Page images
PDF
EPUB

lack of clear definition of what was meant by the analogy or rule of faith. It is clear that the Protestant Reformers set the rule of faith in the Scriptures themselves, in the substance of doctrine apprehended by faith. But when it came to define what that substance was, there was difficulty. Hence, so soon as the faith of the Church was expressed in symbols, these were at first unconsciously, and at last avowedly, identified with the rule of faith in Holy Scripture itself. The Lutheran scholastic, Gerhard, says:

"From these plain passages of Scripture the rule of faith is collected, which is the sum of the celestial doctrine collected from the most evident passages of Scripture. Its parts are two- the former concerning faith, whose chief precepts are expressed in the apostles' creed; the latter concerning love, the sum of which the decalogue explains."1

Hollazius2 defines the analogy of faith as "the fundamental articles of faith, or the principal chapters of the Christian faith, collected from the clearest testimonies of the Scriptures." Carpzov makes it "the system of Scripture doctrine in its order and connection."

If this system of doctrine had been that found in the Scriptures themselves, in accordance with the modern discipline of Biblical Theology, there would have been some propriety in the definition; but inasmuch as the scholastic theologians proposed to express that system of doctrine in their theological commonplaces, in other methods and forms than those presented in the Scriptures, the rule of analogy of faith became practically these theological systems; and so an external rule was substituted for the internal rule of the Scriptures themselves, the Reformation principle was more and more abandoned, and the Jewish Halacha and the mediæval scholasticism reëntered and took possession of Protestant exegesis.5

The Reformed Church was slower in attaining this result than the Lutheran Church, owing to the exegetical spirit that had come down from Oecolampadius, Calvin, and Zwingli; but

1 Gerhard, Loci, Tubingæ, 1767, Tom. I. p. 53.

2 Exam. Theologici Acroamatici, 1741, Holmiæ, p. 1777.

8 Prima Lina Herm., Helmstad., 1790, p. 28.

4 See Chap. XXIII.

6 Volck, in Zöckler, Handb. Theo. Wiss., p. 657; Klausen in l.c., p. 254.

already Beza leads off in the wrong direction; and, notwithstanding the great stress laid upon literal and grammatical exegesis by Cappellus and the school of Saumur in France, by Drusius, De Dieu, and Daniel Heinsius in Holland, the drift was in the scholastic direction, and when the Swiss churches. arrayed themselves against the French exegetes, and the churches of Holland were divided by the Arminian controversy, and the historical and literal exegesis came to characterize the latter, the scholastic divines more and more employed the dogmatic method, and urged to interpret in accordance with the external rule of faith.

VI. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PURITANS AND THE ARMINIANS

British Puritanism remained true to the Protestant principle of interpretation till the close of the seventeenth century. The views of Tyndale and the Puritans went deeper into the essence of the matter than those of the continental Reformers. This was doubtless owing to the fact of their conflict against ecclesiastical authority and the prelatical party, and their protests against "the obtrusion of Popish ceremonies" on the Christians of England. They urged more and more the principle of the Scripture alone as the rule of the Church, and insisted on the jus divinum, the Divine authority of Holy Scripture as the supreme appeal. Thus Thomas Cartwright:

"Scripture alone being able and sufficient to make us wise to salvation, we need no unwritten verities, no traditions of men, no canons of councels, or sentences of fathers, much less decrees of popes, to supply any supposed defect of the written word, or to give us a more perfect direction in the way of life, then is already set down expressly in the canonicall Scriptures. They are of divine authority. They are the rule, the line, the squyre and light, whereby to examine and trie all judgements and sayings of men, and of angels, whether they be such as God approveth, yea or no; and they are not to be judged or sentenced by any."1 Especially noteworthy is the statement that no external rule is to be used to supply any supposed defects of the written 1 Treatise of Christian Religion, 1616, p. 78.

word, and that plain direction is given by what is set down expressly in the Scripture. John Ball gives an admirable statement of the Puritan position :

"The expounding of the Scriptures is commanded by God, and practiced by the godly, profitable both for the unfolding of obscure places, and applying of plaine texts. It stands in two things. (1) In giving the right sense. (2) In a fit application of the same. Of one place of Scripture, there is but one proper and naturall sense, though sometimes things are so expressed, as that the things themselves doe signifie other things, according to the Lord's ordinance: Gal. 422-24; Ex. 1246, with John 1936; Ps. 21, with Acts 424-26 We are not tyed to the expositions of the Fathers or councels for the finding out the sense of the Scripture, the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture, is the only faithful interpreter of the Scripture. The meanes to find out the true meaning of the Scripture, are conference of one place of Scripture with another, diligent consideration of the scope and circumstances of the place, as the occasions, and coherence of that which went before, with that which followeth after; the matter whereof it doth intreat, and circumstances of persons, times and places, and consideration, whether the words are spoken figuratively or simply; for in figurative speeches, not the outward shew of words, but the sense is to be taken, and knowledge of the arts and tongues wherein the Scriptures were originally written. But alwayes it is to bee observed, that obscure places are not to bee expounded contrary to the rule of faith set downe in plainer places of the Scripture."1

