De Moor II:24: The Perspicuity of Scripture, Part 1

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.]

Furthermore, Sacred Scripture delivers the substance of Religion Perspicuously.  So that we might demonstrate this Perspicuity, it is to be observed:

A.  In general,

              α.  That that does not so much have regard unto the Things related, as unto the Manner of relating.  For Scripture treats the sublimest mysteries of salvation, even those that far transcend human capacity; but the Spirit in marvelous συνκαταβάσει/condescension sets forth the same in the Scriptures in so Perspicuous a manner that, although the proposed Matter in all its fullness often flees the sight fo the mind, yet the pious mind pursues the Word clearly setting forth that matter, and thence learns to understand the matter itself, which has been related, as far as understanding is required for salvation.  Thus clearly and perspicuously the Scripture reveals τὸ ὅτι, the fact, of mysteries, for example, the Trinity, the eternal Generation of the Son, etc., which is necessary for us to know and to believe for salvation:  but τὸ πῶς, τὸ διότι, the how and wherefore, lie hidden to us, and one is not required to know this for salvation.

              β.  We observe that nevertheless the Degrees of Perspicuity vary in the Sacred Scripture;

                             1.  In various Passages and parts of Scripture, of which variegated style of the Scriptures AUGUSTINE teaches us that there is manifest use, both in book II de Doctrina Christiana, chapter VI, opera, tome 3, part I, column 17, “Therefore, the Holy Spirit magnificently and profitably has modified the holy Scriptures in such a way that by the plainer passage He might meet need, but by the more obscure remove contempt”; and in Sermon XI or LXXI de Verbis Domini, chapter VII, opera, tome 5, column 272, “In all the abundance of the holy Scriptures, we are fed by the plain passages, and exercised by the obscure:  in the former hunger is banished, in the latter contempt.”

                             2.  In various Matters; thus prophetical matters are often of a more profound research, which God has left for our diligent investigation and for the exercise of our faith, and the Church’s necessary understanding of which He nevertheless does not exclude.  Dogmatic matters are more perspicuous, especially those that are absolutely necessary for salvation; not in such a way that no industry is needful for the understanding of these things:  to such an extent that with the help of legitimate means they are able to be understood from the Scriptures by individual believers unto salvation:  so that common people are not to be kept from the reading of Scripture as harmful and dangerous to them, nor is it necessary to depend upon the tradition and pronouncement of the Church.

B.  In particular, we assert a Subjective Perspicuity of this sort belonging to the Scriptures, that is, which inheres in the subject, concerning which the speech, namely, of the Scripture, is to us, on its part.  We deny an Objective Perspicuity of the Scriptures, or which extends itself to whatever objects outside of Scripture, that is, to whatever men reading it.  Which distinction our AUTHOR teaches to be employed commonly and rightly, the vain censure of certain more Recent Men not withstanding; on which words consult MARESIUS’ Systema Theologicum, locus I, § 44, note a, page 28; PETRUS VAN MASTRICHT’S Gangrænam Novitatum Cartesianarum, posterior Section, chapter II, § 2-5, pages 157-161.  We shall prove the former against the Papists in the following §.  The latter we now refute against the Socinians and Remonstrants.  Against whom we hold that the Scripture, however perspicuous, nevertheless is not able to be understood savingly apart from the special internal and supernatural Illumination of the Holy Spirit.

The Socinians deny this, among whom Ostorodus, Institutionibus, chapter I, pages 3, 4, writes, “they err grievously and dangerously, who think that the Sacred Scripture is in no way able to effect faith and obedience in men without the internal illumination and special revelation of the Holy Spirit; and that man is no otherwise able to have any use regarding salvation from the Scripture read or heard.”  And in chapter XXXIV de libero Arbitrio, page 285, § 3, “Whence it appears in what a dangerous error the Evangelicals abide, especially the Calvinists, etc., who think this, that men have no help from the hearing of the external Word of God, unless the Holy Spirit teaches them internally in a peculiar and hidden manner, and works faith and obedience in them”:  consult ARNOLDI’S Refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, pages 39-41, chapter IV, de Scriptura Sacra, § 1-4.

