θεόθεν δοθῇ τῷ λέγοντι, καὶ χάρις ἐπανθήσῃ τοῖς λεγομένοις, καὶ αὕτη οὐκ ἀθεεὶ ἐγγινομένη τοῖς ἀνυσίμως λέγουσι. Accordingly, the use of the Scripture was universally recommended by the old Christian teachers, and the apologists call upon the heathen to convince themselves out of the Scriptures of the truth of what was told to them. [Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. § 23, on the General Use of the Bible: Justin, in his Coh. ad Græcer, calls upon the heathen to read the prophetic Scriptures. Athenagoras, in his Apology, presupposes that the emperors Marcus Aurelius and his son have the Old Testament. All the Scriptures were read in the public services of Christians Tertull. Apol. c. 39. Origen against Celsus (vii.) defends the Bible from the charge that it was written in a common style, by the statement that it was written for the common man. Comp. C. W. F. Walch, Kritische Untersuchung vom Gebrauch der heiligen Schrift unter den Christen in den vier ersten Jahrh. Leipz. 1779. W. Goode's Divine Rule, etc., ubi supra.]

§ 33.

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.

Olshausen, über tiefern Schriftsinn, Königsberg, 1824. Rosenmüller, Historia Interpretat. N. Test. T. iii. Ernesti, J. A., De Origene Interpretationis grammaticæ Auctore, Opusc. Crit. Lugd. 1764. Hagenbach, Observat. circa Origenis methodum interpretandæ S. S. Bas. 1823, cf. the review by Hirzel, in Winer's Krit. Journal, 1825, Bd. iii. Thomasius, Origenes, Appendix I. [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. Fairbairn's Hermeneutics, 1858. Frankel, Einfluss der palestin. Exegese auf d. Alexandr. Hermeneutik, Leipz. 1851.]

The tendency to allegorical interpretation' was connected in a twofold manner with the theory of verbal inspiration. Some writers endeavored to bring as much as possible into the letter of the sacred writings, either on mystical and speculative, or on practical religious grounds; others, from a rationalistic and 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,' and of several of the fathers, especially of Clement,' first set forth a definite system of interpretation, which allowed a three-fold sense to Scripture; and accordingly they distinguished the anagogical and the allegorical interpretation from the grammatical. The sober method of Irenæus, who defers to God all in the Scripture that is above human understanding,' is in striking contrast with this allegorizing tendency, which makes every thing out of the Scriptures.

1

"With their high opinion about the inspiration of the sacred writings, and the dignity of a revelation, we should expect, as a matter of course, to

meet with careful interpretation, diligently investigating the exact meaning. But the very opposite was the fact. Inspiration is done away with by the most arbitrary of all modes of interpretation, the allegorical, of which we may consider Philo the master." (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 this 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, on Philo, p. 60. Here it is with the Word, as it was afterward with the Sacraments. As baptismal water was thought to avail more than common water, and the bread used in the Lord's supper to be different from common bread, so the letter of the Bible, filled with the Divine Spirit, became to the uninitiated a hieroglyph, to decipher which a heavenly 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].

* Examples of allegorical and typical interpretation abound in the writings. of the apostolical and earlier Fathers, sec § 29, note 3. [Comp. Davidson, Sacred Hermen. p. 71, ss. Barnabas, l. 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, symbolized 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 it 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.] For a correct estimate of this mode of interpretation, comp. Möhler, Patrologie, i. p. 64: "The system of interpretation adopted by the earlier fathers may not in many respects agree with our views; 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 every where, even without seeking him? In our present state of culture 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 vivid manner." The earlier fathers indulged unconsciously in this mode of interpretation; but Clement of Alex. attempts to establish a theory, asserting that the Mosaic laws have a threefold, or even a fourfold sense, Tεтpaxws δὲ ἡμῖν ἐκληπτέον τοῦ νόμου τὴν βούλησιν. Strom. i. 28 (some read Tρixws instead of TεTрaxws). [Comp. Davidson, 1. c. p. 79.]

4

Origen supposes that Scripture has a threefold sense corresponding to the trichotomistic division of man into body, soul, and spirit (comp. § 54); and this he finds, too (by a petitio principii), in the Scripture itself, in Prov. xxii. 20, 21; and in the Shepherd of Hermes, which he values equally with Scripture. This threefold sense may be divided into: 1. The grammatical [owμatikós]=body. 2. The moral [yvxikóç]=soul; and 3. The mystical [TVEVμATIKÓç]=spirit. The literal sense, however, he asserts can not 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 what is repulsive to morality (e. g., in the history of the patriarchs); or what is unworthy of the dignity of God (the anthropomorphitic narratives in the book of Genesis, and several of the legal injunctions of the Old Testament). Comp. Philo's method, Gfrörer, u. s. Davidson, p. 63. But Origen found stumbling-blocks not only in the Old, but also in the New Testament. Thus he declared that the narrative of the temptation of our Saviour was not simple history, 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 honor 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 the simple (ȧkɛpaíois). 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); see besides the De Princ. lib. iv. § 8-27, where he gives the most complete exhibition of his theory, his exegetical works, and the above-mentioned treatises, with the passages there cited. Both tendencies above spoken of, that of interpreting into, 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 the cause of it was mysticism, based on the pregnant sense of Scripture. "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).

