top of page

De Moor II:38: The Sense of Scripture, Simple or Composite (Part 2)


After these things, thus related and explained, our AUTHOR subjoins his own ἐπίκρισιν/epicrisis, critical evaluation, through distinct Theses.


1.  It is to be insisted on, says he, that the Literal Sense is only One.  In his Compendio he contrived beforehand that this Literal Sense should everywhere obtain; compare GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate II, section I, article III, canons III, IV, pages 177-180:  and he wills that the same be not despised with the Fanatics, see above, § 30, and GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate II, section I, article III, canon I, page 169; and as a דבר קטון, small matter, with the Jews, see GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate I, section II, article III, page 165.  While elsewhere the Jews also maintain that the meaning of the proper and grammatical Sense is to be held as first and most important, whence is this rule of the Rabbis,אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, that is, Scripture does not depart from its simplicity, or beyond its simple and Grammatical sense.


Now, our AUTHOR believes that this Literal Sense is only One; while we heard that it did not appear implausible to Bellarmine that sometimes multiple Literal Senses are found in the same sentence, with whom most Papists are ὁμόψηφοι, in agreement; see GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate II, section I, article III, canon II, page 170.  But, α.  One and True are interchangeable; neither is that able to be the true Sense of Scriptures except it be the One Sense.  And indeed, as many as are the genuine Senses of Scripture, just so many are its forms:  But the form of Scripture is not able to be manifold:  Therefore.


The Major is evident:  for the Sense and signification of the words and phrases of Scripture according to the intention of the Holy Spirit is their form, since through it they are indications of divine things.  Therefore, according to the number of Senses and significations, the number of forms is multiplied.


The Minor is thus proven:  One thing has only one form, because the unity of the thing depends upon the unity of the form, which is the basis of individuation.  Scripture is not manifold, but one, proceeding from one Holy Spirit, and comprehended in the Books of the Old and New Testaments.  Therefore.


β.  God, because of His Wisdom and Goodness, is not able to be presumed to have willed to make sport of us in uncertain Obscurity.  And indeed, what has diverse Senses is ambiguous.  But God of His Wisdom was able, and of His Goodness was willing, to speak clearly.  The Wisdom of God requires that God speak in a manner accommodated to His Scope/End, which is, to make the simple wise unto salvation through the Scripture.[1]  Now, this Scope/End, if God had spoken ambiguously, He had not be able to attain.


γ.  Indeed, the sufficient Perspicuity of Scripture was also proven, § 25, 26:  but what is Perspicuous is not able to have a manifold Sense.


And so, when Interpreters explain literally any text in a twofold manner, of which one is not able to be subordinated to the other, only one shall be true, and intended by the Holy Spirit, the other false.  For example, in Hebrews 2:16, the ἐπίληψιν, taking hold, not of Angels, but of the seed of Abraham, the more Ancient Theologians everywhere explain of the Assumption of a human nature by the Person of the Λόγου/Logos:  others think that Paul here speaks of the relief or liberation from misery, and the connected vindication, of the seed of Abraham, that is, of true believers collectively.  Which two things, although they are both actually true, yet they found a Sense so diverse that these two concepts in the same place and in the same phrase are not able to be subordinated to each other.  Therefore, the Holy Spirit was able to intend only one or the other of these two, not both at the same time.  But which is to be selected, the propriety of the expressions, a consideration of the scope and context, with the illumination of the Spirit, ought to teach:  consult Chapter XIX, § 17.


In vain do the Papists Object,


α.  Various passages of Scripture; since, for example, in Ezekiel 2:10, by the scroll written on the front and on the back, a twofold Sense of one Scripture is not signified; but the multitude of matters inscribed on this scroll, namely, of the strokes to be inflicted upon the Jews.


