De Moor I:20: Vindication of the Insufficiency of Natural Theology

What has thus been said concerning the Insufficiency of Natural Theology for Salvation, our AUTHOR is going to vindicate in the following section.

Some of the Opponents at this point are Ancients, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and others cited, as we just now heard from Witsius, in CASAUBON’S Exercitatione I ad Apparatus Annales Baronii, chapter I, who were entertaining good hopes concerning the Salvation of the Gentiles and Philosophers that were governing their lives according to reason; who were either not yet sufficiently taught Christian doctrine, or were speaking less carefully before the times of Pelagius.  At the same time, CASAUBON, Exercitatione I ad Apparatus Annales Baronii, chapter I, pages 3, 4, thinks that the harsher words of CHRYSOSTOM concerning the Knowledge and Faith of Christ before His advent into the world not being necessary for salvation are able to be softened by a comparison with other sayings of this Father, and are explained of a clear, perspicuous, and explicit knowledge and faith of Christ, not of an obscure and enigmatical knowledge wrapped in figures:  thus JUSTIN Martyr, concerning whose opinion there is a discussion in Exercitatione I ad Apparatus Annales Baronii, chapter I, pages 4, 5, is no less ingeniously excused by BULL, in his Judicio Ecclesiæ catholicæ de necessitate credendi, quod Jesus Christus sit Verus Deus, in the Appendix to chapter VII, § 5, pages 81, 82, where you may read among other things, “When Justin in his Apology, which is called the second, page 83, calls Socrates and Heraclitus[1] Christians, he does not mean that they were Christians simply and perfectly, but only partially; that is, to the extent that they followed the guidance of right reason, they, equally with the Christians, acknowledged and worshipped the one God and father of all, with the idols of the Gentiles spurned; indeed, many things exceptional and agreeable to the Christian religion with respect to good morals, they both taught in their own writings, and to some extent expressed in their deeds.  Indeed, Justin teaches, that reason which is present in every man is, as it were, the σπέρμα/seed, and μέρος/portion, τοῦ θείου λόγου, of the Divine Word or reason, that is, of Christ, whom, therefore, he calls τὸν πάντα λόγον, the universal reason; and that consequently the Gentile Philosophers, that before the advent of Christ conformed their teachings and morals to the norm of that reason implanted within them, were thus far Christians; but that only those are Christians in an absolute sense, that are thoroughly instructed and embrace the divine institution and discipline of universal reason, namely, of Christ Himself, delivered in the Gospel, certainly far more sublime than all human wisdom.  —But if anyone should suspect that Justin felt that a man is able by the sole help of native reason to arrive at that knowledge of God, which is sufficient to attain heavenly and eternal life and blessedness, let him hear the same speaking for himself in his Hortatory Address to the Greeks, which concludes with these words, page 37, Πανταχόθεν τοίνυν εἰδέναι προσήκει, ὅτι οὐδαμῶς ἑτέρως περὶ Θεοῦ ἢ τῆς ὀρθῆς θεοσεβείας μανθάνειν οἷόν τε ἢ παρὰ τῶν προφητῶν μόνον, τῶν διὰ τῆς θείας ἐπιπνοίας διδασκόντων ὑμᾶς,  From every point of view, therefore, it must be seen that in no other way than only from the prophets who teach us by divine inspiration, is it at all possible to learn anything concerning God and the true religion.  —Similarly are the words of the same expressed in the Epistle to Diognetus:[2]  Ἀνθρώπων δὲ οὐδεὶς [τὸν Θεὸν] οὔτε εἶδεν, οὔτε ἐγνώρισεν·  ἐπέδειξε δὲ διὰ πίστεως, ᾗ μόνῃ Θεὸν ἰδεῖν συγκεχώρηται, and no man has either seen or recognised [God], but He revealed Himself by faith, whereby alone it is given to see God.”  But on behalf of CLEMENT of Alexandria no excuse is offered by the Authors cited.  Nevertheless, see what, both for this and for the remaining Fathers alleged for this opinion by Curcellæus,[3] MARESIUS sets forth in his Examine Dissertationis III Curcellæi, which is de Necessitate Cognitionis Christi ad Salutem, Section X, pages 655-663.  Especially among the Ancient Heretics the Pelagians are here to be noted, who taught a threefold way of Salvation, the Law of nature, the Law of Moses, and the Law of Christ:  consult SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Section V, chapter VII, § I, columns 989-993; TRIGLAND’S[4] Kerckelycke Geschiedenissen, volume I, page 47.

