is:8.19.57).

67 See P. Miller, The New England Mind. The Seventeenth Century, Cambridge (Mass.)/London (19532) 1982, 96 (Miller’s statements on American reception form a backgroundto my remark in the entry on Van Mastricht in W. van Bunge/H. Krop/B. Leeuwen-burgh/H. van Ruler/P. Schuurman/M. Wielema [eds.], The Dictionary of Seventeenth andEighteenth-Century Dutch Philosophers, Bristol 2003, 687–688). Miller’s somewhat hyperbolicdescription of Van Mastricht’s work is nevertheless a pleasant read: “In its 1300 pagesthe whole of Christian theology and morality, theory and practice, is laid out with aminuteness and precision that bring a hundred years of methodizing to a stupendousfulfillment. Beyond this limit no mortal could go. Every chapter expounds a text, ana-lyzes it grammatically, etymologically, rhetorically, logically, comparatively, extracts allpossible doctrines from it, argues all the supporting ‘reasons,’ raises and answers everyconceivable objection, makes the practical applications, and points the moral of everyprinciple …”

68 Letter to Joseph Bellamy, January 15th, 1746/7, in: G.S. Claghorn (ed.), JonathanEdwards, Letters and Personal Writings (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 16), New Haven/London 1998, 216–218 here 217: “Turretin is on polemical divinity [meant is F. Turre-tini, Institutio theologiae elencticae]; on the Five Points, and all other controversial points;and is much larger in these than Mastricht; and is better for one that desires only to bethoroughly versed in controversies. But take Mastricht for divinity in general, doctrine,practice and controversy; or as an universal system of divinity; and it is much betterthan Turretin or any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion.” Cf.B. Withrow (ed.), Peter Van Mastricht, A Treatise on Regeneration, Morgan 2002, v [prefaceby D.A. Sweeney], vii; E.B. Holifield, Theology in America. Christian Thought from the Ageof the Puritans to the Civil War, New Haven/London 2003, 102–103, 117; B.B. Warfield,‘Edwards and the New England Theology,’ in: Studies in Theology [New York 1932],Grand Rapids: Baker 1991, 515–538, here 529–530; Neele, Living to God, 19, 21–22.

69 Cf. P. Miller, The New England Mind. From Colony to Province [1953], Cambridge(Mass.)/London 1983, 418, referring to Cotton Mather’s Manuductio ad ministerium. Direc-

16 introduction

In the Netherlands the book was recommended by the Cocceian the-ologian Salomon van Til in the outline of a Bibliotheca theologica thathe appended to a work on homiletics.70 In the mid-eighteenth cen-tury the Dutch ministers Alexander Comrie and Nicolaas Holtius ina fictitious dialogue made their orthodox spokesman (“Orthodoxus”) tosay that he refrained from citing Van Mastricht, “because his System,of which an equal, I think, cannot be found, has been translated intoour language and is in everyone’s hands.”71 In the nineteenth centurythe prominent Dutch neo-Calvinist theologian Abraham Kuyper rec-ommended that his students read Petrus van Mastricht, as the “purest

tions For A Candidate Of The Ministry, Boston 1726; see the repr. New York 1938, with abibliographical note by Th.J. Holmes/K.B. Murdock, 85: “But after all, there is noth-ing that I can with so much Plerophorie Recommend unto you, as a Mastricht, hisTheologia Theoretico-practica. That a Minister of the Gospel may be Thoroughly furnishedunto every Good Work, and in one or two Quarto Volumns [sic] enjoy a well furnished Library,I know not that the Sun has ever shone upon an Humane Composure that is equal toit: And I can heartily Subscribe unto the Commendation which Pontanus, in his LaudatioFunebris upon the Author, has given of it. De hoc Opere confidenter affirmo, quod eo Ordine sitdigestum, tanto rerum pondere praegnans et tumidum, tanta et tam varia Eruditione refertum, ut nescioan in illo genere usquam Gentium exstet aliquid magis accuratum et elaboratum. I hope, you willnext unto the Sacred Scripture, make a Mastricht the Store-house to which you may resortcontinually. But above all things remember the Dying Words of this true Divine; whichhe uttered Altissima Voce, [And, I wish, all that study Divinity might hear it!] Se nulla Locoet Numero habere Veritatis Defensionem, quam sincera Pietatis et Vitae Sanctitas, individuo nexu noncomitetur.” Van Mastricht’s book also is included in Mather’s listing of “A Catalogue ofbooks, For a Young Student’s Library,” 150–151, here 151 (in the list also the LeidenSynopsis figures, 150, cf. 84: “Go on then, to Read with a strong Attention, the SynopsisPurioris Theologiae, of the Leyden Divines”). Mather also briefly refers to Voetius’s Exercitiapietatis (130) and he appeals to “Great Voetius,” whose answer to the question “Shall Ismoke Tabacco?” he cites as saying “Minime convenit viris honestis et gravibus; nominatim Min-istris et Ministerii Candidatis,” 133. Cf. Neele, Living to God, 20–21.

