J.H. Heidegger's Corpus of Christian Theology: Theology in General: Reason and Revelation, Part 5

[A fundraising update: We are about 30% of the way to our fundraising goal 25 new $100/month subscribers! Thanks be to God. 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.]

42.  But, that those consequences are matters of knowledge, and so Theological, not of faith, and so not obliging to faith, the Methodist Papists persist in maintaining.

But yet that is eventually brought into the question, how that act of the soul is to be categorized, whereby one gives his assent to a truth by consequence, deduced from the express letter of revelation?  Is it faith; or is it knowledge, or, as they are wont to call it, the habit of Theology?  The latter is insisted upon by the new Methodists,[1] Gunterius, Veron,[2] the Walenburgii,[3] Valerianus,[4] and others, so that they might urge, of course, that, however true and certain those things might be that are demonstrated out of Scripture through deduction (as indeed by similar consequence we have demonstrated, that the Pope is not the head of the Church, and that there is no Mass, no Purgatory, no invocation of Saints, etc.), by them no one is obligated to faith, as long as there is no other infallible revelation added, requiring faith in the consequence; which sort belongs to the Church.  That, since Evangelicals do not recognize its authority, those things, concerning which there is contention between them and the Papists, do not at all pertain to faith; and hence we, instituting separation in matters outside of faith, on account of those things that are not believed, but are known in whatever manner, are guilty of schism.  Finally, that, because consequences do not oblige to faith, and Scripture teaches not all things expressly, the authority of the Church is necessary, which sort is Papal, they conclude; while making use there of a consequence in a matter of greatest importance, even indeed from a dogma not revealed in express words, but deduced through an inept consequence, when they move controversy over consequences.

