Zanchi on the Incarnation, Dedicatory Letter
Edited by David Attebury, January 2024. This is a compound work: I use a customized ChatGPT 4 to assist in the first translation draft, but check each line to the original and make changes.
4,992 words.
From On The Incarnation of the Son of God, published 1593.
H. ZANCHIUS ON THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD, Two Books,
IN WHICH THIS ENTIRE MYSTERY IS SOLIDLY EXPLAINED, the truth of the flesh of Christ is clearly demonstrated from the Holy Scriptures and the consensus of Orthodox antiquity: the dogma of Omnipresence, or the real communication of divine properties in human nature, is carefully examined: and finally, the objections of adversaries are clearly refuted with Scriptures and Fathers,
now first published for the use of the Church.
The argument and chapters of the books, the index placed below the preface, are shown to the readers.
Heidelberg,
At Josua Harnisch.
TO THE MOST NOBLE AND IN EVERY KIND OF VIRTUE MOST DISTINGUISHED MAN, Lord
HIPPOLYTUS A COLLIBUS, Counselor of the Most Serene Elector Palatine FREDERICK IV, etc.,
President of the Supreme Court of the Palatinate, etc.,
Lord to be honored with perpetual observance.
In wars, Most Noble Lord, we often see it happen that an enemy, however strongly repulsed, nevertheless tries the chance of Mars again, and with renewed spirit and restored strength, bursts into the enemy's land or stronghold with as much force as possible, inflicting as much damage as he can. This is also what Satan, the implacable enemy of mankind, does in attacking the fortress of truth. He does not rest when defeated, but repeatedly returns to the field, equipped with larger forces, engaging in new battles and using various strategies, now from here, now from there, trying to shake the very foundations, even attempting to completely overthrow them. This has been demonstrated by the experience of all ages, so that it can be neither doubtful nor obscure to any of the pious.
For just as, right from the dawn of the world, Satan attacked our first parents, striving to slander the most splendid works of God, to defame His salutary plans, and to pervert His extraordinary benefits, for which he received the name of the devil. He was wholly bent on extinguishing or at least obscuring the true knowledge of God and our happiness (which, alas, was too successful for him). So in subsequent times, he did not cease to violently attack the flock of the Lord, to ravage, to rage, to initiate new wars or renew old ones, but especially to lay traps for the foundation upon which the Church is built. That is, to undermine the true doctrine about the blessed seed, which would crush the head of the ancient serpent.
Indeed, that implacable enemy of truth saw that with this sacred mystery of the Messiah's person being undermined and corrupted in the minds of people with perverse opinions, their very salvation would also be overthrown. Thus, he rightly thought his deadly arrows should be aimed at this target, and not without success. For if we only consider the state of the Christian Church, setting aside the ancient Jewish people, we find that among those who boast of this name and profess Christ, there have been such varied and conflicting opinions about the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ that we cannot sufficiently lament the ‘strong delusion’ mentioned by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 and the fickleness of the human mind.
Considering this, it seems worthwhile to engage the minds of those who are led by a passion for truth. We seem to be doing a fitting and welcome task for Your Noble Excellency and the readers, if we briefly review what Satan has attempted in this matter through his emissaries in the past, and also briefly indicate what he has been plotting in our time in a parallel manner.
The records of the ancient doctors testify that, under the time of the Apostles, indeed while John was still alive, the sound doctrine of our Redeemer as the θεανθρώπως (God-man) and the Incarnation began to be questioned. Through certain refined instruments, the Devil attempted to attack and overturn both His divine and human nature.
First, Satan raised up Simon Magus, a notorious and most corrupt source of subsequent heresies, who denied both the divine and human nature of Christ. Then came Cerinthus, Ebion, and Carpocrates, who with blasphemous speech vomited out that Christ was merely a man (ψιλόν ἄνθρωπον), not God, and did not exist before His birth from Mary. Against these, the Apostle John is reported by the most serious authorities to have written his Gospel at the request of the bishops of Asia; these authorities include Irenaeus in Book I, Chapter 25; Jerome in the Catalog of Ecclesiastical Writers; Augustine in the preface to his Tractates on John (if indeed it is genuine); Eusebius in Book 2; and Fulgentius in Book 1 to Thrasimund. [References to Simon Magus. Irenaeus Book I, Chapters 20 & 30. Augustine, Book 2…Chapter 12. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Book 1, Chapter 13. Irenaeus, Letter c.23. Eusebius, Books 3, Chapter 28; Book 4, Chapter 14; and Book 7, Chapter 23.]
