De Moor I:29: Theology as Apprehensive and Discursive

Concerning the Genus of Theology, which is Doctrine, it is observed moreover that it is not simply Noëtic, but also Dianoëtic, or not merely Apprehensive, but also Discursive, which passes from one thing to another, and gathers one thing from another.  A Doctrine would be Noëtic, if it simply relates what things are thus verbatim read expressly in Sacred Scripture:  but now it is Discursive, Argumentative, because it teaches also through discursus, what thing are not αὐτολεξεὶ, in the very words, read expressly in Sacred Scripture.  Thus, with our AUTHOR reminding, α.  Theology gives an account of its principium, that is, the divinity of the Sacred Scriptures from Marks inscribed in it:  β.  draws out other Truths from the Truths apprehended from a simple reading therein:  γ.  and confutes the opposite Errors.

Since this is not able to be done without the drawing of Consequences, our AUTHOR on this occasion contends that Consequences, if they be legitimate and innate, not imported, are lawful, useful, necessary in Theology, and that truths thus drawn out are divinely revealed:  he argues this, 1.  From the Example of Christ and of the Apostles, which it is lawful for us to imitate according to the measure of knowledge given to us.  Thus in Matthew 22:31, 32:  But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?  God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.  In which the principal force of the argument is not in this, that God spoke these words after the death of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for without a future Resurrection God was able to be called also the God of Abraham after his death in this sense, that Abraham while living had acknowledged and worshipped Him, indeed also because after death he was yet living to God according to the spirit:  but in this, that God to those, whose God He is, ought to render a reward worthy of Himself, of which sort there is none, except that which is eternal; of which they ought to have full enjoyment according to the spirit and the body equally, since they are equally God’s, and in which two equally they worshipped Him, and which as two essential parts together constitute man:  now, the promise, I shall be a God to thee, was not made to the soul of Abraham apart from the rest, but to the whole person consisting of soul and body; hence, if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were now after death living to God according to the spirit, they also would live at some point according to the body:  see VOETIUS’ Disputationum theologicarum, volume I, page 758; WITSIUS’ Œconomiam Fœderum, book III, chapter II, § 4-16.  Thus Paul from the Resurrection of Christ proves the Resurrection of all believers; and he also confirms the truth of the Resurrection of Christ Himself from various absurdities that otherwise follow, 1 Corinthians 15:12-23.  Thus by inference the Apostles were also obliged to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messiah promised in the Old Testament, since concerning Him nothing αὐτολεξεὶ, in express words, is read in the Old Testament.  Neither ought it to be excepted that the authority of Christ and the Apostles is infallible, and that therefore the consequences which they derive are of indubitable truth, but that our consequences are not such.  For, although in themselves, by the authority of the one speaking, the consequences of Christ and the Apostles are infallible; the consequence does not have its force, for example, which consequence the Lord derived in Matthew 22:31, 32 among the Sadducees, from the authority of the one speaking, which authority they were not acknowledging; but from the nature of the things said, and for that reason only was it admitted by them, for it was discerned to have its foundation in the saying of Moses alleged by Christ.  And thus always, when the Sacred Scriptures are argued, the force of the Consequence is situated in the natural connection of the Truths set forth and deduced from them.  2.  From the commandments to Search, distinct from a simple reading, John 5:39; Daniel 12:4.  Now, we search, not when we stick in the skin of the words, but when we attempt to penetrate unto the very marrow and inner sense; and from those things that we read, we also in some way or other understand things which we read not, as Augustine says.  Those that neglect this are refuted, Matthew 22:29; Luke 24:25, 26.  3.  From the Uses of the Sacred Scripture, which are not able to be obtained without consequences, 2 Timothy 3:16; Romans 15:4.  But no thesis shall ever be able to be translated into a hypothesis, neither shall any application of Scripture ever be able to be made available for Uses, either Theoretical or Practical, without consequences brought in.  Add, 4.  the Consent of the Fathers in LEYDEKKER’S Veritate Euangelica triumphante, tome I, book I, chapter XIX, § 10, pages 147, 148.  Indeed, see also SPANHEIM the Younger’s Stricturas adversus Bossueti Expositionem Doctrinæ Catholicæ,[1] chapter II, opera, tome III, columns 1070-1073.  These arguments and others for the legitimate use of Consequences are prolixly urged, and from multifarious Exceptions of adversaries are admirably vindicated by SPANHEIM the Elder in his Disputationibus Anti-Anabaptisticis, Disputationum theologicarum, part 2, Disputations XXI-XXXII.

