De Moor I:17: Defense of the Existence of Natural Theology

The Natural Theology previously asserted our AUTHOR now vindicates from the Objections of Adversaries, especially with relation to the Theology of Fallen Man.

Socinus and his followers deny this, and Socinus indeed denies both Innate Natural Theology, and even Acquired.  Socinus, in his Prælectionibus Theologicis, chapter II, asserts that “it is false that there is an idea of any divinity naturally innate in man and in his soul;” and this he exerts himself to prove by several arguments, Opera, tome I, page 537, 538.  And he writes on page 538a, “But there are those that say that it is not even possible to deny this, that from the scheme of this world alone, if anyone should pay attention, one is able manifestly to know, not only that there is a God, but also that He oversees and plainly perceives human affairs.  This opinion is convicted of falsehood even from this, etc.”  Ostorodus[1] in his Institutionibus, chapter I, joins in support.  Nevertheless, some others of the Socinians think otherwise; and especially Crellius, who admits Natural Theology, at least as Acquired, and grants it as a thing approved by many, libro de Deo et Attributis, chapters I-IV.  Unto the Socinians Episcopius[2] nearly approaches, who, in his Institutionibus Theologicis, book I, chapter III, on the question, Whether there be an idea of Deity implanted or innate in man and in his soul?, answers on page 6 that “it hardly appears plausible to him:  for he believes that it is the condition of the human soul, that not only is no notion naturally impressed upon it, but that also no use of reason is able to hold place in it, except through speech and instruction.”  Nevertheless, he adds, “Although there be no innate idea of Deity in man, yet there are some principia given in nature, from which by ratiocination man may be able to gather that there is a God.”  That there is not any innate Knowledge of God in us, CONRAD VORSTIUS[3] also asserts, in his Exegesi Apologetica, chapter I:  see TRIGLAND’S[4] Kerckelycke Geschiedenissen, volume 4, page 575b.

Πρῶτα ψεύδη, the fundamental errors, of the Socinians are:

1.  That the Image of God in the first man, or Original Wisdom, is denied, and hence also the relics of that are to be denied in that innate light.

2.  That all knowledge of God is from the tradition of the elders, or by faith or revelation, and both by hearing:  see Socinus, in his Opera, tome I, page 537b; Catechesi Racoviensi “de Via Salutis”, chapter I, questions 1, 7, 8; and compare the Most Illustrious ARNOLDI’S[5] refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, on the place cited, § 1-4, 43-45, pages 44, 45, 70, 71, likewise also on chapter I “de Cognitione Dei”, question 4, § 8, page 80.

3.  That many Nations are without this light.

The scope/goal; to assert that those six most common heads concerning God, His existence, unity, eternity, perfect righteousness, wisdom, and power, do not belong to natural knowledge, but to revealed, from faith, which things alone are necessary to understand concerning God for salvation; hence that salvation is applicable to the Gentiles also through faith.

Among our men, Pierre Chauvin, a Gallo-Belgic Theologian,[6] in a tractate entitled de Religione naturali, published at Rotterdam in 1693 in octavo, part III, chapters I, II, pages 323-339; part I, chapter I, pages 4, 5, contends that natural Law and the knowledge of God are in no one inborn, or inscribed on the hearts of men, but that only the faculty is innate in him, the faculty of acquiring for himself from other sources the knowledge of God as Legislator:  see CORNELIUS VAN VELZEN’S[7] Continuatam Historiam Ecclesiasticam Spanhemii, tome 3, pages 653, 654, who enumerates also many others suspected of this opinion.

