Abstract
My subject may appear as a surprisingly boring one, especially given the focus on Leibniz’s later interest in the Kabbalah or in mystical theology. But in my opinion the tension between these Leibnizian interests and his rationalistic philosophy is hardly greater than that between his rationalism and his Lutheran confession. I even think that Leibniz’s view of Lutheran theology may help to explain his obvious curiosity about every kind of occult and mystical thought.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
The two volumes of Pichler are still the only extensive work about Leibniz’s theology and his opinions relating to the church and the reunification: A. Pichler, Die Theologie des Leibniz, 2 vols (Munich 1869/70, Reprint: Hildesheim 1965). In addition, to this work see the great handbooks of the history of religion and theology, E. Hirsch, Geschichte der neueren evangelischen Theologie im Zusammenhang mit den allgemeinen Bewegungen des europäischen Denkens, vol 2 (Gütersloh, 1951), pp. 7–48; E. Troeltsch, Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Neuzeit, in Die Kultur der Gegenwart, ihre Entwicklung und ihre Ziele, ed. by P. Hinneberg, P. 1, dep. 4, 1 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1909), pp. 431–755; H. Schepers, “Leibniz,” in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (RGG) (Tübingen, 1960), vol 4, column 291–294. On Leibniz and Protestant theology see, J. Watson, “Leibniz and the Protestant theology,” New World 5 (1896): 102–22 and A. Genin, La philosophie religieuse de Leibniz (Tours, 1980) and W. Sparn, “Das Bekenntnis des Philosophen. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz als Philosoph und Theologe,” Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Philosophie und Religionsphilosophie (Berlin/New York, 1986), 28, 2:139–178. See also H. Schepers, “Leibniz,” Neue Deutsche Biographie (Berlin, 1985), 14:121–131.
This was claimed and disputed after his death in connection with the “discovery” and the first edition of the “Systerna theologicum” and the great number of subsequent editions and translations of this ambigous work. See the editions of the “Systerna theologicum” by Emery (Paris, 1819); by P. P. Lacroix (Paris, 1846) with a French translation; by L. Doller (Mainz, 1820) with a German translation; and by C. Haas (Tübingen, 1860).
According to Leibniz’s secretary Eckhard. See G. E. Guhrauer, Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von Leibniz, 2 vols (Breslau, 1846; reprint Hildesheim 1966), 2:332.
See the criticism of G. E. Lessing against most rationalistic “enlightened theology” of the eighteenth century in G.E. Lessing, Leibniz von den ewigen Strafen, Gesammelte Werke, ed. P. Rilla (Berlin, 1956), 7: 465–488. He focuses in this writing especially on J. A. Eberhard, the friend of Mendelssohn and critic of Kant, because of his efforts to show that the esoteric Leibniz had not accepted Christian views on the eternal punishments of hell.
See for example: L. E. Loemker, “Introduction: Leibniz as Philosopher,” G. W. Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters, 2 vols (Chicago, 1956), 1:86–94.
E. Cassirer, Leibniz’s System in seinen wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen (Marburg 1902), p. 506.
Ibid., p. 508.
Compare M. Dascal, “Reason and the Mysteries of Faith: Leibniz on the Meaning of Religious Discourse,” in M. Dascal, Leibniz. Language, Signs and Thought. A Collection of Essays (Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 93–124.
See, for example, the correspondence with Pelisson, Brinon, Bossuet in the 1690s, in G. W. Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, ed. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften (Darmstadt and Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1923-) (cited hereafter as A), 1, 7:113ff. See also the letter to Des Bosses dated September 8, 1709, in C.I Gerhardt, ed., Die Philosophischen Schriften, 7 vols (Berlin, 1875–90; reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1962), 11:390–391.
G.E. Lessing, Leibniz, in G.E. Lessing, Sämtliche Schriften, ed. by K. Lachmann (Berlin, 1839), 11:50.
See the letter to Seckendorff dated December 24, 1683/January 3, 1684 (A 1, 4:449).
See R. Finster and G. van den Heuvel, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, mit Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten dargestellt (Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1990), p. 8.
A I, 1:231.
G.W. Leibniz, De principio individui (A I, 1:3–19); G.W. Leibniz, De arte combinatoria (A I, 1:163–230).
G. E. Guhrauer, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, 1:25–6.
Letter to Thomasius, September 26/October 6, 1668 (A II, 1:10–11).
Leibniz to Thomasius, April 20/30 1669 (A II, 1:24). Translated in G. W. Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters, tr. and ed. Leroy E. Loemker, 2 vols (Chicago, 1956), 1:156.
G.W. Leibniz, Confessio naturae contra atheistas (A I, 1:489–493).
See the title of Part I of G.W. Leibniz, Confessio naturae contra atheistas (A I, 1:489). Translated as The Confession of Nature against Atheists, in Loemker, 1:168.
