Over at his site, Urban Puritano has written an excellent post on some recent reception, rehabilitation, or retrieval of the Quadriga by people in Reformed Circles. It provides a good background to my post below. And in order to be as brief as possible with this post, I will be limiting the length of my citations while providing a link to the authors’ works should you wish to go to the sources. As it will be seen, The Reformed of the 16th and 17th Centuries rejected the Quadriga as a fancy of the Papists which made the true sense of Scripture unobtainable. Trying to reclaim this practice is dangerous and there were important reasons for putting statements like “the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one)” into Confessions. Finally, I believe there are some books coming out regarding reclaiming the Quadriga in some sense (pun intended). If these books come out and do not outline some of the rejection from the Reformed men below, then this should make you pause.
Let’s begin by looking at a statement from John Owen. He said that the Roman Catholics do not know “how to distinguish one from another, that they wrest this and the like passages unto what sense they please”. And that the rule for him, over against the Quadriga, was that he would “not venture on any conjectures.”
As was said before, so must I say again, expositors either pass by these things without any notice, or indulge unto various conjectures without any certain rule of what they assert. Those of the Roman Church, are generally so taken up with their fourfold sense of the Scripture, Literal, Allegorical, Tropological, and Anagogical, wherein for the most part they know not how to distinguish one from another, that they wrest this and the like passages unto what sense they please. I shall keep my self unto a certain rule, and where that will not guide me, I shall not venture on any conjectures.
A continuation of the exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews viz, on the sixth, seventh, eight, ninth, and tenth chapters
Next, let us take a look at what William Whitaker stated in a response to Edmund Campian, a Jesuit (i.e. Roman Catholic). Whitaker said that “the sense of Scriptures” is made to be “diverse, and inconstant, like a nose of wax”. Making use of the Quadriga, by his “ledgerdemaine” (magic sleight-of-hand) he has “abolished the true and native sense” and it’s “the manner of your Church”. With this being the case, Whitaker asks a great question – how dare Campian “presume to rephrehend our manner of interpretation?” If Scripture can be turned into a wax nose by so many diverse spiritual senses, then how can a Catholic reject the diverse spiritual sense (as the Papist calls it) of Protestant interpretation? Whitaker goes on to show how he follows the Fathers, like Augustine, who interpret difficult passages by those which are more plain and sticking to the analogy of faith. By doing this, Whitaker argues, nobody would “run to Rome” to inquire of the Pope who doesn’t understand the true sense of Scripture.
But what should I speake of the constant tenour you keepe in the interpretation of Scripture? for you make the sense of Scriptures so changeable, so diuerse, and inconstant, like to a nose of waxe and a leaden rule, that at all assaies it may euer serue your turne. So writethg Nicholas Cusanus, a Cardinall of Rome, to the Bohemians. This vnderstand that the Scriptures are fitted to the time, and diuersely to be vnderstood; so that at one time they may be expounded according to the common & customable course: but change that, and the sense is changed; so that it is no maruell if the custome of the Church at one time interpret the Scriptures after this manner, & another time after that. Was there euer the like bouldnes heard of; that men would wrest the eternall and immutable word of God, which euer hath but one and the same sense, to serue the will of the Church, that is, of the Pope of Rome? besides this you haue made so manyh senses of euery place, to wit, an allegoricall, a tropological, an anagogicall sense, that by your Ledgerdemaine, you haue abolished the true and natiue sense. Now, Campian, since you know that this is the manner of your Church in the interpreting of the Scripture, than which what can be more corrupt, how dare you presume to reprehend our manner of interpretation? But we follow no other course then that which the Fathers haue prescribed, and which the thing it selfe argues to be most fit. For that is our course which Augustine aduised: we interpret obscure places by those which are plainer, we obserue the phrase and stile of the Scripture, we weigh circumstances, we compare scripture with scripture, we go not one iot from the Analogie of faith. They who take this course, adioyning their harty prayers, that the Lord would open this sealed booke vnto them; and teach them the true sense of the scripture, shall neuer need to runne to Rome, and enquire of that sacred Oracle of the Pope, who himselfe neither vnderstandeth the true sense of scripture, neither is able to expound them to others.
An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controuersie of faith.
Next, we will read a passage from Henry Hammond, a member of the Westminster Assembly. That he was discussing the Quadriga is clear from his mention of anagogical, allegorical, and tropological “descants”. He gave two reasons that he did not choose to be “adventurous”. For one, he considered it a “product of fancy”. Secondly, and more pointedly, he did not want to claim “any Sense to Scripture” that he was not sure “that the Holy Ghost in the inspired Writer had respect unto.” Yes, Hammond understood the problem with a fourfold “sense” – it is a claim that the Holy Spirit absolutely intended the sense of the passage to be that which is claimed. He understood that the Quadriga was no mere application but that it was an assertion that “thus saith the Lord” because it was what the Holy Spirit inspired as an actual meaning in the text.
Now because the Expounding of Prophecies is no easie task, and especially of those Poetick and Prophetick Writings which have had one immediate Sense, and Completion in some other, and because there is but one Infallible Clue to this Labyrinth, the Applications of such places made by Divine Writers in the New Testament; I have therefore made use of that as oft as it was to be met with, and then advanced with confidence beyond what the Letter, in its first or immediate sense, suggested: But for all other Passages, which by some kind of Accommodation, or Anagogy, or Figure, or Moral or Spiritual Sense, were capable of being thus applied either to Christ or his Church, I have not frequently chosen to be thus adventuruous, both because I knew this was for the most part the Product of Phansy, wherein all Men are willing to reserve their Liberty, and neither needed to be directed, nor liked to be anticipated; and because I was unwilling to affix any Sense to Scripture, which I had not some degree of assurance that the Holy Ghost in the inspired Writer had respect unto, who though he may have designed whatever the Words are capable of, and so may have intended more Senses than one, yet cannot be proved to have done whatsoever he might have done. And therefore though I blame not the Inlargements of their Spirits, who extend themselves to Allegorical and Tropological Descants, so they be founded in the Literal Sense first secured; yet this latter was it which I had in my Aim.
Another Westminster Divine, Richard Gilpin, argues that “Papists determine the scripture to have” the four senses of the Quadriga. He then states that man can “try his skill” at coming up with different meanings of the senses. He argues that this causes Scripture to be “obscure, but altogether uncertain and doubtful, and unable to prove any thing.” Yes, Gilpin here basically argues that the Quadriga goes against the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture.
The pretence that Satan hath for this dealing is raised from some passages of the New Testament, wherein many things of the Old Testament are said to have had a Mystical signification of things expressed or transacted then, and some things are expresly called Allegories. Hence Papists determine the Scripture to have, besides the Grammatical Sence, (which all of us do own) and besides the Tropological sence (which is not divers or distinct from the Grammatical; as when from Histories, we deduce instructions of holy and sober carriage) an Allegorical and Analogical sense: in which dealing men consider not, that the Spirit of God his interpreting a passage or two allegorically, will never justify any Mans boldness in presuming to do the like to any other passage of Scripture; and beside, when any hath tryed his skill that way, another may with equal probability carry the same Scripture to a different interpretation, and by this means, the Scripture shall not only become obscure, but altogether uncertain and doubtful, and unable to prove any thing; so that this doth extreamly dishonour Scripture, by making it little less than ridiculous. Porphyry, and Julian made themselves sport with it, upon the occasion of Origens allegorizing, and no wonder, seeing that humour (as one calls it) is no better than a learned Foolery.
Demonologia sacra, or, A treatise of Satan’s temptations in three parts
None other than William Perkins is next for us to consider. Again, if it is not already clear, we see that the Reformed consistently related that the Quadriga is Roman Catholic and that “her device of the fourfold meaning of the scripture must be exploded and rejected. There is one only sense, and the same is the literal.”
The Church of Rome maketh 4. senses of the scriptures, the literall, allegoricall, tropological, & anagogicall, as in this her example. Melchizedek offered bread and wine. The literal sense is, that the King of Salem with meate which he brought, refreshed the souldiers of Abraham being tyred with trauell. The allegoricall is, that the Priest doth offer vp Christin ye Masse. The tropologicall is, therefore something is to be giuen to the poore. The Anagogicall is, that Christ in like manner being in heauen, shall be the bread of life to the faithfull. But this her device of the fourfold meaning of the scripture must be exploded and rejected.
There is one only sense, and the same is the literal. An allegorie is onely a certaine manner of vttering the same sense. The Anagoge and Tropologie are waies, whereby the sense may be applied.
The principall interpreter of the Scripture is the holy Ghost. 2. Pet. 1. 20. So that ye first know this, that no prophecy in the Scripture is of any private interpretation. Moreover, he that makes the law, is the best and the highest interpreter of the law.
The arte of prophecying, or, A treatise concerning the sacred and onely true manner and methode of preaching first written in Latine
William Tyndale, prior to the Reformation, was stating the same thing. He also acknowledged that the Quadriga is a device of the Papists. He claimed that the Quadriga makes the literal sense into nothing because the pope has made it his own!
The foure senses of the Scripture.
THey deuide the Scripture in to foure senses, the litterall, tropological, allegoricall and anagogicall. The litterall sēse is become nothing at all. For the pope hath taken it cleane away & hath made it his possession. He hath partly locked it vp with the false and counterfayted keyes of his traditions ceremonies & fayned lyes. And partly driueth men from it with violence of sword. For no man dare abide by the litterall sense of the text, but vnder a Protestation, if it shall please the Pope. The chopologicall sense perteineth to good manners (say they) and teacheth what we ought to do. The allegory is appropriate to fayth, and the anagogicall to hope and things aboue. Tropologicall and anagogicall are termes of their own fayning and all together vnnecessary. For they are but allegories both two of thē and this word allegorie comprehēdeth them both & is inough. For tropologicall is but an Allegory of maners & anagogicall an Allegorie of hope. And Allegory is as much to say as straūge speaking, or borrowed speech. As whē we say of a wanton child, this sheepe hath magottes in his tayle, he must be anointed with byrchin salue, which speech I borow of the shepheardes.
Thou shalt vnderstand therefore that the Scripture hath but one sence, which is the litterall sense. And that litterall sense is the roote and grounde of all, and the ancre that neuer fayleth wherunto if thou cleaue thou canst neuer erre or go out of the way. And if thou leaue the litterall sense thou canst not but go out of the way.
The vvhole workes of W. Tyndall, Iohn Frith, and Doct. Barnes, three worthy martyrs, and principall teachers of this Churche of England collected and compiled in one tome togither, beyng before scattered, [and] now in print here exhibited to the Church. To the prayse of God, and profite of all good Christian readers.
The post On The Reception of the Quadriga By The Reformed appeared first on Alpha and Omega Ministries.
Alpha and Omega Ministries