Table of Contents

Johann Lang, Epistola Nuncupatoria (1565) — full analysis

Source: Divi Iustini philosophi et martyris Opera… Tomus I, per Ioannem Langum Silesium (Basel: Froben, 1565), prefatory Epistola Nuncupatoria, pp. 3–34 as printed. Addressed to Maximilian, King of Bohemia, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Lucelburg, Silesia, Margrave of Moravia and Lusatia, Count of Tyrol (the future Emperor Maximilian II).

This is a full read-through of the entire dedicatory letter (33 pages), previously known to the project only through short excerpts (the authenticity passage at p. 54 of the Praefatio proper, and the Périon/Gelenius passage at pp. 26–27 of this Epistola). It substantially expands, and on one point corrects, the dossier — and gives, for the first time, a reasonably full picture of Lang’s own theological position.

Verification note. Read from rendered page images of LANGE_epistola_from_LANGE_Iustini_opera_per_Ioannem_Langum_Silesium_Tomus_I.pdf. The key passages (translation method, Périon/Gelenius, the Nicephorus dating, the tripartite division, and the justification passage) have been read carefully and transcribed; the broader theological excursus (see section 4 below) is summarized in general terms rather than transcribed line by line, and should be read in full before any direct quotation from those pages.

Structure of the letter

pp. 3–10 (“Historia sancti Iustini,” marginal rubric): biographical/hagiographic account of Justin — Samaritan birth, conversion from Platonism, life under the Antonines, defence of Christians before emperors and Senate, martyrdom. Notes Justin’s three Apologies, the third (to Marcus Aurelius) lost (“tertia… desideratur”); Lang substitutes Athenagoras’s Apology in its place in this edition. Interwoven with a martyrology of other early Christians (Flavia Domitilla, Eustathius, Apollonius under Commodus) as parallel witnesses.
pp. 8–10 (transition): the value of studying diverse holy lives and doctrine amid the doctrinal chaos of the age; a lament over the divisions of the time.
pp. 10–24 (the theological core — see §4 below): Lang’s own confessional programme: the restoration of “pure ancient religion,” anchored in Scripture and the ancient councils and Fathers; a sharp critique of “neoterici doctores” (scholastic theologians) on the doctrine of justification, followed by an extended Pauline defence of justification by faith without the works of the Law (Romans, Galatians).
pp. 24–26 (confessional-political framing): the “restitutio priscae religionis” argument from patristic antiquity (Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria) tied explicitly to the precedent of Emperor Maximilian I and the Luther controversy.
pp. 26–27 (the translation history): see §5 below — now complete.
p. 27 (the tripartite division of the edition): see §6 below — new to the dossier.
pp. 27–28: transition, dedicating the work to Maximilian.
p. 28 (the Nicephorus Callistus dating): see §7 below — resolves a discrepancy.
pp. 28–34 (dedicatory exempla): a “mirror for princes” passage — Old Testament kings (David, Hezekiah, Josiah) and Christian emperors (Constantine, Theodosius, Charlemagne) as models, quoting Prudentius at length; closes with a prayer and “Amen,” without a place/date formula.
p. 35ff. (appended testimonia, not part of the Epistola): Jerome’s Justin entry from De viris illustribus, and an Epiphanius fragment.

1. The theological core, in broad strokes (pp. 10–24) — Lang’s own position

This large central portion of the letter had not previously been examined by the project. It is the most direct statement available of Lang’s own theological convictions, and it is worth setting out in general terms even without a full line-by-line transcription.

(a) The programme: restoring “pure ancient religion” (p. 12)

Lang states his own hope directly (margin: “Veteris religionis restitutio”):

He does not believe the old and purer religion can be restored to Christ’s churches except, God helping, ancient and sincere Christian doctrine — with its foundation above all in the divine Scriptures, and then in the judgment of the primary universal councils and the ancient Fathers — is brought back into the schools and churches. Scripture is the pure fountain; but the councils and approved ancient Fathers, “according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit,” can instruct and teach how that fountain is best and most fruitfully drawn upon.