On 1 Corinthians 10:6, 11, see GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate II, section II, article II, page 164, where it is most evidently apparent from the entire context that Moral Types, not Prophetic Types, are to be understood.  That is, the Apostle makes mention of the most grievous sins that the Israelites, having been endowed with the greatest benefits by God, had committed in the desert, and of the most grievous punishments that followed upon the same.  These were not actual Prophecies concerning definite, future events of a later time, which one may by no means avoid:  but Paul says that these Types fell out for this end, lest we should lust after evil things, as they lusted.  Therefore, for our use also they were Examples, of the insufficiency of whatever external grace, of human ill will towards it, and especially of God’s most righteous vengeance:  Examples warning us and to be closely attended to by us, lest we, while in the midst of the greatest blessings of God, should at any time fall into similar evils of fault and punishment:  see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales XLII, Part V, § 7-9; and GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate II, section II, article II, page 164.


But in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, there is a treatment, not the Sense of Scripture, but the various parts of man; see below, Chapter XIII, § 11:  and ORIGEN’S allusion to this passage is nothing but altogether inane, when in Homily II, in Leviticum, opera, tome 2, page 193, he writes, the Scripture consists in a body, a soul, and a spirit, that is, in a Sense historical, moral, and mystical; the body was for those that went before, the soul for us, and the spirit for those that in the future age are going to obtain the inheritance of eternal life, and are going to come unto the heavenlies and the truth of the law.


β.  Reasons:  see GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate I, section II, article I, page 162, and tractate II, section I, pages 171, 172:  unto all which our AUTHOR solidly responds.  1.  It has already been seen that the Wisdom of God does not so much import a manifold sense, as rather overturn the same.  2.  The Fecundity and Fullness of the Word is sufficiently manifest in the mystery, and vigorous combining, of the things:  for the words of Sacred Scripture include many things under themselves, but which have a certain connection among themselves, coordinate and subordinate; which are not completely diverse, nor do they fight among themselves.


γ.  In the utterance of Caiaphas, John 11:50, 51, concerning the Advantage of the death of Christ, there is only One True Sense, which God intends by His Providence; although Caiaphas thought otherwise:  but the sense of Caiaphas is not the Sense of the Holy Spirit.


To this first Thesis concerning the Unity of the Literal Sense, compare GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate II, section I, article III, canon II, pages 170-177.


2.  Our AUTHOR proceeds with a second Thesis on the Spiritual or Mystical Sense.  In which in general one may observe that, α.  the Terms Allegory and Anagoge in origin and signification are not so distinct that they are not able to be interchanged with perfect ease.  β.  And that the so-called threefold Spiritual Sense is not able to be set, each Sense in a distinct relation to the others, and against the Literal Sense, so that hence so manifold a Sense of Scripture might emerge:  while also in the first and Literal Sense some things are referred to Christ and the Church, others to life and morals, others to eternal life:  and Allegory and Anagoge may often easily be subordinated to each other, so that what things, here inchoate, have a regard to the Church might afterwards obtain a complete fulfillment.  γ.  Neither does the three-horse team of Christian virtues, faith, hope, and love, which are joined by the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 13:13, make for this threefold Spiritual Sense, Allegory, Anagoge, and Tropology, since there the Apostle treats of disparate, yet always in this life to be closely conjoined, virtues, not of disparate Senses of Scripture.


