Henry Venn, 1763, on the Futility of External Evidence to Move the Will to Accept the Authority of Holy Scripture

Whenever we open the sacred book of God, we should lift up our hearts to him, to teach us the true meaning of what we are going to read. This is necessary, because those doctrines, which are its very glory, offend our natural pride, and its precepts contradict our dearest lusts. To receive the one, therefore, with humility and thankfulness, and to submit to be governed by the other, requires assistance from heaven, and a blessing from the Father and Fountain of lights. Accordingly, in the Bible we are frequently taught that we cannot know the excellency of its doctrines, nor rely on them, with such a persuasion as to honor God by it, unless he opens our understandings; for “no man,” saith St Paul, “can say that Jesus Christ is Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” And when the apostle speaks of those believers in Christ who knew the things which were freely given of God to them, he declares, they received ” the Spirit which is of God, that they might know them.” So deeply sensible were the holy men of old, of their own natural incapacity of reaping any profitable knowledge from the Scripture without the teachings of God, obtained by prayer, that with the Bible open before them they continually made request for illumination of their minds to understand it aright. “l am a stranger upon earth, O hide not thy commandments from me.—I am thy servant, give me understanding that I may know thy statutes. Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” These blessed servants of God we must imitate, and depend on the Spirit for light and instruction when we read God’s word. Not, indeed, expecting a new light, that is, any new doctrine, either distinct from the Scripture rule, or supplemental to it; nor laying aside our reason and understanding, relying upon an immediate inspiration to interpret Scripture. Either of these things is weak enthusiasm. But with the greatest sobriety we may expect, and ought to pray for the Spirit’s help, to give us real advantage and improvement whilst we are reading the word of God.

Because the Spirit is promised to abide with the Church for ever, as a Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of the things of God, nor shall we ever know them so as to feel their power and authority on the heart, without internal illumination. There is, I readily grant, a knowledge of Scripture truths, which men of parts and penetration attain at once, upon turning their attention to them; so that they can talk and preach about them without detection amongst the multitude, whilst they themselves are workers of iniquity, blind and dead in their sins. But then this knowledge is speculative, worthless, resting in the head, and never changing the heart. And so must all knowledge of divine things be, unless the influence of the Spirit of God give it power to command and sway the soul. Because, by whatever method we attain the knowledge of any thing contrary to the bent of our own wicked hearts, we need much more than the most convincing external evidence of the truth of the thing, to determine our will against its own strong and corrupt propensity. If you demand a proof of this, consider the remarkable case of the Jews at Mount Horeb. Could any one of them doubt that the authority, which avouched the law given to them, was decisive. Nevertheless, how daringly did they rush into idolatry! They did it not only against the express letter of the law, but whilst the terrible voice, in which it was delivered, one would think, was still sounding in their ears. And though they could not doubt the authority of God, yet their rebellions are imputed to their infidelity. ” How long,” saith the Lord God, ” will this people provoke me? how long will it be ere they believe me?” Num. 14: 11. The very same is the case with ourselves. We turn aside from the known commandments of our God ; we prefer the service of some vile lust to our bounden duty, though we allow the Scripture to be a divine revelation, and read it as such; till we read it with prayer, imploring the God whose word it is, to grant, by the illumination of his Spirit, that his word may be put into our mind and exert a sovereign sway over it. This doctrine is of the utmost importance; for, if you take away the influence of the Holy Spirit from the members of the church, then the very Gospel of Christ will be no more than a sublime speculation, as ineffectual to change the heart or reform the world as the pagan philosophy. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter, is the inestimable promise made to the church ; if therefore we would read the Bible for our reproof, our correction, our instruction in righteousness, we must before, and as we read, pray to God for his influence and teaching.

(Italics added)

Henry Venn, The Complete Duty of Man, or A System of Doctrinal and Practical Christianity designed for the use of families, 1763, Revised and Corrected by H. Venn, (New York: American Tract Society, 1838), 389-391.

Charles Drillincourt, 1658, on Scripture’s Self-Interpretation

Papist: That the Word of God contained in the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments, is not the rule of all Verity, since you yourself confess that you hold many things which are not found in the Divine Books.

Protestant: You have already made this objection, and I think I have sufficiently answered it, but seeing it pleaseth you so much, I will (to satisfy you) examine it once more. To demonstrate the vanity of your argument, I take notice, that you cut off the essential words of the Article. For it is thus, that the Word of God contained in the Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, is the rule of all verity, containing all that is necessary to the service of God and our salvation. But it is clearer than the sun, that the Word of God must regulate all sorts of truths; and that all that of which it makes not mention, is false and a lie. A man must be more than distracted of his wits, who should have such a foolish and extravagant thought. There are many things of which we are assured by the senses; some things we learn by histories, which have been written from age to age and some things we know by the report of others, and by our own experiences.

In fine. There is a multitude of things, whereof the Word of God makes no mention at all, either explicitly, or implicitly. Therefore, we say in the Fifth Article of our Confession of Faith, That the Word of God is the rule of all truth, we understand it of every Gospel truth, and of the very truth which concerns the Faith, and is necessary to Salvation. As the same Article clearly explains it, by adding immediately after that, it contains all that is necessary to the service of God, and our Salvation.

Moreover, (as I have already observed) you must carefully distinguish betwixt the rule and the thing regulated thereby. The rule is the Word of God, and the thing regulated, is the Doctrine of our Salvation and the service of God. All that is squared by this rule; all that is contained in this Divinely inspired Scripture, or may be drawn thence by evident and necessary consequence, we embrace in with the entire Obedience of Faith. On the contrary, we reject whatsoever is not squared by this rule, whatsoever is contrary to, or that no conformity or agreement with the Word of God. And we value it not at all, how fair a show soever it may have of piety and devotion….

Whatsoever is necessary to salvation, clearly and expressly in the holy Scripture. If there be any thing of this nature, which is less clear in one place, it is sufficiently explained in another. And Scripture is interpreted by Scripture itself. God hath provided for our salvation in such sort, and hath disposed his Oracles with such admirable wisdom, that not only the precepts of faith and piety, but also those of Regeneration and Holiness of life are clear and easy to understand.

