Chapter II:23: The Difficult Case of Luke 3:36, Part 1

Luke 3:36, where τοῦ Καϊνάν, of Cainan, is inserted between τοῦ Σαλά, of Sala, and τοῦ Ἀρφαξάδ, of Arphaxad.  The passage, 1.  a great many think to lie in defect:  whether now, α. with BOCHART[1] in Phaleg, book II, chapter XIII, column 89-92, and GROTIUS on the passage, out of verse 37, where mention is of Cainan, son of Enos, they maintain that this name was transferred into the previous verse by the carelessness of Scribes; and, after it was admitted into a number of Codices, was inserted by Greek Christians into the Septuagint Versions also.  Or, β. they conclude that out of the Septuagint Version it was transferred here by ignorant copyists, from whatever source that Cainan may have first crept into the Septuagint Version.  In neither way is Luke himself treated as if he were liable to hallucination.  Certainly in the Septuagint that generation is expressly found in Genesis 11:13 and 10:24, and also in some Codices of 1 Chronicles 1:18; and in Luke the reading of this Cainan is all but universal.  But that the mention of this Cainan in the Septuagint is to be added to the other grievous faults that they commit in constructing the Chronology of the Patriarchs of that age and of the Ante-diluvian age, not one of us doubts:  since, a.  the Hebrew Codex, omitting this in three different places, Genesis 10:24; 11:12, 13; 1 Chronicles 1:18, is entirely consistent with itself.  Which, b.  the Chaldean Paraphrases uniformly follow.  Just as also, c.  JOSEPHUS, Antiquities of the Jews, book I, chapter VII, page 15, and Africanus[2] in EUSEBIUS’ Greek Chronicle, page 9.  And, d.  reason supports this, since the thirty-fifth year of the age of Arphaxad, in which he begat Salah, completely agrees with the years of the generation of the remaining Patriarchs mentioned in Genesis 11:  on the other hand, the years of generation would be too far ahead of their proper time against the manner of that age, if in the space of thirty-five years between Arphaxad and Salah some middle generation be inserted; which also is directly against the Mosaic text.  Therefore, the reading in Luke ought to be emended out of Moses, as it is evident.

[1] Samuel Bochart (1599-1667) was a French Protestant pastor and scholar with a wide variety of interests, including philology, theology, geography, and zoology.  Indeed his works on Biblical geography (Geographia Sacra) and zoology (Hierozoicon, sive Bipertitum Opus de Animalibus Scripturæ) became standard reference works for generations.  He was on familiar terms with many of the greatest men of his age.

[2] Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 160-c. 240) was a chronographer and the first Christian to attempt a history from the creation.  His Chronographai significantly influenced Eusebius.

A Survey of the Entire Work


I.  A Nominal treatment, Chapter I, § 1-6,

II.  A Real treatment, in which you may see True Theology’s

A.  Diverse distribution, Chapter I, § 7-26,

B.  Definition as Revealed Theology, Chapter I, § 27, which Definition is explained,

  1.   With respect to Genus, as it is called Doctrine, Chapter I, § 28-31.
  2.   With respect to the Difference of species, sought

α.  from its Principium, which is the Word of God revealed in the Sacred Scripture, concerning which Chapter I, § 32, 33; Chapter II;

β.  from its Object, which is True Religion, Chapter I, § 34, concerning which

a.  It is discussed more generally, Chapter III;

b.  Its argument is explained more particularly, inasmuch as it delivers

aThe Knowledge of GOD

1.  Nominal, Chapter IV, § 1-9,

2.  Real,

§.  With respect to the Essence and Essential Attributes common to the three Persons of the Deity, Chapter IV, § 10-48,

§§.  With respect to the Mystery of the Trinity, Chapter V,

§§§.  With respect to the Divine Works, and those

̸.  either Internal, which are the Decrees of God:  concerning which

̅ .  It is discussed generally, Chapter VI,

̲̅ .  The Degree of Predestination is considered specifically, Chapter VII,

̸̸ .  or External, which are

̅ .  either of Nature, of which sort two especially,

Creation, which

AA.  Is explained more generally, Chapter VIII,

BB.  Is discussed specifically concerning the most excellent of Creatures, namely, the Angels, Chapter IX,

††Providence, concerning which Chapter X,

̲̅ .  or of Grace, which works shall be explained, in which shall be treated the Subject to be instructed in Theology, namely, Man, considered in his fourfold State;

bThe Worship of GOD, of which worship thus

1.  The Nature is explained, Chapter XI, § 1-6, so that

2.  The Norm of this worship might be especially explained,

§.  Namely, the many-faceted Law of God, as it is to be seen, Chapter XI, § 7-21,

§§.  Especially the Moral Law, concerning which it is discussed in more detail, to the end that

̸ .  The Preamble, Propriety, and Division of this Law might be premised more generally, Chapter XI, § 22-40,

̸̸ .  The individual Precepts of the Decalogue might be explained one-by-one, Chapter XII:

γ.  from its Subject, to be furnished with the Knowledge of Theology, which in itself, as an eminent Work of God, and the End and Object of the greatest works of God, is most worthy of consideration, and hence also is wont to be called the Secondary Object of Theology, see Chapter I, § 35:  Is delivered

a.  Its Nature in general, Chapter XIII,

b.  Its Fourfold State in particular;

a.  As Instituted, or of Integrity, concerning which Chapter XIV,

b.  As Destituted, or of the Fall, comprehending under itself

1.  Sin, concerning which Chapter XV,

2.  Punishment, concerning which Chapter XVI,

c.  As Restituted, or of Grace, by way of the Covenant of Grace; of which

1.  A nominal Treatment and real Definition see Chapter XVII, § 1-4,

2.  An Explication of this Definition follows,

§.  With respect to Genus, of mutual Compact, Chapter XVII, § 5,

§§.  With respect to the Difference of Species, according to which this Compact is differentiated from others,

̸ .  By the Word, by which it is revealed, namely, the Gospel, concerning which it is treated, and concerning the diverse dispensation of this and of the Covenant of Grace itself, Chapter XVII, § 6-19,

̸̸.  By the Mediator appointed, concerning whom

̅ .  It is discussed more generally, Chapter XVIII,

̲̅ .  Then more specifically are delineated this Mediator’s

Person, with respect to His Names, Natures, the Union of those, and the Effects of this, Chapter XIX,

††.  Threefold Mediatorial Office, Prophetic, Priestly, and Royal, Chapter XX,

†††State of Humiliation and of Exaltation, Chapter XXI,

̸̸̸.  By the prescribed Duties, of Faith and Repentance, which are explained, Chapter XXII,

̸̸̸̸.  By the Benefits promised, of which

̅ .  The four primary are distinctly explained,

Vocation, Chapter XXIII,

††Justification, Chapter XXIV,

†††Sanctification, which is considered,

AA.  In itself, Chapter XXV, § 1-13,

BB.  In its proper fruit of Holiness and of Good Works; concerning which again

אא .  It is discussed more generally, Chapter XXV, § 14-21,

בב .  It is treated more specifically

αα.  concerning Prayer, which is the most excellent Good Work, Chapter XXVI, § 1-21,

ββ.  concerning some Works closely connected to Prayer, such as Fasting, Keeping Vigil, Alms-giving, Vows, Chapter XXVI, § 22-40,

††††Preservation, Chapter XXVII;

̲̅ .  The same things, expressed under a different notion, are propounded by the names of Regeneration, Adoption, Reconciliation, and Redemption or Liberation; under which relation the same Benefits are more briefly explained, Chapter XXVIII,

̸̸̸̸̸.  By the Seals annexed, namely, the Sacraments, which

̅ .  Are generally declared, Chapter XXIX, § 1-4,

̲̅ .  Are specifically expounded individually,

.  Both of the Old Testament,

AA.  The Extraordinary, at least cursorily, Chapter XXIX, § 5,

BB.  The Ordinary, more prolifically,

אא Circumcision, Chapter XXIX, § 6-17,

בב Passover, Chapter XXIX, § 18-27,

††.  And of the New Testament, which

AA.  In general are taught to be only Two, with whatever Sacraments Falsely So-Called hence rejected, Chapter XXIX, § 28-36,

BB.  Are declared with great exertion,

אא Baptism, Chapter XXX,

בב The Lord’s Supper, Chapter XXXI;

̸̸̸̸̸ ̸.  By the Multitude Covenanted, to which the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace are actually conferred, namely, the Church,

̅ .  Concerning which, Chapter XXXII,

̲̅ .  And concerning its Government, both Special, Ecclesiastical, and Common with other men, Political and Domestical, Chapter XXXIII;

d.  As Constituted, or Pre-determined, or of Glorification, which is declared, Chapter XXXIV, in which we especially attain,

δ.  The End of the Glory of God and of the Salvation of the Elect, which, as the End of the whole of our Theology, the AUTHOR was propounding, Chapter I, § 36.


Preface to the Benevolent Reader, Part 8 (final)

Furthermore, although in this work I have not wished to offend or provoke to jealousy anyone, at the same time I am wont to speak frankly my opinion, often testifying agreement and remembering them with praise in one place, from whom elsewhere I by no means conceal that I dissent; sometimes even, although quite rarely, from the Most Celebrated AUTHOR, without violation of my respect, which I owe and shall ever have for him.  Indeed, attached to no parties, I desire to satisfy the truth alone, and to be serviceable in the declaration, confirmation, and modest defense of the same, by the leading of the Spirit of Truth; so that in this manner the Name of the God of Truth, through the propagation of the Kingdom of Truth, might be glorified more and more, whom glory I am certainly eager always to set before myself as the chief End of all labors, and to whom alone I commit all the success of this work by fervent prayers.  Thou, Reader, Farewell, and make use of my labor for thine edification in the Lord, if it please Him.  Given at Lugduno-Batava on the fifth of August, 1761.

