De Moor II:39: Private and Ministerial Judgment

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

Moreover, it is to be observed with our AUTHOR concerning the Exposition of the genuine Sense and the conjoined separation from falsehoods, what is wont to go under the name of Controversies of Interpretation and of Judgment.  As far as the Subject of this Judgment and Interpretation is concerned, in the power of which the Right of interpretation and judgment resides; the Judgment of private Discretion comes here to be distinguished from the Judgment of public Determination:  likewise the Judgment ὑπηρετικὸν/servile or Ministerial from the Judgment αὐτοκρατορικῷ/autocratic of absolute and legislative authority.  Therefore, we hold distinctly:

1.  That the Private Judgment of Discretion is competent to individual believers illuminated by the Holy Spirit:  for,

              α.  This is committed to them, Romans 14:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; 1 Corinthians 7:23; 10:15.

              β.  This their practice is commended, Acts 17:11.

              γ.  This their Right is established by general assertions of Paul, 1 Corinthians 2:15; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Hebrews 5:14.

The Roman Church takes from Private Individuals this Judgment of Discretion, when they maintain that everyone depends entirely upon the Judgment and supreme authority of the Church, and in blind faith receives whatever the Church decides is to be believed.

See what things were written upon this matter by Valerian the Great, a Capuchin,[1] in his Judicio de acatholicorum et catholicorum regula credenda, as related by BUDDEUS in his Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VII, § 9, tome 2, page 1277.

Unto which cause they abuse, α.  the Apostolic Admonition, Hebrews 13:17.  We respond:  That obedience toward Overseers ought not to be blind and universal, but in the Lord, by comparison with Ephesians 6:1, who is to be heeded above men, and to whom alone we owe blind obedience, Isaiah 1:2; Matthew 17:5; that this blind obedience is to be furnished to human Overseers, the Lord Jesus Himself does not at all impress upon the nations in Matthew 23:2, 3, concerning the genuine sense of which passage, see below in § 42, Part I, and Chapter XX, § 37, Part III.  β.  The saying of the same Apostle, whereby he refers to the Discerning of Spirits among the peculiar gifts of the Spirit, 1 Corinthians 12:10, not common to all.  We respond:  Paul speaks of the greater extraordinary gifts:  but this does not take away the lesser ordinary gift, which also varies in degree in different people.  γ.  They cry out that the ἰδίαν ἐπίλυσιν, private interpretation, prohibited by Peter, 2 Peter 1:20, is thus set up.  In which passage, a.  we do not indeed think that the common reading of the Greek text is to be disturbed, by putting ἐπηλύσεως/approach or ἐπελεύσεως, coming on, in the place of ἐπιλύσεως/interpretation, so that it might be referred to the Holy Spirit coming upon the Holy Writers through the revelation of divine mysteries and the impulse to share those things with the Church.  Neither, b.  do we urge that the word ἐπίλυσιν[2] pertains to the first setting forth of Scripture; whether the expression be sought from the opening and loosing, as it were, of the mouth and lips, or from the sending forth of runners with the bars removed from the doors in the race-course.  c.  We acknowledge that ἐπίλυσιν is to be taken of the explication and interpretation of the Scriptures and of the resolution of doubts occurring therein; just as the verb ἐπιλύειν is used of the explication of the sense of the parables, Mark 4:34:[3]  in which very thing, in 2 Peter 1:20, 21, they are aptly distinguished among themselves according to the intention of the Apostle, who wants those things that he relates in verse 21 concerning the first setting forth of the word to be considered as the reason whereby he would confirm those things that were said in verse 20.  But, although Peter now asserts that not all, that is, no prophecy of Scripture is ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως, of private interpretation,[4] he does not deny ἰδίαν ἐπίλυσιν, private interpretation, with respect to the subject, that is, the explanation of the Unlearned; thus he would contradict himself, who in verse 19 had commended to every believer attention to the prophetic Word, so that thus they might be rendered altogether persuaded concerning the truth of Apostolic doctrine:  which use from attention to the prophetic Word they would not be able to take up without Judgment concerning the sense of the prophecies:  but he rejects interpretation that is ἰδίαν/ private with respect to its origin, made θελήματι ἀνθρώπων, by the will of men, arising from one’s own brain; which according to the reason added from the divine origin of Scripture in verse 21, is made all the more manifest:  for, because everyone is the best interpreter of their own words, what Scripture had proceeded from the Holy Spirit as author, the interpretation of that was to be sought from that same Spirit speaking both in the context and elsewhere in Scripture:  see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales L, Part VI, § 9 and following; my own Commentarium Belgicum in 2 Peter 1; PETRUS VAN MASTRICHT’S Gangrænam Novitatum Cartesianarum, section I, chapter X, § 21, pages 128, 129.  Against the error of the Papists just now refuted is to be read SAMUEL WERENFEL’S Dissertatio apologetica pro Plebe Christiana adversus Doctores Judicium de Dogmatibus Fidei illi auferentes, Opuscula, pages 1-40.