Charles Drillincourt, The Protestant’s Self-Defense or a Discourse Between a Papist and Protestant wherein the disagreement of the Popish Religion, and the agreement of the Protestant with Scripture, is plainly proved to the meanest capacity, 2 Edition, (London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns near Mercers-Chappel, at the lower end of Cheapside, 1685.), 159-161.

Charles Drillincourt, 1658, on 1 John 5:7

Papists: I confess, that as to the thing itself, the mystery of the Trinity is found in Holy Scripture; I confess likewise that the word three is there, but you must grant me, that the very word “Trinity” is not there.

Protestants: I grant it, but that is not at all contrary to the Rule of my Faith. Neither doth it at all prejudice my Religion. For we are not saved by words and syllables, but by the Truth and Solidarity of things, whereof words are only the image and representation. It is necessary to Salvation to believe in, and adore the three Divine Persons in the unity of their essence, and to have the saying of St. John engraven upon the soul: There are three that bear record in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. A true Christian, one who firmly believes this, and religiously adores the three Persons of this holy and glorious Godhead, in the Unity of their Essence, may be saved without having so much as heard of the word “Trinity.” I maintain that a true Christian, who firmly believes this mystery, and religiously adores the thee Divine Persons in the Unity of their Essence, shall not be damned for not having heard of, or not having uttered this very word, “Trinity.” The mystery which is signified by this word, is so great, and so profound, that the most learned Commentators, and the richest and most eloquent discourses, cannot teach us more of, that St. John the Divine doth in these heavenly words, There are three that bear record ion heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.

Charles Drillincourt, The Protestant’s Self-Defense or a Discourse Between a Papist and Protestant wherein the disagreement of the Popish Religion, and the agreement of the Protestant with Scripture, is plainly proved to the meanest capacity, 2 Edition, (London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns near Mercers-Chappel, at the lower end of Cheapside, 1685.), 90-91.

Andrew Willet (1562-1621) on Holy Scripture

Authority of Scripture

This chapter addresses the question of whether traditional belief in inspiration and authority of the sacred text implies an essentially dogmatic and subjective exegetical result. To answer this question, it is first important to reflect upon the historical conditions within which the debate for Scripture’s authority was couched. The formulation of theology during the Reformation was done bearing the worries and tensions of the Reformation church. Rather than approaching the apographa dogmatically or hypothetically, the infallible authority of sola Scripture was raised against the authoritas of Rome in a bloody and vulnerable birthing process of extant texts. Dogmatics was of little significance if the case could not be proven exegetically. Likewise, to argue for the infallibility of the original autographs and not for current copies of Scripture (apografh) was irrelevant. The Reformation was in this respect the least dogmatic era of church history. It was a time of tedious, mundane research and writing, a time when martyrs burned for the truths they proclaimed.[1]

Willet’s massive hexaplas contain the three elements fundamental of the Reformation concept of Scripture’s authority, those three elements being: 1) the Reformation commitment to the inspiration of Greek and Hebrew texts then available; 2) the constant effort to present an exegetical base that was congruent with the historical tradition of church’s theological debate and formulation; and 3) the textual debate within the tradition for identifying the inspired words or in the case of redaction, the placing of verses or pericopes within the proper context. As Muller puts it,

Indeed, much of the work of the exegetes and theologians of the early orthodox era was the establishment of a method in which the sola Scriptura of the Reformers was clearly identified as the declaration of scripture as the prior norm of theology in the context of the churchly tradition of interpretation.[2]

No part of the church’s exegetical tradition is ignored by Willet. His writings show a high degree of continuity across an imposed line whereby some neatly divided pre- and post-Reformation thought. For Willet, there had always been consistent elements of the exegetical tradition. Throughout the history of the church there have been exegetical errors, doctrinal infractions and heresies, but the marrow of theology, to use William Ames’s term, has remained the same.

The Sacred Text

In his commentary on Leviticus, Willet introduces the two principal and conflicting sacred texts in the Western ecclesiastical tradition. He gives Rome’s position of Bible texts, stating, “the church of Rome holdeth the Latin vulgar text to be authentical, and prefer it before the Hebrew, in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, as it was decreed in their late tridentine chapter.”[3] Continuing to develop his argument, he wrote,

So that it appeareth to be an unreasonable opinion to prefer a translation full of corruptions before the pure Originals [apographa]… and it is against all reason to give greater authority to a translation compiled by one, who was not a prophet or apostle, before the Original which was penned by the apostles and prophets. Our blessed Savior saith, ‘Moses wrote of me,’ but Moses wrote in Hebrew. We should then have recourse unto the Hebrew writings of Moses, as being the fountain, out of which all other translations of the Old Testament were derived.[4]

          Willet’s singular reason for arguing for the superiority of the Hebrew and Greek texts was that these were the languages the Holy Spirit used to inspire the sacred text. Not having gone through the human enterprise of translation, the original biblical languages were superior to every other written document or manmade tradition.

