[Doctrina foederum, sive systema theologica didacticae et elencticae (Amstelodami , 1691)]
Johannes Braunius (1628–1708), a venerable divine of the Dutch Reformed tradition, was born at Kaiserslautern in the year of our Lord 1628, and was trained in sacred learning at the illustrious University of Leiden, where he sat under the eminent Johannes Coccejus. Nurtured in the federal and covenantal theology of the Reformation, Braunius gave himself to the laborious study of the Hebrew tongue and the Levitical institutions of the Old Testament, wherein he discerned types and shadows of gospel mysteries. He ministered as a faithful pastor and was later appointed to the chair of theology at the University of Groningen in 1681, a post he held unto his death nearly three decades thereafter. His life was adorned not only with erudition, but with devotion, uniting the careful exposition of Scripture with reverence for the covenant mercies of God. Among his chief works stands Vestitus Sacerdotum Hebraeorum, a deep and learned commentary upon the vestments and ordinances of the Aaronic priesthood, drawn from the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth chapters of Exodus and the sixteenth of Leviticus, showing forth the typological beauty of the ceremonial law as fulfilled in Christ. Likewise, his Doctrina Foedorum offered a comprehensive system of didactic and elenctic theology, built upon the foundation of federal theology, expounding the covenant of works and grace with scholastic clarity. In all his writings, Braunius exhibited that rare balance of penetrating intellect and humble piety, ever seeking the edification of the church and the glory of the Redeemer, whose garments of righteousness he found prefigured in those of the ancient priesthood. He fell asleep in the Lord in the year 1708, full of days and full of faith.
Table of Contents:
<aside>
</aside>
The supreme and infallible interpreter of Scripture is God, most wise and the author of Scripture. For every man is the best interpreter of his own words. Hence David fleeth unto God, and prayeth that He would vouchsafe to enlighten his eyes, that he might behold the wonders of His holy law, Ps. 119:18. Not that God, properly speaking, acteth as an interpreter who speaketh in the Church, whether immediately through oracles and extraordinary revelation, or mediately through the living voice of some man, opening unto us the sense of Scripture; but in so far as He illuminateth our mind, that we ourselves may attain the truth, as we are admonished to search the Scriptures. Nevertheless, since God in His Word hath used the speech of men and a human style, Isa. 8:1, which by men illuminated by the Holy Spirit may be understood, it is inquired: Who among men hath the faculty of interpreting Holy Scripture? Hath God granted this faculty to certain men only, or verily to all and every faithful soul whom He hath endowed with true faith?
The Papists establish the Pope as the supreme interpreter of Holy Scripture and judge of controversies. Some ascribe this to the Church, not the Church of the sheep, that is, the laity, but of the shepherds, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, abbots, and others whom they proudly call prelates and princes of the Church, especially if they be gathered in a council. Others hold it to be the Pope with such a council. We, though we grant that magistrates and princes, in the external forum, are interpreters of all laws and supreme judges of controversies to resolve disputes among citizens, yet deny that God hath instituted such a one in the Church, in the forum of conscience and in spiritual matters, so that neither the Pope alone, nor a council or synod, nor the Pope with a council, nor any creature hath pretorian, authentic, supreme, and infallible power to interpret Scripture and to judge and decide controversies. But they have only a ministerial power, as doctors and ministers. So that in matters of faith, no man is bound to believe them or stand by their judgment, except in so far as he perceiveth that they have judged according to the Word of God. (1) Because the faithful are referred by Christ and the Apostles to the examination of Scripture, not to any creature, John 5:39; Matt. 7:15; 1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Cor. 10:15. (2) Because all men are liars, Ps. 116:11, and therefore the Church itself may err and deceive, as shall be shown in its place. (3) Because God would have indicated such a judge and interpreter in His Word, which nowhere hath been done. (4) Because under the Old Testament, there was no supreme judge and interpreter. For although the priests and princes of the people had great power in certain matters concerning forensic disputes and the ceremonial law, so that they could even make new laws and bind the people to their observance under penalty of death—wherefore they were called gods, princes of the world, fathers, lords, masters, legislators, avengers, pedagogues, guardians, and tutors, who chastised the people and judged their righteousness, so that the people through all their life were under servitude and fear of death, as is evident, Ps. 82:1; John 10:35; Matt. 23:2; 1 Cor. 8:5; Gal. 3:24; 4:1-2; Heb. 12:10; Heb. 2:15; Deut. 17:8; Mal. 2:7—yet they were bound to judge only according to the prescribed law, nor could they in any wise bind the conscience in matters of faith and doctrine, except in so far as they instructed the conscience from the Word of God; nor even in forensic and ceremonial matters could they determine anything contrary to the law of God. But since such a judge and interpreter was not in the Old Testament, much less is there one under the New Testament. For we have less need of such a teacher under the New Testament than under the Old, since a brother no longer teacheth his brother with authority, as under the Old Testament, but all are taught of God, Jer. 31:34; John 6:45. (5) Because if such a visible judge and interpreter were given, then no heresies could arise, contrary to the words of Paul, 1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Thess. 2:11. For litigants would straightway betake themselves to such an infallible interpreter, whereby all heresy would be prevented.