Edward Herbert of Cherbury

The Libertines naturally follow in their footsteps, introducing an Indifference of Religion:  to this pertains the system of Edward Herbert, Baron of Cherbury,[5] who in books, which he wrote de Veritate and de Causis Errorum, described all saving Religion by these five fundamental heads, which almost all Paganism granted; 1.  that there is a God; 2.  that He is to be worshipped, with whatever worship, even Idolatry; 3.  that attention was to be given to Virtue and Piety; 4.  that there is to be Repentance from sins; 5.  that Rewards and Punishments are to be expected after this life.  Moreover, he held all faith both in the Scriptures and in Christ as Savior as of no importance:  see SPANHEIM’S[6] Elenchum Controversiarum, Opera, tome 3, column 995; BUDDEUS’ de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter I, § 27, pages 105, 106.  LELAND, Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, has this Edward Herbert as the first of the seventeenth Century Deists among the English, although others thereafter rushed headlong into worse; and he shows in his Epistolis I, II, pages 1-60, that the five heads required by Herbert in religion were not duly and appropriately recognized by all Gentiles; that the same are more thoroughly and certainly taught in Revealed Theology; that the same do not suffice for Salvation in the corrupt State of Man; that there is little of importance in these things that Herbert brings forward against particular, Supernatural Revelation; and still less credit is to be given to the heavenly Sign, which he believed to have been given by God in support of the publication of his writings.[7]  That Charles Blount,[8] in his Religione Laici and Oraculis Rationis, most nearly followed Herbert among the Deists, LELAND shows, considering these writings in Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, epistle IV, pages 76-86.

All Philosophical Naturalists admit no Religion beyond the Natural, and contend that those things which Reason dictates concerning God and divine things are sufficient for the salvation and true felicity of man; they reject the authority and divinity of the Sacred Scripture; they deride the mysteries, miracles, and prophecies contained in the Sacred Books:  see STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter X, pages 881 and following, in which what things he asserts concerning Naturalists he proves chiefly out of the two defenders of Naturalism, Tindal[9] and Anthony Collins.[10]  STAPFER then notes, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter X, § 14-17, pages 902-923, the Causes and Occasion of Naturalism:  he believes the principal cause to be a false concept of the true revealed Religion, as if by this it is denied that Natural Religion is true and most salutary:  which things, nevertheless, are easily conceded concerning Natural Religion viewed in itself; but, that this is not sufficient for fallen man, does not detract anything from this Religion’s truth and perfection viewed in itself, but takes its rise from the altered state of man.  These things are further confirmed in the refutation of the Hypotheses of Naturalism, which follows in his Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter X, § 73-101, pages 923-947, and also afterwards in the Resolution of Objections in § 102-135, pages 947-973.

