De Moor II:7: The Authority of Scripture and the Testimony of the Church

The Papists maintain the Contrary, namely, that the authority of Scripture depends solely or principally upon the Testimony of the Church:  Whether they maintain that the Testimony of the Church concerning the Divinity of the Scriptures is the sole Foundation of their authority, without which it is to be compared with Livy, Æsop’s Fables, the Koran, etc.; thus Hosius, in book III contra Brentium,[1] asserts that it can be said in a pious sense that “the Scriptures would be valued only to the extent of Æsop’s Fables, if they had been destitute of the authority of the Church.”  Eck,[2] de Auctoritate Ecclesiæ:  “The Scripture is not authentic, except by the authority of the Church.”  Baile,[3] in tractate I of Catechismi, question 12, professes, “Without the authority of the Church, he is not going to give any more credit to Saint Matthew than to Titus Livy.”  Andradius,[4] in book III of Defensionis Tridentinæ fidei, belches:  “There is no Divinity in the Sacred books, neither is it found in them, which would religiously constrain us to believe what things are contained in them; but such is the power and greatness of the Church that no one is able to oppose it without the greatest mark of impiety.”  In the works of Bellarmine, you may read in book IV of de Verbo Dei, chapter IV, Controversiis, tome I, column 213, “It is necessary to recognize that some truly divine books are extant, which certain recognition is able to be had in no way from the Scriptures.  For, even if the Scriptures should say that the books of the Prophets and Apostles are divine, yet certainly I would not believe this, unless I had previously believed that the Scripture that says this is divine.  For even in the Koran of Muhammed we everywhere read that the Koran itself was sent by God from heaven, and yet we do not put our faith in it.  And so this doctrine, so very necessary, namely, that there is a certain divine Scripture, is not able sufficiently to be had from Scripture alone.  Hence, since faith rests upon the Word of God, unless we have a Word of God not written, there shall be no faith to us.”  Or they at least hold the Testimony of the Church as the Principal Argument for faith, which sounds a little less harshly.  Thus elsewhere Bellarmine, in book III de Verbo Dei, chapter X, regarding argument 13, Controversiis, tome I, column 197:  “We do not deny, indeed we defend against those who deny, that the Word of God, furnished through the Apostles and Prophets, is the first foundation of our faith.  Therefore, we do in fact believe whatever we believe because God revealed it through the Apostles and Prophets.  But we add that, besides this first foundation, another, secondary foundation is required, namely, the testimony of the Church.  For we do not with certainty know what God may have revealed, except by the testimony of the Church.”  And in book VI, de Gratia et libero Arbitrio, chapter III, Controversiis, tome 4, column 878:  “Catholics believe what they believe because God has revealed it:  but they believe that God has revealed, because they hear the Church thus saying and declaring.”

They argue these things to bring the Scriptures down, and to extol the authority of the Church:  compare SPANHEIM’S Xenia Romana-catholicoram, dilemma XI, opera, tome 3, columns 1137, 1138.

Now, they object:  1.  against the Illumination of the Spirit:  α.  That it is Enthusiastic.  There is a Response in our AUTHOR:  when we require the Illumination of the Spirit, that anyone with a saving faith might admit the Divinity of the Scripture; we speak of the Spirit, who is the common Master and Teacher of all Christians, concerning whom, and not concerning an Enthusiastic Spirit, there is discussion, John 16:13; 1 John 2:20; Romans 8:14.  We do not appeal to a Spirit that teaches us new doctrines outside of Scripture, and reveals singular things to singular men:  but who through His illuminating grace causes us to attend to the arguments of Divinity found in the Sacred Scripture itself, and who causes us to sense the sufficient force of these Criteria to demonstrate the divine origin of the Scriptures.  But an Anonymous author in an English writing, which was published in London in the year 1742 under the title of Christianity not Founded on Argument,[5] similarly charges us with Enthusiasm here, so that he might expose all Revealed Religion to derision; concerning this work see LELAND’S Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, chapter 10, pages 269-300.

