De Moor I:33: Modes of Revelation

Moreover, it remains that the Revealed Word of God alone is the Principium and foundation of Revealed Theology:  1.  For in this very thing Revealed Theology is distinguished from other disciplines, and in species is set over against Natural Theology, that it is sought from Revelation; without which it would not be able to be called Revealed Theology.  2.  The Truths that Revealed Theology delivers we are constrained to embrace by Faith; which, if it shall be rightly constituted, and a Faith divine, not human, requires a Principium and foundation infallible and authentical, which is the Revelation of God alone:  see HEINRICH ALTING’S Theologiam problematicam novam, locus II, problem I, pages 69-71; and this work below, Chapter II, here and there, but especially in § 32.  That the Fathers of the Ancient Church thought the same, LEYDEKKER observes in his Veritate Euangelica triumphante, tome I, book I, chapter XII, § I, pages 135, 136.

Numa and Aegeria

That for this reason this was from the beginning in the imitation of Satan, adds our AUTHOR:  that is, because all by nature had a persuasion from the beginning that the true knowledge of Religion and the right method of worshipping God is to be traced from the Revelation of it; that hence impostors, about to deliver a form of Religion, feigned Interviews with Divinities and Angels, as Lycurgus with Apollo, Minos with Jove, Numa with the nymph Ægeria, Muhammad with Gabriel:  but also the Devil was able through ψεύδους/lying Oracles so much more easily to bewitch the Gentile world:  compare § 23 above, and Chapter IX, § 3, 8, 26 below.

Now, of this divine Revelation our AUTHOR surveys, α.  the various Modes, β.  the Means of differentiating the Word divinely Revealed from another that is not such.

α.  That Revelation was formerly given by God, not only πολυμερῶς, at sundry times, but also πολυτρόπως, in diverse manners, Paul acknowledges in Hebrews 1:1.  God gave it:

              א.  Either through the intervening ministry of Angels, Daniel 9:21, etc.; Luke 1:11, 13, 19, 26, 28, 30, etc.; Matthew 2:13, in which is the appearance of the Angel of the Lord to Joseph κατ᾽ ὄναρ, in a dream.

              ב.  Or without intervening ministers of this sort, whether, a.  God manifested Himself to the external Senses; and that, 1.  either to the sight and hearing at the same time, when He appeared in an assumed corporeal form, Genesis 18:17; or, 2.  without a corporeal representation of this sort to the hearing alone through Sonorous Voice, 1 Samuel 3:10.  b.  Or He revealed Himself to the internal Imagination, and that, 1.  to those awake, through a Vision of the thing to be known, exhibited to holy men carried into Ecstasy, 1 Kings 22:19; Acts 10:10-17; 2.  or to those sleeping, by affecting the fancy in a Dream, no less vividly than if one being awake should hear the voice of God and see visions of Him, Genesis 28:12; 37:5, etc.; Job 33:14, 15; Daniel 7:1, etc.; Acts 16:9.  c.  Or even without affected sense or imagination, in a mode especially spiritual, He blessed Men of God with Revelation through the internal illumination of the Mind only, 2 Samuel 23:2, 3; Matthew 10:19:  see WITSIUS’ Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapters III-VI.

