of historical exposition; others we examine allegorically, by typical investigation; others we discuss by the sole instruments of allegorical morality; whilst we anxiously search out some in the three methods together. First we lay the foundations of the history; then by a typical signification we raise up the fabric of the mind into the citadel of faith; and lastly, by the grace of morality we cover the edifice, superinducing as it were a colour over it."

Although Gregory follows the example of his predecessors in this threefold division, other statements would lead us to expect less extravagance in its application. He did not cast aside the truth of the history, or the literal sense. Thus we find him assert, "In the words of Scripture the truth of the history must first be preserved, and afterwards the spiritual sense of allegory must be sought. For the fruit of allegory is sweetly plucked, when it is previously made firm by history in the root of truth."†

"The interpretation of holy Scripture must be so carefully balanced between the text and mystery, that, by adjusting the scales equally on both sides, it be neither weighed down by a load of too much discussion, nor lose its significancy and become empty by indolent torpor." "We especially desire that the person who raises his mind to the spiritual sense of Scripture should not cease to respect the history." ||

But notwithstanding the valuable remarks interspersed throughout the works of Gregory, and the just principles of exposition of which he had an occasional though faint perception, his exegesis is essentially allegorical. He did not follow sound hermeneutical

Sciendum vero est, quod quædam historica expositione transcurrimus; et per allegoriam quædam typicâ investigatione perscrutamur, quædam per sola allegorica moralitatis instrumenta discutimus, nonnulla autem per cuncta simul sollicitius exquirentes tripliciter indagamus. Nam primum quidem, fundamenta historia ponimus: deinde per significationem typicam, in arcem fidei fabricam mentis erigimus; ad extremum quoque, per moralitatis gratiam quasi superducto ædificium colore vestimus. Epistola in expositionem beati Job ad Leandrum episcopum, caput iii. vol. i. (Opera Omnia, Lugduni, 1551, 2 vols. fol.)

In verbis sacri eloquii prius servanda est veritas historiæ, et postmodum requirenda spiritalis intelligentia allegoriæ. Tunc namque allegoriæ fructus suaviter carpitur, cum prius per historiam in veritatis radice solidatur. In Evangelia hom. xl. vol. ii. p. 133.

Intellectus sacri eloquii inter textum et mysterium tanta est libratione pensandus, ut utriusque partes lance moderata, hunc neque nimiæ discussionis pondus deprimat, neque rursus torpor incuria vacuum relinquat. Moralia in Job, lib. xxi. cap. i. vol. i. p. 124.

Hoc tamen magnopere petimus, ut qui ad spiritalem intelligentiam mentem sublevat, a veneratione historiæ non recedat. Moralia, lib. i. 56.

maxims, but mistook the very nature of interpretation. This is manifest from such specimens as these. In explaining Job i. 2 allegorically, the seven sons of Job denote the apostles, endowed with the perfection of grace by the Holy Spirit. The three daughters of Job signify the body of believers, who, though somewhat weak, do yet hold the faith of the holy Trinity. By the seven sons, therefore, the order of preachers is designated; by the three daughters the multitude of hearers.* According to the moral interpretation, the seven sons are the gifts of the Holy Spirit; the three daughters, faith, hope, and charity.† The sheep, camels, and oxen mentioned in the third verse of the first chapter, are allegorically interpreted in the following manner. The sheep represent "the perfect innocence of some, which comes to the perception of grace from the pastures of the law;"‡ the camels are the vicious Gentiles, or the Samaritans ; || the asses are the foolish, stupid Gentiles. § By the three friends of Job are signified "heretics who under the appearance of giving good advice, lead astray."¶

His homilies on Ezekiel have little intrinsic value, for although he endeavours to set forth the historic sense, he seeks out the mystical and moral with allegorising propensity.

The homilies on the gospels have more of a practical and hortatory, than of a strictly exegetical aspect. They exhibit less fancy than those upon the Old Testament.

The preceding observations and excerpts will shew, that Gregory cannot claim a high place among the expounders of Scripture. He was deficient in learning, judgment, and perspicacity. It is true that he appears before us as a pious prelate; but his piety was of that superstitious cast which marked the early age of the Christian church. It was neither enlightened, nor comprehensive.

Having glanced at the chief of the fathers separately, we are now prepared to take a general survey of their merits and defects. We have alluded to them as Biblical interpreters, and examined the nature of their exegesis. That they were laborious, zealous, and diligent, cannot be denied. Their feelings were warm on

* Moralia, lib. i. capp. xi. xii. vol. i. p. 2.

+ Ibid. cap. xxviii. pp. 3, 4.

... perfectam quorundam innocentiam exprimit, quæ ad perceptionem gratiæ ex legis pascuis venit. Id. cap. xiii. p. 2.

|| Capp. xiv. xv. p. 2.

Cap. xvi. p. 2.

