De Moor I:32: The Unique Principia of Theology

After viewing the Genus of Revealed Theology, its Difference from other Doctrines or disciplines follows, which is first sought from the Principium of Theology, which our AUTHOR discusses positively and negatively in § 32 and 33.

God is said to be Theology’s Principium Essendi, principium of being, that is, constituting it extrinsically:  while the intrinsically constitutive Principia Essendi are the parts of which the whole consists; in which respect the individual Heads, which Theology treats, constitute the Theological System itself.  But the Principium Cognoscendi, principium of knowing, Theology is the Revelation of God.  The Principia Essendi are also said to be simple:  the Principia cognoscendi on another account are called complex.  Now, in all disciplines their complex Principia ought to be propositions of incontestable truth, or from evident reason; or, as in Theology, by the authority of Revelation.  See MARESIUS’ Systema Theologicum, locus I, § 23; DILHERR’S[1] Disputationum Academicarum, tome 2, Disputation XVII, pages 490 and following.

Consequently, in the first place, every human Word, as such, and destitute of the authority of the Scriptures, is here excluded.  Here, the matter is between us and the Papists, who in addition to the divine Word relate several other Principia of Theology:  Bellarmine, in his tomes of Disputationum, and others enumerate four besides the Scripture; Traditions, Councils, the Fathers, and natural Reason:  see HEINRICH ALTING’S Theologiam problematicam novam, locus II, problem I, pages 71 and following.  Concerning Traditions we are going to consider in Chapter II, § 28, 29.  Unto a human Word, as such not to be held as a Principium of Revealed Theology, our AUTHOR refers the Decrees of Synods, the Symbols and all Symbolical Formulas; which, nevertheless, he does not at all wish to be despised, 1.  on account of reverence for the Learned, 2.  even more, on account of the preservation of the Unity of order and of doctrine, 3.  most of all, on account of the their agreement with the Scriptures, an agreement recognized by the members of the Church.  These Formulas of Union or Symbolical Books of the Churches are not formally to be regarded as the Rule of Faith, except to the extent that they materially exhibit the very Word of God:  but they are more an ὑποτύπωσις ὑγιαινόντων λόγων, form of sound words,[2] a voucher and Confession of our faith; bonds of Love, by which we willingly confess that we are mutually conjoined with one another in the unity of the Faith, and by the help of which the well-ordered frame of the Church more easily stands firm.  But as bonds of the Conscience they are not at all able to be considered, since no one is bound to receive and admit Formulas of this sort, except he that is deeply persuaded in Conscience that those Formulas thoroughly agree with the Word of God:  and when he afterwards begins to suppose otherwise, it remains free to him to divorce himself from such a Formula, and to resign from the communion of that assembly, in which the same is influential.  And so we leave to Arminius the unjust judgment that he bears concerning the use of the Symbolical Formulas in our Reformed Church, writing to Joannes Drusius,[3] April 6, 1608, which Epistle is found in Epistolis præstantis Viri Limburgii, CXV, “Joannes Acronius,[4] with Sibrandus Lubbertus[5] and Bogerman,[6] is among the principal men that wish to obtrude some other norm, whether under the title of a secondary norm, or under another title, upon the Church of Christ, than that one comprehended in the books of the Old and New Testaments; namely, Confessions and Catechisms, as written by learned Men, approved by various courts, confirmed by length of time (for the prescription of forty years begins to advance), reinforced by the blood of the martyrs, as traditions, according to the standard of which the Scriptures are obliged to be explained; which they are not ashamed to prescribe to the Churches and their Ministers.”  Adding:  “Finally, to what place shall we go, if just after the beginning of the Reformation we relapse unto the Papistical manner of acting?” see HEINRICH ALTING’S Theologiam problematicam novam, locus II, problem IV, pages 86-90; TRIGLAND’S[7] Kerckelyke Historie, volume 3, pages 358, 359, in which he treats of the Assembly preparatory to the convocation of the National Synod, held at the Hague[8] in 1607, while in Kerckelyke Historie, volume 3, pages 349-389, 391-395a, he prolixly weighs the opinion of the Arminians, who were sharply urging a Revision of the Formulas of Union in the National Synod next to be held:  add Kerckelyke Historie, volume 3, pages 437-440, compared with page 192.  The use of unifying Formulas, which sort obtain in our Churches, is most excellently defended against the Arminians and those Arminianizing in this manner in t’ Examen van ’t Ontwerp van Tolerantie etc., part 8, pages 59-136.  Consult Chapter XXXIII, § 20, 26 below.

In the second place, our AUTHOR removes from the Principium of Theology all authority of the Fathers or of Philosophers.  The Principium of Theology is to be distinguished from the Arguments confirming Theological truths.  The Principium of Theology is the Word of God alone.  But, although the Arguments for Theological truths primarily and irrefragably are also to be sought from Sacred Scripture as the sole, indubitable norm of Faith; nevertheless arguments, probable and ad hominem, are able secondarily and superabundantly to be added sometimes from the consent of the Father and of sober Philosophy.

Moreover, as the Fathers were men liable to error, and not enjoying the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, which their repeated disagreements, and their many blots and faults, sometimes not of small moment, indicate:  so divine Revelation is in vain sought in their words as such.  Therefore, let us not set a greater value upon their writings, than they themselves thought was to be set upon their labors, or the labors of other Fathers of an even earlier age; or than even the Papists nowadays attribute to them, as often as they discern that the sayings of the Fathers are not to their advantage.  JEROME well says on Matthew 23:35:  What does not have its authority from the Scriptures, is with equal readiness little regarded or approved.  And AUGUSTINE, Epistolis ad Hieronymum, Epistle LXXXII, opera Augustini ex editione Benedictinorum, tome 2, column 144:  Now, I read others [Writers not Canonical, but Ecclesiastical] according as they might be strong in holiness and doctrine, but not in such a way that I, therefore, regard it as true, because they thus thought; but because they were able to persuade me either through those Canonical authors, or by probable reason, which is not inconsistent with the truth.  Neither do I judge that thou, my brother, think something else:  more than that, I say, I do not believe that thou wouldst want thy books thus to be read, as if of the Prophets and Apostles:  concerning the writings of which, that they are free from all error, it is criminal to doubt.  Let this be far from pious humility, and truthful reflection concerning thyself.  ERASMUS, Præfatione ad Hilarium, α. 2. verso, Whether this is pled, so that no one might think that there is anything of error in the books ancients?  But he washes a brick, as they say,[9] who endeavors in this direction.  This blessedness God willed to be peculiar to the divine volumes alone.  Besides, there is no one, however erudite and keen-sighted, that does not slip, is not blinded occasionally:  that is, so that they might remember that all are men, and are read by us with discrimination, with judgment, and at the same time with leniency, as men.  LEO ALLATIUS,[10] de perpetua Consensione, book I, Chapter V, note 14, has:  But the Fathers affirm this.  The Fathers are not able to say what is not.  BARONIUS,[11] on the Year of Christ 39, note 22, column 306:  Certainly no one would deny that the Acts of the Apostles by Luke is of greater credit than any authority of the ancients.  Thus it may be argued here that:  1.  Whoever, neither as individuals separately, nor as all conjointly, are the Principium; those are not the Principium.  But the Fathers, neither as individuals separately, are the Principium; for individual Fathers are troubled with their own blemishes and errors:  nor as all conjointly; for human testimony is not able to be the Principium of religion.  But the consent of all the Fathers conjointly is human Testimony.  Therefore, etc.  2.  Whoever’s testimony is mediate and true because of another, that is, because of Scripture, that neither is nor is able to be the Principium.  But the testimony of the Fathers is such.  Therefore, etc.:  see HEINRICH ALTING’S Theologiam problematicam novam, locus II, problem I, pages 73, 74; add VOETIUS’ Disputationes I and II, de Patribus seu antiquæ Ecclesiæ Doctoribus, Disputationum theologicarum, volume I, pages 75-106.  That the Fathers themselves did not wish to be held as infallible Doctors or Judges of the Church, LEYDEKKER proves by many things out of their own writings, Veritate Euangelica triumphanti, tome I, book I, chapter XII, § 7, pages 143, 144; add SPANHEMIUS’ Exercitationes de Præscriptione in rebus Fidei, Section IV, § 4, Section V, § 3, opera, tome 3, columns 1092, 1093, 1099.  See this thesis, that the writings of the Fathers are not rules of Faith, but that taken from them is to be judged by Scripture, and whatever agrees with Scripture is to be accepted; but whatever is at variance with Scripture, that, with reverence, which is owed to the Fathers, preserved, is able and ought to be rejected; by many things excellently confirmed against the Papists by GERHARD, Confessione catholica, tome I, book I, generalis, posteriorem partem, chapter XIII, pages 549-730.  It may be added also against some Anglicans, attributing too much authority to the Fathers; see BULL’S Apologiam pro Harmonia, section I, § 3-6, pages 5-7.

