Tracts for the Times

ON THE MYSTICISM ATTRIBUTED TO THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH

[Number 89]

§i- Occasion, Grounds, and Limits of the Present Inquiry

(1.) It is curious, and may not be uninstructive, to observe how from time to time the assailants of Primitive Antiquity have shifted their ground, since the beginning of the seventeenth century. During the struggle of the Reformation, men had felt instinctively, if they did not clearly see, that the Fathers were against them, so far as they had begun to rationalize, whether in ecclesiastical practice, or in theological inquiry. But it was many years before they ventured to avow this feeling distinctively to themselves, much more to maintain and propagate it. It was not until divines of this class had thoroughly wearied themselves in vain endeavours to reconcile the three first centuries with Calvin and Zuinglius, that Daillé published its celebrated treatise Of the Right Use of the Fathers¹: in which under the pretence of impugning their sufficiency as judges between Papist and Protestant, he has dexterously insinuated every topic most likely to impair their general credit; professing all the while extreme respect for their sanctity and their wisdom; although perhaps an attentive reader may perceive his ironical meaning, disclosing itself more and more, as his argument draws to a point. However, by his skill in rhetorical arrangement, and by a certain air of thorough command of his subject, which he has been very successful in assuming, he became at once the standard author for all who took that side of the question: opening (if so homely a simile may be allowed) a kind of cheap shop, to which all who had a fancy for wares of that kind have ever since found it convenient to resort.

But though at the bottom Daillé seems to have had no more respect for Antiquity than those who came after him, he differs from them greatly, not only in his tone and manner, but also in the very ground and substance of his argument: professing, first, to confine himself to those points which are disputed between the Reformed and the Roman Church, (and, therefore, not to except against the Fathers’ evidence on matters debated in their times, e. g. on the Trinitarian controversy) and, secondly, laying, or seeming to lay, the chief stress of his objections on the scantiness of their remains, the amount of corruption and interpolation, the difficulty of ascertaining their real sense and the like. When he does proceed to challenge their authority, he is careful in pointing out their own disclaimers of such authority, before be exemplifies their supposed errors and inconsistencies ; which be does largely, but with great show of unwillingness, in the concluding sections of his work.

But now, if we pass over a hundred years, and come to the attacks made on the Fathers in the beginning of the eighteenth century, we shall find, for the most part, the same quotations appealed to, the same particulars insisted on, but with an air of much more open defiance, and with the direct and avowed purpose of impugning their credit, not in this or that point only, but in all questions of Christian religion. Thus Whitby prefaces his collection of what be calls specimens of patristical exposition of Scripture, with a declaration², that be wishes to exclude appeals to Antiquity, as to the transmission of the Rule of Faith, (meaning the great fundamental doctrines,) no less than in facts of general history, or in the controversies between England and Rome. And Middleton, in his flippant "Free Inquiry," lays the stress of his argument on his being able to prove that the ancient Fathers "were of a character from which nothing could be expected but what a weak or crafty understanding could supply, towards confirming those prejudices with which they happened to be possessed, especially where religion was the subject".³

One would think it impossible to go, beyond this in the way of disparagement; but so it is, that in the course of the century which has elapsed since Whitby and Middleton, a yet more disrespectful, because more summary, way of dealing with the Fathers has become current. Whitby and Middleton did think it necessary to appear to have examined what is really to be found in Antiquity; and the former especially exhibits, throughout his treatise above-mentioned, what on his principles must be called a morbid anxiety, to confirm his own views on several important subjects, (on original sin, for example, and the natural condition of infants,) by the testimony of the very writers, whom he is most busy in disparaging. But in our day, perhaps, the more usual course is, for persons who do not even profess any acquaintance with those writers, beyond vague impressions received from report or quotation, to dispose of their authority in any controverted point, under the notion, understood or expressed, that "the Fathers were Mystics, and need not be regarded at all."

(2.) Now, if it were indeed an object with the Evil Spirit, to decry the relics of Christian Antiquity, and divert men’s attention from them, it is difficult to say what single word he could have chosen, so critically adapted to his purpose in our days, as this same word, Mysticism. In the first place, it is not a hard word, having been customarily applied to such writers as Fenelon and William Law, whom all parties have generally agreed to praise and admire. So far it suits well with the smoothness of phrase, on which the present generation especially prides itself. It seems to got down the Fathers gently, and so is readily acquiesced in by many, who would shrink from the coarse sneers of Middleton or Gibbon.

In the next place, it touches the very string, which most certainly moves contemptuous thought, in those who have imbibed the peculiar spirit of our time. Mysticism, implies a sort of confusion between physical and moral, visible and spiritual agency, most abhorrent to the minds of those, who pique themselves on having thoroughly clear ideas, and on their power of distinctly analysing effects into their proper causes, whether in matter or in mind.

Again, Mysticism conveys the notion of, something essentially and altogether remote from common sense and practical utility: but common sense and practical utility are the very idols of this age.

Further, that which is stigmatized as Mysticism, is almost always something, which at once makes itself discerned by internal evidence. The man of the world, the practical man, the inductive experimental philosopher, commonly persuades himself that lie can "perceive" by instinct, when a train of thought, or mode of speaking is mere religious dreaming, indistinct fanciful theory; and he rejects it accordingly and is saved all trouble of research. Here, again, is no small temptation, in the eyes of a world full of hurry and business, to acquiesce over lightly in any censure of that kind.

Yet, again, if any man be disposed to speak and think more harshly of the early Christian writers, this same term, Mysticism, may serve his purpose also; for it is easy, by a dexterous enunciation, or choice of context, to insinuate through it a charge of Deliberate fraud. It is an instance, therefore, of a. mode of speaking, equally convenient for all shades and degrees of enmity to, or, contempt of, Antiquity. We see what its power is in a kindred instance; bow meanly even respectable persons allow, themselves to think of the highest sort of poetry,-that which invests all things, great and small, with the noblest of all associations,-when once they have come to annex to it the notion of Mysticism. And perhaps its mischievous effects on theology are as great as any attributable to a single word.

(3.) It may, therefore, be of some use to consider, as distinctly as we can, what people really mean when they charge the Fathers with Mysticism; which being done, we may perhaps have a better chance of making out to our satisfaction, whether, and how far as a body, they deserve the charge.

By the term Mysticism, then, as applied to the writers in question, I understand to be denoted, a disposition, first, to regard things as supernatural which are not really such; and secondly, to press and strain what may perhaps be really supernatural in an undue and extravagant way.

(4.) Upon which bare statement, without going any further, a devout mind will probably at once acknowledge, on which side in the present question the peril of erring will be greatest. The question is like that of the general evidences of religion: a person who would go into it with advantage, should be imbued beforehand with a kind of natural piety, which will cause him to remember all along, that perhaps, when be comes to tile end of @is- inquiry, lie will find that God was all the while really there. He will "put off his shoes from off his feet," if he do but think it possible that an, angel may tell him, by and by, "The place where thou standest is holy ground." So it must be, in some measure, with every right-minded person, in the examination of every practice and opinion, against which the charge of Mysticism is brought. Whatever may appear in the case at first sight, likely to move scorn or ridicule, or tempt to mere lightness of thought; it will be an exercise of faith, a trial of a serious heart, to repress for the time any tendency of that kind: the loss and error being infinitely greater, if we are found trifling with a really sacred subject, than if we merely prove to have been a little more serious than was necessary. In this sense, that is to say in regard of the reverent or irreverent temper, in which such inquiries may be approached, superstition is surely a great deal better than irreligion: whatever may be thought of the abstract question, Whether it be the safer extreme to believe too much, or too little?

It may be said, that the Fathers themselves indicate an exception to this rule, by the light and sarcastic way, in which they often allow themselves to treat the pretended mysteries, sometimes of heathens, sometimes of heretics as bad as heathens. But the case is not strictly in point. For I am speaking of pretensions unexamined, and therefore, as yet, more or less doubtful: but the Fathers had, or accounted themselves to have, good grounds for believing that the mysteries and miracles which they held up to scorn were, in part at least, the work of evil spirits, with whom they thus most effectually renounced communion. Before we indulge the like feeling in our treatment of any claim to supernatural powers, we had need have the like assurance of diabolical agency in them: and that to show them any reverence would seem like imparting of God’s honour to the Evil One. Although even in such a case deep fear and humiliation of heart would seem the more appropriate sentiment for ordinary Christians. For is it not a fearful and humbling thought, that mankind, that we ourselves, are, or have been, in danger of mistaking the work of God’s enemy for his own?

Further, it may be well to bear in mind, that the noblest and most refined devotional tendencies have always had to bear the imputation of Mysticism, or some other equivalent word; as if to cultivate them were a mere indulgence of a dreamy, soaring, indistinct fancy. In this use of it, the word Mysticism has done probably as much barm in checking high contemplative devotion, as the kindred term, Asceticism, in discouraging Christian self-discipline.

Thus much for the first impression, which the very application of the term to the Fathers would make on a considerate person, as yet ignorant of their writings. He would expect, almost certainly, to find them imbued with devotional feelings of an unusually high order; and he would be prepared for the possibility, that even those views of theirs, which might seem at first glance overstrained, fantastic, or unnatural, might turn out in the end to be portions of true Christian wisdom.

(5.) What now are the particulars of the Fathers’ imputed Mysticism? i.e. in what respects would they be commonly charged with an undue anxiety to make out supernatural meanings and interferences? The following heads would seem to comprehend the greater part of their supposed delinquencies in this kind:

1. Their interpretations of Scripture are said to be far-fetched and extravagant; extracting figurative, theological allusions out of the most irrelevant or insignificant details of language or history.
2. Correspondent to this is their mode of treating natural objects, and the truths of philosophy and common life; fancying every where indications of that system, on which their own hearts were set.
3. They were mystics in their notions of providential interference, whether in the way of judgement, deliverance, or warning. To which head may be referred whatever they state of the exercise of the gift of prophecy in their times; as also their accounts of reputed miracles, and of the sensible agency of evil spirits, and of their own and others’ warfare with them.
4. Finally, they are blamed for Mysticism, properly so called, in their moral and devotional rules; i. e. for dwelling too much on counsels of perfection, tending (as is affirmed) to contemplation rather than action, to monastic rather than social and practical virtue.

These are the sort of imputations on which the changes have been rung, for the two last centuries, by those who have wished to evade the testimony of the Fathers, without setting them down distinctly as deliberate impostors.

(6.) It may be added, that many of their professed advocates, (Warburton for example,) have in fact given up their cause, as far as concerns every one of these representations. For what, in reality, does his defense of them come to, even when he is led to state their case most favourably; e. g. in the Preface to Julian? Just to this, and no more: that they might be trusted in their relations of things which came within the scope of their own knowledge, provided there was no room for surmising any thing miraculous: and again, that on other subjects, whether as reasoners or as narrators, they, were not weaker, but a little wiser, than Pagan and Jewish writers of the same date.

It is true that Warburton belonged to a school, which has a temptation of its own for slighting the Fathers, over and above differences in particular doctrines; a school, whose leading principle is, that theology, like other sciences, improves by time: or, (to use the words of one of its most plausible advocates) that "Christianity was in its infancy, at most in its childhood, when these men wrote; and therefore it is no wonder that they spake as children, that they understood as children, that they thought as children. This was according to the economy they were then under⁴."

