fir  DC/ 
 
 BR    45     .B35    1885 
 Bampton    lectures 
 
HISTOEY    OF    INTERPRETATION. 
 
nox 
 
 EIGHT  LECTURES 
 
 PREACHED    BEFORE    THE    UNIVERSITY   OE   OXFORD    IN 
 THE  YEAR  MDCCCLXXXV. 
 
 ON  THE  FOUNDATION  OF 
 
 THE  LATE  REV.  JOHN  BAMPTON 
 
 /by 
 FREDERIC  W.  FARRAR,  D.D.,  F.R.S., 
 
 Late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge;  Archdeacon  and  Canon  of  11 
 <  '/uiplain  in  Ordinary  to  the  Queen. 
 
 Damnrams  veteres?  minime.     Sed  posl  priorum  .-India  in  domo  Domini 
 quod  possnmua  laboramus." — Jeb,  Apol.  in  Rufin,  ii.  25. 
 
 UoirtJtm  : 
 
 MACMILLAN   AND   CO. 
 
 1886 
 
 The  Light  of  Translation  and  li,  product  U  n  U  Ii 
 
■Richard  Clay   &  Sons, 
 bkead  street  hill,  london, 
 
 Bungay,  Suffolk. 
 
TO 
 
 THE  REV.  BENJAMIN  JOWETT,  M.A., 
 
 .MASTER   OF   BALLIOL    COLLEGE, 
 
 AND 
 
 VICE-CHANCELLOR    OF   THE   UNIVERSITY   OF   OXFORD, 
 
 U   Detncute  these  lectures. 
 
 —    _  ~j       *— 
 
 WITH    SINCERE    RESPECT    FOR    THE   SERVICES    WHICH    HE 
 
 HAS   RENDERED    TO    THE   CAUSE  OF    EDUCATION, 
 
 THEOLOGY,    AND    LITERATURE, 
 
 AND    IN    GRATEFUL   ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
 
 OF     MANY     YEARS     OF     PERSONAL     KINDN1 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In  publishing  these  Lectures  there  are  two  remarks  which 
 I  ought  at  once  to  make,  because  they  may  serve  to  obviate 
 much  criticism  which  will  have  no  relation  to  the  objects 
 which  I  have  had  in  view. 
 
 1.  By  Exegesis  I  always  mean  the  explanation  of  the 
 immediate  and  primary  sense  of  the  sacred  writings. 
 If  I  were  treating  the  subject  from  an  entirely  different 
 point  of  view  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  much 
 of  the  material  which  has  furnished  forth  many  hundreds 
 of  commentaries  remains  practically  unchanged  from  early 
 days.  But  this  material  is  mainly  homiletic.  It  aims 
 almost  exclusively  at  moral  and  spiritual  edification.  In 
 such  practical  instruction  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  ami 
 the  Schoolmen  abound,  and  it  is  often  of  the  highest 
 intrinsic  value  even  when  it  has  but  a  slender  connexion 
 with  the  text  on  which  it  is  founded.  When  I  speak  <>f 
 Scriptural  interpretation  I  am  using  the  phrase  in  it- 
 narrower  and  more  limited  meaning. 
 
 2.  It  is  obvious  that  within  the  compass  of  Bight  Lectures 
 an  exhaustive  treatment  of  so  wide  a  Bubject  would  he 
 impossible.      To     write     a     full     history    of    Exegesis    would 
 
 require  a  space  of  many  volumes.     I  here  only  profess  to  deal 
 
viii  Preface. 
 
 with  the  chief  epochs  in  the  progress  of  Biblical  science,  and 
 my  endeavour  has  been  to  give  some  account,  however  brief, 
 of  those  who  caused  the  chief  moments  of  fresh  impulse  to 
 the  methods  of  interpretation.  Hence,  there  have  been 
 many  eminent  commentators  whose  names  do  not  occur  in 
 the  following  pages  because  their  writings  produced  no 
 change  in  the  dominant  conceptions.  The  remark  applies 
 especially  to  the  great  Romanist  commentators  since  the 
 Reformation,  such  as  Vatablus  (t  1547),  Maldonatus  (t  1583), 
 Estius  (t  1613),  Cornelius  a  Lapide  (f  1657),  Martianay 
 (t  1717),  Calmet  (t  1757),  and  others.  I  should  be  the 
 last  person  to  depreciate  their  conspicuous  merits.1  In  any 
 complete  History  of  Exegesis  the  names  of  these  great  and 
 learned  writers  would  of  course  find  an  honoured  place.  I 
 have  not  been  able  to  touch  upon  their  labours  partly  from 
 want  of  space,  but  chiefly  because  I  only  profess  to  furnish 
 some  outline  of  the  epoch-making  events  of  Scriptural  study. 
 There  does  not  exist  in  any  language  a  complete  History 
 of  Exegesis.  Large  materials  for  such  a  task  are  collected 
 in  such  works  as  the  Isagogc  of  Buddeus  (1730),  Schrbck's 
 Kirchengcschickte  (1768 — 1812),  Rosenmtiller's  Historia  In- 
 terpretation's (1795 — 1814),  Meyer's  Geschichte  der  Schrifter- 
 Jdarung  (1803),  Klausen's  Hcrmeneutik  des  Ncucn  Testaments 
 (translated  from  the  Danish  1841),  Diestel's  Geschichte  des 
 Alten  Tcstamcntes  (1869),  Reuss'  Die  Geschichte  der  Hciligcn 
 Schriften  (1874),  Merx's  Die  Prophetic  des  Joel  und  ihre 
 Ausleger  (1879),2  and  others  which  will  be  found  mentioned 
 in  the  appended  Bibliography.  Much  information  on  parts 
 of  the  subject  may  also  be  derived  from  the  various  Histories 
 
 1  For  some   account   of  these    Commentators,  see  Klausen,  Ecmtcncutilc 
 (Germ.  Tr.  1841),  pp.  249-252.     Werner,  Gesch.  d.  Kath.  Thcol.  1866. 
 
 2  I  give  the  dates  of  the  editions  which  I  have  myself  used. 
 
Preface.  ix 
 
 of  Gnitz,  Jost,  Neander,  Gieseler,  Bohringer,  Dorner,  Milman, 
 and  others.  But  the  entire  history  has  never  been  com- 
 pletely and  satisfactorily  written,  and  it  would  furnish 
 worthy  occupation  for  a  lifetime  of  study.  If  I  have  some- 
 times wearied  the  reader  with  too  many  references  I  have 
 done  so  in  the  hope  that  they  might  prove  useful  to  some 
 student  who  may  hereafter  undertake  a  task  so  interesting 
 and  so  instructive. 
 
 In  writing  these  sketches  of  the  History  of  Biblical  Inter- 
 pretation I  have  never  forgotten  that  the  Bampton  Lectures 
 are  meant  to  be  apologetic.  My  sole  desire  has  been  to 
 defend  the  cause  of  Christianity  by  furthering  the  inter 
 of  truth.  So  far  as  former  methods  of  exegesis  have  been 
 mistaken  they  have  been  also  perilous.  A  recognition  of 
 past  errors  can  hardly  fail  to  help  us  in  disencumbering  from 
 fatal  impediments  the  religious  progress  of  the  future. 
 
 I  have  desired  to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  the  Founder  in 
 three  ways. 
 
 First,  by  drawing  attention  to  the  inevitable  change  in  the 
 conditions  of  criticism  which  has  been  necessitated  alike  by 
 the  experience  of  the  Christian  Church  and  by  that  advance 
 in  knowledge  which  is  nothing  less  than  a  new  revelation  oi 
 the  ways  and  works  of  God. 
 
 Secondly,  by  showing  that  there  is  in  the  final  and  eternal 
 teachings  of  Scripture  a  grandeur,  which,  in  all  ages,  how- 
 ever learned  or  however  ignorant,  has  secured  for  them  a 
 transcendent  authority.  A  Book  less  sacred  would  have 
 been  discredited  by  the  dangerous  uses  to  which  it  has 
 often  been  perverted;  but  no  aberrations  of  interpreters 
 have  been  suffered  to  weaken,  much  less  to  abrogate,  the 
 essential  revelation  which  has  exercised  from  the  first,  and 
 will  "to   the    last  syllable   of   recorded  time"  continue    to 
 
x  Preface. 
 
 exercise  a  unique  power  over  the    hearts  and    consciences 
 of  men. 
 
 Thirdly,  by  robbing  of  all  their  force  the    objections   of 
 infidels   and    freethinkers   to  the   historic   details   or   moral 
 imperfections  of  particular  narratives  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 This   endeavour   has   an   importance    that   those    only    will 
 appreciate  who    have  tried  to    understand  the  thoughts  of 
 many  hearts.     "There   are    things  in   the   Old  Testament," 
 says     Professor    Drummond,    "cast    in    the    teeth    of    the 
 apologist  by  sceptics,  to   which    he  has    simply  no    answer. 
 These  are  the  things,  the  miserable  things,  the  masses  have 
 laid  hold  of.     They  are  the  stock-in-trade  of  the  freethought 
 platform  and  the  secularist  pamphleteer.     A  new  exegesis,  a 
 reconsideration  of  the  historic  setting,  and  a  clearer  view  of 
 the  moral  purposes  of  God,  would  change  them  from  barriers 
 into  bulwarks  of  the  faith."1     But  we  cannot  meet  these 
 objections  by  treating  the  Bible  as  a  mere  word-book,  as  a 
 compendium  of  homogeneous  doctrines,  as  "  an  even  plane  of 
 proof   texts  without  proportion,    or   emphasis,    or   light,   or 
 shade."     The  existence  of   moral  and  other   difficulties    in 
 the  Bible  has  been  frankly  recognised  in  all  ages,  and  it  is 
 certain  that  they  can  no  longer  be  met  by  such  methods  as 
 were  devised  by  Philo,  or  Origen,  or  Aquinas,  or  Calovius. 
 But  they  vanish  before  the  radical  change  of  attitude  which 
 has  taught  us  to  regard  the  Bible  as  the  record  of  a  pro- 
 gressive revelation  divinely  adapted  to  the  hard  heart,  the 
 dull  understanding,  and  the  slow  development  of  mankind. 
 They  are  fatal  to  untenable  theories  of  inspiration  whether 
 Rabbinic  or  Scholastic,  but  they  are  powerless  against  the 
 clearer   conceptions  which   we   have   neither    invented    nor 
 discovered,  but  which  have  been  opened  to  us  by  the  teach- 
 1  Contributions  of  Science  to  Christianity.  Expositor,  Feb.  1S85. 
 
Preface.  xi 
 
 ing  of  the  Sjoirit  of  God  in  the  domains  of  History  and  of 
 
 Science.  It  maybe  said  that  the  Bible  is  the  .sum  to-day 
 as  it  was  a  thousand  years  ago.  Yes,  and  Nature  too  is  the 
 same  now  as  she  was  in  the  days  of  Pythagoras ;  but  it  i 
 impossible  to  interpret  the  Bible  now  by  the  method 
 Aqiba  or  Hilary  as  it  is  to  interpret  Nature  by  the  methods 
 of  Pythagoras.  The  History  of  Exegesis  leads  us  to  the  com- 
 plete transformation  of  a  method,  and  leaves  us  with  a  Bible 
 more  precious  than  of  old,  because  more  comprehensible, 
 while  it  is  at  the  same  time  impregnable  in  every  essential 
 particular  against  any  existing  form  of  assault. 
 
 But  instead  of  dogmatically  propounding  a  scheme  of 
 interpretation,  I  have  allowed  the  History  of  Interpretation 
 to  suggest  to  us  its  own  scheme,  and  to  deliver  for  our 
 guidance  its  own  lessons.  We  shall  see  system  after  system — 
 the  Halakhic,  the  Kabbalistic,  the  Traditional,  the  Hierarchic, 
 the  Inferential,  the  Allegorical,  the  Dogmatic,  the  Natural- 
 istic— condemned  and  rejected,  each  in  turn,  by  the  experience 
 and  widening  knowledge  of  mankind.  These  erroneous 
 systems  arose  from  many  causes.  The  original  1!  el  new 
 of  the  Old  Testament  was  for  many  ages  unknown  to  the 
 Christian  Church,  and  when  Greek  also  became  an  unknown 
 language  to  all  except  a  few,  the  caprice  of  interpreters  was 
 freed  from  important  checks.  Religious  controversy  went  to 
 Scripture  not  to  seek  for  dogmas  but  to  find  them.  Mysticism 
 interpreted  it  according  to  the  mood  of  the  momenl  and 
 placed  the  interpreter  above  the  text.  A  Bpurious  and 
 unenlightened  idolatry  for  the  letter  of  Scripture  ignored  it> 
 simplicity  and  universality,  and  sought  for  enigmas  and 
 mysteries  in  the  plainest  passages.  A  scholastic  orthodoxy 
 developed  elaborate  systems  of  theology  ovA  of  imaginary 
 emphases,    and    by    the    aid    of    exorhitanf    principles    of 
 
xii  Preface. 
 
 inference.  Some  of  these  causes  of  error  are  removed,  but 
 we  still  meet  the  pale  and  feeble  shadows  of  the  old  systems 
 wandering  here  and  there,  unexorcised,  in  modern  commen- 
 taries. They  can,  however,  only  be  regarded  with  curiosity 
 as  anachronisms  and  survivals.  It  is  perhaps  inevitable  that 
 as  each  individual  has  his  idols  of  the  cavern,  so  each  ago 
 should  have  its  idols  of  the  forum  or  the  theatre,  to  which  it 
 offers  a  passionate  yet  half-unacknowledged  worship.  But 
 the  last  word  of  the  sacred  Book  was  a  word  of  infinite 
 significance.  It  was,  "  Little  children,  keep  yourselves  from 
 idols."  Idols  are  always  a  fatal  hindrance  to  the  attainment 
 of  the  truth.  Sooner  or  later  they  that  make  them  become 
 like  unto  them,  and  so  do  all  who  put  their  trust  in  them. 
 Such  etSa>\a — "  ignorant  well-meanings,  credulous  suspicions, 
 and  fond  conceits  " — these  fleeting  images  born  of  confusions 
 of  language,  false  theories,  and  perverse  demonstrations,1 — 
 only  vanish  when  the  light  of  God  penetrates  into  the  deep 
 recesses  of  the  shrine.  HiSTOKY  is  a  ray  of  that  light  of 
 God.  A  great  part  of  the  Bible  is  History,  and  all  History, 
 rightly  understood,  is  also  a  Bible.  Its  lessons  are  God's 
 divine  method  of  slowly  exposing  error  and  of  guiding  into 
 truth.  "  Facts  are  God's  words,  and  to  be  disloyal  to  God's 
 facts  is  to  dethrone  Him  from  the  world."  Orosius  began 
 his  summary  of  the  De  Civitatc  Dei  with  the  memorable 
 words,  Divind  Providcntid  agitwr  mundus  et  homo.  It  was 
 from  the  same  point  of  view  that  Bossuet  composed  his 
 History.  "  History,"  said  Vico,  "  is  a  Civil  theology  of 
 the  Divine  Providence."  "The  History  of  the  World," 
 said  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt,  "  is  not  intelligible  apart  from  a 
 
 1  "  Idola  fori  omnium  molestissima  sunt  ;  quae  ex  foedere  verbovum  et 
 nominum  se  insinuanmt  in  intellectum."  "Idola  theatri  inn ata  non  sunt 
 .  .  .  sed  ex  fabulia  theoriarum  et  perversis  legibus  demonstrationum  plane 
 indita  et  recepta." — Bacon,  Nov.  Organum.  lib.  i.  lix.  lx. 
 
Preface.  xiii 
 
 Government  of  the  world."  "Every  step  in  advance  in 
 History,"  said  Fichte,  "every  mental  act  which  introduces 
 into  its  chain  of  occurrences  something  absolutely  new,  is  an 
 inflowing  of  God.  God  alone  makes  History,  but  He  does 
 this  by  the  agency  of  man."1  "Great  men,"  says  Carl  vie, 
 "  are  the  inspired  texts  of  that  divine  book  of  Revelat  i 
 whereof  a  chapter  is  completed  from  epoch  to  epoch,  and  by 
 some  named  History."  2  And  if  we  look  for  higher  sanctions 
 than  those  of  Vieo,  or  Humboldt,  or  Fichte,  or  Carlyle — higher 
 too  than  those  of  Orosius,  or  Augustine,  or  Bossuet — we  find 
 them  in  St.  Paul's  Philosophy  of  History  in  his  speech  at 
 Athens,  that  "  God  made  of  one  every  nation  of  men  .... 
 having  determined  their  appointed  seasons,  that  they  should 
 seek  God  if  haply  they  might  feel  after  Him  and  find 
 Him;"3 —  or  in  the  yet  briefer  testimony  of  St.  John,  that 
 there  is  a  true  light,  a  constant,  continuous  revelation  of 
 the  Word  which  lighteth  every  man,  and  is  ever  coming 
 into  the  World ; 4 — or  once  again  in  two  pregnant  passages 
 of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  "  God  who  fragmentarily 
 and  multifariously  spake  unto  the  Fathers  in  the  Prophets, 
 hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  in  His  Son;"5  and 
 "  But  now  hath  He  promised,  saying,  '  Yet  once  more  will  1 
 make  to  tremble  not  the  earth  only  but  also  the  heaven.' 
 And  this  word  'Yet  once  more'  signifieth  the  removing  of 
 those  things  that  are  shaken  ....  that  those  things  which 
 are  not  shaken  may  remain."6 
 
 But  it  may  perl uaps  be  asked,  "  How  can  the  Bible  bav< 
 been  liable  to  agelong  misapprehensions  if  it  be  a  Divine 
 Revelation  ?" 
 
 1  Fichte,  Spec,  Theology,  p.  651.  :  Sartor  Rcsartns,  p.  108. 
 
 3  Acts  xvii.  26-30.  n  i.  9. 
 
 ■  Heb.  i.  1.  ,;  Hob.  xii.  27. 
 
xiv  Preface. 
 
 i.  The  answer  is  very  simple :  the  Bible  is  not  so 
 much  a  revelation  as  the  record  of  a  revelation,  and  the 
 inmost  and  most  essential  truths  which  it  contains  have 
 happily  been  placed,  above  the  reach  of  Exegesis  to  injure, 
 being  written  also  in  the  Books  of  Nature  and  Experience, 
 and  on  the  tables,  which  cannot  be  broken,  of  the  heart  of 
 Man.  "  Where  the  doctrine  is  necessary  and  important," 
 there,  says  Whichcote,  "  the  Scripture  is  clear  and  full." 
 
 ii.  But,  secondly,  I  borrow  the  method  of  Bishop  Butler, 
 and  say  that  the  agelong  misinterpretations  of  the  Bible  are 
 no  more  a  disproof  of  its  divine  authority,  than  are  the  age- 
 long misinterpretations  of  Nature  any  disproof  of  its  Divine 
 Creation.  If  the  History  of  Exegesis  involve  a  history  of 
 false  suppositions  slowly  and  progressively  corrected,  so,  too, 
 does  the  History  of  Science.  Kepler  was  contented  to  wait  a 
 century  for  a  reader,  where  God  had  waited  six  thousand 
 years  for  an  observer.  God  is  patient  because  Eternal,  and 
 man  who  is  slow  to  learn  spiritual  truths,  is  still  slower  to 
 unlearn  familiar  errors.  Being  men  and  not  angels,  it  is  by 
 a  ladder  that  we  must  mount  step  by  step  towards  that 
 heaven  which  the  mind  of  man  can  never  reach  by  wings. 
 
 iii.  And,  thirdly,  explain  or  illustrate  the  fact  as  we  may, 
 a  fact  it  is.  "  Twenty  doctors,"  said  Tyndale,  "  expound  one 
 text  twenty  ways,  and  with  an  antitheme  of  half  an  inch 
 some  of  them  draw  a  thread  of  nine  days  long."  x  The  last 
 Revision  of  the  Bible  has  once  more  reminded  us  that  many 
 passages  and  hundreds  of  expressions  which  have  been 
 implicitly  accepted  by  generations,  and  quoted  as  the  very 
 word  of  Gocl,  were  in  fact  the  erroneous  translations  of  im- 
 perfect readings.  If  the  vast  majority  of  Christians  have 
 always  had  to  be  content  with  a  Bible  which  is  in  so  many 
 1  Obedience  of  a  Christian  Man. 
 
Preface.  xv 
 
 instances  inaccurately  copied  or  wrongly  translated,  it  is  not 
 astonishing  that  they  should  also  have  had  to  put  up  with 
 a  Bible  which  in  many  instances  has  been  wrongly  ex- 
 plained. Now  if  indeed  every  word  of  Scripture  had 
 been  written  "by  the  pen  of  the  Triune  God,"  we  might 
 have  thought  that  these  errors  involved  an  irreparable  loss. 
 But  the  loss  is  in  no  sense  irreparable.  It  affects  no 
 single  essential  truth.  "If  after  using  diligence  to  find  truth 
 we  fall  into  error  where  the  Scriptures  are  not  plain,  there 
 is  no  danger  in  it.  They  that  err,  and  they  that  do  not  err, 
 shall  both  be  saved."1 
 
 But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  lessons  which  we 
 may  learn  from  the  History  of  Exegesis  are  merely  negative. 
 It  has  positive  truths  to  teach  as  well  as  errors  to  dispel.  It 
 may  show  us  the  stagnation  which  poisons  the  atmosphere 
 of  Theology  when  Progress  is  violently  arrested,  and  Freedom 
 authoritatively  suppressed.  It  may  show  us  the  duty  and  the 
 necessity  of  that  tolerance  against  which,  from  the  first 
 century  down  to  the  present  day,  Churches  and  theologians 
 have  so  deeply  and  so  continuously  sinned.  It  may  show  us 
 above  all  that  the  strength  of  the  Church  is  not  to  be  iden- 
 tified with  the  continuance  of  methods  which  have  been  tried 
 and  found  wanting,  or  with  the  preservation  of  systems  which 
 have  been  condemned  by  the  long  results  of  time  Truth 
 rests  on  something  far  different.  It  depends  upon  faithful- 
 ness to  the  immediate  teaching  of  Christ,  and  on  obedience 
 to  the  continual  guidance  of  His  ever-present  Spirit.  The 
 authority  of  the  Scripture  can  only  be  vindicated  by  the 
 apprehension  of  its  divinest  elements.  We  cannot  under- 
 stand its  final  teaching  except  by  recognising  the  co-ordinate 
 authority  of  Faith,  and  by  believing  thai  to  us  as  to  tin 
 
 1  Chillingworth,  Religion  of  Protests 
 
xvi  Preface. 
 
 men  of  old,  the  Spirit  still  utters  the  living  oracles  of  God. 
 Many  lessons  have  been  derived  from  Scripture  which  are 
 alien  from  the  final  teaching  of  the  New  Dispensation,  but 
 
 "  One  accent  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
 The  heedless  world  has  never  lost." 
 
 And  is  it  a  small  lesson  if  we  thus  learn  that  we  are 
 not  bound  passively  to  abandon  to  others  the  exercise  of  our 
 noblest  faculties,  nor  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  teachings  of  ex- 
 perience ;  but  that  it  is  our  duty  with  fearless  freedom,  though 
 in  deep  humility  and  the  sincerity  of  pure  hearts,  to  follow 
 in  all  things  the  guidance  of  Reason  and  of  Conscience  ? 
 
 "  A  man  may  be  an  heretic  in  the  truth,  and  if  he  believe 
 things  only  because  his  pastor  says  so,  or  the  assembly  so 
 determines,  without  knowing  other  reason,  though  his  belief 
 be  true,  yet  the  very  truth  he  holds  becomes  his  heresy." 
 So  spake  the  lofty  soul  of  John  Milton. 
 
 "  He  who  makes  use  of  the  light  and  faculties  which  God 
 hath  given  him,  and  seeks  sincerely  to  discover  truth  by 
 those  helps  and  abilities  ....  will  not  miss  the  reward  of 
 truth.  He  that  doeth  otherwise  transgresses  against  his  own 
 light."     So  spake  the  serene  wisdom  of  John  Locke. 
 
 Could  we  listen  to  manlier  voices  ?  But  if  we  look  rather 
 for  theological,  for  orthodox,  for  episcopal  authority  its  best 
 teaching  will  be  of  the  same  tenor.  "  For  men  to  be 
 tied  and  led  by  authority,  as  it  were  with  a  kind  of 
 captivity  of  judgment,  and  though  there  be  reason  to 
 the  contrary  not  to  listen  to  it,  but  to  follow  like  beasts 
 the  first  in  the  herd,  this  were  brutish."  So  spake  one 
 whom  the  Church  of  England  once  revered — Richard 
 Hooker.1 
 
 "  Reason,"  says  Culverwell,  "  is  the  daughter  of  Eternity, 
 1  Ecd.  Pol.  ii.  7,  §  6. 
 
Preface.  xvii 
 
 and  before  Antiquity,  which  is  the  daughter  of  Time.- ' 
 "Reason  can,  and  it  ought  to  judge,  not  only  of  the  mean- 
 ing, but  also  of  the  morality  and  evidence  of  revelation." 
 So  spake  one  whom  we  still  profess  to  revere — Bishop 
 Butler.2 
 
 "  No  apology  can  be  required  for  applying  to  the  Bible 
 the  principles  of  reason  and  learning ;  for  if  the  Bible  could 
 not  stand  the  test  of  reason  and  learning  it  could  not  be 
 what  it  is — a  work  of  divine  wisdom.  The  Bible  therefore 
 must  be  examined  by  the  same  laws  of  criticism  which  are 
 applied  to  other  writings  of  antiquity."  So  wrote  Bishop 
 Herbert  Marsh. 
 
 Do  we  need  yet  higher  authority  to  show  us  that  we  arc 
 in  the  right  when  we  scorn  to  register  the  decrees  of  human 
 fallibility,  or  to  float  down  the  smooth  current  of  religious 
 opinions  ?  If  so  we  may  find  it  abundantly  in  Scripture. 
 "The  spirit  of  man,"  says  Solomon,  "is  the  candle  of  the 
 Lord."3  "Brethren,  believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the 
 spirits  whether  they  are  of  God."  4  So  said  St.  John  the 
 Divine.  "  Prove  all  things ;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good." 
 So  wrote  St.  Paul.5 
 
 Do  we  seek  yet  higher  authority  for  this  indefeasible 
 right  of  private  judgment?  We  have  the  authority  of 
 Christ  Himself.  "Why  even  of  yourselves,  judge  ye  not 
 what  is  right  1  "     So  spake  the  Lord  of  Glorj .'' 
 
 But  further,  this  history  has  taught  us  that  with  Freedom, 
 and  the  fearless  appeal  to  the  reason  and  the  conscience  in 
 nidging  the  separate  utterances  of  Scripture,  so  too  there 
 must  be  Progress.     "Truth,"  says  Milton,  "is  compared  in 
 
 1  Dtcctor  Dubitantium,  I.  ii.  §64.  *  Light  qf  A 
 
 3  Prov.  xx.  27.  *  1  J"'"1  'v-  1- 
 
 0  1  Thess.  v.  21.  '■'  •     - 
 
xviii  Preface. 
 
 Scripture  to  a  streaming  fountain ;  if  her  waters  flow  not  in 
 a  perpetual  progression  they  sicken  into  a  muddy  pool  of  con- 
 formity and  tradition."  A  timid  attitude,  a  passive  attitude, 
 a  servile  attitude  belongs  to  the  spirit  of  fear,  not  to  that  of  a 
 sound  mind.  It  is  nothing  short  of  a  sin  against  light  and 
 knowledge — yes,  I  will  say  it  boldly,  it  is  nothing  short  of  a 
 sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost — to  stereotype,  out  of  the  pretence 
 of  reverence,  the  errors  of  men  who  were  not  more  illuminated 
 by  God's  Spirit  than  we  may  be,  and  who  in  knowledge 
 were  hundreds  of  years  behind  ourselves.  Lactantius,  on 
 the  authority  of  Scripture,  denied  that  the  earth  was 
 round ;  and  Augustine  that  there  could  be  men  at  the 
 antipodes ;  and  the  Spanish  theologians  that  there  could 
 be  a  western  hemisphere.  "  Who,"  asks  Calvin,  "  will  ven- 
 ture to  place  the  authority  of  Copernicus  above  that  of 
 the  Holy  Spirit  ? "  "  Newton's  discoveries,"  said  the  Puritan 
 John  Owen,  "  are  against  evident  testimonies  of  Scripture." 
 With  what  outbursts  of  denunciation  has  almost  every  new 
 science  been  received  by  narrow  literalists  !  Surely  such 
 ignorant  condemnations  show  us  that  the  revision  of  the 
 principles  and  methods  of  exegesis  is  rendered  absolutely 
 necessary  by  the  ever-widening  knowledge  of  modern  days. 
 Theology  must  reckon  with  this  infinite  desire  of  knowledge 
 which  has  broken  out  all  over  the  world,  with  this  rapid  and 
 ever-rising  tide  of  truth  which  she  is  impotent  to  stay.  We 
 may  store  the  truth  in  our  earthen  vessels,  but,  as  has  been 
 truly  said,  they  must  lie  unstopped  in  the  ocean,  for  if  we 
 take  them  out  of  it  we  shall  only  have  "  stagnant  doctrines 
 rotting  in  a  dead  theology." 
 
 I  have,  therefore,  endeavoured  as  regards  each  of  the  seven 
 epochs  of  exegesis  to  point  out  the  causes  and  the  origin  of 
 its   special   conceptions ;    to    set  the   series  of  writers,   and 
 
Preface.  xix 
 
 movements,  and  views  in  their  true  historic  horizon  ;  to  set 
 the  manifold  influences  which  affected  the  schools  of  exe- 
 getes  and  were  modified  by  them  ;  and  to  show  how  many 
 of  these  conceptions  have  been  proved  by  the  course  of  time 
 to  be  more  or  less  untenable.  We  shall  see  exegesis  fettered 
 under  the  sway  of  legalism ;  of  Greek  philosophy ;  of  allegory  ; 
 of  tradition  ;  of  ecclesiastic  system  ;  of  Aristotelian  dialectics  ; 
 of  elaborate  dogma.  We  shall  observe  the  revival  of  the 
 methods  of  the  School  of  Antioch  in  the  emergence  of 
 grammatical  and  literal  interpretations  at  the  Renaissance 
 and  the  Reformation,  and  shall  see  reviving  energies  strangled 
 for  a  time  by  the  theological  intolerance  of  a  Protestant 
 scholasticism.  We  shall  survey  the  influence  upon  exegesis 
 of  a  philosophic  scepticism,  and  shall  note  the  lines  and 
 methods  by  which  the  attacks  of  that  scepticism  have  been 
 rendered  powerless.  But  in  judging  of  systems  there  is 
 scarcely  an  instance  in  which  I  have  failed  to  do  justice  to 
 the  greatness  and  sincerity  of  men.  Aqiba  and  Philo, 
 Origen  and  Augustine,  Aquinas  and  De  Lyra,  Spener 
 and  Calixt,  Schleiermacher  and  Baur  have  severally  received 
 the  meed  of  acknowledgment  due  to  their  genius  and  their 
 integrity.  We  may  say  of  them  all,  "Habeantur  ....  pro 
 luminibus,  sed  nobis  sit  unicum  numen."  *  The  rejection 
 of  their  methods  no  more  involves  injustice  to  them  than 
 the  rejection  of  the  Ptolemaic  system  involves  any  contempt 
 for  the  genius  of  Ptolemy. 
 
 There   are   two    tasks   which    I    have    not   attempted    t<> 
 perform  : — 
 
 i.  It  has  been  no  part  of  my  duty  to  lay  down  any  theory  of 
 Inspiration.     It  has  indeed  been  impossible  t.>  avoid  frequent 
 references  to  one  theory — that   of  verbal  dictation — because 
 1  Rivetus,  Isagoge,  cap.  18,  §11. 
 
xx  Preface. 
 
 from  it  (as  I  have  been  obliged  to  show)  every  mistaken 
 method  of  interpretation,  and  many  false  views  of  morals  and 
 sociology,  have  derived  their  disastrous  origin.  That  theory 
 has  never  offered  any  valid  proof  for  the  immense  demand 
 which  it  makes  upon  our  credulity.1  It  confessedly  traverses 
 all  the  prima  facie  phenomena  of  Scripture,  and  yet  it  finds 
 no  support  in  the  claims  of  Scripture  for  itself.  It  sprang 
 from  heathenism,  and  it  leads  to  infidelity.  It  has  been 
 decisively  rejected  by  many  of  the  greatest  Christian  theo- 
 logians, and — as  I  have  had  occasion  to  prove — is  inconsistent 
 with  the  repeated  expressions  of  many  by  whom  it  was 
 nominally  accepted.2     But  while  we  shun  the  falsehood  of 
 
 1  Tholuck,  in  his  admirable  paper  on  "The  Doctrine  of  Inspiration," 
 translated  in  the'  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  vi.  331-369,  thinks  that  the 
 view  of  inspiration  which  regarded  Holy  Scripture  as  the  infallible  production 
 of  the  Divine  Spirit,  not  merely  in  its  religious,  but  in  its  entire,  contents, 
 and  not  merely  in  its  contents,  but  in  its  very  form,  is  not  earlier,  strictly  speak- 
 ing, than  the  seventeenth  century.  He  refers  to  Quenstedt,  Thcol.  Didact. 
 Polcm.  i.  55  ;  Heidegger,  Corp.  Thcol.  ii.  34  ;  Calovius,  Systema,  i.  484,  &c, 
 &c,  and  says  that  the  Lutheran  symbols  contain  no  express  definition  of  the 
 inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  He  was  of  course  aware  of  the  loose, 
 rhetorical,  popular  phrases  used  by  many  of  the  Fathers  and  Schoolmen,  but 
 he  points  out  that  their  modes  of  dealing  with  Scripture  belie  their  verbal 
 theories,  as  in  Papias,  ap.  Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  39  ;  Orig.  in  Joann.  tome  i.  p.  4 
 (ed.  1668)  ;  i.  p.  383  (id.)  ;  Aug.  De  Cons.  Evang.  i.  35,  ii.  12,  28  ;  Junilius, 
 De  partibus  Div.  Leg.  i.  8,  and  to  many  passages  of  Jerome.  He  also 
 quotes  Agobard,  adv.  Fredegis,  c.  12,  and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  Summa,  i. 
 qu.  32,  art.  4 ;  Abelard,  Sic  et  Non,  p.  11  (ed.  Cousin).  Many  Roman 
 Catholic  theologians  admit  minor  errors,  discrepancies,  &c,  in  the  Bible,  e..g. 
 I'.illarmine,  Bonfrere,  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  R.  Simon,  Antonius  de  Dominis, 
 Erasmus,  Maldonatus.  So  also  did  Luther,  Zwingli,  Colet,  Brenz,  Bullinger, 
 Castellio,  Grotius,  Rivet,  Calixt,  Le  Clerc,  &c.  Such  views  are  inconsistent 
 with  the  Verbal  Dictation  Dogma  of  Calovius,  Voetius,  and  the  Formula 
 Consensus  Helvetici.     See  Tholuck,  I.e. 
 
 2  Among  theologians  who  have  indirectly  or  explicitly  rejected  the  theory 
 of  verbal  dictation  and  infallibility  (though  some  of  them  at  times  used  loose 
 popular  and  general  language  entirely  inconsistent  with  their  own  admissions) 
 may  be  mentioned  among  English  writers  Hooker,  Howe,  Chillingworth, 
 Bishop  Williams,  Burnet,  Baxter,  Tillotson,  Horsley,  Doddridge,  Warburton, 
 Paley,  Lowth,  1  It  y,  Watson,  Law,  Tomline,  Dr.  J.  Barrow,  Dean  Couybeare, 
 Bishop  Hinds,  Bishop  Daniel  Wilson,  Bishops  Van  Mildert  and  Blomfield, 
 Archbishop  Whately,  Bishops  Hampden,  Thirlwall,  and  Heber,  Dean  Alford, 
 
Preface.  xxi 
 
 this  extreme  we  equally  slum  the  opposite  falsehood  of  treat- 
 ing Scripture  as  though  it  did  not  contain  a  divine  revelation. 
 If  we  accept  the  Inspiration  of  Scripture,  without  attempting 
 to  define  it,  we  only  follow  the  example  of  the  Universal 
 Church.  Neither  the  Catholic  creeds,  nor  the  Anglican 
 articles,  nor  the  Lutheran  symbols,  nor  the  Tridentine  decrees 
 define  it.  In  modern  times  especially,  bishops  and  theo- 
 logians of  every  school  have  been  singularly  unanimous  in 
 repudiating  every  attempt  to  determine  exactly  what  In- 
 spiration means.1  "  It  seems  certain,"  said  Bishop  Thirlwall, 
 "  that  there  is  no  visible  organ  of  our  Church  competent  to 
 define  that  which  has  hitherto  been  left  undetermined  on 
 this  point,"  namely,  what  is  the  line  to  be  drawn  between 
 
 Thomas  Scott,  Dr.  Pye  Smith,  and  very  many  living  or  recent  theologians. 
 See  for  references  Dr.  A.  S.  Farrar,  Bampton  Lectures,  pp.  668-671  ;  Pusey, 
 Historical  Enquiry,  ch.  v. 
 
 1  "  I  was  in  nowise  called  upon  to  attempt  any  definition  of  Inspiration," 
 says  Archbishop  Tait  in  his  Pastoral  Letter,  "seeing  that  the  Church  has  not 
 thought  fit  to  prescribe  one." 
 
 "The  Church  has  laid  down,"  says  the  Archbishop  of  York  in  his  Pastoral 
 Letter,  "  no  theory  of  Inspiration  ;  she  has  always  bad  in  her  bosom  teachers 
 of  at  least  two  different  theories." 
 
 "We  heartily  concur  with  the  majority  of  our  opponents,"  says  the  Bishop 
 of  Gloucester  and  Bristol  in  Aids  to  Faith,  p.  404,  "in  rejecting  all  theories  of 
 Inspiration." 
 
 "Let  us  beware,"  says  Dean  Burgon  (Pastoral  Office,  p.  58),  "how  we 
 commit  ourselves  to  any  theories  of  Inspiration  whatever." 
 
 "Our  Church,"  says  Bishop  Thirlwall  (Charge  for  1863),  "has  never 
 attempted  to  determine  the  nature  of  the  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture " 
 (p.  107  ;  see,  too,  Charges,  i.  p.  295). 
 
 "If  you  ask  me,"  says  Dr.  Cotton,  Bishop  of  Calcutta,  "for  a  precise 
 theory  of  Inspiration,  I  confess  that  I  can  only  urge  you  to  repudiate  all 
 theories,  to  apply  to  theology  the  maxim  which  guided  Newton  in  philosophy, 
 hypotheses  non  Jingo,  and  to  rest  your  teaching  upon  the  facts  which  God  has 
 made  known  to  us"  (Charge  of  1863,  p.  69). 
 
 "  It  must  be  borne  in  mind,"  says  the  Quarterly  Review,  "  that  the  Chnrch 
 Universal  has  never  given  any  definition  of  Inspiration"  (April,  1864, 
 p.  560). 
 
 "  It  seems  pretty  generally  agreed,"  says  the  Bishop  of  Winchester,  "  that 
 definite  theories  of  Inspiration  are  doubtful  and  dangerous "  (Aids  to  Faith, 
 p.  303). 
 
xxii  Preface. 
 
 the  divine  and  the  human  elements  in  the  Bible.     Under 
 such  circumstances  we  turn  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
 and  there  we  find  many  instances  to  prove  that  "inspiration" 
 involves  neither  general  perfection  nor  infallibility,  nor  any 
 perpetual  immunity   from   imitations   of   intellect   or   errors 
 of  practice.1     If  we  endeavour  to  arrive  at  the  meaning  of 
 the  word  from  its  usage  in  our  own  formularies  we  there  re- 
 peatedly find  that  the  term  "  inspiration"  is  given  to  processes 
 of  grace  which    never  exclude  the  coexistence  of  ordinary 
 human  imperfections.2     And  this  is  in  exact  accordance  with 
 every  indication  which  we  derive  from  the  New  Testament,  for 
 it  shows  us  that  inspired  men,  after  the  gift  of  Pentecost,  in 
 nowise  regarded  themselves   as  being  exempt  from  human 
 weaknesses,  and  indeed  differed  widely  from  each  other  in 
 matters  of  minor  importance,  while  they  were   in  absolute 
 agreement  about   essential   truths.      It  is  a  mere  a  prioti 
 theory   to   assume  that   in   their   written  words   their  per- 
 sonality was   obliterated   by   a    supernatural    ecstasy   or  all 
 their  most  trivial  expressions  invested  with  the  dignity  of  an 
 utterance  of  God.     The  words  of  St.  Chrysostom  about  St. 
 Paul — el    /ecu    Ilav\o<i    tjv   aA.V    av6pu>Tro<;    rjv,    and    of   St. 
 Augustine    about  St.  John — "  Inspired us   a  Deo,  seel   tamen 
 homo  " — to  say  nothing  of  the  example  set  by  St.  Jerome 
 and  some  of  the  greatest  Fathers,  show  that  there  is  no  need 
 
 1  "  Inspiration  "  is  attributed  to  Bezaleel,  though  art  was  in  its  merest 
 infancy  (Ex.  xxxi.  3-6)  ;  to  men  of  ordinary  skill  in  husbandry,  though  the 
 husbandry  was  quite  rudimentary  (Is.  xxviii.  24-29)  ;  to  Balaam,  Gideon, 
 Othniel,  Jephtha,  Samson,  David,  Jonah,  &c.,  though  full  of  imperfections. 
 
 2  "  Works  done  before  the  grace  of  Christ  and  the  inspiration  of  His 
 Spirit." — Art.  xiii.  "Cleanse  the.  thoughts  of  our  hearts  by  the  inspiration 
 of  thy  Holy  Spirit." — Collect  in  the  Communion  Service.  "  Beseeching  Thee 
 to  inspire  continually  the  Universal  Church." — Prayer  for  the  Church  Militant. 
 "Grant  .  .  .  that  by  Thy  Holy  inspiration  we  may  think  those  things  that 
 be  good." — Collect  for  F'fth  Sunday  after  Easter.  "  Come,  Holy  Ghost,  our 
 souls  inspire." — Veni  Creator.  See,  too,  the  Homilies  for  Whitman  Day  and 
 for  Rogation  Week. 
 
Preface.  xxiii 
 
 to  deny  the  moral  or  other  difficulties  which  allegory  was 
 invoked  to  explain  away.  Inspiration  can  only  be  confused 
 with  verbal  infallibility  by  ignoring  the  most  obvious  facts 
 of  language  and  history.  Christ  only  is  the  Truth.  He 
 alone  is  free  from  all  error. 
 
 ii.  Nor  have  I  been  called  upon  to  lay  down  any  formal 
 system  of  Exegesis,  though  to  a  certain  extent  the  germ  of 
 one  comprehensive  system  is  involved  in  the  rejection  of 
 many  which  have  hitherto  been  dominant.  If,  as  the  ancient 
 interpreters  constantly  asserted,  allegory  is  not  valid  for 
 purposes  of  demonstration,  and  if  nothing  is  revealed 
 allegorically  which  is  not  elsewhere  revealed  unmistakably 
 without  allegory,  it  is  clear  that  by  abandoning  the  allegoric 
 method  we  cannot  lose  anything  essential.  Bishop  Marsh 
 and  Bishop  Van  Mildert  laid  down  the  rule  that  we  need 
 only  accept  those  allegories  which  are  sanctioned  by  the  New 
 Testament.  But  of  allegories  which  in  any  way  resemble 
 those  of  Philo  or  of  the  Fathers  and  the  Schoolmen,  I  can 
 find  in  the  New  Testament  but  one.1  It  may  be  merely 
 intended  as  an  argnmentum  ad  hominem  ;  it  does  not  seem 
 to  be  more  than  a  passing  illustration ;  it  is  not  at  all 
 essential  to  the  general  argument;  it  has  not  a  particle 
 of  demonstrative  force;  in  any  case  it  leaves  untouched 
 the  actual  history.  But  whatever  view  we  take  of  it, 
 the  occurrence  of  one  such  allegory  in  the  Epistle  of  St. 
 Paul  no  more  sanctions  the  universal  application  of  the 
 method  than  a  few  New  Testament  allusions  to  the  Haggada 
 compel  us  to  accept  the  accumulations  of  the  Midrashim  ;  or 
 a  few  quotations  from  Greek  poets  prove  the  divine  authority 
 of  all  Pagan  literature  ;  or  a  single  specimen  of  the  Athbash 
 
 1  Gal.  iv.  '21  27. 
 
xxiv  Preface. 
 
 in    Jeremiah    authorises   an    unlimited    application    of    the 
 method  of  Notarikon.1 
 
 And  as  we  have  rejected  the  extravagances  of  the  allegoric 
 method,  we  similarly  reject  the  exaggerated  claims  of  the 
 traditional  and  dogmatic  Schools  of  Exegesis.  As  for  tradi- 
 tion, we  trace  it  back  to  its  earliest  extant  sources,  and  find 
 that  even  in  Papias  and  Irenaeus,  in  Tertullian  and 
 Cyprian,  it  has  been  unanimously  rejected  by  the  Christian 
 world  both  as  to  many  matters  of  fact  and  many  matters  of 
 opinion.  And  as  for  Church  doctrine,  we  absolutely  accept 
 the  guidance  of  those  early  and  very  simple  creeds  which 
 are  unambiguously  deducible  from  the  Scriptures  them- 
 selves, but  we  refuse  to  make  of  Scripture  the  leaden  rule  2 
 which  must  always,  and  at  all  hazards,  be  bent  into  ac- 
 cordance with  the  ecclesiastical  confessions  of  a  particular 
 Church.  Astronomers  once  interpreted  the  facts  of  the 
 sidereal  heavens  by  rules  founded  on  the  geocentric 
 hypothesis.  Infinite  confusions  and  complications  resulted 
 from  the  attempt  to  force  the  actual  stellar  phenomena  into 
 agreement  with  that  theory  when  men  came  to  model 
 heaven  and  calculate  how  they  might — 
 
 "  Build,  unbuild,  contrive, 
 To  save  appearances,  how  gird  the  sphere 
 With  centric  and  eccentric  scribbled  o'er, 
 Cycle  and  epicycle,  orb  in  orb." 
 
 Kepler  himself  lost  years  of  labour  by  the  a  priori  as- 
 sumption  that   the   circle   was  a  perfect   figure,   and    that, 
 therefore,  the  stars  could  only  revolve  in  circles.     The  mis 
 take  of  the  Schoolmen  and  the  Post-Reformation  dogmatists 
 was  analogous  to  this.    They  assumed  that  all  Scripture  must 
 
 1  Jer.  xxv.  26  ;  li.  41.     See  infra,  Lect.  ii.,  where  these  allusions  are  fully 
 explained. 
 
 2  "Ciairep  Ka\  ttjs  A«<r/3fas  uIkoSu/xtis  6  /j.o\v[S8ii'os  Kavuv.      riutis  yap  rb  (rx?)Ma 
 toC  \i6ov  (i.tTa.KivuTj.1. — AiiisT.  Eth.  N.  v.  10. 
 
Preface.  xxv 
 
 be  absolutely  perfect  down  to  its  miuutest  details.  They 
 argued  that  the  whole  cause  of  religion  was  lost  if  it  could 
 be  proved — as  in  course  of  time  it  was  proved  to  their  com- 
 plete confusion — that  the  sacred  text  abounded  in  various 
 readings  due  to  the  carelessness,  the  ignorance,  or  the  bias  of 
 scribes,  and  that  the  Masoretic  points,  so  far  from  being 
 "  inspired,"  were  comparatively  modern.  They  used  the 
 whole  system  of  mediaeval  Catholicism,  or  of  Lutheran  and 
 Reformed  confessions,  not  only  to  suggest,  but  to  dictate 
 the  results  of  a  nominally  unfettered  inquiry.  In  this  way 
 they  strove,  but  happily  in  vain,  to  render  impossible  the 
 growth  and  progress  of  religious  thought.  He  who  would 
 study  Scripture  in  its  integrity  and  purity  must  approach 
 the  sacred  page  "  with  a  mind  washed  clean  from  human 
 opinions." 
 
 If  the  Bible  as  a  whole  possesses  a  divine  authority  that 
 authority  must  rest  on  its  inherent  nature  and  its  actual 
 phenomena,  not  on  the  theories  and  inventions  of  men  re- 
 specting it.  "Whatever  excellence  there  is  in  it,"  said  a 
 wise  and  holy  modern  philanthropist,  "  will  be  fireproof;  and 
 if  any  portion  of  it  be  obsolete  or  spurious,  let  that  portion  be 
 treated  accordingly."  We  may  therefore  assume  that  all 
 Exegesis  must  be  unsound  which  is  not  based  on  the  literal, 
 grammatical,  historical  contextual  seme  of  the  sacred  writers. 
 It  is  an  exegetic  fraud  to  invest  with  their  authority  the 
 conclusions  at  which  we  only  arrive  by  distorting  the  plain 
 significance  of  their  words.  It  is  the  duty  of  an  Exegete  to 
 explain,  and  not  to  explain  away.  If  the  Revelation  of  God  has 
 come  to  us  in  great  measure  through  a  Book  set  in  time,  place, 
 and  human  conditions,  it  is  impossible  that  we  should  rightly 
 apprehend  the  meaning  of  that  Book  otherwise  than  by 
 linguistic  and  literary  laws.    Only  by  studying  the  temporary 
 
xxvi  Preface. 
 
 setting  can  we  reach  the  eternal  verity.  And  if  it  be  objected 
 that  this  is  to  interpret  the  Bible  as  we  interpret  any  other 
 book,  we  will  not  merely  answer  that  the  necessity  for  such 
 a  rule  has  been  admitted  by  some  of  the  wisest  alike  of  the 
 Rabbis,  the  Fathers,  and  the  Reformers,  but  will  say  that 
 from  such  a  formula  fairly  apprehended  there  is  no  need  to 
 shrink.  The  Bible  indeed  is  not  a  common  book.  It  is 
 a  book  supreme  and  unique,  which  will  ever  be  reckoned 
 among  the  divinest  gifts  of  God  to  man.  But  yet,  being  a 
 book,  or  rather  a  collection  of  books,  it  can  only  be  inter- 
 preted as  what  it  is.  The  ordinary  methods  of  modern 
 criticism,  ratified  as  they  are  by  the  teaching  of  history, 
 afford  to  us  the  best  means  of  discovering,  across  the  chasm 
 of  the  Ages,  both  the  original  meaning  of  the  sacred  writers 
 and  whatever  admissible  indications  of  other  and  larger 
 meanings  may  be  involved  in  what  they  taught. 
 
 My  main  wish  and  object  has  been  to  show  the  true  basis 
 whereon  rests  the  sacredness  of  Holy  Scripture.  So  far  from 
 detracting  from  the  infinite  preciousness  of  the  truths  which 
 we  can  learn  from  Scripture  best — and  often  from  Scripture 
 only — I  earnestly  desire  to  rescue  those  truths  from  the 
 confusions  and  perversions  to  which  they  are  still  subjected. 
 It  is  because  there  is  no  Book  and  no  Literature  which  can 
 for  a  moment  supply  the  place  of  the  Bible  in  the  moral 
 and  spiritual  education  of  mankind  that  I  would  do  my 
 utmost  to  save  it  from  the  injury  of  false  theories  and  im- 
 possible interpretations.  But  it  is  impossible  not  to  see  that 
 they  who  have  approached  it  in  the  spirit  of  freedom  have 
 served  it  best.  How  rich  and  varied  are  the  testimonies 
 which  might  be  collected  from  every  quarter  to  its  potency 
 of  influence  !  When  Dean  Stanley  was  visiting  the  foremost 
 of  modern  exegetes,  a  New  Testament  which  was  lying  on 
 
Preface.  xxvii 
 
 the  table  accidentally  fell  to  the  ground.  "  In  this  Book,"  said 
 Heinrich  von  Ewald,  as  he  stooped  to  pick  it  up,  "  in  this 
 Book  is  contained  all  the  wisdom  of  the  world."  "  That  Book, 
 sir,"  said  the  American  President,  Andrew  Jackson,  pointing 
 to  the  family  Bible  during  his  last  illness,  "  is  the  rock  on 
 which  our  Republic  rests."  "  I  fear  you  are  ill,"  said 
 Dr.  Latham  to  Faraday  whom  he  found  in  tears  with,  his 
 hand  resting  on  an  open  book.  "It  is  not  that,"  said 
 Faraday  with  a  sob,  "  but  why  will  people  go  astray  when 
 they  have  this  blessed  Book  to  guide  them  ? "  1  "  This 
 collection  of  books,"  said  Theodore  Parker,  "  has  taken  such 
 a  hold  on  the  world  as  no  other.  The  literature  of  Greece, 
 which  goes  up  like  incense  from  that  land  of  temples  and 
 heroic  deeds,  has  not  half  the  influence  of  this  book.  It  goes 
 equally  to  the  cottage  of  the  plain  man  and  the  palace  of  the 
 king.  It  is  woven  into  the  literature  of  the  scholar  and 
 colours  the  talk  of  the  streets."  "  How,"  asks  Professor 
 Huxley,  "  is  the  religious  feeling,  which  is  the  essential  basis 
 of  conduct,  to  be  kept  up  in  the  present  utterly  chaotic  state 
 of  opinion  .  .  .  without  the  use  of  the  Bible  ?  The  pagan 
 moralists  lack  life  and  colour,  and  even  the  noble  Stoic, 
 Marcus  Antoninus,  is  too  high  and  refined  for  an  ordinary 
 child.  By  the  study  of  what  other  book  could  children 
 be  so  much  humanised  and  made  to  feel  that  each  figure  in 
 the  vast  historical  procession  fills,  like  themselves,  but  a 
 momentary  space  in  the  interval  between  two  eternities,  and 
 earns  the  blessings  or  the  curses  of  all  time  according  to  its 
 efforts  to  do  good  and  hate  evil  ?  "  2  These  various  voices  do 
 but  repeat  the  calm  judgment  of  Hooker,  "  There  is  scarcely 
 any  noble  part  of  knowledge  worthy  the  mind  of  man  but 
 
 1  The  anecdote  was  told  mo  by    Professor   A.cland,   who  beard   it   from 
 Dr.  Latham.  -  The  CouXemp.  Itcv.  Dee.  1870. 
 
xxviii  Preface. 
 
 from  Scripture  it  may  have  some  direction  and  light."  *  No 
 man  would  endorse  more  heartily  than  I  the  words  of  our 
 translators  of  1611,  "If  we  be  ignorant,  the  Scriptures  will 
 instruct  us  ;  if  out  of  the  way,  they  will  bring  us  home  ;  if  out 
 of  order,  they  will  reform  us  ;  if  in  heaviness,  comfort  us  ;  if 
 dull,  quicken  us ;  if  cold,  inflame  us.  Tolle,  lege.  Tolle,  lege." 
 Yet,  while  we  echo  all  these  glowing  eulogies  and  many  more, 
 we  do  not  forget  the  warning  of  the  great  and  pre-eminently 
 "judicious"  theologian  whom  I  have  just  quoted,  "Whatsoever 
 is  spoken  cf  God,  or  things  pertaining  to  God,  otherwise  than 
 as  the  truth  is,  though  it  seem  an  honour,  it  is  an  injury." 2 
 
 Many  readers,  discouraged  by  the  apparently  negative 
 character  of  much  that  is  here  dwelt  upon,  may  perhaps 
 desire  a  fuller  development  of  the  positive  side  of  the  truth 
 respecting  the  Scriptures.  In  proof  that  I  deeply  sympathise 
 with  that  desire,  I  may  be  surely  allowed  to  appeal  to  a 
 series  of  works,  spread  over  a  space  of  twenty  years,  in  which 
 I  have  devoted  my  best  thoughts  and  most  earnest  labour  to 
 develop  and  elucidate  the  truths  taught  in  the  Book  of  Books. 
 No  generous  mind  will  condemn  me,  if,  in  proof  that  no 
 purely  negative  or  destructive  criticism  would  have  my 
 sympathy  or  express  my  feelings,  I  humbly  venture  to 
 refer  to  my  commentaries  on  St.  Luke  and  the  Epistle  to 
 the  Hebrews,  to  the  Life  of  Christ,  the  Life  of  St.  Paul,  the 
 Early  Days  of  Christianity,  and  the  Messages  of  the  Books. 
 
 There  only  remains  the  pleasant  duty  of  offering  my  best 
 thanks  to  those  who  have  so  kindly  helped  me  by  their 
 suggestions  or  in  other  ways  during  the  preparation  of  these 
 Lectures.  To  my  kind  and  learned  friend  Prof.  A.  S.  Farrar, 
 D.D.,  Canon  of  Durham,  I  am  peculiarly  indebted  for  valu- 
 able advice  and  assistance,  of  which  I  shall  always  retain  a 
 1  Eccl.  Pol.  III.  iv.  1.  2  Heel.  Pol.  II.  viii.  7. 
 
Preface.  xxix 
 
 very  grateful  remembrance.  I  have  also  to  tender  my  sincere 
 acknowledgments — of  which  they  will  forgive  the  very  in- 
 adequate expression — to  the  Dean  of  Wells,  the  Dean  of 
 Westminster,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wace,  Mr.  W.  Aldis  Wright,  the 
 Rev.  J.  Lupton,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Stanley  Leathes,  the  Rev.  J.  LI. 
 Davies,  the  Ven.  Archdeacon  Norris,  Mr.  P.  J.  Hershon,  and 
 other  friends  who  have  given  me  the  advantage  of  their  criti- 
 cisms or  suggestions.  No  part  of  my  labour  has  caused  me 
 more  pleasure  than  the  fact  that  it  should  call  forth  the  kind 
 interest  of  those  whom  I  have  long  honoured  and  esteemed. 
 
 In  a  work  which  covers  such  vast  periods  of  time  and 
 which  involves  so  many  hundreds  of  references  it  would  be 
 absurd  to  suppose  that  I  have  escaped  from  errors.  All  that 
 I  can  say  is  that  in  this,  as  in  my  other  works,  I  have 
 done — not  perhaps  the  best  that  I  might  have  done  under 
 more  favourable  conditions  of  leisure  and  opportunity — but 
 the  best  that  was  possible  to  me  under  such  circumstances  as 
 I  could  command.  If  in  the  following  pages  I  shall  have 
 offended  any,  I  am  heartily  sorry  for  every  ground  of  offence 
 which  may  have  been  caused  by  my  own  defective  modes  of 
 statement  or  expression,  and  I  beg  the  indulgent  con- 
 sideration of  all  who  believe  that  I  am  actuated  solely  by 
 the  desire  to  do  nothing  against  the  truth,  but  for  the  truth. 
 I  cannot,  indeed,  regret  a  single  word  which  has  been  spoken 
 under  the  strong  conviction  that  it  ought  to  be  spoken.  I 
 have  never  sought  to  please  men:  but  to  the  Lord  of  the 
 (  liurch,  to  Him  who  standeth  in  the  midst  of  the  seven 
 golden  candlesticks,  I  cry  in  deep  humility :  "  Coram  te 
 est  scientia  et  ignorantia  mea ;  ubi  mihi  aperuisti  suscipe 
 intrantem  ;  ubi  clausisti  aperi  pulsanti." 
 
 Fr.EDEiuc  W.  Fakkak. 
 St.  Margaret's  Rectory, 
 Westminster,  July  1885. 
 
CHRONOLOGY 
 RELATING  TO  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION. 
 
 Ezra,  B.C.  457 
 
 The  Septuagint,  277. 
 
 Aristobulus  about  100. 
 
 Hillel,  d.  a.d.  8 
 
 Philo,  d.  40. 
 
 Aqiba,  d.  135. 
 
 Clement  of  Rome,  about  95  A.D. 
 
 Pseudo-Barnabas,  about  100. 
 
 Josephus,  d.  100. 
 
 Justin  Martyr,  164. 
 
 "Rabbi,"  d.  200. 
 
 Irenaeus,  d.  202. 
 
 Clement  of  Alexandria,  d.  about  21G. 
 
 Tertullian,  d.  about  220. 
 
 Origen,  d.  254. 
 
 Cyprian,  d.  258. 
 
 Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  d.  340. 
 
 Athanasius,  d.  373. 
 
 Ephraem  Syrus,  d.  378. 
 
 Basil,  d.  379. 
 
 Ambrose,  d.  397. 
 
 Chrysostom,  d.  407. 
 
 Jerome,  d.  420. 
 
 Rabbi  Ashi,  d.  427. 
 
 Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  d.  429. 
 
 Augustine,  d.  430. 
 
 Theodoret,  d.  457. 
 
 Talmud  k  Targums,  4th  and  5th  Cent. 
 
 Pscudo-Dionysius,  c.  500. 
 
 Grcgoiy  I.  d.  604. 
 
 Bede,  d.  735. 
 
 John  Damascenes,  about  756. 
 
 Walafrid  Strabo,   849.      (Glossa   Ordinaria,    abridged   from    Rabanns 
 
 J.  Scotus  Erigena,  d.  875.  Maurus. ) 
 
Chronology  Relating  to 
 
 Anselm,  d.  1109. 
 
 Thcophylact,  about  1112. 
 
 Anselm  of  Laon  (Glossa  Intcrlincaris),  d.  1117. 
 
 Rupert  of  Deutz,  d.  1135. 
 
 Hugo  de  S.  Yictore,  d.  1141. 
 
 Abelard,  d.  1142. 
 
 Bernard,  d.  1153. 
 
 Peter  Lombard,  d.  1164. 
 
 Richard  de  S.  Victore,  d.  1173. 
 
 Euthymius  Zigabenus,  12th  Cent. 
 
 Spanish  school  of  Jews— Raslii,  Abcnezra,  Kimchi,  12th  Cent. 
 
 Maimonides,  d.  1204. 
 
 Aquinas'  Catenae,  1250. 
 
 Hugo  de  St.  Caro  (Poslilla),  d.  12C3. 
 
 Thomas  Aquinas,  d.  1274. 
 
 Bonaventura,  d.  1274. 
 
 Albertus  Magnus,  d.  1280. 
 
 Nicolas  de  LjTa,  d.  1340. 
 
 William  of  Occam,  d.  1347. 
 
 Wiclif,  d.  1384. 
 
 Hus,  d.  1415. 
 
 Valla,  d.  14C5. 
 
 Ximenes,  d.  1517. 
 
 Reuchlin,  d.  1522. 
 
 Tyndale's  New  Testament,  1526. 
 
 Zwingli,  d.  1531. 
 
 Cajetan,  d.  1534. 
 
 Erasmus,  d.  1536. 
 
 The  Great  Bible,  1539. 
 
 Council  of  Trent,  1545. 
 
 Luther,  d.  1546. 
 
 Calvin,  d.  1564. 
 
 Maldonatus,  d.  1583. 
 
 Sixtus  Senensis,  about  1560. 
 
 Geneva  Bible,  1560. 
 
 Cornelius  h  Lapide,  d.  1657. 
 
 Douai  Bible,  1609. 
 
 Authorised  Version,  1611. 
 
 Est  ins,  d.  1613. 
 
 Mede,  d.  1638. 
 
 Grotius,  d.  1645. 
 
 S.  Glass,  d.  1656. 
 
 Calixt,  d.  1656. 
 
 Hammond,  d.  1660. 
 
 Crilici  Sacri,  1661.     Edited  by  Pearson. 
 
 Poole's  Synopsis  Criticorum,  1669-1676. 
 
 Cocceius,  d.  1669. 
 
 Lightfoot,  d.  1675. 
 
 Calovius,  d.  16S6. 
 
Biblical  Interpretation. 
 
 L.  Cappell,  d.  1658. 
 
 Spinoza,  d.  1677. 
 
 Spener,  d.  1705. 
 
 Patrick,  d.  1707. 
 
 R.  Simon,  d.  1712. 
 
 Vitringa,  d.  1722. 
 
 Rambach,  d.  about  1730. 
 
 Clericus,  d.  1736. 
 
 Schcettgen,  about  1750. 
 
 Ugolini's  Theasurus,  1743-1715. 
 
 Bengel,  d.  1752. 
 
 Wetstein,  d.  1754. 
 
 Calmet,  d.  1757. 
 
 Carpzov,  d.  1767. 
 
 Ernesti,  d.  1781. 
 
 Lessing,  d.  1781. 
 
 Moses  Mendelssohn,  d.  17S6. 
 
 Michaelis,  d.  1791. 
 
 P.p.  Lowth,  d.  1787. 
 
 Scmler,  d.  1791. 
 
 Rosenmiiller,  J.  G.  1815. 
 
 Herder,  d.  1803. 
 
 Kant,  d.  1804. 
 
 Horsley,  d.  1806. 
 
 Jakn,  d.  1816. 
 
 De  Wette,  1830. 
 
 Hegel,  d.  1831. 
 
 Selileiermacher,  d.  1834. 
 
 S.  T.  Coleridge,  d.  1834. 
 
 E.  F.  C.  Rosenmiiller,  1835. 
 
 Neander,  d.  1850. 
 
 Ferd.  Chr.  Baur,  d.  1861. 
 
 Strauss,  d.  1874. 
 
 Ewald,  d.  1875. 
 
TABLE    OP    CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE  I. 
 
 SUCCESS  AND  FAILURE  OF  EXEGESIS,  pp.  1-43. 
 
 page 
 
 The  necessity  of  Exegesis 3 
 
 Difficulty  of  the  task 4 
 
 Need  of  fearlessness  and  honesty 5 
 
 Object  of  these  Lectures 6 
 
 Obsolete  views id. 
 
 Danger  of  conventional  apology 
 
 Manifoldness  of  Scripture 7 
 
 Not  to  be  treated  as  an  idol 8 
 
 I.  The  History  of  Interpretation  to  a  large  extent  a  history  of  errors .    .  id. 
 
 Tested  by  "  the  survival  of  the  fittest  " 9 
 
 Tested  by  the  Hegelian  principle id. 
 
 The  lessons  of  History 10 
 
 Illustrations "/. 
 
 Causes  of  non-natural  Exegesis 11 
 
 Growth  of  alien  rites id. 
 
 Development  of  religious  opinions 
 
 Illustrations id. 
 
 II.  Seven  main  periods  of  Interpretation 12 
 
 Gradual  advance  of  knowledge 18 
 
 Supremacy  of  the  Bible id. 
 
 What  we  may  learn  from  the  past 1  * 
 
 Sufficiency  of  Scripture      15 
 
 Gains  of  Exegesis id. 
 
 Unshaken  influence  of  Scripture l'; 
 
 III.  Perils  of  misinterpretation 1? 
 
 Baseless  Hermeneutic  rules 1  ^ 
 
 L  Rabbinism.     The  seven  rules  of  HUM 19 
 
 Abuses  to  which  they  led 20 — -2 
 
 2.  Alexandrianisin.     The  rules  of  Pliilo '-'- 
 
 Their  futility -:} 
 
 2 
 
xxxvi  Table  of    Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 3.  Rules  of  Tichonius 23—26 
 
 4.  Mistaken  views  in  later  epochs 26,  27 
 
 IV.  The  task  of  the  Expositor 27 
 
 Erroneous  views  of  Inspiration 28 
 
 Need  for  their  correction 29,  30 
 
 V.  False  results  of  Exegesis 30 
 
 Whole  books  misunderstood 31 
 
 The  Book  of  Ecclesiastes 32 
 
 The  Song  of  Solomon 32,  33 
 
 Misinterpretations  of  the  first  verse  of  the  Bible 34 
 
 i.   In  the  Talmud  and  other  Jewish  writings 34 — 37 
 
 ii.  InPhilo 37 
 
 iii.  In  the  Fathers 38 
 
 iv.  Exegesis  very  fallible id. 
 
 v.  Terrible  results  of  misinterpretation 38 — 41 
 
 Perversions  of  Scripture 42 
 
 True  sacredness  and  right  use  of  Scripture 42,  43 
 
 LECTURE  II. 
 
 RABBINIC  EXEGESIS,  pp.  47—107. 
 
 All  ancient  books  need  explanation      47 
 
 Traces  of  interpretation  in  the  Old  Testament 48 
 
 The  spirit  of  the  Prophets 48,  49 
 
 The  spirit  of  tbe  Scribes 50 
 
 I.  How  the  change  was  brought  about    .        51 
 
 Ezra,  the  founder  of  Judaism  proper 51 — 53 
 
 Inferiority  of  Ezra  to  the  Prophets     53 
 
 Permanence  of  Ezra's  work 54 — 56 
 
 II.  The  birth  of  ceremonialism 56,  57 
 
 A  new  idolatry 57 
 
 Servile  legalism 58 
 
 The  commandments  of  men 59 
 
 The  Law  deified  and  superseded 60 
 
 Tyranny  of  Rabbinism id. 
 
 Glorification  of  the  Law 61 
 
 Subordinated  to  Tradition 62,  63 
 
 Scripture  History  explained  away 63 
 
 Rabbinic  casuistry 64 
 
 Sacrifioe  of  the  spirit  to  the  letter id. 
 
 III.  Chiefs  of  the  schools 65 
 
 1.  Hillel.     His  life  and  work id. 
 
 Hillel  contrasted  with  Christ 66 
 
Table  of  Contents.  xxxvii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 2.  Shammai.     A  narrow  formalist 67 
 
 3.  JOHANAN   BEN  ZAKKAI 68 
 
 His  mildness  and  his  services 69 
 
 Restoration  of  an  impossible  religion 70 
 
 4.  Aqiba 70  —78 
 
 His  exorbitant  method 71 
 
 Legends  of  his  life 72 
 
 His  exegetic  system 73,  74 
 
 Mystic  kabbalism 74 
 
 Letter  worship ?0 
 
 Fantastic  explanations 76 
 
 Rebellion  of  Barkokhba 77 
 
 Fate  of  Aqiba 78 
 
 5.  Rabbi  Juda  the  Holy id. 
 
 His  work 79 
 
 The  Mishna 80 
 
 "  The  hedge  around  the  law  " 81 
 
 6.  The  Jerusalem  Talmud id. 
 
 The  Babylonian  Talmud 82 
 
 7.  Mediaeval  Rabbis 83 
 
 I V.  Results  of  Rabbinic  Exegesis 
 
 The  Halakha 84 
 
 Its  minuteness 85 
 
 Legal  disputes  and  contradictions 85,  86 
 
 Indefinite  development 87 
 
 Supremacy  of  precedent , 88 
 
 The  Haggada 89 
 
 Its  gradual  growth      90 
 
 Its  objects 91 
 
 V.  The  Talmud 91—94 
 
 Its  mixed  character 92 
 
 Its  elements 93 
 
 Evils  of  Talmudism 94 
 
 VI.  The  Midrashim 
 
 The  four  methods,  PaRDeS 95 
 
 The  Qabbala 96 
 
 Its  baselessness !»7 
 
 Its  rules id. 
 
 i.  Oematria 98 
 
 Illustrations 98—100 
 
 "  Architectonic  "  and   "  figurative  "  Geraatria 100 
 
 ii.  Notarikon     101 
 
 iii.   Tcmoorah      102 
 
 Specimens  of  Athbash,  &c,  in  the  Bible 103 
 
 Atbach.     Frov.  xxix.  21 104 
 
 Arbitrary  changes  of  reading 104,  105 
 
xxxviii  Table  of  Contents. 
 
 TKIT. 
 
 VII.  Saddening  results 105 
 
 Effects  of  Talmudism 106 
 
 Christ's  judgment  respecting  it 107 
 
 LECTURE  III. 
 ALEXANDRIAN  EXEGESIS,  pp.  111—158. 
 
 Divergent  tendencies  of  Palestinian  and  Alexandrian  exegesis Ill 
 
 I.  Providential  aim  of  the  Dispersion 112 
 
 Widened  sympathies  of  the  Jews 113 
 
 Alexandria 114 
 
 Privileges  of  Alexandrian  Jews 115 
 
 Desire  for  a  translation  of  the  Law 116 
 
 II.  The  Septuagint 116—125 
 
 Its  good  effects 116 
 
 Its  influence  on  Christians 117 
 
 Necessary  defects  of  a  translation    ...        id. 
 
 Jewish  dislike  of  the  LXX 118 
 
 Other  versions 119 
 
 Variations  of  the  LXX.  from  the  Hebrew id.. 
 
 Dislike  of  anthropomorphism 120' 
 
 Deliberate  alterations 121 
 
 Mistakes 122 
 
 Belief  in  its  inspired  character id. 
 
 Errors  into  which  it  led  the  Fathers 123,124 
 
 Jer.  xi.  19  ;  xvii.  9  ;  Ps.  xcvi.  10 ;  Hab.  ii.  11 123 
 
 Hab.  iii.  2  ;  Ps.  xcii.  12  ;  Nah.  i.  9 124 
 
 Jon.  iii.  4 125 
 
 Qeren  Happuk id. 
 
 The  Book  of  Wisdom 126 
 
 Semi-ethnic  Jewish  writings id. 
 
 Josephus  and  other  writers 127 
 
 III.  The  allegorical  method id. 
 
 i.  Pseudo-Aristeas 128 
 
 ii.  Aristobulus id. 
 
 Two  false  views — 
 
 i.  That  Greek  philosophers  learnt  from  the  Jews     .    .    .  129 
 ii.  That  Greek  philosophy  is  to  be  found  in  the  Penta- 
 teuch       130 
 
 IV.  Causes  of  the  allegoric  method 131 — 136 
 
 It  rose  from  the  contact  of  Greek  with  Jewish  thought   ...  131 
 
 A  Jewish  Renaissance 132 
 
 Eclectic  tendencies 133 
 
 Illustrations         .    ,    .    .  ...  134 
 
Table  of  Contents.  xxxix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 V.  The  Allegoric  method  borrowed  from  the  Stoics 134 
 
 Homer  allegorically  explained 135 
 
 Development  of  the  method  by  the  Alexandrians 136 
 
 VI.  Philo 136—157 
 
 Three  exegetic  schools 137 
 
 Philo's  eclecticism 137,  138 
 
 His  views  on  the  literal  sense 139 
 
 His  perversion  of  Scripture 140 
 
 Travesties  of  Scripture  Histories 141 
 
 Philo's  theology 142 
 
 VII.  On  the  Allegories  of  the  Sacred  Laws 143,  111 
 
 Specimens  of  Philonian  allegory 145 
 
 Variable  symbols 146 
 
 Exegetic  nullity 147 
 
 Philo's  views  of  Inspiration id. 
 
 Flexibility  of  the  theory 148 
 
 VI J  J.  Scriptural  arguments  in  favour  of  his  methods 149 
 
 1.  Stoic  rules  for  excluding  the  literal  sense 149,150 
 
 2.  Rules  for  including  the  allegorical  sense 150 
 
 3.  Alterations  of  the  text id. 
 
 4.  Inferences  from  synonyms 151 
 
 5.  Plays  on  words id. 
 
 6.  Emphasis  of  particles,  &c id. 
 
 Results  of  his  system 152 
 
 Merits  of  Philo id. 
 
 Falseness  of  his  methods 153 
 
 Emptiness  of  results 151 
 
 Necessary  futility  of  such  systems 155 
 
 "What  led  him  to  adopt  allegory id. 
 
 Legacy  of  Alexandrianism 156 
 
 IX.  A  divine  progress  in  the  midst  of  error 157,158 
 
 LECTURE  IV. 
 
 PATRISTIC  EXEGESIS,  pp.  161—242. 
 
 The  Promise  of  the  Spirit 161 
 
 The  obvious  limitations 162 
 
 Value  of  the  Fathers l^3 
 
 Scornful  language  objectionable 163 
 
 Difficulties  of  the  Fathers 1G4 
 
 Their  inevitable  deficiencies 165 
 
 I.   The  Apostolic  Fathers 165—170 
 
 1.  St.  Clement  or  Rome 166 
 
 2.  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas 167 
 
xJ  Table  of  Contents. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 His  Christian  Kabbalism 168 
 
 His  strange  faucies 169 
 
 His  "gnosis" 170 
 
 3.  Hermas  and  others ,        ...     171 
 
 4.  St.  Justin  Martyr 172—174 
 
 His  arbitrary  applications 173 
 
 His  exegesis  artificial 174 
 
 5.  St.  Iren^eus 174 — 177 
 
 His  excellent  remarks 175 
 
 His  "  tradition  "  proved  valueless 176 
 
 II.  Three  exegetical  schools 177 
 
 1.  Tertullian 177 — 180 
 
 His  characteristics 178 
 
 His  arrogant  dogmatism 179 
 
 His  appeal  to  "tradition" 180 
 
 2.  St.  Cyprian 180—182 
 
 His  strange  method  of  argument 181 
 
 His  way  of  treating  Scripture 182 
 
 III.  The  School  of  Alexandria 182—203 
 
 Clement  of  Alexandria 183—187 
 
 Characteristics  of  his  system 185 
 
 His  allegoric  faucies 186 
 
 Views  about  "accommodation" 187 
 
 IV.  Origen 187—203 
 
 His  misfortunes 187 
 
 His  greatness 188 
 
 Survival  of  error 189 
 
 His  mistaken  assumptions 190 
 
 His  difficulties 191,  192 
 
 His  theories  of  exegesis 193 
 
 His  views  about  the  literal  sense 194 
 
 His  untenable  arguments 195 
 
 His  allegoric  system 196 
 
 Probable  inventor  of  "  the  threefold  sense  "  .    .    . 197 
 
 His  arbitrariness 198 
 
 Illustrations  of  his  exegesis 199 
 
 Allegory  applied  to  the  New  Testament 200 
 
 V.  Immense  influence  of  Origen 201 — 203 
 
 VI.  St.  Hilary 203 
 
 Specimens  of  his  exegesis 204 
 
 VII.  St.  Ambrose 205 
 
 VIII.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 206 
 
 Julius  Africanus 207 
 
 IX.  Reaction  against  Allegory 208 
 
 Nepos  and  others 209 
 
 Ephraem  Syrus id. 
 
Table  of  Contents.  xli 
 
 PAGE 
 
 X.  The  School  of  Antioch 210 219 
 
 Their  rejection  of  allegory 211 
 
 1.  DioDOJius  of  Tarsus 212 
 
 2.  Theodore  of  Movsuestia 213 219 
 
 His  defects 214 
 
 His  greatness 215 
 
 His  special  views 216 
 
 His  opinion  as  to  Inspiration 217 
 
 His  opinion  about  Prophecy 218 
 
 3.  Theodoret 219 
 
 4.  The  Cappadocian  triumvirate id. 
 
 5.  St.  Chrysostom 220 — 222 
 
 His  eminence  as  an  Expositor 221 
 
 His  practical  aims 222 
 
 XI.  St.  Jerome 222 — 234 
 
 His  greatness 223 
 
 i.  The  Vulgate 223—225 
 
 ii.  His  views  about  the  Canon 225 
 
 iii.  His  regard  for  the  literal  sense id. 
 
 His  defects 225,  sqq. 
 
 a.  His  haste 226 
 
 b.  His  want  of  originality •     ...    227 
 
 c.  His  bitter  prejudices 227,  228 
 
 d.  His  vacillations 229 
 
 iv.  Differences  between  his  theory  and  practice 230 
 
 v.  His  views  of  inspiration 230,  231 
 
 vi.  His  views  about  allegory      231 — 234 
 
 XII.  St.  Augustine 234—239 
 
 His  excellent  theories 234 
 
 His  versatile  genius 235 
 
 His  defects 236 
 
 His  methods  untenable 237 
 
 His  use  of  allegory 238 
 
 Dangers  of  the  allegoric  method 239 
 
 Triumph  of  the  allegorists 240 
 
 High  services  rendered  by  the  Fathers 241,242 
 
 LECTURE  V. 
 
 SCHOLASTIC  EXEGESIS,  pp.  245—303. 
 
 The  Dark  Ages 245 
 
 Decadence  of  knowledge 246 
 
 Deepening  misinterpretation 247 
 
 BEDE 248 
 
xlii  Table  of  Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Specimens  of  his  exegesis 249 
 
 Alcuin id. 
 
 Compilations 250 
 
 The  Glosses 251 
 
 Exegetie  nullity 252 
 
 Johannes  Scotus  Ekigena      253 
 
 His  views 254 
 
 Beginnings  of  Scholasticism 255 
 
 St.  Bernard id. 
 
 Mysticism 256 
 
 Monastic  theology 257 
 
 Hugo  and  Richard  of  St.  Victor 258 
 
 Arelard 259 
 
 His  views  of  inspiration 260 
 
 Peter  Lombard 261 
 
 The  "  Liber  Scntcnliarum  " 2G2 
 
 Aristotle's  works 263 
 
 Influence  of  Aristotle 264 
 
 Work  of  the  Schoolmen 265 
 
 Peculiarity  of  their  studies 266 
 
 Albertus  Magnus 267 
 
 His  weakness  as  an  exegete 268 
 
 St.  Thomas  Aquinas 269 
 
 His  "Catena" 270 
 
 Mistaken  ingenuity 271 
 
 St.  Bonaventura 272 
 
 His  exegesis 273 
 
 Nicolas  of  Lyra      274 
 
 He  learnt  from  Jewish  exegetes 275 
 
 His  merits 276 
 
 His  originality 277 
 
 Retrograde  tendency  of  Paulus  of  Burgos  and  others 278 
 
 Wiclif  and  others id. 
 
 Tostatus  and  others      279 
 
 Decadence  of  Scholasticism 280 
 
 William  of  Occam 281 
 
 Revival  of  the  study  of  Plato 282 
 
 Defects  of  Scholastic  exegesis 283 
 
 1.  Vague  views  of  inspiration id. 
 
 2.  Servility  of  Scholasticism 284 
 
 3.  Lack  of  due  equipment 285 
 
 4.  Neglect  of  Philology 286 
 
 5.  Dependence  on  false  parallels 287 
 
 6.  Abuse  of  dialectics 288,  289 
 
 7.  Barbarous  terminology 290 
 
 8.  "  Vermiculate  questions  " 291 
 
Table  of  Contents.  xliii 
 
 PAOK 
 
 '  Vaniloquium" 292 
 
 Frivolous  disputes 293 
 
 9.  The  "multiple  sense"  of  Scripture 294 
 
 The  fourfold  sense 295 
 
 10.  Specimens   of  mediaeval  exegesis 296 — 298 
 
 Indifference  of  the  laity 298 
 
 Interests  of  the  Papacy 299 
 
 The  views  of  the  English  Reformers 299,  300 
 
 Lives  and  examples  of  the  great  Schoolmen 301,  302 
 
 Divine  vitality  of  Scripture 303 
 
 LECTURE  VI. 
 
 THE  REFORMERS,  pp.  307—354. 
 
 "  Protestantism  "  a  phase  of  a  great  movement 307 
 
 What  the  Reformation  was 308 
 
 Services  and  degeneracy  of  the  Papacy 308,  309 
 
 Decadence  of  religious  institutions 310,  311 
 
 Early  Reformers 312 
 
 1.  Lorenzo  Valla 313 
 
 2.  FabekStapulensis 314 
 
 3.  Reuchlin 314—316 
 
 4.  Erasmus 316—322 
 
 II  is  work 317 
 
 His  originality id. 
 
 His  opinions  about  Scripture 318 
 
 His  courage 319 
 
 His  Paraphrases  and  Annotations 320 
 
 His  independence 321 
 
 A  pioneer  of  the  Reformation 322 
 
 5.  Lt/THER 322—341 
 
 Greatness  of  his  services 323 
 
 Stages  of  his  religious  growth 324,  325 
 
 His  principles 325 — 331 
 
 i.  Final  authority  of  Scripture 325,  326 
 
 ii.  Sufficiency  of  Scripture 327 
 
 iii.  Maintenance  of  the  literal  sense id. 
 
 iv.  Rejection  of  allegory 828 
 
 v.  Perspicuity  of  Scripture 328,  329 
 
 vi.  Right  of  private  judgment 329—331 
 
 His  rules  of  Scripture  interpretation 332 — 334 
 
 1.  Necessity  for  spiritual  illumination 
 
 2.  Analogia  fidei 882, 
 
 3.  Reference  of  all  Scripture  to  Chrisl 333,334 
 
xliv  Tabic  of  Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Independence  of  Luther's  attitude  towards  Scripture 335 
 
 Remarks  on  the  Canon 336 
 
 Spiritual  confidence  of  Luther 337 
 
 Strength  of  his  faith 338 
 
 His  general  principles id. 
 
 I.  The  "  Word  of  God  "  not  identical  with  Scripture    ...    339 
 
 II.  "  Inspiration  "  not  "verbal" id. 
 
 III.  "  Inspiration"  not  confined  to  Scripture 340 
 
 6.  Melancutuon,  Zwingli,  and  others 341,  342 
 
 7.  Calvin 342—352 
 
 i.  His  greatness  as  an  exegete 342 — 344 
 
 ii.  Contempt  for  exegetic  frivolity 344,  345 
 
 iii.  Abhorrence  of  weak  arguments 345,  346 
 
 iv.  His  views  of  Messianic  prophecy 346,  347 
 
 Not  free  from  dogmatic  bias 347 — 349 
 
 Vague  views  about  Inspiration 349 
 
 His  intolerance 350 
 
 His  ruthlessness 351 
 
 False  views  of  the  Old  Testament 352 
 
 8.  Immense  advance  made  by  the  Eeformers 352 
 
 Truth  and  Freedom .353 
 
 Churches  need  man}'  Pentecosts 354 
 
 LECTURE  VII. 
 
 POST-REFORMATION  EPOCH,  pp.  357—394. 
 
 Arrest  of  the  impulse  given  to  Exegesis 357 
 
 I.  A  cheerless  epoch '  358 
 
 A  threefold  evil 359 
 
 1.  Tyrannous  Confessionalism id. 
 
 Multiplication  of  symbols  and  formulae 360 
 
 2.  Exorbitant  systematisation 361 
 
 3.  Contentious  theological  bitterness 362 — 366 
 
 Multitudes  of  controversies 362 
 
 Egotistical  factiousness 363 
 
 Mutual  condemnations id. 
 
 Flacitjs  Illykicus 364 
 
 Abraham  Calov 364,  365 
 
 Abuse  of  "proof-texts" 365 
 
 Extravagant  letter-worship 366 
 
 4.  Two  special  controversies id. 
 
 i.  The  Calvinistic  controversy 366,  367 
 
 ii.  The  "  Communicatio  Idiomatum" 867 — 369 
 
 5.  Biblical  supernaturalism 369,  370 
 
Table  of  Contents.  xlv 
 
 PAGE 
 
 6.  Scriptural  infallibility 370—372 
 
 Ratiimann  : 372 
 
 Advancing  Bibliolatry .".;:; 
 
 Consequent  extravagances 374 
 
 Decay  of  spiritual  life 375 
 
 English  theologians  and  critics 376,377 
 
 II.  Dawn  of  freer  movements 377 
 
 The  deliverance  came  from  the  few 378 
 
 1.  Arminianism 379 
 
 2.  Pietism 380—382 
 
 Philip  James  Spkner 380,  381 
 
 Other  Pietists 381,  382 
 
 3.  Tolerance  and  culture.     Georg  Calixt 382,383 
 
 4.  Modem  Philosophy.     Descartes,  Spinoza 383,  384 
 
 5.  Mysticism.     Jacob  Bohme 384 
 
 6.  Cocceianism.     John  Koch 385 
 
 Cocceian  Exegetes 386 
 
 7.  Modern  criticism 386—388 
 
 Louis  Cappel     387 
 
 The  Buxtorffs  and  others 388 
 
 III.  Increase  of  knowledge 388,  889 
 
 i.  Count  Zinzendorf 389,  390 
 
 ii.  John  James  Wetstein 391 
 
 iii.  BeNgel 392—394 
 
 His  greatness 392 
 
 His  views  of  Scripture 393 
 
 His  death      394 
 
 LECTURE    VIII. 
 
 MODERN  EXEGESIS,  pp.  397—437. 
 
 Difficulties  of  the  subject 397 
 
 Disruption  of  Protestant  Scholasticism id. 
 
 Leibnitz  and  Wolff 398 
 
 Lessing 399 
 
 l;  1 1  m  arus  and  Babhdt 400 
 
 Feebleness  of  the  apologists 401 
 
 Gellert id. 
 
 EALLEB 402 
 
 EULER ('./. 
 
 The  critical  school — Michaelis,  Ernesti,  Eichhoxn,  Panlns 402 
 
 Semler 402—405 
 
 Views  of  Semler 403 
 
 Abuse  of  "accommodation" I°l 
 
xlvi  Table  of  Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Herder 405—407 
 
 His  Humanism 405 
 
 His  views  of  Scripture 406 
 
 His  work  imperfect 407 
 
 Kant 407,  408 
 
 Fichte 409 
 
 schleiermaciier 409 — 411 
 
 His  influence  on  theology 410 
 
 His  followers 411 
 
 Hegel id. 
 
 His  followers 412 
 
 Strauss 413 
 
 Ferd.  Chr.  Baur  and  the  School  of  Tubingen 414 
 
 Neander 414,  415 
 
 Failure  of  Strauss  and  Baur 415,  416 
 
 The  orthodox  reaction 417 
 
 Enlarged  views 418 
 
 Biblical  studies.     Tholuck,  &c .    419 
 
 Great  German  Exegetes  and  Theologians 420 
 
 English  Theologians  and  Exegetes 420,  421 
 
 Views  of  Inspiration 421 
 
 Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge 422 
 
 Extent  of  his  influence 423 
 
 Teachers  whom  he  influenced 423,  424 
 
 Results  of  their  labours 424 
 
 Necessity  for  Progress 425 
 
 Growth  of  modern  Science 426 
 
 Attitude  of  Theology  towards  Science 427 
 
 Advance  of  the  human  intellect 428 
 
 Growth  of  the  science  of  criticism id. 
 
 Its  effects  on  the  study  of  Scripture 429 
 
 Critical  questions 430 
 
 The  tests  of  revelation id. 
 
 Use  and  misuse  of  Scripture 431 
 
 The  Gospel  of  the  poor  and  simple 432 
 
 Co-ordinate  claims  of  Faith 433 
 
 Christ  the  one  Interpreter 434 
 
 Christ  and  the  Scribes 435 
 
 Sacredness  of  truth  and  love 436 
 
 Porro  unum  necessarium id. 
 
 Last  words 437 
 
Tabic  of  Contents.  xlvii 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 NOTES   TO  LECTURE   II 
 
 !'\..r. 
 
 NOTE  I. — Self-glorification  of  the  Rabbis Ill 
 
 Some  of  their  titles 442 
 
 Note  II. — The  Targums  and  Midrashim 440—444 
 
 Note  III. — Rabbi  Johanan  ben  Zakkai 444 
 
 Note  IV. — Exegetic  and  Symbolic  Kabbalism 115 — 448 
 
 1.  Gcmatria 445 
 
 2.  Notarikon 446 
 
 3.  Inferences  from  changing  the  reading id, 
 
 1.  Importance  attached  to  letters 447 
 
 5.  Inferences  from  the  repetition  of  words id. 
 
 <5.  Inferences  from  impersonal  verbs 448 
 
 7.  Inferences  from  plurals id. 
 
 Miscellaneous id. 
 
 Note  V.— The  Karaites 449,450 
 
 Note  VI. — The  Maasora 450 
 
 Note  VII. — Talmudic  Cryptographs 451 
 
 NOTES  TO  LECTURE  III. 
 
 Note  I. — Philo's  use  of  the  Septuagint 452 
 
 Note  II. — The  exegetical  principles  of  Josephus 452,453 
 
 Note  III.— The  Septuagint  Version 458—455 
 
 Note  IV. — Philo's  phrases  for  the  literal  and  allegoric  sense     .    .    .    455,456 
 Note  V.— rhilo  and  Messianic  Hopes 457,458 
 
 NOTE  TO  LECTURE  IV. 
 Patristic  reasons  for  adopting  Allegory 4fiP,  W<0 
 
 NOTES  TO  LECTURE  V. 
 
 Note  I. — Mediaeval  Jewish  commentators 461 — 164 
 
 R.  Saadia  Gaon 401 
 
 Rashi 462 
 
 Rashham 
 
 Juda  Ha- Levi 
 
 Ibn  Ezra  
 
 Maimonides 463 
 
xlviii  Table  of  Contents. 
 
 PAOK 
 
 The  Qimchis 464 
 
 Joseph  Albo id. 
 
 Abrabanel id. 
 
 Elias  Levita id. 
 
 Note  II.— Titles  of  the  Schoolmen 465 
 
 Note  III.— Origin  of  Scholasticism 466 — 468 
 
 Note  IV. — The  Sic  et  non  of  Abelard 468,  469 
 
 Note  V. — The  abuse  of  "  Parallel  passages  " 469,  470 
 
 Note  VI. — Opinions  on  Scholasticism 470 
 
 NOTES  TO  LECTURE  VI. 
 
 Note  I. — Remarks  of  Luther  on  the  Fathers 471 
 
 Note  II. — Calvin's  notes  on  Messianic  Passages 472 
 
 NOTE  TO  LECTURE  VIII. 
 Some  Exegetic  rules  and  principles 473—476 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 479—489 
 
EXTEACT 
 
 FROM    THE    LAST    WILL    AND    TESTAMENT 
 
 OF  THE  LATE 
 
 REV.    JOHN    BAMPTON, 
 
 CANON    OF   SALISBURY. 
 
 "I  give  and  bequeath  my  Lands  and  Estates  to  the 
 
 "  Chancellor,  Masters,  and  Scholars  of  the  University  of 
 "  Oxford  for  ever,  to  have  and  to  hold  all  and  singular 
 "the  said  Lands  or  Estates  upon  trust,  and  to  the  intents 
 "and  purposes  hereinafter  mentioned;  that  is  to  say,  I 
 "  will  and  appoint  that  the  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  Uni- 
 versity of  Oxford  for  the  time  being  shall  take  and 
 "receive  all  the  rents,  issues,  and  profits  thereof,  and  (after 
 "all  taxes,  reparations,  and  necessary  deductions  made) 
 "that  he  pay  all  the  remainder  to  the  endowment  of  eight 
 "Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  to  be  established  for  ever  in 
 "the  said  University,  and  to  be  performed  in  the  manner 
 "  following : 
 
 "I   direct  and  appoint,  that,  upon  the   first    Tuesday  in 
 "Easter  Term,  a  Lecturer  !»■  yearly  chosen  by  the  Eeads 
 
1  Extract  from  Canon  Bamptoris  Will. 
 
 "of  Colleges  only,  and  by  no  others,  in  the  room  ad- 
 joining to  the  Printing-House,  between  the  hours  of  ten 
 "  in  the  morning  and  two  in  the  afternoon,  to  preach  eight 
 "  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  the  year  following,  at  St. 
 "  Mary's  in  Oxford,  between  the  commencement  of  the  last 
 "  month  in  Lent  Term,  and  the  end  of  the  third  week 
 "in  Act  Term. 
 
 "Also  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  the  eight  Divinity 
 "  Lecture  Sermons  shall  be  preached  upon  either  of  the 
 "  following  Subjects — to  confirm  and  establish  the  Christian 
 "  Faith,  and  to  confute  all  heretics  and  schismatics — upon 
 "the  divine  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures — upon  the 
 "authority  of  the  writings  of  the  primitive  Fathers,  as 
 "to  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  primitive  Church — upon 
 "  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ — upon 
 "the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost — upon  the  Articles  of 
 "the  Christian  Faith,  as  comprehended  in  the  Apostles' 
 "and  Nicene  Creeds. 
 
 "  Also  I  direct,  that  thirty  copies  of  the  eight  Divinity 
 "  Lecture  Sermons  shall  be  always  printed  within  two 
 "  months  after  they  are  preached ;  and  one  copy  shall 
 "  be  given  to  the  Chancellor  of  the  University,  and  one 
 "  copy  to  the  Head  of  every  College,  and  one  copy  to 
 ';  the  Mayor  of  the  city  of  Oxford,  and  one  copy  to  be 
 "  put  into  the  Bodleian  Library  ;  and  the  expense  of  print- 
 ing them  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  revenue  of  the  Land 
 "  or   Estates   given    for    establishing    the    Divinity    Lecture 
 
Extract  from  Canon  Bamptoris  Will.  li 
 
 "Sermons;  and    the    Preacher   shall    not   be    paid,   nor  be 
 "entitled  to  the  revenue,  before  they  are  printed. 
 
 "Also  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  no  person  shall  be 
 "qualified  to  preach  the  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  unless 
 "  he  hath  taken  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  at  least, 
 '•in  one  of  the  two  Universities  of  Oxford  or  Cambridge; 
 "and  that  the  s?„me  person  shall  never  preach  the  Divinity 
 "  Lecture  Sermons  twice." 
 
"  Tractatio  Scripturae  a  priinis  saeculis  Novi  Testamenti  ad  hodiernuiri 
 usque  diem  diversas  liabuit  aetates.  Prima  possit  dici  nativa  ;  secunda 
 moralis  ;  tertia,  arid  a ;  quarta,  rediviva  ;  quinta,  polemica,  dogmatica, 
 topica  ;  sexta,  critica,  polyglolta,  aniiquaria,  homiletica.  Adhuc  igitur 
 non  ea  Scripturae  viguit  e.xperieutia  et  intelligentia  in  Ecelesia,  quae  in 
 ipsa  Scriptura  ofl'ertur.  Evincunt  hoc  opinionuni  luxuriantes  dis- 
 crepantiae  et  caligantes  in  prophetis  oculi  nostri.  Plus  ultra  vocamur 
 ad  earn  in  Scripturis  facultatem  quae  est  virilis  et  r  eg  alls,  perfectionique 
 Scripturae  satis  prope  respondeat.  Sed  per  ad  versa  excoquendi  erunt 
 homines  prius.  Earum  aetatum  historia  et  descriptio  justum  atcpie 
 utilem  tractatum  daret."- — Bengel,  Praefatio  Gnomonis,  §  v. 
 
 "  Ye  search  the  Scriptures,  because  ye  think  that  in  them  ye  have 
 eternal  life  ;  and  these  are  they  which  Lear  witness  of  Me  ;  and  ye  will 
 not  come  to  Me  that  ye  may  have  life." — John  v.  39,  40. 
 
HISTOEY  OF  INTEKPKETATION. 
 
 LECTURE  I. 
 
 SUCCESS   AND    FAILURE   OF   EXEGESIS. 
 
 "  Break  up  your  fallow  ground,  and  sow  not  among  thorns."  : — Jer.  it.  3. 
 
 There  is  not  one  of  the  sacred  books  which  have  been  called 
 "the  Bibles  of  Humanity"  which  has  not  in  the  lapse  of 
 years  become  the  subject  of  endless  comment  and  explana- 
 tion. As  centuries  advance,  there  is  an  inevitable  change  in 
 modes  of  thought  and  forms  of  expression.  Words  and 
 ]  ih  rases  become  obsolete  or  acquire  a  wholly  new  connotation. 
 The  writings  which  nations  accept  as  their  chief  guide  in 
 matters  of  religion  derive  their  authority  partly  from  the 
 ascendency  of  master  minds,  partly  from  their  own  intrinsic 
 depth,  force,  or  beauty.  Books  which  have  once  been  ac- 
 knowledged as  sacred,  become  the  centres  of  thousands  of 
 hallowed  associations,  and  the  reverence  in  which  they  are 
 held  grows  deeper  as  age  after  age  passes  by.  But  the  words 
 of  one  age  and  nation  can  never  be  the  exact  and  complete 
 expression  of  the  thoughts  of  another,  and  for  books  immor- 
 talised by  the  accumulated  reverence  of  generations,  Exegesis 
 becomes  a  matter  of  necessity.  It  is  required  for  the  ex- 
 planation of  a  significance  which  time  has  obscured,  and  for 
 the  co-ordination  of  ancient  thoughts  with  the  discoveries, 
 the  experiences,  the  philosophical  inquiries  of  later  periods. 
 
 1   Lit.   "  Fallow  for  you  a  fallow  ground."     LXX.  veuxrare  iaurois  vf&para. 
 Comp.  Hos.  x.  12  •  Matt.  xiii.  7. 
 
 B    2 
 
4  Qualification  of  the  Exegcte. 
 
 The  Bible  furnishes  no  exception  to  this  universal  law ; 
 but  it  stands  alone  among  sacred  books  in  that  it  is 
 avowedly  the  record  of  a  progressive  revelation,  of  a  revela- 
 tion not  homogeneous  throughout  in  value  and  import- 
 ance, but  given  fragmentarily  and  multifariously  in  many 
 portions  and  many  ways.1  Holy  men  of  old  spake  as  they 
 were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  their  language  was 
 subject  to  all  the  ordinary  conditions  and  limitations  of  human 
 speech.  To  quote  the  profound  maxim  of  Rabbi  Ishmael, 
 which  was  so  often  on  the  lips  of  Maimonides,  the  Law  speaks 
 in  the  tongue  of  the  sons  of  men!1  Hence  the  one  aim  of  the 
 interpreter  should  be  to  ascertain  the  specific  meaning  of  the 
 inspired  teacher,  and  to  clothe  it  in  the  forms  which  will  best 
 convey  that  meaning  to  the  minds  of  his  contemporaries.3 
 The  task  is  far  from  easy.  It  may  try  the  strength  of  hosts  of 
 labourers,  and  it  requires  a  lifelong  devotion  to  many  branches 
 of  criticism,  literature,  archaeology,  language,  and  history. 
 But  more  is  required  than  even  this  inexhaustible  capacity 
 for  labour.  The  perfect  Expositor  needs  further  to  be  en- 
 dowed with  a  genius  cognate  with  that  of  the  sacred  writer.4 
 He  must  above  all  be  a  man  of  dauntless  independence  and 
 perfect  candour.  In  the  course  of  our  inquiry  we  shall  see 
 again  and  again  that  even  a  translator  has  need  of  invincible 
 honesty  if  he  would  avoid  the  misleading  influences  of  his  own 
 
 1   TToAvfMcpws  Kal  TToXvTpoirws.      Ileb.  i.  1. 
 
 -  DIN  »33  pE5^>3  min  fHSH.  See  Hirschfeld,  HalacMsche  Exegese, 
 p.    142  ;  Derenbourg,   Palestine,  p.  392. 
 
 "  The  myths  and  parables  of  the  primal  years, 
 Whose  letter  kills,  by  Thee  interpreted, 
 Take  healthful  meanings  litted  to  our  needs  ; 
 And  in  the  soul's  vernacular  express 
 The  common  law  of  simple  righteousness." — Whittiee. 
 
 3  Aug.  De  Doctr.  Christ,  i.  1.  "  JDuae  res  quibus  nititur  omnis  tractatio 
 Scriplurac,  modus  inveniendi  quae  intelligenda  sunt,  et  modus  proferendi  quae 
 intellecta  sunt."  Ernesti,  Inst.  Intcrpr.  "Est  inter prctatio  facultas  docaidi 
 quae  cujusque  orationi  subjecta  sit,  seu  efficiendi  ut  alter  cogitet  eadera  cum 
 scriptore  quoque." 
 
 *  "  Willst  den  Dichter  Du  verstehen  ? 
 
 Musst  in  Dichter's  Lande  gehen." — Goethe. 
 
 "  Intelligere  scriptoreni  is  dieendus  est  qui  idem  quod  ille  dum  scribebat 
 cogitavit,  legens  cogitat." — Ivuenkn,  Critica  Lincamcnta. 
 
The  Authority  of  Scripture.  5 
 
 a  priori  convictions.  The  legend  which  tells  us  how  Luther 
 hurled  his  inkstand  at  the  Spirit  of  Evil  in  his  Fatmos 
 at  the  Wartburg  indicates  the  fierce  temptations  which  the 
 faith  of  the  Interpreter  must  be  strong  enough  to  resist. 
 But  it  would  seem  to  require  a  greatness  more  than 
 human  to  attain  to  the  full  measure  of  this  absolute 
 honesty.  Not  only  in  the  Septua^int  and  in  the  Vulgate,  but 
 even  in  Luther's  version,  and  in  the  English  Bible,  there  are 
 admitted  errors  which  indicate  the  theological  bias  of  the 
 translators  and  not  the  unmodified  thoughts  of  the  sacred 
 text.1  Few  are  the  translators,  fewer  still  the  Exegetes,  who 
 have  been  so  free  from  various  idols  of  the  cave,  the  forum,  and 
 the  theatre  as  to  abstain  from  finding  in  the  Bible  thoughts 
 which  it  does  not  contain,  and  rejecting  or  unjustly  modifying 
 the  thoughts  which  indeed  are  there. 
 
 The  founder  of  the  Bampton  Lectures  placed  "the  divine 
 authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  "  in  the  forefront  of  the 
 truths  on  which  he  wished  these  sermons  to  be  preached. 
 To  maintain  that  authority  will  be  my  one  object  in  the 
 larire  and  difficult  task  which  I  have  undertaken.  Of  late 
 years  the  Bible  has  been  assailed  by  many  critics,  and 
 we  may  fear  that  the  minds  of  thousands  have  been  dis- 
 quieted. It  is  but  too  probable  that  such  assaults  will  in- 
 crease in  number  and  in  violence.  The  Voice  that  once 
 shook  the  earth  "  hath  premised,  saying,  Yet  once  more  will  I 
 make  to  tremble  not  the  eartb  only,  but  also  the  heaven. 
 And  this  word,  '  Yet  once  more,'  signifieth  the  removing  of 
 those  things  that  are  shaken,  as  of  things  that  have 
 been  made,  that  those  things  which  are  not  shaken  may 
 remain."*2  Many  beliefs  have  been  shaken  to  the  very 
 dust  which  were  once  erroneously  deemed  essential    to  the 
 
 '  Of  the  LXX.  I  shall  speak  infra.  The  most  striking  instance  of  sup- 
 po  led  bias  in  Luther's  version  is  in  Rom.  iii.  28  ("  vox  'SOLA  '  tnt  clamoribus 
 Lapidata "),  but  "alone"  had  appeared  in  the  Genoese  Bible  (1476),  and  the 
 Nuremberg  Bible  (1483).  For  the  English  version,  see  among oth 
 1  Sam.  iii.  15  ;  2  Sam.  viii.  18  ;  Arts  ii.  17  ;  1  <"<>r.  xi.  -11  ;  Cat.  i.  18  ;  Ueb. 
 vi.  6;  x.  38,  although  there  is  not  in  any  single  passage  any  intentional 
 mala  fides, 
 
 ■  Heb.  xii.  25,  2G. 
 
6  Sincerity  Essential, 
 
 maintenance  of  our  belief  in  Scripture.  With  the  defence  of 
 these  debris,  with  the  reconstruction  of  these  ruins,  we  are 
 not  concerned.  They  were  but  untenable  additions,  fantastic 
 human  superstructures,  weak  outworks,  unauthorised  priestly 
 chambers,  the  clustering  cells  of  idols  innumerable,  which  had 
 been  built  round  the  inviolable  shrine.  They  were  the  ad- 
 ditions made  thereto,  sometimes  by  usurping  self-interest, 
 sometimes  by  ignorant  superstition.  They  did  but  weaken 
 the  building,  and  deform  the  original  design.  They  have 
 crumbled  under  the  hands  of  time,  or  have  been  demolished 
 by  hostile  forces,  often  amid  the  anathemas  of  those  who 
 erected  them.  But  as  they  have  been  swept  away  we  have 
 seen  more  clearly  the  beauty  of  the  Temple,  bright  with 
 the  Glory  of  the  Presence,  built  after  the  pattern  given  in 
 the  Mount. 
 
 If  the  Scriptures  be  holy  and  of  divine  authority,  no 
 deadlier  disservice  can  be  inflicted  on  them  than  the  casuistical 
 defence  of  conventional  apology.  On  the  altar  of  Truth  I 
 will  offer  no  such  strange  fire,  I  will  burn  no  such  unhallowed 
 incense.  The  Bible  would  have  no  claim  to  sacredness 
 if  it  needed  any  apology  beyond  the  simplest  statement 
 of  plain  facts.  Even  when  the  Ark  seems  to  totter  it  is 
 more  really  profaned  by  the  Uzzah-  hands  of  officious  reve- 
 rence than  by  the  rudeness  of  the  Philistines  themselves.  The 
 divine  authority  which  I  would  maintain  is  that  of  Scripture 
 in  its  simple  meaning,  in  its  native  majesty;  of  Scripture 
 as  the  manifold  record  of  a  progressive  revelation.  The 
 Bible  forms  an  organic  whole,  but  it  is  composed  of  many 
 parts  of  unequal  value.  It  consists  of  no  less  than  sixty- 
 six  books  in  different  languages,  in  different  styles,  of 
 different  ages.1  It  is  not  a  book  but  a  library.  It  contains 
 the  fragments  of  a  national  literature,  and  the  fragments  only. 
 Many  books  which  have  now  perished  are  quoted  in  its  pages. 
 No  less  than  ten  such  works — by  Nathan,  Shemaiah,  Gad, 
 
 1  The  word  Bible  represents  not  rb  Qi&xlov  but  ra  (Si&xla,  a  term  which 
 began  to  bo  used  in  tin:  fifth  century.  The  Scriptures  were  also  called  Bibliv- 
 theca.     Jer.  Ep.  6  ;  Durandus,  national,  i.  27  ;  Du  Cange,  s.v. 
 
Manifoldnes8  of  Scripture.  7 
 
 [ddo,  Ahijah,  Hosai,  Jehu  son  of  Hanani,  Isaiah,  and  others 
 who  arc  unnamed — are  referred  to  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles 
 alone.  It  was  written  by  kings  and  peasants,  by  priests  and 
 prophets,  by  warriors  and  husbandmen,  by  Jews,  by  Christians, 
 and  in  parts  even  by  Gentiles;  by  poets  and  chroniclers;  by 
 passionate  enthusiasts  and  calm  reasoners ;  by  unlearned 
 fishermen  and  Alexandrian  students  ;  by  exclusive  patriots 
 and  liberal  humanitarians ;  by  philosophers  who  knew  from 
 reasoning,  and  mystics  who  saw  by  intuition,  and  practical 
 men  who  had  learnt  by  experience  the  lessons  which  they 
 recognised  to  be  eternal  and  divine.  He  who  would  truly 
 reverence  Scripture  must  reverence  it  as  it  is.  He  must 
 judge  of  it  in  its  totality,  and  by  its  actual  phenomena.  Its 
 authority  is  derived  from  its  final  and  genuine  teaching. 
 If  our  faith  in  it  be  strong  and  living  we  must  estimate 
 it,  book  by  book,  and  utterance  after  utterance,  by  its 
 own  claims,  and  by  the  manner  in  which  it  justifies  them, 
 without  the  invention  of  mechanical  theories,  or  the  adop- 
 tion of  arbitrary  interpretations.  We  shall  not,  indeed,  for 
 one  moment,  deny  to  Scripture  that  prerogative  of  all  inspired 
 language  by  which  its  meaning  is  not  always  exhausted  by 
 a  single  aspect  of  truth.  Where  it  is  dealing  with  spiritual 
 facts  or  expressing  unfathomable  mysteries,  the  letter  of  it 
 should  be  to  us  as  the  Urim  of  Aaron,  while  the  revealing 
 light  of  the  Spirit  within  us  steals  over  the  oracular  gems. 
 Simplicity  of  interpretation  does  not  exclude  the  many-sided- 
 ne.-s  of  truth  which  suggested  to  St.  Paul  the  epithet  "richly 
 variegated,"  x  and  which  made  Erigena  compare  the  meanings 
 of  Scripture  to  the  glancing  hues  on  a  peacock's  feather.2 
 But  "the  revelation  of  God's  words  givcth  understanding 
 to  the  simple."2'  The  humblest  Christian  may  claim  his 
 share  in  the  illumination  promised  to  all  God's  children,  and 
 
 1  Ejih.  iii.  10.     Tj  ttoKvtto'iki\os  <ro<pia  rov  Qeov.     Vulg.  Multiformis,  comp. 
 Eur.  Iph.  T.  1150. 
 
 -  De  Div.  Nat.  iv.  5.     "Estenim  multiplex  et  Lufinitus  divinorura  eloqui 
 >>nirii  intellects.     Siquidem  in  peunfi   pavonia  ana  eademque   mirabilifl  ac 
 pulclira  iunumerabilium  colorum  varietaa  conepicitur  in  uno  eodi  mqu< 
 cjusdum  pennae  portiunculae."  *  Pa.  cziz.  I   ". 
 
8  Danger  of  Idolism. 
 
 may  therefore  refuse  to  resign  into  the  hands  of  usurpers, 
 however  venerable,  the  indefeasible  rights  of  the  human 
 Reason  and  the  indefeasible  duty  of  the  human  Conscience. 
 lie  must  not  confuse  revealed  facts  with  theological  notions.1 
 He  must  not  permit  long-tolerated  errors  to  put  on  the  air  of 
 abstract  truths.  He  will  interpret  language  by  the -only  laws 
 whereby  it  can  be  judged.  He  will  sweep  aside  all  arbitrary 
 glosses  of  which  he  can  trace  the  genesis  and  divine  the  object. 
 He  will  do  this  all  the  more  in  proportion  to  his  convic- 
 tion that  the  Holy  Scriptures  contain  the  Word  of  God, 
 which  it  is  of  infinite  importance  that  he  should  not  confuse 
 with  the  teaching  of  ignorant  and  imperfect  men.  When 
 Alexander  was  besieging  Tyre,  the  worshippers  of  Apollo 
 chained  their  idol-palladium  with  golden  fetters  to  the  altar 
 of  Melkarth,  because  they  feared  that  he  was  about  to  abandon 
 their  city.2  If  they  had  been  capable  of  truly  honouring  him 
 they  would  have  known  that  the  Divine  is  of  its  very  nature 
 free.  Scripture  must  neither  be  made  into  such  an  idol, 
 nor  treated  with  such  misgiving.  It  will  need  no  defence  if 
 it  be  left  to  the  power  of  its  inherent  greatness ;  it  will  be 
 overthrown  or  taken  captive  if  it  be  trammelled  by  the 
 vain  theories  of  idolatrous  worshippers. 
 
 I.  The  task  before  us  is  in  some  respects  a  melancholy 
 one.  We  shall  pass  in  swift  review  many  centuries  of' 
 exegesis,  and  shall  be  compelled  to  see  that  they  were, 
 in  the  main,  centuries  during  Avhich  the  interpretation  of 
 Scripture  has  been  dominated  by  unproven  theories,  and 
 overladen  by  untenable  results.  We  shall  see  that  these 
 theories  have  often  been  affiliated  to  each  other,  and  aug- 
 
 1  "This  presumptuous  imposing  of  the  senses  of  men  upon  the  words  of 
 God,  the  special  senses  of  men  upon  the  general  words  of  God  ;  this  deifying 
 our  own  opinions  and  tyrannous  enforcing  them  upon  others  ;  this  restrain- 
 ing of  the  Word  of  God  from  that  latitude  and  generality,  and  the  under- 
 standings of  men  from  that  liberty  in  which  Christ  and  the  Apostles  left 
 them,  is,  and  hath  been,  the  only  fountain  of  all  the  schisms  and  that  which 
 maketh  them  immortal.  .  .  .  Let  those  leave  claiming  Infallibility  that 
 have  no  title  to  it,  and  let  them  that  in  their  words  disclaim  it,  disclaim  it 
 also  in  their  actions." — Chillingworth,  Bel.  of  Protestants,  iv.  16. 
 
 2  See  Q.  Curtius,  iv.  14  ;  Diod.  Sic.  xvii.  41.  "  Hinc  Tyrii,  superstitione 
 inducti,  catenis  aurcis  simulacrum  Apollinis  in  hasi  devinxere,  impedituri, 
 ut  persuasum  habebant,  Dei  ex  urbe  migrationem." 
 
Tests  of  Exegesis.  0 
 
 merited  at  each  stage  by  the  superaddition  of  fresh  theories 
 no  less  mistaken.  Exegesis  has  often  darkened  the  true 
 meaning  of  Scripture,  not  evolved  or  elucidated  it.  This  is 
 no  mere  assertion.  If  we  test  its  truth  by  the  Darwinian 
 principle  of  "  the  survival  of  the  fittest,"  we  shall  see  that,  as 
 a  matter  of  fact,  the  vast  mass  of  what  has  passed  for  Scrip- 
 tural interpretation  is  no  longer  deemed  tenable,  and  has  now 
 been  condemned  and  rejected  by  the  wider  knowledge  and 
 deeper  insight  of  mankind.  If  we  judge  of  it  by  the  Hegelian 
 principle  that  History  is  the  objective  development  of  the  Idea,1 
 and  that  mankind  is  perfectible  by  passing  through  certain 
 phases  of  thought,  which  are  in  themselves  only  moments  of 
 transition,  then  we  shall  see  that  past  methods  of  interpreta- 
 tion were  erroneous,  and  how  they  originated,  and  why  they 
 were  erroneous,  because  the  course  of  History  has  stripped 
 off  the  accidents  which  pertained  to  the  enunciation  of  truth, 
 and  given  us  a  nearer  insight  into  the  truth  itself.  And  to 
 the  limited  application  of  such  a  method  to  the  phenomena 
 of  exegesis  we  are  invited  by  the  phenomena  of  Scripture 
 itself.  It  was  an  ever-advancing  revelation.  The  gradual 
 development  of  the  canon  of  interpretation  is  just  what  we 
 should  have  expected  from  the  gradually  developed  conditions 
 under  which  the  revelation  is  presented  to  us.  We  make 
 use  of  relative  truth  as  a  means  of  getting  ever  nearer  to 
 the  absolute.  But,  without  any  appeal  either  to  Science 
 or  Philosophy,  wo  may  simply  point  to  the  fact  which  will 
 become  clear  in  the  course  of  these  Lectures,  that  the 
 fuller  acquaintance  with  the  original  languages,  the  develop- 
 ment of  criticism,  the  profounder  study  of  History,  Psycho- 
 logy, Archaeology,  and  comparative  Religion,  have  resulted  in 
 the  indefinite  limitation,  if  not  the  complete  abandonment, 
 of  principles  which  prevailed  for  many  hundreds  of  years  in 
 the  exegesis  of  Scripture,  and  in  the  consignment  to  oblivion 
 — for  every  purpose  except   that  of  curiosity — of  the  special 
 
 1  It  is  a  significant  and  beautiful  fact  that  the  Hebrew  canon  places 
 the  historical  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  among  the 
 Prophets. 
 
10  The  Lesson  of  History. 
 
 meanings   assigned   by  these    methods    to   book  after  book 
 and  verse  after  verse  of  the  sacred  writings. 
 
 If  this  be  the  lesson  of  History,  as  I  believe  it  is,  then  to 
 reject  it  is  to  reject  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
 of  God.  For  secular  History  too  is  a  revelation.  It  is,  as 
 Vico  called  it,  "a  civil  Theology  of  Divine  Providence."  To 
 refuse  the  plain  teaching  of  advancing  experience  may  be  a 
 more  essential  blasphemy  than  to  reject  humanly-invented 
 theories  of  Inspiration,  or  methods  of  explaining  Scripture 
 — whether  Rabbinic,  Alexandrian,  Patristic,  Scholastic,  or 
 Peformed. 
 
 Take  by  way  of  instance  the  entire  Talmud.  It  includes 
 the  discussions,  thoughts,  inferences  of  well-nigh  a  thousand 
 years,  and  it  makes  every  verse  and  letter  of  Scripture  "  a 
 golden  nail  on  which  to  hang  its  gorgeous  tapestries."  But 
 it  may  be  said,  without  fear  of  refutation,  that,  apart  from 
 a  few  moral  applications  and  ritual  inferences  in  matters 
 absolutely  unimportant,  for  every  one  text  on  which  it  throws 
 the  smallest  glimmer  of  light,  there  are  hundreds  which  it 
 inexcusably  perverts  and  misapplies.1  The  remark  applies 
 with  scarcely  less  force  to  the  comments  of  the  Schoolmen. 
 In  these  too  we  find  the  same  intensity  of  investigation,  the 
 same  futility  of  result.  They  idolised  the  outward  Book,  but 
 giving  themselves  up  to  vain  fancies  and  superstitious  theories, 
 did  not  penetrate  to  the  inmost  life.2  If  men  have  built  good 
 materials  on  the  foundation  of  Scripture,  they  have  also  built 
 masses  of  wood,  hay,  stubble,  of  which  no  small  portion  has 
 been  reduced  to  ashes  by  the  consuming  test  of  Truth.  But 
 while  this  fire  has  burned  up  the  scaffoldings  with  which  they 
 have  concealed  and  injured  the  Temple,  the  inner  Shrine 
 has  been  protected  by  its  own  Shekinah,  and  the  probatory 
 
 1  The  only  excuse  that  can  be  made  for  the  Talmudists  is  that  their  quotations 
 were  often  avowedly  allusive  rather  than  excgetical.  Hence  the  old  rule 
 -Q-J?  "Of  "121?  IT'S"!  |'N  DN,  which  Wogue  renders,  "Si  (cet  passage) 
 ne  prouve  pas  la  chose  il  peut  servir  du  mains  a  la  rappeler."  Hist,  de  la 
 Bible,  p.  168.  See  Yonia,  f.  83,  2  ;  Yebamoth,  f.  64,  1,  quoted  by  Mr.  Hershon, 
 Genesis,  pp.  131,  293. 
 
 1  See  John  v.  36-40,  with  the  remarkable  comment  of  Canon  West- 
 cott. 
 
Causes  of  Aberration.  1 1 
 
 flames  have  not  melted  its  gold  and  silver,  or  scathed  so 
 much  as  one  of  its  precious  stones. 
 
 We  may  at  once  note  two  reasons  why  exegesis  tends  to 
 become  non-natural. 
 
 The  one  is  the  growth  of  religious  practices  and  rites  of 
 worship  which  have  their  root  in  conceptions  of  life  un- 
 known to  the  sacred  books.  Pharisaism,  for  instance,  in  the 
 days  of  the  Second  Temple  was  guided  by  a  number  of 
 :'  counsels  of  perfection,"  l  which  had  partly  arisen  from  contact 
 with  thoughts  outside  the  range  of  Judaism,  and  were  partly 
 due  to  custom  and  the  Oral  Law.  In  their  arguments  with 
 the  Sadducees  it  was  useless  for  "  the  Chasidim  "  2  to  appeal 
 to  the  Oral  Law  which  their  opponents  rejected.  They  thus 
 felt  themselves  compelled  so  to  explain  the  Written  Law  as  to 
 extort  from  it  the  sanctions  which  it  did  not  really  contain. 
 
 The  other  misleading  tendency  is  the  growth  of  religious 
 opinions  which  are  developed  by  the  natural  progress  of  the 
 intellect  or  by  intei'course  with  other  nations.  The  Jews 
 learnt  much  from  their  contact  with  Chaldacans,  Persians, 
 Greeks,  Egyptians,  Romans.  But  they  did  not  understand 
 that  God  was  also  the  God  and  Father  of  the  Gentiles,  and, 
 being  misled  by  a  'priori  theories,  they  would  not  believe  that 
 views  which  they  embraced  with  enthusiasm  were  not  con- 
 tained, at  least  implicitly,  in  their  own  sacred  books.3 
 
 It  is  to  the  union  of  these  causes  that  we  owe  a  large  part 
 of  the  Rabbinic  and  Alexandrian  exegesis.  It  was  an  exe- 
 gesis ad  hoc,  rendered  necessary  in  Palestine  by  Pharisaism, 
 in  Alexandria  by  enthusiasm  for  Greek  Philosophy. 
 
 The  Christian  expositors  inherited  the  fatal  legacy  of 
 Palestinian  and  Alexandrian  methods.  There  is  hardly  an 
 error  in  their  pages  which  cannot  be  traced  back  in  principle 
 to  the  Rabbis  or  to  Philo.     But  besides  this  they  were  them 
 
 1  JYOivP,  of  which  seven  are  attributed  to  Ezra.  Set-  on  the  subject,  Wogne, 
 Hi  J   de  Bible,  p.  170. 
 
 -  This  was  the  original  name  of  the  party  which  developed  into  Pharisaism. 
 l  Mace.  ii.  4:2,  vii.  18  17  ;  2  Mace.  xiv.  6.     Theword  is  rendered  "saints"  in 
 
 Pa.  lxxix    2,  xlvii.  If.  &c. 
 
 3  The  Rabbis  said,  "Turn  the  law  again  and  again,  for  everything  is  in  it." 
 Aboth,  v.  22. 
 
12  Seven  Main  Periods. 
 
 selves  swayed  by  analogous  influences.  The  doctrines  of 
 monastic  asceticism  and  the  claims  of  the  mediaeval  Papacy, 
 as  well  as  various  Aristotelian  and  Platonic  views  among  the 
 Schoolmen,  were  as  remote  as  possible  from  anything  which 
 could  be  found  in  Scripture ;  yet  they  had  to  be  tortured 
 out  of  the  sacred  page.  The  process  is  constantly  going 
 on.  To  this  day  men  of  all  schools  unconsciously  deceive 
 themselves  and  others  by  a  liberal  adoption  of  the  words  of 
 Scripture  in  meanings  inconceivably  remote  from  those  which 
 they  really  imply.  But  the  practice,  whether  resorted  to  by 
 the  orthodox  or  the  unorthodox,  is  in  reality  a  violation  of  the 
 majesty  of  Scripture — an  intrusion  of  the  subjective  into  the 
 sphere  of  revelation.1 
 
 II.  There  are  seven  main  periods  and  systems  of  Biblical 
 interpretation.  The  Rabbinic,  lasting,  roughly  speaking,  for 
 1000  years,  from  the  days  of  Ezra  (B.C.  457)  to  those  of  Rab 
 Abina  (f  A.D.  498) ; 2  the  Alexandrian,  which  flourished  from 
 the  epoch  of  Aristobulus  (B.C.  180)  to  the  death  of  Philo, 
 and  which  was  practically  continued  in  the  Christian  Schools 
 of  Alexandria,  from  Pantaenus  (a.D.  200)  down  to  Pierius  ; 
 the  Patristic,  which  in  various  channels  prevailed  from  the 
 days  of  Clement  of  Rome  (a.D.  95)  through  the  Dark  Ages 
 to  the  Glossa  Interlinearis  of  Anselm  of  Laon  (f  1117) ;  the 
 Scholastic,  from  the  days  of  Abelard  (f  1142)  to  the  Reforma- 
 tion ;  the  exegesis  of  the  Reformation  Era  in  the  sixteenth 
 century  ;  the  Post-Reformation  exegesis  which  continued  to 
 the  middle  of  the  eighteenth ;  and  lastly  the  Modern  Epoch, 
 which  seemed  for  a  time  to  culminate  in  widespread  atheism, 
 but  after  a  period  of  "  dispersive  analysis "  has  ended  in 
 establishing  more  securely,  not  indeed  the  fictitious  theories 
 of  a  mechanical  inspiration,  but  the  true  sacredness  and 
 eternal  significance  of  Holy  Writ. 
 
 1  Among  the  Jews  this  misinterpretation  was  elevated  into  a  sacred  prin- 
 ciple. They  quoted  Ps.  cxix.  26,  and  explained  it  to  mean,  "  If  it  is  opportune 
 to  act  for  Jehovah,  one  may  violate  the  Law."  Berakhoth,  ad  fin.  ;  Gittin, 
 f.  00.  The  rale  admits  of  a  true  though  very  limited  application  (Matt.  xii. 
 4),  but  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  Inspiration  dogmas  of  the  Rabbis 
 and  of  Protestant  scholasticism. 
 
 2  Rab  Abina  was  the  last  of  the  Amoraim,  and  completed  the  Babylonian 
 Gemara  at  Sora,  a.d.  498. 
 
False  Methods.  13 
 
 Of  the  methods  adopted  in  these  epochs  some  had  their 
 roots  in  Judaism,  which  led  to  the  worst  developments  of  a 
 fantastic  letter  worship  ;  others  in  a  Pagan  gnosticism,  which 
 revelled  in  the  extravagances  of  allegorical  perversion;  others 
 again  in  the  one-sided  abuse  of  principles  in  themselves 
 admissible.  In  the  Patristic  and  Scholastic  epochs  respect 
 for  a  supposed  tradition  was  made  the  basis  for  ecclesiastical 
 usurpation,  and  the  symbolism  of  parts  of  Scripture  served  as 
 a  pretext  for  spiritualising  the  whole.  In  the  Post-Reforma- 
 tion epoch  the  misapplied  expression  "  analogy  of  faith"  was 
 used  as  an  engine  of  slavery  to  Confessions  and  Articles. 
 Happily,  however,  in  the  Providence  of  God,  the  knowledge 
 of  Scripture  was  advanced  not  only  in  spite  of  these  aberra- 
 tions but  even  by  means  of  them.  The  disputes  with  heretics 
 in  the  first  four  centuries  secured  the  authority  of  a  pure 
 canon.  The  attention  paid  to  separate  phrases  led  to  textual 
 criticism.  The  arbitrariness  of  allegory  served  to  establish 
 the  importance  of  the  historic  sense.  The  tyranny  of 
 hierarchic  tradition  necessitated  the  Reformation.  The  half- 
 Pagan  Renaissance  brought  in  its  train  the  thorough  mastery 
 of  the  original  languages.  The  unprogressive  deadness  of 
 Protestant  Scholasticism  ended  in  the  overthrow  of  an  un- 
 natural hypothesis  of  verbal  dictation.  And  when  the  react  Lon 
 had  gone  too  far — when  nothing  was  left  but  a  cold  and  un- 
 spiritual  rationalism  to  meet  the  unbelief  caused  by  idealising 
 philosophies — there  occurred  the  great  revivals  of  deep  faith 
 and  spiritual  feeling,  of  Christian  philanthropy  and  evangelic 
 truth.1 
 
 And  thus  it  has  come  to  pass  that  after  the  errors  no  less 
 than  after  the  assaults  of  so  many  hundred  years,  surviv- 
 ing the  misrepresentations  of  its  enemies,  and  the  more 
 dangerous  perversions  of  its  friends,  the  Bible  still  maintains 
 its  unique  power  and  grandeur ;  is  still  the  sole  Book  for  all 
 the  world ;  is  still  profitable  beyond  all  other  books  for 
 doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
 righteousness;  is  still  found  worthy  to  be  called  a  Book  of 
 1  See  Lauyu,  Gru7id)~iss  d.  hill.  llcrm.  xxi.-xxiv. 
 
1  •*  Objects  of  the  Survey. 
 
 God,  written  for  our  learning  that  we  through  endurance  aiid 
 through  comfort  of  the  Scriptures  might  have  our  hope.  Its 
 lessons  are  interwoven  with  all  that  is  noblest  in  the  life  of 
 nations :  "  the  sun  never  sets  upon  its  gleaming  page." 
 "  What  a  Book  ! "  exclaimed  the  brilliant  and  sceptical  Heine, 
 after  a  day  spent  in  the  unwonted  task  of  reading  it.  "  Vast 
 and  wide  as  the  world,  rooted  in  the  abysses  of  creation,  and 
 towering  up  beyond  the  blue  secrets  of  Heaven.  Sunrise  and 
 sunset,  promise  and  fulfilment,  life  and  death,  the  whole 
 drama  of  Humanity,  are  all  in  this  Book!"  "  Its  light  is 
 like  the  body  of  the  Heavens  in  its  clearness ;  its  vastness 
 like  the  bosom  of  the  sea ;  its  variety  like  scenes  of  nature." 1 
 
 It  will  not,  I  trust,  be  supposed,  that  the  object  of  this 
 survey  of  the  History  of  Interpretation  is  nothing  but  the 
 sterile  and  self- glorifying  contemplation  of  abandoned  errors. 
 "  Do  we  condemn  the  ancients  ?  "  asks  St.  Jerome.  "  By  no 
 means ;  but  after  the  studies  of  our  predecessors  we  toil  to 
 the  best  of  our  power  in  the  House  of  the  Lord."  2  We 
 study  the  past  not  to  denounce  it,  not  to  set  ourselves 
 above  it,  not  to  dissever  ourselves  from  its  continuity,  but  to 
 learn  from  it,  and  to  avoid  its  failures.  It  has  much  to  teach 
 us  hy  way  of  precious  instruction,  as  well  as  by  way  of 
 solemn  warning.  If  we  shall  have  to  dwell  upon  its 
 mistakes  it  is  only  that  we  may  have  grace  to  avoid  them, 
 and  to  be  on  our  guard  against  similar  tendencies.  For  error 
 strikes  deep  into  the  human  mind.  It  has  never  been  easy 
 to  pluck  it  forth  by  the  roots.  Unless  we  constantly  break  up 
 our  fallow  ground,  the  scattered  seeds  and  fibres  of  bitterness 
 will  germinate  again  and  again  in  the  teeming  soil. 
 
 And  though  we  shall  be  compelled  to  notice  the  many 
 aberrations  of  exegetical  theology,  we  shall  also  see  that 
 scarcely  in  any  age  has  it  been  absolutely  fruitless.  So  far 
 as  Homiletics  maybe  allowed  to  play  apart,  however  humble, 
 in  the  region  of  Interpretation,  every  age  has  added  something 
 to  the  knowledge  of  Scripture,  because  every  age  has  added 
 
 1  Dr.  Newman,  Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  87. 
 
 2  Jer.  Apol.  in  Rufin.  ii.  25. 
 
Simplicity  of  Necessary  Truths.  15 
 
 something  to  its  profitable  and  moral  application.  In  one  sense, 
 
 and  that  a  most  important  one,  it  may  be  said  of  Scripture  as 
 
 of  Nature  that — 
 
 11  There  is  a  book  who  runs  may  read, 
 Which  heavenly  truth  imparts  ; 
 And  all  the  lore  its  scholars  need 
 Pureeyea  and  Christian  hearts." 
 
 In  much  that  belongs  to  the  region  of  theology,  in  almost 
 every  question  which  pertains  to  history,  literature,  and  the 
 real  significance  of  language,  the  holiest  may  go  astray  from 
 inevitable  ignorance  ;  but  never  has  there  been  a  period  in 
 which  the  Bible,  or  such  part  of  it  as  has  been  suffered  to 
 filter  its  way  to  the  multitude  between  the  inclosing  rocks  of 
 authority  or  through  the  choking  sands  of  tradition,  has  not 
 been  a  well-spring  of  salvation.  Its  most  primary,  its  most 
 essential  truths,  which  are  so  few  and  simple  that  they  might 
 be  written  upon  the  palm  of  the  hand,  have  always  been 
 sufficient  for  the  saving  of  the  soul. 
 
 Nor  is  it  only  the  few  ultimate  and  essential  truths  of 
 Scripture  which  the  mists  of  interpretation  have  been  unable 
 wholly  to  obscure.  Devious  as  has  been  the  path  of  exegesis, 
 it  has  gathered  multitudes  of  treasures  in  the  course  of  its 
 wanderings.  There  is  scarcely  a  sincere  commentary,  scarcely 
 even  a  compilation  written  in  any  period,  from  which  some- 
 thing may  not  be  learnt.  Each  age,  however  mistaken  in  its 
 hermencutic  conceptions,  has  contributed  some  element  of 
 elucidation,  some  fragment  of  knowledge,  some  flash  of  insight. 
 The  age  of  the  Rabbis  lost  itself  in  worthless  trivialities,  and 
 suffocated  the  warmth  and  light  of  Scripture  under  the  white 
 ashes  of  ceremonial  discussion,  yet  in  preserving  the  text  of  th< 
 Old  Testament  it  rendered  services  of  inestimable  value  The 
 age  of  the  Fathers,  though  its  exegesis  was  ruined  by  the 
 license  of  allegory,  yet  in  the  works  of  Origen,  Theodore  of 
 Mopsuestia,  Jerome,  and  Augustine,  produced  commentaries 
 which  will  never  lose  their  importance.  The  age  of  the 
 Schoolmen,  amid  its  masses  of  unprofitable  subtlety  and 
 endless  systematisation,  left  its  legacy  of  exhaustive  and 
 philosophic  thought.     The  age  of  the   Reformation  revived 
 
16  The  Power  of  Scriptwe. 
 
 the  studies  which  alone  render  possible  a  sound  interpreta- 
 tion, and  shook  itself  free — if  not  completely  yet  to  a  great 
 extent — from  the  errors  of  tradition,  and  the  trammels  of 
 bondage.  The  Post-Reformation  exegesis  retrograded  into  a 
 new  form  of  that  scholastic  despotism,  which  seems  congenial 
 to  the  servile  intellect  of  the  majority;  yet  it  enriched 
 the  treasures  of  an  immense  erudition,  and  struck  out  new 
 and  fruitful  principles  of  illustration  and  research.  And 
 though  in  modern  times  Biblical  interpretation  has  often 
 been  too  weak  and  too  biassed  to  defeat  the  powerful 
 attacks  of  enemies,  yet  the  Church  of  God  has  learnt 
 many  a  valuable — many  an  absolutely  needful — lesson  even 
 from  those  who  would  fain  have  destroyed  for  ever  the 
 authority  of  her  sacred  books.  Science  after  science  has 
 been  invoked,  method  after  method  of  philosophical  inquiry 
 has  been  applied,  to  dethrone  from  their  supremacy  the 
 Jewish  and  Christian  Scriptures ;  yet  they  remain  supreme. 
 There  never,  perhaps,  was  any  period  in  the  world's  history 
 in  which,  throughout  every  region  of  the  globe,  those  Scrip- 
 tures exercised  a  more  powerful  sway  over  the  minds  of  men. 
 They  are  the  one  Book  which  is  found  alike  in  the  hut  of 
 the  barbarian  and  the  closet  of  the  thinker ;  the  one  Book 
 which  is  equally  precious  to  the  pauper  and  to  the  king.  The 
 solvents  of  modern  criticism  have  but  brightened  the  truths 
 which  had  been  soiled  by  the  accretion  of  ages,  and  they  who 
 used  them  have  unwittingly  beautified  what  they  intended 
 to  destroy.  We  may  well  take  courage  when  we  consider 
 how  many  have  been  the  enemies  of  Scripture,  and  how 
 impotent  has  been  their  hatred.  In  vain  did  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes  rend,  profane,  and  destroy  the  Books  of  the 
 Law  ; 1  in  vain  did  Diocletian  endeavour  to  suppress  the  New 
 Testament ;"  in  vain  did  the  English  jiriesthood  make  it  ex- 
 communication to  read  and  heresy  to  possess  the  Bible  of 
 Wiclif;  in  vain  did  the  inquisitors  of  Philip  burn  those 
 who  dared  to  study  for  themselves  the  sacred  words ; 3  in  vain 
 
 1  1  Mace.  i.  54-57.  -  Euseb.  H.  E.  viii.  2. 
 
 3  Motley,  Iliac  of  the  Dutch  Republic,  i.  73,  228. 
 
Peril  of  Misinterpretation.  17 
 
 did  Tunstall  buy  up  and  burn  the  editions  of  Tyndale's 
 translation.1  The  keen  wit  of  the  Greek,  the  haughty  scorn 
 of  the  Roman,  the  glancing  fence  of  the  sophist  have  been  in 
 vain.  Celsus  and  Porphyry,  Marcion  and  Lucian,  Julian 
 the  Emperor  and  Libanius  the  rhetorician,  heretics  and 
 humanists,  Bolingbroke  and  Paine,  and  Voltaire,  the  French 
 encyclopaedists,  the  English  deists,  the  German  philosophers, 
 the  keen  Neologians,  the  subtle  Materialists,  the  eloquent 
 literary  men — what  have  they  effected  ?  Some  of.  them  have 
 been  men  of  far  more  splendid  genius  than  all  but  a  few  of 
 the  professed  defenders  of  Christianity.  No  one  would  think 
 of  comparing  the  writings  of  the  early  Fathers  with  those  of 
 Tacitus  or  Juvenal,  and  few  Christian  apologists  have  been 
 comparable  for  intellectual  power  to  Spinoza,  or  Lessing,  or 
 Voltaire.  And  yet,  because  it  has  been  allied  with  innocence 
 and  spiritual  insight,  "  the  irresistible  might  of  weakness  has 
 shaken  the  world."  The  assailants  of  Christianity  have 
 cleared  away  some  of  our  errors ;  they  have  exposed  some 
 of  our  perversions ;  but  they  have  not  overthrown  a  single 
 essential  truth.  Like  Asa  of  old,  the  Church  has  built  the 
 outposts  of  Judah  out  of  the  ruined  fortresses  of  Ephraim.2 
 
 III.  But  while  history  has  shown  that  we  have  nothing  to  fear 
 for  the  sacredness  of  the  Scriptures,  it  has  taught  us  also  that 
 this  sacredness  has  often  been  discredited,  and  that  religion 
 itself  has  been  weakened  in  the  minds  of  men,  by  the  preva- 
 lence of  perilous  misinterpretations.  And  how  often  has  the 
 Bible  thus  been  wronged  !  It  has  been  imprisoned  in  the 
 cells  of  alien  dogma ;  it  has  been  bound  hand  and  foot  in  the 
 graveclothes  of  human  tradition  ;  it  has  been  entombed  as  in 
 a  sepulchre  by  systems  of  theology,  and  the  stone  of  human 
 power  has  been  rolled  up  to  close  its  door.3  But  now  fin 
 stone  has  been  rolled  away  from  the  door  of  the  sepulchre, 
 and   the  enemies  of   the  Bible  can  never  shake   its  divine 
 
 1   See  liis  monition  in  Collier,  Ecel.  Hint.  iv.  61  ;  ix.  84. 
 -  Boasuet. 
 
 3  "The  Church  ia  safer  and  the  Faith  healthier  when  it  is  not  bound 
 1 1 y  the  fettersof  a  too  curiously-articulated  creed." — Bishop  JeremyToylor 
 
 {Dissuasive  from  Popery,  bk.  1,  §  4,  passivi). 
 
 C 
 
18  Hermcneutic  Rules. 
 
 authority  unless  they  be  fatally  strengthened  by  our  hypo- 
 crisies, our  errors,  and  our  sins. 
 
 I  repeat,  then,  no  defence  of  that  divine  authority  can  be 
 more  directly  serviceable  than  the  removal  of  the  false  methods 
 of  interpretation  by  which  it  has  been  impaired.  We  can 
 judge  of  those  methods,  not  only  from  the  vast  folios  in  which 
 their  application  has  been  illustrated,  but  also  from  the  rules  in 
 which  they  have  been  summarised.  The  rules  might  be  correct, 
 and  yet  their  application  might  be  extravagant ;  but  if  the 
 rules  themselves  be  valueless,  or  liable  to  the  most  facile 
 misapplication,  the  systems  based  upon  them  cannot  be 
 otherwise  than  erroneous  or  unsatisfactory. 
 
 Now  it  happens  that  most  of  the  seven  epochs  which  I 
 have  mentioned  have  left  us  their  rules  either  as  a  definite 
 exegetic  compendium,  or  in  the  form  of  a  pregnant  principle ; — 
 and  there  is  not  one  such  scheme  which  has  not  been  proved 
 to  be  imperfect  or  mistaken,  by  that  light  of  God  which 
 shines  on  so  steadily  and  impartially,  and  "  shows  all  things 
 in  the  slow  history  of  their  ripening." 
 
 1.  The  Rabbinic  age  has  left  us  the  principles  of  its  exe- 
 gesis in  the  seven  rules  of-Hillel.1  That  great  and  estimable 
 Rabbi — one  perhaps  of  the  doctors  who  as  they  sat  in  the 
 temple  were  astonished  by  the  understanding  and  the  answers 
 of  the  youthful  Jesus — may  be  regarded  as  the  founder  of 
 the  Rabbinic  system.  He  was  not  the  inventor  of  the  Oral 
 Law,  and  he  added  very  little  to  the  vast  number  of  "decisions" 
 (Halakhoth),  which  form  the  staple  of  Jewish  tradition ;  but 
 he  introduced  order  and  system  into  a  chaotic  confusion,  and 
 he  devised  a  method  by  which  the  results  of  tradition  could 
 at  least  in  appearance,  be  deduced  from  the  data  of  the 
 Written  Law.  The  gigantic  edifice  of  the  Talmud  really  rests 
 on  the  hermeneutic  rules  of  Hillel  as  upon  its  most  solid 
 base.2 
 
 1  These  rules  (fllTO)  are  found  in  Tosefta  Sanhedrin,  c.  7,  at  the  end  of 
 Sifra  ;  and  in  Aboth  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  c.  xxxvii.  See  Derenbourg,  Palestine, 
 p.  187  ;  Hamburger,  Talm.  Wortcrb.  ii.  s.vv.  Exegese  and  Hillel  (pp.  209, 
 405).  , 
 
 2  These  rules  in  their  briefest  form  are  :  1.  "  Light  and  heavy  "  ("ITDini  ?p), 
 i.e.  a  minori  ad  majus  and   vice  versa.     2.    "Equivalence"     3.  Deduction 
 
Hill  el's  Seven  Rules.  19 
 
 At  first  sight  they  wear  an  aspect  of  the  most  innocent 
 simplicity.  The  first  of  them,  known  as  the  rule  of  "light 
 and  heavy,"  is  simply  an  application  of  the  ordinary  argu- 
 ment "  from  less  to  greater."1  The  second,  the  rule  of  "  equiva- 
 lence," infers  a  relation  between  two  subjects  from  the 
 occurrence  of  identical  expressions.  Thus  it  is  said  both  of 
 the  Sabbath  and  the  Paschal  sacrifice  that  each  must  be  "'  at 
 its  due  season"  and  if  this  means  that  the  daily  sacrifice 
 must  be  offered  on  the  Sabbath,  then  the  Paschal  sacrifice 
 may  also  be  offered  on  the  Sabbath.  The  third  rule  was 
 "  extension  from  the  special  to  the  general."  Thus  since 
 work  might  be  done  on  the  Sabbath  for  necessary  food, 
 necessary  food  might  also  be  prepared  on  the  other  festivals. 
 The  fourth  rule  was  the  explanation  of  two  passages  by  a 
 third.2  The  fifth  rule  was  inference  from  general  to  special 
 cases.  The  sixth  was  explanation  from  the  analogy  of  other 
 passages.3  The  seventh  was  the  application  of  inferences 
 which  were  self-evident.  Some  of  these  rules  are  as  old  as 
 the  unconscious  logic  of  the  human  mind  ;  some  of  them  are 
 exemplified  even  in  the  Law  of  Moses.  The  rule  of  "  analogy," 
 and  the  rule  of  "  light  and  heavy,"  were  used  by  our  Lord  Him- 
 self in  His  arguments  with  the  Pharisees,  and  in  His  teaching 
 of  the  multitude.4     And  yet  in  the  hands  of  a  casuist  these 
 
 from  special  to  general.  4.  An  inference  from  several  passages.  5.  Inference 
 from  the  general  to  the  special.  6.  Analogy  of  another  passage.  7.  An 
 inference  from  the  context.  For  these  seven  rules,  developed  by  Rahl>i 
 Ishmael  into  thirteen,  and  by  R.  Eleazar  into  thirty-two,  and  subsequently  to 
 forty-nine,  see  Trenel,  Vic  dc  Hillel,  p.  34  ;  Crenius,  Fascic.  Tlicol.  iv.  ;  Jost, 
 Judcnthum,  i.  257  ;  Derenbourg,  p.  384-401  ;  Merx,  Einc  Rede  vom  Av&legm, 
 pp.  44,  45  ;  Barclay,  Talmud,  40-44  ;  Ginsburg,  s.w.  Midrash,  Hillel,  and 
 lafomael  ben Elisha in  Kitto's  Cyclopaedia;  Weber,  Altsyn.  Tlicol.  106-113  ; 
 Cliiarini,  Thioric  du  Judaisme,  i.  64-68.  On  the  relation  between  HilM's 
 and  [shmael's  rules,  see  Gratz,  iv.  429.  The  thirteen  rules  (Shclosh  Esreh 
 Middoth  ha-Thorah)  are  found  in  the  Jewish  Prayer-book.  The  additioi 
 li.  Eleazar  were  chiefly Haggadistic.     See  Schwab,  Berakhoth,  Introd.  p.  liii. 
 
 1  The  Jews  observed  that  this  rule  is  found  in  Num.  xii.  14. 
 
 -  The  relation    established    between  two    passages   was    called    son 
 (PD1DD).     For  specimens  see  Berakhoth,  f.  10,  1  ;  Weber,  AUsyn.  Theol.  120. 
 
 3  It   had   been  applied  long  before  Hillel  by  Simeou   ben    Shetach   in  a 
 question    relating  to  the  punishment  of  false   witnesses.      See  Derenl 
 p.  106. 
 
 1  Analogy;  of  David  and  the  Shewbread,  Matt.  xii.  5.  A  fortiori  (a-Joy 
 fiaWov)  ;  of  the  sparrows  and  man,  Matt.  X.  29.  The  whole  Epistle  to  the 
 Hebrews  is  an  a  fortiori  argument. 
 
 C  2 
 
20  Abuse  of  Hillel's  Rules. 
 
 harmless-looking  principles  might  be  used,  and  were  used, 
 to  give  plausibility  to  the  most  unwarrantable  conclusions. 
 Thus  Rabbi  Eleazar,  the  teacher  of  Aqiba,  used  the  first 
 rule — the  common  argument  a  fortiori — to  prove  that  the 
 fire  of  Gehenna  had  no  power  over  Rabbinic  scholars.  Since 
 (he  said)  fire  has  no  power  over  a  man  who  smears  himself 
 with  the  blood  of  a  salamander,  which  is  only  a  product  of 
 fire,  how  much  less  will  it  prevail  over  a  pupil  of  the  wise 
 whose  body  is  altogether  fire,  because  of  his  study  of  the 
 Word  of  God,  which  in  Jer.  xxiii.  29  is  said  to  be  as  fire  ? 1 
 R.  Simon  ben  Lakish  used  the  same  rule  to  prove  that  no 
 Israelite  could  suffer  the  penalty  of  Gehenna.  The  gold  plate 
 on  the  altar  resisted  fire,  how  much  more  even  a  transgressor 
 of  Israel  ?2  But  worse  than  this,  these  rules  might  be  so  applied 
 as  to  subvert  the  very  foundations  of  all  that  was  tenderest 
 and  most  eternally  moral  in  the  Mosaic  Law.  The  second 
 and  fourth  rules,  for  instance,  which  only  profess  to  explain 
 passages  by  the  recurrence  of  phrases,  or  to  remove  contra- 
 dictions between  two  passages  by  reference  to  a  third,  sound 
 perfectly  reasonable,  and  yet  were  made  responsible  for  many 
 perversions.  Thus,  since  in  Ex.  xix.  26,  we  find  "  the  Lord  came 
 down  upon  Mount  Sinai,"  and  in  Deut.  iv.  36,  "  Out  of  heaven 
 He  made  thee  to  hear  His  voice,"  the  verbal  contradiction  is 
 reconciled  by  Ex.  xx.  22,  "  Ye  have  seen  that  I  have  talked 
 with  you  from  heaven,"  and  by  the  inference  that  God  bowed 
 down  the  highest  heaven  upon  the  top  of  Mount  Sinai. 
 Frivolities  of  this  kind  do  no  great  harm  ;  but  the  second  rule, 
 which  deduced  inferences  from  "  equivalence  "  of  expression, 
 furnished  an  excuse  for  masses  of  the  most  absurd  conclusions.3 
 Thus  it  is  argued  that  Job  married  Dinah  because  the  word 
 "  a  foolish  woman"  is  applied  alike  to  the  daughter  of  Jacob 
 
 1  Chagiga,  f.  27,  1. 
 
 2  Id.  ib.  In  Sanhedrin,  f.  106,  2,  the  word  "weigher''  (A.  V.  "receiver") 
 in  Is.  xxxiii.  18,  is  explained  to  mean  "  one  who  weighed  all  the  a  fortiori 
 arguments  of  the  Law." 
 
 3  The  technical  name  of  this  rule  is  niC  HITJ-  Thus  it  was  inferred  that 
 the  brother-in-law's  right  shoe  was  to  be  pulled  off  by  a  widow,  from  a  com- 
 parison of  Deut.  xxv.  9,  with  Lev.  xiv.  25.  It  is  inferred  that  Samuel  was  a 
 Nazarite  from  the  comparison  of  1.  Sam.  i.  11,  with  Judg.  xiii.  5. 
 
Abuse  of  HUM's  Rides.  21 
 
 and  the  wife  of  Job  ;  and  Lot,  contrary  to  the  express  testi- 
 mony of  Scripture,  is  represented  as  a  monster  of  iniquity,' 
 because  it  is  said  that  "  Lot  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  saw  all  the 
 plain  of  Jordan  that  it  was  well  watered,"  and  the  separate 
 phrases  of  this  sentence  are  elsewhere  used  of  Potiphar's 
 wife,  of  Samson,  of  the  son  of  Hamor,  and  of  other  offenders.2 
 It  was  a  still  more  serious  mischief  that  this  rule  led  to  one 
 of  the  many  ways  in  which  Rabbinism,  professing  to  adore 
 the  very  letter  of  the  Law,  sapped  its  most  fundamental 
 principles.  In  Ex.  xxi.  5  a  Hebrew  servant  is  not  to  be 
 dismissed  if  he  says,  "  I  love  my  master,  my  wife,  and  my 
 children ;  I  will  not  go  out  free."  The  merciful  object  of 
 the  Lawgiver  was  to  obviate  the  worst  curse  of  slavery — 
 the  forcible  severance  of  the  nearest  relations.  In  Dcut.  xv. 
 16,  however,  the  word  "wife''  is  not  mentioned,  but  the 
 slave  is  to  stay  with  his  master  if  he  says  that  he  loves 
 his  master  and  his  house  "  because  it  is  well  with  him." 
 Whereupon,  since  it  was  often  burdensome  to  retain  a 
 Hebrew  slave  in  the  sabbatical  year,  the  Mekhilta  thus 
 applies  Ilillel's  second  and  fourth  rules.  The  slave  need  not 
 be  kept  (1)  unless  he  has  a  wife  and  children,  and  (2)  his 
 master  also  has  wife  and  children  ;  nor  (3)  need  he  be  kept 
 unless  the  master  loves  him,  as  well  as  he  the  master ;  and 
 (4)  if  the  slave  be  lame  or  ill  he  need  not  be  kept,  because 
 then  it  cannot  be  said  that  "  it  is  well  with  him."  3  What  is  the 
 result  of  this  unworthy  casuistry  ?  The  object  of  Moses  had 
 been  to  provide  at  least  one  safeguard  against  the  abuse  of 
 a  bad  but  tolerated  institution;  the  object  of  the  Rabbinic 
 logician  is  to  substitute  naked  formalism  for  a  merciful  law. 
 By  mishandling  the  letter  he  purposely  and  for  his  own 
 benefit  destroys  the  spirit.  Instead  of  a  noble  and  religious 
 explanation  of  the  intention  of  the  Lawgiver,  he  supplies  us 
 with  an  excuse  for  cruel  and  selfish  convenience.     This  rule 
 
 1  Rabbi  Jochanan  (Nazir.  f.  23,  1),  Hershon,  Genesis,  p.  264. 
 
 '-'  Namely,  in  Gen.  xxxix.  7;  Judg.   xiv.  3;  Gen.  xxxiv.  2:  Hos.  ii.   ">. 
 Also  the  same  word  (133)  is  used  of  "the  plain"  of  Jordan,  and  "a  pi 
 of  dp  ad  in  Prov.  vi.  26. 
 
 :i  Qiddushin,  f.  2-J,  1.     Men,  Eiws  Hede  vom  Auslegen,  p.  40. 
 
22  Alexandrian  Hcrmeneutic. 
 
 of  "  equivalence "  has  always  been  prevalent  in  scholastic 
 systems.  It  means  the  isolation  of  phrases,  the  misap- 
 plication of  parallel  passages,  the  false  emphasising  of 
 accidental  words,  the  total  neglect  of  the  context,  "  the  ever- 
 widening  spiral  ergo  from  the  narrow  aperture  of  single  texts." 
 It  is  just  as  prominent,  and  quite  as  mischievous,  in  Hilary 
 and  Augustine,  in  Albert  and  Aquinas,  in  Gerhard  and 
 Calovius,  as  in  Hillel  or  Ishmael.  Hillel  was  personally  a 
 noble  Rabbi ;  yet  by  his  seven  rules  he  became  the  founder 
 of  Talmudism,  with  all  its  pettiness,  its  perversion  of  the 
 letter  of  the  Scripture  which  it  professed  to  worship,  and  its 
 ignorance  of  the  spirit,  of  which  no  breath  seemed  to  breathe 
 over  its  valley  of  dry  bones.  And  yet — let  me  say  in  passing 
 — Jews  have  been  found  to  assert,  and  nominal  Christians  to 
 repeat,  that  Jesus  was  a  disciple  of  Hillel,  and  borrowed  from 
 Hillel  the  truths  which  He  revealed  ! 1 
 
 2.  We  pass  to  the  second  epoch,  and  find  that  Alex- 
 andrianism  also  has  left  us  its  hermeneutic  principles.  Those 
 principles  are  given  by  Philo  in  his  books  on  dreams,  and 
 on  the  unchangeableness  of  God,2  and  the  details  of  their 
 application  are  scattered  throughout  his  numerous  writings. 
 Negatively  he  says  that  the  literal  sense  must  be  excluded 
 when  anything  is  stated  which  is  unworthy  of  God ; — when 
 otherwise  a  contradiction  would  be  involved  ; — and  when 
 Scripture  itself  allegorises.  Positively  the  text  is  to  be 
 allegorised  when  expressions  are  doubled ;  when  superfluous 
 words  are  used ;  when  there  is  a  repetition  of  facts  already 
 known ;  when  an  expression  is  varied ;  when  synonyms  are 
 employed  ;  when  a  play  of  words  is  possible  in  any  of  its 
 varieties  ;  when  words  admit  of  a  slight  alteration ;  when  the 
 expression  is  unusual ;  when  there  is  anything  abnormal  in 
 the  number  or  tense.     Many  of  these  rules  are  not  peculiar 
 
 1  So  first  of  all  Geiger,  followed  by  Friedlander,  Low,  Renan,  and  many 
 others.  See  further  in  Lect.  II.  Hillel'a  rule,  "  The  more  law  the  more  life" 
 (Aboth,  ii.  8),  is  so  direct  an  antithesis  to  John  v.  39,  40,  that  our  Lord  might 
 almost  seem  to  have  been  formally  repudiating  it. 
 
 2  Quod  Deus  ImmutcMlis,  11  ;  Da  Somniis,  i.  40.  For  the  details  as 
 found  in  the  book,  Dc  Lcgis  Allcgoriis,  and  Philo's  other  treatises,  see 
 Siegfried  Philo,  pp.  160-197.     Some  illustrations  are  given  infra,  Lect.  III. 
 
An  Art  of  Misinterpretation.  23 
 
 to  Pliilo,  but  are  found  no  less  in  the  Midrashim,  and 
 were  adopted  by  Origcn.  They  point  to  methods  which 
 have  been  applied  to  thousands  of  passages  during  entire 
 centuries,  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  for  the  most  part 
 they  do  but  systematise  the  art  of  misinterpretation.  They 
 have  furnished  volumes  of  baseless  application  without 
 shedding  upon  the  significance  of  Scripture  one  ray  of  genuine 
 light.  The  rules  become  still  more  futile  when  they  are  only 
 applied  as  Philo  applied  them,  to  a  translation  abounding 
 with  errors ;  but  in  any  case  they  have  scarcely  a  particle 
 of  validity.  The  repetition  "Abraham  Abraham"  does  not 
 imply  that  Abraham  will  also  live  in  the  life  to  come ; *  nor 
 does  "  Let  him  die  the  death "  mean  "  Let  him  die  in  the 
 next  world  as  well  as  in  this."  The  Septuagint  word, 
 eyKpv(j)ia<i,  for  "cakes"  in  Gen.  xviii.  G  does  not  imply  the 
 duty  of  esoteric  teaching  ; 2  nor  because  the  word  icoo-pos  means 
 both  "  universe  "  and  "  adornment,"  does  it  follow  that  the  dress 
 of  the  high  priest  is  (as  the  Book  of  Wisdom  tells  us)  a  symbol 
 of  the  world.3  Such  explanations,  or  applications,  or  half- 
 applications,  often  deduced  from  the  falsest  etymologies,4 
 may  be  found  in  thousands  in  exegetical  literature,  from  the 
 days  of  Philo  down  to  those  of  the  "Reformation,  and  even 
 much  later.  Must  we  not  deplore  so  fruitless  an  exercise  of 
 fancy,  so  sterile  a  manipulation  of  the  Sacred  Book  ? 
 
