could have found its way into the sacred Scriptures, and that we must seek for Divine illumination and direction, when we meet with difficulties. Comp. Hom. in Exod. i. 4. Opp. T. ii. p. 131: Ego credens verbis Domini mei Jesu Christi, in lege et Prophetis iota quidem unum aut apicem non puto esse mysteriis vacuum, nec puto aliquid horum transire posse, donec omnia fant. Philocalia (Cantabrig. 1658,) p. 19: Πρέπει δὲ τὰ ἅγια γράμματα πιστεύειν μηδεμίαν κεραίαν ἔχειν κενὴν σοφίας Θεοῦ· ὁ γὰρ ἐντειλάμενος ἐμοὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ λέγων, οὐκ ὀρθήσῃ ἐνώπιόν μου κενός (Exod. xxxiv. 20.) πολλῷ πλέον αὐτὸς οὐδὲν κενὸν ἐρεῖ. Comp. Schnitzer, p. 286. But Origen softened the harshness of his theory partly, as has already been indicated, by allegorical interpretation, (comp. the subsequent §), partly by assuming (as was frequently done even in later times) that God, like a teacher, accommodates himself to the degree of civilization in different ages, contra Cels. iv. 71, Ρ. 556.

T. i.

(8) Irenæus compares the sacred Scriptures to the treasure which was hid in a field, adv. Hær. iv. 25, 26, and recommends their perusal also to the laity, but under the direction of the presbyters, iv. 32. Clement of Alexandr. describes their simplicity, and the beneficial effects which they are calculated to produce, Coh. p. 66: Γραφαὶ δὲ αἱ θεῖαι καὶ πολιτεῖαι σώφρονες, σύντομοι σωτηρίας ὅδοι, γυμναὶ κομμωτικῆς καὶ τῆς ἐκτὸς καλλιφωνίας καὶ στωμυλίας καὶ κολακείας υπάρχουσαι ἀνιστῶσιν ἀγχόμενον ὑπὸ κακίας τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὑπεριδοῦσαι τὸν ὄλισθον τὸν βιωτικὸν, μιᾷ καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ φωνῇ πολλὰ θεραπεύουσαι, ἀποτρέπουσαι μὲν ἡμᾶς τῆς ἐπιζημίου ἀπάτης, προτρέπουσαι δὲ ἐμφανῶς εἰς προΰπτον σωτηρίαν. Comp. ibid. p. 71: ̔Ιερὰ γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς τὰ ἱεραποιοῦντα καὶ θεοποιοῦντα γράμματα κ. τ. λ. Clement did not confine this sanctifying power to the mere letter of Scripture, but thought that the λογικοί νόμοι had been written, not only ἐν πλαξὶ λιθίναις, ἀλλ ̓ ἐν καρδίαις ἀνθρώπων, Paed. iii. p. 307, so that at least the effects produced by the Bible depend on the susceptibility of the mind. The language of Origen is similar, contra Cels. vi. 2, p. 630 : Φησὶ δ ̓ ὁ θεῖος λόγος, οὐκ αὔταρκες εἶναι τὸ λεγόμενον (κἂν καθ' αὐτὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ πιστικώτατον ᾖ) πρὸς τὸ καθικέσθαι ἀνθρω πίνης ψυχῆς, ἐὰν μὴ καὶ δύναμίς τις θεόθεν δοθῇ τῷ λέγοντι, καὶ χάρις ἐπανθήσῃ τοῖς λεγομένοις, καὶ αὕτη οὐκ ἀθεεὶ ἐγγινομένη τοῖς ἀνυσίμως λέγουσι.

§ 33.
ន

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.

Olshausen, über tiefern Schriftsinn, Königsberg, 1824. Rosenmüller, historia interpretat. N. Test. T. iii. Ernesti, J. A., de Origine interpretationis grammaticæ auctore, opusc. crit. Lugd. 1764. Hagenbach, Observat. circa Origenis methodum interpretandæ S. S. Bas. 1823. Thomasius, Origenes, Appendix 1.-[Davidson, S., Sacred Hermeneutics developed and applied; including a Hist. of Biblical Interpretation from the earliest of the Fathers to the Reform. Edinb. 1843. Comp. also Credner, K. A., in Kitto's Cyclop. of Biblical Literature sub voce.]