This is a classic Reformation ad fontes / sola scriptura-with-patristic-support position: Scripture as the ultimate source, but with the ancient councils and Fathers (not the medieval scholastic tradition) as the trustworthy guide to reading it correctly.

(b) The justification controversy (pp. 12–14)

Lang then gives a concrete, topical example: “Suborta proximis annis fuit, in quadam Germaniae ditione, de Iustificatione hominis scholastica contentio” — “In recent years a scholastic controversy over the justification of man arose in a certain German territory,” which grew into an open schism, so that the clergy there very nearly broke away from their prince entirely. The prince could only resolve it by public edict, decreeing — on the foundation of Scripture itself — that justification be taught according to the teaching of the apostle Paul.

This almost certainly refers to the Osiandrian controversy (Andreas Osiander’s dispute over justification in Ducal Prussia, early-to-mid 1550s, which did indeed split the local clergy and required ducal intervention). This is not confirmed by name in the text examined and should be verified against a study of the Osiandrian controversy before being stated as fact in the article, but the description matches closely.

Lang then sharply criticizes the “neoterici doctores” — the same term he uses elsewhere (see the earlier-analyzed Praefatio, p. 54) for the scholastic theologians — for complicating the “simple theory of justifying faith” (margin: “Simplex de fide iustificante theoria”) with what he calls, quoting Prudentius, hairsplitting and captious sophistries (κυμινοπρίσαι “cumin-splitters,” καρδιαμογλύφοι “heart-carvers” — Greek terms of mockery for excessive subtlety). He argues that Paul’s own doctrine — read “oculo & corde simplici,” with a simple eye and heart, through the grace of the Holy Spirit — is sufficient and was never intended to be complicated.

(c) Extended Pauline argument for justification by faith (pp. 13–24)

What follows is a long, carefully constructed argument for justification by faith without the works of the Law, built almost entirely from Paul (Romans 3–5, Galatians 2–6, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians), including:

Faith reckoned as righteousness (Abraham, Rom 4, Gen 15) — apart from works of the Mosaic Law and even apart from natural law.
“Neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love” (Gal 5) — faith as living and active, not “idle” (vacua), but expressed in love.
The Spirit poured into the heart producing genuine, non-simulated faith and a “new creature” (2 Cor 5, Gal 6).
This is presented as the single, unifying, sufficient doctrine — implicitly against scholastic elaborations that (in Lang’s view) obscure rather than clarify it.

Overall theological character of this section: this is an unambiguous evangelical/Reformation exposition of sola fide, built on close Pauline exegesis, explicitly critical of the “neoterici” (scholastic) theologians, and pointing to a real contemporary controversy (very likely Osiander’s) as the occasion for restating the doctrine “simply.” It is fully consistent with, and considerably deepens, the “Schwenckfeldian” theological profile already documented from Backus (CEBR dossier) and from Lang’s early formation under Crautwald: Lang is not merely a philologist with incidental spiritualist leanings, but presents himself in his own preface as an engaged party in a live confessional dispute, arguing for a scripturally- and patristically-grounded, anti-scholastic account of justification.

Caution. This section (pp. 13–24) has been read page by page for its overall argument and structure (see the fuller pass below); it is not transcribed and verified sentence by sentence throughout. Direct quotation for the article should go back to the page images for the exact passage needed.

(d) Full page-by-page pass, pp. 13–23 — and its bearing on Q. 107 and the closing adhortation

A closer, page-by-page reading (pp. 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21) confirms that this is one continuous, tightly organized argument, not a loose miscellany, and clarifies its relevance to Lang’s translation of Q. 107 and to the letter’s final exhortation to Maximilian:

pp. 13–17: justification by faith, extended. Further Pauline and patristic proofs (Heb 11, Rom 4–5, Gal 3, 1 Cor 1) that faith alone justifies, with works as its necessary fruit but never its ground — quoting Gregory Nazianzen (“faith without works is dead, as works without faith are dead”) and Basil (works yield no fiducia; glory belongs to God alone, “we are unworthy servants who have done only our duty,” Luke 17). The repeated structural move is: faith/Spirit/grace (inner, sufficient) vs works/flesh/human effort (outer, insufficient, and dangerous if trusted in).
p. 17 (continued), citing Gal 6: “he who sows in the Spirit reaps eternal life; he who sows in the flesh reaps corruption” — an explicit Spirit/flesh, inner/outer polarity, structurally identical to the logic Lang will apply to worship: what is “of the flesh” (external ceremony, and — by direct extension — instrumental music) is set against what is “of the Spirit” (internal, spiritual devotion).
pp. 19–21: Christology and mediation (Irenaeus, Lactantius, Athanasius, Epiphanius) — Christ as the one mediator uniting divine and human natures; a doctrinally dense but structurally separate excursus, prompted by the logic of justification (union with Christ) rather than by the worship question directly.
p. 21: the explicit return and pivot — Lang says outright, “redeam ad eum, unde paulo longius sum digressus” (“let me return to the point from which I have digressed a little”), and pivots to a sharp attack on “neophyti, recentesque & ex seipsis nati Theologi, qui antiquorum libros non legunt” — young, self-made “new” theologians who do not read the ancient books and even despise them (margin: “Theologi novi patrum, & ex seipsis nati”). He invokes Jeremiah 6:16 — “Stand at the crossroads and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls” — as the governing principle. This directly leads into the restitutio priscae religionis passage (p. 24, already documented in §2 above) and from there into the translation history itself (pp. 26–27).

Why this matters for interpreting the Q. 107 translation. The whole central section is built on one recurring opposition: inward, Spirit-given faith and devotion versus outward, fleshly performance — applied first to justification (faith vs works), then to true doctrine (the ancient, Spirit-guided Fathers vs the self-made “neoterici”). Q. 107 poses exactly this kind of question in liturgical form: is the “striking up” (ἀνακρουόμενον) a matter of outward instrumental performance, or of inward, spiritual utterance? Given the structural logic Lang has spent twelve pages establishing — that what is authentic and Christian is inward and Spirit-given, and what is merely outward/fleshly is at best secondary and at worst suspect — his choice to read ἀνακρουόμενον as carminis praeludio (an intonation of song, not an instrumental sound) and his interpretive relocation of the word away from a reading that would make it name instrumental music, are not an isolated philological decision. They are continuous with the theological grammar of the entire letter: the “inner” (spiritual song, faith, the ancient Spirit-guided Fathers) is repeatedly privileged over the “outer” (instrumental sound, works, the self-made new theologians).

Why this matters for the closing adhortation to Maximilian. The letter’s exempla-driven exhortation (pp. 28–34: David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Constantine, Theodosius, Charlemagne) calls on Maximilian to continue the “restitution of sincere religion” his great-grandfather Maximilian I began in response to Luther, and to govern “pie & prudenter” — piously and prudently — under the same Spirit-over-flesh, inward-over-outward logic developed at length in the letter’s theological core. The dedicatory prayer that closes the letter (p. 34) asks that Christ alone reign in and rule the royal household (“Unus sancta regat servetque palatia Christus”) — an inward, spiritual kingship, consonant with the whole preceding argument. Read against this, the letter’s structure is coherent from the doctrinal core to the translation-method passage to the final prayer: an evangelical insistence on the primacy of the spiritual/inward over the fleshly/outward runs through the whole document, and Lang’s rendering of Q. 107 is one concrete instance of that same conviction applied to a specific philological crux.

Caution. This reading (point 4 above, and the interpretive link to Q. 107 and the adhortation) is the project’s own synthesis, built on a careful but not word-for-word verified pass through pp. 13–23. The individual patristic citations (Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Irenaeus, Lactantius, Athanasius, Epiphanius) are read correctly as attributions but not independently checked against critical editions of those Fathers.