β.  That a Circular Argument is set forth by us, with the Divinity of the Spirit proven from Scripture, and the Divinity of Scripture from the Spirit:  but a Circular Argument is Sophistical argumentation, in which a thing is proven from itself, which spins about the same genus of cause, with a certain circuit recurring upon itself without end.  But we respond that such a Circular Argument is not able to be pressed upon us here, when we prove the Scripture through the Spirit, and the Spirit from the Scripture.  For here the question is diverse, and the means or genus of cause is different.  We prove that the Scripture is divine through the Spirit as the efficient cause, by which we believe:  but we prove that the Spirit is divine, not false and deceptive, out of Scripture as the object and argument, because of which we believe.  If you ask, by what power do you believe that the Scripture is divine?  I respond, through the Spirit.  But if you ask, how or because of what do you believe that the Spirit which is in you is the Holy Spirit?  I respond, because of the notes of the Holy Spirit, which are in the Scripture.  Neither do we obtrude upon others the authority of a dictate of a Spirit dwelling privately in us, so that because of that they might admit the Divinity of Sacred Scripture.  But the Papists truly set forth a Circular Argument here, with the divinity and authority of the Scripture proven from the testimony of the Church, and the authority of the Church from the testimony of Scripture, through the same means and same genus of cause.  If you ask, Why, or because of what, do they believe the Scripture to be divine?  The response is that the Church says this.  If you ask again, Why do they believe the Church?  They respond, because the Scripture attributes to it infallibility, by calling it the Pillar and Ground of the truth.[6]  If you press:  whence know they this testimony of the Scripture to be trustworthy and divine?  They respond that the Church makes us quite certain of this.  Thus they are turned again to the point whence they had made the beginning of their disputation, and they proceed endlessly; neither are they able to set their feet upon any credible beginning point:  see HEINRICH ALTING’S[7] Theologiam Elencticam novam, Locus II, in the Appendix to Controversy III with the Papists, pages 69-73; STEPHANUS GAUSSENUS’ Theses Theologicas inaugurales de Verbo Dei, thesis 77, pages 455, 456; TURRETIN’S Disputationem theologicam de Circulo Pontificio, and his Disputationem de Satisfactione Christi.

2.  Against innate Marks:  α.  That they are not able to convince a man.  But our AUTHOR Responds rightly, 1.  That unto a saving conviction the operation of the Holy Spirit is also required by us.  Thus the rays of the sun, although they diffuse themselves most splendidly everywhere, yet will a blind man not see:  in like manner in the case of those spiritually blind the internal illumination of the Spirit must be added in order to see the light of the Scripture.  And, 2.  much less will the bare voice of the Church be able to convince a man of the Divinity of Scripture.

β.  That no one is able to give authority to himself.  But our AUTHOR best Responds again, 1.  That especially through Real Arguments one is able to give authority to himself; neither are the testimonies of others worthy to be compared with such arguments.  That is, when the Testimonies of the matters themselves are present, there is no need of words.  Therefore, although the Scripture be not able perhaps to prove itself to be divine, that is, the whole Scripture be not able perhaps to prove its entirety to be divine, by the inartificial/uncontrived argument of testimony; nevertheless, it is able by the artificial and ratiocinative argument sought from innate Marks.  But also one part of Scripture procures authority to the other part, when we compare the Old Testament with the New.  2.  Furthermore, it is not always necessary that whatever is proven be proven by something else; for it is the nature of first principles/principia that they are not able to be demonstrated from elsewhere:  therefore, if the authority of Scripture be proven from elsewhere, the Scripture would not be the ultimate Principium of faith.

They press, a.  That thus the argument is circular.  Response:  We answer in the negative, because those Criteria, like adjuncts and properties, which are shown concerning the subject, are formally contradistinguished from the Scripture.

b.  That the Scripture of itself would thus be more and less known.  Response:  That is able to be much more strongly retorted against the Church.

c.  That thus a thing is proven by itself, the same and equally unknown.  Response:  We answer in the negative, because those Criteria, in the formal conception contradistinguished from Scripture, as has already been mentioned, are better known to us; just as we rightly show a cause from its effects, and a subject from its properties.