Such writers, when they speak most modestly of themselves, and most respectfully of antiquity, do not however hesitate to make use of the old simile, of a dwarf seeing further than a giant when raised on a giant’s shoulders; imagining it to be as applicable to religion, as it is to physical and human learning; and, when they would most appear to advocate the ancients, cannot of course refrain from stigmatizing them as inadequate judges of Christian truth, infected sometimes with Platonic, sometimes with Rabbinical error: and thus, while with a sort of candour they excuse the men at the expense of the age, they do the Adversary’s work, by detracting from their authority, and withdrawing attention and deference from their writings.

But even those who in their hearts really loved to lean on Antiquity, and would have been uneasy, if they bad not the suffrage of the Fathers with them, have not always taken the course most likely to win them due respect. Whether it were that they feared to commit themselves,—or that they shrunk before popular notions,—or as a mere matter of taste and feeling,-the champions of the Fathers, for many years past, have generally been content to claim credit for them only as witnesses to certain palpable facts of their time: the inevitable consequence of which has been, that even diligent and earnest inquirers have been satisfied with a second-hand knowledge of their writings; and often, when they have come in to fill their proper place in argumentative discussions, they have nevertheless been far from occupying the room which justly belonged to them, in our theological views and impressions. There are, and have been, praiseworthy attempting to raise their credit, by drawing attention to those portions of their literature, which seemed to have most in common with modern ideas, whether in the way of general reasoning with unbelievers, or of refined devotional feeling, or of eloquent morality. But the very circumstance of such selections being made with a view to modern prejudices, shows that they can do no more than palliate the evil. When a reader passes from specimens of that kind to the whole body of any Father's writings, he is apt to feel as if he had been unfairly dealt with, and is inclined rather to be the more intolerant of the many things which be is sure to meet with, alien to his former tastes and habits of thought.

(7.) May it not with reason be suspected,, that the root of the matter lies deeper, and that in order to arrive at it, we must make up our minds thoroughly to consider the whole subject ab initio? It may perhaps turn out that the boldest way of meeting the difficulty is the most rational, and ultimately the most consoling. We must not be startled, though we find ourselves compelled to own, that modern and ancient theology, are to a great extent irreconcileable; that if popular notions are right, the Fathers are indeed "mystical" in a bad sense, and that, in all the several departments above mentioned. Thus, in respect, first, of Scripture interpretation, the received doctrine of this age seems to be, that nothing ought to be figuratively or typically explained, except on the authority of Scripture itself⁵; it being assumed, that we can no otherwise be certified of the divinely intended relation, necessary to make up the nature of a real Type. Now those who hold this rule must necessarily think meanly of the Fathers as expounders of Scripture, since in every paragraph almost we find some allegory, not scriptural according to the required test.

Secondly, in respect of allusions moral or theological, regularly and uniformly deduced from the contemplation of the creatures of God, in the manner, e. g. of Boyle’s Occasional Reflections; it would probably be considered a candid judgment, in our time, which should allow that such might constitute tolerable poetry: - but to consider them as a part of theology, to regard them as having been from the beginning intended by the Creator, and the creation ordered with a view to them;-who is there among us, that would not first be tempted to reject such a theory as overstrained and merely fanciful?

Thirdly, consider the tone of thought, which is accounted safest and meets with most encouragement in our clays, concerning the intimations of God’s mysterious providence, whether national or individual. Is it not a subject, that, as things are, even sincere-minded persons shrink from? They are afraid of trusting themselves with it, though but in thought. What is meant will be perceived in a moment, if people will reflect what their first impressions were, on reading, c. g., the Journal of Archbishop Laud, those portions, of it which detail supposed providential warnings. Or, again, how backward we all find ourselves in Confessing our sense of God’s judgments, public and private, when in our thoughts we can hardly fail to perceive them. I am far from asserting that this backwardness is not both pious and reasonable, taking all circumstances into account: but does it not imply a great change, either in men’s condition or opinions, or in both, since the days of St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian?

Lastly, the difference in moral sentiments is too obvious to be denied. The cheerful, liberal, indulgent side is the popular one, now, in all questions of ethics: severity, strictness, self-denial, are but so far approved, as their immediate good effect is seen and understood. Need it be remarked, that the direct contrary is the case of the Primitive Church?

On the whole, the discrepancies between the two ages, occasioning the imputation of Mysticism to the ancients, are far beyond being accounted for by local, accidental, or temporary circumstances, they must be referred to some difference in first principles: and, unless we are prepared to say positively, with the philosophic theologians above mentioned, that theology is, like other sciences, really advancing, of course, as the world grows older; we cannot but in candour allow it at least possible, before examination, that the ancients may have been in the right, and we in the wrong.

(8.) In order to judge of this fairly, one should begin by stating, with its due limitations, the real judgment of Christian Antiquity on the several matters above enumerated,-an undertaking evidently far beyond the limits of such an essay as the present: one can only endeavour to give some faint specimen of the results, which, it is conceived, more extensive inquiry would establish; premising, however, the following cautions, as necessary to be kept in view throughout the inquiry.

First, that since we are to speak of the Fathers collectively, we must be careful to select those points, in which they exhibit a tolerably general agreement. This limitation disposes at once of many of the most plausible objections to the views of Antiquity, and also of many of the unworthy and inadequate allegations of its timid defenders; as I hope to show hereafter in some important examples.

But to make the rule a practical one, we should well understand, secondly, what is to be accounted general agreement among the Fathers. For it is the third particular in the rule of Vincentius, Quod ab omnibus, which has ever afforded most scope for cavil to the rationalist, and for perplexity to the unwary. But let us only apply to this matter the same rules of common sense, which guide us on analogous subjects in ordinary life. A person not regularly trained in medicine desires to know what are safe rules of diet: is he to believe that there are no such rules at all, because he finds none from which, at some time or other, ingenious innovators have not contrived to dissent? Another wishes to ascertain some point of common law: does be think it necessary for that purpose, that cases in all points exactly like his own shall have come under the cognisance of each former generation of jurists? Or, in matters of navigation, would it be said there were no fixed rules, because but a few out of many seamen have left the results of their experience any where on record? The question about the Fathers is so far like these, that it is strictly a question of practice: men, want to know which is the safest way in regard of their duty towards God; if they require in every point absolute inevitable demonstration, of course they cannot have it in the Fathers: but do they really think they find it in Holy Scripture?

Certainly many of the principles most relied on by Daillé and other such writers, are such that, if we followed them out, we should not stop short of universal scepticism. E. g. Whitby lays it down as an axiom⁶, That if Scripture be a perfect rule of faith, it must be so clear in necessary things as to require no interpreter ; and that it cannot be a rule or measure where it is obscure. Might he not as reasonably have said, that it cannot be a rule to any one who does not thoroughly understand the languages in which it was originally written? Such sentiments are, in fact, inconsistent with the present condition of man: they deal with us as though we might be independent of human testimony, or arrive at mathematical certainty in moral matters. We can only be safe by putting them aside, and resolving to use, on this subject, the same kind of intuitive good sense, which is given us for our guide in all other matters or conduct; which good sense, as even heathen moralists could discern, is the ordinary accompaniment and providential reward of intellectual fairness and purity.

Nor can any measure of general agreement be laid down, in words so precise, as not to leave a great deal to the exercise of this practical wisdom. However, one obvious rule would be, not to demand coincidence in detail, but in general principles; and again, in those generals only, which belong to the professed subject matter, and scope of the writers. For example, there is hardly one of the Fathers, of whose works we have any considerable quantity remaining, but has left on record his interpretation of one part or another of the Old Testament, in sufficient quantity to indicate his rules of exposition. Now, who will deny that it would be a very remarkable fact, should those rules be found, on the whole, the same throughout the whole series of Catholic Fathers;-a fact on which important conclusions may depend? and yet it may so happen, that no one passage in the Bible is quoted by them all; and again, that there are no two of theme who agree in their explanations of all the passages they quote.

Again; it may be, that in the detail of some historical facts, or in some abstract principles not immediately bearing on theology, there may exist a general, not to say an universal, agreement, on which, nevertheless, very little can be built, because on such things they may very well be supposed to have taken for granted what was generally received in their age. Or, if they differ, such difference rather illustrates their concurrence on the great ecclesiastical subjects; for it proves the activity of their minds, and their energy in judging for themselves, where religion permitted.

For example, among the opinions attributed to the Fathers as erroneous, we find⁷ the notion of the soul in its separate state having a kind of body or sensible form, an aërial e ’i d w l o n , or vehicle (as it has sometimes been called). And again, we find cited⁸, as a specimen of the discrepancies of Catholic writers, the opposite conjectures of St. Augustine and St. Jerome on the origination of the soul. Now, these are metaphysical not theological points; they fall not within the province of Christian Antiquity as such; on such points, neither discrepancy nor agreement in error proves any thing against the Fathers, as Divines.

(9.) As then common sense teaches, that in judging collectively of that large and miscellaneous body of literature, which goes under the name of the Fathers, we must select those points, if any, which are common to the, whole mass; and again, that when we speak of agreement among them, we must mean agreement in principle not in detail, and on Christian not on secular subjects

so a little ecclesiastical knowledge will suggest to us another consideration, very needful to be borne in mind, when we are estimating the value of their concurrence in any point within their sphere,-I mean the reverential reserve, which undoubtedly they practised in every part of religion, in proportion to its sacredness. If we would deal fairly with the subject, we must make allowance for this reserve. Knowing for certain that it did exist, we are bound to take it into the account, and often to give those who wrote under its influence credit for a more thorough agreement in high and mysterious doctrines, than their words at first sight would otherwise appear to express. One very remarkable instance, which it is enough just to mention now, it having been of late amply illustrated, is - the doctrine of the Ante-Nicene Fathers concerning the Divinity of the Son of God. Another is the rule of solemnization of the Holy Sacraments. A reader, versed in liturgical language, will often discover in the writings of the Fathers, sometimes in Scripture itself, allusions to the sacraments conveyed in one word or syllable, allusions primâ facie so faint, that we could hardly dare to reason upon them, were we not aware of the duty of reserve which would hinder the writers from more express disclosure of the particulars of those Holy Mysteries.

(10.) It may be well to add one more caution, relating particularly to the interpretation of Scripture. Like all questions of language, especially poetical language, it is to every one of us in some decree a matter of taste: we come to it prepossessed with certain conventional rules, or certain associations of our own, which cling by us in spite of ourselves, and often affect our reasonings more than we are aware. But as the Scripture itself, both in substance and in form, is surely far unlike what mere human wisdom would have anticipated, so it is more than possible, that the true method of interpreting it may conduct us on a very different line, from any which would be pointed out by merely human criticism. It seems reasonable, therefore, and religious, to come to questions of that kind, expecting to meet with many things, which may at first seem strange or fanciful, or otherwise unworthy of Divine wisdom; to make up our minds beforehand, that we will not be too much startled by such things, nor reject them at once, but try them by their proper measures; lest we be found deferring to our own prejudices, rather than to the truth of God:-prejudices, not so much of opinion, as of rhetorical or poetical taste.

Under such impressions, we may safely approach the first bead of Mysticism imputed to the Fathers, viz. their mode of interpreting Holy Scripture.

§ii.-Specimen of ancient Mysticism in interpreting Scripture.