Objection 1:  Things natural are common to all.  The knowledge of God is not common to all.  Therefore, it is not natural.  The major is conceded.  The truth of the minor is evident from Psalm 14:1.  Responses:  1.  The fool says, not believes and really thinks, but says, that is, he speaks silently with himself, and tries to persuade himself of this in the time of his folly, when he is plotting evils, although often in vain:  he says, more with effort than with assent; thus he wishes within, Would that there were no God!  Of course, אָמַר, to say, is equally made use of concerning a word ἐνδιαθέτῳ, residing in the mind, and one προφορικῷ/uttered, and often denotes to consider, to meditate, comparing with Exodus 2:14, הַלְהָרְגֵ֙נִי֙ אַתָּ֣ה אֹמֵ֔ר, sayest/intendest thou to kill us, especially when the word לֵב/heart is added, as it is here:  see for example, Genesis 17:17; 27:41; Deuteronomy 8:17; 18:21; 1 Samuel 27:1; Esther 6:6;[8] Psalm 74:8; Ecclesiastes 2:1, 15; indeed, the simple אָמַר, to say, is translated a number of times by the Dutch as to think, as in Genesis 20:11;[9] 1 Samuel 16:6; 2 Samuel 21:16;[10] 1 Kings 5:5;[11] etc.  Thus the same thing is brought out in Psalm 10:4:  All his thoughts are that there is no God.[12]  But anyone able to foster thoughts of this sort against natural instinct and common sense, so that he thus suppresses the truth by force through unrighteousness;[13] such a one is deservedly called a נָבָל/fool by the Prophet.  2.  It is not intended to be taken so much as a denial of God’s Existence, as of His Providence, which is proven by a comparison with Psalm 10; where, in the place of that which was said in verse 4, all his thoughts are that there is no God, is read in verse 11, he says in his heart, God has forgotten; He hides His face, He never regards it.  Hence also in the Targum of Psalm 14:1, in the place of אֵ֣ין אֱלֹהִ֑ים, there is no God, has לֵית שׁוּלטָנָא דֶאֱלָהָא בְּאַרְעָא, there is no dominion, authority, or power, of God in the earth.  3.  That he does not treat of theoretical Atheists and those properly so called, is proven also from the citation of the words immediately following in verses 1-3 in Romans 3:10-12, to prove the universal corruption of the human race:  but all the impious and sinners are not able to be called Atheists in the emphatic sense.  4.  Finally, if according to Descartes we wish to show good sense, we all ought at some point to become Fools of this sort; all by universal doubt, even concerning the Existence of God, sooner or later ought to say in the heart that there is no God:  which, nevertheless, the Cartesians also think is easily able to consist with the innate knowledge of God.

Objection 2:  What is of faith is not natural to all men.  The belief in the Divine Being is of faith, according to Hebrews 11:6.  Therefore, it is not natural.  Responses:  1.  In the Major there is the fallacy à dicto secundum quid, from a qualified maxim.[14]  What is of faith alone is not known by nature.  But a particular thing may be able to be known partly by Faith, partly be Nature, in a manner of knowing twofold and diverse:  to the extent that that is evident by Faith, it is not grasped by natural knowledge.  2.  In the Minor I would rather have said the knowledge, rather than the belief, of the Divine Being; and this Minor is false, if that knowledge is said to be of Faith only or alone.  It is evident that Paul here treats of a particular knowledge of divine Existence by faith, which does not overturn the general knowledge by nature, but rather supposes and perfects it, and teaches one to furnish assent to the Existence of God as Triune.  In like manner, by nature and faith together we know the immortality of the soul, the necessity of death, the Creation of the world, concerning which it is also spoken here in verse 3, πίστει νοοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι Θεοῦ, etc., by faith we know that the worlds were framed by the word of God, etc.  3.  Neither ought those things to be separated, which Paul has closely joined; for he speaks of the knowledge of God, by which we please Him, which is only of faith.  He likewise speaks of faith, by which at one and the same time we firmly believe that God is and that He becomes the μισθαποδότην/ rewarder of those seeking Him:  but there is no knowledge of God as a gracious Rewarder in Christ except by faith.

