Philosophy As The Interpreter Of Holy Scripture (1666) (Marquette Studies in Philosophy

Philosophy as the Interpreter of Holy Scripture (1666)

Philosophy as the Interpreter of Holy Scripture (1666)

By Lodewijk Meyer

Translated by Samuel Shirley

With Introduction and Notes by Lee C. Rice & Francis Pastijn

Marquette Studies in Theology No. 43 Andrew Tallon, Series Editor © 2005 Marquette University Press Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-3141 All rights reserved. www.marquette.edu/mupress/

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Meijer, Lodewijk, 1629-1681. [Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres. English] Philosophy as the interpreter of Holy Scripture (1666) / by Lodewijk Meyer ; translated by Samuel Shirley ; with introduction and notes by Lee C. Rice & Francis Pastijn. p. cm. — (Marquette studies in philosophy ; no. 43) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-87462-666-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-87462-666-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Bible—Hermeneutics. 2. Philosophy and religion. I. Shirley, Samuel, 1912II. Rice, Lee, 1941- III. Pastijn, F. J. (Francis J.) IV. Title. V. Marquette studies in philosophy ; #43. BS476.M35413 2005 220.6’01—dc22 2005024873

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences— Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992. Cover photo of Braine, France, by Andrew J. Tallon, 2004.

CONTENTS Translator’s Preface .....................................................................iii Editors’ Preface ............................................................................v Introduction ..................................................................................1 1. Meyer and the PSSI .....................................................1 2. The Editions of the PSSI .............................................4 3. Meyer and Spinoza ......................................................6 4. Reactions to the PSSI and the TTP............................11 5. Closing Notes ............................................................17

Philosophy as the Interpreter of Holy Scripture [Chapter titles are by the editors]

Prologue ......................................................................................21 PART 1: I. State of the Question ..................................................32 II. The Term ‘Interpreter’ ..............................................35 III. The Sense of an Expression.....................................41 IV. Scripture is Obscure and Ambiguous ......................89 V. Philosophy...............................................................104 VI. The Norm of Interpretation ...................................113 PART 2: VII. Scripture and Philosophy .....................................120 VIII. Truth Is Not Opposed to Truth............................136 PART 3: IX. The Roman Catholic Position ...............................142 X. The Reformed Position ...........................................152 XI. The Meaning of the Reformed Position ................157 XII. Scriptural Refutation of the Reformed Position ...................................................................173

XIII. Philosophical Refutation of the Reformed Position ..................................................182 XIV. The Holy Spirit as Interpreter: Meaning.............195 XV. The Holy Spirit as Interpreter: Refutation............202 XVI. Positions of the Socinians and Arminians ..........206 Epilogue ....................................................................................226 Appendices 1. Index of Biblical Citations.......................................243 2. Index of Authors Cited ............................................246 3. Glossary of Sects and Religious Movements in Seventeenth-Century Holland.............................253 4. Decree of the State of Frisia Against the PSSI.....................................................259 5. Propositions Censured by the Curator of the University of Leiden (16 Jan. 1676) .......................261 6. Chronology ..............................................................263 Bibliography............................................................................271

Meyer

- iii -

PSSI

Translator’s Preface

This work has been considered of sufficient importance to warrant its translation into French by two distinguished scholars, Moreau and Lagre´e. There being no English translation, it seemed to me that I might be rendering some service in undertaking this task, a task particularly laborious for a translator more habituated to Spinoza’s delightfully lucid prose. Meyer was an accomplished Latin scholar, and the complexity of his style is designed to impress this fact on the reader. I have followed the text of the 1674 imprint, while using my discretion as to the division into paragraphs. Samuel Shirley Mevagissey Cornwall

Meyer

-v -

PSSI

Editors’ Preface

This translation and notes on the Philosophia S. Scripturae Interpres is based primarily upon the edition of 1674, which is a slightly corrected reprint of the edition of 1673. We have also had access to the original edition of 1666 and the Dutch version of 1667. The editorial problems associated with the text of Meyer are often no less difficult than those of his complex (and often pretentious) latinity. The Latin and Dutch texts have a proliferation of italicised passages (often entire paragraphs and pages); but, for the texts to which we have had access, these are seldom literal quotations, but rather re´sume´s (sometimes probably only from memory) or summaries of re´sume´s from sources other than those cited. Meyer also frequently mentions a source or author without indicating a precise location, and occasionally only an author is mentioned (with neither work nor location). Those of Meyer’s paraphrases which we have verified are accurate, though a few are not, and these are indicated in the notes. Meyer is faithful and literal in dealing with the Roman poets as well as with passages from Scripture and with Augustine. With his own contemporaries he is much less so. In the notes references to Spinoza’s Theologico tractatus-politicus and Tractatus politicus are abbreviated respectively as TTP and TP, followed by chapter and paragraph number (e.g., TTP5, 4). References to the Ethica(E) and the Principia philosophiae cartesianae(PPC) follow standard conventions for internal references: e.g., E4P37Schol2 is the second scholium to Proposition 37 of Part 4 of the Ethica. The French translation of Philosophia S. Scripturae Interpres by Lagre´e and Moreau has been most useful despite some typographical faults and incompleteness of references, and thanks are due as well to Pierre-Franc¸ois Moreau for his correspondence with us on various manuscript and textual problems.

PSSI

- vi -

Meyer

Bordoli’s 1997 commentary (Ragione e Scrittura tra Descartes e Spinoza) has been a constant source of notes, corrections, and information on Meyer’s contemporary sources. Finally, the unpublished doctoral dissertation by Thomas McGahan (Cartesianism in the Netherlands, 1639-1676) provides a wealth of additional information and historical background, though the treatment of Meyer is minimal. Completion of work on the manuscript and on many textual problems during the summer of 1999 was made possible by a Summer Research Grant from Marquette University’s Committee on Research, to whose members special thanks are due. Individual contributions and support have come from many. Piet Steenbakkers (Faculteit der Wijsbegeerte, University of Utrecht) provided assistance in securing photocopies of the various editions, as well as a wealth of suggestions. Jacob Adler (University of Arkansas) provided bibliographical and textual assistance. Father Roland Teske, S.J., of Marquette’s Philosophy Department, has been a constant source of assistance, not only in dealing with the complexities of Meyer’s latinity, but also in tracking down authors and sources. The introduction, appendices, and many notes have been reviewed and corrected by Father Teske, Frederick Ablondi (Hendrix College, Arkansas), Paul Bagley (Loyola College of Baltimore), Steven Barbone (San Diego State University), and Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine College of Louisville). Dr. John Jones, chair of Marquette’s Philosophy Department, provided a Research Assistant during the spring of 1999; and to Juliana Martonffy are due thanks for her work in proofreading and attending to matters of consistency in format and style. For their longsuffering and assistance during the period of final manuscript preparation (under UNIX troff), personal thanks are also due to John Jenders and Daryl Debroux. Marquette University Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Introduction 1. Meyer and the PSSI The first edition of Philosophia S. Scripturae Interpres (hereafter PSSI) was published anonymously in Amsterdam (Eleutheropolis) in 1666. According to Thijssen-Schoute (1950, 253), the work was widely recognised as that of Lodewijk Meyer, then a physician in Amsterdam and formerly a poet, playwright, and student at the University of Leiden.1 The work immediately created a fury of refutations and counter-refutations among the theological and philosophical communities. A Dutch edition appeared in 1667, and new Latin editions in 1673 and 1674. Evidence for the staying power of the PSSI and the controversies which surrounded it is found in the fact that it underwent a fourth edition, long after Meyer’s death, in 1776.2 While Meyer is presently known primarily for his relationship with Spinoza,3 he had achieved a measure of independent renown in his own time. His edition of a dictionary of the Dutch language was one of a number of seventeenth-century efforts to explicitate and partially formalise the elements of Dutch grammar. He served on several occasions as the director of the Ams1.

2. 3.

Meyer was enrolled at the University of Leiden as early as 1654, and received degrees in philosophy and in medicine in 1660. His doctoral dissertation in the former appears in English translation in our edition of Spinoza’s Principles of Cartesian Philosophy and Metaphysical Thoughts (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998). He published both poetry and his own plays prior to 1660. See Appendix 6 for the known chronology. We did not have access to this edition, whose title page indicates that it is a ‘third edition’. See our edition of Spinoza’s Letters (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1995), esp. pp. 13-22; Meinsma (1983), esp. pp. 194-198, 255-259, and 486-488; and Bordoli (1997, 61-71).

PSSI

-2-

Meyer

terdam Theatre, for whose performances he also edited and translated a number of plays. Finally, he was one of the cofounders of the literary society, Nil Volentibus arduum.4 Although a variety of projects and interests marked his own life, his interest in grammar (both its logical structure and its philosophical underpinnings) appears to be a continuous presence in all of his work. He died in 1681, at the age of fifty-one, four years after the death of Spinoza, of whose Opera Postuma (1677) he was also the principal editor. Meyer was Lutheran by confession, though the PSSI contains references to a wide diversity of both protestant and catholic authors. The diversity of religious sects in the Holland of his time (see Appendix 3) made Holland, and especially Amsterdam and Leiden, the intellectual and religious centre of scriptural exegesis and a variety of traditions which argued for a new conception of both the Bible and the method by which it was to be interpreted. At least four major currents or traditions of protestant thought can be distinguished. The first, and earliest, of these can be labelled as humanism. It is characterised by its emphasis upon a return to the texts in their original languages (Hebrew and Greek) and an emphasis upon isolating the sensus genuinus or authentic historical sense of the scriptural texts. This philological approach was one of the principal forces which came to undermine a fundamental thesis of the protestant Reformers: the claim that Scripture is clear in its own right and is ‘its own interpreter’. A second tradition, that of protestant scholasticism, is found in the works of P. Martyr Vermigli and Zanchi. In place of the claim that Scripture is wholly clear, these authors argue for the presence of ‘loci communes’, a series of central passages whose cumulative clarity is such that it can provide the means by which other and less clear passages of Scripture may be understood. The criterion for the interpretation of Scripture in this tra4.

See Suchtelen (1987) and the second section of this introduction for further details.

Meyer

-3-

PSSI

dition becomes a collation of passages and their collective agreement with the totality of Holy Scripture. A third exegetical tradition, the school of Saumur, dating from the beginning of the seventeenth century, was distinguished by its methodological rigour and rationalism.5 Though Meyer does not cite directly the representatives of this school, the PSSI has an abundance of references to the works of Daniel Chamier [Chamierus]. Chamier was in continuous correspondence with the theologians of Saumur, one of whose principal goals was, like that of Meyer in the PSSI, to provide a new and fully rational basis of scriptural exegesis which could provide the basis for a reunion of Christendom. A fourth and final tradition was that of an emergent cartesian exegetical method, sharing with the school of Saumur an emphasis upon the sole use of reason as the basis for interpretation. This tradition deserves to be characterised as a ‘school’ even less than the three aforementioned approaches. Ecclesiastical condemnations of the works of Descartes were relatively commonplace in seventeenth century Holland, as elsewhere, and protestant theologians tended to view the doctrine of ‘clear and distinct ideas’ as fundamentally inimical to their tradition and the Reformed faith. While Descartes himself had eschewed any effort to adapt his method to matters of faith or scriptural exegesis, the augustinian elements of his philosophy, emphasised by Mersenne in his own time, had been developed later by theologically minded philosophers such as Ambrosius Victor, Bernard Lamy, and Poisson,6 and it was from these authors that later cartesians were to draw both inspiration and precedent in their efforts to extend or unify the cartesian method. In his Prologue to the PSSI, Meyer carefully positions himself with respect to the ongoing disputes concerning the interpretation of Scripture. He compares the current state of these 5. 6.

See Lagre´e and Moreau (1988, 6-7). See Gouhier (1978), esp. pp. 81-115, for an historical summary of what the author calls l’augustinisme carte´sianise´.

PSSI

-4-

Meyer

disputes in theology with the earlier state of philosophy prior to the development of Descartes’ new method of reasoning. The goal of the PSSI is to disqualify utterly the various norms of interpretation proposed by these traditions, and to do this by marshalling the different arguments of the schools one against the other. Having thus eliminated all contenders by arguments whose certainty is clear by the light of reason, he can thus defend his own thesis: philosophy, and only philosophy, is capable of providing clear explanations of obscure passages, of sorting out and evaluating competing interpretation, and most importantly of demonstrating the validity of its own exegetical method. As noted in closing, Meyer does not claim thereby to have resolved all problems concerning the meaning and roˆle of Scripture; but, even with this qualification, his central thesis was sufficiently radical to have elicited a host of theological and philosophical refutations, as well as ecclesiastical condemnations. 2. The Editions of the PSSI A second Latin edition appeared in 1673: a few cryptic phrases from the 1666 edition had been expanded, and a large number of typographical errors had been corrected.7 The edition of 1674, which appears identical (except for pagination) to that of 1673, figured as an appendix to the (anonymous) Tractatus theologicopoliticus (TTP) of Spinoza.8 A Dutch translation of the PSSI appeared in 1667. 7. 8.

The title page of this edition carries the advertisement, ‘ab Authore longe emendatior’, but this is at best a marketer’s exaggeration. This edition forms the basis of the present translation. Significant variances from the first Latin edition and the Dutch edition are indicated in footnotes. References to the TTP and to the TP hereafter are to chapter and paragraph number — e.g., ‘TP4, 5’ is Chapter 4, paragraph 5 of the Tractatus politicus. References to Spinoza’s Ethica are internal — e.g., ‘E4P37Schol2’ is Ethica, Part 4, proposition 37, scholium 2.

Meyer

-5-

PSSI

Whether Meyer was the translator of this edition is not known,9 but he certainly oversaw the translation. The Dutch edition clearly follows the Latin text of 1666 in all essential aspects. It makes use of a beautiful and precise language and certainly has literary qualities. The Latin text, while not without literary pretension, tends to be verbose in its use of lengthy (and sometimes ambiguous) phrases. The Dutch version often expands a phrase, and occasionally omits a phrase or entire sentence: we have indicated these omissions and additions in the notes. The Dutch version uses italics: (i) at the beginning of each chapter; (ii) for references and quotations; (iii) when new Dutch terminology is introduced; and (iv) for emphasis of certain phrases. Only the first two uses parallel the use of italics in the Latin text, but even here the Latin and Dutch do not always agree. In the English translation we have followed the Latin edition of 1674, but rendered quotations in quotation marks rather than italics. Where the Dutch and Latin texts do not agree on the scope of a quotation, notes have also been provided. Paragraph division is generally identical in the Latin and Dutch, but differences have not been noted; since the longer paragaphs of the Latin (some as long as 8 pages) have been broken down into shorter segments in accordance with modern usage. Indented paragraphs, which are used in the English version for longer quotations or perspicuity, do not appear in either the Dutch or Latin editions. As a rule with only a few exceptions (which are mentioned in notes), the main text of the Dutch version contains no Latin or Greek. An occasional Greek phrase or term, if it occurs, is transliterated. The Dutch version, unlike the Latin editions, contains many marginal notes. Most of these provide the Latin or Greek equivalents of terminology in the body of the Dutch text. Sometimes this terminology is standard, while in other cases it may well be a creation of the translator. Marginal notes to the 9.

Lagre´e and Moreau (1988, 14) assume that the translator was Meyer, whereas Jacob Adler has suggested in correspondence that it may have been Bouwmeester.

PSSI

-6-

Meyer

Latin or Greek are made repeatedly — not just when the terminology is first introduced. Thus the term ‘twijffelsinnigheydt’ most often comes with the note ‘Amphybolia’ (sometimes ‘Amphibolia’) in the margin. And while the Dutch term ‘dubbelsinnigheydt’ comes by definition with the note ‘Ambiguitas’ in the margin, section 16 of Chapter III tells us that both terms mean in fact very much the same; and so the term ‘twijffelsinnigheydt’ is often accompanied by a marginal ‘Ambiguitas’. For marginal notes of other natures, we have given details in our notes. The Dutch translations of poetry are always competent. Sometimes these are celebrated and well-known translations, such as Vondel’s translations of some passages from Vergil’s Aeneid (section 14 of Chapter III). In other instances, though the translations are equally superb, no translator has been identified: examples are the translations of Juvenal and Horace in Chapter III, and of Lucretius in Chapter V. And it happens that the translator seems to have given up on finding an adequate translation, so that the passage is simply omitted in the Dutch version (these omissions are also mentioned in our notes). 3. Meyer and Spinoza The friendship between Meyer and Spinoza most probably began in the 1650s,10 and it is through Meyer that Spinoza made the acquaintance of Johan Bouwmeester, who was to remain among his closest and most faithful friends. Meyer had achieved recognition at that time as both a poet and grammarian, and in 1654 he was asked by a local bookseller to prepare a second edition of Hofman’s Dutch dictionary. It was in this year also that Meyer was enrolled at the University of Leiden in philosophy. We have, however, no documentation for the early years of their relationship beyond the knowledge that both thinkers moved in 10.

See Dunin-Borkowski (1933, 467), who places their first meeting in 1654.

Meyer

-7-

PSSI

the same intellectual circles. We know that by 1656 Spinoza was in contact with the circle of friends of Franciscus Van den Enden, including not only Meyer but Simon de Vries, Pieter Balling, Jarig Jelles, Johan Bouwmeester, Adriaan Koerbagh, Jan Rieuwertsz, and Jan Pietersz. Spinoza’s own Korte Verhandeling, probably completed by 1660, was written for a group of friends discussing philosophical questions, and Meyer makes a clear reference to this work in the closing paragraph of the epilogue of the PSSI. The period from 1662 to 1666 is a seminal period for understanding the intellectual genesis both of the PSSI and of Spinoza’s Tractatus theologico-politicus. In 1662 Spinoza had completed the first part of what was then conceived as a tripartite Ethica (De Deo), and this was also the year in which Balling’s Het Licht op den Kandelaar appeared.11 At the end of 1662 and beginning of 1663 Spinoza completed the Principia philosophiae cartesianae (whose publication was overseen by Meyer, who also wrote an extensive preface to the work) and the Cogitata metaphysica.12 In the period from 1663 to 1665 Spinoza continued work on the Ethica, which was to evolve into a five-part work. During this same period the consistory of the Reformed Church was engaged in the examination of a series of ‘heretical’ documents published by Mennonites, Anabaptists, and Collegiants.13 In 1665 there appeared a new edition of the Catechism of Rakow (the first Latin edition dated from 1609), and also De jure ecclesiasticorum. The latter work was a frontal attack on both the theses of the Reformed Church and the political aspi11. 12.

13.

An edition and translation of this work by Carl Gebhardt appears in Chronicon Spinozanum 4 (1924-1926). The only letters of Spinoza addressed to Meyer are from this period (Ep12, Ep12A, and Ep15); and, despite Spinoza’s mention of letters from Meyer in the first two of these, none were included in the edition of the letters prepared by his friends in 1677 (nor have any been found since). See Meinsma (1983, 262-266) for a chronology of the consistory’s deliberations.

PSSI

-8-

Meyer

rations of the Orangist party, and argued that all jus — divine or human, political or ecclesiastical — was derived from the civitas via contract.14 Sometime in 1665 Spinoza interrupted his work on the Ethica to begin work on the Tractatus theologico-politicus, which was not to appear in print until 1670.15 Beyond the fact that Spinoza had begun his theologico-political work at roughly the same time that Meyer was completing work on the PSSI, whose first edition appeared in 1666, and that both men were in close contact during this period, we have no documentation from which to draw detailed conclusions concerning the relationships and evolution of the two works. Nor can we do more than speculate concerning why Spinoza chose Meyer as the editor of his own work on Descartes. It has been argued that, in his preface to this work, Meyer misinterprets Descartes’ understanding of the analytic and synthetic methods,16 but an alternative hypothesis is that both Meyer and Spinoza ‘radicalise’17 that method as a means of extending it (to both political theory and scriptural exegesis). Spinoza writes to Meyer concerning his 14.

15.

16. 17.

For a summary of the work see Bordoli (1997, 92-97). In his Dictionary Bayle attributes authorship of this work to Spinoza. The condemnations of the Reformed Church of 1674 were directed specifically against four works: the Leviathan, the De jure, the PSSI, and the Tractatus theologicopoliticus. It did not bear its author’s name, and was also published with a false city of origin (Hamburgi, apud Henricum Ku¨nraht). Details of the evolution of the work, and of its relationship to the Ethica, may be found in F. Akkerman, ‘‘Etablissement du texte du Tractatus theologico-politicus,’’ in L’Ecriture sainte au temps de Spinoza et dans le syste`me spinoziste, ed. Groupe de Recherches Spinozistes (Paris: Presses de l’Universite´ de Paris-Sorbonne, 1992), 91-108. See E. Curley, ‘‘Spinoza’s Geometric Method,’’ Studia Spinozana 2 (1986), 151-169. See F. Mignini, Spinoza (Rome: Bari, 1983), 75: ‘‘Spinoza e` presentato da Meyer non gia` come continuatore o anche superatore della filosofia di Cartesio, ma come un filosofo che ha aperto un’altra via e ha posto altri fondamenti alla costruzione della metafisica.’’

Meyer

-9-

PSSI

disagreements with Descartes that they are ‘non pauca’, whereas Meyer writes in his own preface to the work that they are ‘multa’. From the period 1663 to 1666 we possess thirty-three letters between Spinoza and his correspondents (Ep8-Ep38); whereas for the period following the publication of the PSSI through 1672 we possess only eight. During this period Henry Oldenburg had been imprisoned in England, Adriaan Koerbagh was condemned by ecclesiastical authorities and was later to die in prison (1669), and the Orangist party was to achieve its political ascendancy. On 26 November 1669 a group of about ten persons met at the inn Stil Malta to ratify the foundation of a cultural academy, Nil volentibus arduum. Among them were Meyer, Bouwmeester, the poet Antonides van der Goes, and the lawyers Andries Pels and Willem Blaauw. Meyer himself was charged with finding a motto for the academy, which was announced eight days later: Latet Utilitas. Documents and proceedings from the academy are known to have existed in the eighteenth century, where they were held by an Amsterdam lawyer, Balthasar Huydecoper. The archives of Huydecoper were discovered in 1982 by D. P. M. Dongelmans.18 They contained thirty pages of notes on 638 meetings of the academy which were held between 1669 and 23 December 1687. The proceedings from which the notes were drawn have never been discovered, and the only documents published by the academy itself are 129 plays (many translations from Latin or French playwrights) and several essays on dramatic art. The notes, however, indicate a gradual move on the part of the academy from plays and literary preoccupations to the general study of grammar and rhetoric. We know also that in 1671 Meyer directed a discussion ‘De bono et malo’. Suchtelen (1987, 398-399) suggests that, as the political and ecclesiastical climate 18.

See his Nil volentibus arduum: documenten en bronnen (Utrecht: Hes Publications, 1982). A summary and analysis of these is given by Suchtelen (1987).

PSSI

- 10 -

Meyer

became more and more hostile to the new philosophy, one roˆle which Nil volentibus arduum undertook was the defence of this philosophy in the face of theological conservatives and political monarchists. 1672 marks the accession of William of Orange as Stadthouder, the invasion of Holland by the armies of Louis XIV, the closing of the Amsterdam Theatre, and the murder of the brothers de Witt. We know that in 1677 Johan Hudde requested of Meyer through the academy that he translate the Satires of Juvenal, and that this was subsequently done in collaboration with Bouwmeester and Pela. By 1677, the year of Spinoza’s death, the academy had succeeded in having the Amsterdam Theatre reopened. Bouwmeester died in 1680, and Meyer the following year. The members of the academy honoured his memory in a reading of his versified translation of the Imitation of Christ by Thomas a` Kempis. We have little textual documentation relating to the evolution of Spinoza’s thought, and no historical documentation concerning his relation to Nil volentibus arduum during its formative years of development, beyond knowing that Spinoza was in continuous contact with many of its members. Any approach to these issues must be based upon comparison of doctrines in texts such as the PSSI and the TTP; but the two works, though their accounts of scriptural exegesis are radically different, are complementary in an important respect. In his writing, both in the Ethica and the TTP, Spinoza generally avoids citations of other authors and explicit refutation or criticism of their positions. Meyer, on the other hand, cites both classical and contemporary authors continuously, and takes issue with them by name. The PSSI, accordingly, contains important information concerning the doctrinal background in which (and more often against which) Spinoza was working in the TTP. Indeed, chapters 13 through 15 of the TTP can be viewed as containing an extended critique of Meyer’s own fundamental conclusions in the PSSI, and perhaps also in part a reaction to the multitude of critiques and refutations of the PSSI whose publications preceded that of the TTP itself.