          These findings are completely consistent with those of Calvin, who wrote how God, through the Jews “did preserve for us the doctrine of salvation embraced in the Law and the Prophets, that Christ in His own time might be made manifest (Matt. 22:37-40).”[5] In spite of the tribulation and adversity the word of God has endured throughout the ages, Calvin argued, “Rather, by this very fact it is proved to be from God, because, with all human efforts striving against it, still it has of its own power thus prevailed.”[6]

          The perspicuity of Scripture and the right of Scripture to interpret itself is taken up by Willet in Romans 11:8, where Scripture reads, “According as it is written.” In this passage the apostle presents what Willet calls “this often allegation of scriptures”: of collating Scripture with Scripture as Paul does here by comparing the writings of Isaiah with those of David. From this reference Willet gathers a double use of Scripture. First, all doctrine of faith must be derived from Scripture, since the apostle throughout the book for “the proof of his doctrine only allegeth Scriptures.” Citing John 5:39, Willet closes this first point by saying that “Christ admitteth no other witness of him, and his doctrine, but the Scriptures.” The second use of Scripture is that one portion of Scripture will “illustrate and interpret” another portion of Scripture. In this process we see that the Scripture is its own best interpreter. Following this exegetical format the reader will find that “which in one place is obscurely insinuated, otherwhere it may be found more plainly and perspicuously expressed.”[7] Augustine said, “We are nourished with the easier, and exercised by the harder places of Scripture: there are we kept from famishing, here from loathing.”[8] Willet held that proper interpretation was “to use only Scripture for interpretation of Scripture if we would be sure, and neither swerve from the analogy of faith in expounding.”[9]

          Ainsworth likewise emphasized knowledge of the literal sense of the Hebrew as the prerequisite for determining the principal interpretation. Subsequent to “the natural meaning of scripture being known, the mysteries of godliness therein applied may be better discerned.” He goes on to say that this discernment “may be achieved in a great measure, by the scriptures themselves; which being compared do open one another.”[10] Later in the preface Ainsworth states why such serious investigation must be pursued by the grammarian. He says,

For by a true and sound literal explication, the spiritual meaning may be better discerned…Our Savior hath confirmed the Law, unto every jot and tittle, Matt. 5.18. that we should think that any word or sentence to be used in vain.[11]

The doctrine of Scripture’s “own power” is taken up by Willet in his commentary on Romans 10:11, controversy 13, entitled “The Scriptures the only sufficient rule of faith.”[12] Willet in his usual polemic manner argues, “We are then only in matters of faith to have recourse unto the Scriptures, not unto written traditions, whether the papists would send us, for they are uncertain, mutable, variable, and therefore can be no rule of faith.”[13] Against the claim made by the papists that church tradition is necessary Willet writes,

And further, whereas the Apostle addeth, the “Scripture saith,” as before, c.9.17 hereby that cavil of the Jesuits is removed, which say that the scripture is mute and dumb, and cannot be a judge of controversies. But the Apostle saith, the “scripture speaketh,” that is, God speaketh in the scriptures, and it speaketh and proclaimeth the truth to everyone. Therefore it is not a dumb but speaking Judge, and therefore is sufficient to determine all controversies of religion, and matters of faith.[14]

At Romans 9:17, controversy 15, Willet concludes, “and this the Apostle evidently sheweth, by the frequent alleging and citing of scripture in this chapter, shewing that he appealeth thereunto, as the supreme and highest judge of all truth.”[15]

          Willet’s Cambridge classmate William Perkins reiterated his high view of Scripture in his commentary on Galatians. This was Perkins’s last book, posthumously edited by Ralph Cudworth.[16] In The Epistle Dedicatorie Cudworth writes this of the word of God: “They being of such perfection that nothing may be added unto them, nor anything taken away from them: of such infallible certainty, that heaven and earth shall sooner pass away, than one tittle fall to the ground.”[17]

          Located within Perkins’ commentary on Galatians 1:11 is one of the 55 “Commonplaces Handled in this Commentarie,” entitled “How a man may be assured that the Scripture is the word of God.” The term “common places” or “common-places” is a translation of the Latin loci communes, which is “the collection of the basic scriptural loci and their interpretations into an ordered body of Christian doctrine.”[18]

          The first point of two made by Perkins is that “it is a thing most necessary, that men should be assured and certified that the doctrine of the Gospel, and of the Scripture, is not of man, but of God.”[19] In the tradition of Calvin, Perkins states that assurance of this truth comes by the testimony of the Holy Spirit “imprinted and expressed” in the Scriptures and the “excellency of the word of God.”[20] Under the heading of the excellencies of the word of God, Perkins lists thirteen points, the ninth point being “the protection and preservation of it [Scripture], from the beginning to this hour, by a special providence of God.”[21]

          In the lengthy introduction to his commentary on Romans, Willet argued for the “divine authority” of the book. Question 1 in section 5. “Places of Controversy asserts, “That it is known that this epistle was written by St. Paul and is of divine authority by the epistle itself.[22] Bellarmine, the papist apologist “affirms that to know that any Scripture is divine or canonical, it cannot be concluded out of Scripture itself. Neither were the writings of St. Paul or the Gospel of St. Matthew divine or canonical without the tradition of the Church.”[23] To this opposition, Willet answers with three replies:

“Contra: 1. That the epistles of St. Paul are of divine and canonical authority is evident in the writings themselves. For they being written by Saint Paul, who had the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 7:40), had Christ speaking in him (2 Cor. 13:13), was taught of God from whom he received is doctrine by revelation (Gal. 1:12), it is not to be doubted, but that his holy proceedings proceeded from the Spirit of God and so are of divine authority. He himself did not doubt to make them canonical as he said (Gal. 6:16) “whatsoever walketh according to this canon or rule.” He denounced anathema if any, even an angel should teach any other gospel than he had preached (Gal. 1).

2. Likewise it is evident that St. Paul was the author and writer of them both by the inscription and title, and by the salutation at the end of every of every epistle and the benediction that he used, ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all,’ which he says is the token or mark to know his epistles by (2 Thess. 3:17).

3. The tradition of the Church is an uncertain thing. That which is uncertain cannot be a rule or measure of that which is most certain. The testimony of men cannot assure us of the testimony of God. Christ said (John 5:33, 36), ‘Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth: but I receive not the record of men…I have a greater witness than the witness of John.’”

Willet’s apologetic for the inspiration and authority of Scripture held that the extant copies of Scripture available to him possessed the qualities of the “pure Originals.” Fully cognizant of the textual questions raised in both the Hebrew and Greek texts, Willet held that the words of the original manuscripts were preserved for him in the apographa and were the source of his exegesis. This commonly held belief and critically proven fundamental element of reformation exegesis was the basis for all discussion relating to the authority to make the exegetical and subsequent doctrinal claims of Protestantism. Scripture was the practical thing, necessary for the spiritual life of the church and the authoritative bulwark against attempts for continued, non-exegetically based inclusiveness.

