De Moor I:6: Homonyms of "Theology"

After Etymology and Synonymy follows Homonymy.  In which it is to be observed that the term Theology is used of Theology, either False, or True, which latter we embrace as worthy of exposition.

              Theology is said to be called False, either equivocally or by catachresis,[1] as it errs to a greater or lesser extent; in almost the same manner the Devil also goes by the name of a God, 2 Corinthians 4:4.  This False Theology is best able to be described as fourfold, Pseudo-Christian, Mohammadan, contemporary Jewish, and Gentile.  Now, the limitations, with which we are circumscribed, will not bear for us to sketch out these False Theologies κατὰ μέρος, in detail.

              With respect to the Pseudo-Christianity of Heretics:  These heresies are either more ancient or recent.  Those More Ancient are set forth in Ecclesiastical History by their individual ages:  and, as far as the earlier ages are concerned, a Catalogue of Heresies among the Fathers was composed by TERTULLIAN,[2] EPIPHANIUS,[3] THEODORET,[4] PHILASTRIUS,[5] and also AUGUSTINE; whose Liber de Hæresibus, illustrated by the splendid Commentario of the most illustrious DANÆUS,[6] is read among the Opuscula of the latter.  Add from More Recent Authors STAPFER’S[7] Appendix concerning the Heresies of the first ages of the Christian Church, Theologicis polemicis, tome 5, pages 313-452, who also treats of Pelagianism,[8] but separately, Theologicis polemicis, tome 4, chapter XVI, pages 483-524; likewise Naamlyst der ketters volgens de order der Eeuwen in PICTET’S[9] Theologia Christiana, volume 3, pages 217-254.

              The more recent Pseudo-Christianity is either of the Papists, or Socinians, or other Heretics, for example, the Enthusiasts, Arminians, etc., concerning whose Errors and opinions ought to be consulted the Controversiarum Elenchum, for example, of Frederick Spanheim the Younger, PICTET’S Syllabus Controversiarum, HOORNBEECK’S Summa Controversiarum; and also Theologiæ Elencticæ, among which that of the Most Illustrious FRANCIS TURRETIN especially deserves to be commended.

              In particular, concerning Popery are able to be added CHAMIER’S[10] Panstratia Catholica, 5 tomes, 2 volumes in folio; or FRIEDRICH SPANHEIM’S[11] Chamierus contractus, likewise in folio; RIVET’S[12] Collegium Controversiarum inter Orthodoxos et Pontificios, which is found in tome 2 of his Opera, and also his Catholicus Orthodoxus, which you have in tome 3 of his Opera; AMES’[13] Bellarminus enervatus; CABELJAUW’S[14] Catholyk Memorie-voek; STAPFER’S Theologiæ polemicæ, tome 4, chapter XIV, pages 67-334; and many similar works.  HOORNBEECK discusses Popery in his Summa Controversiarum, book IV, pages 210-347, where he advises that there is to be careful observation of:  1.  Popery’s rise, first in corrupt rites, then in order, next in worship, Sacraments, government, and finally doctrines; 2.  its development from the time of Boniface III in the year 606[15] and thereafter; 3.  its ἀκμὴν/height in the time of Gregory VII, made Pope in the year 1073;[16] 4.  its decline, through much opposition, especially of the Waldenses,[17] whom many have followed in the Reformation; 5.  the desperate state of Popery, in the Tridentine Council of the year 1545,[18] and thereafter.  That the doctrine of the Papal Church is a pallium stitched together from the tattered rags of Old heresies, our AUTHOR teaches in Oratione II, after Exercitationes Miscellaneas.  Concerning Popery, or concerning the Principles of the Roman Church, see also the discussion of LEYDEKKER in his Veritate Euangelica triumphante, tome I, book I, chapter XI.

