Andrew Willet wrote that if Scripture were not self-interpreting everyone would have to carry “the Pope around in his pocket” for reference before a clear rendering of the text could be made. Anyone pretending to know the mind of God better than himself would also gladly take on the responsibility of being the new “Pope in the pocket,” establishing a new “rule” or “canon” of interpretation for the Church, to replace the authority of the self-interpreting Canon or Rule of Scripture as taught by the Holy Spirit. As you read Wilson’s work a stark contrast is evident between the high regard for Scripture in his day and the subordinate role of Scripture today.

The following is a quote of Cambridge fellow John Wilson (1588–1667), writings that “the Scripture is the only Authentic Record of the Mind and Will of God, “

“For it is certain and undoubted Voice of God himself; and what that speaks, He speaks. And who so fit to interpret the meaning of the words as himself? Ejus est Interpretarm cujus est condere, is an approved Rule in Civil Law; “He that made the Law, is fittest to interpret it.” And in the present case the reason is evident; God best knows his own mind; and he hath nowhere so plainly and fully revealed his mind as in Scripture. Certainly, there can be none so sure and infallible Interpreter of these sacred Records, as the Holy Spirit that edited them; and he Interprets them, not by suggesting to us anything for their understanding which is not there already, by but speaking to us more clearly from some part of Scripture what is delivered most darkly to others. Can any man, or sort of men in the world, pretend to know the mind of God better than himself? or give us better assurance what his mind is, than the Word which himself hath appointed to be written for this very purpose? Whatsoever sense may be put upon any Scripture-assertion, and by whomsoever framed, it cannot challenge our undoubted reception, unless we can discern the Voice of God in it.”

John Wilson, The Scriptures Genuine Interpreter Asserted: or a Discourse Concerning the Right Interpretation of Scripture (In the Savoy: Printed by T. N. for R. Boulter, at the Turks Head in Cornbil, over against the Royal Exchange, 1678), 215-216.

          

  When God entered the covenant with Abram (Gen. 12:1-3), God Himself promised to accomplish the content of His declaration contained in the future, “I will.” “I will” as the manifestation of God’s good pleasure (eudokia) manifests itself in history by the exercise of the gifts of faith and repentance; elements reciprocated to the object of that faith, Jesus Christ. Together, God’s will and its redemptive derivatives reflect the foreknowledge and predestination of God’s sovereign choice to save the elect, guaranteeing the fulfillment of His covenant to Abram.

            By God’s design, all those who are elect exercise a God-given faith derived from the revelation of God’s Word, the reasonability of Scriptural claims and the Holy Spirit moving the will to desire salvation. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, (Romans 10:13). Scripture is therefore the central objective, historical element toward accomplishing God’s pre-creation decree to elect some of all those who are dead in trespasses and sins, Eph. 2:1. God’s covenant of election, the Holy Spirit and Scripture combine to secure the eschatological consummation of redemptive history.

        By God’s grace before and after conversion, those who are elect are irresistibly impelled by the Holy Spirit through the testimony of Scripture to intellectual concurrence as to the trustworthiness of Scripture’s subject and object, Jesus Christ, and the assent to believe the truth claims of God. This is the supernatural work of regeneration performed by the Holy Spirit whereby old things are passed away and … all things are become new, (2 Cor. 5:17). In this soteriological manner God, by grace, drives redemptive history to the certain end of eschatological consummation. How then does the Scripture participate in this driving or impelling force in the lives of those God chooses?

            The Scripture as God’s covenant was given by divine inspiration as the rational, empirical revelation of God to mankind through which the Holy Spirit would act judicially at the instruction of the Son. As such, the covenant is also a legal indictment against the sins of mankind and the mandate for escape from the sentence of eternal damnation. Mankind did not ask for this record, nor does it appreciate its revealing light. Being found guilty of the basest and most depraved sort of sin, living moment by moment under the constant fear of death and judgment, and being personally responsible and accountable to God Almighty, like Adam, the unregenerate hurry to conceal themselves from the impending doom which awaits them. From the fundamental truth of man’s total depravity, it may be properly argued that Scripture, to be efficacious in its results, has been imposed upon mankind and that in this imposition mankind, through the Spirit of God, has been impelled to obey the Scripture’s teachings. We read in Hebrews 4:12, For the word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing to the diving asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