2. Confessional-political framing (pp. 24–26)

Lang frames the whole publishing project within the Reformation-era “ad fontes” argument, citing:

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem I: novelty in doctrine is itself evidence of heresy; truth is what was “handed down from the beginning” (“quod retro & a primordio traditum est”).
Clement of Alexandria, book VII (as cited by Lang, in Greek and Latin): the most ancient and truest form of the Church later degenerated, through the passage of time, into corrupted and adulterated heresies.
1 John 2:19: “they went out from us, but they were not of us.”
Emperor Maximilian I (the dedicatee’s great-grandfather) as historical precedent: Lang states that Maximilian I, around the time Martin Luther contested the pope’s authority and the sale of indulgences (“cum Martinus Lutherus pontificis eius potestatem atque indulgentiarum largitionem in controversiam vocaret”), judged — wisely and piously — that the neglect of the ancient Fathers, through scribal negligence and even ignorance, ought to be corrected, and patristic literature restored to the churches.

Significance: this explicitly ties Lang’s whole editorial project to the Reformation controversy over the sale of indulgences and papal authority, via the addressee’s own great-grandfather’s reported response to it — a considerably more pointed confessional-political framing than anything previously extracted from Lang’s prefatory material.

3. The translation-history passage (pp. 26–27) — now complete

Previously the dossier had only isolated sentences from this passage. Full context, transcribed:

“…incessit animo meo eorum accuratius cognoscendorum, atque mox etiam Latine vertendorum religiosa quaedam cupiditas. In qua versione illud in primis est a me actum, ut fideliter & pure, quantum fieri posset, verba quoque ipsa omnia, aut si id non posset, sententiae tamen autoris tanti exprimerentur: atque ut (iuxta divi Hieronymi consilium) in eis libris quod scriptum esset, transferretur potius, licet quare ita scriptum esset non plane constaret, quam id auferretur vel praetermitteretur quod me lateret: tum autem, ut quaedam loca, vel mendosa, vel intercisa, coniectura non inconsiderata & castigarentur & farcirentur, signo semicirculorum, puncto adiecto, notata. Cum aut translationem huiusmodi, Deo adiuvante, iam absolvissem: tum primum operum eorundem, una Ioachimi Perionii Galli, & altera Sigismundi Gelenii Boiemi, interpretatio Latina in manus pervenere meas. Eas ubi perlegi, nihil admodum meae operae poenituit. Nam & Perionius, egregius profecto vir, Graece atque Latine insigniter doctus, & professione Theologus, non tantum diligentiae & studii in Iustino transferendo, quantum in quibusdam Aristotelis libris tersius interpretandis posuisse, ac stylo aliquantulum expolito indulsisse: & Gelenius, doctus & ipse homo, & plurium linguarum sciens, accelerata translatione sua, cui etiam immortuus est: aut certe typographus, cui ille operam suam locavit, gratia novitatis, & commodum quoque aliquod, si ex officina eius Iustinus Latine primum editus prodiisset, captasse videtur. Quod tamen aliis eruditioribus iudicandum permitto. Itaque ut aliqua ex parte Opus hoc publicaretur absolutius, & cum maiore utilitate a pietatis studiosis legeretur libentius, excudendam etiam versionem meam aliquanto serius, propter certa impedimenta, quam aliquorum hominum expectatio tulit, curavi, Praefationibus meis & antiquorum Patrum autoritatibus & sententiis illustratam.”

Translation. “…a certain devout desire arose in my mind to know these works more accurately, and soon also to translate them into Latin. In this translation my first concern was that, so far as possible, the words themselves, all of them, should be faithfully and purely rendered — or if that were not possible, at least the sense of so great an author; and that (following the counsel of the blessed Jerome) what was written in those books should be translated, even where it was not entirely clear why it was so written, rather than that anything unclear to me should be removed or passed over; further, that certain places, either corrupt or broken off, should be emended and filled out by not inconsiderate conjecture, marked with the sign of half-circles with a point added. When I had already finished such a translation, with God’s help, only then did the Latin renderings of the same works come into my hands — one by Joachim Périon the Frenchman, the other by Sigismund Gelenius the Bohemian. Having read them through, I did not at all regret my labour. For Périon, truly an excellent man, remarkably learned in Greek and Latin and a theologian by profession, seems to have spent not as much diligence and study on translating Justin as on rendering certain books of Aristotle more elegantly, and to have indulged somewhat in polishing his style; and Gelenius, himself a learned man and skilled in several languages, seems — by his own hurried translation, over which he even died, or at least [it was] the printer to whom he had let out his labour, for the sake of novelty and some profit too, if Justin had come out first in Latin from his shop — to have been chasing [that]. This, however, I leave to more learned men to judge. And so, that this work might be published somewhat more complete in one respect, and read more gladly and with greater profit by those devoted to piety, I saw to it that my own translation, printed somewhat later than some men’s expectation demanded, on account of certain impediments, was illustrated with my own prefaces and with the authority and pronouncements of the ancient Fathers.”

