“For philosophy is the offspring of right reason:
and this light of reason is infused into the human mind by God Himself,
according to that remark of Tertullian,
‘Reason is of God.'”
on Col. 2:8, p. 290
Order of Contents
Which Philosophy Should be Used?
On the Legitimate Use of Reason
Latin & French: Contra Descartes
Bullinger, Henry – 5th Decade, Tenth Sermon, ‘Of Certain Institutions of the Church of God, of Schools…’, pp. 479-85 in The Decades of Henry Bullinger ed. Thomas Harding, trans. H. I. 4 vols. (Cambridge: 1849-52), vol. 4
Askew, Egeon – ‘An Apology, of the Use of Fathers, and Secular Learning in Sermons’ in Brotherly Reconcilement: Preached in Oxford for the Union of some, and now published with larger meditations for the unity of all in this Church and Commonwealth (London: 1605), pp. 257-353
Askew was a reformed Anglican.
Davenant, John – on Col. 2:8 in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, vol. 1 (London, 1831), pp. 387-407
The Judgment of Non-conformists, of the Interest of Reason, in Matters of Religion… (London, 1676) 21 pp.
Articles of Richard Muller
De Boer, Cecil – ‘Cecil De Boer on Van Tillianism and Idealist Pantheism’ from De Boer, ‘The New Apologetic’, The Calvin Forum, 19, nos 1-2 (August-September 1953), pp 2-3. Van Til Responded to De Boer in The Defense of the Faith, 4th ed., pp. 284-287.
Duby, Steven J. – ‘In Defense of Christian Philosophy: A Response to Peter Leithart’ 2018 22 paragraphs
“…it’s possible to articulate Christian doctrine without formally invoking concepts like “essence,” “substance” and so on. Instead of saying, for example, that in the incarnation there is one hypostasis subsisting in two distinct natures, one can say that there is just Jesus and not someone else and that Jesus always remains both truly God and truly human.
However, the fact that the use of the metaphysical language is not absolutely necessary does not mean that the metaphysical resources in question are detached from reality. It does not mean that what they offer us is just a set of coherent rules for saying things – rules that we might either take or leave. On the contrary, the classical metaphysical tradition developed by Christian thinkers like John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas or the early Reformed theologians and philosophers involves a knowledge of how things are. Indeed, it is fundamentally an exposition of things human beings know to be true prior to engaging in any formal academic work. For example, things do have natures by virtue of which they are similar to other things. There really are substances in which accidents inhere… As we seek ways to express what God is like according to scriptural teaching, we should look to this philosophical tradition, not Kant or Hegel, because it sheds light on reality.”
Abstract: “The claim that I would like to consider in this article is that it is wrong to mix philosophy and theology, or the stronger claim, that a Christian should have nothing to do with philosophy. I propose that the problem springs, primarily, from a faulty understanding of the relationship between faith and reason. In this article we will be attempting to answer the question what place is there, in Christian theology and practice, for Philosophy? We will note, first of all, the relationship between faith and reason, theology and philosophy. Secondly we will consider the ways in which it is permissible to use philosophy in theology, and finally, we will look at some errors that are frequently made when we use philosophy in theology.”
‘The Metaphysics of Scripture’ a chapter in ed. Joseph Minich, Philosophy & the Christian (2018)
Haines has been a professor of philosophy at Veritas Evangelical Seminary.
Abstract: “…not only can philosophy help make sense of our common experience, but the Bible appears to assume a number of important philosophical concepts which, best explained by early Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato, are assumed by most people. This will be shown through a consideration of how the Bible takes for granted an approach to the world which is best described via a number of key Aristotelian concepts, such as, the four causes, act and potency, and the principle of causality… We will conclude with some considerations about the importance of moderate realism for biblical and theological studies.”
Introduction: “We will do this by showing that far from being contrary to the spirit of the Protestant Reformation, the use of the writings and teachings of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, and, indeed, dependence upon these two great thinkers, can be both beneficial and useful for the development and defense of evangelical Protestant theology.
The first step, which we propose to take in this blog post, is to show that the very theologians who began the Protestant Reformation, and who provided it with its enduring form, not only used Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, but, in fact, that their theology was, on many points, dependent on Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. To do this we will begin by articulating the main premises that an argument of this nature requires. We will then consider, briefly, those facts of history which may support the premises of such an argument. This will be done by pointing out some of the most recent research concerning the relationship between Aquinas, Aristotle, and the early reformers. We will also note the continued Reformed dependency upon Aquinas and Aristotle.”