              The heresy of the Socinians began in the middle of the Sixteenth Century.  It has its name from the two principal authors of the sect, 1.  Lælius Socinus of Siena, who died in Zurich in the year 1562 at the age of thirty-seven;[19] 2.  Faustus Socinus, who was born in the year 1539, in Siena of Italy; after he was made the heir of the Library and Manuscripts of his Uncle in 1562, he lived in Italy, passing his time in the hall of the Duke of Florence; thence he went to Basel in the year 1574, afterwards called out unto Transylvania in the year 1577; finally he withdrew into Poland in the year 1579, where he lived both at Kraków, then at Luslawice, in which district he died in the year 1604 at the age of sixty-five.  This he did in all places:  the dictates and theology of his Uncle he imbibed and developed to the fullest extent.  Beginning from the year 1570 he wrote many books.  Socinus obtained many followers, who undertook to disseminate the new doctrines, especially in the regions of Transylvania and Poland, and gradually withdrew into separate assemblies, indeed in Poland beginning from the year 1562:  see HOORNBEECK’S Summam Controversiarum, book VII, pages 441-454; and his Apparatum ad Controversias et Disputationes Socinianas:  who also, as equal to all the rest together, is to be consulted on the Socinian Controversies in his Socinianismo confutato, which he wrote in 3 volumes quarto.  Add the Most Illustrious CLOPPENBURG’S[20] several tractates in tome 2 of his Opera; ARNOLDI’S Refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ; MARESIUS’[21] Hydram Socinianismi expugnatam adversus Volkelium[22] de vera Religione, 3 volumes in quarto; STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 3, chapter XII, which treats of Socinianism and the Anti-trinitarians, pages 350-583; and, that I might mention no more, among the Lutherans ABRAHAM CALOVIUS’[23] Scripta Anti-Sociniana, 3 volumes in folio.  Concerning Socinianism see also LEYDEKKER’S Veritatem Euangelicam triumphantem, tome I, book I, chapter IX; and WEISMANN’S[24] Historiam Ecclesiasticam Novi Testamenti, part 2, Century XVII, § XIX, pages 521-567.  Concerning the Agreement of the Errors of the Socinians with more ancient heresies see MARCKIUS’ Orationem IV, after his Exercitationes Miscellaneas.

              Concerning the Enthusiasts see HOORNBEECK’S Summam Controversiarum, book VI, pages 401 and following; likewise his tractate de Paradoxis et heterodoxies Weigelianis.[25]  Against the men of this family see, among others, JOHANNES CROCIUS’[26] Anti-Weigelium; and, against the Enthusiasts together, STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 4, chapter XV, pages 335-482, in which he treats generally of the Fanatics, specifically of the hypotheses of the Quakers, Antoinette Bourignon,[27] Pierre Poiret,[28] Valentin Weigel, Jacob Böhme,[29] the Pseudo-mystics, Dippelius;[30] see also GERARD CROESE’S[31] Historiam Quakerianam; WEISMANN’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam Novi Testamenti, part 2, Century XVII, in which he relates the History of the Quakers, § XIX, pages 567-598.  Concerning the agreement between the ancient and modern Enthusiastical Errors see the discussion of our Most Illustrious AUTHOR in his Oratione III, after his Exercitationes Miscellaneas.

              Concerning Anabaptism HOORNBEECK treated in his Summa Controversiarum, book V, pages 347-400; WEISMANN, in his Historia Ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti, part 1, Century XVI, § LXI, pages 1694-1699, and part 2, Century XVII, § XX, pages 598-620.  Against their errors these are to be consulted before all others:  CLOPPENBURG’S Gangrænam Theologiæ Anabaptisticæ, published in forty-eight disputations; FREDERICK SPANHEIM’S[32] Disputationum theologicarum, part 2, which in thirty-two disputations takes in a number of celebrated Anti-anabaptistical controversies, and in particular in the first Disputation traces the origin, progress, sects, names, and dogmas of the Anabaptists; and also the Reverend DORESLAER and AUSTRO-SYLVIUS’ tegen de Wederdooperen;[33] likewise STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 5, chapter XVIII, pages 1-55.

Jacobus Arminius

              Concerning the Arminians the Most Illustrious HOORNBEECK treats in his Summa Controversiarum, book VIII.  Against their errors see the Most Illustrious AMES’ Scripta Anti-Synodalia, and his rescriptionem ad Grevinchovium;[34] the Censuram Confessionis Remonstrantium, written by the Professors of Leiden;[35] the Most Illustrious JACOBUS TRIGLAND the Elder’s[36] Antapologiam, which writing on these controversies is to be preferred before all; the Most Illustrious PIERRE DU MOULIN’S[37] Anatomen Arminianismi; the Most Illustrious ANTONIUS WALÆUS’ Responsionem ad Corvini Censuram in Anatomen Arminianismi Petri Molinæi; the Most Illustrious JAN VAN DEN HONERT’S[38] de Gratia particulari; STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 4, chapter XVII, pages 525-606; and many more.  Concerning Arminianism see also LEYDEKKER’S Veritatem Euangelicam triumphantem, tome I, book I, chapter X.  That the opinion of the Counter-Remonstrants is not new, but that the most excellent Theologians everywhere in the Reformed world, with respect to the controversies with the Remonstrants, have for a long time favored the contrary doctrine, ADRIÆN JORISZ SMOUT[39] has endeavored to show in his tract called Eendragt van over de uyftig Schriften tegen’t Pelagiaansdom, etc., published in 1609.  The Arminians by another name are called Remonstrants from a certain writing, which they call Remonstrantie, delivered to the Princes of Holland in the month of July, 1610, concerning which TRIGLAND discusses at greater length in his Kerckelycke Geschiedenissen, volume 4, pages 521-552.  LAMPE judges too benignly of the Arminians in his Introductione ad Catechesin Heidelbergensem, question 7, number I, compared with question 14, where he writes that the Reformed, the Lutherans, and ἐπιεικεῖς, men meet, more than others among the Arminians and Anabaptists pertain to the Church of Protestants:  all whom he asserts to be united in the foundation of the faith, and hence that all γνήσια/legitimate members of this Church of Protestants are, not only to tolerate each other, but also to extend the right hand of brotherhood to each other after the likeness of the true Philadelphia.

