University of Pennsylvania Press

Seventeenth-Century Catholic Polemic and the Rise of Cultural Rationalism: An Example
from the Empire

Author(s): Susan Rosa
Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 87-107
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653884 .
Accessed: 11/04/2014 10:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the History of Ideas.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 93.115.16.120 on Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:29:15 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Seventeenth-Century
Catholic Polemic and the
R is e of Cultural R ationalis m:
A n
Example
f rom the
Empire
Sus anR os a
InGalileo's
Dialogue Concerning
theTwo
Chief
World
Sys tems Sagre-
d o,
an
intelligent, cultivated ,
and well-traveled
young
manwho is
pers uad ed
of thetruthof
arguments
inf avorof the
Copernicanopinionpres ented by
the
philos opher Salviati,
d is mis s es the
counter-arguments
of theA ris totelian
Simplicio
with
s ympathetic
cond es cens ion: "I
pityhim,"
he
proclaims ,
no les s thanI s hould s ome f ine
gentlemanwho, having
built a
magnif icent palace
at
great
troubleand
expens e, employing
hund red s
and hund red s of
artis ans ,
and then
behold ing
it threatened withruin
becaus eof
poorf ound ations ,
s hould
attempt,
inord erto avoid the
grief
of
s eeing
thewalls
d es troyed ,
ad orned as
they
arewiths o
many
lovelymurals ;
orthecolumns
f all,
whichs us tainthe
s uperb galleries ,
orthe
gild ed beams ,
orthed oors
s poiled ,
orthe
ped iments
and the
marble
cornices , brought
inat s o muchcos t-s hould
attempt,
I
s ay,
to
prevent
the
collaps e
with
chains , props ,
iron
buttres s es ,
and
s hores .'
Thanks to the
Herzog A ugus t Bibliothek, Wolf f enbuttel,
f orthethree-month
Gas ts tipend ium
that enabled meto
complete
theres earchf orthis
article,
and als o to Paul
Cohen, A nthonyGraf ton,
Ed ward
Hund ert,
A lanCharles
Kors ,
James
Lars on,
Jos eph
Levine, Jef f reyMerrick, TerryNard in,
Gord on
Schochet,
DaleVan
Kley,
and John
Wood brid ge,
and to R ichard Monti f oras s is tancewithVitus Erbermann's
id ios yncratic
Latin. Unles s otherwis e
cred ited ,
all trans lations are
my
own.
1
Galileo
Galilei,
DialogueConcerning
theTwo
Chief
World
Sys tems ,
tr. Stillman
Drake
(Berkeley, 1967),
57.
87
Copyright
1996
by
Journal of the
His tory
of
Id eas ,
Inc.
This
elegant s imile,
which
s ugges ts
that thef ine
gentleman
can
onlypres erve
his
palacebyd es troying
its
beauty,
is meant to evokethed ilemma of the
s cholas tic
philos opher
who is conf ronted
by
theevid ent
d is integration
of his
intellectual home. Likethe
d es perate
ownerwho s eeks to s hore
up
his real
palace,
hemus t rebuild a
philos ophical
ed if icewhos e
apparent beauty
and
coherencehavebeenachieved at the
expens e
of s ubs tanceand can
only
be
pres erved by
recours eto means s o
ugly
and
inad equate
that
theyd es troy
even
theillus ionof
cred ibility.
Sucha
d ilemma,
I would
argue,
was the
legacybequeathed
to
many
d ef end ers of trad itional
religion
inthes eventeenth
centuryby
morethanone
hund red
years
of conf es s ional
rivalry.
To
s implif y
a
complex proces s ,
this
lengthyperiod
of
controvers y
and
apologetic,
to
s aynothing
of warf areand
mutual
pers ecution,
had
generated
a d is cours ewhich
objectif ied
and
prob-
lematized
religion, making
it
s omething
to think about ratherthanto think
with.2 Inother
word s ,
thef ormal s tatements of convictionis s ued inthewake
of theR ef ormation
bycompeting
d enominations within
Chris tend om,
like
theCatechis m of theCouncil of
Trent,
the
A ugs burg Conf es s ion,
the
Genevan
Conf es s ion,
orthe
Thirty-Nine
A rticles of theChurchof
England
had
encouraged
the
d evelopment
of thenotionof
religion
as ad herenceto a
s et of
propos itions .
A s PeterHarris onhas
explained ,
this creationof a
propos itional religion
inturn
enabled d is cus s ionof themerits of other
"religions "
conceived to
exis t
s imilarly
as s ets of belief s . Thetruthor
f als ity
of a
religion
had
becomea f unctionof thetruthor
f als ity
of the
propos itions
which
cons tituted it. True
religion
...
[had become]
... a
bod y
of certain
knowled ge.3
Harris on's remarks are
s ignif icant
becaus e
theys ugges t
that the
origins
of
rationalized d is cours eabout
religion
and its
cons equent
trans f ormationf rom
a
way
of
thinking
to an
object
of
thought
areto bef ound
s quarely
within
orthod oxy
its elf .4
To be
s pecif ic,
the
competing
content of of f icial d octrinal
pronounce-
ments led not
only
to the
comparis on
of the
religions
but
implicitly
to their
emergence
as
s ubjects
of a d is cours ewhich
propos ed
reas onas the
norm,
a
2
C. John
Sommerville,
TheSecularization
of Early
Mod ern
England :
From
R eligious
Cultureto
R eligious
Faith
(New York, 1992),
9:
"[W]e
liveonones id eof a
great d ivid e,
where
religion
is
s omething
onethinks about ratherthan
s omething
oned oes ."
3 SeePeter
Harris on, 'R eligion'
and the
R eligions
inthe
Englis hEnlightenment
(Cambrid ge, 1990), 26; Sommerville, op. cit., 5,
and William R .
Shea,
"Galileo and the
Church,"
God and
Nature,
ed . David C.
Lind berg
and R onald Numbers
(Berkeley, 1986),
115.
4 SeeA lanCharles
Kors ,
A theis m in
France, 1650-1729, I,
TheOrthod ox Sources
of
Dis belief (Princeton, 1990).
88
Sus anR os a
Catholic Polemic and Cultural R ationalis m
d evelopment clearly
ref lected inthewaveof
pamphlets , broad s id es , printed
d is putations ,
and f ormal
polemical
treatis es writteninbothLatinand the
vernacular
languages
which
poured
f rom the
pres s es
of Catholic and main-
s tream Protes tant d enominations in
England
and onthecontinent
throughout
thes eventeenth
century.
Inthis
literature,
Protes tants accus ed Catholics of
"s upers tition"
and
"id olatry,"
whileCatholics
urged potential
converts to
compare
the
religions
witha view to
d is covering
their"marks of
truth,"
argued
f orthe
compatibility
of Catholic f aithand "natural
light,"
and
id entif ied
heres y,
onthe
contrary,
with
unreas on, pas s ion, lus t,
and s elf -
contrad iction. Onboths id es of theconf es s ional
f ence, polemicis ts f requently
ins is ted that
religious
d is cus s ionconf orm to therules of
logic, accus ing
one
anotherof
f ailing
to
argue
f rom incontrovertiblef irs t
principles ,
and of
s uccumbing
to thef atal
d angers of petitio principii
and circular
reas oning.
In
other
word s , they
claimed that in
religious
matters
poorargumentation
is a
s ure
s ign
of
error,
and it would not bed if f icult to f ind
many
who would have
agreed
withGalileo whenhecontend ed that "to makea f als e
propos ition
appear
trueand
convincing, nothing
canbead d uced but
f allacies , s ophis ms ,
paralogis ms , quibbles ,
and
s illy
incons is tent
arguments
f ull of
pitf alls
and
contrad ictions ."5
Thus , althoughtheyby
no means d iminis hed the
importance
of revela-
tion,
many
Protes tant and Catholic
polemicis ts
aliked ef end ed their
religion
byarguing
that its tenets could be
s upported by
reas onable
argument,
while
thos eof the
oppos ing
onecould not. In
granting
this
ad jud icatory
roleto
reas on, they
s hared common
ground ,
whether
they
liked it or
not,
with
other,
les s orthod ox s chools of Chris tian
apologetic
likethe
Cambrid gePlatonis ts ,
or
es pecially,
theecumenical movement onthe
continent,
which
argued
that
the
neces s aryprolegomena
to
any
d octrinal cons ens us cons is ted ines tablis h-
ing
the
compatibility
of reas onand Chris tianf aith. Whileecumenicis ts like
Hugo
Grotius were
willing
to
go
muchf urtherthanmoreorthod ox
apologis ts
in
as s erting
thecontinuities betweenhumanwis d om and theChris tian
mys -
teries ,
it is
important
to rememberthat
they
d id not
d is pens e
withrevelation
either.
R ather, theyargued
that revelationis inits elf ins omes ens e
rational,
a
claim whichf urther
s ugges ts
that theunivers eis a
rationally
cons tructed
entity,
ruled over
by
a God who is to beconceived of as thecreatorand
pres erver
of
harmony
and ord er.6
Thus , d es pite
their
d if f erences , Catholic and Protes tant
polemicis ts
and
partis ans
of theecumenical movement wereinvolved ina common
project:
to
put
it
s imply, theys ought
to s hore
up
theclaims of trad itional
religionby
invoking
its rational
component.
