De Moor II:43: The Supreme Judge: The Holy Spirit

[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.]

Finally, our AUTHOR asserts positively:  Therefore, there is no such Judge, Supreme and ἀνυπεύθυνος, not accountable, and Infallible Interpreter of Sacred Scriptures and Controversies of Faith, than the Holy Spirit speaking by infallible Inspiration, as in the case of the Prophets and Apostles, even in the Scripture.  He proves this assertion from this, α.  that He has all the requisite necessities of such a Judge for the Interpretation of Scripture and decision of Controversies of Faith.  A Supreme and Infallible Interpreter of the Law and Judge ἀνυπεύθυνος, not accountable, of controversies ought in judging to be free from all error; to be led by no zeal of parties; to have supreme authority, so that no appeal from him is granted; to be intimately acquainted with the Sense intended by the Lawgiver; to be endowed with sufficient coactive power.  But all these do not belong to the Church, neither to Councils nor to Popes, nor to an Enthusiastical Spirit:  but they unite perfectly in the divine Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.  He, as truth itself, is not able to err, John 16:13.  But in § 41 we have evinced the Fallibility of the Church in general, and of the Roman Church in particular.  The Spirit as true God is altogether ἀπροσωπολήπτης, without respect of persons, Romans 2:11:  but the Roman Church here is not at all able to be supposed to be beyond parties, for it is a party at the bar, their Ecclesiastical Assemblies and Popes stand accused as falsifiers and corruptors of Scripture.  From the Church and an Ethusiastical Spirit appeal to the Scripture is always granted:  but the Spirit speaking in Scripture has supreme authority, acknowledges no superior to whom appeal might be made.  If each person is the best Interpreters of his own words, no one is ultimately able to be consulted concerning the Interpretation of Scripture better than the Spirit, who is the author of Scripture.  If you desire in a decisive sentence sufficient Perspicuity concerning the Sense of Scripture and controversies of faith, we saw above in § 25, 26 that this is not able to be denied to the Spirit speaking in Sacred Scripture.  Finally, the Spirit is endowed with coactive power, which He has, both internal καταχρηστικῶς/improperly so called, of opening men’s minds and moving their assent, and of irresistibly ingenerating in this way faith; it is used of the power of the Spirit in the conversion of men, and He applies the ministry of the Word as a means subservient to Himself, concerning which see the assertion of Paul, 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5:  and also external, of restraining and destroying obstinate heretics, of which He rarely makes use in this life, because δεῖ—καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, there must be also heresies among you, 1 Corinthians 11:19, and the kingdom of God is not advance by corporal coaction, but by spiritual demonstration, 1 Corinthians 2:4.

β.  Not only is the Spirit fit to exercise that Judgment, but we are also continually sent to this Judge.  Now, to what Judge God sends us in the Old and New Testaments, not conditionally, but absolutely, he is the Supreme Judge of Controversies and Infallible Interpreter of Scripture:  to the Scripture itself, or to the Spirit speaking in Scripture, God in the Old and New Testaments unconditionally sends us; while to inferior Judges we are sent conditionally, if they teach what things the Spirit has taught them in Scripture.  The truth of the Minor is able to be made abundantly apparent out of § 33.  Christ Himself and the Apostles in controversies of Faith appeal to the Scriptures and to the Spirit speaking in them, Matthew 22:29; John 5:39; Luke 24:27; 2 Peter 1:19; Acts 15:15, 28.

γ.  For this reason Judgment is attributed also to the Word of this Spirit.  Indeed, properly speaking God or His Spirit is the Supreme Judge, but Scripture is the Supreme Law, from which that Judge makes His pronouncements, Romans 2:16:  but hence improperly, and by metonymy of adjunct, Judgment is also able best to be assigned to Scripture, which is done in Isaiah 2:3, 4; see our AUTHOR’S Commentarium in Prophetas minores on Micah 4:3, § VIII, pages 168-173; John 12:48:  no less than elsewhere Scripture is said to speak, Galatians 4:30; to cry, Romans 9:27; to accuse, John 5:45:  whence Scripture is not able to be said to be mute and speechless and so incapable of Judging; it is no more able to be said to be mute than the Church in the written Canons of its Councils, or than the Fathers in their writings.