།།“. . qui sub specie consulendi, agunt negotium seducendi." Præf. in Expos. Job. cap. xii.

behalf of the religion they professed; their eagerness to maintain its principles, prominent and praiseworthy. If we judge of their learning by the standard of the present times, it was by no means great; nor do their attainments appear remarkable, when tried by the same test. It were unfair, however, to take such a position from which to survey their intellectual character. They had acuteness, penetration, logical subtilty; and a few were unquestionably learned. But as a body, they were deficient in knowledge of the original languages of the Bible. They followed no definite maxims of interpretation. They were too prone to allegorising. Influenced doubtless by the example of the Jews, and the prevailing philosophy of the times, they carried typical interpretation to excess. Hence their acquaintance with the Scriptures was neither scientific nor systematic. They did not possess the accomplishments or apparatus necessary to constitute able or skilful interpreters. Besides, their superstition, credulity, and folly, were notorious. Monkish notions and mystical pietism formed an essential part of their religious creed. Not only did they believe, but sanction, the working of miracles. In truth, many of the fathers present a marvellous compound of evangelical opinions and blind devotion. We would therefore neither extol them without discrimination, nor depreciate their true excellencies. Their attachment to Christianity was strong, and nobly did they stand up in defence of their religion; but with it they mingled heathen philosophy, and tarnished the lustre of its purity. As guides, they cannot be followed by the independent inquirer. We possess means and advantages incomparably superior to theirs, and have consequently arrived at results, which they either did not see, or at least saw but afar off. When we have better helps at hand, why should it be thought necessary to rely upon them? Their voluminous works scarcely repay the time and toil required to peruse them. He who is prepared to investigate the Holy Scriptures, need not expect, in patristic literature, such expositions as shall stand the test of enlightened criticism. In some cases, it is useful to know the fathers' sentiments to be acquainted with their lives and writings-with the spirit by which they are pervaded, and the utility they are likely to afford; but as Biblical interpreters, they are far surpassed by the moderns. With the Scriptures themselves in our hands, we should not confine ourselves to the comments of the fathers, nor suppose that they were placed in more favourable circumstances

for ascertaining the true sense of the Word of God. Whilst we fully allow the intellectual acumen and logical subtilty by which many of them were distinguished, their knowledge of philosophy, their ingenuity, their skill in disputation, we must at the same time recollect their extravagant and fanciful opinions, their asceticism, their unscriptural notions of celibacy, and their trifling disputes respecting baptism.* They possessed many excellencies and virtues; but their errors were neither few nor trivial. We cannot venerate them as spiritual guides, nor implicitly adopt their sentiments. It is pleasant and profitable to peruse the beautiful homilies of Chrysostom; but even in them, many things are offensive to an enlightened mind. The Philocalia of Origen, with his treatise against Celsus, and several of his homilies, are the productions of a highly cultivated mind imbued with the varied science and subtle philosophy of the times; but much allegorising is interspersed throughout. Jerome had a knowledge of the original languages uncommon at the period in which he lived; but his judgment was far inferior to his linguistic attainments, and his skill in interpretation was not great. Thousands of passages might be readily selected in which he has missed the true sense whilst pursuing a devious path. Augustine, too, was well acquainted with Greek, and in logical ability stood preeminent among his contemporaries; but the hermeneutical maxims which he himself laid down he did not follow. He was both mystical and sensuous-profound and fanciful; and it may be questioned, whether the vast influence his theological system has had upon the creeds of the West, has not tended to repress independent investigation, and by the darkness of its unscriptural shades to give plausibility to a superficial Arminianism. Theodoret, again, is a judicious, sober, calm writer, without unusual perspicacity or uncommon skill in developing the meaning of the Spirit. In short, the fathers were not interpreters who exhausted the sense. They left much to be investigated by succeeding writers. They did not pour a flood of light upon any book of Scripture. We have to begin afresh the study of the word, as if they had never written; and investigate the pages of inspiration by all legitimate appliances. The reign of their influence over modern exegesis has been long and unpropitious; — let us trust and hope, that it is approaching a termination.

* On this subject the reader is referred to the masterly work of Mr. Taylor"Ancient Christianity,"--where he will find abundant evidence of the weakness and false notions of the fathers.

CHAPTER VI.

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE HIERARCHICAL PERIOD, OR FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY TO THE REFORMATION.

In the seventh century no writer of note appears in the church. The names of Maximus the Confessor, Sophronius of Damascus, and John Philoponus, do not deserve particular mention in a history of Biblical interpretation.

In the eighth century the names of Bede and Alcuin present themselves to our view.

Bede (+735.)—Bede, usually styled the venerable, was a native of Wearmouth in Durham, and received his education in a monastery of St. Peter at that place. He was born in the year 673. His exegetical works are numerous, extending over a great part of the Old Testament, some of the Apocryphal books, and the entire New Testament. Although succeeding compilers regard him as one of the fathers, and put his expositions in catena, yet as his commentaries are chiefly extracted from preceding interpreters, he should rather be reckoned among the catena-writers themselves than the true fathers. His book on the Hexaëmeron is professedly taken from Basil, Ambrose, and Augustine. His exposition of the books of Samuel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Tobit, is called an allegorical exposition. In the prologue to Samuel, after referring to Rom. xv. 4, and 1 Cor. x. 6, he asks, of what use is the Jewish mode of interpretation, " if we cannot bring forth the allegorical sense also, which, by reproving, instructing, and comforting the soul, refreshes and revives it."* In the preface to Ezra he has the following: "Trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ as helper and comforter, that he would propitiously grant us to find something higher and more sacred in the marrow of the spiritual sense, by removing the outward rind of the letter."† To the same purport is the affirmation in the prologue to Tobit.

* Si non etiam allegoricum noverimus exsculpere sensum qui vivaciter interius castigando, erudiendo, consolando, reficit. Prolog. in Allegor. Expos. Sam. p. 160, vol. iv. (Opera, Colonæ Agrippinæ, 1612, 8 vols. fol.)

+ Retecto cortice literæ, altius aliud et sacratius in medulla sensus spiritalis invenire. Præf. in Esram, p. 348, vol. iv.