A t thes ame
time, given
theircommitment
to Chris tian
revelation, they
had of
neces s ity,
as
Jos eph
Levinehas
put
it in
5
Galileo, Dialogue,
130.
6
SeeGuillaumeH. M. Pos thumus
Meyjes
inhis introd uctionto
Grotius ,
Meletius s ive
d eiis
quae
interChris tianos conveniunt
epis tola (Leid en, 1988),
30.
89
another
context,
"to d elimit reas onevenwhile
d ef end ing
it."7 To returnto
Galileo's s imile: in
attempting
to
prevent
the
collaps e
of their
build ing
with
"chains , props ,
iron
buttres s es , and
s hores ,"
Chris tian
apologis ts
and d e-
nominational
polemicis ts
alikehad to bewareof
d es troying
the
beauty
and
coherence-to
s aynothing
of the
cred ibility-of
the
original
s tructure.
To be
s ure,
this d ilemma was
by
no means
always apparent
to
working
apologis ts ,
nord id the
arguments theyd eveloped
ind ef ens eof theChris tian
religion
in
general
orof theirownd enominationin
particularappear
unconvincing
to
contemporaries .
Onthe
contrary,
f or
example,
theCatholic
polemic
bas ed onthe"marks of truth" of R omand octrine
brought
in
converts likeno other.
While,
as I will
s how,
thereas ons f ortheattractive-
nes s of thes e
arguments
inthes hort runare
clear,
it is als o
apparent
f rom the
pers pective
of
hind s ight
that therationalized
polemic
whichcontrovers ialis ts
exploited throughout
thes eventeenth
century
was bes et
by
incoherences
which
helped
to f os terheterod ox
thought.
It cantheref orebe
argued
that the
origins
of
irreligion
canbetraced in
part
to the
implications
of a
s trategy
d etermined
by
the
pres s ures
of conf es s ionalis m and
ref lecting
not a s ubver-
s ived es ireto d emons tratethe
s uperf luity
of revelation
but,
onthe
contrary,
a
concernto accommod ate
prof ound religious
need s .
To s how how thework of d enominational
polemicis ts
in
particular
ref lects the
s trengths
and weaknes s es of this common
enterpris e,
I have
chos ento look
clos ely
at a brief work
compos ed
in1659
by
oneof themos t
notorious Jes uit controvers ialis ts at work inthe
Empire.
This
text,
which
cons is ts of two
d ialogues among
a Lutheran
theologian,
a
Jes uit,
and a
Chines e
philos opher,
is well-s uited to thed emand s of
myargument
becaus e
it illus trates with
exceptional clarity
the
preoccupation
with
religious
cer-
tainty
onthe
part
of bothcontrovers ialis ts and theired ucated
targets
which
helped
to d eterminetherationalized characterof
s eventeenth-century
d e-
nominational
polemics .
This Catholic text is als o
s ignif icant
becaus eit cons titutes a
res pons e
to
received
opinion
intheintellectual
his tory
of
s eventeenth-centuryreligious
controvers y.
Sincethework of R ichard
Popkin
on
s kepticis m
and theCoun-
ter-R ef ormationin
France,8
it has too of tenbeenas s umed that
pos t-trid entine
Catholic
polemic
was
primarily
f id eis t. Ina 1960 article
Popkinargued
that
Catholic controvers ialis ts in
earlys eventeenth-century
France
capitalized
on
the
s kepticis m currently
in
vogueamong manythoughtf ul peopleby
claim-
ing
that thed ivis ions withinProtes tantis m
clearly
d emons trated the
inability
of reas onto s ettle
theological
and
religious ques tions and , cons equently,
that
7
Jos ephLevine, "Latitud inarians , Neo-Platonis ts ,
and theA ncient
Wis d om,"
Phi-
los ophy,
Science, and
R eligion
in
England 1640-1700,
ed . R ichard
Kroll,
R ichard
A s hcraf t,
and Perez
Zagorin(Cambrid ge, 1992),
91.
8 R ichard H.
Popkin, "Skepticis m
and theCounter-R ef ormationin
France,"
A rchiv
f irR ef ormations ges chichte, 51,
1
(1960),
58-87.
90 Sus anR os a
intheabs enceof the
authority
of theChurchbelievers would beled to d oubt
everything
and evento embraceatheis m.
Thus ,
to
pres ervereligion,
it was
neces s ary
to
ground
belief "inno rational orf actual
claims ,
but
[only]
inan
accepted
and
unques tioned
f aithintheCatholic trad ition."9
Ind eed , Popkin
has evenclaimed that s uch
pillars
of Catholic
orthod oxy
as Card inal
Bellarminetook theextremef id eis t
pos ition
that therecould beno rational
proof
evenof
important preliminaries
to f aithliketheexis tence of God .10
While
Popkin's argument
cannot inits elf be
accepted
without s erious revi-
s ion,
it has d erived
apparent s trength
f rom its
conf ormity
to
repres entations
of Catholicis m inthework of
Protes tant controvers ial-
is ts ,
who like
many
anti-A ris totelian
philos ophers ,
were
quick
to accus etheir
opponents
of a mind les s ad herenceto ancient
authority. Cons equently,
Popkin's
verd ict has beenextend ed to embraceCatholic
polemical activity
throughout
the
century,
and thenotionof Catholic f id eis m has become a
truis m.
In
contras t,
I will
argue
that
Catholic controvers ial-
is ts weretrueto theirthomis tic
heritage
in
attempting
to d emons trate
reas on's
ind is pens ability
to f aith."1 A s TerencePenelhum has
explained ,
Thomas
s ought
to s how
that
although
f aithinvolves the
pers on
who has it in
as s enting
to
propos itions
whichhumanreas oncannot its elf s how to be
true,
the
authority
which
proclaims
thes e
propos itions , namely
the
Church,
has
intellectually acceptable cred entials ,
s ince s ome of what it
teaches canbes hown
by
reas onto be
true,
and that whichcannot be
es tablis hed inthis
way
d oes havereas onableevid enceto
s upport
it.'2
Inthecontext of
pos t-R ef ormation polemics ,
inwhichthe
emphas is
in
controvers y
had s hif ted f rom thes ubs tanceof d octrineto thereas ons f or
believing
it,
Catholic controvers ialis ts
s ought
to
ground
thes eintellectual
9
Popkin, "Scepticis m...,"
69.
10
R ichard H.
Popkin,
The
His toryof Skepticis m f rom
Eras mus to Des cartes
(Berkeley,
1979), 68-73; quoted
inR ichard
Tuck, "Grotius , Carnead es ,
and
Hobbes ," Grotiana,
new
s eries ,
4
(1983),
46.
Popkin's
claim that extremef id eis m of this kind
repres ented
the
orthod ox Catholic
pos ition
is
ef f ectively
ref uted ina Frenchcontext
by
Kors
(A theis m
in
France, es p. 115-16).
InTheIntellectual Milieu
of
John
Dryd en(A nnA rbor, 1934),
Louis
I. Bred vold mad ea s imilar
argument
f or
England ;
his claims wereref uted in1968
byPhilip
Harth,
Contexts
of Dryd en's Thought (Chicago, 1968), es p.
97-105 and 248.
My
own
res earchhas s hownthat f id eis m nowhere
repres ented
thed ominant ororthod ox Catholic
pos ition;
s ee
my"'I1
etait
pos s ible
aus s i
que
cetteconvers ionf ut s incere': Turenne's
Convers ionin
Context,"
FrenchHis torical
Stud ies ,
18
(1994), 632-67,
and "TheConver-
s ionto Catholicis m of thePrinced e
Tarente, 1670,"
His torical
R ef lections /R ef lexions
His toriques ,
XXI
(1995),
57-77.
"' Onthis is s ues ee
Kors ,
A theis m in
France, I,
111-31.
12
Terence
Penelhum,
God and
Skepticis m:
A
Stud y
in
Skepticis m
and Fid eis m
(Dord recht, 1983),
1.
91
cred entials inthenotae-thos e f our
ad jectives
or
"marks "-"one, holy,
catholic,
and
apos tolic"-which
had d ef ined thenatureof thetrueChurchin
the
early
creed s .13 Inthis
argumentation,
thetruthof the
ins titution,
which
canbed is covered
by
a
proces s
of reas oned
inquiry, s upports
thetruthof
d octrine:
byd is tinguis hing
theR omanChurchf rom all f als e
religions ,
the
notaemakeherclaim to beChris t's trueChurch
worthy
of
belief ,
and
together
withthe
tes timony
of
Scripture
and
trad ition, they
areintend ed to
conf eronthat claim the
certainty
of d emons tration.14 Oncethis aim is
und ers tood ,
it is
eas y
to
place
theCatholic
project
inthecontext of the
concerns withtherecons titutionof
certainty
and the
legitimation
of
authority
inall areas of human
inquiry
whichals o
helped
to d eterminethe
trajectory
of
s eventeenth-centuryphilos ophy.