(1.) First, as to the matter of fact ; we need not perhaps hesitate to admit in the most unreserved way,—indeed it might be hard to find any one who has ever denied,—the universal adoption, by the early Christian writers, of the allegorical way of expounding the Old Testament. They do undoubtedly profess to find an intended figurative and Christian meaning, in innumerable places, which are neither express prophecies, nor alluded to as types in the New. Not only in the prophetical writings do they find our Lord and His Gospel every where ; not only do they trace throughout the Levitical services the example and shadow of the future heavenly things; but they deal also in the same way with the records of history, whether Patriarchal or Jewish ; and with the fragments which the Holy Ghost has caused to be preserved out of the moral and devotional poetry of the Hebrews,—the Book of Job, the Psalms, and the Proverbs, and (what is in some respects the most significant and remarkable instance of all) the Song of Solomon from beginning to end.

The general fact is doubtless familiar to all; being constantly produced, on the one hand, by the assailants of the Fathers—(for "whole books," as Middleton contemptuously says⁹, "have been compiled of their foolish reasonings in religion ;")—nor, on the other band, has their exercise of this mode of interpretation been ever disputed, as a fact, by their defenders : whether it has been duly appreciated by the writers of either party, is altogether another question. Nowhere, perhaps, among our English divines, will the subject be found treated more thoughtfully or more worthily, than by Bishop Fell, in his notes on St. Cyprian, and on the Apostolical Fathers. However, in so great a consent of witnesses, one may state the case largely without presumption, and without affecting more than a superficial knowledge of Antiquity.

(2.) Let it then be taken for granted, that a mode of expounding, which would seem to most men fanciful and strained, generally prevails in the Christian writers of the first centuries. The great point will be, to account in some measure for this fact. In order to which it may be expedient, not by way of proof but of illustration, if we take some one remarkable instance, and trace it as we may through the writings of some of the most eminent and earliest Fathers. And, not to give them any undue advantage, it may be well to select one of those subjects, their treatment of which is commonly considered most extravagant ; a subject, which has attracted towards them in no common degree the contemptuous wonder of modern critics and philosophers : I mean, their discovering tokens of our Lord’s Passion, and more especially the Sign of the Cross, in innumerable places of the Old Testament, which neither are so expounded in the New, nor to common eyes betray of themselves any such allusion.

(3.) To begin with the Epistle attributed to St. Barnabas ; it is well known how unreservedly it adopts the allegorical mode of interpretation. Supposing it not to be written by the Apostle,—a supposition which involves no charge of forgery, since it no where professes to be his; and in which it, may not be wrong to acquiesce, rather, however, for want of ecclesiastical testimony to its genuineness, than for any thing unworthy of such an origin to be discovered in the epistle itself,—it is undoubtedly by the manner in which St. Clement of Alexandria quotes it, a monument of the age next after the Apostles, and almost as undoubtedly, judging by internal evidence, it was meant as what in our days would be called popular hortatory tract, intended to reconcile the Christians of the circumcision to the utter rejection of the Jewish people. And by one expression in it¹⁰, we may perhaps reasonably assign its date, to the year 136 or thereabouts; when Adrian, having overthrown the rebel Jews under Bar Cochab, was most active in building Ælia on the site of Jerusalem, and a Gentile Christian Church was beginning to flourish there. To this, as it may seem, the author of the Epistle applies the prophecy of Isaiah, (xlix. 17.) according to the reading of the LXX : ‘"Thou shalt be quickly builded by those who were thy destroyers:" this,’ says he, ‘is now in course of accomplishment. For their rising in war led to the subversion of their city by their enemies ; but now the very servants of the same enemies are building it up again.’

This date deserves notice, because it suggests a sufficient reason for the freedom with which the author, in a popular tract, exhibits the method of symbolical exposition, which was generally rather withdrawn from ordinary eyes. The calamity, perhaps, was great and astounding enough to justify disclosures otherwise irregular, for the, consolation and establishment of the faithful. However, certain it is that this epistle, which is addressed to Christian men and women without distinction, might be not unfitly selected for a specimen of the mystical way, as applied to the old Testament.

(4.) As concerning the Passion and Cross of our Lord in particular, (to say nothing of the sacrifice of Isaac, the typical nature whereof, as it seems, no age of Christians has ever denied, notwithstanding the silence of Scripture,) St. Barnabas has the following passage¹¹ : ‘Israel being attacked by the aliens, with a view amongst other things, of signifying to the people, that their transgressions were the cause of their being given over to death, the Spirit speaks inwardly to Moses, to form a type of the Cross, and of Him who was to suffer : that if men refuse to trust in Him, they will have no peace for ever. Moses therefore places one shield on another in the middle of the mound and being thus posted high above all, he stretches out his hands, and so Israel began again to be victorious : afterwards, when on the contrary he let down his hands, again they were slaughtered. Wherefore? That men might know there is no chance of salvation, except they put their trust in Him. And in another prophet he says, "All the day long I have stretched forth my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people."’ What is very observable, the Author next goes, on to mention, with just the same confidence, and no more the, typical meaning of the Brasen Serpent : observing, with his usual piety, "Thou hast in the glory of Jesus; that in Him, and to Him are all things.

Had it seemed good to God’s providence, that the discourse of our Lord to Nicodemus should have been lost, as so many other of His divine words were, would not the Christian interpretation of this latter miracle have seemed to many forced, and fanciful, just as that of that of the former may perhaps seem now? And ought not this single consideration to stop the mouths of all, who have any reverence in their hearts, when they find themselves tempted to join in hasty censure or scorn of such, interpretations? For aught they know, they may be scorning or censuring the very lessons of our Divine Master Himself.

(12.) I proceed to another, historical type, which to many may appear more extravagant. The Author is reasoning on the history of Abraham, to prove the insufficiency of Jewish circumcision out of the Old Testament itself. So far, as, will occur to every one, he is treading in the steps of St. Paul. After producing many passages to that purpose, he closes the subject with the following¹² : ‘Consider whether there be not abundant instruction on this whole matter, in the account given us that Abraham, who first gave men circumcision, did thereby, perform a spiritual and typical action, looking forward to the Son: and that, upon receiving certain doctrines conveyed in three (mystical) letters. For He saith, Abraham circumcised of his house, men to the number of three hundred and eighteen. What then is the mysterious truth thus vouchsafed to him? Observe the eighteen first, then the three hundred. Of the two letters, which stand for 18, 10 is represented by "I", 8 by "H". Thou hast here the word Jesus :’ i. e., the two first letters, which formed as it were a cypher of the sacred Name, familiar to the eyes and thoughts of the Christians of that generation : as was also the third of the numeral letters in question, which the writer next goes on to explain : ‘Because the Cross, which is signified to the eye by the letter Tau, was intended to bring the grace, [to which he looked forward ;] he adds the three hundred also,’ the letter Tau representing that number. ‘By the two first letters then the name Jesus is indicated, and by the third the cross.’

On this commentary, which as well as the former has been adopted by multitudes of the early interpreters¹³, several remarks occur, which it may be well to put down, as they will each of them apply to a whole class of examples, and to difficulties which are certain to arise in many of our minds, though we were never so resolutely on our guard against prejudices of mere taste and association.

(13.) First, it may be observed that the several circumstances, which may appear at first sight startling in this exposition, though not perhaps united in any one Scriptural example, have yet, each severally, undoubted sanction of Scripture. Thus, the use of the numeral letters as a cypher to convey some mysterious truth has a well-known precedent in the Book of Revelation. Again the passage in St. Barnabas is an instance of the combination of texts apparently remote, but really bearing on the same subject : for the number, three hundred and eighteen, is not mentioned in the account of the circumcision of Abraham’s family, but is borrowed from the previous enumeration occasioned by, the war with Chedorlaomer¹⁴. Now, this sort of combination of remote texts appears to be warranted, in one instance at least, by our blessed Lord Himself. ‘Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer?’" So far is taken from Isaiah, but the conclusion of the sentence, ‘Ye have made it a den of thieves,’ was addressed by Jeremiah to a subsequent generation¹⁵.

Now whether the fact were really so or not, (if it were, it was surely by special providence,) that Abraham’s household at the time of circumcision was exactly the same number as before : still the argument of St. Barnabas will stand. As thus : circumcision had from the beginning a reference to our Saviour, as in other respects, so in this ; that the mystical number, which is the cypher of Jesus crucified, was the number of the first circumcised household, in the strength of which Abraham prevailed against the powers of the world. So St. Clement of Alexandria¹⁶, as cited by Fell¹⁷ : "It is commonly supposed that we have here an indication of a correspondency between the case of Abraham’s household and the method of salvation : of the victory obtained by those who have betaken themselves to the Holy Sign and Name, over those who led them captive, and the innumerable tribes of unbelievers who follow in their train."

(14.) Nor is warrant of Scripture wanting for that which must otherwise seem most inadmissible in this interpretation; the appeal, namely, to the Greek Bible, as having, something like divine authority. And this again is a topic which meets us throughout the remains both the Greek and Latin Fathers. The Septuagint, and Latin versions clearly made from it are everywhere unscrupulously quoted as the words of inspiration ; with the exception, perhaps, of St. Jerome. Some of the Fathers’ opponents would insinuate, that this rests on the tradition reported by Aristeas, of a miraculous consent among the original translators, even in the minutest point. But this is refuted by the language, of St. Augustine, who speaks doubtfully of that tradition, but without any doubt of this particular version being, so overruled by a prophetic Spirit¹⁸ that even in, those places where it swerved from the Hebrew Verity, there was a special providential design in such variation¹⁹.

Now, can it be denied, that this idea receives countenance from the mode in which the Old Testament is quoted in the New? In the Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, St. Paul argues at large the necessity of the Mediator’s death, from the use of the word d i a q ¢ h k h , "Testament," in the LXX to represent that Hebrew word which is commonly translated Covenant. "For this cause," says he, "it is a New Testament, of which Christ is said to be Mediator, that by means of death the called might receive the promise ; for where a Testament is pleaded, the death of the testator must necessarily be alleged. For a Testament is valid in the case of the dead, since it never avails, as long as the testator is alive²⁰." And he goes on to show how the word was applicable to the Mosaic covenant also, i. e. by the typical death of the sacrifices. Who does not see that this reasoning is grounded entirely in the Greek version? since the Hebrew (NA) does not in any way answer to the notion of a last will. St. Paul’s reasoning implies, therefore, thus much at least concerning the LXX ; that in their rendering of this very critical word, they were providentially directed to the use of a term, which should convey an allusion to a great Christian mystery. And so far the Apostle warrants the judgment of St. Augustine²¹ : "Whoever besides shall truly translate any portion of the Old Testament from Hebrew into another language:" (St. Jerome, of course, was in his mind :) "his version will be found either to agree with that of the LXX or if it appears not to agree, in that very disagreement we must believe that there exists some deep prophetic meaning." Nay, even St. Jerome, when he is impugning their authority, seems to own that there might exist in them a modified and inferior kind of inspiration. "I do²² not condemn, I do not blame the LXX, but I confidently prefer the Apostles to them all. Christ speaks to me by the lips of those, concerning whom I read²³, that they stand even before Prophets in the order of spiritual gifts; in which order the interpretation of tongues occupies nearly the last place.

We have seen that in one place at least this view is justified by the Scripture : and one place is sufficient for our present purpose, which is not to prove the LXX infallible, but to bespeak a certain reverence for their yet unexamined decisions, and for the constant appeals of the early, writers to them. For who can assure himself, that in any, variation, from the Hebrew, which seems to him most unaccountable, they were not guided by the same influence, which caused them to write Testament instead of Covenant, in the places referred to by St. Paul?