This blasphemous belief, slightly altered and embellished with the most vain fabrications, was renewed by one Artemon around the time of Emperor Severus, circa the year of Christ 199. It was also taken up by Theodotus of Byzantium; then by the notorious Paul of Samosata, an unworthy and unhappy bishop of the Church of Antioch, who most disgracefully defiled the mother of the Christian name; and after him by Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium, who almost resurrected and rekindled it to the great detriment of the Church. [References include Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum; Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, Book 4; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Books 5 and 6, Chapter 28. Artemon and Paul of Samosata.]
Then Praxeas emerged from the abyss, an adversary of Tertullian, along with Noetus and Sabellius, who held that in God there were only three names, not hypostases, and just as there is one essence, so there is only one person marked by different names in Scripture due to the diversity of roles. Thus, they attributed to God the Father the attributes of being incarnate and having suffered.
Following them was Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, a tremendous storm for the Church and a most deadly pestilence. Unlike the others, he did not consider Christ a mere man, but as God – however, as a created and made being from nothing, superior to all other creations in terms of time and dignity, but not less absurdly than impiously, as if true Deity could be counted among created things.
The Arian heresy nonetheless found many supporters, aided by the endeavors of certain Roman emperors, as well as the forces of the Lombards, Goths, and Vandals, and even by Pope Liberius of Rome (which one might find surprising in such a holy father), defended with violence. It spread over a long period across various regions of the world, inflicting a sorrowful and prolonged disaster on the Orthodox faith and the Church, almost leading to its annihilation. From this heresy emerged numerous Ariomanites, who stubbornly contended that the λόγος was different in essence and nature from the Father and was created out of non-existence. Hence they were called ἑτερούσιοι and ἐξυκόντιοι. *[heterousians from ἑτερούσιος—“of a different essence;” and exoukontians, from ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων—“out of non-existence”].
Indeed, as all falsehood is multifaceted and polymorphous, disagreeing both with itself and with truth; they soon divided into several factions, particularly into two main groups: the ὁμοιουσίους (homoiousians), who, by the insertion of a single iota, attempted to conceal Arianism under some sort of equality or similarity, but not unity, between the Father and the Son, thereby evading the ὁμοούσιον (homoousion) approved by the renowned Council of Nicaea, and hoped to misrepresent the Orthodox faith and true Catholic Christians; and the ανομοίους (anomoiousians), who openly declared the Son to be dissimilar to the Father.
All these groups were considered and labeled as Antichrists by the Orthodox Fathers, because, like defiant giants challenging God, they openly waged war against Christ. They dared to strip Him of His true divinity, maliciously shaking and even attempting to uproot the very foundations of our salvation. Therefore, once these furies were quashed, the uncorrupted Word of God and the confession of the Council of Nicaea concerning the true and eternal divinity of Christ, ὁμοουσίου (consubstantial) with the Father, were determined to be steadfastly upheld. Numerous pious decrees were established to this effect and were passed down to posterity.
But behold, that most cunning enemy, finding that this approach was not sufficiently effective, set out on another path and soon dispatched some of his substitutes, to whom it happened, as the poet sings, 'Fools, in avoiding faults, rush into the opposite ones.' These, in order not to deny but rather to profess the deity of Christ, took away the truth of the flesh, or dissolved the bond of the hypostatic union.
They emerged from the abominable school of that wicked Simon Magus, like some deadly storms: they invented with more than a dog’s impudence that Christ was only a man in appearance (δοκήσει) and seemingly, that he was seen as a phantom, and that he suffered not truly but figuratively, and by some illusion. Consider Saturninus the Syrian, a most frivolous man; Basilides of Alexandria, the most impure author of the most disgusting Gnostics; then Valentinus, an arch-heretic according to Epiphanius, who attributed to our Emmanuel a kind of celestial and ethereal flesh, much different from our flesh, which passed through Mary the virgin as through a canal, or as if filtered through a pipe.
