De Moor II:6: The Certainty of the Inspiration and Authority of the Scriptures

So that the more prudent Papists might avoid the odium of that crude doctrine, concerning the absolute dependence of the αὐθεντίᾳ/ authority of the Scripture on the Church; they began to distinguish between the Authority of Scripture in itself and with respect to us:  these acknowledge that the Scripture is Authentic and divine absolutely and in itself, because it proceeded from the God of truth; but they do not think that that Authority obtains relatively and with respect to us, except because of the testimony of the Church:  see Bellarmine, in his Controversiis, tome 2, book II, de Conciliis, chapter XII, column 108.  While our men maintain that that distinction has been contrived in order to construct a sham, rather than to explain the truth of the matter:  because Authority is of the genus of relative things, and to that extent to be regarded relatively; whence Scripture is not able to be Authoritative in itself, without also being such with respect to us:  for what arguments procure Authority to that with respect to itself, the same also ought to move us to furnish the humble compliance of faith to the Scripture as divine, so that thus it would also be Authoritative with respect to us.  Therefore, our AUTHOR does not at all likewise suspend the Authority of Scripture with respect to us upon the testimony of the Church:  but he says that as the Divinity of Scripture, and the connected Authority, flow spontaneously from Infallible Inspiration alone; so also he asserts that the Faith of its Divinity, and the Authority of Scripture with respect to us flowing hence, depends, α.  upon the Spirit as Teacher, β.  upon the engrafted Notes of Divinity as a Foundation, γ.  upon the Church preserving, proclaiming, etc., as the ordinary Instrument, acting here Ministerially.  A threefold Questions concerning the knowledge of the Divinity of Scripture is able to be formed, the first concerning the argument because of which I believe the Scripture to be θεόπνευστον/ inspired, and myself, therefore to be obliged to receive the same by a divine faith:  the second concerning the principium or efficient cause, by which I am led to believe:  the third concerning the means and instrument, through which I believe.  To which Questions a threefold answer is given:  That is, The Scripture has in its Notes the likeness of an argument because of which I believe:  The Holy Spirit is after the manner of an efficient cause and principium, by which it comes to pass that I believe:  But the Church is the instrument and means, through which I believe.  Which we observe both against the Papists, concerning whom there is a painstaking treatment in § 7:  and against some Enthusiasts, who throw the faith of the Divinity of the Scripture back upon the testimony of a private Spirit; see SPANHEIM the Younger’s Elenchum Controversiarum cum Enthusiastis, § 2, opera, tome 3, column 778; compare SPANHEIM’S Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, XVI, § 8:  and against Episcopius and others, who trace the confidence of the Divinity of the Sacred Scripture from the constant tradition of the Church, Jewish and Christian:  see SPANHEIM the Younger’s Elenchum Controversiarum cum Arminianis, § 1, column 856, opera, tome 3.  Röellius[1] also recedes here from the common path, when he uniquely appeals to the judgment and authority of Reason:  “Who would believe,” says he, “that God willed to imprint His Word, if He wished it to be on record, in such obscure characters, that, if it be weighed in the just scales of Reason, its Divinity might be doubted, and one might be able to be persuaded by no arguments certain, familiar, and above all exception? etc.”  And one of his disciples, whom he applauded as a dearest Grandchild born to Great things, in his Disputatione Inaugurale expressly writes:  “The Divinity of Scripture, upon which all its Authority depends, is not able to be constructed from any other source than Reason:  now, there is no reason why in this reasoning we are less able to be mistaken than in other reasonings:”  see Judicium Ecclesiasticum laudatum, chapter II, § 4, 5; JACOBUS FRUYTIER’S[2] Zions Worstelingen, third discussion, volume 1, pages 588-649.  COCQUIUS, in his Anatome Hobbesianismi, locus III, chapter IV, pages 20-33, also takes it upon himself to refute these theses of Hobbes, whose theses deviate far from the truth in this argument:

Thomas Hobbes

1.  Christian men are not able to know that the Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, but they only believe it to be so, because they heard those affirming it that by law were appointed to teach us, namely, parents in the home, pastors in the Churches.

2.  The Canonization of Sacred Scripture pertain to him that has the highest power in the State.  In his hands is the power of bringing it to pass that the Scriptures are laws.  And, unless the authority of the one having the highest power be added, the Sacred Scriptures by no means have the force of Law.  That the Sacred Scriptures might be the rule of faith, Christian Kings alone were able to bring to pass.

3.  When we believe the Sacred Scripture to be the Word of God, our faith is terminated in the Church, in the authority of which we acquiesce.

4.  When and what God might have spoken is not able to be known by those to whom no supernatural revelation has been given, except through that natural reason, whereby, for the sake of obtaining peace and justice, they submitted themselves to the authority of the highest powers.  Compare BUDDEUS’ Atheismum et Superstitionem, chapter I, § 27, pages 108, 109, 111.

1.  That the Spirit ought to be considered here as Teacher by His Illumination, we prove, α.  both from the natural Blindness of man, 1 Corinthians 2:14; β.  and from the operation, attributed to Him, of Illumination and Faith, whole and in particular, which is bound to the Scriptures as divine, Psalm 119:18; John 16:13; 2 Corinthians 4:13; 1 John 5:6.  And so from the Spirit is that internal persuasion of mind, which the faithful enjoy, concerning the truth and divinity of the Scriptures:  for it is the persuasion of Fath, which is able to have no other author than the Spirit of God and of Faith.  And, just as the light of Reason is necessary to give assent to propositions known of themselves, as that the whole is greater than a part of it, that we ought to follow good and to avoid evil, etc., which you would thrust upon a horse or mule in vain, because it is destitute of intellect:  so the light of Grace and Faith is necessary to you, that you might give a decent assent unto revealed truths as proceeding from God and dictated by God’s Spirit.  Compare Confessionem Belgicam, article 5;[3] Byvoegsel tot het Formulier van Ondertekeninge gestalt by de Classis van Walcheren anno 1693,[4] article 1; BRAHÉ’S[5] Aanmerkingen over de vyf Walcherse Artikelen, § 6-13, pages 7-24; STEPHANUS GAUSSENUS’[6] Theses Theologicas inaugurales de Verbo Dei, theses 70-72, 75, 76, pages 447-450, 454, 455; WITSIUS’ Dissertationem Epistolicam ad Huberum,[7] in which there is a calm disputation concerning the Divine Authority of Sacred Scripture, to be built upon Reason alone, pages 3-46; ULRICH HUBER’S de Jure Civitatis, book I, section VI, chapters I-VI.