              The Mohammadan Theology of the Turks, Arabs, Persians, etc., has its name from Muhammad the Arab, a most cunning imposter, who began to put forth his own revelations in his fortieth year of age, in the year 612 of the common Era; while the time of the rise of Mohammadanism is reckoned to begin with the Hegira of the Arabs in the year 622 of the Dionysian Era,[40] on the sixteenth day of July; namely, at which time Muhammad, who had begun to scatter the seeds of his new religion in Mecca, a chief city of the Arabian desert, being sought by the Magistrate of this city, secretly fled from Mecca to Medina, making use of a camel, with a multitude of his compatriots and dependents following.  The principium and rule of the Mohammadan sect is the Alcoran.  The chief head of the Religion concerns Muhammad the Prophet, sent by God, who to the extent that he is greater than Christ, by so much he outshined Moses; while with the Holy Trinity they deny in particular the Deity of Christ, and His Satisfaction for the sins of His people.  Now, Muhammad, so that he might propagate his new Religion all the more easily and successfully, astutely conflated it from various observances and rites; partly from the old Arabism and Gentilism, partly from Judaism, partly from the impure founts of the Gnostics, and other heresies distracting Christians at that time, Manichean,[41] Arian, Nestorian:[42]  for in this manner he sought to capture the goodwill of the Arabs, Gentiles, Jews, and Heretics.  The imposter died just over the age of sixty in the year of our Lord 632.  Among his followers, the names of the various sects are reckoned at seventy-two.  Now, the principal Schism among the Mohammadans arose upon the occasion of a controversy concerning the right of succession in the principate:  although Muhammad, bereft of male offspring, had designated his son-in-law Ali as successor; his three father-in-laws had first claimed the succession for themselves, who also were the first of the Caliphs[43] before Ali, then about to succeed:  hence in the following time some held Ali and his posterity as the legitimate successors of Muhammad, others otherwise:  the Persians and even the Indians sided with the former; the Saracens, Egyptians, Turks, and Mongols sided with the latter:  see Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century VII, even indeed SPANHEIM’S Historiam, Century VII, Chapter VII, columns 1206-1218, and HOORNBEECK’S Summam Controversiarum, book III, pages 75-210, in which you will see Mohammadanism summarily explained.  The Illustrious GROTIUS[44] gives a refutation of Mohammadanism in his De Veritate Religionis Christianæ, book 6.  STAPFER explains, and also refutes, Mohammadanism in his Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 3, chapter XI, section 2, pages 289-349, where, in § 43-67, pages 314-322, he also superficially makes mention of those things which the most Illustrious RELAND[45] in his libris de Religione Mohammedica argues to have been agreed upon as attributed to the Mohammadans without cause.  Furthermore, against the θεοπνευστίαν/inspiration of the Alcoran, consult Chapter II, § 9, 28.  Concerning the Mohammadan Religion, and those who have expended themselves in the refutation of Mohammadanism, see in addition BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VII, § 10, tome 2, pages 1404-1406a.

              Our AUTHOR does not mention Judaism simply, but he calls it contemporary Judaism, for ancient Judaism under the Old Testament was alone embracing true Religion:  but, after the Gospel was spurned and Jesus of Nazareth the true Messiah was rejected, the Jews gradually deviated more and more in many topics from the pure Theology of their ancestors; with another principium of the Faith, in addition to the Old Testament, adopted also, that is, the Talmud; as if that book contained the oral traditions previously entrusted to Moses, and until writing of the Talmud propagated ἀγράφως, without writing.  See concerning contemporary Judaism and against it, HOORNBEECK’S Summam Controversiarum, book II, and his libros VIII pro convincendis et converendis Judæis:  add GISBERTUS VOETIUS’[46] de Judaismo Disputationum theologicarum, part II, pages 77-124; ANTONIUS HULSIUS’[47] Theologiam Judaicam et Nucleum Prophetiæ; GOUSSET’S[48] Veritatem salutiferam; MAJUS’[49] Synopsin Theologiæ Judaicæ; à LENT’S[50] Theologiam Judaicam modernam; STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 3, chapter XI, section I, which concerns Judaism, pages 1-288; but also RAMÓN MARTÍ the Catalan, of the Order of Preachers, who with respect to age far preceded the rest,[51] who wrote Pugionem Fidei adversus Mauros et Judæos, Section 13, in the year 1278.  Now, that book was hidden in the monasteries of the Order of the Dominicans for almost four hundred years, until JOSEPHUS DE VOISIN[52] published it, with his Observationibus added, at Paris, 1651.  But the Most Illustrious JOHANN BENEDICT CARPZOV[53] supervised a new edition of the Pugionis and also of the notes of Voisin, with an Introductione upon Jewish Theology and the reading of Ramón and other Authors of that sort.  See BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VII, § 7, tome 2, pages 1144-1147a, who in § 10, pages 1395b-1403a, sets forth those things which are required to combat contemporary Judaism, and he commemorates at the same time those who have already exerted themselves in this gymnasium.  GROTIUS defends the Truth of the Christian Religion against the Jews in his De Veritate Religionis Christianæ, book V, showing that the Jews ought to consider the Miracles of Jesus as sufficiently proven, § 2-5; resolving the supposed objection from the discrepancy between the law of Moses and the law of Jesus, § 6-12; proving, moreover, that a choice Messiah was promised, and that He is Jesus of Nazareth, § 13-20; and, finally, resolving the objection that multiple Gods are worshipped by the Christians, and that the human nature is adored by them, § 22.