The various Modes of Revelation are enumerated together in Numbers 12:6-8.  God affirms that commonly He is going to appear to the Prophets, either, 1.  while awake, בַּמַּרְאָה, through a vision, symbolical and enigmatical, or, 2.  while sleeping, בַּחֲלוֹם, through a dream.  Then God makes mention of, 3.  addressing them בְחִידֹת, through dark speeches, in which is depicted something other than what is to be understood, for example, when Ezekiel is commanded to eat a book, Ezekiel 3:1-3; when he is commanded to lie on his side for three hundred and ninety days, and also to eat bread with cow’s dung, Ezekiel 4:5, 15.  To this Revelation by enigmas is opposed, 4.  another מַרְאֶה/appearance attributed to Moses, which two things in other places are not to be considered opposites, but here in opposition to enigmas the Appearance granted to Moses may indicate a vision clear and distinct, of the very things, as if presented face-to-face.  5.  The תְמֻנַ֥ת יְהוָ֖ה, the similitude of the Lord, is similar, which Moses was regarding; it is denied that the Isrealites saw this at Mount Sinai, Deuteronomy 4:12:  it denotes, not the very essence of God, but a certain extraordinary radiance of divine splendor, perhaps shining in human appearance, which Messiah at length assumed.  6.  Also this was Moses’ special privilege, that God spoke with him mouth-to-mouth, פֶּ֣ה אֶל־פֶּ֞ה אֲדַבֶּר־בּ֗וֹ.  It differs little from that which is in Exodus 33:11, וְדִבֶּ֙ר יְהוָ֤ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה֙ פָּנִ֣ים אֶל־פָּנִ֔ים, etc., and the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, etc.; to which is similar what is narrated concerning the whole people, Deuteronomy 5:4,פּנִ֣ים׀ בְּפָנִ֗ים דִּבֶּ֙ר יְהוָ֧ה עִמָּכֶ֛ם , the Lord talked with you face to face.  Concerning Moses, it, received and related as among his privileges, shall have a notable emphasis, and shall signify that God immediately, but also most familiarly, entered into a give and take with Moses, unto which Moses might attend with great παῤῥησίᾳ/ freedom, without immoderate perturbation or horror of mind.  It is similar, what you read in Jeremiah 32:4, in which Zedekiah, King of Judah, is mentioned as about to be delivered in the hand of the King of Babylon, וְדִבֶּר־פִּ֣יו עִם־פִּ֔יו, and he shall speak with him mouth to mouth, that is, face-to-face, that with his own eyes he might look upon his face:  consult WITSIUS’ Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapters VII, § 1-8; CARPZOV’S[1] Introductionem ad Libros Propheticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter I, § 7, 16-19.  Verse 8 of Numbers 12 is interpreted somewhat differently by the Most Illustrious WESSELIUS in his Dissertationibus Leidenibus V, § 8, pages 180-182; whether his exegesis is to be preferred, the judgment shall be left in the hands of the Reader.  Where, after his examination upon the Vulgate Translator and Cameron,[2] you read:  “I would suppose that these words are thus able more aptly to be translated:  Mouth to mouth I spoke to him, and not by Vision nor by dark sayings; and he contemplated the Similitude of the Lord.  Wherefore then were ye not afraid to rail against my servant, against Moses?[3]”  And then, among other things, the Illustrious Man subjoins:  “I believe that the word מַרְאֶה/ vision/appearance is in the place of בְּמַרְאֶה, by vision, through an ellipsis of the prefixed ב/in/by, to be understood here easily from the following בְחִידֹת, by dark sayings.  Indeed, the adverb of negation, לֹא/not, set down between וּמַרְאֶה, and the Vision, and בְחִידֹת, by dark sayings, affects both those words, I believe, both the antecedent and the consequent; in the same manner in which in Psalm 4:4 it is said רִגְז֗וּ וְֽאַל־תֶּ֫חֱטָ֥אוּ, be ye moved, that is, by anger, and sin not, ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε, be ye angry, and sin not, Ephesians 4:26.  The sense is that we ought neither to be moved by anger, nor thus to sin.  Finally, by תְמֻנַ֥ת יְהוָ֖ה, the similitude of the Lord, I understand this Most Glorious Symbol of the presence of Jehovah, a view from the Back and hinder parts of which God promised to Moses, as about to happen in the desert of Sinai, according to that which is narrated in our Text, Exodus 33:23; but, that He granted this view of His Glory to him, Jehovah testifies in this passage of Numbers, when Israel was encamped in Hazeroth.”

              ג.  Less certain than the species of Revelation just now mentioned is the mode of Revelation through the Urim and Thummim, Lights and Perfections,[4] which are sometimes called very emphatically אֶת־הָאוּרִים וְאֶת־הַתֻּמִּים, the Urim and the Thummim,[5] concerning which, in addition to many other illuminating Antiquities of the Hebrews, see the discussion of HEINRICH ALTING, in his Theologia problematica nova, locus II, problem VII, pages 94-98; BUDDEUS, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, period II, section I, § 32, tome I, pages 558-563, who also makes mention of various others to be consulted concerning this matter; to which add LAMPE’S Orationem de Urim et Thummim Dissertationem Theologicam, volume II, pages 595-651.