The Socinians are opposed also, partly directly, when they teach that those, that worship God according to the light of nature as a certain inner Word, please Him, and are acceptable, and experience Him as their rewarder, according to Socinus in his Prælectionibus Theologicis, chapter II, opera Fausti Socini, tome I, page 539a:  partly indirectly, when they introduce a common Religion of a very few Heads, so that there are only these six things absolutely necessary to know for salvation; to know that God is, that He is one only, that He is eternal, perfectly just, perfectly wise, and all-powerful, according to Catechesin Racoviensem “de Cognitione Dei”, question 3, pages 25, 26, which thereafter is illustrated and confirmed, questions 4-20, pages 26-31.  But, that it is necessary to know hardly anything concerning Christ, Socinus says in his Catechismo, sive Christianæ Religionis Institutione, Opera, tome I, page 653b.  But this could appear to be strange, that those that deny natural Theology now are able to be said to affirm its Sufficiency for salvation.  But it is to be understood, 1.  that not all Socinians deny Acquired natural Theology together with Innate natural Theology:  2.  that in the place of natural Theology they substitute Theology handed down from the ancients, and received by them from Revelation; which sort of Theology, received by the ancients, with respect to their argument, differs not from natural Theology, or surpasses not the same, and is truly diverse from Theology revealed in the written Word:  consult the passages already cited in § XVII, namely, Socinus’ Prælectionibus Theologicis, chapter II, opera Fausti Socini, tome I, page 537b; and Catechesi Racoviensi “de Via Salutis”, chapter I, questions 1, 7, 8; and ARNOLDI’S Refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, on the place cited, § 1-4, 44, 45, pages 44, 45, 70, 71.  3.  Socinus says that in all men there is a distinction between right and wrong; but he had considered this knowledge to be, as it were, internal revelation also, which is able to subsist without the knowledge of God Himself, asserting:  “That right ought to be preferred to wrong, honesty to indecency, is a certain internal Word of God, to which the man that yields obedience, yields obedience to God Himself, even if he otherwise thinks or considers that God Himself does not even exist.  There is no doubt (he goes on) that he that in this manner yields obedience to God, is also going to be acceptable to Him;” in the place cited, Prælectione Theologica, chapter II, opera Fausti Socini, tome I, page 539a.

Many Papists also contend for the Salvation of the Heathen without the knowledge of Christ, as Abulensis,[11] Durandus,[12] Vega,[13] Soto,[14] Erasmus, and others.  The impious reasoning upon this matter of Cardinal Sfondrati,[15] from his Nodo Prædestinationis, part I, § 2, N°, XI, is cited by Philippe Vlaming,[16] in Epistle XI, contra David Pierman, § 3, tome I, pages 308, 309.

Simon Episcopius

Finally, the Remonstrants, in the elevating, with all their might, of the integrity of reason in fallen men, are not altogether diverse from the opinion of the Socinians; when either with Adolph Venator,[17] in his Declaratione sua and Apologia contra ministros Dordracenos, they deny this proposition, that no one is able to be saved who has not been engrafted into Christ through true faith:  or with Arminius in his responsis ad articulos XV-XVIII, in Arminii tractatibus, pages 121-130, Arnoldi Corvinus[18] contra Tilenum,[19] and Episcopius, they admit, not immediately but mediately, the Heathen and others to salvation; since they state that by the right use of the Light of Nature the Light of Grace is acquired, and that through grace they are brought to glory.

The Aim of the Socinians and Remonstrants in their opinion concerning this controversy is thought to be the Syncretism of the various Religions.

On this subject in § 19, we brought forward out of WITSIUS assertions of even some of Our own men, assertions not at all to be approved.  Similar to which is the assertion of Pierre Chauvin, a Gallo-Belgic Theologian, in which he contends that man, if he follows natural light, is able to become a sharer in eternal felicity, in a tractate de Religione naturali, published at Rotterdam in 1693 in octavo, concerning which consult WEISMANN’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam Novi Testamenti, part II, Century XVII, § 29, pages 762-767; and BUDDEUS’ Animadversiones in Petri Chauvini librum de Religione Naturali, chapter 1, in his Parergis historico-theologicis, pages 404-427.  Concerning the opinion of Amyraut and Testard[20] also on this matter, consult PFAFF’S[21] Historiam Formulæ Consensus Helveticæ, chapter I, § 3-5; and RIVET’S Synopsin Doctrinæ Amyraldi et Testardi de Natura et Gratia, opera, tome 3, pages 828 and following; and also Acta Synodi Nationalis Alencon,[22] chapter XV, § 24-26, in which Amyraut and Testard acknowledge that Natural Theology because of the corruption of man is insufficient for salvation, and that no one was ever truly converted by it:  indeed, they anathematize those that teach that man is able to be saved without the merits of Christ applied to him; nay more, they concede that man is not able to be led to salvation without some sort of knowledge of the word of Christ also.