John Calvin

2.  That the innate criteria is the Foundation of the Faith of the Divinity of Scripture, is proven, α.  by reason of the sole and ultimate Principium that the Scripture has, which hence is not to be demonstrated from another source:  for it is the nature of first Principles, that they are known of themselves, and that they are not able to be demonstrated from another source, because otherwise the matter would regress infinitely; whence BASIL the GREAT, on Psalm 115, or more correctly 116, opera, tome I, page 269, Ἀνάγκη ἑκάστης μαθήσεως ἀνεξετάστους εἶναι ἀρχὰς τοῖς μανθάνουσιν, with respect to the force of each act of learning apart from inquiry, these are the principia to those learning by inquiry.  Now, such a Principium is the Sacred Scripture, 2 Peter 1:19; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, etc.:  see above, Chapter I, §32, 33.  β.  Whence Scripture is considered as the Foundation of the Church, upon which it rests, and whence the Church borrows all its Authority, Ephesians 2:20.  And indeed our AUTHOR, with CALVIN and many others, thinks it to be superior that we understand here the Real Foundation of the Church, which the Apostles and Prophets laid by doctrine, which indeed they preached by mouth, but also at the same time left written in the pages of the Old and New Testaments, so that it might not only be an infallible norm to the Church in faith and piety, but also a principium firm and confirming; in which manner the distinction, which in the text the Apostle makes between the Foundation and the Λίθον ἀκρογωνιαῖον, the chief corner stone, is better observed, than if with Beza, Cocceius, and others, we should think that this place treats of Christ as the Personal Foundation, and should propose the same under both metaphorical expressions, θεμελίου/foundation and λίθου ἀκρογωνιαίου, chief corner stone:  see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales XLIII, Part III, Exercitationes § 6-8.  But, if the Doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, comprehended in the Old and New Testaments, be the Foundation, upon which the Church and its individual members are built; then certainly the Church is not able to procure Authority for the Scripture either with respect to Itself, or with respect to Us:  for the cause does not depend upon the effect, nor the principium/beginning upon the thing begun, nor the foundation upon the edifice.  They take exception:  Both things are able to be true, that the Church borrows its Authority from the Scripture, and the Scripture in turn from the Church; in the same way as John the Baptist gave testimony to Christ, who also Himself gave testimony to John.  Response:  It is one thing to give testimony to someone as a Minister, as John witnessed concerning Christ, that δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, through him, not δι᾽ αὐτὸν, because of him, the Jews might believe, John 1:7; it is another thing to procure Authority for him as a Lord, which Christ did for John.  And so Scripture, which is the Law of the highest Prince, the Testament of the heavenly Father, the fixed Rule of faith, does no more borrow its Authority from the Church than the Law from the heralds that promulgate it, the Testament from the notary to whom it was committed, the carpenter’s Rule from the artisan that makes use of it:  but it fetches that Authority from the highest Lawgiver speaking there, from the will of the Testator sealed therein and confirmed by His death,[8] and from it own innate perfection.  γ.  A fallible and human testimony, of which sort is the Testimony of the Church, is also never able to establish a divine Faith, which also is able only to rest upon the only infallible Word of God.  δ.  Neither is the divine Codex to be brought down below human writings; but if, therefore, other Authors are best discerned from their own Writings, much more is this to be held concerning the Holy Spirit, on account of the sufficiency, by which He is efficacious beyond all human Writers to distinguish His own.  And hence, ε.  the Scripture is compared to various things, which are the object of the Senses, whether of sight, 2 Peter 1:19; Psalm 119:105, or of taste, Psalm 19:10; 1 Peter 2:2, or of touch, Jeremiah 23:29.  Now, just as objects of the Senses, applied to faculties well disposed, are immediately differentiated and known without any other external argument, for example, light by its own splendor, food by its own sweetness, burning by fire, and the blow of a mallet by its own feel and dolorous sense:  so also the divine Scripture sufficiently manifests itself by its own innate Criteria.  Which, a.  nevertheless, do not shine equally nor in the same degree in all the books of Scripture:  but, as star differs from star in light and splendor, so some books in this heaven of Scripture emit brighter and more plentiful rays of light and brilliance than others:  it is sufficient that in all the books there are those arguments of verity and majesty that prove of themselves that the books are divine and authentic; or at least that nothing is found in them that is able to render their αὐθεντίαν/ authenticity/authority doubtful.  b.  Neither is it necessary that all those Notes occur in every pericope and verse of a Canonical book, or in the individual parts of Scripture separated from the whole:  it is sufficient that they are given in the divine Writings, as they are considered conjointly and according to the whole.  c.  And, although Faith rests upon the authority of Testimony, and not upon scientific demonstration; nevertheless, it is able by arguments furnished by art to be helped from then on, especially in fortifying the Principium of Faith; for Faith, before it believes, ought to hold as evident the divinity of the Witness, whom he ought to believe, by certain definite notes, which he finds in him, otherwise he is not able to believe him as such a Witness.

Now, these Criteria are several, which our AUTHOR seeks either from the less principal Authors or Writers, or from the Argument, or from the Manner of Delivery, or from the Effects, or from the Adjuncts:  each of which demonstrates far more powerfully than the last; hence in the proving of the Divinity of Scripture one particular note is not to be separated from all the rest, but rather all at the same time are to be set before the eyes, that they might efficaciously convince of the divine origin of the Scripture:  see STEPHANUS GAUSSENUS’ Theses Theologicas inaugurales 13, pages 377, 378.

α.  If you might wish to obtain these things from the Sacred Writers, it is easy to show, either that all historical Faith is to be denied to human Writers, or that sufficient evidences of ἀξιοπιστίας/ trustworthiness are discovered in the Sacred Writers also, which evidences at the same time render us more confident concerning the divine origin of these Writings.  1.  We accept the testimony of men, because we hold those witnesses to be trustworthy.  But, that the Sacred Writers are of that sort above others, no one would call into doubt; if you regard their extraordinary Holiness, everywhere revealing itself; their unaffected Modesty, on account of which they have not passed over their own ἡττήματα/failures, blemishes, and imperfections:  let Moses, Jeremiah, Jonah, the Evangelists stand as examples.  Hence it is proven that they, as urged by the Spirit, aimed solely at the Glory of God, and did not seek their own honor.  They did not write for the sake of their own advantage and profit:  on the contrary, by their doctrine, delivered and written, they exposed themselves to the hatred and vexations of the world; neither did they decline to confirm their faith in the doctrine by their own blood:  which sort of things you would seek in vain from impostors.  And they themselves were not deceived by another, whether by God, who cannot lie;[9] or by a good Angel, for they stood immovable in the truth; or by evil angels, from whom a doctrine, composed especially for the destruction of the kingdom of the devil, is not able to proceed; or by other men, upon whose testimony they did not rest especially or principally, and whose eyesight the delivered doctrine in many things surpasses:  neither did they deceive themselves, because they were eye- and ear-witnesses of a great many of the things that they deliver.  Therefore, these witnesses have more ἀξιοπιστίας τεκμήρια, sure marks of trustworthiness:  compare GROTIUS’ de Veritate Christianæ Religionis, book III, § 5, 6.  2.  It occasions confidence in a history, when it relates matters conducted, not in secret, but in the public theater of the world.  Numa,[10] Muhammed, and similar men, were able easily to impose upon people, by feigning revelations delivered to themselves secretly.  But the miracles and matters conducted that Moses relates have myriads of witnesses; neither would the Hebrew people, unless thoroughly conscious of the divine Revelation and Legislation, have readily submitted their necks to a yoke so δυσβαστάκτῳ, grievous to be borne.[11]  The whole Evangelical and Apostolic history was confirmed by so many miracles, and was also conducted publicly before those in whose lifetime they were consigned to letters; hence the Writers would have soon been convicted of falsehood, if they had strayed from the truth.  3.  It augments the ἀξιοπιστίαν/trustworthiness of Writer, when his testimony is confirmed by other ὁμοψήφοις/concurring witnesses.  But thus the traces of the history of Moses, Joshua, and the Judges appear here and there in the mythical history of the Gentiles.  The Gentile historians also made mention of Moses:  Justinus,[12] Tacitus,[13] Diodorus Siculus,[14] and Dionysius Longinus[15] also.  GROTIUS, de Veritate Religonis Christianæ, book I, § 15, 16, gathered many testimonies of foreigners for the confirmation of the authority of the Mosaic history.  Similar documents for the truth of the remaining history of the Old Testament you may find in de Veritate Religonis Christianæ, book III, § 16, pages 166-174.  Suetonius,[16] Tacitus,[17] and Pliny[18] also make mention of the Evangelical and Apostolic history:  but even Josephus himself, the Jewish historian, confirms the truth of it:  compare GROTIUS’ de Veritate Religonis Christianæ, book II, § 2-4; book III, § 14; STAPFER’S[19] Theologicæ polemicæ, tome I, chapter III, section XVIII, § 1237; BUDDEUS’ Prolegomena Historiaæ ecclesiasticæ Veteris Testamenti, § 8, pages 7, 8.  4.  But, if the Sacred Writers have so many signs of ἀξιοπιστίας/trustworthiness, as those that neither were deceived, nor were willing or able to deceive others; then the θεοπνευστία/inspiration of those Writers is proven of itself, since they expressly assert the same, 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Samuel 23:2, and so often make mention of their divine mission to publish and write down such things:  especially since the eminent miracles, which Moses, Joshua, the Prophets, and the Apostles wrought for the confirmation of their doctrine, were not able to be done except by divine power; while the Magicians were not able to imitate the same,[20] neither are things similar in multitude and magniture ever remembered to have been wrought by diabolical power.

