Irena Backus offers the first study in over four hundred years that characterizes Leibniz as both scholar and theologian. She explores his treatment of the key theological issues of his time-predestination, sacred history, the Eucharist, efforts for a union between Lutherans and members of other Christian traditions-illuminating his unique integration of theology into philosophy.Drawing on a wide range of Leibniz's writings, Backus carefully examines the philosophical points and counterpoints of his positions. She shows how Leibniz's Lutheran theology was reconciled with (...) his philosophy, and demonstrates that the solutions he sought to the problems of confessional division were more philosophical than theological. Despite his attempts to merge the two fields, Backus reveals, many of Leibniz's ideas were met with resistance by both theologians and philosophers of his time. Using a wealth of previously unexplored material, Backus also includes the first-ever English translation of the Unvorgreiffliches Bedencken. This study will be an important contribution to the history of ideas, and to understanding Leibniz's place in the mainstream Protestant theology of his time. (shrink)

This 1000-page English-language reference work has been produced with the collaboration of 23 scholars from Europe and North America and is intended as a guide to some of the most important developments in the history of the reception of the Church Fathers in the West, from the Carolingians to the Maurists. Particular emphasis is placed on the history of patristic scholarship which, unlike classical scholarship, has tended to be neglected by historians. However, the reception of patristic doctrines and ideas is (...) also included and patristic scholarship is placed in its doctrinal and cultural context. Articles do not confine themselves to summarising what has been done on a particular topic, but also suggest new approaches and areas of research to be opened up. In order to make this volume useful to graduate students and scholars from non-theological disciplines, full relevant bibliographical information is provided._The volume addresses the following general questions: what is meant by the "Fathers"; the problems of patristic as opposed to Scriptural authority; the types of patristic material available and the problems of attribution and misattribution; the uses made of the Fathers in constituting a theological doctrine and in response to a doctrinal difference; the abuses made of the Fathers, i.e. overly tendentious or polemical uses; the value of the Greek and Latin Fathers; the use made of the Fathers in defining heresy and orthodoxy. The volume is intended to open up a field of studies and is the first-ever work of its kind. This publication has also been published in paperback, please click here_ for details. (shrink)

This essay investigates how Leibniz and Daniel Ernst Jablonski handled the ironing out of intra-protestant religious differences, notably on predestination in the years ca. 1697-1702. I shall be focusing on the recently published union document between the Lutherans of Hanover and the Calvinists of Brandenburg, entitled the Unvorgreiffliches Bedencken (hereafter UB) and on the equally recently published and hitherto practically unknown Meditationes pacatae de praedestinatione et gratia, fato et libero arbitrio of 1701-ca. 1706 2. This is a series of Leibniz’s (...) annotations on Jablonski’s Latin translation of article 17 (predestination) of the bishop of Salisbury, Gilbert Burnet’s Exposition of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. I shall try to show how the issue of predestination is handled in the UB by Leibniz and how his notes on the Meditationes complement and modify Jablonski’s Latin edition of the 17th article of Burnet’s Exposition the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. This will enable us to isolate the set of theological problems faced by the Lutheran and Calvinist participants in the negotium irenicum of 1697 -1702 and to point to the specific nature of the solutions proposed by Leibniz which were philosophical rather than theological. The underlying issue here is that of coexistence of philosophy and theology in Leibniz’s system. Indeed, one of the persistent questions about this philosopher concerns the exact relationship between his metaphysics (including physics and mathematics) and his theological views: which determined which? I hope to take the debate further here by analysing Leibniz’s contribution to the specifically theological issue of predestination, which, it will emerge, has direct bearing on Leibniz’s Essais de théodicée of 1710. (shrink)

This essay investigates how Leibniz and Daniel Ernst Jablonski handled the ironing out of intra-protestant religious differences, notably on predestination in the years ca. 1697-1702. I shall be focusing on the recently published union document between the Lutherans of Hanover and the Calvinists of Brandenburg, entitled the Unvorgreiffliches Bedencken (hereafter UB) and on the equally recently published and hitherto practically unknown Meditationes pacatae de praedestinatione et gratia, fato et libero arbitrio of 1701-ca. 1706 2. This is a series of Leibniz’s (...) annotations on Jablonski’s Latin translation of article 17 (predestination) of the bishop of Salisbury, Gilbert Burnet’s Exposition of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. I shall try to show how the issue of predestination is handled in the UB by Leibniz and how his notes on the Meditationes complement and modify Jablonski’s Latin edition of the 17th article of Burnet’s Exposition the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. This will enable us to isolate the set of theological problems faced by the Lutheran and Calvinist participants in the negotium irenicum of 1697 -1702 and to point to the specific nature of the solutions proposed by Leibniz which were philosophical rather than theological. The underlying issue here is that of coexistence of philosophy and theology in Leibniz’s system. Indeed, one of the persistent questions about this philosopher concerns the exact relationship between his metaphysics (including physics and mathematics) and his theological views: which determined which? I hope to take the debate further here by analysing Leibniz’s contribution to the specifically theological issue of predestination, which, it will emerge, has direct bearing on Leibniz’s Essais de théodicée of 1710. (shrink)