Amyraut, Moses – A Treatise Concerning Religions, in Refutation of the Opinion which accounts all Indifferent. Wherein is also evinced the Necessity of a Particular Revelation and the Verity and Preeminence of the Christian Religion ToC (London: 1660)
Feser, Edward – Aristotle’s Revenge: The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science Buy 2019 515 pp.
“Actuality and potentiality, substantial form and prime matter, efficient causality and teleology are among the fundamental concepts of Aristotelian philosophy of nature. Aristotle’s Revenge argues that these concepts are not only compatible with modern science, but are implicitly presupposed by modern science.” – Blurb
Reformed Dogmatics (Baker), vol. 1, p. 607
“Though Christian dogma cannot be explained in terms of Greek philosophy, it also did not come into being apart from it. There is as yet no dogma and theology, strictly speaking, in Scripture. As long as revelation itself was still in progress, it could not become the object of scientific reflection. Inspiration had to be complete before reflection could begin.
To speak of “Mosaic”, “Pauline”, or the “Bible’s” theology and dogmatics therefore, is not advisable; the word theology, for that matter, does not occur in Scripture and has only gradually acquired its present meaning.
Theology first arose in the Christian community after the naïveté of childhood lay behind it and the adult thinking mind had awakened. Gradually a need arose to think through the ideas of revelation, to link it with other knowledge and to defend it against various forms of attack. For this purpose people needed philosophy. Scientific theology was born with its help. This did not, however, happen accidentally. The church was not the victim of deception. In the formation and development of the dogmas, the church fathers made generous use of philosophy. They did that, however, in the full awareness of and with clear insight into the dangers connected with that enterprise; they were conscious of the grounds on which they did it with express recognition of the word of the apostles as the only rule of faith and conduct. For that reason also they did not utilize the whole of Greek philosophy but made a choice; they only utilized the philosophy that was most suited to help them think through and defend the truth of God. They went to work eclectically and did not take over any single philosophical system, be it either from Plato or from Aristotle, but with the aid of Greek philosophy produced a Christian philosophy of their own.
Furthermore, they only used that philosophy as a means. Just as Hagar was the servant of Sarah, as the treasures of Egypt were employed by the Israelites for the adornment of the tabernacle, as the wise men from the East placed their gifts at the feed of the child in Bethlehem, so, in the opinion of the church fathers, philosophy was the servant of theology.
From everything it is clearly evident that the use of philosophy in theology was based, not on a mistake, but on firm and clear conviction. The church fathers knew what they were doing. Mind you, this does not rule out the possibility that at some points the influence of philosophy was too strong. But in that connection we must make a distinction between the theology of the fathers and the dogmas of the church. The church was at all times alert against the misuse of philosophy; it not only rejected Gnosticism but also condemned Origenism. And up until now no one has succeeded in explaining the dogmas materially in terms of philosophy; however often this has been attempted, in the end the scriptural character of orthodoxy has been vindicated.
Initially the Reformation assumed a hostile posture toward scholasticism and philosophy. But it soon changed its mind. Because it was not, nor wanted to be, a sect, it could not do without theology. Even Luther and Melanchton, therefore, already resumed the use of philosophy and recognized its usefulness. Calvin assumed this high position from the start, saw in philosophy an “outstanding gift of God”, and was followed in this assessment by all Reformed theologians.
The question here is not whether theology should make use of a specific philosophical system. Christian theology has never taken over any philosophical system without criticism and given it the stamp of approval. Neither Plato’s nor Aristotle’s philosophy has been held to be the true one by any theologian. That theologians nevertheless preferred these two philosophical systems was due to the fact that these systems best lent themselves to the development and defense of the truth. Present also was the idea that the Greeks and Romans had been accorded a special calling and gift for the life of culture. Still to this day, in fact, our whole civilization is built upon that of Greece and Rome.”
Johnson, Charles – ‘The Confused Nature of Van Til’s Epistemology’ 2020 24 paragraphs
This clear, helpful, documented and persuasive article examines the first chapter in Van Til’s A Survey of Christian Epistemology. Johnson proves and concludes that:
“…Van Til fails to communicate clearly, and at times clearly equivocates, regarding three points at the heart of his system of philosophy: [1.] whether man must know everything to know anything, [2.] whether knowledge is true if it corresponds to God’s knowledge, or on the contrary, [it is] only [true] if he consciously refers it to God, [3.] and whether this referring to God is [to] be sufficient, or whether one must be regenerate and possessing a saving faith of God in order to possess ‘true knowledge’.”