Hugo Grotius

β.  The very Argument of Sacred Scripture, and the doctrine delivered therein, supplies even more powerful arguments.  In it occur:  1.  the Most Ancient beginnings of all things, the Creation of the World, the history of Integrity and of the Fall, the origin of the Division of the Peoples and of the diversity of Tongues, the first founders of so many nations, etc.; all which were truly ἄδηλα/unknown to the Gentiles, and without the history of Moses would have remained such forever:  compare GROTIUS’ de Veritate Religonis Christianæ, book I, § 16, page 46.  2.  A Sublimity of Doctrine, seeing that nature itself relates certain rudimentary principles concerning God, Creation, and Providence; but we learn all the things more worthy of God from the Sacred Scripture, inasmuch as it teaches that God is Triune, and it sets Him forth to be contemplated in the work of Creation and Providence.  In the mystery of Redemption occur additionally those sublime doctrines of the Incarnation, and of Satisfaction and Justification.  And, just as the fourfold State of Man, ordained beforehand with specificity, contains hidden things not to be revealed from any other source; so with an admiration especially appropriate is expected the Resurrection, which shall cause the happiness of man to be brought perfection, but unknown ἄτερ γραφῆς, apart from the Scripture.  Certainly all those are necessary to be known and believed for salvation, but they are not to be revealed by flesh and blood:[21]  compare STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome I, chapter III, section XII, § 975-994; and GISBERT BONNET’S[22] Orationem de Fidei Mysteriis revelatam Religionem adstruentibus.  3.  If Scripture alone relates the true Doctrine of Salvation and that Worship pleasing to God, and the same things be sought elsewhere altogether fruitlessly; you may not unjustly judge that these have been revealed by God Himself in Sacred Scripture.  But, a.  Scripture alone relates the doctrine of the true God that agrees with His infinite perfection, and the Worship of God alone and agreeable to the Majesty of the same.  b.  Scripture alone relates a manner θεοπρεπῆ, meet for God, of Reconciliation of a sinner with an angry God.  c.  You will nowhere find a Holier and more Perfect rule of Life, fixing Laws even to the innermost thoughts; see Matthew 22:37-39; 5:48, 22, 28; etc.:  compare GROTIUS’ de Veritate Religionis Christianæ, book II, § 11-16; STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome I, chapter III, section XII, § 975-994; chapter III, section XIII, § 995-1046; STEPHANUS GAUSSENUS’ Theses theologicas inaugurales, theses 49-53, pages 422-427, who in particular from the sublimity and perfection of Evangelical Ethics contrives an argument for the Divinity of Scripture.  4.  Perhaps no argument draws more powerfully than the definite Fulfillment of the so many Prophecies found in the Sacred Books, concerning matters coming to pass that must find fulfillment at last after centuries:  to publish prophecies of this sort belongs to the omniscient and omnipotent God alone, comparing Isaiah 41:22, 23; but compare now Joshua 6:26 with 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 13:2 with 2 Kings 23:15, 16; Isaiah 44:28 and Jeremiah 25:11, 12 with 2 Chronicles 36:21-23.  And the prophecies, so many and so express, concerning Messiah and all the circumstances that have regard to Him, by the greatest distance surpass all human industry, all which prophecies, nevertheless, received the most exact fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth, as we shall see in Chapter XVIII, § 8-13.  TERTULLIAN, Apologeticum, chapter XX, “A suitable testimony of divinity, I suppose, is the truth of divination.”  This argument for the Divinity of Scripture is set forth nervously and abridged by JAN VAN DEN HONERT in his Præfatione ante Expositionem Theologicam Anglorum in Jesaiam, pages 23-32; add GERDES’[23] Prælectionem de Usu Prophetiarum ad demonstrandam Scripturæ Sacræ Divinitatem, Exercitationum Academicarum, book III, pages 623-642; GAUSSENUS’ Theses theologicas inaugurales, theses 55-63, pages 429-440; compare also GROTIUS’ de Veritate Religonis Christianæ, book I, § 17, pages 72, 73, book III, § 8; BUDDEUS’ Atheismum et Superstitionem, chapter III, § 4, pages 166-172; PHILIP DODDRIDGE’S[24] Academische Lessen, volume 2, lessons 128-132, pages 172-201.

