Advertisement

Reason and Toleration: Henry More and Philip Van Limborch

  • Luisa Simonutti
Chapter
Part of the International Archives of the History of Ideas/Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Idées book series (ARCH, volume 127)

Abstract

The young Philippus van Limborch’s first letter to Henry More was written in March 1666.1 The year before he had collaborated with Arnold Poelen-burg in the publication of the Operum theologicorum pars altera by his great uncle, Simon Episcopius.2 It was the sending of copies of this book that led to Limborch’s correspondence with More and other Englishmen, among them Ralph Cudworth, Peter Gunning, Thomas Pierce, Henry Jenkes and Oliver Doiley.3 With the encouragement of Petrus Grotius, son of the great jurist, and Dutch ambassador to the Swedish court, Limborch aimed to promote dialogues between the Remonstrants and others who supported the cause of peace between Christians, such as the English Latitudinarians and Neo-Platonists.4 Arnold Poelenburg, theologian at the Remonstrant Seminary of Amsterdam, preacher, polemicist and Rabbinical Scholar,5 was one of the chief promoters of religious consensus between the Remonstrants and certain English theologians, especially those of Oxford and Cambridge. Indeed, in 1664, Poelenburg had written to Isaac Vossius in London, urging him to secure the recognition of the Remonstrant creed by the Church of England as a means of healing the rift in Dutch Protestantism.6 Poelenburg would, moreover ask Vossius to send greetings on his behalf to Pierce in Oxford and Gunning and More in Cambridge.

Keywords

Mutual Tolerance Christian Doctrine Plastic Nature Rough Draft Theological Argument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. 2.
    Op. cit. (Amsterdam, 1665). The first volume of Episcopius, Opera theologica (Amsterdam, 1650) was edited by the Arminian theologian, Etienne de Courcelles.Google Scholar
  2. 5a.
    Cf. Gedenkboek van het Athenaeum en de Universiteit van Amsterdam (1632–1938) (Amsterdam: Stadsdrukkerij, 1939), 655;Google Scholar
  3. 5b.
    A. van Cattenburgh, Bibliotheca scriptorum remonstrantium (Amsterdam, 1728), 115.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    U. B. A., 210. See also his letter of 1661, U. B. A., 256, as well as Poelenburg to Limborch, 17 October 1664, U. B. A., 127. The U. B. A. holds four letters from Poelenburg to Vossius, and three from Poelenburg to Limborch (all autograph rough drafts).Google Scholar
  5. 7a.
    See A. A. Seaton, The Theory of Toleration under the Later Stuarts (Cambridge,: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 45ff.;Google Scholar
  6. 7b.
    G. Davies, “Arminian versus Puritan in England, ca 1620–1640” Huntington Library Bulletin 5 (1934): 157–179. Useful information is to be had from Huguenots in Britain and their French Background, 1550–1800 (London: MacMillan, 1987), especially the essays byGoogle Scholar
  7. 7c.
    I. Scouloudi, “The Stranger Community in the Metropolis 1558–1640,” Huntington Library Bulletin 5 (1934), 42–55; andGoogle Scholar
  8. 7d.
    A. M. Oakley, “The Canterbury Walloon Congregation from Elizabeth I to Laud,” Huntington Library Bulletin 5 (1934), 56–71.Google Scholar
  9. 8a.
    On this point see H. D. Foster, “Liberal Calvinism: the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort in 1618,” Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923): 3–37,Google Scholar
  10. 8b.
    as well as important studies by A. W. Harrison, The Beginnings of Arminianism to the Synod of Dort (London: University Press of London, 1926),Google Scholar
  11. 8c.
    A. W. Harrison, Arminianism (London: Duckworth, 1937), especially chaps 5 and 6.Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    C. Bangs, Arminius. A Study in the Dutch Reformation (New York & Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971) esp. chap. 15.Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    On the Arminianism of the first half of the C17th, see L. Simonutti, Arminianesimo e tolle-ranza nel Seicento olandese. Il carteggio Ph. van Limborch-J. Le Clerc (Florence: Olschki, 1984), 15ff, together with the bibliography given therein.Google Scholar
  14. 11a.
