De Moor X:5: The Efficient of Providence, Part 2

[A fundraising break-through: We have surged to about 40% of our goal! Thanks be to the Most High God!

We still have some ground to cover. If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

2.  We set God over against all Influx of the Stars, as if the care of Sublunary things were entrusted to these, which the Patrons of Mathematical Fate among the Gentiles maintained, urging the necessity of events and occurrences, which arise from the position or constellations of the stars, whereby not only mixed elements and bodies, but also the wills of men, are said to be impelled necessarily to their acts, concerning which Fate MANILIUS,[1] Astronomicis, book II, page 33, verses 4, 5:  …Fate is certain and inevitable; it is given (or enough) for matter to be compelled, but to compel belongs to the universe:  who believed that the World itself was also God:  see the Illustrious LULOFS, ad Buddeum de Atheismo, chapter I, § 5, page 9.  Among those that think that the care of the inferior World has been entrusted to the Stars, LELAND also mentions Plato, de Utilitate et Necessitate Revelationis Christi, part I, section II, chapter XVII, pages 481, 482, to whom he adds others, pages 485, 486.

To the Chaldeans and Genethliacs[2] among the Gentiles are added the Jews, making mention of their own מַזָּל/mazzal/Influx, with respect to the stars, as MAIMONIDES[3] has it in More Nevochim, part II, chapter 10, אֵן גדל׃ לו ואומר המזל אותו ומכה ברקיע מזל לו שאין מלמטה ועשב עשב לך, that is, There is not to thee any herb below that does not have a star (influence [מזל]) in the firmament, and that star (המזל) strikes it, and says to it, Grow.  As in chapter V he had already permitted:  Know also, that all Philosophers unanimously agree in this, that the Government of this lower world is executed by powers flowing into it from heaven, …and that the celestial spheres apprehend and know that which they rule and govern.  Which in turn is found written in our law, Deuteronomy 4:19; Genesis 1:18.  Hence they say טוֺב מַזָּל, mazzal tov, a good Influx, and רָע מַזָּל, mazzal ra, an evil Influx, signifying good or bad Fortune.  In which the more recent Jews imitate the erroneous opinion of the now ancient Pharisees, concerning which see the discourse of BULL,[4] Harmonia Apostolica, dissertation II, chapter XV, § 13-21, pages 98-102.  Unto this same error concerning Genethliacal Fate there also fell, among the ancient Heretics of the Christian name, the Bardesanites and the Priscillianists; see AUGUSTINE, de Hæresibus, chapter XXXV, in which he affirms that the Bardesanites were named after a certain Bardaisan, who ascribed the ways of men’s lives to Fate;[5] and chapter LXX, in which Augustine relates concerning the Priscillianists:[6]  They also maintain that men are bound to fatal Stars, and that our very body is composed according to the twelve Signs of heaven, just like those that are commonly called Mathematicians/Astrologers, placing Aries in the head, Taurus in the neck, Gemini in the shoulders, Cancer in the chest, and thence they, running through the remaining Signs by name, come to the feet, which they assign to Pisces, which is the last Sign named by Astrologers:[7]  compare DANÆUS on the passage cited.  But, as AUGUSTINE himself said concerning this Fate, tractate XXXVII on John, chapter VIII, opera, tome 3, part 2, column 402, Oh, if thine heart were not fatuum/foolish, thou wouldst not believe in fatum/fate!  Thus we do not consider it necessary to expend much labor in refuting this fatuo Fato, foolish Fate, after those things that we already observed in Chapter VIII, § 27, against Judicial Astrology.[8]