γ.  In addition, from the Mode of Delivery the ray of Divinity shines forth.  1.  Notice the Majesty of the Style of the Prophets, who boldly say that they follow their own divine mission:  נְאֻם יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת,כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the Lord God, etc.; and with such παῤῥησίᾳ/frankness Kings and Princes in the same manner as the little men of the common people do they instruct, rebuke, and dauntlessly threaten, as the examples of Moses,[25] Nathan,[26] Elijah,[27] Micaiah,[28] Jeremiah,[29] and Daniel[30] show; so that without θεοπνευστίᾳ/ inspiration you would say that they are men hardly in possession of a sound mind, indeed, liable to offended majesty, who were bold to speak in this manner before their King.  2.  Consider the Holy and the not-in-the-least affected Elegance of Style in the rest of Scripture, compared with which all human adornment of speech seems mean:  whether you have regard unto the ordered brevity of Moses the historiographer in relating the beginnings of all things; or the consummate perfection of the Laws, which prescribe to man his duty, in the ten Words,[31] indeed in the two Precepts;[32] or the fashioned compendium of all the things that we hold are to be sought from God, in six exceedingly brief Petitions, with an altogether suitable address and conclusion added:[33]  whether you attend to the heavenly Hymns, marvelously restoring and consoling the pious soul; or unto the holy simplicity of the Gospels, in which at the same time something of the divine shines forth.  3.  Moreover, the Marvelous Harmony of the Sacred Writers, who wrote from such different perspectives, ages, places, and styles, concerning matters so sublime, stands as a proof that all those were moved by the same Spirit, and that the God of truth led them into all truth.  While various things that occur in the Sacred Writings as ἐναντιοφανείαι/paradoxes render us all the more certain that the sacred history was not fabricated by imposters colluding among themselves:  this, on the ἐναντιοφανῆ/paradoxes occurring in the four Gospels, CHRYSOSTOM learnedly observes, in homily I, on Matthew II, page 5, from the Benedictine edition, tome 7, Ἀλλὰ κᾄν τέσσαρες οἱ γράφοντες ὦσι, μήτε κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς καιροὺς, μήτε ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς τόποις, μήτε συνελθόντες καὶ διαλεχθέντες ἀλλήλοις·  εἶτα ὥσπερ ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς στόματος πάντα φθέγγονται, μεγίστη τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπόδειξις τοῦτο γίνεται·  καὶ μὴν τουναντίον συνέβη, φησί·  πολλαχοῦ γὰρ διαφωνοῦντες ἐλέγχονται·  αὐτὸ μὲν οὖν τοῦτο μέγιστον δεῖγμα τῆς ἀληθείας ἐστίν·  εἰ γὰρ πάντα συνεφώνησαν μετὰ ἀκριβείας, καὶ μέχρι καιροῦ, καὶ μέχρι τόπου, καὶ μέχρι ῥημάτων αὐτῶν, οὐεὶς ἂν ἐπίστευσε τῶν ἐχθρῶν, ὅτι μὴ συνελθόντες ἀπὸ συνθήκης τινὸς ἀνθρωπίνης ἔγραψαν ἅπερ ἔγραψαν·  οὐ γὰρ εἶναι τῆς ἁπλότητος τὴν τοσαύτην συμφωνίαν.  νυνὶ δὲ καὶ ἡ δοκοῦσα ἐν μικροῖς εἶναι διαφωνία, πάσης ἀπαλλάττει αὐτοὺς ὑποψὶας, καὶ λαμπῶς ὐπὲρ τοῦ τρόπου τῶν γραψάντων ἀπολογεῖται.  εἰ δέ τι περὶ καιρῶν ἢ τόπων διαφόρως ἀπήγγειλαν, τοῦτο οὐδὲν βλάπτει τῶν εἰρημένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὡς ἂν ὁ Θεὸς παρέχῃ, πειρασόμεθα προϊόντες ἀποδεῖξαι, etc., But if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither having met together and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as if from one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth:  But the contrary (it may be said) has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance:  On the contrary, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth; for, if they had agreed in all things exactly, even as far as time, and place, and the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but they had met together and written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity:  But now even that discordance, which seems to exist in little matters, delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers:  But, if there be anything concerning times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing 27   [That is, “in nothing,” in no respect.—R.]injures the truth of what they have said; and these things too, so far as God shall enable, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out, etc.:  consult GROTIUS’ de Veritate Christianæ Religionis, book III, § 13.

δ.  Another argument follows from the Effects or Efficacy of Sacred Scripture, with the supernal power of the Holy Spirit added, to convert the soul of man; which HOORNBEECK confirms in his Theologia Practica, book I, chapter III, pages 51-53, by the examples of Justin Martyr (concerning whose conversion see also GERARDUS GULIELMUS AB OOSTEN DE BRUYN’S de Philosophia Gentile Doctrinæ moralis, pages 135, 136), Cyprian, Augustine, and also Franciscus Junius, formerly an Epicurean Atheist, but after a marvelous conversion an eminent Light, illuminating the Church and the Academy.  But this is insufficient, if you compare the Conversion to the faith of Christ of nearly the whole World, of so many peoples, and of nations, without any compulsion, by the preaching of the Gospel alone, done by unarmed men, some by nature unlearned, common; indeed, against all the power of Satan, the declamations of Orators, the sophisms of Philosophers, and the persecutions of Jews and Gentiles:  hence TERTULLIAN discusses this in such a fine manner, Libro adversus Judæos, chapter VII, “For, upon what other have all nations believed, but upon Christ, who is already come?  For whom have other nations believed, Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and those that inhabit Mesopotamia, Armenia, Phrygia, Cappadocia; and they who dwell in Pontus, and Asia, and Pamphylia; those tarrying in Egypt and in the region of Africa which is beyond Cyrene; Romans and sojourners; then, in Jerusalem Jews,[34] and all other nations; as at this time, the varied races of the Gætulians, and manifold confines of the Moors; all the limits of the Spains, and the diverse nations of the Gauls, and the haunts of the Britons, inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ, and of the Sarmatians, and Dacians, and Germans, and Scythians, and of many remote nations, and of provinces and islands many, to us unknown, and which we are able hardly to enumerate?  In all which places the name of the Christ, who is already come, reigns.”  I shall not repeat more parallels from these Fathers.  Which things certainly serve as a demonstration of the divine virtue of the Sacred Scripture, as joined to the Word of God Himself:  consult GROTIUS’ de Veritate Christianæ Religionis, book II, § 18, 19, pages 131-140; MARCKIUS’ Orationem de Christianismi propagati Admirandis, after Historiam Paradis.  Indeed, Muhammed, certainly with incredible speed also, forced vast regions and mighty peoples to embrace his false doctrine.  But making use of force, loosing the clasp on pleasures, and promising honors and riches, and forbidding all disputation concerning controversies of religion; see JAKOB ELSNER’S[35] Grieksche Christenen in Turkyen, chapter nieuwste Beschzyving van de VII, § 10, note c, pages 381, 382; GROTIUS’ de Veritate Christianæ Religionis, book VI, § 2, 7.  But all things were otherwise in the Christian Religion, which was requiring that the flesh be mastered, the lusts crucified, the cross taken up, etc.; to such an extent that only by heavenly power is the preaching of the Gospel of Christ able to be made victorious:  consult STEPHANUS GAUSSENUS’ Theses Theologicas inaugurales de Verbo Dei, thesis 73, page 451; PETER CONRAD’S Sermonem Academicum de stupendo Euangelii, ab Apostolis per orbem prædicati, Successu, Christianæ Religionis Veritatem extra omnem dubitationis aleam collocante.