 3.  Let  us  pass  from  Philo  to  the  third  epoch.5     No  inter- 
 preter except  Origen  and  Jerome  has  ever  exercised  so  deep 
 
 1  Gen.  xxii.   11;  Lev.  xviii.  6.      Bereshith  rabba,   §  3P,   56.      Philo,  Dc 
 Gigant.  8.  '-  Dc  Sacrif.  Ah.  ct  Cain.  L5. 
 
 a  WiscL  xviii.  24.     Philo,  Dc  Fit.  Mos.  iii.  14.     Dc  profug.  20.     De  ifigr. 
 Abr.  18. 
 
 4  The   identification   of  Rachel   with   contemplative,    Leah  with  practical 
 virtue,  adopted  by  Gregory  (Ilomil.   in  Ezcch.  ii.  2),  and  immortalised  by 
 Dante  {Purgat.  xxvii.  101-105),  partly  depends  on  the  derivation  of  & 
 from  ?h    HXT   upaa-ts  &(I3t)\ui(T€os  (Dc  congr.   erud.  grat.%  6);  though,  in 
 
 another  as] t  Rachel  stands  for  things  wholly  different— e.j.  the  source  of 
 
 temptations  (Dt  poster.  Cain,  40)  and  of  earthly  hopes  (Leg.  dlbegg.  ii.  13). 
 
 '  The  chief  hermeneutic manuals  in  tin'  Patristic  epoch  are — 
 
 DiodoroS,  ris  Swfopa  Ofwpias  ku\  aAKriyopias  (no  longer i  \!  nit). 
 Adrianus,    TJirayooyri   (a.d.    488.     It    is  printed    in  tlir  Or 
 vol.  ix.,  1600,  and  was  edited  by  I».  Hoeschel,  1002. 
 
 [  Eucherius 
 
24  The  Rules  of  Tichonius. 
 
 an  influence  on  tbe  modes  of  exegesis  as  Augustine.  His 
 comments  are  sometimes  painfully  beside  the  mark,  but  we 
 get  an  insight  into  the  erroneous  methods  by  which  he  was 
 led  astray  when  we  find  him  endorsing  with  warm  praise  the 
 seven  rules  of  Tichonius.1  Those  rules  are  as  baseless  as 
 Philo's,  and  even  more  so  than  those  of  Hillel.  A  book 
 written  by  Eucherius,  Bishop  of  Treves  about  the  year  450, 
 called  Liber  Formularum  Sjnritalis  Intclligcntiae,  shows  the 
 lengths  to  which  allegory  had  been  developed  before  the 
 fifth  centmy.  In  this  dull  and  desultory  dictionary  of 
 metaphors  everything  is  reduced  to  generalities  and  abstrac- 
 tions.2 It  is  argued  that  all  Scrij)ture  must  be  allegorically 
 interpreted  because  David  says,  "  I  will  open  my  mouth  in 
 parables,  loquar  in  aenigmate  antiqua." 3  The  argument 
 which  does  not  hesitate  to  apply  to  the  whole  literature  of 
 a  millennium  and  a-half  the  misinterpreted  expression  which 
 the  Psalmist  used  of  a  single  psalm,  is  a  fair  specimen  of 
 the  futility  of  the  proofs  offered  in  defence  of  these  bad 
 methods.4      The  rules    of    Tichonius   had   apparently  been 
 
 Eucherius  Lugdunensis,    Liber  formularum    spiritalis  intelligcntiac 
 
 (a.d.  440  ;  Bibl.  Pair.  Colon,  vol.  v.  1  ;  Migne  vol.  50). 
 Tichonius,    Be  Septem  Regulis  {Bibl.   Max.  Pair.  Lugdun.   vol.    vi. 
 
 p.  839). 
 Hieronymus,  Be  optimo  gencrc  interprclandi  (Ep.  ad  Pammachium). 
 
 id.     Be  studio  scripturaruvi  (Ep.  ad  Paulinum  Presbytcrum). 
 Junilius,  Be  partibus  legis  divinae  (circ.  a.d.  550,  Bibl.  Max.  Pair. 
 
 Lugdun.  vol.  x.  p.  340). 
 Cassiodorus,  Institutioncs  (circ.  a.d.  560).      (Opp.   ed.   Garet.,   1679, 
 Migne,  vol.  69.) 
 I  do  not  add  the  so-called  Clavis  of  Melito,  because  it  is  not  a  translation 
 of  the  KAeh  of  Melito  of  Sardis,  but,  as  Steitz  has  proved,  a  mediaeval  Latin 
 work  (Stud.  u.  Krit.  1857). 
 
 1  Be  doctr.  Christ,  iii.  30-37. 
 
 2  Thus  the  "head  of  God  "  is  the  essential  divinity;  the  "hair"  the  Holy 
 Angels  or  the  elect;  the  "eyelids"  His  incomprehensible  judgments;  His 
 "mouth"  is  Christ;  His  "lips"  the  agreement  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
 ment, &c,  &c.  This  book,  which  occupies  seventeen  folio  pages,  is  a  melan- 
 choly proof  of  the  depths  to  which  exegesis  had  sunk.  Eucherius  is  the 
 first  to  use  the  word  avayicyfy,  to  imply  the  reference  of  Scriptural  passages  to 
 the  New  Jerusalem.    The  Libellus  deformulis  has  been  edited  by  Franc  Pauly. 
 
 3  The  remark  is  borrowed  from  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom,  v.  12,  §  81.  irepl 
 iraffris  ypatyijs  .  .  .  iv  rots  \j/a\/j.o'is  ytypairrai  ws  iv  Tra.pa.0oXy  eipr)fj.evois.  He 
 proves  his  point  from  isolated  passages  like  Ps.  Ixxviii.  2  ;  1.  Cor.  ii.  6  ; 
 Matt.  x.  27  ;  Mark  iv.  34,  &c.     (Strom,  vi.  15,  §  125.) 
 
 4  The  Psalm  itself  (Ps.  Ixxviii.)  bears  no  resemblance  to  what  we  call  "a 
 parable,"  nor  docs  it  contain  anything  enigmatic. 
 
The  Rules  of  Tichonius.  25 
 
 designed  to  bring  some  sort  of  method  into  this  vast 
 region  of  Phantasy,  which  existed  long  before  the  days 
 of  Eucherius.  He  thought  so  highly  of  them  as  "  claves 
 ct  luminaria "  to  the  law  and  the  prophets,  as  to  assert 
 that  they  furnish  a  secure  protection  against  the  possibility 
 of  error.1  The  first  is  "  About  the  Lord  and  His 
 mystic  body,"  namely  the  Church.  Thus  in  the  same 
 passage  one  clause,  such  as,  dolores  nostros  ipse  portavit, 
 applies  to  Christ,  but  following  clauses,  such  as  Deus  vult, 
 ostendere  illi  luccm  ct  formarc  ilium  in  prudential  apply  not 
 to  Christ  but  to  the  Church.  And  in  Is.  lxi.  10,  Sicut  sponso 
 imposuit  mihi  mitram,  applies  to  Christ,  but  the  following 
 clause,  ct  sicut  sponsam  donavit  me  amictu,  applies  only  to  the 
 Church.3  The  second  rule  was  "about  the  Lord's  bipartite 
 body,"  or  about  true  and  false  Christians.  Thus,  in  Cant.  i.  5, 
 "  I  am  black  but  comely,"  the  first  epithet  refers  to  false  Chris- 
 tians ;  the  second  to  true  Christians.  The  third  rule 
 "about  the  Promises  and  the  Law,"  is  theological.4  The 
 fourth  rule  is  "  about  Genus  and  Species,"  or  whole  and  part. 
 According  to  this,  all  nations  mentioned  in  Scripture  are 
 types  of  Churches  and  may  represent  either  the  good  or  the 
 bad  side  of  the  Church,  and  the  words  of  the  Scripture  may 
 with  constant  arbitrary  variation,  refer  sometimes  to  the 
 whole  Church,  sometimes  to  a  part  of  it.  The  fifth  rule 
 suggests  a  sort  of  kabbalism  of  numbers.  The  sixth  rule 
 "  About  Recapitulation,"  professes  to  account  harmonistically 
 for  events  which  are  related  out  of  order,  and  supposes  a 
 sort  of  vague  analogy  between  different  cycles  of  generations. 
 The  last  rule  "  about  the  devil  and  his  body,"  is  the  counter- 
 part  of  the  first  and  proposes  to  teach  us  how  we  are  to  apply 
 some  passages  to  the  devil  and  some  to  wicked  men.5     These 
 
 1  Oeunadins  citrs  tlimi  as  Wing  im-ant   "ad  investigandam  ct  inveniendum 
 intelligentiam  seripturarum." 
 -  Is.  liii.  4. 
 
 3  Is.  lxi.  16.    Vulg.     "Iiiduit  me  vestimentis  sal utis  .  .  .  quasi  sponsum 
 decoiutuni  corona,  el  quasi  sponsaia  ornatam  monilibua  suis." 
 
 4  It  is  also  called  "Despiritu  et  liter d,"  " De  graMd  et  memdato." 
 
 5  E.g.  is  Is.  xiv.  3.    Quomo  de  coelo  applies  to  the  devil ;  corruisti 
 in  (  rram  to  the  ungodly. 
 
2G  Other  False  Rules. 
 
 rules  are  perfectly  arbitrary  ;  but  Augustine  in  three  different 
 passages,  and  after  him  Cassiodorus x  and  Isidore  of  Seville 
 refer  to  them  with  marked  praise,  and  consider  that  they 
 throw  no  small  light  on  the  hidden  senses  of  Scripture.2 
 Partly  owing  to  Augustine's  approval  they  became  for  a 
 thousand  years  the  fountain-head  of  unnumbered  misin- 
 terpretations.3 
 
 4.  It  will  not  be  needful  here  to  do  more  than  allude  to 
 the  erroneous  principles  of  the  other  epochs.  Throughout  the 
 whole  of  the  scholastic  epoch  (4)  dominated  the  pure  fiction 
 of  the  multiplex  intelligentia,  or  "  fourfold  sense,"  which  fills 
 volumes  of  elaborate  commentary,4  and  which,  together  with 
 the  unquestioned  acceptance  of  false  traditions  and  usurped 
 authority,  vitiates  the  popular  compendiums  of  five  hundred 
 years.  The  Reformation  (5)  witnessed  an  immense  advance  ; 
 but  (6)  in  the  epoch  which  succeeded  it,  the  mediaeval  subordi- 
 nation of  Scriptural  study  to  Papal  authority  was  succeeded  by 
 another  subordination  of  it,  nominally  to  a  so-called  "  Analogy 
 of  Scripture,"  really  to  the  current  Confessions  of  the  various 
 Churches.  The  whole  Bible  from  Genesis  downwards  was  forced 
 to  speak  the  language  of  the  accepted  formulae,  and  the  "  perspi- 
 cuity of  Scripture  "  was  identified  with  the  facility  with  which 
 it  could  be  forced  into  semblable  accordance  with  dogmatic 
 
 1  Cassiodorus,  Institt.  i.  10.  On  Tichonius  see  Gennadius,  Be  Script.  Eccl. 
 18  ;  Trithemius,  Be  Script.  Eccl.  92.  Cave,  Hist.  Lit.  p.  275  ;  Migne,  Patrolog. 
 vol.  50  ;  Tillemont,  vi.  81  ;  Neander,  iii.  280  ;  Klausen,  Herman,  p.  133  ; 
 Sender,  Diss.  Hiit.  de  vii.  regulis  Tichonii,  Halae,  1756  ;  A.  Vogel  in  Herzog. 
 vol.  xvi. 
 
 2  Tichonius  said,  "Quaruni  si  ratio  .  .  .  accepta  fuerit,  clausa  quaeque 
 patefient  et  obscura  dilueidabuntur."  Augustine  says,  "Non  parum  adjuvant 
 ad  penetranda  quae  tecta  sunt."  Be  Boctr.  Christ,  iii.  4,  §  30.  Retractt.  ii. 
 18.     Contra  Epist.  Parmeniani,  i.     See  too  Jer.  Be  virr.  illustr.  18. 
 
 3  Augustine  vaguely  saw  in  them  a  Donatist  taint :  "quae  sicut  Bonatista 
 loquitur, "  Be  Boctr.  Christ,  iii.  §  43.  They  are  still  referred  to  by  Hugo  of 
 St.  Victor  (Erud.  Bid.  v.  4) ;  and  Perez  of  Valentia  (+  1490).  Incomparably 
 superior  was  the  Eicraycoyr)  els  ras  Oelas  ypcxpas  of  Adrianus.  He  says  that 
 three  things  arc  to  be  considered,  the  SidvoLa,  the  Ae'|is,  and  the  avvdeais, 
 through  which  we  arrive  at  6eu>pia.  His  book  belongs  to  the  school  of 
 Antiocb,  and  aims  at  edification  not  by  allegory  but  by  facts,  and  by  the  doc- 
 trine of  types.  Till  the  days  of  Nicolas  of  Lyra  it  had  little  influence. 
 Among  the  Rinnan  Catholics  Santos  Pagninus  (1540)  still  holds  to  Tichonius. 
 
 4  The  first  traces  of  the  fourfold  sense  occur  in  Eucherius  (t  450) ;  of  the 
 threefold  sense  in  Origen. 
 
Task  of  the  Expositor.  27 
 
 systems.  To  tins  day  men  repeat  the  vague  and  extravagant 
 assertions  of  seventeenth  century  divines,  which  furnish  no 
 assistance  and  solve  no  difficulty,  and  which  can  only  be  main- 
 tained in  detail  by  an  accumulation  of  special  pleas.1  They 
 confidently  take  the  words  they  find  in  use  among  their 
 neighbours,  without  much  troubling  their  heads  about  a 
 certain  fixed  meaning  ;  "  whereby,"  says  Locke,  "  besides  the 
 case  of  it,  they  obtain  this  advantage,  that  as  in  such  dis- 
 courses they  seldom  are  in  the  right,  so  they  are  as  seldom 
 to  be  convinced  that  they  are  in  the  wrong ;  it  being  all  one 
 to  go  about  to  draw  men  out  of  their  mistakes  who  have  no 
 settled  notions,  as  to  dispossess  a  vagrant  of  his  habitation 
 who  has  no  settled  abode." 
 
 IV.  Many  of  these  unfounded  principles  still  exercise  a  per- 
 nicious influence.  In  the  past  they  have  introduced  an 
 incredible  amount  of  confusion  and  darkness.  The  task  of 
 the  expositor  cannot  be  expedited  by  rules  so  mechanical.  It 
 requires  wide  knowledge,  it  requires  the  still  rarer  gift  of  a 
 fine  sympathy.  To  interpret  aright  the  lyric  cry  of  the 
 poet,  the  passion  of  the  prophet,  the  rushing  vehemence  of 
 the  orator,  demands  something  of  the  poet's,  the  prophet's, 
 the  orator's  emotion.  Quite  apart  from  all  need  for  spiritual 
 vision,  a  sense  of  style,  a  psychological  insight,  an  exquisite 
 literary  tact,  a  capacity  to  appreciate  the  varying  shades  of 
 thought  which  may  lie  hidden  behind  the  same  words,  a 
 power    of   realising  and  reproducing  the  thoughts    of  men 
 
 1  Thus  they  repeat  Hollaz  and  Quensteilt  in  calling  Scripture  a  perpetua 
 norma  fidci  ac  vitac  in  universd  ecclesid  without  explaining  tin-  wide  differ  nee 
 between  the  spirit  of  Judaism  ami  that  of  Christianity,  and  although  we 
 set  aside  a  host  of  positive  regulations,  and  some  even  of  those  which  are 
 found  in  the  New  Testament  (Acts  xv.  20;  Jas.  v.  14).  They  go  on  speaking 
 "t  tin-  "  Perspicuity  and  self -interpreting  faculty "  of  Scripture,  though 
 the  strife  of  interpretations  cries  to  heaven  even  in  passages  of  the  utmost 
 importance.  The  Church  of  Etome  forbids  us  to  interpret  "  contra  unamvmem 
 •  inn  Put  rum,"  though  exegetically  there  is  no  such  thing;  and  the 
 dogmas  of  verbal  dictation  and  infallibility  still  find  defenders  in  Bpite  of  the 
 that  (1)  they  must  be  useless  to  millions  who  cannot  read  the  original ; 
 that  (2)  the  Vulgate  of  the  Latin  Church,  the  Septuagint  of  the  ( rreeh  Church, 
 and  the  various  Protestant  versions  term  with  errors;  that  (8)  alike  the 
 original  text  and  its  true  meaning  are  in  man]  p  tirely  uncertain ; 
 
 and  that  (i)  the   aermeneutic   rules  adopted   by   different   to  the 
 
 ( Ihurch  are  widely  different. 
 
28  False  Views. 
 
 who  lived  in  other  lands  and    in  ages  far  away,  are   gifts 
 which  are  none  so  common  as  to  render  it  likely  that  the 
 work  of  Scriptural  Interpretation  will  soon  be  exhausted.  But 
 so  long  as  we  are  entangled  in  a  priori  conceptions — while 
 we  treat  as  though  it  were  one  continuous  and  coaeval  book 
 the  scattered  literature  of  fifteen  hundred  years — while  we 
 attach  the  same  value  to  the  rudimentary  religious  conceptions 
 of  a  nomad  warrior  and  the  deepest  thoughts  of   a   great 
 philosophical  Apostle, — while  we  deal  with  the  Old  Testament 
 as  if  it  stood  on  the  same  level  of  revelation  as  the  New — 
 while,  in  defiance  of  the  whole  history  of  the  canon  we  give 
 the  title  of  "  Word  of  God  "  as  indiscriminately  to  the  Books 
 of  Chronicles  or  Ecclesiastes,  or  to  books  in  which,  as   in 
 Esther  or  Canticles,  the  name  of  God  does  not  so  much  as 
 once  occur,  as  we  do  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John — while  we 
 speak  of  God  as  the  auctor  primarius  not  only  of  the  deepest, 
 sweetest,   purest,  noblest    thoughts   which  have   ever   been 
 uttered   by  human  lips,  but  no  less  of  the  savage   impre- 
 cations of  Jewish  exiles  against  their  enemies  and  of  terrible 
 narratives  which  only  prove  the  imperfect  morality  of  times 
 of  ignorance  : — so   long  as  we    do  this  we  cannot  take  one 
 step    farther    in   the    right    direction.       A    dogma    which 
 attaches    to   the    crudest    and    least    spiritual  narrative    of 
 Genesis  or  Judges  the  same  ethical  value  and  supernatural 
 infallibility  as  to  the  words  of  Christ,  is  the  deathblow  to  all 
 sane,  all  manly,  all  honest  interpretation.1    Yet  this  dogma 
 prevailed   for   ages.      If   such   a   view    of  inspiration    were 
 alone  orthodox  or  admissible  no   man  of  unwarped  intelli- 
 gence would  have  any  refuge  save  in  heterodoxy.      So  far 
 as  this  age   has   advanced    beyond   the    exegetic  principles 
 of    the    Talmud    or     the     Schoolmen,     it    has     been    by 
 naturalness,    by    independence,    by    fearless    allegiance    to 
 truth,  by  searching  Scripture  not  merely  to  "  improve "  it 
 into    moral  commonplaces,  or  to  torture  it  into  the  utterance 
 
 1  "It  is  impossible  rightly  to  comprehend  Scripture  if  we  read  it  as  we  read 
 the  Koran,  as  though  it  were  in  all  its  parts  "1'  equal  authority,  all  composed 
 at  one  time,  and  all  addressed  to  persons  similarly  situated. " — Dli.  Arnold. 
 
Perversion  of  Texts.  29 
 
 of  sectarian  shibboleths  but  to  discover  what  the  writers 
 really  meant  and  really  said.  The  Rabbis,  the  Alexandrians, 
 the  Fathers,  the  Schoolmen,  the  Protestant  dogmatists  all 
 assure  us,  and  that  repeatedly,  that  the  words  of  the 
 Old  Testament  are,  in  their  literal  sense  and  their  obvious 
 meaning,  sometimes  trivial,  sometimes  imperfect,  sometimes 
 morally  erroneous.  In  such  cases  they  got  rid  of  the  letter 
 by  distorting  it  into  the  expression  of  some  sentiment  of 
 their  own  by  the  aid  of  allegory.  What  we  should  rather 
 do  is  always  to  accept  the  clear  meaning  of  Scripture,  but 
 always  to  judge  it  by  the  clear  light  of  Christ.1 
 
 But  we  cannot  yet  be  said  to  have  learnt  the  lessons  of 
 the  past  in  all  their  fulness,  while  so  many  of  the  proof 
 texts  in  common  use  are  mistaken  accommodations ;  and 
 while  we  follow  the  strange  practice  of  establishing  disputed 
 doctrines  by  a  mosaic  of  passages  taken  out  of  authors 
 who  not  only  differed  from  each  other,  but  who  may  even 
 — like  St.  James,  for  instance,  and  St.  Paul,  or  like  St. 
 Paul  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — use 
 the  same  technical  words  in  different  meanings.  Better 
 even  the  antitheses  of  Marcion,  and  sic  et  non  of  Abelard, 
 than  much  of  the  casuistry  which  has  passed  for  the 
 orthodox  reconciliation  of  apparent  contradictions.  Till  we 
 cease  to  palter  and  juggle  with  the  words  of  Scripture  in 
 a  double  sense;  till  we  cease  to  assume  that  the  Trinity 
 is  revealed  in  the  beoinnino-  of  Genesis,  and  that 
 Canticles  furnishes  a  proof  of  the  duty  of  Mariolatry ; 
 till  we  abandon  our  '  atomistic '  method  of  dealing  with 
 Scripture  and  the  treatment  of  its  sentences  as  though  they 
 were  magic  formulae ;    till  we  repent  of  the  fetish-worship 
 
 1  Is.  viii.  20  :  "To  the  law  and  the  testimony.  If  they  speak  not  accord- 
 ing to  this  wonl  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them."  John  vi.  89.  The 
 Jewish  Midrash  was  very  elaborate,  but  it  did  not  lead  to  Christ.  A  Scotch 
 divine  has  wisely  said,  "  If  we  find  even  [n  the  Bible  anythingwhieh  confdsi 
 our  sense  of  righl  and  wrong,  that  seems  to  us  less  exalted  and  pure  than  the 
 character  of  God  should  be  ;  if  after  the  most  patient  thought  and  prayerful 
 pondering  it  still  retains  this  aspect,  then  toe  are  not  to  bow  down  ' 
 
 tfion  to  ua  since  it.  does  not  meet  the  need  of  the  earlier  and  more  snered 
 revelation  He.  has  given  us  in  our  own  spirit  and  conscience,  which  testify  of 
 Him." 
 
30  False  Yieivs. 
 
 which  made  some  of  the  Jewish  theologians  say  that  all  the 
 
 law   was    of  equal  importance  from  "  God  is  one  God "  to 
 
 "  Timna  was  the  concubine  of  Eliphaz  ;  " 2  till  we  give  up  the 
 
 late  and  humanly  invented  theories  which  writh  a  blasphemy 
 
 only  pardonable  because  it  was  unconscious,  treated  the  voices  of 
 
 human  anger  and  human  imperfection  as  the  articulate  Voice 
 
 of  God  ;  till  we  admit  that  the  Bible  cannot  and  may  not  be 
 
 dealt  with  by  methods  of  which  it  gives  no  indication,  and 
 
 of  which  we  see  the  absurdity  when  they  are  applied  to  every 
 
 other  form  of  literature  whether  sacred  or  profane — we  may 
 
 produce  improved  forms  of  Rabbinism  or    Scholasticism,  at 
 
 our   pleasure    and    at    our   peril,  but  we  shall  never  clearly 
 
 understand    what   is,  and  what  is  not,    the  purport  of  the 
 
 revelation  contained    in    Scripture.     There  was  bitter  truth 
 
 in  the    reproach    of  St.    Augustine    to  the  Donatists,   Quod 
 
 volumus  sanctum  est;2  and  in  the    sarcasm    of  St.   Jerome, 
 
 Quicquid  dixerint  hoc  legem,  Dei  putant ;  3  and  in  the  famous 
 
 epigram  of  Werenfels — 
 
 "  Hie  liber  est  in  quo  quaerit  sua  dogmata  quisque 
 Invenit  et  pariter  dogmata  quisque  sua." 
 
 V.  It  would  be  easy  to  furnish  still  further  proof  of  the 
 
 position  that  in   every  age  since  the   days  of  the  Apostles 
 
 there  have  been  false  methods  of  exegesis,  and  that  these 
 
 false  methods  have  led   to  false    results.     It  is  startlingly 
 
 illustrated  by  the  fact  that  the    very  word  by  which    we 
 
 designate  the  two  divisions  of  the  Bible  as  the  Old  and  New 
 
 Testament  is  a  mistranslation  and  a  mistake. 4     It  might  be 
 
 1  Lelcach  Tob.  (quoted  in  Ersch  und  Griiber,  s.v.  Inspiration). 
 
 2  Aug.  c.  Ep.  Parmeniani,  ii.  §  31. 
 
 3  Ep.  ad  Paulin.  7. 
 
 4  Tbe  word  "  Testament "  is  derived  from  Matt.  xxvi.  28.  2  Cor.  iii. 
 14,  &c.  (comp.  Jer.  xxxi.  31.)  St.  Jerome  rendered  TV")?,  "covenant,"  by 
 foedus  or  pactum,  but  it  bad  been  rendered  testamentum  in  older  Latin  versions. 
 Tertullian  prefers  instrumentum,  but  adopts  testamentum  as  being  in  common 
 use  (c.  Marc.  iv.  1,  2  ;  De  Pudic.  12).  Augustine  also  uses  both  words  (Be 
 Civ.  Dei.  xx.  4).  Luther  adopted  Testamcntin  preference  to  Bund,  and  since 
 his  time  the  usage  has  been  fixed.  But  the  Jews  knew  nothing  of  wills  till 
 they  became  acquainted  with  Roman  customs.  IV"}?  never  means  anything 
 but  covenant ;  and  in  the  New  Testament  5ia6-f)K7)  only  has  the  meaning  of 
 "a  will"  by  a  sort  of  play  upon  words  in  Heb.  ix.  17.  Neither  division  of 
 the  Bible  has  the  smallest  analogy  to  "a  will,"  so  that  the  explanation  offered 
 by  Lactantius  (Instt.  Div.   iv.  20)  is  quite  inadequate. 
 
Misunderstood  Books.  31 
 
 shown  by  taking  any  single  book  and  proving,  chapter  by 
 chapter,  the  impossibility  and  often  even  the  absurdity  of  the 
 many  divergent  interpretations  of  its  salient  passages.  It 
 might  be  shown  again  by  a  catena,  from  almost  any  part  of 
 Scripture,  of  passages  which  have  for  centuries  together  been 
 explained  in  a  manner  now  abandoned  as  entirely  untenable. 
 We  may  illustrate  it  still  more  decisively  by  showing  the 
 hopeless  confusion  which  has  reigned  among  commentators 
 about  the  general  drift  and  significance  of  whole  books  of 
 Scripture.  For  instance,  is  it  no  opprobrium  to  Christian 
 scholarship  that  for  seventeen  centuries  no  Christian 
 scholar  before  Joachim  Oporin  had  discovered  the  continuous 
 design  and  central  conception  of  the  First  Epistle  of  St. 
 John,  of  which  St.  Augustine  had  nothing  better  to  say  than 
 Locuturus  est  multa  ct  prope  omnia  de  caritate  ;  and  Calvin 
 nothing  better  than  Sparsim  docendo  et  exhortando  varius  est  ? 
 Let  us,  however,  take  the  more  striking  case  of  one  of  the 
 Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes. 
 Even  the  name  of  it,  both  in  Greek  and  Hebrew,  is  of 
 disputed  meaning;  and,  difficult  as  the  book  is,  Luther 
 said  that  it  is  almost  more  difficult  to  clear  the  author 
 from  the  fancies  palmed  upon  him  than  to  develop  his 
 meaning.  Some  of  the  Rabbis  attacked  it  as  being  not 
 only  apocryphal  in  authorship,  but  heretical  in  tendency. ] 
 These  conclusions  were  only  escaped  by  a  liberal  use  of 
 allegory.  Even  in  the  fifteenth  century  R.  Isaac  ben  Aramah 
 complains  that  some  expounded  it  with  far-fetched  literalism, 
 others  philosophically,  others  traditionally,  and  that  all  alike 
 had  altered  its  meaning  into  palatable  sentiments,  while  none 
 of  them  had  "  drawn  sweetness  from  this  flint." 2  St.  Jerome 
 and  St.  Augustine  by  extreme  applications  of  the  allegoric 
 
 1  Megilla,  f.  7,  1  ;  Shabbath,  f.  30,  2.  "0  Solomon,  where  is  thy  wisdom  ? 
 .  .  .  Thy  words  not  only  contradict  those  of  David  thy  father ;  but  they 
 contradict  themselves."  Vayikra  Rabba.  f.  161,  2.  Jer.  in  Eecl.  xii.  1". 
 Qinsbnrg,  Cohclcth,  p.  15.  Wogue,  Hist,  de  la  Bible,  p.  Gl.  It  narrowly 
 escaped  ejection  from  the  canon  by  the  school  of  Sham  ma  i  because  of  (1)  ita 
 contradictions  and  (2)  its  supposed  epicureanism  (Midrash  Koheleth  on  1 
 
 xi.  9). 
 
 2  See  Ginsburg,  p.  66. 
 
32  Ecclesiastes. 
 
 method  explain  it  as  alluding  to  Christ  and  the  sacraments, 
 and  are  followed  by  the  Schoolmen. x  Olympiodorus  declared 
 that  it  is  a  treatise  of  natural  philosophy ;  Hugo  of  St. 
 Victor  that  it  is  meant  to  teach  us  to  despise  the  world ; 
 Brentius  and  Luther,  reversing  the  judgment  of  the  Mystics, 
 said  that  it  was  meant  to  teach  not  the  contempt  but  the 
 enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  life.  Melanchthon  supposed 
 that  it  was  designed  to  prove  an  overruling  Providence  and 
 a  future  judgment.  De  Wette,  on  the  other  hand,  thought 
 that  the  writer  inclined  to  fatalism,  scepticism,  and  epi- 
 cureanism, and  gave  no  hope  of  a  future  life.  Heine  calls  it 
 "  the  Song  of  Scepticism,"  and  Delitzsch  "  the  Song  of  the 
 Fear  of  God."  2  Surely  if  it  be  so  difficult  for  students  to 
 grasp  the  drift  and  meaning  of  an  entire  book,  their  views  as 
 to  the  meaning  of  separate  passages  must  often  be  extremely 
 fallible. 
 
 Many  other  instances  might  be  furnished,  e.g.  the  Book  of 
 Esther,3  the  Prophecy  of  Hosea,  the  Apocalypse,  the  Song  of 
 Solomon.  Can  anything  be  more  grotesque  and  more 
 melancholy  than  the  vast  mass  of  hypotheses  about  the 
 latter — hypotheses  which  can  make  anything  of  anything  ? 
 Like  Esther  it  never  mentions  the  name  of  God  and  it 
 narrowly    escaped     exclusion    from    the     canon. 4      It    re- 
 
 1  e.g.  Ch.  iv.  8.  "  The  eye  is  not  satisfied  with  seeing."  "  Christ  is  always 
 desiring  and  seeking  our  salvation."  ii.  24.  "  There  is  nothing  belter  for 
 a  man  than  that  he  should  cat  and  drink."  It  is  good  to  partake  of  the 
 Lord's  Supper.  Jer.  x.  16,  "  Woe  to  thee,  0  land,  when  thy  king  is  a  child." 
 Ecclesiastes  calls  the  devil  a  child  because  of  his  foolishness.  Aug.  i.  7,  "  All 
 the  rivers  flow  into  the  sea."  Joys  end  in  sorrow.  (R.  of  St.  Victor),  xii.  5, 
 "  The  almond  tree  shall  flourish  "  "  The  almond  tree  is  Christ — the  rind,  the 
 shell,  and  the  kernel  correspond  to  the  flesh,  the  mind,  and  His  Divinity." — 
 Peter  Lombard. 
 
 2  Delitzsch,  Eccl.  p.  183  (E.  Tr.) 
 
 3  "  The  Book  of  Esther  is  not  once  quoted  in  the  New  Testament.  It  was 
 not  considered  canonical  by  two  considerable  Fathers,  Melito  and  Gregory 
 Nazianzen.  It  contains  no  prophecy,  it  has  nothing  on  the  surface  to  dis- 
 tinguish it  from  a  mere  ordinary  history  ;  nay,  it  has  no  mark  on  the  surface 
 of  being  a  religious  history,  not  once  does  it  mention  the  name  of  God,  or 
 Lord."  Tracts  for  the  Times,  vol.  v.  "  Creed  and  Canon  compared."  The 
 name  of  the  King  of  Persia  occurs  in  Esther  187  times. 
 
 4  See  Shabbath,  f.  30.  2  ;  Aboth  of  Rabbi  Nathan  ;  Yadaim,  iii.  2,  and 
 Maimonides,  ad  loc.  Wogue,  Hist,  de  la  Bible  pp.  56,  65.  It  owed  its  admis- 
 sion to  the  mystic  interpretation.  Slunk,  Palestine,  p.  450.  The  Jews  for- 
 bade any  one  to  read  it  before  the  age  of  thirty,  and  anathematised  its  literal 
 interpretation.     Sanhcdrin,  iii.  1. 
 
Song  of  Solomon.  33 
 
 presents,  say  the  Commentators,  the  love  of  the  Lord 
 for  the  congregation  of  Israel ; l  it  relates  the  history 
 of  the  Jews  from  the  Exodus  to  the  Messiah;2  it  is 
 a  consolation  to  afflicted  Israel ; 3  it  is  an  occult  history  ; ' 
 it  represents  the  tmion  of  the  divine  soul  with  the  earthly 
 hody  ; 5  or  of  the  material  with  the  active  intellect;6  it  is 
 the  conversation  of  Solomon  and  Wisdom  ;7  it  describes  the 
 love  of  Christ  to  His  Church  ; s  it  is  historieo-prophetical ;  ° 
 it  is  Solomon's  thanksgiving  for  a  happy  reign  ; 10  it  is  a 
 love-song  unworthy  of  any  place  in  the  sacred  canon ; u  it 
 treats  of  man's  reconciliation  to  God ; 12  it  is  a  prophecy  of 
 the  Church  from  the  Crucifixion  till  after  the  Reformation  ; 13 
 it  is  an  anticipation  of  the  Apocalypse ;  M  it  is  the  seven  days 
 cpithalamium  on  the  marriage  of  Solomon  with  the  daughter 
 of  Pharaoh  ; 15  it  is  a  magazine  for  direction  and  consolation 
 under  every  condition ; 16  it  treats  in  hieroglyphics  of  the 
 sepulchre  of  the  Saviour,  His  death,  and  the  Old  Testament 
 saints  ; 1T  it  refers  to  Hezekiah  and  the  ten  tribes ; 18  it  is 
 written  in  glorification  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 19  Such  were 
 the  impossible  and  divergent  interpretations  of  what  many 
 regarded  as  the  very  Word  of  God  ! 20  A  few  only  till  the 
 beginning  of  this  century  saw  the  clear  truth — which  is  .so 
 obvious  to  all  who  go  to  the  Bible  with  the  humble  desire 
 to  read  what  it  says  and  not  to  import  into  it  their  own 
 baseless  fancies — that  it  is  the  exquisite  celebration  of  a 
 pure  love  in  humble  life  ;  of  a  love  which  no  splendour  can 
 dazzle  and  no  flattery  seduce.21 
 
 I  The  Targum.  2  R.  Saadia  Gaon.         3  Rashi.  *  Ibn  Ezra. 
 
 6  Jose]  ih  Ibn  Caspe.        fi  Ibn  Tibbon.  "  AbravaneL    8  Origen,  and 
 
 the  mass  of  Christian  expositors,  except  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  the  school  of 
 Antioch,  and  most  modern  scholars.       9  Nicolas  nf  Lyra.       10  Luther,  Brenz. 
 
 II  Caatellio,  Dr.  Noyes.  1J  Ainswurth.  23  Cocceius. 
 
 14  lli'imisehius.  15  Bossnet.         :G  Durham.  17  Pull'ondorf. 
 
 18  Hug.  VJ  .Many  Itoman  Catholic  < 'ommentatnjN. 
 
 20  It  was  the  favourite  theme  of  mediaeval  exegesis.  The  eighty-six  sermons 
 of  St.  Bernard  only  come  down  to  the  end  of  the  second  chapter. 
 
 -1  To  this  view  the  way  was  led  by  Grotius,  Bossnet,  Lowth,  Herder, 
 Jacobi,  &c.  It  is  adopted  by  Kwald,  Jlirzel,  Dnibreit,  Meier,  t^riederich, 
 Hitzig,  and  most  of  the  best  modem  commentators.  See  the  admirable 
 summary  given  by  Dr.  Ginsburg,  and  by  Zockler  in  Lange's  Bibelioerk. 
 Luther  might  well  say,  "Quodsi  erro  veniam  meretur  primus  labor,  num 
 aliorum  cogitationcs  longe  plies  absurditatis  habent." 
 
 D 
 
34  First  Verse  of  Scripture. 
 
 When,  however,  we  leave  the  consideration  of  whole  books 
 we  need  not  go  farther  than  the  interpretation  of  the  first 
 chapter,  and  even  the  first  verse  of  the  Bible  without  being 
 forced  to  confess  that  exegesis  has  stamped  even  its  initial 
 labours  with  the  impress  of  its  own  incompetency.  Surely  if 
 ever  a  revelation  was  clear,  simple,  majestic,  of  infinite  im- 
 portance, it  is  the  verse :  In  the  hcginning  God  created  the 
 heaven  and  the  earth.  It  is  the  basis  of  all  Monotheism ;  the 
 eternal  protest  of  the  human  heart  enlightened  by  the  Spirit 
 of  God,  against  every  prominent  form  of  error  respecting  His 
 Being.  It  corrects,  as  with  one  stroke  of  the  pen,  the  aber- 
 rations of  millions  of  mankind  ;  of  the  few  Atheists  who  have 
 said  there  is  no  God  ;  of  the  numberless  Polytheists,  belonging 
 alike  to  the  most  refined  and  to  the  most  degraded  races,  who 
 have  worshipped  many  gods ;  of  the  philosophic  dreamers  to 
 whom  God  has  only  been  a  name  for  the  soul  of  the  universe ; 
 of  the  whole  heathen  races  and  the  Manichean  heretics  who 
 believed  in  two  gods  ;  of  the  moderns  who,  whether  within  or 
 without  the  Church's  fold,  deny  that  we  can  know  anything 
 about  God ;  even  of  the  Alexandrians  and  others  who 
 borrowed  from  Greek  philosophy  the  notion  that  Matter  was 
 coeval  with  God.  These  truths  at  least  are  of  unspeakable 
 importance  to  the  human  race ; — and  now  what  has  exegesis 
 to  say  on  this  simple  verse  ? 
 
 i.  We  turn  to  the  Talmud,  and  it  tells  us,  in  accordance 
 with  Hillel's  rule  of  "  equivalence  "  that  "  in  the  beginning  " 
 occurs  also  in  Jer.  xxvi.  1,  and  that  we  must  therefore  infer  that 
 at  that  period,  "  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim," 
 Jehovah  intended  to  reduce  the  world  to  chaos  but  relented.1 
 It  also  tells  us 2  that  the  Septuagint  translators,  apparently  in 
 copying  out  the  law  in  Greek  letters  for  Ptolemy,  transposed 
 the  words,  and  put  Elohim  before  Bcreshith,  lest  the  Greeks 
 should  make  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  Bcreshith  was  the 
 name  of  a  God  who  created  Elohim  !  Further,  the  Rabbis 
 dwell  on  the  dispute  between  the  scholars  of  Shammai,  who 
 maintained  from  this  verse  that  the  heavens  were  created  first, 
 
 1  Sanhedrin,  f.  103,  1.  2  Megffla,  f.  9,  1. 
 
Foolish  Exegesis.  35 
 
 and  the  scholars  of  Hillel,  who  from  Gen.  ii.  4,  declared 
 that  the  earth  was  created  first ;  and  they  tell  us  how  after 
 endless  discussion  and  quotings  of  counter-texts,  the  Mishnic 
 Rabbis  decided  that  the  heaven  and  the  earth  were  both 
 created  at  the  same  time.1  They  tell  us,  moreover,  that 
 Shamayim,  "heaven,"  is  derived  from  cesh-mayim,  "fire-water," 
 because  in  the  firmament,  God  mingled  those  two  elements.2 
 This  however  does  not  nearly  exhaust  the  spurious  infer- 
 ences deduced  by  various  forms  of  Kabbalism  from  the 
 first  word  of  Scripture.  Since  by  anagram 3  Bercshith 
 can  be  read  Bclhishri,  it  was  inferred  that  the  world  was 
 created  in  September  (Tisri) ;  since,  acrostically,4  the  letters 
 of  the  word  give  the  initials  of  the  Hebrew  sentence,  "  God 
 saw  that  Israel  would  accept  the  Law,"  the  world  was  created 
 for  the  sake  of  the  Law.  Since  the  Hebrew  words,  "  in  the 
 beginning  God  created,"  can  be  transposed  by  anagram 
 C'N-q  K*un'  D'nta,  therefore  the  Pentateuch  is  to  be  regarded 
 as  an  allegory.  Turning  to  the  Zohar  we  find  that,  by  further 
 methods  of  Kabbalism,  the  words  are  supposed  to  indicate 
 that  a  luminous  point  of  fire  created  a  temple,  of  which  the 
 name  was  Elohim.  We  come  down  to  Rashi,  so  great  an  in- 
 terpreter in  the  eyes  of  his  countrymen,  that  he  was  called 
 emphatically  Parshandalha,  or  the  "Exegete  of  the  Law,"5 
 and  we  are  told  that  (by  Hillel's  rule  of  "  equivalence  ") 
 the  Torah  begins  with  this  text,  and  not  with  the  precepts 
 of  the  Law,  to  show  that  God  had  given  the  earth  to  the 
 Israelites;  since  in  Jer.  ii.  3,  Israel  is  called  "the  beginning 
 (n^cxi)  of  His  increase."  Continuing  the  traditions  of 
 Kabbalism  we  find  that  even  in  the  epoch  of  the  Renaissance 
 Reuchlin  tried  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
 tiom  Gen.  i.  1,  because  acrostically  the  word  K"D  "He 
 created "    involves  the    initial    letters   of  Father,   Son,    and 
 
 1  Chagiga,  f.  12,  1. 
 
 -  Chiarini,  Th&orie  du  Judatome,  ii  216. 
 
 8  Known  to  the  Jews  by  the  name  Themoorah.     See.  Lect.  II. 
 
 '  This  process  was  known  as- Notarikon.    Bee  Lect.  II. 
 
 •"'  Sec  (ici-rr,  nmyj'IQ,  Kin  Bcitrag  saw  Qesch.  drr  J 
 
 D   2 
 
36  EabbaUsm. 
 
 Spirit  (3N.  p.  nil) ; l  and  Pico  of  Mirandola  (who  is 
 quoted  with  rapturous  approval  by  Sixtus  Senensis  even  as 
 late  as  1593) 2  gets  by  various  permutations  of  the  letters  of 
 the  words  the  meaning  that  "  the  Father,  in  the  Son,  and 
 through  the  Son,  created  the  beginning  and  the  end  or  peace, 
 the  head,  fire,  and  foundation,  by  the  good  covenant  of  a  great 
 man."  3  Pico  thus  persuaded  himself  that  in  the  Qabbala,  there 
 was  more  Christianity  than  Judaism.  Lastly,  if  we  might 
 have  hoped  that  these  fantastic  vanities  could  not  possibly 
 have  survived  the  Middle  Ages  we  are  undeceived  by  open- 
 ing one  of  the  most  popular  of  modern  Jewish  commentaries, 
 the  Tse^nnah  Ureennah,  or  "  Go  ye  and  see,"  compiled  by  the 
 llabbi  Jacob  at  Frankfort  in  1693,  but  reprinted  at  Wilna  as 
 recently  as  1877,  and  in  daily  use  among  the  Polish  Jews.4 
 It  opens  with  the  remark  that  the  Torah  begins  with 
 the  letter  Beth  because  that  is  the  first  letter  of  Bcrakhah 
 "  Blessing  "  ;  then  that  the  letter  Aleph  flew  before  the  Holy 
 One  with  the  complaint  that  it  had  not  been  chosen ;  and 
 was  consoled  by  being  told  that  the  Decalogue  should  begin 
 with  Aleph.  It  proceeds  to  inform  us  that  by  Hillel's  second 
 rule,  the  world  was  created  for  the  sake  of  the  Law  be- 
 cause that  is  called  the  beginning  of  His  way  ; 5  for  the  sake 
 of  the  sacrifices  which  were  offered  in  the  Temple,  which  is 
 called  "  Beginning  "  and  was  created  before  the  world  ; 6  and 
 for  the  sake  of  tithes  which  are  also  called  "  Beginning  (i  e. 
 first  fruits)  of  corn."  7  You  will  perhaps  wonder  that  I  should 
 
 1  So  in   "the  stone  (pX)  which  the  builders  rejected"  he  saw  the  Father 
 
 and  the  Son  (p  3K),  and  out  of  "Righteousness"  (DTlSx  p"l¥,  Dan.  ix.  24) 
 he  gets  by  Gematria,  Messiah  Jehovah  (miT  ilCD).  See  Ginsburg,  The 
 Kabala,  p.  62  ;  Wolf,  Bibl.  Hcbr.  i.  9. 
 
 2  See  Sixt.  Senens.  Bibl.  Sand.  p.  173.  He  calls  this  hermeneutic  folly 
 "  luculcntissimum  exemplum." 
 
 3  Among  Christian  Kabbalists,  all  of  whom  more  or  less  .approved  of  such 
 methods,  may  be  mentioned,  besides  Picus  of  Mirandola  (t  1494),  Raymond 
 Lully  (t  1522);  Cornelius  Agrippa  (t  1535)  ;  Van  Helmont  (t  1464)  :  Fludd 
 (f  1637) ;  Henry  More  (t  1687)  ;  and  others.  See  Ginsburg,  The  Kabbala, 
 p.  124. 
 
 4  nyN"l-1  nr^V.  The  title  is  taken  from  Cant.  iii.  11.  A  translation  of 
 the  Comment  on  Genesis  by  Mr.  P.  J.  Hershon  is  now  in  the  press. 
 
 5  Prov.  viii.  22. 
 
 6  Jer.  xvii.  12.     See  Hershon's  Talmudic  Miscellany,  104,  4. 
 
 7  Deut.  xviii.  4. 
 
Triviality  and  Heresy.  37 
 
 waste  your  time  by  such  inconceivable  puerilities.  Puerilities, 
 yes  !  but  by  referring  to  the  beginning  of  the  Midrash  you 
 will  see  that  they  are  but  a  few  specimens  out  of  many  j1  and 
 they  are  the  direct  result  of  an  extravagantly  superstitious 
 estimate  of  the  letter  of  Scripture.  They  neglect  the  essential 
 truth  and  majesty  of  the  revelation  and  substitute  for  it  a 
 mass  of  ineptitude ; — and  yet  they  depend  on  rules  which 
 have  been  accepted  among  generations  of  mankind  for  two 
 thousand  years,  and  which  are  still  regarded  by  many  as 
 constituting  the  exegesis  of  the  Sacred  Book  ! 
 
 ii.  But  this  is  not  all.  The  interpretation  of  this  verse  is 
 responsible  not  only  for  triviality  but  for  positive  heresy. 
 We  turn  to  Philo,  ami  we  find  that  he  can  extort  from  it 
 the  deadly  error  of  philosophic  dualism.2  Nothing  can  be 
 clearer  than  the  meaning  of  Genesis,  that  God  created  all 
 things.  It  has  not  a  word  to  say  about  the  eternity  of  matter, 
 as  though  matter  were  the  source  of  evil,  and  of  opposition  to 
 the  divine  activity.  Philo,  without  the  least  scruple,  perhaps 
 with  no  suspicion  that  he  was  mistaken,  makes  Moses  speak 
 the  language  of  Plato,  and  Genesis  express  the  thoughts  of 
 the  Timaeus.3  It  is  needless  to  dwell  on  the  astonishing 
 methods  by  which  he  extracts  from  the  Bible  the  views  of 
 the  Stoic  cosmogony  ; 4  but  he  was  partly  influenced  by  the 
 LXX.,  which  translates  "  The  earth  was  without  form,"  by 
 "  The  earth  was  unsccn."rj   This  gave  room  for  the  pretence  that 
 
 1  Mhlrash  I'.nvsrliit  Rabba,  Parascha.  i.  (Wiinsche,  Bill.  Bobbin; 
 
 2  He  derives  this  view  from  Gen.  i.  31.  God  praises  all  that  He  lias  made 
 (toi  tavTov  Texyll<°-  «P7a)>  1  nit  lie  does  not  praise  matter  (tV  Sriixtovpyndeiaaf 
 u\tjc),  which  is  lifeless,  corruptible,  heterogeneous,  discordant.  Quis  A'<  r.  1  '■  . 
 }!<•,  r.  32. 
 
 3  Siegfried,  Pfn'/u,  pp  'j:',0-235.  Philo  gives  the  same  epithet,  tneoios,  alike 
 in  chaos  and  to  God.  Sec  Evvald,  Die  Lehre  der  Bibel  <•</'  Oott,  pp.  238-241. 
 l'h  i  ln's  Sen  i  it  ii  nil  j.ii  mis  ( .')  i  if  the  airoios  ko.\  d/xopepos  uArjare  very  characteristic. 
 Thej  are  derived  (\)  from  the  facl  that  in  Gen.  xxxi.  82  42  Laban (\evKcur/ibs) 
 has  the  unmarked  cattle,  which  shows  that  matter  has  no  properti 
 Prqfug.  2),  and  acquires  its  Beal,  or  stamp,  from  the  Logos  (/'■  .*•<■<»/>.  ii.  6); 
 (2)  from  Deut.  xxiii.  1,  because  the  TeflAaT/ueVos  is  excluded  from  the  Church 
 of  God  ;  and  (8)  from  Gen  xv.  10,  which  is  applied  to  " the  cutter-word " 
 dividing  materia]  and  immaterial  things! 
 
 1  There  are  similar  speculations  in  thai  pari  of  the  Qabbala  which  deals 
 with  the  wmk  of  creation  (rTJ'N-Q    flEWD). 
 
 5  7/  Se  77)  ijv  auoaros  Kal  aicaraaKtvaaros. 
 
38  Stumbling  on  the  Threshold. 
 
 the  creation  primarily  intended  was  that  of  an  immaterial 
 heaven  and  an  invisible  earth — a  creation  ideal  and  not 
 material.1 
 
 iii.  Once  more,  when  we  look  to  the  Fathers  we  find  that 
 some  of  them,  in  that  fatal  ignorance  of  the  original  languages 
 of  Scripture  which  rendered  so  many  of  their  speculations 
 abortive  at  the  outset,  had  the  impression  that  the  first  verse 
 of  Genesis  in  the  Hebrew  ran  "  In  the  Son  God  made  the 
 world."  2  Here  indeed  there  was  no  heresy,  for  so  we  are 
 expressly  taught  in  other  parts  of  Scripture.3  But  the  critical 
 mistake  as  to  the  reading,  and  the  exegetical  mistake  as  to 
 the  interpretation,  tended  from  the  first  to  confirm  views 
 which  were  radically  untenable  as  to  the  nature  and  relation 
 of  the  two  covenants. 
 
 iv.  It  would  not  be  difficult  to  pursue  the  subject  and  to 
 show  the  wild  speculations  of  cosmogony  which  have  been 
 foisted  into  the  very  opening  accents  of  revelation.  But 
 enough  has  been  already  said  to  show  how  small  is  the  title 
 of  Exegesis  to  that  infallibility  either  as  to  principles  or 
 details  which  it  has  so  often  been  fain  to  claim,  not  only  for 
 Scripture  but  for  itself.  It  has  largely  misinterpreted  its  own 
 oracles  and,  for  century  after  century,  stumbled  hopelessly 
 upon  the  very  threshold  of  the  Sacred  Book. 
 
 v.  In  conclusion,  let  us  not  fall  into  the  common  error  of 
 fancying  that  such  mistaken  inferences  are  of  little  practical 
 importance.  If  they  be  harmless  in  some  instances,  they 
 may  be  very  fatal  in  others.  "  The  true  sense  of  Scripture 
 is  Scripture  ;  "  4  but  "  by  giving  it  a  wrong  sense,"  says  Bishop 
 
 1  Philo,  Dc  Opif.  Mundi,  7.  Philo's  favourite  comparisons  for  creation 
 are  drawn  from  building  and  planting.  Philo  seems  to  contradict  these 
 his  normal  views  in  I>c  Somn.  i.  13,  where  he  says,  6  6*bs  ra  iravTa 
 "yevurjcras  ov  fx6vov  eis  rb  i/xepavhs  tfyayev  aAAa  Ktxl  a  Trfiortpop  ovk  ?jv  eTrotT)o~ei>, 
 ov  Sr)fx.wvpybs  fx6vov  aAAa  kcl\  Kricrrris  avrbs  &v.  On  the  self-contradictions  of 
 l'liilo,  see  Gfrorer,  Philo,  ii.  2.  Apparent  contradiction  rises  from  his  use  of 
 to  fii)  bvra.  to  imply  the  chaos.     Gfrorer,  i.  330. 
 
 -  Aristo  Pellaeus  (op.  llouth,  Eel.  Sacr.  i.  91).  "  Plerique  existimant," 
 says  Jerome  (referring  also  to  Tertullian  and  Hilary)  ..."  in  Hehraeo 
 haberi  In  Filio  Dcus  coclum  et  terrain :  quod  falsum  esse  ipsius  rei  Veritas 
 eomprobat."  See  Ambrose,  Hcxacm.  i.  4.  Basil,  Hcxacm.  Horn.  i.  Ter- 
 tullian, C.  Praxeam.     Petavius,  Dc  Off.  Sex.  Dicrum.  i.  §  16. 
 
 3  Heb.  i.  2  ;  John  i.  3  ;  Col.  i.  16  ;  1  Cor.  viii.  6.  4  St.  Augustine. 
 
Crimes  of  Misinterpreted.  39 
 
 Wordsworth,  "  men  make  God's  word  become  their  non- 
 word,  or  even  the  Tempter's  word,  and  then  Scripture  is 
 used  for  our  destruction,  instead  of  making  us  wise  unto 
 Salvation."1  The  misinterpretation  of  Scripture  must  be 
 reckoned  among  the  gravest  calamities  of  Christendom.  It 
 has  been  the  source  of  crimes  and  errors  which  have  tended 
 to  loosen  the  hold  of  the  sacred  writings  upon  the  affection 
 and  veneration  of  mankind.  Recall  but  for  a  moment  the 
 extent  and  the  deadliness  of  the  evils  for  which  texts  of 
 the  Bible  have  been  made  the  command  and  the  excuse. 
 Wild  fanaticism,  dark  superstition,  abject  bondage,  anti- 
 nomian  license,  the  burning  hatred  and  unbending  obstinacy 
 of  party  spirit — have  they  not  each  in  turn  perverted  the 
 Scriptures  to  which  they  appealed  ?  It  is  grievous  to  recall 
 how  many  a  bloodstained  period  of  history  might  have  been 
 redeemed  from  its  agony  and  desolation  if  men  had  only 
 remembered  what  Christ  so  plainly  taught — that  the  Law  of 
 the  Old  Testament  was  as  yet  an  imperfect  law,  and  the 
 morality  of  the  Old  Testament  as  yet  an  imperfect  and  un- 
 developed morality.2  How  often  have  the  sanguinary  sup- 
 porters of  mistaken  shibboleths  defended  their  outrages  by 
 the  injunctions  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  The  infamous  assassina- 
 tions of  princes,  or  murderous  j)lots  against  them,  by  a 
 Ravaillac,  a  Jacques  Clement,  a  Balthazar  Gerard,  an  Antony 
 Babington,  an  Everard  Digby,  were  preposterously  justified  1>\ 
 the  examples  of  Ehud  and  Jael.3  The  Crusaders,  thinking  thai 
 they  did  God  service  by  wading  bridle- deep  in  the  blood  of 
 infidels  who  were  often  morally  superior  to  themselves,  justified 
 
 1  Miscellanies,  ii.  17. 
 
 -  Matt.  v.  21-43  (comp.  xv.  1-9  ;  xxiii.  1-23)  ;  Mark  ii.  18-28  ;  vii.  2  28  : 
 x.  2-12  ;  Luke  ix.  51-50  ;  xiii.  11-17  ;  John  viii.  1-11. 
 
 3  See  Buarez,  De  Fide,vi.  4  ;  Mariana,  De  Rege,  p.  ii'.>.  There  can  be  little 
 doubt,  if  any,  thai  Tins  V.  sanctioned  attempts  on  the  life  of  Elizabeth.  F<» 
 the  blasphemies  of  Pope  Sixtua  Y.  after  the  murder  of  Henry  III.  by  Clement, 
 Bee  De  Thou  as  quoted  by  Lecky,  Rationalism,  ii.  178;  Hallam,  Hist,  of  1 
 Lit.  ii.  39-46.  The  impudent  claim  to  a  righl  of  deposition  led  naturally  to 
 tyrannicide,  ami  Buarez  says  that  when  St.  Paul  wrote,  "  Lei  every  bouj  be 
 Bubject  to  the  higher  powers,"  he  did  tint  include  I  tmunicated  !     The 
 
 last  attempt  to  murder  the  Emperor  of  Germany  (1884)  was  calmly  defended 
 by  the  murderer  from  OM  Testament  examples  I  Bee  Oxenham,  Ethical 
 Studies,  pp.  406-413. 
 
40  Text-defended  Crimes. 
 
 their  massacres  by  the  exterminating  wars  in  the  Book  of 
 Judges,  which  Bishop  Ulfila  wisely  delayed  to  translate  into 
 Gothic  because  he  feared  the  effects  they  would  produce  upon 
 the  minds  of  his  wild  converts.  Thousands  of  poor  harmless 
 women,  maddened  by  torture  into  false  self-accusations,  were 
 burnt  to  death  by  Sprenger  as  witches,  on  the  supposed 
 authority  of  a  text  in  Leviticus.1  A  crime  so  atrocious  as 
 the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  was  hailed  by  Pope  Gregory 
 XIII.  with  acclamation,  and  paralleled  by  the  zeal  for  God 
 of  ancient  heroes.  Texts  were  used  to  crush  the  efforts  of 
 national  liberty,  and  to  buttress  the  tyrannies  of  immoral 
 despotism.2  The  murder  of  kings  and  passive  obedience 
 to  them  were  alike  defended  by  texts.3  The  colossal  usur- 
 pations of  the  Papacy  in  the  days  of  its  haughtiest  audacity  were 
 maintained  not  only  by  spurious  donations  and  forged  decretals, 
 but  by  Boniface  VIII.  on  the  ground  that  the  two  swords  of 
 Peter  meant  the  possession  by  Popes  of  temporal  and  spiritual 
 dominion  ; 4  and  a  century  earlier,  by  Innocent  III.,  on  the 
 ground  that  the  Pope  was  intended  by  the  sun  to  rule  the  day, 
 and  the  Emperor  only  by  the  moon  to  rule  the  night.5  When 
 Innocent  III.  was  giving  to  the  Abbot  of  Citeaux  his  infamous 
 advice  to  entrap  the  Count  of  Toulouse  to  his  ruin,  he  wrote, 
 "  We  advise  you,  according  to  the  precepts  of  the  Apostle,  to  use 
 cunning    in    your    dealings    with    the    Count    of  Toulouse, 
 
 *  Sprenger,  author  of  the  Malleus  Maleficarum,  was  appointed  Inquisitor 
 by  Innocent  VIII.  in  1484.  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  as  every  one  knows,  in  1665 
 sent  two  witches  to  be  executed  on  Scripture  authority  ;  and  five  are  said  to 
 have  been  hanged  at  Northampton  as  late  as  1712  (Parr's  Works,  iv.  182)  ;  and 
 in  Spain  as  late  as  1781  (Buckle,  Hist,  of  Civilis.  i.  334)  ;  and  in  Switzerland 
 in  1782  (Michclet's  La  Sorciere,  p.  425).  Even  Wesley  said,  "The  giving  up 
 witchcraft  is  giving  up  the  Bible."  So  absurd  a  statement  would  practically 
 bind  us  to  everything  which  was  ignorantly  believed  3,500  years  ago.  See 
 Lecky,  Hist,  of  Rationalism,  i.  1-150. 
 
 2  Passive  obedience  was  taught  by  theologians  for  centuries  from  the  days  of 
 the  early  Fathers  down  to  the  seventeenth  century.  Grotius,  De  Jure  Belle 
 ,-t  Paris,  i.  4.  A  contemporary  tells  us  that  in  the  English  Church  after  the 
 Restoration  the  name  of  Charles  I.  was  referred  to  ten  times  more  often  than 
 that  of  Christ. 
 
 3  See  especially  Mariana,  Dc  Rcge  et  Regis  Inslitufione,  1599. 
 
 4  See  the  authorities  quoted  in  Hallam,  Middle  Ages,  ii.  26,  29.  Words- 
 worth, Miscellanies,  ii.  18. 
 
 3  Muratori,  Script.  Ber.  Hal.  iii.  448.     Decret.  Greg.  ix.  lib.  i.  tit.  33. 
 
Text-defended  Crimes.  41 
 
 treating  him  with  a  wise  dissimulation,  that  the  other 
 heretics  may  be  more  easily  destroyed."  x  Even  the  Spanish 
 Inquisition — that  infamy  of  Christendom — appealed  to  Scrip- 
 tural warrant  for  the  right  to  immolate  its  holocausts  of 
 victims,2  and  the  blood-stained  Alva  received  from  the  Pope 
 a  jewelled  sword  with  the  inscription,  Accipe  sanctum  glaclium, 
 maims  a  Deo.  In  the  days  of  her  persecution  the  Fathers  of 
 the  Church  had  taught  mankind  that  "force  is  hateful  to  God  ;"3 
 but,  in  the  days  of  her  despotism,  not  only  cursings  and  ana- 
 themas, but  the  axes,  the  stakes,  the  gibbets,  the  thumbscrews, 
 the  racks,  and  all  the  instruments  of  torture  kept  in  the  dun- 
 geons of  priests  to  deprave  the  heart  of  nations,  and  to  horrify 
 the  world,  were  defended  by  scraps  of  texts  and  shreds  of 
 metaphor  from  the  mercy-breathing  parables  of  Christ.  Texts 
 have  been  used  a  thousand  times  to  bar  the  progress  of  science, 
 to  beat  down  the  sword  of  freedom,  to  destroy  the  benefactors  of 
 humanity,  to  silence  the  voice  of  truth.  The  gospel  of  peace, 
 the  gospel  of  knowledge,  the  gospel  of  progress,  has  been 
 desecrated  into  the  armoury  of  fanaticism,  and  the  stumbling- 
 block  of  philosophy.  The  gospel  of  light  and  love  has  been 
 used  to  glorify  the  madness  of  the  self-torturer,  to  kindle  the 
 faggot  of  the  inquisitor,  and  to  rivet  the  fetters  of  the  slave. 
 Who  can  deny  these  things  unless  he  thinks  to  please  God 
 by  going  before  Him  with  a  lie  in  his  right  hand  ?  Even 
 the  poets  of  the  world — poets  the  clearest  in  universal  insight, 
 and  the  deepest  in  spiritual  emotion — have  noticed  and 
 deplored   them.       Who    does    not    feel    the    force    of    the 
 
 1  "  It  is  remarkable  that  when  the  Roman  pontiffs,  especially  Gregory  VII. 
 and  Innocent  III.,  had  any  pernicious  design  to  recommend,  they  were  lavish 
 in  their  appeals  to  Scripture.  — Taylor. 
 
 -  "In  conclusion  the  Emperor  ordered  the  Inquisition  to  make  it  known 
 thai  they  were  not  doing  their  own  work,  bul  the  work  of  Christ."  What 
 nameless  horror  this  "work  of  Christ"  involved  may  be  read  in  Motley's 
 Dutch  Republic,  i.  288. 
 
 3  "Nee  religionis  est  cogere  religionem."  Tertullian  {Ad  Scapulam,  2), 
 Religio  cogi  non  potest.     Lactantius  [Dim.  Inst.   vi.  19).    The   old   rule  was 
 
 Bia  cxOpbv  ®e<p. 
 
 1  Lord  Bacon  attributes  the  paralysis  of  science  chiefly  to  the  incubus  of 
 the  theological  system.  See  Nopum  Organum,  i.  g  l.w.,  and  there  is  a  similar 
 remark  by  Kepler  in  De  Mortis  Stella, 
 
or, 
 
 or 
 
 42  Wresting  the  Scriptures. 
 
 hackneyed  lines  —  hackneyed  from  their  fatal  truthful- 
 ness— 
 
 "The  devil  can  quote  Scripture  for  his  purpose"  ? 
 
 or, 
 
 "In  religion 
 What  damned  error  but  some  sober  brow- 
 Will  bless  it  and  approve  it  with  a  text, 
 Hiding  the  grossness  with  fair  ornament  ? " 
 
 "  Having  waste  ground  enough, 
 Shall  we  desire  to  raze  the  sanctuary, 
 And  pitch  our  evils  there  ?  " 
 
 "  Crime  was  ne'er  so  black 
 As  ghostly  cheer  and  pious  thanks  to  lack. 
 Satan  is  modest.     At  Heaven's  door  he  lays 
 His  evil  offspring,  and  in  Scripture  phrases 
 And  saintly  posture  gives  to  God  the  praise 
 And  honour  of  his  monstrous  progeny  "  ? 
 
 How  then  is  it  possible  better  to  maintain  the  divine 
 authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  than  by  pointing  out,  and  by 
 forsaking,  the  errors  whereby  men  have  so  often  wrested 
 them  alike  to  their  own  destruction  and  to  the  ruin  and 
 misery  of  their  fellow  men  ?  How  can  we  better  prove  their 
 sacredness  and  majesty  than  by  showing  that  in  spite  of  such 
 long  centuries  of  grievous  misinterpretation  they  still  remain 
 when  rightly  used,  a  light  unto  our  feet  and  a  lamp  unto  our 
 paths  ?  How  can  we  render  them  a  loftier  service  than  by 
 endeavouring;  to  set  them  free  from  false  dog-mas  which  have 
 
 ©  © 
 
 corrupted  their  whole  interpretation  with  dishonest  casuistry, 
 and  have  thereby  shaken  to  its  very  centre  the  religious  faith  of 
 thousands  alike  of  the  most  ignorant  and  of  the  most  culti- 
 
 © 
 
 vated  of  mankind  ?  And  think  not  that  I  am  pointing  some 
 mere  conventional  moral  when  I  add  that  there  is  one  way  in 
 which  the  very  humblest  of  us  may  prove  how  inviolable  is 
 the  truth,  how  infinite  the  preciousness  of  the  lessons  which 
 we  can  learn  from  Scripture.  It  is  by  living  in  simple  and 
 faithful  obedience    to    its    hit-host    and    its    final    teaching;. 
 
 ©  o 
 
 On  that  point  at  least,  amid  multitudes  of  imperfections, 
 the  greatest  and  holiest  interpreters  have  ever  been  at  one. 
 " Scripturac   seopus  est"  says  St.  Augustine,  "  dilectio  Dei  ct 
 
True  Use  of  Scripture.  t3 
 
 mordine  ad  Deum  aliorum  hominum."  l  "The  fruit  of  sacred 
 Scripture,"  said  Bonaventura,  "  is  fulness  of  felicity."  2  "  Do 
 not  hear  or  read  it,"  says  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  "  for  any 
 other  end  but  to  become  better  in  your  daily  walk,  and  to  be 
 instructed  in  every  good  work,  and  to  increase  in  the  love 
 and  service  of  God."  3 — And  this  may  God  grant  us  all  for 
 His  Son's  sake  ! 
 
 1  Aug.  De  Gen.  ad  Liter  am. 
 
 -  Bouaventura,  Breviloq.  Prooem.  So  Abelard  says  that  the  object  of  the 
 study  of  .Scripture  is  "morum  instructio  ;"and  Jobu  of  Salisbury,  "ut  homo 
 seipso  melior  jugiter  fiat."     (Polycrat.  vii.  10.) 
 
 3  Jer.  Taylor,  Holy  Living,  iv. 
 
Airrn  accu  vfttis  TTCipafiaiverf  rrjV  ti/ToXrjv  tov  Oeov  ftta  ti)v  napdb<:o~iv  vpwv  ' 
 O  yap  Qeos  evtreiXaro  ^  tycov  .  .  .  'Ypfis  fie  \ey(T(  .  .  .  Kru  Tjicvp&aaTe  tx]V 
 evToXrjv  tov  6eoC  bin  tt)v  Ttapdbocnv  vpa>v. — Matt.  XV.  3 — 6. 
 
 BXeVfTe  prj  th  vpas  tirrai  6  o~vhaya>yu>v  hid  .  .  .  K(in\s  dnaTr];  Kara  ti]v 
 7rapdboaLV  ra>v  uvflpomwv. — Col.  ii.  8. 
 
LECTURE  II. 
 
 RABBINIC    EXEGESIS. 
 
 "  Xot  giving  heed  to  Jewish  fables,  and  commandments  of  men  who  turn 
 away  from  the  truth."  ' — Tit.  i.  14. 
 
 A  BOOK  needs  for  the  most  part  but  little  explana- 
 tion in  the  age  to  which  it  is  addressed.  It  may  bo 
 assumed  as  a  fundamental  principle  that  an  author  writes 
 for  the  purpose  of  being  understood.  His  thoughts,  his 
 allusions,  his  special  opinions  are  influenced  by  the  times 
 in  which  he  lives,  and  are  clearer  to  his  contemporaries  than 
 they  can  be  to  men  of  other  epochs.  But  as  the  centuries 
 advance  books  require  an  interpreter  in  proportion  to  their 
 depl  li  and  sacredness.  Schools  of  expositors  were  soon  needed 
 to  explain  the  Vedas2  and  the  Koran.3  Chairs  were  founded 
 to  comment  upon  the  Divina.  Commcdia  of  Dante  as  early  as 
 fifty  years  after  his  death,4  and  the  existing  commentaries  on 
 that  immortal  vision  are  now  nearly  thirteen  hundred  in 
 number. 
 
 The  interpretation  of  Scripture  can  hardly  be  said  to  have 
 begun  before  the  days  of  Ezra.     Indeed  up  to  his  days  we 
 
 1  ov  7rpo<r«'xo«'T«s  'lovtiaiKols  fxv6ois  xcd  eVroAcuj  avOpdiraiv  aTro(nps<pofj.£vii>v  tV 
 b.\-r)Qaav.      Coinp.  verse  10.      Elal  yap  iroWol  .  .  .  ixarato\6yot  Kat  ^ptvairaTai, 
 
 fXO.\l(TTa  Ot    (K    Tr€piTOflT}S. 
 
 -  See  Muir,  Sanscrit  Texts,  iii.  pp.  188  170. 
 
 3  The  Koran  has  its  schools  of  expositors.  The  mystics  (fTarmathai)  ;  the 
 Rationalists  (Muatasiliten)  ;  the  scholastic  students  {MutekellemHn).  lake  the 
 Sopherim,  the  Sunnites  maintain  the  existence  of  Tradition  {Sinnut)  :  ainl, 
 like  the  Karaite:!,  the  Schiites  deny  it.      See  Etheridge,  fM>r.  I. 'J.  p.  296. 
 
 4  The  republic  of  Florence  endowed  a  Lectureship  in  1373. 
 
48  Scripture  Principles. 
 
 are  unable  to  say  how  much  of  the  Old  Testament  in  its 
 present  form  was  known  to  the  mass  of  the  Jewish  people. 
 The  Mosaic  system  from  a  very  early  period  seems  not  only  to 
 have  fallen  into  desuetude,  but  even  to  have  been  so  utterly 
 forgotten  that  the  discovery  of  the  "  Book  of  the  Law  "  by  the 
 high  priest  Hilkiah  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  produced  a  burst 
 of  astonishment.1  During  the  Exile  it  again  fell  into  com- 
 plete  abeyance.  In  the  days  of  Nehemiah  its  main  provisions 
 were  so  little  observed  that  their  simple  rehearsal  woke 
 mingled  feelings  of  amazement  and  remorse.2 
 
 Yet  though  we  do  not  find  in  the  Old  Testament  anvthing 
 which  can  be  strictly  called  commentary,  we  do  find,  both 
 in  the  Psalms  and  in  the  Prophets,  the  enunciation  of 
 principles  so  rich  and  broad  that,  had  they  been  duly  taken 
 to  heart,  nine-tenths  of  the  labours  of  the  national  teachers 
 might  have  been  saved  from  abortiveness.  For  those  labours 
 were  based  on  the  two  assumptions  that  every  word  in  the 
 Five  Books  of  Moses  was  supernaturally  communicated, 
 and  that  every  tittle  of  Levitical  formalism  was  of  infinite 
 importance.  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  the  free 
 attitude  of  the  earlier  Prophets  towards  the  Law  would  have 
 been  impossible  if  they  had  accepted  either  hypothesis. 
 Had  they  done  so,  they  too  might  have  sunk  to  the  level  of 
 Priests  and  Scribes,  and  could  never  have  been  the  inspired 
 teachers  of  mankind.  Moses  is  only  mentioned  three  times 
 in  all  the  Prophets.3  The  word  Sinai  does  not  once  occur 
 in  them,  nor  the  word  High  Priest.  They  scarcely  show 
 a  trace  of  any  influence  from  the  Levitic  system.  To  the 
 official  Priesthood  their  general  attitude  is  one  of  strong 
 antagonism,  and  so  far  from  bowing  to  sacerdotal  authority 
 they  rebuke  these  Temple    ministers   with    scathing   satire 
 
 1  2Kingsxxii.  8-15;  xxiii.  1-3. 
 
 2  Nehem.  viii.  ix.  xiii. 
 
 8  Is.  Ixiii.  12  ;  Jer.  xv.  1  ;  Mai.  iv.  4.  It  is  only  in  the  third  passage  that 
 "  the  law  of  Moses  "  is  mentioned.  Other  allusions  to  "  the  law  of  the  Lord  " 
 are  general,  as  Amos  ii.  4,  Hos.  iv.  6,  viii.  1  ;  Jer.  ix.  13,  &c.,  Zeph.  iii.  4. 
 A  written  law  is  referred  to  in  Hos.  viii.  12,  Jer.  viii.  8.  See  on  the  whole 
 subject  Smend,  Ueber  die  Genesis  d.  Judenthmns  (Zeitschr.  f.  alttest.  Wissensiu 
 1882). 
 
Spirit  of  the  Prophets.  49 
 
 and  unmeasured  invective.1  But  what  is  most  remarkable 
 is  their  varied  and  magnificent  protest  against  the  spirit  of 
 legalism,  which  substitutes  outward  ordinances  f>>r  genuine 
 holiness.  In  urging  this  theme  Samuel,  David,  Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah,  Amos,  Micah,  Hosea,  Habakkuk,  use  language 
 so  sweeping  in  its  universality,  that  they  might  have  seemed 
 to  be  rilled  with  a  spirit  not  only  of  indifference,  but  even  of 
 contempt  for  that  yoke  of  ritual  bondage  which  it  required  a 
 courage  as  high  as  that  of.  St.  Peter,  so  many  centuries  after- 
 wards, to  declare  that  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  had  been 
 able  to  bear.2  "Behold  to  obey,"  said  Samuel,  "is  better 
 than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams." 3  "  Thou 
 desirest  not  sacrifice,"  says  David,  "  else  would  I  give  it  thee ; 
 but  thou  delightest  not  in  burnt  offerings." 4  "  To  what  pur- 
 pose is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  unto  me  ?  saith  the 
 Lord,"  is  the  message  of  Isaiah.5  "  I  hate,  I  despise  your  feast- 
 days,"  is  the  word  of  the  Lord  through  Amos.6  "I  spake 
 not  unto  your  fathers  concerning  burnt  offerings  and 
 sacrifices,"  says  the  word  of  the  Lord  in  Jeremiah  ;  "  but 
 this  thing  I  commanded  them,  saying,  Obey  my  voice."7 
 "What  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,"  asks  Micah,  "but 
 to  do  justice,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with 
 thy  God?"8  "I  desired  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,"  is  the 
 terse  message  of  Hosea.  "  I  gave  them  also  statutes  that 
 were  not  good,  and  judgments  whereby  they  should  nut 
 live,"  9  was  the  bold  utterance  which,  however  interpreted, 
 almost  cost  the  prophet  Ezekiel  his  place  in  the  Jewish 
 canon.™  Such  thoughts  were  the  most  direct  antithesis  to 
 the  views  and  methods  of  the  Scribes. 
 
 1  See  Is.  xxviii.  7,  8  ;  Ivi  In.  H  ;  Jer.  iii.  Id  ;  v.  13  ;  vi.  13  ;  vii.  21,  22  : 
 viii.  10;  xii.  10;  xxiii.  11;  Kzck.  xxii.  -J.">,  26;  Hos.  vi.  !»  ;  Zeph.  iii. 
 3,   I  :   Mai.  ii.  1-10,  &c. 
 
 ■-'  Acta  xv.  10.  «  1  Sam.  xv.  22.  4   Ps.  Ii.  16. 
 
 3  Is.  i.  11.  c  Ames  v.  21,  •-"_'.  7  Jer.  vii.  2-2,  23. 
 
 w   Mic.  vi.  6-9.  ;'  Ezek.  xx.  2.". 
 
 10  See  Jer,  Ep.adPaulin.  Zunz,  Oottesd.  Vortr.  c.  be.  L,  \\'<>^\*\  Hist. 
 ,/.   hi  ];,hi.\  p.  34.     "Revere  the  memory  of  Chananiah  ben  Chizkiyah,  For 
 
 had  it  ii"t  ! n  fm-  him  tin-  bonk  of  Kzi-kid  would  have  been  suppr 
 
 ttecause  of  the  contradictions  it  offers  to  the  word  of  the  law.  By  the  Ii<-1  p  of 
 800  bottles  of  oil  .  .  .  he  prolonged  his  studies  till  he  succeeded  in  reconciling 
 all  the  discrepancies."  -Shabbath,  £   18,  2.     See  too  Menachoth,  f.  l">,  and 
 
 i: 
 
50  The  Law  about  Fringes. 
 
 Theoretically  indeed  these  Prophetic  teachings  were  always 
 admitted.  They  were  recognised  in  the  Pentateuch  itself.1 
 When  our  Lord  answered  the  question  of  the  Scribes  by  sum- 
 ming up  the  Law  in  two  great  commandments,  some  of  them  at 
 least  were  able  to  appreciate  the  glorious  truth  and  insight  of 
 the  answer.2  Nay,  if  there  be  not  a  wilful  falsification  in  the 
 Talmudic  records — if  the  later  Rabbis  did  not  in  this  instance 
 as  in  many  others  light  their  torches  at  the  sun  which  yet 
 they  cursed — Hillel  himself  had  in  a  mutilated  form  given 
 half  of  the  same  answer.  Shammai  drove  away  with  a 
 builder's  rod  the  rude  Gentile  who  promised  to  become  a 
 proselyte  if  he  would  teach  him  the  whole  Law  while  he 
 stood  on  one  leg,  but  Hillel  converted  him  by  answering, 
 "  What  is  hateful  to  thyself  do  not  to  thy  neighbour.  This 
 is  the  whole  law ;  all  the  rest  is  but  comment  and  fringe."  3 
 
 But  if  Hillel  ever  used  those  words  it  was  one  of  the  many 
 proofs  that  he  could  breathe  in  a  purer  atmosphere  than  had 
 been  reached  by  his  brother  Rabbis.  They  had  proclaimed 
 that  there  were  613  precepts,  of  which  some  were  "light" 
 and  some  were  "  heavy." 4  It  therefore  became  a  frequent 
 question  among  them,  "  which  was  the  first  and  great  com- 
 mandment?" In  the  tract  Shahbath  we  are  told  that  the 
 most  important  law  was  the  one  about  fringes,  so  that,  on  one 
 occasion,  R.  Rabba,  having  accidentally  stepped  on  and  torn 
 his  fringe  while  mounting  a  ladder,  would  not  move  until  it 
 had  been  mended.  How  little  the  Jews  are  ashamed  of  a 
 judgment  so  diametrically  opposed  to  the  opinions  of  their 
 mightiest  Prophets  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  no  less  a  person 
 than  Rashi,  even  in  the  twelfth  century,  is  still  bold  enough 
 to  repeat  that  the  Law  about  fringes  is  the  first  and  great 
 
 other  passagrs  of  the  Talmud  cited  by  Hamburger  .<?.  v.  Jechezkel ;  Hershon, 
 Talm.  Misccll.  p.  226.  The  difficult  verse,  Ez.  xx.  25,  is  alluded  to  in  Megilla 
 f.  32.  1. 
 
 1  Deut.  x.  12. 
 
 2  Mark  xii.  32-34.     Ka\  elirev  avTu>  5  ypa/Li/xaTebs  Kakws,  SiSdcrKaXe,  k.t.\. 
 
 3  Shahbath,  f.  31,  1.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  "neighbour"  usually 
 meant  "Jew."  Baba  Qamuia.  f.  38,  1,  Amsterd.  ed.  Hershon,  Genesis, 
 p.  370. 
 
 4  Thifl  was  deduced  from  Gematria,  because  min  =  611,  which  with  "I 
 am"  and  "thou  shalt  have  no  other"  =  613.     Makkoth,  f.  23,  2. 
 
The  Founder  of  Judaism.  51 
 
 commandment.1  Such  was  the  difference  between  the  spirit 
 of  the  Prophets  and  that  of  the  Rabbis,  in  whose  days  "  there 
 was  no  Prophet  more  !  " 
 
 I.  The  question  may  well  be  asked  how  a  change  so 
 immense  was  effected,  and  to  whose  influence  it  was  due. 
 Vast  revolutions  are  usually  brought  about  by  the  genius  of 
 one  man  who  concentrates  in  his  OAvn  person  the  energy  of 
 some  new  impulse,  and,  for  good  or  for  evil,  pours  its  tidal 
 wave  over  coming  generations  with  a  force  which,  centuries 
 afterwards,  is  still  unspent. 
 
 The  founder  of  Judaism  as  distinct  from  Mosaism;2  he 
 who  transformed  the  theocracy  into  a  nomocracy ;  3  he  who 
 changed  Israel  from  a  people  into  a  church,  and  from  a 
 political  power  into  an  international  sect ;  he  who  esta- 
 blished a  system  under  which  Prophecy  ceased  because  it 
 was  no  longer  esteemed  a  necessity;4  he  who  based  the 
 influence  of  the  Scribe  5  on  so  strong  a  foundation  that  it 
 
 1  Rashi  on  Num.  xv.  39  (following  the  Talmud,  Shevuoth,  f.  29,  1)  proved 
 his  point  bj  Gematria  (see  infra,  p.  98),  because  the  numerical  value  of  Tsitsith 
 ("fringes")  is  600,  and  this  with  the  eight  threads  and  the  live  knots  —  613, 
 the  number  of  "all  the  commandments  of  the  Lord."  Num.  xv.  39.  A  Jew 
 who  neglected  to  wear  the  Tsitsith  was  excommunicated  (Pesachim,  f.  113,  2) 
 and  regarded  as  a  churl  (am  ha-arets,  Berakhoth,  f.  47,  2),  since  he  transgressed 
 five  positive  commands  (Menachoth,  f.  44,  1).  Any  one  who  wore  them  would 
 have  2,800  slaves  to  wait  on  him  (Shabbath,  f.  32,  2).  Rashi  proves  this  from 
 Zech.  viii.  23,  because  there  arc  four  fringes,  and  if  10  men  of  the  70  nations 
 seize  hold  of  them,  70  X  10  X  4  =  2,800.  See  Hershon,  Talm.  Miscellany, 
 p.  260. 
 
 -  Weill,  Lr  Juda'ismr,  i.  58. 
 
 3  Weber,  Altsyn.  Theol.  i.  Hence  it  is  Hillel's  highest  honour  to  be  called 
 a  "  scholar  of  Ezra,"  who  revived  the  law.  Sanhedrin,  f.  11,  1.  See  Ezra, 
 x.  7-8.  Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Ixr«rlit'-n,  iii.  Ewald  (Hist,  oflsr.  v.  53)  prefers  the 
 term  rlagiocracy,  i.e.  the  belief  in  a  Holy  Land,  a  Holy  People,  &c. 
 
 4  See  Ezra  vii.  10  ;  Ecelus.  xxxix.  1.  "Dignity"  is  the  special  prerogative 
 of  the  Scribe.  Id.  x.  5  ;  Matt,  xxiii.  7,  8  ;  Mark  x.  51  ;  John  xx.  16. 
 Weber,  4,  122.  "  The  wise  man  (i.e.  the  Rabbi)  is  greater  than  the  Prophet" 
 tX'nJO  Jpy  D2n,  Baba  Bathra,  f.  12,  1).  In  Sanhedrin,  11,  the  Shekhinah, 
 after  the  last  prophet  had  died,  rested  on  Hillel,  and  then  on  Samuel  the 
 Little.  It  is  said  that  at  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  Prophecy  was  taken 
 from  the  Prophets  and  given  to  the  Wise.  Baba  Patina,  18  c.  After  the 
 deatli  of  Malaehi  the  Jews  had  only  the  rare  and  dubious  "Daughter  of  a 
 Voice  "  (Path  Qol),  on  which  see  Jos.  Antt.  xii.  10,  3.  ;  Yoma,  f.  9,  2  ;  Jer. 
 Sota,  ix.  16.     It  is  mentioned  in  the  Jerusalem  Targum  on  Deut.  xxviii.  15. 
 
 5  Sec  the  Talxnndic  references  in  Eerzfeld,  Oeseh.  d.  J',  /.sr.  i.  126.  The 
 Rabbis  derived  sophervm  from  aophar,  "  to  number,"  because  they  numbered 
 
 the  letters  of  the  aacred   1 ks.     Qiddtuhin,   f.    30,  1.     This  is  a   mistake 
 
 (.lost,  Gesch.  d '.  Tar.  iii.  119),  though  stated  by  Elias  Levita.  The  Scribes  did, 
 however,  number  the  letters,  and  found  that  the  1  in  Lev.  i.\.   1-  is  the  middle 
 
 E    2 
 
52  Ezra. 
 
 overshadowed  the  authority  of  Princes,'1  and  caused  even  the 
 influence  of  Priests  to  dwindle  into  gradual  insignificance;2 
 he  who  was  the  first  to  inaugurate  the  Midrash,3  and  the 
 Targurn ; 4  he  who  was  the  traditional  propounder  of  the 
 decisions  which  form  the  earliest  nucleus  of  the  Mishna ; 
 the  first  author  of  liturgical  forms ; G  the  first  authoriser 
 of  local  synagogues  ; 7  the  first  collector  and  editor  of  the 
 Canon ; 8  the  initiator  of  the  long  subsequent  toil  of  the 
 Massorets;  the  historic  originator  of  the  Oral  Law — that 
 man  was  Ezra,  the  priestly  Scribe.  He  carried  on  the  silent 
 revolution  in  Jewish  conceptions  of  which  the  last  eight 
 chapters  of  the  book  of  Ezekiel  are  the  indication,  and  which 
 find  expression  also  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles.9  In  Ezekiel 
 we  see  the  gradual  passing  of  the  Prophet  into  the  Scribe,  in 
 whom  Prophecy  finds  it  necessary  to  take  the  form  of  Law, 
 and  who  for  glowing  ideal  visions  furnishes  a  legislative 
 code.10  The  Sopherim,  or  Scribes,  lasted  for  138  years, 
 and    were    succeeded    by    the    Chakamim,    or    the     Wise 
 
 letter  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  y  in  Fs.  Ixxx.  11  the  middle  letter  of  the 
 Psalms. 
 
 1  Hillel  was  the  first  Rabbi  to  be  called  a  Prince  (Nasi) ;  Shabbath,  f.  34, 
 1.     Comp.  Berakhoth,  f.    28,   1  ;  Schiirer,  Newt.  Zcitgesck.  464  ;  Weber,  122. 
 
 2  "The  wise"  are  called  "Priests,"  though  most  of  them  were  laymen,  in 
 Nedarim,  40.  See  Shemoth  Rabba.  c.  34,  and  Sifra.  f.  13,  2,  where  "Bless- 
 ing "  is  specially  declared  to  be  apart  from  the  Priests.  See  too  Jos.  Antt. 
 iv.  8,  §  14;  Jost.  Judcnthum,  i.  37.  Even  Ezra  is  called  "the  Scribe"  as  a 
 title  of  more  honour  than  "the  Priest."     Ezra  vii.  11  ;  Neh.  viii.  4,  9,  &c. 
 
 3  Nehem.  viii.  7  ;  Ezra  vii.  6,  25.  The  verb  darash,  in  the  sense  of  "to 
 explain,"  is  first  found  in  Ezra  vii.  10  ;  Nederam,  f.  ii.  37  ;  Weill,  i.  69. 
 
 4  Nehem.  viii.  8  ;  xiii.  24. 
 
 5  Ten  ordinances  of  a  trivial  nature  are  attributed  to  Ezra  in  Baba 
 Qamma,  f.  82,  1.  See  Waehner,  Antiq.  Ebr.  ii.  689.  Some  of  the  so-called 
 Halalcoth  le-Mosheh  mi-Sinai  certainly  came  from  the  school  of  Ezra. 
 Herzfeld,  i.  3. 
 
 6  Berakhoth,  f.  33  ;  Megilla,  f.  10;  Maimonides,  Tad  Eachasaka,  L.i.  art. 
 iv.  ;  Weill  (i.  69)  mentions  the  actual  prayers. 
 
 '  See  Herzfeld,  i.  127. 
 
 s  Baba  Bathra,  f.  15  ;  Megilla,  f.  3  ;  Weill,  i.  71.  The  language  used  about 
 Ezra's  share  in  the  Canon  is  startling.  We  are  told  that  he  and  his  five  com- 
 panions re-wrote  the  Law  (2  Esdras,  xiv.  21-4(3),  and  the  Talmud  says  that  he 
 and  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  "wrote  "  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 11  It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  the  Books  of  Chronicles  are  more  an 
 ecclesiastical  than  a  national  history,  and  that  they  adopt  the  standard  of 
 the  Levitic  Law.  It  has  been  thought  that  1  Kings,  viii.  1-4,  compared  with 
 the  LXX.,  shows  traces  of  Levitic  glosses. 
 
 10  See  Prof.  J.  E.  Carpenter,  Mod.  Review,  Jan.  1884. 
 
Rabbinic  Schools.  53 
 
 and  they  by  the  Tuna  ha,  or  "Teachers."  After  the  lapse 
 of  another   500  years  the   Tanaim   were  succeeded    by   the 
 
 Amoraim,  or  Discoursers,  for  300  years;  and  they  by 
 the  Seboraini,  or  Investigators,  and  Gaonim,  or  "  Excellent," 
 for  another  400  years,  down  to  the  thirteenth  century  of  our 
 era.1  Throughout  every  one  of  these  Rabbinic  bodies,  from 
 the  foundation  of  legalism  to  the  close  of  the  schools  of  the 
 East  and  West,2  and  indeed  for  twenty-two  centuries  the  im- 
 pulse given  by  Ezra  continued  to  sway  the  course  of  Jewish 
 thought.  He  was  looked  upon  as  a  second  Moses.  "  He 
 would  have  been  worthy,"  said  Rabbi  Jose,  "  to  become  the 
 legislator  of  Israel  had  not  Moses  anticipated  him." 3  Legends 
 soon  began  to  cling  about  his  name  like  clouds  about  a 
 mountain  peak,4  and  even  in  the  Koran  he  appears  as  Ozair, 
 clothed  with  immortal  youth. 
 
 And  yet  by  what  a  gulf  of  inferiority  is  Ezra  separated 
 from  the  mighty  Prophets  of  his  race  !  It  is  a  gulf  like  that 
 which  separates  the  Bible  from  the  Talmud ;  the  Decalogue 
 
 1  See  Etheridge,  Hebrew  Lit.  passim  ;  Otho,  Historia  Doctorum  Mithni- 
 corum,  pp.  13-32;  Herzog,  s.v.  Rahhinisnms.  Giiitz  divides  the  epochs  some- 
 what differently  (Gesch.  d.  Juden,  iv.  9): 
 
 The  Sophekim,  b.c.  458  to  b.c.  320.     From  Ezra  to  the  death  of  Simon 
 
 the  .lu.st. 
 The  UHAKHAMIM,  B.C.  323  to  A.D.  13.     From  Simon  to  the  death  of 
 
 Hillei. 
 The   Tanaim,    a  d.    13  to  a.d.  190.     From   Hillei   to   the   death  of 
 
 Rabbi. 
 The  Amobaim,  a.d.  190  to  a.d.  498.     From  Rabbi  to  R.  Ashi. 
 The  Sbbokaim,  a.d.  498  to  a.d.  689.     From  Jose  to  Rav  Shishana. 
 The  Gaonin,  a.d.  (389  to  a.d.  900. 
 
 The  Gaonim  of  Sora  were  contemporary  with  the  Rabbanim  of  Pumbaditha. 
 Che  mosl  celebrated  Gaon  was  R.  Saadiah,   \.n.  928. 
 
 -  The  Rabbinic  Bchools  in  the  Easl  were  closed  in  loin.  Underthe Sopherim 
 Mosaism  was  renewed;  schools  were  founded ;    Tafgums  began;    the  scholar 
 
 beci powerful.     CJnder  the  Chakhamim  tradition  was  developed,  and  there 
 
 grew  ti|>  the  rival  schools  of  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  The  Tanaim  ended 
 their  labours  by  the  publication  of  the  Mishna.  The  Amoraim  completed  the 
 <  ieiuara. 
 
 3  Sanhedrin,  f.  22  ;  Tosefta,  I,  ib.  :  Jer.  Megilla,  i.  9  :  Weill,  Le  Judaisms, 
 i.  The  proof  itself  depends  on  the  futile  Hillelite  methodsof  "  equivalence." 
 Mom-,  "ascended"  to  receive  the  law  (Ex.  xiv.  3);  Ezra  "ascended"  from 
 Babylon  (Ezra  vii.  G).     Then  fore  the  one  was  as  worthj  as  the  other. 
 
 4  In  the  Targum,  on  Mai.  i.  1,  and  in  Megilla,  f.  15,  1,  he  is  identified 
 with  Malachi.  For  other  legends,  'see  the  books  of  Esdras ;  I  I  draaviii.  20; 
 '  57  59;  m\.  9;  Koran,  Sura.  ix.  8]  ;  Ewald,  Hist,  of  Isr.  vi.  L64  ;  D'Her- 
 belot,  Bibl.  Orient.  s.v,  Ozair,  iii.  89. 
 
54  The  Oral  Law. 
 
 from  the  Halakha;  the  religion  of  righteousness  from  the 
 religiosity  of  Tradition ;  the  freedom  of  spiritual  enlighten- 
 ment from  the  pettiness  of  ceremonialism  ;  the  holiness  of 
 the  heart  from  the  outward  holiness  of  Levitic  purifications. 
 
 But  if  a  man  is  to  be  counted  great  from  the  extent  and 
 vitality  of  his  influence  then  Ezra  was  great  indeed.  The 
 restoration  of  the  Law,1  and  the  terrible  sternness  of  the  day 
 on  which,  in  inferential  accordance  with  its  precepts,  one 
 hundred  and  thirteen  marriages  were  ruthlessly  annulled, 
 >perhaps  saved  the  Jewish  nationality  from  extinction.2  That 
 tremendous  measure  inaugurated  an  era  of  legal  strictness 
 such  as  had  never  before  been  known.  The  establishment 
 of  synagogues  trained  the  people  in  a  worship  largely  in- 
 dependent of  a  centralised  hierarchy.3  It  taught  them  how 
 they  might  draw  near  to  God  in  prayer  without  the  incessant 
 intervention  of  sacerdotal  functions.  It  secured  the  reading 
 of  Moses  every  Sabbath  day.4  It  necessitated  the  explanation 
 of  Scripture  in  a  tongue  understanded  of  the  people. 
 It  extinguished  for  ever  the  temptation  to  Polytheism. 
 In  crisis  after  crisis,  in  struggle  after  struggle,  it  was 
 sufficiently  potent  to  save  the  Jews  from  national  oblit- 
 eration. Their  love  for  the  Oral  Law  strengthened  them 
 to  withstand  the  hatred  and  intrigues  of  Samaritans 
 and  Ammonites.  It  enabled  them  to  pacify  the  wrath  of 
 Alexander.  It  inspired  them  with  an  indomitable  pride  in 
 their   own  destinies5  amid   the  rivalries    of  Seleucids   and 
 
 1  Circumstances  like  that  mentioned  in  Ezra  iii.  4,  can  only  be  accounted 
 for  by  the  fact  that  Hebrew  had  practically  become  a  dead  language. 
 
 2  Ezra  ix.  x.  ;  1  Esdras  viii.  ix.  Among  those  whose  marriages  were  thus 
 annulled  were  four  of  the  highest  priests,  thirteen  other  priests,  ten  Levites, 
 and  eighty-six  laymen.  How  little  strictness  had  been  attached  to  the  rule  is 
 shown  by  the  Ethiopian  wife  of  Moses,  the  marriage  of  Salmon  with  Rahab, 
 of  Boaz  with  Ruth,  of  Solomon  with  Pharaoh's  daughter,  kc.  David  the 
 darling  hero  of  the  nation  was  the  near  descendant  of  a  Moabitess,  and  thu 
 marriage  from  which  he  sprang  is  made  the  subject  of  a  tender  and  laudatory 
 
 idyl. 
 
 3  Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Israel.,  iii.  51. 
 
 4  Acts  xv.  28.  Philo  speaks  in  terms  of  warm  praise  of  the  synagogues 
 and  proseuehae.  Vit.  Mos.  p.  16*8  (ed.  Mangey).  "When  the  Law  had  been 
 forgotten  by  Israel,  Ezra  came  from  Babylon,  and  re-established  it."  Sukka, 
 f.  20,  1-4  ;  Esdras.  xiv.  21-27. 
 
 6  Weill,  i.  97.  In  Megilla,  f.  12,  the  words  of  Moses  (Lev.  xxvi.  44)  are 
 thus  explained  :  "J  will  not  reject  them  in  the  Babylonish  captivity,  when 
 
Vitality  of  Judaism.  55 
 
 Ptolemies.1  It  defied  the  bloody  persecution  of  Antiochus. 
 It  prevented  the  Maccabees  from  overshadowing  the  Pharisees 
 by  a  secular  dynasty.2  It  resisted  the  subtle  fascination  of 
 Greece,  and  could  not  be  crushed  even  by  the  iron  arm  of 
 Rome.  It  abased  the  pride  of  the  Herods  and  the  splendour 
 of  the  Boethusim.3  It  overawed  the  tyranny  of  greedy 
 Procurators,  aristocratic  Sadducees,  and  murderous  Zealots. 
 It  survived  even  the  total  ruin  of  Jerusalem,  and  was  not 
 quenched  in  the  blood  of  martyrdom  which  followed  the 
 defeat  of  Barkokhba.  It  outlived  the  long  persecutions  of 
 Roman  and  Byzantine  emperors.  It  was  not  quenched  amid 
 the  storms  of  Teutonic  invasion.     In  vain  were 
 
 "  The  torture  prolonged  from  age  to  age, 
 The  infamy  Israel's  heritage  ; 
 The  Ghetto's  plague,  and  the  garb's  disgrace, 
 rJ 'lie  badge  of  shame,  and  the  felon's  place  ; 
 The  branding  tool,  and  the  bloody  whip, 
 And  the  summons  to  Christian  fellowship  !  " 
 
 The  Jews  were  not  exterminated  by  the  fanaticism  of  the 
 Crusades,  nor  by  the  proscriptions  and  massacres  of  the  In- 
 quisition. For  1700  years  after  the  Third  Captivity — the 
 Galuth  JSdom* — they  endured  an  almost  unbroken  martyrdom 
 but  again  and  again  has  Judaism  emerged  from  the  deluge 
 of  calamities,  and  ae-ain  and  again  has  the  Oval  Law  been  to 
 them  as  their  guide,  their  government,  their  country,  their 
 
 God  gave  us  Daniel,  and  the  Three  Children  ;  nor  will  I  abhor  them  in 
 Hainan's  day,  when  He  gave  as  Mordecai  and  Esther;  1  will  not  annihilate 
 Mem,  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  when  He  gave  the  Maccabees;  I  will  not 
 break  my  covenant  with  them  in  the  captivity  of  Edom  {i.e.  Rome),  when  He 
 gave  us  the  house  of  Rabbi  (Judah  ha-natt)  and  the  wise  of  succeeding 
 generations. 
 
 1  The  Maccabaean  straggle  was  neither  for  political  freedom,  nor  pro  ari*  et 
 foevi,  bat  for  the  haw.  1  .Mace.  ii.  27  ;  iii.  21  ;  vi.  59  ;  2  Mace.  vii.  2,  23, 
 30,  37.  Antiochus  was  especially  eager  to  get  the  f}i$\ia  tov  vojxov.  1  Mace. 
 i.  56-58. 
 
 "  See  the  story  of  Eleazar  the  Pharisee  and  John  Hyrcanus,  .Tos.  Antt.  xiii. 
 10,  §  5,  and  the  quarrel  of  the  Pharisees  with  Alexander  Jannaeus,  Antt.  xiii. 
 13,  §5;  and  for  this  section  of  history,  sec  Derenbourg,  70  205.  The  Sad 
 ducees  rejected  the  Oral  Law,  and  all  traditional  developments,  hut  they  were 
 completely  worsted  in  the  contest.  Jos.  Antt.  x.  22,  24  ;  xviii.  1,  2;  B.  J. 
 ii.  12. 
 
 3  Herod  married  a  daughter  of  Simon,  son  of  Boethos,  and  was  in  close 
 alliance  with  the  hierarchic  families,     Jos.  Antt.  xv.  9,  §3. 
 
 4  "Edom"  was  used  in  the  Talmud  as  a  cypher  for  Rome  (Dl"lN=Dl"l). 
 
5G  A  Decadent  Epoch. 
 
 pride,  their  consolation,  the  one  anchor  of  safety  to  which 
 they  trusted  during  the  storms  which,  from  the  four  winds 
 of  heaven,  were  let  loose  upon  them  by  the  hatred  of  the 
 world.1 
 
 II.  Yet  inevitable  and  indispensable  as  was  the  work  which 
 Ezra  accomplished  it  is  impossible  not  to  feel  that  it  was 
 work  done  in  a  decadent  epoch,  and  for  a  degenerate  people. 
 Ezra  was  like  Ezekiel  a  Priest,  and  he  was  also  a  Scribe. 
 He  could  only  be  what  he  was;  what  God  had  made 
 him ;  what  the  times  required  him  to  be.  If  the 
 impulse  which  he  gave  to  the  national  mind  was  in  a  poorer 
 direction  than  of  old — if  the  Judaism  which  he  established 
 was  far  inferior  to  the  true  Hebraic  spirit — it  is  because  such 
 was  the  will  of  Heaven.  The  truest  and  greatest  Prophets 
 of  Israel  until  the  days  of  Ezekiel  had  treated  the  ceremonial 
 ordinances  as  infinitely  unimportant  in  comparison  with  moral 
 purity.  Ezra  could  not  teach  as  they  taught  because  his 
 age  required  a  different  spirit.  It  was  God's  will  that 
 the  Prophets  whom  this  people  had  persecuted  and  slain 
 — the  Prophets  who  had  taught  them  truths  which  would 
 have  made  them  free — should  be  followed  by  a  lower  order 
 of  men;  by  Scribes,  Pharisees,  Rabbis,  who  would  lay  on 
 them  heavy  burdens,  and  whom,  in  the  natural  slavishness  of 
 ignoble  natures,  on  that  very  account  they  did  not  persecute 
 but  adore.2  Had  Ezra  been  an  Isaiah  the  history  of  the  Jews 
 would  have  been  different  and  nobler.  They  might  have 
 accepted  the  Christ  whom  they  crucified.  Instead  of  filling 
 their  dreary  Talmud  with  the  multiplication  of  meaningless 
 minutiae,  the  Rabbis,  like  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists,  might 
 have  been  reckoned  among  the  eternal  teachers  of  the  world. 
 For  the  good  in  the  system  of  Oral  Tradition  was  largely 
 mixed  with  evil.  It  produced  nothing  great  in  genius, 
 nothing  intense  in  inspiration,  nothing  profound  in  thought, 
 nothing  beautiful  or  noble  in  literature.    One  thrilling  note 
 
 1  Sec  Weill,  Le  Judaixme,  i.  170  ;  Gratz,  iv.  1. 
 
 -  See  2  Chr.  xxxvi.   1(5  ;  Hos.  ix.  7  ;  Matt.  xiii.  57  ;  Lk.  iv.   24,   xiii.   23, 
 xxiii.  36  ;  John  vii.  52  ;  Acts  xiii.  20,  &C. 
 
A  New  Idolatry.  57 
 
 of  David's  harp,  one  passionate  appeal  of  Isaiah's  burning 
 indignation,  one  eloquent  homily  of  Hosea  and  Micah,  even 
 ouu  last  expiring  gleam  of  nobleness  flashed  from  the  fading 
 prophetic  fire  of  Zechariahor  Malachi,  is  as  much  better  than 
 folios  full  of  inferential  formalism  as  love  is  better  than  ritual 
 and  mercy  than  sacrifice.  Tradition  shifted  the  centre 
 of  gravity  of  the  moral  system.  A  minute  ritual  had  become  < 
 the  sole  possible  fence  of  national  holiness.  The  consequence ' 
 was  the  gradual  materialising  of  spiritual  conceptions ; 
 the  depreciation  of  righteousness  in  comparison  with  cere- 
 monialism and  theological  opinion.  Just  as  in  the  middle 
 ages  a  suspicion  of  heresy  was  avenged  by  the  stake,  while 
 heinous  moral  offences  were  easily  condoned,  so  among 
 the  Rabbis,  if  a  man  were  but  an  orthodox  casuist 
 his  sins  were  recorded  with  unblushing  indifference. 
 The  Talmud  abounds  in  narratives  which  detail  without 
 the  slightest  blame  the  impurity  of  the  Eabbis.  Their 
 hedge  about  the  Law  made  no  pretence  of  keeping  out 
 the  wild  boars  of  Pride  and  Lust,  though  it  might  exclude 
 the  little  foxes  of  irregular  ceremonial.1  What  else  could 
 be  expected  when  "dazzling  externalities"  had  once  been 
 substituted  for  eternal  truths ! 2 
 
 The  so-called  "Great  Synagogue"  which  Ezra  is  said  to 
 have  founded3  slew  Idolatry;  but  it  substituted  in  its  place 
 a  new  idolatry.  It  was  an  idolatry  more  dangerous,  more 
 subtle,  more  delusive,  more  difficult  to  eradicate;  an  idolatry 
 which  ossified  the  very  heart  of  religion.  It  assumed  the 
 most  solemn  sanctions  only  to  thrust  a  Book,  a  Tradition, 
 and  a  Ritual  between  the  soul  and  God.  "After  the  Feast  of 
 Tabernacles,"  says  the  Talmud/1  "Ezra  established  a  last  day 
 
 1  Wrffer  quotes  Moed  Qaton,  f.  17,  1  ;  Meuachoth,  f.  13  ;  Berakhoth,  1'.  1'.'. 
 l  ;  ui,  1  ;  Chagiga,  f.  16  j  AvodaZara,  f.  17.  1  ;  Sota,  f.  7,  1,  fee. 
 
 '-'  See  tin'  weighty  remarks  of  Ewald,  Hist.  of  Isr.  v.  63. 
 
 :|  Krochmal  identifies  the  Greal  Synagogue  with  the  Assembly  of  Notables 
 in  Neh.  x.  1-27.  See  Aboth,  i.  1;  Aboth  of  B,  Nathan,  1  ;  Megilla,  17. 
 Simon  the  Just  was  its  last  member  (Aboth,  i.  2  :  Jos.  Antt.  \ii.  2,  §  5).  Jost 
 defines  them  as  "alle  die  bis  zum  Simon  an  der  Spitze  der  Gesetzlehre  in 
 Judaa  stand. 'ii  "  (Oeseh.  i.  42).  See  the  Excursus  in  Taylor,  Sayings  of  the 
 Jevrish  Fathers,  pp.  124,  125. 
 
 -  Y.-ina,  f.  07  ;  Weill,  i.  <2. 
 
58  Servile  Legalism. 
 
 on  which  he  and  the  Levites  prayed  to  God  with  loud  cries 
 to  banish  idolatry  from  the  people.  A  billet  fell  from  heaven 
 on  which  was  written  the  word  '  granted.'  After  three  days 
 and  nights  of  continued  fasting  the  spirit  of  idolatry  was  de- 
 livered to  them  like  a  naming  lion  which  bounded  out  of  the 
 Holy  of  Holies.  By  the  advice  of  the  Prophet  Zechariah 
 they  seized  it,  and  flung  it  into  a  leaden  coffin  hermetically 
 sealed.  They  then  prayed  to  God  to  annihilate  also  the  Evil 
 Impulse,  but  they  checked  their  prayer  because  they  were 
 taught  by  a  very  short  experience  that  its  fulfilment  would 
 involve  the  extinction  of  the  human  race.1 
 
 Alas  !  the  Evil  Impulse  was  so  far  from  being  exterminated 
 that  it  found  its  stronghold  in  the  spirit  of  the  Scribe.  The 
 Law — not  the  Law  in  its  simplicity  but  the  Law  modified, 
 transformed,  distorted  by  Tradition — the  Law  robbed  of  its 
 essential  significance  by  the  blind  zeal  which  professed  to 
 defend  it — became  the  centre  of  an  abject  servility.2  It  came 
 to  be  regarded  as  the  only  means  of  intercourse  with  God,  and 
 almost  as  the  substitute  for  God.  Immeasurable  evils  ensued. 
 Piety  dwindled  into  legalism.  Salvation  was  identified  with 
 outward  conformity.  A  torturing  scrupulosity  was  substituted 
 for  a  glad  obedience.  God's  righteous  faithfulness  was  treated 
 as  a  forensic  covenant.3  For  prophecy  there  was  only  the  miser- 
 able substitute  of  the  "  Daughter  of  a  Voice ;  " 4  for  faith  the 
 sense  of  merit  acquired  by  legal  exactitude.5  The  "pious" 
 were  hopelessly  identified  with  the  party  of  the  Scribes. 
 The    Synagogues    became     schools.6     ^Ethics    were     sub- 
 
 1  See  another  curious  legend  on  the  same  page  of  Yoma, 
 
 2  Their  one  professed  object  was  fxera  anptfitias  t^riyuadai  ra  i>6fj.t(ia.  Jos. 
 Antt.  xviii.  %%i;  B.  J.  'ii.  8,  §  14. 
 
 3  The  nj-lDX  of  God  was  looked  upon  only  as  an  rOftN.  In  thus  putting 
 the  conception  of  a  Covenant  into  the  forefront,  Ezra  anticipated  Cocccius 
 by  2,000  years.     Ezra  ix.  9,  19,  27,  28,  34. 
 
 4  The  Bath  Qol. 
 
 5  How  unlike  the  general  tone  of  the  Tsalms  and  Prophets  is  Nehemiah's 
 legalistic  prayer  that  God  would  remember  his  good  deeds  !  "  The  last  pure 
 glow  of  the  long  day  of  the  Old  Testament  sun  "  died  out  in  Malachi  (Ewald, 
 v.  17(5),  and  with  him  perished  "  the  loftiest  and  most  characteristic  activity 
 which  the  Law  had  permitted  in  ancient  times." 
 
 6  1  Mace.  vii.  12.  awayuyr]  ypafi/xar 4cov.  Comp.  1  Chron.  ii.  55  ;  Well* 
 hausen,  Die  Pharisaer  u.  Sadd.  12. 
 
Pharisaism.  59 
 
 ordinated  to  Liturgiology.1  Messianism  was  debased 
 into  an  unmeaning  phrase  or  a  materialised  fable.2  The 
 pride  of  pedantry,  despising  moral  nobleness,  and  revel- 
 ling in  an  hypocrisy  so  profound  as  hardly  to  recognise 
 that  it  was  hypocritical,3  wrapped  itself  in  an  esoteric 
 theology,  and  looked  down  on  the  children  of  a  common  Father 
 as  an  accursed  multitude  in  whose  very  touch  there  was 
 ceremonial  defilement.4  This  was  the  ultimate  result  of  that 
 recrudescence  of  ceremonial  which  was  the  special  work  of 
 the  Scholars  of  Ezra.  And  of  this  work  the  basis  was 
 a  perverted  Bibliolatry,  and  the  instrument  an  elaborate 
 exegesis. 
 
 The  new  system  had  a  success  immense  and  fatal.  In  the 
 days  of  our  Lord  Pharisaism  reigned  supreme.  "  Why  do  ye 
 set  at  nought  the  commandment  of  God  by  your  tradition  ? " 
 "  In  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  com- 
 mandments of  men."  Such  had  been  the  comment  of  Christ 
 Himself  on  the  religionism  which  had  not  yet  ripened  in 
 its  most  unwholesome  fruit.  Thus  early  did  the  degradation 
 and  annulment  of  everything  which  was  precious  in  Holy 
 Writ  begin  with  the  system  which  professed  to  be  founded 
 on  its  extravagant  exaltation.  Even  in  Ezra's  days,  though 
 the  Books  of  Scripture  were  divided  into  what  they  called  the 
 
 1  Aboth,  i.  2. 
 
 2  See  Talmudic  quotations  in  Weber,  122,  ami  in  Weill,  i.  95,  fg. 
 
 ;i  See  Excursus  1.  Self-glorification  of  the  Rabbia  (Waehner,  ii.  785,  786, 
 798  ;  Hershon,  Gen.  162,  439  ;  Luke  xi.  52  ;  Matt,  xxiii.  2  ;  Weber,  126, 
 .Miracles  ;  Chiarini,  i.  377). 
 
 4  They  spoke  of  these  as  "laymen,"  Ilcdiots  (ISiunat)  and  "boors" 
 Amharatsim.  The  Hediot  (DVIH)  is  merely  a  man  who  has  never  become 
 one  of  "the  Wise."  He  may  become  an  Associate  (ckaber)  but  not  a 
 Wise-man,  because  he  does  not  devote  his  life  exclusively  to  the  haw. 
 Shabbath,  f.  11,  1.  The  Ignoramus- (Ecclua.  xxxix.  xxxviii.  24-34,  "whose 
 talk  is  of  bullocks"),  or  "people  of  the  land,"  am-ha-wrete,  t]"iNn  □!?) 
 wis  spoken  of  by  the  Rabbis  with  an  almost  inconceivable  brutality, 
 of  which  a  specimen  may  be  seen  in  John  vii.  49  ;  Sota,  f.  22,  1.  The 
 resurrection  was  denied  to  them  (Kethuboth,  f.  iii.  1)  on  the  strength  of  Is. 
 xwi.  14.  "The  dead  live  not,  the  shades  (BepTutim)  arise  not. '  Rabbi 
 refused  them  corn  in  a  famine  {Baba  Bathra,  f.  8,2).  They  are  treated  as 
 Hars  and  rogues  PeaatMm,  f.  49,  2)  ;  and  it  was  lawful  to  rend  an  Ani-ha-areta 
 like  a  lish  [Ob.).  They  applied  Jer.  xxxi.  37,  Prov.  xxiv.  20,  to  amharatrim. 
 See   Weber,  45-48;  McCaul,  Old  Paths,  pp.   458  464.     Thus  the  Pharisees 
 
 Were  "  Separatists"  [Penuhi iii)  in  the  worst  sense. 
 
CO  Claiming  too  much. 
 
 Tenakh,1  that  is  the  Torah,  the  Nebilm,  and  the  Khethubim, 
 the  Law  was  practically  made  to  include  all  the  rest.2  It 
 was   regarded  as   eternal.3      God  himself  was   supposed  to 
 
 •  spend  three  hours  daily  in  its  study.4  Its  mere  words  and 
 letters  were  potent  as  magic  formulae.  But  it  was  at  the 
 same  time  pretended  that  the  rule  (norma  normans)  required 
 the  intervention  of  skilled  interpreters  without  which  it  could 
 not  become  the  practice  (norma  normata).  Thus  on  the  one 
 hand  Rabbinism  was  founded  upon  bases  as  solid  as  that  of 
 the  mediaeval  Papacy,  and  on  the  other  the  plainest  decisions 
 of  this  deified  Law  were  set  aside  with  the  most  transparent 
 
 x  effrontery.5  Claiming  too  much  for  the  Law  the  Rabbis  left 
 it  too  little.  By  adding  to  God's  commandments  so  largely 
 they  also  took  from  them.  By  imposing  additional  restrictions 
 they  broke  down  proper  safeguards. 
 
 This  tremendous  tyranny  of  Rabbinism  was  built  upon 
 superstition  and  exclusiveness.  The  Scribes  were  declared 
 to  be  the  successors  of  Moses.  The  scholastic  lecture  room 
 was  the  heir  of  the  political  Sanhedrim  The  Patriarchs  of 
 the  House  of  Hillel  combined  for  fourteen  generations  the 
 powers  of  Davidic  king  and  Aaronic  pontiff.  The  casuists 
 of  Tradition  completely  superseded  the  Levitic  Priests.0  All 
 liberty  of  thought  was  abrogated ;  all  Gentile  learning  was 
 forbidden ;  no  communion  was  allowed  with  the  human 
 intellect  outside  the  Pharisaic  pale.  Within  the  circle  of 
 Rabbinism  the  Jew  was  "  the  galley-slave  of  the  most  rigid 
 orthodox)7."  The  yoke  of  the  Romans  was  not  so  exacting 
 as  that  of  the  Rabbis,  which  dominated  over  a  man's  whole 
 
 1  Buxtorf,  De  Abbrev.  s.v.  "pD.  See  Bretschneider,  Dogmatik  d.  apocr. 
 Schriften,  64-67. 
 
 8  See  the  Book  of  Barueh,  ii.  27-34  ;  iii.  37  ;  iv.  1,  anil  passim,  4  ;  Mace.  i. 
 16  ;  Ecclus.  xv.  1  ;  xvii.  9. 
 
 3  Wisd.  xviii.  4  ;  Tob.  i  6  ;  2  Mace.  vi.  23  ;  3  Esd.  ix.  39,  &c.  All  sects 
 alike  claimed  Scripture  as  their  authority.     Hamburger,  s.v.  Bibel. 
 
 4  So  Rabbi  Juda  asserted  in  the  name  of  Eab.     Avoda  Zara,  f.  3,  2. 
 
 5  Weill  (i.  62)  says  that  the  new  exegesis  which  received  its  impulse  from 
 the  days  of  Ezra  established  "  liberty  of  interpretation,"  "qui  modilie,  qui 
 transforme,  qui  tourne,  qui  retourne,  qui  remue  le  texte  biblique." 
 
 6  The  Targum  on  Judg.  v  9  interpolates  a  pompous  eulogy  on  the  Scribes 
 into  the  song  of  Deborah  !  The  Scribes  made  it  a  high  misdemeanour  to  reject 
 their  decisions. 
 
Tyranny  of  Scribes.  01 
 
 existence  and  intruded  itself  into  the  most  trivial  actions  of 
 life.  The  weak  were  tortured  by  the  knowledge  that  they 
 could  not  so  much  as  wash  their  hands  or  eat  a  meal  without 
 running  the  risk  of  deadly  offences.  The  "ordination"  1  of  the 
 Rabbis  made  them  oracles  for  every  subject  and  every  action, 
 from  the  cleaning  of  the  teeth  to  the  last  prayer  in  which 
 the  dying  commended  their  souls  to  God.  If  any  one  gave  a 
 rule  which  he  had  not  heard  from  them  the  Shekinah  de- 
 parted from  Israel. "  Their  coercion  was  made  yet  more  terrible 
 by  maledictions.  "  The  whole  range  of  action  permitted  to 
 the  Jewish  mind  was  included  in  the  mazes  of  a  vaulted 
 labyrinth  from  which  there  was  no  outlet  but  through  the 
 terrible  gate  of  excommunication,"  of  which  the  milder  forms3 
 blasted  the  reputation,  and  the  sterner4  shattered  the  tem- 
 I  loral  interests,  and  ruined  the  everlasting  welfare.  Rabbinism 
 was  nothing  but  a  variety  of  sacerdotalism  in  which  orthodox- 
 pedants,  expounding  a  system  of  unconscious  delusion,  wielded 
 all  the  authority  of  sacrificing  Priests.5 
 
 It  was  the  professed  object  of  the  Scribes  to  exalt  and 
 glorify  the  Law.6  "  The  world,"  says  Simon  the  Just,  "  stands 
 on  three  things — the  Law,  Ritual,"  and  Well-doing,"  and  the 
 Law  is  significantly  put  first.  "  There  are  three  crowns," 
 says  the  Talmud,  "  the  crown  of  Royalty,  the  crown  of  Priest- 
 hood, and  the  Crown  of  the  Law,  but  the  latter  is  of  more 
 worth  than  both  the  others,  and  he  who  has  it  is  as  o-ood  as 
 if  he  had  all  three."  "Be  circumspect  in  justice,"  said  the 
 men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  "get  many  pupils,  and  make  a 
 
 1  n^DD.     See  too  Ahnth,  iii.  8  ;  iv.  in. 
 
 2  Rerakhoth,  f.  27,  2.  See  Etheridge,  56,  57;  .Tost,  Gesch.  d.  Israel, 
 iii.  120. 
 
 s  Nesipha;  niddui. 
 
 ''  I'hcrrm  ;  Sliniiiilta. 
 
 8  Scarcely  had  the  Great  Synagogue  passed  away  when  we  find  "  the  couples  " 
 [Zougoth)  who  succeeded  to  it  Leaving  as  the  summary  of  their  wisdom  such 
 rules  as  "  Lei  thy  house  be  a  house  of  assembly  for  the  wise,  and  dust  thyself 
 with  the  'lust  of  their  feet,  and  drink  their  words  with  thirst." 
 
 6  See  Ecclns,  xxiv.  ;  Baruch  iv.  1  ;  Bereshith  Rabba,  c.  17.  In  Jalqut  on 
 Gen.  i.  26,  God  Bays  to  the  Thora,  "We  will  make  men."  Aboth,  vi.  10  ; 
 viii.    22.      For  many  passages  of  the  Talmud  see  Weber,    16,    17.      I 
 
 list  of  the  terms  of  eulogy  heaped  on  the  Law  -fire,  Light,  dawn,  milk,  halm, 
 pearls,  &c,  Waehner,  Antt.  Ebr.  ii.  793  ;  Weber,  p.  55. 
 
 7  mi3B,  Temple-service.     Ahnth,  i.  2. 
 
62  Self-exaltation. 
 
 hedge  (j"d)  about  the  Law." *  The  hedge  was  made ;  its  con- 
 struction was  regarded  as  the  main  function  of  Rabbinism  ; 2  it 
 excluded  all  light  from  without  and  all  egress  from  within ;  but 
 it  was  so  carefully  cultivated  that  the  shrine  itself  was  totally 
 disregarded.3  The  Oral  Law  was  first  exalted  as  a  necessary 
 supplement  to  the  Written  Law ;  then  substituted  in  the 
 place  of  it ; 4  and  finally  identified  with  the  inferences  of  the 
 Rabbis.  The  Pentateuch  was  disparaged  in  comparison  with 
 the  Mishna,  the  Mishna  in  comparison  with  the  voluminous 
 expansions  of  the  Gemara.  Supported  by  the  False  Decretals 
 of  Judaism  which  asserted  that  the  Oral  Law  had  been 
 handed  down  by  Mosaic  succession  through  a  chain  of 
 recipients,  the  Scribes  proceeded  to  make  disobedience  to 
 their  decisions  more  perilous  than  disobedience  to  a  moral 
 commandment.5  "The  voice  of  the  Rabbi  is  as  the 
 voice  of  God." 6  "  He  who  transgresses  the  words  of  the 
 Scribes  throws  away  his  life."  "Scripture  is  like  water, 
 the    Mishna   like    wine ;    the    Gemara    like     spiced    wine." 
 
 1  Siphri,  40,  a.  ;  Aboth,  iv.  17  ;  Yoma,  f.  72  ;  Weber,  Alt.  Theol.  39  ;  Weill, 
 i.  96. 
 
 2  Lev.  xviii.  30.  "Make  a  mishmeretk  to  my  mishmereth."  Yebamoth, 
 f.  21  (Taylor  on  Aboth,  i.  1).  Yet  the  Rabbis  pointed  to  Adam's  "  neither 
 shall  ye  touch  it "  as  an  addition  to  God's  command,  and  therefore  a  misappli- 
 cation of  the  "  hedge  about  the  law." 
 
 3  Similarly  the  very  name  Jehovah,  in  its  true  pronunciation,  disappeared  in 
 consequence  of  the  crude  superstition  with  which  it  was  nominally  protected. 
 It  is  now  pronounced  with  the  vowels  of  Adonai. 
 
 4  The  divinity  of  the  Oral  Law,  or  "Law  upon  the  Mouth "  ( Tlwra  shebml 
 Pi)  was  based  on  perversions  of  Deut.  xvii.  8-12  ;  xviii.  15-20,  just  as  the 
 I 'a  pal  tyranny  was  based  on  a  perversion  of  Matt.  xvi.  19.  See  the  preface  to 
 the  Tad  Hachazaha  of  Maimonides,  and  his  comment  on  Sanhedrin,  c.  10. 
 The  word  "mouth"  (A.V.  "tenor")  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  27  was  explained  to 
 refer  to  the  Oral  Law.  Aboth,  i.  1  ;  Weill,  iii.  262-266.  In  Ex.  xxiv. 
 12,  they  say  that  the  five  clauses  refer  to  (1)  The  Decalogue,  (2)  The  Thora,  (3) 
 The  Mishna,  (4)  The  Khethubin,  (5)  The  Gemara,  which  were  all  taught  to 
 Moses  on  Sinai !  The  term,  "  Law  on  the  Mouth,"  i.e.  Oral  Law,  is  found 
 very  early.     Zunz,  Gottcsd.  Vortragc,  45. 
 
 6"  To  prove  this  they  quoted  Scripture  for  their  purpose.     Thus  in  Eccles. 
 
 xii.    12   they  altered  D'lQD,    "books,"  into  D^SID,    "scribes,"  and  2PI?, 
 J  -t  :  » 
 
 "study,"  into  31?7,  "derision."     'Erubin,  f.   21,  2.     In  Eccl.  x.  8,  we  find 
 
 "whoso  breaketh  a  hedge,  a  serpent  shall   bite   him."     Now  the  words  of 
 
 the  wise  are  a  hedge  to  the  law,  and  the  bite  of   a   serpent  is  incurable. 
 
 Shabbath,  f.  110,  1.     On  the  other  hand,  as  Rashi  says,  the  punishment  of 
 
 death  is  not  threatened  to  many  of  the  commands  and  prohibitions  of  the 
 
 law.     Comp.  Berakhoth,  f.  4,  1.     Aqiba  was  ready  to  die  of  thirst  rather  than 
 
 to  neglect.  "  the  words  of  the  wise  "  by  not  washing  his  hands  before  eating. 
 
 6  'Erubin,  f.  21. 
 
Fetish-worship  becomes  Casuistry.  63 
 
 "  The  Scripture  is  as  salt,  the  Mishna  as  pepper,  the 
 Gemara  as  spice." 1  "  There  is  no  salvation,"  said  Rab, 
 "  for  the  man  who  passes  from  the  study  of  the  Halakha  to 
 that  of  Scripture."2  "  Men  learned  in  Scripture  are  only  as 
 the  tendrils  of  the  vine  ;  the  Mishna  students  arc  the  grapes ; 
 the  students  of  the  Gemara  are  the  ripe  clusters."  3  "  The 
 study  of  Scripture  is  non-meritorious ;  the  study  of  the 
 Mishna  deserves  a  reward ;  the  study  of  the  Gemara  is  an 
 unapproachable  virtue."  "  He  who  only  studies  the  Scriptures 
 is  but  an  '  empty  cistern.' 4  "  Words  of  Scribes,"  said  Rabbi 
 Johanan,  "  are  akin  to  words  of  the  Law,  and  more  beloved."5 
 It  will  be  seen  how  easy  was  the  step  to  the  contemptuous 
 setting  aside  of  the  whole  meaning  of  Holy  Writ.  For 
 Scripture  History  we  find  the  gross  substitution  of  the  fictions 
 that  Israel  is  sinless,  and  holy,  and  never  committed  idolatry  ; 
 that  Rebecca,  and  Rachel,  and  Leah  were  never  actuated  by 
 any  but  the  purest  motives ;  that  Reuben  never  committed 
 incest;  that  Judah  took  the  daughter  of  "  a  merchant,"  not 
 of  a  "  Canaanite ; "  that  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  were  all  im- 
 maculate ;  that  they  never  meant  to  murder  their  brother 
 Joseph  until  he  tried  to  lead  them  into  Baal-worship ;  that 
 Tamar  was  a  daughter  of  Shem,  and  was  perfectly  innocent ; 
 that  it  was  only  the  Proselytes,  not  the  Israelites,  who  wor- 
 shipped the  golden  calf;  that  neither  Aaron's  sons,  nor 
 Samuel's  sons,  nor  Eli's  sons,  were  really  guilty.  David, 
 Bathsheba,  Josiah,  are  all  excused  from  blame,  and  so  step 
 by  step  by  the  aid  of  an  exegesis  which  began  in  fetish 
 worship  and  ended  in  casuistry,  Scripture  was  first  placed 
 upon  an  idol's  pedestal  and  then  treated  with  contumely 
 by  its  own  familiar  priests.0 
 
 1  Bopherim,  f.  15,  2.     Comp.  Vayikra  Rabba,  c.  36. 
 
 -  Cbaciga,  f.  10,  1. 
 
 3  'Erubin,  f.  21,  2.  The  very  world  -would  be  in  danger  if  tho  Mishitas 
 only  were  consulted  in  legal  decisions.  Sota,  f.  21,  1  ;  Baba  Metzia,  f.  33,  1. 
 Bee  these  and  other  quotations  in  Weber,  I.  c.  102-106;  Weill,  i.  91  j  Chia- 
 rini,  ThSorie  du  Juda/lsme,  i.  202-206. 
 
 1  in.     Sota,  r.  22,  1.  ■'•  Berakhoth,f.  i.  7. 
 
 ,;  Sanhedrin,  f.  55,  56.     "Whoever  says  thai  Reuben,  the  sons  of  Samuel, 
 David,    and  Solomon,   have  Binned   is  decidedly   in   error."    Sanhedrin,  f. 
 r>~>,  56.     See  :ill  the  original  passages  of  the  Talmud  quoted  in  Weber,  .1 
 Thcol.  55,  56. 
 
64  Rabbinic  Casuistry. 
 
 Nor  is  this  all :  the  exegesis  of  the  Scribes  not  only  re- 
 versed the  history  of  Scripture,  but,  as  our  Lord  said,  deliber- 
 ately set  aside  the  plain  meaning  of  the  laws  which  they 
 professed  to  deify.  We  have  already  noticed  how  they 
 abolished  the  humane  provision  of  Moses  for  the  slave  who 
 did  not  wish  to  be  separated  from  his  family.  In  the  same 
 way  Hillel  by  his  legal  fiction  of  "  the  Prosbol,"  1  found  it  easy 
 to  nullify  the  fundamental  Mosaic  provision  of  the  Sabbatic 
 year.  "He  did  it,"  says  the  Talmud,  "for  the  good  order 
 of  the  world  ; "  and  by  a  still  more  transparent  collusion  he 
 set  aside  the  Levitical  law  about  the  sale  of  houses.2  The 
 Pharisees  by  their  rule  of  "Mixtures"  managed  in  a  similar 
 way  to  get  rid  of  everything  which  was  inconvenient  in  the 
 Sabbath  observances.  These  accommodations  may  have  been 
 in  themselves  excusable ;  but  thus  to  violate  a  Law  which 
 they  pretended  all  the  while  to  regard  as  infinitely  sacred,  was 
 an  encouragement  to  the  grossest  hypocrisy,  and  can  only  be 
 classed  with  the  transparent  frauds  of  an  ignorant  Paganism.3 
 
 Even  where  the  Rabbinic  misinterpretations  were  only 
 theoretical  they  were  marked  by  the  same  sacrifice  of  the 
 spirit  to  the  letter.  In  the  treatise  Sanhedrin  it  is  argued 
 that  the  man  who  made  all  his  children  pass  through  the 
 fire  to  Moloch  would  be  guilty  of  no  sin,  because  Moses  only 
 said  "  thy  seed  "  and  not  "  all  thy  seed."  4  "  There  was,"  says 
 the  Talmud,  "  an  unimpeachable  disciple  at  Jabne  who  could 
 adduce  a  hundred  and  fifty  arguments  in  favour  of  the  clean- 
 
 1  Gittin,  v.  5.  Derived  from  nphs  /3ou\?)  (Trpea-PvTepwv).  In  order  to  evade 
 the  Mosaic  law  of  the  remission  of  debt  in  the  Jubilee  year  the  creditor 
 presented  "before  the  council"  a  certified  agreement  that  he  would  at  any 
 1  nne  have  the  right  to  claim  his  debt.  Sheb.  x.  3,  4  ;  Gittin,  f.  36, 1,  quoted  by 
 Edersheim,  Prophecy  and  History,  p.  279.  In  earlier  times  according  to  Sheb. 
 x.  8,  the  creditor  might  remit  the  debt  but  stand  with  his  hand  open  to  receive 
 it!  It  utterly  nullified  Deut.  xv.  2.  Even  the  Rabbis  were  startled  by  this 
 sacrifice  of  the  Mosaic  law  to  convenience.  Jost,  Judcnth.  i.  266.  See 
 Hamburger  11.  s.v.  Prostml.  It  was  nothing  more  than  pracvaricatio — a 
 collusive  agreement. 
 
 2  Lev.  x'xv.  29,  30  ;  Erachin.  ix.  4.     See  Derenbourg,  p.  189. 
 
 3  Luzzato  not  only  admits  that  the  Rabbinic  scholars  did  violence  to  the 
 natural  sense,  but  even  says  that  this  was  done  on  the  principle  of  "preferring 
 general  utility  to  exegetic  verity."  He  quotes  Cicero  (dc  Juvcnt.  i.  38), 
 "Omncs  leges  ad  commodum  reip.  referri  oportet,  et  eas  ex  utilitate  communi, 
 non  ex  seriptione,  quae  in  Uteris  est,  interpretari. " 
 
 4  Sanhedrin,  f.  64,  2  ;  Chiarini,  ii.  229. 
 
Chiefs  of  the  Schools.  G5 
 
 ness  of  creeping  things."  1  "  No  one  is  appointed  a  member 
 of  the  Sanhedrin  who  is  not  ingenious  enough  to  prove  from 
 the  Law  that  a  creeping  thing  is  ceremonially  clean." 2  "  God 
 so  gave  the  Law  to  Moses  that  a  thing  may  be  pronounced 
 clean  or  unclean  in  forty-nine  different  ways."  3 
 
 III.  The  builders  of  this  vast  inverted  pyramid  of  exegesis, 
 which  so  seldom  explained  and  so  often  explained  away, 
 were  many  in  number.  The  most  eminent  among  them 
 were  Hillel ;  Shammai  ;  Rabbi  Johanan  ben  Zakkai  ;  Rabbi 
 Aqiba ;  and  Rabbi  Juda  the  Holy. 
 
 1.  The  Rabbis  love  to  dwell  on  the  life  of  "the  sweet  and 
 noble  Hillel," — his  Babylonian  extraction ;  his  voluntary 
 poverty;  his  life  as  a  porter;  his  being  found  on  a  Sabbath 
 morning  by  Shemaia  and  Abtalion  half  frozen  in  the  window 
 of  their  school ;  his  varied  learning  ;  his  whole  day's  argument 
 with  the  Beni  Bethyra,  and  the  victory  which  he  finally  won 
 by  appealing  to  the  "  decision"  of  his  teachers;  his  elevation 
 to  the  post  of  President ; 4  his  imperturbable  meekness ;  his 
 profound  and  witty  utterances ;  his  humanism ;  his  sacrifice 
 even  of  the  truth  to  avoid  a  quarrel  with  the  school  of 
 Shammai;5  his  famous  summary  of  the  whole  law  under 
 the  rule  of  love  to  our  neighbour.6  His  services  were  mainly 
 two — namely,  Classification  and  Hermeneutics.  He  reduced 
 to  Six  Orders — the  first  oral  basis  of  the  future  Mishna — the 
 chaotic  mass  of  rules  which  had  gathered  round  the  613 
 Mosaic  precepts.  He  also  drew  up  the  seven  exegetic  rules 
 — perhaps  due  to  the  infiltration  of  Greek  logic — which  were 
 the  basis  of  all  later  developments  of  the  Oral  Law.     Hence, 
 
 1  'Eruhin,  f.  13,  2. 
 
 -  Sanhedrin,  f.  17,  1.     Quoted  inHershon's  Genesis,  i>.  54. 
 
 3  This  latter  quotation  is  from  the  post-Talmudic  tract,  Sopherim,  c.  l»l  : 
 and  it  is  proved  (!)  from  Cant.  ii.  4,  because  in  that  verse  (by  Gematria)  the 
 
 word  1?mi  =  49.  See  Pesikhta  Rahbathi,  f.  23,  1  ;  Eisenmenger,  Entd. 
 
 i.  454  ;  Devlin,;,',  Obs.  Sacr.  iii.  140. 
 
 4  N^'3  (riyov/xtvos). 
 
 5  I'.iisa,    f.   20,    1.     Tlillel  and  Shammai  were  the  last  of  the  " conples " 
 
 [Z&ugoth)  who  succeeded   \<<  the  I lership  of  the  schools  after  the  death  of 
 
 Simon  the  .lust.  Tie-  previous  couple,  Shemaia  and  Abtalion,  were  the  first  to 
 receive  the  title  of  "  Kxegete"  [Darshan). 
 
 e  On  this  see  Tob.  iv.  16  ;  Jost,  Judndh.  i.  259. 
 
 F 
 
G6  Hilld. 
 
 like  Ezra,  he  is  called  a  restorer  of  the  Law,1  for  his  rules 
 rendered  it  possible  always  to  rediscover  the  Oral  Law  even 
 if  it  was  forgotten,  and  to  maintain  it  against  the  Sadducees 
 on  grounds  nominally  scriptural.  His  extraordinary  merits 
 secured  the  Patriarchate  to  his  descendants  for  four  hundred 
 and  fifty  years,2  and  he  must  be  regarded  as  the  earliest  founder 
 '  of  the  Talmudic  system.3  The  Jews  themselves  deplored  the 
 bitter  and  sterile  confusion  which  began  in  his  school  and 
 that  of  Shammai.4  The  pupils  of  these  schools  were  the  first 
 to  display  that  fondness  for  pompous  titles  which  is  repro- 
 bated in  the  Gospels.  A  modern  Jewish  historian  has  had 
 the  extraordinary  boldness  to  assert  that  Jesus  "  was  a  Rabbi 
 of  the  school  of  Hillel." 5  The  sentence  has  been  seized  with 
 avidity  by  those  who  desired  to  diminish  the  greatness  or  de- 
 preciate the  originality  of  Christ.     Let  it  here  suffice  to  say 
 
 1  Sukka,  f.  20,  1.  In  the  wailing  at  his  death  they  cried,  "  Oh,  the  pious  ! 
 oh,  the  scholar  of  Ezra!"  Sanhedrin,  f.  11,  1.  The  very  remarkable  story 
 of  his  elevation  to  the  presidency  of  the  schools  is  related  in  Pesachim,  f.  66, 
 1  (Hershon,  Genesis,  p.  327).  The  Sanhedrin  is  first  mentioned  under 
 Hyrcanus  II.  (Jos.  Antt.  xiv.  9),  but  may  be  referred  to  in  2  Mace.  i.  8,  10  ; 
 iv.  44  ;  xi.  27. 
 
 2  The  patriarchs  of  the  house  of  Hillel  were,  according  to  Hamburger  (s.v. 
 Nassi)  :  1.  Hiilel.  2.  Rabban  Simeon.  3.  Rabban  Gamaliel  I.  4.  Rabban 
 Simeon  II.  5.  Rabban  Gamaliel  II.  of  Jabne.  6.  Rabban  Simeon  III.  of 
 Scpphoris.  7.  Rabbi  (Judah  Hakkodesh).  8.  R.  Gamaliel  III.  9.  R.  Judah  II. 
 10.  R.  Gamaliel  IV.  11.  R.  Judah  III.  12.  R.  Hillel  II.  13.  R.  Gamaliel  V. 
 14.  R.  Judah  IV.  15.  Gamaliel  VI.  He  is  called  Batraa,  "the  last." 
 The  office  of  Nasi  was  abolished  by  Theodosius  (Cod.  Theod.  de  Jud.  i.  22) 
 after  a  continuance  of  446  years,  A.D.  415.  The  people  themselves  were  weary 
 of  the  pride  and  exactions  of  the  patriarchs. 
 
 3  On  the  life  and  work  of  Hillel,  see  Budaeus,  Philos.  Ebr.  104-112  ;  Gratz, 
 iii.  172-178,  186-205  ;  Derenbourg,  176-193  ;  Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Isr.  iii.  112- 
 118  ;  Jost,  Judenthum,  254-270  ;  Weber,  Altsyn.  Theol.  passim  ;  Friedliinder, 
 Gcschichtsbildcr,  19-29.  The  chief  Talmudic  passages  about  his  life  and 
 doings  are  Berakhoth,  f.  60  ;  Joma,  f.  35  ;  Qiddushin,  f.  71, 1  ;  Sukka,  f.  20, 
 1  ;  Sota,  f.  28,  2  ;  Pesachim,  f.  66,  2  ;  Sanhedrin,  ii.  1  ;  Baba  Bathra,  f. 
 144,  1  ;  Bereshith  Rabba,  c.  33,  98.  See  Fiirst,  Kultur  und  Lit.  pp.  11-15. 
 The  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai  only  produced  two  books,  the  Megillath 
 Taanith,  and  a  book  about  the  Maccabees  (M.  Beth  Hasmonaim)  no  longer 
 extant. 
 
 4  The  Nazarenes  applied  Is.  viii.  14,  "He  shall  be  .  .  .  for  a  stone  of 
 stumbling  to  both  the  houses  of  Israel,"  to  the  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai, 
 "quod,  per  traditiones  et  Sevrepwaeis  suas,  Legis  praecepta dissipaverint  atque 
 mutaverint ;  et  has  esse  duas  domos  cpuae  Salvatorem  uon  receperint."  Jer. 
 ad  loc. 
 
 5  "Jesus  .  .  .  war  ein  Pharisiier  der  auch  in  den  Wegen  Hillel's  ging." — 
 Geiger,  Das  Judcnth.  i.  117.  "  Hillel  scheint  sein  Vorbild  und  Musterbild 
 gewesen  zu  seyn." — Friedliinder,  Gcschichtsbildcr,  p.  32.  "Hillel  fut  le 
 vrai  maitre  de  Jesus." — Renan,  Vie  dc  Jesus,  p.  35. 
 
Shammai.  67 
 
 that  no  sentence  can  be  imagined  which,  whether  it  be  tested 
 by  principles  or  by  details,  is  so  utterly  the  reverse  of  truth. 
 Our  Lord  taught  with  authority,  and  Hillel  as  one  of  the 
 scribes.  Christ  appealed  to  the  reason  and  to  the  conscience, 
 Hillel  to  precedent  and  tradition.  It  was  the  object  of  Hillel 
 to  strengthen  the  hedge  about  the  Law,  and  of  Christ  to 
 break  it  completely  down.1  Hillel  paid  infinite  regard  to 
 the  Oral  Law ;  Christ  repudiated  its  validity  with  complete 
 disparagement,  and  even  with  burning  indignation.  Hillel 
 developed  the  Halakhaand  the  Haggada;  .Christ  never  alluded 
 to  the  one,  nor  uttered  a  single  specimen  of  the  other.  Hillel 
 was  casuistic  and  particularist ;  Jesus  universal  and  divinely 
 spiritual.2  Christ  was  the  Messiah,  and  Hillel,  sharing  the 
 deep  religious  decadence  of  his  nation,  declared  that  no  such 
 Messiah  would  ever  come.3 
 
 2.  Shammai,  the  rival  of  Hillel,  was  a  much  less  interesting 
 person.  He  was  a  formalist  of  the  narrowest  school.  In 
 spite  of  his  traditional  rule — "  make  learning  your  business, 
 speak  little,  do  much,  and  receive  every  one  kindly  " — he  is 
 described  as  a  man  of  sour  manners  and  violent  temper. 
 The  depth  of  his  formalism  may  be  estimated  by  the  fact 
 that  he  nearly  starved  his  infant  grandson  in  the  attempt  to 
 make  him  fast  on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  and  at  the  Feast  of 
 Tabernacles  reared  a  booth  over  the  bed  where  his  daughter 
 lay  in  the  agony  of  childbirth.  Unlike  Hillel  he  has 
 not  left  us  a  single  ethical  maxim  of  the  smallest  value. 
 The  Jewish  proverb  expressed  the  difference  between  them 
 by  saying  that  "  Shammai  bound  and  Hillel  loosed ; "  in 
 other  words  Shammai  interpreted  every  legal  maxim  with 
 the  extremest  rigidity,  while  Hillel  allowed  modifying  cir- 
 cumstances. Their  conclusions  were  often  diametrically 
 opposed  to  each  other.     Serious  Jews  complained  that  the 
 
 1  Sec  especially  the  right  rendering  of  Mark  vii.  19. 
 
 2  On  this  question  sec  Delitzsch,  Jcsiis  und  Hillel;  Ewald,  Gesch.  v.  12-48; 
 Ki'iiu,  Jr.iu  nm  Xnzara,  i.  268-272. 
 
 3  Sanhedrin,  f.  96,  2,  but  see  Jost,  Gcsch.  d.  Isr.  iii.  150.  So  the  mediaeval 
 theologian,  Joseph  Alho,  denies  that  Messianism  is  a  Jewish  dogma,  otherwise 
 the  Soteriology  of  Law  would  be  injured.  Here  we  have  the  fundamental 
 opposition  between  Judaism  and  Christianity. 
 
 F   2 
 
68  Johanan  Ben  Z clicked. 
 
 Law  became  "two  Laws."  In  consequence  of  this  their 
 scholars  even  came  to  blows,  so  that  the  floor  of  the  schools 
 was  stained  with  blood ;  yet  the  Bath  Qol  declared  that  both 
 were  right,  only  that  Hillel  won  the  palm  by  his  superior 
 meekness.1  The  very  principles  at  stake  between  the  two 
 schools  were  a  matter  of  dispute.  With  reference  to  Sham- 
 mai's  multiplication  of  details  R.  Eliezer  approvingly  said, 
 "  When  a  cask  is  full  of  nuts  you  can  still  pour  in  mustard 
 seed  without  making  it  too  full."  "  But,"  said  R.  Joshua,  in 
 defence  of  Hillel,  "when  you  pour  water  into  a  vessel  already 
 filled  with  oil  you  lose  in  oil  what  you  gain  in  water." 
 
 3.  The  services  of  Johanan  Ben  Zakkai  were  more 
 practical  and  real.2  He  was  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  pupils  of 
 Hillel,  and  the  Talmud  says  that  he  burned  with  such  ardour 
 while  he  studied  the  Law  that  the  birds  which  flew  over  his 
 head  were  consumed.  He  opposed  the  Zealots,  and  resisted  the 
 rebellion  against  the  Romans.  The  legend  of  him  relates 
 that,  forty  years  before  the  Destruction  of  the  Temple,  when 
 the  huge  bronze  doors  had  opened  of  themselves,  Johanan 
 rebuked  them  with  the  words,  "  Why,  oh  sanctuary,  dost  thou 
 pretend  to  fear?  I  know  that  thou  shalt  be  devastated. 
 Zachariah,  son  of  Iddo,  hath  predicted,  '  Open  thy  doors,  oh 
 Lebanon,  that  the  fire  may  devour  thy  cedars! " 3  Escaping 
 from  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  being  carried  on  a  bier  as 
 one  who  had  died,  he  was  well  received  by  the  Romans,  pro- 
 phetically saluted  Vespasian  with  the  title  of  Emperor, 
 and  after  the  fall  of  the  city  became  a  new  Ezra  to  his 
 nation.  How  little  did  the  Romans  think  when  they  granted 
 the  humble  request  of  the  fugitive  Rabbi  to  open  a  school  at 
 '  Jabne,4  that  they  were  inaugurating  a  power  which  should 
 
 1  On  this  paragraph  see  Jost,  Judenthum,  i.  260  ;  Gcsch.  d.  Isr.  iii.  118  ; 
 Yom  tob,  f.  63  ;  Jer.  Shabbath,  f.  61  ;  f.  17,  1  ;  f .  33  ;  'Erubin,  f.  13,  2  ; 
 Sukka,  f.  28,  1  :  Maimonides  on  Aboth,  v.  17  ;  Gratz,  iii.  178  ;  Friedlander, 
 Gcschichtsbilder,  26,  sq. 
 
 2  Sukka,  f.  28,1  ;  Baba  Bathra,  f.  134,  1  ;  Tosefta  Joma,  4  ;  Derenbourg,  p. 
 276;  Friedlander,  Qeschichtsbilder,  28. 
 
 3  Is.  x.  34;  Midxash  Kohe.leth,  64  ;  Gittin,  f.  56  ;  Aboth  Kabbi  Nathan,  4  ; 
 Gratz,  iv.  13. 
 
 4  .labne,  the  ancient  Jabneel,  in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  not  far  from  Joppa, 
 was  reconquered  from  the  Philistines  by  Uzziah.  It  was  six  miles  from 
 Jerusalem,  and  had  a  mixed  population  of  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
 
Services  of  Johanan.  69 
 
 long  outlive  their  own  Empire,  and  should,  sixty  years 
 later,  cost  them  a  sea  of  blood  to  quench  the  flames  of 
 another  insurrection !  Yet  so  it  was !  The  fires  that  burnt 
 the  Temple  became  the  auroral  glow  of  a  new  day  for 
 Judaism.1  Johanan,  like  Jeremiah  after  the  destruction 
 of  the  First  Temple,  had  the  genius  to  see  that  religious 
 independence  was  a  thing  separable  from,  and  even  stronger 
 than,  political  existence.  He  strove  to  rescue  what  still 
 remained,  and  taught  his  people  to  take  as  their  symbol 
 the  Bush  in  the  Wilderness,  burning  yet  unconsumed. 
 
 The  study  of  the  Law  became  once  more  a  rallying  ground 
 for  the  race.  Seated  on  his  high  chair  with  his  "  Associates  "  2 
 around  him,  and  his  pupils  on  low  mats  upon  the  floor,  the 
 Head  of  the  School  might  look  with  disdain  and  indifference 
 upon  the  agitations  of  the  world.  "Judaism  found  its  last 
 asylum  in  its  academies.  A  conquered  nation  changed  its 
 military  leaders  into  Rabbis,  and  its  hosts  into  armies  of  pale- 
 cheeked  students  covered  with  the  dust  of  the  schools." 3  In- 
 flexible in  the  midst  of  crushing  disaster,  formed  on  the  best 
 teachings  of  Hillel,4  Johanan  became  the  Gaius  Terentius  Varro 
 of  Judaism.  He  did  not  despair  of  the  Theocracy.  Calm,  re- 
 signed, sympathetic,  nobly  superior  to  the  frantic  spirit  of 
 hatred  which  began  to  animate  his  race,  his  favourite  quota- 
 tion, like  that  of  our  Lord,  was,  "  I  will  have  mercy  and  not 
 sacrifice." 5     He  said  that  the  reason  why  no  iron  instrument 
 
 1  .lust,  Judc nils.  i.  6.  Fiiist  says  that  the  canon  was  developed  hitween 
 B.C.  585-300  ;  tradition  ami  Jewish  theology  between  B.C.  300-32.  He  placed 
 tin'  most  direct  influence  of  Babylonish  studies  (Hillel,  Chija,  Nathan) between 
 B.C.  32  and  a.d.  68. 
 
 -  Chaberim.  3  Isaac  Disraeli. 
 
 4  See  Aboth,  i.  12-14  ;  ii.  5-7. 
 
 5  Aboth  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  4;  Gittin,  f.  56,  1.  It  was  natural  that  from 
 this  time  should  date  the  intense  haired  of  the  Jews  to  heathendom,  which 
 was  repaid  with  a  hatred  equally  intense.  Henceforth  the  Jews  and  the 
 Pagans  each  acquired  in  the  Jewish  schools  their  character  indelibih 
 respectively  the  friends  and  the  enemies  of  God.  The  world  becomes  "the 
 kingdom  of  wickedness"  (fWtjnn  rrtD'PE),  and  every  Pagan  a  "suspeel 
 nvj'n),  mere  straw  and  chaff.  Samuel  the  Little  introduced  a  curse  against 
 heathens.  Christians,  &c.  (Minim  heretics)  into  the  "is  Benedictions" 
 iSli.  in  ,!!,-  K.sre).  Sec  .A'/-.  ]:,  n<l,-//„//,.  iv.  3  ;  Weber,  148,  ill  72;  Xunz,  Qottesd. 
 Vortrage,  867  ;  Derenbourg,  346.  The  large-heartedness  of  I!.  Johanan  to  the 
 heathen  appears  from  his  explanation  of  Prov.  riv.  in  to  mean  that  mercy  is 
 the  sacrifice  which  can  be  offered  by  the  Gentiles  (Baba  Bathra,  f.  10,  2). 
 
70  An  Impossible  Religion. 
 
 might  be  used  in  building  the  altar,  was  because  the  altar  is 
 the  symbol  of  peace  and  iron  of  war.  When  the  sanctuary- 
 was  desolate  he  taught  his  people  to  take  refuge  in  the  im- 
 material sanctuary  of  the  Law.  When  their  centre  of  unity 
 was  destroyed  he  furnished  them  with  "  the  impregnable 
 centre  of  the  House  of  Interpretation;"1  when  their  walls 
 had  been  laid  in  ashes  he  taught  them  that  in  place  of  ram- 
 parts of  marble  the  Lord  would  be  "  a  wall  of  fire  round 
 about."  2  By  accommodating  himself  to  the  altered  circum- 
 stances of  his  day  he  roused  the  Jews  from  the  agonising 
 stupefaction  of  despair  and  made  Jabne  the  heiress  of 
 Jerusalem.3  He  largely  developed  a  style  of  teaching  which 
 was  more  adapted  than  the  Halakha  for  the  consolation 
 needed  by  such  troublous  days.4  History  presents  no  stranger 
 spectacle  than  that  of  a  nation  thus  devoting  itself  to  the 
 study  of  a  Ritual  of  which  much  had  been  obsolete  even  in 
 the  days  of  Ezra,  but  of  which  every  essential  particular 
 became,  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  impossible  of  per- 
 formance. The  Jewish  race  has  clung  with  desperate  tenacity 
 to  a  religion  local,  priestly,  and  sacrificial,  for  nearly  two 
 thousand  years  after  the  absolute  destruction  of  its  Temple, 
 its  Priesthood,  and  its  Altar !  For  the  Temple  Johanan 
 substituted  the  Law;  for  the  Priesthood  the  Patriarchate; 
 for  the  House  of  Aaron  the  House  of  Hillel.  Shut  out 
 from  all  political  activity,  robbed  of  all  civil  independence, 
 the  Jews  were  content  to  spend  centuries  of  wrangling  discus- 
 sion about  Sabbatical  minutiae  and  about  the  distinctions  of 
 "clean"  and  "unclean"  meats,  while  the  nobler-minded  of 
 them  learnt  Johanan's  lesson  that  love  and  good  works  were 
 an  atonement  dearer  to  the  Eternal  than  the  sacrifices  which 
 they  could  no  longer  offer.5 
 
 1  Beth  Hammidrash.  Specimens  of  Johanan's  exegesis  are  given  in  Qiddu- 
 shin,  p.  22,  &c.     See  Friedlander,  Gesch.  p.  39. 
 
 2  Zech.  ii.  5.  3  Jost,  Judenthum,  ii.  72. 
 
 4  Gratz,  iv.  19  ;  R.  Eliezer  hen  Jose  developed  the  thirty-two  rules  for  the 
 Haggada. 
 
 6  On  the  great  work  of  R.  Johanan,  see  Gratz,  iv.  10-27,  322-324  ;  Deren- 
 hourg,  276-302  ;  Etheridge,  55  ;  Weill,  i.  86-89  ;  Jost,  Judenthum,  13-25  ; 
 Hamburger  II.  s.v.  Jochanan  Sohn  Sakai  ;  Friedlander,  Gcschichtsbilder,  36- 
 44.     It  is  said  that  Titus  spared  the  life  of  Gamaliel  II.  at  his  request.     In 
 
Aqiba.  7] 
 
 4.  The  greatest  of  the  Tanaites  1  who  carried  on  the  work 
 of  Rabbi  Johanan  ben  Zakkai,  was  the  famous  Rabbi  Aoir.v 
 the  systematiser  of  Rabbinism,  the  Thomas  Aquinas  of  the  - 
 Oral  Law.  By  a  scheme  of  exorbitant  interpretation  he 
 succeeded  in  making  the  Pentateuch  responsible  for  the 
 gigantic  excrescences  which  had  covered  its  decaying  trunk. 
 By  a  formalised  method  of  combining  possible  inferences,  and 
 of  drawing  fresh  inferences  from  inferences  previously  deduced, 
 he  founded  a  science  of  casuistry  to  which  the  plain  meaning 
 of  the  Written  Law  became  of  less  and  less  importance.  He 
 treated  the  Oral  Law,  not  as  a  body  of  fixed  results,  but  as  a 
 living  and  multiplying  material.2  His  chief  master,  Rabbi 
 Eliezer,  who  had  been  a  "  closed  cistern  "  of  memorial  tradi- 
 tionalism, and  who  always  regarded  a  decision  as  impossible 
 if  he  could  say  "  That  I  have  never  heard  " — naturally  looked 
 on  him  with  suspicion.  Many  of  the  Rabbis  indignantly 
 opposed  his  subtle  extravagances  of  fantastic  exegesis. 
 Applying  Hillel's  mischievous  second  rule  that  "  identity  of 
 expression  "  always  furnished  a  valid  conclusion,  he  said  that 
 in  Lev.  vii.  12,  "  unleavened  cakes  with  oil  and  unleavened 
 wafers  with  oil"  meant  that  half  a  log  of  oil  was  to  be  used 
 with  each.  "  Aqiba  "  said  R.  Eliezer  "  you  may  say  '  with 
 oil,'  '  with  oil,'  all  day,  but  I  will  not  listen  to  you."  "  Ex- 
 pound and  expound  all  day  long"  said  R.  Jose,  the  Galilean, 
 "still  thou  canst  neither  add  to,  nor  take  from,  the  writtei] 
 word."  "  I  can  stand  it  no  longer,  Aqiba,"  cried  R.  Tarphon  ; 
 "  how  long  will  you  patch  things  up  in  this  arbitrary  fashion  ?  " 
 "  Aqiba,"  exclaimed  R.  Jose  with  still   more  bitter  seventy. 
 
 the  work  of  consolation  In-  was  aided  by  R.  Joshua,  who  dissuaded  his  fellow 
 Rabbis  from  giving  up  meal  and  wine,  ami  devoted  himself  to  raise  their 
 courage.  "Sec,"  he  said,  "  my  brothers,  Abel  was  persecuted  by  Cain,  Noah 
 by  liis  contemporaries,  Abraham  by  Nimrod,  Isaac  by  tin  Philistines,  Jacob 
 by  Esau,  Joseph  by  his  brethren,  Moses  by  Pharaoh,  David  by  Saul,  Israel  by 
 many  nations— and  the  Merciful  (1ml  ever  chose  the  persecuted  !  " 
 
 1  Learners.     D^n  is  the  Chaldaic  form  of  D^l^'. 
 
 '-'  The  Mishna  of  Rabbi  Aqiba  is  no  longer  extant,  though  it  was  known 
 to  Epiphaniua  The  Jews  distinguished  it  as  a  new  Mishna  (.1/.  acharona) 
 as  distinguished  from  the  older  Mishna  rishona.  Among  other  helps  to 
 memory  he  arranged  things  in  numbers.  "Four  sins  deserve  death  ;"  "  Five 
 classes  of  men  cannol  become  priests,"  &c,  &c.  See  Pirke  Aboth  v.  and 
 Aboth  of  ]l.  Nathan,  rviii. 
 
n 
 
 Legends  of  Aqiba. 
 