70 Van Til, Methodus concionandi. Illustrata commentariis et exemplis, quibus additae sunt ejus-dem auctoris bibliotheca theologica et aliae dissertationes, Utrecht 1727, 18: “In hoc opere licetVir doctus aliquando praeter causam invehatur in Clarissimum, piae memoriae, Coc-cejum ejusque sequaces, nihilominus hoc opus propter practica acquirenda est. Id enimegit, ut omnes titulos Theologicos revocavit ad usus practicos. Distingui tamen debetiste labor a justo opere Theologiae Paracleticae, cum Theologiam theoreticam tantumad usus revocet.” Strikingly Van Til recommended writings by Gisbertus Voetius alsounder the “practical” viewpoint; Bibliotheca, 49, 93.

71 [A. Comrie/N. Holtius], Examen van het ontwerp van tolerantie, Seventh Dialogue,Amsterdam 1756, 409 (repr. in: A. Comrie/N. Holtius, Examen van het ontwerp vantolerantie, II, Houten 1993, 137): “… en Doctor Mastricht, uit welken laatsten ik geenuittrekzel behoeve te geeven, wyl zijn Systema, wiens weergaa ik denke dat niet tevinden is, in onze taale overgezet en in ieders handen is.” Cf. R.A. Flinterman,‘Comrie, Alexander,’ BLGNP III, 76–78, here 77; A.G. Honig, Alexander Comrie, (1892)ed. by D. Nauta, Leiden 1991, 128–129, 152–153.

introduction 17

and best obtainable (de zuiverste en best verkrijgbare)” of Reformed theolo-gians from the period of Reformed orthodoxy.72 The early twentieth-century Dutch Reformed theologian Hugo Visscher likewise mentionedVan Mastricht’s compendium among those “very good, solid works, thestudy of which enriches the mind (… zeer goede, degelijke werken, welkerbestudering den geest verrijkt).”73

Like his predecessor Voetius, Van Mastricht responded to the phi-losophy of his day. He defended biblical authority “in philosophicalmatters” in his 1655 Vindiciae veritatis et authoritatis Sacrae Scripturae in rebusphilosophicis adversus Dissertationes D. Christophori Wittichii. A few decadeslater, in 1677, Van Mastricht published an extensive discussion andcritique of the theology of a number of Cartesians, Novitatum cartesia-narum gangraena.74 This work also includes references to Lodewijk Mei-jer’s Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres and to Spinoza’s Tractatus theologico-politicus—most likely, the book was already completed before Spinoza’sEthica was published: Van Mastricht’s dedication to stadtholder Wil-liam III is dated 19 April 1677.75 This refutation of Cartesian theol-

72 See a Methode van studie which, as J.C. Rullmann relates, Kuyper once gave tohis students and which still circulated when Rullmann himself studied at the FreeUniversity in Amsterdam; Kuyper-bibliografie, II, (1879–1890), Kampen 1929, 263–272,here 266 on Van Mastricht, and cf. 268.