New points this fuller context establishes:

Lang’s translation method is explicit: word-for-word where possible, Jerome’s De optimo genere interpretandi invoked as authority, never silently omitting difficult passages, and a specific diacritical mark for conjectural repair of corrupt/broken text.
The delay in publishing his own translation is explained by Lang himself: he deliberately took extra time to add his own prefaces and patristic authorities — the catena was a considered addition that caused the delay, not an afterthought. This directly supports the dossier’s existing reading of the catena as Lang’s defence of his philological intervention.
The independence claim stands exactly as previously known — and, per the Backus dossier, is contradicted by textual evidence of dependence on Périon.

4. The tripartite division of the edition (p. 27) — new to the dossier

“Ego vero, ut scripta sua ordine excusa in publicum prodirent, diviso opere toto in Tomos tres: in Primum ea quae ad Gentes de plurimae divinitatis impietate, quae ad Senatum principesque Romanos pro Christianorum defensione, & quae ad presbyterum Paulum de profana ac potissimum Aristotelicae philosophiae eversione edidit; in Secundum, Dialogum Tryphone, ubi Iudaei pervicacis erroris sui convincuntur, ac de veritate certitudineque Christianae religionis eruduntur; in Tertium, quae Ecclesiae filiis, Christianis orthodoxis, conscripsit, contuli.”

Translation. “I, indeed, so that his writings might be published to the world in order, divided the whole work into three volumes: into the First, those works he issued against the Gentiles, concerning the impiety of polytheism, those to the Roman Senate and princes in defence of the Christians, and that to the presbyter Paul on the overturning of profane and especially Aristotelian philosophy; into the Second, the Dialogue with Trypho, where the Jew is convicted of his obstinate error and instructed in the truth and certainty of the Christian religion; into the Third, I have gathered what he wrote for the children of the Church, the orthodox Christians.”

Directly relevant to the dossier: the QRO — our Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos — is explicitly Tomus III, described by Lang as written “for the children of the Church, the orthodox Christians.” This is Lang’s own placement of the work, in his own words, citable for how he classified and introduced the QRO within the corpus.

5. The Nicephorus Callistus dating (p. 28) — resolves the CEBR/ADB discrepancy

The CEBR dossier flagged an unresolved conflict: CEBR dates Lang’s translation of Nicephorus Callistus’s Historia ecclesiastica to 1555 (Basel: Oporinus & Herwagen), while the project’s ADB-based note claimed a posthumous 1588 edition (Frankfurt).

Lang’s own Epistola settles this:

“Et cum nono abhinc anno, Nicephori Callisti Ecclesiasticae historiae libros, ex Graeco in Latinum sermonem versos, Sacratissimo Principi, Romanorum tum Regi, nunc Imperatori, FERDINANDO, Celsitudinis tuae Parenti, hero meo benignissimo, inscripserim…”

Translation. “And since, nine years ago, I dedicated the books of Nicephorus Callistus’s Ecclesiastical History, translated from Greek into Latin, to the most sacred Prince, then King, now Emperor, of the Romans, FERDINAND, Your Highness’s father, my most gracious lord…”

Since the Epistola is part of the 1565 edition, “nine years ago” places the Nicephorus dedication at c. 1555/1556 — confirming CEBR’s date (1555), not the ADB’s 1588. Use 1555 (Basel: Oporinus & Herwagen) going forward; treat 1588 as either erroneous or a later reissue not otherwise documented here.

This also confirms a deliberate pattern of dedication across a generation: Nicephorus to Ferdinand (Maximilian’s father), Justin now to Maximilian himself — stated by Lang as his own reason for the choice of dedicatee.

