![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper examines two seventeenth-century works written by Adam Boreel and Galenus Abrahamsz, two most famous scholars among the Amsterdam Collegiants who advocated ideas in favour of religious toleration. This study is divided in three main parts. Firstly, I give historical information on the circumstances that led Galenus Abrahamsz to write his work. Secondly, I make a thorough comparison between Abrahamsz’s work and Boreel’s treatise, arguing that the latter exerted great influence on the former. However, despite major parallels, I also show that there are deep differences in their works. Thirdly, I argue that both Boreel and Abrahamsz pursued the same aim: to establish religious toleration among Christians. In the conclusion, I suggest that we should not regard Abrahamsz as a Collegiant himself, but only as a sympathizer of Collegiant ideas. I also suggest the significance of further studies on the Collegiants, their practices, and their ideas.
Acknowledgements
To carry out the research leading to this paper, a monthly fellowship has been provided by the ‘Amsterdam Centre for the History and Heritage of Protestantism’, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. I thank prof. Mirjam van Veen and prof. August den Hollander, the directors of the centre, for their support. An earlier version of this work has been presented at the international symposium ‘The Continuity and Discontinuity between the Radical Reformation and the Enlightenment’, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, July 13, 2017. I thank the reviewers of the journal ‘History of European Ideas’ for their comments, which contributed to improve the article. I also thank Ms. Brookelnn Cooper, who acted as native speaker editor of the present paper. Lastly, I thank prof. Michael Driedger for his comment on an earlier version of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 See J.B. Shank, ‘Review of Jonathan Israel. “Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650–1750”’, H-France Review 2 (2002): 105–11; P.G. Wallace, The Long European Reformation: Religion, Political Conflict, and the Search for Conformity, 1350–1750 (London: Palgrave, 2004); Russ Leo, ‘Caute: Jonathan Israel’s Secular Modernity’, The Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory 9 (2008): 76–83; S. David, The Religious Enlightenment: Protestants, Jews and Catholics from London to Vienna (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008); Piet Visser, ‘Enlightened Dutch Mennonitism: The case of Cornelius van Engelen’, in Grenzen des Täufertums / Boundaries of Anabaptism: Neue Forschungen, ed. Anselm Schubert et al. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2009), 369–94; G.S. Brad, The Unintended Reformation. How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012); Ruben Buys, ‘“Without Thy Self, O Man, Thou Hast No Means to Look for, by Which Thou Maist Know God”. Pieter Balling, the Radical Enlightenment, and the Legacy of Dick Volckertsz Coornhert’, Church History and Religious Culture 93 (2013): 363–83; Douglas H. Shantz, ‘Religion and Spinoza in Jonathan Israel’s Interpretation of the Enlightenment’, in Religious Minorities and Cultural Diversity in the Dutch republic. Studies Presented to Piet Visser on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, ed. August den Hollander et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 208–21; Gary K. Waite, ‘The Drama of the Two-Word Debate among Liberal Dutch Mennonites 1620–1660: Preparing the Way for Baruch Spinoza?’, in Radicalism and Dissent in the World of Protestant Religion, ed. B. Heal and A. Kremers (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprect, 2017), 118–38; Mirjam G.K. van Veen, ‘Johan Jakob Wettstein’s (1693–1754) use of Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563)’, in Sebastian Castellio zwischen Humanismus und Reformation, Rationalismus und Spiritualismus/Sebastian Castellio between Humanism and Reformation, Rationalism and Spiritualism, ed. Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Göttingen, forthcoming).
2 Rainer Forst, Toleration in Conflict. Past and Present, trans. Ciaran Cronin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Perez Zagorin, How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003); Benjamin J. Kaplan, Divided by Faith. Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007).