 "  how  long  wilt  thou  make  the  face  of  the  Shekhinah 
 profane  V'1  R.  Ishmael,  especially,  the  author  of  the  thirteen 
 rules  of  interpretation,  was  firmly  opposed  to  the  method  of 
 A.qiba.  He  insisted  on  the  rule  "  the  Law  speaks  in  human 
 language,"  and  that  its  terms  are  not  to  be  literally  pressed.2 
 For  the  most  part,  however,  Aqiba  received  the  boundless 
 admiration  of  his  countrymen.  They  wrapt  in  legend  his 
 romantic  history.  They  told  how  he  was  a  Proselyte,  and  a 
 descendant  of  Sisera  ;  how  love  for  Rachel,  the  daughter  of 
 the  wealthy  Kalba  Shebua,  had  transformed  him  from  a 
 shepherd  and  a  churl  (am  ha-ards)  into  a  Rabbi ; 3  how,  after 
 twelve  years  of  learned  toil,  he  had  returned  to  claim  her, 
 followed  by  12,000  disciples,  and  though  he  found  her  in 
 the  abject  poverty  to  which  she  had  been  condemned  by  her 
 father,  he  had  been  content  to  wait  for  another  twelve  years 
 before  he  finally  returned  with  24,000  students  to  show  that 
 he  was  worthy  of  her  love.  They  told  how,  in  requital  for 
 her  pity  in  the  days  when  she  wept  to  pick  the  chaff  from 
 his  hair  after  he  had  slept  in  the  straw  of  the  sheep-fold, 
 he  gave  her  a  golden  comb  on  which  was  engraved  the  city  of 
 Jerusalem.  The  wife  of  the  Patriarch  Gamaliel  had  been 
 moved  to  envy  by  the  splendour  of  the  gift,  but  Gamaliel 
 said  to  her,  "  Rachel  has  a  right  to  it,  for  she  once  sold  her 
 hair  to  maintain  her  husband." 4 
 
 When  he  died  by  heroic  martyrdom,  with  the  prolonged 
 word  One  (ins)  from  the  Daily  Prayer  on  his  lips,  a  "  Daughter 
 
 1  Sanhedrin,  f.  38,  2.  The  rebuke  was  given  on  a  memorable  occasion, 
 when  explaining  the  word  "thrones"  in  Dan.  vii.  9.  Aqiba  had  ventured  to 
 say  that  one  of  the  thrones  was  for  the  Messiah.  According  to  R.  Jose,  to 
 I  ml  the  Messiah  on  a  level  with  God  was  to  render  the  Shekhinah  profane. 
 See  Ilershon,  Genesis,  p.  22. 
 
 2  He  recognised  that  the  language  of  Scripture  is  sometimes  hyperbolical 
 
 (SDT13),  as  in  Deut.  i.  28.  He  expressed  the  rule  thus  :  \\vh  min  mm 
 "■iOn.  The  latter  seems  to  be  the  Greek  word  ij/foia,  and  the  rule  means  that 
 sometimes  a  passage  is  not  literally  true. 
 
 :i  Aqiba  confessed  to  his  disciples  that  in  his  am  haarets  days  he  would 
 gladly  have  torn  a  Rabbi  with  his  teeth!  That  he  was  grateful  to  Rachel 
 appears  from  his  saying  that  "he  is  rich  who  has  a  wife  full  of  good  works." 
 Shubbath,  f.  25,  2. 
 
 '  The  Talmud  abounds  in  references  to  Aqiba.  Pesachim,  f.  40,  2,  &c, 
 quoted  by  Griitz,  Jost,  &c.  Hershon,  Genesis,  pp.  274,  275.  The  legends 
 and  facts  of  his  life  may  be  gathered  from  Nedarim,  f.  50,  1  ;  Aboth  of  R. 
 Nathan,  c.  6  ;  Shabbath,  f.  59,  2 ;  Jer.  Shabbatb,  f.  86. 
 
Letter-worship.  73 
 
 of  a  Voice  "  was  heard  proclaiming  his  blessedness,  and  his 
 pupils  bewailed  his  death  with  bitter  cries.1 
 
 But  they  paid  him  the  yet  higher  compliment  of  adopting 
 the  whole  of  his  amazing  system.2  He  taught  them,  and 
 even  Christians  appear  to  have  sanctioned  his  views, — that  "  as 
 a  hammer  divides  fire  into  many  sparks,  so  every  verse  of 
 Scripture  has  many  explanations."  3  Now  the  saner  exegesis 
 of  the  simpler  days  of  the  Sopherim  had  declared  that  "  the 
 interpretation  of  the  Law  ought  never  to  go  beyond  the 
 literal  sense."  4  Aqiba,  on  the  other  hand,  expounded  the 
 Pentateuch  on  the  hypothesis  that  it  was  an  immense,  inten- 
 tional, and  continuous  enigma.  His  principle  was  that  a  <■ 
 meaning  was  to  be  found  in  eveiy  monosyllable  of  Scripture. 
 If  there  is  a  superfluous  "  and  " 5  or  "  also," 6  or  sign  of  case,7 
 these  are  always  to  be  specially  interpreted.8  If  in  2  Kings, 
 ii.  14,  it  said  of  Elisha  that  "he  also  had  smitten  the  waters," 
 it  means  that  Elisha  did  more  wonders  at  the  Jordan  than 
 Elijah.  If  David  says  "  Thy  servant  slew  also 9  the  lion,  also  10 
 the  bear,"  the  meaning  (by  the  rule  of  "  inclusion  after  inclu- 
 sion)" u  is  that  he  slew  three  animals  besides.    If  it  is  written 
 
 1  They  said  that  he  was  the  only  RaWii  who  succeeded  in  entering  Paradise 
 alive.  Menachoth,  f.  29,  2.  On  his  martyrdom  by  having  his  flesh  torn 
 away  with  iron,  see  Berakhoth,  f.  61,  2  ;  Griitz,  iv.  177.  According  to  Bux- 
 torf  {Synag.  c.  5)  this  is  why  the  Jews,  in  reciting  the  Shema,  often  dwell  on 
 the  list  T  of  inX  for  half  a  minute. 
 
 -  They  conihineil  it  with  the  more  logical  system  of  his  friendly  rival,  R. 
 Ishmael,  who  only  allowed  three  passages  in  which  cth  was  significant.  San- 
 hedrin,  f.  51,  1  ;  Grate,  iv.  61  ;  Jest,  Judenth.  ii.  74.  Of  the  other  Rabbis  of 
 this  period,  Gamaliel  II.  was  an  organiser,  Eliezer  a  pure  traditionalist,  aud 
 R.  -I"  ihua  ■■!  via  media  scholar. 
 
 ::  See  .I":-,  xxiii.  20.  This  Rabbinic  fiction  of  a  multiplex  sensus  dominated 
 throughout  the  Middle  Ages,  ami  down  to  very  recent  times.  It  led,  among 
 other  mischievous  lvsults,  to  what  was  known  in  the  Post-Reformat  ion  epoch 
 as  the  emphatic  style  of  exegesis.  Sanhedrin,  f.  34,  1.  In  the  tract  Sopherim 
 rid  that  with  the  Law  God  gave  to  Moses  ninety-eight  ways  of  explaining 
 it.  (In  ih.-  Machser  fur  Pentecost,  p.  69,  ap.  Hershon,  Talmadic  Miscell.  11.) 
 See  Ecclus.  xxiv.  29. 
 
 «  nqnPB  HVO  N'iV  Nlpon  j\\\  Shabbath,  f.  63,  1.  The  Rabbis 
 maintain  that  the  application  of  the  thirteen  rules  does  not  make  the  Law  go 
 "out    of  the   grasp  (if  simplicity''   (see   Chiarini,  i.    54),   though  it  could  W 
 
 explained  in  forty-nine,  or  even  seventy  ways  (min?    D^S  '¥).    Low,  p.  65. 
 
 M  Megilla,  f.  19,  2.  This  rule  is  called  ^m,  or  "Inclusion."  See  Dr. 
 Oinsburg,  s.v.  Midrash  in  Kitto's  Cyclopccdia. 
 
 ■  nx  dj  10  ca.  "  »m  nnx  »m. 
 
74  Tittle-worship. 
 
 that  God  visited  Sarah, l  it  means  that  with  her  He  visited 
 other  barren  women.  Analogous  explanations  by  the  rule  of 
 "  exclusion "  2  were  attached  to  every  superfluous  "  only " 3 
 and  "  from." 4  These  might  have  been  set  aside  as  mere 
 trivialities — the  dust  which  gathers  so  thickly  on  the  cere- 
 ments of  a  dead  religion — but  Aqiba's  methods,  like  the  simpler 
 ones  of  Hillel,  were  fraught  with  mischief.  Rabbi  Nehemiah 
 of  Emmaus,  finding  the  case-sign  cth  in  the  verse  "  Thou 
 shalt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,"  5  gave  up  Aqiba's  theory, 
 because  in  this  phrase  nothing  else  but  God  could  be  implied. 
 But  Aqiba,  equal  to  the  occasion,  at  once  declared  that  in 
 this  instance  the  cth  implied  the  fear  due  also  to  "  the  pupils 
 of  the  wise  "  ! 6  Thus  in  the  system  of  the  Tanaites  "  nought 
 is  everything  and  everything  is  nought." 
 
 But  Aqiba  went  still  farther.  He  not  only  explained  every 
 particle  and  copula,'_but  said  that  there  was  a  mystic  meaning 
 in  every  letter  of  Scripture,  and  in  every  horn "  and  letter- 
 flourish  of  every  letter,  "just  as  in  every  fibre  of  an  ant's 
 foot  or  a  gnat's  wing."  8     The  Rabbis  delighted  to  tell  how 
 
 1  rntJHIK.  2  BWD.  3  tjK  or  pj  4  >». 
 
 5  TTDX.  Deut.  x.  20.  Mystic  significance  was  attached  to  the  particle 
 nx,  because  the  two  letters  are  the  a  and  w  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet.  Dr. 
 Ginsburg  refers  to  Rashi  on  Num.  vi.  13. 
 
 6  Pesachim,  f.  22,  1.  For  other  instances,  see  Weber,  Altsyn.  Thcol.  119. 
 Aqiba  is  said  to  have  borrowed  the  notion  of  this  "  emphatic  "  style  of  inter- 
 pretation from  his  teacher,  R.  Nahum  of  Gimso.  Jost,  Judenthum,  ii.  59. 
 Practically  the  same  rule  is  followed  by  Philo  (irepirrbv  ovofxa  ov84v,  De  Prof. 
 458),  only  he  applied  to  ethics  and  philosophy  what  Aqiba  applied  to  the 
 Halakha.  See  Griitz,  iv.  458  ;  Hershon,  Genesis,  p.  280.  When  the  pupils  of 
 R.  Nehemiah  asked  what  became  of  all  his  other  explanations  of  the  case-sign 
 if  the  theory  was  to  be  abandoned,  he  said,  "As  I  have  secured  a  reward  by 
 the  expositions,  so  shall  I  by  their  abandonment."  The  story  is  sometimes 
 attributed  to  a  R.  Simon. 
 
 7  These  Kepaiai  are  such  little  horns  and  tips  of  letters  as  distinguish 
 1  from  "I,  2  from  3,  H  from  IT  The  Jews  said,  If  any  one,  in  Deut.  vi.  4, 
 changes  -7  into  -|,  he  shakes  the  universe,  for  he  makes  God  false  (inS)  instead 
 of  One.  If  in  Lev.  xxii.  32  he  changes  l"l  into  !"!,  he  shakes  the  universe,  for  he 
 says,  "  Ye  shall  not  praise  "  (Mnnn)  for  "  Ye  shall  not  profane  (17?nn)  the 
 name  of  the  Lord."     Vayyikra  Rabba,  f.  162,  1. 
 
 8  These  signs  on  letters  are  called  "crowns"  (D,-in3,  apices,  virgulae 
 supra  literas  notatae.  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Talm.  1111);  "points"  (JTTIpJ)  and 
 "  thorns  "  (D^lp).  These  are  purely  graphic  signs.  Somewordsare  "pointed" 
 in  the  law  (Aboth  of  R.  Nathan,  c.  33).  and  mystic  meanings  are  attached  to 
 every  one  of  them.  Thus,  in  Gen.  xxxiii.  4,  we  have  in'pb'l,  "  and  he  kissed 
 him  ; "  the  points  are  explained  to  mean  that  in  kissing  him  he  tried  to  bite 
 him,  but  Jacob's  neck  was  changed  into  marble,  so  that  Esau's  teeth  were 
 
Aqiba  and  Moses.  75 
 
 "  many  rules  unknown  to  Moses  were  declared  by  Aqiba." 
 In  one  Rabbinic  legend  Moses  sees  the  Holy  One  attaching 
 crowns  (nnm)  to  the  letters  of  the  alphabet,  and  on  asking 
 the  reason  is  informed  that  many  generations  afterwards  a 
 man,  Aqiba,  was  to  arise  who  would  found  on  those  tittles 
 innumerable  decisions.  Asking  to  see  him  in  vision,  Moses 
 is  annoyed  by  total  inability  to  understand  him,  and  is  only 
 consoled  by  hearing  him  remark,  "  This  '  decision '  was  de- 
 livered orally  to  Moses  on  Sinai."  l  The  Book  of  Canticles 
 was  as  favourite  a  field  for  mystical  interpretation  with  the 
 Tanaim  as  with  St.  Bernard  and  the  Victorines,  and  in  the 
 verse  "His  locks  are  bushy"  (Cant.  v.  11)  the  words  (D^n^n 
 vnwp)  were  explained  to  mean  that  from  every  ':  thorn  "  (pp), 
 or  letter-point,  whole  "  mountains  "  (pv»n)  of  "  decisions  "  can 
 be  deduced  ;  and  if  the  verse  adds  that  they  are  "  black  as  a 
 raven,"  the  meaning  is  that  these  "  decisions"  will  be  developed 
 by  him  who  is  dark  as  a  raven,  because  he  studies  them  from 
 morning  till  evening  ! 2  In  this  region  of  futile  and  fantastic 
 illusion  Aqiba  reigned  supreme.3 
 
 Similarly,  if  in  the  sacred  text  a  letter  was  larger  or 
 smaller  than  the  rest,  or  inverted,  or  suspended,  or  was 
 repeated,  or  omitted,  or  presented  any  other  peculiarity,  it 
 was  seized  upon  by  the  Rabbis  for  mystic  meanings.4 
 The  two    Yods5   in    "W*l    ("and   He   formed,"   Gen.   ii.   7) 
 
 blunted  (Wnnsche,  Bcrcschith  Rahbi,  p.  383  ;  Aboth  of  R.  Nathan,  c.  34). 
 In  Gen.  xix.  33,  the  \  in  TO'lpn-l  is  pointed.  In  Nazir,  f.  23,  1,  this  is  taken 
 as  indication  that  Lot  was  then  aware  of  his  sin.  Jerome  says,  "  appungunt 
 desuper  quasi  incrcdibile."  See  another  instance  in  Gen.  xviii.  9  (Hershon, 
 p.  300).     See  the  introduction  to  Olshausen  on  the  Psalms. 
 
 1  Menachoth,  f.  29,  2.  The  story  continues  to  say  that  Moses  exclaimed, 
 "Lord  of  the  Universe  !  Thou  hast  such  a  man,  and  Thou  delivercst  the  law 
 by  me  !  "  and  is  bidden  to  be  silent  because  such  was  God's  will.  Requesting 
 to  see  Alpha's  reward,  he  is  shown  his  flesh  weighed  (after  his  martyrdom)  in 
 the  shambles.  "  Lord  of  the  Universe  !  "  he  cries,  "such  learning,  and  such 
 reward  !  "  "  Re  silent,"  is  the  answer  :  "  it  is  my  will."  See  Weil,  iii.  268  ; 
 Hershon,  Genesis,  i. 
 
 2  Midrash,  Shir  JTasshirivi,  x.  11  fWunsohe,  p.  130)  ;  'Erubin,  f.  21,  2. 
 :!  Hirschfeld,  Ralach.  Exegese,  §  312  ;  Weber,  Altsyn.  Thcul.  117 
 
 4  Waehner,  Anliqq.  Ebr.  i.  105. 
 
 5  Qidduahin,f.  80,  1  :  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  i.  18,  pp.  42-45.  In  Lev.  xi.  42, 
 the  larger  1  in  the  word  pro  indicates  that  it  is  the  middle  letter  of  the  P<  d- 
 tateuch,  and  the  suspended  V  of'TlTD  in  Ps.  lxxx.  14,  thai  it  is  the  middle 
 letter  of  the  Psalms. 
 
76  Fantastic  Exegesis. 
 
 where  one  would  have  sufficed,  indicate  the  two  impulses 
 — the  good  and  evil  impulses  in  man.1  The  word  "  the  in- 
 crease," (naiD),  in  Is.  ix.  6,  is,  by  the  scribe's  inadvertence, 
 written  with  a  closed  or  final  Mem,  and  this  is  explained  to 
 mean  that  God  meant  to  make  Hezekiah  into  the  Messiah,  and 
 Sennacherib  into  Gog  and  Magog  ;  but  the  Attribute  of  Judg- 
 ment pleaded  that  this  would  be  unfair  to  David,  and  so  the 
 counsel  was  closed.2  In  Haggai  i.  8,  "  and  I  will  be  glorified  " 
 ("nDXl),  is  written  without  the  final  n ,  and  since  the  numer- 
 ical value  of  n  is  5,  the  omission  is  interpreted  to  mean 
 that  five  things — the  Shekhinah,  the  Ark,  the  Urim  and 
 Thummim,  the  sacred  fire,  and  the  Spirit  of  Prophecy — would 
 be  wanting  to  the  second  Temple.3  Similarly,  if  the  article 
 (n)  is  added  to  the  sixth  day  only  m  Gen.  i.  31,  it  is  to  show 
 that  the  world  only  existed  conditionally  on  the  obedience  of 
 Israel  to  the  Five  Books  of  Moses.  One  more  instance  will 
 suffice.4  The  Rabbis  are  concerned  to  explain  the  fact  that 
 in  one  of  the  alphabetic  Psalms  (Ps.  cxlv.)  there  is  no  verse 
 which  begins  with  the  letter  n  (:).5  The  reason  is,  said 
 Rabbi  Johanan,  because  there  is  a  verse  in  Amos  (v.  2) 
 which  begins  with  this  letter,  and  predicts  the  irretrievable 
 fall  of  Israel !  Sometimes  a  fantastic  change  of  reading  was 
 made  the  basis  of  a  mystic  explanation.  Thus,  in  Gen.  ii.  4, 
 by  a  slight  change,  for  "  when  they  were  created,"  the  Talmud 
 gets  "  He   created  them  with  the  letters  n  and  i "  (the  two 
 
 1  Yetscr  ha-rd  and  Yetscr  hattob,  Berachoth,  f.  61,  1.  Other  Rabbis  ex- 
 plained the  two  yocls  to  refer  to  Adam  and  Eve  ;  to  earth  and  heaven  ;  to  this 
 world  and  the  next.  Bereshith  Rabba  on  Gen.  ii.  7  (Wiinsche,  p.  62).  The 
 Yod  which  was  taken  from  the  name  of  Sarai  was  inconsolable  till  it  was  added 
 to  the  name  of  Joshua  !     Sanhedrin,  f.  107,  1. 
 
 2  Sanhedrin,  f.  94,  1.  Probably  the  closed  D  was  due  to  a  mere  clerical 
 error. 
 
 3  Yoma,  f.  21,  2  ;  "Waehner,  ii.  645 ;  Prideaux,  Connection,  i.  162-178. 
 
 4  Shabbath,  f.  88,  1  ;  Aboda  Zara,  f.  3,  1  ;  Hershon,  p.  77.  For  further 
 instances,  see  Sanhedrin,  f.  103,  2  ;  Baba  Bathra,  f.  109,  2  ;  Dopke's  Hcr- 
 meneutik. 
 
 B  Probably  the  verse  is  accidentally  lost,  for  in  the  LXX.  there  is  a  verse 
 which  would  in  Hebrew  begin  with  }.  This  verse  in  Amos  was  so  disagreeable 
 to  the  Rabbis  that  in  reciting  it  they  substituted  "  the  fall  [of  the  enemies']  of 
 Israel  ;  "  or  punctuated  as  follows  :  "  The  virgin  of  Israel  is  fallen  :  she  shall 
 no  more  [fall]  ;  rise."  R.  Nachman  bar  Isaac  thinks  that  in  prophetic  reference 
 to  this  verse,  David  wrote  "The  Lord  upholdeth  all  them  that  fall," 
 
Ba/rkokhba.  77 
 
 letters  of  His  name,  Jah),  and  proceeds  to  explain  that  the 
 reason  for  creating  this  world  with  n  was  because  that  letter 
 resembles  a  porch,  to  indicate  how  easy  it  is  to  go  out  and 
 plunge  into  vice  ;  but  there  is  an  opening  at  the  top  of  the 
 letter  to  show  that  repentance  will  readmit  the  wanderer  from 
 above.1  The  world  to  come  was  formed  with  the  little  letter 
 '   to  show  how  few  should  be  saved.2 
 
 In  exegesis  of  this  kind  indefinitely  multiplied,  the  great 
 Rabbi  spent  his  days.3  The  unhappy  fate  which  fell  upon 
 him,  the  ruin  which  he  helped  to  precipitate  upon  his 
 country  is  a  proof  of  the  very  small  amount  of  insight  which 
 such  methods  of  handling  Scripture  were  likely  to  produce. 
 In  some  of  his  decisions — for  instance  in  the  intense  rigidity 
 of  his  rules  about  hand-washing,  and  the  gross  laxity  of  his 
 views  about  divorce — it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  he  was  not 
 actuated  by  a  direct  spirit  of  antagonism  to  Christianity.4 
 It  may  have  been  partly  from  this  reason  that  he  openly 
 adopted  the  claims  to  Messiahship  put  forth  by  the  impostor 
 Barkokhba,  and  we  can  but  hope  that  he  did  not  inflame  the 
 fanatical  hatred  which  made  that  false  Messiah  the  sanguinary 
 persecutor  of  the  Christians.  But  in  any  case  the  Nemesis 
 of  the  outraged  letter  fell  upon  him.  In  the  passionate 
 desire  to  protect  Judaism  from  the  new  religion,  he  became 
 
 1   Mriiachoth,  f.  29,  2  ;  Hershon,  Genesis,  p.  92. 
 
 -  Sn-  Is.  xxvi.  4,  (rendered),  "  For  with  Jah  Jehovah  formed  the  world." 
 In  the  modern  Jewish  Liturgy  the  Ineffable  Name  is  usually  written 
 with  two  Yods  C"1) ;  in  the  Liturgy  of  the  Karaites  it  is  written  with  three 
 letters  (»V). 
 
 3  The  five  precepts  which  he  gave  to  R.  Simon  hen  Jochai  in  prison  are 
 neither  very  valuable,  nor  very  original,  viz. — 1.  If  you  would  hang  yourself, 
 choose  a  high  tree  (i.e.  appeal  to  hi^h  authorities  for  unpleasant  decisions). 
 2.  Teach  your  son  from  hooks  which  do  not  require  correction.  3.  Do  not 
 marry  b  widow.  4.  Unite  good  work  with  personal  profit.  5.  Combine  grati- 
 fication with  purity.  Pcsachim,  f.  112,  1.  For  four  of  his  Hayings  see  Aboth, 
 iii.  Ki-13. 
 
 4  Hi'  followed  Ilillel,  for  instance,  into  the  extreme  of  laxity  in  interpreting 
 the  famous  ervath  dabar  ("matter  of  uncleauness,"  Deut.  xxiv.  1).  HilleJ 
 had  said  that  a  man  might  divorce  his  wife  if  ahe  burned  his  food  ;  Aqiba  in 
 
 me  antagonism  i"  Christianity,  said  " even  if  he  saw  some  woman  who 
 pleased  him  better."  Oittin,  f.  90,  1.  Modern  Jews  explain  away  this  passage. 
 Jost,  Judenthv/m,  i.  264.  Aqiba's  scrupulosity  about  ablutions,  and  insistence 
 on  the  unity  of  Cod,  even  with  Ids  dying  br  ath,  probably  bad  a  polemical 
 significance.     See  Jost,  Judenthum,  ii.  62. 
 
78  Fate  of  Aqiba. 
 
 the  strange  Elias  of  a  ferocious  and  nameless  rebel.1  He 
 hailed  Barkokhba  as  the  Star  of  Balaam's  vision,  as  the  pro- 
 mised Deliverer  of  Israel ;  nor  would  he  heed  the  warning 
 of  the  less  impetuous  Rabbis,  who  said,  "  Aqiba,  the  grass 
 shall  grow  out  of  thy  jaws,  and  yet  the  Messiah  will  not  have 
 come."  There  was  nothing  which  could  save  Aqiba  or  his 
 nation,  either  morally  or  intellectually,  amid  their  idolism  of 
 esoteric  pedantry,  which,  passing  itself  off  as  a  comment  on 
 the  law,  treated  it  practically  as  a  field  for  the  display 
 of  casuistry.  Aqiba  died  at  a  very  advanced  age,  the  brave 
 martyr  of  an  ignoble  cause,  and  in  the  blood-stained 
 ruins  of  Bether2  not  only  the  schools  of  the  Rabbis,  but 
 the  Jewish  race  itself,  seemed  to  be  smitten  once  more 
 into  irretrievable  ruin  by  the  iron  hand  of  Rome.  Had 
 Aqiba  been  trained  in  truer  and  nobler  methods,  he  might 
 not  have  committed  the  gross  error  of  confusing  a  Barkoziba 
 with  a  Barkokhba — the  "  son  of  a  lie  "  with  the  "  son  of  a 
 star."  3 
 
 5.  Yet  once  more  Judaism  rose  from  the  ashes  in  which 
 it  seemed  to  have  been  consumed.  "  On  the  day  that 
 R.  Aqiba  died,"  says  Mar,  "  Rabbi  was  born ;  on  the  day 
 when  Rabbi  died  Rav  was  born  ;  on  the  day  when  Rav  died 
 Rava  was  born  ;  on  the  day  when  Rava  died  R.  Ashi  was 
 born.  The  sun  rises  and  the  sun  goes  down."  4  Before  the 
 ten    martyr   Rabbis    of  the    rebellion    had    died   they   had 
 
 1  Jewish  revolts  of  the  most  sanguinary  character  had  broken  out  in 
 Cyprus,  Egypt,  Cyrene,  and  Babylonia,  and  it  has  been  conjectured  that 
 Aqiba's  extensive  travels  may  have  had  something  to  do  with  them.  Jost, 
 Judcnth.  ii.  66.  On  Barkokhba's  rebellion  see  Dion  Cass.  lxix.  12-14  ; 
 Gratz,  iv.  157-197.  His  name  was  Simon,  and  if  Bar  Koziba  was  his  real 
 name  it  may  mean  that  he  was  born  at  Kezib. 
 
 s  BiOdripa,  Euseb.  IT.  E.  iv.  6.  Now  Belter  six  miles  S.S.W.  of  Jerusalem. 
 William's  Holy  City,  i.  209. 
 
 3  On  Aqiba  and  his  work,  see  Gratz,  iv.  53-66,  148-166,  427-431 ;  Jost, 
 Judenthum,  ii.  59-83  ;  Derenbourg,  c.  xxiv.  ;  Munk,  Palestine,  605-606  ; 
 Etheridge,  LTebr.  Lit.  66-76  ;  Hamburger  II.  s.v.  Bar  Kochba  ;  Milman, 
 Hist,  of  the  Jews,  ii.  bk.  xviii.  ;  Friedlander,  Geschichtsbilder,  pp.  68-81  ; 
 Frankel,  Zeitschr.  iii.  &c.  ;  and  the  numerous  interesting  particulars  of  his 
 life  in  Mr.  Hershon's  Genesis,  and  other  Talmudic  collections.  His  anticipa- 
 tion of  the  Mishna  is  mentioned  by  Epiphanius  and  he  is  alluded  to  by 
 Jerome,  In  Eccl.  iv.  13. 
 
 4  Ecc.  i.  5  ;  Qiddushin,  f.  72.  2.  The  assertion  is  not  historically  true,  but 
 represents  the  idea  of  the  Rabbinic  succession. 
 
Rabbi  Juda.  79 
 
 conferred  ordination  on  successors  who  retired  to  Ussa. 
 Among  these  successors  were  men  so  eminent  as  Rabbi 
 Simeon  ben  Jochai,  the  master  of  the  Qabbala,  the  legendary- 
 author  of  the  Zohar ;  Rabbi  Meir,  the  casuist,1  who,  re- 
 joicing in  the  Haggada,  could  tell  no  less  than  300  stories 
 about  foxes,  and  the  touch  of  whose  very  staff  was  enough 
 to  make  a  pupil  wise ;  and  Rabbi  Nathan,  the  author  of  the 
 celebrated  "  Sayings  "  which  go  by  his  name.  They  chose  as 
 their  Patriarch  Simon,  the  son  of  Gamaliel  II. ,  who  had  been 
 saved  as  a  schoolboy  from  the  massacre  of  Bether.  When 
 the  schools  of  Jabne  were  finally  broken  up  through  the 
 passionate  imprudence  which  led  Simon  ben  Jochai  to  burst 
 into  an  invective  against  the  Romans,  the  new  Patriarch 
 removed  about  A.D.  16G  to  Tiberias,  which  became,  for  many 
 years,  the  metropolis  of  Rabbinism.  He  was  succeeded  by 
 his  son,  R.  Juda.  A  man  often  shows  his  true  greatness  by 
 recognising  that  the  change  of  times  requires  the  change  of 
 institutions,  and  by  rejecting  restrictions  which  have  ceased 
 to  be  tenable.  This  was  the  case  with  Rabbi  Juda.  Down 
 to  his  time  the  traditions  of  the  Fathers  had  never  been  put 
 into  writing.2  A  collection  by  Rabbi  Cliija  was  known  as 
 Megillath  Setharvm,  or  "  secret  roll."  3  It  had  been  a  rule  of 
 the  Rabbis  that  what  had  been  delivered  orally  was  only  to 
 be  retained  by  the  memory.  That  rule  was  founded  on  the 
 principle  that  circumstances  change,  and  therefore  that  oral 
 decisions  ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  final  precedents.4  By 
 this  time,  however,  it  had  become  an  impossibility  to  retain 
 a  mass  of  precedents  so  heterogeneous  and  so  immense  as 
 those  which  had  been  accumulated  from  the  days  of  Ezra  to 
 those  of  Aqiba.  Accordingly  Rabbi  Juda,  for  the  first  time,  * 
 committed  to  writing  the  Oral  Law,  arranged  under  the  six 
 
 1  Sne  Oriitz,  iv.  193,  195,  237,  470.  Symmachos,  the  Greek  t  ran  slitter,  was 
 0116  of  his  pupils. 
 
 2  Joaephos  ami  Philo  refer  to  it  as  -rrapaSovis  &ypa(pos,  and  tUv  iraTtpoiv 
 StaSnxv-  In  Matt.  XV.  2-6  the  Oral  Law  is  called  TrapaSScrts  rwf  -Kpeafivripoiv 
 (comp.  .Mark  vii.  3-13).    St.  Paul  pointedly  speaks  of  "  the  tradition  of  men," 
 
 Col.  ii.  8  (maxn  miDO). 
 
 3  Gittin,  f.  CO,  2.  These  written  notes  were  meant  to  be  mere  private 
 memoranda  for  the  teacher's  own  use. 
 
 4  Hurwitz.     For  the  rule  see  Low,  p.  59. 
 
80  The  Mishna. 
 
 orders  of  Hillel's  classification.  By  tins  sensible  innovation 
 he  earned  such  gratitude  that  he  is  always  called  "  the  Holy," 
 or  "  the  Prince,"  or  "  Our  Master,"  or  simply  and  emphatically 
 by  the  mere  title  Rabbi,  as  though  no  other  were  worthy  to 
 be  compared  with  him.1 
 ji*  His  compilation  was  called  "  The  Mishna,"  "  learning,"  or 
 '*  Repetition,"  from  Shanah  (tana),  "  to  learn,"  or  "  repeat." 
 It  acquired  an  influence  truly  secular.  It  summed  up  the 
 labours  of  four  centuries.2  ,  The  Oral  Law  3  had  been  recog- 
 nised by  Ezra ;  had  become  important  in  the  days  of  the 
 Maccabees  ;  had  been  supported  by  Pharisaism  ;  narrowed  by 
 the  school  of  Shammai ;  codified  by  the  school  of  Hillel ; 
 systematised  by  R.  Aqiba ;  placed  on  a  logical  basis  by  R. 
 Ishmael ; 4  exegetically  amplified  by  R.  Eliezer ;  and  con- 
 stantly enriched  by  successive  Rabbis  and  their  schools. 
 Rabbi  put  the  coping-stone  to  the  immense  structure. 
 Thenceforth  the  Mishna  moulded  the  entire  theology  and 
 philosophy  of  Judaism.  The  publication  of  Tradition  put 
 an  end  to  the  independent  energy  of  the  Halakha,  and 
 closed  the  long  succession  of  the  Tanaim.  They  were 
 followed  by  a  new  race,  the  Amoraim,  who  were  rather 
 commentators  than  originators.  The  Mishna  became  the 
 bond  of  Jewish  nationality.     It  put  an  end  to  the  Patriarch- 
 
 1  Hakkodesh,  Hannasi,  Rabbenu,  Rabbi  Rabba.  Although  Rabbi's  viola- 
 tion of  the  accepted  rule  (Oittin,  f.  60)  is  quite  defensible,  the  same  cannot 
 be  said  of  the  distorted  exegesis  by  which  it  was  defended.  This  was  by 
 making  Ps.  cxix.  126  ("  It  is  time  for  thee,  Lord,  to  lay  to  thine  hand,  for  they 
 have  destroyed  thy  law")  mean  "When  we  work  for  God  we  may  break  His 
 law."  See  Bcrakhoth,  f.  69,  with  Rashi's  comment.  Idols  are  subservient 
 things,  and  when  men  make  an  idol  of  a  dead  letter,  they  are  never  at  a  loss 
 to  treat  it  as  a  thing  subservient  to  themselves. 
 
 2  Mishna  (Setn-epaxm,  Epiphan.)  is  derived  from  "OC,  not  from  rut^,  "the 
 repeated."  Thus  Deuteronomy  is  called  " Mishnah  Thorah."  The  names 
 Mikra  (what  is  read)  for  scripture  and  Mishna  for  .tradition  are  ancient.  See 
 Griitz,  iv.  419-422  ;  Deutsch,  Remains,  p.  17. 
 
 3  First  collected  by  R.  Aqiba,  enlarged  by  his  pupil,  R.  Meir,  and  finally 
 published  by  Rabbi  (see  Epiphan.  Haer.  i.  2,  9).  It  consists  of  Hillel's  six 
 orders  {Scdarim),  sixty-three  tractates  (Massiktoth),  and  524  chapters.  Rabbi 
 unfairly  suppressed  the  names  of  R.  Nathan  and  R.  Meir,  because  they  once 
 tried  to  undermine  the  haughty  authority  of  Rabbi's  father,  R.  Simeon  III. 
 R.  Nathan  is  quoted  by  the  formula  "some  say,"  and  Meir's  decisions 
 are  alluded  to  by  the  formula  "  others  say  "  (D^TOIN  CHIIX).  SeeWaehner, 
 i.  283.  The  additional  collections  of  R.  Chija,  Bar  Kappara,  &c,  were  called 
 Tosefla,  which  consists  of  fifty-two  treatises  and  383  chapters.     Low,  p.  77. 
 
 4  In  his  famous  thirteen  rules.     See  Friedlander,  I.e.  pp.  76-79. 
 
The  Work  of  Rabbi  81 
 
 ate,  of  which  it  was  the  child.  It  completed  that  "hedge 
 around  the  law "  which  henceforth  neither  persecution 
 nor  dispersion  could  destroy,  and  through  which  neither 
 Hellenism,  nor  Sadduceeism,  nor  Alexandrianism,  nor  Gnos- 
 ticism, nor  Christianity,  nor  the  Renaissance,  nor  the  Refor- 
 mation, nor  modern  scepticism,  down  to  the  days  of  Moses 
 Mendelssohn,  could  break  their  way.  This  strange  collection 
 of  completed  and  dead  "  decisions,"  being  treated  as  of  divine 
 authority,  superseded,  all  but  entirely,  the  Scriptures  on 
 which  they  professed  to  have  been  based.1  The  bold  initia- 
 tive of  Rabbi  stamped  on  Judaism  a  character  singularly  dry 
 and  juristic,  and  laid  upon  the  necks  of  all  Talmudic  Jews  a 
 yoke  unspeakably  more  empty  and  indefinitely  more  galling 
 than  that  of  which  St.  Peter  had  complained  even  in  days 
 when  the  observance  of  Mosaism  had  not  yet  been  rendered 
 impossible  by  the  fiat  of  History,  which  is  the  manifest 
 will  of  God.2 
 
 6.  Rabbi  died  A.D.  200.3  The  Talmudists  tell  endless  stories 
 of  his  wealth,  his  greatness,  his  friendship  with  the  Roman 
 Emperor  whom  they  call  Antoninus.  But  he  left  no  adequate 
 successor.  With  his  death  the  splendour  of  the  Patriarchate 
 at  once  declined.  The  scholastic  labours  and  discussions  of 
 Amoraim  (a.d.  200-500)  resulted  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud, 
 which  discusses  four  only  of  the  six  Mishnaic  orders.4     The 
 
 1  Pea,  ii.  5  ;  Yaddaim,  iv.  3  ;  Aboth,  ad  init. 
 
 -  Thus  there  is  an  entire  treatise  of  the  Mishna  abotit  mingled  seeds,  with 
 endless  discussions  about  agriculture,  which  the  Jews  have  ceased  to  practise 
 for  thousands  of  years  ;  and  this  is  only  one  of  many  treatises  which  deal  with 
 details  concerning  sacrifices  and  Temple  measurements  which  for  ages  have 
 ceased  to  have  the  slightest  meaning.  It  should,  however,  be  said  that 
 Rabbi's  innovations  were  all  on  the  side  of  greater  leniency.  See  Chulin,  f. 
 6,  2  (quoted  by  Dr.  Ginsbnrg,  .<?.r.  Jehudah,  Did.  of  Christian  Biogr.).  He 
 there  compares  himself  with  Hezekiah,  who  broke  in  pieces  the  brazen  ser- 
 pent.    For  one  of  his  noblest  sayings,  see  Aboth,  ii.  1. 
 
 3  On  the  life  and  w<nk  of  Rabbi,  see  Griitz,  iv.  210;  Friedlander,  pp.  96- 
 101.  If  he  was  friendly  with  any  emperor,  it  may  have  been  L.  Verus 
 Antoninus,  or  Caracalla.  He  had  neither  "speaker"  (chakam)  nor  Deputy 
 (Ab  BUh  Din)  under  him,  but  was  "the  first  spiritual  autocrat.'' 
 
 4  The  Jerushalnii  represents  traditionalism  rather  than  development,  and 
 hence  is  less  valued.  With  tlir  Targums  of  Onqelos  and  Ben  llzziel,  the 
 Mishna,  Tosephta,  Mekhiltha,  Siphra,  Siphrl,  and  Pesikhtha,  together  with 
 traces  in  Ecclesiastics,  Wisdom,  Tobit,  and  the  books  of  Maccabees,  it  forms 
 the  Primary  Tradition.  The  secondary  strata  of  tradition  are  found  in  the 
 Targ.  of  Ps.  Jonathan,  the  Babli,  and  the  Midrashim. 
 
 G 
 
82  The  Talmud. 
 
 Gemara,  or  "  completion,"  which,  with  the  Mishna,  makes  up 
 the  Babylonian  Talmud  '  in  its  complete  form — the  Babli  of 
 which  the  Jews  speak  with  such  enthusiastic  affection — was 
 completed  and  systematised  mainly  by  Rabbi  Ash!,  who  died 
 in  a.d.  427.2  The  Talmud  was  finally  closed  in  a.d.  490,  by 
 I  Rabbina  Abina,  the  last  of  the  Amoraim.  It  contains  the 
 long  studies  and  discussions  of  the  Jewish  schools,  "  the  fierce 
 lightnings  which  shook  the  rafters"  of  Nehardea,  Sora,  and 
 Pumbeditha.3  In  the  work  of  the  Palestinian  and  Baby- 
 lonian academies,  Edzard  sees  the  fulfilment  of  Zechariah's 
 vision  of  the  flying  roll.4  The  Gentiles  possessed  the  Law  in 
 Greek,  but  in  the  Mishna  and  Gemara  the  Jews  boasted  that 
 they  possessed  the  secret,  without  which  the  Law  was  value- 
 less. They  openly  made  more  use  of  the  Talmud  than  of 
 the  Bible,  preferring  their  broken  cisterns  to  the  waters  that 
 spring  from  the  living  rock. 
 
 7.  It  is  no  part  of  my  purpose  to  glance  at  the  farther 
 labours  of  the  Saboraim  (a.d.  500-650),  and  the  Gaonim  ;5  or 
 to  follow  the  devious  stream  of  mediaeval  Rabbinism.0  What- 
 ever may  have  been  the  special  services  to  Jewish  theology 
 
 1  Talmud,  "Learning,"  or  "Teaching."  See  Bartolocci,  Bill.  Rabb.  iii. 
 359.  The  commonest  edition  of  the  Talmud  is  that  of  Boniberg  (Venice, 
 1520)  in  twelve  folio  volumes,  but  the  Amsterdam  edition  is  of  special 
 importance  because  it  is  unexpurgated. 
 
 -  The  so-called  Yerushalmi  at  present  only  has  Gemara  to  less  than  two- 
 thirds  of  the  Mishna  ;  but  Dr.  Schiller-Szinessy  has  published  some  argu- 
 ments to  prove  that  it  once  extended  over  all  the  Six  Sedarim.  The  Babli  has 
 been  the  favourite  of  the  Jews,  owing  perhaps  to  that  fierceness  with  which  it 
 was  persecuted,  but  scholars  now  generally  incline  to  the  view  that  the 
 Yerushalmi  is  "in  every  way  superior  to  it  in  age,  in  conciseness,  in  lucidity, 
 in  the  value  of  its  contents."  See  Dr.  Schiller-Szinessy,  Occasional  Notices, 
 i.  p.  i. 
 
 s  Nehardea  was  on  a  canal  (Nahar)  which  joined  the  Euphrates  to  the  Tigris. 
 Sora  was  on  the  Euphrates.  The  school  there  was  founded  by  Rav  (R.  Abba 
 Arekka),  who  wrote  or  edited  the  Siphra  and  Siphrf,  and  died  in  243.  Pumbe- 
 ditha means  "  the  mouth  of  the  canal."  Ou  these  schools  and  their  teachers, 
 see  Furst,  Kultur-gcsch.  pp.  63-197. 
 
 4  Zech.  v.  1-4  ;  Pref.  to  Berakhoth  ;  see  Chiarini,  ii.  41. 
 
 5  Saboraim,  "investigators,"  from  Sabar,  "to  observe."  Gaonim,  "excel- 
 lent," was  the  title  taken  by  the  heads  of  the  college  at  Sora,  and  Rabbanim 
 by  those  at  Pumbeditha.     See  Maimonides,  Pref.  to  Yad  Hachazaka. 
 
 6  Griitz  divides  this  period  into  that  of  scientific  Rabbinism  in  Spain  (1040- 
 1230),  and  one-sided  Rabbinism  down  to  Moses  Mendelssohn  (1230-1780). 
 See  the  Excursus. 
 
Mediaeval  Rabbis.  83 
 
 of  Rashi  the  "  Exegete;"  of  Ibn  Ezra; l  of  Maimonides,  "  the 
 Eagle  of  the  Rabbis,"  2  and  "  the  Light  of  the  West ; "  3 
 of  Simeon  Haddarshan  ; 4  of  the  Qimchis,  David  and 
 Moses  ;  5  of  Abrabanel  ;  °  and  of  others — these  all  of  them 
 continue  the  essential  principles  of  Rabbinic  exegesis,  al- 
 though in  forms  more  scientific  and  philosophical.  Maimo-  ^_ 
 nides  may  indeed  be  regarded  as  the  founder  of  Jewish 
 Rationalism,  the  first  who  strove  to  harmonise  science 
 with  religion.  As  such  he  was  anathematised  by  his 
 stricter  countrymen.  But  it  is  not  till  the  days  of  Moses 
 Mendelssohn  that  a  breath  of  true  renovation  begins  to 
 pass  over  the  valley  in  which  for  so  long  a  period  the 
 bones  had  been  so  dry.  Nor  again  will  it  be  possible  here  to 
 speak  of  the  Karaites  7 — those  Protestants  of  Judaism — who 
 from  the  days  of  Anan  ben  David  have  exercised  a  powerful 
 influence,  but  who,  rejecting  the  Talmud,  and  maintaining 
 the  sole  authority  of  Scripture,  have  worked  for  the  most 
 part  outside  the  sphere  of  acknowledged  Judaism.8 
 
 IV.  But  it  is  now  time  to  ask,  What  is  the  main  result 
 of  these  many  centuries  of  Rabbinic  exegesis,  beginning 
 practically  with  the  first  prominence  of  the  Oral  Law  in 
 the  age  of  Ezra  (B.C.  457),  and  continuing  almost  unaltered 
 to  the  days  of  Moses  Mendelssohn  (a.d.  1780)  ? 
 
 1  See  Buxtorf,  De  Ablrcvialuris,  p.  170.  "Parshandatha,"  was  explained 
 to  mean  "  interpreter  of  the  law."  He  died  a.d.  1102.  He  commented  on 
 tin  entire  Old  Testament.  His  comments  on  grammar,  and  the  literal 
 .ere  full  of  value,  but  he  follows  the  Talmud  and  the  Midrashim. 
 
 -  Ibn  Ezra,  born  al  Toledo,  A.D.  1092,  died  in  Rome,  11G7.  He  is  a  Tal- 
 mudist,  but  with  some  Karaite  leanings. 
 
 3  Rambam.  R.  Moses  ben  Maimon,  born  at  Cordova,  1135,  died  in 
 Palestine,  1204.  "  From  Moses  to  Moses  no  one  has  risen  like  Moses."  He 
 was  not  a  professed  commentator,  but  his  Moreli  Ncvochim  and  Yad  Ilaeha- 
 zaka  are  full  of  exegetical  remarks.  His  comparatively  free  attitude  towards 
 the  Talmud  offendea  many  .lews.  "  He  was  the  speculative  parent  of  Spinoza 
 and  of  Mendelssohn."     Milman,  iii.  151. 
 
 4  Author  of  the  Jalqut  Sliimconi,  a  Midrashic  commentary  on  the  Old 
 Testament. 
 
 6  David  Qimchi's  comments  are  chiefly  grammatical.  The  grammar  of 
 Moses  Qimchi  (Dwrki  Leshon  S ahkodesh,  Way  to  the  Boly  Language)  was  of 
 great  use  to  the  early  Humanists  ami  liYformers.  The  Jews  said  of  David's 
 labours,  "No  law  without  the  miller"  (qucmach),  playing  on  the  name 
 Qimchi.  6  Don  Isaac  Abrabanel,  born  I486,  died  l.">0r. 
 
 7  They  are  said  to  date  from  the  days  ofShemaia,  the  colleague  of  Abtalion. 
 Gratz,  iv.  5.  8  See  Excursus  on  the  Karaites. 
 
 G   2 
 
84  The  Halakha. 
 
 Setting  aside  the  valuable  services  of  the  Massorets  to 
 textual  criticism,1  the  main  contributions  cf  Rabbinism  to 
 the  exegesis  of  the  Old  Testament  are  found  in  the  Targums, 
 in  the  Talmud,  and  in  the  Midrashim.  These  contain  the 
 sum  total  of  Jewish  enlightenment,  on  the  subject  of  Scrip- 
 ture for  hundreds  of  years,  and  though  their  authority  is  now 
 more  or  less  denied  by  the  more  liberal  schools  of  Jewish 
 thought,  they  still  form  the  basis  of  interpretation  among 
 multitudes  of  foreign  synagogues  all  over  the  world. 
 
 All  that  is  exegetical  in  this  immense  cyclopaedia  of  Jewish 
 literature  falls  under  the  three  heads  of  the  Halakha,  the 
 Haggada,  and  the  Qabbala. 
 
 i.  The  word  Halakha  means  "Decision,"  norm,  systematised 
 legal  precept.  It  is  a  Rabbinic  word,  derived  from  halaJch,  to 
 walk.  It  is  used  to  express  the  accepted  conclusion  arrived 
 at  after  discussion,  and  to  be  followed  in  practice  as  a  supple- 
 ment to  the  provisions  of  the  Written  Law.2 
 
 The  Mishna  is  all  but  exclusively  composed  of  these 
 decisions.  It  defines  all  matters  of  civil  and  religious 
 interest  for  the  Jews.  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  corpus 
 juris  of  Judaism.  As  exegesis  it  is  nearly  valueless.  The 
 very  rules  by  which  it  was  developed,  the  very  principles 
 on  which  it  was  founded,  were,  as  we  have  partly  seen, 
 fantastic  and  untenable ;  nay,  in  many  essential  instances 
 subversive  of  the  most  sacred  principles  of  the  Mosaic 
 legislation.     Nothing   is   more  .  certain  than  that  the   mass 
 
 1  On  the  Massorah,  see  Etheridge,  205  :  Ginsburg,  Elias  Lcvita,  pp.  101, 
 102,  120,  121.  They  applied  to  it  Caut.  iii.  8  (it  was  regarded  as  a  sword  to 
 defend  the  law).  Oomp.  Rashi,  ad  loc.  and  Aboth,  iii.  13.  For  lists  of  the 
 words  written  with  majuscular  letters,  see  Ginsbnrg's  Elias  Lcvita,  p.  230.  He 
 does  not  admit  Mr.  Black's  theory  that  they  form  a  chronogram. 
 
 2  In  Ex.  xxi.  1,  the  Targums,  both  of  Onqelos  and  Jon.  ben  Uzziel.use  the  word 
 
 Halakha,  as  the  equivalent  of  t3B"'??.  In  Aramaic  it  is  Hilkheta  (ND^?!"!), 
 which  in  Baal  Aruc  is  defined  as  "res  quae  it  et  venit  ab  initio  usque  adfinem." 
 Buxtorf  defines  Halakha  as  "  constitutio  juris,  scntcntia,  decisio,  tradaio 
 decisa,  .  .  .  secundum   quam   inccdendum   et  vive?idum."     Lex.   Talm.    s.v. 
 
 T\"27T),  where  he  renders  it  Ein  Endurthcil.  For  a  classification  of  Halakhoth, 
 see  Maimonides,  Pref.  to  the  explanation  of  the  Mishna  ;  Chiarini,  i.  174  ; 
 Etheridge,  178.  The  Mishna  consists  of:  1.  Halakhoth.  2.  Midrash— the 
 development  of  Halakhoth  by  exegetic  rules.  3.  Talmud  in  narrower  sense — 
 fresh,  argumentative  applications.     It  has  525  chapters,  4,187  paragraphs. 
 
Futile  Inferences.  85 
 
 of  precepts  in  the  Mosaic  law  are  of  obvious  import,  and 
 were  intended  to  be  understood  in  their  plain  and  literal 
 sense.1  The  Rabbis  themselves,  in  their  more  sober  moods, 
 admitted  this.2  Yet  such  an  admission  was  opposite  to  their 
 habitual  practice.  We  find  Rabbi  Juda  saying,  "He  that 
 renders  a  verse  of  Scripture  as  it  appears  {i.e.  literally)  says 
 what  is  not  true."  "  He  who  adds  to  it,"  he  continues,  "  is  a 
 blasphemer."  Yet  the  additions  which  the  Rabbis  made  to 
 it  multiplied  its  bulk  a  thousandfold,  and  that  with  the  most 
 frivolous  minutiae.  Rabbi  Eliezer  glorified  himself  because 
 he  could  deliver  300  Halakhoth  about  Egyptian  cucumbers,3 
 and  there  were  300  undisputed  Halakhoth  about  "  the  tower 
 that  floats  in  the  air."  4  Nay,  even  Onqelos  and  the  Septua- 
 gint  translators  are  admitted  to  have  made  both  additions 
 and  alterations.5  The  Rabbis  were  not  at  a  loss  to  account 
 for  these  facts.  The  Halakhoth,  they  said,  were  a  part  of  the 
 Oral  Law  delivered  to  Moses  on  Sinai.6  Like  the  ever- widen- 
 ing, yet  ever-fainter,  circle  on  the  broken  surface  of  a  lake, 
 the  ripples  of  an  indefinitely  expanded  legalism  spread  long 
 after  all  trace  of  the  first  waves  had  died  away. 
 
 Once  in  the  school  of  Tiberias  the  pupils  of  Rabbi  Eliezer 
 and  of  Rabbi  Jose  fell  into  a  fierce  quarrel  about  the  lawful- 
 ness of  using  on  the  Sabbath  a  bolt  with  a  knob.  The 
 former  said  it  might  not  be  used  ;  the  latter  said  it  might  be 
 used,  since  it  was  lawful  on  the  Sabbath  to  use  a  bolt  with  a 
 knob  to  mash  garlic.  In  their  rage  they  actually  tore  asunder 
 a  roll  of  the  Law.7  The  roll  of  the  Law  was  to  all  intents 
 and  purposes  torn  asunder  daily  in  the  disputes  of  the 
 Rabbis.  The  foolish  questionings,  strifes,  "  legal  battles," 
 (fidyaL  vofxi/cal,  Tit.  iii.  9),  and  "  word-fightings  "  (Xoyo/idxiar, 
 1  Tim.   vi.  4),  about  which  St.  Paul  speaks,  furnish  us  with 
 
 1  Deut.  xxv.  11-14. 
 
 -  See  Chiarini,  i.  54,  quoting  Shabbath,  f.  63,  1. 
 inhedrin,  f.  68,  1. 
 
 4  See  Sanhedrin,  f.  106,  2,  referring  to  Is.  xxxiii.  18,  ""Where  is  lie  who 
 
 COUlltcd   tile  towers  ?  "       See    Kaslli,  ml  /or. 
 
 5  Megilla,  f.  3,  1 ;  f.  9,  1.  , 
 
 8  This  was  rail,.,]  the  TDO  ni"E7  n3?n,  Halakha  Ic-Moshcsh  Missinai, 
 Qidduahin,  f.  lt»,  1. 
 
 7  Yebaniotli,  f.  M,  '_>.     Sec  Raahion  Eccl.  be.  17. 
 
86  Contradictions. 
 
 the  closest  description  of  what  went  on  in  the  Jewish  schools. 
 For  although  the  "  decisions  "  were  set  even  above  Scripture  ; 1 
 though  God  Himself  is  represented  as  repeating  them  in  the 
 names  of  the  Rabbis  from  whom  they  had  emanated ; 2 
 though  heaven  is  described  as  an  academy  in  which  the 
 angels  play  the  part  of  the  "  associates  ; "  though  we  are  told 
 with  frank  blasphemy  that  the  soul  of  a  Rabbi  was  sum- 
 moned to  decide  when  the  Supreme  and  the  Angels  were 
 taking  opposite  sides  in  a  question  about  leprosy ;  though 
 not  even  such  miracles  as  the  pillars  of  the  room  bending  at 
 a  word,  and  a  caroub-tree  plucked  up  by  the  roots,  and  water 
 running  up  hill,  and  even  an  utterance  of  the  Bath  Qol, 
 are  sufficient  to  establish  a  "  decision  "  against  the  majority 
 of  the  Rabbis  ; 3  though  the  most  tremendous  curses  are  pro- 
 nounced against  those  who  resist  such  a  decision,4  yet  there 
 was  scarcely  a  single  Rabbinic  precept  about  which  there 
 were  not  eager  and  sometimes  even  savage  dissensions. 
 There  were,  for  instance,  numberless  disagreements  between 
 the  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai,  and  the  Rabbis  had  to 
 come  to  the  futile  conclusion,  that  opposite  decisions  are 
 equally  the  word  of  God.5     Yet  the  Talmudists  themselves 
 
 1  Baba  Metsi'a,  f.  331.  In  Gittin,  f.  60,  2,  this  is  argued  from  Ex.  xxxiv. 
 27.  "  For  after  the  tenor  (lit.  '  upon  the  mouth  ')  of  these  words  have  I  made 
 a  covenant  with  Israel."  On  Kabbinic  modifications  of  special  laws  see 
 Oastelli,  La  Lcgge  (1884) ;  Salschutz,  Der  mosaischc  Recht,  and  Edersheim, 
 Proph.  and  Hist.  pp.  384-391. 
 
 2  In  Pesiktha  of  R.  Kahana,  f.  40,  1.  Moses  ascending  heaven  hears  the 
 Holy  One  reading  the  Parasha  about  the  Red  Heifer,  and  repeating  the  Halakha 
 about  it  in  the  name  of  R.  Eliezer.  So  too  Bammidbctr  Rabba,  c.  19.  Stories 
 still  more  shocking  to  our  views  are  found  in  Shemoth  Rabba,  cc.  30  and  43. 
 Vatjyikra  Rabba,  c.  19  (Weber,  18,  19). 
 
 3  See  the  remarkable  story  in  Baba  Metsia,  f.  59,  2.  The  miracle  worker 
 was  the  excommunicated  R.  Eliezer.  An  Halakha  was  sometimes  left  un- 
 certain with  the  formula,  lpTl,  which  is  explained  to  be  a  mnemonic  form  for 
 "the  Tishbite  (Fdijah)  will  settle  doubts  ; " — and  in  other  ways,  for  which  see 
 Buxtorf,  Lex.  2588. 
 
 4  Megilla,  f.  28,  2  ;  Buxtorf,  Lex.  p.  612. 
 
 6  In  favour  of  this  view  they  quoted  Ex.  xx.  1  ;  Eccl.  xii.  11  ;  Chagigah, 
 f.  3,  2  ;  Gittin,  f.  6,  2  ;  Yebamoth,  f.  15,  2  (where  R.  .Joshua  thinks  that  to 
 decide  between  them  would  belike  crushing  his  head  between  two  great  moun- 
 tains). They  dispute  which  was  created  first — earth  or  heaven,  Tamid.  f. 
 31,  2  ;  about  divorce  (Gittin,  f.  90,  1 — a  dispute  of  which  we  find  traces  even 
 in  the  Gospels,  Matt.  v.  31,  32  ;  xix.  3-12)  ;  about  the  cleanness  of  wine  and 
 oil  (Shabbath,  f.  17,  1)  ;  about  the  order  in  which  blessings  were  to  be  given 
 (Succah,    f.    56,    1) ;  and  about  numberless  other  subjects.     Sometimes   the 
 
Phylacteries.  87 
 
 confess  that  "  as  the  disciples  of  Hillel  and  Shammai  multi- 
 plied, who  had  not  studied  the  Law  thoroughly,  contentions 
 increased  in  Israel  to  such  an  extent  that  the  Law  lost  its 
 unity  and  became  as  two."  x  Having  thrust  a  book  between 
 men  and  God,  and  a  tradition  between  men  and  the  book 
 they  thrust  themselves  between  men  and  the  tradition,  and 
 so — once  more  like  the  mediaeval  priesthood — built  upon 
 ignorance  and  superstition  a  terrific  usurpation.2 
 
 The  object  of  the  Halakha  was  the  indefinite  development  <^ 
 of  rules  to  meet  every  conceivable  case  in  which  a  legalist 
 might  be  supposed  to  be  in  doubt.  "  The  real,"  says  Gothe, 
 "  is  narrow  ;  the  possible  is  immense."  The  Halakhoth  were 
 a  system  of  scholasticism  applied  to  ritual.3  Take,  by  way  of 
 illustration,  the  case  of  phylacteries.  It  must  be  regarded 
 as  an  open  question  whether  the  law  about  phylacteries  was 
 ever  intended  to  be  taken  literally.4  The  Karaites  have 
 always  rejected  them.5  Jerome  comes  to  the  conclusion 
 that  the  injunction  on  which  they  are  founded  merely  meant 
 that  the  Law  was  to  be  carried  into  action,  and  to  be 
 meditated  day  and  night.  But  even  if  it  be  granted  that  the 
 use  of  phylacteries  was  intended,  of  what  exegetical  value  are 
 the  huge  folio  pages  of  minute  discussion  as  to  their  shape, 
 size,  and  construction,  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  knot  of  them 
 was  to  be  made,  as  to  the  question  whether  they  are  worn  by 
 God  Himself  or  not  ? 6     The  same  remark  applies  even  more 
 
 scholars  even  came  to  blows  and  bloodshed  (see  the  authorities  quoted  in  .Tost 
 Gcsch.  d.  Is?:  iii.  118). 
 
 1  Sanhedrin,  f.  88,  2.     Tiny  applii  d  the  phrase   "a  rock  of  offence  to  both 
 the  bouses  of  Israel,"   to  the    schools   of  Hillel   and    Shammai.       See 
 Comment,  in  Jsaiam,  ad  loc. 
 
 -  They  openly  declared  that  without  their  interpretations  tin'  Law 
 
 <>f  unintelligible  signs.     Bammidbar  Etabba,  §  14.     They  first  made  the 
 Oral  Laws  the  Written  ;  then  "the  Words  of  the  Wise,"am 
 
 the  Scribes ;"  and  then  made  these  Ias1  more  sacred  than  all. 
 
 s  There  were  millions  of  possible  Halakhoth.     "Every  word  of  the  Thora 
 can  be  explained  in  seventy  ways."     Bammidbar  Etabba,  S  13.     Et.  Eliezer  has 
 
 3C0  Halakhoth  ah.  :;i  onecaseoi  leprosy.  Sanhedrin,  f.  25,  2.  :'•. (Halakhoth 
 
 were  forgotten  in  tin-  mourning  for  Moses.     Temoorah,  f.  15,  •_'. 
 
 4  Oi  <  1 1 1  v  figuratively,  like  Prov.  iii.  3. 
 
 -  Ex.  xih.  !'. 
 
 '■  Berakhcth  (Schwab,  p.  241). 
 
5k 
 
 88  Precedent. 
 
 forcibly  to  the  elaborate  regulations  about  fringes1  and 
 ablutions,  and  the  endless  disputations  about  the  Sabbath 
 and  the  major  and  minor  prohibitions  with  which  the  Jews 
 surrounded  it.2  One  whole  treatise  of  the  Mishna,  that  known 
 as  "  The  Egg,"  3  derives  its  name  from  the  question  discussed 
 in  it  as  to  whether  an  egg  laid  on  the  Sabbath  or  a  festival 
 may  or  may  not  be  eaten — a  question  on  which  the  great 
 soul  of  Moses  would  have  looked  with  infinite  contempt.4 
 The  Rabbis  themselves  compared  these  masses  of  inferential 
 precepts  to  a  mountain  dangling  by  a  single  hair. 
 
 In  Rabbinic  teaching  precedent  reigned  supreme.  Hillel, 
 after  arguing  for  a  whole  day  in  vain  against  the  Beni 
 Bethira  that  the  Paschal  lamb  must  be  offered  on  the 
 Sabbath,  not  only  wins  his  cause,  but  is  made  president  of 
 the  schools,  when  he  quotes  the  decision  of  Shemaia  and 
 Abtalion.  The  predominant  formulae  of  the  Talmud  are 
 appeals  to  the  assertions  of  Rabbis.5  And  the  Rabbis  pro- 
 tected the  whole  system  to  the  uttermost,  just  as  clerical 
 orders  often  defend  the  usurpations  of  priestcraft.  Pro- 
 fessional pedants  felt  the  strong  fascination  of  wielding 
 despotic  power  over  the  souls  of  all  who  could  be  induced  by 
 terror,  by  custom,  or  by  self-interest  to  accept  their  sway. 
 
 ii.  The  Haggada,6  although  it  had  its  own  feebleness  and 
 
 1  JTV^.  One  of  the  appendices  to  the  Talmud  is  devoted  to  fringes.  For 
 an  ingenious  argument  in  favour  of  the  necessity  of  the  Halakha,  see  Grand- 
 Rabbi  Klein,  Le  Juda'isme,  pp.  12-17. 
 
 2  On  Phylacteries,  Fringes,  Sabbath  rules,  see  a  paper  by  the  present  writer 
 in  the  Expositor,  v.  215,  sq.  The  major  and  derivative  prohibitions  {aboth 
 and  toldoth)  as  regards  the  Sabbath  are  enumerated  in  Shabbath,  f.  73,  1. 
 See  too  the  extracts  from  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  given  by  Hausrath,  New 
 Test.  Times  (E.T.),  i.  95.  On  ablutions,  see  Mark  vii.  1-4;  Berakhoth, 
 viii.  3,  and  the  entire  Mishnaic  tract  Yadaim  (Hand-washings). 
 
 3  Bttza. 
 
 4  Similarly  ajjoundless  extension  was  given  to  the  humane  precept  not  to 
 seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk.  Flesh  and  milk  are  not  to  be  eaten  together, 
 otherwise  the  kid  might  be  seethed  in  its  mother's  milk  in  the  stomach  of  the 
 eater ! 
 
 5  Such  as  Tanu  Rabbanan,  "our  Rabbis  have  taught;"  Tani  chada,  "a 
 certain  Rabbi  has  taught ;  "  "Another  has  taught ;  "  "  We  have  a  tradition  ;  " 
 "  It  is  a  Mishna,"  &c.     "  The  scribes  say,"  Mark  ix.  11. 
 
 fi  rflJX  is  the  Aramaic  form  for  the  Hebrew  mJil,  and  it  is  derived  from 
 TJ3,  narravit,  of  which  Haggada  is  the  Hiphel  form  (Hamburger,  s.v.). 
 Buxtorf  defines  it  as  "  Narratio,  enarratio,  historia  jucunda  et  subtilis,  dis- 
 cursus  historicus  aut  thcologicus  dc  aliquo  loco  Scripturae  jticundus,  animum 
 lector  is  attrahens." 
 
The  Haggada.  89 
 
 its  own  absurdities,  was,  on  the  whole,  a  nobler  and  more 
 human  development  of  teaching.  The  word  may  be  rendered 
 by  "  story  "  or  legend.  In  its  practical  usage  it  corresponds 
 to  our  "  homiletics,"  but  its  admonitions  were  mingled  with 
 fables  and  apologues.  It  was  never  supposed  to  possess  any 
 legal  authority.1  "  If,"  says  Dr.  Deutsch,  "  the  Halakha 
 was  the  iron  bulwark  around  the  nationality  of  Israel,  the 
 Haggada  was  a  maze  of  flowery  walks  within  those  fortress 
 walls." 
 
 Such  teaching  was  obviously  more  attractive,  and  might  be 
 made  far  more  edifying  than  ritual  decisions  could  ever  be.2 
 "The  words  of  the  Haggada,"  said  the  Jewish  proverb,  "at- 
 tract the  mind."  3  It  dealt  largely  with  moral  theses,  and  the 
 wisest  Rabbis  felt  that  the  Halakha  and  the  Haggada  should 
 be  combined.  "  Whoever,"  says  Rabbi  Isaac  ben  Pinchas, 
 "  has  learnt  Haggadoth  without  Halakhoth  has  not  tasted 
 of  wisdom,  and  is  defenceless  ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  he  has 
 studied  Halakhoth  without  Haggadoth  he  has  not  tasted 
 the  fear  of  sin." 4  "  Between  the  rugged  boulders  of  the 
 Law,"  says  Dr.  Deutsch,  "there  grow  the  blue  flowers  of 
 romance  and  poetry — parable,  gnome,  tale,  saga — its  elements 
 are  taken  from  heaven  and  earth ;  but  chiefly  and  most 
 lovingly  from  Scripture  and  from  the  human  heart."  5 
 
 The   Haggada   sprung    into    importance   in   the   days   of  ^- 
 Rabbi    Johanan   ben   Zakkai,  when   the    stricken  hearts  of 
 the  Jews  were  most  in   need  of  consolation.     The   stricter 
 
 1  Schwab  (Berakhoth,  xv.)  refers  to  Jer.  Pcd.  ii.  §  4  ;  Shabbath,  xvi.  §  1  ; 
 and  to  the  opinions  of  Maimonides,  Juda  Halevi,  Ibn  Ezra,  &c.  See  too  the 
 numerous  quotations  in  Klein,  Le  Judaisnnc  pp.  23 — 28. 
 
 •  The  Halakha,  for  instance,  contains  nothing  so  spiritual  as  B.  Simlai's 
 reduction  of  the  613  precepts  to  one.     Griitz,  iv.  265. 
 
 n  n^H  D»3B>H3  iTUK  nm.  Chiarini,  i.  63.  "  Quaedam  i a  illis,"  says 
 Ibn  Ezra,  "sunt  aenigmata,  arcana,  et  parabolae  sublimes  usque  ad  aethers. 
 Aliae  inserviunt  ad  refocillanda  corda  defotigata.  Aliae  .  .  .  similes  sunt  cor- 
 poribus  ;  allegoriae  autem  sunt  veluti  vistimenta  corpoii  adhaerentia.  Aliae 
 snnt  subfiles  instar  serici,  aliae  crassae  veluti  succus." 
 
 4  Aboth  of  R.  Nathan,  o.  29.  I  have  pointed  out  elsewhere  that  St.  Paul 
 was  ati  Haggulist,  and  treats  the  Halakha  with  marked  indifference.  But  he 
 uses  Rabbinic  methods  very  rarely,  and  only  by  way  of  passing  illustration, 
 and  only  for  noble  purposes. 
 
 5  Remains,  p.  145. 
 
90  The  Haggada. 
 
 Talrnudists  professed  to  despise  it.  R.  Joshua  ben  Levi 
 said  that  he  who  wrote  it  down  would  have  no  portion  in 
 the  world  to  come,  and  that  he  who  explained  it  would  be 
 scorched.1  R.  Leiri,  in  the  Maaseroth,  curses  all  writings 
 that  contain  the  Haggada.2  When  the  mass  of  the  people 
 deserted  Rabbi  Chija,  who  was  lecturing  on  the  Halakha,  for 
 Rabbi  Abuhu,  who  was  a  Haggadist,  the  latter,  in  order 
 to  console  the  wounded  jealousy  of  his  rival,  compared  the 
 Halakha  to  pearls  which  were  too  costly  for  the  multitude 
 who  therefore  deserted  the  merchant  who  sold  them  for  the 
 modest  pedlar  who  sold  only  shells  or  sweetmeats.  It  was 
 also  compared  to  small  coin.3  But  its  value  and  neces- 
 sity were  more  and  more  recognised  as  time  went  on. 
 The  people  found  in  it  more  comfort  and  more  reality 
 than  in  the  aridity  of  the  Halakha.  The  Mishna  has  but 
 few  specimens  of  it ;  the  Gemara  abounds  with  it ;  the 
 Midrashim  have  little  else.  The  Halakha  was  compared  to 
 bread,  the  Haggada  to  water  ; 4  it  is  called  one  of  the  wonders 
 of  God,  and  the  honour  and  glory  of  the  wise.5  In  Siphri  it 
 is  compared  to  wine  which  gladdens  the  heart  of  man  ;  and 
 even  though  Maimonides  never  wrote  his  promised  book  on 
 the  Haggadoth,  he  compared  them  to  baskets  of  silver 
 which  hide  apples  of  gold.6 
 
 1  Etheridge,  Heir.  Lit.  p.  183. 
 
 2  Chiarini,  ii.  44.  "  Rabbi  ben  Levi  said,  "  He  wbo  writes  an  Haggada  has 
 no  portion  in  the  world  to  come.  ...  In  all  my  life  I  have  never  even  looked 
 at  a  book  of  the  Haggada."  Jer.  Shabbath,  c.  xvi.  On  the  other  hand,  P. 
 Chaneenah  bar  Pappa  taught  (Dent.  v.  4),  "The  Lord  talked  with  you  faces 
 to  faces  (D^S2  D^JQ).  This  must  mean  at  least  four  faces  ;  for  Scripture  a 
 face  for  fear ;  for  Mishna  a  moderate  face  ;  smiling  for  the  Talmud,  and 
 friendly  for  the  Haggada."     Sopherim,  c.  xvi. 
 
 3  Sota,  f.  40  ;  Weill,  i.  126  ;  Gratz,  iv.  396.  For  a  specimen  see  Weill,  i. 
 154-162,  and  the  Yalqut  on  Zechariah  translated  by  Dr.  King  (Cambr. 
 1883). 
 
 4  Chagiga,  f.  14. 
 
 5  Baba  Lathra,  f.  9  ;  Midrash  Tchillin,  on  Prov.  25  ;  Weill,  i.  125. 
 
 6  Prov.  xxx.  11.  Maimonides,  Pref.  to  Moreh  Nevochim.  Gratz  compares 
 the  Halakha  to  the  trunk  of  Judaism  ;  the  Midrash  to  the  roots  ;  the  logical 
 developments  ("  Talmud"  in  narrower  sense)  to  the  branches  ;  and  the  Hag- 
 gada to  the  flowers,  iv.  19.  The  close  translation  of  the  lesson  from  the 
 Law  (the  Parasha)  by  the  Methurgerman,  and  the  freer  rendering  of  that 
 from  the  Prophets  (the  Haphtara)  is  analogous  to  the  use  of  the  Halakha  in 
 developing  the  Law,  and  of  the  Haggada  as  applied  to  ether  parts  of  Scripture . 
 
The  Talmud.  91 
 
 And  thus  the  stream  of  the  Haggada,  long  pent  up,  began 
 to  flow  with  full  waters,  bearing  along  a  mingled  mass  of 
 fables,  apologues,  appeals,  similitudes,  proverbs,  quaint  legends, 
 moral  applications,  allegory,  folk-lore,  romance,  and  aphorism.1 
 Its  object  was  sometimes  to  arouse  the  attention  fatigued  by 
 the  dryness  of  ceremonial  discussions ;  sometimes  to  thwart  the 
 curiosity  of  prying  intruders  by  safe  and  convenient  crypto- 
 graphs ;  sometimes  to  lighten  up  an  address  by  pleasant 
 illustrations  ;  sometimes  to  leave  a  mystery  in  its  enigmatic 
 shadows.-2  It  played  undisturbed  over  the  surface  of  the 
 Historic  books.  It  is  mainly  due  to  the  presence  of  some  of 
 the  wildest  Hasrgadoth  in  the  Gemara,  and  in  great  measure  to 
 the  misunderstanding  of  their  real  character,  that  the  Talmud 
 has  acquired  its  common  reputation  for  folly  and  perversity. 
 
 V.  Since,  then,  the  Mishna  is  mainly  ritual,  and  the  Gemara 
 has  a  large  infusion  of  legendary  homiletics,  and  the  two 
 together  make  up  the  Talmud,  let  us  ask,  What  is  the 
 Talmud  ? 
 
 The  Babylonian  Talmud  fills  2,947  folio  pages,  and  for  many  N 
 ages  so  completely  overshadowed  and  superseded  the  Bible 
 that  it  may  be  regarded  as  the  sacred  book  of  the  orthodox 
 Jews.  Surely  it  is  one  of  the  strangest  of  the  Bibles  of 
 humanity  !  It  has  been  called  "  the  Pandects  of  Judaism," 
 but  it  is  also  the  encyclopaedia  of  Jewish  science,  and  the 
 Hansard  of  nearly  a  thousand  years  of  discussion  in  Jewish 
 schools,  and  the  Rationale  Ofjiciorwm  of  all  its  ceremonial.3 
 
 1  See  Herder,  Brief c  uber  das  Sticdium  dcr  Theolo 
 
 -  .Maimonides,  I.e.  He  quotes  Ps.  xxv.  14.  It  professedly  abounds  in  the 
 most  monstrous  exaggerations,  which  are  sometimes  not  cryptographic,  but 
 sheer  idle  nonsense,  as  when  R.  Jose  says  that  he  saw  in  Sepphoris  180,000 
 streets  of  pastrycooks  (Yalqut  on  Zech.  ii.  2).  .Many  such  remarks  were  only 
 meant  to  rouse  the  attention  of  somnolent  hearers.  The  Rabbis  BOm<  times 
 expressed  truth  in  a  striking  way.  "Fear  God  even  as  ye  fear  men,"  said  li. 
 Jochanan  ben  Zakkai,  on  his  deathbed.  His  disciples  were  astonished. 
 "When  you  are  going  to  do  wrong,"  he  said,  "you  look  round  to  discover  it' 
 any  man  sees  you;  take  heed  thai  God's  all-seeing  eye  does  not  Bee  your 
 sinful  thoughts."  "Every  man  should  repent,"  said  R.  Eliezer,  "a  day 
 before  his  death."  "But  how  does  he  know  when  he  will  die?"  asked  his 
 disciples.     "Then,"  said  the  Rabbi,  "  let  him  repent  every  day." 
 
 3  See  Zunz,  p.  42;  Deutsch,  p.  17  ;  Weber,  p.  94.  "On  y  rapporte,  on  y 
 discute  toutes  [i  j  suppositions  lea  moins  pratiques,  les  moins  imaginables. ' 
 Schwab,  Berakhoth,  f.  xvi 
 
92  The  Talmud. 
 
 It  is  a  veritable  lanx  satura.  It  consists  of  disputes,  decisions, 
 stories,  sermons,  legends,  Scripture  comments,  moral  truths, 
 prescriptions,  observations,  mazes  of  legal  enactments,  gor- 
 geous day-dreams,  masked  history,  ill-disguised  rationalism. 
 It  is  drawn  from  the  promiscuous  note-books  of  students  of 
 very  diverse  attainments  and  character  in  which  they  have 
 scribbled  down  all  the  wisdom  and  all  the  unwisdom,  all  the 
 sense  and  all  the  nonsense  which  was  talked  for  centuries  in 
 the  schools  of  all  kinds  of  Rabbis.1  The  Jew  might  say  of 
 his  beloved  Babli, 
 
 "  Quicquid  agunt  homines,  votum,  timor,  ira,  voluptas, 
 Gaudia,  discursus,  nostri  est  farrago  libelli." 
 
 The  work  of  hundreds  of  learned  men  of  different  ages, 
 countries,  and  conditions,  it  forms  a  wonderful  monument  of 
 human  industry,  human  wisdom,  and  human  folly.2  Written 
 in  a  style  of  lapidary  brevity,  it  reads  like  a  collection  of  tele- 
 graphic messages.  It  is  also  full  of  uncouth  grammar,  barbarous 
 solecisms,  and  exotic  words.3  We  can  hardly  wonder  that  it  is 
 difficult  to  discover  the  method  of  its  apparently  confused 
 and  desultory  discussions,  when  we  remember  that  it  was 
 developed  amid  conditions  of  peril  and  discouragement, 
 amid  endless  disturbances  of  war  and  violences  of  persecu- 
 tion, under  the  jealous  eye  of  Roman  informers  or  the  cruel 
 greed  and  fanatical  malice  of  Persian  oppressors.4  Such 
 being  its  origin  it  naturally  teems  with  errors,  exaggerations, 
 
 1  Rabbi  Jehudi  Hallevy  makes  some  excellent  remarks  to  this  effect  in 
 Cusari  pt.  iii.  73,  see  Klein  Le  Judaismc  p.  40-46,  who  also  quotes  Ibn  Ezra, 
 R.  Serira  Gaon,  Luzzatto  and  others,  as  well  as  such  authorities  as  Buxtorf, 
 Wagenseil,  Selden,  etc. 
 
 2  Hurwitz  ;  Milrnan,  Hist,  of  tJic  Jews,  iii.  5.  The  method  of  dispute  in 
 the  Rabbinic  schools  was  called  "  Pilpul,"  or  "  duel."  There  are  four  Schools 
 of  Talmudists  :  the  Pilpulists,  who  almost  ceased  after  the  days  of  Mendels- 
 sohn ;  the  Casuists ;  the  Homilists ;  and  the  Historic  School,  among  whom 
 may  be  reckoned  writers  like  Rappoport,  Zunz,  Jost,  Krochmal,  Frankel, 
 Geiger,  Luzzato,  Griitz,  Steiuschneider,  &c.  See  Low,  Praktischc  Einlcit.  pp. 
 84-89. 
 
 3  The  language  of  the  Talmud  has  been  philolngically  handled  by  Geiger, 
 Levisohn,  Luzzato,  L.  Dukes,  and  others.  The  translation  of  the  whole 
 Talmud  was  begun  by  Chiarini  (into  French),  and  by  Dr.  Moses  Pinner  (into 
 German),  but  in  both  cases  proceeded  no  further  than  one  volume.  The  trans- 
 lation by  Dr.  Moise  Schwab  seems  likely  to  become  complete. 
 
 4  See  Etheridge,  Eebr.  Lit.  175. 
 
The  "  Sea  of  the  Talmud."  93 
 
 and  even  obscenities ;  with  strange  superstitions  of  Eastern 
 demonology ;  with  wild  Arabian  tales  about  the  freaks  of 
 Ashmodai ;  with  childish  extravagances  of  fancy  about 
 Behemoth  and  the  bird  Bar  Juchne  and  the  Shorhabor; 
 with  perverted  logic  ;  with  confusions  of  genealogy  chrono- 
 logy, and  history  ;  with  exorcisms,  incantations,  and  magic 
 formulae  ;  with  profane  and  old  wives'  fables,  of  which  some 
 few  may  have  had  a  hidden  significance  to  those  who  had 
 the  key  to  their  meaning,1  but  of  which  the  majority  were 
 understood  by  the  multitude  in  their  literal  absurdity.2 
 
 These  "  Jewish  myths  and  genealogies,"  as  St.  Paul  calls 
 them,  have  their  dark  side.  All  that  can  be  urged  by  way 
 of  excuse  for  their  baser  elements  is  that  they  were  not 
 always  meant  to  be  taken  literally,  or  to  be  weighed  in 
 jeweller's  scales.  The  Rabbi,  talking  familiarly  in  his 
 lighter  and  unguarded  moments,  did  not  intend  his  eager 
 pupils  to  retain  and  record  his  most  rash  and  accidental 
 utterances.  Here,  however,  in  this  strange  literary  Hercu- 
 laneum  all  things  are  swept  together  in  wild  confusion. 
 Things  grave  and  fantastic,  great  and  small,  valuable  and 
 worthless,  Jewish  and  Pagan,  the  altar  and  its  ashes  are 
 piled  together  in  wild  disorder.  Amid  the  labyrinths  of 
 rubbish  we  require  a  torch  to  enable  us  to  pick  up  an 
 accidental  gem. 
 
 Such  gems,  indeed,  it  contains.  In  this  sea  of  the 
 Talmud — "  this  strange  wild  weird  ocean  with  its  levi- 
 athans, and  its  wrecks  of  golden  argosies,  and  its  forlorn 
 bells  which  send  up  their  dreamy  sounds  ever  and 
 anon " — there   are    some    treasures,   which   have   frequently 
 
 1  "  Sed  hoc  interim  etiam  dieendum  et  sciendum,  non  omnia  quae  imperitis 
 talis  videntur,  esse  talia."    Buxtorf. 
 
 -  No  one  will  take  his  estimate  of  the  Talmud  from  such  wholly  uncritical 
 collections  as  those  of  Raymond  Martin's  Pugio  Fidci,  or  Eisenmenger's 
 Entdecktea  Judenbhum  (see  Weber,  xxxiii.).  Even  such  valuable  works  as 
 those  of  fii^htfoot,  Sehottjjen,  .Meiisehen,  and  Wetstein,  are  vitiated  by  the 
 uncritical  proniiscuousness  of  the  quotations  collected.  But  after  every 
 allowance  is  made  the  Talmud  is  one  of  the  dreariest  of  books. 
 
 3  Deutseh,  Remains,  1-58,  135-145.  Sec  Bartolocci,  Bibl.  Rabb.  iii.  359  s?. 
 Grate,  iv.  HO  112.;  Etheridge,  ffebr.  Lit.  185.  Buxtorf  admits  that  there 
 are  in  the  Talmud  "inutiles  quasi paleae  et  multi  furfures"  bnt  also  "utilia 
 quandoque  esse  &rana  et  2>ura/n  similam." 
 
94  Evils  of  Talmuclism. 
 
 been  gathered,  amid  the  froth  and  scum,  the  flotsam  and 
 jetsam  of  a  thousand  years.  Exquisite  parables  and  noble 
 aphorisms  are  scattered  in  its  pages  here  and  there.  The 
 general  darkness  is  sometimes  broken  by  keen  flashes  of 
 intellectual,  and  even  of  spiritual,  light.  But  these  are  rare, 
 and  to  speak  of  the  Talmud  in  such  terms  of  enthusiasm 
 as  those  with  which  Dr.  Deutsch  charmed  the  unwary,  or  to 
 say  of  it,  with  Professor  Hurwitz,  that  no  uninspired  work 
 contains  more  interesting,  more  varied,  or  more  valuable  infor- 
 mation— is  to  be  blinded  by  national  prejudice  to  facts  which 
 any  one  can  put  to  the  test. 
 
 But  the  worst  result  of  the  influence  exercised  by  the 
 Talmud  is  the  injury  which  it  inflicted  on  the  living  oracles 
 of  God. 
 
 That  injury  was  twofold. 
 
 On  the  one  hand  the  Jews  were  taught  to  care  more  for  it, 
 and  to  devote  more  continued  study  to  its  masses  of  casuistry 
 and  extravagance  than  to  the  divine  beauty  of  the  Psalms 
 and  the  noble  moral  teaching  of  the  Prophets.  Thus  they 
 were  turned  from  the  river  of  life  to  broken  cisterns  which 
 would  hold  no  water,  or  only  the  shallow  and  stagnant  jdooIs 
 of  a  tradition  polluted  by  a  thousand  strange  and  hetero- 
 geneous influxes.  A  "  Biblical  theologian "  was  as  great 
 an  object  of  contempt  to  the  Rabbis  as  he  became  to  the 
 Schoolmen  in  their  worst  epoch  of  decline. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  the  actual  exegesis  of  Scripture  in 
 which  the  Talmud  abounds  is  so  arbitrary  and  so  futile, 
 so  tasteless  and  so  insincere,  that  it  must  have  given  to 
 its  students  a  radically  false  conception  of  their  sacred 
 books.  It  represented  to  them  the  Law  of  Moses  as  frag- 
 mentary without  the  supplement  of  tradition,  and  inexplicable 
 without  the  intervention  of  Rabbinism.  Let  us,  for  instance, 
 take  the  tracts  Shabbath  and  Bitza.  The  interminable 
 discussions  on  Sabbath  regulations  which  those  treatises  con- 
 tain turn  almost  exclusively  on  false  quotations  or  on 
 inferences  wholly  without  base.1 
 
 1  For  an  instance  see  Chiarini,  ii.  22(5. 
 
"  Parties."  95 
 
 VI.  What  has  been  said  of  the  Talmud  applies  in  general 
 to  all  the  Rabbinic  writings  and  to  the  whole  collection  of 
 Midrashim,  of  which  the  most  celebrated  are  nothing  but 
 catenae  of  Talmudic  passages.1  The  word  Midrash  means, 
 in  its  strictest  sense,  the  exposition  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
 of  the  five  rolls  of  Canticles,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ec- 
 clesiastes,  Esther,  which  is  collected  in  the  Midrash  Rabba. 
 Jewish  exegesis,  as  applied  in  the  Midrashim,  was  founded  on 
 the  four  methods  mnemonically  described  as, 
 
 PaRDeS 
 
 or  Paradise  : — namely, 
 
 Peshat,  or  the  literal  sense ;  the  grammatico-historical  mean- 
 ing of  words  and  sentences.2 
 
 Bemez,  or  hint,  the  development  of  latent  meanings.3 
 
 Danish,  or  homiletics,4  including  allegory  and  all  kinds  of 
 illustration. 
 
 SSd,  or  mystery.5 
 Exegeticaily  the  Peshat  is  alone  of  real  value.0     The   Pemcz 
 was  chiefly  devoted   to   the   development  of  Halakha ;   the 
 Darush  to  the  Haggada,  and  the  Sod  to  the  Qabbala. 
 
 It  was  in  the  development  of  the  Sud,  or  mystery,  that  the 
 Kabbalists  found    the    chief  sphere    of   their   labours.     The 
 
 1  See  Dr.  Ginsburgin  Kitto's  Cyclopaedia,  s.v.  Midrashim  ;  and  in  Kolieleth 
 p.  30.  It  is  a  haggadistic  collection,  half  homiletic,  half  exegetical  in 
 character. 
 
 2  Compare  the  name  of  the  Syriac  version — Peshito,  which  implied  that  the 
 version  was  simple  and  literal.  Even  some  of  the  Sopherim  had  laid 
 down  the  rule  that  every  interpretation  was  to  accord  with  the  literal 
 (IB'B'B    'TD    K¥V    Slpb    fK),  but  no  one  practically  attended  to  it. 
 
 3  An  assonance,  a  change  of  letters,  &c.  "  Goft  ah  Verfasser  konne  mit 
 einem  Worte,  mit  der  einmchen  and  natiirlichen  Bedentung,  noi  li  eine  andere 
 verkniipft  hahen  uml  Mehreres  mit  ciinin  Male  lelnvn.  .  .  .  Dieses  heisst 
 im  Talmud  H30  NVOV  Tnn,  I'.eides  entnehme  ich  daraus."  Hirschfeld, 
 Halach.  Excgcsc,  §  104.     See  too  §  112  ;  Weber,  115. 
 
 4  FromBm,  "to  search." 
 
 B  The  Derek  ha-kabbala.     See  Etheridge,  Hear.  Lit.  p.  404. 
 
 6  Critical  Jews  distinguish  between  popular  commentaries  like  the  Midra- 
 shim, ami  scientific  commentaries  (Perushim).  The  writers  of  the  Midrash 
 were  neither  Paraphrasts  (Targumists),  nor,  pmperh  s])eaking,  commentators 
 (Hiphreshim).  The  latter  begin  pro]>erly  with  Saadja  in  the  tenth  century,  ami 
 include  the  great  names  of  Rashi,  llm  Ezra,  Mahnonides,  the  Qimchis,  and 
 Abrabanel.  Asaria  di  ElosBi  distinguishes  between  hyperbolical  (gvxma), 
 haggadistic,  and  "exhaustive"  Midrash.  The  latter,  like  what  Siztus  Senemua 
 calls  the  Pandcsiac  method,  explained  Scripture  in  all  possible  ways. 
 
 L. 
 
\ 
 
 96  The  Qabbala. 
 
 word  Qabbala  means  "  a  thing  received,"  but  it  was  used  for 
 "  scholastic  lore,"  *  and  it  was  asserted  that  the  Qabbala  was 
 of  equal  sacredness  with  the  Law,  and  had  been  received  by 
 Moses  on  Sinai.  The  germs  of  the  Qabbala,  in  some  of  its 
 branches,  must  be  of  early  date,  for  it  is  referred  to  in  the 
 Mishna.2  Its  two  main  divisions  were  the  Real  and  the 
 Symbolical.  The  real  Qabbala  is  more  connected  with 
 theosophy  and  thaumaturgy  than  with  anything  which  could 
 be  called  exegesis.  Its  theoretical  section  comprised  the 
 two  great  branches  of  inquiry,  cosmogony  and  theosophy. 
 They  were  called  the  Maaseh  Bcreshith,  or  Work  of  the  Crea- 
 tion, and  the  Maaseh  Merkdba,  or  Work  of  the  Chariot,  which 
 derived  its  name  from  the  Vision  of  Ezekiel.  The  Maaseh 
 Bcreshith  entered  into  endless  speculations  about  the  Creation, 
 the  ten  spheres,  the  four  worlds,  the  En  Sopth,  or  "  Infinite," 
 Memra  or  the  Word,  Adam  Kadmon  the  Primeval  Man,  the 
 mysteries  of  numbers,  and  so  forth.3  It  sought  to  explain 
 the  transition  from  the  Infinite  to  the  Finite,  from  Mind 
 to  Matter.  The  Maaseh  Merhaba  plunged  into  inquiries 
 respecting  the  abstract  nature  of  God,  and  was  surrounded 
 
 1  Ewald,  Hist,  of  Israel,  v.  190,  E.  Tr.  Hence  the  word  is  even  used  for 
 "an  amulet."  See  Buxtorf,  Lex.  p.  1953.  Qabhala  means  the  act  of  giving, 
 while  Massora,  from  Masar,  "to  transmit,"  means  the  act  of  receiving.  See 
 Ginsburg,  The  Kabbala,  p.  4. 
 
 2  The  Qabbala,  or  " secret  wisdom"  (i"l"inD3  nJOSn), — called  also  from  the 
 initials  of  these  two  words,  }l"l,  "grace," — may  be  divided  as  follows  : — 
 
 Qabbala 
 
 I  ^ 
 
 Real.  Symbolic. 
 
 I  I 
 
 i j  I 
 
 Theoretical.  Practical  (Magic  Thauma-         Gematria.       Notarikon.         Temoorah. 
 
 Iturgy,  &c). 
 I 1 
 Arithmetic.     Figurative.     Architectonic. 
 
 Creation        The  Chariot  f  \  j 
 
 (Maaseh  (Maaseh  Athbash.     Albam.   Albach.    Aaiachechar.     Tashrak,  &c. 
 
 Bereshith).      Meikaba.) 
 
 3  The  ten  pure  numbers  (Sephiroth)  represent  the  Being  of  God  ;  the 
 twenty-two  which  have  letters  as  their  signs  are  the  creative  word  of  God. 
 See  the  strange  remarks  of  Philo  on  the  number  7.  Vit.  Mos.  iii.  p.  156. 
 Kabbalism  in  general  "  bears  about  the  same  relation  to  Scripture  that  magic 
 does  to  nature."  Reuss,  Gesch.  dcr  hciligcn  Schriften  Neuen  Testaments, 
 p.  503. 
 
Kabbalism.  97 
 
 with  a  veil  of  terror  and  mystery.  Practical  Kabbalism 
 instructed  the  neophyte  in  the  manner  in  which  the  Incom- 
 municable name — the  Shem  Harnmcphorash — might  be  cm- 
 ployed  for  magic  purposes.  The  two  chief  books  in  which 
 these  studies — if  they  may  be  dignified  by  such  a  name — 
 were  developed,  are  the  Zohar,  attributed  to  Rabbi  Simon 
 Ben  Jochai,  but  in  its  present  form  not  older  than  the  thir- 
 teenth century;  and  the  Jetsirah,  or  Book  of  Splendour, 
 which  Dr.  Zunz  assigns  to  the  Gaonim  in  the  eighth  or  ninth 
 century.  The  former  is  devoted  to  Creation,  the  latter  to  the 
 Chariot-throne.1 
 
 But  if  these  branches  of  Kabbalistic  lore,  which  were 
 largely  influenced  by  Persian  and  other  sources,  touch  even 
 the  outer  circumference  of  exegesis,  on  the  other  hand  the 
 writings  of  the  Rabbis  abound  in  the  symbolical  Kabbalism 
 which  proposed  for  the  evolution  of  the  supposed  mystic 
 senses  of  Scripture  thirteen  methods,  of  which  we  can  only 
 say  that  each  is  more  impossible  and  arbitrary  than  the  pre- 
 ceding. They  are  founded  on  the  immense  delusion  that 
 the  whole  Massorah,  even  down  to  the  verses,  words,  letters, 
 vowel-points,  and  accents,  was  delivered  to  Moses  on  Sinai, 
 and  that  "  the  numbers  of  the  letters,  every  single  letter,  the 
 collocation  of  every  letter,  the  transposition,  the  substitution,  ^ 
 had  a  special,  even  a  supernatural  power."  These  rules  were 
 summed  up  under  the  three  divisions  of  Gematria,  Notarikon 
 and  Themoorah,  indicated,  in  the  usual  Rabbinic  way,  by  the 
 
 1  The  earliest  Kabbalistic  book,  Sepher  ha  Bahir,  attributed  to  Nechonja 
 ben  Hakana,  a  contemporary  of  Ilillel,  is  no  longer  extant.  It  is  mentioned 
 in  the  Chagiga,  but  the  book  published  under  that  title  in  1641  is  a  forgery. 
 Similarly  a  Sepher  Jetsira,  touching  apparently  on  thaumaturgist  natural  science, 
 is  mentioned  in  Sanhedrin,  e.  7  and  f.  67.  The  extant  Jetsira  does  not  pro- 
 perly belong  to  the  Qabbala  at  all  (Zunz,  p.  165),  and  treats  the  first  ten 
 numbers  (Sciroth)  and  the  twenty-two  letters  (othloth)  as  "thirty-two  wondrous 
 ways  of  wisdom,"  in  which  God  created  the  universe.  The  Zohar  ("splen- 
 dour"), attributed  to  R.  Simon  Ben  Joehai,  but  probably  the  work  of  a  Spanish 
 Jew  (Moses  de  Leon)  in  the  thirteenth  century  (Orlitz,  vii.  ;  Ginsburg,  pp. 
 78-89),  is  a  mystic  commentary  on  the  Pentateuch.  This  branch  of  the 
 Qabbala  lies  wholly  outside  the  region  of  exegesis.  See  Keuehlin,  l>c  Arte 
 Cabbalistica ;  Franck,  Systemc  dc  In  Kabbale  ;  Dr.  Ginsburg,  The  Kabbala  : 
 Jelinek,  Die  Kabbala,  1844;  Ktheridge,  Hebr.  Lit.  pp.  297-35:3.  Two  important 
 
 Kabbalistic! ks  are  the   "Lily  of  Secrets"  (Shoshan  Sodoth),  by  Kamban 
 
 (tl260),  and    "Garden   of  Nuts"    (Genath   Egoz),    by   Jos.   Karnitol  (See 
 Etheridge,  p.  359). 
 
 n 
 
98  Gcmatria. 
 
 initial  letters  of  the  words,  as  GeNeTH.1  These  methods 
 play  so  large  a  part  in  Rabbinic  exegesis  that  we  must  pause 
 to  explain  their  character. 
 
 i.  Gematria  is  a  corruption  of  Geometric/,,  one  of  the  many- 
 Greek  words  which  are  naturalised  in  Talmudic  Hebrew.'2  The 
 chief  branch  of  this  method  resembled  the  Greek  isopsc- 
 phism  and  consisted  in  establishing  mystic  relations  between 
 different  conceptions,  based  on  the  numerical  equivalence  of 
 value  in  the  letters  by  which  they  are  expressed.  Philologically 
 the  Jews  were  "  Analogists,"  i.e.  they  believed  in  the  mystic 
 value  and  importance  of  names.  Hence  even  as  early  as  the 
 Pentateuch  we  find  a  sort  of  etymological  comment,  and  in  the 
 New  Testament  there  are  three  instances  of  deep  significance 
 attached  to  the  sound  of  names.3  To  regard  every  name  as 
 representing  a  number,  and  therefore  as  cognate  to  any  other 
 name  which  yielded  the  same  number,  was  a  long  step  in 
 advance.  Thus  in  Zechariah  iii.  8  the  promised  Messiah  is 
 spoken  of  as  "  my  servant  the  Branch."  4  Now  the  Hebrew 
 letters  of  Tsemach,  "a  sprout,"  are  equivalent  in  value  to  138  ; 
 and  this  is  also  the  value  of  the  letters  of  "  Menahem,"  or 
 "Consoler"  (Lam.  i.  16),  and  consequently  Menahem  is 
 reckoned  among  the  names  of  the  Messiah.5  In  Gen.  xlix. 
 10,  "  Shiloh  come  "  (rfW*  NT)  is  equivalent  to  358,  and  that  is 
 also  the  numerical  value  of  Mashiach  (rvco).  Shiloh  is  there- 
 fore identified  with  the  Messiah.6  Again,  because  the  letters 
 of  Mashiach  and  of  Nachash,  "  serpent,"  are  isopsephic,  they 
 said  that  it  was  the  Messiah  who  would  bruise  the  serpent's 
 head.  Similar  instances — of  which  some  will  be  given  in 
 the  notes — may  be  counted  by  hundreds  in  the   Rabbinic 
 
 1  See  Bnxtorf,  Dr,  Abbrcviaturis,  s.v.  fijj.     Klein,  Lc  Judaisme,  pp.  32-35. 
 
 2  WltDKJ,  yeaifierpla.  Dr.  Ginstmrg  derives  it  from  ypai.ii.ia.TAa..  The 
 actual  numbering  is  called  "  reckoning"  (}13tiTI).  Bammidbar  Rabba,  c. 
 25.     (Comp.    Ecc.    vii.   25,   27.)     Weber,  Altsyn.  Thcol.  118. 
 
 3  "  He  shall  be  called  a  ISJazarene,"  Matt.  ii.  23.  This  is  probably  an  allusion 
 to  JYctfscr,  "a  branch."  Comp.  Is.  xi.  1.  Sinai  and  Hagar,  Gal.  iv.  25. 
 Claudius  =  6  Karexoi",  qui  Clauclit,  2  Thess.  ii.  7. 
 
 1  Rather  "  the  sprout. "    Comp.  Jer.  xxiii.  5. 
 
 5  Sanhedrim,  f.  88,  2.     tf  =  90  ;  ID  =  40  ;  n  =  8  ■=  138. 
 
 O  -  40  ;  3  =  50  ;  n  =  8  ;  D  =  40   =  13S. 
 This  identification  continues  down  to  modern  days. 
 
Gematria.  99 
 
 writings.1  We  may  here  be  content  with  one  more  speci- 
 men. In  Gen.  xxv.  21,  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  word  for 
 "  his  wife "  O^'N)  have  the  value  of  707,  which  is  the 
 equivalent  of  the  words  6?j?1  V$,  "  fire  and  straw,"  and  is  at  once 
 mystically  connected  with  Obadiah,  verse  11,  "  the  house  of 
 Jacob  shall  be  a  fire  .  .  .  and  the  house  of  Esau  of  stubble."2 
 Of.  the  applications  of  this  method  some  are  jrarely  frivolous, 
 as  when  it  is  inferred  that  Eliezer  was  alone  equal  to 
 all  the  other  318  servants  of  Abraham  because  the  letters 
 of  his  name  have  the  value  318 ;  or  that  there  are  never 
 less  than  36  righteous  in  the  world,  because  in  Is.  xxx. 
 18,  "  Blessed  are  all  those  that  wait  upon  Him,"  the  value 
 of  the  word  "  upon  Him"  (l1?)  is  36 ;  or  that  there  are  70 
 nations  of  the  world  because  "  Gog  and  Magog  "  give  the 
 number  70  ;  or  that  there  are  903  ways  of  dying  because  the 
 word  for  "issues  of  death,"  in  Ps.  lxviii.  21,  gives  the  number 
 903  (rnxsin).3  Some  of  the  references,  however,  became 
 practically  important,  as  when  the  length  of  a  Nazarite's  vow 
 might  be  limited  to  30  days,  because  in  Num.  vi.  5,  "  he  shall 
 be  holy,"  the  word  "  he  shall  be  "  (rrrr)  gives  the  number  30  ; 
 or  as  when  it  was  inferred  that  there  might  be  98  ways  of 
 explaining  the  Law,  because  in  Cant.  ii.  4  the  word  for  "  and 
 his  banner  "  gives  the  number  49  (l^-il) ;  or  again,  that  the 
 Law  had  613  precepts  because  the  word  for  "incense"  (map) 
 gives  61 3.4     Sometimes  the  inference  even  acquires  for  the 
 
 1  In  a  curious  passage  of  De  pracscriptionc  haereticorum,  c.  50,  Tertullian 
 speaks  of  Gematria.  "  Marcus  quidam  et  Colarbasus  novam  haeresim  ex 
 Graccorum  alphabeta  componentcs.  Negant  enim  veritatem  sine  istis  posse 
 litteris  inveniri,  immo  totam  plenitndinem  et  perfectionem  veritatia  in  istis 
 lit ti  lis  esse  dispositam."  He  says  they  founded  the  doctrine  on  "I  am  a 
 and  w."  Thus  because  irepiffrepa  =  801  =  An,  they  said  that  the  Logos 
 was  joined  to  Jesus  at  Baptism  (lien.  Haer.  i.  14,  §  6).  Going  through 
 the  alphabet  in  a  reverse  order,  "Computant  ogdoadas  et  decadas,  ita  ul 
 afferre  illorum  omnes  vanitates  et  ineptum  sit  et  otiosum."  But  it  was  not 
 only  Gnosticism  which  eagerly  availed  itself  of  Kabbalistic  exegesis.  Thus  we 
 find  the  mystic  explanation  of  Abraham's  318  servants  as  a  type  of  Christ, — 
 T  (=  300)  being  the  Cross,  and  ir;  (=  18)  being  the  fust  letters  of  the  name  of 
 Jeans    as  early  as  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  (c.  ix.). 
 
 -  Sanhedrin,  f.  97,  2. 
 
 3  See  Berakhoth,  f.  8,  1. 
 
 1  If  by   Atlibash  D  is  changed  into  1 !    See  Bnxtorf,  /'-  iuris, 
 
 p.  f>7.  But  Thorah  gives  the  same  result :  n  =  400  ;  1  =  6;")=  200  ;  n  = 
 5  =  611,  which,  witn  the  Shema  and  the  first  commandment  =  613. 
 
 ii  2 
 
100  Gematria. 
 
 Jewish  mind  a  strong  theological  significance,  as  when  they 
 inferred  that  the  Day  of  Atonement  was  the  only  day  of  the 
 year  on  which  Satan  could  bring  no  accusation,  because  the 
 word  Hassatan  (pb>n)  gives  only  364.1  Sometimes  also  the 
 method  was  used  to  explain  away  a  plain  fact  of  Scripture  which 
 militated  with  Jewish  prejudices,  as  when  it  was  asserted  that 
 Moses  did  not  marry  an  Ethiopian  woman  (Kushith)  but  a 
 "  beautiful "  woman,  since  Kushith  yields  the  number  736 
 which  is  equivalent  to  "  fair  of  form  "  (nxicr)"!^).  We  find 
 this  kind  of  Gematria  used  cryptographically  by  St.  John  in 
 the  Apocalypse  to  indicate  the  name  of  Nero,  as  it  is  used  in 
 the  Sibylline  verses  to  indicate  the  name  of  Jesus.2 
 
 There  were  two  other  branches  of  Gematria,  the  Architec- 
 tonic, which  concerned  itself  with  calculations  respecting  the 
 Tabernacle,  the  Temple,  and  the  ideal  Temple  of  Ezekiol ; 3 
 and  the  Figurative 4  (already  alluded  to),  which  speculated 
 on  the  sizes  and  shapes  of  letters.  Thus  since  the  1  in 
 the  Avord  "ins,  and  the  v  in  the  word  vw,  "  Hear  ! "  are 
 lengthened  in  Deut.  vi.  4,  we  are  told  that  this  is  meant 
 (i.)  to  show  the  greatness  of  the  doctrine ;  (ii.)  to  show  the 
 power  of  God  in  the  four  quarters  of  the  world  (n  =  4)  ; 
 and  (iii.)  because  y  and  n  make  up  the  word  iv,  "  a  witness." 
 We  find  a  curious  instance  of  architectonic  Gematria  in 
 Josephus,  who,  in  referring  to  Dan.  ix.  27,  alludes  to  the 
 Jewish  belief  that  the  Jewish  Temple  would  be  destroyed 
 whenever  it  was  made  rectangular,  because  4  being  the 
 signature  of  the  world  contradicts  the  idea  of  the  sanctuary. 
 Now  the  Temple  became  rectangular  when  the  Zealots 
 destroyed  the  tower  of  Antonia/ 
 
 1  Yoma,  f.  20,  1. 
 
 2  Eev.  xiii.  IS.  666  =  "IDp  |V0.  Nero  Caesar ;  Iren.  Eacr.  v.  30  ; 
 Snip.  Sev.  H.  S.  ii.  29  ;  Orac.  Sibyll.  i.  325.     'Itjo-o  Cs  =  888. 
 
 3  Etherklge  refers  to  Shiehard's  Bechinatn  Happcrushim,  p.  65,  for  some 
 curious  particulars.     Hcbr.  Lit.  p.  354. 
 
 4  This  figurative  Gematria  is  called  TVHV.  In  their  minute  attentions  to 
 trivialities  the  Scribes  registered  the  important  fact  that  only  two  verses  of 
 the  Law  begin  with  D  (Ex.  xxxii.  8  ;  Num.  xiv.  19). 
 
 5  Jos.  B.  J.  vi.  6,  §  4.  The  "desolating  wing  (f]33)  of  abomination" 
 was  rendered  "corner  of  abomination."  Comp.  Philo,  Vit.  Mos.  p.  142; 
 Hausrath,  i.  123. 
 
Notarikon.  101 
 
 ii.  NOTARIKON  was  another  Kabbalistic  method.  The  name 
 is  borrowed  from  JVotarius,  "  a  shorthand  writer,"  because 
 these  writers  used  letters  to  stand  for  words.1  It  consisted  in  < 
 forming  words  by  the  combination  of  initial  and  terminal 
 letters,  or  by  regarding  each  letter  of  a  word  as  the  initial 
 letter  of  other  words.  The  famous  symbol  l%dv<;  is  an 
 instance  of  a  word  thus  interpreted,2  and  it  enabled  Chris- 
 tians to  recognise  one  another.  Notarikon  is  mentioned  in 
 the  Mishna,  and  in  Bereshith  Eabba,  §  46,  it  is  discussed 
 whether  it  was  known  to  Abraham.3  A  few  specimens  will 
 suffice.  In  Gen.  ii.  3  the  letters  of  ElohiM  LaasotH  are  com- 
 bined into  Emcth,  "  Truth."  The  letters  of  Adam  are  made 
 to  stand  for  Adam,  David,  Messiah,  so  that  Adam's  soul  is 
 said  to  have  passed  into  those  of  David  and  the  Messiah.4 
 In  Ps.  lxxvii.  21,  the  word  "  Thou  leddest  "  (rpm)  is  made 
 to  stand  for  Wonder,  Life,  Sea,  Law,5  to  imply  that  God 
 had  wrought  Wonders  for  His  people,  given  them  Life, 
 divided  the  Sea,  and  given  the  Law,  through  Moses  and 
 Aaron.  Some  derived  the  name  Maccabee  from  Mi 
 Kamoka  Baelim  Yehovah,  "  Who  among  the  gods  is 
 like  unto  thee,  O  Lord  ?  "  (Ex.  xv.  II).6  These  methods 
 remain  in  full  force  among  the  Talmudic  Jews  to  this 
 day.  Annually,  on  the  day  of  Atonement,  the  Polish  Jews 
 observe   "the   Atonement  of  the  Cock,"7   and  the  head   of 
 
 1  See  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Tahn.  s.v.  jlp^ES.  Rabbi  Nathan  defines  it  as  being 
 practised  "  when  one  letter  is  made  to  stand  for  an  entire  tiling."  The  name 
 Naphtali  is  thna  made  to  mean  "  My  prayer  is  here  accepted  before  the  Lord," 
 and  <:,iokl,  "  I  "  is  made  to  stand  for  "  1  myself  wrote  and  gave  it." 
 
 2  'lrjrrovs  XpitTTus  0eoO  Tibs  'Swrrip.  The  Greeks  were,  as  I'lntarch  says, 
 familiar  with  these  arifxua  iv  /3f>ax«'<n  vvirois  iroWSiv  ypa/xfjidruf  Svyafj.if 
 i\ovTa. 
 
 3  Shabbath,  xii.  5. 
 
 4  Nislmi.itli  Chajim,  f.  152,  2.  Similarly  the  sonl  of  Cain  passed  into 
 ili"''  of  Jethro  [>),  Korah  (p),  and  tin-  Mizraim-ite  (Q)  whom  Moses  slew. 
 Yalqvt  Ueubeni.  Another  notarikon  applied  to  the  name  said  that  it  stood  for 
 Dust,  Blood,  Bitterness  P?X,  D"l,  H"ia).  The  use  of  Notarikon  continued, 
 even  among  tin'  Fathers  ;  as  when  'A8a,u  is  said  to  imply  the  four  quarters  of 
 tli"  world,  'ApKr6s,  5v<ris,  avarok-i),  /j.carifi.f5pia.. 
 
 h  D»D3,  D"n.  d\  mm. 
 
 8  For  other  instances,  Bee  Budaeus,  I'/iilns.  Khracorum,  p.  3'23  ;  Buxtorf, 
 De  Abbreviaturia,  p.  58;  Reuchlin,  De  Cabbala,  iii.  ;  Chianni,  i.  57  j  Ham- 
 burger, RealwSrt.  s.v.  Sch/rtft. 
 
 7  Because  in  one  passage  of  the  Talmud  "133  ("  a  man")  is  used  for  "a 
 cock  ". 
 
102  Tcmoorah. 
 
 the  household,  whirling  a  cock  round  his  head,  exclaims : 
 "  Chalaphathi,  Temarathi,  Kapparathi,"  "  This  is  my  substi- 
 tute, my  commutation,  my  atonement."  The  initial  letters  of 
 these  words  make  the  word  Chathah,  "  to  cut,"  and  conse- 
 quently the  Angel  of  Death  is  called  Chatak  (inn).  The 
 word  is  still  more  surrounded  by  mystic  associations,  because 
 by  Gematria  it  yields  the  number  428,  which  is  also  furnished 
 by  the  Hebrew  words,  "  This  shall  be  an  atonement  for 
 thee."  1 
 
 ^  iii.  The  word  Temoorah,  or  "  change,"  2  is  used  for  an  exe- 
 getical  method  which  evolves  new  meanings  by  an  interchange 
 of  letters.  Thus  in  Ps.  xxi.  2,  "  The  king  shall  rejoice  in  Thy 
 strength,  0  Lord,"  refers  to  "  the  Messiah "  by  transposing 
 nvb\  (shall  rejoice)  into  Mashiach.  In  Ex.  xxiii.  23,  "  my 
 angel"  ('pN?!?)  is  transposed  into  Michael,  as  also  is  the  name 
 Malachi ! 3  "  Cherem,"  "  a  ban,"  becomes  by  Temoorah 
 racham,  "  pity,"  implying  that  there  is  always  room  for 
 repentance  ;  or  into  ramach,  of  which  the  numerical  equiva- 
 lent is  248,  showing  that  if  a  man  do  not  repent  the  curse 
 will  smite  the  248  parts  of  the  body.  Reuchlin  argued  the 
 Divinity  of  Christ  from  the  fact  that  Jesus  (Joshua)  in 
 Hebrew  (mBTp)  gives  the  name  Jehovah,  and  the  letter  tr, 
 which  stands  for  "  fire,"  and  is  a  symbol  of  the  Logos.4  Often 
 the  method  becomes  one  of  simple  anagram,  as  when  the 
 names  Balaam  Balak  are  turned  into  "  Valley  of  Confusion.''5 
 It  is  possible  that  the  New  Testament  furnishes  us  with  an 
 instance  of  Temoorah  in  Rev.  xvi.  16,  where  the  mysterious 
 
 1  mQD?  ~p  VrT1  HT.  The  name  of  this  angel  is  also  given  hy  the  final 
 letters  of  *yV  J"IN  nni3,  "  Thou  openest  thine  hand,"  Ps.  clxv.  16.  I  take 
 this  modern  instance,  which  shows  the  extraordinary  vitality  of  these  methods, 
 from  Hershon's  Treasures  of  the  Talmud,  p.  107.  It  is  a  curious  fact,  which 
 may  here  be  mentioned  in  passing,  that  many  Kabbalists  became  Christians, 
 because  the  Trinity,  the  Atonement,  &c,  are  supposed  to  be  deducible  by 
 these  processes,  but  much  more  because  they  are  said  to  be  implied  in  the 
 Zohar.  Among  them  were  Ricci,  Otto,  Rittengal  (a  grandson  of  Abrabauel), 
 who  translated  the  Jetsira  into  Latin  ;  and  Jacob  Frank,  who  took  with  him 
 some  thousands  of  his  followers.    Beer,  Gesch.  d.  rel.  Sedan  d.  Juden,  ii.  309 
 
 2  Called  by  some  "pDi"l,  "  inversion." 
 
 3  See  Nachmanides  in  Kitto's  Cyclop. 
 
 4  The  name  Jesus  is  however  WW  in  Hebrew. 
 
 8  Ws  p?y. 
 
Athbash.  103 
 
 word  Armageddon  may  be  meant  for  Harmagedol,  i.e.  Roma 
 Haggedolah,  Rome  the  Great.  The  names  are  also  iso- 
 psephic,  for  l>y  Gematria  they  are  both  equivalent  to  304.1 
 
 The  commonest  application  of  Temoorah  consists,  how- 
 ever, in  substituting  for  each  letter  in  a  word  the  letter  which 
 stands  in  an  equivalent  order  in  the  other  half  of  the  alpha- 
 bet.8 This  was  called  Athbash,  Albam,  and  Atbach,  &c. 
 The  chief  interest  of  the  method  lies  in  the  fact  that  there 
 seem  to  be  three  instances  of  it  in  the  Bible.  Thus  in 
 Jer.  xxv.  26,  li.  41,  the  word  Sheshach  has  always  been 
 understood  to  be  a  cypher  for  Babel,  to  which  by  Athbash  it 
 is  equivalent.  No  Christian  interpreter  had  any  notion  what 
 it  meant  till  Jerome  learned  the  secret  from  his  Jewish 
 teacher.  Again  in  Jer.  li.  1,  the  meaningless  expression, 
 11  them  that  dwell  in  the  midst  of  them  that  rise  up  against  me," 
 becomes  luminous  if  for  leb-Teamai  we  substitute  by  Athbash 
 the  word  Kasdim,  or  Chaldeans  (see  v.  35). 3  Similarly 
 an  application  of  the  cipher  Albam  explains  an  otherwise 
 mysterious  name  in  Is.  vii.  6.  Ephraini,  Syria,  and  the 
 son  of  Remaliah  there  take  evil  counsel  to  attack  Judah 
 and  set  up  as  king  "  the  son  of  Talced."  Who  was  this 
 Tabeal  whose  name  never  occurs  elsewhere  ?  Mr.  Chcyne 
 says  that  "  he  was  evidently  a  Syrian ;  the  name  in 
 Syriac  means  "  God  is  good,"  just  as  Tav-Rimmon  means 
 "  Rimmon  is  good."  Dr.  Kay  even  conjectures  that  he 
 was  a  descendant  of  Naaman,  and  others  that  he  was  a 
 powerful  Ephraimite,  perhaps  Zichri  (2  Chron.  xxviii. 
 7).  Apply  the  Albam,  however,  and  for  Tabeal  (?3nU)  we 
 get  xta-i,  which  may  well  be  the  same  as  Remaliah,  either 
 used    b}'-    Isaiah  as  a  scornful  variation,  or  because  it  may 
 
 ■  Hausrath,  New  Test.  Times,  i.  117. 
 
 -  Thus  in  Athbash  for  a.b.g.d.,  &c,  are  substituted  the  corresponding 
 
 letters  at  the  opposite  end  of  the  nlphiihet,  namely  'in,  sit,  ):,  &c.  In  Albam, 
 a.b.g.d.,  kc,  are  exchanged  with  l.  m.n.s.,  &c.  R.  Chija,  the  Tanaite,  is  said 
 to  have  invented  the  Athbash  (Sukka,  f.  52,  2),  but  probably  it  was  much 
 older.  There  are  no  fewer  than  twenty-four  different  kinds  of  this 
 Themoorah. 
 
 3  Ewald  may  be  right  in  supposing  that  the  use  of  these  Kabbalistic 
 methods  in  Jer.  xxv.  2»>,  li.  41,  is  due  not  to  Jeremiah,  bul  to  the  Babylonian 
 editor  of  his  book,     l'rophcten  d.  Alien  Bundes,  ii.  247  ;  iii.  141. 
 
104  Plays  on  Words. 
 
 have  originally  been  the  secret  watchword  of  the  powerful 
 conspiracy. 
 
 In  these  instances  we  have  only  the  traces  of  a  cypher 
 suggested  by  policy  or  terror.  In  some  cases,  however,  these 
 anagraminatic  alphabets  have  been  used  from  time  imme- 
 morial to  explain  certain  passages  of  Scripture.1  Thus,  in 
 Prov.  xxix.  21,  where  it  is  said  that  "  a  petted  slave  will  at 
 last  become  a  man's  son,"  the  word  |13D,  rendered  "son," 
 occurs  here  only.  Some  suppose  it  to  mean  "  refractory,"  or 
 "  ungrateful,"  and  Luther  happily  renders  it  "  so  will  er 
 damach  ein  Junker  seyn."  But  by  applying  another  Kabbalistic 
 alphabet  (Atbaeh) 2  we  get  for  mdnon  the  word  nl^-,  gnchdah, 
 "  testimony,"  and  the  verse  may  be  rendered  "He  who  satisfies 
 his  desire  in  this  world  against  him  it  will  testify  at  the  end  ;" 
 and  this  comment  is  as  old  as  the  Talmud. 
 
 Besides  all  these  methods  there  was  yet  another  which 
 consisted  in  altering  the  words  of  the  text  into  others 
 which  resembled  them.  It  is  strange  that  this  absolutely 
 arbitrary  device  for  making  the  Scriptures  .say  exactly 
 what  the  interpreter  wished  to  make  them  say  was 
 defended  on  the  same  principle  of  letter-worship  as  that 
 which  lay  at  the  root  of  the  whole  system.  The  method  was 
 indefinitely  facilitated  by  the  plasticity  of  words  in  which 
 the  vowel -points  could  be  altered  in  many  ways.  Thus  the 
 Bible  was  forced  to  imply  thousands  of  things  of  which  its 
 writers  never  dreamed.3  On  the  pretence  that  every  word  of 
 it  was  supernaturally  communicated  by  God,  it  was  asserted 
 that  if  words  sounded  at  all  like  other  words,  that  secondary 
 meaning  must  also  be  implied  I  Hence  the  incessant  Rab- 
 binic formula,  "Read  not  so,  but  so."4     Maimonides  says  that 
 
 1  Sukka,  52,  2  ;  Ginsburg,  Elias  Lcvita,  p.  191,  ands.r.  Midrash  in  Kitto  ; 
 and  Kabbalah,  p.  54  ;  Hamburger  I.  s.v.  Schrift. 
 
 2  For  Atbaeh  see  Buxtorf,  Dc  Abbrcviaturis,  and  Dr.  Ginsburg  in  Kitto,  s.v. 
 
 3  As  when  the  initial  words  of  fc02  were  made  to  stand  for  3N  n-H  }3 
 (Father,  Spirit,  Son,)  and  so  used  as  an  argument  in  favour  of  the  Trinity  ;  or 
 as  when  the  .bws  said  that  the  world  was  created  on  the  first  of  Tisri,  because 
 the  first  word  of  Genesis,  Bereshith,  can  he  transposed  into  Bethisri.  See 
 Glassius,  Philolog.  ,Sacr.  425,  438. 
 
 4p  N?N  ?3  'Hpn  7X.  Hirschfeld  says,  "Mankonnte  etwas  covjicircn 
 und  verandem,    indent   man   sagte,    Wenn    man  die    Worte  verandert  oder 
 
Degraded  Bibliolatry.  105 
 
 the  intention  was  not  to  destroy  the  Biblical  reading,  but  to 
 add  to  it  a  poetic  (!)  figure.1  Thus,  in  Is.  ii.  22,  "  for  wherein 
 is  he  to  be  accounted  of,"  by  reading  ™?P,  "  a  high  place,"  for 
 n$3,  «  wherein,1'  they  get  the  deduction  that  whoever  salutes 
 his  neighbour  before  prayer  makes  him  as  it  were  a  high 
 place ! 2  And  if  they  desire  to  glorify  the  Sabbath  they 
 read,  "  Blessed  is  the  man  that  keepeth  the  Sabbath,  and  he 
 shall  be  pardoned,"  instead  of  "that  keepeth  the  Sabbath 
 from  polluting  it."  3 
 
 VII.  The  results  of  our  long  inquiry  are  very  saddening.  We 
 have  seen  something  alike  of  the  methods  and  of  the  results 
 of  exegesis  as  practised  for  nearly  2,000  years  by  the  very 
 nation  to  which  were  entrusted  "the  oracles  of  God."  We 
 have  been  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  methods  have  been 
 for  the  most  part  radically  untenable,  the  results  all  but  abso- 
 lutely valueless.4  The  letter-worship  and  the  traditionalism, 
 which  date  their  origin  from  the  days  of  Ezra,  the  idolatry 
 of  the  Law,  the  exaltation  of  ceremonial,  the  quenching  of 
 the  living  and  mighty  spirit  of  prophecy,  the  pedantry,  the 
 tyranny,  the  exclusiveness,  the  haughty  self-exaltation  of 
 Rabbinism,  the  growth  of  an  extravagant  reverence  for  the 
 oral  rules  which  formed  the  "hedge  about  the  Law,"  are 
 results  in  themselves  deplorable;  but  they  become  still  more 
 deplorable  when  we  see  that  meanwhile  all  that  was  essential, 
 divine,  and  spiritual  in  the  Law  was  set  at  naught  by  human 
 inventions.  Exegesis  became  a  mere  art  of  leading  astray. 
 Ii  ended  in  Pharisaism  with  all  its  fatal  evils,  substituting  an 
 empty  externalism  for  the  religion  of  the  heart,  making  more 
 of  fringes  and  phylacteries  than  of  justice,  mercy,  and  truth. 
 The  profession  of  Bibliolatry  slowly  but  surely  undermined 
 
 umstelll  so  giebt  es  einem  Sinn  unci  einc  Bedeutung  ah,  die  genau  iibereiii, 
 stinnnt  mit  dem  was  man  in  der  Bibel  crwartete!"    Halach.  Exegese,  164. 
 
 1   Moreh  Nerochim,  iii.  43.   See  Eisenmengcv,  Enid.  Judetilh.  i.  c.  8. 
 
 '-'  Berakhoth,  f.  14,  1.  , 
 
 :I  In  Is.  Ivi.  -.  by  reading  17  ?riO  for  177HO.  In  the  same  vprse  by 
 reading  Enos  for  "the  man,  they  argue  that  even  an  idolater  (Gen.  iv.  20) 
 shall  1"'  forgiven  if  he  keeps  the  Sabbath. 
 
 4  "The  rules  for  this  exegesis  afforded  as  great  a  facility  for  introducing 
 into  the  text,  as  for  deducing  from  it,  any  and  every  imaginable  conceit. 
 Cinsburg,  Coheleth,  p  30. 
 
106  Futile  Results. 
 
 the  Bible  which  it  nominally  worshipped.  The  long 
 labours  and  discussions  of  Sopherim,  Tanaim,  Amoraim, 
 Saboraim,  and  Gaonim  have  left  but  a  minimum  of  valuable 
 result.  The  Halakha  was  void  of  all  spiritual  significance. 
 Ceremonialism  flourished  under  its  auspices,  but  morality 
 decayed.1  The  sepulchre  glistened  white,  but  within  it 
 was  full  of  dead  men's  bones.  The  Haggada,  though  it 
 had  nobler  elements,  lost  itself  in  monstrous  combinations, 
 and  buried  the  natural  simplicity  of  the  Scripture  narrative 
 under  masses  of  legendary  distortion.  The  Qabbala  was 
 an  arbitrary  mysticism  which  led  to  nothing  but  delusion, 
 and  was  devoid  of  any  foundation  in  any  one  of  its 
 developments.  It  is  true  that  we  must  not  take  literally  all 
 that  we  find  in  the  Rabbinic  writings.  They  abound  in 
 unsolved  enigmas,  and  doubtless  had  many  meanings  to 
 which  in  the  course  of  ages  we  have  lost  the  key.2  The 
 fact,  however,  remains — that  volumes  might  be  filled  Avith 
 thousands  of  specimens  of  Rabbinic  exegesis,  of  which  it 
 would  be  difficult  to  say  whether  they  be  most  baseless  in 
 method,  or  most  wide  of  all  truth  in  the  conclusions  formed. 
 We  should  be  paying  to  Talmudism  too  high  a  compliment, 
 were  we  to  say  that  it  is  like 
 
 ' '  The  pleached  bower, 
 Where  honeysuckles  ripened  by  the  sun 
 Forbid  the  sun  to  enter." 
 
 The  most  distinctive  flowers  of  the  Talmud  are  artificial 
 flowers — flowers  by  which  we  cannot  for  a  moment  be 
 deceived. 
 
 1  See  Psalm.  Solomon,  iv.  3,  4  ;  viii.  9-11  (Hilgenfeld,  Messias  Judacorum. 
 p.  12). 
 
 2  Towards  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century  many  Christians  like  Mirandola 
 and  Peuchlin  were  eager  to  study  the  Qabbala,  and  Elias  Levita  was  patron- 
 ised by  Cardinal  Egidius  de  Viterbo.  Mirandola  thought  that  he  found 
 "  more  Christianity  than  Judaism  in  the  Qabbala — the  Trinity,  Incarnation, 
 original  sin,  redemption,  Angelology,  Purgatory,"  &c,  "  in  fact  the  same 
 gospel  which  we  find  in  St.  Paul,  Dionysius,  St.  Jerome,  and  St.  Augustine. " 
 Pope  Sixtus  IV.  wished  the  Kabbalistic  writings  to  be  rendered  into  Latin. 
 See  Ginsburg,  The  Massoreth  Ha  Massoreth  of  Elias  Levita,  Introd.  p.  12.  If 
 there  be  anything  distinctively  Christian  in  Kablalism,  it  is  historically 
 derivable  from  Christianity  itself. 
 
The  Judgment  of  Christ.  107 
 
 To  the  Jewish  scholars  we  owe  indeed  the  boon  of  a  text 
 preserved  to  the  utmost  of  their  power :  we  owe  the  priceless 
 labour  of  the  earlier  Massorets,  and  the  philological  know- 
 ledge of  those  mediaeval  Rabbis  who  furnished  the  grammars 
 and  lexicons  on  which,  after  fifteen  centuries  of  Christianity, 
 a  sounder  exegetic  method  was  gradually  built.  Indirectly 
 too  they  have  preserved  for  us  in  their  writings  many  tradi- 
 tional facts  of  an  interest  and  importance  greater  than  have 
 yet  been  fully  understood.  But  even  the  most  favourable 
 estimate  must  reluctantly  admit  that  their  writings  are 
 principally  valuable  to  the  historian,  the  archaeologist,  and 
 the  student  of  psychology,  and  that  it  is  indirectly  far  more 
 than  directly  that,  from  the  days  of  Ezra  to  the  days  of 
 Maimonides,  they  have  furnished  us  with  anything  of  intrinsic 
 value  for  the  right  apprehension  of  Holy  Writ. 
 
 .  Is  that  a  harsh  judgment  ?  Nay,  it  is  the  judgment  of 
 Himself.  Even  in  the  days  of  the'  Son  of  Man  the  exegetic 
 principles  which  find  their  full  development  in  the  Talmud 
 and  the  Midrash  formed  the  main  elements  of  the  popular 
 religionism.  And  Christ's  judgment  of  those  principles  was 
 luminous  and  emphatic.  It  was  "  Why  do  ye  transgress  the 
 commandment  of  God  by  your  tradition  ? "  l  It  was  "  Ye  hav< 
 made  void  the  Law  of  God  because  of  your  tradition."  2  It 
 was  "  In  vain  do  they  worship  Me,  teaching  as  their  doctrine 
 the  precepts  of  men."3  It  was  "  Ye  read  the  Scriptures  and 
 ye  will  not  come  unto  Me." i 
 
 1  Matt.  xv.  3.  a  Matt.  xv.  6. 
 
 3  Matt.  xv.  9.  *  John  v.  39,  40. 
 
"  There  was  a  flute  in  the  Temple  preserved  from  the  days  of  Muses, 
 smooth,  thin,  formed  of  a  reed.  At  the  command  of  the  king  it  was 
 overlaid  with  gold,  which  made  the  sound  less  pleasant.  There  was  also 
 a  cymbal  and  a  mortar,  preserved  from  the  time  of  Moses  which  had 
 become  injured.  Workmen  of  Alexandria  were  sent  for  by  the  wise 
 men,  who  mended  them  ;  but  this  so  impaired  their  efficiency  that  they 
 had  to  be  restored  to  their  former  condition." — Eirechin,  f.  10,  2. 
 
 ''Lacte  gypsum  male  miscetur." — Iren. 
 
 E£  06  (&i\a)vos)  ot/xru  Kal  7rus  6  aWrjyopiKits  iv  'E/ocX^aia  \6yos  eV^ey 
 upx')"  tl<rpvi]vai. — Photius,  Cod.  cv. 
 
 "touto  irvpnav  to  <=k\(ktik<)v  ....  (prjp.i." — Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  1  c.  7, 
 §  37. 
 
 S^/Soi/  yap  T(\  Tvavra  ij  ra  nktiOTa  rfji  vop.ode<rias  dWriyopt  irru. — PHILO, 
 De  Josepho,  §  6. 
 
LECTURE  III. 
 
 ALEXANDRIAN    EXEGESIS. 
 
 "  In  that  day  shall  there  be  an  altar  to  the  Lord  in  the  midst  of  the  land 
 of  Egypt,  ami  a  pillar  at  the  border  thereof  to  the  Lord." — Is.  xix.  19. 
 
 The  great  secular  tendencies  of  Exegesis  among  the  Jews 
 fall  under  two  widely  different  divisions. 
 
 One  of  these,  that  of  the  Rabbis  of  Palestine  and  Babylon, 
 was  national,  orthodox,  indigenous,  of  which  in  the  last  Lecture 
 we  traced  the  growth  and  considered  the  methods.  Their  aim 
 was,  as  we  have  seen,  to  interpret  and  to  develop  the  sacred 
 books  by  the  methods  of  the  Halakha,  the  Haggada,  and  the 
 Qabbala,  and  the  main  monuments  of  their  labours  are  the 
 Talmud,  the  Tarcmms,  the  Midrashim,  and  the  beginnings  of 
 the  Massora. 
 
 The  other  great  stream  of  exegetic  tendency  was  the 
 Alexandrian.  It  represented  the  workings  of  the  Jewish 
 mind  when  it  no  longer  maintained  its  rigid  and  exclusive 
 jealousy  of  foreign  influences,  but  had  absorbed  into  its  very 
 life-blood  the  wisdom  of  the  Greeks.  It  is  of  extreme  interest 
 and  importance,  because,  even  more  than  Palestinian  ex- 
 egesis, it  left  deep  traces  on  the  Biblical  studies  of  the 
 Christian  Church.  Its  chief  monument  is  the  writings  of 
 Philo. 
 
 1.  The  Dispersion  of  the  Chosen  People,  which  familiarised 
 the  world  with  ,i  purer  morality  and  a  monotheistic  faith, 
 was  one  of  the  methods  of  the  divine  economy  for  preparing 
 
112  The  Dispersion. 
 
 the  way  of  the  Lord  and  making  straight  in  the  desert  a 
 highway  for  our  God.  The  political  unity  given  to  the 
 government  of  many  nations  by  the  rise  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
 and  the  unity  of  language  created  by  the  conquests  of 
 Alexander,  helped  to  further  the  same  great  end.  The 
 letters  of  Hebrew,  and  Greek,  and  Latin  above  the  Cross  were 
 a  symbol  of  the  testimony  given  to  Christ  by  the  three 
 noblest  languages  of  the  ancient  world. 
 
 But  the  great  providential  end — the  spread  of  the  King- 
 dom of  God — could  never  have  been  achieved  if  the  Jews 
 of  the  Dispersion  had  retained  that  attitude  of  isolation 
 which  it  had  been  the  main  object  of  Rabbinism  to  secure. 
 If  outside  the  range  of  Rabbinism  "  the  hedge  about  the  law  " 
 had  not  been  broken  into  and  trampled  down  in  every  direction, 
 millions  of  Jews  could  never  have  adopted  Greek  customs 
 and  Greek  conceptions,  nor  could  they  have  facilitated  the 
 triumph  of  a  world-religion  over  the  superstitions  of  a  decaying 
 Paganism.  In  vain  did  the  Rabbis  of  Jerusalem  endeavour 
 to  stem  the  advancing  tide  of  Hellenic  influences  among 
 their  countrymen.  The  memorable  eighteen  ordinances,  dis- 
 cussed in  the  school  of  Rabbi  Hananiah  shortly  before  the 
 fall  of  Jerusalem,1  had  been  opposed  by  the  milder  Hillelites, 
 but  they  had  been  passed  amid  blows  and  bloodshed,  and 
 their  express  object  was  to  cleave  a  yet  deeper  rift  of  difference 
 between  the  Jews  and  the  heathen.  But  all  such  precautions 
 were  in  vain.  The  drift  of  universal  tendency  was  against 
 them.  The  will  of  God,  clearly  manifested  in  the  progress  of 
 events,  and  revealed  yet  more  clearly  by  the  teaching  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit,  showed  that  the  day  was  come  when  Mosaism 
 was  to  be  abrogated.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  system 
 so  jealously  maintained  by  the  Rabbis  was  not  Mosaism 
 at  all,   but   an   immense  superstructure  of  precedents   per- 
 
 1  The  Shemoneh  Esreh  ;  Shabbath,  i.  7  ;  Gratz,  iii.  494  ;  Derenbourg,  '274. 
 It  was  asserted  that  120  elders,  and  among  them  .several  prophets,  had  a  share 
 in  composing  them.  Megilla,  f.  17,  2.  Samuel  the  Little  took  special  part 
 in  them.  Berakhoth,  f.  27,  2.  These  ordinances,  to  which  the  Mishna  only 
 alludes,  are  found  in  a  bara'ila  of  11.  Simeon  ben  Jochai  in  the  second  century. 
 They  consist  of  prohibitions  which  rendered  all  intercourse  between  Pagan 
 and  orthodox  Jews  impossible.     See  Life  of  St.  Paul,  i.  129. 
 
Widening  Sympathies.  113 
 
 vaded  by  a  different  and  less  noble  spirit  than  that  of  Moses, 
 and  built  only  upon  the  drifting  sand  of  fragments  and 
 inferences.     Such  a  system  was  useless  for  mankind. 
 
 But  meanwhile  God  became  His  own  Interpreter.  The 
 little  corner  of  the  Mediterranean,  bulwarked  with  sea, 
 mountains,  and  deserts,  in  which  for  two  thousand  years  He 
 had  kept  alive  some  knowledge  of  His  name,  became  the 
 battle-field  of  heathen  conquerors.  The  Chosen  People  were 
 carried  away  captive,  and  the  faith  which  had  been  cherished 
 in  their  narrow  borders  went  forth  in  its  glory  and  its 
 consummation  to  conquer  the  whole  world.1 
 
 But  long  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  a  complete 
 change  had  come  over  the  views,  feelings,  and  habits  of  the 
 most  cultivated  children  of  the  Dispersion.  Commerce  had 
 become  universal  among  them,  and  commerce  is  the  great 
 disseminator  of  cosmopolitan  ideas.  It  had  for  this  very 
 reason  been  discouraged  by  Moses  in  the  days  when  the 
 mission  of  Israel  had  been  to  retain  and  not  to  diffuse  the 
 revelation  of  the  One  True  God.  Of  the  Hellenists  of  the 
 Dispersion,  some,  indeed,  strove  to  keep  alive  among  them- 
 selves the  Hebraising  views  of  the  narrowest  schools  of 
 Jerusalem,  but  the  great  majority  learnt,  even  insensibly  and 
 unconsciously,  the  lessons  of  circumstance.  They  kept  up 
 respectful  relations  with  the  old  hierarchy,  but  they  moved  in 
 a  different  world.  They  could  not  sweep  away  the  songs  and 
 philosophy  of  Hellas  as  mere  "books  of  outsiders."2  When 
 once  they  had  become  familiar  with  the  sunlight  of  Attic 
 literature  there  could  not  but  ensue  some  lifting  of  the 
 heavy  fogs  of  Rabbinic  Scholasticism.  They  could  not  fail 
 to  unlearn  the  tenets  of  a  narrow   particularism,  and  to  feel 
 
 that — 
 
 "  All  knowledge  is  not  couched  in  Moses'  law, 
 The  Pentateuch,  or  what  the  Prophets  wrote. 
 The  Gentiles  also  know,  and  write,  and  teach, 
 To  admiration,  taught  by  Nature's  light." 
 
 It  was  only  in  virtue  of  this  widened  sympathy  that  the 
 different-coloured  streams  of  Judaism  and  Hellenism  mingled 
 
 1  Keim,  Jem  von  Naaara,  i.  205.  -  D'OT^TI    D^"i3D. 
 
 I 
 
114  Alexandria. 
 
 their  waters  in  a  common  lake.  Alexandrian  Judaism  was 
 Judaism  tinged  with  Hellenic  culture,  and  from  Alexandrian 
 Judaism  were  developed  the  learned  schools  of  Alexandrian 
 Christianity. 
 
 For  it  was  almost  exclusively  in  the  splendid  city  of 
 Alexandria  that  the  fusion  of  Greek  philosophy  and  Jewish 
 religion  took  place.  Egypt  had  been  the  House  of  Bondage 
 for  the  fathers,  but  it  became,  as  a  Jewish  historian  has  ex- 
 pressed it,  a  School  of  Wisdom  for  the  children.1 
 
 The  conquests  of  Alexander  were  not  like  those  which  merely 
 disturbed  for  a  moment  the  dreams  of  the  brooding  East.2 
 They  produced  on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  a  cordial 
 interchange  of  Greek  and  Eastern  ideas.3  By  the  founding 
 of  Alexandria,  "  the  great  Emathian  Conqueror "  left  his 
 deepest  mark  upon  human  history.4  Its  commodious  harbour, 
 its  noble  Pharos,  its  magnificent  buildings,  its  regular 
 structure,  its  healthy  climate,  its  supply  of  pure  water,  its 
 unrivalled  position,  made  its  market  a  rendezvous  for  the 
 merchants  of  the  world.  The  patronage  of  art  and  literature 
 by  the  first.  Ptolemies,  the  magnificent  encouragement  of 
 research  by  the  Lectures  and  Libraries  of  the  Serapeium,  the 
 Museum  with  its  400,000  volumes,5  the  free  toleration 
 accorded  to  Oriental  theosophy,  to  Greek  culture,  to  Jewish 
 faith,    made    it   a   hotbed    of   intellectual    excitement.      In 
 
 1  Grixtz.     Philo  talks  of  rifiertpa  'AXe^avSpeta.     Leg.  <id  Gaium,  §22. 
 "  The  East  bowed  low  before  the  blast, 
 In  patient,  deep  disdain  ; 
 She  let  the  legions  thunder  past, 
 Then  plunged  in  thought  again." 
 
 — Matthew  Arnold. 
 
 3  Many  Greek  words  are  transliterated  in  the  Talmud,  and  it  contains  not  a 
 few  purely  Greek  conceptions.  See  Low,  Pralct.  Einl.  129.  Many  eminent 
 Rabbis  bore  Greek  names  (Alexander,  Antigonus,  Trypho,  Aristobulos, 
 Euthunes,  &c).     Three  chests  in  Herod's  temple  were  marked  a,  /8,  y. 
 
 4  On  the  civilising  and  cosmopolitan  mission  of  Alexander,  see  Plutarch, 
 Be  Alex.  Virt.  §  16  ;  Oehler,  s.v.  Volk.  Gottcs  (Herzog).  On  Alexandria 
 generally,  see  Strabo,  xvii.  1  ;  Oiodorus,  xvii.  52  ;  Pliny,  H.  N.  v.  10,  &c. 
 All  that  is  important  as  bearing  on  our  subject  may  be  seen  in  Hausrath, 
 Newt.  Zcitg.  Die  Zcit  d.  Apostel,  i.  124,  sq. 
 
 5  For  an  amusing  sketch  of  Alexandrian  lecture-rooms,  see  Philo,  De  Cong. 
 Enid.  Grat.  §  13  ;^Dahne,  i.  9. 
 
The  Jews  of  Alexandria.  115 
 
 Alexandria  the  people  of  Moses  met  the  pupils  of  Aristotle 
 and  the  followers  of  Zoroaster.  The  city  became  the  common 
 cradle  of  Poets  and  Geometricians,  of  Critics  and  Atheists,  of 
 Philonians  and  Neoplatonists,  of  Gnostics  and  of  the  scholars 
 of  Origen.1 
 
 To  the  Jews  the  city  offered  special  attractions.  Eight 
 thousand  of  them  had  been  settled  in  the  Thebais  by  Alex- 
 ander the  Great.2  The  wise  policy  of  the  House  of  Lagos  had 
 given  them  a  free  citizenship  and  had  protected  them  in  their 
 growftig  prosperity  from  the  suspicion,  rivalry,  and  hatred 
 which  it  seems  to  be  the  destiny  of  the  Jewish  race  to 
 excite  in  all  the  peoples  among  whom  they  settle.3  Before 
 the  Christian  era  they  had  increased  to  a  million  souls.  They 
 occupied  two  of  the  five  districts  of  Alexandria,4  and  almost 
 as  a  matter  of  course,  they  had  absorbed  the  chief  share  in 
 the  traffic  of  the  city.  They  had  especially  secured  the 
 pecuniary  monopoly  of  the  corn-ships  which  carried  the 
 harvests  of  Egypt  to  the  granaries  of  Rome.5  Their  Alabarch 
 became  a  person  of  great  distinction,6  and  their  Sanhedrin 
 satin  an  unequalled  Synagogue  "  on  golden  seats  frequent 
 and  full."  ' 
 
 1  See  the  remarkable  letter  of  the  Emperor  Adrian  to  Severianus,  in  which 
 he  says  (with  great  exaggeration)  that  the  christians  and  the  worshippers  of 
 Serapis  were  hardly  to  be  distinguished  from  each  other,  and  that  alike  these 
 and  the  Jews  were  all  mafhematici.  Sic  too  Matter,  Hist,  dc  V  Ecolc  d'Alcx. 
 15-23,  ani.  passim;  M.  J.  Denis,  La  Pit  Hog.  de  Orig.  p.  2. 
 
 -  B.O.  332  ;  Jos.  C.  Ap.  ii.  4  ;  B.  ./.  ii.  16,  §  4  ;  18,  §  7  ;  Philo,  C.  Flacc. 
 passim  ;  Herzfeld,  iii.  436,  sq.  ;  Gratz,  iii.  256,  sq.  ;  Jost,  i.  351  sq.  ; 
 Ewald,  iv.  308,  sq.  ;  vi.  233,  sq.  Was  this  settlement  of  the  nature  of  a 
 "deportation"?  If  so,  it  was  very  humanely  carried  out  (Strabo,  ap.  Jos. 
 Antt.  xiv.  7,  §  2). 
 
 3  Jos.  Antt.  xii.  1.  According  to  the  highly  exaggerated  statement  of  Pseudo- 
 Aristeas,  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  (B.C.  285)  released  more  than  100,000  Jewish 
 slaves.  It  is  certain  that  alter  the  Battle  of  [psus  (b.c.  301)  thousands  of 
 Jews  settled  in  Alexandria  'Jos.  ft  Apian,  i.  22),  and  Josephus  said  of  Onias 
 and  Dositheus  that  Philometor  intrusted  to  the  Jews  tj>  BaaiKeiav  o\i)v. 
 < '.  Ap.  iv.  5. 
 
 1  Philo,  in  Flacc.  §  8.  »  Philo.  in  Flacc.  §  6. 
 
 "Jos.  Antt.  xiv.  4,  §§  1-4;  vii.  2.  On  the  ill-understood  title,  see 
 Gesenius,  8.v.  in  Ersch  and  Gruber,  and  Forcellini,  s.v.  Arabarches. 
 
 7  Oral/,  iii.  -Jo.     of  the  Temple  of  Onias  tiol  much  can  be  said.     It  never 
 possessed  any  great  importance.     Kuenen,  iii.  183.     "  Whoever  has  nol 
 tin  Greal  Synagogue  of  Alexandria  has  not  seen  the  glory  of  Israel.     Each  of 
 th,'    seventy-one  chairs  was  worth  no  less  than    twenty-one  myriad  talents 
 of  gold  !     .\  Hag  had  to  be  waved  to  show  the  people  when  to  say  Ami 
 Sukkah,  f.  51,  •_'. 
 
 I   -2 
 
116  The  Septuagint. 
 
 II.  It  was  natural  that  this  vast  body  of  cultivated  and 
 prosperous  Jews,  who  were  equally  ignorant  of  the  Hebrew  in 
 which  the  Scripture  lessons  were  read,  and  of  the  Aramaic  into 
 which  they  were  translated  by  the  Meturgemans  of  Palestine, 
 should  desire  to  possess  their  sacred  books  in  the  Greek 
 language,  which  alone  they  understood.  It  is  true  that  there 
 was  a  strong  feeling  against  the  translation  of  the  Law  into 
 an  unhallowed  tongue,  and  the  strength  of  this  feeling  is 
 shown  even  in  the  letter  of  the  Pseudo-Aristeas.  He  makes 
 Demetrius  Phalereus  tell  Ptolemy  that  Theopompus  had  been 
 smitten  with  madness  for  thirty  days  for  introducing  into  his 
 history  some  facts  derived  from  an  older  translation  of  the 
 Pentateuch ;  and  that  the  tragedian  Theodektes  had  been 
 struck  blind  for  expressing  Jewish  truths  in  a  Greek  drama. 
 But  arbitrary  religious  convictions  always  give  way  to  human 
 convenience  and  necessity.  Common  sense  prevailed  over 
 theological  prejudice,  and  the  Version  for  which  the  Rabbis 
 kept  an  annual  fast  became  the  richest  blessing  of  their 
 fellow-countrymen  throughout  the  world. 
 
 This  is  not  the  place  to  enter  into  the  history  of  the 
 Septuagint  version.  It  is,  however,  certain  that,  whether  it 
 originated  in  the  daily  needs  of  worship  among  the  Alexandrian 
 Jews  or  was  produced  in  obedience  to  the  request  of  the 
 Ptolemies  who  wished  to  add  it  to  the  treasures  of  their 
 great  Library,  that  famous  translation  became  "the  first 
 Apostle  of  the  Gentiles." 2  As  regards  Judaism,  it  kept 
 millions  in  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  so  that  they  neither 
 became  Macedonians  in  Philippi  nor  Spaniards  in  Gades.3  As 
 regards  Christianity,  it  exercised  a  powerful  influence  over 
 the  language,  and  therefore  also  inevitably  over  the  thoughts, 
 of  the  Apostles  and  the  Evangelists.4     Further  than  this  its 
 
 1  As  regards  the  LXX.  the  Talmud  is  self-contradictory.  See  Wogue, 
 p.  136. 
 
 2  See  Pliilo,  Vit.  Mos.  ii.  §  7. 
 
 3  ITausrath,  I.e.  p.  129. 
 
 4  On  the  Septuagint,  see  Clem.  Strom.  1,  9,  §  45  ;  Euseh.  Pracp.  Ev.  ix.  6, 
 xiii.  12  ;  Aristeae HistoriaLXXII. ;  Interpr. : Pliilo,  Vit.  Mas.  ii.  §S  5-8.  Jos.  Antt. 
 Prol.  §  3,  xii.  2  ;  C.  Ap.  ii.  4  ;  Hody,  Be  Bill.  Text.  Orkntalibus,  Oxf.  1705; 
 Frankel,  Vorstudien ;  Griitz,  iii.  26-  45,  429-446.  Herzfeld,  Geseh.  d.  Volkes 
 Israels,  ii.  534-556  ;   Dahne,  llcligionsphil.  ii.  1-72  ;  Stanley,  Jewish  Church, 
 
The  Septuagint.  117 
 
 effects  upon  the  exegesis  of  Christendom  can  hardly  be 
 exaggerated.  The  universal  acceptance  of  the  fables  about 
 its  origin  narrated  in  the  forged  Epistle  of  Aristeas,  the 
 supernatural  touches  which  from  time  to  time  were  added  to 
 those  fables  by  Philo  and  Josephus,1  the  credulity  with  which 
 Justin  Martyr,  followed  by  many  of  the  Fathers,  accepted  the 
 inventions  of  the  Alexandrian  guides  about  the  seventy  cells,2 
 all  tended  to  deepen  the  disastrous  superstition  as  to  a 
 mechanical  and  verbal  dictation  of  the  sacred  books.  The 
 Greek  version  is  quoted  to  a  very  large  extent  by  the  writers 
 of  the  New  Testament,  even  in  passages  where  it  diverges 
 widely  from  the  original,3  and  it  furnished  them  with  not  a 
 few  of  the  technical  terms  of  Christian  Theology.  It  was 
 partly  on  this  account  that  the  belief  in  its  inspiration,  asserted 
 by  Philo4  and  by  the  forged  letter  of  Aristeas,  was  eagerly 
 adopted  by  Irenaeus,  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  Epiphanius 
 and  Augustine,  and  opposed  in  vain  by  the  better  sense  and 
 more  critical  knowledge  of  Jerome.5 
 
 It  is  impossible  that  a  translation  should  convey  to  any 
 reader  the  exact  sense  of  the  original.  Even  where  glaring- 
 errors  are  avoided,  where  the  version  is  faithful,  where  the 
 influence  of  religious  or  other  bias  is  resisted,  so  great  is  the 
 difference  between  the  shades  of  thought  conveyed  by  words 
 in  differeut  languages,  that  even  the  Son  of  Sirach  in  trans- 
 lating   the    work    of   his   grandfather    had    been   forced   to 
 
 iii.  255-262.  The  chief  Talmudic  passage  about  the  LXX.  is  the  curious  one 
 Megilla,  f.  9,  1.  For  the  bearing  of  the  word  yaiaos  (Josh.  viii.  18)  on  the 
 date  sceHody,  Dc  Bill.  Text ;  Wogue,  Hist,  dc  laBiblc,  pp.  1 36-143 ubisupra. 
 
 1  Jos.  Antt.  xii.  2,  §§  2-14  ;  Philo,  Fit.  Mos.  ii.  §  7. 
 
 -  Just.  Mart.  Jpol.  13  ;  Ambros.  inPs.  43.  No.  74.  See.  Klausen,  Augiostirms, 
 pp.  74-79.  The  name  Septuagint  may,  as  Hitzig  thinks  (Oesch.  Volkes  Isr. 
 :»41),  be  due  to  the  sanction  of  the  version  by  the  Alexandrian  Sanhedrin.  The 
 date  of  its  earlier  portions  is  about  B.o.  270-250.  The  work  of  some  fifteen 
 hands  at  least  may  be  recognised  in  it,  and  the  different  translators  were 
 differently  endowed. 
 
 3  Out  of  275  passages  quoted  from  the  0.  T.  in  the  New,  there  are  -)7 
 in  which  the  LXX.  differs  materially  from  the  Bebrcw. 
 
 4  Philo,  Vit.  Mos.  ii.  6,  7,  where  he  mentions  the  annual  festival  {topTij 
 teal   tTavi)yvpts)  in  honour  of  the  event  in  the  island  of  Pharos. 
 
 ■■  Iron.  aaer.  iii.  25  ;  clem.  Alex.  Strom.  1,   9,  §43;    Epiphan.   De  P 
 iii.  6,  9-11  ;  Aug.   De  Doctr.  Christ,   ii.  15;   De  Civ.  Dei,  xviii.   42;  Jer. 
 Praef.  in  Pent.     "  Nescio  quis  primus  auctor  cellulas  Alcxandriae  mendacio 
 suo  exstruxerit."    Cf.  Praej.  inParalip. 
 
118  Dislike  of  the  Septuagint. 
 
 remark  that  "  the  same  things  uttered  in  Hebrew  and  trans- 
 lated in  another  tongue  have  not  the  same  force  in  them  ; ] 
 and  not  only  these  things,  but  the  Law  itself,  and  the 
 prophets,  and  the  rest  of  the  books,  have  no  small  difference 
 when  they  are  spoken  in  their  own  language."  2  St.  Jerome, 
 for  instance,  had  not  been  guilty  of  any  intentional  unfaith- 
 fulness in  rendering  /meravoelre  by  " poenitentiam  agite"  but 
 those  words,  from  the  special  connotation  which  they  had 
 long  received,  conveyed  to  the  minds  of  Luther  and  of  his 
 contemporaries  no  other  sense  than  the  totally  different 
 one  "  do  penance."  It  came  like  a  revelation  to  Luther's 
 mind  when  he  found  that  the  original  word  meant  "  repent," 
 and  this  was  one  of  the  influences  which  led  him  to  offer  to 
 his  native  country  the  translation  of  Scripture  which  has 
 formed  her  langoia^e. 
 
 The  Jews  early  learnt  to  dislike  the  Septuagint.  The 
 Christians  used  it  in  their  Messianic  controversies,  and  even 
 accused  the  Jews — quite  groundlessly — of  having  falsified 
 the  original  in  passages  which  bore  on  Christian  contro- 
 versy. The  Jews  could  easily  justify  themselves  against 
 such  a  charge,3  but  their  most  orthodox  Rabbis  soon  began 
 to  declare  that  the  translation  of  the  sacred  Law  was  a  crime 
 and  a  misfortune  as  bad  for  Israel  as  the  day  on  which  the 
 golden  calf  was  made.4  Since  the  disaster  was  no  longer 
 reparable,  they  entrenched  themselves,  on  the  one  hand  in 
 methods  of  interpretation  which  professed  to  preserve  for 
 their  own  possession  the  true  sense  of  Scripture,  and,  on  the 
 other,  threw  the  whole  weight  of  their  preference  into  the 
 scale  of  the  versions  of  Aquila5  and  of  the  Judaising  heretics, 
 
 1    oil  yap  IcroSuvapLU  avrd. 
 
 "  Prol.  to  Ecclus.  oi<  jxiKpav  Zxei  TV  Statpopav.  Jesus  Ben  Sirach  came  to 
 Egypl  iii  b.c.  132. 
 
 3  The  rendering  &pv£av,  in  Ps.  xxi.  l(i  (Aquila,  tjaxvav),  and  the  non- 
 acceptance  of  the  Jewish  reading  Kauri,  "like  a  lion,"  is  one  striking  disproof 
 of  the  charge. 
 
 4  Sopherim,  i.  7  ;  Gratz,  iii.  429  ;  Zunz,  Gottcsd.  Fort.  95. 
 
 ''  <J)iKoTt/ji6Tepov    •7T€7rjo"Tei;1uej'os    irapa   'lovfia'iovs    i]p/j.T]vevK4vai    r^v    ypacprji', 
 
 Orig.  Ep.  ad  African.  Aquilae  secunda  editio  quam  Hebraei  koct'  aKpiPeiuv 
 uominant,  Jer.  ad  Ezech.  c.  3.  If  the  current  of  the  times  had  not  run  too 
 strongly  against  them,  Aqiba  and  other  Rabbis  would  have  refused  the  use  of 
 any  translation. 
 