(15.) To return to the passage in Genesis : in whatever measure the fact is made out, that the received Greek version of the Scriptures was under a peculiar providence, in the same degree it is rendered not improbable that even in such an apparently casual thing, as the number of Abraham’s servants, there was an eye to the benefit and consolation which the Church should long after receive, on recognising, as it were, her Saviour’s cypher, in the account of the one holy family triumphantly warring against the powers of the world. It, were a most inadequate judgment, to estimate that consolation by any of the feelings and opinions current in our time. We must go back to the days when Christians were used to carry about with them everywhere the Sign of the Cross; when, to use the forcible words of Tertullian²⁴ :

"At every step and every movement, going out and coming in, dressing and putting on their sandals, at the bath, at the board, when lamps were lighted, when they lay down to rest, when they seated themselves for their daily task, whatever call of ordinary life engaged them, the Holy Sign, by incessant use, was, as it were worn into their foreheads."

With such associations, it must have been a real joy to them, as often as they discovered the Cross in the Old Testament, where they had not marked it before: it was to them an outward and visible sign of their communion with Saints and Patriarchs of old, and of God’s everlasting providence over both. It was moreover a permanent warning, intelligible to all, against the impiety, not unusual in those days of ascribing the two Testaments to different deities. People little know what they do, when they deal contemptuously with any thing, be it in Scripture or in common life, under the notion that it is too slight, too insignificant for the ordering of the Most High.

(16.) All which considered, there appears no fanaticism, but a great deal of sober piety and charity, in the expressions of St. Barnabas on dismissing this topic. "He knows" the reality of this mystery "from whom we" Christians or Christian teachers, "derive the ingrafted gift of that teaching, which is properly His. Never have I ever delivered to anyone a more genuine exposition, but I am well-assured that you are meet to receive it."

If the writer had been merely indulging his own fancy, this profession of reserve would be mere affectation. But surely, to esteem it such is too hard a supposition, considering the perfect simplicity and moral purity of the precepts at the end of the Epistle. His very tone and manner, then, creates an additional presumption, that the exposition that he had been giving was not private but ecclesiastical, and the sort of scruple, with which he imparts it, an instance of that discipline of reserve, which the Church recommended in the conveyance of all her mysteries.

(17.) Neither need anyone be staggered at the idea, which his manner of speaking seems to imply, that Abraham himself was not ignorant of this mystery; a notion upon which Dr. Whitby has built what he conceives to be a triumphant refutation of the allegory. "The Hebrew letter Tau²⁵," he observes, "neither bears the form of the Cross²⁶, nor is the symbol of the number three hundred ; and as to the Greek letters, they were not invented till long after Abraham’s time." Well ; but does St. Barnabas affirm that Abraham himself knew the meaning of the Greek cypher? If he did, he might suppose it made known by prophetic inspiration; according to the received exposition of the text in St. John, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day." But what are St. Barnabas’ own words? "He circumcised his family, l a b w n t r i v n g r a m m ¢ a t w n d óg m a t a , after he had received the doctrines of the three letters." I. e. certain mysterious truths, of which the three symbols were to be a symbol. It is not said that he received them by the three letters.

Again, after stating the number of the household, he asks, t íz o u n h d o q e i s a t o u t w g n w s i z ; which may be perhaps best construed, "What is the evangelical meaning of the signs given to him?" taking g n w s i z objectively, for the truth sealed up, not subjectively, for the impression on Abraham’s mind. It is not therefore necessary to understand St. Barnabas as asserting that the holy Patriarch himself had this secret revealed to him. For any thing he affirms, it might be a g n w s i z , the outward cypher of which only was given to Abraham, the key reserved for the times of our Lord and His Gospel.

And after all, a mistake in that particular could not fairly invalidate the whole interpretation. There is a school of theologians, which maintains that Abel must have known the full doctrine of the Atonement. Those who hesitate in allowing this, do not therefore doubt the typical and mystical import of Abel’s history. So in this case, we might believe St. Barnabas, stating what was known in his time to be the signification of the three letters, while we demurred to his supposition, that it was known also to Abraham.

(18.) There is yet one more instance, in this ancient epistle, of allegorical interpretation with reference to the Cross of our Lord : an instance which like the former may stand at the head of a class, and being well-considered, may throw much light on another wide province of the so-called mysticism of the Church. "Let us see," says the writer²⁷, "whether the Lord has seen good to give men prophetical indications of the Water and the Cross." Then, after other texts, he alleges the first Psalm, "He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of waters, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season ; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so, but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away; therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous : but the way of the ungodly shall perish." Then, "Observe," says be, "how, distinctly the prophet has pointed out the tree and the water in combination. For what he says, comes to this : ‘Blessed are they who, setting their hope in the cross, have descended into the water: for I will render their reward in its time,’ i. e. hereafter. But for the present, the Psalmist adds, ‘his leaf shall not wither,’ i. e. every word which shall go out of your mouth in faith and love, shall be to the conversion and hope of many." The allusion to the Cross is here brief and obscure, turning as it does upon the single word t ò x u l o n . But the moral of the passage is surely most noble and beautiful. "The Cross, applied by Holy Baptism, gaining the victory over the powers of the world, is not only the pledge and mean, but also the emblem, of the faithful man’s triumph over his spiritual enemies. It is the pattern, as its Lord is the giver, of all victory. And therefore, blessed is the man who walks strictly according to all the rules of a holy life for be is like the Cross Of Christ success is sure, his lot, to bear fruit eternally without stint or measure."

Every one must admire the thought, but the question now is, how it is derived from the Psalm. The account of which, and of, many like texts, seems to be as follows : The old Christian writers, either by tradition, or by a feeling so general that it seemed almost like a natural instinct, believed that the phrase t ò x u l o n , wherever introduced in the Old Testament, was intended to lead their thoughts to the cross ; of which in their ordinary speech, t ò x u l o n was perhaps the most frequently appellative. Accordingly, not only such obvious analogies as Isaac bearing the wood of his sacrifice, the Brasen Serpent, or such a place as that in Isaiah, "The government," i.e. the sign of power, the victorious Cross, "shall be upon his shoulder ;"—but every rod also, or staff or sceptre, mentioned by either of the sacred writers, as it was a token of guidance, support, or dominion, was, in the Fathers’ judgment, a designed emblem of the Cross.

(19.) The best way, perhaps, of exemplifying this, will be to transcribe from Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Tryphon, which may be considered as a popular view of the primâ facie evidence for Christianity in the Old Testament, the remarkable passage²⁸ in which he undertakes to prove, that "since the time of our Lord’s crucifixion, there hath been inseparably associated with Him that which is an emblem, on the one hand, of the tree of life, the plantation of which in Paradise had been matter of early revelation ; on the other hand, it is also an emblem of the course appointed by the Almighty for the righteous." This passage, then, professedly gives the view, which the Christians of Justin’s time took of large portions of the ancient Scriptures: and it is noticeable also on another account, that it has attracted, the especial scorn of rationalist writers : the language, for example, of Middleton concerning it, is marked (I had almost said) by brutal irreverence²⁹. However, thus Justin proceeds :

"Moses with a rod was sent to redeem the people ; and bearing this in his hand, in the place of sovereignty over them, he divided the Red Sea. It was by this that the rock gave forth water, gushing out in his sight. It was a tree which he cast into the waters of Marah, which being bitter were so made sweet. It was by means of rods cast into the water, that Jacob caused the sheep of his mother’s brother so to conceive, that the young might fall to his share. With his rod, or staff, he, the same Jacob, passed over the water [of Jordan] as he himself boasts. He declared that a ladder had been seen by him, and that it was God Himself who was stationed on the top thereof, the Scripture hath expressly affirmed." This example is not irrelevant, since a ladder is part (so to speak) of the furniture of the Cross. Then having digressed on some other emblems occurring in the vision at Bethel, Justin goes on : "It was the rod of Aaron, which by its budding declared him the High Priest. That as a rod from the root of Jesse, Christ should be born, Isaiah foretold ; and David saith that the righteous man is as the tree planted by the river of waters, which shall bring forth fruit in its season, and his leaf shall not wither :" where we have Justin’s sanction for the interpretation which St. Barnabas bad given before him. "Again, he saith, ‘The righteous shall flourish like a palm.’ From a tree God appeared to Abraham, as it is written, at the oak of Mamre. Seventy willows and twelve fountains the people found, having passed over Jordan. By a rod and a staff David affirms that he received comfort from his God. It was wood which Elisha cast into the river Jordan, and so brought up the iron of the axe, wherewith the sons of the prophets had gone forth, to cut timber for building that mansion, wherein it was their purpose to recite and study, the law and the commandments of God. Even as when we were plunged deep in the most grievous sins, which had been our practice, by His Crucifixion on the tree, and by the water of His Purification, our Christ redeemed us, and caused us to become an house of prayer and adoration [to Himself]. Also, it was a rod which manifested Judah to be the father of those [twins] who were so born of Thamar, as to exhibit a great mystery."

(20.) From this enumeration, which contains in brief the substance of a great body of commentaries, the chain of ideas is at once apparent, which led to the mystical exposition of the first Psalm. As in the former instances, the uplifted arm of Moses, and the cypher inclosed in the number of Abraham’s household, it was the form of the Cross which conveyed the divine intimation : so here the material of the Cross, is found imbued with the like emblematical virtues.

Again, as St. Barnabas, had produced this Psalm as shadowing out a mystic combination of the Cross, and the Water, and therefore representing the condition of Christian people; so in almost all the anecdotes, parables, and allusions collected by Justin, the like combination is observable. Thus, to take the history of Moses, the virtue of his rod was shown at the Red Sea, and in bringing water out of the rock; the water of Marah was sweetened by the tree, which he cast in : the trees and fountains of Elim seen together, were the earnest of hope to the Israelites at their entrance on the wilderness. Elisha’s causing iron to swim was a token, as we have seen, of our deliverance, "by the Crucifixion on the tree, and the water of purification."

It will be at once seen what a strong light is thrown, by such a series of examples, on the doctrine of the Sacraments, as held by that generation. The Cross and the Water, it is taken for granted, go together to save a man.

(21.) But in order to appreciate rightly the Fathers’ reasoning in such places, we ought of course to recollect, that its force lies in the accumulation of instances. It is not necessary that: each anecdote, taken by itself, should be a complete type of the evangelical truth, at which the sum of the whole points : e. g. though a person questioned the distinct allusion to any Christian mystery, in the account, taken singly, of Jacob’s using rods to influence the breed of Laban’s cattle, still it must come in as one among many examples, to show how constantly the Almighty employed that material, which was to be the instrument of redemption, as a conveyance of temporal blessings to His chosen people.

Nor must we omit the scriptural sanction, which may seem to be vouchsafed to this whole class of symbols, by the mention in the New Testament of the ark of Noah, on which Justin himself comments elsewhere in the following way³⁰. "In Isaiah it is said, by the Almighty to Jerusalem, I saved thee in the deluge of Noah," (He seems to be quoting, not in words but in sense in that. portion of the 54th chapter, "As I have sworn that the waters of Noah shall no more overflow the earth, so have I sworn to be wroth, with thee no more.") Justin proceeds :

"Now, this is the declaration of God, that the mystery of those who were saved by Christ was exhibited at the deluge. For the righteous Noah, with the rest at the deluge, being eight in number had a token of that eighth day, on which our Lord Christ showed Himself risen from the dead : the eighth day numerically, but virtually the first, from the beginning. For Christ, as He was the firstborn of every creature, so He became anew the beginning of a fresh race of men ; viz. that which was regenerated by Him, through Water and Faith ; and also, we may add, by wood, since wood expresses the mystery of the Cross. Even as Noah also was preserved by wood, floating upon the waters with those who belonged to him. When therefore the prophet says, ‘I saved thee in Noah,’ he is speaking to that people, who, like Noah, are faithful to God, and have the same tokens from Him that Noah had."