    For a detailed discussion of the religious and political debate about Arminianism in England at the end of the C16th and in the early decades of the C17th, see Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists. The Rise of English Arminianism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). There are several important secondary sources not included in Tyacke’s ample bibliography. Apart from G. R. Cragg’s many writings on the subject, see S[imon] P[atrick], A Brief Account of the New Sect of Latitude Men (London, 1662); M. H. Nicolson, “Christ’s College and the Latitude Men”;Google Scholar
  15. 11b.
    D. Stimson, “Puritanism and the New Philosophy in 17th Century England,” Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine 3 (1935): 321–334;Google Scholar
  16. 11c.
    C. F. Mullett, “Toleration and Persecution in England (1660–1689),” Church History 18 (1949): 18–43;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 11d.
    R. L. Emerson, “Heresy, the Social Order, and English Deism,” Church History 37 (1968): 389–403;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 11e.
    J. D. Roberts, From Puritanism to Platonism in Seventeenth-Century England (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1968).Google Scholar
  19. 12a.
    See D. Nobbs, Theocracy and Toleration. A Study of the Disputes in Dutch Calvinism from 1600–1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938) andGoogle Scholar
  20. 12b.
    W. K. Jordan, The Development of Religious Toleration in England (Gloucester, Mass: Smith, 1966), vol. 4, esp. bk. 1, chaps.Google Scholar
  21. 12b.
    B, C and E. On Thomas Lieber, otherwise called Erastus, see J. Neville Figgis, “Erastus and Erastianism”, Journal of Theological Studies 2 (1901): 66–101.Google Scholar
  22. 13.
    Simonutti, Arminianesimo, “Introduzione,” esp. sections 2 and 3.Google Scholar
  23. 14.
    Op. cit. (Amsterdam, 1702), 252, art. “Remonstrans ou Arminiens.” Jean Le Clerc was responsible for several important additions and corrections to the ninth edition of Moreri’s work, first published in 1691.Google Scholar
  24. 16.
    Limborch to More from Gouda, 31 March, 1666, U. B. A., III, D. 16. 71.Google Scholar
  25. 17a.
    See n. 70 below. Detailed bibliographical information about Limborch’s writings was first supplied in the funeral address delivered by his friend, Jean Le Clerc, “Oratio funebris in obitum Reverendi et Clarissimi Viri Philippi a Limborch... anno 1712,” in Limborch, Theologica Christiana ad praxin pietatis ac promotionem pacis Christianae unice directa, editio IV (Amsterdam, 1715). Useful information is to be found in R. P. Niceron, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire des hommes illustres, 32 vols. (Paris, 1728–35; reprinted Farnborough: Gregg International Publishers, 1968) 11: 39–53;Google Scholar
  26. 17b.
    J. G. De Chauffepié, Nouveau Dictionnaire historique et critique, 4 vols. (Amsterdam and The Hague, 1750–1756), 3:78–82;Google Scholar
  27. 17c.
    A. Des Amorie van der Hoeven, De Joanne Clerico et Philippo a Limborch. Dissertationes duae (Amsterdam: F. Muller, 1843);Google Scholar
  28. 17d.
    H. Ollion, Lettres inédites de John Locke (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1912) esp. 149–60;Google Scholar
  29. 17e.
    and the recent and highly informative biography by P. J. Barnouw, Philippus van Limborch (The Hague: Mouton, 1963).Google Scholar
  30. 18.
    For a bibliography of Limborch’s writings see Barnouw, op. cit., note 17, Appendix A, and H. C. Rogge, Beschrijvende Catalogus der Pamfletten Verzameling van der Boekerij der Remon-strantsche Kerk te Amsterdam, 5 vols. (Amsterdam: Scheltema, 1862–5), Stuk 1, Afdeling 1:52–6, art. “Philippus a Limborch.”Google Scholar
  31. 19.