          To show the significance of the words “pure Originals,” the writing of a central figure in the formulation of reformation thought is enlisted. William Whitaker (or Whitacre), 1547-1595, Regius Professor of Divinity and Master of St. John’s College in the University of Cambridge wrote a treatise entitled A Disputation of Holy Scripture Against the papists especially Bellarmine and Stapleton.[24] Whitaker’s reputation as a scholar was recognized even by his ecclesiastical nemesis, Bellarmine. It is reported that Bellarmine kept a picture of Whitaker in his study. When asked by other Jesuits why he kept a picture of a heretic in his study he would answer, quod quamvis haereticus erat et adversaries, erat tamen doctus adversaries, that “although he was a heretic, and his adversary, yet he was a learned adversary.”[25]

          When engaged in his doctoral research in the unpublished minutes of the Westminster Assembly Dr. Wayne R. Spear tabulated the frequency with which the names of various authors were mentioned in the debates at the Assembly.[26] According to Spear’s findings, Whitaker was cited more times during the formation of the Westminster Confession that any other single author.[27] This finding alone illustrates Whitaker’s service as a bridge of contiguous exegetically informed theology between Calvin and Willet, to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and Francis Turretin (1623-1687).

          In his Disputation Whitaker fervently defends the writings of Calvin and utilizes him extensively in some places as the principal basis for his discussion.[28] Whitaker’s congruity with Calvin extended the influence of Calvin’s governance over future theological formulation. Built as it was upon the work of Calvin, even Whitaker’s diction to describe the Protestant view of Scripture was adopted by the Westminster Divines.[29] Not only do his writings bring continuity between Calvin and the Westminster Divines but he also uses language that later Francis Turretin would borrow in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology almost 100 years later.[30] Arguing the question of authority, Whitaker writes,

For we gladly receive the testimony of the church, and admit it is authority; but we affirm that there is a far different, more certain, true, and august testimony than that of the church. The sum of our opinion is, that the scripture is autopistos, that is, hath all its authority and credit from itself; it is to be acknowledged, is to be received … because it comes from God; and that we certainly know that it comes from God, not by the church, but by the Holy Ghost.”[31]

Whitaker held that the Greek edition in his possession “is no other than the inspired archetypical scripture of the new testament, commended by the apostles and evangelists to the Christian church.”[32] Against Jerome’s Latin he argued that “Much more ought the Greek to be concluded authentical, which the churches of the Greeks have always used from the apostles times in the public liturgies, homilies, commentaries, and books,”[33] and “That all these virtues (weightiest, purest, most venerable and impartial) must needs still be greater in the Greek edition, which is that of the apostles and evangelists, and finally, of the Holy Ghost himself.”[34]

          Willet was 33 years old when Whitaker died at 47. As one of his near contemporaries, Willet utilized Whitaker’s work and appealed to his writings in his Synopsis Papismi.[35] Whitaker reinforced Calvin’s work, as did Willet, and Whitaker with Willet had a common understanding of the authority of Scripture.

          Turretin in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology defined “original texts” as used by the reformers exactly as did Whitaker and Willet. Perfectly consistent with the exegetical tradition and theology, Turretin explains to another generation of readers,

By original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they are set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.[36]

          The authority of Scripture as principium cognoscendi argues the certitude (certitude, q.v.) and infallibility (infallibilitas) of Scripture in view of its divine origin.[37] So while the dogmaticians struggled with the textual imperfections of the apographa, they nevertheless assumed that the apographa was essentially correct. Under the heading of authoritas canonica or normativa the canonical or normative authority of the apographa is such that it requires assent to the doctrines and demands of Scripture and the use of events and actions in Scripture as moral examples for imitation. Not only is this an authority of authenticity that is subject either to argument or proof; it rests upon the res, or thing, given in the text, from their very substance, apart from any collateral or external testimony to them.[38]

The Protestant dogmaticians read the apographa and from their exegetical study sought to imitate the lives of those approved by God in the text. Because Christ Himself sanctioned the text of Scripture and placed his full confidence in the promises of God, arguing the validity of His equality with the Father on the words and the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), so then should all men.[39] Their lives of piety and adherence to the moral dictates of the apographa did not wait until after their textual critical work had been completed. They worked on critical matters while believing the apographa was both morally binding and in fact the preserved inspired words of God. The Protestant scholastics

do not press the point made by their nineteenth-century followers that the infallibility of Scripture and the freedom from error reside absolutely in the autographa and only in a derivative sense in the apographa; rather, the scholastics argue positively that the apographa preserve intact the true words of the prophets and the apostles and that the God-breathed (theopneustos, q.v.) character of the Scripture is manifest in the apographa as well as in the autographa.[40]

          The interaction between exegesis and dogmatics found in Willet and those of his era is illustrated by the tenacious manner to see that every word of the sacred text was accounted for. Before there could be doctrine or systematic theology, there was the necessity for exegesis to provide the exegetical boundaries for limits of historic Christian theology. As Muller writes,

The Reformers had developed, on the basis of their exegesis of Scripture, a series of doctrinal issues that were embodied, as the distinctive concerns of Protestantism, in the early confessions of the Reformation…. The Protestant orthodox held fast to these Reformation insights and to the confessional norms of Protestantism and, at the same time, moved toward the establishment of an entire body of “right teaching” in continuity both with the Reformation and with the truths embodied in the whole tradition of Christian doctrine.[41]

          Willet’s commentaries are indicative of an era when questions of exegesis and theology were being rigorously debated to the end that a codified body of orthodox doctrine could be articulated. To accomplish this task, the entire scope of the exegetical tradition was embraced with the expectation of proving only the most exegetically sound interpretation of each passage.

[1]For Willet’s consciousness of the high price paid for the Scripture in the vernacular see SP, 148, “I will adjoin the testimony of three godly learned martyrs, unto whose judgment I think as much ought to be given, as unto any man’s beside, who sealed the truth they possessed with their blood; these three martyrs are Tindal, Lambert, Bradford.”