Thus far St. Justin the Martyr, shewing how, in the history of the ark, there was a designed allusion to the Cross ; and by parity of reasoning justifying the like exposition, wherever it has seemed good to Almighty God to use the material of the Cross, namely wood, ‘in the machinery, so to call it, of His miraculous providence, over those who, in their several ages, were to prepare, the way of His Christ.

(22.) For this may be observed of all the instances, enumerated above from Jewish or Patriarchal history, (and I remark it on account of those especially, who may be inclined to treat the subject lightly) that, one and all, they are discernible links in the Providential chain above mentioned, they all relate to critical moments, in the history of the chosen seed. Thus the supernatural increase of Jacob’s flocks by means of the rods, was the first great step towards the increase of the chosen family into a nation and again, Judah’s staff, the producing of which as his token, stayed the sentence of death against Tamar, was thereby instrumental in preserving the life of her infant, in whom it was God’s purpose to continue the chosen seed.

Perceiving as we do in these cases, something of God’s design in interfering, it surely becomes us to treat those traditions with reverence, which teach that in the manner of interfering He had respect continually to the end of the whole dispensation, i. e. to the Cross of His Son. And if we find other instances alleged, whose place in the divine œconomy we are as yet unable to make out let us, not rashly treat them as trifling or fanciful. If we do not see I their force at first, if they appear to us quaint and overstrained, it is surely possible that this our ignorance may be our own fault, or our own trial; it is no absolute proof that the old interpreters are wrong.

(23.) In quitting for the present this subject, of the types of the Cross in the Old Testament, I would just remark further, that it furnishes a clear and instructive example of the manner in which the Fathers passed from one branch of mysticism into another from allegorizing the word of God, to spiritualizing His works. We have seen how they found, or thought they found a designed remembrancer and token of the Cross, wherever either its material or its form occurred in the Old Testament : and full as their minds evidently were of the Scriptures, it was but one step farther, to carry the same association with them, which way soever, they turned, in common life, or among natural objects. For example, so ordinary a sight as that of a flourishing tree by a river side could hardly fail to excite in a devout mind, thoroughly familiar with the Psalms, the remembrance of the description above quoted, with which that divine book, opens ; which description again, as we have seen, was in a primitive Christian’s mind inseparable from thoughts of the Cross and of the Font.

Here then, among God’s visible ordinary works, we obtain a standing type or symbol, and,—bearing as it does the mark of selection by the Holy Ghost, may we not venture to call it a pledge,—of His great invisible work in Holy Baptism ; the grace of which, we are thus taught, diffusing a kind of insensible virtue through the whole of our renewed nature, causes a man to grow in the likeness of Christ, to partake more and more of His Cross, and so to have surer and surer hope, that "look, whatsoever he doeth, it shall prosper" for ever.

By this and other like instances, a window being once opened for the lamps lighted within the Church to stream here and there upon the external world, it was rendered easy for a devout and contemplative mind to invent and pursue like trains of thought, in other instances, less expressly warranted in Scripture.

(24.) To take an instance from the subject which has now employed us : the early Christian writers repeatedly point out, in nature and in common life, what they regard as designed providential limitations of the doctrine of redemption, or some part of it, by association either with the form or with the material of the Cross. This they do, not only in flights of devotional poetry, or in what might be considered the indulgence of a meditative imagination, but in serious argument even with unbelievers. So in Justin’s well-known appeal, where he is asserting the dignity of the Cross³¹ he says :

"Providentially, it was so ordered, that in no instance, in the legend of any of those who were called sons of Jupiter, did the Evil Spirits enact, the death of the Cross. For it was not understood by them, all the prophecies of it being symbolically expressed. Now the Cross, as one of the Prophets (Habakkuk) foretold, is the most potent symbol of His power and sovereignty ; as appears even from things daily before our eyes.

"For consider all the affairs of the world : is there any, in the ordering and due combination whereof, this form does not occur? There is no crossing the sea, except this triumphant sign, which, in that instance, is formed by what they call the yard-arm, remain entire in the vessel: neither without it is there any plowing the land : either those who dig in the ground, nor those who work in handicrafts, can perform their task, but by tools having this form : nay and the human figure differs from animals without reason in nothing so much as in being erect, and in admitting extension of the hands each way :"

(which association, we may remark by the way, Holy Scripture itself might suggest, by the posture of Moses ensuring the defeat of Amalek).

But to proceed with Justin :

"The human countenance, bears this also as a mark of distinction from brutes, that from the forehead the line of the nose is drawn out with a sort of prominence ; so that where the breath of life is drawn, there the lines exhibit no other figure than that of the Cross: which the Prophet also hath thus expressed³² : ‘The very breathing of our nostrils, is Christ the Lord.’ Moreover your ensigns also, [he is speaking to the Cæsars] express majesty by this form, wherewith you every where solemnize your processions ; in them exhibiting the signs of your sovereignty and power. It is so, though it be unconsciously done on your part. When your emperors die, their images in this form are dedicated by you; and in writing thereon, you style them gods."

He concludes:

"Thus, having urged you to the best of our power, both by reasoning, and by this appeal to a visible form, which is continually meeting your eyes, we consider ourselves to have done our part, and not to be responsible, should you remain unbelievers."

(25.) One would have supposed, that at least the piety and good meaning of such trains of thought might remain unquestioned, by all believers in the Cross Of Christ, whatever judgment might be formed on their logical accuracy. Yet, so it is, that on passages of this kind a charge has been grounded against the Fathers of directing the "faith of their readers to the efficacy of the figure of the Cross, rather than to the Atonement made thereon." A charge, which might perhaps be tenable, could it be proven that the general views and conduct of the same Fathers were such as to contradict their truly believing the Atonement. Just as, if there were any persons, either in ancient or in modern times, who observed no rules of self-denial, we might conclude at once that any trust they had, or taught others to have, in "Christ crucified," was in fact a trust in a certain form of words not in the virtue itself of that blessed sacrifice. What was the Cross, as employed by the Fathers but a "Verbum visibile,’ recalling to the minds of the baptized the very truth, which they are thus accused of slighting ; and to the heathen themselves conveying so much as this, that the Gospel was essentially a doctrine of the Cross, a doctrine of suffering in adherence to a crucified Redeemer? As an expressive symbol, therefore, or word, the Sign of the Cross was liable to the same abuse with words in general : the self-deceit of man might enable him sometimes to acquiesce in the sign without the thing signified ; and such a caution might be occasionally needed as Wesley is reported to have received from William Law : "Remember that a man may deceive himself as easily by the phrase, ‘justification by faith,’ as by any other combination of syllables."

But supposing no such practical proof against them, may we not say, that the Fathers’ veneration for the Cross is primâ facie as much a proof of their receiving the doctrine of Christ crucified, as any form of words in which they could possibly have expressed themselves? And there was this plain and material reason, for their preferring the visible symbol to any mode of speech, in treatises for general reading; that they did not thereby convey more knowledge, than the rule of the Church allowed, to those who were without, while to every baptized believer they conveyed intimations, deep and solemn in proportion to the depth of his faith.

(26.) But not only with the figure of the Cross, but with its material also, the piety of those times associated recollections ; transferring, by an easy process, the mystical allusion, which the New Testament expressly sanctioned in the case of the ark ; not only, as before mentioned, to other scriptural facts, such as that of Elisha causing the iron to swim, but also to occasions of common life ; such, for example, as that mentioned by St. Cyprian, where he comforts certain imprisoned confessors, with thoughts, which to the world may seem merely enthusiastic and fanciful ; but let not its rashly apply such words to the reflections of holy men, suffering for the truth’s sake, on the circumstances of their trial ; circumstances which others might term casual, but which they feel to be providential. Thus, I say, St. Cyprian writes, to Nemesianus and other confessors, condemned to the mines³³.

The circumstance of your having been first beaten with staves, and by severe pain of that kind begun to solemnize the first glorious stage of your confession, has nothing in it that we need abhor, or earnestly deprecate. For those limbs of yours, christened as they were, and having all their hope in the Wood of the Cross, shrank not for terror from the wood of the persecutors’ staves. The sacrament and token of his salvation was recognised by the servant of Christ. Redeemed before by wood to eternal life, by wood in another form he now finds himself borne onwards to his crown.

This passage may serve as a specimen of the manner, in which those first Christian moralists improved things, seemingly trivial, to spiritual associations. Those who merely make light of such allusions, know little of the real comfort they are calculated to give, to minds over depressed, perhaps, by sickness or privation. And may we not also say, they know but little, I fear we all know far less than we ought, of that serious and thankful frame of mind, which fears to accept such consolations, without owning a special Providence in them, and regarding them as real tokens of the greater blessing, with which they are associated?

So far we have traced the chief mystical expositions, relating to the Passion of our Lord, in the epistle of St. Barnabas ; and we seem to perceive that they are but so many specimens (so to call them) of as many groups of allusions, constantly occurring in the remains of the early Church.

(27.) There is yet one other aspect, in which the Wood or Tree of the Cross was contemplated by the church of the first ages, viz. as a bearing a designed reference to the fatal wood, or tree of knowledge in Paradise. This is put plainly and forcibly by St. Irenæus, (v. 17,) in a passage, which it may be well to quote at length, as containing perhaps the beat illustration that can be given of this whole subject. He is demonstrating the harmony of the Old and New Testaments as different parts of the one great scheme of salvation. And having first pointed to the light thrown by the Incarnation of the Word on the statement, that man was created after God’s image, he proceeds to argue on the Passion in the following way :

"Not only thus did the Lord manifest both the Father and Himself, but also by His very Passion. For doing away with that disobedience of mankind, which from the beginning had taken place through the wood, or tree of knowledge, He became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. The rebellion, I say, which the one tree had occasioned, He heals by that submission, which was wrought in the other. Whereas, had He been announcing another Father, He could not, by this sameness of subject, have indicated His coming to do away with the disobedience which had been committed against, our Creator. But inasmuch as the very same things, which occasioned our refusal to hear and obey God’s word, were the instruments whereby He introduced obedience and entire conformity to His word, He openly shows himself thereby to be that God, whom in the first Adam we offended, not performing His commandment; but in the second Adam we are reconciled to the same, having become obedient unto death. For to no other were we debtors, but to Him, whose commandment also we transgressed from the beginning."

And presently after :

"He hath blotted out the handwriting of our debt, and fixed it to His cross, that as by the tree we were made debtors to God, so by the tree we might receive remission of our debt. This hath been shown in symbol through many, but mare especially through the prophet Elisha."

Then after relating the miracle as above quoted by Justin Martyr, Irenæus proceeds :

"Thus by action the prophet showed, that the solid [which word seems to mean, "enduring, irresistible"] Word of God, which we through negligence had lost and could not find, we shall recover through the dispensation of the Tree or Wood. For that the axe is in some way a figure of the Word of God, St. John the Baptist shows, speaking of Him : ‘Now also is the axe laid to the root of the trees.’ And Jeremiah in like manner says, ‘The Word of the Lord is an axe cleaving a rock³⁴.’ Him, then, before hidden from us, the dispensation of the Tree or Wood hath now manifested. For since by the tree we lost Him, by the tree again He hath become evident unto all ; shewing in Himself the length, and height, and depth, and breadth; and as one of our elders said, by the divine extension of His Hands, gathering the two peoples unto one God. For the Hands are two, because there are also two peoples, scattered to the ends of the earth ; but the Head in the midst is one, because there is one God, who is over all, and through all, and in us all."