Neither does Hobbes leave this Judgment of Discretion of Private Persons in good repair, against whom COCQUIUS disputes concerning this matter in Anatome Hobbesianismi, locus III, chapter VI, Exercitation I on Article XVII, chapter XVII, Hobbesii de Cive, “Whether the word of a legitimate Interpreter of the Scriptures is the Word of God?” pages 55-57.  Here Hobbes is followed by the Earl of Shaftesbury in his Characteristics; see LELAND’S Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, chapter 5, pages 112, 113.

2.  That a Ministerial Judgment, Public and externally Definitive, is competent to the Overseers of the Church, to whom the interpretation of Scripture and vigilance against heresies have been committed:  which is evident, α.  From the commandment with respect to the former, Malachi 2:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Timothy 2:15; with respect to the latter, Acts 20:30, 31; 2 Timothy 2:16; with respect to both, 2 Timothy 4:2.  β.  From practice, Nehemiah 8:9, in which our AUTHOR maintains that exposition, rather than translation, is understood; consult CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter I, pages 432, 433; BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VI, § 3, tome 2, pages 735a, 736b:  Acts 8:35; 1 Corinthians 15:12 and following, in which the Apostle refutes the heresy that was denying the Resurrection of the dead.  To which, γ.  the specific reason of their Duty is added, 1 Corinthians 4:1.  Where again the Many are more influential than individuals, in public Consistories, Classes, Synods, to be revered above private Doctors and by them, Acts 15:28, 29; 1 Corinthians 15:29, 32, 33.

The Remonstrants put little weight on this Judgment, Public and Definitive in the external court of the Church, and all but deprive the Church of it, to establish absolute freedom of thought concerning Religion; they defer the determination and accommodation of all controversies to the return of Jesus Christ; and, even while they detest the tyranny of Popery, they bring in an insurmountable Skepticism, and wrongly equate the Reformed with the Papists.  Wrongly, I say; since not one of the Reformed attributes to the Church Supreme Judgment, ἀνυπεύθυνον, not accountable, and Infallible of itself:  neither do they contend that the Church is above Scripture; but always subject the Church to the Judgment of Scripture; by Scripture as the norm do they want all the determinations of the Church and its overseers to be examined even by every private individual; only to be approved, not because of the authority of the one speaking, but because of the agreement of the same with the Scripture.