The speech of ZWINGLI concerning the Gentiles, which our AUTHOR here indicates, and which he does not wish to approve entirely, is found in Ulrich Zwingli’s Expositione Fidei Christianæ ad Regem Christianum, in which, when he discusses eternal Life, after the distinguished Saints of the Old and New Testaments have been enumerated, he thus proceeds to address the Christian King, Opera, part 2, page 559b, “Here thou shalt see Hercules, Theseus,[23] Socrates, Aristides,[24] Antigonus,[25] Numa,[26] Camillus,[27] the Catos, the Scipios:  here, thy predecessors, and thine ancestors, however many have departed hence in faith.”  Hence he enrolls all those in the community of those in heaven.  But, 1.  We do not make these words ours.  2.  It does not follow from this that according to the opinion of Zwingli natural Theology was sufficient for salvation:  but he thought that the merit of Christ is thus to be magnified, together with the mercy of God; since he believed that all of this sort to be saved were saved through Christ, and at the same time he thought that saving grace was communicated to them with the Heroic virtues, which were prominent in various illustrious men of Heathenism, and that not without the Deity:  whether now that rule, he that believeth not, shall not be saved, according to the judgment of Zwingli comes to be restricted, not only to adults, but also to those to whom the Gospel has become known; or he also thinks that faith, in a manner unknown to us, is able to be inscribed or instilled in the heart of the Gentiles by the hand of God, as his opinion, with the Papist Soto, is explained by RIVET in his Synopsi Doctrinæ Amyraldi, chapter VIII, opera, tome 3, page 848; whence he concludes that the error of Zwingli was not of right, but of fact:  since “he everywhere contends that faith in Christ is necessary, and that no one is saved except through Christ; but he was supposing that to the great men in Heathenism it was secretly infused.”  This opinion of Zwingli is unfavorably mentioned by ECKHARDUS[28] in his Fasciculo Controversiarum cum Calvino, chapter XXII, question 2, pages 649-652.  See what things are brought to excuse the same thesis by RUDOLF GWALTHER[29] in his Apologia pro Zuinglio et Operibus ejus, which is prefixed to part I of operum Zuinglii; where this thesis is treated of in ε:4, 5, 6:  also by WENDELIN[30] in his Exercitationibus theologicis, tome I, Exercise XXXVIII, pages 572-585.  Consult the list of those that oppose us in the assertion of the Insufficiency of Natural Theology for Salvation, in MARESIUS’ Exegesin Articuli II Confessionis Belgicæ, § 15-19; PETRUS HOFSTEDE’S[31] de Belisarius van den Heer Marmontel beoordeelt, with a renewed defense of this book made by the Author against many adversaries.

Objection 1:  Everything that is able to be known concerning God is evident through Natural Theology, according to Romans 1:19.  Responses:  1.  He here treats of γνωστῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, what may be known of God, not τῷ πιστῷ, what is believed, which alone is saving.  2.  That τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, what may be known of God, is revealed to the Gentiles by nature, Paul asserts, but not πᾶν Θεοῦ γνωστὸν, all that may be known of God; that only which is able to be had from the book of nature, but not all that which must be known concerning God for salvation from His word, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, of the Mediator, and of the Redemption merited by Him.  3.  Paul restricts that γνωστὸν, thing that may be known, unto the Power and Divinity of God visible in the works of creation and providence:  it is not extended to the knowledge of the Goodwill and Mercy of God in Christ, who is to be embraced through faith, without whom there is no salvation.  4.  Paul expressly adds the purpose of this γνωστοῦ φανερωθέντος, knowledge made manifest:  it is not εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι αὐτοὺς, so that they might be saved; but only εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους, so that they might be without excuse, verse 20.