The ancient Arians are opposed, who were repudiating τὸ ὁμοούσιον, the homoousios,[2] as not found in the Sacred Scriptures αὐτολεξεὶ, in express words; also the Pneumatomachi,[3] who were denying the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, because it is never said in the Sacred Scripture in so many words, The Holy Spirit is God, according to GREGORY NAZIANZEN, Oration V, de Theologia; also the Apollinarians[4] and Monophysites,[5] according to MAXIMUS Monachus,[6] in Orationibus XX, commonly attributed to Athanasius:  consult SPANHEIM’S Disputationes Anti-Anabaptisticas, Disputationum theologicarum, part 2, Disputation XXVI.  Indeed, this is wont to be done by all, as many as feel themselves to be pressed by consequences.

It is not strange then, that neither do the Anabaptists, at least a portion of them, concede a place for Consequences and the concluding of one thing from another.  Which is evident from the colloquies upon the exposition of the words in John 1:14, and the Word was made flesh, where they urge τὸ ῥητὸν, the thing expressed, and the letter precisely; and from their protests, indeed, their triumphing, that Pædobaptism is not able to be proven from the express words out of Sacred Scripture.  Yet the Anabaptists of Rypin[7] deny against SPANHEIM the Younger, that they reject legitimate Consequences.  So far, so good, say the Most Illustrious Man.  Yet they do, for example, in the case of Pædobaptism, Elencho controversiarum cum Enthusiastis et Anabaptistis, § IV, opera, tome 3, column 779.  Neither is it helpful to object anything out of 2 Corinthians 10:5 and Colossians 2:8, for, 1.  in the former place the Apostle is not discussing all Rationcinations, as worthy of opposition through the arms of our warfare; but only λογισμοῖς ἐπαιρομένοῖς κατὰ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, reasonings lifted up against the knowledge of God, reasonings opposing, that is, not submitting to the Gospel.  Such rationcinations are to be pulled down, because they are ἀσύστατοι/ inconsistent with faith; but not likewise legitimate rationcinations, which are subject to revelation, and are used to explain and apply it rightly.  Therefore, it is the Fallacy of division.  2.  In the latter passage, Paul does not condemn true Philosophy considered in itself, but vain and false Philosophy, which was among the Philosophers of that age, by which the doctrine of the Gospel was corrupted:  α.  For he calls it κενὴν ἀπάτην, vain deceit, but not all Philosophy is seducing.  β.  He sets forth an example of this sort of seducing doctrine, mentioning θρησκείαν τῶν ἀγγέλων, the worship of angels, verse 18, which is not a dogma of true Philosophy.  γ.  Paul similarly condemns πιθανολογίαν, persuasive speech, verse 4, yet not all, but παραλογιζομένην, that which beguiles:  otherwise, Paul himself was making use of πιθανολογίᾳ, persuasive speech, 2 Corinthians 5:11, ἀνθρώπους πείθομεν, we persuade men.

Voetius

Nevertheless, others side with the Anabaptists in hypothesis as far as our Consequences are concerned (while they themselves make use of Consequences, as all the former also have done and do for their own advantage):  namely, the Lutherans, in the case of Consubstantiation; and the more recent Papists, who, so that they might more easily free themselves from our arguments, by which invincibly from the Sacred Scripture we both construct our position, and refute their errors, wanted to bind us to this, that we teach that all our dogmas are contained in the Sacred Books in just so many words, with all use of Consequences rejected:  see VOETIUS’ Disputationum theologicarum, volume I, pages 5-12, § 4 and following.  The first among the Papists to have contrived this art is said to be either Renatus Benedictus, the Parisian Theologian;[8] or Joannes Contierius or Gontierius, a Jesuit; or Jacobus Perronius, Cardinal,[9] since hereafter he published the same, and won still greater celebrity for this method; or Franciscus Veronius, Jesuit,[10] whom many others followed, among whom the Fratres Walenburgii[11] are especially noteworthy:  consult SPANHEIM’S Stricturas ad Expositionem Doctrinæ Catholicæ Episcopi Condomiensis, chapter I, opera, tome 3, columns 1037, 1038, 1043, and his Exercitationem de Præscriptione in rebus Fidei, Section I, § 2, Section VI, § 2-5, opera, tome 3, columns 1080, 1109-1111; and also BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VII, § 9, tome 2, pages 1274-1277.  Nevertheless, more of the celebrated Papists differ, stating that that which is deduced from the Scriptures by necessary and legitimate consequences is of faith; just as BELLARMINE,[12] among others, wrote:  “Nothing is of faith, except what God through the Apostles and Prophets has revealed, or what is evidently deduced from thence.”  See his libros IV de Verbo Dei, chapter IX, tome I, Controversiis, column 235; and his libros III de Justificatione, chapter VIII, Controversiis, tome 4, column 1113.