Objection 3:  Infants are without Theology.  This objection proceeds in the same manner as the first:  Natural things are common to all, etc.  Now, the Minor is confirmed out of the case of infantile age, which is said to be able to do neither good nor evil,[15] nor to distinguish the right hand from the left,[16] and so not to know God.  Response:  The knowledge of God is to be regarded either with respect to the faculty, principium, and ability, or with respect to the act:  in the former manner it is applicable to infants, with the rationale set forth in § 12, but not in the latter.  But that Knowledge deserves to be called Natural to man, no less than speech, reason, etc., which likewise by reason of the faculty and principium are in man immediately from the womb, but with the passing of time at length begin to exert themselves unto act.

Johannes Hoornbeeck

Objection 4:  Socinus labors to confirm further the same reasoning by the example of whole Nations, discovered in Brasil and other places in India, which are altogether without religion:  see, besides his Prælectiones Theologicas, chapter II, opera Fausti Socini, page 538a, his little book de Auctoritate Scripturæ, chapter II, pages 277 and following.  Responses:  1.  This is circular reasoning; for concerning this it is especially controverted, whether such Nations, altogether ignorant of all Deity, be granted.  2.  The authority, which is produced to confirm this thesis, is sought only from the negative testimony of a few, who are able to assert nothing other than that they did not discern any vestiges of divine Knowledge or Worship among those Nations, during that time in which they remained among them.  But if by a longer and more familiar fellowship with those peoples of which they speak, they had made to themselves both the language and customs more well-known and familiar, they would have experienced something far different:  just as others experienced, who concerning the same peoples, whom some have related to be without Divinity, yield to us all other things:  see HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismum confutatum, book I, chapter VII, tome I, pages 147, 148, where he produces various testimonies, from which it is evident that at least some Worship of Deity, although most corrupt, obtains among the various Nations of America and Occidental India, which springs from an innate sense of divinity.  In particular, in the same passage, he relates from chapter XVI of Historia Navigationis in Brasiliam of Jean de Léry of Burgundy (who, with other Frenchmen from the Genevan Church, were sent unto America in 1556 for the sake of the preaching of the Gospel, and who discovered a way to Brasil),[17] that he made the Tupinamba Indians of all men the most ignorant concerning God and religion:  and yet that there were not wanting even to these some arguments, which indicate that some bit of divinity, although perhaps it be very small, was surviving among them also; especially if you more attentively consider in their case these four things, that they believe in the immortality of the soul; that they recoil in terror from thunder, and ascribe it to a God, although an evil one, Toupa; that they complain that they are miserably tormented by a Demon; and finally that they have their own Prophets or Priests, Caraibes, who persuade the people that they, because they live in communion with Spirits, furnish courage for them in war against their enemies, and supply fruit, etc.  While concerning the Peruvians, who were neighboring the Tupinamba Indians, Léry relates the same thing, that they sacrifice to the Sun and Moon, and some of them also appear to have believed in some manner in the resurrection of the dead.  Add HOORNBEECK’S de Conversione Indorum et Gentilium, book I, chapters V and following, especially chapter IX, in which he treats of the contemporary Gentilism of the Native Americans, and even of the Brazilians and Peruvians, pages 71 and following, likewise book II, chapter XI, page 205:  consult also WITSIUS’ Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 2, Exercise XIII, § 17, but add moreover Exercise XIV, § 26-28.  And read even before all for a solution to this Objection JOHANN LUDWIG FABRITIUS’[18] Apologeticum pro Genere humano contra Atheismi Calumniam, Opera, pages 119-142.

Objection 5:  Finally, they labor to prove by the example of men that are wont to be called Atheists that there is no Natural knowledge of the Divine belonging to the human race.  To which objection separately,

It may be answered:  1.  It is granted that there are a good number of practical Atheists, who nevertheless do not deny the Existence of the Divine theoretically, indeed, they profess it publicly, Psalm 36:1, 2; Titus 1:16.

2.  It is granted that there are those that indirectly deny the Divine by the negation of Providence, the Justice of God, etc.; whence by consequence God Himself is denied:  nevertheless, concerning these it is not now asked, but concerning those that directly cast off all knowledge, belief, and sense of the Divine.