Bellarmine

The Papists Object, as it appears in Bellarmine, book III de Verbo Dei, chapter IX, Controversiis, tome I, columns 190, 191, α.  that the Judge ought to be diverse from the Norm.  Responses:  1.  We grant here a distinction of this sort, which consists in a diverse consideration of one and the same Scripture, which is in itself the Norm, the Judge, if you consider that the Spirit, the author of the Scripture, speaking in Scripture, gives sentence through the Scripture.  2.  Not in the controverted sense is it necessary in the kingdom of Christ or any worldly kingdom; since even ARISTOTLE, Politics, book III, chapter XVI, page 454, book IV, chapter IV, page 465, acknowledges that in prescribing Justice in a general sense the Law holds the position of Judge:  but in particular application, ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽ ἕκαστα, in things particularly, the Interpreter of the Law discharges the office of Judge, but ministerial and subordinate; in which sense also the Church is a Judge, but one that is bound to the written Law.

They Object, β.  that No one is able to be Judge in his own cause.  But, 1.  Our AUTHOR rightly Responds, every one is always the best Judge of his own words.  2.  Place is given for a recoiling of this argument:  for the Church therefore is not able to be considered the Supreme Judge of controversies, because it would be Judge in its own cause and the Rule of itself; for the principal controversy is concerning the power and Infallibility of the Church.  But when it is asked, whether the Church is Judge, or whether the Roman Church is not able to err:  shall that very Church sit as Judge, and shall there be an obligation to believe it, because it declares itself to be such?  Of course, they are unwilling for the Sacred Scripture to be Judge, which nevertheless all acknowledge to be the Infallible Word of God:  but the Church, or the Pope, will sit as Judge in his own cause, and will be the Infallible Judge of his own Infallibility, concerning which there is the greatest contention; and it is evident that the Church or Pope is not only able to err, but also often has erred.

They Object, γ.  that the Spirit in the Scriptures does not deliver a clear sentence.  Responses:  1.  The Scripture in itself is Perspicuous enough, as we saw above, § 25, 26, but ambiguity and disagreement concerning the mind of the Spirit is from the blindness and ignorance of the reader, or from hardness of heart against the light by permission of God, by comparison with Acts 6:10, 11.  2.  But this Ambiguity and Obscurity, if such there be, does not take away the authority of Scripture; but shows the necessity of the illumination of the Spirit, and of the ministry expounding the Scriptures.

They Object, δ.  that No end of Heresies and quarrels is thus to be expected.  Responses:  1.  Quarrels and controversies concerning Faith and the Sense of Sacred Scripture are in no way able to be quieted by the authority of human judgment; since our faith is not able to be settled upon a human word, nor do we owe blind obedience to any man.  2.  Experience teaches that, the Visible Judge acknowledged in the Roman Church not withstanding, a great many controversies have arisen among the Papists, all which that Visible Judge according to his Infallible authority has never composed.  3.  God does not will that all Heresies cease altogether in the Church, on account of the several reasons mentioned by our AUTHOR in his Compendio, in comparison with 1 Corinthians 11:19, and in our AUTHOR’S Exercitationibus Miscellaneis, Disputation II, § 1-5.  4.  It is not required that Scripture always de facto convict the heretic, and shut his mouth, so that he might not respond; which often does not happen because of the obstinacy of men:  it is sufficient if it convicts de jure, that it has whence he is able sufficiently to be convinced, unless he is contumacious; and the Spirit furnishes this in the Scripture.

On Objections γ and δ, consult CANZIUS’ Usum Philosophiæ Leibnitianæ et Wolffianæ in Theologia, chapter XVII, § 1443-1453, pages 1066-1073.

See the orthodox Sentence of the Fathers concerning the Judge of Controversies set forth by LEYDEKKER, Veritate Euangelica triumphante, tome I, book I, chapter XII, § 5, pages 140-142:  add TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus II, question XX, § 14; SPANHEIM, Exercitatione de Præscriptione in rebus Fidei, Section IV, § 4, Section V, § 3, columns 1092, 1093, 1099, opera, tome 3.

On § 43, see also GERHARD’S Confessionem catholicam, tome I, book I, general part I, article I, chapter III, pages 85-92.