It is
important
to bearin
mind , however,
that theCatholic
polemic
bas ed
onthenotaewas intend ed f ora
particular
aud ienceand that rhetorical
cons id erations als o
helped
to d etermineits rationalized character. In
keeping
withthe
early
church
practice
s anctioned
s pecif icallyby
Saint
A ugus tine,
Catholic
pros elytis ers
mad ea
s pecial
ef f ort to attract to
thef aith
important
ind ivid uals who were
thought
to havethe
power
and
authority
to inf luenceothers . Thes einclud ed not
only
Protes tant
clergymen
and othermembers of thelearned culturewho weres killed in
theology
but
als o aris tocrats not ed ucated intheintricacies of d octrineor
eccles iology.
While,
as the
youthf ul
convers ionto Catholicis m of Pierre
Bayles hows ,
the
polemic
bas ed onthenotaecould and d id
appeal
to ind ivid uals literatein
theology,
its avoid anceof d octrinal s ubtleties and s cholas tic
argumentation
inf avorof commons ens e
arguments
d rawnf rom
experience
and natural
light
proved es peciallypers uas ive
to
aris tocrats ,
inwhom it was
d es igned
to f os ter
a s ens eof
ind epend ent inquiry.'5
'3A ccord ing
to Hubert
Jed in,
thef irs t
monograph
onthemarks of thetrueChurchwas
written
by
theHes s ianFrancis canNikolaus Herbor in1529. "Zur
Entwicklung
d es
Kirchenbegrif f s
im 16.
Jahrhund ert,"
R elazioni d el X
Congres s o
Internationaled i Scienze
StoricheIV: Storia Mod erna
(Florence, 1955),
67.
During
thes ixteenth
century,
Catholic
polemic
had ad d ed
cons id erably
to thenumberof "marks " of thetrue
Church,
but
by
the
mid -s eventeenth
century,
controvers ialis ts had cometo
rely
almos t
exclus ively
onthef our
clas s ic notae. See
Leopold Willaert, S.J., A pres
leconciled eTrente: la res tauration
catholique,
1563-1648
(Toumai, 1960),
323-30. The
ind is pens able
work onthenotaeis
Gus tave
Thils ,
Les notes d e
I'Eglis e
d ans
l'apologetiquecatholiqued epuis
la
R ef orme
(Gembloux, 1937);
but s eeals o Pontien
Polman,
L 'Element
his torique
d ans la controvers e
religieus e
d uXVIes iecle
(Gembloux, 1932);
and R emi
Snoeks ,
L
'A rgument
d etrad ition
d ans la controvers e
eucharis tique
entre
catholiques
et
ref ormes f ranCais
auXVIIes iecle
(Louvain, 1951).
14 This is Bellarmine's
argument.
Seef or
example
J. d ela
Serviere,
La
theologie
d e
Bellarmin
(Paris , 1908), 181,
wherethef unctionof themarks of Catholic truth
accord ing
to
Bellarmineis
brief ly
d es cribed inthe
f ollowing
manner: "Pourceux
qui
ad mettent
l'Ins piration
d es Ecritures et la valeurd ela trad ition
his torique
ou
patris tique, 'l'Eglis e
apparait par
s es notes
[themarks ]
evid emment vraie....' "
'5 OntheCatholic
arguments
that inf luenced the
young Bayle,
s eePierre
Bayle,
Lettre
a M.
Baylef ils ,
minis tred u
Caula,
au
Carla,
15
A pril
1670.
Quoted
inPierreDes
Mais eaux,
Vied eM.
Bayle,
inDictionnaire
his torique
et
Critique
d ePierre
Bayle(Paris , 1820), XVI,
46;
and Elis abeth
Labrais s e,
Pierre
Bayle(TheHague, 1964), I,
69.
92 Sus anR os a
Incontras t to the
f id es implicita or,
as
contemporaries
termed it more
pejoratively, f id es carbonaria,
whichtheChurch
expected
of the
people,
the
argumentation
bas ed onthenotae
tacitlypropos es
to
potential
eminent
converts a
reas oned ,
and thus activeand
voluntary
s ubmis s ionto Church
authority
cons is tent withtheir
d ignity
and s ocial
pre-eminence.
Inord erto
evaluatetheChurch's claim to be
"one, holy, catholic,
and
apos tolic,"
and
thus to d eterminef orthems elves whereChris t's trueChurchwas
located ,
s uchconverts were
f requentlyurged
to
read , s tud y, travel,
and convers ewith
"learned men"-heuris tic
proces s es
whichals o und erlined thereas onable
natureof Catholicis m and s tres s ed the
importance
of a
f ree,
inf ormed choice
inthed eterminationof a
religion.
Unlike
Protes tantis m,
which
appeals
to the
"prejud ices "
of
unthinking people manipulated uns crupulous ly by
their
pas tors , Catholicis m,
as it is
repres ented
inthis
polemic,
d emand s an
unf ettered exercis eof themind whichculminates intheintellectual convic-
tionthat theCatholic Churchand its d octrines
pos s es s
themarks of truth.16
Thus ,
therationalized
polemic
d ictated
by
thes e
argumentative
and rhetorical
s trategies
ad d res s ed not
only
theconcerns of
potential
converts with
religious
certainty
but als o theirclas s
prejud ices
and
preconceptions .
Forthis
reas on,
it
proved
f ora brief
period
to be
extraord inarilycompelling.
Overthe
long
term, however,
it would
contribute, d es piteits elf ,
to the
pre-his tory
of un-
belief .
To
proceed
to thecas e at
hand ,
the
"Dialogues among
a Lutheran
theologian,
a
Jes uit,
and a Chines e
Philos opher"
were
compos ed by
Vitus
Erbermann,
or
Ebermann,
a
prof es s or
of
theology
at theJes uit univers ities of
Wiirzburg
and Mainz."7
They
are
append ed
to a
lengthier,
more
s ys tematic
polemical
work entitled
A ntiMus aeus ,
orParallel
of
theTrueand Fals e
Churches , d irected ,
as thetitle
ind icates , agains t
theliberal Lutherantheolo-
gian
and
prof es s or
at the
univers ity
of
Jena,
Johann
Mus aeus .'8
Ded icated to
a recent
convert,
theBaronJohannChris tianvon
Boineburg,19
and
printed
at
16
Fora
typical example
of thes e
arguments
and their
reception,
s ee"Motif s d ela
Convers iond eFeu
Mons eigneur
LePrinced e
Tarente,
Ecrits
parluy-meme
vers
1'A nnee
1671,"
A .N. A P. * 441.
My
thanks to KeithLuria f or
having acquainted
mewiththis
manus cript.
17 Vitus Erbermann
(1597-1675)
is known
primarily
f orhis
polemic agains t
the
Lutheranecumenicis ts
Georg
Calixtus
(1586-1656)
and Hermann
Conring (1606-81).
See
A llgemeine
Deuts che
Biographie,
5
(Berlin, 1967-71),
578.
18
JohannMus aeus
(1613-81)
was oneof themos t inf luential
theologians
of his time.
A liberal who
s ympathized
withtheecumenicis m of Calixtus and
Conring,
heals o
combatted thed eis m of Herbert of
Cherbury
and thebiblical criticis m of
Spinoza. A gains t
theCatholics Erbermannand Jod ocus Ked d hed ef end ed theLutheranview of the
primacy
and
s uf f iciency
of
Scripture.
See
A llgemeine
Deuts che
Biographie, 23,
84-85.
19
JohannChris tianvon
Boineburg (1622-72), ajuris t
and
d iplomat
who had s tud ied at
theunivers ities of Jena and
Marburg
and at Helms ted t with
Georg Calixtus ,
converted to
Catholicis m in1653 and
s ubs equently
entered the
employ
of theElectorof Mainz.
Des pite
his
convers ion,
hemaintained anintimate
f riend s hip throughout
his lif ewithHermann
Conring
and their
corres pond enceprovid es
an
ind is pens able
s ourceof inf ormationabout
theintellectual is s ues which
preoccupied potential
converts to Catholicis m
among
the
93
Wiirzburg,20
theA ntimus aeus aims to d emons tratethat Lutherand octrine
cannot betruebecaus etheLutheran
Church,
as an
ins titution,
lacks themarks
of truththat
only
theCatholic Church
pos s es s es .
The
"Dialogues "
takethis
argument
a
s ignif icant s tep
f urther
bys howing
anid ealized
s piritual trajec-
tory
inwhichthemarks of Catholic truthnot
onlyprovid e
the
ground s
f ora
choicebetweenCatholicis m and Protes tantis m but als o cons titutethed ecid -
ing
f actorin
bringing
about theconvers ionof anind ivid ual who s eeks
d emons trative
proof
inf avorof theChris tian
religion.
Thebas ic
argument
of the
"Dialogues "
is
anticipated negatively
inthe
proemium
to thef ormal
treatis e,
inwhich
Erbermann, having inveighed
agains t
theincoherent
pronouncements
of thos eLutheran"teachers of
d ung"
who
"preach
theird octrinelikemend runk on
abs inth," goes
onto
proclaim
that
... if I werea
pagan
and were
willing
to
accept
thed octrineof
Mus aeus and his
f ollowers ,
I could s till
eas ily
overthrow thef ound a-
tions of
Chris tianity.