The tendency to allegorical interpretation (1) was connected in a twofold manner with the doctrine of verbal inspiration. Some writers endeavoured to bring as much as possible into the Tetter of the sacred writings, either on mystico-speculative, or on practico-religious grounds; others from a rationalistico-apologetical tendency were anxious to explain away all that might lead to conclusions alike offensive to human reason, and unworthy of the Deity, if taken in their literal sense. This may be best seen in the works of Origen, who, after the example of Philo, (2) and of several of the Fathers, especially of Clement, (3) adopted three modes of interpretation, the grammatical, anagogical, and allegorical.(4) The simple and modest mode of interpretation, adopted by Irenæus, who defers to God all that is above human understanding,(5) forms a striking contrast with the allegorizing tendency, which can find everything in the Scriptures.

(1) 6 Considering the high opinion regarding the inspiration of the sacred writings, and the dignity of what is revealed in them, we should expect as a matter of course, to meet with careful interpreters who would diligently investigate the exact meaning of every part of Holy Writ. But the very opposite has taken place. Inspiration is done away with by that most arbitrary of all modes of interpretation, the allegorical, of which we may consider Philo the best representative." (Gfrörer, Geschichte

des Urchristenthums, i. p. 69, in reference to Philo.) However much this may surprise us at first sight, we shall find that the connection between the theory of inspiration, and the mode of interpretation which accompanies it, is by no means unnatural; both have one common source, viz. the assumption that there is a very great difference between the Bible, and other books. That which has come down from heaven, must be interpreted according to its heavenly origin; must be looked upon with other eyes, and touched with other hands than profane. Comp. Dähne, über Philo, p. 60. In this period we observe something similar relative to the Word to what took place afterwards with regard to the Sacraments. As baptismal water was thought to possess more excellent qualities than common water, and the bread used in the Lord's supper to be different from common bread, so the letter of the Bible, once encircled by the magic ring of inspiration, became itself a magic hieroglyphic, to decipher which a magic key was needed.

(2) Comp Gfrörer, Dähne, 1. c. [and Conybeare, J. J. The Bampton Lecture for the year 1824, being an attempt to trace the history and to ascertain the limits of the secondary, and spiritual interpret. of Script. Oxf. 1824. Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, pp. 63, 64.]

(3) Examples of allegorical and typical interpretation abound in the writings of the apostolical and earlier Fathers, see § 29. note 3. [Comp. Davidson, Sacred Hermen. p. 71, ss. Barnabas, 1.7: The two goats (Levit. xvi.) were to be fair and perfectly alike; both therefore typified the one Jesus, who was to suffer for us. The circumstance of one being driven forth into the wilderness, the congregation spitting upon it and pricking it; whilst the other, instead of being accursed, was offered upon the altar to God, symbolised the death and sufferings of Jesus. The washing of the entrails with vinegar, denoted the vinegar mixed with gall which was given to Jesus on the cross. The scarlet wool, put about the head of one of the goats, signified the scarlet robe put upon Christ before his crucifixion. The taking off the scarlet wool, and placing it on a thorn-bush, refers to the fate of Christ's church. Clement of Alex. lib. v. p. 557: "The candlestick situated south of the altar of incense signified the movements of the seven stars making circuits southward. From each side of the candlestick projected three branches with lights in them, because the sun placed in the midst of the other planets gives