              Finally, the Gentilism of the Pagans, whether ancient, or even contemporary, is mentioned.  Concerning this HOORNBEECK’S liber primus Summæ Controversiarum is to be consulted, and his duo golden libri de Conversione Indorum et Gentilium; in which you will see set forth the Gentilism first of the Ancients, the Chaldeans, Sabæans,[54] Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Germans; then the contemporary Gentilism of the Laplanders[55] of the Europeans; of the Africans; of the Americans; of the Asians, both of the eastern Indians, and of the Chinese and the adjacent islands, both of the Japanese, and of the Tartars.  He commemorates also the Fathers of the Church that exerted themselves in their writings for the overturning of Gentilism, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras,[56] Theophilus, Tatian,[57] Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius in his Præparatione Euangelica, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, from among the Greeks; and among the Latins, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, Julius Firmicus,[58] Prudentius, and Augustine.  Now, to him that is freer to extend his studies, he is able to turn over the vast work of the Most Illustrious GERHARD JOHANN VOSSIUS,[59] de Theologia Gentili, which constituted tome 5 of his Operum in folio.  GROTIUS learnedly and vigorously discredits Paganism in his De Veritate Religionis Christianæ, book IV, asserting in § 2 that there is only One God; that created minds are good or evil; that the good are not to be worshipped, except in consequence of a precept of the highest God:  proving in § 3 that evil spirits are adored by the Pagans, and showing how that is unsuitable:  speaking in § 4 against the Worship exhibited toward dead men in Paganism, in § 5 against the Worship exhibited toward the stars and elements, in § 6 against the Worship exhibited toward dumb animals, in § 7 against the Worship exhibited toward those things which are not substances:  in § 8 he answers the Objection of the Pagans taken from the Miracles among them, and in § 9 from the Oracles:  in § 10 he rejects the Religion of the Pagans because of this, that it failed of itself as soon as human helps were wanting:  in § 11 he responds to this, that the rise and ruin of Religion is ascribed to the efficacy of the stars:  in § 12 he shows that the principal things of the Christian Religion are proven by the sages of the pagans:  if anything in this is difficult to believe, corresponding things are found among the pagans.  STAPFER, in his Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter IX, § 1-36, clearly expounds Gentilism with respect to its principal errors, sets forth its occasion and causes, and refutes it with a few things.  Concerning the Theology of the ancient Gentiles, consult also BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book I, chapter IV, § 30, tome I, pages 283b-288a, who also afterwards discourses concerning Gentilism and the method for converting the Gentiles, Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VII, § 10, tome 2, pages 1393b-1395b.  Concerning the Gentile Theology of the contemporary Malabars,[60] see Epistolas Danicas, written in Dutch, Epistle XI, pages 250-255.

