# Van Til's Apologetic, and Reformed Scholasticism Confrontation with Cartesian Rationalism



## dildaysc (Jan 19, 2018)

Since my time at Westminster Seminary, I have been wrestling with Van Til. Somethings I have cherished; some things I have not accepted; some things have been difficult to understand.

I suppose that I have long known that Van Til's thought was shaped by Dutch Reformed Scholasticism; I have also known that Continental Reformed Theologians fought a pitched battle against the intrusion of Cartesian Rationalism in Reformed Theology. As I continue to work on my translation of Bernardinus De Moor's _Didactico-Elenctic Theology_ (the most extensive Reformed Systematic Theology ever published), I am coming to a deeper appreciation of how these seventeenth and eighteenth century dynamics led to the framing and shape of Van Til's apologetic. If you are familiar with Van Til's work, I think that you will see what I mean.


*§ 7: Is Universal Doubt Necessary for the Knowledge of God?*


_In order to acquire this Knowledge_, according to our AUTHOR, _sometimes _Universal Doubt concerning _all _Religion _and its principium is wrongly urged_; _by which a man, not now an Infidel or Heretic, but by profession truly a Christian, having come of age, and zealous for Religion, on account of the many things admitted without sufficient scrutiny, ought once by a voluntary Suspension of Judgment to doubt, thus being actually inclined unto Christianity no more than unto Islam_. Which phrase in the _Compendio_ of our AUTHOR alludes to a certain thesis cited in _Judicio Ecclesiastico laudato_, _chapter_ II, § 5, “While it belongs to the Philosopher (not only as a Philosopher but as a man) to believe or affirm nothing without a reason, definite and which sets the matter beyond doubt, it is manifest that to no one, even if he be born of Christian parents, is the Christian Religion, before it be made evident to him concerning its truth by altogether certain arguments, to be held in a better position than either Islam, Paganism, or Judaism. For if one ought to esteem the Religion in which he was born the best, with the foundations on which it rests left unexplored, how should any Turk, Pagan, or Jew ever be converted to Christianity?” Compare what things were already observed on _Chapter_ I, § 32. This is a manifest abuse of the method of the more recent Philosophy, rashly applied to this by some. TRIGLAND, _Kerckelycke Geschiedenissen_, _page_ 392, with that method of Descartes, whereby through Universal Doubt he was setting aside for a time all his philosophical opinions previously believed after the likeness of a basket filled with fruit, so that he might then explore whether certain among them were rotten apples, and, with those cast away, take up the rest again; compares the petition of the Arminians, who wanted all Pastors to be relieved for a time from the obligation with which they were bound to the Formulas of Union, the Confession and Catechism: and he subjoins: _Just as this Philosopher has for some time utterly confused both himself and all his disciples, the Counter-advisers have done likewise by labeling themselves and other Ministers as Atheists. For the attentive reader ought to consider, what difference there is between a Philosopher that doubts and a madman, and between Theologians that are doubtful concerning the tenets of Religion and Atheists_. The hypothesis of the _Author_ of _Exercitationis de Philosophia Interprete Scripturæ_[1] is able to be compared, who wants all articles of faith hitherto believed to be revoked and set aside as so many prejudices, until with Philosophy as guide and Reason as Judge there might be certainty concerning the truth of the same, and concerning the sentence of the Scriptures: see SPANHEIM _the Younger’s_ _Disputation_ II _de Articulis Fundamentalibus_, § 8, _opera_, _tome_ 3, _column_ 1296. And thus that Doubt concerning Religion is made so much more dangerous, when the arguments by which you might extricate yourself again from that Doubt are urged to be sought, not out of Sacred Scripture, with prayers and the illumination of the Holy Spirit going before, but from the temple storehouse of Reason and Philosophy. But our AUTHOR rightly observes;

α. That such Doubt implies Unbelief, which ought never to be commended, but is always a most grievous sin, 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Hebrews 11:6; 2 Corinthians 10:5.

Neither is Unbelief able to be made _good on account of the brevity of its duration_; since even a momentary sin deserves an eternal punishment; not even for a moment is it lawful to deny a humble subservience to the Sacred Scriptures.

Nor is the commendation of Unbelief able to be excused _by the good end_ intended; since it is never lawful to do evil, so that thence good might come, Romans 3:8.