Meyer

- 11 -

PSSI

4. Reactions to the PSSI and the TTP The first edition of the PSSI appeared in 1666, and was followed four years later by the first edition of Spinoza’s Tractatus theologico-politicus (TTP), and both works appeared anonymously. The edition of 1674 contained the PSSI as an appendix, allegedly by the same author, to the TTP. As Meinsma (1983, 327) notes, if it was Meyer’s intention to stir the fires of ecclesiastical controversy, the PSSI and its Dutch translation succeeded eminently. Reactions from philosophers, theologians, and the established ecclesiastical powers were both many and fierce. McGahan (1976, 335-336) divides these reactions into two general categories: Cartesian and Voetian (Reformed). While the dichotomy is a simplification (see Bordoli, 1997, 412-413), it provides a workable framework for sorting the many ‘refutations’ of both the PSSI and the TTP which appeared in the period immediately following the publication of both works. While representatives of the first group accused Meyer (and later Spinoza) of either perverting or misrepresenting the cartesian method, those of the latter argued that the two works exemplified religious heresy and philosophical error as inevitable outgrowths of cartesianism. Samuel Maresius (1599-1673) was appointed professor of theology at Groningen in 1642. His Disputationes theologicae refutatoriae appeared in 1667. It opens with an extended critique of the prologue and first six chapters of the PSSI, and proceeds then to a defence of cartesian rationalism in general and Descartes’ method in particular. Maresius argues with the Socinians that Scripture provides its own norma for interpretation, while reason is the iudex which settles theological controversy He then goes on to accuse Meyer of a species of ‘immoderate cartesianism’. But, despite a prolonged critique of chapter 3 of the PSSI, he concedes to Meyer that lexica, grammatica, rhetorica constitute the norms for interpreting Scripture.19 Jan Pieterszoon Beel[d]thouwer (ca. 1603-1670), a member of the Collegiant circle which met regularly in Amsterdam,

PSSI

- 12 -

Meyer

was accused of Socinianism and excommunicated by the consistory in 1656. He apparently knew Hebrew,20 which he may have learned at the University of Leiden. His treatise, De hooghste en laetste Bedenckinge over Godt, en Goddelijcke Saken, appeared in 1661; and his Antwoordt, op het boeck, genaemt; de Philosophie d’uytleghster der H. Schrifture, an extended critique of the PSSI, was published in 1667. It argues that the texts of the prophets are ‘suyvre’ (pure or uncorrupted); so that, while reason may have an instrumental roˆle in the interpretation of Scripture, it is not valid for the interpretation of biblical phenomena in general, since God himself is the author of the biblical texts. Pierre Serrurier (Petrus Ser[r]arius, 1600-1669)21 moved to Amsterdam, where he married in 1630, and rapidly became an active and well-known member of the Millenarian circle there. He was a friend of Spinoza, and transmitted correspondence between Spinoza and Oldenburg (see Ep14 and Ep25). His Responsio ad Exercitationem Paradoxam appeared in 1667, and is fundamentally mystical in its approach to Scripture, stressing Meyer’s confusion or identification of the lumen naturale with the lumen gratiae Spiritus Sanctus.22 His attitude is part of a tradition which Gouhier (1978, 45-48) characterises as ‘l’augustinisme carte´sianise´’. Appended to his Responsio (pp. 61-82) is a refutation of the PSSI by Jan Amos Komenski (Comenius), a friend of Serrarius and also one of the members of the Collegiant circle in Amsterdam. Komenski defends the cartesian philosophy in mat19.

20. 21. 22.

Disputationes, 6 § 8: ‘‘. . . est enim Philosophia similis vino, quod moderate sumptum acuit ingenium, immoderate, turbat cerebrum et subvertit rationem.’’ See Bordoli (1997, 243). See Meinsma (1983, 196), who claims that his knowledge of Spinoza’s philosophy was superficial. Meinsma (1983, 258) mistakenly gives his year of birth as 1636. See Bordoli (1997, 256-265). Responsio, Ad prologum, 1: ‘‘Sed aliter se res habet in Theologia; quae versatur circa res supernaturales et divinas, adeoque circa Objectum quod non Rationi sed Spiritui est adaequatum.’’

Meyer

- 13 -

PSSI

ters of mathematics, physics, metaphysics, and ethics; but, like Serrarius, he argues that Descartes’ method is unsuited to Scripture, whose author is God, and whose norm of interpretation is ‘Dei lex fidei, vitaeque speique nostrae’. Nicholaus Arnold (Arnoldus, 1618-1680) was appointed to the chair of theology at Friesland, which had been vacated when Coccejus moved to Leiden. Like Komenski, he argues in the Dissertatiuncula (1667) in favour of a cartesianism restricted to the natural order. Scripture must be interpreted using the methods of a theology inspired by the Holy Spirit. Meyer’s attempt to ‘naturalise’ the interpretation of Scripture is the work of a ‘‘homo cartesianus, semi papista, semi Socinianus, totus atheus. . . .’’23 Arnold also provides at the end of his treatise a Latin translation of the decree of the State of Frisia (10 November 1666) against the PSSI (see appendix). Christian Schotanus (1603-1671), professor of Greek and of church history at Franeker, also supporting the decree of the State of Frisia, dedicates his Triumphi Sacrae Scripturae (1667) to the ‘Consiliari In Suprema Curia Frisiae’,24 but sees Meyer’s method as a logical development of that of Descartes. While Schotanus concedes that the truth of Scripture cannot be opposed to that of reason (Triumphi, § 3, p. 16), he argues that philosophy cannot judge or understand divine mysteries because they exceed the power of human knowledge in general. Meyer, accordingly, ‘‘. . . vero in totum abit a Reformatis, quia abit a Christianismo’’ (Triumphi, § 13, p. 57). A more extended argument against not just Meyer, but against the spread of cartesianism in general, is given by Lodewijk Wolzogen (ca. 1633-1696) in his Orthodoxa Fides of 1668. Wolzogen bemoans the appearance of Hobbes’ Leviathan as well as the spread of Descartes’ thought, especially at Utrecht, which has become ‘Acropolis et Capitolium Cartesianismi’. The correct interpretation of Scripture requires three elements — the Holy 23. 24.

Dissertatiuncula, 1 § 2, p. 2. See Bordoli (1997, 273). See Bordoli (1997, 282-285).

PSSI

- 14 -

Meyer

Spirit, reason, and knowledge of the usus loquendi (§ 51, p. 22) — and the use of reason is at best instrumental. Truths concerning salvation are in fact not even comprehensible to reason alone, which, if used constitutively, leads only to error and confusion. Wolzogen offers a detailed and extended epistemological defence of the analogia fidei rejected by Meyer, and of the perspicuitas ad salutem of Scripture in oppositon to Meyer’s textual analysis and rationalistic methodology. Wolzogen’s critique was followed closely by the German theologian Matthias Nethenus (1618-1686), whose Tractatus de interpretatione Scripturae was published in 1675. Citing Luther and Calvin in support of the doctrine of the Spiritus Sancti interna illuminatio, Nethenus tends, however, to confuse the positions of Wolzogen with those of the author of the PSSI.25 Lambert van Velthuysen (1622-1685) studied philosophy, theology, and medicine at the Universities of Utrecht and Leiden. While his generally liberal views brought him into conflict with the Calvinists, he regarded Spinoza’s TTP as both atheistic and fatalistic. Ep42 to Jacob Ostens (24 January 1671) provides an extended critique of the TTP, and received a response from Spinoza.26 His Dissertatio de usu rationis in rebus theologicis bears neither date nor place of publication, but appears in the first volume of his Opera omnia of 1680. Its attack on the PSSI is particularly virulent, possibly in part because some of the PSSI’s critics had identified Velthuysen as its author.27 He follows the Voetian school in assigning to reason only an instrumental roˆle in the interpretation of Scripture: ‘‘Dicimus in cognitione historica, qua tali, rationem rectam, sive Philosophiam veram praestare tantum vicem instrumenti’’ (p. 109c2). Unlike the orthodox Reformed, however, he downplays the inspiration of 25. 26.

27.

See Bordoli (1997, 352-354). Ep69 (Autumn 1675): for further information on Velthuysen, see our edition of Spinoza’s Letters (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1995), 33-39; 225-236; and 323-324. See Bordoli (1997, 310-312) and Meinsma (1983, 458-359).

Meyer

- 15 -

PSSI

the Holy Spirit, concedes to Meyer that reason has an important roˆle in the textual and historical understanding of Scripture, and argues that the ‘gratia divina’ necessary for the interpretation of Scripture is moral rather than theoretical. While he argues that Meyer’s substantive use of reason in interpretation leads to a form of Enthusiasm, his emphasis upon the inscrutability of God and of God’s works moves Velthuysen close to fideism. Balthasar Bekker (born 1634) was often considered a cartesian by his own critics. Perhaps, like Velthuysen, his critique of the PSSI is in part a form of self-defence. The De Philosophia Cartesiana Admonitio Candida & Sincera (1668) is less an attack upon the PSSI than a defence of religious tolerance. The work argues that the author of the PSSI is a cartesian who, like many of Descartes’ followers, ‘probant multa, quaedam improbant’; in so far as Descartes himself never intended his method to be extended to theological truths. Bekker insists that, unlike the intolerant aristotelianism of liberal theology, cartesianism may at least be called upon to support a spirit of tolerance. Reinier Vogelsang (ca. 1610-1679), whose Contra libellum, cui titulus, Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres appeared in 1669, also treats with scepticism the growing tide of cartesian thought. ‘‘Cartesii sane reperta, disciplinam Physicam & Ontologicam quod attinet, perpauca esse, probatu facillimum puto. . . Tantum ferme aliorum inventa compilavit atque digessit, nonnullis addidit, quaedam corrupit.’’28 He contrasts the new auctoritates (Descartes, Clauberg) with the old: ‘‘Quanto rectius et cordatius Aristoteles?’’29 His lengthy critique concludes that Meyer has ignored the fact that Scripture is ‘Verbum Dei’; and, that in going beyond Descartes by attempting to extend the method to theology, Meyer is rather following Epicurus and Lucretius. 28. 29.

Contra libellum, § 7, p. 7. See Bordoli (1997, 333-334) and Meinsma (1983, 328-329). Indignatio justa, 1669, § 33, p. 50; quoted by Bordoli (1997, 335).

PSSI

- 16 -

Meyer

Other assaults by traditionalists on the PSSI in the years immediately following its publication included works by Johannes van der Waeyen (Waijen, 1639-1701),30 Abraham van der Heyden (Heydanus or Heidanus),31 Johannes Coccejus (Kock or Cocceius),32 Samuel Maresius,33 Johannes de Bruyn (or Bruin, 1620-1675),34 Georgius de Raad,35 Jacob Koelman (Koelammnus, Koelmans, or Coelman, 1632-1695),36 and Jean de Labadie.37 In the same period, two critiques in the same tradition explicitly targeted the TTP: the Adversus Anynonymum Theologico-Politicum Liber Singularis (1674) of Regnerus van Mansvelt (1639-1671),38 and the Arcana Atheismi Revelata (1676) of Franciscus Cuperus (Frans Kuyper, 1629-1692).39 In December of 1675 the curator of the University of Leiden, moved by the ecclesiastical authorities, published a proclamation prohibiting the teaching of all cartesian philosophy and declaring that aristotelianism was the sole philosophical method which 30. 31.

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

38. 39.

The Pro vera et genuina reformatorum sententia appeared in 1669. See Bordoli (1997, 154-366). Two works, both arguing against the spread of Cartesian and Socinian philosophy in the universities, appeared in 1672 and 1678. See Bordoli (1997, 368-369) and Meinsma (1983, 358-360). The Consilia was published in 1673, but probably written earlier. See Bordoli (1997, 369-371) and Meinsma (1983, 429-430). The De abusu philosophiae cartesianae appeared in 1670. See Bordoli (1997, 371-377). The Defensio doctrinae cartesianae appeared in 1670. See Bordoli (1997, 378-383) and Meinsma (1983, 518). The Exercitatio de Scripturarum interprete appeared in 1670. See Bordoli (1997, 383). Koelman published a critique of the PSSI in 1669, and of cartesianism in general in 1692. See Bordoli (1997, 384). Labadie published two critiques of the PSSI in 1668: the Interpres interpretis, now lost, and La puissance eccle´siastique. See Bordoli (1997, 384). See Meinsma (1983, 422-433). See Meinsma (1983; 171, 342, and 376).

Meyer

- 17 -

PSSI

could be taught in courses. The identification of Meyer’s PSSI and Spinoza’s TTP with a growing and errant cartesianism, so extensively argued by the theological traditionalists, thus achieved a measure of political success. 5. Closing Notes Though Meyer offers several original claims in the PSSI, it would not be correct to conclude that he has a ‘philosophy’ sensu proprio. He should rather, as Hubbeling and Lagre´e-Moreau suggest,40 be classified as a ‘penseur carte´siano-spinoziste’ — not because he tried to synthesise the two systems, but rather because of his incomplete efforts to forge a transition from one to the other. The Prologue to the PSSI clearly asserts its cartesian intentions: to carry the method of clear and distinct ideas into theology itself. But Meyer can only do this by passing over the limits which Descartes himself placed on his method, and his success in so doing is limited and partial at best. Many of the problems which here remain unresolved are reorganised, rearticulated, and resolved in the TTP itself. Spinoza and Meyer both make use of the distinction between the veritas and the sensus verus of Scripture. Meyer insists, however, that Scripture is literally the verbum Dei, and that the scribes who wrote Scripture were acting primarily in a ‘secretarial function’.41 Spinoza, on the other hand, concludes that scriptural teachings are often completely false, and that the function of exegesis is that of attaining only the true sense of a passage. While in Meyer philosophy is the ultimate arbiter of both the meaning and truth of Scripture, in Spinoza Scripture is interpreted through itself alone, though the meaning given is radically 40. 41.

See Lagre´e and Moreau (1988, 10). One may suppose that there is room here for a Straussian ‘esoteric doctrine’ reading of Meyer’s own text, but it is rather safer here to insist that Meyer is unable to achieve consistency in his own exegetical method.

PSSI

- 18 -

Meyer

different from that of traditional protestant theology. In Spinoza the notion of sola Scriptura promises a programme directed at an approach which is archeological rather than hermeneutical in its methodology. Signs of this approach are also present even in the Ethica.42 Both the PSSI and the TTP follow in what was described earlier as the humanist tradition of bringing both linguistic and historical methodologies to bear upon Scripture and the historical situations of its production. This approach tends by its very nature to remove any religious significance from the reading of the Bible, and to make it ‘one text among others’43 for which a uniform set of scientific protocols and methodologies is required. Both Meyer and Spinoza, as well as their later methodological disciples, stand starkly in opposition to a central thesis of protestantism, which sees Scripture as the focus of religious meaning and life. A careful reading of the Epilogue of the PSSI clearly reveals that Meyer himself is aware that he has not resolved all of the problems which he proposed to the reader in his Prologue. Meyer’s own conclusion that philosophy remains the sole judge of the meaning and truth of Scripture elicits an obvious question: ‘‘If all that is read with certitude in the Bible is already contained in philosophical knowledge, why bother to read the Bible at all?’’ Meyer leaves this question unanswered. Spinoza’s insistence in the TTP that the Bible offers only moral truths about how we ought to act, and no theoretical or theological truths whatever, may be seen as one resolution of Meyer’s problem; but the radical distinction between moral and theoretical domains is 42. 43.

See, for example, E2P7Schol E4P68Schol. See Lagre´e and Moreau (1988, 7): ‘‘Ceci a pour conse´quence de faire conside´rer la Bible comme un texte, et non plus d’abord comme un message. Le recul de la lecture symbolique et alle´gorique laisse la place a` l’histoire du texte et a` un traitement ‘naturaliste’ qui distingue ce qui est originaire, et ce qui est de´vie´, de´ge´ne´re´. Le texte est de´sormais un ensemble de diffe´rences a` ordonner.’’

Meyer

- 19 -

PSSI

not one which Meyer’s own philosophical method could accept even in principle. It is not, however, of the TTP which Meyer speaks in the closing pages of his Epilogue, but rather of the Korte Verhandeling, an earlier effort on Spinoza’s part to reinterpret philosophically terms whose province had been traditionally theological (e.g., providence, predestination, regeneration). This work, and Meyer’s reference to it here, should remind the reader that Spinoza himself had once been a carte´siano-spinoziste. Seen in this light, both the PSSI and the Korte Verhandeling provide precious documentation concerning the historical and doctrinal developments which led from a cartesian world view to a full-bodied spinozism.

Prologue I have no doubt that, as soon as theologians have glanced at the name and title of this book,1 they will regard the author with no calm or impartial feelings; indeed, some of them will even be stirred to anger. So firmly lodged are they in preconceived opinions or obstinately attached to what they have been taught by their masters that they think these opinions are in entire conformity with truth and should be regarded as oracular pronouncements. Therefore they are bitterly resentful and indignant if someone ventures to declare that he holds an opinion at variance with theirs or enters the lists to oppose them and to attack the view they hold. But we live in such fortunate times2 that we may disregard the wrath and indignation of such men, and those who are so weak-minded as not to suffer any man to deviate from them can do no more than abuse him, if they know his name, and make him hated by the rabble and the ignorant mob. It is to save ourselves from this unpleasantness that we have deemed it advisable to come masked onto the stage. This procedure, it is true, does 1.

2.

The 1666 edition bears the title, Philosophia S. Scripturae Interpres: Exercitatio Paradoxa, In qua, veram Philosophiam infallibilem S. Literas interpretandi Normam esse, apodictice demonstratur, & discrepantes ab hac Sententiae expenduntur, ac refelluntur. The full title of the Dutch edition of 1667 is De Philosophie d’Uytleghster der H. Schrifture. Een wonderspreuckigh Tractaet; Daer in op een betoogende wijse betooght wordt, dat de ware Philosophie d’onfeylbare Regelmaet van de H. Schrift uyt te leggen, en te verklaren is, en de ghevoelens, die daer af verschillen, overwogen en wederleyt worden. Uyt het Latijn vertaelt. Successive editions bore shorter titles (see our bibliography). The term ‘paradoxa’ may have been intended to call to the reader’s mind Pierre Gassendi’s Exercitationes paradoxicae adversus Aristoteleos (1624) and Samuel Maresius’ Theologus paradoxus retectus et refutatus (1649). The Dutch Republic was renowned at the time for its religious tolerance.

PSSI

- 22 -

Meyer

not entirely deprive them of occasion for slander — indeed, it gives them a handle to assail us with invective as being a lightshunner or a man of darkness, one who, condemned by the testimony of his own conscience, has not dared to publish his name because he can expect to deserve no honour from this writing, no praise from the pious. Nevertheless, we have preferred to incur this slight danger — since they are thus likely, like Andabatae,3 to do no more than smite the air and hurl missiles that will miss their unknown mark — rather than to declare our identity and expose ourselves to the inevitable lashings of their tongues. As for any honour and praise that may be showered upon me as the result of the publication of this treatise, I should like those people to know that neither does their abuse affect me nor am I in search of a little glory, for in this work I have served Truth alone. Hence I am also fully aware that if it had been my intention to acquire from this work good name and reputation, I would undoubtedly have gained it, not indeed from them and the crowd that fawns upon them, but from men of good sense and those who care for truth, however paradoxical, and welcome it (and these alone I deem really deserving of the name pious). However, in this treatise I have had as my aim not the pursuit of a little vainglory, not the ensnaring of men’s good opinion, but the dissemination of truth, the good of our neighbour, and the reconciliation4 of a Christendom that is divided and at odds. Taking the treatise as a whole, and from what I have yet to say, this will become clearer than the midday sun to any honest reader who is not minded to put an ill interpretation on these my endeavours. The fact is that I had traversed the field of academic studies and tasted the learning provided both by the Higher Faculties, as they are commonly called, and by the other philosophic 3. 4.

Gladiators made blind by a visor which covered their entire face. The Dutch version has ‘onvoorsichtigen’ (imprudent persons). The Latin version has ‘compositio’, whereas the Dutch version has ‘bevredigingh en vereenigingh’ (pacification and reconciliation).

Meyer

- 23 -

PSSI

disciplines,5 thus satisfying my own aspirations and those of my friends. I would then have returned home to meditate anew at leisure and to submit to the searching test of truth what I had gleaned during all that time from the learned lessons of my excellent teachers and also from the perusal of the erudite books of celebrated authors and from the inspection of records.6 But I thought it advisable first to apply myself to theology, this being a discipline far excelling all others since it shows mankind the way to live well and happily and can also lead them to the eternal salvation of their souls, than which nothing is preferable or more to be desired. But while I was busily engaged in this task, carefully weighing and considering the various Christian sects and their opposing views, comparing and contrasting them, it seemed to me that the situation today is no different from that of philosophy in days of old. For just as all the philosophers of those times can conveniently be classified under two headings: the Dogmatists who claimed to teach and impart to their pupils a science that was certain and indubitable, deriving from true principles, and on the other side the Sceptics who called everything into doubt and held that nothing could be known for certain, so too in our times there are to be found theologians of two kinds, corresponding to the two classes of philosophers. The majority boldly proclaim that they possess a true and clear understanding of matters theological taken from Scripture as its source, and this is what they 5.

6.

Meyer was a practising physician. His dissertation (1660) was on natural philosophy, but he also studied language, physics, alchemy, geology, and geography, in addition to being twice the director of the Municipal Theatre of Amsterdam. The Dutch version has ‘from the inspection of their writings’. Meyer’s description of his studies resembles in some respects Descartes’ own autobiographical comments at the beginning of the Discourse on Method, which goes on to argue for the necessity of a new method for setting the disciplines on a firm foundation, a theme to which Meyer will also shortly allude.

PSSI

- 24 -

Meyer

teach to others, whereas the remainder frankly avow that the greater part, if not all, of what they believe concerning the Christian religion amounts to nothing more than probable deductions from Scripture. So they are submitting these beliefs, they say, as doubtful and uncertain, to the superior and sounder judgment of others, and, speaking as subject to correction, as the saying goes, they are putting forward views to be improved by them. And just as in ancient times dogmatic philosophers were not united into one single body but held various different and opposing opinions, dividing into sects such as Pythagoreans, Platonists, Epicureans, Stoics, Peripatetics, etc., so too in our time dogmatic theologians are very much divided as to the important points of the Christian religion and have produced various and contrary opinions that are cherished to this day. So much passion and fervour have they displayed that the Christian world is torn7 and rent into pieces as if into separate Churches, and its inhabitants are not merely at variance in mind and morals but in some cases have become mortal enemies. For instance in Europe (to say nothing of the Asiatics) there are Catholics, the Reformed Church, Lutherans, Anabaptists, Socinians, Arminians, and others of this sort. And finally, although in both cases every sect claims primacy and superiority over others, boasting and claiming that it possesses and teaches knowledge that is based on unshakable truth, the greater part if not all the doctrines they profess and impose on their followers are not based upon a firm and stable foundation of truth; or if they are, they are such that their expositors are quite incapable of proving and demonstrating with certainty. That this is the case with theologians (I do not speak of philosophers, since they are not so relevant to our purpose) will be manifest to anyone who cares to probe more deeply, along with me, into their method and manner of proof. For whenever there arises among them some difference of opinion regarding the soundness of some doctrine concerning the Faith and Morals, 7.

The Dutch version has ‘is as if torn’.

Meyer

- 25 -

PSSI

then forthwith, as beseems men of their profession, they betake themselves to Scripture, the infallible Word of God, their sacred anchor,8 and seek refuge there. From this they seek out and assemble all the passages they can that support their view, and they expend their energy in pointing out those that favour their argument. This they nearly always do by resorting to such feeble arguments and faulty interpretations that their opponent has no difficulty in refuting them, adapting the said passages to corroborate his own view, or distorting the meaning. Then comes another,9 arrayed in the same arms, to baffle and parry the force and strength of this argument, with equal ease. Thus they are all engaged in combat, while nobody wins the day and gains victory over the enemy. Seeing the miserable plight of Theology, queen of the sciences, and the dire straits to which were reduced her teachers, her followers10 and students, and that I, equally with them, was overwhelmed by waves of uncertainty and doubt, I began to consider whether one might discover the source of these evils, whether there was any hope of emerging therefrom and finding some way of escape. While I concentrated all my efforts on this quest, there came to mind that remarkably successful and excellent Method11 whereby the most noble and incomparable Rene´ Descartes, ‘‘the first who, after so many ages, brought hidden truth to light out of the hideous gloom of dense darkness,’’12 renewed Philosophy from its very foundations, cleansed it from the 8.

9. 10. 11. 12.

The sacra ancora was the largest and heaviest of several anchors on ancient vessels. The sense of ‘sacram ancoram solvere’ is that of taking final recourse in a moment of danger, or appeal to arguments which are ultimately unassailable. Many of the proverbial metaphors in Meyer’s prologue are taken from the Adages of Erasmus (Amsterdam, 1663). The Dutch version has ‘the other’. The Dutch version has ‘Oeffenaers’ (practitioners). The Dutch version has ‘Methode, of beleet’ instead of ‘Methodus’. Lagre´e and Moreau (30) suggest that this verse is a pastiche derived from Lucretius. The Dutch version has four Dutch verses.

PSSI

- 26 -

Meyer

many faults wherewith it abounded and restored it to its own natural splendour. For that is the effect of his thorough disavowal of all prejudices, and his refusal to give assent to anything unless it was clearly and distinctly perceived. I gave long and careful consideration to the question as to whether it might be permitted and useful to me in Theology, just as to him in Philosophy, to call into doubt whatever could be called into doubt, continuing to reject this as false until at last I should arrive at something firm and stable in Theology, where I might safely make a stand. But as I paused here awhile, and to avoid the fate of the fisherman who became wise only after being struck,13 ‘‘I turned my mind in different directions and surveyed the entire field,’’ after lengthy and earnest deliberation it struck me that no danger threatened me from engaging in such doubt, no damage or disadvantage. Indeed, when I called upon theologians themselves to advise me, I found that some of them of considerable authority held, and openly urged upon their pupils, that this procedure was most conducive for the correct understanding and comprehension of Holy Scripture and the theology that derives from it. Thus Zanchius in his Tractatus de S. Scriptura (in Tome 8 of his Works) Quaestio 12, Ch. 1, Rule 3, and Scarpius in his Cursus Theol. in the passage concerning Holy Scripture, Controversy 8, Rule 3, give these instructions:- ‘‘For their study [that is, the study of Scripture] we should betake ourselves to it without any prejudice conceived either from our own head or from the teachings of others, with a mind that is clear, pure, and eager to learn. For prejudice is a grave hindrance to progress. That is why Christ urged his followers to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.’’14 13.

