Descartes: A Biography

c CUNYB/Clarke     December, :

 Descartes: A Biography

mentioned). By appealing to the Calvinist doctrine of the inner certainty

about salvation that is provided to the faithful, he challenged Descartes

with these words: ‘It is not permissible to doubt temporarily or under any

pretext whatever, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit concerning the

certainty of salvation, much less to think or imagine that the Holy Spirit

(or God himself as is wickedly done by Descartes) is an impostor or a

deceiver, which is clearly blasphemous.’

When Descartes was told about the disputations taking place at Leiden,

he became concerned immediately about their possible implications for

himself. He accordingly wrote to Heereboord,April, asking him if

he had heard local reports that he (Descartes) had ‘written that the idea of

our freedom is greater than the idea of God’.Descartes followed this with

alongletter to the curators of the University of Leiden and the consuls

of the city, onMay.Inhis official complaint he acknowledged

the freedom of university professors to question his philosophy and to

arrange disputations in which his opinions were discussed. However, he

did not accept that the professor of theology could accuse him falsely

of ‘the most odious and most seriously punishable crime of blasphemy’

(v.). In an effort to win the sympathy of his correspondents, Descartes

told them that he was using the most discreet option available to him to

get satisfaction, but that he would resort to other means if his request was

not granted.

The core of Descartes’ complaint was that he had been accused of

blasphemy and Pelagianism. The basis for the latter objection was a pas-

sage that was not actually in theMeditationsand that allegedly said: ‘The

will or freedom of choice is the only thing I experience in myself as so

great that I cannot conceive of any greater idea’ (v.).On the charge

of blasphemy, he quotes from the disputation scheduled forMarch,

and concedes that one would be guilty of this crime if one described

God as a deceiver. However, he had not done so. He also accepted that,

if his critics had refrained from naming him, they could have legiti-

mately exercised their freedom of thought by discussing this question

as a speculative hypothesis. His objection, therefore, was not to theologi-

cal speculation or philosophical criticism, but to the fact that he had been

described publicly as guilty of a crime that was ‘horrible, impious and

blasphemous’ (v.).

When challenged to produce evidence for such a serious charge, the

only text that his accusers were able to quote was a passage from the