Philosophy also is able to render assistance not useless here; 1.  That it might be a means both of convincing, and of preparing the Gentiles for the Christian faith; whence CLEMENT of Alexandria, Stromata, book I, says that it προκατασκευάζειν τὴν ὁδὸν τῇ βασιλικωτάτῃ διδασκαλίᾳ, prepares the way to the doctrine of the Kingdom, page 309, published in Paris, 1641.  Ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν μὴ καταλαμβάνει ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ φιλοσοφία τὸ μέγεθος τῆς ἀληθείας, ἔτι δὲ ἐξασθενεῖ πράττειν τὰς κυριακὰς ἐντολὰς, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν γε προκατασκευάζει τὴν ὁδὸν τῇ βασιλικωτάτῃ διδασκαλίᾳ, but, if Greek philosophy does not comprehend the magnitude of the truth, and is yet too weak to effect the Lord’s commandments, then at least it prepares the way to the doctrine of the Kingdom:  just as it is now also found on page 282:  Προκατασκευάζει τοίνυν ἡ φιλοσοφία, προοδοποιοῦσα τὸν ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ τελειοῦμενον, philosophy, therefore, goes before, preparing the one brought to perfection by Christ.  Which is evident from the Pauline sermons in Acts 14 and 17, and from the writings of the Fathers against the Gentiles:  whence the word of the Emperor Julian,[12] when he saw the errors of the Gentiles overthrown by Christians with the help of Philosophy and of more cultured learning, τοῖς αὐτῶν πτεροῖς ἁλισκόμεθα, we are seized by our wings belonging to them; on account of which ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰουλιανὸς νόμῳ τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς ἀπέτρεπε τὰ ἑλλήνων παιδεύεσθαι, the emperor Julian by law deterred the Christians from teaching the things of the Greeks, SOCRATES’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book III, chapter XVI, page 189, compared with JULIAN’S Epistolis XLII, in Juliani operis, pages 422-424.  2.  That it might be a testimony of general consensus in things known by nature, so that thus the truth and certitude of those things might be further confirmed from a twofold revelation, as it were.  3.  That it might be an instrument for perceiving matters clearly and of ordering them rightly.  4.  That the mind might be developed and prepared in inferior disciplines for the treatment and undertaking of a higher science.  Nevertheless, there must ever be caution here, lest anything exceed; lest we embrace Pseudo-philosophy in the place of the true, or allow Philosophy to wander beyond the olive-trees, and to send its sickle into another’s harvest.  For, as the Physician does not treat Geometry, nor the Lawyer, as such, Physics; so also Philosophy ought to be contained within its own bounds, neither ought dominion ever to be committed to it in the Theological school.  Let Philosophy remain the Handmaid, serving Theology as its Mistress:  for the subordination of disciplines and arts according to their greater or lesser degree of dignity is not reasonably denied.  But the handmaid always remains subject to her mistress with a subjection political and despotic, even if the mistress subject her own head to the handmaid to be combed and dressed:  which sort of servile ministry is readily allowed to be furnished to Theology even by Philosophy and more cultured learning.  Neither is it to be conceded that Philosophy, which itself directs the intellect of man in the knowledge of things, and hews out its reasoning, that Philosophy, I say, by a manifest error of reasoning might make μετάβασιν εἰς ἄλλο γένος, a transition unto another category.  At this point, some of the Fathers sinned, who, passing from Gentilism and the Schools of the Philosophers into the Christian Church, and excessively enticed by the love of their Philosophy, transferred certain erroneous opinions from the same to Theology, little mindful of their own admonition concerning the casting out of Hagar.[13]  The Scholastics sinned yet more, whose Theology, should I say, or Pseudo-Philosophy, rests more upon the testimonies of Aristotle and other Philosophers, than of the Prophets and Apostles.  Others also sinned, concerning whom in the next place, in which the abuse of Reason is treated.  But concerning Philosophy ψευδωνύμῳ, falsely so called,[14] and carrying itself even less capably, it is rather to be said with TERTULLIAN in his de Præscriptione adversus Hæreticos, chapter VII, What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? what does the Academy have to do with the Church? what do heretics have to do with Christians?  Our instruction is from the portico of Solomon, who also himself had taught that the Lord is to be sought in simplicity of heart.[15]  Away with those that have advanced a Stoic, Platonic, and Dialectic Christianity.  While elsewhere he pronounces the Philosophers to be the patriarchs of Heretics, adversus Hermogenem, chapter VIII.  And, that this stood in every age as the sentence of the Church, the Most Illustrious LEYDEKKER, touching upon the history of many ages, in which there were to be disputes with the Pseudo-philosophers, shows in his Dissertatione Historico-Theologica contra Bekkerum,[16] pages 459-471, in which he praises, among others, the saying of Luther, advancing the Reformation, He that wishes to be wise in Christ, let him be a fool in Aristotle:  and also the saying of Erasmus in his Præfatione ad Hilarium, who, having experienced the tyranny of the Scholastics, writes, page α. 5. verso, that the first step of a Church falling unto worse things is when the Doctrine of Christ begins to depend upon the helps of Philosophy.  Concerning the more insolent judgment of some Philosophers concerning the Style of Sacred Scripture and the manner of propounding the matter in it, see PETRUS DINANT, de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter IV, § 79, pages 731-736.