In particular, of the Allegorical Sense our AUTHOR declares that that is not be be admitted everywhere, but only where and when the Holy Spirit dictates.  In such a way the he ends up in opposition to the ἀλληγορομανίᾳ/allegoromania, both, 1.  of the Jews, following the steps of Philo the Jew, who wrote two books Allegoriarum Legis, being very devoted to Allegories after the manner of the Alexandrian Jews; consult HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum Philologicum, pages 238-244, in which he discusses in detail the allegorical study of the Jews:  and, 2.  of ORIGEN, the Alexandrian Doctor, in whom daily intercourse with the Alexandrian Jews was able to ingrain the sickness of allegorizing; and concerning whom EPIPHANIUS, in Hæresi LXIV, chapter IV, opera, tome I, page 528, says, ἀλληγορεῖ ὅσαπερ δύναται, he allegorizes as much as he is able; and also JEROME, in his Prologo ad Amabilem in Decem Jesaiæ Visiones, opera, tome 5, page 52, Origen wanders in the free spaces of allegory; see BUDDEUS’ diatribe de Allegoriis Origenis, in Parergis historico-theologicis, pages 139-188, and his Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 8, tome 2, pages 1584, 1585a; and CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, prologue, § IV, pages 20, 21:  and, 3.  of many Papists, who so revel in the study of allegorizing, that they are branded with censure by the more sensible in the Roman communion itself; indeed, that in the Council of Trent itself, Session IV, the Fathers judged that the reveling in Allegories was to be restrained; see PETRUS SUAVIS POLANUS’ Historiam Concilii Tridentini, book II, page 179; by whose efforts, nevertheless, the κακοῆθες, ill habit, of allegorizing has not been done away with in the Roman Church.  But also thus near the end of the past Century a man even of our communion published a work, in which he contends that the entire Scripture of both testaments is Allegorical, even all the Histories of the Old and New Testaments, in which either all natural things are explained allegorically, or the future happenings of the Church are prefigured; see SPANHEIM’S Elenchum Controversiarum, opera, tome 3, columns 1006, 1007.  After Jacobus Brocardus[2] had advanced similar follies in the Sixteenth Century, whose itch for allegory the French Synod of La Rochelle and the Dutch Synod of Middelburg in 1581 and 1582 attempted to restrain;[3] see GERDES’ Syllabum Italorum Reformatorum, pages 185, 186.  It would be well with the Church, if all that are drawn to the excessive study of allegorizing should desist.


At the same time, according to MAIMONIDES, More Nebochim, third part, chapter XLIII, page 473, the many Doctors of the Jews given to Allegories do not even think that this is entirely the Sense of Scripture; but they hold Allegories as certain pleasant enigmas to charm the minds of the hearers.  It is not fitting for Christians at this point to rave more than these.  The Allegoromania of ORIGEN has been censured for ages, concerning which JEROME, in his Prologo ad Amabilem, says, Origen makes his own genius sacraments of the Church:  while according to the opinion of Jerome the Scripture is to be understood, not according to the will of the reader, but according to the authority of the writer.


Certainly concerning the Ceremonial Law in general the Apostle asserted that it has σκιὰν τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, a shadow of good things to come, Hebrews 10:1, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἶναι, but the body is of Christ, Colossians 2:17 (how that latter phrase pertains to this, see Chapter XI, § 20), whence in the Ceremonial Rites one is free to transfer the pious meditations of the mind to Christ and His grace as the antitype:  while, nevertheless, one is often able to determine the mystical significations of specific rites with probability, rather than with absolute certainty.  But Scripture nowhere supplies a similar, general pronouncement concerning all the Ancient History being of allegorical significance also.  Paul concerning a History more illustrious than the others in kind only affirms, ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, which things are an allegory, Galatians 4:24, and how variously this very word is hitherto explained we saw in § 37.  Therefore, if we indulge in allegorical interpretation of the Sacred History beyond that in which the Scripture expressly goes before, our Allegories are only going to be held as human interpretations, which are able to illustrate, to delight, and often to hold the mind attentive, yet not to demonstrate.  And so such Allegory is also only to be held as an Application of Scripture; it is not able to be obtruded as the Sense of the Spirit.  Wherefore it is not expedient, with more solid practices neglected, to give oneself completely to the study of allegorizing, since its fruit is necessarily not so great:  for I shall not be able in this way to prove any doctrine of religion that I have not already learned elsewhere from the Scriptures, nor to add anything to the revealed doctrine of salvation; neither should anyone gather some history to be accomplished later from the old History allegorically explained, unless that antitypical history be also already past, even thus with the event narrated elsewhere; or, if it be yet future, it should be abundantly evident from other abundantly clear prophesies.  But what is accomplished by Allegories of this sort, concerning which we ourselves ought always to remain in doubt, to learn what is already evident from elsewhere?  And, if we be less happily versed in allegorical study, nothing is equally conducive to expose the Sacred Scripture to the mockery of Libertines and Atheists.  Let us be very mindful here of the admonition of CALVIN on Galatians 4:22, where concerning the free-fancy of allegorizing he writes:  there are speculations of this sort, which display an appearance of ingenuity, but no appearance of solid doctrine:  this is to make sport with impunity in the handling of the Scriptures:  this is a device of Satan, to lessen that authority of Scripture:  this is a profanation, which takes away the true use of Sacred Scripture, etc.  While concerning the same Allegoromania SPANHEIM the Younger gravely warns in his Elencho Controversiarum, opera, tome 3, column 1006, “What is to be said in this age, in which are explained the Writings of Moses, David, Solomon, and the Prophets (not to mention the pronouncements of the Savior, the Histories, and the Parables of the New Testament) in such a way that neither the Sacred Writers themselves, nor the Fathers of the Old Testament, nor the Apostles, nor the simpler ages of Christianity, nor even the ages prior to us, saw fit to follow in any way that sense, which with oracular authority is today ascribed to the Holy Spirit.  And thus to Scripturary Libertinism, Pyrrhonism,[4] every man’s Fantasy (who turns his φαντάσματα/fantasies into δογματικὴν Θεολογίαν, dogmatic theology), the cavils of the Skeptics, and ever new schemes of interpretation, the way is opened wide.  And, as each one prevails by his imagination and confidence, so he will obtrude upon the people his conjectures, ruminations, waking-dreams, as τὴν ἀνωτάτω σοφίαν, the highest wisdom, instead of a settled faith.”


