Finding certainty in an age of uncertainty The early eighteenth-century Cocceian turn towards natural theology Masterthesis by: Niels Visscher – 3237494 Primary reader: Prof.dr. M. Mostert Secondary reader: Prof.dr. W. Mijnhardt Medieval Studies University Utrecht 19-07-2013 1 Content Preface 3 Introduction 4 Chapter I: The crisis of the Reformed mind 9 The Reformed theological system 9 Scripture and the Reformed articles of faith 10 The intellectual foundations of Reformed theology 12 Reformed theology and the challenge of Cartesianism 13 The challenge of Cartesian philosophy 14 The Voetian response to the new philosophy 15 The Cartesian philosophers 16 The Cocceian theologians 18 The rise of philosophical radicalism 20 Chapter II: Living during the crisis of the Reformed mind 24 A child prodigy 24 The University of Franeker 25 Education at the University of Franeker 27 The status of reason and the divinity of Scripture 28 Minister of the Divine Word 29 Professor of at the University of Franeker 31 The last of the Cartesians 32 Chapter III: Vindicating the divinity of Scripture 34 The Reformed view on natural theology 35 The characteristics of natural theology 36 The new approach to natural theology 37 Prolegomena 38 The doctrine of God 40 Natural religion 41 The necessity and divinity of supernatural revelation 42 Ruardus Andala on natural theology 44 Prolegomena 45 The doctrine of God 46 Natural religion 47 The necessity and divinity of supernatural revelation 48 A turn towards rationalism? 49 Conclusion 51 Bibliography 53 2 Preface Trying to obtain a master’s degree in Medieval Studies by writing a thesis on seventeenth- and eight- eenth-century developments in theology and philosophy – this turn of events will probably amaze many readers. Still, it is not as curious as it, at first glance, might seem. To me, writing this thesis was the final conclusion of an intellectual journey of which Medieval Studies was an integral part. This journey began in the first year of my bachelor in theology; during which I followed a course on the in- tellectual history of Christianity. As the main theme of this course, namely the interaction between theology and philosophy, captivated me to a high degree, I decided to make it into the main theme of my studies. Since it was during the Middle Ages that this interaction reached great heights, it was to this historical era I first turned my attention, leading me to Medieval Studies. During my years as a student in this field of study, I followed courses on theology and philosophy, ranging from intellectual developments in Late Antiquity to the Renaissance, and everything in between. Gradually I extended my scope of interest to also include the early modern era. This was due to the realisation that in theology and philosophy there was more continuity between the medieval and early modern eras than I previously thought – perhaps one can even speak of a longue durée in intellectual history. This eventually brought me to the early modern Dutch Republic. It was here that during the seventeenth- and eighteenth centuries there took place a number of developments that highly problematized the relationship between theology and philosophy, making it a watershed in western intellectual history. In particular, the second half of the seventeenth century was a period in which many long held assumptions concerning theology and philosophy came to be upset, leading to a severe crisis. The underlying purpose of this thesis is to clarify some aspects of this crisis, and, particularly, one of the attempts to overcome this crisis. Special attention is paid to the period be- tween the 1680s and the 1720s. This study is not meant to be exhaustive, nor can it ever be so. I do hope, however, that it can help in clarifying what has, thus far, been a rather obscure period in Dutch history. It is a quite interesting period that has, sadly enough, not received enough attention. During my intellectual journey through the ages, and through unknown disciplines, I’ve met many people who have been of great help to me; pointing me into the right direction, providing me with new insights, and, more generally, with pleasant conversations. Although it would be too much to name them all, some I do wish to mention some explicitly. The first of these is Prof. dr. Mostert, who, as head of medieval studies, allowed me to make a grand tour through the early modern Dutch Republic, and who, as the first reader, was so kind to supervise this thesis. Special thanks goes to Prof.dr. Mijnhardt, who, as second reader, provided me with many valuable insights, enjoyable con- versations, and whose patience is truly remarkable. The last person I would like to mention is Rudie Heling (1962-2013), with whom I’ve literally walked many miles, and with whom I’ve discussed al- most every subject to heaven and earth. As life, in the end, brought him more than he could bear, he will not be able to read this thesis. Hence it is dedicated to his memory. 