De Moor II:42: The Supreme Judge: Not the Church, Part 2

[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.]

Yet the Papists contend mightily for this Right of their Church, whose πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error, in this Question is able to be specified, namely, the believed necessity of a Supreme and Infallible Visible Judge of Controversies in this world besides the Scripture, which is the Roman Church, and that Infallible.  While this very Question concerning the Supreme Judge of Interpretations and Controversies is able to be considered as a primary one, because of which nearly all the rest concerning Sacred Scripture are moved, which hence is able and ought to be held as the πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error, in Controversies concerning the Authority of Scripture with respect to us, concerning its Purity and Integrity, Perspicuity and Perfection, all which are called into doubt by the Papists, so that they might teach men that in matters of faith recourse is necessarily to be had to the Tribunal of the Church.  Now, the Council of Trent thus determined concerning the controversy that we now treat, Session IV, Decree II, page 33:  “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees that no one, relying upon his own discretion, shall, in matters of faith and of manners pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wrest the sacred Scripture to his own sense, or against that sense which holy mother Church, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, has held and does hold.”

But, when the Papists bestow upon their Church that privilege of defining infallibly matters of faith and of interpreting ἀνυπευθύνως, without accountability, the Sacred Scripture, they contend for it, as our AUTHOR says, after the manner of the Andabatæ,[1] as if fighting in the dark, with eyes closed, as it were, without discrimination, as JEROME loved to say; see ERASMUS’ Adagia, pages 624, 685.  For, what is here to be understood under the name of Church is not consistent among them.  With some arguing for the Pope, like Gregory of Valentia, de Analysi, book VII, “It is the Roman Pope himself, in whom that authority resides, which is in the Church for judging absolutely all controversies of faith.”  With others arguing for Councils, like the Parisians, and others; who place Infallibility of Judgment concerning matters of faith in a general Council; see TURRETIN’S Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus XVIII, question XI, § 4, which, whether it be superior or inferior to the Pope, they again dispute:  while Benedict XIII, deposed by the Pisans, refused to obey on this pretext, that the Pope is above a Council;[2] see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century XIV, chapter IV, § 4, column 1755:  with the School of Paris defending the contrary; see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century XIV, chapter V, § 11, column 1765:  just as the Councils of Constance and Basel also asserted themselves to be above the Pope; see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century XV, chapter II, § 2, 4, columns 1819, 1820:  which latter Nicholaus V[3] confirmed; see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century XV, chapter II, § 4, column 1822:  while Martin V himself took part in the former;[4] see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century XV, chapter II, § 3, column 1819.  Soon Calixtus III[5] enacted that no one may appeal from the Pope to a Council; see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century XV, chapter III, § 2, column 1824:  so also Pius II;[6] see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century XV, chapter III, § 3, column 1825.  And thereafter this quarrel was frequently agitated between the Gallican and Transalpine Churches, with the Gauls/French fiercely defending that the power of the Pope is less than that of a Council; also, that the Pope has a peculiar power in matters of faith, but that his decisions are not certain without the consent of the Church:  with the parasites of the Pope upholding the contrary:  see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century XV, chapter IV, § 1, column 1830, chapter IX, § 3, columns 1864-1866, and also Century XVI, chapter III, § 1, column 1895; PETRUS SUAVIS POLANUS’ Historiam Concilii Tridentini, book VII, pages 711, 716, 717, 746, 747, 770, 791, book VIII, pages 837, 957; TURRETIN’S Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus XVIII, question XI, § 4, near the end.  Concerning the authority of a General Council above the Roman Pontiff, LOUIS ELLIES DU PIN learnedly discourses in Dissertation VI de Antiqua Ecclesiæ Disciplina.  The Infallibility of the Pope is also powerfully opposed by a writer attached to the party of the Jansenists, Philippe Vlaming, in his Epistolis contra David Pierman, Epistles XIII, XIV, tome 2, pages 365-466.  Concerning the Controversy, whether a Council be above the Pope, or the Pope above a Council, Bellarmine on the opposite side also discourses, but concludes the latter, tome 2, Controversiis, book II de Conciliis, chapters XIII-XIX, columns 112-132.  Finally, with yet others arguing for a Council approved by a Pope; thus Bellarmine, book II de Conciliis, chapter II, tome 2, Controversiis, columns 67, 68, “All Catholics consistently teach that General Councils confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff are not able to err:”  compare PETRUS SUAVIS POLANUS’ Historiam Concilii Tridentini, book VII, pages 711, 716, 717, 746, 747, 770, 791, book VIII, pages 837, 957; which yet little differs from all authority bestowed upon the Pope alone, if with Baronius, Annalibus, tome 4, on 373 AD, § XXI, you think that upon his will hangs the ratification of decrees of faith and the change of things ratified.  While concerning this Judge of Controversies Bellarmine speaks doubtfully and waveringly, book III de Verbo Dei, chapter IX, tome I, Controversiis, column 190:  “That Judge is not able to be Scripture, but the Ecclesiastical Leader, either alone, or with the counsel and consent of his fellow-Bishops.”  In this same manner the Council of Trent also decreed, according to Andradius, book II Defensionis Tridentinæ fidei:  “We attribute this great authority (says he) of interpreting the Scriptures, not to individual Bishops here and there, but to the Roman Pontiff alone, who is the head of the Church, or to all prelates gathered into one at his command:”  see also Bellarmine, book III de Verbo Dei, chapter III, column 172, 173:  compare BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter V, § 8, tome 2, page 792, § 10, pages 818-825, and in the Addendis, page 1830; CANZIUS’[7] Usum Philosophiæ Leibnitianæ et Wolffianæ in Theologia, tome 2, chapter XVII, pages 1050 and following.