Leibniz saw the question of the eucharist as a crucial stumbling block to the agreement between Lutherans and Calvinists. Mandated together with Daniel Ernst Jablonsky to prepare working documents for the negotiations between Hanover and Brandenburg in 1697, Leibniz carefully read through the Calvinist Confessions of faith and the works of Calvin in their 1671 edition. He made an extensive collection of excerpts from the Confessions of faith and from Calvin's Institutes all intended to show that Calvinists admitted the substantial (...) presence of Christ's body in the eucharist. (This collection of excerpts is analysed here for the first time and compared with another little-known document, the Unvorgreiffliches Bedencken). L. had argued previously in 1691/92 that, contrary to the assertions of Pellisson-Fontanier, his own conception of substance and of Christ's presence in the eucharist was completely different from Calvin's. However, by 1697, it was clear to Leibniz that Calvin's concept of substance, which was broadly speaking Aristotelian, was never defined clearly by the reformer, and could be made to coincide with Leibniz's own notion of substance as force rather than substance in its dimensional sense. At the same time L. dissociated Ubiquitarianism (doctrine characteristic of late sixteenth century Lutheranism, which defended the dimensional presence of Christ's body in heaven and in the eucharist, by arguing that Christ in his divine nature could cause his physical body to be present in several places at the same time) from Lutheranism. He also drove a wedge between the doctrines of Zwingli and Calvin. L. thus attempted to find religious union on a common ontology and he might well have succeeded if it were not for complex political circumstances, which ultimately caused the failure of the negotiations. (shrink)

La résistance au protestantisme, durant les années de paix qui suivent l'édit d'Amboise, fut ritualisée par le miracle de Laon (1566), dont l'actrice principale fut la jeune femme, Nicole Obry, originaire de Vervins en Picardie. Possédée d'une trentaine de diables « elle en était tellement tourmentée qu'on lui oyait craquer les os... » - disait à l'époque Florimond de Raemond. Suite aux exorcismes successifs, effectués à l'aide de l'hostie (donc du « corps de notre Seigneur ») les diables quittent la (...) jeune femme. Seul Beelzebub résiste. Enfin, le 6 février 1566 lui aussi sort, s'inclinant ainsi devant le pouvoir épiscopal. Le présent ouvrage est le premier à examiner les divers récits dont fit l'objet le miracle de Laon entre 1566 et 1578. Le cabaliste chrétien, Guillaume Postel, y voit la réalisation de la suprématie politique et religieuse « gauloise » et le début de l'ère nouvelle. Jean Boulaese, amanuensis de Postel et chroniqueur le plus zélé du miracle, considère celui-ci tantôt comme moyen d'obtenir de l'argent en vue de l'impression de la Bible en langue arabe, tantôt comme moyen de promouvoir sa propre carrière. Christophe de Héricourt, doyen de Laon, et chroniqueur dit « officiel » ou « royal », veut surtout éviter d'offenser les huguenots. Enfin, Barthélemy de Faye, conseiller-clerc au Parlement de Paris, cherche par son récit, à faire de la propagande tant pour les décrets tridentins sur la résidence des évêques que pour un gallicanisme modéré. Les récits du miracle de Laon fournissent ainsi un excellent témoignage de la diversité des catholicismes français à l'époque mouvementée des guerres de religion. (shrink)

Découvert en Occident seulement au XVIe s., ce traité fut traduit quatre fois avec des intentions différentes : unité entre Grecs et Latins , Contre-Réforme , opposition à la renaissance du manichéisme en Dalmatie . Seule la traduction et l'édition grecque simultanée de 1575 est dépourvue d'intention doctrinale ou polémique; le problème de la paternité de cette traduction pose un problème, Hopper étant mort en 1564. . Les quatre éditions et/ou traductions sont apparentées à l'actuel ms. Florence, Laur. 4, 12.