73 H. Visscher, Van onze knapen. Eenige beschouwingen over het knapenvraagstuk in verband methet kerkelijke leven, ed. M. Noteboom, Huizen n.d., 58–59, cf. 59: “Zoo ook Petrus vanMastricht, wiens groote werk over de theoretische en practische Godgeleerdheid doorv.d. Kemp is uitgegeven; een voortreffelijk werk, waarin in den breede de leerstukkenwerden behandeld en van alle zijden belicht.” Hugo Visscher (1864–1947) was a DutchReformed minister and university professor (see A. de Groot, ‘Visscher, Hugo,’ BLGNPIII, 373–376, here 373). A.E. van Tellingen, who wrote a MA thesis on Van Mastricht(see Neele, Living to God, 314), collected other indications on the reception of VanMastricht’s work.

74 Van Mastricht, Novitatum cartesianarum gangraena, nobiliores plerasque corporis theologicipartes arrodens et exedens, seu theologia cartesiana detecta, Amsterdam 1677; the same work waslater given a new title page: Theologia cartesiana detecta, seu gangraena cartesiana nobilioresplerasque corporis theologici partes arrodens et exedens, Deventer 1716. Cf. Thijssen-Schoute,Nederlands cartesianisme, 450; E. Bizer, ‘Die reformierte Orthodoxie und der Cartesianis-mus,’ Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 55 (1958) 306–372, here 357–362.

75 On publication dates, see e.g. Israel, Radical Enlightenment, 200, 275–294. Later VanMastricht can occasionally refer to Spinoza as a philosopher “qui naturam volebat esseDeum”: Ad virum clariss. D. Balthasarem Beckerum … epanorthosis gratulatoria, Utrecht 1692,33, see also Theoretico-practica theologia, 394b (III.10, §28). This remark was probablybased on the Ethica, although some early critics of the Tractatus had already made thispoint, see W. van Bunge, ‘On the Early Dutch Reception of the Tractatus theologico-politicus,’ Studia Spinozana 5 (1989) 225–251, here 235–236; idem, From Stevin to Spinoza.An Essay on Philosophy in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch Republic, Leiden/Boston/Köln 2001,114, 115.

18 introduction

ogy was “a clear and orderly writing (eine deutliche und ordentliche Schrift)”according to the eighteenth-century German theologian J.G. Walch.76

Its methodical clarity was also what the church historian C.E. Weis-mann appreciated, even though he estimated that Van Mastricht didnot always reconstruct the status controversiae correctly and that some-times futile objections were made against Cartesianism.77 The Gangraenabecame widely known internationally, and has even been characterisedas the “most influential of all late seventeenth-century academic attackson Cartesianism in Germany and Scandinavia.”78 In the Netherlandsit was one of the writings that the Cartesian theologian Petrus Allingaattempted to refute in 1679.79 In the mid-eighteenth century the Scot-

76 J.G. Walch, Historische und Theologische Einleitung in die Religionsstreitigkeiten, welche son-derlich ausser der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche entstanden, III, Jena 1734, 774. E.G.E. van derWall, ‘De coccejaanse theoloog Petrus Allinga en het cartesianisme,’ in: Broeyer/Vander Wall (eds.), Richtingenstrijd, 131–145, here 135 n. 6, mentions Walch’s equally posi-tive appreciation of the Melchior Leydekker’s Fax veritatis, seu exercitationes ad NonnullasControversias quae hodie in Belgio potissimum moventur, multa ex parte theologico-philosophicae, Lei-den 1677. Like Van Mastricht’s Gangraena, Leydekker’s Fax veritatis discusses a broadrange of controversial dogmatic issues. In Germany, J.A. Osiander published a refu-tation of Cartesian theology that also discussed many chapters of Christian doctrine,starting with prolegomena and Scripture, and ending with the resurrection; Collegiumconsiderationum in dogmata theologica Cartesianorum, Stuttgart 1684 (cf. Walch, Einleitung, III,784).