Other  Versions.  119 
 
 Theodotion  and  Symmaclms.  Aqiba,  indeed,  tried  in  vain 
 to  forbid  the  use  of  any  translation,  and  merely  acquiesced  in 
 the  one  which  was  most  opposed  to  the  Christians.  His 
 pupil,  Aquila,  was  so  slavishly  literal  that,  following  the 
 exegesis  of  his  teacher,  he  even  rendered  the  case  sign  eth 
 by  avv.1  His  version  was  vaunted  as  the  sole  accurate 
 rendering  of  Holy  Writ.  All  three  translators  are  charged 
 with  using  their  undoubted  knowledge  of  Hebrew  2  to  esta- 
 blish anti-Christian  interpretations.3  The  Rabbis,  however, 
 finally  won  their  way  still  more  completely.  Since  the  days 
 of  Justinian  the  ScrijDtures  have  been  exclusively  read  in 
 Hebrew  in  their  public  worship,  and  the  only  version  permitted 
 for  private  use  is  the  Chaldee  of  Onqelos. 
 
 The  Seventy  had  not  realised  that  necessity  for  absolute 
 faithfulness  which  we  now  regard  as  the  first  duty  of  every 
 translator.  Excellent  as  their  version  is,  as  a  whole,  it  is  in 
 many  details  faulty,  and  it  is  full  of  intentional  as  well  as  of 
 unintentional  departures  from  the  meaning  of  the  original. 
 The  Son  of  Sirach  had  observed  that  the  culture  of  the  Jews 
 in  Alexandria  differed  in  no  small  degree  4  from  that  of  their 
 Palestinian  brethren.  This  difference  showed  itself  in  many 
 ways.  The  Seventy  do  not  scruple  to  prefer  the  current  view 
 of  their  day  to  the  literal  and  natural  sense.5  They  show 
 repeated  traces  of  the  influence  both   of  Jewish  casuistry 6 
 
 1  E.g.  in  Gen.  i.  1.  Aquila  has  'Ev  Ke(pa\a'tcp  (Kiroei  b  debs  avv  tuv  ovpavhv 
 icai  avv  tV  yrtv.  Origen  naturally  Bpeaks  of  him  as  oov\evcov  tjj  'E/3pauc;l 
 Af'£e<  (Ad  African.  §  2).  So  in  India  the  Koran  was  regarded  as  too  good 
 to  be  translated,  ami  now  the  interlinear  versions  in  Persian  ami  Urdoo  are 
 ton  literal  to  lie  intelligible.     Muir,  The  <'<>nh),  p.  48. 
 
 -   'Efipa'iKriv  5e  oiaKeKTov  ai<ptlius  eiaiv  rjaKt)nivot,  Epiphan.   Haer.  xxix.    7. 
 
 3  "Qui    script  iiram    nunc    undent    /xedfpfj.r}vevetv,    perperam     inter  pre  tail." 
 
 1 1'  n.  Haer.  iii.  24  ;  Epiphan.  />■■  I'oml.  c.  13  ;  Euseb.  U.K.  V.  §1.  "Judaeus 
 et  judaizantes  haeretici  qui  niulta  inysteria  salvatoris  suhdolu  interpretatione 
 celarunt ; "  Jer.  Praef.  in  Job.  Aquila's  translation,  as  a  counterpoise  to  the 
 Septuagint,  was  so  highly  valued  thai  I!.  Eliezer  ben  Hyrkanos  applied  to 
 him  l's.  xlv.  2. 
 
 4  tiipov  ov  fiiKpas  iraiotias  acpofiotov,  l'rol. 
 
 B  Cellarius,  De  Septuag.  Interpp.  s'  20;  "/'•  Kavernick,  Einleit.  s'  70. 
 
 8  Jewish  casuistry  ;  the  rlalakha,  Lev.  xi\.  19,  rhv  a/xneKaivd  aov  ;  xxiv.  7, 
 Frankincense  and  salt  ,•  Gen.  ix.  1,  Kp4as  tv  a'i^art  \pvxvs  ;  xxxii.  32,  oi>  /xii 
 <pdywat  ;  Deut.  xxvi,  12,  t<\  Seurtpov  t-jiotKarov,  &c.     Herzfeld  disputes  many 
 
 of  the  references  which  Fralikel  regards  as  llalakhie  (Gatch.  <>'.  I'.  Isr.  li. 
 542  fg.). 
 
120  Divergences. 
 
 and  Jewish  legend.1  They  feel  so  philosophical  a  re- 
 pugnance to  the  simple  anthropomorphism  of  the  sacred 
 writers,  that  in  the  earlier  books — before  the  age  in  which 
 such  expressions  no  longer  shocked  a  refined  culture  because 
 they  were  explained  away  by  allegory — they  deliberately 
 soften  or  alter  the  phrases  of  the  original.2  They  oc- 
 casionally suggest  a  parallel  between  Jewish  and  Pagan 
 ordinances  with  a  spirit  of  tolerance  which  must  have  been 
 highly  distasteful  to  the  stricter  Eabbis.  Thus,  when  they 
 render  Urim  and  Thummim  by  "  Manifestation  and  Truth," 
 they  indicate  a  resemblance  between  the  "  Twelve  Gems " 
 of  Aaron's  breast  and  the  sapphire  ornament  called  Thmei, 
 or  "  Truth,"  which  was  worn  by  the  Egyptian  priests.* 
 They  introduce  their  Angelology  where  it  has  no  sanction  in 
 the  existing  text.4  They  call  the  Nethinim  by  the  title 
 Hierodouloi.5  They  indulge  freely  in  Egyptian  technicalities.6 
 They  do  not  abstain  from  many  alterations — historical, 
 aesthetic,  and  even  doctrinal — of  which  some  are  not  a  little 
 arbitrary.  The  Talmud,  before  the  days  when  the  Septuagint 
 had  become  entirely  odious  to  the  Jews,  seems  in  one  passage 
 to  admit  its  inspiration,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  confesses 
 
 1  The  Haggada,  or  Jewish  legendary  lore.  Deut.  xxxii.  8,  guardian  angels 
 of  nations  ;  Josh.  xxiv.  30,  flint  circumcision-knives  buried  in  Joshua's  grave  ; 
 Ex.  xiii.  18,  "five  abreast;  "  Gen.  iv.  4,  Abel's  sacrifice  kindled  by  fire  ;  Josh, 
 xiii.  22,  Balaam  dashed  down  by  Phinehas  ;  1  Sam.  xx.  30,  Jonathan's  mother 
 one  of  the  maidens  seized  at  Shiloh  ;  Numbers  xxxii.  12,  Caleb  a  Gentile  by 
 birth.     Many  Haggadoth  are  introduced  in  the  Book  of  Samuel. 
 
 2  Ex.  xxiv.  10,  "  They  saw  the  place  where  God  stood.  .  .  Of  the  Elders  of 
 Israel  not  even  one  perished  (Si€<pwvriaep),  and  they  were  seen  in  theplacc  of  God," 
 a  singularly  daring  falsification.  See  Ex.  iv.  16,  24,  v.  3  ;  Num.  xii.  8  ; 
 xiv.  14  ;  Job  xix.  26,  27  ;  xxxv.  14  ;  Vs.  xvii.  15  ;  Is.  xxxviii.  11.  For  a 
 fuller  account  of  these  passages  see  Early  Days  of  Christianity,  i.  261,  fg. 
 Similar  changes  are  found  in  the  Targums.  See  Geiger,  Urschrift,  318,  fg. 
 Frankel,  Vorstudicn,  passim.  Siegfried,  Philo.  18;  Maqom,  t6ttos,  "place," 
 was  a  sort  of  recognised  euphemism  for  God.  Referring  to  Ps.  xc.  1 ;  xxxiii.  27, 
 Rabbi  Isaac  says  that  God  is  not  in  the  Universe  (Maqom),  but  the  Universe  is 
 in  God.  Bercsh.  Rabba,  §  68  :  Kitrhs  6  Qebs  KaAetrai  ronos.  Philo,  Dc  Soma. 
 i.  575  ;  Aboth,  ii.  17  ;  iii.  5,  6. 
 
 3  ArjAcocm  teal  'AXrjdaa.  Aelian,  Var.  Hist.  xiv.  34  :  ical  tK-aAeiTO  rb  &ya\/j.a 
 'AA-hdeia.  Philo,  Vit.  Mos.  iii.  11  ;  Hengstenberg,  Egypt  and  the  Five  Books 
 of  Moses,  c.  vi. 
 
 4  Deut.  xxxii.  8  ;  xxxiii.  2. 
 fi  3  Esdr.  viii.  5,  &c. 
 
 6  Such  as  aprdPr],  Is.  v.  10  (Herod,  i.  192)  ;  7/3is,  Lev.  xii.  17  ;  o'xoii'os',  Jer. 
 xviii.  15  ;  Orig.  ad  loc.  and  Herod,  ii.  6  ;  iraarocpopuov,  1  Chron.  ix.  26  ; 
 \pov6ofj.<paviix,  Gen.  xii.  45.     See  Hody,  Dc  Bibl.  Text.  p.  114. 
 
Alterations.  121 
 
 that  this  inspiration  led  the  "  seventy-two  elders  "  to  make 
 thirteen  deliberate  changes.  The  passage  is  as  blundering  as 
 usual,  and  perhaps  really  applies  to  the  version  of  Aquila  or 
 to  a  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  in  Greek  letters,  for  the 
 changes  alluded  to  do  not  exist  in  any  text  of  the  Septuagint.1 
 Five,  however,  of  the  alterations  mentioned  are  akin  to, 
 though  not  identical  with,  changes  which  the  Greek  trans- 
 lators actually  made.  Thus  they  seem  to  have  been  a  little 
 shy  of  the  word  "  ass."  They  make  Moses  put  his  wife  and 
 children  "  upon  the  beasts  of  burden," 2  and  instead  of  "  I  have 
 not  taken  one  ass  from  them,"  they  read  "  an  object  of  desire." 3 
 They  translated  "  hare  "  by  "  shaggy-foot  "  (8aav7rov<;)  not  by 
 \ayo)<;,  and  this  is  supposed  to  have  been  a  delicate  attention  to 
 the  House  of  Lagos,  lest  they  should  find  the  name  of  their 
 family  among  the  unclean  beasts.4  More  remarkable  was  the 
 interpolation  of  the  word  "  not "  to  remove  the  apparent  mis- 
 take of  classing  the  hare  among  ruminants.5  In  Ex.  xii.  40, 
 the  words  "  and  in  the  land  of  Canaan "  seem  to  have  been 
 inserted  to  get  rid  of  a  chronological  difficulty.  It  is  a  far 
 more  serious  matter  that  in  the  very  second  verse  of  Genesis 
 the  translators  have  rendered  "  without  form  "  by  " unseen" 
 and  have  thus  introduced  the  Platonic  conception  of  a 
 distinction  between  the  material  (guV^to?)  and  the  ideal 
 world   (/cocr^.o?  voTjro'i)  ; G   and  that  in  Is.    ix.   6,  in  accord- 
 
 J  Megilla,  f.  9,  i.  On  the  traces  of  Alexandrian  philosophy  in  the  Septuagint, 
 see  Diihne,  ii.  1-72,  who,  however,  makes  the  case  appear  much  stronger  than 
 it  really  is. 
 
 2  Ex.  ix.  20  :    M  ra  inro(vyta. 
 
 ;l  Num.  xvi.  15  :  i-iri6vfj.viJ.a.  In  this  passage  they  may  have  read  "ICPI  for 
 "lipn.  But  we  iind  the  same  tendency  in  Zech.  ix.  9,  where  they  use  ireSAos  ; 
 this  euphemism  was  suggested  by  the  absurd  rumours  afloat  among  Gen- 
 tiles about  the  Jews  as  ass-worshippers  ;  as  well  as  by  the  desire  to  escape  the 
 ridicule  of  nations  who  were  not  aware  thai  the  ass  is  not  in  the  East  a 
 despised  animal.  Jos.  C.  Apion.  ii.  10  ;  Tac.  Hist.  v.  y.  Comp.  Minuc.  FeL 
 Oct.  9  ;  Terfc  Apol  16,  ami  the  note  in  Life  of  Christ,  ii.  197.  So  Josephus 
 substitutes  kti]vos  and  '[-rnros  for  "ass.'' 
 
 4  Lev.  xi.  6;  Deut.  xiv.  7.  Cobet  doubts  this,  and  points  out  that  Lagos 
 means  not  "hare,"  but  "leader  of  the  people," and  that  Schtvitovs  is  a  common 
 name  for  the  hare.  There  must  be  some  strange  blunder  in  Megiua(f.  9,  1), 
 where  it  is  said  thai  they  rendered  Arneveth,  "hare,"  by  "short-fool 
 because  Arneveth  was  tie  name  of  Ptolemy's  mother.  Arneveth  bears  no  re- 
 semblance to  Berenice,  and  she  was  Ptolemy's  wife.     Aquila  uses  \ayws. 
 
 5  Sec  Stanley,  ./<  w.  Ch.  iii.  261. 
 
 6  a6oaTos  ko.1   aKaraaKtvaoTos.     See    Philo,   Dc  Opif.   Mund.  §10.     Aquila 
 
122  Mistakes. 
 
 ance  with  the  Alexandrian  theosophy,  they  substitute  "  an 
 Angel  of  mighty  counsel  "  for  "  the  mighty  God." 
 
 The  version  of  the  Seventy  must  therefore  be  regarded 
 not  only  as  a  translation,  but  as  a  corrected  edition  (8i6p0Q)ai<i)} 
 almost  as  a  running  commentary,  which  freely  manipulates 
 the  text  in  accordance  with  the  ;  tical  traditions  of  the 
 
 day.1  The  translators  never  s  .  uple  to  introduce  their 
 favourite  euphemisms,2  or  to  indulge  in  their  national  suscep- 
 tibilities.3 They  cannot  be  regarded  as  faithful  or  accurate, 
 still  less  as  inspired  interpreters.  Their  intentional  variations 
 may  be  counted  by  scores,  and  their  unintentional  errors  by 
 hundreds ;  and  alike  their  errors  and  their  variations  were 
 in  a  multitude  of  instances  accepted  by  Christian  interpreters 
 as  the  infallible  word  of  God. 
 
 The  immense  effect  produced  by  this  translation  is  shown 
 by  the  comments  of  Philo  and  of  the  Fathers  on  mistakes  of 
 the  Seventy  which  they  accept  as  "  inspired,"  but  which  some- 
 times completely  misrepresent  the  meaning  of  the  original. 
 A  few  instances  may  suffice  to  illustrate  this  fatal  magic  and 
 sorcery  of  mere  words. 
 
 In  Is.  lx.  17  the  Seventy  render  "  I  will  give  thy  rulers  in 
 peace,  and  thine  overseers  in  righteousness."  4  St.  Clement  of 
 Eonie,  quoting  from  memory,  gives  the  words  'Eiria-Ko-Trovi 
 and  Aia/c6vov<;  in  this  passage,  and  applies  it  as  an  ancient 
 prophecy  about  the  appointment  of  Bishops  and  Deacons.5 
 Irenaeus  also  makes  it  a  j^rojmecy  concerning  Presbyters.6 
 
 rendered  it  idvca/xa  ical  ov84v  ;  Symmachus,  apybv  ical  adiaKptrov  ;  Theodotion, 
 icevbv  ical  ovOiv. 
 
 1  Jerome,  among  other  disparaging  remarks,  says,  "Septuaginta  quod 
 nesciebant  dubiis  protulere  sententiis,"  and  "conjicio  noluisse  tune  temporis 
 Septuaginta  interpretes  fidei  suae  sacramenta  Ethnicis  prodere  "  (in  Rufinwm, 
 ii.).  In  Ep.  134,  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  Psalter  in  the  Septuagint 
 he  says,  "  Longum  est  revolvere  quanta  Septuaginta  de  suo  nddiderint,  quanta 
 dimiserunt  quae  in  exemplaribus  ecclesiae  obelis  asteriscisque  distiucta  sint." 
 
 2  Nah.  iii.  5,  to  6iricra>  aov.  Is.  iii.  17,  rb  o-xv/xa  a-vraiv.  Job  xxxi.  10, 
 Tcnreij/cufleirj,  &C.  1  Sam.  xxiv.  3,  TtapaaKevaffaadai.  1  Sam.  xvi.  23  ;  xix.  9, 
 omission  of  Elohim  and  Jehovah. 
 
 3  Ex.  ii.  1,  tuiv  duyarepcev  Aevt  (comp.  Lev.  xviii.  2)  ;  iv.  6,  oxrel  xt'"v 
 ("leprous"  omitted)  ;  vi.  12,  &\oyos  (of  uncireumeised  lips)  ;  vi.  15,  6  <='/c  tjjj 
 Qoivicrcrris,  vi.  30  ;  laxvo(poiv6s  ;  1  Sam.  xv.  12,  iirtarpexpe  rb  ap/xa  ;  1  Sam.  i. 
 14,  ■naiSdpiov.    They  omit  Ex.  xxxii.  9. 
 
 4  LXX,  Scixtoo  rovs  &pxovTas  aov  iv  elpiivy  ical  robs  iirtaKOTrovs  aov  iv  SiKaiocrvvi). 
 6  Clem.  Rom.  Ep.  ad  Cor.  %  42.  6  lien.  Hacr.  iv.  44. ' 
 
Followed  by  the  Fathers.  123 
 
 Jerome  does  indeed  alter  the  translation,1  but  in  his  usual 
 timid  and  vacillating  way  talks  of  the  admirable  majesty  of 
 Holy  Scripture  in  giving  the  name  of  "  Bishops "  to  the 
 future  rulers  of  the  Church  ! 2 
 
 In  Jer.  xi.  19,  "Let  us  destroy  the  tree  with  the  fruit 
 thereof,"  the  Seventy  curiously  read, "  Let  us  cast  the  wood  into 
 his  bread."  3  This  was  interpreted  by  the  Fathers  to  mean, 
 "  Let  us  cast  the  Cross  into  the  body  of  Christ,"  and  Jerome 
 says  that  this  application  is  given  by  the  consent  of  all  the 
 Church.  Justin  Martyr,4  Tertullian,5  Cyprian,6  Lactantius,7 
 even  Origen8  and  Theodoret9  all  follow  this  impossible 
 rendering  and  fanciful  misapplication. 
 
 Again,  in  Jer.  xvii.  9,  "  The  heart  is  .  .  .  desperately  wicked  ; 
 who  can  know  it,"  the  Seventy  for  "  anush,"  inscrutable,"  read 
 enosh,  "  man  " — Homo  est,  quis  cognoscct  ipswm  ? 10  It  was 
 nothing  more  than  a  mistake,  yet  the  Fathers  inferred  from 
 it  the  unknowablo  divine  nature  of  Christ,  and  that  He  was 
 both  God  and  man.11  In  this  instance,  also,  the  better  know- 
 ledge of  Jerome  pointed  out  that  the  argument  was  "  bono 
 qwidem  voto  sed  non  secundum  scientiam." 
 
 A  favourite  quotation  of  the  Fathers  was  "  He  reigned  from 
 the  wood  "  which  they  applied  to  Christ.  The  words  "  from, 
 the  wood  "  are  an  addition  found  in  some  MSS.  of  the  Seventy 
 iu  Ps.  xcvi.  10;  and  from  the  old  Latin  version  the  reading 
 found  its  way  into  the  pages  of  Tertullian. 
 
 In  Hab.  ii.  11,  the  Seventy  render  the  word  "  beam"  by  the 
 curious  word  K.dvdapo<;}~  Some  critics  have  altered  the  reading 
 into  Kcivdov,  Kavaj3ov,  /cavdijpiov,  &c,  but  probably  it  merely 
 
 I  Vulg.,  Ponam  visitationem  tuam  pacem,  et  praepositos  twos  jostitiam. 
 
 -  Jer.  ail  loc. 
 
 "   Septuag.,  tluBa\w/j.fi>  £v\ov  (is  rbv  &prov.  V.l.  rpaxv^ov.  Vulg.,  MittaWMS 
 
 '  in  partem  ejus. 
 :  Dial  p.  298.  •"•  C.  Jud.  10  ;  0.  Mare.  iii.  10. 
 
 ,;  Test.  adv.  Jud.  ii.  15.  '  Inatt.  iv.  19. 
 
 Horn.  e.  iii  iTi  r. 
 »  Theodoret,  ad  he. 
 
 '°  Jer.  xvii.  9,  Padi7a  7j  uapSia  Trapb.  irdura  ital  &vQp-xir6s  icm  (Valg.  171 
 kcu  TisyviLfftTcii  uvt6v  ; 
 
 II  Inn.  Boer.  iii.  20  ;  iv.  fi6.     Tert.    C.  JwL   10.     Cyprian  Test.  ii.  10. 
 int.  In    '.  iv.  18.     Aug.  C.  Faustum,  \iii.  B. 
 
 '-   Hal',  ii.  11,  ica\  Kavda.pos  Ik  £v\ov  (pdty^rai  c'xa. 
 
124  Followed  bii  the  Fathers. 
 
 means  a  knot  in  the  wood.1  Some  Latin  versions  rendered 
 it  " scarabacus"  beetle,  and  this  led  to  some  singular  com- 
 ments. Thus  St.  Ambrose  {Be  Obitu  Theodosii)  speaks  of 
 "  Him  who,  like  a  beetle,  called  to  his  persecutors,"  and  says 
 "  He  was  the  good  beetle  who  called  from  the  wood."  2 
 
 Again,  in  Hab.  iii.  2,  the  Seventy  had  "  And  thou  shalt  be 
 recognised  in  the  midst  of  two  animals,"  for  "  Thou  shalt 
 revive  thy  work  in  the  midst  of  the  years."  This  error  led 
 to  the  most  untenable  inferences.3  In  the  two  £coa  Origen 
 sees  the  Son  and  the  Spirit ;  Tertullian  sees  Moses  and  Elias  ; 
 other  interpretations  were  Angels  and  men,  Cherubim  and 
 Seraphim,  Jews  and  Babylonians,  the  Two  Thieves,  the  Two 
 Testaments.  Augustine  imagines  an  allusion  to  the  ox  and 
 the  ass  in  the  manger,  and  his  view  has  exercised  a  deep 
 influence  over  the  pictures  of  the  Nativity  in  Christian  Art. 
 The  exegesis  of  the  passage  furnishes  a  good  specimen  of 
 fancy,  working  without  restraint  and  without  any  guiding 
 principle  on  the  material  of  pure  mistake.4 
 
 The  misinterpretation  of  a  Greek  word  in  Ps.  xcii.  12, 
 "  The  righteous  shall  flourish  as  a  palm-tree,"  led  the  Fathers 
 into  an  unfortunate  argument.  They  mistook  the  word 
 (j)olvt^,  "  a  palm-tree,"  to  mean  a  Phoenix,  and  accepting  all 
 the  ancient  fables  about  the  Indian  bird,  they  quote  the 
 verse  as  a  proof  of  the  Resurrection  and  the  Virgin-birth 
 of  Christ.5 
 
 From  Nah.  i.  9,  which  the  Seventy  render  "  Thou  wilt  not 
 punish  twice  for  it,"  6  the  Fathers,  and  even  St.  Jerome,  con- 
 fidently maintain  that  the  people  of  the  cities  of  the  plain, 
 and  those  drowned  in  the  Deluge,  will  be  saved  hereafter ; 
 and  the  Apostolical  Canons  laid  down  the  rule  that  when  a 
 priest  had  been  punished  for  a  grave  crime  (even,  says  the 
 
 1  Vulg.,  Lignum  quod  inter  junctivas  acdificiorum  est  (tie-beam). 
 
 2  On  Luke  xxiii.  We  find  elsewhere  "bonus  scarabaeus"  applied  to  our 
 Lord. 
 
 3  Irenaeus  {Harr.  iii.  10).  Eusebius  {Bern.  Ev.  vi.  15)  and  Theodoret 
 read  £<i>£>v  for  (wwv,  and  interpreted  it  "two  lives." 
 
 4  Tert.  C.  Marc.  iv.  22,  &c.     See  Whitby,  De  S.  Script.  Interpret,  p.  137. 
 s  Seethe  passages  quoted  by  Whitby,  I.e.  p.  85. 
 
 6  Nah.  i.  9,  ovk  eKSiK-naets  S\s  els  avro.  Cod.  Al.  ovk  e/c5iK7jcret  51s  eirl  rb 
 air  6.    Vulg.,  Non  consurget  duplex  tribulatio. 
 
Supjwsed  Inspiration.  125 
 
 Canon  of  [?]  Basil,  for  a  crime  unto  death),  he  was  to  be  de- 
 posed but  not  excommunicated,  "  non  enim  vindicabis  bis  in 
 id  vpsum."  Why  the  benefit  of  the  verse  was  only  extended 
 to  priests  does  not  appear. 
 
 St.  Augustine,  as  is  well  known,  being  ignorant  of  Hebrew, 
 and  finding  in  the  Septuagint  his  nearest  approach  to  the 
 original,  had  an  exaggerated  opinion  of  the  sacredness  of  the 
 Greek  version.1  He  seems  to  have  doubted  whether  even 
 the  errors  were  not  of  divine  origin,  and  when  in  Jon.  iii.  4 
 the  Seventy  read  "  Yet  three  days  and  Nineveh  shall  be  de- 
 stroyed," 2  he  argues  as  if  the  "  three "  were  prophetically 
 significant  of  the  time  between  the  Death  and  the  Resur- 
 rection  of  our  Lord.3 
 
 We  are  surprised  to  find  similar  notions  prevalent  even  in 
 the  school  of  Antioch.  Yet  no  less  a  commentator  than 
 Theodore  of  Mopsuetia  relies  almost  exclusively  upon  the 
 Septuagint,  and  not  only  does  not  consult  the  Hebrew,  but 
 even  fails  to  make  use  of  the  Syriac  version,  which  would 
 have  often  thrown  light  upon  the  difficulties  of  the  Greek. 
 It  is  astonishing  that  he  should  accept  the  unhappy  rendering 
 '•'  Amalthaea's  horn  "  as  an  equivalent  of  Qeren  Happuk, 4 
 and  argue  from  the  allusion  to  Greek  mythology  that  the 
 Book  of  Job  was  written  by  a  heathen  ! 
 
 But  while  the  Septuagint  exercised  so  strong  an  influence, 
 and  repeatedly  betrays  its  Alexandrian  origin,5  it  does  not 
 
 1  Dc  Doctr.  Christ,  ii.  15  ;  Ep.  28,  c.  2  ;  Qu.  in  Gen.  169  ;  Dc  Civ.  Dei, 
 xviii.  42.  Epiphanius  regarded  the  Seventy  translators  as  prophets  De  mens, 
 ct  pond.  Justinian  ordered  the  Jews  to  use  the  Septuagint  Trpo<pnrtKris 
 uxrirep  x<*P'tos  irepi\a/ji\pdaT]s  avrovs  {Novel.  Diatax.  146). 
 
 ■  LXX.  *ti  rpels  Tjjxepai,  k.t.\. 
 
 3  De  Cons.  Ev.  ii.  66;  Dc  Doctr.  Christ,  iv.  15.  See  Trench,  Sermon  on 
 the  Mount,  p.  18. 
 
 *  "Horn  of  Stibium."  Job  xlii.  14.  LXX.,  'Af^a\6eias  Ktpas,  Vulg., 
 Cornu  Stibii. 
 
 5  The  following  instances  are  adduced  by  Franck,  Frankel,  Dahne,  &c.  : 
 Gen.  i.  2,  i)  5e  yr\  ijp  a6paros  :  Gen.  ii.  4,  5,  ^7roi7)<re  .  .  .  irav  x^-^pbv  aypov  ir  pb 
 roiiyevfffdai  tirl  rrisyrjs  :  Is.  xl.  26,  TlsKartSet^e  touto  :  Is.  xlv.  18,  d  naraSe'i^as 
 r^vyrjv.  These  are  supposed  to  bear  on  the  Platonic  idealism  and  the  creation 
 of  an  ideal  before  the  real  world.  Is.  xl.  26,  ^Ktpfpwv  nar'  aptdfj.bv  rbv  kSct/xov 
 avrov  (Pythagorean  notion  of  numbers)  ;  Is.  xlii.  13,  6  debs  rSiv  Swd/xeaiv 
 (the  logoi  or  intermediate  potencies  of  Philo)  ;  Ps.  ex.  3,  irpb  'Ew(r<p6pou 
 iytwnai  <re  (a  Pre-existent  Logos)  ;  Is.  ix.  5,  fieyaKns  QovKrjs  &yyeKot  (the 
 Logos),  kc.  Their  views  are  combated  by  Herzfeld,  Ccsch.  des  Volkcs  Israel, 
 ii.  411-414. 
 
126  The  Booh  of  Wisdom. 
 
 show  any  symptoms  of  that  which  was  the  special  tendency 
 of  Alexandrian  exegesis,  namely,  the  method  of  allegory.  Its 
 references  to  ritual  and  to  legend,  and  its  avoidance  of  anthro- 
 pomorphism, are  Palestinian  no  less  than  Hellenistic,1  and  too 
 great  stress  has  been  laid  on  the  supposed  traces  of  concep- 
 tions derived  from  Greek  philosophy.  Greek  influences  pro- 
 duced far  more  decisive  effects  on  the  Book  of  Wisdom.  In 
 that  book,  side  by  side  with  traditions  of  the  utmost  extra- 
 vagance, we  have  a  direct  incorporation  of  views  borrowed 
 from  Plato  and  the  Stoics.  The  unknown  author  who  took 
 the  name  of  Solomon  derives  from  Plato  his  doctrine  of 
 ideas,  from  the  Stoics  their  systems  of  ethics.  From  Plato 
 he  had  learnt  the  Immortality  and  prae-existence  of  souls  ; 2 
 the  coeval  existence  of  formless  matter ; 3  and  the  view  that 
 the  body  is  the  seat  of  all  sin.4  From  the  Stoics  he  had 
 learnt  about  the  Four  Cardinal  Virtues  and  the  Intelligential 
 Spirit  which  pervades  the  world.5  The  most  remarkable 
 instance  of  allegoiy  in  this  book  is  the  allusion  to  the  High 
 Priest's  robes  as  an  image  of  the  whole  world.6 
 
 In  the  semi-ethnic  Jewish  writings  of  this  epoch  we  have 
 another  indication  of  the  widespread  desire  on  the  part  of 
 cultivated  Jews  to  share  in  the  glories  of  Greek  literature. 
 The  poet  Ezekiel,  who  dramatised  the  Exodus,  the  elder 
 Philo,  who  wrote  an  epic  on  Jerusalem,  Theodotus,  who  re- 
 lated in  verse  the  story  of  Dinah  and  Shechem,  were  all 
 engaged  in  the  then  impossible  attempt  "  to  unite  the  pallium 
 of  Japheth  with  the  tallith  of  Shem." 
 
 Jason  of  Cyrene  wrote  in  five  books  the  story  of  the  Syrian 
 war,  which  is  utilised  in  the  Third  and  Fourth  Books  of  the 
 Maccabees.  Apocryphal  stories  like  "  Bel  and  the  Dragon  " 
 and  the  "Story  of  Susanna,"  as  well  as  the  legendary  ad- 
 ditions  to   Ezra,   Esther,    and    other  canonical  books,  show 
 
 1  Dr.  Deutsch  has  furnished  many  decisive  proofs  of  this  (Lit.  Remains, 
 pp.  348-356).  Josephus  was  largely  influenced  by  Philo,  and  occasionally 
 refers  to  allegoric  explanations.  Antt.  iii.  7.  §  7.  &c.  See  Diet,  of  Christian 
 Biogr.  ii.  452-458. 
 
 2  Wisd.  viii.  19.  3  Id.  xi.  17. 
 
 4  Id.  i.  4  ;  viii.  20.  5  Id.  vii.  22-24. 
 
 G  Id.  xviii.  24. 
 
Jewish-Greek  Writers.  127 
 
 that  the  Jews  had  felt  the  charm  of  Greek  romance,  and 
 desired  that  something  which  resembled  it  should  exist  among 
 themselves.  But  this  whole  style  of  literature  was  thoroughly 
 exotic.  It  has  for  the  most  part  perished  like  a  flower  which 
 has  no  roots.  The  pseudepigraphy  which  was  the  favourite 
 literary  form  of  these  productions,  and  which  led  the  writers 
 to  borrow,  on  the  one  hand  the  names  of  Enoch,  Solomon, 
 Jeremiah,  and  Baruch,  and  on  the  other  to  secure  attention 
 for  their  thoughts  under  the  name  of  Sibylline  oracles  or  of 
 fragments  from  Orpheus  and  Linus,  Homer  and  Hesiod, 
 Heraclitus  and  Xenophanes,  indicated  the  artificial  character 
 of  the  ago.  One  Jewish  poet  succeeded  in  palming  off  his 
 versification  of  the  Old  Testament  morality  under  the  name 
 of  the  Ionian  poet  Phocylides.  A  literature  which  breathes 
 the  very  atmosphere  of  forgery  and  fiction  is  essentially  a  dead 
 literature.  These  Hellenists  moved  in  an  unwholesome  at- 
 mosphere of  exaggeration,  unreality,  and  pious  frauds,  ami 
 they  naturally  wrote  "  Musis  et  Apolline  nullo."  They  were 
 trying  to  put  old  wine  into  fresh  wine-skins,  and  to  trans- 
 pose into  Hellenic  forms  the  wholly  alien  elements  of  Semitic 
 history.  Josephus  constantly  shows  the  same  desire.  In  his 
 suppressions  and  alterations  he  tries  to  throw  the  history 
 of  the  sacred  books  into  a  form  which  would  most  attract 
 the  attention  and  least  shock  the  prejudices  of  his  Greek 
 and  Roman  readers.  Doubtless  Artapanus,  Eupolemos,  and 
 other  Hellenistic  historians  were  actuated  by  similar  motives. 
 Many  Greek  and  Egyptian  writers,  the  priest  Manetho,  the 
 historians  Agatharcidcs,  Chaeremon,  and  Lysimachus,  the 
 philosophers  Apollonius  Molo  and  Posidonius  of  Apamea  at 
 different  times  attacked  Judaism  and  its  institutions,  and 
 the  Jews  wished  to  defend  themselves  by  every  literary 
 method  in  their  power. 
 
 III.  But  the  most  essential  contribution  of  Alexandrian 
 Judaism  to  the  history  of  exegesis  is  the  allegorical  method. 
 The  first  use  of  that  method  is  seen  in  the  fragments  of 
 Aristnliulus  and  the  letter  of  Aristeas.  It  culminated  in 
 Philo,  and  through  Philo — mainly  on  the  strength  of  a  passing 
 
128  The  Allegoric  Method. 
 
 instance  in  which  it  was  used  as  an  illustration  by  St.  Paul — 
 it  was  transmitted  to  at  least  fifteen  centuries  of  Christian 
 exegetes.1 
 
 i.  Of  the  letter  of  the  Pseudo-Aristeas,  we  need  say- 
 but  little.  Though  accepted  by  Josephus  and  Philo,2  it 
 is  an  acknowledged  forgery,  teeming  with  deliberate  fictions 
 and  propped  up  with  spurious  documents.  It  had  no 
 other  object  than  the  glorification  of  the  Septuagint.3  It 
 shows  the  allegorising  tendency  in  its  reference  to  ablu- 
 tions and  to  the  distinctions  of  clean  and  unclean  animals, 
 but  is  probably  of  much  later  date  than  the  writings  of 
 Aristobulus.4 
 
 ii.  Aristobulus  was  an  Alexandrian  Jew  and  a  Peripatetic 
 philosopher  (b.C.  160)  who,  in  2  Mace.  i.  10,  is  called  "the 
 master,"  i.e.  the  tutor  of  Ptolemy  Euergetes.  He  is  the 
 reputed  author  of  commentaries  on  the  books  of  Moses 
 which  were  addressed  to  Ptolemy  Philometor,  and  of  which 
 fragments  are  preserved  by  Eusebius.5  The  genuineness  of 
 these  works  was  impugned  by  Hody  and  defended  by 
 Valcknaer.  Recently  it  has  been  impugned  by  Kuenen 
 though  defended  by  Gfrorer.6     In  the  sphere  of  Alexandrian 
 
 1  See  Miiller,  Fragmenta  Hist.  Gr.  iii.  207-230 ;  Euseb.  Pracp.  Evanq.  be. 
 17-39  ;  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  c.  15  §  72  ;  Jos.  Antt.  i.  15  ;  C.  Ap.  i.  23  ;  Griitz, 
 Gesch.  d.  Juden,  iii.  483  ;  Delitzsch,  Gcsch.  d.  Jud.  Poesie,  211  ;  Herzfeld, 
 iii.  517  ;  Philippson,  Ezechiel  und  Philo.  1836.  The  Palestinian  Jews  looked 
 very  unfavourably  on  all  authorship.     Jost,  Judenth.  i.  367,  373. 
 
 2  Jos.  Antt.  xii.  2 ;  Philo  Fit.  Mos.  ii.  §  6,  Fabric.  Bibl.  Grace,  iii.  660. 
 Jost,  Judenth.  i.  372.  Hody  demonstrated  the  spuriousness  of  the  letter.  It 
 is  printed  in  Gallandi,  Bibl.  Pair.  ii.  771. 
 
 a  The  real  Aristeas  was  an  officer  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus. 
 
 4  The  High  Priest  Eleazar  is  made  to  say  that  the  ritual  of  Levitism  is 
 symbolic  of  higher  truths  ;  that  the  eating  of  birds  of  prey  is  forbidden  to 
 teach  the  wickedness  of  violence  and  injustice  ;  that  animals  which  chew  the 
 cud  and  divide  the  hoof  are  allowed  for  food  to  remind  us  of  the  duty  of 
 thinking  of  God,  and  of  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong.  These  are 
 stated  as  additional  reasons  to  the  political  and  sanitary  ones,  and  they  are 
 followed  by  a  special  allegorical  explanation  of  the  prohibition  to  eat  the. 
 weasel  and  the  mouse.  Such  commands  were  not  merely  given  prohibitively 
 (airayopcvTiKws)  but  didactically  (ivSeiKTiKws). 
 
 5  See  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  vii.  13,  viii.  9,  ix.  6, 
 xiii.  12. 
 
 6  Kuenen  thinks  that  the  real  Aristobulus  could  never  have  ventured 
 to  forge  so  many  interpolations  into  the  classical  poems.  On  Aristobulus 
 see  Valcknaer,  Diatribe  de  Aristobulo  Judaeo,  1806  ;  Gfrorer,  Philo.  ii. 
 71-120. 
 
Aristobulus.  129 
 
 literature    we    can    rarely    feel    any    certainty    about    such 
 questions.     We  are  walking  over 
 
 "  Ignes 
 Suppositos  ciiK'i'i  doloso.'' 
 
 Whether,  however,  we  accept  the  fragments  of  Aristobulus 
 as  genuine  or  not,  his  actual  work  was  of  very  great  impor- 
 tance for  the  History  of  Interpretation.1  He  is  one  of  the 
 precursors  whom  Philo  used  though  he  did  not  name,2  and  he 
 is  the  first  to  enunciate  two  theses  which  were  destined  to  find 
 wide  acceptance,  and  to  lead  to  many  false  conclusions  in  the 
 sphere  of  exegesis. 
 
 The  first  of  these  is  the  statement  that  Greek  philosophy 
 is  borrowed  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  especially  from 
 the  Law  of  Moses  ; 3  the  other  that  all  the  tenets  of  the 
 Greek  philosophers,  and  especially  of  Aristotle,  are  to  be 
 found  in  Moses  and  the  Prophets  by  those  who  use  the  right 
 method  of  inquiry.4 
 
 i.  The  first  statement  need  not  detain  us  long.  Aristobulus 
 asserts  that  before  the  days  of  Alexander  parts  of  the  Law  had 
 been  translated  into  Greek,  and  that  Plato,  and  even  Pytha- 
 goras, to  whom  he  afterwards  adds  Socrates,  had  largely 
 borrowed   from  them.5     Similarly  we  find  an  attempt  else- 
 
 1  Eusehius  {H.  E.  vii.  32)  says  that  lie  wrote  Bi&Kovs  t£riyriTiKas  rov 
 Mwiiffews  vujxov.  Fragments  are  preserved  in  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  vii.  13,  14  ; 
 viii.  !),  10  ;  xiii.  12,  of  which  some  are  given  by  Clement  in  his  Stromateis 
 (i.  §  25  ;  v.  §  20  ;  vi.  §  37). 
 
 2  De  Abrah.  ii.  15  ;  De  Joseph,  ii.  63  ;  De  Spec.  Legg.  ii.  §  2  (Mangey,  ii. 
 329)  ;  Leg.  Allegg.  i.  55,  and  De,  Dccal.  4.  My  references  to  Philo  will  almost 
 invariably  be  to  the  sections,  which  are  numbered  in  all  editions.  J  have  chiefly 
 used  Mangey  ami  the  Leipzig  editions. 
 
 3  SeeJustin  Mart.  Apol.  i.  59  ;  Cohort.  26,  30-33  ;  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  vii.  14  ; 
 Clem.  Alex  Strom,  i.  c.  22.  §  150.    'Apia-TiifiovKos  Sh  .  .  .  ypd<f>fi  KaT77K-oAot'07)Ke 
 
 St  b  TWaruiv  tt)  ko.8'  t)/j.us  vofj-oOeala  .  .  .  i<adu>s  Kal  TlvOayopas  woWa  ru>v  Trap' 
 7)u?f  ixtTtvi-yKas  els  ti-jv  tavTov  hoyjxaroTrodav.  Comp.  Strom,  v.  e.  14.  §  l'J>  ; 
 Dahne,  De  Clement.  Alex,  yvwaei.     Leips.  1831. 
 
 4  See  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  v.  20. 
 
 '  Philo,  in  his  dearth  of  the  historic  sense,  borrows  this  thesis,  and  thinks 
 thai  Socrates  ami  Heraclitus  and  Zeno  either  did  burrow  from  .Moses,  or  might 
 have  dime  so.  The  same  opinions  lasted  till  the  Middle  Ages.  Reuchlin 
 maintains  the  thesis  in  the  Becond  book  of  his  De  Verba  Mirifico  (comp. 
 cap,  18,  14),  asserting  that  Plato's  Absolute  Being  to  6vr»s  bv)  is  borrowed 
 from  "  1  am  that  1  am,"  and  the  Tetraktysof  Pythagoras  from  the Tetragram- 
 maton.     See  Philo,  Quisrcr.  div.  haer.    43;  Quod  omn.  prub.  liber.  16 
 
130  The  Allegorising  Method. 
 
 where  to  identify  Gideon  (Jerubbaal)  with  the  priest 
 Hierombalos  who  furnished  information  to  Sanchoniatho 
 the  Berytian ; 1  and  the  Prophet  Ezekiel  with  Nazaratus 
 the  Assyrian  who  is  spoken  of  as  one  of  the  teachers  of 
 Py  thagoras. 
 
 Such  statements  are  destitute  of  every  particle  of  historical 
 foundation.  They  become  doubly  suspicious  in  the  pages 
 of  one  whose  national  vanity  has  led  him  to  the  forgery  of 
 impossible  passages  of  Orpheus,  Linus,  Musaeus,  and  even  of 
 Aratus,  as  well  as  to  the  falsification  of  Homer — passages 
 in  which  he  makes  the  mythical  Greek  poets  speak 
 familiarly  of  the  history  of  Abraham  and  the  legislation 
 of  Moses.  Hellenistic  philosophy,  like  Palestinian  Rabbinism, 
 attached  boundless  importance  to  precedent  and  authority  ; 
 and  if  such  authority  had  no  existence  it  was  unscrupulously 
 invented.2 
 
 ii.  As  to  the  second  point — the  possibility  of  extorting 
 Greek  philosophy  out  of  the  Pentateuch — it  is  maintained 
 partly  by  the  modification  of  anthropomorphic  expressions, 
 partly  by  reading  new  conceptions  between  the  lines  of  the 
 ancient  documents.  In  answer  to  a  question  of  Ptolemy, 
 Aristobulus  told  him  that  Scripture  was  not  to  be  literally 
 understood.3  The  "  hand  "  of  God  means  His  might ;  the 
 "  speech  "  of  God  implies  only  an  influence  on  the  soul  of 
 man.4  The  "  standing  "  of  God  means  the  organisation  and 
 immovable  stability  of  the  world.  The  "  coming  down  "  of 
 God  has  nothing  to  do  with  time  or  space.  The  "  fire  "  and 
 the  "trumpet"  of  Sinai  are  pure  metaphors  corresponding  to 
 
 provid.  i.  77,  79  ;  ii.  42,  48  ;  Fit.  Mos.  i.  1  ;  ii.  4  ;  Be  poster.  Caini,  39  ; 
 (Jtcacstioncs  (Aucher,  ii.  83,  178,  359,  373,  503)  ;  Jos.  C.'Ap.  ii.  6  ;  E  ranch, 
 Die  Kabbala,  pp.  8,  9. 
 
 1  See  Euseb,  Praep.  Ev.  i.  10;  Boehart,  PhaUg.  p.  776;  Ewald,  Gcseh. 
 ii.  494. 
 
 2  Jn  quoting  Homer,  Od.  v.  262,  Aristobulus  substituted  k^So/xoi'  for 
 7  hparov.  Gratiger  says  outright  "Judaeorum  est  ruentiri,"  Ad  Chronol. 
 Euseb.  p.  405.  On  this  subject  of  forgery  see  R.  Simon,  Hist.  crit.  du  V.  T.  ii. 
 1 87  ;  Dahne,  i.  82  ;  ii.  214-236.  But  we  must  not  judge  ancient  pseudepigra phy 
 by  the  moral  standard  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
 
 3  Euseb.  Prarp.  Ev.  viii.  10. 
 
 4  So  too  Philo.  God  does  not  speak — a7ra7«,  jUtjt'  els  vovv  -nor  ihdr)  rbv 
 7i/.i4repov.      Decal.  §  9. 
 
Its  Cause*.  131 
 
 nothing  external.  The  six  days'  creation  merely  implies 
 continuous  development.  The  seventh  day  indicates  the  cycle 
 of  hebdomads  which  prevails  among  all  living  things — what- 
 ever that  piece  of  Pythagorean  mysticism  may  chance  to  mean. 
 Aristobulus,  however,  confined  allegory  within  reasonable 
 limits,  and,  as  Dean  Stanley  has  said,  if  he  be  held  responsible 
 for  the  extravagances  of  Philo,  of  Origen,  or  of  the  Schoolmen, 
 he  may  also  claim  the  glory  of  having  led  the  way  in  the 
 path  trodden  by  all  who  have  striven  to  discriminate  between 
 the  eternal  truths  of  Scripture  and  the  framework,  the 
 imaginative  vesture,  in  which  those  truths  are  set  forth.1 
 
 IV.  Here  then  we  trace  to  its  source  one  of  the  tiny  rills 
 of  exegesis,  which  afterwards  swelled  the  mighty  stream  of 
 Philonian  and  Christian  allegory.  Before  we  notice  the  writings 
 of  Philo  himself,  it  becomes  a  question  of  deep  interest  how  this 
 method  arose.  To  what  necessity  did  it  owe  its  origin  ?  Was 
 i  t  indigenous  among  the  Jews  of  Alexandria,  or  did  they  derive 
 it  from  other  sources  ? 
 
 The  study  of  history,  of  literature,  and  of  comparative 
 religion  enables  us  to  give  to  the  first  question  a  clear  and 
 decisive  answer.  Allegory  arose  from  the  deeply-felt  necessity 
 For  finding  some  borderland  for  the  harmonious  junction  of 
 Greek  philosophy  with  Jewish  legislation.  While  the  Rabbinic 
 casuists  were  spinning  cobwebs  of  ceremonial  inferences  out 
 of  the  letter  of  the  Law,  allegory  was  used  by  the  Hellenists 
 for  the  totally  different  object  of  developing  out  of  Moses  the 
 attenuated  semblance  of  an  alien  philosophy.  To  the  Rabbis 
 the  Pentateuch  was  the  germ  of  all  ritualism,  to  the  Hellenists 
 if  was  the  veil  of  all  gnosis.2  Ezra  and  the  Pharisees  were 
 tlif  masters  of  the  Rabbis;  Plato  and  the  philosophers  of  the 
 Alexandrians.  The  Hellenists,  however,  were  so  far  superior 
 to  the  Rabbis  that  they  set  the  spirit  above  the  letter,  and 
 valued  morality  more  than  formalism.  But  both  schools 
 went  widely  astray.  They  lived  in  ages  to  which  pure 
 Mosaism,  alike  in  its  conceptions  and  its  practices,  had 
 become  impossible.     The    Scripture    lessons — the   Parashah 
 
 1  Jewish  Church,  iii.  282.  The  LXX.  use  yvwais  to  render  \\1jf% 
 
 K    2 
 
1 32  A  lexandria/nism. 
 
 from  the  Law,  the  Haphtara  from  the  Prophets — were  read 
 alike  in  the  synagogues  of  Jerusalem  and  of  Alexandria,  but 
 in  both  cities  the  exegesis  was  nothing  but  a  travesty  of 
 the  ancient  documents — in  Jerusalem  a  series  of  untenable 
 inferences,  in  Alexandria  an  airy  dream. 
 
 It  was  impossible  for  a  cultivated  Alexandrian,  familiar 
 with  all  the  literary  treasures  of  Greek  thought,  to  live 
 like  a  Palestinian  Rabbi  "  within  the  four  corners  of  the 
 Halakha,"  or  to  think  that  life  could  be  profitably  spent 
 in  janglings  over  the  microscopic  details  of  an  abrogated 
 Levitism.  We  are  not  surprised  to  learn  that  the  Rabbis 
 of  Jerusalem  branded  a  man  as  "  a  genuine  Alexandrian  "  x  if 
 he  showed  any  of  the  independence  which  sprang  from  his 
 superior  education.  A  thoughtful  Hellenist  might  indeed, 
 like  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  find  some  outlet  for 
 the  play  of  fancy  in  the  fairyland  of  the  Haggada  ;  but  the 
 Haggada  was  only  applicable  to  questions  of  history  and  to 
 illustrations  of  practical  morals.  It  offered  no  answer  to  his 
 deepest  speculations. 
 
 Mingling  daily  with  subtle  thinkers  of  all  schools  from 
 Egyptian  priests  to  Greek  atheists — talking  one  day  on  the 
 mole  or  in  the  marketplace  to  some  Eastern  theosophist  from 
 the  centre  of  Asia,  and  on  the  next  to  some  bright  Greek 
 fresh  from  the  Lyceum  or  the  Academe,  and  trained  in  the 
 encyclopaedic  superficiality  of  that  epoch  2 — no  gifted  Jew 
 could  remain  spell-bound  in  the  narrow  self-assertion  of  his 
 race.  He  might  still  retain  his  conviction  that  his  own 
 people  had  been  exceptionally  endowed  with  religious  insight, 
 but  he  could  not  remain  ignorant  of  "  the  glory  that  was  Greece, 
 and  the  grandeur  that  was  Rome."  He  could  not  fail  to 
 see  that  God  had  other  sheep  who  were  not  of  the  fold  of 
 Israel,  and  that  if  He  had  given  His  law  to  the  children  of 
 Shem,  He  had  also  endowed  with  infinite  gifts  of  grace  and 
 culture,   of  art  and  science,   of  rule  and  dignity,  the    sons 
 
 1  K1H  ^JTttX1?  m3D3^X.  Iiappoport,  Erech  Millin.  p.  102,  quoted  by 
 Siegfried,  1'hilo,  6. 
 
 2  l'hilo,  De  Cherub.  30 ;  De  Agric.  3,  4  ;  De  Congress.  34  ;  De  Somn. 
 i.  35. 
 
A  lexandrianism.  1 3  3 
 
 of  Japhet.  Brought  into  life-long  contact  with  this  brilliant 
 and  fascinating  world,  how  could  a  Jew  any  longer  talk  of 
 all  countries  except  his  own  strip  of  seaboard  as  a  mere 
 "  without,"  or  adopt  the  bigoted  comment  of  R.  Ishmael  that 
 anything  except  the  Mosaic  Law  could  only  be  studied  at  an 
 hour  which  belonged  neither  to  day  nor  night  ? l 
 
 On  the  other  hand  an  Alexandrian  of  the  school  of  Philo 
 had  no  desire  to  apostatise.2  He  still  felt  the  spiritual 
 superiority  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets  over  Plato  and  tin; 
 philosophers.  He  regarded  the  Jews  as  priests  of  mankind, 
 and  compared  divine  wisdom  to  Sarah  the  princess,  and 
 human  wisdom  to  Hagar  the  concubine.3  He  still  reckoned 
 it  among  his  deepest  privileges  that  over  his  cradle  he  had, 
 as  it  were,  heard  the  rustling  of  the  oak  of  Mamre.  The 
 Mosaic  law  Avas  sacred  and  eternal;  Greek  philosophy  was 
 inspiring,  noble,  irresistible-  There  must,  ho  fancied,  be  some 
 middle  term  by  which  the  two  could  be  united.4  Such  a 
 middle  term  could  not  be  found  in  the  trivial  and  hair- 
 splitting casuistry  of  the  Palestinian  schools.  He  felt  himself 
 (1  liven  by  an  imperious  necessity  to  show  that  nothing  in  his 
 ancestral  faith  shut  him  out  from  the  charm  of  classical 
 antiquity  and  the  splendour  of  philosophic  truth.  His  object 
 was  to  defend  the  cause  of  Judaism  alike  against  sneering 
 Greeks,  wavering  Jews,  and  narrow-minded  Pharisees,5  by 
 harmonising  the  dogmas  of  divine  revelation  with  the 
 discoveries  of  speculative  thought.6 
 
 A  similar  necessity  has  occurred  again  and  again  in  the 
 religious  history  of  mankind.  It  has  driven  the  Brahmins  to 
 provide  a  mystical  interpretation  for  the  Vedas.     It  has  com- 
 
 1   Menachoth,  f.  Oft,  2:  Derenbourg,  861. 
 
 -  Philo  energetically  repudiates  all  renegades  from  Judaism.     He  tells  us 
 
 In  iv ■  such  "atheist  "  hung  himself,   "  that  the  foul  blasphemer  might  uol 
 
 even  end  by  a  pure  death"  De  Nom.  mutat.  i  s  ,  because  ne  had  sneered  at 
 plendid  present  of  a  single  letter  which  God  bad  made  to  Abraham  and 
 
 3  De  dbr.  19;  DeCongr.  quaer.  1-5. 
 
 *  De  Migr.  dbr.  j  L6  ;  />    Plant.  Woe,  §§8,  17. 
 
 i   Neander,  Oh.  Hist,  L  72,  7:: ;  Eerzfeld,  ii.  515. 
 
 8  "Ce  qui  soufflail  dans  Alexandrie  c'etail  le  vent  de  la  conciliation,  et  s'il 
 v  avail  danger  c'e'tail  moins  d'Stre  trnp  exclusif,  que  d'etre  tente  d'o 
 ensemble  des  choses  incompatibles."     Denis,  p.  7. 
 
134  Borrowed  from  the  Stoic*. 
 
 pelled  the  Sofi  to  find  hidden  senses  in  the  Koran.1  It 
 furnishes  us  with  an  explanation  of  the  fact  that  the  Bible 
 has  met  with  an  infinitude  of  varying  and  even  opposite 
 interpretations.  Thinkers  so  different  as  Hillel  and  Shammai, 
 as  Aqiba  and  Philo,  as  Origen  and  Luther,  have  sought 
 support  in  its  pages,  and  maintained  its  unapproachable 
 sacredness.  In  age  after  age  it  has  been  appealed  to  with 
 confidence  alike  by  Gnostics  and  Literalists,  by  Arians  and 
 Trinitarians,  by  Schoolmen  and  Reformers,  by  Lutherans 
 and  Zvvinglians,  by  Calvinists  and  Arminians,  by  Catholics 
 and  Protestants,  by  Sacramentalists  and  Quakers,  by  Church- 
 men and  Dissenters.  It  is  only  because  of  this  elasticity  and 
 universality  that  the  utterances  of  divine  inspiration  "pervade 
 innumerable  years  because  of  God.';  There  is  in  them  a  divine 
 expansiveness,  a  many-sided  significance.  Men  insist  on  har- 
 monising them  with  current  opinions.  Now  the  only  possible 
 method  for  thus  making  ancient  documents  of  felt  authority 
 express  throughout  their  whole  extent  the  thoughts  of 
 advancing  ages  is  the  method  of  finding  in  them  a  mystic 
 sense  which  lies  below  the  surface — in  one  word,  the  method 
 of  allegory.  In  the  schools  of  Palestine  the  impulse  of  a 
 patriotic  particularism  engrained  the  details  of  the  law  into 
 the  life  of  the  people ;  in  Alexandria  by  an  exegetical  art  of 
 turning  everything  into  parable,  the  meaning  of  the  Law  was 
 altogether  volatilised  in  order  to  conceal  an  inward  and 
 unconscious  apostasy  from  its  menacing  letter.2 
 
 V.  The  Alexandrian  Jews  were  not,  however,  driven  to 
 invent  this  method  for  themselves.  They  found  it  ready  to 
 their  hands.  There  is  no  more  curious  page  in  the  history  of 
 exegesis  than  the  undoubted  fact — a  fact  recognised  alike  by 
 Mangey  one  of  the  best  early  editors  of  Philo  and  by  Siegfried 
 the  profoundest  recent  student  of  his  writings — that  the 
 Apocryphal  writers  and  Aristeas,  and  Aristobulus,  and  Philo, 
 did  but  adapt  to  Scripture  a  method  which  had  been  de- 
 veloped by  their  heathen  neighbours, — a  method  which  had 
 long  been  applied,   and    was    under   their   own   eyes   being 
 
 1  See  Fr.anck,  Die  Kabbala,  31.  "  See  Reuss,  Gcsch.  §  503. 
 
Homer  Allegorised.  135 
 
 applied  by  contemporary  thinkers  to  the  poems  of  Homer.1 
 By  a  singular  concurrence  of  circumstances  the  Homeric 
 studies  of  Pagan  philosophers  suggested  first  to  Jews  and 
 then,  through  them,  to  Christians,  a  method  of  Scriptural 
 interpretation  before  unheard  of  which  remained  unshaken 
 for  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years. 
 
 The  poems  of  Homer  appealed  so  powerfully  to  the 
 Greek  imagination,  their  felt  charm  and  freshness  was  so  in- 
 exhaustible, they  were  so  rich  in  beautiful  lessons  of  human 
 experience  that  they  practically  became  to  the  Greeks  a 
 sacred  book.  Plato  was  unable  to  harmonise  Homeric  crudi- 
 ties with  philosophic  convictions  and  therefore  with  daring 
 consistency  he  banished  the  poets  from  his  ideal  republic — 
 banished  them  with  decision,  though  with  all  honourable 
 circumstance.2  But  in  this  the  Stoics  would  not  follow  him. 
 They  wished  to  bring  their  views  into  semblable  accord  with 
 the  popular  religion,  and  they  accepted  the  method  of 
 Theagenes,  Metrodorus,3  Stesimbrotus,  Glaukon,  and  others 
 who  had  produced  commentaries  on  Homer,  and  had  ex- 
 plained away  the  many  passages  which  came  into  collision 
 with  the  developed  religious  consciousness  of  their  day.  They 
 could  claim  a  high  and  ancient  authority  for  their  views  in 
 Anaxagoras,  who,  as  well  as  Pythagoras,  Democritus,  and 
 Empedokles,  is  called  "an  allegorist."4  Chrysippus,  says 
 Cicero,  wished  to  accommodate  the  fables  of  Orpheus, 
 Musaeus,  Hesiod,  and  Homer  to  his  own  opinions  of  the 
 gin  Is,  and  to  make  Stoics  of  the  ancient  poets.  Diogenes 
 of  Babylon  in  his  book  on  Minerva  allegorised  physiologically 
 the  story  of  her  birth.0     The  best  extant  specimen  of  these 
 
 1  Mangey  in  his  Preface  (Philonis,  i.  v.)  says,  "Magia  interpretationem 
 Allegoricam  invaloisse  probabile  est  ex  mythologicorum  scriptorum  inter 
 Ethnicos  fama  qui  tunc  temporia  coeperant  fabulaa  anas  propudiosas  el  impias 
 mystioas  uinbris  vcl  ohdueere  vel  det'endere."  On  this  subject  see  Lobeek, 
 Aglat  phamitB,  1829. 
 
 '-'   />•■  A''//,  ii.  pus:, in.     But  Plato,  too,  allegorises  Homer. 
 
 :t  8ee  Tatian,  "/■.  ml  Qrarcos,  2\  :  "  .Metrodorus  of  Lampsacus,  in  liis 
 treatise  concerning  Homer,  has  argued  very  foolishly,  turning  everything  into 
 allegory." 
 
 4  Diog.  Laert.  ii.  11,  Soku  npwTos  r)]v  '0/u7jp(«r)v  iro'fqfftv  anocp^yaaOat  irtpl 
 afit-TTis  Kal  SiKaiocTvvris. 
 
 8  L'ic.  Do  Nat,  Dcor.  i.  1.0.     See  Creuzer,  Synbolik,  i.  eh.  \i. 
 
136  Homeric  Allegories. 
 
 Stoic  methods  may  be  found  in  the  Homeric  Allegories,  at- 
 tributed, to  Herakleides  of  Pontus,  a  scholar  of  Plato.  No 
 book  can  prove  more  decisively  how  vapid  those  methods 
 were,  and  how  untenable  were  the  results  to  which  they  led.1 
 
 Finding  many  lines  in  Homer  which  seemed  to  them  un- 
 worthy, undignified,  morally  reprehensible,  and  even  positively 
 blasphemous,  the  Stoic  Allegorists  made  no  allowance  for  the 
 differences  of  opinion  and  custom  which  separate  earlier  from 
 later  ages,  but  they  set  themselves  to  explain  away  all  such 
 passages  as  containing  myths,  and  sacred  enigmas,  and 
 adorable  mysteries.  In  carrying  out  their  object  they  had 
 recourse  to  etymologies,  to  plays  on  words,  to  the  juxtaposition 
 of  other  passages,  to  physical  allusions,  to  the  symbolism  of 
 numbers,  to  the  emphasising  of  separate  expressions,  to 
 inordinate  developments  of  metaphor,  and  interminable  in- 
 ferences from  incidental  phrases.2  By  these  means  there 
 was  no  sort  of  difficulty  in  making  Homer  speak  the  language 
 of  Pythagoras,  of  Plato,  of  Anaxagoras,  or  of  Zeno  ;  and  borrow- 
 ing from  them  the  very  same  methods  the  Alexandrian  Jews 
 made  the  Bible  express  and  anticipate  the  doctrines  of  the 
 same  philosophers. 
 
 But  the  Jews  were  driven  to  allegory  by  a  far  more 
 imperious  necessity  than  the  Stoics,  because  their  books  were 
 the  constant  butt  for  Gentile  ridicule,  and  their  persons  for 
 Gentile  persecution.3  And  it  was  all  the  more  easy  for  the 
 Alexandrian  Hellenists  to  adopt  this  method  because,  in 
 Scripture  itself,  they  found  much  importance  attached  to 
 etymology  and  to  symbolic  numbers.  They  not  only  em- 
 braced the  allegoric  system,  but  they  gave  it  an  immense  and 
 wholly  unwarrantable  development.4 
 
 VI.  In  Philo  the  Greek  method  is  rigidly  systematised 
 and  brought  to  its  completion,  though  he  was  by  no  means 
 
 1  The  treatise  of  Herakleides  Pontieus  was  printed  by  Hevne  in  his  edition 
 of  the  Iliad. 
 
 2  See  some  excellent  criticisms  on  this  method  in  Cic.  Dc  Nat.  Deor  ii   18 
 
 3  Jos.  C.  Ap.  i.  21  ;  ii.  3,  §  5  ;  B.  J.  ii.  18,  §§  7,  8. 
 
 4  It  is  in  the  fourth  Book  of  Maeenbees,  erroneously  ascribed  to  Josephua 
 that  we  find  the  earliest  meeting-point  of  Jewish  and  Greek  methods. 
 
Three  School*.  137 
 
 the  first  Jew  who  adopted  it.1  He  found  three  exegetic 
 schools  existing  among  his  countrymen.  There  were 
 Literalists,  of  whom  he  speaks  with  lofty  superiority  ; 
 Rationalists  who  apostatised  from  Judaism  altogether  and 
 whom  he  regards  with  sorrow  and  indignation;2  and 
 Allegorists,  who  had  already  learnt  the  secret  how  to 
 reconcile  Judaic  institutions  with  Hellenic  culture.3  Philo's 
 works  are  the  epitome  and  the  development  of  the  principles 
 of  the  Allegi  >rists.4  To  them — though  not  by  name — he 
 constantly  refers ;  and  on  allegory  the  whole  Philonian 
 philosophy  entirely  depends.5  Eclecticism  without  originality 
 usually  has  a  chilling  influence  upon  belief,  but  by  the  aid 
 <>f  allegory  Philo  was  able  to  regard  himself  as  a  Stoic 
 philosopher  and  yet  at  the  same  time  as  a  faithful  Jew.6 
 
 He  was  very  little  imbued  with  Rabbinic  culture."  Of  the 
 Halakba  he  knew  nothing.  He  makes  little  use  of  the 
 Haggada,  though  he  was  partially  acquainted  with  it.  Some 
 of  his  etymologies  and  a  few  details  of  his  theological  teach- 
 ing show  an  affinity  to  the  Midrash.  His  chief  culture  was 
 Hellenic.       He   was  deeply  read  in    Greek    literature,    am! 
 
 1    Philo,  Ik  Vit.  Cunt rni ill.  t;  •'!,  ia-ri.    crvyypa.fj./j.a.Ta  Tro.Aa.twv   avSpwv   oi  .    .    . 
 troKKa  /j.vrjfj.e'ia  rrjs  tv  tois  aAKriyopou/Afvois  iSeas  airihi-Kov. 
 -  De  Migr.  Abrah.  §  39  ;  De  Mitt.  Norn.  §  8. 
 
 3  In  practice,  however,  Philo  was  probably  very  free.  He  went  to  the 
 theatres  of  Alexandria  (De  Ebriet.  §  43),  and  possibly  even  witnessed  bull-fights 
 (De  Mat.  Norn.  §  29). 
 
 4  Hi:  expresses  himself  einphatieally  on  the  need  of  retaining  .Jewish  insti- 
 tutions in  De  Migr.  Abr.  §  lb',  eial  yap  rives  oi  tovs  prjTovs  vAfxovs  (TvfxBoXa 
 vor\rwv  Tpa.yjxa.Twv  {nroKa/u-BdvovTes  to.  fiiv  dyav  riKpifiwaav  rwv  Se  fizdv/Aws 
 wKiywp-qaav,  ovs  /ueju(/,ai/u7)j'  h.v  'iywye  t7/s  evx*ptia.s. 
 
 6  Almost  all  that  is  personally  known  of  Philo  may  be  found  in  his  Leg.  iii! 
 Gaium,  22-28;  C.  Flaccum,  passim  ;  De  Spec.  legg.  ii.  §  1 ;  De  Pr 
 (Auclier,  ii.  187.  Euaeb.  Praep.  Ev.  viii.  II  ;  Mangy,  Li.  646,  673);  De 
 Uongr.  §  14;  Fnnimnits  ( l.'i.-ht.r,  vi.  lmm),  ?A6)  ;  .l,\s."  Antt.  xviii.  \  S  1; 
 xx.  5,  §  2;  Euseb.  Praep,  Ev.  viii.  13  ;  11.  !■:.  ii.  §  4  ;  and  in  the  notices 
 of  him  by  Jerome,   Isidore  Pelusiota,   Photius  {Bill.  Cod.  cv.),  and  Snidas, 
 
 g  v.,  <I>iA'xie.      The  date  of  his  birth  and   death  are  unknown,   hut  as  he  was  an 
 
 old  in  in  (i.e.  56,  see  Aboth,  v.  21)  when  he  went  as  an  ambassador  to  Gaius 
 1  'alignla,  A..D.  39),  he  may  have  been  horn  n.c.  10-20.   A  good  sketch  is  given 
 by  l.wald.  vii.  194  f.g.,  and  1  have  collected  the  main  facta  in  Early  Da 
 Christianity,  i.  28  1-279. 
 "  Euseb.  Praep,  Ev,  viii.  14. 
 
 7  He  does  however   refer  to    "the  tradition  of  the  elders"   Fragm.  ap. 
 
 b.  Praep.  Ev.  viii.   7.     See  Bern.  Ritter.  Philo  und  die  ffalac/ta,  Halle. 
 1879. 
 
138  P kilos  Eclecticism. 
 
 quotes  from  Homer,  Hesiod,  Theognis,  Pindar,  Solon, 
 Aeschylus,  Euripides,  and  Sophocles.  It  is  an  important 
 confirmation  of  the  source  from  which  Jewish  writers 
 borrowed  their  allegorising  method,  that  he  quotes  from  a 
 book  otherwise  so  second  rate  as  the  Homeric  allegories  of 
 Herakleides  Ponticus. 1  He  was  particularly  well  read  in  the 
 Greek  philosophers  and  refers  to  "  the  great  Plato,"  "  the 
 great  and  much-famed  Herakiitus,"  Parmenides,  Empedokles, 
 Zeno,  Kleanthes  and  the  Pythagoreans.  From  the  latter  he 
 borrows  the  symbolism  of  numbers,  and  from  Aristotle  the 
 distinction  between  hvva^i^  and  eVreXe^eta.2  If  he  re- 
 mained a  convinced  and  even  a  zealous  Jew  in  spite  of  the 
 Hellenic  tendencies  of  his  intellectual  culture,  it  was  because 
 he  believed  in  the  strange  methods  which  his  predecessors 
 had  borrowed  from  the  heathen.  This  belief  enabled  him  to 
 combine  the  mystic  rationalism  which  he  had  learnt  from 
 Plato  with  the  supernaturalism  which  he  owed  to  his  Jewish 
 training.  It  was,  however,  impossible  that  the  deep  self- 
 delusion  thus  induced  could  long  continue.  The  "  sophists  of 
 the  literal  sense,"  as  Philo  calls  them,  had  good  grounds  for 
 looking  with  suspicion  on  the  religious  philosophy  which 
 tried  to  turn  Mosaism  into  a  Platonic  religion.  Events 
 proved  that  the  God  of  Philo  was  but  a  vague  abstraction, 
 not  the  living  God  of  Israel;  that  when  the  Law  was  ex- 
 plained away  into  vaporous  commonplace  it  ceased  to  be  a 
 national  power;  that  the  history  of  Israel  lost  all  its  beauty 
 and  all  its  interest  when  it  was  turned  into  didactic  allegory 
 and  poetic  mist.3  Philo  could  still  visit  Jerusalem  and 
 practise  the  precepts  of  the  law,4  but  his  powerful  nephew, 
 the  Procurator  Tiberius  Alexander  became  an  open  apostate 
 from  the  religion  of  his  fathers.5 
 
 1  De  Leg.  Allegg.  i.  §  33  ;  Dc  Incorrupt.  Mund.  §  61  ;  see  Siegfried,  p.  138. 
 
 2  Quod  Omn.  prob.  lib.  §  1  ;  De  Incorrupt.  Mundi,  S  3  ;  Quaest.  §  16  ;  Dc 
 mund.  opif.  §  4  ;  Leg.  Allegg.  1,  64  ;  DeNom.  Mutat.  §35.  See  the  quotations 
 referred  to  in  Siegfried,  Philo,  138-140  ;  Zeller,  iii.  352,  fg. 
 
 3  See  Siegfried,  156-15!*. 
 
 4  Ap.  Euseb.  Prae.p.  Ev.  viii.  13. 
 
 5  Jos.  Antt.  xviii.,  8  §  4.  xx.  5,  §2.  Another  of  Fhilo's  nephews  (?) 
 the  Alabarch  Alexander  wrote  a  book  to  prove  that  animals  are  endowed 
 with  reason.     Thilo  answered  him  in  his  Dc  Divinatione.     Aucher,  i.  124-172. 
 
The  Literal  Sense.  139 
 
 Philo  professes  to  respect  the  literal  sense.1  It  is,  however, 
 clear  from  the  tenor  of  his  works,  as  well  as  from  his  special 
 observations,  that  he  regards  the  literal  sense  as  a  sort  of 
 concession  to  the  weak  and  ignorant.  To  him  the  Bible 
 furnished  not  so  much  a  text  for  criticism  as  a  pretext  for 
 t  henry.  Instead  of  elucidating  the  literal  sense  he  transforms 
 it  into  a  philosophic  symbol.  To  him  the  literal  compared 
 with  the  allegorical  sense  is  but  as  the  body  to  the  soul.  The 
 passages  which  he  refracts  through  the  distorting  medium  of 
 his  exegetic  system  may  be  counted  by  hundreds,  whereas  it  is 
 very  rarely  that  he  abides  by  the  plain  meaning  of  even  the 
 simplest  narratives.  Thus  he  cannot  leave  untouched  even 
 the  humane  command  of  Moses  about  the  restoration  at 
 nightfall  of  a  pledged  garment,  and  the  pledged  garment 
 is  forced  into  a  symbol  of  the  gift  of  speech  ! 2  "  For," 
 he  says,  "  the  whole,  or  the  greatest  part  of  the  legislation  is 
 allegorical."  "  Most  things  in  the  law  are  manifest  symbols 
 of  the  unmanifest,  and  uttered  symbols  of  things  unutter- 
 able." Intercourse  with  alien  races  is  a  powerful  solvent  of 
 fixed  beliefs.3  As  the  earlier  contact  of  the  Jews  with  Greek 
 life  had  been  the  parent  of  Sadduceeism,  so  their  later  contact 
 in  Alexandria  was  the  parent  of  an  esoteric  and  mysticising 
 allegory,4  and  finally  Alexandrianism  in  its  dazzling  un- 
 reality was  the  precursor  of  the  Gnostic  systems  which  were 
 the  later  offspring  of  a  combination  of  Eastern  with  Western 
 thought.5 
 
 The  complete  perversion  of  Scripture  which  results  from 
 Philo's  method  can  only  be  adequately  measured  by  those 
 who  are  familiar  with  his  writings.  He  was  a  good  man,  a 
 man  of  fine  genius  and   noble  instincts.     He  was  so  sincere 
 
 1  He  generally  rationalises  it  (sec  Opp.  i.  146),  but  sometimes  refers  t"  it  as 
 
 ti  $v  (pavtp'ji  Hal   irpbs  rovs  iroWovs   airodoffts  ;    !>/'  Abr.  29,  i)  far))   it  al    (pavepa 
 
 InriSoeris or  Kark  \6yov  (like  the  Midrashic    VJL"2    HT).    For  his  other  phra 
 Bee  note.     So  the  M  ishnic  doctors  distinguished  between  the  letter  which  thej 
 called  the  body  (KEM2),  ami  the  mystic  ^msc  which  was  as  the  soul  (KniSKPSJ. 
 
 -  1  >•■  Somn.  i.  S  16. 
 
 :t  //.  Joseph,  S  ')  ;  De  Spec.  legg.  i  82. 
 
 *  See  Vacherot,  Hist,  del' Ecoled' Alex- \.  165;  Dollinger,  Judenth.  ".  //• 
 
 x.  iii.  S  ">.     Philo's  favourite  i I'-  of  address  to  his  reader  i^  "  Ye  initiated 
 
 (J)  fivcTat  .  -      Baur,  Die  Christlich  •  ;  240. 
 
140  Perversions  of  Scripture. 
 
 that  he  even  believed  himself  to  be  inspired.1  The  immeasur- 
 able differences  which  separate  the  views  of  one  age  from 
 those  of  another  can  alone  account  for  the  fact  that  he,  and 
 his  readers,  and  the  school  to  which  he  belonged,  should 
 have  preferred  his  cold  abstractions  to  the  living  truths  of 
 Scripture.  The  Scripture  narratives  of  early  ages  belong 
 indeed  to  a  partial  revelation  and  betray  an  imperfect 
 morality,  but  they  are  full  of  human  tears  and  human 
 laughter,  and  are  enriched  with  some  of  the  deepest  lessons 
 of  experience.  In  the  hands  of  Philo,  the  poetry,  the 
 prophecy,  the  narratives,  even  the  simplest  legal  ordinances 
 of  Scripture  are  evaporated  into  commonplaces  of  philosophy, 
 or  turned  into  a  vehicle  for  the  rhetorical  expansion  of  moral 
 platitudes.  Even  where  they  have  a  value  of  their  own, 
 these  teachings  would  have  been  far  more  valuable  if  they 
 had  been  conveyed  in  a  natural  and  straightforward  way. 
 Philo  adopted  the  absurd  thesis  of  Aristobulus,  that  Greek 
 philosophy  was  a  mere  plagiarism  from  Moses  and  the 
 Prophets.2  But  if  the  sacred  writers  had  indeed  intended  to 
 teach  the  tenets  associated  with  the  names  of  Plato  and 
 Chrysippus,  all  that  could  be  said  would  be  that  their  method 
 was  infinitely  less  suited  to  its  purpose  than  that  of  the 
 Greeks,  and  that  it  had  so  completely  defeated  its  own  object 
 as  to  convey  wholly  different  impressions  to  all  but  one  in  a 
 million  of  those  to  whom  the  Scriptures  were  addressed. 
 
 In  Philo's  hands  the  Law  becomes  as  different  from  its  real 
 self  as,  in  the  opposite  direction,  it  did  in  the  hands  of  the 
 Halakhists ;  and  the  histories  of  Scripture  are  as  completely 
 set  aside  as  they  were  by  the  Haggadists.  Instead  of  the 
 glorious  story  of  Abram,  the  father  of  the  faithful,  we  get 
 a  typical  Stoic  who  departs  from  the  Chaldaea  of  the  sensual 
 understanding  to  Haran,  which  means  "  holes,"  i.e. ,  the  five 
 senses  which  teach  him  that  they  are  nothing  without  the 
 soul !     Finally  he  becomes  "  Abraham  "   that  is  "  an  elect 
 
 1  Ho  says  that  his  snnl  was  frequently  filial  with  inspirations  {9<=oK7ittts?- 
 rr9ai)  and  exercised  divination  (fj.avTeveff8cu)  De  Clic.rubini,  §  9  ;  rb  i/xavrov  irddos 
 u  /.tvpia<is  TraOiov  olSa.     De  Migr.  Abr.  §§  7-35  ;  See  Gfrorer,  Philo,  i.  58. 
 
 -  See  Quacstiones.     (Anchor,  ii.  pp.  83,  89,  359,  373,  &c.) 
 
Perversions  of  Scripture.  141 
 
 father  of  sound; "in  other  words  he  attains  to  a  knowledge 
 of  God  and  marries  Sarah  or  abstract  Wisdom.  Jacob 
 arriving  at  a  certain  place  where  the  sun  sets  becomes 
 Wisdom  acquired  by  training,  coining  to  the  Divine  Word 
 when  the  perceptive  faculty  is  found  to  be  useless.  When 
 he  says,  "  With  my  staff  I  passed  over  this  Jordan,"  it  would 
 be  abject  (icnreivov) — quite  unworthy  of  the  lofty  under- 
 standing of  a  philosophic  allegorist — to  understand  the  state- 
 ment literally.  Jordan  means  "  baseness  ;  "  the  staff  means 
 "  discipline;  "  and  Jacob  intends  to  say  that  by  discipline  he 
 had  risen  above  baseness.  It  is  for  such  vapid  teaching 
 entangled  in  endless  contradictions,  and  tedious  with  incessant 
 tautologies,  that  the  Philonian  exegesis  asks  us  to  give  up 
 the  simplest  and  most  instructive  of  human  histories  !  Philo 
 has  no  scruple  in  making  the  narratives  entirely  meaningless. 
 Indeed  he  shows  much  contempt  for  mere  narrative.  ■  In  the 
 literal  sense  Simeon  is  ferocious  and  vindictive;  in  the 
 allegory  he  becomes  the  type  of  spiritual  effort. x  In 
 Scripture  Joseph  is  an  innocent  sufferer  and  the  very  type  of 
 youthful  purity ;  but  in  allegory  he  becomes  (in  one  aspect) 
 the  type  of  the  sensual  mind  {(^iXoa-caixaro^  /cal  (piXoiradi^ 
 vovs),  and  of  one  wise  in  his  own  conceit, 2  though  in  another 
 aspect  he  is  the  victorious  overcomer  of  pleasure !  The 
 Patriarchs  in  Genesis  are  men  of  the  lowest  and  coarsest 
 character ;  in  allegory  they  become  so  many  virtues.  The  in- 
 difference of  Philo  to  the  splendid  records  of  his  nation  is 
 shown  by  the  fact  that,  after  Joshua,  he  does  not  allude  to  a 
 single  king  or  hero  of  his  race.  Philo  is  concerned  almost 
 exclusively  with  the  books  of  Moses.3  In  Mangey's  index 
 of  the  Scripture  references  to  his  works  in  one  volume, 
 there  are  about  1000  references  to  the  Pentateuch,  eighteen 
 to  the  Psalms,  eight  to  the  Prophets,  and  only  twelve  to  all 
 
 1  De  Ebriet.  §  23. 
 
 2  De  Somn.  ii.  14  ;  Quod  Dm*  immut.  $  -Jt  :  Leg.  .U/<v<f.  i.  §  88.  I  have 
 given  some  specimens  of  Philo's  allegories  in  Early  Days  uf  Oh rislianily,  i. 
 269. 
 
 •!  llr  mils  him  fimu>TaTos  k<z\  0fo<pt\t(TTaTos  rlov  ■n-uiroTt  ytvonivaiv.  'O 
 Uptlnaros,  6  Upo(pdvrr)s  bpyiuiv,  (col  SiSairxoAos  rwv  Qtlaiv  {I' it.  Mas.  iii.  g  24  ; 
 Oc  Gig.  §  12). 
 
142  Philo's  Theology. 
 
 the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  other  volume  there 
 are  only  four  references  to  Scripture  passages  outside  the 
 Pentateuch.  His  quotations  are,  for  the  most  part,  free 
 reminiscences,  and  the  Prophets  are  but  rarely  referred  to — 
 sometimes  only  vaguely,  and  without  their  names.1 
 
 We  are  not  here  concerned  with  Philo's  theology.  It  was 
 a  mixture  of  elements  which  never  coalesced  sufficiently  to 
 make  it  an  harmonious  system.  He  derived  it  more  from 
 the  Timaeus  than  from  the  Book  of  Genesis.  The  old 
 proverb  said  rightly,  "  Either  Plato  philonises,  or  Philo 
 platonises." 2  His  dualism,  his  belief  in  tbe  eternity  of 
 matter,3  his  assertion  of  the  incognisable  nature  of  God,  his 
 "  intermediate  Words,"  his  Platonic  idealism,  his  theory  of 
 the  primeval  androgyne,4  his  contempt  for  the  body,  were  not 
 learnt  from  Moses  but  from  the  Stoics,  and  "  the  holy  Plato  " 
 and  "  the  holy  community  of  the  Pythagoreans."  5  He  only 
 read  his  opinions  into  the  Pentateuch  G  by  impossible  processes 
 supported  by  the  self-delusion  of  his  own  infallibility.  His 
 God  is  a  philosophical  abstraction — "  a  Place  "  rather  than  a 
 Person — and  the  message  of  that  God  becomes  in  Philo's 
 hands  a  tedious,  vague,  and  ill-constructed  enigma.  His  whole 
 system  is  a  frozen  sea  of  generalities,  a  "  death  kingdom  of 
 abstract  thought." 
 
 VII.  Let  us  follow  him  from  the  beginning  in  his  book 
 "  on  the  Allegories  of  the  sacred  Laws."     "  It  would,"  he  tells 
 
 1  He  uses  the  formula,  ei7re  ris  tZv  trdKai  Trpo<pr]Twv.  He  never  mentions 
 Ezekiel,  or  Daniel,  or  quotes  as  Scripture  Esther,  Ecclesiates,  or  Canticles  (see 
 Frankel,  VorMitdicn  zu  cl.  Sephmyinta.,  29.  De  Wette,  Einleit.  26).  He 
 acquired,  however,  a  special  predilection  for  Jeremiah,  perhaps  from  traditions 
 of  his  stay  in  Egypt.  De  Cherub.  14.  Siegfried,  p.  161.  He  makes  very  little 
 use  of  Job. 
 
 2  Suidas  ;  Jer.  Catal.  11  ;  Ep.  83. 
 
 3  J.  G.  M  idler,  Des  Juden  Philo  Buck  d.  WeltsckSpfung,  1841  ;  Diihne,  i. 
 188,  fg.  Fragm.  a/p.  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  vii.  22  ;  viii.  13.  St.  John  emphatically 
 repudiates  the  Philonian  dualism.     John  i.  3. 
 
 *  De  Gpif.  Mundi,  24. 
 
 5  De  Provid.  ii.  42  ;  Quis  rer.  div.  kaer.  33.  See  a  brief  summary  of  his 
 theological  views  in  Zeller,  iii.  214. 
 
 0  DlpD.  De  Soinn.  i.  §  11.  This  term  is  also  used  by  the  Rabbis.  Philo 
 would  not  even  speak  of  God's  goodness,  &c.  since  He  is  better  than  gooduess. 
 He  can  never  be  known  in  the  How,  only  in  the  That  (on  iari  oix  os  or  iro7os). 
 Hence  he  calls  God  friroios.  His  whole  being  is  in  the  four  mysterious  letters, 
 the  Tetragranimaton  JHVH.    Deprocm.  ctpocn.  §  7;  Keim,  Jcsu,  i.  2S6  (E.  T.). 
 
Philo's  Allegories.  143 
 
 us,  "  be  a  sign  of  great  simplicity  to  think  that  the  world  was 
 created  in  six  days  or  indeed  at  all  in  time."  Six,  therefore, 
 is  only  mentioned  because  it  is  a  perfect  number,  being  the 
 first  which  is  produced  by  the  multiplication  of  two  unequal 
 factors.  On  the  seventh  day  God  did  not  "  rest,"  but,  having 
 desisted  from  the  creation  of  mortal  creatures,  began  the 
 formation  of  more  divine  beings;  and  the  word  should  be 
 rendered  "  He  caused  to  rest."  Nature  delights  in  the 
 number  seven.1  There  are  seven  stars  in  the  Bear,  seven 
 parts  of  the  soul,  seven  viscera,  seven  limbs,  seven  secretions, 
 seven  vowels,  seven  tones  of  the  voice,  seven  strings  to  the 
 lyre ; 2  and  by  God's  "  causing  to  rest  "  on  the  seventh  day  is 
 meant  that  when  reason  "  which  is  holy  according  to  the 
 number  seven  has  entered  into  the  soul,  the  number  six  is 
 then  arrested,  and  all  the  mortal  things  which  this  number 
 appears  to  make."  By  "-the  green  herb  of  the  field"  Moses 
 means  "  that  portion  of  the  mind  which  is  perceptible  only  by 
 intellect."  The  verse  "  God  did  not  rain  upon  the  earth," 
 means  that  God  did  not  shod  the  perceptions  of  things 
 upon  the  senses.  To  take  literally  the  words  "  God  planted  a 
 Paradise  in  Eden  "  is  impiety;  "let  not  such  fabulous  nonsense 
 ever  enter  our  minds."  3  The  meaning  is  that  God  implants 
 terrestrial  virtue  in  the  human  race.  The  tree  of  life  is  that 
 most  general  virtue  which  some  people  call  goodness.  The 
 river  that  goes  forth  out  of  Eden  is  also  generic  goodness. 
 Its  four  heads  are  the  cardinal  virtues.  Pheison  is  derived 
 from  -plicidomai  "I  spare,"4  and  means  prudence,  and  being 
 
 1  Comp.   Aristolmlus  (ap.  Euscb.  Pracp.  Ev.  xiii.  12),  St'  e0So/n.d5wv  Se  xal 
 
 -  On  Philo's  fancies  about  masculine  and  feminine  numbers,  see  De  Mitt. 
 Nom.  §35.  DeOpif.  Mimd.  g  3.  -lust,  Judmth.  i.  321.  Clement  of  Alexandria 
 (Strom,  i.  15,  §  72)  calls  him  a   Pythagorean   (tV  trap'  avrols  cpt\on-o<piav 
 
 tyypairrov  ytvoixev-qv  TrpoKa.Ta.ptai   tj)s  Trap'  "EWricrt   <pi\o(To<pias   5ia  iroWwv   <5 
 
 rif'layo'pftos  {nroSfiKwai  f>i\wv).  Jlis  notions  are  half  Pythagorean,  half 
 Kabbalistic.  Ewald  thinks  thai  the  allusion  of  Clemens  must  be  to  the  elder 
 Pliilo  (\ii.  206  E.T.).  On  his  Stoic  affinities  see  Zeller,  Phil.  d.  Oriechen, 
 iii.  346-852. 
 
 s  He  Bays  that  to  understand  literally  the  statements  about  Paradise  is  folly, 
 iro\Arj  Ka\  8v(rdfpa.TrtuTos  i)  evr)9eta(,~><  plant.  Noe,  8).  For  similar  expressioi  e 
 Bee  Lm.  Allegg.  iii.  2  ;  De  Mundi  Opific.  3,  and  note. 
 
 *  It  does  not  seem  to  strike  l'liilo  as  strange  that  ancienl  Semitic  names 
 should  come  from  Greek  roots.     The  whole  allegoric  system   makes  much  use 
 
144  Philo's  Allegories 
 
 an  illustrious  virtue  it  is  said  to  compass  the  whole  land  of 
 Evilat  where  there  is  gold.  The  name  Gihon  means  "  chest " 
 or  an  animal  which  attacks  with  its  horns,  and  therefore 
 stands  for  courage,  and  it  compasses  Ethiopia  or  humiliation  ; 
 in  other  words,  it  makes  hostile  demonstrations  against 
 cowardice.  Tigris  is  temperance ;  the  name  is  connected  with 
 a  tiger  because  it  resolutely  opposes  desire.  Euphrates  means 
 fertility  and  stands  for  justice.  Again,  Pheison  means 
 "  change  of  the  mouth,"  and  Evilat  "  bringing  forth,"  which 
 is  an  appropriate  name  for  folly  which  always  aims  at  the 
 unattainable,  and  is  destroyed  by  prudence  manifested  by 
 speaking,  i.e.  by  the  changing  of  the  mouth  !  The  car- 
 buncle and  emerald  of  the  land  of  Evilat  stand  for  Judah 
 and  Issachar.  The  Euphrates  does  not  mean  the  river,  but 
 the  correction  of  manners.  The  literal  statement  that  God 
 cast  Adam  into  a  deep  sleep  and  made  Eve  of  one  of  his  ribs 
 is  fabulous ;  the  meaning  is  that  God  took  the  power  which 
 dwells  in  the  outward  senses,  and  led  it  to  the  mind.  The 
 serpent  means  pleasure,  which  leads  Philo  into  a  long  disquisi- 
 tion about  the  rod  of  Moses,  and  the  tribe  of  Dan.  Dan 
 means  "  temperance  "  though  he  is  the  son  of  Bilhah,  which 
 means  imbibing ;  he  is  a  serpent  in  the  path  that  is  in  the 
 soul ;  he  bites  the  heels  of  the  horse,  because  "  passion  has 
 four  legs  as  a  horse  has,"  and  is  an  impetuous  beast  and  full 
 of  insolence,  and  the  soul  which  is  the  rider  of  this  horse  falls 
 backwards,  i.e.  falls  from  the  passions  when  they  have  been 
 wounded. 
 
 Such  explanations,  with  long  digressions,  strange  etymologies, 
 and  imaginary  parallels  occupy  two  whole  books  of  this  trea- 
 tise. The  third  is  of  the  same  character.  Moses  lays  down  the 
 wise  practical  rule  that  a  night-burglar  may  be  killed  without 
 incurring  blood-guiltiness ;  but  if  he  be  killed  in  daylight  the 
 slayer  is  guilty,  since  he  ought  rather  to  require  restitution 
 than   revenge.1     In   Philo's   hands   this   passage   gives   this 
 
 of  etymologies.     This  method  had  also  been  learnt  from  the  Stoics.     In  Lntin 
 they  derived  Mavora  from  "qui  magna  vertit,  Saturnus  quia  se  saturat  annis, 
 Minerva  quia  minuit,"  &c.  (Cic.  Dc  Nat.  Dcor.  ii.  18). 
 1  Ex.  xxii.  2. 
 
Philo's  Allegories.  145 
 
 strange  result: — if  any  man  cuts  down  the  reason,  and  is 
 found  standing  over  the  reason  thus  wounded  and  destroyed, 
 he  is  a  thief,  who  takes  away  what  belongs  to  God  and 
 receives  a  severe  blow,  namely,  arrogance.  "  But,"  says  Philo, 
 "  Moses  says  nothing  as  to  the  name  of  the  smiter,  for  the 
 smiter  and  the  smitten  are  the  same  "  ! T 
 
 The  death  of  Er  is  explained  as  follows: — Er  means 
 " leather,"  in  other  words  "that  leathern  mass  which  covers 
 us,"  namely,  the  body  !  Elohim,  and  not  Jehovah,  is  said  to 
 slay  Er  ;  and  the  meaning  is  that  goodness  condemns  the 
 dead  body  to  death.  The  touching  incident  of  the  blessing 
 of  the  two  sons  of  Joseph  is  made  to  signify  that  Jacob,  the 
 supplanter  of  the  passions  and  practiser  of  virtue,  gives  his 
 right  hand  to  Ephraim,  who  stands  for  prolific  memory,  and 
 his  left  to  Manasseh,  who  stands  for  recollection  aroused  from 
 forgetfulness.  The  Messianic  promise,  which  Philo  renders 
 "  He  shall  watch  thy  head  and  thou  shalt  watch  his  heel,"  is 
 explained  to  mean  that  God  says  to  pleasure  "  the  mind  shall 
 watch  your  predominant  and  principal  doctrine,  and  you  shall 
 watch  the  traces  of  the  mind  itself,  and  the  foundation  of  the 
 things  which  are  pleasing  to  it,  to  which  the  heel  has  very 
 naturally  been  likened."  In  the  passage  about  Sihon  and 
 Heshbon  (Numb.  xxi.  28-30),  Sihon  is  interpreted  to  mean  the 
 man  who  destroys  the  sound  rule  of  truth ;  Heshbon  "  soph- 
 istical riddles  ;  "  and  Debon  "  adjudication."  Philo's  comment 
 on  the  budding  of  Aaron's  rod  is  a  tedious  attempt  to  prove 
 that  "  the  nut  signifies  consummate  virtue."  2  In  the  perfectly 
 simple  passage  about  the  land  of  promise,  Philo  explains 
 "  cities  "  to  mean  "  general  virtues ; "  houses  "  special  virtues ; " 
 wells  "noble  dispositions  towards  wisdom;"  vineyards  and 
 olive-trees  imply  cheerfulness  and  light,  the  fruits  of  a  contem- 
 
 1  The  way  in  which  Philo  creates  difficulties  ahoul  the  literal  sense  when 
 
 there  are  i •  except  in  his  own  confusions  of  thought  is  shown  by  his  com- 
 
 nient  ii|kiii  tin'  Mosaic  rule  for  punishing  an  immodest  woman,  anil  also  by 
 his  absurd  remark  about  the  punishment  of  cutting  off  the  hand  of  a  son  who 
 
 The 
 
 nam  cujua 
 
 by  other  Allego 
 
 Fit.  Mos.  iii.  §  22. 
 
 nis  aDsura  remarK  aboul  the  punishment  ol  cutting  off  the  hand  of  a  s< 
 uci  father  or  mother  {Deporent,  col.  published  by  Angelo  Mai) 
 naive  confession  of  St.  Jerome,  "AUegorice  mterpretatus  sum  Obadian 
 neseiebam,'.'  might  hate  been  made  by  other  Alleeorists. 
 
14G  Variable  Symbols. 
 
 plative  life.1  The  five  Cities  of  the  Plain  are  the  five  senses. 
 And  thus  every  person,  every  living  figure  who  passes  across 
 the  stage  of  Scripture  history  ceases  for  all  practical  purposes 
 to  be  himself,  arid  becomes  a  dim  personification.  Moses  is 
 intelligence ;  Aaron  is  speech  ;  Enoch  is  repentance  ;  Noah 
 righteousness.  Abraham  is  virtue  acquired  by  learning ; 
 Isaac  is  innate  virtue ;  Jacob  is  virtue  obtained  by  struggle  ; 
 Lot  is  sensuality;  Ishmael  is  sophistry;  Esau  is  rude  dis- 
 obedience ;  Leah  is  patient  virtue  ;  Rachel  innocence.2  And 
 unhappily  these  counters,  of  which  the  significance  is  often 
 made  to  depend  on  a  wild  etymology,  are  interchangeable — 
 so  that  they  may  sometimes  stand  for  one  thing  and  some- 
 times for  another  thing  which  is  entirely  different.  Japhet  for 
 instance  is  in  one  sense  permissible  enjoyment;  in  another  he 
 is  insatiable  desire.3  The  sun  is  sometimes  the  understanding 
 (which  is  the  reason  why  Joseph  marries  the  daughter  of  the 
 priest  of  Heliopolis,  Gen.  xli.  45) ;  sometimes  the  bodily  sense, 
 (so  that  the  sun  begins  to  rise  when  Jacob  no  longer  sees 
 God,  Gen.  xxxii.  32) ;  sometimes  the  Word  of  God  ;  sometimes 
 God  Himself.  And  thus  the  whole  Bible  becomes  an  insipid 
 philosophical  romance  of  which  the  interpretation  floats  in 
 the  air,  and  which  can  only  be  understood  by  the  uncertain 
 aid  of  a  dictionary  of  metaphors. 
 
 This  kind  of  exegesis  is  not  improved  but  rendered 
 still  more  valueless  by  the  futile  methods  adopted  to 
 sublimate  these  pale  generalities  out  of  narratives  which 
 thrill  with  life,  and  are  rich  with  the  lessons  of  experience. 
 For  instance,  the  parallel  passages  which  are  introduced 
 have  nothing  but  the  most  distant  verbal  connection 
 with  the  passage  explained.  When  we  are  told  that 
 "  God  planted  a  garden  in  Eden,"  it  is  worse  than  super- 
 fluous to  explain  to   us  that   the  reason   why  Moses   said 
 
 1  Be  Frofugii,  §  31  ;  Quod  Beus  immut.  §  21. 
 
 2  ou  irepl  -ywaiKoiv  \6yos  dAAa  Siavoiuv,  Be  Congr.  crud.  1-6,  and  passim. 
 Philo  says  (6)  that  Zilpah  means  "a  mouth  going  forth, "  and  Bilhah  " a 
 swallowing." 
 
 3  For  Joseph  see  Leg.  allcgg.  i.  §  63  ;  iii.  §§  85,  86.  For  Japhet  see  Be 
 Sobrict.  §  12;  and  Qaacst.  in  Gen.  ii.  80;  and  generally  Siegfried,  Philo, 
 190-196. 
 
Exegetic  Frivolity.  147 
 
 "  Thou  shalt  not  plant  a  grove  for  thyself,"  is  that  we 
 are  only  to  plant  fruit-bearing  trees,  not  wild  trees,  in  our 
 minds.1  It  is  neither  exegesis  nor  anything  resembling  it,  to 
 say  that  "  she "  is  used  in  "  die  shall  be  called  woman " 
 because  "  there  is  another  kind  of  outward  sensation  not 
 derived  from  the  mind."  It  is  exegetical  frivolity  to  say  that 
 by  a  change  of  accent  the  words  rnrov  el ;  "  Where  art  thou  ?  " 
 in  the  Greek  version  may  mean  "  Thou  art  somewhere ; " 
 and  then  to  build  an  argument  on  both  phrases.2  Philo's 
 method  was  equally  alien  from  the  natural  interpretation  of 
 unsophisticated  piety,  and  from  the  accepted  results  of 
 scientific  criticism.  It  was  a  hybrid  born  on  both  sides  of 
 illegitimate  parentage.  It  was  the  strange  offspring  of 
 Rabbinic  dogma  and  Greek  philosophy. 
 
 Philo  held  the  most  rigid  views  of  inspiration,  though 
 when  he  deals  with  them  practically  he  becomes  vague  and 
 self-contradictory.  To  him  Scripture  is  "  the  holy  word,"  "  the 
 divine  word,"  "  the  right  word  ;  "  and  its  utterances  are  "  sacred 
 oracles." 3 '  Borrowing  a  theory  from  Plato,  he  imagines 
 that  the  sacred  books  were  written  in  a  condition  of 
 ecstasy,  which  wholly  obliterated  the  human  powers.  The 
 vocal  organs  of  the  prophets,  without  any  co-operation 
 on  their  part,  were  but  used  by  a  divine  ventriloquism. 
 These  views  are  the  issue  of  nothing  better  than  the 
 pseudo-philosophic  postulate,  that  "the  mortal  cannot  dwell 
 together  with  the  immortal."  He  regards  the  books  of 
 Scripture  as  divine,  and  as  having  been  written  by 
 "  scholars  of  Moses,"  and  as  forming  part  of  an  indivisible 
 whole,  which  was  supernaturally  significant  down  to  its 
 minutest  parts.     Aqiba  himself  used  no  stronger  language  on 
 
 1  Dent.  xvi.  21.  The  verse  means  "Thou  shalt  not  set  up  an  Asherah  (or 
 phallic  emblem  of  the  nature-goddess)  of  any  wood." 
 
 -  Philo,  even  if  he  had  more  than  a  smattering  of  Hebrew,  yet  speaks  of 
 tin:  Oivi'k  as  "  our  dialect,"  and  of  "us  Greeks  "  as  distinguished  from  the 
 Hebrews.  I)c  Conf.  Ling.  26;  De  Congr.  crud.  8  ;  and  of  "our  Alexan- 
 dria "  (Leg.  ad  Gaium,  22). 
 
 3  XPV&H-0h  Xdyta,  j'epo  fH&Aos,  Updirarov  ypififxa,  b  Upbs  or  OfTos  \6yos,  or 
 6  dpdus  \6yos.  De  Mat.  Nom.  8  ;  Quia.  res.  div.  53  ;  Vit.  Mos.  iii.  28;  De 
 Monarch,  i.  9  ;  De  Spec.  Legg.  iv.  8.  He  even  supposes  that  Moses  wrote  the 
 account  of  his  own  death  and  burial  !  {Vit.  Mos.  iii.  39). 
 
 L    2 
 
]  48  Views  of  Inspiration. 
 
 this  subject  than  was  used  by  Philo.  Yet  his  theory  of 
 inspiration  was  a  mere  nasus  ccrcus.  His  Bible  practically  con- 
 sisted of  the  Pentateuch  alone,  and  parts  even  of  that  he  ex- 
 plains as  mystical.1  There  are  whole  books  of  the  Bible  which 
 he  never  mentions,  and  others  of  which  he  makes  no  use. 
 He  thinks  so  little  of  the  historical  books,  that  he  blurs 
 their  vivid  details  into  a  phantasmagoria  of  dull  and 
 indistinct  colours,  and  indignantly  repudiates  the  notion 
 of  mere  narrative  as  such  being  worthy  of  the  dignity 
 of  Scripture.2  He  considers  that  the  Scriptures  were 
 /  verbally  dictated,  yet  quotes  them  with  careless  variations 
 /  and  in  the  freest  possible  paraphrases;  mingles  them 
 with  traditional  details ;  combines  them  with  views  borrowed 
 from  Greek  poets  and  philosophers  whom  he  also  re- 
 verences as  inspired ;  and  treats  them  in  a  manner  purely 
 arbitrary,  derived  from  his  own  individual  genius.3  He  would 
 have  been  saved  from  many  errors  of  detail  if  not  of  principle 
 if  he  had  been  able  or  willing  to  study  the  original  in  which 
 the  Scriptures  were  written.  But  he  did  not  think  it 
 necessary  to  do  this,  because  he  most  mistakenly  believed  the 
 Seventy  to  be  not  only  "  interpreters  "  but  also  "  hierophants 
 and  prophets,"  in  whom  spoke  the  "  divine  "  "  the  sacred  " 
 and  unerring  word.4  Thus  alone  can  we  account  for 
 the  singular  phenomena  of  an  acceptance  of  the  most 
 mechanical  theory  of  inspiration,5  combined  with  the 
 acquiescence  in  a  translation  which  constantly  diverges  from 
 the  inspired  original.6 
 
 1  He  classed  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch  under  the  heads  of  (1)  oracles, 
 (2)  responses  given  to  Moses,  and  (3)  revelations  given  to  him  in  a  state  of 
 ecstasy. 
 
 2  Dc  Somn.  i.  §  10,  oux  "va  ws  irapa  avyy  pa<pt  cos  laropiKov  ^dduifxev.  Dc  Congr. 
 §  8,  oi>x  IffTopac))  ytveaAoyia  th?t'  tci-riv. 
 
 3  See  Ewald,  vi.  276-378  ;  Siegfried  in  HilgenfeM's  Zcitschr.  1873. 
 
 4  Vit.  Mos.  ii.  6,  7.  On  Philo's  ignorance  of  Hebrew  see  Jost,  Judenth. 
 i.  352. 
 
 s   Vit.  Mos.  iii.  §  3  ;  Quis.  lier.  Div.  liacr.  §  52  ;  Dc  Praem.  §  9. 
 
 6  Vit.  Mos.  iii.  §  23.  He  uses  the  words  ixideiaaai,  ivdovffLwv,  KaranvevaOels. 
 But  it  must  be  remembered  that  lie  by  no  means  confines  his  theory  of  super- 
 natural inspiration  to  the  sacred  writers  ;  for  he  takes  the  conception  from 
 Plato  and  the  Greek  philosophers  (Ion  34  B  &c. ),  and  extends  it  to 
 heathens  and  to  himself  (see  Gfrbrer,  i.  51  II'.).  Heathen  Philosophy,  not 
 Scripture,  was  the  source  of  such  dogmas.     The  views  of  Josephus  were  less 
 
Philo  s  Rules.  149 
 
 VIII.  When  once  the  Jews  had  embraced  the  allegorical 
 method  it  was  easy  to  support  it  by  Scripture  arguments.  Philo 
 proves  as  follows  that  Scripture  must  have  a  mystic  sense.  In 
 Num.  xxiii.  19,  we  find  God  is  not  a  man  ;  in  Deut.  i.  31, 
 we  find,  The  Lord  thy  God  hare  thee  as  a  man  doth  bear  his  son. 
 Philo  sees  in  these  two  passages  indications  of  the  two 
 methods  of  divine  legislation,  the  literal  and  the  allegorical.1 
 The  former  is  the  body  of  Scripture,  the  latter  the  soul,  which 
 like  a  fine  fluid  pervades  the  whole  law.2  The  former  is  only 
 for  the  vulgar,  the  latter  for  the  enlightened,  the  few,  the  men 
 of  vision  and  faculty,  the  initiated  who  can  perceive  and  see.3 
 These  illuminated  persons  cover  the  living  rock  with  accretions 
 which  they  refuse  to  share  with  any  but  their  own  followers, 
 and  become  so  proud  of  the  incrustation  that  they  cease  to  be 
 conscious  that  there  is  a  reck  at  all,  and  that  it  was  meant  for 
 the  use  of  all  mankind. 
 
 All  this  "  madness  "  is  reduced  to  "  method  "  by  a  set  of 
 rules,  half  Haggadistic,  half  Stoic,  but  entirely  inapplicable. 
 By  some  of  them  the  literal  sense  is  positively  excluded ;  by 
 others,  the  allegoric  sense  is  indicated  as  existing  with  the 
 literal  side  by  side. 
 
 1.  The  rules  by  which  the  literal  sense  is  excluded  are 
 chiefly  Stoic.4 
 
 It  is  excluded  when  the  statement  is  unworthy  of  God  ; 5 
 when    there    is    any    contradiction ;    when    the    allegory   is 
 
 extravagant,  but  he  too  extends  Inspiration  to  himself  and  to  others  besides 
 the  Biblical  writers  [B.  J.  i.  2,  §  8  ;  iii.  8,  §  3  ;  iv.10,  §  7).  Ewald  (vii.  203) 
 well  points  out  that  OeuTrvevo-Tos  (2  Tim.  iii.  lt>)  is  a  tar  vaguer  adjective 
 than     a  Deo  inspiratus"  (Vulg.)  or  "  Von  Qott  eingegeben"  (Luther). 
 
 '  Philo,  Quod  Dcus  iwmut.  §11  ;  De  Somn.  i.  §  40.  See  Gfrorer,  Philo,  i. 
 68-113  ;  Diihnc,  i.  49  ;  HirschtLdd,  llagad.  Exegcse,  15(5  ;  Siegfried,  162-297. 
 
 a  De  Migr.  Abrah.  §  16. 
 
 3  De  Abr.  §§  29,  36  :  De  Plant.  §  9  ;  De  Cherub.  §§  7,  8,  and  passim  ;  De 
 Somn.  i.  •'■i3. 
 
 4  See  De  Somn.  ii.  2,  20  ;  i.  §S  13-17  :  De  Abr.  §  15  ;  Leg.  AUegg.  L  §  18 ; 
 /'    '"   rub.  i    7  9  ;  Quia  Her.  Div.  §  57. 
 
 •'  The  extraordinary  notion  thai  Scripture,  of  which  they  regarded  every 
 word  as  being  supernaturalry  inspired,  is  full  of  passages  which  in  their  obvious 
 sense  are  indecent,  unbecoming,  or  derogatory  to  God  is  repeated  after  Philo 
 by  centuries  of  Patristic  and  Christian  expositors.  Thus  an  extravagant  and 
 onscriptural  theory  nol  only  leads  to  allegory  in  one  direction,  but  pleads 
 as  ;i  reason  for  the  necessity  <>t"  allegory,  assertions  which,  if  true,  at  once 
 rove  the  theory  itself. 
 
150  Philo' s  Rules. 
 
 obvious.  If  Scripture  says  that  Adam  "hid  himself  from 
 God,"  the  expression  dishonours  God  who  sees  all  things, — and 
 therefore  it  must  be  allegory.  If  we  are  told  that  Jacob  sends 
 Joseph  to  look  after  his  brethren  when  he  had  so  many 
 servants, — or  that  Cain  had  a  wife  or  built  a  city, — or  that 
 Potiphar  had  a  wife, — or  that  Israel  is  an  "  inheritance  of 
 God  ; "  1 — or  if  Abraham  be  called  "  the  father  "  instead  of 
 grand-father  of  Jacob — those  are  "contradictions,"  and,  there- 
 fore, the  passages  in  which  they  occur  must  be  allegorised. 
 
 2.  The  rules  which  prove  the  simultaneous  existence  of  the 
 allegorical  with  the  literal  sense  are  mainly  Rabbinic.2 
 
 Thus  if  an  expression  be  repeated  as  in  "  Abraham 
 Abraham,"  the  double  name  expresses  first  affection,  then 
 warning.  Again,  if  a  word  be  superfluous,3  as  in  "  eating 
 thou  shalt  eat,"  it  implies  eating  in  a  proper  spirit  and 
 conscious  knowledge.  "He  led  him  forth  without"  means 
 that  God  loosed  Abraham  from  all  the  fetters  of  his  bod}^.4 
 If  there  be  an  apparent  tautology,  as  when  Ave  are  superfluously 
 reminded  that "  Esau  was  Jacob's  brother,"  the  meaning  is  that 
 Esau  was  still  Jacob's  brother  though  he  was  a  sinner.5  If 
 thei-e  is  a  change  in  the  expression,  as  from  vrj  to  ov,  in  the  oath 
 "by  the  health  of  Pharaoh,"  it  not  only  indicates  the  waver- 
 ing character  of  Joseph,  but  implies  the  difference  between 
 the  discipline  of  Egypt  and  the  discipline  of  home. 
 
 3.  Again,  words  maybe  explained  apart  from  their  punctna- 
 
 1  Ex.  xv.  17. 
 
 2  The  exegetic  principles  of  Philo  differ,  however,  from  the  Talmudic  in  five 
 respects  :  (1)  He  does  not  quote  authorities  or  opinions  ;  (2)  he  comments  on 
 paragraphs  more  than  on  isolated  verses  ;  (3)  he  is  fond  of  a  rhetorical  style  ; 
 (4)  he  refers  to  the  LXX.  alone  ;  (5)  he  is  more  continuously  arbitrary  and 
 allegorical  (see  Low,  p.  133).  He  interprets  some  passages  in  an  anti-Rabbinic 
 sense.  Thus  the  Jews  took  pleasure  in  insulting  and  blaspheming  the  gods 
 of  the  heathen,  but  Philo  applied  Ex.  xxii.  28  to  them  also.  The  first  Jewish 
 writer  who  called  attention  to  the  forty-two  works  of  Philo  was  Azariah  de 
 Rossi  (t  1578),  who  calls  him  "Jedidiah  the  Alexandrian,"  and  doubts  his 
 orthodoxy,  which  Rappoport  defends. 
 
 3  Ex.  xxi.  15.  The  rule  is  like  that  of  Aqiba,  Yleptrrhv  bvofxa  obfkv  riOria-iv 
 6  v6fj.os  (De  Profug.  10).  (Gen.  ii.  17,  LXX.  fipuxrei.  cpdy-p  ;  Gen.  xv.  5,  LXX. 
 i^yayev  clvtov  «£o>.) 
 
 4  Leg.  Allcgg.  i.  31. 
 
 5  Leg.  Allcgg.  13.  So  in  4ku  ov  iari  ,rb  xpv&lov  (Gen.  ii.  11)  the  ov  is  mnde 
 to  mean  that  "prudence"  (gold)  belongs  to  God.  For  many  instances  of  this 
 baseless  kind  of  interpretation  see  Siegfried,  168,  fg. 
 
Philo's  Rules.  151 
 
 tion.1  Thus  Jacob  is  saved  by  the  Midrashim  from  telling  a 
 lie  by  being  made  to  say  "  I  am  [Jacob ;  but  Esau  is]  thy 
 first-born ; " 2  and  Philo  says  that  Zoar  both  is  and  is  not 
 little ; 3  and  that  Jacob's  words  at  Bethel  mean  "  This  is  not 
 the  case,  that  the  Lord  is  in  this  place " — since  God  is 
 nowhere.4 
 
 4.  Again,  if  synonyms  are  used,  something  allegorical  is 
 intended.5  Thus  if,  in  Gen.  i.  27,  God  "  made "  man 
 (eTTOiTja-ev),  and  in  Gen.  ii.  8  He  "  moulded  "  man  {eirXaaev), 
 the  first  word  implies  the  earthly,  and  the  second  the 
 heavenly,  man.  If  in  Gen.  xvi.  2  we  have  v-rryJKovae,  and 
 in  Gen.  xxviii.  7  elcnj/covcre,  the  first  word  implies  the 
 obedient  hearing  of  Abraham,  and  the  second  the  careless 
 hearing  of  Jacob. 
 
 5.  Plays  on  words  are  admissible  to  educe  a  deeper 
 sense.6  Thus,  if  the  Law  bids  redeem  the  firstling  of 
 an  ass  with  a  lamb,7  then  since  ovos  resembles  7roVo? 
 and  TrpCfiaTOv  is  derived  from  irpo^alvetv,  you  get  the  idea 
 of  progress  resulting  from  work  ;  and  when  it  is  added,  "  and 
 if  thou  wilt  not  redeem  it  thou  shalt  give  its  value,"  8  the 
 meaning  is  "  leave  off  thy  work,  if  thou  makest  no  ad- 
 vance "  ! 9 
 
 G.  Particles,  adverbs,  prepositions  may  be  forced  into 
 the  service  of  allegory.  Parts  of  words  may  be  made 
 significant.  Each  word  may  have  all  its  possible  meanings 
 apart  from  the  context ;  so  that  if  e£  avrfjf;  means  "  from 
 her,"  in  Gen.  xvii.  10,  and  also  means  "immediately,"  and 
 also  "out  of  her,"  to  each  of  these  meanings  may  be  attached 
 a  mystic  inference.  Words  may  even  be  altered  as  in  the 
 Talmudic    rule,   "  read   not   so,   but  so."      Thus    when   Cain 
 
 1  Dr  Afigr.  dbr.  §  29.  2  Bereshith  Rabba,  c.  65. 
 
 :<   De  Abr.  §  31.  *  I)c  Sonm.  i.  §  32. 
 
 5  For  many  instances  sec  Siegfried,  172,  173. 
 
 6  J)e  C'oiif/r.  cried,  grot.  §  13. 
 
 7  Ex.  xiii.  1.".. 
 
 8  A.V.  "thou  shalt  break  his  neck."     LXX.  iav  5«  ju)j  aWafys  \vrpu<nj 
 
 avr6. 
 
 9  So  tlic  use  of  tyKpv<plas  ("cakes  concealed  in  ashes  to  he  halved  ")    implies 
 thai  we  must  not  reveal  mysteries.     J><  Sacr.  Ab,  et  Cain,  S  15. 
 
152  The  Work  of  Philo. 
 
 killed  Abel,  airenTeivev  avrbv  is  meant  also  to  imply  that 
 U7r6/creivev  avrbv, — i.e.  by  the  same  blow  he  spiritually  killed 
 himself.  An  unusual  expression  implies  something  mystical. 
 Thus  when,  in  Ex.  vii.  15,  Moses  is  bidden  to  stand  by  the 
 Nile's  "  lip,"  the  meaning  is  that  he  is  to  resist  the  seductive 
 speeches  of  Pharaoh.1  Lastly — but  it  is  more  than  needless  to 
 furnish  any  further  specimens — all  numbers,  animals,  birds, 
 plants,  streams,  materials,  colours,  circumstances,  limbs,  names 
 of  men  and  of  countries  may  by  etymological  or  other  methods 
 be  made  to  stand,  and  are  all  meant  to  stand,  as  symbols  for 
 moral  and  spiritual  things.2 
 
 Such  was  the  system,  such  the  presuppositions  which 
 could  never  be  established,  which  Philo  had  traditionally 
 received  from  a  former  generation  of  allegorists,  but  of 
 which  he  was  an  eloquent  and  fertile  expositor.  He  was 
 determined  to  get  circuitously  what  he  could  not  get 
 directly.  And  thus  did  he  practically  create  a  Bible  of  his 
 own — a  Bible  infinitely  less  venerable  and  more  obscure — 
 endowed  with  claims  and  interpreted  by  methods  which 
 were  not  derived  from  its  own  pages  but  were  a  feeble 
 exotic  transplanted  from  the  theories  of  Greek  philosophers 
 into  a  completely  alien  soil. 
 
 Let  me  however  say  in  conclusion  that  the  students  of  Philo's 
 works  receive  a  far  more  favourable  impression  of  his  powers 
 than  can  be  derived  from  mere  references  or  extracts.  If  they 
 cannot  help  perceiving  the  verbosity  of  the  great  Alexandrian, 
 his  want  of  logic,  of  lucidity,  and  of  firm  grasp  over  the 
 thoughts  which  he  is  handling,  they  at  least  do  justice 
 to  his  high  morality,  his  dignity  and  loftiness  of  soul,  his 
 wide  learning,  his  burning  enthusiasm,  his  obvious  sincerity, 
 his     innocent    gladness,    his    deep    piety.3      Undoubtedly, 
 
 1  Be  Somn.  ii.  §  41.     Comp.  DcMigr.  Abr.  14. 
 
 2  Unfortunately  the  etymologies  on  which  Philo  relied,  and  led  the  Fathers 
 to  rely,  are  often  of  the  most  absolutely  uneritical  character.  A  collection  of 
 his  etymologies  was  once  current.  Euseb.  //.  E.  ii.  18,  §  7.  See  Ewald, 
 vi.  267. 
 
 3  See  Quod  dct.  pot.  §§  32-37  ;  Dc  Mid.  Nom.  §  23.  Laughter  is  &  eV5ia- 
 deros  vl6s.  We  get  a  very  favourable  view  of  Philo  from  the  line  autobiogra- 
 phical passage  in  De  Spec.  Lcgg.  ad  init. 
 
Exegetic  Nullity.  153 
 
 like  the  great  philosophers  in  whose  inspiration  he  believed,  he 
 too  had  "  knocked  at  the  door  of  truth,"  and  ardently  longed 
 for  the  furtherance  of  virtue.  But  we  are  not  here  dealing  with 
 the  whole  work  of  one  who  was  a  witness  to  the  universal 
 circulation  and  abiding  force  of  great  human  ideas,  and  who 
 "  scattered  seed  in  Judaism  of  which  the  noblest  grains  bore 
 fruit  in  Christianity."  We  are  dealing  only  with  his  exegetic 
 system,  and  of  that  it  must  be  said  quite  plainly  and  without 
 the  least  circumlocution  that  it  is  absolutely  baseless.  Its 
 futility  becomes  still  more  obvious  when  we  find  the  same 
 text  used  for  quite  different  purposes,  and  the  same  symbol 
 applied  to  entirely  dissimilar  things.  Had  the  age  of  Philo 
 possessed  in  any  measure  the  critical,  literary,  or  historic  sense, 
 — had  it  at  all  realised  the  exquisite  human  force,  beauty,  and 
 simplicity  of  the  sacred  narratives — the  Alexandrians  could 
 never  have  gone  astray  after  such  meteor-lights  as  these. 
 Whatever  may  be  said  of  Philo's  other  merits  as  the  Cicero 
 of  Alexandrianism,  his  exegesis  is  radically  false.  It  darkens 
 what  is  simple  and  fails  to  explain  what  is  obscure.  It 
 neglects  the  important  and  lays  stress  upon  the  insignificant. 
 It  sometimes  does  injustice  to  what  is  loftiest  and  deteriorates 
 what  is  best.  While  it  looks  microscopically  at  words  it 
 neglects  entire  passages,  and  gives  us  no  conception  of  the 
 significance  of  whole  books.  Fhilo's  system  is  one  of  vault- 
 ing ambition,  which  overleaps  itself  and  falls  on  the  other 
 side.  It  fails  in  consequence  of  its  vain  contempt  of 
 grammar,  of  logic,  of  history,  of  archaeology,  and  of  the  most 
 ordinary  canons  of  literary  expression,  and  by  the  substitution 
 for  them  of  arbitrary  rules  in  the  supposed  interest  of  a 
 recklessly-invented  theory  of  mechanical  inspiration.  That 
 theory  led,  as  it  always  does,  to  two  results  equally 
 deplorable.  It  produced  the  slavish  literalism  of  the  Rabbis, 
 and  the  idealising  rationalism  of  Alexandrian  all. gory. 
 It  made  an  esoteric  pride  the  common  handmaid  of  both 
 systems;  and  being  attached  almost  exclusively  to  the 
 Pentateuch,  it  extinguished,  alike  among  the  Rabbis  and 
 tin'   Alexandrians,  the   living   inspiring  hope  of  a  personal 
 
154  Exegetic  Nullity. 
 
 Messiah.1  They  clung  to  institutions  which  the  earthquake 
 was  rocking  to  its  foundations ;  they  lost  entirely  the  things 
 which  could  not  be  shaken,  and  which  remain.2 
 
 "  Philo's  whole  system,"  it  has  been  said,  "  may  be 
 described  as  rhetoric  turned  into  logic.  Ignorant  of  the  true 
 nature  of  language,  presuming  on  its  accuracy,  allowing 
 nothing  for  its  uncertainty  and  irregularity," — misled,  we  may 
 add,  by  an  eminently  faulty  translation,  and  drawing  inferences 
 from  its  Greek  mistakes  as  though  they  were  supernaturally 
 inspired — borrowing  from  alien  sources  a  system  originally 
 mistaken  and  doubly  inapplicable  to  the  records  of  Scripture 
 — misled  further  by  a  totally  different  system  of  exegesis 
 which  was  indigenous  among  his  countrymen,  and  was  itself 
 based  on  an  idolatrous  and  unspiritual  letter-worship — "  he 
 infers  endless  consequences  from  trivial  expressions.  .  .  . 
 The  worst  extravagances  of  mystical  interpretation  among  the 
 fathers,  combined  with  the  most  tedious  platitudes  of  a 
 modern  sermon,  convey  a  very  faint  idea  of  the  manner  in 
 which  Philo  improves  Scripture."  3  In  snatching  at  shadows 
 the  Alexandrians,  no  less  than  the  Rabbis,  lost  the  substance. 
 The  Rabbis  gained  a  crushingly  elaborate  ritual,  the  Alex- 
 andrians a  pseudo-philosophical  religion.  Both  schools  alike 
 lost  those  beliefs  which  had  been  the  heart  and  soul  of 
 religion  to  the  greatest  of  their  fathers.  The  clouds  were 
 already  beginning  to    shine  before  the   Sun  of  Righteous- 
 
 1  On  Philo's  Messianic  hopes,  which  were  in  no  sense  soteriological,  but 
 only  of  a  national  and  temporal  character,  see  De  Execrat.  %  4  ;  (Mangey 
 ii.  435).  (Mangey,  ii.  421-425.  Ewald,  vii.  231-235  E.  T.)  They  had  no 
 connection  with  Salvation.  The  Logos  is  not  one  of  Philo's  three  Para- 
 cletes of  reconciliation,  which  are  (1)  God's  goodness ;  (2)  the  holiness 
 of  the  forefathers  of  the  Jews  ;  (3)  amendment.  As  for  the  Rabbis  some  of 
 them  took  Herod  for  a  Messiah,  and  others  Barkokhba.  Some  say  that 
 the  Jews  have  forfeited  him  ;  others  curse  all  who  try  to  calculate  his 
 return.  The  school  of  llillel  seems  to  have  thought  that  Hezekiah  was  the 
 Messiah.  Others  thought  that  there  were  two  Messiahs — Messiah  ben  Joseph 
 the  Sufferer,  and  ben  David  the  Victor.  For  the  views  of  Josephus,  who 
 regarded  Vespasian  as  a  sort  of  Messiah,  see  B.  J.  vi.  5.  §  4  ;  Antt.  iv.  6, 
 §  5  ;     Gerlach,   Weissag.  d.  A.  T.  86-89. 
 
 •     '-'  Philo  uo  less  than  the  Rabbis  thought  that  the  Levitic  institutions  would 
 be  eternal.      Fit.  Mos.  ii.  §  3  ;  Dc  Monarch,  ii.  §  3. 
 
 3  Jowett,  St.  Paul  and  Philo,  Ep.  to  the  Tltessalonians,  i.  363.  See  the 
 wise  remarks  of  Ewald,  vii.  202  (E.  T.). 
 
A  Futile  Eclecticism.  155 
 
 ness,  but  the  cold  stone  of  the  philosophic  Meinnon  had  no 
 music  to  greet  the  dawn. 
 
 Such  a  work  as  Philo's — the  result  of  a  mere  juxtaposition 
 of  alien  elements,  was,  as  a  whole,  foredoomed  to  failure. 
 Mankind  could  make  no  use  of  a  contradictory  theology 
 in  which  a  God  and  a  world  at  once  flee  from  and  seek  each 
 other ;  of  a  God  and  a  chaos  both  without  attributes  and 
 coevally  existent ; x  of  a  system  which  placed  true  wisdom 
 in  asceticism  and  ecstasy ;  of  a  reformation  which  knew 
 nothing  of  the  real  evils  of  the  world,  arid  identified  divine 
 blessedness  with  egoistic  self-sufficiency ; 2  of  a  religion  which 
 continued  to  insist  on  external  ordinances,  while  it  admitted 
 that  they  generally  led  to  gross  superstition ;  of  a  Judaism 
 which  undermined  alike  the  past  history  and  the  future  hopes 
 of  the  chosen  race ;  of  a  Biblical  exegesis  which  took  scarcely 
 any  account  of  the  noblest  portions  of  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 
 tures :  of  an  illumination  which  "  calling  everything  in 
 question,  making  everything  unnecessary,  renounced  the  very 
 foundation  on  which  it  stood  and  made  no  progress  because 
 it  soared  in  the  air."  3 
 
 And  yet  we  can  hardly  blame  Philo  if,  under  stress  of 
 circumstances,  and  the  painful  antagonism  of  Hellenic  and 
 Jewish  culture — amid  the  taunting  criticisms  of  philosophers 
 and  the  grovelling  letter-worship  of  Rabbis — he  eagerly  em- 
 braced a  method  which  rested  indeed  on  unverified  pre- 
 suppositions, but  seemed  to  offer  the  possibility  of  recon- 
 ciliation. Allegory  in  Philo's  days  was  not  an  intentional 
 falsification  nor  a  hypocritical  subterfuge.  It  was  a  phase 
 of  thought  which    seemed  to  be  inevitable  in  the  education 
 
 1  The  same  epithet  fcrotos  is  given  both  to  God  and  to  Chaos. 
 
 J  Philo,  Dc  Cherub,  ravTa,  Si  fivarat,  KfKadapfxivoi  to.  Sna  iis  Upa.  uvtws 
 fivaTripta  .  .  .  irapaSe'xecfle,    k.t.K. 
 
 8  Keiin,  I.e.  "  It  was  n|U;i]]y  partial  in  its  application  and  its  scope.  It 
 addressed  only  one  part  of  man's  nature,  and  one  class  of  men.  It  suppressed 
 the  instincts  of  civil  and  domestic  society  which  Christianity  ennobled;  it 
 perpetuated  the  harriers  which  Christianity  removed  :  it  abandoned  the  con- 
 tint  which  Christianity  carries  out  to  victory."  "Its  tendency  was  to  exalt 
 knowledge  in  place  of  action  ;  itBhome  was  in  the  cells  of  the  recluse  and  not 
 in  the  field  or  the  market  :  its  truest  disciples  were  visionary  Therapeutae, 
 and  not  apostles  charged  with  aGospel  for  the  world."     Westcott,  (ntrod.  77. 
 
15G  The  Legacy  of  Alexandrlanism. 
 
 of  the  world.  It  is  more  astonishing,  —  and  would  be 
 more  culpable,  if  we  could  ever  call  men  culpable  for  not 
 rising  superior  to  the  religious  opinions  of  their  age — that 
 Philo's  methods,  teeming  as  they  do  with  impossibilities, 
 and  based  as  they  are  on  the  shifting  sand,  should  yet  have 
 been  adopted  and  practised  by  Christian  commentators  for 
 thousands  of  years  after  the  high-minded  Alexandrian  had 
 passed  away.1  They  rose  superior  indeed  to  his  continuity 
 of  extravagance.  They  shook  themselves  free  from  the  spell 
 of  Plato,  though  many  of  them  only  replaced  it  by  the 
 harder  yoke  of  Aristotle.  They  discarded  much  of  Philo's 
 Pythagorean  Kabbalism,  and  his  vanishing  combinations  of 
 abstract  symbols.  They  learnt  to  value  the  historic  books  and 
 the  Prophets  even  more  than  the  Pentateuch.  Their  logic 
 was,  on  the  whole,  less  feeble  and  fantastic.  They  do  not 
 show  themselves  wholly  incapable  of  studying  entire  jaassages 
 as  well  as  fragmentary  expressions,  and  entire  books  as  well 
 as  separate  paragraphs.  They  do  not  adopt  the  exclusively 
 microscopic  method  of  magnifying  each  phrase  and  clause  as 
 though  it  had  no  connexion  with  anything  which  lay  out  of 
 the  immediate  field  of  vision.  To  them  Abraham  and  the 
 Patriarchs  are  something  more  than  counters  to  be  arbitrarily 
 shuffled  about  as  symbols  of  other  things.  Yet  into  many  of 
 these  faults  to  a  great  extent  they  fell.2  Centuries  had  to 
 elapse  before  men  ceased  to  explain  Scripture  in  non- 
 natural  senses ;  before  they  ceased  to  isolate  and  distort 
 its  separate  expressions ;  before  they  ceased  to  rely  on 
 purely  verbal  and  accidental  parallels;  before  they  saw 
 that    Semitic    literature    was  not    to  be  interpreted  by  the 
 
 1  The  fables  that  Philo  had  met  St.  Peter  at  Enme  (Euseb.  IT.  E.  ii.  17  ; 
 Jer.  Catal.  11),  and  that  lie  had  even  embraced  Christianity  (Photius,  Cod. 
 cv.  Suidas  s.v.  4>iAa>i/)  may  be  dismissed  without  further  notice  ;  as  well  as 
 the  notions  that  in  describing  the  Therapeutae  (Ewald,  v.  375-89)  he  was 
 thinking  of  Christians.  Such  fancies  are  on  a  par  with  the  notion  that  Seneca 
 borrowed  from  St.  Paul,  and  Plato  from  Moses.  They  arose  from  errors  about 
 the  spurious  Be  Vit.  contemplative/,. 
 
 -  Allusions  to  Philo  by  the  Fathers  mav  be  seen  in  Justin  Cohort,  pp.  10, 
 11,  14.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  p.  333,  360,  413.  Orig.  C.  Cels.  iv.  p.  369, 
 vi.  p.  289.  Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  4,  5,  16-18.  Pracp.  Ev.  vii.  12,  viii.  5,  &c. 
 Ambros.,  Dc  Parad.  4,  Jer.  Catal.  Praif.  in  Job,  &c  Aug.  C  Faustum,  xii. 
 &c.     See  Mangey,  i.  pp.  xxi-xxix. 
 
A  Divine  Progress.  157 
 
 rigid  syllogisms  of  Western  logic ;  before  they  ceased  to 
 bring  to  Scripture  what  they  could  never  have  fairly  deduced 
 from  it ;  before  they  dreamed  of  applying  to  Holy  Writ  the 
 verifying  faculties  of  a  reason  and  conscience  informed  by  the 
 Gospel  and  illuminated  by  the  Spirit  of  God  Himself;  before 
 they  suspected  the  absurdity  of  rationalising  here  and 
 spiritualising  there  in  accordance  with  rules  which  had  no 
 foundation  ;  before  they  thought  it  in  the  least  necessary  to 
 master  the  original  languages  in  which  the  Scriptures  were 
 written ;  before  they  ceased  to  quote  it  in  defence  of  their 
 own  worst  passions  and  their  own  least  venial  ignorance  ; 
 before  they  attained  any  conception  of  it,  as  being  composed 
 of  books  of  very  unequal  value,  the  far  from  homogeneous 
 literature  of  two  millenniums — as  being  a  progressive  revela- 
 tion, fragmentary  and  multifarious,  though  from  the  first 
 dimly  prophesying  of  a  final  perfection. 
 
 IX.  Yet  let  us  not  fail  to  notice,  again  and  again,  that  there 
 is  a  Divine  Progress,  an  Evangelical  Preparation.  Humanity 
 advances  through  the  midst  of  errors,  but  it  advances  still. 
 Truth  wins  its  way  though  it  have  to  struggle  on  "  from 
 scaffold  to  scaffold,  and  from  stake  to  stake."  God  speaks 
 in  many  voices.  He  has  means  of  communicating  with  the 
 soul  other  than  through  the  letters  of  a  Book.  Even 
 those  who  had  no  sacred  Book  were  not  left  without 
 witness  that  we  are  all  His  offspring.  That  which  may  be 
 known  of  God  was  still  manifested  unto  them.  Neither 
 Halakha,  nor  Haggada,  not  Qabbala,  nor  rules  borrowed  from 
 Chrysippus  in  support  of  theories  derived  from  Plato,  can 
 wholly  rob  mankind  of  the  plain  truths  of  God.  They  who 
 have  the  priceless  blessing  of  a  sacred  Canon  may  indeed 
 misinterpret  it  by  false  methods,  and  mingle  it  with  alien 
 elements ;  but  no  faithful  soul  can  wholly  miss  its  most 
 essential  truths.  All  who  search  it  with  an  honest  and  good 
 heart  will  find  therein  all  things  necessary  to  salvation.  The 
 Alexandrians,  widely  as  they  erred  in  exegesis,  dad  still 
 high  truths  t«»  teach.  In  reading  their  best  aspirations  we 
 are,  as  it  were,  "  fan 1  by  the  air  of  the   New  Testament." 
 
158  A  Divine  Progress. 
 
 The  dim  Logos  of  Philo  appears  clothed  with  the  true  and 
 eternal  glory  of  Divine  Humanity  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  ; 
 and  some  of  Philo's  phrases  and  conceptions  are  used  with 
 yet  nobler  purpose  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  If  the 
 question  has  occurred  to  us  "  How  were  the  souls  of  men 
 kept  pure  and  holy  amid  the  externalism  of  the  Rabbis,  and 
 the  vague  allegoric  philosophy  of  the  Alexandrians  ?  "  the 
 answer  is  not  far  to  seek.  It  shall  be  given  in  the  voice  of 
 an  Alexandrian  :  "  Thou,  oh  God,  canst  show  thy  strength  at 
 all  times  when  thou  wilt.  Thou  hast  mercy  upon  all,  for  thou 
 canst  do  all  things,  and  winkest  at  the  sins  of  men  because 
 they  shall  amend.  For  thou  lovest  all  the  things  that  are, 
 and  abhorrest  nothing  which  thou  hast  made.  But  thou 
 sparest  all ;  for  they  are  thine,  oh  Lord,  Thou  lover  of  souls."  1 
 It  shall  be  given  in  the  yet  sweeter  and  loftier  language 
 of  the  Psalmist :  "  The  statutes  of  the  Lord  are  right,  and 
 rejoice  the  heart ;  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  is  pure, 
 and  giveth  light  unto  the  eyes.  .  .  Moreover  by  them  is  thy 
 servant  warned,  and  in  keeping  of  them  there  is  great 
 reward." 
 
 1  Wisdom,  xi.  23-26. 
 
"  "Reliqui  Scripturas  quidem  confitentur,  interpretatione  vero  conver 
 tunt." — Irex.  Adv.  Haer.  iii.  12. 
 
 "  Tantuni  veritati  obstrepit  adulter  sensus  quantum  et  corruptor 
 stylus."'— Tert.  Apol.  17. 
 
 "Sunt  enim  multa  verba  in  Scripturis  divinis  quae  possunt  train  ad 
 eum  sensum  quern  sibi  unusquisque  prsesumit." — Recogn.  Clem.  x.  42. 
 
 "  Sed  ad  sensum  suum  incongrua  aptant  testimonia,  quasi  grande  sit 
 et  non  vitiosissimum  docendi  genus  depravare  sententias,  et  ad  volun- 
 tatem  suani  Scripturam  trabere  repugnantem." — Jer.  Ad  Paulin.  ep. 
 53,  7. 
 
 "  Concerning  the  mystical  sense  it  may  be  observed  that  we  may  err 
 in  two  ways,  either  by  seeing  it  where  it  is  not,  or  by  taking  it  other- 
 wise than  it  ought  to  be  taken." — Dante,  De  Monorchia,  iii. 
 
LECTURE  IV. 
 
 PATRISTIC     EXEGESIS. 
 "  That  your  faith  should  not  stand  in  the  wisdom  of  men." — 1  Cor.  ii.  5. 
 
 In  supporting  some  special  dogma,  or  private  interpre- 
 tation— in  asserting  the  infallible  accuracy  of  some  party 
 opinion  which  would  fain  claim  to  be  that  of  the  universal 
 Church * — ecclesiastical  controversialists  have  often  appealed 
 to  Christ's  promise  of  the  Spirit  which  should  lead  the 
 Apostles  into  all  truth,2  and  they  have  usually  identified  this 
 promise  with  a  power  of  rightly  interpreting  the  language  of 
 Scripture.  It  is  strange  that  facts  the  most  obvious,  and 
 drawn  from  every  branch  of  human  investigation,  have  not 
 been  sufficient  to  expose  the  folly  of  claiming  that  promise 
 without  its  obvious  limitations.  "  Into  all  truth"  which  is  in 
 any  way  necessary  to  salvation — "  into  all  truth  "  which  is 
 essential  to  the  eternal  welfare  of  the  human  soul — the  Holy 
 Spirit  of  God  has  in  all  ages  guided  all  who  have  not  resisted 
 His  gracious  influence  ;  but  He  has  never  taught  men  the 
 tint hs  which  are  independently  attainable  by  the  exercise  of 
 human  intellect,  or  those  which  are  left  to  be  revealed  by 
 the  broadening  light  of  universal  experience.  Nor  can  Ave 
 except  from  this  statement  a  multitude  of  truths,  which 
 many  would  represent  as  of  primary  importance.     The  stern 
 
 1  "Granting  that  Christianity  is  the  pure  truth,  who  will  answer  for  it, 
 thai  the  orthodoxy  which  prevails  at  anyone  time  is  equivalenl  with  pure 
 Christianity  .' "  Chalybaus,  History  qf  Special  Philosophic,  r>.  ilt»,  do. 
 
 -  John  xvi.  13. 
 
 M 
 
162  The  Fathers. 
 
 logic  of  circumstance,  the  clear  verdict  of  history,  is  decisive 
 against  a  iniori  theories  and  subjective  fancies.  The  Scrip- 
 tures contain  the  Word  of  God ;  and  in  the  Scriptures  every 
 honest  and  earnest  soul  may  find  the  few  and  simple  things 
 which  the  Lord  requires  of  him.  Yet  the  Scriptures  never 
 claim  for  themselves  as  a  whole  the  supernatural  dictation  or 
 miraculous  infallibility  which  from  the  days  of  the  Rabbis  have 
 been  claimed  for  them.  They  do  not  even  furnish  any  test  of 
 their  own  canonicity ;  nor  do  they  protect  themselves  from 
 grievous  mistranslation  ;  nor  do  they  give  any  definition  of 
 the  nature  of  their  own  inspiration ;  nor  do  they  lay  down 
 any  of  its  limits  or  degrees ;  nor  has  their  text  been  kept  free 
 from  numberless  variations  ;  nor  do  they  furnish  any  rules 
 whatever  as  to  the  manner  in  which  their  difficulties  should 
 rightly  be  explained.  All  such  questions  are  left  to  the 
 candour,  the  honesty,  the  wisdom,  the  experience  of  those 
 who  seek  for  truth  by  the  appointed  means ;  and  who  even 
 then  will  have  no  claim  to  infallibility,  nor  have  it  in  their 
 power  to  impose  "  the  senses  of  men  upon  the  words  of  God, 
 the  special  senses  of  men  upon  the  general  words  of  God,"  or 
 to  lay  them  upon  men's  consciences  together  under  the  equal 
 penalty  of  death  and  damnation.1 
 
 The  history  of  exegesis  thus  far  has  been  in  great  measure 
 a  history  of  aberrations.  If  we  turn  to  the  Fathers  with  the 
 hope  that  now  at  last  we  shall  enter  the  region  of  unim- 
 peachable methods  and  certain  applications,  we  shall  be  dis- 
 appointed. I  would  earnestly  ask  not  to  be  misunderstood.  I 
 gladly  admit  that  there  are  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers 
 not  only  many  noble  truths  but  also  many  felicitous  ex- 
 positions. I  also  frankly  allow  that  much  of  the  staple 
 of  all  recent  commentaries,  so  far  as  they  are  simply  moral 
 and  spiritual,  is  to  be  found  in  their  pages.  But  this 
 does  not  shake  the  fact  that  their  exegesis  in  the  proper 
 sense  of  the  word  needs  complete  revision  both  in  its 
 principles  and  in  its  details.  There  are  but  few  of  them 
 whose  pages  are  not  rife  with  errors — errors  of  method,  errors 
 1  CMllingworth,  c.  iv.  §  16. 
 
Not  to  be  Scorned.  163 
 
 of  fact,  errors  of  history,  of  grammar,  and  even  of  doctrine. 
 This  is  the  language  of  simple  truth,  not  of  slighting  dis- 
 paragement. I  should  be  most  unwilling  to  speak  with 
 disrespect  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.  They,  like  our- 
 selves, were  the  children  of  their  age.  They  were  hampered 
 by  the  conditions,  influenced  by  the  culture,  swayed  by  the 
 prejudices  of  the  times  in  which  they  lived.  Some  of  them 
 were  men  pre-eminent  in  holiness ;  a  few  of  them  were  wise, 
 eloquent,  deeply  read  in  the  human  heart,  fired  with  the 
 kindling  enthusiasm  of  spiritual  life  ;  several  of  them  were 
 men  of  wide  learning  ;  one  or  two  of  them  were  also  men  of 
 high  genius.  Their  original  thoughts,  their  pious  exhorta- 
 tions, their  homiletic  skill,  their  spiritual  insight,  their  practical 
 application  of  the  lessons  of  Scripture  will  always  be  valuable. 
 The  diligence  of  some  of  them  has  preserved  for  us  traditional 
 information  by  which  light  is  thrown  on  various  passages.  I 
 would  not  echo  the  scornful  language  either  of  Milton,  of 
 Grotius,1  of  Chillingworth,  or  of  Middleton.2  "  Whatsoever," 
 says  Milton,  "  time  or  the  heedless  hand  of  blind  chance  hath 
 drawn  from  of  old  to  this  present  in  her  huge  Dragnet,  whether 
 Fish  or  Sea-weed,  Shells  or  Shrubbs,  unpicked,  unchosen,  those 
 are  the  Fathers;"  and  "it  came  into  my  thoughts  .  .  .  that  I 
 could  do  Religion  and  my  Country  no  better  service  for  the 
 time  than  doing  my  utmost  endeavour  to  re-call  the  People 
 of  God  from  this  vain  foraging  after  Straw,  and  to  reduce 
 them  to  their  firm  Stations  under  the  Standard  of  the  Gospel; 
 by  making  appear  to  them,  first  the  insufficiency,  next  the 
 iticonveniency,  and  lastly  the  impiety  of  these  gay  Testimonies 
 
 1  Compare  Grotius,  ])■  Studiis  instit.  (1635),  ]>.  238.  "Tnlivs  el  Patrum 
 Bruditionem  .  .  .  maximi  facio,  sed  tamen  ti!>i  autor  non  bud  ut  illoa  h&c 
 quidem  aetata  legas  Bed  differaa  .  .  .  Nam  multa  habenl  dob  solum  fhixa, 
 ambigua,  futilia,  el  superstitiosa,  Bed  etiam  quaedam  non  usquequaque  pro 
 sana.  He  goes  on  to  add  thai  they  are  often  anorl  hodox.  I  Deed  only  allude 
 to  Dailbi,  Traili  de  VEmploi  des  Saints  Peres,  L632  (answered  by  W.  R 
 The    :  ie  Fathers  (1709), and  the  Rev.  Prof.  Blunt,  Onth 
 
 qfthc  Father     L867  .  and  Barbeyrac,  Traitidela  Morale  des  Feres. 
 
 -  Middleton,   Fret  Enquiry,  1729.     Among  others  who  have  Bpokenvery 
 
 slightingly  of  the   Fathers  might  be  mentioned  Simon  Episcopius.     Bee  him 
 
 l   by   Dr.    Pusey,    Trad    No.   57,  p.   10.     Coleridge  said   of    Luther, 
 
 Melanchthon,  Calvin,  thai  "the  least  of  them  was  do1  inferior  to  St.  Augnstine 
 
 and  worth  a,  brigade  of  I  '\  prians,  Finnilians,  and  the  like  "  [Remains,  iii.  'J7G). 
 
 M    'I 
 
164  Their  Difficulties. 
 
 that  their  great  Doctors  would  bring  them  to  dote  on."1  We 
 can  hardly  wonder  at  the  accent  of  indignation  which  rings 
 through  the  words  of  the  mighty  Puritan  poet,2  when  we 
 remember  that  the  Fathers  had,  been  thrust  into  a  position  of 
 autocracy  which  they  repeatedly  and  emphatically  disclaim, 
 and  which  had  they  ever  claimed  it  would  have  been  com- 
 pletely nullified  by  their  own  writings.  Their  glory  is  for  the 
 most  part  the  glory,  not  of  intellect,  but  of  righteousness  and 
 faith. 
 
 The  Church  writers  of  the  earlier  ages  were  surrounded 
 with  difficulties.  It  was  not  till  the  fourth  century  that  the 
 Canon  of  the  New  Testament  was  finally  established ;  it  was 
 not  till  the  sixteenth  that  the  Canon  of  even  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment was  clearly  denned.  The  views  entertained  about  the 
 Old  Testament  and  the  methods  of  its  interpretation  were  to 
 a  great  extent  those  of  the  Jewish  schools.  It  was  regarded 
 not  as  the  history  of  a  partial  revelation,  of  which  the  main 
 provisions  had  been  altered  by  the  New  Covenant,  but  as  a 
 supernatural  and  homogeneous  document  of  equal  authority 
 with  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists.  And  the 
 entire  library  of  thirty-nine  books,  which  hardly  any  of  the 
 Fathers  could  read  in  the  original,  was  appealed  to  as  the 
 final  authority  alike  by  Ebionites,  who  taking  them  literally 
 maintained  the  eternal  validity  of  Mosaism,  and  by  Gnostics, 
 who  interpreting  them  allegorically  deduced  from  their  pages 
 the  wildest  extravagances  of  heresy.  Without  deep  learning, 
 without  linguistic  knowledge,  without  literary  culture,  with- 
 out any  filial  principles  either  as  to  the  nature  of  the  sacred 
 
 1  Of  Prelatical  Episcopacy. 
 
 2  He  speaks  also  of  "  the  labyrinth  of  Councils  and  Fathers,  an  entangled 
 wood  which  the  Papist  loves  to  fight  in." — Milton,  Of  True  Religion,  ad 
 init.  "  Many  Fathers  discover  more  heresies  than  they  will  refute,  and  that 
 often  for  heresy  which  is  the  truer  opinion."  "  I  dare  to  be  known  to  think 
 our  sage  and  serious  poet  Spenser  to  be  a  better  teacher  than  Scotus  or 
 Aquinas." — Areopagitica.  It  is  wrong,  he  says,  "to  dote  upon  immeasurable, 
 innumerable,  and  therefore  unnecessary  and  unmerciful  volumes,  choosing 
 rather  to  err  with  the  specious  name  of  the  Fathers,  than  to  take  a  sound 
 truth  at  the  hands  of  a  plain  upright  man,  &c." — Of  Reformation  in  England. 
 "  Redis  ad  Patrum  commentationes,  de  quibus  hoc  summatim,  accipe.  Quic- 
 quid  ill i  dixerint,  neque  ex  libris  sacris  aut  ratione  aliqua  satis idonea  confirm- 
 averint,  perinde  mihi  erit  ac  si  quis  alius  e  vulgo  dixisset." — Defcns.  c.  4. 
 
Their  Exegesis.  ]G5 
 
 writings  or  the  method  by  which  they  should  he  interpreted 
 — surrounded  by  Paganism,  Judaism,  and  heresy  of  every 
 description,  and  wholly  dependent  on  a  faulty  translation, — 
 the  earliest  Fathers  and  Apologists  add  little  or  nothing  to  our 
 understanding  of  Scripture.  They  are  not  to  be  blamed  for 
 deficiencies  which  were  inevitable.  They  could  not  transcend 
 the  resources  of  the  days  in  which  they  lived.  It  is  their 
 eternal  glory  that  they  won  the  battle  of  Christianity  by  their 
 innocence,  their  courage,  their  faithfulness  even  unto  death 
 to  the  Gospel  message  with  which  they  had  been  intrusted  ; 
 but  we  turn  to  them  in  vain  for  the  justification  of  any  claim 
 to  the  possession  of  an  infallible  tradition.  Their  acquaint- 
 ance with  the  Old  Testament  is  incorrect,  popular,  and  full 
 of  mistakes  ;  their  Scriptural  arguments  are  often  baseless; 
 their  exegesis — novel  in  application  only — is  a  chaos  of 
 elements  unconsciously  borrowed  on  the  one  hand  from 
 l'hilo,  and  on  the  other  from  Rabbis  and  Kabbalists.  They 
 claim  "  a  grace  "  of  exposition,  which  is  not  justified  by  the 
 results  they  offer,  and  they  suppose  themselves  to  be  in 
 possession  of  a  Christian  Gnosis  l  of  which  the  specimens 
 offered  are  for  the  most  part  entirely  untenable.2 
 
 1.  The  only  Bible  used  by  the  Apostolic  Fathers  was  the 
 Septuagint,  and  they  rely  on  its  supposed  inspiration  even 
 when  it  differs  widely  from  the  original  Hebrew.  But  while 
 they  proclaim  the  words  of  the  Bible  to  be  the  very  words  of 
 the  Holy  Spirit,  they  treat  them  with  the  strangest  freedom. 
 They  alter ;  they  misquote ;  they  combine  widely  different 
 passages  of  different  authors ;  they  introduce  incidents 
 borrowed  from  Jewish  ritual  and  Jewish  legend;  they 
 make  more  use  of  the  Old  Testament  than  of  the  New;3 
 
 1   Ep.  Bamdb.  c.  ix.  ami  ■jxiKsi-m.     Bedo  on  1  Sam.  i.  1,  2. 
 
 '-'   For  some  remarks  <m  the  Fathers  see  Hare,   l'imlieal '!<>»  i if  Luther,  p.  81. 
 
 3  The  dissemination  of  the  New  Testament  writings  was  not  of  course  in- 
 stantaneous. It  tonk  some  time  for  them  all  to  become  known,  and  also  to 
 he  recognised  as  being  of  coordinate  authority  with  the  Jewish  Scripturea 
 The  epistle  of  Clement  is  to  b  greal  extent  e  cento  of  phrasea  He  makes 
 large  use  both  of  some  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  and  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He  brews, 
 lait  says  nothing  about  their  inspiration.  According  to  Punk  (Paires 
 .7  /,  i.  566  5781  Clement  quotes  157  times  from  the  Old  Testament,  tlio 
 Apocrypha,  and  the  Assumption  of  Moses;  158  times  from  the  New  Testament 
 but  with  only  3  direct  (quotations. 
 
160  Clement  of  Rome. 
 
 tlicy  not  only  appeal  to  apocryphal  writings  as  of  inspired 
 authority,  but  build  arguments  upon  them.  In  matters  of 
 interpretation  they  show  so  little  title  to  authority  that  their 
 views  have  been  abandoned  by  the  whole  Christian  world. 
 
 Passing  over  the  author  of  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve 
 Ajpostles,  who  makes  but  little  use  of  either  Testament,1  we 
 come  to  Clement  of  Rome.  This  ancient  bishop  quotes 
 not  only  from  the  book  of  Judith,  but  apparently  even  from 
 such  books  as  the  Pseudo-Ezekiel  and  the  Assumption  of 
 Moses.2  He  is  the  first  who  refers  to  the  Phoenix  as  a  sign 
 of  the  Resurrection  ; 3  the  first  also  who  endows  Rahab  with 
 the  gift  of  prophecy,  because  by  the  scarlet  cord  hung  out  of 
 her  window  she  made  it  manifest  that  redemption  should  flow 
 by  the  blood  of  the  Lord  to  all  them  that  believe  and  hope  in 
 God.4  As  the  pictorial  fancy  of  a  preacher,  such  an  illustra- 
 tion would  be  harmless ;  but  when  it  is  offered  as  the 
 explanation  of  an  actual  prophecy  it  is  the  earliest  instance 
 of  the  overstrained  Allegory,  which  was  afterwards  to  affect 
 the  whole  life  of  Christian  exegesis.  We  see  the  reason  for 
 this.      Allegory  was    already  a   familiar  method  among  the 
 
 1  He  quotes  the  Old  Testament  thrice,  and  the  Apocrypha  four  times  ;  of 
 the  New  Testament  writers  he  seems  only  to  have  been  familiar  with  St. 
 Matthew. 
 
 2  c.  viii.  The  quotation  in  this  chapter  may  be  a  confused  reminiscence  of 
 several  passages  (Ps.  ciii.  10,  11  ;  Jer.  iii.  4,  19  ;  Is.  i.  18  ;  Ez.  xviii.  30,  &c), 
 but  Clemens  of  Alexandria  (Paedag.  i.  10,  §  91)  quotes  it  from  "Ezekiel." 
 It  may  be  either  from  the  Alexandrian  poet  of  that  name  or  from  apocryphal 
 additions  to  Ezekiel.  Photius  says  that  Clement  quoted  from  several  apocry- 
 phal books  "as  from  Scripture  "  (Bibl.  Cod.  126).  Nac.  17,  iyw  8e  ei/xiaT/xls 
 anb  Kv9pas  is  ascribed  to  Moses  and  may  be  from  the  Assumption  of  Moses, 
 though  not  for  the  reason  assigned  by  Hilgenfeld.  Bishop  Lightfoot  thinks 
 that  the  quotation  in  c.  23  comes  from  Eldad  and  Medad.  There  are  other 
 apocryphal  quotations  in  c.  29  and  c.  46. 
 
 3  c.  25.  Clemens  is  not  more  credulous  than  Tacitus  (Ann.  vi.  28)  or  Pliny 
 (U.N.  x.  2)  ;  but  I  am  only  showing  how  far  he  stands  below  the  level  of  St. 
 John  and  St.  Paul.  And  it  should  be  observed  that  Pliny  and  Tacitus  (1) 
 express  some  doubts  on  the  matter  ;  and  (2)  are  not  elevated  into  half-inspired 
 authorities  ;  and  (3)  do  not  appeal  to  the  fable  in  support  of  a  religious  truth. 
 Perhaps  he  was  misled  by  the  Seventy  in  Ps.  xc.  12  ;  Job  xxix.  18,  or  by  the 
 Assumption  of  Moses  (see  Hilgenfeld  Nov.  Teat.  cxlr.  can.  i.  99,  and  Bishop 
 Lightfoot's  note). 
 
 i  Ep.  ad  Cor.  12,  Spare,  ayaTrrjToi,  ov  jx6vov  iricms  aAAct  Trpocpyrela  ti>  tjj 
 yvvaiKl  yeyove.  The  same  specimen  of  exegetic  gnosis  is  adopted  by  Justin 
 Martyr  Dial.  Ill  ;  Iren.  Hacr.  iv.  20  ;  Origen  in  Matt,  xxvii.  28  ;  Ambrose 
 De  Fide,  4  ;  Paulinus,  Carm.  23 ;  Aug.  in  Ps.  Ixxxvi.  4  ;  and  many  others. 
 See  the  note  of  Cotelerius  in  loc.  (i.  p.  155). 
 
Barnabas.  1 G7 
 
 Jews,  and  just  as  the  Alexandrians  had  adopted  it  in  order 
 to  find  in  Moses  an  anticipation  of  Greek  philosophy,  so  the 
 Apostolic  Fathers,  before  the  full  formation  of  the  New 
 Testament  Canon,  were  driven  to  it  in  order  to  make  the 
 Old  Testament  an  immediate  witness  for  Christian  truth.1 
 The  Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians  breathes  the  spirit 
 of  a  sincere  and  beautiful  piety,  but  its  inferiority  to  even 
 the  humblest  of  the  canonical  writings  shows  us  that  with  the 
 close  of  the  sacred  Canon  the  whisper  of  divine  inspiration 
 breathed  far  more  faintly  over  the  intellectual  powers  of  men. 
 "  The  Bible,"  it  has  been  said,  "  is  not  like  a  city  of  modern 
 Europe  which  subsides  through  suburban  gardens,  and  groves, 
 and  mansions  into  the  open  country,  but  like  an  Eastern  City 
 in  the  Desert  from  which  the  traveller  passes  by  a  single  step" 
 if  not  quite  "  into  a  barren  waste  "  yet  into  poor  and  infertile 
 fields. 
 
 '2.  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  has  a  more  direct  bearing  on 
 the  History  of  Interpretation.  It  presents  to  us  a  singular 
 spectacle.  Intensely  anti-Judaic  in  tone,  yet  directly  Judaic 
 in  method,  it  is  marked  by  no  coherent  and  intelligible  theory. 
 The  writer,  though  full  of  satisfaction  respecting  his  own  gift 
 of  insight,  was  no  thinker,  and  he  leaves  side  by  side  things 
 <[uite  irreconcilable.  He  appears  to  suppose  that  part  of  the 
 Old  Testament  was  meant  for  the  Jews  and  part  for  the 
 ( 'lnistians,  2  but  suggests  no  principle  by  which  one  part  is 
 to  be  discriminated  from  the  other.  He  can  hardly  have 
 been  ignorant  that  Christ  was  circumcised  and  yet  he  quotes 
 various  passages  to  show  that  circumcision  was  not  meant 
 to  be  of  the  flesh  and  that  the  Jews  were  led  into  it  by 
 the   delusion   of  an   evil   angel.8    He  believes  that  Judaism 
 
 1  Arnobius  {Adv.  Oentes,  iv.  33,  v.  32 — 15)  energetically  repudiates  the 
 principle  of  allegorj  as  applied  by  the  Gentile  philosophers  to  the  fables  about 
 their  gods.  11''  asks  a  very  pertinenl  question,  "Quod  cum  Lta  se  habeat, 
 (|iii  potestis  res  cartas  rebus  a  dubiis  sumere,  atqueunam  adjungere  significa- 
 tionera  dicto,  quod  per  modos  ridetis  innumeros  ezpositionum  varietate 
 deduci?"  (v.  34). 
 
 '-'  Ep.  Barnab.  •(.  11.  I  Bhould  have  thougb.1  if  hardly  worth  Baying  that 
 the  writer  of  this  Epistle  could  doI  have  been  the  Apostle  Barnabas,  it'  Prof. 
 Milligan  had  no1  thought  it  probable  [Diet,  of  Christ.  Biog.  p.  261). 
 
 3  Ep,  Barnab.  ;».     So  [gnatius  [Ad  Magnes,  10)  calls  Judaism  7;  kok))  $py. 
 
1G8  Christian  Kabbalism. 
 
 was  only  an  expression  of  God's  will  when  it  is  explained 
 by  Christian  gnosis  ;  and  that  God's  intended  covenant  with 
 the  Jews  had  been  dissolved  and  transferred  to  the  Christians 
 at  the  moment  when  Moses  broke  the  tables  of  stone.  The 
 only  glimmer  of  an  exegetic  principle  which  he  discloses  is  to 
 find  throughout  the  Old  Testament  something  which  can 
 be  referred  to  Christ  or  to  Christianity.1  Thus,  by  loosely 
 mixing  up  two  separate  events,  he  says,  that  Abraham  cir- 
 cumcised his  318  servants,  and  then  he  explains  this  in  a 
 kabbalistic  manner.  The  number,  he  says,  may  be  expressed 
 by  the  letters  TIH  of  which  T  stands  for  the  cross 
 and  IH  for  IHcroi)?,  and  this  was  the  mystery  which 
 Abraham  meant  to  imply.2  "  No  one,"  he  adds,  "  has 
 been  admitted  by  me  to  a  more  excellent  piece  of  knowledge 
 than  this.  But  I  know  that  ye  are  worthy."  And  this 
 mixture  of  two  kabbalistic  methods,3  purely  Jewish  and 
 wholly  arbitrary,  is  eagerly  adopted  not  only  by  Clement  of 
 Alexandria,  but  by  Tertullian,  Ambrose,  Augustine,  Paulinus. 
 Gregory,  Isidore,  and  Bede.4  It  never  even  occurred  to  Bar- 
 nabas or  to  any  who  adopted  this  singular  specimen  of  ex- 
 position that  there  was  any  absurdity  in  attributing  to  a 
 Chaldean  Emir  an  application  of  mystic  processes  and 
 numerical  values  to  the  letters  of  an  alphabet  which  had  no 
 existence  till  hundreds  of  years  after  he  had  returned  to  dust. 
 
 Comp.  Ep.  ad  Diognet.  See  Baur,  Church  Hist.  i.  138  (E.T.) ;  Hilgenfeld, 
 Die  apost.  Vatcr,  37  fg.  ;  Reuss,  Thiol.  Chrct.  ii. 
 
 1  He  quotes  Is.  xlv.  1,  as  follows,  "  The  Lord  said  to  my  Christ  the  Lord  " 
 apparently  confusing  Kvp<f  with  Kvplcp,  Ep.  Barnab.  12.  The  only  direct  New 
 Testament  quotations  in  Barnabas  (cc.  iv.  v.)  are  from  Matt.  xxii.  14  ;  ix. 
 13.  He  quotes  once  from  4  Esdras  ;  four  times  from  Book  of  Enoch  ;  and 
 frequently  from  the  Old  Testament.  The  writer,  had  he  been  the  Apostle 
 Barnabas,  could  never  have  spoken  of  the  Twelve  as  inlp  iraaav  afxapTiav 
 avofjLWTipovs.     c.  v.     (See  however  Diet,  of  Christian  Biog.  I.e.) 
 
 -  Ep.  Barnab.  9.  In  this  he  is  followed  by  Clemens  Alex.  [Strom,  vi.  11  ;  §  84) ; 
 Ambrose,  Be  Fide,  i.  ;  Aug.  Quaest.  in  Jud.  37  ;  Hilary,  Be  Synod.  86,  &c, 
 and  apparently  by  Dr.  Pusey  (Tract  89).  We  have  already  seen  the  inference 
 drawn  by  the  Rabbis  from  the  fact  that  the  name  Eliezer  also  yields  the 
 number  318.  Bereshith  Rabba,  c.  27.  Yet  the  Fathers  complain  of  Valentinian 
 for  inferring  that  the  letters  IH  indicated  18  aeons.  (Epiphan.  Haer.  ii.  14.) 
 So  familiar  were  the  early  Christians  with  this  form  of  the  Qabbala  that 
 Prudentrus says  we  must  tight  our  vices  with  318  servants,  i.e.  figitrd  mysticd  ; 
 Praef.  in  Psychomachiam. 
 
 3  Gcmatria,,  see  ante,  p.  98  ;  Temoorah,  see  p.  102. 
 
 *  See  Cotelerius  ad  loc. 
 
Barnabas.  lb'Q 
 
 It  is  in  Barnabas  also  that  we  find  the  earliest  of  the  many 
 Christian  attempts  to  follow  Aristobulus  in  giving  a  mystic 
 reason  for  the  laws  about  clean  and  unclean  meats.  The 
 hyaena,  he  says,  is  not  to  be  eaten,  to  show  that  men  must  not 
 be  corrupters,  since  that  animal  annually  changes  its  sex ; 
 nor  the  weasel,  because  it  conceives  with  the  mouth  !  l  In 
 explaining  the  sacrifice  of  the  Red  Heifer  as  a  type  of  Christ 
 he  adds,  among  other  particulars  borrowed  from  the  Oral 
 Law,  that  three  boys  had  to  sprinkle  the  people  with 
 scarlet  wool  and  hyssop  bound  round  a  stick ;  and  that  the 
 calf  was  to  be  offered  by  men  of  perfect  wickedness.  The 
 men  are  explained  to  be  symbols  of  those  who  led  Christ  to 
 death  and  then  (apparently)  of  the  Apostles.2  The  boys  that 
 sprinkle  are  "  those  that  have  proclaimed  to  us  the  remission  of 
 sins,"  and  are  three  in  number  in  witness  of  Abraham,  Isaac 
 and  Jacob.  The  stick  is,  of  course,  made  a  type  of  the  cross 
 and  in  some  unexplained  way  the  scarlet  wool  also ;  and  the 
 hyssop  is  to  show  that  the  days  of  Christ's  kingdom  will  be 
 evil.  All  these  things  he  says,  "we  exjDlain  as  the  Lord 
 intended," 3  The  comment  on  the  first  Psalm  is  equally 
 fantastic.  "  Blessed  is  the  man  who  hath  not  walked  in  the 
 counsel  of  the  ungodly?  even  as  the  fishes — the  lamrjrey, 
 polypus,  and  cuttle-fish,  which  may  not  be  eaten — go  in  dark- 
 ness to  the  depths  of  the  sea ;  "  and  hath  not  stood  in  the  way 
 of  sinners"  even  as  those  who  profess  to  fear  the  Lord,  but 
 go  astray  like  the  swine  ;  "  and  hath  not  sat  in  the  scat  of  the 
 scomers,"  even  as  those  birds  that  lie  in  wait  for  prey.  This, 
 he  says,  "is  spiritual  knowledge."  "He  shall  be  as  a  tree 
 planted  by  the  waters,"  indicates  both  baptism  and  the  cross. 
 "His  leaf  edso  shall  not  wither,"  means  that  "every  word  pro- 
 ceeding out  of  your  mouth  in  faith  and  love  shall  tend  to 
 
 1  Allegorical  explanations  of  these  wise  and  practical  prohibitions  are  found 
 in  many  of  the  Fathers.  Tertnllian  goes  bo  far  as  to  say  "  Quid  tam  conL  m- 
 tibile  quam  ciborum  ezceptio  i  "  and  explains  it  as  "  sapientia  in  occulta, "  0. 
 Mare,  v,  5  ;  Origen,  Horn,  in  Levit.  makes  a  similar  remark,  and  De  Princ.  iv. 
 1  ;  C.  Celt.  iv.  98. 
 
 a  Ep.  Barnab.  <-.  l  o.  The  passage  is  extremely  obscure  and  coufused ;  but 
 his  to  1m-  the  meaning, 
 
 3  Id.  c.  10  ad  fin. 
 
170  Foolish  Fancies. 
 
 bring  conversion  and  hope  to  many."  Among  the  prophecies 
 of  the  cross,  Barnabas  is  the  first  of  the  Fathers  to  quote  the 
 apocryphal  verse,  "  And  the  Lord  saith,  When  a  tree  shall  be 
 bent  down,  and  shall  again  arise,  and  when  blood  shall  flow 
 out  of  wood."  l  He  blesses  God  for  making  him  understand 
 what  is  meant  by  "  the  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey," 
 and  explains  it,  "  in  accordance  with  true  gnosis,"  to  mean, 
 "  Trust  in  Jesus."  For  the  "  land  "  stands  for  "  man,"  and 
 "honey"  for  "faith;"  and  "milk"  for  "the  word."2  Barnabas 
 is  the  earliest  Christian  writer  who  based  the  notion  that  the 
 world  was  to  last  six  thousand  years  upon  the  six  days  of 
 creation,  and  the  Psalmist's  expression,  "  One  day  is  with  the 
 Lord  as  a  thousand  years."  In  this  fantastic  inference  he  is 
 followed  by  Irenaeus,  Hippolytus,  Lactantius,  Hilary,  Jerome, 
 and  many  others.3 
 
 But  while  no  sane  man  can  now  fail  to  see  that  such 
 explanations  are  "  in  the  highest  degree  foolish  and  un- 
 natural," we  must  not  set  them  down  to  the  special  in- 
 competence of  the  writer.  "  The  Christian  Church,"  says 
 Professor  Milligan,  "  has  afforded  too  many  examples  of  the 
 adoption  of  the  most  perverted  principles  of  interpretation  by 
 gifted  minds,  and  by  large  sections  of  her  members,  to  make 
 folly  in  that  particular  direction  a  proof  of  general  mental 
 weakness."4  So  far  from  being  despised,  the  Epistle  of 
 Barnabas  was  regarded  as  pre-eminently  edifying,  and  it  was 
 a  matter  of  doubt  for  a  time  whether  it  should  not  be 
 admitted  into  the  sacred  canon.  Like  the  Pastor  of  Hennas, 
 and  the  Epistles  of  Clement  and  Polycarp,  it  was  even  read 
 in  many  churches  in  j^ublic  worship.5 
 
 1  Id.  12  (2  Esdr.  v.  5).  2  Ep.  Barn.  6. 
 
 3  Ep.  Barn.  15  (Gen.  ii.  2  ;  Ps.  xc.  4)  ;  Iren.  Ha&r.  v.  28,  29  ;  Hippo- 
 lytus, ap.  rhot.  cod.  cii.  ;  Lactant.  Instt.  vii.  25  ;  Jer.  Ep.  139,  kc.  See 
 Cotelerius,  i.  44. 
 
 4  Diet,  of  Christian  Antiquities,  s.v.  Barnabas. 
 
 5  Into  the  theology  of  the  early  Fathers  1  do  not  enter.  Jerome  admits 
 that  before  Arms  arose  like  a  demon  of  the  noonday,  "innocenter  quaedam 
 et  minus  caute  loeuti  sunt,  et  quae  non  possint  perversorum  hominum  calum- 
 niam  declinare."  Apol.  adv.  liufin.  ii.  No  one  would  blame  them  for 
 this,  but  it  shows  thai  they  cannot  be  regarded  as  authorities.  See  Petavius, 
 De  Trin.  i.  v.  7  ;  Newman,  Ess.  on  Development,  12 — 15. 
 
The  Afwlogists.  171 
 
 3.  HERMAS  furnishes  little  or  nothing  to  our  purpose,  and 
 indeed  has  not  one  direct  quotation  from  either  the  Old  or  New 
 Testament,  unless,  "  Many  be  called  but  few  chosen"  be  taken 
 from  St.  Matthew.1  Nor  do  Polycarp  and  Ignatius  indulge 
 in  direct  exegesis.2  Tatian  wrote  a  book  on  Scripture 
 difficulties,3  consisting  of  comments  on  St.  Paul,  which  are  no 
 longer  extant.  In  his  oration,  he  like  Barnabas  uses  the  Old 
 Testament  as  the  source  of  all  knowledge.4  Athenagoras 
 also  held  the  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration  and  uses  the 
 allegoric  method.6  He  says,  "that  the  Spirit  uses  the  writers 
 as  a  flute-player  might  blow  into  his  flute."6  Theophilus 
 of  Antioch  looked  to  the  Bible  even  for  physical  and 
 scientific  teaching.  Thus  he  quotes  the  cry  of  Abel's  blood 
 from  the  ground  as  the  cause  why  blood  coagulates  when 
 it  is  spilled  upon  the  earth.7  Like  many  of  the  Fathers, 
 wherever  he  finds  A0709  in  the  Old  Testament  he  at  once 
 applies  the  passage  to  Christ,8  and  interprets  the  first 
 words  of  Genesis  to  mean  that  the  Son  was  in  the  Father. 
 His  exegesis  of  the  New  Testament  is  equally  arbitrary.  In 
 John  i.  3,  "without  Mm  was  nothing  made  which  was  made," 
 he  says,  that  "  nothing  "  means  an  idol,  because  the  Apostle 
 says,  "we  know  that  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world."  We 
 learn  from  St.  Jerome,  that  in  dealing  with  the  parable  of 
 the  Unjust  Steward  he  explained  him  to  be  St.  Paul.9 
 
 1    Matt.  xxii.  14,  in  Vision,  ii.  2.     The  same  quotation  occurs  in  Barnabas, 
 
 e.  !.  and  something  like  ii  in  4  Esdras.     The  scriptural  parallels  to  passages 
 
 of  Sennas  are  given  by  Funk,  i.  575.     Origen  regarded  "  the  shepherd "  as 
 
 divinely   inspired  {Coram,  on  Horn.  x.  31),  but  Tertullian  despises  it  (De 
 
 .  20). 
 
 -  No  specially  distinctive  exegetie  data  are  to  be  derived  from  l'apias,  or  the 
 Ep.  to  Diognetus  (which  ignores  the  Old  Testament). 
 
 :!    Enseb.   //.   /:'.  V.  13,  irpo^Kf]fxarwv  PiQAiov. 
 
 4  The  translator  of  the  Armenian  version  of  the  commentary  on  Tatian's 
 iwron,  by  Ephraem  Syrus,  published  bythe  Mecbitarisl  Fathersal  Venice, 
 happily  proves  that  Tatian,  a  pupil  of  Justin,  used  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  as 
 well  as  the  Synoptists.  ■'   dpol.  9. 
 
 '•  Qtuuat.  "•/  Autolyc  ii.  0.  II. •  alsoquotes  theSibylline  oracles  as  inspired 
 {id.  ii.  '•' ■  'fli"  word  Tfuas  liist  occurs  in  tins  book,  and  Trinitaa  in  Tert. 
 C.  Prax.  -1.  .Jerome  Bpeaks  slightingly  of  his  commentaries,  hut  dors  not 
 seem  to  feel  sun-  of  their  genuineness.  That  on  the  Gospels  would  be  the 
 earliest  extant  commentary  if  genuine.  R.  Simon,  Hist.  Crit  der  Comment. 
 ]>■  6.  7  y,/.  ij.  29. 
 
 8  Thus  in  Pa.  rlv.  1.  "  Eructavit  cor  meum  Verbum  bowwm  Le.  Christum." 
 
 8  Jer.  Ep.  ad  Algas.  151,  qu.  0.     Had  the  Key  (ic\us)  of  Melito  of  ijardis 
 
172  Justin  Martyr. 
 
 4.  For  the  New  Testament  Justin  Martyr  not  only  offers 
 no  exegesis,1  but  seems  uneasy  unless  he  can  base  its  simplest 
 statements  upon  prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament.  Indeed 
 he  seems  to  regard  even  Christ  less  as  a  teacher  than  as  an 
 interpreter  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  He  had  inspired.2 
 Like  Philo,  he  supposes  that  the  Greek  philosophers  borrowed 
 their  wisdom  from  Moses.3  He  believes  in  verbal  dictation, 
 yet  quotes  the  Sibyl  and  Hystaspes  as  genuine  j^rophetic 
 books.4  He  relies  exclusively  upon  the  skill  which  he 
 supposed  himself  to  possess  as  an  interpreter ; 5  yet  he  was 
 ignorant  of  Hebrew,6  and  accepted  the  fables  of  Pseudo- 
 Aristeas  about  the  Septuagint.7  He  was  entirely  uncritical. 
 He  appeals  to  the  so-called  Acts  of  Pilate.8     He  speaks  of  the 
 
 and  his  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  survived,  they  would  have  had  great 
 exegetic  importance.  To  him  we  owe  the  first  Christian  canon  of  the  Old 
 Testament. 
 
 1  The  only  book  of  the  New  Testament  which  he  mentions  by  name  is  the 
 Revelation  of  St.  John  (Dial.  81).  He  never  mentions  St.  Paul,  and  has  no 
 certain  traces  of  the  Acts,  the  Catholic  Epistles,  or  the  Hebrews.  He  refers 
 to  the  Gospels  as  "Memorials"  of  the  Apostles  (Dial.  103),  but  only  five  of 
 his  references  agree  verbally  with  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.  On  the  other 
 hand,  though  he  does  not  quote  the  New  Testament  as  "Holy  Scripture,"  he 
 seems  to  imply  the  inspiration  of  its  writers  (Apol.  i.  39,  50  ;  Dial.  119). 
 For  his  quotations  see  Otto,  Corp.  Apolog.  ii.  579-592  ;  Bishop  Kaye,  p.  146. 
 
 2  Apol.  i.  32.  After  quoting  the  words,  "Unless  ye  be  born  again  ye  shall 
 not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God"  (John  iii.  5),  he  refers  also  to  Is.  i.  17 
 (Apol.  i.  61).  It  is  true  that  this  may  partially  be  explained  by  the  exigencies 
 of  his  controversy  ;  but  it  is  in  curious  contrast  to  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp, 
 which  alludes  hut  slightly  to  the  Old  Testament,  In  the  Epistle  of  Ignatius 
 the  practice  of  relying  exclusively  on  the  Old  Testament  is  blamed   (Dp.    ad 
 
 run, i,i.  s). 
 
 3  Justin  is  however  most  unfavourable  to  the  Jewish  Law.  Dial.  19,  23, 
 27,  &c. 
 
 4  Apol.  i.  20,  44  ;  Cohort,  ad  Graccos,  §  37  (if  this  work  be  genuine).  Comp. 
 Tert.  ad  Natt.  ii.  12,  &c. 
 
 5  Dial.  56,  58.  Like  Clement  and  Barnabas  he  regards  the  typical  and 
 allegoric  explanations  as  Gnosis  derived  from  spiritual  grace  (xdpis),  Dial.  112. 
 
 6  He  may  have  known  by  hearsay  the  strange  derivations  (?)  of  "Satan" 
 (from  Sata,  "apostate,"  and  Nas,  "serpent"),  and  of  "Israel"  ("the  man 
 conquering  power'').  Dial.  125.  See  Siegfried,  Philo,  2H9.  Justin  some- 
 times refers  quotations  to  wrong  authors  (Apol.  i.  35,  49,  51,  53),  and  some- 
 times quotes  the  same  passage  in  different  ways.  Apol.  i.  45  ;  Dial.  32,  33. 
 Thirlby  talks  of  his  "  ineredibilis  in  rccitandis  scripturis  inconstantia,"  and 
 " incrcdibilis  in  scribendo  festinatio." 
 
 7  Cohort.  13.  Dial.  71.  He  appears  to  have  taken  an  inscription  to  the 
 Sabine  god  Semo  Sancus  for  one  to  Simon  Magus,  Apol.  i.  26,  56.  In  Apol.  i. 
 31,  he  says  that  Ptolemy  sent  messengers  to  Herod. 
 
 8  Apol.  i.  35,  48.  The  name  "Acts  of  Pilate  "was  sometimes  given  to 
 the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus.  and  the  passages  referred  to  by  Justin  are  to  bo 
 found  iu  that  apocryphal  book. 
 
His  Arbitrariness.  173 
 
 Law  and  circumcision  as  proofs  of  peculiar  evil  in  the  Jews,  and 
 regards  God's  approval  of  them  as  nothing  but  an  "  accom- 
 modation "  to  their  sins.1  He  relies  mainly  on  prophecy,  and 
 charges  the  Jews  with  having  struck  four  passages  out  of  the 
 Septuagint,  of  which  three  do  not  occur  in  any  manuscript, 
 and  one  occurs  in  all.2  Following  in  the  footsteps  of  the 
 Rabbis  he  denies  the  plainest  historical  facts.  He  explains 
 the  apparent  justification  of  polygamy  in  the  Old  Testament 
 by  some  great  mystery,  and  allegorises  the  stories  about 
 Judah's  immorality,  and  David's  adultery,  and  Jacob's  wives.3 
 Thus,  like  Barnabas,  he  thinks  that  the  Old  Testament  was 
 meant  mainly  for  Christians,4  and,  as  Middleton  sarcastically, 
 but  hardly  with  exaggeration,  observes,  "he  applied  all 
 the  sticks  and  pieces  of  wood  in  the  Old  Testament  to 
 the  cross." 5  In  every  Old  Testament  Theophany  he  sees 
 a  certain  Christophany.  He  sometimes  presses  into  his 
 allegory  facts  for  which  he  has  no  scriptural  authority,  as 
 when  he  says  that  there  were  twelve  bells  on  the  High 
 Priest's  robe,  and  that  they  symbolised  the  Apostles ;  that 
 Jesus  was  born  in  a  cave ; 6  that  the  ass  at  Bethphage  was 
 found  tied  to  a  vine  ; 7  that  Christ,  as  a  carpenter,  made 
 yokes  and  ploughs ;  that  a  fire  was  kindled  in  Jordan  at  His 
 baptism ;  that  His  feet  as  well  as  His  hands  were  nailed  to 
 the  cross.8  He  even  adopts  such  mere  fables  as  that  not 
 only  did  the  clothes  of  the  Israelites  not  grow  old  in  the 
 desert,  but  those  of  the  younger  Israelites  grew  as  they 
 gn  w.9     Justin's  whole  system  of  interpretation  depends  on 
 
 1  DM.  27. 
 
 '-'  Dial.  71-73.  One  of  these  is  attributed  by  Irenaeus  (iii.  20  ;  iv.  22)  first 
 to  Isaiah,  then  to  Jeremiah.      He  unjustly  charges  with  bad  faith  the  r< 
 
 i  ^(V  by  veai'is-  instead  of  irapQtvos  in  Is.  vii.  14  (Dial.  43),  and  says 
 ili.it  the  Jewish  corruption  of  the  Scriptures  was  a  worse  crime  than  even 
 Moloch-worship.     Vial.  !'■). 
 
 :l  Dial.  86,  184,  141.  ■  Dial.  57,  137,  1  I". 
 
 »  See  Dial.  86  96.  The  rod  of  Moses,  the  pilled  wands  of  Jacob,  his  staff, 
 his  ladder,  Judah's  wand,  David's  rod,  the  wood  which  Elisha  threw  into  the 
 Jordan,  &c,  &c 
 
 ,;   Is.  xxxiii.  10  ;   Dial  78. 
 
 7  Gen.  \li\-.  10  :  Apol.  i.  82. 
 
 s  See  Dial.  88,  103  ;  Apol  i.  85. 
 
 Dial  131.      dAAa  i<a\  ra  ruv  vturtpuv  ffviriv^avt. 
 
174  Irenaeus. 
 
 the  assumption  that  the  Old  Testament  writers  always  spoke 
 in  mysteries,  types,  and  symbols.1  When  we  read  the  passage 
 in  which  Jacob  and  Noah  are  treated  as  types  of  Christ, 
 we  sympathise  with  the  complaints  of  Trypho,  that  while 
 God's  words  were  sacred,  Justin's  exegesis  of  them  was  purely 
 artificial.3  We  may  concede  to  Celsus,  that  the  proof  of 
 Christianity  must  rest  on  clearer  images  and  less  dubious 
 indications  than  these.4  The  extent  to  which  Justin  was 
 influenced  by  Jewish  methods  may  be  seen  by  his  application 
 of  the  verse,  "  The  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom  brimstone  and  fire 
 from  the  Lord  "  (Gen.  xix.  24),  to  prove  the  divinity  of  Christ.5 
 Philo  uses  analogous  modes  of  argument,  and  Philo  as  Ave 
 know  was  an  object  of  Justin's  admiration.6  From  him  Justin 
 borrowed  the  theory  of  passive  ecstasy  as  the  condition  of 
 prophetic  utterance,  and  so  far  from  feeling  any  misgiving 
 about  his  exegetic  system,  he  attributes  it  to  the  possession  of 
 a  special  grace.7 
 
 5.  We  might  have  hoped  that  some  fragments  of  genuine 
 Apostolic  wisdom  would  have  reached  Irenaeus  through 
 Polycarp  or  his  aged  predecessor  Pothinus.8  But  whatever 
 may  be  his  other  gifts  he  shows  no  special  wisdom  in  the 
 
 1  TrapaKcicaAv/AUtvcos  iv  [ivarripitp. 
 
 2  Dial.  134,  140. 
 
 3  Dial.  79.  ra  fjikv  rov  Qeov  ayia  eo~riv  al  8e  v/xerepai  tj-ryyhrreis  TerexvatT- 
 ixivai.  For  instance  "Jacob  served  Laban  for  speckled  and  many-spotted 
 sheep,  and  Christ  served  ....  for  the  various  and  many-formed  races  of 
 mankind.  Leah  was  weak-eyed,  for  the  eyes  of  your  souls  are  weak.  Rachel 
 stole  the  gods  of  Laban  and  we  have  lost  our  paternal  and  maternal  gods" 
 (Dial.    134). 
 
 4  Orig.  G.  Cels.  ii.  30.  irapeppi\pe  8e  6  KeAcros  tovto-  Qeov  5e  /ecu  rov  Qeov 
 vlbv  ouSels  4k  ToiovroiV  napaicovff JJ.6.TWV  ovb"  e|  ourws  ayevviiv  reK/u.ripiaiv  crvv- 
 lo-ri)ffiv. 
 
 5  Dial.  56.  A  similar  use  was  made  of  the  text  in  Tren.  Hacr.  iii.  6  ;  Tert. 
 Adv.  Praxcan.  13  ;  Euseb.  Dem.  Evang.  v.  23  ;  Ambros.  De  Fide,  i.  2  (see 
 Feuardent  in  loc.  Iren.)  and  sec  infra.  The  Council  of  Sirmium  anathema- 
 tised any  one  who  understood  the  verse  differently.  Hilar.  De  Synod,  p.  o?3. 
 A  similar  interpretation  was  given  to  2  Tim.  i.  18. 
 
 6  Cohort,  ad  (iracc.  9.  He  calls  him  and  Josephus  ol  ao<p-Joraroi.  Renan  says 
 of  him,  "Justin  n'etait  un  grand  esprit  ;  il  manquait  a  la  fois  de  philosophic 
 et  de  la  critique  ;  son  exegese  surtout  passerait  aujourd'hui  pour  ties  defectu- 
 euse  .  .  .  il  avait  cette  espece  de  cr^dulite  mediocre  qui  permet  de  raisonner 
 sensement  sur  des  premisses  pueriles  et  de  s'arrSter  a  temps  de  fa5on  a  n'etre 
 cju'a  moitie  absurde." — L'Eglise  Chritienne,  356. 
 
 7  Cohort,  ad  Grace.  8. 
 
 8  "Constat  Poly  carpi  .  .  hunc  fuisse  discipulum."     Jer.  Catal.  s.v. 
 
His  Views.  175 
 
 application  of  hormeneutic  methods.1  He,  too,  relied  simply  on 
 the  Septuagint  and  regarded  all  who  preferred  other  readings 
 as  vers  iuiputllcos  ct  audaces.2  He  quotes  the  Book  of  Baruch 
 and  Bel  and  the  Dragon  as  genuine  Scripture.  He  constantly 
 appeals  to  "  tradition;  "  3  and  he  says  that  the  true  exposition 
 of  Scripture  must  be  learnt  by  Presbyters  from  Bishops  who 
 could  claim  apostolic  succession,  and  had  received  therewith 
 a  sure  charism  of  truth.  Nevertheless,  his  own  exposition 
 is  based  on  the  same  erroneous  principles  as  that  of  his  pre- 
 decessors. He  was  quite  able  to  expose  futile  and  fantastic 
 exegesis  when  it  was  used  by  heretics,  and  he  compares  it  to 
 twisting  ropes  of  sand.4  Nothing  can  be  more  admirable  than 
 his  remarks  on  the  arbitrary  juxtaposition  of  irrelevant  and  per- 
 verted texts  which  in  all  ages  has  passed  for  scriptural  proof. 
 He  compares  it  to  the  centos  made  of  Homeric  verses,5  and 
 to  the  breaking  up  of  the  mosaic  of  a  king  in  order  to  work 
 the  separate  fragments  into  the  mosaic  of  a  dog  or  fox.6  He 
 insists  on  the  excellent  rule  that  enigmatic  passages  are  not 
 to  be  explained  by  those  which  are  still  more  enigmatic,  but 
 only  by  what  is  clear  and  plain.7  Unhappily,  however,  his 
 own  exegesis  often  falls  far  short  of  his  theories.  Since  the 
 Gnostics  used  apocryphal  gospels  he  tries  to  prove  that  there 
 could  only  be  four  Gospels  because  there  are  four  quarters  of 
 
 1  Waer.  iii.  21,  §2.  He  is  tli^  earliest  Father  who  quotes  as  largely  from 
 the  New  Testament  as  from  the  Oil,  and  in  his  fourth  book  he  proves  against 
 Marciori  the  unity  of  the  two  covenants.  The  edition  of  Irenaeus  to  which  1 
 refer  is  Massuet's,  1710. 
 
 -   For  his  quotations  see   Stieren,    i.    996  1005. 
 
 3  i]  Svva/uLs  tJJs  7ra;>a5o<7ea>s  fjLia  Kal  i]  out?').  Hacr.  i.  10,  §  2.  tj  airb  T7)s 
 fiacAriaias  Krjovff(Toi.Uvri  aAijffeia,  i.   9,  $  5.     Comp.  V.  20,  §  2  ;   iii.  3,  §  1-4.      By 
 
 tradition  he  sometimes  appears  to  mean  the  shorter  form  of  the  old   B an 
 
 creed  ;  bu1  be  also  appeals  to  fcradil  ton  for  special  facts  (see  Routh,  Rel.  Sacrue, 
 42     65,  ed.  1814). 
 
 4  Hacr.  i.  8,  §  1,  roiavrris  5f  tijs  viroOerrews  avrwv  otjffrjs  *ov  of/re  Tlpo(pi\rai 
 iiaipv^av,  vtjre  6  Kvpios  idiSa^ev  otire  'AttoVtoAoi  irapsfiuKav  t))v  nepl  tuv  oAwv 
 avxovcrt  wAuov  toiv  &KXwv  iyvioKtvat,  e£  aypdcpoiv  avayiyvwcricoi'Tes,  Ka\  rb  5}j 
 \ty6j.L(vov  t{  a/tuou  ax0'"'111  v\4K€tv  (irirriSevoyTes  (comp.   id.  ii.   10,  §  1). 
 
 B    Haer.     i.     it,    S     \,    Ac£eis     i;a\     ovu^ara     <nropd5r)v     tteifieva     avWiyovrts 
 
 neraf4poy<ri.     0omp.  Jer.  Ep.  liii.  §  7  "Quasi Legerimus  Homerocentonas 
 
 1 1  \  n  giliocentonas  !  " 
 
 6  Haer.  i.  8,  S  1,  'iviTtp  rpiirov  tf  tis  .  .  .  irc'iOot  on  avTt)  rj  ffawok  rrjs 
 aAwiTfKos   l$ta  tiifivri   t<niv  j)   Ka\))  tov  /3a<nAe'a>s   eiKwu.       He   gives   US    BOme 
 
 specimens  of  Valentinian  allegory,  and  preserves  a  comment  of  I'toleinaeus 
 on  the  Prologue  o\  St.  John  (§  6), 
 
 7  Haer.  ii!  10,  §  2. 
 
176  His  "Tradition"  Valueless. 
 
 the  world,  four  winds,  and  four  cherubic  forms.1  He  blames 
 the  Gnostics  for  drawing  arguments  from  numbers,  letters,  and 
 syllables,2  yet  even  in  a  matter  so  important  as  an  explana- 
 tion of  the  name  Jesus  he  adopts  the  Rabbinic  method  of 
 Notarikon.3  He  says  that  in  Hebrew  the  word  consists  of  two 
 and  a  half  letters  and  implies  that  Jesus  is  Lord  of  Heaven 
 and  earth.4  He  appeals  to  tradition  against  the  Gnostics, 
 but  he  frequently  uses  the  same  methods,  of  which,  in  their 
 case,  he  repudiates  the  application.5 
 
 In  theology  Irenaeus  is  the  first  who,  if  he  be  rightly 
 interpreted,  suggests  the  disastrous  view  that  Christ's  ransom 
 of  our  race  was  paid  to  Satan  6 — a  notion  which  recurs  in 
 the  writings  of  theologians  almost  unquestioned  till  the  days 
 of  Anselm.  Even  as  regards  events  which  were  then  recent 
 Irenaeus  is  a  most  unsafe  authority.  He  quotes  the  evidence 
 of  "  elders  who  received  it  from  the  Apostles  "  for  the  assertion 
 that  our  Lord  at  His  death  was  more  than  forty  years  of  age r 
 — an  opinion  rejected  by  the  whole  Christian  world.  He 
 makes  the  highly  questionable  statement  that  the  Apocalypse 
 was  not  written  till  the  reign  of  Domitian.8     He  repeats  after 
 
 1  JTacr.  iii.  11,  §  8. 
 
 2  Hacr.  i.  3,  §  3  ;  ii.  24,  §§  1-6,  where  many  instances  are  given. 
 
 3  See  supra,  p.  101. 
 
 4  Hacr.  ii.  24,  §  2.  The  initials  of  the  word  1C*  may  be  made  by  Notarikon 
 to  stand  for  Fehovah,  &hamaiin,  Fe-ha-arets.  Nothing  can  be  made  of 
 the  present  reading,  "Terra  autem  iter  am  sura  user  dicitur. " 
 
 6  Judg.  vi.  37  (Hacr.  iii.  17,  §  3)  ;  Jon.  ii.  1  {Hacr.  iii.  20,  §  1)  ;  Dan.  ii. 
 34  (Hacr.  iii.  21,  §  7),  referred  to  by  Lipsius  Diet,  of  Christian  Bioijr.  ii.  270. 
 In  each  instance  the  allegories  are  adopted  by  Augustine,  Jerome,  &c:  See 
 Diestel,  pp.  56-60. 
 
 6  Hacr.  v.  1,  §  1.  Athanasius  furnishes  a  brilliant  exception  to  this  error. 
 Archdeacon  Norris  understands  Irenaeus  differently  (Rudiments  of  Theology, 
 p.  274),  but  Origen  and  many  others  certainly  held  this  view.  It  must  not 
 lie  forgotten  that  even  in  Theology  the  Fathers  are  not  always  safe  guides. 
 Cardinal  Newman  remarks  that  out  of  some  thirty  authors  cited  by  Bishop 
 Bull,  he  has  to  explain  nearly  twenty  (Ess  on  Development,  p.  158). 
 
 7  Hacr.  ii.  22,  §  5.  The  passage  is  quoted  by  Euscbius  H.  E.  iii.  25,  irdvTes 
 ol  wpealSvTtpoi  fiapTvpovffi,  ol  Kara  t\)v  'Acriav,  'Iwdwy  .  .  .  (TvfxISefiXri /cores 
 ■KapaSiSwKevai  [ravra]  rhv  'loeavirriv,  and  for  other  mistakes  see  iii.  21,  §§  1-10. 
 The  mistake  about  the  age  of  Jesus  is  the  more  strange  because  a  little  before 
 he  had  pointed  out  the  Passovers  in  the  Gospels  to  disprove  the  "  one-year  " 
 theory. 
 
 8  In  Hacr.  iii.  7,  §  1,  Irenaeus  makes  the  true  remark  that  St.  Paul  sometimes 
 uses  hyperbata  "propter  velocitatem  scrmonum  suorum  j"  bat  his  application  of 
 the  figure  to  2  Cor.  iv.  2  is  unfortunate.  Ee  refers  to  a  book  of  his  own 
 "On  the  peculiarities  of  the  style  of  St.  Paul." 
 
Three  Schools.  177 
 
 Poly  carp  a  most  improbable  story  about  St.  John  and 
 ( Vrinthus,  which  is  so  unworthy  of  the  Apostle  that  we  can 
 only  hope  that  it  is  without  foundation.1  These  examples 
 sufficiently  prove  that  if  we  are  to  judge  the  value  of  tradi- 
 tion even  from  such  early  writings  as  those  of  Irenseus  we 
 shall  find  that  neither  in  theology,  nor  in  exegesis,  nor  in  the 
 simplest  matters  of  fact,  does  it  establish  any  claim  to  our 
 reverent  acceptance.2 
 
 II.  The  Fathers  of  the  third  and  later  centuries  may  be 
 divided  into  three  excgetical  schools.  Those  schools  are  the 
 Literal  and  Realistic  as  represented  predominantly  by  Ter- 
 tullian  ;  the  ALLEGORICAL,  of  which  Origen  is  the  foremost  ex- 
 ponent ;  and  the  Historic  and  Grammatical,  which  flourished 
 chiefly  in  Antioch,  and  of  which  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  was 
 the  acknowledged  chief. 
 
 1.  Tertullian,  like  other  Fathers,  always  speaks  of  Scrip- 
 ture as  uttered  by  God,  and  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost.3 
 He  will  not  allow  to  Valentinian  that  there  are  any  varying 
 degrees  of  inspiration,  nor  to  Marcion  that  Paul's  insight,  was 
 any  deeper  than  that  of  other  Apostles.  Like  the  Rabbis,  he 
 placed  all  the  Scriptures  exactly  on  the  same  level.4  He  held 
 that  they  contained  all  truth ;  that  they  had  no  contradictory 
 elements ;  and  that  their  cosmogony,  chronology,  anthropology, 
 and  history,  were  infallibly  inspired.5  If  his  views  on  this 
 question   are   to   be   regarded   as    authoritative   they   must 
 
 1  The  story  of  (Vrinthus  and  the  Bath  (see  Epiphan.  Haer.  lxxviii.  14  ; 
 Lampe,  Proleg.  p.  69).  J  have  pointed  out  elsewhere  the  grounds  on  which 
 J  doubt  the  truth  of  the  story  (Early  Days  of  Christianity,  i.  163). 
 
 2  See,  for  instance,  the  wild  passage  aboul  the  Millennial  grapes,  which  he 
 tells  on  the  authority  of  the  weak  and  credulous  Papiaa,  who  professes  to 
 have  heard  it  from  Polycarp  (Ifacr.  v.  33,  §  3  ;  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  ad  fin.  : 
 Ronth,  /.'</.  Sacr.  p.  0).  "Winn  such  authority  is  cited  for  such  a  Rabbinic 
 absurdity,  we  cannot  estimate  very  highly  the  boasted  "tradition"  on  which 
 Irenaeus  relies.  For  oilier  instances  see  1,'outh,  Eel.  Sacrae,  i.  pp.  46-68, 
 95-101  (Eahab'a  cord,  iv  apxy  =  iv  Atfyp,  &c). 
 
 '■'  Apol.  18. 
 
 4  De  Pudic.  17,  "  Ilanc  aegualitatem  Spiritus  Sancti  qui  ohservaverit,  ah 
 Ipso  deducetur  in  sensus  ejus."  He  makes  Ps.  i.  1  a  prophecy  of  Joseph  of 
 A]  imal  haea  I  De  spectae.  3). 
 
 6  De  Anim.  1,  •_' ;  0.  Eermog.  30,  40.    He  quotes  from  all  the  New  Testament 
 except  2  Pet.,  James,  and  3  John,  and  held  that  the  Old  Testament  b< 
 specially  to  Christians  (Apol.  21).     Be  knew  no  Hebrew,  aud  relies  on  tho 
 ''inspiration"  of  the  Seventy  (Apol.  18). 
 
 N 
 
178  Tertullian. 
 
 be  equally  claimed  for  the  Book  of  Enoch,  and  "the  Sibyl 
 who  lies  not." l  He  mixes  up  different  quotations,  refers  to 
 them  inaccurately,  and  relies  for  proof  on  verses  which  do 
 not  occur  in  Scripture  at  all.2  He  thinks  that  Noah  may 
 have  received  the  Book  of  Enoch  from  his  grandfather,  or 
 that,  if  the  Book  was  lost  in  the  Deluge,  he  might  have 
 restored  it  by  immediate  revelation,  as  Ezra  reproduced  the 
 whole  Scriptures.3  How  can  such  opinions  be  appealed 
 to  as  having  any  weight  ?  Before  a  scientific  exegesis  many 
 of  Tertullian's  statements,  so  far  from  being  a  part  of  the 
 Christian  verity,  vanish  like  mist  before  the  sun.4  He 
 protests  against  literalism,  except  when  time,  manner,  and 
 circumstance  are  taken  into  consideration,  yet  he  believes 
 in  a  corporeal  God,  and  accepts  literally  such  metaphors 
 as  "  the  hand  of  God,"  and  the  "  drop  of  water "  in  the 
 Parable  of  Dives,  and  thinks  that  everything  is  forbidden 
 which  is  not  in  Scripture  expressly  permitted.5  He  rightly 
 blames  the  Gnostics  for  their  abuse  of  allegory.6  Yet 
 he  does  not  hesitate  to  allegorise  whenever  it  suits  him. 
 Orthodoxy  was  accepted  as  a  sufficient  warrant  for  exegetic 
 extravagance.  He  finds  a  symbol  of  the  Twelve  Apostles 
 in  the  twelve  wells  of  Elim,  in  the  twelve  gems  on  the  High 
 Priest's  breast,  in  the  twelve  stones  taken  from  Jordan  ; "  and 
 he  thinks  that  literal  prohibitions  about  clean  and  unclean 
 kinds  of  food  would  be  quite  contemptible.  The  eloquent, 
 fiery,  uncompromising  African  practically  makes  Scripture  say 
 
 1  Be  Idol.  15;  Be  Cult.  Fern.  i.  3  ;  ad  Natt.  ii.  12,  "Ilia  scilicet  Sibylla 
 veri  vera  vates. " 
 
 2  Be  Cult.  Fern.  i.  2,  3.  See  Bishop  Kaye,  Writings  of  Tertullian,  p.  320 ; 
 Porson,  Letters  to  Travis,  p.  273.  Tertullian  is  too  reckless  a  controversialist 
 to  be  accepted  as  authoritative  in  his  appeals  to  the  actual  autographs  of  the 
 Apostles  (Hacr.  v.  30,  31),  or  the  census  of  Augustus  (C.  Marc.  v.  7),  or  the 
 supposed  letter  of  Tiberius  to  the  Senate  about  the  divinity  of  Christ  {Apol.  5), 
 or  the  official  report  of  the  Crucifixion  by  Pilate  {Apol.  21). 
 
 3  He  borrows  this  Jewish  fable  from  2  Esdras,  xiv.  21-44. 
 
 4  See  Bohringer,  iii.  787-790. 
 
 5  Be  Cor.  Mit.  2  ;  Be  Monogam.  4,  "Negat  scriptura  quod  non  notat." 
 
 6  Be  llcsurr.  Carnis,  19,  "  Non  omnia  sunt  imagines  sed  et  veritates  ;  nee 
 omnia  umbrae  sed  et  corpora."  Comp.  too  id.  ib.  20-33,  Be  Fraescr.  39  ;  C. 
 Hcrmog.  34,  &c. 
 
 7  C.  Marc.  iv.  13.  See  too  Be  Oral.  4,  C.  Frax.  7,  Be  Baptismo,  iii.  ix.  and 
 passim. 
 
His  Arrogance.  170 
 
 exactly  what  he  himself  chooses.  When,  like  Athenagoras,1 
 he  condemns  second  marriage  as  "  specious  adultery,"  he  has 
 no  manner  of  doubt  that  he  is  expressing  the  opinion  of  St. 
 Paul,  though  St.  Paul  says  the  exact  opposite.2  If  in  spite  of 
 St.  Paul's  express  disclaimer  he  insists  on  the  resurrection  of 
 the  identical  flesh,  he  asserts  that  St.  Paul  does  so  likewise.3 
 At  one  time  Scripture  has  no  meaning  for  him  unless  it 
 coincides  with  what  he  recognises  as  tradition,4  and  at  another 
 time  tradition  is  valueless  if  it  does  not  correspond  with  his 
 individual  convictions.  Thus  he  sometimes  speaks  the  lan- 
 guage of  Luther,  and  sometimes  that  of  the  Council  of 
 Trent.  If  heretics  appeal  to  the  text,  "  Prove  all  things,  hold 
 fast  that  which  is  good,"  he  loftily  replies  that  "  we"  have  no 
 need  of  curiosity,  and  that  "when  we  believe,  we  do  not 
 desire  to  believe  anything  further."5  While  he  is  in  this 
 mood  he  is  so  far  carried  away  by  his  own  sophistry  as  to 
 speak  with  something  like  contempt  of  Biblical  studies,  as 
 springing  from  curiosity,  and  tending  to  vainglory;6  and  by 
 way  of  criticising  our  Lord's  promise,  "  Seek  and  ye  shall 
 find,"  he  implies  that  it  was  only  applicable  to  the  beginning 
 of  His  teaching,  while  it  was  still  doubted  whether  He  was 
 the  Christ.7  He  contemptuously  says  that  in  arguing  with 
 heretics  it  is  useless  to  appeal  to  Scriptural  arguments,  in 
 which  there  is  either  an  uncertain  victory,  or  none  at  all,  but 
 that  the  appeal  must  be  to  Apostolic  tradition.s     And  yet 
 
 1  Atlionag.  Lcgnt.  33,  <5  Sevrepos  ydfxns  tvn-peirris  eari  /uoix*'"*,  romp.  Orig. 
 Horn,  in  Luc.  xvii.  ;  Theophil.  ad  Autolyc.  iii.  15  ;   Inn.  Haer.  iii.  17,  §  2. 
 
 2  1  Tim.  v.  14  ;  De  Monogam.  8. 
 
 3  Be  Eesurr.  Carnis,  35,  47.  1  Cor.  xv.  37.  Ho  calls  those  who  disagree 
 with  him  "lucifugae  is  ti  scripturarum."     Comp.  Iren.  Jlacr.  v.  xii.  §  :;. 
 
 *  De  Praescr.  4. 
 
 6  D<-  Praescr.  7,  "Nobis  curiositate  opus  non  est  post  Christum  Jesum, 
 ncc  in<|uisitione  post  evangelium." 
 
 6  De  I' mi  •<•/■.  14,  "  Fides  in  regula  positaest .  .  .  cedateuriositasfidei."  17, 
 "Quid  promovebis,  exercitatiasime  Scripturarum,  cum  si  quid  defenderis 
 negetur  ex  adverso,  si  quid  uegaveris  defendatur?"  The  sentimenl  was 
 finally  crystallised  in  the  "Tenendum  quod  semper,  quod  ubique,  ipiod  ab 
 omnibus  creditum  est "  of  Vincentius  Lerinensis,  Commonitor.  i.  3. 
 
 7  Ji'-  Praescr  8.  "  Whatever  answer  Tertulliau  had  readyforoth*  i 
 
 these  he  could  silence  with  a  flmihing  peremptory  interpretation  of  our  Lord's 
 words.  ...  1  find  it  hard  to  Btifle  my  indignatio  trifling  with  the 
 
 Divine  precept." — Maurice,  EccL  Hist.  p.  -J7'.'. 
 
 8  "Ego  sum  ha  olorum  "  (De  Praescr.  87).     This  is  the  argument 
 
 N    -1   ' 
 
180  "  Tradition." 
 
 when  tradition  no  longer  answers  him  according  to  his  own 
 idols,  he  insists  as  forcibly  as  the  Reformers,  that  Christ 
 calls  Himself  Truth,  not  Custom,1  and,  claiming  what  he  has 
 so  fiercely  denied  to  others,  he  maintains  that  private  judgment 
 is  a  natural  and  inalienable  right.2  The  most  inexorable  of 
 traditionalists  when  he  is  arguing  against  heretics,  he  became 
 in  his  arguments  against  heathens  the  first  clear  asserter  of 
 the  Pi'otestant  principle  of  freedom  of  faith  and  conscience 
 as  an  inherent  attribute  of  the  conception  of  religion.3 
 
 Insisting  on  the  verse,  "  God  hath  chosen  the  weak  things 
 of  the  world  to  confound  the  strong,"  he  adopted  the  paradox, 
 Credo  quia  absurdum  est,  and  the  wild  conclusion  that  the 
 more  repugnant  to  sound  reason  a  statement  was,  it  ought 
 so  much  the  more  to  be  deemed  worthy  of  God.4  And  alas  ! 
 the  vehement  "  father  of  Latin  orthodoxy "  erred  from  the 
 Catholic  dogma.  The  maintainor  of  tradition  became  the 
 champion  of  a  schism.  The  malleus  haereticorum  died  a  heretic.5 
 
 2.  Cyprian  is  the  only  other  prominent  writer  of  the  school 
 of  Tertullian.  He  is  said  to  have  been  so  great  an  admirer 
 of  his  writings,  that  when  he  asked  for  them  he  used  to 
 say  Da  magistrum.6     But  he  was  a  man  of  less  impetuous 
 
 of  the  whole  De  Praescr.  Haereticorum,  and  Tertullian  states  it  more  for- 
 mally than  Irenaeus.  Praescriptio  means  legally,  an  argument  that  the  other 
 side  ought  not  be  heard.  Tertullian  charges  heretics  with  having  a  different 
 canon,  and  with  corrupting  and  mutilating  Scripture.  Heretics  might  cer- 
 tainly object  to  proofs  from  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  from  non-existent  texts  ; 
 but  to  a  very  large  extent  they  adopted  the  very  same  canon  as  Tertullian 
 himself. 
 
 1  "Christus  Veritas  est,  non  consuetudo  "  (De  Virg.  rcl.  1). 
 
 2  "  Humani  juris  et  naturalis  potestatis  est  unicuique  quod  putaverit 
 colligere  ;  sed  nee  religionis  est  cogere  religionem  quae  sponte  suscipi  debeat 
 non  vi "  (Ad  Scap.  -2).  3  Baur,  K.  G.  i.  428. 
 
 4  On  the  deeply  interesting  personality  of  Tertullian,  see  Niebuhr,  Anct. 
 Hist.  ii.  54  ;  Neander,  Gh.  hist.  i.  683  ;  Newman,  Tracts,  p.  119  ;  Renan, 
 Marc.  Aurcl.  456,  "un  melange  inoui  de  talent,  de  faussete  d'esprit,  d'elo- 
 quence,  et  de  mauvais  gout."  "  Miserrimus  ego,"  he  says,  "semper  aeger 
 caloribus  impatientiae  "  (De  Patient.  1). 
 
 5  "Every  page  almost  of  Tertullian  would  furnish  terrible  instances  of 
 the  irreverent  torturing  of  Scripture  to  his  own  purposes — of  a  resolute 
 determination  that  it  shall  never  contradict  or  weaken  any  purpose  of 
 his — all  the  while  that  he  professes  to  take  it -as  his  guide  and  judge." 
 Maurice,  Eccl.  Hid.  p.  334. 
 
 6  Jer.  Catal.  S.V.  Tert.  A  certain  Taiilus,  who  had  known  Cyprian,  told 
 Jerome  "Nunquam  Cyprianum  absque  Tertulliani  lectione  unarn  diem 
 praeteriissc." 
 
Cyprian.  181 
 
 o-enius,  and  all  that  is  distinctive  in  his  exegesis  is 
 vitiated  by  the  fatal  fault  of  unreality.1  He  reads  an 
 ecclesiastical  tradition  into  Scripture  as  it  pleases  him. 
 If  he  wishes  to  prove  the  unity  of  the  Church  he  does 
 so — in  a  manner  almost  ludicrous  in  its  want  of  cogency 
 — from  the  Passover  commandment  "  In  one  house  shall 
 it  be  eaten ; "  2  from  the  sentence,  "  My  dove,  my  un- 
 defined is  one;"3  and  from  the  command  of  the  spies  to 
 Rahab  to  collect  all  her  family  into  her  house.4  If  he  wants 
 to  prove  against  the  Aquarians  that  Avine  ought  to  be  used 
 in  the  Eucharist,5  he  does  so  from  the  verse,  "  I  am  the  true 
 vine ; "  from  Noah's  drunkenness,  which  he  treats  as  a  sign 
 of  the  Passion ;  from  the  hospitality  of  Melchizedek ;  from 
 the  blessing  on  Judah  ;  from  the  voice  of  wisdom  in  Proverbs  ; 
 from  the  red  garments  of  the  avenger ; 6  and  from  the  ex- 
 pression "  my  cup  runneth  over."7  While  insisting  that 
 everything  is  to  be  done  exactly  as  Christ  did  it,  he  yet 
 demands  that  the  Holy  Communion  should  be  celebrated 
 in  the  morning.  It  is  obvious  that  such  exegesis  is  wholly 
 unscientific.  It  originates  only  in  the  necessity  for  con- 
 fronting Gnosticism  in  defence  of  beliefs  or  practices  fur  which 
 there  was  no  direct  Scriptural  warrant.  It  was  forced  to 
 maintain  the  view  of  the  Jewish  Rabbis,  revived  in  modern 
 days  by  Dr.  Newman,  that  Scripture  is  inconclusive  without 
 the  comment   of  tradition.8      Every   verse    is   interpreted  a 
 
 1  The  Fathers  have  often  rendered  themsi'lws  lialile  to  the  very  same  com- 
 plaints which   they  make  against  the  heretics.    Tert.  Praescr.  '38.     "Alius 
 (Marcion)  manuscripturas,  alius  (Valentinus)  sensus  expositions  intervertit. 
 .  .  .  Valentinus  .  .   .    materiam   ad    Scripturas  excogitavit    .  .  .    adjiciens 
 itiones  non  comparentium  rerum."     Epiphan     Upp.   i.  306,  k(xpvto.i 
 
 TTaAatS.  K<xl  vea  SiaO-qK]]  Kara  rhv  vovv  rbv  IStov   /j.tTairotovjj.ti'oi.        Euseb.  11.   /.'■ 
 iv.  *J'.»,  xf)^>VTai  tvayyf\iois  ISiws  (ReUSS,  §  ")04). 
 
 -  Ex.  \ii.  46.  I  ant.  vi.  9.  4  Josh.  ii.  18. 
 
 6  Ep.  63,  ad  Caecil.  6  Is.  lxiii.  2.  '  Vs.  xxiii.  5. 
 
 8  It  practically  said  "  However  you  may  interpret  Scripture,  Truth  is  with 
 u-."  "•  Quod  apud  multos  unum  invenitur,"  says  Tertullian,  "  non  est  erratum 
 Bed  traditum."  De  Praescr.  28.  See  this  suhjeel  exrellently  treated  by  Baur, 
 '  .  .    I'..   T.  ii.  8-14.     This   side  of  Tertullian's  and  Cyprian's 
 
 opinions  is  mosl  Fully  developed  by  Cardinal  Newman's   Tracts/or  the  i 
 No,  85.     II'  makes  the  remark,  which  would  indeed  be  disastrous  if  it  should 
 be  proved,  thai  "all  persons,  with  very  few  exceptions,  who  try to  goby  Scripture 
 only  fall  away  from  the  Church  and  her  doctrines,"  p.  2. 
 
182  Cyprians  Method. 
 
 priori.  If  we  arc  warned  against  eating  and  drinking  the 
 sacramental  elements  " unworthily" 1  that  is  supposed  to 
 prove  the  necessity  of  formal  penance  and  absolution.2  If  our 
 Lord  says,  "  He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me,"  that 
 is  explained  to  mean  that  all  who  are  not  Catholic  Epis- 
 copalians are  Antichrists.  Cyprian  has  no  glimpse  of  the 
 relations  of  the  Law  to  the  Gospel.  Whatever  is  said  in 
 the  Old  Testament  about  sacrificial  priests  is  applied  without 
 hesitation  to  Christian  presbyters.  The  remark  of  Optatus 
 to  Parmenian  might  be  applied  to  Cyprian,  "  You  batter  the 
 Law  to  such  purpose  that  wherever  you  find  the  word 
 water,  there  you  conjure  out  of  it  some  sense  to  our  dis- 
 advantage." "  He  has,"  says  Archbishop  Benson,  "  a  free  ideal 
 scheme  before  him,  but  in  details  falls  from  it,  and  so  makes 
 riddles  of  texts."  3  His  exegesis  yields  any  result  that  is  re- 
 quired, and,  therefore,  yields  no  result  of  any  intrinsic  worth.4 
 Yet,  like  Tertullian,  he  sets  tradition  aside  where  it  interferes 
 with  his  own  opinions,  and  makes  remarks  which  Calvin 
 himself  might  have  adopted — "  Tradition  without  truth  is 
 only  antiquated  error,"  and  "  We  must  convince  by  reason,  not 
 ,  prescribe  by  tradition."  5 
 
 III.  It  Avas  in  the  great  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria, 
 founded,  as  tradition  says,  by  St.  Mark,6  that  there  sprang  ~r* 
 up  the  chief  school  of  Christian  exegesis.     Its  object,  like 
 that  of  Philo,  was  to  unite  philosophy  with  revelation,7  and 
 
 1  1  Cor.  xi.  27.  2  Ep.  16,  §  2. 
 
 3  Article  "Cyprian"  in  Smith  and  "Wace.  Archbishop  Benson  refers  to 
 Cyprian's  Comments  on  Acts,  ii.  38  ;  Phil.  i.  18  (Epp.  73,  74,  75).  It  was  a 
 common  complaint  of  the  Fathers  that  the  heretics  quoted  Scripture  in  their 
 own  sense.  See  Tertullian:  "  Valentinns  non  ad  materiam  Scripturas,  .sed 
 materiam  ad  Scripturas  excogitavit. "  Dc  Pracscr.  Haer.  8,  De  Aniina,  18. 
 But  do  not  the  Fathers  do  the  same  ? 
 
 4  Bohringer,  ii.  1037. 
 
 5  "  Consuetude  sine  veritate  vetustas  erroris  est."  The  chief  exponent  of 
 traditionalism  in  interpretation  is  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins,  who  makes  every 
 decision  turn  on  ccclcsiasticae  intclligcntiac  auctoritas.  See  Vincent.  Ler.  ft 
 Haer.  ii.  iv.  xli.  and  passim. 
 
 6  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  10;  vi.  3;  Jer.  C<dal.  38;  Sozomen,  iii.  15.  On  the 
 school  of  Alexandria  see  the  treatises  of  Guericke,  Matter,  Vacherot,  and 
 others  mentioned  in  the  Bibliography. 
 
 7  Clemens  {Strom,  i.  §  9  ;  vii.  §  32)  and  Origen  {Horn,  in  Gen.  xiv.  §  3) 
 believed  in  the  divine  origin  of  Greek  philosophy.  For  their  views  of  Gnosis 
 see  Strom,  vii.  10,  §  55  ;  Orig.  Dc  Princip.  Praef.  i.  §  3. 
 
The  School  of  Alexandria.  183 
 
 thus  to  use  the  borrowed  jewels  of  Egypt  to  adorn  the 
 sanctuary  of  God.1  Hence,  Clemens  of  Alexandria  and  Origen 
 furnish  the  direct  antithesis  to  Tertullian  and  Irenaeus. 
 Clement  appeals  to  a  secret  tradition,  Tertullian  denies  its 
 existence.2  The  Alexandrians  aimed  at  the  establishment  of 
 Christian  Gnosticism,  and  many  of  their  philosophic  sym- 
 pathies have  such  an  affinity  with  those  of  the  leading 
 Gnostics  that  Gnosticism  could  not  have  been  completely 
 defeated  by  their  methods.3  Tertullian  and  Irenaeus,  on 
 the  other  hand,  though  with  less  learning,  less  depth,  and  less 
 power  repudiate  all  attempts  to  philosophise  in  matters  of 
 simple  faith,  and  refuse  to  evaporate  into  speculative  ideas 
 the  positive  truths  of  historical  Christianity.  Nothing  can  be 
 more  unlike  the  spirit  of  the  Alexandrians  than  the  blunt 
 question  of  Tertullian,  "  What  has  the  Church  to  do  with 
 the  Academy  ?  " 4  Clement  gives  to  philosophy  a  divine 
 origin,  Tertullian  thinks  it  incompatible  with  Christian 
 faith.5 
 
 1.  The  first  teacher  of  the  school  who  rose  to  fame  was  the 
 venerable  Pantaenus,  a  converted  Stoic,  of  whose  writings 
 only  a  few  fragments  remain.6  He  was  succeeded  by  Clement 
 OF  Alexandria  who,  believing  in  the  divine  origin  of  Greek 
 philosophy,7  openly  impounded  the  principle  that  all  Scrip- 
 ture must  be  allegorically  understood.      The  motto  of  the 
 
 1  Origen,  Fragm.  Ep.  ad  Greg.  Thaumat. 
 
 2  See  Kaye's  Clement,  362  ;   Tertullian,  31-234. 
 
 3  Mosheim  thinks  that  Christian  Platonism  defeated  the  Gnostics  ;  "  verum 
 ipso  morbo  nocentius longe  remedium  erat."  (Delurbald per  reccntiores Eccles. 
 L767,  pp.  118  sq.) 
 
 1  t)i  Praescr.  7,  "Quid  ergo  AtJicnis  et  Hicrosolymis?  Quid  Academiae  el 
 Ecclesiaef  Nostra  institutio  est  de  porticu  Salomon-is  qui  et  ipse  tradiderat 
 JJominum  in  simplicitate  cordis  esse  quaerendum.  Vidcrint  qui  Stuicum  ct 
 Platonicwm  et  dialectic)' m  Ghristianismum  protulerunt." 
 
 5  For  Clement's  views  on  the  relation  of  philosophy  to  Judaism  and  to 
 Christianity  see  Strom,  i.  passim  ;  on  its  divine  origin,  see  id.  §§  91-100  ; 
 on  its  educational  function,  §§1-58.  He  holds  that  Greek  philosophy  was 
 borrowed  from  what  he  calls  "the  philosophy  of  Moses,"  id.  $i  66-90, 
 167-179.  Comp.  vi.  -12,  44,  47,159.  Tertullian  on  the  other  hand  called 
 the  philosophers  "the  patriarchs  of  heretics." 
 
 6  Kouth,  Reliquiae  Sacrae,  i.  375-383  ;  Jer.  Catal.  36.  He  must  have 
 favoured  the  allegoric  method,  for  he  applied  to  the  Church  what  is  writ  leu  of 
 Paradise.  See  Redepenning,  Origenes,  i.  68.  Jerome  says,  "  Magis  viva  voce 
 ecclesiis  profuit." 
 
 7  Strom.   i.    §   28  ;  vii.   §    6  ;  Origen,   Horn,  in  Gen.  xiv. 
 
184  Clement  of  Alexandria. 
 
 school  was — "  Unless  ye  believe  ye  will  not  understand." x 
 By  way  of  proving  this  proposition  he  fell  into  the 
 prevalent  error  of  giving  an  universal  application  to  isolated 
 phrases.2  He  interpreted  of  a  whole  literature  what  was 
 originally  intended  of  a  single  psalm  or  a  single  circumstance.3 
 The  reasons  which  he  assigns  for  the  cryptic  character 
 of  Holy  Writ  are  the  antiquity  of  parabolic  teaching,  the 
 desire  to  stimulate  research,  and  the  assertion  that  the 
 hidden  senses  of  Scripture  are  not  fitted  for  all,  but  only 
 for  those  perfect  Christians  who  are  marked  out  by  election 
 for  the  true  Gnosis.4  He  does  not  deny  the  literal  sense, 
 but  thinks  that  it  only  furnishes  an  elementary  faith.  The 
 literal  sense  is  the  milk  of  the  word,  but  the  esoteric  vision 
 furnishes  strong  meat.5  "  To  the  Gnostics,"  he  says  {i.e.  to 
 philosophic  Christians),  "the  Scriptures  have  conceived."6 
 Too  often,  alas,  to  such  "  Gnostics  "  they  had  only,  in  the 
 words  of  Isaiah,  "  brought  forth  wind." 
 
 His  attitude  towards  the  inspired  writings  is  that  of  his 
 age.  He  makes  room  for  legends  even  in  the  New  Testa- 
 ment story.7  His  quotations  are  loose  and  paraphrastic,  and 
 are  sometimes  attributed  to  a  wrong  author.8  He  quotes 
 verses  which  have  no  existence.9     He  refers  to  Apociyphal 
 
 1  Is.  vii.  9  ;  LXX.  iau  ^  iriarevcrriTe  ovSh  /.^  awrJTe.  The  verse  is  mis- 
 translated and  misapplied.  On  the  Alexandrian  contrast  between  "faith" 
 and  "knowledge,"  see  Strom,  v.  §§  1-13  ;  and  for  the  exegetic  principles  of 
 Clement,  specially  Strom,  i.  §  32  ;  v.  §  20  ;  vi.  §§  80-83,  127-132. 
 
 2  Strom,  i.  §  32. 
 
 3  For  these  scriptural  proofs — which  have  not  a  shadow  of  validity — from 
 Ps.  lxxviii.  2  ;  Matt.  x.  27  ;  Mark  iv.  34  ;  1  Cor.  ii.  6,  see  Strom,  v.  §§  25,  26  ; 
 vi.  §§  115-118.  So  as  ISTeander  says  (Ch.  Hid.  ii.  265)  "many  texts  from 
 Luther's  translation  of  the  Bible  became  current  proof-passages  for  propositions 
 relating  to  Christian  faith  or  practice,  although  this  application  of  them  was 
 V)liolly  inconsistent  with  the  sense  which  they  had  in  the  original." 
 
 4  Strom,  i.  §  7  ;  v.  §§  16,  21  ;  vi.  §§  1,  30  ;  vii.  §  35.  See  the  passages 
 quoted  in  Gieseler,  i.  233. 
 
 5  In  order  to  get  rid  of  the  objection  that  "  knowledge  puffeth  up  "  (1  Cor. 
 viii.  1),  Clement  gives  to  <pv<rw7  the  sense  of  "  causes  men  to  think  great  and 
 true  thoughts"  !     Strom,  vii.  §  104. 
 
 6  Strmn.  vii.  §  94.  The  distinction  between  the  philosophic  Christian  (the 
 "true  Gnostic")  and  the  ordinary  Christian  runs  all  through  the  Slromateis, 
 see  vi.  §§  26- 109  ;  vii.  §§  55,  57-95. 
 
 7  The  story  about  Salome  is  from  "  the  Gospel  to  the  Egyptians."  Strom. 
 iii.  §  63. 
 
 8  See  Kaye,  p.  407. 
 
 9  Strom,  ii.  §  45  ;  vii.  §  94. 
 
"  Tradition"  185 
 
 writings  as  though  they  were  inspired.1  He  attributes  the 
 book  of  Wisdom  to  Solomon,  and  the  Book  of  Baruch  to 
 Jeremiah.  He  quotes  even  the  "  Revelation  "  and  "  Preach- 
 ing" of  Peter,2  as  well  as  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas3  and  the 
 "  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,"  as  having  Scriptural 
 authority.  He  believes  in  the  miraculous  inspiration  of 
 the  Septuagint,4  the  Sibyl,  and  Hystaspes,5  and  he  calls 
 Plato  "  all  but  an  evangelical  prophet."  ° 
 
 The  characteristic  features  of  his  system  are  as  follows  : — 
 
 a.  He  believes  that  esoteric  teaching  was  communicated  by 
 Christ,  not  in  writing,  but  orally  after  the  Resurrection  to 
 James,  Peter,  and  John,  who  transmitted  it  to  the  seventy 
 disciples.7  Pearls,  he  says,  are  not  to  be  thrown  before  swine. 
 Some  things  were,  therefore,  only  said  and  done,  not  because 
 they   were    right    or   true    in    the    abstract,    but    only    kut 
 
 OlKOVOjXLCtV.8 
 
 b.  He  claims  for  his  "  ecclesiastical  gnosis  "  the  authority 
 of  a  tradition,  to  which  he  repeatedly  appeals  against  the 
 perverted  interpretations  of  heretics,9  and  which  he  calls 
 "  the  Apostolic  orthodoxy,"  "  the  evangelical  canon,"  "  the 
 glorious  and  venerable  rule  of  tradition."  10  This,  he  says,  is 
 "  the  key  "  of  the  true  Gnostics,  while  the  heretics  have  only 
 an  "anti-key."11  But  this  tradition  seems,  on  examination, 
 to  be  nothing  more  than  the  method  of  Pantaenus  and  other 
 
 1  See  Lardner,  Credibility,  ii.  c.  22,  §  13. 
 -  Strom,  i.  §  182  ;  vi.  §§  39,  48,  128. 
 
 '■'■  Strom,  ii.  §  31.  He  also  quotes  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews. 
 Strom,  ii.  §  45. 
 
 4  Strom,  i.  §§  124, 148. 
 
 5  Pard.  ii.  §  27  ;  iii.  §  15  ;  Strom,  i.  §  108  ;  v.  §  13  ;  vi.  §  43.  In  Strom. 
 vi.  §  42,  St.  Paul  is  made  to  epiote  the  Sibyl  ami  Hystaspes,  Kaye,  p.  406.  ■ 
 
 Strom,  i.  §  10,  'O  Xlharuv  fjiov6vovx<-  irpo<pt)T(v<j>v  rrjv  vwrripLou  oiKovofxiav. 
 6  «'£  'Efipaiwv  <biA6ao(j>os  UXaroiv.  Strom  i.  §  150,  ri  yap  effri  nxdrwv  v) 
 Mo)i)<rj)s  arriKi^wv.  Paed.  iii.  §  54,  6  Travra  dpiaros  UKarwv  .  .  oTov  decxpopov/xevos. 
 
 Comp.  Strom,  i.  §§  28-32,  win-re  Heathen  Philosophy  is  treated  as  a  source 
 df  sacred  truth. 
 
 7  Clem.  ff>/j>ot)/p.  ap.  Knseb.  II.  E.  ii.  1,  §  2  ;  Strom,  i.  §§11,96;  vi. 
 §§  61,  68,  125  ;  vii.  §§  94,  107  ;  Orig.  C.  Cels.  vi.  §  279. 
 
 8  He  instances  nol  \<-\\  appositely  St.  Paul's  circumcision  of  Timothy.     See 
 
 Kayr's   U'rttiifjx  of  Tcrt.    p.    399.      His   Scriptural    n  f.-ivnrcs  are   sometimes 
 
 inaccurate. 
 
 9  Strom,  vii  §  !'7.  For  reference  to  the  "canon  of  tradition,"  see  Strom. 
 i.  SS  11,  88,  179  ;  vii.  §  91.     Eypot.  vii.  (op.  Ecseb.  //.  £  ii.  1,  §  2). 
 
 lu  Sue  Kaye,  p.  366.  "  Strom,  vii.  §  10G. 
 
186  Allegoric  Fancies. 
 
 Alexandrians.     At  any  rate,  the  results  to  which  it  leads  are, 
 to  quote  Canon  Westcott's  phrase,  often  so  "  visionary  and 
 puerile  "  that  we  can  attach  to  them  but  little  importance. 
 Different   interpretations   are    sometimes    furnished    of   the 
 same  passage.    His  explanations  of  the  story  of  Abraham  and 
 Sarah  are  in  principle  identical  with  Philo's,  as  are  his  views 
 concerning  the  symbolism  of   the  Tabernacle.1     Abraham's 
 lifting  up  his  eyes  on  the  third  day  and  seeing  the  place 
 which  God   had  appointed,2    is  explained  to   mean  that  on 
 the  first  day  he   attained  to   the  sight  of  what  is  fair,  on 
 the  second  to  the  best  desires  of  the  soul,  and  on  the  third 
 to  an  insight  into  spiritual  things ;   or  else  the  three  days 
 are   interpreted    of    the    mystery   of    the    seal    of  baptism, 
 whereby  man  believes  on  God,  who,  as  Plato  says,  is  "the 
 place  of  ideas."     Joseph's  coat  is  made  a  symbol  of  various 
 knowledge  which  his  brethren  envied.     In  Ex.  xvi.  36  we  are 
 told  that  "  an  omer  is  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah,"  or,  as  it 
 is  in  the  LXX.,  "  of  the  three  measures"  (tcov  rptwv  /jLerpcov), 
 and  these  three  measures  are  said  to  be  the  three  criteria  of 
 sensation,  speech,  and  understanding.     The  "clean  beasts" 
 imply  the  orthodox  who  are  steadfast  and  meditative,  since 
 rumination  stands  for  thought,  and  a  divided  hoof  implies 
 stability.     The  forbidden  animals,  which  ruminate    but    do 
 not  divide  the  hoof,  stand  for  the  Jews ;  those  which  divide 
 the  hoof  but  do  not  ruminate  are   heretics;  those  who  do 
 neither   are    the    impure.3      Clement   even    allegorises    the 
 Decalogue,  and  in  the  New  Testament  treats  the  miracles 
 exactly  as  if  they  were  parables.     Thus,  in  the  feeding  of  the 
 five  thousand,  he  says  that  "  the  barley  loaves  "  indicate  the 
 preparation  of  the  Jews  for  divine  knowledge,  because  barley 
 ripens  earlier  than  wheat ;  and  "  the  fishes  "  the  preparation 
 of  the  Gentiles  by  Greek  philosophy,  because  philosophy  was 
 born  amid  the  waves  of  heathendom,  and  given  to  those  who 
 
 1  See  RosenmMer,  Hist.  Int&rp.  i.  219.     Kaye,  pp.  374-403. 
 
 2  Gen.  xxii.  8. 
 
 3  Strom,  v.  §  52  ;  vii.  §  109.  Comp.  Iren.  Hacr.  v.  8.  See  Kaye,  pp.  220, 
 380.  In  Is.  xi.  7,  Clement  makes  "the  ox"  stand  for  the  Jews,  and  "the 
 bear  "  for  the  Gentiles.  For  other  untenable  interpretations  see  Strom,  v.  vi. 
 passim. 
 
"Accommodation."  187 
 
 lie  on  the  ground.  Or  one  of  the  fishes  may  stand,  he  says, 
 for  encyclical  instruction,  and  the  others  for  philosophy,  which 
 is  taught  later  on,  the  two  being  subsequently  collected 
 together  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  !  But,  as  Bishop  Kaye  says, 
 "  to  follow  Clement  through  all  his  allegorical  interpretations 
 would  be  a  wearisome  and  unprofitable  labour."  l  The  worst 
 evil  of  the  system  was  that  it  led  the  Alexandrian  teachers 
 into  very  unsound  views  about  "  accommodation "  and 
 "  esoteric  teaching,"  of  which  the  first  became  fatally  akin  to 
 tampering  with  the  truth,  and  the  other  was  apt  to  deaden 
 brotherly  love,  and  to  innate  a  spiritual  pride.2 
 
 IV.  Of  Omgen,  the  greatest  master  of  this  school,  it 
 would  be  impossible  to  speak  in  any  terms  but  those  of  the 
 highest  admiration  and  respect.3  While  living  he  was  the 
 victim  of  episcopal  jealousy  and  party  intrigue  and  his  very 
 memory  has  been  for  many  ages  the  butt  for  ignorant  malice 
 and  brutal  calumny.  Envy  never  pardons.4  History  itself 
 has  been  falsified,  and  the  decrees  of  Councils  misrepresented, 
 to  vilify  one  who  was  equally  great  in  the  value  of  his 
 labours  and  in  the  sanctity  of  his  life.  There  is  no  man  to 
 whom  the  Church  of  Christ  owes  a  more  awful  debt  of 
 reparation  than  to  this  incomparable  saint,  who,  though  his 
 memory  has  been  branded  and  his  salvation  denied,  rendered 
 
 1  On  Clement  sec,  besides  the  books  here  quoted,  Bishop  Reinken's  De 
 '  tero  Alcxandrino,  1851  ;  and  Abbe  Freppel,  Clement  d'Alex- 
 
 andrie,  1860. 
 
 -  This  is  the  least  pleasing  aspect  of  the  teaching  of  the  school  of  Alex- 
 andria. Clemens  is  the  first  Father  who  uses  o'lKovo/xla  in  the  sense  of 
 "accommodation."  "Condescension"  (<rvyi<a.Td.l3a.cris)  occurs  in Chrys.  Horn. 
 in  Tit.  iii.  The  Fathers  attribute  it  not  only  to  St.  Paul,  but  even  to  our 
 Lord,  of  which  the  worst  instance  is  in  Basil's  remark  on  Matt.  xxiv.  37, 
 touts  Sta  irpotnrotTjTf)  s  ayuolas  oIkovo/jlu  (Ep.  84).  The  doctrine  was  fust 
 borrowed  from  1'lato  (Be  Hep.  iii.)  by  Philo  (Quod  Deus  sit  immut.).  Clement 
 approves  of  circuitous  modes  of  stating  truth  ((Tv/xTrept(pep6fj.ei'oi,  Kara  (Tv/XTrepi- 
 
 (popdv).  Origen  Bays  that  a  man  "who  is  obliged  to  speak  falsely  (!)  should  be 
 very  careful  "  (( (rig.  SI  rum.  vi. ;  up.  Jer.  Apol.  I.  in  Jiujhi.  18).  For  a  practical 
 instance  sec  C.  Cv/.v.  iii.  159.  On  the  esoteric  doctrines  of  these  Fathers  sec 
 C.  Cels.  i.  7  ;  De  Princ.  1,  vi.  §  1  ;  Horn,  in  Lev.  ix.  Svnesins  adopted  these 
 views  to  the  full  (Ep.  105).  See  Schrockh,  E.G.  x.  380-395;  D.nlK, 
 1),   I 'sit  1'iilriihi,  vi. 
 
 8  Jerome,  who  so  often  spoke  bitterly  of  him,  called  him  an  Arian,  and 
 argued  thai  he  approved  of  telling  lies,  talks  of  his  "immortale  ingenium." 
 '      '/.  s.  v.  Origen. 
 
 '  Jeremie,  flwfc  of  Second  and  Third  Cent.  p.  95. 
 
188  Greatness  of  Or  iff  en. 
 
 to  her  greater  services  than  all  her  other  teachers — from  whom 
 in  fact  those  teachers  for  many  centuries  derived  an  immense 
 part  of  their  knowledge  and  their  thoughts — but  whom 
 her  hierarchal  representatives  cruelly  persecuted  while  he  was 
 living,  and  virulently  anathematised  after  he  was  dead.  \By 
 his  Tetrapla  and  Hexapla  he  became  the  founder  of  all 
 textual  criticism  ;  by  his  Homilies  he  fixed  the  type  of  a 
 popular  exposition ;  his  Scholia  were  the  earliest  specimens 
 of  marginal  explanations ;  his  Commentaries  furnished  the 
 Church  with  her  first  continuous  exegesis ;  his  book  on  "  First 
 Principles  "  was  "  the  earliest  attempt  at  a  systematic  view  of 
 the  Christian  Faith ; "  1  his  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  and  his 
 contributions  to  its  interpretation  were  absolutely  unrivalled^ 
 His  labours  mark  an  epoch.  Like  the  influence  of  Socrates 
 in  Greek  Philosophy,  so  the  influence  of  Origen  in  Church 
 History  is  the  watershed  of  multitudes  of  different  streams 
 of  thought.  "  Certainly,"  says  Mosheim, "  if  any  man  deserves 
 to  stand  first  in  the  catalogue  of  saints  and  martyrs,  and  to 
 be  annually  held  up  as  an  example  to  Christians,  this  is  the 
 man ;  for  except  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  and  their 
 companions,  I  know  of  no  one  among  all  those  ennobled  and 
 honoured  as  saints  who  excelled  Origen  in  virtue  and  holi- 
 ness." "  In  spite  of  his  very  patent  faults,"  says  Bishop 
 Lightfoot,  "  which  it  costs  nothing  to  denounce,  a  very  con- 
 siderable part  of  what  is  valuable  in  subsequent  commentaries, 
 whether  ancient  or  modern,  is  due  to  him.  A  deep  thinker, 
 an  accurate  grammarian,  a  most  laborious  worker,  and  a  most 
 earnest  Christian,  he  not  only  laid  the  foundation,  but,  to  a  very 
 o-reat  extent,  built  up  the  fabric  of  Biblical  interpretation."  2 
 
 1  See  Huet,  Origcniana,  iii.  2.  p.  238  ;  Westcott  in  Contemp.  Rev.  vol. 
 xxxv.  p.  337.  His  Scholia  (or  .Irnxauxreis)  are  mostly  lost  ;  his  Homilies  are, 
 for  t  lie  most  part,  preserved  in  the  Latin  translations  of  Jerome  and  Rufinus, 
 which,  unhappily,  cannot  be  relied  on,  since  the  translators  thought  fit  to 
 huh  lily  and  tamper  with  them.  They  iill  three  folios,  though  much  is  lost. 
 His  Commentaries  (t6/j.<h)  extended  over  the  whole  Old  Testament,  except 
 Ruth.  Esther,  and  Ecclesiastcs ;  and  the  whole  New  Testament  except  Mark, 
 1  and  2  Cor.,  1  and  2  Pet.,  1,  2  and  3  John,  James,  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse. 
 See  Rufin.  Invect.  in  Eieron.  ii. 
 
 2  On  Galatians,  p.  217.  For  the  use  made  of  Origen  by  Hilary  and  Vic- 
 torians, see  Jer.  Ep.  41,  ad  Pammach.  Some  of  his  commentaries  {e.g.  that 
 un  1  Cor.)  are  much  freer  from  allegory  than  others. 
 
Survival  of  Error.  189 
 
 It  is  a  circumstance  due  to  I  know  not  what  Nemesis,  but 
 certainly  strange  and  sad,  that  Origen's  name  as  a  thinker  is 
 popularly  associated  with  a  complete  misunderstanding  of  his 
 most  dubious  speculations,  and  that  his  name  as  an  exegete 
 is  chiefly  remembered  in  connection  with  the  least  solid  and 
 the  most  erroneous  of  his  methods.1  His  errors  were 
 canonised,  his  name  was  condemned.  In  the  paragraph  from 
 which  I  have  just  quoted,  the  Bishop  of  Durham  expresses 
 his  regret  that  he  has  chiefly  to  allude  to  Origen  by  way  of 
 correction,  "  because  his  opinion  has  rarely  been  recorded  by 
 later  writers  except  where  his  authority  was  needed  to 
 sanction  some  false  or  questionable  interpretation."  But  the 
 impression  thus  produced,  he  adds,  is  most  unjust  to  his 
 reputation,  since  "  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  all  subsequent 
 writers  are,  directly  or  indirectly,  indebted  to  him  to  a  very 
 large  extent."  His  Commentaries  were  in  fact  the  common 
 mine  in  which  all  bis  successors  dug ;  and  it  must  not  be 
 forgotten  that  he  was  the  father  of  grammatical  as  well  as 
 of  allegoric  exegesis.  Compilers  seized  on  his  fanciful  per- 
 versions; they  neglected  his  noblest  thoughts.2  Hilary, 
 Ambrose,  Jerome,  Augustine,  the  Latin  fathers  who  had  the 
 profoundest  influence  on  the  Church  of  the  West,  perpetuated 
 the  least  tenable  parts  of  his  method.  The  School  of  Antioch, 
 no  less  than  that  of  Alexandria,  owed  its  origin  to  the 
 mighty  impulse  which  the  Christian  world  received  from 
 his  labours,  but  unhappily  for  the  cause  of  sound  learning 
 the  School  of  Antioch  was  crushed  by  charges  of  heresy,  and 
 the  allegorical  tendencies  of  the  School  of  Alexandria  prevailed. 
 
 Origen  shared  many  of  the  views  about  Scripture  which 
 we  have  already  noticed  in  writers  like  Philo,  Barnabas, 
 Justin,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria.  He  believed  in  the 
 inspiration  of  the  Septuagint,  and  saw  hidden  mysteries  in  its 
 Bolecisms  and   errors.3      He   appeals  to   Apocryphal   books 
 
 1  See  for  fall  information  Huet,  l  rim. 
 
 -  See  Westcott,  Gospel  of  St.  John  [Speaker's  Commentary,  p.  zcr.)- 
 
 •  PhiUkal.  p.  '■'>■'<  ;  Comm.  in  Oseam  (Huet,  i.  p.  201).     Like  tMato  he  often 
 
 Contrasts   ti>    pi\T6v,  rb   au>[i.a.TiK6v   K.r.K.  with   rb   airop'priTuv,  ?j    aWrfyopia,    jj 
 avayoiyi],  nvev/j.a,TtKii  Si-qyrjats,  6ta>pia  k.t.A. 
 
190  False  Ylcics. 
 
 as  authoritative  and  inspired.  He  is  too  much  given 
 to  hortatory  and  dogmatic  divergences.  He  shows  clear 
 traces  of  methods  traditionally  received  both  from  the 
 Palestinian  Rabbis  and  the  Alexandrian  theosophists.1  He 
 admits  that  the  New  Testament  is  not  written  in  the  best 
 Greek,  but  says  that  this  is  unimportant,  because  the  revela- 
 tion consists  not  in  the  words  but  in  the  things  revealed. 
 Yet,  he  held  in  its  strongest  form  the  theory  of  verbal 
 "/  inspiration.  Not  one  iota,  he  said,  of  Scripture  is  empty : 
 and  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  his  Scripture  included  the 
 Apocrypha.  His  proof  of  this  statement  is  the  purely  verbal 
 application  of  isolated  sentences  which  bear  no  relation  to  the 
 matter  on  hand.  "  God,"  he  says,  "  gave  the  command  Thou 
 shalt  not  appear  Icfore  me  empty,  and  therefore  He  cannot 
 speak  anything  which  is  empty  "  ! 2  The  infinite  confusions 
 involved  in  such  a  proof  show  the  chaotic  condition  of 
 thought  which  was  prevalent  on  the  question  of  Scripture 
 Inspiration. 
 
 The  errors  of  the  exegesis  which  Origen  tended  to 
 establish  for  more  than  a  thousand  years  had  their  root  in 
 the  assumption  that  the  Bible  is  throughout  homogeneous 
 and  in  every  particular  supernaturally  perfect. 
 
 He  did  indeed  attempt  a  proof  of  this  thesis.3  He 
 appealed,  as  has  been  done  in  all  ages,  to  the  subjective 
 impression  effected  by  the  Bible.  But  he  fails  to  observe 
 that  this  impression  is  produced  by  its  fundamental  truths 
 and  its  essential  message,  not  by  all  its  books  or  narratives, 
 still  less  by  its  every  word  or  detail.  Many  indeed  of  these 
 he  considered  to  be,  in  their  obvious  meaning,  derogatory  to 
 God's  greatness.  He  said  that  the  Scriptures  must  be  divine 
 because  they  speak  of  Christ  Who  is  divine,  a  proof  which 
 does  not  rise  above  the  dignity  of  a  mere  play  on  words. 
 He  referred  to  the  prophecies  which  ihey  contain  as  a  proof 
 
 1  He  professes  himself  indebted  to  a  Jew  for  explaining  to  him  what  was 
 meant  by  the  words  "by  your  tradition."     Horn,  in  Matt.  245. 
 
 2  Philokal.  fragm. 
 
 3  Be  Princ.  iv.  iref/l  rod  Oeoirvevcrov  rys  Ceias  ypa^ys.  His  henneneutics 
 are  here  theoretically  stated. 
 
False  Views.  191 
 
 of  supernatural  inspiration,  failing  to  observe  that  this  argu- 
 ment has  no  bearing  upon  whole  books  from  which  the  ele- 
 ment of  prophecy  is  altogether  absent.  But  in  point  of  fact 
 Origen's  proofs  are  but  the  after-thoughts  devised  in  support 
 of  an  unexamined  tradition.  They  could  not  have  had  a 
 particle    of  validity  for   any  logical    or    independent   mind. 
 
 How  small  is  their  demonstrative  force  may  be  seen  in 
 the  fact  that  to  Origcn,  and  to  many  of  the  Fathers,  they 
 were  as  valid  for  Bel  and  the  Dragon  and  the  Story  of 
 Susanna,  if  not  even  for  the  Sibyl,  Hystaspes,  and  the  Book 
 of  Enoch,  as  for  the  Prophecy  of  Isaiah  and  the  Gospel  of 
 St.  John. 
 
 The  false  theory  at  once  necessitated  a  false  system  for  its 
 support.  Origen  saw,  as  plainly  as  Philo  and  Barnabas  and 
 Justin  and  Clement  had  done  before  him,  that  the  dogma  of 
 verbal  dictation  is  at  once  confronted  by  the  most  decisive 
 proofs  of  its  impossibility  if  Scripture  be  taken  as  it  stands. 
 He  could  not  help  seeing  that  it  would  be  simple  blasphemy 
 to  predicate  of  every  clause  of  the  Old  Testament  that  it  is, 
 taken  literally,  the  direct  utterance  of  God. 
 
 a.  He  saw,  for  instance,  and  insisted  on  the  fact,  that  the 
 Bible  is  full  of  the  frankest  anthropomorphism,1  such  as  led 
 Tertullian  and  the  Egyptian  Monks  to  believe  exclusively  in 
 a  corporeal  God. 
 
 6.  He  saw  much  in  the  Old  Testament  narratives  which 
 seemed  to  him  immoral  and  unbecoming.  His  system  rose  in 
 reality  not  from  reverence  for  the  Scriptures,  but  from  a 
 dislike  to  their  plain  sense  which  had  at  all  costs  to  be  set 
 aside.  Origcn  had  no  key  to  understand  what  Pascal  calls  the 
 "sots  contes"  of  Scripture.  How,  he  asked,  could  it  possibly 
 profit  any  one  to  read  about  the  drunkenness  of  Noah,  or 
 about  Jacob,  his   wives   and   his  concubines,    or  about  the 
 
 1  He  borrows  from  Philothe  notion  that  it,  is  unworthy  to  speak  of  Hod 
 planting  trees,  or  walking  in  the  garden.  PMlokal.  12.  No  one  has  ever 
 Btated  more  frankly  and  folly  than  Dr.  Newman  the  fact  that  the  whole 
 phenonu  Da  of  the  Bible  as  it  stands  are  primd  facie  entirely  opposed  to  the 
 
 ri f  plenary  and  verbal  inspiration.     See   Tracts  for  the   Times,  No. 
 
 S5,  pp.  30,  si].;  and  thai   the  reader  may  see  all  that  can  be  said  and  best 
 said  for  Bchemes  of  mystic  interpretation  see  id.  ib.  No.  S7,  pp.  21,  sq. 
 
192  False  Vieivs. 
 
 horrid  incest  of  Lot,  or  about  the  foul  story  of  Judah  and 
 Tamar  ?  All  these,  he  said,  could  be  nothing  but  "  mystic 
 ceconomies." 1 
 
 c.  He  argued  that  there  were  many  things  in  the  letter  of 
 Scripture — such  as  the  prohibition  to  eat  vultures — which  are 
 inherently  absurd.2 
 
 d.  Some  of  the  precepts  of  Scripture,  understood  in  their 
 obvious  sense,  seemed  to  him  unworthy  and  unjust; — such 
 for  instance  as  the  menace  that  the  uncircumcised  man-child 
 should  be  cut  off,  whereas  the  punishment  of  excision  ought 
 rather  to  fall  upon  his  parents.3 
 
 c.  Other  commands  again,  such  as  that  which  bids  every 
 man  to  abide  in  his  place  all  the  Sabbath  day 4 — and  other 
 prohibitions  such  as  that  to  eat  of  the  unicorn  (TpayeXacfros), 
 a  creature  which  has  no  existence — showed,  he  said,  by  their 
 very  impossibility  that  they  could  not  have  been  literally 
 intended.5  He  applied  the  same  remark  to  large  parts  of  the 
 prophecies  about  Nebuchadnezzar,  Tyre  and  Egypt,  and  even 
 to  passages  in  the  New  Testament  such  as  "  salute  no  man 
 by  the  way,"  and  "  if  any  man  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek," 
 and  the  details  of  the  Second  Temptation,  where  Christ  was 
 made  to  see  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world.6 
 
 1  Bede  argues  in  much  the  same  way.  See  infra,  Lecture  V.  How,  asks 
 Origen,  could  hearers  possibly  be  edified  by  the  trivialities  of  Leviticus,  or 
 Numbers  ?  and  how  could  God  have  given  minute  regulations  about  fat  and 
 leaven  ?  or  how  could  He  have  narrated  small  unimportant  facts  about  Abra- 
 ham ?  or  have  justified  bloody  wars  and  fierce  imprecations  ?  Literalism,  he 
 said,  would  destroy  the  possibility  of  the  Christian  faith.  See  In  Lev.  Horn, 
 v.  5.     In  Gen.  Horn.  iv.  3  ;  vii.  1 — 3.     In  Num.  Horn.  xvi.  8,  &c. 
 
 2  Deut.  xiv.  5.  So  Jerome,  In  Matt.  xxi.  "  Ubi  materia  vel  turpitudinem 
 habeat  vel  impossibilitatem  ad  altiora  transmittimur."  In  supporting  his 
 view  Origen  quoted  Ezek.  xx.  25,  SiKatw/xara  oi>  Ka\a,  but  said  that  mystically 
 understood  (irphs  Sidvotav)  the  commandments  were  good.  C.  Ccls.  vii.  20. 
 He  speaks  of  the  auavSaKa  Kal  ■KpocrKo'fMij.aTa  nal  advvara  in  the  literal  sense 
 of  Scripture.  "Unde  vilitas  litcrae  ad  preciositatem  nos  spiritualis  remittit 
 intclligentiae."     In  Num.  Horn.  xii.  1. 
 
 3  Gen.  xvii.  14  ;  Dc  Princ.  iv.  17.  One  of  the  Chapters  of  the  Philokalia 
 is  irep\  rod  fieiV  rov  deov  &£wv  vovv  iv  toiovtois  ^t\tuv. 
 
 4  Ex.  xvi.  29. 
 
 5  Dc  Princ.  iv.  18  ;  iroWol  to  &Auyoi>  i/j.<palvovai,  '4repoi  Ss  rh  adwarSv. 
 'S.vvvcprji'ep  tj  ypatp))  rrj  laropia  rh  fiij  yei'6/j.evov.  irrj  fxkv  fx-i)  Swarby  yeviaOai  Trfj 
 5e  Svvarbv  /niv  yev4(T0ai  oil  //V  yeyefrj/j.ti'ov  (id.  15).  See  C.  :Ccls.  iv.  44  ;  Philo- 
 kal.  12  ;  In  Lcvit.  Horn.  vii.  5. 
 
 6  Dc  Princ.  iv.  16  (Matt.  v.  39  ;  Luke  x.  2,  &c).  After  touching  on  these 
 passages  he  adds,   irXno-'iois  8e  tovtois  ko.\    &\\a  fxvpla  ween  rov  aicpifiovvTa 
 
False  Inferences.  193 
 
 /.  He  said  that  in  the  Evangelists  there  were  many  things 
 which,  taken  literally,  involved  nut  only  discrepancies  but 
 direct  contradictions  ;  and  that  many  doctrines  were  not 
 announced  by  the  Apostles  with  perfect  distinctness  who 
 therefore  left  the  more  precise  proof  and  determination  of 
 dogmas  to  "  the  disciples  of  science."1  Even  a  Peter  and  a 
 Paul  saw  but  a  fragment  of  the  truth.2  Thus  Origen  was 
 perhaps  the  first  propounder  of  a  definite  "  doctrine  of 
 development." 
 
 In  reading  most  of  Origon's  difficulties  about  the  Bible  in 
 its  literal  meaning,  we  stand  amazed.  We  might  have 
 supposed  that  it  would  not  have  needed  the  additional  in- 
 sight of  so  many  centuries  to  show  any  man  that  by  the 
 slightest  application  of  literary  criticism  they  vanish  at  a 
 touch.  They  are  simply  the  birth  of  that  openly  avowed 
 presupposition  (7rp6\i]\lri<;)  which  the  Alexandrians  brought 
 with  them  to  the  study  of  Holy  Writ.  Had  Origen  been  taught 
 to  take  Scripture  as  the  literature  of  a  chosen  race,  and  to 
 claim  for  it  no  more  than  it  professes,  no  more  than  it  claims 
 in  each  part  for  itself;  had  he  abstained  from  applying  to  the 
 whole  of  Scripture  mere  fragments  of  clauses  often  divorced 
 from  their  meaning  and  dissevered  from  their  context,  which, 
 in  any  case,  can  have  had  no  further  extent  of  application 
 than  that  to  which  they  were  originally  applied,  he  would 
 have  contemplated  such  difficulties  with  a  smile.  It  was  only 
 because  he  saw  Scripture  in  a  false  light  that  he  was  unable 
 to  account  for  its  most  salient  phenomena  except  by  explaining 
 them  away.  Allegory  by  no  means  sprang  from  spontaneous 
 piety,  but  was  the  child  of  Eationalism  which  owed  its  birth 
 to  the  heathen  theories  of  Plato.3     It  deserved  its  name,  for 
 
 TT)p?;<rcu  irnep  tov  crvyicaraOeadai  reus  Kara,  rb  p'rirbi'  yty*vr)fi.£vais  Iffropiats 
 (repa  jit?)  <Tu/x/3e#7jK<5Ta. 
 
 1  He  also  speaks  <if  the  solecisms  in  John,  and  Bays  that  in  one  passage  the 
 literal  sense  involves  an  irreconcilable  contradiction;  and  he  speaks  of  the 
 'heavy  and  intricate  style  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
 
 -  Jim ii.  in  ./.  rem.  viii.  Origan's  chief  exegetic  views  are  scattered  through  the 
 3rd  and  4th  books  of  (he  I),   Principiis. 
 
 8  See  the  very  pertinent  remark  of  Mosheim  De  turbata,  &cp.  211.  It  will 
 of  course  he  clear  thai  1  am  not  here  deprecating  the  value  of  teaching 
 professedly  allegoric  (see  Trench  <<n  the  Parables,  pp.  12,  13),  bu1  oulythe  dis- 
 tortion of  plain  narratives  into  allegories  which  have  w  on  with  the 
 
 O 
 
1  !)4  Assumptions. 
 
 it  made  Scripture  say  something  else  (uXko  uyopeveiv)  than 
 it  really  meant.1 
 
 Such  being  the  assumptions  of  Origen  it  was  easy  for  him  to 
 persuade  himself  further  of  very  contradictory  views  about 
 the  literal  sense.  He  thought  that  it  would  serve  well  enough 
 for  the  faith  of  the  masses,  nay,  even  that  the  physical  sounds 
 of  Scripture  might  have  a  value  for  the  multitude  akin 
 to  that  of  magic  formulae  ; 2  and  yet  he  says  that  the  literal 
 sense,  if  uncorrected,  has  a  tendency  to  lead  both  to  moral 
 and  intellectual  aberrations — to  carnal  views  of  God  like 
 those  of  the  Marcionites  ;  or  to  Gnostic  distinctions  between 
 God  and  the  Demiurge  of  the  Old  Testament ;  or  to  idolatrous 
 practices ;  to  unbelief ;  to  heresy ;  and  even  to  immoral 
 deeds.3  Judaism  was,  in  his  opinion,  but  a  veiled  Christianity, 
 and  the  New  Testament  itself  but  an  introduction  to  an 
 unwritten  and  spiritual  reality. 
 
 It  was  as  easy  for  Origen  as  for  Philo  to  find  Scripture  argu- 
 ments in  favour  of  his  own  theories.  Just  as  it  was  said  of  the 
 Holy  Sufferer  in  Isaiah,  "  He  hath  no  form  nor  comeliness," 
 and  yet  on  the  Mountain  of  Transfiguration  the  body  of  the 
 
 literal  sense.  See,  however,  Burton,  Eccl.  Hist.  ii.  283.  The  positive  argu- 
 ments of  the  Fathers  in  favour  of  allegory  are  founded  on  misapplications 
 which  have  long  been  rejected  as  untenable  ;  and  they  confused  allegory 
 with  typology  (as  in  1  Cor.  v.  7,  8),  and  with  arguments  a  fortiori  such  as 
 
 2  Cor. 'iii.  7-13,    14. 
 
 1  Baur  points  out  clearly  the  origin  of  the  allegoric  interpretation.  The 
 minds  of  men  were  full  of  new  ideas,  and  yet  their  ancestral  faith  asserted  its 
 indefeasible  authority.  Since  the  Scriptures  were  accepted  as  the  source  of 
 all  truth  it  became  necessary  to  force  the  new  ideas  out  of  them.  "  All  that 
 was  necessary  was  to  find  the  right  key  for  the  explanation  of  the  books  of  the 
 Old.  Testament,  and  then  exegesis  could  bring  forth  out  of  those  books  the 
 ideas  which  the  commentator  had  unconsciously  put  into  them.  They  fancied 
 that  they  were  keeping  a  firm  hold  of  the  old  faith,  but  in  reality  "they  had 
 substituted  entirely  new  ideas  in  its  place."     Ch.  Hist.  i.  19. 
 
 2  C.  Cels.  i.  18,  '6pa  biroia  paWov  Svuarai  e'ir(crrpe\|/c«  nal  avrodev  tovs 
 cucovovTas  k.t.A. 
 
 S  3  He  thought  that  neither  Jews  nor  heretics  could  be  convinced  by  the 
 literal  sense,  Philokal.  6.  He  says  (id.  7)  that  from  the  Scriptures,  taken 
 literally,  many  Toiavra  inro\a/j.^avov<ri  irepl  tov  @€ov  dirola  ovSe  nepl  rod  w/aot- 
 arov  kcl\  oZikwt6.tov  avOpccirov  airia  5e  Tratri  reus  npoeipri/jLevois  xpevSoSo^ici'v  Kai 
 afft^aoiv  f)  IStuiTiicwv  irepl  &eov  \6ya>v  ovk  &AA77  tis  flvai  SoksI  ?]  7)  ypatpr]  Kara  ra 
 TCVfvfxaTiKa  ^t)  vevoytxevo  a\\'  ws  -rrpbs  rb  ipi\bv  ypd/xixa  i^iKrjixfxevri.  The  most 
 remarkable  expression  of  his  opinion  that  the  literal  sense  leads  to  immorality 
 is  to  be  found  in  his  Stromata  (ap.  Jer.  in  Gal.  v.).  It  ends  with  "  Multorum 
 ergo  malorum  occasio  est  si  quis  in  Scripturae  carne  permaneat."  See  Orig. 
 limn,  in  Gen.  vi.,  Horn,  in  Lcvit.  vii. 
 
Fantastic  Proofs.  195 
 
 Lord  slione  with  dazzling  lustre,  so,  lie  says,  the  nature  of  the 
 divine  word  shines  forth  to  those  who  ascend  the  mountain  to 
 gaze  on  it.  The  ascension  of  the  mount  is  to  him  the  appli- 
 cation of  the  allegoric  method.  Origen  seems  to  have  been 
 unconscious  that  any  particular  sentence  of  Scripture  is  not 
 to  be  made  applicable  to  the  whole  of  Scripture.  If  St.  Paul 
 incidentally  uses  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  through  the  Red 
 Sea  as  furnishing  an  analogy  of  baptism,1  or  in  one  single 
 instance  gives  an  allegoric  turn  to  the  story  of  Sarah  and 
 Hagar,2  Origen  argues  that  therefore  a  mystical  meaning 
 must  have  been  intended  throughout  the  whole  narrative  of 
 Scripture.  St.  Paul  said  "  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  Spirit  giveth 
 life!' 3  If  by  this  he  had  meant  that  all  Scripture  was  to  be 
 allegorically  interpreted  it  is  clear  that  his  phrase  "  the  letter 
 killeth"  would  in  the  strongest  way  have  condemned  the 
 literal  sense  altogether.  His  meaning  was  quite  different, 
 and  the  Fathers  who  did  not  wholly  exclude  the  literal  sense 
 only  took  so  much  of  the  phrase  as  suited  their  controversial 
 purpose.4  If  St.  Paul  spoke  of  marriage  as  "  a  great  mystery,"  5 
 what  had  this  to  do  with  the  interpretation  of  the  whole  Old 
 Testament  ?  Or  what  was  the  bearing  upon  this  question  of 
 the  remark  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  that  Christians 
 have  come  not  to  Sinai  but  to  Mount  Sion  ? 6  It  is  obvious 
 that  such  proofs  are  either  absolutely  irrelevant  or  are  wholly 
 
 1  1  Cor.  x.  1.     Ilr  also  refers  to  1  Cor.  ii.  6,  7  ;  ix.  9,  10  (which  is  simply 
 
 rciful  analogy,  not  an  explanation);  and  to  1  Tim.  1,  8;  Eph.  v.  u:', 
 which  are  nihil  ad  rem  (C.  Cels.  iv.  p.  197  cd.  Spencer). 
 
 2  Gal.  iv.  21. 
 
 3  2  Cor.  iii.  6  ;  this  passage  is  appealed  to  by  Greg.  Nyss.  Prooem.  in  Cant.  ; 
 Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  1  ;  Didymus,  "/'■  Jer.  and  many  other  Fathers. 
 
 4  St.  Paul  probably  means,  as  Theodoret  ami  Chrysostom  interpret  him, 
 (hat  the  written  Law  of  Moses  was  a  law  which  threatens  death,  and  that  the 
 
 oi   the  Spiiit  was  life. 
 •"'  Eph.  v.  31. 
 
 "  We  constantly  find  in  the  Fathers  this  radically  vicious  method  of  giving 
 universal  application  to  isolated  passages.  Commenting  on  the  words,  "  1  will 
 open  my  mouth  in  a  parable,"  Jerome  Bays,  "  Ex  <pia  intelligimus  universa 
 quae  scripta  sunt  (!)  parabolice  sentienda,  nee  manifestam  tantum  sonar, ■ 
 literam,  sed  abscondita  Bacramenta."  Cue  very  intelligible  limitation  of 
 ory  and  Typology  has  been  adopted  by  Bome  English  divines,  viz.  that 
 ■ild  onl\  admit  them  when  actually  sanctioned  in  Scripture.  This  is 
 'la-  view  of  Bishops  Marsh  and  Van  Mildert,  Bampt.  Led.  p.  239,  and 
 Macknight,  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  iv.  489. 
 
 o  2 
 
196  Allegoric  System. 
 
 inadequate  to  sustain  the  mountain-loads  of  inference  which 
 were  made  to  rest  upon  them. 
 
 St.  Paul  borrows  an  incidental  illustration  from  the 
 methods  of  the  Rabbis,  without  for  a  moment  disturbing  the 
 literal  sense ;  Origen  borrows  from  heathen  Platonists  and  from 
 Jewish  philosophers  a  method  which  converts  the  whole  of 
 Scripture,  alike  the  New  and  the  Old  Testament,  into  a  series 
 of  clumsy,  varying,  and  incredible  enigmas.  Allegory  helped 
 him  to  get  rid  of  Chiliasm  and  superstitious  literalism  and 
 the  "  antitheses  "  of  the  Gnostics,  but  it  opened  the  door  for 
 deadlier  evils.1 
 
 For  the  allegoric  system  might  be  claimed  by  a  Valentinus 
 no  less  than  by  an  Origen,  and  the  "  proofs  "  of  the  one  wTere — 
 if,  such  a  method  be  supposed  to  furnish  any  j)roofs — just  as 
 valid  as  those  of  the  other.2  In  fact  if  Origen's  principles  and 
 example  were  valid  it  was  idle  for  him  to  complain  of  those 
 who  interpreted  even  our  Lord's  miracles  of  spiritual  diseases 
 only.3 
 
 But  Origen  went  still  further.  Having  started  with  the 
 assumption  that  every  clause  of  the  Bible  was  infallible, 
 supernatural,  and  divinely  dictated,  and  having  proved  to  his 
 own  satisfaction  that  it  could  not  be  intended  in  its  literal 
 sense,  he  proceeded  to  systematise  his  own  false  conclusions. 
 The  Bible,  he  argued,  is  meant  for  the  salvation  of  man ;  but 
 man,  as  Plato  tells  us,  consists  of  three  parts — body,  soul,  and 
 spirit.  Scripture  therefore  must  have  a  threefold  sense  corre- 
 sponding to  this  trichotomy.4     It  has  a  literal,  a  moral,  and 
 
 1  See  Iren.  i.  3,  8  ;  ii.  24. 
 
 2  Dr.  Maitland  {Dark  Ages,  p.  17-1)  speaks  much  more  strongly  than  I 
 have  done.  "  If  Origen's  plaything  were  not  the  word  of  God  we  might 
 often  be  amused  by  his  childish  fooleries  ;  but  when  we  consider  what  mischief 
 has  been  done  to  truth  by  the  way  of  allegorising  (or  as  it  is  now  called 
 spiritualising)  the  Bible,  it  cannot  be  looked  on  without  disgust."  See  too 
 Bishop  Wordsworth's  Miscellanies,  ii.  17  (on  the  Interpretation  of  Scripture). 
 
 3  See  Horn,  in  Joann.  viii. 
 
 4  SeeOrig.  DePrincip.  iv.  S,  11,  12,  14, 19  ;  Horn,  in  Leril.  v.  ;  Redepenning, 
 Origcncs,  i.  232  ;  Gieseler,  i.  232,  243. 
 
 Origen's  threefold  sense  is  practically  the  fourfold  sense  of  the  Fathers,  for 
 his  "  spiritual "  sense  involves  both  allegory  and  anagoge,  though  he  does  not 
 practically  make  this  division  (Redepenning,  i.  226).  He  uses  the  word 
 avayuyh  of  explanations  which  are  simply  allegories.  Thus  he  gives  an 
 allegoric  sense  to  Matt.  xiv.  13.  and  says  fiira  rb  ^tuv  ical  Kara  avayuy^v 
 ruv  t6ttov  QsTaartov. 
 
Threefold  Sense.  197 
 
 a  mystic  .meaning  analogous  to  the  body,  to  the  soul,  to  the 
 spirit.  This  conclusion  also  he  supported  by  quoting  what 
 seems  to  be  a  mere  mistake  of  the  Septuagint.1  In  Prov. 
 xxii.  20  "  Have  I  not  written  unto  thee  excellent  things 
 (2^".'^')  in  wisdom  and  in  knowledge,"  the  LXX.  has  /cat  av 
 Be  airuypa^ai  avra  rptcrcr  to 9,  and  the  Vulgate,  Eccc  descripsi 
 tihi  tripliciier.2  If  the  Hebrew  marginal  reading  be  right, 
 and  if  the  idea  of  three  things  lies  in  the  Hebrew  word  at 
 all,  it  refers  at  most  to  three  subsequent  verses.  But  Origen 
 relying  on  the  translation  applied  to  the  entire  Bible  an 
 isolated  reference  to  a  single  passage.  He  thus  gave  to  his 
 own  fancy,  what  he  took  to  be  an  inspired  sanction,  and 
 contributed  a  pure  mistake  to  the  blind  acceptance  of  the 
 exegetes  of  a  thousand  years. 
 
 But  of  two  of  these  three  supposed  senses  Origen  makes  very 
 little  use.  To  the  moral  sense  he  refers  but  seldom  ;3  to  the  lit- 
 eral sense  scarcely  at  all.4  Indeed  in  many  passages  he  speaks 
 disparagingly  of  the  literal  truth  of  the  Scripture  narratives.5 
 This  constitutes  his  retrogressive  and  disastrous  originality.6 
 He  constantly  uses  allegory  where  his  own  principles  give 
 him  no  excuse  for  doing  so.  He  had  so  completely  deadened 
 in  his  own  mind  the  feeling  of  historic  truth  that  he  allegorises 
 not  only  such  narratives  as  that  of  the  Creation,  but  even  the 
 Law,  the  Histories,  and  the  Prophets.    The  acceptance  of  the 
 
 1  The  Chalilee  and  Syriac  agree  with  the  Vulgate  in  adopting  this  reading  ; 
 some  have  supposed  allusions  to  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  and  Canticles  ;  or  to 
 the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and.  the  llagiographa.  Both  interpretations  are  as 
 untenable  as  that  of  Origen.  If  the  idea  of  "three  things"  lies  in  the 
 word  at  all  it  may  refer  to  verses  22,  24,  26.  The  Fathers  following  Origin 
 apply  it  to  the  literal,  tropologic,  and  anagogic  sense. 
 
 8  brig.  Phihkal.  8  :  De  Princ.  Lv.  11. 
 
 •'  He  disparagingly  compares  it  to  the  earth,  the  body  ;  and  yet  with  curious 
 literalism  be  argues  that  the  stars  are  living  beings  from  Job  xxv.  5  (De 
 Princ.  i.  7).  For  passages  which  depreciate  the  literal  sense  see  0.  Crls.  vi.  70  ; 
 vii.  20  :  Horn,  in  Gen.  vi.  §  3  ;  x.  §  4  ;  De  Princ.  iv.  8-28. 
 
 4  Chiefly  in  the  Homilies,  and  not  always  happily.  Tims  he  comments  on 
 "Joseph  died,  and  the  children  of  fsrael  multiplied,"  by  saying  that  if  Joseph 
 died  in  us,  /.e.  [f  we  carry  in  our  bodies  the  death  of  Christ,  our  spiritual 
 graces  will  grow  and  multiply.     Worn,  in  Exod.  i. 
 
 5  Thus  on  John  i.  20,  be  says  uxrirep  eTri&ddpa  xP^o-H*1'01  TV  t-cropia  ra 
 lXW)  ttjs  aK-ndt'ias  (yrovvres  tv  ypd/mfxaTi. 
 
 9  See  this  amply  proved  by  Origen's  remarks,  Horn,  in  Gen.  Hi.  4-6;  vii. 
 5;  x.  1  ;  Worn,  in  tevit.  vi.  8  ;  Worn,  in  Num.  .wiii.  5.     See  these  and  other 
 
 passages  quoted  in  Denis,  p.   41. 
 
198  Arbitrary  Fancies. 
 
 simple  narrative  becomes  too  commonplace  for  him  ;  lie  com- 
 pares it  to  the  transgression  of  eating  raw  the  Paschal  Lamb.1 
 Thus,  like  Philo,  he  loses  much  of  the  historic  grandeur,  the 
 poetic  beauty,  the  human  tenderness  of  the  Scriptures.  They 
 become  to  him  a  book  of  Alexandrian  mysticism,  into  which 
 he  everywhere  reads  the  views  which  alone  he  considers  to  be 
 "  eternal  truths." 2  Arbitrary  in  its  purport,  immeasurable  in 
 its  extent,  a  great  part  of  this  allegoric  comment  becomes  a  mere 
 shuffling  of  subjective  commonplaces.3  It  is  the  servile  hand- 
 maid of  a  fancied  Gnosis,  and  almost  deserves  the  scornful 
 remark  of  Porphyry,  that  it  attributes  all  kinds  of  strange 
 meanings  to  what  had  been  said  by  Moses  with  perfect  clear- 
 ness.4 "  Hoc  divinare  magis  est  quam  explanare  "  was  the  just 
 criticism  passed  upon  him  (as  he  frankly  tells  us)  even  by  his 
 contemporaries.5 
 
 In  details  Origen  is  constantly  misled  by  defective  literary 
 canons  and  imperfect  linguistic  knowledge.  He  was  not 
 sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  laws  of  Hebrew  parallelism 
 to  prevent  him  from  drawing  mystic  inferences  from  synonyms 
 and  repetitions.  Thus  he  thinks  that  there  is  a  mystery  in 
 the  repetition  of  the  word  "  God "  in  "  I  am  the  God  of 
 Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob ; "  G  and 
 that  the  expression  "  Rebecca  was  a  virgin,  neither  had   any 
 
 1  EX.    Xli.    8,    OVK  &/JLTJV   OVV    SSpWTtOV    TTJJ'     (TapKOL    TOV    a/jLVOV     WCTTTfp    TTOlUVfflV    01 
 
 ttjs  Ae'£ccos  SoDAoi  rpSirov  aXoywv  £wu)v  k.t.X. 
 
 2  Horn,  in  Num.  xxv.  3,  "Non  tarn  reges  quam  vitiorum  nominee 
 quae  regnant  in  hominibus."  Horn,  in  Jos.  i.  7,  "  Intra  nos  enim  sunt 
 otnnes  gentes  istae  vitiorum. "  Horn,  in  Gen.  x.  4,  "In  his  non  historiae 
 narrantur,  seelmystcria  contexuntur." 
 
 3  See  Bbhringer,  iii.  366-373.  "Allegorical  interpretation  amounted,  in 
 practice,  only  to  a  species  of  aphoristieal  philosophy  on  the  occasion  of  Bible 
 passages,"  Ueberweg,  i.  319. 
 
 4  Porphyry  Kara  XpiffTiavwv  iii.  (eip.  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  19).  Aluly/iara  ra 
 ■wapa  Wlooiiati (paveposs  Xeyufxtva  elvai  Ko/j.Tcd.<rai>Tes  Kal  ^TriOetdaavres  ws  8eo~Trio~/j.aTu 
 TrA7)p7j  Kpvcplwv  jj.v(TTripi.(x>v.  He  goes  on  to  charge  him  with.  Hellenising,  and 
 clothing  Hellenic  thoughts  in  Jewish  myths.  He  says  that  Origen  borrowed 
 the  principles  of  l'lato,  Numenius,  the  Stoics,  Chaeremon  and  Cornutus, 
 — Trap'  wv  top  ;u.STaA7)7rT</cjJ'  rwu  Trap'  '  EAAt?(T(  jxverrripioev  yvovs  rpoirov  tals 
 'lovlaiKois  TrpotTT^e  ypa^als.  Even  Jerome,  who  is  himself  an  offender,  com- 
 plains that  Origen's  treatise  on  Hosea  is  chiefly  occupied  by  explaining  the 
 meaning  of  "Ephraim";  that  in  his  three  volumes  on  Malachi  "Historian* 
 omnino  non  tetigit,  et  more  suo  in  allegoriae  interpretations  versatus  est, " 
 
 5  Horn,  in  Exoel.  xiii.  2. 
 
 6  Ex.  iii.  16  ;  Hem.  in  Joann.  ii.  §  1G. 
 
Errors  of  Origen.  199 
 
 man  known  her"  (Gen.  xxiv.  1G),  must  mean  that  Christ 
 is  the  husband  of  the  soul  when  it  is  converted,  and  that 
 Satan  becomes  the  husband  of  the  soul  when  it  falls  away.1 
 
 One  or  two  brief  specimens  of  his  method  must  suffice. 
 When  we  are  told  that  Rebecca  comes  to  draw  water  at  the 
 well  and  so  meets  the  servant  of  Abraham,  the  meaning  is, 
 according  to  Origen,  that  we  must  daily  come  to  the  wells  of 
 Scripture  in  order  to  meet  with  Christ.  He  thinks  that  there 
 is  a  contradiction  because  in  Ex.  i.  5  the  midwives  are  not  said 
 to  have  killed  the  female  children  as  well  as  to  have  saved  the 
 male  children.  A  glance  at  the  text  shows  that  there  is  no 
 difficulty  whatever  in  an  expression  of  the  plainest  kind.  But 
 failing  to  see  that  the  Scriptures  are  written  according  to  the 
 ordinar}^  rules  of  language,  he  explains  the  female  children  to 
 mean  carnal  affections,  and  the  male  children  the  reasonable 
 sense  and  intellectual  spirit.  So  that  when  men  live  their  life 
 in  pleasure  Pharaoh  is  killing  the  males  in  them  and  preserving 
 the  females.  In  the  twenty-first  verse  of  the  same  chapter 
 Origen  follows  the  mistranslation  of  the  LXX.  "  because  the 
 midwives  feared  God  they  made  for  themselves  houses,"  2  and 
 declaring  it  to  be  inconsequent,  takes  it  to  mean  that  if  we 
 act  like  the  midwives  in  keeping  alive  the  spiritual  sense  we 
 shall  gain  eternal  life.  In  Gen.  xviii.  2,  the  Soptuagint  says 
 that  the  three  men  stood  above  Abraham,3  and  this  is  interpreted 
 rn  mean  that  Abraham  submitted  himself  to  the  will  of  God. 
 Of  what  use,  he  asks,  is  it  to  me,  who  have  come  to  hear 
 what  the  Holy  Spirit  teaches  the  human  race,  to  be  told  that 
 Abraham  stood  under  the  oak  of  Mamre  ?  Mamre  means 
 "  Vision,"  and  the  sense  of  the  passage  is  that  God  was  pleased 
 with  the  insight  of  Abraham.  What  meaning  can  there 
 possibly  be,  he  asks,  in  our  being  told  that  "  the  Lord  opened 
 the  eyes  of  Agar  "  ?     Where  do  we  read  that  she  had  closed 
 
 1  Jlirm.  in  Rom.  vii.  §  8  (De  la  Rue,  iv.  C04).     It  Deed  hardly  be  said  thai 
 the  tautology  is  only  due  to  the  descriptive  fulness  of  Hebrew  style,  jo 
 "  I  mil  n  widow  woman,  and  my  husband  is  ilc.nl,"  ii  Sam.  xiv.  5. 
 
 '-'    Ex.  i.    21,  iiroirittav  (aureus  oitcias,  LXX. 
 
 J  d'rii    xviii.  2,  elarriKaaav  iirdfcii  a'vrov,  LXX. 
 
200  Allegory. 
 
 eyes  ?     Is  it  not  clear  as  daylight   that   the   mystic   sense 
 implies  the  blindness  of  the  Jewish  synagogue  ! 
 
 But  the  allegoric  method  is  still  more  inexcusable  when  it 
 invades  the  simplest  and  most  precious  passages  of  the  New 
 Testament.  St.  Mark  tells  us  (x.  50)  that  Bartimaeus  when 
 he  hastened  to  Jesus  flung  off  his  coat.  Origen  cannot  con- 
 ceive that  the  dignity  of  the  Evangelist  would  have  allowed 
 him  to  record  such  a  trivial  circumstance  (as  he  regards  this 
 to  be)  without  a  mystic  meaning.1  We  feel  it  to  be  singularly 
 out  of  place  when  the  mention  of  divorce  in  Matt.  xix.  leads 
 Origen  into  a  long  digression  about  the  marriage  of  the  soul 
 with  its  guardian  angel.  We  cannot  value  the  method  which 
 explains  "  the  water-pots  of  stone  containing  two  or  three 
 firkins  apiece,"  to  be  the  Scriptures  which  were  intended  to 
 purify  the  Jews,  and  which  sometimes  contain  two  firkins, 
 namely,  the  moral  and  literal  sense,  and  sometimes  three, 
 namely  also  the  spiritual ;  nor  are  we  able  to  see  the 
 smallest  relevance  in  the  remark  about  the  six  water-pots 
 that  the  world  was  made  in  six  days.  There  are  many 
 beautiful  and  touching  lessons  in  the  humble  triumph  of 
 Palm  Sunday,  but  it  loses  every  particle  of  its  natural  instruc- 
 tiveness  when  we  are  told  that  the  ass  represents  the  letter 
 of  the  Old  Testament,  the  ass's  foal,  which  was  gentle  and 
 submissive,  the  New  Testament,  and  that  the  two  Apostles 
 who  go  to  loose  them  are  the  moral  and  mystic  sense.2  Nor 
 are  we  in  any  better  position  to  understand  "  whose  shoe's 
 latchet  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear,"  or  "  to  unloose,"  when  it 
 is  made  to  refer  to  Christ's  Incarnation  and  descent  into 
 Hades,  "  whatever  Hades  may  be." 3  All  such  comments 
 are  a  /JLerdftao-t,?  eh  aWo  <yevoq.  They .  do  but  weary 
 and  offend  us  with  a  sense  of  incongruous  unreality.     They 
 
 1  Orig.  Comm.  in  Matt.  (xx.  33). 
 
 2  For  abundant  specimens  of  Origen's  allegorising  methods  see  Hint, 
 Origcniana,  II.  2  Ger.  13  ;  (De  la  Rue  iv.  App.  240-244). 
 
 3  Horn,  in  Jonnn.  vi.  §  18  (De  la  Rue,  iv.  p.  136).  The  passage  is  long 
 and  difficult.  Ei  8e  /xvcrTiubs  <5  Tepl  rwv  u-KoSrjfxdrwv  t<5ttos  oiiSe  tovtov  TrapeA- 
 06ii'  &£wv.  oljxai  roivvv  ttjv  fxiv  ev^vQpu-w-qaiv  ote  adpica  lazl  difxa  ava.AaiJ.fid.vei  5 
 rov  ®eov  vios  rh  'irepov  elvai  rwv  viroSTi^aTuiv,  tijv  Se  eis  af5ou  KaTafiaaiv,  oVtis 
 TroTe  ia-Tiv  6  aSTjs,  k.t.A. 
 
Influence  of  Or  iff  en.  201 
 
 change  tender  human  narratives  into  dreary  and  ill-con- 
 structed riddles.  With  the  highest  admiration,  and  even  the 
 deepest  reverence  for  Origen,  whose  spiritual  teaching  is  often 
 full  of  beauty  and  depth,  and  whose  isolated  comments  arc 
 often  valuable,  we  can  only  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
 foundations  of  his  exegetic  system  are  built  upon  the  sand. 
 
 V.  The  influence  of  Origen  was  wide  and  deep,1  and 
 all  the  more  so  because  he  did  but  expand  and  systematise 
 in  the  Christian  Church,  as  Philo  had  done  in  the  Jewish, 
 the  principles  which  we  have  already  seen  at  work  in  the 
 writings  of  the  Fathers.  Even  those  who,  like  Methodius 
 and  Cyril,  opposed  some  of  the  best  parts  of  Origen's 
 teaching,  yet  interpreted  Scripture  in  a  similar  way. 
 Methodius,  an  ardent  Platonist,2  commenting  on  Gen. 
 xv.  9,  explains  "  the  calf,  the  goat,  and  the  ram  of  three 
 years  "  3  in  Abraham's  sacrifices  to  mean  his  soul,  his  sentient 
 faculty,  and  his  mind.4  The  same  arbitrary  mixture  of 
 allegory  and  dogma  is  found  in  the  works  of  Cyril.  It  is 
 needless  and  impossible  to  speak  separately  of  him,  and  many 
 others  of  the  Fathers,  and  in  point  of  fact  there  is  no  new  or 
 original  principle  observable  in  their  comments.5     Gregory 
 
 1  Gieseler  says  that  "his  exegetical  writings  were  the  model  and  sources  for 
 all  succeeding  Greet  commentators"  (i.  232)  ;  he  might  have  added,  and  for 
 most  Latin  ones  also. 
 
 *-  See  his  only  extant  work,  the  Symposium,  or  -nepl  ayvelas.  It  is  printed 
 in  M  igne,  vol.  xviii. 
 
 ■■  That  Hippolytus  explained  Scripture  by  the  same  methods  we  see  from 
 his  comment  on  Gen.  xlix.  12  in  his  hook  De  Christo  et  Antichristo.  His 
 interpretation  resembles  that  of  Justin.  Thus  "His  teeth  are  whiter  than 
 milk  "  is  made  to  refer  to  the  commands  which  come  from  the  mouth  of  I  'hrist, 
 which  are  white  like  milk.  Ee  still  more  clearly  shows  the  basis  of  his 
 systrui  in  his  book  on  Daniel.  Explaining  the  Story  of  Susanna,  as  forming 
 pari  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  he  says  that  Susanna  represents  the  Church  ;  her 
 husband  Joacim  is  <  'hrist  ;  the  garden  is  the  calling  of  the  Saints ;  Babylon  is 
 the  world  ;  the  bath  is  baptism;  the  two  Elders  are  the  Jews  and  the  Gen 
 tiles  :  ami  the  two  handmaids  are  Love  to  God  and  Faith  in  ('hrist. 
 
 1  >"  Cant.  n.  7  Methodius  says  that  the  60  queens  are  royal  souls  like 
 tlmse  of  Enoch,  s,  tli  :  and  the  concubines,  the  souls  of  the  Prophets  after  the 
 Deluge.  In  Judg.  ix.  he  explains  the  trees  who  went  to  choose  a  kin-;  to  be 
 sinful  bouIs  before  the  incarnation  whirl,  now  implore  the  mercy  of  God  (set 
 PhotiuB,  Cod.  284  237  ;  Schrock,  K.  G.  iv.  427,  sq. ;  Rosenmuller,  Hiti. 
 Interpr.  iii.  187,  sq. ). 
 
 6  Euseb.  //.  11.  vi.  16;  Steph.  Gobar.  op.  Thot.  Cod.  232;  Guerike,  De 
 Schol.  Jkx.  67. 
 
202  Influence  of  Or/yen, 
 
 Thaumaturgus,1  the  martyr  Pamphilus,2  Athanasius,3 
 Didyrnus  the  Blind,4  Pierius,5  Theognostus,6  Hierax  of 
 Leontopolis,7  Eusehius  of  Vercellae,s  Eusebius  of  Csesarea,9 
 Firmilian,10  Victorinus  of  Pettau,11  all  made  some  con- 
 tributions to  exegesis  in  their  day,  but  there  is  nothing- 
 distinctive  in  their  special  methods.  Like  many  others 
 they  openly  expressed  their  admiration  of  Origen,  and 
 largely  borrowed  from  him  in  their  writings.  It  was  the 
 express  object  of  the  Presbyter  Puifmus  to  make  him  known 
 in  the  West.  The  great  Cappadocian  Fathers  adopted 
 many  of  his  views.1'2  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  the  brother  of 
 Basil,  was  the  most  Orioenising  of  all  the  Fathers  of  the 
 Nicene  age,  and  he  adopted  not  only  his  exegetic  system,  but 
 also  many  of  his  dogmatic  opinions.13  Even  Tillemont 14 
 admits  that,  from  the  days  of  Origen  to  those  of  Chrysostom, 
 there  was  not  a  single  eminent  commentator  who  did  not 
 borrow  largely  from  the  works  of  that  great  man.  They 
 found  in  them  as  Doucin  says  Une  source  inejncisaUe  de 
 lumiercs.     In  spite  of  the  unjust  and  sweeping  condemnation 
 
 1  See  his  Apology  for  Origen  in  De  La  Eue's  edition,  vol.  iv. 
 
 2  Euseh.  H.  E.  vi.  53;  vii.  32;  Jer.  Catal.  75;  Routh,  Pel.  Sacr.  iii. 
 491-512  ;  BShringer,  iii.  578  ;  Schrock,  K.  67.  xii.  93,  sq. 
 
 3  See  Rosenmuller,  Hist.  Int.  iii.  206,  sq.  He  follows  Origen  in  the  remark 
 that  the  literal  sense  is  often  unworthy  of  God.  The  genuineness  of 
 Athanasius's  commentary  on  the  Psalms  is  doubtful,  but  his  letter  to 
 Marcellinus  on  the  Psalms  is  excellent,  and  it  is  needless  to  point  out  the  high 
 value  of  his  contributions  to  exegetic  theology. 
 
 4  Jer.  Ep.  84  ;  Apol.  adv.  liuf.  ;  Socrates,  H.  E.  iv.  25  ;  Baronius,  Ann. 
 A.D.  347. 
 
 5  He  was  called  "the  young  Origen"  (Phot.  Cod.  119  ;  Jer.  Catal.  76  ; 
 Euseb.  H.  E.  vii.  32). 
 
 0  He  was  a  pupil  of  Origen,  and  was  called  "  the  Exegete." 
 
 7  Epiphan.  Haer.  67. 
 
 8  Jerome  calls  him  an  admirer  and  imitator  of  Origen. 
 
 9  Euseb.  II.  E.  vi.  53  ;  l'liotius,  Cod.  118.  He  was  greater  as  a  scholar 
 and  historian  than  as  an  exegete.  Fragments  of  his  commentaries  have  been 
 published  by  Mai,  Nov.  Pair.  Bill.  iv.  and  Migne,  vi.  His  Evayye\ian> 
 hiarpwvia  is  unfortunately  lost. 
 
 10  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  27.  «  Jer.  En.  Ixv.  2 
 
 12  Niceph.  //.  E.  xi.  17;  Schroek,  K.  G.  xiv.  ;  R.  Simon,  Hist.  Crit. 
 (iV.  T.),  p.  Ill,  sq.  ;  Buddeus,  Isag.  1385,  sq. 
 
 33  See  Rupp,  Greg.  v.  Nyssa,  pp.  243-262  ;  Schaff,  Ch.  Hist.  ii.  907.  For 
 Gregory'6  exegetical  preference  of  allegory  see  Prooem.  in  Cant.  Basil,  how- 
 ever, though  not  free  from  it,  has  some  strong  and  wise  protests  against  it 
 (Hexann.  ii.  2  ;  iii.  9  ;  ix.  1  ;  Horn.  I.  in  §  9,  c.  2). 
 
 14  Tillemont,  iii.  266. 
 
Hilary.  203 
 
 of  his  theology,  ho  yet  was  the  chief  teacher  of  even  the 
 most  orthodox  of  the  Western  Fathers.1  They  delighted  in 
 a  system  which  still  left  them  some  semblance  of  originality 
 and  freedom.  We  need  only  instance  the  names  of  Hilary 
 of  Poictiers  and  of  Ambrose. 
 
 VI.  Hilary,  "  the  Athanasins  of  Gaul,"  admirable  as  a 
 theologian,  and  powerful  as  a  writer,2  but  commonplace  as  an 
 exegete,  was  almost  entirely  dependent  on  Origen.3  Jerome 
 says  that  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  he  imitated 
 Origen  and  added  some  things  of  his  own,  and  that  his  com- 
 mentary on  St.  Matthew  and  his  book  on  Job  were  free  trans- 
 lations of  Origen.4  Like  many  other  Latin  Fathers  he  knew 
 no  Hebrew.  A  specimen  of  his  remarks  on  passages  of  the  Old 
 and  New  Testament  will  show  the  general  character  of  his  ex- 
 egesis.5 Writing  about  the  inscription  of  the  Psalms,"  To  the 
 chief  musician  a  Psalm  of  David,"  6  he  adopts  the  mistaken 
 rendering,  "  Infincm  intcllcctus  David''  and  infers  that  Psalms 
 headed  "  in  fin&m  "  7  had  no  relation  to  contemporary  history, 
 but  must  all  be  explained  of  Christ.  The  50th  Psalm  (A.V.  li.) 
 refers  to  forgiveness,  because  its  number  is  that  of  the  year  of 
 
 1  See  the  remarkable  testimony  of  Suidas  s.v.  'npiyeur)s.  TrX^ara  ical 
 avapl6nr]Ta  fic\4\onr€i'  ws  e|  hceivov  irdvras  robs  fxeriireiTa  e/c/cA.Tjo'ias 
 SiSa/TKaAovs  k<x\  a.(pop/j.as  eiKri<pevai,  ws  <5  6eo\6yos  (pdffKfi  Tpy)y6pios,  'ClpiyiV7)s 
 ?;  iravToiv  rifxthv  clkovt). 
 
 2  Jerome  calls  liim  "a  Rhone  of  eloquence."  Dorner's  estimate  of  his 
 theology  is  very  high. 
 
 3  On  Hilary  see  Schrock,  xii.  252,  sq.  ;  Rosen mtiller,  Hist.  Intcrp. 
 301,  sq.  ;  Buddeus,  Isagoge,  1388,  sq.  Roth  Ambrose  and  Hilary  speak  of 
 the  contradictions  of  Scripture  from  which  we  can  only  escape  by  allegory 
 (Diestel,  pp.  80  if). 
 
 4  Jer.  Catal.  100,  "Quosde  Graeco  Origenisin  sensumtranstulit."  Hilary, 
 not  quite  honourably,  avoided  acknowledging  his  obligations  to  Origen — "ut 
 Origeniani  nominis  invidiam  vitaret"  (Erasm.). 
 
 6  Jerome,  perhaps  unjustly,  implies  that  he  also  knew  but  little  Greek 
 (Graecornm  hterarum  quam/litm  nii.rulum  ceperat),  and  was  assisted  in  under- 
 standing Origen  by  the  Presbyter  Heliodorus  (Ep.  adMarcell.  and  adPaullin. 
 De  Tnst.  Monach.). 
 
 r<  -irk  b*±v  n-v;pS 
 
 7  LXX.  els  rb  reKos.  The  remark  is  borrowed  from  Eusebius,  who  also 
 lvlVrs  the  superscription  JVJJI|n"?JJ  nt-pl  \t)vuv,  LXX.  {Protorcularibus,  Vulg.) 
 of  Ps.  8  to  Christian  altars  and  the  wine  of  the  Eucharist  (Diestel,  p.  11!»). 
 Hilary  says  thai  Pro  toreularibus  shows  the  Psalm  to  he  aboul  the  new  fruits 
 prepared  out  of  men  by  God's  Spirit.  The  inscription  probably  means  "in 
 the  manner  of  Gath." 
 
204  Hilary. 
 
 jubilee.  In  Ps.  li.  (A.V.  lii.)  the  Latin  version  has  the  inscription 
 "  When  Doeg  the  Edomite  came  and  told  Saul,  David  came  to 
 the  house  of  Ahimelech."  Hilary  says  that  Ahimelech  means 
 "  my  brother's  empire,"  and  that  St.  Peter  explains  this  -when 
 he  writes  "  Ye,  as  living  stones,  are  built  into  spiritual 
 houses,  to  a  holy  priesthood."  We,  therefore,  are  to  be  built 
 into  this  spiritual  house  if  by  spiritual  edification  we  become 
 like  to  God  ;  and  Doeg's  revelation  to  Saul  that  David  had 
 gone  into  the  house  of  Ahimelech  refers  to  the  betrayal  of 
 Christ  to  Pilate.  The  same  methods  are  applied  to  the 
 New  Testament  still  more  disastrously.  Of  all  the  comments 
 quoted  from  the  Fathers  in  the  Catena  Atirca,  those  of  Hilary 
 are  usually  the  least  satisfactory.  They  show  as  little  insight 
 as  those  of  Remigius  or  Rabanus  Maurus.  Peter's  mother- 
 in-law  becomes  a  type  of  infidelity.  The  birds  of  heaven 
 which  sow  not,  neither  do  they  gather  into  barns,  are  evil 
 spirits ; x  the  lilies  of  the  field  are  angels ; 2  the  "  grass  " 
 signifies  the  Gentiles ;  two  sparrows  which  are  sold  for  one 
 farthing  are  sinners  made  up  of  mind  and  body,  who,  though 
 born  to  fly  with  spiritual  wings,  sell  themselves  for  the 
 smallest  faults  and  become  one,  since  the  subtlety  of  the 
 soul  grows  heavy  into  the  nature  of  bodies.3  Yet  Hilary 
 seems  to  have  been  so  entirely  convinced  of  the  truth  of  this 
 dreary  irrelevance,  that  after  explaining  the  clouds  in  Psalm 
 cxlvi.  to  mean  the  writings  of  the  Prophets,  and  the  rain  the 
 Gospel  doctrine,  and  the  mountains  Prophets  and  Apostles, 
 and  the  beasts  men,  and  the  young  ravens  Gentiles,  he  adds 
 
 1  Matt.  vi.  26,  27,  "  Under  the  name  of  birds  He  exhorts  us,  by  the 
 example  of  the  unclean  spirits  to  whom,  without  any  trouble  of  their  own, 
 provision  of  life  is  given  by  the  power  of  the  Eternal  Wisdom."  Remigius, 
 with  just  as  much  right,  says,  "  By  the  birds  of  the  air  are  meant  the  saints." 
 
 2  Matt.  vi.  31,  "  By  the  lilies  are  to  be  understood  the  eminences  of  the 
 heavenly  angels." 
 
 3  Here  are  other  specimens  :  Matt.  iv.  18-22,  "  Leaving  the  ships,  that  is, 
 carnal  desires,  and  their  nets,  that  is,  the  love  of  the  world,  they  followed 
 Christ;  by  James  is  understood  the  Jewish  nation  .  .  .  ;  by  John  the  Gentile 
 world.  Zehedee,  whom  they  leave  (the  name  is  interpreted  'tailing'  and 
 'flying'),  signifies  the  world  which  passes  away  and  the  Devil  who  fell  from 
 Heaven,"  &c.  Matt.  viii.  28,  "  The  demon  held  the  two  men  among  the  tombs 
 without  the  town,  i.e.  without  the  synagogue  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
 that  is,  they  infested  the  original  seats  of  the  two  nations  (Jews  and  Gentiles), 
 the  abodes  of  the  dead,"  &c. 
 
Ambrose.  205 
 
 that  to  understand  these  things  otherwise  would  be  a  matter 
 not  only  of  error  but  even  of  irreligion.1  He  seems  to  have 
 thought  that  it  would  have  been  better  to  leave  many  Scrip- 
 ture mysteries  unexplained,  but,  he  says,  "We  are  compelled 
 by  the  vices  of  heretics  and  blasphemers  to  do  things 
 unlawful,  to  climb  heights,  to  utter  things  unspeakable,  to 
 seize  things  unpermitted."  2 
 
 VII.  Nor  is  St.  Ambrose  a  whit  behind  him  in  the  ad- 
 option of  Origenistic  allegory,  and  Philonian  methods,3 
 though  he  does  not  deny  the  literal  sense.  There  is  much 
 that  is  ingenious,  pious,  and  forcible  in  the  writings  of 
 this  great  practical  Bishop,  but  we  can  judge  of  the 
 wild  license  of  his  method  when,  in  his  comment  on 
 Cant.  viii.  1,  he  says  that  there  the  Emperor  Gratian 
 declared  to  his  brother  of  august  memory,  that  he  is 
 furnished  with  the  fruits  of  divers  virtues.4  The  allegoric  in- 
 terpretation of  the  locusts  which  John  the  Baptist  ate ;  of  the 
 second-first  Sabbath  ;  of  the  Moth  and  the  Rust ;  of  the  days 
 of  Creation ;  and  many  more  details  are  all  in  the  current  style  ; 
 and  his  defence  or  extenuation  of  Peter's  denial  of  Christ 
 deserves  the  sarcasm  of  Jerome  that  it  defends  Peter  at  the 
 expense  of  Christ  who  said,  "  Thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice." 
 Jerome  says  of  his  two  commentaries  on  St.  Matthew  and 
 St.  Luke,  that  the  latter  trifles  in  the  words  and  drowses 
 in  the  meanings,  and  the  other  is  dull  in  both.5  Jerome, 
 however,  was  strongly  prejudiced  against  him.6     In  his  ( 
 
 1  "Haec  ita  intelligere  turn  dieam  erroris  scd  irrcligiositatis  est"  (II il. 
 in  l's.  146). 
 
 -  Ilil.  De  Trin.  ii.  There  is  a  monograph  by  Reinken,  Hila/rius  von 
 Poietiers,  I1-';'.. 
 
 8  See  Siegfried,  Philo,  pp.  371-391. 
 
 4  Tract,  de  Obit.  Valent.  ii.  12. 
 
 •'  Jerome  says,  "Nuper  Ambrosiua  sic  illins  (Origenis)  Hexaemeron  com- 
 pilavil  nt  magis  Eippolyti  sententiam  Basiliique  sequeretur"  (Up.  84,  7); 
 " Ante  paucos  dies  quorumdam  in  Matthaeum  et  Lucam  commentaries  vos 
 legiase  dixiatin  e  quibus  alter  e1  senaibnB  bebes  esset,  el  alteT  in  verbis  Lui 
 in  sententiie  dormitaret "  (Rufinns,  Imo.  vn  Eieron,  ii.  22-29).  Augustine, 
 ou  the  other  hand,  always  Bpeaks  of  him  with  high  respeel  Conf. 
 
 vi.  4). 
 
 6  On  Ambrose  Bee  Schrock,  xiv.  148,  sq.  :  Rosenm.  iii.  318,  sq.  :  Buddeua, 
 i:{(tt!.     liolniii^ij-  (iv.  66)  says  that  in  his  numerous  exegetic  writings, 
 •■  Yon  Beachtung  des  Wortstandes,  von  grammatisch-historischeii  Auslej 
 
206  Dionysim. 
 
 logue  he  only  says  that  he  will  make  no  remark  about  him, 
 because  he  is  still  living,  and  that  he  may  not  be  blamed  either 
 for  flattery  or  plain-speaking.1  He  compares  the  superficial  and 
 meagre  commentary  of  Ambrose  to  the  croaking  of  a  raven 
 which  makes  sport  of  the  colours  of  all  other  birds,  and  yet  is 
 itself  dark  all  over.2  But  Ambrose  was  perfectly  modest 
 about  his  own  writings.  "  Snatched,"  he  says,  "  from  the 
 tribunals  to  the  priesthood,  I  have  to  learn  while  I  teach ) 
 since  I  had  no  leisure  to  learn  before." 3  Hence  "  the  sacred 
 books  were  to  him  what  pastoral  and  didactic  theology  has 
 always  tended  to  make  them,  verbal  materials  for  edification 
 which  was  to  be  extracted  from  them  by  any  and  every  kind 
 of  interpretation  to  which  their  letter  could  be  subjected."  4 
 
 VIII.  Before  passing  to  the  school  which  endeavoured,  not 
 wholly  in  vain,  to  make  a  stand  against  the  allegorising  method 
 of  the  Alexandrians,  we  must  notice  the  two  writers  who 
 furnish  the  finest  pieces  of  Biblical  criticism  in  this  epoch. 
 One  of  these  is  the  great  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (f  265),5 
 whose  remarks  on  the  Apocalypse  are  so  precise  and  subtle 
 that  they  might  have  been  written  in  modern  times.  He 
 came  indeed  to  the  erroneous  conclusion  that  the  Apocalypse 
 could  not  have  been  written  by  St.   John,  and  in  his  dislike 
 
 ist  fast  nirgcnds  cine  Spur  ;  das  Meiste  ist  allegorisirend  'docli  feklt  er  nicht 
 an  sinnigen  Bemerkungen."  Ambrose  says  (De  Fide)  "Historic,  simplex  sed 
 alta  mysteria  .   .  .  quia  lateralis  seyisus  indignus  est." 
 
 1  "  Meum  judicium  subtraham  ne  in  alterutram  partem  aut  adulatio  in  me 
 reprehendatur  aut  Veritas  "  (Cat.  Virr.  Illustr.  124).  Some  have  conjectured 
 that  Jerome  bad  some  personal  dislike  to  Ambrose  in  connexion  with  bis 
 .sudden  departure  from  Aquileia,  Up.  2,  3.     Zijekler,  p.  40. 
 
 2  Pracf.  in  xxxix.  Horn.  Origenis  in  Lueam  ap.  Rufinum  ;  Tnveet.  ii.  adv. 
 Rieron.%21.  "  Oscincm  corvmn  audiam  crocitantem  et  inirum  in  modurn  de 
 cunctanun  avium  ridere  coloribus,  cum  totus  ipse  tenebrosus  sit."  In  §  23 
 Rufinus  defends  Ambrose,  and  calls  him  "omnium  Ecclesiarum  coluinna 
 quaedam." 
 
 3  De  Offic.  I.  i.  4.  Heinz,  in  his  severe  criticism  on  this  book  ("Walch, 
 Patrologia,  p.  66S),  complains  especially  of  "Scblechte  Auslegungen  der 
 Schriftsteller  A.  und  N.  T.  die  gevvaltsam  angezogen  werden  und  nichts 
 beweisen." 
 
 4  Rev.  J.  LI.  Daviesin  Smith  and  Wace.  The  Commentary  of  Ambrosiaster, 
 which  used  to  be  printed  with  the  works  of  Ambrose,  is  of  uncertain  author- 
 ship, but  has  high  merits.  Sixt.  Senensis  calls  it  "brief  in  words  but  weighty 
 in  matter." 
 
 5  He  earned  the  title  of  "the  Great"  (Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  46,  vii.  1  ;  Ba&il, 
 Ep.  ad  Amphiioc.h.  Steph.  Gobar,  ap.  Phot.  Cod.  232  ;  Guerike,  De  Schol. 
 Alex.,  p.  67,  and  Schrock,  E.G.  iv.  169). 
 
Julius  Africanua.  207 
 
 to  the  crude  literalism  of  the  Chiliasts  he  endeavoured  to 
 attribute  the  book  to  another  John  (who  probably  had  no 
 separate  existence).  Yet  the  style  and  the  keenness  of  his 
 criticism  shows  how  much  greater  advance  might  have  been 
 made  in  the  study  of  Scripture  if  there  had  been  less  of 
 arbitrary  fancy  and  more  of  independent  thought.1  Nor 
 are  the  contributions  of  Julius  AFRICANUS  (f  c.  240)  less 
 valuable.  In  a  brief  but  vigorous  letter  to  Origen  he  ex- 
 presses his  surprise  that,  in  a  discussion  with  Bassus,  the  great 
 Alexandrian  should  have  referred  to  the  Story  of  Susanna. 
 He  says  that  at  the  time,  as  was  only  fitting,  he  did  not  like 
 to  make  any  remark  ;  but  in  his  letter  he  points  out  that  the 
 Story  of  Susanna  is  lacking  in  propriety ;  that  it  is  full  of 
 improbabilities  ;  that  it  attributes  to  Daniel  a  kind  of  prophetic 
 insight  unlike  that  displayed  in  his  book  ;  that  it  formed  no 
 part  of  the  Jewish  canon  ;  and  that  it  has  two  plays  on  words 
 which  would  have  been  impossible  in  Hebrew.2  Origen's 
 answer  to  this  letter  shows  signs  of  timidity,  and  appeals  tc 
 a  supposed  infallibility  of  tradition.  Though  full  of  ingenuity, 
 it  is  quite  inferior  to  the  criticism  of  Africanus  in  grasp  and 
 insight.  Not  less  remarkable  is  Julius's  solution  of  the  problem 
 presented  by  the  two  differing  genealogies  of  Christ.  In  his 
 letter  to  Aristides  he  rejects  with  wholesome  scorn  the  notion 
 which  seems  to  have  been  then  current  even  in  the  Church, 
 that  they  are  merely  a  "  pious  fraud,"  representing  the  desire 
 to  set  forth  Christ  as  descended  from  the  kingly  line  of 
 Solomon  and  the  prophetic  line  of  Nathan.3     Relying  on  a 
 
 1  His  arguments  are  given  by  Euseb.  H.  E.  vii.  25.  He  argued  (1)  from 
 style  and  phraseology;  (2)  from  the  omission  by  John  of  his  name  in  the 
 Gospel  and  Epistle  ;  (3)  because  he  does  not  call  himself  anything  but  "a 
 fellow-disciple;"  (4)  the  name  John  was  common;  (5)  the  character  of  the 
 Apocalypse  is  strange.  Bu1  the  fragment  must  be  read  at  length  by  anj 
 who  would  do  it  justice.  Canon  Westcott  [s.v.  in  Smith  ami  Wace)  says 
 that   this  criticism  " is  perhaps  unique  among  early  writers  for  clearness 
 
 lastic    precision."      For    a  lull   account   of  it  see  Liicke,  Einl.   in  die 
 Offenbarung    Bonn,  1852),  pp.  t;oy-621. 
 
 -  See  Euseb.  //.  E.  vi.  31  ;  Jer.  Catal.  63;  Photius,  Cod.  34;  Suidas,  s.v. 
 'A<ppli<auos  ;  Nicephorus,  //.  E.  v.  21;  Routh,  Bel.  Saer.  ii.  225.  The 
 letter  was  edited  by  Wetstein,  with  notes,  in  1674;  and  in  De  la  hue's 
 <  i,  igi  a . 
 
 3  M})  5tj  Kparoir)  ovtos  d  \6yos  ei>  'Ei<K\T}(ria  XjHcttov  o'ti  \p(vSos  crvyicftrat  eis 
 alvov  koX  8o£o\oyiav  XptdTov  (Itouth,  Kel,  SdCT.  ii.). 
 
208  Julius  A/rlcanus. 
 
 tradition  preserved  among  the  Desposyni,  or  earthly  kinsmen 
 of  the  Lord's  family  who  lived  near  Nazareth  and  Kokhaba, 
 he  says  that  Matthew  gives  the  natural,  and  Luke  the  legal 
 descent,  and  that  the  discrepancy  is  accounted  for  by  the 
 Jewish  law  of  the  levirate  marriage.  This  account  of  the 
 matter  was  accepted  by  Augustine,  and  has  found  wide 
 currency  in  the  Christian  world.1  One  more  service  Julius 
 rendered  by  his  Chronology,  though  it  was  based  on  data 
 necessarily  imperfect.2  He  amply  deserves  his  reputation  as 
 one  of  the  most  learned  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,3  and  by 
 no  means  the  least  acute. 
 
 IX.  We  have  seen  that,  even  in  Origen's  lifetime,  there  were 
 jorotests  against  his  method  of  exegesis.4  Clemens  gives  the 
 name  of  "  ignorant  brawlers " 5  to  those  who  rejDudiated  the 
 vaunted  Gnosis  of  a  philosophised  religion.  There  were  many 
 who  had  no  taste  for  the  speculations  which  professed  to  be  a 
 "  translation  from  the  gospel  of  sense  into  the  gospel  of 
 spirit ; "  nor  would  they  surrender  the  historic  fact  in  favour 
 of  the  subjective  caprice.  They  saw  that  the  method  could 
 be  used  with  equal  effect  by  heretics.6     They  saw,  too,  that 
 
 1  Euseb.   H.  E.i.7;  Routh,  Bel.   Sacr.  ii.  228  ;  Euseb.   ad  Steph.  Qu.  4 
 
 (Mai,  Script.  Nov.  Coll.  i.)  ;  Aug.  Betr.  ii.  7  ;  Mill,  Mythical  late  rue.  p.  201  ; 
 F.  Spitta,  JDer  Brief  des  Jul.  Afrie.  an  Aristid.  kritisch  untersucht  unci 
 hcrgeslellt  (Halle,  1877). 
 
 2  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  11. 
 
 3  Jer.  Ep.  ad  Magnum,  83  ;  Socr.  H.  E.  ii.  35.  If  the  Kiaroi  were  really 
 by  Julius  they  were  not  worthy  of  him  ;  but  even  if  they  be  genuine,  they 
 have  suffered  from  additions  and  mutilations. 
 
 4  See  Horn,  in  Lucam,  xxv.  ;  Horn,  in  Joann.  x.  §  13,  Tp6irov  aXoywv  (dwv 
 ko.1  cnroTeOripico/j.ei'cov  irpbs  robs  aAwOcis  Aoyixobs  Sia  too  auvikvai  /3oii\(aQai  ra 
 TTuevfiariKa. ;  in  Horn,  in  Gen.  xiii.  §  3  he  compares  himself  to  Isaac,  who  dug 
 wells  which  the  Philistines  came  and  disputed. 
 
 5  'A/xaOws  \po<pw$e?s.  In  the  pseudo-Clementine  Recognitions  (x.  42)  there 
 is  a  protest  against  the  arbitrary  distortion  of  Scripture.  Peter  is  made  to  say 
 "There  are  many  passages  in  Scripture  which  can  be  dragged  into  any  sense 
 which  each  reader  chouses,  which  ought  not  to  be  done."  Other  protests  are 
 to  be  found  in  Theophilus,  J'asch.  i.  ;  Epiphan.  Ep.  ad  Joan.  Jcrosol.  2  ; 
 JIacr.  64,  §  4  ;  Jer.  Ep.  61  ;  Basil,  II* yum.  9  ;  Aug.  Dc  Civ.  Dei,  xiii.  21, 
 &c.  (Huet,  Origeniana,  qu.  13).  The  language  of  (he  Clementine  Homilies  (iii. 
 !»,  10,  13,  14,  21,  22,  2:5,  47)  opposes  the  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration,  and 
 criticises  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  &c,  in  a  manner  which  reminds  us  of 
 Kuenen  and  Wellhausen. 
 
 6  Thus  the  Manichaeans  argued  that  Christ  had  finally  laid  aside  His  human 
 nature  from  the  text  "  Posuit  tabemaculum  suum  in  sole  "  (Ps.  xix.  4).  which 
 they  interpreted  to  mean  that  lie  had  left  in  the  sun  His  mortal  dwelling 
 (fficrivwfxa),  i.e.  His  body. 
 
Ephracm  Syrus.  209 
 
 the  end  of  such  idealism  would  be  a  subversion  of  the  plain 
 truths  of  the  Gospel,1  and  that  a  dangerous  use  might  be 
 made  of  the  determination  to  know  Christ  after  the  flesh  no 
 more.2  The  danger  was  illustrated  by  the  way  in  which 
 Origen  explained  the  words  spoken  by  Christ  in  His  agony,3 
 "  Let  this  cup  pass  from  me."  His  gloss  upon  them  was  that 
 Christ  desired  a  cup  yet  more  bitter. 
 
 The  Egyptian  Bishop  Nepos  wrote  a  Refutation  of  the 
 Allegorists,4  and  a  different  school  of  Scriptural  study  arose 
 in  Syria.  Even  this  school — it  should  not  be  forgotten — 
 owed  its  impulse  to  the  many-sided  genius  of  Origen.5  If  he 
 exercised  an  unfortunate  influence  by  his  exaggerated  allegories, 
 he  yet  gave  its  main  stimulus  to  the  critical  and  philological 
 labours  of  the  best  school  of  ancient  exegetes.  One  of  the 
 forerunners  of  this  school  was  the  martyr  Lucian,  whose 
 revision  of  the  Septuagint  was  known  as  the  Kolvij,  and  was 
 used  in  Constantinople,  Asia  Minor,  and  Antioch.6  The 
 presbyter  Dqjiotiieus  was  not  only  a  student  of  classic 
 literature,  but  acquired  tbe  rare  accomplishment  of  being 
 able  to  read  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Hebrew  original. 
 Eusebius  heard  him  expound  the  Hebrew  text  with  moderation 
 at  Antioch.7 
 
 The  best  representative  of  the  Syrian  school  of  Edessa  was 
 Ephraem  Syrus,  a  man  of  singular  personal  sweetness,  and  a 
 laborious  commentator,  who  died  A.D.  3S1.  Adopting  to  a 
 great  extent  the  views  of  Origen,  he  abounds  in  allegories  of 
 which  a  single  specimen  may  stand  for  multitudes.     Com- 
 
 1  See  the  admirable  remarks  of  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  ii.  295-302. 
 
 2  Orig.  Horn,  in  Matt.  xv.  §  3,  ed.  Huet. 
 
 3  Jn  his  treatise  on  Martyrdom,  29.  (oAAo  5e  rdxa  0apvrepov  alrelv 
 AeA.TjOiira)s. ) 
 
 4  "EKtyxos  twv  'b.\\riyopi(TT£>v.  It  was  written  in  the  interest  of  the 
 Chiliasts  (Enseb.  //.  hi.  vii.  24),  and  was  answered  by  Dionysius  the  Great  in 
 his  two  books  Trepl  iirayytXiuv. 
 
 6  Tb.'  martyr  Pamphilna,  the  ardent  admirer  and  champion  of  Origen, 
 founded  a  great  library  and  a  theological  sehool  at  Caesarea.  Euseb.  H.  E. 
 vii.  32. 
 
 6  His  MSS.  were  .ailed  \ovKiave~ia,  Jer.  Catal.  77.  See  Ronth,  AW.  Sacr. 
 iv.  3;  Westcott  <m  the  <'an.,n,  ]..  :',!»•_»;  Westc.  and  II. .it,  Greek  Tist.  ii.  138; 
 De  Rroglie,  L'Eglise  et  V Empire,  i.  375  ;  Newman,  Arians,  p.  414. 
 
 7  Euseb.  IT.  E.  vii.  32  ;  Neander,  ii.  528  ;  Gieseler,  i.  247. 
 
 P 
 
210  School  of  Antioch. 
 
 menting  on  tliG  wisdom  through  which  Rahab  let  down  the 
 spies  (Josh.  ii.  15),  he  says  that  it  represents  the  mystery 
 of  the  freedom  of  the  mind  uncorrupted  by  the  darkness 
 of  sin,  which  receives  the  teachers  of  spiritual  mysteries, 
 and  then  cautiously  sends  them  away  to  the  God  of  the 
 Universe,  while  it  hopes  that  they  will  return  in  due 
 time  ! 1  But  Ephraem's  worst  error  is  the  mingling  and  con- 
 fusion of  the  historic  and  mystic  sense,  which  serve  to  show 
 that  for  centuries  together  exegesis  was  drifting  hither  and 
 thither  on  the  open  sea  of  fancy,  with  no  compass  of  true 
 principle  to  guide  its  course.  In  one  and  the  same  passage, 
 even  in  one  and  the  same  verse,  he  takes  one  phrase  literally, 
 and  the  next  mystically,  after  the  aimless  fashion  afterwards 
 systematised  by  Tichonius.  Thus  on  Is.  ix.  7  he  remarks 
 that  part  of  it  refers  to  Hezekiah,  and  another  part  cannot 
 possibly  apply  to  him.  The  first  verses  of  that  chapter  refer, 
 he  says,  to  Christ,  the  third  and  fourth  verses  to  Hezekiah 
 or  to  Christ,  the  fifth  and  sixth  verses  to  Christ  only,  except 
 that  the  epithets  "  Prince  "  and  "  Father  "  may  also  refer  to 
 Hezekiah,  whereas  the  first  clause  of  the  next  verse  can  refer 
 to  Christ  alone  ! 2 
 
 X.  The  third  great  school,  the  School  of  Antioch, 
 possessed  a  deeper  insight  into  the  true  method  of  exegesis 
 than  any  which  preceded  or  succeeded  it  during  a  thousand 
 years.  We  are  not  here  speaking  of  theological  questions, 
 nor  am  I  concerned  to  enter  into  the  bitter  disputes  of  the 
 fourth  century,  or  to  inquire  how  far  the  Antiochene  in- 
 terpreters have  been  ignorantly  misrepresented.  All  that 
 I  here  affirm  is  that  their  system  of  Biblical  interpretation 
 approached  more  nearly  than  any  other  to  that  which  is 
 now  adopted  by  the  Reformed  Churches  throughout  the 
 world,  and  that  if  they  had  not  been  too  uncharitably 
 anathematised    by  the  angry   tongue,   and  crushed   by   the 
 
 1  For  Ephraem's  acquaintance  with  the  Jewish  Midrash,  see  Delitzsch, 
 Genesis,  p.  62. 
 
 2  On  the  mei its  and  defects  of  F.phraem  Syrus,  see  the  admirable  mono- 
 graph of  Caesar  v.  Lengerke,  Dc  Ephr.  Syri  arte  hermeneutica,  especially 
 pp.  160  sq.  and  pp.  168  sq.  (Koiiigsb.  1831.)  See  too  Cave,  i.  231,  Fabricius, 
 viii.  217. 
 
School  of  Antioch.  211 
 
 iron  hand  of  a  dominant  orthodoxy,  the  study  of  their  com- 
 mentaries, and  the  adoption  of  their  exegetic  system,  might 
 have  saved  Church  commentaries  from  centuries  of  futility  and 
 error.  Cardinal  Newman  has  talked  about  "the  connexion 
 of  heterodoxy  with  Biblical  criticism,"  and  has  said  that  by 
 their  contemporary  appearance  in  some  of  the  teachers  of 
 Antioch  "it  may  be  almost  laid  down  as  an  historic  fact 
 that  the  mystical  interpretation  and  orthodoxy  will  stand 
 or  fall  together."  A  more  fatal  admission  could  hardly  be 
 made.  If  it  were  true,  it  could  only  mean  that  eccles- 
 iastical orthodoxy  shrinks  from  the  light  of  knowledge,  and 
 that  its  exegesis  is  an  arbitrary  fiction.  The  mystical 
 interpretation  has  had  every  opportunity  of  establish ing 
 itself  during  a  thousand  years.  It  has  been  weighed  in  the 
 balance  and  found  wanting.  It  consists  of  application, 
 not  of  explication.  It  ignores  the  human  element  which 
 Scripture  shows  on  every  page.  While  professing  to  re- 
 verence the  Bible  it  detracts  from  its  authority,  and 
 substitutes  in  its  place  a  hollow,  gilded  idol,  which  totters 
 upon  its  flimsy  pedestal.  It  foists  into  the  Bible  its  own 
 fancies  which  are  not  there.  It  approaches  the  Bible  in  the 
 interests  of  a  system  pre-conceived  and  pre-established.1  It 
 was  repudiated  by  the  ablest  interpreters  of  Scripture  in  its 
 own  day  and  since.  It  was  by  rejecting  it  that  Theodore  of 
 Mopsuestia  attained  an  exegetic  skill  which  had  been  pre- 
 viously unknown.  Chrysostom,  the  ablest  of  Christian 
 homilists,  and  one  of  the  best  of  Christian  men,  uses  lan- 
 guage entirely  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  inspiration  on 
 
 1  Here  is  a  comment  on  Cant.  iii.  0-11,  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (+  444). 
 The  "palanquin"  Lb  the  Cross  ;  its  "silver  legs"  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver 
 paid  to  Judas;  its  purple  cushion  the  scarlet  robe  with  which  Christ  was 
 mocked  ;  the  "  nuptial  crown  "  is  the  crcwn  of  thorns  !  See  Ginshnrg,  Si  < 
 qf  Songs,  p.  67.  It  is  astonishing  that  any  one  should  support  such  theories  of 
 the  meaning  "f  the  poem  in  the  face  of  such  passages  as  vii.  2,  3,  7,  8. 
 Neander  wisely  and  truly  says  that  "those  who  would  not  admit  any  human 
 
 elemenl  in  Scripture  and  arbitrarily  got  rid  of  it  by  pretended  mysteries 
 under  the  idea  of  showing  special  respect  to  the  Bible,  undesignedly  de- 
 tracted from  its  authority  .  .  .  because  they  explained  the  whole  as  a 
 single  production  in  a  way  foreign  indeed  tp  the  sacred  word,  but  pre- 
 conceived and  pre-established  as  n  divine  one  by  themselves,  thus  foisting 
 into  the  Bible  what  was  not  really  there,"  iv.  11. 
 
 P    'I 
 
212  Diodore  of  Tarsus. 
 
 which  it  is  based ;  and  even  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Jerome, 
 and  Augustine,  in  the  midst  of  their  undefined  and  wavering 
 views,  are  betrayed  into  phrases  which  show  that  the  theoiy 
 of  homogeneous  supernaturalism  broke  down  under  the  force 
 of  facts.1  Happily,  in  his  assertion  of  a  necessary  connexion 
 between  orthodoxy  and  exegetic  wilfulness,  Cardinal  Newman 
 stands  alone.  Even  Roman  Catholic  historians  like  Cardinal 
 Hergenrother  have  done  justice  to  the  School  of  Antioch.  If 
 it  were  indeed  true  that  sound  faith  cannot  co-exist  with 
 Biblical  criticism,  this  could  only  mean  that  the  Bible  is  not 
 consistent  with  ecclesiastical  tradition.  The  attempt  to 
 enforce  private  interpretations  by  Church  anathemas  has 
 led  to  the  melancholy  spectacle  of  Councils — as  for  instance 
 that  of  Sirmium — denouncing  as  heretical  the  refusal  to 
 accept  certain  specimens  of  exegesis  which  are  no  longer 
 deemed  tenable  by  any  ordinary  Christian  man.2 
 
 1.  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  (t  393)  must  be  regarded  as  the 
 true  founder  of  the  School  of  Antioch.3  He  was  a  man  of 
 eminent  learning  and  of  undisputed  piety.  He  was  the 
 teacher  of  Chrysostom  and  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  In 
 the  days  of  Valens  he  saved  the  Church  of  his  province  from 
 being  submerged  by  the  waves  of  misbelief.4     He  commented 
 
 1  Tims  Irenaeus  attributes  St.  Paul's  hypcrbattt  to  the  vehemence  of  his 
 spirit  (Haer.  iii.  7).  Tertullian  supposes  a  growth  of  restraint  and  knowledge 
 in  the  mind  of  St.  Paul  (Paulns  adhue  in  gratia  rudis,  ferventer  ut  adhue 
 neophytus,  adversus  Judaismum.  C.  Marc.  i.  20,  and  De  Pudic.  5).  See 
 Chrysostom,  Horn,  in  Matt.  i.  ed.  Field,  i.  pp.  4,  5,  7  (where  he  admits  in  the 
 Gospels  discrepancies  in  minor  matters)  ;  Jerome  on  Gal.  v.  12,  where  he 
 speaks  of  St.  Paul  being  carried  away  by  the  vehemence  of  his  feelings 
 ("lTt  homo,  et  adhue  vasculo  clausus  infirmo").  Even  Augustine  speaks  of 
 the  Evangelists  writing  "  Ut  quisque  memincrat  vel  ut  cuique.  cordi  fuerat." 
 Neander,  iv.  10-13. 
 
 2  "  Si  quis  Faeiamus  hominnn  non  Patrem  ad  Filium  dixisse  dicat  .  .  . 
 anathema  sit  .  .  .  Si  quis  cum  Jacobo  non  Filium  quasi  hominem  colluctatum 
 .  .  .  dicat,  anathema  sit..  .  .  Si  quis  Pluit  Dominus  a  Domino  (Gen.  xix.  24) 
 non  de  Filio  et  Patre  intelligat  .  .  .  anathema  sit."  Cone.  Sirm.  (a.d.  357  ; 
 Canons  xiv.-xvii.  ;  Hardnin,  i.  702.     See  Eosenmiiller,  Hist.  Intcrp.  iv.  291). 
 
 3  The  "school"  of  Antioch  was  not  like  that  of  Alexandria,  a  succession  of 
 connected  teachers.  It  was  rather  a  theological  tendency  which  continued  at 
 Nisibis  and  Edessa  after  the  condemnation  of  Nestorius.  See  Sehaff,  C'h. 
 Hist.  ii.  816.  To  this  school  belong  Ephraem  Syrus,  Eusebius  of  Emesa  (on 
 whom  there  are  monographs  by  Angusti  and  Thilo),  Chrysostom,  Severianus, 
 Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and   Theodoret. 
 
 J  Theodoret,  H.E.  v.  4. 
 
Theodore  of  Moiisuestia.  213 
 
 upon  a  large  part  of  both  Testaments  with  special  reference 
 to  the  literal  sense.  His  works  were  unhappily  destroyed 
 by  the  Arians  whom  he  had  so  successfully  refuted,  and  he 
 was  also  anathematised  by  the  Eutychians,  though  not,  as 
 was  commonly  but  erroneously  asserted,  by  the  Fifth 
 Oecumenical  Council.1  His  books  were  devoted  to  an  ex- 
 position of  Scripture  in  its  literal  sense,2  and  he  wrote  a 
 treatise,  now  unhappily  lost,  '•'  on  the  difference  between 
 allegory  and  spiritual  insight."  3 
 
 2.  But  the  ablest,  the  most  decided,  and  the  most  logical 
 representative  of  the  School  of  Antioch  was  Theodore  of 
 Mopsuestia  (t  428).  That  clear-minded  and  original  thinker 
 stands  out  like  "  a  rock  in  the  morass  of  ancient  exegesis." 
 He  was  not,  indeed,  a  Hebrew  scholar.4  This  is  shown 
 somewhat  disastrously  in  his  criticism  on  Job.  He  regarded 
 it  as  a  very  imperfect  tragedy  on  a  Jewish  theme,  and 
 inferred  that  the  writer  was  a  heathen  because  one  of  Job's 
 daughters  was  called  "  Amalthaea's  horn"!5  He  even 
 neglected  the  Peshito  version  which  might  have  stood 
 him  in  such  good  stead,  and  he  relies,  like  most  other 
 Fathers,  on  the   "  inspired "  LXX.G     In  his  theory  of  types 
 
 1  The  anathemas  are  not  in  the  genuine  Acts  of  the  Council.  He  is 
 defended  by  Facundua  Hermianensis.  "Should  not  the  merits  of  St.  Chry- 
 sostom  seem  rather  to  justify  Diodorus  than  the  errors  of  Theodore  to  con- 
 demn  him  ?"     See  Neander,  iv.  209. 
 
 8  Socrates,  II.  K.  vi.  3.  AwSccpos  5e  .  .  .  ttuWo.  /8(/3Aia  ffvveypa^e  \}/i\<2 
 z(f>  ypa.fj.fiar i  tuiv  Oeiwv  kq.t£xwv  ypacpwv,  tt)s  Oeuipias  avrwv  iKrpeir6fj.evos. 
 Sozomen,  H.  E.  viii.  2.  AioSwpos  "ov  iirvd6ixT)v  iSioov  avyypafifia.rcov  TroWas 
 Karaki-Kflv  fH&Xovs,  irepl  5e  rb  fSrirbv  ruiv  lepwv  Koywu  ras  i^rjyrjffeis  Tron]cro.(X- 
 Oai  rr,s  Oewpias  anocpvyuuTa.      Jer.  Catal.  110. 
 
 3  ti's  Siacpopa.  Oeooplas  ica\  aWrjyoptas.  Suidas,  s.v.  Aio'S.  ]>v  Theoria  is 
 meant  spiritual  insight  which  is  not  content  with  the  letter  only. 
 
 4  This  appears  from  his  remark  on  the  word  Remphan  (Acts  vii.  4:'.,  comp. 
 
 Amos  v.  2ti)  (paa\  8e  rhv  'Ewacpdpop  o'vrw  Kara,  roiv  'Effpaiwv  KaKurrOai 
 yKwrrav.  Anj'  Jew  could  have  told  him  that  the  wind  is  not  Hebrew  at  all 
 but  Egyptian, 
 
 s  The  name  Qeren  Happuk  is  rendered  Cornustibium  in  the  Vulg.,  and 
 Gregory  the  Great  derives  it  from  cornu  and  tibia!  See  Merz,  Jo  I,  p.  101. 
 Theodori  Ep.  Mops,  in  Epp.  B,  Pauli  Commentarii,  ed.  H.  ]!.  Swete,  Cambr. 
 
 1880.     Borne  of  Th lore's  commentaries  were  long  attributed  by  mistake  to 
 
 Ambrose,  and  to  Hilary  of  Poictiers,  writers  to  whom  he  has  aol  the  hast 
 resemblance.  Dr.  Sort's  discovery  of  the  true  authorship,  gives  in  Jov.rn. 
 of  Class,  and  Soar.  Philol.  iv.  802,  is  mentioned  in  Bishop  Lightfoot's  Oala- 
 tians,  p.  219. 
 
 ■  In  Habak.  ii.  11.  where  the  I.W.  has  the  curious  word  xavQapos,  which 
 misled  so  many  cominentatoce,  Theodore  contents  himself  with  i 
 
214?  Theodore  of  Mopsucstia. 
 
 there  is  a  want  of  living  connexion  between  rows  of  facts 
 and  no  definite  principle  on  which  to  decide  why  some  facts 
 were  to  be  regarded  as  typical  and  others  not.  Like  all  the 
 ancient  interpreters  he  lacked  the  conception  of  Development, 
 of  a  living  growth  and  progress  in  the  order  of  revelation. 
 Again — not  to  enter  on  the  defects  and  errors  of  his 
 theology — he  does  not  rise  superior  to  the  influence  of 
 "bias,"  which  sometimes  leads  him  to  get  rid  of  passages 
 which  tell  against  his  special  views.1  It  is,  further,  true 
 that  he  is  not  eminent  as  a  textual  critic,  and  sometimes 
 chooses  his  readings  on  arbitrary  principles.2  Once  more,  his 
 interests  are  intellectual  and  dogmatic  rather  than  devotional 
 and  spiritual,  so  that  in  these  respects  he  is  far  inferior  to 
 his  friend  St.  Chrysostom.  Photius  blamed  his  style  for  its 
 diffuseness,  obscurity,  and  tautology,3  and  we  cannot  but 
 regret  that  he  often  attacks  other  commentators  with  scarcely 
 merited  derision.  Some  of  his  faults  may  be  due  to  the 
 self-reliance  of  an  ardent  and  ingenious  temperament ;  others 
 to  the  rhetorical  training  which  he  had  received  in  the 
 School  of  Libanius  ;  others  again  to  restless  productiveness  ; 
 others  perhaps  to  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  scope  and  issue 
 of  views  in  which  he  was  far  before  his  time.  "  His  literary 
 faults,"  it  has  been  said,  "  were  but  the  reflexion  of  mental 
 imperfections  which  to  some  extent  vitiate  his  work  as  well 
 as  his  style,  his  theology  no  less  than  the  form  in  which  it  is 
 cast." 4  But  while  his  faults  are  thus  freely  admitted,  it 
 remains   true    that    he    was  worthy   of    his    title   as   "  The 
 
 "according  to  some  "  the  Syrian  version  renders  the  word  by  ' '  peg "  !  Because 
 the  Apostles  used  the  LXX.  he  seems  always  to  assume  that  the  LXX.  is 
 right,  the  Peshito  wrong. 
 
 1  Thu<  on  Eph.  iv.  10  (5  Karaflas  avr6s  effrtv  Kal  6  ava@as)  he  denies  that 
 this  is  true  literally ;  and  on  Col.  i.  13  persuades  himself  that  Christ's 
 "adoption"  of  manhood  is  involved  in  ttjs  ayawr^s,  that  iv  avrw  points  to  the 
 second  or  spiritual  creation,  and  that  the  Pleroma  which  dwelt  in  Christ  was 
 the  Church,  His  Body.  See  Swete's  edition  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
 i.  p.  lxxi. 
 
 2  In  Eph.  iii.  15  he  reads  cppaTpta  for  TraTpid.  In  Eph.  ii.  22  he  comments 
 on  acpij  not  oikoSojUtj. 
 
 a  1'hotius,  Cod.  4,  but  he  calls  him  reus  Siavolats  Kal  to7s  €7nxeip'/Jua(n  hlav 
 tvkv6s,  Kal  rats  ypacpixais  apitna  tt\ovt6jv  (tapTvpiats, 
 4  Swetc,  p.  lxv. 
 
"  The  Exe-gete."  215 
 
 Exegete  "  of  the  early  Church,  as  Theodoret  is  the  Annotator 
 and  Chrysostoni  the  Homilist.  His  merits  are  so  conspicuous 
 that  Theodoret  does  not  shrink  from  calling  him  "  The  Master 
 of  the  whole  Church." 
 
 For  Theodore  was  a  man  "  of  bold  independence  and 
 masculine  sagacity  ; "  a  leader  of  thought ;  a  writer  of  rare 
 acumen,  of  fearless  honesty,  of  prodigious  industry,  of  ardent 
 sincerity,  of  unquestionable  power.  He  was  a  Voice  not  an 
 Echo ;  a  Voice  amid  thousands  of  echoes  which  repeated  only 
 the  emptiest  sounds.  He  rejected  the  theories  of  Origen,  but  he 
 had  learnt  from  him  the  indispensable  importance  of  attention 
 to  linguistic  details  1  especially  in  commenting  on  the  New 
 Testament.2  He  pays  close  attention  to  particles,  moods, 
 prepositions,  and  to  terminology  in  general.  He  points  out 
 the  idiosyncrasies  (IBtw/xaTa)  of  St.  Paul's  style.  He  is 
 almost  the  earliest  writer  who  gives  much  attention  to 
 Hermeneutic  matter,  as  for  instance  in  his  Introductions  to 
 the  Ejjistles  to  Ephesus  and  Colossae.3  He  enters  into  such 
 collateral  questions  as  Church  organisation,  early  ecclesi- 
 astical history,  the  condition  of  slaves  and  women  in  the 
 heathen  world,  and  adds  to  the  interest  of  his  treatment 
 by  references  to  contemporary  matters  such  as  sacerdotal 
 arrogance,  false  liberalism,  and  the  spirit  of  persecution. 
 His  highest  merit  is  his  constant  endeavour  to  study  each 
 passage  as  a  whole  and  not  as  "  an  isolated  congeries  of  separate 
 texts."  He  first  considers  the  sequence  of  thought,  then 
 examines  the  phraseology  and  the  separate  clauses,  and 
 finally  furnishes  us  with  an  exegesis  which  is  often  brilliantly 
 characteristic  and  profoundly  suggestive. 
 
 But  his  crowning  merit  was  the  original  yet  unhappily 
 fruitless  stand  which  he  made  against  the  subtle  fascination 
 
 1  Linguistic,  but  unfortunately  not  historical  or  geographical.  Questions 
 aboul  Tarshiah,   B  thins  (I. XX.  for  Tp  Am.  ix.  7<,  &o.,  he  dings  uside  as 
 
 TrefitTT^i  i.Kpi&oKoyla. 
 
 -  Ambrose  Bays  thai  Origen  was  "  longe  minor  in  Novo  Testamento,"  but  in 
 spite  of  prolixity  he  is  in  facl  better  as  a  New  Testament  than  as  an  l  Hd  Tes- 
 tament excrete,  and  his  notes  mi  tin-  use  of  words  i.lolm  i.  3  ;  iv.  i'5,  41,  &c.) 
 often  excellent.     See  I>r.  Sanday  in  Expositor,  xi.  371. 
 3  Questions  as  to 
 
 "Quis,  quid,  nl >i,  quibua  auspiciis,  cur,  qnomodo,  quando." 
 
216  School  of  Ant  loch. 
 
 of  Origenising  allegory.1  Part  of  the  bitterness  with  which 
 his  memory  was  persecuted  was  due  to  the  anger  of  the 
 Origenists  against  him  for  the  treatise  which  he  had  written 
 to  refute  their  principles.2  The  Syrian  school  held  that  the 
 Scriptures  are  the  basis  of  knowledge,  and  not  either  the 
 esoteric  Gnosis  to  which  the  Alexandrians  had  attached  so 
 much  importance,  nor  the  ecclesiastical  tradition  to  which 
 Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  and  Cyprian  had  appealed.  They  were 
 the  Reformers,  the  Protestants,  the  Puritans,  of  the  Ancient 
 Church.  Origen  had  held  that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
 were  equally  important ;  the  Antiochenes  had  realised  the 
 vast  difference  which  separates  them.  They  recognised  that 
 the  "grace  of  superintendency "  (evSo/cia),  which  they  at- 
 tributed to  the  Old  Testament  writers,  admitted  of  degrees. 
 They  denied,  and  rightly  denied,  that  the  Jews  had  anything 
 approaching  to  a  real  knowledge  of  such  truths  as  the  Trinity 
 and  the  Incarnation.  Theodore  understood  the  Psalms  in  their 
 historic  sense,  and,  while  he  by  no  means  denied  their  typical 
 applicability,  he  was  attacked  by  Leontius  of  Byzantium, 
 and  called  a  Judaiser,  just  as  Calvin  was  in  later  times, 
 because  he  referred  them  primarily  to  Hezekiah  and  Zerub- 
 babel,  and  only  allowed  that  three  Psalms  were  directly 
 Messianic.3  He  pointed  out  that  the  Song  of  Solomon  does 
 not  once  mention  the  name  of  God,  and,  like  many  eminent 
 moderns,  he  rejected  its  mystic  application.  In  the  ninth 
 chapter  of  Zechariah  (8-10)  he  thought  it  an  instance  of 
 frigid   and   foolish    interpretation    (dvoia<i   t?}9  eV^a-r^?)    to 
 
 1  See  the  excellent  remarks  of  Sieffert,  Throd.  Mops.  V.  T.  sobric  interpre- 
 tandi  vindex,  1827,  andMunter,  Dc  Schola  Antiochena,  1811.  The  monograph 
 of  Fritzsche,  Dc  Thcod.  Mops.  Vita  et  Seriptis  (1836),  is  printed  in  Migne's 
 Patrologia,  vol.  lxvi. 
 
 2  Facundus  of  Hermiane  (Dcf.  Triun.  Capit.  iii.  6)  cites  a  treatise  of  his, 
 De  Allegoria  et  Historia,  in  five  books,  and  mentions  the  odium  which  it 
 excited.     Ebedjesu  (Assemanni,  iii.  34)  also  alludes  to  this. 
 
 3  Leont.  Byzant.  adv.  Eutych.  iii.  c.  11.  "  Omnes  psalmos  judaice  ad  Zoro- 
 babalem  et  Kzechiam  retulit,  tribus  tan  turn  [viii.  xlv.  ex.]  ad  I  >oininum  rejectis." 
 Facundus  defends  him  very  properly  by  saying  that  he  did  not  dispute  the 
 applicability  of  all  Messianic  prophecy,  and  that  there  was  no  crime  in  the 
 moral  interpretation  of  the  Psalms.  And  Theodore  at  least  assigned  reasons 
 for  his  views.  He  could  not  allow  Ps.  xxii.  to  be  exclusively  Messianic, 
 because  in  verse  1  the  Septuagint  has  "my  transgressions."  He  is  said  to 
 have  written  this  commentary  on  the  Psalms  at  the  age  of  eighteen. 
 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  217 
 
 apply  one  clause  historically  and  another  allegorically,  to 
 refer  one  to  Zerubbabel,  the  next  to  Christ,  and  then  to  go 
 back  again  to  Zerubbabel.  He  rightly  refuses  to  read  the 
 latest  revelations  into  the  earliest  utterances, — to  see  the 
 doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  first  verse  of  Genesis,  and  the 
 three  spies  of  Exodus ;  of  Redemption  in  Rahab's  red  cord  ; 
 of  the  Resurrection  in  the  law  of  levirate  marriage  ;  or  of 
 the  evangelisation  of  the  heathen  in  the  Ethiopian  wife  of 
 Moses.  He  stood  his  ground  on  the  doctrine  of  Unity  of 
 Sense,  and  he  deduced  the  sense  on  secure  principles  from 
 the  context,  from  the  general  laws  of  language,  and  from 
 the  usages  of  the  particular  writer. 
 
 Another  of  his  conspicuous  merits  is  this,  that  he  had 
 grasped  the  difference  which  separates  the  Jewish  from  the 
 Alexandrian  theory  of  inspiration,  a  difference  which  fun- 
 damentally affected  the  methods  of  the  two  schools.  To 
 some  of  the  ablest  thinkers  among  the  Jews  inspiration 
 was  ethical  in  its  character;  it  consisted  in  the  dilatation 
 and  ennoblement  of  the  individual  consciousness.  To  the 
 Alexandrians,  misled  by  Plato,  inspiration  was  pathological ; 
 it  consisted  in  a  trance,  and  depression  of  the  individual 
 consciousness.  The  difference  is  that  which  also  separates 
 the  ecstasy  of  Montanists  from  the  inspired  Christian 
 preaching,  to  which  the  Apostles  give  the  name  of  "  pro- 
 phecy." The  different  theories  led  to  different  methods 
 of  interpretation.  The  Alexandrian  theory  furnished  the 
 pretext  for  allegory — that  is,  for  making  the  writers  say 
 something  other  than  what  they  did  say.  The  better  Jewish 
 theory,  purified  in  Christianity,  takes  the  teachings  of  the 
 Old  Dispensation  literally,  but  sees  in  them,  as  did  St.  Paul, 
 the  shadow  and  germ  of  future  developments.  Allegory, 
 tin  >ugh  once  used  by  St.  Paul  by  way  of  passing  illustral  ion,  is 
 unknown  to  the  other  Apostles,  and  is  never  sanctioned  by 
 ( Ihrist.1  But  <  Ihrisl  Himself,  as  in  the  case  of  Jonah,  and  of 
 the    Brazen    Serpent,    sanctioned   the    use    of    types.      The 
 
 1  It  is  surely  needless  to  point  out  the  absolute  difference  b  tween  parabolic 
 teaching  and  allegorical  inih  rpretation. 
 
218  Prophecy. 
 
 allegoric  method  triumphed  from  the  days  of  Origen  onwards. 
 The  true  grasp  of  typology  ceased  from  the  fifth  to  the 
 seventeenth  century — from  the  days  of  Theodore  to  those 
 of  Cocceius. 
 
 It  must  not  be  supposed  that  Theodore  rejected  the  whole 
 argument  from  Prophecy.  He  neither  accused  the  Apostles 
 of  error  in  their  Old  Testament  references ;  nor  did  he  deny 
 the  progressive  and  providential  governance  of  God  in  the 
 History  of  the  World.  He  held  that  the  essence  of  Old 
 Testament  prophecy  lay  rather  in  an  inspired  hope  than  in 
 conscious  vaticination  ;  that  Israel  was  under  the  special  care 
 (tcqSefiovta)  of  God,  and  that  God  prophesies  by  deeds  rather 
 than  by  words.  Hence  he  believed  that  the  relation  of  the 
 Old  to  the  New  Testament  lay  mainly  in  the  homology  of 
 facts  due  to  a  sort  of  pre-established  harmony ;  that  by  God's 
 divine  administration  (ol/covofxia)  the  facts  were  themselves 
 a  dim  revelation  of  the  future,  and  that  the  Prophets  were 
 led  by  divine  inspiration  to  exj^ress  what  they  saw  in  larger 
 terms  {virepfioXiKOdrepov)  than  would  have  been  warranted 
 by  contemporary  circumstances.1  It  is  on  this  principle  that 
 he  explains  the  applications  of  the  New  Testament  writers. 
 He  sees  as  clearly  as  we  do  that  they  are  not  proofs  in  the 
 modern  sense  of  the  word,  but  rather  illustrative  applications 
 which  would  have  been  specially  valuable  to  those  who  had 
 been  trained  in  the  methods  on  which  they  depended.2  There 
 can  be  no  better  indication  of  the  fine  original  genius  of 
 Theodore  than  the  fact  that  in  these  conclusions,  without  any 
 aid  from  the  immense  apparatus  of  subsequently-accumulated 
 
 1  See  Theod.  Mops.  Praef.  in  Jon.  ;  Merx,  Joel,  p.  127,  fg.  Delitzsch  on 
 Ps.  xxii.  He  held  that  the  Prophets  did  not  see  distinctly,  but  had  cpavracriav 
 Tiva  rlhv  ixe\\6vTwv. 
 
 2  The  phrases  he  uses  closelj'  resemble  those  of  Calvin.  If  Calvin  says  that 
 the  sacred  writers  "  apply  "  this  or  that  passage  to  Christ,  "pid  deflect  tone," 
 so  Theodore  says  of  Heb.  x.  5,  that  the  passage  quoted  was  originally  appli- 
 cable to  the  Jewish  exiles,  but  that  the  writer  altered  the  reading  from  unia  to 
 (rujxa  (fMeraWd^as  ovv  ahr^v  u>s  4k  irpoauivov  rov  Xpiarov  rai/Tv  (pr/ffiv  avrl  rov 
 uiTi'a,  awfia).  He  uses  the  words  <rvyxp])<rOa',  KaTaxp\i<r9at,  of  the  use  made 
 of  Amos  ix.  11,  Is.  xlv.  23,  in  Rom.  xiv.  11  ;  and  defends  such  quotations  on 
 the  ground  that  what  was  said  of  the  Divine  nature  generally  might  be 
 applied  to  the  Son  or  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 
Thcodoret.  219 
 
 thought,  he  anticipated  by  fourteen  hundred  years  many  of 
 the  accepted  conclusions  of  modern  days. 
 
 3.  It  is  a  matter  of  profound  regret  that,  in  the  "Western 
 Church  especially,  the  influence  of  Theodore  was  totally  de- 
 stroyed by  the  charge  of  Nestorianism.1  In  the  Syrian  Church, 
 indeed,  he  produced  a  profound  impression.  His  views 
 were,  to  a  certain  extent,  perpetuated  by  Theodoret,  who 
 depended  almost  entirely  on  Theodore  and  Chrysostom, 
 whom  he  calls  luminaries  of  the  world.  But  Theodoret 
 (f  457),  though  safer  and  more  terse,  drew  back  from  the 
 advanced  position  of  Theodore,  and  was  wholly  inferior  to 
 him  in  genius,  courage,  and  literary  power.2  Theodore  paid  a 
 terrible  penalty  for  having  been  born  in  an  age  too  soon.  His 
 aberrations  from  traditional  dogma  brought  him  into  suspicion, 
 and  "a  century  later  a  pigmy  generation  anathematised 
 exegetes,  who  were  already  half  forgotten." 3  But  his  merits 
 have  been  recognised  in  later  days,  and  the  stream  of  truth, 
 having  flowed  for  centuries  in  its  subterranean  course,  once 
 more  emerged  at  the  Reformation  into  regions  of  light 
 and  day. 
 
 4.  The  great  Cappadocian  triumvirate,  Basil  the  Great, 
 Gregory  of  Nyssa,  "the  Theologian,"  and    Gregory   of 
 
 1  Among  Theodore's  predecessors  might  have  been  mentioned  Aphraafc 
 Ensebina  of  Emesa,  and  possibly  Adrianus  :  among  his  successors  his  younger 
 brother  Polychronius  Bishop  of  Apamea  (t  430)  and  Severianus  Bishop    of 
 (l.i li.i la  [see  Schrock,  x.  458,  Cave,  i.  375). 
 
 2  On  Theodoret  see  Schrock,  xviii.  398  sq.  ;  Rosenmiiller,  iv.  93  ;  Merx, 
 Jo  I,  p.  147,  fg.  Lightfoot,  Oalatians,  p.  226.  There  is  a  monograph  l>v 
 Richter,  De  Theodoreto  Ep.  Paulin.  interprete,  1822;  and  another  by  Specht, 
 J)rr  r:m/,iisrhr  Stundpunld  Throdor's  und  ThcodorcVs. 
 
 On  Tl Inie's  writings,  of  which  we  now  possess  some  complete  works  in 
 
 the  original,  see  Fritzsche,  De  Theod.  Mops.    Vitaet  seriptis,   Halm-,   1836. 
 li,  iipusr.  T/f-ol.  r.o-2  :  Sietfert,  Thcod.  Mops.  V.  Te8t.sobrie  interpretandx 
 .  1827;  Diestel,  pp.  129-133  ;  Men,  Joel,  pp.  110-141  ;  and  the  excellenl 
 Lntrodnction  of  the  Rev.  11.  B.  Swete  to  the  edition  of  his  Commentar 
 
 ,  ties  of  St.  Paul.  The  savage  attack  on  him  by  Leontins  may  be  read  in 
 Gallandi,  Bibl.  Patr.  \ii.  Q&6  (Libidinose pro  sua  et  mente  et  lingua  meretrieia 
 I  retains,  sua  Bupra  modum  incxedibili  audacia  ex  libris  sacris  abscidit," 
 fcc.).  The  Btyle  of  the  theological  criticism  of  partisans  was  as  violent  and 
 vnl •■  ii-  then  as  it  has  always  been.  It  is  to  be  feared,  however,  thai  Theodore 
 in  pari  provoked  it  by  his  own  stinging  expressions.  For  notices  of  the  writers 
 of  the  Antiochene  School  in  general,  Bee  Rosenmiiller,  iii.  250.  '['In- merits 
 of  Theodore  have  been  fnlly  admitted  by  Merx  (Joel,  pp.  110  141),  Bishop 
 Lightfool  [Oalaiiana,  p.  220),  and  Dr.  Sanday  (Expositor,  vol.  xi.). 
 
 3  Reuss,  'Irsch.  §  521. 
 
220  The  Cappadocians. 
 
 Nazianzus,  followed  in  exegesis  a  via  media.  Their  profound 
 admiration  of  Origen  is  proved  by  the  publication  of  the 
 FhiloJcalia,  but  they  avoided  as  a  rule  the  extravagances  of 
 allegory.1  They  sought  a  middle  term  between  a  slavish 
 literalism  and  an  unlimited  play  of  fancy;  but  the  three 
 friends  are  more  famous  as  orators  and  as  theologians  than 
 for  anything  distinctive  in  their  exegetical  labours.  In  the 
 last  epoch  of  patristic  exegesis  three  names  tower  above  all 
 others,  the  names  of  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  and  Augustine  ; 
 — Chrysostom  the  Homiiist,  Jerome  the  Commentator,  and 
 Augustine  the  Theologian. 
 
 5.  In  Chrysostom  we  see  the  "  bright  consummate  flower  " 
 of  the  school  of  Antioch,  to  which  he  belongs  as  a  faithful 
 and  admiring  pupil  of  Diodorus  of  Tarsus.2  If  he  showed 
 less  originality  and  intellectual  many-sidedness  than  his 
 younger  fellow-pupil  Theodore,  he  has  more  definiteness,  a 
 clearer  insight,  a  more  rigorous  logic,  a  more  practical  wisdom. 
 He  was  not  so  learned  as  Jerome,  nor  had  he  Origen's  deep 
 sympathy  with  the  more  mysterious  aspects  of  the  Gospel,3 
 nor  was  he  so  profound  a  theologian  as  Augustine,  nor  was 
 he  in  any  sense  a  textual  critic  like  Julius  Africanus  ; 4  but  as 
 a  Bishop  inspired  with  genuine  love  for  the  souls  of  his  flock ; 
 as  a  preacher  of  surpassing  eloquence,  whose  popular  exposi- 
 tion is  based  on  fine  scholarship  and  controlled  by  masterly 
 good  sense ;  as  one  who  had  a  thorough  familiarity  with  the 
 whole  of  Scripture,  and  who  felt  its  warm  tingling  human 
 life  throbbing  in  all  his  veins ;  as  one  who  took  the  Bible  as 
 
 1  Basil  stoutly  says,  "  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  of,  so  I  receive."  He  adds  that  "many  interpreters  pervert  all  this 
 according  to  meanings  of  their  own,  much  like  those  tvho  profess  to  inteiyrct 
 dreams;"  and  that  "some  have  tried  by  I  know  not  what  allurements  and 
 figures  of  speech  to  get  tlve  Scriptures  credit  for  a  hind  of  dign  ity  wh  ich  is  in 
 fact  of  their  oirn  devising,"  and  "  under  the  show  of  interpretation  to  introduce 
 matters  of  their  own." — Hexaem.  ix.  1. 
 
 2  See  Forstor,  Chrysostomus  in  seinen  Verhaltniss  zicr  Antiochenischcr 
 Schulc,  1869. 
 
 3  Contrast  for  instance  the  treatment  of  St.  John's  Gospel  in  Chrysostom's 
 homilies  and  Origen's  comments  ;  see  Westcott,  St.  John,  p.  xcv. 
 
 4  See  Dr.  Sanday,  Expositor,  vol.  xii.  ;  Lightfoot,  Galatians,  p.  218. 
 Canon  Westcott  says  (St.  John  in  Speaker's  Comment,  p.  xcv.)  "The  reader 
 will  probably  miss  the  signs  of  a  spontaneous  sympathy  with  the  more 
 mysterious  aspects  of  the  Gospel." 
 
Chrysostom.  221 
 
 he  found  it,  and  used  it  in  its  literal  sense  as  a  guide  of 
 conduct  rather  than  as  an  armoury  of  controversial  weapons 
 or  a  field  for  metaphysical  speculations — Chrysostom  stands 
 unsurpassed  among  the  ancient  exegetes.  St.  Paul  was  his 
 ideal,  but,  while  he  had  less  of  the  Pauline  nature  than 
 Augustine,  he  may  be  rightly  called  "  another  John  "  for  his 
 glowing  zeal  and  love,  and  he  resembled  St.  James  in  his 
 practical  tendency.  Too  actively  employed  to  become  a  close 
 student,  he  was  unacquainted  with  Hebrew,1  and  without  even 
 a  nice  critical  knowledge  of  the  Greek  which  he  wielded  with 
 so  much  force.2  Hampered  by  the  traditional  misconceptions 
 which  had  already  been  introduced  into  many  passages,  he 
 yet  keeps  himself,  to  a  great  extent,  free  from  vain  dogmatism 
 and  baseless  allegory.3  There  are  fewer  errors  and  vagaries 
 in  his  writings  than  in  those  of  any  one  of  the  Fathers.  His 
 manly  moral  nature,  trained  in  a  life  of  activity  and  strugglej 
 his  noble  and  commanding  individuality,  his  oratorical  power, 
 his  habit  of  studying  every  passage  as  a  whole,  his  general 
 principle  of  eliciting  instead  of  introducing  a  meaning,4  his 
 exquisitely  genial  sympathy,5  his  frank  recognition  of  the 
 human  element  in  Scripture,  and  of  the  effect  produced  by 
 the  personality  of  its  writers,6  justly  earn  for  him  the  place 
 which  Dante  assigns  to  him  in  the  Paradise,  between  Nathan 
 the  Seer  and  St.  Anselm,  as  one  who  "  spoke  before  kings 
 and  was  not  ashamed." " 
 
 "  Natan  profeta  l'metropolitano 
 Crisostomo  ed  Anselmo." 
 
 1  He  was  dependent  mainly  on  the  Seventy,  but  sometimes  refers  (without 
 name)  to  Theodotion,  Synimachus,  and  Aquila. 
 
 -  I  !<■  makes  however  excellent  grammatical  remarks  on  John  xii.  39  ;  2  Cor. 
 iii.  17  ;  Gal.  i.  IS,  iv.  5,  v.  15  ;  Eph.  i.  10.  See  Dr.  Sunday  in  The.  Expositor, 
 xii.  184  ff. 
 
 :;  lie  recognises  allegory  in  theory  {Horn,  in  1  Cor.  xxxix.)  hut  for  the  most 
 pni  avoids  it  in  practice  (see  Fbrster,  Chrysost.  in  scincn  Vcrhtilt tiiss,  &c. 
 p.  -i\  ;  Diestel,  p.  135.) 
 
 1  In  Isai.  v.  3  and  vi. 
 
 0  "  His  charm  lies  in  his  habit  and  his  power  of  throwing  himself  into  the 
 minds  of  others."  Newman,  Ancient  Saints,  chap.  v.  He  furnishes  beauti- 
 fnl  illustrations  from  the  notes  of  the  Catena  Aurca,  on  the  narrative  of  the 
 Transfiguration. 
 
 K  See  his  notes  on  Ps.  lxiv.  and  Rom.  in  1  Cor.  xxix. 
 
 7  Farad,  xii.  136. 
 
222  Chrysostom. 
 
 Yet  he  was  no  ecclesiastical  statesman  like  St.  Ambrose. 
 He  desired  far  more  to  see  Christianity  dominate  in  the  indi- 
 vidual heart  than  to  see  priests  lording  it  over  the  heritage  of 
 God.  No  one  of  the  Fathers  insists  so  constantly  on  the 
 importance  of  studying  Scripture  for  personal  instruction.  He 
 adopts,  but  generally  with  sobriety,  the  mystic  sense.1  He 
 held,  but  did  not  abuse,  the  doctrine  of  "  accommodation," 
 and  he  combined  his  view  of  inspiration  with  a  free  admission 
 of  obvious  limitations.2  His  discussion  of  discrepancies  en- 
 titles him  to  be  regarded  as  the  founder  of  "  Harmonistic," 
 but  his  highest  merit  is  the  skill  with  which  he  develops  the 
 literal  sense  by  a  study  of  the  context,3  and  a  regard  for  the 
 usage  of  special  words.4  He  held  that  the  larger  part  of 
 Scripture  was  perfectly  "  perspicuous,"  and  that  the  only 
 aids  required  for  its  comprehension  were  a  willing  heart,  the 
 guidance  of  the  wise,  and  the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God. 
 The  superiority  of  the  Antiochene  over  the  Alexandrian 
 method  may  be  readily  seen  by  comparing  the  sober,  moral, 
 practical  manner  in  which  Chrysostom  treats  the  subject 
 of  the  Fall,5  and  the  way  in  which  the  same  topic  is  handled 
 by  a  genuine  Origenist  like  Gregory  of  Nyssa. 
 
 XI.  But  great  as  were  the  services  of  Chrysostom,  his  in- 
 fluence on  the  Biblical  studies  of  succeeding  ages  was  less 
 powerful  than  that  of  Jerome.  Jerome  was  the  Origen  of  the 
 Western  Church.  The  great  hermit  of  Bethlehem  had  less 
 genius  than  Augustine,  less  purity  and  loftiness  of  character 
 than  Ambrose,  less  sovereign  good  sense  and  steadfastness 
 than  Chrysostom,  less  keenness  of  insight  and  consistency 
 of  courage  than  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia;6   but  in  learning 
 
 3  He  gives  his  via  media  theory  on  Ps.  xlvi.  rd  re  diadriTa  voovvtss  ko.1  i-a 
 vo7]to.  e/cSextfytepoi,  and  on  Ps.  cix.  to.  [xev  irpooi/xia  eis  trepov,  to.  Se  \eiir6fxeva 
 eis  &\\ov  \ey6iievd  ianv.  This  indefiniteness  is  at  any  rate  better  than  base- 
 less fancies. 
 
 2  See  Horn,  in  Matt.  26  ;  Boh  ringer,  Chrysost.  p.  153. 
 
 3  t))v  a.Ko\ov6iav  twv  elprnj-evaiv. 
 
 4  "  Er  hat's,"  said  Luther,  who  admired  him  more  than  any  of  the  Fathers, 
 "  sensus  litcralis,  der  thut's,  da  ist  Leben,  Kraft,  und  Wahreit  drinnen." 
 
 5  ITom.  in  Gen.  xvii. 
 
 6  Apol.  c.  Rufin.  iii.  6.  "Ego  philosophns,  rhetor,  grammatieus,  dialecti- 
 cs, Ilebraeus,  Graecus,  Latinus,  trilinguis." 
 
Jerome.  223 
 
 and  versatile  talent  he  was  superior  to  them  all.  Deeply  as 
 he  was  indebted  to  Origen,  he  surpassed  him  in  the  accuracy 
 of  his  conception  as  to  what  the  true  function  of  an  exegete 
 should  be.  He  was  not  a  deep  theologian ;  he  was  not  a 
 great  moralist ;  he  was  an  excessively  faulty  saint ;  but  his 
 wide  learning,  his  intense  and  eloquent  style,  his  literary 
 skill,  his  philological  attainments,  the  use  which  he  made  of 
 Jewish  authorities,  the  combination  of  a  fiery  and  passionate 
 nature  with  immense  and  many-sided  ability,  the  indomit- 
 able industry  with  which  he  continued  to  produce  volume 
 after  volume  during  years  full  of  sickness,  controversy,  endless 
 correspondence,  ascetic  exercises,  and  barbarian  invasion,1 
 enabled  him  to  render  services  to  the  study  of  Scripture  such 
 as  are  approached  by  Origen  alone.  As  regards  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment especially  no  comments  were  so  useful  to  generations 
 of  subsequent  commentators  as  those  which  they  borrowed 
 wholesale  from  the  voluminous  writings  of  Jerome.  Those 
 writings  have  the  additional  advantage  of  being  so  illuminated 
 by  flashes  of  epigram  and  passion  that  not  one  page  of  them 
 is  dull.2 
 
 i.  Foremost  among  his  services  must  be  placed  the  Vulgate 
 translation.3  No  doubt  it  is  an  easy  task  to  point  out  the 
 defects  and  errors  of  that  version,  and  critics  like  Simon  and 
 Clericus  have  ventured  to  speak  with  contempt  about  Jerome's 
 knowledge  of  Hebrew.4  It  would  of  course  be  unjust  to 
 compare  it  with  that  critical  knowledge  which  can  be  obtained 
 by  modern  scholars  with  the  help  of  grammars  and  lexicons. 
 
 1  He  wrote  daily  letters  to  Paula  and  Eustocliium,  Catal.  135.  "  Cui  jugia 
 adversus  malos  pugna,  perpetuum<iue  certamen,"  says  Sulp.  Severus,  who 
 Btayed  six  months  with  him  at  Bethlehem  {Dial.  i.  4).  He  adds  "Totus 
 semper  in  leetione,  totus  in  libria  est;  non  die,  non  nocte  requieseit;  aut 
 legit  aliquid  Bemper,  aut  Bcribit." 
 
 -  In  Jerome  and  in  Tertullian  may  be  found  a  fire  which  is  wanting  even  in 
 Oil   ITO.      See  Erasmus,  /:)>/>.  v.  lit  ;   Oxanaiii  (Hist,  de  hi  CvoMsat.  >'///, 7.  ii.  100) 
 
 calls  him  "  Le  mattre  de  la  prose  chr£tienne  pour  tous  lessieclessuivans."  See 
 Znrkl  r,  ffieron.  pp.  323-840. 
 
 ■;  On  the  Vulgate  translation  and  its  high  importance  see  Hody,  De  Text. 
 Bibl.  ;  Routh  (quoted  in  Expositor,  xii.  217).  The  articles  on  the  Vi  [gate  by 
 Westcott  in  Smith's  Dictionary,  and  Fritzsehe  in  Herzog,  xvii.  422,  are  of 
 greal  value. 
 
 '  It  was  impossible  for  him  with  the  scanty  appliances  within  his  reach  to 
 attain  to  a  thoroughly  critical  knowledge  of  Hebrew, 
 
224  The  Vulgate. 
 
 Jerome,  though  he  could  speak  and  understand  Hebrew 
 was  not  a  Hebrew  scholar  in  the  same  sense  as  Gesenius,  or 
 Ewald,  or  Delitzsch.1  But  we  must  remember  that  he 
 could  only  learn  it  viva  voce,  without  any  other  assistance 
 than  that  of  a  Hebrew  Bible  without  vowel  points  or  dia- 
 critical marks,  and  under  the  tuition  of  Jews,  whose  visits  to 
 him  were  an  object  of  such  deep  suspicion  alike  to  Christians 
 and  to  their  own  countrymen  that  they  often  had  to  be  made 
 in  secret.2  Judged  by  the  standard  of  his  own  age,  Jerome's 
 knowledge  of  Hebrew  was  probably  more  thorough  than  that 
 of  all  the  other  Fathers.  It  is  to  the  credit  both  of  his 
 diligence  and  his  courage  that  he  should  have  devoted  twenty- 
 three  years  (A.D.  382  to  405)  to  a  task  so  formidable,  and  one 
 which  exposed  him  to  such  rude  animadversions  as  his  Latin 
 translation  of  the  Bible.3  It  is  still  more  to  his  credit 
 that  he  should  have  seen  the  impossibility  of  resting  content 
 with  the  endlessly  variant  and  corrupted  copies  of  the  many 
 old  and  incorrect  Latin  versions,4  and  should  have  dared  to 
 
 1  See  "Hebrew  Learning"  in  Smith  and  "Wace,  Did.  of  Christian  Bio- 
 graphy. 
 
 2  One  of  his  teachers  was  Hillel,  brother  of  R.  Judah  II.,  and  grandson  of 
 R.  Judah  the  Holy.  His  chief  teacher  was  the  learned  Bar-Anina.  Ep. 
 lxxxiv.  §  4.  "  Quo  labore,  quo  pretio  Baraninam  nodurnum  habui  eloctorem  ; 
 timebat  enira  Judaeos  et  mihi  alteram  exhibebat  Nicodemum."  Rufinus, 
 Apol.  ii.  12.  "  Barabbam,  ejus  de  Synagoga  magistrurn."  He  also  alludes 
 to  a  Rabbi  at  Lydda,  whose  teaching  was  very  expensive,  and  another  from 
 Tiberias.  Praef.  in  Osce;  Pracf.in  C'hron.;  in  Esaiam,  xiii.  10  :  xxii.  1,  &o. 
 It  is  from  the  Haggada  that  he  gets  the  rendering,  "in  igne  Chaldaeorum," 
 for   "in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,"  Gen.  xi.  28. 
 
 3  His  "phis  labor  seal  periculom  praesumjrtio"  was  undertaken  at  the 
 request  of  Damasus  (t  384).     See  Clericus,  Quaest.  Hicron.  (1700). 
 
 *  Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  N.  T.  §§  449,  453.  Engelstoft,  Eicronymus  (1797) ; 
 Schiock,  K.  G.  xi.  61  sqq.  He  complains  bitterly  of  the  abuse  to  which  he  was 
 subjected.  Praef.  in  Evang.  ad  Damasum.  He  defended  his  abandonment 
 of  the  Seventy  on  the  grounds  that  (1)  the  Church  had  done  so  in  preferring 
 Theodotion's  version  of  Daniel ;  (2)  the  Apostles  often  referred  to,the  Hebrew  ; 
 (3)  the  Seventy  had  altered  Messianic  passages.  Praef.  in  Gen.  "  Nescio 
 quis  primus  auctor  70  cellulas  Alexandriae  mendacio  suoextruxeiit."  Comm. 
 in  Mich.  ii.  9.  "Interpretatio  LXX.  (si  tamen  LXX.  est,  Josephus  enim 
 scribit  quinque  tantum  libros  ah  eis  translates)."  Praef.  in  Paralip.  "70 
 cellulas  quae  vulso  sine  auctore  jactantur."  See  too  Praef.  in  Dan.  lib.  ii.  ; 
 in  Eufin.  33  ;  Zbckler,  355.  He  had  to  suffer  from  incessant  attacks  of 
 Obscurantists,  and  was  annoyed  by  the  timid  warnings  of  Augustine,  and  the 
 curious  story  about  the  African  bishop  who  read  "hedera"  for  "  cucurbita,"  in 
 Jonah.  Augustine  seems  to  have  thought  that  venerable  error  was  better  than 
 new  truth  in  matters  of  translation,  and  the  strange  reception  given  to  the 
 Revised  Version  shows  that  many  still  share  his  views.     See   Aug.  Ep.  82. 
 
Services  of  Jerome.  225 
 
 translate  directly  from  the  Hebrew  and  not  from  the  half- 
 deified  Septuagint.1  He  mercilessly  exposed  the  fables 
 which  invented  for  the  work  of  the  Seventy  an  inspired 
 authority.  He  sets  aside  the  pseudo-Aristeas,  and  thinks  that 
 only  the  Pentateuch  was  translated  under  Ptolemy  I.  He  was 
 in  advance  of  his  age,  alike  in  knowledge  and  foresight,  and 
 centuries  after  his  death  inspiration  was  claimed  for  his  own 
 work  which  had  been  originally  received,  like  all  new  versions, 
 with  suspicion  and  abuse.2 
 
 ii.  Another  of  his  services  was  the  extent  to  which  he  helped 
 to  clear  the  views  of  the  Church  respecting  the  Canon.  In 
 spite  of  the  wavering  phrases  which  characterise  every 
 branch  of  his  labours,  he  drew  a  marked  line  between  the 
 apocryphal  and  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,3  while 
 hr  absolutely,  and  even  contemptuously,  rejected  the  extra- 
 canonical  Christian  writings  which  had  sometimes  boon 
 placed  on  a  level  with  the  genuine  works  of  Apostles  and 
 Evangelists. 
 
 iii.  It  must  further  be  put  down  to  his  credit  that  he  almost 
 equalled  the  School  of  Antioch  in  the  care  with  which  ho 
 endeavoured  to  develop  the  literal  and  historic  sense.  It  is 
 owing  to  his  diligence  in  carrying  out  this  endeavour,  and 
 the  information  on  many  topics  which  he  was  able  to  obtain, 
 that  his  commentaries  are  to  this  day  more  necessary  to  the 
 Expositor  than  those  of  any  other  of  the  Fathers.  He  was 
 also  one  of  the  earliest  to  collect  hermeneutic  materials  as  a 
 guide  to  the  significance  of  each  separate  book. 
 
 But  against  these  high  merits  must  be  set  the  four  serums 
 drawbacks  of  overhaste,  second-handness,  vehement  prejudi<  e, 
 and  incessant  vacillation. 
 
 a.  Of  his  own  haste  he  has  given  us  repeated  proofs,  which 
 take  the  form  of  excuses.1     In  his  various  prefaces  he  tells  us 
 
 S  35;  Clausen,  Augustinus,  84.  Augustine  says,  "  Latinonun  interpretum 
 infinite  rarietas."     De  Doctor.  Christ,  ii.  2. 
 
 I  In  point  of  fact,  however,  he  made  large  use  of  the  Septuagint,  as  well 
 as  of  the  version  of  Symmachus  and  others.     -  Horinus,  Exerc.  Bibl.yi.  12. 
 
 II  See  his  remarks  on  I  Ksdras  in  la's  letter  to  Yi^ihmtius. 
 
 4  These  excuses  occur  very  frequently  in  Ins  letters,  lie  would  have  done 
 better  to  follow  the  rule  of  Marcus  Auielius,  who  tells  us  that  he  had  learnt 
 
 Q 
 
22G  His  Defects. 
 
 that  he  wrote,  or  rather  dictated,  his  commentary 1  on   the 
 
 Galatians  at  the  rate  of  1000  lines  a  day,  so  fast  that  he 
 could  not  keep  in  his  memory  either  the  order  of  the  words 
 or  of  the  meaning.  He  says  that  his  comment  on  St. 
 Matthew  was  written  during  the  fortnight  of  recovery  from  a 
 severe  illness,  and  that  in  reading  it  he  hardly  seemed  to  be 
 reading  his  own  work.2  He  tells  his  correspondents  that  he 
 took  three  days  to  translate  the  three  reputed  books  of 
 Solomon,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  the  Song  of  Songs,3 
 though  he  was  at  the  time  aegrotatione  fractics.  Similar 
 excuses  occur  in  other  prefaces.  In  his  comment  on  Isaiah 
 he  speaks  of  the  swiftness  of  his  dictation,  and  in  that  on 
 Obadiah  he  says  that  he  dictated  whatever  came  first  to  his 
 lips.  In  one  passage  he  gives  an  amusing  description  of  the 
 way  in  which,  if  he  did  but  stop  to  think,  his  secretary 
 rebuked  him  by  his  supercilious  silence,  relaxed  the  grasp  of 
 his  fingers  on  the  pen,  wrinkled  his  forehead,  and  by  every 
 gesture  of  his  body  proclaimed  that  he  had  come  for  no 
 purpose.  This  careless  haste,  to  use  his  own  recurrent 
 phrase  didare  quodcunque  in  buccam  venerit*  is  the  more  re- 
 markable because  in  other  respects  he  took  the  utmost  pains. 
 He  visited  Constantinople  to  hear  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  and 
 Alexandria  to  profit  by  the  insight  of  Didymus  the  Blind. 
 Nor  did  he  ever  spare  himself  expense.  He  disbursed  large 
 sums  to  secure  Hebrew  teaching,  and  he  emptied  his  purse 
 to  buy  the  works  of  Origen.5 
 
 from  the  Platonist  Alexander  "  never  to  say  in  a  letter  that  I  have  no  leisure," 
 i.  12.  In  his  letter  to  Paulinus  he  makes  a  series  of  futile  excuses  which 
 practically  mean  that  he  did  not  mean  to  hold  himself  responsible  for  what 
 he  said  in  his  hasty  letters — "Non  mihi  debcs  imputare  sed  tibi,  et  imperitac 
 notariorum  librariorumque  incuriae." 
 
 1  He  calls  it  "commaticum  interpretandi  genus."  The  244  verses  of  Tobit, 
 the  339  of  Judith,  occupied  him  but  asingle  day.  "  Hieronymus  laborantissi- 
 nius  et  desudatissimus."     Notker,  Virr.  ill. 
 
 -  Ep.  73,  ad  Evangclum,  c.  10  ;  Praef.  in  Matthceum. 
 
 3  Fraef.  in  libb.  Salom.  At  the  close  of  his  letter  to  Fabiola  (lxiv.  Dc 
 Teste  sacerdotali)  he  says  (§  23),  "Satis  intelligens  magis  me  loquendi  impetu, 
 quam  judicio  scribentis  huere,  et  more  torrentis  turbidum  ptoferre  ser- 
 luonem." 
 
 4  See  ZocHer,  377. 
 
 5  Ep.  84,  ad  Pammacli.  et  Ocean.  §  3.  "  Nostrum  marsupium  chartae 
 Alexandrinae  evacuarunt." 
 
His  Defects.  227 
 
 b.  It  was  partly  due  to  this  want  of  reflexion  and  this  hurried 
 voluminousness  of  production  that  Jerome's  method  is  too 
 much  that  of  a  compiler.  He  tells  us1  that  in  many  of  his 
 commentaries  his  way  was  to  read  the  previous  comments 
 of  Origen  (whom  he  generally  mentions  first),  Apollinaris, 
 Hippolytus,  Irenaeus,  Eusebius  of  Emesa,  Eusebius  of  Cae- 
 sarea,  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  Theodore  of  Heraclea,  Hilary, 
 Victorinus,  Fortunatianus,  Eustathius  of  Antioch,  Acacius, 
 Diodore  of  Tarsus,  and  Diclymus  (whom,  in  allusion  to  his 
 blindness,  he  calls  Vidcntcm  meum),  and  then  to  dictate  as  fast 
 as  he  could  what  might  be  accepted,  either  as  his  own  or  not 
 his  own,  as  the  reader  chose.2  He  makes  his  humility  the 
 excuse;  but  he  had  a  sufficiently  high  and  clear  conception  of 
 the  duty  of  an  interpreter  to  feel  that  he  thus  laid  himself 
 open  to  the  just  criticism  of  his  antagonist  Rufinus. 
 
 c.  Of  the  bitterness  of  his  prejudices  we  need  say  but 
 little.  It  appears  in  every  line  of  his  controversial  writings, 
 in  which,  with  the  vain  excuse  that  there  was  a  difference 
 between  saying  a  thing  doctrinally  (807/iaTt/cw?)  and  saying  it 
 controversially  (yvfivaaTifccbs),  he  too  often  "  throws  truth  and 
 decency  to  the  winds."3  He  was  avowedly  guilty  of  the  base 
 modern  view  that  controversial  works  have  no  other  object  than 
 to  win  an  immediate  victory.  To  this  end  he  often  indulges 
 in  a  stylo  of  interpretation  which  he  theoretically  repudiates.4 
 Nothing,  i'nr  instance,  can  be  more  grossly  sophistical  than  his 
 way  of  disiori.ing  Scripture  to  support  his  favourite  monachal 
 theory  of  virginity  in  his  furious  arguments  against  Jovinian. 
 
 1  Prooem.  in  Eph.  Jerome's  views  as  to  the  duty  of  an  expositor  may  be 
 Been  in  his  /:)).  .'.7,  ad  Pammachium  ("Lihellus  de  optimo  genere  interpre- 
 tandi  Bcripturas")  and  in  his  answer  to  Rufinus.  They  axe  not  so  good  as 
 those  of  Augustine,  though  he  surpassed  Augustine  as  a  commentator, 
 
 -  Ep.  78,  ad  Evangelum,  §2  ;  Ep.  119,  ad  Minerv.  et  Alex.  ;  Ep.  70,  ad 
 Magnum,  ,'-'  I.  5,  where  he  quotes  thirty-three  Greek  and  eight  Latin  Fathers. 
 Zockler,  L54,  An  immense  mass  of  ancienl  exegeticaJ  matter  has  perished. 
 See  Diestel,  110.  In  bis  Prooem.  in  Matt.  Jerome  says  that  he  had  no  time  to 
 read  the  older  writers. 
 
 :i  Donaldson,  dpostol.  Fathers,  ii.  19. 
 
 4  Thus  he  constantly  violates  the  admirable  rule  which  he  lavs  down  in  his 
 Letter  to  Paulinus  "no!  to  distort  expressions  and  wrest  reluctanl  Scripture 
 into  agreement  with  oil's  own  fancies."  Ep.  53,  §  7.  Comp.  Ep.  48,  §  15. 
 (J  refer  throughout  to  Vallarsi'a  edition.) 
 
 Q   2 
 
228  His  Violence. 
 
 When  Jovinian  appeals  to  the  primal  command  "  Increase 
 and  multiply,"  Jerome  answers  that  "  Marriages  fill  earth,  but 
 virginity  fills  Paradise  ;"  that  the  second  day  of  creation  was 
 the  only  one  of  which  it  is  not  said  that  "  God  saw   that  it 
 was  good:"  and  that  all  the  animals  which  entered  two  and 
 two  into  the  ark  were  unclean.1     When  Jovinian  urges  that 
 the  Song  of  Songs  is  full  of  the  idea  of  marriage,  Jerome 
 answers    by    an    allegorical    interpretation    in    which    the 
 mountain  of  myrrh  means  those  who  mortify  their  bodies, 
 and  the  hill  of  Libanus    means    flocks   of  virgins.     Again, 
 Avhen  he  is  arguing  against  Vigilantius,   the  Protestant  of 
 the  fifth  century,  whom  in  his  usual  style  of  abuse  he  calls 
 Dormitantius,  he  rages  against  his  objection  to  the  adoration 
 of  relios  by  quoting  the  reference  to  the  angels  in  the  tomb 
 of  Gethsemane,  and  the  verse  "  Precious  in  the  sight  of  the 
 Lord  is  the  death  of  His  saints."     If  he  has  to  get  over  the 
 fact  that  St.  Peter  was  married,  he  does  so  in  one   place  by 
 the  remark  that  Peter  had  "  washed  off  the  filth  of  marriage 
 in  the  blood  of  martyrdom  " 2  (a  remark  which,  disgracefully 
 anti-scriptural   as  it  is,  was  the    delight  of    the    mediaeval 
 monks),  3  and  sometimes  by  the  impudent  fable  that  Peter 
 left  his  wife  with  his  nets  and  his  fishing-boat.4     If  he  wishes 
 to  explain  away  the  Gospel  passages  about  "  the  brethren  of 
 the  Lord,"  he  does  so  by  inventing  a  theory  that  they  were 
 His  cousins,  which  he   himself  drops  when  it  has  served  his 
 immediate  purpose.     Jerome  knew  better  than  this ;  but  he 
 boldly  defends  his    own  perversions  by  misrepresenting  the 
 method  of  St.  Paul,  who  (he  says)  quoted  the  Old  Testament 
 in  an  astute  and  dissimulating  way.5 
 
 d.  But  Jerome's  most  serious  fault,  which  no  doubt  is  in 
 oreat  measure  the  outcome  of  these  other  faults,  is  his  total 
 lack  of  exegetic  decision.     He   shows  again  and  again,  both 
 
 1  C.  Jovia.  i.  16. 
 
 2  C.  Jovin.  i.  26. 
 
 :;  Pet.  Damian.  Do  perfect.  Monach.  (Zockler,  p.  201). 
 
 4  Ep.  118,  §  4,  ad  Julian.     Cum  rcti  cam  ct  navicula  dcrcliquit. 
 
 5  No  other  epithet  than  deplorable  can  be  applied  to  Jerome's  controversial 
 language,  and  his  whole  degrading  style  of  abuse  and  Scripture  misrepresenta- 
 tion in  his  wrangles  with  Jovinian,  Vigilantius,  Kuiinus,  and  Helvidius. 
 
His  Vacillation.  229 
 
 in  details  and  in  principles,  the  vacillations  of  a  hasty 
 and  timid  eclecticism.  In  the  Vulgate  he  is  content  to 
 leave  uncorrected  renderings  which  he  declared  to  be 
 erroneous,  such  as  "  Apprehendite  disciplinam"  for  " Adorate 
 Fit  in  m"  in  Psalm  ii.  12,1  and  in  Psalm  exxvii.  4  "filii 
 cxcussortu/i  "  for  "jilii  juventutis,"  the  meaning  accepted  by 
 Abulia,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion.2  We  can  never  be 
 certain  what  Jerome  is  likely  to  say,  because  he  constantly 
 contradicts  himself.  He  sometimes  extols  Aquila,  sometimes 
 abuses  him.  At  one  time  he  praises  Origen  with  fervour,  at 
 another  he  seems  anxious  to  repudiate  him  altogether.3  He 
 sometimes  quotes  the  Septuagint  translators  as  inspired 
 prophets,  and  sometimes  all  but  treats  them  with  contempt. 
 He  speaks  of  the  Jews  sometimes  with  reasonable  tolerance, 
 sometimes  with  blind  hatred.  In  one  Epistle  he  says  that 
 at  the  Resurrection  many  of  the  spirits  of  them  that  slept 
 "  were  seen  in  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  ;  "  4  in  another  he  sa}Ts 
 that  "  we  are  not  in  this  place  to  think  of  the  heavenly 
 Jerusalem  as  many  persons  ridiculously  suppose."5  He  was 
 himself  so  conscious  of  these  inconsistencies  that  he  quotes 
 the  verse  "When  they  persecute  you. in  one  city,  that  is  in 
 one  book  of  Scripture,  let  us  fly  to  other  cities,  i.e.  to  other 
 volumes."  ° 
 
 1  Adv.  Rufinum,  lib.  i.  10;  "Quid  igitur peccavi,  qui  in  commentariolis, 
 ulii  libertasest  disserendi,  dixerani  '  adorate  Ii  limn,'  in  ipso  corpore  ne  violi  ntus 
 viderer  interpres  et  Judaicae  calumniae  locum  darem  '  adorate  pure,  sive  *  - 1  ■  i  -u  ■, 
 quod  Aquiln  quoque  el  Symmachus  t  rau-t  uli  intit  '."    See  Znekler,  p.  W-'>.  n. 
 
 -  A.Y.   "childrenof  the   youth,"  i.e.  sons   of  early  married  fife,   LXX. 
 oi  viol  rSiv  iKTeTivayfjiivQiv.     Ep.  34,  ad  Marcellum,  §  3,  "  Ubi  nos  habenms 
 simt  filii  exeussorum,"  ko.     Aquila  "  filii  pubertatum."    Symm.  Theodot. 
 filii  juvenivtis.     On   this  subjeci  see  Et.  Simon,  Hist.  Crit.  des  Version 
 .X. '/'.  cap.  vii.  ;  KriMiii  Sehol.  in  lib.  //,»•/•.  adv.  ffelvid.,  and  Zockler,  p.  123. 
 
 :;  Rufinus  aaya  thai  Jerome  had  translated  more   than  seventy  homileti 
 
 1 ks  of  Origen.    Sec  his  Epp.  62,  ad  Tranquill.,  and  33,  ad  Paulam-.   J< 
 
 says  "  In  Origene  miramur  i-cientiam  Scripturarum,  et  tamen  dogmatum  non 
 recipimua  falsitatem,"  e.  Ruf.  iii.  27. 
 
 4  Ep.  ml  ll'liniior.  fio,  j<  :;,  "  Kt  visa  sunt  in  coele8ti  Jerusalem  "     Origen, 
 us,  and  Hilary  were  of  this  opinion. 
 
 8  Ep  46,  §  7.     "Nee  Btatim   Hierosolyma  coelestis,  sicut pleriqtic  ri 
 arbitrantur,  in  hoc  loco  intelligitur." 
 
 "  Comm.  in  Matt,  \.  23;  for  some  of  Ids  mistakes  and  self-contradi 
 Daille,  bk.  ii    c.    I,  and  Gilly'a  Figilantius,  pp.  25D  270.     To  take  an 
 instance  with  which  we  are  familiar  in  modern  days  : — when  a  Bishop  d;^- 
 with  yon  "Nihil  interest  inter  Presbyternm  et  Episcopum  ;  "  but  whta 
 he  agrees  with  you  "  Apostolorum  locum  Epiecopi  teaent" 
 
230  His  Views. 
 
 iv.  Unfortunately,  this  wavering  spirit  of  the  hasty  and 
 prejudiced  compiler  vitiates  much  of  his  work.  He  abounds 
 in  isolated  remarks  of  the  utmost  courage  and  value.1  Had 
 he  kept  his  own  principles  steadily  in  view  he  might  have 
 saved  the  study  of  Scripture  from  a  thousand  years  of 
 retardation  ;  but  unhappily  his  principles  had  no  stability, 
 and  were  constantly  set  at  nought  by  a  more  contagious 
 practice. 
 
 v.  It  is,  for  instance,  impossible  to  say  what  he  really 
 thought,  if  he  thought  anything  distinctly,  about  the  inspira- 
 tion of  the  sacred  writers.  At  one  time  he  criticises  them 
 with  all  the  freedom  of  an  Ewald,  and  even  of  a  Semler : 2  at 
 another  he  speaks  as  if  every  word  they  had  ever  uttered 
 were  so  mysterious  and  supernatural  that  even  their  con- 
 tradictory statements  were  equally  true.3  He  throws  up  the 
 chronology  of  the  Bible  as  hopeless,  and  offers  no  explanation, 
 except  the  possibility  of  a  corrupted  text,  for  the  difficulties 
 and  contradictions  which  he  saw  in  it.4  He  freely  points  out 
 errors  in  quotation  and  reference.5  He  criticises  the  style  of 
 St.  Paul  with  perfect  freedom,  and  ventures  to  talk  about  his 
 barbarisms,  cilicisms,  and  solecisms,  trivialities,  inefficient 
 proofs,  and  want  of  taste.6     He  points  out  that  in  Greek  and 
 
 1  See,  for  instance,  his  remark  on  the  original  identity  of  Presbyters  and 
 Bishops  (in  Matt.  xvi.  19),  and  on  the  Power  of  the  Keys,  by  misunderstand- 
 ing which  he  says  that  Bishops  assume  the  pride  of  Pharisees,  and  think  that 
 they  can  condemn  the  innocent  and  ahsolve  the  guilty  "  quum  apud  Deum 
 non  scntcntia  sacerdotum  sed  rcorum  vita  quaeratur." 
 
 2  Comm.  in  Ezcch.  xi.  ;  in  Jcr.  xxi.  2  ;  Ep.  21,  §  13.  "  Haec  si  secundum 
 literam  intelligimns,  nonne  ridicula  sunt  ?  " 
 
 3  This  discrepancy  between  nominal  theories  and  actual  practice  is  seen  in 
 many  of  the  greatest  fathers.  From  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Tertullian, 
 Origen,  Jerome,  Chrysostom  and  Augustine,  not  to  mention  other  writers,  may 
 be  collected  not  a  few  passages  which  not  only  freely  admit  the  human  element 
 in  Scripture,  but  even  attribute  immorality  and  impropriety  to  many  passages 
 taken  literally  ;  and  in  such  instances  they  usually  apply,  in  a  very  aimless 
 manner,  a  wrong  meaning  of  the  phrase  "the  letter  killeth."  Allegory 
 therefore  is  practically  due  to  rationalism,  i.e.  the  attributing  to  Scripture 
 senses  other  than  those  which  its  words  convey.  Sec  Tholuck  translated  in 
 Journ.  sacr.  Lit.  July  1863.     Meander,  Hist,  of  Doctri-nes,  i.  280. 
 
 4  See  Ep.  72,  §5.  "Quid  enim  prodest  haerere  in  litera  et  vel  scriptoi-is 
 errorem  vel  annorum  seriem  calumniari  quum  manifestissime  seribatur  Litera 
 ocdditf" 
 
 8  On  Mark  i.  2  ;  ii.  25  ;  Matt   xxvii.  9  ;  Ep.  57,  ad  Pammach,  §§  7-9. 
 
 6  Ep.  121,  ad  Algaa.  7-11  ;  Comm.  in  Acts  xxvi.   0  ;  Gal.  iii.   1  ;  ir.   24  ; 
 
His  Self -Contradiction.  231 
 
 Hebrew  the  plural  of  "  seed  "  has  a  totally  different  sense  from 
 the  singular,1  and  that  bcrith  never  means  "  will."  2  He  comes 
 to  the  extraordinary  conclusion  that,  the  Galatians  being 
 foolish,  St.  Paul  makes  himself  foolish  by  way  ofaccomnnnln- 
 tion  to  their  infirmities,  and  wrote  what  would  have  offended 
 the  wise  if  he  had  not  premised  the  phrase,  "I  speak  as  a 
 man."  3  Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  St.  Paul  as  carried  away 
 by  his  emotions,  and  as  being  unable  to  express  profound 
 thoughts  in  an  alien  tongue.4  Yet  in  other  passages  he 
 uses  the  current  commonplaces  of  the  theology  of  his  day, 
 and  though  he  talks  of  some  narratives  as  improper  and 
 impossible,  says  that  there  are  mysteries  in  every  word  of 
 Holy  Writ,  and  that  it  was  written  throughout  by  the  Holy 
 Ghost.5  He  does  not  make  the  smallest  attempt  to  co- 
 ordinate his  lax  expressions  with  his  orthodox  assertions.  The 
 1  liter  indicate  his  traditional  profession,  the  former  his  real 
 belief.6 
 
 vi.  Once  more,  he  is  at  complete  variance  with  himself  on 
 the  subject  of  allegory.  He  complains  of  Origen  that  "he 
 mistook  his  own  subjectivity  for  ecclesiastical  mysteries,"  yet 
 says  himself,  "Singula  scriyturae,  verba  singula  sacramenta 
 sunt."  7    In  many  places  he  entirely  disparages  allegory  as  mere 
 
 vi.  2;  Eph.  iii.  ",  8  ;  Zockler,  129  131.  He  says  that  St.  Raul  sometimes 
 wrote  sermone  In' cii.  See  Ep.  120,  ad  Hedib.  qu.  11;  Ep.  rid  Alyas. 
 qu.  10. 
 
 1  Comm.  in  Gal.  iv.  24.  2  Comm    in  Gal.  iii.  15. 
 
 8  Nothing  is  so  grossly  offensive  among  Jerome's  many  faults  us  his 
 belief  in  the  permissibility  of  afalsitas  disp  nsatwa  which  be  betrayed  in  the 
 shocking  theory  thai  the  scene  between  St.  Paul  andSt.  Peter  at  Antioch  was 
 (•(illusive  "ut  hypocrisis  conceptionis  hypocrisi  emendaretur."  He  says  ol 
 St.  Paul,  "quam  artifex,  quam  prudens,  quam  dissimulator  sit.  ejus  quod 
 agit."  See  his  Letter  to  Pammachius  in  defence  of  his  (realise  againsl  Joviman  ; 
 and  the  fine  criticism  of  Augustine  Ep.  ad  Huron,  de  reprelvenso  Petro.  'hi 
 the  harm  dene  by  this  doctrine  of  "accommodation"  see  Kibof,  De  Economia 
 Patrum,  and  Coleridge,  The  Friend,  Ess.  v. 
 
 1  In  Gal.  v.  12.     "  Nee  mirum  esse  si  apostolus,  ut  homo,  el  adhuo  vb 
 clausus  infirrao,  ridensque  aliam  legem  in  corpore  suo  .  .  .  semel  fuerit   boc 
 Locutus,  \c."      And  again,   "In   rernacnlo  Bermone  doctissimus,  profundoa 
 Bensus  aliena  lingua  ezprimere  non  valebat."     Comm.  in  Til. 
 
 6  In  Matt.  .\\i.  l.  "  dbi materia  mltvrpitudinem  habeat  vel  impossibUitatem 
 ad  altioratransmittimur."     Comp.  Comm.  in  Gal.  v.  12. 
 
 "  Comm.  iii  Eph.   iii.  9  :  in  Mich,   vii   7  ;  Ep.  27,  1  ;  in  I  .  29  ;  ad 
 
 Mareell.  Ep.  16,  t ;  ad  Marcell.  in  Matt.  xiii. 
 
 7  1'rol.  ,n  Es.  v.  lo  ;  ad  Pa.  xcL;  Reuss,  Gesch.  §  517. 
 
232  Allegory. 
 
 cloud  and  shadow.1  He  tells  us  that  he  ought  to  be  pardoned 
 if  in  his  youth  he  had  written  an  allegorical  commentary  on 
 Obadiah,  the  reason  being  that  he  could  not  then  understand 
 him  historically.2  He  complains  of  Origen,  Hippolytus,  and 
 Didymus,  because  their  exegesis  is  exclusively  allegorical. 
 He  boasts  of  his  simple  desire  to  let  Scripture  speak  for 
 itself.3  He  complains  that  the  faultiest  style  of  teaching  is 
 to  corrupt  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  and  to  drag  its  reluctant 
 utterance  to  our  own  will,  making  Scriptural  mysteries  out  of 
 our  own  imaginations.4  He  blames  Eusebius  for  lapsing  into 
 extravagant  allegories  in  the  fashion  of  Origen.5  And  yet, 
 after  repeated  remarks  of  this  kind,  he  talks  of  the  turpitudo 
 littcrae,  and  fills  his  books  with  specimens  of  allegoric  inter- 
 pretation no  less  arbitrary  than  those  of  Origen  himself.  He 
 calls  the  literal  interpretation  "  Jewish,"  implies  that  it  may 
 easily  become  heretical,  and  repeatedly  says  that  it  is  inferior 
 to  the  "  spiritual."  He  adopts  the  threefold  sense  almost  as 
 if  he  had  invented  it,6  and  is  always  ready  to  "  build  the 
 superstructure,"  or  "spread  the  sails,"  or  "  mingle  the  flowers," 
 of  mysticism,  and  to  break  up  the  hard  clods  of  the  letter.7 
 He  treats  every  detail,  almost  every  syllable,  of  the  Levitic 
 law  as  full  of  mystic  meanings.  The  passing  allusion  of 
 St.  Paul  to  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  as  an  analogy  to 
 baptism,  furnishes  him  with  the  excuse  of  making  a  mystery 
 out  of  every  one  of  the  forty-four  "  stations  "  in  the  wilderness, 
 and  so  getting  rid  of  geographical  and  other  difficulties.8  The 
 Book  of  Joshua  becomes  mainly  an  allegory  about  the  Church 
 
 1  Comm.  in  Gal.  iii.  3  ;  i.  6  ;  Comm.  in  Jcr.  27.  "Delirat  allegoricus  in- 
 terpres."  .  .  "  Nos  qui  ista  contemnimus  quasi  pro  brutis  habeut  auimalibus 
 et  vocant  irriAovirLWTas."     Comp.  Ep.  ad  Pammach.  84,  §  9. 
 
 2  Comm.  in  Ezech.  c.  16,  init. 
 
 3  Pracf.  in  lib.  v.  Comm.  in  Esaiam, 
 
 4  Ep.  53,  ad  Paulinum,  §  7.   "Quicquid  dixerint,  hoc  legem  Dei  putant." 
 
 5  Comm.  in  Amos,  2;  In  Ep.  ad  Pammach.  he  says,  "  Hilarius  non 
 assedit  litcrac  dormitanti." 
 
 6  Ep.  120,  §  12,  ad  HediMam  :  1  Ep.  04,  §  9  ;  adv.  Lucif.  27,  &c. ;  Ep.  121, 
 ad  Algas.  §  2.  He  quotes  Prov.  xxii.  20,  "descripsi  ea  triplicitcr,"  and  refers 
 it  to  History,  Tropology  and  the  spiritual  sense. 
 
 7  Pracf.  lib.  vi.  in  Esai.  ;  Ep.  64,  ad  Eabiolam  ;  Comm.  in  Oscc,  c.  10,  &e. 
 See  Zockler,  370. 
 
 8  De  42  Mansionibus,  ad  Fabiolam. 
 
Allegory.  233 
 
 and  the  heavenly  Jerusalem.  In  the  Book  of  Judges  there 
 are  as  many  figures  as  there  are  leaders  of  the  people.  The 
 Book  of  Ruth  is  connected  with  Is.  xvi.  1.  The  history  of 
 the  Kings  becomes  an  enigma  which  indicates  the  struggle  of 
 heretics  against  the  Church.1  The  Ethiopian  wife  of  Moses, 
 and  the  bride  in  the  Canticles  who  is  "black  but  comely,"  arc 
 the  Church.  The  adulteress  in  Hoshea  becomes  a  Mary 
 Magdalene  or  a  Rahab.  The  last  chapter  of  the  Book  of 
 Joel  is  explained  as  referring  to  Pentecost  and  the  Fall  of 
 Jerusalem,  but  as  to  the  locusts,  Jerome  gives  a  liberal 
 choice,  for  he  says  they  may  be  Assyrians  and  Babylonians, 
 Medes  and  Persians,  or  Greeks,  or  Romans.  Scripture 
 narratives,  full  of  warning  and  instruction,  are  regarded 
 as  too  shocking  to  be  matters  of  sacred  history.  It  would 
 be  an  endless  task  to  furnish  specimens  of  his  many  frivolous 
 and  tasteless  fancies.2  He  cannot  even  abstain  from  allegor- 
 ising such  plain  New  Testament  narratives  as  the  stater  in  the 
 fish's  mouth  and  Christ's  entry  into  Jerusalem,  or  so  simple 
 a  text  as,  "Let  not  the  sun  go  down  upon  your  wrath."3 
 He  flatters  himself  that  he  succeeded  in  steering  safely 
 between  the  Scylla  of  allegory  and  the  Chary bdis  of  literalism, 
 whereas  in  reality  his  "  multiple  senses"  and  "whole  forests 
 of  spiritual  meanings  "  are  not  worth  one  verse  of  the  original. l 
 He  was  constantly  swayed  by  a  spirit  of  compromise,  by 
 tradition,  by  boundless  credulity,  by  the  preference  of  the 
 facile  talent  of  the  compiler  to  the  severe  and  sincere  labour 
 of  the  original  thinker.     He  found  it  easier  to  give  a  literary 
 
 1  Abishag  is  divine  wisdom.  Taken  literally,  the  story  is  'no  better  than 
 the  figment  out  of  a  mime,  or  even  one  of  the  Atellanae.'  /•.'/».  52,  ad Nepotimt. 
 i  -1  :  yet  lie  takes  it  literally,  c.  Jovhi.  i.  24.  He  calls  Deut.  xxi.  12,  13 
 "ridiculous"  if  taken  literally.  Tamar,  Rahab,  Delilah,  Bathsheba,  are  all 
 allegorised. 
 
 '-'  *  > i i  Ecc.  it.  1,  "  If  two  sleep  together  they  will  be  warm,"  he  thin] 
 n\  to  refer  to  Elisha  raising  the  sun  of  the  Shunamite  !      In  his  Ep.  21 
 ad   Damas.  §  ti,   "He  divided  unto  them  his  living"  becomes  "He 
 tin  in  free  will." 
 
 »  Kj.1l.  iv.  26. 
 
 4  What  Du  I'in  says  of  Paulinus  is  even  more  true  of  Jerome.  "He 
 interlaced  his  discourses  with  endless  texts  and  often  gave  them  a  forced 
 meaning."  Ann.  Ecel.  iii.  I  in  See  too  Dr.  Maitland,  Dark  Ages,  p.  174,  n.  : 
 Church  of  the  Catacombs,  p.  229,  n.  ;  Gilly's  Vigilantius,  p.  93  &c,  and  for 
 the  more  favourable  views  Mahler,  Patrologie,  p.  21. 
 
234  Augustine. 
 
 grace  and  a  dogmatic  colouring  to  the  thoughts  of  others, 
 than  to  work  out  his  own  genuine  opinions  with  consistency 
 and  courage.1 
 
 XII.  St.  Augustine — "  the  oracle  of  thirteen  centuries  " 
 — is  greater  as  an  Apologist  and  as  a  Theologian  than  as 
 an  interpreter  of  Scripture.  Nothing,  indeed,  can  be 
 theoretically  better  than  some  of  the  rules  which  he  lays 
 down.  He  dwells  on  the  desirability  of  multifarious  know- 
 ledge.2 He  insists  that  allegory  should  be  based  on  the 
 historic  sense.3  He  recognises  the  "  more  excellent  way "  of 
 spiritual  intuition  derived  from  love.  He  perceived  that 
 there  is  in  revelation  a  progressive  element,4  and  that  there  is 
 an  inferiority  in  the  degree  of  revelation  furnished  by  the 
 Old  Testament.5  But  when  w7e  read  his  actual  comments 
 these  principles  are  forgotten.  He  was  badly  equipped  for 
 the  work  of  exposition.  He  knew  no  Hebrew,  and  had  but 
 a  meagre  knowledge  of  Greek.6  He  is  misled  by  the  LXX. 
 and  by  the  old  Latin  versions.  He  attempted  to  find  "  all,"  or 
 "  almost  all,"  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  in  the  Old  Testament.7 
 
 1  C.  Pujin.  1.  "  Conimentarii  quid  operis  habent  ?  Altering  dicta  edisserunt, 
 onultorum  scntcntias  replicant,'"  Prooem.  in  Gal.  "  Legi  haec  omnia,  et  in 
 mente  mea  plurima  coacervans  accito  notario  vcl  mca  vel  alieua  dictavi." 
 Prooem.  in  Matt.  "  Omnes  legere  qui  in  Evangelia  scripserunt,  deinde,  adhi- 
 bito  judicio,  quae  optima  sunt  excerpere,"  and  Prooem.  in  Eph.  see  Praef.  lib. 
 i.  Comm.  in  Jerem.,  where  he  answers  the  objections  of  Grynaeus  (as  he  rudely 
 calls  Kufinus)  and  "indoctus  calumniator"  (Pelagius).  R.  Simon,  Comment. 
 du  N.  T.  230  ;  Clericus,  Quaest.  Ilicron.  p.  493.  On  St.  Jerome's  life  and 
 works  see  Engelstoft,  Hieronymus ;  Amedee  Thierry,  St.  Jerome,  1867  ;  Zbckler, 
 Hieronymus,  1865. 
 
 2  De  Doctr.  Christ,  ii.  16,  §  24-28,  §  42;  Ep.  137,  1.  He  was  the  first  to 
 suggest  something  in  the  shape  of  a  Biblical  Dictionary,  id.  ib.  c.  19,  Trench, 
 p.  15. 
 
 3  De  Civ.  Dei,  xiii.  21. 
 
 4  De  Ver.  Pel.  17,  §  34  ;  Enarr.  in  Ps.  lxxiii.  1.  See  Trench,  The  Sermon  on 
 the  Mount,  p.  42.  His  system  of  "periods  "  was  seized  by  the  later  Reformed 
 Theology.  See  De  Civ.  Dei,  xv.-xvii.,  where  he  speaks  of  seven  periods,  of 
 which  llie  creative  week  was  a  type.  This  is  the  first  attempt  to  treat  Old 
 Testament  theology.     Oehler,  Theol.  of  Old  Testament,  i.  26-30  (K.  T.). 
 
 6  His  De  Doctr.  Christ,  is  practically  an  exegetical  treatise  (pracccpta  trae- 
 tandarum  Scriptararuin). 
 
 6  Confess,  i.  13,  §  20  ;  14,  §  23  ;  xi.  3,  §  5  ;  De  Doctr.  Christ,  ii.  §  23  ; 
 De  Trin.  iii.  1,  §  23.  This  is  admitted  even  by  his  Benedictine  editors,  and 
 is  the  subject,  of  severe  remarks  by  Walch,  Bibl.  Pair.  352  ;  Rosenm.  Hist. 
 Interpr.  iii.  404  ;  Winer,  in  Gal.  p.  22  ;  but  see  a  more  favourable  view  in 
 Trench,  I.e.  p.  20.     His  etymologies  are  terribly  weak. 
 
 7  C.  Adim.  iii.  4.  He  corrects  the  "  nulla  quae  illisveteribus  librisdesint" 
 into  "paene  nulla"  in  the  Petract.  i.  22,  §  2  ;  comp.  Tert.  C.  Mare.  iv.    Such 
 
His  Versatility.  2.05 
 
 He  actual]}'-  ventures  to  maintain  that  David  wrote  the 
 whole  Psalter  but  sometimes  prefixed  to  a  Psalm  some 
 other  name  which  he  considered  appropriate!  If  he 
 puts  forth  his  best  strength  in  resisting  the  unworthy  view  of 
 Jerome,  that  the  dispute  between  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  at 
 Antioch  was  a  "  pious  collusion,"  he  exhibits  his  greatest 
 weakness  in  the  opposition  which  he  offered  to  Jerome's  new 
 translation.1  In  the  former  controversy  he  showed  the  power 
 of  insi"ht,  in  the  latter  the  feebleness  of  traditionalism,  and  a 
 total  absence  of  the  critical  faculty.  By  his  dialectic  skill 
 and  speculative  curiosity  he  became  the  father  of  scholasticism, 
 and  at  the  same  time  he  gave  an  impulse  to  the  mediaeval 
 mystics  by  his  spiritual  ardour.2  His  ecclesiastical  tendencies 
 helped  to  strengthen  the  hierarchy  of  Catholicism,  and  yet  the 
 Jansenists  relied  on  his  writings  to  establish  their  doctrine  of 
 grace,  and  more  than  any  Father  he  became  the  favourite 
 doctor  of  the  Reformation  by  virtue  of  his  insistence  on  the 
 sufficiency  and  perspicuity  of  Holy  Writ.3  In  all  respects  he 
 exercised  a  creative  influence  over  future  ages,  but  it  would  be 
 false  to  say  that  the  influence  was  in  all  respects  wholesome. 
 To  him  are  due  in  no  small  degree  the  excesses  of  the  subtle 
 and  systematising  spirit  of  the  schoolmen ;  the  over-weening 
 pretensions  of  sacerdotalism ;  the  extravagant  exaltation  of 
 "the  Church,"  as  represented  by  an  imperious  hierarchy; 
 the  exaggerated  doctrine  of  total  human  depravity;  and 
 above  all  the  bitter  spirit  of  theological  hatred  and  per- 
 secution. His  writings  became  the  Bible  of  the  Inquisition. 
 His  name  was  adduced — and  could  there  be  a  more  terrible 
 Nemesis  on  his  errors  ? — to  justify  the  murder  of  Servetus, 
 to  sanction  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  to  countenance 
 the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes.4     As  the  teacher  of 
 
 views,   as  contrasted    with  the   Ep.  of  Barnabas,  show  the  strong  reaction 
 against  the  Antitheses  of  Marcion. 
 
 1  He  believed  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Seventy,  DeDoctr.  Christ,  ii.  §  22. 
 
 2  Thus,  as  Liebnei  points  out,  Hugo  of  St.    Victor  who  first   united  ami 
 reconciled  the  principles  of  scholasticism  and  mysticism,  was  called   L 
 Augustini,  and  Alter  August/inus  (sir  Trench,  p.  xii.). 
 
 3  "Scripture  sacra  .   .  .  omnibus  accessibilis  quamvia  paucissimis   pene- 
 trahilis."  Ep.  187,  §18.   "  l't  ezciperel  omnes  populari  sinu. "  Conf.  vi  5,  g  8. 
 
 4  See  proofs  of  these  facts  in  Owen,   J  <S  ii.  211,  who 
 
236  His  Defects. 
 
 intolerance  he  has  flung  a  dark  shadow  across  the  Church  of 
 Christ,  and  his  intolerance  was  mainly  the  result  of  his  views 
 of  Scriptural  interpretation. 
 
 The  exegesis  of  St.  Augustine  is  marked  by  the  most 
 glaring  defects.  Almost  as  many  specimens  of  prolix 
 puerility  and  arbitrary  perversion  can  be  adduced  from  his 
 pages  as  from  those  of  his  least  gifted  predecessors.1  He 
 was  warped  by  dogmatic  prepossessions.  He  laid  down  the  rule 
 that  the  Bible  must  be  interpreted  with  reference  to  Church 
 Orthodoxy,2  and  that  no  Scriptural  expression  can  be  out  of 
 accordance  with  any  other.  He  therefore,  in  support  of  this 
 view,  demanded  that  all  interpretation  should  be  pan  harmonic, 
 and  he  helped  to  stereotype  the  current  misapplication  of  the 
 phrase  "  the  analogy  of  faith."  3  He  warns  us  against  the  fraud 
 of  those  who  distort  the  meaning  of  isolated  texts,  yet  he  is  con- 
 stantly guilty  of  the  same  fraud.4  He  could  not  fail  to  observe 
 the  human  element  in  Scripture,5  and  he  accounts  for  the 
 
 quotes  Nourisson,  Philos.  de  St.  Aug.  ii.  1S1  ;  Flottes,  Etudes  sur  St.  Aug. 
 p.  542.  The  Spanish  Jesuits,  in  their  indictment  of  St.  Augustine  in  the 
 seventeenth  century,  said  that  "his  sentiments  are  too  hard,  and  unworthy  of 
 the  goodness  and  mercy  of  God." 
 
 1  He  began  a  commentary  on  the  Romans,  but  after  devoting  a  whole  book 
 to  the  salutation  alone,  found  that  it  would  be  too  laborious,  ami  gave  it  up. 
 
 2  De  Doetr.  Christ,  iii.  10  :  "Scriptura  non  asserit  nisi  fklem  catholicam." 
 Perhaps  the  most  startling  instance  of  the  crude  ecclesiasticism,  which  in- 
 creased as  Augustine  grew  older,  is  his  remark,  "  Ego  vero  Evangelio  non 
 credcrem  nisi  me  Catholicae  Ecclesiae  commoverit  auctoritas."  Ep.  e.  Manich. 
 5,  §6.  On  this  false  and  degrading  opinion  see  Ritter,  Gesch.  de  Philos.  vi. 
 432.  "  Setting  forth  the  Church  as  the  way  to  Christ ,"  says  Bishop  Ewing, 
 "  instead  of  setting  forth  Christ  as  the  icay  to  the  Church,  has  been  a  fountain 
 of  unnumbered  evils."  St.  Augustine's  reversal  of  the  true  order  of  things 
 was  exposed  before  Luther's  days  among  others  by  Marsilio  of  Padua  in  his 
 Defensor  Pads,  and  by  John  Wessel  ("Evangelio  credimus  et  propter 
 Evangelium  Ecclesiae,  non  Evangelio  propter  Ecclesiam").  See  Owen, 
 Evenings  with  the  Sceptics,  ii.  181. 
 
 3  St.  Chrysostom  had  explained  the  phrase  rightly,  Horn,  in  Rom.  xii. 
 "Faith,  though  it  is  a  grace,  is  not  poured  forth  at  random  but  .  .  .  letteth  as 
 much  How  as  it  may  find  the  vessel  that  is  brought  to  be  capable  of." 
 
 4  0.  Aili  urn  id,,  xiv.  §2:  "  Istorum  fraus  qui  particulas  quasdam  e  Scripturis 
 eligunt  quibus  decipiant  imperitos,  non  connectentes  quae  supra  et  infra 
 soripta  sunt,  ex  quibus  voluntas  etintentioscriptorispossitintelligi."  Had  the 
 warning  received  the  slightest  attention,  the  majority  of  the  texts  quoted  in 
 party  controversy  would  be  seen  to  be  wholly  inapplicable.  But  Augustine 
 was  inevitably  false  to  his  own  rule  because  he  had  to  reconcile  the  teaching 
 of  Christ  with  all  that  the  Church  taught  in  the  fourth  century.  See 
 Neander,  iii.  510. 
 
 5  De  Cons.  Evang.  ii.  12,  24,  28,  66,  &c. 
 
His  Exegesis.  237 
 
 variations  in  the  narrative  of  the  Evangelists  on  purely  human 
 principles;1  and  yet  he  uses  the  irreverent,  misleading,  and 
 wholly  unscriptural  phrase,  that  the  sacred  writers  were  "pens 
 of  the  Holy  Ghost.''2  He  held  that  whatever  was  revealed 
 mysteriously  and  enigmatically  in  one  part  of  Scripture  was 
 revealed  clearly  in  another  part,3  yet  fails  to  see  that  there 
 could  be  nothing  0f  real  or  independent  value  in  the  in- 
 cessantly wavering  interpretations  of  dim  enigmas.  After  all 
 his  judicious  theories  he  makes  his  exegesis  the  facile  slave 
 •  if  his  personal  theology. 
 
 In  the  writings  of  St.  Augustine  we  see  the  constant  flashes 
 of  genius,  and  the  rich  results  of  insight  and  experience,  which 
 have  given  them  their  power  over  the  minds  of  many  genera- 
 tions. But  these  merits  cannot  save  his  exegetic  writings 
 from  the  charge  of  being  radically  unsound.  Snatching  up 
 the  old  Philonian  and  Rabbinic  rule  which  had  been  repeated 
 for  so  many  generations,  that  everything  in  Scripture  which 
 appeared  to  be  unorthodox  or  immoral  must  be  interpreted 
 mystically,  he  introduced  confusion  into  his  dogma  of  super- 
 natural inspiration  by  admitting  that  there  are  many  passages 
 "  written  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  which  are  objectionable  when 
 taken  in  their  obvious  sense.4  He  also  opened  the  door  to 
 arbitrary  fancy.5  From  the  intolerable  prolixity  of  his  com- 
 mentary on  Genesis,  down  to  his  voluminous  remarks  on  many 
 bonks  of  the  New  Testament,  we  find  incessant  instances  of 
 that  futile  method  which  evacuated  the  Bible  of  a  significance 
 infinitely  precious,  in  order  to  substitute  for  its  real  lessons  the 
 thinnest  commonplaces  of  homiletic  and  dogmatic  edification. 
 By  his  acceptance  of  the  rules  of  Tichonius  he  adopted  a 
 system  of   tropology  in  which  "leaven"  might  everywhere 
 
 1  "  Iiisj.ir:itus  a  IV"  scil  tamen  homo,"  in  Joanrt.  trad.  1,  §  1. 
 
 '-'  Conf.  vii.  21,  De  Gen.  ad  Lilt.  v.  8  ;  sec  Trench,  p.  50. 
 
 3  Dc  Doctr.  Christ,  iii.  §37,  whence  it  passed  into  the  Sum-ma  of  St.  Thomas 
 i.  Qu.  1,  Art.  10. 
 
 1  />'•  Doctr.  Christ,  iii.  §14  :  "Quidquid  in  sermone  divino  ncquead  ,. 
 honestatem  neque  ad   fidei   oeritatevn   proprie    referri  potest   figuratum    esse 
 
 ■■  He  adopts  the  unfortunate  notion  thai  all  sorts  of  explanations  mnsl  be 
 admissible,  because  the  Holy  spirit  musl  have  foreseen  them  (id.  ib,  32).  The 
 i  eretica  mighl  have  urged  the  Bame  plea. 
 
238  His  Use  of  Allegory. 
 
 stand  either  for  "truth"  or  for  "wickedness,"  and  "a  lion" 
 either  for  "the  Devil"  or  for  "  Christ."  In  the  narrative  of 
 the  Fall  the  fig-leaves  become  hypocrisy,  and  the  coats  of  skins 
 mortality,  and  the  four  rivers  of  Eden  the  four  cardinal 
 virtues.  In  the  story  of  the  Deluge  the  Ark  is  pitched 
 within  and  without  with  pitch  to  show  the  safety  of  the 
 Church  from  inward  and  outward  heresies.  The  drunken- 
 ness of  Noah  is,  shocking  to  relate,  "  a  figure  of  the  death 
 and  passion  of  Christ."1  The  Books  of  Kings  are  distorted 
 into  a  prophecy  as  much  as  a  history.  Nor  is  it  only  the 
 Old  Testament  history  which  is  throughout  treated  as  an 
 allegory.2  Poetry  and  prophecy  are  similarly  handled,  till 
 even  Augustine's  contemporaries  were  driven  to  complain.3 
 
 Thus  the  exquisite  beauty  and  lyric  tenderness  of  Psalm  civ. 
 is  evaporated  at  a  touch.  "  The  sun  which  hnoivcth  his  going 
 down  "  becomes  Christ,  who  was  aware  of  His  own  death ; 
 "the  beasts  that  get  them  away  together  "  become  persecutors 
 who  dare  not  show  themselves  in  the  days  of  Christ's  prosperity. 
 If  the  Psalmist  says,  "  /  laid  me  doiun,  and  slept,  and  rose  v/p 
 again,"  Augustine  asks  whether  any  one  can  be  so  senseless 
 (ita  desipit)  as  to  suppose  that  "  the  prophet  "  would  have 
 made  so  trivial  a  statement,  unless  the  sleep  intended  had 
 been  the  Death,  and  the  awakening  the  Resurrection  of 
 Christ ! i  Even  the  Gospels  are  not  safe  from  this  faithless 
 invasion  of  predetermined  dogmatism.5  "  No  sober  person," 
 says  one  writer,  "  can  believe  that  our  Lord  really  had  his  feet 
 anointed  by  a  woman  with  precious  ointment,  as  luxurious 
 and  wicked  men  are  wont  to  do  at  feasts  and  the  like,  which 
 we  detest."  6  When  once  the  principle  of  allegory  is  admitted, 
 when  once  we  start  with  the  rule  that  whole  passages  and 
 books  of  Scripture  say  one  thing  when  they  mean  another,  the 
 
 1  Horn,  in  Gen.  13  §  3.  "  In  Ps.  exxxvi.  3. 
 
 3  Da  Civ.  Dei,  xv.  20  :  xvi.  1. 
 
 4  Enarr.  in  Ps.  ciii.  Even  Sixtus  Senensis  says  that  since  Augustine  knew 
 neither  Hebrew  nor  Greek,  "  Necesse  fuit  ilium  a  vero  ao  proprio  literae  sensu 
 ad  cxtortas  allegorias  deflectere  "  (BibL  Sand.  p.  257). 
 
 5  For  a  bad  instance  of  exegesis  warped  by  dogmatics  see  Augustine's 
 remarks  on  Christ's  blessing  little  children  in  De  Peceat.  Remiss,  i.  19. 
 
 6  "Aliud  dicitur  ut  (!)  aliud  intelligatur."  See  De  Doc.tr.  Christ,  iii. 
 §§  32-4.0.     St.  Augustine  laughs  at  the  allegorical  arguments  of  the  Donatists 
 
The  Allegoric  Method.  239 
 
 reader  is  delivered  bound  hand  and  foot  to  the  caprice  of  the 
 interpreter.  He  can  be  sure  of  absolutely  nothing  except 
 what  is  dictated  to  him  by  the  Church,  and  in  all  ages  the 
 authority  of  "the  Church  "  has  been  falsely  claimed  for  the 
 presumptuous  tyranny  of  false  prevalent  opinions.  In  the  days 
 of  Justin  Martyr  and  of  Origen  Christians  had  been  driven  to 
 allegory  by  an  imperious  necessity.  It  was  the  only  means 
 known  to  them  by  which  to  meet  the  shock  which  wrenched 
 the  Gospel  free  from  the  fetters  of  Judaism.  They  used  it 
 to  defeat  the  crude  literalism  of  fanatical  heresies ;  or  to 
 reconcile  the  teachings  of  philosophy  with  the  truths  of  the 
 Gospel.  But  in  the  days  of  Augustine  the  method  had 
 degenerated  into  an  artistic  method  of  displaying  ingenuity 
 and  supporting  ecclesiasticism.  It  had  become  the  resource 
 of  a  faithlessness  which  declined  to  admit,  of  an  ignorance 
 which  failed  to  appreciate,  and  of  an  indolence  which  re- 
 fused to  solve  the  real  difficulties  in  which  the  sacred  book 
 abounds.  It  enabled  would-be  teachers  to  fill  whole  volumes 
 with  the  semblance  of  teaching.  With  others  it  became  the 
 ready  means  for  establishing  Church  dogmas  and  priestly 
 traditions,  and  so  of  making  Scripture  an  oracle  which 
 answered  them  according  to  their  idols,  and  an  echo  which 
 returned  to  them  the  disguised  utterance  of  their  own 
 imaginations.1 
 
 Unhappily  for  the  Church,  unhappily  for  any  real  ap- 
 prehension of  Scripture,  the  allcgorists,  in  spite  of  protest,2 
 were   completely  victorious.      The  School   of  Antioch   was 
 
 who  from  the  words  "in  meridie"  ("a1  aoon")  in  Cant.  i.  7,  argued  that  the 
 Church  was  only  in  the  south,  and  defended  tin'  rebaptising  of  heretics  from 
 the  strange  mistranslation  of  the  Vulg.  in  Ps.  exli.  5.  But  his  own  allegories 
 are  quite  as  baseless. 
 
 1  On  Augustine's  work  as  a  commentator  see  Klausen,  Aurel.  August 
 S.  S.  interpres.    Abp.  Trench,  Aug.  as  an  interpreter  of  Scripture  (Sen 
 the  Mount)  \  Breithaupt,  TnstUvMo  Tiermen.  ex  Aug.  libris  conquisita  j  Hilon, 
 1605.     His  theoretical  rules  were  excellent,  if  he  had  bul  been   faithful  to 
 them.     Thus  he  says  :  1.  Scripturae  scopus  estdilectio  Dei.     2.   Codices  emen- 
 dandi  sunt.     '■'>.   We  must  decide  whether  the  sense  is  literal  or  mystic.     -1. 
 We  musl   consider  the   context.      ">.  Obseura  per  apertiora  explicanda.     6. 
 Geography,  &c.,  must  be  studied,    7.  The  original  is  important  (bul  the  I. XX. 
 is  to  be  preferred  even  to  the  Hebrew  I).     8.  Distingut 
 Scripturas,  <tc. 
 
 -'  See  Etos  inmuller,  iii.  1 17. 
 
240  Prevalence  of  Allegory. 
 
 discredited  by  anathemas.  Origen  was  indeed  attainted 
 with  equal  violence,  but  his  exegetical  principles  had  already 
 taken  deep  root  alike  in  the  East  and  in  the  West.  Theodore 
 and  Theodoret  were  to  a  certain  extent  quoted  in  Glosses 
 and  Catenae,  but  their  chief  influence  was  confined  to  the 
 churches  of  the  Nestorians,  and  though  glimmerings  of  their 
 method  appear  here  and  there,1  it  received  no  development, 
 and  we  soon  descend  to  allegorical  dictionaries  of  the  three- 
 fold sense,  like  that  of  Eucherius,2  to  the  secondhandness  of 
 Cassiodorus  (t  562),  and  the  interminable  tedium  of  Gregory 
 the  Great  (f  604).  The  thirty-five  books  of  Moralia  on 
 the  Book  of  Job,  by  Gregory,  awoke  the  intense  admiration 
 of  the  Middle  Ages,  but  to  any  real  knowledge  of  the  sacred 
 poem  itself  they  contribute  nothing.  Such  value  as  they 
 possess  is  to  be  found  solely  in  the  masses  of  allegorical  and 
 homiietic  commonplace  which  furnished  ready  materials  for 
 the  sermons  of  a  thousand  years.3  We  trust  that  hundreds 
 of  those  sermons  may  have  been  found  rich  in  spiritual 
 blessing  by  those  who  listened  to  them,  but  their  instruc- 
 tiveness  was  derived  exclusively  from  the  simple  facts  of 
 the  Gospel  which  they  taught,  or  the  moral  truths  in  which 
 there  could  be  no  ambiguity :  they  derive  no  particle  of 
 additional  value  from  the  so-called  exegesis  which,  being 
 based  on  an  invented  hypothesis,  a  supposed  tradition,  and 
 an  unwarrantable  system,  was  no  better  than  a  house  built 
 upon  the  sand. 
 
 But  let  us  once  more  thank  God  that,  even  in  the  study 
 of  Scripture,  correct  exegesis  is  of  less  importance  than  the 
 saving  apprehension  of  a  few  great  truths.     In  understanding 
 
 1  As  in  the  anonymous  comment  on  Joel  printed  among  the  works  of  Ku- 
 fums.  Pelagius  (whose  commentary  on  the  Epistles  is  in  the  eleventh  volume  of 
 Vallarsi's  edition  of  the  works  of  St.  Jerome)  may  be  compared  to  Diodore  of 
 Tarsus,  and  Jul  inn  of  Eclane  to  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  but  as  their  opinions 
 uviv  condemned  as  heretical  their  exegesis  had  little  influence.  Lucke, 
 Grmidriss,  p.  4:>  ;  Walch,  Ketzereyen,  iv.  519. 
 
 2  Eucherius,  Liber  formularuvi  spiritualis  intelligenMae. 
 
 3  See  some  severe  remarks  on  the  Manilla  hi  Hampden,  Bampt.  Leet.  p.  275. 
 Gregory  knew  neither  Greek  nor  Hebrew,  and  in  his  allegorical  expositions 
 Job  represents  Christ,  his  sons  the  clergy,  his  three  daughters  -the  three 
 classes  of  the  laity  who  are  to  worship  the  Trinity,  his  friends  the  heretics, 
 the  oxen  and  she-asses  the  heathen  (because  of  Is.  i.  3)  kc.  &c. 
 
The  Fathers.  241 
 
 its  most  essential  messages  we  have  little  need  of  the  labours 
 of  the  commentator.  Those  messages  are  less  intelligible  to 
 learning  than  to  faith.  If  in  exegesis  the  Fathers  were  often 
 led  astray  by  deficient  knowledge  and  mistaken  principles, 
 on  the  other  hand  the  minds  of  the  best  of  them  were 
 "  animated,  informed,  and  kindled  by  the  substance,  the  pur- 
 pose, and  the  spirit  of  the  sacred  books."  "  There  is,"  says 
 Dean  Church,  "  in  these  writers  a  kind  of  living  contact  of 
 their  whole  being  with  the  inspired  words.  Their  whole  soul 
 is  stirred  and  penetrated  with  words  which  to  them  are  mani- 
 festly full  of  the  things  and  the  spirit  of  God.  Their  reading 
 leaves  them  aflame  with  the  enthusiasm  of  admiration, 
 delight,  awe,  hope,  analogous  in  a  higher  degree  to  the  feeling 
 which  a  glorious  prospect,  or  a  magnificent  passage  of  poetry 
 or  oratory,  leaves  on  the  mind  which  takes  it  in,  and  is 
 alive  to  its  complete  meaning  and  effect.  This  is  the  secret 
 of  their  excellence  and  value,"  if  not  "  as  commentators,"  yet 
 as  that  which  is  even  higher  and  more  important,  as  moral 
 and  spiritual  teachers  of  mankind. 
 
 And  when  we  think  of  them  personally,  when  we  recall  the 
 heroic  fortitude  of  Justin,  the  ardent  zeal  of  Cyprian,  the 
 dauntless  courage  with  which  Athanasius  faced  the  world  ; 
 — when  we  think  of  Origen,  banished,  excommunicated, 
 racked  by  torture,  and  dragging  from  prison  his  aged  frame 
 and  dislocated  limbs,  "  till  the  weary  wheels  of  life  stood 
 still ; " — when  we  think  of  the  tears  and  conversion  of 
 Augustine,  of  Jerome's  struggle  for  self-conquest  in  his 
 cell  at  Bethlehem,  of  Ambrose  repelling  his  Emperor  from 
 the  gates  of  his  Cathedral  because  his  hands  were  red  with 
 the  blood  of  massacre  ; — when  we  recall  the  picture  of 
 Chrysostom  dying  in  his  cruel  exile  with  his  favourite  words 
 ho%a  T(p  Oerp  TrewTOiv  eveica  upon  his  lips ; — when  we  recall 
 the  profound  thoughts  and  eloquent  exhortations  of  many 
 of  the  Fathers — the  many  high  examples  which  they  set  of 
 holiness  in  life,  and  of  courage  even  unto  death — we  give  to 
 them  the  hearty  offering  of  our  honour  and  esteem.  We 
 say  of  them,  with  St.  Chrysostom,  "Oh  blessed  and   happy 
 
242  The  Fathers. 
 
 men  whose  names  are  in  the  Book  of  Life."  l  We  cannot, 
 elevate  them  into  idols,  or  accept  their  utterances  as  oracles  ; 
 but  we  look  up  to  them  with  love  and  reverence,  as  to  our 
 elder  brothers  in  the  great  family  of  God. 
 
 1  See  the  fine  passage  quoted  by  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  "Via  Intclligcntiac," 
 ad  fin. 
 
6  yap   tiWa  fxtv  uyopevuiv  Tporros,  erepa   8e  tov  Xtyti  urjpULVoov,  tncovvfuos 
 
 \\WtiyopLi  KaXe'irai — Heraclides  Ponticus,  Allegg.  Homer. 
 
 Hi>  ore  i'jKpa£e  tu  rjptrepa  Kin  Ka\a>s  ft-Xfui  hviKa  T"  P*v  TtpLTTov  tovto  kiu 
 xaT(y\u>TTi(rp(vov  rrjs  deoXoyias  Kai  ivrtyvov  ovSe  irapuSov  et.\fV  e'£  T"S' 
 dfias  avXds. — GREG.  Naz.  Oral.  xxi. 
 
 "  Melius  est  dubitare  de  occultis,  quam  litigare  de  incertis." — Aug. 
 De  Gen.  ad  lit.  c.  v. 
 
 "  Pb.ilosoph.ia  tua  te  vexat." — Luther  to  Melanchthon. 
 
 "  That  which  by  right  exposition  buildeth  up  Christian  faith,  being 
 misconstrued,  breedeth  error ;  between  true  and  false  construction  the 
 difference  reason  must  show." — Hooker,  Eccl.  Pol.  iii.  §  8. 
 
 "  Theologia  baec  Scholastica,  quanta  quanta  est,  magis  Ethnica  quam 
 Christiana  est,  non  ex  S.  Literis  hausta,  sed  ex  Aristotelis  Metapbysica 
 consuta  et  confiata  ;  quae  multo  plus  habet  rixaruin  pbilosopbicarum 
 quam  Christianae  pietatis.  "■ — Grotius,  De  studiis  instituendis  (1G15), 
 p.  240. 
 
 "  Deliver  me  .  .  .  from  unhealthy  enquiries  and  interminable  dis- 
 putes."— Prayer  of  Bishop  Andrewes. 
 
 "  The  plague  of  the  Church  for  above  a  thousand  years  has  been  the 
 enlarging  our  creed,  and  making  more  fundamentals  than  God  ever 
 made." — Baxter. 
 
 "L'ignorance  vaut  beaucoup  mieux  que  cette  fausse  science  qui  fait 
 que  I'on  /imagine  savoir  ce  qu'on  ne  sait  pas." — Arnault),  Logique  de 
 Port  Hoyal. 
 
 "  Eine  Speculation  auf  durrer  Heide,  cine  Dialektik  ohne  das  erforder- 
 liche  Materiale  der  Kenntniss,  ein  Formalismus  ohne  Fiille  dea  Inbaltee 
 
 und  ohne  Freiheit  der  Bewegungen." — Kladsen,  Hcrmen.  p.  190. 
 
 K  ii 
 
LECTURE    V. 
 
 SCHOLASTIC    EXEGESIS. 
 
 "Guard  that  which  is  committed  unto  thee,  turning  away  from  .  .  .  the, 
 antitheses  of  the  knowledge  which  is  falsely  so  called  ;  which  some  professing 
 have  missed  the  mark  concerning  the  faith." — 1  Tim.  vi.  20. 
 
 Gregory  the  Great  died  in  the  year  604.  With  him  the 
 age  of  theological  originality  ceased  for  five  centuries;  and  for 
 four  centuries  more  the  study  of  the  Bible  was  fettered  by  nar- 
 row restrictions,  and  misdirected  in  unprofitable  efforts.  We 
 approach  the  subject  of  mediaeval  exegesis  with  every  desire 
 to  judge  it  in  the  kindliest  spirit;  but  we  are  compelled  to 
 6  iy  that  during  the  Dark  Ages,  from  the  seventh  to  the  twelfth 
 century,  and  during  the  scholastic  epoch,  from  the  twelfth  to 
 the  sixteenth,  there  are  but  a  few  of  the  many  who  toiled  in 
 this  field  who  added  a  single  essential  principle,  or  furnished 
 a  single  original  contribution  to  the  explanation  of  the 
 Word  of  God.1  During  these  nine  centuries  we  find  very 
 little  except  the  "glimmerings  and  decays"  of  patristic 
 exposition.  Much  of  the  learning  which  still  continued  to 
 exist  was  devoted  to  something  which  was  meant  for  exegesis, 
 yet  not  one  writer  in  hundreds  showed  any  true  conception  of 
 
 1  The  word  (Txo\afrriK(is  is  lirst  found  in  a  letter  of  Theophi  Diog, 
 
 I. nc-rt.  v.  "jo;  Seholasticus  in  Petronius.  In  the  'A<ttu<x  of  the  Pseudo- 
 Hierocles  it  is  surrounded  with  grotesque  associations.  Bui  it  is  perhap 
 Bimplesl  to  derive  the  word  "scholasticism"  from  the  schools  of  Charlemagne. 
 Bee  Haureau,  Philos.  Scholastupie,  i.  7;  Brucker,  Hist,  Phil.  iii.  710.  In 
 Ait.  L3  the  Schoolmen  an  called  "the  School  Authors."  On  the  connection 
 between  Patristic  and  Scholastic  systems,  see  Oeberweg,  Hist,  of  Philos. 
 i.  202. 
 
2*46  Decadence  of  Knowledge. 
 
 what  exegesis  really  implies.  Sometimes,  indeed,  they  repeat 
 correct  principles  borrowed  from  Jerome  and  Augustine,  but 
 in  practice  they  abandon  these  principles  as  soon  as  they 
 are  enunciated,  and  give  us  folio  volumes  of  dogma,  morality, 
 and  system,  which  profess  to  be  based  on  Scripture,  but 
 have  for  the  most  part  no  real  connection  with  the  passages 
 to  which  they  are  attached.1 
 
 The  Papal  system  had  established  a  secure  despotism  over 
 the  minds  of  men.  The  sources  of  all  Christian  truth  were 
 supposed  to  be  furnished  by  Scripture  and  tradition ;  and  the 
 Church — by  which  was  mainly  meant  the  Pope — was  held  to 
 be  the  infallible  interpreter  of  both.  In  the  seventh  century 
 the  whole  fabric  of  society  still  reeled  with  the  terrible  and 
 continuous  shocks  which  it  had  received  from  the  storms  of 
 barbarian  invasion,  when  Goths,  Vandals,  Sarmatians,  Gepidae, 
 Alani,  Heruli,  Huns,  Suevi,  Saxons,  and  Burgundians,  had 
 poured  themselves  upon  the  West.  Learning  naturally 
 perished  in  the  storm.  "  Woe  to  our  days,"  exclaimed  Gregory 
 of  Tours,  "  for  the  study  of  letters  has  perished  from  us." 2 
 When  Didier,  Archbishop  of  Vienne,  tried  to  reintroduce  the 
 teaching  of  grammar,  Gregory  the  Great,  the  most  fertile  and 
 eloquent  moralist  of  his  dreary  age,  in  words  which  irresist- 
 ibly remind  us  of  what  Jack  Cade  says  to  Lord  Saye  and 
 Sele  in  Shakespeare's  Henry  VI.,  wrote  to  him,  "I  can 
 scarcely  mention  without  shame  that  your  Fraternity  ex- 
 plains grammar  to  certain  persons.  What  a  deadly  and 
 heinous  fault  !"3     Fortunatus  (t  GOO),  though  a  leading  poet 
 
 1  Homilctics  have  been  to  an  incredible  extent  the  Phylloxera  Vastatrix  of 
 exegesis,  and  preachers  with  their  habit  of  thrusting  into  texts  an  endless 
 variety  of  commonplaces  which  have  no  connexion  with  them,  have  become 
 privileged  misinterpreters.  They  have  ploughed  with  the  unequally-yoked  ox 
 and  ass  of  science  and  sermon-making,  and  made  texts  an  excuse  for  saying 
 this  or  that  as  it  pleased  them,  with  no  thought  of  the  real  meaning  of 
 words. 
 
 2  Greg.  Tur.  Hist.  Franc.  Proocm.  Compare  Lupus,  Up.  36  (Migne,  vol. 
 cxix. ).  King  Alfred  did  not  know  one  monk  south  of  the  Thames  who  could 
 translate  the  Breviary. 
 
 3  "Sine  verecundia memorare  non  possumus  fraternitatem  tuam  Grammali- 
 cam  quibusdam  exponere  !  .  .  .  Quam  grave  nefandumque  !  "  Greg.  M.  £pp. 
 xi.  54.  So  Jack  Cade  in  Henry  VI.  pt.  ii.  act  iv.  sc.  7  :  "  Thou  hast  most 
 traitorously  corrupted  the  youth  of  the  realm  in  erecting  a  grammar-school," 
 &c.     We  must,  however,  bear  in  mind  that  Gregory  regarded  the  end  of  the 
 
Work  of  Charlemagne.  24-7 
 
 of  the  age,  confesses  not  only  that  he  had  never  read  Plato 
 or  Aristotle,  but  not  even  Hilary,  Ambrose,  or  Augustine. 
 '  Many,"  -wrote  Ambrose  Antpert  in  his  comment  on  the 
 Apocalypse,  "  say  that  this  is  no  time  to  discuss  Scripture." 
 The  eighth  century  was  the  most  ignorant,  the  darkest,  the 
 most  barbarous,  that  France  had  ever  seen.1  There  was 
 everywhere  confusion  and  chaos,  national,  social,  and  political. 
 The  energies  of  men  were  absorbed  in  the  attempt  to  found 
 a  new  order  upon  the  crumbling  ruins  of  ancient  civilisation. 
 Charlemagne,  having  seen  that  schools  and  learning  still 
 existed  in  Italy,  wished  to  revive  them  in  his  own  kingdom, 
 and  about  787  wrote  to  the  Bishops  the  circular  letter  which 
 Ampere  calls  "  la  charte  constituante  de  la  pense'e  moderne." 
 Then  it  was  that  the  teaching  of  the  Trivium  and  the 
 Qiiadrivium  began.2  As  there  was  no  diffusion  of  knowledge, 
 all  education  became  ecclesiastical,  all  piety  monastic  in  type. 
 There  was  a  monotonous  and  absolute  ascendency  of  sacerdotal 
 authority.  And  how  could  there  be  anything  but  an  ever- 
 deepening  misinterpretation  of  Scripture  when  so  few  Christian 
 interpreters  possessed  even  a  smattering  of  Hebrew ;  when 
 Greek  was  but  little  known  ;  when  men  went  to  Scripture, 
 not  to  seek  truth,  but  to  find  their  own  dogmas;  when, 
 in  spite  of  a  nominal  idolatry  for  the  sacred  writings,  men 
 turned    them    into   plastic    enigmas;    when    the  interpreter 
 
 world  ns  being  "in  actual  progress,"  ami  thought  that  the  light  of  eternity 
 was  already  piercing  the  gloom  of  time.  Dialog,  iv.  41.  Gregory,  in  his 
 thirty-five  books  of  Moralia  ("ein  schweres,  ein  unausdehnliches  Bnch") 
 thinks  it  "unworthy  to  bind  the  heavenly  utterances  by  the  rules  of 
 Donatus."  He  says,  "  Primum  quidem  fundaments  Historiae  ponimus ; 
 deinde  per  significatorem  typicam  m  arcem  fidei  fabricam  mentis  erigimns  ; 
 ad  extrcmum  ciuo<pm  per  momlitatis  gratiam  quasi  superducto  aedificiom 
 vestimus. '     Ep.  ad  Leandrum. 
 
 1  Hist.  Lit.  de  France,  ii.     For  the  facts  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  para- 
 graphs see    Ilanieau,    Hist,    de    la   Philon.    Scholastique,    i.    1-16.      llallam, 
 Middle  Ages,  iii.    lis.     Bouquet,    Ber.  Gallic.  Script,  vol.   v.     Even  Alcuin 
 grew  up  to  disparage  as  "polluting"  the  study  of  Virgil.     Vita    M)gn<  | 
 Maitland,  Dark  Ages,  p.  179. 
 
 -  The  three  arts  of  grammar,  dialectics,  and  rhetoric,  and  the  four  sciences 
 of  arithmetic,  geometry,  music,  and  astronomy.  See  .1.  Bass  Mullingcr,  The 
 Schools  of  Charles  the  Great  (1877).  Brucker,  iii.  957.  Haureau  U.  21) 
 attributes  the  classification  to  Martianus  Capella,  but  it  is  as  old  as  Augustine 
 </>■  Ordine,  13).  SeeJ.  Qow,  Short  Hist,  of  Greek  Mathematics,  p.  I'l  (1884). 
 i.e..,,  Maine,  Les  Itcoles  de  Foceident ;  Monnier,  Alcuin  et  son  influence. 
 Manset,  .]/•/.  Logic.  Rudimenta,  p.  28. 
 
248  The  Venerable  Betle. 
 
 set  himself  practically  above  the  text  by  making  it  answer 
 him  in  accordance  with  his  own  idols,  or  not  at  all  ? 
 -  The  seventh  and  four  following  centuries  were  the  age  of 
 sheer  compilation,  in  the  form,  first  of  excerpts,  and  then  of 
 glosses.1  John  of  Damascus  was  labouring  at  commentaries  in 
 the  Eastern  Church  at  the  same  time  that  Bede  was  devoting 
 fifty-eight  continuous  years  to  them  in  the  Western ;  but  both 
 are  compilers.2  The  Venerable  Bede  (t  735)  was  "  a  man 
 whom  it  is  easier  to  admire  than  to  extol  as  he  deserved;"3  yet 
 though  quite  capable  by  his  genius  and  learning  of  exercising 
 an  independent  criticism,4  he  only  professes  to  collect  passages 
 from  the  Fathers,  with  the  occasional  addition  of  a  few  words 
 of  his  own.  In  his  preface  to  his  comment  on  St.  Luke,  he 
 says  that  it  consists  of  extracts  woven  together  from  Ambrose, 
 Augustine,  Jerome,5  and  other  Fathers,  the  authorship  of  each 
 clause  being  marked  by  the  initial  of  the  writer's  name 
 which  he  entreats  copyists  not  to  omit.6  Being  thus  de- 
 pendent he  is  hopelessly  led  astray.  He  accepts  as  important 
 the  baseless  rules  of  Tichonius.  Jerome  had  said  that 
 Luke  being  a  physician  provides  medicine  for  the  soul  also, 
 and  this  remark  furnished  Bede  with  a  sufficient  reason  for 
 a  constant  introduction  of  allegory  into  the  explanation  of 
 
 1  Excerpts  or  Catenae  {crelpat,  avWoyat,  epfiriveiuiv  inno/ual),  like  those  of 
 Cassiodorus,  Primasius,  Sedulius,  Floras  Magister,  Remigius,  and  in  the  Greek 
 Church  those  of  John  of  Damascus,  were  extremely  numerous.  Second- 
 hand commentaries,  like  those  of  Procopius  of  Gaza,  Isidore  of  Seville, 
 Bede,  Claudius  Turinensis,  Angelomus,  and  Pseudo-Haymo  abounded  and 
 multiplied.  The  commentary  of  Chr.  Druthmar  on  St.  Matthew  is  an  im- 
 provement on  most  of  these  ;  yet  in  commenting  on  "Liber  generationis  Jcsu 
 Christi"  he  tells  us  "liber"  also  means  "free,"  and  "  the  bark  of  the  tree  ;  " 
 and  he  derives  panis  hova.-nav.  "Scripturi  maxime  quae  in  Patrum  exemplis 
 invenimus  bine  inde  collecta  ponere  curabimus,  sed  et  nonnulla  propria  ubi 
 opportunum  videbitur  interponcmus"  (Prol.  in  Marc). 
 
 2  Rede,  Hist.  Eeel.  Introd.  On  John  Damascene's  commentaries  see  Lupton, 
 pp.  156  sq. 
 
 3  William  of  Malmeshury. 
 
 4  As  he  shows,  especially  in  his  lMractationes. 
 
 5  "The  teaching  of  the  Latin  Church  rested  on  the  authority  of  three 
 Fathers — Ambrose,  Jerome,  Augustine.  From  the  first  she  derived  her 
 conception  of  sacerdotal  authority  ;  from  the  second  her  attachment  to 
 monasticism  ;  from  the  third  her  dogmatic  theology  ;  and  to  these  three 
 conceptions  the  most  remarkable  phenomena  in  European  History  may 
 undoubtedly  be  referred." — J.  P.  Mullinger,  The  University  of  Cambridge,  i. 
 p.  3.     Milman,  Latin  Christianity,  Bk.  ii.  c.  4. 
 
 6  They  have,  however,  done  so. 
 
Exegesis  of  Bede.  249 
 
 a  book  exquisitely  simple  and  transparently  historical.     In 
 
 Old  Testament  comments  he  revels  in   the  Philonian  and 
 
 Origenistic  method.     Laban  means  "whitened,"   and  he   is 
 
 therefore  a  symbol  of  the  devil  transformed  into  an  Angel  of 
 
 Light ;  he  also  represents  the  world  pursuing  the  elect.   Jacob 
 
 took  away  his  daughters — the  daughters,  that  is,  of  the  world 
 
 and  the  devil — when  Christ  won  Himself  a  Church  from  the 
 
 Gentiles.     Mandrakes,  he    says,  are  a  kind  of  tree   in   the 
 
 shape  of   a   man,    except  that   they  have   no  head.     They, 
 
 therefore,  represent  humanity  without  Christ.     In  the   be- 
 
 snnnino-  of  Samuel  the  Vulgate  has  Fait  vir  unus,  et  nomen 
 
 ejus  Elcana.     Bede  makes  a  mystery  of  the  times,  and  says 
 
 that  it  points  in  the  first  place  to  Christ ;  next  it  implies  the 
 
 unity  of  the  elect ;  and  thirdly  it  points  to  a  man  who  was 
 
 not  double-minded.     What  is  it  to  us  monks,  he  asks,  to  be 
 
 told  that  Elkanah  had  two  wives  ? x     If  we  only  draw  such 
 
 '  old  things  "  as  the  literal  sense  out  of  Scripture,  we  get  no 
 
 spiritual  doctrine ;  but  when  we  understand  it  allegorically, 
 
 Elkanah  is  our  Lord,  and  his  two  wives  are  the  Synagogue 
 
 and    the    Church.      Any  one,   he  says,  who   knows   how  to 
 
 interpret  the    Book    of   Tobit  allegorically,    sees    the    inner 
 
 sense  to  be  as  superior  to  the  literal  as  fruit  is  to  leaves.2 
 
 Thus  in  the  works  of  Bede  we  find  ourselves  for  the  most 
 
 part  among  the   sediments   of  patristic  exposition.     All  the 
 
 writers  of   this   school  speak  like  Bede  of  their  pusillitas 
 
 and  their  temeriias,  and  their  ingcniolum,  and  profess  to  write 
 
 only  for  the  rudis  lector.     Of  the  Fathers,  from  which  they 
 
 so   indiscriminately   borrowed,  they  can   only   speak   "with 
 
 bated  breath  and  whispering  humbleness."3 
 
 Similarly  in  reading   ALCUIN   (t   804),  we   find  that  the 
 
 Intcrrogationcs  with  which  he  is  occupied  are  often  as  idle  as 
 
 1  Such  remarks  show  that  allegory  was  tin'  daughter  of  rationalism.  So 
 Sixtus  Senensis  asks  "Quid  juvat  scire  antiquorum  Judaeorum  bella  el  sedi- 
 tiones  '"  and  maters  this  a  potent  argument  for  allegorising.     / 
 
 (  1  li    ■  r:ic). 
 
 -  "Si  quiseundem  allegorice  novil  interpretari  quantum  poma  foliis  tantum 
 interiorem  ''jus  sensum  videt  simplicitati  Literae  praestare." 
 
 :;  Bede  was  himself  reckoned  afterwards  among  the  Fathers.  William  of 
 Conches  says,  "Non  est  fas  Bedae  vel  alicui  alii  tanctoru/m  Patrum  contra- 
 clicere"  (up.  Cousin,  (Ev/orea  Inid,  d'Abel.  p.  673). 
 
250  Maurus. 
 
 the  Besponsioncs  are  valueless,  and  he,  too,  most  humbly 
 prostrates  his  intellect  at  the  feet  of  the  Fathers — Cautissimo 
 stylo  providcns  ne  quid  contrarium  Patrum  scnsibus  ponerem. 
 The  works  of  Haymo  of  Halberstadt,  and  Rabanus  Maurus 
 (t  850)  are  equally  servile,  and  the  latter  unconsciously 
 exposed  the  futility  of  the  allegoric  method  by  the  alphabetic 
 register  {Liber  Allcgoriaruiii),  in  which  he  tried  to  reduce  it 
 to  system.1  He  tells  us  that  he  compiled  his  commentary 
 on  the  Epistles  from  eleven  Latin  and  three  Greek  Fathers 
 {Prol.  inMatth.).  Paschasius  Radbertus  (t  805)  boasts  that  he 
 "  adhered  to  the  footsteps  "  of  Gregory,  &c,  and  never  deviated 
 from  them.  How  significant  is  the  remark  of  Notker  of 
 St.  Gall  (t912),  "In  Matthaeo  Hieronymus  sujjiciat  tibi, 
 in  Marco  pedisseguo  Matthaei  Bacda  pedisseqims  Hieronymi." 
 
 Doubtless  such  compilations  had  a  certain  use  when 
 nothing  better  was  to  be  had,  and  when  books  were  few  and 
 not  easily  obtained ;  but  they  tended  even  in  their  own  day 
 to  stereotype  false  positions  and  check  original  study.2  They 
 were  made  without  criticism  or  choice  on  the  most  haphazard 
 principles.  They  gyrate  round  a  narrow  circle  of  recognised 
 interpreters.  Being  dependent  on  the  chance  of  translations 
 for  the  few  Greek  Fathers  whom  the  writers  consulted,  they 
 wholly  ignore  the  masterly  labours  of  the  Antiochene  ex- 
 positors. They  quote  mutilated  fragments  of  works  often 
 spurious,  and  these  fragments  are  frequently  misunderstood. 
 The  result  is  a  mosaic  of  dubious  and  irreconcilable  opinions. 
 For  modern  times  they  might  have  preserved  passages  which 
 would  have  been  otherwise  lost ;  but  the  quotations  are  so 
 erroneous,  and  so  often  derived  second,  third,  and  fourth  hand 
 from  bad  translations  and  supposititious  works,  that  even  for 
 this  purpose  they  are  of  scarcely  any  use.3 
 
 1  Rabanus  Maurus  is  chiefly  great  as  the  "primus  Germaniae  praeeeptor," 
 not  as  an  Exegete. 
 
 2  A  distinction  must  be  made  between  glosses  (glossae,  Po.itilkte,  iiriTo/xa\, 
 crvWoyal,  awaywycu  kpfi-qveiaiv,  i£i]yji(reis  avWeyelffai,  &c. )  and  the  later 
 Catenae  proper,  which  chiefly  occur  from  the  ninth  to  the  sixteenth  century. 
 See  Fritzsche  in  Herzog,  s.v.  Exeget.  Collections.  Cramer,  Praef.  in  Catcn. 
 New  Testament. 
 
 3  The  Quaestiones  of  Fhotius  (t  890),  and  the  compilations  of  Procopina  of 
 Gaza  (sixth  century),  of  Oecumenius  (tenth  century,  chielly  from  Chrysostom), 
 
The  Glosses.  251 
 
 The  Glosses  whether  marginal  like  that  of  Walafrid  Strabo 
 (t  849),  or  interlinear  like  that  of  Anselm  of  Laon  (t  1117), 
 are  of  a  still  lower  order  of  merit  than  the  exegetic  antho- 
 logies. Besides  being  compilations  they  were  heaped  together 
 without  choice,  order,  or  criticism,  and  they  furnish  a  pro- 
 miscuous mass  of  literal,  moral,  and  mystic  fragments, 
 intermingled  with  grammatical  remarks  of  the  most 
 elementary  character.1  With  an  "aliter"  or  "  potest  etiam 
 intelligi "  the  reader  is  often  left  to  choose  between  hetero- 
 geneous interpretations  logically  exclusive  of  each  other. 
 Hermeneutic  principle  there  is  none.  When  Gisla  and 
 Reetruda,  daughters  of  Charlemagne,  wrote  to  ask  Alcuin  for 
 a  commentary  on  St.  John,  they  never  dreamed  of  asking  for 
 anything  original  but  said  "  CoUige  multorum  margaritas." 
 Yet  the  Glossa  ordinaria  of  Walafrid  Strabo  (t  849)  acquired 
 such  extraordinary  popularity  that  it  was  called  Lingua 
 Scripturae,  and  even  Peter  Lombard  quotes  it  under  the  title 
 of  "  the  Authority."2     A  single  specimen  may  serve  to  show 
 
 of  Theophylact  (eleventh  century),  ami  Euthymius  Zigaebenus  (twelfth  cen- 
 tury), in  the  Creek  Church  have  a  higher  value.  See  Fabricius,  Bill.  Grace. 
 vii.  727  ;  Buddeus,  hag.  p.  1422  ;  Waleh,  Bibl.  Med.  iv.  192  fg.  ;  Elster, 
 De  M*d.  Aevi  Theolo'g.  Exeget.  p.  17  ;  Bacon,  Advancement  of  Learning,  ii. 
 "This  course  of  sums  and  commentaries  is  that  which  doth  infallibly  make 
 the  body  of  sciences  more  immense  in  quantity  and  more  base  in  substance." 
 Erasm.  in  2  Cor.  xi.  23;  1  .Tim.  ii.  15;  "  Tumultuario  Studio,  hint  atqrn 
 hinc  consarcinatis  glossematis."  But  no  judgment  can  be  severer  than  that  of 
 the  acute  John  of  Salisbury.  "  Compliant  omnium  opiniones,  et  ilia  quae 
 etiam  a.  vilissimis  dicta  vcl  scripfa  sunt  at)  inopia  judicii  scribunt  et  referunt ; 
 proponunt  enim  omnia  quia  nesciunt  praefcrre  mcliora,"  &c.  Metalog.  ii.  7. 
 For  a  more  favourable  view  see  Newman's  Pref.  to  the  Catena  Antra,  and 
 Anri,  at  Saint*,  chap.  v. 
 
 1  See  Glossen  and  Exeget.  Sammlunqen  in  Herzog's  Encyklop.  The  success 
 of  the  Glossa  was  due  in  part  to  its  (baseless)  ingenuity.  Thus  on  Gen.  ix. 
 13,  since  the  rainbow  is  blue  and  red,  it  is  made  to  be  a  prophecy  of  the 
 Deluge  and  the  final  conflagration  I  See  too  Hieron.  Magius,  De  mundi 
 ■  mstione  (1562),  p.  9.  Milton,  even  in  his  day,  complains  of  the  use  made 
 by  the  clergy  of  "  interlinearies  .  .  .  and  other  loitering  gear."    Then' were 
 
 Dine  editions  of  the  Glossa  between  1  172  and  1634. 
 
 2  Contemporary  with  Walafrid  was  his  teacher,  Rabanus  Maurus  (t  856', 
 the  author  of  the  Liber  dllegoriarum.  He  speaks  of  himself  as  "  Col- 
 Icctarin::  quidam,"  and  in  bis  Prologue  to  St.  Matthew  tells  as  thai  bis  com- 
 mentary is  composed  of  extracts  from  eleven  Latin  and  three  Greet  Fathers. 
 Great  part  even  of  his  introduction  is  verbally  identical  with  Bede's.  Fabri 
 cius  says  that  there  were  hundreds  of  Catenae  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris. 
 The  manufcu  ture  was  easy.  See  too  /fist.  Lit.  de  France,  v.  62.  The  Douay 
 edition  of  the  Glossa  Ordinaria  says  that  all  succeeding  writers  used  to  consult 
 it  "  tamquam  ojkinam  ecclesiastkorum  sensuum." 
 
252  Exegetic  Nullity. 
 
 its  character.  It  might  have  been  thought  that  the  first 
 verse  of  the  Prophet  Joel,  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  to 
 Joel  the  son  of  Pethucl,"  needed  little  elucidation.  In  the 
 Glossa  "  the  word "  is  as  a  matter  of  course  absurdly  and 
 irreverently  referred  to  Christ,  and  "  quod  factum  est "  is 
 explained  to  mean  that  Christ  was  "  made  "  not  as  regards 
 Himself  but  as  regards  him  to  whom  He  was  made.  "  Factum 
 est,"  says  Remigius,  "  is  put  for  '  spoke '"  !  "  This  word,"  says 
 Rupert  of  Deutz,  "  is  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  whom  Joel  son 
 of  Phaluck  signifies  both  by  his  own  and  by  his  father's 
 name."1  "  The  word,"  says  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  "  involves  the 
 sound,  the  form,  the  meaning.  The  sound  is  here  addressed 
 to  the  enemy ;  the  form  of  the  word  to  the  afflicted  people ; 
 the  meaning  of  the  word  to  the  mind  of  the  Prophet,  and  the 
 choir  of  the  elect."  It  would  be  hardly  possible  more  effectu- 
 ally to  darken  counsel  by  the  multitude  of  words  without 
 knowledge ;  yet  with  such  comments  the  mediaeval  writings 
 are  filled  in  every  page.  The  Eruclitio  Didascaliae  by  Hugo 
 of  St.  Victor  shows  that  even  the  theory  of  exegesis  was 
 hopelessly  perverted.2  Its  practice  consists  for  the  most  part 
 of  moral  platitudes ;  dogmatic  iterations  extorted  from 
 passages  with  which  they  have  not  the  remotest  connexion ; 
 mystic  plays  on  numbers ;  erroneous  etymologies ;  a  use  of 
 parallel  phrases  and  passages  which  is  often  absurd  in  its 
 triviality,  and  which  a  glance  at  the  original  languages  or  the 
 context  would  have  rendered  impossible ;  and  amidst  these 
 
 1  Rupert  illustrates  the  possibility  of  subtle  theological  acumen  co-existing 
 with  very  weak  exegesis.  John  Wessel  (f  1489)  when  tired  of  the  iteration  of 
 the  Summiatae  used  to  cross  the  Rhine  and  read  the  MSS.  of  Rupert  in  the 
 Abbey  of  Deutz. 
 
 -  Eruclit.  Didasc.  vi.  In  some  respects  there  was  more  freedom  of  thought 
 in  the  ninth  century  than  in  the  twelfth.  Claudius  of  Turin  (t  839)  and 
 Archbishop  Agobard  of  Lyons  (t  840)  were  both  of  them  independent  thinkers. 
 The  latter  argues  against  verbal  dictation  (ipsa  corporalia  verba)  of  Scripture  as 
 absurd,  and  rightly  insists  that  its  form  is  human,  even  when  the  sense  is 
 divine  (Lib.  c.  Object.  Frcdegisii,  xii.  277).  The  passage  is  quoted  by  Mr. 
 Poole  (Med.  Tliought,  p.  46),  who  says  that  Gibbon's  remark  "  that  the 
 disciples  of  the  Messiah  were  indulged  in  a  freer  latitude,  both  of  faith  and 
 practice,  than  has  ever  been  allowed  in  succeeding  ages,"  applies  no  less  to  the 
 ninth  century.  Agobard  distinguished  himself  by  protesting  against  the  duel 
 and  ordeal,  and  Renter  (Bel.  Aufcrklarimg  im  Mittclalter,  i.  24)  calls  him 
 "the  clearest  head  of  the  ninth  century."  On  this  period  see  R.  Simon, 
 Hist,  des  Comment,  pp.  422-468  ;  Buddeus,  Isagoga,  lib.  ii.  cap.  8. 
 
Erigena.  253 
 
 mnsses  of  exegetic  nullity  a  total  failure  to  grasp  the  simple 
 and  often  obvious  meaning  either  of  books,  passages,  texts,  or 
 even  words.  Most  of  these  Compilers  and  Glossators  were 
 preachers ;  some  of  them  were  saints  of  God ;  many  of  them 
 were  the  most  learned  men  of  their  day ;  but  in  spite  of  all 
 this,  their  exegesis  is  null  and  naught.1 
 
 Between  this  earlier  epoch  and  the  zenith  of  Papal  supre- 
 macy stands  the  great  name  of  JOHANNES  Scotus  ERIGENA. 
 Scholasticism  practically  sjDrang  out  of  the  brief  collision 
 between  Church  authority  and  independent  thought.  It  was 
 in  part  the  outcome  of  controversies  like  that  between  Ratram 
 and  Paschasius  on  the  Eucharist  (a.D.  844)  ;  between  Lanfranc 
 and  Berengarius  on  the  Eucharist  (1047)  ;  between  Anselm 
 and  Roscelin  on  Universals  (1092) ;  between  Bernard  and 
 Abelard  on  rationalism.2  Erigena,  who  towers  above  his  age, 
 was  employed  to  answer  Gotteschalc  who  was  a  Predestinarian, 
 but  he  was  himself  condemned  by  two  Councils  for  "  very 
 many  heresies  inferred  by  very  many  syllogisms,"  and  bis 
 books  were  burnt  by  Pope  Honorius  III.3  Alone  among  his 
 predecessors,  contemporaries,  and  successors,  he  shows  in- 
 dependence and  originality.  "  Let  no  authority  terrify  you," 
 he  says,  "  from  conclusions  which  the  reasonable  persuasion 
 
 1  Even  Cardinal  Newman  says,  "About  the  sixth  or  seventh  century 
 this  originality  disappears  ;  the  oral  or  traditionary  teaching  which  allowed 
 scope  to  the  individual  teacher  became  hardened  into  a  xcrittcn  tradition,  and 
 henceforth  there  is  a  uniform  invariable  character  as  well  as  substance  of 
 Scripture  interpretation."  Pref.  to  Catena  Aurea,  p.  ii.  The  lexicographers 
 Hesychius,  Suidas,  l'havorinus,  Zonaras,  &c,  are  not  exegetes  but  furnish 
 good  materials. 
 
 2  Scholasticism  may  be  divided  into  three  epochs.  1.  From  Anselm  (tllOO) 
 to  Peter  Lombard  (t  1104).  2.  From  Peter  Lombard  to  the  death  of  Albertua 
 Magnus  (t  1280).  3.  From  tin:  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  to  Gabriel 
 Biel(tl495).  Eaur^au divides  it,  1.  From  Alcuin  to  the  end  of  the  twelfth 
 century.  2.  From  Alexander  of  Hales  (t  1245)  to  John  Gerson  (t  1429). 
 Uebcrweg's  epochs  are  nearly  the  same,  and  so  are  those  adopted  by  Tribbe- 
 chovius  and  by  Diestel.  Philosophically,  Mr.  Lewes  distinguishes  three 
 epochs.     1.    The  debate  on  Universals.     2.    The  influence  of  Aristotle.     3. 
 
 The  proclamation  of  the  independence  of  reason  (Biogr.  Hist,  of  Philos.  p. 
 290).  Cousin  distinguishes  between  the  periods  of  (1)  absolute  subordination 
 uid  (2)  commencing  emancipation  of  philosophy  (Coura  dc  Vhiat.  de  la  philos. 
 Lecon  i.\.). 
 
 8  Feb.  23,  1225.  The  writings  of  Erigena  fell  into  the  more  suspicion 
 from  the  use  made. of  them  by  Berengarius  of  Tours  in  the  Eucharistic  con- 
 troversy (1050),  and  by  Anuilric  of  Bene.  John  Scotus  was  the  lirst  who 
 adopted  a  systematically  syllogistic  form  of  argument. 
 
254<  Erigena. 
 
 of  right  contemplation  tcaclies.  Reason  and  authority  come 
 alike  from  the  one  source  of  divine  wisdom,  and  cannot 
 contradict  each  other.  Reason  is  not  to  be  overruled  by 
 authority  but  the  reverse,  and  therefore  the  opinions  of  the 
 Fathers  must  only  be  introduced  in  case  of  necessity,1  for  the 
 Fathers  often  contradict  each  other." 2  That  voice  was  of  a 
 higher  mood,  but  no  one  listened  to  it.  Erigena  unhappily 
 was  not  a  commentator.  He  held  indeed  that  "  the  sense  of 
 divine  utterance  is  manifold,  and  like  a  peacock's  feather 
 glows  with  many  colours,"3  but  he  also  held  that  all  creatures 
 are  manifestations  of  the  divine.  The  chief  influence  he 
 exercised  was  due  to  his  translation  and  adoption  of  the 
 views  of  the  Syrian  Neojjlatonist  whose  works  were  attributed 
 to  Dionysius  the  Areopagite.4  Those  spurious  writings,  which 
 probably  originated  at  Edessa  or  under  the  influence  of 
 the  Edessene  School,  about  the  beginning  of  the  sixth 
 century,  wrought  like  a  spell  upon  the  mediaeval  Church 
 
 1  Be  Biv.  Nat.  i.  66,  68,  71,  iv.  9  ;  Diestel,  p.  159.  He  asserts  the  identify 
 of  Philosophy  and  Keligion,  not  the  vassalage  of  the  former  to  the  latter. 
 IJeberweg,  i.  357.     So  too  Berengar.  adv.  Lanfranc,  Lib.  posterior,  p.  105. 
 
 2  Be  Biv.  Nat.  iv.  16. 
 
 3  Be  Div.  Nat.  iv.  5.  This  truly  great  work  was  condemned  by  the  Synod 
 of  Valence  (855)  as  a  commentwm  diaboli ;  and  by  Pope  Honorius  III.  (1225) 
 as  "  teeming  with  the  venom  of  heretical  depravity  ; "  and  placed  on  the 
 Index  by  Gregory  XIII.     See  Schaff,  Mediaeval  Christianity,  ii.  543. 
 
 4  The  writings  of  Pseudo-Dionysius  are  first  heard  of  about  532,  soon  after 
 the  closing  of  the  Neoplatonic  schools  of  Athens  by  Justinian,  and  their  authen- 
 ticity was  early  disputed  (Phot.  Cod.  2).  Cave  {Script.  Ecc.  i.  177)  attributes 
 them  to  Apollinaris  the  elder,  and  others  to  Synesius.  Neither  suggestion  is 
 probable.  See  Gieseler,  ii.  113  ;  Meier,  Be  Bionysii  ct  Mysticorum  Boctrina, 
 1845  ;  Montet,  Bes  Litres  du  Pseudo-Bionysius  ;  Dean  Colet  on  the  Celestial 
 Hierarchies  of  Bionysius  (ed.  Lupton) ;  "Westcott  on  Bionys.  the  Arcop., 
 Contemp.  llev.  May,  1867.  "The  effect  of  this  work  on  the  whole  ec- 
 clesiastical system  and  on  the  popular  faith  it  is  almost  impossible  justly  to 
 estimate."  Milman,  Lat.  Christ,  iv.  334.  "  Proclus  and  Dionysius  ploughed 
 with  one  and  the  same  Neoplatonic  heifer"  (Fabric.  Marini  Procli  Vita,  p. 
 xii.).  The  books  of  Dionysius  were  translated  by  J.  Seotus  Erigena,  and  in 
 the  twelfth  century  by  Saracenus ;  but  even  in  757  his  writings  had  been 
 given  by  Paul  1.  to  Pippin.  They  were  favourites  with  the  mystics,  as  also 
 with  Fieino  and  Pico  of  Mirandola.  Some  of  Abelard's  many  troubles  were 
 caused  by  certain  historic  doubts  as  to  Dionysius  and  St.  Denys.  Pope  says 
 with  somewhat  ignorant  severity, 
 
 "  Go  soar  with  Plato  to  tli'  empyreal  sphere 
 To  the  first  good,  first  perfect,  and  first  fair  ; 
 Or  tread  the  mazy  round  bis  followers  trod, 
 And  quitting  sense  call  imitating  God." 
 
 Essay  on  Man,  ii.  23-26. 
 
St.  Bernard.  255 
 
 and  especially  upon  the  mystics  of  the  twelfth  and  the 
 Platonists  of  the  fifteenth  century.  The  (f)vyrj  /xovov  7rpo<? 
 fiovov  of  Plotinus1  expresses  the  inmost  idea  of  Mysticism, 
 and  its  influence  is  traceable  not  only  in  the  mystics  of  the 
 Middle  Ages  but  in  Dean  Colet,2  in  the  Quietists,  in  the 
 Molinists,  and  even  in  the  memorable  remark  of  Cardinal 
 Newman  about  God  and  the  soul  as  being  the  two  supremely 
 and  luminously  self-evident  existences. 
 
 It  was  not  till  the  twelfth  century  that  the  slightest  breath 
 of  fresh  life  blew  over  the  faded  fields.  The  era  of  passivity 
 ends  with  Erigena.  Thenceforth  dogma  assumes  the  aid  of>. 
 dialectics,  and  is  developed  into  a  system.  Just  as  Alexan- 
 drian Christianity  was  the  result  of  a  conflict  with  heretical 
 gnosis,  so  scholasticism  was  elicited  by  the  efforts  of  free 
 inquiry.  The  era  begins  with  the  attempt  of  Anselm  (1033- 
 1109)  to  raise  the  truths  of  faith  to  scientific  certainty,  and 
 so  to  fuse  faith  and  reason  as  to  save  the  one  from  being 
 blind,  and  the  other  from  being  autocratic.3  The  close  of 
 this  century  is  marked  by  the  great  names  of  Bernard  (1091- 
 1153),  of  Abelard  (1079-1142),  of  Rupert  of  Deutz  (t  1135),4 
 of  Hugo  (t  1141),  and  of  Richard  de  Sto  Victore  (t  1173). 
 
 St.  Bernard,  the  Doctor  Mellifiuus,  and  "  Last  of  the 
 Fathers,"  is  the  able  and  eloquent  representative  of  the  eccle- 
 siastical rule,  but  also  the  father  of  the  mediaeval  mystics.5 
 Mysticism  is  the  natural  resource  of  souls  that  cannot  find  suffi- 
 cient to  satisfy  their  religious  needs  in  the  tyranny  of  artificial 
 systems.     The  calm  question  of  the  author  of  the  Imitatio, 
 
 1  Plotin.  Ennead.  vi.  9.  Creuzer  says  of  the  Vs.  Dionysius,  "His  walls  are 
 inlaid  with  1'lotinian  mosaic."  Dante  expresses  the  high  estimate  of  him  in 
 the  Mediaeval  Church  (Par.  x.  112  ;  xxviii.  121). 
 
 s  "  Nisi  potent  homo  dicere  secum  Ego  solus  et  Deus  in  mundo  sum  non 
 habebil  requiem  "  (<  lolet). 
 
 3  "Credo  ut  intelligam"  (Anselm,  Prol.). 
 
 4  The  remarks  of  Rupert  (Prol.  inJoann.)  in  favour  of  the  view  that  com- 
 mentators  were  still  possible  though  Augustine  had  written,  were  thought 
 unusually  bold.  On  the  transcend!  i, t  authority  of  Augustine,  which  even 
 Berengariua  said  it  was  "nc  fas  quidem  contradicere,"  see  Werner,  Schol.  d. 
 .1/      lalt.  i.  1-3. 
 
 •■  See  Stockl,  Qeaeh.  d  Philos.  d.  Mittelalters,  I  293.  It  is  remarkable  that 
 while  Peter  Lombard  quotes  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  he  never  notices  Bernard. 
 Thomasius  thinks  that  this  was  out  of  kindness  to  the  memory  of  his  teacher 
 Abelard. 
 
256  Tltc  Song  of  Solomon. 
 
 "  Quid  nolis  cum  gcncribus  ct  spcciebns  ?  "  exjoressed  the  re- 
 jection by  the  truest  mystics  of  the  discussions  which  oc- 
 cupied so  many  centuries.  Mysticism  was  not  an  enemy  to 
 scholasticism,  but  had  a  different  aim.  Scholasticism  dealt 
 with  aetiology,  and  aimed  at  the  discovery  of  truth ;  mysticism 
 dealt  with  teleology,  and  aimed  at  the  realisation  of  holiness.1 
 All  mysticism  is  included  in  the  remark  of  St.  Bernard, 
 "  Causa  diligendi  Dei  Deus  est,  modus  est  sine  modo  diligere  " 
 (De  dilig.  Deo,  opp.  i.  974).  It  was  fostered  in  the  intellect 
 by  the  fancies  of  the  Pseudo-Areopagite,  and  in  the  heart 
 by  the  unnatural  asceticism  of  the  monastic  system.  Deprived 
 of  the  refining  influence  of  family  life,  shut  up  in  an  endless 
 round  of  services  and  self-denials  which  alike  tended  to 
 become  mechanical,  the  monks  were  still  unable  to  defy  the 
 emotions  and  impulses  of  nature,  and  while  they  desired  to 
 live  in  closest  communion  with  the  divine,  constructed  for 
 themselves  in  the  next  world  an  idealised  form  of  the  joys 
 which  they  gave  up  in  this.  There  was  one  book  of  the 
 Bible  which  left  scope  to  their  imagination  to  revel  in 
 thoughts  which  seemed  to  be  innocent  because  they  were 
 supposed  to  be  Scriptural,  and  which  gratified  those  yearnings 
 of  the  human  heart  which  are  too  strong  and  too  sacred  to 
 be  permanently  crushed.  It  was  the  Song  of  Solomon. 
 Many  of  the  Jewish  Rabbis  had  felt  doubts  about  the  book, 
 until  Aqiba  with  his  usual  dictatorial  confidence  had  declared 
 that  it  was  the  very  Holy  of  Holies  of  Scripture.2  Whether 
 mystically  interpreted  of  the  soul  or  not,  it  was  felt  to  be 
 a  warm  and  glowing  song  of  love,  and  Jewish  youths  were 
 not  permitted  to  read  it.3  Such  feelings  were  not  transitory. 
 Abelard  feared  the  effects  which  it  would  produce  on  the  minds 
 
 1  Hergenrbther,  K.  G.  i.  953.  St.  Bernard  speaks  (Sermons,  ed.  Marh'ne, 
 p.  21)  "  of  Aristotelicae  subtilitatisfacunda  quidem  sed  infecunda  loquacitas." 
 
