Early Stuart Polemical Hermeneutics

Darren M. Pollock examines the 1611 Romans hexapla commentary by the prolific Church of England preacher and controversialist Andrew Willet. While some have considered Willet's later biblical commentaries to have been a retreat from his earlier engagement in religious controversy, the author argues that his exegetical work maintained a significant element of anti-Catholic polemics, only expressed in a different genre. This polemical hermeneutic served as an organizing principle and as a means by which to clarify the presentation of traditional Reformed readings in relief against a body of Roman Catholic theology that Willet believed threatened the gospel of grace. Paulös letter provided ample opportunity for Willet to identify what is distinctive about Reformed theology - or rather, as Willet would have it, the particular ways in which »papist« dogma had diverged from the true line of Christian belief running from the Fathers through to the (truly »catholic«) Reformed church of the seventeenth century.Willet's exegesis highlights many of the polemical issues that had long been contended between Protestants and Catholics, including the authentic versions of the bible, Scripture's attributes, and principles of interpretation, as well as doctrines like justification, predestination, the assurance of salvation, and the place of good works. A close investigation into Willet's exegetical method also helps to see how an identifiable hermeneutical lens is consistent with a disciplined reading that is faithful to the text. His polemical focus does not corrupt his exegesis or force upon it meanings that are alien to the text itself; rather, his polemical hermeneutic serves to focus his attention and frame positive doctrinal statements against the sharp contrast of alternate readings.