De betoverde weereld ... in vier boeken

for the best, so that God may be glorified and the truth brought to light. It is, therefore, not my fault that I no longer hold to their common interpretation, which was also mine at first. Rather, it is the fault of those who have acted as I am now forced to do. Nevertheless, I am not alone in this; I simply follow many others, including those who came long after me and attempted the same without necessity. They wrote merely for the sake of writing, using their youthful exercises to change the long established interpretations and translations of the Scriptures by more learned men. It seemed to me, now that I am so far along in my years, that it was finally time to look with my own eyes and speak from the heart. For if some of us have been too hasty in increasing the number of arguments against those who think differently, making the Scripture speak in many places what is not in the words, that is for their own account. It is not for us, who are provided with better weapons to defend the truth upon which the entire Church rests. But this is a common failing: that each person brings his own understanding, or that of his masters, when he comes to the Bybel Bible. He then arranges the text according to the meaning which he first chose, without thorough investigation, as it seemed attractive to him. I remove that veil of prejudice. I then see what remains to find the unbiased judgment that declares the true sense of the Schriftuur Scripture. And I am certain that no person of sound mind would ever have explained any of those scriptural passages I investigate in the manner people have done, had the prejudice of the great power and strength of the Duivel Devil, or the intention to refute this or that error, not led them to it. I have already experienced a sample of this myself, as inquisitive and learned people listened to the language in which I held myself so close to the text of the Bible. I have already taught the most important main chapters openly from the pulpit, as was partly mentioned before. Through this, I had the opportunity to learn that my preaching created more of a longing for my writing. I have often been in conversation with men who are truly learned and possessed of Godvruchtigheid piety/godliness. When I presented the most important pieces from Scripture in this work to them (especially the second and third parts), they gave me to understand clearly enough that they were satisfied in part, and hoped for the same satisfaction from me regarding the rest. Whether that now corresponds with their expectation, I must, and

willingly will, leave to their judgment. While I also expect this from their friendship, I hold myself certain that, even if they do not take pleasure in everything, they will nonetheless praise my objective and assist me greatly in moving forward. Nevertheless, I also place it beyond doubt that the largest part of the readers (whom I never sought to please, but rather to serve their best interests) will think that I sin greatly by bringing such a work as this to light. Not in regard to this first Book, in which I do not declare my own opinion nor refute that of others, but only give an account of all kinds of opinions, which everyone shall recognize from the testimonies I bring forward. With the last two books I also see little difficulty, provided that the second book, which matters most, finds acceptance. For the greatest difficulty I foresee there will be because, in their judgment, I hold too little regarding the Devil. For it has already come so far that people almost believe it to be piety to attribute many wonders to the Devil. They consider it unbelief or recklessness if one does not want to believe that the Devil can do such things as thousands testify that he does. To be sure, that is now considered godliness: that if someone fears God from the heart, he must also fear the Devil. If not, he is held for an Atheïst Atheist, that is, one who believes in no God, because he cannot believe that there are two: one good and the other evil. But I think one could, with much greater right, give these people the name of Ditheïsten Ditheists those who believe in two gods, just as there were once Tritheïsten Tritheists those who believe in three gods. If one wishes to give me a new name because of my opinion: I can suffer it to be Monotheïst Monotheist, that is, one who believes in only one God: one Lord and Savior Jesus, upon whose words I entirely rely when he says: fear not those who can only kill the body: but Him who can destroy both body and soul. Matt. 10: v. 28. Much less do I fear him who has power over neither; nor the judgment of those who plead for him. But in the name of the Lord of Hosts original: "indien der Heirscharen," likely a printer's error for "in den Naame des Heeren der Heirscharen" I have thus attacked this Goliath; let us see who shall help him. Yet if someone else can convince me otherwise, and he wishes to do so with gentleness, I shall take it from him as a great friendship. But then I pray that he, along with me, might spare himself from