See, for example, W. Kabitz, Die Philosophie des jungen Leibniz (Heidelberg 1909), pp. 127–134. K. Moll also accepts this interpretation of continuity in Leibniz’s philosophy: in Der junge Leibniz, 2 vols (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1978/1982). See especially l:36ff.
September 26/October 6,1668 (A II, 1:11).
See for example the letter to Foucher in 1686, which gives a concise account of Leibniz’s philosophy at this time in Gerhardt, Die Philosophischen Schriften, 1:369–374.
Leibniz was still writing (in the “Elementa juris naturalis”) in a Cartesian fashion: “Brutis nec voluptas nec dolor nec sensus magis quam machinae aut speculo” (A VI, 1:466). But it is well known that he mocked this opinion at a later time. See, for example, his letter to Tschirnhaus: “Pour moy, quoique j’accorde aux Cartesians que toutes les operations exterieures des bestes peuvent etre expliquées machinalement, je croy neantmoins que les bestes ont quelque connaissance, et qu’il y a en eux quelque chose qui nest point étendu proprement, et qu’on peut appeller ame ou si vous voulez forme substantielle” (A II, 1:541). 241 refer to the still unpublished presentation of Heinrich Schepers (at the Leibniz Congress in Hannover in 1994), who argued in the same vein. Daniel C. Fouke also emphasizes this connection: “Each stage of his philosophical development and every modification of his system, was accompanied by an explanation of the Eucharist and a demonstration that his metaphysical system is compatible with Transsubstantiation” (D.C. Fouke, “Metaphysics and the Eucharist in the Early Leibniz,” Studia Leibnitiana 24 (1992): 145.
See the letter to J. Thomasius, September, 26/October, 6 1668) A, II, 1:11).
Loemker, 1:160.
Loemker, 1:169
K. Müller and G. Krönert, Leben und Werk von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Eine Chronik (Frankfurt/M, 1969), p. 13.
See the letter of Boineburg to Hermann Coming, cited in Chronik, p. 13.
G.W. Leibniz, Demonstrationum catholicarum conspectus, A I, 1:493–500.
See P. Costabel, “L’atomisme, face cachée de la condemnation de Galilée?,” La vie des sciences, Comptes rendus, série générale, 4, 4:349–365.
As Descartes writes to Mersenne (March 31, 1641): “Vous verrez que j’y accorde tellement avec ma philosophie ce qui est determiné par les conciles touchant le St. Sacrement, que je pretens qu’il est impossible de le bien expliquer par la philosophie vulgaire; en sorte que je croy qu’on l’aurait rejetée, comme repugnante à la foy, si la mienne avait etait connue la prémière. Et je vous jure serieusement que je le croy, ainsi que je l’ecris. “ Oeuvres de Descartes, eds. C. Adam and P. Tannery (Paris, 1899), 3: 349.
E. Michaud, “Leibniz et l’eucharistie,” Revue internationale de théologie 10 (1902): 693–712.
See the letter of Boineburg to Friedrich of Schönborn, May, 20 1668, cited in Chronik, p. 13.
Letter to Arnauld from the beginning of November (A I, 1:175).
G.W. Leibniz, Theoria motus abstracti (A VI, 2:275).
Letter to Arnauld from the beginning of November (A II, 1:175).
“Es widerspricht nämlich schon den allgemeinen Grundsätzen der Religion, ihre allgemeinen Grundsätze von ihrem positiven Inhalt und von ihrer Bestimmtheit zu trennen, denn jede Religion glaubt sich von den andern besondern eingebildeten Religionen eben durch ihr besonderes Wesen zu unterscheiden und eben durch ihre Bestimmtheit die wahre Religion zu sein” (K. Marx, Bemerkungen über die neueste preußische Censurinstruction, in K. Marx und F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) (Berlin, 1975), I, 1: 104.
Commentatiuncula de judice controversiarum (A I, 1:548–559).
See the passages in Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. by R. Tuck (Cambridge, 1992), pt. 3, ch. 37, p. 305; pt. 4, ch. 44, p. 423; ch. 45, p. 451.
That means Spinoza according to the subtitle of “Tractatus theologico-politicus.”
Letter to Arnauld from the beginning of November (A II, 1:171).
“The [Unum necessarium] Onely Article of faith, which the Scripture maketh simply Necessary to Salvation, is this, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST” (Hobbes, Leviathan, pt. 3, ch. 43, p. 407).
“Therefore, when any thing therein written is to hard for our examination, wee are bidden to captivate our understanding to the Words; and not to labour in sifting out a Philosophicall truth by Logick, of such mysteries as are not comprehensible, nor fall under any rule of naturall science” (ibid., pt. 3, ch. 32, p. 256).