Geisler, Norman – Does Thomism Lead to Catholicism? 24 paragraphs
Reeves, Ryan – The Significance of Thomas Aquinas Ligonier Ministries
Donnelly, J.P. – Calvinist Thomism Viator, vol. 7, pp. 441-455
Haines, David – ‘The Use of Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle in Reformed Theology’
Institutes (P&R), vol. 1, 1st Topic, Q. 13, ‘Is there any use of Philosophy in Theology? We Affirm’, section 14, pp. 47
“XIV. Although the philosopher may be allowed to begin with a doubt in order to a safer investigation of natural things, yet this cannot be introduced into subjected of theology and faith. They are founded upon certain and indubitable principles and truths known per se, to doubt concerning which is impious (as concerning the existence of God) unless we wish to strip ourselves of conscience and the moral dependence on the Creator (which cannot be shaken off or for a moment rejected without crime) and thus to introduce philosophical doubt (epochen) into religion and render the whole of theology sceptical.”
Revius, Jacob – Jacobus Revius, A Theological Examination of Cartesian Philosophy: Early Criticisms (1647) ed. Aza Goudriaan (Leiden: Brill, 2002)
Schlebusch, J.A. – Cartesianism and Reformed Scholastic Theology: A Comparative Study of the Controversy a Master’s thesis (Univ. of the Free State, South Africa, 2013) 160 pp. Includes a translation of two chapters of Christopher Wittich’s Two Dissertations in ch. 3, and of two chapters of Peter van Mastricht’s Vindications of the Truth, which reply to Wittich, in ch. 4.
On Occasionalism & Secondary Causes
ch. 13, ‘God, Creation, and Providence in Post-Reformation Reformed Theology’, p. 206 in eds. Lehner, Muller, Roeber, The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600-1800 (Oxford, 2016)
“Another issue concerned substantial forms. Here, Voetius and others defended a neo-Aristotelian concept because they found it to be more compatible with the Physica Mosaica [Mosaic physics] than early modern alternatives.
The substantial forms could not only explain the classification of ‘kinds’ in the biblical creation account, but also constituted the internal principles of activity in secondary causes. In contrast, the Cartesian mechanistic worldview with its rejection of substantial form seemed to create more difficulties than it might solve. In particular, it implied a denial of genuine secondary causality, leading either to occasionalism or Spinozistic pantheism, as Voetius noted with remarkable foresight (Van Ruler 1995; Goudriaan 2006, 113-33; Beck 2007, 65-69).”
‘The epistemology of sense from Calvin to [Francis] Hutcheson [d. 1746]’ Journal of Scottish Thought, no. 7 (2016), pp. 148-170
‘Common Sense and Ideal Theory in 17th Century Scottish philosophy’ in ed. C.B. Bow, Common Sense in the Scottish Enlightenment (Oxford, 2018)
Abstract: “In the 19c James McCosh and many others identified the Common Sense school with ‘Scottish philosophy’ tout court: the supposedly collective ‘Scottish’ reply to Hume was the rejection of scepticism and Ideal Theory. This paper addresses the anticipations of the Common Sense school and its broader place in the history of Scottish philosophy. The 17c Scottish philosophers reacted to Cartesian scepticism with epistemological views which anticipate Thomas Reid: direct realism and perception as a faculty of judgment. Common sense-like views seem to have been a popular strategy against scepticism already before the Common Sense school, thus providing additional evidence for McCosh’s claim of the special role of common sense in the history of Scottish philosophy.”