These were joined by others, no less wicked according to Irenaeus in Book 1, such as Cerdo and Marcion, whom Polycarp called the firstborn of the Devil. Mani, the mad one (ἐπιμανής), whose offspring, the Manichaeans, also transformed flesh into a spiritual and airy essence, present in the Sun, Moon, stars, trees, plants, and foods (as testified by Augustine among others, and particularly in his Book 20 against Faustus the Manichaean). They left nothing human in Christ, attributing only appearance and illusion (φαντασία) to him; hence they were named Docetists (δοκίται). [Augustine, on Heresies, ch.3,4. id. Book 1,2 against Adversus, ch.12. Eusebius, Book 4, ch.7.] [Irenaeus, Book 3, ch.3. Eusebius, Book 5, ch.13].
Hardly had these monsters been defeated when Nestorius, a Syrian and Bishop of Constantinople, emerged. He was a vain, bold, loquacious, arrogant man, and a despiser of the teachings of the ancient doctors. He tore Christ's person into two, denying that Mary was the θεοτόκος (God-bearer) or that her son, in terms of his flesh, was the Son of God. He established one as a man, the son of a man, and the other as God, the Son of God. However, he admitted a unifying presence (ἐνεργητικῇ παρουσία); a partnership, dignity, and glory. Or (to use the words of Cyril in his second epistle to Successus, Bishop of the Diocese of Isauria) as united according to the equality of honor. Thus, in the man Christ, as in a temple, God dwells by grace (which he mistakenly tried to prove from Colossians 2, 'In him dwells...'). Because of this indwelling, the properties of Deity are ascribed to the man Christ, but only by participation, not by nature. Thus, he is endowed with equal power or divinity, and therefore is to be worshipped and revered simultaneously: and through whom God operates, as the bearer of God and His instrument; to whom, moreover, God dwells in a more perfect and excellent manner, with the fullness of gifts, or the communication of equal honor: more than with other saints. This genuine opinion of Nestorius is shown by Cyril, both in his later epistle to Successus and in his book 'On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten,’ chapters 27 and 28, with these words: The Nestorians say that equality of dignity was granted by God to the man, and they argue that this man alone shared all things with the Word and was honored with the majesty of divine eminence. [Isidore, Book 8 of Etymologies. Damascus, Book 3. Cassian, Book 2, Chapter 6.]
This error was refuted and rightly condemned in the First Council of Ephesus, mainly through the authority, effort, and labors of Cyril.
But behold, a few years later, while Eutyches, a monk and archimandrite (or abbot) of Byzantium, was trying to avoid the Charybdis* of Nestorius, he fell into the Scylla* of asserting that, just as there was one person, so there was only one nature of our Emmanuel after the union, namely the divine, which absorbed and deified humanity upon assuming it, and which suffered. This confused the natures and their properties, abolishing the human and, in effect, depriving Christ of both natures, transforming Him into a phantom composed of Deity and humanity, different from our flesh. Nevertheless, he shared a common error with Nestorius in that both admitted no distinction between the names of the natures and the person: an occasion of erring, as testified by other Fathers, as well as Maximus in 'Dialogue 1' and Boethus in 'The Book on the Two Natures of Christ.' [Theodoret, Dialogue 2. Vigilius, Books 1 and 2. Evagrius, Book 2, Chapters 6 and 16.] *Charybdis and Scylla are two mythic sea monsters: Odyssey, Book 12, lines 108-111.
However, the audacious delirium of this monk found notable patrons, and in the second Council of Ephesus, which was called 'robber' or 'predatory' due to the violence and irrationality exhibited, was approved through the efforts of the eunuch Chrysaphius and Dioscorus, the Bishop of Alexandria. But later, it was rightfully condemned in the pious, legitimate, and renowned Council of Chalcedon, although it continued to resurface like a hydra.
Indeed, some corrupt-minded individuals opposed the decree and Orthodox creed of the Council of Chalcedon, such as Timothy Aelurus, from whom the Timothyans and Monophysites originated, as mentioned by Nicephorus in Book 15, Chapter 17, and Evagrius in Books 2 and 8. Severus of Antioch, whom Nicephorus called impious and ἀκέφαλον (without a head), nevertheless became the head of the Acephalites and Theopaschites. Jacobus Syrus, nicknamed Zanzalus, from whom the Jacobites arose, who, along with others, confused the properties of natures. This was followed by the Monotheletes, Aphthartodocites, and other monstrous teachings.
