Top Banner
CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY HERMENUETICS AND THEOLOGY IN NTHE 17 TH CENTURY: THE CONTRIBUTION OF ANDREW WILLET A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY FOR THE DEGREE OF MATER OF THEOLOGY THEOLOGICAL DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF HISTORICAL THEOLOGY BY PETER WILLIAM VAN KLEECK GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN MAY 1998
125

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Feb 03, 2022

Download

Documents

dariahiddleston
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

HERMENUETICS AND THEOLOGY IN NTHE 17TH CENTURY:

THE CONTRIBUTION OF ANDREW WILLET

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO

THE FACULTY OF CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

FOR THE DEGREE OF

MATER OF THEOLOGY

THEOLOGICAL DIVISION

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORICAL THEOLOGY

BY

PETER WILLIAM VAN KLEECK

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

MAY 1998

Page 2: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

i

Willet’s Works Cited

HG Hexapla in Genesin.

HE Hexapla in Exodum.

HL Hexapla in Leviticum.

H1S An Harmonie upon the First book of Samuel.

H2S An Harmonie upon the Second book of Samuel.

ET Ecclesia Triumphans.

HD Hexapla in Danielum.

HR Hexapla: That is, a sixfold commentary upon the most divine epistle of the holy

Apostle S. Paul to the Romans.

TE Thesaurus Ecclesia.

CJ A Catholicon, that is, a general preservative or remedy against the psuedocatholic

religion, gathered out of the catholic epistle of S. Jude.

SP Synopsis Papismi.

PE King James His Judgment by way of counsell and advice.

LG Dr. Willet's Observations on King James' respect to the two tables of the Law of

God.

CS Dr. Willet's Observations on King James, his Counsell and advice to all his

Subjects.

Page 3: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introductory Statements ...........................................................................................4

Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................6

Organization of the Study ......................................................................................11

CHAPTER 2: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE AND WORK OF

ANDREW WILLET

Andrew Willet's Life (1562-1621) .........................................................................12

Andrew Willet's Emblematics and the Divine Right of Kings ..............................16

Andrew Willet's Writings ......................................................................................22

Andrew Willet's Sixfold Methodology: Hexapla ..................................................24

The Text with Its Diverse Meanings ............................................................25

Argument and Method .................................................................................36

The Questions Discussed .............................................................................36

Doctrines Noted ...........................................................................................37

Controversies Handled .................................................................................37

Moral Uses Observed ...................................................................................38

CHAPTER 3: AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

Introduction ............................................................................................................39

The Sacred Text .....................................................................................................41

Exegesis and the Authority of the Sacred Text ......................................................49

Willet's Use of the Septuagint ................................................................................60

Willet's Hermeneutics ............................................................................................64

Leviticus 7 ....................................................................................................72

Daniel 2 ........................................................................................................75

Redaction ...............................................................................................................78

2 Samuel.......................................................................................................80

Romans 16:25-27 .........................................................................................82

Exodus 24:1 .................................................................................................83

CHAPTER 4: EXAMPLES OF WILLET'S EXEGESIS

Examples of Willet's Textual Observations

Synecdoche Rendering and Consideration for the Source of the Variant

Reading in 2 Samuel 7:7 ....................................................................88

Text-Critical Concerns in Romans 1:32 ......................................................89

Page 4: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

iii

CHAPTER 4, continued.

Use of the Accusative Case in Romans 8:3 .................................................92

Trajection of the Particle in Romans 11:31 .................................................94

Pleonasm in Romans 16:25-27 ....................................................................99

Examples of Willet's Contextual Observations

Identification of Persons in 2 Samuel 8:18 ................................................100

Inclusion of the Clause in Romans 11:6 ....................................................102

The Use of in Romans 11:33 ..............................................................105

Examples of Willet's Grammatical Observations

Grammatical Order in 1 Samuel 1:1 ..........................................................107

Christocentricity in 2 Samuel 7:19 ............................................................108

The Use of in Romans 5:12 .................................................................111

Translation of the Hebrew sorer in Romans 10:21 ....................................113

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ............................................................................114

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................120

Page 5: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

4

Chapter 1

Introduction

Andrew Willet (1562-1621) was arguably the most accomplished of the Church of

England’s Hebrew exegetes, specifically of the Pentateuch, and a prolific and outspoken writer

against the papacy. Most of Willet’s life has come to us in a biography composed by his son-in-

law, Peter Smith, and is adjoined to the introduction of the Synopsis Papismi.1

Except, however, for a few references to Willet as a Hebrew scholar2 and orthodox

theologian,3 modern examination of Willet’s writings has been limited to his poetry, and

specifically to his work as England’s first religious emblem writer.4 His Sacorum emblematum

centuria una (1598) was listed by Francis Meres with the emblematics of such noted writers as

Andreas Alciatus, Geffrey Whitney and Thomas Combe.5 It is lamentable that his massive

exegetical labors have never been studied.

1 HL, epistle Dedicatorie: and the rather, because the learned author dying, bequeathing it,

by his will unto your most reverend fatherhood (John, lord Bishop of Lincoln) Smith continued,

“I was not (I confess) constituted the executor of his testament: it was the office of a natural son

of his... Only (what a son-in-law may do) I come in tanquam nudus minister, craving the

administration of this legacy alone, that so I might have power to present it to your lordshi”

2 David Gay, “Milton’s Samson and the Figure of the Old Testament Giant,” Literature

and Theology, 9/4 (Dec. 1995), 55-369.

3 Richard A. Muller, “Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology,” in Post-

Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), 467f, 533f.

4 Diehl Huston, “Graven images: Protestant emblem books in England,” Renaissance

Quarterly 39 (1986), 49-66; An Index of Icons in Emblem Books, 1500-1700 (Norman:

University of Oklahoma Press, 1986); Peter Daly and Paola Valerie-Tomaszuk, “Andrew Willet,

England’s First Religious Emblem Writer,” Renaissance and Reformation/Renaissance Reforme,

New Series 10:2, Old Series 22:2, 1986, 181-200; Peter M. Daly, ed., “Andrew willet: Sacrorum

Emblematum Centuria Una (Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Ex Officiana Ionannis Legate, 1592?)

as published in The English Emblem Tradition (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993),

245-249.

5 Daly, “Andrew Willet,” 181.

Page 6: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

5

Willet was born two years before the death of John Calvin (1509-1564) and died two

years before the birth of Francis Turretin (1623-1687). He was a contemporary of William Ames

(1576-1633) and a colleague of William Perkins (1558-1602), with whom he studied at

Cambridge. Of Willet, John Mayer and other Protestant orthodox exegetes from 1565-1640,

Muller writes,

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 of the churchly tradition of interpretation. Their success in this work

may be measured in terms of the wide proliferation of defensible theological

systems constructed biblically and exegetically out of a burgeoning Protestant

tradition of commentary, biblically grounded confessional documents, and

exegetically grounded theological systems.6

The overwhelming thoroughness of Willet’s work is conspicuous in his methodology for

writing biblical commentaries. He draws upon every element of the exegetical tradition available

to him and to argue not merely within his contemporary exegetical era but for or against the

entire scope of the exegetical tradition. In his 877-page Exodus commentary, which he calls “a

widow’s mite,” Willet states, “I have made use in this commentary, both of Protestant and Popish

writers, old and new upon this book “as I have set them down in the margin) not rejecting the

judgment of any witness for the truth.”7 Both from his extensive citation of sources and from his

methodology, called hexapla, or a “six-fold commentary,” the studied depth of Willet’s work are

immediately evident. The one exception Willet takes to his six-fold approach is in his exegesis of

the short epistle of Jude. In the commentary on Jude, Willet followed a verse-by-verse format.

The briefer hexapla on I Samuel and the commentary on Jude are written in a more pastoral tone.

6 Muller, “Holy Scripture,” 467.

7 HE, Introduction.

Page 7: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

6

Statement of the Problem

The problem of modern appropriation of precritical exegetical theology arguably began

with J. P. Gabler (1753-1826). He is known for delivering the inaugural address as professor at

the University of Altdorf in 1787, on the distinction between biblical theology and dogmatics.

For Gabler and those who adopted his ideas, biblical theology is “historical” in the sense of

being bound to ancient sources and ancient cultural contexts, and thus within this “historical”

theology there can be no Christian dogmatic presuppositions.8 The result of severing biblical

theology and exegesis created something similar to orthodoxy, but in the end this disjunction was

so severe that no key doctrine could be derived from any single text. When biblical theology is

developed with no dogmatic pressures, it is no longer an ecclesiastical but rather a purely

academic discipline.

Succinctly stated, the appraisal of the post-Reformation dogmaticians is expressed by

certain elements of modern scholarship along two lines of thought, both of which are grounded

in the separation of biblical theology and exegesis from the religious and theological life of the

church.9 The first of these two lines is expressed by Frederic W. Farrar in History of

Interpretation. Farrar describes an inane methodology of theological work produced during the

reformation era of church history. Farrar states that there is no resolution to “moral and other

8 David S. Dockery, “New Testament Interpretation: A Historical Survey,” in New

Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 52-53. Dockery is citing W. G. Kummel, The New

Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems, trans. S. M. Gilmour and H. C. Kee

(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972), 98-104.

9 On the reassessment of pre-critical exegesis see David C. Steinmitz, “The Superiority of

Pre-critical Exegesis,” Theology Today 37 (1980-81), 27-38; Richard A. Muller and John L.

Thompson, “The Significance of Pre-Critical Exegesis: Retrospect and Prospect,” in Biblical

Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmitz in Honor of

his Sixtieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996) 335-345.

Page 8: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

7

difficulties” in the Bible in the exegesis of Philo, Origen, Aquinas and Calvin.10 In chapter one

he excoriates the entire history of precritical interpretation by describing the nature of his

endeavor:

The task before us is in some respects a melancholy one. We shall pass in swift

review many centuries of exegesis, and shall be compelled to see that they were,

in the main, centuries during which the interpretation of Scripture has been

dominated by unproven theories, and over laden by untenable results. We shall

see that these theories have often been affiliated to each other, and augmented at

each stage by the superaddition of fresh theories no less mistaken. Exegesis has

often darkened the true meaning of Scripture, not evolved or elucidated it.11

Moving from a general disparagement of the history of interpretation, Farrar raised four specific

problematic historic resources intended to bolster his invective. Of the Church Fathers he writes,

The history of exegesis thus far has been in great measure a history of aberrations.

If we turn to the Fathers with the hop0e that know at last we shall enter the region

of unimpeachable methods and certain applications, we shall be disappointed...

[Though admittedly one can find much that is valuable in the Fathers] their

exegesis in the proper sense of the word needs complete revision both in its

principles and in its details.12

Farrar concludes that even St. Augustine’s exegesis

is marked by the most glaring defects. Almost as many specimens of prolix

puerility and arbitrary perversion can be adduced from his pages as from those of

his least gifted predecessors.13

The Septuagint is also blamed for much of the problem, for its “intentional variations

may be counted by scores, and their unintentional errors by hundreds; and alike their errors and

their variations were in a multitude of instances accepted by Christian interpreters as the

10 Fredric W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (London: Macmillan and Co., 1886) x-xi.

11 Farrar, History, 8-9.

12 Farrar, History, 162.

13 Farrar, History, 236.

Page 9: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

8

infallible word of God.”14 The medieval schoolmen were, in Farrar’s opinion, “paralyzed by

vicious methods, traditional errors, and foregone conclusions,”15 while their exegesis was

“radically defective – defective in fundamental principles, and rife on every page of it will all

sorts of erroneous details.”16 Farrar held that many of these errors were perpetuated by the

Reformation and post-Reformation exegetes “who developed elaborate systems of theology out

of imaginary emphases, and by the aid of exorbitant principles of inference” and that while some

of the causes of error have been removed “we still meet the pale and feeble shadows of the old

systems wandering here and there, unexorcised, in modern commentaries.”17

Greenslade’s essay in the Cambridge History of the Bible echoes Farrar with precision:

From now onwards Protestant dogmatic preoccupations increasingly controlled

linguistic study; for this is part of the reaction from the intransigence of the decree

on Scripture made by the Council of Trent. In the remaining half-century biblical

studies will be too often subjected to Catholic and Protestant dogmatic concerns...

It would not be too great an exaggeration to say that the theological

preoccupations and inhibitions among both Catholics and Protestants prevented

much real advance in higher and lower criticism until the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries.”18

Relating specifically to the prophetic content of the biblical books of Isaiah and Daniel,

Greenslade states that the historical approach to the Bible has its liabilities but that it is

nevertheless

the best antidote to the uncontrolled subjectivism which formerly interpreted such

prophecies as if they were cryptic divine revelations of the future course and

14 Farrar, History, 39.

15 Farrar, History, 267.

16 Farrar, History, 302.

17 Farrar, History, xi-xii.

18 S.L. Greenslade, The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation

to the Present Day, vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 47.

Page 10: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

9

predestined end of world history. Again, genuine historical understanding

removes the very serious difficulties created by the traditional view, which held

that all parts of Scripture were equally true because they were all equally the

direct utterance of God himself.19

The immediate inference of the quote cited above would be to reject the traditional churchly

understanding that all Scripture was inspired by God. One would be hard pressed to read any

portion of Reformation-era theology that does not indicate the high view these theologians had of

Scripture and that in fact they held in their hands a book given and preserved by God. But did

that common faith so compromise the reason of these men as to warrant the characterization of

“uncontrolled subjectivism”? Did the exegetes of the 17th century turn a blind eye to grammar,

syntax and diction as well as the larger questions of authorship, redaction and hermeneutics, or

did they wink at specific details and the hard questions for the sake of their own Protestant

agenda?

The focus of this paper is to examine Willet’s commentaries and to demonstrate that,

contrary to Farrar’s and the Cambridge History’s opinion, 17th century exegesis, exemplified by

Willet, is not mere dogmatism or “uncontrolled subjectivism.” To be noted specifically is Willet’s

extensive use of the exegesis of the Church Fathers, especially Origen, Augustine, and Jerome;

the exegetical approval and scope of the Septuagint for dogmatics; the many references to the

medieval schoolmen; and a high and consistent view of the exegetical tradition of the

Reformation. A disputation of Holy Scripture written by William Whitaker (1547-1595), a near-

contemporary of Willet, is also enlisted to help decide the case. Would Willet and Whitaker

confirm the conclusion drawn by Farrar, or has he attempted to disseminate that era’s theology to

engender support for his own contemporary agenda? Were Willet and his contemporaries so

driven by faith and dogmatics as to make exegesis and reason irrelevant?

19 Greenslade, The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3, 302.

Page 11: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

10

Willet stands as perhaps the principal example of this era to the opposite of the claim of

“nonscientific.” Ainsworth’s Annotations on the Pentateuch, Psalms and Song of Solomon,

following a Talmudic model and critical in many respects, still lack the rigor employed by Willet

to work and worry through the text and tradition. Furthermore, by the time Matthew Poole wrote

his commentary it appears that much of the discussion raised by Willet and Ainsworth had been

received as the best proved exegesis and codified. Rather than debating the text’s merits, Poole

cites the received aspects of the exegetical tradition.20 Jack Rogers qualified the 1646

Westminster Confession of Faith as a pre-scientific statement,”21 as if to say that “the ancients

were not of a mindset to describe historical events, geographical details, or the natural world in

‘precise’ terms; they did not have at their disposal categories of measurement that could mesh in

a meaningful way with those employed by participants in the ‘new science’ (post-1650?).”22 If a

work is described as prescientific one would expect a nontextual, contextual, dogmatic

spiritualization of the written document in question, which in this case is the sacred text of the

believing community. Contrary to this erroneous assertion, Willet is still arguing in his exegesis

and commentary for the history, geography, diction, phonics, grammar, syntax and manuscript

support of the given passage in question.

Rather than subjectivism, Willet catalogs the exegesis of the entirety of the ecclesiastical

tradition, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, as he sought to establish the prepositional basis

20 Richard Muller, “Prolegomena to Theology,” in Post-Reformation Reformed

Dogmatics, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 13.

21 Jack B. Rogers, Scripture In The Westminster Confession: A Problem of the Historical

Interpretation for American Presbyterianism (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1966), 306.

22 John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 28. For a theological appraisal of this new

science see Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology trans. By J. Hendrick De Vries

(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989), 347-348.

Page 12: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

11

for dogmatics. His voluminous commentaries were unrivaled by any exegete of this day and

represent the intensity to which he worried through the exegetical tradition.

An initial step will be taken to document the critical inquiry utilized in the exegetical

works of Andrew Willet to illustrate the enduring worth of post-Reformation scholarship. To the

extent that such documentation establishes the error of claims to the contrary, this study serves an

apologetic purpose as well. Though lacking the recognition of Ames and Perkins, Willet’s life

and writing contribute to the wealth of theological writing of his day and, as will be shown, serve

as a historical link between the first Reformation and the work of the post-Reformation exegetes.

Organization of the Study

This essay is divided into five sections. Chapter 1 has introduced us to Willet and has

raised the question of continuing worth of the Reformation writers. Chapter 2 is an introduction

to Andrew Willet’s life and work. His obscurity in church history commends itself to a brief

exposition of his life and work as a biblical commentator. Chapter 3 contains selected segments

of Willet’s work focusing on three main topics: 1) the authority of Scripture; 2) hermeneutics;

and 3) redaction. This section will analyze the history of interpretation up to Willet and examine

the views of interpretation in his period. Chapter 4 is composed of a cross section of exegetical

work taken from Willet’s commentaries to the end that three main questions may be answered:

What is Willet’s respect for the text of Scripture? Does Willet evidence continuity with the

Reformation? Is there a reason for reappraising the contemporary evaluation of the Reformation

theological method? Or, in other words, does Willet sound like what contemporary exegetes are

saying about the 17th-century theologians? Chapter 5 draws the essay to a close and is followed

by the Bibliography.

Page 13: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

12

Chapter 2

An Introduction to the Life and Work of Andrew Willet

Andrew Willet’s Life (1562-1621)23

Andrew Willet was born in 1562 in the little town of Ely in Cambridgeshire, England into

the home of Thomas Willet, subalmoner to Dr. Cox, schoolmaster under Edward VI. During the

reign of Queen Mary, Dr. Cox was exiled, and Thomas Willet was hidden away in the house of a

noble gentleman. During this time of hiding Thomas was deprived of his service and forced to

forsake his first promotion in the church of Windsor. Thomas’ wife meanwhile lived at a farm

near Reading, the two of them secretly meeting when they could in the midst of a time of great

hardship and adversity.

With the death of Queen Mary, Elizabeth was proclaimed the queen of England. Dr. Cox,

with other members of the clergy, was recalled from his banishment by Queen Elizabeth,

whereby the queen made him the Bishop of Ely. Dr. Cox called Thomas to join him as Prebend

in his church, and he was given the parsonage of Thurkiston in Leicestershire. It was during this

time that a messenger came to Bishop Cox to inform him of the death of the parson in

Hertfordshire, to whom the bishop replied, “He is not dead.” The messenger, hoping to clear up

the misunderstanding, assured the bishop that the parson was indeed dead and buried, to which

23 SP, 43-79. This account of the life of Andrew Willet is taken from an account given by

Peter Smith, son-in-law to Willet, and is found in its entirety under the title, “The Life and Death

of Andrew Willet, Doctor of Divinity.” A condensed version of Smith’s account of Willet’s life

can be found in “Dr. Andrew Willet,” The Lives of Ten Excellent Men (London: Printed for Mark

Pardoe, 1677), 53-71.

Page 14: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

13

the bishop again replied, “I tell you the parson of Barley is not dead, for there he sits,” pointing

to Mr. Willet, who was then sitting at his table.24

Parson Thomas Willet and his wife were noted for their liberality in giving and caring for

the poor and for their unselfishness in utilizing all they had for the betterment of those less

fortunate than themselves. Though they had little, they generously gave what they had. It is said

of Thomas Willet, “The whole revenue of Thurkiston, which, as I hear, is a living of good value

(besides the stipend of his curate), he spent amongst his neighbors there, relieving some way or

other every one of them; the better sort of them by hospitality and entertainment, the poorer by

his alms.”25 This was the home life of young Andrew Willet.

At fourteen years of age, Andrew was sent to the University of Cambridge, where he was

admitted into Peter-house under the care of Dr. Andrew Perne, Master of that college and his

godfather. Not long after that he moved to Christ College, where he met Dr. Downham, the

Bishop of Derry, in Ireland, and William Perkins (1558-1602), “and others his equals, whom he

might have cause to emulate.”26

At twenty-two Willet’s broke into the public eye with his first publication, De anima

natura & viribus. For the next five years he distinguished himself as an orator and public

speaker.

After spending thirteen years in the university, Willet’s father resigned his prebend in the

Church of Ely. Having received this office, Andrew left the fellowship he had in Christs College

24 SP, 43-44.

25 SP, 43-44.

26 SP, 47. In The Lives of Ten Excellent Men, printed in 1677, Willet is listed fourth after

Dr. John Reynolds, Mr. Richard Hooker and Dr. William Whitaker. The remaining six men as Dr.

Daniel Featly, Waltar Norban, Esq., Mr. John Gregory, Bishop Duppa, Archbishop Bramball and

Bishop Taylor.

Page 15: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

14

and was married. God blessed the Willet family with eleven sons and seven daughters. Smith

gives the following account of Willet’s dedication to those in his community.

His manner was to arise early in the morning, and to get half way on his journey

before others could get out; he came down at the hour of prayer, taking his family

with him to church (after he was preferred to the rectory of Barley, upon the death

of his father) there service was publicly read, either by himself or his curate, to

the great comfort of his parishioners, before they went out to their daily labours.

Prayers being ended, he returns to his task, again until near dinner time: then he

would recreate himself a while, either playing upon a little organ, or sporting with

his young children; and sometimes he would use cleaving of wood to exercise his

body: At his table he was always pleasant to his company, telling some pretty

apothegm or facet tale, and seasoning it with some profitable application. After

dinner his custom was to refresh himself a little, sometimes sitting in discourse,

sometimes walking abroad, and now and then taking some view of his husbandry:

after which straightway to his better employments again till supper time: so that

commonly (without extraordinary avocations) he spent no less than eight hours a

day in his study.27

While engaged in the rigors of writing and study, he never omitted his regular exercise of

preaching. Early in his life, Willet lectured for three years in the Cathedral Church of Ely and

this was followed by a one-year preaching ministry at St. Paul’s in London. Sometimes he

preached in Cambridge (both Ad Clerum and Ad Populum), “discovering himself to be the only

man, Quem rui non insuscavit, whom the country had not stained: and therefore at his last degree

was chosen to answer in the Divinity Act.”28 Daly notes that Willet frequently preached at court,

and being admired by King James became chaplain-in-ordinary and tutor to Prince Henry.29

Willet was also profoundly interested in the affairs of the English monarchy, both

domestic and foreign, and sometimes raised the ire of the king. An allusion to the tension

27 Smith, Ten Excellent Men, 58-60.

28 Smith, Ten Excellent Men, 61.

29 Daly/Valerie-Tomaszuk, “Emblem Writer,” 182.

Page 16: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

15

between Willet and the monarchy is located in the Epistle Dedicatorie to Henry, Prince of Wales,

in the second book on his commentary of Daniel (1610). Defending his work, Willet says,

If any mislike my diligence in writing, as this age wanteth not carpers, I much

pass not their unfriendly centure, so that I may do good to others . . .. I have

heretofore exercised my pen in handling of controversies against the common

adultery, and as I was provoked, have written also in mine own defense, both

against foreign enemies and some domestic . . .. In which kind, as heretofore I

have exhibited to your highness a brief and compendiary treatise upon some part

of scripture, so now I make amends with a larger commentary, whereof your

princely piety, virtue, clemency (of which late I have particular experience) do

promise and even assure me of your gracious acceptance.30

Daly also writes of one instance when “Willet was opposed to the Spanish match and sent letters

to parliament through Sir John Higham of Bury arguing them to protest the proposed alliance. He

also sent copies of the arguments to the King who was sufficiently angered to have Willet

imprisoned for a month.”31

Like his parents before him, Andrew was charitable and generous to those in need; for his

neighbors and those who requested his help, he would be an advocate in behalf of those who

needed assistance in dealing with others, either personally or in writing. Andrew also served as a

judge between parties who had a dispute that they could not settle themselves. With the help of

other investors and using his influence, Andrew purchased a tenement in Barley, with the help of

other investors for the “use and benefit of the poor of that town.”32

In 1621, while Willet was returning home from London after meeting with the printer

about his Hexapla in Leviticus, Willet’s horse fell. In the fall, Willet’s right leg was broken.

30 HD, Epistle Dedicatorie.

31 Daly/Valerie-Tomaszuk, “Emblem Writer,” 182. This temporary imprisonment was in

February of 1618.

32 Smith, Ten Excellent Men, 64.

Page 17: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

16

Being placed back upon his horse, he rode a short distance to the town of Hodsdon. There he

turned into an inn and called for a doctor to set the bone. The doctor instructed Willet to rest for

ten days before continuing home. Smith writes, “His leg was thought to be well set, and no

danger feared that way; he continued to the tenth day hearty and pleasant.”33 On the tenth day,

December 4, 1621, his health worsened. After commending himself to God, encouraging his

wife, and singing Psalm 146, Willet breathed out a deep groan and fainted. Being aroused, Smith

records, he uttered his last words, “Let me alone, I shall be well, Lord Jesus.” Dr. Andrew Willet

was buried three days later in the town of Barley.

Andrew Willet’s “Emblematics” and the Divine Right of Kings.

Andrew Willet was recognized as England’s first religious emblem writer, the style and

content of his Sacorum emblematum centuria una, “One hundred Sacred Emblems,” has received

limited attention. Emblematics are “collections of self-contained verbal-visual statements, which

the author makes little attempt to organize into logical groupings” meant for religious instruction

and spiritual edification.34 That Willet would engage in this genre is not surprising, considering

the didactic manner in which he wrote and taught.

The essays of Deihl Huston, Peter Daly and Paola Valeria-Tomaszuk are valuable

resources to introduce Willet’s single volume of emblematics. Their analyses of the politics and

theology of Willet drawn from his emblematics contribute to the reconstruction of Willet’s

thought.35 However, by focusing almost exclusively on Willet’s emblematics and literary

33 Smith, Ten Excellent Men, 77.

34 Daly/Valerie-Tomaszuk, “Emblem Writer,” 186, c.f., 183.

35 See Diehl, “Graven Images,” 54-66, and Daly/Valerie-Tomaszuk, “Emblem Writer,” es

187-188.

Page 18: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

17

interpretations, the Daly/Valerie-Tomaszuk article must in at least one instance be considered

preliminary. There is one point extrapolated from Willet’s emblematics, as it is presented in

Daly/Valerie-Tomaszuk essay, that requires fuller consideration. This conclusion is drawn from

emblem 33:

Euen so mens rage God soone doth stay,

and tyrants always beare not sway,

God will not suffer them to stray

beyond limits set.36

Daly concludes that “Obedience to authority is evidently still required when the ruler is a tyrant,”

and that Willet’s explicit statement

is that God in his foreknowledge and providence regulates all things. The

implication is that it is given to the subject to bear patiently bad government and

an evil king … The implication is inescapable: It is for God to punish and not

man. There is no room in Willet’s world-view for political rebellion. He evidently

subscribes to the Tudor monarchist ideology, which sees in the person of the king

God’s vice regent and vice regent on earth – that is, the theory of the divine right

of kings.37

Though Willet could be characterized as a monarchist, he was a monarchist in transition. While

clearly not a Puritan, Willet was not “far removed” from Puritanism in his social and political

outlook.38 More precisely, Willet’s exegesis expressed that line of thought which would promote

the republican political plank of the superiority of the law to the king and not the superiority or

equality of the king to the law.

The duties of the civil government and of individual citizens to the civil government are

taken up at length in Willet’s commentary on Romans 13. An evil governor or tyrant is defined

36 Daly/Valerie-Tomaszuk, “Emblem Writer,” 192.

37 Daly/Valerie-Tomaszuk, “Emblem Writer,” 192.

38 Daly/Valerie-Tomaszuk, “Emblem Writer,” 192.

Page 19: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

18

by Willet as someone not attaining to the place of government “by lawful means” and those who

do not rule “according to the rules of God’s revealed will.”39 Willet asserts, “that evil governor’s

rule not by God’s permission only … but wherein God’s providence is seen, and such evil

governor’s are not sent without God’s secret will and ordinance for the punishment of men’s

sins.”40 But he qualified, “Neither is a Tyrant to be obeyed, if he command anything contrary to

the word of God”41

Willet’s patriotic allegiance to King James I would still not allow his commitment to the

monarchy and the monarchy’s commitment to the bishops to override his biblical exegesis.42 He

makes a clear distinction between the role of the civil government in deposing a tyrant king and

the role of each citizen regarding the same.

As touching upon the right of the civil government to police itself, Willet cites Pareus,

who gives four criteria whereby the inferior magistrates “may defend themselves, the

Commonwealth, and the Church, and the true faith, even by force of arms against a Tyrant”:

when the prince degenerates into a tyrant, blatantly breaks the law, fails to act equitably with his

subjects and forces them to an idolatrous and false religion; that if they do not resist, they

endanger the safety of their lives and consciences; that under the pretense of such a defense, they

seek not their own revenge; and, that all things be done in moderation for the preservation and

not the undoing of the state. A partial list of Willet’s reasons for maintaining this political

position follows:

39 HR, 582.

40 HR, 582.

41 HR, 582.

42 See PE, LG, CS.

Page 20: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

19

1. From the institution of God, and the end of the ordinance of the Magistrate,

which is to be avenged of evil doers, and for the praise of the good: they do not

bare the sword for naught: the inferior magistrates then having the sword, may

exercise their power, in restraining the tyranny of superior governors: and for this

cause inferior Magistrates are joined with the superior, not only as helpers, but to

moderate their licentious and outrageous government: and therefore where they

bridle the insolency of Tyrants, … they use the sword delivered unto them from

God by a lawful vocation.

2. Like a furious and mad man may be removed from the government, as

Nebuchadnezzar was cast forth by public authority, Dan. 4.31, so a Tyrant also

differeth not from a made and furious man.

3. They which have the power to constitute the Magistrate, as where they enter by

election of the Senate, consent of the people, or by other electors appointed, have

power also to restrain their immoderate government.43

Willet is more circumspect when addressing the issue of a citizen’s right to resist tyranny, but he

does nevertheless argue for such resistance. As touching a citizen’s response to a tyrannical king

he says,

if a man’s life be assaulted, or the chastity of his wife, or the liberty and safety of

his children, against all color of law, nature teacheth a man here to use defense.

Further the cause must be considered, for the which the subject is assaulted; if it is

a civil matter, resistance may more safely be used.44

He is extremely cautious about giving license to the citizenry to rebel against an unjust

ruler. One should resist only for conscience’s sake, never for the sake of property and only in

defense of one’s life. And while the citizenry may engage in civil resistance, they should likewise

willingly suffer for the faith.45 He argues for resistance within prescribed parameters but not

assault, and even resistance is to be avoided if in the resistance other innocent parties could be

43 HR, 592.

44 HR, 193.

45 HR, 593.

Page 21: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

20

harmed.46 Granted Willet’s high view of God’s appointment of “evil governors,” he nevertheless

avows, with these restraints and limitations, “some defense may be granted even unto private

subjects against Tyrants.”47

Though a tyrant may be sent from God to purge a nation, that tyrant is not above the law.

The sword may be applied by the lesser magistrates to that tyrant who breaks the law, and the

members of the commonwealth can in all conscience resist him and protect their lives and the

lives of their families from tyrannical intervention. Willet’s position is highlighted when

compared in the same genre to that of Matthew Poole and his commentary on Romans 13.

Commenting on verse 2, Poole says, “seeing the civil power is of God, and of His ordination;

therefore, it must not be resisted or opposed. To resist authority, is to wage war against God

himself,” and verse 4, speaking of the king or magistrate, “he is in God’s room upon earth”48

To say, “There is no room in Willet’s world-view for political rebellion” is too sweeping a

statement. Indeed, as a committed subject to King James, Willet’s exegesis represents a

reevaluation of the relationship between the bishop and the king indicative of King James’s

refrain, “No bishop, no king” and thus an openness to the role of Presbyterianism and parliament

in ruling the commonwealth. Willet’s exegesis points to a position as it relates to kings not

dissimilar from that which would unfold in Lex Rex authored by the Scottish Presbyterian

Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661).49 Willet was burdened with the conflict between parliament and

46 HR, 594.

47 HR, 594.

48 Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, vol. 3 (London: Banner of Truth

Trust, 1979), 524.

49 Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince (London: Printed for John

Field, and are to be sold at his house upon Addle-hill, near Baynards-Castle. Octob. 7, 1644;

Page 22: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

21

King James’s press to control the episcopacy and the resultant ecclesiastical encroachments upon

Presbyterianism in Scotland.50 He prays,

Lord grant that the glory of his own name be advanced, the King’s honor exalted,

agreement between his Majestie and the Parliament concluded; the flourishing of

the Church obtained; the peace of the Kingdome settled; and all divisions amongst

us reconciled, Amen.51

He laments the strife between England and Scotland, reaching back in history and finding

Such was the unity between England and Scotland, that not only the external wars

was then like to cease for ever between the two nations, but one uniform religion

was also forced to constrain them in perfect love and unity, that neither the

Church of Scotland should be jealous of the English Church, as inclining in

something to Popery, nor the English subjects the other, as affecting a popular

parity: but as loving sisters and fellow Tribles should hold on, Worship God, and

go up to Jerusalem together.52

Willet’s worldview did not include a principled methodology for a military removal of a tyrant

king and civilian resistance. He was however hard pressed to argue his principles in his time by

placing King James I, as a protector of the Church of England, in a most favorable light. Daly

has confused Willet’s personal respect for King James with his exegetically informed position on

the relationship of the king to the law and to the commonwealth.

In addition, there is one other significant index to Willet’s exegetical emphasis: his

commentaries contain no references to what was commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, while the

Geneva Bible and Great Bible are utilized liberally. If Willet were a true royalist, he would not

reprint by Harrisonville, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1982). See especially, Questions IX,

XX, XXII, XXX, XXXI, XXXIII, and XXXIV.

50 Williston Walker, et al., The History of the Christian Church, 4th ed. (New York:

Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1983), 551-552.

51 LG, 8.

52 PE, 2. Also see Willet’s commentary on Jude, 91-92, and his appreciation for the

Scottish pastors.

Page 23: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

22

have been expected to use the Geneva Bible, which included in its margins a Puritan and

Republican commentary.53 The Bishops’ Bible was so called because it was qualified bishops

who performed the translation work and completed the first edition in 1568. A new edition with a

careful revision of the Old Testament was done in 1572. It was clear to competent scholars of the

day that the Bishops; Bible was an unsatisfactory edition of the Bible in English. Not only did it

clearly reflect the theology of the bishops, alienating the Puritans (and thus in 1603, one element

of the Millenary Petition), but also the translation itself required further revision. To compound

the problem, the scholars in England, Willet being one of them, were aware of the quality of the

Geneva Bible, its continental rival.54

Willet made his choice both on theological and on scholarly grounds. Both a loyal subject

of King James and a minister of the Church of England, Willet was prudent in his honor of the

king and in his exegesis and practical application of the Bible.

Andrew Willet’s Writings

In his day Andrew Willet was known “as a Protestant divine and prolific writer of

theological works and Bible commentary.”55 In the preface of the Hexapla in Leviticus is the

catalog of Willet’s writings, with three of his printed works, Contra Bellarminum, Limbomastix

and Loedoromastix, omitted. The full list taken from his commentary on Leviticus is as follows:

53 Olga S. Opfell, The King James Bible Translators (Jefferson, NC: MacFarland and Co.,

Inc., 1982), 22. An example of the notes can be found at Rev. 9:3 which describes the coming of

the locusts: “Locusts are false teachers, heretics, and worldly subtle prelates, with monks, friars,

cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, doctors, masters, which forsake Christ and maintain false

doctrine;” Ira Maurice Price, The Ancestry of Our English Bible (Philadelphia: The Sunday

School Times Co., 1923).

54 Price, Ancestry, 268.

55 Daly/Valerie-Tomaszuk, “Emblem Writer,” 181.

Page 24: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

23

A. Printed books in Latin: 1. De anima; 2. Sacra Emblemata; 3. De universali vocatione

Judaerum; 4. Do concilys; 5. De universali gratia; 6. De antichristo; 7.

Epithalamium; 8. Funebres Conciones; 9. Apologie Serenissimi Regis defensio.

B. Printed books in English: 14. Synopsis Papismi, in five books; 16. Hexapla in

Genesis, in two books; 18. Hexapla in Exodus, in two books; 20. An Harmonie upon

the 1 and 2 books of Samuel; 21. Hesapla on Daniel; 22. Hesapla upon the epistle to

the Romans; 23. Upon the 122 Psalm; 24. Upon the 17 of John; 25. Upon the epistle

of S. Jude; 26. Epithalamium in English; 27. The said funeral sermons in English; 28.

An English Catechism; 29. A Retection; 30. An Antilogie; 31. Hexapla upon

Leviticus.

C. Unpublished works in Latin: 32. Comment. In Jonam; 33. Sacri Paralli; 34. Scali

Coeli; 35. Heptaphonon; 36. Catechismus Latinus; 37. Antithesis Pontificiae &

Evangelicae Doctrinae; 38. Variae Lectiones in Pentateuch.

D. Unpublished works in English: 39. An Exegesis, or exposition upon Genesis; 40

Marginal annotations upon the Pentateuch.56

Some comments on Willet’s labors are in order. Willet’s massive work, Synopsis Papismi

is 1,352 folio pages exposing the error of Roman Catholicism. It went through five editions, the

fifth being published by special commendation of King James I.57 Willet characterizes his work

as “A general view of the Papistrie: Wherein the whole mystery of iniquity, and sum of anti-

56 HL, Preface. Of the forty-three books written by Willet, nine were in process at the

time of his death.

57 Smith, Ten Excellent Men, 60. Willet’s commentaries are full of dedications to officers

of state and principally King James I. For example, Willet’s first tome of his Genesis

commentary, the first tome of his Exodus commentary, his commentary on Psalm 122, Ecclesia

Triumphans, upon the king coming to the throne, and his Romans commentary are all dedicated

to King James I.

Page 25: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

24

Christian doctrine is set down which is maintained this day by the synagogue of Rome against

the Church of Christ. He then describes the first section of the work, “The first book or

controversy: Wherein are handled the chief and principle controversies of the Scriptures, the

church, general councils, the Pope, the clergy, monks and the civil magistrate.”58 In short, this

book is a survey and an analysis of all the doctrinal controversies of the era.

Willet’s renown reached far beyond his life’s calling as a country pastor. Willet’s

popularity in England was complemented by his readership on the continent. The auction catalog

of the library of Gomarus lists the Synopsis Papismi, Hexapla in Genesin and Contra

Bellarminum as parts of his collection.59 It is said of Willet that “Justly is he numbered by Bishop

Hall (sometime his colleague in the service of Prince Henry) among the Worthies of the Church

of England, to whom he gives this Elegy, Stupor mundi clerus Britannicus.”60

Andrew Willet’s Sixfold Methodology: Hexapla

Willet’s sixfold exegetical methodology, followed in most commentaries, was probably

his most significant contribution. Willet designed his commentaries to address the text from six

perspectives, calling the six “Hexapla: that is, a six fold commentarie.”61 For Jude and his

commentary on John 17, Willet also included a fold-out flow chart of his discussion to illustrate

58 SP, 1-2.

59 The Auction Catalogue of the Library of F. Gomarus, a facsimilie edition with an

introduction by E. Dekker, J. Knoop, C. M. L. Verdegaal (Utretcht: Hes Publishers, 1996), 16,

49.

60 Smith, Ten Excellent Men, 60-61.

61 HR, title page.

Page 26: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

25

the logical and grammatical connections within the passage. The six categories, though they are

not always listed in this order, are briefly described below.

1. The Text with Its Diverse Readings.

Here Willet addresses both textual critical and alternative readings specifically as they

address the Hebrew, Latin, Syriac, Greek and cognate languages. Willet utilized an extensive

nomenclature and system for noting the diction, grammar, or syntax of the passage in question.

In the preface of his commentary on Genesis, under the heading “Certain directions to the reader

to be observed in the reading of this book” he informs the reader of his commentary’s continuity

with past writers drawing from the commentaries of Mercerus and Pererius after the manner in

which Jerome utilized the writings of Origen: “I have caused that our country men should know

the best things, and be ignorant of his worst.”62 Willet then describes the textual apparatus for the

critical references he would cite throughout the work. First letters represent the various

resources, and abbreviations represent grammatical or syntactical observations: S for Septuagint;

H for the Latin thought to be Jerome’s; C for the Chaldee; P for Pagnius; A for Arius Montanus;

B for the Great English Bible; G for the Geneva Bible; T for Tremellius, he for the Hebrew text

and cat. For cateri, the rest.63

It is also important to note Willet’s detail in marginal notes. The full list follows: ad.,

addeth; differ. ver., different words; diver. Accep., divers takings; app. F. pr., appellative for

proper; plu. f. sing., plural number for singular; de., detract or take away; cor., corrupt; div. sig.,

divers significations; nega. F. affir., negative for affirmative; invert., inverting of order; al, alt.,

62 HG, Preface.

63 HG, Preface.

Page 27: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

26

altering of the text; differ. pron., difference of pronunciation; mut pers., change of person; differ

temp., difference of the tense; simil. Voc., likeness of the words; interp., interpret, when the sense

is kept and not the workds; transp., transposing of words; mut. Temp., change of the tense; mut.

Voc., change of the voice, as when the active is put for the passive, or contrariwise; r., right; c.,

corrupt.64

In his commentary on Exodus, he provides this list of sources that span the scope of

church history and cross confessional boundaries: Josephus, Origen, Cyprian, Cyril, Chrysostom,

Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, Theodoret, Damascene, Lyranus, Thomas Aquinas, Hugo

Cardinalis, Isidore, Hugo de S. Victor, Burgensis, Rupertus, Rabanus, Luther, Calvin, Pagnine,

Junium annot., Arias Montanus, Junius analysis, Pellican, Simlerus, Gallasius, Marbachius,

Pelargus, Borrhaus, Osiander, Aretius, Zeiglerus, Cajetanus, Lippomanus, Tostatus, Ferus,

Pereius, Vatablus, Oleaster, Piscator, Genevens.65

Willet’s work is an expression of the historic ecclesiastical and exegetical tradition. His

commentaries served a winnowing purpose for identifying orthodoxy in the labors of his

patristic, medieval and Reformation counterparts. The section following provides brief

descriptions of dates and accomplishments of the less well know exegetes and theologians Willet

cross-referenced in his commentaries.

64 HG, Preface.

65 The reference to the “Genevens” in the margin of the commentary is directly adjacent

to Willet’s list including Luther, Calvin, Simlerus, Junius and Genevens and “other worthie

writers among Protestants.” By “Genevens” Willet probably means the consensus of the Genevan

exegetes.

Page 28: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

27

Cyprian (beginning of the 3rd c. - 258), bishop of Carthage; Cyprian’s most import work

was De unitate ecclesiae. He is also known for reworking two of Tertullian’s works, De oratione

and De patientia.66

Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444); results of his exegetical labors against Nestorius produced

seventeen books “On Worship in the Spirit and Truth” and thirteen books of “Elegant

Expositions” on the Pentateuch as well as numerous other commentaries on the Old and New

Testaments. His hermeneutical method that took prominenece in his exegesis was “the typico-

allegorical interpretation characteristic of the Alexandrian school in opposition to the Antiochian

school.” His most important work was a comprehensive commentary on the Gospel of John.67

Theodoret (393-457), bishop of Cyrrhus and an Old and New Testament exegete. Before

430 he wrote a commentary on the Song of Solomon; before 436 commentaries on Psalms,

Daniel, Ezekiel and the minor prophets; before 448 commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah and the

Pauline epistles. Between 452-453 he published Quaestiones dealing with the books of Samuel,

Kings and Chronicles. Theodoret was not familiar with the Hebrew and used the Syrian

translation, Greek versions and the Septuagint. He is noted for his grammatical/historical method

of exegesis.68

Isidore of Seville (560-636), archbishop of Seville, like Willet he was an encyclopedist,

collating the writings of the church. He produced the first dogmatics of the Latin church Libri

Sententiarum, and the Etymologiae, “the source of linguistic and practical knowledge for

66 Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious

Knowledge, vol. 3 (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1908), 330-332. 67 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 3,

333-334.

68 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 11,

323-325.

Page 29: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

28

centuries, so that he became the schoolmaster of the middle ages.”69 His Etymologiarum sive

originum libri viginti was the culmination of all his seventeen major writings. Isidore’s chief

sources were Cassidorius, Boethius,Varro, Solinus, Pliny, Hyginus, Servius, Lactantius,

Tertullian and especially Prata of Suetonius. “The Etymologiae remained the great work of

reference for hundreds of years, and was practically copies by Rabanus in his encyclopedic De

universo (844)”70

John of Damascus (c. 700 – c. 754); the last of the Greek Fahters and the most

authoritative theologian for the whole of the Eastern Church.71 His three earliest writings were

“Apologetic treatises against those denying the holy images.” His chief dogmatic work was

“Fount of Knowledge,” his favorite sources being Gregory Nazianzan, Basil, Dionysius the

Areopagite and Leontius. Of Damascene it is said that “he presents a convenient and instructive

summary of what the ancient Greek Church accomplished in the field of dogmatics.”72

Rabanus (between 776-784-856); “one of the most important churchmen of exegesis in

the Carolingian period.”73 At a time when allegorical interpretations were prominent, Rabanus

wrote a commentary on Matthew (814-822?) that was the compilation of Jerome, Augustine, and

Gregory the Great. His commentary on the Pentateuch also followed the same manner of

compiling the works of his predecessors. He wrote commentaries on the Old Testament historical

69 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 6, 47.

70 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 6, 48.

71 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 6,

208.

72 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 6,

209.

73 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 9,

376.

Page 30: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

29

books, adding Maccabees but excluding Ezra and Nehemiah. His commentaries also included

works on Proverbs, the Pauline epistles and the Gospel of John. Rabanus also produced the

Allegoriae, a collection of terms used allegorically in Scripture, with explanations and

examples.74

Oecumenius (died around the end of the 10th century); medieval exegete. He is the

“supposed author of a commentary in the form of a catena on the Acts, the epistles of St. Paul

(including Hebrews), and the Catholic epistles, together with a brief exposition of the

Apocalypse.”75 Phoius is the reference most frequently cited by Oecumenius.

Lyranus (1270-1340); the French exegete Nicholas of Lyra in 1322 published a

commentary on Genesis and in 1326 a commentary on Isaiah. He also wrote commentaries on

Peter Lombard. His voluminous Postillae went through numerous editions and “enjoyed extra-

ordinary popularity in the middle ages.” The Postillae consisted of fifty books of running

commentary on the entire Bible, including the Apocrypha, followed by thirty-five more books of

moralie; the whole was preceded by three prologues. Lyra utilized the literal sense in his

exegesis and a strong connection with Rashi the Hebrew exegete. Luther consulted Lyra for his

interpretation of Genesis, as did Melancthon and other Reformers for their exegesis. A

Reformation axiom read, “If Lyra had not played the lyre, Luther (or, those learned in the Bible)

would not have danced.”76

74 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 9,

376-377.

75 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 8,

226.

76 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 7, 99.

Page 31: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

30

Rupertus (middle 11th century, 1135); Rupert of Deutz. His most important writing was

De trinitate (1114), which is occupied with the mystical interpretation of the Old Testament

ceremonial law and sacrificial system. Of Rupert it is “far more important to know that he was,

in his teachings, a mirror of the church history of the twelfth century. In philosophy he was a

platonizing mystic, a follower of Augustine, Johannes Scotus Erigena, Bernard of Chartres, and

Odo of Cambray.”77

Hugo of St. Victor (c. 1097-1141); one of the three most influential theologians of the

12th century. His writings include a commentary on Ecclesiastes, a commentary on the

Pentateuch based largely on Bede, commentaries on Judges and Kings, 19 homilies on the first

four chapters of Ecclesiastes, an allegorical-mystical commentary on Lamentations and a more

literal work on Joel and Obadiah, Annotationes elucidatorie in quosdam Psalmos and Allegoriae

in vetus et novum testamentum. His principal dogmatic work was Summa sententiarum.78

Hugo Cardinalis (born toward the end of the 12th century, 1263), Hugh of St. Cher; he

was the first to write a commentary on Peter Lombard. He also wrote a commentary on the

whole Bible and the oldest biblical Correctorium, which was a list of improved readings of the

Latin text of the Bible. By so doing he wished to go back to the original text for the restoration of

the genuine text of the vulgate and the restoration of the most correct Latin version. Hugh’s

principles were adopted by most of the later medieval correctors. His activity as a theological

writer was evidence further with the production of a Bible study help, Sacrorum bibliorum

77 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 10,

113-115.

78 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 5,

390-392.

Page 32: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

31

concordantiae, an alphabetically arranged compilation of the inflected works found in the

ecclesiastical translation of the Bible, with all the passages in which they occur.79

Alonzo Tostado (1400?-1455); Roman Catholic exegete and theologian. Tostatus wrote

some 70 works in 60,000 pages. He concentrated mostly on the exegesis of Scripture and

theological interests.80 His work is often that which Willet focuses on disproving.

Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534); in 1517 Pope Leo X made him a cardinal and in 1518

appointed him as a legate to the Diet of Augsburg to examine Luther’s teachings. Cajetan on

Luther exclaimed, “I do not want to have any further parley with that beast; for he has sharp eyes

and wonderful speculations in his head.”81 He wrote commentaries on the greater part of the Old

and New Testaments, which he treated critically, and “allowed himself considerable latitude in

departing from the literal and traditional interpretation.”82

Vatablus (d. 1547); French Hebraist and theologian, Vatablus was never a published

author. Rather, his research and notes were incorporated in the publications of others. His notes

on the Psalms are found in the Liber Psalmarum Davidis printed by Stephens in 1557. “From the

lecture notes of the numerous scholars of Vatablus, Robert Stephens drew the material for the

notes which he added to his edition of the Bible of Paris, 1545 . . ..”83

79 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 5,

389.

80 William J. McDonald, ed., New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14 (New York: McGraw-

Hill Book Co., 1967), 209.

81 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 2,

338-339.

82 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 2,

338.

83 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 12,

143-144.

Page 33: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

32

Santes Pagnini (1470-1536); a philologist and biblical scholar who taught oriental studies

in Rome until 1521. His most important work is Veteris et novi testamenti nova translation

(1528). The fruit of twenty-five years of labor, it was the first Latin translation of the Hebrew

since that of Jerome.84

Konrad Pellikan (1478-1556); in 1499 Pellikan began his Hebrew study and subsequently

wrote a Hebrew glossary for the Stern Meschiah. In 1501 he wrote De modo legendi et

intelligendi Hebraeum. As an exegete and translator while at Zurich from 1532-1539 he authored

Commentaria Bibliorum.85

Andreas Osiander I (1498-1552); Lutheran exegete. In 1522 Osiander translated a Latin

version of the Bible by means of the original text with marginal annotations. In 1527, against

Eck, he wrote “The Remarkable Prophecy,” and against Rome, Conjecturae de ultimis

temporibus.86

Martin Borrhaus (1499-1564), known as Cellarius, in 1515 he was made Magister

articum at Tubingen, where he became close friends with Melancthon, two years his senior. His

first work, De operibus Dei was published in 1527. In 1544 he was appointed professor of the

Old Testament at Basel.87

84 McDonald, ed., New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 10, 862.

85 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 8,

444-445.

86 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 8,

280-281.

87 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1,

236.

Page 34: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

33

Aretius (1505-1574); his chief work, Theologiae problemata (1573), was a compendium

of the theological knowledge of the era and was highly valued. Another of his works, Examen

theologicum (1551) ran through six editions in 14 years. He also wrote a commentary on the

New Testament (1538, 1616), on the Pentateuch (1602), the second edition with the Psalms

added (1618).88

Marbachius (1521-1581); a Lutheran Reformer who lived in the same house with Luther

while in Wittenberg, Marbachius was an outspoken Lutheran. He addressed issues surrounding

the nature of the Eucharist and ubiquity. His polemic was aimed against Calvinists,

Schwenkenfeldians and Anabaptists alike. In 1551 he was an envoy from Strasbourg to the

Council of Trent. His three principal writings in these debates were published in 1565, 1567 and

1579.89

Josias Simler (1530-1576); a Swiss Protestant who translated Protestant writings into

Latin. In 1552 he was installed as professor of New Testament at Zurich. His Commentarii in

Exodum was published posthumously in 1584. Among the many books produced by this prolific

writer were Oratio de vita et obitu . . . Petri Martyris Vermilli (1563) and De ortu vita et obitu . .

. Henrici Bullingeri (1575). Simler also wrote against Italian antitrinitarianism and in the defense

of orthodox Christianity.90

Franciscus Junius (1545-1602); a Reformed theologian. Junius was a genuine pupil of

Calvin, holding his same theological convictions. In 1573 he assisted in a Lating translation of

88 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1,

277.

89 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 7,

166-167.

90 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 10,

417-418.

Page 35: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

34

the Old Testament. His Parallela sacra (1588), a treatist of Old Testament quotations in the New,

“was epoch making for biblical exegesis.”91 Against Bellarmine in defense of Protestantism he

wrote Animad versions (1602). In another polemic work he attacked the antitrinitarians in

Defensio catholicae doctrinae (1592).

Johannes Piscator (1546-1625); from 1595 to 1609 Piscator prepared Latin commentaries

of the New Testament. In 1612 and 1618 he published commentaries on the Old Testament and

from 1605-1619 he worked on a German translation of the Bible. Piscator “left a multitude of

text-blocks in philosophy, philology, and theology, of which Aphorismi doctrinae Christianae

was much used.”92

Luigi Lippomano (1550-1559); a papal diplomat and theological writer. His literary

activity was voluminous and essentially apologetic in nature. Best known of his work is the

hagiographic anthology Sanctorum priscorum patrum vitae in eight volumes (1551-1560).93

Willet writes in the introductory pages of his commentary on Exodus, “I have made use

of this commentary, both of Protestant and Popish writers, old and new upon this book (as I have

here set them down in the margin) not rejecting the judgment of any witness for the truth,” and

quotes Ambrose as saying, “Sometimes we read that others should not read them; we read them,

not to be ignorant of them; we read them, not to retain them, but to reject them.”94

Under the heading, “The text with its diverse readings,” Willet provides the reader with a

thoroughly informed account of the churchly tradition as it relates to the subject at hand. He

91 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 6,

266.

92 Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 9, 73.

93 McDonald, ed., New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 8, 783-784.

94 HE, introduction.

Page 36: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

35

begins by cataloging the textual variants and various renderings. For example, in his commentary

on Romans Willet cites (Vatabulus (V.), vulgar Latin (L.), Beza (Be.), Syriac (S.), Tremellius

translation (T.), Great Bible (B.), Geneva (Ge), Greek (Gr.) and sometime Original (Or.).95 To

briefly illustrate Willet’s method, four verses from Romans 1 are given:

1:4: Declared to be the sonne of God (not known, T. or presdestinate, L. or

destinate to bee the Sonne of God V.) in power, L. (not mightily, G.Be. or by

power, V. according to the spirit of sanctification, G. Be.V. not according to the

holy spirit, T. or the spirit of the sanctifieth, R.) by the resurrection of the dead:

T.B.G.Be. (not of the dead) even Jesus Christ our Lord: Be.T. (not of Jesus Christ

our Lord, L.V.R.B. for it must be referred to the beginning of the third verse and

all that followeth must be enclosed in parenthesis: so the Genevens doe transpose

it: but it is safest to put it in the last place, according to the original: with

reference, as is said before.)

1:11: For I long to see you, that I might impart unto Be.L. (bestow among you,

B.G.) some spiritual gift; that ye may be stablished, B.B. (or confirmed, T.V. to

confirm you, L.R. but the word is in the passive.)

1:22: When they professed themselves to be wise: B.G. (saying themselves to be

wise, L.R. counting, B. thinking, T. but is better translated

professing) they became fools.

1:29: Being full of unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness,

maliciousness, (rather than, iniquitie, malice, fornication, and wickedness, L.B.

for the order is inverted: for the Greek copies, and the Syriak put fornication in

the second place. See qu. 23 following) full of enview, murder, debate, deceit, evil

conditioned, V.B. (taking things in the worse part, G. full of evi thoughts, T.

malignity, L. Be., the word is, churlishness, morosity).96

Noticeable weight is given by Willet to the renderings of the various versions. The

version had already ungone the grammatical and syntactical scrutiny of exegetes an thus lent

itself to a fuller explication of the apographa. To begin again with the raw data would be to

reinvent the exegetical and interpretive wheel.

95 HR, Preface.

96 HR, 29-30. “See qu. 23 following,” should read qu. 73. Here Willet catalogs the words

listed in verses 29 and 30.

Page 37: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

36

2. Argument and Method

This segment provides a cursory running commentary of the chapter’s contents. It

presents the argument as would a sermon in pointing out the logical and grammatical

connections and dependencies within the passage, thereby constructing a suitable framework

from which to work. For Romans 1, Willet breaks the chapter down into the following four

divisions which he develops: 1) vv. 1-8, the inscription; 2) vv. 9-16, the exordium or introduction

to the matter; 3) vv. 17-18, the proposition and argument concerning justification by faith; 4) vv.

19-31, the confirmation or proof.97

3. The Questions Discussed

Reminiscent of the methodology of Thomas’s Summa Theologica, Willet presents salient

arguments representing the diversity of views for the interpretation of a passage. He quotes the

churchly tradition from the citations of the Church Fathers and, where applicable, rabbinical

sources, and he argues the textual and translation questions of each passage. This portion of the

commentary is usually quite lengthy, the questions of each passage. This portion of the

commentary is usually quite lengthy, the questions asked in Romans 1 being 77.98 While

carefully negotiating the variations, Willet methodically eliminates those he shows to be illogical

or exegetically inconsistent with the churchly tradition and brings the discussion to a conclusion

by showing a logically consistent interpretation and an exegesis couched within an ecclesiastical

and redemptive context.

97 HR, 31.

98 HR, 86.

Page 38: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

37

4. Doctrines Noted

Here Willet deals principally with those elements of the passage that have come under

scrutiny in the churchly tradition and the interpretation of those passages. This part of the

hexapla corresponds most closely to the discussion of the passage, as would Melancthon’s Loci

communes, “common places (seats),” or Calvin’s commentaries. Willet addresses only the

doctrinal concerns as they had come into question throughout the exegetical tradition. In Romans

chapter 3 Willet comments on verses, 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 19, 21, 24 and 25 under 13 headings.

5. Controversies Handled

This category is the primary vehicle to weave a polemic based on his exegesis against the

papacy or Ubiquitarians, separatists and Judaism, but Willet also includes attacks upon the

Manichees and Nestorians and individuals such as Gregorius Eniedinus, “a Samosatenian heretic

in Transulvania.”99 Readily evident throughout Willet’s writing, to the point in some cases of

permeation, is Willet’s passion to dismantle the doctrine and practice of Roman Catholicism and

any doctrinal system opposed to that espoused by the Church of England.

From the three Hebrew boys ordeal in the fire, the Ubiquitarians extrapolated a

philosophical premise for the omnipresence of Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist void of the essential

properties of size, quantity, visibility and life.100 They argued that the burning heat was an

essential property of the fire and yet the boys survived. Thus they concluded that the essential

99 HR, 89.

100 HD, 115.

Page 39: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

38

property of burning was separated from the fire, but the essence of the fire remained. “Therefore

the essential properties of a thing may be separated from it, the nature still remaining.”101

Willet had a threefold response: 1) “The burning faculty of the fire is not an essential

property, but an effect of the heat, which is an essential quality of the fire.” 2) The heat was not

separated from the fire and was only restrained for the sake of God’s servants, because the same

fire killed the king’s ministers. Following Polanus, he says, “If the fire had lost the heat, the

miracle had not been so great, for a thing not being hot, not to be burnt.” 3) “If all this were

admitted, it serveth not their turn, for here the scriptures testifieth that there was a fire and yet it

burned not. They must then show the like warrant for their miracle in the Eucharist, that a body

should be there without the due properties.”102

“Controversies handled,” while broader in scope than polemical, including apologetics, is

the platform utilized to attack heterodox doctrines as they relate to individual passages and

singular interpretations.

6. Moral Uses Observed

This perspective makes practical applications of the passage that may be learned and

utilized in the life of the reader. For instance, in Exodues 24:1 Willet quoting Ferus, observes that

honor in this life is no sign of God’s continuing favor. He illustrates this by showing that Nadab

and Abihu

Are bidden to come up with Moses and Aaron, [but] afterward were slain with fire

from heaven which showeth that preferment in this life is not always a sign of

God’s favour; but that the wicked are often exalted and lifted up, that they may

have the greater fall, as the Lord said he had appointed Pharaoh, to shew his

power in him.

101 HD, 115.

102 HD, 115.

Page 40: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

39

Considering Willet’s approach in light of the Reformation exegetical tradition, Muller writes,

The locus method did not disappear in the seventeenth century nor was it

practiced to the exclusion of textual and exegetical study. This interpenetration of

exegetical and theological approaches, with its fundamental interest rising from

the critical examination and establishment of the text through exegesis to

doctrinal and homeletical statements useful in the church appears clearly in the

pentateuchal work of Andrew Willet.103

While the central thesis of this essay is to illustrate “the critical examination and establishment of

the text through exegesis,” it is important to understand what Willet and others thought about the

text they worried through. Willet’s comprehension of the nature of the text is that which guided

not only his hermeneutics but also his understanding of redaction and inerrancy. Before those

exegetical elements of Willet’s commentary are considered, Willet’s respect for the authority of

Scripture with Support from leading elements of the Reformation is examined in the next

chapter.

Chapter 3

Authority of Scripture

Introduction

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

103 Muller, “Holy Scripture,” 533.

Page 41: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

40

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 () 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.104

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 periocopes 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.105

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

104 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.”

105 Muller, “Holy Scripture,” 467.

Page 42: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

41

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.106

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 … 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.107

Willet’s singular reason for arguing for the superiority of the Hebrew and Greek texts was

because 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

106 HL, 101.

107 HL, 101. 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.”

Page 43: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

42

Prophets, that Christ in His own time might be made manifest (Matt. 22:37-40).”108 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.”109

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.”110

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.”111 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 Ap9ostle 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.112

108 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeil, trans. By Ford

Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1.8.10.

109 Calvin, Institutes, 1.8.12.

110 HR, 479.

111 HR, 479.

112 HR, 480.

Page 44: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

43

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.”113

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.114 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.115

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.”116

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.”117 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

113 HR, 451.

114 William Perkins, A Commentary on Galatians, ed. Gerald T. Sheppard (New York:

Pilgrim Press, 1989).

115 Perkins, Galatians, The Epistle Dedacatorie.

116 Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn

Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,

1985), 179.

117 Perkins, Galatians, 27.

Page 45: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

44

“excellency of the word of God.”118 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.”119

Willet’s apologetic for the inspiration and authority of Scripture began with the premise

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 autographa before him 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, nonexegetically-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.120 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

118 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.”

119 Perkins, Galatians, 28.

120 William Whitaker, A Disputation of Holy Scripture Against the papists especially

Bellarmine and Stapleton, 1588 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849).

Page 46: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

45

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.”121

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.122 According to Spear’s findings, Whitaker was

cited more times during the formation of the Westminster Confession that any other single

author.123 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.124 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.125 Not only do his writings bring continuity

121 Whitaker, Disputation, 359.

122 Wayne R. Spear, “William Whitaker and the Westminster Doctrine of Scripture,

Reformed Theological Journal 7 (Nov. 1991), 38-48.

123 Spear, “William Whitaker,” 40.

124 Whitaker, Disputation, 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 () 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.

125 Whitaker, Disputation, 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

Page 47: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

46

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.126 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.”127

Whitaker held that the Greek edition in his possession “is no other than the inspired archtypical

scripture of the new testament, commended by the apostles and evangelists to the Christian

church.”128 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,”129 and “That all these virtues (weightiest,

Scripture, therefore, is even immediately the voice of God.” See Westminster Confession of

Faith, Ch. 1, art. 8, “being immediately inspired by God . . .”

126 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.

127 Whitaker, Disputation, 279-280.

128 Whitaker, Disputation, 142. Also see 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.”

129 Whitaker, Disputation, 143.

Page 48: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

47

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.”130

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.131

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.132

The authority of Scripture as principium cognoscendi argues the certitude (certitude, q.v.)

and infallibility (infallibilitas) of Scripture in view of its divine origin.133 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

130 Whitaker, Disputation, 144.

131 SP, s 1, 168, 171, 173, 194.

132 Turretin, Elenctics, 106. Also see Muller, Dictionary, 40.

133 Muller, Dictionary, 52.

Page 49: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

48

upon the res, or thing, given in the text, from their very substance, apart from any

collateral or external testimony to them.134

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.135 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.136

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

134 Muller, Dictionary, 53.

135 . 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.”

136 Muller, Dictionary, 53.

Page 50: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

49

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.137

Willet’s commentaries are indicative of an era when questions of exegesis and theology

were still 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.

Exegesis and the Authenticity of the Sacred Text

As Willet cataloged, collated, and examined the exegesis of the scope of the churchly

tradition’s commentators, his constant effort was to prove the extant Greek and Hebrew texts to

be infallible.138 Not dealing with infallibility as a separate locus of theology, infallibility in the

sense of inerrancy was essential to Willet’s exegesis. To be theologically informed, all dogmatic

formulations must necessarily be derived from a sacred source. If the sacred source has been

corrupted, the exegesis on the way to formulating dogmatics would be skewed. Exegesis for the

sake of developing a theologically informed Church was irrelevant to Willet if there were no

sacred text to exegete.

137 Richard A. Muller, “Prolegomena to Theology,” in Post-Reformation Reformed

Dogmatics, vol. 1. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 12-14.

138 SP, 176. Quoting the English Confession, art. 9, “Whereupon (namely the Scriptures)

is built the Church of God, they be the sure and infallible rule, whereby may be tried whether the

Church doth swerve.” Willet’s application of the word “infallible” correlates with the

contemporary views of inerrancy like that the the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”

See Ronald Youngblood, ed., Evangelicals and Inerrancy: Selections from the Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), 230-239; also see

Jack B. Rogers, Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical

Approach, 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979), 235. Rogers and McKim argue that the

English word “inerrancy” was not used until after the Westminster Confession in 1652. Rogers

and McKim miss the point by focusing on a particular word rather than the concept.

Page 51: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

50

Rather than giving a dogmatic definition of infallibility or “inerrancy,” Willet provides

careful exegetical comparisons of the Latin textual tradition with the Hebrew and Greek.

Defenders of the exclusive use of the Latin version argued for its authenticity and superiority to

the Hebrew and Greek. Some of Willet’s citations seem almost trivial and could be said to have

little or no theological significance for the formation of orthodox doctrine or in the battle against

ecclesiastical opponents, Genesis 3:15 being the exception. Yet, what we learn from these

obscure references is at the crux of the Reformation’s claim to an authentic and authoritative text.

Indeed, if the text is in fact God’s Word, then any modification to the text, no matter how

subjectively insignificant, must be investigated with the most serious rigor for the sake of that

passage’s exegesis and doctrinal significance. If the text were errant, it would not qualify as

God’s Word, the exegesis would be distorted and the doctrine in error. He goes to great lengths at

every level of his exegetical inquiry to confirm the authenticity and veracity of the text.

This same understand and approach to Scripture is later taken up by Turretin. If the

apographa was untrustworthy in the minutest sense, the integrity of the whole, not in the sense

of some ecclesiastical abstraction called a sacred text but the source of exegesis within the

history of interpretation, would be in question. If the text could not engender a sense of

confidence in the reader, this deficiency would render the apographa an unreliable source of

faith, as Turretin states:

Unless unimpaired integrity characterizes the Scriptures, they could not be

regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice . . .. For since nothing false can be

an object of faith, how could the Scriptures be held as authentic and reckoned

divine if liable to contradictions and corruptions?139

Turretin, like Willet before him, is here ascribing “unimpaired integrity” to the apographa as the

sole rule of faith and practice. He considers them authentic and divine because of their veracity

139 Turretin, Elenctic, 71.

Page 52: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

51

and absence of falsehood. Dealing with the issue of degree of purity or compromise, Turretin

continues,

Nor can it be said that these corruptions are only in smaller things which do not

affect the foundation of faith. For if once the authenticity (authentia) of the

Scriptures is taken away (which would result even from the incurable corruption

of one passage), how could our faith rest on what remains? And if corruption is

admitted in those of lesser importance, why not in others of greater? Who could

assure me that no error or blemish had crept into fundamental passages?140

Turretin also addresses the Church’s inability to reply to those who claim that the reformation

texts were corrupt:

Or what reply could be given to the subtle atheist or heretic who should

perniciously assert that this or that passage less in his favour had been corrupted?

It will not do to say that divine providence wished to keep it free from serious

corruptions, but not from minor. For besides the fact that this is gratuitous, it

cannot be held without injury, as if lacking in the necessary things which are

required for the full credibility (autopistian) of Scripture itself.141

As an exegetical precursor to Turretin’s work, Willet’s Synopsis Papismi gives specific details

citations for preventing even the “minor” corruptions of “smaller things” from compromising the

text.

Willet shows where there “are many and great errors in the vulgar [Latin] translation, and

contrary to the original; ergo, it is not authentic.142 Though not authentic as a sacred text, it

nevertheless contains many proper renderings. Indeed, at times Willet sides with the Latin

rendering against the interpretation drawn by Reformation exegetes working from the Hebrew or

Greek. The following examples should not therefore be considered an attack on the Latin per se

but as individual examples for the claims of its deficiencies that could be substantiated; this was

140 Turretin, Elenctic, 71.

141 Turretin, Elenctic, 71.

142 SP, 138.

Page 53: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

52

done in an effort to protect the apographa on the level of words and phrases from disparagement.

Willet cites the following examples:

Genesis 3: Vulgate, “she shall break the serpent’s head” for, “the woman’s seed shall

break his head.” Ainsworth, “bruise,” or pierce, crush: the Hebrew word is of rare use, only here,

and in Job 9.17.143

Genesis 6:6: Vulgate, “the thoughts of man’s heart are inclined to evil” for “the thoughts

of man’s heart are evil.” Ainsworth, “was only evil every day.”144

Genesis 8:4: Vulgate, “seven and twentieth day” for “the seventeenth day.”

Ecclesiastes 16:14: Vulgate, “after the merit of his works” for “a man shall receive

according to his works.”

Esdras 19:1: Vulgate, pax illius for paxillus.

Proverbs 18:11: Vulgate, “stones of the world” for “stones of the bag.”145

Psalm 2:12: Vulgate, “apprehend, discipline, or instruction” for “kiss the son.”146

143 Henry Ainsworth, Annotations upon the five bookes of Moses, the booke of the

Psalmes, and the song of Songs, or Canticles (London: Printed for John Ballarmie, 1627), 17.

144 Ainsworth, Annotations, 30, “wickedness,] or malice, evil. Every imagination,] or, the

whole fiction; the word is general, for all and everything that the heart imagineth, formeth,

purposeth, 1 Chr. 28.9 and 29.18. Luke 1:51. every day,] or, all the day: that is continually. The

Greek translateth thus, ‘and everyone mindeth in his heart carefully for evils, all days.’” So also

Poole, Commentary, 17.

145 SP, 138. At this reference Willet comments that “though Bellarmine here

acknowledges a fault in the copies by mistaking some letter, yet are those words retained in the

vulgar Latin still without correction. In their Latin translation of the Psalms there are many

corruptions.”

146 SP, 138-139. Willet notes, “And thus an evident place against the Jews for the Second

Person in Trinity, is obscured and overthrown by the corrupt Latin text.” Ainsworth, Annotations,

3. Ainsworth’s willingness to give the Greek and Chaldean greater latitude that would Willet is

seen in this passage: “The Greek translateth, ‘receive nurthure’ (or instruction) and the Chaldee,

“receive doctrine”: both are implied in ‘kissing of the Sonne,’ Prov. 24.26.”

Page 54: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

53

Psalm 132:15: Vulgate, “I will bless his widow” for “I will bless his victuals.” Having

given these citations Willet goes on to say,

Many such oversights are committed in the vulgar Latin translation of the Old

Testament, which are, for the greater part, of three sorts, either by adding to the

original, subtracting from it, or in changing and altering it.147

Due to the number of modifications to the Hebrew, Willet says, “I will give instance of all these

only in the book of the Judges, and thereby we may see what is done in the rest.”148 Under the

heading of additions Willet cites 1:11, “which is the city of letters”; 1:35, “which is interpreted

witnessing”; 4:5, “which is called by her name”; 9:25, while they staid his coming”; 9:45, “and

drove him into the city”; 14:11, “the citizens of that place saw him”; 15:9, “the place that was

afterward called Lochi.”

Under the heading of places that are defective Willet cites 1:24, the omission of “spies”;

1:35, the omission of “the Amorite”; 3:18, the omission of “and the Lord was with the Judge, and

delivered them out of the hands of their enemies all the days of the Judges”; 4:10, the omission

of “on his feet”; 6:2, omission of “for fear of the Midianites”; 8:10, omission of “in Karkar”;

12:12, omission of “in Aijalon.”

The following places with others are changed: 1:14, “when she had sighed, sitting upon

her ass,” for, “when she had lighted down from her ass”; 1:16, “the kinsman of Moses,” for, “the

father-in-law of Moses”; 5:8, “God hath chosen new battles,” for they choose new gods”; 6:31,

“he that is his adversary,” for “(He that will contend for him,) let him die ere the morning”; 7:12,

“three hundred men went with him, for, “an hundred men”; 9:34, “they lay in wait against

147 SP, 139.

148 SP, 139ff.

Page 55: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

54

Sichem, in four places, for, “in four bands”; 10:12, “amalek and Canaan,” for, “the Amalakites

and Maonites”; 11:26, “the cities by Jordan, for, “the cities by the coasts of Arnon.”

To make his point as to the importance of individual words, or what we may characterize

as the Reformation struggle for verbal inerrancy, Willet takes several approaches. The first in the

Synopsis is to show where Jerome supports the readings of the Hebrew and Greek against the

Latin Vulgate.

In Matthew 5:22, Jerome reads, “he that is angry with his brother without a cause,”

though in many Latin books “without a cause” is not added, and so it is left out of the vulgar

Latin.149 In Matthew 6:34 Jerome reads, “sufficient unto the day is the afflictio, the affliction or

grief thereof,” rather than militia the malice thereof, as in the vulgar Latin.150 In 1 Corinthians

15:51 Jerome opposes the Latin rendering in this passage which reads, “We shall all rise, but not

all be changed.” Again in 2 Chronicles 35, the vulgar Latin reads that Josias was buried in the

mausoleum or tomb of his fathers. Jerome says that this rendering “is a profane, and heathenish

term.”151 In 1 Timothy 3:2 Jerome reads, “that is able to teach, the vulgar Latin, a doctor, or

teacher, or docilis, teachable.” Willet notes that in this place Jerome comments that the “Latins

have as many translations as books.”152

Willet’s labors in the Hebrew Old Testament were complemented by his New Testament

commentary on the book of Romans. In his dedication of this commentary, and indicative of his

high view of Scripture, Willet states,

149 SP, 129.

150 SP, 129.

151 SP, 129.

152 SP, 129-130.

Page 56: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

55

And thus having made entrance into the apostolic writings, I have made choice of

S. Paul’s epistles, and among them of this to the Romans which is the key to the

rest: which as Augustine saith of gospel of S. John . . . is against all heretics. This

one epistle beateth down all both old and new heresies, and that which Cyrian

affirmeth to the scriptures in general, that God speaketh here as verily, as if he

spake unto us face to face. So in this epistle such heavenly oracles are uttered, as

if they were delivered with God’s own mouth.153

As his only New Testament commentary written in hexapla, the introduction to Romans served

as a platform for Willet to exposit his position on the authority of the New Testament text. “Of

the language and tongue wherein the New Testament was originally written” Willet writes that

the New Testament was “set forth by the Apostles and Evangelists in the Greek tongue, which

was then general, and used of the most famous nations, because it concerned the Church of God,

which was dispersed in all countries.”154

Having made this assertion, Willet presents the contentions of others that either Hebrew,

Syriac or Latin languages were the primary languages in parts or for the whole of the New

Testament. Iraneaus, for instance, held that the Gospel of Matthew had been initially written in

Hebrew and subsequently translated into Syriac.155 Athanasius also thought that Matthew was

again translated into Greek by either St. James or St. John. Willet also says that others (whom he

does not name) thought the Epistle to the Hebrew had been first written in Hebrew and adds,

“but neither of these is certaine.”156

153 HR, Dedication.

154 HR, 1-2. Notice the similarity of Willet’s wording to that of the Westminster

Confession. This discussion over the “authentical and most approved edition of the scriptures” is

also taken up in SP, 129ff.

155 HR, 2. Irenaeus: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their

own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the

Church.”

156 HR, 2.

Page 57: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

56

In response to these ideas, Willet looks to the Septuagint for support. Rather than

following the Hebrew, which one would expect to be the case if Matthew were translated from

the same, “in many places,” Willet says, the New Testament follows the Septuagint in

translation. He cites the quotation of Isaiah 40:3 in Matthew 3:3, Psalm 22:18 in Matthew 27:35

and others to be found elsewhere as evidence for Matthew not having been written initially in

Hebrew. He also notes that the interpretation of Matthew 27:46, “Eli, Eli, Lama sabacthani,”

would have been superfluous if the text had been written originally in the Syriac or Hebrew.

Another example was the necessity to render Melchisedek in Greek, the king of righteousness, an

unnatural addition if the text was first written in Hebrew. From these observations and others that

he chose not to enlist, Willet concluded that the New Testament was not originally written in

Hebrew but in Greek.

The second language that Willet cites as a rival to the Greek was the Syriac. Those who

held this view thought that St. Mark wrote the Gospel named after him in Syriac. Looking to the

church fathers for collaborating support for the claim of Syriac priority, Willet finds that neither

Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphan, Jerome, Theodoret of Damascene nor any of the

bishops and presbyters in Syria or Egypt, make any mention of this assertion in any of their

writings. Accepting the great antiquity of the Syriac translation, Willet concludes that it “must

give place unto the authentical Greek, whereout it was translated.”157

The third language taken up for consideration was the Latin. It was Bellarmine’s

contention that St. Mark wrote his Gospel first in Rome and that afterward it was translated into

Greek at Aquilea. Considering this claim “very improbable,” Willet produced the following

reasons. Arguing from continuity of methodology among the penmen of Scripture, Willet

appealed to the writings of St. Paul, who wrote to the church in Rome in Greek because it “was

157 HR, 2.

Page 58: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

57

then more commonly used than the Latin.”158 If Paul wrote in Greek, it would seem reasonable

that Mark would do the same. Willet also posed the following questions, “If the Greek were

translated out of the Latin, why then do the Romanists use a Latin translation answerable to the

Greek?”159 The term “answerable” was used in the sense of correspondence or by way of

equivocation. Because, as Willet states, “their vulgar translation much differeth from the

Greek,”160 that is, the Latin, he raises the question why the Latin and the Greek do not

correspond with one another as one would expect of the exemplar and translation. Three

examples are presented to illustrate the discontinuity between the Latin, which was held to be

primary, and the Greek, which was alleged to be a translation of the Latin, by showing that the

Latin adds to the Greek, subtracts form the Greek and changes the Greek. An illustration of

addition is given by Willet in Mark 1:1 where the name “(Isaiah) the prophet” is inserted, rather

than “the prophets.” Mark 6:11 is listed where the entire clause is omitted: “Verily, verily, I say

unto you, it shall be easier for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

And thirdly, Willet says that the Latin “sometime choppeth and changeth” the Greek as in Mark

5:1, “Garasenes” for “Gadarenes.”161

In his Synopsis, Willet gives a “taste” of the corruption of the vulgar Latin. His entries are

as follows.162 Matthew 20:9, “they took every penny” for “every man a penny”; 21:30, “I go,

Lord,” for “I, Lord”; Luke 1:28, “hail Mary, full of grace,” for “freely beloved”; 15:8, “she

overthrew the house,” for “she swept the house”; 1 Corinthians 15:51, “we shall not all be

158 HR, 2.

159 HR, 2.

160 HR, 2.

161 HR, 2.

162 SP, 140.

Page 59: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

58

changed,” for “we shall all be changed”; Ephesians 2:10, “created in good works” for “created

unto good works”; Romans 16:23, “Gaius, mine host and the whole church,” for “of the whole

church”; 1 Corinthians 9:22, “that I might save all,” for “that I might save some; Hebrews 12”8,

“wherefore ye are adulterers, and not children,” for “ye are bastards, and not children.”163

After having given this short list of minute but crucial variants between the vulgar Latin

and the apographa, Willet lauds the advantages of the Protestant Bibles.

And as the vulgar Latin is imperfect and full of corruptions, and maketh the

Scriptures dark and obscure, so, on the contrary side, the originals of the Hebrew

and Greek are exceeding profitable, and doth bring great light and perspicuity to

the Scripture; for never were the Scriptures better translated, or more plainly

understood, than since they were translated out of the originals. Hear the

judgment of a reverend and learned man, sometime a bishop in this land, who, in

a certain conference and disputation of bishops, when some of them stood

mightily for unwritten tradition, standing up, made an oration, using among other

things, these words: “The Germans have made the text of the Bible so plain and

easy by the Greek and Hebrew tongues, that now many things may be better

understood without any glosses at all, than by the commentaries of the

doctors.”164

Under the heading “Places of confutation,” Willet engages in discussions with those who stand

opposed to major Christian doctrines. The first controversy was “Against those which think it is

against the nature of the New Testament to be committed to writing.” Willet has those with a

“fanatical spirit” in mind, those who held that the writing of the law in one’s heart and through

the Spirit (Jer. 32:33; 2 Cor. 3:3) make a written testament unnecessary. To this Willet replies that

the writing of the Scriptures was given by the direct command of God (Rev. 14:13), “and St. Paul

163 SP, 140. At his juncture Willet invites the reader to investigate the writings of William

Whitaker. Willet states, “An hundred more errors and over, you may find noted in the readings of

our learned countryman, Dr. Whitaker, 2 quest. De scrpt. 10, 11, 12, ca”

164 SP, 141.

Page 60: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

59

saith, that all Scripture is given by inspiration: 2 Tim. 3:6,”165 and that “[T]he Spirit of God then

moved them to put in writing these holy books of the New Testament; which are part of the

Scripture.”166 Reinforcing his answer, Willet writes,

It followeth not because the Lord writeth the Gospel in our hearts by his Spirit,

that therefore it is not to be written: for by the writing thereof which is preached

and read, faith is wrought in the heart by the operation of the Spirit: As the

Apostle saith, Rom. 10:17, that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the

word.167

Willet concludes his discussion by summarizing the three primary reasons the word of God was

committed to writing: “1. Both in respect to that age present, for the preventing and stay of

heresies, which might be more strongly resisted and gainsaid, by an evident and extant rule of

faith; 2. In regard of those Churches, to whom the Apostles preached not by lively voice, it was

necessary that they should have some perfect direction in writing; 3. And that the ages also to

come might have a rule of their faith.”168

For Willet there was an inseparable connection between exegesis and dogmatic interests.

Sola scriptura was clearly identified as the prior norm of theology. There could be no dogmatics

if there was no exegesis of Scripture. Dogmatic claim sby either Protestants or Roman Catholics

were deficient if void of the academic and scholarly exegetical basis. Furthermore, unreasonable

exegesis as the basis for dogmatics could not be theology. Theology, to be such, was necessarily

the result of the interaction between sola Scriptura and biblically consistent exegesis. Willet’s

work stands not merely as a link in the tradition between Calvin and Whitaker before him and the

165 HR, 5. Read 3:16.

166 HR, 5.

167 HR, 5.

168 HR, 5.

Page 61: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

60

Westminster Confession and Turretin that followed but also as a collector of exegetically proven

dogmatics throughout the history of the Church.

Willet’s Use of the Septuagint

The Septuagint was a persistent referent of Willet’s writings. Throughout his

commentaries he is relentless in his attack upon the general validity of canonical authority of

both the LXX and the Latin translations of the Bible. In his commentary on the book of Daniel,

of the LXX he writes,

But Jerome sheweth that the translation of the Septuagint, whatsoever was the

cause thereof, whether they did not express the Chaldee phrase, or some one

ignorant of the Chalde tongue did set it forth under their name, multum discordat

a veritate, doth differ much from the truth and recto judicio repudiatus est, etc.

and therefore was upon right judgment rejected by the church.169

Roman polemicists argued that the New Testament penmens’ use of the LXX established the

precedent for the authenticity of the vulgar Latin translation and its superiority to either the

Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament.170 To debunk these claims of canonical

authority, the Reformation exegetes described the manner in which the LXX was utilized by the

penmen of Scripture and from their exegesis qualified the extent of the LXX’s hermeneutical

significance in both Testaments.

Willet was comfortable quoting church fathers usually considered supportive of the

papacy, and Jerome was one such exegete. Of Jerome, Willet writes that he held the notion that

the LXX was written in seventy-two separate cells and miraculously arriving at the same

169 HD, 2.

170 HG, 443. On Genesis 47:31 Willet writes, “Further, whereas the Apostle seemeth to

follow the translation of the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew text. The Rhemists do infer

thereupon, that after the same manner the vulgar Latin text may be received as authentical,

though it does vary from the Hebrew.”

Page 62: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

61

translation to be a fable.171 Jerome succinctly captured the distinction between the reception of

Scripture and its interpretation with the words, “It is one thing to be a prophet, another to be an

interpreter.”172 The evaluation of Willet with Jerome was that the “ancient and true translation of

the Septuagint, is corrupted and violated, which, as Jerome saith, was agreeable to the Hebrew;

but so is not the Greek copy now extant, which is full of corruptions, and seemeth to be a mixed

and confused translation of many.”173

Willet takes exception with the translation of the LXX of 1 Samuel 9:5, “of the land of

Zuph.”174 He corrects the LXX rendering “the land of Ziph” for two reasons.175 First, the LXX

failed in pronouncing the letter tsaddi, which expresses the sound tz, and pronounced it with the

letter samech, which gives the sould of a single “s.” Also, there was a mispronunciation of the

vowel shuree, not chirec, which corresponds to our “u.”176

In this regard, Willet made exclusive recourse in his commentaries to pointed Hebrew

texts, although he maintained that the points were later added to the sacred text.177 This is

171 SP, 130.

172 SP, 130.

173 SP, 130.

174 H1S, 27-28.

175 H1S, 27. See the variety of consonantal and vowel changes in the LXX as cited in

James Orr, ed., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 1978), 3158-3159. Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 2nd ed. Amended (Stuttgart:

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984), 1470, 1 Chr. 6:20 reads, “Many manuscripts and versions

have ziph has the Qere. Compare with v. 11 (zophai), Ketib, zeph.” At v. 11 the BHS entry reads,

“the LXX reads zuphi at 1 Samuel 1, 1a . . .”

176 H1S, 27-28.

177 SP, 132. Citing Bellarmine favorably, Willet writes, “the alteration is in the pricks or

points, which as Bellarmine himself saith … were added outwardly; that is, by other writers and

interpreters of Scripture, and do not change the text, which consisteth of the letters, not of the

Page 63: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

62

consistent with Ainsworth’s view that the LXX translators worked only from consonantal

texts.178 Willet argues for the traditional pointing against the LXX phonetically, by showing the

conjectural error of the Greek translators to properly translate the sound of the vowel from the

consonantal text they had as their exemplar.179

Along the same line of argumentation within the consonantial text in 1 Samuel 12:11,

Willet surveys the identification of Bedan. He points to the LXX entry, which reads Barak,

“being deceived by the similitude of the letters for between daleth and resh, there is no great

difference in the Hebrew characters.”180

This evaluation and many others like it throughout his commentaries do not displace

Willet’s endorsement of either the LXX or Latin in many individual instances. For Willet to

advance the superiority of the apographa, it was necessary for him to argue for the particulars of

the issue. To accomplish this required a clear exegetical delineation of the hermeneutical limits

of the LXX. For instance, when commenting on the translation “Israel worshipped toward the

points.” Also see Richard A. Muller, “The Debate over the Vowel Points and the Crisis in

Orthodox Hermeneutics,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 10/1 (1980), 53-72.

178 See Ainsworth, Annotations, 56, fn. 141.

179 H1S, 28. Appealing to Josephus and the rendering of the Chaldee paraphrase Willet

understands “Zuph” to be interpreted “the land where was a prophet.” He concludes that Zuph

was the country where Ramah, Samuel’s city, was located, and therefore was called “Ramah of

the Zophims” (1:1); Poole, Commentary, 533. “The land of Zuph; in which was Ramah, called

also Ramah, or Ramathaim-zophim, the place of Samuel’s birth and habitation, 1 Sam. I.1; vii.

17.”

180 H1S, 41. Willet thinks that Junius’s opinion is more probable. He thinks Bedan was

Jair the Menashite of Judges 10:3 because it is consistent with the order of time. Jair was before

Jepthah, and there is one Bedan of Machir of Manesseh mentioned in 1 Chr. 7:17. Jair might be

called Bedan beside his ordinary name by way of distinction, because there was an elder Jair,

Num. 32:41 of Manesseh of whom certain towns were called havoth Jair; Biblica Hebraica

Stuttgartensia, 463: Septuagint, Jerubaal (--boam), Barak, Jefta (Septuagint, codex versionis

Graecea, + Simson), Samuel; Syriac, Debora, Barak, Gideon, Jefta, Simson; Targum, Gideon,

Simpsin (codex Reuchlinianus, Bedan), Jefta, Samuel. The Heb. Reads bedan.

Page 64: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

63

beddes head” (Gen. 47:31), Willet includes a marginal heading entitled, “How and when the

Apostles do follow the Septuagint.”181 To this issue Willet writes,

The apostles indeed do sometime follow the Septuagint, because it was a common

translation, and of great authority, but they therein approve their errors, nor yet

make it if equal authority to the original, citing only such testimonies, wherein the

Greek translation keepeth the sense, though not the words. As in this place,

whether, we say “Jacob leaning upon his staff” or, “turning to the bed’s head and,

worshipped.” The principle sense is kept, that Jacob worshipped God, especially

seeing the same word, with very little alteration in the points, signifieth both a

bed, and a rod, or a staff.182

Willet has a special appreciation for Jerome, citing him often and likewise reinforcing the

renderings of the Latin church fathers. Jerome observes that where the apostles and evangelists

cite testimony out of the Old Testament “they follow not the words but the sense.”183 Similarly

Ainsworth at this place writes that, the

Greek interpreters, having a copy without vowels (mtth) did read mitteh which

signifieth “staff” and so translated it: whom the Apostle followeth, saying “on the

top of his staff,” Heb. 11.21 which might also well be, that he helped himself, by

leaning on his staff, and resting on the bolster of his bed. Howbeit the two

Chaldean paraphrases, and other Greek versions (save that of the LXXij) translate

to the voweled Hebrew, “bed.”184

Where the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew, the penmen of scripture expressed the

Hebrew sense. Willet concludes by saying,

181 HG, 443.

182 HG, 443.

183 HG, 443.

184 Ainsworth, Annotations, 161. Poole, Commentary, Vol. 1, 105. “Israel bowed himself

… to God… Others read bed for staff.” Vol. 3, 864, Commentary on Heb. 11:21, “For having

sent for Joseph, he raised himself on the pillow at the bed’s head, and for his support, used his

staff, leaning on the head of it.”

Page 65: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

64

This then is no good argument the apostles follow the Septuagint, where they

keep the Hebrew sense, though not the words, ergo, the Latin text must be

received, where it differeth both in sense and words from the original.185

Willet can isolate the two issues involved by quoting the LXX: rejecting the LXX

canonically because of its blatant inadequacies while arguing for exegetical and interpretive

continuity between the Old Testament Hebrew and the New Testament penmen who utilized the

LXX. Finding no common ground for the LXX and the original language texts canonically,

Willet argued that when the LXX is cited in the New Testament there is no continuity between

the sense of the LXX usage between the Greek in the New Testament and the Hebrew original in

the Old Testament.

The preceding section has briefly examined Willet’s sense for the authority of Scripture;

the following section will consider his interpretive method. For Willet this was far more than a

theological loci. It struck at the very foundations of the Reformation. Hermeneutical method was

an essential element for maintaining the good of the English commonwealth so close to Willet’s

heart. It also determined ecclesiastical control. An allegorical approach to the text diminished the

emphasis upon the perspicuity of Scripture and heightened the significance of an external

authoritative source of interpretation.

Willet’s Hermeneutics

The issue of the apostle Paul’s use of allegory in Galatians 4 is taken up in Willet’s

Genesis commentary. For Willet there can be only one proper interpretation of Scripture, the

sensus literalis.186 In refuting the Roman Catholics who referred to Galatians 4 and Paul’s use of

185 HG, 443.

186 On the broader implications of sensus literalis in precritical exegesis, see Brevard

Childs, “The sensus literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem,” in Beitrage zur

Page 66: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

65

allegory as a precedent for their use of a normative allegorical hermeneutic throughout Scripture,

Willet instructs,

Though saint Paul, having the instinct of God’s Spirit, doth allegorize the history

of Sarah and Hagar, it is therefore no warrant to every expositor and interpreter to

make allegories of Scripture, which corrupt use the Roman synagogue alloweth,

and others practice.187

He notes that Paul is rare in using allegories which should be a lesson that use of allegory should

be “very sparing.”188 Furthermore, unless the papists could say as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 7:4

that they have the Spirit of God, they could not take the liberty to expound Scripture as did the

Apostle.189

Essential to Willet’s understanding of the interpretation of scripture is his confidence in

the text’s inspiration. Paul had the liberty to allegorize because the allegory was given by divine

inspiration as no other noncanonical allegory could be. Furthermore, quoting Perer, inspiration is

the only means by which the type and antitype can be property related to one another

hermeneutically. Perer writes,

It only belongeth to God, which inspired the scriptures, perfectly to know all

things, that were to come, and not only to know them, but to dispose and direct

them, as it pleaseth him, wherefore he only can appoint that things formerly done

… should bear a true and certain type and figure of things afterward to be done.190

alttestamentlichen Theologie, ed. H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and R. Smend (Gottingen:

Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 1977).

187 HG, 231.

188 HG, 231.

189 HG, 231-232. Willet cites Luke 9:55, “You know not, what spirit you are of.”

190 HG, 232.

Page 67: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

66

Willet concluded that “Man, therefore, cannot dispose of things to come, is not to make types

and figures, according to his own device.191

The hermeneutical difficulties in the book of Leviticus revolved mainly around the

relevance of the Levitical priesthood, sacrifices and the tabernacle as it applies to the New

Testament church. At this level of interpretation, inspiration is inadequate to settle the difficulty

of determining the value of the Pentateuch and the Levitical code for the New Testament. The

content of the Old Testament, Willet believed, were “figures of spiritual and heavenly things to

be exhibited out of the New Testament and to be perfected and fully performed in the kingdom of

God.”192 So while not allegorizing the Old Testament text, Willet understood the spiritual and

eschatological significance of the Old Testament figure. His position was not to “wrest all things

to a mystical sense; and yet where the scripture doth warrant, in the chiefest points, to search out

the mysteries of the gospel as Ambrose giveth instance of these.”193

Moses saw the spiritual circumcision, but He hid it by an outward sign of

circumcision; He saw the unleavened bread of sincerity and verity, but He hid it

under the material unleavened bread; he saw the passion of Christ, but hid it in the

sacrifice of the lamb or calf.194

Confutation number 8 is entitled “Against the mystical application and interpretation

wholly of this book of Leviticus.”195 This introductory material presents Willet’s basic

hermeneutic, and throughout the book he gives specific exegetical instances of how the

scriptures themselves supply the hermeneutical principles for a congruent biblical interpretation.

191 HG, 232. Also see SP, 184-189.

192 HL, 13.

193 HL, General Observations; cf. Muller, “Holy Scripture,” 491-499.

194 HE, General Observations.

195 HL, 13.

Page 68: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

67

Anticipating objects to argument against the regular use of allegory, Willet begins by

citing four separate allegorical readings found in the text. In Ezekiel 4:1 Ezekiel portrays the city

of Jerusalem as a single brick; in Ezekiel 19 the two lionesses whelps refer to Jehoahaz, who was

carried into Egypt, and Jehoiakim, who was taken by the king of Babylon. “The gospel also is

full of such similitudes and parables,” Willet states, and adds, “yet all this proveth not that every

writer may make allegories, and spiritual senses of the ceremonial law, as Origen and

Hesdychius do, every part of the ordinary gloss and of the popish sect a great many.”196

The Glosssa ordinaria (ordinary gloss) was prepared principally by Anselm of Laon (d.

1117) in conjunction with several other 12th century theologians and commentators, the glossa

“exercised enormous influence on the theology of the day.197 Muller writes of the glossa,

There we read that the four senses of the text are “historia, which tells what

happened…; allegoria, in which one thing is understood through another;

tropologia, which is moral declaration, and which deals with the ordering of

behavior; anagoge, through which we are led to higher things that we might be

drawn to the highest and heavenly.” The three latter or spiritual meanings reflect

the three Christian virtues, faith, love, andhope: allegory teaches “things to be

believed” (credenda), tropology “things to be loves” or “done” (diligenda or

agenda), and anagoge “things to be hoped for” (speranda). The speranda, it

should be noted, could be understood either in a mystical or in an eschatological

sense.198

196 HL, 13; HL, 213. Origen defined the literal sense as “the deadly understanding of the

bare letter,” and Hesychius’ method is described as having “utterly destroyed the letter and

flyether to a spiritual sense.”

197 Jerry H. Bentley, “Christian Interpretation from the Middle Ages to the Reformation,”

in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (New

York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 316.

198 Muller, “Holy Scripture,” 17-18.

Page 69: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

68

Bentley notes that most of the theologians of the Middle Ages “recognized the literal sense as the

foundation of scriptural exegesis.”199 It was common to that era’s exegetes to consider the literal

interpretation fully compatible with a moral, allegorical, or mystical interpretation. Bentley states

that in the absence of linguistic skills and philological concerns, “expositors had little alternative

but to develop the various spiritual senses of scripture.”200

Willet gave four reasons why a normative allegorical method of interpreting Scripture

was unacceptable. He argues first that the true sense of the reading may be lost if rendered

allegorically because an allegorical interpretation calls the literal and historical sense into

question.201 The logical soteriological result of confusing the commentary with the text is that of

losing one’s faith in the true sense if lost. Willet warns, “whereas our faith is grounded upon the

scripture, and the true sense thereof, who will build his faith upon their spiritual devised senses,

which showeth they are no part of the Scripture, as the true sense is.”202 This leads to the view of

the Reformation writers that any passage of Scripture had only one interpretation. Willet writes,

“Thirdly, divers interpreters of the same place, do propound divers spiritual senses, which cannot

all be the meaning of the Spirit.”203 In the Synopsis Willet writes, “The literal sense is the only

sense of the place, because out of that sense only may an argument strongly be framed . . ..”204

The effort to come to a single interpretation of Scripture is perhaps no where more

evident than in Willet’s commentary on Romans 7. Willet presents ten different historic,

199 Bentley, “Interpretation,” 316.

200 Bentley, “Interpretation,” 316.

201 HL, 13.

202 HL, 13.

203 HL, 13.

204 SP, 186.

Page 70: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

69

ecclesiastical interpretations oriented toward defining the nature of the man described as “sold

under sin”: 1) Paul speaks in the present tense – Theophylact; 2) the distinction between bonum

natural, morale, and spirituale, naturally good, morally good and spiritually good and that only

those in which God works can be spiritually good – Gregory contra Tolet; 3) there is nothing

spiritual in an unregenerate man – Augustine contra Tolet; 4) Paul says, “I give thanks to God” –

Augustine contra Tolet; 5) the carnal cannot delight in the law but his mind is defiled –

Augustine/Parues contra Tolet; 6) deliverance is by the resurrection, not justification – Augustine

contra Tolet; 7) only the regenerate are in a conflict with the flesh – Pareus; 8) the unregenerate

praise themselves – Faius; 9) only those led by the Spirit can hate those things done against the

law – Hyperius; 10) why should the apostle argue as he does if it regards those who care nothing

for the law – Faius.205 After dividing the specific perspectives into three general categories Willet

argues at length in a fashion reminiscent of the medieval schoolmen between the varying options.

He arrives finally at a logical, scriptural, exegetically sound conclusion.206 Of the ten renderings,

Willet concludes “that S. Paul speaketh in the person of a man regenerate.”207

Finally, Willet argued that Scripture must be interpreted by the aid of the Holy Spirit. He

writes that the Scripture

Is not interpreted, but by the same Spirit, whereby it was first written. This Spirit

is not to be found but in the scriptures themselves by the conference and

comparing whence of the scripture sheweth himself, and therefore Procopius well

saith as he is cited by Lorinus … “it is not of man’s strength to expound, and

205 HR, 336-338.

206 HR, 338; cf. Poole, Commentary, Vol. 3, 500. Poole writes, “They that list to be

further satisfied in this point, may find it fully discussed in our own language, by Mr. Anthony

Burgess, in his excellent discourse on original sin, part iv.c.3, and by Dr. Willet, in his Hexalta in

locum.”

207 HR, 338.

Page 71: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

70

unfold everything in particular, but his only who has gone to heaven, and hath

seen all these things.”208

Commenting on John 17:26 he says, “Here our Saviour promises the perpetual assistance of his

Spirit and continual declaration of his word to his church, that as he had preached and declared

it, so he would still instruct his servants, and not leave the church destitute of the ministry of his

word.”209

Willet translated into rhyme a Latin verse penned by a Roman Catholic to illustrate the

perspicuity of scripture.

No age so young, no wit so small,

Which Scripture doth not fit;

There’s milk for babes, and yet withal,

There’s meat for stronger wit.210

Another example of Willet’s passion to embarrass the papists with contradictory

statements is found in this part of his discussion in the Synopsis. With polemic style he mocks

them by saying that not every man can have access to the Pope for the proper rendering of

Scripture, “but the Word of God is amongst us, the Scriptures themselves and the Spirit of God

opening our hearts, do teach us how to understand them.”211 He denies that the interpretation of

Scripture has been delivered to a succession of pastors or is tied to any place or persons and that

Scripture is of “private men to expound Scripture according to the sense and meaning of the

Spirit, and to discern between the orthodox and heretical interpretations … the Spirit of God

208 HL, 13.

209 TE, 82.

210 SP, 182.

211 SP, 193.

Page 72: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

71

speaking in the Scriptures is the interpretation of himself.”212 Willet then cites a decree

prescribed by a papal synod,

the Church doth discern the catholic sense from the heretical, the true from the

false. It hath no power to make or coin interpretations beside Scripture, but to

discern and distinguish.213

He maintained that Scripture was itself the “true sense and meaning thereof.”214 He argued that

only that which generates faith in the believer has the power to give the sense of the Scripture,

that only the Spirit generates faith and that faith comes by hearing the word. Therefore, the Spirit

of God is the only interpreter of Scripture.215 Willet cites Augustine, the Confession of Helvetia,

the Confession of Bohemia, the Confession of Wittemberg, c. 30, and the Confession of

Augsburg, art. 7, to prove his point and closes that section with the following quote:

The Church hath the gift of interpretation, that is, of understanding the heavenly

doctrine, but that is not tied [t]o the name or degree of bishop, etc. But those that

are [l]earned in the word of God, and born again by his Spirit in what place soever

they be, they assent unto the Word of God, and understand the same, some more,

some less.216

Following are examples drawn from Willet’s Hebrew exegesis in the books of Leviticus

and Daniel. In these passages Willet presents exegetical and historic evidences for his method of

interpretation.

212 SP, 193.

213 SP, 193.

214 SP, 194.

215 SP, 194.

216 SP, 198.

Page 73: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

72

Leviticus 7

Within the exegesis of Leviticus 7, Willet illustrates the medieval fourfold method of

interpretation by showing first how it was dogmatically developed and then why it was faulty.217

At 7:9, Willet shows how Origen interpreted the three practices for preparing the meat offering:

1) oven; 2) gridiron; and 3) frying pan. From these methods of preparation Origen extrapolated

“that there is a threefold way of understanding the divine scriptures, the historical, the moral and

the mystical,” which he then proceeded to elucidate.218 The plain and open or historical and

literal interpretation of Scripture is that to which the gridiron referred. The frying pan, “by often

turning may be understood, as that which is tossed and turned in a frying pan,” referred to the

moral interpretation.219 The oven represents “the third more profound, as the oven or furnace,

which is the mystical.” To this Willet adds, “The same is the opinion of the papists, of a threefold

send of the scripture, beside the literal.”220

Again anticipating those who would accuse his hermeneutics of being overly wooden,

Willet agrees that the content of Scripture deals with historical matters and mysteries but those

elements in themselves do not prove diverging senses in interpretation. He succinctly addressed

the crux of the matter by explaining,

There is a difference between the literal, or historical sense, and the application,

or accommodation of it. That is the proper sense of the scripture, which is

perpetual and general; it is therefore dangerous for men, of their own brain, to

217 HL, 120.

218 HL, 120. triplicem in scriptures divines intelligententia midum, historicum, moralem,

mysticum.

219 HL, 120. “The tropological, which is applied to moral things, allegorical, to spiritual

things, and anagogical, to heavenly things, as Jerusalem signifieth the soul of man; allegorically,

the church militant; and anagogically, the church triumphant in heaven.”

220 HL, 120.

Page 74: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

73

pick out every place mystical senses. It belongeth only to the Spirit whereby the

scriptures were written, to frame allegories and mysteries.221

Of particular significance Willet makes clear that there is a literal or historical sense to the words

of scripture. Gridiron, frying pan and oven all have distinct, inherent meanings before those

meanings are applied or accommodated within the context. Secondly, Willet defines what he

means by literal or historical by saying that the “proper sense” is “perpetual and general.”

Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, after defining how words are to be interpreted, Willet

appeals to the Author of scripture to provide the context for a rendering other than the literal. The

meaning of the words may be taken in ways other than literally if the Holy Spirit has “framed”

the discussion, for instance, prophetically, within a given context. Citing 2 Timothy 3:16, Willet

states that there are four profitable uses of inspired Scripture: to teach, to improve, to correct, and

to instruct in righteousness. And thus, he says, “To devise and frame allegories and mysteries

(wherein the Spirit intended them not) is none of them.”222 Willet concluded his disputation by

saying, “This much we grant, that one whole and entire sense of Scripture may have divers

applications, subordinate and included one in the other, but not divers, different, and disparate

sense” but also opposed those whom “will have it altogether literally and carnally to be taken.223

The perspicuity of Scripture and the right of Scripture to interpret itself is taken up 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

221 HL, 120.

222 HL, 120. Also see SP, 184.

223 HL, 120. Willet says of Hesychius that in following of the mystical sense, he will not

do as, “some which do only select some special places and heads” but he will, “discuss all things

in order, even unto the end.”

Page 75: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

74

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.”224 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.”225 Willet’s 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.”226

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.”227 Later in the preface Ainsworth staes

why such serious investigation must be pursued by the grammarian. He says,

224 HR, 523-524.

225 ET, 5.

226 CS.

227 Ainsworth, Annotations, Preface.

Page 76: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

75

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.228

Daniel 2

Commenting on Daniel 2, Willet presents the varied interpretations of the exegetical

tradition for the rendering of “the stone cut out without hands.”229 In verse 45 Willet works

through the ecclesiastical interpretations given by some of the churchly tradition’s leading

theologians. The history of interpretation may be roughly followed through the tradition of the

church as follows. The mountain has been thought to be 1) the kingdom of the Jews; 2) God the

Son’s eternal generation; 3) Christ’s second coming; and 4) the virgin birth of Christ. Heinrich

Bullinger’s ecumenical approach was to accept all of the interpretations, except that of

Augustine, as collectively correct.

Finding generally for the least exorbitant and most mundate interpretation of the exegetes

considered, Willet is careful to assure a reasonable interpretation. He works with the material

before him in an effort to come to the singular interpretation that is demanded by the grammar,

syntax and context.

Augustine understood the mountain from which the stone was cut as the Jewish people –

de quo monte exiditur, nisi de regno Judaeorum, “out of what mountain is he cut, but out of the

kingdom of the Jews?”230 Willet cites this reference without comment by way of beginning his

catalog of exegetes and their perspectives on this passage.

228 Ainsworth, Annotations, Preface.

229 HD, 77.

230 HD, 77.

Page 77: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

76

Ambrose (340-397) modified the text and thus the exegesis to read instead of “the stone

cut out of the mountain,” the “mountain cut out of the mountain without hands.” With the

inclusion of the second “mountain” he taught that this passage referred to the eternal generation

of Christ of the Father, mons de monte sine minibus, hoc est filius de patre sine aliquot creationis

accessu, “the mountain cut out of the mountain without hands, that is the sone of the Father

without any creation.” For three likely reasons, Ambrose would have maintained this rendered:

1) he held to a threefold sense of interpretation: the literal, the moral and the mystical, with

greater emphasis on the latter; 2) his ongoing polemic with the Arians of his day, and 3) his text

was a “very barbarous” Latin recension of a Greek version, to which he “seems to have been

very independent, and to have used several versions of the holy Scripture, translating, as it would

seem, often for himself from the Septuagine.”231 Justin Martyr also understood this passage to

speak of the eternal generation of Christ.

Willet counters by saying that Daniel is speaking of a kingdom raised up by God and

therefore, rather than being eternal, it had then a beginning.232 The kingdom of Christ as the Son

of God had no beginning, and therefore this image must be understood as Christ’s kingdom.

Hyppolytus refers the “cutting” to Christ’s second coming and the caluse “without hands”

to signify secundum Christi adventum fore improvisum, that the second coming of Christ will be

sudden.233 Osiander also held that Christ the rock, subito superventurum, would come suddenly

231 HD, 77. For an introduction to the life of Ambrose see Philip Schaff and Henry Wace,

eds., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 10, “St. Ambrose: Selected Works and

Letters” (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co., 1989), xi-xxii. See es his dogmatic

work, De Incarnationis Dominicae Sacramento, “The Mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation.”

232 HD, 77-78.

233 Also for Hippolytus see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James

Donaldson, vol. 5, “The Refutation of All Heresies” (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 1995), 51.

Page 78: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

77

to judgment. Willet rejects this interpretation “because this stone after it is cut out shall grow into

a mountain, and fill all the earth, before his second coming.”234

Jerome, Theodoret, Lyranus and Vatabulus, representing “most interpreters,” understand

the “stone cut out without hands” to refer to the miraculous generation of Christ by the virgin

Mary. The words “without hands” signifying, sine operatione humana, “without the help of

man.” For Pintus, the virgin Mary is compared to a mountain, proper excellentiam, because of

the excellence of her virtue.235

Bullinger’s inclusive approach puts these three ideas together, understanding by the word

mountain, partim locum excelsum, etc. “partly the high place of heaven, partly the people of the

Jews, because he was born of the virgin Mary.”236

Willet’s response was that Mary cannot be the mountain and Christ the little stone

because “Mary was in no way greater than her son.” Furthermore, “Although Christ was born of

Mary, without the company of man, yet his natural generation was not altogether without the

help of mankind, because he was born of a woman.” Therefore, Willet admits, Justinus’s

interpretation, applying these words to “Christ’s eternal generation, which was altogether without

hands,” is more acceptable, but it is not demanded by the text. “It was non humanum opus, sed

divina voluntatis propositum, no human work, but the decree and purpose of the divine will.”237

Willet draws the reader’s attention to a portion of the verse that is excised by some of the

commentators. He says, “The words are not as they are usually read, cut out without hands, but

234 HD, 78. As was showed before in HD, ch. 2, qu. 51.

235 HD, 78.

236 HD, 78.

237 HD, 78.

Page 79: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

78

cut out of the mountain (which is not in hands) that is, which stone is not all guided or framed

with hands.”238 This rendering leads Willet to conclude that Christ’s kingdom and government

are not administered by any human policy. This passage should then be understood “not of the

manner of Christ’s birth, but of the administration of his kingdom.”239

Following Junius and Polanus, Willet concludes, “The meaning is, ‘he is cut out of the

mountain,’ that is, e coelis & loco Dei altissimi, he was sent from heaven, from the place of the

highest”; and after Calvin, divinitus missus est, “he was sent from God.” This is why it is written,

“the God of heaven shall set him up.” To this Willet adds, “Our blessed Savious also to the same

purpose saith, John 3:13, ‘No man hath ascended to heaven, but he which descended from

Heaven, the Son of man, which is in heaven.’”240

With this brief introduction to Willet’s interpretive methodology, we turn next to his

discussion on the authorship and redaction of holy Scripture. Again we ask that question, Is

Willet working from “exorbitant principles of inference” or is there cause for reevaluating this

description?

Redaction

Redaction, or the editing of the text of Scripture, both of the canon and of periocopes,

was not foreign to the churchly exegetical tradition, nor was the value of this ongoing discussion

lost in the study of Willet. One aspect of Post-Reformation redaction is the exegetical interaction

238 HD, 78. Willet translates the preposition be, “in,” to give a stilted but clearer rendering

of the text. Also see C. F. Keil, F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 9 (Grand

Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 110: “As it is evident that a stone, in order to

be set free from a mountain without the movement of the human hand, must be set free from a

mountain.”

239 HD, 78.

240 HD, 78.

Page 80: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

79

between an inherited tradition and a later interpretive point of view. In this respect, Willet

documents the tradition’s enterprise to harmonize the text by arguing for its redaction. If it

appeared that the exegesis demanded some form of editing, then segments of the exegetical

tradition reasoned for its use, as we shall see. Where Post-Reformation exegetical redaction parts

company with the modern critical application of redaction criticism is in the creative element of

modern methodology. Rather than reconstructing or deconstructing the text, the redaction of the

Middle Ages and Reformation was for the purpose of determining the validity of what the

exegetical tradition had already substantiated. While it was not a creative process in the sense of

forming something outside the prescribed exegetical parameters of the tradition, it was applied in

the sense of being imposed as the result of a later interpretive point of view for harmonizing the

content of the passage within the tradition.

In Exodus 33:7 Willet challenges the interpretation of Calvin and Rupertus that the

tabernacle found in that passage was the tabernacle God instructed Moses to build when on Mt.

Sinai. Because of the sequence of events between Exodus 33 and the actual building of the

tabernacle, Willet says that if this interpretation is to be admitted, “the whole history of the book

should be transposed.”241 This is, the chronological harmony of the historical account given in

the text will be significantly disrupted. As it will be shown, transposition or redacting the text for

the purpose of historical symmetry was an accepted practice within the churchly exegetical

tradition. Indeed, this practice is especially evident in Exodus 24:1, where even the grammar is

changed in the Geneva Bible to indicate that passage’s congruity with past events rather than the

immediate context.

For the purposes of this essay, three passages are scrutinized by Willet as those suggested

by others, or the text itself, to have been redacted. The introduction to 2 Samuel suggests a

241 HE, 782.

Page 81: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

80

redactor or redactors collating and editing of the structure of the book. In Romans 16:25-27,

Willet deals with the textual questions of locating the proper placement of this doxology. The

third place of interpolation, as has already been said, is found in Exodus 24:102 and the ordering

of events for Moses’ reception of the moral, civil and ceremonial law.

2 Samuel

Introducing his commentary on 2 Samuel under the heading “The Inscription of the

Book,” “Samuel, it is held, was the author of the book until mention is made of his death,” Willet

writes. He continues, however, stating, “there is greater question why the second book bears his

name,” and lists the following reasons: “1. His actions are not its content; 2. He is not the

penman; 3. It is written by some of the prophets. Perhaps Nathan who followed Samuel, or

another prophet, from manuscripts collected by Hezekiah or manuscripts collected by Ezra.”

This concept of collecting and editing books of the Bible is also taken up by Matthew

Henry and Matthew Poole (1624-1679). Henry writes in the introduction to his commentary on

Judges:

The history of these judges in their order we have in this book to the end of ch.

xvi. And then in the last five chapters we have an account of some particular

memorable events which happened, as the story of Ruth did (Ruth i.1) in the days

when the judges ruled, but it is not certain in which judge’s days; but they are put

together at the end of the book, that the thread of the general history might not be

interrupted.242

242 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Old

Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, n.d.), 120.

Page 82: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

81

Henry also calls the collator of Judges a “historian” which by definition lends itself to the idea of

systematizing a historical chain of events.243 This editorial element of the sacred texts formation

is clearly identified by Henry and poses no problem either for himself or for others of his era.244

Poole, introducing his commentary on Judges, writes, “The author of this book is not

certainly known, whether it was Samuel, or Ezra, or some other prophet, nor is it material to

know … What matters not who was the king’s secretary, or with what pen it was written, it once

be known it was the king who made the order or decree.”245 More pointed is Poole’s introduction

to the book of 1 Samuel. There he says, “It is not certainly known who was the penman of this

Book, or whether it was written by one or more hands … It may well suffice that there were in

these times divers prophets and holy men of God; as Samuel and Nathan, and Gad, and David

himself, who might each of them write some part of this and the following book.”246

No conflict is recognized by these men between the inspiration of the text and the text’s

collection and editing. That the text may have been written by a variety of godly men and copied

from other collected sources is also not in question. The idea of a historian, to use Henry’s word,

depicts a man or men who sat down to review the historical documents and arranged them in an

order that was best suited to communicate the sacred history. What each of these men is

confident to say is that this aspect of the canon’s formation is not necessary to know. The salient

element is that the words, from whomever they were penned either in an exemplar form which

they were copied or in the original document itself, were the words of God.

243 Henry, Commentary, 120.

244 Cf. Muller, “Holy Scripture,” 135-137.

245 Poole, Commentary, 456.

246 Poole, Commentary, 513.

Page 83: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

82

Romans 16:25-27

Question 23 dealing with verses 25-27 probes the doxology traditionally located in

Romans 16. Willet is first concerned about the “order and placing thereof.”247 As is his wont,

Willet first cites Origen, who observed that Marcion, “who had quite corrupted the Apostle’s

writing, putting it in and out at his pleasure, had quite cut off these last two chapters from this

epistle.”248 “Beside this,” Willet continues, “there is another difference among the orthodox

expositors, for some place this doxology at the end of the 15th [14th] chapter, immediately after

these words, ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’”249 Willet adds that Chrysostom puts the

doxology after chapter 14250 while Origen places it in chapter 16.251

It is especially noteworthy that when Willet is confronted with a variation, as in this case,

it is not so much what he says but what he omits. After growing accustomed to what some may

characterize as exegetical hair-splitting style, Willet’s silence as to the placing of these verses in

either Romans 14 or 16 is conspicuous.

It seems evident by Willet’s silence that the question of the placement of the doxology

was not in question. Calvin’s commentary on this passage excludes any mention to an alternative

247 HR, 734.

248 HR, 734.

249 HR, 734.

250 HR, 734. See John Chrysostom, “Homily 27,” in Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene and

Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol. 11, 534. “It is always a custom with Paul to conclude his

exhortations with prayers and doxologies. For he knows that the thing is one of no slight

importance. And it is out of affectateness and causation that he is in the habit of doing this. For it

is the character of a teacher devoted to his children, and to God, not only to instruct them in

words only, but by prayer too to bring upon his teaching the assistance which is from God. And

this he does here also. But the connection is as follows: ‘To Him that is of power to establish

you, be glory forever. Amen.’”

251 HR, 734.

Page 84: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

83

placement.252 Willet followed the placement of this passage as found in the Geneva and Bishops’

Bibles. He also cites the comments of a host of ecclesiastical exegetes, including Thomas,

Cajetan, Pererius, Tolet, Piscator, Osiander, Origen, Calvin, Bucer, Martyr, Faius and Haymo at

the close of Romans 14, none of which make any reference to the doxology’s inclusion.253 It may

be gathered by these testimonies that the inclusion of the doxology at the close of Romans 16

had been accepted for many across a wide spectrum of exegetical and textual thought and was

codified by Willet’s time as the authentic placement of the text. While manuscript evidence raises

the question of this placement, the ecclesiastical tradition seems to raise no doubt.254

Exodus 24:1

The question is raised as to which reading of Exodus 24:1 is correct.255 The commentaries

of Junius, Vatabulus, Arias Montanus and Pagnine read, cum caeter, “And he said to Moses,”

while the Geneva Bible reads, “now he had said … as though this were transposed, and God had

said before unto Moses.”256

Challenging the translation of the popular continental version of Scripture, Willet

demonstrates the churchly tradition’s discontinuity at this passage and that part of the

252 Calvin, New Testament Commentaries, vol. 8, 327-328. Calvin comments in the

introduction to Romans, “It concludes with a notable prayer.”

253 HR, 654-655.

254 Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, eds., The Greek New Testament According to

the Majority Text, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), 506. The majority

readings of the Greek New Testament place verses 25-27 at the close of Romans 14. At this point

the Vulgate tradition of placing these verses at the close of Romans 16 took precedence over the

majority Greek reading.

255 HE, 554-555.

256 HE, 554. Marginal Note: I.V.B. cum cater.

Page 85: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

84

discontinuity was a result of a supposed redaction of some scholars to rearrange the literature to

serve some particular interpretive purpose, specifically the order for Moses’ movement

ascending and descending the mount. Because of the difficulty in interpreting this passage in the

sequence of events revolving around the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai, the Geneva Bible infers

that the events of Exodus 24:12 had transpired in the past and by transposition were being

recounted here.

To illustrate Willet’s presentation of the argument and methodology, his commentary on

Exodus 24:1 again serves as a helpful illustration. He writes,

In this chapter, there are two several commandments given expressly of the Lord,

unto Moses, with their several executions … [T]he first to vers. 12, the second

thence to the end of the chapter. The first commandment … is given, [in] vers.

1.2; both who shall come up unto God, [in] vers. 1. and in what order, vers. 2.

Moses should come near unto the Lord, the rest should stand further off.257

Willet describes the context of the passage of Scripture to be commented upon and its

contextual divisions. He then raises the issues that have been historically in question in

addressing the interpretation of this passage – in this case Willet asks two questions dealing with

the persons involved in the text and Moses’ specific part in God’s command for him to come up

the mountain. Having raised the questions, he proceeds to argue for the conclusion that is most

warranted by the text itself and the churchly tradition.

Cognizant of the historical debate, Willet’s first question is, “Whether this chapter be

transposed in part, or in whole.” Presenting first a contrary argument based on the translation,

“Now he had said to Moses,” he states that the opinion of the Hebrews is that this entire chapter

should precede chapters 21, 22 and 23. Rabbinical scholars argued that the content of the three

preceding chapters had transpired and that Moses received the former judicial and ceremonial

257 HE, 554.

Page 86: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

85

laws before the moral law was delivered on Mt. Sinai. The order of events would be as follows:

1. On the first day of the third month (Ex. 19:10) the whole host came to the base of Mt. Sinai,

and that Moses went up, and received the judicial and ceremonial laws, as they are expressed in

chapters 21-23; 2. That Moses descended on the fourth day and confirmed the covenant as is

explained here in chapter 24:3-8; 3. On the fifth day Moses went up again with Aaron, Nadab

and Abihu, 24:1-2, 9-11; 4. On the sixth day the trumpet sounded and the moral law was

delivered, Ex. 19:13.

Replying to this idea, Willet presents three reasons why the transposition of the story

cannot be admitted. His first discussion presents logical reasons because

It is not like that the people would receive the judicial and ceremonial laws before

they were washed and purged; or that Moses would sprinkle them with the blood

of the sacrifice being unclean. Bur if on the fourth day they received the laws,

they were not yet cleansed. For three days before the moral law was given, which

was, as they say, on the sixth day, they were commanded by Moses to sanctify

themselves, and to wash their clothes, ch. 19.258

Quoting Tostatus, Willet’s second reason was theological. Accenting the dependence of the

ceremonial and judicial laws on the moral law, Willet with Tostaus maintained that the “moral

law was to remain and continue forever, so were not the other positive laws, whether ceremonial,

or judicial. Therefore it is most like that the moral law was given first, and the other after, and

not the judicial and ceremonial first.”259

Third reason for arguing against the transposition of the entire chapter is one of

establishing the proper time sequence. Willet notes,

Again, after the people had heard the Lord’s terrible voice thundering out the law,

they were afraid, and desired that Moses might speak unto them from God, chap.

258 HE, 544.

259 HE, 544.

Page 87: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

86

20. Therefore it is evident, that as yet before the moral law was delivered, Moses

had not received the other laws from God to give unto the people. But God spake

unto them himself.260

After presenting three reasons why the transposition of the entire chapter cannot be

admitted, the question of whether one “can admit no transposition here at all” is raised. Cajetan

thought that at this time Moses was with God and not yet come down out of the mount. Lyranus

lent his support to this idea with the rendering, “After thou art gone down, and hast published

these laws to the people, then come thou up again, with Aaron, etc.”261

At this point in the discussion, with the help of Hugo de St. Victor, Willet counters the

interpretation of Cajetan and Lyranus and argues for the transposition of verses 1 and 2. He

writes that it is

More like that Moses received this commandment to give up again, after he had

published the laws, and performed all these ceremonies, which were rehearsed

from vers. 3. to vers. 9. For Moses was now come down, when the Lord bade him

come up, as Hugo St. Victor said, quomodo enim praecipitur ascendere, qui cum

eo est in monte? etc., how is he bid to ascend, who was already in the mount? And

again, seeing it is said vers. 9, “then went up Moses and Aaron.” It is like that

then Moses received that commandment to go up, neque accessisset Moses non

vocatus, for Moses would not have gone up unto God, not being called. The two

first verses then must needs be transposed.262

The third textual position for the rendering of this passage presented by Willet was that of

Rabbi Abraham, who held that chapters 20-22 were not transposed but placed in their right order,

that Moses remained before the Lord after the moral law was given, and received the judicial and

ceremonial laws following. Afterward he rehearsed them to the people and performed the other

ceremonies described in verses 3-9. However, Rabbi Abraham maintained that the

260 HE, 544.

261 HE, 544.

262 HE, 554-555.

Page 88: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

87

commandment that Moses should come up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, which is given to

Moses in verses 1 and 2, was transposed and transpired before the moral law was delivered in

chapter 20. Willet notes that Gallasius also held this position.

Again, Willet presents two reasons why this notion of limited transposition cannot be

admitted. First those who were invited to come up Mt. Sinai differed,

Because before the moral law was pronounced by the Lord in chapter 20, Moses

is bid to come, and Aaron only with him, chap. 19:24. But here Nadab and Abihu

and the 70 Elders he is charged to take with him, vers. 1.2.

Secondly, appealing again to Tostatus, Willet says,

Immediately after Moses had sacrificed and sprinkled the blood, he went up with

Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, vers. 9. This then was not done before the giving of the

law.

Determining that the entire chapter was not transposed and also that no transposition at

all would not fit the events, so Cajetan and Lyranus, and that the first two verses were not

transposed from chapter 20, as Rabbi Abraham held, Willet concludes that the more probable

opinion is that there is an ellipsis before verses 1 and 2 and that

the first two verses only, which in order are to be joined with the 9[t] verse, are set

out of their place. And that first Moses came down and published the laws to the

people, as the Lord commanded him to do, though it be omitted. For without

God’s commandment he would do nothing, & his factis, and these things being

done, then he was bid to come up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu etc.263

This interpretation was likewise that of Tostatus, Junius, Oleaster and Simlerus.

Whether Willet’s rendering is accepted as the best may receive continual scrutiny. The

element of this inquiring that is not in question is that the churchly tradition was always

cognizant of redaction. Indeed, it believed in the use of redaction to a greater or lesser degree

(depending on the extent of the pericope) to be necessary for the proper exegesis of the passage.

263 HE, 555.

Page 89: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

88

Though not arguing for the relocation of these verses, neither does Willet think that the grammar

should be modified to smooth out a potential discrepancy. Rather, he argues contextually that

verse 1 and 2 alone are “set out of their place” and are logically connected with verse 9.

The next chapter examines Willet’s exegesis drawn from Old and New Testament

examples. These passages were selected for their ability to illustrate Willet’s exegetical rigor in

working through the text and the exegetical tradition. The twelve passages are divided under

three headings: textual, contextual and grammatical. Under the heading of textual are 1 Samuel

9:5; 2 Samuel 7:7; Romans 1:32, 8:3, 11:31 and 16:25-27. Under the second heading of

contextual are 2 Samuel 7:19; Romans 11:6 and 11:33. Under the last heading of grammatical are

2 Samuel 8:18; Romans 5:12 and 10:21.

Chapter 4

Examples of Willet’s Exegesis

Examples of Willet’s Textual Observations

Synecdoche Rendering and Consideration for the Source of the Variant Reading in 2 Samuel 7:7

Willet asks the question whether the words, “spake I one word with any of the tribes?”

were translated properly.264 Commenting on this passage, Willet challenges the exegetical

tradition, again showing the fluidity of exegetical discovery that continued through into the

beginning of the 17th century. Most of the interpreters, Septuagint, Latin, Chaldean, and

Vatabulus “with the rest” translated the word shibtee, “tribes.” But following Junius, Willet

264 H2S, 41.

Page 90: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

89

believes that shibtee is better translated as a synecdoche as either “judges” or “governors.”

Etymologically he argues that the word properly refers to “scepters,” the scepter itself being an

adjunct of the government and an emblem of the governors themselves. Furthermore, Willet

gives four reasons why “judges” is the superior rendering: 1) This event is rehearsed in 1

Chronicles 17:6 and in that place reads, “spake I one word to any of the judges of Israel?”265 2)

The immediate context confirms the same sense; “whom I commanded to feed my people.” It

was the judges and not the tribes whom the Lord commanded to care for his people. 3) In verse

11 we read that the Lord also said “since that time I commanded judges over my people.”

Finally, 4) Willet addresses the matter on how such a variant could find its way into the

text. He notes the similarity and affinity between the words shibtee and shophtee, both in sound

and in definition. The difference in pointing being only a hireq or a holem, which Willet notes

may account for the variation.266

Cognizant of the possibility of this variant in pointing, Willet resists questioning the

authority or the pointing of the Hebrew text. Rather, he informs the reader of the issue in

question and interprets the word broadly as a synecdoche. In this manner, Willet fashioned his

own sense of the ketib, to be written “tribes,” and the qere, to be read as “judges,” touching the

text’s synecdoche translation.

Text-Critical Concerns in Romans 1:32

The rigors of textual critical work was the obligatory work of the reformation theologians

as they confronted their Roman Catholic counterparts and their own textual critical inquiry and

polemic. Rather than asserting a retardation of critical work due to this struggle, the reality of

265 There the word is shophtee. 266 H2S, 41.

Page 91: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

90

this tension stimulated and indeed demanded critical inquiry. There was no need to indulge in

nonexegetical, hypothetical formulations as did the theologians of the 18th and 19th centuries.267

Romans 1:32 serves as a splendid example of the academic and yet thoroughly theological

struggle in which the post-Reformation exegetes were engaged. What becomes evident is that

reason governed Willet’s rigor in working through the intricacies of text-critical matters.

In the Latin, the passage reads, “Who when they knew the justice of God, did not

understand, that they which do such things, are worthy of death, not only they which do them,

but they also which consent unto the doers.”268 Willet compares this with the translation of the

apographa, which reads, “the which knowing the justice of God, how they which commit such

things are worthy of death, not only to do the same, but to have pleasure in them.”

He observes that the Latin translation fails on two accounts. The first, on a textual level,

was the unauthorized addition of the words, “did not understand” and “they which do them.” The

second was that this translation fails in the sense by promulgating two contradictions. The first

contradiction is established in comparison to the Greek. According to the Greek reading, the

apostle means that it is “a more heinous thing to favor and patronize evil doers, than to be an evil

doer. But after the other reading the latter is greater,” the other reading being the Latin.269 The

second contradiction, Willet’s third point, is that the Latin translation itself concludes a

contradiction. “For when they knew the justice of God,” Willet writes, “how could they choose

267 Contra Greenslade, The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3 47.

268 HR, 97.

269 HR, 97.

Page 92: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

91

but understand it.”270 And fourthly, citing Chrysostom, Oecumenius and Theophylact for support,

he says that they read and interpret this passage according to the Greek, not the Latin text.

Willet shows throughout his commentaries, that aside from canonical and ecclesiastical

differences, certain renderings are unreasonable. He shows that the Latin text contains logical

contradictions that no one should be expected to believe or to hold authoritatively. Indeed, these

errors in reason reflect on an absence of academic rigor indicative of an exegetical tradition that

relied on authoritative pronouncements and institutional advancements rather than a rigorous,

reasoned exegesis.

Bellarmine responds that some Greek texts had the word , “they understood

not,” as are found in Origen’s commentary and that Titlemannus affirmed that he had seen an

ancient Greek copy with those words. Secondly, it was a greater sin to do evil, as to commit

murder, than only to consent. Thirdly, they might have a theoretical knowledge and yet fail in

practice, and so not understand the effect. And lastly, Cyprian, Ambrose, Sedulius, Haymo, and

Anselm follow the Latin in this passage.271

To these objections Willet gives a fourfold reply. Allowing that some Greek manuscripts

have the words, the most ancient of the Greek manuscripts did not have them as is “evident by

the Greek commentaries and the Syriac.”272 Furthermore, the extant Greek manuscripts of the

Reformation did not have these words. As relating to Bellarmine’s notion of “consent” Willet

argues that the “Apostle speaketh not of bare consent until evil, but of savoring, patronizing, and

270 HR, 97.

271 HR, 97. Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,

vol. 10, 333-334. Sedulius Scotus was an Irish monk (d. 828) whose writings are a compilation

of the Church Fathers and especially Origen.

272 HR, 97.

Page 93: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

92

partaking pleasure in them, which is more than to do evil; for this one they may do of infirmity,

the other proceedeth from malice.”273

Refocusing the discussion of Bellarmine’s nonexegetical insertion of the idea of practice

back to discernment, Willet responds, “the understanding is the judgment of the mind, not in

practice, and therefore to know a thing, and yet not to know or understand it, includes a

contradiction.” And finally, Willet answered by saying that the “Greek authors and commentaries

are more to be respected in this case, for the finding out of the best reading in Greek, than the

Latin writers.”274

Aware of the variant reading within this passage, Willet is not content to allow textual

matters alone to suffice for the determination of the best reading. Willet appeals to the

manuscripts upon which his Greek New Testament was founded. He argues for the sense of the

words within their context as well as the logic for inclusion or exclusion. Orthodox sense and

context informed Willet of the reasonable limits of his exegesis and interpretation. Also, in that

the Latin commentaries are one more translation away from the Greek, it is not surprising that

Willet finds the best reading in the Greek commentaries rather than the Latin.

Use of the Accusative Case in Romans 8:3

“For (that which was impossible to the law, in as much as it was weak because of

the flesh) God sending his own Son in the similitude (flesh of sin, Gr. In a form

like unto flesh subject to sin, Be.G. this is the sense but not the meaning of the

words) and for sin, (not, of sin, L. V. the word is for) condemned sin in the

flesh; (in his flesh, S. ad.).”275

273 HR, 97. Poole, Commentary, 483. “Have pleasure in them; or, patronize, applaud

such; see Psal. X. 3. This is set last, as worst of all; it is the highest degree of wickedness: and

such come nearest the devil, who take pleasure in evil because it is evil.”

274 HR, 97.

275 HR, 347.

Page 94: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

93

Here there is a question whether for the sake of the context a word should be supplied. At

this passage both Erasmus and Vatabulus supply the word, effecit or praestitit, “did,” or

“performed,” in this sense, that which was “impossible to the law, etc. God sending his Son,

did.”276 Willet notes that this reading is also followed by the ecclesiastical expositors, collected

by Marlorat. His purpose is to show that this supply is unnecessary and that the “sense is full and

perfect without it.”277

The Syriac transposes the words, “because the law was weak by reason of the flesh,” but

in the original the words , “wherein,” follow , the “law.” Willet comments that to

begin with, this setting the relative before the antecedent is a difficult grammatical

construction.278

Willet also states that there is no need with Camerius to supply the preposition _____,

“for,” or “because,” as thus to read, “because of that which was impossible to the law, etc.” This

rendering was followed by Pareus and approved of by Beza.279 Nor was there any need to admit

a Hebraism, with Tolet, who had the participle, “sending,” according to the Hebrew phrase for

276 HR, 352.

277 HR, 352.

278 HR, 352. ; “for what

was impossible for the law, wherein it was weak through the flesh . . .” For the few examples of

the antecedent following the relative see F. Blass, A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New

Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translated and edited by Robert W. Funk

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 154.

279 HR, 352.

Page 95: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

94

“he sent.”280 Neither was it necessary to put in the nominative case with the sense

“such was the weakness of the law,” as Beza did.281

For Willet, the best reading was to put “condemned sin in the flesh” in the accusative.

The thing impossible, “to the law, in as much as it was weak,” was referred to the last clause,

“condemned sin in the flesh,” by way of opposition, in this since, “God sending his Son,

condemned sin in the flesh, which was impossible to the law.” This was the rendering of the

Latin and that of the English translations.282

Trajection of the Particle in Romans 11:31

Willet asks the question of the meaning of the words in verse 31, “So now have they not

believed by your mercy.”283

31. Even so now have they not believed, (not obeyed, Be. have been

contumacious. S. see the former verse) by the mercy shewed unto you, (your

mercy, Gr.) that they also may obtain mercy, (not believed the mercy, B. A. in the

mercy. L. not believed because of your mercy. V.S. Beza referreth it to the latter

clause, that by your mercy they might obtain mercy.