The Papists object:  1.  the Example of the Old Church of the Jews, by arguing in this way:  Moses and Aaron and their successors were the Supreme and Infallible Judges of controversies of faith:  The Roman Pontiff is Moses and Aaron, in the succession for their judiciary power.  Therefore.

Responses:  1.  The Major is false, for they both were ministerial Judges, and neither decided controversies by his own authority; but Moses as an intermediary reported to God, and thence to the people, Exodus 18:19 and following.  Aaron was commanded to respond out of the Law and according to it, Deuteronomy 17:11.  2.  The Minor is false, for the Roman Pope has succeeded neither to Moses, nor to Aaron.  Not to Moses, because he was an extraordinary minister of God, to whom there is no successor; the Pope is ordinary:  Moses had an immediate calling from God, which He confirmed with many miracles; but not so the Pope.  Not to Aaron, for, having been called by God, he took to himself the priestly honor, Hebrews 5:4:  but the Pope took it without a call.  The Old Church had a typical High Priest:  the New has the true High Priest, with whom presenting and actually offering Himself, the types and shadows cease, and who neither admits of a successor, nor needs a vicar.

They adduce various Passages for the confirmation of the Major, which nevertheless do not prove it:  see these Passages, produced especially from the Old Testament in Bellarmine, book III de Verbo Dei, chapter IV, columns 174-176, and chapter V, columns 177, 178.  For example, they appeal to Deuteronomy 17:8 and following, to which place in particular our AUTHOR well responds in his Medulla Theologiæ, that it is not there treated of the Pope specifically, but of civil Judges and Judgments; in which they were not Infallible, but nevertheless as the supreme Magistrates were to be externally heeded in the Republic without resistance.  But external Acquiescence in the decision of Civil quarrels made by an appointed Judge does not evince an Infallible Judgment belonging to the High Priest or Sanhedrin concerning Sacred things; in which, upon the sentence of the Priests or Elders, because they bore sentence contrary to the Law and Prophets, they do not rest, neither Jeremiah, Jeremiah 26:11-15, nor the Princes with the people, Jeremiah 26:16, nor the Lord, John 9:16, 22, compared with verses 35-37, nor the Apostles, Acts 5:29, etc.  On Deuteronomy 17:8 and following consult our AUTHOR, Exercitationibus textualibus XII, Part V, § 9, 17; LODEWIJK GERARDUS VAN RENESSE, van het Regeer-Ouderlingschap, part I, chapter VI, pages 70-75.