‘The Scottish Faculties of Arts and Cartesianism (1650-1700)’ History of Universities XXIX (2), pp. 166-187
‘The Doctrine of the Fall in Early Modern Reformed Scholasticism: Philosophy between Faith and Scepticism’ eds. Zohar Hadromi-Allouche & Áine Larkin, Fall Narratives (Routledge, 2017), pp. 78-89
‘English Philosophers and Scottish Academic Philosophy (1660-1700)’ Journal of Scottish Philosophy, issue 2, vol. 15, (2017), pp. 213-231
‘A Scotistic Answer to a Thomistic problem. Scotism and the Eucharist in the Seventeenth Century’ Proceedings of the Conference: Implications philosophiques et théologiques de la doctrine eucharistique, Geneva, 17-18 June 2015
‘Sixteenth-century philosophy and theology after John Mair’ in eds. D. Fergusson & M. Elliott History of Scottish Theology (2019)
‘Logic and Epistemology in the 17th Century Scottish Universities’ in Alexander Broadie, Scottish Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century (2020)
‘Reformed Scholasticism in 17th Century Scottish philosophy’ in Alexander Broadie, Scottish Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century (2020)
‘Calvinist Metaphysics and the Eucharist in the Early Seventeenth Century’ (2013)
“This paper wishes to make a contribution to the study of how seventeenth-century scholasticism adapted to the new intellectual challenges presented by the Reformation. I focus in particular on the theory of accidents, which Reformed scholastic philosophers explored in search of a philosophical understanding of the rejection of the Catholic and Lutheran…”
‘The Scottish Faculties of Arts and Cartesianism (1650–1700)’ Vol. XXIX / 2
‘English Philosophers and Scottish Academic Philosophy (1660–1700)’ (2017)
‘“Calvinist” theory of matter? Burgersdijk and Descartes on res extensa‘
Abstract: “In the Dutch debates on Cartesianism of the 1640’s, a minority believed that some Cartesian views were in fact Calvinist ones. The paper argues that, among others, a likely precursor of this position is the Aristotelian Franco Burgersdijk (1590-1635), who held a reductionist view of accidents and of the essential extension of matter on Calvinist…”
‘Robertson’s Philosophical Theses (1596): between late Renaissance and early Modern Scholasticism’ eds. Alexander Broadie & J.S. Reid, Philosophical Discourse in Seventeenth-Century Scotland: Key Texts (The Scottish History Society)
‘The Philosophy of Robert Forbes: A Scottish Scholastic Response to Cartesianism’ Journal of Scottish Philosophy 11(2) (Sept., 2013): 191-211
Abstract: “In the second half of the seventeenth century, philosophy teaching in the Scottish universities gradually moved from scholasticism to Cartesianism. Robert Forbes, regent at Marischal College and King’s College, Aberdeen, was a strenuous opponent of Descartes. The analysis of the philosophy of Forbes and of his teacher Patrick Gordon sheds light on the relationship between Scottish Reformed scholasticism and the reception of Descartes in Scotland.”
‘The Reception of Descartes in the Seventeenth-Century Scottish Universities: Metaphysics and Natural Philosophy (1650-1680)’ Journal of Scottish Philosophy, 2015
“In 1685, during the heyday of Scottish Cartesianism (1670-90), regent Robert Lidderdale from Edinburgh University declared Cartesianism the best philosophy in support of the Reformed faith. It is commonplace that Descartes was ostracised by the Reformed, and his role in pre-Enlightenment Scottish philosophy is not yet fully acknowledged. This paper offers an introduction to Scottish Cartesianism, and argues that the philosophers of the Scottish universities warmed up to Cartesianism because they saw it as a newer, better version of their own traditional Reformed scholasticism, chiefly in metaphysics and natural philosophy.”
Broadie, Alexander – Scottish Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century Pre (Oxford, 2020)
Sytsma, David – A Bibliography of Early Modern Reformed Theologyon Reason and Philosophy (ca. 1520-1750) 2019 20 pp. The first 8 pp. are Primary Sources, then follow Secondary Sources.
“The sources below are primarily (1) theological evaluations of the nature and use of reason, or (2) theologians writing directly on philosophy. I have generally avoided the inclusion of primary sources on philosophy by Reformed philosophers.” – Sytsma
Which Philosophy Should be Used?
Institutes (P&R), vol. 1, 1st Topic, Q. 13, ‘Is there any use of Philosophy in Theology? We Affirm’, pp. 45-56
“But the errors of philosophers are not the dictates of philosophy, any more than the mistakes of artificers are to be imputed to the art itself.
‘Philosophy,’ says Clement of Alexandria, ‘is not to be called Stoic, nor Platonic, nor Epicurean, nor Aristotelian, but whatever has been properly spoken by these sects–this, gathered into one whole, is to be called philosophy’ (Stromata 1.7 [ANF 2:308; PG 8.731]).”
On the Legitimate Use of Reason
The Reason of Faith… (Glasgow, 1801), ch. 6, pp. 114-116, 118-120
“1. And in the first place we, may consider that there are three ways whereby we assent unto anything that is proposed unto us as true, and receive it as such.