77 Chr.E. Weismann, Introductio in memorabilia ecclesiastica historiae sacrae Novi Testamenti,II, Stuttgart 1719, 908: “Nec inter postremos est Cartesianorum Antagonistas Petrusvan Mastricht, qui in Gangraena Cartesiana, libro admodum methodico et perspicuo,hypotheses Cartesianas per totam seriem Systematici Theologici disposuit et exami-navit, sed raro feliciter et accurate, cum in plerisque negent Cartesiani mentem suamveramque sententiam esse expositam, et plerumque imbecillibus argumentis utaturMastrichtius” (cf. 899: “Inter scripta Petri Mastrichtii celebritatem habent Theologiapractica, et potissimum novissima illius editio, Gangraena novitatum Cartesianarum, et libellusde Fide. Sunt illa eleganter et ordinate disposita; desiderarunt tamen in iis DissentientesPhilosophi et Theologi accuratam magis status controversiae delineationem, et grav-iora rationum quandoque pondera. Quo judicium Viro cetera doctissimo non ubivisiniuriam facere, omnino persuasum habemus”). Weismann was mentioned by Walch(Einleitung, III, 753) for his account of the antagonism between followers of Voetius andCocceius (and cf. Buddeus, Isagoge historico-theologica, I, 1141, on Cartesianism).

78 Israel, Radical Enlightenment, 215, cf. also 216 for the evidence. References to thebook are also made, for instance, by German theologian Valentin Alberti in his Διπλ�νΚαππα, Quod est Cartesianismus et Coccejanismus, Belgio hodie molesti, nobis suspecti …, Leipzig1678, and by G. von Tamm in his Dissertatio philosophica examinans Cartesianam methodumconvincendi atheum, Rostock 1700.

79 P. Allinga, Illustrium erotematum, tam ex theologia, quam philosophia, decades duodecim,accuratis responsionibus (in quibus examinantur etiam, quae viri clarissimi Witzius in Oecono-mia et Diatribe, et Mastricht in Gangraena cartesianismi, protulere adversus cl. Coccejum etsubtiliss. Cartesium) illustrata, Utrecht 1679. Cf. Van Genderen, Herman Witsius. Bijdrage totde kennis der gereformeerde theologie, ’s-Gravenhage 1953, 182 footnote 34. On Allinga, see

introduction 19

tish theologian Ralph Erskine still used this book by what he called“a learned divine and philosopher both.”80 Van Mastricht is knownas an orthodox Reformed, Voetian theologian.81 Yet he himself wishedthat the terms ‘Voetians’ and ‘Coccejans’ had never been invented.82

Modern research has particularly noted his debt to seventeenth-centuryPuritan theologian William Ames,83 whose works were also used—withseveral caveats—by Voetius.84 Van Mastricht wrote a response to PetrusAllinga in a pseudonymous pamphlet Cartesianismi gangraena insanabilis.

E.G.E. van der Wall, ‘Orthodoxy and Scepticism in the Early Dutch Enlightenment,’in: R.H. Popkin/A. Vanderjagt (eds.), Scepticism and Irreligion in the Seventeenth and Eigh-teenth Centuries, Leiden/New York/Köln 1993, 121–141, here esp. 133–137; Van der Wall,‘Petrus Allinga,’ 131–145.

80 Cf. J. McCosh, The Scottish Philosophy, Biographical, Expository, Critical. From Hutchesonto Hamilton, London 1875, 88. The quote is from R. Erskine, Faith no Fancy, or A Treatiseof Mental Images Discovering the vain Philosophy and vile Divinity of a late Pamphlet, intitled,Mr. Robe’s fourth Letter to Mr. Fisher, Edinburgh 1745, 233 (for more references to VanMastricht’s Gangraena, see e.g. 23, 147, 235, 265, 271, 274). Cf. Neele, Living to God, 20.

81 See J. van Genderen, Herman Witsius, 68: he “doceerde in beslist voetiaanse geest.”Cf. M.J.A. de Vrijer, Ds Bernardus Smytegelt en zijn “Gekrookte riet,” Vianen 1968, 9; Neele,Living to God, 17.

82 Van Mastricht, ThPTh, 1174a (VIII, c. 3, §44): “Cumque se opponerent passimTheologi Belgae, vetus systema foederum et testamentorum retinentes, interque eosCl. Gisb. Voetius; nata sunt nomina Coccejanorum et Voetianorum, quae utinam auditanunquam fuissent.” On Voetius, see also 1159. Cf. also another key Voetian, MelchiorLeydekker in his De verborgentheid des geloofs, Rotterdam 1700, final p. of the preface:“Onse Godsgeleerdheid is van de Heer Voetius (die seeker noyt verdiend heeft als eenhoofd van factie geacht te werden) niet gesmeet: maar is volgens de Heilige Schriften tevoor geleert door Mannen die de grondslag van de Reformatie gelegt hebben, en daar opin de Gemeinten en Academien sijn voortgegaan.”