β. If one has received the Spirit, he is bound for a time to resist the operation of the same through Doubt of this sort, of which there is no one ignorant of just how sinful that is, Acts 7:51; Ephesians 4:30. But the Spirit is wont to reveal to babes, and to ingenerate in them the certainty of faith through a divine power of persuasion, concerning the most sublime mysteries of Religion; the certainty of which proud Philosophers by seeking long demonstrations from Reason or Philosophy, and in not admitting anything that Reason has not dictated, will never attain: Matthew 11:25; 16:17; 1 Corinthians 2:6-10, 14.

γ. In the writings of their principal men, the way of Satan is kept, who by injecting Doubt concerning the commandment given by God to man willed to make use of this as a first step toward the seduction of our first parents, thereafter more easily to move them completely to unbelief and disobedience, Genesis 3:1. To whose seduction man even now dangerously exposes himself through this sort of voluntary Doubt concerning Religion. Augustine records a similar μεθοδείαν/_method_ of the _Manichæans_,[2] in which he himself was entangled for _almost nine year_, _Libro Utilitate credenda ad Honoratum_, _chapter_ I, § 2, _opera_, _tome_ 8, _column_ 34, whose words concerning this matter are cited by LEYDEKKER,[3] _Face Veritatis_, _locus_ I, _controversy_ 3, _page_ 13, § 12; they are worth reading, and deserve to be applied to the present doctrine.

δ. Thus all Catechetical Instruction of children and of the ignorant is eliminated as useless, even noxious, in implanting prejudices; contrary to the divine commandment in Deuteronomy 6:6, 7; Proverbs 22:6; contrary also to the commended example of Timothy, 2 Timothy 3:15, upon whom Paul considered it ill-advised to urge this sort of Doubt concerning those things that he had imbibed from his youth. So also Academic education is to be pronounced noxious on account of the prejudices that are implanted in the minds of the Youth: and it would be advantageous for the Teachers of all sects to teach in the Academy, whereby the Studious might hear disputes from every perspective; neither would their minds be rendered more inclined unto the Reformed Religion than any other. And so by Doubting they would be obliged to wipe out the entire Academic age; and, since not even so do they hold all things sufficiently investigated, nor judgment confirmed to a sufficient extent, that Doubt would also be obliged to be extended thereafter for a long time.

ε. Thus into dangerous Temptation, from which we daily ask relief from God, they manifestly knowingly and willingly bring themselves in this singular manner: especially if they, withdrawing from God and the illumination of the Spirit, and subordinating the authority of the Scriptures, undertake to try all things by the Lydian Stone[4] of Reason, as it were. The Lord resists the proud of this sort,[5] and requires them to tremble before His Word.[6]

And so Philosophers without the Spirit would defend that Doubt concerning God and matters of faith is not unworthy of a Christian man; but I would rather glory with Paul, ἔχοντες δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πίστεως, κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον, Ἐπίστευσα, διὸ ἐλάλησα, καὶ ἡμεῖς πιστεύομεν, διὸ καὶ λαλοῦμεν, _we having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak_, 2 Corinthians 4:13: and, since I know that all Doubt is opposed to Faith, and that it does not arise from the Spirit but from remaining corruption or the temptation of the Satan, I myself rather daily ask relief from Doubt concerning matters of faith, and proceed by the leading of the Spirit to press more and more to πληροφορίαν πίστεως, _the full assurance of faith_;[7] gratefully acknowledging the goodness of God and the care of my Parents, who from my youth took care that I be imbued with a sense of the true Religion, which I have daily found by experience to have been delivered to me in conformity with the Word of God without any preceding Doubt. But if, on the other hand, you should ask all the common people whether they were persuaded of the truth of their Religion by reasons the most substantial? or suggest that their Religion is perhaps erroneous; and that they need first to explore other Religions, today’s Jewish, Pagan, Mohammedan, Papal, Socianian, and Arminian, and then to decide whether they enjoy a Religion greater than all these, or not: In this manner, you will indeed be able to drive some to Skepticism and Indifference in Religion: but of a hundred common people hardly one by this method will be brought to a better understanding of Religion and a fuller confidence in the truth of their Religion. FRANCISCUS JUNIUS, in his _Collatione de Natura et Gratia_, _opera_, _tome_ 2, _column_ 397, to _Francesco Pucci_,[8] writes: “Thy past experience was not occupied in the knowledge of divine things: it was occupied with errors for twenty-two years: which I remember to have heard from thee with my own ears. For thus thou didst narrate concerning thyself: While thou didst give attention to such a variety of opinions and sects, for twenty-two years thou didst nothing but wander to the Mohammedans, Jews, Arians, and others; so that, with all sorts of doctrine having been examined, thou mightest at last by thy divine judgment establish which Religion is true. I remember that experienced men say that what is able to be done with fewer things is not to be done with more. But, saith Paul, _The Word of the Lord is nigh thee_, Romans 10:8, or, as saith the Prophet, _This is the way, walk ye in it_.[9] Therefore, what thou hast been able to overtake with fewer things; thou hast walked past in the many. Then, this is not true expertise, not a true manner of pursuit, if one, pursuing truth, through all errors wanders about. In this way hast thou found for thyself a path in the pathless wilderness, and in the sea a passage through the buffeting strikes of crosswinds? Finally, because thou testifiest that belief is to be afforded to the experienced, I as one experienced to say: I, of all those men that sought truth in various errors, never saw one that either arrived at the truth, or that was ever able solidly to settle himself upon it. But this is the most just judgment of God: who does not will that the truth that is before our feet be set aside, and that errors be rashly wandered through; as if there might always be an easy return to the truth by our own judgment. Those are the ones that the Apostle graphically depicts as ever learning, but never being able to come to the knowledge of the truth.[10]”