Hobbes’s criticism of a philosophical explanation of transubstantiation was one of the main points against Descartes’s new prima philosophia. Aubrey wrote: “Mr. Hobbes was wont to say that had M. DesCartes (for whom he had a high respect) kept himselfe to geometrie, he had been the best geometer in the world; but he could not pardon him for his writing in defence of transsubstantiation, which he knew was absolutely against his opinion and donne meerly to putt a compliment on the Jesuites” (J. Aubrey, Brief Lives, chiefly of contemporaries, set down by J. Aubrey, between the years 1669 and 1696, ed. A. Clark, 2 vols (Oxford, 1898), 1:367).
Commentatiuncula (A VI, 1:549, §§ 12–15).
I visited the old Bibliotheca Boineburgica while working on this paper because of a rising suspicion that Leibniz knew the “Tractatus” when he was writing the “Judge.” The copy is signed by Boineburg; consequently we know that Leibniz read it in his library.
“Spinozae librum legi. Doleo virum doctum, ut apparet, huc prolapsum. Criticae, quam in libros sacros ecercet, fundamenta jecit Leviathan Hobbianus, sed quae saepe claudicare ad oculum ostendi potest. Tendunt haec ad eversionem Religionis Christianae sanguine martyrum pretioso tantisque sudoribus et vigilis stabilitae. Utinam excitari posset aliquis eruditione par Spinozae sed rei Christianae — (?) qui crebros eius paralogismos et literarum orientalium abusum refutet” (Letter to Graevius, May 5 1671, AII, 1:148).
Marcelo Dascal, Reason and the mysteries of faith, pp. 98–115.
Commentatiuncula (A VI, 1:550, § 20).
Ibid., §20.
M. Dascal, Reason and the mysteries of faith, p. 119.
Leibniz’s strategic defence of the Christian mysteries against Wissowatius is described by Lessing: “He merely wanted to show, that such a mystery could resist all sophisms, as long as one remains within the confines of such a mystery. This incomprehensibility itself serves as a most impenetrable shield to a supernaturally revealed truth, which we are not meant to understand; and you don’t need to possess the dialectical strength and agility of one Leibniz in order to catch all the opponents’ arrows. It is the opponents who have the most difficult part in this dispute, and not the defenders who may by no means desert their post in order to maintain it. Thus Leibniz was in the position to predict that these objections of the antitrinitarian were by no means irrefutable, even before he could have seen them” (G. E. Lessing, Des Andreas Wissowatius Einwürfe wider die Dreieinigkeit, Gesammelte Werke, 7:524).
G.W. Leibniz, Annotatiunculae subitaneae ad Tolandi librum de Christianismo Mysteriis carente. Conscriptae 8. Augusti 1701, Leibnitii Opera Omnia, ed. L. Dutens, 6 vols (Geneva, 1768), 5:147.
Commentatiuncula (A VI, 1:551, § 24).
Ibid.; §25.
It is quite paradoxical that both Leibniz and Spinoza were aware of the consequences of any “rationalizing” of Christian faith, which later was criticized by Kierkegaard as a consequence of the Enlightenment. R.H. Popkin emphasized Kierkegaard’s intention to show “that the liberal reasonable interpretation of Judeo-Christianity as filtered through the scepticism and questioning of Enlightenment thinkers, was no longer serious religion. It was a blend of ethics with historical parables. It requires no effort to believe, because faith had disappeared. The philosophers and theologians had performed the modern miracle, they had changed wine into water” (R. Popkin, “The ‘Incurable Scepticism’ of Henry More, Blaise Pascal and Soren Kierkgaard,” in R. Popkin and C. B. Schmitt, eds., Scepticism from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Wolfenbütteler Forschungen, 35 (Wiesbaden, 1987), p. 180.
I note that the confession of Augsburg itself was already written by Melanchthon as a compromise with the Catholics.
“Orta luce, philosophia reformata triplex est: alia stolida, qualis Paracelsi, Helmontii, aliorumque, Aristotelem prorsus rejicientium; alia audax, quae exigua veterum cura, immo contemtu eorum palam habito, bonas etiam meditationes suas suspectas reddunt, talis Cartesii; alia vera, quibus Aristoteles vir magnus, et in plerisque verus cognoscitur (Letter to Thomasius, April, 20/30 1669, AII, 1:21).
G.W. Leibniz, Essais de Théodicée, Discours préliminaire de la conformité de la foy avec la raison, in Gerhardt, VI:55.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Goldenbaum, U. (1998). Leibniz as a Lutheran. In: Coudert, A.P., Popkin, R.H., Weiner, G.M. (eds) Leibniz, Mysticism and Religion. Archives Internationales D’histoire des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas, vol 158. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9052-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9052-5_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5088-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9052-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive