Abstract
But this we know, that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judicial definitive obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion, but only such a Man, or such a society of Men, as is authorized thereto by God. And besides, we are able to demonstrate, that it hath not been the pleasure of God to give to any Man, or Society of Men, any such authority. And therefore, though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended, as we do that all sin were abolisht, yet we have little hope of the one, or the other, till the World be ended. And in the meanwhile, think it best to content our selves with, and to perswade others unto, an Unity of Charity, and mutual Toleration; seeing God hath authorized no man to force all men to Unity of Opinion. 1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Chilligworth, William, The Religion of Protestants. A safe way to Salvation. London: by Andrew Clark for Richard Chiswell, 16744, p. 64.
See Adamo, Pietro, La libertà dei santi. Fallibilismo e tolleranza nella Rivoluzione inglese 1640–1649. Milano: Franco Angeli, 1998, p. 61. Theology of Erasmus, and that had been re-proposed strongly, just after the middle of the 16th century, by a number of authors including Sébastien Castellion and Giacomo Aconcio.
Castellion’s work was first printed in 1937 in Reale Accademia d’Italia. Studi e documenti, VII, Roma, 1937, pp. 277–430, edited by Elisabeth Feist Hirsch, who provided a definitive edition in 1981. Castellio, Sébastian, De arte dubitandi et confidendi ignorandi et sciendi, ed. by Elisabeth Feist Hirsch. Leiden: Brill, 1981. See also the French edition edited by Charles Baudouin: Castellion, Sébastien. De l’art de douter et de croire, d’ignorer et de savoir, Genève-Paris: Droz, 1953.
Castellione, Sebastiano, Fede, dubbio e tolleranza. Selected pages translated by Giorgio Radetti. Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1960, p. 103. On the concept of caritas within the theories of toleration of Erasmus and Castellion, see Turchetti, Mario, Une question mal posée: Erasme et la tolérance. L’idée de sygkatabasis. “Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance”, 1991, pp. 379–395.
Castellione, Fede, dubbio e tolleranza, cit., p. 141.
Ibid., p. 143. Elisabeth Feist Hirsch stresses the analogy that exists between the importance Castellion gave to reason and the role of doubt in understanding religious truths, and the rationalism and radicality of doubt in Descartes. See the introduction to Castellio, S., De arte dubitandi, cit., p. 5.
Castellione, Fede, dubbio e tolleranza, cit., p. 100.
Castellion, in fact, wrote: “and since we have spoken of believing and of knowing, we must demonstrate what it means to believe and what knowing is, and how the two differ; and once we know that, it will also be clear what the two opposites of these two things are: doubting and not knowing”. Ibid., p. 123.
Ibid, p. 120.
“Things based on conjecture are doubtful, that is things that have probability, such as those that cannot be perceived either with the senses or with the in te l le ct and neit he r h av e they been passed down by authors who are worthy of our faith, or they have in any case been passed down in a way that is not clear, but nevertheless are not in contrast either with the senses or with the intellect nor even with the authors who are worthy of our faith”. Ibiad, p. 122.
Ibid., p. 119.
“As it is not necessary for tailors to know the laws of agriculture, nor for bachelors to know those of marr i age. However, if they do know them, fine. So, with regard to s c ie nce, I say that the duty of m an is to know God and his prescr ipt ions, that is his own du ty. If he knows the se things and does his duty, he has achieved salvat io n, even if there are many th ing s he does not know”. Ib id.. p. 126.
On Castellion, the historical context and the influence of his thought, see Guggisberg, Hans R., Sebastian Castellio im Urteil seiner Nachwelt vom Späthumanismus bis zur Aufklärung. Basel und Stuttgart: Helbing und Lichtenhahn, 1956; see the introduction by Antonio Rotondò to Lelio Sozzini, Opere, Firenze: Olschki, 1986, in particular pp. 56 ff.;
Guggisberg, Hans R., Sebastian Castellio 1515–1563. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1997.
See in particular Jordan, W. K, The Development of Religious Toleration in England, from the Beginning of the English Reformation to the Death of Queen Elizabeth. London: Allen and Unwin, 1932, pp. 303 ff.
O’Malley, Charles D., Jacopo Aconcio. Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1955
Rossi, Paolo, Giacomo Aconcio. Milano: Bocca Editori, 1952.
See the preface to Stratagemmi di Satana, in Goodwin, John, Theomachia e altri scritti sulla tolleranza, tr. P. Adamo. Tirrenia: Edizioni del Cerro, 1996, p. 92.
Aconcio, Giacomo, Stratagematum Satanae libri VIII, ed. by G. Radetti. Firenze: Vallecchi Editore, 1946, p. 577.
Ibid., p. 583.
“Thus man, by his nature, is highly arrogant, proud, intemperate, mean, insatiable, covetous, a u su rper, a liar, q uarre lsome, envious, v ind ictive, a murderer, blind, inconsiderate, obstinate, impious and born for all crimes. In a word: the nature of man (that corrupt nature, that is, which we exploit) is not dissimilar from the nature of impure demons. Ibid., p. 19.
Ibid., p. 553.
Ibid., p. 45.
Ibid., p. 57.
Ibid., p. 61.
For the category of “constructive scepticism” and for the definition of mitigated scepticism related to the 16th-century heretics and to Chillingworth, see Popkin, Richard H., The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1979, Ch. VII. As well as Popkin’s numerous contributions, see Laursen, John C., The politics of skepticism in the Ancients, Montaigne, Hume, and Kant. Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill, 1992.
See Turchetti, Mario, Concordia o tolleranza? François Bauduin (1520–1573) e i “Moyenneurs”. Milano: Franco Angeli, 1984, pp. 420–425. In particular see Manschreck, C.L., “The Role of Melanchthon in the Adiaphora Controversy”, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 48, 1957, pp. 165–181.
Aconcio, Stratagematum Satanae, cit., p. 413.
Ibid., p. 251.
Ibid., p. 515.
Chillingworth, W., The Religion of Protestants, cit., p. 152.
See Jacquot, Jean, “Sébastien Castellion et l’Angleterre. Quelques aspects de son influence”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 1953, pp. 15–44; Popkin, The History of Scepticism, cit., pp. 146 ft:
van Leeuwen, Henry G., The Problem of Certainty in English Thought 1630–1690. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963, in particular ch. II
Paganini, Gianni, Scepsi moderna: interpretazioni dello scetticismo da Charron a Hume. Cosenza: Busento, 1991.
Chillingworth, The Religion of Protestants, cit., pp. 152–153: “This perswasion is no singularity of mine but the doctrin which I have learned from Divines of great learning and judgment. Let the Reader be pleased to peruse the seventh book of Acont. de Strat. Satanae”. On the fortunes of the text by Aconcio see O’Malley, Jacopo Aconcio, cit., Ch. V. See also Jacquot, Jean, “Acontius and the Progress of Tolerance in England”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 1954; pp. 192–206.
Chillingworth, The Religion of Protestants, cit., p. 114.
“Not so certain, I grant, as of that which we can demonstrate: But certain enough, morally certain, as certain as the nature of the thing will bear: So certain we may be, and God requires no more”. Ibid., p. 56.
See Ponkin, The History ofScepticism, cit., p. 25.
Van Leeuwen, H.G., The Problem of Certainty in English Thought, cit., p. 25.
Chillingworth, The Religion of Protestants, cit., p. 115. A few pages previously we read: “The Church, you say, is infallible; I am very doubtful of it”. Ibid., p. 75. See also the short text Mr. Chillingworths letter touching infallibility. London: by D. Maxwell for Timothy Garthwait, 1661.
Chillingworth, The Religion of Protestants, cit., p. 159.
Ibid., p. 161.
Ibid.
See also Rogers, G.A.J., “Locke and the latitude-men: ignorance as a ground of toleration”, in Kroll, R., Ashcraft, R., and Zagorin, P., eds., Philosophy, Science, and Religion in England 1640–1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 230–252
Micheletti, Mario, “‘That is the first thing, our fallibility’ (Benjamin Whichcote). Prospettive latitudinarie sulla ‘fallibilità’ umana fra epistemologia ed etica”, in Simonutti, L., ed., Dal necessario al possibile. Determinismo e libertà nel pensiero anglo-olandese del XVII secolo. Milano: Franco Angeli, 2001, pp. 47–79.
See Brandt Bolton, Martha, “Locke and Pyrrhonism: The Doctrine of Primary and Secondary Qualities”, in Burnyeat, M., ed., The skeptical tradition. Berkeley-Los Angeles London: University of California Press, 1983, pp. 353–375
Ferreira, M. Jamie, Scepticism and Reasonable Doubt. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986, in particular Ch. II; Black, Sam, “Toleration and the Skeptical Inquirer in Locke”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1998, pp. 473–504; De Mey, P., “Are Revealed Truths Certain or Probable? The Dispute between Locke and Stillingfleet”, in Rogers, G.A.J., ed., Athens and Jerusalem, in press.
On the presence of manuscripts by Castellion in the library of Wetstein and for their circulation in Remonstrant circles, see Becker, Bruno, “Sur quelques documents manuscrits concernant Castellion”, in Becker, Bruno, ed., Autour de Michel Servet et de Sébastien Castellion. Harleem: H.D.Tjeenk Willink & Zoon, 1953, pp. 280–302; see also the introduction to Castellion, Sébastien, De l’impunité des hérétiques. Genève: Droz, 1971.
Nevertheless, an example of the extent to which the relationship between scepticism and toleration had no foregone conclusion lies in the querelle between Lipsius and Coornhert, in which the former, champion of neo-stoicism and aware of the thought of the ancient sceptics, was decidedly in favour of a repressive attitude to all forms of heresy. See Güldner, Gerhard, Das Toleranz-Problem in den Niederlanden im Ausgang des 16 Jahrhunderts. Lübeck und Hamburg: Matthiesen Verlag, 1968, in particular Ch. IV
Tuck, Richard, “Scepticism and toleration in the seventeenth century”, in Mendus, S., ed., Justifying Toleration. Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 21–35.
More in general, on the relationship between scepticism and religion, see Brush, C.B., Montaigne and Bayle. Variations on the theme of Skepticism. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966, pp. 240 ff.
Popkin, R.H. and Vanderjagt, A., eds., Scepticism and Irreligion in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1993
Nederman, Cary J., “Toleration, Skepticism, and the ‘Clash of Ideas’: Principles of Liberty in the Writings of John of Salisbury”, in Laursen, J.C. and Nederman, C.J., eds., Beyond the Persecuting Society. Religious Toleration Before the Enlightenment. Philadelphia: Penn, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998, pp. 53–70.
H.R. Guggisberg has dedicated a chapter of his Sebastian Castellio. Humanist und Verteidiger der religiösen Toleranz, cit., to this “Castellio-Renaissance” in 17th-century Dutch culture. See also Id., Sebastian Castellio im Urteil seiner Nachwelt, cit., in particular Ch. IV.
See Wtenbogaert, Joannes, De Kerckelicke Historie, vervatende verscheyden gedenckwaerdige Saecken in de Christenheyt voorgevallen. Rotterdam: J. Naeranus, 1646, Bk. II, pp. 70 ff.
See Brandt, Geeraert, Historie der Reformatie en andere kerkelyke geschiedenissen in en ontrent de Nederlanden. Amsterdam-Rotterdam: S. Bos, 1671–1704.
See van Limborch, Philippus, Relatio historica de origine, et progressu controversiarum in Foederato Belgio de praedestinatione et capitibus annexis, in Theologia Christiana ad praxin pietatis ac promotionem pacis Christianae unice directa. IV ed. Amsterdam: Balthazar Lakeman, 1715, p. 21. See also the unpublished manuscript Reformatorum de poena haereticorum sententia, in the Universiteit Bibliotheek, Amsterdam.
See Harrison, Archibald H. W., The Beginnings of Arminianism to the Synod of Dort. London: University Press, 1926, p. 104.
See Lecler, Joseph, Histoire de la tolérance au siècle de la Réforme. Paris: Aubier, 1955, vol. II, p. 222.
Vedelius, Nicolaus, De arcanis Arminianismi libri duo, seu quaestio, Quaenam sit Religio et fides Theologorum Remonstrantium. Lugduni Batavorum: F. Hegerus, 1631, Bk. I, Ch. IX.
“Atque haec sunt dogmata circa quae Rem. epoché seu dubitationem docent populum Dei, quae fidei Christianae omnino contraria est. An non igitur hoc est epoché seu pyrrhonismum in Ecclesiam introducere?”Ibid., p. 91.
Vedelius writes: “Hoc ut manifestum fiat primo ostendam quid vox Tolerantiae ipsis hoc loco significet: deinde videbimus conditiones quas proponunt. Per tolerantiam intelligunt non nudam illam externam tolerantiam, qua pacis civilis et Societatis humanae conservandae causa haereses et sectae diversae in politia seu Rep. feruntur, prout in Belgio, Polonia, Transsilvania, etc. fit, et prout in Gallia ex legibus seu pactis fundamentalibus quae edicta vocantur, Reformata Religio toleratur. Nec etiam intelligunt tolerantiam talem, qualem Ref. Theologi docent instituendam esse inter Reform. et Lutheranos, quae cum in fundamentalibus dogmatis, et necessariis etiam controversiis conveniunt, in aliis tarnen dissident. Sed intelligunt praeter externam tolerantiam illarn, etiam communionem, seu Unionem Ecclesiasticarum, fraternitatem ac concordiam Spiritualem, qua haeretici ipsius Ecclesiae membra fiunt”. Ibid., p. 150.
“Unde jam manifesturn est Synonyma esse ipsis, Tolerare omnes haereticos et sectarios, et Tolerare eos qui in non-necessariis dogmatis errant, item tolerare ornnes pios. Nam omnes haeretici et sectarii seu omnes coetus Christiani errantes errant ipsis in non-necessariis, et pietatem profitentur, seu pii sunt sive esse volunt… In summa volunt introducere in Ecclesiam omnes sectas Christiani nominis; quod profecto confusissirnum Chaos est”. Ibid., p. 163. On the Dutch scenario see Güldner, Das Toleranz-Problem in den Niederlanden, cit.; Dibon, Paul, “Scepticisme et orthodoxie reformée dans la Hollande du Siècle d’Or”, in Popkin, R.H. and Schmitt, C.B., eds., Scepticism from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. “Wolfenbütteler Forschungen” 1987, pp. 55–81
van der Wall, Ernestine, “Orthodoxy and Scepticism in the Early Dutch Enlightenment”, in Popkin and Vanderjagt, eds., Scepticism and Irreligion in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, cit., pp. 121–141 and Verbeek, Theo, “From ‘Learned ignorance’ to scepticism. Descartes and Calvinist Orthodoxy”, ibid., pp. 31–45.
See Prost, Joseph, La philosophie à 1’Académie protestante de Saumur (1606–1685). Paris: Henry Paulin et Cie, 1907, in particular pp. 96 ff.
Laplanche, François, L’Écriture, le Sacré et l’Histoire. Érudits et politiques protestants devant la Bible en France au XVII siècle. Amsterdam-Maarssen: APA-Holland University Press, 1986
van Stam, Frans P., The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 1635–1650 disrupting debates among the Huguenots in Complicated Circumstances. Amsterdam-Maarssen: APA-Holland University Press, 1988, pp. 175 ff.
D’Huisseau, Isaac, La reünion du Christianisme ou la manière de rejoindre tous les Chrestiens sous une seule Confession de Foy. Saumur: R. Pean, 1670, Preface. On the figure and work of d’Huisseau see Stauffer, Richard, L’affaire d’Huisseau. Une controverse protestante au sujet de la Réunion des Chrétiens (1670–1671). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1969. On the question of the minimum credo in general, and in particular in connection with d’Huisseau, see Lagrée, Jacqueline, La raison ardente. Religion naturelle et raison au XVII siècle. Paris: Vrin, 1991.
“Si ie reconnois dans la Religion des Dogmes importants, essentiels, fondamentaux, et necessaires à salut; j’en reconnois aussi d’autres moins importants, que l’on peut ignorer, et ou mesme il se peut glisser quelque erreur, sans que cela préjudicie au salut, à la paix des Consciences, et au repos de l’Eglise” (d’Huisseau, La reünion du Christianisme, cit., p. 150).
Ibid., p. 152.
Ibid., p. 154.
Ibid., p. 119.