              The Gentiles, particularly the Greeks and Romans, again were dividing Theology into the Fabulous Theology of the Poets, the Natural Theology of the Philosophers, and the Civil Theology of the Priests and People:  concerning which division of Gentile Theology VOSSIUS treats in his de Theologia Gentili, book II, part I, chapter I, page 115, in which he observes that nothing is more useful or necessary to the understanding of all the worship of the nations, especially the Greek and Roman worship, than the distinguishing the threefold Theology of the nations, fabulous, which is drawn from the figments of the Poets, natural, from the mysteries of nature, and civil, which is sought out of the decrees of Legislators.  That this division of Theology was received by Quintus Mucius Scævola, the son of Publius,[61] AUGUSTINE relates in his de Civitate Dei, book IV, chapter XXVII, “It is related in records that the most learned Pontifex Scævola argued that three kinds of gods were delivered:  one by the Poets, another by the Philosophers, a third by principal men of the state, etc.”  That the judgment of Scævola in this matter was followed by Terentius Varro,[62] in his first book of divine matters, notes AUGUSTINE in his de Civitate Dei, book VI, chapter V, where he relates these his words:  “There are three kinds of Theology, and of these one is called mythical, another physical, a third civil.  That they call mythical, of which the Poets especially make use; physical, of which the philosophers especially make use; civil, of which the people especially make use.  As to the first which I have mentioned, in it are many fictions contrary to the dignity and nature of the immortals….  There is a second sort…concerning which the philosophers have left many books:  in which one will find, the gods, who they are, where, of what sort, etc.  Thus other things, which ears are more easily able to bear within the walls of a school, than outside in the forum.  There is a third sort, which in cities the citizens, and especially the priests, ought to be acquainted with and to conduct:  in which there is, what Gods one is publicly to worship, what sacred rites and sacrifices one is to perform.  The first Theology is especially accommodated to the theater, the second to the world, the third to the city.”  This threefold sort of Theology EUSEBIUS also mentions in his Præparatione Euangelica, book IV, chapter I, page 130.  Now, of this threefold Theology TERTULLIAN makes a salty mention in his ad Nationes, book II, chapter I, “Following your own commentaries, which ye have drawn out of every sort of Theology, following step-by-step, because the authority of books is greater with you in matters of this kind, than the authority of facts, I have chosen to abridge the works of Varro, who, having gathered out of all things previously digested concerning divine things, has shown himself a suitable guide for us.  If I inquire of him, who were the insinuators of the gods? he asserts either the philosophers, the people, or the poets.  For by a threefold distinction he has divided the registry of the gods:  one being the physical, which the philosophers pour over; another being the mythical, which is constantly turned over by the poets; the third being the gentile, which the nations have adopted each one for itself.  When, therefore, the philosophers have constructed physical theology out of their own conjectures, when the poets have drawn mythical theology from fables, when the nations have forged gentile theology according to their own will, where is truth to be gathered?  In conjectures? but these are only a doubtful conception.  In fables? but the relating of them is disgraceful.  In adoptions? but the adoption is arbitrary and municipal.  In the end, among the philosophers things are uncertain, because diverse; among the poets all things are unworthy, because shameful; among the nations all things are arbitrary, because voluntary.  Divinity, moreover, if thou consider again the true, is of this character, that it is neither gathered from uncertain arguments, nor contaminated with worthless fables, nor determined by arbitrary adoptions.  For it ought to be regarded, as it really is, as certain, entire, universal, because it is in truth the property of all.  Furthermore, which god shall I believe? one whom conjecture has contemplated, whom history has mentioned, whom a community has preferred?  I would much more justifiably believe in no god, than in one that is to be doubted, or is shameful, or is adopted.”  Those things are most worthy of reading, which, to demonstrate the falsehood and errors of this threefold Theology, were gathered by LELAND,[63] in his treatise concerning The Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation, discussing Mythical Theology in part I, section I, chapter VI, pages 195-207; Civil Theology in chapters VII-IX, pages 208-303; the Natural Theology of the Philosophers in part I, section II, chapters X and following, and throughout the rest of the entire work.

              Our AUTHOR, in addition, makes mention of the other Division of Gentile Theology, namely, the Platonic division, into συμβολικὴν/symbolic or μυστικὴν/mystical, and ϕιλοσοφικὴν/ philosophical or ἀποδεικτικήν/demonstrative.  That is, Plato considered the Theology of his own people either as συμβολικὴν/symbolic, which was contained, hidden, in the veils of signs:  for under these it was the custom of the ancient Gentiles, especially of the Egyptians, to teach divine mysteries:  or as ϕιλοσοφικὴν/philosophical or ἀποδεικτικὴν/ demonstrative, which through much meditation and a series of arguments was leading a man unto the knowledge of divine things.  See PLATO’S Republic, book II; CLEMENT of Alexandria’s Stromatum, book V.

