Natural theology and natural philosophy in the late Renaissance Thomas Woolford Trinity College This dissertation is submitted to the University of Cambridge for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy November 2011 Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. This dissertation is also not substantially the same as any that I have submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at any other University. The length of this dissertation is under 80,000 words. Thomas A. Woolford November 2011 i Acknowledgements Many thanks to the Arts and Humanities Research Council for providing a studentship bursary to enable me to undertake research and to Cambridge University, Trinity College and the School of Humanities for providing an outstanding work environment. I am most grateful for the support, guidance, encouragement and friendship of my supervisor Richard Serjeantson. I’d also like to mention here friends and family who have cared for and supported me: my wonderful wife Julie, Dad, sister Kim, brother-in-law Doug, brother Sam, parents-in-law Margaret and James, friends Tim, Alex, Jon and Chrissy, and our hospitable neighbours Christine and David. To fulfil a twenty-year-old promise, this is dedicated to my cousins Alison and David, but they have to share the dedication with my late mother, Mary. SDG ii Natural theology and natural philosophy in the late Renaissance T. A. Woolford Despite some great strides in relating certain areas of Christian doctrine to the study of the natural world, the category ‘natural theology’ has often been subject to anachronism and misunderstanding. The term itself is difficult to define; it is most fruitful to think of natural theology as the answer to the question, ‘what can be known about God and religion from the contemplation of the natural world?’ There have been several erroneous assumptions about natural theology – in particular that it only consisted of rational proofs for the existence of God, that it was ecumenical in outlook, and that it was defined as strictly separate from Scriptural revelation. These assumptions are shown to be uncharacteristic of the late-sixteenth and early- seventeenth century. The study of natural theology needs to be better integrated into three contexts – the doctrinal, confessional, and chronological. Doctrinally, natural theology does not stand alone but needs to be understood within the context of the theology of revelation, justification, and the effects of the Fall. These doctrines make such a material difference that scholars always ought to delineate clearly between the threefold state of man (original innocence, state of sin, state of grace) when approaching the topic of ‘natural’ knowledge of God. Confessionally, scholars need to recognise that the doctrine of natural theology received different treatments on either side of the sectarian divide. In Catholicism, for instance, there were considerable spiritual benefits of natural theology for the non-Christian, while in Protestantism its benefits were restricted to those saved Christians who possessed Scriptural insight. Chronologically, natural theology does not remain uniform throughout the history of Christian theology but, being subject to changes occasioned by philosophical and theological faddism and development, needs to be considered within a particular chronological locus. Research here focuses on late sixteenth-century orthodoxy as defined in confessional and catechismal literature (which has been generally understudied), and demonstrates its application in a number of case-studies. This thesis begins the work of putting natural theology into these three contexts. An improved understanding of natural theology, with more rigorous and accurate terminology and better nuanced appreciation of confessional differences, makes for a better framework in which to consider the theological context of early modern natural philosophy. iii Contents Preliminary materials Declaration i Acknowledgements ii Summary iii Contents iv Abbreviations v I. Introduction 1 II. Catholicism and natural theology 18 III. Protestantism and natural theology 85 IV. Raymond Sebond’s Theologia naturalis (1484) 150 V. The Book of Wisdom 163 VI. Philippe de Mornay’s Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne (1581) 180 VII. Lambert Daneau’s Physica Christiana (1576) 187 VIII. Conclusion 197 IX. Bibliography 200 iv Abbreviations ARS Apologie de Raimond Sebond in Michel de Montaigne, The essays (Les Essais, 1580-95), trans. Donald M. Frame (Chicago & London: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1990). BoC [Book of Concord] The Book of Concord: the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran church (Concordia, 1580), trans. Theodore G. Tappert