3.  We set God over against all Stoic Fate:  namely, that sort of Fate that our AUTHOR observes to be commonly attributed to the Stoics, which of course consists in the Necessary and Innate Nexus of Secondary Causes, to which God Himself is subject, and which CHRYSIPPUS,[9] in his book 4 of περὶ προνοίας in GELLIUS’ Attic Nights,[10] book VI, chapter II, thus describes:  Εἱμαρμένη εἶναι φυσική σύνταξις τῶν ὅλων ἐξ ἀϊδίου τῶν ἑτέρων τοῖς ἑτέροις ἐπακολουθούντων, καὶ μετὰ πολὺ μὲν οὖν ἀπαραβάτου οὔσης τῆς τοιαύτης συμπλοκῆς, that is, Fate is a certain natural order and connection of all things from eternity, with some things following other things, and with this sort of complication being inviolable; or, as GELLIUS himself more freely translates it, Fate is a certain eternal and unalterable series and chain of events, enveloping and involving itself through eternal orders of consequence, from which it is fitted and bound together.  Our AUTHOR adds in general, that he indicates that many Learned Men are not wanting, who interpret the opinion of the Stoics in a more positive way, as if by their Fate they did not understand the Infinite Nexus of Second Causes, and the eternal and natural series of these causes one upon another, through which is removed the Liberty of the human will and all Contingency, and which does not depend upon God, but upon which God Himself depends, so that God is not able, and has never been able, to do otherwise than the Nexus of these Causes bears with it:  but who thus imagine of the Stoics, as if by harsher expressions they were only indicating by their Fate, 1.  the certain Consequence of all things from the eternal Will of God, so that the Necessity of things is not intrinsic, but flowing from the hypothesis of the divine Will decreeing:  and, 2.  the consummate Immutability of the divine Counsel, so that God Himself is subject to this Fate, because by His own Perfections He cannot recede from that which He has once decreed.  Thus in a sound sense are able to be explained those things which SENECA has, de Providentia, chapter V:  The same necessity also binds the gods:  an irrevocable course carries human and divine things alike.  He Himself, the creator and governor of all things, did indeed write the fates, but then He follows them.  He always obeys; He once commanded.  And thus the Fate of the Stoics is assessed more leniently by LIPSIUS,[11] Physiologiæ Stoicorum, book I, dissertation XII, and VRIESIUS, Exercitationibus Rationalibus XXIV, § 1, where you read:  Much sounder (certainly than that of the Epicureans) in this respect, and fairer than the rest, were the tenets of the Stoics:  which doubtlessly would have long ago earned the applause of most, if their opinion concerning Fate (although incorrectly understood, in my judgement) had not hindered.  By DITTON,[12] in his Dissertatione de Materia non cogitante, chapter XV, pages 602-606, where he reviews the varying opinions of the ancient Philosophers concerning Providence; and also recently by WILLEM SLUITER, Minister of the Divine Word in Rouveen, in his Idea Theologiæ Stoicæ, chapter II, § 3, chapter VII, § 2; and also by GERRIT WILHELM VAN OOSTEN DE BRUYN, in his Dissertatione de Philosophia Gentile Doctrinæ moralis, pages 77-81:  with which authors compare ZIMMERMANNUS[13] in his dissertationibus duabus de Fato Stoicorum.  Others, on the other hand, examining more thoroughly the Theology of the Stoics, do not so much make them guilty of Manichæism before the Manicheans,[14] although WOLF[15] maintained this in his Manichæismo ante Manichæos, section II, § 36, 37, because they were believing that matter gave rise to evil:  but they assert that the doctrine of the Stoics is pure Spinozism;[16] since they establish a double eternal Principium, which they conceive of, not as diverse Entities, but as the partes of one composite, maintaining an everlasting spirit united to eternal matter, as a soul to its body, which composite they call God as well as Nature.  Hence BUDDEUS, de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter I, § 18, says:  As far as the Stoics are concerned, although they have put splendid and magnificent pronouncements on record concerning God and His Providence, in the pursuit of virtues and the flight from vices, yet the very system of Philosophy that they professed, if you consider it a little more carefully, you will discover to approach most nearly to that of Spinoza:  in which place consult those things that are added in the Annotationibus both of BUDDEUS himself, and of JOHANNES LULOFS; and then see also in the same place, chapter VI, § 4, pages 336-340, where, besides those things that each teaches concerning the Fate of the Stoics, BUDDEUS busies himself to show in addition, that the God of the Stoics, or the Spirit of the World, is not substance free of matter, but a certain incredibly subtle body, fire or ether:  whence their doctrine concerning Fate is the less to be admired.  Similarly the Most Illustrious HEINECCIUS,[17] Historia Philosophiæ, chapter III, § 81, 82, relates concerning the Stoics:  Bodies had their origin from the principia, the one active, God, the other passive, matter.  Laertius’ Lives, book VII, segment 134:  But these principia they call by one term, nature, which to them is God mixed with the world, Lactantius’ divinibus Institutionibus, book VII, chapter III….  Concerning the Providence of God they were discoursing beautifully.  But, since they were manifestly confounding the World and God, Cicero’s de Natura Deorum, book II, chapters 8, 14, and were subjecting both to blind fate; who does not see that they σπινωζίζειν, Spinozize?  But when the Stoics cherished Spinozism, it follows of itself, the Fate was not undeservedly attributed to them in an inferior sense; see WALCH, Miscellaneis Sacris, book II, Exercitation I, § 7, who contends that the doctrine of the Stoics allows for no Providence, and asserts that the efforts of Lipsius and others are vain, who exerted themselves to explain the Fate of the Stoics in a sounder sense, appealing to JACOB THOMASIUS,[18] de Stoica Mundi exustione, dissertation XIII:  add the same WALCH, Miscellaneis Sacris, book III, Exercitation IIII, § 13, page 588, in comparison with § 9, page 584; BRUCKER,[19] Observationibus Historia Philosophiæ, observation V; WILLEM SPANDAW,[20] bedekte Sponosist ontdekt, chapter VIII, § 10, note a, page 122; WILHELMUS WILHELMIUS,[21] Disputatione Philosophica de Origine Mali Moralis, § 11, 28, and the many whom he cites.  But, if the Stoics embraced a Fate of that sort, they abused the language of divine Providence in the worst way:  but we need not painstakingly refute such a Fate here, since that ought to fall of itself from the previously asserted Freedom of the divine Decrees, Chapter VI, § 7; and likewise the Freedom of Creation, Chapter VIII, § 12, and the production of the World from nothing, § 13:  since, in addition, we will see in § 8, that the World is governed by the independent Command of the divine Will; and also in § 12, that God is not bound to second Causes and their strength and operations, in such a way that He is not able at whatever time to do above or against them in working Miracles.  Concerning the agreement between the Fate of the Stoics and an eternal necessary Order, which many Philosophers of our age urge, E. D. P. discourses in his Brieven aan Johannes Eusebius Voet,[22] part 2, letter 7, pages 210-236.

