Institutes of Divine Jurisprudence, with Selections from Foundations of the Law of Nature and Nations. Christian Thomasius
are to be compared especially with my comments in the said chapter 2, §153 following. The third chapter of book 3 was based on my recollection of the famous controversies which were conducted in the writings of various people concerning divine law on conjugal duties, that is, on polygamy, the works of Sincerus Warenberg, Theophilus Alethaeus, Athanasius Vincentius, and Daphnaeus Arcuarius, who wrote in favor of polygamy; for writings against polygamy, see Musaeus, Christian Vigilis, Sluter, Feltmann, Brunsmann, Diecmann, etc.24 For the various legal opinions concerning the marriage of eunuchs, see the collection published by Hieronymus Delphinus two
[print edition page 18]
years ago;25 on divorces, see Selden The Jewish Wife, book 3, chapter 18 and the following chapters,26 and Strauchius in the fragment on the Institutes of Public Law, title 35;27 on incest with the sister of the deceased wife, see the work by Havemann, Tabor, Strauchius, Buchholz, and the editor of the Acta Oettingensia; there are also works by Samuel Bohlius and his adversaries on the incest of stepchildren, etc.28 My blessed father’s disputation on paternal power needs to be read together with the fourth chapter of the third book §§14ff., because there I intended to defend the opinion of my father that paternal society cannot be derived from consent. Chapters 9 and 10, on the duties toward legates and toward the dead, should be compared with Grotius, book 2, chapters 18 and 19, and his commentators, and with my father’s disputation on the inviolability of legates.29
§27. I believed at first that my good intentions, which I have just explained to you, would be treated fairly by all those who love studies and good scholarship and seek the truth. Yet I realized that I lived in a century in which there were not a few to be found who considered it their duty to obstruct free philosophical argument, to build walls and throw up barriers, to enclose it within limits which no human prudence could tear down, because they sensed quite rightly that this liberty of philosophical
[print edition page 19]
argument severely damaged the authority of the sectarian philosophers. For at one time the lecterns of the philosophers were protected by the authority of Aristotle or of some similar member of the original wise men, such as Albert, Thomas, Scotus, etc.,30 against those who philosophized freely. Now, however, the fortress of Aristotelianism has been taken, and so it seems there is a need for new trickery to defend the royal doctrines of the old masters. And since they do not have any real arguments with which to strengthen their fortress, they believe that their cause is advanced best if they persuade the people under the pretext of religion that, whatever they do, they act with God’s guidance and they struggle in defense of piety, and if they accuse their adversaries of being atheists, heretics, impious people, and careless innovators. Apparently they forget what the Apology for the Augsburg Confession, article 4, page 286, says about hypocrites, namely that they are guilty of impiety and of vices of all kinds far more than those they slander as impious.31
§28. I was not surprised, therefore, when I heard at the time of the publication of my first book of these Institutes that various criticisms of it were disseminated in public. And, as you know, the common claim was that I had based it on principles, which led you to atheism, heterodoxy, and I know not what impiety, and which all smacked of some new-fangled philosophy which threatened the commonwealth. This calumny was so widespread that discussion of it was even common among women visiting those who were in childbed. But I derided this open slander with high-minded contempt, and although one of you then told me that there were a few who were planning to lay a trap for me in this affair, I was nevertheless calm in the midst of all the uproar and lived secure in my conscience concerning both my conduct and my opinion, since I knew well that I lived under the rule of a just prince who was able and willing to protect the innocent. I was not even curious to find out the author of this horrid calumny, just as I am not keen to know this now, but rather wish
[print edition page 20]
sincerely that everything may turn out well for him, whoever it might be; for not only does Christianity order me to do so, but the zeal for sound philosophy to some degree tells me to, as do the examples of others who philosophize with moderation and without aggressiveness. Among these I mention above all René Descartes, whom the author of the first objections against his Meditations calls a hugely ingenious and very modest man.32 And indeed whenever I read the books by Gisbert Voetius, otherwise a man of great erudition, which he wrote against Descartes, and again compare the letter written in reply by Descartes to Voetius, I always have the impression (I am speaking of the style, not the subject matter) of two very dissimilar men, one of them a theologian, who is, however, not impartial and speaks badly of others, the other a politic person, but one who is extremely peaceful and accepts most criticisms generously.33
§29. Usually it is Zoilus and Momus34 who come under attack in prefaces, even where there is no Momus. I too had an excellent opportunity to spit bile at the Zoiluses, if I had not always believed that such invectives were a sign of an unsound, or at least of an undisciplined, mind. Moreover, these calumnies directed against me soon vanished; lies cannot persist for long. They are like snowballs which can grow to an enormous size when they are formed by humans, but which are rapidly reduced to nothing once they are exposed to the rays of the sun. Finally there seemed to be no need for invective, since my Institutes are sold publicly and themselves refute this calumny. I submit these Institutes to the scrutiny of all the learned,
[print edition page 21]
but only those who are truly such, for I scorn the censure of the others, who have no learning or know nothing beyond school and the seven liberal arts, even though they are filled to the brim and swollen up with their faith in a false philosophy.
§30. Yet I believe it to be in your interest, my listeners, that you who are, so to speak, caught between both sides know what responses I would want to be given in these controversies, whenever these matters happen to come up in familiar conversation, as they do. However, I wish you could avoid these occasions as much as is possible and not provide an opportunity for these kinds of quarrels, since nothing is more pedantic and nothing renders humans less suitable for civil life than being a disputatious animal in daily conversation and being unable to tolerate dissenters; just as he on the other hand suffers from the same vice of pedantry who stands at the lectern set up for the sake of public disputation and will not tolerate objections which are put forward according to the rules of the art, but to which he cannot reply, and yet is too embarrassed to admit an error. But as it is not always in our power to avoid quarrels completely, even among those we are familiar with, or to avoid hearing the thoughtless comments of one or the other person, your basic interest and the need to prevent you from being confused about the ideas you received from me demand that I say a little more about this matter.
§31. Thus, as far as the vice of atheism is concerned, I only ask my adversaries to look at the arguments I list in the first book, chapter 3, §§85ff., where I show that atheism is directly contrary to the principles I demonstrated. Concerning heresy, however, I should be much obliged to that person who will show me a thesis in these Institutes which is contrary to Holy Scripture and the articles of faith we profess. Moreover I appeal to you, who have heard me expound jurisprudence and philosophy on a daily basis, whether I have ever professed any opinion which contradicted the sacred mysteries of our faith and whether I did not rather devote all my efforts to preserve the strict limits which separate sacrosanct theology and human wisdom from each other and to show to you from the history of philosophy in all ages what great unrest the mixture of philosophy with
[print edition page 22]
theology has caused within the church. But why do we need long discussions? Do you believe that the venerable theologians of our university, or any others who are entrusted with the inspection of doctrines, be they private or public, will allow that heterodox doctrine to be spread and to corrupt your minds? Far from it. Yet I do not deny, and have demonstrated to you several times, that there are many questions and assertions which theologians commonly use, but which, if you examine them carefully, are properly speaking not theological, but philosophical or juristic. The fact that these matters are generally regarded as part of theology is mainly due to scholastic theology, which has done enormous damage by mixing philosophy with theology