Irenæus also proceeded on the assumption that the Scriptures throughout were pregnant with meaning, 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 dangers of allegorizing, 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 spiritualibus 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 contrectantur a nobis et videntur et sunt nobiscum) multa fugerunt nostram scientiam, et Deo hæc ipsa committimus. Oportet enim eum præ omnibus præcellere......Ei dè éπì T☎v TÕS κτίσεως ἔνια μὲν ἀνάκειται τῷ θεῷ, ἔνια δὲ καὶ εἰς γνῶσιν ἐλήλυθε τὴν ἡμετέραν, τί χαλεπὸν, εἰ καὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ζητουμένων, ὅλων τῶν γραφῶν πνευματικῶν οὐσῶν, ἔνια μὲν ἐπιλύομεν κατὰ χάριν θεοῦ, ἕνια δὲ ἀνακείσεται τῷ θεῷ, καὶ οὐ μόνον αἰῶνι ἐν τῷ νυνὶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλ λοντι; ἵνα ἀεὶ μὲν ὁ Θεὸς διδάσκη, ἄνθρωπος δὲ διὰ παντὸς μανθάνῃ παρὰ Θεοῦ.

§ 34.

TRADITION.

Pelt, über Tradition, in the Theologische Mitarbeiten, Kiel, 1813; K. R. Köstlin, Zur Gesch. des Urchristenthums, in Zeller's Jahrb. 1850. Jacobi, ubi supra. Comp. § 30.

Notwithstanding the high esteem in which Scripture was held, the authority of tradition was not put in the background. On the contrary, in the controversies with heretics, Scripture was thought to be insufficient to combat them, because it maintains its true position, and can be correctly interpreted (i. e., according to the spirit of the church) only in close connection with the tradition of the church.' Different opinions obtained concerning the nature of tradition. The view taken by Irenæus and Tertullian was of a positive, realistic kind; according to them, the truth was dependent upon an external, historical, and geographical connection with the mother churches." The Alexandrian school entertained a more ideal view; they saw in the more free and spiritual exchange of ideas the fresh and everliving source from which we must draw the wholesome water of sound doctrine. It must, however, be acknowledged, that the idea of a secret doctrine, favored by the Alexandrian school, which was said to have been transmitted along with the publicly received truth from the times of Christ and his Apostles, betrayed a Gnostic tendency, which might easily endanger the adaptation of Christianity to all classes of society. On the other hand, the new revelations of the Montanists in like manner broke loose from the basis of the historical (traditional) development. In contrast with these tendencies it was insisted, that tradition is to be measured by Scripture, as well in respect to doctrine as to the usage of the church; this particularly appears in Cyprian.

On the necessity of tradition see Irenæus, i. 10 (p. 49, M.), ii. 35, p. 171, iii. Pref. c. 1-6, c. 21, iv. 20, 26, 32. (Orelli, i. Program. p. 20.) Especially remarkable is the declaration, iii. 4, that the nations had been converted to Christianity, not in the first instance by the Scriptures (sine charta et atramento), but by means of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, and the faithfully preserved tradition. See Tert. Adv. Marc. 6, v. 5, and particularly De Præscriptione Hæreticorum, where he denies to heretics the right of using Scripture in argument of the orthodox.* Comp. c. 13, seq.; and c. 19, he says: Ergo non ad scripturas provocandum est, nec in his constitutendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla, aut incerta victoria est, aut par (var. parum) incertæ. Nam esti non ita evaderet conlatio scripturarum, ut utramque partem parem sisteret, ordo rerum desiderabat, illud prius proponi, quod nunc solum disputandum est: quibus competat fides ipsa: cujus sint scripturæ; a quo et per quos et quando et quibus sit tradita disciplina, qua fiunt Christiani. Ubi enim apparuerit esse veritatem et disciplinæ et fidei christianæ, illic erit veritas scripturarum et expositionum et omnium traditionum Christianarum. Comp. c. 37: Qui estis? quando et unde venistis? quid in meo agitis, non mei? The renouncing of tradition is, according to Tertullian, the source of the mutilation and corruption of Scripture; comp. c. 22 and 38. But even in its integrity Scripture alone is not able to ward off heresies; on the contrary, according to God's providential arrangement, it becomes to heretics a source of new errors; comp. c. 40, 42.-Clement of Alex. expresses himself thus (Stromata, vii. 15, p. 887): As an honest man must not lie, so must we not depart from the rule of faith which is handed down by the church; it is necessary to follow those who already have the truth. As the companions of Ulysses, bewitched by Circe, behaved like beasts, so he who renounces tradition ceases to be a man of God; Strom. 16, p. 890, comp. p. 896.- Origen, De Princ. proœm. i. p. 47: Servetur vero ecclesiastica prædicatio per successionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita et usque ad præsens in ecclesiis permanens; illa sola credenda est veritas, quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione.

2

Iren. iii. 4 (2, p. 178, M.): Quid enim? Et si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, et ab iis de præsenti quæstione sumere quod certum et re liquidum est? Quid autem, si neque Apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias? ete. Tertul. Pærscr. c. 20: Dehine (Apostoli) in orbem profecti eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei nationibus promulgaverunt, et proinde ecclesias apud unamquamque civitatem condiderunt, a quibus, traducem fidei et semina doctrinæ ceteræ exinde ecclesiæ mutuatæ sunt et quotidie mutuantur, ut ecclesiæ fiant, et per hoc et ipsæ apostolicæ deputantur, ut soboles apostolicarum ecclesiarum. Omne genus ad originem suam censeatur necesse est. Itaque tot ac tantæ ecclesiæ: una est illa ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes, etc. Comp. c. 21.

* On the expression Præscriptio, Semler, in the Index Latin. p. 482: Ex usu forensi significant refutationem, qua, qui postulatur, adversarii accusationem disjicit aut in eum retorquet; and Tertull. himself, Præscr. c. 35.