William Whitaker
Disputations on Holy Scripture
V.ix, pp. 466-473.

IX. The State of the Question Concerning the Means of Finding the True Sense of Scripture.

We have spoken of the supreme authority for interpreting Scripture, which we have proved to belong to the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, not to Fathers, or Councils, or Popes. We have now to treat concerning the means of finding the sense of Scripture. For since Scripture hath no audible voice, we must use certain means to investigate what is the sense and what the mind of the Scriptures.

If Christ were now himself with us, if the apostles and prophets were living amongst us, we might repair to them, and entreat them to disclose to us the meaning of what they had written. But since they have departed and left us only their books, we must consider what means we should use to discover the true sense of Scripture and the words of God. The church, indeed, hath always used some means in the interpretation of Scripture.

Here I will enumerate first those means which are proposed by our divines; which if we make a lawful and holy application of, we shall not miss of the true meaning, and which the church herself is bound to use, unless she prefer to go wrong in the interpretation of Scripture.

1. Pray for Illumination of the Holy Spirit.

In the first place, prayer is necessary for reading the Scriptures so as to understand them; and on that account David so often begs of God to illuminate his mind and to open his eyes; and in Matthew 7, Christ says, “Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and ye shall find: knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” And James 1:5 says: ”If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.” Whence a certain father said that he profited more in the knowledge of Scripture by prayer, than by reading and study. And Origen, in his 12th Homily on Exodus, says that we must not only apply study in order to learn the sacred Word, but also supplicate God and entreat him night and day, that the Lamb of the tribe of Judah may come, and, taking himself the sealed book, vouchsafe to open it. 

Augustine too, in his book De Scala Paradisi, c. 2, writes thus admirably upon this subject:  “Reading inquires, meditation finds, prayer asks, contemplation tastes: whence the Lord himself says, Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Seek by reading, and ye shall find in meditation: knock by prayer, and it shall be opened to you in contemplation. Reading does, as it were, set the solid food at the lips; meditation breaks and chews it; prayer gains a relish; and contemplation is the very sweetness itself which gives us pleasure and refreshment. Reading is in the rind, meditation in the marrow,, prayer in the demand of desire, contemplation in the delight of the sweetness now acquired.” Thus far Augustine. And Jerome says to Laeta: “Let reading follow prayer, and prayer reading.” This should be always the first means, and the foundation of the rest.

2. Understand the words of Scripture in the original languages.

Secondly, we ought to understand the words which the Holy Spirit hath used in the Scriptures; and therefore we ought to know the original languages. We should consult the Hebrew text in the Old Testament, the Greek in the New: we should approach the very fountain-heads of the Scriptures, and not stay beside the derived streams of versions. Indeed, the ignorance of these languages, the Hebrew and the Greek, hath been the source of many errors; at least, those who are not acquainted with them are destitute of the best helps and assistances, and are involved in frequent and unavoidable mistakes.

Augustine, in his books of Christian Doctrine, exhorts all students of theology to the study of these languages. And upon this account in the Council of Vienna (however otherwise superstitious, as held under Pope Clement V) a decree was made that there should be professors of these tongues in all universities. For, unless we understand the words, how shall we find the sense? And indeed many errors are refuted by the mere understanding of the words themselves. Thus we often refute our adversaries.

For example, Luke 2:14, the Rhemists make out the freedom of the will from the Vulgate Latin version, which is this: Pax in terra hominibus bonae voluntatis. But they are easily refuted by the original: for in the Greek it is eudokia, which never denotes the free will of man, as the Rhemists absurdly explain it, but the gratuitous goodness of God toward men: and this, indeed, some of the Papists themselves concede. Ephesians 2:10 is thus read in the Vulgate Latin version: Creati in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis; whence some Papists gather, that we are justified by good works. But they are easily refuted out of the original Greek; for epi there denotes ad, not in. In Colossians 4:16 there is mention made, in the old version, of a certain epistle of the Laodiceans; from which many have thought that there was some epistle of Paul written to the Laodiceans. But this mistake is corrected by the original: for in the Greek text it is read ek Laodikeias.

In 1 Corinthians 14:16, the words stand thus in the old version: Si benedixeris Spiritu, qui supplet locum idiotce, quomodo dicet Amen? Hence the Papists gather that there ought to be some person to make responses to the priest on behalf of the whole congregation, such as those clerks, whom they hire for a groat to stand beside the priest at Mass. But this admits an easy refutation from the Greek text: for ho anapleron ton topon you idiotou does not mean him who supplies the place of the unlearned (since the verb anapleroun never occurs in that sense), but rather one that fills the place of the unlearned, that is, one who sits amongst the unlearned, and is really unlearned and a layman.

In 1 Samuel 21:13 it is said that David, in the house of Achish king of Gath, was mad, or played the madman in their hands, that is, pretended madness. The old translation hath, collabebatur inter manus eorum. Of these words Augustine, in his Commentary on Psalm 83, produces a strange exposition suggested by the faulty translation of some obscure interpreter, who had rendered them thus: ferebatur in manibus suis. Hence Augustine refers these words to Christ, and says that they are true if accommodated to the holy Supper, because Christ did, after a certain manner (quodammodo), carry himself in his own hands, when he said to his disciples, “This is my body.” However, he puts in the word quodammodo, so that the Papists should not suppose that he favoured their opinion. Now Augustine fell into this mistake from not understanding the Hebrew term.

Bellarmine (De Ecclesia, Lib. III, c. 12) proves the visibility of the church by the testimony of Psalm 19, In sole posuit tabernaculum suum, according to the version of the old translator, who hath followed the Septuagint. Yet Jerome, twelve hundred years ago, had rendered it from the Hebrew thus: Soli posuit tabernaculum in eis (the heavens); so as to shew that this text testifies not that the tabernacle of the church was pitched in the sun, but that of the sun in the heavens. 

Such faults and blemishes in versions the heretics, and above all the Papists, abuse to the confirmation of their errors; which, however, are most easily removed by an inspection of the originals and a knowledge of the languages. It is therefore principally necessary that, as Augustine somewhere says, we should have a just and correct knowledge of the signs of things, that is, of words.

3. Determine if the words are proper or figurative.

Thirdly, in dealing with the words we should consider which are proper, and which figurative and modified. For, when words are taken figuratively, they should not be expounded strictly. “It is,” says Augustine, in his books of Christian Doctrine, “a wretched bondage of the soul, when signs are taken for things;” that is, when what is spoken figuratively is expounded as if spoken strictly. 

Hence hath arisen that difficult and long-continued dispute between us and the Papists about the words of consecration, which we would have understood figuratively, and they strictly. But how shall we know whether words be taken figuratively or strictly? This inquiry suggests the addition of a fourth means.

4. Consider the scope, end, matter, circumstances, antecedents, and consequents of each passage.

Fourthly, therefore, we ought to consider the scope, end, matter, circumstances (that is, as Augustine says, the persons, place and time), the antecedents and consequents of each passage; and by this means it will be no hard matter both to refute many errors, and to arrive at a clear understanding of those things which seemed at first obscure.

The Rhemists conclude from 1 Peter 4:8 (where Peter writes that charity covers the multitude of sins) that charity hath the power of taking away and extinguishing sins, and thereby of justifying us before God; and therefore, that faith alone does not justify. Now, if we consider the occasion, scope, preceding and following context, and the other circumstances of this passage, we shall find that the apostle is not speaking of our charity as justifying us before God or procuring remission of our sins, but of that fraternal love which represses many occasions of offense, and so quenches feuds and enmities amongst brethren.

But how shall we understand that this is the sense of the passage? Why, from the context itself. The apostle says, in the words immediately preceding, “having sincere love one towards another.” He is speaking, consequently, of the love wherewith we should embrace and respect our brethren. And, if we compare this place with another, namely, with Proverbs 10:12, whence Peter took these words, this will appear still more plainly. There we read thus: “Hatred stirreth up strifes and contentions, but love covereth the multitude of sins”—where, by reason of the antithesis between the first and second clauses of the sentence, the meaning of the latter may easily be gathered from that of the former.

Christ says, Matthew 19:17, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” From this all the Papists collect that we are justified by the merit of our works, but, in the meanwhile, they reflect not what sort of person it was to whom Christ said this. A person, namely, who had come to Christ resting upon the opinion of his own righteousness, and, elevated with pride, had asked, what he ought to do to obtain eternal life. Such persons, who trust in their own merits, are deservedly referred to the law; that so they may come to understand how far they are from perfect righteousness.

Indeed, the ancients frequently fell into mistakes from not attending to the series and connection of the text. In Job 21:13 we read, “They pass their days in wealth, and go down in a moment to the grave,” which words many have understood to mean that the holy author affirmed that the rich, after spending their whole life in luxury, were suddenly plunged into eternal punishment. Whereas it readily appears from the words, that his meaning is very different, and almost the contrary of this. He means that those wicked rich men, the enemies of God and piety, are happy not only in life, but in death also; since after they have filled themselves with all kinds of pleasures, they die without any protracted pain, while others pine under lingering diseases, and are tortured with keen agonies in death. Hence then springs the fifth means.

5. Compare Scripture with Scripture (the Analogy of Scripture).

For, in the fifth place, one place must be compared and collated with another—the obscurer places with the plainer or less obscure. For though in one place the words may be obscure, they will be plainer in another.

For example, James 2:21 affirms that Abraham was justified by works. The place is obscure, and seems to favour the Papists. Whence, then, shall we know the true meaning of this passage? Why, we must compare it with the second verse of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and so it will readily appear how this place is to be understood. For Paul, in Romans 4:2, expressly says that Abraham was not justified by works, because then he would have whereof to glory. And it is sufficiently plain that the apostle Paul is speaking, in that place, of the works which followed the call of Abraham. First, because he says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness;” which every body knows to have taken place after his call. Secondly, because afterwards he proceeds to the example of David, whom all know to have been a holy man, regenerated by the Spirit of God, and called by God. We must needs therefore confess that the term “justification” is taken in different senses, unless we choose to suppose that the apostles are at variance, and pronounce contradictory declarations. In James, therefore, to be justified means to be declared and shewn to be just, as Thomas Aquinas himself confesses upon that place; but, in Paul, to be justified denotes the same as to be absolved from all sins, and accounted righteous with God. [1]

6. Similar and Dissimilar Passages are to be Compared Together.

Sixthly, in the comparison of places, we must observe that not only similar passages are to be compared with similar, but dissimilar passages also are to be compared together.

Like places are to be compared with like. As, for example John 6:53, “Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you;” with John 4:14, “Whosoever shall drink of that water that I will give him, shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him shall be in him a well of water springing up unto everlasting life.” This water is spiritual, and the mode of drinking it is spiritual; and the same holds as to the eating of his flesh: for to eat and to drink are similar kinds of expression. Therefore as the water which causes that we never thirst is drunk in a spiritual manner; so the flesh of Christ must be eaten, and his blood drunk, only in a spiritual manner.

Unlike places are to be compared together. For example, if that same passage, John 6:53, be compared with the sixth precept in the Decalogue, “Thou shalt do no murder” (for if it be a crime, yea, an enormity, to slay a man, it is certainly a far deeper crime to eat and devour a man), hence Augustine concludes (de Doct. Christ. Lib. iii, c. 16), that these words must be understood and explained figuratively, because otherwise they would command a flagitious crime.

7. Interpretation Must be Consistent with the Analogy of Faith: The General Tenor of Scripture.

Seventhly, all our expositions should accord with the analogy of faith, which we read of in Romans 12:6 [“let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith (ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως)”]. Now the analogy of faith is nothing else but the constant sense of the general tenour of Scripture in those clear passages of Scripture, where the meaning labours under no obscurity; such as the articles of faith in the Creed, and the contents of the Lord’s Prayer, the Decalogue, and the whole Catechism—for every part of the Catechism may be confirmed by plain passages of Scripture. Whatever exposition is repugnant to this analogy must be false.

For example, the Papists elicit transubstantiation from the words, “This is my body,” making the meaning of them this: “This bread is transformed into my body.” The Lutherans adopt another interpretation, namely, “The body of Christ is under this bread,” and hence infer their doctrine of consubstantiation. Both expositions are at variance with the analogy of faith. For, first, the analogy of faith teaches that Christ hath a body like to ours: now such a body can neither lie hidden under the accidents of bread, nor be along with the bread. Secondly, the analogy of faith teaches that Christ is in heaven; therefore he is not in the bread or with the bread. Thirdly, the analogy of faith teaches that Christ will come to judgment from heaven, not from the pix. [2]

Similar is the case of the popish doctrine that we are justified by works, which is likewise repugnant to the analogy of faith. For in the Lord’s Prayer we ask for the remission of sins, and in the Creed we profess belief in the forgiveness of sins, and that, as long as we live; nor merely of other people’s sins (for that is the faith of devils [James 2:19]), but also of our own. Therefore, we cannot believe that God will deem us just on account of our own works.

8. Consult Other Sound Interpreters of Scripture.

Eighthly, since the unlearned know not how to make a right use of these means, they ought to have recourse to other persons better skilled than themselves, to read the books of others, to consult the commentaries and expositions of learned interpreters, and to confer with others. Such was the practice of Jerome, of Augustine, and of other fathers. But, in the meanwhile, care must be taken that we do not ascribe too much to them, or suppose that their interpretations are to be received because they are theirs, but because they are supported by the authority of Scripture or by reason, so as to allow them no weight in opposition to the Scripture. We may use their labours, advice, prudence, and knowledge; but we should use them always cautiously, modestly, and discreetly, and so as still to retain our own liberty.

Exhortation to follow these eight means of understanding the Bible.

He that shall be content to make such a use of these means, and will lay aside his prejudices and party zeal, which many bring with them to every question, will be enabled to gain an understanding of the Scriptures, if not in all places, yet in most; if not immediately, yet ultimately.

---

[1] cf. Sola Fide: Do Paul and James Contradict? by Thomas Manton

[2] Pix: A little box or chest in which the consecrated host is kept in Roman Catholic churches.

cf. Girolamo Zanchi’s extended arguments against the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran confusion of Christ’s two natures, here.