[2]Muller, “Holy Scripture,” 467.

[3] HL, 101.

[4] Ibid. Jerome: “vt veterum librorum fides de hebraeis voluminibus examinanda est, ita nonarum graeci sermonis formam desiderat, as the credit of the books of the Old Testament must be examined by the Hebrew volumes, so the New must follow the rule and form of the Greek tongue.”

[5] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeil, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1.8.10.

[6]Calvin, Institutes, 1.8.12.

[7]HR, 523-524.

[8]ET, 5.

[9]CS.

[10]Ainsworth, Annotations, Preface.

[11]Ainsworth, Annotations, Preface.

[12]HR, 479.

[13]Ibid.

[14]Ibid., 480.

[15]Ibid., 451.

[16]William Perkins, A Commentary on Galatians, ed. Gerald T. Sheppard (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1989).

[17]Perkins, Galatians, The Epistle Dedacatorie.

[18]Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 179.

[19]Perkins, Galatians, 27.

[20]Calvin, Institutes, 1.9.3. For a parallel to “imprinted,” Calvin writes, “and we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived when we recognize him in his own image, namely, in the Word.”

[21]Perkins, Galatians, 28.

[22]Hexapla: That is, a sixfold commentarie upon the most Divine Epistle of the holy Apostle S Paul to the Romans. Printed by Cantrell Legge, Printer to the Universitie of Cambridge, 1620.

[23]Bellar. lib. 4. de. verb. c. 4.

[24]William Whitaker, A Disputation of Holy Scripture Against the papists especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, 1588 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849).

[25]Ibid., 359.

[26] Wayne R. Spear, “William Whitaker and the Westminster Doctrine of Scripture, Reformed Theological Journal 7 (Nov. 1991), 38-48.

[27]Ibid., 40.

[28]Whitaker, Disputation, p. 193, defending Chemnitz’s and Calvin’s objections to the Vulgate.  “We proceed to break the force of this portion also of Bellarmine’s defense, and to shew that the Greek original (apografa) in the new testament is purer than the Latin edition;” 293-294, Calvin’s external evidences proving the scriptures to be inspired; 340-351, extensive use of the Institutes 1.7.1-1.7.5; 514, defending Calvin; 619 we find Whitaker’s defense of Chemnitz, Bremtus and Calvin against Bellarmine.

[29]Ibid., 148: “For Authentic scripture must proceed immediately from the Holy Ghost himself; and therefore Paul says that all Scripture is divinely inspired, 2 Tim. Iii. 16;” 296: “We confess that God hath not spoken by himself, but by others….For God inspired the prophets with what they said, and made use of their mouths, tongues, and hands: the Scripture, therefore, is even immediately the voice of God.” See Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 1, art. 8, “being immediately inspired by God.”

[30]Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed James T. Dennison, Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), 71, of the original language copies, autopistian; 126, of versions, autopiston.

[31]Whitaker, Disputation, 279-280.

[32]Ibid., 142. Also see p. 280: “The state of the controversy, therefore is this: Whether we should believe that these Scriptures which we now have are sacred and canonical merely on account of the church’s testimony or rather on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit; which, as it makes the Scripture canonical and authentic in itself, makes it also to appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the church is dumb and inefficacious.”

[33]Ibid., 143.

[34]Ibid., 144.

[35]SP, 1, 168, 171, 173, 194.

[36]Turretin, Elenctics, 106. Also see Muller, Dictionary, 40.

[37]Muller, Dictionary, 52.

[38]Muller, Dictionary, 53.

[39]John Calvin, New Testament Commentaries, vol. 4, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), 276, “The Scripture cannot be broken’ means that the doctrine of Scripture is inviolable.”

[40]Muller, Dictionary, 53.

[41]Richard A. Muller, “Prolegomena to Theology,” in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 12-14.

Thomas Hall, 1658, on Psalm 19:7-12: Scripture’s Power and Preservation

2. Tis exceeding powerful. There’s latens, a hidden efficacy in it to convert the soul (Psalm 19:7 and save the soul, James 1:21; Luke 16:29, 31; Job 20:31) which no philosophy nor human eloquence can do. Nature cannot cure us of our hereditary, connatural sins, but the Scripture offers more grace, James 4:6 (i.e.) it gives grace and strength to conquer and subdue the strongest sins. Hence, it’s called a Hammer which breaketh the hardest hearts, Jer. 23:29, a fire that consumes our strongest lusts. Salt that keeps us from rotting in our sin. Tis as a Nail and an Arrow in the hearts of God’s enemies to subdue them, Psalm 45:6, and fasten them, Ecc. 12:11. The majesty and power of the Scripture is wonderful almost in every line, so that it breeds admiration and a considerate reader. By this the Spirit changeth lions into lambs, by it he raiseth us from death to life, from bondage to liberty, from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, insomuch as the wicked minister by preaching it, may convert souls, Jer. 23:22. It must needs be powerful because the Spirit is in it, which is mighty on operation, and the promise with it, that is we hear and obey, we shall live, Isa. 55:3. This can change a Saul into a Paul, it can make Felix tremble, and an Herod fear. It never returns empty from the battle, 2 Sam. 1:23. This is that two-edged sword, by which we offend our adversaries, and defend ourselves. I may say of it as David saith of Goliath’s sword, There is none like that.

3. Tis Sure, Psalm 19:7. The testimony of the Lord is sure, the word is called a testimony because it testifies our duty de facto, de jure, de praemio. It tells us what hath been done by others, what we ought to do ourselves, and what our reward shall be for so doing. This word is more sure that the pillars of the earth, or the poles of heaven. They may fall and fail, but not one jot or tittle of God’s word shall perish, Matt. 5:18. Hence it’s called a more sure, (i.e.) a most sure word, 2 Peter 1:19. Tis a certain infallible word. It hath often been tried, yet never failed nor deceived those that trust it, Psalm 12:6. We love faithful friends, and such as will stick to us in our misery. Oh then, love the faithful and sure word of God, which will never leave you not forsake you. Tis the word that we find the everlasting Covenant, even the sure mercies of David (i.e.) Christ, who in respect to the flesh, descended from David, Isa. 55:3. There we find by whom our sins are pardoned, our natures healed, our souls saved. These are called sure mercies.