3.  On behalf of the Testimony of the Church they object, α.  That it is more Ancient than Scripture.  Response 1:  We deny the Consequent, which negation our AUTHOR correctly proves by two examples, of the Israelites and the divine Law, and also of John the Baptist and Christ.  2.  I acknowledge the Minor only concerning the Writing, or Scripture formally considered; I deny it concerning the Scripture regarded materially and with respect to the substance of doctrine:  for in this way the Word of God was more ancient than the Church, as its foundation and seed.  3.  That it is asked, not concerning the Testimony of the Church of the Patriarchs, which was before Scripture; but of today’s Church, which is far more recent.

β.  They appeal to 1 Timothy 3:15.  Bellarmine, in book III de Ecclesia Militante, chapter XIV, tome 2, Controversiis, column 187, among others writes:  “The Apostle, calling the Church the pillar of the truth, wishes to signify that the truth of faith with respect to us rests upon the authority of the Church; and the Church proves a thing to be true, and rejects a thing as false.”

Response a:  If this Elogium have regard to the Church,

              א.  the name of Church, a.  is not able to be restricted to its Overseers, to whom, gathered in Council, and in their highest Head, the Papists attribute Infallibility and the highest Authority; but it ought to be referred especially to the Church represented and individual believers, over whom Timothy with others was placed, 1 Timothy 3:5, in order to instruct them appropriately, and whom the Papists will admit not even in the first degree unto that peak of infallibility and authority.  b.  Just as these things were written concerning the Church to Timothy, who was remaining in Ephesus, 1 Timothy 1:3; so there is no mention here of the Roman Church; indeed, on the contrary, these things, spoken of the Church without limitation, ought to have their first relation here to the Ephesian Church, lately committed to the special care of Timothy.

              ב.  Στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα, the pillar and ground, aptly denotes a Column with its lowest base, or a Column and seat, for example, a royal seat, a throne; but an architectonic Column is not necessarily understood.  It is also able to be understood as:

                             a.  a Column Political or Sacred.  For, the use of Columns is, and was for ages, various, neither was there only the one use of supporting some edifice; but also of adorning that, or of serving as a monument of some thing, or of directing in a path, or of being inscribed or affixed with those things that are to be read publicly.  There were two Columns of brass in the courtyard of Solomon’s temple for the ornamentation of the edifice, 1 Kings 7:21:  concerning the two Columns of the Sethites, upon which they may have inscribed their own discoveries, to be transmitted to posterity in this way, Josephus relates in his Antiquities of the Jews, book I, chapter III.  THOMAS GATAKER[8] in Cinno, book II, chapter XX, Opera critica, columns 390, 391, amasses many additional things out of Dionysius Halicarnassensis,[9] Dio Cassius,[10] Livy, and Macrobius,[11] of Columns having either laws or covenants or exploits inscribed, which Columns they call political.  JACQUES GODEFROY,[12] in his Dissertatione on this passage, which has been inserted in Bibliis Criticis, has yet more things concerning the multitude of Columns in the Temples of the Gentiles and in their near orbit, which one may call Sacred, of which some indeed were holding up the edifice, but others were of various sorts and uses; accordingly upon the tops of these the likenesses of their Gods were imposed; or arms, shields, and other things were appended; or they had some inscriptions such as elegies, elogia, covenants, συνθῆκας/agreements, historical narrations and traditions, laws and decrees, even precepts of manners or of virtue, things mystical or hieroglyphic, and finally oracles.  If Paul have regard to this, he asserts that the Church is a firm and stable structure, which is consecrated to the truth, and which holds it, and exhibits it openly to others so that it might be seen and embraced; instead of μύθων σεσοφισμένων, cunningly devised fables,[13] or false Gods, or feigned oracles, which were found in the Temples and on the sacred Columns of the Gentiles.  Which things no one would deny to the true Church, even if the external could be pulled down, and the inscription of the truth to be read on it be obliterated.

