You may have Luther and Calvin for representatives:
In the exposition on The Ten Commandments Luther referred to the fourfold sense of the Scriptures as a "sport for children." Henceforth the text of Scripture had but one meaning for him, even though in his practical explanations Luther often paid tribute to the allegorical sense. Thus in writing to Emser, Luther asserted: "Scripture shall not have a double meaning, but shall retain the one that accords with the meaning by the words." 21 Again he said: "The Holy Ghost is the most simple Author and Speaker in heaven or earth, therefore His words cannot have more than one, the most simple, meaning." 22 In the Christmas Pastil for 1522 Luther wrote: "If we concede that Scripture has more than one sense, it loses its fighting force."
21. Weimar Edition of Luther's Works, 7, 650, 24-26. Also ct. M. Reu, Luther and the S C1'iptures (Columbus: The Wartburg Press, 1944). 22. Weimar Edition, op. cit., 7, 650,21-23. 23. Ibid., 10, I, 169, 2-3.
And Calvin:
“In the first place, as the other party armed themselves with the authority of the law, the apostle quotes the law on the other side. The law was the name usually given to the Five Books of Moses. Again, as the history which he quotes appeared to have no bearing on the question, he gives to it an allegorical interpretation. But as the apostle declares that these things are allegorized, (allēgoroumena) Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine.
“With such approbation the licentious system gradually attained such a height, that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was suffered to pass unpunished, but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when he suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations.
“Scripture, they say, is fertile, and thus produces a variety of meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which lead us away from the natural meaning. But what reply shall we make to Paul’s assertion, that these things are allegorical? Paul certainly does not mean that Moses wrote the history for the purpose of being turned into an allegory, but points out in what way the history may be made to answer the present subject. This is done by observing a figurative representation of the Church there delineated. And a mystical interpretation of this sort (anagōgē) was not inconsistent with the true and literal meaning, when a comparison was drawn between the Church and the family of Abraham. As the house of Abraham was then a true Church, so it is beyond all doubt that the principal and most memorable events which happened in it are so many types to us. As in circumcision, in sacrifices, in the whole Levitical priesthood, there was an allegory, as there is an allegory at the present day in our sacraments, — so was there likewise in the house of Abraham; but this does not involve a departure from the literal meaning. In a word, Paul adduces the history, as containing a figurative representation of the two covenants in the two wives of Abraham, and of the two nations in his two sons. And Chrysostom, indeed, acknowledges that the word allegory points out the present application to be (katachrēsis) different from the natural meaning; which is perfectly true.”
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. Translated by J. W. Pringle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948. The italics in the quote are original. I have added the bold.
Now, consider this observation:
"Calvin ridiculed Origen and set out to extirpate allegorical interpretations of the Bible. He discovered that the nature of the book he sought to interpret did not allow the abolition of allegory but only the pruning of its excesses. Allegory and typology (or what the late medieval interpreters called the literal-prophetic sense of the Bible) found a home in Calvin’s exegesis alongside his literal-historical interpretations. In fact, even a good deal of what Calvin learned by drawing analogies could be classified as tropology. The word anagogy made a brief appearance in Calvin’s exegesis, though it is not altogether clear whether by its use Calvin meant anagogy in the strict sense or merely analogy. At any event, the literal-prophetic sense as Calvin used it embraced a good deal of what earlier interpreters had meant by anagogy. The line which Calvin drew from the kingdom of Israel to the messianic kingdom is both literal-prophetic and anagogical. When Calvin moved from a discussion of the kingdom of Israel to the church and from the church to the messianic kingdom of God, he was, from our point of view if not always from his, teaching the spiritual sense of Scripture. In short, Calvin ostentatiously pushed the quadriga out the front door of his study with harsh words of criticism for Origen only to readmit it quietly through the back. Calvin can be admired as a biblical theologian, not because he returned to the literal sense of Scripture (which, after all, had never been lost), but because he recognized that the literal sense of Scripture was, as the church had known for more than a millennium, never enough. Calvin used allegory, typology, and tropology because the nature of Scripture required it. If I listen carefully, I can hear the faint laughter of Origen." (David Steinmetz, “Calvin and the Irrepressible Spirit,” in Calvin in Context, p. 275).
The language of our Confession reflects the conviction that "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about
the true and full sense of any Scripture (
which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly." (ch. 1, para. 9). The meaning of a text is single, over against the notion that the meaning is essentially unlimited by anything other than the creative power of the reader's imposition. This limit is
not the same as reductionism, i.e. the denial of a "full" sense to the words taken as the Scripture and the Holy Spirit intended them. The "wooden literalism" of some schools of conservative theology is closely mirroed by the non-nuanced reading of certain atheistic scholars, whose "flat" and anti-literary reading of the text is remarkably similar to the former.
