De Moor I:21: Natural and Revealed Theology Compared and Contrasted

Baruch Spinoza

Our AUTHOR briefly in § 21 explains Natural Theology’s Agreement with, and Difference from, Revealed Theology; as the former is to be held, both against Baruch Spinoza, whose theses these are, Tractatu Theologico-Politico, chapter XV, “1.  Neither is Theology ancillary to reason, nor reason to Theology.  2.  Scripture does not teach philosophical matters, but piety alone; and all things that are contained in it are accommodated to the capacity and preconceived opinions of the vulgar.  So that he who desires to accommodate it to Philosophy, ascribes to the Prophets many things that they did not ponder through dreams, and interprets their mind incorrectly.  Again, he who on the other hand makes reason and Philosophy a handmaid to Theology, is constrained to admit the the ancient common people’s prejudices as divine things.”  Now, in chapters VII and XIV he had already written:  “Between faith or Theology and Philosophy there is no commerce and no affinity, of which no one is able to be ignorant that knows both the scope and the foundation of these two faculties, which evidently differ by the space of the whole heavens.  For the scope of Philosophy is nothing but truth; but the scope of Faith is nothing but obedience and piety.  So that faith concedes to everyone the greatest liberty to philosophize, so that whatever he wills he is able to think concering whatever things without sin.”  And against the less congruous expressions of those that smack of Descartes.  That is, to these belonged the theses defended at Leiden in 1671, “That no prerogative is able to belong to Faith above Philosophy.  That some maintain that Philosophy is Christian, no less against reason, than if they should call it Mohammadan.  That All Philosophy is free from religion and completely Pagan,” with SPANHEIM[1] relating them in an Epistola de novissimis in Belgio dissidiis, page 61:  following this, on January 16, 1676, the Curators of Leiden University ruled that this thesis, among others, was to be proscribed, that All Philosophy is free from Religion:  which thesis of the Most Illustrious Craanen,[2] derived from a companion thesis, “that Philosophy and Faith differ by the space of the whole heavens, to such an extent that the one is not able to be said to be ancillary to the other without absurdity;” in what manner HEIDANUS attempts to excuse this, see in his Considerationibus, etc., pages 87-89.  Those maxims are well known, by which RÖELLIUS advances Reason:  “Reason is to be held as an Oracle of God (even in the sinner), and whatever it teaches and dictates is to be received as the word of God Himself with a compliant and humble spirit.  The Philosopher with the whole authority of Scripture and the certainty of reason, always considering that truth is not contrary to truth, granting that he philosophizes securely, and otherwise sleeps at ease upon either ear,[3] etc.”:  see Judicium Ecclesiasticum laudatum, chapter II, § 3, 5.  Add what things out of WITTICH’S[4] Theologia Pacifica VAN MASTRICHT cites in his Gangræna Novitatum Cartesianarum, prior Section, chapter III, § 3, page 36, who, in chapter IV, § 1, 2, pages 50-52, relates that everywhere by the followers of Descartes Reason and Philosophy are established as certain, revealed, and divine, just like Theology, with their skillfully expressed words set forth.

Rene Descartes

DESCARTES himself was sometimes writing more prudently, Principiorum Philosophiæ, part I, article 76, “Now, besides these things, it is to be fixed in our memory as the highest rule, that those things that have been revealed to us by God are to be believed as the most certain of all:  and that, although perhaps the light of reason, as clear and evident as possible, appear to suggest to us something else, faith is to be applied to divine authority alone, rather than to our own judgment.”  Assertions of the opposite sort, which so much exalt human Reason even in fallen man, and equate its certitude to Revelation itself, are very dangerous in Theology, especially when with the Socinians there is dispute concerning the mysteries revealed to faith:  for they state that those are repugnant to the natural light of reason, which is as certain and evident as the light of revelation; and that hence the Sacred Scripture is to be explained in a sense of that sort, which is not repugnant to reason:  thus indeed OSTORODUS in his Institutionibus, chapter VI, page 43, “We speak the truth, which reason attests to us, and that as evidently and clearly as the sun shines at noonday, that it is impossible, and therefore false, that two natures are found in Christ.”  But, just as he that distinguishes well teaches well; so also our AUTHOR, by rightly distinguishing those things that are here able to come into controversy, sets all in order, and in a few words embraces all things which were prolixly rehearsed by the Most Illustrious VAN MASTRICHT, Gangræna Novitatum Cartesianarum, section I, chapters III, IV, pages 34-62, and the Most Illustrious LEYDEKKER, Face Veritatis, locus I, controversies IV, V, pages 15-23, whom I would wish to be consulted.