ε.  If we go on to consider the Adjuncts of Scripture, these offer themselves:  1.  An Antiquity greater than all human writings, of which, indeed, a definite acquaintance or memory survives.  The most ancient genuine writings of the Chaldeans, Phœnicians, and Egyptians are said to be later than the Mosaic writings by more than a century.  The most ancient writers of the Greeks, Homer and Hesiod,[36] are comparable only to the Kings and Prophets of Israel.  So, when Moses and Joshua, in an age yet rude and to such an extent illiterate, so neatly and ornately consigned to writing matters of great moment and divine, and that with clarity, one may conclude that they were led by a greater and divine Spirit in the composition of their records.  Even more than Clement and Cyril of Alexandria, TERTULLIAN urges this argument, beginning chapter XIX of his Apology in this way, “Their high antiquity claims the first authority for these documents:  among yourselves, too, it is as good as religion, to ground confidence upon antiquity.  Consequently, all the substance, and all the materials, the origins, successions, and supplies of each of your ancient compositions, most nations likewise, and cities eminent and ancient of history, and finally the very forms of your letters, themselves the witnesses and keepers of events, nay (I think that we yet speak within the mark), your very gods, your very temples, and oracles, and sacred rites, are surpassed by the roll of a single Prophet by centuries; in which is found a gathered literary store-house of the entire Jewish religion, and thence of ours also.”  While the Same elsewhere asserts that the first is also the truest.  2.  With Antiquity is to be joined the extraordinary Preservation of the Scriptures, by which to the present day they survive whole and entire, even though an eminent part of those was consigned to writing by Moses three thousand years ago:  while so many books, annals, etc., even of much more recent memory, voracious old age devoured long age, to such an extent that either there is nothing left, or only small fragments of the same are found today:  it is all the more fitting to be amazed concerning the Sacred Scripture, because the enemies of the truth, with Satan instigating, have tried so many times to put an end to this most precious κειμήλιον/treasure of the Church:  The King of the Babylonians, Nebuchadnezzar, burned the temple,[37] in which the αὐτόγραφον/autograph had been accustomed to be kept:[38]  Antiochus Epiphanes[39] devoted the Sacred Books, as many as he found, to flame:  Diocletian[40] compelled the Christians by force to deliver their copies of the Sacred Books to be burned.  In the time of prevailing Antichristianism, the Bible, and its use, were made exceedingly rare, especially in its Original languages.  Notwithstanding, the divine books endured uninjured, and God manifestly demonstrated that He diligently preserves the same as His own peculiar treasure.  Indeed, while Franciscus Nadasti, a Hungarian Count,[41] in the preceding century was burning various Protestant books, it is said that God preserved entirely uninjured the Latin Codex of the Bible in the midst of the flames, in spite of the fact that it was cast in a second time (see the Eminent NIEUWENTYT’S[42] Cosmotheoriam, chapter XXII, § 31, page 522), and thus He willed to preserve the divine books by a miracle, which books were formerly confirmed by so many Miracles:  which Miracles here, 3.  are also able to come into the account, to confirm the Divinity of the Sacred Books, since the veracious God would never have performed so many eminent and irrefragable demonstrations of His own Omnipotence to confirm falsehood and deceive the human race:  neither is it able, with any appearance of truth, challenged to magical power; nor did false Prophets ever undertake with such παῤῥησίᾳ/boldness to promise and perform miracles of this sort:  see Numbers 16:28-35; 1 Kings 18:24, 30-40; 2 Kings 1:10.  One may see this argument solidly deduced and abridged by JAN VAN DEN HONERT in his Præfatione ante Expositionem Theologicam Anglos in Jesaiam, pages 7-23; similarly by STEPHANUS GAUSSENUS in his Thesibus theologicis inauguralibus, theses 55-63, pages 429-440; compare GROTIUS’ de Veritate Christianæ Religionis, book III, § 7.

All which Criteria abundantly suffice to stop the mouths of Atheists, and, with the illumination of the Spirit added, to engender Faith in the Divinity of Sacred Scripture.  For, even if the Scripture perhaps does not have in all things Mathematical certainty, which belongs to principia, known of themselves, and conclusions demonstrated from the same, as that the whole is greater than its part, which sort of certitude gives rise to Science/ Knowledge, not Faith:  nevertheless, the certitude of the origin and divinity of Scripture is not merely Moral, which depends upon evidences only more probable, just as it is held as certain that the Æneid was written by Virgil; for thus Faith in the divinity of Scripture would not be more certain than the historical assent that we give to human writings:  but Theological certitude belongs to the Scripture with respect to its divine origin, which sort of certitude rests upon divine revelation, manifesting itself with luminous evidences, and lays the foundation of a Faith truly divine.  But if, therefore, any should not acknowledge the Divinity of the Scripture, it is not for this reason, that the object is not known or knowable; but because they are destitute of a well-disposed faculty, 2 Corinthians 4:3:  see STEPHANUS GAUSSENUS in his Thesibus theologicis inauguralis, theses 69-77, pages 446-456; STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome I, chapter III, section XIX, § 1355-1359, 1363-1369; and especially SALDENUS’ Otia Theologica, book IV, exercitation II, which is concerning the Certitude of divine Faith, pages 646-657.  For proving the Divinity of Sacred Scripture from its innate Criteria, consult SPANHEIM the Younger’s Orationem de divina Scripturarum Origine et Auctoritate contra Profanos, which is found in his Miscellaneis Sacrorum Antiquorum, book X, Oration I, opera, tome 2, column 1333-1356; LELAND’S[43] Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, chapter 15, pages 513-574; BUDDEUS’ Atheismum et Superstitionem, chapter VII, § 7, compared with § 4, 5, pages 474-487, 437-457; add what things are added concerning the truth of the Christian religion, § 6, 458-474.  While on behalf of the θεοπνευστίᾳ/inspiration of the New Testament in particular argues PHILIP DODDRIDGE in a Dissertation, which, translated into the Dutch language, is found before exegesin Theologorum Anglorum in Euangelio Matthæi:  and the Infallibility of the Apostles in teaching WITSIUS vindicates against Spinoza and Le Clerc in Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter XXII; whom DINANT follows closely in his tractate called de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter III, § 21-34, pages 405-453, after he had argued for the θεοπνευστίᾳ/inspiration of the Old Testament in § 12-20, pages 373-404.  The θεοπνευστίαν/ inspiration of the Mosaic Pentateuch, recently asserted with excellence, HENDRIK LUSSING has presented in his Necessitatis Religionis in genere, et Certitudinis Christianæ in specie, vindicatæ, part II, dissertation VI; but also of the rest of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament in dissertation VII, which the same promises that he is going to furnish in the third and following part with respect to the Books of the New Testament.

The Divinity of Sacred Scripture is to be held against Atheists, see STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter VI, § 20:  likewise against the Deists, see STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter VII, § 12:  against Philosophical Naturalists, who, when they admit Natural Religion alone and suppose the same to suffice, and cast off all Revealed Religion, the Mysteries contained in the Sacred Books, the Miracles, and the Prophecies occurring therein, hence reject the Sacred Scripture and its Authority and Divinity; as STAPFER, out of Tindal[44] and Collins,[45] confirms, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter X, § 7-13, pages 886, 902, who, on the other hand, in § 98-101, contends that the divine Revelation of that Religion uniquely saving to man as sinner, which Religion is not able to be free from Mystery, is truly contained in the Sacred Scripture, pages 944-947.  Then Stapfer looses the Objections of the Naturalists against the Divinity of the Scripture, sought:

1.  From the universal Corruption of the New Testament through the infinite variant Readings, § 136, pages, 974-976, § 137-139, pages 980, 981 (add tome 3, chapter XI, section I, § 336, pages 273-275; and below in this work, chapter II, § 9.

2.  From the Obscurity of the Sacred Scripture, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter X, § 136, pages 976-980, § 140-152, pages 982-987.