Although the most faithful doctors strongly combated these errors, they could not prevent the widespread propagation of both Nestorian and Eutychian heresies by the lost and ferocious. Moreover, these heresies found a wide-open gate to be poured and embedded into the blasphemous Alcoran (Quran) through the use of a Nestorian monk named Sergius, aiding the impious Mahomet. His furious onslaughts raged terribly in the East, devastating the flourishing churches of Asia, Egypt, Africa, and even some in Europe. Thus, the salutary doctrine of Christ has long been assailed with various darts and tormented with impious disputes and conflicts. Nonetheless, through God's grace, the Church, having conquered the heretics with the sword of the word, unanimously preserved and defended the true faith in the real flesh of Jesus Christ. [Euagrius, Book I.3.6.33, I.4.6.4; Nicephorus, Book I.18]
Indeed, the decisions of the ancient Fathers and Councils, their pious sanctions, and their most substantial volumes should have been enough to satisfy even the most curious minds and remove doubts. However, if we look at events in our own time, we find that some turbulent and ambitious people have once again stirred up the old heretics' nest, bringing back into controversy matters that were rightly settled long ago. Has not Satan initiated the same tragedy in the Church, only with different characters? Has he not brought back Cerinthus, Ebion, Arius, Marcion, Nestorius, and Eutyches to the stage, to hinder, or rather demolish, the ongoing restoration of the Church?
Firstly, in this century, there were quite a few who sought to strip Christ of His eternal and true divinity, attempting to transform the divine-human (θεάνθρωπος) into a divine man (θειον ἄνθρωπον). The most notorious of these was the impure Servetus, in whom Paul of Samosata and Arius were reborn, as he dared to deny the hypostasis of του λόγου, turning it into some created idea, and shamelessly revived the most dreadful blasphemies from hell. From his school emerged many disciples, taught by Satan, such as Giorgio Biandrata, Ferenc Dávid, Gribaldus, Sozinus, Valentine Gentilis, who was truly a heathen Tritheist who divided the three persons into as many οὐσίας, and many other Ebionite χριστομάχοι (Christ-fighters), who ignited a disastrous fire in Sarmatia and Dacia, under which flourishing churches still burn.
Nor has that most relentless enemy spared any effort in this century to attack the other nature of Christ, namely His human nature. Thus, he has raised from the underworld new Marcionites, Manicheans, and ill-fated δυστυχεις ἐυτυχεῖς, I mean the Anabaptists, whose leaders Melchior Hoffman and Menno Simons, both in Belgium, shamelessly contended that there was only one nature in Christ, and that the Word was transformed into a suffering and mortal flesh. They denied that Christ had an earthly and human body, derived from the substance of the Holy Virgin Mary or the seed of Abraham, but rather a celestial and spiritual body. What is this if not to agree with the most abhorrent Valentinians, Marcionites, Apollinarists, denying that Christ came in the flesh, and claiming that He only seemed to wear flesh in δοκήσει or imagination? This is the very voice of the Antichrist himself, as the Apostle John testifies in 1 John 4:3. Yet these tares, sown by Catabaptist emissaries, are spread far and wide across the Lord's field and are eagerly received by many.
And not dissimilarly, the Schwenkfeldians are held by an error, who neither recognize the distinction of natures, which they equate, nor any properties of the body after resurrection, which they deify, openly introducing Eutychianism. The delusions of these groups, rightly expelled long ago by the orthodox, unfortunately seem to find reception in that majestic doctrine of the Ubiquity or Omnipresence of the flesh of Christ, which was thrust into the open by Johannes Brenz thirty years ago and is now commonly defended. Lest we seem to desire this comparison without cause: let there be a fair comparison of this cause with the beliefs of the ancient heretics. Thus, the patrons of Ubiquity first taught the Son of God, from the first moment of hypostatic union, has so infused all essential properties of the Deity into the human nature that the assumed human nature, along with the divine, is omnipotent, omniscient, present in all places simultaneously. Moreover, (which amounts to the same thing) the divine nature so fills the human nature that as to οὐσία [essence], it is in it, as in other things: and as to ἐνέργεια [activity], it has truly conferred all its idioms, equal power, and majesty upon it: indeed, humanity has been equated to the Deity, with only nature being the exception. However, when their successors later realized these claims were too absurdly stated and defended, they began to speak more carefully, not changing their opinion but their language. They referred the matter to a third kind of communication of properties, whereby divine properties really belong to humanity in the abstract, or abstractly, as they say.
