[Institutiones Theologicae Ex Optimis Autoribus Concinatae (ex officinâ Francisci Moyardi, 1658)]
Johannes Hoornbeek (4 November 1617, Haarlem – 23 August 1666, Leiden), was a Dutch Reformed theologian. He was a student and a follower of Gisbertus Voetius, writing with him on spiritual desertion. Like his teacher Voetieus, he was also later a professor of theology at the University of Leiden and University of Utrecht. The two universities were closely related in the 17th century, and both the teacher and his students participated in the intellectual “Utrecht Circle.” Another member of the circle was Hornbeek's student colleague Andreas Essenius. The circle was also known as De Voetiaanse Kring (The Voetian Circle), and it was one of the most influential intellectual circles of the Dutch second Reformation.
Table of Contents:
<aside>
</aside>
Forasmuch as in other disciplines and in all things whatsoever, there is one principle of being and another of knowing, or whence they do exist or are known: so in theology, the principle of being is God alone everywhere; and the principle of knowing, which is meet and adequate unto theology, is the word of God, even Holy Scripture.
Trelcatius saith: Verily, in theology, neither within itself nor without itself ought there to be any other prior principles, neither of being nor of knowing. For there be two principles: one of the thing, and another of knowledge. Those be they from which other things are brought forth; these be they from which the knowledge of other things doth depend. Both must needs be considered by us analogically in theology. For the two principles are intimated unto us by the word ethymon, that is, God (theon) and the Word (logon): God is the principle of being, and the first cause of theology, from whom both the end of theology and the means unto that end do arise; the Word is the principle of knowing, whereby the end of theology and the means thereunto may be known. Both these principles be immediately first: God is the immediately first principle, for that nothing was before Him; the Word is the immediately first principle, for that nothing was spoken before it. Which two, albeit they agree in the dignity and office of principles, yet in respect of order, manner of action, and production of effects, they are distinguished and subordinated one unto the other. For God first speaketh unto us mediately in the Word; thereafter the Word leadeth us mediately unto the knowledge of God. Which knowledge, forasmuch as it is intended as the chief end and the adequate subject of all theology, that means subordinate thereunto, which we have called the Word, must needs be known beforehand.
The Word of God is considered in two manners: either in itself and its essence, simply, or according to the mode of writing that accompanieth it; in both ways, it comprehendeth the will of God revealed unto men, concerning their salvation, and the religion whereby it is obtained. But the Word of God was first delivered unto the Church without scripture, and therefore the Church is prior unto Scripture: yet Scripture, albeit it be later than the Word and that first Church, thereafter the Church existeth as prior, inasmuch as it is from Scripture that the Church is begotten. (1 Peter 1:23).
Trelcatius saith: Scripture is considered in two ways: either according to the primary substance of the Word, or according to the secondary mode of writing. In the former, Scripture is more ancient than the Church, forasmuch as the Church was begotten by it.
Ames saith: Hence Scripture, as touching the thing and the subject matter thereof, that is, insofar as it was doctrine divinely revealed, was prior unto the Church; but as touching the mode, in respect whereof it is properly called Scripture, it is posterior unto the first Church.
Trelcatius continueth: There is a twofold necessity: one absolute, the other hypothetical; or something is said to be necessary in two ways, either as a cause or as a concause. The Word of God revealed is simply necessary unto all as a cause; but Scripture as a concause. Yet it followeth not that, because the fathers unto Moses used the necessary cause without this concause, therefore we also may. For from a change of time, the conclusion is fallacious.
And God did wholly deem it necessary, for the better establishment and governance of His Church, to consign His will in Scripture, as it were on certain and sacred tables, and to transmit it unto all ages of the world and of the Church.
John Calvin saith: At length, that the truth of doctrine might remain in the world, surviving unto all ages with continual progress, He willed that the same oracles which He had deposited with the fathers should be consigned, as it were, on public tables. For this counsel was the Law promulgated, unto which afterward were added the Prophets as interpreters. For if we consider how slippery is the fall of the human mind into forgetfulness of God, how great the readiness unto every kind of error, how great the lust to fashion continually new and feigned religions, it may be perceived how necessary was such a setting down of heavenly doctrine, that it should neither perish through forgetfulness, nor vanish through error, nor be corrupted by the boldness of men. Seeing therefore it is manifest that God, toward all those whom He would at any time instruct unto good purpose, did employ the help of the Word—for He foresaw that His own image, imprinted in the fair form of the world, would be but little effectual—by this right way we ought to strive, if we do earnestly aspire unto the pure contemplation of God; unto the Word, I say, we must come.
Walaeus addeth: 2 Timothy 3; John 20; Isaiah 8:20—“Unto the law and to the testimony.” John 5:39—“Search the scriptures.” Luke 16:29—“They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” 2 Peter 1:19—“Ye have a prophetic word, which is very sure, and ye do well that ye take heed unto it, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place.” Therefore Scripture, which hath these uses, is necessary, for that these uses be necessary.