    Jean Le Clerc contributed a long review of this to Bibliothèque Universelle et Historique 2 (1686), art. III, pp. 21–51.Google Scholar
  32. 22.
    In October 1682 Limborch wrote to Le Clerc, “Si aliquamdiu in Anglia commorari tibi constitutum est, et cum viris doctis et ingenii liberions pacisque Christianae amantibus in Academia Cantabrigiensi amicitiam contrahere, mittam tibi commendantitias ad Doctorem Hendri-cum Morum, magnae in Academia Cantabrigiensi autoritatis; nec non ad Doctorem Radul-phum Cudworthum, Hebraeae linguae professorem, et Collegii Christi praesidem, et D. Hendricum Jenkes, virum doctum ac ingenuun cujusque erga exteros humanitatem omnes de-praedicare soient.” U. B. A., K. 53. e. See Simonutti, Arminianesimo, 121–122.Google Scholar
  33. 23.
    Cf. the letter written 30 April, 1667 (pridie Calendas Maii), U. B. A., M. 34. a.Google Scholar
  34. 24.
    More, “De veris rationibus certitudinis fidei,” in Opera, I:828. Similarly Limborch wrote in his Theologia Christiana, I, xii, sect. IV, p.46: “Recta ratio: quatenus ilia non minus a Deo est, quam Scriptura, nobisque indita tamquam lux, cujus ope verum a falso discernere possumus. Non enim credendum, revelationem divinam ullatenus pugnare posse cum ratione recta, aut aliquid Philosophice posse esse verum, quod theologice sit falsum. Cum enim ratio non minus sit a Deo, quam revelatio, si haec inter sese pugnarent, Deus sibi ipsi esset contrarius. Lux luci contraria non est, sed una altera major est. Revelatio non destruit, sed perficit rationem, adeo ut, quod ratio sola non apprehendebat, id accedente revelatione clare percipiat.Google Scholar
  35. 25.
    Limborch to More, 20 September 1668 (12 cal. octob. 1668), U. B. A., III. D. 16. 74: “Doleo doctissimo illi viro [Gunning] et quem demisse veneror, dogma meum de libertate interpretandi Scripturas, parum probari: quam tarnen ego ad sinceram veritatis investigationem non utilem tantum, sed et quodammodo necessariam judico.”Google Scholar
  36. 26.
    Limborch considers these questions at length in his letter to More of 20 August 1669 (10th August old style) U. B. A., III. D. 16. 138.Google Scholar
  37. 27.
  38. 28.
    If somewhat biased, the eighteenth-century view given in Anastase Guichard’s Histoire du Socinianisme (Paris, 1723) is indicative of the extent of religious polemic and of the generically intended use of the term ‘Socinian’: ‘Ils les appellent maintenant en Hollande et en Angleterre Mennonites, Arminiens, Cocceïens, Trembleurs, ou Kouakers, etc. parce que le nom des Soci-niens étant odieux par-tout, la plüpart se sont aggrégez à des Communions tolerées, et d’autant plus volontiers, qu’elles conviennent assez bien avec les Sociniens sur ce point essentiel: je parle de Jesus Christ, que ces Communions ne reconnoissent pas pour le grand Dieu, ou dont la Divinité leur paroit problematique, ou un point dont la créance, qui n’est pas essentiel au salut,... Enfin le Ministre Jurieu les appelle Latitudinales et Tolerans.” (op. cit. p. 8).Google Scholar
  39. 29a.
    On Anti-trinitarianism and the circulation of Socinian works in England see the still seminal studies of H. John Maclachlan, Socinianism in Seventeenth-Century England (London: Oxford University Press, 1951) andGoogle Scholar
  40. 29b.
    Earl More Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism in Transylvania, England and America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952) esp. chaps 10–12.Google Scholar
  41. 30a.
    See especially C. Flour, Étude historique sur l’arminianisme (Nîmes: Chastanier, 1889);Google Scholar
  42. 30b.
    W. J. Kühler, Het Socinianisme in Nederland (Leiden: Sijthoff’s Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1912):Google Scholar
  43. 30c.