_They object_: Thus no Infidel or Heretic would ever be converted, if it never be allowed to doubt of the Religion in which one has been brought up.

_I respond_: There is a great distance here between false Religion and the true, and the privilege of the latter is certainly to be acknowledge before the former; while the Spirit of truth makes simple believers also the most firmly persuaded concerning the truth of sincere Religion, of which they are not able to boast, who are addicted to false Religion. Now, a Knowledge of false Religion is not able to be said of itself and simply to be necessary for salvation.

To the _Objection_, which is again moved to the contrary, _that in the early year of life many things are admitted through error_, our AUTHOR sufficiently answers: compare LELAND’S _Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten_, _tome_ 1, _chapter_ 10, _pages_ 280-282, 284, _chapter_ 14, _page_ 498.

[1] _Philosophia Sacræ Scripturæ Interpres_ was published anonymously, and was initially thought to be the work of Spinoza. It was actually penned by Lodewijk Meyer (1629-1681), a Dutch Enlightenment scholar and Rationalist philosopher.

[2] Manichæism was a dualistic Pseudo-Christianity. It was founded by a Persian prophet by the name of Mani (c. 216-276). It thrived after its first founding until the seventh century, and exerted influence from the Roman Empire to China.

[3] Melchior Leydekker (1642-1721) studied under Voetius at Utrecht, and Hoornbeeck and Cocceius at Leiden. He was appointed Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1676).

[4] A type of black stone, formerly used to test the purity of precious metals.

[5] See James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5.

[6] See Isaiah 66:2, 5.

[7] Hebrews 10:22.

[8] Francesco Pucci (1543-1597) was an Italian humanistic philosopher. Due to his radical Pelagianism, he was not able to find a home among Protestants, and eventually returned to the Roman communion.

[9] Isaiah 30:21.

[10] 2 Timothy 3:7.

I hope to have a second installment posted tomorrow, on "clear and distinct perception" as a criterion for truth.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 19, 2018)

Since I know the answer to this perfectly I'm going humbly allow someone else to answer.


----------



## dildaysc (Jan 22, 2018)

Part 2...

*§ 8: Is Clear and Distinct Perception Necessary for the Knowledge of God?*


The rule concerning _not admitting anything before Clear and Distinct Perception, and concerning every true thing, which has been thus perceived_, has a bad ring to it in Theology. This rule, understood concerning _the very_ Theological _Matters_ revealed in Scripture, is held both by the _Socinians_, see above, _Chapter_ II, § 40; and by the _Remonstrants_, who, with the Most Illustrious HEIDANUS[1] attributing it to and complaining against _Episcopius_,[2] in Matters of faith weigh all things by one’s own perception, as a Lydian stone; they deny that things are able to be revealed by God, and hence they will all things to be rejected that sound human Reason discovers to be false, and averse to the wisdom, goodness, equity, and righteousness of God or men; and who actually make their Perception the measure of things, although it is fitting that these things be the measure of our Perception: see HEIDANUS’ _de Causa Dei_, _book_ V, _chapter_ XI, _pages_ 774-781, in comparison with _book_ I, _chapter_ I. Whence these Socinianizers have a ready exception, that they do not clearly and distinctly perceive the mysteries of the faith to be thus revealed in Sacred Scripture, as they are explained by us; hence they have just cause to withhold their assent to the same.