            According to this passage, the word of God is living, zwh and powerful, energhV. Philip Hughes comments,

It is no dead letter, no utterance lost as soon as it was spoken in an unresponding void. As the word of the living God it cannot fail itself to be living. And as God is the God who acts with power, his word cannot fail to be active and powerful. Its effectiveness derives from its source, which is God himself, and from its purpose, which is the will of God; and neither God nor his will is ever subject to frustration or defeat. God’s word, says Lefevre d’Etaples, “is not a transient and evanescent word which when uttered is immediately diffused through the air and perishes, but it is a permanent word, not carried off, not dispersed, not diffused, but sustaining and binding together all things.” Hughes, Hebrews, p. 164.

            The Word “has of its own power thus prevailed” over the incessant attacks of the world to destroy it, according to Calvin. Calvin, Institutes, 1.8.12. This has made it customary to seek the proper principium immediately in the Holy Scriptures–principium cognoscendi materiale. As such, the principium is a living agent. God is never a passive phenomenon but drives men with and through Scripture to “see His glory.” Kuyper, Principles, p. 347.

            Deuteronomy 28:2, reads, And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou wilt harken unto the voice of the Lord thy God. “Overtake” nasag (reach, take hold upon) occurs only in the hiphil stem, often occurring as a complement to radap “pursue.” Commenting on the opening verse of Deuteronomy 28, one writer has noticed,

The condition sine qua non of all enjoyment of the Divine bounty was obedience on the part of the people of the word and Law of Jehovah their God. This rendered, the blessing would come on them rich and full, and abide with them…. The blessings about to be specified are represented as personified, as actual agencies coming upon their objects and following them along their path. W. L. Alexander, Pulpit Commentary vol. 6, p. 428.

            Scripture prevails, moves, impels, drives, and overtakes. The written word of God is living in a redemptive sense. Each of these descriptive words deal with the Scripture as a canon of truth, which has its own “external” life, outside and apart from the ecclesiastical community. The word of God “lives” because the product of the unique process of giving inspired Scripture is itself inspired.

            One example of God’s living call in the principium is found in the Canons of Dort (1618-1619). Under the heading, “The Perseverance of the Saints,” Article 7 reads, “And again, by His word and Spirit He certainly and effectually renews them to repentance.” The key words are “certainly and effectually.” God’s Word and Spirit impel the believer to repent of his sins, the necessary complement of God’s elective grace. This impelling is God’s action in believers’ lives corresponding to His keeping power.

            The principium cognoscendi externum is cognitive foundation of the believer’s knowledge of God. According to Muller, the principium cognoscendi materiale, is the written Word which impels the principium cognoscendi internum, “the internal principle of faith which knows the external Word and answers its call.” Muller, Dictionary, p. 246. The interaction between the believer’s knowledge of the written Word and the power it has in conjunction with the Holy Spirit is the basis for the self-attesting, self-authenticating nature (autopiston) of Scripture. Calvin writes,

Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our heart through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own or by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God. Calvin, Institutes, 1.8.5.

            Presupposing the insurmountable subjectivity of the human mind to confuse the interaction between the Spirit, Word and believer, there is a persistent tendency to resist the objective components of this process. To deny the objective results, i.e., Scripture is true; Moses Crossed the Red Sea; Jesus rose bodily from the grave, of this subjective interaction is to close one’s eyes to the historical, observable continuity of biblical faith and doctrine. The dual driving force of Spirit and Word impel the true believer to a historically congruent common set of beliefs and practices. The fact that the believing community exists as the “Body” and “Bride” of Christ is sufficient to show the objectivity of this interaction.

This is not to say, however that objective adherence to the Spirit and Word will always result from reading the Bible. While the Holy Spirit is convicting the world of sin, the noetic effects of the Fall upon one’s ability to comprehend what they have been shown, leads them to a subjective, autonomous turning from the truth to idolatry. Furthermore, simply because one knows what they should do, does in no wise mean that they shall do it.