3 For information on the Collegiant movement, see Jacobus Cornelis van Slee, De Rijnsburger Collegianten (Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn, 1895); Ernestine van der Wall, De mystieke chiliast Petrus Serrarius (1600–1669) en zijn wereld (Leiden: ICG Printing B. V., 1987); Leszek Kolakowski, ‘Dutch Seventeenth-Century Anti-Confessional Ideas and Rational Religion: The Mennonite, Collegiant, and Spinozan Connections. Translation and Introduction by James Satterwhite’, Mennonite Quarterly Review 64(3–4) (1990): 259–97 and 385–416; Andrew Fix, ‘Angels, Devils, and Evil Spirits in Seventeenth-Century Thought: Balthasar Bekker and the Collegiants’, Journal of the History of Ideas 50 (1989): 527–47; Wiep van Bunge, Johannes Bredenburg (1643–1691): een Rotterdamse collegiant in the ban van Spinoza (Rotterdam: Universiteits Erasmus Drukkerij, 1990); Andrew C. Fix, Prophecy and Reason. The Dutch Collegiants in Early Enlightenment (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991); R. Lambour, ‘De Amsterdamse Collegiant Jacob Jansen Voogd (1630–1710)’, Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 23 (1997): 75–90; J. Samuel Preus, ‘The Bible and Religion in the Century of Genius. Religion on the Margins: Conversos and Collegiants’, Religion 28 (1998): 3–14; Ruud Lambour, ‘De alchemistische wereld van Galenus Abrahamsz (1622–1706)’, Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 31 (2005): 93–168; Gerrit Voogt, ‘“Anyone Who Can Read May Be a Preacher”: Sixteenth-century Roots of the Collegiants’, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 85 (2005): 409–24; Wiep van Bunge, ‘Spinoza and the Collegiants’, in Spinoza Past and Present. Essays on Spinoza, Spinozism, and Spinoza Scholarship, ed. Wiep van Bunge (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 51–66; Stefano Visentin, ‘Hodie nullos habemus prophetas: Spinoza, i collegianti e la repubblica’, Etica & Politica 16 (2014): 188–213; Rosa Ricci, ‘Religious Nonconformity and Cultural Dynamics: The Case of the Dutch Collegiants’ (Phd diss., Universität Leipzig, 2014); Francesco Quatrini, ‘Adam Boreel (1602–1665): His Life and Thought’ (PhD diss., University of Macerata, 2017); Francesco Quatrini, ‘Jesus Nazarenus Legislator: Adam Boreel and the Rationality of Christian Religion against the De Tribus Impostoribus’, Church History and Religious Culture 97 (2017): 53–70.
4 [Adam Boreel], Ad legem et ad testimonium, sive erotematica propositio et deductio quorundam conscientiae casuum; praecipuè de publico Novi Testamenti cultu; aliisque, christianismo vel necessariis, vel utilibus: exhibita christianorum ecclesiis et coetibus illis, qui solam Veteris et Novi Testamenti scripturam pro unico fidei et morum canone profitentur (1645); Galenus Abrahamsz and David Spruyt, ‘Bedenckingen over den toestant der sichtbare kercke Christi op aerden, kortelijck in 19 artikelen voor-ghestelt: en aen onse mede-dienaren, op den 11 Ianuarij 1657, schriftelijck over-ghelevert’, in Nader verklaringe van de XIX artikelen, voor desen door G. Abrahamsz. ende D. Spruyt aen hare mede-dienaren over-ghegeven: dienende tot wederlegginge van ‘t geschrift, genaemt: Antwoorde by forme van aenmerckingen, vragen, ende redenen, etc. (Amsterdam: Ian Rieuwertsz., 1659), (a)r – (b)r.
5 For an account of his life and thought, see H.W. Meihuizen, Galenus Abrahamsz 1622–1706. Strijder voor een onbeperkte verdraagzaamheid en verdediger van het Doperse Spiritualisme (Haarlem: H.D. Tijeenk Willink & Zoon, 1954). Doopsgezind – ‘Baptism-minded’ – is the name of the Mennonites in the Netherlands.
6 Meihuizen, Galenus Abrahamsz, 16.
7 For more information on the different groups of Doopsgezinden, see Samme Zijlstra, Om de ware gemeente en de oude gronden. Geschiedenis van de dopersen in de Nederlanden 1531–1675 (Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren, 2000), 270–315.