Forif I werenot
bewitched ,
how could I not
s us pect
that I am not
s erious ly
d eceived whenI commit
mys elf
to a
creed whos earticles
f ly
inthef aceof a unanimous cons ens us extend -
ing
back
through
thecenturies to thetimeof Chris t hims elf ? For
what is mored es tructiveof
truth,
whichs hines
rad iantlyby
its own
light,
thanto s et it af irewiththe
ignis f atuus
of s ectarianf abrica-
tions ?
(n.p.)
Thes e
urgent ques tions ,
withtheirevocationof thef atal d oubts whichwill
ens ueoncethebeliever
d eparts
f rom theunanimous cons ens us of Catholic
authority, appear
to conf irm
Popkin's analys is
of Catholic
arguments ,
and
this
impres s ion
is
s trengthened by
the
overtlys keptical
s tancetaken
by
the
philos opher
at the
opening
of each
d ialogue. Uponmeeting
theLutheran
theologian,
f or
example,
heintrod uces hims elf inthe
f ollowing
manner: "I
haveonoccas ionheard Chris tiand octrine
preached
in
my
native
land ,
but I
havenot
accepted
or
rejected
it as
yet, thinking
it s af erto
s us pend jud gment
ins ucha s erious matteruntil I could examineit inmore
d epth" (145).
This
s trategic Pyrrhonis m
is reiterated more
poignantly
inhis encounterwiththe
Jes uit:
Evenbef oreI lef t
my
nativeland and
my
hous ehold
god s ,
I had
begun
to d oubt all thos e
things
whichnature
taught
me
by
her
light,
ed ucated clas s es inthe
Empire
and
f requentlyhelped
to d eterminethe
s piritual trajectory
whichled to their
acceptance
of Catholicis m. See
A llgemeine
Deuts che
Biographie, 3,
222-
24,
and Commercii
Epis tolici
Leibnitiani ... Tomus
Prod romus ,
qui
totus es t
Boineburgicus
(Hannover, 1745).
20 Vitus
Erbermann, A ntiMus aeus , h.e. Parallela Eccles iaeVeraeet Fals ae
(Wiirz-
burg, 1659).
The
proemium
to thetreatis eis
unpaginated .
94 Sus anR os a
and I havenot
yet
f ound
any
s table
ground
onwhichto
placemy
f eet.
I und ers tand that Chris tians
argue
that whoeverobs erves theirlaw is
promis ed
eternal comf ort
by
the
s upremepower.
I havechos ento
examineall s uch
claims ,
and to this end I havetraveled f rom China to
Europe. (151)
A n
ad equateread ing
of the
"Dialogues "
intheir
entirety, however,
s hows that the
philos opher's s piritual trajectory
d oes not
proceed
f rom d oubt
to a f aithuns us tained
byany
truthoras s uranced rawnf rom s ources external
to
it,
but ratherto a recons titutionof
religious certainty
bas ed onthereas on-
ableclaims to truthof Catholic
authority. Ind eed ,
I would
go
s o f aras to
argue
that oncecertaincrucial d if f erences are
recognized ,
Erbermann's
project
inthis brief work
may
more
aptly
be
compared
to Des cartes 's
s trategic
us eof
s keptical
d oubt as a means of
rees tablis hing
the
ground s
f or
certain
knowled gethrough
thecorrect
d eployment
of reas onthanto
Montaigne's attempt
to und erwritethecaus eof f aith
byd emons trating
the
inability
of reas onto
legitimize
thecommitment that f aithembod ies .21 To
make
mypoint clear,
I s hould liketo
beginbytaking
a clos erlook f irs t at the
ethos and thenat the
arguments
of theChines e
philos opher.
Like
Sagred o
inGalileo's
DialogueConcerning
theTwo
Chief
World
Sys tems
or
Polyand er
inDes cartes 's
d ialogue
bas ed ontheMed itations
entitled "TheSearchaf terTruth
by
the
Light
of
Nature,"
the
philos opher
has
an
important
rhetorical f unction.
Generallys peaking,
s uch
ind ivid uals ,
who
pos s es s
anethos orcharacter
d es igned
to
appeal
to anaud ienceof cultivated
amateurs ,
areintend ed to
repres ent
that embod iment of
right
reas onwhichwe
might
call the"honnetehomme": that
is , they
are
pers ons
of
good breed ing
bles s ed witha
healthys upply
of native
intelligence
and common
s ens e,
but
neitherwell-vers ed intheintellectual intricacies of the
d is pute
at
hand ,
nor
imped ed
intheir
ques t
f ortruth
by
too
heavy
a burd enof f als e
knowled ge.
To
pers uad e
his
aud ience,
whos e
s elf -image
s uchind ivid uals
ref lect,
that his
arguments
are
true,
the
protagonis t
of the
d ialogue
mus t convincethem that
thes e
arguments
conf orm to theintuitions of commons ens eor"natural
light."
InErbermann's
"Dialogues ," only
theJes uit s ucceed s inthis enter-
pris e,
whiletheLutheran
theologian,
onthe
contrary, merely
conf irms the
Chines e
philos opher
inhis
incred ulitythrough
a
continuing
s eries of
egre-
gious logical
blund ers .
Thus , byd eploying
this rhetorical
s trategy,
Erber-
mannis
encouraging
his ownaud ienceto f ollow the
example
of the
philos o-
21
SeeTerence
Penelhum,
God and
Skepticis m,
15. Cf .
Des cartes ,
Dis cours eonthe
Method ,
inSelected
Philos ophical Writings ,
tr.
Cottingham, Stoothof f ,
and Murd och
(Cambrid ge, 1993),
34:
"R ef lecting es peciallyupon
the
points
in
everys ubject
which
might
makeit
s us pect
and
give
occas ionf orus to make
mis takes ,
I
kept uprooting
f rom
my
mind
any
errors that
might previous ly
have
s lipped
into it. In
d oing
this I was not
copying
the
s keptics ,
who d oubt
only
f orthes akeof
d oubting
and
pretend
to be
always und ecid ed ;
onthe
contrary, my
wholeaim was to reach
certainty-to
cas t as id etheloos eearthand
s and s o as to come
upon
rock or
clay."
95
pher
in
evaluating
theclaims of theChris tian
religions
interms of theextent
to which
they
canbes us tained
through
reas onable
argument.
Furthermore,
in
s o
d oing,
heis
elevating
natural
light
to the
pos ition
of
"highjud ge,"
as
contemporaries
called
it,
inthe
controvers y
at hand .
To und ers tand how and
why
a Chines e
philos opher
in
particular
could
conceivably
have
provid ed exemplaryguid ance
f ora
European
aud iencein
s earchof
religious
truthor
why
hes hould havebeen
regard ed
as an
es pecially
pres tigious
embod iment of "natural
light,"
it is
neces s ary
to takea brief look
at the
image
whichtheJes uits thems elves had created f orhim. A s is well-
known,
Jes uit mis s ionaries had
begun
to travel to
China, Japan,
and Ind ia
s oonaf terthe
f ound ing
of theord erin1540. In1582
they
were
given
permis s ion
to res id einChina and in1601 FatherMatteo R icci es tablis hed a
Jes uit res id encein
Peking.22
From the
beginning,
theJes uits contras ted the
Chines e
f avorably
withtheother"eas tern
peoples " they
encountered . While
d eploring
a
general
"lack of d is tinctionand talent" in
Ind ia,
f or
example,
their
reports
f rom
China,
as Jonathan
Spence
has
explained ,
extolled the
virtues of Chines ecivilizationand thebenef icent ef f ects of theConf ucian
moral
s ys tem. Thus , they
invoked theChines eloveof
learning,
theirneat
d res s ,
theird elicate
eating habits ,
their
banning
of
weapons
in
public places ,
the
s hynes s
of their
women,
their
good government,
and mos t
importantly
their
s uppos ed ly
monotheis tic
concept
of thed ivine
power, which,
as R icci
noted ,
was not f arf rom theChris tian
one,
and contained
nothing contrary
to
thees s enceof Catholic f aith.23
In
s eeking
to
gain
converts in
China,
theJes uits
d eployed s trategies they
had f ound ef f ectivein
Europe, concentrating
theiref f orts
primarily
on
wealthyliterati, merchants ,
and theed ucated ad minis trativeclas s es inwhom
theruleof the
country
was ves ted 24 and
attempting
to
gaincred ibility
with
this aud iencenot
byad vocating
a blind s ubmis s ionto Catholic
authority
but
rather
byenhancing
theintellectual
pres tige
of theCatholic
f aith,
which
they
attempted
to as s ociatewiththemos t ad vanced
d evelopments
innatural
s ciences and mathematics .25
Finally,
inord erto accommod ateChris tian
d octrineto Chines e
culture, theypromoted
a Chines e
liturgy
and
urged
R ome
to
acknowled ge
the
valid ity
of
important
Conf ucianrites s uchas ances tor
wors hip.
WhileR omehad cens ured this latter
policy
in
1645,
A lexand er
VII,
22
SeeWilliam V.
Bangert, S.J.,
A
His toryof
the
Societyof Jes us (St. Louis , 1986),
83-
89 and
236-51,
and Jonathan
Spence,
The
Memory
Palace
of
Matteo R icci
(New York,
1984).