The Remonstrants understand things similarly, for example, in their Confessione, chapter I, § 14, “Such is the clarity and perspicuity of the Sacred Books (say they), especially ideas necessary to be understood for eternal salvation, that all Readers, not only the learned, but also the unlearned (indeed, furnished with common sense and judgment), are able to follow their meaning sufficiently:  only let them not allow themselves to be blinded by prejudice, vain confidence, or other depraved affections; but let them search this Scripture piously and painstakingly, etc.”  Add the words of Episcopius, sounding harshly enough in the ears, Disputationibus Theologicis, part I, Disputation III, § 1-9, and part III, Disputation III, § 1-3, opera, tome 2, part 2, compared with TRIGLAND’S Kerckelycke Geschiedenissen, volume 4, page 636a.  Nevertheless, sometimes our Adversaries, either teasing with words, or compelled by the force of truth, also speak of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and its use for the understanding of the Scriptures; as it is done in Catechesi Racoviensis “de Scriptura Sacra”, chapter III, question 3, pages 16, 17, upon which place consult ARNOLDI’S Refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, § 1, page 39, § 2, page 40, § 10, page 43.  You also may find that JAMES ARMINIUS, in Disputationibus Theologicis publicis, thesis XI, § 8, has a sounder understanding at this point than his followers.

The πρῶτα ψεῦδη, fundamental errors, of the Socinians and Remonstrants are, the Pelagian principle concerning the sufficient abilities of fallen man; the confusion of Philosophy and Christianity; the confusion of different kinds of clear perception, one that happens by the light of nature in natural matters, and another that happens by the light of grace with respect to mysteries.