6. The lost third Apology and Athenagoras (pp. 4–5) — new to the dossier

Lang notes Justin wrote three Apologies (to the Senate and people of Rome; to the Antonine emperors; and a third to Marcus Aurelius alone), of which the third is lost (“tertia… desideratur”). In its place, Lang includes Athenagoras’s Apology for the Christians (likewise addressed to Marcus Aurelius) in this edition, “in hoc Iustini codice, suo loco reposuimus.” A notable editorial supplementation not previously recorded in the dossier.

7. No closing date formula

Unlike Maumont’s Advertissement (dated 15 August 1554) and Périon’s dedication (dated 20 June 1554), Lang’s Epistola closes without a place/date formula — ending in dedicatory verses from Prudentius and “Et dicat omnis populus, Amen,” then passing directly into the appended Jerome/Epiphanius testimonia.

Summary of new findings and corrections

Lang’s own theological position is now documented directly: an evangelical, anti-scholastic, sola-fide reading of justification, argued at length from Paul, explicitly critical of the “neoterici doctores,” and occasioned by (very likely) the Osiandrian controversy — deepening, from Lang’s own pen, the “Schwenckfeldian”/evangelical profile already established via Backus and the Crautwald connection. The whole central section is structured by one recurring polarity — inward, Spirit-given faith/devotion versus outward, fleshly performance — which supplies the theological grammar behind Lang’s non-instrumental reading of ἀνακρουόμενον at Q. 107, and which resurfaces in the letter’s closing prayer for an inward, spiritual kingship over Maximilian’s household (see §1(d)).
Catena as deliberate, delay-causing addition — confirmed in Lang’s own words.
Tomus III = the QRO, explicitly characterized by Lang as written “for the children of the Church, the orthodox Christians.”
Nicephorus Callistus dating resolved: 1555, not 1588.
New confessional-political framing: Lang ties his project to the Reformation “ad fontes” argument and to Maximilian I’s reported response to the Luther/indulgences controversy.
The lost third Apology and the Athenagoras substitution — a specific editorial decision not previously documented.
No date formula closes the Epistola — a point of contrast with Maumont and Périon.

Open item for further work: confirm by name that the “scholastica contentio de Iustificatione” (pp. 12–13) refers to the Osiandrian controversy in Ducal Prussia, and obtain a secondary source for that identification before stating it as fact in the article.

8. Appended paratext: poems (p. 36) and the separate Praefatio to the Oratio ad Gentiles (pp. 37–40)

New source: LANGE_Praefatio_40-45_from_LANGE_Iustini_opera_per_Ioannem_Langum_Silesium_Tomus_I.pdf, pp. 35–40 as printed (immediately following the Jerome/Epiphanius testimonia already noted at the end of §”Structure of the letter,” item 10). This material is not part of the Epistola Nuncupatoria proper; it is a separate, self-contained paratext block: two short poems, followed by a distinct Praefatio to Justin’s Oratio ad Gentiles (the Cohortatio ad Graecos) — a different work from the QRO, but part of the same Tomus I.

(a) Two poems (p. 36)

A votive epigram (Greek, with Lang’s own Latin version): “Ob pulsos Langus morbos, partamque salutem, / Haec votiva tibi munera CHRISTE refert.” — “Because his illnesses have been driven off and health regained, Lang brings you, Christ, these votive gifts.” New biographical detail: Lang had evidently been ill during the project — a further, concrete reason (alongside the deliberate addition of prefaces and patristic authorities already noted in §3) for the delayed publication he mentions in the Epistola.
A iambic poem “To the Christian reader, on holy Justin” (signed I.L.): contrasts the many who dig a cistern holding stagnant, undrinkable water (quarrelsome, God-resistant men endlessly disputing) with Justin, who leads his own little stream from a truly divine source, sweet and clear, “with the Holy Spirit guiding his pious hands” (“Sancto regente spiritu manus pias”). Whoever follows him as guide reaches, with little labour, the ever-flowing, limpid river and the very fountain of the living God. The poem is followed by the same Jeremiah 6:16 citation (“State super vias… interrogate de semitis antiquis…”) that also closes the theological core of the Epistola (p. 21, §1(d) point 4 above) — confirming this verse as Lang’s recurring leitmotif: the “ancient path” versus the “broken cisterns” of the moderns (cf. Jer 2:13, the broken-cistern image implicit in the poem’s opening).

