4 of his Moral Philosophy, chapter 2, §6, page 559, shows quite clearly that first principles, both theoretical and practical, require a previous knowledge of the terms and cannot be understood by infants.62 I also refer to Johannes Zeisold from Jena, who in the years from 1651 in four public disputations on natural ideas demonstrated our opinion from basic principles and strengthened it against the objections of Sperling at the University of Wittenberg.63 From our doctrine I refer you back to that of my blessed father, who, according to the judgment of our much revered Alberti in his oration on my parent,64 was a Christian philosopher
[print edition page 37]
(a title he aspired to throughout his entire life, and which is commonly applied to those people who do not contradict sacred theology by philosophizing, nor defend any opinions which are contrary to Scripture and could disturb theology. But if someone wanted to distort the meaning of this elogy and imply that this blessed man confused the disciplines of philosophy and theology, which are most clearly distinct, and that he attempted to demonstrate theological theses from principles of reason or philosophical theses from hypotheses of revelation, then he would do my blessed father a great injustice, since he would never have dreamed of confusing the two). My father therefore put forward these same principles which we have taught concerning natural knowledge, even concerning the knowledge of God himself; see his Physica, questions 68ff., page 284:
This rule is valid (nothing is in the intellect, etc.), but only concerning those ideas which are in the intellect in the form of an act, or an intelligible species, but not concerning those that are there in the form of a potential or a habit. A.: Prove it. B.: There are in our intellect certain innate ideas of the first principles, but they exist in the form of a potential, even if no sense perception of these principles preceded them. A.: I thought, however, that there are some intelligible species in our intellect, without having entered through the senses. For is not God (to leave aside other examples) in our intellect, although he cannot be grasped by sense perception? B.: Hear therefore another qualification: there is nothing in the intellect, which did not previously exist in the senses, whether in itself, or through something else. Thus I grant that God is not himself an object of sense perception, but I deny that he does not become such an object through something else.65
§46. These passages will show you that my opinions on these matters are neither new nor particularly heterodox because they were defended by men who have never been suspected of heterodoxy. Those who disagree, however, as well as those who generally defend the opinion of the Scholastics
[print edition page 38]
point to Romans 2, verse 15, where it is said that the law of nature is inscribed on the hearts of men. That is why the Index of Novelties, n. 19,66 also claims that the illustrious Pufendorf denies the law of nature to be something implanted in human nature and an innate faculty. But the illustrious man makes a fully satisfactory reply to this in his Apology, pages 46ff.,67 where he shows very clearly, and by using other, parallel passages of Scripture, that the phrase writing on the hearts of men means something other than an innate faculty of this kind. And Zeisold in his entire fourth disputation already tried to show the view that our opinion was not contrary to religion, and gave a satisfactory reply to many contrary arguments by Sperling and pointed out that already in his time our famous philosopher and theologian Jacob Martinus had attacked that doctrine of the Scholastics.68 Sperling therefore, in his Anthropologia, book 1, chapter 3, question 8, pages 186ff., insisted on the passage from the Apostle as a proof for innate ideas by writing:
For this the Apostle said: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.”69 Here it is possible to form the following conclusion: Whatever is inscribed on the hearts of pagans is not acquired but innate. The work of the law of nature is inscribed on the hearts of the pagans. Therefore the work of the law of nature is not acquired, but innate.70
Among other things he cites the response of Martinus from the Partitiones metaphysicae, section 3, question 4, page 321, where he writes as follows:
The response to the authority of the Apostle is at hand: a distinction needs to be drawn between the inscription itself and the means of inscription. When natural [innate] knowledge is denied, this does not mean that
[print edition page 39]
pagans do not have the law of God inscribed on them by nature, since they do what is required by God’s law; but what is denied is the form which some insist on, namely, that it is inscribed at birth: that cannot be demonstrated from the saying by Paul referred to. Attention should be paid to the intention of the Apostle, and then the matter will be clear. He argues thus: either the reason for works in the cause of justice is the same for Jews and for Gentiles, or God regards the person. God does not, however, regard the person. Therefore the reason for both is the same. The minor premise is proved, or, rather, is contained within verse 11.71 For God does not regard the person. The proof of the major premise and the connection is contained in the following verses and can be summarized in this syllogism: all those who sin equally cannot, as far as their sins are concerned, be judged differently before God. Jews and Gentiles have sinned equally, therefore… . The Apostle proves the minor premise in verse 12.72 For whoever has sinned without a law (that is, pagans) will also perish without a law: and those who have sinned against the law (the Jews) will be damned by the law. Having argued thus, the Apostle proceeds to verses 14 and 1573 (in which the entire core of the objection that was raised resides) and shows that his statement that Gentiles had sinned without a law was not to be understood simply and absolutely, but in a certain sense. Pagans lacked the external promulgation of the divine law (these are the words of Mr. Mylius on this passage), which was made to the Israelites in the Sinai desert. That is what Paul means when he says they have no law. In the meantime, he says, nature provided what was required by the law and they therefore were a law to themselves; that is, they had within themselves and in their entire nature the means to balance this defect to a certain degree. Will therefore the law insofar as it is revealed be opposed to natural law?74
Among the modern theologians I mention Mr. Osiander, who in the Typum legis naturae, page 158, where he speaks of the nature of the human intellect, calls it an “indifferent and indeterminate power, according to Aristotle,
[print edition page 40]
a bare slate,” since on the same page he adds a reference to that passage of the Apostle, but see also pages 129ff., where he argues against those who deny that there is a natural law and insist that humans introduced all laws for themselves on grounds of utility. He first refutes this opinion by referring to the same passage from Paul; then he argues against those people on the basis of reason and adds a reference to natural ideas and says that “Reason is by nature instructed with certain theoretical principles which are so evident that they are evident even to an infant if the relevant terms are put forward, for example, what a whole is, what a part is … and so it is to be understood that the knowledge of these terms is pre-existing and based in the mind.” Thus this venerable man says quite clearly that these ideas are mere possibilities until the terms are understood. Finally, the fact that even the smallest infants are credited with faith by the theologians is no obstacle, although faith requires some knowledge, and this knowledge has to be actual [i.e., not potential]. For faith is not the work of nature. But we are here concerned with a natural effect that can be demonstrated with the light of reason, and that need not be explained through obscure and meaningless words. Therefore, just as a physician who denies that a virgin can give birth does not in that respect contradict a theologian who says that the virgin Mary did give birth, so the philosopher, when he denies that there is natural knowledge from birth, does not contradict the theologian who asserts that faith is awakened in infants