    S. Kot, Le mouvement antitrinitaire au XVIe et au XVIIe siècle (Paris-Liège: G. Thone, 1937);Google Scholar
  44. 30d.
    Z. Ogonowski, Z Zagadnień Tolerancji W. Polsce XVII Wieku (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnict-wo Naukowe, 1958), particularly Part II;Google Scholar
  45. 30e.
    Z. Ogonowski, Socynianizm a Oświecenie (Warsaw: Panstowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1966), esp. ch. VIII;Google Scholar
  46. 30f.
    M. Firpo, “Il rapporto tra socinianesimo e primo deismo inglese negli studi di uno storico polacco,” Critica Storica, n.s. 10 (1973): 51–105;Google Scholar
  47. 30g.
    F. De Michelis Pintacuda, Socinianesimo e tolleranza nell’eta del razionalismo (Florence: La Nuova Italia 1975);Google Scholar
  48. 30h.
    M. Montuori, “Tre lettere di Locke a Limborch sull’unita di Dio,” Atti dell’Accade-mia Pontaniana, n. s. 23 (1974): 287–319.Google Scholar
  49. 32.
    More to Limborch, 28 June 1669 (IV kal. julii 1669), U. B. A. M. 34 b.Google Scholar
  50. 33.
    More to Anne Conway, 5 July [1662], Conway Letters, p. 204Google Scholar
  51. 34.
    U. B. A., M. 34 b. On relations between Descartes and English philosophers, see especially the studies by the following which are listed in the bibliography: Laird, Koyré, Pacchi, Cristofo-lini, Rogers (1985), Jacob (1987).Google Scholar
  52. 35.
    Alan Gabbey has pointed out how the correspondence with Limborch, and in particular the letter of 31st March 1669, stimulated the composition of EM: “Philosophia Cartesiana Tri-umphata,” 246–250.Google Scholar
  53. 36.
    Limborch to More, 31 March 1669 (pridie Kal. aprilis, 1669),U. B. A., III D. 16. 134.Google Scholar
  54. 37.
    Limborch to More, 23 November 1981, U. B. A., III D. 16. 122.Google Scholar
  55. 38.
    Adriaan Koerbagh, Een Bloemhof van allerley lieflijkheyd sonder verdriet geplant (Amsterdam, 1668). Limborch expressed himself in similar terms in warning his friend Jean Le Clerc against Koerbagh’s dictionary, as well as against its immediate successor, Een ligt schonende in duystere plaatsen [Amsterdam, 1668] and their covert revival of Spinozan atheism. See Simonut-ti, Arminianesimo, 83–4. Cf. also, Limborch’s letter to G. Bright and G. Burnet of 3 December 1669, U. B. A., III D. 16. 78.Google Scholar
  56. 39a.
    See K. O. Meinsma, Spinoza et son cercle. Étude critique-historique sur les hétérodoxes hollandais (1st ed. (Dutch), 1896; Paris: Vrin, 1983), esp. chaps. 9 and 10;Google Scholar
  57. 39b.
    M. Francès, Spinoza dans les Pays Néerlandais de la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle (Paris: Alcan, 1937), 61;Google Scholar
  58. 39c.
    H. Vanderbossche, “Adriaan Koerbagh en Spinoza,” Mededelingen XXXIX van wege het Spinoza-huis (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 1–19;Google Scholar
  59. 39d.
    P. H. van Moerkerken, Adriaan Koerbagh (1633–1669) (Amsterdam: G. A. van Oorschot, 1948).Google Scholar
  60. 40a.
    Limborch to Velthuysen, 13th September 1671, U. B. A., III. D. 17. 92. On Velthuysen see C. L. Thijssen-Schoute, Nederlands Cartesianisme (Amsterdam: N. V. Noord-Hooansche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1954);Google Scholar
  61. 40b.
    C. Secretan, “Premières réactions néerlandais à Hobbes au XVIIe siécle,” Annales d’Histoire des Facultés de Droit 3 (1986): 137–65. Of significance with regard to his position vis-à-vis Spinoza is Velthuysen’s letter to J. Osten of January 1671, inGoogle Scholar
  62. 40c.