Here, the question is not concerning just any sort of understanding of the Scriptures, but, as our Adversaries themselves dictate in the passages cited, concerning the understanding of Scripture as far as it is sufficient, by means of pious and painstaking investigation; concerning the understanding of the Scriptures, which is able to work faith and obedience, and from which it is given to man to draw saving uses.  Not concerning the Literal knowledge of the Grammatical Sense only, but concerning Practical and Spiritual knowledge.  At which point the Censura Confessionis Remonstrantium, chapter I, page 24, teaches that the grammatical or literal sense of Scripture is incorrectly mixed with its spiritual sense in this Question by Episcopius.  “But we,” the Censurers subjoin, “distinguishing the Grammatical Sense of Scripture from the Spiritual understanding of spiritual things, do indeed concede that the natural man is able to follow the former in a natural way:  but we deny that the power of the latter agrees with any natural man.”  Whence, while Episcopius took the opportunity to cavil in the Apologia Remonstrantium, chapter I, pages 33-35, and did not fear to write that this distinction of the Grammatical and Spiritual Sense is a device overly pedantic; our men have so clearly explained and vindicated this distinction and its usefulness.  “There is a Spiritual Sense,” are the words of HOORNBEECK, Socinianismo confutato, book I, chapter V, tome I, page 67 (who in the same place, pages 65-73, discourses at length concerning rightly establishing the State of the Controversy at this point), “that is not contained in the Grammatical, as such, and that is not poured out by the Holy Spirit to the mind of man following upon the Grammatical, but is given to man with the Grammatical or literal sense, so that man might not only know what the letters in the Sacred Books express, but rightly understand, comprehend, and even experience them:  this is the Spiritual Sense, distinguished from the Grammatical; and it is called Spiritual, 1.  because it is bestowed upon man by the Holy Spirit…, 2.  because it is elicited by man in a spiritual way, that is, by a supernatural and spiritual power and habit, bestowed upon man by the Holy Spirit above natural judgment and sense, Matthew 16:17.  3.  Because it is a practical sense and understanding, John 6:63.”  And so the Spiritual Sense here shall be a spiritual and saving Understanding of the Sense of Scripture, for which we require the Illumination of the Spirit.  Most satisfactorily the Most Illustrious TRIGLAND in his Antapologia, chapter III, page 58a, “In which sense the device shall be neither unsuitable nor pedantic, to distinguish here between the literal sense and the spiritual.  For, what the literal sense may be, that is indicated by the words themselves; the spiritual, that in the words is indicated by the Spirit of God.  Because that literal sense the impious, unbelieving, and heretics understand, but this spiritual sense they do not understand; whence it is that they reject the doctrine delivered in Sacred Scripture.  And thus it is best understood how the principal doctrine of Scripture concerning the Christ might be said to be foolishness by the wise of this world, 1 Corinthians 1:23.  For, from this it happens that they understood what this is, that He was crucified, that is, that He was fixed to a cross, and died on it; but they do not understand this according to the spiritual sense, that is, that this was delivered by the Spirit of God, because it was necessary on account of men’s sins, so that in this manner there might be a satisfaction for them, and therefore this might result in the glory of God, and in the salvation of men (which, nevertheless, all Sacred Scripture delivers); from this (I say) it happens that they repudiate that doctrine as vain and foolish….  And so that doctrine is called foolishness by the impious and unbelieving, because even those senses were foolish and altogether harsh to them; and they themselves were so foolish that they were neither able nor willing to understand those senses in a proper manner.”  Likewise on page 55b, “Natural man is able in some measure to perceive what the Sacred Scripture indicates, when it speaks of matters necessary for salvation; otherwise such a man would not be able to reject them as foolish:  nevertheless, distinctly and under that manner in which they are set forth and indicated, as such:  such things (perhaps it is to be read, as they are such, or, as spiritual), as necessary to salvation, he is not able to perceive them, because they are spiritually discerned; and therefore they are foolishness to him.  It is necessary, therefore, that the internal light of the Holy Spirit be added, by which a man might take hold, not only of what is indicated Grammatically in the Scripture’s words and modes of speaking; but also might consider and perceive that truth as spiritual and necessary for salvation.”  Add WILLIAM AMES’ Assertiones theologicas de Lumine Naturæ et Gratiæ, after Rescriptionem ad Grevinchovii responsum, pages 24-29; WITSIUS’ Practyke des Christendoms, pages 16-22, and Geestelyke Printen, chapters III, VII, X; likewise the exceptional oration of VALENTIN ARNOLD, Theologian of Herborn,[1] on this matter, Orationem inauguralem de Unico supremi Doctoris Christi, in Ecclesia Vicario, eoque vero docentium aeque ac discentium Doctore, delivered in 1758.  It is also able to be examined in E. T. Vertoog over het onderscheid der Kennisse van een Wedergeboren en Onwedergeboren Mensch, Boekzaal, April 1761, chapter V, pages 468-478.

Nevertheless, the Ministry of the divine Word, of an Interpreter not savingly illuminated, is not therefore to be rejected, as if he himself be not able rightly to explain the way of salvation to the people.  For, 1.  a Minister savingly illuminated is never able to be infallibly distinguished from another not thus illuminated.  2.  A Minister, furnished with a faith historical, albeit not saving, is able rightly to explain to others the sense of Sacred Scripture, although he himself does not savingly understand it, neither does he look upon the mysteries of salvation with eyes illuminated by saving faith:  just as a blind man is able to learn from one seeing a procured description of colors, and of other matters that are the object of sight; which that blind man, just like one seeing, thereafter shall be able to communicated with others, even if that blind man be able to form far less correctly the idea of the matters which he describes, nor be able to dwell with such delight upon those matters by the operation of his own intellect, as another rejoicing in sight:  compare VAN DER WAEYEN[2] en WITSIUS tegen de Labadisten, page 319; and GERARDUS VAN AALST’S[3] geestelyke Mengelstoffen, part I, treatise 5, pages 84-100.

We prove our Anti-Socinian thesis:

α.  From the Blindness of the natural man, whence one might form a twofold argument, to demonstrate that the Illumination of the Spirit is necessary for a spiritual and saving understanding of Scripture.

