The Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and the Dutch: Spinoza’s Intervention in the Political-Religious Controversies of the Dutch Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the article is very-well argued one. The paper successfully establishes the rooted-ness of Spinoza's TTP in its own intellectual as well as politico-religious context. While it is no doubt that the selected three topics are very important insofar as Spinoza's argument is concerned, the article's introduction does not defend with clarity why these three are chosen. The introduction, therefore, could perhaps be modified to show the very reason for the selection. In addition, since the treatment of the relationship between Spinoza and Meijer (page 14) is a very persuasive one, it might be helpful to refer to other scholars who see more or less a contradictory position between Spinoza and Meijer regarding the use of reason in the interpretation of Scripture. Moreover, in the discussion of the nature of public religion (pages 12-15), the author focuses primarily on the confession (or a belief-system) of such religion. However, since it seems that the nature of public religion is more than a set of beliefs, but rather how it administers such beliefs, a discussion regarding how Spinoza envisions such administration might strengthen the author's claim. A separate section for conclusion is also helpful. 

In addition, one little concern remains regarding Krop's description of Voetius's discussion of liberty (found pages 3 and 4; lines 97–122). The similar description is also found, though not in these very words, in his another article, "Reformed Orthodoxy and the Libertas philosophandi in the Netherlands," in Church History and Religious Culture 100 (2020): 187-202, esp 194. 

Author Response

I added to refernce to the literature on the relationship between Meyer and Spinoza.

I modified the text of my introduction annoucing my third  section.

 I modifed also the conclusion.

 I refer to the paper mentioned.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an excellent essay with many, many virtues. The research is very sound and its scope, laudable. I especially admire the author's attention to Calvinist accounts of the freedom to philosophize: here we find a more ecumenical Voetius than we usually meet, an orthodox scholar who promotes the Libertas philosophandi.  While this strikes me as correct, and very useful, it might be helpful to new readers to say something brief about Voetius' orthodoxy (consider his profile in Israel's Radical Enlightenment, for instance) and perhaps his role in the Nadere Reformatie (which does figure in section II)? Perhaps it would also be useful to cite recent work on Voetius and hermeneutics--Jetze Touber, for instance (a citation appears in Part III but might be relevant earlier)? Just to help frame the very sharp and important discussion of the Politicae Ecclestasticae, as well as the excellent pivot to Heereboord? And in the effort to frame these figures, I would urge the author to foreground the brilliant point on page 5, that "In the context of Dutch academic education the 'freedom to philosophize'...meant the freedom of the scholar to do his job" - this is so crucial, and lays bare a disciplinary or vocational dimension to this phrase, which qualifies it and helps explain how and why it was  promoted by scholars who nevertheless criticized Hobbes and/or Spinoza for exercising this same freedom.  TO be clear, the author does a great job of exposing this phenomenon, and explaining how it pertains to discrete disciplines or scholarly enterprises.  I am just urging the author to foreground this critical point in section I.

Section II is exemplary, a magnificent exposition of the phrase "Theologico-political." Here again Voetius enters as an important interlocutor, and I particularly appreciate the author's explanation of Voetius' thought apropos of "Constans" as well as his views on tolerance

Section III is also great. I think I found a typo, though, on page 13: I suspect that the author means that Koerbagh "was probably the only 17th-century scholar who flatly rejected the unity of the Bible." A minor point, but, I hope, helpful.

This is exceptionally strong scholarship, and a major contribution to Spinoza Studies and intellectual history. I look forward to seeing it in print and to citing it!

Author Response

I now introduce Voetius.  I now refer to Touber's work earlier.

I corrected to typo and some others. Alos a native speaker ernhanced the English.

 I would like to express my gratitude to the reviewers.