Objection Answered:
And although God hath not given such a judge to the Church, yet He hath sufficiently provided for it through His written Word. Nor, because disputes arise concerning the Word of God, is such a judge and interpreter necessary, since all disputes can be resolved from the Word of God alone; besides which, the Papists themselves contend about their judge, whether it be the Pope, or a council, or the Pope with a council, and how far his power extendeth.
That which we have said of the false Church, the same is to be understood of the orthodox Church also. For no Church, no synod or council, however orthodox, can be an infallible interpreter and supreme judge of controversies, which could bind consciences and compel them to receive its interpretations as infallible without further examination of the divine Word. Therefore, we must believe synods in matters of faith, not because of their authority, as if they were a supreme and infallible judge, but only because of their knowledge, as a minister and teacher, when they teach the truth according to the prescribed law and norm of the Word of God. For if we were to believe because of authority, (1) we would also have to believe false synods, since they claim no less authority than true ones; and (2) by this way, the Papacy would be established; perchance a Pope might be introduced, orthodox in doctrine, yet no less an antichrist and tyrant. Nor is such right and power to be granted to magistrates and supreme princes. For though they have power over the body and temporal faculties, yet they can prescribe no law to the conscience, nor subject it to themselves in matters of faith, except in so far as they are acknowledged to have judged according to the Word of God. For we must obey God rather than men, Acts 5:29.
Nor, properly speaking, can Holy Scripture itself be called the judge of controversies, since it is the norm and canon according to which judgment must be made. Nor can it be its own interpreter, (1) because it is a book to be interpreted; (2) because interpretation is a work of reason, which examineth words, compareth them, and joineth the sense with them, which is not the work of any writing, but of him who reasoneth. Nor doth it avail to prove that Holy Scripture is its own interpreter by that common saying: “Every man is the interpreter of his own words.” For it is not Scripture, but God, who is the author of Scripture. Finally, although God could have delivered Scripture so that it everywhere expounded its own meanings, it is certain that He willed not to do so.
Much less can reason or philosophy be called the interpreter of Holy Scripture, which expoundeth Holy Scripture from its own principles. For though philosophy and sound reason have great use in interpreting Holy Scripture, yet they perform this not as a supreme judge and infallible interpreter, but only as an instrument, that we may know the true sense of Holy Scripture through reason, but not because of natural reason, as we have shown, Cap. 1, Thes. 17:18. Therefore, the opinion of a certain recent author, who lately sought to prove that philosophy is the interpreter of Scripture, is foolish. For scholastic philosophy doth rather obscure than expound the sense of Scripture. Nor doth true philosophy, or right reason illuminated and renewed by the Holy Spirit, do so, because then it acteth only as an instrument, not as a supreme and infallible interpreter. Besides which, that author most falsely setteth reason as the norm and touchstone of truths, as if the true sense of Scripture were that which agreeth with human understanding and reason, as if that which is not accessible to our mind and reason were not the sense of Holy Scripture; by which way all the mysteries of redemption are denied. And although some truths can be expounded only through sound reason—for example, Matt. 28:20, “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” where reason teacheth that this is spoken according to the divine nature; or “This is my body,” where reason teacheth that this must be taken in a metaphorical and sacramental sense—yet reason is not a general interpreter, but only a particular one, and in a few questions. Moreover, if certain truths are demonstrated by sound reason, such as the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the like, then reason acteth rather as a principle than as an interpreter.