8 Waite, ‘The Drama of the Two-words Debate’, 131. See also: Meihuizen, Galenus Abrahamsz, 5–43.
9 Meihuizen, Galenus Abrahamsz, 43–45. See also: Quatrini, ‘Adam Boreel’, 95–96.
10 Quatrini, ‘Adam Boreel’, 79–102 and 145–165. See also Koenraad Oege Meinsma, Spinoza en zijn kring. Historisch-kritisch studiën over hollandsche vrijgeesten (‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1896), 85–131; Van Slee, De Rijnsburger Collegianten, 135–177. In the following, I will refer to the French edition of Meinsma’s work. See: Koenraad Oege Meinsma, Spinoza et son cercle, trans. S. Roosenburg (Paris: Vrin, 2006), 85–131.
11 Quatrini, ‘Adam Boreel’, 55–70 and 113–23; Quatrini, ‘Jesus Nazarenus Legislator’, 57–61.
12 Meihuizen, Galenus Abrahamsz, 50–5.
13 Meihuizen, Galenus Abrahamsz, 56.
14 Hereafter, I will refer to Galenus as the author of the ‘XIX Artikelen’, but we should keep in mind that David Spruyt contributed to the work.
15 ‘’t is dan sulcks: dat de eygentelijcke occasie, ofte gheleghentheydt, van ‘t instellen der 19. Artikelen geweest is seker voorval van een mondelinge t’ samenspraeck: die wy, op ‘t versoeck van eenighe onser mede-dienaren, met haer ghehouden hebben over den toestandt der hedendaeghse kercke. Daer wy twee achtereen-volgende dagen mede besigh waren’. Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, *3r
16 ‘Nu also wy den eersten dagh onder ‘t spreken klaerlijck bemerckt hebben: dat onse meyninghe van sommighe onder haer lieden gantsch niet wel bevat wierdt; dienvolgens, dat niet alleen geen nuttigheydt uyt soodanighen ‘t samenspraeck te verhoopen was; maer dat in tegendeel, door de gebreckelijcke bevattinghe, ooghenschijnlijck niet anders, als vreemt vermoeden, quade navertellingen, en verwijderingen der ghemoederen, te verwarchten stonden: soo vonden wy ons des avondts, van een gescheyden zijnde, onder de saeck bekommert; en bedachten, ons op middelen: waer door wy des volgenden daeghs onse afghebroken onderhandelinghe met meerder vrucht voltrecken mochten. Niets en scheen ons soo bequaem, als dat wy selfs in aller haest een schriftelijck ontwerp van ons gevoelen instelden: om ‘t selve, soo klaer, als doenlijck was, inghestelt zijnde, onse mede-dienaren duydelijck voor te lesen’. Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, *3r-v.
17 Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, *4r.
18 Jan Jansz Swichtenheuvel, Oprechte editie, ofte uytgift van het geschrift van doct. Galenus ende David Spruyt, in volkomenheydt, so als sy-lieden die met haer bewijs-redenen, ende bygebrachte schriftuer-plaetsen, t’ samen met een by-voeghsel daer by, aen hare genoemde mede-dienaren der vereenighde Vlaemsche, Hoogduytsche, ende Vriesche gemeenten tot Amsterdam overgegeven hebben, ende soo voor desen noyt in druck geweest is. Midtsgaders: de antwoordt van der selver dienaeren voor ghenoemt, tot wederleggingh, met ghemeenen raedt ende overlegh, door Laurens Hendrickx in geschrift gestelt, ende alsoo oock aen dr. Galenus ende David Spruyt over-gegeven (Haarlem, 1658).
19 See: Meihuizen, Galenus Abrahamsz, 56–8 and 61–4; Van der Wall, De mystieke chiliast Petrus Serrarius, 201–6; Quatrini, ‘Adam Boreel’, 152–3.