In the third place, the AUTHOR removes from the Principium of Revealed Theology human Reason, that is, both the first dictate of our Nature with Notions imparted to it; and all the Force of Reasoning Innate in man, of which he makes use in the knowledge of whatever things; and the Conclusions made by reasoning in conformity with the light and dictate of nature; which three thing Röellius thought to be conjoined in this business:  see Judicium Ecclesiasticum laudatum, chapter II, § 2.

But, just as there is wont to be error in Defect no less than in Excess, so various men have slipped to either side of the footpath of truth.  In Defect the Fanatics and Enthusiasts err, in particular some Weigelians and Anabaptists, who for the most part boast of internal inspirations and Revelations of the Holy Spirit, through which they may learn all things, and also understand the divine oracles without the helps of human instruction and philosophy; and at the same time they appear to have declared war on all Philosophy and liberal arts:  see SPANHEIM’S[17] Vindicias Evangelicas, locus XLVIII, opera, tome 3, columns 198-201; likewise his Elenchus Controversiarum cum Enthusiastis et Anabaptistis, § XVII, opera, tome 3, column 791.  Consult DORESLAER and AUSTRO-SYLVIUS, contra Anabaptistas, chapter XVI, § I, pages 385, 386, 390, 392-405.  Modestly, and to that extent not poorly, ENGEL ARENDSZOON VAN DOOREGEEST[18] expresses this opinion, in his Epistola ad Spanhemium, pages 82, 83, with whom join VAN HUIZEN, cited by DE STOPPELAAR in his notis ad Stapferi Theologiam polemicam, chapter XVIII, § 128, 129, pages 152, 153.  That the opinion of the Anabaptists changed for the better in this matter during this stretch of time, MOSHEIM[19] also observes in his Historia ecclesiastica, book IV, Sixteenth Century, section III, part II, chapter III, § 19.  See below in Chapter II, § 30, 31.  Various Lutherans take a similar position in the Eucharistic controversy; see ECKHARDUS’ Fasciculum Controversiarum cum Calvinianis, chapter I, question 1, pages 1-13, in which, nevertheless, various things also occur, which are of merit:  and also the Papists, who deny that Reason is to be heard in the mysteries of faith, and repudiate its testimony, when it shows that Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, and the Ubiquity of the Body of Christ, are impossible and contradictory.

Against whom we acknowledge a manifold Use of Reason in Theology:

1.  Ministerial, and that threefold,

α.  Illative in the deriving of Consequences, which has already been treated in § 29, 30, when from the things that we read we also understand many things that are not found expressly in Sacred Scripture.  Neither ought the Reason of those truths, which are elicited by illation and legitimate Consequence from the Sacred Scripture, to be called the principium, foundation, or norm, which is the Word of God alone:  Reason is only the instrument of knowing, which is able to be compared with the eye and the hand concurring, in which the things, which we wish to weigh or measure, we estimate at the public balance or span.

β.  Collative in the comparing among themselves, of various passages of Scripture, the New Testament with the Old; of heads of Theological doctrine, lest we prophesy at any time contrary to the ἀναλογίαν πίστεως, analogy of faith;[20] of diverse editions and Codices, when the Reading is found to vary; of similar or dissimilar phrases, which contribute much to the illustration of the text.  Various versions are also able to be compared with the original text, the inspection of which ought never to be neglected by the Theologian; the doctrine of the Church ought always to be compared with the Word of God, and also spurious doctrines, which are obtruded upon the Church by men of depraved character, etc.

γ.  Illustrative, in the greater light brought to sacred things by the comparison just now named, and the further comparison of foreign histories also and of the liberal arts or whatever philological and philosophical disciplines, Grammar, Rhetoric, various Languages, Logic, Physics, Metaphysics, Pneumatics, Ethics, etc.:  compare below, Chapter II, § 45.  Indeed:

2.  We concede to Reason one Principal Use more in Theology, α.  In the further placing together of Doctrines, which, having been believed on account of the Revelation of God, are also known from nature, of which sort are, as examples, the Existence of God, diverse Attributes of Him, the Creation of the World, and the Conservation of the same, etc.  β.  Likewise in the Refutation of Errors contrary to nature as well as to Revelation, of which sort are the Ubiquity of Christ’s Body, Eucharistical Transubstantiation, the eternity of the World, etc.:  for in both of these cases Reason is able to supply secondary arguments, after the likeness of auxiliary troops, which are called from elsewhere to bring aid; both so that with respect to us the things revealed might be more powerfully bound; and so that adversaries all the more confounded, when we show to the eye that those things, which they try to obtrude as revealed, are not only repugnant to Sacred Scripture, but are also opposed to the very light of Reason and common sense.  γ.  For a more principal Use of Reason also is able to be the demonstration of the Possibility or Probability of the highest Mysteries, for example, when the Possibility of the Resurrection of the Body with the same appearance and number I demonstrate from the Power of God, by which formerly He produced all things from nothing by Creation; and I support the Probability of the same from the Justice of God, both a rewarder of the good, and an avenger of the evil:  but, since in this life God does not always recompense to man according to his work, it is probable that that awaits man in another life:  and, since the Body, just like the soul, sins, exerts itself in Sanctification, is liable to sufferings; the Body also probably ought to be made a partaker of Reward, which is not able to happen without the Resurrection of the same.  For the sake of illustration, various similarities occur in nature, both of seeds, and of plants, first dying, then, with life received anew, as it were, reviving more lushly.  That thus the greatest Mysteries of the Creation, of the Simplicity of the divine Essence, of the Incarnation, of the Trinity, are rendered more probable, and that those things are apprehended to be not so foreign to Reason, if only we would apply ourselves with reason, observes STEPHANUS GAUSSENUS,[21] Theses Theologicæ inaugurales, 16-20, pages 379-382.  Nevertheless, that philosophizing here is to be done with great sobriety, he admonishes and shows, Thesibus Theologicis, 90-92, pages 470-472.

Now, such approval of Revealed doctrine from Nature also, and demonstration that Revelation teaches nothing impossible or irrational, or contrary to natural light; is pre-eminently useful among men not yet acknowledging the truth of divine Revelation in the Sacred Books.

Now, it is easily proven that Reason and Philosophy are admitted subordinately to Theology, most agreeably to these uses:  1.  From the example of θεοπνεύστων/God-inspired Men, who everywhere reason, when they teach the Mysteries of the faith; neither do they neglect Grammatical observations, Galatians 3:16; they make suitable use of Rhetorical elegancies and figures; from physical and domestic things they select parables to illustrate spiritual things, Matthew 13; 20; 22; 25; etc.; they make use of arguments ad hominem, 1 Corinthians 15:29; they show from nature also the probability of the doctrines of the faith, and the possibility of the same, 1 Corinthians 15:35-42; etc.:  2.  From the practice of the Learned of every age:  3.  From the most precious gift of Reason, by no means given in vain:  4.  Indeed, both from the Judging and Searching commanded, 1 Corinthians 10:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; John 5:39; Acts 17:11, which commandments are not able to be fulfilled without the intervening use of Reason:  and, 5.  finally, if the testimony of the Senses is not to be altogether rejected in matters of faith, as it shall be plain below in this same section, therefore neither the testimony of Reason; because Sense is far inferior to Reason.