Elsewhere the term Fate, derived from Fando/Speaking, agrees quite well with the ῥήματι/word, Hebrews 1:3, and with τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ, the word of God, 2 Peter 3:5; and so in a sound sense it could even be used of Providence, and it does not deserve any more than the term Providence to be repudiated so peremptorily as ἄγραφον/unwritten; since, as we have seen, neither πρόνοια/forethought, nor προνοεῖν, to think beforehand, to which Providence and to provide correspond, even occur concerning God in the Scripture of the New Testament.  Only prudence urges to avoid this term, 1.  because it is wont everywhere to be understood in the inferior sense of a fatal necessity of that sort, which we have seen to be attributed to the Stoics by the weightiest authors:  2.  Lest we appear to have adopted the Stoic doctrine together with the term, as our Adversaries notwithstanding unjustly charge us:  compare above § 2 and below § 23.  Various errors of the Gentile Philosophers concerning Providence are reviewed by the Author of Tentaminis philosophici de Ethices ratione et perfectione, page 161, 162.

[1] Marcus Manilius (first century AD) was a Roman poet and astrologer.

[2] That is, Astrologers specializing in natal charts.

[3] Moses Maimonides, or Rambam (1135-1204), is reckoned by many to be the greatest Jewish scholar of his age.  In the Hebrew Scriptures, Rabbinic tradition, natural science, and Aristotelian philosophy, Maimonides demonstrates great command and almost equal facility.

[4] George Bull (1634-1710) was an Anglican theologian and Bishop of St. David’s.  He was fully orthodox with respect to his Trinitarian theology, but heterodox with respect to his assertion of the necessity of good works for justification, and therefore sometimes accused of Socinianism.

[5] Bardaisan (c. 154-222) was a philosopher and astrologer of Edessa, Syria.  He was influenced by Paganism and Valentinian Gnosticism, but identified as a Christian.  Although his astral fatalism was limited, it was still generally esteemed as beyond the pale of orthodox Christianity.  The sect of the Bardesanites survived into the twelfth century.

[6] Priscillianism was a form of dualistic Gnosticism, rising in Hispania in the fourth century under the leadership of one Priscillian.

[7] Melothesia is the mapping of the twelve Signs of the Zodiac onto the human body.  Astrologers/Mathematici used it both for natal interpretation and prediction, and for medical astrology (the Sign ruling the afflicted body-part was thought to have implications for treatment).

[8] This branch of Astrology is called judicial because it endeavors to judge, or to predict, human events and destinies from the position of the constellations and planets.

[9] Chrysippus (c. 280 BC-c. 207 BC) was a Greek, Stoic philosopher.

[10] Aulus Gellius (c. 125-c. 180), a Latin grammarian, finds his principal value in the preservation of the quotations of earlier writers, which quotations would be otherwise lost.  He wrote Attic Nights, a collection of diverse notes on grammar, philosophy, history, etc., in twenty books.

[11] Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) was a Flemish humanist and philologist, and the founder of Neostoicism.

[12] Humphry Ditton (1675-1715) was an English Minister, Theologian, and Mathematician.

[13] Johann Jakob Zimmermann (1695-1756) was a Swiss Reformed theologian and professor.  He is an early representative of the Enlightenment in Zurich, seeking a middle way between rigid confessional orthodoxy and the rising deism, and emphasizing natural theology and philosophical ethics.

[14] Manichæism, arising in the third century, was a form of Gnostic dualism, teaching the co-eternality of good and evil.  Human history is the long process of the separation of spiritual light (the good) from material darkness (the evil).

[15] Johann Christoph Wolf (1683-1739) was a German Lutheran Hebraist and scholar.  His Bibliotheca Hebræa (published in four volumes, 1715-1733) was a standard reference work on Jewish literature for more than a century.

[16] Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) was a Jewish-Dutch philosopher, and one of the great Rationalists in the tradition of Descartes.

[17] Johann Gottlieb Heineccius (1681-1741) was a German Lutheran and philosophical Jurist.  He served as Professor of Philosophy (1713), and then as Professor of Jurisprudence (1718), at Halle.

[18] Jacob Thomasius (1622-1684) was a Lutheran philosopher and schoolman/ educator.  He served as Professor of ethics, dialectic, and eloquence at Leipzig.  Ever wary of Syncretism, he wanted non-believing systems of thought described in their own terms, and kept separate from Christianity.

[19] Johann Jakob Brucker (1696-1770) was German Lutheran churchman, theologian, philosopher, and historian.  He served as a member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, and is considered by some as the father of the modern history of philosophy.

[20] Willem Spandaw (flourished c. 1700) was a Dutch Reformed minister.

[21] Wilhelmus Wilhelmius (1631-1677) was a Dutch philosopher.

[22] Johannes Eusebius Voet (1706-1778) was a Dutch physician, poet, and naturalist.