Preface to the Benevolent Reader, Part 7

LACTANTIUS’ Opera Thysii.  Leiden:  1652, in 8º.[1]

LACTANTIUS’ de Mortibus Persecutorum Pauli Bauldri.  Utrecht:  1693, in 8º.[2]

HILARY’S Opera studio Benedictinorum.  Paris:  1693.[3]

PRUDENTIUS’ Opera Weitzii.  Hannover:  1613, in 8º.[4]

PHILASTRIUS’ de Hæresibus Fabricii.  Hamburg:  1721, in 8º.[5]

OPTATUS of Milevis’ de Schismate Donatistarum, L.E. du Pin.  Antwerp:  1702.[6]

AMBROSE’S Opera, five tomes, 2 volumes.  Paris:  1642.[7]

JEROME’S Opera Erasmi, nine tomes, 4 volumes.  Basil:  1537.[8]

AUGUSTINE’S Opera studio Benedictinorum, twelve tomes.  Antwerp:  1700-1703.[9]

GREGORY THE GREAT’S Opera, six tomes, 2 volumes.  Paris:  1619.[10]

BERNARD’S Opera.  Antwerp:  1609.[11]

[1] Lucius Cælius Firmianus Lactantius (c. 240-c. 320) was a trained rhetorician, who, upon his conversion to Christianity, employed his rhetorical gifts in the defense and explication of the Christian faith.  His Divinæ Institutiones is one of the early attempts at a systematic theology.  This edition of Lactantius’ Opera was produced by Antonius Thysius (1565–1640), a Dutch Reformed theologian, professor at the University of Harderwijk and University of Leiden.  He was also one of the authors of the 1625 Synopsis purioris theologiæ.

[2] Paul Bauldri (1639-1706), learned professor of Church history at Utrecht, produced this annotated edition of de Mortibus Persecutorum.

[3] Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (d. 368), was, among the Latin Fathers, one of the chief defenders of the Nicean theology against Arianism.  This edition of Hilary’s Opera was corrected and annotated by the Benedictine Monks of the Maurist Congregation, and is still widely regarded for its quality.

[4] Aurelius Prudentius Clemens (348-407) was a Spanish Christian poet.  This edition of his Opera was produced by Johann Weitz (1576-1642).

[5] Philastrius (died c. 397) was Bishop of Brescia.  He participated in the anti-Arian synod of Aquileia held in 381, and wrote Diversarum Hereseon Liber.  Johann Albert Fabricius (1668-1736), a German classical scholar, produced this annotated edition.

[6] Optatus was a fourth century bishop of Milevis, in Numidia.  He was active against the schism of the Donatists.  Louis Ellies Du Pin (1657-1719), a French ecclesiastical historian, produced this edition of de Schismate by a careful comparison of ancient manuscripts.

[7] Ambrose (340-397), Bishop of Milan, was a man of great influence, ecclesiastically and politically, and was instrumental in the conversion of Augustine.

[8] This edition of Jerome’s Opera was produce by Desiderius Erasmus (1467-1536), a Dutch humanist, classical scholar, and Roman Catholic theologian.  Although he never left the Roman Church, he sought the reformation of its corruptions, and he contributed greatly to the Reformation through the production of his various editions of the Greek New Testament and his Annotationes in Novum Testamentum.  He was certainly one of the greatest and most influential scholars of his time.

[9] This edition of Augustine’s Opera was corrected and annotated by the Benedictine Monks of the Maurist Congregation, and was the last critical edition of Augustine’s complete works.

[10] Gregory the Great (c. 550-604) was elected Pope in 590.  He was a monk, scholar, prolific author, and, having been made pope, instrumental in reinvigorating the missionary work of the Church

[11] Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1157) was a Cistercian monk and abbot, whose learning and austere piety made him very influential in his day.

Preface to the Benevolent Reader, Part 6

CYRIL of Alexandria’s Opera Auberti, six tomes, seven volumes.  Paris:  1638.[1]

THEODORET’S Opera Sirmondi, four tomes:  Paris:  1644; 5 tomes Garinerii:  Paris:  1684.[2]

PHOTIUS’ Bibliotheca.  Rouen:  1653.[3]

PHOTIUS’ Epistolæ.  London:  1651.

JOHN OF DAMASCUS’ Opera.  Basle:  1575.[4]

ŒCUMENIUS and ARETHAS in Novum Testamentum.  Verona:  1532.[5]

TERTULLIAN’S Opera Rigaltii.  Paris:  1664.[6]

CYPRIAN’S Opera Felli.  Amsterdam:  1700.[7]

MINUCIUS FELIX Ouzelii.  Leiden:  1652 in 4º.[8]

ARNOBIUS’ Adversus Gentes Elmenhorstii.  Leiden:  1651 in 4º.[9]

[1] Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378-444) was a participant in the third ecumenical council, held atEphesus.  He repudiated the heretical Nestorian Christology but tended himself to the monophysitism.

[2] Theodoret (393-457) was bishop of Cyrus, and a significant participant in the Christological controversies of his age.  He was an advocate of Antiochian dyophysitism, or moderate Nestorianism, although he condemned the Nestorian affirmation of two Sons in Christ, and the Nestorian denial that Mary was Theotokos, that is, the Mother of God.  His orthodoxy was clear at the Council of Chalcedon (451).  Jacques Sirmond (1559-1651) was a French Jesuit scholar; his edition of the works of Theodoret was supplemented by a fifth volume of supplementary materials by Jean Garnier (1612-1681), another French Jesuit patrologist.

[3] Photius (c. 820-893) was a Patriarch of Constantinople.  He is most remembered for his controversies with Rome.  His Bibliotheca preserves extracts from two hundred and eighty works of classical antiquity, a great many of which are otherwise lost.

[4] John Damascenus (c. 676-c. 760) was a monk of St. Sabas, near Jerusalem.  He is remembered for his piety of life, writings, and compilation of chants in the eastern style; and, due to his defense of icons and his summary of the faith of the Father (Fountain of Knowledge), he regarded by many as the last of the Eastern Fathers.