But in the Philosophy of _Descartes_ it is also a well-worn rule, that _Everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive is true_: see DESCARTES’ _Meditation_ III, _de prima Philosophia_, _page_ 15: and since this Clear and Distinct Perception is a rule for Descartes, a norm and a measure of truth, he also very regularly instructs that _there is to be no judgment except of things clearly and distinctly perceived_. And by these axioms, with the Most Illustrious WITTICH[3] as judge in his _Theologia pacifica_, _chapter_ III, § 25, _he uncovers the universal fount both of all error, and of all certainty, that by this alone are we able to obtain certain and indubitable truth, if we withhold assent from those things that we do not clearly and distinctly perceive, but on the contrary give assent to those things that have been clearly and distinctly understood by us_: _which thing_ is judged by Wittich _as so great that we might never be able to give thanks sufficiently worthy of the divine providence, that it suggested these thoughts to that Man_ (Descartes). The axioms that were held to be of such moment in searching out truth and guarding against error had to be applied by the disciples of Descartes to Theological matters also, on account of which in the past century they soon began to be regarded poorly. In the meantime, the Most illustrious WITTICH tried to soften somewhat that crude thesis, that Clear and Distinct Perception is also the Measure of truth in matters of faith, when in _Theologia pacifica_, _chapter_ III, § 29, he advises that in divine matters that rest upon Revelation alone, of which sort are the mystery of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, etc., which are impervious to the light of reason, Clear and Distinct Perception _of that Matter_ is not required, to which we are going to give assent, just as in Philosophical matters: yet in these Theological matters no Certainty obtains either, except _Clear and Distinct Perception of the Revelation_ precede. And so here he desires that alone, _that we assent not, nor receive anything with divine faith, except what we have clearly and distinctly perceived as revealed by God_. Which assertion of Wittich, also borrowed from Descartes, HEIDANUS defends in his _Consideratien, etc_., _pages_ 71-74.

But Experimental Physicists, who most recently after Descartes have become more illustrious than other Philosophers, observe that a Clear and Distinct Idea is a κριτήριον/_criterion_ of truth, not in the treatment of real Entities, but in theoretical or Ideal Mathematics/ Science: but, when we wish to conclude anything concerning the actually existing Things themselves, those _very Things_ are for us the norm of truth, and _Experience_ is indeed the most certain κριτήριον/_criterion_ of truth; which, if received by others before us, also makes way for _Faith_ here: compare NIEUWENTYT’S[4] _Gronden van Zekerheid_, _part_ I, _chapter_ VI, _part_ II, _chapters_ XI, XX-XXII. But in matters spiritual and Religious the _Sacred Scripture_, revealed by God, is for us the sole norm of truth, and we recognize _by Faith_ that the matters revealed there are true, with spiritual _Experience_ agreeing in many things.

But what the Most Illustrious WITTICH professes is acceptable, that Clear and Distinct Perception ought not to be extended to the _very Matters_ that rest upon divine Revelation alone; yet as he acknowledges, that this canon in its first origin is grasped in Philosophical Matters; and as the _Judgment_ following Perception here also is referred to the _Matters_; while Wittich asserts that Descartes shows that _We are certainly going to obtain the truth in those Judgment that we form concerning things perceived clearly and distinctly_. And indeed it is altogether certain that we in a state of grace are not able to perceive _the Mysteries of Religion_ clearly and distinctly, _on account of the present blindness of our eyes, the sublimity of divine Mysteries, and the want of such copious light_.

If indeed a _Clear Idea_ is to be said to be the Sign of Truth, a representation of the matter accommodated to capacity is not sufficient: for thus the divine Attributes, which in God are only one, we represent to ourselves as many in a manner accommodated to our capacity; but from an Idea of this sort considered in itself we are able to conclude nothing real outside of our mind. But a Clear Idea represents to the mind the matter to be understood as it is in itself in a manner accommodated to capacity in such a way that it makes a vivid impression upon it; but for this is required a symmetry between the matter to be perceived and the mind perceiving; for if the Matter to be perceived surpasses capacity, the keenness of the mind in the contemplation of it is darkened and blunted, no less than the eye, if it wishes to contemplate the sun, is darkened by the too great clarity of the solar light.

It is a _Distinct_ Perception, which exhibits the individual predicates of a matter as they are in the thing itself, without mixture either of other things that belong not to this but to another thing, or of the very things that are in this thing. But, if Perception shall distinctly represent to us the individual predicates of a thing, it ought at the same time to be full and adequate; otherwise it will be a Distinct Perception, not of the thing, but only of some part of the thing.