              Concerning the method of convincing and converting the Gentiles there is, as the most worthy to be read, HOORNBEECK’S de Conversione Indorum et Gentilium; so also STAPFER, in his Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter IX, § 37 and following, discusses invalid methods and the best method of converting Infidels and Unbelievers:  and in § 46 and following, he takes up, as especially opposed to himself, the Anonymous Gaul, who in a tractate entitled, Lettres sur la Religïon essentielle à l’homme distinguée de ce qui n’en est que l’accessoire,[64] argues that for the conversion of Infidel man the Mysteries of the Christian faith are not to be discussed with him, neither the divinity of the Sacred Scripture; but only the practical precepts of the Gospel are to be instilled in him, which is not able to be done without the Infidel acknowledging saving truths.  Against which hypothesis Stapfer observes:  1.  While Anonymous thinks that knowledge of the Mysteries does not pertain to the essence of the Christian Religion, and that those, therefore, are to be left unsaid as unprofitable; he speaks contradictories:  for the Christian Religion is chiefly distinguished from Natural Religion by the belief of the Revealed Mysteries, § 69-86.  2.  The mysterious Dogmas are not merely theoretical, but as useful as possible for practice, neither are they thus to be eliminated from the number of Articles pertaining to the essence of Religion, § 87-91.  3.  The new method with complete absurdity leaves it free to Unbelievers whether they will believe or not believe that the Sacred Scripture is of divine origin and inspiration, § 92-95.  4.  Anonymous urges the necessity of the practical Articles in such a way that he wrongly supposes that they are able to be understood without an acquaintance with the Mysteries, § 96-99.  5.  Anonymous wrongly thinks that what is necessary to know in the Mysteries is obscure, § 100-104.  6.  Anonymous, describing Faith as an evident persuasion concerning the Existence of the Divine Nature and its attributes, gives to Faith a definition that is not at all similar to the scope/goal of Revelation, and converts Christianity into mere Naturalism, § 105-125.  7.  In this new method those things are omitted that constitute the essence of Revealed Religion; no one becomes a Christian in this manner, but he learns to halt in mere Natural Religion, § 126.  8.  Thus he has clearly departed from the method of Christ and the Apostles, § 127-133.

That True Religion is taught, not in any of the False Theologies of this section, but in the Theology of the Reformed, VAN AALST[65] takes as a thing to be demonstrated in his Prefatione before the explication of Parabolæ de Satore.

[1] That is, an improper use of terms.

[2] Tertullian wrote several works against heresy, including Adversus Gnosticos Scorpiace, Adversus Praxeam, Adversus Marcionem.  The Adversus Omnes Hæreses, traditionally ascribed to him, is thought by many to be spurious.

[3] Panarion (Medicine-Chest against Heresies).

[4] Hæreticarum fabularum compendium.

[5] Diversarum Hereseon Liber.

[6] Lambert Danæus (c. 1530-1596) was a French minister and theologian.  He labored as a pastor and Professor of Divinity at Geneva, and then at Leiden.

[7] John Frederick Stapfer (1708-1775) was a Swiss Reformed divine of the first order.  He served as a Pastor in the canton in Berne.  His Institutiones theologicæ, polemicæ, universæ, ordine scientifico dispositæ ranks among the best elenctic theologies.

[8] Pelagius (c. 354-c. 420/440) was an opponent of Augustine; he denied Augustine’s doctrine of total depravity and the freeness and sovereignty of God’s grace.

[9] Benedict Pictet (1655-1724) was a Swiss Reformed theologian, and cousin of the great Francis Turretin.  He served as a pastor in Geneva, and was appointed Professor of Theology in 1686.  He is a transitional figure, having been influenced both by Genevan theological orthodoxy and by some measure of Enlightenment philosophy.  Among other works, he wrote Theologiam Christianam and Morale chrétienne.

[10] Daniel Chamier (1565-1621) was a Huguenot theologian.  He studied at the University of Orange and at Geneva under Theodore Beza.  After his ordination, he was installed as pastor at Montélimar.  In 1607, he established an academy at Montpellier, and served there for a time as professor, concluding his career as Professor of Theology at Montauban (1612).

[11] Friedrich Spanheim the Elder (1600-1649) studied at Heidelberg and Geneva.  He served the academy at Geneva, first as Professor of Philosophy, then as a member of the theological faculty, and finally as rector.  In 1642, he was appointed as Professor of Theology at Leiden, and became a prominent defender of Calvinistic orthodoxy against Amyraldianism.

[12] Andrew Rivet (1573-1651) was a Huguenot minister and divine.  He ministered at Sedan and at Thouara; he went on to teach at the University of Leiden (1619-1632) and at the college at Breda.  His influence among Protestants extended well beyond France.

[13] William Ames (1576-1633) was taught by William Perkins and Paul Bayne.  Because of his strict Puritan views, he departed from England for Holland.  At the Synod of Dort, Ames served as adviser to Johannes Bogerman, the synod’s president.  Later, he was appointed as a professor at Franeker (1622).  His Medulla Theologiæ was heavily influential throughout the Reformed world.

[14] Pieter Cabeljauw (c. 1608-1668) was a Reformed theologian.

[15] Boniface III was elected in 606, but did not take up the office until 607 (and served less than a year).  He is significant in the annals of the Papacy in that, due to his relationship with the Byzantine Emperor Phocas, he was able to secure for the Bishop of Rome the title of Universal Bishop.

[16] Hildebrand of Sovana (c. 1020-1085) was elected Pope in 1073, taking the name Gregory VII.  Gregory VII was a reforming pope, condemning simony and confirming celibacy among the clergy.  He is most remembered for his conflict with Emperor Henry IV, in which he asserted the prerogatives of the papacy, requiring Henry to recognize his bans and excommunications, and reserving the appointment of bishops for himself.  Gregory VII did much to advance the power and pretensions of his office.