Concerning what the Urim and Thummim might be, the twofold opinion of Interpreters is especially probable.

1.  For many think that the Urim and Thummim were nothing other than the twelve Gems of the Breastplate of the High Priest, engraved with the names of the children of Israel:  α.  For otherwise it is never declared what the Urim and Thummim were.  β.  When the preparation of the garment of the High Priest, and thus also the breastplate, is treated, mention is made of the stones, but no mention of the Urim, Exodus 39:8, 10; and when there is discussion concerning the same being put on Aaron, with the stones passed over, the Urim and Thummim are joined with the breastplate, Leviticus 8:8.  γ.  The names of the Urim and Thummim match well with the Gems of the breastplate.  The Precious Stones, translucent and scattering extraordinary brilliance in every direction, are able with good reason to be called Lights.  The same, on account of their rare size, unusual beauty, and enormous value, are able to be called Perfections; especially when the hand of a skilled artisan had been added, skillfully cutting, polishing, setting the stones, and ingeniously placing them in their sockets.  The Most Illustrious VRIEMOET,[6] in his Thesibus Antiquitatum Israeliticarum CCCXXXIX, “It appears that the Urim and Thummim were heaps of the most brilliant stones in addition to the remaining twelve; not something else.”  In the same manner he writes in Thesibus Antiquitatum Israeliticarum, part I, chapter XII, § 27, “Twelve Gems, with the names of the twelve tribes, were grafted onto the surface of the breastplate.  With which thus prepared by the hand of Moses, finally were added the Urim and Thummim.  Which, therefore, were not the twelve Gems themselves, but perhaps they were some mound of other, most brilliant stones, and that twofold.”

2.  Nevertheless, others think that the Urim and Thummim were not provided by a human hand, but something that was fashioned by God Himself and delivered to Moses, the material of which is no more able to be determined than the kinds of Stones upon which were inscribed the Law; but which Moses was obliged to store within the twofold breastplate behind the twelve Gems, hidden from sight:  by which God willed to indicate that the prophetic Spirit shall be present with the High Priest, when by the Urim and Thummim he would consult God, who would illuminate his intellect with a knowledge of arcane things, and would make perfectly manifest a doubtful event, whence they were assigned the name Urim and Thummim.  Neither are these destitute of arguments for their opinion:  for, α.  after a sufficiently luminous mention was made in Exodus 28, concerning the preparation of the Breastplate and its twelve Gems, verse 30, it follows as a specific mandate that the Urim and Thummim were to be stored in that breastplate.  β.  In Exodus 39, all things are carefully reviewed, even unto minutiae, that were to be prepared by the hand of the artisan concerning the Breastplate and its Gems; but there is no mention of the Urim and Thummim in that place; an eminent proof that the Urim and Thummim were not fashioned by a human artisan.  But when Moses clothed Aaron with the Pontifical vestments in Leviticus 8, it is read in verse 8,וַיָּ֥שֶׂם עָלָ֖יו אֶת־הַחֹ֑שֶׁן , and he put upon him the breastplate, which, now complete, was adorned, with the twelve Gems grafted onto it by Bezaleel.  But when all the artisans had together directed their effort in the preparation of the breastplate, yet they lacked the Urim and Thummim, for which reason it is added concerning Moses, וַיִּתֵּן, not he was fashioning or providing, but he was adding, merely bestowing (that is, as he had received the same from the Lord), אֶל־הַחֹ֔שֶׁן אֶת־הָאוּרִ֖ים וְאֶת־הַתֻּמִּֽים׃, to the breastplate the Urim and Thummim.  And, γ.  perhaps for this reason the breastplate had to be twofold, so that in its interior fold the Urim and Thummim might be able to be stored:  compare Exodus 28:16; 39:9.  I leave the option of either opinion to the Reader; I am unwilling to deny that the latter pleases me very much.