Whence it is sufficiently apparent that a Clear and Distinct Perception of the most sublime Mysteries of Religion is here expected by us in vain, while in the next life also we will be compelled to admit concerning many things, _The knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, and I do not have the ability for it_, Psalm 139:6; while in this life additionally, ἐκ μέρους γινώσκομεν, καὶ ἐκ μέρους προφητεύομεν, _we know in part, and we prophesy in part_.

Moreover, if with WITTICH you should wish to apply this rule in Theological Matters to the _Perception of Revelation_, “so that there is no certainty in Religion, there is to be no assent to any matter, nor embrace of anything with divine faith, except what We Perceive Clearly and Distinctly to have been revealed by God:”

1. It is to be considered, _whether thus sufficient attention is given to a Conscience Doubting in moral matters_, which in a certain case of Conscience indeed draws a conclusion with probability, that action is to be taken in this or that manner from the revealed will of God; yet it does not Clearly and Distinctly perceive that it has thus been revealed. But what is to be done or concluded in this sort of case of an anxious Conscience, if assent is to be withheld for so long a time, until you achieve a Clear and Distinct Perception of the matter? compare MARESIUS’[5] _Positiones theologicas de Conscientia_, § XIII, in _Sylloge Disputationum_, _part_ II, _pages_ 304, 305.

2. The Most Illustrious SPANHEIM in his _Epistola de novissimis in Belgio Dissidiis_, _pages_ 101-103, observes that “in these most recent times Maresius and the other Zelanders did not stumble over this _suggestion_ of Wittich, _concerning withholding assent from all things, _even those _to be received by divine faith, which one has not perceived by a clear and distinct perception as the measure of all assent,_ namely, that thus _they were revealed by God_: while by that perception they hardly think to be understood the perception of faith, and the supernatural light of the Holy Spirit.” He certainly does not want revealed Matters to be received _with divine Faith_, unless _we have_ previously_ perceived Clearly and Distinctly_ that the same have been revealed: but in the case of this Clear and Distinct Perception, which ought to precede, Wittich makes no more mention there of the Illumination of the Holy Spirit as requisite for that, beyond which DESCARTES in _Responsionibus ad Objectionem Secundam_, makes mention of _the Light of divine grace_ as requisite for assent in matters of faith: compare VAN MASTRICHT’S _Gangrænam Novitatum Cartesianarum_, _section _II, _chapter_ III, § 29, 30, _pages_ 194-198. Should _divine Faith_ of revealed Matters be suspended then upon _human Judgment_, which solely follows Clear and Distinct Perception of Revelation made be God? This is certainly an amazing analysis of divine Faith, which ought to rest upon a divine foundation, not a human. Nay, it is a very slippery foundation, since I often suppose that I am understanding a matter, when with a vivid imagination I represent that to myself, which representation, nevertheless, when subsequently compared with the thing itself, is found to be completely false, and to have no other foundation except the Imagination contrived by the mind. In a word we say that human Perception is not the foundation of Faith, but the Word of God revealed in Sacred Scripture. But, that it has been revealed by God, and what is revealed by God in it, we apprehend by the perception of Faith, by the Holy Spirit as teacher illuminating our intellect and opening our heart.

3. And finally whether among the diverse followers that subtle distinction concerning Clear and Distinct Perception of a revealed Matter not being required, but of the Revelation alone, does not pass into smoke and wind, which distinction could appear so contrived to affect a sham: while those Philosophers in addition arrogate to themselves the Judgment concerning the very Matters revealed, or _concerning_ the observation _of the connection between Subject and Predicate_, who, if with words taken in their proper signification it appears to fight with the Clear and Distinct Perception that they imagine for themselves, at will assign another improper sense either to the Subject or to the Predicate. That is, as that _Most Beloved Grandson_ of the Most Illustrious RÖELLIUS[6] wrote, _this stands firm, that either the Scripture is not Revelation, or it does not disagree with Reason_. But who shall judge of the agreement or disagreement of Scripture with Reason? That sublime Reason of the Philosophers, who measure all things by their own Clear and Distinct Perception. He proceeds, _Wherefore those Theologians that, being unprepared with Reasons, call Scripture to their aid do little justice to themselves and their craft…. For…who would be so mad that he, so that he might be a Christian, would be willing to be made a Beast, that is, to abjure all Reason? They would certainly better devote their labor in those passages of Scripture in reconciling with Reason what things appear to be at odds with it, rather in accommodating, or rather twisting, those things to their superstition and prejudices_: see _Judicium Ecclesiasticum laudatum_, _chapter_ II, § 5. Hence those tears! Hence BEKKER[7] from the second Cartesian principium concerning the nature and operation of Spirits, not being able Clearly and Distinctly to Perceive the operations of Devils upon men, came to the denial of the same; and he, judging according to the same Clear and Distinct Perception concerning divine Revelation, supposed that it, when it speaks of the operation of demons, ought to be understood completely improperly and figuratively, whether with respect to those demons that are mentioned, or with respect to the operations that are ascribed to them. And thus all that establish their own Perception as the measure of truth regard it as necessary to deny the power of the god of this world in blinding the sense of men, lest they should have something to fear from him, which on that account was also treated by _Spinoza_:[8] see LEYDEKKER’S _Dissertationem contra Bekkerum_, _section_ XI, _chapter _XXI, _pages_ 183, 184.