 2  "  On  the  day  when  R.  Eliezer  ben  Azariah  was  made  President  it  was 
 decided  that  the  books  of  Canticles  and  Ecclesiastes  defile  the  hands  (i.e. 
 are  canonical).  R.  Aqiba  said  .  .  .  No  day  in  the  history  of  the  world  is  so 
 valued  as  the  day  when  the  Rook  of  Canticles  wras  given  to  Israel  ;  for  all  the 
 Scriptures  are  holy,  but  the  Book  of  Canticles  is  the  Holy  of  Holies " 
 (Yaddaim,  c.  iii.). 
 
 3  Sanhedrin,  f.  101,  i.  . .  .  "  Whoever  recites  averse  of  the  Song  of  Solomon 
 as  a  secular  song  .  .  .  causes  evil  to  come  upon  the  world." 
 
Monasticism.  257 
 
 nf  f  lie  virgins  of  the  Paraclete.1  When  we  read  Jerome's  letter 
 to  Eustochium  on  Virginity  we  can  see  that  there  might  be 
 both  moral  danger  and  gross  bad  taste  in  the  manner  in 
 which  the  images  of  Canticles  were  applied.2  Something  of 
 the  same  kind  may  be  seen  at  the  close  of  Hugo's  treatise, 
 De  Nuptiis.  Jerome  had  mentioned  the  Canticles  as  the 
 goal  for  Paulla's  theological  studies.3  Aquinas  expounded  it 
 almost  with  his  dying  breath.  The  monkish  commentaries 
 upon  it  were  unwholesomely  numberless.  In  the  eighty- 
 six  Eomilies  of  St.  Bernard  there  are  thoughts  and  passages 
 full  of  beauty,  but  the  mystic  interpretation  of  the  book, 
 even  if  it  be  justifiable,  degenerated  in  meaner  hands  into  a 
 style  of  language  of  which  it  would  be  charitable  to  say 
 nothing  worse  than  that  it  is  too  poetically  sensuous  for  any 
 commentary  on  Holy  Writ. 
 
 The    monastery    of   St.    Victor    was    the    chief  home    of 
 mediaeval  mysticism.4     Over  its  gate  was  the  inscription — 
 
 "  Claustrum  nolenti  mors  est,  seel  vita  volenti  ; 
 Per  claustri  seelem  cocli  mercaberis  Helen!' 
 
 In  that  distich  lay  the  whole  theory  of  monasticism.  Its 
 aim  was  to  fly  from  the  world,  not  to  save  it.  It  strove  to 
 obtain  personal  salvation  as  the  payment  of  present  asceticism. 
 Hugo  was  driven  into  mysticism  by  disgusted  conviction  of 
 the  danger  and  uselessness  of  the  dialectics  which  had  been 
 introduced  into  the  service  of  religion.  "The  incorrupted 
 truth   of  things,"  he   says,  "cannot  be  discovered  by  ratio- 
 
 1  Kp.  ad  Vvrg.  Parael.  "  Ne  sub  ca/rnalibus  verbis  nuptiarum  spiritualium, 
 epithalamium  non  intelligent  vulneretur"  {Opp.  ed.  Cousin,  i.  227). 
 '-'  Here  are  a  few  of  St.    Bernard's  explanations:  Meliora  sunt  libera  tun 
 Though  addressed  to  the  Bride  he  refers  them  to  Christ,  and  says  that 
 they  mean  His  patv  na  and  His  clemency  (which  he  proves  at  great  length  by 
 "parallel   passages").      Propterea  adolescentulae  te  dilexerunt   nirnis.     The 
 cent/aloe  are  the  Angels,  and   this  gives    Bernard  an    opportunity  to 
 expatiate  a1  length  on  the  nine  orders  of  Angels,  &c. 
 *  Ep.  ad  Lactam. 
 4  Hugo,  Erudit.  Didascal.  iii.  18.    John  of  Salisbury  had  said,  "  Clausl 
 
 rectissii si  tutissime  philosophantur  "  {Polycrat.  viii.  13,21).     Bacon  says, 
 
 ".  Quemadmodum  corpora  eorum  in  cellis  coenobiorum,  Bic  animus  in  uno 
 Iristotele  conclusus  rait"  (2?<  Augm,  Scient.  i.  16);  Bee  Haureau,  i.  507. 
 i. \cii  I  Judo  complains  of  the  "  innumera  monastieae  servitutis  retinacula" 
 
 S 
 
258  The  Mystics. 
 
 cination."  x  It  was,  however,  of  no  importance  that  ratiocina- 
 tion should  fail  to  discover  truth,  for  according  to  Hugo 
 truth  had  already  attained  its  full  and  final  objective  ex- 
 istence in  the  system  of  the  Church.  Disce  prius  quid 
 tenendum  sit  was  his  plain  advice  ;  first  learn  what  you  are 
 to  believe,  and  then  go  to  Scripture  to  find  it  there  I2  Dog- 
 matics were  made  the  key  to  interpretation.  He  places  the 
 end  of  life  in  contemplation  which  he  says  follows  after 
 reading,  meditation,  prayer,  and  good  works,  and  is  a  fore- 
 taste of  heaven.3  In  his  treatise  on  Contemplation,  he  tells 
 his  novices  to  read  the  Scriptures  for  instruction  in  morals, 
 not  for  training  in  subtlety.4  It  was,  however,  the  object  of 
 the  Victorines  not  so  much  to  reject  the  scholastic  methods 
 as  to  unite  them  with  mysticism.  Richard  of  St.  Victor 
 (t  1173),  in  his  Benjamin  Major,  defines  and  describes  con- 
 templation in  a  manner  altogether  scholastic.5  In  the 
 fourteenth  century  mysticism  became  more  simple.  Tauler 
 anticipates  the  Protestant  demand  for  Scripture  and  Scrip- 
 ture only,  and  if  he  relies  on  the  mystic  interpretation  it  is 
 because  to  him  inspiration  was  the  living  inner  word  which 
 corresponds  with  Scripture,  and  Scripture  was  only  regarded 
 as  a  witness  to  the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ.6 
 
 In  one  sense  mysticism  was  a  protest  against  the  bold  and 
 speculative  inquiries  of  Abelard,  who  is  justly  regarded  as 
 
 1  Erudit.  Dida*cal.  i.  12.  See  Haureau,  Eugues  de  St.  Victor.  He  said, 
 "  Tantum  de  veritate  quisque  potest  videre,  quantum  ipse  est." 
 
 2  Erudit.  Didasc.  vi.  4.  An  old  Pope  is  reported  to  have  said,  "The 
 Scripture  is  a  hook  which,  if  a  man  will  keep  close  to,  he  will  quite  ruin  the 
 Catholic  faith." 
 
 3  Enid.  Didasc.  i.  9.  E.  de  Sto  Victore  said,  "  In  tantum  Deus  cognoscitnr 
 in  quantum  amatur." 
 
 4  De  Contemplatione  et  rjvs  Specieous  (published  in  Haureau's  H.  dc  St. 
 Victor)  ;  "ubi  caritas  ibi  claritas  "  [Dc  Sacr.  ii.  13,  §  11).  His  own  method 
 is  allegoric,  monastic,  and  popular.  On  1  K.  iv.  10  he  says  that  the  ten  fat 
 oxen  represent  the  Decalogue,  the  twenty  pasture  oxen  the  preaching  in  the 
 New  Testament,  the  100  rams  perfectam  ecclesiasticam  praclationnn . 
 
 5  See  Vaughan,  St.  Thomas  Aquin.  i.  252.  Hergenrbther  rightly  says  that 
 in  the  hands  of  these  writers  Scholasticism  and  Mysticism  were  "nur 
 verschiedene  Auffassungs- und  DarstellungsweisenderDogmen  "  {K.  G.  p.  9521. 
 
 6  Tauler  complains  that  "Man  nimmt  fremde  Glossen  aus  der  H.  Schrift 
 dass  es  zu  erbarmen  ist."  See  Bohringer,  xvii.  German  mystics  Tauler 
 (t  1361),  Suso  (+1365),  Rusbroek  (t  1381),  and  the  author  of  a  "German 
 Theology"  (see  PfeiO'er's  Deutsche  Mystiker,  and  Ullmann,  Jicformatoren  vor 
 der  Reformation). 
 
Abdard.  259 
 
 the  chief  founder  of  scholasticism  proper.  For  mysticism 
 was  introduced  into  the  monastery  of  St.  Victor  by  William 
 of  Champeaux  when  he  had  been  dialectically  defeated  by 
 the  audacious  arrogance  of  his  dangerous  pupil.1  It  rendered 
 one  great  service  by  the  persistence  with  which  the  mystics 
 pointed  out  that  the  object  of  studying  Scripture  was  not 
 speculative  but  practical  and  moral.2  Their  object  was  to 
 make  men  better;  to  give  them,  not  mirabilia,  hut  sal  atif era3 
 — the  grace  of  eternal  peace,  or  admiration,  or  the  highest 
 love  of  God.4 
 
 It  may  seem  strange  that  a  man  who  is  regarded  as  the 
 founder  of  scholasticism  should  have  been  a  rationalist  in  his 
 tendencies.5  Like  Gregory  of  Nyssa  Abelard  was  orthodox, 
 but  he  wrote  with  a  freedom  which  tended  to  separate  the 
 dogmas  of  Theology  and  Philosophy,  and  Peter  Lombard,  like 
 Augustine,  helped  to  restore  Theology  to  its  old  supremacy. 
 Scholasticism,  as  represented  by  St.  Thomas  of  Aquino,  com- 
 bined the  authority  of  Scripture,  tradition,  and  the  Church, 
 — an  authority  not  demonstrated  but  accepted  as  an  incon- 
 trovertible axiom.6  Abelard,  by  his  Sic  et  Non,  and  his 
 own  standpoint  of  indifference,  helped  to  break  down  the 
 authority    of    tradition,7    and    even    used    language,    which 
 
 1  See  [Xeberweg,  Wist,  of  Philosophy,  i.  376,  E.  T. 
 
 2  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  Erud.  Didasc.  v.  10.  Comp.  Johann.  Sarisb.  Polycrat. 
 vii.  10.     Augustine  and  Abelard  had  said  the  same. 
 
 3  Richard  of  St.    Victor. 
 
 1  Bonaventura,  Breviloq.,  adinit.  In  Richard  of  St.  Victor's  system  there 
 are  three  powers  of  the  soul — Imagination,  Reason,  Intelligence — to  which 
 correspond  three  methods  of  knowledge — Thought,  Meditation,  Contempla- 
 tion. The  object  of  Contemplation  is  God,  the  means  to  it  are  virtue  and 
 self-knowledge.  It  has  six  steps  to  it  (which  are  very  scholastically  described  . 
 and  three  grades— Dilatatio,  Sublevatio,  Alienatio  (ecstasy).  Rachel  (the 
 i  dies  thai  Benjamin  (ecstasy)  may  be  born.  It  is  here  that  Holy 
 Script  are  comes  in  (like  Moses  and  Elias  at  the  Transfiguration)  to  prevent 
 self-deception  or  Satanic  delusion. 
 
 5  "Ce  qui  est  certain  cVst  que  la  scholastique  .  .  .  ne  cite  point  de  plus 
 nom,  el  consent  d  dater  de  hti"  (Remusat,  Ah>lar<l,  i.  '272). 
 
 u  The  universally  accepted  phrase  "  Phlloxiiphio  inu-ii/a   T>,  . 
 to  erne  from   Didymus  (who  makes  Sara  a  symbol  of  theology,    Hagar  o( 
 Dialectics)  through  John    Damascene  {Dial.    i.   1) — see  Remusat,    Abfilard, 
 ii.  Ml. 
 
 7  He  does  let  sci  uple  to  head  his  sections  "  Quod  non  sit  Deus  singularis  et 
 contra  ;"  "Quod  sit  Deus  tripartitus  et  contra  ;""  Quod  sit  linis  sine  prin- 
 eipio  et  contra;"  "Quod  omnia  Bciai  1 'ens  el  Don,"  &c.  Yet  Abelard  was 
 rather  an  inquirer  than  a  sceptic,  and  his  »Vt'c  et  Non  was  only  meant  (like 
 
 s  2 
 
260  Abelard. 
 
 expressed  somewhat  less  than  the  current  adoration  of 
 Scripture.1  For,  after  showing  the  errors  and  inconsistencies 
 of  the  Fathers  (to  whom  he  yet  attributes  a  special  inspiration) 
 he  adds,  "  What  wonder,  when  it  is  acknowledged  that  even 
 Prophets  and  Apostles  were  not  wholly  free  from  error,2  if 
 in  such  a  multitude  of  writings  of  the  Holy  Fathers,  some 
 things  seem  to  be  erroneously  propounded  and  written  ? "  The 
 Prophets  were  not,  he  says,  always  filled  with  the  grace  of 
 God.  He  proceeds,  however,  to  limit  the  errors  of  Prophets 
 to  their  lives ;  to  erroneous  citations  due  to  the  Scribes ;  and 
 to  the  fact  that  they  necessarily  spoke  in  popular  language.3 
 Hence,  if  anything  in  Scripture  seems  to  be  absurd  we  are 
 not  to  set  it  down  to  the  writer  but  to  the  fault  of  the  manu- 
 script or  the  mistake  of  the  translation.4  He  rightly  and 
 wisely  distinguished  between  important  and  unimportant 
 elements  in  Scripture,  and,  like  Luther,  drew  a  distinction 
 
 the  Stoic  paradoxes  and  Kant's  Antinomies)  to  stimulate  inquiry  (see 
 Maurice,  Mediaeval  Philosophy,  p.  39).     Comp.  Tribbechovius,  p.  325. 
 
 1  Abelard  always  writes  like  a  man  of  genius,  but  his  answers  to  the  strange 
 scholastic  questions  sent  him  by  Heloise,  and  his  own  commentaries,  prove, 
 as  Tholuck  says,  that  he  was  not  a  good  historic  interpreter.  He  is  too  full 
 of  curiosities,  placita  ma  jorum,   ecclcsiae  praccepta,  quacstiones  sehola 
 
 &c.  (Tholuck,  Be  Thorn.  Aquin.  ct  Abaelardo).  He  often  makes  remarks  which 
 would  be  stigmatised  as  "rationalistic."  For  instance,  he  preferred  the  version 
 of  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  St.  Matthew  to  that  in  St.  Luke,  because  the  latter 
 could  only  have  heard  it  secondhand  from  St.  Paul.  Hence  William  of  St. 
 Thierry  complained  that  "  he  treated  Scripture  as  he  treated  Logic  ...  he  is 
 the  censor  not  the  disciple  of  the  faith,  the  corrector  not  the  imitator  of 
 our  masters  "  (ap.  Bern.  Opp.  Ep.  326).  For  specimens  of  "discrepancies" 
 in  the  Gospels  and  Fathers  see  the  Sic  ct  Non,  p.  7  (ed.  Cousin). 
 
 2  "  Constat  et  prophetas  ipsos  quandoque prophctiae  gratid  caruisse"  (Sic  et 
 Non,  Prol. ). 
 
 3  Sic  et  Non,  Prol.  On  the  Sic  ct  Non  see  S.  Bernard,  Ep.  326  ;  Trad,  dc 
 Erroribus  Abadardi,  i.  ;  Opp.  i.  532,  1055  (Migne),  Vaughan,  Life  of  St. 
 Thomas  Aquinas,  i.  168,  sq.  ;  Maurice,  Med.  Philos.  pp.  13S-141.  In 
 Abelard 's  book  On  the  Trinity  there  is  said  to  have  been  the  remark,  "Nee 
 quia  J>,ns  id  ilixii-nt  cirditur,  sed  quia  hoc  sic  esse  convincitur,  recipitnr." 
 This  bold  assertion  of  the  claims  of  reason  was  hateful  to  the  traditionalists 
 (Poole,  p.  153). 
 
 4  This  view  created  no  difficulty,  because  something  like  it  was  found  in 
 Augustine  and  Jerome.  The  Corrcctoria  Bibliea  of  Lanfranc,  Stephen  Harding, 
 R.  Grostete  (t  1253),  Cardinal  Hugo  of  St.  Cher  (t  1260)  show  that  the  need 
 of  a  better  text  was  felt.  Roger  Bacon  speaks  of  the  impossibility  of  a  trans- 
 lation conveying  the  exact  sense  of  the  original,  and  quotes  Grostete  as  desiring 
 a  new  translation  (Opus  May  us,  iii.  1).  lingo  of  St.  Cher  deserves  special 
 mention  as  "the  Father  of  Concordances "  "and  the  first  Postillator  of  the 
 whole  Bible.  For  specimens  of  his  extravagance  see  the  notes  of  Erasmus 
 on  Matt.  v.  16,  xix.  22,  John  v.  2,  1  Pet.  ii.  24,  &c. 
 
Peter  Lombard.  201 
 
 between  "  Scripture  "  and  the  "  word  of  God."  To  Abelard, 
 however,  is  mainly  due  the  scholastic  method  of  dialectics, 
 and  the  restless  spirit  of  unchecked  speculation.  As  to  the 
 first  he  himself  said  " Odiomm  me  mundo  reddidit  logica"1 
 and  took  as  his  motto  "  By  doubting  we  arrive  at  truth." 
 As  to  the  second  we  read  the  indignant  complaint  of  Bernard, 
 "  He  thrusts  his  face  into  heaven  and  peers  into  the  secrets 
 of  God,  and  while  he  is  ready  to  render  a  reason  about  all 
 things,  he  assumes  even  those  which  are  above  reason  and 
 against  reason  and  against  faith.  For  what  is  more  against 
 reason  than  by  reason  to  endeavour  to  transcend  reason  ?  " 2 
 Hence  Abelard  produced  the  two-fold  reaction  of  the 
 dogmatists  and  the  mystics,  who  hated  alike  what  they  re- 
 garded  as  "  profane  verbal  novelties,"  and  to  whom  the  very 
 words  Sic  et  Non  sounded  monstrous.3  The  dogmatists 
 demanded  oracles  of  certainty ;  the  mystics  required  intuitions 
 of  rapturous  communion. 
 
 Peter  Lombard  (t  1164),  the  famous  "Master  of  the 
 Sentences,"  though  he  had  been  a  pupil  of  Abelard,  recoiled 
 altogether  from  his  position.  His  Sentences  are  a  protest 
 against  the  Sic  et  Non,  as  the  Sic  et  Non  had  been 
 perhaps  itself  a  protest  against  the  "  crede  ut  intelligas" 
 of  Anselm.4  They  became  with  Aristotle  and  the  Bible 
 the  "  bases  of  the  active  intellect "  of  the  thirteenth  cen- 
 tury.    Peter   was   accused   of  heresy  at  first  by  Walter  of 
 
 1  Apol.  ad  ffelois.,  Opp.  p.  808.  Almost  the  only  other  voices  which  venture 
 (more  timidly)  to  dissent  from  the  Fathers  were  those  of  Richard  of  St.  Victor 
 [Opp.  ii.  1)  and  Rupert  of  Deutz.     There  was  an  old  rule — 
 
 "  Si  Angosturas  adest  sufficit  ipse  tihi," 
 
 : 1 1 i -1  Ruperl  Bbows  courage  in  the  manly  and  beautiful  passage  of  the  preface 
 to  hia  commentary  on  St.  John,  in  which  he  claims  thai  though  the  eagle- 
 wings  of  Augustine  overshadow  the  Gospel,  he  did  not  exhaust  the  right  of 
 all  ( Ihristiana  to  handle  the  Gospel. 
 
 -  Bernardi,  Ep.  \i.  ad  Fnnoa  rU.     "  Nihil  videl  per  speculum  et  in  aenigmate, 
 Bed  facie  ad  faciem  omnia  intuetur"  Is  the  mystic's  characteristic  complainl 
 of  the  logician  (Ep.  192).     Abelard's  Comments  on  the  Hexaemeron    Mart^ne 
 and  Durand,  Thes.  Nov.  Anecd.  lis  chiefly  remarkable  for  its  curious  scienl  i 
 speculations, 
 
 ■;  "Sicut  m'onstruosi  sunt  nominis  sic  etiam  monstruosi  dogmatis."  W.  de 
 st.  Thierry. 
 
 4  Haureau,  p.  334. 
 
2(J2  The  Sentences. 
 
 St.  Victor,  but  his  commentaries  are  little  more  than  a 
 compilation  from  Hilary,  Ambrose  and  Augustine.1  The 
 Fathers  lent  themselves  to  his  dogmatic  method  far  more 
 easily  than  the  Scripture  which  he  is  too  ready  to  explain 
 away.  He  only  refers  to  Aristotle  incidentally,2  and  is 
 always  cautiously  on  his  guard  against  the  suspicion  of  in- 
 dependence. His  ideal  writer  is  John  Damascene,  whom  he 
 called  the  greatest  of  the  Greek  teachers,  and  whose  book  "  on 
 the  orthodox  faith,"  in  which  he  expressly  says  eyco  Totjapovu 
 i/jibv  ovSeu,  had  been  translated  by  order  of  Pope  Eugenius.3 
 It  is  only  in  the  form  of  his  I/iber  scntentiarum,  and  its 
 speculative  spirit  that  the  Lombard  shows  whose  pupil  he 
 had  been.4  He  followed  the  Church  and  "  used  the  weightiest 
 words  of  the  weightiest  Fathers  in  the  weightiest  manner," 
 but  the  method  of  questions  and  "  distinctions  "  enabled  him 
 to  combine  disputation  with  deference,  and  "to  comment 
 and  discuss  without  limit  within  the  range  of  constituted 
 authority."  The  publication  of  the  Sentences  formed  an  epoch. 
 It  showed  that  though  the  world  of  First  Principles  was 
 "surrounded  by  Stygian  waters  "  the  spirit  of  inquiry  might, 
 with  at  least  a  semblance  of  freedom,  launch  into  the  open  sea 
 of  inference  and  deduction.  The  Sentences  of  Peter  became 
 the  text-book  of  scholasticism.  They  marked  out  its  mission, 
 which  was  not  to  discover  but  to  formulate.5     They  were  a 
 
 1  Sent.  i.  ;  Dist.  19. 
 
 2  Sent.  ii.  ;  Dist.  i.  §  5  ;  and  Maurice  refers  specially  to  his  comments  on 
 John  i.  9,  1  Tim.  ii.  4. 
 
 3  In  one  sense  John  of  Damascus  may  he  regarded  as  the  Father  of  Scholas- 
 ticism, for  in  his  Ui)y))  •yvuxrews  he  was  "the  first  to  apply  Aristotelian 
 dialectics  to  traditional  theology.5' 
 
 4  Dante,  in  the  lines 
 
 "  L'altro  che  appresso  adorna  il  nostro  coro 
 Quel  Pietro  fu,  che  con  la  poverella 
 OiFerse  a  santa  Chiesa  il  suo  Tesoro," 
 
 alludes  to  the  Prologue  to  the  Sentences  where  he  says  that  he  desires,  with 
 the  poor  widow,  to  cast  something  out  of  his  poverty  into  the  treasure  of 
 the  Church  ;  "  Cupientes  aliquid  de  tenuitate  nostra  cum  paupercula  in 
 gazophylacium  Domini  mittere." 
 
 5  It  was  "  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  attempts  to  obtain  for  the  doctrines  of 
 the  Church  a  scientific  system."     Schwegler,   Hist,  of  Philos.  E.  T.  p.  144  ; 
 
 Hist.  Litt.  de  la  France,  xii.  589.      "  Round the  Sentences 
 
 the  theology  of  the  Schoolman  was  trained  and  trammelled  over  a  rigid  net- 
 work of  dialectics,  where  the  flower  often  lost  its  perfume  and  the  fruit 
 perished."     Mullinger,  i.  63. 
 
Aristotle.  2G3 
 
 convenient  handbook,  which,  with  the  Stimma  of  Thomas 
 Aquinas,  showed  all  inquiring  spirits  how  they  could  unite 
 the  restless  impatience  of  the  human  mind  with  the  arbitrary 
 determinations  of  the  spiritual  authority.  During  the  follow- 
 ing centuries  the  Summa  and  the  Sentences  were  studied  and 
 expounded  far  more  than  the  Scriptures.1  And  without 
 professedly  revolting  from  the  hard  and  arid  system  which 
 was  thus  established,  mysticism  could  take  refuge  in  allegoris- 
 ing the  Song  of  Songs,  and  in  dreaming  over  "the  Celestial 
 Hierarchy"  of  the  supposed  Areopagite.  In  both  schools 
 Divinity  was  "reduced  into  an  art,  as  into  a  cistern,  and 
 the  stream  of  doctrine  derived  from  thence."  2 
 
 The  fortunes  of  Aristotle  in  the  mediaeval  Church  were 
 si  range.  Through  the  Alexandrian  schools,  both  Jewish  and 
 Christian,  Plato  had  exerted  no  small  influence  over  the 
 discussions  of  theology,  but  during  the  early  centuries  the 
 works  of  Aristotle  were  in  obscurity.  His  dialectical  methods 
 had  first  been  used  by  heretics,  and  especially  by  Artemon 
 and  Theodotus  in  arguing  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
 No  less  than  twenty  of  the  Fathers  from  Justin  to  Cyril  speak 
 disparagingly  of  him.  "  They  place  the  whole  virulence  of 
 their  poisons  in  dialectical  disputation,"  says  Ambrose  of 
 the  Arians.3  "  Wretched  Aristotle,"  exclaims  Tertullian, 
 "who  trained  the  Valentinians  in  dialectics!"4  But  the 
 works  of  the  great  Stagirite  crept  into  the  Church  imper- 
 ceptibly, and  in  spite  of  her  opposition.  At  first  only  his 
 Orr/anon  and  Categories  were  known  to  the  Western  world. 
 The  school-discussions  of  the  Middle  Ages  were  originated  by 
 a   single  passage  from   the  introduction  of  Porphyry  trans- 
 
 1  A.seveD  Roger  Bacon  complains,  Opus  Minus  (ed.  Brewer),  p.  3 
 
 ■  Bacon,  Advancement  of  Learning. 
 
 -  I'    Fide,  21,  5  :  comp.  Serm.  xxii.  in  Ps.  118. 
 
 4  Gregory  of  NTazianzue  says  thai  "the  Christiana  knew  nothing  of  the 
 craftiness  of  Aristotle's  craft."  Orat.  xxvi.  St.  Vincenl  Ferrerv  glad  to 
 qnote  the  assertion  of  Jerome  :  "Quod  Aristoteles  e1  Plato  in  inferno  sunt." 
 Mullinger,  i.  L22.     Bog  r  Bacon  Baid:  "Had  I  the  power,  I  would  have  all 
 
 the  works  of  Aristotle  burnt,  as  i1  is  but  waste  time to  study  tl 
 
 Opus  Minus  (ed.  Brewer),  pp.  822  880.    Grotius  observes  that  man)  Plati 
 (Clemens,  Origen,  ftc.    became  Christians,  but  none— or  very  few- 
 Aristotelians.     De  Stud.  Instil.  (1645),  \\.  221. 
 
2G4  Study  of  Aristotle. 
 
 lated  by  Boethius.1  He  said  that  to  understand  Aristotle 
 it  was  necessary  to  know  the  meaning  of  the  five  words 
 genus,  differentia,  species,  proprivm  and  accidens,  but  he  would 
 abstain  from  the  more  difficult  question  about  genera  and 
 species,  whether  they  existed  or  only  had  a  place  in  the 
 naked  intellect,  whether  they  were  corporeal  or  incorporeal, 
 and  whether  separated  from  sensible  things  or  placed  in 
 them,  or  consisting  around  them.  The  questions  whether 
 universals  are  real  or  are  only  mental  conceptions,  and 
 whether  they  do  or  do  not  exist  apart  from  individuals 
 wasted  more  money,  as  John  of  Salisbury  said,  than  the 
 treasures  of  Croesus,  and  occupied  more  time  than  it  took  the 
 Caesars  to  rule  the  world.2 
 
 At  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  (from  1210 
 to  1225)  cdl  the  works  of  Aristotle  became  known  together 
 with  those  of  Arab  philosophy  through  the  medium  of 
 Spanish  Jews.3  They  were  received  with  profound  distrust. 
 The  errors  of  Amalric  of  Bene  and  David  of  Dinant  were 
 attributed  to  the  study  of  them,  and  the  use  of  them  was 
 thrice  forbidden  by  Papal  infallibility.4  In  spite  of  this 
 they  crept  from  the  threshold  to  the  shrine,  and  added 
 new  and  predominant  influences  to  the  scholastic  method. 
 The  Popes  soon  saw  their  mistake  in  opposing  a  science  which 
 was  placed  absolutely  at  the  disposal  of  their  most  extravagant 
 claims.     It   is   said   that   Aristotle's  Ethics  were   sometimes 
 
 1  "  Un  rayon  derobe  a  l'antiquite  la  produisit  ;  l'antiquite  tout  entiere 
 [i.e.  the  Revival  of  Letters]  l'etoull'a. "  V.  Cousin,  Fragments  I'liilos.  p.  82. 
 See,  too,  J.  B.  Mullinger,  Hist,  of  Cambr.  pp.  50-54  ;  Bain's  Mental  and  Mont  I 
 Science,  App.  A. 
 
 8  Johann.  Sarisb.  Polycrat.  vii.  12. 
 
 3  Through  Aviceuna  in  the  East,  and  Averroes  in  the  West  they  passed 
 from  Mohammedans  to  Jews.  Maimonides  translated  them  into  Hebrew.  See 
 Renan,  Averroes,  p.  52  ;  Jourdain,  Reehcrchcs  critiques  ;  Prantl,  Gcsch.  d.  Logik, 
 iii.  3.  Up  till  1100  only  the  Logic,  of  Aristotle  was  known,  and  that  only 
 partially.     Mullinger,  Hist,  of  I'mnhr.  i.  20. 
 
 4  In  1209,  1215,  and  1231,  by  Oregory  IX.  (See  Landerer  s.v.  SehoJastieism 
 in  Eerzog.)  A  Provincial  council  ordered  that  Masters  of  Arts  should  not 
 philosophise  hat  "  sutninmt  fieri  Theododmti"  and  should  only  discuss  questions 
 •'quae  per  libros  theologicos  et  Sanctorum  Patrum  tractatus  valeant  terminari." 
 Lanfranc  had  expressed  his  strong  preference  for  "sacred  authorities"  over 
 "dialectics."  "Neclibri  Aristotelis  nee  comnienta  legantur."  Cone.  Paris. 
 a.d.  1209.     The  prohibition  was  withdrawn  by  Urban  V.  in  13G6. 
 
Scholasticism.  265 
 
 read  in  Churches.1  It  is  certain  that  they  were  more  often 
 referred  to  than  the  Decalogue,2  and  that  more  pains  were 
 taken  to  connect  Aristotle  with  Christianity  than  to  explain 
 the  relation  between  Moses  and  Christ.  Before  the  close 
 of  the  thirteenth  century  the  world  saw  the  full  develop- 
 ment of  that  scholastic  theology  which  may  be  most  shortly 
 defined  as  "  the  reproduction  of  ancient  philosophy  under  the 
 control  of  ecclesiastical  doctrine."  It  reminded  Luther  of  a 
 centaur,  because  it  was  a  mixture  of  divine  utterances  and 
 philosophic  reasons.  Erasmus  says  that  theologians  in  his 
 day  "  thought  that  all  was  up  with  the  Christian  religion 
 if  any  one  rejected  the  decrees  of  Aristotle."  a  Aristotle  was 
 called  the  "praecursor  Ckristi  in  naturalisms"  On  the 
 other  hand,  the  literal  sense  of  Scripture  appeared  so  worth- 
 less to  the  dominant  dogmatism  that  Hugo  compares  it 
 to  mud  used  to  anoint  the  eyes  of  the  blind.  "  Biblicus 
 theologus"  became  a  term  of  contempt.4 
 
 How  rapidly  the  influence  of  Aristotle  spread  may  be  seen 
 in  the  works  of  Alexander  of  Hales  (t  1245),5  Albertus 
 Magnus  (t  1280),  and  Thomas  Aquinas  (t  1274)  who  became 
 acquainted  with  his  Metaphysics  through  the  medium  of 
 Averroes  and  Arabic  translations.  They  did  not  in  any 
 way  advance  or  alter  dogma  :  they  only  systematise^!  it, 
 furnished  it  with  an  apparatus  of  scientific  nomenclature, 
 and  transferred  it  from  the  Church  to  the  School.0     They  all 
 
 1  So  Melanchthon  complains  Apolog.  A.  C.  62;  Mathesius,  Vit.  Luth.  i. 
 712  ;  Brucker,  iii.  886  ;  Gabriel  Biel  is  said  to  have  offended  in  this  way. 
 
 2  "Quidam  Doctoi  Theologus  rogatus  de  Decalogo,  negabal  ae  ejusmodi 
 librwm  in  Bibliotheca  omquam  habuisse."     Ridderua,  Dc  Eruditione  (1680), 
 
 ]..    in. 
 
 ;  Erasm.  Schol.  p.  258. 
 
 4  See  Liebner,  Hugo  von  S.   Victorc,  p.  128  ;  Praenott.  Elucid.  5. 
 
 6  lie  is  the  first,  who  definitely  quotes  Averroes,  and  the  firsl  commentator 
 on  the  Sentences.  See  Renan,  Averroes,  p.  176;  Raureau,  i.  402  ;  Deberweg, 
 i.  407,  ami  on  tin-  Arabs  generally,  Mnnk,  Milanges,  p.  313,  sq.  Owiug  to 
 Arabian  influences  Aristotle  "  passed  From  tin-  consulship  to  the  1  dictatorship 
 of  Philosophy."  Aristoteles  was  made  into  tin-  anagram,  iste  sol  erat.  In 
 1629  tin'  Sorbonne  decreed  that  to  contradict  Aristotle  was  to  contradict 
 the  i  Ihurch. 
 
 8  Card.  Rergenrother  defines  scholasticism  as  "  dialektisch  geordnete,  system- 
 atische  Theologie,  <li<'  an  die  Philosophic  Bich  anlehnte  und  >li<'  Dogmen  theila 
 als  rernunftgemasa,  theila  als  fiber  jede  vernunftige  ELnsprache  erhaben  zu 
 begrunden  auchte."     Kirchcngeschichte,  i.  952  ;  compare  [Jeberweg,  i.  o55. 
 
2G6  Scholasticism. 
 
 practised  the  dialectic  method,  and  thought  that  the}7  were 
 establishing  religious  truth,  while  they  were  only  framing  a 
 technical  language.  Following  the  example  of  Abelard  x  they 
 fatally  misapplied  the  maxim  of  Aristotle  that  "to  frame 
 doubts  well"  (to  hiairoprjaai  /ca\co?)  is  a  service  to  the 
 discovery  of  truth.2  They  delighted  their  fettered  ingenuity 
 with  the  semblance  of  emancipation  by  furnishing  vain 
 answers  to  insoluble  questions.  Their  theology  is  a  science 
 of  definition  in  which  analyses  of  language  are  taken  for 
 discoveries  of  fact,  and  in  which  a  congeries  of  doubts  is 
 met  by  a  concatenation  of  baseless  assumptions.  The  result 
 is  a  dull  mythology  in  which  abstractions  are  deified,  not  in 
 the  gracious  atmosphere  of  Poetry,  but  in  the  sterile  desert 
 of  logical  discussion.  They  were  thus  enabled  to  unite 
 obedience  with  rationalism,  and  the  Hierarchy  successfully 
 disguised  intense  intolerance  under  an  ajmarent  permission 
 to  philosophise  at  will.3 
 
 In  exegesis  we  see  the  Schoolmen  at  their  worst.  Scholas- 
 ticism   treats   the    letter   of  Scripture,  even  in  its  plainest 
 
 1  Abelard's  motto  had  been,  Ecclus.  xix.  4,  "Qui  cito  credit  levis  est 
 corde."  "  DubUando  ad  inquisitioncm  vcnimus,  inquirendo  veritalem  pcrcip- 
 imus."  Sic  et  JVon,  p.  16,  ed.  Cousin.  This  resembles  the  remark  of 
 Diderot:  "  Le  Scepticisme  est  done  le  premier  pas  vers  la  verite."  Thomas 
 Aquinas  says  that  Theology  has  no  need  of  Philosophy  except  by  way  of 
 illustration,  because  it  receives  its  principles  immediately  from  God.  Summa, 
 I.  qu.  1,  4,  5. 
 
 2  Arist.  Metaph.  iii.  1.  See  Launoy,  Dc  varia  Aristotclis  fortuna  in  Acad. 
 Paris.  Hampden,  Bampt.  Lcct.  p.  63.  In  1516,  Luther  wrote  to  J.  Lange, 
 "Nihil  ita  ardet  animus  quam  histrioncm  ilium  qui  tarn  vera  graced  larvd 
 Ecclcsiam  lusit,  multis  revelare  ignominiamque  ejus  cunetis  ostendere " 
 [Briefe,  i.  15),  and  in  1517  "  Aristoteles  deseendit  paulatim  .  .  .  ad  ruinam 
 prope  futuram  sempiternam."  In  his  letter  to  the  German  nobility  he  com- 
 plains that,  Aristotle,  that  blind  heathen,  has  replaced  Christ.  See  further 
 extracts  from  his  Responsio  ad  Prieratium  in  Gieseler,  v.  233.  Roger  Bacon 
 stood  almost  alone  in  the  13th  century  in  protesting  alike  against  servile 
 devotion  to  the  Fathers,  and  against  the  authority  of  Aristotle,  all  of  whose 
 books  he  said  that  he  would  burn  if  he  had  the  power.  "  liaec  aetas  "  he  says 
 "  languet  et  asini/nat  circum  male  intellecta." 
 
 3  See  Hampden,  Bampt.  Lectures.  A  lively  conception  of  the  barren  dis- 
 cussion of  that  age  may  be  derived  from  the  writings  of  John  of  Salisbury, 
 particularly  the  Metalogicus  and  Polycraticus, 
 
 "  Quacvis 
 Litera  sordescit,  logica  sola  placet." — id.  Entheticvs. 
 
 I  have  not  touched  on  Anselm,  who  was  rather  a  theologian  than  an  exegete. 
 See  Kemusat,  St.  Anselm,  p.  478. 
 
Albertus  Magnus.  2G7 
 
 histories,  as  an  enigma  which  veils  the  latest  after-thoughts 
 of  theology.  It  destroys  the  real  meaning  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment in  the  attempt  to  make  it  speak  the  language  of  Church 
 tradition.  No  one  can  doubt  the  greatness  and  goodness  of 
 Albertus,1  yet  what  can  be  more  essentially  irreverent  in 
 substance  or  more  empty  in  method  than  his  discussion  of 
 the  reasons  why  it  was  necessary  for  an  Angel  to  announce 
 to  Mary  the  immaculate  conception,  and  not  for  God  to  be 
 His  own  messenger  ? 2  The  greatness  of  the  Schoolmen  was  so 
 paralysed  by  vicious  methods,  traditional  errors,  and  foregone 
 conclusions,  that  many  of  their  comments  on  Scripture  become 
 not  only  inconsequent  but  childish.  "  Let  not  the  foot 
 of  pride  come  against  me."  3  Why  "  foot  "  and  not  "  feet "  ? 
 asked  Albertus.  Because,  he  says,  "  he  who  walks  on  one 
 foot  falls  more  easily  than  he  who  walks  on  two  ! 4  Could 
 anything  be  less  elucidatory  than  this  distortion  of  the 
 simplest  passages  ?  5  His  commentary  on  the  Minor 
 Prophets  is  nothing  but  a  dry  compilation,  paraphrastic, 
 verbose,  and  overladen  with  the  formalism  of  useless  dis- 
 tinctions. The  comment  on  the  opening  clause  of  Joel  is 
 as  follows.  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  to  Joel." 
 Verbum  is  used  in  the  singular  because  the  Word,  so  far  as  it 
 is  in  God,  is  one  and  uncreate,  yet  is  the  reason  and  source 
 and  form  of  many  words.  This  Word  was  made  (factum  est) 
 to  Joel,  not  so  far  as  it  is  in  the  word,  but  in  the  mind  of  the 
 Prophet.   Joel  calls  himself  "  son  of  Pethuel,  that  spiritually 
 
 1  "  Questi  che  m'e  a  destra  pin  vicino 
 
 Frate  e  maestro  fummi  ;  ed  esso  Alberto 
 E  di  Cologna  ;  ed  io  Thomas  d'Aquino. 
 
 — Dante,  Parad.  x.  97. 
 The  works  of  Albertus  filled  twenty-one  folios,  of  which  five  are  commentaries. 
 But  the  Doctor  Univt  rS  dis  docs  not  seem  to  have  known  either  Greek,  Arabic, 
 or  Hebrew,  and  was  very  feeble  iii  history  and  philology.     See  Stockl,  ii.  358. 
 lYantl  calls  him  a  mere  compiler  and  ■'  ein  unklarer  Kopf,  und  nichl  befahigt 
 irgend  eine   grundsatzliche   AufTassung   hinauszudenken "  [0  tch.  >>'.    . 
 iii.   189).     He  says,  "Alles  durchweg  Alles  was  er  schreibl   isl   nur  fi 
 tint."     His  real  neatness  was  in  Bcience,  in  which  he  was  very  eminent. 
 a  See  RosenmvDler,  Hist.  Int.  v.  250. 
 :i  I's.  xxx vi.  ii. 
 
 4  This  takes  us  hack  to  the  region  of  pure  Rabbinism. 
 •'•  Sec  by  way  of  specimen  his  comment  on  l's.  x.wi.  9  12.     His  notes  are 
 chii  fly  glosses,  burdened  with  unsifted  parallel  passages. 
 
2G8  Scholastic  Exegesis. 
 
 as  well  as  carnally  he  may  be  known  to  have  descended  from 
 so  great  a  father."  Here,  omitting  some  useless  and  irrelevant 
 parallels,  we  have  first  a  mere  play  on  words ;  then  a  passage 
 borrowed  from  the  Glossa ;  and  lastly  the  idle  Jewish  fancy 
 that  when  a  Prophet  names  his  father,  the  father  was  also  a 
 prophet.1  "  That  which  the  palmerworm  hath  left  hath  the 
 locust  eaten!' 2  This  verse  is  first  explained  by  a  mosaic  of 
 parallel  places,  which,  being  only  taken  from  the  Vulgate,  is 
 entirely  meaningless.  Then  we  are  told  that  Jerome  takes 
 these  species  of  locusts  literally  of  Assyrians,  Chaldaeans, 
 Babylonians,  &c. ;  and  morally  to  mean  sadness,  joy,  fear, 
 and  hope  ;  and  that  Gregory  takes  them  morally  to  mean 
 either  lust,  vain-glory,  gluttony,  and  anger,  or  (rather) 
 incipient  passion,  instability.,  habit,  and  despair.  As  to  any 
 attempt  to  find  the  real  or  principal  sense  there  is  none. 
 "For  in  Mount  Sion  and  in  Jerusalem  shall  be  deliverance" '3 
 that  is,  says  Albertus,  in  the  eminence  of  a  speculative  and 
 the  peace  of  an  active  life.  "  The  mountains  shall  drop  down 
 new  wine,  and  the  hills  shcdlflow  with  milk"  i  The  mountains, 
 he  says,  mean  the  heights  of  the  three  Persons  in  the  Holy 
 Trinity,  or  even  the  heights  of  the  Apostles ;  and  the  hills, 
 that  is  the  heights  of  the  angels  and  saints,  shall  flow  with 
 the  truth  of  the  white  sweet  doctrine  of  the  Humanity  of 
 Christ.  "Egypt  shall  he  a  desolation  and  Edom  a  desolate 
 wilderness" — that  is,  spiritual  and  carnal  sins  shall  be  driven 
 where  God  and  the  Saints  shall  not  be,  because  they  have 
 shed  the  blood  of  martyrs  !  This  is  not  exegesis  but  homily- 
 work  of  the  poorest  description,  allegorising  passages  which  of 
 themselves  are  perfectly  clear.  "Let  the  bridegroom  go  forth 
 of  his  chamber  and  the  bride  out  of  her  closet."  5  That  is,  says 
 the  Pseudo-Haymo  of  Halberstadt,  "  let  Christ  go  out  of  the 
 bosom  of  the  Father,  and  the  flesh  of  Christ  from  the  Virgin's 
 
 1  See  Merx,  Joel,  p.  3C9.  "  .Tool  i.  4. 
 
 3  Joel  ii.  32.  4  Joel  iii.  18. 
 
 5  Joel  ii.  16.  We  find  the  same  explanations  with  only  slight,  differences 
 of  detail  in  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  liemigius,  Rupert  of  Deutz,  the  Glossa  Ordi- 
 virifi,  kc.  The  exegesis  of  Albertus  Magnus  like  that  of  Peter  Lombard  is 
 ehietly  derived  third  or  fourth  hand  from  the  Catenae  and  glosses.  See  E. 
 Simon,  Hist,  des  Comment,  pp.  468,  sq. 
 
Thomas  Aquinas.  269 
 
 womb."  The  explanation,  which  is  as  old  as  the  Claris  of 
 Pseudo-Melito,  reduces  the  passage  as  a  whole  to  sheer 
 nonsense.1  It  illustrates  not  only  the  helpless  secondhandness 
 of  the  mediaeval  commentators,  but  also  the  absurdity  to  which 
 their  systematic  allegorising  often  led  them.  It  shows  still 
 more  their  fatal  habit  of  looking  at  words  without  their 
 connexion,  and  at  texts  without  their  context.  "  Or," — 
 continues  Pseudo-Haymo — for  the  expositions  of  his  day  are 
 always  liberal  of  their  futilities — "  the  bridegroom  "  may  mean 
 the  divine  word,  and  "  the  bride  "  (in  the  usual  language  of 
 mysticism)  the  faithful  soul.  Mediaeval  exposition  very 
 rarely  explained  the  real  meaning  of  the  sacred  writers.2  It 
 was  a  specious  transition  to  a  totally  different  order  of 
 thought. 
 
 Even  Thomas  of  Aquino,  with  all  his  nobleness  and  great- , 
 ness,  profound  as  a  thinker,  incomparable  as  a  theologian,  is 
 least  successful  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.3     Imbued 
 with  the  fatal  dream  of  the  fourfold  sense  of  Scripture,  he  is 
 meagre  in  the  explanation  of  the  literal  sense,  but  diffuse  in 
 
 1  Pitiii.  Spieil.  Solesm.  iii.  7.r>,  ap.  Merx,  Joel,  p.  377. 
 
 '-'  Even  Abelard  looked  on  the  necessity  for  allegory  as  a  proof  of  "inspira- 
 tion," and  on  this  ground  extended  it  to  Plato.  Introd.  ad  Theol.  i. 
 p.  4i5. 
 
 8  Tholnck  in  his  monograph  De  Thoma  Aquinate  et  Abaelardo  interpretzbus 
 X.  T.  says  "  Quantum  ad  ii>!'  rpretandi  dogmaticum  genus attinet  hie  ei  campus 
 laudum,  hie  meriti  corona.  Est  argumenti  dogmatici  interpres  diligens,  in- 
 defessus  qui  ne  voculam  qnidem  praeterit  quin  excutiat."  Erasmus  said  of 
 him  («'ii  Rom.  i.  2),  "  MEeo  qnidem  animo  nullus  est  recentiorum  theologornm 
 cui  par  sit  diligentia,  oni  samns  ingeniura,  cui  solidior  eruditio."  On  Ins  work 
 as  an  exegete  see  Vaughan,  Life  of  St.  Thomas,  ii.  567,  sqq.  The  present 
 Pope  (Leo  XIII.)  is  the  fourteenth  who  has  loaded  St.  Thomas  with  eul 
 In  Ins  Encyclical  Aeterni  Patris(Aug.  4,  1879),  while  not  vouching  for  over- 
 suhtlety  or  over  rashness,  orwhat  is  improbable,  or  not  in  accordance  with 
 the  demonstrated  doctrines  of  a  later  age,  he  recommends  the  study  of  his 
 writings  with  a  glowing  eulogium  to  the  whole  christian  world.  "  Far  above 
 all  other  scholastic  doctors,"  says  the  Encyclical,  "towers  Thomas  Aquinas, 
 their  Master  and  Prince.  Greatly  enriched  as  he  was  with  the  science  of  God 
 ami  tin-  science  of  man,  he  is  likened  to  the-  sun,  for  he  warmed  the  whole 
 earth  with  the  Ere  of  his  holiness,  and  filled  the  whole  earth  with  tin1  splen- 
 dour of  his  beaching."  According  to  Natalia  lie  found  Philosophy  wandering 
 like  Agar  in  the  wilderness,  and  sent  her  back  to  be  a  bondslave  in  the  ti 
 Abraham.  Bucersaid,  "  Tolle  Thomam  el  Eccl.  Romanam  subvertam."  Ven« 
 tura  Bays,  "II  n'v  a  aucune  errenr  qu'il  n'ait  prevue,  reTutee,  pulverised 
 d'avance"  {La  Raison  philosophiqtte,  ii.  129).     Co.  i&  a  later  name. 
 
 He  himself  in  his  Dedication  fills  it  eoniinua  ezposit  o,  ami  in  older  editions 
 Jled  glossa  eoniinua. 
 
270  His  Exegesis. 
 
 speculative  discussions  and  dialectic  developments.  At  the 
 beginning  of  his  comment  on  Job,  he  goes  off  into  a  long 
 discussion  about  good  and  bad  angels.  When  the  patience  of 
 Job  is  mentioned  he  gives  an  essay  on  the  views  of  the  ancient 
 philosophers  respecting  that  virtue.  He  is  so  devoted  to 
 Augustine,  as  to  have  originated  the  saying  that  the  soul  of 
 Augustine  had  passed  into  him  by  metempsychosis.1  In  his 
 Catena  on  the  Gospels  he  compiles  mainly  from  twenty-two 
 Greek  and  twenty  Latin  writers,  and  accepts  without  hesitation 
 their  most  tasteless  and  empty  allegories.2  "Masterly  and  archi- 
 tectonic "  as  is  the  skill  shown  in  that  work  which  is  "  nearly 
 perfect  as  a  conspectus  of  patristic  interpretations,"3  yet 
 being  a  catena  only  it  did  not  contribute  to  exegetic  progress. 
 Thomas  was  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  Maimonides 
 and  of  Averroes,  and  has  gained  something  from  them  as  he 
 shows  in  his  remarks  on  prophecy.  He  does  not,  however, 
 venture  to  mention  the  Jewish  writer,  whose  works  he  was 
 quoting  side  by  side  with  those  of  Jerome  and  Gregory,  at 
 the  very  time  that  the  brethren  of  his  own  Dominican  order 
 were  condemning  those  works  to  the  flames  at  Paris.4  But 
 neither  Greek,  nor  Arab,  nor  Jewish  learning  produced  any 
 adequate  effect  on  the  exegesis  of  the  Schoolmen.  Even  in 
 the  hands  of  St.  Thomas  it  is  dependent,  traditional,  un- 
 progressive.  He  repeats  the  worst  excesses  of  Hilary  and 
 even  of  Remigius.  Thus  John  ate  locusts  and  wild  honey, 
 because  his  preaching  was  to  the  crowds  sweet  like  honey, 
 but  short  of  flight  like  locusts  (Rem.).  By  John  {i.e.  "  the 
 Grace  of  God  ")  is  signified  Christ  who  brought  grace  to  the 
 world ;  and  by  his  camel's-hair  robe  is  indicated  the  Church 
 
 1  Sixt.  SenoTis.  Bill.  iv.  303. 
 
 2  Frigerio  (Vita  di  S.  Thomas,  ii.  115)  speaks  of  his  inexplicable  reverence 
 for  the  Fathers. 
 
 3  Cardl.  Newman,  Pref.  to  vol.  i.  of  Catena  Aurea,  Oxford,  1841  ;  and 
 Vaughan's  Life  of  St.  Thomas,  ii.  547-574.  The  exquisite  superiority  of  St. 
 Ohrysostom  to  other  patristic  commentators  is  constantly  evinced  in  this 
 Catena.  A  considerable  drawback,  however,  to  its  usefulness  arises  from  the 
 fact  that  so  many  of  the  extracts  are  from  spurious  books. 
 
 4  See  Merx,  Joel,  p.  354.  Jaraczewsky  in  Zcit.schr.fur  Philos.  xlvi.  points 
 out  his  influence  on  Scholasticism,  and  especially  on  Albertus.  For  the 
 influence  of  Averroes  see  Kenan,  Averroes,  pp.  231-236. 
 
Futile  Ingenuity.  271 
 
 of  the  Gentiles  (Hil.).  Even  throughout  the  simplest 
 narratives  of  the  Gospels  he  allegorises  incessantly.  Besides 
 this  he  is  full  of  contradictions.1  A  large  part  of  his 
 method  consists  in  the  ingenious  juxtaposition  of  passages 
 of  which  the  verbal  similarity  depends  only  upon  the 
 Vulgate.  From  these  imaginary  identities  of  expression,  by 
 a  method  which  seems  to  have  survived  from  the  days  of 
 lliliel,  he  deduces  systems  extremely  ingenious  but  utterly 
 without  foundation.  I  need  but  mention  one  salient  instance  2 
 in  the  arrangement  which  lies  at  the  base  of  his  commentary 
 of  700  pages  on  the  Pauline  Epistles.  The  whole  scheme  is 
 made  to  turn  on  the  phrase  "ft  chosen  vessel."  St.  Thomas 
 arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  all  the  fourteen  Epistles  (for  he 
 follows  the  popular  view  in  attributing  the  Epistle  to  the 
 Hebrews  to  St.  Paul)  treat  of  grace,  and  that  the  Epistle  to 
 the  Galatians  is  a  sort  of  appendix  to  the  treatment  of  grace 
 as  it  is  in  the  sacraments  ! 3  It  would  be  difficult  to  conceive 
 anything  more  ingeniously  misleading,  more  historically 
 groundless,  more  essentially  partial,  inadequate,  and  mis- 
 taken, than  this  celebrated  scheme  of  the  Epistles  in  which 
 every  critical  and  historical  consideration,  as  well  as  every 
 human  element  in  the  origin  of  the  Epistles  is  fatally  ignored 
 in  order  that  they  may  be  symmetrically  arranged  into  an 
 artificial  diagram  of  abstract  doctrines.4  The  mere  index 
 to  the  word  "  Grace  "  in  the  chief  edition  of  the  works  of  St. 
 Thomas  fills  many  folio  columns.  How  much  has  any  reader 
 really  added  to  his  understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  when  lie 
 has  read  the  multitudinous  pages  to  which  the  index  refers  ? 
 In  Divinity,  as  Bacon  says,  there  cannot  be  this  perfection  and 
 
 1  Seethe  fifth  Index  to  the  Summa  (Migne,  i.  De  Antilogiis). 
 
 -  His  doctorial  Lecture  on  Ps.  cv.  1"  (see  Vaughan's  Life,  ii.  113)  gives  a 
 pood  specimen  of  his  manner.  For  his  views  about  allegory,  tropology,  and 
 anagouy,  see  Sum  in.  I.  i.  art.  x. 
 
 8  See  Opp.  vi.  3  (Venet  1745). 
 
 4  "  11  ae  peul  Stre  question  de  progres  dans  on  tel  ordre  d'exposition.  .  .  . 
 Partont  ce  sunt  Irs  m£mes  teztes  decoupda  e1  B^pares  de  ce  qui  les  explique, 
 les  lniiiii'  Byllogismea  triomphants,  mais  posant  sur  le  vide,  les  mimes  d&auts 
 de  critique  tustorique,  provenant  de  la  confusion  des  dates  et  des  milieux.'' 
 Renan,  Souvenirs,  p.  281. 
 
272  Bonaventura. 
 
 completeness.  We  cannot  have  the  form  of  a  total  when 
 there  is  but  matter  for  a  part. 
 
 We  can  hardly  wonder  that  after  his  rapturous  trance  at 
 Naples,  Thomas  of  Aquino  dropped  the  labour  of  his 
 Summa  and  refused  to  write  anything  more.1  He  had  seen 
 such  visions,  he  said,  in  the  ecstasy  of  his  long  illness  as  to 
 reduce  to  insiguificance  all  that  he  had  hitherto  published. 
 He  so  far  yielded  to  the  importunity  of  friends  as  to  begin 
 dictating  a  commentary  on  the  Canticles,  but  he  died  in  the 
 midst  of  the  task.  There  was  in  him  a  vein  of  pure 
 mysticism,2  which  we  should  hardly  have  suspected  when  we 
 read  the  pages  of  the  Summa,  so  entirely  free  from  rhetoric  or 
 emotion — "  clear  as  water,  passionless  as  marble,  regular  as 
 mechanism,  cold  as  ice." 
 
 Mysticism  and  scholasticism  were  even  more  commingled  in 
 the  writings  of  St.  Thomas's  great  contemporary,  the  Seraphic 
 Doctor.  In  Bonaventura  (f  1274)  indeed  the  mystic  and 
 Neoplatonist  predominated ;  but  the  scholasticism  of  his  day 
 affected  his  writings  no  less  than  those  of  the  two  great  monks 
 of  St.  Victor.3  Accepting  the  supernatural  infallibility  of  every 
 word  of  Scripture,  his  mode  of  commenting  upon  it  is  pro- 
 foundly unscriptural.  Some  notion  of  his  wearisome  prolixity 
 may  be  derived  from  his  comment  on  "  God  saw  the  light 
 that  it  was  good."  This  verse  is  made  the  excuse  for  all  sorts 
 of  diffuse  and  irrelevant  remarks  about  vision,  philosophy,  and 
 light,  of  which  this  is  but  one  part  of  one  sentence.  "  If  truth 
 is  not,  it  is  true  that  truth  is  not;  something  therefore  is 
 true  ;  and  if  something  is  true,  it  is  true  that  there  is  truth  ; 
 therefore,  if  truth  is  not  there  is  truth.  For  truth  prevails 
 above  all  things."  But  perhaps  nothing  more  is  wanted  to 
 show  the  absolute  lack   of  all   exegetic  insight  than  Bona- 
 
 1  He  said  to  his  friend,  Brother  Reginald,  "Omnia  quae  scripsi  videntur 
 mihi  paleae  respectu  eovum  quae  vidi."  Prooem.  De  Vit.  S.  Thorn. 
 Aquin. 
 
 -  Corderius  says  that  he.  derives  almost  all  his  theology  from  Dionysius 
 (Migne,  i.  96). 
 
 3  "He  gives  his  views  of  exegesis  in  Principium  S.  Scriptural.     See  Tsi 
 in  Script.  Saer.  in  which  he  says  the  New  Testament  is  only  the  Old  spiritually 
 expounded. 
 
His  Exegesis.  273 
 
 Ventura's  application  of  the  Psalter  to  the  Virgin  Mary.1 
 Bonaventura  expatiates  on  the  length,  breadth,  height,  and 
 width,  of  Scripture;  he  says,  that  its  altitude  is  unattainable 
 because  of  its  inviolable  authority,  its  plenitude  inexhaustible 
 because  of  its  inscrutable  profundity,  its  certitude  infallible 
 because  of  its  irrefutable  progress,  its  value  inappreciable 
 because  of  its  inestimable  fruit,  its  pulchritude  incontamin- 
 able  because  of  its  impermixtible  purity,  and  so  forth  with  all 
 the  inexhaustible  verbosity  of  scholastic  eloquence,  and  with 
 .in  artificiality  which  lacks  the  ring  of  genuine  feeling.  This 
 supremacy,  he  says,  belongs  to  God's  Word,  "  in  order  that  to 
 secular  sciences  which  inflate  the  heart  and  overshadow  the 
 intellect,  there  may  be  no  room  for  glorying  against  Holy 
 Scripture."2  But  his  many-syllabled  eulogy  only  serves  as 
 an  introduction  to  an  account  of  the  river  of  Paradise  which 
 divides  itself  into  four  heads,  the  rivers  namely  of  histories, 
 of  anagogies,  of  allegories,  and  of  tropologies.3  This  fourfold 
 river  of  exegesis  had  its  fountain  not,  as  Bonaventura  imagined, 
 in  Paradise,  but  partly  in  the  Greek  Stoa  and  partly  in 
 the  Jewish  Synagogue.  It  had  broadened  and  deepened  in 
 the  works  of  interpreters  who  found  in  the  mystic  sense  a 
 facile  way  of  gratifying  ingenuity,  of  concealing  ignorance  and 
 of  furnishing  homiletics.  During  the  whole  of  this  period 
 Christian  exegesis  resembled  that  of  the  Rabbinic  school  of 
 Tiberias  in  its  age  of  decadence.  Both  had  their  oral 
 tradition  with  which  they  made  the  Word  of  God  of  none 
 effect.  Tin:  Fathers  took  the  same  position  as  the  Mishna, 
 and  allegory  as  the  Qabbala.     From  Rabbis  and  Alexandrians 
 
 Bonaventura  lms  been   highly   praised  for  his  method  of  "explaining 
 
 Scripture  by  Scripture."     But  in  tin-  first  pla.-i-  t lie  method  is  not  in  the  least 
 
 degree  peculiar  to  him,  and  in  the  next  the  indiscriminate  use  of  "parallel " 
 
 which  have  nothing  "parallel"  in  them,  leads  in  all  the  Schoolmen 
 
 if)  mere  confusion. 
 
 s  Prooem.  in  Breviloquium.     Comp.  Hugo,  Erudit.  JDidane.  iv.  1  :  Johann. 
 Sarisb.   Polycrat.  vii.    ]■_'.     The  sciences  which  reveal  the  laws  of  God   were 
 thus  treated  as  menials  "in  the  service  of  a  mistress  who  had  grown  sluggish 
 and  immovable." 
 :;  Bonaventura  himself  prefers  to  regard  the  Bible  ;is  a  booh  with 
 
 and  not  contenl  even  with  the  fourfold  Bense,  he  adds  to  it  three  mora 
 -the  symbolic,  the  Bynekdochic,  and  the  hyperbolic] 
 
 T 
 
274  Nicolas  of  Lyra. 
 
 the  Christian  teachers  had  taken  without  examination  an 
 unsciTptural  view  of  inspiration,  and  they  supported  it  by  a 
 method  which  had  been  borrowed  directly  from  Pagan 
 philosophers.1 
 
 But  we  meet  at  last  with  one  green  island  among  the 
 tideless  waves  of  exegetic  commonplace.  Nicolas  of  Lyra  2 
 (t  13-40) — the  Doctor  'planus  et  utilis — was  the  Jerome 
 of  the  fourteenth  century.  From  him  came  the  revival 
 which  reached  its  full  force  more  than  two  centuries  after  he 
 had  gone  to  rest.  The  fresh  life  came  from  the  reviving 
 studies  of  the  French  and  Spanish  Jews.  The  old  method 
 of  Biblical  study,  the  fantastic  child  of  Rabbinism  and  the 
 Stoa,  had  long  fallen,  it  has  been  said,  into  a  magic  sleep, 
 and  the  trees  rustled  in  vain  over  the  enchanted  castle.  It 
 had  drunk  at  the  hands  of  Bede  the  opiate  of  Jerome's 
 vague  wavering  elegant  compilations  ;  and  had  fed  to 
 repletion  upon  the  sermon-material  so  abundantly  supplied 
 by  Gregory.  But  meanwhile,  on  the  banks  of  the  Tigris 
 and  in  Andalusia,  Jews  trained  in  Arabic  schools  of  wisdom 
 had  found  the  charm  to  open  its  closed  eyes.  That  charm 
 was  Hebrew  grammar.  A  thoughtful  monk,  sitting  in 
 his  lonely  cell,  first  found  its  efficacy  in  his  own  enlighten- 
 ment, and  forcing  his  way  through  the  brushwood  and  under- 
 growth of  centuries  awoke  the  sleeper.  That  monk  was 
 Nicolas  of  Lyra.3 
 
 Siuce  the  days  of  Ibn  Ezra  (t  1167),  a  change  had  come 
 over  the  spirit  of  the  Jewish  commentators.  He  had  dis- 
 tinguished between  five  methods  of  Biblical  commentary  : — 
 
 1  A  word  of  at  least  passing  recognition  should  be  given  to  the  textual  and 
 practical  (though  hardly  to  the  exegetical)  labours  of  Hugo  of  St.  Cher  (11260), 
 who  in  his  Corredoria  attempted  some  improvement  of  the  text  of  the 
 Vulgate.  His  book  first  made  the  division  of  the  Bible  into  chapters  general. 
 His  efforts  were  due  to  the  hints  of  the  greatest  genius  of  the  thirteenth 
 century,  Roger  Lacon. 
 
 a  So    called  from  his    birthplace,   Lyra,  in   Normandy.      Sixtus  Senensis 
 
 says:   "Natione  Anglus  vel ex  Lyra  BrabanMae  oppido."      Bibl. 
 
 Sand.  p.  276.  There  seems  to  be  little  or  no  proof  of  the  common  notion 
 that  he  was,  on  his  mother's  side,  of  Jewish  birth.  At  an  early  age  he 
 became  a  Franciscan. 
 
 B  Merx,  Einc  liede  vom  Auslegen. 
 
Jewish  Excgetcs.  275 
 
 The  Verbal,  which  dwells  on  every  separate  word. 
 
 The  purely  Subjective,  which  pays  no  attention  at  all  to 
 tradition. 
 
 The  Allegoric,  which  reads  mysteries  into  the  sacred 
 text. 
 
 The  Kabbalistic,  which  develops  secrets  out  of  letters, 
 numbers,  and  syllables. 
 
 The  Literal,  which  confines  itself  to  developing  the  actual 
 meaning  of  the  writers.1 
 
 Of  these  five  methods  he  had  himself  chosen  the  last.  In 
 the  same  century  the  labours  of  the  Qimchis  had  greatly 
 facilitated  the  study  of  Hebrew  grammar.  Rashi  (t  1170), 
 while  following  traditional  views,  had  done  much  to  elucidate 
 the  literal  sense,  and  Maimonides  "  the  Liorht  of  the  West," 
 "the  Eagle  of  the  Rabbis"  (t  1204),  whom  the  stricter 
 Jews  of  his  day  regarded  as  a  rationalist,  had  practically 
 rejected  much  of  Talmudism,  and  reverting  to  the  written 
 Law  had  endeavoured  to  show  by  Aristotelian  and  Alex- 
 andrian methods  that  the  written  Law  was  founded  on 
 immutable  reason.2  Nicolas  had  studied  Rashi  and  had  often 
 followed  him  so  closely  as  to  be  called  Simla  Salomonis?  He 
 seems  intuitively  to  have  seized  on  some  of  the  best  principles 
 hitherto  enunciated.  Here  and  there  he  had  met  with  hints 
 as  to  the  corruption  of  manuscripts ;  the  necessity  for  a 
 better  text;  the  importance  of  understanding  the  original 
 languages ;  the  lolly  of  splitting  up  texts  into  endless 
 fragments;  the  difference  between  true  exposition  and  a 
 confused  chaos  of  possible  suggestions ;  the  primary  duty  of 
 
 1  See  Sale's  Koran,  p.  87. 
 
 -  On   the  Jewish   mediaeval  interpreters  see  Schrbck,   K.  G.  xxv.  "I'l  ; 
 RosenmuHer,   Hist.   Interp.  v.  211,  sq.  ;  Meyer,  i.  Sf>-93  ;  Merx,  Joel,  207 
 296  ;  Siegfried  "  Deber  Rashi's  Einfluss"  (Merx,  Arehiv,  i.  431).    In  the  latter 
 ;  apei  is  shown  t ho  extent  of  Rashi's  intlueiice  over  Luther  as  well  as  over 
 Nicolas  of  Lyra. 
 
 •:  Rashi  is  the  abbreviated  name  of  Rabbi  Solomon  Jizchaki.  It  was  prob- 
 ably from  Rashi  that.  Lyra  learnt  the  admirable  old  rule  which  be  renders 
 ••  Scriptnira  loqu\  ■  I  "  (note  >>n  <  [en.  \  rii 
 
 1,  "  Recordatus  est ").  Nicolas  says,  "Intendonon  solum  doctorum  catholi- 
 corum  sed  etiam  Bebraiorum  explanationes,  maxime  R.  Salomon,  qui  inter 
 iloctoi  llebnieos  loeutus  est  rationabilius  ad  declarationem  sensus  literalis 
 (EPS)." 
 
 T   2 
 
276  Nicolas  of  Lyra. 
 
 building  all  developments  upon  a  secure  basis  of  the  literal 
 sense.  Nicolas  combines  these  views.  He  does  not  ostensibly 
 abandon  the  current  opinions.  His  definitions,  divisions, 
 and  terminology  show  that  he  is  still  a  Schoolman.1  He 
 repeats  the  phrase  that  God  is  the  auctor  pi^incipcdis  of 
 Scripture,  and  follows  Thomas  Aquinas  in  the  remark  that 
 the  literal  sense  develops  the  meaning  of  the  words,  and  the 
 mystic  sense  the  meaning  of  the  things  which  the  words 
 signify.2  He  even  adopts  the  seven  rules  of  Tichonius,  and 
 repeats  the  common  definitions  of  the  fourfold  sense,3  and 
 gives  the  stock  illustration  which  was  supposed  to  be 
 furnished  by  the  word  "  Jerusalem."  On  the  other  hand  he 
 evinces  rare  clearness  and  sobriety ;  he  insists  on  the  Protestant 
 principle  of  referring  to  the  original ;  he  complains  that  the 
 mystic  sense  had  been  almost  allowed  to  choke  (suffocare)  the 
 literal ;  he  says  that  when  the  mystic  exposition  is  discrepant 
 from  the  literal  it  is  indecens  et  incpta  ;  4  he  demands  that  the 
 literal  sense  alone  should  be  used  in  proving  doctrines.5 
 Practically,  therefore,  he  only  admits  two  possible  senses — 
 
 1  He  characteristically  meets  the  objection  that  "either  man  must  now 
 have  a  rib  too  few  and  be  imperfect,  or  must  have  had  one  too  many,  and  be  a 
 monster,"  by  the  remark  that  a  thing  may  be  superfluous,  rationeindiriilui, 
 but  not  ratione  specici. 
 
 2  Thorn.  Aquin.  Summa,  1,  Qu.  1,  art.  10.  Nicolas  says,  "  Habet  ille 
 liber  hoc  speciale,  quod  una  litera  continet  plures  sensus." 
 
 3  To  him  are  attributed  the  lines — 
 
 "  Littcra  gesta  docet,  quae  credas  Allcgoria, 
 Moralis  quid  agas,  quo  tendas  Anagogia  ;  " 
 
 but  he  only  quotes  them  in  his  first  preface,  where  he  explains  the  four  senses. 
 In  his  second  preface  he  compares  Scripture  to  the  book  written  within  (the 
 mystic  sense)  and  without  (the  literal  sense). 
 
 4  "Vel  saltern  minus  decens  ceteris  paribus  et  apta,"  he  cautiously  adds. 
 Lyra  firmly  states  his  object  in  the  words,  "  Cum  Dei  adjutorio  intendo  circa 
 li'teralem  sensum  insistere,  et  paucas  valde  et  breves  cxpositiones  mysticas  ali- 
 quando  intcrponcre  ;  licet  raw."     Prol.  2. 
 
 5  "Cum  ex  solo  sensu  literali  et  non  ex  mystico  posset  argumentnm  fieri 
 ad  probandum."  He  wrote  eighty-five  books  of  Postills,  of  which  fifty  wen- 
 literal  and  thirty-five  moral  it  ales.  The  name  Postilla  is  as  old  as  the  eighth 
 century,  and  is  derived  from  post  ilia  (s.c.  verba  textus).  If  we  read  Nicolas 
 of  Lyra  on  Gen.  i.  after  Hugo  of  St.  Cher  we  see  an  immense  advance.  In 
 the  "allegoric"  division  of  the  fourfold  sense  in  Hugo,  "  Crcavit  coeluTr." 
 becomes  "He  made  the  New  Testament;"  both  Testaments  are  coclum, 
 regarded  on  the  side  of  Christ's  Divinity,  terra  on  the  side  of  His  humanity. 
 The  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  symbolised  by  the  coverings  of  the  taber- 
 nacle (Ex.  xxvi.)  made  opcre  plumario.  "  Pluma  est  acus,  acus  vero  Christus, 
 perforalus  in  passione,  punget  in  secundo  sicut  acus,"  &c,  &c. 
 
His  Originality.  277 
 
 the  literal  and  the  mystic,  and  lie  founds  the  latter  exclusively 
 upon  the  former.  No  mere  eclectic,  he  everywhere  exhibits 
 a  vigorous  independence  and  originality  with  the  clear  feeling 
 that  he  is  opening  fresh  paths.  He  does  not  hesitate  some- 
 times to  prefer  the  explanations  of  Rashi  and  the  Jews  to  those 
 of  the  idolised  Latin  Fathers,  even  in  passages  which  had 
 been  accepted  Messianically ;  and  sometimes  he  sets  aside 
 both  Jewish  and  Christian  interpretations  in  favour  of  some 
 view  of  his  own.1  While,  therefore,  he  wrote  in  a  tone  of 
 extreme  modesty,  and  submitted  all  his  works  to  the  decision 
 of  the  Church,2  he  did  more  than  any  other  writer  to  break 
 down  the  tyranny  of  ecclesiastical  tradition,  and  to  overthrow 
 the  blind  belief  in  the  bad  method  of  many  centuries.  The 
 old  proverb  Si  Lyra  non  lyrassd,  Lutherus  non  saltasset  may 
 only  express  a  popular  view  of  history;  but  Luther,  while 
 blaming  his  dependence  on  Rashi,  both  made  great  use  of 
 Lyra  and  expressed  for  him  the  utmost  admiration.3  He  can 
 have  no  juster  eulogy  than  the  distich  of  his  epitaph — 
 
 "  Littera  nempe  mmis  quae  quondam  obscura  jacebat, 
 Oiimes  pur  partus  clara  labore  nieo  est."  4 
 
 Although   the   folios   of  Lyra  almost  immediately  drove 
 other    commentaries,    except     the     Glossa    ordinaria,    into 
 
 1  See  his  note  on  Gen.  xlix.  11,  where  he  says,  "  Exponnnt  deChristi  pas- 
 sione  scd  ista  expositio  videtur  niihi  inagis  mystica  quam  literalis."  He 
 lvfusi's  t<>  sim'  any  allusion  to  the  Trinity  in  Gen.  xviii.  1. 
 
 2  He  modestly  says  thai  lie  has  only  written  Scltolastice  et  in  modum  cxercitii, 
 and  subjects  his  views  to  the  correction  sanetae  matris  eeclesiae  et  eujuslibet 
 sapu -nlis.  The  vigour  of  his  independence  is  well  shown  in  his  comment  on 
 Ezek.  xL-xlviii.  (on  which  sec  Hengstenberg,  Ohristohgie,  ii.  595;  Merx, 
 Joel,  331  335).  Be  examines  the  views  of  Rashi,  Jerome,  Gregory,  Richard, 
 ami  Jingo  of  SI.  Victor,  and  differs  from  them  all  for  tin- better. 
 
 •  Luther  said,  "Ego  Lyranum  Ldeo  amo  et  inter  optimos  pono  quod  ubique 
 diligenter  retinet  el  persequitur  historiam,  quamquam  auctoritate  Patrnm  Be 
 vinci  patitur  et  aonnunquam  eorum  exemplo  denectit  .  .  .  ad  ineptas  alle- 
 gorias."  Flacius  (Catal.  xviii.  809)  speaks  of  him  no  less  highly.  In  Luther's 
 comment  on  Genesis  (as  Siegfried  Las  proved!  Lyra  is  traceable  in  almost 
 every  verse.  Luther  adds  little  to  him  except  polemical  and  dogmatic  bibli- 
 eism.      1!.  Simon,  iii.  432. 
 
 4  On  Nicolas  of  Lyra  Bee  Fabric.  Bibl.  Lot.  v.  114  sq.\  Le  Long,  Bibl.  Soar, 
 iii.  857,  8f.  i  Rosenmuller,  Hist.  Jut.  v.  280  ;  Flacius,  Catal.  test.  Vertt.  xviii.; 
 Buddeus,  Tsagoge,  1420,  sq. ;  Meyer,  Oesch.  d.  Schrifterkl.  i.  109-121; 
 Diestel,  pp.  198  201  ;  Merx,  Joel,  305  835 ;  Klausen,  Eermeneutik,  p.  210  j 
 Gratz,  Oesch.  d.  Jud.  vii.  513  &c. 
 
278  Retrogression. 
 
 oblivion,  lie  had  no  adequate  followers.1  The  converted  Jew, 
 Solomon  Levita,  known  as  Paulus  of  Burgos  (t  1435), 
 published  Additioncs  to  Nicolas  of  Lyra,  which  were  purely 
 reactionary,2  and  deserved  the  Corrcctorium  comiptoris  Bur- 
 gensis  of  Matthias  Doring.3  Paulus  repeats  the  old  secular 
 misquotation  of  "  the  letter  killeth,"  and  makes  the  slavish 
 and  sophistic  remark  that,  "  Since  God  is  the  author  of 
 Scripture,  and  must  have  intended  the  literal  sense,  the 
 Church  decision  always  must  be  the  literal  sense,  even  when 
 it  seems  least  to  resemble  it."  4  This  argument,  which  has 
 been  repeated  by  a  leading  theologian  in  the  last  decade, 
 makes  God  responsible  for  the  follies  and  ignorances  of  men. 
 It  recklessly  confuses  predestination  with  foreknowledge,  and 
 it  amounts  to  saying  that  if  a  passage  has  been  universally 
 misunderstood,  the  misconception  or  perversion  of  it  must 
 have  been  a  part  of  the  intended  meaning  ! 5  Thus  does 
 theological  error  try  to  hide  itself  under  the  shield  of  omni- 
 potence, and  to  fulminate  its  ignorances  with  the  voice  of 
 infallibility. 
 
 After  the  death  of  Nicolas  of  Lyra  there  was  no  important 
 addition  to  the  study  of  Scripture  till  the  dawn  of  the 
 Reformation.  Wiclif,  indeed,  made  the  important  remark 
 that  "  the  whole  error  in  the  knowledge  of  Scripture,  and  the 
 source  of  its  debasement  and   falsification   by  incompetent 
 
 1  See  Paul.  Burgens.  Prol.  Addit.  In  some  lines  by  Angel  o  Iiocca  {Bibl. 
 Thcol.  Epitome,  1594)  he  says,  in  a  patronising  way, 
 
 "  At  brevis  etfacilis,  non  est  spernenda  tironi, 
 Lyrensis  expositio." 
 Pope  in  the  Dunciad  (i.  153)  says  of  the  bookshelves  of  Colley  Cibber, — 
 
 "  De  Lyra  there  a  dreadful  front  extends  ; " 
 and  adds  in  his  note  that  De  Lyra's  works  were  printed  in  five  vast  folio 
 volumes  in  1472.     Pope  may  possibly  have  confused  him  with  Harpsfield  ;  if 
 so  he  gives  a  wrong  date. 
 
 2  He  repeatedly  returns  to  the  unnatural  glosses  which  Lyra's  honesty  and 
 good  sense  had  rejected. 
 
 3  Doring  called  his  book  Iieplicae  defensivae.     See  Buddeus,  Isag.  p.  1433. 
 
 4  "Sensus  literalis  non  debet  dici  ille  qui repugnat  ecclesiae  auctoritati." 
 Prol.  in  Addition™.  So  too  Gerson,  "Sensus  literalis judicandus  est  prout 
 ecclesia  .  .   .  determinavit. "     Propp.  desens.  lit.  3. 
 
 5  This  dangerous  notion  is  first  found  in  Augustine,  and  is  repeated  by 
 Cocceius,  "  Jmpossibile  est  aliquid  fieri  in  mundo  de  quo  verba  Spiritus  Sancti 
 usurpari  possunt,  tit  id  non  intuitus  sit  Spiritus  S.  .  .  ct  non  volucrit 
 legentem  ea  verba  ei  rei  accommodarc." 
 
Other  Excgctcs.  279 
 
 persons,  was  the  ignorance  of  grammar  and  logic  ;  "  x  and  Hus 
 by  the  sobriety  of  his  writings  earned  the  praise  of  Luther, 
 that  he  was  "skilful  and  weighty  in  the  treatment  of 
 Scripture."  The  value  of  Savonarola's  comments  is  exclu- 
 sively practical.2  The  Pro-positiones  de  sensu  lilcrali  of  Gerson 
 (t  1429)  lay  down  some  excellent  principles,  but  he  entirely 
 nullifies  their  value  by  making  the  interpretation  of  Scripture 
 depend  exclusively  on  the  authority  of  the  Church.3 
 
 His  comments  on  the  Canticles  and  the  Penitential 
 Psalms,  apart  from  their  devotional  remarks,  are  of 
 the  poorest  description.  Pious  of  Mirandola  (t  1494)  was 
 chiefly  occupied  with  Platonism  and  Kabbalism.4  Tostatus 
 (t  1454),  the  "  Stupor  mundi  qui  scibile  discutit  omne," 
 turned  to  but  poor  account  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  used 
 Nicolas  of  Lyra  often  without  acknowledgment,  and  filled  his 
 interminable  pages  with  irrelevant  disquisitions,  prolix  specu- 
 lations, and  valueless  questions.5  Turrecremata  (t  14C8) 
 blindly  followed  the  old  traditional  lines.  The  Jewish  convert, 
 Jacob  Perez  of  Valentia  (t  1492),  mixed  them  up  with  the 
 poorest  lees  of  Rabbinism.0    John  Wessel — Liix  Mundi — who 
 
 1  Trialog.  i.  8.  On  Lis  views  see  Vaughan,  ii.  315.  TViclif  is  allegorical 
 and  dialectical  in  his  own  methods,  but  he  said  that  "all  things  necessary  in 
 Scripture  an-  contained  in  iis  proper  literal  and  historic  sense." 
 
 -  Savonarola's  sermons  are  full  of  tin;  fourfold  sense  (see  Villaii,  i.  114, 
 E.  T.). 
 
 ;;  See  Propp.  iii.  vi.  vii.     Opp.  1,  3,  ed.  Du  Tin. 
 
 4  See  Pic.  Mirand.  Opp.  p.  71,  and  Cudworth,  Intellect.  Syst.  301,  s?.  ; 
 Archangelus,  Arils  Kabbal.  ricriptores,  1587. 
 
 •r'  Such  as,  Was  Adam  wiser  than  Solomon?  Did  he  name  the  fish  which 
 could  not  hr  brought  to  him  '.  If  God  ceased  to  create  after  the  six  days,  how 
 come  creatures  to  he  formed  out  of  putrefaction  ?&c.  In  the  New  Testament, 
 Was  it  lit  that  the  Virgin  should  he  married  '  "Why  did  not  Joseph  ask  her, 
 qitomodo  cone  p  Hi  /  Quid  faciebanl  parentes  videntes  •  am  prai  gnanti  m 
 <  In    .Matt.    iii.    25,    '.  <  (  .  .  .Si    inn 
 
 columba  potuil  moveri  multipliciter.     Ono  modo  a  venl  •.  &c,  feci     Seven 
 
 L  to  St.  Matthew  and  one  to  the  fifth  chapter  alone!    His  works 
 
 occupied  twenty-seven  massive  folios.     The  value  of  his  verbal  disquisitions 
 on  the  New  Testami  ul  may  be  estimated  by  the  fad  thai  he  argues  from  the 
 
 Vulgate.      Hence   his  glaring  errors  about   the  word  TrapaSeiyaariaai  and  hrjfia 
 i.  i.  19;  iv.  ■!>. 
 ■  Not  content  with  the  sev<  □  ruli     of  Tichonius  he  adds  three  more  <  f  the 
 kind.     In   Pa.   xxii.   1 -J  he  males   the  "garments"   the  Letter  and  the 
 mysl  the  Old  Testament.      He  makes  the  four-cornered   Psalterya 
 
 type  of  the  four  Evangelists ;  the  ten  strings  are  the  ten  mysteries.     The  tri- 
 angular harp  indicates  the  three  virtues,  ana  the  three  marks of  holiness 
 I.    The  timbrel,  which  is  beaten,  is  a  t\  pe  of  Christ's  suffi 
 
280  Fall  of  Scholasticism. 
 
 died  in  1489,  was,  indeed,  an  excellent  expounder,  and  was 
 warmly  appreciated  by  Luther  ;  but  in  this  respect  he  stands 
 almost  alone.1  In  the  Mammothrectus,  a  book  which  Erasmus 
 says  made  him  nearly  die  with  laughing,  we  reach  the  lowest 
 depths  of  imbecility  ;  but  it  must  simply  be  regarded  as  an 
 illustration  of  the  profound  ignorance  of  the  clergy  in  the 
 age  in  which  he  lived.2  During  the  whole  of  this  epoch  the 
 Greek  Church  produced  Catenae,  but  little  else. 
 
 It  does  not  fall  under  my  subject  to  trace  the  history  of 
 Scholasticism  itself.  Its  ruin  was  due  partly  to  its  own  ex- 
 cesses and  divisions,  partly  to  the  general  awakenment  of  the 
 human  mind.3  With  Duns  Scotus  (f  1308)  begins  the  decay 
 which  ended  in  dissolution.  His  constant  phrase  "  it  cannot 
 be  proved  that"  led  to  scepticism.  His  purely  negative 
 criticism,  and  his  method  of  quodlibcts — the  statement  of  argu- 
 ments pro  and  contra  without  any  mediation — gradually  dis- 
 solved the  union  between  faith  and  science  which  Anselm  had 
 endeavoured  to  establish.  Hence  Haureau  calls  his  system 
 "  Spinozism  before  Spinoza."  He  also,  as  well  as  Raymond 
 Lulli  (-f-  1315),  hehped  to  open  men's  eyes  to  the  fact  that 
 the  whole  school  system  dealt  far  more  with  words  than  with 
 things.  What  Wetstein  calls  "  the  tyrannous  and  exclusive 
 dominance  of  that  methodic,  dry,  dead,  wooden,  strawy,  arti- 
 ficial theology  which  was  a  mixture  of  philosophy,  technicality, 
 and  dialectics,"  was  rendered  ipso  facto  impossible,  when,  as 
 Erasmus  tells  us,  a  "  theologian  "  could  boast  "  that  it  would 
 take  more  than  nine  years  to  understand  what  Duns  Scotus 
 wrote  as  a  mere  preface  to  the  Sentences ;  and  that  unless  a 
 man  had  all  the  metaphysical  system  of  Scotus  in  his  head, 
 
 The  first  Psalm  refutes  the  Stoics,  Peripatetics,  Avicenna,  Algazel,  &c.  In 
 the  third  we  see  Christ's  sufferings  ;  in  the  fourth  His  miracles  ;  in  the  fifth 
 the  Pharisees  ;  in  the  sixth  the  Eucharist,  &c.  See  Fabr.  Bibl.  Lett.  iv.  102  ; 
 Meyer,  i.  322  sq.  (who  quotes  some  deplorable  specimens).  The  "sensus  mere 
 literalia"  is  to  him  always  "  inutilis." 
 
 1  See  Ullmann,  Reformers  before  the  Reformation.  For  the  views  of  Anton 
 de  Nebrissa  1  can  simply  refer  to  Meyer,  i.  332-339. 
 
 2  " Nuper  cum  in  hunc  codiccm  incidisscin ,  minimum  abfuit  quin  risu 
 dissilirem."  Erasm.  Colloq.  561.  The  author  of  the  book  was  Joannes 
 Marehesinus.  For  a  kindly  remark  about  him  see  Hallam,  Lit.  of  Europe, 
 i.  286m.     See  too  Sixtus  Senensis,  p.  273. 
 
 3  See  Ilergenrother,  i.  953. 
 
William  of  Occam.  281 
 
 lie  could  not  understand  one  sentence  of  his  writings."  Men 
 began  to  perceive  that  years  of  study  of  these  subtle  techni- 
 calities only  made  them  masters  of  a  cumbrous  and  useless 
 terminology,  and  took  them  no  nearer  to  the  comprehension 
 of  the  inwrcumscriptibilitates,  as  Scotus  barbarously  called 
 them,  which  they  were  supposed  to  elucidate.1 
 
 The  system  of  the  Schools  received  a  yet  deadlier  blow- 
 when  William  of  Occam  (f  1347)  became  the  subtle  and 
 clear-minded  champion  of  nominalism.  The  Platonic  doc- 
 trine of  ideas — the  belief  in  Universalia  ante  rem — had  been 
 the  band  of  union  between  theology  and  philosophy.  The 
 Church  had  adopted  the  rule  Incisibilia  non  decipiunt, 
 and  she  had  maintained  that  apart  from  Realism  there 
 could  be  no  belief  in  the  Trinity  or  in  Transubstantiation. 
 Thus  Realism  was  favourable  to  dogma,  for  it  could  reason 
 dci  I  actively  from  truths  assumed  to  be  certainly  known. 
 The  earlier  Nominalists  had  been  crushed  by  accusations 
 of  heresy.  Iloscelin  had  been  charged  with  Tritheism ; 
 Abelard  with  Sabellianism.  Occam  by  arguing  that  uni- 
 versal were  names,  words,  flatus  Tocis,  which  had  their 
 exclusive  birth  in  the  human  reason,2  snapped  the  link 
 between  theology  and  philosophy.  His  two  axioms,  Entia 
 non  sunt  rn/uMiplicanda  praeter  necessitatem  and  Frustra  Jit 
 per  plv/ra  quod  jicri  potest  per  pauciora,  cut  away  the  ground 
 under  many  traditional  assumptions.3  Unintentionally  per- 
 haps,  but  surely,  Occam  weakened  the  hold  of  the  entire 
 traditional  system  of  Christianity  by  resting  it  on  the  authority 
 of  the  Church  alone,  and  by  the  absurdities,  contradictions,  and 
 frivolities  with  which  he  unwisely  and  irreverently  connected 
 the  Christian  dogmas  when  regarded  by  themselves.4  No  less 
 surely  did  he  weaken  the  pride  of  sacerdotal  tyranny,  when 
 he  addressed  to  the   Emperor  Lewis  of  Bavaria  the  famous 
 
 1  See  Haurean,  35] 
 
 -  Un         '   a  post  rem.     See  Hampden,  Bampt.  Led.  p.  71. 
 
 3  "  Le  caractere  propre  <lu  nominalisme  e'eal  la  simplicity." — ITaumui. 
 Th''  name  Doctor  Invincibilis  was  given  him  by  Pope  John  surii. 
 
 *  See  Landerer,  s.v.  Scholasticism,  in  Herzog's  EneyM.  ami  Occam  mm' 
 Luther  (Theolog.  Stud.  ».  Krit.  1889).  These  extravagances  chiefly  occur  in 
 Occam's  Quodlibeta  ami  Ceatilogii 
 
282  Platonic  Studies. 
 
 words  "  Tu.  wr  defende  gladio,  ego  tc  defendam  calamo  ;  " 1  and 
 when  in  his  JEpistola  Defensoria  he  became  the  earliest 
 defender  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Press.2  The  nominalist 
 Gabriel  Biel  (f  1495)  was  the  last  of  the  Schoolmen. 
 
 Nominalism  rejects  the  ideas  of  Plato,  yet  the  reintroduc- 
 tion  of  Platonic  studies  in  the  fifteenth  century  had  their 
 share  also  in  the  downfall  of  Scholasticism.3  It  led  the  way 
 to  a  freer  and  more  spiritual  Christianity.  The  study  of  Plato 
 was  not  monopolised  by  the  semi-pagan  humanists.  St. 
 Thomas  Aquinas  had  spoken  of  Augustine  as  "  dodrinis 
 Platonicorum  imbutus"  4  Lorenzo  de  Medici  went  so  far  as 
 to  say,  that  "  without  Plato  a  man  could  not  well  be  a  good 
 citizen  or  skilled  in  Christian  doctrine." 5  The  Fathers  had 
 been  Platonists.6  "  Acadcmia  Platonis  Ecclesiae  vrfut  vcsti- 
 bulum,"  says  Bai-onius.  Ficino,  the  translator  of  Plato,  also 
 lectured  on  St.  Paul.  Colet,  whose  name  stands  so  deservedly 
 high  among  English  theologians,  studied  Plato  as  well  as 
 Plotinus  and  Dionysius.  The  Church  had  long  been  under 
 the  sway  of  Aristotle,  and  had  much  to  learn  from  Plato's 
 analytic  method  of  searching  for  truth  instead  of  starting 
 from  synthetic  maxims.  <:  The  most  zealous  defenders  of 
 Christianity,"  says  Van  Heusdcn,7  "  have  esteemed  the  doc- 
 trine of  Plato  a  prelude  to  the  truest  Christianity."  Christian 
 students  thought  that  they  found  Platonic  idealism  in  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.8  The  works  of  Plato  had  become 
 known  to  Europe  in  the  Revival  of  Letters,  and  it  has  been 
 said  that  the  Christian  Mirandola  was  as  eager  in  the  cause  of 
 reconciling  Plato  with  Aristotle,  as  the  anti-Christian  Porphyry 
 
 1  In  1328. 
 
 2  Haureau,  ii.  420.  Marsilio  of  Padua  is  said  to  have  learnt  from  Occam 
 the  fine  conceptions  of  liberty  which  appear  in  his  Defensor  Pacts. 
 
 3  All  that  was  known  of  Plato  by  mediaeval  scholars  was  derived  from  a 
 translation  by  Chalcidius  of  part  of  the  Timaeus,  references  in  St.  Augustine, 
 and  the  Dc  dogmate  Platonis  of  Apuleius.     Ueberweg,  i.  367. 
 
 4  Summ.  i.  qu.  84,  art.  5. 
 
 6  Valerius,  La urcntii  Medici  Vita,  p.  18. 
 
 fi  See  Aug.  J)c  Civ.  Dei,  viii.  12  ;  c.  Academ.  iii.  19.  "In  multis  quae  ad 
 philosophiam  pertinent  Augustinus  utitur  opinionibus  Platonis."  Thorn.  Aq. 
 Sum  in,  i.  qu.  77,  art.  5. 
 
 7  Characterismi,  p  189. 
 
 8  Even  in  its  most  Aristotelian  epoch  the  Church  was  Realist.  Thomas 
 Aquin.  Summa  Ima.  qu.  xv.  1  ;  xliv.  3. 
 
Views  of  Inspiration.  283 
 
 had  been  twelve  centuries  before.  This  was  one  object  of 
 the  nine  hundred  theses  with  which,  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
 four,  he  challenged  the  Christian  world  in  Rome.  Platonism 
 and  Nominalism  were  opposite  influences,  but  each  of  them 
 acted  as  a  solvent  on  the  hard  shell  of  the  Scholastic  system.1 
 Their  work  was  powerfully  aided  by  the  development  of 
 Commerce,  the  growth  of  the  Universities,2  the  spread  of  in- 
 ductive philosophy,  the  Revival  of  Letters,  the  acquaintance 
 with  the  great  mediaeval  Jewish  commentators,  the  increasing 
 study  of  Hebrew  and  other  languages,  and  the  immorality 
 and  ignorance  of  the  monks  and  clergy  which  tended  to  bring 
 their  extravagant  pretensions  into  absolute  contempt. 
 
 The  defects  of  scholastic  exegesis  were  due  to  many  causes. 
 1.  One  of  these,  and  the  source  of  all  the  rest,  was  a  vague, 
 superstitious,  unproved,  and  purely  traditional  conception  of 
 inspiration.  It  was  .confused  with  verbal  dictation,  and  the 
 Bible  was  turned  into  an  amulet  or  fetish  with  which  the 
 hierarchy,  which  arrogantly  usurped  the  name  of  "the 
 Church,"  could  do  as  they  liked.  The  result  Avas  "  to  nullify 
 the  use  of  Scrijoture  as  a  record  of  the  divine  dealings  with 
 the  successive  generations  of  mankind.  The  voice  of  God 
 was  no  longer  heard  as  it  spoke  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers 
 manners  to  holy  men  of  old,  but  simply  as  uttering  the  hal- 
 lowed symbols  of  an  oracular  wisdom.  The  whole  of  Scripture 
 was  treated  as  one  contemporaneous  production  of  which  the 
 several  parts  might  be  expounded  without  reference  to  the 
 circumstances  in  which  each  was  delivered."  And  thus  the 
 Bible  was  degraded  to  the  level  of  the  Koran,  and  "the 
 piety  of  the  Schoolmen  became  a  superstition,  transub- 
 stantiating tlic  Word  of  God  into  the  verbal  elements  by 
 which  it,  was  signified."8     A  false  and  extravagant  system  of 
 
 1  See  Mosheim,  Deturbat&per  rccmbi  /.'•/.  ]f!77  :  linicker, 
 
 Miscell.  B     .  /      '    .  1748;  Delacluze,  Florence et  Sea  /'  .  1837. 
 
 >i  the  growth  of  the  universities  see  Cardinal  Hergenrother,  A'.  <■'. 
 952.    II''  attributes  the  fall  of  Scholasticism  to, 'in  "hochgetriebeneSuchl  nach 
 Spitzfindigkeiten,  innere  Zerwiirfnisse,  und  das  Ceberwiegen  derhumanistischen 
 Studien."     See  too  I  eberweg,  Hist,  of  Pkilos,  ii.  34,  461. 
 
 3  Hampden,  /•'  .  /  .  pp.  s--'."_'.  The  Fathers,  the  Church  canons,  and 
 I  he  fi  tola  of  Isidore  were  also  treated  as  more  or  less  "  inspired." 
 
284  Downfall  of  Scholasticism. 
 
 interpretation  lias  always  been  the  Nemesis  of  a  false  and  ex- 
 travagant theory  of  supernatural  infallibility.  Nothing  but 
 perversion  could  come  from  this  system  of  treating  the  Bible 
 as  a  series  of  propositions  all  on  the  same  level,  each  absolute 
 in  itself,  and  warranting  every  inference  which  could  be 
 logically  deduced  from  the  phraseology. 
 
 2.  The  whole  system  of  Scholasticism  necessarily  fell  with 
 the  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation,  because  it  had  been 
 essentially  fettered,  papal,  sacerdotal,  and  monkish.1  When 
 Constantinople  had  been  taken  by  the  Turks  in  1453,  and 
 the  intellect  of  Europe  once  more  came  into  close  contact 
 with  the  glorious  literature  of  antiquity;  when  the  invention 
 of  printing  led  to  a  tenfold  diffusion  of  knowledge  ;  when  the 
 vernacular  languages  were  used  in  every  branch  of  general 
 education ;  when  the  laity  discovered  that  the  Church  had 
 no  longer  the  pretension  to  any  monopoly  of  knowledge — 
 Scholasticism  was  doomed.  It  was  not  only  Philosophia 
 ancilla  Thcologiac,  but  Philosophic/,  in  scrvitutcm  theologian 
 papeae  rcdada?  It  was  the  vassalage  of  philosophy  which 
 was  forbidden  to  stir  beyond  impassable  limits  fixed  by  the 
 dogmas  of  the  Church.3  If  alike  the  humanists  and  the 
 Reformers — on  the  one  hand  men  like  Faber  Stapulensis, 
 Sadoletus,  Hermolaus  Barbaras,  Laurentius  Valla,  Bacon, 
 Descartes,  and  the  Encyclopaedists,  on  the  other  Erasmus 
 and  Luther — have  spoken  of  the  whole  system  with  the 
 bitterest  disdain,  it  must  be  remembered  that  for  more 
 than  four  centuries  it  exercised  a  colossal  tyranny,  and 
 often  used  that  tyranny  on  behalf  of  the  Papal  usurpations, 
 the  monastic  system,  and  the  obscurantist  theories  which 
 became  objects  of  deadly  antipathy  to  many  minds. 
 
 3.  A  third  cause  of  the  failure  of  Scholasticism  was  the  lack 
 of  due  equipment  in  the  writers. 
 
 1  Peter  Daniian  said  that  human  intellect  was  not  to  claim  mastership  "sed 
 velut  ancilla  dominae  quodam  famulatus  obsequio  subservire. "  The  Council  of 
 Constance  forbade  laymen  to  teach  in  public,  "sed  aurem  iis  <]ui  docendi 
 gratiam  acceperiut  aperire  "  (Can.  64). 
 
 2  Heumann,  Prol.  to  Tribbechovius,  Dc  doctr.  Schol.  ct  Corrupla  per  cos  div. 
 hum.  rerum  Scicnlia,  1665. 
 
 3  TJeberweg,  Hist.  Phil.  i.  66. 
 
Lack  of  Equipment.  285 
 
 For  instance  the  historic  feeling  and  the  critical  faculty  are 
 entirely  in  abeyance  in  their  writings.  The  narratives  of 
 the  Old  Testament  are  rich  with  human  experiences,  and 
 full  of  interest,  warning,  and  instruction.  Those  of  the  New 
 Testament  are  not  only  infinitely  pathetic,  but  contain  the 
 very  heart  of  God's  revelation  of  Himself  in  the  life  of  men. 
 Yet  for  all  that  is  real  and  deep  in  these  narratives,  literally 
 understood,  the  claustral  narrowness  of  mediaeval  exegesis 
 had  no  feeling  whatever.1  Ignorant  for  the  most  part  of 
 classical  literature,  and  therefore  destitute  of  a  training 
 which  was  invaluable  to  the  greatest  of  the  Fathers,  the 
 Schoolmen  were  also  cut  off  from  a  true  knowledge  of  life  by 
 the  narrowing  walls  and  soul-dwarfing  externalism  of  their 
 monastic  routine.  For  us  the  history  of  David  thrills  with 
 life,  beauty,  and  divine  attractiveness ;  for  the  Schoolmen 
 David  became  for  the  most  part  a  dull  and  misty  abstraction, 
 and  his  Psalms  cumbrous  and  obscure  enigmas.  "  Here," 
 says  Albertus,  writing  on  the  forty-first  Psalm,  "  the  whole 
 Church  is  called  David,  which  groaning  desires  to  reach  its 
 end."  In  the  narrative  of  the  Transfiguration,  "  Jesus,"  he 
 says,  "  signifies  the  preaching  of  the  gospel ; "  "  Peter,  one 
 who  learns;"  "John,  one  in  whom  is  the  grace  of  God;" 
 "  James,  a  supplanter."  Jesus  took  them  up  the  mountain 
 "  after  six  days"  because  the  world  was  made  in  six  days,  or, 
 as  St.  Luke  says,  "  after  eight  days,"  because  the  Resurrection 
 was  on  the  eighth  day.*2  "  They  therefore  who  have  ascended 
 above  the  world  can  be  led  by  the  words  of  the  Gospel  into 
 the  mountains  of  sublime  intelligence  "  and  so  forth.  If 
 we  turn  to  the  Cah  na  A  urea  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  we  find 
 him  quoting  Rabanus  Maurus,  who  explains  the  six  days  as 
 a   reference  to   the  six  ages  before  the  Resurrection;   and 
 
 1  Even  "the   Universal  Doctor,"  Albertus  Magnus,  numbers  the  Pytha- 
 goreans among   the   Stoics,    calls    Socrates  a    Macedonian,   and   says   thai 
 Empedoclea  and  Anaxagoras  were  Italians.     See  Elster,  De  Med.  Aevi  1 
 ex*  g*  t.  p.  39. 
 
 -  The  helplessness  with  which  the  reader  is  left  to  choose  between  "six 
 days  "(Matt.  xvii.  1)  and  "eighl  days"  (Luke  ix.  28),  without  a  glimpse  of 
 direction  as  to  which  period  was  meant,  is  very  characteristic.  There  is  not 
 an  attempt  to  give  the  very  obvious  solution  of  the  apparent  discrepancy. 
 
286  Neglect  of  Philology. 
 
 Origen,  who  refers  them  to  the  six  days  of  creation ;  and  he 
 thinks  that  the  Three  Apostles  remind  us  of  Shem,  Ham, 
 and  Japheth,  or  (as  Hilary  says)  of  the  Holy  Trinity !  With 
 the  historic  sense  thus  atrophied  it  does  not  surprise  us  to 
 find  that  the  critical  faculty  is  also  dead ;  that  though  the 
 Scriptures  are  declared  to  be  written  "  by  the  Triune  God," 
 the  Apocrypha  and  the  Fathers  are  put  very  nearly  on  a  level 
 with  them ;  that  the  Celestial  Hierarchy  could  be  confidently 
 attributed  to  St.  Paul's  Athenian  convert;  and  that  even 
 Roger  Bacon  supposes  that  the  Church  did  not  admit  the 
 Book  of  Enoch  and  the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs 
 into  the  Canon  only  "  because  of  their  too  great  antiquity."1 
 4.  The  neglect  of  Philology  by  the  Schoolmen  was  equally 
 fatal.  Only  one  or  two  of  them  possessed  even  a  smattering 
 of  Hebrew,  and  the  vast  majority  of  them  were  no  less 
 ignorant  of  Greek.2  They  philosophised  and  theologised 
 over  what  they  assumed  to  be  the  supernatural  accuracy 
 of  largely  vitiated  manuscripts  of  a  very  imperfect  transla- 
 tion ;  and  often  with  no  better  aid  than  heterogeneous  glosses 
 from  the  Fathers,  and  those  not  unfrequently  from  jDoor 
 versions  and  spurious  writings.  And  as  they  "rack  the  text 
 and  so  to  speak  drag  it  along  by  the  hair,"  they  constantly 
 rely  on  the  most  grotesque  etymologies.3     If,  as  Luther  said, 
 
 1  Opus  Majus,  ii.  8.  He  said  that  they  contained  the  articles  of  faith 
 "  longe  cxprcssius  qimm  in  canonc."  Roger  Bacon  bad  hinted  at  the  relative 
 freedom  of  non-biblical  branches  of  knowledge,  but  his  view  was  not  accepted. 
 Hugo  said  that  the  Bible  contains  "  totius  univcrsi  contincntiwm"  and  it  was 
 used  to  settle  all  questions  alike. 
 
 2  Even  Thomas  Aquinas,  if  he  knew  some  Greek,  "has  in  several  instances 
 quite  missed  the  sense  of  the  Greek." — Newman. 
 
 3  See  the  Calendar ium  Etymologicum  (Hilarius  =  altus  ares.  Ignatius  = 
 ignem  patius,  Lc. )  Bruckcr,  iii.  854.  Roger  Bacon  derives  irapaaicevTi  from 
 parari  cocnam.  Hervaeus  Dolensis  derives  epislola  from  epi  and  stola,  and 
 says  that  they  were  so  called  because  they  were  sent  over  and  above  the 
 Gospels.  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  derives  ayios  from  a  and  yrj.  Thomas 
 Aquinas,  terra — quia  teritur  pedibus  ;  tenebras — quasi  tenens  umbram;  abyssus 
 from  a  and  byssns,  or  a  and  basis.  Albertus  derives  Endymion  from  en  and 
 dymion,  "intellect;"  Durandus  Alleluia  from  Alle  salvum,  leu,  ■)/<>■,  and  ja, 
 faej  Hervaeus  Dolensis  says  that  Timotheus  means  "  beneficial  "  and  that  the 
 
 Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written  to  thoxe  vim  had  crossed  over  from  worldli- 
 ness.  See  Tribbechovius  De  Doctoribus  Scholasticis  (171!'),  pp  212  sqq.,  or  a 
 curious  later  specimen,  see  Colet's  Letters  to  Radulphus  (ed.  Luptonj,  p.  81. 
 A  very  wonderful  list  might  be  made  of  the  inferences  drawn  from  absurd 
 etymologies  and  sheer  mistakes.  In  the  Glossa  Ordinaria  Amiam  (=  pater 
 cxccIjus)  is  Christ ;  Jochebed  (—  Dei  Gratia)  is  the  Church  :  from  their  union 
 
Parallel  Passages.  287 
 
 "the  science  of  theology  is  nothing  else  than  grammar 
 applied  to  the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  the  Schoolmen  were 
 indued  ill-prepared.  In  Hub.  ii.  9  Thomas  Aquinas,  following 
 Primasius,  mistakes  gratia  Dei  (x"PtT1,  Qeov)  for  a  nomina- 
 tive and  a  title  of  Christ.  He  says  that  the  name  Paul 
 cannot  be  of  Hebrew  origin  because  the  Hebrew  does  not 
 possess  the  letter  P,  but  it  may  be  from  a  word  beginning 
 with  a  letter  like  P,  in  which  case  it  means  "wonderful"  or 
 "  elect;  "  if  it  be  a  Greek  word  it  means  "  quiet ;  "  if  Latin, 
 it  means  "  small ;  "  and  he  proceeds  at  great  length  to  show 
 from  Scripture  how  each  of  these  three  meanings  suits  St. 
 Paul !  Gregory  the  Great  said  that  it  was  of  no  consequence 
 to  know  who  wrote  any  particular  book  of  Scripture,  because 
 wre  do  not  enquire  with  wdiat  pen  a  great  writer  wrote,  and 
 the  sacred  writers  are  only  pens  of  the  Triune  God. 
 
 5.  It  naturally  resulted  from  these  defects  that  much 
 of  the  exegesis  of  even  the  greatest  Schoolmen  consisted  in 
 an  arbitrary  juxtaposition  of  texts,  a  mere  abuse  of  imaginary 
 verbal  resemblances.  The  method  of  Thomas  Aquinas 
 seems  to  have  been  to  explain  a  passage  by  adducing  all  the 
 other  places  where  in  the  Latin  version  the  same  prominent. 
 word  occurs.  Thus,  on  Isaiah  lx.  1,  he  chooses  the  texts  in 
 which  "light"  occurs;  on  Isaiah  xliv.  3,  he  draws  out  a 
 scheme  of  three  ways  in  which  "the  Spirit"  is  given  severally 
 to  beginners,  to  proficients,  and  to  the  perfect.  When  "wash- 
 ing" is  spoken  of,  he  collects  the  texts,  and  says  that  we  are 
 washed  by  water  of  baptism  (Acts  xxii.  16) ;  by  tears  of  con- 
 trition (Luke  vii.  38) ;  by  the  wine  of  Divine  love  (Gen.  xlix. 
 11);  by  the  milk  of  the  Divine  Word  (Cant.  v.  12)  ;  with 
 the  blood  of  ion  (1   Cor.  vi.   11);  and  with  a  view 
 
 to  our  correction  (John  xiii.  5).  This  may  be  harmless  when 
 it  is  simply  artificial,  but  it  is  sometimes  purely  misleading, 
 as  in  the  note  of  Albertus  Magnus  on  Psalm  lxix.  3,  where 
 lie  fries  to  show  that  the  meaningof  the  word  "substance"  is 
 fourfold — a  matter  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  his  text  — 
 
 cornea  Mosea  (!)  who  is  the  spiritual  law  ;  and  Aaron  the  clergy.    For  other 
 
 (jtyiuolo^Ks  sue  Binder,  ktcltulastica  Theologia,  p.  34. 
 
288  False  Parallels. 
 
 from  the  uses  of  the  word  substantia  in  the  Vulgate.1  Here, 
 again,  is  the  comment  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  on  Isaiah  xi.  1, 
 "  There  shall  come  forth  a  rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse."  The 
 Blessed  Virgin,  he  says,  is  "  a  rod."  (1)  As  consoling  in  tribu- 
 lation, which  he  illustrates  by  the  rod  of  Moses  dividing  the 
 Red  Sea.  (2)  As  fructifying,  because  Aaron's  rod  budded. 
 (3)  As  satiating,  because  the  rod  of  Moses  drew  water  from 
 the  rock.  (4)  As  scourging,  because  a  rod  was  to  smite  the 
 corners  of  Moab.  (5)  As  watching,  because  in  Jer.  1.  11,  we 
 read  in  the  Vulgate  Virgam  vigilantcm  ego  video.  Unhappily, 
 however,  for  this  curious  piece  of  perverted  exegesis,  the 
 word  for  "rod,"  in  Isaiah  xi.  1,  is  cJiotcr  ("H?n) ;  in  Numbers 
 xvii.  8,  xx.  11,  is  mattch  (ntso) ;  and  in  Jer.  i.  11,  is  maqqeel 
 (<•!?.'?)  and  means  "  an  early  or  wakeful  tree "  (A.V.  "  rod  of 
 an  almond  tree,"  LXX.  fiarcTrjplav  fcapv'ivijv).  The  parallel 
 passages  are  therefore  no  parallels  at  all,  and  the  only 
 light  thrown  on  the  passage,  apart  from  its  arbitrary  appli- 
 cation to  the  Virgin,  is  a  false  and  fantastic  light.  This 
 concordance-like  juxtaposition  of  the  purely  semblable  identi- 
 ties of  expression  furnished  by  a  translator  has  misled  exegetes 
 since  the  days  of  Hillel,  who  invented  it.  If  it  were  justi- 
 fiable, the  Manichees  had  a  perfect  right  to  explain  "  In  sole 
 posuit  tabernaculum  suum"  (Psalm  xix.  4)  to  mean  that 
 Christ  had  ascended  incorporeally  to  the  Father,  leaving  His 
 tabernacle,  i.e.  His  body,  in  the  sun.  The  method  it  appears 
 was  perfectly  orthodox,  though  the  inference  was  altogether 
 heretical. 
 
 6.  Another  radical  defect  of  scholastic  commentaries  is  the 
 abuse  of  the  dialectic  method,  which  led  too  readily  to 
 sophistry  and  logomachy,  and  even  to  the  mendacium  ofjiciosum 
 of  pledged  controversialists.2 
 
 The  object  of  the  Schoolmen  is  often  far  less  to  explain 
 the  meaning  of  a  passage  than  to  work  it  up  dialectical iy, 
 
 1  1.  Earthly  goods  (Gen.  xiii.  6).  2.  Stability  of  life.  3.  Virtue  (rrov. 
 xiii.  11,  sua  est  substantia  cui  non  est  peccatum  in  conscientia).  4.  All 
 nature. 
 
 'J  Thorn.  Aquin.  Summ.  11.  2  ;  ex.  2  and  4.  Petavius admits  o-o^kttjkt)  and 
 ifuariK^  to  defeat  heresy  (Dogmata,   Prol.  4,  p.  14). 
 
Dialectics.  289 
 
 under  the  categories  of  Aristotle,  and  to  arrange  in  the 
 systematic  form  of  endless  subdivisions  every  possible  lesson, 
 which  they  think  can  be  extorted  from  it.1  They  thought 
 with  Berengar  that  "  God  is  a  logician." 2  They  treated  theo- 
 logy geometrically,  after  the  fashion  of  a  proposition  of  Euclid. 
 Spinning  out  of  their  own  subjectivity  by  the  aid  of  objections, 
 solutions,  definitions,  conclusions,  corollaries,  propositions, 
 proofs,  replies,  reasons,  refutations,  exceptions,  and  distinc- 
 tions,3 they  weave,  as  Bacon  said,  interminable  webs,  "  mar- 
 vellous for  the  tenacity  of  the  thread  and  workmanship,  but 
 for  any  useful  purpose  trivial  and  inane."  4  "  In  divine 
 things,"  says  Ludovicus  Vives,  "  they  divide,  singularise,  parti- 
 cularise, completely,  incompletely,  as  though  they  were 
 dealing  with  an  apple."5  Hence  follows  that  coacervatio,  as 
 Sixtus  Senensis  calls  it,  which  is  so  inexpressibly  wearisome. 
 A  perfectly  empty  schematism  led  to  a  boundless  prolixity. 
 Langenstein  in  four  large  folios  had  only  got  to  the  fourth 
 chapter  of  Genesis,  and  more  real  elucidation  of  the  meaning 
 could  probably  be  given  in  four  lines.  Hasselbach  wrote 
 twenty-four  books  on  the  first  chapter  of  Isaiah,'1  and  an 
 indefinitely  truer  conception  of  its  meaning  could  be  fur- 
 oished  in  two  pages.  It  took  mankind  several  centuries  to 
 arrive  at  the    conviction  that  "  it  had   not  pleased   God  to 
 
 1  As  early  even  as  Lanfranc,  the  dogmatics  of  the  day  are  set  forth  in  the 
 scholastic  manner,  with  syllogisms  and  dialectic  examination  of  proofs  and 
 counterproofs.  "They  did  not  define  doctrine,"  says  Baur,  "  they  refined 
 upon  it."    VersShnungslehre,  p.  147. 
 
 a  Ampere,  //  it.  Lit.  de  France,  iii.  333. 
 
 :;  Erasm,  Eneom.  Mor.  p.  193  (ed.  1696). 
 
 '  Bacon,  De  Augm.  Scient.  i.  16.  "This  degenerate  kind  of  learning  was 
 chiefly  prevalent  among  the  Schoolmen,  who,  having  sharp  wits,  abundant 
 leisure,  small  variety  of  reading,  and  knowing  little  history,  whether  nt 
 nature  or  time,  spun  laborious  webs  of  learning  which  are  extant  in  their 
 books." 
 
 6  Lud.  Vives,  De  Corrwpt.  Art.  I.;  op.  Tribbechovius,  Dc  Doctor.  Schol.  p.  24 
 Some  accuse  Abelard  (Trithemius,  Cat,  S.  E.  p.  97),  others  Peter  Lombard 
 (Aventinus  Annul,  vi  Baur,  Dogmeng  teh.  p.  lf>'.>),  some  Duns  Scotus 
 [Sent  iii.  "'  '.  24,  qu.  1.  See  Brucker,  ii.  875),  and  some  Albertus  (see 
 Vaughan,  Lf  of  St.  Thomas,  i.  248)  of  thus  "introducing  Aristotle  into 
 ( 'lni.-t  ianity." 
 
 8  The  phantom  of  a  "multiple  sense"  led  them  yet  deeper  into  these 
 quagmires  of  prolixity.  Bede  boasts  that  a  single  line  of  Scripture  is  so 
 fecund  that  it  "  will  till  many  pages  with  the  sweetness  of  its  spiritual 
 meaning." 
 
 TJ 
 
290  Barbarous  Terminology. 
 
 reveal  His  salvation  in  dialectics,"  and  that  "  dialectics  are 
 inefficacious  if  unsupported  by  other  knowledge."  1  Duns 
 Scotus  had  said  that  the  certitude  of  the  Scriptures  is  a 
 certitude  not  of  reason  but  of  authority ;  that  they  give  no 
 demonstrations  and  do  not  argue  definitive  et  devise?  Scho- 
 lasticism made  the  vain  attempt  to  remedy  the  supposed 
 deficiency,  and  by  trying  to  combine  word-splitting  and 
 stringent  dogmatism  became  at  once  servile  and  tyrannical.3 
 7.  A  fatal  defect  was  the  barbarous  nature  of  their  lan- 
 guage. "  Person  "  is  defined  in  a  mass  of  verbiage  which 
 could  not  possibly  convey  a  definite  meaning  to  the  mind  of 
 a  single  learner.  Erasmus  said  that  if  Jerome  or  Augustine 
 could  have  come  to  life  again  they  would  have  been  derided 
 for  their  ignorance,  because  they  could  not  have  understood 
 such  portentous  words  as  "  instances,  relations,  ampliations, 
 restrictions,  formalities,  haecceities,  and  quiddities."  Every- 
 thing was  considered  alien  from  theologic  erudition  which 
 was  not  intertwisted  with  thorny  syllogisms,  and  if  St.  Paul 
 was  quoted  to  the  later  Schoolmen  they  imagined  themselves 
 removed  to  another  world.4  That  special  theological  mystery 
 the  circuminsessio,  and  comnmnicatio  idiomatum,  in  other 
 words,  the  relation  to  each  other  of  the  two  Natures  in  the 
 Person  of  Christ,  is  defined  as  "  Subsist cntis  in  subsist  cntc 
 realiter  distincto  mutua  praesentialitis  assistentia  in  cadem 
 essentia!'  The  Hypostatic  union  is  "  Rclatio  disguiparentiae 
 realis  quidem  in  uno  extremo  cui  in  altero  nulla  realis  rclatio 
 respondct."  5  These  are  but  slight  sjDecimens  of  a  terminology 
 which  rapidly  degenerated  into  a  nonsensical  jargon.  Even 
 Nicolas  of  Lyra  gives  an  account  of  the  word  act,  of  which 
 so  learned  a  scholar  as  Dr.  Siegfried  is  compelled  to  ask, 
 "  whether  in  any  age  whatever  any  human  being  whatever 
 
 1  Johann.  Sarisbur.  Mctalog.  ii.  9. 
 
 2  Duns  Scot.  Opp.  ii.  175. 
 
 3  See  Maurice,  Med.  Philosophy,  p.  154. 
 
 4  Erasm,  Do  Rat.  Vcr.  Thcol.  p.   87. 
 
 5  "Hujusmodi  tricarum"  says  Erasmus  (on  1  Tim.  i.  6)  "  apud  istos  plena 
 sunt  omnia."  "  Ea  explicant  verbis  non  modo  sordidis  sed  adeo  obscuris  et 
 involutis  ut  tanti  non  sit  sic  discere."  On  this  use  of  mere  words  see  the 
 admirable  remarks  of  Locke,  Ess.  on  the  Hum.  Understanding,  ii.  ex.  §  4. 
 
Micrology.  291 
 
 could   have  possibly  gained    from    it   a   single  distinct  con- 
 ception ? " l 
 
 8.  Yet  their  barbarous  phraseology  was  not  half  so  perni- 
 cious as  their  micrological  subtlety :  what  Bacon  calls  their 
 unwholesome  and  vermiculate  questions,  their  vain  imagina- 
 tions, vain  altercations  and  vain  affectations.  Such  wordy 
 wars  about  mere  nomenclature  were  foredoomed  to  sterility. 
 When  they  had  ploughed  aside  philology  and  history  with 
 the  share  of  empty  speculation,  over  the  whole  field  of  their 
 exegesis 
 
 "  Infelix  lolium  et  steriles  dominantur  avenae."2 
 
 The  "  quodlihdarii"  were  worse  offenders  in  this  matter 
 than  the  "  Scntentiarii"  or  "  Summistac."  They  abounded 
 in  what  Calvin  calls  the  "  wandering  speculations  that  ravish 
 unto  them  light  spirits."  3 
 
 St.  Paul's  one  word,  /xaraioXoyia,  sums  up  folios  of  the 
 scholastic  quodlibcts.  The  question  how  many  angels  could 
 dance  upon  the  point  of  a  pin  is  only  an  instantia  elucescens 
 of  futility,  nor  is  it  more  intrinsically  absurd  than  St.  Thomas's 
 serious  discussion  of  such  quacstiunculae,  as  whether  angels 
 could  be  in  two  places  at  once  ;  or  whether  many  angels  could 
 be  in  the  same  place  at  once ;  or  whether  Adam  in  a  state 
 of  innocence  could  discern  the  essence  of  angels ;  or  whether 
 Local  distance  has  any  effect  on  the  speech  of  angels;  or 
 whether  there  is  a  definite  number  of  angels,  and  whether 
 
 1  Siegfried,  Kashis  Einfluss  ubcr  Nus.  v.  Lyra  und  Luther  (Merx,  Archiv.,  i. 
 431).  The  one  man  to  whom,  besides  St.  John,  the  Church  has  allowed  the 
 title  of  "the  Divine,''  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  bewails  ih<'  growth  of  theolo- 
 gical technicalities.  AidirTve  pot  iurrrdaeis  Kal  ras  avrtdecreis  ttjs  vtas  evcrt&eias 
 Kal  t\\v  pLucpo\6yov  ffcxpiau  .  .  .  ev  SiSaffice  (po^itadai  /j.6vov,  rb  Kvnv  ttJp  ttIcttiv 
 lv  to?s  aoipifffxaa-tv.      Orat.  xxiii. 
 
 2  Siztas  Sfin-nsis  who,  like  Luther,  was  educated  in  Scholasticism,  speaks  of 
 it  with  equal  disfavour  (Bibl.    Sand.  p.  218).     He  says  that  the   live  m 
 
 of  the  Schoolmen  were,  1.  LHvisio,  applied  to  the  shortest  clauses-  2.  D 
 tinctio,  applied  to  nearly  every  word.  3.  Alhgatio,  the  reference  to  endless 
 authorities,  \e.  Bee  his  sketch  of  a  scholastic  sermon,  with  its  references  to 
 material,  formal,  efficient,  and  anal  causes ;  its  Prooems,  Tractatio,  Mysteries, 
 Narratio,  questions  from  Albert,  Alexander,  &c,  and  illustrations  from  the 
 Man  pulus  Florum  and  Polyanthea, 
 
 J  "  La  premiere  fois  que  I  lasaubon  vint  en  Sorhonne  .  .  .  on  lui  dit  '  Voila 
 nne  salle  ou  il  y  a  quatre  cents  ansqu'on  dispute  ■ '  Q  dit '  Qu'  a-t-on  decide  V" 
 t,  ii.  387  (Pattison's  Casaubon,  \>.   179), 
 
 D    2 
 
292  Vaniloquium. 
 
 they  all  belong  to  the  same  genus,  and  whether  they  are 
 composed  of  matter  and  form.1  Nor  is  it  one  whit  more 
 empty  than  Bonaventura's  speculations  as  to  the  difference 
 between  the  morning  and  evening  vision  of  celestial  in- 
 telligences.2 These  questions  are  almost  as  meaningless  as 
 that  of  Rabelais  about  the  "  chimaera  buzzing  in  a  vacuum."  3 
 And  this  vaniloquium,  this  XeTrroXea^la,  became  at  times 
 little  short  of  blasphemous.  If  even  St.  Thomas  can  discuss 
 whether  a  disembodied  soul  can  move  things  from  one  place 
 to  another,  or  "  can  God  sin  if  He  wishes  to  do  so  ? "  or 
 "  if  the  sacrament  had  been  administered  between  the 
 Crucifixion  and  the  Resurrection  would  Christ  have  died  in 
 it  ? " — we  cannot  wonder  if  meaner  intellects  discussed  such 
 nonsense  as  "  whether  we  can  say  that  the  Son  is  the  Father 
 and  is  not  the  Father,"  or  "  whether  the  Father  produces 
 the  Son  by  intellect  or  by  will." 4  The  Schoolmen  fell  into 
 the  fundamental  error  of  supposing  that  an  elaboration  of 
 phraseology  is  a  science  of  theology,  and  that  we  can  add  to 
 our  knowledge  of  God  by  dialectic  formulae  about  Him. 
 Can  any  other  name  but  nonsense  be  given  to  discussions 
 
 1  St.  Thomas  frequently  says  "nt  docet  Dionysius  ;  "  and  in  the  Celestial 
 Hierarchies  there  are  fifteen  long  chapters  about  the  distinctions,  &c.  of 
 Angels,  arranged  in  a  sort  of  feudal  system.  See  Dante,  Parad.  xxviii.  97. 
 St.  Thomas's  argument  for  the  number  of  angels  is  derived  from  the  fact 
 that  incorruptible  bodies  are  incomparably  larger  than  corruptible,  so  that  it 
 is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  immaterial  substances  incomparably  exceed 
 material  in  number  (Summ.  i.  qu.  50,  art.  3).  Duns  held  that  any  a  priori 
 proof  of  the  matter  was  impossible,  but  that  it  might  be  proved  a  posteriori 
 "  quia  tot  (intelligentiae)  sint  neccssariae  ad  motus  orbium  "  (ii.  dist.  9,  qu.  4, 
 art.  1). 
 
 2  See  Die  Angelologie  der  nachseottisehen  Scholastik,  in  "Werner,  ii. 
 181-201. 
 
 3  Scholasticism  cared  all  the  less  for  genuine  exegesis  because  it  was  occu- 
 pied with  questions  to  which  Scripture  deigned  to  give  no  answer.  Hence  its 
 exegesis  was  mainly  an  attempt  to  read  asceticism,  mysticism,  and  papal 
 supremacy  into  Old  Testament  books,  especially  into  the  Canticles.  "Too 
 many  scholars,"  says  Jeremy  Taylor,  "have  lived  upon  air  and  empty 
 nothings,  falling  out  about  nothings  and  being  very  wise  about  things  that 
 are  not  and  work  not."     Via  Intelligentiae.     {IVorks,  viii.  384.) 
 
 4  Lud.  Vives,  De  Corrupt.  Art.  iii.  Many  such  questions  are  given  by 
 Binder,  De  Theol.  Schol.  p.  24(1624).  I  select  a  few.  "  Utrum  plus  conveniat 
 Deo  non  posse  faccre  inrpossihile,  </u<tiii  impussibilia  nun  posse  fieri  a  Deo? 
 Utrum  unio  sit  cntitas  aut  relatiof  Utrum  corpus  V.  Mariaefuerit  expositum 
 infiucntiis  stcllarum  1  Utrum  Christus  est  tantus  in  unaparva  hostia  sicut  in 
 una  magna  ?  "  and  so  on.  No  one  could  condemn  the  "  worship  of  inutility  " 
 in  the  schools  more  strongly  than  John  of  Salisbury.     Polycrat.  vii.  12. 
 
Frivolous  Questions.  293 
 
 as  to  whether  the  Father  begets  the  Divine  Essence,  or 
 whether  the  Divine  Essence  begets  the  Son  ?  Whether  the 
 Essence  begets  the  Essence,  or  whether  the  Essence  itself 
 neither  begets  nor  is  begotten  ?  Such  questions,  as  Erasmus 
 says,  it  is  more  learned  to  ignore  than  to  know.1  For  all 
 these  years,  he  says,  we  have  been  frivolously  cavilling  in 
 the  schools  whether  we  should  say  that  Christ  is  composed  or 
 that  He  consists  of  two  natures :  and  whether  the  right  word 
 to  use  respecting  their  union  is  "conflate,"  or  "commixed," 
 or  "  conglutinate,"  or  "  coagmentate,"  or  "  copulated,"  or  "  fer- 
 nuniuate."  What,  again,  are  we  to  say  of  the  immense  and 
 long-continued  discussions  as  to  whether  the  host  still  con- 
 tinued to  be  the  body  of  Christ  if  it  was  eaten  by  a  mouse, 
 or  the  wine  to  be  His  blood  when  tasted  by  an  insect  which 
 had  fallen  into  the  chalice  ? 2  Still  more  degrading  and 
 shocking  was  the  dispute  with  those  who  were  called  Ster- 
 corianists?  Such  questions  show  the  dangers  which  arise 
 from  a  mixture  of  intellectual  subtlety  and  dogmatic  servi- 
 tude, of  crude  materialism  and  unfathomable  superstition. 
 They  are,  as  Luther  says  (omitting  his  epithet  diabolica), 
 "an  art  of  litigating  about  idle  and  useless  speculations." 
 They  are,  as  Bacon  says,  "portentosac  ct  latrantcs  quacstioncs." 
 In  the  long  run  they  can  lead  to  nothing  but  hypocrisy  and 
 scepticism.  Might  not  the  Schoolmen  have  recalled  with 
 advantage  the  wise  caution  of  St.  Augustine,  "  Melius  est 
 dubitare  de  rebus  occultis  guam  litigare  de  incerfis"!4 
 
 1  Encom.  Mor.  p.  114.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  compares  such  language  to 
 jugglery.  ralnou  i\v  \pr](po7s  re  TralCetv  ri)V  vipiv  KKcKrovaais  tij5  rdxet  ttjs 
 fiiTadtcTfODS  f)  Karopx^n-Oat  rwv  Qtaroiv  iravTolots  iced  avSpoyvvots  \vyitr/u.aaiv  iced 
 Trepl  deov  Atyfiv  iced  aicoveiv  icaivurep6v  ri  iced  ireptepyov.  < >ruf.  xxi.  It  is  to 
 such  discussions  that  Pope  alludes  in  the  lines  about  Parodist  Lost: 
 "In  quibbles  angels  and  archangels  join, 
 And  God  the  Father  tarns  a  School  Dmrae." 
 
 -  Brulifer  (t  1483),  who,  among  many  others    Bonaventura,  Alexander  of 
 Hah's,  Thomas  Aquinas,   Marsilius,   Paulus  of  Burgos,   Darantlus,  &c. 
 cusses  the  question,  draws  distinctions  between  alvus,  uterus,  and   ti 
 between  trajicere  ami  projicerein  ventrem;  between  edere  and  vorare  ;  between 
 the  muii.se  as  made  of  earth,  and  as  made  of  water,  \e.      I„  Sent.  IV.   dist.  13, 
 jn.  5. 
 
 :;  As    to    this   mis.'iul.V  controversy,    the    natural    outcome    of  unspiritua] 
 superstition,  see  Schaff,  Med.  Christianity,  ii.  552, 
 
 1  On  this  subject  nothing  can  be  added  to  the  wise  remarks  of  Bacon, 
 Advancement  of   Learning,   and  the  valuable    note  of   Erasmus  on    Con- 
 
29-4  Christian  Rabbinism. 
 
 9.  But  while  the  Scriptural  exegesis  of  the  Schoolmen  was 
 injured  by  all  these  causes,  the  worst  plague-spot  of  it  was 
 the  assumption  that  every  part  of  Scripture  admitted  of  a 
 multiplex  intclligentia.  Some  teachers,  as  John  of  Salisbury- 
 said,  declared  in  true  Rabbinic  style,  "  singuli  apices  divinis 
 2>leni  sunt  sacramentis,"  and  "  litcra  inutilis  est  nee  curandum 
 quid  loquatur."  1  Both  notions  were  borrowed  from  the  school 
 of  R.  Aqiba,  who  had  been  the  inveterate  enemy  of  Christian 
 truth.  They  owe  their  parentage  not  to  Scripture  but  to  Tal- 
 mudism  and  Kabbalism.2  They  filtered  down  to  the  Schoolmen 
 through  the  Alexandrians  and  the  Fathers,  and  were  un- 
 fortunately perpetuated  by  the  authority  of  Jerome  and 
 Augustine.3  Origen  was,  as  we  have  seen,  the  earliest  to  de- 
 velop the  conception  that  Scripture  was  written  with  a  triple 
 meaning  ;  the  Latin  fathers  had  separated  his  "  spiritual  sense" 
 into  allegoric  and  anagogic.4     A  favourite  illustration  of  this 
 
 vertuntur  in  vaniloquium  ;  1  Tim.  i.  6.  He  speaks  of  them  as  "  de  frivol; s 
 nugis  sine  fine  digladiantcs,"  and  says  that  for  ages  they  had  in  huge  volumes 
 discussed  ("usque  ad  clamorcm,  usque  ad  convicia)  quaestiunculae  of  which 
 some  were  useless,  others  insoluble,  others  ridiculous,  others  profane.  "  Un 
 des  cotes  les  plus  faux  de  cette  seolastique  e'etait  de  chcrchcr  et  dc  trouvcr  par- 
 tout  des  erreurs.  Nous  avons  de  ces  enumerations  d'erreurs  qui  remplissent 
 des  volumes,  et  souvent  parmi  ces  pretendues  erreurs  condanmees,  il  y  a  de 
 tres  bonnes  choses."     Renan. 
 
 1  Joh.  Sarisb.  Polycrat.  vii.  12.  This  lively  thinker  knew  well  how  to 
 warn,  in  similar  cases,  against  the  follies  to  which  such  a  view  must  lead. 
 "  Fiunt  in  pucrilibus  Acadcmici  sencs;  omncm  dictorum  excutiunt  syllabam 
 inimo  ct  litcram,  dubitantes  ad  omnia,  quacrentcs  semper  scd  nunquam  ad 
 scientiam  pervenientes,"  Mctalog.  ii.  7.  (He  is  speaking  primarily  of 
 logicians.)  The  Faculties  of  Louvain  and  Douai  called  it  "an  intolerable 
 and  great  blasphemy  "  to  say  that  there  was  an  otiose  word  in  Scripture. 
 "Every  phrase,  syllable,  tittle  and  point,  is  full  of  a  Divine  sense."  See 
 Cardinal  Manning  On  the  Insp.  of  Script. 
 
 2  The  Rabbinic  phrase  for  the  multiplex  sensus  was  D^EUD  HCD  (Low,  p. 
 65).  "  The  Kabbalists,  who  are  the  anatomists  of  words,  and  have  a  theological 
 alchemy  to  draw  sovereign  tinctures  and  spirits  from  plain  and  gross  literal 
 matter,  observe  in  every  variety  some  great  mystic  signification  ;  but  so  it  is 
 almost  in  every  Hebrew  name  and  word."  Donne,  Essays  in  Divinity, 
 p.  122. 
 
 3  No  doubt  the  Schoolmen  could  have  quoted  loose  popular  passages  of  the 
 Fathers  which  seemed  to  point  to  "verbal  dictation."  But  few  if  any  of 
 the  Fathers  had  any  clear  and  fixed  conception  of  the  subject.  Certainly  the 
 Apostolic  Fathers  had  not  (see  J.  Delitzsch,  De  inspir.  S.  Script.  Leipzig,  1872) ; 
 and  no  less  an  author  than  Tholuck  (Die  his2)irationslchre,  1850)  says  that 
 the  ancient  Church  unmistakably  held  the  language  of  Scripture  to  be  human 
 and  imperfect,  and  ascribed  to  the  Bible  contradictions  both  in  words  and 
 facts  (see  Ladd,  Diet,  of  S.  Script,  ii.  29). 
 
 4  They  all  continue  to  say  after  St.  Augustine  that  the  literal  sense  must 
 
The  Fourfold  Sense.  295 
 
 supposed  fourfold  sense  was  the  word  "  Jerusalem,"  which 
 might  stand  for  a  city,  for  a  faithful  soul,  for  the  Church 
 militant,  or  for  the  Church  triumphant.  Another  was  the 
 word  "water,"  which  literally  means  an  element;  tropo- 
 Logically  may  stand  for  sorrow,  or  wisdom,  or  heresies,  or 
 prosperity ;  allegorically  may  refer  to  baptism,  nations,  or 
 grace ;  anagogically  to  eternal  happiness.1  "  Light "  was 
 another  illustrative  word.  Thomas  Aquinas  tells  us  that 
 "  Let  there  be  light  "  may  mean  historically  an  act  of  creation  ; 
 allegorically,  " Let  Christ  be  love;"  anagogically,  "May  we 
 be  led  by  Christ  to  glory ; "  and,  tropologically,  "  May  we  be 
 mentally  illumined  by  Christ."  Even  these  instances, 
 though  chosen  as  special  proofs  of  the  fourfold  sense,  show 
 the  emptiness  of  the  method.  Hugo  of  St.  Cher  and  others 
 compare  those  four  meanings  to  the  four  coverings  of  the 
 tabernacle ;  the  four  colours  of  the  veil  of  the  tabernacle  ; 
 to  the  four  wands ;  to  the  fourfold  cherubim  ;  the  four  rivers 
 of  Paradise  ;  the  four  legs  of  the  table  of  the  Lord.2  Bishop 
 Longland  preaching  before  the  University  of  Oxford  in  1525, 
 on  "  She  hath  also  furnished  her  Table"  3  explained  it  to  mean 
 
 come  first  (cf.  Greg.  Praef.  in  Job),  but  they  despised  it,  as  may  be  seen 
 (among  hundreds  of  other  proofs)  in  Hugo's  line — 
 
 "  Parvis  imbutus  tentabis  grandia  tutus," 
 
 where  he  explains  the  parva  to  be  all  that  elucidates  the  literal  sense. 
 Ermlit.  Didase.  v.  2.  Bonaventura  says  that  even  in  a  single  letter  the 
 Scripture  begets  a  multiform  wisdom,  but  that  "sub  corticc  literae  occult- 
 atur  mystica  et  profunda  intelligentia."  An  anonymous  monk  of  St. 
 Victor  falls  back,  however,  on  the  old  remark  of  the  Rabbis,  Origin,  Augus- 
 tine, and  Jerome,  that  the  letter  of  Scripture,  without  allegory,  has  many 
 tilings  "falsa,  incpta,  inutilia,  impeditiva  ad  actcrnam  vitam."  Diestel, 
 p.  L88. 
 
 1  Eucherius,  Spiritualcs  Formulae,  referring  to  On.  i.  9  (literal)  ;  Pa.  l.w. 
 12;  Prov.  xviii.  4  ;  John  iv.  14  (tropologies^  i  ;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25  ;  Rev.  xvii. 
 15;  John  vii.  38  (allegoric);  Jer.  ii.  13;  Ps.  cxlviii.  4  (anagogic).  Basil, 
 with  infinitely  more  good  sense,  says  that  when  the  Bible  says  miter  it  usually 
 means  watt  r. 
 
 *  PrdL  in  Gi-7i.  Duraudus  (t  1296),  the  Doctor  resnlii.fissiuiiis,  author  of 
 the  Rationale  div.  offieiorum,  Bays  that  the  beam  from  which  church  hells 
 hang  represents  the  Cross,  and  the  rope  the  Scriptures;  and  "as  the  rope 
 consists  of  three  Btrands,  so  does  Scripture  consist   of  a  threefold   strain, 
 
 namely  history,  allegory,  and  morality,  and  the  descent  of  the  rope  from 
 the  wood  in  the  hands  of  the  priest  is  the  descent  of  Scripture  from  its 
 mysteiy  in  the  mouth  of  the  preacher"  ! 
 
 ;;  Prov.  iw  1,  2.  Bishop  Longland  also  defended  the  fourfold  sense  in  a 
 sermon  in  Westminster  Abbey,  November  27,  1527.     "Si  sola  grainraatica 
 
296  The  Fourfold  Sense. 
 
 that  Wisdom  had  set  forth  in  her  Scriptural  banquet  the 
 four  courses  of  Histoiy,  Tropology,  Anagogy,  and  Allegory. 
 Not  content  even  with  the  fourfold  sense,  Bonaventura  and 
 others  contend  for  sevenfold  or  even  eightfold  senses,1  and 
 there  is  just  as  much  reason  for  the  one  number  as  for  the 
 other.  In  point  of  fact  any  book  may  by  these  methods  be 
 made  to  bear  any  number  of  meanings,  and  the  student  in 
 the  E-pistolae,  Ohscurorum  Virorum  may  scarcely  have  been 
 exaggerating  when  he  says  that  he  had  attended  imam 
 lectioncm  in  poetria  where  he  had  heard  Ovid  expounded 
 naturaliter,  litcraliter,  historialiter,  et  spiritualiter?  To  apply 
 such  a  system  to  the  Bible  after  all  that  God  has  revealed 
 to  us  respecting  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  an  immense 
 anachronism.3  It  is  subversive  of  all  exactitude,  even  if  it 
 be  not  fatal  to  all  truth. 
 
 10.  But  the  system,  besides  saving  the  trouble  of  much 
 study,  was  advantageous  to  hierarchic  usurpations.  It  made 
 of  Scripture  an  Apocalyptic  book  with  seven  seals,  which  only 
 priests  and  monks  were  able  to  unlock.4  It  made  a  standing 
 dogma  of  the  "  obscurity"  of  Scripture,  which  was  thus  kept 
 safely  out  of  the  hands  of  the  multitude.5  It  made  the  Pope 
 the  doorkeeper  of  Scripture,  not  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  placed  at 
 the  disposal  of  the  hierarchy  an  indefinite  number  of  flaccid 
 symbols  which  might  be  oracularly  applied  to  prove  whatever 
 
 sufficeret,"   lie  says,  "esset  grammatieae  peritus  factus  illico   consummates 
 theologus." 
 
 1  Angelomus,  because  of  the  seven-sealed  book  in  the  Apocalypse  (!)  ex- 
 plained the  Book  of  Kings  in  seven  senses,  historic,  allegoric,  parabolic,  dog- 
 matic, &c.     See  Rosenmuller,  Hist.  Int.  v.  153. 
 
 2  Some  read  Virgil  only  to  allegorise  him.  Lupton's  edition  of  Colet  on 
 The  Corinthians,  introd.  p.  xxiv.  Bernard  Sylvester  of  Chartres  (t  1167) 
 allegorised  the  whole  history  of  ./Eneas,  whom  he  made  the  symbol  of  the 
 soul  (see  Johann.  Sarisb.  Metalog.  iii.  4),  and  his  Glossules may  be  taken  "as 
 ft  good  anjuiii'ii1  a  in  ad  absurdum  for  the  entire  method  of  allegorising." 
 Poole,  Mcol.  Thoughts,  p.  119. 
 
 3  Dr.  J.  M.  Neale  says,  "  If  Scripture  has  not  an  undercurrent  of  meaning, 
 double,  treble,  quadruple,  or  even  yet  more  manifold,  all  primitive  ami  mediaeval 
 commentators  from  the  first  century  to  the  Reformation  ....  have  been  sub- 
 stituting their  fancies  for  God's  immutable  verities — have  adopted  a  system 
 which  is  alike  the  offspring  and  the  parent  of  error."     Dissertation,  p.  377. 
 
 4  Bellarmine  (De  Verba  Dei,  iii.  3)  says  that  exegesis  needs  the  aid  of  the 
 Spirit,  who  is  only  found  in  a  council  approved  by  the  Pope. 
 
 6  Albertus  Magnus  uses  this  argument. 
 
Perverted  Texts.  297 
 
 they  desired.  Tropology  was  at  the  service  alike  of  ecclesias- 
 tical dogma  and  priestly  usurpation.  Jesus  raising  the 
 dead  before  a  few  witnesses  was  used  to  prove  the  duty  of 
 private  confession  to  a  priest.  While  Scripture  narratives 
 were,  in  the  literal  sense,  treated  as  "  bare  dead  histories  which 
 concern  men  no  more,"  l  the  Levitical  system  was  adduced  in 
 absolute  defiance  of  the  whole  idea  of  the  New  Testament  to 
 shew  that  Christian  presbyters  were  sacrificial  priests.2 
 "Domini  sunt  (sardines  terrae,"  the  Vulgate  rendering  of  "  the 
 pillars  of  the  earth  are  the  Lord's  "  (1  Sam.  ii.  8),  was  applied 
 to  the  cardinals.  The  eighth  Psalm  was  used  by  Antonius, 
 Bishop  of  Florence,  to  mean  that  God  put  all  things  under 
 the  feet  of  the  Pope, — sheep,  i.e.,  Christians ;  oxen,  i.e.,  Jews 
 and  heretics ;  beasts  of  the  field,  i.e.,  pagans ;  and  fishes  of 
 the  sea,  i.e.,  souls  in  purgatory.  "  Thou  hast  broken  the  heads 
 of  the  dragon  in  the  waters"  (Ps.  lxxiv.  13)  proved  the 
 expulsion  of  demons  by  baptism.3  The  celibacy  of  priests 
 was  supported  by  the  comparison,  in  Canticles,  of  the  cheeks 
 of  the  beloved  to  doves.4  The  root  of  the  tree  in  Daniel's 
 vision  (Dan.  iv.  12)  furnished  a  proof  of  the  Immaculate 
 Conception  of  the  Virgin.  The  two  rods  of  Zechariah  (xi.  7) 
 are  types  of  the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans.  The  papal 
 canonisation  of  saints  was  maintained  by  a  reference  to  the 
 putting  of  a  lamp  on  a  lampstand  (Matt.  v.  15).  So  fax  back 
 as  the  ninth  century  Rabanus  Maurus  (f  85G)  in  his  Be 
 i  "i '<  ricorum  Institut lone  had  found  chorcpiscopi  in  the  seventy 
 elders,  "Readers"  in  Ezek.  xxxiii.  7,  and  the  Roman  Catholic 
 system  of  service  generally  in  Mosaism  and  the  Psalms. 
 Baronius  pretended  to  discover  that  our  Lord  put  on  a 
 pontifical  vestment  for  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper.5 
 Nor  must  it  be  supposed  that  these  were  treated  as  passing 
 
 1   Luther. 
 
 -  Hervaeus  Dolonsis  on  Matt.  ix.  18-26. 
 
 3  Compare  similar  interpretations  of  Job  i.  14,  in  N<  ale's  Mediaeval  Free 
 p.  xxx.,  where  thia  stj  Le  oi  exi  gesis  is  defended. 
 
 i  Cardinal  Cusanus  admits  thai  Rome  made  the  sense  of  Scripture  vary 
 with  her  own  practice.     Opp.  p.  833. 
 
 5  Annates,  i.  154.  The  rebuke  of  Casaubon  is"  Hoccine  esi  Divina  oracula 
 cum  timore  t  ractare,  humana  figmenta  sacris  uarrationibus  ex  suo  semper  im- 
 miscerel  "  [Exercitatu  ■  <■■..■.  p.  439,  op.  ThMwall,  Charg  s,  i.  l">"). 
 
208  Abuse  of  Scripture. 
 
 applications.  On  the  contrary,  as  we  have  already  seen,  they 
 were  endowed  with  a  demonstrative  force  by  Innocent  III. 
 and  Boniface  VIII.  in  crises  of  intense  seriousness.1  Because 
 kings  were  not  excepted  in  the  command  "  Feed  my  lambs'' 
 Boniface  maintained  that  a  Papal  Legate  might  trample  on 
 the  decrees  of  Emperors.  Even  the  plural  "  keys "  was  a 
 sufficient  proof  that  the  Pope  was  to  exercise  kingly  as  well 
 as  pontifical  power,  and  that  the  (forged)  "  donation "  of 
 Constantine  was  only  a  restitution.  He  explained  "  Launch 
 into  the  deep  "  to  mean  "  Go  to  Rome  ;  betake  thyself  to  the 
 city  which  has  dominion  over  all  nations,  and  there  lay  down 
 thy  net." 2  The  hideous  and  unutterable  infamies  of  the 
 Inquisition  were  defended  by  the  words,  "  they  gather  them 
 in  bundles  and  bum  them."  "  0  temerariam  impudentiam" 
 exclaims  Luther  of  this  and  similar  allegories,  "  et  scelestam 
 ambitioncm  ! " 3 
 
 We  may  perhaps  wonder  that  there  had  been  no  stronger 
 and  earlier  revolt  against  this  vast  usurpation.  But  there  is 
 no  need  to  wonder.  There  was  no  Prophet  more.  The 
 priests  loved  to  have  it  so,  for  it  offered  boundless  facility 
 for  sermons,  and  gave  a  fine  semblance  of  freedom.  The 
 people  loved  to  have  it  so,  for  they  did  not  want  to  be 
 troubled  with  independent  thought.  They  were  glad  to 
 resign  the  responsibility  for  their  beliefs  and  their  future 
 salvation  into  the  hands  of  those  who  claimed  to  have  the 
 infallibility  of  knowledge  and  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell. 
 Like  the  Israelites  of  old,  the  mass  of  men  did  not  wish 
 to    hear   the    voice  of    God.     They  had  said   to    the    Pope 
 
 1  "The  greater  light"  is  the  Papacy,  Innocent  III.  Dccrct.  Gregor.  ix. 
 lib.  i.  tit.  xxxiii.  The  two  swords,  Boniface  VIII.  Extrav.  lib.  i.  tit.  viii. 
 It  was  convenient  to  forget  the  wise  rule,  "Theologia  parabolica  non  est 
 demonstrativa. " 
 
 2  "  l'Evangelio  e  i  Dnttor  mngni 
 Son  derelitti,  e  solo  ai  Decretali 
 
 Si  stndia  si  che  parea  a'  lor  vigagni. 
 A  questo  intende  il  Papa  e  i  Cardinal!  : 
 Non  vanno  i  lor  pensieri  a  Nazzarctto 
 La  dove  Gabbriello  aperse  l'ali." — Dante,  Parad.  ix. 
 133-138.     Comp.  id.  De  Monarchia,  iii.  p.  137. 
 
 3  SeeMihnan,  Lett.  Christianity,  vi.  405. 
 
The  Papal  Church.  299 
 
 "  Speak  thou  to  us.     Let  not  God  speak  with  us."     "  And 
 the  people  stood  afar  off."1 
 
 But  since  the  Papal  Church  could  thus  prove  to  her  own 
 satisfaction  the  infallibility  of  every  doctrine  of  mediaeval 
 sacerdotalism  ;  since  she  could  openly  maintain  that  if  the 
 Bible  seemed  to  collide  with  any  crystallised  dogma  of  her 
 scholasticism,  the  Bible  must  give  way  ;  since  she  could 
 extract  from  Scripture  the  defence  of  her  own  unlimited 
 pretensions  in  hundreds  of  ways  inconceivably  remote  from 
 the  intentions  of  the  sacred  writers ;  since  she  held  the 
 Bible  thus  bound  with  the  double  chains  of  dogma  and 
 allegory,  it  is  clear  that  nothing  short  of  the  Reformation 
 was  required  to  shake  down  the  prison- walls  of  system,  and 
 to  rescue  the  Scriptures  from  these  centuries  of  misuse.  To 
 maintain  the  fourfold  sense  was  for  mediaeval  Romanism  a 
 matter  of  life  and  death.  It  was  necessary  for  her  power 
 that  dogmatic  prepossession  and  traditional  authority  should 
 reign  supreme.  The  more  ingeniously  texts  were  manipu- 
 lated in  her  interests,  the  more  loudly  she  proclaimed  that 
 such  interpretations  alone  were  "  spiritual "  and  were  due 
 to  "  illuminating  grace."  The  motto  of  the  Bernardines,  like 
 that  of  the  Alexandrians,  Nisi  credideritis  non  intelligetis  was 
 practically  made  to  mean  "  Protestants  despise  our  arguments 
 from  allegories  because  they  are  devoid  of  the  Spirit."  2  The 
 vitality  of  such  notions  is  astonishing.  In  1777  a  book  was 
 published  called  Samson's  Hair,  an  Eminent  llvprcscntation  of 
 the  Church  of  God.  "Some,"  says  the  writer,  "may  object 
 against  this  that  the  hair  of  a  man's  head  is  a  mean  thing 
 to  represent  so  great  and  glorious  a  thing  as  the  Church  of 
 Christ.  To  which  I  answer,  '  Glory  over  me,  thou  infidelity, 
 thou  first-born  of  the  devil,  if  thou  canst.'"3 
 
 But  the  fourfold  sense  which  might  have  survived  Erasmus, 
 and  even  Luther,  received  its  death-blow  from  the  masculine 
 good  sense  of  the   English   Reformers.     "We   may  borrow 
 
 1  Ex.  xx.  19  21.     See  Lange,  Qrv/ndrias,  p.  4. 
 
 2  Salnirroii  on  •_'  Pur.  iii. 
 
 3  E.  Jones  Trevecka  (quoted  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  Conybeare  in  bis  Bampton 
 
 Lectures,  1824). 
 
300  English  Theology. 
 
 similitudes  or  allegories  from  the  ScrijDtures,"  says  the  great 
 translator  Tyndale,  "  and  apply  them  to  our  purposes,  which 
 allegories  are  no  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  but  free  things 
 besides  the  Scriptures  altogether  in  the  liberty  of  the  Spirit. 
 Such  allegory  proveth  nothing,  it  is  a  mere  simile.  God 
 is  a  Spirit,  and  all  his  words  are  spiritual,  and  His  literal 
 sense  is  spiritual."  l  "  As  to  those  three  spiritual  senses,"  says 
 Whitaker,  the  opponent  of  Bellarmine,2  "  it  is  surely  foolish 
 to  say  there  are  as  many  senses  in  Scripture  as  the  words 
 themselves  may  be  transferred  and  accommodated  to  bear. 
 For  although  the  words  may  be  applied  and  accommodated 
 tropologically,  anagogically,  allegorically,  or  any  other  way,  yet 
 there  are  not  therefore  various  senses,  various  interpretations, 
 and  educations  of  Scripture,  tut  there  is  out  one  sense  and 
 that  the  literal,  which  may  be  variously  accommodated,  and 
 from  which  various  things  may  be  collected."  3 
 
 It  is  always  an  evil  to  create  any  discontinuity  between 
 ourselves  and  the  past.  It  has  not  been  my  object  to  hunt 
 out  the  details  of  ancient  error;  still  less  to  glory  in  the 
 superiority  of  modern  insight.     If  we  are  compelled  to  study 
 
 1  See  his  chapter  on  "The  Four  Senses  of  Scripture"  iu  Obedience  of  a 
 Christian  Man. 
 
 2  Dispute  on  Holy  Scripture,  p.  409  (Taiker  Society). 
 
 s  Even  Dean  Colet,  though  he  admitted  the  fourfold  sense,  yet  says  that 
 the  New  Testament  "  has  for  the  most  part  the  sense  that  appears  on  the 
 surface  ;  nor  is  one  thing  said  and  another  meant,  but  the  very  tiling  is  meant 
 which  is  said,  and  the  sense  is  wholly  literal."  See  further,  Colet,  On  the. 
 Hierarchies  of  Dionysius,  p.  107  (ed.  Lupton),  and  on  Gal.  iv.  24.  Colet 
 compares  the  anagogic  sense  to  the  Kabbala  (I.  c.  p.  112),  and  had  been  deeply 
 influenced  by  Mirandola  and  Plotinus.  Mr.  Lupton  also  kindly  refers  me  to 
 Mr.  Alexander  Gill  (High  Master  of  St.  Paul's),  who,  in  his  Surra/ 
 Philosophic  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  (1635,  p.  165),  compares  David's  cutting  oil" 
 the  lap  of  Saul's  robe  to  Ps.  xxii.  18 — "  They  parted  my  garments  among  them" 
 — "  For,"  he  says,  "  Saul  was  a  figure  of  Christ."  He  adds,  "But,  you  say, 
 the  Scripture  is  not  to  be  strained,  for  by  that  means  everie  thing  can  be  made 
 of  any  thing."  His  answer  to  this  very  natural  objection  is  supremely  invalid. 
 "At  the  Reformation,"  says  Bishop  Marsh,  "it  became  a  maxim  among 
 Protestants,  that  the  words  of  Scripture  had  only  one  sense,  and  that  they 
 who  ascribed  to  them  various  senses  made  the  meaning  of  Scripture  altogether 
 uncertain."  Criticism  and  Interpretation,  Lect.  xii.,  p.  506.  "No  such  universal 
 rule  "  (for  allegorical  interpretation),  says  Bishop  van  Mildert,  "is  to  be  found 
 in  Scripture.  It  is  nowhere  laid  down  as  a  maxim,  that  there  is  in  every  part 
 of  the  sacred  writings,  nor  even  in  the  greater  part,  a  hidden  spiritual  sense." 
 Hampton  Lect. ,  p.  250. 
 