3.  From the disagreement of sects, variety of Religions, and controversies of Theologians, § 153-156.

4.  From the necessity of the repetition of Revelation, if the Revelation be necessary, even in our times, § 157-159.

5.  From Truths not all at the same time revealed to man from the beginning, § 160-164.

6.  Relatively:

              α.  To the Old Testament:

                             a.  From the ceremonial Worship, little agreeing with the divine Wisdom and Spiritual nature, § 165-172.

                             b.  From the many things occurring in the Sacred Books that most clearly contradict the Law of Nature, § 173-198, pages 999-1013.

                             c.  From men praised in the Old Testament as most holy, that committed the greatest crimes diametrically opposed to the Law of Nature, § 199-211.

                             d.  From this, that many things were ascribed to God in the Old Testament, than which nothing could be less worthy of Him, § 212-218.

                             e.  From passages of the Old Testament, which would occasion ideas little worthy of God, unless help be provided by an agreeable interpretation from those very principles of Reason, § 219-232, pages 1024-1034.

                             f.  From Contradictions appearing in matters Historical, Chronological, Genealogical, Geographical, and Mathematical; in which the Anti-Scripturists think that either the author of the book deceived or was deceived, or corruption is to be admitted, § 233-277, pages 1034-1067.

                             g.  To overthrow the Divinity of the Prophecies, from this, that either the Prophecies thus spoken were consigned to writing only after the matter was conducted; or they were set forth so obscurely and equivocally that a manifold sense is able to be attached to them; or those things that were predicted were never fulfilled; or such things are contained in them, which are able to be predicted by human sagacity also; or the Gentiles also had their oracles and prophecies, etc.; in which manner they busy themselves to show that the argument taken from the Prophecies comes to nothing in proving the Divinity of Sacred Scripture, § 278-332, pages 1067-1095.

                             h.  To weaken the argument from the authority of Miracles to uphold the Divinity of Sacred Scripture, from this, that they either explain Miracles by natural effects, or deny that they have happened, or judge the witnesses of them to have been deceived by trickery, or finally assert that such were wrought by false Prophets also; which difficulties against Miracles and the force of proof taken from thence, out of Spinoza, Tindal, and the author of the French Epistles sur la Religïon essentielle à l’homme,[46] STAPFER relates in § 333, pages 1095-1100, and resolves in § 334-373, pages 1100-1116, tome 2.

              β.  To the New Testament:

                             a.  From the doctrines found therein, not agreeable to reason and plainly obscure; they indicate the Mysteries, § 375, 376.

                             b.  From the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who indeed gave excellent precepts, but was not therefore sent from heaven; concerning whom many true things are indeed related, but other things were added out of the simplicity of the disciples; and what things more tending to this, that they claim that Jesus Christ was merely an Imposter:  the contrary of which is prolixly demonstrated from Christ’s sublime Doctrine, truthful in Prophecies; a most pious Life uniquely breathing love of the divine glory; Miracles placed beyond all doubt, among which the greatest was His own Resurrection, the truth and efficacy of which allows not contradiction to the proof of that Doctrine; not even the external meanness of Christ, while He was dwelling on the earth, being opposite to the dignity of His divine Person, § 377-474, pages 1119-1172.

                             c.  From the form of the New Testament, that is, because Evangelical Doctrine is not there reduced into any System, § 477-481.

                             d.  From the obscurity of the Writings of the New Testament, easily leading away into errors, § 482-484.

                             e.  From the pompous and hyperbolical phrases, of which the Writers of the New Testament love to make use, § 485-487.

                             f.  From those sayings, in which God is described as the author of evil, § 488.

                             g.  From this, that in the Books of the New Testament some things are found that are contrary to Ethical Law, to Natural Law, to Political Law, § 489-507.

                             h.  From the error of the Apostles, that they everywhere inculcate, that the final Advent of Christ was already at the door, § 508-512.

                             i.  From the Gospels entirely emended and remolded at the order of the Emperor Anastasius;[47] which comment of Victor[48] is exploded, § 513-516.  The same thing at greater length is treated by WESSELINGIUS[49] in his Dissertatione ad Victorem Tunnunensem, where, in chapter I, he evinces that the narrative of Victor concerning the emendation of the Gospels at the command of Anastasius is a made up fable; into the origin of which fable he inquires in chapter II, appealing also to BENTLEY’S[50] Epistolam in Collinii Libertatem cogitandi, and to PFAFF’S Primit. Tubing.; after Diatriben de Judæorum Archontibus, pages 110-147.

STAPFER, in his Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 3, chapter XI, section I, argues the same against the Jews, that the Evangelical History does not rest upon less certainty than the Mosaic History, proposition VII, § 159-172, pages 73-82.  That the Christian Religion, no less than the Jewish, is confirmed by Miracles, proposition VIII, § 173-181, pages 82-88.  That the Christian Religion and the Jewish are equally confirmed by Prophecies, proposition IX, § 182-189, pages 88-92.  That the Religion taught in the Books of the Old Testament in no way contradicts that which Christ and the Apostles taught; but that there is the greatest agreement between them, proposition X, § 190-234, pages 92-127.  He then removes those things that the Jews except and mutter against the Miracles of Christ, § 286-291, pages 185-200; and also against the truth of the Resurrection of Christ, § 303-327, pages 209-260; likewise against the trustworthiness of the Apostles, § 328-330, pages 260-264; moreover, against the very Books of the New Testament, for example, that they were not written in the Language of the Jews, nor θεοπνεύστως, by inspiration, as Luke himself testifies, Luke 1:1-3; that more Gospels were lost, and those that survive have been corrupted in a remarkable manner, § 331-336, pages 265-275.  Finally, he resolves the difficulty drawn from passages in which either the Writers of the New Testament appear to contradict each other, or the Apostles are thought by the Jews to cite, to explain, or to apply, some of the sayings of the Prophets incorrectly, § 338-344, pages 276-281.

Against the Atheists and Deists, for the authority and θεοπνευστίᾳ/inspiration of the Sacred Codex, with Stapfer compare that massive work of THEODOR CHRISTOPH LILIENTHAL, a Theologian among the Augustans at Königsberg,[51] which work, translated also into Dutch, went forth in fifteen volumes in octavo form, under the title, Oordeelkundige Bybelverklaring of de Eere en Waarheid der godlyke openbaringe van het Oude en Nieuwe Verbond tegen derzelver vyanden bewezen en gehandhaaft.