First, from a reckoning of the subject of Scripture we thus argue:  What contains incomprehensible Mysteries, vastly exceeding the capacity of men and only to be discerned spiritually,[4] that is not able to be savingly understood by blind and natural man apart from the inward Illumination of the Holy Spirit:  But the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments contains Mysteries of this sort.  Therefore.  The Minor is expressly related in many passages, Matthew 13:11; Romans 16:25, 26; Ephesians 3:8-10.  The rationale of the Major is that the principia/ foundations of nature and reason are not adequate for such Mysteries, 1 Corinthians 2:6-9.

Then, with respect to the thing predicated, Illumination necessary for the understanding of Scripture, it is permitted thus to be argued:  Whoever is blind in mind and slow and unyielding in heart to believe and obey, he is not able without the illuminating and regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit to understand the Scripture fruitfully, to embrace it in faith, and to yield obedience to it:  But man is such; totally natural before regeneration, but partly spiritually after regeneration.  The Major is not able to be denied:  it is confirmed in Deuteronomy 29:4.  The Minor is evident from Ephesians 5:8; Revelation 3:17; Luke 18:34; 24:25.  The whole argument is confirmed in 1 Corinthians 2:14:  ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται, but the natural man does not grasp, or does not accept, does not receive, does not admit, τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ·  μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστι, the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him:  καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, neither can he know, that is, those things, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται, because they are spiritually discerned, or neither can he know that they are spiritually discerned:  consult on this passage SPANHEIM’S Elenchum Controversiarum, opera, tome 3, column 1001; STEPHEN DE BRAIS’[5] Lecturas Theologicas de Auxiliis, after Analysin Epistolæ ad Romanos, pages 444-505; BUDDEUS’ Institutiones Theologiæ dogmaticæ, tome I, book I, chapter I, § 49, pages 84-86:  add 2 Corinthians 3:5; 4:4.

β.  We argue from those things that are delivered to us in Sacred Scripture concerning the Illumination of the Spirit:  in which,

              1.  It is sought by the Saints:  now that which the faithful earnestly ask for as necessary for them to understand the Scripture and keep it, that ought not to be thought little of and neglected as not necessary:  But such is the Grace and Illumination of the Holy Spirit, Psalm 119:18, 27, 33, 34; Ephesians 1:17, 18.  JEROME ad Paulinum, opera, tome I, page 104, “Uncover, says David, my eyes, and I shall behold wondrous things from thy Law.  If such a Prophet admits the darkness of ignorance, with what night of ignorance do you think us, little children and almost sucklings, to be circumscribed?  Now, this veil was not only placed on the face of Moses,[6] but also on the Evangelists and Apostles….  Unless all those things that were written by Him be opened, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens:[7]  they will opened with no one else unsealing.”[8]

              2.  This Illumination is promised by God:  if God now specifically promises this, that He is going to grant the gifts of His Spirit to His own unto this end, that by His grace and assistance they might be able to know the mind of the Lord in the Scriptures, and then to believe upon Him and obey; therefore, the Grace and Illumination of that Spirit is necessary for these things.  For God is not to be thought to have promised anything vain and that we do not need, nor is it esteemed as such by those that receive it; indeed, the very words of the promises sufficiently indicate that this is promised and conferred as altogether necessary for this matter, Isiah 59:21; John 16:12, 13; Isaiah 54:13 compared with John 6:44, 45.

              3.  Also, that Illumination of the Spirit is read in Sacred Scripture to have been graciously granted:  so that those to whom it has been given to understand and comprehend rightly the Sacred Scripture are said to have done this by the special assistance and grace of God, and of His Spirit, not by their own strength; Psalm 25:9; Luke 24:45, on which place see our AUTHOR’S Historiam Exaltationis Jesu Christi, book I, chapter XI, § 12; Acts 16:14; 1 Corinthians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 4:6; 1 John 2:27.

γ.  And so, what Scripture attributes to the grace of God and to His Spirit, let us not assign that to human strength, denying the honor owed to God:  But the Scripture does thus attribute expressly, 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Timothy 2:25; Matthew 13:11.