        Arguments and data can be presented from the Scripture that will lead an individual to think differently about something because of the new information. Learning is the obvious representation of this external influence. But assent or reasonable acceptance of the truth content of Scripture, no matter how logical, is insufficient to produce faith. Romans 1:18ff is the principal passage which delineates mankind’s comprehension of the truth, or that he knows what he should do but has no desire to do it.

        This leads us to considering the element of passion or desire. The will cannot be moved externally. The will either moves itself driven by passion or God Himself moves the will. No one can move another’s will. The adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” contains the sense. The simple presentation of this discussion is insufficient to move the reader’s will because it simply cannot. However, if the argument is biblically sound, grounds exist for the Holy Spirit to move the will to obedience in light of the new information. Not to follow the Spirit’s leading in the latter case, as orthodox believers, would be called sin.

        From this brief exchange we gather that negatively, the subjectivity of the covenantal interaction can be prohibited by resistance to the Spirit’s leading. Positively, when the Spirit moves one’s will according to the reason of God’s mind revealed in the Word, or, in other words, imparting faith subjectively exercised, this faith in the truth of Scripture bridges the perceived chasm between subject and object. The Scripture and Spirit testify to their own truth and perfection. The believer is illuminated to this power by none other than God the Holy Spirit to accept the testimony of the Word giving the believer certainty of Scripture’s truth content. Calvin expresses it this way,

the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For God alone is a fit witness to himself in the Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit” Calvin, Institutes, 1.7.4 and again, “Let us, then, know that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals in our hearts.” Calvin, Institutes, 1.8.3.

The Spirit and Word move the subject to the objectivity and certainty of the Spirit’s witness and the Word’s revelation. This does not happen to all, but it does happen in the life of every covenant keeper.

Turning again to Francis Antony Knittel, New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John 5:7, and the Translators Preface written by William Evanson we receive a glimpse into late 18^th criticism of the Textus Receptus’ inclusion of 1 John 5:7. Note that in Evanson’s estimation, the attack upon the reading was driven by heterodox theological presuppositions. We pick up the reading on page 17 of the Translator’s Preface.

“Nor, when we leave Manuscript evidence to examine that of the Printed Editions of the Greek New Testament, will that conclusion be invalidated; but, on the contrary, most power fully corroborated. First in honor, as in place, stands that stupendous and magnificent monument, the Complutension Polyglot of Ximenes, which contains the “Princeps” Edition of the Greek Testament.[1] Every Princeps Edition is prima-facie evidence of the Readings in con temporary or antecedent Manuscripts. The Complutensian reads 1 John V. 7.: therefore that verse stood in the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament then existing and consulted by the Editors. Those Greek Manuscripts, we are assured by the Editors, were the most ancient, and the most valuable which could then be procured from the best public or private Collections in the world. The munificent Patron and Projector of that Work spared no expense or toil, and employed the ablest Scholars and Critics of the day in its completion. Its authority was held equivalent to that of the most authentic and ancient Greek Manuscripts then extant (as even Michaelis admits). It was referred to as the ultimate appeal from every subsequent Printed Edition; and it remained in the undisputed possession of that preeminence, throughout all Christendom, for nearly one hundred and fifty years, during the brightest days of the Reformation.”

The “first assailant” of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 was Johann Semler. Evanson continues,

“Its first assailant was the celebrated Wetstein; whose charges were repeated by the learned Sender  [eminent Critics no doubt, but, as we can fully prove, unsafe and most suspicious witnesses in the point at issue,] and upon their sole authority, upon their unsupported and peremptory dicta, have all subsequent opponents of the disputed verse impeached, not only the genuineness of that verse in the Complutensian New Testament, but the character of the whole Polyglott.

Now, if it be remembered, that both Wetstein and Semler ground their accusations almost solely upon motives which they invent, and impute to the Editors of the Complutensian, we are perfectly justified, not in fabricating and imputing any sinister intentions to these two Critics, but in stating their avowed religious tenets— tenets of such a nature, as, in ordinary cases, engender not only a suspicion of sinister motives, but of invalidity in those deductions which such persons choose to draw, in favour of their peculiar opinions.