14.

See Erasmus, Adages (476). ‘Piscator ictus saperem’: the fisherman who trapped fish with his bare hands was bitten by a scorpion, and said, ‘Ictus sapiam’. Having learned his lesson ‘the hard way’, he subsequently acted with prudence. The Dutch version makes no mention of the adage, and there are no italics to correspond to the quotation following. I have been unable to access the text of Scarpius. The quoted text is only a paraphrase of Zanchi’s third rule.

Meyer

- 27 -

PSSI

With this, too, Polanus is in agreement when, in the Syntagma Theolog., Book 1, ch. 45, Quaestio 6,15 ‘‘Among the impediments to discovering the true meaning of Holy Scripture,’’ in the fifth place he lists ‘slowness to learn because of prejudices with which so many are infected’. And Ravanellus in his Biblioteca Sacra, Titula de Scriptura, among ‘‘the means requisite for discovering and grasping the true and legitimate meaning of Scripture and thus for interpreting Scripture,’’ specifies ‘‘a mind free from evil emotions and preconceived opinions.’’ On the same lines is the Confession of the Remonstrants, where it says in Ch. 1, Section 14, ‘‘Not only learned readers but the unlearned too can understand what is necessary for their eternal salvation provided that they do not allow themselves to be blinded by prejudice, by vain self-confidence and other evil emotions.’’ But most authoritative of all is Zwingli who says in his book On the Certainty and Clarity of the Word of God, in Tome 1 of his Works, Ch. 3, ‘‘You will admit that many a time you have perused Scripture in order to select from it some words that will lend support to a view you have already formed and which will confirm the opinion which you are so eager to uphold. It is this, then, which is the sore in all mankind’s traditions, a place painful to the touch.16 It is nothing other than to seek approval for one’s own version by the testimony of Scripture, to impose on Scripture another meaning,17 to enlist the protection and the patronage of Scripture for one’s own error, indeed, to bring over to your side passages of Scripture, however reluctant and unwilling,18 and make them say that of which you are already convinced. Our prejudices are already pervasive, and we carry them in our hands just like one who, with arms in his hand, demands bread from his 15. 16. 17. 18.

The Dutch version omits reference to Quaestio 6. In place of this phrase, the Dutch version has ‘which does not suffer to be touched by the needle’. For ‘another’s meaning’ the Dutch has ‘another meaning’. The Dutch has, ‘to curb to your interpretation the passages of Scripture, though they say the contrary’.

PSSI

- 28 -

Meyer

neighbour, who will find himself assaulted if he does not give it.’’ To this he adds an example, and then concludes, ‘‘Hence we can infer how wrong it is to approach Scripture with strong prejudice’. Relevant to the same point is Hilary’s warning, so often in the mouths of theologians, ‘Meaning is not to be imposed on Scripture, but to be sought from Scripture.’’ Stirred and encouraged by the authority of such eminent men and by the truth of the matter itself, I have embarked on this work, following in Descartes’ footsteps and trying to find out whether, by acting the part of theologian and rejecting in theology whatever can be rejected as doubtful and uncertain, one can arrive at some basic principle which cannot be rejected without involving the total collapse and rejection of theology in its entirety, something that would be the basic principle and foundation of all theological teaching. While engaged in this undertaking, I had spent no great time in my examination before I was struck by the foremost of all the pronouncements of theology, that ‘‘the Books of the Old and the New Testament are the infallible Word of God, the Highest and Greatest.’’19 If anyone sought to remove and reject this too, he would be taking a leap beyond the bounds of theology, and to restrain and confute him one would have to resort not to theological reasoning, that is, authorities sought from Scripture, but to arguments from history and from other sources. To him might be applied that saying of Aristotle, ‘‘one cannot argue with someone who refuses to admit basic principles.’’20 Just as Jurisprudence rests entirely on the Body of Right, and without the Law the lawyer blushes to speak, so too the whole of theology is an edifice raised on the Word of God, and nothing that is not drawn therefrom should be introduced or admitted by a theologian.21 19.

20.

‘Deus optimus et maximus’ (‘almachtige Godt’) was a phrase use by the Socinians, arguing against the existence of hell, thus denying the existence of ‘Deus severissimus et implacabilissimus’. The allusion is probably to Aristotle’s dictum in Metaphysics , 4.

Meyer

- 29 -

PSSI

So having thus discovered and established the foundation of all theology, I thought it right to proceed further and find out what could and should first be constructed thereon. Without overmuch or very difficult mental exertion I perceived and discovered that this was the infallible interpreting of Holy Scripture. The lack of this among theologians was the sole origin and source from which flowed such a diversity of opinions among the dogmatists, none being capable of demonstrating the truth of his opinion above all others, with infallible certainty. That this is the unique cure for these ills, the hinge on which the whole of theology turns when its foundation has been established, is evident from the fact that all its tenets concerning both Faith and Morals must be sought and proved from Scripture, and that they can neither be sought nor proved unless its meaning is known with certainty and made clear. And that is why in all their disputes Christian theologians of all kinds, of all ages and of all countries, straining to the utmost their ability and their learning, have always made this their sole objective, to convince others and to demonstrate that Scripture’s meaning is what they say, and not what their opponents say. Having understood this, I straightway applied myself to devising a method whereby the true meaning of Scripture could be disclosed and shown to be disclosed, and the false interpretations of others could be laid bare and proved to be such, and all this with certainty and infallibility. My intention was to erect the Palace of Sacred Theology not on sand but on rock, and so firmly that when a storm comes down upon it, floods arrive, gales blow and fall in fury on our edifice, it would not crumble, nor collapse, nor totter, but would remain unshaken and strong, resolutely awaiting and despising all that the heavens could throw at it, all the assaults and violence of its enemies. I therefore studied theologians of every kind, of every region and every age; I considered what they had to say concerning the method of interpreting Scripture; I sought to find what rule of exposition they adopted; 21.

The Dutch version has ‘‘offered or alleged by a theologian.’’

PSSI

- 30 -

Meyer

but I could find nothing that fully satisfied me. So, leaving them all aside, I resolved to make trial of my own resources, to see how far my own strength could carry me. At last, after a difficult and laborious enquiry, I hit upon a method with which I am fully content, one of whose certainty and infallibility I have no doubt whatever, and which I herewith submit to the public scrutiny of theologians, to see and await their verdict. I therefore advise my readers, one and all, to examine and investigate with care and diligence all that I am going to set before the theological world in this little treatise, to subject its contents to the strictest scrutiny, to weigh and judge them at the scales of indubitable Truth, to acknowledge and proclaim at my side if I have been successful; if not, to avoid erring in company with me. For to me it would not be ‘‘a consolation to have had companions in my misfortunes,’’22 since all that I wish is, if I have gone astray, to be shown the right way by those who do not err.23 So my intention, dear reader, is not to beguile you into agreeing with me by refinement of language, by elegance of style, by flowery phrases and colouring affected by orators. No, I aim to set before you my entire argument in stark and simple terms, proving it by means of demonstrative reasoning.24 My appeal is not to the emotions; I seek to instruct. And that is also the reason, reader, why at the outset of this preface I have not striven to endear myself to you and win you over with flattery and with smooth blandishments,25 as writers are prone to do. For I care not whether you be open-minded or ill-disposed;26 nay, I would prefer you to be ill-disposed, even severely critical, since it is equally in your interest and mine that 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

A proverb also cited by Spinoza: see E4P57Schol. For ‘since all. . . err’ the Dutch has, ‘since all that I wish is that those who do not err show the right way to those who have gone astray’. A reference to the 1666 title (. . . apodictice demonstratur. . .). The Dutch has ‘with attractive names’. The Dutch version has ‘gunstigh of ongunstigh’ (favourable or unfavourable).

Meyer

- 31 -

PSSI

this book is being published. If you acknowledge that Truth is demonstrated, this will be entirely a gain for you; if you reject it, this will be your loss. But if you find me in error and show this to be so, this will be to my profit, making me glad that you have been so critical. Truth is single and unique, the objective at which I am here aiming. If this is not what you seek, go no further; but if you seek her, read on boldly, read thoroughly, read again and again, discuss, scrutinise, and then: ‘‘Live on, thrive, and if you have encountered something better than this, As a good friend, tell me; if not, share this with me.’’27

27.

A quotation from Horace, Epistolae I, 6, v. 67-68.

Philosophy as the Interpreter of Holy Scripture. A Paradoxical Treatise. Chapter I 1. 2.

The importance of this enquiry. The divisions of this Treatise.

[1] Right from the outset of the Reformation, among both Catholics28 and the Reformed,29 there has been in progress an earnest and important debate regarding the right to interpret Holy Scripture and the infallible norm30 to be employed. And indeed, this is not without good reason. The books of the Old and New Testaments are acknowledged as the Word of God by all who have enlisted under Christ (except only for Catholics, who superadd the traditions and the dogmatic assertions of their Church), and these books are regarded as the only basis from which must be drawn all the doctrines of Faith and Morals. No one who has the slightest acquaintance with theology will deny that whatever difficulties can arise regarding these teachings always centre and converge on this one question of interpretation,31 the pivot on which alone turn all the disagreements and quarrels among Christians. It therefore follows more clearly than the midday sun that he who is able to reveal the true and genuine meaning of the 28. 29.

30.

31.

The Dutch version speaks here and throughout (except in quoting Chamier) of ‘Papists’ rather than ‘Catholics’. The Dutch version, here and often in what follows, uses ‘Evangelischen’ (Evangelicals) instead of the Reformed (gereformeerden). It also omits ‘A Paradoxical Treatise’ at the head of Chapter 1. The norma interpretationis was understood as the objective criterion for its interpretation, distinct from the iudex interpretationis, the person(s) charged with maintaining and defending that norm. The Dutch version has ‘uytleggingh en verklaringh’.

Meyer

- 33 -

PSSI

Holy Writings and prove them with a certainty beyond all doubt is alone permitted to establish a strong, immovable foundation for Faith and Morals, disproving other opinions and refuting them. On the other hand, those others to whom this special gift32 has not been granted are building on sand and pouring forth words to no purpose; or if perchance they succeed in convincing one or two unstable or over-credulous hearers, their teaching rests on such weak and feeble foundations that it can be shattered and destroyed by the minimum effort of those who take a different view. Though destitute of this gift of interpretation, theologians have taken in hand the exposition of the sacred books, and this has been the root and cause from which has arisen among Christians a multitude of different opinions, so many sects have issued forth in abundance to wage war on one another, so many schisms have developed to plague the Christian world ever since its foundation, and continue to this very day. So much so that the dwellers in the Christian world are driven to misuse sadly against one another, with grievous injury to truth, the missiles which should have been hurled against Heathens, Jews, and Mahomedans, those common enemies of celestial doctrine. As I see it, to reunite the scattered limbs of Christianity and to bring together so many heads to the same belief no better remedy can be suggested than that very one by which the malady could have been prevented and forestalled, namely, a norm and a rule that is sure and utterly reliable, by which the truth of every interpretation should be tried, tested and judged, as by a touchstone. Therefore we should by no means despise, far less condemn, the service rendered by those who have exerted all the force of their genius to discovering this norm, devoting to this a goodly portion of their studies; on the contrary, we should be32.

The ‘special gift’ of which Meyer speaks will emerge as the use of clear philosophical reason, and his use of the phrase in this sense was the basis of many of the ‘refutations’ which followed the first edition of the PSSI. Peter Serrarius writes in his Responsio (1667a, 2-4) that the proper sense of this special gift is ‘gratia Spiritus Sancti frui’.

PSSI

- 34 -

Meyer

stow on them the highest praise and encouragement. So I too, a newcomer and inexperienced athlete in this arena, shall not be ashamed at having expended some time and toil in this search, nor shall I have any qualms in presenting herewith to the theological world the results and fruits of my labour. I make bold to say that my motive is not eagerness to engage in quarrelling or contradiction, nor yet desire for gain or pursuit of glory; it is simply a sincere love of truth that has first driven me to enquire and then urged me to write. It is my hope and expectation that this truth will be attained by all who, with a mind attentive and free from the fog of prejudice, will care to examine the matter diligently with me and to peruse these few pages. [2] That they may advance with surer step and greater profit, I should like them to consider carefully and attentively these three divisions within which the whole of this enterprise will be comprised. The first will set forth some preliminary remarks from which will emerge my own thesis, demonstrated with logical force. The second will mount a defence of my proof from all objections that can be raised against it. The last will set out my refutation of those opinions which differ from mine, and will reply to arguments on which these opinions are wont to rely.33

33.

The prologue and first six chapters provide an exposition of the principal thesis. The answers to objections are given in chapters 7 and 8. Chapters 9 through 16 provide refutations of interpretations which are contrary to those of Meyer.

Chapter II 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

The meanings of the word ‘interpreter’. What it signifies for us. The material object of this word. What a word is. What a sentence is. The division between these two terms. The formal object of the word ‘interpreter’.

[1] The word ‘interpreter’1 (to begin from the predicate) from which originate the verb ‘to interpret’ and the noun ‘interpretation’ (both the act of interpreting and the result) is used by authors with more than one meaning. The more common meanings2 are: first, one who brings together and reconciles parties who are at variance. Thus, in Asconius’ Commentary on Cicero’s second speech In Verrem, ‘interpreters’ are said to be ‘those through whom agreement is produced’. The same meaning also appears in Vergil’s Aeneid IV,3 ‘‘And Thou, Juno, interpreter and sharer of our sorrows.’’ On this Servius comments as follows, ‘‘Interpreter, that is, mediator and conciliator.’’4 Again Cicero in his fifth speech In Verrem,5 has, ‘‘those who are usually the agents or interpreters for the corruption of judgment.’’ Now since such intermediaries probe and inquire into the 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

The Dutch version has ‘Uytlegger, of Verklaerder’. Moreau notes (43) that this enumeration follows exactly that of H. Estienne’s Thesaurus linguae latinae. Aeneid IV, v. 608. For the quotations from Vergil in this and the following paragraph, the Dutch version gives both the Latin and a Dutch translation. See Servius, Servii qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii, recenserunt Georgius Thilo et Harmanna Hagen (Hildesheim: Georg Olds, 1961), vol. 1, pp. 569-570. In Verrem XII, 36.

PSSI

- 36 -

Meyer

minds of those to whom they are assigned as interpreters, thereafter explaining and disclosing this to them, it came about that ‘interpreter’ acquired a second meaning as one who explains what is obscure. Thus Vergil in Aeneid III,6 ‘‘Son of Troy, interpreter of the Gods,’’ etc. On this passage Servius comments, ‘‘Interpreter, soothsayer, who interprets the mind of the Gods to mortals.’’7 And in Aeneid X, ‘‘Asylas, interpreter of men and Gods.’’8 Here again Servius says, ‘‘He is called the interpreter of the Gods, whom he interprets, and the interpreter of men, for whom he interprets and reveals the mind of the Gods.’’ And Cicero, applying this more specialised sense to the obscurity and ambiguity of a sentence, in his Pro Cluentio 14,9 says, ‘‘Magistrates are ministers of the laws, judges are interpreters of the laws. In short, we are all servants of the law in order that we may be free.’’ Similarly, in his De Partit. Orator.,10 he says, ‘‘so that the judge may interpret the meaning of law in accordance with the particular case.’’ And in his De officiis 1,11 ‘‘There often occur injustices through sharp practice and a cunning and malicious interpretation of the law.’’ Again, when someone who is turning a passage from an unknown language into a known language makes clear and perspicuous what was somewhat obscure, there arises a third meaning of interpreter:— one who translates into another language either by writing or by word of mouth. It is this meaning that Horace uses in his Ars Poetica when he says, ‘‘The faithful interpreter will not strain to render word for word.’’12 And Cicero in 6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Aeneid III, v. 359. See Servius, Servii qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii, recenserunt Georgius Thilo et Harmanna Hagen (Hildesheim: Georg Olds, 1961), vol. 1, pp. 405-406. Aeneid III, v. 175. Pro Cluentio, § 146. De Partit. Orator., § 136. De officiis I, § 33. Ars poetica, v. 133.

Meyer

- 37 -

PSSI

his De finibus bon. et mal., Book 3,13 ‘‘But it is not necessary to translate word for word as undiscerning interpreters do, when the word in question has the same sense and is used more or less frequently.’’ And in his De optimo genere oratorum,14 ‘‘I have translated the most celebrated speeches of two most eloquent orators, but I have done so not as an interpreter, but as an orator.’’ [2] But although this last meaning of the word ‘interpreter’ is also encountered among theologians and is in use when, for example, a debate arises between Catholics and defectors as to the interpretation of Scripture into vernacular or vulgar languages (see Chamier, Panstratiae Catholicae, Tome 1, Book II; Polanus, Syntagmata Theolog., Book 1, Ch. 39, and others) in this work we shall take it in its second meaning. In distinguishing this from its third meaning we are in agreement with Polan, who writes (loc. cit., ch. 45), ‘‘To give warning, first of all, as to the meaning of this word, in this chapter the interpretation of Holy Scripture is not conversion or translation from one language to another, but a clarification of the true meaning and usages of Scripture.’’ And with Chamier (Panstrat., Vol. 1, Book 15, Ch. 1, Section 1),15 when he says, ‘‘When we have finished dealing with the controversies that pertain to this interpretation of Scripture and are a question of wording, — usually called translation or version — it still remains for us to treat of the real meaning of the words.’’ The same point is also made in a general way by V. C. Dannhauer in his Idea of the Good Interpreter and the Malicious Perverter, where he expounds his system in its entirety and regards this discipline as part of Logic, giving it the name ‘Hermeneutics’. So too the learned and reverend John Clauberg, Professor of Philosophy and Theology in the University of Duisburg, calls this study, in his Logica Vet. et Nova, ‘Analytical Hermeneutics’, saying that it deals with ‘‘the enquiry into the real meaning of an obscure sentence.’’ 13. 14. 15.

De finibus bon. et mal. III, 15. De optimo genere oratorum, § 14. The chapter is entitled, ‘‘De sensu litterali et mystico.’’

PSSI

- 38 -

Meyer

[3] It thus becomes clear that the interpreter of whom we are to speak is engaged and occupied with external discourse with view to eliciting and bringing to light the internal discourse; that is to say, he studies words and the sentences they compose so as to seek out and reveal the meaning that is in exact agreement and correspondence with the author’s intention. [4] According to Cicero in his Topics, ‘‘Words are signs of things’, or rather, as I think, ‘signs of concepts.’’16 For primarily we use them to convey to others what we have conceived in our minds, and since concepts are nothing other than representations of things in the intellect, in the second place those things are also denoted and designated by those same words. Now this ‘denoting’ originates entirely not from Nature but from men’s free-will. Of course, I do not deny that its source is in human nature and that it is natural for men to produce sounds and utterances, and indeed to speak, that is, to utter words; but that those sounds and utterances should denote this and not that concept, this and not that thing, depends solely on the arbitrary decision and tradition of men. Now not all that is included within Nature’s ambit is always and everywhere ready to hand, nor is it granted by Nature to any mortal to peer, as in a mirror, into the mind and soul of another. Yet the needs and convenience of men belonging to the same community require them to communicate to one another their thoughts and feelings. So they have been compelled to compensate, by deliberate effort, for what Nature has denied them by giving an arbitrary form to utterances and attaching meanings to them. But this example of human ingenuity did not stop at producing simply sounds and utterances which enable men to converse only when face to face; by further advances it allowed men 16.

For Cicero words are rerum notae, whereas Meyer in fact is following Heereboord (Collegium Logicum, p. 20 in his Meletemata), for whom words represent concepts in the mind rather than objects external to it. Maresius (Disputatio, 1667, III § IV) mistakenly accuses Meyer of following Cicero on this point. See Bordoli (1997, 121-124).

Meyer

- 39 -

PSSI

to converse, as it were, though not present one to another. This they do by creating signs for sounds and utterances, that is to say, letters, by whose variable and multiple arrangement any word that can strike the ears can be presented to the mind through one’s eyes. Thus, by this silent form of speech, we can communicate to others our own sentiments quite as well as by addressing them in person. [5] A sentence, or statement in which something is said or stated of something else, is made up of words as its component parts. Therefore in every sentence there are two elements: that which is said of something, and that of which something is said. The latter is termed by logicians the subject, the former the predicate. In an affirmative statement these are joined by the word ‘is’, in a negative they are disjoined by the words ‘is not’. There can be no statement without these expressions, and that is why they are rightly called the ‘soul’ of the proposition. [6] Therefore, since every sentence is composed of words, and these can not only be uttered by mouth but can also be depicted and indicated by letters, this will also be true of the sentence. So these two forms of expression apply both to sentences and to words: they can be expressed orally or in writing. Our interpreter will be dealing with two modes of expressing both words and sentences, but he will do so in different ways. His primary concern will be with the sentence, his immediate object; his secondary concern will be with words as a remote object, that is, the material and parts from which every sentence is produced, and of which it consists. The interpreter’s primary aim is to determine the meaning of the sentence. Since this largely depends on the words that constitute the sentence and must be extracted from these words, he will not achieve his aim unless he gives these words his careful attention, weighing them and scrutinising them with diligence. [7] Although the sentence is the first and primary object of interpretation, it is not incumbent upon us to consider every aspect of it in this work. Grammar, Rhetoric and other parts of Logic are also concerned with it, but not in the same way as we

PSSI

- 40 -

Meyer

are here doing. Hence philosophers rightly divide the objects of the various disciplines and their constituent parts into the ‘material’ and the ‘formal’. The material object is common to several branches of learning, the formal belongs to a single one. Thus the sentence is also studied by grammarians, but only as to the extent that it is in agreement with the precepts and rules of their discipline; it is also studied by rhetoricians, but only for its style; by logicians, but only insofar as it expresses concepts. Here it will be studied in respect of obscurity, and its meaning must be sought. For if every sentence were clear and perspicuous, not obscure, it would need no interpretation to render it clear, that is, to reveal its meaning. So since it is obscurity that brings a sentence to the attention of our interpreter and makes it the formal object of his study, this requires of us a more protracted discourse.

Chapter III 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

The meaning of a sentence. Clarity and obscurity. These are relative, not absolute, terms. The plurality of meanings and their definitions. The different kinds of clarity and obscurity. Distinction between the truth of a sentence and its true meaning. In every sentence three points to be considered, neglect of which has led theologians astray. What is obscurity in a strict sense, and what ambiguity. Kinds of obscurity. Kinds of obscurity of a single word. Unusual words. Barbarisms. How many causes there can be for the obscurity of a complete sentence. And of a complete period. And of a complete piece of writing. The kinds of ambiguity in respect of the subject. What homonymy is, and its different kinds. Accidental homonymy. Intentional homonymy. How words come to be accepted, and in what different ways. What amphiboly is, and its different kinds. The ways in which a sentence may be accepted. The kinds of ambiguity arising from the spoken sentence. And from the written sentence. The complexity and frequency of ambiguities.

PSSI

- 42 -

Meyer

26. The kinds of ambiguity with respect to ourselves. 27. A comparison between these ambiguities. 28. Is there only one literal meaning to a single sentence? [1] The signification in the wording constitutes the meaning in the sentence, that is, what is conveyed and denoted thereby. And since, as we have said, every sentence is made up of and comprised of words, it is from the signification of the words that its meaning will be constituted and composed. [2] A sentence is said to be perspicuous or obscure in this respect. ‘‘A perspicuous sentence is one whose meaning is evident to the listener or reader at first hearing or at first sight; an obscure sentence is one whose meaning is not evident to the listener or reader at first hearing or first sight.’’ We say ‘at first hearing’ or ‘at first sight’ and ‘to the listener or reader’ so as to cover both kinds of sentence, orally produced or in writing, ‘at first hearing’ having reference to the listener, ‘at first sight’ to the reader. [3] From these definitions it becomes obvious that both perspicuity and obscurity have regard to the understanding of the listener or reader, and so in both cases their nature is entirely dependent on their relation to something else. This is further confirmed by the fact that it frequently happens that a sentence obscure to one person is perspicuous to another, and on the other hand, what is perspicuous to one person is obscure to another. This could not be the case with absolute terms. Hence gravely at fault are those theologians who, when disputing as to the perspicuity and obscurity of Scripture, speak of these not as relative but as absolute terms, drawing a comparison with the sun and its light. Thus an eminent theologian of the Reformed Church writes, ‘‘The perspicuity of Scripture is a property belonging to Scripture itself, one which it always retains whether a man be enlightened or not enlightened, and this is so even though the unenlightened does not see that perspicuity. In the same way the sun in itself is and remains clear, whether a man opens or shuts his eyes, whether he has sight or is blind. This difference in the man

Meyer

- 43 -

PSSI

cannot render the sun either clear or obscure.’’ And another renowned theologian of the Reformed Church speaks as follows, ‘‘The quality of the eye makes no difference to the light of the sun because, whatever kind of eye it may be, it can see the sun only by means of the sun’s light; and so the sun is always bright as long as it is seen by its own light, nor can it be seen otherwise. In the same way Scripture will always be perspicuous because men, whether more gifted or less so, understand Scripture from Scripture, whatever be the measure and degree of their intelligence.’’ [4] The meaning of one and the same sentence, for a number of different reasons soon to be stated and enumerated, can be various and manifold, and distinguishable into many kinds. The distinction that is most appropriate and convenient for our present purpose is that between the simple meaning apparently presented by the words and the true meaning intended by the author.1 That these two meanings occur in sentences becomes manifest when the apparent meaning presented by the words understood in their common usage is not directly that which the author had in mind when, to express his thoughts, he wrote or spoke them. Thus, to illustrate this point with one or two examples from Scripture, when we read ‘the arm of God’, ‘the finger of God’, and when Christ says, ‘This is my body’, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life’, everyone knows what these words denote in common parlance and can gather their meaning in accordance with that signification. Yet no theologian of sound mind will say that this is the true meaning intended by the author. Hence it is clear that these expressions, and therefore the sentence, admit of two meanings. 1.