(28.) In the other Apostolic Fathers, I do not know that more than one instance occurs of the mystical mode of interpretation ; that nothing is to be concluded from this omission, inasmuch as we seldom or never find either Hermas, Ignatius, or Polycarp, quoting the Old Testament at all. St. Hermas indeed hardly quotes the New, perhaps because the parabolical air of his treatise was better preserved by avoiding such definite allusions ; or because (which seems not improbable) the sacred Books, many of them, had not yet come into his hands. And of the other two venerable Saints, it may be observed in general, that in no part of their writings had they occasion to enter into debate, either with Jews, or with impugners of the Old Testament ; which two controversies generally called forth the mystical principle of interpretation in the subsequent age.

But in the epistle of St. Clement there is a well-known passage, which proves that by him, at least, that mode of exposition was neither unknown nor disapproved. Having related the history of the harlot Rahab, as an argument of God’s blessing on faith as shown by hospitality, he proceeds³⁵ : "They went on to give her a sign, viz. that she should hang a scarlet thread from her house ; foretokening this, that by the blood of the Lord shall be redemption to all who believe and hope in God. Behold, my beloved : not only faith, but prophecy was in this woman." As if he had said, "It was not a simple case of an individual sinner of the Gentiles preserved by faith ; but God so highly favoured her, as to make her person and history a prophecy by action, of the salvation, which should be by the Cross."

Now this single instance, well considered, appears to bring the question of the mystical interpretation, as it were, to a point. Here is a writer (one is more than half afraid to speak in such a tone of one who came so very near the Apostles, but, if we must so speak of him, here is a writer) of the very highest human claims ; the chosen, ordained friend of St. Paul and St. Peter ; a person of the greatest practical good sense, as every part of his epistle shows ; full of deep piety, and reverence for the holy Scriptures of God ; of a flowing style, and abundant in resources both of imagery and of language, so that he was not under the temptation, which an ordinary writer might feel, of inserting such topics as happened to present themselves, whether satisfied with them himself or no : moreover he was evidently not carried away by a passion for allegorical interpretation as such, as is proved by the fact that this of Rahab is the solitary instance in which he employs it. Now, can we believe that such a person, so circumstanced, writing in the most solemn way on the most sacred of all subjects, and on an occasion which must have recalled most forcibly the memory of St. Paul, his father in the faith, not long since dead :—can we believe that be could have delivered such an exposition, and applied to it the sacred name of Prophecy, publicly and authoritatively, speaking as he did for the Church, and not for himself only :—had he not been sure that he was uttering the mind of the Holy Ghost ? I much fear that we do but betray our own comparative irreverence and indifference towards God’s holy and awful truth, when we are forward to suspect His favoured and accredited servants of such light extemporal dealing with His word. Surely the less violent supposition is, that St. Clement knew what he was saying, when he thus taught or rather reminded the Church (for he speaks not as conveying a new truth, but rather as exemplifying one already acknowledged) that the colour of scarlet, providentially employed as a token and means of deliverance, was an earnest of the Atoning Blood, to be sprinkled, like that of the Paschal Lamb, over the door-ways of those who should be heirs of salvation. Whereby he has also confirmed the analogous interpretation of those places, where scarlet is enjoined as the colour to be used in sprinkling and other legal purgations ; and has sanctioned the notion of the many subsequent writers, by whom that colour, whether found in Scripture or in nature, is constantly regarded as o ¢ i k e i o n (to speak rhetorically) to the Passion of our Lord : as much intended among colours to symbolize His Blood, as the shape of the Cross among forms, or its material, wood, among substances.

Whatever warrant he had for saying what he has said of the call of Rahab, the same, or like it, Tertullian (e. g.) may have had, for referring the text in Isaiah³⁶,—"Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow : though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool ;"—to the different degrees of guilt incurred by the Jews, first as murderers of the prophets, afterwards as crucifiers of our Lord. "The word crimson," says he, "denotes the blood of the Prophets ; scarlet, that of the Lord, as excelling in lustre." Irenæus again, mixing up his commentary with thoughts yet more awful³⁷ ; "Rahab the harlot, condemning herself as a heathen guilty of all kinds of sin, received and hid within her home" (he does not say two, but three spies or watchers) "the Three Explorers who were exploring the whole earth, the Father namely, and the Son, with the Holy Ghost." Which words are not to be so understood, as if Irenæus were affirming the Three Divine Persons to have then revealed themselves visibly and personally ; since it is a material part of the main argument of his work, to show that all visible manifestations of the Eternal Father, in the times of the Old Testament, were made through the only-begotten Son : but he means, apparently, that Rahab and those like her, receiving those who come in God’s Name, do in fact receive Him. He goes on with the history of Rahab :

"When the whole city where she dwelt had fallen into ruin at the sound of the seven trumpets, in that extremity Rahab the harlot was preserved with her whole house, by the faith implied in that sign of the scarlet thread : even as the Lord declared to those who would not receive His Advent, to the Pharisees, and such as make light of the sign of the scarlet robe, which was also a token of the Passover, the redemption and withdrawing of the people from Egypt,—to the despisers thereof, I say, the Lord declared, ‘The publicans and harlots take place of you in the Kingdom of Heaven.’"

And Justin, in like manner; adding a remark, that the messengers were sent by Him who bore the Name of Jesus³⁸ :

"The symbol of the scarlet line denoted the token of Christ’s Blood, whereby men of all nations, formerly impure and unjust, are saved, receiving remission of sins, and sinning no more."

On this whole history we may remark, as on that of Jacob before, that it bears on a critical point in the progress of the great dispensation, and on the continuation of the sacred line in which Christ was to be born. Also, that each of the successive writers (and the chain might be continued much further) notices, not ambitiously but naturally, some circumstance unobserved by his predecessors ; so that the whole, taken together, forms an allegory much more complete and striking, than we find in either of the statements taken singly. Dare any man deny that these are great marks of Truth, even according to our modern measures, incompetent as they obviously are to these investigations?

(29.) We have thus endeavoured to trace one set of mystical allusions, those, namely, which are drawn from the circumstances of our Lord’s Passion, through the interpretations of the Old Testament, left us by the Apostolic Fathers ; and also to illustrate them from the Fathers of the next generation, so far as to give some idea of the kind of consent, in their mode of expounding, which is found among them all : an agreement not in minute particulars, as if they borrowed from one another, nor yet as if they were bound down in common by any Strict ritual, or hieroglyphical alphabet ; but rather in a way which cannot, perhaps, be better expressed, than in the words of St. Augustine³⁹, where he lays down the principle which guided him in the investigation of historical types. "These secrets of Divine Scripture we trace out, as we may, one more or less aptly than another, but as becomes faithful men, holding thus much for certain ; that not without some kind of foreshadowing of future events, were these done and recorded ; and that to Christ only, and His Church the City of God, are they to be referred in every instance," so far as they are figurative.

On the true cause of this very general agreement, some considerations will be offered hereafter, which may at least have the effect of helping us all to think with seriousness of heart, on a subject, which scholars in general have, perhaps, been apt to treat over-lightly, not to say profanely ; so that, in speaking of it, a person insensibly falls into the apologetic tone. But the more we really come to know and think of it, the more deeply, perhaps, shall we feel, that even that tone is inexcusable presumption, compared with what would become us, in making mention of those who come nearest the Apostles, and had in greatest perfection the mind of Christ.

§iii.-The Literal Sense left entire by the Mysticism of the Church.

No impression, I believe, is more general among ordinary readers of theology, than this; that beyond a strong tendency to allegory, the Fathers had no definite principles at all, by which to interpret Scripture, but only employed, in a rhetorical way, whatever allusions best served the purpose of the moment. A remarkable and not a very encouraging fact, if such really were the case, that such a series of distinguished writers,—writers whom their very censurers⁴⁰ allow to have greatly exceeded the mass of their contemporaries,—zealously applying themselves to this one work, and with a, devotion and reverence as sincere, in very many cases, as martyrdom could prove it; that these should have gone on quite at random, and have been right, when they were right, only by a happy chance. Nor would it seem easy to reconcile such a statement with our Lord’s command to search the Scriptures, and with His implied and express promises of spiritual aid ; unless we were prepared to maintain, what all history contradicts, that the Fathers either neglected the Bible, or forfeited the promise of aid in the study of it by gross heresy, or insincerity, proved, by ill conduct.

But is the fact so, that they were without principles of interpretation? Is it not rather our want of steady attention and reverential industry in examining the whole subject, which makes it seem so to us? It is readily allowed, that there exists a peculiar difficulty, in evolving the patristical rules for expounding Scripture, on which difficulty something will be presently said. But that some such principles, however latent, do exist, we might confidently gather from this one fact ; that no one, tolerably versed in their writings, would fail to detect their style of interpretation, wherever he met with it, by something in its, air and tone ; something, not the less real, because it may be to us indescribable in words. Let anyone, for example, compare the commentary of Quesnel on the New Testament, or that of Wogan on the Proper Lessons, both which are expressly, founded on the ancient glosses, with the explanations of Scripture interspersed in the "Pilgrim’s Progress." Both being to a high degree allegorical, he will yet find the one, throughout of a different caste and family from the other.

(2.) Now it is no wonder if we find it difficult to seize in distinct thought, and embody in language, the exegetic principles of the old Church writers since, in all probability few, if any, of them were ever able to do so for themselves. With an instinctive skill, acquired in part at least, by long and zealous training of themselves in that one department, they felt when any exposition or conjecture, which occurred to them, was (to use their own word) Ecclesiastical, and when otherwise. It was a happy sagacity, which could afford to dispense with all manner of critical and argumentative development. They were natives, and could speak the language idiomatically, without stopping to recollect rules of grammar.

And here we seem to have no inconsiderable proof, that the mystical interpretation was no result of a theory subsequently introduced among Christians ; it was not this or that writer’s importation or invention, but it was from the beginning habitually inwrought into the thoughts and language of the Catholic Church.

Hereby also we have suggested to us a way for attaining to a virtual knowledge, of their rules of interpretation, though we perhaps may never be able, any more than they were, to trace out those rules in language. We have only to exercise ourselves much and deeply in their expositions of Holy Writ, and in the observances which we know they kept up, and we by degrees their practised eye—e ¢ x e ¢ m p e i r ía z óm m a —whereby to discern their first principles. This would be one way, and on every account the best way, of convincing ourselves that the mysticism of the early interpreters is not the vague, unsettled, dreamy kind of view, which many of us are at first hearing apt to imagine. We may set ourselves to study the examples of it thoroughly in detail: and finding, as we shall in a great proportion of them, a great deal more than we had expected, we shall gradually and surely learn, both to value the method more highly, and to understand it better.

(3.) With this view, some examples have been given above: examples purposely selected, many of them, as the likeliest to startle and scandalize a mere modern reader ; and something, it is hoped, has been done towards shewing, that in those cases at least the holy Fathers well knew what they were about ; that they proceeded, in interpreting Scripture, on the surest ground—the warrant of Scripture itself in analogous cases.