Therefore, here, if anywhere, it is necessary φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν, to think soberly, and μὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ᾽ ὃ δεῖ φρονεῖν, not to think more highly than one ought to think, according to Romans 12:3; consult GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate II, sections II, III, pages 185-193; RUMPÆUS’ Commentationem criticam ad Libros Novi Testamenti, § XXIV, pages 50-59; my Orationem de Eo quod Nimium est in Scientia Theologica, pages 18, 19, 43-46.


But if we admit not Allegories, except when and where the Holy Spirit expressly dictates; and extend not Allegories beyond their Scope/ End and what is seemly, so that the perfections of Christ or the Church be not injured by the want of Type or Parable:  then Symbolic Theology ought also to be called Argumentative, which otherwise is to be denied, when it is speech concerning Ecclesiastical Allegories.  But, with the cautions that I just enumerated applied, Symbolic Theology is certainly Argumentative, because, 1.  Allegories of this sort have the Holy Spirit as author, and are according to His intention.  2.  Because Christ and His Apostles make use of them, for the confirmation, no less than the illustration, of doctrines.  3.  Otherwise the force of proof is to be denied to all Types and Parables:  consult GLASSIUS’ Philologiam Sacram, book II, part I, tractate II, section I, article III, canon V, pages 180, 181.


3.  The third Canon is:  Tropology and frequently Anagoge are referred more properly to the Use, rather than to the Sense, of Scripture, which one Sense admits these various Uses, according to 2 Timothy 3:16.  Anagoge, and even Allegory, are able often to be referred to the theoretical Uses of διδασκαλίας καὶ ἐλέγχου, doctrine and refutationTropology has regard to the practical Use of ἐπανορθώσεως/correction or παιδείας/training.  But τρόπος/trope here does not denote a rhetorical figure, but rather morals and the habit of life, τὰ ἤθη, the manners.


[1] See Psalm 19:7; 2 Timothy 3:15.

[2] Jacopo Brocardo (c. 1518-c. 1594) was an Italian humanist and scholar.  He converted to Protestantism, and is remembered for his controversial interpretation of Revelation, in which he uses Kabbalistic interpretive techniques.

[3] Both of these were Synods of the Reformed churches.

[4] Pyrrhonism is a school of skeptical philosophy.  Its origins are usually traced back to Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360-c. 270 BC).

ABOUT US

Dr. Steven Dilday holds a BA in Religion and Philosophy from Campbell University, a Master of Arts in Religion from Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), and both a Master of Divinity and a  Ph.D. in Puritan History and Literature from Whitefield Theological Seminary.  He is also the translator of Matthew Poole's Synopsis of Biblical Interpreters and Bernardinus De Moor’s Didactico-Elenctic Theology.

ADDRESS

540-718-2554

 

112 D University Village Drive

Central, SC  29630

 

dildaysc@aol.com

SUBSCRIBE FOR EMAILS

© 2024 by FROM REFORMATION TO REFORMATION MINISTRIES.

bottom of page