b.  If it be conceded that the names of στύλου/pillar and ἑδραιώματος/ground have regard to an Architectonic Column:

              1.  It has not yet been demonstrated that the Truth is considered here as dependent upon this Column:

                             a.  For the Column and Support of the Truth is able to mean much the same thing as the Column and true Support; compare Ephesians 4:24, in which is found δικαιοσύνη καὶ ὁσιότης τῆς ἀληθείας, righteousness and holiness of the truth.  Now, the true Church of the Elect is called a true Column because it is firm and immovable, extended heavenward, etc.; and because through the grace of God it supports both individual believers, whom it, as a kind mother, cherishes in its bosom; but also houses, cities, regions, and the whole world, which would fall, unless it stand because of the Church, and those so truly pious be the Columns of the age.  Or,

                             b.  The Church is named the Column of the Truth after the foundation upon which it rests, either after the reason on account of which it was erected, or after the bond by which its parts cohere, so that it might stand firm:  not after the building, which is built upon it, just as after all those some Columns are able to be denominated equally, as after the structure built.  In such a manner it is found to be ὁ θεμέλιος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the foundation of God, 2 Timothy 2:19; and thus elsewhere the church is called the superstructure built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Ephesians 2:20.

              2.  But if it be altogether granted that the Church is called the architectonic Column and Support of the Truth, held up and confirmed by it:  it is necessary to distinguish between a principal Support, and some imposed Column, which upholds the building secondarily and less principally and derivatively; likewise between the fitting office of the Church and its observance of the office.  That is, the Truth, dependent upon God and His infallible revelation, the Church not only holds, or exhibits to others, but also builds upon as far as it is able, indeed, fortifies against the attacks of Satan and the world.  What thing plays the part of a supporting Column is therefore able to support.  Thus the Apostles come to mind as those δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι, seeming to be pillars, Galatians 2:9; believers are called στύλοι ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, pillars in the temple of God, Revelation 3:12; and the truth of the Gospel is said διαβεβαιοῦσθαι, to be asserted confidently, by Doctors, Titus 3:8,[14] to whom the Learned add more Ecclesiastical examples gathered out of the Fathers, in which either eminent Fathers, or the extraordinarily faithful and martyrs also, are called στύλοι/pillars, and also στύλοι καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας, pillars and ground of the truth, which they were furnishing to the others by the brilliance of doctrine, the holiness of life, or the firmness of constancy; and they were confirming the Christian faith by doctrine or example:  see SUICERUS’ Thesaurum ecclesiasticum,[15] on the word Στύλος, tome 2, columns 1045, 1046; DEYLING’S[16] Observationes Sacras, part I, observationem LXVI, § 3, 356, with whom denying, nevertheless, it is able to be judged quite probable that the elogium, as it appeared to GREGORY NYSSEN, PROCOPIUS, WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH,[17] THOMAS GATAKER, whose Adversaria Miscellanea, book II, chapter XX, Opera critica, columns 381 at the end, 382, 383, 386-388, 392, see, here also ought to be referred especially to Timothy, under an ellipsis either of the particle of similitude, ὡς/as, or of the participle ὢν/being, which are both very common, as GATAKER in the place cited gives proof by examples; so that the sense might be, ἵνα εἰδῇς πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ Θεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσθαι (ὡς) στύλος, etc., that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God (as) a pillar, etc, or στύλος (ὢν) καὶ, etc., (being) a pillar and, etc.  In any event, Paul not only made use of the same sort of speech in Galatians 2:9; but it is also able to appear not sufficiently congruous, that, since he just now had called the Church a House, he would call the same a Column:  on the other hand, Timothy shall be optimally considered after the likeness of a Column located in this House; at what time the argumentation of the Papists on behalf of their Church from this passage altogether fall.  WOLF, in his Curis philologicis et criticis, on this passage, page 447, recounts various Augustan Theologians also addicted to this opinion.  But this you see in every way, that the Church by the appellation the Pillar of the Truth is not carried away to the summit of dominical dignity above the Truth, which with its own authority indeed hangs from it; but that only a ministerial work on behalf of the Truth is attributed to it:  which work is incumbent upon it by office in such a way that, nevertheless, it is not always fulfilled in a suitable manner by the Church or its leaders, nor is it for that matter its infallible privilege, by a comparison with Malachi 2:7, 8.