light both to those above and under him by a kind of divine music. The golden candlestick has also another enigma, not only in being a figure of the sign of Christ, but also in the circumstance of giving light in many ways and parts to such as believe and hope in him, by the instrumentality of the things at first created." Comp. also pp. 74. 75. 79. 80.] In order to form a correct estimate of this mode of interpretation comp. Möhler, Patrologie, i. p. 64: "It may be, that the system of interpreta tion adopted by the earlier Fathers in many respects is not agreeable to our notions of interpretation; but we should remember that our mode of looking at things differs from theirs in more than one point. They knew nothing, thought of nothing, felt nothing, but Christ—is it then surprising, that they met him everywhere, even without seeking him? In the present high state of civilization we are scarcely able to form a correct idea of the mind of those times, in which the great object of commentators was, to show the connection between the Old and the New Covenant in the most satisfactory manner, and in the most vivid colours." The earlier Fathers indulged almost unconsciously in this mode of interpreting; but Clement of Alex. attempts to establish a theory asserting that the Mosaic laws have a threefold, or even a fourfold sense, τετραχῶς δὲ ἡμῖν ἐκληπτέον τοῦ νόμου τὴν βούλησιν. Strom. i. 28. (some read rgis instead of rergaxas.) [Comp. Davidson, 1. c. p. 79.]

=

(*) Origen supposes that Scripture has a threefold sense corresponding to the trichotomous division of man into body, soul, and spirit (comp. § 54); in confirmation of this view he appeals to Prov. xxii. 20, 21; [1 Cor. ii. 6, 7 and other passages,] and the Shepherd of Hermas which he values equally with Scripture. This threefold sense may be divided into 1. the grammatical, [σωματικός] body; 2. the moral. [uxixis] soul; and 3. the mystical, [Trevμatxós] = spirit. The literal sense, however, he [πνευματικός] asserts, cannot always be taken, but in certain cases it must be spiritualized by allegorical interpretation, especially in those places which contain either something indifferent in a religious aspect (genealogies, etc.), or immoral things (e. g. the account of Lot's incest, of Abraham's two wives, etc.), or what is unworthy of the dignity of God (the anthropomorphitic narratives in the book of Genesis, etc.); [comp. the mode in which Philo proceeded, Davidson, 1. c. p. 63, 64.] But Origen found offensive things not only in the Old, but also in the New Testament.

Thus he declared the narrative of the temptation of our Saviour to be a mere allegory, because he could not solve the difficulties which it presents to the historical interpreter. [The gospels also abound in expressions of this kind; as when the devil is said to have taken Jesus to a high mountain.-For who could believe, if he read such things with the least degree of attention, that the kingdoms of the Persians, Scythians, Indians, and Parthians, were seen with the bodily eye, and with as great honour as kings are looked upon? Davidson, 1. c. p. 99.] He also thought that some precepts, as Luke x. 4. Matth. v. 39. 1 Cor. vii. 18. could be taken in their literal sense only by foolish men (axsgaios).-He does not indeed deny the reality of most of the miracles, but he prizes much more highly the allegory which they include (comp. § 29, note 10); de princ. lib. iv. § 8-27, he gives the most complete exhibition of his theory; comp. also his exegetical works, and the above mentioned treatises.-[Davidson, 1. c. p. 97-105].-Both tendencies above spoken of, that of bringing in, and that of explaining away, are obviously exhibited in the writings of Origen. Therefore, the remark of Lücke (Hermeneutik. p. 39.)" that a rationalistic tendency, of which Origen himself was not conscious, may account in part for his addiction to allegorical interpretation," can be easily reconciled with the apparently contrary supposition, that mysticism was the cause of it. "The letter kills, but the spirit quickens; this is the principle of Origen. But who does not see that the spirit can become too powerful, kill the letter, and take its place?" Edgar Quinet on Strauss (Revue des deux mondes 1838.)

(5) Irenæus also proceeded on the assumption that the Scriptures throughout were full of profound meanings, adv. Hær. iv. 18: Nihil enim otiosum, nec sine signo, neque sine argumento apud eum, and made use of typical interpretation. Nevertheless he saw the errors to which allegorizing leads, and condemned it in the Gnostics, adv. Hær. i. 3, 6. We are as little able to understand the abundance of nature, as the superabundance of Scripture, ibid. ii. 28: Nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum ejus indigemus. Et non est mirum, si in spiritalibus et cœlestibus et in his quæ habent revelari, hoc patimur nos: quandoquidem etiam eorum quæ ante pedes sunt (dico autem quæ sunt in hac creatura, quæ et con