But others err here no less dangerously in Excess; namely, the Socinians, who, so that they might more easily deny the Mysteries of the Trinity, Incarnation, and Satisfaction of Christ, and other things that are most clearly revealed in the Scriptures, contend that Reason is a norm of Religion and of things to be believed, and that those things are not to be believed that might appear to be impossible to the mind:  Ostorodus, Institutionibus, chapter VI, “Man is not obliged to believe what reason dictates to be false.”  Ostorodus and Voidovius[22] in Apologia, “But, as if Christ’s most sacred and holy religion is such that would contain things absurd and repugnant to truly sound Reason:  God forbid that they should think this.”  Smalcius,[23] Disputation IV, de Justificatione contra Frantzium:[24]  “For there is no particle of the Christian Religion that does not agree with Reason, and what opinion agrees not with Reason, that also is able to have no place in Theology.  For Religion is the highest Reason and Reason itself.”  At the same time, the Socinians also want to appear to admit, like Smalcius, Disputation III, de Sacramento, that certain things are delivered in the Scriptures that surpass Reason, and are nevertheless to be admitted by Reason.  But according to their own corrupt Reason they call many things contrary to Reason, which are above Reason:  see VOETIUS’ Disputationum theologicarum, volume I, pages 1-5, § 1-3; HEINRICH ALTING’S Theologiam elencticam novam, locus II, controversy I with the Socinians, pages 37-43.

Here the Most Illustrious HERMANN ALEXANDER RÖELLIUS is also to be remembered, who certainly extolled Reason to the heavens with excessive praises, and, although sometimes he appears to speak more modestly and to contradict himself, nevertheless he makes sufficiently clear that he slips from the common path purposely:  and both Röellius and some of his disciples suspend the Divinity of Sacred Scripture, and, resting upon this, its Authority, together with the Sense of the words of the Holy Spirit, upon Reason; neither do they wish anything to be admitted that might be against the dictate of Reason.  And hence the ἰδία/peculiar opinion of this Most Celebrated Man concerning the divine Generation of the Son of God is to be reckoned to have proceeded; in that, while it was not permitted to him to repudiate the Scripture as in no way divine because of this doctrine taught, it pleased him to explain it as taught in the Scriptures in this manner, that in some better way Revelation here is able to be reconciled with Reason; although thus the phrase of Scripture be excessively weakened, and thus the very Mystery appear to others as subverted.  And thus Magistracy more than ministry is attributed to Reason in matters of Religion.  The πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error, of this Most Illustrious Man appears to be that he rashly believed that a treasure of innate Ideas had been granted to man by God; whence whatever appears from a contemplation of the Ideas is to be held as an Oracle:  but truly the Most Illustrious Man embraced Charcoal instead of Treasure.  Would that that most illustrious Man would have always been duly mindful of those things that he observes against the Socinians with respect to the Holy Trinity, a doctrine to be received in faith because of the testimony of the God revealing, Commentario in principium Epistolæ ad Ephesios, verses 1-3, § 224, pages 550-553, compared with § 44, pages 107-110.  Consult the writing, not easily to be praised in proportion to its merit, of the Professors of Leiden, MARCKIUS, FABRICIUS,[25] WESSELIUS, and TACO HAJO VAN DEN HONERT,[26] which they called Judicium Ecclesiasticum, quo opiniones quædam Clarissimi Röellii damnatæ sunt, laudatum, and chapter II of the same, and WEISMANN, who also sets forth this Röellian controversy with its consequences, Historia Ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti, part 2, Century XVII, § 29, pages 728-733.

Unto the same class of those that here err in Excess, is also to be referred the Author of Exercitationis paradoxæ de Philosophia Sacræ Scripturæ Interprete, seu in qua veram Philosophiam Infallibilem Sacras Litteras interpretandi normam esse, apodictice demonstratur;[27] according to which principium the Mysteries of the Trinity, of Creation ex nihilo, of the Resurrection of Bodies numerically the same, are therein rejected and openly hissed at, because they appear to be repugnant to Sound Reason and true Philosophy.  Concerning which writing, the Theologians of Leiden, HEIDANUS and COCCEIUS, who alone were teaching there at that time, having been ordered by the Esteemed Lords, the Orders of Holland, to express their view in December of 1666, related these things, among others:  “We condemn the perverse method proposed in this writing, that we are obliged to accept and to believe anything that, having been compared to Reason and Philosophy, is found to agree with these, and that we are obliged to reject and not to believe what might not agree with Reason:  and that from this foundation, because no truth is inconsistent with itself, and nothing that is found to be true in Philosophy is able to be false in Theology.  In which the writer is here discovered to follow the paths in which Socinus and others went before.  Who, as this one does, on account of that method, entirely deny and take away the mysteries of the faith, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of the same Flesh, etc., because they are not able to reconcile those things with their Reason and the philosophical opinions generally stamped in their brain.”  The Author of that Exercitationis is believed to have been Lodewijk Meyer, a Physician of Amsterdam, and publisher of Posthumorum Spinosæ:  see WEISMANN’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam Novi Testamenti, part 2, Century XVII, § 29, pages 726.

HERMAN DEUSING might yet be added, Jurisconsultus and for some time Academic Reader at Groningen, who, having fallen into Allegoromania, with another work of that sort[28] published in the year 1690, Revelationem Mysterii Sacrosanctæ Triados, in the preface of which he even acknowledges that he learned from a faithful Witness that in the mystery of the Trinity was found eternal life; but in which writing he clearly perverts this most holy dogma, and urges that absolutely no mysteries are given in the Sacred Scriptures that are inaccessible or Incomprehensible to our natural Reason, or that would be sinful to be scrutinized by men.  Indeed, this Writer, with SPANHEIM observing in his Elencho Controversiarum, Opera, tome 3, columns 1006, 1007, received contempt and punishment instead of praise; with this written, in so many ways injurious to the Simplicity of the Scriptures and to the Catholic faith, by Edicts of the Nobles of Groningen to be torn up and cast away by the hands of the pious.