Objection 2:  Men through it are rendered inexcusable, according to Romans 1:20.  Response:  What is sufficient for inexcusability is not immediately sufficient for salvation, even if it be well used; for more things are required to obtain salvation, than to incur damnation ἀναπολογήτως/inexcusably.  Whosoever might transgress in one, is made guilty of all, James 2:10; but it is not so that whosoever might do well in one, is righteous in all, or shall be justified for this reason:  one sin damns; one virtue does not save, but only the perfect observation of the Law.  Thus the Gentiles were rendered altogether inexcusable, inasmuch as in the place of the one true God they were inventing for themselves innumerable gods, and in the place of the Creator were worshipping the creature; nevertheless, although God had to such an extent clearly manifested Himself to them through natural works and benefits, and had inscribed in them the knowledge of His Law and δικαιώματος/ righteousness;[32] in which manner all solid pretext or what might also have any pretense in the neglected acknowledgement and worship of this God is withdrawn:  but not therefore is the knowledge and acknowledgement of the one God able to be said absolutely to suffice for salvation; compare James 2:19.  False, therefore, is the proposition:  The abuse of which renders man inexcusable; its use would have rendered men worthy of excuse, indeed, would have saved.

Neither will you be able to argue more rightly from this place:  That which renders man inexcusable necessarily implies that all the means of salvation are furnished for man:  otherwise a man might object, All the means of salvation were not communicated to me.  For, 1.  man is already inexcusable on account of the corruption of nature:  2.  he is rendered more inexcusable on account of the actual abuse of the light of nature granted to him; and thus all solid excuse is taken away from him:  3.  but the pretext, Thou hast not granted to me all the means of salvation, is an excuse, not solid but vain:  since, a.  the Gentiles neglected the light of Nature itself, which had been granted to them.  b.  Now, to upright man, in whom this natural Light was shining far more brilliantly, the same had sufficiently revealed the way of salvation:  but man is in error, which has run down the powers conceded to him by Creation, and which because of sin requires a means of Reconciliation with God unknown by nature:  neither is God required to restore this loss:  see MESTREZAT’S[33] Sermonem ad Romanos 8:28, tome 2, pages 264-268.

Objection 3:  That which εἰς μετάνοιαν ἄγει, leads unto repentance, leads unto salvation; for the bond between salvation and repentance is sure, Ezekiel 33:11; Acts 11:18.  But τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, the goodness of God, was leading the Heathen εἰς μετάνοιαν, unto repentance, Romans 2:4.  Now, they maintain that by the Benignity of God is understood the more common demonstration of divine Goodness in the daily works of Providence.

Johannes a Marck

Response 1:  All repentance is not Evangelical and saving; but there is also a certain Legal repentance, which is taught by the Law, whether natural or written; whether it be external only, or internal also.  Now, since Paul in chapter 1 had discussed the most grievous sins against God and one’s neighbor, with which, against τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, what may be known of God, and His acknowledged δικαίωμα/righteousness, and the Law of God written upon their hearts, according to Romans 2:14, 15, the Gentiles formerly were corrupting themselves; he was now able most aptly to speak concerning Repentance from such sins, unto which the longsuffering Benignity of God was directing them, and obliging them to move; who thus indeed without faith in the Gospel would not obtain eternal salvation, but nevertheless would lessen their inexcusability and condemnation.  2.  Ἄγειν εἰς μετάνοιαν, to lead unto repentance, here is most certainly not to be understood concerning the very result of Leading unto Repentance;  but neither does it necessarily say that the Manuduction unto the same is sufficient, in such a way that its road and way by every reckoning is open to men:  but it aptly denotes a powerful Motion and Impulse, which sort is in every work of divine Benignity, to obey His Law with abstinence from sins, and to seek His surpassing Grace, although in this the Name of the Mediator be not signified, through which alone is access unto the salvation of God.  Thus are there also many things among men, moving them to seek this or that, which nevertheless do not show the way of effectually arriving there.  3.  Indeed, our AUTHOR supposes, following Augustine among the Ancients; Estius, à Lapide,[34] Tirinus[35] among the Papists; Cloppenburg and Cocceius among Our men; likewise Maresius in his Examine Dissertationis III Curcellæi, which is de Necessitate Cognitionis Christi ad Salutem, Section VII, § 29, 30, in Defensione Fidei Catholicæ opposita Quaternioni Curcellæi, pages 629; indeed, following Jonas Schlichting among the very Socinians; that the speech of the Apostle is no longer directed toward the Gentiles, but toward the Jews, and treats of supernatural Grace granted to them:

α.  On account of the emphasis of the text itself, in which τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, what may be known of God, leads us back to three distinct terms, in which mention was made of the Benignity of God, χρηστότης/goodness, ἀνοχή/forbearance, μακροθυμία/longsuffering, of which things a πλοῦτος/abundance is ascribed to God:[36]  so that thus Paul speaks of the consummate and most abundant Benignity of God.  Which, although it is rightly acknowledged in the common works of Providence, nevertheless is to a far greater degree recognized and ought to be acknowledged in the special revelation of God through the Gospel, even of Promise; which sort formerly was granted to the Jews with the exclusion of other Nations:  to which follows in the next place the Gospel of Fulfillment, announced also to the Jews first of all.

β.  On account of those things which immediately preceded in verses 1-3.  Paul here addresses certain men, indeed men quite different from those whom he had indicated at the end of chapter 1; for those were συνευδοκοῦντες τοῖς πράσσουσι ἄξια θανάτου, having pleasure in those doing things worthy of death; now, on the other hand, he speaks of men judging and condemning malefactors.  Now, these shall not be Gentiles with respect to the Jews, or Philosophers with respect to the common people, or Judges with respect to the people; but Jews with respect to the Gentiles.  For they, as the offspring of saints, were harshly condemning the Gentiles as impure and odious to God, from whose community they were shrinking; meanwhile, they were imitating the most indecent deeds of the Gentiles, who had been condemned by themselves.  Hence these Jews, through that illative/inferential διὸ/ therefore, are said to be ἀναπολόγητοι/inexcusable even more than the Gentiles, for they had met with a grace far greater than did the Gentiles, which grace they were thus indecently despising, as it follows in verse 4.

γ.  On account of the σκληροκαρδίᾳ, hardness of heart, everywhere attributed to the Jews, and the ἀμετανοήτῳ καρδίᾳ, impenitent heart, with the invitation, greater and clearer through the Gospel, unto Repentance not preventing, through which they were bringing upon themselves a heavier Judgment, whom the Apostle addresses in verse 5, who, if he had not now overtly treated of the Jews in this chapter, as of the Gentiles in chapter 1, was not able through the method either of a conclusion from premises, or of valid insinuation, to urge in verses 9-12, θλίψις καὶ στενοχωρία, ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου τοῦ κατεργαζομένου τὸ κακόν, Ἰουδαίου τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνος, etc., tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile, etc.  For otherwise that punishment without the distinction, and the cancellation of προσωποληψίας/partiality,[37] and the placing of the Jews before the Greeks in punishment, would hardly have been relevant to the present matter.

δ.  Because after the parenthesis concerning the Gentiles in verses 14 and 15, the Apostle in verses 17-25 addresses not new persons, concerning whom he had not hitherto treated, but the same unto whom recently he had delivered words weighty and threatening, saying, Ἴδε σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ, etc., Behold, thou art called a Jew, etc..  By which address Paul expressly explains those things that were previously asserted in verses 1-3, etc.  For those things, σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ, thou art called a Jew, resting in the Law, etc., are referred not more agreeably than to him, who in the same person and in the same number was thus previously addressed, ὦ ἄνθρωπε πᾶς ὁ κρίνων, etc., O man, whosoever judgest, etc.  And in the following words it is most plain that that condemnation of others is rather declared because of those things which those condemning still do, of which it was treated in the beginning of the Chapter.

Objection 4:  Whence arises peace of conscience, thence is salvation:  for peace of conscience is an aspect of salvation, Romans 14:17.  But from natural Theology is peace of conscience; for, in Romans 2:15, the Apostle attributes to the conscience of Gentiles the function, not only of accusing, but also of excusing, from which tranquility of conscience springs.

Response:  The Major is true only concerning that peace which is certain, solid, and constant:  but thus the Minor shall be false; since such peace of conscience comes, not from the Law, but from the Gospel, Romans 5:1.  Indeed, peace of this sort does not follow from cogitations sometimes excusing, sometimes also in other things on the other hand accusing.  It is one thing to excuse in certain things, or from so much, which the conscience of the Gentiles was doing; it is another thing to excuse in all things and from the whole, which was impossible to that.  It is one thing to excuse from the more grievous crimes and comparatively to others even more depraved:  it is another thing to grant a certain and constant peace to us, which flows from a sense of the love of God and of our reconciliation with Him, which is not able to be granted in the case of the Heathen.

