This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

and that I illuminate it with the light of history, without whose help the deceits and hideouts of those who dissent can hardly be uncovered.
X
But you will object that I am doing what has already been done, and that this question has already been sufficiently and abundantly examined by others, especially by the Triumvirate, who are most highly commended for their great excellence of learning and the magnitude of their merits regarding sacred matters: Vitus Ludovicus Seckendorf, in his immortal History of Lutheranism; Ernst Salomo Cyprian, in his convincing instruction on the origin and growth of the Papacy; and Georg Grosch, in the necessary defense of the Evangelical Church against the heretical history of Arnold. I am not unaware, nor do I deny, that most of the points of reasoning were supplied to me by these leaders and standard-bearers, whom one who is studious of these matters should always approach. Yet does it follow from this that that argument, which the industry of others has already cultivated, should no longer be handled by anyone? Can anything else be brought into the light regarding matters of fact other than what the monuments, excellent in their trustworthiness, have long since reported? If that were to hold, would the illustrious and fruitful studies of the Cyprians and Grosches (I would say, with the peace of such great men, who in my judgment are far superior, and I would argue humanly speaking, as the dialecticians say) be