Another process, leading to the same conclusion, would be to examine, fairly and fully, whether there be not certain limitations which the Fathers carefully observe in their application of the mystical method ; certain bounds within which they confine themselves, as did champions of old within the rules of the tourney, in the utmost heat and speed of their career. Some indeed of these rules are laid down in express words by the more exact and argumentative of the Fathers : others we may gather with sufficient assurance from the comparison of their comments. To this subject, then, the limitations of the mystical exposition, as they were generally recognized by Antiquity, we are to address ourselves in the present stage of the inquiry.

(4.) The first and most obvious of these rules of limitation was, not to lose sight of the letter; to reserve in every mystical comment the foundation of historical and literal truth. This, as all men know, is one of the points on which the Fathers have been most confidently assailed ; but, as a few plain considerations will show, most unjustly.

For, first, the evidences of the Christian religion were from the beginning chiefly historical : such as the records of the life of Christ, the ministration of the Apostles, and the facts by which, in the old dispensation, God had authorized His messages by His prophets. The faith had been received in the first instance, as to the main body of it, in the plain literal and historical sense. It was so accepted by the mass of believers, as the Old Testament had ever been by the mass of the Jews ; and surely appeal might be made without hesitation to those who are really versed in Christian Antiquity, whether even the most daring mystics among them do not all along assume the truth of the history ; whether the mere allegory, which they sometimes appear to maintain, be at worst more than an exception to a general law; a resort in difficulties ; a solecism, not a rule.

(5.) But secondly, if in any case they seem to press the allegory beyond this, there are considerations, which would lead a sound critic to be cautious in urging their statements in that kind further than, their very words oblige us to go. There are reasons which should induce us to give them all the benefit of any qualification or ambiguity which their expressions admit of, -to construe all that is equivocal in favour of the literal meaning. Were they not in a great measure free from some of the temptations, which have ever been found most effective, in inducing inconsiderate commentators to deal over freely with the letter of the Divine Records? These temptations have commonly arisen, on the one hand, from over refinement in philosophical and moral subjects ; on the other hand, from critical skill, and dexterity in sifting statements on matters of fact. Of the first head, philosophical and moral allegory, something will be said by-and-by, when, we come to the case of those Fathers, who are allowed to have erred in exaggerating the mystical sense. But their general deficiency in critical and historical acuteness is notoriously one of the most popular charges against them, and one of the reasons most frequently given for not deferring to their authority in Scripture interpretation. Those who judge so of them, must at least allow that they were, so far, exempt from that temptation to take liberties with the text of Scripture, which historical and critical difficulties continually offer.

For example, had Origen been as unversed in critical discussion, as were, on, this hypothesis, the majority of the Fathers, be would not have been driven, by a supposed chronological difficulty, to throw discredit generally on the letter of the evangelical narrative. So at least he is supposed to have done, in commenting on St. John’s account of our Saviour’s return to Galilee after the temptation. Not finding how to reconcile that account with those of the other Evangelists, he says⁴¹, (if his words indeed are rightly so translated,) "The truth concerning these things must needs be lodged out of sight in their secondary and, spiritual signification. The discrepancy being so accounted for, we need not relax in any measure our faith regarding the Gospel narratives, as though they were either untrue, or destitute of any peculiar divine inspiration, or failing in their proper office as memorial’s." Then having, stated the difficulty at length, he concludes, "In this and many cases besides, whoever will carefully examine the Gospels with a view to any disagreement in the narrative, it will either cause him with a sort of mental giddiness to give up the claim of the Gospels to absolute authority and choose one of them at random to adhere to, as not venturing to repudiate entirely the faith of our, Lord ; or, if he still admit all four, he will consider their truth to be lodged somewhere else, than in the outward material words, and letters, and syllables." The amount of Origen’s meaning in this passage may perhaps be a subject of discussion by-and-by. At present it is quoted simply for the sake of pointing out the danger incurred by habits of searching criticism, viz. that, it leads men, on discovering flaws, to them, incurable, to think more slightly, than they ought of the letter of the Bible altogether. It is the genius of modern philology, to cut all such knots, by expressing or insinuating more or less of doubt, as to the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Some of the ancients, not perhaps more logically, but with at least as much of religious awe and reverence, had recourse, we see, in the like cases, to the suppositions of mere allegory intermixed with the truth. But the far greater number of theme being, as their opponents complain, quite "uncritical," i. e. taking the text as they found it, and not perplexing themselves with difficulties of construction and, harmony, were free at least from this one undue bias towards the secondary sense.

(6.) A still stronger and more universal preservative must have been the unfeigned and singular veneration, with which they ever regarded the Holy Book. Whatever else may be laid to the Fathers’ charge, even the most scornful and bitter of their censors have been constrained to admit the paramount value which they set on their Bibles, and, their thorough acquaintance with them. Even where they mysticised improperly, their ordinary motive was a sincere veneration for the Scriptures ; whose dignity, they sometimes with some plausibility argued, could not stand with the literal sense. This was a shortsighted and erroneous feeling, so far as it may have wanted that wise and simple faith, which would have caused them at once to receive the very letter, hoping or pretending to explain all difficulties. Still there was a feeling here of affectionate and dutiful though mistaken loyalty; like St. Peter’s, when lie took hold of our Lord and began rebuke and contradict Him ; saying, "Be it far from this shall not be unto Thee."

Accordingly, when Origen goes off to the mystical sense, it is with him almost always a matter of reverent and earnest prayer.

Thus, having given a careful and sensible commentary on literal account in Genesis of the building of the ark, he proceeds⁴² :

"Now, first beseeching His indulgence, who alone is able to withdraw the veil from the reading of the Old Testament, let us try and make out what spiritual edification also is contained in the raising of this august fabric, the ark."

Again in his exposition of the parable of the unmerciful servant⁴³ :

"It is no small matter to express, according to the full meaning of our Saviour, who are meant by the various persons introduced in this parable : . . . indeed, the very truth of these things, I am bold to affirm, no one shall be able to utter, unless the same Jesus, who privately expounded these things to His own disciples, have entered in to dwell in his mind, and open there all the treasures contained in the parable ; dark, hidden, far out of sight. …I for my part,—as one who has not yet obtained in sufficiency that mind, which can thoroughly penetrate and mingle with the mind of Christ, that mind, which, aided by the Spirit, can search all, even the depths of God-am able as yet to form but an indefinite notion of the details of this passage."

The expression of awe is, perhaps, still more remarkable, wen he draws back from an interpretation, which he had actually entered on: as one who caught himself unawares intruding further into the sanctuary than he had intended. It is on the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard⁴⁴, he says :

"Seeking out, what might be the ‘one day,’ which limits the time of this parable,…I have unwarily taken some steps into certain of the deeps of Almighty God ; lacking as I do that Spirit which searcheth all things, even the deep things of God."

Surely the tone of mind here apparent could not exist, without a profound veneration for the letter itself and literal meaning, the garb and outward vehicle of truths so revered and precious. Surely it could have been only by comparison, if ever, the same writers seem to disparage the letter. And in fact we find that few authors have done more for the elucidation of the historical sense, or given more unsparingly the best practical proof of reverence, unwearied religious diligence in trying to understand. So that with respect to the threefold method of interpretation, which he is known to have generally adopted, a partial judge might almost say of him, and of others like him, as contrasted with modern that he had three Bibles to read and we but one ; a jot or tittle failing in his reverence for the body of the sacred Book, compared with ours, while he enjoys, what we generally want, the privilege of contemplating its soul and spirit also.

(7.) Now, if even Origen, the known champion of the allegorical method, felt and practised such regard for the Letter of Scripture, it is surely unnecessary to multiply quotations, in proof of the opinion of the Church on that subject : her impartial veneration for the whole of the Divine Book, her deep, faithful and undoubting reception of every part, both in its, obvious and in its abstract senses, according to the fullness of the meaning of the Spirit of God. There, is a striking passage in St. Augustine, which collects, as it were, into a point, the confessions on this head of every generation of believers⁴⁵.

"The style itself in which Holy Scripture is framed, how open is it to everyone’s approach, how impossible to be searched out by any, but a very few! What things it contains that are obvious and open, those, like a familiar friend, it speaks simply to the heart, both of unlearned and learned. As to those, on the other band, which it hides in mysteries, neither does it elevate them by lofty speech, such as might deter from a nearer approach the dull and untaught mind, as a poor man sometimes fears to approach a rich one ; but Scripture invites all by a lowly kind of speech, intending only to feed all with obvious truth, but also to exercise and prove all by that truth which is remote from view : having in its easy parts whatever its hard parts contain. But lest, being open to view, they should incur contempt, the same truths again are made desirable by concealment; to meet the desire, they are, as it were, produced anew; and being so renewed, they insinuate themselves with a kind of delight. Thus wholesome correction is provided for corrupt minds, wholesome nourishment for feeble minds, and wholesome enjoyment for great minds. That mind alone is set against this teaching, which either through error knows not its healing power, or through sickness loathes it as medicine."

Men who were so minded towards the whole Book of God,—would it not require overpowering evidence to convince us that they commonly passed by with disdain the letter of Scripture? Yet they have been charged with no less than this.

(8.) The improbability of such allegations becomes yet more glaring when we take into account the universal cast and tenour of the Fathers’ doctrinal views. This is a consideration, indirectly indeed, yet really and materially, bearing on the present discussion. Ever since the Church began, she has felt that she had to guard against a tendency to over-refinement and affected spirituality. There has been danger lest the body, so to call it, of important truths should be exhausted and exhaled away, in their supposed moral and imaginative meaning. This is the error of the people called Friends, and in general of the rationalists of modern days. It was also the error of the Gnostics of old, who denied, as is well known, the reality of the Incarnation and Passion of our Lord, the Resurrection of the Body, the identity of the Creator with the Redeemer ; and whatever other portions of Christian belief appeared to them in any way mixed up with things outward, material, and bodily. Against there, in the beginning as now, the Church of God always protested, maintaining the literal reality of these Truths, as she now maintains the real efficacy of material Sacraments, in opposition to the refinements of philosophy and vain deceit. Now it was a sort of index to this first school, their denying the historical meaning of Holy Scripture; as may be seen in many parts of Irenæus. His statements are like the followings⁴⁶:

"These vainest of sophists maintain that the Apostles taught not truly but feignedly, according to the capacity of their hearers ; that they framed their answers to suit the prejudices of those who at any time were asking them questions ; discoursing with the blind blindly, according to their blindness, and with the sick according to their sickness, and the erring according to their error. Thus, to such as imagined that the Creator was the only God, they made Him the subject of their preaching ; but to those who are able to receive the unutterable Father, they administered by parables and allegories the unspeakable mystery : thus making it out that our Lord and His Apostles gave instruction, not according to the tenor of the very truth, but in pretence, and according to the capacity of each."

