Second Commentary on the Doctrine of Abstinence

and to illuminate it with the light of history, by whose help the deceits and hiding places of those who disagree can hardly be opened.

But you will meet me with the objection that I am doing what has already been done, and that this question has already been sufficiently and abundantly thrashed out by others—especially by that triumvirate, most commendable as much for their excellence of learning as for the breadth of their merits in the sacred cause: VEIT LUDWIG VON SECKENDORFF in his immortal History of Lutheranism, ERNST SALOMON CYPRIAN in his convincing instruction on the origin and growth of the Papacy, and GEORG GROSCH in his necessary defense of the Evangelical Church against the Arnoldian History of Heretics. I am not unaware, nor do I deny, that most of the points of reasoning were provided to me by these masters and leaders, whom those who are students of these matters must always consult. Does it follow, however, that the subject matter which the industry of others has already cultivated should no longer be handled by anyone? Can anything else be brought forward in matters of fact other than what monuments, excellent in their reliability, have long since reported? If that were valid, would the excellent and fruitful studies of the Cyprians and Grosches (I speak with the indulgence of such men, in my judgment far superior, and I would argue human-wise, as the Dialecticians say) be