[5] Œcumenius has been held traditionally to have been a late-tenth century bishop of Trikkala in Thessaly, but the authorship of the commentaries traditionally ascribed to him is confused.  The commentaries on Acts and the Catholic Epistles are the same as those of Theophylact of Bulgaria (eleventh century); the commentary on the Pauline Epistles is older, copied in part from the work of Andrew of Cæsarea (563-637); the commentary on the Apocalypse appears to have been composed around the turn of the seventh century.  Arethas of Cæsarea (ninth century) was a Greek Orthodox bishop and scholar.  He compiled scholia on the Apocalypse, the oldest extant.  Arethas’ comments on the Apocalypse were appended to the work of Œcumenius in this 1532 edition.

[6] Tertullian was a Latin Father of the second century.  He labored as an apologist during times of persecution, and was important in the development of the Trinitarian vocabulary in the Latin-speaking West.  Nicolas Rigault (1577-1654) was a French classical scholar.  He produced an annotated edition of Tertullian, as well as of Minucius Felix and Cyprian.

[7] Cyprian (d. 258) served as Bishop of Carthage.  He is noted for his refusal to readmit into the Church those who had “lapsed” under persecution.  This edition of Cyprian’s Works was produced by John Fell (1625-1686), bishop of Oxford.

[8] Marcus Minucius Felix (third century) was perhaps the earliest Latin apologist.  His Octavius presents an apologetic encounter between Cæcilius Natalis, a pagan, and Octavius Januarius, a Christian.  Jacobus Ouzelius (1631-1686) was a student of classical literature, and produced this heavily annotated edition of Minucius Felix at the age of twenty-one, preserving the comments of the scholars preceding him.

[9] Arnobius of Sicca (died c. 330), formerly an opponent of Christianity, was one of the great Christian apologists of his age.  Geverhart Elmenhorst (c. 1580-1621) was a native of Hamburgh, and a skilled critic.  He published his annotated edition of Adversus Gentes in 1610, and the 1651 edition contains not only his notes, but those of others as well.

Preface to the Benelovent Reader, Part 5

So that one might also be able so much the more expeditiously consult the places in the Ecclesiastical Fathers, unto which I sometimes appeal, behold, a syllabus of editions of these Holy Men, whose writings have frequently appeared, of which I am wont to make use, and to cite everywhere:


Magna Bibliotheca Patrum.  Paris:  1644, seventeen tomes.[1]

Concilia Generalia Binii, four tomes, nine volumes.  Cologne:  1618.[2]

Patres Apostolici Cotelerii, two volumes.  Antwerp:  1698.[3]

IGNATIUS’ Epistolæ Pearsoni et Smithi.  Oxford:  1709, in 4º.[4]

JUSTIN MARTYR’S Opera, cum annexis.  Paris:  1615.[5]

IRENÆUS’ Contra Hæreses Massueti.  Paris:  1710.[6]

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA’S Opera.  Paris:  1641.[7]

ORIGEN’S Opera de la Rue.  Paris:  1733 and following, four volumes.[8]

ORIGEN’S libri VIII contra Celsum, etc., Gulielmi Spenceri.  Cambridge:  1677, in quarto.[9]

HIPPOLYTUS’ Opera Fabricii.  Hamburg:  1716.[10]

ATHANASIUS’ Opera, two tomes.  Cologne:  1686.[11]

BASIL the GREAT’S Opera, three tomes.  Paris:  1638.[12]

GREGORY Nazianzen’s Opera Billii, two tomes.  Cologne:  1690.[13]

GREGORY Nyssen’s Opera, three tomes.  Paris:  1638.[14]

CYRIL of Jerusalem’s Opera Thomas Milles.  Oxford:  1703.[15]

EPIPHANIUS’ Opera, two tomes.  Cologne:  1682.[16]

CHRYSOSTOM’S Opera Bernardini de Montfaucon, 13 tomes.  Paris:  1718-1738.[17]

DIONYSIUS the Areopagite’s Opera Corderii, 2 volumes.  Antwerp:  1634.[18]

EUSEBIUS’ and others’ Historia Ecclesiastica Valesii, 3 volumes.  Mainz:  1672 and following.[19]

EUSEBIUS’ Præparatio et Demonstratio Euangelica.  Cologne:  1688, 2 volumes.

AMPHILOCHIUS’ and others’ Opera Combefisii.  Paris:  1644.[20]

[1] Marguerin de la Bigne (1546-1595) was a French theologian and expert in Patristic literature.  In an effort to lend the strength of the Fathers to the Roman Counter-Reformation, he published Sacra Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum in nine volumes (1575), containing more than two hundred authors.  His work went through several editions and enlargements, including the 1644 Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum.

[2] Severin Binius (1573-1641) taught ecclesiastical history and discipline at the University of Cologne, and was eventually appoint as Rector Magnificus of the same (1627-1630).  Binius’ Concilia generalia et provincialia provides the acts of the councils, decretal letters, and the lives of the popes, with explanatory notes.