β.  But, although by all this method the Papists gain nothing, nevertheless it appears to preferable to others, JOHN CAMERON,[18] and his Colleagues, ANDREW MELVILLE,[19] and JOHANN FABRITIUS,[20] and among the Lutherans ERASMUS SCHMIDT,[21] etc., that these words, στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας, be referred, not to the Church previously named, but to the subjoined summary of the Gospel in verse 16, καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, etc., and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, etc.

1.  Because the immediately subjoined summary of the Gospel concerning Christ is deservedly called the Pillar and Support of the Truth:  whether you have regard to substance; for Christ is the sole foundation, as of the Church, so also of all Evangelical doctrine, by a comparison of 1 Corinthians 3:11 and Matthew 16:18; or you attend to the expression of the Hebrews, who are wont to esteem the more principal and necessary heads of doctrine as worthy of the names of Column and Support:  or this Column be distinguished from the Truth, that is, from other truths built upon it, by a comparison with 1 Corinthians 3:12:  or the Truth itself be said to be like unto a Column, and thus in this sense Columns of the Truth, in which sense Paul made mention of θεμέλιον μετανοίας καὶ πίστεως, the foundation of repentance and faith, Hebrews 6:1, τὸν θώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύνης, the breastplate of righteousness, τὸν θυρεὸν τῆς πίστεως, the shield of faith, Ephesians 6:14, 16.

2.  Because no copula connects that title with those preceding in, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος, which is the church of the living God; whence also no necessity of connecting them is able to be established.

3.  Because the Church just now came under a different similitude, the House of God, upon the exposition of which similitude Paul dwells, subjoining it after the mention of the House of God in a proper expression, which is the Church of the living God; in which exposition there does not appear to be a place for a new and more obscure metaphor, of which sort is that Column.

4.  Because the following words are joined by a Copula to our controverted words, καὶ ὁμολογουμένως, etc., and without controversy, etc.:  which is not an argument apodictic and demonstrative; but nevertheless probable.  So that Paul teaches Timothy in preaching simultaneously what is principally and especially fundamental, and equally pious and sublime.

They say that the constant punctuation of the text, which all the Old Versions follow, hinders this exegesis.  Responses:  1.  Nevertheless, in the Basel edition of 1540,[22] a comma is read in the place of the period.  2.  The corruption of a comma into a period happens quite readily and is very slight; especially when this elogium with the following period was quite eagerly received by men scraping together those things that were appearing to pertain to the dignity of the Church.  3.  The received severing of the themes is certainly not to be rashly criticized; but it is not authentic, as the Most Illustrious CLOPPENBURG,[23] in his Disputatione X, de Canone Theologiæ, § 13, opera, tome 2, page 62.

But this interpretation, as most probable, is also adopted by our Most Illustrious AUTHOR in his Exercitationibus textualibus XLIV, Part II.  He is joined by the Most Illustrious Alberti,[24] in his Observationibus philologicis in Novum Testamentum, upon this passage, page 396.  BENGEL,[25] in his Apparatu Critico ad Novum Testamentum, page 709, embraces the same distinction, with many Authors praised for the same.  Most recently Johann Georg Altmann,[26] Meletematis philologico-criticis in Novum Testamentum, tome 2, Exercise upon 1 Timothy 3:16, § 2, pages 262, 263, also subscribed to this opinion.

γ.  Finally, it is not permissible for the Papists to defend themselves with the authority of AUGUSTINE, who said, in libro contra Epistolam Manichæi, quam vocant Fundamenti, chapter V, opera, tome 8, of the Benedictine edition, column III, Indeed, I non crederem, would not have believed, the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church commoveret, had moved, me.

