13.  Meanwhile sundry Protestant theologians, deviating as far as they could from Scholastic philosophy, which prevailed in the opposite party, went so far as to despise philosophy itself, which to them was suspect.  The controversy blazed up finally owing to the rancour of Daniel Hoffmann.  He was an able theologian, who had previously gained a reputation at the Conference of Quedlinburg, when Tilemann Heshusius and he had supported Duke Julius of Brunswick in his refusal to accept the Formula of Concord.  For some reason or other Dr. Hoffmann flew into a passion with philosophy, instead of being content to find fault with the wrong uses made thereof by philosophers.  He was, however, aiming at the famous Caselius, a man esteemed by the princes and scholars of his time; and Henry Julius, Duke of Brunswick (son of Julius, founder of the University), having taken the trouble himself to investigate the matter, condemned the theologian.  There have been some small disputes of the kind since, but it has always been found that they were misunderstandings.  Paul Slevogt, a famous Professor at Jena in Thuringia, whose still extant treatises prove how well versed he was in Scholastic philosophy, as also in Hebrew literature, had published in his youth under the title of Pervigilium a little book ’de dissidio Theologi et Philosophi in utriusque principiis fundato’, bearing on the question whether God is accidentally the cause of sin.  But it was easy to see that his aim was to demonstrate that theologians sometimes misuse philosophical terms.

14.  To come now to the events of my own time, I remember that when in 1666 Louis Meyer, a physician of Amsterdam, published anonymously the book entitled Philosophia Scripturae Interpres (by many persons wrongly attributed to Spinoza, his friend) the theologians of Holland bestirred themselves, and their written attacks upon this book gave rise to great disputes among them.  Divers of them held the opinion that the Cartesians, in confuting the anonymous philosopher, had conceded too much to philosophy.  Jean de Labadie (before he had seceded from the Reformed Church, his pretext being some abuses which he said had crept into public observance and which he considered intolerable) attacked the book by Herr von Wollzogen, and called it pernicious.  On the other hand Herr Vogelsang, Herr van der Weye and some other anti-Cocceians also assailed the same [83] book with much acrimony.  But the accused won his case in a Synod.  Afterwards in Holland people spoke of ‘rational’ and ‘non-rational’ theologians, a party distinction often mentioned by M. Bayle, who finally declared himself against the former.  But there is no indication that any precise rules have yet been defined which the rival parties accept or reject with regard to the use of reason in the interpretation of Holy Scripture.