By these the highest Divinity was giving responses to the High Priest now equipped with the Urim, when the King or supreme Prince in difficult circumstances, upon which salvation was actually depending, especially in undertaking war, was coming to consult God through the Priest:  see Numbers 27:18, 21; 1 Samuel 23:6, 8-12; 30:7, 8.  It is difficult to specify the true mode of this lost oracle.  The Jews relate that the brightness of those letters, from which the response was composed, was unusual and standing out from the breastplate:  hence they allege that, besides the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, inscribed on the Stones of the Breastplate were also the names of אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק יַעֲקֹב, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and שִׁבְטֵי־יָהּ, the tribe of Jah,[7] or שִׁבְטֵי יְשׁוּרוּן, the tribes of Jeshurun, or כָּל אֵלֶּה שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, all these tribes of Israel; for, of course, otherwise all the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet were not found inscribed on the stones of the breastplate.  But that thus a conspicuous patch is rashly sewn onto the Sacred history; and that it was ἀδύνατον/ impossible enough for the High Priest to learn from letters of this sort, flashing and protruding, responses, everyone sees.  Therefore, to the High Priest consulting God by the Urim and Thummim God gave the desired response by a sonorous voice, or He showed it to him by an internal illumination of the mind and revelation of the prophetic Spirit, which was to be given by way of response to the King or Prince.  According to the Most Illustrious VRIEMOET, in his Thesibus Antiquitatum Israeliticarum CCCCXLIX, “Divine responses appear to have been given through the Urim and Thummim by a voice altogether clear and intelligible.”  He asserts the same again, Thesibus Selectæ Controversæ ex Antiquitatibus Israeliticis, XCI.

Now, this consultation ordinarily was to be done before the face of Jehovah, Numbers 27:21, whether the Priest stand in the Holy Place, turned toward the Holy of Holies and the place of the Shekhinah; or whether the Prince, consulting the mouth of the Lord, and the Priest, through whom he was asking God, stand together in the same place in the Courtyard of the Priests.

The Urim and Thummim, and the divine responses through them, with some other things, are said to have been wanting in the second Temple, to which point Ezra 2:63 is also consulted:  see Concionem meam introductoriam in pago Oostzaandam habitam ad Deuteronomy 33:8 a, in a volume, which is entitled Gedactenis, etc.; SAMUEL CHANDLER’S[8] A Critical History of the Life of David, preface, volume I, pages 10-13.

Concerning the threefold Word of God, rational, sensible, and prophetic, which we may apprehend through right Reasoning, Sense, and Faith, which things Hobbes relates, see the things called into examination in COCQUIUS’ Hobbesianismi Anatome, locus I, chapter I, pages 7-11.

β.  As far as the Means of differentiating the Word divinely revealed from another, which is not such, are concerned:

1.  The Prophets themselves recognized the Divinity of such Revelation, partly by external Signs, partly by internal Light, by which God disclosed Himself to them.  The Most Illustrious WITSIUS, in book I of Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome I, discussing Prophets and Prophecy, in which he inquires into the Marks whereby the Prophets were persuaded of the Divinity, and consequently of the Verity, of Revelation; enumerates, a.  the Majesty of the revealing God seen by the Prophets, b.  the manifest Light of that Revelation recognized, by which they were distinguishing the voice of God from every human voice, no less than one easily distinguishes the voice of a parent, of a son, of a brother.  c.  The wisdom, holiness, sublimity, and θεοπρέπειαν/divine-majesty; if this did not always immediately approve itself to conscience, in such revelations the conviction of Divinity is not so much from a consideration of the thing revealed, as from the clarity of the revelation and the majesty of the One revealing, and from a hidden force eliciting the firmest assent:  see Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome I, book I, chapter XV, § 1-18.  Consult CARPZOV’S[9] Introductionem ad Libros Propheticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter I, § 14, pages 38, 39, § 27, pages 82, 83.