3 Introduction The history of the Dutch Republic is riddled with a substantial number of paradoxical and seemingly inexplicable phenomena, which have long troubled the scholars trying to account for them. Surely, one of the oldest, and most strongly contested of these mysterious phenomena is the nature of the relationship between Cartesianism and Cocceianism; two movements which originated from the in- sights of, respectively, the French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), and the Dutch theologian Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669). Although both movements, at first glance, seemed to have little in common, with Cartesianism primarily being a novel way of doing philosophy, and Cocceianism con- sisting of the new theological insights of Cocceius, they have nevertheless been mentioned so often together, that people, ever since both emerged around the middle of the seventeenth century, have wondered whether they shared any intrinsic characteristics, that brought both movements together, or whether the relationship between both merely was the outcome of external factors.1 This ques- tion indeed becomes all the more intriguing if one considers the fact that whereas Descartes gener- ally tried to avoid theological subjects, thus hoping to avoid conflicts with the theologians, Cocceius himself admittedly had no particular interest in the new philosophy.2 Over time, scholars have, of course, tried to account for the mysterious relationship between Cartesianism and Cocceianism. Amongst the scholars attributing the relationship to external factors, the most popular explanation has been to argue that it was the outcome of the strong resistance both movements experienced from the side of the Utrecht theologian Gisbertus Voetius (1598-1676) and his followers. As these theologians considered Cartesianism to be a danger to the intellectual foundations of Reformed theology, and held the Cocceians responsible for introducing dangerous novelties into the Reformed fold, the Voetians, as they are called, indeed became the strongest op- ponents of both movements. According to the French minister Jacques Basnage (1653-1723) it was the vehement opposition by the Voetians that forced the Cartesians and Cocceians to cooperate, a conclusion that was shared by the German historian Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (1693-1755).3 The renowned nineteenth-century historian Christiaan Sepp (1820-1890) likewise attributed the relation- ship to these external factors, whilst Jan Anthony Cramer (1864-1952), denied altogether that Carte- sianism and Cocceianism had any substantial influence upon each other’s systems of thought.4 Not all scholars have sought to explain the relationship between Cartesianism and Cocceian- ism by resorting solely to external factors. A more moderate position has been taken by the nine- teenth-century historian Annaeus Ypey (1760-1837). Although Ypey also considered the opposition by the Voetians to have been a stimulating factor in bringing the Cartesians and Cocceians together, he nevertheless argued that the relationship between both gradually evolved into a more intimate 1 The first to offer a comprehensive survey on this age-old scholarly debate has been Ernestine van de Wall. For the following exposition of the different scholarly explanations of the relationship between Cartesianism and Cocceianism I am indebted to her; See: E.G.E van der Wall, ‘Cartesianism and Cocceianism: a natural alliance?’, in: M. Magdelaine (ed.), De l'Humanisme aux Lumières, Bayle et le protestantisme (Paris-Oxford, 1996), pp. 445-455. 2 For Cocceius’ stance on philosophy, see: W.J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius. 1603- 1669 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 72-105. 3 Jacques Basnage, Annales des Provinces-Unies, vol. 1 (The Hague, 1719), pp. 456-457; Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (trans. by: A. Maclaine), An Ecclesiastical History, From The Birth of Christ to the Beginning of the Eighteenth Century, vol. 2 (London, 1838), p. 375. (Original: Institutiones Historiae Ecclesiasticae Antiquae et Recentioris, 1755). 4 C. Sepp, Het godgeleerd onderwijs in Nederland gedurende de 16e en 17e eeuw, vol. 2 (Leiden, 1873), pp. 219- 220; J.A. Cramer, Abraham Heidanus en zijn cartesianisme (Utrecht, 1889), pp. 4-14. 4 bond, with philosophical ideas from Descartes being integrated in works on theology.5 The same position seems to have been taken by the foremost scholar on Cocceianism, William van Asselt.6 Be- sides this moderate position, other scholars have explicitly turned to internal characteristics to ac- count for the relationship. The most daring claim has been made by Thomas McGahagan, who ar- gued that both Cartesians and Cocceians had a common interest in the so-called concept of implicit faith, which served to avoid potential conflicts between theology and philosophy.7 This explanation, however, does not seem to have gained much support in the scholarly community. Besides McGaha- gan, Thijssen-Schoutte also argued that there was more at stake than simply meets the eye, but did not develop this claim into a comprehensive account.8 Considering the wide variety of accounts that have been given to explain the relationship be- tween Cartesianism and Cocceianism, it becomes clear that a scholarly consensus has yet to emerge.