Objection 5:  He that did not leave Himself ἀμάρτυρον, without a witness, among the Gentiles, to such an extent that He afforded to them the opportunity of seeking and finding Him, opened to the Gentiles the way of salvation.  But the former is true, and therefore the latter.  The Minor is proven out of Acts 14:17; 17:25-27, compared with Isaiah 55:6, 7:  see Socinus’ Prælectiones Theologicæ, chapter II, opera, tome I, page 538, 539.

Responses:  1.  God gave a testimony to the Gentiles of His Existence and Goodness, and other Attributes, disclosing Himself in the works of Nature; but not of His counsel concerning salvation.  Hence, 2.  to such an extent He was able to be sought and found by the Gentiles, but by this manifestation of Himself God did not open to the Gentiles the way unto His gracious and glorious communion.  For, although it be said in Proverbs 8:17, 35, those diligently seeking me find me; whosoever finds me finds life, etc.; and what things are similar; it is to be understood that the signification of the words varies according to the circumstances of the passages:  hence that the natural seeking and finding of God the Creator and Preserver differs far from the Evangelical seeking and finding of God reconcilied in Christ.

Upon § 19 and 20 consult MARESIUS in his Examine Dissertationis III Curcellæi, which is de Necessitate Cognitionis Christi ad Salutem, in Maresii Defensione Fidei Catholicæ opposita Quaternioni Curcellæi, pages 567-665.  Also PFANNER[38] in his Systemate theologiæ gentilis purioris, chapter XXII, which is de Salute Gentilium.

Upon § 19 and 20 consult JOHANN HEINRICH HEIDEGGER’S[39] Elenchum Religionis communis salvificæ duabus dissertationibus, which are found after the Exercitationes Biblicas of the same, pages 1-59.

[1] Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 535-c. 475) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher; he is remembered for his teaching that the universe is in constant flux and change.

[2] Although the author of the Epistle to Diognetus is unknown, it has been traditionally attributed to Justin Martyr.

[3] Etienne de Courcelles (1586-1659) was an Arminian theologian.  He studied in Zurich, and later succeeded Simon Episcopius at the Remonstrant seminary in Amsterdam.  He was a personal friend of Descartes, and was influential in introducing Cartesian rationalism into Dutch Arminian circles.

[4] That is, Jacob Trigland the Elder.

[5] Edward Herbert, Baron of Cherbury (1583-1648), was a soldier, diplomat, and religious philosopher.  He is sometimes called the “Father of English Deism”.

[6] That is, Frederic Spanheim the Younger.

[7] Herbert, hesitating to publish his De Veritate, prayed for clarity, and was answered with a sign, a strange, yet gentle, sound from heaven on a clear day.

[8] Charles Blount (1654-1693) was an English, “freethinking” philosopher and deist.

[9] Matthew Tindal (1657-1733) was an English, “freethinking” philosopher and deist; his writings were heavily influential in the early days of the Enlightenment.  His Christianity as Old as the Creation; or, the Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature has been regarded by some as the “Bible” of Deism.

[10] Anthony Collins (1676-1729) was an English philosopher and deist, intimate friend of John Locke.

[11] Alonso Tostado, or Tostatus (c. 1400-1455), was a Spanish, Roman Catholic churchman and scholar.  He was trained in philosophy, theology, civil and canon law, Greek, and Hebrew.

[12] Durandus of Saint-Pourçain (c. 1275-c. 1332) was a French Dominican philosopher and theologian.  He lectured and wrote commentaries on Lombard’s Sentences.  In some matters, he differed from the great Dominican theologian, Thomas Aquinas, and became known as the Doctor Resolutissimus for his firm adherence to his novel positions.

[13] Andreas de Vega (died c. 1560) was a Spanish theologian.  He taught at the University of Salamanca, and became a Franciscan Observantine.  He defended the Roman doctrine of justification, both in print and at the Council of Trent.