From the same principium, concerning not admitting what you have not Perceived Clearly and Distinctly, flowed RÖELLIUS’ denial of the proper, divine Generation of the Son of God, which is asserted so Clearly in Scripture, in the Mysteries of which sort Wittich affirmed that Clear and Distinct Perception was not able to have a place: see RÖELLIUS’ _Dissertationem theologicam de Generatione Filii, etc_., § VI, _page_ 11, “Of this Generation, properly so called, that involved no imperfection, no one to this point either has anything himself or is able to give anything to others, much less a Clear and Distinct Concept.” Again, § XLVI, _page_ 48, “It would be especially unjust to require from me that I believe this _Generation properly so called_, a concept of which no one either has himself, or is able to give to me. If other be of so ignoble a spirit that to please others they believe something by implicit faith of which they are ignorant, I am not.” See also § XXXVIII, _page_ 38.

It is worthwhile to hear the sharp censure and just indignation, with which the Great SPANHEIM took exception against this manner of procedure in matters of Religion, _Oratione de Christianismo degenere_, _book_ X, _Miscellano Sacrorum Antiquorum_, _Oration _XIII, _column_ 1468, _opera_, _tome_ 2: “For I also am at a loss,” says he, “whether there was ever, not from the recent renewal of the Church, but from the very birth of Christianity, such a wind of lasciviousness, in which we see such poor little puffed up and impudent geniuses swept along, to whom nothing is supposed to be impervious to human Reason, nothing certain in Religion, except what they invent for themselves by their own opinion, or construct with their own Ideas. Oh the times! Are the pronouncements of God then to be dragged off to the Tribunal of human perception? Is that πιστεύω, _I believe_, of Christians from the beginning to be pierced with taunts equal to those of Julian? Are the sublimities of the mysteries that have no commerce with nature or earth to be tested by the Lydian stone of the conceptions of each and every man? Are Divine things to be estimated according to human things, Eternal things according to changing things, Incorporeal things according to either the condition or state of matter, in these mists of ignorance and prejudices, but also in the confines of human minds? Or are those things to be beheld by the Philosophical eye, which are only taken in by the eye of _faith_, and of love, and of Angelic contemplation? Indeed, their reflection answers to the ignorance, but then an ignorance less obstinate, and soon overthrown by definite experiment, of those that formerly confessed to the Apostle Paul, _that they did not so much as know whether there be any Holy Ghost_.[9] Nevertheless, the father of the Renewed Philosophy prudently pronounced that nothing is more certain than this light, as nothing is more evident than this experience, even that by its own intrinsic sense it more thoroughly pervades hearts. Certainly there is no other than this Trumpet, that would direct the sight of the eyes higher, and bring it unto the very seat of Eternity.”

