Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 11.djvu/783

Rh H E R M E N E U T I C S 747 abjective sense, surpassed the others in spiritual insight. Chrysostom abounds in sound hermeneutical statements which strike a happy mean between Alexandrian arbitrari ness and the unethical superficiality into which extreme Antiochene interpretation sank. He withstands the imposi tion of foreign senses as a practice dishonouring to the Word of God, and yet shows how much there is that must be taken otherwise than as it stands. He insists upon the importance of ascertaining the &quot;scope&quot; of a writing in order to a correct judgment of its separate declarations, on the necessity of the revelation of the Spirit, on the respect due to the harmony of Scripture with itself. He lays it down as a general principle that, when allegory is employed, the Bible also gives its interpretation as a check upon the unbridled desire of those who wish to allegorize (Horn, in Genes, v.). Theodoret exhibits a kindred sobriety, and, though occasionally guilty of seeking a secondary sense where the obvious sense seems too bald, ranks deservedly among the very best of ancient exegetes. Principles similar to the Antiochene prevailed for a long period also in the schools of Edessa and Nisibis. The objective tendency found representatives, too, in men like Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa (although he was less decidedly historical, and strongly advocated a non-literal reading of Canticles in particular), Pelagius, and the laborious Jerome. This last-named ornament of the Latin Church, although he too often drifted into fanciful and even puerile interpretations, was strongly opposed both to the allegorists and the extreme literalists. Against the former he affirmed that the gram matical and historical sense must be held the fundamental thing. Against the latter he insisted that the figurative interpretation is not necessarily equivalent to the allegori cal, and that the gospel is to be sought not in the words but in the sense of Scripture, not in the surface but in the marrow, not in the leaves of discourses but in the root of the idea (Comm. in If abac. iii. 14; in Epist. ad Galat. i. 11). In the unproductive centuries which followed, this purer hermeneutical tendency appears occasionally in such instances as those of Druthmar, &quot; the grammarian;&quot; (Ecumentus, bishop of the Thessalian Tricca, who belongs to the 10th century; Theophylact, bishop of Achrida in Bulgaria, &quot; the last of the fathers &quot;; Rupert of Deutz and Euthymius Zigabenus, who carry us into the 12th century, A great impetus was given to independent hermeneutics by the Humanists and the precursors of the Reformation. An eminent position is occupied by Nicolaus de Lyra, to whoss Postillce, or brief commentaries on the whole Bible, Luther and the Reformers owed a debt expressed in the familiar distich, &quot; Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset.&quot; The current fourfold division of the sense of Scripture still appeared in his writings, but for the most part only as a theoretic division. He allowed occasional spiritualizing, but that mostly in the form of professed practical application of the proper sense. He declared anew the necessity of adhering to the plain objective meaning, likening the mystical interpretation which departs from the solid basis of the literal sense to a building which deviates from its foundation and inclines to its fall. On the side of grammar and philology the reaction was helped by Laurentius Valla and other Humanists, although the services of Reuchlin in particular, great as they were in the assertion of exegetical freedom and in the restoration of linguistic science, were impaired by cabbalistic predilections (cf. specially his De verbo mirifico). On the religious side, something was achieved by men like Wycliffe, Huss, Wessel, who all perceived the primary importance of the grammatical method, and Faber Stapulensis (Lefevre d Etaples), who affirmed the sufficiency of the Word, and practised an independent, non-dogmatic exegesis. It is matter of course that Erasmus should claim special notice in this connexion. In this consummate scholar and versa tile genius, who continued and vastly excelled all that had been attempted by Valla and others, and whose guidance the Reformers were wise enough to follow, notwithstanding the frequent deficiencies of his exegesis in depth and spiritual insight, we come at length upon a master hand that marks a great epoch. Indecision clings indeed to his utterances on some subjects. He speaks with caution on the infallibility of the church and the church s head, although he lets us see that he rejects it. He admits the existence of occasional inaccuracies in the Scriptures. But he declares that these are so far from being disadvantageous to the gospel that they are turned by the Spirit into a help to faith. He adds at the same time that if the authority of the entire Scripture should be supposed to be impaired by the presence of the smallest error in it, it is more than probable that none of the copies now used by the Catholic Church is so perfect as to be free from the intrusion of all mistakes, accidental or intentional (cf. Annot. in Matt. ii. 6). But his clear enunciation of the interpreter s inde pendence and the inquirer s obligation to become bound by the authority of no one (In Luc. ii. 35), his advocacy of the translation and free circulation of the Scriptures, his repudiation of any other sense than what was meant to be conveyed, his sagacity in dealing with the figurative sections of both Testaments, his recognition of the need of a &quot; pia curiositas &quot; and a &quot; curiosa pietas &quot; in the exposition of the divine word (cf. Pref. to Paraph, in Evang.}, hia practice of the true exegetical art in his Paraphrases and Annotations, contributed powerfully to the diffusion of better hermeneutical ideas. The mightiest impetus was given by the Reformers. They were the heirs of what was best in the ancient school of Antioch and in the Humanistic revival. But they added to the philology, the grammar, the history, and the independ ence which were illustrated in these the spiritual insight and the personal religious interest which were so often wanting. The process by which they won their own way to a freer faith lifted them above tradition, mysticism, and unspiritual literalism. Their profound religious experiences, intensified by the forces at work in an unexampled mental upheaval, made the Bible a new thing to them. It came to them as God s message, and they received it as the only rule of faith and life. It spoke immediately to their souls, and they saw it was to be interpreted by itself. They found it a message conveyed in historical form, and recognized the need of the appliances of language and history in order to read it. They perceived it to be a spiritual message, and discovered that the full reception of it could come only by spiritual enlightenment. Believing it to be a message meant for all, they held it perspicuous to the general intelligence of the prayerful in all that concerns faith and morals, and affirmed, with Melanchthon, &quot;unam et certam et simplicem sententiam ubique quaerendam esse juxta prse- cepta grammaticae, dialecticse, et rhetoricae.&quot; Each of the great Reformers did something to advance this truer her meneutical movement. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were alike imbued with the historic sense, Luther excelling in spiritual genius and a bold originality which carried him at times to extremes in the independence of his treatment of Scripture, Zwingli in an incisive perception which inclined strangely at times to subjective interpretations, Calvin in a union of qualities which distinguished him as the foremost exegete of the Reformation. Profoundly reverencing Scrip ture as God s word, submitting to it as authoritative, yet not binding himself to any theory of its inspiration which would preclude the possibility of circumstantial inaccuracies (cf. on Matt, xxvii. 9, Acts vii. 16), the Reformer of Geneva excelled all in freedom from arbitrary exposition, in reading