20 For a complete account of the struggles among the doopsgezinden in Amsterdam, see Meihuizen, Galenus Abrahamsz, 54–98.
21 ‘In het voorbijgaan worde hier vermeld, dat de man wiens invloed Galenus sterk zou ondergaan in zijn eerste Amsterdamse jaren, Adam Boreel, met Duraeus bevriend was’. Meihuizen, Galenus Abrahamsz, 29.
22 Fix, Prophecy and Reason, 94; Lambour, ‘De alchemistische wereld’, 106.
23 Fix, Prophecy and Reason, 96.
24 ‘Porro de Galeni libro vertendo cogitabitur talia; non obiter, ut ibi, sed pleno tractatu argumentis in utramque partem diductis tractari debent. Quod a societate praestabitur, quem in finem plurima parata habeo, ex quibus ille suae, nam haec ipsi antea plane incognita fuere’. Ernestine G. E. Van der Wall, ‘The dutch Hebraist Adam Boreel and the Mishnah Project. Six Unpublished Letters’, LIAS 16 (1989): 258–9. With the word ‘societate’ Boreel referred to the ‘Societas de propaganda Dei et Christi Jesu conformitate’. See Quatrini, ‘Adam Boreel’, 135–44.
25 Leszek Kolakoswki already made a brief comparison between Boreel and Galenus. However, Kolakowski only focused on the ‘more radical results’ reached by Boreel and did not account for the parallels between the two writings. Moreover, it seems that Kolakowski’s analysis of ‘Ad legem’ relied on the account about Boreel and his work provided by the theologian and historian Gottfried Arnold. This explains some mistakes in Kolakowski’s description of Boreel’s work. See: Kolakowski, ‘Dutch Seventeenth-Century Anti-Confessional Ideas’, 295–6.
26 [Boreel], Ad legem, 3.
27 ‘Nadien in de schriften des N. Testaments maer van een eenige kerck gelesen wordt / onder de benaminge van de bruydt, huysvrouw ende ‘t lichaem Christi: wiens bruydegom, man, ende hooft, Christus de Heere genaemt wordt’. Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)r.
28 [Boreel], Ad legem, 6–16.
29 ‘Dat oock de selve heere Iesus Christus in dese kercke sommige tot apostelen, sommige tot propheten, sommige tot euangelisten, en sommige tot herders, en leeraers, gegeven heeft; gesamentlijck streckende tot de volmakinge der heyligen, tot het werck der bedieninge, ende tot opbouwinge deser kercke, die sijn lichaem ghenoemt wordt’. Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)r.
30 ‘Dat hy haer oock tot desen eynde met behoorlijcke gaven des H. Geests versorght heeft’. Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)v.
31 For Galenus’s lists of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, see Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)v and (a)2v.
32 [Boreel], Ad legem, 6 and 23–24.
33 Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)2r.
34 Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)2v – (a)3r.
35 Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen,’ (a)3r.
36 ‘Dat mede dese soo op-gherechte en ingestelde kercken, en onder dese oock die gemeente, daer wy teghenwoordigh nu noch onder sorteren / (soo ten opsichte van haer op-rechtinge / en instellinghe / als ten aensien van haer teghenwoordigen stant / en staet) heel niet conform zijn, de op-rechtinge / instellinge / en standt / van die eerste en eenige kerck: wien alleen / en geen ander / de naem van een gemeente Godts, bruydt, huys-vrouw, en ‘t lichaem Christi, in de schriften des Niuwen Testaments ghegeven wordt’. Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)3r.
37 [Boreel], Ad legem, 25–34.
38 See articles CXX, CXXX, CXXXII, CXXXIV, CXXXV, CXLI, CXLII, CXLIV, CXLV, CL, CLIV, CLVIII, CLXXIV. [Boreel], Ad legem, 54, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 70.
39 [Boreel], Ad legem, 60–1.
40 [Boreel], Ad legem, 52–4.