  1. In respect of performance, they are as sure as if already done, 2 Sam. 23:6.
  2. Sure in respect of continuance. They shall never be taken away; his mercies endure forever. Once adopted, justified, sanctified, and forever so, 2 Sam. 7:13; John 13:1, let us not then sit down content with those low, perishing, uncertain things, but get interest in those sure, desirable, and soul-satisfying mercies. Pray with Sant Austin, Da mihi nummum nunquam periturum. Lord give me those riches which will never perish.

Thomas Hall, A Practical and Polemical Commentary of Exposition upon the Third and Fourth Chapter of the latter Epistle of Saint Paul to Timothy wherein the Text is explained, some controversies discussed, sundry cases of conscience are cleared, Many common places are succinctly handled, and dicers useful, and seasonable Observations raised (London: Printed by E. Tyler, for John Starkey, at the Miter at the North door of the middle Exchange in Saint Pauls Church-yard, 1658), 281-282.

Thomas Hall, 1658, on Psalm 19:7-12: Scripture’s Perfection

If the Scriptures be the very word of God, then it must needs follow that they are pure, perfect, infallible, of the highest authority, majesty, antiquity, and excellency; the best judge of controversies, and the only Rule of our lives both in doctrine and practice. This we shall see clearly proved to us, in Psalms 19:7 to 12 where we have sixteen excellencies and royalties of the word of God.

The Law of the Lord is: 1. Perfect; 2. Powerful; 3. Sure; 4. Makes us truly wise; 5. Tis Right; 6. Comfortable; 7. Pure; 8. Tis a Light; 9. Tis clean; 10. Tis eternal; 11. Tis true; 12. Righteous; 13. Profitable; 14. Pleasant; 15. A preservation against sin; 16. It brings great reward.

  1. Tis Perfect. V. 7. The Law of the Lord is perfect (i.e.) the whole word of God. As God is perfect, and hath self-sufficiency in himself, so is his word. Tis so perfect, that nothing may be added to it, or taken from it. Tis perfect formaliter in itself, and perfect effective, making us perfect. If the five books of Moses, which was the first holy Scripture that was delivered to the Church, was sufficient for the instruction of the people of that time, so that they might not depart from it either to the right hand or the left, Dt. 4:2, how much more complete is the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, which doth more clearly set forth what Moses delivered, both in precepts and promises, in practice and examples. Here is nothing superfluous, nothing defective; tis a perfect law of liberty, James 1:25, which admits of no addition or diminution, Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18, 19.

[Adoro plenitumdinem Scripturarum, Tertullian. Synechdoche Partis: Whatsoever is of God is like unto him. V. Mr. Philip Goodwin’s, Family Religion, p. 324,325. Ubi plura. Perfectus est canon fidei morum, cui nibil addi potest, nec admini, Brochmond, Aquinas. The whole Scripture is perfect, perfectione totali and every part of it percefectio ne partiali. Rivet Isagog, ad Script, cap 24.]

Thomas Hall, A Practical and Polemical Commentary of Exposition upon the Third and Fourth Chapter of the latter Epistle of Saint Paul to Timothy wherein the Text is explained, some controversies discussed, sundry cases of conscience are cleared, Many common places are succinctly handled, and dicers useful, and seasonable Observations raised (London: Printed by E. Tyler, for John Starkey, at the Miter at the North door of the middle Exchange in Saint Pauls Church-yard, 1658), 280.

Thomas Hall, 1658, on 2 Timothy 3:15: “Love the Scriptures for their purity. As God is to be loved for his purity, so is his word.”

So here what a large encomium and high commendation the Holy Ghost gives of the Scriptures, even such as is given to no other book in the world besides.

  1. He commends them in respect of one special property and adjunct, viz. their Holiness. The Holy Scriptures.
  2. From their effects, they are able to make us wise unto salvation.
  3. From their Authority, Utility, and Perfection, verse 16, 17.

The Holy Scriptures. Tis not simple “holy” but “the holy.” Those eminently holy letters, those sacred Scriptures; the article is emphatic, and therefore the Holy Ghost to distinguish these sacred writings from all profane writings, gives then such adjuncts and epithets as are incompatible to all other writings whatsoever. Now the reason why God would have his word written is this, viz. that it might be kept the better, and be propagated to posterity, and be more easily kept, and vindicated from corruption than revelations could have been, 1 Peter 1:19.

Observe: The word of God is holy Scriptures. This is its proper adjunct and excellency; tis holy, Rom. 1:2. They are perfectly holy in themselves, all other writings are profane further then they draw some holiness from them, which yet is never such, but that their holiness is imperfect.

  1. In respect to their Author and principle cause. viz. the most holy God.
  2. In respect of the penmen and instrumental cause, they were holy men of God, 2 Peter 1:21.
  3. In respect of their matter; they treat of the holy things of God. They teach nothing that is impure or profane. They teach us holiness in doctrine and practice. They call upon us for self-denial, universal obedience, and teach us to do all things from holy principles, and for holy ends.
  4. In respect of their ends and effect, viz. our sanctification, John 17:17, by reading and hearing, and meditation on God’s word, the Holy Ghost doth sanctify us, Psalm 19:8,9. The word of God is not only pure, but purifying, not only clean per se, but effectively a cleaning word.
  5. By way of distinction and opposition, they are called Holy to distinguish them not only from human and profane, but also from ecclesiastical writings. They have their grains of allowance, but the holy Scripture is pure and perfect.
  1. This must bring us to pure minds to the reading, hearing, and handling of God’s holy word. The word is pure, and therefore calls for a pure frame of Spirit in him that reads it: for as no man can rightly sing David’s Psalms without David’s spirit, so no man can rightly understand the word of God, without the Spirit of God. Carnal, sensual hearts, and such divine works will never agree. A vessel that is full of poison, cannot receive pure water, or if it could the vessel would taint it. Tis not for unclean beasts to come high these sacred fountains, lest they defile them with their feet.
  2. Take heed to profaning the holy Scriptures by playing with them or making jests out of them. It’s a dangerous thing, Ludere cum sacris. See 7 sorts of profaners of the holy Scriptures condemned, in Mr. Trapps true Treasure, Chap. 4 Sec. 1 to 8.
  3. Love the Scriptures for their purity. As God is to be loved for his purity, so is his word. Many love it for the history or for the novelty, but a gracious soul loves it for its purity, because it arms him against sin, directs him in God’s ways, enables him for duty, discovers to him the snares of sin and Satan, and so makes him wiser than his enemies.