But, with these conditions posited, the Judgment of the Overseers of the Church, Public and Definitive, whereby they affirm not only, thus it appears to me, but also this is the Sense of Scripture, and what with due veneration is received and externally heard; we judge is not to be denied.  α.  For, if to each private person the Judgment of Discretion is competent, which the Remonstrants acknowledge; how much more to the Overseers of the Church, especially when many come together in Council?  β.  Do not the greater gifts granted to the Overseers procure a singular veneration of their opinion?  γ.  And if no determination against deadly errors be granted, how shall a heretic be recognized? in what manner and by whom shall he be cast out, except by the Overseers of the Church?  δ.  Therefore, the preservation of order, peace, and orthodoxy requires this sort of Definitive Judgement of the Church, and subjection to the same in the external court of the Church:  while an appeal from the same is always granted with respect to the internal court of conscience; in which court the Judgment of the Church obliges one no further than he has been persuaded concerning its agreement with the Scriptures:  see Confessionem Remonstrantium, chapter I, § 10-12, pages 4, 5; Censuram Confessionis Remonstrantium, chapter I, § 10-12, pages 18-22; Apologiam Remonstrantium, pages 29 and following; TRIGLAND’S Antapologiam, chapter III, pages 46-52.  Add Confessionem, chapter XXV, § 2, numbers 5, 6, page 322; Censuram Confessionis, chapter XXV, § 2, numbers 5, 6, pages 329, 330; Apologiam Remonstrantium, pages 295, 296a; Limborch’s Theologiam Christianam, book VII, chapter XIX, § 34-37; VITRINGA’S Orationem de Synodis, pages 26, 43-47, 71-93, in which among other things you may read, pages 85-88, “But if the Ministers of Christ discern of late deadly errors, covered with the veil of captious reasoning, that assail the Foundation of the Faith and shake it; that ambition and obstinacy have come into the parties; that the peace of the Church is disturbed; that schisms and the secession of parties is happening:  they understand that reason requires of their office, that they admonish the authors of new and false doctrine concerning their error, and return them to the way by refuting, convincing, and disputing in a Spirit of gentleness, patience, and Christian charity:  if these efforts fail of expectation, they abstain from public judgment no longer:  which either is not at all in the Church, or is to be exercised in this case.  If you should say that there is no public judgment:  then there is no Society.  For no Society is able to stand without discipline:  all discipline involves judgment.  There is no force of Law, no use of Law, without judgment.  Now, the Law of a religious Society, since it embraces Things to be Believed as much as Things to be Done, is exercised in the sight of God in the Church concerning faults of Doctrine as much as of Manners:  I do not deny that schism follows upon this Ecclesiastical judgment, if any oppose, and persist in maintaining the difference of opinion; but the fault of which those bear, that by a determination of private judgment separated themselves from the brethren, and went out from them,[5] as by the determination of public judgment they are shut out from their communion.  Certainly the Church in extreme cases does not fear this schism; neither did the Apostles fear it, etc.  Therefore, since to the Churches of Christ, and their Synods, the right of judgment concerning the doctrine of the Faith is not able to be denied; indeed, since they are bound to that judgment in certain cases, if they want their society to be whole and safe:  no one, I suppose, would disagree with me that it is more correctly done, if what is the right, the duty of an individual Church, in cases of greater moment, on which the welfare of many Churches turns, be transferred to Synodal Assemblies, composed of the Overseers and Doctors of the Churches, the best of their kind and the most skillful in divine things, so that deliberation concerning a matter common to many might be managed with so much the greater prudence and a better outcome.”  In which things, optimally written, I altogether agree with that Most Illustrious Man.  On this controversy it will also be helpful to look into LEYDEKKER’S Facem Veritatis, locus II, controversy IV, pages 41-44, compared with the Præfatione, ****** I.

What our AUTHOR adds concerning the public Assemblies, Classes, and Synods of the Overseers of the Church; in the summoning, directing, confirming, and defending of which, pious Magistrates have their rights, by no means to be infringed by impious neglect or abuse:  concerning this see Chapter XXXIII, § 26, 32.

3.  Moreover, Normative and Directive Judgment ought to be attributed to the Scripture itself, which, as the fountain of divine law and the most absolute norm of faith, ought to direct the understanding in Judgment concerning controversies of faith, and ought and is able to supply that understanding, whence definitions in controversies of this sort are sought by the subaltern Judge; which is the function of Law in every republic; ARISTOTLE, Politics, book IV, chapter IV at the end:  Δεῖ γὰρ τὸν μὲν νόμον ἄρχειν πάντων·  τῶν δὲ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὴν πολιτείαν κρίνειν, for Law ought to rule all, but in particulars magistrates and the republic ought to judge; namely, by application of the Law to particular cases; whence Law is also able to be called Judge in a broad sense and the normative Judge, distinct from a personal Judge.  This same Scripture, as the norm of its own Interpretations also, is the highest rule, Isaiah 8:20, on which text see § 4 of this Chapter; 2 Peter 1:19, 20, of which passage I have recently spoken, but see more on § 32.

4.  But whether there be in addition any Judge Supreme, Absolute, Infallible, ἀνυπεύθυνος, not accountable, in interpreting the Sense of Scripture and deciding Controversies concerning matters of Faith, there is great controversy.  Our AUTHOR will untangle this Question, by proceeding, 1.  Negatively, § 40-42; 2.  Positively, § 43.  The orthodox opinion concerning this controversy is set forth by VAN MASTRICHT, Gangræna Novitatum Cartesianarum, Section I, chapter X, § 19, pages 125-127.

[1] Valerinaus Magnus (1586-1661) was an Italian Capuchin (a subdivision of the Franciscans), appointed as Apostolic missionary to Germany, Hungary, and Poland.

[2] Ἐπίλυσις is a loosing; and figuratively the loosing of difficulties, or interpretation.

[3] Mark 4:34:  “But without a parable spake he not unto them:  and when they were alone, he expounded (ἐπέλυε) all things to his disciples.”

[4] 2 Peter 1:20:  “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation (ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται).”

[5] 1 John 2:19.  See also Romans 16:17, 18.