32. For God hath shut up all in unbelief, (contumacy, or disobedience, S.B.

signifieth both, the first rather here, for the Apostle still urgeth the

necessity of unbelief, as c.9.32.) that he might have mercy on all.284

280 HR, 352.

281 HR, 352.

282 HR, 352. Geneva Bible, 82: “For (that which was impossible to the law, in as much as

it was because of flesh) God sending his own Son, in the similitude of sinful flesh, and //for sin,

condemned sin in the flesh. Christ did take flesh, which of nature was subject to sin, which

notwithstanding he sanctified even in the very instant of his conception, and did so appropriate it

unto him, that he might destroy sin in it. //Or. by sin. 283 HR, 514-515. .

284 HR, 487.

Page 96: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

95

Willet divides the discussion of the clause “So now have they not believed by your

mercy” into four sections. The first section is a grammatical response in answer to the question

whether unbelief or disobedience is in view. The second section, still covering the same material,

is drawn principally from the context and theological concerns. Section three is a lengthy treatise

on the words “for your mercy” divided into four sections. The fourth section contained Willet’s

summary conclusion.

The exegetical tradition at this point has its varied interpretations. For the explication of

the words, some read, “so now have they not obeyed,” or, “are become contimaces, stubborn,

and contumacious.” So read Beza, the Peshitto, Grynaeus and others.285 Willet however held that

it is rather to be interpreted “have not believed,” as Martyr, the Latin and the English translation

for the following reasons.286

He does not debate that the word signifies both incredulity and contumacy or

disobedience, being derived from the word “to persuade.” His point is that both the

believer and unbeliever alike are disobedient. The Jews were disobedient, thus bringing the

mercy of God upon the disobedient Gentiles. To say that disobedience is at the crux of the

problem is for Willet superficial and inadequate. For Willet, the thrust of this passage is to bring

the Jews to salvation through the mercy shown to the Gentiles and not merely some sense of

obedience or disobedience. He notes that the apostle throughout this chapter makes unbelief the

cause for God’s rejection of the Jews because of unbelief, verse 20 (), and that

is being used in this specific sense in this context.

285 HR, 514.

286 The marginal note of Poole’s edition of King James Version at this verse reads, “Or,

obeyed.”

Page 97: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

96

Appealing to a collaborating portion of Scripture Willet says that the next verse is better

read, “God hath shut up all under unbelief” than “under disobedience,” as it is stated in Galatians

3:22, “The scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ,

should be given to them that believe,” where by sin is understood unbelief.287

Origen and Chrysostom interpret this place to speak of the incredulity both of the

Gentiles and the Jews.288 The words “your mercy” are not active, whereby the Jews and Gentiles

show mercy, but passive, whereby they received mercy. The cause of this mercy is put for the

effect in verse 22, “If thou continue in his goodness,” that is, in faith, received by God’s

goodness.289 Willet writes,

The Apostle saith (yours) propter efficientiam, because it was effectual toward

them, but afterward he saith, that he might shew mercy on all, propter

sufficientiam, because it is sufficient for all.290

The sense and meaning of the words “by your mercy” have been the source of a variant

of interpretations. The Latin reads, in vestrum misericordiam, “for your mercy.” Haymo and

Osiander interpret this to mean that they have not believed, vt vos misericordiam consequamini,

“that you may obtain mercy.” But Beza and Erasmus both refute this, because as much in effect

is said previously in the end of the former verse, “You have obtained mercy through their

unbelief.” Grammatically, the particles, “even as,” and “even so,” show an opposition of these

parts of speech, not a repetition.

287 HR, 515.

288 HR, 515.

289 HR, 515.

290 HR, 515.

Page 98: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

97

Ambrose reads in vestra misericordia, “in your mercy,” that is, “at this time when you

have obtained mercy” meaning at the same time. Willet states that there is no preposition in the

original to warrant this rendering; that the words are in the dative, the case, says

Willet, the Greeks used for the ablative. He says, “The Jews were unbelievers, and rejected the

Gospel, before it was preached unto the Gentiles, and therefore it was not the same time.”291

Erasmus reads “they have not believed,” per vestram misericordiam, “by your mercy,”

meaning “the mercy shewed to the Gentiles was an occasion (or cause) of the unbelief of the

Jews.” But Beza rejected this interpretation for the following two reasons: 1) the Jews were first

unbelievers, before mercy was showed to the Gentiles, therefore they were not hardened; and 2)

the mercy showed to the Gentiles, was to provoke the Jews to follow them, v. 11. The Jews

therefore would not be driven further away from God by the mercy shown to the Gentiles.292

Willet maintains that Theophylact’s interpretation comes nearer to St. Paul’s sense than

does that of the other exegetes. Theophylact thought that there was a trajection, or the

conveyance of the sense, of the particle , “that.” Although the words stand in this order in the

original, “by your mercy, that they may obtain mercy,” he argued that they must be placed thus:

“that by your mercy, they may obtain mercy.” This same trajection, or transferred sense of , is

also found in 2 Corinthians 2:4, , “but my love that ye may know me,” for

“but that you may know my love.” Beza at this passage and Tolet also argue that the words “for

your mercy” should not be joined with the former clause, “so now they have not believed,” but

with the latter, “that they may also obtain mercy” to maintain the parallel structure of the

passage. St. Paul wrote before, “you have received mercy through their unbelief,” and so it

291 HR, 515.

292 HR, 515.

Page 99: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

98

would subsequently follow that they also “should receive mercy, through their mercy.”

Chrysostom furthermore showed the reason why it was said, that the Jews should receive mercy,

through their [the Gentiles] mercy, not through their unbelief. “The Gentiles have not been

saved, vt quemadmodum Judei exire debates, as the Jews were, that you should go out (or fall

away) again, sed vt ilos manendo per aemulationem attar hatis, but that ye may draw them

[Jews] on by continuing in the faith.293

Willet comes to summarize the force of the apostle’s argument. There are three things to

be compared with another corresponding three: 1) the unbelief of the Gentiles with the unbelief

of the Jews; 2) the mercy that the Gentiles received in time past with the mercy that the Jews

shall receive; and 3) the causes of both set against the other. The cause of mercy showed to the

Gentiles was the unbelief of the Jews, and the cause of mercy showed to the Jews was mercy

extended to the Gentiles. This mercy granted the Gentiles was to provoke emulation on the part

of the Jews.

St. Paul’s argument is from the less to the greater. If the infidelity of the Jews was the

opportunity of mercy to the Gentiles, much more the mercy showed to the Gentiles shall be the

opportunity of showing mercy to the Jews. For there is greater force in that which is good than in

that which is evil, says Grynells. Tolet comments that if the Gentiles who never believed were

called to the faith, it is far more likely that the Jews which had been in the past believers should

return to their former faith.294

293 HR, 515. See Chrysostom, “Homily 19” in Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene and Ante-

Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol. 11, 494. “Yet ye have not been so saved as to put away again, as

the Jews were, but so as to draw them over through jealousy while ye abode.”

294 HR, 515.

Page 100: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

99

Pleonasm in Romans 16:25-27

Willet’s high view of Scripture and his continuity with the Reformation tradition is not

liable in reducing Willet’s zeal to argue through the intricacies of the Bible’s original languages

and subsequent translations. To illustrate this point, Willet raises a “troubling” grammatical

question with Romans 16:25-27. He notes that the clause “to whom be praise through Jesus

Christ”295 cannot be grammatically dependent upon the clause in verse 25, “to him that is of

power.”296 Erasmus thought is were “great impudence” to omit the relative , “to whom,” which

is found in most Greek copies.297 The quandary of this apparent run-on sentence found in the

majority of Greek manuscripts led him to conclude that the apostle “brought forth here an

imperfect speech.”298 To Erasmus’s summary, Willet replied that Erasmus had overstated his

conjecture by saying that neither Syrian interpreter had the relative, nor did the Complutension

copy, which Beza followed in this passage.

Augustine is cited in the Glossa ordinaria as having the word “praise” or “glory” to be

twice applied, in this sense, “to him, that is of power, etc., be praise and glory, to whom be all

praise.” Willet calls this rendering a “superfluous supply.”299

Although Chrysostom includes the relative in the text, he omits it in his comment,

lectionis haec est consequentia, this is of the consequence and coherence of the reading, and

295 Hodges and Farstad, eds., The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text,

506. The text reads, ; The Textus Receptus reads,

.

296 HR, 515.

297 HR, 734.

298 HR, 734

. 299 HR, 734.

Page 101: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

100

sense, “to him, that is of power, etc. be glory.” Willet cites Ambrose in support of this

interpretation. Lyranus interprets cui, “to whom,” that is, to Christ. Tolet interprets cui, that is,

ipsi, “to him.” Still Willet argues that the sense of the words do not hang together well.

In working through this grammatical difficulty Willet sides with Beza who thinks that the

relative, “to whom,” is a pleonasm, “a filling of a superfluous word, according to the manner of

the Hebrew tongue.” Willet cites Ephesians 3:21 and 1 Peter 2:24 where the pronoun ,

“himself” is used superfluously, but says that Pareus gives a clearer instance in Hosea 10:7,

succisus est Samaria rex eius, the king of Samaria, of it, is cut off. Willet summarizes, “And so

in this place, the word, ‘to whom,’ may abound and be superfluous. But the sense and coherence

is that which Chrysostom followeth.”300

Examples of Willet’s Contextual Observations

Identification of Persons in 2 Samuel 8:18

Willet asked the question, Who were the Cerethites and Pelethites? Josephus, Martyr,

Borrhaus, Pellican, and the Geneva Bible think that these Cerethites and Pelethites are

“keepers of the kings body, the king’s guard.”301 Some thought that their

station was derived from the root of their name, the Cerethites taken from charath, to “cut out,”

because they were the king’s executioners; the Pelethites from palat, to “defend,” because they

300 HR, 734.

301 H2S, 53.

Page 102: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

101

were his body guard. Others give another derivation of carath which meant “to strike a

covenant” and pala, “excellent,” so called because they were worthy and excellent men.302

Still others thought that these were strangers from other countries. Willet said that some

considered the Cerethites to be Philistines that the king used to guard his person, “as now the

Swiss and Helvetians, and Scots are in other countries appointed for the kings guard.”303 Willet

with Martyr finds it unlikely that David would have “strange people being infidels and idolaters

so near his person.”304

Vatabulus reads here “Creti and Pleti, the Cretians and the Pletians” but does not show

who they were or from what nation they came. Willet adds that in the apostles’ time we learn

from Acts 2:11 that there were Cretes at Jerusalem, but in David’s time they were held with little

regard.

Willet concludes that Cerethite and Pelethite are proper names. These were garrison

soldiers, the Cerethites who inhabited Chereth among the Philistines, being numbered among the

Philistines, and part of those whom David had subdued (1 Sam. 30:14; Eze. 25:16); and the

Pelethites were also garrison soldiers among the Japhlethites and are mentioned in Joshua 16:2.

Both Junius and the Chaldean paraphrase confirm Willet’s interpretation. The Cerethites were

thought to be archers and the Pelethites to be slingers. Rather than always attending upon the

302 H2S, 53. Willet adds, “Chimhi expound these names by Urim and Thummim. They

were men of knowledge and integrity as some think David’s counsel. But if these were the case,

then Benaias being a man of war should not have been set over them.”

303 H2S, 53.

304 H2S, 53.

Page 103: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

102

court, these garrison soldiers were employed in the defense of the land. We find that as garrison

soldiers they also served in the defense of the king, as can be seen in chapters 15 and 18.305

Inclusion of the Clause in Romans 11:6

Willet considered the exegesis of the clause, “if of grace, it is no more of works.” Origen

thought that the apostle in this passage spoke only of the ceremonial works of the law, such as

circumcision, the sacrifices and other temple practices. Willet however, believed that the

“Apostles words are general, shewing the opposition between grace and all works, whatsoever,

whether legal, moral, natural.”306

A textual problem also exists in that the clause “if not of work, then not of grace, though

work were no more work” is omitted in the Latin. Erasmus argued for this clause’s omission

because it was not the apostle’s question, “whether work be work,” but only that grace is not of

works. Tolet also says this addition is superfluous, because the latter entails the former.307

Countering these claims Willet cites the Syrian translator and the Greek expositors Chrysostom,

Theophylact and Oecumenius, all who include this clause. Furthermore, although it is omitted by

Origen, the Greek copies generally have it.

305 H2S, 53. Also see 20 quest. V. 23, Whether Benias was one of David’s counselors is

answered in the affirmative on 137.

306 HR, 492.

307 HR, 492.

Page 104: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

103

Exegetically Willet finds it consistent with the apostle’s purpose, “who to prove the

election of grace, doth shew it by the contrary antithesis and opposition.”308 He presents the flow

of the apostle’s argument, relaying to the reader,

it is either of grace altogether, or of works altogether, but not of works altogether,

therefore of grace. The consequence of this proposition he proveth by this

inconvenience, that if grace be joined with works, then works were no more work.

For if the reward be of grace, it is not by merit of the work. And the assumption

and second part he proveth by an other absurdity, for then grace should be no

more grace, for this which is given the merit of the work, is given of debt, not of

favour, as before the Apostle reasoned, c.4.4. This clause is neither impertinent,

nor yet superfluous.309

Having stated his case, Willet points out that this passage meets with a variety of alternative, and

for Willet, faulty interpretations. For instance, “The Greek scholastics saith, that we need no

works to come unto Christ, sed sola voluntas, & Mentis intention sat est, the will and intention

only of the mind is sufficient.”310 To this Willet asks whether

this will, and intention, whether it is God’s work or man’s. If it be God’s work, as

the Apostle saith, that “God worketh both the will and the deed,” Phil. 2:13, then

it is of grace. If it means man’s, then it is a work, but all workers are excluded.311

Continuing his rebuttal, Willet quotes Osiander, who says that “grace cannot be understood, to be

a thing infused into and inherent in man, as the Romanists, for then it were a work.” “But grace,”

308 HR, 492. Geneva Bible, Romans 11:6, 84. “And if [it be] of grace, it is no more of

works: or else were grace no more grace: but if it be of works it is no more grace: or else were

work no more work.”

309 HR, 492-493.

310 HR, 493.

311 HR, 493.

Page 105: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

104

Willet says, “is here conceived to be subjective in Deo, in God as a subject, as work is subjective

in man as a subject.”312

What Willet calls “Gorrhan’s conceit” is an unreasonable interpretation, creating an

unwarranted rendering. Gorrhan’s idea was that “a work may be said to merit, and it shall be of

grace, because it meriteth grace.”313 As is his practice, Willet addresses the inherent contradiction

of uniting the two by saying that “the very opposition between grace and work, one excluding

the other, alloweth no such permission.”314 Work and grace may stand together, but not as joint

causes. Works must follow grace, ne accepta gratia sit inanis, “that the grace received be not in

vain,” as Origen says. Martyr writes,

And though the reward follow works, yet the merit of the work is not the cause,

but the grace and favor of God, which hath appointed such a way and order, that

the faithful, after they have wrought and laborer, should be rewarded. It is

consecution & ordo, a thing that followeth, and an order, which God hath

appointed, not any merit.315

Calvin likewise argued, “Though the Apostle especially entreat here of election, that is of

grace, yet because the Apostle’s rule in general, ad totum salutis nostra rationim extendi debet, it

must be extended to the whole manner and way of salvation.”316 Willet concludes, “For as

election is by grace, not by works, Rom. 9:11, so our calling is by grace, not by works, 2 Tim.

312 HR, 493.

313 HR, 493.

314 HR, 493.

315 HR, 493.

316 HR, 493.

Page 106: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

105

1:9, ‘who hath called us with an holy calling, not according to our works.’ Our justification also

is by faith without works, Romans 3:24, 28.”317

The Use of in Romans 11:33318

Some at this passage, such as the Latin, read “O the deepness of the riches, of the

wisdom, and knowledge of God,” making “wisdom” and “knowledge” dependent upon “riches.”

But in this reading the Greek conjunction , “and,” which stands between “riches” and

“wisdom,” is omitted.

Another interpretation is illustrated by Chrysostom who thought that these two words,

“depth,” and “riches,” are two names “added to express the excellency of God’s wisdom and

knowledge.”319 This nuance is taken also up by Beza, Grynaeus, Pereius and Faius, who take

“riches” here to mean abundance. Gorrhan supported this interpretation by appealing to

Colossians 2:3, which reads, “In whom are hid the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Those

representing theis interpretive tradition thought St. Paul was saying, “the riches of the wisdom

and knowledge.”320 Here again the first conjunction is left untranslated.

317 HR, 493.

318 HR, 516.

319 Chrysostome, “Homily 2” in Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,

1st Series, vol. 9, 258. “His greatness has no bounds, His wisdom is beyond reckoning, His

judgments are untraceable, His ways unsearchable.”; “Homily 61,” vol. 10, 376. “Wherefore it

were even seasonable now to say, ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge

of God!’”

320 HR, 516.

Page 107: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

106

Origen, Theophylact, Erasmus and Tolet refer this deepness to all three, “O the deepness

of the riches, and of the wisdom, and of the knowledge of God.”321 This collective rendering is

supported for the following reasons: 1. Erasmus observed that there was a comma or distinction

in all the copies that he saw, between riches and wisdom, which indicated to him that the one did

not depend upon the other. 2. Tolet added that the conjunction (, and) between riches and

wisdom also indicates that they are two distinct things. 3. Furthermore, the following three

clauses, “who hath known his mind,” “who was his counselor” and “who hath given to him

first,” are accountable to all three – knowledge, wisdom, riches. 4. Elsewhere in the text, these

three are distinguished as illustrated in Ephesians 2:17, “the riches of his grace, etc., in all

wisdom and understanding.”322

For Willet this rendering seems “the most agreeable to the scope of the Apostle, who

immediately before made mention of the mercy of God, which here he understandeth, “by the

depth of his riches,” as Ephesians 2:7, “that he might shew in the ages to come, the exceeding

riches of his grace.”

Nevertheless, though either of these readings may be followed, Haymo and Peter Martyr

propounding both interpretations, Willet believes that the former sense seem to fit best, because

of Colossians 2:3, where these “riches” are called the “treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” He

argues that the first conjunction, , can signify “both,” and “and.”

321 HR, 516-517.

322 HR, 517.

Page 108: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

107

By way of application Willet cites verse 35 which says, “who giveth unto him first.” This

for Willet is another reason to keep men from murmuring against God, as in this passage they are

confronted “by the unsearchable depth of God’s judgments.”323

Examples of Willet’s Grammatical Observations

Grammatical Order in I Samuel 1:1

Willet notes that some “read of one of the two Ramathaims” as in the Geneva Bible.”324

Word order, number and a working knowledge of the Palestinian geography all come to bear on

the proper rendering of this passage.

Willet first observes the Hebrew word order, “There was a man one of Ramathaim-

zophim.” He notes that “one” refers rather to the word going before: erat vir unm, or quidam,

“there was a certain man,” because the Hebrew preposition, min, of, is put before Ramathaim,

not before ached, one. The grammatical structure therefore dictates that the text should read

“one,” or a certain man, came from the city “of Ramathaim-zophim” and not a man of one of the

cities of Ramathaim.325

The interpretation of this passage is further complicated because Ramathaim is plural,

leading some scholars to think that there are two cities of that name and that in this place Ramath

323 HR, 517.

324 Geneva Bible marginal note, 135: “There were two Ramaths, so that in the city in

Mount Ephraim were Zophim: that is, the learned men and prophets.” “There was a man of one

of the two Ramathaim zophim, of mount Ephraim, whose name [was] Elkanah, the son of

Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite.”

325 H2S, 1.

Page 109: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

108

is meant to be a city in Mt. Ephraim.326 Willet, however, with Henry takes the position that

Ramath is put in the plural “being one and the same city, yet consisting of two towns as two

parts, the one opposite unto the other.”327 Osiander also comments that the context clarifies much

of the problem in that in verse 19 the city is called simply Ramath.328

The next textual issue weighed the etymology of the Hebrew word zophim with that of

the Chaldean rendering and the impact of the LXX upon the interpretation. Willet says first of all

that “Zophim is added, not so called, because there the prophets dwelt, which was called,

Zophim, speculators, watchmen, seers, or beholders” according to the Chaldean. Neither,

according to Pellican, does it refer to a high place, tanquam in specula, as in a watchtower, or

looking place. Rather for Willet, Junius and Borrhaus zophim is added “because it was situate in

the country or region of Zuph, c.9.6 ... which might have the name also of Zuph, of whom

Elkanah was descended, as this verse showeth, called also Zophas, 1 Chron. 6:26.”329

Christocentricity in 2 Samuel 7:19

In this passage we have the inauguration of God’s covenant with David that assured

David that a king would sit on his throne, never to be depose and the proper rendering of the

words “this is the Law of the man Lord God.” The near fulfillment of the promise was answered

326 So the Geneva and Latin Vulgate.

327 H1S, 1. Henry, Commentaries, 276. “This Elkanah lived at Ramah, or Ramathaim,

which signifies the double Ramah, the higher and the lower town, the same with Arimathea of

which Joseph was, here called Ramathaim-zophim.”

328 H1S, 1. Junius: “Yet there were two other Ramaths, one in Benjamin and one in

Naptali.”

329 H1S, 1.

Page 110: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

109

in his son Solomon, but the prophetic fulfillment could only be accomplished by someone

greater.

Borrhaus understood the clause “This is the law of man” to refer to “the chief happiness

of man in this life, and the chief scope that every one aimeth at to live in a prosperous state

himself, and to provide also for his posterity” and cited the preceding immediate context, “thou

hast spoken of thy servant’s house for a great while to come.” But Willet presses beyond this

interpretation by saying that “David did not rest in these temporal blessings; he looked

further.”330

Rabbi Chimchi by “law” understood a “condition or disposition, as if he should have said

that it is the condition of great men in this world to have their honor and prosperity settled in

their posterity.”331 Willet says Chimchi with Vatabulus would have explained their interpretation

with support drawn from 1 Chronicles 17:17, which reads in part, “thou hast regarded me

according to the state of an excellent man, or of high desire.” “But as is shown before,” Willet

continues, “David is looking higher, than to these temporal and earthly blessings.”

Rabbi Salomon, which the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles followed, reads this as an

interrogative: “is this the law and condition of man, that though shouldest so much respect

them?” or, “doth this appertain to man?” This rhetorical change in nuance was meant to

communicate that those things that deal with man come only “by thy free mercy, not of any

330 H2S, 44.

331 H2S, 44. For David Kimchi (c. 1160-1235) see Aaron L. Katchen, Christian Hebraists

and Duth Rabbis: Seventeenth Century Apologetics and the Study of Maimonides “Mishneh

Torah” (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 8.; Peter T. Van Rooden, Theology,

Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century (Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1989); G. Lloyd Jones, The Discovery of Hebrew in Tudor England: A Third Language

(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983); Israel Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature,

trans. And ed. Bernard Martin (Cleveland: The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1972);

See Gesenius, 436. law, torat: custom, manner, the manner of man, not of God, i.e. deal with me

as man with man.

Page 111: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

110

worthiness in man.”332 Pellican likewise reads it with an interrogative with an explanation similar

to that above. He writes it, non huc humanum, sed divinum beneficium, “this is no human, but a

divine benefit,” in that thou hast promised, that all nations shall be blessed in my seed.333

Junius interprets it ratione humana, “after the manner of men,” that is, “thou dealest

familiarly with me, as one man with another,”334 and Rupertus gives this sense: “this is the Law

of Adam, that is, we are all the children of wrath by nature, not worthy to be thine house.”335

Willet, following Martyr, in this passage departs from the various literary attempts to

make sense of this passage and draws principally from grammatical evidence and the overall

covenantal context within which these words are couched, he reads this sentence

Christologically. He says, “But these words are much better referred to Christ.” Willet reads the

sentence, “this is the law of that (excellent) man”; that the word “excellent” is supplied from 1

Chronicles 17:17. Paraphrasing, Willet gives the sense of this rendering, “That is, thou grantest

me these things, not for any merit or worthiness in me, but for the worthiness of that excellent

man Christ.”336 Osiander also gives a Christological interpretation in this place as “an evident

testimony of Christ, both God and man,” by not putting “O Jehovah God” in the vocative case

332 H2S, 44. So also the Geneva Bible.

333 H2S, 44.

334 H2S, 44. cf. Gesenius, 436. law, torat: custom, manner, the manner of man, not of

God, i.e. deal with me as man with man.

335 H2S, 45. Matthew Henry gives three possible renderings to this passage listing those

held by Junius, Rupertus, Martyr (and with him Willet), 483.

336 H2S, 45.

Page 112: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

111

but joining all these words together by apposition, “this is the law of that man Jehovah God.”

Willet finds in this rendering “the condition of the Messiah, both man and God.”337

An objection could be raised that the word Jehovi in Genesis 15:8 is taken in the vocative

case, providing scriptural warrant for the same here. Conceding the objection’s validity, Willet

relentlessly presses forward with further grammatical substantiation for his conclusion. The word

is haadam, “of that man.” The article is definite, from which Willet argues that this supply is “to

note some excellent and singular man, which title is added in 1 Chr. 17:17.” Furthermore,

contextually he urges that “David here has manifest reference to the Messiah, because he

speaketh of the continuing of his house forever, v. 19.”338

While there is rationale drawn from the diction, grammar and context of this passage for

Willett’s conclusions, he closes his discussion on a Johannine note. Looking to the next words

following in verse 21, “for they word’s sake,” Willet cites Junius, who at this place understands

these words to speak of Christ who is the eternal word of God.339

The Use of in Romans 5:12

Willet raises the question of the meaning of the apostle in these, “in whom all have

sinned,” and the best reading of verse 12. Looking first to the translation of Erasmus, he finds

that Erasmus translates the words , to be interpreted, eo quod, or quando quidem, “in so

much” or “because” and that Calvin, Martyr, Osiander and the Reformation English translations

337 H2S, 45.

338 H2S, 45.

339 H2S, 45.

Page 113: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

112

follow this rendering. Erasmus also argues for this rendering because 1 Corinthians 15:22 uses

another phrase in that sense, reading, “as in Adam all die, the words are not but .”340

Willet counters that this reason may be easily dismissed because sometimes in scripture

the preposition is taken for , as in Hebrews 9:17, “in meats.” Moreover, for

Willet this interpretation of Erasmus is unacceptable due to his understanding that led him to

interpret this passage as speaking of everyone’s “proper and particular sins,” not referring to

original sin as did Theodoret before him. And so for Willet, if we are to follow Erasmus’s

translation, “we should want a special place for the proof of original sin.”341

Having discussed the alternative renderings and the liabilities as Willet saw them, he

concludes that the better reading is “in whom,” that is, in Adam all have sinned.342 Willet lists

three things that may serve as an antecedent to the relative “in whom.” The options are either sin,

or death, or that “one man,” Adam. Willet begins eliminating the possible antecedents

grammatically by first saying that “sin” cannot be the antecedent because “sin” in the Greek

tongue , is of the feminine gender. “Death” likewise is unsuited because it is improper

speech to say in the which (death) all have sinned.343 Willet concludes

although he (Erasmus) profess, that he is an enemy to the heresy of the Pelagians,

which deny original sin, yet contendeth both by the authority of the fathers, as

340 HR, 250.

341 HR, 250.

342 HR, 250. So reads Origen, Chrysostom, Photius in Oecumenius, Theophylact, whom

Beza and Parens follow.

343 HR, 250. “For as Augustine saith, in peccato moriuntur homistine, non in morte

peccant, men die in sin, they are not said to sin in death. And so Augustine resolveth that in

primo homine omnes peccasse intelliguntur, all are understood to have sinned in the first man

Adam, etc. and to this purpose Augustine in the same place allegeth Hilarius.”

Page 114: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

113

Jerome and Origen, and by the same slope of the place, that the Apostle must be

understood to speak of actual sins.344

Translation of the Hebrew sorer in Romans 10:21

Question 30 in Romans 10 deals with the rendering of the words, “all the day long have I

stretched forth my hands” in verse 21.345 Quoting from Isaiah 65:2, Willet begins by giving the

contrasting uses of the preposition which he says

May as well signify, “against” as Beza and Erasmus, as “unto.” For this is spoken

indeed not “for” or “unto,” but “against” Israel.346

These alternative renderings are followed by a comparison among the Latin, Beza, Syriac

and Hebrew languages to determine the meaning of the word . The Latin translates

it “incredulous” or “not believing”; Beza rather “disobedient” and “immorigerous”; and the

Syriac “contentious.” The Hebrew word is sorer, which in Psalm 68:6 signifies the rebellious.347

The other word , “gainsaying,” as Origen observed is found in the LXX but

is not in the Hebrew. Willet notes that both Calvin and Beza thought that the apostle expressed

the Hebrew word (sorer) with two words “rebellious” and “gainsaying.”348 Junius, however,

thought that the Apostle used one word to express the prophet’s meaning, which is set forth in

many words in that place such as in Isaiah 65:3, “A rebellious people, which walketh a way

344 HR, 250.

345 HR, 473. Geneva Bible: “And unto Israel he saith, all the day long have I stretched

forth mine hand unto a disobedient (marg. Or. unbelieving), and gainsaying people.

346 HR, 473.

347 HR, 273.

348 HR, 273.

Page 115: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

114

which is not good after their own imaginations, a people that provoke me ever to my face.”349

Willet concludes that all this the apostle gathered together in the two words, “rebellious,” and

“gainsaying.”350

Chapter 5

Conclusion

This essay began by asking the question, “Is there a reason for reappraising the

contemporary evaluation of the Reformation theological method?” Moises Silva’s evaluation of

so-called precritical biblical exegesis is a modern representation of Willet’s comprehension of

exegesis and theology that led him to write, “we can hardly claim to have developed a

satisfactory approach if our exegesis is in essence incompatible with the way God’s people have

read the Scriptures throughout the centuries.”351 Textual, critically astute, and with a working

knowledge of the biblical languages and cognates, Willet worried through the decisions for or

against individual words, sentences and pericopes. The text’s editing and redaction of segments

of the text were not foreign to him.

The first consideration reappraising the contemporary evaluation of the Reformation

theological method is to show Willet’s continuity with the Reformation exegetical and expository

tradition. The writing style in his commentaries was pedantic and stilted, more analogous to vast

storehouse of exegetical data than to a smoothly edited commentary. In one respect little of

349 HR, 273.

350 HR, 273.

351 Moises Silva, Has The Church Misread The Bible?: The History of Interpretation in

the Light of Current Issues (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), 35. (italics in

original)

Page 116: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

115

Willet’s commentaries are original, except for his Synopsis. His most extensive labor, the

Synopsis has greater resemblance to a systematic rather than a biblical theology. Willet’s marked

contribution to the codification of Church dogmatics is extensive research as a chronicler of the

Church’s biblical exegesis.

The cogency of Willet’s research is in his scholastically argued conclusions. Having

identified the major exegetical contributors on any particular passage, he engenders a debate

where each exegetical finding must survive as the superior rendering against the whole tradition.

The inclusive form of Willet’s commentaries corresponds with function of his exegetical

conclusions to delineate from the whole the most valid exegetical rendering throughout church

history. The dogmatic claims of contemporary writers such as Rogers and McKim assume a

dichotomy between the early Reformation, specifically John Calvin on one hand and the post-

Reformation dogmaticians and the Westminster Confession of Faith on the other.352 By

bifurcating the tradition a convenient venue is created for pulling one element of the tradition out

of its historic context for the sake of discounting another. Willet, however, suspends the

credibility of his exegesis, preaching, dogmatics and politics on the exegetical continuity of the

churchly tradition. In addition, Willet gives specific examples of his continuity with the

Reformation. By so doing he demonstrates his personal affinity to his Reformation predecessors

as well as his contemporaries.

By way of example, Willet’s commentary on Jude is bound with his commentary on

Samuel and contains a compelling account of his attitude toward both the Jesuits and toward the

various traditions within the Reformation tradition. Smith gives illustrations in Willet’s

biography of his personal experiences with the disgraceful Jew, the “impostor” Roman Catholic

and the “intruder” separatist, each one feigning to be desirous of spiritual help from Willet when

352 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, xvii.

Page 117: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

116

in fact they were ill-mannered, lecherous vagabonds.353 Willet himself is forthright in

acknowledging his solidarity with the early Reformers and, as a minister of the Church of

England, with the Puritans as his common allies against the papacy.

The title page of his commentary on Judge reads: “A Catholicon, that is, a general

preservative or remedy against the pseudocatholic region, gathered out of the catholic epistle of

S. Jude, briefly expounded, and aptly, according to the time, applied against more than half a

hundred of popish errors, and as many corruptions of manners. With a preface serving as a

preparative to the Catholicon, and a dyet prescribed after.”354 Willet “prescribes” the Protestant’s

“diet” in the sense of “spiritual food for spiritual strength,” “in discerning the true religion and

church from the false.” This prescription is twelve pages long and precedes a one-page analysis

of the whole epistle of June, which consists of a fold-out flow chart/outline. The commentary

itself is only 49 folio pages long.

Part of the preface to Jude contains information that allows us to observe Willet’s own

evaluation of his place within the greater context of the Reformation. Here we observe both

Willet’s willingness to come to the defense of those he considers worthy advocates of the true

religion and also his patriotic spirit as a loyal subject of the king in defense of England. Willet is

able to set aside ecclesiastical differences and come to the defense of every “worthy minister” of

the gospel of Christ against the common foe of Rome. His purpose in the excerpt that follows

was to convince all readers, but primarily the king, that the supposed danger to the crown by the

Puritans was a false and trumped-up charge made by the Jesuits, who were the real culprits. All

who opposed Rome were for Willet to be defended against the scandalous accusations of the

papist. He writes,

353 Smith, Ten Excellent Men, 68-69.

354 CJ, title page.

Page 118: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

117

[W]hereas the question is moved by the Popish Priests, which of them, or the

faction are likest to the Puritans, and it is resolved, that the sect of the Jesuites

cometh nearer to them, though not so absurd in doctrine, nor yet so malicious

against either Church or commonwealth: neither yet are they such gross heads,

but much fine wits than the Puritans: for these are their own words. Let it here be

considered, that if by the name Puritans, they did understand such busy factious

heads to be malcontents, of a covetous and greedy mind, seek the havoc and spoil

of the church, not in deed or in truth, touched with any conscience of religion,

such as Martin Mareprelate might seem to be, we would greatly stand with them

for this comparison. For such a Puritan may prove a good stock to graft a papist in

as Hacket that justly suffered for his villainies, did leap as reported, out of such a

Puritan’s skin into a Papist’s hide. But whereas under this scandalous name of

Puritans, they do gal and wound the credit of many worthy ministers of the

gospel, as Calvin, Beza, etc. and the preachers also of Scotland, and diverse

among us, who otherwise, setting aside their opinion of some external usages of

the Church, are very profitable laborers, and most loyal subjects, between these

and the best learned of the Papists, for true religion and sound divinity, and

faithful obedience to the Prince, there is no comparison at all . . .. They

acknowledge a Church here in England, and themselves to be members of it . . .

those whom they [papists] call puritan ministers, have both by preaching and

writing, impugned the common adversary, as much as any, and therein have done

God good service in his Church. And this is the cause, if the truth were known,

why popish priests have such spite at them, because they stand so much in their

way, staying the spreading of their infection, by the contrary opposition of sound

doctrine.355

Willet says that there was a common gospel and polemic that continued unbroken from the

writings and preaching of Calvin until his day. His writings were so bound to those of Calvin and

Beza that to defend these men was to defend the theologians of this era. The uncritical use of

“etc.” (a common literary device for Willet) is likewise telling. The early 17th-century reader, not

requiring a litany of theologians, understood the ramifications of this method. Following Calvin

was Beza, and those who followed Beza were likewise included among those who for Willet

were valiant in the faith both for the preservation of the commonwealth and in the advancement

of reformation exegesis and dogmatics against their Jesuit counterparts. Indeed, Willet’s entire

355 CJ, 91-92.

Page 119: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

118

method, as detailed throughout this thesis, documents his concern for continuity with the earlier

exegetical tradition and specifically for continuity with the concerns of the Reformers.

There is no other single issue in Willet’s work that shows continuity with the Reformation

than his concept of Holy Scripture. Willet’s regular pastoral care of the church and preaching

duties stimulated his strong dependence upon the text and his personal accountability to its

accurate proclamation.356 The Church of England was precious to him, and in good conscience

he could not allow those under his care to be misled or ignorant of God’s message to them.

Andrew Willet, if anything, was painstakingly thorough. His six-point Hexapla in many

ways resembles and shows continuity with the fourfold interpretation of Scripture current in the

Middle Ages. Relating only one sense, the hexapla informs the reader of the many nuanced

applications of the text. This format, in conjunction with his working knowledge of the glossa

ordinaria, gives the reader a transparent bridge between the historical biblical interpretation

preceding what is formally called the Reformation. His manner of argumentation is also similar

to that of Thomas’s Summa. Arguments and counter arguments are posed and answered so as to

give the reader a sense of security in Willet’s conclusions. Medieval in use of argument,

Renaissance-oriented in his recourse to loci and Reformational in exegesis, Willet presents the

modern reader with a commentary illustrating the evolution of biblical commentaries into the

17th century. He was well acquainted with the Church Fathers and finds enduring value in the

commentaries of Origin, Jerome, and Augustine particularly. Willet leaves no stone unturned,

either Roman Catholic or Protestant, in his quest for an exhaustive commentary on the books of

the Bible. He holds the Septuagint in high regard and with conviction maintains a high view of

the authority and inspiration of Scripture. While never relinquishing his hold on the tenets of the

356 See especially H1S, 78-86, and CJ, 117.

Page 120: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

119

Reformation and Christian faith, Willet vigorously compares alternate textual readings both in

the original languages and subsequent Latin, Syriac and English translations.

Though Willet was only one of many historically obscure exegetes of the Reformation

and post-Reformation era, it is hoped that this brief introduction to him will contribute to the on-

going dialogue in relation to the character and work of the Reformation theologians.

Page 121: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

120

Bibliography

1. Primary Sources

Ainsworth, Henry. Annotations upon the five bookes of Moses, the booke of the Psalmes, and the

song of Songs, or Canticles. London: Printed for John Bellarmine, 1627.

The Auction Catalogue of th Library of F. Gomarus. A facsimile edition with an introduction by

E. Dekker, J. Knoop, C. M. L. Verdegaal. Utretcht: Hes Publishers, 1996.

Calvin, John. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols. Edited. By David W. Torance and

Thomas F. Torance. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.

_____. Institutes of Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeil. Translated by Ford Lewis

Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Cummings, John, ed. Synopsis Papismi, by Andrew Willet. 10 vols. London: Published at the

Society’s Office, 1852.

Geneva Bible. The Bible. Translated according to the Hebrew and Greek, and conferred with the

best translations in diverse languages. Imprinted in London, by Christopher Barker.

Printer to the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, 1583.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentaries. 6 vols. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell

Co., n.d.

Perkins, William. A Commentary on Galatians. Edited by Gerald T. Sheppard. New York:

Pilgrim Pres, 1989.

Poole, Matthew. A Commentary on the Holy Bible. 3 vols. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1979.

Rutherford, Samuel. Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince. London: Printed for John Field, 1644.

Reprint Harrisonville, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1982.

Smith, Peter. The Lives of Ten Excellent Men. London: Printed for Mark Pardoe, 1677.

Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. vol. 1. Edited by James T. Dennison, Jr.

Translated by George Musgrave Giger. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed

Publishing Co., 1992.

Willet, Andrew. A Catholicon, that is, a general preservative or remedy against the

pseudocatholic religion, gathered out of the catholic epistle of S. Judge, briefly

expounded, and aptly, according to the time, applied against more than half a hundred of

popish errors, and as many corruptions of manners. Printed by John Legat, Printer to the

Universtiy of Cambridge, 1614.

Page 122: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

121

_____. An Harmonie upon the First book of Sammuel wherein According to the Method and

order observed in Hexapla upon Genesis and Exodus, but more compenduously abridged.

Printed by Catrell Legge, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1614.

_____. An Harmonie upon the Second book of Samuel wherein According to the Method and

order observed in Hexapla upon Genesis and Exodues, but more compenduously

abridged. Printed by Catrell Legge, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1614.

_____. Dr. Willet’s Observations on King James’ respect to the two tables of the Law of God.

Printed at London for Thomas Cooke, 1642.

_____. Ecclesia Triumphans: that is, the joy of the English church, for the coronation of the most

virtuous and pious prince James by the Grace of God, king of England, Scotland, France

and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc., and for the joyful continuance of religion and

peace by the same. With a brief exposition of 122 Psalm, and a fit application to the time

wherein we declared the manifold benefits like to grow by the good beginnings, to the

church and commonwealth of England. Second edition. Printed by John Legat, Printer to

the University of Cambridge, 1614.

_____. Hexapla in Danielum: that is, a sixfold commentary upon the most divine prophecy of

Daniel. Printed by Cantrell Legge, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1610.

_____. Hexapla in Exodum, that is a sixfold commentary upon the second book of Moses called

Exodus: London. Imprinted by Felix Kingston, for Thomas Man and John Norton, 1608.

_____. Hexapla in Genesin, that is, a sixfold commentary on Genesis. London: Printed by Tho.

Creede for Thomas Man, 1608.

_____. Hexapla in Leviticum, that is, a sixfold commentary upon the third book of Moses, called

Leviticus. London. Printed by Aug. Matthewes, for Robert Milbourne, at the Sign of the

Greyhound in Pauls Church-yard, 1631.

_____. Hexapla: That is, a sixfold commentary upon the most divine epistle of the holy Apostle S.

Paul to the Romans. Printed by Cantrell Legge, Printer to the University of Cambridge,

1611.

_____. King James His Judgment by was of counsel and advice, extracted out of his own

speeches by Doctor Willet concerning Politique government in England and Scotland.

Printed at London for Thomas Cooke, 1642.

_____. Synopsis Papismi or, A General View of the Papacy: with confutations of Romanish

Errors from the Scriptures, Fathers and Councils, etc. 4th ed. London. Imprinted by Felix

Kynston, for Thomas Man, 1614.

Page 123: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

122

_____. Thesaurus Ecclesia: that is, the treasure of the church consisting of the perpetual

intercession and most holy prayer of Christ set forth in the 17 chapter of the gospel of S.

John. Printed by John Legat, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1614.

Whitaker, William. A Disputation of Holy Scripture Against the papists especially Bellarmine

and Stapleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849.

2. Other Works Cited

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 1984.

Bentley, Jerry H. Christian Interpretation from the Middle Ages to the Reformation” in The

Oxford Companion to the Bible.

The Cambridge History of the Bible. 3 vols. Edited by P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. (I), G. W.

H. Lampe (II), and S. L. Greenslade (III). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963-

1970.

Childs, Brevard S. “The sensus literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem” in

Beitrage zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Edited by. H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and R.

Smend. Gottingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht. 1977.

Daly, Peter M., and Valerie-Tomaszuk. Paola. “Andrew Willet, England’s First Religious

Emblem Writer,” in Renaissance and Reformation/Renaissance Reforme, New Series

10:2, Old Series 22:2, 1986.

Daly, Peter M., ed., “Andrew Willet: Sacrorum Emblematum Centuria Una. Cambridge,

Cambridgeshire: Ex Officina Ionannis Legate, 1592? As published in The English

Emblem Tradition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.

Dockery, David S. “New Testament Interpretation: A Historical Survey” in New Testament

Criticism and Interpretation. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.

Farrar, Frederic W. History of Interpretation. London: MacMillan and Co., 1886.

Gay, David. “Milton’s Samson and the Figure of the Old Testament Giant,” in Literature and

Theology, 9/4 (1995), pp. 355-369.

Hodges, Zane C., Farstad, Arthur L., eds. The Greek New Testament According to the Majority

Text. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985.

Huston, Diehl. “Graven Images: Protestant Emblem books in England,” in Renaissance

Quarterly 39 (1986).

Page 124: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

123

_____. An Index of Icons in English Emblem Books, 1500-1700. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press, 1986.

Jackson, Samuel Macauley, ed. The A New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.

12 vols. New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1908.

Jones, G. Lloyd. The Discovery of Hebrew in Tudor England: A Third Language. Manchester:

Manchester University Press, 1983.

Josephus, Flavius. “Antinquities of the Jews,” in Works of Josephus. Tanslated by William

Whiston. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Katchen, Aaron L. Christian Hebraists and Dutch Rabbis: Seventeenth Centruty Apologetics and

the Study of Maimonides’ “Mishneh Torah.” Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984.

Kautzch, E., ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.

Keil, C. F., Delitzsch, F. Commentary on the Old Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976.

Muller, Richard A. “The Debate over the Vowel Points and the Crisis in Orthodox

Hermeneutics,” in The Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 10/1 (1980), pp.

53-72.

_____. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant

Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985.

_____. “Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology,” in Post-Reformation Reformed

Dogmatics, vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993.

_____. “Prolegomena to Theology,” in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1. Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

Muller, Richard A. and Thompson, John L. eds. “The Significance of Pre-Critical Exegesis:

Retrospect and Prospect,” in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays

Presented to David C. Steinmitz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996, pp. 335-345.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand

Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, 15 vols. Edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids:

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Opfell, Olga S. The King James Bible Translators. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland and Co., Inc.,

1982.

Page 125: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

124

Orr, James, ed. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 5 vols. Revised edition. Grand

Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978.

Price, Ira Maurice. The Ancestry of Our English Bible. Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times

Co., 1923.

Rogers, Jack B. and McKim, Donald. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An

Historical Aplproach. 1st edition. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979.

_____. Scripture in the Westminster Confession: A Problem of the Historical Interpretation for

American Presbyterianism. Kampen: Kok, 1966.

Spear, Wayne R. “William Whitaker and the Westminster Doctrine of Scripture” in Reformed

Theological Journal, 7 (1991), pp. 38-48.

Steinmitz, David C. Calvin in Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

_____. “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” in Theology Today 37 (1980), pp. 27-38.

Van Rooden, Peter T. Theology, Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth

Century. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989.

Walker, Williston, et al. The History of the Christian Church. 4th edition. New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, 1985.

Woodbridge, John D. Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Zinburg, Israel. A History of Jewish Literature. Translated and edited by Bernard Martin.

Cleveland: The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1972.