The Dutch has ‘the true meaning, and the one intended by the author’. Both Wolzogen (Orthodoxa Fides, 1668, pp. 44-45) and Maresius (Disputatio, 1667, III § X) argue against Meyer that Scripture possesses ‘multiplices sensus’. Maresius cites Clauberg in defence of this claim, but the argument which he offers is probably derived instead from Calvin. See Bordoli (1997, 126).

PSSI

- 44 -

Meyer

I do indeed admit that these meanings can sometimes coincide, so that the one the author intended and the one that is presented to the listener or reader from common usage are the same, although the sentence may bear yet another sense. Nor do I deny that the sentence may perhaps on occasion have only one, simple meaning, or even that there may be more than two possible meanings to it.2 However, since there can be at least two distinct meanings, as we have just shown, the difference of meanings in a sentence is established. [5] Since, as I have indicated above, it is in respect of its meaning that a sentence is said to be perspicuous or obscure, and since this meaning is twofold, the simple and the true meaning,3 then perspicuity and obscurity will also be twofold as they are taken to refer to the one meaning or the other. Their definitions can readily be gathered from what has already been said. [6] From what has been said, it is clear that the true meaning of which we are here speaking must by no means be confused with that true meaning which warrants that a sentence be declared true, and which has reference not to the understanding and the thought of the speaker but to the facts of which one speaks. It is a point familiar to anyone just slightly acquainted with the disciplines of the Schools, that with philosophers there is to be found more than one acceptation for truth; among others there are two to be assigned to external discourse, one called logical, the other ethical. On the former depends the truthfulness of the sentence, on the latter its true meaning; a sentence is termed true in respect of the former, its meaning is termed true in respect of the latter. The former is the agreement of the sentence with the facts as they exist in actuality independently of the speaker’s 2.

3.

The edition of 1666 has ‘quamvis adhuc alium sensum aliamve explicationem ferat oratio’. The edition of 1674 has only ‘est omnis alium sensum’. The Dutch has ‘the simple, or literal, and the true meaning’. In the next two paragraphs, where the Latin text has ‘simple’ the Dutch uses ‘of de letterlijcke’ (‘literal’).

Meyer

- 45 -

PSSI

understanding, whereas the latter is the sentence’s conformity with the ideas and concepts in the mind of the one who has produced the sentence, either in writing or orally, no regard being paid to the question as to whether it does or does not agree with the facts. It is this difference between the truthfulness of a sentence and its true meaning that Augustine seems to note in his Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 23: ‘‘I see that there are two kinds of disagreement that can arise when something is reported through signs by truthful messengers. The one arises if there is disagreement as to factual truth, the other if there is disagreement as to the intention of him who makes the report. It is one thing to seek what is true in the circumstances of the creation, it is another thing to find out what Moses, that faithful servant of your faith, wanted the reader or listener to understand by these words.’’ Similar to this is the distinction proposed by Chamier in his Panstratiae Catholicae Tome 1, Book 15, Ch. 3, Section 21: ‘‘I recognise a distinction in true meaning; for it can be taken in an absolute sense as relating only to itself, that is, it asserts nothing that is false or impious; or it can be taken as related only to the particular context, so that it is truly the literal meaning that the context demands.’’4 [7] Therefore, so far as concerns the signification of a sentence there are three things it is important to distinguish, the simple meaning, the true meaning, and the truth.5 The distinct consideration of these meanings and of the perspicuities and obscurities resulting from them will shed not a little light on the aim of this treatise, whereas failure to do this has led interpreters of the Holy Writings and theologians far astray into labyrinthine errors and hallucinatory meanderings. In many instances when they could readily gather the meaning presented by the known words at first glance, they have regarded these Scriptural passages as 4. 5.

In the paragraph cited, Chamier is considering the Catholic position concerning the multiplicity of literal senses. ‘sensus simpliciter dictus, sensus verus, veritas’.

PSSI

- 46 -

Meyer

clear and perspicuous, the perspicuity being that of the true meaning; for they were immediately convinced that the meaning which thus spontaneously presented itself was in agreement with the mind of the holy writer. But sometimes this was far from being the case, these passages being, in respect to their true meaning, obscure and difficult. Thus they have failed miserably in their function of interpreters, having failed to perceive, or having neglected, the different possible meanings. They seized upon the simple meaning as the true meaning and made no further enquiry, as was their duty, as to whether the meaning they assigned to the passage in question was that which the author intended in his writing.6 To illustrate my point with examples, take the words of Christ with which he began the Holy Supper (Matthew 26, verses 26, 27, 28): ‘Take, eat, this is my body’, and ‘Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new Testament’, etc. They clamour and write again and again that these words are clear and perspicuous just as they are, and therefrom they have no difficulty in constructing the meaning, an easy task for anyone. But this is only the simple meaning, not the true meaning, as is claimed and demonstrated by the Reformed. The passage is indeed perspicuous as to its simple meaning, but obscure as to its true meaning. Again, when in Scripture God is called ‘Lord of heaven and earth’ (Matthew 11, 25; Luke 10, 21; Acts 17, 24), ‘King of nations’ (Jeremiah 10, 7) ‘King of kings’ (Timothy 6, 15), and is said to ‘rule over nations’ (Psalm 47, 9), ‘to have begotten a son’ (Psalm 2, 7), ‘to have loved the world’ (John 3, 16), etc., these are words whose signification is obvious, and anyone can quite easily comprehend the meanings of these expressions, but only their simple meanings.7 No one with any pretensions to wisdom will assert that God, in human fashion, is a lord or king, that he begets, or that he loves. That is why true meanings need much 6. 7.

This is the ‘sensus verus’ and not ‘veritas’. Instead of ‘but only their simple meanings’, the Dutch has ‘but not in their literal meaning’.

Meyer

- 47 -

PSSI

further enquiry, and in respect of true meanings these predicates as applied to God are not perspicuous but obscure. Thus it is evident that the Christian laity go far astray when they frequently understand these expressions according to the superficial sense of the words, and so do all the interpreters of Scripture who do the same. So it is the latter above all who should uphold the distinction we make between meanings and the perspicuities and obscurities deriving from them, if they want to avoid continually making disgraceful blunders and being wrecked on the rocks of absurd misinterpretations.8 [8] To return to our theme, we have established two kinds of obscurity, that of the simple meaning which can properly and simply be termed obscurity, and that of the true meaning, which is again twofold. A sentence has either no meaning, or a single meaning, or several. If it has no meaning, it is simply obscure; if it has one or more meanings, it is perspicuous in respect of its simple meaning, but obscure in respect of its true meaning, for there can be doubt as to whether that one meaning or those several meanings also are true meanings. So there is obscurity of true meaning both in a sentence with a single meaning and in a sentence where there are several possible meanings. Now if the single meaning presented is also the only possible one and the sentence admits of no other, then that will also be the true meaning. If not — and that is generally, if not always, the case — it will not be accepted forthwith as true, though it may be true. One will have to enquire, just as in the case of a sentence with several possible meanings, which single meaning or what several meanings were intended by the author. Whether this is feasible is something we shall consider towards the end of this chapter. This variety of possible meanings in a single sentence is generally termed ambiguity, and since it renders a sentence obscure in regard to its 8.

Compare Meyer’s discussion of these examples of anthropomorphisms to that given by Spinoza in TTP4, 4. What for Meyer is a mere form of superficiality is for Spinoza a sign of imaginational and false knowledge of God.

PSSI

- 48 -

Meyer

true meaning, we shall have to consider it after we have dealt with simple obscurity. [9] This obscurity can be of four kinds: obscurity of a single word or expression, obscurity of a complete sentence, obscurity of a period consisting of a combination of several sentences, obscurity of a literary work in its entirety. For it can happen that, 1. One single word or expression can render the entire meaning of a sentence incomprehensible. 2. Although the meaning of every word is clear, their combination and arrangement makes the sentence obscure. 3. The sentences, when each is considered alone, are clear and easy to understand; but the order in which they are connected and interwoven makes the period obscure and difficult to understand. 4. Finally, when periods are clear and intelligible but arranged in a confused way and thrown together at random, the complete literary work which they compose is unintelligible. Cicero touches on some, if not all, of these obscurities in his De Oratore, Book 3, as follows: ‘‘Those who plead their causes before us usually address us so clearly that it leaves nothing to be desired. But as soon as Fusius or Pomponius begins to plead these same causes, I do not have as clear an understanding of what is being said unless I pay the utmost attention. So confused is their speech, so disorderly, with no first point, no second point, with such a torrent of strange words, that an address that ought to throw light on the facts shrouds them in obscurity and darkness, and the speakers themselves seem, as it were, to drown the sound of their own voices.’’ [10] Obscurity of a single word or expression can either be a feature of the native language in which we speak and write, or else of a foreign language. The latter is termed a barbarity, the

Meyer

- 49 -

PSSI

former an oddity. [11] A word or expression is odd and unusual9 when, by reason of its age, it is not merely antique but archaic and obsolete; or when, by reason of its excessive novelty, it is not yet accepted and brought into use. For words are overcome by senility and perish just as men do, and other words in their turn emerge into the light to take the place of the deceased, as Horace says in his Ars Poetica: Just as the woods renew their leaves with the passing of the seasons, the old ones falling, so are words subject to the ravages of age, and the newly born flourish and thrive, as the young are wont to do. We owe a debt to death, we and all that is ours. And a little further on, The works of mortals will perish; far less is the beauty and grace of language likely to be long enduring. Many words now fallen will be born again, and those now esteemed will fall, if that is the will of usage, within whose power is the control, the right and the authority over speech. Whoever uses language so ancient that he appears to be talking not with us but with our remote ancestors, or so novel that he appears to be talking with our descendants, is making himself deliberately unintelligible to his contemporaries. This is acknowledged by Quintilian, in his Instit. Orator., Book 8, ch. 2, where he says: ‘‘Obscurity also arises from words fallen into desuetude, as when one delves into the memoranda of the highpriests, or the most ancient treaties and decaying authors, with the deliberate purpose of extracting therefrom something unintel9.

Instead of ‘unusual’ the Dutch has ‘useless’.

PSSI

- 50 -

Meyer

ligible’. Vossius, too, in his Instit. Orator., Book 4, ch. 1, sect. 8, ‘Neologisms are the enemy of clarity. It is hardly likely that words produced for the first time by the speaker should be familiar to all. Newly coined words are of that stamp.’’10 In the time of Augustus the following obsolete words and expressions existed in Latin: ‘mis’ for ‘mei’, ‘sam’ for ‘eam’, ‘nenum’, ‘nenu’, or ‘neno’ for ‘non’, ‘topper’ for ‘cito’, ‘perbitare’ for ‘perire’, ‘bovinari’ for ‘tergiversari’, ‘dapatilia comisse’ for ‘comedisse opipara’ ‘apludam edere’ and ‘floccos bibere’ for ‘furfure vesci’ and ‘faecem bibere’; as Agelli discusses in Book 11, ch. 7.11 New were ‘favor’, ‘urbanus’, ‘reatus’, ‘munerarius’, ‘piratica’ among others; see Quintilian, Book 8, ch. 3 of his Instit. Orator. — ‘irritare’ for ‘irritum reddere’, Leg. 2, Codic. de Feriis: ‘Quod contra hoc factum fuerit omnibus modis irritatur’. Again, ‘absentare’ for ‘absentem facere’, Claudius, De raptu Proserp.: ‘. . . Patriis procul absentaverit astris’. [12] A barbarous word or expression is one that is introduced from a foreign language into the native language, and is employed contrary to the customary usage of accepted writers. These are of two kinds: some are not native either by custom or by origin, others are native by origin, but not by custom. Those that have entered the language by custom and not by origin vary according to the difference of the languages from which they originate. Thus a barbarous word can be a Hebraism, a Grecism, a Latinism, etc. Examples of barbarous and foreign words of every kind and from every quarter can be seen in Latin in Vos10. 11.

The opening section of De novatis et novis, in Opera Omnia II, 144 (edition of 1697). This entire paragraph of section 11 has been replaced by another in the Dutch version, and both neologisms and obsolete words from Dutch are given as examples. Among the obsolete terms the translator mentions ‘kuyschen’ [to clean] and ‘blutsen’ [to dent], which in fact are still used as Flemish variants; whereas ‘Maetschappy’ [society], mentioned as a neologism, is today standard.

Meyer

- 51 -

PSSI

sius, Lib. de Vit. Sermon. et Glossemat. Latino-Barbar.12 In the New Testament we find, apart from others, Latinisms and especially Hebraisms. Examples of Latinisms are A

 , 
  ,    ,   
  ,   ,     ,  
 ,     , and    `  
 (that is, ‘da operam’, Luke 12, v. 58).13 And there are also Hebraisms of this kind — ‘Amen’, ‘Emmanuel’, ‘Hosanna’, ‘Maranatha’, ‘Messias’, ‘Raca’, ‘Sebaoth’, and many other words of this sort. Furthermore, there are innumerable expressions and idioms14 taken from Hebrew, as is known even to the blear-eyed and to barbers.15 These should be given careful consideration, and failure to do this would delude the interpreter of Holy Scripture. I shall single out one example, one that is familiar and of frequent occurrence. Theologians think that they have found the laurel in the laurel-cake when they make such scrupulous distinctions between the following expressions: ‘credere Deum’, ‘credere in Deum’, and ‘credere Deo’.16 ‘Credere Deum’, they say, is to believe that there is a God, and that he is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, a creator, a preserver, a director, just, merciful, eternal, etc. But ‘credere in Deum’ is not only to believe that there is a God who is omnipotent, omnipresent, merciful, good, etc.; it is also to place in him all one’s hope and confidence in one’s salvation, and thus to believe that he is good to the 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

The Dutch version gives here, for examples of barbarisms in Dutch, a reference to the Woordenschat. The Dutch version transliterates the Greek and translates ‘da operam’. For ‘idioms’ the Dutch has ‘idioms of the New Testament’. A common proverb. The Dutch version has, ‘‘as even common people know.’’ For Augustine, ‘credere Deum’ represents a simple act of faith affirming the existence of God, ‘credere Deo’ represents the acceptance of divine authority as a source of truth, and ‘credere in Deum’ denotes faith in its strongest sense, uniting the believer to God. The Dutch version has ‘Godt gheloven for the first, ‘[aen] Godt te gheloven’ for the second, and ‘in Godt te gheloven’ for the third. Similarly for the occurrences of ‘credere in Christum’ and ‘credere Christo later in the Latin text.

PSSI

- 52 -

Meyer

believer, that he is omnipotent in favour of the believer, that he is merciful towards the believer, and that he directs all things for the believer’s advantage and salvation. ‘Credere Deo’ is to accept his words and to repose in him the faith that is the proper due of one who declares and speaks the truth. The first expression, they say, is appropriate to all men, and even to demons, according to James 2, v. 19. The second is appropriate only to the faithful, it being impious to believe merely in the creation. But this does not apply to the third expression, for it is permissible for men to believe those who proclaim the truth. This is what they say, almost with one voice. Yet I have never found ‘credere Deum’ in Scripture, and it can occur only by ellipsis with ‘esse’ understood or subjoined, as in the case of the passage cited from James’ Epistle. ‘Credere in Deum’ is a Hebraism, equivalent to ‘credere Deo’ both in Greek and in Latin. Thus in the Holy Writing, instances of ‘credere in Deum’ and ‘credere Deo’ occur without discrimination — see John 14, 1; Romans 10, 14; 1 Peter 1, 21, and 2, 6; Romans 4, 3 and 17; Galatians 3, 6; 2 Timothy 1, 12. It is the same with ‘credere in Christum’ and ‘credere Christo’, of which there are numerous instances: see John 2, v. 11 and John 4:38; John 5, 46; John 6, verses 35, 40, 47; John 8, verses 30, 31, 45, 46; and John 10, verses 37, 38, 42. From the penultimate chapter quoted, the point I am making appears more clearly than the light of midday, for both expressions are used of the same things.17 For after the Evangelist has said in verse 30, ‘‘Haec illo loquente multi crediderunt in eum,’’ he immediately adds in the following verse 31, ‘‘Dicebat ergo Iesus in Iudaeis, qui crediderant ipsi, ‘Si vos manseritis’, etc’.’’ That the later ‘credere ipsi’ has the same sense as the prior ‘credere in eum’ is, in their translation, admitted by the theologians themselves who, at the request of the 17.

Instead of ‘things’ the Dutch has ‘persons’. From this point through the end of this section the Dutch version gives all quotations only in Dutch translation, with the exception of the transliterated Greek phrase, which is also translated.

Meyer

- 53 -

PSSI

United Provinces of Holland, translated the Holy writings into their native language. For they translated as ‘qui in eum credebant’, ‘  !" #"$%
&
'  ()!*( ´ + ¸ ’. Finally, to demonstrate decisively that ‘credere in Deum’ is a Hebraism and that ‘credere in creaturam’ in Scripture has the same signification, I shall cite two passages only from the Old Testament. One is from Exodus 14, v. 31 — ‘‘Timuerunt populus ipse Iehovam, credideruntque in Iehovam et in Mosem servum eius.’’ The other is from 2 Chronicles, 20, v. 20, ‘‘Consistens Iosaphat dixit: Audite me Iudaei et Habitatores Ierusalem; firme credite in Iehovam Deum vestrum, et confirmabimini: firme credite in Prophetas eius, et prosperabimini.’’ Now the theologians have translated differently, ‘credebant in Iehovam et Mosi servo eius’, and also ‘credite in Iehovam Deum vestrum et credite Prophetis eius’. Yet in the commentary they attach to the first passage while making reference to the second (for the same applies in both cases) they expressly state, ‘In the Hebrew the idiom is indeed the same, but a difference is assumed from the nature of the case’. From this it is easy to judge how well they discharged their duty, those men who are forever clamouring and writing that meaning should not be imported into Scripture, but extracted therefrom. [13] Obscurity in a sentence can occur either from the displacement of words or from their omission. Displacement occurs when the natural order of its words is disturbed. Quintilian (loc. cit.) calls it a ‘mixing of words’, and adduces as an example this verse of Vergil, Aeneid 1, ‘‘Saxa vocant Itali mediis quae in fluctibus aras.’’ The natural order would be: ‘Quae saxa in fluctibus mediis Itali vocant aras’. Omission is when certain words necessary to the sentence are understood, as in Vergil Aeneid 1, ‘‘Quos ego. . . sed motos praestat componere fluctus.’’18 And in Lucan, Pharsalia 2, Tantone novorum 18.

Aeneid 1, v. 135.

PSSI

- 54 -

Meyer

Proventu scelerum quaerunt, uter imperat Urbi? Vix tanti fuerat civilia bella moveri, Ut neuter.19 This omission of words is found not only in verse but in prose as in Pliny, Book 18, ch. 7, ‘‘In Transpadana Italia scio vicenas quinas libras farris modios pendere, circa Clusium senas’’ (‘senas’ for ‘vicenas et senas’).20 Again in the Gospel according to Luke, ch. 13, v . 9, , - ´ .0/21 .435 67
8
7¸ , -:9 35 . , 1 6´ ; 10/=141 6 `?A@ 5 /B1C C5 .D1 `, , 5E 1 6 ?F-G ` @ 7
. . Erasmus translates, ‘‘And if indeed it does give fruit; if not, you will later cut it down.’’ Beze in his translation fills in what is missing, ‘‘And if indeed it does give fruit, you will leave it; if not. . .’’21 Similarly, in Paul, 2 Corinthians, ch. 5, v. 13, 1 6 @ 1H= -9 1 ´I 1 5 @ 7/21 . , Q1 J ¸ , 1 6`@ 1K8
J0L 9 5 . 5 G /21 . G ´/: seems to depend, does not appear to me of such importance that because of it things that are interconnected in Nature and can therefore be known the one by means of another should be separated from one another so that one cannot be proved from another. But we have now reached the end of our journey. We have considered and refuted the opinions of those differing from us, the Arminians and Socinians and likewise the Reformed and the Catholics.23 Furthermore, we have preserved our thesis intact from the accusations of our opponents and from such charges as could be brought against it. Again, after explaining it quite fully and extensively, we have proved it to be true and indubitable. So let philosophy remain everlastingly the infallible norm of interpretation of the Holy Writings, since this is what reason urges and dictates and is confirmed by the practice of theologians of every age, and objections brought against it can easily be answered. Rejecting all the other norms of interpretation which we 23.

The Dutch version has ‘Papists’.

Meyer

- 225 -

PSSI

have considered and refuted, may it thrive in the future and grow in Christ’s Church, so that by its help dissensions among Christians may be appeased, the uncorrupted teaching of heavenly truth be more and more established and spread abroad, and our souls may at last enjoy eternal salvation and possess everlasting blessedness.

Epilogue I have given long and careful deliberation, dear reader, to the question as to whether I should put into print and thrust into the light of day this progeny of mine, now mature but likely to appear unripe and monstrous to the majority of theologians, or whether I should keep it to myself and condemn it to darkness for ever. That which occasioned this deliberation and made me undecided what course to pursue was a consideration of the advantages and disadvantages which, I believe, are likely to result from its publication. Believing that it would be to your interest to know how many these are and of what kind, I consider it not irrelevant to our undertaking to review them here in brief. The disadvantages, to speak first of them, were two in number and of some importance; one of them concerns me, the other the Christian Churches, in which I feared that this treatise would give rise to disturbances; for almost all novelty is wont to cause them anxiety. But — and this is the main point — it is not some trivial dogma of no particular importance in religion that is here made public and discussed, but one of such weight that it undoubtedly has a premier role in Christianity next to the authority of the Holy Writings. It is the foundation and base on which rest all the other articles of faith and morals, from which they originate and derive as from their source. Since we have shown that on this point all the Churches we know of that adhere to Christ go wildly astray and are far distant from the truth, it must surely happen that some, acknowledging and discarding their error and embracing the truth we have demonstrated will change their opinion; but others who, for the sake of gain or honour, or impelled by hope or blind zeal or obstinacy, cling tenaciously to opinions they have received, will fiercely resent what I say. So, with the former defending our position to which they have just acceded while the latter uphold their traditional beliefs and assail us, there would be prolonged disagreement and strife. And, as

Meyer

- 227 -

PSSI

usually happens in matters of religion, the fighting would be fierce as for hearth and home, with extreme violence and passion, not without considerable damage and disgrace to the Christian name. As for me, the disadvantage that lies in wait is hatred by theologians who disapprove of and reject my thesis, the kind of bitter hatred that usually flares up in their midst, and which I shall no doubt incur against myself. Since it is generally the nature of these men to claim supremacy above the learned, being firmly convinced that the utterances of God have been entrusted to them alone and must be interpreted by them alone, and that the worship of God is in their charge, they immediately fire up with resentful anger if anyone else dares to intrude on their territory. And since each of them has the fixed belief that what he teaches is in strict conformity with truth and far removed from any community with error, they consider that the divine majesty and glory suffers diminution if any dogma they have already established is uprooted and a claim made that another should take its place, — and all this in spite of internecine fighting among themselves. So each of them regards it as the part of his duty and devotion to prevent and hinder that whereby his religious conviction might suffer any injury or damage. Thus anger is succeeded by hatred with which they pursue anyone who does not subscribe to their opinions and is not afraid to propose for the scrutiny of the theological world something that even in the slightest degree questions their maxims. To vomit forth the poison of this anger and hatred of theirs, they make him an object of detestation for the common people among whom they hold such considerable authority. They traduce his name in a most shameful way, loading him with calumny and invective as the worst of heretics, one who foments opinions that are abominable and pernicious; and they urge and exhort that he be shunned as something worse than a dog or a snake.1 If they succeed in their aim, it follows that 1.

The Dutch version has ‘worse than pestilence and deadly poison’.

PSSI

- 228 -

Meyer

their victim, as though marked with black chalk, is avoided and deserted and despised by all. Thus he is gradually deprived, if he is a merchant, of his business, if he is an artisan, of his employment. Finally he is stripped of his property and the means of gaining a livelihood so that, reduced to dire poverty and misfortune, he is compelled to spend the rest of his days in misery. And to add to his misfortunes and to preclude all compassion, they proclaim that the ills of which they themselves are the instigators are the just penalty which he is now paying to the Most High for his impiety and his execrable opinion, and are the clear indications that plainly convict him of heresy and condemn him. Our little craft, too, might be carried away in a storm like that, and, since we live among men and often need their assistance and help, it could be dashed against similar rocks, overwhelmed by waves and sunk in the deep if we were to commit it to such a raging sea, so exposed to fierce tempests and threatening certain shipwreck. These two disadvantages seemed to me so weighty that for some years I have been putting off the printing of this treatise and have often resolved never to permit it to be printed or published. An important point besides these considerations was this, that being taught by experience I had observed, and held it as certain, that in all Christian sects the priests and clerics2 as well as the commons and laymen are so tenacious of opinions with which they were imbued both from infancy and from their upbringing that you could sooner touch the sky with your hand than dislodge from their minds even a single one of their beliefs, though it had never been seriously examined. Thus I would not only have squandered time and effort in writing this work but would also lose them in publishing it. All these thoughts were finally overcome and my mind changed by a consideration of the advantages and the abundant fruits which, so I firmly hope, the Christian religion will gain from this. Furthermore, of the two disadvantages I have men2.