1.  For they err here by an invalid argument, moving from a qualified to an unqualified statement,[27] in a twofold manner:  for, a.  from a particular they infer a universal:  if Augustine did not believe the Gospel, unless moved by the authority of the Church; therefore, no one is able to believe the Gospel, whom the authority of the Church does not move.  b.  Augustine is not speaking of himself as he was at that time, an Orthodox Christian and Bishop; but of himself as a Manichæan,[28] when he passed from heresy to orthodox Religion, at which time he acknowledges himself to have been induced by the authority of the Church to believe the Gospel.  For, what he says, crederem, I would not have believed, and commoveret, it had moved, according to the observation of the learned is an African expression, sufficiently familiar to Augustine, in which they make use of the imperfect tense in the place of the pluperfect.  Thus AUGUSTINE, in his Retractionibus, book I, chapter XXIII, opera, tome I, column 25, is going to retract what he had previously said, What therefore we believe is ours; but what good we perform belongs to Him who gives the Holy Spirit to believers; he subjoins:  which certainly dicerem, I would not have said, if jam scirem, I had then known, that faith itself also is found among the gifts of God, which are given in the same Spirit:  that is, this non dixissem, I had not said, at that time, if jam scivissem, I had then known, what I now know.  He does not maintain, therefore, that those that now believe depend upon the authority of the Church, but that those that do not believe begin by it.  That this path of authority is adapted to fools, he elsewhere says, to whom the opportunity of inquiring is given, in such a way that by degrees they arrive at heavenly wisdom, libro de Utilitate credendi ad Honoratum, chapter XVI:  “It is authority alone that moves fools to hasten unto wisdom….  Now, this, with reason set aside, which to understand as sincere, as we have often said, is very difficult for fools, moves us in a twofold manner, partly by miracles, partly by the multitude of those following.  None of these is necessary for the wise; who denies it?  But this is now done so that we might be able to be wise, that is, to adhere to the truth.”

2.  Augustine does not speak of the commanding authority of law and rule, which the Papists allege here; as if Augustine had believed merely because the Church was pronouncing that it was to be believed:  but of the authority of dignity, which was sought from luminous arguments of God’s providences, which were conspicuous in the Church, of which sort were miracles, antiquity, consent of the nations, etc., chapter IV, which is able to lead to faith, although it be not of the first importance in the engendering of it.

3.  Therefore, the external Motive to faith is noted, but not the infallible Principium of faith, which he teaches is to be sought in the truth alone, chapter IV:  compare RIVET’S Isagogen ad Scripturam Sacram, chapter III, opera, tome 2.  For in other respects the Fathers rightly held that the Sacred Scripture is more useful and better known by the Authority in itself and with respect to us, than the Church is, as LEYDEKKER,[29] in his Veritate Euangelica triumphante, tome I, book I, chapter XII, § 2, pages 136, 137.

On § 6 and 7 see WHITAKER disputing adversus Stapletonum[30] libris III de Auctoritate Sacræ Scripturæ, or de controversia circa Sacrarum Scripturarum Approbatione per Ecclesiam, opera, tome 2, pages 1-509.[31]  On § 7 compare also DINANT’S de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter II, § 81-97, pages 273-305.

[1] Johannes Brenz (1499-1570) was a German Lutheran theologian and reformer.  He served as Professor of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at Heidelberg (1519-1522).

[2] Dr. Johann Maier von Eck (1486-1543) was a German Catholic theologian and opponent of Protestantism.  He served as Professor of Theology at Ingolstadt.

[3] Guillaume Baile (1557-1620) was a Jesuit theologian.

[4] Diogo de Paiva de Andrade (1528-1575) was a Portuguese theologian.  He was active at Trent, and afterwards, against the Protestant Reformation.

[5] Written by Henry Dodwell Jr., son of the Anglican theologian and churchman, Henry Dodwell Sr.