Ibid., p. 117.
Ibid., pp. 117–118.
“Ne pouvons nous pas imiter ce procede dans la Religion?” Ibid, p. 119.
Ibid., p. 145.
Ibid., p. 118.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 148.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 144.
“Quand nous disons que pour parvenir à une parfaite reünion, il taut estre libre de tout préjugé: Ce n’est pas pour establir l’indifference, et laisser les esprits en suspens, sans sçavoir à quoy se déterminer. C’est seulement pour rendre suspects plusieurs fondemens mal asseurés, et en chercher un qui soit ferme et solide, et duquel tout le monde conv i enne”. Ibid., p. 122.
Jurieu, Pierre, Examen du livre de “La reünion du Christianisme ou traitté de la tolérance en matière de religion, et de la nature et de 1’étendue des points fondamentaux “, avec une courte réponse à l’Apologie pour le livre de “La reünion”, 1671, pp. 250–251.
On the idea of toleration in Jurieu see Minerbi Belgrado, Anna, “Pierre Jurieu o le difficoltà del l’ intolleranza”, in Méchoulan, H., Popkin, R.H., Ricuperati, G., Simonutti, L., eds., La formazione storica dell ‘alterità. Studi di storia della tolleranza nell ‘età moderna. Firenze: Olschki, 2001, 3 voll., vol. II, pp. 595–615.
Jurieu, Examen, cit., p. 249.
Jurieu, Pierre, Lettre pastorale aux fidelles de Paris, La Haye, 1690, p. 13. See also R. Stauffer, L’affaire d’Huisseau. cit., p. 67.
Jurieu, Examen, cit., p. 9.
Ibid., p. 293.
D’Huisseau, La reünion du Christianisme, cit., pp. 144–146. See also Lagrée, La raison ardente. cit., Ch. VI.
See the fundamental points of faith listed by d’Huisseau, La reünion du Christianisme, cit., pp. 161–162.
Ibid., p. 24.
Aubert de Versé, Noël, Le protestant pacifique. Amsterdam: Genest Taxor, 1684, p. 1. Versé also writes: “Je distingue deux sortes de paix et de tolérance, une Ecclesiastique, et une Civile: La Civile est de souffrir dans la Republique et l’Etat toutes sortes de gens de quelque Religion qu’ils soient, quelque heresie qu’ils défendent, pourvû qu’elle ne ruîne pas la Societé, ni les fondemens de l’etat, de la même maniere que l’on souffre tous les autres Citoyens qui en font partie… L’Ecclesiastique est de supporter comme freres en Jesus Christ dans une même societé et Communion Chrêtienne, ceux qui conservant les grainds points de la Foy et le premiers principes de la Religion, ont neanmoins des sentimens differens des nôtres sur diverses matieres qui ne sont pas essencielles. La première tolerance est generale, et purement politique. La seconde particuliere et Chrêtienne. La premiere ne nous oblige qu’aux devoirs communs de la Societé Civile en general. La seconde nous engage à tous ceux que la fraternité exige des fideles”. Le protestant pacifique, cit., p. 2.
Aubert de Versé, Noël, Traité de la liberté de conscience. Cologne-Amsterdam: Pierre Marteau, 1687 (Reprint Paris: Fayard, 1998), p. 177. On this author, see Morman, Paul J., Noël Aubert de Versé. A Study in the Concept of Toleration. Lewiston-QueenstonLampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987.
See Nederman, “Toleration, Skepticism. ..”, cit., and Tuck, “Scepticism and toleration in the seventeenth century”, cit.
Shelly, Percy B, The necessity of Atheism. Oxford: Bodleian Library, 1992, p. 13.
Bodin, Jean, Colloque entre sept scavans qui sont de differens sentimens des secrets cachez des choses relevees, ed. by François Berriot. Genève: Droz, 1984, p. 209.
Aubert de Versé, Le protestant pacifique, cit., p. 2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Simonutti, L. (2003). Scepticism and the Theory of Toleration: Human Fallibility and Adiaphora. In: Paganini, G. (eds) The Return of Scepticism. Archives Internationales D’Histoire des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas, vol 184. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0131-0_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0131-0_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6315-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0131-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive