Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:47:10.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rise and Fall of Biblical Perspicuity: Remonstrants and the Transition toward Modern Exegesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2014

Keith D. Stanglin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the biblical exegesis of two seventeenth-century Dutch Remonstrant theologians, Simon Episcopius (1583–1643) and Étienne de Courcelles (1586–1659). Their hermeneutic was characterized by an emphasis on the perspicuity, or clarity, of scripture through the use of reason, combined with the marginalization of spiritual meanings in favor of the literal-grammatical sense alone. In both of these emphases, they went beyond their theological forebear, Jacob Arminius (1559–1609), and adumbrated the methods of later Enlightenment thinkers. The stress on perspicuity and authorial intention led to increasing fascination with text criticism, linguistic analysis, and historical contextualization, highly rarefied disciplines that became prerequisites for correct, scholarly biblical interpretation. This development also pushed the question of biblical fallibility closer to the center of the doctrine of scripture. As a consequence of the philological, scientific study of the Bible, biblical interpretation was relegated to the field of scholarship and doctrinal formulation to the church. The original ideal of biblical perspicuity resulted in biblical obscurity.

Type
Articles
Information
Church History , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 38 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Legaspi, Michael C., The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 17. For a survey of biblical perspicuity throughout church history, focusing on the English Reformation, see Edwards, Richard M., Scriptural Perspicuity in the Early English Reformation in Historical Theology, Studies in Biblical Literature, vol. 65 (New York: Peter Lang, 2009)Google Scholar. For a survey of the controversy regarding perspicuity between Erasmus and Luther, and later between Bellarmine and Whitaker, see Thompson, Mark D., A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 143–157Google Scholar.

2 In his summary of biblical exegesis in the early modern period, Bray, Gerald, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1996)Google Scholar, 192, writes, “the key issue which distinguished Protestants from Catholics was whether scripture was self-interpreting, or whether it required the teaching authority of the church to make it plain.”

3 Bellarmine's exhaustive and learned polemic against early Protestant theology kept the next generation of Protestants adequately occupied, not least on the topic of scripture. See Muller, Richard A., Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Volume Two, Holy Scripture, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003)Google Scholar, 330: “Bellarmine's refinement of the Roman Catholic polemic drew response from so large a number of early [Reformed] orthodox theologians that it is fair to say that the early orthodox locus on Scripture and its address to particular issues like the perspicuity of Scripture depended in no small measure on the systematizing efforts of Bellarmine.”

4 Bellarmine, Robert, Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, De verbo Dei, III.1, in Opera omnia, vol. 1 (Naples: Joseph Giuliano, 1856), 96.Google Scholar

5 Bellarmine, De verbo Dei, III.3, in Opera omnia 1:102. Cf. Council of Trent, Session 4, Decree 2 (8 April 1546), in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Volume Two: Trent to Vatican II, ed. Tanner, Norman P. (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990)Google Scholar, 664: “No one . . . shall dare to interpret the sacred scriptures either by twisting its text to his individual meaning in opposition to that which has been and is held by holy mother church, whose function is to pass judgment on the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred scriptures.”

6 Bellarmine, De verbo Dei, IV.4, in Opera omnia 1:119.

7 The Westminster Confession of Faith, I.7, in Schaff, Philip, ed., The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes, 3 vols., 6th ed. (1931; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998)Google Scholar, 604.

8 There is one minor exception to this general statement. Lijsbet Reael, “Tot den lezer,” in Arminius, Jacob, Verclaringhe Iacobi Arminii saliger ghedachten, in zijn leven Professor Theologiae binnen Leyden (Leiden, Netherlands: Thomas Basson, 1610)Google Scholar, fol. 03v, mentions that Franciscus Gomarus confronted his colleague Arminius with sharp words after the latter's disputation De verbo Dei scripto. Cf. the discussion in Stanglin, Keith D., The Missing Public Disputations of Jacobus Arminius: Introduction, Text, and Notes, Brill's Series in Church History, vol. 47 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 105. The complete absence of this topic in Arminius's great apologetic treatises of 1608, as well as in his conferences with Gomarus in The Hague, indicates that Arminius's doctrine of scripture was not a source of meaningful controversy.

9 See Goudriaan, Aza, “The Synod of Dordt on Arminian Anthropology,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), ed. Goudriaan, Aza and van Lieburg, Fred, Brill's Series in Church History, vol. 49 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2011), 93–94.Google Scholar

10 The biblical annotations of the Remonstrant polymath Hugo Grotius will not be considered here. His attention to the historical criticism of the Bible also reflected the development from Renaissance to modern exegesis and is basically consistent with his fellow Remonstrant theologians. Grotius's work, however, has enjoyed much more scholarly attention than has the work of Episcopius and De Courcelles, which justifies the present focus on the latter two. For summaries of Grotius's contributions to biblical interpretation, see Reventlow, Henning Graf, History of Biblical Interpretation, Volume 3: Renaissance, Reformation, Humanism, trans. Duke, James O. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 209–223Google Scholar; de Jonge, Henk Jan, “Grotius' View of the Gospels and the Evangelists,” in Hugo Grotius, Theologian: Essays in Honour of G. H. M. Posthumus Meyjes, ed. Nellen, Henk J. M. and Rabbie, Edwin, Studies in the History of Christian Thought, vol. 55 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1994), 65–74Google Scholar. For similar reasons, the later Remonstrant Jean LeClerc, whose place is secure in the subsequent history of exegesis, will not be treated here.

11 Daugirdas, Kestutis, “The Biblical Hermeneutics of Socinians and Remonstrants in the Seventeenth Century,” in Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe, ed. van Leeuwen, Th. M., Stanglin, Keith D., and Tolsma, Marijke, Brill's Series in Church History, vol. 39 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2009), 89–113Google Scholar. Fausto Sozzini (Socinus) (1539–1604) was the most famous anti-trinitarian of the post-Reformation period and father of Socinianism and Unitarianism. His exegetical method, emphasizing the perspicuity of scripture and the historical-literal sense, was expounded in his widely influential De sacrae Scripturae auctoritate, which first appeared in print in 1588.

12 For example, neither Episcopius nor De Courcelles is mentioned in Reventlow, History of Biblical Interpretation, or Bray, Biblical Interpretation. Episcopius is listed in passing with Grotius, LeClerc, and a few other Remonstrants in Farrar, Frederic W., History of Interpretation, Bampton Lectures (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1886)Google Scholar, 379.

13 For biographical details on Episcopius, see de Courcelles, Étienne, “Praefatio ad lectorem Christianum,” in Opera theologica, 2nd ed., ed. Episcopius, Simon (London, 1678)Google Scholar, fols. 02r-0004v. English abridgment and translation: “Simon Episcopius,” Methodist Review 45 (1863): 612–26Google Scholar (corresponding to fols. 02r-001r); van Limborch, Philip, Historia vitae Simonis Episcopii (Amsterdam: Georgius Callet, 1701)Google Scholar; Calder, Frederick, Memoirs of Simon Episcopius, the Celebrated Pupil of Arminius, Doctor of Divinity, and Professor of Theology in the University of Leyden (London: Hayward and Moore, 1838)Google Scholar, which is highly dependent on Limborch's account; Haentjens, A. H., Simon Episcopius als apologeet van het Remonstrantisme in zijn leven en werken geschetst (Leiden, Netherlands: A. H. Adriani, 1899), 9–110.Google Scholar