Witsius

2.  Both the Argument of the Doctrine revealed, says our AUTHOR, and the Signs added, and also the character of the Prophets procure confidence for the revelation in the Church.  WITSIUS, in his Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome I, book I, chapter XV, § 19-46, coming to add Marks by which the Prophets persuaded others that they were sent by God for the disclosure of that Revelation, which they were advancing, mentions, a.  the steadfast testimony of the Prophet himself concerning his mission to the people from God, b.  the honest, holy life of the Prophet,[10] and in which an exemplar of all virtues was gleaming with a most splendid light.  c.  To which is sometimes added the complement of prior prophecies; d.  sometimes God also was sealing the mission of the Prophet by Miracles;[11] unto the external appearance of which, however, the attention was not to be given, when doctrines plainly false were set forth.[12]  e.  Sometimes God granted authority to θεοπνεύστοις/inspired Men by manifest vengeance against the disobedient.  But how those Prophets approved their mission, for whose sake no wonder had been hitherto wrought, WITSIUS especially inquires, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome I, book I, chapter XV, § 40:  consult CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Propheticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter I, § 20, 21, pages 52-58:  consult COCQUIUS’ Hobbesianismi Anatomen, locus XVI, chapter XXXIII, section 2, pages 585, 586; LELAND’S Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, chapter 12, pages 370, 371.

Finally, our AUTHOR observes that all this mode of Revelation has now ordinarily ceased, and so we have the Scripture as the One divinely Revealed Word.  WITSIUS deserves to be consulted on this point, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome I, book I, chapter XXIV, where he discusses the Continuation of Prophecy after the departure of the Apostles, and, with those things enumerated which make for the confirmation of this thesis, he judges:  1.  That it does not appear to be a thing altogether to be denied, that the gift of Prophecy was lively and active unto the third or fourth Century, although not all things that are related by the Fathers are to be indiscriminately admitted.  2.  That in the Sacred Scripture no declaration of the divine will is found, by which it might be established that the prophetic gift is to continue perpetually in the Church; while, in Joel 2:28, 29, with the prophetic expressions taken from the economy of the Old Testament, but to be explained consistently with the New economy, is promised an abundance of light, of the knowledge of God, and of progress in it; which things were going to be such that rank and file believers of the New Testament, compared with the rank and file believers of the Old Testament, were going to surpass them by so great an interval as was formerly between the Prophets and other men the common people.  At the same time, God wished to set on record a certain extraordinary argument and deposit, as it were, of that, in that extraordinary and altogether miraculous effusion of the Spirit upon the Apostles, of which effusion in those first times He made certain others to be sharers, and in which the very words of the prophecy are fulfilled according to their very sound.  3.  That the Church, after the completion of the Canon of Scripture, does not need new Revelations, whether to add new dogmas to those delivered in it, or to illustrate the dark passages of the Scriptures, which God did not even promise for the understanding of the Apocalypse, Revelation 1:3.  4.  That those that profess new Revelations generally furnish nothing that is not able to proceed from common industry:  indeed, in those pretended Revelations they are wont more to show the genius of the writer than the character of the divine Spirit; which he shows by the example of the procedure of Thaumaturgus,[13] and of the Revelations of Christina Paniatovia, and also of Christopher Kotterus.[14]  5.  That it is dangerous to labor after a reputation of Revelation, lofty and surpassing the common calling; seeing that the prophecies of Müntzer resulted in the destruction of himself and many others:[15]  and although the confidence and grandiloquence of Nicolaus Drabicius was incredible, yet his prophecy concerning the end of the kingdom of the Beast and of idolatry in the year 1650; concerning the coronation of Ragotski, Prince of Transylvania, at the extirpation of the house of Austria; concerning the wailings and lamentations which would come to the house of Austria on March 19, 1652, with the tenth horn falling from the head of the beast; and concerning no further Roman Emperor from the house of Austria:[16]  these and similar prophecies of Drabicius, I say, passed into smoke, neither did the event answer to these.  Hence WITSIUS leaves all the more recent prophecies in their place, to be approved or refuted by the event; and by no such prophecy does he suffer himself to be impelled to either fear or hope anything vehemently; still less that he, overstepping the bounds of his calling, might apply his hand to such a dangerous work.  6.  Yet he does not think that it is to be denied that it frequently happens that men, pious and admitted unto a nearer and closer friendship with the Divine, are by Him taught concerning future things; the knowledge of which is extremely useful for the stirring of piety, for the consolation of the soul, for strengthening in faith and hope and exercising prudence.  Yet, on the other hand, he does not think that all things related are rashly to be received.  But if any Revelations might fall to any, the purpose of the Revelations is more for their private information, than that they might be to others, still less to the Church, for a norm of faith and actions:  seeing that they themselves perhaps are able to discern by the internal light of the Spirit that these things come to them from heaven; but they are destitute of arguments by which they might prove to the conscience of others the Divinity of the Revelation made to them.