The Dutch version has ‘heads and leaders’.

Meyer

- 229 -

PSSI

tioned, I had imagined the first to be more serious, and likely to bring upon the Church more serious troubles, than in fact I recently found to be inflicted in a case similar to, if not more important than, mine. For while I was hugging my writings to myself, other writings appeared which seemed likely not merely to shake but to uproot and overthrow dogmas of much greater importance, nay, the very foundation of the entire Church. But these did not arouse controversy3 except among the more erudite.4 The second disadvantage I might be able to avoid and escape by suppressing the author’s name. This would be likely to bring some condemnation and contempt on this treatise and my thesis from those who are in the habit of valuing writings from the name of the author, or of condemning as rubbish, blank pages not worth reading, whatever is published without the author’s name. But I did not regard this as of great importance, so that either I must undergo the danger involved in the said disadvantage or else, being indifferent to critics of that kind, I should fail in my duty to the studies and the interests of more favourable readers and deny them such advantages as would accrue. Of these advantages the first and most important is this. For some centuries the interpretation of the Holy Writings has been placed in doubt, and its interpreters have not succeeded in 3. 4.

The Dutch version adds, ‘easily and without rebuke’. It is difficult to know what these ‘other writings’ were. Hobbes’ Leviathan, whose closing sections deal with scriptural exegesis, appeared in 1651, and was widely circulated in Holland in the years following. But the 1660s in Holland marked a period of more widespread ecclesiastical censorship. Two years after the first edition (1666) of Meyer’s work, Adriaan Koerbagh was condemned and executed. The ‘more erudite’ here may refer to those who can read Latin, but Meyer either translated or oversaw the translation of his own work into Dutch in 1667, only one year following its Latin edition. Spinoza’s own Tractatus theologicopoliticus appeared in 1670; and shortly thereafter Spinoza, perhaps mindful of Meyer’s example or experience, took pains to make sure that a planned edition of that work in the Dutch vernacular should not be published.

PSSI

- 230 -

Meyer

eliciting unerringly its true meanings, nor in demonstrating that they have thus succeeded. As a result, a host of sharp disagreements and contentions have sprung into being among Christians, and they endure to this day, while fresh ones continue to arise. Through the method and norm we have established in this book any interpreter of the divine utterances would no longer wander about uncertainly but would make steady progress on a firm footing. Thus the weapons of disputes and contentions which are so ardently and fiercely brandished would be taken away, and peace restored and established for ever throughout the Christian world. The second advantage is this: as a result of our thesis the task of interpreter will not labour under such great difficulties as heretofore. Since we have shown that all the truths of the Scriptures are also true meanings and that several meanings can occur in any sentence, of those many meanings some will be easier to investigate and discover and will be more manifest than if there were only one meaning to be elicited. For it would be less of a task to arrive at some meanings where there are many than to unearth the sole meaning where there is only one. That our thesis permits this facility to be added to the interpretation of the Holy Writings is acknowledged by Chamier himself (Panstrat. Cathol., Tom. 1, Book 15, cap. 15, section 31) in these words, ‘‘If there were several [literal meanings], this, it appears, would make Scripture easier. For the difficulty of Scripture, if there is any, consists in discovering the true sense. But when there are many things, they are usually easier to find than when there is only one, as experience teaches us in every field of enquiry.’’ The third advantage is that our method provides a short 5 cut for the work of interpretation. On the question of the meaning of a passage it would not be necessary to consult theologians and interpreters of the Divine Word and commentators of all ages and countries and of every sect, and carefully weigh their opinions. Equipped with the norm we have provided, anyone will be able by his own efforts to search out and elicit the mind of God, 5.

The Dutch version has ‘is sufficient’.

Meyer

- 231 -

PSSI

look into what others have searched out and elicited, and decide whether this is undoubtedly authentic. The amount of time thereby saved, the amount of toil and trouble avoided will not escape anyone who will consider the number and extent of the commentaries on the Holy Books that are worn out by the hands of Christians. These three advantages have regard to interpretation itself, making it surer, easier and swifter to accomplish. The remaining three advantages have regard to other points: the adulteration of the Holy Writings, the different readings, and finally the translation or version.6 Let us take these one by one. The fourth advantage is this, that this method of interpretation of ours can also serve to detect the mutilations and alterations of the manuscripts, both Hebrew and Greek. None of these, if we are to believe an eminent person well skilled in these matters, has been fortunate enough to escape interference from the hands of the ill-disposed, so as not to be contaminated and befouled with many faults. The fifth advantage is this, that it is useful for studying the different readings of Holy Scripture, distinguishing between the spurious and the authentic. Of these there is a liberal crop in both Testaments, so that in the Old Testament ‘‘. . . their abundance and confusion are such that the Rabbis themselves confess that it is difficult to distinguish true from false; and if one were to compare and examine all the manuscripts of the New Testament, one might discover almost as many differences as words.’’7 This is 6.

7.

See Lagre´e and Moreau (1988, 250). The last three advantages are probably drawn from the Critica sacra of Cappel, published in Paris in 1650. In Book 6 of this work, Cappel discusses the ‘sensus verus certissimus et indubitatus canon’ after rejecting the principle of textual antiquity as a criterion of authenticity. His work was the basis of the Protestant textual exegesis of the School of Saumur. See also F. LaPlanche, L’Ecriture, le sacre´, l’histoire (Amsterdam: APA, 1986), Part 2, chap. 4. The italics in the Dutch version suggest that the quotation begins with the phrase, ‘if one were to accept. . .’.

PSSI

- 232 -

Meyer

the bold opinion of that same person who is considerably experienced in every form of this Doctrine and its literature. Finally, the sixth and last advantage is this, that for those who are ignorant of the original8 languages and have had no opportunity to study them, this is of no little help in enabling them to detect false translations of the Holy Books, arising either from defective texts or from spurious readings. That there may be, and indeed are, translations of this kind is confirmed by the widespread occurrences of mistakes. These last three advantages rest on the same foundation and derive in the same way from our norm of interpretation. For since there is nothing in Scripture that is not in conformity with truth, and since this truth can undoubtedly be elicited, and shown to be elicited, by our method, then also by this same method every corrupt text, spurious reading and mistranslation resulting in faulty teaching will be detected, and will be comprehended and proved to be what it is. This will banish all possibility of lapsing into error and of taking it and accepting it for truth. This is a danger that threatens all other interpreters and which they cannot escape as long as they lack the touchstone by which they can discover with certainty which passages are genuine and which corrupt, and can distinguish unerringly true from false readings, and infallibly determine which translations are correct and which are faulty and wrong. We have to say that we do not know where else they can acquire such a touchstone. These are the considerations which have persuaded me to print and publish this writing instead of suppressing it, considerations which far outweighed the two disadvantages I have cited when they were subjected to the just balance of my judgment and carefully weighed. Therefore, as soon as a suitable opportunity presented itself, I girded myself to the task and completed it in the form in which it is now given to the literary world. Apart from the two disadvantages already mentioned, another of perhaps a no less significant weight has not escaped my attention. 8.

The Dutch version has ‘Oriental’.

Meyer

- 233 -

PSSI

There will be considerable numbers, especially theologians, who will rise up against me, my thesis and my treatise, and will unsheathe their pens. Unless I am willing to desert my own cause, I will have to join battle with them and in my turn draw the weapons of disputation. But this has never had so much influence with me as to make me even contemplate, far less decide, to withhold this writing from publication. If anyone should think fit to devote some hours to perusing this little treatise and to weigh in the balance of his judgment what he finds written there; and if he should apprehend with certainty and show with good reason in a public writing that the proof of our thesis is built on a faulty foundation or is falsely and wrongly deduced from true principles, or else that it cannot be properly defended and protected against attacks which may be levelled against it by others, or that the opinions of its opponents cannot be convincingly attacked and refuted and their arguments correctly answered and disposed of — then we too, in a public writing, after frankly admitting our error will thank them heartily for having taken the trouble to reveal to us our mistakes and to prevent others from being entangled and led astray by these same errors. We would hold nothing to be more precious, more important and desirable than to be taught the truth and to be brought back to the right road, if we have deviated from it. Perhaps someone else who has not rightly understood our intended meaning may bring forward problems and raise difficulties such as to give him pause, and be an obstacle to others in preventing them from understanding the force and evidence of our demonstration in every detail, or from seeing the complete vindication of our thesis against objections hurled against it, or from understanding our refutation of differing opinions, and so not giving our thesis their whole-hearted consent.9 If so, we shall try at once as best we can to rid them of those doubts and to dispel those mists that obscure the light of bountiful truth. Our time 9.

The Dutch version replaces this clause with, ‘and that he might consent to these’.

PSSI

- 234 -

Meyer

and whatever is ours we shall think well employed if we can bring some light and some aid to a neighbour in his search for truth, and a truth of such importance. Finally, it may be that someone is firmly attached to his own opinion acquired from his teachers in boyhood or assimilated with blind enthusiasm; and therefore, in the belief that anything that differs from it even before he examines it is straightway false and deserving his hatred and repudiation, he will attack us and gnaw away at our thesis and treatise, which he cannot impugn with solid arguments and reasoning, by obtuse commentary and quibbling, and will vent his rage on the author with abuse and calumny. Or he may assemble in a pile many passages of Holy Scripture and, without any deduction or demonstration of the true sense, draw them up in a well-manned battle-line and set them against our thesis in irregular assaults, as is frequently the custom of theologians. To him and to others like him we shall not deign to make any reply; for as my sole aim in this treatise is to elicit truth, I do not care to compete in invective and cross swords with one who merely uses invective, nor to thrust back his calumnies down his throat — he deserves no other reply. I have always been averse to that kind of vulgar outburst with which many writers, as if seized with ungovernable madness, tear each other to pieces with the most violent and bitter words as though they were lashing and biting each other; and they sharpen their pens which (according to an eminent philosopher of our times) should be instruments of humanity, as if they were sword-points with which to leap upon and assail most wantonly the reputation of another. Besides, I do not have enough time, which I have dedicated entirely to my studies and the search for truth, so as to spend some in replying to a quibbler or a trivial accumulator of Scriptural passages. That would be a disgraceful waste; for such passages can shed no light nor be of any help in deciding this controversy, since it is the norm for investigating and discovering their meanings that is the subject of discussion and debate. So let everyone into whose hands this treatise may fall know in advance

Meyer

- 235 -

PSSI

that if there are published some writings opposing it (which will perhaps be quite numerous) to which he sees no reply, that I regard them as dust, or rather, mere scurf. So I wish to give prior warning to anyone who is eager to write against me and attack my thesis and treatise, and I ask him to concern himself with the matter itself, abstaining from all gibes and calumny, and to be restrained, if he wants any reply to his writing from me. Furthermore, so that all may proceed more clearly, let him not, as theologians usually do, confuse and confound this question of the norm of interpretation of the Holy Writings with that other question about the judge of theological controversies, or with any other question that may be related to it. Let him carefully separate and distinguish these questions and address himself only to the examination and study of the first, leaving aside all the others. If he does this, I in turn pledge my word that I will welcome him in the same fashion with humanity and goodwill, and will satisfy his doubts and the difficulties he raises to the best of my ability in the confident hope — indeed, without the slightest doubt — that he will finally attain the truth with me, and will surrender to it and quit the arena. To achieve this end more easily and more happily, and to anticipate, as far as we are able, any scrap of doubt that could open the way to contradiction, we shall attempt to remove one objection — in my opinion, one of some weight; for we are firmly convinced that with its removal all will be plain sailing. This difficulty is as follows; if philosophy is the norm of interpretation of the Holy Writings in the way we have maintained, the Holy Writings themselves appear to be useless, written and transmitted to us in vain. For if the truths of all the meanings of Scripture, to be elicited and investigated with the help of philosophy, ought to be clear before they were elicited and investigated, what need is there to have recourse to Scripture and to consult it, in order to extract and learn these truths? Or what need to explain and expound Scripture by means of these truths, since these truths, already known, are not better known by means of these explanations, or even confirmed? So since in this way Scripture serves

PSSI

- 236 -

Meyer

neither to teach truth nor to establish it, it seems to be of no use. But this finding is opposed to the unanimous agreement of Christian Churches of every country and every age, which have always proclaimed and pronounced with one voice that Scripture is of the highest and greatest utility. To find a reasonable solution to this knotty problem, and to explain it clearly, we think that the whole question must be referred back. All words can be considered in two ways: they can be taken absolutely or relatively. Taken absolutely, there is again a twofold division: they can be pronounced orally, or else written by hand. In the former case they are vocal sounds produced by the mouth and projected into the air. But when they are written, they are characters and marks inscribed and depicted on paper or other material. In both cases they can be said to be real entities. Considered from a relational perspective, when attention is given not so much to their nature as to the respect and relatedness included therein, they are signs of other things. And they are not natural signs, as they are called, which have some connection in nature with the thing signified, but arbitrary signs, as deriving their signification from human convention and decree, as we said in chapter two. And since the essence of a sign depends entirely not on nature but on reason, they are to that extent nothing other than entities of reason. Therefore considered absolutely, they can be known only through themselves alone; but considered relatively and as signs, they can be known only through the medium of other things, the things signified, since it is the property of relative things ‘to be and to be known simultaneously’.10 For example, the words ‘man’ and ‘tree’, when considered as vocal sounds or pictures composed of letters,11 can be understood through themselves. But when they are regarded as signs of concepts or things denoted by these words, they cannot be understood apart from these. And since knowledge of what is absolute is prior to 10. 11.

The Dutch version has only, ‘to be known simultaneously’. For ‘pictures composed of letters’ the Dutch version has ‘or written by pen’.

Meyer

- 237 -

PSSI

knowledge of what is relative, the concept or thing on the one hand and the word considered absolutely on the other hand must be known before the latter can be known as sign and the former as what is signified. For we first know ‘man’ or ‘tree’, and these words through themselves, and then we decide among ourselves that these words will signify those concepts or things, or else we learn that this signification has already been decided by others. Since with philosophers cognition takes many forms, intellectual, sensual, or even a more rudimentary form if there be such, the form we are here discussing need not necessarily be rigorous and intellectual, though it may be; sensual cognition is enough, or something more rudimentary, if such can be found. For to know what is denoted by ‘man’ or ‘tree’, I do not have to have a clear idea of their inmost nature. It is enough that I have seen them once or a number of times, or got to know them by a different sense, or attained some knowledge of them in some other way, a point I familiar to all. From all these considerations, as that the words do not contain in themselves any analogy or anything of the concepts or things signified by them, it is not difficult to deduce how much help they can afford to the mind in acquiring knowledge of things. In the first place, no words taken in isolation with their meaning unknown can ever produce in the understanding ideas of the things they denote. If you were to hear or read a hundred times or more the words ‘God’ and ‘omniscience’ by no means would you thereby be brought to the knowledge of God or omniscience. Again, although these words are set before us in conjunction in a sentence and we have some sensual or more rudimentary knowledge of the things they designate, still in no way can they give rise to intellectual cognition; for the former mode of cognition (or any inferior mode) is not capable of generating the latter. For example, if someone were to encounter the statement ‘God is omniscient’, — someone who has only a rudimentary, not a rigorous, understanding of what God and omniscience are — he will not thereby attain to a true and intellectual understanding of this statement as a whole, so as to perceive clearly

PSSI

- 238 -

Meyer

and distinctly in his mind that God is omniscient. Finally, however much we have clear and distinct ideas presented to the mind of things signified by words — e.g., God and omniscience — yet the sentence ‘God is omniscient’, either read or heard, will not be cause through itself of the proper understanding that God is omniscient, but only the occasional or impulsive cause, or something of the sort. For these words cannot bring it about by true causality that someone should have certain and evident assurance that omniscience pertains to God’s nature; they can only be the occasion or incitement whereby the intellect is roused and induced to contemplate more carefully the ideas of God and omniscience, to compare them one with another, and thus to apprehend that the latter is necessarily included in the former. Now since all books are formed of and comprise sentences interconnected and conjoined, it most evidently follows that the greatest and most useful assistance they can provide in getting to know and understand things truly and correctly consists only in this, that they inspire the reader to think and they urge him towards ideas which he already possesses in his mind in clear and distinct form, to contemplate what is denoted by the words in those books, to compare them and to see whether one is included in or connected with another. In no way can they lead the intellect either of itself or through itself to a true knowledge of things; far less can they implant in the mind clear and distinct ideas if these were not already infused and implanted in it, nor can they infuse, impress, or in any other way generate such ideas. With these preliminary remarks, to remove the difficulty mentioned above we say that Holy Scripture, being in accord with other books in being composed of sentences, must also be in accord with them in the teaching of truth. So its function is only to rouse its readers and to impel them to think about the matters set out therein, to look into them and consider whether the facts are as there set out.12 To succeed in this, philosophy and whatever clear knowledge they already possess must be summoned to their assistance, so that it may be seen in what way the

Meyer

- 239 -

PSSI

predicate is in agreement with the subject, and that the truth of a statement may be extracted, and at the same time its true sense elicited and deduced. From this it is clear that in interpreting Scripture through philosophy truth does not always take precedence over the sense, and it is certainly not superfluous to refer to Scripture and to consult it. This is not so that Scripture may of itself generate truth in our minds or render it clearer or more distinct or confirm it; but, as we have said before, its function is to provide occasion and material for our thinking, thinking about things on which perhaps we would never otherwise have reflected. It is in respect of that which concerns the highest blessedness of men and thus conducive to their good beyond all else, and not in respect of teaching truth, that the utility of Scripture is greatest, far surpassing the utility of other books. In just the same way the utility of all books everywhere is judged and assessed as great or little in accordance with the excellence or lowliness of the subjects of which they treat. From this again, it is clearer than the midday sun how far from the path of truth do they deviate and go sadly astray, those theologians who are convinced, and convince others that a solid knowledge of sacred theology can be gained simply from reading the Holy Writings without consideration or contemplation of anything else; and thus commending only the reading of Scripture they dissuade and deter others from the study of philosophy and the other liberal disciplines. For without these no perfect knowledge of even a single thing, no clear and distinct idea can thus be acquired. Indeed, no false or defective idea can be corrected simply by reading the Bible; for if so, then all who assiduously read the Holy Books ought to have the same concepts of matters treated in them. Since this is not the case, we must try and explore another way to bring this about, that is, by a solemn rejection of all prejudices, a diligent contemplation of the things 12.

This appears to contradict Meyer’s own treatment of Scripture in his prologue and opening chapters as verbum Dei. See Bordoli (1997, 112) for a more detailed discussion of the issue of consistency.

PSSI

- 240 -

Meyer

themselves, and as a result a true knowledge of those same things, which is what philosophy is. Therefore we give notice to all who are concerned with theology and who will understand and accept the truth of our thesis (for we do not believe that they are all so blinded that its light will not shine on any of them, or so obstinate that it will not win any adherent) and we ask them to strain every nerve and direct all their energies to the acquisition of true philosophy, if they are not already imbued with it, and under its auspices and leadership, rejecting the prejudices and dogmas which have found their way into theology with no sure and unshakable foundation, to discover and establish new teachings or to confirm and demonstrate the truth of the old. Although philosophy is still confined to a very small and narrow circle and thus cannot contribute very much to this end, and since among ancient philosophers, except for mathematicians, one can find nothing solid and demonstrated with certainty, and more recent philosophers have devised and discovered only a few things of this kind, we deem it the wiser course to know few things with certainty than to accept as true and certain many things that are false and dubious, and to thrust them upon others. Further, there is a quite reasonable hope that in these times, when its chief founder and propagator, Rene´ Descartes, first lit a torch for the world of letters and showed the way by his example, that the boundaries of philosophy will be extended far and wide by those who will tread in his footsteps. On the subject of God, the rational soul, man’s highest felicity,13 and other subjects such as concern the acquisition of eternal life, there will be published works of authority in the interpretation of Scripture, 13.

This triad recalls the title of Spinoza’s Korte Verhandeling, the Short Treatise on God, Man, & His Well-Being, probably written in the early 1660s and circulated among Spinoza’s circle, but unpublished until the nineteenth century. See Bordoli (1997, 116-117) for further discussion of the relationship between Meyer’s theological project and the methodology employed by Spinoza in this early work.

Meyer

- 241 -

PSSI

and these will prepare the way, making it even and straight, whereby the Church of Christ, hitherto divided and torn by continual dissensions, will come together in sweet friendship.14 Bound by these close and gentle ties, united for the future and of one mind in this land,15 may it thrive, flourish, increase, attract and entice into its bosom nations as yet estranged from it, and finally triumph in blessedness in the heavens.16

14. 15. 16.

The Dutch version has, ‘may smoothly unite and come together in friendship and love’. For ‘land’ the Dutch version has ‘earth’. For this phrase the Dutch version has, ‘and they finally may participate in the perfect blessedness in the heavens’.

Appendix 1 Index of Biblical Citations Genesis: Exodus: Numbers: Deuteronomy: 1 Samuel: 1 Kings: 2 Kings: 2 Chronicles: Nehemiah: 2 Maccabees: Job: Psalms: Proverbs: Ecclesiasticus: Jeremiah: Daniel: Matthew:

6, 6 14, 31 32, 14 23, 19 4 15, 29 3, 12 18, 5-7 23, 25 1, 12 20, 20 8, 9 8, 9 7, 28 19, 25-27 2, 7 47, 9 62, 12 2, 6 8 1, 1 10, 7 2, 21 2, 17-18 & 23 3, 3 4, 13-16 5 5, 34-37 & 39-41 6, 5 8, 16-17

ch. 11 §9 3 §12 11 §9 11 §9 11 §9 11 §9 3 §21 3 §21 3 §21 5 §3 3 §12 11 §1 12 §1 8 §2 8 §2 3 §7 3 §7 4 §9 5 §3 9 §3 5 §3 3 §7 5 §3 13 §8 13 §8 13 §8 13 §8 11 §5 7 §5 13 §8

PSSI

Mark:

Luke:

John:

- 244 -

Meyer

9, 11 11, 25 12, 2 17, 5 23, 8 & 10 23, 14 26, 26-28 26, 45 4, 33-34 7, 3 & 4 14, 41 23, 34 5, 22 5, 33 6, 42 7, 22 10, 21 12, 58 13, 9 15, 12 22, 3 1, 43 2, 11 2, 19 3, 16 4, 39 5, 29 5, 34 5, 46 6, 35 & 40 & 70 6, 53 8, 30-31 & 45-46 10, 34 10, 37-38 & 42 14, 1 20, 19-20

7 §5 3 §7 7 §5 13 §9 13 §9 7 §5 3 §7 3 §24 11 §9 7 §5 3 §24 11 §9 7 §5 7 §5 12 3 §22 3 §7 3 §12 3 §13 7 §5 9 §3 9 §3 3 §12 3 §24 3 §7 3 §12 3 §24 16 §9 3 §12 3 §12 9 §2 3 §12 12 §2 3 §12 3 §12 3 §24

Meyer

Acts:

- 245 -

PSSI

21, 15-17 9, 22 17, 11 17, 24

3 §24 12 §2 12 §2 3 §7

4, 3 & 17 8 8, 8 10, 8 10, 14 10, 17 13, 9 1&2&3 15 5, 13 3, 6 2, 4 2, 8 2,21 6, 15 3, 16 1, 12 3, 15 1, 5 1, 17 2, 19 3 3, 14-15, 17 4, 12 1, 16 1, 21 2, 6 1, 20 1, 16 5, 9

3 §12 7 §3 9 §3 13 §8 3 §12 15 13 §8 7 §3 8 §2 3 §13 3 §12 7 §5 7 §5 3 §24 3 §7 13 §9 3 §12 13 §5 7 §3 5 §3 3 §12 7 §3 7 §4 13 §9 9 §3 3 §12 3 §12 12 §2 12 §2 16 §9

Paul: Epistle to the Romans:

1 Corinthians: 2 Corinthians: Galatians: Colossians: 1 Timothy: 2 Timothy: James:

1 Peter: 2 Peter: 1 John:

Appendix 2 Index of Authors Cited Meyer’s references are often incomplete or oblique. Not included in the listing below are the many popes to whom he refers (but whom he never quotes). Missing also (for want of information) are Cagliari, Fayus, and Marloratus. Agelli, Antonio (1532-1608): Italian playwright. Alsted, John Henry (1588-1638): German theologian. Bayle describes him as a prolific writer, one of whose goals was to summarize all the subjects in the arts and sciences within a single method. Alting, John Henry (1583-1644): A conservative theologian who taught at Groningen. Ambrose, St. (340-397). Anselm, St., of Canterbury (1033-1109). Anselm: Probably Anselm of Laon, an eleventh-century theologian who was the author of a line by line commentary on the Scriptures. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Asconius [Asconius Pedianus] (ca. 3-88): Roman grammarian of the first century, a commentator on Cicero and teacher of Titus Livius and Quintilian. Augustine [Aurelius Augustinus] (354-430). Basil (329-379): Bishop of Caesarea. Bede, the Venerable (673-735). Bellarmine, Robert (1542-1621): Catholic cardinal and Jesuit, one of the most respected theologians of his time according to Bayle. He was widely respected by Protestant theologians as well.