Certainly more than his disciples, even Reformed Theologians also, DESCARTES himself showed sobriety and held the Scriptures in reverence, not extending the rule concerning Clear and Distinct Perception as the North Star of Truth to revealed truths, _Principiorum Philosophiæ_, _first part_, _article_ LXXVI, or _the last_: “Now, in addition to other things, it is to be fixed in our memory as the highest rule, that those things that have been revealed to us by God are to be believed as the most certain of all: And, although the light of reason might perhaps appear to suggest to us something else as the clearest and most evident, our belief is to be applied to divine authority alone, rather than to our own judgment: But in those matters concerning which divine faith teaches us nothing, it is not at all proper for the Philosophical man to assume anything as truth that he never perceived to be true, and to trust more in his feelings/senses, that is, with the opinions of his upbringing left unconsidered, than in mature reason.” The Lemma of this Article is: “Divine Authority is to be preferred to our Perception: but with Divine Authority excluded, it is not proper for the Philosopher to assent to anything other than what is perceived.” With which you will find many things consonant in the writings of Descartes: among others in his _Responsione secunda_, _page_ 78, he asserts, “That because of which we embrace faith is clearer than all natural light. Since the formal reason because of which we give our assent in matters of faith consists in a certain internal light, whereby, having been supernaturally illuminated by God, we have confidence that those things that are set forth to be believed are revealed by Him, and that it is completely impossible that He should lie; which is more certain than all natural light, and often more evident also because of the light of grace.” VRIESIUS will give additional material in his _Exercitatione de Officio Philosophi circa Revelata_. While against this thesis of Descartes, concerning Clear and Distinct Perception as the Norm of Truth, one may see PIERRE-DANIEL HUET[10] disputing in a general way in his _Censura Philosophiæ Cartesianæ_, _chapter_ II, and _Auctore Itineris per Mundum Cartesii_, _pages_ 77-93, and likewise in his _Novis Difficultatibus a Peripatetico propositis et priori tractatui Itineris per Mundum subjunctis_, _pages_ 69, 70: add WILLIAM IRHOVIUS’[11] _Disquisitionem pneumatologicam de Intellectu Facultate vere active_, § LXXIV-LXXVI, compared with § LI-LVI, in which he observes that everywhere men imagine for themselves a Clear and Distinct Idea of a thing; but the criterion is not supplied by Descartes or his followers, whereby truly Clear and Distinct Perception might be distinguished from that which only appears to be such, but is not: now, the corrupt state of nature is responsible for the fact that our Perceptions so frequently stray; but for this the blame of this matter would have been able to be assigned to our Creator God, who here also acts the part of Judge, and only negatively has to do with our errors, which we are doing privatively: hence the varying opinions, straying so from God and our own intellect, for example. Those _Disquisitions_ of IRHOVIUS are found after the sixth edition of the _Determinationum pneumatologicarum Vriesii_.

So that we might make an end, we concede with our AUTHOR, 1. that nothing is to be believed that has not been perceived in some manner from Scripture; for, without a Knowledge of the Revelation of a matter made by God, from the Scriptures, our faith would not be divine, but human. 2. That it is in every case to be the goal, that we obtain from the Spirit as Teacher a Clear and Distinct Perception of the Revelation of a matter with the eyes of faith. In which sense our AUTHOR would entirely wish that _this Rule be more diligently observed also by those that more than others appear to wish to inculcate it_: because sometimes in the expounding of Scripture they are so twisted up that it is difficult to perceive how they are able to imagine for themselves that the sense which they attach to the Scripture has been revealed by God.