Neither do the other Passages cited for the major in the Compendio come any closer to making the case; for example,

α.  Exodus 18:26, from which it follows that Moses was a superior Judge to other inferior judges, but not absolutely supreme:  for in verse 16 he says that in judging he makes known to the people the statutes and laws of God; in verses 19 and 20 he takes counsel from Jethro that he refer the questions of the people to God, and disclose His response to the people, which he also applied; such that he was unwilling to render judgment upon the blasphemer, Leviticus 24, and the profaner of the sabbath, Numbers 15, except with the sentence of God previously known, as a faithful servant in all the house of God, Hebrews 3:5.

β.  2 Chronicles 19:11, where indeed the office of Amariah the Priest is distinguished from the office of Zebadiah, the Royal Superintendent:  but supreme Judgment of controversies of Religion is not attributed to him:  compare our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales XII, Part V, § 10, 18; and RENESSE’S van het Regeer-Ouderlingschap, part I, chapter VI, pages 73, 74.

γ.  Ecclesiastes 12:11, where there is a discussion, not concerning the typical Priest of the Old Testament, but either in general concerning God as the Shepherd of His people, or in particular concerning the true Priest of the New Testament, Christ Jesus, who is that good and chief Shepherd of the Church, Ezekiel 34:23; John 10:11; 1 Peter 5:4, by whom Wisemen as subordinate Pastors are given to the Church,[8] and by whose Spirit they are animated.[9]

δ.  Haggai 2:11, 12, where not one Priest, but the Priests are commanded to be asked, and, having been asked, to answer from the Law; which pertains to Ministerial and externally definitive Judgment.

ε.  Malachi 2:7, where the duty of the people to ask the Priest concerning the Law, and his duty as the Angel/Messenger of Jehovah, the legate and herald of God, to interpret the Law according to the mind of the Lawgiver, are set forth:  nevertheless, it is intimated in verse 8 that the Priests often abdicated this responsibility, with which rebuke in view care is to be taken lest anyone in blind faith admit the Judgment of Priests as Infallible and ἀνυπεύθυνον, not accountable.

ϛ.  Matthew 23:2, 3; Infallible, Supreme, and ἀνυπεύθυνον, not accountable, Judgment in settling matters of faith is not attributed in a simple way to the Scribes and Pharisees.  But, a.  when they are said to sit in the doctoral chair of Moses, to them is attributed the authority to teach, either after Moses, after his likeness and in his place; or from Moses, or his written Law.  b.  Moreover, when the Lord commands to observe all that they were saying was to be observed, those things are manifestly to be restricted to the Mosaic commandments, which they themselves were neglecting in the worst ways imaginable:  for otherwise the Lord on many occasions reproved a number of Pharisaic doctrines and commanded that those doctrines be shunned, which, therefore, His disciples were not obliged to follow.  c.  In addition, the heavy burdens that they were binding on, verse 4, are to be explained, either of human commandments, which they were adding to the divine Law:  since it ought to be denied that the Lord Jesus relates these things to those that He willed to be kept by His disciples; who of course adduced those things rather, so that He might indicate that the evil deeds of the Scribes were not to be imitated, in this, that they, thus acting, were drawing back from the divine Law, who nevertheless were teaching that there is to be no drawing back; and that they were not leading the way in those things that they were commending:  or of divine precepts, which they were rigidly pressing unto external minutiae not mentioned in the Law, not otherwise pronouncing men free from transgression of the Law, as the example of the tithe of mint, anise, and cummin demonstrate, verse 23, compared with Leviticus 27:30; Deuteronomy 14:22; from the observation of which Law, which the Savior does commend with respect to even those parts, verse 23, they themselves greatly and indeed departed in far weightier matters, which the Lord expressed in proverbial speech:  compare our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales XVII, Part II.