Among the Deists, LELAND, in his Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, epistle 4, page 87, makes mention of Toland[52] in his Christianity not Mysterious, especially as one denying all Mysteries.  He derides the Spirit of Prophecy, and compares it with Enthusiasm; neither does the Earl of Shaftesbury[53] in his Characteristics put any value upon the testimony of Miracles for the Divinity of Sacred Scripture, as LELAND relates in his Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, epistle V, pages 113, 114, 128.  Morgan[54] treats the same in The Moral Philosopher:  see LELAND, epistle IX, page 233, and what things he here teaches in opposition out of John Chapman,[55] pages 244-246, similarly pages 247, 248, 252-256.  The argument for the θεοπνευστίᾳ/inspiration of the Old Testament and truth of the Christian Religion taken from Prophecies, LELAND vindicates against Collins, epistle VI, pages 143-163.  LELAND, epistle XII, pages 372-377, defends θεοπνευστίαν/inspiration of the Old Testament against Chubb.[56]  In a similar manner, the θεοπνευστίαν/ inspiration of the New Testament, pages 378-388, and epistle XIII, pages 389-411.  Then, LELAND vindicates the argument for the Divinity of the Old and New Testaments sought from Prophecies, pages 411-418; from Miracles, pages 419-428; from the Conversion of the World through the Christian Doctrine, pages 429-431.  He denies that the Apostles changed their Doctrine, pages 431-434, or sought temporal gain in the proclamation of the Gospel, pages 434-438.  Again, the argument alleged from Prophecies and Miracles LELAND gives, epistle XIV, pages 467-469, epistle XV, pages 521-533, 542, 543; and he frees the Writers of the New Testament from the charge of Enthusiasm and fraud, pages 558-561.  In what manner Bolingbroke[57] hisses at the Writings both of Moses and of Paul, LELAND relates, tome 2, chapter 1, epistle V, pages 162-165, 177, 178.  Then, he defends the Writings of the Old Testament as θεόπνευστα/inspired against the criticisms of Bolingbroke, tome 2, chapter 2, epistles XI-XIII, pages 406-576:  equally the Writings of the New Testament, the doctrine of Paul, and the Christian Religion, LELAND defends against the calumnies and affronts of the same, epistles XIV-XVI, pages 577-731.  Again, the Histories and Writings of the Old Testament the same LELAND defends against the Objections of Bolingbroke, Aanmerkingen op de Brieven van Lord Bolingbroke over het lezen en gebruyk der Geschiedenissen, volume 2, chapter 1, in volume 3 of Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, pages 190-253, compared with pages 185-189.  Similarly, the Gospel Histories and the divine authority of the Christian Religion, second division, pages 254-322.  BUDDEUS makes mention of Atheists and Naturalists impugning the Christian Religion, de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter III, § 6, pages 176-180; and also of those that undermine the divine authority of Sacred Scripture, § 7, pages 181-184.  Against whom BUDDEUS and LULOFS[58] assert the truth of Religion, both Mosaic, chapter VII, § 6, pages 455-458, 462-468, and Christian, pages 455, 458-464, 468-471; and also the divine authority of Sacred Scripture, § 7, pages 471-481.  Concerning the argument, customarily sought from Miracles, for the Divinity of Sacred Scripture, the illustrious LULOFS observes in ad Buddeum, on the place cited, § 5 (343), page 454, “It is not to reckoned, as if a vicious circle be committed in the demonstration, if we should desire to prove the truth of Doctrine from Miracles, and the heavenly origin of secondary Miracles from Doctrine:  for Miracles do not demonstrate the truth of Doctrine, but rather the divine mission of those that were Preachers of that Doctrine; in such a way that they were Legates of God Himself, and did not set forth dogmas by their own authority, but as most true in themselves.”  And again on § 7 (369), page 480, “Miracles certainly do not directly demonstrate that the books in which they are narrated are of divine origin and authority; writings, furnished by other men that were not inspired by the divine Spirit, were also able to contain a history of Miracles, and that altogether true:  but Doctrine ought to be of Divine origin and authority, which in all things accords with the dogmas of those that in Miracles, accomplished by themselves, or rather by God Himself for their sake, were furnishing proofs beyond all exception, that they were sent by God Himself; insofar as He, in a manner in keeping with His holiness, beneficence, and veracity, was not able to furnish a public testimony for men that were preaching false Doctrine, or Doctrine easily to be drawn out and demonstrated by just anyone by force of reason:  in which case Miracles or testimonies of this sort would be either detrimental, or superfluous.  Therefore, Miracles indirectly prove the divine authority of the sacred Books, since they demonstrate indirectly the truth of the doctrine, but directly the divine mission of those that were proclaiming that doctrine as altogether true, which was sustaining the most rigorous examination of reason, as doctrine most agreeable to the divine perfections, and which, disclosing new truths unknown by the light of reason, and putting known truths in a brighter light, as it were, was pointing out the true way of salvation and reconciliation to those that were offenders and hostile to the supreme Judge, and that, left to themselves, and not having been illuminated by this doctrine, would never have been able to find that way.  Now, in this place it is not agreeable to inquire against Jean-Jacques Rousseau,[59] most ingenious but unto his own hurt, whether we necessarily require Miracles that faith might be applied to the Evangelical doctrine:  this doctrine so commends itself in every respect, that its truth is also able to be demonstrated in other ways and more directly, with Miracles, indubitable witness of the divine mission, set aside for the present.”  That a threefold thesis is to be proven distinctly against the Deists, GISBERT BONNET advises, in his Præfatione before section II, part I, of Leland’s de Utilitate et Necessitate Revelationis Christi:  1.  the historical ἀξιοπιστίαν/trustworthiness of the Books of the Sacred Scripture; 2.  the Divinity of revealed Religion, which the Sacred Scripture relates; to which end he looks to regard Miracles and Predictions, but also the way, manifested to man as sinner, of Reconciliation with God and of perfecting his moral State, sought in vain elsewhere; 3.  the divine Inspiration of those Books of the Old and New Testaments, which deliver to us this Religion, and which we are wont to call the Word of God; to which end he believes the ἀξιόπιστα/ trustworthy Testimonies, the Style of Sacred Scripture, some Peculiarities occurring in Sacred Scripture, tend, but also the Testimony of the Christian Church concerning the genuineness of these Books.

3.  Nevertheless, we do not deny that the Ministry of the Church, manifold indeed, but only a Ministry, in teaching and proving the Divinity of Scripture intervenes.  That is, the Church is, α.  the keeper of the oracles of God, Romans 3:2; β.  the Finger that points to the Scripture and leads by the hand to it, Isaiah 30:21; γ.  the Defender that looks after it and separates the genuine books from the counterfeit, perhaps hence called the  ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ground/support of the truth, 1 Timothy 3:15; δ.  the Herald that promulgates it, Romans 10:15; 2 Corinthians 5:19, 20; ε.  the Interpreter that searches out and opens up its true sense, Nehemiah 8:9.  But above these ministerial offices the Church does not rise.  Therefore, it is a means, with which intervening we are able to be led to the recognition and belief of the Scripture and its confirmation; but in no way is it the foundation, upon the authority of which our faith rests.  This matter is wont to be illustrated by the ministry of the Samaritan woman to her fellow-citizens.  “For the Church,” says the Most Illustrious PICTET,[60] in his Theologia Christiana, book I, chapter IX, § 4, “fulfills the same office for us that the woman performed for her fellow-citizens:  for, as the Samaritan woman led the Samaritans to Christ, whom, having been recognized, they embraced because of Himself, not because of the testimony of the Samaritan woman, as they themselves assert in John 4:42; so the Church leads us to the Scripture, and delivers it into our hands:  but, as long as we hesitate here, our faith is merely human, or a step unto faith rather than faith itself, until we arrive at the Scripture and embrace it because of itself.”  Let us follow those, says AUGUSTINE in his contra Epistolam Manichæi, quam vocant Fundamenti, chapter XIV, opera, tome 8, column 115, that invite us first to believe what we are not yet able to perceive, so that, having been made stronger by this very faith, it might be granted to us to understand what we believe, not now by men, but by God Himself illuminating and confirming our mind inwardly.  Certainly, as it has already by seen in part above, α.  Christ does not receive testimony from man, not even from John himself, other than ministerial testimony, which does not procure authority for Him:  for thereupon He appeals to the testimony of the Father, and of His own works, and of the Sacred Scripture, John 5:34, 36, 37, 39.  β.  Since the Church has its strength from Scripture, the Church is not able in turn to procure authority for Scripture by Circular reasoning, Ephesians 2:20.  γ.  The entire Church is fallible; and to that extent its testimony is not able to be the principium unto which we appeal, or the foundation upon which our faith rests:  it is also without the power to engender faith, which is the work of the divine Spirit alone, with the Word acting as means.  δ.  Finally, the Church is subject to Scripture, and the Law does not receive its authority from subordinates or heralds; no more than does a candle, a testament, food or drink, inasmuch as their light, authority, force or taste depends upon those that by hand bear, open, or serve up, these things.