    B. Spinoza, Opera quotquot reperta sunt, 4 vols., ed. J. Van Vloten and J. P. N. Land (The Hague, 1914), vol. 3, Epistola XLII.Google Scholar
  63. 43.
    T. J. De Boer, “Spinoza in England,” Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 10 (1916): 331–6; R. Colie, Light and Enlightenment, esp. chaps 5 and 6; idem, “Spinoza and the Early English Deists”; idem, “Spinoza in England.” See also a recent essay by S. Hutton, “Reason and Revelation in the Cambridge Platonists,” and H. P. Schütt, “Zu Henry Mores Widerlegung des Spinozismus.”Google Scholar
  64. 44.
    See especially Limborch to More, 8 May 1680, U. B. A., III. D. 16. 29). Also Limborch to More, 23 November 1681 (U. B. A. III. D. 16. 122). On Cuiper, see Colie, Light and Enlightenment, 74–6; and M. J. Petry, “Kuyper’s analysis of Spinoza’s Axiomatic Method,” in K. Cramer, W. G. Jacobs, W. Schmidt-Biggemann (eds.), Spinoza’s Ethik und ihre frühe Wirkung, Wolfen-bütteler Forschungen, 16 (1981): 1–19.Google Scholar
  65. 46.
    Gabbey, ‘Philosophia Cartesiana,’ 187, n. 28.Google Scholar
  66. 47.
    Limborch to More, 23 November 1681. See n. 44 above.Google Scholar
  67. 48a.
    Limborch to Jenkes, 16 March 1681, U. B. A., III. D. 16. 31v, speaks of the hostile reception of Descartes’ philosophy in Holland. See also E. J. Dijksterhuis et al., Descartes et le cartesianisme hollandais (Paris: Presses Universitaires Françaises, 1951) as well as the important works by C. L. Thijssen-Schoute, (see n. 40 above) andGoogle Scholar
  68. 48b.
    P. Dibon, La philosophie néerlandaise au siècle d’or (Paris etc: Elsevier, 1954);Google Scholar
  69. 48c.
    P. Dibon, “Scepticisme et orthodoxie reformée dans la Hollande du siècle d’or,” in R. H. Popkin and C. B. Schmitt, Scepticism from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Wolfenbüttel, 1987), 55–81.Google Scholar
  70. 50.
    On Velthuysen’s defence of Descartes and his hostility to Spinoza see his Opera omnia, 2 vols. (Rotterdam, 1680).Google Scholar
  71. 51.
    Louis de la Forge, Traité de l’esprit de l’homme, de ses facultés, et fonctions, et de son union avec le corps, suivant les principes de René Descartes (Paris, 1661; Latin edition, Amsterdam, 1669).Google Scholar
  72. 52.
    Lambert van Velthuysen, De infinitis primae philosophiae, juxta fundamenta clarissimi Carte-sii, tradita in ipsius meditationibus (Utrecht, 1662).Google Scholar
  73. 53.
    More, EM, I, xxvii, in Opera, 2:307. Cf. also, ibid., 309–10.Google Scholar
  74. 54.
    ibid., 307–8.Google Scholar
  75. 55.
    Limborch to Doiley, 1 October, 1671, see n. 42 above.Google Scholar
  76. 56.
  77. 58.
    More, EM, in Opera, 2:322.Google Scholar
  78. 62.
    E. de Courcelles, Opera theologica, quorum pars praecipua instituti religionis Christianae (Amsterdam, 1675). This was prepared for press by Limborch, who wrote the Praefatio, and by A. Poelenburg, who contributed the Oratio funebris. Google Scholar
  79. 63.
    More, IS, III, xii, sect. 1ff, in Opera, 3:430; and EE\, vi, sects. 5–8, in Opera, 2:26–7Google Scholar
  80. 65a.