3.  It is granted that there are such by profession of mouth, who deny God, and refuse to acknowledge that they have knowledge of Him:  but it is asked whether they sincerely feel this, and have altogether convinced themselves of it; not by doubting temporarily, nor by studiously feigning this ignorance; but by having this opinion firm and fixed within themselves?  And this latter appears hardly to be able to be admitted, although one might profess it with the mouth; no more than if one, by feigning Skepticism, should protest that he knows absolutely nothing, that he does not understand the truth of that principium, Nothing is able at the same time to be and not to be; that he has no knowledge of the law of nature, nor experience of an accusing or excusing conscience:  for a man of this sort would not be able readily to be reckoned worthy of confidence among those experienced in the affairs of men.

4.  Here and there among the Gentiles there were those that repudiated the received Deities, and hence according to the foolish opinion of the common people they were called Atheists:  but it is enquired concerning those that cast away entirely all sense of the Divine.

5.  Formerly all Nations were destitute of the saving knowledge and communion of the true God, and hence they are called ἄθεοι/ atheists by Paul, Ephesians 2:12,[19] upon which passage consult HENRICUS WILHELMUS VAN MARLE’S Flosculos in Libros Novi Testamenti Dogmaticos, in which he discusses the various significations of the word ἄθεος/atheist among the Greeks.  But, acknowledging just how false Theology can be, we inquire concerning those that are altogether destitute of all Theology.  And valid reasons are given for denying a theoretical Atheism of this sort.  If we consider, α.  those things that were previously set forth in favor of the natural knowledge of God, especially the innate knowledge of God, except with the casting aside of the light of reason itself.  β.  That thus all the first truths of the soul would be able to be extirpated, which would classify man as non-man, that is, as destitute of reason.  γ.  That, if all acquaintance with the Divine is able to be cast off, all sense of natural Law is able no less easily to be expunged, and in this manner the ἀναπολογησίαν/inexcusability of the Nations[20] is greatly diminished.  δ.  The glorious majesty of the divine Legislator and Judge is added, to which it is appropriate to supply that all, willingly or unwillingly, are imbued with the knowledge of His ὑπεροχῆς/pre-eminence.  ε.  Consider, moreover, that the Demons do not cast away the acknowledgement of the Divine, in spite of the fact that they tremble at it, James 2:19.  ϛ.  Finally, Paul, describing the incurable malice of the Gentiles, Romans 1, indeed makes mention of their vain rites and gross idolatry, even calls them haters of God in verse 30, yet he never accuses them of denying the Existence of God, which in all other respects would have been the very peak of all outrages.  On the contrary, even in such malice, says he, they know God and τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεου, the judgment of God, and have the work of the law written on their hearts, Romans 1:19, 20, 32; 2:14, 15.  ζ.  Additionally, the Eminent NIEUWENTYT, Cosmotheoria, chapter XVI, § 12, pages 280, 281, observes that the continuous efforts of Atheists to fight against natural Theology with all violence reveal the consciousness of Divinity in Atheists; while they would not judge some chimera of a winged horse, a golden mountain, etc., worthy of so laborious a refutation.

But if any, therefore, perhaps be found so wretched, that they had rather be persuaded that there is no God, than that the same exists, this is able to be attributed to the terrible judgment of heaven-sent Blindness; neither does their example prove that the natural knowledge of Deity is not given, any more than the example of the few that are born blind and mentally feeble demonstrates that vision and reason are not natural to man:  consult SPANHEIM’S Decadum Theologicarum III, § 2, Opera, tome 3, column 1205; and an Anonymous author’s Dissertationem pro Legato Stolpiano, on the question Quodnam pro adserenda Numinis Existentia pretium statui debeat Consensui communi generis humani? pages 157-163.

What our AUTHOR adds, “The error of Aristotle, who hardly acknowledges the Creation, is wrongly confounded with Atheism itself by Socinus:”  concerning this many more things are able to be found in HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismo confutato, book I, chapter VII, section III, tome I, pages 172, 173; and in BUDDEUS’ de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter I, § 15, chapter II, § 9, 10, pages 134, 135, 139, 140; chapter VI, § 3.  Algemeene Historie uyt het Engelsch vertaalt, part I, piece I, Introduction, pages 8, 9.