Meyer

- 247 -

PSSI

Beze [or Beza], Theodore de (1519-1603): A disciple and friend of Calvin in Geneva, who also taught Greek at Lausanne. Cajetan [Cajetanus], Thomas de Vio (1468-1533): Dominican cardinal and papal legate at the imperial diet of Augsburg, the author of many commentaries on Aquinas. Calvin, John (1509-1564): Author of the Institutiones Religionis Christianae (1536). Canus, Melchior [Melior Cano], O.P. (1509-1560): Professor at Alcala, author of a commentary on Thomas Aquinas’ Summa theologica and of De locis theologicis. Casmanus [Otto Casmann] (1562-1607): Rector in Stade and author of several philosophical and scientific workd, including Philosophiae et Christianae et verae asertio. Chamier, Daniel (1565-1621): French Protestant theologian and critic of Bellarmine. His Panstratiae catholicae was written for the Synod of Rochelle (1596). He was also a delegate of the Reformed Churches of France at the Synod of Dordrecht. Bayle describes him as rude and inflexible. Chrysostom, John (347-407). Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 B.C.). Clauberg, John (1622-1665): German philosopher and logician who promoted cartesianism in Germany. His Logica vetus et nova (Duisburg, 1656) was in Spinoza’s personal library and he heavily influenced the logic of Port Royal. Claudian, Claudius [Claudius Claudianus]: Latin poet of the fourth century A.D., whose De raptu Proserpinae imitated Ovid. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 160-220). Conimbricenses: The Conimbricenses were a school of late sixteenth and early seventeenth century Jesuit philosophy professors at the University of Coimbra. Their commentaries on Aristotle and other texts included summaries, explanations, and review questions; and they were widely used as texts in schools throughout Europes. Their works went through more than one hundred printings in Europe alone, and were also translated into Chinese. Principal

PSSI

- 248 -

Meyer

thinkers in the school included Pedro da Fonseca (1528-1597), Cosmos Maggalliano (1553-1624), Emanuel de Goe¨s (1560-1597), Sebastiao do Couro (1567-1639), and Calthazar Alvarez (1561-1630). Cyrillus [Cyril of Scythopolis] (ca. 524-558). Damian, Peter (1007-1072). Daneau, Lambert (1530-1593): Protestant theologian and jurisprudentist who was a pastor in Geneva and later in Leiden. Dannhau[w]er, Johann Conrad (1603-1666): author of the Hermeneutica Sacra sive Methodus exponandarum S. Literarum proposita & vindicata (1654). Descartes, Rene´ (1596-1650). Dionysius the Carthusian (1402-1471): Commentator on the Pauline Epistles. Episcopius [Bischop], Simon (1585-1643): Dutch theologian and disciple of Arminius, who fled to France after the condemnation of the Remonstrants in 1619. He edited the Confession of the Remonstrants (1622). Erasmus Desiderius (1466-1536): Meyer frequently makes use of his annotations on the New Testament. Heide, Abraham van der (1597-1678): Dutch Protestant pastor who opposed the Remonstrants. He was a cartesian and professor at Leiden. He wrote in opposition to the decree of 1676 prohibiting the teaching of Descartes’ philosophy. Hemmingius [Hemmingsen], Niels (1513-1600): Professor of theology in Copenhagen. Herodotus (ca. 484-425 B.C.). Hilary of Poitiers (303-367). Hoornbeek, John (1617-1666): Professor of theology at Utrecht and Leiden, he was active in the apostolate to the Jews. Horace [Quintus Horatius Flaccus] (65-8 B.C.). Hugo [Cardinal Hugh of St. Cher] (1200-1263): A Dominican

Meyer

- 249 -

PSSI

who compiled the first concordance to the Bible, and was also the first to divide the Old and New Testaments into chapters. Hyperius, Andreas (1530-1563). Jerome [Hieronymus], St. (331-420). Junius, Franciscus [Franc¸ois de Jon] (1545-1602): A translator of the Old and New Testaments. The translation by Tremellius (quem vide) was also popular in the seventeenth century. A combined edition, edited by Junius and Tremellius was published in 1618 (Hanoviae: C. Schleichus), and was also in Spinoza’s library. Juvenal [Decimus Iurius] (42-125). Kekkermann [or Keckermann, or Kekkerman], Bartolomaeus (1571-1609): German intellectual who attempted to systematise all of the sciences, author of the Systema theologiae (1615). Leringius [St. Vincent of Lerins] (died ca. 450): Catholic apologist, author of Commonitorium pro catholicae fidei antiquitate et universitate adversus profanas omnium haereticorum novitates. Lipsius, Justus (1547-1606): A leading apologist for the revival of Stoicism in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Lucan [Marcus Annaeus Lucanus] (39-65). Lucretius [Titus Lucretius Carus] (98-55 B.C.): Roman poet. Luther, Martin (1483-1546): His De servo arbitrio dates from 1525. Magirus, Johannes (16th century): Author of the Phsyiologica peripatetica (first edition, Frankfurt, 1597), which saw many later editions and was used by Isaac Newton in his studies. Martyr [Vermigli], Peter (1500-1562): Calvinist theologian who taught in Strasbourg and Zurich. Masius, Salernitanus [Salernitano Masuccio] (15th century).

PSSI

- 250 -

Meyer

Misner, Balthazar (1587-1626): Anti-Socinian theologian, author of Consideratio theologiae pholinianae (1619). Melanchton, Philipp (1497-1560): German theologian and co-author of the Confession of Augsburg, author of the Dialectica (1533). Montanus [Arias Montano Benito] (1527-1598). Mornay, Philippe du Plessis (1549-1623): A friend of Henry IV, called ‘The Pope of the Huguenots’, author of De la ve´rite´ de la religion chre´tienne contre les athe´es, e´picuriens, juifs, mahome´tans et autres infide`les (Paris, 1582). Meusel [Musculus], Wolfgang (1497-1563): A Benedictine who converted to Lutheranism in 1527, he was a preacher in Augsburg and a professor of theology at Bern. Ostorodt, Christopher (1575-1611): Polish Socianian pastor, expelled from Amsterdam in 1598. Ovid [Publius Ovidius Naso] (ca. 43 B.C.-16 A.D.). Paphnutius, St. (fl. 370). Pareus, Ambrosius [Ambroise Pare´] (1510-1590). Pico de la Mirandola (1463-1494). Piscator [Fischer], John (1545-1625): Professor at the University of Herborn, one of the editors and commentators of the works of Luther. Platina, Bartolomeo (1421-1481): Author of Vitae Platinae historici liber de vita Christi ac omnium pontificum qui hactenus ducenti fuere, which was an attack on Pope Paul II. Meyer appears to have used this work as a source for his references to earlier popes. Plato (429-347 B.C.). Plautus [Publius Terentius Afer] (250-184 B.C.). Pliny [Gaius Plinius Secundus] (23-79): Roman historian and encyclopaedist. Polanus [Amandus Polan von Polandorf] (1561-1610): Professor of the Old Testament at Bale, author of Syntagma theologiae christianae (1617). Quintilian, Fabius [Marcus Fabius Quintilianus] (35-100).

Meyer

- 251 -

PSSI

Ravanellus, Peter: His Bibliotheca sacra was published in Geneva in 1650. Sadeel, Antonius (1534-1591): This was one of the several pseudonyms used by Antoine de la Roche Chandieu, a French noble and Reformed theologian who wrote a number of critiques directed against the spread of rationalism and platonism. His major work on scriptural exegesis, written under the name of ‘Sadeel’, was De verbo Dei scripto (1580). Scarpius [Francesco Scarpa] (17th century): Member of the School of Saumur. Schlichting, Jonas (1592-1661): Socianian theologian, and author of biblical commentaires. Ser[r]arius, Peter [Pierre Serrurier] (1600-1669): Millenarian author, personal friend of Spinoza. Servius [Marcus Servius Honoratus] (4th century A.D.): Latin grammarian and commentator on Vergil. Smalcius, Valentine (1572-1622): Socinian theologian. Stapleton, Thomas (1535-1598): Catholic apologist who fled England for Flanders, and later became Professor of Sacred Scripture at Louvain. Sulpicius Severus, Alexander (3rd century). Suarez, Francisco (1548-1617): Spanish Jesuit theologian. Terence [Publius Terentius Afer] (194-159 B.C.). Theodoretus (393-460): Commentator on the Pauline Epistles. Theophylactus (11th century): Commentator on the Pauline Epistles. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274). Tilenus, Daniel (1563-1633): Calvinist theologian who became a convert to Arminianism. Timplerus [Clemens Timpler] (fl. 1600): Professor of grammar at Steinfurt, author of Metaphysicae systema methodicum (Steinfurt, 1604).

PSSI

- 252 -

Meyer

Tremellius, I. (16th century): Translator of the Old and New Testaments. Trithemeus [John Tritheim] (1462-1516): Abbot of Spanheim and a reputed magician, as well as scriptural commentator. Valerius Flaccus [Gaius Valerius Flaccus Balbus Setinus] (ca. 45-92): Latin author of epic verse. Valerus Magnus: Capuchin apologist, author of Judicium de catholicorum et catholicorum credendi regula (Prague, 1628). Vatablis [Franc¸ois Vatable] (ca. 1500): Translator and editor of many of Aristotle’s works. Vergil [Publius Vergilius Maro] (71-19 B.C.): The spelling ‘ Virgilius’ is a corruption. Vossius, G. J. (1577-1649): Historian and grammarian. His Institutiones oratoriae dates from 1606, and his Opera Omnia was published in Amsterdam in 1641. Walaeus [Anthony de Waele] (1573-1639): Theologian at Leiden. Wendelin [or Wandelin, Wendelinus], Mark Frederick (1584-1652): Anti-Lutheran theologian at Leiden, author of Theologiae christianae (Hannover, 1634). Whit[t]aker, William (1548-1595): Cambridge theologian and critic of Bellarmine, Stapleton, and the Arminians. His Disputatio de S. Scriptura dates from 1588. Zanchi [Zanchius], Jerome (1516-1590): Italian reformer and professor of Scripture at Heidelberg and Neustadt, author of De sacra Scriptura Tractatus (1613). He was regarded as a moderate Catholic apologist, and proposed dialogue with Protestant theologians. He converted to Calvinism late in life. Zwingli, Ulrich (1484-1531): Swiss reformer.

Appendix 3 Glossary of Sects and Religious Movements in Seventeenth-Century Holland A full account of the history and development of the movements and sects at this period can be found in Meinsma.1 but we offer a brief reference summary of the principal ones here. ANABAPTISTS: They rejected the baptism of children, and preferred to refer to themselves as ‘Baptists’. The movement began in Zurich, where in 1525 Konrad Grebel underwent a second public baptism. It quickly spread throughout southern Germany and the Netherlands. Its adherents aspired to a community of true believers, rejecting both eccelsiastical and political institutions, as well as private property. Melchior Hoffmann gave to the movement a revolutionary and apocalyptic character with his prophecy of the coming of a new kingdom of God. The New Jerusalem was founded at Munster by Jan Beuckelzoon of Leiden and Jan Matthysz of Haarlem. On 25 June 1535 the city 1.

See K. O. Meinsma, Spinoza et son cercle, traduit du ne´erlandais par S. Roosenburg, appendices latins et allemands traduits par J.-P. Osier (Paris: Vrin, 1983). Many corrections and bibliographical additions to the Dutch edition of 1896 have been made in this translation. For more detailed studies of the religious movements in seventeenth-century Holland, see also Pierre Clair, Libertinage et incre´dules (Paris: CNRS, 1983); Karlfried Grunder and Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggeman, ed., Spinoza in der Fru¨hzeit seiner religio¨sen Wirkung (Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider, 1984); H. G. Heimbrock, Vom Heil der Seele: Studien zum Verha¨ltnis von Religion und Psychologie bei Baruch Spinoza (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1981); and H. J. Siebrand, Spinoza and the Netherlanders (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988).

PSSI

- 254 -

Meyer

was retaken by the troops of its bishop. The leaders of the Anabaptists were tortured and executed, and their bodies were hung in cages from the church clock (the cages remain today). The movement in the Netherlands was more moderate, and under the leadership of Menno Simons changed its name to ‘Mennonite’. ANTITRINITARIANS: They rejected the dogma of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. Their teachings had roots in the early church, but enjoyed a strong revival in the sixteenth century under the leadership of H. Denck and Sebastian Franck: their teachings were also accepted by the Anabaptists, Enthusiasts, and Socinians (quod vide). One of the most famous supporters was Michael Servet, who was executed by Calvin’s order. ARIANS: Supporters of the teachings of Arius (died in 336), who denied the divinity of Christ. In seventeenth-century Netherlands, the term ‘Arian’ was primarily used as an insult directed at Antitrinitarians. ARMINIANS: Supporters of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), also called ‘Remonstrants’. In 1604 an academic debate on divine election was held at Leiden between Arminius and Gomarus, the former arguing that it was provisional and dependent upon providential faith. The polemic quickly became political, with the Remonstrant position supported by the Grand Pensioner. The stathouder Maurice of Orange took sides with the Counter-Remonstrants or Gomarists. At the Synod of Dordrecht (1618-1619) the Counter-Remonstrants achieved a pyrrhic victory. The Remonstrant position, supported by John de Wit, retained political power: this position was based upon biblical humanism and religious tolerance. The Remonstrants founded their own church, which continues to exist in the Netherlands today. BAPTISTS: Disclaiming membership in the Anabaptist sect, they also rejected baptism for children. The movement was born in England, and spread widely in its colonies. John

Meyer

- 255 -

PSSI

Bunyan (author of The Pilgrim’s Progess) was a Baptist. BORELISTS: Supporters of Adam Boreel (1603-1666) who founded a group of collegiants with Daniel van Breen and Michael Comans. They rejected every religious authority and any confession of faith. Boreel is sometimes (and incorrectly) cited as the author of A Light on the Candlestick, a work by Pieter Balling.2 BROWNISTS: Followers of Robert Browne (1549-1636) who argued for total separation of church and state and the autonomy of local ecclesiastical communities with total independance from synods and bishops. One of its important disciples was John Robinson (1576-1625), who was the spiritual leader of a group of Brownists at Leiden, and emigrated to the British colonies in the new world in 1620 on the Mayflower. As Puritans, Browne and Robinson supported the Gomarists, but their notion of the church was similar to that of the Remonstrants. CALVINISTS: Disciples of John Calvin (1509-1564). Calvinism was the official state religion of the Netherlands. The religion is notable for its rigorous orthodoxy, intolerance, moral rigidity, and rigid identification of divine grace with predestination. Salvation is assured by faith rather than by works. State and church are conceived as wholly independant entities. COLLEGIANTS: The Collegiants of Rijnsburg were born when the Remonstrant community of Rijnsburg found itself without a pastor. Under direction of the Van der Kodde family, a group of people from Warmond became established at Rijnsburg. They rejected all ecclestiastical authority and recognised only the authority of Scripture. Many Collegiant groups3 developed throughout the Netherlands, and many Mennonites joined them. The Collegiants were 2.

A Latin translation of Light on the Candlestick is included among Boreel’s Works, and was consequently attributed to him, though he was only the translator.

PSSI

- 256 -

Meyer

less a definite religious sect than a general movement, and the term was often used in the seventeenth century as an umbrella for dissidents of many kinds.4 COUNTER-REMONSTRANTS: Also called ‘Gomarists’, they adhered to a strict doctrine of predestination, and were politically supported by Prince Maurice of Orange (vide Arminians). THE CURIOUS: Not really a sect or movement, they supported communication with divinity through observation of and meditation about the world about them and proposed travel expeditions to further such understanding. Many of them were present in the French army during the war with Holland. ENTHUSIASTS: The Enthusiasts, also called Schwa¨rmer or ‘Spiritualists’, opposed all dogma, confessions of faith, and ecclesiastical authority. Their members were often found in Anabaptist communities. GOMARISTS: Also known as Counter-Remonstrants, they were disciples of Franciscus Gomarus (1563-1641) who accepted a strictly orthodox interpretation of predestination. INDEPENDENTS: Also known as Congregationalists, they were also opposed to all forms of religious authority. LUCIANISTS: This was not a movement or sect so much as a poetic term applied in the seventeenth century to free3.

4.

A collegium was an independent discussion group, typically devoted to an unconventional religious view. Collegiant (as dissident religious movements were often called) meetings began in Amsterdam in the early seventeenth century, were interrupted to some extent in 1648, but drew the attention of the Consistory in 1650. Cornelius Moorman, Daniel van Breen, and Adam Boreel (1603-1666) were among the leaders of these small discussion groups, which met regularly to discuss and interpret scriptural passages. See Louis Van Bunge, Johannes Bredenburg (1643-1691): Een Rotterdamse Collegiant in de ban van Spinoza (Rotterdam: Universiteits Erasmus Drukkerij, 1990).

Meyer

- 257 -

PSSI

thinkers. The name is derived from Lucian (120-180), who derided the Greek gods. The term was applied to Spinoza’s friend and teacher Franciscus Van den Enden. LUTHERANS: This movement was founded by Martin Luther (1483-1546) and had few adherents in Holland. The two principal factions in the seventeenth century were centered in Wittenberg and Helmstadt. Colerus, Spinoza’s first biographer, was a member of the more rigorous Wittenberg faction. MENNONITES: Disciples of Menno Simons (1496-1561), an Anabaptist who argued for pacifism and religious tolerance. MILLENARIANS: They believed in the proximity of the return of Christ, and their followers were often members of Anabaptist communities. QUAKERS: Also called ‘Tremblers’, the movement was founded by George Fox (1624-1691) and had many supporters in Holland. They opposed all ritual and emphasized a personal religious experience based upon the ‘inner light’. They were also pacifists. Some researchers believe that what is probably Spinoza’s earliest work, the Korte Verhandeling, may have been written at the request of Quaker friends, and perhaps may have been used as a discussion topic at informal Quaker meetings.5 In the seventeenth century there was an influx of English Quaker leaders into the Netherlands. SOCINIANS: They were disciples of the two cousins Laelius (1526-1562) and Faustus (1539-1605) Socinus. The De Jesu Christo Servatore, a principal document of the movement, was published in 1594.6 Banished from Poland in 1656, they were very numerous in seventeenth-century 5.

Two articles by Richard H. Popkin explore these and other possible relationships. See ‘‘Spinoza, the Quakers, and the Millenarians,’’ Manuscrito 6 (1982), 113-133; and ‘‘Spinoza’s Relations with the Quakers in Amsterdam,’’ Quaker History 73 (1984), 14-28.

PSSI

- 258 -

Meyer

Holland,7 and their members exercised considerable influence among Arminian and Mennonite communities as well. They placed great emphasis on freedom of the will, and argued that scripture could always be reconciled with reason. TRINITARIANS: They accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Catholicism were Trinitarian positions. In 1653, six pastors delegated by their Synods wrote to the Dutch Assembly to complain about the proliferation of heresy and the publication of heretical books. An edict issued by the Assembly in September of that year prohibited both the sale and possession of heretical books. The effects of this and other edicts which followed are difficult to assess, beyond the fact that there was a cessation, but only a brief one, of Collegiant meetings in Amsterdam. In general the civil authorities were reluctant to take any genuinely effective actions in response to the Consistory’s repeated complaints until they were goaded into lashing out against Adriaan Koerbagh, for whose works a formal trial of heresy was begun in 1668.8

6. 7.

The work was actually written by Faustus Socinus (Rakow, Poland: Typis Alexii Rodecii, 1594). Amsterdam was the place of publication of the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum (ed. A. Wiszowaty and F. Kuyper. Irenopoli [i.e., Amsterdam]: 1660), a massive ten-volume compilation of the works of Faustus Socinus and his followers.

Appendix 4 Decree of the State of Frisia Against the PSSI The translation from Dutch into Latin is by Arnoldus, Dissertatiuncula [...], 1667, pp. 56-58. The Latin text is reprinted in Bordoli (1997, 419-421). Ordinum Frisiae Deputati. Omnibus hasce lecturis, visuris, auditurisque Salutem. Cum postremis hisce temporibus multifaria seges fanaticorurn hominum suppullulet, qui perniciosis admodum dogmatibus obstetricantur, eaque typis vulgare praesumant, ut varios errores spargendo Ecclesiam Christi infestent, adversum quos, quominus populus Dei seducatur, Christiani Magistratus est sollicite` attendere. Quare cu`m Nobis constaret, librum Latino jJjomate exaratum, sub titulo Philosophia S. Scripturae Interpres, S. Exercitatio paradoxa, qua veram Philosophiam infallibilem S. literas interpretandi normam esse apodicte` demonstratur, & discrepantes ab hac sententia expenduntur ac refelluntur, extare, Visum Nobis est, eundem librurn serio` interdicere; cum ut titulus ejus praefixus prodit, compluribus scateat positionibus blasphemis, quibus author, cujus nomen subticetur, quantum in se est, sacro-sanctum verbum Dei in dubium vocare nititur, atque adeo omnem religionis certitudinem evertere. Proinde omnibus in Provincia nostra Bibliopolis & Typographis strenue` mandamus, ne praedictum librum imprimant, aut imprimere faciant, aut alibi impressum in hanc Provinciam inferant, vaenum exponant vendantve; illis vero`, penes quos impraesentiarum reperitur, ut eum extemplo supprimant; mulctandi alia`s non tantudm librorurn confiscatione, sed & quinquaginta aureis Frisiacis Equitibus, distribuendis ex aequo inter loci Magistratum, pauperes, & accusatorem. Quo fine

PSSI

- 260 -

Meyer

omnibus etiam Magistratibus Praetoribus injungimus, non tantu`m, ut hoc Placitum nostrum locis solitis affigant & promulgent, sed etiam, ut vigili curaˆ ab immorigeris praedictam mulctam sine ulla procrastinatione aut dissimulatione exigere adnitantur. Actum in Collegio Ordd. Deputatt. 10. Novemb. 1666. W. Uma vidit. Ad mandatum Nobiliss. & Potent. DD. Depp. Ordd. G. Kutsch.

Appendix 5 Propositions Censured by the Curator of the University of Leiden 16 January 1676 The Latin text is reprinted in Bordoli (1997, 420-421). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Patribus Veteris Testamenti ante ultima tempora non fuisse collata vera & permanentia bona, ipsamque salutem non fuisse ipsis reapse patefactam. Non potuisse habere conscientiam tranquillam. Spiritum S. in ipsis non produxisse effectus Deo, ut Patre, dignos, nec ipsis, ut Filiis dignos. Obnoxios per omnem vitam fuisse imperio Diaboli & metui mortis. Solu`m decalogum fuisse foedus gratiae in Veteri Testamento, inscriptionem vero` legis in cordibus fidelium non esse inter bona Veteris Testamenti. In rebus fidei normam & mensuram veritatis esse claram & distinctam perceptionem. Scripturam loqui secundum erronea vulgi praejudicia. Omnipraesentiam Dei esse efficacissimam Dei voluntatem, qua omnia sustentat, & gubernat, explicandam ab operatione qua extra se aliquid producit. Angelos posse esse praesentes in spatiis dissitis, in iisque simul operari. Omnem Philosophiam esse religionis expertem, summumque hominis bonum esse animum suaˆ sorte contentum. Mundum ortum esse ex certis principiis, veluti seminibus.

PSSI 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

- 262 -

Meyer

Eum extensione infinitum esse, ita ut impossibile sit dari plures mundos. Animam hominis nil nisi cogitationem esse, eaˆque sublataˆ posse hominem vivere, & moveri. Nihil ad humanam naturam facere praeter cogitationem. Voluntatem hominis absolute` esse liberam, & indeterminatam, & aeque` infinitam esse ratione objectorum, ac est Dei voluntas. Deum posse fallare [sic], si velit. Habere nos facultatem, quaˆ cavere possumus ne unquam erremus. Errorem vero tantu`m esse in voluntate. De omnibus rebus esse dubitandum, etiam de Dei existentia, & ita dubitandum, ut habeantur pro falsis. Homines habere ideam adaequatam de Deo. Philosophiam esse S. Scripturae interpretem.

Appendix 6 Chronology 1536 1565 1579 1594 1600? 1602 1603 1609 1610 1614 1618 1619

1628 1629 1630

Calvin publishes the Institution of the Christian Religion. Beginning of the war of independence of the Spanish-Dutch region against Spain. The ‘‘Union of Utrecht’’ establishes the United Provinces. Publication of Socinus’ De Christo Servatore. The Espinosa family emigrates from Portugal to Nantes, and thence to Amsterdam. Foundation of the East India Company. Arminius and Gomar debate at Leiden on the questions of tolerance and freedom of the will. Foundation of the Bank of Amsterdam. Uytenbogaert, a disciple of Arminius and teacher of Oldenbarneveldt, publishes the Remonstrant Manifesto. H. de Groot begins work on the De Imperio Summarum Potestarum (published in 1647). The Thirty Years War begins. The Synod of Dordrecht condemns Arminianism and puts Oldenbarneveldt to death. The Collegiant sect is formed. Descartes is a soldier in the army of Maurice of Nassau. Descartes is living in Holland. 18 October: Lodewijk Meyer is baptised at the Old Church in Amsterdam. 4 November: Johannes Bouwmeester is born in Amsterdam.