Such a kind of communication is neither known to the Holy Scriptures nor does it differ in meaning from the prior one. Indeed, it is not far removed from the dream of Marcion. For if the flesh has always been everywhere since the beginning of the union, how could Christ have truly been born, truly lived on earth, truly suffered and died? He would then have borne not a truly human body, but an imaginary one, not subject to sight, touch, locality, movement, dimensions, or other natural properties of bodies: nor would he have truly, but only seemingly and illusively, suffered and died. Thus, we would have been redeemed only in appearance: and Christian religion itself would be a fantasy, as Saint Irenaeus rightly concluded against the heretics of his time.
Furthermore, how far is this from the fiction of the Manichaeans, about whom we spoke earlier, who placed Christ's body simultaneously in heaven, ether, air, and earth? As these modern theorists are not content with any limits, they posit his presence everywhere, in trees, stones, apples, pears, beer jugs, and other unsavory places, thus far surpassing those ancient heretics in quite a few leagues with their monstrous and extraordinary notions. If only their own books did not give full credence to this matter.
How much they provide an opportunity for the Samosatenians, Ebionites, and Arians to rejoice, and how much they open a window for them, has long been indicated, is still lamented, and will continue to be regretted by all who are moved by a zeal for divine glory. They did not hesitate to write: There is a dual deity in Christ, one eternal, essential, communicating; the other in time, communicated by grace: and there are two omnipotent natures. They continue to vociferate that denying the real communication of idioms is to deny Christ's divinity. Is Christ therefore God because of this participation in omnipotence and ubiquity made in time? Thus, He is not by nature but by grace, not truly God, but a fabricated and secondary one, indeed only divine by mode.
I do not wish to amplify or exaggerate the fact that (an indeed intolerable crime) these individuals twist, or rather distort, the statements of Holy Scripture, which clearly affirm the eternal divinity of Christ, to refer to the majesty communicated to his humanity. In this way, as much as lies in them, they strip us of the weapons with which the Orthodox have always fought against the Arianis, and by which the Antitrinitarians today are pierced and slain.
It will be clear to anyone who considers the matter carefully that it is not unjust to attribute the Nestorian heresy to the Ubiquitarians. For, just as Nestorius used to say, so do the leaders of the Ubiquitarians typically argue: the Son of God took on the Son of Mary and filled him with his majesty, as if one person assumed another, and there were different Sons of God and of Mary. Similarly, they claim that all divine majesty was poured from the Son of God into the Son of Man, as if the Son of God and the Son of Man were different. They also assert that the hypostasis of the λόγος was communicated to humanity, which they consider sometimes in union and sometimes apart, as if there were two persons or as if the flesh ever existed outside of the union. In this way, they seem to tear apart the natures and dissolve the union. They also define the hypostatic union in terms of habitation or the communication and transfusion of glory and divine properties, misusing Paul's words in Colossians 2, 'In him dwells,' in a similar manner to Nestorius.
Similarly, they assert that the Son of God operates through human nature as through an instrument. Furthermore, they claim that the λόγος dwells no less in Peter and any saint than in Christ, except that He communicates all things to His humanity, but not all things to Peter and the saints, etc. These views are almost exactly what Johannes Brenz wrote in his Recognitio [1564] and other books, and what Jakob Andreae frequently described. They so closely resemble Nestorianism that even Nestorius himself might not have spoken so bluntly. They also revive Eutyches by equating the natures in terms of properties, thereby confusing them. They strip the human nature of its human idioms and clothe it in divine ones, deify the body, proclaim it omnipotent, invisibly and illocally present both in heaven and earth in a repletive manner, and distinguish it from our bodies as ἑτερούσιον (of a different substance). They suggest that Christ's body, defined in the same way as our bodies, cannot be contained or comprehended. Finally, they not so obscurely imply that Christ suffered not only in the flesh but also in His divinity.
They thus combine the monstrosities of both Nestorius and Eutyches into a single aberration. They also agree with them in failing to distinguish between the abstract and the concrete, between nature and hypostasis, and in converting the communication of idioms into a real confusion. They barely accept the concept of τρόπος ἀντιδόσεως (the manner of mutual position). They elevate the authority of the ancient Fathers and, until very recently, have been wont to look down upon them with great arrogance. They have barely refrained from taking up the pen against these Fathers.
But they also precipitously fall into the heresy of the Monophysites and Monotheletes, by assigning one power and action, as well as idioms, to both natures, and thus effectively merging them into one nature, understanding, and will. For those who have one power and action also have one nature; and those with different natures also have different operations, as rightly defined in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, held under Constantine Pogonatus in Byzantium, and lucidly confirmed by John of Damascus in Book 3, Chapter 15.