14 My summary is based primarily on the following four theses: Simon Episcopius, Disputationes theologicae tripartitae, olim in Academia Leydensi, tum publice, tum privatim duobus Collegiis, habitae, part 1, III.1, in Operum theologicorum. Pars altera (Rotterdam: Arnold Leers, 1665), part 2:391: “Perspicuitas Scripturae est evidens, clara et aperta sensuum omnium, qui universis et singulis ad aeternam salutem consequendam scitu, creditu, speratu, factu necessarii sunt, per scripturam propositio, quae sine labore examinis, sine auxilio operosae indaginis, immediata sua luce et evidentia, a quolibet, modo usu rationis et iudicii polleat, intelligi et percipi potest.” Idem, Disp. theo., part 1, III.3, in Operum, pars altera, 2:391: “Legentes igitur et audientes, quibus perspicua Scriptura est, non eos tantum statuimus, qui peculiari quadam et immediata luce interius collustrati sunt, aut qui sibi ipsis huiusmodi luce et iudicio donati ac praediti soli videntur, sed omnes in universum, quicunque et qualescunque tandem esse possint, summae, mediae, infimae sortis homines, in quibus, vel dictamen naturalis rationis et iudicii aut omnino obliteratum non est, aut saltem non enormiter vitiatum; vel in quibus supina aut voluntaria quaedam negligentia, manifesta inadvertentia, praeiudicata sententia, aut dedita malitia locum non habet.” Idem, Disp. theo., part 3, III.1, in Operum, pars altera, 2:445: “Scriptura Sacra non tantum perfecte in se continent omnia ea, quae universis et singulis creditu ad salutem necessaria sunt, sed eadem illa omnia perspicue, dilucide et clare etiam omnibus et singulis proponit; ut a quolibet homine, non tantum ea quae necessaria sunt, sed etiam sub ipsa necessitatis ratione, quod videlicet necessaria sint, facile intelligi possint.” Idem, Disp. theo., part 3, III.3, in Operum, pars altera, 2:445: “Ad hanc enim intelligentiam consequendam, aliud necessarium non est, quam vis apprehendendi, et percipiendi sensum illorum verborum, quae clare et significanter proponuntur: quae vis naturalis est, et omnibus ratione praeditis communis in omni statu. Unde nec quaesita multo tempore eruditio, nec operosa et elaborata consequentia, nec aliud ullum supernaturale lumen potentiae superinfusum, eamque elevans ad hanc intelligentiam eliciendam, necessario requiritur, Affectus etiam intercurrentes, qui vim intelligendi obnubilare et opprimere quandoque videntur, non ipsam intelligendi potentiam, sed voluntatem vel intelligendi actum impedire dicendi sunt.”

15 Episcopius, Disp. theo., part 3, III.3, in Operum, pars altera, 2:445.

16 [Johannes Polyander,] Den staet vande voor-naemste quaestien ende gheschillen die ten huydighen dage gedisputeert worden (Amsterdam: for Marten Jansz. Brandt, 1616), 22. Johannes Uytenbogaert, who thought Episcopius had been attacked by Festus Hommius, would make his anonymous reply in [Johannes Uytenbogaert,] Waerschouwinge, teghen het malitieus ende valsch gheschrift: Nu versch uyt-ghegeven t'Amsteldam (The Hague: Hillebrant Jacobsz, 1616)Google Scholar. These exchanges are summarized in Lamping, A. J., Johannes Polyander, een dienaar van Kerk en Universiteit, Kerkhistorische bijdragen, vol. 9 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1980), 50–52.Google Scholar

17 Episcopius, Simon, Confessio, sive declaratio, sententiae pastorum, qui in foederato Belgio Remonstrantes vocantur I.14, 16 (Harderwijk: Theodore Daniel, 1622), 6–7Google Scholar; ET, The Arminian Confession of 1621, trans. Ellis, Mark A. (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2005), 41–43.Google Scholar

18 Polyander, Johannes, Rivetus, Andreas, Walaeus, Antonius, and Thysius, Antonius, Censura in confessionem sive declarationem sententiae eorum qui in foederato Belgio Remonstrantes vocantur (Leiden, Netherlands: Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevier, 1626).Google Scholar

19 Polyander, et al., Censura, 18. Cf. ibid., fols. 02v-03r: “Non enim ipsis satis fuit, quinque illis famosis articulis obiectis antea, discordiae semina disserere, ni, postquam clanculum alios non paucos, eosque non levis momenti, ex Socini faecibus haustos adiecissent, eos tandem publico scripto, communi totius factionis nomine, evulgassent.”

20 Polyander, et al., Censura, 24–25.

21 Polyander, et al., Censura, 26.

22 [Simon Episcopius,] Apologia pro confessione sive declaratione sententiae eorum, qui in foederato Belgio vocantur Remonstrantes (s.l., 1630). Daugirdas, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 98–99, notes another attack against the Remonstrant Confession and reply by Episcopius. See Simon Episcopius, Bodecherus ineptiens, in Operum, pars altera, 2:48–58.

23 Simon Episcopius, Institutiones theologicae IV.i.9, IV.i.16, in Opera, 1:243–245, 264.

24 Episcopius, Institutiones IV.i.11, in Opera, 247–253. In his Confessio, preface, fol. B4r; ET, 18, Episcopius claims there are only a “few” things necessary to know and believe for salvation.

25 Episcopius, Apologia, fols. 33r, 34r-35r; idem, Institutiones IV.i.16, in Opera, 1:264.

26 Episcopius, Institutiones IV.i.16, in Opera, 1:265.

27 Episcopius, Apologia, fol. 35r; idem, Institutiones IV.i.16, in Opera, 1:265.

28 Episcopius, Institutiones IV.i.19, in Opera, 1:271.

29 Episcopius, Apologia, fol. 36r: “Nam recta ratio hic non significat vim, qua homo ratiocinando ex se ipso excogitare aut invenire potest id, quod rectum et divinae voluntati conveniens est, sed tantum vim, qua sensum clare et perspicue a Deo revelatum apprehendere, aut ex verborum circumstantiis, ex antecedentibus et consequentibus, etc. recte seu convenienter intentioni eius, qui verba protulit, elicere potest.” Cf. the nearly identical statement in idem, Confessio I.16, p. 7; Arminian Confession, 43.

30 Episcopius, Apologia, fol. 34r.

31 Goudriaan, “Arminian Anthropology,” 94. Daugirdas, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 106–107, notes that Episcopius goes beyond Sozzini in stressing the role of ratio recta.

32 For biographical details on De Courcelles, see Poelenburg, Arnold, “Oratio funebris in obitum clarissimi viri D. Stephani Curcellaei,” in de Courcelles, Étienne, Opera theologica (Amsterdam: Daniel Elsevier, 1675)Google Scholar, fols. 002r-00003v. English abridgment and translation: “Funeral Oration upon Stephen Curcellaeus,” Methodist Review 45 (1863): 92–105Google Scholar, 311–329. See also, Vermeulen, Corinna L., “Strategies and Slander in the Protestant Part of the Republic of Letters: Image, Friendship and Patronage in Etienne de Courcelles' Correspondence,” in Self-Presentation and Social Identification: The Rhetoric and Pragmatics of Letter Writing in Early Modern Times, ed. van Houdt, Toon, et al. , Supplementa Humanistica Lovaniensia, vol. 18 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), 247–280Google Scholar. On De Courcelles's friendship with Descartes and supposed translation of the Discourse, see Poelenburg, “Oratio,” fol. 003r; ET, 96; and Vermeulen's introduction in René Descartes, Specimina Philosophiae, ed. Corinna L. Vermeulen (Ph.D. diss., Utrecht University, 2007), 11–14.

33 Étienne de Courcelles, Institutio religionis Christianae I.xiii.1, in Opera, 26–27. Cf. ibid., I.xiv.7, in Opera, 30.

34 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xvii.1, in Opera, 37.

35 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xvii.4, in Opera, 38. Cf. Daugirdas, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 111.

36 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xvii.7, in Opera, 38.

37 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xiii.1, in Opera, 27.

38 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xiv.7, in Opera, 30.

39 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xvii.7, in Opera, 39: “Sed, quidquid in contrarium adferri possit, tam magnus est, et tam late patens rationis usus, ut etiam illi, qui in rebus divinis repudiari eam oportere contendunt, non nisi rationibus et syllogismis ad id persuadendum utantur; et sic sibi aperte contradicant, thesimque suam confirmare volendo, eam imprudentes destruant.”

40 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xvii.4, in Opera, 38.

41 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xvii.8, in Opera, 39.

42 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xiv.7, in Opera, 30, claims that obscure passages should be interpreted in light of the analogia fidei.

43 Descartes, René, Discourse on Method, trans. Cress, Donald A. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1980)Google Scholar, 10. The Discourse was first published in 1637, and De Courcelles published his Latin translation in 1644. De Courcelles had many years to soak up the basics of Cartesianism before composing his Institutio, which consisted of lectures given to his students in Amsterdam (sometime between 1643 and 1659). See Philip van Limborch, “Praefatio ad lectorem,” in De Courcelles, Opera, fol. 02r.

44 Descartes, Discourse on Method, 12.

45 For example, see Alexandria, Philo of, Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis II, III, trans. Colson, F. H. and Whitaker, G. H., in Philo, Volume I, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929)Google Scholar, 176, who compares orthos logos, that is, right reason, to the sun that rises and “scatters the great darkness.”

46 John Calvin provides a clear but typical articulation of the limits of reason. See Calvin, Institutio Christianae religionis (1559), in Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 2, ed. Baum, G., Cunitz, E., and Reuss, E. (Brunswick: C. A. Schwetschke and Son, 1864)Google Scholar, I.xv.6; II.ii.2–4, 12, 24–25.

47 Once again, one may hear echoes of Descartes and even clearer anticipations of Locke. Descartes, Discourse on Method, 7. Locke, John, An Essay concerning Humane Understanding, in Four Books IV.xvii (London: for Awnsham and John Churchil and Samuel Manship, 1700), 404–17Google Scholar, on reason. Cf. idem, An Essay concerning Humane Understanding, in Four Books IV.xix.14, p. 427 (emphasis original): “Reason must be our last Judge and Guide in every Thing.”

48 Arminius, Jacob, Disputatio privata VIII.4, in Opera theologica (Leiden, Netherlands: Godefridus Basson, 1629)Google Scholar, 345; The Works of James Arminius, London edition, trans. Nichols, James and Nichols, William, 3 vols. (1825, 1828, 1875; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1986)Google Scholar, 2:328. Cf. Disputatio publica XXVI.12; XXVII.16, in Stanglin, Missing Public Disputations, 150, 160.

49 Arminius, Disp. priv. VIII.5, in Opera, 345; Works 2:328.

50 Arminius, Oratio de sacerdotio Christi habita a D. Iacobo Arminio cum publice doctor s. theologiae crearetur, in Opera, 10; Works 1:405.

51 Haentjens, A. H., Remonstrantsche en Calvinistische dogmatiek in verband met elkaar en met de ontwikkeling van het dogma (Leiden, Netherlands: A. H. Adriani, 1913)Google Scholar, 48. Contrast this sentiment with Calvin, Institutio I.vii.4: “The testimony of the Spirit is superior (praestantius) to all reason.” On reason in Episcopius, see also Hoenderdaal, G. J., “Arminius en Episcopius,” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 60 (1980): 228–235Google Scholar, who, contra Haentjens, argues for more continuity with Arminius on the use of reason. The point remains, however, that development is unquestionable by the time of De Courcelles.

52 See the discussion of Andrew of St. Victor in Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (New York: Philosophical Library, 1952), 112–195Google Scholar; and de Lubac, Henri, Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, 3 vols., trans. Sebanc, Mark and Macierowski, E. M. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998–2000), 3:271–273Google Scholar, 308–311. For a brief summary of the significance of the more well-known Nicholas of Lyra, see Muller, Richard A., “Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: The View from the Middle Ages,” in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Muller, Richard A. and Thompson, John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996)Google Scholar, 11.