[14] Dominic Soto (1494-1560) was a Spanish Dominican theologian of great repute.  He was called to serve at the Council of Trent, assisting in the composition of its dogmatic formulations.

[15] Celestino Sfondrati (1644-1696) was an Italian Benedictine theologian and cardinal.

[16] Philippe Louis Verhulst (died 1753) was a Roman Catholic writer.

[17] Adolf Venator (c. 1570-1618) was an Arminian Pastor of German descent.

[18] Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus (c. 1582-1650) was a Dutch Remonstrant pastor and theologian.  Having been a student of Arminius, he adopted his views, and in 1610 he signed the Five Articles of Remonstrance.  He was deposed in 1619.

[19] Daniel Tilenus (1563-1633) was a Protestant theologian of the Academy of Sedan.  Although initially a Calvinist, he embraced the Arminian teaching, and was embroiled in controversy the rest of his life.

[20] Paul Testard (1599-1650) was a French Reformed Pastor and Theologian.

[21] Christoph Matthæus Pfaff (1686-1760) was a German Lutheran Theologian of encyclopedic learning.  He was appointed Professor of Theology at Tubingen (1716).  Within four years, he became chancellor, and held the post for thirty-six years.

[22] The Decrees of the National Synod at Alençon (1637) were moderate, allowing the hypothetical universalism of Amyraut and his followers as harmless, saving the orthodoxy of the Amyraldian party.

[23] Theseus was the mythical founder of Athens.

[24] Aristides (530-468 BC) was an Athenian statesman and general (in the war against the Persians).  He was called “the Just”, and Herodotus remembers him as “the best and most honourable man in Athens,” Histories, book 8, section 79.

[25] Antigonus II Gonats (c. 319-239) was a Macedonian king.  He is remembered for his honesty, and his cultivation of philosophy and the arts.

[26] Numa Pompilius is the legendary second king of Rome, successor to Romulus.

[27] Marcus Furius Camillus (c. 446-365 BC) was a Roman soldier and statesman.  His military victories led to five terms as dictator.  He was honored with the title, the Second Founder of Rome.

[28] Heinrich Eckhard (1580-1624) was a German Lutheran Pastor and Theologian.

[29] Rudolf Gwalther (1519-1586) was the successor of Heinrich Bullinger (who raised him after the death of his father) as Antistes and Pastor of the Grossmünster in Zurich.  He married Zwingli’s daughter, Regula, and did much to protect and preserve the great Reformer’s memory.

[30] Marcus Friedrich Wendelin (1584-1652) was a Reformed Theologian and educator.  He served as Rector at Zerbst from 1610 to 1652.

[31] Petrus Hofstede (1716-1803) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian and Pastor, serving in Rotterdam.

[32] Romans 2:26:  “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness (τὰ δικαιώματα, the precepts) of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?”

[33] Jean Mestrezat (1592-1657) was a French Reformed Theologian and Parisian Pastor.

[34] Cornelius à Lapide (1567-1637) was a Flemish Jesuit scholar.  His talents were employed in the professorship of Hebrew at Louvain, then at Rome.  He wrote commentaries covering all the Roman Catholic canon, excepting only Job and the Psalms, developing the four-fold sense of Scripture, while emphasizing the literal.  His knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and the commentators that preceded him is remarkable.

[35] James Tirinus (1580-1636) was a Flemish Jesuit priest.  His abilities as a commentator are displayed in his Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam.

[36] Romans 2:4:  “Or despisest thou the riches (τοῦ πλούτου) of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering (τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς ἀνοχῆς καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας); not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?”

[37] Romans 2:11:  “For there is no respect of persons (προσωποληψία) with God.”

[38] Tobias Pfanner (1641-1716) was a German Lutheran theologian, and served as secretary of the archives to the duke of Saxe Gotha.

[39] Johann Heinrich Heidegger (1633-1698) was a Swiss Reformed theologian, serving as Professor of Theology at Steinfurt (1659-1665), and then at Zurich (1667-1698).