Reformed Orthodoxy failed to stop the spread of Cartesian philosophy, despite vigorous efforts. Why?

Bizer suggests that the orthodox critique often adopted much of what it criticized. In Martin Schoock’s notorious response to Descartes, “there is no word . . . about the fact that the Cartesian proof of God does not lead to the Christian concept of God and is therefore beside the point! No word at all of a christologically based doctrine of God! What Voetius and his followers actually defend is Aristotelianism and the validity of the traditional proof of God, but not the biblical concept of God.”

He criticizes Samuel Maresius’s response to Christoph Wittich’s explicitly Cartesian theology on similar grounds: “Maresius outdoes his opponent in manifest rationalism with respect to the doctrine of God. Wittich at least leaves the possibility open that God, in his potentia absoluta , is not bound to the proposition of contradiction, even if this should be only a theoretical possibility. For Maresius, however, even this irrational residue is not tolerable - without any embarrassment he appeals in this case to medieval scholasticism. For the rest, his objections, particularly with respect to the doctrine of God, are only of a terminological sort. The objects which he considers essential in fact concern the domain of philosophy; he defends Aristotelianism and its conception of the universe. For example, he defends the proposition Quod non est in sensu, non est in intellectu even with respect to the doctrine of God . . . and maintains that Christianity thereby stands or falls.”

In sum, the orthodox adopted a “concept of truth” that was “the same as that of the philosophy they are combatting . . . . In its concept of truth, and in the intellectualism which flowed from it, it was closer to the ‘new philosophy’ than it suspected.”

One consequence of this, Bizer suggests, is that the future belonged to the Reformed pietists. Initially defeated by the orthodox, they eventually emerged as the “real pillars of orthodoxy.” Ludwig von Wolzogen’s rationalist orthodoxy was vindicated, while Jean de Labadie’s intemperate charges (Socinian, Arminian, Pelagian, Popish) against Wolzogen led to Labadie’s excommunication and divestment of office. But Labadie had his revenge.