41 “Utrum inquam talis ecclesia cum ratione negare possit, se recesisse aut defecisse a primaeva illa Christi quoad verbum promissum institutione, ecclesiarumque per id, juxta illam, […], erectione, collectione et regimine; atque eatenus […] apostaticam esse; nec ne?” [Boreel], Ad legem, 54–5.
42 Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)3v.
43 [Boreel], Ad legem, 65–6.
44 [Boreel], Ad legem, 62–4.
45 Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)4r.
46 Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)4v.
47 [Boreel], Ad legem, 66–8.
48 [Boreel], Ad legem, 68–9.
49 As for Boreel’s audience in ‘Ad legem’, see Adam Boreel, ‘Quoad hodiernos cognitos coetus’, in Scripta Adami Borelii posthuma. Quibus praefixus ejusdem tractatus: Ad Legem et Testimonium; olim editus, cum annexis in fine nonnullis aliis ad haec spectantibus (Amsterdam: 1683): 108; Adam Boreel, ‘Pacis ecclesiasticae propempticon’, in Boreel, Scripta Adami Borelii posthuma, 148.
50 Fix, Prophecy and Reason, 84–112.
51 The name ‘Church of Connivance’ originated from two polemical works – Johannes Hoornbeeck’s Summa controversiarum and the anonymous ‘t Gescheurde schaaps-kleedt. Boreel actually did not use the Latin word ecclesia (‘church’) to describe the kind of Christian congregation he conceived, but the Latin word cultum – that is, ‘cult, ‘worship’, or ‘religion’. In fact, Boreel’s congregation did not have any of the features of confessional churches, such as a confession of faith, ministers, rituals, or ceremonies. Therefore, ‘Church of Connivance’ is not the best translation of Boreel’s cultum conniventiae, which was clearly unrelated to the ‘confessionalism’ or ‘confessionalization’ or ‘confessionalist strategy’ peculiar to other contemporary Christian groups. However, in the following pages, I will use both the name ‘Church of Connivance’ and the original Latin cultum conniventiae to refer to Boreel’s Christian congregation. By using the name ‘Church of connivance’, I will conform to the previous scholarly tradition. At the same time, by referring to Boreel’s Latin name cultum conniventiae, I will also highlight that Boreel’s congregation was not an ecclesia but a cultum – that is, it was not a confessional church. For the first use of the name ‘Church of Connivance’, see Johannes Hoornbeeck, ‘Summa controversiarum religionis; cum infidelibus, haereticis, schismaticis: id est, gentilibus, iudaeis, muhammedanis; papistis, anabaptistis, enthusiastis et libertinis, socinianis; remonstrantibus, lutheranis, brouwnistis, graecis. Editio secunda, auctior, et emendatior, (Utrecht, 1658), 499 and 500; ‘t Gescheurde Schaaps-kleedt, van Dr. Galenus Abrahamsz. (Leiden, 1663), A2(v). For more information on the twentieth-century discussion on ‘confessionalism’ and ‘confessionalization’ peculiar to Christian churches, see Michael Driedger, Obedient Heretics. Mennonite Identities in Lutheran Hamburg and Altona during the Confessional Age (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 49–51, 75–106 and 172–8.
52 Boreel, ‘Hodiernos cognitos coetus’, 105 and 108.
53 [Boreel], Ad legem, 58 and 61. See also Quatrini, ‘Adam Boreel’, 232–9.
54 [Boreel], Ad legem, 68–70.
55 For more information on the ‘Church of Connivance’ and its purpose, see Francesco Quatrini, ‘Adam Boreel (1602–1665) en John Dury (1600–1680): Nederlands-Engelse pogingen om kerkelijke eenheid te bereiken’, Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 44 (2018): 57–82.
56 Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)2v – (a)3r.
57 ‘Want al is het soo: dat tot een ware en wettelijcke herstellinge van den Godts-diensts des Nieuwen Testaments noodtsakelijck (na ons insicht) een goddelijck recht, goddelijcke authoriteyt, last, ofte commissie, vereyscht wordt; t’samen met alle onderhoorige gaven, en bequaemheden, des Heyligen Geests’. Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, **2r. See also: Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, **2v.