23
Spence, MemoryPalace, 42, 151,
210. R icci's account of his
experiences
inChina
had been
publis hed
in1615
by
Nicholas
Trigault
und erthetitleDechris tiana
exped itione
apud
s inas
s us cepta.
In
1667,
theJes uit
polymath
A thanas ius Kircher
incorporated large
extracts of this work into his China Illus trata.
24
Spence, MemoryPalace, 64, 90; Bangert,
A
His tory,
159.
25
See
Pas quale
M.
d 'Elia,
Galileo inChina: R elations
through
theR oman
College
betweenGalileo and theJes uit Scientis t Mis s ionaries
(1610-1640),
tr. R uf us Suterand
Matthew Scias cia
(Cambrid ge, 1960).
96 Sus anR os a
who had acced ed to the
papacy
in
1654,
overturned the
cens ure,
a
ges ture
which
acknowled ged
Jes uit s ucces s es inChina while
playing
d ownthe
problematic
elements intheir
s trategy
of accommod ation.
Thus , d uring
the
1650s the
f igure
of thevirtuous and cultivated Chines e
gentleman,
whom
reas onhad led to a belief inone
God ,
retained a f avorable
image
inthe
eyes
of
the
European
literate
public,
onef arles s s ubvers iveof trad itional
religion
thanit cameto
pos s es s by
theend of the
century.
Inthes eearlier
years ,
it not
onlyprovid ed apparent
conf irmationof the
argument
f ortheexis tenceof God
bas ed on
cons ens us ,
but als o-if the
gentleman
converted to Catholi-
cis m-d emons trated theirres is tible
appeal
of Catholic truth
throughout
the
world 26 and its
cons is tency
withthetruths of reas on.
A s a s killed Jes uit
polemicis t writing
in1659 and f amiliarwiththe
reports
of his
colleagues
f rom theChines e
mis s ionaryf ront,
Erbermann
would of cours ehavebeen
quite
awareof therhetorical inf luencewhichthe
f igure
of this rational and virtuous
unbeliever,
withhis attractiveaura of
good
breed ing
and his convenient lack of
any
coherent
bod y
of
s pecif ically
Chi-
nes e
belief s ,
could exert inf avorof Catholicis m f oranaud ienceof ed ucated
Europeans .
That s uchanaud iencewas intend ed to
id entif y
withthis Chines e
vers ionof the"honnetehomme" becomes evenclearerwhenwe
go beyond
his ethos to examinewhat hehas to
s ay
about hims elf at the
opening
of the
f irs t
d ialogue. Here,
ina s eries of
pronouncements
laced with
quotations
f rom
Vergil,
he
angrily
ref utes theaccus ationof
id olatry
leveled at him
by
theLutheran
theologian,
and
prof es s es
the
f ollowing
creed : the
Chines e,
he
proclaims ,
inaccord ancewiththe
light
of
nature, acknowled ge
one
God ,
creatorof all
things ,
the
bes t,
the
wis es t,
and themos t
powerf ul. They
als o
believeinthe
immortality
of thes oul and look f orward to thelif eof theworld
to come
when,
withthes oul liberated f rom the
bod y, they
will
engage
in
d irect
contemplation
of God 's
s upremepower
and
good nes s . Dis tinguis hing
hims elf f rom
Papis ts
and Protes tants
alike,
heins is ts that human
beings
can
reachthis eternal
goal byf ollowing
the
light
of nature
alone, ref us ing
to
acknowled ge
the
neces s ity
of belief inChris tian
mys teries
likethe
Trinity,
the
Incarnation,
thed eathand res urrectionof thes econd
pers on
of
God ,
His
returninthelas t
d ays ,
and theres urrectionof themortal
bod y. Finally,
he
wond ers
why,
s inceboth
Papis ts
and Protes tants
agree
that belief ina
bod y
of
revelation
beyond
reas onand natureis
neces s ary
f or
s alvation, they
accus e
oneanotherof
s upers tition.
Sincetruthis
one,
he
proclaims ,
thes emutual
26
It s hould benoted that ad herence
throughout
theworld not
only
cons tituted oneof
theclas s ic f our"marks " of Catholic truthbut had als o been
granted primacyby
St.
Vincent of LUrins inthewell-knowncanonof
Catholicity
contained inhis
Commonitorium,
a
patris tic
text relied on
bytheologians
onboths id es of theconf es s ional f ence
throughout
thecontrovers ies of theR ef ormation. In
434,
Vincent had writtenthat "onemus t takethe
greates t pos s ible
careto believewhat has beenbelieved
everywhere, ever, byeveryone."
Quoted
inJaros lav
Pelikan,
His torical
Theology: Continuity
and
Change
inChris tian
Doctrine
(New York, 1971),
4,
myemphas is .
97
accus ations
provid e
a s ureind icationthat theChris tiand enominations d o not
pos s es s
it
(145-46). Together
withtheinitial
s us pens ion
of
jud gment regard -
ing
thetruthclaims of Chris tian
d octrine,
this s tatement of
belief s ,
acknowl-
ed ging important preliminaries
of f aiths uchas theexis tenceof
God ,
the
immortality
of the
s oul,
and thelif eof theworld to
come,
and
as s erting
the
unitary
natureof
truth,
is intend ed to
replicate
the
point
of
d eparture
f orthe
s piritual journey
whichJes uit
pros elytis ers
recommend ed to
potential
emi-
nent converts in
Europe
and ind eed attributed to them in
wid elypublicized
accounts of theirconvers ions .
When
Queen
Chris tina of Swed enconverted to Catholicis m in
1654,
f or
example,
theJes uit Paolo
Cas ati,
who had ins tructed herinthe
f aith, reported
that
...
[S]heemployed
the
s pace
of f ive
years
...
[ins tud ying]
matters of
religion
and
points
of
controvers y,... apply[ing]
hers elf withextraor-
d inarycurios ity
to
gain
inf ormation
res pecting
all
[religions ],
and to
weigh
thed if f iculties of each. Inthis
occupation,...
s hes uf f ered
muchd is turbanceof
mind ,
becaus es hecould f ind no s ettled
point
of
conviction;
and
jud ging everything by
merehuman
reas on,
s he
thought
that
manythings might s imply
be
political inventions ,
in-
tend ed f ortheres trictionof thecommon
people....
Shed id not
permit
one
mys tery
of our
religion
to
es cape
her
examination,
whiles he
s ought
to
give
res t to hermind
by
thef inal
d is covery
of a
religion.
Then,
s inces heread
every
book
treating
of that
s ubject,
s hes ome-
times encountered
many
as s ertions of the
ancients ,
the
gentiles ,
and
the
atheis ts ;
and
although
s heneverf ell into s uchblind nes s as to
d oubt theexis tenceof
God ,
orhis
unity,
whichs heheld to be
greater
and clearerthanall
els e, yet
s hes uf f ered hermind to bed is turbed
by
manyd if f iculties ,
of
which,
at various
times ,
wed is cours ed
largely.27
Chris tina, then,
liketheChines e
philos opher,
ad heres to theThomis tic
pos itionregard ing
therelationbetweenreas onand f aithins of aras s he
acknowled ges
that the
preliminaries
of f aithcanbes hown
by
reas onto be
true. A t thes ame
time,
s hechoos es to
s us pend jud gment
onall thos ematters
whichcannot bees tablis hed
exclus ively
inthis
way. Moreover,
s hes hares
the
philos opher's
commitment to the
unitaryconception
of truth. A s another
Jes uit
writer,
Sf orza
Pallavicino, reported ,
s hewas convinced that it was
pos s ible
f or
only
one
religion
to be
true,
and that this onetrue
religion
could
not bef ound
among
theProtes tant s ects becaus eall arebes et
by
incons is ten-
27
Paolo
Cas ati, S.J.,
"Paolo Cas ati ad A les s and ro
VII., s opra
la
regina
d i
Suecia,"
Leopold
von
R anke,
The
His tory
of the
Popes ,
tr. E. Fos ter
(Lond on, 1847-51), 430-33,
(written
5 December
1655).
98 Sus anR os a
cies and contrad ictions and und ermined
by
their
competing
claims .28 Chris -
tina's convictionthat truthwas onewas
wid ely
s hared
by
ed ucated
Europe-
ans onboths id es of theconf es s ional f ence
throughout
thes eventeenth
century
and -inthes hort run-und ermined the
appeal
of Protes tantis m to
this aud ience. A s Grotius
complained
inthe
1630s , "d ay
af ter
d ay
Protes -
tants
d ef ect...,
and embrace... theR omanCatholic f aithf orno otherreas on
thanthat their
group [d oes ]
not cons titutea
s inglebod y
but
[is ]
d ivid ed
agains t
its elf and
s plit up
into f actions which
[f ight]
and
[s land er]
each
other."29
Thus ,
whiletheethos of theChines e
philos opher
ref lects the
s elf -image
of
potential
eminent
converts ,
his
prof es s ion
of f aithechoes their
preoccupa-
tionwith
religious certainty
and Chris tian
unity.