[3] Jean-Baptise Cotelier (1629-1686) was Roman Catholic theologian and patrologist.  Although never ordained to the priesthood, he held a variety of academic posts.  His principal work was SS. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt, Barnabæ, Clementis, Hermæ, Ignatii, Polycarpi opera edita et non edita, vera et supposita græce et latine, cum notis, otherwise known as Patres Apostolici.  It was first published at Paris in 1672; a revised edition was published in 1698 at Antwerp.

[4] Ignatius (c. 40-c. 110) was Bishop of Antioch.  He was arrested for the faith, and, as he was being transported through Asia Minor to Rome in order to be executed, he wrote seven letters, encouraging the churches.  This particular edition of Ignatius’ letters includes the annotations of the Anglican Bishop John Pearson (1613-1686), who vigorously defended the authenticity of the Ignatian letters in his Vindiciæ Epistolarum S. Ignatii (1672).

[5] Justin, also known as the Martyr, was one of the great Greek apologists of the second century.

[6] Irenæus was a second century Church Father, born near Smyrna, but serving as Bishop in Lyon.  He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of the Apostle John.  Against Heresies was originally written in Greek, but preserved only in Greek (albeit lengthy) quotations (in Hippolytus and Epiphanius) and a few Latin manuscripts.  The first printed copy was provided by Erasmus in 1526.  From that time to the present, the text of Against Heresies has been edited and revised many times, including the 1710 edition by the Benedictine monk Renatus Massuet.

[7] Titus Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus (died c. 215) was the head of the Christian catechetical school inAlexandria,Egypt.  He was trained in pagan philosophy before his conversion to Christianity.

[8] Origen (c. 185-c. 254) succeeded Clement of Alexandria as the head of the catechetical school in Alexandria.  He was perhaps the greatest scholar of his age.  The standard edition of Origen’s Opera was produced by two learned Benedictines, Charles de la Rue, and his nephew Vincent de la Rue, in four volumes published between 1733 and 1759.

[9] William Spencer, follow of Trinity-college, edited and annotated this edition of Origen’s Against Celsus, printing it with Origen’s Philocalia.

[10] Hippolytus was a third century bishop and martyr, noteworthy for his learning.  He was a disciple of Irenæus and teacher of Origen.  Johann Albert Fabricius, a German classicist, produced this edition.

[11] Athanasius (c. 298-373) was bishop ofAlexandria, and a great defender of Nicean orthodoxy.

[12] Basil the Great was a fourth century Church Father and stalwart defender of Nicean Trinitarianism.

[13] Gregory of Nazianzus (330-389) was Archbishop of Constantinope, and a doctor of the Church, known as the Trinitarian Theologian.  Jacques de Billy (1535-1581) was a French patrologist and Benedictine abbot.  His first edition of Gregory’s Opera appeared in 1569.

[14] Gregory Nyssen (c. 332-396) was Bishop of Nyssa, and a divine of profound learning and great piety.  He was a fierce opponent of Arianism, and he took an active part in drafting Constantinopolitan enlargement of the Nicene Creed.

[15] Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) was elected Bishop of Jerusalem in 350.  Cyril was a significant early theologian, and he is remembered for his Catechetical Lectures.  Thomas Milles (1671-1740) was a bishop of the Church of Ireland.

[16] The profound erudition of Epiphanius (c. 310-403) led to his installation as Bishop of Salamis.  He was something of a heresy hunter, combating Apollinarianism, Origen, and even at one point Chrysostom.

[17] John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) was Bishop of Constantinople, and the most eloquent preacher of his age.  Bernard de Montfaucon (1655-1741) was a French Benedictine monk and patrologist; his edition of Chrysostom’s Opera in Greek and Latin is the most complete.

[18] Dionysos was an early sixth century Christian philosopher (showing some Neoplatonic influences) and mystical theologian.  This Dionysos was confused with the biblical Dionysius the Areopagite (Acts 17:34) and with Saint Denis of Paris (martyred c. 250).  Balthasar Cordier (1592-1650) was a Belgian Jesuit and patrologist.  His edition of Dionysius remains the standard.

[19] Eusebius (c. 267-338) was Bishop of Cæsarea, author of that famous Ecclesiastical History, and supporter of Constantine the Great.  Henri Valois (1603-1676) was a philologist and expert in the classical and ecclesiastical historians.  In 1659, he published an annotated edition of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, followed later by editions of Socrates’ and Sozomen’s histories, and finally completed with his work on Theodoret, Evagrius, Philostorgius, and Theodore the Lector (1673).

[20] Amphilochius (c. 340-c. 400) was bishop of Iconium, and worked closely with the famous Cappadocian Fathers in the defense of orthodox Trinitarianism and Christology.  Franҫois Combefis (1605-1679) was a French Dominican and patrologist.  In 1644, he published an edition of the Works of Aphilochius of Iconium, Methodius of Olympus (died c. 311; bishop, opponent of Origen, and martyr), and Andrew of Crete (c. 650-c. 720; bishop, theologian, hymnographer, and opponent of Monothelitism).