Consult CALVIN’S Institutes of the Christian Religion, book II, chapter II, § 19-25; ARNOLDI’S Refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, pages 41, 42, § 5-7; HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismum confutatum, tome I, book I, chapter V, section II, pages 73-78.  Add what things GROTIUS on Luke 24:45 cites upon this matter out of JUSTIN Martyr, ORIGEN, and the Apostolic Constitutions; see also what things EPIPHANIUS has in Ancorato, chapter XXVI, opera, tome 2, page 31.

On the other side, Ostorodus forcefully advocates a bi-membered Objection, which he sets forth by way of a twofold dilemma:  If man without the internal Illumination of the Spirit is not able to understand the Scripture in such a way that he might thence draw salutary fruit, the reason and fault for this matter would either be in the Scripture or in men.

1.  If the fault inhere in the Scripture, either it is too obscure and not written intelligibly; or it must be said that what is contained in Scripture is not the Word of God, and therefore it is not able to work in us faith or obedience.  But the contrary is evident concerning the Scripture:  in Psalm 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19; etc., it is called a light, etc.  Also, the whole is θεόπνευστος/inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16; and so it also has the power of engendering faith, Jeremiah 23:29; James 1:18, 21; etc.

2.  If the fault be in man, either he was thus created by God, so that by nature he is not able to understand divine things, even if they be externally revealed to him; or his nature was bound afterwards to contract such corruption that now at length he is unfit for the understanding of spiritual things.  We are unwilling that this fault should adhere to man by creation:  but our opponent does not concede that the nature of man was thereafter corrupted.

Response 1:  α.  We concede that the Scripture is Perspicuous subjectively:  but the internal Light of the Scripture does not give sight to the man reading the Scripture:  as the light of the sun does not bestow eyes to the blind.  β.  The Power of regeneration, illumination, and conversion ascribed to Scripture, by the corruption of man does not belong to it unless joined with the grace of the Spirit, 2 Corinthians 2:15.

Response 2:  We acknowledge that the whole man is created:  but that man and his faculties are not vitiated through corruption, and that the powers of understanding and judging in him rightly extend themselves to spiritual things even to the present day, as formerly in the state of Integrity, is begging the question and an altogether false πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error, the contrary of which is to be taught against the Pelagians and those Pelagianizing in Chapter 15;  neither is anything clearer able to be desired than what we heard from Paul, 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Now, it is not to be excepted against the distinction between Subjective and Objective Perspicuity, that patibiles/Passible qualities describe a relation to the object, which patitur, is experienced, and is affected through them:  Perspicuity is a passible quality; Therefore, it describes a Relation.  If, therefore, Perspicuity belongs to the Scripture, that is not only Subjective, but also Objective.

Response 1:  That altogether requires the Object, but a fit Object:  just as the light of the sun is perspicuous, but only to those rightly using the sense of sight; neither does its light penetrate into a room, except after the opening of the windows:  so also the Perspicuity of Scripture requires a man, whose soul is illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

Response 2:  Although the Perspicuity of the Scripture describes a relation to the intellect of man, it is none the less, even principally, its absolute state:  not otherwise than a lamp and the sun, although they give light to and shine upon men, bear light in themselves, whereby they are able to illuminate the eyes of men.

[1] Valentin Arnold (1712-1793) was a Reformed philosopher and theologian, serving as Professor of Philosophy (1745-1770) and of Theology (1770-1793) at Herborn.

[2] Johannes van der Waeyen (1639-1701) was a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian of the Cartesian-Cocceian school.  He served as Professor of Hebrew and Theology at Franeker from 1677 to 1701.

[3] Gerardus van Aalst (1678-1759) was a Dutch Reformed pastor.

[4] See 1 Corinthians 2:14.

[5] Stephen de Brais (c. 1630-c. 1677) was a French Reformed Pastor, and Professor of Theology at Saumur (1675-c. 1677).

[6] See 2 Corinthians 3:13-15.

[7] Revelation 3:7.

[8] See Revelation 5:1-7, 9; 6:1.