[17] The Waldenses were a medieval, proto-Reformation group, scattered throughout south-eastern France and northern Italy; they were committed to the study of the Scriptures (for the correction of doctrinal error in the Church), and the preaching of God’s Word.

[18] The Council of Trent was an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church.  It met from 1545-1563.  It was decidedly a Counter-Reformation council, defining Roman Catholic doctrine as over against that of the Reformation.

[19] Lelio Sozzini (1525-1562) was an Italian humanist and anti-Trinitarian reformer.  His principal significance is in the influence that he had over his nephew, Fausto Sozzini.

[20] Johann Cloppenburg (1592-1652) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and controversialist.  He studied at the University of Leiden, and held various ministerial posts until his appointment as professor at the University of Harderwijk (1641), and then at Franeker (1643).  He was a lifelong friend of Voetius, and colleague of Cocceius at Franeker.

[21] Maresius, or Samuel Desmarets (1599-1673), was a French Huguenot minister and polemist.  He held various ministerial posts, and served as Professor of Theology at Sedan (1625-1636), and at Groningen (1643-1673).

[22] Johann Völkel (c. 1565-1616) was a German Socinian.  His De vera religion was the first major systematic presentation of Socinian doctrine published at the Racovian Academy.

[23] Abraham Calovius (1612-1686) was a champion of Lutheran orthodoxy.  He served the University of Wittenberg as Professor of Theology, and later as general superintendent.  He opposed Socinianism, Roman Catholicism, and Calvinism, denying the possibility of the salvation of any of these.  His Systema locorum theologicorum stands at the apex of Lutheran scholastic orthodoxy.

[24] Christian Eberhard Weismann (1677-1747) was Professor of Theology at the University of Tubingen.

[25] Valentin Weigel (1533-1588) was a German theologian and mystic.  He served as a Lutheran pastor at Zschopau, and wrote voluminously.  He kept his more radical ideas to himself, and lived peacefully.  Contrary to the dogmatic tendency of the age, Weigel believed that internal illumination is superior to all external means of spiritual knowledge.

[26] Johannes Crocius (1590-1659) was a Reformed theologian.  He was appointed as Professor of Theology at Marburg (1618), at Kassel (1629), and then again at Marburg (1653).

[27] Antoinette Bourignon (1616-1680) was born in French Flanders.  She was a mystic, believing that she had been specially chosen by God to restore true Christianity.  Her influence extended through the Dutch Republic unto Germany and Scotland.

[28] Pierre Poiret (1646-1719) was a French mystic, and disciple of Antoinette Bourignon, publishing her works (as well as those of other mystics, ancient and modern).

[29] Jacob Böhme (1575-1624) was a German theologian and mystic.  In his formative years, he was influenced by the writings of Weigel and Schwenckfeld.  Although Böhme had no formal education, he wrote prolifically, and had an enthusiastic following.

[30] John Conrad Dippel (1673-1734) was a Hessian, eccentric, pietistic divine, and alchemist.

[31] Gerard Croese (1642-1710) was a Dutch pastor and theologian.

[32] That is, the Elder.

[33] Petrus Jakobus Austro-Sylvius (died 1647) was a Reformed Pastor in North Holland.  He was commissioned by the synod of North Holland to prepare a refutation of the errors of the Mennonites.  Progress on the work was slow until Abraham à Doreslaer (died 1655), a learned Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian, was appointed to help (1627).  The result is a elaborate and careful comparison between the doctrines of the Reformed and of the Mennonites.

[34] Nicolaas Grevinckhoven (died 1632) was a Dutch minister, and virulent Remonstrant polemicist.

[35] Namely, Johannes Polyander, Andre Rivet, and Antonius Walæus.

[36] Jacobus Trigland the Elder (1583-1654) was a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian.  He was deputed by the Synod of North Holland to the Synod of Dort; he was a member of the committee appointed to draw up the Canons of that illustrious Synod.  In 1633, he became Professor of Theology at Leiden.

[37] Pierre du Moulin (1568-1658) was a Huguenot pastor and theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Sedan (1621-1658).

[38] Jan van den Honert (1693-1758) was a Dutch Reformed theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1727-1734), and later at Leiden (1734-1758).

[39] Adriæn Jorisz Smout (c. 1580-1646) was a Dutch Reformed minister.

[40] This is the Anno Domini dating system, devised by Dionysius Exiguus (c. 470-c. 544), a Scythian monk, also remembered for his contributions to canon law.

[41] Manichæism was a dualistic Pseudo-Christianity.  It was founded by a Persian prophet by the name of Mani (c. 216-276).  It thrived after its first founding until the seventh century, and exerted influence from the Roman Empire to China.