On the other hand, the Theologians of Leiden, in Judicio Ecclesiastico, chapter II, § 9, desire that it be observed:  α.  That natural man is depicted to us in Sacred Scripture as foolish in the very midst of his wisdom, blind in his perspicuity, hostile in his tendency, Romans 1:21-23; 8:7; 1 Corinthians 1:20, 22; 2:14; Ephesians 4:18, 19; 5:8.  β.  That man, even with respect to his own wisdom, is obliged to deny himself, and to submit his reasonings to Revelation, Psalm 131:1, 2; Matthew 11:25; 16:24; 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5; Colossians 2:8.  γ.  That the most sublime Mysteries, inaccessible to Reason, and which only by the Revelation of God is it granted to follow, are the object of true Religion, Psalm 25:14; Proverbs 30:2, 3; Matthew 11:25; 13:11; 16:17; Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:7-9; Colossians 2:2, 3; 1 Timothy 3:16.  δ.  That true Religion is solely founded on special Revelation, as an altogether infallible Principium, alone and final, Psalm 119:105; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29; Romans 10:17; Ephesians 2:20; 2 Timothy 3:15; 2 Peter 1:19, 20, without which Faith would not be divine, but only a human persuasion, Hebrews 11:1; Romans 4:20, 21.  Indeed, if the contrary opinion stand, Faith is completely converted into philosophical Knowledge:  no longer will divine Revelation, unless in this name it be pleasing to trifle, be the true, sole, and ultimate foundation or Principium of our Religion; but that Reason itself, from which Revelation receives all true Authority and Meaning; as a similar analysis of the Papistical Faith in the Church is deservedly made by us, upon the Testimony and Interpretation of which these cause the Scripture altogether to depend; and of the Enthusiastical Faith in their own private Inspirations, unto which these likewise are wont to recur in all things, with continual twisting of the most manifest Scriptures.  ε.  Finally, they wish to be observed that besides external Revelation the illumination, leading, and internal drawing of the Spirit is also necessary, Psalm 119:18; 143:10; Joel 2:28; John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; Ephesians 1:17; 2:8; 1 John 2:20, 27; 2 Corinthians 4:6.  And thus the most sublime Mysteries, which are learned from the Principium of supernatural Revelation, from the Magistro Holy Spirit, are the Object of Religion; which is not able to be reconciled with the Magisterio of Reason in Religion.  Moreover, what things from the Formulas of Union of our Church, and also from the Articles of Peace established by the Orders of Holland in 1694, the Theologians of Leiden commend against Röellius, see Judicium Ecclesiasticum laudatum, chapter II, § 14, 15, after in § 13 was also commended the Decision of the Professors of Amsterdam, JOHANNES DE RAEY,[29] GERBRAND VAN LEEUWEN,[30] and LUDWIG WOLZOGEN, published on October 6, 1689, in which they wished to resist, and to place a bar to, the excessive authority attributed to Philosophy and natural Reason according to common counsel and consent:  in which manner the last named, the Most Illustrious WOLZOGEN, in the last days of life, openly caused to be known that he repented of the error, by which he previously, in his book de Interprete Scripturarum, offered too much also to the authority of Reason in matters of Faith according to the opinion of a great many; consult LEYDEKKER’S Præfationem ante Ludovici de Dieu Aphoristica Theologia, section V, F 1-5, section VII, K 2-5; JOHANNES VAN DER WAEYEN’S and HERMAN WITSIUS’ Ernstige Betuyging aan de afdwalende Kinderen tot de Labadisten, pages 89-100; PETRUS VAN MASTRICHT’S Gangrænam Novitatum Cartesianarum, posterior Section, chapter II, § 2-12, pages 157-164, chapter III, page 196; WEISMANN’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam Novi Testamenti, part 2, Century XVII, § 29, pages 726-728.  Join with the principal matter that we are discussing, SPANHEIM’S observation against the method of Nicolas Steno, Protestant turned Papist,[31] of discerning the true Church by the light of Reason alone, in Stricturis adversus Bossueti Expositionem Doctrinæ Catholicæ, chapter I, opera, tome III, columns 1045, the same who in Collegio Theologico Heidelburgæ de Principio Theologiæ, part I, § 7, opera, tome 3, column 1189, has:  “The human Reason of the Socinians is not able to be the Principium of Revealed Theology, whether that Reason be taken subjectively and formally, or objectively and materially for the axioms and propositions of reason; unless it now exceed the sphere of its activity; unless we commit μετάβασιν εἰς ἄλλο γένος, a transition unto another category; unless we measure heavenly things by earthly, the wisdom of God by the wisdom of the world, supernatural things by natural, indeed, unless we subject God to man, the Scripture to reason, even though the Apostle opposes, 1 Corinthians 1:18-20; 2:14; etc.”  Consult also GERARDUS VAN AALST’S Præfationem before Explicationem Parabolæ Satore, *** verses 2-6; E.D.P’S[32] Brieven aan J.C. Voet, part 2, letter 4, pages 143-162.

Objection 1:  Truth does not contradict truth; and thus what is true Philosophically and according to the dictate of Reason, is not able to be false Theologically.  Response:  α.  This is true of true Philosophy and sound Reason considered in the abstract, and indeed with respect to the objects that fall under the sphere of the activity of Philosophy and natural Reason.  β.  But revealed Theology far transcends Reason and Philosophy, and thus many things are posited in Theology, concerning which Reason and Philosophy are not able to judge, because they are Above Reason:  just as the Senses do not judge concerning spiritual matters not perceived by sense; which things are not able to be said to be contrary to the Senses, but rightly indeed above the Senses.  Now, the Socinians and others wrongly reject Mysteries most clearly revealed as repugnant to Reason; while they are not adverse except to corrupted Reason, but are more correctly to be said to be above Reason.  We have only woefully inadequate and imperfect ideas of the matters that make up the substance and subject of the Mysteries; and thus we are not able to pronounce the things predicated to be false, that are attributed in the Sacred Books to subjects in this category of matters, or to pronounce that the same do not agree with their own subjects, as long as we do not have a perfect and adequate knowledge of the subjects:  but, since this knowledge would not be able to be denied to the omniscient God, especially with respect to Himself, upon whom also in those things that He reveals concerning Himself Faith is to be placed.  Thus you are unable to say that it is repugnant that in one Essence are posited three Persons:  for how do you know whether this is repugnant to the divine Essence, when you are devoid of perfect Knowledge of God; compare Job 11:7.  You are not able to say that the Resurrection of the Dead is Impossible, since you do not know the Power of God; πλανᾶσθε, μὴ εἰδότες—τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ye do err, not knowing…the power of God, Matthew 22:29.  Δυνάμενός ἐστι ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι ὑπὲρ ἐκ περισσοῦ ὧν αἰτούμεθα ἢ νοοῦμεν, He is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, Ephesians 3:20.  But, when we, being without perfect Knowledge of the matter, presume to judge of the same according the limitation of our inadequate Idea, we are in perpetual danger of mistake in our reasonings:  and, since right Reason is not given in the abstract, according to which we might evaluate our reasonings, it can happen through our imperfect natural knowledge and blindness in matters of Faith, that we might especially fall from right Reason at the very time we imagine to ourselves that we proceed most thoroughly according to Reason.  Consult in general the Eminent NIEUWENTYT in his Gronden van Zekerheid, especially part V, chapter IV, pages 407-437, in which he prolixly and eruditely shows that the Dogmas of Religion are not able to be weighed at the balance of Reason, precisely so, because the Sacred Scripture speaks above Reason, not against Reason:  add STAPFER’S Theologiæ polemicæ, tome I, chapter III, section XII, § 981-988.