[6] 1 Timothy 3:15.

[7] Heinrich Alting (1583-1644) was a German Reformed divine, specializing in Ecclesiastical History and Historical Theology.  He served as Professor of Theology at Heidelberg (1613-1622), and then Professor of Historical Theology at Groningen (1627-1644).

[8] Thomas Gataker (1574-1654) was an English minister and theologian.  He was in his day regarded as a critic of unsurpassed skill, learning, and judgment.  On account of his great learning, he was invited to sit as a member of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster.

[9] Dionysius Halicarnassensis (c. 60- c. 7 BC) was a Greek historian and rhetorician.

[10] Dio Cassius was a Roman historian of the third century AD.  His Historiæ Romanæ is an important source of information concerning that period.

[11] Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius’ (395-423) wrote Saturnalia, a dialogue in which all sorts of historical, mythological, and linguistic curiosities are discussed.

[12] Jacques Godefroy (1587-1652) was a Genevan jurist and statesman.

[13] 2 Peter 1:16.

[14] Titus 3:8a:  “This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly (διαβεβαιοῦσθαι), that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.”

[15] John Caspar Suicer (1620-1684) was a Swiss theologian and philologist.  He studied at Saumur and Montauban, and served as Professor of Hebrew and Greek at the University of Zurich (1660).  His Thesaurus ecclesiasticus was invaluable in the study of the Greek Fathers, shedding light upon words and expressions untreated by lexicographers.

[16] Salomon Deyling (1677-1755) was a Lutheran divine and Orientalist; he served as Professor of Theology at Leipzig (1721-1755).

[17] William Chillingworth (1602-1644) was an Anglican churchman and controversialist.  He wrote The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation.

[18] John Cameron (1580-1625) was a Protestant divine of great distinction, serving as Professor of Philosophy at Sedan, Professor of Divinity at Saumur (1608) and at Glasgow (1620).  He is the father of the Amyraldian doctrine.

[19] Andrew Melville (1545-1622) was a Scottish theologian and scholar, heavily involved in the Reformation of his country.  He served as Principal of the University of Glasgow (1574-1580), Principal of St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews (1581-1606), and as Professor of Theology at Sedan (1611-1620).

[20] Johann Ludwig Fabritius (1632-1697) was a Reformed theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology, Old, and New Testament at Heidelberg (1661-1696).

[21] Erasmus Schmidt (c. 1570-1637) was a German Lutheran philologist.  He served as Professor of Philosophy (1596-1597), of Greek (1597-1637), and of Mathematics (1614-1637) at Wittenberg.

[22] This is the second edition of Thomas Platter (1499-1582), a Swiss humanist, educator, and printer.  This edition is substantially that of Erasmus’ third.

[23] 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.

[24] Johannes Alberti (1698-1762), a Dutch minister, theologian, and philologist, served as Professor of Theology at Leiden (1740-1762).

[25] Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752) was a Lutheran clergyman.  He is remembered for his work in textual criticism and annotation of the New Testament.

[26] Johann Georg Altmann (1697-1758), a Swiss theologian, philologist, and historian, served as Professor of Philosophy at Bern (1734-1757).

[27] The fallacy of accident.

[28] Manichæism, arising in the third century, was a form of Gnostic dualism, teaching the co-eternality of good and evil.  Human history is the long process of the separation of spiritual light (the good) from material darkness (the evil).

[29] Melchior Leydekker (1642-1721) studied under Voetius at Utrecht, and Hoornbeeck and Cocceius at Leiden.  He was appointed Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1676).

[30] Thomas Stapleton (1535-1598) was an English Catholic controversialist.  He was instrumental in the establishment of the English College at Douai.

[31] William Whitaker (1548-1595) was a Reformed theologian of the Church of England (albeit with strong leanings toward Puritanism).  He served as Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge (1580-1595).  His Disputatio de Sacra Scripture is one of the great defenses of the Protestant and Reformed view of the authority of Scripture, directed primarily against Robert Bellarmine and Thomas Stapleton.