1. By inbred principles of natural light, and the first
rational actings of our minds. This in reason answers instinct in irrational creatures. Hence God complains that
his people did neglect and sin against their own natural
light, and first dilates of reason, whereas brute creatures
would not forsake the conduct of the instinct of their natures, Isa. 1:3. In general, the mind is necessarily determined to an assent unto the proper objects of these principles; it cannot do otherwise. It cannot but assent unto the prime dictates of the light of nature, yea those dictates are nothing but its assent. Its first apprehension of the things which the light of nature embraces, without either express reasonings or further consideration, are this assent. Thus does the mind embrace in itself the general notions of moral good and evil, with the difference between them, however it practically complies not with what they guide unto; Jude ver. 10. And so does it assent unto many principles of reason, as that the whole is greater than the part, without admitting any debate about them.
2. By rational considerations of things externally pro-
posed unto us. Herein the mind exercises its discursive
faculty, gathering one thing out of another, and concluding one thing from another. And hereon is it able to assent unto what is proposed unto it in various degrees of certainty, according unto the nature and degree of the evidence it proceeds upon. Hence it has a certain knowledge of some things, of others an opinion or persuasion prevalent against the objections to the contrary, which it knows, and whose force it understands, which may be true or false.
3. By faith. This respects that power of our minds whereby we are able to assent unto anything as true,
which we have no first principles concerning, no inbred
notions of, nor can from more known principles make unto ourselves any certain rational conclusions concerning them…
And this assent also has not only various degrees, but is also of diverse kinds, according as the testimony is which it arises from, and rests on; as being human if that be human, and divine if that be so also.
According to these distinct faculties and powers of our souls, God is pleased to reveal or make known Himself, his mind or will three ways unto us. For He has implanted no power on our minds, but the principle use and exercise of it are to be with respect unto Himself, and our living unto Him, which is the end of them all. And a neglect of the improvement of them unto this end, is the highest aggravation of sin.
It is an aggravation of sin when men abuse the creatures of God otherwise than He has appointed, or in not using them to his glory; when they take his corn, and wine, and oil, and spend them on their lusts, Hos. 2:8… But the height of impiety consists in the abuse of the faculties and powers of the soul, wherewith we are endowed purposely and immediately for the glorifying of God. Hence proceed unbelief, profaneness, blasphemy, atheism, and the like pollution of the spirit or mind. And these are sins of the highest provocation. For the powers and faculties of our minds being given us only to enable us to live unto God, the diverting of their principal exercise unto other ends, is an act of enmity against Him, and affront unto Him.
He does not reveal Himself by his word unto the principles of natural light, nor unto reason in its exercise. But yet these principles, and reason itself, with all the faculties of our minds, are consequentially affected with that revelation, and are drawn forth into their proper exercise by it…
And concerning these several ways of the communication or revelation of the knowledge of God, it must be always observed that there is a a perfect consonancy in the things revealed by them all. If any thing pretends from the one what is absolutely contradictory unto the other, or our senses as the means of them, it is not to be received.
The foundation of the whole, as of all the actings of our souls, is in the inbred principles of natural light, or first neceflary dictates of our intellectual rational nature. This, so far as it extends, is a rule unto our apprehension in all that follows. Wherefore if any pretend in the exercise of reason, to conclude unto anything concerning the nature, being, or will of God that is directly contradictory unto those principles and dictates, it is no divine revelation unto our reason, but a paralogism [fallacious reasoning] from the defect of reason in its exercise.
This is that which the apostle charges on, and vehemently urges against the heathen philosophers. Inbred notions they had in themselves of the being and eternal power of God; and these were so manifest in them thereby, that they could not but own them. Hereon they set their rational discursive faculty at
work in the consideration of God and his being. But herein were they so vain and foolish as to draw conclusions directly contrary unto the first principles of natural light, and the unavoidable notions which they had of the eternal being of God, Rom. 1:21-24. And many upon their pretended rational consideration of the promiscuous event of things in the world, have foolishly concluded that all things had a fortuitous beginning, and have fortuitous events, or such as from a concatenation of antecedent causes are fatally necessary, and are not disposed by an infinitely wise, unerring, holy Providence. And this also is directly contradictory unto the first principles and notions of natural light, whereby it openly proclaims itself not to be an effect of reason in its due exercise, but a mere delusion.
So if any pretend unto revelations by faith which are
contradictory unto the first principles of natural light , or reason in its proper exercise about its proper objects, it is a delusion. On this ground the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is justly rejected, for it proposes that as a revelation by faith, which is expressly contradictory unto our sense and reason in their proper exercise about their proper objects. And a supposition of the possibility of any such thing, would make the ways whereby God reveals and makes known himself, to cross and interfere one with another; which would leave us no certainty in anything divine or human.
