Among the great books written by William Perkins (1558-1602) was his famous Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. This commentary arose out of his lectures delivered at St Andrew's, Cambridge, where he was a lecturer between 1584 and his death in 1602. Perkins died before com­pleting the Commentary.

The following year a man by the name of Ralf Cudworth was appointed to lecture in Cambridge on the same epistle. He was a great admirer of Perkins, and when the executors of Perkins' estate invited him to complete the Commentary begun by Perkins he did so willingly, though with some trepidation. His willingness sprang from his admiration for Perkins, coupled with his love of the gospel; his trepidation arose from his consciousness of the enormous responsibility of the commentator in handling the sacred text. His Epistle Dedicatory is somewhat longer than the usual dedication. Its importance to us today lies in the extremely high view held by Cudworth of the commentator's work.

We today live in a time when commentaries abound. New series are forever being advertised, and new individual works appear regularly. Old favourites, too, we are pleased to say, are still being made available to us and to the next generation. It has to be said, however, that the expression 'not worth the paper they are printed on' applies to some of them. Commentaries have an ancient and honourable place in the ministry of the church, but not all commentators have stood in the ancient and honourable line. Cudworth offers some obvious, but nonetheless telling, insights into the work of the commentator. His comments are as applicable today as they were four centuries ago.

A High View of Scripture⤒🔗

Cudworth makes plain his understanding of the Scriptures in the opening words of the Epistle Dedicatory: 'The holy Scriptures ... (are) given by divine inspiration, and penned by the holy men of God, Prophets, Apostles, and Apostolike writers, not by private motion, but as they were guided by the holy Ghost...' He goes on to speak of their being commended by God, of their being left to the church 'as a pretious depositum carefully to be kept in their integritie', of how they are to be defended against all heretics and schismatics and, above all, of their being 'the pillar and foundation whereon to rest our faith'. Indeed, they are;

the touch-stone of truth; the shoppe of remedies for all spiritual maladies; an anker in the blasts of Temptation, and waves of affliction; a two-edged sword to foyle and put to flight our spiritual enemies; the onely Oracle to which we must have recourse, and whereat we are to enquire the will of God: In a word, the bread and water of life, whereon our soules are to feed unto eternall life.

Because of this we must search the Scriptures. We must seek in them as for silver and hid treasure; we must meditate upon them day and night; they must be with us at all times and our constant source of conversation in whatever situation we find ourselves. To Cudworth the Scriptures are sure, certain and complete. They may not be added to nor taken away from. They are able to save our souls.

This being so, he expresses great wonder that;

any calling themselves Christians, should make lesse account of the booke of God, than the Romanes of old time do of their twelve Tables, and other Heathens of their Ritual books; or than the Jewes at this day doe of their Talmud, the Turks of their Alcoran, the Ethiopians of their Abetelis.

He singles out for particular comment those who call themselves divines, yet who never trouble themselves to open the Scriptures, except in so far as they must in order to follow the arguments of the Schoolmen. Much `comment' on the Word of God is nothing more than speculation, not upon the Rock, but upon the water that is Aquinas. He accuses such men of thinking that the 'Scriptures (are) too simple and shallow for them to wade in, (and) as not affording them sufficient matter for their wits to work upon'. He likens them to those who, looking beyond Scripture at the moon, fall blindly into the ditch. 'Whilest they strive with the wings of their wit to soare above the cloudes of other mens conceyts, they sinke into a Sea of absurdities and errors.' The same might be said of the liberals of our day.

Gerald T. Sheppard said approvingly of commentaries from Perkins' era, 'Because these commentaries antedate the full impact of the Enlightenment and its modern critical approach to history, they remain among the few extant English works that sustain the biblical text as a literary and coherent whole.' Cudworth condemned almost all attempts at biblical commentary from the period after the Church Fathers right up to his own day. He cites Luther's Commentary on Galatians as the first truly great such work for a thousand years.

The Importance of Catechisms←⤒🔗

Cudworth, having established his doctrine of Scripture and having shown to what use the Word of God is to be put, now enters upon the main theme, that of the interpretation of the Scriptures. He sees the Bible as being made up of two parts, 'majestie joyned with simplicitie ... great difficultie mixed with plainesse and facility'. He sees the Scriptures as being a work of the wonder­ful wisdom of God's Spirit, 'that they are both obscure and perspicuous'. On this basis he draws the conclusion that two sorts of works are needed. He begins with those which deal with the plain, the simple, the perspicuous. From such places of Scripture are to be drawn 'principles of religion, both articles of faith and rules of good life'. These are called catechisms. Cudworth lists a number of such works from the Church Fathers, showing that this was always the way in which men of God have used these portions of God's Word. He shows that they stand in the line of the Apostle Paul, who gave 'the forme of knowledge (Rom. 2:20), and the forme of doctrine (Rom. 6:17) and a paterne of wholesome words (2 Tim. 1:13)'. Such catechisms are aimed at 'the simple, who are to be fedde with milke, being but babes in Christ: and ... the learned, who are strong men in Christ, that they may have some rule, whereby to trie the spirits'.

While condemning Roman Catholic practice and method of interpre­tation of the Scriptures, Cudworth sees one thing of note in that church. He points out that the Church of Rome has a catechism approved by the Council of Trent, which all its adherents follow. He goes on:

(I would) there were an uniforme Catechisme injoined by publicke authority to be used in all Families, Schooles, and Churches in this land, that we might all with one mind and one mouth, judge and speake the same thing.

The seventeenth century was to witness the compilation of a number of the best catechisms in our own, or any other, language.

The Place of Commentaries←⤒🔗

If catechisms, argued Cudworth, are to be taken from the clear and simple portions of God's Word, not being based upon controverted points but upon that which can be readily agreed on, then commentaries are required to help interpret those places that are not so plain or readily agreed upon.

Cudworth finds justification for the existence of commentaries in the practice of the Lord Jesus Christ. He shows that Christ expounded the law (Matt. 5), that he unfolded the meaning of parables to the disciples in private, and that he preached himself to the two on the road to Emmaus from all the Scriptures. Thus, concludes Cudworth, commenting upon the text and expounding the meaning is something the church is to do.

Having established in this way his case for commentaries, Cudworth faces up to the immensity of the task. 'But how Commentaries ought to be written, it is not so easie to define, there beeing such difference as well in regard of the manner of writing, as of the measure.' He lists the usual Romish practice and understanding, in which the four-fold sense is taken for granted: literal, allegorical, anagogical, and tropological. He rejects all such methods of interpretation.

He is rightly critical of commentators 'who upon every small occasion digresse from the text, or rather take occasion to enter into infinite frivolous questions, which breed strife rather than godly edifying which is by faith'. Commentaries written after this fashion become so large that they are impractical and serve 'to cast a mist before the eyes of the reader'. Their very verbosity helps to hide the meaning of the Holy Spirit. Others, he says, are so brief that they say nothing worth saying.

What is required is 'the golden meane'. If all readers were 'strong men in Christ' who had the intelligence to take up the thoughts of what Spurgeon called 'suggestive commentaries', then short works would suffice. All would read the words of the commentator, see his line of arguing, and follow that line to the spiritual conclusion. However, this is not realistic. Instead, the commentator must cater for 'babes, who must have everything minced, and cut small unto them before they can receive it'. Furthermore, not all readers, he says, have the skill of Ezra rightly to divide the Word, but instead add their own opinions. This Cudworth likens to casting poison into the pot of the sons of the prophets instead of that which will cure.

On the manner of commenting, Cudworth advocates only the literal interpretation, which, he says, is Perkins' manner. The literal is 'the onely sense intended by the Spirit of God'. Having established the literal sense, the commentator must then 'make collection of doctrine and application of uses; yet briefly, rather pointing at the chiefe, than dwelling long upon any point'. These points are drawn out so that they may be applied 'for con­futation, correction, instruction, consolation'. The skilful commentator will match together 'two things, heretofore insociable, Brevity, and Perspicuity'. This, says Cudworth, Perkins has done, and he declares that it has never been done so well before 'by any Expositor upon this Epistle: which we may well call the key of the new Testament'. He commends Luther's work, but gives his opinion that Luther had 'lost much of his strength, and taken winde by changing from language to language'. This reflects the problem of translating well from Luther's German. Perkins, on the other hand, being an English­man, will be able to speak to Englishmen with undiminished power through the printed word.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

Cudworth is right in his estimation of the value of Perkins' work. That it is available, if at all, only in specialized academic editions, is a great loss to the church of God in our day, for it is a most godly work. He is also right in his understanding of the influence which a commentator can exert. The same is true of a preacher, for whether the man is good or bad, he will be listened to by at least some. Cudworth's views are of value to us in that if we have a correct doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, we shall desire to see God's Word expounded accurately. Once we see that Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation it will become our constant conversation, and we shall draw from it those directions for life and faith which we find in it.