Whoever has impartially examined Wetstein’s Annotations on the New Testament will be con vinced that the Learned Annotator did not believe in the Proper Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, he was openly charged with Socinianism; a charge which he could neither palliate nor deny. He was fully aware, that so long as the verse 1 John V. 7. remained an integral part of God’s Holy Word, no ingenuity of criticism could argue away the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Great then was his anxiety, and incalculable the toil and pains which he encountered, to destroy, if possible, the reputation of that Princeps Edition in which that verse was inserted. Where History or argument fails, he has recourse to sneer and sarcasm. Let any one read the subjoined Notes, and say whether I am not justified in impeaching Wetstein as an unsound witness in this cause. Biased and hostile as he shews himself, against the foundation-truth of Christianity, his testimony cannot be received without suspicion: it must be scrupulously weighed; and the result will be found to be captious, superficial criticism, insidious and un founded calumnies, upon the munificent Promoter and the learned and honest Editors of the noblest Biblical Undertaking in the world. Semler, who repeated these accusations, with many additional effusions of his own spleen, in his Reprint of Wetstein’s Prolegomena (1764-8), was an avowed supporter of Pelagianism. He denied the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. He was, if not the originator, certainly the great promoter of that Infidel system so fashionable amongst the modern Neologians or Rationalists of Germany: I mean the Accommodation Theory,[2] according to which Revelation is to be judged of, not by the evidences of its divine origin, but by its supposed utility. It is notorious, that at the time when he repeated Wetstein’s accusations against the Complutensian, he had never seen that Polyglott:[3] but he knew that it contained the disputed verse 1 John V. 7, and he was therefore determined to crush it altogether. Unquestionably he possessed gigantic intellectual powers, immense erudition, and unparalleled industry. But he has been encountered by a formidable antagonist, the celebrated Goezen,[4] of Hamburg who has thoroughly exposed the shallowness of his pretensions as a Critic of that great Work, demolished the whole fabric of his baseless invectives, and consigned him, and his prototype, Wetstein, to the pity of every impartial Theologian and genuine believer in the doctrines of Christianity.

Wetstein and Semler are, in fact, the only authorities appealed to by the depreciators of the Complutensian. Their unsupported assertions have been assumed as axioms; their sophisms, as mathematical demonstration. Their hypothesis respecting especially the Greek New Testament in that Polyglott, is, that ” the Editors formed the Greek on the Vulgate.” This hypothesis, unsubstantiated by even a shadow of proof, has been repeated by Protestants, in the face of unanswerable evidence to the contrary:[5] and, curious to say, it’s very opposite is maintained by a celebrated Roman-Catholic critic, Richard Simon, (Hist. Critiq. p. 516,) who asserts that the Complutensian Editors corrected the Vulgate Latin of the New Testament by the Original Greek Text!”

Note Evanson’s observation writing, “He was, if not the originator, certainly the great promoter of that Infidel system so fashionable amongst the modern Neologians or Rationalists of Germany: I mean the Accommodation Theory, according to which Revelation is to be judged of, not by the evidences of its divine origin, but by its supposed utility. ” This dichotomy continues to today. Either the Scripture is God’s word by “evidences of its divine origin,” that is, Scripture is self-authenticating (autopiston), self-attesting, ands self-interpreting, or it is judged by its “supposed utility,” or by some external criteria.

Francis Antony Knittel, New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John 5:7, translated by William Alleyn Evanson (London: C. and J. Rivington, St. Paul’s Church-yard, J Hatchard and Son, Piccadilly, 1829, 1785), Translators Preface, xvii-xxiii.

---

            [1] The Greek New Testament was first printed in the Complutensian Polyglott, and finished in the year 1514; though the entire Work was not completed until 1517, nor the Papal Privilegium obtained until 1520. Erasmus’s First Edition was printed in 1517.

            [2] For a fuller account of Semler, see Rev. H. J. Rose’s Four Ser mons on the State of the Protestant Religion in Germany : (a most valuable and interesting Work,) p. 45 et seq. First Edition.

            [3] This appears, from his Note on Erasmus’s Annotation already quoted. He there observes: “Since Erasmus has here noticed all the Variations between the Complutensian and the Codex Britannicus, yet without expressly stating that the former has epi thV ghV where the latter reads en th gn, he must have committed a mistake a few lines before, and been thinking of the Greek instead of the Latin in terra, which is much more correct than en th gh. Now, from what we learn in other Works, of the order of the words in the Complutensian New Testament, it is certain that the latter actually printed en th gh.” Every one knows, that the reading in the Complutensian is en thV ghV : therefore, Semler either deliberately falsifies, or never saw the Work which he criticizes. (See Goezen’s Vertheidigung &c. p.78.)