PSSI 1632 1633 1636 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1645

1647

1648 1649 1650

- 264 -

Meyer

24 November: Birth of Baruch d’Espinosa in Amsterdam. Papal condemnation of Galileo, who is placed under house arrest. Descartes decides not to publish Le Monde. Carried clandestinely to Amsterdam, Galileo’s Discourse Concerning Two New Sciences is published by Elzevier. The founding of the Portuguese Synagogue of Amsterdam. Spinoza is registered as a student in the Hebrew school. Naude´, a ‘‘libertine’’ philosopher, publishes his Considerations Politiques sur les Coups d’Etat, a work inspired by Machiavelli. Beginning of the English civil war. Descartes’Meditationes de Prima Philosophia is published. Jansenius publishes Augustinus. Hobbes publishes De Cive. Milton publishes the Areopagitica, a manifesto for freedom of the press. Herbert of Cherbury publishes his De Religione Gentilium. Descartes’ Me´ditations Metaphysiques published in French translation. 20 March: The curator of the University of Leiden prohibits mention of the name of Descartes in theses and in disputations. The Peace of Munster. Definitive establishment of the United Provinces. Charles I of England is executed. 11 February: Death of Descartes. 6 November: A failed coup d’e´tat by William II of Orange. Jan de Witt becomes the Grand Pensioner

Meyer

1651

1653

1654

1655 1656

1657

1658

- 265 -

PSSI

of the Netherlands. Beginning of the Anglo-Dutch War. Cromwell institutes the Act of Navigation. Hobbes publishes the Leviathan. Meyer begins writing poetic verses. 30 March: Bouwmeester is enrolled in philosophy courses at the University of Leiden. Meyer oversees the publication of Alhardt Ko´k’s Radt Van Avondtuuren. A decree by the States General prohibits the publication and diffusion of Socianian works and ideas. End of the Anglo-Dutch War. Spinoza begins to meet with a group of ‘churchless Christians’ (Balling, Jelles, Rieuwertsz, Franciscus van den Enden) in Amsterdam. An edition of Hofman’s Nederlandtsche WoordenSchat (first edition, 1650) appears under Meyer’s editorship. 19 September: Meyer is enrolled as a student in philosophy at the University of Leiden. Meyer edits De Christlyke Gho´dt-ghe-leertheidt of Wendelinus. 27 July: Spinoza is banished from the Jewish community in Amsterdam. He begins the study of humanities, Latin, philosophy, and theatre at the school of the ex-Jesuit, Van den Enden. 6 October: Decree of the States of Holland and of Frisia prohibiting the teaching of Cartesianism. Meyer translates into Dutch the Medulla Theologica of Ames, and dedicates it to his teacher Senguerd. The play Philedonius of Franciscus van den Enden is produced in Amsterdam. Spinoza is still studying with Van den Enden, and may also be enrolled at the University of Leiden. Meyer publishes the comedy, De Looghenaar, which is produced in Amsterdam on 8 April.

PSSI

1659 1660

1661 1662

1663

- 266 -

Meyer

27 May: Bouwmeester receives a doctorate in medicine from the University of Leiden. 25 September: Meyer is enrolled in courses in medicine at Leiden. Spinoza begins work on the Tractatus De Intellectus Emendatione (unfinished). Adriaan Koerbagh receives a doctorate in medicine from the University of Leiden. Restoration of the Stuarts in England. Spinoza leaves Amsterdam and moves to Rijnsburg, where he is a familiar visitor among Collegiant circles. He begins work on the Korte Verhandeling. 19 March: Meyer receives a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Leiden. 20 March: Meyer receives a doctorate in medicine. Beginning of the reign of Louis XIV. 16 October: Meyer marries Constantia Caret at the Old Church. Founding of the Royal Society. Oldenburg is its joint-secretary, and Boyle and Newton are charter members. Spinoza completes the first part of the (tripartite) Ethica (De Deo). He begins work on the Principia Philosophiae Cartesianae and the Cogitata Metaphysica. Het Licht Op den Kandelaar is published anonymously in Amsterdam. Simon Joosten de Vries meets with Spinoza at a meeting of the ‘Spinozistic Circle’ in Amsterdam (Ep8). EP12 and EP12a from Spinoza to Meyer, the latter concerning the publication of the Principia. Spinoza is installed at Voorburg. He there publishes the Principia Philosophiae Cartesianae with the Cogitata Metaphysica as appendix.

Meyer

1664 1665

1666 1667 1668

1669

- 267 -

PSSI

31 July: Spinoza writes to Oldenburg and introduces Petrus Serrarius 3 August: Spinoza writes Ep15 to Meyer concerning Meyer’s editorship and preface to the Principia, which is published several months later. Beginning of the (second) Anglo-Dutch War. The new edition (revised and enlarged) of the Catechism of Rakow is published in Amsterdam (first Latin edition, 1609). De Iure Ecclesiasticorum is published in Amsterdam. 16 January: Spinoza’s Ep20 to Blyenbergh on the interpretation of Scripture. Spinoza makes several visits to Amsterdam, where he probably visits with Meyer during March and April.. 26 May: The new Amsterdam Theatre opens, with Meyer as its director. Spinoza completes the first drafts of parts II and III of the (tripartite) Ethica. He writes to Bouwmeester (Ep28). Meyer publishes the PSSI anonymously (Jan.-Feb). 10 July: Spinoza’s Ep37 to Bouwmeester. End of the Anglo-Dutch war. Meyer’s PSSI appears in a Dutch translation. Spinoza’s Ep40 to Jelles mentions Voss as a friend. Meyer publishes and produces in Amsterdam the tragedy, Ghulde Vlies. Adriaan Koerbagh’s Een Bloemhof is published. The author is condemned by ecclesiastical authorities, and imprisoned 19 July. The fifth edition, in three parts of Wordeschat, with Meyer listed as editor. 15 October: Adriaan Koerbagh dies in prison.

PSSI

1670

1671

1672

1673

1674

- 268 -

Meyer

26 October: Founding of the society Nil Volentibus Arduum. Meyer publishes the comedy, Het Spoockend Weeuwtje. Spinoza publishes (anonymously and in Latin) the Tractatus theologico-politicus: ecclesiastical condemnations follow. Posthumous publication of the Pense´es of Pascal. Spinoza is installed in the Hague, where he prevents (possibly at the suggestion of Jan de Witt) the appearance of the vernacular edition of the Tractatus theologico-politicus (see Ep44). Allusions to the PSSI in Ep52 from Van Velthuysen to Ostens. Louis XIV invades Holland. The French army occupies Utrecht (May). William II of Orange becomes stadthouder (July). The Amsterdam Theatre is closed. 20 August: Jan de Witt and his brother are massacred by a mob, probably inspired by Calvinist clergy. Spinoza declines the chair of philosophy at Heidelberg (Ep47, Ep48). Spinoza visits the military camp of the Prince de Conde´. Huygens publishes the Horologium Oscillatorium. Meyer composes a poem for Bouwmeester on the occasion of his forty-third birthday. 13 November: The French occupation of Utrecht ends. 19 July: The States of Holland publish a formal condemnation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus and ‘other heretical and atheistic writings’ including the PSSI and the works of Hobbes and the Socinians. Malebranche publishes the Recherche de la Ve´rite´,

Meyer

1675

1676

1677

1678 1680 1681

1685 1687 1688 1689

- 269 -

PSSI

which is accused of being of Spinozist inspiration. Spinoza completes and circulates the Ethica, but declines to publish it. He begins work on the Tractatus politicus. Spinoza writes to Schuller (Ep72) expressing his distrust of Leibniz. 16 January: The curator of the University of Leiden issues a new promulgation against Cartesianism. Spinoza’s Ep76 to Burgh. The Synod of The Hague orders an inquiry into the authorship of the Tractatus theologico-politicus. 21 February: Death of Spinoza. His friends edit and publish the Opera Posthuma and Nagelate Schriften, all of whose contents are condemned by the political authorities and Calvinists the following year. 28 December: The Amsterdam Theatre is reopened, with Bouwmeester and Pels as its directors. Meyer translates into Dutch Racine’s Andromaque. 22 October: Death of Bouwmeester. Bossuet writes the Politique Tire´e de l’Ecriture Sainte and also his Discours sur l’Histoire Universelle, and succeeds in preventing the publication of Richard Simon’s Critical History of the Old Testament (which draws its inspiration from the Tractatus theologico-politicus). 25 November: Meyer is listed in the registry of deceased persons in the Old Church in Amsterdam. Louis XIV revokes the Edict of Nantes. Newton publishes the first edition of the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. The ‘‘Glorious Revolution’’: William III becomes King of England. Locke publishes his Letter on Tolerance and his Essay on Civil Government.

Bibliography Works of Meyer [First edition] Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres. Exercitatio paradoxa in qua veram philosophiam infallibilem S. Literas interpretandi normam esse, apodictice demonstratur et discrepantes ab hac sententiae expenduntur ac refelluntur. Eleutheropoli, anno 1666. [Second edition] Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres, ab Authore longe emendatior. Published under the general title: Danielis Hensii pp, Operum historicum, editio secundi priori editione multo emendatior et auctior, accedunt quaedam hactenus inedita. Lugd. Batav. apud Isaacum Herculis, 1673. [Third edition] Spinoza, Benedictus de. Tractatus theologicopoliticus cui adjunctus est Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres, ab authore longe emendatior. (Amsterdam), 1674. [Fourth edition] Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres. Exercitatio paradoxa, tertium edita et appendice Iochimi Camerarii aucta; cum notis variis et praefatione D. Io. Sal. Semleri. Halle Magdebourg, 1776. De Philosophie d’uytleghster der H. Schrifture. Een wonderspreuckigh Tractaet. Vrystadt: 1667. [Dutch translation, translator and edition unknown.] La philosophie interpre`te de l’Ecriture sainte. Traduction, notes et pre´sentation par Jacqueline Lagre´e et Pierre-Franc¸ois Moreau. Paris: Intertextes, 1988. Inaugural Dissertation on Matter (1660). Translated by Samuel Shirley, with introduction and notes by S. Barbone and L. Rice. In Baruch Spinoza, The Principles of Cartesian Philosophy and Metaphysical Thoughts. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998; 144-159.

PSSI

- 272 -

Meyer

De materia ejusque affectionibus, motu et quiete. Amsterdam: Francisci Hackii, 1660. [Reprinted in Rene´e Bouveresse, Spinoza et Leibniz: L’ide´e d’un animisme universel. Paris: Vrin, 1992; 305-312.] Texts Acta der Particuliere Synoden van Zuid-Holland 1621-1700. IV d., 1657-1672, uitgegeven door W. P. C. Knuttel. ’sGravenhage 1912. Advisen Van sommige Theologanten Van Utrecht, Harderwijck, en ’s Her- togenhosch, over het boeck Van D. Ludovicus Wolzogen, Genaemt De Scripturarum Interprete [. . .]. Uytrecht, 1669 (Knuttel, Catalogus, 9797). Advijs Van de Theologische Faculteyt tot Leyden, Op het versoeck vande Staten van Hollant en West-Vrieslant, Gegeven; Rakende het Bewuste Boeck, genaemt den Uytlegger der H. Schrift [. . .]. 1669 (Knuttel, Catalogus, 9796). Allinga, Petrus. (1682). Fax Dissidi Extincta seu Exercitationes Pacificae ad nonnullas quaestiones problematicas, quae hodie in Belgio potissimum moventur. Amstelaedami, 1682. Amama, Sixten. (1628). Antibarbarus Biblicus in VI Libros distributus [. . .]. Amstelodami, 1628. Amyraut, Moise. (1662). E´
  `  , Sive de Ratione Pacis. Salmurii, 1662. Arminius, Jacobus. (1629). Opera Theologica [. . .]. Lugduni Batavorum, 1629. Arnoldus, Nicolaus. (1667). Dissertatiuncula, De Theologiae supra Philosophiam Dominio Cum brevibus stricturis ad Librurn sub titulo Philosophia Scripturae Interpres. Franekerae, 1667. Bayle, Pierre. (1697). Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, Rotterdam, 1697. (Second Edition, Rotterdam 1702).

Meyer

- 273 -

PSSI

Bayle, Pierre. (1727-1731). Oeuvres Diverses. 4 vols. The Hague, 1727-1731 (reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964-1968). Beeldthouwer [Beelthouwer], Jan Pieterszoon. (1667). Antwoordt, op het boeck genaemt; de Philosophie d’uytleghster der H. Schrifture, Voor de Lief hebbers des Waerheyts. Het tweede lidt des Antwoordts bestaet, dat de Boecken der Propheten, soo wel te verstaen zijn, als andre [sic] boecken: en mercktcyckens in haer hebben, dat sy door Godts last geschreven sijn. Amsterdam, 1667. Beeldthouwer, [Beelthouwer], Jan Pieterzoon. (1673). Antwoort op het Boek genaemt de Philosophie d’Uytleghster der H. Schrifture. In Amst., 16 Maart, 1673. Bekker, Balthasar. (1668). De Philosophia Cartesiana Admonitio Candida & sincera. Vesaliae, 1668. Bekker, Balthasar. (1693). De Friesche Godgeleerdheid van Balthasar Bekker. Begrijpende alle desselfs’ werken in Friesland uitgegeven, en ’t gene daar af geoordeeld, en daar over voorgevallen is. Waar van enige stukken nooit voor desen zijn gedrukt geweest. Amsterdam, 1693. Bellarmino [Bellarmine], Roberto Francesco Romolo. (1605). Disputationum [. . .] De Controversiis Christianae Fidei Adversus Huius temporis Haereticos [. . .]. 4 vols. Ingolstadii, 1605. Bellarmino [Bellarmine], Roberto Francesco Romolo. (1628). Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini Politiani et Societate Iesu S.R.E. Cardinalis de controversiis Christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, quatuor tomis comprehensarum. Editio ultima, ab ipso auctore locupletata, emendata, cum licentia ipsius evulgata, & in Germania post alias omnes editiones in lucem data. Coloniae Agrippinae: Sumptibus Antonii et Arnoldi Hieratorum Fratrum. 4 vols. in 1. Bellarmino [Bellarmine], Roberto Francesco Romolo. (1721). Disputationum. Editio prima neapolitana iuxta Venetam anno MDCCXXI, Xisto Riario Sforza. [reprint, Neapoli:

PSSI

- 274 -

Meyer

Apud Josephum Giuliano, 1856-1862.] 6 vols. [Vols. 1-4, De controversiis; vol. 5, In psalmos explanatio; vol. 6, De scriptoribus ecclestiacis.] Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum quos Unitarios vocant, Instructa Operibus Omnibus Fausti Socini Senensis [. . .], Johannis Crellii Franci, Jonae Slichtingii a` Bucowietz [. . .] exegeticis & Johannis Ludovici Wolzogenii Baronis Austriaci, Quae omnia simul juncta totius Novi Testamenti explicationem complectuntur. Irenopoli [=Amsterdam], post annum Domini 1656, 8 vols. Bordoli, R. (Editor). (1994). Jean-Maximilien Lucas, Johannes Ko¨hler (Colerus), Le Vite di Spinoza, seguite da alcum frammenti dalla Prefazione di Jarig lelles alle opere Postume. Prefazione di F. Mignini. In Appendice, La Biblioteca di Spinoza, Ed. P. Pozzi. Macerata, 1994. Brenius [de Breen], Daniel. (1666). Opera Theologica. Quorum Catalogum versa Pagina post Commonitionem, de tractatu D. Brenii, Operum Episcopii secundae parti inserto, exhibet. Amstelaedami, 1666. [Contains the Breves annotationes in Vetus & Novum Testamentum.] Broun, Joannes. (1670). Libri duo in priori, Wolzogium, in libellis duobus De interprete Scripturarum, causam orthodoxam prodidisse demonstratur : in posteriori, Lamberti Velthusii sententia Libertino-erastiana, in libello vernaculo de idololatria & superstitione, naper proposita, detegitur & confutatur : veritas quoque orthodoxa ab adversariorum, sive Libertinorum, sive Erastianorum, sive aliorum, exceptionibus vindicatur, & XXXII assertionibus, sententiae Velthusianae oppositis, illustratur ac confirmatur, quibus praefixa est praefatiuncula, in qua quaedam de Natura Ecclesiae visibilis & invisibilis, ut & Communionis Ecclesiae, separationem illegitimam jam in Belgio coeptam convellentia, breviter ac summatim proponuntur. Amstelodami: Apud Henricum ab Aquisgrano.

Meyer

- 275 -

PSSI

Bruyn, Johannes de. (1670). Defensio Doctrinae Cartesianae De Dubitatione Et Dubitandi Modo, Ut & de Idea Dei in nobis, deque existentiae ejus demonstratione ex ea Idea. Adversus objectiones Reineri Vogelsangii insertas Indignationi justae, &c. Amstelodami, 1670. Calvinus, lohannes. (1863-1900). Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia [. . .]. Ediderunt G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss. Brunsvigae. 1863-1900. 59 vols. Calvinus, lohannes. (1957). Institution de la Religion Chrestienne. Nouvellement mise en quatre livres, & distingue´ par chapitres en ordre & methode bien propre. Augmente´e aussi de tel accroissement qu’on la peut presque estimer un livre nouveau. [The first French edition, published in Geneva in 1560, critical edition with introduction, notes, and variant readings by J.-D. Benoit]. 4 vols. Paris: 1957. Cappellus [Cappel], Ludovicus. (1624). Arcanum Punctuationis Revelatum, Sive [. . .] Diatriba, in lucem edita a Thoma Erpenio. Lugduni Batavorum, 1624. Cappellus [Cappel], Ludovicus. (1650). Critica Sacra [. . .]. Edita in lucent studio et opera Joannis Cappelli Auctoris filii. Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1650. Cartesius Vindicatus. Sive Divina Revelationis Auctoritas a Ratione independens, Asserta Ex Ratione pro Cartesio Contra Propositionem Franequeranam, De Divina Scripturarum Auctoritate, quae non aliunde (non nisi) ex Ratione adstrui possit, Trajecti ad Rhenum 1687. [Attributed to Gerard De Vries.] Catechism of Rakow: First Polish edition: Katechizm [. . .]. Rako´wie, 1605; First Latin edition: Catechesis Ecclesiarum [. . .]. Racoviae, 1609; Revised Latin edition: Catechesis Ecclesiarum Polonicarum, Unum Deum Patrem, illiusque Filium unigenitum, una cum Spirito Sancto ex S. Scriptura confitentium, anno Christi 1609 in lucem primum emissa, & post per viros aliquot in eodem Regno correcta. Iterumque interpositis

PSSI

- 276 -

Meyer

compluribus annis a Johanne Crellio Franco ac nunc tandem a Jona Schlichtingio a Bucowiec recognita, ac dimidia amplius parte aucta, Irenopoll [=Amsterdam], post annum Domini 1659. Chamierus [Chamier], Daniel. (1626). Panstratiae Catholicae Sive Controversiarun De Religione Adversus Pontificios Corpus [. . .]. 4 vols. Genevae, 1626. Chamierus [Chamier], Daniel. (1858). Daniel Chamier: Journal de son voyage a` la cour de Henri IV en 1607 et sa biographie; publie´s pour la premie`re fois d’apre`s les manuscrits originaux avec de nombreux documents ine´dits. Re´dacte´ par Charles Read. Paris: Socie´te´ de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Franc¸ais. Cherbury, Herbert of [Baron Edward Herbert]. (1645). De veritate. Translated with an introduction by Meyrick H. Carre. Bristol: J. W. Arrowsmith, 1937. Cherbury, Herbert of [Baron Edward Herbert]. (1648a). De religione laici. Edited and translated with a critical discussion of his life and philosophy and a comprehensive bibliography of his works, by Harold R. Hutcheson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944. London: Oxford University Press, 1944. Cherbury, Herbert of [Baron Edward Herbert]. (1648b). Le salut du lai¨c, Edward Herbert de Cherbury : e´tude et traduction du De religione laici. Paris: Vrin, 1989. Clauberg, Johannes. (1654). Logica vetus et nova. Amsterdam: Blaeu. Clauberg, Johannes (1691) Logica vetus & nova [. . .]. (Amstelodami, 1654). In: Opera Omnia Philosophica Cura Joh. Theod. Schalbritchii, 11, Amstelodami, 1691; 765-936 (reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1968; 2 Vols.). Comenius, Jan Amos. (1659). Cartesius cum sua naturali Philosophia a Mechanicis eversus [Amsterodami, 1659].

Meyer

- 277 -

PSSI

In: Opera Omnia, Eds. J. Novakova and R. Rican. Academia Scientiarurn Bohemoslovaca, Prague, 1974 (vol. XII). Comenius, Johannes [Jan Komensky] (1667). Judicium de P. Serarii [sic] Responsione ad Exercitationem Paradoxam Anonymi Cujusdam, in Petrus Serrarius, Responsio ad exercitationem paradoxam anonymi cujusdam, Cartesianae sectae discipuli, qua philosophiam pro infallibili S. Literas interpretandi norma orbi Christiano obtrudit, non aliter ac olim Israelitae in deserto de conflato sibi aureo vitulo exclamantes. Amsterodami: Typis Christophori Cunradi. [Reprinted in Johannis Amos Comenii, Opera Omnia, vol. 18 (Prague: Academia, 1974), 61-82.] Constans [pseud.], Lucius Antistius. (1665). De Iure Ecclesiasticorum, Liber Singularis. Quo docetur: Quodcunque Divini Humanique Iuris Ecclesiasticis tribuitur, vel ipsi sibi Tribuunt, hoc, aut falso impieque illis Tribui, aut non aliunde, quam a suis, hoc est, ejus Reipublicae sive Civitatis Prodiis, in qua sunt constituti accepisse. Alethopoli [=Amsterdam], Apud Cajum Vaierium Pennatum, 1665. Cuperus, Franciscus [Frans Kuyperl. (1676). Arcana Atheismi Revelata, Philosophice & Paradoxe refutata, Examine Tractatus Theologico-Politici [. . .] Duobus Libris comprehensa: Priori ipse Tractatus examinatur atque refellitur. Altero ipsissima Atheorum, primo contra Sacram Scripturam, deinde contra religionem & Dei existentiam argumenta, explicantur atque enervantur, & Deum esse novis argumentis demonstrantur. Operi praefixa est Praefatio, ad operis intellectum penitus necessaria: & in calce additamenta & mutationes nonnullae, itidem necessariae. Roterodami, 1676. Cusanus, Nicolas. (1433). De Concordantia Catholica [1433]. In: Opera Omnia, Basileae, 1565 (vol. XIV). Modern edition and translation: Concordance Catholique, introduction et analyse de J. Doyon et J. Tchao, traduction par R. Galibois, revise´e par M. de Gandillac. Publications de

PSSI

- 278 -

Meyer

l’Universite´ de Sherbrooke, Centre d’e´tudes de la Renaissance (Que´bec), 1977. Danaeus [Daneau], Lambertus. (1583a). Opuscula Omnia Theologica. Genevae, 1583. Danaeus [Daneau], Lambertus. (1583b). Christianae Isagoges Ad Christianorum Theologorum Locus Communes Libri II [. . .]. Genevae, 1583. Dannhawerus [Dannhauer], Johannis Conradus. (1630). Idea Boni Interpretis & Malitiosi Calumniatoris [. . .]. Argentorati, 1630 (Second edition, 1642). Dannhawerus [Dannhauer], Johannis Conradus. (1651). Epitome rhetorica. Argentorati: Typis Johannis Philippi Mu¨lbi et Josiae Stedelii. Dannhawerus [Dannhauer], Johannis Conradus. (1654). Hermeneutica Sacra Sive Methodus exponandarum S. Literarum proposita & vindicata [. . .]. Argentorati, 1654. Deckherrus, Johannes. (1686). De Scriptis Adespotis, Pseudepigraphis et Suppositiis Coniecturae. Cum Additionibus Variorum, editio tertia altera parte auctior. Amstelaedami, 1686. De Vio [Cajetanus], Tommaso. (1540). Epistolae Pauli Et Aliorum Apostolorum. Ad grecam veritatem castigate, & per reverendissimum dominum Thomam de vio, Caietanum, Cardinalem santi Xisti. iuxta sensum literalem enarratae, Recens in lucem editae. Parisiis, 1540. Episcopius [Simon Bisschop]. (1678). Opera Theologica. Londini, 1678. (second edition: first edition, Amstelaedami, 1650). Erasmus. (1961). Opera Omnia [. . .]. Lugduni Batavorurn, 1703-1706. (Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1961), 10 vols. Erasmus. (1906-1947). Opus Epistolarum Erasmi. Oxford University Press, 1906-1947, 11 vols. Gassendi, Petrus [Pierre Gassend]. (1658). Opera Omnia. Lug-

Meyer

- 279 -

PSSI

duni Batavorum, 1658. Gomarus, Franz. (1644). Opera Theologica Omnia. 3 vols. Amstelodami, 1644. Grotius, Hugo. (1625). De Jure Belli Ac Pacis Libri Tres. In quibus ius naturae & Gentium: item iuris publici praecipua explicantur. Parisiis, 1625. Heereboord, Adrianus. (1665). Meletemata Philosophica, in quibus, Pleraeque res Metaphysicae ventilantur, tota Ethica [. . .] explicatur, universa Physica per Theoremata & Commentarios exponitur, summa rerum Logicarum per Disputationes traditur. Editio ultima, prioribus multo emendatur; cui praeter sexaginta tres Ethicas atque aliquot Miscellaneas disputationes, Accedunt Philosophia Naturalis cum novis commentariis & pneumatica. Amstelodami, 1665. Heidanus [van der Heyden], Abraham. (1659). Fasciculus Disputationum Theologicarum De Socinianismo [. . .]. Authore et Praeside A. Heidano. Lugduni-Batavorum, 1659. Heidanus [van der Heyden], Abraham. (1672). Oratio De Componenda inter dissidentes Christianos aliquali Pace & Concordia; & de via, & mediis huic conciliandae vel accomodatis, vel minus aptis, aut etiam adversis. Praecipue mutua Tolerantia, ad partes vocatur, & examini submittitur. Habita in Auditorio Theologico, cum Rectoratum deponeret 8 Februari 1672. Lugduni-Batavorum, 1672. Heidanus [van der Heyden], Abraham. (1678). Consideratien, over Eenige Saecken onlanghs voorgevallen in de Universiteyt binnen Leyden, den tweeden druck verbetert. Leyden, 1676. [Latin version:: Considerationes ad res quasdam nuper gestas in Academis Lugduno-Batava. Hamburgi, 1678.] Hoornbee[c]k, Johannes. Socinianismi Confutati Libri Ill. [I: Ultrajecti, 1650; II: Amstelodami, 1662; III: Amstelodami, 1664.]