Inthecontext of thes e
concerns ,
it was the
d uty
of theCatholic
polemicis t,
ontheone
hand ,
to
pres erve
the
integrity
of theChris tian
mys teries ,
whichreas onof its elf cannot
s how to be
true,
and onthe
other,
inthomis tic
f as hion,
to convince
potential
converts who d rew no comf ort f rom f id eis m that
only
theCatholic Church
pos s es s es
s uf f icient intellectual
res pectability
to
proclaim them,
and hence
cons titutes the
onlys piritual authority
of s uf f icient
weight
to create
unity
among
believers . The
ques tion
of
religious certainty
is at thecenterof
Erbermann's
"Dialogues ." When,
f or
example,
theLutheran
theologian
as s erts at the
opening
of thef irs t
d ialogue
that s alvationis to beobtained
only
byf ollowing
the
pure
word of
God ,
theChines e
philos opher
d emand s not
merely
d ialectical
proof
of this
claim,
but d emons trative
certainty
bas ed on
arguments
d rawnf rom incontrovertiblef irs t
principles .30
The
theologian
retorts that his as s ertionis not amenableto
proof byapod ictic reas oning
(apod icticam s cientiam)
but mus t be
accepted
on
f aith;
at thes ame
time,
heis
concerned to
d is tinguis h
hims elf f rom thos e"f anatics " who claim that God
s peaks
to them
d irectly, arguing
that God 's trueword is to bef ound
only
in
Scripture
and intheNiceneCreed . This caveat is not
good enough
f orthe
philos opher, who,
invoking
themanif es t
incred ibility
of the
mys teries
con-
tained in
Scripture, pers is ts
inhis d emand f ord emons trative
proof (pro-
bationem d e
iure)
of the
theologian's
claim. Giventhat thes e
mys teries
are
beyond nature,
and thus that thewriters of
Scripture
are
as s erting things
that
are
incred ible,
hewants to know
why
hes hould believethem. It is not
s uf f icient,
he
ad d s ,
to as s ert thetrans cend ent natureof
God ,
s inceit is s till
28
Sf orza
Pallavicino,
Della Vita d i A lles s and ro VIILibri
Cinque(Prato, 1839),
342-43
(writtenc.1658;
f irs t
publis hed , 1838).
29
Hugo Grotius , quoted
inG. H. M. Pos thumus
Meyjes , "Hugo
Grotius as an
Ecumenicis t,"
TheWorld
of Hugo
Grotius ,
Proceed ings of
theInternational
Colloquium
Organized by
theGrotius Committee
of
the
R oyal
Netherland s
A cad emyof
A rts and
Sciences
(A ms terd am, 1984),
61.
30
Onthed is tinctionbetweend ialectic and d emons trationinthes eventeenth
century,
s eeJeanDietz
Mos s ,
Novelties intheHeavens : R hetoric and Scienceinthe
Copernican
Controvers y(Chicago, 1993),
3-9.
99
neces s ary
to evaluatethe
cred ibility
of thewriters of
Scripture
inord erto
und ers tand how and
why
s ucha God
might
have
s poken
to them. "Who are
thes e
people, anyway?"
hed emand s .
In
tackling
this
ques tion,
theLutheran
theologian
backs hims elf into a
logical
cornerwhenhe
argues
that God f irs t
s poke
to theHebrews and that his
word was
s ubs equently
hand ed d ownto theLutherans
through
the
Papis ts .
"Do
you
takemef ora d olt?"
res pond s
the
philos opher:
Look at what nons ens e
you'reattempting
to
impos e
onme. Theau-
thors of
yours upers tition[cred ulitas ] you
havef irs t
alleged
to bethe
Hebrews , who,
as
youyours elf conf es s ,
area
perf id ious
nation.
Nevertheles s , you
claim that certainof thes emenwere
ins pired by
the
HolySpirit,
and that their
writings
camed ownto
youthrough
the
Papis ts .
Now in
s pite
of this
youargue
that thes e
Papis ts
are
guilty
of
a
s upremeimpietyagains t
God becaus e
they
ad ulterated thed ivine
pronouncements
withthed octrines of d emons . Yet
you
ad mit that
your
d octrined erives all its
authority
f rom them. Inother
word s ,
all
authority
comes to
you
f rom thos ewho eitherd eceiveorared e-
ceived ,
s o it is
eas y
to conclud ewhat one
ought
to think about
your
s upers tition. (148)
Whilewe
may
not hold the
philos opher's arguments
inthe
highes t
res pect,
it is
important
to notethat theLutheran
theologian
cannot ans wer
them.
Succumbing
to incoherenceand
s elf -contrad iction,
he
proceed s
to
claim that Lutherand octrined id not intruthemanatef rom the
Papis ts ,
but
ratherf rom a coterieof
holy
believers who
by
God 's
grace
wereable
throughout
thecenturies "to
d is tinguis h
the
precious
f rom the
vile,
thetrue
f rom the
f als e,
theChris tianf rom theanti-Chris tian" inmatters of d octrine
(148). A ccus ing
him of "chimerical abs urd ities " and "abs urd
d eliria,"
the
philos opher
reiterates that inthef aceof themanif es t incred ibilities as s erted
by
thewriters of
Scripture,
s uchcontrad ictions
only
und erminehis
pos ition.
Prod ucing
a
s yllogis m-s omething, by
the
way,
that theLutheranis inca-
pable
of
d oing-he argues
inthe
f ollowing
manner:
[Majorpremis e:]
Whateveris
impos s ibleaccord ing
to natureor
pos s es s es
no
s igns through
whichGod makes it
believable,
is evi-
d ently
incred ible
[evid enter
incred ibilis ].
[Minor
premis e:]
Your
d octrine
pos s es s es
no s uch
s igns . [Conclus ion] Theref ore,
it is in-
cred ible.
(149)
Denying
the
minor,
the
theologianres pond s
that Lutheran
d octrine,
revealed
byChris t,
has been
miraculous lypropagated throughout
theworld .
Seizing
ontheLutheran's s ud d enaband onment of his
argument
that true
d octrinehad been
pres erved by
a hid d encoterieof
holy
believers
throughout
100 Sus anR os a
centuries of
papis t d arknes s ,
the
philos opher
catches him inanother
logical
blund er: "Don't
you
s eethat
you
are
contrad icting yours elf again?"
he
as ks ,
and continues :
Thed octrineof the
Papis ts ,
as
youyours elf conf es s ,
has obtained
greater
ad herence
throughout
theworld than
yours . Theref ore,
if
you
turnto ad herence
throughout
theworld as
yourproof , you
have
only
conf irmed thed octrineof the
Papis ts .
Bes id es ,
the
Papis ts
haveon
theirs id e
miracles , prophecies ,
and thecontinuous s ucces s ionof
d octors and
pas tors ,
which
you
are
clearlylacking. (149)
"Not
s o," proclaims
theLutheran. "Wehavethemiracles of Chris t and the
apos tles
f orus ."
Pouncing
onthis clear
example
of circular
reas oning,
the
philos opher
d is mis s es his
argument, noting
that the
controvers y
revolves
around this
very
is s ue. "Since
you
cannot extricate
yours elf
f rom this
pred icament,
I will moveonto
s omething els e,"
he
proclaims , proceed ing
to
cons truct the
f ollowing s yllogis m:
[Majorpremis e] A ny
d octrinewhos e
proponents
claim it to be
d ivinelyins pired
is
evid ently
incred iblewhenit is neitherheard
d irectly
f rom God nor
accepted
onthe
authority
of s omeone
worthy
of
f aith,
but ratheronanunreliable
authority. [Minorpremis e]
That
yours
is an
example
of thelattercas e
you
haveconf es s ed
bef ore,
both
explicitly
and
implicitly,
as is
eas ily
s hown.
[Conclus ion] Theref ore,
your
d octrineis
evid ently
incred ible.
(149)
I omit theremaind erof this
exchange
and
merelypoint
out that the
Lutheran
theologian
cannot ref utetheminor
premis e. Moreover,
hed emand s
blind s ubmis s ionto Lutherand octrineand d is mis s es the
arguments
of the
philos opher
as mere
"s ophis try" (151).
Conf ronted
by
this
incomprehens ion
and lack of
res pect
f ortheclaims of the
intellect,
the
philos opher
choos es to
continueto ad here
only
to thos etruths whichreas onteaches are
required
f or
"eternal
bles s ed nes s ," noting
that whens alvationis at s takeit is more
prud ent
to f ollow a d octrinebas ed onevid ent truths thanonewhichis
obs cureincontent and valid ated
by
no reliable
authority.
A t theend of thef irs t
d ialoguethen,
theis s ues areclear. TheChines e
philos opher
wants to know f irs t
whyany
d octrine
beyond
reas onis
neces s ary
f ors alvation.
Second ,
if hewereto as s ent to s ucha
propos ition,
hewould
haveto beconvinced that heis not
being
d eceived
by
thos ewho as s ert
it,
or
inother
word s ,
that it is
being promulgated by
an
authorityd es erving
of
cred ence. To und ers tand theJes uit's
s trategy
inthes econd
d ialogue,
it is
neces s ary
to returnf ora moment to Thomas
A quinas .