Objection 2:  Paul mentions that rational Worship is required of us, λογικὴν λατρείαν, Romans 12:1.  Response:  α.  Λατρεία/service/ worship is able to be called λογικὴ/rational/reasonable, a.  either originally, which is from Reason as its origin and principium:  in this sense our Worship is not rational, since that verily proceeds from the principium of Revelation.  b.  Or subjectively and instrumentally, which is in Reason as in a subject, and is exercised through Reason as through an Instrument:  and in this sense Paul calls Worship λογικὴν λατρείαν, rational worship, which is situated in Reason and is exercised through Reason, that is, which is spiritual and internal, not carnal and external.  Worship that teaches to offer to God rational and spiritual sacrifices, not the sacrifices of brutes, which sort God was formerly demanding, 1 Peter 2:5.  β.  That λατρεία/service/worship, which Paul indicates, shall also be called λογικὴ/rational/reasonable, that is, rational to such an extent that with reason one is not able to be opposed to that:  see Judicium Ecclesiasticum laudatum, chapter II, § 9, page 47; and add in general E.D.P’S Brieven aan J.C. Voet, part 2, letter 3, pages 107-136.

Objection 3:  Paul by the manifestation of the truth commended himself to every Conscience of men in the sight of God, 2 Corinthians 4:2.  Response:  α.  It does not follow from this that every natural Conscience is sufficiently fit for that Manifestation, and that by Reason, of itself, and without the internal grace of the Spirit; any more than that Teachers leading men to faith through the proclamation of the terror of the Lord, according to 2 Corinthians 5:11, are able to bring it to pass without the powerful drawing of God, from a comparison with 1 Corinthians 3:7-9.  β.  Verses for comparison are connected in the immediate context, 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4, 6:  see Judicium Ecclesiasticum laudatum, chapter II, § 9, page 49.

Johannes a Marck

The Theological Faculty of Leiden, which at that time was made up of SPANHEIM the Younger, TRIGLAND the Younger, and MARCKIUS, in 1692, by the command of the Orders of Holland stating their opinion concerning HERMANN ALEXANDER RÖELLIUS’ Dissertatione Theologica de Generatione Filii et Morte fidelium temporali, among other things also declared:  “Worthy of careful attention is the spring and motive, by which the Author indicates that he was inducted into opinions of this sort, namely, because they appear to agree better with His Reason and human perception, asserting, § II, pages 14, 15, not without an appearance of contradiction, that, even if it is evident that what things have been revealed by God are able and ought to be believed with a settled faith, granting that they are not able plainly, fully, and with respect to every case to be understood and perceived by us, yet nothing is able and ought to be believed, except as far as it is known, etc.; and finishing that section with this canon, that Never beyond perception is to be extended judgment or faith; which perception he had previously called clear and distinct.  Whence it would follow that the most penetrating Philosophers would also be the best disposed to faith; and that the simple and recently born infants in Christ, who little know how to reason and to perceive, would be the furthest from faith, contrary to Matthew 11:25; 1 Corinthians 2:14.  In this manner, this only is established as an object of faith, what is clearly and distinctly perceived:  while the Apostle, judging otherwise, in the place of this has the Wisdom of God in a mystery, etc., 1 Corinthians 2:7, 8, things which pass understanding, Ephesians 3:19, a power and grace that do exceeding abundantly above all that we are able to think, Ephesians 3:20.  In this way the rules of natural Knowledge are made the axioms of Holy Religion and of Christian Theology; which sort of authority, covering so wide a field, Philosophy and sober Reason never arrogated to itself.  Notwithstanding, it pleases the Author frequently to set in the first place Reason, and then Revelation, as the sole norm of faith and obedience, § 7, page 13, etc.  The demonstration of the Divinity and sense of the divine Word, says he, to the conscience, which Paul desires to be done by warning and example, is a demonstration to Reason, § 8, page 13.  However, when Paul speaks of his own demonstration, he calls that the ἀπόδειξιν πνεύματος, demonstration of the Spirit, over against σοφίαν ἀνθρωπίνην, human wisdom, 1 Corinthians 2:4; when he mentions the φανέρωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας πρὸς πᾶσαν συνείδησιν, manifestation of the truth to every conscience, he makes no mention of Reason, but of the light of supernal knowledge in the face of Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 4:2, 6.  Among other reasons why this Author rejects Proper Generation, he alleges as one of his principal reasons, § 6, page 11, § 38, page 38, § 46, page 48, that of this matter no one to this point himself had, or was able to give to others, any concept, much less a clear and distinct concept.  But on this basis all of the Mysteries of the Christian Faith of greatest moment and of solid consolation, for example, the Trinity, the personal Union of two natures in God the Son, the Resurrection of the body numerically the same, and many others, are able to be rejected with the same ease; since undoubtedly no one himself has or is able to give to others a clear and distinct perception of these or other Mysteries.  Thus unto posterity Reason, ideas and human intellect, not only ought to be held as an Instrument by which one searches out and scrutinizes divine truths in Sacred Scripture, and also as a Means by which one knows, sets forth, and defends the same, which none of the Theologians denies; but additionally as a Rule, Norm, and Lydian Stone,[33] according to the dictate and measure of which the heads of Religion are to be accepted or rejected, and Faith stands unmoved or falls:  in which manner, not only is the authentical authority of Sacred Scripture injured, but Philosophy and sober Reason never arrogated to themselves such.  And just as these things recede from the opinion of the reformed Church, so they more than a little agree with some hypotheses of a well known book, which is entitled, Philosophiæ Scripturæ Interpretis, the assertions of which our Predecessors, Doctors of Divinity Heidanus and Cocceius, judged necessary with such zeal to represent as noxious and perverse, etc.  The paternal zeal and piety of the Prepotent Orders for some time after 1656 was vigilant against opinions of this sort and the abuse of Philosophy in Theology in an edict on September 30, which contains the following things verbatim:  If some question might occur, which might be introduced as contrary to Holy Scripture, and if then the Philosophers would not submit to interpret the Holy Scriptures according to their principles, but foremost comparing them to the supreme Rule, it would show that all things are revealed to men by God through the Holy Scriptures as most sure, certain and beyond doubt:  If either natural light or man’s reason, however clear and obvious it might be, might seem to dictate something else, nevertheless one must attribute more faith to God’s authority than to man’s judgment, etc.

Against Röellius, concerning this head, JACOBUS FRUYTIER[34] argues at length in his Zions Worstelingen 3de Samenspraken, volume 1, pages 588-649.  Concerning Naturalism, and the Abuse of Philosophy and human Reason in Theology, consult LEYDEKKER’S Veritatem Euangelicam triumphantem, tome I, book I, chapter V.  That the Fathers were unwilling to bear the Magistracy of Reason in Theology, Leydekker observes in Veritate Euangelica triumphante, tome I, book I, chapter XII, § 9, page 146.  Concerning the abuse of natural Reason in matters of Faith, see also GERHARD, disputing also against the Papists, Confessione catholica, tome I, book I, generalis, posteriorem partem, chapter XVIII, pages 795-809; whence it will be evident just how guilty the Papists are at this point, who in other circumstances in the case of Transubstantiation are unwilling to be called by us to Reason and Sense, so that more abundantly is confirmed that which otherwise is certainly sufficiently evident out of the Sacred Scripture itself.  SPANHEIM’S[35] disputation against Exercitatione Paradoxa, in which Philosophy is stated to be the Interpreter of Sacred Scripture, which see in SPANHEIM’S Elenchum Controversiarum, Opera, tome 3, columns 999-1001:  add WITSIUS’ Twist des Heeren met zynen Wyngaard, chapter XXI, pages 281-287; and ULRICH HUBER’S[36] de Jure Civitatis, book I, section VI, chapters I-VI; and PETRUS DINANT’S, de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter II, § 64-76, pages 243-265, in which he particularly argues against those that suspend the Divinity of Sacred Scripture upon Reason.  Before Röellius, DESCARTES had discernment at this point, whom it is to be desired that all his admirers had followed in this particular also.  Namely, he, in Principiorum Philosophiæ, part I, article 76 or the last, wrote:  “Now, besides these things, it is to be fixed in our memory as the highest rule, that those things that have been revealed to us by God are to be believed as the most certain of all:  and that, although perhaps the light of reason, as clear and evident as possible, appear to suggest to us something else, faith is to be applied to divine authority alone, rather than to our own judgment.”  He has a good number of passages elsewhere that are consonant with this:  see in general VRIESIUS’ Exercitationes de Officio Philosophi circa Revelata.

