Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 07.djvu/404

* EXEGESIS. 356 EXEGESIS. and also on the Catholic Epistles (1525), and the first French version oi the entire Scriptures — the New Testament being issued in 1523, live years before the Old — a version which formed the basis of the translation of Olivetan (1535); and also Justus Jonas (1493-1553), the first of whose commentaries (Corinthians, 1520) represented the humanism of Erasmus, but whose later work I Acts, 1524) was written in the evangelical spirit of the Reformation. With the Reformation came a new era of exe- gesis. The scholarship of humanism continued, but with it was united a new view introduced by the Reformation movement, which regarded the Bible as the sole and infallible rule of faith by personal interpretation. It was this personal element which formed the soul of the Protestant movement. The revival of learning had made the Scriptures an object of extraordinary study, but to the reformer these Scriptures were not merely a book for learning; they stood in a supreme way as a living revelation from God, the centre and circumference of which was Jesus Christ. Cpon Him naturally, therefore, all exegesis was focused, and from Him it gathered a personal relation toward all the Scriptures which it could nnt otherwise have had. This combination of the scholarly and the personal produced a class of commentaries and expositions which, while bur- dened with the great dogmatic controversies of the times, were singularly direct in method and personal in application. This is seen most markedly in Luther (14S3-154G) and Zwingli I 1484-1531), the former of whom in his compre- hensive commentary on Galatians. and the latter in his fragmentary expositions of Matthew and Acts, and some of the Epistles, made the basis of their work the literal sense of Scripture and its value for the individual religious life. These characteristics are evident also in Melanchthon's (1497-1560) Expositions (Romans, 1522; John, 1523; Colossians, 1527; Gospels generally, 1544), the feature in which is not so much the classical learning of this remarkable scholar, that for two centuries exerted such a commanding influence on German education, as the rational method used and the ethical emphasis given to the truth. And even in the great commentaries (covering all the New Testament excepting the Apocalypse) of Cal- vin (1509-04), who was preeminently the theo- logian of the Reformation, this scientific method and this practical element arc persistently in evidence. Yet with all the commentators ami ex- positors of this period, the very emphasizing of the religious purpose of their work, and the centring <>f the idea with which they worked upon Christ, made inevitable more or less of a return to the old fault of allegorizing; (bough as between Lutheran and Reformed scholars it was the former who fell more frequently into this error, ami the latter who developed more consist- ently i In' grammatico-historieal principles of in- terpretation with which humanism bad endowed the Reformation. These different tendencies are Been, on the one hi<. in the New Testament work [uced by the following Lutheran exegetes: Snivel (died I i69 Brenz (died 1570), Camera (died 1574), Flacius Illyricus (died 1575). Chemnitz (died I58fi), Cruciger (died 1597), and in the New Testament work of the following Re positors: Pellicanus (died 1556), Men sel (died 1563), Bullinger (died 1575), and Beza (died 1605). Humanism as a movement was too deep and profound in character and too widespread in ex- tent not to have its influence within the Catholic as well as the Protestant Church, and this influ- ence had its bearing too directly upon the study of the Scriptures not to affect significantly the course of this Church's exegesis. The evidence of this is manifest in the period of the Counter- Reformation, and especially at its beginning. Cajetan (1469-1534), on the threshold of the period, was liberal as a commentator. He treated most of the New Testament books, includ- ing the Apocalypse, and did not hesitate to differ in his interpretations from schoolmen and fa- thers alike; while he wholly abandoned their allegorizing manner of work. With him stood Sodaletus (died 1547), whose scholarly method in his commentary on Romans (1535) brought him to such vigorous views of doctrinal truth as were possible with loyalty to the Church, and Maldonatus(died 1583), one of the most brilliant lecturers on exegesis since Abe-lard's day. whose commentary on the Four Gospels (first published in 1596) shows not only a large freedom from the fathers, but a marked ability in the ex- planation of Scripture's literal sense. To these might be added, even in the later years of the period, Estius (died 1613), Mariana (died 1624), and Menochius (died 1655). As the period progressed, however, the doctrinal definitions and elucidations of the Council of Trent led to strict- er methods. This is seen particularly in the Jesuit scholars Bellarmine(dicd 1621), who after approved scholastic manner made the Scriptures an arsenal for the defense of the Catholic faith; and Cornelius a Lapide (died 1637), who turned to the fathers for his materials; while it evidences itself more or less in Tirin (died 1636). and even in the earlier writers, Emmanuel de Sa (died 1596) and Salmeron (died 1591). Against this dogmatic position the Quietistic movement. first formally introduced by a Spanish priest, Molinos (died 1696). was practically a protest, though its spirit in handling the Scriptures tended rather to vitiate than to vitalize the sounder methods of interpretation. This is marked in the later developments of the move- ment, as seen in Quesnel's (died 1719) Mora! Reflections on the Xeir Testament (1687). the exegesis of which disclosed an ascetic spirit, and -Madame Guyon's (died 1717) explications of the Holy Bible (Paris, 1715), which ran riot in mystical extravaganzas. A development somewhat similar to this in the Catholic Church took place also in the Protestant Church. At the beginning of (lie Reformation the supreme interest in the Scriptures brought them into a place of high regard. As flu 1 period pro- gressed, however, this regard grew and inten- sified until it became at last a reverence thai placed the Scriptures ill a position of supremi authority for the life and faith of the Church. In the same way the spiritual value given to tin- Scriptures at the firs! brought them into a pl:oc of practical ministry to the Church's faith and life. Buf with the progress of the period this life and faith grew in doctrinal importance, until the ministry which the Scriptures rendered came to be one of support and proof for the Church's dogmatic position. The return to al- legorizing methods was in reality the threshold of
 * lid. on the other Side,