2.  What Passages are set forth in the second Objection out of Bellarmine’s book III de Verbo Dei, chapter V, Controversiis, tome I, columns 177 and following, so that it might be demonstrated that both Infallibility and supreme Authority have been conceded to the Church of the New Testament in the writings of the New Testament, to these our AUTHOR best responds on our behalf whether in his Medulla, or in his Compendio Theologiæ.

From them some draw a conclusion from the example of Peter to the Roman Pope in this manner:  Peter was the Supreme and Infallible Judge of controversies of faith.

The Roman Pope is Peter by succession unto his office.  Therefore.

But, since Peter was a servant and minister in the Church of God, 2 Peter 1:1, and a συμπρεσβύτερος, fellow elder, 1 Peter 5:1, he is not able to have Supreme Judgment in it.  And, since the Minor is manifestly false, as shall be proven at length below, Chapter XXXIII, § 4-7; the passages of Scripture adduced for confirmation of the Major do not prove what was to be proven; for example, Luke 22:32, compared with PETRUS SUAVIS POLANUS’ Historia Concilii Tridentini, book VII, page 715, because the promised perseverance of faith, which Peter had in common with all believers, differs much from a bestowal of Supreme Judgment concerning the Word of God to him.

From the writing of the New Testament others argue for the Judgment of the Church in this manner:

Whose Judgment is final concerning controversies of faith, he is the Supreme and Infallible Judge of controversies of faith.  Final Judgment concerning controversies falls to the representative Church.  Therefore.  They find the Minor in Matthew 18:17, etc.

Response:  α.  The Major is true concerning final Judgment simply considered, which is only able to proceed from supreme and infallible authority.  But in this way the Minor is false:  for final Judgment simply considered does not belong to the representative Church, since it is to be examined by Scripture, Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21, neither does it proceed from Supreme and Infallible authority, which the Church does not have of itself.  β.  But, if the Judgment of the Church is called final κατὰ τὶ, relatively, that is, in the class of inferior ministerial Judgments, or because of the authority of Scripture, from which it makes its pronouncements, then the controversy is at an end.  γ.  The text of Matthew 18:17 does not prove what is to be proven:  a.  Εἰπὲ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, tell it to the church (with Francis Lucas Brugensis[10] also observing), properly has regard, not to the universal Church, much less the Roman; but to whatever particular Church, in which the offended and offending brethren abide:  but the Papists do not now hold individual Churches to be infallible.  b.  Christ speaks particularly concerning those things that the Church might decide in a clear case of an indicted sinner:  yet we are able to concede that the saying of Christ by analogy applies also in controversies of faith, by comparison with Titus 3:10; therefore, the heretic is to be considered as in the place of Heathen man and publican.  But, c.  we are commanded to hear the Church, not absolutely, for this privilege belong to Christ, Matthew 17:5; but when it teaches whatsoever Christ commanded, Matthew 28:19, 20, so that that saying, he that heareth you heareth me, Luke 10:16, might apply; and thus also it does not have absolute and ultimate Judgment concerning scandals and heresies:  otherwise those that Christ made Stewards by the grant of the Keys, at the same time He made lords in His house, which is denied in 1 Peter 5:3; 2 Corinthians 1:24.  The commandment to hear the Church does not any more imply its Infallibility, than the commandment to hear parents implies their Infallibility, when children are commanded to hear their precepts, Proverbs 6:20, 21; 23:22:  compare our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes Textuales XXXI, Part V, § 10, 12.  On Matthew 16:18, 19, see below, Chapter XXXIII, § 5.  On 1 Timothy 3:15, see what things have already been observed above in this Chapter, § 7.  d.  Now, from the words of Christ in Matthew 18:17, in the Council of Trent those that were less addicted to the party of the Pope, like the Gallicans, were wishing it to be observed that Peter himself is sent to the Church as to a Judge, in PETRUS SUAVIS POLANUS’ Historia Concilii Tridentini, book VII, page 767.

3.  They Object Reason, especially from the Necessity of a Judge in the Church; see Bellarmine, book III de Verbo Dei, chapter IX, tome I, Controversiis, column 190, 191, to which compare the Response of our AUTHOR.  Namely, α.  We acknowledge the Necessity of a Judge in the Church.  β.  But it does not then follow thence that there is a Necessity of a Supreme Visible Judge, nor that that Supreme Judgment belongs to the Church.  Who that Supreme Judge might be, we shall see in § 43.  But the Church is an inferior, ministerial Judge, altogether bound to the rule of Scripture.