That is, Natural Theology is not repugnant to Revealed Theology in the Abstract, although Natural Theology is far less complete, and takes a position beneath Revealed Theology.  Nevertheless, both are Lights, Natural Theology the lesser, Revealed Theology the greater, which have their origin from the same Father of lights.[5]  Neither is natural truth able to be inconsistent with revealed truth, since truth harmonizes with truth, or truth does not contradict truth, as it is in the Axiom; indeed, truth is opposed, not to truth, but to falsehood, although the same truth often becomes known from diverse starting points:  thus, that God created the world, is evident by reason and by faith, in Philosophy from the light of nature, in Theology from the light of Scripture.  Consult Reverend STAPFER, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter X, § 75-84, pages 924-935.

But Natural Theology nowhere exists in the abstract, as, on the other hand, Revealed Theology, pure and clear of all defects, is able to be read in the Sacred Scriptures.  When, therefore, any dispute occurs between them, Natural Theology with all Philosophy ought to yield to Revealed Theology as more certain, seeing that human corruption easily mingles itself with Natural Theology.  Consult SPANHEMIUS, Elencho Controversiarum, Opera, tome 3, column 1001, number 12.

Hence, from antiquity, on account of that subjection, and the uses which Philosophy additionally furnishes for Theology, Philosophy was called the Handmaid of Theology, being compared with Hagar, as Revealed Theology with Sarah:[6]  and thus according to the doctrine of CLEMENT of Alexandria, Stromata, book I, pages 284, 285, “Let Philosophy submit itself to Theology, as Hagar to Sarah;[7] let it allow itself to be admonished and corrected; but if it be not subject, cast out the handmaid.”[8]  Consult LEYDEKKER, Face Veritatis, locus I, controversies V, § 12, page 20.  TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus I, question VI, § 8, not incorrectly states:  “If Theology appropriates certain things from other disciplines, it asks as a superior from inferiors, as a mistress, who freely makes use of her handmaids; and it does not so appropriate from other disciplines that it presupposes certain things, upon which it builds revelation.”

So that the concord between Reason and Revelation might be evident, and the subordination of the former to the latter, these cautions are able to be set down:

1.  What is true in Philosophy, Theology does not overturn, but receives it, either simply, or with some distinction and limitation:  for example, the Philosopher says, Man consists of a rational soul and a body:  Theology receives this simply.  The Philosopher says, From nothing comes nothing:  Theology says the same, but with a limitation added, From nothing nothing comes by a finite, natural agent.  The Philosopher says, A virgin does not bear:  Theology acknowledges the same, but with this limitation:  she does not bear by reason of intercourse with a man; but she is able to bear extraordinarily, by the miraculous power of God.

2.  Philosophy judges of matters under the purview of the senses, pronounces nothing of matters unknown one way or the other; for example, concerning these truths Philosophy does not judge, whether a man is true God; whether in one divine Essence there are three persons.

3.  What is true to the Philosopher is able to be false in Theology, because his Philosophy is able to be Pseudo-philosophy.  Thus, to some Philosophers of the Gentiles it was truth that the World is eternal; which is false Theologically, indeed even Philosophically.  For it was an error of those Philosophers, which ought to be imputed to Philosophy no further than the faults of artisans to their art.  But, as wine, good in itself, easily contracts something of corruption from the fetid vessel into which it is poured; so Reason and Natural Theology easily attract something of error from corrupt man, in whom it dwells.

4.  A truth in Philosophy is able to be false in Theology, and vice versa; through circumstance, because of a perverse application, or μετάβασιν εἰς ἄλλο γένος, a shifting unto another relation.  Thus substance is said to subsist in the accidents:  this is true concerning all created substance; but, if you think it of God, it is false.

For an illustration of those things, which have here been said, what things occur below in § 32, and in Chapter II, § 22 and 40, shall be helpful.

[1] That is, Frederic Spanheim the Younger.

[2] Theodor Craanen (1633-1688) was a German Mathematician and Physician.

[3] Terrence’s The Self-Tormenter, act 2, scene 2, line 101.  It is a proverbial expression denoting a resting in security.

[4] Christoph Wittich (1625-1687) was a Dutch Theologian and Cartesian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Duisburg (1653-1654), Nijmegen (1655-1671), and Leiden (1671-1687).

[5] See Genesis 1:16; James 1:17.

[6] Genesis 16:1.

[7] Genesis 16:9.

[8] Genesis 21:10.