A s
you
will
recall,
Thomas
argued
that whilef aithinvolves as s ent to
propos itions
that are
beyond reas on,
this as s ent is not
blind ,
s inceit is
generated
in
part by
a
101
recognition
of theintellectual
cred ibility
of theins titutionthat
proclaims
them. Ina
vers ionof this
argument
theJes uit mus t
convincetheChines e
philos opher
ontheonehand that as s ent to theChris tian
mys teries
is ind eed
neces s ary
f or
s alvation,
and ontheotherthat hewill
neverbed eceived inthis as s ent oncehe
recognizes , by
reas onable
means ,
the
legitimacy
of the
s piritual authority
which
propos es
them f or
belief , i.e.,
the
Catholic Church.
Thef irs t tas k is
accomplis hed
without muchad o: to claim that the
precepts
of natureand reas on
provid e
the
onlyguid es
f or
s alvation,
he
argues ,
is to
place
anunwarranted limitationonGod 's
power,
s inceit
implies
that
othermeans to achieveHis
goal
f ormanarenot availableto Him
(154).
Becaus eChris tian
d octrine,
withits
component
of
mys teries ,
is neither
evid ently
truenor
evid entlyf als e,
it
acknowled ges
God 's
trans cend ence,
a
truthwhichthe
philos opher
ad mits rathertoo
eas ily
whenheconced es "that
thes ecrets whichGod canmakemanif es t and
bring
to exis tencearef ar
beyond [the]
natural
acuity[of reas on]" (155). Moreover,
the
philos opher
is
led to conced ethat God mus t f avortheChris tian
religions ince, d es pite
the
manif es t
incred ibility
of its
mys teries ,
it has obtained ad herents
throughout
the
world ; onlyGod , through
his
omnipotence,
he
conclud es ,
could have
provoked
a
willing s us pens ion
of d is belief ons ucha
grand
s cale. Sincethe
Chris tianconf es s ions
d is agree
s o much
among thems elves , however,
the
philos opher
need s f urther
proof
of Chris tiand octrine. Such
conf irmation,
the
Jes uit
ins is ts ,
is
only
to bef ound withinCatholic
Chris tianity
as it is
prof es s ed by
theR oman
Church, which,
alone
among
all the
s ects , pos s es s es
themarks of truth.
A ppealing
to the
philos opher's unitaryconception
of
truth,
heturns to the
arguments
bas ed onthenotaeto s how that
only
the
R omanChurchcanclaim to beoneand
unchanging. Id entif ying rejection
of
theR omanclaim to a cons ens us of belief and
wors hip
overtimeand
place,
f or
example,
withmanif es t
irrationality,
he
proclaims
that
...
[U]nles s
onehas eithers ucked inhatred f ortheR omanChurch
withhis mother's
milk,
orout of
arrogance, temper,
or
perturbation
is bewitched inhis acutenes s of
mind ,
onemus t be
d is pos ed
to
perceive
that
only
theR omanChurchand thos e
joined
withher
cultivatethe
highes t unity
in
f aith, s acraments ,
and
government.
The
s ects of
"biblis ts ,"
ontheother
hand ,
d if f er
among
thems elves like
aninf ernal
Hyd ra
withs o
many
d is cord ant head s that no Hercules is
s uf f icient to cut them of f .
(156)
Incontras t to theLutheran
theologian,
who has cond emned the
philos -
opher's
exces s ive
d epend ence
on
reas on,
theJes uit
encourages
him to
rely
on
his
powers
of obs ervationand the
acuity
of his intellect in
evaluating
the
f urtherclaims of theR omanChurchand thevarious s ects .
Only
the
f ormer,
heas s ures
him,
will
prove
als o to be
holy, catholic,
and
apos tolic.
Need les s
102 Sus anR os a
to
s ay,
the
philos opher
reaches the
required
conclus ions .
Moreover,
he
argues ,
theR omanChurch's claim to
unity
of belief and
wors hip
overtime
and
place
is cons is tent withwhat
"right
reas on" tells us about
God ,
f or
God ,
d es pite
his
omnipotence
and
trans cend ence,
acts ina reas onableand
ord erly
mannerwhenit comes to his relations withhuman
beings ,
and would
theref orenot
permit
thelead ers of His Churchto f all into
d is agreement,
whichis a s ureind icationof error. The
d ialogue
end s as the
theologian
welcomes the
philos opher
into theChurch:
Commit
yours elf s af ely
to her
Magis terium,
[he
urges ], [f or]
She
cannot d eceivenorbed eceived inthebus ines s of
s alvation,
f ur-
nis hed as s heis withd ivine
help.
Whence
you
can
s ay
withall
conf id encewhat has
long
beens aid to us :
Lord ,
if what webelieveis
error, you
haved eceived us . Forthed octrine
given
to us is cred ible
by
its
s igns ,
as is the
authority
of the
Church,
whichcould not have
beencreated
except byyou. (158)
To s how that s uch
arguments
wereintend ed to
provecompelling
to
potential
ed ucated converts and ind eed cons tituted received
opinionamong
them,
I s hall turnf irs t to the
wid elypublicized
accounts of
Queen
Chris tina's
convers ion,
whereit is
important
to noticenot
only
the
arguments
d erived
f rom thenotaebut therhetoric of "natural
light"
as it is ref lected inthe
s eries of "intellectual" verbs whichd ef ineher
s piritual itinerary.
The
queen,
reports
Sf orza
Pallavicino,
... d is covered the
vanity
of theLutherans ect:... it was not authorized
byantiquity,
not conf irmed
bymiracles ,
not
taught
or
prof es s ed by
s aintlymen,
not inaccord ancewiththe
light
of
nature, incons is tent,
variable, uns table,
concocted
bycaprice. Theref ore,
s he
began
to in-
ves tigate
thef und amental d octrines of other
s ects ,
bothChris tianand
pagan,
and f ound that all of them
pos s es s ed equal
or
greater
d ef ects ,
except
f orCatholicis m.... A nd thence
proceed ing
to examinethis
f aithwitha
pureheart,
s hes aw that it was
ancient, s table, unif orm,
authenticated
by
themos t learned
s cholars ,
richin
s aintlyf ollowers ,
and
thoughs uperior
to the
light
of
nature,
inno
waycontrad ictory
to
it....
Furthermore,
s heknew that theCatholic Churchteaches that it
aloneis
pleas ing
to
God ,
who hates all other
s ects ,
and s hes aw that
the
many
miracles whichtes tif ied to its truthwereworks
pos s ible
to
God alone. If this d octrinewere
f als e,
s he
conclud ed ,
it would mean
that God had exercis ed his
omnipotence
inf avorof a lie.31
31
Sf orza
Pallavicino,
Della Vita d i A les s and ro VII, 342-44.
103
Like
Chris tina,
Louis
XIV,
who ref lected les s onhis views and theref ore
provid es
a better
example
of received
opinionamong s eventeenth-century
Catholic aris tocrats
regard ing religious matters , accepted wholehearted ly
the
arguments
inf avorof Catholicis m bas ed onthenotae
precis ely
becaus e
they
corres pond ed
to themarks of truthin
general: univers ality
and
continuity.
In
his memoirs f orthe
year
1661 hewrotethe
f ollowing:
I haveattributed a
great d eal,
inthef irs t
place,
to the
general
cons ens us of all nations and all
ages ,
and
particularly
of almos t all
thef amous menof whom I haveeverheard -whetherf or
literature,
orf or
arms ,
orf or
s tates mans hip-who
havees teemed
piety
in
general although
ind if f erent
ways ,
whereas overall this timethe
impious
and theatheis ts have
compris ed only
a s mall numberof
med iocremind s who havewanted to
appeargreater
than
theywere,
orat leas t thanthe
public
has f ound
them,
s ince
they
havenot been
ableto
create,
likethe
others ,
aninf luential
party
inthe
world ,
a
long
s equence
of
s upporters
and ad mirers . This univers al cons ens us has
always
carried
great weight
withme. Foraf ter
all,
it is not
s urpris ing
f orreas onto mis lead a s mall numberof ind ivid uals s incethes ens es
thems elves ,
whichares o
reliable,
als o mis lead s ome
ind ivid uals ,
and
s incethereares omewho s ee
things
as
entirely
d if f erent f rom what
theyactually
are. But
if ,
inthemos t
important
and themos t
caref ully
s tud ied
thing
inthe
world ,
humanreas ontaken
generally
has
always
been
regularly
mis takeninall
times ,
inall
natures ,
and inthes ame
way,
s o as to makeus embracea non-exis tent
phantom
and
f antas y
as
the
greates t
and mos t
important
of all our
d uties ,
it would no
longer
bereas onbut anuntenable
f olly,
whichis the
greates t abs urd ity
and
the
greates t
convictionthat a rational mind could maintain....32
To be
s ure, anyproces s
of rational examinationof thes ubs tanceof
d octrineis abs ent f rom accounts like
Chris tina's ,
but s uchan
abs ence, pace
Popkin,
d oes not amount to f id eis m.