Compare with this § PETRUS VAN MASTRICHT’S _Gangrænam Novitatum Cartesianarum_, _prior section_, _chapter_ II, § 7, 8, _pages_ 26-33, _posterior section_, _chapter_ III, _pages_ 165-198, in which _chapter_ he diligently inquires into the truth of this assertion, set forth in § 1, 2,_ That Clear and Distinct Perception is the primary and only norm of truth, and that hence no assent is to be given expect to what has been clearly and distinctly perceived_. He explains the terms in § 4-6, in which he observes that what it might be _to Perceive Clearly and Distinctly_ is not rightly discerned from the explanation of Descartes and his followers, subjoining, “Wherefore, at least in my judgment, you might more rightly and clearly say that just that is to be called Clear and Distinct Perception, whereby the mind is _conscious to itself_ that its perception corresponds _to the thing perceived_, or that _it has perceived the thing as it is_. Whence it is additionally to be gathered that _Clarity_ and _Distinctiveness_ of Perception ought to be discerned from its _truth_ or conformity with the thing perceived; but not contrariwise, that _the truth of the thing_, or even of perception, ought to be discerned from the _clarity_ and distinctiveness of our Perception.” In § 7-12, there is a refutation of that axiom, that Clear and Distinct Perception is the sole Norm of Truth, from this, among other things, 1. That the truth of a thing is the norm and measure of Clear and Distinct Perception, not the other way around, unless we wish to involve ourselves in a vicious circle. 2. Because Clear and Distinct Perception is without the necessary requisites of a norm. 3. Because a falsehood is able to lie beneath this Perception according to the hypotheses of our adversaries. 4. Because in the demonstration of this rule there is a Vicious Circle, since they prove that whatever I Clearly and Distinctly Perceive is truth, because God, the author of that Perception, is not able to deceive: again, that God is not able to deceive, they prove from this, that they have in themselves a Clear and Distinct Perception of God as ἀψεύδους, _free of all deceit_. Then _van Mastricht_ resolves the objections of the Cartesians sought, 1. from this, that God is the author of every Clear and Distinct Perception, § 13. 2. From this, that the rule rests upon the first principle of Philosophy, _I think, therefore I am_, § 14, to which then, in § 15-17, three other objections of _Lambert Velthuysen_[12] are added. In addition, in § 18, 19, the marks of Clear and Distinct Perception are examined, while here a threefold doubt is able to arise: first, while another is able to proffer his Clear and Distinct Perception to me, by what κριτηρίῳ/_criterion_ would I be able to discern whether he actually Perceived Clearly and Distinctly, or he only thought that he Perceived Clearly and Distinctly? secondly, if two adversaries should vociferously claim for themselves Clear and Distinct Perception, by what note would I be able to discern whose Clear and Distinct Perception is genuine? third, since in my very self a false opinion of Clear and Distinct Perception is able to insinuate itself in the place of that which is truly such, by what judgment would I be able to differentiate the false opinion from the true? A sound opinion concerning the business of Clear and Distinct Perception is settled, § 20-22. The principal abuses of this norm at the hands of the Cartesians are noted, § 23, 24, namely, that, 1. from this they not only conclude _affirmatively_ that whatever I Perceive Clearly and Distinctly in a matter, this is truly in it; but also _negatively_, that whatever I am not able to Perceive Clearly and Distinctly in a matter, this is also not truly in it. 2. That they reason from potency to act. Finally, the damage done by that rule, especially in Theology, is pointed out, § 25-30, which is the source of a great many errors; in Theological matters it yields a norm other than the Scripture; it frees various men from the necessity of divine Faith, if assent is not to be yielded except to things Clearly and Distinctly Perceived; it makes Reason and Philosophy the Interpreter of Scripture, banishing the supernatural light of the Spirit. See in addition _de vyf Walcherse Artikelen_, _Article_ I,[13] and BRAHÉ’S _Aanmerkingen over de vyf Walcherse Artikelen_, § 6-13, _pages_ 7-24; likewise ANTONIUS HULSIUS’[14] _Specimines Theologiæ hypotheticæ_, _disputation_ XXX, § 11, _part_ 2, _page_ 384.


[1] Abraham Heidanus (1597-1678) was a Dutch Reformed minister and Cocceian theologian. He served as professor of theology at Leiden from 1648 to 1676, but was ultimately dismissed for his Cartesianism.

[2] Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) was a Dutch theologian. He studied at the University of Leiden under Jacobus Arminius, and embraced his teacher’s distinctive doctrines. He became a leader among the Remonstrants, playing a significant role at the Synod of Dort (1618).

[3] Christoph Wittich (1625-1687) was a Dutch Theologian and Cartesian. He served as Professor of Theology at Duisburg (1653-1654), Nijmegen (1655-1671), and Leiden (1671-1687).

[4] Bernard Nieuwentyt (1654-1718) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and Cartesian philosopher.

[5] Maresius, or Samuel Desmarets (1599-1673), was a French Huguenot minister and polemist. He held various ministerial posts, and served as Professor of Theology at Sedan (1625-1636), and at Groningen (1643-1673).

[6] Hermann Alexander Röell (1653-1718) was a Dutch Reformed philosopher (Cartesian) and theologian. He served as Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Franeker (1685-1704), and as Professor of Natural Theology at Utrecht (1704-1718).

[7] Balthasar Bekker (1634-1698) was a Dutch minister, although ultimately deposed. He was a proponent of Cartesian Rationalism, arguing that philosophy and theology must be kept in separate spheres, the former for the exploration of natural truths, and the latter for the exploration of supernatural truths of Scripture.

[8] Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) was a Jewish-Dutch philosopher, and one of the great Rationalists in the tradition of Descartes.

[9] Acts 19:2.

[10] Pierre-Daniel Huet (1630-1721) was a Roman Catholic churchman and a universal scholar. He was the cofounder of the Academie du Physique in Caen.

[11] Willem van Irhoven (1698-1760) was a Dutch Reformed Minister and Theologian. He served as Professor of Theology (1737-1740), and then as Professor of Church History (1740-1760) at Utrecht.

[12] Lambert van Velthuysen (1622-1685) was a Dutch Theologian and Philosopher, and a strong proponent of Cartesian philosophy.

[13] The Five Walcheren Articles (1693) were adopted by the Dutch Classes of Walcheren to resist the encroachment of the Rationalistic view of Röell and Bekker.

[14] Antonius Hulsius (1615-1685) was a Dutch Reformed philologist and theologian.


----------