Preface to the Benevolent Reader, Part 4

To divide my work into parts, and to publish the same individually, seemed good to me for different reasons, and especially so that I might begin to satisfy more speedily so great a desire of my students, and reinforce the uses of the same.  In the meantime the entire Commentary has already been prepared for the press, and, if I observe that this first part of the same is received benevolently by the Reader, I will by no means cease enthusiastically to urge the press in promoving the rest of the work.  Some Academic Disputations, previously committed to writing and aired publicly by me, which make for a further declaration of this or that systematic truth, I will add to that part of the Commentary, to which they most nearly have regard; as also one and another Oration delivered by me as the business of my office I will add to the final volume.  As, indeed, day teaches day,[1] so also, with the wheel of the press rushing to thrust forth this volume, some things have occurred to me during the reading, which I have judged useful to know, to be exhibited at the end of the tome by means of Addenda,[2] which I wish to be conferred equally with the very argument of the Commentary.  Also, in the use of a transcript of this work made by types I have learned that almost among ἀδύνατα, things impossible, is an edition of any book of greater mass that would be altogether free of all typographical errors:  while, although I myself have presided over the correction, and in the doing of it have applied all ἀκρίβειαν, minute care, nevertheless some have crept in, although generally of little moment, since in these either the similarity of the letters or the same pressed less clearly often beguiled the keenness of the eye:  nevertheless, lest perhaps the less skillful should stick in these things, I wished to subjoin a small index of the same to the individual volumes.  Indeed, I have already prepared indices for this part of the work, but which I believe to be better to subjoin for the whole work at the end of the last volume, lest one should deem it necessary to consult four, or perhaps even five, Indices, instead of one.

[1] Psalm 19:2.

[2] In this translation, the Addenda are spliced into the body of the work in the appropriate places.

Preface to the Benevolent Reader, Part 3

You might say that thus I cut down my own vineyards, since it appears that now nothing remains to Systematic, oral instruction, to be delivered yearly to the Youth of the Academy.  But apart from the fact that only the far smallest part of those things, which I have undertaken or will undertake to have transcribed by the press, would I be able to set forth by mouth to my students in the yearly curriculum; I am not able to keep it intact, so as to prevent those, who in the course of instruction desire to compile certain notes into a record, from easily committing more errors, errors easily corrected in this manner.  Furthermore, by mouth I teach my students alone, but by writing also those who either in other places are at pains in the unfolding of this System of topics, or shall hereafter advance the same labor also.  It had appeared to me hardly advisable after the deliverance of my utterance to commit to others those things that, by this arrangement, I had smeared over paper:  but, since we are of a brief age, and that very uncertain, I was unwilling to delay any longer from delivering my commentaries to the press to be inscribed:  out of which, if no other use might redound, at least it might be able to be plain that I have not spent this passing period altogether idly; and the attempt to help the zeal of hearts for God and of those dedicated to the Ministry of the Church perhaps shall not be deprived of all praise.  I was unwilling to place the text of Marckius’ Compendium before my Commentary, both because thus the work would grow excessively into a great mass; nevertheless, it is of sufficient size of its own accord:  and because I suppose it to be far more advantageous, and therefore also more agreeable, to the Reader, if he would place the entire Compendium of the Illustrious Author next to this Commentary, and then with one glace of the eye be able read over the entire sentence that I explain, with the things preceding and following, even indeed the whole paragraph here and there; than if for the most part he find one or a few lines, indeed often no line, at the head of a section; hence it would be required to unfold more leaves of the book, before he would discern and understand the genuine sense of the AUTHOR.  For the same reasons that moved our AUTHOR to omit subjoining Practical Uses derived from the individual Heads of Doctrine, I also have refrained from adding the same to this Commentary:  to which it is added that whoever is eager to see the summary of Christian Doctrine here related solidly applied to Praxis, he may find his desire satisfied in the works of others, of which ESSENIUS[1] and VAN MASTRICT[2] I commend before the others:  but, that after the age of these and others like them the Praxis of Theology was brought unto a greater height of perfection, I have not yet been persuaded.  Following the thread of the AUTHOR, Christian Doctrine itself, whether Theoretical or more Practical, I have studied to treat so solidly that I might endeavor to furnish at the same time a guide to the Youth, especially the Academic Youth, to the use both of the rest of the writings of the Illustrious MARCKIUS, in which he very frequently explains quite copiously those things which he touched upon with a word in this Compendium, and as a Supplement of which writings this Commentary could be held; and of many other Authors whether of the more ancient or more recent age, either whose footsteps MARCKIUS pursed, or unto whom he is to be thought to have alluded, or even a fresh acquaintance with whom for the sake of the truth, whether defended or attacked, also appeared to me not at all useless, indeed even necessary.  In the oft repeated praise of the Fathers of the Church, who were wont to go solemnly by this name, and in the somewhat fuller exposition of those things which the AUTHOR superficially and in haste surveyed out of the Ecclesiastical History and old Heresiology, I have labored to stir the appetite of the studious Youth for the diligent and painstaking cultivation of the the study of Patristics and what is involved in searching out the varied condition of the Church, both by rehearsal debate performed in the academic stadium, and by a freer excursion into these expanses throughout all the rest of life; inasmuch as this has been treated more neglectfully by many, nevertheless it is hardly able to be said just how much it would not only be acceptable and agreeable to its cultivators, but how it would grow apt to furnish fruits, additionally solid and most copious to those in handling Dogmatico-Elenctic Theology, but also in the undertaking of the sacred Ministry, fruits abundantly commended by others, and which the plan of the work does not bear to review here.  Now, here and there, in matters regarding the History of the Church, I am wont to appeal and send to the greater Historical Work of SPANHEMIUS,[3] besides other labors of this most excellent Man, in which he illustrated Sacred History and Antiquities from the stock of his recondite erudition; for, as in the rest of the disciplines, so also in the History of the Church, it is very advantageous to make for oneself one System more familiar before the others:  now, I know no fuller and better Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, and which has been produced with greater candor, holy love of the truth, and the polish of judgment, not to mention elegance of pen, than that of Spanhemius.  Indeed, with so much more willingness I am wont to praise Spanhemius in many places, since I am going to recommend to my blessed students, if according to the measure of gifts granted to them by the Lord they propose to themselves for imitation that pair of Gravest Theologians, in which our Academy deservedly boasts, MARCKIUS, I say, and SPANHEMIUS, the teacher of Marckius, whom this Disciple and successor in the Profession of Ecclesiastical History, worthy of such a Teacher, in Oratione de Christianismi propagati Admirandis, calls a Man set above all praise, and altogether worthy of immortality before others, whose varied and solid erudition even late posterity will admire:  VRIESIUS[4] no less truly sang this of the same Theologian,