[42] Nestorius (c. 386-451) taught that in Christ, there are not only two natures, but two persons, Jesus of Nazareth and the eternal Son of God.  Some believe that this was not actually Nestorius’ view, but rather his opponents’ caricature of his beliefs.

[43] Namely, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Umar ibn al-Khattab, and Uthman ibn Affan.

[44] Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) distinguished himself in the field of international law, but he was interested in many fields of learning, including Christian apologetics, theology, and Biblical criticism and exegesis.  His dual interest in international law and theology caused him to run afoul of civil authorities:  Embracing Arminian doctrine, he was imprisoned from 1618-1621 after the Synod of Dort declared against the position.

[45] Adriaan Reland (1676-1718) was a Dutch scholar.  He was appointed to the University of Utrecht, first as Professor of Oriental languages (1701-1713), then as Professor of Sacred Antiquities (1713-1718).

[46] Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676) was a Dutch Reformed minister and theologian.  In 1619, he attended the Synod of Dort as its youngest member.  Some years later he was appointed as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1636-1676).

[47] Antonius Hulsius (1615-1685) was a Dutch Reformed philologist and theologian.

[48] Jacques Gousset (1635-1704) was a French Reformed philologist and theologian.  He studied under Louis Cappel at Saumur, and was ordained to the ministry at Poitiers.  He left France in 1685, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and served as Professor of Greek at Groningen (1691-1704).

[49] Johann Heinrich Majus, Senior (1653-1719) was a German Lutheran philologist, theologian, and historian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Giessen (1688-1719).

[50] Johann à Lent (1654-1696) was a Reformed theologian.  He was Professor of Church History, Hebrew, and Syriac at Herborn (1686-1696).

[51] Ramón Martí (died 1284) was a Catalan Dominican friar and theologian.  In 1250, he was appointed by the provincial chapter, together with seven others, to study the oriental languages for the purpose of mission work among the Jews and the Moors.

[52] Joseph de Voisin (died c. 1685) was a French priest, expert in Hebraic and Rabbinical learning.

[53] Johann Benedict Carpzov II (1639-1699) was a Lutheran theologian and Hebraist.  He served at the University of Leipzig, first, as Professor of Moral Philosophy (1665-1668), then, as Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Languages (1668-1684), and, finally, as Professor of Theology (1684-1699).

[54] The Sabæans were the ancient inhabitants of the southwestern portion of the Arabian Peninsula.  The Sabæans exerted considerable power and influence in the region from the first century BC to the third century AD.

[55] The Laplanders, or Sámi people, inhabited the northern reaches of Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the Kola Peninsula of Russia.  The Laplanders were polytheists.  Christianity was introduced into the region by Roman Catholic missionaries, probably in the thirteenth century.  However, the traditional paganism continued to be observed well into the time of the Reformation.

[56] Athenagoras (c. 133-190) was an Athenian philosopher.  Converting to Christianity, he became an apologist for his newfound faith.  Although he appears to have been influential in his day, only few of his writings have been preserved.

[57] Tatian the Assyrian (c. 120-c. 180) was a Christian theologian and apologist.  He is most remembered for his Diatessaron, his harmony of the four gospels, which was used in the Syriac church until the fifth century.  In his Oratio ad Græcos, he extols the virtues and antiquity of Christianity, and critiques paganism.  Some shadow has been cast over his name by accusations of heresy, by Irenæus and Eusebius.

[58] Julius Firmicus Maternus (flourished in the first half of the fourth century) appears to have had a pagan, classical education.  He published a work on astrology, Matheseos libros octo (c. 335).  Later, perhaps after a conversion experience, he published a work assailing paganism, De errore profanarum religionum (c. 346).

[59] Gerhard Johann Vossius (1577-1649) was a Dutch classical scholar and theologian.  In 1619, his Historia Pelagiana brought him into suspicion of Arminianism.

[60] The Malabar Coast is the southwestern shoreline on the Indian subcontinent.  The Dutch controlled the region from 1661 to 1795.  The indigenous people were Hindus.

[61] Quintus Mucius Scævola (died 82 BC) was the son of Publius Mucius Scævola (consul in 133 BC, and Pontifex Maximus).  Quintus was elected tribune (106 BC), aedile (104 BC), consul (95 BC), and finally Pontifex Maximus.  He authored a large treatise on civil law (Jus civile primus constituit generatim in libros decem et octo redigendo), which survives in only a few fragments.

[62] Marcus Terentius Varro, or Varro Reatinus (116-27 BC), was a scholar, called “the most learned of the Romans,” producing seventy-four works on a variety of topics.

[63] John Leland (1691-1766) was an English Presbyterian minister.  The focus of his authorship is the opposition of Deism.

[64] The Lettres were composed by Marie Huber (1695-1753), a Swiss author, translator, and editor.  She was a universalist.

[65] Gerardus van Aalst (1678-1759) was a Dutch Reformed pastor.