83 See Neele, Living to God, 18 and references; J. van Vliet, ‘William Ames: Mar-row of the Theology and Piety of the Reformed Tradition,’ PhD dissertation, West-minster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia 2002, 346–369, 373–375 (I am indebted toGrace Mullen, who drew my attention to this dissertation). See also C. Graafland,‘Gereformeerde scholastiek VI,’ 322–323, idem, ‘Schriftleer en schriftverstaan,’ 61–62, 64, idem, Zekerheid van het geloof, 139 n. 1 and 156–157 n. 3, and cf. remarksby K. Reuter, Wilhelm Amesius, der führende Theologe des erwachenden reformierten Pietismus,Neukirchen 1940, 29, 39, 96; W. Geesink, Gereformeerde ethiek, II, ed. V. Hepp, Kampen1931, 494; W. Goeters, Die Vorbereitung des Pietismus in der reformierten Kirche der Nieder-lande bis zur Labadistischen Krisis 1670, (1911) repr. Amsterdam 1974, 56; Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, I, 66, 117, 208; Thijssen-Schoute, Nederlands cartesianisme,450; N.S. Fiering, ‘Will and Intellect in the New England Mind,’ The William and MaryQuarterly 29 (1972) 515–558, here 553.

84 Goeters, Pietismus, 82; Duker, Gisbertus Voetius, III, 20–21 (Duker also notes thatin 1654 Ames’s Medulla was used in Utrecht for ecclesiastical education, 129), see ‘Depractica theologia,’ SDTh III, 8–9. Voetius on Ames’s De conscientia: “Legant ipsi studiosiutilissimum hoc scriptum”; ‘De praxi fidei’ [P.J. Saenvliet, 24 November 1638], SDThII, Utrecht 1655, 505.

20 introduction

This booklet was published in 1680 as being written by a person named“C. Scheunenus, Agr.”85 Twelve years later Van Mastricht also took aposition against Balthasar Bekker’s De betoverde weereld.86

5. Anthonius Driessen (1684–1748)

Whereas Voetius and Van Mastricht can be regarded as representativesof the same theological school, the third selected theologian, AnthoniusDriessen, comes from a different, Cocceio-Cartesian, line of thought.With respect to the exegesis of Biblical prophecy Driessen wrote in1733: “I was brought up in the hypotheses of Mr Coccejus.”87 Yet somehistorians have seen him as providing an illustration of “the struggle ofthe soul and the Voetian Reformed type (De ziele-worsteling en het voeti-aansch gereformeerde type)” or as showing the “pure picture of a Voetian,essentially papal scholastic (het zuiver beeld van den voetsiaanschen, in wezenroomschen, scholasticus).”88 Driessen, however, cannot be qualified as a typ-ically “Voetian” thinker. In a 1719 pamphlet he made it clear that, in his

85 C. Scheunenus, Agr., Cartesianismi gangraena insanabilis duodecim erotematum Illus-trium decadibus, frustra curata per D. Petrum Allingam … enneade erotematum vulgarium demon-strata, Utrecht 1680. Van Mastricht’s authorship has been plausibly argued by V. Plac-cius, Theatrum anonymorum et pseudonymorum, Hamburg 1708, 175a (in the De scriptoribuspseudonymis liber): “chephas scheunenus Agrippinas scripsit personatus CarthesianismiGangraenam insanabilem, duodecim erotematum illustrium decadibus frustra curatam perPetrum allingam …” “Est frater meus Petrus von mastricht, assumpto cognomine avi Nostri:verba sunt autographae Symbolae Gerhardi von Mastricht, autorem Petrum von Mastricht SSTheologiae Professorem Francofurtensem et Duisburgensem olim nunc Ultrajectinum aliis etiam scrip-tis notum, nobis detegentis.” Van Mastricht’s grandfather’s surname was “Sc(h)oning” (seeW.J. van Asselt, ‘Mastricht,’ 360). Cf. Van der Wall, ‘Petrus Allinga,’ 135; Neele, Livingto God, 55–56.

