Search

This paper examines Petrus van Mastricht's critique of the Cartesian doctrine of the Trinity in his Novitatum cartesianarum gangraena (1677). Mastricht opposed two types of Cartesian approaches to the Trinity. One was by Nicolaus Smiterus, who claimed that the Trinity could be proven rationally. The other was by Christoph Wittich, who argued that the doctrine could not be discussed rationally. Mastricht rejected both positions as benefiting anti-Trinitarian heretics such as the Socinians. Instead, Mastricht took a middle course between Smiterus and Wittich, arguing that while the Trinity could not be proven rationally, its credibility could be enhanced by rational argument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a prominent theologian of Dutch Reformed orthodoxy, Samuel Maresius wrote De abusu philosophiae cartesianae (1670) to denounce the dangers of Cartesian theology. Despite its importance in the history of early modern Cartesianism, a crucial question about the work remains to be answered: which aspects of Cartesian theology did Maresius condemn as the most dangerous for Reformed orthodoxy? The present paper answers this question by selecting and analyzing four topics from De abusu: (1) freedom and grace, (2) the Trinity, (3) the world system, and (4) the origins of things. It shows that Maresius identified the danger of Cartesian theology as propagating heresies under the guise of benefitting the Reformed Church. He thus feared that Cartesian theology would destroy orthodoxy from within. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper analyzes Petrus van Maistricht's (1630–1706) critique of Baruch Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise found in his Novitatum cartesianarum gangraena (1677). The paper shows, first, that Mastricht regarded Spinoza's atheism as the inevitable outcome of the Cartesians' denial of philosophy's subordination to theology. Second, Mastricht, in refuting Spinoza, revised his earlier critique of Cartesianism. In his previous work, Mastricht had already pointed out the atheistic implications of Cartesianism, but in the Gangraena he could now clearly identify Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise as the atheistic consequence of Cartesianism. He was thus able to confirm his distinctive diagnosis of Cartesianism as a gangrene that would gradually worsen and eventually destroy the entire body of theology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper examines the Cartesian theologian Christoph Wittich's Anti-Spinoza (1690). Scholars have observed two opposing orientations in the work. Some have argued that Wittich offered a thoroughly Cartesian refutation of Spinoza. Others have found that he sometimes disagreed with Descartes and adopted a Spinozistic position. This paper reconciles these contrasting interpretations by comparing Wittich's Anti-Spinoza with his earlier work. In general, Wittich tried to refute Spinoza's monism by mobilizing Cartesian principles, which is particularly perspicuous in his discussion of God's being. However, once he turned to the issue of the divine will, he openly contradicted Descartes' teaching and approached Spinoza's necessitarianism. He chose to do so to remain orthodox, evading the accusation of Socinian heresy, which the conservative theologian Petrus van Mastricht had made against his Theologia pacifica (1671). This paper concludes that the widespread fear concerning Socinianism deeply conditioned the way theologians reacted to the Cartesian philosophy in the Netherlands in the late seventeenth century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines two interpretations of a passage in Descartes's text. Johannes Clauberg and Benedict Spinoza comment on the same paragraph in the Principles of Philosophy (1646). Descartes, in the paragraph, argues that the same amount of motion remains in the universe because of God's immutable essence and operation. On the one hand, Clauberg embraces Descartes's physics in general but modifies it to suit the theological tradition of the Reformed church, which held the official confession for where his professional career mattered. Spinoza, on the other hand, gets rid of all traces of the biblical religion from Descartes's physics. While particular theological (or anti-theological) positions of these thinkers dictate their interpretations of Descartes's text, their solutions are surprisingly similar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]