But yet as these means of divine revelation do harmonize and perfectly agree one with the other, so they are not objectively equal, or equally extensive, nor are they co-ordinate, but subordinate unto one another. Wherefore there are many things discernible by reason in its exercise, which do not appear unto the first principles of natural light. So the sober philosophers of old attained unto many true and great conceptions of God, and the excellencies of his nature, above what they arrived unto who either did not or could not cultivate and improve the principles of natural light in the fame manner as they did.
It is therefore folly to pretend that things so made known of God
are not infallibly true and certain, because they are not
obvious unto the first conceptions of natural light, without the due exercise of reason, provided they are not contradictory thereunto. And there are many things revealed unto faith that are above and beyond the comprehension of reason, in the best and utmost of its most proper exercise. Such are all the principal mysteries of Christian religion. And it is the height of folly to reject them, as some do, because they are not discernible and comprehensible by reason, seeing they are not contradictory thereunto.
Wherefore these ways of God’s revelation of himself are
not equally extensive, or commensurate, but are so subordinate one unto another, that what is wanting unto the one is supplied by the other, unto the accomplishment of the whole and entire end of divine revelation; and the truth of God is the same in them all.”
Turretin, Francis – Institutes (P&R), vol. 1, 1st Topic, ‘Theology’, ‘The Genus of Theology’
Q. 8, ‘Is Human Reason the Principle and Rule by which the Doctrines of the Christian Religion and Theology (which are the objects of Faith) ought to be Measured? We Deny Against the Socinians.’ 23-28
Q. 9, ‘Does any Judgment Belong to Reason in Matters of Faith? Or is there no use at all for it?’ 28-32
Q. 10, ‘May the Judgment of Contradiction be Allowed to Human Reason in Matters of Faith? We Affirm.’ 32-34
Q. 11, ‘Is there any use of the Testimony of the Senses in Mysteries of Faith, or Ought it to be entirely Rejected? We Affirm the Former & Deny the Latter.’ 34-37
Q. 12, ‘Are the Doctrines of Faith and Practice to be Proved Only by the Express Word of God? May they not also be Legitimately Proved by Consequences Drawn from Scripture? We Affirm the Latter.’ 37-44
Q. 13, ‘Is there any Use of Philosophy in Theology? We Affirm.’ 44-48
Institutes (P&R), vol. 1, 1st Topic, Q. 13, ‘Is there any use of Philosophy in Theology? We Affirm’, section 6, pp. 45-56
“VI. Many abuses can also be reckoned up:
(3) When philosophy assumes to itself the office of a master, in articles of faith, not content with that of a servant (as was done by the [Medieval, Romanist] Scholastics who places Aristotle upon the throne; and by the Socinians who would not admit the doctrines of the Trinity, of the incarnation, etc. because they did not seem to be in accordance with the principles of philosophy).
(4) When more new distinctions and phrases than necessary are introduced from philosophy into theology under which (oftentimes) new and dangerous errors lie concealed.”
Latin: Contra Descartes
A Theological Examination of the Cartesian Method (1648) 135 pp. There is no table of contents to this work.
This work has been translated into English by Aza Goudriaan in his work, Jacobus Revius, A Theological Examination of Cartesian Philosophy, Early Criticisms (1647) Pre (Brill, 2002).
Schuler, Johannes – A Specimen of an Examination of the Philosophy of Renee Descartes, or a Brief & Perspicuous Refutation of the Cartesian Philosophy (Amsterdam, 1666) 101 pp. Table of Contents
Clypeus Orthodoxiae, or His First Vindications for his Dissertation on the Abuse of Cartesian Philosophy…Clypeus Orthodoxiae, or His First Vindications for his Dissertation on the Abuse of Cartesian Philosophy… (Groningen, 1671) This is different than the above.
van Mastricht, Peter
The Gangrene of the Cartesian Novelties… or Cartesian Theology Detected (Amsterdam, 1677) 560 pp. Table of Contents
The Insane Gangrene of Cartesianism, 12 Investigations… (Utrecht, 1680) 57 pp.
Schweling, Johann Eberhard – Exercitations of the Chair, in the Censure of Cartesian Philosophy by Peter Daniel Huet, that Illustrious Man, Bishop of Suession (Bremen, 1690) 476 pp.
French: Contra DesCartes
Jurieu, Pierre – Defense of the Universal Doctrine of the Church, & Particularly of Calvin & the Reformers on the Principle & Foundation of the Faith, Contra the Imputations & Objections of Mr. Saurin, divided in Three Parts (Rotterdam, 1695) ToC