53 For example, in the preface to his commentary on Romans, Calvin claimed that it is almost the sole task of the commentator to lay open the mind of the writer. See Calvin, “Calvinus Grynaeo,” in Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, Calvini opera recognita II/13:3: “Et sane quum hoc sit prope unicum illius officium, mentem scriptoris, quem explicandum sumpsit, patefacere.” For some helpful summaries of Calvin's exegetical method, see Steinmetz, David C., “John Calvin as an Interpreter of the Bible,” in Calvin and the Bible, ed. McKim, Donald K. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 282–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson, John L., “Calvin as a Biblical Interpreter,” in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, ed. McKim, Donald K. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Muller, Richard A., “The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment in Calvin's Exegesis of the Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom,” in The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Steinmetz, David C. (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), 68–82Google Scholar; Kraus, Hans-Joachim, “Calvin's Exegetical Principles,” trans. Crim, Keith, Interpretation 31/1 (1977): 8–18Google Scholar; Ganoczy, Alexandre and Scheld, Stefan, Die Hermeneutik Calvins: Geistesgeschichtliche Voraussetzungen und Grundzüge, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz 114 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1983)Google Scholar; de Greef, Wulfert, Calvijn en zijn uitleg van de Psalmen: Een onderzoek naar zijn exegetische methode (Kampen: Kok, 2006).Google Scholar

54 Polyander, et al., Censura, 24: “Ex qua Episcopii explicatione constat, Remonstrantes non tantum confundere sensum S. Scripturae grammaticum, seu literalem, cum sensu eius spirituali: verum etiam cum Osterodio aliisque Socinianis putare, verborum S. Scripturae sensum sine praecedente interna illuminatione et revelatione Spiritus Sancti in hominibus fidem atque obedientiam aliquo modo operari posse.”

55 Episcopius, Apologia, fol. 33r. Elsewhere, Episcopius argues that there is nothing wrong with agreeing with Sozzini when his opinions are orthodox. See idem, Bodecherus ineptiens, in Operum, pars altera, 2:53: “Et hactenus quidem ita disputavimus, tanquam si verum esset, Confessionem Remonstrantium non reipsa tantum, sed verbis etiam convenire cum Socino in iis capitibus, in quibus ipse cum orthodoxis sentit.”

56 Episcopius, Apologia, fols. 33r-34r.

57 Haentjens, Remonstrantsche en Calvinistische dogmatiek, 29.

58 This conclusion is consistent with that of J. J. Conybeare, The Bampton Lectures for the Year MDCCCXXIV. Being an Attempt to Trace the History and to Ascertain the Limits of the Secondary and Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1824), 259: “Episcopius, the well known and able advocate of the Arminian tenets, though inclining more strongly to the literal and practical exposition, neither rejects the authority nor denies the value of that which is mystical and typical.” See also Haentjens, Remonstrantsche en Calvinistische dogmatiek, 30, who states that Episcopius left some room for the spiritual sense, but above the spiritual and grammatical senses he placed the “sensus rationalis.”

59 Episcopius, Institutiones III.iv.13, in Opera, 1:176–179.

60 Episcopius, Apologia, fol. 36r.

61 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xiv.7, in Opera, 30.

62 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xiv.8, in Opera, 31. A similar sentiment is expressed in Calvin, Institutio II.v.19: “Allegories ought to be carried no further than Scripture expressly regulates, so far are they from forming a sufficient basis on which to found dogmas.”

63 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xiv.8, in Opera, 31.

64 Episcopius, Institutiones III.iv.13, in Opera, 1:176–177.

65 See the citations in De Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, 2:34–35.

66 De Courcelles, Institutio I.iii.6, in Opera, 7: “non difficulter etiam vera lectio a falsa dignosci potest.”

67 Étienne de Courcelles, “Praefatio ad lectorem,” in Novum testamentum (Amsterdam: Elzevier, 1658), fols. 002r-002v. This claim is also apparent in the volume's subtitle: Editio nova, in qua diligentius quam unquam antea variantes lectiones tam ex manuscriptis quam impressis codicibus collectae, et parallela Scripturae loca annotata sunt.

