▁critic isms ▁t ended ▁to ▁the ▁conserv ative ▁view ▁that ▁held ▁Christian ▁teach ings ▁should ▁be ▁understood ▁as ▁unique , ▁rather ▁than ▁seeing ▁them ▁as ▁perfect ▁expressions ▁of ▁truth s ▁that ▁are ▁found ▁everywhere . ▁More ▁generally , ▁this ▁philosoph ical ▁syn cret ism ▁was ▁set ▁out ▁at ▁the ▁exp ense ▁of ▁some ▁of ▁the ▁do ctr ines ▁included ▁within ▁it , ▁and ▁it ▁is ▁possible ▁that ▁Ste u co ' s ▁critical ▁fac ult ies ▁were ▁not ▁up ▁to ▁the ▁task ▁he ▁had ▁set ▁himself . ▁Further , ▁placing ▁so ▁much ▁confidence ▁in ▁the ▁pris ca ▁the ologia , ▁turned ▁out ▁to ▁be ▁a ▁short coming ▁as ▁many ▁of ▁the ▁texts ▁used ▁in ▁this ▁school ▁of ▁thought ▁later ▁turned ▁out ▁to ▁be ▁bog us . ▁In ▁the ▁following ▁two ▁centuries ▁the ▁most ▁fav ou rable ▁responses ▁were ▁largely ▁Protest ant ▁and ▁often ▁in ▁England . ▁ ▁Gott fried ▁Le ib n iz ▁later ▁picked ▁up ▁on ▁Ste u co ' s ▁term . ▁The ▁German ▁phil os opher ▁stands ▁in ▁the ▁tradition ▁of ▁this ▁conc ord istic ▁philosophy ; ▁his ▁philosophy ▁of ▁harm ony ▁especially ▁had ▁aff inity ▁with ▁Ste u co ' s ▁ideas . ▁Le ib n iz ▁knew ▁about ▁Ste u co ' s ▁work ▁by ▁ 1 6 8 7 , ▁but ▁thought ▁that ▁De ▁la ▁vérit é ▁de ▁la ▁religion ▁chr ét ienne ▁by ▁H ug uen ot ▁phil os opher ▁Ph illi ppe ▁du ▁Pl ess is - M orn ay ▁expressed ▁the ▁same ▁truth ▁better