Thomas Hall. A Practical and Polemical Commentary of Exposition upon the Third and Fourth Chapter of the latter Epistle of Saint Paul to Timothy wherein the Text is explained, some controversies discussed, sundry cases of conscience are cleared, Many common places are succinctly handled, and dicers useful, and seasonable Observations raised (London: Printed by E. Tyler, for John Starkey, at the Miter at the North door of the middle Exchange in Saint Pauls Church-yard, 1658), 267-268.

Thomas Hall, 1658, 2 Timothy 3:16 on God’s very words inscripturated

Before I proceed any further, it will be necessary to remove a block or two out of the way. Bellarmine himself confesseth that this is one of the chiefest places that we have to prove the Scriptures perfection: and therefore both he and Estius have invented all the ways they can to invade the force of it.

  1. Say they the Apostle speaks here of the Old Testament, for the New Testament was not yet added to the Canon, nor some part of it written, as the Epistles, and the Revelation of Saint John, especially when Timothy was an infant. Now if the Old Testament (say they) were a perfect Rule, then the New Testament would be superfluous, and void.

Answer: By Scripture here is meant not only the Old Testament, but also the New (some say) because all the books of the New Testament were then extant when Paul writ this latter Epistle to Timothy, which was the last of Paul’s Epistles as is gathered from 2 Timothy 4:6. So that then there were extant all Paul’s Epistles, a;; the Evangelists, and all the Books of the New Testament, except the writings of John, and (as some conceive) the writings of Luke.

  • To admit conjectures, let us grant that the Apostle speaks of the Old Testament, and that he acknowledgeth they were able to make a man wise to salvation. Tis true they were so, neither do the writings of the Apostles add anything as to the substance of the Old Testament, they only explain the Law and the Prophets, clearly shewing that Christ is come according as the Prophets foretold, Acts 28:23.
  • What was written in every age was sufficient for that age; and the books which were extant in these times were a sufficient Rule for the Church in those days. Thus the five books of Moses (till the other books of Scripture were extant) were the perfect Rule. So the Books of the Old Testament which were extant when Timothy was a child, were a sufficient Rule: yea, and before there was anything written, Tradition alone was sufficient, neither was anything written so necessary, but they might be saved without it. But now since God hath revealed his mind in Holy Scripture, we must to the Law and the Testimony.
  • I answer by way of retortion, if the parts of the Scripture as they were delivered were sufficient for the instruction of those to whom it was delivered, then the whole Scripture (a fortiori) which now we have, must needs be most sufficient for us, and for all the Churches of God to the end of the world if the Old Testament were so profitable, how great is the profit and perfection of both the Old and the New together.

[A fortiori: with greater reason or more convincing force —used in drawing a conclusion that is inferred to be even more certain than another.]

Objection: A second cavil is this, That the Scripture is not a total and sufficient Rule, but only a partial one; and though it be profitable, yet tis not sufficient without written Traditions. They are not here excluded no more than second causes are excluded (saith Bellarmine) from the generating of things in the world, as the Sun, etc.

Answer: If the Scripture contain all things necessary to salvation, then tis a perfect and not a partial Rule. But it doth contain all things necessary to salvation. Ergo, the minor I prove is this: If the OT did contain all things necessary to salvation, and were sufficient without Traditions, then a fortiori both Testaments together must need s be sufficient. But the antecedent is true, and therefore the consequent. The Scripture alone is able (saith the Apostle) to make wise to salvation, and therefore it must be sufficient.

2. The comparison of the sun holds not, because unto generation second causes must necessarily concur; but for Regeneration here is such a full enumeration of all things to be done, and no more needs to be added, and therefore Traditions are vain. Besides, tis well observed that the word in the Original signifieth not only profit and conveniency but also perfection and sufficiency in them for salvation, the same word is used for sufficient, 1 Tim. 4:8.

3.Objection: Though All the Scripture be thus profitable, yet the whole is not (saith Bellarmine.)

Answer: Whom so blind as they will not see? Seek a knot in a bulrush, and to make doubts where all. This is to trifle and not, to dispute: for who knows that All Scripture and the whole Scripture are equivalent and the same. So All is taken in other places Collectively, and not distributively as 1 Cor. 13:2, Col. 2:9, Eph. 2:21 and 3:15 and 4:16.

These rubs being removed, the sense of the place is this. g.d. Great is the Dignity and Authority and Majesty and Utility of the Holy Scriptures, (That Gift of Gifts) which have not angels or men, but God himself for their more immediate Author. It is he that hath given them, to inform the ignorant, to recall the erronions, to correct the vitious and to direct and comfort the pious. So that by reading and studying this Word of God, the people of God and specially the teacher of God’s people man be made every way fit and complete for all the services of his calling.