I am unable to conclude, without finally subjoining to these things the deep groans and sighs of our AUTHOR, which, for fear of the imminent evils of the Church from the Magistracy committed to Reason in matters of Religion, he poured forth in his Oratione quarta post Exercitationes Miscellaneas, held at Groningen in 1688, pages 474-477:  “Why should I deny that I fear for the Netherlands, and for the Church and Reformed truth, if we embrace a common principium with the Socinians, indeed, if we commend it more than they.  Our interests have fallen to such an extent that Reason, as an Oracle, infallible, to be heard and adored with a humble and obsequious mind not otherwise than as the word of God Himself, is set forth openly, which it is not far from blasphemy to convict of falsehood; and at the same time are ridiculed those that admonish out of Clement that Hagar ought to be made subject to Sarah or to be ejected.[37]  We have come to such a point that there are those that defend that those things that by reason are indubitable to us are not to be denied, even if we are not able to reconcile those things with Scripture; that those that, with their reason captivated, believe the Scripture are become beasts; that Theologians that, finding themselves to be no match for reasons, invoke the Scripture for help act incorrectly; that reason is not to be reconciled with Scripture, but Scripture with reason; that secure philosophizing is a must, and concerning the rest one must sleep idly upon either ear;[38] that the infallibility of Reason is to be embraced, so that the authority of Scripture might be certain, because this is not able to be constructed from any other source than Reason.  The Doctors have advanced to such a point that they hold Reason to be the sole principium of all truth; that all love of God, reverence, obedience, and faith is derived from this source, and ought to be reduced to it; that here, and not elsewhere, the hope of blessedness finds its sacred anchor; that in fact, if even a bit be added to or subtracted from the dictate of Reason, its authority is injured.  Why are you astonished, as if you have not confidence in the narrator?  You have undoubtedly read, or you all are able to read, almost all the words which I have recited, very recently written, and have known those that foster these hypotheses in their souls, and from time to time speak similar things.  But it is better that you be astonished at me, than that Socinian principia be heard in the Reformed Schools without restraint, the hurt of which the Church shall hereafter lament sooner or later.  For you will not be able to give to me, nor I to name, anyone from the impure flock that might not speak more reverently concerning Revelation, and more modestly concerning Reason.  But even now the pious lovers of truth are able to understand, indeed, all that do not close their eyes in the midst of light, what unwholesome fruit that bitter root of Reason will bear.  The Christian Religion, before its truth is made evident by particular and most certain arguments (how many and who, I ask, of children, foolish women, and private men, arrive at that?), is said to be held in no better position that the Turkish, or Pagan, or Jewish.  The single Omnipresence of God is learned from the chimeras of the Scholastics, and is a fictitious attribute; the simplicity of God is called into doubt; the liberty of God and the eternity of the Decrees of God are set against each other; arguments for Deity, if they be disjoined from our idea of God, are invalid; miracles are attributed to natural causes; rational creatures are judged to be masters of their own actions; nothing ought to be placed outside of the will that might determine it; the working of God is not to be conceived by way of predetermination; the mysteries of the Trinity and of the Incarnation are to be removed from the fundamentals; the corruption of the human nature does not pertain to the mind or its faculties, but to its use, act and habit; the activities of angels, by which their existence was most forcefully demonstrated from the earliest times, are fabricated fables; the state of souls is changed in death, but they do not exchange the dwelling of earth with heaven; a disputation is brought against the infernal region, neither from any appearance of truth is it thought to be unsuitable that after the day of judgment the impious are going to dwell on this earth, and perhaps are going to abound in external goods.  Rejoice, ye impious, and let Epicurus be held as vile among you, who did not promise such things.  But what do these and all similar things elicit from me and from all good men, except the most ardent sighings after God, that He might be willing to take pity on Zion, and to attend upon His own glorious name; except supplications to you, Most Distinguished Nobles, that you from your seats of authority might prevent the tyraany of proud reason; except fraternal rousings to you, Most Illustrious Colleagues and Reverend Co-laborers in the Lord, that we might together oppose the advancing madness, etc.”  Concerning the use and abuse of Philosophy and Reason in Theology, see also BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book I, chapter IV, § 23, 24, tome I, pages 234-240.

In the fourth place, and finally, the Testimony of the Senses is excluded from the Principium and Foundation of Theology, from which, on the other hand, we are not willing to remove all Use in matters of Theology and of Faith with the Papists, who, so that they might obviate the argument that we aim at to impugn Transubstantiation and the carnal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and to confirm the reality of the Substance of the bread and wine, from the Testimony of the Senses; say that the Testimony of the Senses is not to be received in the Mysteries of the Faith, because the Mysteries are above Sense, and Faith is posited in this, that we believe what we do not see.[39]

And we know how to distinguish between Sense, Reason, and Faith, and we assign to each one of these faculties its proper object, concerning which it is conversant, that is, matters αἰσθητὰς/sensible, νοητὰς/mental, and πιστὰς, to be believed, which, as they ought not to be confounded, neither are they to be opposed to each other.  Therefore, it is not asked whether nothing ought to be admitted except what the Senses are able to receive; for many things have been revealed to us unto which Sense is not able to rise:  but, when the senses judge concerning their proper object, and pass not beyond their sphere, it is asked whether their Testimony is to be rejected in Theology; or, whether Faith be opposed to well-ordered judgment of the Senses, and overturn that judgment?  This we deny.  We distinguish also between Mysteries purely spiritual and exceeding all our capacity, of which sort are the Trinity, the Generation of the Son, etc.:  and the Mysteries which are situated in matters sensible and corporeal; whether God makes use of those as means to accomplish His decrees, or He wills through them to lift us to a clearer knowledge of the more sublime Mysteries, of which sort are the miracles of Christ, the types of the Old Testament, the Sacraments of the New Testament.  In Mysteries of the latter sort, in which a spiritual thing is joined with a corporeal, a Mystery is revealed indeed, and it remains the object of Faith, but the corporeal thing entering the Mystery is also the object of Sense.  At this point it is asked whether Faith makes use of the testimony of the Senses, or rejects it, in corporeal matters, for example, when it judges of the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist and of the absence of the Body of Christ?

