Irena Backus

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.

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.

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.