58 Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, **4v and ***1r.
59 Waite, ‘Drama of the Two-Word’, 121.
60 Quatrini, ‘Adam Boreel’, 227–31.
61 ‘Wy verklaren oprechtelijck: dat noyt in onse ghedachten ghekomen is, daer op toe te leggen: dat de oeffeninge der leere, en ‘t gebruyck des doopsel, en des H. Avondmaels, afgheschaft ofte vernietight mochten worden’. Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, ***2v. See also: Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, **1r-v, **2r, **4r.
62 ‘’t smert ons sulcks te sien onder soodanigen volck, daer ons ‘t harte over hangt; wiens verstroynge en onderganck wy noode sien souden: welcks wijse ofte bevattinge van godt-dienst, op de gronden van de bestieringhe der ghemeente, en de waerheydt der leer-puncten in ‘t gemeen, onder de hedensdaeghsche op-gerechte kercken (na ons insien) wel de naeste is; en uyt kracht van soodanige belijdenisse uytstekender, als veele andere, behoorde te leven’. Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, ***4r.
63 Neither Boreel, nor Galenus advocated a boundless religious toleration: they did not argue that all religious beliefs and practices should be tolerated. On the contrary, they only spoke about toleration among Christians, who should tolerate beliefs and practices that are not necessary to attain salvation. Therefore, even if in the following lines I will speak of Boreel and Galenus as advocates of religious toleration and show the arguments they developed to plead for it, we should keep in mind that they only championed toleration only within Christian religion and only for Christian people. To examine what beliefs Boreel and Galenus regarded as necessary to attain salvation – that is, what beliefs must be regarded as the fundamentals of Christian religion, is beyond the scope of this paper. On the distinction between necessary and unnecessary doctrines to attain salvation, see Meihuizen, Galenus Abrahamsz, 64–5, 125–7, and 174–7; Quatrini, ‘Jesus Nazarenus Legislator’, 68–70.
64 ‘Maer ten alderschoonsten ghenomen / buyten waen van eenighe selfs-aenghenomen authoriteyt, last, ofte commissie, in alle nederigheydt / en met verdraeghsaemheydt / en onder verbeteringe soude moghe ghehandhaeft en gheoeffent worden: sonder dat men nochtans aen sijn leere en ghebruyck van ceremonien, precijselijck de conscientie der menschen vervinde; of andere / om datse soo niet en doen / oordeele of verwerpe’. Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)4v.
65 ‘Wel-verstaende / dat wy de ceremonien van doop, ende avontmael, gheensins verwerpen: maer aen-nemen en houden voor geboden / en insettinghen / van Christo de Heere selfs’. Abrahamsz., ‘XIX Artikelen’, (a)4v.
66 Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, ***2v.
67 ‘Maer’t ghene daer wy hier van spreken, en ‘t welck ons nu oock heden noch aengaet, is: of niet de veylighste wegh gheweest waer, en nu noch tegen woordigh zijn zoude: dat de oeffeningen van Godtsdienstigheyd op meergemelde wijse, in nedrigheyt, en met verdraeghsaemheyt, als van broeders onder een gehanthaeft wierden?’ Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, **4v.
68 ‘Hoe wenschelijck waert, dat dit eens recht in de harten der soodanige waer in-gedruckt, die sich (als gheseght is) al om onderstaen, met soodanighen macht, en authoriteyt, de kercken te regreen, en de conscientien der menschen aen hare leere, en besluyten, te binden! Soo souden wel haest in plaets van oordeel, en partyschap, (waer door den eenen den anderen soo vrymoedelijck uytsluyt, en verwerpt) de verdraeghsaemheydt, en liefde, tusschen de verschillende gesintheden toe nemen’. Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, ***2r-v.
69 Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, **3v.
70 Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, **3v. See also: Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, ***1v – 2r.
71 [Boreel], Ad legem, 58.