The SPANHEMIAN hand alone is able to demonstrate by deeds,

not the other with words, the merit of SPANHEMIUS.


Indeed, of the Brethren devoted to the Augusburg Confession,[5] the Illustrious Buddeus,[6] making mention of SPANHEIM’S Historia Ecclesiastical, adds:  Indeed, nothing is able to be said so illustriously concerning this Author, as far as this branch of studies in concerned, which he would not surpass in many ways.  And elsewhere again:  This most erudite Man with great vigor embraced many things, most learned in every sort of subsidiary for the perfection of a work of this sort, and he has drawn all things from authentic sources, to such an extent that, if thou depart from certain hypotheses, in which he serves the interests of his Church, in this regard you would appear to all to accomplish a doubtful victory.

[1] Andreas Essenius (1618-1677) was educated at the University of Utrecht under the tutelage of Gernardus Schotanus and Gisbertus Voetius.  He first served as a minister, and then as a professor of theology at Utrecht (1653).  Among his students were Wilhelmus à Brakel and Philipp van Limborch.  Essenius wrote both Systema Theologicæ Dogmaticæ (1659) and Compendium Theologiæ Dogmaticæ (1669), as well a multiple works on the Ten Commandments.

[2] Petrus van Mastricht (1631-1706) studied at Duisberg, Utrecth, Leiden, Heidelberg, and Oxford.  He labored both as a pastor and a professor, eventually succeeding Voetius at Utrecht.  His Theoretico-practica theologia includes a practical treatment of each doctrinal topic.

[3] Frederic Spanheim (1632-1701) studied at Leiden and took the doctoral degree in 1651.  He was Professor of Divinity at Heidelberg (1655), and later at Leiden (1670), where he replaced Johannes Cocceius, but was a committed Voetian.  He excelled in Historical Theology; the work here referred to is his Historia Ecclesiastica.

[4] Gerardus de Vries (1648-1705) was a Voetian philosopher and theologian, and he served as professor of Philosophy (1674-1705) and of Theology (1685-1705) at Utrecht.

[5] The Augsburg Confession, originally drafted and adopted at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, is the primary confession of the Lutheran Church.

[6] Johann Franz Buddeus (1667-1729) was a German Lutheran philosopher and theologian.  He served the church as a professor, of philosophy, first at Wittenberg (1687), than at Jena (1689); of Greek and Latin at Coburg (1692); of moral philosophy at Halle (1693); of theology at Jena (1705).  He was considered among the most learned and able theologians of his era.

Preface to the Benevolent Reader, Part 2

So that I might achieve this end [namely, a faithful delivery of sound doctrine], I have undertaken an explication of the Compendium of Christian Theology of JOHANNES MARCKIUS, certainly in human terms the most complete Theologian, and far below whose merits, commemorated by the eloquent tongue of the illustrious WESSELIUS in his Funeral Oration, my meager preaching must always sink.  I took up this Compendium of Theology, in preference to others, for laborious study, for various reasons.  Both so that I might show a grateful spirit for the solid education that I was allowed to draw from the mouth and writings of such a Teacher; and for the singular benevolence with which he embraced me while he lived.  And so that I might in some measure act answerably to the obligation, concerning which, in the few months before his death, that Man most dear to me, when I, about to perform the final year of my Academic apprenticeship in the gymnasium of Utrecht, was departing hence, said his last farewell to me; indicating the he was hoping that the labor undertaken by me might go forward, where he himself left off:  only it was given to me to follow so great a Man at a distance; and to walk with him with equal steps would require a far greater abundance of acute intellect, vast erudition, disciplined judgment, memory most tenacious, and facility most prompt and incredible, than it has befallen either me or most to obtain through the benign Providence of God.  Therefore, it was also pleasing to me to expound this Compendium of Theology, for, while he surpasses many other Erudite men in his other writings, in abridging this System this most illustrious Man would appear to have surpassed even himself:  to such an extent, according to fit and impartial arbiters and judges of these things, it most properly stands out before most other Compendia of Theology, both in its elegant order, apt brevity of words, and immense abundance of most solid matter.  But this very thing renders a more distinct explication of this Compendium to the Youth of the Academy so much the more necessary and desirable.  For verily our Author wrote in the “Preface” set before this work:  A contracted style has been employed by me, not so that I might studiously conceal truths, or because I would not be able to express my thoughts more clearly in a massive volume…; but so that according to the method of a Compendium I might embrace many things in a few words, and stir up the judgment and industry of my hearers, etc.  Behold, most excellent Young Men, …this is such a Compendium, that it requires indefatigable labor from you; without which ye shall not make progress by a light reading of it….  The reading ought to follow closely, with attention to the individual words, out of which ye shall not easily discover many set down to little purpose; and the reading rather repeated than excessively hurried or prolonged.  Into a part of this labor, with the studious Youth committed to my care, I have desired to enter; and what things everywhere in this Compendium, whether by the brevity of the words, of which hardly a single one slips past without diminishment, or by the dense weight of infinite matters, either are or at first glance appear more obscure, I have tried to illustrate in this writing for easier understanding.