Concerning Atheism, and against it, more things are discussed by VOETIUS in his Disputationum theologicarum, volume I, pages 114-226; also by BUDDEUS in his de Atheismo et Superstitione, to which treatise JOHANNES LULOFS added his Annotationes, altogether worthy of reading; Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VII, § 10, tome 2, pages 1379-1385a; and also Institutionibus Theologiæ Moralis, part II, chapter III, section 1, § 18, pages 433, 434.

A Scholastic question, whether it is known of itself that there is a God, is agitated in the first part of the Summa, question 2, article 1, and in Magistrum Sententiarum, book I, distinction 3.  Thomas distinguishes, that it is indeed known of itself, but not by us.  Others simply defend rather that it is known by us.  But those acknowledge that the Question is greatly altered in the explication of a proposition known of itself, and of the distinction between a thing known of itself and known to us.  Now, they say that that proposition is known of itself, which of itself, not through anything else, is known to us; or to which the intellect furnishes assent, not through another, but through itself alone; or if there be such a proposition that it could not be directly denied, and if its truth be so manifest that everyone immediately judges it to be true, if it be understood what it signifies.  HOORNBEECK on this occasion, in his Socinianismo confutato, book I, chapter VII, controversy VII, section I, tome I, page 135, thinks that it is proper to distinguish between the knowledge of a thing, and the knowledge of the proposition that sets forth the thing; and he says that, that there is a God, is known of itself, if you regard the thing searched into and its evidence:  but, that this thing is able to be set forth in a manner more or less evident; and that hence it is able to happen that the terms, by which this thing, known of itself, is set forth, are not to such an extent known of themselves that we do not hold it necessary to seek a clearer explication of the proposition and of the thing proposed, before giving our assent to the thing proposed.

[1] Krzysztof Ostorodt (c. 1560-1611) was a Polish Socinian.  He was sent as a missionary to the Netherlands (1598); in Leiden he stirred up great controversy by his success in converting the students of the University.

[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] Conradus Vorstius (1569-1622) was a Dutch Arminian, condemned by the Synod of Dort and banished.  It is reported that he openly embraced Socinianism at the end of his life.

[4] That is, Jacob Trigland the Elder.

[5] Nicolaus Arnoldi (1618-1680) was Professor of Theology at Franeker (1651-1680).

[6] Pierre Chauvin (flourished 1685) was a Reformed Theologian.

[7] Cornelius van Velzen (1696-1752) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Groningen (1731-1752).

[8] Esther 6:6:  “So Haman came in.  And the king said unto him, What shall be done unto the man whom the king delighteth to honour?  Now Haman thought in his heart (וַיֹּ֤אמֶר הָמָן֙ בְּלִבּ֔וֹ), To whom would the king delight to do honour more than to myself?”

[9] Genesis 20:11:  “And Abraham said, Because I thought (אָמַרְתִּי), Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.”

[10] 2 Samuel 21:16:  “And Ishbi-benob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought (וַיֹּאמֶר) to have slain David.”

[11] 1 Kings 5:5a:  “And, behold, I purpose (אֹמֵר) to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God…”

[12] Hebrew:  אֵ֥ין אֱ֜לֹהִ֗ים כָּל־מְזִמּוֹתָֽיו׃.

[13] See Romans 1:18.

[14] That is, the fallacy of converse accident, in which an argument is made from a maxim with limitation and qualification to a maxim without such limitation and qualification (ignoring the exceptions).

[15] See, for example, Isaiah 7:16.

[16] Jonah 4:11.

[17] Jean de Léry (1536-1613), upon his return from his voyage, became a Reformed minister.

[18] Johann Ludwig Fabritius (1632-1697) was a Reformed theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology, Old Testament, and New at Heidelberg (1661-1696).

[19] Ephesians 2:12:  “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God (ἄθεοι/atheists) in the world…”

[20] See Romans 1:20; 2:1.