(b) The Praefatio to the Oratio ad Gentiles (pp. 37–40)

This is Lang’s separate introduction to Justin’s Oratio ad Gentiles (the Cohortatio ad Graecos), not to the QRO. Its argument:

Justin exhorts the pagans away from polytheism, which they held to obstinately through long custom and ancestral tradition.
Moses as the oldest lawgiver — older than all Greek poets and philosophers, as confirmed even by pagan historians themselves.
Despite absurd myths about the gods, Orpheus, Homer, Sophocles, Pythagoras, Plato, and above all the Sibyl are said, “as if by a kind of recantation,” to point correctly to the one God, the maker and governor of all things.
Numenius (via Origen), quoted approvingly: “Plato is Moses speaking Attic Greek” (the celebrated Platon Atticus Moses adage) — with extended Plato/Moses parallels (creation, paradise, the tower of Babel, the fall of Lucifer) claimed as borrowings by Plato from Moses.

A relevant find — an instrumental metaphor, but for prophetic inspiration, not liturgical music:

“Res enim divinas non nisi ab earum peritis doctoribus tradi posse, quales sacri nostri vates fuerint, Spiritus sancti afflatu & ductu de eis edocti: quibus, in reb. arcanis promulgandis, coelitus descendens divinum plectrum tanquam musicis instrumentis sit usum.”

Translation. “For divine things can only be handed down by teachers skilled in them — such as our sacred prophets were, taught concerning them by the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit; in whom, for the promulgation of hidden things, the divine plectrum descending from heaven made use of them as if they were musical instruments.”

Significance. Lang here uses a positive instrumental image — the prophets as instruments played by God’s “divine plectrum.” But note the precise function: this is a metaphor for prophetic inspiration (God “plays” the human being as a lyre), not a statement about liturgical instrumental music in worship. The instrument here is the prophet himself, passively played by the Spirit — not an argument for citherns or organs in church. This sharpens, rather than contradicts, the Q. 107 reading already established in §1(d): Lang is not instrumentally-averse as such; his objection (at Q. 107) is specifically to outward instrumental performance within worship as a fleshly/external practice, whereas the instrument-metaphor for passive, Spirit-given inspiration fits comfortably within his inward/spiritual theological grammar. The two uses are structurally consistent, not opposed: “instrument” is acceptable as a figure for the Spirit acting through a person, but not endorsed as a literal practice added to worship by human hands.

The Praefatio continues with extensive Platonic material (Timaeus, Parmenides, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Republic X and the Myth of Er) read as parallel to Mosaic/Christian doctrine.
Closing (p. 40), typological climax: Lang has Plato himself (paraphrased) say that one must wait “until someone more venerable and holier shows himself on earth, who will unlock the hidden fountains of truth, whose ineffable guidance all will follow” — a Christianizing, typological reading of Plato as unwitting forerunner of Christ. Closes: “Cui debetur decus, laus & gloria in aevum sempiternum, Amen.”

Bearing on the dossier

New biographical fact: an illness during the project, per Lang’s own votive epigram — a further concrete reason for the publication delay.
Jeremiah 6:16 confirmed as Lang’s recurring leitmotif, now attested twice (Epistola p. 21 and this poem) — reinforcing the ad fontes theological programme already documented.
The instrumental metaphor for prophetic inspiration nuances, and is consistent with, the inward/outward polarity identified in §1(d): “instrument” as a figure for the Spirit’s action on a person is acceptable; instrumental performance added to worship by human hands is not. This makes the Q. 107 translation choice more precisely explicable, not contradicted, by this passage.
This Praefatio belongs to the Oratio ad Gentiles, a different work within Tomus I — not the QRO — and should be cited as such if used.