            [4] Goezen’s Works on this subject are enumerated in Knittel’s Note, p. 95. I am engaged in preparing a Translation of them for the press; and am encouraged to hope, they will prove a valuable accession to our Biblical Literature.

            [5] Goezen has collected nearly 1000 Variations between the Complutensian Greek New Testament and the Latin Vulgate; and these not trivial or insignificant, but the majority most important: in many, the sense of the Readings in the Complutensian is directly opposite to that in the Vulgate. (See Ausfuhrtichere Vertheidigung, pp. 276—506.)

In his defense of 1 John 5:7 and the necessity of teaching the Doctrine of the Trinity for the spiritual well-being of Christianity, Knittel strikes upon a practical issue of pastors who violate their consciences by not preaching what they know to be the word of God for fear of scholarly censorship. The same critical pressures of the “tone of the day in which we live” for Knittel in the late 18^th century are the same “tone” in 2022. Knittel writes,

But we are further told, that men of the newest and most refined taste in the Pastoral science lay it down as a  general rule of prudence, that “no Preacher should bring forward passages of Scripture in public worship, whose authenticity or interpretation are considered dubious, or even objectionable.” May I ask, By whom considered so? Is it by the Clergyman himself, who performs divine worship ? In this case, I have already stated my opinion. But suppose it is not the officiating Minister, but others, persons of distinction and influence, who give the tone to the age in which we live; whom the hearer, being a literary man knows (aye, and as stars of the first magnitude), through the means of his circulating library;—passages whose value is depreciated by such connoisseurs are to him destitute of effect; he smiles when he hears them from the pulpit; secretly laments his good Pastor’s ignorance of modern literature; takes a pinch of snuff; and, not to appear idle, turns over the leaves of his Hymn-book!

So then, this is the reason why the Preacher must suppress Scriptural proofs against his own conviction; and neglect them in his public discourses, the moment he happens to hear that men of celebrity have questioned, or actually rejected them! An admirable principle, forsooth! I should but insult your understanding, my Reverend Brethren, were I to utter another syllable in confutation of such a principle. Blessed be God! I know (and so do you) many distinguished individuals, but who are also real scholars and honest men (for celebrity too has its rabble)—men I say, who, though differing in opinion with me, and many of my Brother Clergymen, as regards this and some other passages of the Bible, would most sincerely, and as Christians, regret that we should suffer their celebrity to render us blind and faithless to our own convictions. But these are not the influential persons whom the Pastoralist, I allude to, intends. No; his are Gentlemen of a different caliber. Had this teacher of prudence been kind enough to name the parties whom he idolizes, we should more clearly understand what the good man properly means towards us poor Clergymen! His “distinguished individuals ” would soon stop our mouths, on all the truths peculiar to Christianity; because they are unwilling to discover that faith which we confess, in any passage of Scripture; but are skillful enough, either to reject all such passages as spurious, or interpret them as suits their own views. But in short, if ever a Clergy man suffers himself to be influenced by the spirit of the age, I see no further need he has of the Bible, conscience, learning, or common sense! No! Brethren, No! If we seek merely to please men, then are we not the servants of Christ!

Francis Antony Knittel,, New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John 5:7, translated by William Alleyn Evanson (London: C. and J. Rivington, St. Paul’s Church-yard, J Hatchard and Son, Piccadilly, 1829, 1785), 111-113

Mark Ward’s main argument against the use of the KJV is that it contains False Friends. In making this argument Dr. Ward chose 50 of these so called False Friends and explained why he thought they were False Friends. In this video right around the 3:30-4:00 mark Ward explains that he and one of his students took to counting all the occurrences of these 50 False Friends in the KJV. All told they counted 1,362 words which by their lights deserve to be called False Friends.

There are 783,137 total words in the KJV. Thus the total percentage of False Friends in the KJV is 0.174% or less than two tenths of a percent of the words in the KJV are False Friends.