43.  The Methodist Papists are convicted by weighty arguments.

But, that μεθοδείαν πλάνης, method/cunning of error, which sort the Apostle in Ephesians 4:14 attributes to τῇ πανουργίᾳ, the cunning/veteran craftiness,[5] is easily exposed and refuted.  For, whatever has been Divinely revealed obliges to faith.  But it has been Divinely revealed, whatever has been said by God, or what His words are able either immediately, or συνέσει, with understanding, added, to signify according to the inherent δύναμιν φωνῆς, power of the voice, which it has in signifying, 1 Corinthians 14:11.  For whatever a thing is, it is of the same kind as that from which it follows; just as the effect, the thing brought forth, is, so is its cause and principium, in which and from which it has its being.  Which much more obtains in those things that follow from the letter, because not actually, but only in the conception of man, are they distinguished from the letter, and are otherwise made accessible in the virtue and value included in the letter, only by the industry of the learner, through spiritual δήλωσιν/manifestation, or the elucidation of the signifying words.  Thence to us Saint John, 1 John 2:21, is the author of receiving that which is of the truth as the truth, because no lie is of the truth, neither does it have any connection with it or γειτνίασιν/proximity, as such is had by a truth with the truth that it follows; so that, from a supernatural and revealed truth, nothing other than a supernatural and revealed truth, and so obliging to faith, is able to follow.  Moreover, Christ not only taught us to argue from Scripture, Matthew 22:31, 32, etc., as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken ὑμῖν, to you (that is to say, spoken to you, so that ye might investigate the sense of it), by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?  God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living:  but also in the same place He declared, that he who is ignorant of what follows from that Scripture is ignorant of the Scripture itself, and so that which follows from Scripture is Scripture and thus obliges to faith; He reproves the Sadducees, verse 29, ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures (from which He had proven the resurrection by consequence) and the power of God.  In like manner, in Matthew 2:23, it is said, it was spoken by the Prophets, that it was going to happen, that He would be called Jesus the Nazarene:  since the Prophets do not expressly say this, but it must be elicited from their words by consequence, it is manifest, that what follows from the words of the Prophets is reckoned as a Prophetic saying.  Christ also, in Matthew 4:10, cites the words μόνῳ Θεῷ λατρεύσεις, God only shalt thou serve, as γραπτὰ/written, although the particle μόνῳ/only is not found written in the passages cited.  Therefore, the sense lying hidden in the innermost parts of Scripture is Scripture.  But also Saint Paul everywhere argues, and yet denies that he said anything beyond Moses and the Prophets, Acts 26:22.  Moreover, the same is the author of πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνεσθαι, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, and teaching them, 1 Corinthians 2:13.  Let not the Methodists say, that it was lawful for Christ and the Apostles as infallible, but not lawful for us as fallible.  Because, if Christ had wanted to treat with the Sadducees by authority as an infallible teacher, He would have set forth and assert the matter without argumentation, as the Pope is wont to do, but it would have been in vain, because they did not acknowledge His authority.  Therefore, He treated with them by arguments, and by the same acquired confidence in His authority, not in the arguments by the authority of the one speaking.  That is, the consequence, deduced from the testimony expressed by Christ, had the innate force of demonstration and of obliging to faith, or it did not.  If it had that innate force, He did not need to go begging for it from the authority of the one speaking:  and it will be the same with all consequences clearly deduced by whomever.  But if it did not have it, it much diminished the authority of Christ teaching, and in vain did He declare it to be Scripture:  in vain did He set it in opposition to the Sadducees.  But He did not set it in opposition in vain, because certain Scribes, not regarding the authority of Christ, approve the consequence in these words, Master, καλῶς εἶπας, thou hast well said, Luke 20:39.  And in Mark 12:28, a certain Scribe, εἰδὼς/perceiving that He had answered καλῶς/well, and also the people, who heard and ἐξεπλήσσοντο, were astonished, at His doctrine of this deduced consequence, not at the teacher, Matthew 22:33, abundantly testified, that they, even with the authority of the one teaching set to the side, were convicted in conscience and obligated to believe.  So also the Apostles, although exerting influence by authority among some, not all, made manifest the mystery of Jesus through the Prophetic Scriptures for the obedience of faith among all nations (hitherto unbelieving), Romans 16:26, saying nothing beyond Moses and the Prophets, Acts 26:22; while yet they said many things, not set down in so many words in them.  Especially Apollos, who, although mighty in the Scriptures, was not infallible, seeing that he had to be instructed in the way of God ἀκριβέστερον, more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla, Acts 18:26; is said to have mightily convinced the Jews, ἐπιδεικνὺς/ showing by the Scriptures, that Jesus was the Christ, verse 28.  But, since that was not able to be demonstrated except by consequences deduced from Moses and the Prophets, it is perfectly clear, that consequences, rightly deduced even by fallible men, are Scripture, and are demonstrations by Scripture, and so oblige to faith, because they are virtually contained in them.  Additionally, προφητεία/prophecy is granted in the New Testament, that is, the interpretation of Divine speech, all Prophetic, and application to things that are happening, 1 Corinthians 14:3, 26.  Therefore, λογισμὸς, or ratiocination, is also granted, and deduction of a truth from another truth.  Indeed, the Apostle commands, Romans 12:6, προφητεύειν κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως, to prophesy according to the analogy of the faith, that is, to compare the sense of the individual parts of the Divine word with the sense of other parts already believed, and with the truth of the foundation, in order further to strengthen faith concerning that which is learned from the Divine word, by always progressing.  Therefore, what proceeds from faith, it is likewise apprehended by faith.  Analogy, consequence, conformity, connection strengthens faith.  Therefore, that which faith reaches through consequence and analogy is to be embraced by faith.  But also consequences are deduced through νόησιν καὶ σύνεσιν, perception and understanding.  But the Apostle attributes that νόησιν/ perception to faith, Hebrews 11:3, by faith νοοῦμεν, we perceive, that the Worlds were framed by the word.  If it is necessary for faith to attend to the visible works of God, and in them to behold the invisible things of God, how much more is it necessary, and pertains to faith, to search out those things that are contained in the force and power of the word of God, and thus to receive the things perceived as the νοῦν Θεοῦ, mind of God speaking and revealing.  It is added, that faith is the ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων, evidence/demonstration of things not seen, Hebrews 11:1.  But that is also the very thing that is deduced by consequence from Scripture.  For by the same are demonstrated things not seen.  Finally, this Sophistry of the Methodists, whereby they resist the truth springing forth, as Jannes and Jambres did of old,[6] was formerly condemned by the Orthodox Fathers in the Arians,[7] Eutychians,[8] and other heretics, as even that single Dissertation inserted in the Operibus Athanasii, Tome II, against those that were contending, ὅτι χρῆ δέχεσθαι τὰς φωνὰς, καὶ μὴ σκοπεῖν τὰ δι᾽ αὐτῶν σημαινόμενα, that it is necessary to receive the words, and not consider the things signified by them;[9] manifestly shows.

[1] The New Methodists were a group of seventeenth century Roman Catholic apologists, who proposed a new method for debating Protestants.  They argued that only truths explicitly stated in Scripture bind the conscience to faith.  Logical deductions or conclusions drawn by good and necessary consequence from Scripture do not require the assent of divine faith, unless the Church adds an infallible declaration.

[2] François Véron (c. 1575-1649) was a French Jesuit.  He entered freely and fully into the controversy with the Protestants, and was the fountainhead of this New Method, and popularized it in his Methodo nova facili et solida hæresin ex fundamento destruendi.

[3] Adrian and Peter von Walenburch (mid-seventeenth century) were Dutch (although working from Cologne) Counter-Reformation theologians.  They adopted and refined Veron’s approach.

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

[5] Ephesians 4:14:  “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness (ἐν τῇ κυβείᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἐν πανουργίᾳ), whereby they lie in wait to deceive (πρὸς τὴν μεθοδείαν τῆς πλάνης, according to, or with a view to, the method/ cunning of error/wandering)…”

[6] 2 Timothy 3:8.

[7] Arius (c. 250-336) was a presbyter of the church in Alexandria, Egypt.  He denied the Son to be of one substance, and co-equal Deity, with the Father.  His views precipitated the Arian controversy, and led to the calling of the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325).

[8] Eutyches (c. 380-c. 456) was a presbyter of Constantinople.  He opposed Nestorius, arguing that Christ was a mixture of human and divine elements.  He was excommunicated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

[9] This appears to be Photius’ description of the sixteenth treatise of Theodoret’s Against Heresies.