And according to these shall be also the judgment concerning the Groningen Revelations spread some year earlier, which that similar Biblical Soothsaying renders suspect above the others, bringing old wives’ superstition, not to be excused of a sinful temptation of God; concerning which the altogether prudent Judgment of the Theological Faculty of Groningen deserves to be consulted, committed to writing by the Most Illustrious À VELZEN and GERDES:[17]  see also in this work below, Chapter XII, § 19.

[1] That is, Johann Gottlob Carpzov.

[2] John Cameron (1580-1625) was a Protestant divine of great distinction, serving as Professor of Philosophy at Sedan, Professor of Divinity at Saumur (1608) and at Glasgow (1620).  His modified Calvinism was adopted and followed by Amyraut.

[3] Hebrew: פֶּ֣ה אֶל־פֶּ֞ה אֲדַבֶּר־בּ֗וֹ וּמַרְאֶה֙ וְלֹ֣א בְחִידֹ֔ת וּתְמֻנַ֥ת יְהוָ֖ה יַבִּ֑יט וּמַדּ֙וּעַ֙ לֹ֣א יְרֵאתֶ֔ם לְדַבֵּ֖ר בְּעַבְדִּ֥י בְמֹשֶֽׁה׃.

[4] אוּרִים/Urim appears to be related to אוּר/flame or אוֹר/light.  תֻּמִּים/ Thummim is derived from the verbal root תָּמַם, to be complete.

[5] Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8.

[6] Emo Lucius Vriemoet (1699-1760) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian and Orientalist, serving as Professor of Oriental Languages at Franeker.

[7] Psalm 122:4:  “Whither the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord (שִׁבְטֵי־יָהּ), unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the Lord.”

[8] Samuel Chandler (1693-1766) was a Presbyterian, Nonconformist minister and scholar.  His theology shows signs of the intrusion of Rationalism.

[9] That is, Johann Gottlob Carpzov.

[10] 2 Peter 1:21.

[11] For example, Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:4.

[12] Deuteronomy 13:1-3; Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

[13] Gregory Thaumaturgus, or the Wonder-worker (c. 213-c. 270) was a disciple of Origin, and later Bishop of Cæsarea.  His pastoral labors did much to advance the Christian faith in Asia Minor.  It is said of him that he wrought miracles, and received revelatory visits from the Apostle John and Mary.

[14] John Amos Comenius (1592-1670) was a Moravian educator and author.  Comenius was a mystic, and in his Lux in tenebris he published the prophecies and visions of Krystyna Poniatowska (a Moravian mystic, who began prophesying in 1627) and Christopher Kotterus (of Silesia, who began prophesying in 1616).

[15] Thomas Münster (c. 1489-1525) was a German theologian and mystic.  Seeking a more radical Reformation, he broke with Luther and became a rebel leader in the Peasants’ War.  Putting confidence in ongoing revelation, he led a group of about eight thousand peasant against a superior force at Frankenhausen (1525).  The peasants were slaughters; and Münster was captured, tortured, and decapitated.

[16] Nicholas Drabicius (1588-1671), son of a burgomaster in Moravia, was admitted to the ministry, but was forced into exile by the severe edicts of the Emperor against Protestantism.  He was more than fifty years old when the visions began.  He prophesied that the house of Austria would be crushed, that Prince Ragotski would command one of the victorious armies, and that Drabicius himself and his brethren would be restored to their native land.  However, Ragotski died, without accomplishing the defeat of the house of Austria; indeed, the house of Austria waxed in strength, rivaling its former power.  Comenius published Drabicius’ prophecies in Lux in Tenebris.

[17] Daniel Gerdes (1698-1765) was a German Reformed Theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Duisburg (1726-1735), and at Groningen (1736-1765).