68 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xiv.2, in Opera, 29.

69 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xiv.2, in Opera, 29.

70 Étienne De Courcelles, Letter to Christian Hartsoecker, January 29, 1654, Epistle 597, in Praestantium ac eruditorum virorum epistolae ecclesiasticae et theologicae, 2nd ed., preface by van Limborch, Philip (Amsterdam: H. Wetstenium, 1684), 849–850.Google Scholar

71 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xv.2, in Opera, 32.

72 Simon Episcopius, LXIV Quaestiones, q. 27, in Opera, 2:25.

73 For example, see Episcopius, LXIV Quaestiones, q. 1, in Opera, 2:2. Here, as he concludes his treatment of the genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke, he writes, “Atque haec vel unica ratio mihi sufficit, ut credam sententiam Africani aliis omnibus praeferendam esse, et eos qui quaestiones ac nodos nectunt, ut genealogias diversas, id est diversarum personarum, faciant apud utrumque Evangelistam, frustra esse ut thesin suam probent: Iudaeis se ridendos propinare, et sibi aliisque inanem simul ac gravem molestiam facessere.”

74 Episcopius, LXIV Quaestiones, q. 26, in Opera, 2:24–25.

75 Episcopius, Institutiones IV.i.4, in Opera, 1:232.

76 Episcopius, Institutiones IV.i.4, in Opera, 1:232.

77 Episcopius, Institutiones IV.i.4, in Opera, 1:232.

78 Episcopius, Institutiones IV.i.4, in Opera, 1:232–233.

79 Arminius, Disp. priv. IX.1, in Opera, 346; Works 2:328–329.

80 Arminius, Disp. priv. IX.3, in Opera, 346 ; Works 2:329.

81 This thoroughly Protestant concern goes back (at least) to Luther, Martin, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, in Luther's Works, American ed., 55 vols., ed. Pelikan, Jaroslav and Lehmann, Helmut (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955–1986), vol. 44:133–134.Google Scholar

82 Episcopius, Confessio, preface, fol. A4r; ET, 8. Unity on the basis of scripture was one of the characteristic features of Remonstrantism, and elaborate confessions of faith, to which subscription was required, were seen as the primary obstacle to unity. See Stanglin, Keith D. and McCall, Thomas H., Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 204–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83 Legaspi, 23. Cf. ibid., 21: “As the seventeenth century wore on, however, textualization was also advanced as a remedy to these same divisions. The new focus on textualization lay at the heart of attempts to unify and overcome religious division, to use critical science to regularize interpretation and save the text from confessional abuse.”

84 This observation is consistent with the conclusion of Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Two, 28–29.

85 Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Two, 324, 330, 355, 443.

86 For example, note J. J. Conybeare's tone of alarm in 1824 that there is a school of thought prominent especially among the Germans, and now influencing divinity students in England, that rejects “all spiritual and allegorical interpretations” (Bampton Lectures [1824], 7).

87 What I have here described as “obscurity” is similar to what is discussed as “scriptural opacity” in Legaspi, 25.

88 Flew, Antony, “Theology and Falsification,” in New Essays in Philosophical Theology, ed. Flew, Antony and MacIntyre, Alasdair (London: SCM Press, 1955)Google Scholar, 97.

89 De Courcelles, Institutio I.xiv.9, in Opera, 31: “Interpretatio Scripturae est duorum generum. Alia enim nude et simpliciter verum eius sensum enarrat; alia vero praeterea, doctrinas aliquas inde elicit, quas ad audientium aut legentium usum applicat. Illa ut plurimum contenti sunt Professores in Scholis: Hanc vero adhibent Concionatores in Ecclesia et apud populum.” This sentiment may be in subtle contrast to Episcopius's claim that professors and pastors are engaged in a similar task in universities and churches. See Episcopius, Confessio, preface, fol. A4v; ET, 9.

90 Jonathan Sheehan, Enlightenment Bible, 8.