PSSI

- 280 -

Meyer

Jelles, Jarig. (1684). Belydenisse Des Algemeenen En Christelyken Geloofs, Vervattet In een Brief aan N.N. [. . .]. Amstelodami, 1684. Keckermann, Bartholomaeus. (1614). Opera Omnia [. . .]. 3 vols. Genevae, 1614. Koelmannus [Koelman], Jacobus. (1669). Examen libelli Ludovici Wolzogen de Scripturarum Interprete [. . .]. Medioburgi, 1669. Koelmannus (Koelman), Jacobus. (1692). Het Vergift Van De Cartesiaansche Philosophie grondig ontdekt en meest historische wijze, uit de Schriften van Des Cartes zelfs, en van andere Schrijvers, zo voor als tegen hem, getrouwelijk aangeweezen. Opgestelt tot een grondt van de Wederlegging van Bekkers Betooverde Wereldt. Amsterdam, 1692. Koerbagh, Adriaan. (1664). ’t Nieuw Woorden-Boek Der Regten, Ofte een Vertaalinge en Uytlegginge Van Meest alle de Latijnse woorden, en wijse van spreeken, in alle Regten en Regtsgeleerders Boeken en Schriften gebruykelijk: Ten deele uyt de Schriften van de Heeren H. en W. de Groot, en andere versamelt en by een gestelt, Ende Ten deele nu eerst uyt het Latijn in ’t Nederduyts tot dienst en nut van alle Practisijns en Lief hebbers overgeset. Amstelredam [sic], 1664. Koerbagh, Adriaan. (1668a). Een Bloemhof van allerley lieflijkheyd sonder verdriet Geplant door Vreederijk Waarmond, ondersoeker der waarheyd, Tot nut en dienst van al die geen die der nut en dienst uyt trekken wil [. . .] Gedaen door Mr. Adr. Koerhagh, regtsgel. en geneesmr. Amstelodami, 1668. Koerbagh, Adriaan. (1668b). Een Ligt Schijnende in Duystere Plaatsen. Om te verligten de voornaamste saaken der Gods-geleertheyd en Gods-dienst, Ontsteeken door Vreederijk Waarmond ondersoeker der Waarheyd [. . .]. Amstelodami, 1668.

Meyer

- 281 -

PSSI

Kortholt, Christian. (1700). De Tribus Impostoribus Magnis Liber. Hamburgi, 1700. [Second edition; first edition, 1680.] Leydekker, Melchior. (1677). Fax Veritatis, Seu Exercitationes ad nonnullas Controversias Quae hodie in Belgio potissimum moventur, multa ex parte Theologico-Philosophicae. Lugduni-Batavorum, 1677. Leydekker, Melchior. (1692a). Dissertatio Historico-Theologica De Vulgato nuper Bekkeri Volumine et Scripturaruin Authoritate ac Veritate Pro Christiana Religione Apologetica. Ultrajecti, 1692. Leydekker, Melchior. (1692b). De Goddelykheid en Waarheid der H. Schriften, te gelijk van de Christelijcke Godsdienst, verdeedigd de Betooverde Weereld van Balthazar Bekker. Utrecht, s.d. [april, 1692.] Limburgius [van Limborch], Philippus. (1686). Theologia Christiana. Amstelaedami, 1686. Luther, Martin. (1906-1995). Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar, 1906-1995. 66 vols. Luther, Martin. (1986-1995). Sa¨mtliche Schriften. Herausgegeben von Johann Georg Walch (1693-1775). 25 vols. Gross Desingen: Verlag der Lutherischen Buchhandlung H. Harms. [Reprint, original edition, St. Louis (Mo.): Concordia Publishing House, 1890-1910.] [Latin works translated into German.] Magnus, Valerianus. (1628). De Acatholicorum Credendi Regula Judicium [. . .]. Pragae, 1628. Maresius, Samuel. (1649). Theologus Paradoxus Retectus et Refutatus [. . .]. Groningae, 1649. [Second edition, 1658.] Maresius, Samuel. (1667). Disputationes Theologicae Refutatoriae Libelli De Philosophia Interprete Scripturae, ac opposita Prologo Anonymi. Quam [. . .] Sub Clypeo [. . .]

PSSI

- 282 -

Meyer

Samuelis Maresii Publice Disquisitioni subjicit Jacobus Berchuis. Ad diem 19. Februarii, horis locoque solitis. Groningae, 1667. Maresius, Samuel. (1670). De Abusu Philosophiae Cartesianae, Surrepente & Vitando in rebus Theologicis & fidei, Dissertatio Theologica. Groningae, 1670. Maresius, Samuel. (1672). Tractatus Brevis de afflictu statu Studii Theologici In Foederato Belgio, Et commoda illius restituendi ratione: Aliquot diatribis expositus ab Authore in Auditorio Theologico, cum post solutam obsidionem Groninganam rediret ad Lectiones publicas [. . .]. Groningae, 1672. Maresius, Samuel. (1673). Systema Theologicum. Groningae, 1673. Mastricht, Petrus van. (1677). Novitatum Cartesianarum Gangraena [. . .] Seu Theologia Cartesiana Detecta. Amstelodami, 1677. Melanchthon, Philippus (1834-1860) Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia. Edidit C. G. Bretschneider, vols. I-XV. Post edidit H. E. Bindseil, vols. XVI-XXVIII. 28 vols. Halis Saxonum-Brunsvigae, 1834-1860. Mersenne, Marin. (1623). Quaestiones in Genesim [. . .]. Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1623. Mornay, Philippe du Plessis. (1582). De la Ve´rite´ de la Religion Chrestienne [. . .]. Paris, 1582 [Second edition: first edition, Anvers 1581.] Musculus [Meusell], Wolfgang. (1573a). Loci Communes Sacrae Theologiae. Basileae, 1573. [Last edition: Basileae 1599.] Musculus [Meusel], Wolfgang. (1573b). In Davidis Psalterium Sacrosanctum Commentarii. Basileae, 1573. Nethenus, Matthias. (1675). Tractatus De Interpretatione Scripturae, sive Judicium De Libro Ludovici Wolzogii antehac Ultrajecti nunc Amsterdami Ecclesiae Gallo-Belgicae Pastoris et Historiae Ecclesiasticae Professoris, Continens Primo, Orthodoxam De Interprete et Interpretatione Scripturae doctrinam; Secundo Ludovici Wolzogii ab ea exorbi-

Meyer

- 283 -

PSSI

tationes; et Tertio, alios quosdam generales naevos libri ipsius [. . .]. Herbomae, 1675. Nil Volentibus Arduum: Documenten en Bronnen. Een uitgave van Balthazar Huydecopers aantekeningen uit de originele notulen van het genootschap, voorzien van een inleiding, commentaar en een lijst van N.V.A. drukken door B.P.M. Utrecht: Dongelmans, 1982. Pellikan, Conrad [Pellican, Conrad Ku¨rgner]. (1532). Commentaria Bibliorum [. . .]. Tiguri, 1532. Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni. (1557). Opera Omnia. 2 vols. Basil, 1557. [reprint, Hildesheim:Georg Olms, 1969.] Piscator, John: see Petrus Ramus below. Polanus [Polan von Polandorff], Amandus. (1617). Syntagma Theologiae Christianae [. . .]. Genevae, 1617. Raad, Georgius de. (1670). Exercitatio de Scripturarum Interprete in qua adstruitur gloria Dei Spiritus Sancti interpretis Scripturarum proprie dicti [. . .]. Vlissingae, 1670. Ramus, Petrus. (1593-1595). P. Rami Scholae in tres primas liberales artes. 3 vols (I: Grammaticae; II: Rhetroicae quae olim quaestiones Brutinae; III: Dialecticae quae olim Animadversiones in Organum Aristotelis). Recens emendatae per Joan. Piscatorum Argentinensem. Francofurti: Apud Andreae Wecheli heredes. Ravanellus, Petrus. (1650-1685). Bibliotheca Sacra sive Thesaurus Scripturae Canonicae Amplissimus [. . .]. 8 vols. Genevae, 1660-1663. Rivet, Andre´. (1627). Isagoge Seu Introductio Generalis ad Scripturain Sacram Veteris et Novi Testamenti. LugduniBatavorum, 1627. Sandius junior, Christophorus. (1684). Bibliotheca Antitrinitaria. Freistadii, 1684. Schotanus, Christianus. (1667). Triumphi Sacrae Scripturae Adversus infideles, philosophos, atheos, Epicureos &c. Libri Quinque [. . .]. Franekerae, 1667.

PSSI

- 284 -

Meyer

Serarius [Serrarius, Pierre Serrurier], Petrus (1667a). Responsio ad exercitationem paradoxam anonymi cujusdam, Cartesianae sectae discipuli, qua philosophiam pro infallibili S. Literas interpretandi norma orbi Christiano obtrudit, non aliter ac olim Israelitae in deserto de conflato sibi aureo vitulo exclamantes, ... Amsterodami: Typis Christophori Cunradi. Serarius [Serrarius, Pierre Serrurier], Petrus (1667b). Antwoort op Een Wonderspreuckigh Tractaet eenes onbenaemden Discipels van Renatus des Cartes. Amsterodami: Typis Christophori Cunradi. Servius. (1946). Servianorum in Vergilii carmina commentariorum. Editionis Harvardrianae volumen Edwardus Kennard Rand (et alii) confecerunt. Lancaster (Pa.): Societatis Philologicae Americanae cura et impensis. Severus, Suplicius. (1866). Sulpicii Severi libri qui supersunt. Recensuit et commentario critico instruxit Carolus Halm. Vindobonae: Apud C. Geroldi filium. [vol. 1, Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum.] Stegman senior, Joachim. (1633). Brevis Disquisitio, An & quomodo vulgo dicti Evangelici Pontificios, ac nominatim Val. Magni de Acatholicorum credendi regula judicium solide atque evidenter refutaee queant. Eleutheropoli [=Amsterdam], 1633. Stegman senior, Joachim. (1644). De judice et Norma Controversiarum Fideii Libri II. Eleutheropoli [=Amsterdam], 1644. Velthuysen, Lambert van. (1668). Dissertatio De Usu Rationis In Rebus Theologicis, Et praesertim in interpretatione S. Scripturae. In: Opera Ommia. Ante quidem separatim, tam Belgice quam Latine nunc vero conjunctim Latine edita. 2 vols. Roterodami, 1680; I, 97-159. Vermigli, Peter Martyr [Vermiglius]. (1999). Life, Letters, and Sermons. Tr. John Patrick Donnelly, S.J. [The Peter Martyr

Meyer

- 285 -

PSSI

Library Volume Five, Vol. XLII, ‘‘Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies.’’] Kirksville (Missouri): Peter Martyr Library. Vincent of Lerins [Leringius]. (1886). Vincentius Lirinensis for the antiquity and universality of the Catholic faith against the profane novelties of all heretics. Oxford: Parker. [Translator not given. Latin facing English translation.] Vincent of Lerins [Leringius]. (1968). Commonitorium pro catholicae fidei antiquitate et universitate adversus profanas omnium haereticorum novitates. Herausgegeben v. Adolf Julicher. Franfurt: Minerva. Vogelsangus, Reinerus. (1669). Contra libellum cui Titulus Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres, Excercitatio paradoxa, Indignatio Justa, Continens varias digressiones; de Dubitatione Cartesiana, de Ethica Cartesii, de Argumentis Historicis pro Divinitate Sacrae Scripturae, de Sensu Sanctae Scripturae, de Veritate Logica & Ethica, de Clara distinctaque perceptione, de Naturalibus argumentis pro Mysterio Trinitatis, de usu Philosophiae seu rationis in Theologia, de Illuminatione Spiritus Sancti, &c., Accessit Specimen conflictus eundem inter Auctorem & Celeberrimum Virum, D. Johannem de Bruin [. . .] super Dubitatione Cartesiana. Nec non Diatribe de Idea Dei secundum Cartesium. Item Corolloria Irenica de Sabbatho. Ultrajecti, 1669. Whitakerus [Whitaker], Guilielmus. (1610). Opera Theologica [. . .]. Genevae, 1610. Wilson, John. (1678). The Scriptures genuine interpreter asserted, or, A discourse concerning the right interpretation of Scripture, wherein a late Exercitation, intituled, Philosophia S. scripturae interpres, is examin’d, and the Protestant doctrine in that point vindicated: with some reflections on another discourse of L. W. written in answer to the said exercitation : to which is added, An appendix concerning internal illumination, and other operations of the Holy Spirit upon the soul of man, justifying the doctrine of

PSSI

- 286 -

Meyer

Protestants, and the practice of serious Christians, against the charge of enthusiasim, and other unjust criminations. London: T. N. for R. Boulter. Wittichius, Christophorus. (1683). Theologia Pacifica [. . .]. Lugduni-Batavorum, 1683. Wolzogen, Johann Ludwig [1599-1661] (1668). De Scripturarum interprete adversus exercitatorem paradoxum libri duo. Ultrajecti: J. Ribbium. Zanchius, Girolamo. (1773). The doctrine of absolute predestination stated and asserted: with a preliminary discourse on the divine attributes. Translated, in great measure, from the Latin of Jerom Zanchius. By Augustus Toplady, A.B. Vicar of Broad Hembury, Devon; and Chaplain to the Right Hon. Lord Holland. New-York: Hodge and Shober. Zwingli, Ulrich. (1905). Samtliche Werke. Unter Mitwirkung des Zwingli-Vereins in Zu¨rich. Herausgegeben von Emil Egli [et al.]. 14 vols. [Series Corpus reformatorum, vols. 88-101.] Leipzig, Heinsius. Zwingli, Ulrich. (1989). De la parole de Dieu, introduction et traduction par Jaques Courvoisier. Paris : Beauchesne. Secondary Literature Armogathe, Jean Robert. (1977). Theologia cartesiana: l’explication physique de l’Eucharistie chez Descartes et dom Desgabets. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Bakel, H. A. van. (1915). ‘‘Dr. Lodewijk Meyer,’’ De Wachter. Sternmen Uit De Evangelisch-Luthersche Kerk 18 (October, 1915), 145-153. Belinfante, J. C. E.; Kingma, J.; Offenberg, A. K., ed. (1977). Spinoza: Troisie`me centenaire de la mort du philosophe. Paris: Institut Ne´erlandais. Berg, J. van den. (1977). ‘‘Quaker and Chiliast: The ‘Contrary Thoughts’ of William Ames and Petrus Serrarius,’’ in R.

Meyer

- 287 -

PSSI

B. Knox, ed., Reformation, Conformity, and Dissent: Essays in Honor of Geoffrey Nuttal (London: Epworth Press), 180-198. Bonola, G. (1988). ‘‘La proposta ermeneutica radicale di Lodewijk Meijer,’’ Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 5 (1988), 261-296. Bonola, G. (1990). ‘‘Un filo scoperto. Tracce dell’attenzione dell’ ‘Aufkla¨rung’ teologica per il razionalismo radicale (J.S. Semler — L. Meijer),’’ Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 7 (1990), 157-185. Bordoli, R. (1993). ‘‘Filosojia e teologia in Meyer e in Spinoza,’’ Il Pensiero 33 (1993), 149-176. Bordoli, R. (1997). Ragione e scrittura tra Descartes e Spinoza: Saggio sulla ‘Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres’ du Lodewijk Meyer e sulla sua recenzione. Milano: Franco Angeli. Bossers, A. (1986). ‘‘Nil volentibus arduum: Meyer en Koerbagh,’’ in: Opstellen over Koninklijke Bibliotheek en andere studies (Hilversum, 1986), 374-383. Dijksterhuis, E. J., ed. (1950). Descartes et le carte´sianisme hollandais. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Dunin-Borkowski, Stanislaus von, S.J. (1933). Der Junge De Spinoza. Mu¨nster im Westen: Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung. Fix, Andrew. (1984). Prophecy and Reason: The Dutch Collegiants in the Early Enlightenment, 1650-1700. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Indiana. Giglioni, G., & Tagliavini, P. (1991a). L. Meyer, Philosophia S. Scripturae Interpres (ed. 1673): Index formarum. Dipartimento di Filosofia dell’Universita` di Macerata, 1991. Giglioni, G., & Tagliavini, P. (1991b). L. Meyer, Disputatio philosophica inauguralis de materia, ejusque affectibus motu et quiete (1660), Index formarum. Dipartimento di Filosofia dell’Universita` di Macerata, 1991.

PSSI

- 288 -

Meyer

Giglioni, G., & Tagliavini, P. (1991c). L. Meyer, Praefatio a: B. Spinoza, R. DesCartes Principiorum Philosophiae Pars I et 11 (1663), Index formarum. Dipartimento di Filosofia dell’Universita` di Macerata, 1991. Gouhier, Henri Gaston. (1978). Carte´sianisme et augustinisme au XVIIie`me sie`cle. Paris: Vrin. Iofrida, M. (1991). ‘‘Linguaggio e verita` in Lodewijk Meyer (1629-1681).’’ In P. Cristofolini (Ed.), L’He´re´sie spinoziste: la discussion sur le Tractatus Theologicopoliticus, 1670-1677, et la re´ception imme´diate du spinozisme (pp. 25-35). Amsterdam: APA-Holland University Press. Jongeneelen, Gerrit H. (1991). ‘‘La philosophie politique d’Adriaan Koerbagh,’’ Cahiers Spinoza 6, 247-267. Kingma, Jelle. (1977). ‘‘Spinoza et les colle´giants,’’ in J. C. E. Belinfante et al., ed., Spinoza: Troisie`me centenaire de la mort du philosophe (Paris: Institut Ne´erlandais), 33f. Klever, W. (1988). ‘‘De spinozistische prediking van Pieter Balling,’’ Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 14, 55-85. Klever, W. (1991a). ‘‘Lodewijk Meyer’s Ethics,’’ Studia Spinozana 7, 241-260. Klever, W. (1991b). ‘‘Schrift en rede, of: Over een vermeende tegenstelling tussen Spinoza en Meyer,’’ Nederlands theologisch Tijdschrift 44, 223-241. Klever, W. (1996). ‘‘Actual Infinity: A note on the Crescas-passus in Spinoza’s Letter (12) to Lodewijg Meijer,’’ Studia Spinozana 10 (1994), 111-120. Kolakowski, Leszek. (1969). Chre´tiens sans e´glise: La conscience religieuse et le lien confessionel au XVIIie`me sie`cle. Traduit du polonais par Anna Posner. Paris: Gallimard. Lagre´e, J. (1987). ‘‘L. Meyer et la Philosophia S. Scripturae Interpres: Projet carte´sien, horizon spinoziste,’’ Revue des Sciences philosophiques et The´ologiques 71 (1987), 31-43.

Meyer

- 289 -

PSSI

Lagre´e, J. (1988). ‘‘Sens et Ve´rite´: Philosophie et the´ologie chez L. Meyer et Spinoza,’’ Studia Spinozana 4, 75-92. Leendertz, W. P. (1877). ‘‘Adriaan Koerbagh,’’ De Navorscher 26, 489-500; 537-549. McGahan, Thomas. (1976). Cartesianism in the Netherlands, 1639-1676. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of Pennsylvania. [See esp. pp. 326-329.] Meinsma, K. O. (1983). Spinoza et son cercle, traduit du ne´erlandais par S. Roosenburg, appendices latins et allemands traduits par J.-P. Osier. Paris: Vrin. Menzel, Adolf. (1902). ‘‘Spinoza und die Collegianten,’’ Archiv fu¨r Geschichte der Philosophie 15, 277-298. Moerkeken, P. H. van. (1948). ‘‘Adriaan Koerbagh, een strijder voor het vrije denken,’’ in De Vrije Bladen. Amsterdam: G. A. van Oorschot. Moreau, P.-F. (1992). ‘‘Louis Meyer et l’Interpres,’’ Revue des Sciences philosophiques et The´ologiques 76 (1992), 73-81. Niftrik, G. C. (1962). Spinoza en de sectariers van zijn tijd. Leiden: Brill. [Mededelingen vanwege het Spinozahuis, 18.] Offenberg, A. K. (1977). ‘‘Letter from Spinoza to Lodewijk Meyer, 26 July 1663.’’ In S. Hessing (Ed.), Speculum Spinozanum: 1677-1977 (pp. 426-435). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Okkema, J. C. (1972). Inventaris van de archieven van de remonstrants-geformeerde gemeente te Rotterdam. Gemeentelijke Archiefdienst Rotterdam. Popkin, Richard H. (1984a). ‘‘Spinoza’s Relations with the Quakers in Amsterdam,’’ Quaker History 73, 14-28. Popkin, Richard H. (1984b). ‘‘Spinoza and the Millenarians,’’ Znanim (History Quarterly of Tel Aviv University) 1984, 54-64. [In Hebrew.] Rice, Lee C. (1999). ‘‘Spinoza’s Account of Miracles,’’ in Piety, Peace, and the Freedom to Philosophize (ed. Paul Bagley); 25-44. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

PSSI

- 290 -

Meyer

Rice, Lee C. (2001). ‘‘Meyer as Precursor to Spinoza on the Interpretation of Scripture,’’ Philosophy & Theology 13 #1 (2001), 159-180. [This entire issue, co-edited by Heidi Ravven and Lee Rice, is devoted to Spinoza’s scriptural hermeneutics.] Riedl, John, et alii, ed. (1940). A Catalogue of Renaissance Philosophers. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. Scholder, Klaus. (1966). Ursprung und Probleme der Bibelkritik im 17. Jahrhundert : Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der historisch-kritischen Theologie. Mu¨nchen: Kaiser. Scholder, Klaus. (1990). The Birth of Modern Critical Theology: Origins and Problems of Biblical Criticism in the Seventeenth Century. Tr. John Bowden. London: SCM Press. Skinner, Charles B., Kessler, Eckhard, & Kraye, Jill, ed. (1988). The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Suchtelen, G. van. (1987). ‘‘Nil Volentibus Arduum. Les amis du Spinoza au travail,’’ Studia Spinozana 3 (1987), 391-405. Tak, W. G. van der. (1921). ‘‘De Ludovico Meyer,’’ Chronicon Spinozanum 1 (1921), 91-100. Thijssen-Schoute, C. L. (1950). ‘‘Le carte´sianisme aux PaysBas,’’ in E. J. Dijksterhuis, ed., Descartes et le carte´sianisme hollandais (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1950), 183-260. Thijssen-Schoute, C. L. (1954a). ‘‘L. Meyer en diens verhouding tot Descartes en Spinoza,’’ Leiden, 1954. Reprinted in: C.L. Thijssen-Schoute, Uit tie Republiek der Letteren. Elf Studie¨n op het Gebied der Ideeingeschiedenis van tie Gouden Eeuw, ’s-Gravenhage, 1967; 173-194. Thijssen-Schoute, C. L. (1954b). Lodewijk Meyer en diens verhouding tot Descartes en Spinoza. Leiden: Brill. Thijssen-Schoute, C. L. (1967). ‘‘Lodewijk Meyer en diens verhouding tot Descartes en Spinoza,’’ Uit de Republiek der Letteren 1967, 173-196.

Meyer

- 291 -

PSSI

Vandenbossche, Hubert. (1978a). Adriaan Koerbagh en Spinoza. Leiden: Brill. [Mededelingen vanwege het Spinozahuis, 39.] Vandenbossche, Hubert. (1978b). Quelques ide´es politiques de Koerbagh,’’ Tojdschrift voor de Studie van de Verlichting 6, 223-240. Vandenbossche, Hubert. (1979a). ‘‘Le spinozisme d’Adriaan Koerbagh: une premie`re analyse,’’ Bulletin de l’Association des Amis de Spinoza 1, 15-36. Vandenbossche, Hubert. (1979b). Woordenboek van Belgische en Nederlandse vrijdenkers. Deel 1-2. Bruxelles; Vrije Universiteit, Centrum voor de Studie van de Verlichting, 1979-1982. [Band 1, 1979: ‘‘Adriaan en Jan Koerbagh,’’ 167-192.] Verbeek, Theo. (1992). Descartes and the Dutch: Early Reactions to Cartesian Philosophy, 1637-1650. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. Wall, Ernestine D. E. van der. (1984-85). ‘‘Petrus Serrarius (1600-1669) et l’interpre´tation de l’Ecriture,’’ Cahiers Spinoza 5, 187-217. Walther, M. (1998). ‘‘Biblische Hermeneutik und historische Erkla¨rung,’’ Studia Spinozana 11, 227-300. Watson, Richard A. (1966). The Downfall of Cartesianism, 1673-1712. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Watson, Richard A. (1987). The Breakdown of Cartesian Metaphysics. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.