et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959). CAL Jean Calvin, Institutes of the Christian religion (Institutio Christianae religionis, 1559), trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008). CCH Arthur C. Cochrane, Reformed confessions of the sixteenth century (London: S.C.M. Press, 1966). CoT [Council of Trent] The canons and decrees of the sacred and œcumenical Council of Trent, celebrated under the sovereign pontiffs, Paul III, Julius III and Pius IV (Canones et decreta Sacrosancti Oecumenici et Generalis Concilii Tridentini, 1564), trans. James Waterworth (Chicago: The Christian symbolic publication society, 1848). CER T. H. L. Parker, Commentaries on the epistle to the Romans 1532-1542 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986). CR [Catechismus Romanus] Catechism of the Council of Trent for parish priests, issued by order of Pope Pius V (Catechismus ex decreti Concilii tridenti, 1567) trans. John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan (New York & London: Joseph F. Wagner & B. Herder, 1923). KJB King James Bible (1611). SSCR [Sebond, Screech] Sebond’s prologue, translated from Latin into English in M. A. Screech, 'Introduction', in Michel de Montaigne: the complete essays (London & New York: Penguin Books, 1993). SAPX [Sebond, appendix] Sebond’s prologue, translated into French by Montaigne, and then from the French into English by M. A. Screech, in an appendix to Michel de Montaigne, and M. A. Screech (ed.), The complete essays (London & New York: Penguin Books, 1993). SLAT [Sebond, Latin] Raymond de Sebond, Theologia natvralis, siue liber creaturarum (Lyon, 1540). SMON [Sebond, Montaigne] Raymond de Sebond, La Théologie Naturelle de Raymond Sebon, trans. Michel de Montaigne (Tournon, 1605). v Introduction Natural theology in the confessional age* *My thesis could perhaps be better entitled ‘Natural theology in the confessional age.’ The reason for this alternative title is primarily a restraint of word limit: several other case-studies on the implications of my research applied to some philosophical tracts cannot fit in. Here, therefore, I provide an historical survey concerning the doctrine of natural theology in the late sixteenth- and early-seventeenth centuries, and hint at how an improved understanding in this area might provide useful tools for the study of late Renaissance natural philosophy. The relationship between science and religion has been at the forefront of one of the most vigorous historiographical debates of the last century. The Draper-White thesis, that the relationship was one of warfare, made an enduring impression particularly on the popular consciousness. 1 The ‘conflict myth’ in its purest guise has been almost entirely discredited, though historians still differ widely on the nature of the relationship between Christian faith and natural philosophy, ranging in their interpretations from distinterested coexistence to productive cooperation. 2 Many scholars have perceived that, regarding the general tenor of Renaissance discourse, a ‘conflict thesis’ seems inappropriate and a mere ‘coexistence thesis’ inadequate. A Christian worldview, theological considerations, institutional interactions and the personal faith of sixteenth- and seventeenth- century thinkers interacted in myriad ways with the philosophy they espoused. Some scholars have recognized the necessity of a certain grasp of Christian doctrine in order properly to understand early modern philosophy. In this bracket one could include Richard Popkin, Andrew Cunningham, and Kenneth Howell.3 Cunningham’s thesis in particular, that natural philosophy was inherently 1 The thesis of ‘warfare’ between science and Christian religion was advanced by the nineteenth-century American secularists John William Draper (1811-1882) and Andrew Dickson White (1832-1911) in the seminal works, John William Draper, History of the conflict between religion and science (London: King, 1875) and Andrew Dickson White, A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom, 2 vols. (New York: Appleton, 1896). Though the conflict thesis is becoming increasingly untenable and unfashionable in academic historiography, David C. Lindberg even last year described it as ‘a widespread myth that refuses to die’ (David C. Lindberg, 'The fate of science in patristic and medieval Christendom', in Peter Harrison ed., The Cambridge companion to science and religion (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 21-38, at p. 21. 2 The suggestion that the relationship between science and religion can be interpreted through a conflict, coexistence and cooperation model, is Rivka Feldhay’s (Rivka Feldhay, 'Religion', in Katharine Park and Lorraine Daston eds., The Cambridge history of science, vol. III: Early modern