Preface to the Benevolent Reader, Part 1



When in latter part of Psalm 22 the Messiah joyfully gives a presentiment of the saving and super-abounding fruit, which, out of His Sponsorial Merits and vicarious Passion, the people, given to Him by the Father to be redeemed to Himself, were going to carry off, which people were to be satisfied with the delights of the house of the Lord unto eternal life;[1] the Messiah signifies that in the enjoyment of these spiritual benefits, to be communicated to a world brought unto a glory merited by Himself through sufferings, absolutely every distinction of peoples and nations is going to be removed; to the extent that whatever families of the nations and those that were inhabiting the very ends of the earth were to be led to the gracious communion of God in Christ through the Spirit of faith and repentance, no less than those that were able to be named of Israel by right of birth;[2] indeed, with the rejection of the latter having been appointed until an especially ἱκανὸν/suitable time, the former are to be reputed as the Israel of God, verses 23-28.  But also, among all these nations, whichever ones might be in view, without distinction of condition, whether more sumptuous or slight, in the world, it is prophesied that they are to be made partakers of this grace, to be bequeathed most abundantly, verse 29:  Indeed, this is not going to be the prerogative of one age or of a brief time, but through all ages succeeding one another unto the consummation of this world the seed of the Church is going to be roused, which is going to enlist under God and Christ as King, and rejoice in the privileges of the holy city, verse 30.  Now, serving the lavish grant of this blessed, elect people, after the likeness of a mean, is what is foretold in the final verse, יָ֭בֹאוּ וְיַגִּ֣ידוּ צִדְקָת֑וֹ לְעַ֥ם נ֜וֹלָ֗ד כִּ֣י עָשָֽׂה׃, they shall come, and shall declare His righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that He hath done this; with God granting, such would never be wanting to the Church, who would serve the edification of the same, and serve the promotion and consummation of its spiritual joy; but they willingly would come continually, who would persuasively invite each individual unto the saving communion of God and Christ through the preaching of faith and repentance, and would most clearly and publicly declare unto this end the Righteousness of the Lord, and all the divine Virtues at work, manifested especially in the brilliant manner of Redemption.  O an especially excellent honor to miserable little men, of whose labor, with God intervening, in such a work He is pleased to make use! in which it is certainly fitting that they carry themselves as worthy of whatever kind of labor, throughout all the industry employed in the business entrusted to them.  Now, the Lord stood firm to these His promises, and there have not been wanting at any time, from the first infancy of the Christian Church unto this day, those that have diligently kept watch over the establishment and extension of the same by the preaching of the heavenly Doctrine, both by mouth and by writing.[3]

Unto this honor it has also befallen me to be called as one undeserving καὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων, and the least of all the saints,[4] to whom has been entrusted the assertion and vindication of sound Doctrine and Evangelical Truth under the twofold title both of Pastor of the Church and of Doctor in an Academic School.  Whatsoever office has been committed to me as by a living voice from the dais and throne I make it a practice to pursue with all my might; thus I believe that there is to be no resistance at all to the peculiar impulse of delivering the same form of sound words also in writing; but that this is to be referred to the divine vocation also, by which divine Providence is wont frequently to stir internally men of our office, to fulfill parts of the imposed function in this manner also.  Apart from this, that Witnesses of the Truth have existed in every age, and that the Church has always subsisted in the world by an embracing of the faith delivered to the saints,[5] we could not be very certain:  by which experience now, on the other hand, we urge in our preaching unto the celebration of the praise of the divine fidelity.  Treading in the footsteps of the best Men instead of the poverty of my own talent, I have given, besides some other things, a delineation of Practical Theology in the vernacular language four years and more ago, following especially ὑποτύπωσιν, the pattern, left to us by Saint Peter in his second Epistle.[6]  Now my soul proceeds to impart a richer testament through a description of Dogmatico-Elenctic Theology, which we in our age may attentively fix our attention upon in the Academy of Batava even in this particular of the Holy Doctrine formerly revealed to the Prophets and Apostles, and which, as we received from our Predecessors of pious memory, so to deliver it undefiled again to the following age is to us the highest of obligations.

[1] See Psalm 36:8; 65:4.

[2] See Psalm 87.

[3] See also Ephesians 4:11-13.

[4] Ephesians 3:8.

[5] See Jude 1:3.

[6] Het kort begrip en de zekere vastigheid der apostolische leere; van Petrus voorgestelt in het eerste hoofdstuk van zijnen Tweeden Algemeinen Zendbrief.  Nader verklaart en betoogt (Leiden:  1756).