R ather, cons id ering
that
agreement
among
believers about thes ubs tanceof d octrineis
impos s ible,
thes eaccounts
ad vocatea reas oned
inves tigation
of themerits of whoeveris
proclaiming it,
a
proced ural
s olutionto the
problem
of
certainty
in
religion
whichf ind s an
analogue
in
philos ophy
inDes cartes 's relianceon
method ,
and
es pecially
in
politics , where,
as Hobbes 's work
s hows ,
anabs enceof cons ens us about the
s ubs tanceof
political goals
res ults ina concernwith
reaching agreement
about who is to be
obeyed ,
an
agreement
which
d epend s
inturnonthe
recognition
of thos e"marks " of
authority
whichcons titutethees s enceof
32
Louis
XIV,
King
of Franceand of
Navarre,
Memoires
f or
theIns truction
of
the
Dauphin,
tr. Paul Sonnino
(New York, 1970), 58-59,
and 3-21
(Sonnino's intro.,
concern-
ing
the
authenticity
of thes e
memoirs ).
104 Sus anR os a
s overeignty.33
Forthe
s ubject,
the
recognition
that an
authority
is
legitimate
bas ed onits "marks "
may
entail thed ecis ionnot to act onthed ictates of
privatecons cience;
s ucha
d ecis ion, however,
canberational if the
pers on
making
it cons id ers that thebenef its
outweigh
thecos ts and that it is
impos s ible
to attain
public peace
in
any
other
way.34
A s imilarkind of
rational
s acrif ice,
I would
s ugges t,
is
precis ely
what is
being
d emand ed of
ed ucated converts
by
Catholic
pros elytis ers
like
Erbermann,
and it
appealed
to them f ora
variety
of reas ons . Wemus t rememberthat mos t ed ucated
people
inthes eventeenth
century
weres till concerned about their
s alvation;
moreover,
intheir
view,
mere
good
f aithand
s incerity
of belief werenot
s uf f icient to attainit.
R ather,
what was
required
inthis mos t
urgent
of all
matters was
objective
truth.
Unf ortunately,
thes ubs tanceof that truthhad
beenobs cured
by
overonehund red
years
of irreconcilable
d is agreement
among
theChris tian
conf es s ions ,
and it was theref ore
neces s ary
to aband on
anyattempt
to evaluatethecontent of
competing
d octrines and to turnins tead
to
id entif ying
theins titutionwhichhad the
s tronges t
claims to
cred ibility.
Thus ,
what was d emand ed
by
theChurchand
granted bymany
eminent
converts who
s ought
thecons olationof
certainty
in
religion
was a reas oned
s ubmis s ionto anins titutionwhich
theyrecognized -on
thebas is of its
marks -to beentitled to obed ience.
Fora s tatement of thecommons ens e
philos ophy
that
und erlay
this
way
of
thinking,
I turn
again
to Louis XIV's memoirs f or1661.
Conclud ing
his
d is cus s ionof
religion,
he
argues
that
... theworld ... is ... thework of s omerational
mind , inf initelyhigher
and
greater
than
ours ;
and if weare
s ubs equently
told a thous and
marvels about
it,
weneed
merely
d eterminewho is
telling
them to us
and what as s urances hehas of
them,
s inceintheworld
its elf ,
which
is but the
hand iwork,
thereares o
many
other
incomprehens ible
though
und eniablemiracles
cons tantly
bef oreour
eyes . Thus ,
if what
wereincred ibleinits elf is
s upported , moreover, by
s ome
good
authority,
it becomes not
merely
cred iblebut
verylikely
whenit is a
ques tion
of that
s uperior
and
higherreas on,
that
is ,
of
s omething very
obs curef orus who know
onlyveryimperf ectly
what ourownreas on
is .35
A s I have
explained ,
thed emand f ora reas oned
recognition
of theclaims
to truthof theCatholic Church
proved es pecially
ef f ectiveinthecas eof
33 SeeThomas
Hobbes , Leviathan,
ed .
by
C. B.
Macphers on(New York, 1985), es p.
228-39.
34
Compare
R ichard B.
Fried man,
"Onthe
Concept
of
A uthority
inPolitical Philos o-
phy," Concepts
inSocial and Political
Philos ophy,
ed . R ichard E. Flathman
(New York,
1973),
140
(thanks
to
Terry
Nard inf orthis
ref erence).
Seeals o
Hobbes , Leviathan, chap.
29 on
privatejud gment
and theerroneous cons cience.
35
Louis
XIV, Memoires ,
59.
105
ind ivid uals whos e
d ignity
and s ocial
preeminence
would have
preclud ed any
f orm of
s piritual
coercion.
Ind eed ,
the
arguments
inf avorof Catholic author-
ity
bas ed onthenotaeor"marks " of thetrueChurch
proved
s o
compelling
f orthis aud ience
throughout
the
century
that Locketook thetroubleto
d is mis s them
angrily
inthe
opening paragraph
of the"LetteronToleration"
of 1689.36 Mos t
s eventeenth-centurypeople, however,
werenot
willing
to
accept
the
uncertainty
about ultimatetruths
implied
inLocke's
philos ophy
of
limited
religious pluralis m. Moreover,
it s hould benoted that even
Locke,
while
rejecting
theclaims to
of theCatholic Churchin
f avorof thos eof
Scripture,
is s till concerned withthe
problem
of
certainty
in
religion.
That is
becaus e,
he
argues , only
a
religion
whichcand emons trateits
claims to truthcan
expect
its ad herents to conf orm theirmanners to a moral
s tand ard . A s heins is ts inTheR eas onablenes s
of Chris tianity,
It is not
every
writerof
morals ,
or
compiler
of it f rom
others ,
who can
thereby
beerected into a
lawgiver
to
mankind ,
and a d ictatorof rules
whicharetheref orevalid becaus e
they
areto bef ound inhis books
und erthe
authority
of this orthat
philos opher.
Hethat
anyone
will
pretend
to s et
up
inthis kind and havehis rules
pas s
f orauthentic
d irections mus t s how that eitherhebuild s his d octrine
uponprin-
ciples
of reas ons elf -evid ent in
thems elves ,
and that hed ed uces all
the
parts
of it f rom them
by
clearand evid ent
d emons tration,
ormus t
s how his commis s ionf rom
Heaven,
that hecomes with
authority
f rom God to d eliverHis will and command s to theworld .37
Inthe
long run,
the
proced ural
s olutionto the
problem
of
religious
certainty-es pecially
ins of aras it
d epend ed
onins titutional claims to
cred ibility-proved
to containthes eed s of its ownd es truction. A s Michel d e
Certeauhas remarked
s ugges tively,
onceclaims about thetruthof anins titu-
tion
begin
to
ground
and d etermineclaims about thetruthof its
d octrine,
a
relativizationof truths is
implicitlyprepared .38
Inthelates eventeenthand
earlyeighteenth
centuries the
s peed
of this
proces s
was increas ed withthe
36
"A Letter
Concerning Toleration,"
Lockeon
Politics ,
R eligion,
and
Ed ucation,
ed .
MauriceCrans ton
(New York, 1965),
104: "Honored
Sir,
Since
you
are
pleas ed
to
inquire
what are
mythoughts
about themutual tolerationof Chris tians intheird if f erent
prof es -
s ions of
religion,
I mus t need s ans wer
youf reely,
that I es teem that tolerationto bethechief
characteris tical mark of thetruechurch. Forwhats oevers ome
people
boas t of the
antiquity
of
places
and
names ,
orof the
pomp
of theiroutward
wors hip; others ,
of theref ormationof
their
d is cipline; all,
of the
orthod oxy
of their
f aith,
f or
everyone
is orthod ox to
hims elf ;
thes e
things ,
and all others of this
nature,
aremuchrathermarks of men
s triving
f or
power
and
empire
overone
another,
thanof thechurchof Chris t. Let
any
onehaveevers o truea
claim to all thes e
things , yet
if hebed es tituteof
charity, meeknes s ,
and
good
will in
general
toward s all
mankind ,
evento thos ethat arenot
Chris tians ,
heis
certainlyyet
s hort of
being
a trueChris tianhims elf ."
37
Locke,
TheR eas onablenes s
of Chris tianity,
219.
38
Michel d e
Certeau,
The
Writing
of His tory,
tr. Tom
Conley(New York, 1988),
127.
106 Sus anR os a
Catholic Polemic and Cultural R ationalis m 107
d evelopment
of the
concept
of
probability
and its
application
to
religious
matters inthef orm of the
argument
mad e
byChillingworth
and others that a
moral
certainty
about s uch"truths " is all that is
required
f ors alvation.
Finally,
it is
impos s ible
to
ignore
thereiterated
pronouncements
of the
Chines e
philos opher
about the
obs curity,
themanif es t
incred ibility,
and
ind eed the
abs urd ity
of theChris tian
mys teries .
I would
s ugges t
that oncethe
arguments
inf avorof the
cred ibility
of
bas ed onits
"marks of truth" ceas ed to be
convincing,
therewas
nothing lef t,
inthe
mind s of
manypeople,
to
compel acceptance
of the
mys teries . Thus ,
the
popularity
of d eis m inthe
earlyeighteenthcenturyought
to becons id ered in
part
as les s the
prod uct
of a
s ys tematic d is cred iting
of trad itional
religion
thanof therationalized
polemic
which
s ought
to "s hore
up"
its claims .
Univers ity
of
Wis cons in,
Milwaukee.

University of Pennsylvania Press

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Pennsylvania Press

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seventeenth-Century Catholic Polemic and the Rise of Cultural Rationalism: An Example

from the Empire

You might also like