Observe: That the Sacred Scriptures are the very word of God. Holy men were but the instruments, tis God that is the Author of them; they were but the spirits of amanuenses to write what he should dictate to them. Hence it is called the word of God. Mark 7:13, 2 Cor. 2:17 and 4:2, 1 Thess. 4:15. the Oracles of God. Romans 3:2, and is ascribed to the Spirit of God, without mentioning any author, Heb. 10:15. What was uttered by the mouths of the Prophets, God spake. What was delivered was by direction and inspiration from above. Hence the Holy Ghost is said to speak by the mouth of David, Acts 1:16 and 4:25 and 28:25 and the word of the Lord is said to come to, Hos. 1:1 and Joel 1:1, Jer.1:9, Eze. 1:3, Heb. 1:1,2, and as the Old Testament, so the New Testament is the very word of God, for the whole Scripture is given by inspiration from above. The Apostle tells us that he had received from the Lord what he delivered to them, 1 Cor. 11:23 and Rom1:1, and 15:18. This made the Apostles still the servants of Christ, Phil. 1:1, Titus 1:1, James 1:1, 1 Peter 1:1, Jude 1:1. The foundation of the Church is said to be the Prophets (i.e.) the Old Testament, and the Apostles (i.e.) the New Testament, Eph. 2:20. So the Authority of Scripture is greater than of an angels voice; and of greater perspicuity and certainty to us, for besides inspiration, tis both written and sealed. This is fundamentum fundamentorum, a fundamental point very necessary to be known, for we never profit by the Scriptures, till we believe and are persuaded that they are the very word of God. He that believes not this, believes nothing, and very ground of all that atheism and profaneness, both in doctrine and manners, which abounds amongst us, springs from hence, have at the root then, and have at all. Lay an axe to it, and the branches will soon wither,

[To prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, see 18. Reasons in Bishop Usher’s Body of Divinity, and 18. Reasons in Ward on Matthew 1:1 p. 1,2,etc. Stock on the Attributes, chapt. 4. Mr. John Downam’s Warfar l.2.c.21.p. 160. Fol Capel on Tentat. l.4 c.4. Sangar’s Morning Lect p. 4.20. Mr Leigh’s Body of Divinity. l.2 c.2. Waleus loc. com. P. 124, 125.]

Thomas Hall. A Practical and Polemical Commentary of Exposition upon the Third and Fourth Chapter of the latter Epistle of Saint Paul to Timothy wherein the Text is explained, some controversies discussed, sundry cases of conscience are cleared, Many common places are succinctly handled, and dicers useful, and seasonable Observations raised (London: Printed by E. Tyler, for John Starkey, at the Miter at the North door of the middle Exchange in Saint Pauls Church-yard, 1658), 274-276.

Thomas Hall, 1658, on 2 Timothy 3:16 and Scripture’s Inspiration

The Apostle, better to encourage Timothy to study the Holy Scriptures, goeth on the prove that they are able to make one wise unto salvation, and that by drawn from a full and sufficient enumeration of those things which are necessary to salvation, where he commends the Holy Scriptures upon, a threefold account: 1. For their Dignity and Authority; 2. For their Utility; 3. For their Perfection.

  1. He commends them for their Dignity and Divine Authority, as coming immediately from God. Verse 16, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. (By inspiration of the Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of Truth, and led the writers of these Writings into all Truth, so that they could not err. Dutch Annot. In locum.
  • For the singular Utility, which is four-fold. First, for Doctrine to teach the Truth. Secondly, for Reproof of error and false doctrine. Thirdly, for correction of sin and evil manners. Fourthly, for Instruction in Righteousness and good works.
  • For their complete perfection, enabling a Minister for his office, verse 17, especially those four parts of it before named, v. 16.
  1. The Apostle commends the Scriptures in respect of their Divine Authority, they have not angels or men for their Author; the {Prophets and Apostles were but penmen, secretaries and instruments of the Holy Ghost, to write what he should dictate to them. So the angels were God’s messengers to declare the Law to his people, Galatians 3:19. The Scriptures have God himself for their more immediate Author, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, all and every part of Scripture is Divinely inspired, or breathed by God, both for Matter, Order, Style and Words.

Those Holy men of God did not only utter their words by the Holy Ghosts immediate direction, but by the same direction did commit them to writing, that they might be standing Rule to the Church forever: for the bare memories of men would not have kept them for us with such certainty as they have been kept in Scripture, and delivered to us. So that what David said of himself, is true of all penmen of Holy Scripture, the Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his Word was in my tongue, 2 Samuel 23:2. It is he that spake by the mouth of his Holy Prophets, Luke 1:70, and bid them write, Revelation 14:12. They spake not what pleased themselves, but they spake and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Peter 1:21. They were powerfully moved; acted, and carried out of themselves to write, say and do, what God would have them, Nehemiah 9:30, Micah 3:8, Acts 28:25, Hebrews 13:7.

Thomas Hall. A Practical and Polemical Commentary of Exposition upon the Third and Fourth Chapter of the latter Epistle of Saint Paul to Timothy wherein the Text is explained, some controversies discussed, sundry cases of conscience are cleared, Many common places are succinctly handled, and dicers useful, and seasonable Observations raised (London: Printed by E. Tyler, for John Starkey, at the Miter at the North door of the middle Exchange in Saint Pauls Church-yard, 1658), 272-272.

John Arrowsmith, 1659, on the Authority of Scripture

“In point of authority. Those were from the father of lies, as has been said, but these from the Father of lights. Scripture is of divine authority; Holy men of God (saith Peter) spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. They wrote accordingly. All Scripture, saith Paul, was given by inspiration of God. It is not more true that they are oracles for their use, then that they, have God for their author. Many large volumes have been written to make good this assertion. It is a thing wherein the Spirit of God, who indicted the Scripture, gives such abundant satisfaction to the spirits of godly men, as to make other arguments, though not useless, yet to them of less necessity; He alone bearing witness to the divinity of holy writ, and to the truth of his own testimony, so putting a final issue to that controversie.”

John Arrowsmith, Armilla Catechetica, a Chain of Principles; or, An orderly concatenation of Theological Aphorismes and Exercitations; Wherein, the Chief Heads of Christian Religion are asserted and improved (Cambridge: Printed by John Field, Printer to the University, 1659), 103-104. 

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started