So, by Ward’s own count, we ought to abandon the KJV because two tenths of a percent of the words of the KJV maybe words we think we understand but don’t [i.e., are False Friends].

For perspective, say you live in this house.

This house currently costs $1,875,000. 0.174% of $1,875,000 is $3,262.50. Mark Ward would have you get rid of this house because there are $3,262.50 worth of things about this house that you think you understand but don’t. He would tell you this house is not safe and that this house is not good enough for you. Furthermore, he would exhort you not to call this one house your home but to sell this one and purchase several other houses. And once you bought these several houses be sure to call them all equally home. Furthermore, anyone who is a One Home-Onlyist should be held in derision because all the people in the know say we need to have many houses and many homes but definitely move out of the one above because…False Friends.

So is it time to move and buy more houses or are you staying in your 4 Bed, 6 Bath, 6,700 sqft home with 28ft ceilings on 20 acres of land?

Lucas Trelcatius, Jr., is a Dutch Reformed theologian of the early orthodox era. Succeeding his father, Lucas Trelcatius, Sr., he served as professor extraordinarius at Leiden from 1602 until his death in 1607. This pericope is taken from a volume published in 1610, three years after his death by John Gawen who translated Trelcatius’ Latin text into English.

Published in 1604, the 1^st year of King James Version translation process, Trelcatius’ writings illuminates the high view of Scripture contemporary with the translation work. This short passage, a polemic against one of Rome’s finest apologists, Bellarmine, demonstrates the theological precommitments of that era that guided the King James Bible translators. The following is drawn from Book 1, Chapter 2 of A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinitie.

Of the Word of God

The same we thus define: It is a holy instrument concerning the truth, necessary to salvation, faithfully and perfectly written in the Canonical books by the Prophets and Apostles, as the Secretaries of God for the healthful instruction of the Church.

We call it an instrument both in respect of the Covenant, whereof God would have an Instrument to be made, and by a renewed contract publicly to be registered, as also in relation to another thing, as in the proper use and office thereof, because the holy Scripture is not for it self, but as the manner of Instruments is for another thing, the authority, perfection, perspicuousness, and use of this Instrument shall be made evident by a methodical resolution of the causes.

The Cause Efficient of the Scripture is God the Father in the Son by the Spirit, for the same hath the Father layed [oft]en to the Church by the word Enun[sia]tive, by the words of grace and power generally and specially, ordinarily and extraordinarily, the Son hath both ways confirmed it in the New Testament, the Holy Ghost sealeth the same in the hearts of the faithful by the word inwardly testifying, or by an inward testimony, the Scripture then is divine by original, and by the things thereof, both essential and natural, as also assumed.  

By Original, because every knowledge of truth is from the first truth, whereof the Scripture is the instrumental badge, and as it were a sharpened image: hence it is, that God both immediately with his own finger wrote the Decalogue in Tables, and mediately by his servants as his Notaries and public penmen commanded the whole compacted body of holy Scripture with every part thereof to be written….

Further, this authority is two ways considered, first in it self, secondly, in respect to us: the authority of the Scripture in its self is divine, if we consider the cause, subject and certainty of doctrine.

The Cause, because the authority of the Scripture is as great as of the holy Ghost who indicted both the matter and words thereof, and whose Prophets and Apostles were only amanuenses, penmen.

The Subject, for whereas there is wont to be a double respect to testimonies concerning the authority of a thing from the power and efficacy of him that witnesseth, the other from the nature and property of the Instrument, the Scripture, in respect of the things whereof it is an Instrument, hath an exceeding great and infallible authority.

The certainty of doctrine which the Scripture hath by God by Virtue, Verity and Complement: by Virtue, because he hath confirmed the same both at all times with his Spirit, and at convenient time with his works of grace and power: by Verity, because it containeth the whole truth communicable in it self both alone and perfectly: by Complement, because as in substance, so also in event all things are most certain, and most true in the Scripture.

Lucas Trelcatius, A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinitie wherein the Truth of every place proved, and the sophisms of Bellarmine are reproved, translated by John Gawen (London: Imprinted by T. P. for Francis Burton, dwelling in Pauls Church-yard, and the sign of the Green Dragon, 1610), 12-16