Nor do they follow far behind the Eutychian offspring, the Acephalos, Theopaschites, Severians, and Jacobites, who, much like these [the Ubiquitarians], do not seem to want to mix natures, yet mix the properties of the natures; attributing a ubiquitous body and a passible divinity to Christ, as seen in the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and Nicephorus, Book 18. Lastly, the opinion of the Ubiquitarians about the real communication of majesty and divine properties into human nature, which participation is said to be amplified and perfected by the session at the right hand of God, is very similar to the Schwengfeldian delusion. This fiction implies an equalization and confusion of natures, and an imperfection in the hypostatic union at the beginning of the incarnation, which is absurd and impious even to contemplate.
Therefore, who among those endowed with Christian piety and zeal cannot see that the ubiquity or omnipresence proclaimed by these demagogues, no matter how they may color it, is the source of many monstrosities? For which reason we should rightfully say a long farewell to it, and send back its messenger: and let us retain and assert the true and Orthodox doctrine, which Christ and the Apostles delivered, the Martyrs strengthened with their blood, all Orthodox Churches have approved for so many centuries, and the faithful have diligently kept until now.
Therefore, after the venerable Father and father-in-law of ours, Dr. Hieronymus Zanchius, formerly Professor of Holy Theology in the Universities of Strasbourg, Heidelberg, and Neustadt, had vigorously and thoroughly defended the true and eternal deity of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, against the Samosatenians, Ebionites, Arians, Tritheists, and Antitrinitarians of our age in his illustrious work On The Three Elohim; and seeing that Satan was also attacking, indeed undermining, the human nature, especially with the widely acclaimed and accepted fabrications of the Ubiquitarians, whose foulness Dr. Martin Chemnitz attempted to cover with paint and whitewash, dragging into the arena even the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, twisted to his purpose, to bolster his faltering cause.
In response to the sophistry of this and other adversaries who distort the truth about the mystery of the Incarnation and the unconfused properties of the natures, it was considered appropriate to assert the true doctrine and to expose the twists, evasions, and errors of the adversaries, as well as to refute their contrary arguments, both from the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. This task was deemed not unworthy, and it is hoped that it has been accomplished not only successfully but also to the benefit of the Church, through this volume which we now bring to light.
Reflecting upon whom to dedicate this work, your distinguished and excellent self, Noble and Preeminent Sir, primarily came to mind. We decided to consecrate it in everlasting memory of Zanchi's name and as a testament to our reverence towards you. Inscriptions of this nature aim chiefly to bolster the books with the authority of those to whom they are dedicated, thereby recommending them to all readers. Who could be more fitting and appropriate for the dedication of this present book than you, who holds the truth of doctrine and the wellbeing of the churches close to your heart, and who possesses an excellent ability to judge not only matters concerning the entire Christian religion but also the controversies surrounding the Ubiquitarians?
Thus, for your love of Christ and the truth, and with your exceptional knowledge in all fields of learning, as well as the distinguished standing you rightfully possess, you will, I hope, grant your favor to this volume, bestowing upon it no small measure of prestige. We omit mention of your remarkable virtues, which you have previously displayed in various public offices and embassies to the most Serene Kings and Princes, and continue to exhibit daily in the Electoral Court. This omission is partly because your modesty shuns such praise and partly because your virtues shine so brightly, placed in a prominent position, that they hardly need the added illumination of our modest discourse.
We are confident, given your profound humanity and your favorable disposition towards Dr. Hieronymus Zanchius, that you will receive our dedication with gratitude. You cherished, honored, and esteemed him during his life, and we trust you will accept this volume with a kindly countenance, as a tribute to the author himself and as a testament to our esteem for you. We hope that you will embrace not only the name and writings of Dr. Zanchius but also his descendants and relatives under your patronage, a request we make most earnestly.
We pray to God Almighty that He may preserve Your Noble Excellency with your family, safe and sound for His glory and for the benefit of the Church and the State, and enrich you with every kind of blessing. This is our prayer in the Calends of September, in the year of Christ 1593.
To the Most Noble Your Excellency and Lord,
Most devoted sons and sons-in-law of Dr. Zanchius,
Titus Cornelius,
Ludovicus
ZANCHII, Hieronymus Robertus
Henricus Conchardus Mechliniensis
Georgius Gabelus Heidelbergensis
Iob. Rudolph. Bouellus, Med. D.