Compare with this whole § CALVIN’S Institutionem Christianæ Religionis, book I, chapters VII, VIII; SPANHEIM’S Decadum Theologicarum II, § 3-7, opera, tome 3, columns 1201-1203; WERENFELS’ Syllogen Dissertationum theologicarum, dissertation III, which is de Præstantia Religionis in Sacra Scriptura revelatæ, hujusque Revelationis Necessitate; and dissertation VIII, which is de triplici Teste de Verbo Dei testante, Opuscula, pages 65-78, 155-183; PETRUS DINANT’S, de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter II, pages 118-344, in which he defends the alleged Divinity of Sacred Scripture, even especially against Spinoza, § 98-114, pages 305-339.

[1] Hermann Alexander Röell (1653-1718) was a Dutch Reformed philosopher (Cartesian) and theologian.  He served as Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Franeker (1685-1704), and as Professor of Natural Theology at Utrecht (1704-1718).

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

[3] Belgic Confession 5:  “We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt, all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesseth in our hearts, that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves.  For the very blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are fulfilling.”

[4] The Five Walcheren Articles (1693) were adopted by the Dutch Classes of Walcheren to resist the encroachment of the Rationalistic view of Röell and Bekker.

[5] Jan Jacob Brahé (1726-1776) was a Dutch Reformed minister.

[6] 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).

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

[8] See Hebrews 9:16, 17.

[9] See Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18.

[10] Numa was the legendary second king of Rome, purported author of many important Roman political and religious institutions.  He is said to have had a relationship with the nymph Ægeria, receiving from her the wisdom to legislate skillfully.

[11] Matthew 23:4:  “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne (δυσβάστακτα), and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”

[12] Historiarum Philippicarum, book XXXVI.  Junianus Justinus was a Roman historian of the third century.  He wrote Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, an epitome of Pompeius Trogus’ Historiæ philippicæ et totius mundi origines et terræ situs, written in the early years of the first century AD.

[13] Histories, book V.  Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56-c. 117) was a Roman historian.  The information that he preserves about his era and its emperors is invaluable.

[14] Bibliotheca Historia, book XL.  Diodorus Siculus (c. 90-c. 30 BC), a Greek historian, wrote the massive Bibliotheca Historia in forty books.  Unhappily, only fifteen books have survived.

[15] On the Sublime, probably written in the first century AD, is an anthology of literary exemplars (more than fifty authors, writing over the course of more than a thousand years).  Moses in honorably mentioned.  During the Middle Ages, this treatise was attributed to Dionysius Cassius Longinus (a Hellenistic rhetorician [c. 213-273]), but its true authorship is shrouded in mystery.

[16] Lives of the Twelve Cæsars “Claudius” 25; “Nero” 16.  Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 75- c. 130) was a Roman historian.

[17] Annals 15:44.

[18] Epistolæ 10:96, 97.  Pliny the Younger (61-c. 113) was the Roman governor of Bithynia, and was involved in trials of Christians.

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

[20] See Exodus 8:18, 19.

[21] Matthew 16:17.

[22] Gijsbert Bonnet (1723-1805) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1761-1804).

[23] Daniel Gerdes (1698-1765) was a German Reformed Theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Duisburg (1726-1735), Professor of Theology at Groningen (1736-1765), and Professor of Church History at Groningen (1752-1765).

[24] Philip Doddridge (1702-1751) was an English Nonconformist pastor, professor, and hymnwriter.  He served as Professor of Theology at Daventry (1723-1751).

[25] For example, Exodus 9:1-4.

[26] 2 Samuel 12:1-14.

[27] For example, 1 Kings 17:1; 18:18.

[28] 1 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 18.

[29] For example, Jeremiah 26.

[30] For example, Daniel 2; 4; 5.

[31] Deuteronomy 4:13:  “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments (עֲשֶׂ֖רֶת הַדְּבָרִ֑ים, ten words); and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.”

[32] Matthew 22:34-40.

[33] Matthew 6:9-15.

[34] Acts 2:9, 10.

[35] Jakob Elsner (1692-1750) was a German Lutheran theologian.

[36] Hesiod lived around the turn of the seventh century BC.  In his poetry (particularly, Theogony), he preserves a most ancient form of Greek mythology.

[37] 2 Kings 25:9.

[38] See Deuteronomy 31:26; Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25; 2 Kings 22:8, compared with 2 Chronicles 34:14.

[39] Antiochus Epiphanes was the King of the Seleucid Empire from 175-164 BC.  He is remembered for his attempt to abolish Jewish religious rites, leading to the Maccabean revolt.

[40] Diocletian was Roman Emperor from 284 to 305.  Diocletian’s persecution of Christians lasted from 303-324, initiated by himself, but continued by others.

[41] Ferenc Nádasdy (1555-1604) was a Hungarian nobleman, of a wealthy and influential family.

[42] Bernard Nieuwentyt (1654-1718) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and Cartesian philosopher.

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

[44] 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.

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

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

[47] Anastasius I was Byzantine Emperor from 491 to 518.

[48] Victor (died c. 570) was bishop of Tunnuna in North Africa.  His Chronicon runs from the creation of the world to 566 AD, focusing upon matters pertaining to the Church.

[49] Petrus Wesseling (1692-1764) was a German philologist and jurist.

[50] Richard Bentley (1662-1742) was an English classical scholar and theologian.  He served as Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.

[51] Theodor Christoph Lilienthal (1717-1781) was a German Lutheran theologian.

[52] John Toland (1670-1722) was an Enlightenment philosopher and freethinker.

[53] Anthony Ashley Cooper (1671-1713) was an English politician, philosopher, and Deist.  Toland had a hand in the publication of some of his works.

[54] Thomas Morgan (died 1743) was an English Deist.

[55] John Chapman (1704-1784), an English churchman and scholar, wrote a rebuttal to the first volume of Morgan’s The Moral Philosopher.

[56] Thomas Chubb (1679-1747) was an English Deist.

[57] Henry St. John, First Viscount of Bolingbroke (1678-1751), was an English government official and political philosopher.  In spite of his Deism, he was a proponent of conformity and a supporter of the Church of England.

[58] Johannes Lulofs (1711-1768) was a Dutch astronomer, mathematician, and physicist.  He wrote Annotationes upon Buddeus’ de Atheismo et Superstitione.

[59] Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a Genevan philosopher.  His thought has been heavily influential in politics, sociology, and education.  He was deistic in his religious views.

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