That the Testimony of the Senses in cases of this sort is not entirely to be rejected, it is evident:  1.  Because God makes use of this means to engender Faith, Romans 10:14, 17; whence, not only is the use of this means proven, but hence also it is apparent that the Senses are not in all things and always fallible; for otherwise this means would not be suitable to engender certain knowledge.  2.  The sacred text seeks arguments from the Senses to confirm Theological truths, of which sort, for example, is the Resurrection of Christ, which is confirmed by the testimony of sight, Matthew 28:6, of sight and touch together, Luke 24:39; Peter appeals to the seeing and hearing of Christ’s glory, 2 Peter 1:16-18; John appeals to hearing, seeing, and touching together in matters regarding the economy of Christ, 1 John 1:1.  Now, 3.  the Faithfulness of God does not allow us to believe that He has willed to make sport of men, by sending them to testimony, which was designed as uniquely apt to cheat and to deceive.

Objection:  The Senses are able to deceive.  Response:  Yet they do not always and in all things deceive; and at this point to guard against error it is required, 1.  that the object be at an appropriate distance; 2.  that the medium be pure and free from all that which might be able to spoil the mental image; 3.  that the organ be rightly disposed; 4.  that all the Senses that are able to examine a certain object be consulted and make the same judgment; 5.  that Senses act attentively and not precipitantly; 6.  that the fancy be free, and that frenzy and fever be not present:  for otherwise it happens that we believe that we see or hear those things, which nevertheless we do neither see nor hear.  Now, all these conditions concur in the Testimony of our Senses concerning the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist.  Consult VRIESIUS’ Dissertationem de Sensuum usu in Philosophando, § 16-18, 27-37; ’S GRAVEZANDE’S[40] Introductionem ad Philosophiam, book II, part I, chapter XIV, pages 149-163; and below in this work, Chapter XIII, § 16.

[1] Johannes Michael Dilherr (1604-1669) was a Lutheran scholar, pastor, and theologian.  He served in a variety of academic posts in Jena:  Professor of Rhetoric (1631-1634), of History and Poetry (1634-1640), and of Theology (1640-1642).  He is remembered, not only for his learning and preaching, but also for the composition of more than sixty hymns.

[2] 2 Timothy 1:13.

[3] Joannes Drusius (1550-1616) was a Protestant scholar; he excelled in Oriental studies, Biblical exegesis, and critical interpretation.  He served as Professor of Oriental Languages at Oxford (1572), at Louvain (1577), and at Franeker (1585).

[4] Joannes Acronius (1565-1627) was a German Reformed Theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Franeker (1617-1619).  He was sent as a delegate to the Synod of Dort, at which he worked with some zeal against the Remonstrants.

[5] Sibrandus Lubbertus (c. 1556-1625) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Franeker (1585-1625), and was a prominent participant in the Synod of Dort.

[6] Johannes Bogerman (1576-1637) was a Frisian Reformed Theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Franeker (1633-1637).  He was involved in the production of the Dutch Bible, and was president of the Synod of Dort.

[7] That is, Jacob Trigland the Elder.

[8] The Hague, from 1588, served as the seat of government for the Dutch Republic.

[9] That is, he wastes his effort.

[10] Leo Allatius (1586-1669) was a Greek theologian, and keeper of the Vatican library.  He labored for union between the Greek and Roman churches.

[11] Cesare Baronio (1538-1607) was an Italian Cardinal and Vatican librarian.  He is remembered primarily for his work in ecclesiastical history, Annales Ecclesiastici.

[12] Julian was Roman Emperor from 361 to 363.  He is sometimes called Julian the Philosopher, but more commonly Julian the Apostate, because of his fall from the Christian religion and opposition to it.

[13] For the casting out of this handmaid, see Genesis 16 and 21.

[14] See 1 Timothy 6:20:  “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (ψευδωνύμου)…”

[15] Wisdom of Solomon 1:1:  “Love righteousness, ye that be judges of the earth:  think of the Lord with a good (heart,) and in simplicity of heart seek him.”

[16] Balthasar Bekker (1634-1698) was a Dutch minister, although ultimately deposed.  He was a proponent of Cartesian Rationalism, arguing that philosophy and theology must be kept in separate spheres, the former for the exploration of natural truths, and the latter for the exploration of supernatural truths of Scripture.

[17] That is, the Younger.

[18] Engel Arendszoon van Dooregeest (1645-1706) was a Mennonite minister and apologist.

[19] Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (1693-1755) was a German Lutheran ecclesiastical historian.

[20] Romans 12:6.

[21] Etienne Gaussen (died 1675) was a French Reformed Theologian.  He served at Saumur as Professor of Logic and Metaphysics (1661-1664), then as Professor of Theology (1664-1675).

[22] Andrew Voidovius (c. 1565-c. 1625) was a Socinian thinker, apologist, and missionary.

[23] Valentinus Smalcius (1572-1622) was a German Socinian theologian.  He translated the Racovian Catechism into German (probably having had a hand in the Catechism’s original composition), and the Racovian New Testament into Polish.

[24] Wolfgang Franz (1564-1628) was a Lutheran Theologian.  He was Professor of Theology at Wittenberg from 1605-1628.

[25] Franciscus Fabricius (1663-1738) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Leiden (1705-1738).

[26] Taco Hajo van den Honert (1666-1740) was a German Reformed Theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Leiden (1714-1740).

[27] Philosophia Sacræ Scripturæ Interpres was published anonymously, and was initially thought to be the work of Spinoza.  It was actually penned by Lodewijk Meyer (1629-1681), a Dutch Enlightenment scholar and Rationalist philosopher.

[28] That is, Historia Allegorica Veteris et Novi Testamenti.

[29] Johannes de Raey (1622-1702) was a Dutch Reformed philosopher and disciple of Descartes.  He served as Professor of Philosophy, first at Leiden (1653-1668), then at Amsterdam (1668-1702).

[30] Gerbrand van Leeuwen (1643-1721) was a Reformed theologian.  He was Professor of Theology at Amsterdam from 1686 to 1712.

[31] Nicolas Steno (1638-1686), a Dane, was raised as a Lutheran, but converted to Roman Catholicism in 1667.  He was ordained, first to the office of priest, then to that of bishop, and played a significant role in the Counter-Reformation in Northern Germany.

[32] E. D. P. (Een Duits Predikant), a Dutch Minister.

[33] A type of black stone, formerly used to test the purity of precious metals.

[34] Jacobus Fruytier (1659-1731) was a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian.

[35] That is, Frederic Spanheim the Younger.

[36] Ulrich Huber (1636-1694) was a Dutch jurist and political philosopher.  He served as Professor of Law at Franeker (1665-1679, 1683-1694).

[37] Stromata, book I, pages 284, 285.

[38] Terrence’s The Self-Tormenter, act 2, scene 2, line 101.  It is a proverbial expression denoting a resting in security.

[39] Hebrews 11:1.

[40] Willem Jacob ’s Gravesande (1688-1742) was a Dutch lawyer and natural philosopher.