On Objection 4 in the Compendio consult Bellarmine, book III de Verbo Dei, chapter VI, columns 181-184, and the Response of our AUTHOR on that place, to which add Chapter XXXIII below, § 26, number 5.

On Objection 5, see Bellarmine, book III de Verbo Dei, chapters VII, VIII, columns 184-189, and book IV de Romano Pontifice, chapter III, columns 962 and following.

[Which by restriction, etc.]  This response is sufficiently illustrated from those things that were said in § 41, and above in this same § 42.

Compare on § 41, 42, CALVIN’S Institutionem Christianæ Religionis, book IV, chapters VIII, IX; likewise GERHARD’S Confessionem catholicam, tome I, book I, general part II, chapters I-III, pages 193-337.  SPANHEIM hisses at the defense of this Pontifical doctrine read in Bossuet, Præfatione Speciminis Stricturarum ad Libellum Episcopi Condomiensis, opera, tome 3, part II, columns 1031, 1032.

What things are thus observed against the Papists are also able to prevail against Hobbes, who assigns what they attribute to the Church to the Christian Magistrate, asserting, 1.  that Christian Kings Alone are the Interpreters of Sacred Scripture.  2.  That the Apostles themselves were not the Interpreters of the Old Testament Scriptures in such a way that all that were desiring to be Christians were obliged to their interpretation.  3.  That the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture so depends on the authority of the State that it is a sin for subjects to judge of the commandments of Princes, whether they be consonant with the Sacred Scripture, or not, etc.:  see COCQUIUS, Hobbesianismi Anatome, locus III, chapter VI, pages 49-55, who on pages 58-63 subjects the Exercitationem to Article XXVII of chapter XVII of Hobbes’ book de Cive, just now mentioned, that is, Whether the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture so depends upon the authority of the State that it is sinful for subjects to judge of the commandments of Princes?  COCQUIUS, Hobbesianismi Anatome, locus III, chapter VII, pages 64, 66, refutes the παρερμενείας/ misinterpretations of Hobbes, who from Luke 10:16, where Christ says to His disciples, He that heareth you heareth me, etc., says that it is able to be inferred that he that hears his Christian King hears Christ:  and on the words of the Savior, whoever denieth me, etc., answers, that Whatever command from the King does this, it is not he, but his King, that denied Christ:  likewise he says that the reason why many Thessalonian Jews did not believe Paul was because Paul came to them without any mandate from the State.[11]  See BUDDEUS, de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter I, § 27, page 109; LELAND, Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, epistle 3, pages 61-65.  The Earl of Shaftesbury in his Characteristics followed Hobbes on this point; see LELAND, Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, epistle 5, pages 111-113.

[1] The Andabatæ were blind-folded gladiators.

[2] The Council of Pisa met in 1409 to end the Papal Schism.  The Council deposed Benedict XIII (reigning in Avignon) and Gregory XII (reigning in Rome), and elected Alexander V.  Since neither Benedict nor Gregory was willing to cooperate, rather than ending the schism, the Council compounded the problem with a third claimant.

[3] Nicholaus V reigned as Pope from 1447 to 1455.

[4] Martin V reigned as Pope from 1417 to 1431.

[5] Calixtus III reigned as Pope from 1455 to 1458.

[6] Pius II reigned as Pope from 1458 to 1464.

[7] Israël Gottlieb Canz (1690-1753) was a German philosopher and theologian, teaching logic, metaphysics, and theology at Tubingen.

[8] See Matthew 23:34.

[9] See 1 Peter 1:10, 11; 2 Peter 1:21.

[10] Francis Lucas Brugensis (1552-1619) was a Jesuit scholar, who labored in the collation of manuscripts.  He was skilled, not only in Greek and Hebrew, but also in Syriac and Chaldean.

[11] Acts 17:1-9.