    Le Clerc played a significant role in the diffusion of Cudworth’s thought, through the publication in his journal of numerous extracts from The True Intellectual System of the Universe (London, 1678), especially its “Digression” and the chapters concerning the doctrine of plastic nature. Apart from P. Janet’s old study, Essai sur le médiateur plastique de Cudworth (Paris: Ladrange, 1860), see W. B. Hunter, “The Seventeenth-century doctrine of Plastic Nature”; Colie, Light and Enlightenment, esp. chap. VII; and T. Gregory, “Studi sull’atomismo del Seicen-to,” Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 43 (1964): 38–65;Google Scholar
  81. 65b.
    T. Gregory, “Studi sull’atomismo del Seicen-to,” Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 45 (1966): 44–63; and, above all, 46 (1967): 528–541 (“Cudworth e l’atomismo”).Google Scholar
  82. 66.
    Limborch to More, 7 April 1684 (VII, Idus Aprilis 1684), U. B. A., III. D.16. 36.Google Scholar
  83. 67.
    Limborch to More, 15 September 1687 (U. B. A., III. D. 16. 19v.Google Scholar
  84. 68a.
    Limborch, De veritate religionis Christianae. Arnica collatio cum erudito Judaeo. Subjungitur huic libro tractatus, cui titulus Urielis Acosta, Exemplar Humanae Vitae, addita est brevis refutatio argumentorum, quibus Acosta omnem religionem revelatam impugnat (Gouda, 1687).Google Scholar
  85. 68b.
    Limborch’s short confutation of Acosta has recently been published in J. P. Osier, D’Uriel da Costa à Spinoza (Paris: Berg International, 1983), chap. 3, pp. 167–86. There is an account of Limborch’s work in Chauffepié, Nouveau dictionnaire, (see n. 17 above), 3:78–80.Google Scholar
  86. 69.
    Limborch, Schriftelyke onderhandeling tusschen den hr Ph. v. Limborg... ende Johannes Breedenburg rakende ’t gebruyk der reden in de religie. Waar achter by komen twee brieven van... Limborg, een aan Pie ter Smout... (Rotterdam, 1686). Like previous works produced by Limborch this too was sent to More without delay by its author. See Limborch to More, 15 September, 1687. (See n. 67 above)Google Scholar
  87. 70.
    The last four chapters (20–23) of the seventh and final book of Theologia Christiana, stand apart from the strictly theological argument of the preceding portion of the book. They discuss the punishment of heretics, mutual tolerance between Non-conformists regarding non-fundamental articles of faith, and the religious and political uses of tolerance in the preservation of the church. Nor was this the first time that Limborch had addressed himself to these problems. Twenty-five years earlier he had defended the idea of mutual toleration against attacks by the anti-Remonstrant, Sceperus: Korte wederlegginge van’t boecxken onlangs uytgegeven bij Jacobus Sceperus, genaemt Chrysopolerotus (Amsterdam, 1661). The last chapters of Theologia Christiana deal with subjects to which Limborch turns repeatedly in his religious and political writings, e. g. in the first edition of Praestantium ac eruditorum virorum epistolae ecclesiasticae et theologicae (Amsterdam, 1660); in his 1687 Dutch edition of the Episcopius’ work on the Roman Church’s claim to right of judgement in cases of religious controversy; in Historia inquisitionis (Amsterdam, 1692); and in the short treatise, Relatio historica de origine et progressu controversiarum in Foederatio Belgio, first published in Dutch in 1713, and subsequently published as an appendix to the 4th edition of Theologia Christiana (Amsterdam, 1715).Google Scholar
  88. 71a.
    On the well-known relations between Locke and Limborch see Maurice Cranston, John Locke. A Biography (London etc.: Longmans, Green & Co., 1957) esp. chap. 7. For information concerning their correspondence and the topics discussed in it, see L. Simonutti, Arminianesimo, 6, n. 2 andGoogle Scholar
  89. 71b.
    Maurice Cranston, “Considerazioni su ‘power’ e ‘liberty’ nel ‘Saggio sull’Intelletto Umano’ se-condo un manoscritto di Coste,” Giornale Critico della Filosofía Italiana 63 (1984): 179–99.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luisa Simonutti

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations