As an interpreter of Scripture, Cocceius had many of the highest qualifications. He was a man of great learning, the worthy compeer of the mighty scholars of which Holland could boast in the 17th centur^'. In the range and thoroughness of his acquirements he was not inferior to such men as Grotius, Heinsius, Buxtorf; and Vossius. But it was in hin principles of interpretation that his unrivalled gift was cliiefiy seen. He held that the Scriptures are the source of all sound doctrine ; that they have not been exhausted by pre- vious interpreters ; that they are to be regarded as one organic whole, the Old Testament containing every where the hidden, and the New the unfolded Gospel ; that they are to be interpreted according to the anal- ogy of the faith or the scope of the one great revela^ tion; that their meaning is to be determined by a careful examination of each passage as to the force of its words and phrases, and its relations to the context, or that which is derived ex tota compage termomsf that the interpreter is not to force his own opinions into the Scriptures, but to submit his mind to their teachings ; and that Christ is the great subject of divine revela^ tion, as well in the Old Testament as in the New. It
6 COCCEKTS
was his holding up of the Scriptnrea tm tiie lifis^ fountain of theology which ^w on hfan the bitter op- position of the scholastic theologians of his dsy, wfcf would not go beyond what the Beformen had sr tained to, and used the Bible only as a storehwae ef proof texts for doctrines which they had leanted tnm the symbolic writings of the RefcnniiatiofL. Agmw that dry and hard scholastidsm Cocceios set hinuelf with uncompromising boldness ; and he did as mac^ as any man of his time to reinstate the Scriptoics is I their true place of authorify, and to make interpRta- tion to be tiie drawing of fresh streams from the inex- haustible well-spring of divine truth.
He has been accused of being fanci/ui ma an mter- preter, but. In the sense in which it is conmKmly un- derstood, no charge could be more groondlesa. Hh fundamental principle was that ''of tboee tidngs which Christ and the apostles spake, the ibandatieL cause, and prescribed formula existed in the wiitiogs of Moses and the prophets, and, in troth, that Cknsst and the apostles accomplished that preachinfr concem- ing the Idngdom of God which had been proaoBed tc * Israel,*' and therefore that ''what is to be beHeved concerning Christ and his righteousness, what fai t^ New Testament is explained more snccinedy and clearly, that ought to be demonstrated from Uie CM Testament, since both the aposties appealed to its testimony, and the Saviour himself charged the Jew» to search it as testifying concerning himaelf." He would bring men to "the examination of all Scripture. to the perpetual analogy of promise, prophecy, aad Gospel, and so of all the revelations of God*8 Testa- ment."
In the application of this principle he often erred bf going beyond the bounds of clear and definite knowl- edge, by forcing events into the mould of prophecy. and also by too great subUety in tracing out aiiale- gies ; but Ids errors were those of a man of penetrattug insight and robust judgment, and not of weak and childish fancies. No one has seen more deeily or more sharply defined the true province and methods of the interpreter, "adding nothing to, and taking away nothing firom the words of God ; leaving those things which are said in a general way to be Interpret- ed gefierally ; chiving force to the propriety and em- phasis of phrases, and the analogy of sacred speech.**
No one now will doubt that the one great obJeGt ct divine revelation, both in the Old and New Testa- ments, is to unfold ' ' the mystery of godliness, God man- ifest in the flesh.** In all his interpretations of Scrip- ture he was struggling towards this end ; and, notwith- standing his many failures, which were inevitable at the time and under the circumstances in which he Uved, his writings are full not only of grand and fiur-reachlng principles, but of striking examples of prophetic insight in the application of them. He gave a great fanpnbe and a right direction to Biblical studies in Hdland. Amongst his pupils the fSamous ^^Itringa is to be nvm- bered.
As a theologian, Cocceius, whfle conscientionaly ad- hering to the doctrines of the Refbrroed (Calvinistic) Church, gave to them a more scriptural and less scho- lastic form, in consequence of his f^«e and profoond study of the Bible. His favorite method of setting forth theology was the kiHrnicaiy as the unfolding of the successive stages of the covenant entered into be- fore all worlds by the Father and the Son* After the Fall, by which tiie covenant of works, under which Adam in his state of innocence had been placed, was abrogated, the way was opened for the establishing of the covenant of grace, which was the manifsstation of that which had existed in the eternal councils of the Godhead, of which the second Person was the mediator and surety. Of these there are three dis- pensations— that of the Promise during the time of the patriarchs, that of the Law given fhnn Sinai, and that of the Gospel; although the two fonner are also class-