Such are the complaints brought against heretical theorists, by ecclesiastic writers of those days. Had we no direct evidence on the subject, passages of this sort would warrant us in concluding, that the early Church held to the literal Scripture as her foundation, whatever the superstructure of mystical or moral truth she might know and believe herself entitled to build upon it. For there is a natural and very distinct analogy between the doctrines, which reject the body, and the expositions, which reject the letter. We perceive at once that they belong in their several kinds to the same turn of mind, the same school of opinions. And on the other hand, the straightforward, unflinching faith, which is always content to take God’s work as He has made it, will of course be willing also to accept His Word as He has taught it. "When I hear of grass," says St. Basil⁴⁷, remarking on the excessive proneness to the mere allegory, by which some had explained away the history in the first chapter of Genesis, "when I hear of grass, I understand it to mean grass, and so of plants and fishes, and beasts, and cattle ; all of them, as they are spoken, so I receive. For neither am I ashamed of the Gospel." And a little further on :

"In the oracles of the Spirit, I desire to glorify Him, who has not employed our understanding on vain things, but has dispensed all so as to be written for our edification, and the perfecting of our souls. Of which truth, as I think, some not being aware, have tried, by I know not what allurements and figures of speech, to get the Scriptures credit for a kind of dignity, which in fact is of their own devising. But this is to make one’s self wiser than the oracles of the Spirit, and under the show of interpretation, covertly to introduce matter of our own. As it is written then, so let our understanding be."

(9.) There occurs however in the history of early corruptions one case, which would appear at first sight to militate strongly against the reality of the connection here supposed, between fantastic doctrine and interpretation merely allegorical. I mean the case of Marcion of Pontus. He distinguished himself from the main body of the heretics of his time, by denying that Scripture was ever to be understood in any sense but that of the bare letter : at the same time that he agreed with them in rejecting the truth of Christ’s Body, the resurrection of our bodies, and the other doctrines above alluded to.

But see what line Marcion was obliged to take, in consequence of this extraordinary combination of opinions. He boldly discarded the whole of the Old Testament, as the work of an evil, at least of an inferior being. He retained, moreover, of New Testament only one Gospel, St. Luke’s, and the Epistles of St. Paul. And, to make these at all seem to bear witness in his favour, he was constrained to dislocate and alter the text to a very considerable extent.

It is not within our present scope to show how inconsistent, after all, his admitted Scriptures were with his shadows of doctrine : Tertullian has done so at large, and with more, if possible, than his usual acuteness, in his two last books against Marcion : but the point material to be here noticed is, his sympathizing with the other heretics, and contradicting the Catholic Church, in his irreverence for the letter of Scripture : the only differences being, that he chose rather to take the ground of the Jews of his time, and, in effect, that of our modern rationalists, by denying the inspiration of the portions which most perplexed him ; instead of wresting them, as most heretics did, by various figures, to his own construction.

Thus it appears that the proceedings of Marcion form no such exception as should invalidate the general rule ; and the position stands good, that the Church of the Fathers, maintaining as it did the doctrines which the Docetæ denied, was very unlikely to give undue sanction to their merely allegorical mode of interpreting Scripture ; just as the same Church, even yet, arguing with rationalists, refuses to admit that "fire in the prophecy of St. John the Baptist is quenched with, the name of the Holy Ghost, or with the name of the Spirit, water dried up in the words of Christ"⁴⁸, concerning the new birth.

(10.) The drift of all these antecedent probabilities is this: that whatever affirmations are found in ecclesiastical writers strongly in favour of the letter of holy Scripture, are to be credited for their full apparent amount ; but for those comparatively rare instances, in which they have permitted themselves to speak lightly of the literal meaning, every kind of allowance ought to be made; they must be taken, so to speak, at a considerable discount. Consider, for example, the opening sentences of St. Augustine’s treatise, De Genesi ad literam⁴⁹. "The whole Scripture of God is twofold; according to the intimation of our Lord, when He said, ‘Every scribe instructed into the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, bringing out of his treasure things new and old.’ . . . . In the relation therefore of things done, one has always to inquire whether each particular is to be received in the figurative, sense only, or to be affirmed and maintained as to the actual verity of the facts. For to deny that there are things to be figuratively understood no Christian man will venture, remarking the words of the Apostle, ‘All these things befell them in figure ;’ as also where he commends to us, as a great mystery relating to Christ and the Church, the expression in Genesis, ‘And they two shall be one flesh.’"

This place has been quoted⁵⁰ as an instance of extravagance in urging the secondary sense, on account, probably, of the possibility intimated in one part of it, that in some cases there may be no true literal or historical sense. But, according to the rule above laid down for interpreting the Fathers on this subject, it is but fair to understand by St, Augustine’s doubtful cases, those which may reasonably be considered more or less parabolical ; such as Nathan’s reproof of David, or our Lord’s account of the Prodigal Son. It would be doing him injustice, to charge him with throwing doubt hereby on any part of the series of sacred history.

On the other hand, when we find the same Father arguing as follows in favour of the reality of Paradise, and of the history of our first parents, we need not hesitate to believe, that he meant his argument to extend, as by parity of reasoning it would extend, to every other portion of the regular inspired narrative. He says⁵¹:

Those of our faith, who believe these divine books but like not to have Paradise understood according to the very letter, i. e. a most pleasant place, shaded with groves of fruit trees, of immense extent, too, and fertilized by a copious fountain; seeing as they do, without any labour of man, so many green glades overshadowed with forests by the secret working of the Almighty :—I wonder how they believe the corresponding narrative of the formation of the man, in a way like nothing which ever met their eyes. Or if that, too, must be understood figuratively ; who begat Cain, Abel, and Seth? Were they likewise mere figures, not men born of mankind? I would advise men therefore, narrowly to consider what is the drift of the notion they are inclined to assume, and to endeavour with us to understand all things, related as facts in the first instance, as they are literally expressed. That once done, every one will look kindly on their views of what the same things teach also by figurative expression, either of spiritual natures themselves and spiritual processes, or of events yet to come.

I grant that if we could not receive in a bodily sense the things here named as bodily, without doing violence to the faith of the truth, nothing would remain but that we must understand them to be figurative expressions, rather than cast impious reflections on Holy Scripture. But if the bodily acceptation of these things be so far from embarrassing, that it rather more firmly establishes, the general statements of God’s word, I should not expect to find any one so full of heathenish obstenacy, as to abide by any old opinion, which he may have formed in favor of the mere allegorical exposition, after seeing the whole explained literally in accordance with the Rule of Faith.

He then proceeds to state, as the very occasion of his writing that treatise, a wish to improve on a former exposition of Genesis, which he had undertaken against the Manichæans ; and in which, not being able at that time to make out the literal meaning, he had assigned to many things an interpretation merely allegorical⁵². He says:

"Still even then, keeping in mind that which was all along chiefly in my wish though beyond my power, vis. that every thing in the first instance should be understood not in figure but literally, and not despairing altogether that such an understanding might be acquired, I expressed that feeling in the opening of the second book. My words are, ‘Whosoever desires to understand every thing, according to the sound of the letter, provided he can avoid blasphemies, and all that he affirms be agreeable to the Catholic Faith, his labours must not be taken grudgingly : rather we must account of him as understanding the Scriptures in the proper sense of the word, understanding.’"

That such from the beginning was St. Augustine’s feeling,—that he always preferred the literal sense as the foundation, and only had recourse to the purely figurative, when, as he conceived, the analogy of the faith required it,—he gave the most satisfactory proof, by going over the same ground, writing a more literal commentary, when in process of time maturer reflection had brought to his knowledge more of the literal meaning.

(11.) I say, when the analogy of the faith required it ; for this is a very remarkable circumstance in the patristical mode of deviating from the letter of Scripture, especially as compared with those adopted by more modern interpreters : viz. that whereas these latter are commonly moved to set it aside by some apparent inconsistency with the truths of philosophy or history, some scruple of human reason ; the only sufficient plea for such deviation, in the judgment of such critics as St. Augustine, was the impossibility of reconciling the letter with the Rule of Faith. Thus, in the, passage quoted above, the excepted cases are described as follows: "Si nullo modo possent salve fide veritatis corporaliter accipi :" "Si nullus exitus datur, ut pie et digne Deo quæ scripta sunt intelligantur, nisi figurate proposita credamus." And let it, not be imagined that by the phrase, "pie et digne Deo," a door, is opened for the unlimited intrusion of each person’s private judgement. The phrase is sufficiently explained by one which had occurred a few lines above : "prædicare omnia congruentia fidei catholicæ." That was to be judged pious and worthy of God, which agreed, not with this or that man’s preconceived notions of the divine proceedings and attributes, but with the body of scriptural truth set forth by the Church from the beginning.

If, then, we may suppose St. Augustine here to speak the general sense of ecclesiastical writers on this subject, we shall see that the utmost extent, to which the Church encouraged the use of the exposition by mere allegory, was to bear with it as a possible or at most as a probable hypothesis, in cases where the letter seemed irreconcileable with the analogy of the Faith ; always allowing for the chance of some more favoured commentator solving the difficulty without this extreme resort.

(12.) But the true ecclesiastical rule of interpretation will be put in a stronger light, if we consider the case of Origen and his school, and the degree in which they incurred the suspicion, if not the censure, of the Church. And we may notice, by the way, a remarkable instance of the hard measure which has been dealt out to the Fathers, by those who were resolved, at all events, for whatever reason, to derogate from their authority. It is the usual manner of proceeding, with such writers as Daillé, Whitby, Middleton, and the rest, to quote largely from the censures of St. Jerome and others, pronounced on the Origenists for their extravagance in the allegorical way, and then to turn suddenly round, and use these same censures, as if they were applicable to the whole body of the Fathers ; especially to St. Jerome himself and the rest who were eager in promulgating them.

But surely the censure might speak the opinion of the Church, though, from human infirmity and inconsistency, the persons pronouncing it might themselves incur it elsewhere.

Again, it should be well considered whether St. Jerome, St. Basil, and others, commonly quoted on this matter, are deprecating the allegorical system itself, or only the particular abuse of it now under examination, viz. the occasional suppression of the letter for the allegory’s sake. It may be some help towards estimating rightly the judgment of the Fathers on the whole subject, if a few words be here added, first on the real amount of the concessions of the Alexandrian school in disparagement of the letter ; next on the real amount of Church censure, properly so called, which that school incurred, on that ground, in the person of Origen, the most renowned, and therefore perhaps the most obnoxious, of all its champions.

(13.) And first, as to the extent of liberty taken by Origen with the literal sense of the Bible: it is but just to begin with stating, that his faith in the plenary inspiration of Holy Writ, those parts of it even which he is most accused of denying, is as unquestionable as it can be rendered, both by the tone of cordial reverence in every part, and also by repeated glowing professions like the following⁵³ :

By this brief demonstration of the divinity of Jesus, and application of the prophetical words concerning Him, we do in effect demonstrate at the same time the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures which prophesy of Him, and also of the writings which relate His sojourn here and His teaching ; writings, which were uttered with all authority and power, and have thereby become victorious over the elect portion of the Gentiles. It should be added that the divinity of the prophetic words, and the spirituality of Moses’ laws shone forth only in consequence of the [earthly] sojourn of Jesus. For evident proofs of the inspiration of the ancient Scriptures, before Christ’s sojourn here, it was not possible to exhibit ; but the Law and the Prophets, before liable to suspicion, whether they were indeed things Divine, had a clear light cast on them by the residence of Jesus on earth, as being composed and written by a grace from above. And he who with care and attention studies the prophetic words, feeling as he will on the bare reading a kind of enthusiasm stealing over him, will be convinced by his feelings that they are no writings of men, which we believe to be the words of God. The light, too, which existed before in the Law of Moses, wrapped up in a veil, shone forth at the time of our Lord’s abode here; the veil being taken away, and the good things, which were shadowed by the letter, coming gradually into full knowledge.

(14.) Next, I observe, that in general, i. e. with comparatively few exceptions, and those always particularly accounted for, Origen did not only receive the letter, but acknowledge the historical meaning, of the Holy Book. This will be suffici