Of the many obscure but important sixteenth and seventeenth century commentators whose writings are almost forgotten today, Andrew Willet (1562-1621) is distinguished as one of the most influential and compelling contributors to Reformed biblical interpretation. Arguably the most accomplished of the Church of England's Hebrew exegetes, particularly of the Pentateuch, Willet was also a prolific and outspoken writer against the papacy. His magnum opus was his Synopsis Papismi. This massive 1,352 folio-page refutation of the doctrines of the papacy went through five editions, the fifth being published by special commendation of King James I. Altogether he wrote forty-three books in both English and Latin, including commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 1 and 2 Samuel, Daniel and Romans. These were six-fold expositions or hexaplas, examining each passage from six perspectives. Willet's renown in England reached far beyond his life's calling as a country pastor and he was also widely read on the continent. The library of the Dutch Reformed scholar Francis Gomarus included his Synopsis Papismi, Hexapla in Genesin and Contra Bellarminum. Bishop Joseph Hall, at one time his colleague, reckoned him among the worthies of the Church of England and the wonder of the world (stupor mundi) for his scholarship.

Born in 1562 in the town of Ely in Cambridgeshire, Willet entered Cambridge at the age of fourteen where he studied with William Perkins (1558-1602), 'and others his equals, whom he might have cause to emulate'.¹ After spending thirteen years at the university, Willet married and pastored in Barley where he and his wife brought up eleven sons and seven daughters. Early in his life, for three years, he lectured in Ely Cathedral. This was followed by a one-year preaching ministry at St Paul's in London. Willet frequently preached at court, and, being admired by King James, became chaplain-in-ordinary and tutor to Prince Henry. He died in 1621 in the town of Hoddesdon, ten days after a riding accident.

The overwhelming thoroughness of Willet's work is seen in his meth­odology for writing biblical commentaries. In his 877-page work on Exodus, which he calls 'a widow's mite', Willet states, 'I have made use ... both of Protestant and Popish writers, old and new, upon this book not rejecting the judgment of any witness for the truth.' The sixfold exegetical method followed in most commentaries, was probably his most significant contribution. His com­mentaries were designed to address the text from six perspectives: The Text with Its Diverse Readings; Argument and Method; The Questions Dis­cussed; Doctrines Noted; Controversies Handled; Moral Uses Observed.

All of Willet's writings convey three elements fundamental to the Reformation concept of Scripture's authority: a commitment to the inspiration of the Greek and Hebrew texts then available; a constant effort to present an exegesis which was consistent with the historical tradition of the church's theological debate and formulation; and textual discussion to identify the inspired words or harmonize the content of the passage with the tradition of orthodox interpretation.

Willet was an encyclopedic writer who compared every aspect of previous interpretation. His was an era when questions of exegesis and theology were still being rigorously debated so that a codified body of orthodox doctrine could be stated. In his commentary on Exodus, for example, he cited forty-two previous commentators on the book.

As Willet catalogued, collated and examined the exegesis of previous commentators, his constant effort was to prove the extant Greek and Hebrew texts to be infallible. These were 'the sure and infallible rule, whereby (it) may be tried whether the Church doth swerve' (Synopsis Papismi, p. 176, quoting the English Confession). All dogmatic formulations had to be derived from a sacred source. If the sacred source had been corrupted, the exegesis would be skewed. The value of any manuscript or version was determined by the orthodox theology which, by exegesis, could be derived from it. Dogmatic claims by either Protestants or Roman Catholics were defective if void of a sound exegetical basis. Theology was necessarily the result of the interaction between Sola Scriptura and biblically-consistent exegesis. Willet's work stands as a collection of exegetically-proven theology from all ages of the church.

He tenaciously maintained that sound interpretation formed the very foundation of the Reformation. It was essential for maintaining the good of the English Commonwealth, since how the Bible was interpreted would determine whether Rome or the Scriptures would reign in church and state. He understood that an allegorical approach to the text diminished the clarity of Scripture and heightened the significance of an external, authoritative and corrupt source of interpretation. Scripture was a practical thing, a pastoral necessary for the spiritual life of the church and the authoritative bulwark against papal intrusions and religious tyranny.

Interpreting Leviticus⤒🔗

His work on Leviticus illustrates his approach. The difficulties of inter­pretation in the book revolved mainly around the relevance of the Levitical priesthood, the sacrifices and the tabernacle to the New Testament church. At this level of interpretation, the fact of inspiration did not help to determine the value of the Pentateuch and the Levitical code for the New Testament. The contents of the Old Testament, Willet believed, were 'figures of spiritual and heavenly things to be exhibited out of the New Testament and to be perfected and fully performed in the kingdom of God'. So, while not allegorizing the Old Testament text, Willet understood the spiritual and eschatological significance of the Old Testament figures. His position was not to 'wrest all things to a mystical sense; and yet where the scripture doth warrant, in the chiefest points, to search out the mysteries of the gospel as Ambrose giveth instance of these.'

Moses saw the spiritual circumcision, but he hid it by an outward sign of circumcision; he saw the unleavened bread of sincerity and verity, but he hid it under the material unleavened bread; he saw the passion of Christ, but hid it in the sacrifice of the lamb or calf. ²

Willet gave reasons why a normative allegorical method of interpret­ing Scripture was unacceptable. He argues first that the true sense of the reading may be lost if rendered allegorically because an allegorical interpretation calls the literal and historical sense into question. He upholds the view of the Reformation writers that every passage of Scripture had only one interpretation.

Willet writes that ...divers interpreters of the same place, do propound divers spiritual senses, which cannot all be the meaning of the Spirit. In the Synopsis Willet writes, The literal sense is the only sense of the place, because out of that sense only may an argument strongly be framed…

The effort to come to a single interpretation of Scripture is perhaps nowhere more evident than in Wilkes commentary on Romans 7. He presents ten different historical, ecclesiastical interpretations oriented toward defining the nature of the man described as 'sold under sin'. After dividing the specific perspectives into three general categories Willet argues at length, in a fashion reminiscent of the medieval schoolmen, concerning the varying options. He arrives finally at a logical, scriptural, exegetically sound con­clusion. Of the ten renderings, Willet concludes 'that S. Paul speaketh in the person of a man regenerate'. Matthew Poole refers to this in his Commentary (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1963, vol. 3, p. 500).

In the exegesis of Leviticus 7, Willet illustrates the medieval fourfold method of interpretation by showing first how it was dogmatically developed and then why it was faulty. At 7:9, he shows how Origen interpreted the three practices for preparing the meat offering: oven, gridiron and frying pan. From these methods of preparation, Origen concluded 'that there is a threefold way of understanding the divine scriptures, the historical, the moral and the mystical', which he then proceeded to elucidate. The historical and literal interpretation of Scripture is referred to by the gridiron. The frying pan refers to the moral inter­pretation. The oven represents 'the third more profound (interpretation) ... which is the mystical'.

Anticipating those who would accuse his hermeneutics of being too wooden, Willet agrees that the content of Scripture deals with historical matters and mysteries but that those elements in themselves do not prove diverging senses of interpretation. He succinctly addressed the crux of the matter by explaining:

There is a difference between the literal, or historical sense, and the application, or accommodation of it. That is the proper sense of the scrip­ture, which is perpetual and general; it is therefore dangerous for men, of their own brain, to pick out of every place mystical senses. It belongeth only to the Spirit whereby the scriptures were written, to frame allegories and mysteries.

Of particular significance, Willet makes clear that there is a literal or historical sense to the words of Scripture. Gridiron, frying pan and oven all have distinct, inherent meanings before those meanings are applied or accommodated within the context. Secondly, he defines what he means by literal or historical by saying that the 'proper sense' is 'perpetual and general'. Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, after defining how words are to be interpreted, Willet appeals to the divine author of Scripture to provide the context for a rendering other than the literal. The meaning of the words may be taken in ways other than literally if the Holy Spirit has so 'framed' the discussion within a given context. Citing 2 Timothy 3:16 Willet states that there are four profitable uses of inspired Scripture: to teach, to improve (this is the rendering of the Geneva Bible), to correct, and to instruct in righteousness. And so, he says, 'to devise and frame allegories and mysteries (wherein the Spirit intended them not) is none of (these uses)'. The apostle Paul had the liberty to allego­rize because the allegory was given by divine inspiration as no other non­canonical allegory could be. Inspiration is the only means by which the type and antitype can be properly related to one another.

Man, says Willet, cannot dispose of things to come, and so he is not to make types and figures, according to his own device. He concluded his disput­ation by saying, This much we grant, that one whole and entire sense of Scripture may have divers applications, subordinate and included one in the other, but not divers, different, and disparate senses, though he also opposed those who will have it altogether literally and carnally to be taken.

The Perspicuity of Scripture←⤒🔗

The perspicuity of Scripture and the right of Scripture to interpret itself are taken up in Romans 11:8, where Scripture reads, 'According as it is written'. In this passage the Apostle Paul compares the writings of Isaiah with those of David. From this reference Willet gathers a double use of Scripture. First, all doctrine must be derived from Scripture, since the apostle throughout the book 'for the proof of his doctrine only allegeth Scrip­tures'. Citing John 5:39, Willet closes this first point by saying, 'Christ admitteth no other witness of him, and his doctrine, but the Scriptures.' The second use of Scripture is that one portion of Scripture will 'illustrate and interpret' another passage. In this process, we see that the Scripture is its own best interpreter. The reader will find that what 'in one place is obscurely insinuated, otherwhere it may be found more plainly and perspicuously expressed'. Augustine wrote, 'We are nourished with the easier, and exercised by the harder places of Scripture: there are we kept from famishing, here from loathing.' Willet held that proper inter­pretation was 'to use only Scripture for interpretation of Scripture if we would be sure, and neither swerve from the analogy of faith in expounding'.

Finally, Willet argued that Scripture must be interpreted by the aid of the Holy Spirit.

He writes that the Scripture is not interpreted but by the same Spirit, whereby it was first written. This Spirit is not to be found but in the scriptures themselves by the conference and comparing whence of the scripture (he) sheweth himself...

Against Rome, Willet argues that every man cannot have access to the Pope for the proper rendering of Scripture, 'but the Word of God is amongst us, the Scriptures themselves and the Spirit of God opening our hearts, do teach us how to understand them.' He denies that the interpretation of Scripture has been delivered to a succession of pastors or is tied to any place or person and affirms that it is of 'private men to expound Scripture according to the sense and meaning of the Spirit, and to discern between the orthodox and heretical interpretations ... the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures is the interpretation of himself.' He argued that only that which generates faith in the believer has the power to give the sense of the Scripture, that only the Spirit generates faith, and that faith comes by hearing the Word. Therefore, the Spirit of God is the only final interpreter of Scripture. Against the dogma held by the papists that they alone could properly render Scripture, Willet responds,

...the Apostle saith, the 'scripture speaketh', that is, God speaketh in the scriptures, and it speaketh and proclaimeth the truth to everyone. There­fore it is not a dumb but speaking Judge, and therefore is sufficient to determine all controversies of religion, and matters of faith... The Church hath the gift of interpretation, that is, of understanding the heavenly doctrine, but that is not tied to the name or degree of bishop, etc. But those that are learned in the Word of God, and born again by his Spirit, in what place so-ever they be, they assent unto the Word of God, and understand the same, some more, some less.

The strength of Willet's work is that he identified the major exegeti­cal contributors on any particular passage and engendered a debate among them in which the superior rendering would rise above the rest. The continuity of this with the Reformation is seen in the impact of Sola Scriptura upon his labours. Willet's regular pastoral care of the church and his preach­ing duties fortified his already strong dependence on what we now call a 'grammatical, historical' interpretation of the Bible and his sense of personal accountability to its accurate proclamation. The Church of England was precious to him, and in good conscience he could not allow those under his care to be misled or ignorant of God's message.

Medieval in his use of argument but Reformational in his exegesis, Willet presents the modern reader with comprehensive, critical research. Exemplary in his commitment to the Scriptures and to his calling, he made a contribution of lasting value to the theology, preaching and life of the Reformed churches.