1.  Now, the more recent Papists twist our hypotheses concerning Scripture’s Perfection, Perspicuity, and Sufficiency, as if it would thence follow that no Consequences are needful; neither does Article V of the Confessionis Gallicanæ maintain this, which they cite unto this end.  For, when it is read there, “Sacred Scripture is the sum of all truth, and embraces whatsoever is required for the worship of God and our salvation; hence we say that it is lawful neither to men, nor even to the very Angels, to add to or take away from that Word:”  indeed, the Perfection of the Scripture is asserted, but it is not stated that nothing is to be admitted except what is read in the Sacred Scripture in so many words; otherwise it would not have been possible to add at the end, Also, therefore, we approve those three Symbols, namely, the Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian, because they are agreeable to that written Word of God.  That Article, therefore, maintains that God’s Word alone is retained, exclusive of whatever traditions; but it does not restrict us to the express word, exclusive of consequences.

2.  Superciliously they also oppose the obvious Defects in our Consequences, especially of the Authority of interpretation, which they elicit from 2 Peter 1:20, πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται, all prophecy of Scripture is not of private interpretation.  Response:  But Interpretation is able to be called private either subjectively or originally.  With respect to the former sense, Peter is not able to be understood to withdraw from all private men the right of interpreting Sacred Scripture; since elsewhere is commanded to the same the searching of the Scriptures,[13] the comparison of spiritual things with spiritual,[14] to prophesy according to the analogy of faith,[15] to apply the Scripture to whatever uses:[16]  indeed, Peter himself, to confirm the truth of Apostolic doctrine, in verse 19 immediately preceding, had sent all the faithful to the prophetic Word, so that by a comparison of those they might judge of the soundness of the preaching of the Apostles.  Therefore, he disapproves of Interpretation, ἐπίλυσιν, being private originally, ἰδίαν, private and singular, which arises from the brain and will of each one, and which the words of Scripture and their comparison do not supply.  Now, such an ἐπίλυσις/interpretation is to be rejected, even if it proceed from the Pope himself.  The truth of Consequences does not depend upon the Proposer, who draws the Consequences, but upon the force that is in the Consequence itself.  For example, if I say:  Every man is fallible; therefore, the Pope also:  the latter follows of its own accord.  But if even the Pope should say:  Marriage is not to be entered upon, because what is in the flesh is not able to please God or to enter heaven; that Proposition shall not withstanding remain false:  consult my Commentarium ad 2 Peter chapter 1.

[1] Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627-1704) was a Roman Catholic bishop and theologian.  He served as the court preacher to Louis XIV of France, and was renowned for his oratorical abilities.  His Exposition de la foi catholique was an attempt to reunite French Protestants to the Roman Church, by giving a somewhat modified and moderate presentation of Roman dogma.

[2] In the Arian crisis, the term, homoousios (a word not found in Scripture), was used by the Orthodox to assert that Christ is of the same substance with the Father.

[3] The Pneumatomachi (the Spirit-fighters), also known as the Macedonians, Semi-Arians, or Tropici, were an anti-Nicene sect, thriving in the countries around the Hellespont.  They denied the Deity of the Holy Spirit.

[4] Apollinaris (died 390), bishop of Laodicea, in his zeal to emphasize the full Deity of Jesus Christ and the unity of His person, asserted that Jesus was human with respect to his body, but His rational soul had been replaced by the Divine Logos.

[5] The Monophysites believe that the two natures of Jesus Christ are, in the incarnation, so united as to form a single nature.

[6] Maximus Monachus of Constantinople, sometimes also called the Confessor or the Theologian (c. 580-662), was a monk, scholar, and theologian.  He opposed Monothelitism, and suffered exile and torture for his position, which occasioned his death.  His position was vindicated at the Third Council of Constantinople.

[7] A city in Poland.

[8] Rene Benoit (1521-1608) served Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, as her Confessor (1561-1563).  He advanced to the theological faculty at Paris.

[9] Jacques Davy Duperron (1556-1618) was a French cardinal.  By his learning, eloquence, and zeal, he did much to withstand the advance of Calvinism in France.

[10] François Véron (c. 1575-1649) was a French Jesuit.  He entered freely and fully into the controversy with the Protestants

[11] Adrian and Peter von Walenburch (mid-seventeenth century) were Dutch (although working from Cologne) Counter-Reformation theologians.

[12] Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) entered the Order of the Jesuits in his late teens.  Bellarmine became one of the great theologians of his era, a Cardinal, and, after his death, a Doctor of the Church.

[13] John 5:39.

[14] 1 Corinthians 2:13.

[15] Romans 12:6:  “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith (κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως)…”

[16] For example, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.