The analogy or rule of faith is expressly defined by him as "set downe in plainer places of the Scripture," and it is maintained that "the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture is the only faithful interpreter of the Scripture." This improvement of the Protestant principle, by lifting it to the person of the Holy Spirit speaking in the word to the believer, prevents any substitution of an external symbol or system of theology for the rule of faith of the Scriptures themselves. Archbishop Usher takes the same position as Ball:

"The Spirit of God alone is the certain interpreter of His word written by His Spirit. For no man knoweth the things pertaining to God, but the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 211). . . . The interpretation therefore must be of the same Spirit by which the Scripture was

1 Short Treatise containing all the principall Grounds of Christian Religion, Tenth Impression. London, 1635, p. 39.

[ocr errors]

written; of which Spirit we have no certainty upon any man's credit, but onely so far forth as his saying may be confirmed by the Holy Scriptures. How then is the Scripture to be interpreted by Scripture? According to the analogy of faith (Rom. 12o), and the scope and circumstance of the present place, and conference of other plain and evident places, by which all such as are obscure and hard to be understood ought to be interpreted, for there is no matter necessary to eternal life, which is not plainly, and sufficiently set forth in many places of Scripture.”1

These extracts from the Puritan Fathers, who chiefly influenced the Westminster divines, will enable us to understand the principles of interpretation laid down in the Westminster Confession, which are in advance of all the symbols of the Reformation in this particular:

"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

"The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Scripture."

2

These principles of interpretation give the death-blow to the manifold sense, and also to any external analogy of faith for the interpretation of Scripture. It has been made contra-confessional in those churches which adopt the Westminster symbols to believe and teach any but the one true and full sense of any Scripture, or to appeal to "doctrines of men," or any external rule or analogy of faith, or to make any other but the Holy Spirit Himself the supreme interpreter of Scripture to the believer and the Church. It was not without good and sufficient reasons that the Westminster divines substituted the "Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" for the analogy of faith which had been so much abused, and which was to be still more abused by the descendants of the Puritans, after they

1 Body of Divinitie, London, 1645; 4th ed., London, 1653, pp. 24, 25.
2 19-10.

had forgotten their Puritan Fathers, and resorted to the Swiss and Dutch scholastics for theological instruction.

Edward Leigh clearly states the Puritan position in his chapter on the Interpretation of Scripture :

"The Holy Ghost is the judge, and the Scripture is the sentence or definite decree. We acknowledge no publick judge except the Scripture, and the Holy Ghost teaching us in the Scripture, He that made the law should interpret the same. . . . The Papist says that the Scripture ought to be expounded by the rule of faith, and therefore not by Scripture only. But the rule of faith and Scripture is all one. As the Scriptures are not of man, but of the Spirit, so this interpretation is not by man, but of the Spirit likewise."

I shall call attention to some other features of the interpretation of the seventeenth century in England, because it has been neglected by British and American scholars, and consequently also by German critics and historians, upon whom most of our modern Anglo-Saxon interpreters depend.

Henry Ainsworth says:

"I have chiefly laboured in these annotations upon Moses, to explain his words and speech by conference with himself, and other prophets and apostles, all which are commenters upon his lawes, and do open unto us the mysteries which were covered under his veile; for by a true and sound literall explication, the spiritual meaning may be the better discerned. And the exquisite scanning of words and phrases, which to some may seeme needlesse, will be found (as painful to the writer) profitable to the reader." 2

Francis Taylor, a Westminster divine, a great Hebrew scholar and Talmudist, author of many commentaries and other practical and theological works, says:

"The method used by me is new, and never formerly exactly followed in every verse, by any writer, Protestant or Papist, that 1 Systeme or Body of Divinity, London, 1654, pp. 107, 119. Leigh was a lawyer and a member of the Long Parliament, and is said to have been a lay member of the Westminster Assembly. Thomas Watson, in his Body of Practical Divinity, in exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, London, 1692, p. 16, takes the same position: "The Scripture is to be its own interpreter, or rather the Spirit speaking in it; nothing can cut the diamond but the diamond; nothing can interpret Scripture but Scripture; the sun best discovers itself by its own beams." 2 Pentateuch, Preface, 1626.

« PreviousContinue »