72 Boreel, Ad legem, 68.
73 Boreel, Ad legem, 71–2.
74 Abrahamsz., Nader verklaringe, (b)r – (b)2r.
75 There are references to the ‘boreelists’ among the reports of the Dutch Reformed Church. See Quatrini, ‘Adam Boreel’, 79–102 and 145–65.
76 The Collegiant movement had no confession of faith and no strict membership, but accepted men and women from all Christian groups. Moreover, the Collegiants did not require that participants in their meetings should leave their Christian sects to become members of a particular College. Because of this reason, Kolakowski stated that ‘it is impossible to cite any clear criteria’ to establish ‘under any circumstances whether a given individual could be taken as a Collegiant or not’. However, there was a main difference between two ‘types’ of Christians attending the Colleges. There were Christians who did not belong to any existing Church and only participated at the meetings of Colleges – such as Boreel –, and there were Christians who belonged to some Christian group and participated at the meetings of the Colleges at the same time – such as Galenus. Kolakowski wrote: ‘It is possible to differentiate between those among the Collegiants who had more permanent ties with the movement and those whose ties were less so’. I will call the first group ‘pure Collegiants’. I suggest that those who were not ‘pure Collegiants’ shared many of the Collegiant ideas, attended the meetings of the Colleges, and had friendly relationships with the ‘pure Collegiants’, but they did not try to further promote and spread the Collegiant movement itself. In my opinion, Galenus was not a ‘pure Collegiant’. He did not try to spread the Collegiant movement by establishing new Colleges in the Dutch Republic and did not make any reference to the movement in his works. On the other hand, ‘pure Collegiants’ such as Boreel (but I can also mention Frans Kuyper, Laurens Klinkhamer, and Johannes Bredenburg) advocated for the Collegiant movement and its ideas both in their practices and writings. Further research on the Collegiants is necessary to better understand the differences between these two groups. This is not the aim of this paper. Here I mention this difference only to better explain my conclusion on Galenus and his relationship with the Collegiants. As Galenus did not advocate the Collegiant movement itself but only made use of some Collegiant ideas to improve his own Doopsgezind congregation, I suggest that we should not regard him as a ‘pure Collegiant’ but just as a sympathizer of Collegiant ideas, as one of those Christians who participated in the meetings of a College but had no intention of cutting his ties with his own Church to become a ‘pure Collegiant’. For the above-quoted passages from Kolakowski, see Kolakowski, ‘Dutch Seventeenth-Century Anti-Confessional Ideas’, 271.
77 For more information on the influence that Socinians and Socinianism exerted on the Collegiants, see Fix, Prophecy and Reason, 135–61; Peter G. Bietenholz, ‘Erasmus en het zeventiende-eeuws antitrinitarisme; het geval Daniel Zwicker en Daniel de Breen’, Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 30 (2004): 103–24; Wiep van Bunge, ‘De bibliotheek van Jacob Ostens: spinozana en sociniana’, Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 30 (2004): 125–40; Aart de Groot, ‘Dirk Rafaëlsz Camphuysen en het socinianisme’, Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 30 (2004): 165–79; Piet Visser, ‘Op zoek naar collegiantische liederen met sociniaanse trekken in Stapels Lusthof der zielen (1681)’, Doopsgezinde Bijdragen 30 (2004): 265–91.
78 Meinsma, Spinoza et son cercle, 115–20; Steven Nadler, Spinoza. A life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 155–202; Frank Mertens, ‘Spinoza’s Amsterdamse vriendenkring: studievriendschappen, zakenrelaties en familiebanden’, in Libertas Prophetandi. Spinoza als gids voor een vrije wereld, ed. Cis van Heertum (Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 2009), 69–82; Wiep van Bunge, introduction to A Light Shining in Dark Places, to Illuminate the Main Questions of Theology and Religion, by Adriaan Koerbagh, trans. Michiel Wielema (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 6–15; Van Bunge, Spinoza and the Collegiants, 51–66.
79 Van Bunge, ‘Spinoza and the Collegiants’, 52. See also: Visentin, ‘Spinoza, i collegianti’, 204–5, 209, and 211–2.