86 Van Mastricht, Ad virum Clariss. D. Balthasarem Beckerum epanorthosis gratulatoria,Utrecht 1692. On Bekker’s work, see e.g. W. van Bunge’s introduction and bibliog-raphy in his Balthasar Bekker, Die bezauberte Welt (1693). Mit einer Einleitung herausgegeben,Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt 1997, 7–78; H.A. Krop in H. Holzhey et al. (eds.), Grundriss derGeschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts, I, Grossbritannien und Nor-damerika, Niederlande, Basel 2004, 1089–1090, 1139.

87 Driessen, De geestelyke bruidegom en bruid, Groningen 1733, preface to the reader,[xxiii]: “Ik was opgewiegt in den hypothesen van den Heer coccejus. Ik ben altyd onderdie geweest, en ben ’er nog onder, die op dien groten Man den behoorlyken prys zetten.Ik lieve zyne Navolgeren, myne Vrienden; dog zo, dat ik ook myne liefde gelykelyk deleaan den anderen Broederen.”

88 Quotes from M.J.A. de Vrijer, Schortinghuis en zijn analogieën, Amsterdam 1942, 156,and from L. Knappert, Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk, II, Amsterdam 1912,148, respectively.

introduction 21

view, opposition to Cocceians and Cartesians basically had become anoutdated issue long ago,89 but with regard to the distinction betweenVoetians and Cocceians history showed he was not entirely right, foreven after his death it was an issue in Groningen.90 Driessen did nothesitate to side with the pious—the fynen, as they were called by crit-ics.91 He also certainly knew of spiritual struggles.92 One of his Gronin-gen pupils, Alexander Comrie, originally from Perth in Scotland, latermentioned Driessen as an illustration of the insufficiency of “literal”knowledge (letterkennisse) as distinct from the knowledge that is impartedby the Holy Spirit. Comrie heard his professor pray in spiritual anxiety:“Oh God! Is there a way to escape, make it known unto me!,” eventhough this teacher had already published an exposition on “victoriousgrace.”93 In what is perhaps a reference to a similar period of anxiety,Meinhard Busscher relates that, when he was a student of Driessen, itoccasionally happened that he supported his teacher by sitting up withhim at night.94

89 Driessen, Tegen-berigt, 14: “Liever bied’ ik hun [i.e. certain colleagues], zoze slegswillen, myne vriendschap aan, om met hun te verkeren in alle minzaamheid, gelyk ikdoe met hunne Collegen, (die my, zo die welke van de zo genaamde Cocceaansche, alsdie van de Voetiaanze studie zyn, hertelyk lieven) en dan alles in ’t vuur der minne tesmoren, mits datze Cocceanen als Cocceanen, Cartezianen als Cartezianen, ene zaakdie immers al lang in de Kerk afgedaan is, niet verketteren …”

90 K.M. Witteveen, Daniel Gerdes, Groningen 1963, 96–104.91 Driessen, Saulus bekeert en in den derden hemel opgetrokken. Benevens nog twee Stoffen, die de

omgekeerde Blad-zijde aanwijst. Ook zijn’er ingevoegt eenige Aanmerkkingen over de onlangs uitgekomenkorte uitlegging van het Gereformeert Geloov, door D. Theodorus van Tuinen, enz., Utrecht 1722, p.[i] of the preface.

92 Cf. Witteveen, Daniel Gerdes, 53; J.C. Kromsigt, Wilhelmus Schortinghuis. Eene bladzijdeuit de geschiedenis van het piëtisme in de gereformeerde kerk van Nederland, Groningen 1904, 25.

93 Honig, Alexander Comrie, 40; De Vrijer, Schortinghuis, 39; Kromsigt, Schortinghuis,24. Cf. A. Comrie, Stellige en praktikale verklaring van den Heidelbergschen Katechismus, ed.Th. Avinck, Nijkerk 1856, 40: “Ik hebbe dat klaar gezien in een Hoogleeraar/ onderwien ik studeerde; bij hem zijnde in zijne zielsangsten/ waardoor

Documents

Reformed orthodoxy and philosophy, 1625-1750...Driessen, Van Mastricht and Voetius: Original Texts ..... 333 3. Van Mastricht and Voetius: Modern Translations or ... burgh, and Piet