Scholastic  Saints.  301 
 
 and  to  point  out  the  errors  of  the  past,  it  should  be  in  a 
 spirit  of  humility,  and  not  of  malice  ;  it  should  be  that  we 
 may  faithfully  learn,  not  vainly  triumph.  Nothing  can  be 
 more  beautiful  than  the  character  and  example  of  many  of 
 the  Schoolmen,  nothing  keener  than  their  intellectual  subtlety, 
 nothing  more  admirable  than  their  unwearied  diligence. 
 When  we  think  of  the  blameless  life  of  the  Venerable  Bede, 
 devoted  from  the  age  of  seven  years  upwards  to  the  study  of 
 Scripture  in  the  calm  retirement  of  Jarrow,  and  ended  while 
 he  was  dictating  to  his  young  scholar  the  last  words  of  his 
 comment  on  St.  John ; * — of  the  young  Bernard  of  Clairvaux, 
 standing  neck-deep  in  the  ice-cold  stream  to  subdue  the  pas- 
 sions of  the  flesh,  and  devoting  his  life  to  saintly  self-denial ; — 
 of  his  unhappy  rival,  the  brilliant  Abelard,  hiding  his  shame 
 and  agony  in  the  monastery  of  St.  Gildas  de  Rhuys,  and 
 dying  in  humble  peace  under  the  gentle  care  of  Peter  of 
 Clugny; — of  Bonaventura,  of  whom  his  master,  Alexander 
 of  Hales,  used  to  say  that  "  in  Bonaventura  Adam  did  not 
 sin:"  who,  when  appointed  Cardinal,  was  found  humbly 
 washing  the  vessels  of  his  monastery,  and  when  his  great 
 contemporary  asked  him  the  source  of  his  vast  learning, 
 pointed  in  silence  to  his  crucifix ; — of  the  chancellor  Gerson 
 gathering  the  little  children  round  his  sick  bed,  and  bidding 
 them  uplift  their  little  white  hands  with  the  prayer,  "  Lord, 
 have  mercy  on  thy  poor  servant  Jean  Gerson;" — of  Albert 
 the  Civ.i*  preferring  his  position  of  a  humble  monk  to  the 
 Bishopric  of  Uatisbon  which  he  resigned  ;— of  Thomas  of 
 Aquino  in  his  profound  humility,  his  rapturous  visions,  his 
 glorious  daily  prayer,  Da  miki  Dominc  cor  nohile  quod  nulla 
 ad  terram  detrahai  terrena  affectio,  his  holy  answer  to  the 
 Vision  "  Bene  scripsisti  de  me,Thoma;  quam  mercedem  a  me 
 accipics  ? "  Non  aliam  nisi  tc,  Dominc; — of  the  incredible 
 diligence,  sanctity,  and  learning  of  Duns  Scotus,  who  had 
 influenced  the  entire  theology  and  philosophy  of  his  day 
 before  his  early  death  a1  the  age  of  thirty-four  ;  2 — of  the  iron 
 
 1  Sigebert,  De  Script.  Eeeles.  68.     Bede's  version  of  St.  John  is  the  first 
 extanl  specimen  of  English  p 
 *  Milman,  Latin  Christianity,  bk,  xiv.  3. 
 
302  Their  Examjrfe. 
 
 logic  and  dauntless  courage  with  which  Occam,  the  Doctor 
 Invincibilis,  "  the  demagogue  of  scholasticism,"  braved  in 
 defence  of  civil  liberty  the  excommunication  of  the  Poj>e, 
 and  in  defence  of  absolute  poverty  the  excommunication  of 
 his  own  order — when  we  think  of  the  mingled  holiness  and 
 intellectual  power  of  these  great  men,  we  revolt  at  the 
 thought  of  speaking  about  them  with  flippancy  or  disrespect. 
 If  they  had  left  nothing  else  to  the  Church,  they  have  left 
 the  best  of  all  legacies — the  legacy  of  holy  lives  and  an 
 immortal  example ;  the  legacy  of  men  who  during  years  of 
 unselfish  sincerity  spurned  delights  and  lived  laborious  days. 
 The  writings  of  some  of  them  will  be  always  valuable  for  the 
 spirit  of  deep  devotion  which  they  breathe,  for  high  moral 
 teaching,  for  profound  philosophical  and  theological  investiga- 
 tion. But  their  lives  were  better  than  their  learning.  They 
 had  found  Christ,  even  though  they  read  His  name  by  wrong 
 methods.  I  have  not  been  speaking  of  their  writings  in 
 general,  or  of  the  many  high  services  which  they  rendered 
 to  their  generation  and  to  mankind.  I  have  been  speaking 
 only  of  their  exegesis,  and  respecting  that  branch  of  their 
 labours  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  pronouncing  the  judgment 
 that  it  was  radically  defective — defective  in  fundamental 
 principles,  and  rife  on  every  page  of  it  with  all  sorts  of 
 erroneous  details.  It  demonstrates  the  amazing  vitality  of 
 error;  the  fatally  stupefying  effects  which  result  from  the 
 attempt  to  crush  free  inquiry  under  the  leaden  weight  of 
 authority  and  tradition;  the  hopeless  insecurity  of  super- 
 structures, even  when  they  have  been  elaborated  with  the 
 utmost  care  and  skill,  which  have  been  based  on  shallow, 
 imaginary,  or  untested  foundations.  But  the  sadness  of 
 these  facts  is  irradiated  by  one  truth  of  which  they  furnish 
 the  strongest  evidence.  It  is  that  the  Bible  may  be  obscured 
 for  centuries  by  bad  translations,  and  buried  under  mountain- 
 loads  of  valueless  and  erroneous  exposition ;  that  it  may  be 
 withheld  from  the  ignorant,  and  grossly  mis-interpreted  by 
 the  learned ;  that  it  may  even  be  abused  as  a  bulwark  of 
 immense   follies,  and   a   pretext   for   enormous  crimes;  and 
 
Grandeur  of  Scripture.  303 
 
 yet  that  there  is  in  the  truths  which  constitute  its  essence 
 so  divine  a  preciousness,  so  innate  a  force,  that  never  in 
 any  age  has  it  ceased  to  teach  men  the  way  of  salvation, 
 never  has  it  lost  the  power  to  brighten  happiness  and  to 
 console  affliction,  to  inspire  men  with  courage  for  the  ameli- 
 oration of  social  wrongs,  for  the  overthrow  of  popular  idols, 
 for  the  assault  on  ancient  errors,  for  the  restatement  of 
 forgotten  and  neglected  truths.  Men  may  still  continue  to 
 misunderstand  and  to  misrepresent  it ;  to  turn  it  into  a  grim 
 idol  or  a  mechanical  fetish;  to  betray  it  with  the  kiss  of 
 false  devotion,  and  to  thrust  it  between  the  soul  and  the  God 
 Whom  it  was  designed  to  reveal ;  but  to  the  end  of  all 
 time — and  herein  consists  its  divine  authority — it  shall  guide 
 the  souls  of  the  humble  to  the  strait  gate  and  the  narrow 
 way  which  leadeth  to  eternal  life — to  the  end  of  all  time 
 "  an  highway  shall  be  there,  and  a  way,  and  it  shall  be  called 
 The  way  of  holiness ;  the  unclean  shall  not  pass  over  it ;  but 
 whosoever  walketh  in  the  way,  yea,  and  even  fools,  shall  not 
 err  therein."  x 
 
 1  Is.  xxxv.  7,  8. 
 
"Proinde  volo  liber  esse."     Luther. 
 
 "Sowird  diese  Gescliichte  nicht  allein  Gescliichte  der  Finsterniss 
 mid  der  Verringungen  ;  siewird  auch  eine  Gescliichte  der  Dammerung, 
 der  Morgenrothe,  and  des  endlich  angebrochenen  bellen  Tages  werden." 
 — G.  W.  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Schrifterklarung,  i.  6. 
 
 "  Unless — what  whispers  me  of  times  to  come? 
 What  if  it  be  the  mission  of  that  age 
 My  death  will  usher  into  life,  to  shake 
 This  torpor  of  assurance  from  our  creed, 
 A.8  «v  broke  up  that  old  faith  of  the  world 
 Have  we,nextage,  in  break  up  thus  the  new — 
 Faith  in  the  thing  grown  faith  in  the  report — 
 Whence  need  to  bra\  el\  disbelieve  report 
 Through  increased  faith  in  thing  reports  belie  ]  " 
 
 — The  Pope  in  The  Ring  and  the  Book  (Browning). 
 
 X 
 
LECTURE  VI. 
 
 THE      REFORMERS. 
 
 "  ITc.  that  hath  my  word,  let  him  speak  my  word  faithfully.  AYhat  hath  the 
 stra'H  to  <!<>  with  the  wheat  ?  saith  the  Lord." — Jer.  xxiii.  28. 
 
 The  Reformation  is  very  inadequately  and  negatively 
 represented  by  the  word  "  Protestantism."1  If  in  its  narrower 
 aspect  it  was  a  revolt  against  Romanism,  it  was  in  reality 
 but  one  scene  in  the  vast  drama  of  human  progress  in  which 
 Rome  herself  was  compelled  to  take  her  part.  Her  awaken- 
 ment,  her  purification,  her  better  line  of  Popes,  her  Council 
 of  Trent,  her  Society  of  Jesus,  resulted  in  no  small  degree 
 from  the  work  which  owed  its  personal  impulse  to  the  mighty 
 passion  and  genius  of  Luther.  Those  who  reconcile  it  with 
 their  sense  of  justice  to  call  him  the  father  of  infidelity, 
 might  with  just  as  much  truth  have  called  him  the  restorer 
 of  the  Papacy.  For  the  work  of  Luther,  like  that  of  Origen, 
 was  tin'  watershed  of  many  divergent  influences.  If  in  the 
 one  direction  he  is  to  be  hold  responsible  for  the  teaching  of 
 Denck  and  Muntzor,  and  in  another  of  Lessing  and  Strauss; 
 assuredly  he  was  also  the  cause  of  a  marked  improvement  in 
 tin-  Romish  Chuivh,  of  the  energy  of  her  counter-Reforma- 
 tion, and  of  the  improvement  in  morality  and  discipline 
 within  her  pale. 
 
 1  Ft  should    however  be  observed  thai  the  Protesl  of  Spiers,  it    m 
 againsl   particular  doctrines,  was  positive  in  its  assertion  of  the  libertj    of 
 conscience. 
 
 x   2 
 
308  The  Reformation. 
 
 But  in  point  of  fact,  as  history  has  proved  again  and  again, 
 it  is  absurd  and  misleading  to  charge  men  with  all  the  results 
 which  may  spring  indirectly  from  their  teaching  or  character. 
 Their  work  must  be  judged  with  reference  to  the  times  and 
 circumstances  in  which  it  was  accomplished.  We  might  as 
 well  make  St.  Paul  responsible  for  Marcion  or  St.  John  for 
 Valentinus,  or  charge  Christianity  with  the  follies  and  extrava- 
 gances of  Gnosticism,  or  lay  at  the  door  of  Las  Casas  the 
 guilt  of  negro  slavery,  or  brand  the  memory  of  Lafayette 
 with  the  blood  spilt  in  the  Reign  of  Terror,  as  lay  at  Luther's 
 door  the  errors  which  have  arisen  among  the  sects  and 
 churches  which  were  first  called  into  existence  by  his  heroic 
 personality.  He  was  but  one  among  many  influences 
 mightier  than  himself,  and  his  work  was  but  a  single  current 
 in  a  tide  of  which  the  forces  are  to  this  day  unspent.  The 
 Reformation  ws,s  "  the  life  of  the  Renaissance  infused  into 
 religion  under  the  influence  of  men  of  the  grave  and  earnest 
 Teutonic  race ;  a  return  to  nature  which  was  not  a  rebellion 
 against  God,  an  appeal  to  reason  which  left  room  for  loyal 
 allegiance  to  the  Bible  and  to  Christ."  l 
 
 He  must  indeed  be  incapable  of  fairness  who  can  ignore 
 the  services  once  rendered  by  the  Papacy  to  the  cause  of 
 civilisation  and  humanity.  These  services  have  been  recog- 
 nised as  generously  by  Conite 2  and  Mazzini 3  as  by  De 
 Lamennais4  and  Le  Maistre.5     But 
 
 "  The  old  order  changeth,  giving  place  to  new, 
 And  God  fulfils  Himself  in  many  ways 
 Lest  one  good  custom  should  corrupt  the  world." 
 
 In  the  sixteenth  century  the  whole  Papal  system  had, 
 even  on  the  confession  of  its  own  historians,  sunk  into  a 
 formalism  and  corruption  which  made  it  a  curse  to  mankind. 
 
 1  Beard,  Hibbrrt  Lectures,  p.  2.  Perhaps  rather  "Religion  infused  into  the 
 Renaissance."  What  the  Renaissance  was  without  the  Reformation  >may  he 
 seen  in  such  men  as  Leo  X.,  Bembo,  Bihbiena,  Panormita,  Filelfo,  Politian, 
 Potnponatius,  &c.  (see  Oieseler,  v.  181-lSt). 
 
 2  Colors  dc  Politique  Positive. 
 
 3  See  the  very  powerful  and  eloquent  testimony  of  Mazzini  in  the  Fortnightly 
 Review,  1870,  p.  731. 
 
 4  Essai  sur  V Indifference,  1817. 
 
 5  Du  Papc,  1819/ 
 
The  Papacy.  309 
 
 An  even  more  tremendous  indictment  against  the  decadent 
 morality  of  Rome  and  lier  priesthood  might  be  drawn  from 
 the  writings  of  Petrarch,  Gerson,  Machiavelli,  Picus  of 
 Mirandola,  or  Savonarola,  than  from  those  of  Boccaccio  and 
 the  Italian  novelists.1  Even  in  the  Paradiso  of  Dante  you 
 may  hear  the  cry  of  holy  indignation  wrung  from  the 
 assembled  saints  while  St.  Pictro  Damiano  denounces  the 
 gross  luxuries  of  the  priesthood  ;  and  in  the  same  mighty 
 song  the  unworthiness  of  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  had 
 made  the  living  topazes  of  heaven  bicker  into  ruby  lines  of 
 fiery  wrath  while  the  great  Apostle  fulminates  his  more  than 
 papal  anathema  against  the  blood-stained  and  avaricious 
 pontiffs  who  have  usurped  on  earth  "  My  place,  my  place. 
 My  Place!"  And  things  grew  worse  and  worse.  How 
 could  Rome  be  respected  when  the  world  saw  such  pontiffs 
 as  Sixtus  IV.,  Innocent  VIII.,  Alexander  VI.,  Julius  II.,  and 
 Clement  VII.,  not  to  mention  such  a  once-dissolute  sophist 
 as  Pius  II.  (Aeneas  Sylvius),  or  such  an  elegant  epicurean 
 as  Leo  X.  ?  How  could  the  world  tolerate  on  the  lips  of 
 simonists,  nepotists.,  adulterers,  and  worse,  the  claim  to 
 absolute  dominion  over  religion,  the  claim  to  be  sole  in- 
 terpreters of  Scripture,  and  the  immediate  recipients  of  the 
 power  and  authority  of  Christ  V1  How  could  men  endure  that 
 such  persons  should  be  addressed  by  a  trembling  sycophancy 
 as  "our  Lord  and  God"  ?  How  could  they  suffer  a  man  so 
 vile  as  Sixtus  IV.  to  found,  unquestioned,  that  Spanish  In- 
 quisition which  is  perhaps  the  most  abhorrent  phenomenon 
 ever  presented  to  the  loathing  of  the  world?  Was  Ins 
 successor,  Innocent  VIII.,  amid  his  life  of  criminal  luxury 
 to  let  loose,  unquestioned,  a  man  like  Spivnger.  whose 
 Malleus    Maleficarum    has    well    been   called    "a   monstrous 
 
 1  See  pronfa  only  i'">  overwhelming  in  Gieseler,  v.  s  139. 
 
 -  See  Dorner,  ffist.  »f  Prot.  Theol.  i.  35,  E.  1.  Tin-  mosl  extravagant 
 statement  of  Papal  claims  may  Ik-  found  in  Augustin  Trionfo,  /'  Po 
 Eccleniae,  who  says  thai  "worship,  equal  to  thai  due  to  the  saints,  greater 
 than  thai  to  the  angels,  belongs  to  the  Pope  "  (Trionfo,  ix.  72).  Papal  claims 
 were  supported  by  such  exegesis  as  tliis  :  Quod  Papa  sit  Deus  Imperatorut 
 juxta  illud  "  Ecce  constitni  te  /'■"«  Pharaonis."    Gerson    /  eel.  1  ; 
 
 iderat.  lo),  protests  against  these  extravagances. 
 
310  Corruption  of  the  Church. 
 
 bastard  of  priestcraft  and  scholasticism  ? "  Were  popes,  of 
 whom  some  were  equal  to  Nero  and  Domitian  in  crime,  but 
 from  their  positions  and  their  professions  far  viler  in  infamy,  to 
 be  suffered  for  ever  to  wield  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  a  power 
 with  which  that  even  of  the  Caesars  was  not  to  be  compared? 
 The  ecclesiastical  casuistry  which  could  not  quite  suffocate 
 the  moral  sense  or  suppress  the  burning  blush  of  the  Emperor 
 Sigismund  at  the  Council  of  Constance,  was  still  less  able  to 
 crush  a  rebellion  which  was  headed,  on  all  sides,  by  the  noble 
 indignation  and  the  revolted  conscience  of  mankind. 
 
 The  institutions  of  piety  were  thoroughly  corrupted.  Theo- 
 logy had  sunk  into  a  dull,  dead,  and  cumbrous  scholasticism,1 
 which  so  far  from  reconciling  faith  with  knowledge  had  but 
 deepened  the  chasm  between  the  two.  If  John  of  Salisbury 
 in  the  twelfth  century  had  complained  of  its  slavish  depen- 
 dence, and  miserable  pettiness — if  Roger  Bacon  in  the 
 thirteenth  had  said  that  it  languet  et  asininat  circum  male 
 intcllecta — in  the  course  of  three  more  centuries  its  questions 
 had  become  more  "  vermiculate,"  its  terminology  more  bar- 
 barous, and  its  whole  foundationless  superstructure,  reared 
 only  on  the  sand,  was  tottering  under  the  waterfloods,  which 
 began  to  burst  upon  it.  A  sacerdotalism  at  once  arrogant, 
 intolerant,  immoral,  and  idle,  headed  by  a  Pope  who  might  be 
 at  once  a  "  priest,  an  atheist,  and  a  god."  had  radically  cor- 
 rupted the  lifeblood  of  the  Church  by  dividing  it  into  two 
 classes,  the  ruling  and  the  ruled.  It  had  poisoned  the  veins 
 of  all  Christian  life  by  substituting  a  visionary  satisfaction 
 for  a  true  reconciliation,  and  a  mechanical  conformity  for  a 
 holy  life.  Piety  was  practically  identified  with  the  obser- 
 vance of  ecclesiastical  rules.  Impunity  was  sold  to  the  living 
 and  deliverance  to  the  dead.2     Monasticism,  itself  polluted 
 
 1  "Theologiae  tuin  materia  non  saerae  literae  et  Scripturae  divinae  erant, 
 Bed  quaedam  obscnrae  etspinosae  intricataeque  quaestiones,  quarum  nugatoria 
 subtilitate  exercebantur  et  defatigabantur  ingenia"  (Camerarius,  Fit.  Me- 
 lanchth.  c.  iii. ). 
 
 2  See  a  very  line  passage  of  Erasmus  (Annott.  in  1  Tim.  i.  6),  which  is  too 
 long  to  quote,  but  is  full  of  indignant  eloquence  against  the  slothful  and 
 corrupt  priesthood — "  Metuebanl  tvnmnidi  suae,  si  mundus  resipisceret " 
 (Opp.    ix.   490).     But  perhaps  some  may  be  more   opeu  to  couvietion  if  I 
 
Decadence  of  Religion.  311 
 
 hy  confessed  and  countless  abominations,  seized  upon  selfish- 
 ness as  the  basis  of  religion,  and  expanded  it  to  infinity. 
 Asceticism,  darkening  at  once  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  the 
 meaning  of  life,  and  the  character  of  God,  taught  that 
 celibacy  was  holier  than  marriage,  and  that  self-inflicted 
 tortures  could  expiate  for  spiritual  sins.  The  very  con- 
 ception of  morality  was  vitiated.  A  priesthood  calling  itself  the 
 <  Ihurch — a  priesthood  whose  vices  were  the  complaint  of  the 
 theologian  and  the  motive  of  the  novelist,  the  despair  of  the 
 good  and  the  execration  of  the  multitude — claimed  absolute 
 authority  over  men's  bodies  and  souls,  shut  the  Bible  from 
 the  many,  turned  Christ  into  a  wrathful  Avenger,  made  it 
 easiei  for  the  rich  than  for  the  poor  to  escape  damnation, 
 and  gave  even  to  the  grace  of  God  the  aspect  of  capricious 
 concession  to  the  purchased  intercessions  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 
 The  Christian  Rome  of  Borgia  had  come  to  deserve  every 
 one  of  the  denunciations  which  had  been  hurled  at  the 
 Pagan  Rome  of  Nero  by  the  Apocalyptic  seer.  The  name 
 of  faith  was  prostituted  by  being  bestowed  on  the  abject 
 acceptance  of  unproved  postulates  ;  the  name  of  morals  was 
 conferred  upon  a  blind  obedience  to  human  traditions  ;  the 
 name  of  grace  was  confined  to  the  mechanical  operation  of 
 perverted  sacraments;  the  name  of  truth  to  a  mass  of  in- 
 fallible falsehoods  ;  the  name  of  orthodoxy  to  the  passive 
 repetition  of  traditional  ignorance.  The  results  were  fright- 
 ful. There  was  mental  coercion  and  moral  disorder.1  Even 
 Bellarmine  acknowledges  that  some  years  before  the  Reforma- 
 tion "there  was  no  strictness  in  spiritual  courts,  no  chastity 
 in  manners,  no  reverence  in  presence  <>f  what  was  sacred. 
 no  scholarship,  in  short  almost  no  religion."2 
 
 The  necessary  deliverance  came  through  the  study  of  the 
 lfolv  Scriptures.     Long  before  the  days  of  Luther  some,  at 
 
 rammon  b    Pope  aa  witness.     Pope  Adrian  VI.,  at  the  Die1  of  Nurnberg, 
 which  was  convened  to  suppress  Lutheranism,  declared  through  the  Bishop  of 
 Fabriane  that  "  these  disorders  had  sprung  .  .  .  more  especially  from  th 
 of  prieits  and  prelates;  even  in   the  Holy  Chair  many  horrible  crimes  have 
 lieen  commit  ted  " 
 
 1  Sec  Hampden,  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  3S. 
 
 •    See  ] Jollier,  i.  23-49. 
 
312  Early  Reformers. 
 
 least  of  the  few  who  studied  the  Bible  with  open  eyes,  had 
 seen  how  different  was  primitive  Christianity  from  mediaeval 
 Romanism,  how  deep  and  impassable  was  the  gulf  between 
 the  Church  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Church  of  Alexander  VI. 
 and  Leo  X.  There  had  been  Reformers  long  before  the 
 Reformation.  Already  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth 
 century  Dante  had  said, 
 
 "  Ah,  Constantino,  cf  how  much  ill  was  cause, 
 Not  thy  conversion,  but  those  rich  domains 
 That  the  first  wealthy  Pope  received  of  thee  !  " 
 
 but  it  was  not  till  the  sixteenth  that  men's  eyes  were  fully 
 opened  to  the  falsehood  of  the  pretended  Donation  of 
 Constantine  and  the  forgery  of  the  Decretals  of  Isidore.  The 
 Mystics, — Greek,  Latin,  and  German— had  tried  to  walk  in  the 
 light  of  Eternity.  The  Waldenses  had  desired  to  make  the 
 Bible  their  sole  authority.  Wiclif  had  translated  it,  and 
 put  it  into  the  hands  of  the  poor.  Hus  had  inaugurated 
 the  Bohemian  reformation.  The  Brethren  of  the  Common 
 Life,  and  other  retired  bodies,  had  peacefully  studied  the 
 Scriptures.1  John  Wessel  (t  1480),  in  his  Farrago  Berum 
 Theologicarum,  had  so  far  anticipated  the  views  of  Luther  that 
 Luther  expresses  his  surprise  at  the  identity  of  thought 
 between  them.2  Similarly  in  1520  he  wrote,  "  I  have  hitherto 
 unknowingly  held  and  taught  all  John  Hus's  doctrines ;  in  a 
 like  unknowingness  has  John  Staupitz  taught  them  ;  briefly 
 we  are  all  unconscious  Hussites.  Paul  and  Augustine  are 
 Hussites  to  the  letter."  3 
 
 But  there  were  others,  who  on  different  grounds  from 
 these  had  in  various  directions  contributed  powerfully  to  the 
 Reformation,  and  had  helped  to  form  the  views  of  Scripture 
 exegesis  on  which  it  so  largely  depended. 
 
 1.  First  among  these  we  may  mention  Lorenzo  Valla 
 (t  1465).     Valla,  a  Canon  of  St.  John  Lateran,  was  not  a 
 
 1  See  Ullmann,  Reformers  before  the  Reformation.     Oiesoler,  v.  172-177. 
 
 2  "  If  I  had  read  Wessel  first,  mine  adversaries  might  have  imagined  that  I 
 had    taken  everything    from  Wessel — adeo  spiritns  utriusque  concordat." — 
 
 Wcrke,  xiv.  220,  od.  Wuleh  (Prof,  to  AVessel).     Wessel,  in  his  Mare  Magnum, 
 borrowed  largely  from  Rupert  of  Dentz. 
 
 3  Brief e,  ed.  De  Wette,  p.  425  ;  Beard,  Jlibbert  Lectures,  p.  30. 
 
Lorenzo  Valla.  313 
 
 man  of  deep  religious  feelings,  but  he  is  one  chief  link 
 between  the  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation.  He  had  at 
 least  learnt  from  the  revival  of  letters  that  Scripture  must  be 
 interpreted  by  the  laws  of  grammar  and  the  laws  of  language. 
 He  showed  his  courage  and  independence  in  many  ways.1  In 
 days  when  scholasticism  was  still  dominant  he  wonders  that 
 schoolmen  who  were  ignorant  of  Greek,  should  ever  have 
 ventured  to  comment  on  St.  Paul.2  In  defiance  of  the  whole 
 Dominican  order  he  contemptuously  rejects  the  monkish 
 legend  that  St.  Paul  had  appeared  to  St.  Thomas  Aquinas 
 and  said  that  no  one  had  so  well  understood  his  Epistles;  for 
 '  why,"  he  asks,  "did  not  St.  Paul  in  that  case  warn  him  of 
 his  mistakes?"3  Undaunted  by  the  Papal  power  he  showed 
 the  spuriousness  of  the  Donation  of  Constantine,  in  a 
 pamphlet  republished  in  1517  by  Ulric  von  Hutten.4  He 
 expressed  his  doubts  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  works 
 attributed  to  Dionysius  the  Areopagite.5  He  denied  the 
 fictions  about  the  composition  of  the  Apostles'  Creed. 
 He  did  not  scruple  to  criticise  St.  Augustine6  and  the 
 Vulgate.7     Above  all  he  drew  up  Annotations  on  the  New 
 
 1  No  one  who  has  looked  at  Valla's  works,  especially  at  his  disgraceful  Dc 
 Voluptate  et  Vcro  Bono,  can  have  the  least  sympathy  with  him  as  a  man  ;  but 
 this  must  not  blind  us  to  his  real  services.  On  Valla  see  Omlin,  Script.  Eccl. 
 p.  243!)  ;  Fabric,  Bibl.  Lot.  vi.  "282  ;  Meyer,  Gcsch.  dcr  Schriftcrklar.  i.  155. 
 
 -  "Quern  (Remigium)  et  item  Thomam  Aquinatem  .  .  .  ignaros  omiiino 
 linguae  Graecae,  miror  ausos  commentari  Paulum  Graece  loquentem  "  [Annott. 
 in  l  Cor.  ix.  26). 
 
 :!  "  J'rrram  nisi  id  commcnticium,  nam  cur  cum  Paulus  nan  admonuit 
 •  rum,  suorum,  cum  oh  alia,  turn  de  ignorantia  linguae  graecae  "  (Annott.  in 
 1  Cor.  ix.  i:i  ;  romp,  in  Arts  xiii.  9.) 
 
 1  Dante  [Infern.  xix.  115.  Parad.  xx.  55,  De  Monarch,  ii.  ad  fin.)  ;  Wiclif, 
 Trialog.,  Tracts  and  Treatises,  ed.  Vaughan,  p.  1 71  '..and  Ariosto  (Orl.  Furioso, 
 xxviv.  st.  80)  alike  protested  againsl  the  effects  of  the  Donation  of  ( 'mist  an  fine 
 Aeneas  Sylvius  (Pius  II.)  had  even  in  1443  expressed  doubts  of  its  authenticity 
 (Pez,  Then.  Anted,  iv.  316),  as  also  did  Bishop  Pecock  and  Cardinal  de  Cusa 
 (Brown,  Fascic.  i.  57).  Bui  Valla  wenl  further.  Sir  Dollinger,  Fablesofthe 
 Popes,  pp.  L07-176.  After  Baronius  gave  up  the  "Donation"  no  one  had  a 
 word  more  to  say. 
 
 •'■  Annott.  in  Ads  xvii.  34.  Grocyn  after  beginning  to  lecture  on  the 
 Celestial  Hierarchies  aboul  1500,  ami  severely  censuring  Valla,  confessed  after 
 a  few  weeks  that  he  had  come  round  to  Valla's  opinion,  that  the  works  were 
 spin  ion-.     See  Erasm.  Annot.  in  Acts  xvii.  34  (cd.  1519). 
 
 0  Annott.  in  John  xviii.  28. 
 
 7  Annott.  in  Mail,  x.  •!!•,  Luke  ii.  14,  John  x.  29,  &c.  The  low  stat<-  of 
 critical  knowledge  led  him  into  frequent  errors,  e.g.  in  his  notes  on  Matt  vi.  l 
 and  John  xviii.  1.  Hut  his  remarks  helped  to  show  the  extreme  importance 
 of  philology  and  criticism. 
 
314  Fabcr  Stapulensis. 
 
 Testament,  in  which,  though  they  have  little  religious  or 
 spiritual  interest,  he  recognised  the  supreme  importance  of 
 abandoning  erroneous  renderings  and  of  ascertaining  what  the 
 Apostles  and  Evangelists  really  wrote  and  really  meant.1 
 Though  Bellarmine  calls  him  "a  precursor  of  the  Lutherans," 
 Valla  remained  to  the  last  a  Humanist.  He  escaped 
 the  Inquisition  by  a  cynical  conformity,  and  became  the 
 secretary  of  Nicholas  V.,  who  thought  more  of  Ciceronian 
 style  than  of  theologic  accuracy.  But  he  may  claim  the 
 honour  of  beinof  one  of  the  founders  of  textual  criticism,2 
 and  Erasmus  was  so  much  struck  with  his  Annotations,  of 
 which  he  found  a  MS.  in  a  monastic  library  at  Brussels, 
 that  he  republished  them  with  a  warm  eulogy  in  1505,  forty 
 years  after  the  death  of  their  author.3 
 
 2.  With  Valla  must  be  mentioned  Jacques  Le  Fevre 
 D'Etaples,  usually  known  as  Faber  Stcqmlensis,  who  also 
 helped  to  break  the  heavy  yoke  of  ecclesiastical  and  scholastic 
 tradition.  Encouraged  by  the  example  of  Valla  he  made 
 a  new  Latin  translation  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and  has  the 
 high  honour  of  having  published  in  1523  the  first  French 
 version  of  the  entire  Scriptures.4 
 
 3.  Still  greater  were  the  services  of  Reuchlin.5  Regarded 
 in  his  own  lifetime  as  being,  with  Erasmus,  one  of  the  two 
 eyes  of  Europe,  he  may  fairly  claim  to  have  effected  for  the 
 study  of  the  Old  Testament  even  more  than  Erasmus 
 achieved  for  the  New.  With  his  eruditio  trilinguis  he  was 
 regarded  as  a  new  St.  Jerome.  He  was  born  in  1455,  the 
 year  that  Gutenberg  sent  forth  from  Mainz  the  first  printed 
 book,  the  Mazarin  Bible  ;  and  although  he  was  a  layman,  a 
 lawyer,  an  ambassador,  a  Humanist,  he  had  learnt  the 
 rudiments  of  Hebrew  from  John  Wessel  in   his  youth,  and 
 
 1  Hallam'a  remark  that  these  are  "  the  earliest  specimens  of  explanations 
 founded  on  the  original  language"  {Lit.  of  Europe,  i.  147)  requires  qualifica- 
 tion. 
 
 -  "  Colin  tin  nliquot  vctustis  atque  cmendatis  Graecorum  exemplaribus" 
 (Erasm.  Ep.  eiii.). 
 
 :!  When  Cornelius  Aurotinus  called  Valla  "  corrus  croc  Hans,"  Erasmus 
 said  that  he  ought  rather  to  have  called  him  suadae  medulla. 
 
 1  It  is  anonymous,  but  there  is  little  doubt  that  it  is  by  him. 
 
 5  Luther  wrote,  "  Fuisti  tu  sane  organum  consilii  Dei." 
 
Reuchlin.  315 
 
 devoted  himself  to  the  study  of  languages  with  the  express 
 object  of  elucidating  the   Scriptures.1     In  one  characteristic 
 
 sriiti'iMv  he  gives  us  the  secret  of  his  great  services:  "Novum 
 Testamentum  graece  lego,  Veins  hebraice,  in  cujus  expositione 
 mcdoGonfidi  re  men  quam  altcriiis  ingenio."  At  great  cost,  ever 
 spending  upon  Learning  what  he  had  gained  by  teaching,  he 
 acquired  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  from  Jacob  Jehiel  Loans, 
 and  is  said  to  have  once  paid  ten  gold  pieces  to  a  Jew  for  the 
 explanation  of  a  single  phrase.2  Although  his  Budimenta 
 Linguae  Hebraicae  was  preceded  by  the  imperfect  book  of 
 Pellican,  he  had  a  right  to  conclude  it  with  the  verse,  "  Exegi 
 monumentum  aere  perennius."  So  great  in  that  age  was  the 
 ignorance  of  Hebrew,  that  he  had  to  begin  by  a  full  and 
 emphatic  notice  that  Hebrew  is  read  from  right  to  left.3  His 
 grammar  was  mostly  derived  from  David  Qimchi,  but  in  the 
 commentary  on  the  seven  penitential  psalms  he  also  consulted 
 the  works  of  Rashi,  Ibn  Ezra,  Saadia,  Maimonides,  Levi  Ben 
 Gerson,  and  the  Targums  of  Jonathan  and  Onkelos. 4  He 
 frequently  corrects  the  Vulgate  in  favour  of  the  Hebraica 
 Veritas.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  he  should  have  wasted  so 
 much  time  over  the  delusions  of  Kabbalisin,  6  and  this  had 
 the  further  ill  effect  of  exposing  him  to  the  fury  of  the 
 priests,  theologians,  Dominicans,  and  Inquisitors.  They  were 
 air  ady  suspicious  of  one  who  studied  the  language  of  the 
 Old  Testament,  which  they  stupidly  denounced  as  an  accursed 
 tongue.  When  Reuchlin  lectured  on  it  at  Heidelberg  he  had 
 bo  do  SO  secretly.     The  collision  with  Pfefferkorn  '"'  and  Hoog- 
 
 1  Beard,  p.  43;  Bee  Geiger,  Johann  Rcttchlin,  1871.  Chairs  for  Oriental 
 languages,  with  a  view  to  missionary  work,  had  been  formed  in  Kill,  luit  till 
 Reuchlin's  time  they  bad  nut  prodnced  much  fruit. 
 
 -  "  Univcrsalem  Btipera  quam  discendo  impendi,  docendo  acqiusrvi" 
 Praef.  [ad  fratrem).  His  desire  to  find  the  literal  Bense  is  emphasised  in  his 
 I '    .  Ice  <■  '■■  ' 
 
 :;  The  firsl  edition  wis  pulilishnl  at  Hurzliriin  in  I'/ini. 
 
 '  When  reproved  for  doing  so  he  replied,  "Quamquam  Hieronynum  veneror 
 nt  angelum  el  Lyram  colo  u(  magistrum,  tamen  .  .  .  veritatem  adoro  ut 
 /',  aef.  I;  ml  mi.  II,  br.  lib.  iii.  |. 
 
 ■'  D  Verba  MUHfieo,  1495;  De  Arte  Kabbalistica,  1515.  Erasmus  wrote 
 to  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  "Cabbala  el  Thalmud,  juidquid  hoe  est,  meo 
 animo  nun  quam  arrisit"    Ep.  177  .     Luther  spoke  of  his  Jewish  Alfa/nztrei. 
 
 ''  Pfefferkorn,  an  apostate  Jew,  wanted  to  have  the  copies  ut'  the  Talmud 
 '1  out  and  burnt.     The  Talmud  has  been  almosl  as  much  persecuted  as 
 
.'UG  Erasmus. 
 
 straten  embittered  Reuchlin's  declining  years,  which  he  might 
 have  spent  so  happily  among  his  white  peacocks  in  the  peace- 
 ful retirement  of  Stuttgart.  But  this  quarrel  opened  men's 
 eyes  to  the  presumptuous  ignorance  of  a  clergy  who  still 
 claimed  for  their  opinions  an  infallible  authority.  Even 
 the  coarse  satire  of  the  Epistolae  Obscurorum  Virorum  em- 
 phasised the  general  conviction  that  the  coming  struggle 
 between  the  Reformers  and  the  Papacy  was  a  struggle  of 
 knowledge  against  ignorance,  of  light  against  darkness,  of 
 freedom  against  a  servility  which  was  at  once  degrading  and 
 intolerable  to  the  awakening  conscience  of  mankind.1 
 
 4.  But  more  than  any  man  except  Luther  it  was  Desiderius 
 Erasmus  of  Rotterdam,  who  in  widening  the  knowledge  of 
 Scripture  advanced  the  cause  of  the  Reformation.  In  the 
 person  of  this  brilliant  humanist  and  admirable  theologian 
 "  Greece  rose  from  the  dead  with  the  New  Testament  in  her 
 hand."  There  is  no  one  whose  writings  show  a  more  distinct 
 and  decided  emancipation  from  untenable  traditions.  His 
 editio  jprinccps  of  the  New  Testament  (1516)  "  formed  a 
 great  epoch  in  the  history  of  Western  Christendom,  and 
 was  a  gift  of  incalculable  value  to  the  Church."  2  It  was 
 to  it  that  the  English  martyr  Bilney  owed  his  conversion. 
 Tyndale  and  Coverdale  used  it  as  well  as  Luther.  It  was 
 from  Erasmus  that  Tyndale  borrowed  his  immortal  answer 
 to  the  theologian  who  had  said,  "  We  had  better  be  without 
 God's  laws  than  the  Pope's ; "  that  "  If  God  spare  my  life, 
 ere  many  years  I  will  cause  the  boy  that  driveth  the 
 plough  to  know  more  of  Scripture   than  thou    dost."     For 
 
 the  Jews.  Justinian  condemned  it  in  533  ;  it  was  burnt  in  1244  and  12S8  ; 
 Julius  III.  in  1555  ;  Paul  IV.  in  1559  ;  Pius  V.  in  1566  ;  Clement  VIII.  in 
 1599.  In  1307  Clement  V.  had  shown  greater  wisdom  by  founding  professor- 
 ships of  Oriental  languages  in  Paris,  Salamanca,  Bologna,  and  Oxford,  in  order 
 to  learn  what  the  Talmud  really  was  (Constt.  Clementis  V.  in  Cone.  Vienru  nsi, 
 p.  277).  Reuchlin  said  that  to  burn  the  book  was  a  mere  Bacchantcn-a  r<)U- 
 ment.  "On  brulait  le  Talmud  et  quelquefois  le  Juif  avec  le  Talmud  "  (Vict, 
 le  i  Here,  Disc  sur  mist.  Lit.  dc  France). 
 
 1  There  was  a  story  current,  and  by  no  means  impossible,  of  a  priest  who 
 thought  that  Greek  and  the  New  Testament  were  two  recent  heresies. 
 
 -  See  Westcott,  Hist,  of  Eng.  Bible,  pp.  26,  140,  203-205.  By  an  order 
 in  Council  in  1547,  every  English  parish  church  was  bound  to  have  a  copy 
 of  his  Paraphrases  (Hallain,  Lit.  of  Eur.  i.  ?73  ;  Milmau,  Lat,  Christianity, 
 vi.  439). 
 
Services  of  Erasmus.  317 
 
 in  direct  opposition  to  the  prevailing  hierarchical  sentiment, 
 in  an  age  when  even  Luther  could  grow  up  to  the  age  of 
 twenty-six  without  having  read  a  complete  Bible,  Erasmus 
 had  proclaimed  the  privilege  of  even  the  unlearned  to  read 
 for  themselves  the  messages  of  a  Gospel  which  was  pro- 
 claimed to  Scythians,  and  slaves,  and  peasants,  and  women, 
 no  less  than  to  Greeks  and  kings.1  He  had  assailed 
 immemorial  custom  in  deploring  the  fact  that  "men  and 
 women  chattered  like  parrots  the  Psalms  and  prayers  which 
 they  did  not  understand."  He  had  expressed  the  wish  to 
 see  Christ  honoured  in  all  languages,  to  hear  the  Psalms  sung 
 by  the  labourer  at  the  plough,  and  the  Gospel  read  to  poor 
 women  as  they  sat  spinning  at  the  wheel.  "I  should  prefer," 
 he  said,  "to  hear  young  maidens  talking  about  Christ  than 
 some  who  in  the  opinion  of  the  vulgar  ate  consummate 
 Rabbis";  and  he  could  claim  it  as  the  glorious  result  of  his 
 labours  that  "  the  veil  of  the  Temple  has  now  been  rent  in 
 twain,  and  it  is  no  longer  a  single  High  Priest  who  can  enter 
 into  the  Holy  of  Holies."2 
 
 Erasmus  had  some  right,  then,  to  reject  the  taunt  of 
 Stunica,  Erasmus  lutherissat,  and  to  answer  that  in  truth 
 Lutherus  erasmissat.  The  fame  of  his  ability,  the  brilliancy 
 of  his  wit,  the  force  of  his  learning,  the  vivacity  and 
 manliness  of  his  Latin  style,  the  mordant  humour  el'  his 
 attacks  upon  a  purblind  yet  autocratic  theology,  rendered  the 
 subsequent  work  of  Luther  more  easy,  and  paved  the  way  for 
 the  wide  and  immediate  acceptance  of  his  German  Bible. 
 Though  Erasn n is  edited  many  of  the  Fathers3  he  helped  to 
 break  down  the  extravagant  belief  in  their  authority.  He 
 freely  and  forcibly  exposes  the  mistakes  and  ignorance  of  the 
 
 1  Praef.  in  Paraphr.  Matth.  How  rapidly  and  thoroughly  his  hopes  were 
 fulfilled  may  he  seen  by  the  complaint  of  Cochlaeua  (De  Act.  ei  Script.  .'/. 
 Lutfu ■/■/,  ad  nun.  1522),  that  even  cobblers  and  women,  quilibet  idiotae,  knew 
 the  New  Testament  by  heart,  and  carried  it  in  their  pockets. 
 
 -  The  Complutensian  Polyglol  was  printed  in  1514,  but  not  published  till 
 1520.  The  second  edition  of  Erasmus's  New  Testamenl  was  published  in 
 1518.     In  later  editions  ('1522,  1527,  1535)  he  consulted  the  Complutensian. 
 
 ::  [renaeus, Cyprian,  Hilary,  Ambrose,  Jerome,  Augustine,  Basil,  Chrysostom 
 and  others. 
 
318  Services  of  Erasmus. 
 
 Schoolmen.1  The  Dominicans  would  allow  no  dissent  from 
 the  decisions  of  Thomas  Aquinas  or  Hugo  of  St.  Cher ;  the 
 Franciscans  gave  implicit  allegiance  to  Nicolas  of  Lyra  ;  the 
 Augustinians  were  indignant  if  any  man  departed  a  hairs- 
 breadth  from  the  interpretation  of  St.  Augustine.  Erasmus 
 does  not  hesitate  to  point  out  that  Peter  Lombard 2  and 
 Aquinas  3  made  serious  mistakes  ;  that  Hugo  of  St.  Cher  was 
 full  of  grotesque  misinterpretations ; 4  that  even  Augustine 
 had  left  much  to  be  done,  and  that  no  great  teacher  had  ever 
 claimed  the  authority  which  was  then  accorded  to  writings 
 which  were  but  human  and  full  of  glaring  imperfections. 5 
 Nor  is  this  all.  He  expressly  repudiates  the  exegetic  in- 
 fallibility not  only  of  the  Pope  but  even  of  Churches.6  He 
 never  hesitates  to  reject  a  so-called  "  Scripture  proof"  when 
 it  seemed  to  him  to  be  misapplied  or  untenable, 7  nor  to 
 retain  a  Scripture  phrase  even  though  it  might  seem  liable 
 to  abuse. 8  His  philological  merits  were  of  a  high  order,  and 
 his  notes  on  many  of  the  rarer  words  and  jDhrases  in  the 
 Greek  Testament,  may  still  be  read  with  advantage.  He  sets 
 aside  theological  quibbles  and  scholastic  subtleties  with  the 
 brief  remark  quae  supra  nos  nihil  ad  nos,  and  his  comments 
 on  "the  commandments  of  men,"  on  sacerdotal  Pharisaism, 
 on  marriage  dispensations,  on  the  spirituality  of  true  religion, 
 
 1  Pope  expresses  the  popular  view  about  Erasmus  in  the  Hues, 
 
 "  At  length  Erasmus,  that  great  injured  name, 
 (The  glory  of  the  Priesthood  and  the  shame,) 
 Stemmed  the  wild  torrent  of  a  barbarous  age 
 And  drove  the  holy  Vandals  off  the  stage." 
 
 2  See  his  note  on  the  pudcndus  lapms  of  the  Master  of  the  Sentences 
 (irapatietynarlirat—  rem  hah  re  rum  sponsa)  in  Matt.  i.  19  (see  his  notes  on  Pom. 
 i.  4  ;  1  Cor.  i.  10  ;  1  Cor.  vii.  42  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  21,  v.  18,  &c). 
 
 a  He  blames  the  confidence  with  which  Aquinas  "spoke  of  things  which 
 he  did  not  understand"  (see  notes  on  1  Cor.  xiv.  11  ;  Heb.  xi.  37).  Colet's 
 disapproval  joined  to  study  of  the  Summa  weakened  Erasmus's  original 
 estimate  of  Aquinas.     See  Seebohm,  Oxf.  Reformers,  p.  110. 
 
 4  See  his  notes  on  Matt.  v.  16,  xix.  12  ;  John  v.  2  ;  Acts  xxvii.  12  ;  1  Tim. 
 i.  18  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  2  ;  Tit.  i.  7  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  24. 
 
 5  Annott.  in  Luke  ii.  35,  1  Tim.  i.  7.  On  John  v.  2,  he  says,  "  Eatenus 
 debetur  Sanctis  viris  reverentia,  ut  siquid  errarint,  nam  errant  ct  sancti,  citra 
 personae  contumeliam  verirati  patrocinemur." 
 
 6  Annott  in  1  Cor.  vii.  39  ;  2  Cor.  x.  8  ;  1  Tim.  i.  7. 
 
 7  See  on  Matt.  ii.  5  ;  Rom.  v.  12  ;  Phil.  ii.  6  ;  1  Tim.  i.  17  ;  1  John  v.  7,  20. 
 
 8  See  his  note  on  Matt.  xxiv.  36. 
 
His  Courage.  319 
 
 on  monkish  divisions,  on  religions  mendicancy,  and  on  the 
 non-existence  of  any  earthly  infallibility,  were  all  contribu- 
 tions to  the  emancipation  of  the  Church  from  the  tyrannous 
 burdens  and  false  traditions  of  the  days  in  which  his  Lot 
 was  cast. 
 
 In  all  this  Erasmus  showed   a  courage  which,  though   it 
 cost  something  in  his  as  in  every  age,  is  often  the  best  service 
 which  any  man  can  render  to   his  own  generation.   It  lias 
 been  the  fashion  to  sneer  at  his  supposed  timidity  in   not 
 throwing  himself  heart  and   soul  into  the  work  of  Luther.1 
 But  the  natures  of  Luther  and  Erasmus  were  antipathetic. 
 Erasmus  felt  a  constitutional  dislike  of  Luther's  methods,  as 
 well  as  a  theological  repulsion  from  many  of  his  opinions.2 
 Personally  he   was   shocked   by  Luther's    roughness ;   intel- 
 lectually he  could  attach  no  meaning  to  his  chief  watchword. 
 Doubtless  he  was  not  wholly  free  from  the  feeling  of  self- 
 interest  and  the   desire  to  avoid  conflict.     Luther  charged 
 him  with  wishing  to  walk  upon  eggs  without  crushing  them, 
 and  among  glasses  without  breaking  them.     But  he  never 
 allowed  these  weaknesses  to  shew  themselves  in  the  region  of 
 his  most  sincere  convictions.     It  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
 he  willingly  braved  the  intense  hatred  of  a  powerful  and  un- 
 scrupulous majority.     Many  a  sermon  was  directed  against 
 him    in    his    lifetime   by    enraged    obscurantists,  avIio,   as   is 
 common  with  that  class,  had  not  even  read  the  books  which 
 tiny  so  vehemently  denounced/5     On    one    occasion,   in   his 
 presence,  a  Carmelite  preacher,  in  the  violet  hood  and  cap  of 
 a  doctor,  charged  him  with  two  out  of  the  three  sins  against 
 the  Holy  Ghost;  namely,  presumption,  for  having  ventured  to 
 correct  the  Magnificat  and  the  Lord's  Prayer; — and  the  impugn- 
 ing of  recognised  truth,  because,  after  hearing  two  preachers 
 
 1  Hi'  bravely  took  Luther's  part  for  some  time    F.n.  513),  as  even  Luther 
 
 admitted    (De    Wette,   L  241,  896.)     Erasmus  urged   his  scl Ifellow  Pope 
 
 Adrian  VI.  t..  mildness  and  concessions,  and  lie  says,  "Roniae  in.'  faciunl 
 Lutheranum,"  A'/'.  667. 
 
 -  ••  Videor  mini  fere  omnia  docuisse  quae  docel  Lutherus,  nisi  i[und  non  tarn 
 atrociter,  quodque  -abstinui  >'t  quibusdam  aenigmatibus  e1  parodoxis." 
 Erasmus  to  Zwingli  (Milman,  Essays,  p.  127). 
 
 1  See  Ep.  -117  (ad  Campegium),  a  d.  1519. 
 
H20  His  Paraphrases. 
 
 on  the  same  day,  lie  had  remarked  that  neither  of  them 
 understood  his  subject.1  His  Colloquies  were  burnt  in  Spain 
 and  put  on  the  Index  at  Rome.  He  was  censured  by  the 
 Theological  Faculty  of  Paris,  and  among  the  many  who 
 attacked  him  was  Caranza,  who  published  a  book  called,  The 
 Blasphemies  and  Impieties  of  Erasmus? 
 
 Erasmus  may  be  regarded  as  the  chief  founder  of  modern 
 textual  and  Biblical  criticism.  He  must  always  hold  an 
 honoured  place  among  the  interpreters  of  Scripture.  Tn  his 
 Paraphrases,  which  Luther  bitterly  called  Paraphroneses,  he 
 endeavoured,  he  says,  "  to  supply  gaps,  to  soften  the  abrupt, 
 to  arrange  the  confused,  to  simplify  the  involved,  to  untie  the 
 knotty,  to  throw  light  on  the  obscure,  to  give  the  Roman 
 franchise  to  Hebraisms  ...  to  say  the  same  things  though 
 in  another  way."  It  was  his  aim,  above  all,  to  brighten  the 
 meaning  of  words  which  had  been  partly  deadened  by 
 familiarity,  partly  perverted  by  mistaken  applications.3  In 
 his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  he  was  one  of  the  first  to 
 apply  critical  principles,  and  to  convince  the  Church  of  the 
 now  admitted  spuriousness  of  the  verse  about  the  three 
 heavenly  witnesses.4  He  pointed  out  the  strange  textual 
 phenomena  of  the  passage  about  the  woman  taken  in  adultery. 
 In  his  Annotations  he  described  the  general  characteristics 
 of  Hellenistic  Greek,  and  many  of  the  peculiarities  which 
 mark  the  style  of  St.  Paul.  He  did  not  deny  the  possibility 
 of  trivial  errors  and  discrepancies  in  the  sacred  writers.5  He 
 usefully  illustrates  the  form  into  which  our  Lord  sometimes 
 threw  His  teaching.     He    did  not  confuse  inspiration  with 
 
 1  Ep.  vi.  p.  344,  and  xxii.  Ep.  31  ;  Rosenmiiller,  v.  432. 
 
 2  The  letter  of  Dorpius  to  Erasmus,  in  which  he  argues  that  the  Vulgate 
 must  be  free  from  error  becaus  ■  the  Church  had  accepted  it,  is  a  specimen  of 
 common  a  priori  reasoning.  Erasmus  in  his  reply  said,  "  You  follow  in  the 
 steps  of  those  vulgar  divines  who  attribute  ecclesiastical  authority  to  whatever 
 creep*  into  general  use."  Lee,  afterwards  Archbishop  of  York,  was  chastised  by 
 Sir  T.  More  as  a  "monachulus  et  obscurus  et  indoctus"  for  his  attack  on 
 Erasmus. 
 
 s  Ikelieat.  Paraphr.  in  Ep.  ad  Horn.  Herder  said  that  his  Paraphrases  were 
 worth  their  weight  in  gold.  Teschendorf,  Lachmann,  and  Tregelles  do  justice 
 to  his  merits. 
 
 4  1  John  v.  7. 
 
 5  Annott.  in  Luke  xxii.  36  ;  John  ii.  19,  20,  &c. 
 
His  lath p<  lultuce.  321 
 
 supernatural  infallibility  in  expressions  and  details.1  "  Christ 
 alone,"  he  said,  "  is  called  the  Truth.  He  alone  was  free  from 
 all  error."  He  allowed  for  the  human  element  in  Scripture. 
 His  views  on  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
 on  St.  James,  and  on  the  Apocalypse,  have  found  wide 
 acceptance  among  recent  scholars.  In  the  matter  of  allegory 
 he  vacillates.  It  is  not  indeed  often  that  he  countenances  it 
 by  his  example,2  but  he  made  the  two  unfortunate  observations , 
 that  without  a  mystic  sense  the  Book  of  Kings  would  be  no 
 more  profitable  than  Livy,3  and,  "  give  chief  attention  to  those 
 expositors  who  depart  as  widely  as  possible  from  the  letter." 
 But  we  can  best  estimate  the  advance  he  made  when  we 
 recall  that  in  his  day  there  were  thousands  of  theologians 
 who  did  not  know  whether  the  Apostles  wrote  in  Hebrew,  in 
 Greek,  or  in  Latin  ;  and  when,  as  Bellarmine  says,  "  The  better 
 grammarian  a  man  was,  the  worse  theologian  was  he  con- 
 sidered to  be."4  Robert  Stephens, in  his  Apologia, quotes  the 
 remark  of  a  Professor  of  the  Sorbonne,  who,  in  a  declamation 
 against  Scripture  during  the  course  of  a  public  lecture,  ex- 
 claimed, "  By  heavens  !  I  was  more  than  fifty  years  old  before 
 I  knew  what  the  New  Testament  was."  The  custom  of  these 
 theologians  was,  he  adds,  "to  draw  their  theology  not  from 
 the  sacred  codex  of  the  oracles  of  God,  but  from  their  Master 
 
 1  Passus  est  en-are  suos  Christus  etiain  post  acceptum  Paracletum  sed  non 
 usque  ad  fidei  periculum.  Sec  Drummond,  Erasmus,  i.  307.  Compare  the 
 remark  in  his  Ratio  Verac  Theologiae,  and  on  Colet's  views,  in  Opp.  ni,  159. 
 
 2  Yet  he  allegorises  the  raising  of  Jairns'  daughter.  Ecdcs.  ed.  1730,  pp.  70, 
 ..'/'/•     We  may  be  proud  of  the  influence  of  Colet  over  Erasmus. 
 
 ■'•  Kuril ir ,',/.  Mil.  Christ. ed.  1523,  leaf  g.  2.  In  this  passage  the  "mysterium 
 in  Uteris  omnibus"  is  insisted  on.  See  too  De  <'<i>iarcrum  (ed.  1545,  p.  165)  ; 
 De  tedio  et  parore  ChriMi  (ed.  1515,  p.  128);  Praef.  in  Annott.  (ed.  1535)  ; 
 Eii  mi  mil in  in  l's.  lxxxvi.  (ed.  16f>2,  p.  19).  Yet  he  ridicules  the  "; 
 allegory  in  Em-ma.  .Vorittc  and  Instil.  Prindpis  Chfistiani  (ed.  1628,  p.  121  . 
 For  these  references  I  am  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  the  Rev.  .T.  H. 
 Lupton. 
 
 1  Bellarmine,   De  Bom.   Vontif.  iv.  12.     Melanchthon  says,  " /' 
 'Bonus  est  grammai \icus  :  ergo  est  haereticus '"  [Postill.  iii.  660).     Erasmus 
 has  excellenl    philological  notes  on  Acts  L  4  :  Rom.  v.  12,  i.w    ">  ;  Phil.  ii. 
 6  ;  Col.  ii.  18,  &c,  and  his  linguistic  attainments  were  of  a  high  order,  though 
 Lee  made  the  somewhat  cheap  remark,  that  he  could  point  out  300  errors  in 
 his  New  Testament.     Luther,  who  exceedingly  disliked   Erasmus  as  a  theo- 
 logian, and  even  used  unbecoming  language  about  him,  stigmatising  I 
 "  a  foe  to  all  religion  and  a  thorough  sham,"  yel  estimated  him  highrj 
 grammarian  [J&p.  ad  Spalat.  1518  ;  Briefe,  iv.  507  ;  Tischreden,  ii.  402,  419). 
 
 Y 
 
322  A  Pioneer. 
 
 of  the  Sentences,  the  sophist  Aristotle,  and  the  Mahometan 
 Averroes."  * 
 
 The  work  then  which  Erasmus  achieved,  and  achieved  with 
 brilliant  ability  and  no  mean  courage,  was  the  work  of  a 
 pioneer.  He  had  no  desire  to  break  wholly  with  the  past. 
 He  was  a  man  of  cosmopolitan  sympathies  ;  a  theologian,  yet 
 the  prince  of  Humanists ;  a  pitiless  exposer  of  religious 
 abuses,  yet  an  ally  of  Popes  and  Cardinals  ;  an  editor  of  the 
 Fathers,  yet  a  friend  of  those  who  overthrew  their  dictator- 
 ship ;  a  Biblical  critic,  yet  the  author  of  the  Colloquies,  and 
 the  Encomium  Moriae.  "  Erasmus  est  homo  pro  se "  is  the 
 definition  given  of  him  in  the  Epistolae  obscurorum  virorum. 
 "  Words  without  deeds,"  "  Verba  non  res"  was  Luther's  severe 
 judgment  of  him.  But  "words"  are  often  the  most  powerful 
 of  deeds,  and  Erasmus  was  fully  entitled  to  the  praise 
 that  he  had  made  the  path  easy  for  all  who  followed  him. 
 "  We  by  our  diligence,"  he  says,  "  have  smoothed  a  road  which 
 previously  was  rugged  and  troublesome,  but  in  which  hence- 
 forth great  theologians  may  ride  more  easily  with  steeds  and 
 chariots.  We  have  levelled  the  soil  of  the  arena,  in  which, 
 with  fewer  obstacles,  they  may  now  display  those  splendid 
 processions  of  their  wisdom.  We  have  cleansed  with  harrows 
 the  fallow  land  which  heretofore  was  impeded  with  briars  and 
 burs.  We  have  swept  away  the  impediments,  and  opened  a 
 field  wherein  they  who  may  hereafter  wish  to  explain  the 
 secrets  of  Scripture  may  either  j)lay  together  with  greater 
 freedom,  or  join  battle  with  more  convenience." 
 
 5.  God  endows  His  chosen  instruments  with  such  gifts  as 
 they  specially  need.  It  required  a  personality  far  different 
 from  that  of  Erasmus  to  bring  about  that  emancipation  of 
 Christendom  from  sacerdotal  tyranny  and  false  exegesis  which 
 was   the    essence    of  the    Reformation.2      Revolutions    have 
 
 1  See  similar  remarks  quoted  in  Seebohm,  Oxford  Reformers,  cli.  ii. 
 
 3  Erasmus  said,  "Ego  peperi  ovum  gallinaccum,  Lutherus  cxclusit  pull  mn 
 lon,gc  dissimilUmum-"  (Epp.  iii.  p.  840)  ;  "  Videor  mihi  fere  omnia  docuisse 
 quae  docct  Lutherus  "  (Letter  to  Zwingli) ;  "  Quid  mihi  cum  causa  Capnionis  ct 
 Luiheri?"  (Ep.  477);  see  Beard,  Hibbert  Lectures,  p.  69.  In  1520  Erasmus 
 writes  to  Leo  X.,  "  Lutherum  non  novi,  nee  libros  illius  umquam  legi,  nisi 
 forte  decern  aut  duodceim  pagellas,  casque  captim."     Could  this  be  true  .' 
 
Luther.  323 
 
 usually  been  wrought  by  men  whose  sympathies  were  all  the 
 more  intense  and  concentrated  from  their  very  narrowness,  not 
 by  men  of  delicate  refinement  and  many-sided  powers  of 
 appreciation.  The  genius  of  Erasmus,  and  the  learning  of 
 Melanchthon  would  have  produced  but  small  results  without 
 the  Titanic  force  of  Luther,  the  sovereign  good  sense  of 
 Zwingli,  the  remorseless  logic  of  Calvin  ; — and  of  these  three 
 the  greatest  was  Martin  Luther. 
 
 Luther  was  the  "intensified  self"  of  the  German  nation.1 
 This  man  it  is  a  recent  fashion  in  the  Church  of  England 
 to  revile— and  would  to  God  that  they  who  revile  him  would 
 render  to  mankind  but  one  of  the  very  least  of  his  many 
 services  !  He  gave  to  the  Germans  their  Bible ;  he  gave  them 
 the  perfection  of  their  language ;  he  gave  them  the  sense  of 
 their  unity ;  he  gave  them  the  conviction  of  their  freedom 
 before  God ;  he  gave  them  the  prayers  which  rise  night  and 
 morning  from  thousands  of  hearts ;  he  gave  them  the  burning 
 hymns,  rich  in  essential  truth,  and  set  to  mighty  music,  which 
 are  still  daily  poured  forth  by  millions  of  voices;  he  gave 
 them  the  example  of  a  family  life,  pure,  simple,  and  humbly 
 dependent  upon  God.  "  To  have  lifted  the  load  of  sin  from 
 many  consciences — to  have  reconciled  nature  and  duty,  purity 
 and  passion — to  have  made  woman  once  more  the  faithful 
 helpmeet  of  God's  servants  as  of  other  men — to  have  been  the 
 founder  of  countless  sweet  and  peaceful  homes — is  no  small 
 part  of  Luther's  true  glory."  But  his  highest  glory — the 
 glory  he  valued  most — was  to  have  fulfilled  the  vow  of  the 
 Doctorate — Juro  me  vcritatem  evangelicam  pro  virili  dcfcn- 
 surum — and  to  have  given  to  the  people  whom  he  loved  an 
 open  Bible  which  could  be  closed  no  more. 
 
 And  he  not  only  gave  them  the  open  Bible,  but  taught 
 them  and  all  the  world  how  best  it  might  be  interpreted. 
 His  Commentary  on  the  Galatians  was  his  only  complete  and 
 continuous  contribution  to  the  exegesis  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment,2 yet   that   single   work    would  have   proved  to   be   a 
 
 1  SeeDollinger,  k'iirhr  und Kirchrnthum,  286  ;  Dorner, Profc  Thcol.  i.81-125. 
 
 -  1519.     Re-edited  in  1524,  aiid  1535.     Luther  says   "  Ks  ist  Dolmetschen 
 
 nicht  eiuer  jeglichen   Kunst ;  es  gehijrt  duzu   ein  recht   from,   treu,    neisig, 
 
 Y    2 
 
324  Four  Stages. 
 
 blessing  to  millions,  had  it  produced  no  other  effect  than  to 
 lead  (as  it  did)  to  the  enlightenment  of  John  Bunyan  and  John 
 Wesley.  But  Luther's  German  Bible  is  more  than  a  trans- 
 lation. It  forms  also  an  admirable  commentary,1  and  in 
 his  Prefaces  and  in  all  his  other  works  he  enunciated  rules  to 
 which  the  complete  revolution  of  exegetic  methods  in  modern 
 times  has  been  principally  due. 
 
 There  are  four  well-marked  stages  of  his  religious 
 advance — 
 
 1.  Till  the  age  of  twenty-six  (a.d.  1508)  he  studied 
 scholasticism,  and  the  Scntentiarii.  He  could  almost  repeat 
 Gabriel  Biel  and  Peter  of  Alliacum  by  heart  and  was  an 
 eager  student  of  Occam;2  but  he  knew  no  Greek  and  no 
 Hebrew,  and  had  read  no  more  of  the  Bible  than  the 
 Church  lessons.3  His  incessant  study  of  the  Vulgate,  which 
 he  found  in  the  library  of  his  monastery  at  Erfurt,  caused  him 
 even  then  to  be  suspected  of  heterodoxy;  but  he  was  still 
 imprisoned  in  the  bonds  of  ecclesiastical  tradition,  was 
 content  with  the  secondhand  fancies  of  the  Glossa  Ordinaria, 
 and  had  only  begun  to  grasp  the  importance  of  the  verse 
 which  influenced  his  life,  "  The  just  shall  live  hy  faith." 
 
 2.  For  ten  years  more  (1509-1517),  though  he  lectured  on 
 
 furchtsam,  christlich,  gelelirt,  erfakren,  geiibt  Herz "  (Sensdchr.  vom 
 Dolmctschcn). 
 
 1  The  cases  in  which  he  shewed  dogmatic  bias  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  1  ;  Ps.  lxviii. 
 12,  19  ;  Rom.  v.  28  (allein  durch  den  Glaubeu),  Eph.  iv.  16  (unci  das  alles)  are 
 honourably  few  (see  Reuss,  Gcsch.  d.  N.T.  p.  449).  Luther,  born  14S3  ; 
 Theses,  1517  ;  Leipzig  discussion,  1519  ;  excommunicated,  1520  ;  Diet  of 
 Worms,  1521  ;  returns  to  Wittenberg  from  Wartburg,  1522  ;  Peasants'  War, 
 1525  ;  marriage,  1525  ;  Augsburg  confession,  1530  ;  Articles  of  Smalcald, 
 1537  ;  death,  1546. 
 
 3  "  Din  multumque  legit  scripta  Occam."  Melanchthon,  Vit.  Luth.  p.  7. 
 Even  at  this  period,  however,  Martin  of  Mellerstadt  prophesied  that  Luther 
 would  alter  the  then  common  studies,  id.  p.  11  ;  Gieseler,  v.  220. 
 
 3  See  Jurgens,  Luther's  Lcbcn,  i.  487.  "  Von  dreissig  Jahren  war  die  Bibel 
 unbekannt.  .  .  Da  ich  zwanzig  Jahr  alt  war  hattc  ich  noch  kcine  gesehen. 
 Ich  meinete  es  wiiren  keine  Evangelia noch  Episteln  mehr  derm  die  in  den  Pos- 
 tillcn  sind.  Endlich  fand  ich  in  der  Liberei  in  Erfurt  eine  Bibel,  die  las  ich 
 oft  mit  grosser  VcrwAindcrung  Dr.  Staupitzcn."  Tischrcdcn,  iii.  229.  See  too 
 Mathesius,  Lcbcn  d.  M.  Luther  Erstc  Prcd.  p.  6.  In  spite  of  what  Dr.  Maitland 
 says  (Dark  Ages,  pp.  468-508),  it  is  clear  from  the  decree  of  Charles  V.  in  the 
 Netherlands  that  the  common  reading  of  the  Bible  was  regarded  as  a  crime 
 which  deserved  death  hy  bicming.  And  Carlstadt  tells  us  that  he  had  been  a 
 Doctor  of  Divinity  for  eight  years  before  he  read  the  whole  New  Testament. 
 See  the  anecdotes  of  Archbishop  Albert  in  Sixt.  of  Amama  (Antibarb.  Bibl. 
 ii.  7)  and  of  Linacre  in  Balaeus,  Cent.  8. 
 
His  Growth.  325 
 
 the  Bible  at  Wittenberg  in  a  practical  way,  and  had  aban- 
 doned scholasticism,  he  was  still  partly  content  with  the 
 Vulgate,  the  Fathers,  and  the  fourfold  sense.1 
 
 3.  The  next  four  years  (1518-1521)  were  marked  by  a 
 great  advance.2  He  began  to  study  Hebrew  and  Greek,  to 
 draw  from  his  own  rich  spiritual  experiences,  and  to  depend 
 less  and  less  on  the  Fathers.  The  discovery  that  poenitentia 
 was  the  equivalent  of  fMerdvoia,  and  meant  something  much 
 more  than,  and  very  different  from  penance,  brought  home  to 
 him  with  a  tumult  of  joy  and  conviction  the  indispensable 
 necessity  of  reverting  to  the  original  languages  of  Scripture.3 
 He  began  to  understand  the  extent  to  which  words  often 
 repeated  tend  to  ossify  the  organs  of  intelligence.  His 
 comments  during  this  period  were  popular  and  practical, 
 with  the  one  aim  of  bringing  Scripture  home  to  the  hearts 
 and  consciences  of  men.4 
 
 4.  It  was  only  in  his  fourth  stage  that  he  gained  a  clear 
 grasp  of  the  principles  which  through  all  the  Reformed 
 and  Lutheran  Churches  have  thenceforth  been  steadily 
 recognised  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.5 
 
 What  are  those  principles  ? 
 
 i.  First  among  them  was  the  supreme  and  final  authority 
 of  Scripture  itself,  apart  from  all  ecclesiastical  authority 
 or    interference.      This    was   with    Luther    a   Hauptfunda- 
 
 1  See  Werke,  xxxv.  24  (Erlang.).  The  Erfurt  monks  told  him  that  Scrip- 
 ture was  an  obscure  confused  mass,  and  that  he  should  go  to  Fathers  and 
 Schoolmen  (Tischrcdcn,  lxxii.  108,  Erlang.).  He  became  a  Doctor  in  1512. 
 In  1")16,  he  wrote  to  J.  Lange,  "  Pars  crucis  meae  vel  maxima  est  quod  videre 
 cogor  fratrum  ingenia  'in  istis  coenis'  (Aristotle,  &c.)  vitam  agere  et  operam 
 perdere."  In  his- theses  in  defence  of  Augustinianism  (1517)  the  41st  was 
 "  Totafere  Aristotelix  ethica  pessima  gratiae  inimica." 
 
 '-'  Luther's  conference  with  Cardinal  Cajetan  took  place  in  1518.  The  liber- 
 ality of  Cajetan  as  a  commentator,  his  preference  of  the  literal  sense,  his  free 
 admission  of  the  defects  of  the  Vulgate,  &c,  may  have  been  due  in  part  to  the 
 influence  of  Reformation  principles.     See  Weiszacker  in  Ilerzog. 
 
 :l  Bricfr,  i.  116  (ed.  l>e  Wette).  Op  to  that  time  he  says  that  he  had  dis- 
 liked Nicolas  of  Lyra,  because  of  his  attention  to  the  literal  sense  ;  "sed  nunc 
 hanc  ipsam  ob  commenilationem  omnibus  fere  Scripturae  interpretibus  eum 
 antepono."    Opp.  Exeget.  Lai.  ii.  320. 
 
 4  To  this  period  belong  his  Operationcs  in  Psalmos,  "the  first  scientifically 
 exegetic  book  of  the  Reformation." 
 
 1  He  began  to  translate  the  N.T.  in  1521,  using  Erasmus's  edition  and  the 
 Vulgate  (Briqfe,n.  123  17':).  His  invaluable  Prefaces  may  be  read  in  the  lxiii. 
 vol.  of  his  works  (ed.  Krlangen). 
 
326  Supremacy  of  Scripture. 
 
 meni  which  he  refused  even  to  discuss,  because  it  was 
 theoretically  admitted  even  by  his  opponents.  It  was  in 
 his  controversy  with  Eck,  in  1519,  that  he  was  first  led  to 
 reject  as  fallible  the  authority  of  councils,  and  to  declare 
 that  "  a  layman  who  has  Scripture  is  more  than  Pope  or 
 council  without  it."  He  learnt  to  feel  the  utmost  scorn  for 
 current  glosses.  "  When  Papists  quote  the  Scriptures,"  he 
 says,  " it  is  in  this  style.  '  Ye  arc  the  salt  of  the  earth'  i.e. 
 '  Ye  are  Priests.'  '  Praise  God  in  His  saints,'  i.e.  '  The  Pope 
 has  the  power  of  canonisation.' "  Vincentius  of  Lerins  had 
 laid  down  the  rule  that  interpretation  was  to  follow  the 
 lines  of  Church  tradition.1  Luther,  on  the  other  hand, 
 maintained  that  "  the  Church  is  the  creature  of  the  Gospel, 
 incomparably  inferior  to  the  Gospel."  "  The  Church  cannot 
 create  articles  of  faith ;  she  can  only  recognise  and  confess 
 them  as  a  slave  does  the  seal  of  his  lord."  "  The  censure  of 
 the  Church  will  not  separate  me  from  the  Church,  if  truth 
 joins  me  to  the  Church."  "  The  Pythagorean  ipse  dixit  is 
 not  to  be  tolerated  in  the  Church."  "  Let  us  not  heap 
 to  ourselves  Fathers,  Councils,  Doctors,  Decretals,  and  the 
 slough  of  human  traditions  and  opinions."  Thus  Luther 
 refused  to  allow  the  Pope — as  in  his  rough  way  he  expressed 
 it — "  to  sit  upon  the  eggs,  and  be  our  idol." 2  He  recognised 
 the  truth  that  "  to  set  forth  the  Church  as  the  way  to  Christ, 
 instead  of  setting  forth  Christ  as  the  way  to  the  Church,  is 
 the  fountain  of  unnumbered  errors."  "  Ecclesia  non  facit 
 Verbum  sed  fit  Verbo." 
 
 1  Yinc.  Ler.  Commonitor,  Ep.  2;  "  Interpretation-is  linca  secundum  ccrfesim- 
 lici  ct  catholici  sensus  normam  dirigatur."  The  rule  was  formally  reaffirmed 
 by  the  Council  of  Trent  (Scss.  iv.),  and  had  been  again  and  again  repeated 
 from  the  days  of  lrenaeus,  Tertullian  and  Cyprian  downwards.  Comp.  Bel- 
 larmine,  De  Verb.  Dei,  iii.  3.  "  Hie  in  genere  dicimus  judicem  veri  sensus 
 Scripturaeet  omnium  controversiarum  ecclesiam  esse,  id  est  Pontificem."  The 
 rule,  however  great  its  vitality,  however  high  the  authorities  which  may  be 
 quoted  in  its  favour,  resembles  the  assertion  that  no  sidereal  phenomena  must 
 ever  henceforth  be  allowed  to  interfere  with  the  laws  of  Kepler  and  Newton. 
 If  there  be  one  truth  which  History  has  demonstrated  more  decisively  than 
 another  it  is  that  no  Church,  and  no  combination  of  Churches,  has  ever 
 possessed  the  attribute  of  exegetic  infallibility. 
 
 2  See  Fabricius,  Loci  Commun.  M.  Luthcri,  i.  120.  Kiistlin,  Luther's  Thrologic, 
 i.  272-278.  Bellarmine  said,  "Summum  judicium  esse  summi  Pontincis."  Be 
 Verb.  Dei,  iv.  1. 
 
The  Literal  Sense.  327 
 
 ii.  Secondly  he  asserted  not  only  the  supreme  authority 
 but  the  sufficiency  of  Scripture.  The  Christian  man,  he  said, 
 needed  Scripture  and  nothing  else,  not  even  a  commentary. 
 "  I  ask  for  Scripture,"  he  said,  "  and  Eck  offers  me  the  Fathers. 
 I  ask  for  the  sun,  and  he  shows  me  his  lanterns.  I  ask,  '  Where 
 is  your  Scripture  proof  ? '  and  he  adduces  Ambrose  and  Cyril." 
 He  saw  that  the  Fathers  have  repeatedly  erred,  and  that, 
 except  in  the  very  simplest  doctrines,  there  is  no  such  thing 
 as  an  "  unanimous  consent  "  among  them.  "  With  all  due 
 respect  to  the  Fathers,"  he  said,  at  Leipzig,  "  I  prefer  the 
 authority  of  Scripture."  l 
 
 iii.  Like  all  the  other  reformers  he  set  aside  the  dreary 
 fiction  of  the  fourfold  sense.  In  this  respect  he  was  in 
 advance  of  Erasmus,  who  thought  that  the  Holy  Spirit  had 
 meant  words  to  be  taken  in  various  senses,  and  that  this 
 was  not  the  "  uncertainty,"  but  the  "  fecundity  "  of  Scrip- 
 ture. "  The  literal  sense  of  Scripture  alone,"  said  Luther, 
 "  is  the  whole  essence  of  faith  and  of  Christian  theology." 2 
 "  I  have  observed  this,  that  all  heresies  and  errors  have 
 originated,  not  from  the  simple  words  of  Scripture,  as  is 
 so  universally  asserted,  but  from  neglecting  the  simple  words 
 of  Scripture,  and  from  the  affectation  of  purely  subjective 
 (ex  proprio  cercbro)  tropes  and  inferences."  "  In  the  schools 
 of  theologians  it  is  a  well-known  rule  that  Scripture  is 
 to  be  understood  in  four  ways,  literal,  allegoric,  moral, 
 anagogic.  But  if  we  wish  to  handle  Scripture  aright,  our  one 
 effort  will  be  to  obtain  imurn,  sirrvplicem,  germanium,  et  cerium 
 sensum  litcralem."  "  Each  passage  has  one  clear,  definite,  and 
 true  sense  of  its  own.  All  others  are  but  doubtful  and  un- 
 certain opinions."  He  saw  as  clearly  as  Melanchthon 3  that  the 
 
 1  "  Salvia  rcverentiis  Patrnm  ego  praefero  auctoritatem  Scripturae."  For 
 Luther's  opinion  on  the  Fathers  see  infra.  Hishop  Jewel  is  one  of  the  man; 
 English  theologians  who  deny  the  existence  of  any  "unanimous  consent  of 
 the  Fathers; "and  even  Cardinal  Newman  admits  of  the  "quod  semper, 
 quod  ubique,"  &c,  that  "it  is  hardly  available  now." 
 
 -  Unfortunately  however,  Luther  opened  the  postern  door  for  there-intru- 
 sion of  artificial  dogmas  by  Baying  too  unguardedly,  "  Grammatica  qod  delict 
 regere  res  sed  servire  rehus. "  "  Grammaticam  decet  Theologiae  ci  d<  n  .  I'racf. 
 in  Cant.',  and  on  Gen.  xvi. 
 
 3  De  Rhetorica,  ii.  "  Fit  enim  incerta  oratio  in  tot  sententias  discerpta. 
 Nns  iaemiiierimus  unam  quandum  ac  certam  el  Bimplicem  S(  Qtentiam  ubiqne 
 
328  Rejection  of  Allegory. 
 
 pretence  of  a  multiplex  intclligentia  destroyed  the  whole  mean- 
 ing of  Scripture  and  deprived  it  of  any  certain  sense  at  all, 
 while  it  left  room  for  the  most  extravagant  perversions,  and 
 became  a  subtle  method  for  transferring  to  human  fallibility 
 what  belonged  exclusively  to  the  domain  of  revelation. 
 
 iv.  It  need  hardly  be  said,  therefore,  that  Luther,  like  most 
 of  the  Reformers,  rejected  the  validity  of  allegory.1  He 
 totally  denied  its  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  spiritual 
 interpretation.  "  An  interpreter,"  he  said,  "  must  as  much 
 as  possible  avoid  allegory,  that  he  may  not  wander  in 
 idle  dreams."  "  Origen's  allegories  are  not  worth  so 
 much  dirt."  "  Allegories  are  empty  speculations,  and  as 
 it  were  the  scum  of  Holy  Scripture."  "Allegory  is  a  sort 
 of  beautiful  harlot,  who  proves  herself  specially  seductive 
 to  idle  men."  "To  allegorise  is  to  juggle  with  Scripture." 
 "  Allegorising  may  degenerate  into  a  mere  monkey-game 
 (Affenspict)!'  "Allegories  are  awkward,  absurd,  invented, 
 obsolete,  loose  rags."  2  Since  Paul,  after  furnishing  a  proof, 
 had  borrowed  an  illustration  from  allegory,  we  may  use  them 
 as  mere  spangles  and  pretty  ornaments  (Schmuck  und  schonc 
 Sjpangen),  but  nothing  more.3 
 
 v.  Luther  also  maintained  the  perspicuity  of  Scripture,  that 
 is,  its  perspicuitas  finalis  in  the  chief  matters  which  pertain  to 
 the  Law  and  Gospel.  He  sometimes  came  near  to  the  modern 
 remark  that,  "  the  Bible  is  to  be  interpreted  like  any  other 
 
 quaerendam  esse.  Nam  oratio  quae  non  h-abct  unam  ac  simpliccm  scntcntiam 
 nihil  docet."  Elsewhere  he  says  that  it  produces  a  prodigiosa  metamor- 
 phosis in  the  meaning  of  Scripture.  For  other  quotations  see  Flacius,  Clavis 
 Sacr.  Scripturae  (ii.  65),  and  for  Calvin's  views,  see  his  remarks  on  Gen.  ii. 
 8  ;  vi.  14.  The  fourfold  sense  of  Flacius  (words,  context,  purpose,  doctrine) 
 is  much  more  real  than  that  of  the  schoolmen. 
 
 1  The  single  sense  of  Scripture  was  maintained  in  the  sixteenth  century  by 
 Luther  Erasmus,  Melanchthon,  Camerarius,  Osiander,  Chemnitz,  Calixt, 
 Zwingli,  Bucer,  Calvin,  Beza,  Casaubon,  Drusius,  Scaliger  ;  in  the  seventeenth 
 by  J.  and  L.  Cappellus,  L.  de  Dieu,  Lightfoot,  Arminius,  Grotius,  Episcopius, 
 Clericus,  and  many  others.  Even  Cajetan  (t  1534)  avoids  allegory  and 
 expounds  juxta  sensum  literalem.     Dedic.  ad  Carol,  v. 
 
 2  He  speaks  more  temperately  in  his  Table  Talk  (see  Hazlitt's  Transl.  pp. 
 326-328.     See  too  Beza  on  Gal.  iv.  22-31). 
 
 3  These  remarks  are  chiefly  found  in  Luther's  Coram,  in  Gen.  iii.,  xv.,  xxx. 
 See  Fabricius,  Loe.  Comm.,  i.  73,  sq.  and  Opp.  Lat.  vii.  37.  He  is  least  true  to 
 his  own  principle  in  the  comments  on  Job,  Psalms,  and  Canticles,  and  is  by  no 
 means  always  consistent. 
 
Perspicuity  of  Scripture.  329 
 
 book."  "The  Holy  Ghost,"  he  said,  "is  the  all-simplest 
 writer  that  is  in  heaven  or  earth  ;  therefore  his  words  can 
 have  no  more  than  one  simplest  sense,  which  we  call  the 
 scriptural  or  literal  meaning."  l  He  did  not  of  course  deny 
 that  there  are  difficulties  in  Scripture,  and  is  fond  of  quoting 
 Gregory's  remark,  that  it  is  "  a  river  in  which  the  lamb  may 
 lord  and  the  elephant  must  swim."  When  confronted  with  the 
 fact  that  there  is  scarcely  a  verse  in  Scripture  which  has  not 
 been  interpreted  in  different  ways,  he  can  only  attribute  it  to 
 malice  and  pravity,  or  with  Melanchthon  to  "  mere  petulance 
 and  diabolical  sophistry."  The  explanation  is  inadequate.  The 
 strife  of  perfectly  honest  interpreters  cries  aloud  to  heaven. 
 Even  such  passages  as  Christ's  promise  to  St.  Peter,  and  the 
 authority  given  to  the  Apostles,  and  the  institution  of  the 
 Eucharist  have  met  with  interpretations  equally  honest  yet 
 fundamentally  diverse.  The  Scripture  is  perfectly  perspicuous 
 in  those  few  and  simple  truths  which  suffice  for  salvation,  but 
 as  to  many  other  subjects,  and  even  as  to  subjects  which  have 
 been  deemed  to  be  of  consummate  importance,  it  may  almost 
 be  said  Quot  viri,  tot  sentcntiae.  We  can  only  say  with  Chry- 
 sostom,  itavra  ra  dvayKaca  Sr/Xa.2  Scripture  reveals  distinctly 
 all  necessary  truth,  but  whole  passages  and  even  books  of 
 Scripture  are  of  uncertain  significance  to  the  Christian  Church, 
 vi.  Luther  maintained  with  all  his  force,  and  almost  for  the 
 first  time  in  history,  the  absolute  indefeasible  right  of  private 
 judgment,  which,  with  the  doctrine  of  the  spiritual  priesthood 
 of  all  Christians,  lies  at  the  base  of  all  Protestantism,  I 
 might  even  say  at  the  base  of  all  manly,  sure,  and  thought- 
 ful religion.  He  felt  that  the  Christian  especially  is  not 
 permitted  to  resign — that  it  is  a  mere  effeminate  pusilla- 
 nimity to  resign — into  the  hands  of  any  one  the  exercise 
 of  that  spiritual  faculty — the  gift  which  comes  from  the 
 unction  of  the  Holy  One — which  is  promised  to  all  Christian 
 
 1  Answer  to  Emser.     See  Kostlin,  Luther's  Theol.  ii.  58,  284. 
 
 -  Chrys.  in  -  These.  The  "perspicuity"  of  Scripture  must  certainly  be 
 limited.  Luther  insisted  on  the  literal  sense;  Erasmus  says  that  those  eom- 
 mentators  were  to  be  preferred  who  were  farthesl  removed  from  the  literal  sense. 
 Jeremy  Taylor  (Liberty  of  Prophesying,  Works,  vi.  403-419)  exaggerates  the 
 difficulties  of  Scripture. 
 
330  Priesthood  of  all  Christians. 
 
 men  alike.  He  indignantly  swept  aside  the  fiction  of  a 
 usurping  hierarchy,  that  priests  were  in  any  sense  the  sole 
 authorised  interpreters  of  Scripture.  The  first  wall  which  he 
 threw  down  in  his  attack  on  the  Papacy  was  the  Romish 
 distinction  between  the  spiritual  capacity  of  the  laity  and  the 
 clergy.  There  was  no  truth  to  which  Luther  clung  more 
 firmly,  none  which  he  felt  to  be  nobler,  more  inspiring,  or 
 more  eternally  necessary,  than  the  fact  that  Christ  has  not 
 two  bodies  but  one  body,  wherein  every  member  has  his  office, 
 which  is  to  be  a  priest  therein.  Among  Christians,  he  main- 
 tained, there  is  a  difference  of  office,  but  no  difference  in 
 spiritual  rights,  and  that  it  is  baptism,  not  ordination, 
 unction,  or  tonsure,  which  makes  any  one  "  a  religious  "  or 
 a  spiritual  man.  He  held  that  henceforth  there  is  no  such 
 thing  as  a  priest  in  the  sacrificial  sense  except  Christ  alone,  nor 
 is  any  minister  a  priest  in  that  sense  except  by  metaphor,  and 
 by  exactly  the  same  metaphor  whereby  every  other  Christian 
 is  every  whit  as  much  a  priest  as  he.1  The  use  of  the  word 
 "  priest "  except  in  the  sense  of  presbyter,  to  describe  the 
 functions  of  the  clerical  order,  and  the  confusion  of  the 
 tepev?  with  the  Christian  minister,  was,  in  Luther's  opinion 
 a  defiance  alike  of  the  whole  letter  and  spirit  of  the  New 
 Testament.  The  word  of  God  was  a  word  not  to  the  clerisy, 
 and  not  for  the  sole  interpretation  of  the  clerisy,  but  a  word 
 to  all.2  He  held  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given  to  all 
 Christians,  and  therefore  that  the  laity  had  a  higher  function 
 than  merely  to  register  the  decrees  and  interpretations  of  a 
 ministerial  class. 
 
 There  was  nothing  which  Luther  found  it  more  difficult  to 
 maintain  with  unflinching  faithfulness  than  this  indefeasible 
 right  to  private  judgment.  He  was  sorely  tried  by  the 
 excesses  of  individual  opinion.     The  doctrine  of  tolerance  was 
 
 1  It  is  needless  to  repeat  that  leptvs  is  never  used  in  the  New  Testament  of 
 Christian  ministers,  but  only  of  heathen  and  Jewish  priests,  or  of  Christ,  or  of 
 the  whole  body  of  Christian  men  (1  Pet.  ii.  5,  9  ;  Rev.  i.  6  ;  v.  10  ;  xx.  6). 
 
 2  This  is  the  direct  antithesis  to  the  views  of  Gerson,  who  not  only  protested 
 with  all  his  might  against  the  right  of  individual  judgment,  but  said  that  the 
 exegetic  views  of  the  Church  were  inspired,  and  that  any  who  disputed  them 
 s'hould  not  be  argued  with,  but  legally  punished. 
 
Private  Judgment.  331 
 
 as  yet  unhappily  unknown.  Luther  was  perplexed  and  pained 
 by  the  fact  that  in  the  sacramentarian  controversy  Zwingli,  in 
 the  political  controversies  the  Anabaptists,  in  the  controversy 
 about  free-will  Erasmus,  in  other  controversies  Campanus  and 
 Eraser  and  Carlstadt  and  the  Zwickau  pro  phets,  all  appealed 
 to  Scripture  as  constantly  and,  to  all  appearance,  as  sincerely 
 as  himself,  and  claimed  the  right  to  interpret  it  in  their  own 
 way.  Melanchthon  dreamed  of  getting  over  the  difficulty  by 
 "  a  consensus  of  pious  men," 1  which  was  only  another  way  of 
 re-enthroning  the  fallibility  of  councils,  and  of  restoring 
 that  external  dictation  of  the  sense  of  Scripture  which  Luther 
 in  his  letter  to  the  Pope  had  expressly  repudiated.2  Calvin, 
 too  naturally  dictatorial  to  admit  the  right  of  individual 
 judgment,  talked  with  futility  about  a  "  synod  of  true 
 Bishops."3  But  Luther,  like  a  true  man,  held  fast  to  the 
 claim  of  Christian  liberty.  He  preferred  the  hurricane  of 
 controversies  to  the  stagnation  of  enforced  uniformity,  and  the 
 pestilence  of  authoritative  error.  He  saw  the  worthlessness 
 of  merely  nominal  unity,  which  only  meant  the  torpor  of  an 
 unreasoning  acquiescence,  and  in  spite  of  all  trials  he  continued 
 to  assert  to  the  last,  that  it  was  at  once  the  duty  and  the 
 privilege  of  every  Christian  to  test  his  faith  by  the  Scriptures. 
 "To  ascertain  and  judge  about  doctrine  pertains,"  he  says, 
 "  to  all  and  to  every  Christian ;  and  in  such  a  way  that  let 
 him  be  anathema  who  injures  their  right  by  a  single 
 hair."  4 
 
 In  accordance  with  these  principles,  Luther,  in  his  preface 
 to  Isaiah  (1528)  and  in  other  parts  of  his  writings,  lays 
 down   what   he  conceives  to  be  the  true  rules  of   Scripture 
 
 1  "  Interpretatio  est  donnm  piorum  "  Melanchthon's  Loci  Communes,  p.  369. 
 Unless  "  interpretatio  "  be  confined  to  the  apprehension  of  spiritual  truths, 
 which  is  a  totally  different  thing  from  the  exegesis  of  a  very  large  part  of  the 
 Old,  and  even  of  the  New  Testament,  the  remark  is  absolutely  untrue. 
 
 '-'  1520.  "Leges  interpretandi  verbum  Dei  non  patior."  See  Kostlin, 
 Luther's  Theologie,  ii.  t;.",.     Bunsen,  Ood  in  History,  iii.  199-201. 
 
 3  Calvin,  Inst.  iv.  0,  §  13.  The  only  test  of  a.  "true"  Bishop  would  have 
 been  oue  who  accepted  the  views  of  Calvin. 
 
 *   Werke,  xxviii.  339  (Krl.  ed.).     He  founded  the  right  on  Matt.  vii.  15  ; 
 John  x.  4,  5  ;  1  John  iv.  1  ;  1  TheBS.  v.   21  ;  1   Cor.   ii.   15  ;  iii.  22.     So  too 
 Flacius,  Claris,  i.  472.      "  I>r  intrrpretatione  lis  est.  pnn  s  queni  ea  p 
 sit?    Responsio  est  unumquemqu*  pwrwm  .  .  habere  jus  interpretandi." 
 
332  Rules  of  Interpretation. 
 
 interpretation.  He  insists  (1)  on  the  necessity  for  gram- 
 matical knowledge ;  (2)  on  the  importance  of  taking  into 
 consideration  times,  circumstances,  and  conditions ;  (3)  on 
 the  observance  of  the  context ;  (4)  on  the  need  of  faith  and 
 spiritual  illumination ;  (5)  on  keeping  what  he  called  "  the 
 proportion  of  faith  " ;  and  (6)  on  the  reference  of  all  Scrip- 
 ture to  Christ.  Of  the  former  requirements  nothing  need 
 be  said,  but  the  three  latter  contained  the  germs  of  many 
 subsequent  errors. 
 
 (1)  It  is  true  and  right  to  say  that  faith  and  spiritual  enlight- 
 enment are  necessary  for  the  saving  knowledge  of  Scripture, 
 and  for  the  saving  apprehension  of  Gospel  truths.  It  is 
 further  true  that  the  Scripture  deals  with  the  will  of  God  and 
 the  heart  of  man,  and  that,  therefore,  the  insight  of  a  saint 
 may  often  be  of  more  value  for  its  explanation  than  the  skill 
 of  a  grammarian.  But  except  in  power  to  understand  the 
 few  and  simple  truths  which  are  essential  to  salvation,  it  is 
 not  true  that  piety  and  orthodoxy  can  claim  any  inward  light 
 or  infallible  authority  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  and 
 in  the  face  of  the  age-long  mistakes  of  even  the  holiest  men 
 it  is  nothing  short  of  spiritual  arrogance  to  put  forth  such  a 
 claim.  It  requires  faith,  it  requires  the  aid  of  the  Holy 
 Spirit,  so  to  read  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  to  attain  that  best 
 end  which  the  reading  of  them  serves — namely,  to  become 
 thereby  wise  unto  salvation.  But  when  we  speak  of  the  whole 
 Bible  we  speak  of  the  national  literature  of  many  hundreds 
 of  years,  and  throughout  by  far  the  largest  part  of  the  sacred 
 writings  the  decision  of  what  the  authors  say  and  mean,  apart 
 from  its  personal  application,  pertains  far  less  to  piety  than  to 
 grammar,  intelligence,  unbiassed  candour,  historical  knowledge, 
 and  literary  tact. 
 
 (2)  Analogia  fidci — the  proportion  of  faith — is  a  watch- 
 word which  occurs  hundreds  of  times  in  the  writings  of  the 
 Reformers.1     As   is   the   case  with   nine   out   of   every  ten 
 
 1  It  is  practically  confused  with  the  obscure  rule  that  Scripture  interprets 
 itsdf,  a  rule  which  exegetically  considered  has  no  meaning.  "Non  aliunde 
 quam  ex  ipsa  sacra  Scriptura  certa  et  infallibilis  potest  haberi  interpretatio. 
 Scriptura  enim,  vel  potius  Spiritus  Sanctus  in  scriptura  loquens,  est  sui  ipsius 
 
Analogy  of  Faith.  333 
 
 dogmatic  Shibboleths  it  involved  the  misapplication  of  a 
 Scriptural  phrase.  St.  Paul  has  said  that  if  we  have  the  gift 
 of  prophecy — that  is  of  religious  teaching — we  ought  severally 
 to  exercise  it  Kara  ttjv  dvaXoyiav  rf)<;  iriareax;,  i.e.  as  St. 
 Chrysostom  rightly  explains  it,  "according  to  the  proportion 
 of  our  faith,"  according  to  the  greater  or  less  measure  of 
 the  faith  which  we  have  acquired.1  This  phrase  was  first 
 inaccurately  used  to  mean  Analogic/,  Scripturae — the  rule 
 that  we  ought  to  explain  Scripture  in  accordance  with 
 Scripture.2  So  far  as  it  forbade  men  to  isolate  and  distort 
 any  one  passage  into  authoritative  contradiction  to  the 
 whole  tenor  of  Scripture  teaching,  the  misapplied  phrase  is 
 susceptible  of  a  wise  use.  It  was  soon,  however,  made  to 
 mean  the  same  as  the  old  Romish  rule  that  no  explanation  is 
 to  be  admitted  which  runs  counter  to  the  current  ecclesiastical 
 dogmas.3  It  thus  paved  the  way  for  the  distortions  and 
 sophistries  of  the  later  Protestant  scholasticism,  and  turned 
 the  Old  Testament  especially  into  "  a  sort  of  obscure  forest  in 
 which  dogma  and  allegory  hunt  in  couples  to  catch  what 
 they  can." 
 
 (3)  Nor  is  Luther's  rule  "to  find  Christ  everywhere  in 
 Scripture  "  free  from  liability  to  grave  abuse.4  Homiletically 
 indeed  the  rule  is  true.  The  end  of  the  law  is  Christ.  He 
 is  the  hid  treasure  and  the  pearl  of  great  price.5     But  while 
 
 legitimua  interpres."     Quenstedt,  i.  137.     Such  a  view  is  true  only  of  the 
 simplest  essentials  of  the  faith.     There  is  no  mechanical  unity  in  the  Bible. 
 
 1  The  "proportion  of  faith"  was  greatly  decided  by  parallel  passages 
 which,  as  Luther  felt,  might  be  egregiously  abused.  He  said  that  "  to  cull 
 diverse  passages  from  diverse  places  without  any  reference  to  the  sequence  ol 
 thought,  is  the  most  current  cause  of  going  wrong." 
 
 -  S.  Thorn.  Aquin.,  Summ.  Ima.  i/u.  i.  art.  10.  ''Cum  Veritas  unius 
 Scripturae  oatenditur veritati alterius non repugnare."  In  old  writers  "the 
 analogy  of  faith "  was  used  as  a  practical  synonym  for  the  "regula  fidei." 
 Iren.  Haer.  ii.  17  ;  Aug.  De  Cons.  Ev.  i.  1  ;  Dc  Civ.  Dei,  ii.  13  ;  c  Faust,,,. 
 ii.  6  :  Tert.  Enchirid.  56. 
 
 :;  The  first  trace  of  this  rule  is  found  in  Origen,  Be  Princip.  iv.  26.      Its 
 most  distinct  assertor  was  Vincent  of  Lerins.     Commonitor,  Ep.  2.     See  i 
 Tridi  'it.  Sew.  iv. 
 
 4  Auch  ist  daj  der  rechte  Prufestein  alle  Biicherzn  tadeln,  wenn  man  siehet 
 ob  sie  Christum  treiben  oiler  nicht,"  ll\rb,\xin.  157.  On  this  rule  Bee 
 Placing,  Clams  8.  Script,  p.  7,  and  Schleiermacher,  ffermeneutik,  §  IS. 
 
 ■"'  •■  \\"n-  erleuchten  die  alte  Eeilige  Schrift  durch  das  Evangelium,"  Werke, 
 iv.  1728.     "  Here  (in  the  O.T.)  shalt  thou  find  the  swaddling-clothes  and  the 
 
334  On  Genesis. 
 
 homiletically  we  may  with  St.  Augustine  tolerate  any  com- 
 ment modo  pia  sit,  it  is  an  exegetical  fraud  to  read  developed 
 Christian  dogmas  between  the  lines  of  Jewish  narratives. 
 It  may  be  morally  edifying  but  it  is  historically  false  to  give 
 to  Genesis  the  meaning  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  to  the  Song 
 of  Solomon  that  of  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John.1  When 
 Luther  reads  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  Incarna- 
 tion, and  Justification  by  Faith,  and  Reformation  dogmatics 
 and  polemics,  into  passages  written  more  than  a  thousand 
 years  before  the  .Christian  era — when,  in  a  spirit  worthy  of 
 R.  Aqiba  himself,  he  infers  the  Divinity  of  the  Messiah  and 
 the  "  Communication  of  Idioms "  from  the  particle  riK  in 
 Gen.  v.  22,2  he  is  adopting  an  unreal  method  which  had  been 
 rejected  a  millennium  earlier  by  the  clearer  insight  and  more 
 unbiassed  wisdom  of  the  School  of  Antioch.3  As  a  con- 
 sequence of  this  method,  in  his  commentary  on  Genesis  he 
 adds  nothing  to  Lyra  except  a  misplaced  dogmatic  treatment 
 of  patriarchal  history. 
 
 It  was,  however,  a  result  of  this  last  rule  of  interpretation 
 that  Luther  assumed  the  attitude  of  manly  independence 
 
 manger  in  which  Christ  lies.  Poor  and  of  little  value  are  the  sicaddling- 
 clothes,  but  dear  is  Christ  the  treasure  that  lies  in  them."  Pre/,  to  O.T.  of 
 1523.  "Externa  variant,  interna  manent."  In  Ps.  xx.  "  Quodsi  adversarii 
 Scripturam  urserint#contra  Christum,  nos  urgemus  Christum  contra  Scriptu- 
 ram." 
 
 1  ' '  There  is  nothing  more  miserable  as  specimens  of  perverted  ingenuity  than 
 the  attempts  of  certain  commentators  and  preachers  to  find  remote  and  re- 
 condite and  intended  allusions  to  Christ  everywhere  (in  the  Bible)  .  .  .  This 
 perverted  mode  of  comment  is  not  merely  harmless,  idle,  useless,  it  is  positively 
 dangerous.  This  is  to  make  the  Holy  Spirit  speak  riddles  and  conundrums, 
 and  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  but  clever  riddle-guessing"  (F.  W. 
 Kobertson).  • 
 
 2  He  renders  the  words  D^n^XHTlt?  "^HIV,  "ambulavit  Dcum,"  and  finds 
 in  it  the  communieatio  idiomatum,  but  not  by  the  Understanding,  which  is  only 
 Bauchloch  und  Schlaffenlandc.  See  his  explanation  of  the  last  words  of 
 David,  1543. 
 
 s  See  Hazlitt's  edition  of  the  Table  Talk,  p.  74,  where  Luther  talks  much 
 as  Colet  does  about  triads  {On  the  Hierarchies,  ed.  Lupton,  p.  192). 
 
 4  Lyra  and  Rashi  are  traceable  throughout,  and  in  his  polemical  remarks  on 
 iv.  11  :  v.  22  ;  xv.  7,  &c,  Simon  says,  "il  n'a  le  plus  souvent  consulte  que 
 les  prejuges  dont  il  etait  rempli."  See  Luther's  notes  on  Gen.  i.  26  ;  ii.  7, 
 14  ;  iii.  21  ;  iv.  1  ;  xi.  7-9  ;  Num.  vi.  22  ;  2  Sam.  xxiii.  2,  $c.  Siegfried, 
 Rashi's  Einftuss,  &c.  (Merx,  Archiv,  i.  432).  Yet  Luther  praised  Hilary's 
 rule  "  Optiinus  interpres  hie  est  qui  sensum  e  Scriptura,  potius  retulerit  quam 
 attulerit  nee  cogat  hoc  in  dictu  conteiitum  videri  quod  ante  intelligentiam 
 docere  praesumserit. "     Fabricius,  i.  72. 
 
7 
 
 Luther's  Independence.  335 
 
 towards  the  Bible  which  made  him  "  the  most  radical  critic 
 of  the  Church  of  the  Reformation."1  We  cannot  find  the 
 New  Testament  in  the  ordinary  historic  narratives  of  the  Old 
 without  large  recourse  to  some  form  or  other  of  the  figurative 
 interpretation  which  Luther  had  so  decisively  rejected.  He 
 drew  a  deep  distinction  between  this  method  of  making 
 Scripture  self-interpreting,  and  that  "  uncertain  under- 
 standing of  the  Scriptures  by  which  the  devil  gets  us  on 
 his  fork  and  tosses  us  hither  and  thither  like  a  withered 
 leaf."  But  there  were  books  of  Scripture  which  failed  to 
 come  up  to  his  test  of  canonicity,  and  when  this  was  the  case, 
 he  unhesitatingly  placed  them  in  a  lower  position.  Had  he 
 accepted  an  infallible  canon  it  could  only  have  been  on  a 
 human  tradition  which  he  fundamentally  refused  to  recognise 
 as  authoritative.  "That  which  does  not  teach  Christ  is  not 
 apostolic,"  he  said,  "  even  if  a  Peter  or  a  Paul  taught  it." 
 Hence  he  put  some  books  far  above  others  in  value.  He 
 declared  that  St.  Paul's  Epistles  were  more  a  gospel  than 
 Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  that  St.  John's  Gospel,  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  were 
 "  the  right  kernel  and  marrow  of  all  books."2  He  has  little 
 to  say  of  the  Book  of  Esther.3  He  saw  the  complete  historic 
 inferiority  of  the  Books  of  Chronicles  as  compared  with  the 
 Books  of  Kings.4  He  saw  that  some  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment books  had  passed  through  revising  hands.  He  refused 
 to  believe  that  Solomon  could  have  written  Canticles.5  He 
 points  out  the  unchronological  order  of  the  present  arrange- 
 ment of  the  Book  of  Jeremiah.  Believing  that  all  the 
 prophets  had  built  on  the  one  foundation,  he  thought  that 
 there  was  hay  and  stubble  as  well  as  gold  and  precious  stones 
 in  the  superstructure.     He  was  evidently  startled  and  per- 
 
 1  Kciin,  Jesu  von  Naza/ra,  i.  142  (E.  T. ).  On  this  subject  see  Kostlin, 
 Luther's  Theohgie,  ii.  258-285. 
 
 2  "  Die  rechten  gewissen  Hauptbiicher  dea  N.T." 
 
 :1  "  Fdi  l>in  firm  Buche  (2  Mace.)  and  Esther  so  feind  dass  ich  wollte  sie 
 waxen  garnichl  vorhanden,  denn  Bie  judenzen  zu  sehr  und  haben  vie!  heidn- 
 ischer  Unart."    See  Werke,  Ixiii.  93-104. 
 
 4  He  only  regarded  the  Books  of  Kings  as  "a  Jewish  Calendar."  Tiseh- 
 rrilni,  iv.  4*0"). 
 
 '   Werke,  lxiii.  35-41. 
 
336  The  Canon. 
 
 plexed  by  the  story  of  Jonah.  He  regarded  the  Book  of 
 Job  as  a  drama  in  glorification  of  resignation.1  He  believed 
 that  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  belonged  to  the  time  of  the 
 Maccabees.  He  considered  one  of  St.  Paul's  proofs  in  the 
 Galatians  too  weak  to  hold.  Of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
 he  said,  "  Who  wrote  it  is  unknown,  but  also  it  does  not 
 matter."  2  He  believed  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude  to  be  un- 
 necessary, second-hand,  and  non-apostolic.3  He  called  the 
 Epistle  of  St.  James  a  right  strawy  epistle  and  one  which 
 flatly  (stracks)  contradicted  St.  Paul,  and  he  did  not  believe 
 it  to  be  written  by  an  Apostle  at  all.4  Of  the  Apocalypse  he 
 said  that  "  his  spirit  could  not  accommodate  itself  to  the  book, 
 and  that  it  was  sufficient  reason  for  the  small  esteem  in  which 
 he  held  it,  that  Christ  was  neither  taught  in  it  nor  recognised."  5 
 He  classed  it  with  Esdras,  and  did  not  believe  it  to  be 
 inspired.  He  thought  it  a  matter  of  no  consequence  whether 
 Moses  had  written  the  Pentateuch  or  not.  Thus  without  the 
 least  hesitation  he  sought  for  the  canon  within  the  canon.  It 
 need  hardly  be  said  that  he  rejected  the  Apocrypha  without 
 any  ceremony.  Esdras,  he  says,  "  mirum  in  mod  urn  esther- 
 issat  et  mardochissat."  He  wished  that  the  second  book  of 
 Maccabees  had  never  been  written,  because  it  contains  too 
 much  heathen  folly.  He  had  a  profound  contempt  for  those 
 who  had  a  way  of  "  quoting  some  single  text  and  then  setting 
 up  their  horns  against  all  Scripture."  "  We  will  neither  see 
 nor  hear  Moses,"  he  exclaims,  "  for  Moses  was  only  given  to 
 the  Jewish  people  and  does  not  concern  us  Gentiles  and 
 
 1  Werke,  lxiii.  25  ff.  "Like  the  comedies  of  Terence,"   T-ischrcden,  iii.  130. 
 
 2  He  was  the  first  to  make  the  brilliant  ami  now  commonly-accepted  con- 
 jecture that  it  was  written  by  Apollos.  He  thought  it  a  hard  knot  that  this 
 Epistle  "  stracks  verneinet  und  versagt  die  Busse  den  Sundern,"  and  that 
 Heb.  xii.  17,  "  wie  es  lauter  scheinet,  wider  alle  Evangelia  und  Episteln  S. 
 Pauli  zu  seyn."     See  Kostlin,  Luther's  Theol.  ii.  272. 
 
 8  "  Eine  unnothige  Epistel  unter  die  Hauptbiicher  zu  rechnen." 
 
 4  "  Denn  sie  doch  keine  evangelische  Art  an  ihr  hat"  (Kostlin,  ii.  257.) 
 
 5  In  some  of  these  views  he  was  preceded  by  Carlstadt,  and  followed  by 
 Melanchthon,  Flacius  (Clavis,  ii.  46),  Calvin,  the  Magdeburg  Centuriators,  and 
 even  Cajetan.  But  criticism  of  the  canon  is  as  old  as  the  Eabbis.  Some  of 
 them  had  doubts  about  Job,  Esther,  Ezekiel  (Shabbath,  f.  13,  2),  and  the  Song 
 of  Solomon  (Yadaim,  iii.  5). 
 
Spiritual  Confidence.  337 
 
 Christians."1  "When  a  contradiction  occurs  in  Holy  Scrip- 
 ture," he  says,  "  so  let  it  go." 2  It  is  very  hard  to  reconcile 
 such  remarks  with  his  formal  declaration  that  "one  letter, 
 yea,  a  single  tittle,  of  the  Scripture  is  of  more  and  greater  con- 
 sequence than  heaven  or  earth."  3  In  point  of  fact  his  theory 
 and  his  current  language  about  inspiration  are  as  completely 
 at  variance  with  his  methods  of  criticism  as  were  those  of 
 Origen,  Jerome,  and  Augustine. 
 
 Some  of  these  views  were  doubtless  rash;  they  were 
 caused  by  an  almost  inevitable  deficiency  in  the  nascent 
 science  of  Biblical  criticism;  nor  did  he  desire  to  press 
 them  upon  others.  And  yet  it  would  have  been  well  for  the 
 peace  of  Christendom,  it  would  have  robbed  many  con- 
 troversies, even  in  our  own  lifetime,  of  their  miserable  bitter- 
 ness, if  Christians  had  acquired  the  strong  spiritual  confidence 
 which  enabled  Luther  to  seize  essentials  without  beino; 
 troubled  by  minor  details.  "  The  eagle  that  soars  near  the 
 sun  does  not  wony  itself  how  to  cross  the  rivers."  Luther  at 
 least  saw  with  truth  that  the  Bible  is  a  forest  which  contains 
 many  very  different  trees.  It  is  little  short  of  childish  to 
 call  Luther  a  rationalist,  in  a  bad  sense,  because  of  views  like 
 these.4  They  arose  not  from  rationalism  but  from  its  very 
 opposite — the  sovereign  supremacy  of  a  faith  which  read  the 
 Bible  writh  fresh  unbiassed  eyes,  and  felt  the  closeness  of  the 
 immedi  ate  communion  with  God  and  Christ.  In  point  of  fact, 
 Allegory  and  Mysticism  are  as  regards  the  Bible  far  more 
 rationalistic.  They  avowedly  refuse  to  accept  it  as  it  is. 
 They  avowedly  make  it  say  something  else  than  it  actually 
 does  say.  They  start  with  the  repeated  assertion  that  the 
 letter  of  the  Bible  is  in  many  passages  too  crude,  or  too 
 trivial  for  their  acceptance.  Luther  had  little  need  for  such 
 expedients.     With   him   faith    and  the  Scriptures  were  not 
 
 1  Sec  Kostlin,  ii.  78,  •■></.,  258,  .v/. :  Diestel,  pp.  250,  2">"1. 
 
 '-'  He  expresses  his  indifference  to  small  points  of  variation  in  the  Gospels 
 (Werke,  xliv.  171  . 
 
 8  We   may   refer   generally   to   his    remarks    on   Heb.   ii.   13;    Gal.   iv. 
 22,  &c. 
 
 •  The  charge  is  Brat  found  in  Krause,  Opuse.  p.  199. 
 
 Z 
 
338  Faith  in  Christ. 
 
 disparate  things  which  hindered  or  excluded  each  other;  they 
 were  things  which  had  a  like  origin  in  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
 proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  there  could  there- 
 fore be  no  enmity  or  discordance  between  them.1  No  one 
 has  used  stronger  language  than  this  so-called  rationalist 
 against  the  unwarranted  and  exclusive  reliance  on  the  human 
 understanding.2  His  free  criticisms  were  due  not  to  the  in- 
 solence  of  reason  but  to  the  assurance  of  belief.  "  I  have  on 
 my  side,"  he  said,  "  the  Master  and  the  Lord  of  Scripture,  and 
 let  them  go  on  in  their  hostile  cry  that  the  Scriptures  con- 
 tradict themselves.  Hear  thou  well,  thou  art  almost  a  bully 
 with  the  Scriptures,  which  are  nevertheless  under  Christ  as 
 a  servant,  and  for  this  end  thou  br ingest  out  of  them  what  is 
 not  altogether  the  best  portion.  For  this  I  do  not  care  in  the 
 slightest ;  boast  away  of  the  servant,  I,  however,  glory  in 
 Christ  who  is  the  true  Lord  and  Sovereign  of  the  Scriptures. 
 Him  have  I,  and  by  Him  I  abide."  At  the  same  time  he 
 believed  that  the  Scriptures  could  not  contradict  themselves, 
 and  that  therefore  a  criticism  of  the  canon  by  faith  was  a 
 criticism  of  the  Scriptures  by  themselves.  He  strove  "to 
 equalise  the  Scriptures  and  the  Christian  conscience."  He 
 believed  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 
 These  deep  and  far-reaching  opinions  of  Luther's,  which 
 differentiate  him  from  the  mass  of  his  predecessors,  are  not 
 indeed  elaborated  into  a  system,  or  thoroughly  coordinated 
 with  each  other.  He  never  makes  it  perfectly  clear  to  us 
 now  he  could  place  in  Scripture  a  confidence  so  absolute,  and 
 yet  subject  it  to  a  criticism  so  fearless.  But  he  set  forth 
 one  or  two  principles  on  the  right  apprehension  of  which  the 
 future  of  the  Christian  Faith,  amid  the  advancing  noon  of 
 knowledge,  must  certainly  depend. 
 
 1  Dorner,  i.  250. 
 
 2  He  calls  Reason  "  a  poisonous  beast  with  many  dragon's  heads  ; "  "old 
 Madam  Weather- witch  "  (die  altc  Frau  W~ettermacherin)  ;  "  a  devil's  bride  ; " 
 "a  beautiful  strumpet;"  "a  mangy,  leprous  harlot,"  &c,  JVcrke,  viii. 
 294  ;  xii.  1530,  1533,  1537  (Beard,  p.  156).  It  did  not  strike  him  that  such 
 language  is  absurd.  Even  at  Worms  he  saw  that  he  must  be  refuted  out  of 
 Scripture  or  " cvidcntissimis  rationibus."  But  by  "reason"  he  sometimes 
 meant  the  purely  psychical  "  understanding." 
 
Luther  s  Principles.  3:39 
 
 I.  One  of  these  is  that  the  Word  of  God  is  not  toberc.fifi.rdnl 
 as  identical  and  coextensive  with  the  Holy  Scriptures.1  He  in- 
 dubitably admitted  "  a  difference  between  the  Word  of  Gt  d 
 and  the  Holy  Scriptures,  not  merely  in  reference  to  the  form, 
 bill  also  in  reference  to  the  subject-matter."2  He  made  a 
 distinction  bet  ween  author  and  author.  He  set  one  book  far 
 above  another  in  value.  <  !hrist,and  Christ  alone,  was  to  him 
 without  all  error — was  alone  the  essential  Word  of  God.3 
 
 II.  His  view  of  Inspiration  was  not  vert  al.*  The  Bible  was 
 not  to  him  a  stereotyped  collection  of  supernatural  syllables. 
 He  took  a  living  and  historical  view  of  the  origin  of  the 
 sacred  books.  He  held  that  they  were  not  dictated  by  the 
 Holy  Spirit,  but  that  His  illumination  produced  in  the 
 minds  of  their  writers  the  knowledge  of  salvation,  so  that 
 divine  truth  had  been  expressed  in  human  form,  and  the 
 knowledge  of  God  had  become  a  personal  possession  of  man. 
 The  actual  writing  was  a  human  not  a  supernatural  act.5  It 
 had  been  accomplished  in  full  human  consciousness,  and  not 
 as  the  Alexandrians  taught,  in  a  spasm  of  self-annihilating 
 ecstasy.  The  sacred  authors  received  the  historical  matter 
 not  by  inspiration,  but  (as  St.  Luke  and  others  so  clearly  tell 
 us)  by  purely  historical  research;  and  it  was  only  under  a 
 
 1  Diestel  (p.  283)  says  that  the  identification  of  the  Bihle  with  the  Word  of 
 God  (of  course  he  meaus  after  the  Reformation  is  firsl  found  in  I  '•.  Major,  J >• 
 Origine  VerbiDei,  1550.     See  Heppe,  Alt.  Prot.  Dogmatik,  i.  257. 
 
 -  Dorner,  i.  244.  lie  did  not  regard  all  the  Bible  as  one  equally  divjne 
 Book,  Inn  as  a  living  organism.  Sec  his  remarks  on  John  v.  39,  and  Romberg, 
 Dit  Lehn   Luther's   von  den  hcil.  Schr\ft  (Wittenb.  1868),  p.  5. 
 
 :)  Wcrke.  xxii.  654,  Erlang.  "Gesetz  and  Evangelium  sincl  zwei  ganz 
 widerwartige  Dinge  die  sich  mil  oder  neben  einander  nicht  leulen  oder  ver- 
 tragen  kbunen."  tie  spoke  of  some  parts  of  the  ceremonial  law  as  " 
 Dtirrisch  und  vergeblioh  anzusehen.'  He  recognises  in  the  living  whole  el 
 scripture  "  edlere  und  minder  edle  Glieder,  fundamentale  und  uicht  funda- 
 mentale  Glaubenslehren,"  Romberg,  p.  1"'. 
 
 ■'  Hence  he  even  speaks  of  Ecclesiastieus  as  "  Holy  Scripture  "  writtei 
 some  poet  or  prophet  "  aus  dem  Heiligen  Ocist"  {Vorredcn  vuden  Bibl.  Bitch  rn  . 
 
 "  Luther  die  gbttlicl ffenbarung  n i.  lit  als  mechanische  Mittfo  lung  iiberrfatui- 
 
 licher  Erkenntniss  sondern  als  dynamische  Lebensentwicklungauffassi,"  K  m 
 
 '"  !  '•  -7- 
 
 ■  From  this  strong  recognition  of  the  human  element,  he  speaks  of  Ji  el  i 
 
 "  cin  giitiger  und  sanfter  Mann  ; "  and  sa]  s  of  Amos,  "  Er  isl  aber  auch  hi  ftig 
 
 und  Bchill  das  Volk   Israel  fasl   durch  das  ganze  Buch  aus  .  .  dasserwcbl 
 
 mag  hcissen  Amos,   d.  i.  eine  Last,  oder  der,  Bchwer  and  verdriesslich  ist" 
 
 z  2 
 
o40  Continuous  Revelation. 
 
 grace  of  general  superintendence  that  they  sifted  and  arranged 
 it  in  proportion  to  the  power  and  illumination  they  had 
 received.  Luther  was  never. guilty  of  the  inexcusable  misuse 
 of  language  and  confusion  of  thought  which  makes  inspiration 
 involve  infallibility.  He  saw  clearly  that  just  as  the  Spirit  of 
 the  Lord  may  come  upon  a  Samson,  a  David,  and  a  Peter, 
 and  yet  leave  them  liable  to  moral  aberiations,  so  the  same 
 Spirit  may  dilate  and  illumine  the  faculties  of  a  writer  while 
 it  left  him  in  all  respects  a  human  writer  still.1 
 
 III.  Once  more,  he  held  that  the  Word  of  God  is  not  in  the 
 Scriptures  alone.  Inspiration  still  continues.  It  was  no  mere 
 exhausted  spasm  of  the  past.  It  is  not  to  Christians  that 
 the  eternal  oracles  are  dumb.  The  essential  Word  is  still  a 
 living  and  a  speaking  Word.  It  does  not  consist  in  any  col- 
 lection of  dead  sounds.  "  God,"  he  said,  "  does  not  speak  gram- 
 matical vocables,  but  true  essential  things.  Thus,  sun  and 
 moon,  Peter  and  Paul,  thou  and  I,  are  nothing  but  words  of 
 God." 2  What  may  once  have  been  a  word  of  God  in  times 
 past  unto  the  Fathers,  is  not  necessarily  the  word  of  God  to 
 us.  The  multitude  of  Christians  in  believing  that  God  spoke 
 to  holy  men  of  old  have  altogether  forgotten  that  He  speaks 
 to  them  still,  though  neither  then  nor  now  does  He  raise  the 
 finite  to  the  capacities  of  the  infinite,  so  that  neither  they  nor 
 we  were  made  either  perfect  or  all-wise,  or  on  all  subjects 
 infallible,  although  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  There  was  a 
 time  when  patriarchs  and  prophets  had  no  Old  Testament, 
 when  saints  and  martyrs  had  no  New  Testament.  As 
 Zwingii  said,  "  He  who  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  no  longer 
 solely  dependent  on  a  book."  3 
 
 1  Hence  he  admits  the  existence  of  (unimportant)  chronological  and  historic 
 errors.   Romberg,  p.  16  ;  Dorner,  i.  255.   "  Jacobus  delirac."  See  Kostlin,  ii.  257. 
 
 2  "  In  the  deepest  meaning  of  the  essential  and  only  truth  .  .  all  things 
 in  the  world  are  only  variously-embodied  words  of  the  Creator,  inasmuch  as 
 by  this  mighty  word  alone  they  are  upheld  in  being.  Hence  "Qf|  and  prj/xa  in 
 Scripture  signify  both  word  and  thing." — Stier,  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
 i.  38.  Raymond  of  Sabieude  (1430)  was  one  of  the  first  to  recognise  (in  his 
 Theologia  Naturalis)  that  Nature  is  a  Book  of  God.  See  the  thought 
 developed  in  Bacon,  Be  Augm.  Scient.  (ed.  Spedding,  i.  149). 
 
 3  Zwingii,  Opp.  ii.  p.  250  (ed.  Schuler  and  Sclralthess)  ap.  Dorner,  i.  290. 
 "  Piety  is  a  fact  and  an  expedience,  not  a  doctrine  or  a  science."    Opp.  iii.  202. 
 
Other  Reformers.  341 
 
 Such  were  the  views  of  Luther  and  it  is  impossible  to 
 exaggerate  their  importance.  They  shew  a  clearer  vision  and 
 a  more  vital  faith  in  the  Holy  Spirit  than  had  ever  been  fully 
 manifested  since  the  Apostolic  age,  or  than  has  since  been 
 attained  by  any  but  a  brave  and  faithful  few.  They  were  the 
 ripe  fruit  of  the  long  results  of  Christian  time,  and  they 
 furnished  to  the  principles  of  manly  Christian  exegesis  a 
 more  valuable  contribution  than  interminable  folios  of 
 traditi*  >nal  com mentary. 
 
 6.  It  will  be  needless  to  dwell  at  length  on  a  multitude  of 
 other  names.  If  Luther  was  the  prophet  of  the  Reformation 
 Melanchthon  was  the  teacher.  If  "  the  miner's  son  drew 
 forth  the  metal  of  faith  out  of  the  deep  pit,  the  armourer's 
 son  fashioned  the  metal  for  defiance  and  defence."  x  Carlstadt,2 
 Seb.  Franck,3  Denck,4  even  the  unhappy  Miintzer5  helped  for- 
 ward the  cause  of  a  truer  interpretation.  ZwiNGLI,  with 
 absolute  independence, had  arrived  at  opinions  on  this  subject 
 which  in  all  essential  particulars  coincided  with  those  of 
 Luther;  only  that  his  sunny  and  practical  turn  of  mind  had 
 loil  him  to  choose  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  the  Acts  of  the 
 Apostles,  and  the  two  Epistles  to  Timothy,  rather  than  the 
 Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians,  as  his  basis  for  scrip- 
 
 1  See  Thilo,  Melanchthon  im  Dienstean  heiliger  Schrift,  Berlin,  1860.  G. 
 T.  Strobel,  Hist.  Litt.  Nachricht  von  Phil.  Melanchthon's  Verdicnsten  urn  die 
 hcilige  Schrift,  Altdorf,  1773.  Galle,  Versuch.  einer  Charakteristik  Melanch- 
 thons,  Halle,  1840.  Melanchthon's  mosl  important  services  as  an  exegete 
 were  philological  and  theological.  He  Bays,  "Ignavus  in  grammatics  e  I 
 ignavus  in  theologia."     Postill.  iv.  428. 
 
 '  See  his  Ltbellus  d<  Canonicis  Scriptwris,  Augsb.  1520  ;  Dorner,  i.  126-132. 
 
 :l  "To  the  devout,"  lit-  said,   "all  is  aii  open   1 k,    wherein    he   learns 
 
 more  from  the  creatures  and  work  of  God  than  a  godless  man  out  of  all 
 Bibles."  "Antichrist,  who  is  now  fciredof  the  Pope  .  .  will  put  on  anotbei 
 disguise,  and  .  .  be  more  learned  in  Scripture  than  we.  .  .  Many  are  making 
 •in  idol  of  Scripture."  " The  Scriptures  are  only  the  shell,  cradle,  sheath, 
 lantern,  court,  letter)  veil,  and  surrounding  of  the  /'  ord  of  God,  which  is  the 
 kernel,  infantry  sword,  light,  sanctuary,  spiril  and  life,  Fulness  and  reality." 
 /./.  i.  193.  He  regarded  all  historj  as  a  Bible,  and  distinguished  betwei  n  the 
 written  and  the  unwritten  word. 
 
 1  "He  regarded  the  world  as  the  greal   word  of  God,  and  individuals  as 
 letters  of  the  word."     Id.  i.  L91.     "i  esteem  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  hi 
 "  above  all  human  treasures;  bul  not  bo  highly  as  the  Word  of  God,  which  is 
 Living,  powerful,  eternal,  free  and  independenl  of  all  elements  of  this  w<  rid  ; 
 spirit,  and  noi  letter,  written  ivithoul  pen  and  paper."  See  Hase,  5    .  . 
 
 -  Dorner,  i.  135-139. 
 
342  Other  Reformers. 
 
 tural  instruction x  A  host  of  Reformation  expositors  en- 
 deavoured to  spread  the  truths  to  which  they  had  been  led 
 by  the  German  and  Swiss  Reformers.  It  will  be  sufficient 
 here  merely  to  mention  the  names  of  Oecolampadius  (f  1581), 
 Bucer  (tl551),  Brenz  (tl570),  Bugenhagen  (1~1558),  Muscu- 
 lus  (tl563),  Camerarius(tl574),  Bullinger  (tl  575),  Chemnitz 
 (tlo86),  and  Beza  (tlG05).  Among  all  of  these  there  was  a 
 general  agreement  in  principles,  a  rejection  of  scholastic 
 methods,  a  refusal  to  acknowledge  the  exclusive  dominance  of 
 patristic  authority  and  church  tradition  ;  a  repudiation  of  the 
 hitherto  dominant  fourfold  meaning ;  an  avoidance  of  allegory  ; 
 a  study  of  the  original  languages  ;  a  close  attention  to  the 
 literal  sense  ;  a  belief  in  the  perspicuity  and  sufficiency  of 
 Scripture ;  the  study  of  Scripture  as  a  whole,  and  the  refer- 
 ence of  its  total  contents  to  Christ.  These  principles  were 
 followed  in  many  writings  and  commentaries,  and  found  their 
 clearest  statement  and  most  systematic  development  in  the 
 Clavis  Scripturae  Sacrae  of  Flacius  Illyricus.2 
 
 7.  But  the  greatest  exegete  and  theologian  of  the  Reforma- 
 tion was  undoubtedly  Calvin. 
 
 i.  He  is  not  an  attractive  figure  in  the  history  of  that  great 
 movement.  The  mass  of  mankind  revolt  against  the  ruthless 
 logical  rigidity  of  his  "  horrible  decree."  They  fling  it  from 
 their  belief  with  the  eternal  "  God  forbid  ! "  of  an  inspired 
 natural  horror.  They  dislike  the  tyranny  of  theocratic  sacer- 
 dotalism which  he  established  at  Geneva.  Nevertheless  his 
 Commentaries,  almost  alone  among  those  of  his  epoch,3  are  still 
 
 1  Dorner,  i.  287  290  "The  Scriptures  are  in  his  view  chiefly  the  revelation 
 or  memorial  of  the  will  of  God." 
 
 2  Flacius,  Clavis,  Prarf.  Matthias  Flacius  Illyricus  (t  1575)  was-one  of 
 the  most  learned  theologians  among  the  early  Lutherans,  and  his  Clavis 
 Scripturae  Sacrae  is  full  of  learning  and  vigour.'  In  the  dedication  there  is  a 
 brief  but  clear  sketch  of  the  previous  epochs  of  exegesis.  Klausen  |  Eerm  n. 
 2:'.7-241)  gives  an  outline  of  its  general  principles.  Diestel  (p.  953),  who  says 
 that  they  are  little  more  than  a  mixture  of  Jerome,  Augustine,  and  Luther, 
 hardly  does  him  justice. 
 
 3  The  Reformation  period  produced  hosts  of  commentators — Luther, Melanch- 
 thon,  Zwingli,  Musculus,  Pellicanus,  Chytraeus,  Brenz,  Bugenhagen, 
 Bullinger,  Beza,  Bucer,  Mercer,  Camerarius,  and  many  more.  Calvin  was 
 more  indebted  to  Bucer  than  any  one  else.  In  his  Dedication  to  the  Gospel 
 Harmony  he  says,  "  Bucerum  praesertim  .  .  eximium  Ecclesiae  doc'torem  sum 
 
 imitatns."    The  opinions  of  Beza  had  great  weight  with  our  English  reformers, 
 
Calvin.  343 
 
 a  living  force.1  They  are  far  more  profound  than  those  of 
 Zwingli,  more  thorough  and  scientific,  if  less  original  and 
 less  spiritual,  than  those  of  Luther.  In  spite  of  his  many 
 defects — the  inequality  of  his  works,  his  masterful  arrogance 
 of  tone,  his  inconsequent  and  in  part  retrogressive  view 
 of  inspiration,  the  manner  in  which  he  explains  away 
 every  passage  which  runs  counter  to  his  dogmatic  pre- 
 possessions2—in  spite,  too,  of  his  "hard  expressions  and 
 injurious  declamations — "3  he  is  one  of  the  greatest  inter- 
 preters  of  Scripture  who  ever  lived.  He  owes  that  position 
 to  a  combination  of  merits.  He  had  a  vigorous  intellect,  a 
 dauntless  spirit,  a  logical  mind,  a  quick  insight,  a  thorough 
 knowledge  of  the  human  heart,  quickened  by  rich  and  strange 
 experience ;  above  all,  a  manly  and  glowing  sense  of  the  gran- 
 deur of  the  Divine.4  The  neatness,  precision,  and  lucidity  of  his 
 style,  his  classic  training  and  wide  knowledge,  his  methodical 
 accuracy  of  procedure,  his  manly  independence,  his  avoidance 
 of  needless  and  commonplace  homiletics,  his  deep  religious 
 feeling,  his  careful  attention  to  the  entire  scope  and  context  of 
 every  passage,  and  the  fact  that  he  has  commented  on  almost 
 
 who  regarded  him  as  the  greatest  theologian  of  his  day.  Out  of  252  pas- 
 sages Dr.  Scrivener  has  shown  that  our  translators  of  lull  have  preferred  his 
 readings  to  those  of  Stephen,  Erasmus,  the  Vulgate,  and  the  Complutensian. 
 From  his  Latin  version  they  adopted  sonic  of  their  worst  marginal  renderings 
 i  .M.nk  i.  ;;•!  ;  Luke  iv.  41  ;  Acts  i.  8  ;  Horn.  xi.  17),  though  their  good  sense 
 delivered  them  from  following  him  still  more  disastrously  in  Matt.  i.  23  ;  John 
 xviii  20  ;  Acts  ii.  41  ;  Rom.  ii.  7  ;  v.  16  ;  xi.  32  ;  1  Cor.  xiii.  2  ;  James,  ii. 
 I  l,  &c. 
 
 1  This  is  illustrated  by  their  translation  into  English  and  republication  very 
 recently.  Poole,  in  the  preface  to  his  Synopsis,  excuses  himself  fornot  referring 
 more  frequentlj  to  Calvin  on  the  ground  thai  others  have  borrowed  from  him 
 h  >  Largely  that  to  quote  them  is  to  quote  him  !  See  Bayle's  notice  of  him, 
 and  further,  Clausen,  Wermeneutilc,  \<\<.  227 /f/.  ;  Meyer,  Gcsch.  d.  Schriftcrkl. 
 ii.  lis  .i:r,;  Diestel,  pp.  241  sq.  ;  Reuse,  Oesch.  d.  Eeilig.  Schrift.  §  569  ; 
 Beard,  Hibb  rt  Leetwres,  2;>8  fg.  ;  Tholuck,  Die  Verdienste  Calvin's  als  Aus- 
 />!■/■  </  r  Eeiligen  Schrift  I  Verm.  Schriften.  ii.  330-360);  Merx,  Joel,  pp  428- 
 444  ;   Ilaag,  La  Fnuw    I'mltsttt-nti:,  Art.  Calvin. 
 
 -  <i.  W.  Meyer,  (,'isf/i.  </.  Srhrifti  r/Jdrung,  ii.  450.  See  Simon's  Hit.  Crit. 
 des  Comment  du  K.  T.  p.  747.  Simon  is  unjust  in  his  depreciation  of 
 Calvin's  learning.  He  had  received  a  (lassie  training,  his  First  hook  was  an 
 edition  of  Seneca,  De  Clementia,  and  in  his  Commentaries  he  quotes  Plato, 
 Plutarch,  Polybius,  Cicero,  Ovid,  Quintilian,  Aulus  Gellius,  &c. 
 
 :i  In  a  commentnry  on  St.  John  we  are  shocked  to  stumble  very  soon  on 
 such  a  sentence  as  "  Servetus,  superbissimus  ex  gente  Wispaniea  nebulo." 
 
 4  Hi' speaks  of  tradition  and  of  the  Fathers  more  respectfully  than  Luther 
 does.     See  l'racf.  in  Bom.  and  Praef.  in  J, is/. 
 
344  His  Commentaries. 
 
 the  whole  of  the  Bible,  make  him  tower  above  the  great 
 majority  of  those  who  have  written  on  Holy  Scripture.1 
 Nothing  can  furnish  a  greater  contrast  to  many  helpless 
 commentaries,  with  their  congeries  of  vacillating  variorum 
 annotations  heaped  together  in  aimless  multiplicity,'  than  the 
 terse  and  decisive  notes  of  the  great  Genevan  theologian. 
 He  was  a  foe  to  all  vagueness,  prolixity,  and  digression. 
 "I  hold,"  he  wrote  to  his  friend  Grynaeus,  " that  the  chief 
 
 I  excellence  of  an  Expositor  consists  in  clearness  and 
 brevity."2  He  fulfilled  his  own  ideal  in  an  exposition 
 "  brief,  facile,  luminous,  full  of  rare  sagacity,  and  entire 
 good  faith."  Hundreds  of  pages  have  been  written  about 
 "a  woman  having  power  on  her  head."  Calvin  says  all 
 that  is  essential  in  the  three  lines  that  the  word  "power" 
 
 I  means  by  metonymy  "  a  symbol  of  her  husband's  power  over 
 her,"  and  is  here  used  for  some  sort  of  veil.  He  never  drags 
 his  weary  reader  through  a  bewildering  mass  of  opinions,  of 
 which  some  are  absurd,  the  majority  impossible,  and  of  which 
 all  but  one  must  be  wrong.  " Dimoveri  non poesum"  he  says, 
 "  ab  amove  com^cndii!' 
 
 ii.  Nor  is  it  a  less  supreme  merit  that  he  has  a  contempt 
 for  all  exegetic  falsities  and  frivolities,  such  as  still  show  a 
 fatal  vitality  in  the  commentaries  of  to-day.3  We  have 
 already  seen  the  comments  of  Rabbis,  Fathers,  and  schoolmen 
 on  the  first  verse  of  Joel,  the  son  of  Pethuel.  Since  Pethuel 
 is  mentioned,  said    the    Rabbis,  he    too    must  have  been  a 
 
 1  He  is  at  his  best  in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Acts,  on  St.  Paul's  Epistles, 
 and  on  the  Psalms.  The  notes  on  the  minor  Prophets  were  much  less  elaborate. 
 Hooker,  in  a  MS.  note  quoted  by  Keble,  says  that  "the  sense  of  Scripture 
 which  Calvin  alloweth,"  was  held  to  be  of  more  force  than  if  "  ten  thousand 
 Augustines,  Jeromes,  Chrysostoms,  Cyprians  were  brought  forth."  He  com- 
 pares his  influence  to  that  of  Peter  Lombard  among  the  Schoolmen.  Eccl. 
 Pol,  Prof.  ii.  8. 
 
 2  See  Praef.  in  Pom.  In  this  preface,  and  in  his  letter  to  Viret  (May  19, 
 1540),  he  gives  us  his  conception  of  the  duty  of  an  expositor.  Schleiermacher 
 says,  "  Die  gliickliehe  Ausubung  der  Kunst  (des  Auslegens)  beruht  anf  dem 
 Sprachtalent  und  dem  Talent  der  einzelnen  Menschenkenntniss  "  (ffermt  m  utik, 
 §  10).  Calvin  had  both,  and  the  latter  enabled  him  to  enter  into  the  feelings 
 of  the  sacred  writers. 
 
 3  See  his  notes  on  John  i.  3  ;  Heb.  xi.  13  ;  Gen.  iii.  21  ("  Non  sic  aecipi 
 haec  verba  convenit  quasi  Deus  fuerit  pelltfex.  Credibile  est  .  .  necessitate 
 coactoj  mactasse  aliqua  [animal in)  gum  inn  se  corio  tegerent  "). 
 
His  Sincerity.  345 
 
 Prophet.  "We  see  how  impudent  they  were,"  says  Calvin, 
 "in  such  fictitious  comments;  when  they  have  no  reason  to 
 offer,  they  invent  a  fable,  and  obtrude  it  as  an  oracle."  Nor 
 is  he  less  disdainful  of  Christian  figments.  It  had  (as  we 
 have  seen)  been  irresistible  to  Jerome  and  other  patristic  and 
 mediaeval  commentators  to  drag  the  phrase  "  Verbum  Dei 
 quod  factum  est  ad  Joel,"  into  a  sign  of  the  Incarnation,  as 
 though  it  implied  the  same  as  "  the  Word  was  made  flesh  !" 
 The  strong  good  sense  of  Calvin  regarded  such  comments  as 
 a  discreditable  paltering  with  words,  and  he  swept  the  fiction 
 aside  with  the  one  contemptuous  word,  Nugae !  Hence  he 
 carries  out  the  principles  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon  with 
 more  consistent  thoroughness.  He  will  not  tamper  with 
 allegory  as  they  do,  even  for  ornamental  and  homiletic  pur- 
 poses.1 He  saw  more  clearly  than  Luther  that  the  method 
 lias  no  foundation,  and  is  liable  to  gross  error.2  He  will  not 
 give  a  mystic  significance  even  to  the  Levitic  law,  because, 
 he  says,  "  It  is  better  to  confess  ignorance  than  to  play  with 
 frivolous  guesses." 
 
 iii.  A  characteristic  feature  of  Calvin's  exegesis  is  its 
 abhorrence  of  hollow  orthodoxy.  He  regarded  it  as  a  dis- 
 graceful offering  to  a  God  of  truth.  He  did  not  hold  the 
 theory  of  verbal  dictation.  He  will  never  defend  or  har- 
 monise what  he  regards  as  an  oversight  or  mistake  in  the 
 sacred  writers.3  He  scorns  to  support  a  good  cause  by  bad 
 reasoning.  In  Gen.  iii.  15,  he  says  that  "  seed  "  is  a  collective 
 term  for  "posterity"  and  was  only  interpreted  of  Christ  by 
 subsequent  experience.  He  will  not  admit  the  force  of 
 arguments   in  favour  of  the  Trinity  drawn  from  the  plural 
 
 1  See  his  note  on  Gal.  iv.  22.  He  quotes'  Ihrysostom  to  show  thai  "allegory  '" 
 is  here  used  in  an  improper  seuse  (icaTcixpi)(rriitus),  and  that  .Muses  meanl  the 
 history  only  in  ;i  literal  sense.  II-  calls  it  a  "commmtum  Satana  .  to 
 annihilate  the  dignitj  of  Scripture."  Be  says  thai  allegories  are  "puerile" 
 and  "farfetched,1  and  thai  "he  gladl]  abstains  from  them  becausi  bh 
 in  them  nothing  firm  and  solid."  "  Affinis  saerilegio  audaeia  est 
 tenure  hue  illuc  versa/re  et  quasi  in  n  lusoria  lascivire."     Pratf.  in  Rom. 
 
 -  Peter  Martyr  in  his  Loci  Communes   Theol.  dwells  on  the  imprudence  of 
 using  a  method  which  Anabaptists  used,  "adparadoxa  mvpro- 
 
 /hi,!,/,/." 
 
 '•'■  Matt,  xxvii.  9;  Acts  vii.  16  ("hie  locus corrigendus  est "). 
 
VAQ  His  Boldness. 
 
 "let  us  make,"  nor  from  the  three  angels  who  appeared  to 
 Abraham,  nor  from  the  Trisagion.1  He  will  not  with  Luther 
 see  a  si<m  of  the  Incarnation  in  the  Burning  Bush.2  He  sets 
 aside  many  of  the  untenable  arguments  drawn  from  passages 
 in  Isaiah  in  favour  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,3  which,  he  says, 
 would  only  appear  ludicrous  to  Jews.  In  saying  that  it  is 
 absurd  to  inteqDret  the  "  stone  cut  without  hands "  of  the 
 virgin  birth  of  Christ  he  rejects  an  interpretation  common  to 
 the  Fathers.4  He  says  that  he  would  not  dare  to  press  a 
 Sabellian  with  such  a  phrase  as  "  the  breath  of  his  mouth." 
 Nor  was  he  less  independent  in  his  views  on  the  New 
 Testament.5  His  robust  honesty  in  these  particulars  drew 
 on  him  the  most  savage  hatred.  Montacute  charged  him 
 with  wresting  their  weapons  out  of  the  hands  of  Christian 
 athletes.6  Walch  said  "  he  expounded  oracles  about  the 
 Trinity  and  the  Messiah  in  accordance  with  Jewish  and 
 Socinian  views."7  The  Roman  Catholics  called  him  a 
 Mohammedan,8  and  the  Protestant  Hunnius,  in  his  Calvinus 
 Judaisans,  said  that  he  had  corrupted  Scripture  in  a  detest- 
 able manner,  and  that  he  ought  to  have  been  burnt.9 
 
 iv.  But  the  most  characteristic  and  original  feature  of  his 
 Commentaries  is  his  anticipation  of  modern  criticism  in  his 
 views  about  the  Messianic  prophecies.  He  saw  that  the 
 words  of  psalmists  and  prophets,  while  they  not  only  admit  of 
 
 1  See  his  notes  on  Gen.  xviii.  2;  Is.  vi.  3. 
 
 2  Note  on  Ex.  iii.  2. 
 
 3  See  notes  on  Is.  iv.  9  ;  xlviii.  16. 
 
 4  Justin,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Basil,  Jerome,  Augustine,  all  apply  it  to  Christ. 
 See  Rosenmiiller,  ii.  917.  Feuardentius called  Calvin's  view  "  Jvdaicam plane 
 impictatem. " 
 
 5  See  his  notes  en  Matt.  xi.  11  ;  xvi.  18  (where,  in  opposition  to  Luther,  he 
 makes  the  Rock  to  be  Peter  as  the  representative  of  all  believers) ;  John  x. 
 30  (whieh  he  applies  to  the  will  of  Christ,  not  to  the  Homoousian)  ;  John  i. 
 51  ;  v.  31,  32:  2  Cur.  xii.  7  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  19,  &c. 
 
 6  Orig.  Eccl.  i.  310. 
 
 7  Walch.  Bibl.  Theol.  iv.  413. 
 
 8  Limborch,  Theol.  Christ,  p.  34. 
 
 9  a.d.  1593.  Hunnius  was  answered  by  Parens  in  his  Orthodoxus  Calvinus, 
 who,  with  equal  amenity,  assigned  the  work  of  Hunnius  to  the  authorship  of 
 tin'  devil.  See  Buddeus,  Isagoge,  pp.  10o"2  sq.  ;  Limborch,  Theol.  p.  34. 
 Calvin  might  replj  as  Facundus  did  for  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia. — "  Conse- 
 quens  non  est  ut  evacuet  omnes  in  Christum  factas  prophetias  qui  aliipua 
 mystice  in  cum  dicta  moraliter  quoque  tractaverit," 
 
Yi  irs  of  Prophecy.  347 
 
 but  demand  "genninant  and  springing  developments,"  were 
 
 yet  primarily  applicable  to  the  events  and  circumstances  of 
 their  own  days.  The  use  made  of  them  by  Evangelists 
 and  Apostles  he  regarded  as  eTre^epydaiai, ;  as  illustrative 
 references ;  as  skilful  adaptations ;  as  admissible  trans- 
 ferences; as  metaphoric  allusions;  as  fair  accommodations; 
 as  pious  deflections.1  It  must  not  be  supposed  for  a  moment 
 that  he  denied  I  he  reality  of  Messianic  prophecy,  or  failed 
 to  see  in  it  the  very  heart  of  spiritual  Judaism.  But 
 he  would  not  confuse  the  generality  of  a  Divine  Promise,  or 
 the  yearning  of  faithful  hearts  for  a  promised  Deliverer,  with 
 minute  vaticinations,  which,  torn  from  their  context,  would 
 have  had  no  significance  for  those  to  whom  the  prophets 
 addressed  their  words.  It  will  be  clear  to  all  who  have  an 
 adequate  knowledge  of  the  subject,  that  whether  Calvin's 
 phrases  in  reference  to  the  New  Testament  quotations  were 
 happy  or  not,  they  can  only  be  judged  with  reference  to  the 
 entire  view  of  prophecy  of  which  they  form  a  part.  That 
 view,  which  is  now  all  but  universally  accepted,  so  far  from 
 degrading  prophecy  gives  to  it  a  diviner  grandeur  and  eleva- 
 tion. It  lifts  it  from  the  level  of  a  heathen  oracle  to  the 
 inspired  utterance  of  an  indefeasible  conviction.  It  hears  in 
 the  ancient  prophets  of  Israel  the  voice  of  a  living  God,  and 
 in  His  promises  the  assurance  of  an  eternal  and  unfading 
 hope  in  the  advent  of  a  Deliverer,  who  for  themselves  and  for 
 the  nation  would  make  "life's  broken  purpose  whole." 
 
 In  his  Preface  to  the  Romans  Calvin  Laid  down  the  golden 
 rule,  that  "it  is  the  first  business  of  an  interpreter  to  let  his 
 author  say  what  he  does  say,  instead  of  attributing  to  him 
 what  we  think-  he  ought  to  say."  Multitudes  of  previous 
 writers—  even  Hilary — had  said  something  of  the  same  kind. 
 yet  scarcely  one  among  them  all  had  been  able  to  withstand 
 the  sway  of  dogmatic  prepossessions.  Nor  was  Calvin  any 
 exception.-  He  had  been  taught  much  by  the  experience  of 
 life.    It  is  this  which  makes  his  Commentary  on  the  l'salmsa 
 
 1  See  note  infra,  p.  472. 
 
 -  See  his  notes  on  John  i.  12,  where  he  makes i^ovtrtav mean  " diguity,"  aad 
 the  shocking  note  on  "Lead  us  Dot  into  temptation"  in  Luke  xi.  4. 
 
348  Dogmatic  Bias. 
 
 masterpiece  of  psychological  analysis.  He  called  the  Psalter 
 "  an  anatomy  of  all  the  parts  of  the  soul ; "  and  just  as  Luther 
 said  that  the  stricken  heart  and  the  troubled  conscience 
 had  enabled  him  to  understand  St.  Paul,  so  Calvin 
 described  the  advantages  which  he  had  gained  from  the 
 combats  in  which  "  God  had  so  led  and  whirled  him  about  as 
 to  bring  him  into  light  and  action  by  leaving  him  no  repose 
 in  any  place  whatever." x  On  the  other  hand  the  determi- 
 nation not  to  be  disturbed  in  the  convictions  which  he  thus 
 had  gained  has  undoubtedly  led  him  at  times  to  be  untrue  to 
 his  own  exegetic  principles,  by  dragging  his  special  dogma 
 into  passages  where  it  is  not  to  be  found,  and  by  putting  an 
 unfair  gloss  on  others  which  tell  in  the  opposite  direction. 
 One  flagrant  instance  may  suffice.  In  Joel  ii.  13,  he  is 
 naturally  perplexed  by  the  phrase,  "  It  repenteth  Him  of  the 
 evil,"  which  conflicts  with  his  favourite  idol  of  "  irreversible 
 decrees."  How  does  he  meet  it  ?  "  This,"  he  says,  "  has 
 reference  to  human  capacities.  Whatever  has  come  out  of 
 the  mouth  of  God  ought  to  be  looked  at  in  the  light  of  an 
 irreversible  decree.  But  meanwhile  God  often  threatens  us  con- 
 ditionally, and  the  condition  must  be  understood  though  it 
 is  not  expressed.  But  when  God  is  appeased,  and  relaxes  for 
 us  the  punishment  which  had.  been  already  in  some  respects 
 {guodammodo)  decreed  to  us  as  far  as  outward  words  arc  concerned 
 {secundum  externuu  verbum),  then  He  is  said  to  be  influenced 
 by  repentance."  This  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  the  argu- 
 ment of  Archbishop  Tillotson,  who  hoped  for  the  ultimate 
 salvation  of  the  wicked  on  the  ground  that  God's  decrees  are 
 sometimes  reversible  and  conditional.  But  while  we  can 
 understand  such  an  argument  in  the  mild  system  of  Tillotson, 
 we  cannot  harmonise  it  with  the  inexorable  severity  of 
 Calvinism.  On  the  very  next  page  Calvin  writes,  "  Scimus 
 iram  Dei  grassari  usque  ad  ipsos  infantes."  But  if  God's 
 decrees  sometimes  depend  on  unexpressed  conditions  without 
 any  hint  to  us  that  they  do  so — if  the  outward  utterance  is  to 
 
 1  Luther  said  that  he  had  learnt  from  Ps.  118  that  three  things  taught 
 theology — oratio,  vicditaiiu,  temptatio. 
 
Victvs  of  Inspiration.  349 
 
 be  regarded  as  an  irreversible  decree  while  that  which  cor- 
 responds to  it  is  variable  according  to  unknown  conditions — it 
 is  strange  that  one  who  had  been  trained  as  a  jurist,  and  had 
 been  the  pupil  of  Alciati,  should  have  failed  to  see  that  he  cut 
 away  the  ground  under  the  clay  feet  of  his  own  system,  and 
 that  the  "  decretumhorribile"  might,  on  his  own  confession,  be 
 but  an  ostensible  threat,  an  accommodation  to  human  needs. 
 Nor  is  this  the  only  instance  in  which  the  dogmatist  gets 
 the  better  of  the  exegete,  because  the  exegete  had  failed  to 
 grasp  the  progressiveness  of  revelation  and  the  external 
 circumstances  of  age  and  relative  knowledge  by  which  it  is 
 conditioned.1 
 
 Such  comments  prepare  us  for  the  fact  that  in  spite  of  his 
 logical  intellect,  Calvin  is  in  some  respects  more  loose  and 
 inconsequent  in  his  views  of  inspiration  than  even  Luther 
 was.     Like  all  the  Reformers  he  speaks  incessantly  of  the 
 supreme  and  final  authority  of  Scripture.     Yet  he  leaves  his 
 statements  as  though  they  were  incontrovertible  axioms,  and, 
 not  considering  the  case  of  heathens,  for  instance,  or  of  un- 
 believers, has  furnished  no  argument  but  that  of  a  supposed 
 self-evidence  by  which  the  supremacy  of  Scripture  can  be 
 proved.2     The  Reformed  Churches  admitted  no  such  ques- 
 tions about  canonicity  as  those  which  Luther  had  discussed, 
 for  in  their  forms  of  confession  they  enumerate  the  books 
 which   form  the  Canon.3      Calvin  neither  insists  as  Luther 
 did    on    the    relative     independence    of    Christian     truth ; 
 nor    does    he    follow  Zwingli  in  drawing    a    distinction    be- 
 tween  the    outer    and    the    inner   word,   the  written  Bible 
 and  "the   Bible  in  the  heart."     Yet  if  he  held  that  Scrip- 
 ture  flowed  from  the  very  mouth  of  God,4  he  gives  us   no 
 explanation    of  his  own  admission  of  inaccuracies  in  Scrip- 
 ture/' of  his  free  tone  of  criticism,0  of  his  almost  contemptuous 
 
 1  See  M.-rx,  Joel,  433-435.  -  Tnstit.  i.  7.  §§  1-4. 
 
 :;  ('.ml'.  Belg.  !».  ii.  iv.  ;  Gallic,  ii.  5;  lldvet.  i.  2;  Westmr.  Conf.  L  §2, 
 art.  vi.  :  Dorner,  i.  891. 
 
 '■  Tnstit.  i.  7,  §  5. 
 
 '■■  See  liis  Qotea  "ii  Matt.  xxvii.  0  ;  Arts  vii.  1<>,  &c. 
 
 ,;  See  Ins  remarks  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  2  Peter,  and  John  viii.  1  ; 
 1  John  ii.  14  ;  v.  7. 
 
850  His  Intolerance. 
 
 rejection  of  the  whole  sacrificial  and  ceremonial  law.  How, 
 for  instance,  can  a  theory  of  supernatural  dictation  agree 
 with  the  remark  that  the  notion  of  God  making  a  throne  of 
 the  Mercy  Seat  was  "  a  crass  figment,"  from  which  even  a 
 David  and  a  Hezekiah  were  not  free  ?  So  far  as  any  philo- 
 sophical view  is  concerned  of  the  relations  between  the  Old 
 and  the  New  Testament  Calvin  must  be  regarded  as  distinctly 
 retrogressive,  and  his  defective  views  led  him  into  strange 
 and  miserable  quagmires.  The  intolerance  which  stains  his 
 name  is  directly  traceable  to  this  strange  mixture  of  letter- 
 worship  with  independence.  Free  in  historical  criticism,  he 
 is  as  rigorous  as  Melanchthon  in  the  dogmatic  treatment  of 
 the  Old  Testament.  It  would  have  been  a  less  harmful 
 error  if  Calvin  had  allegorised  the  whole  Mosaic  law  than  that 
 he  should  have  accepted  the  imperfect  morality  of  the  days 
 of  ignorance  as  a  rule  for  Christian  men.  But  he  stood  far 
 below  Luther  in  making  no  distinction  between  different 
 parts  of  the  Bible.  When  Rene,  Duchess  of  Ferrara,  daughter 
 of  Louis  XII.,  had  in  a  letter  made  the  wise  remark  that 
 David's  example  in  hating  his  enemies  is  not  applicable  to  us, 
 Calvin  curtly  and  sternly  answered  that  "such  a  gloss  would 
 upset  all  Scripture,"  that  even  in  his  hatred  David  is  an 
 example  to  us  and  a  type  of  Christ,  and  "  should  we  presume 
 to  set  up  ourselves  as  superior  to  Christ  in  sweetness  and 
 humanity  ? "  It  is  strange  that  he  should  never  have 
 thought  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount — "  It  was  said  to  them 
 of  old  time,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  and  hate  thine 
 enemy ;  but  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies."  Doubt- 
 less indeed  he  would  have  found  some  subtle  means  of 
 reconciling  Christ's  plain  words  with  the  idolatry  of  bis 
 dogmatic  theory.  Theologians  inalloges  have  been  skilful  in 
 letting  in  through  the  narrow  wicket  of  a  text  the  evil  notions 
 
 1  Calvin  said  that  the  only  difference  between  the  Old  ami  the  New  Testamen 
 was  ad  modum  administrationis,  not  ml  substantiam.  Instit.  ii.  11.  This 
 became  the  ordinary  post-Reformation  view.  Bellarmine  called  the  doctrine 
 of  the  Old  Testament  inchoate,  not  perfect;  but  Gerhard  replied,  "Doctrina 
 Vet.  Test,  nequaquam  est  imperfecta  siquidem  eosdem  fundamentals  fide.i 
 articulos  tradit  quos  Christus  cl  Apostoli  repetunt/"  See  Oehler,  Old  Testa- 
 ment Theology,  i.  41  (E.  T. ). 
 
His  Intolerance.  351 
 
 which  were  meant  to  be  kept  out  by  every  wall,  tower,  and 
 fortress  of  the  whole  Christian  system.  Calvin,  honest  as  he 
 meant  to  be,  found  the  same  fatal  facility  of  reading  into 
 Scripture  what  he  wished  to  hud  there.  If  he  did  not 
 altogether  look  at  the  world  through  the  lurid  mist  which 
 the  Anabaptists  had  raised  out  of  the  pages  of  the  Apoca- 
 lypse, yet  from  his  failure  to  apprehend  the  full  force  of  the 
 new  commandment  he  ruthlessly  burnt  Servetus,1  recom- 
 mended persecution  to  the  Protector  Somerset,2  and  raised  no 
 voice  to  aid  the  miserable  and  exiled  congregation  of  John 
 a  Lasco.  Dogma  reacts  on  character,  and  Grotius  rightly 
 said  that  Calvinists  for  the  most  part  were  as  severe  as  they 
 imagined  God  to  be  to  the  greater  part  of  the  human  race. 
 Not  in  the  Inquisition  only,  but  no  less  in  the  acerbities  of 
 Puritanism,  in  the  ruthlessness  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers,  in 
 the  perennial  ferocity  of  sects,  in  the  constant  recrudescence 
 of  intolerance  and  persecution,  in  the  unscrupulous  malice, 
 factions,  and  intrigues  of  living  partisans,  and  in  the  injuries 
 thus  inflicted  on  the  cause  of  religion,  we  see  the  fatal  conse- 
 quences  of  the  mental  confusion  which  made  no  distinction 
 between  the  authority  of  the  two  Testaments.  It  is  the 
 opposite  extreme  to  that  of  Marcion'a  Antitheses,  but,  an 
 extreme  hardly  less  perilous.3  Neither  Melanchthon,  nor 
 even  Luther,  though  hi'  was  averse  to  employing  force  in  the 
 cause  of  religion,  had  learnt  the  chasm  which  separates  the 
 Elijah-spirit  and  the  Christ-spirit.  The  worst  stain  upon 
 their  names — the  concession  to  the  bigamous  marriage  of 
 Philip  of  Hesse — arose,  not  from  want  of  courage,  but  from 
 
 1  [f  is  usual  to  defend  fcliia  disgraceful  and  grossly  illegal  net  bythe  sanction 
 of  Melanchthon,  but  Beza  tells  as(VUa  Calvini,  a.i>.  1550)  thai  even  in  hia 
 OWIl  'lay  it  was  widely  and  severely  condemned.  Martinus  I'.ellius  in  his 
 Farrago  showed  that  no1  onlj  the  best  Reformers,  but  even  the  Fathers  had 
 opposed  the  capital  punishmenl  of  heretics.  The  sentence  aboul  Servetus  in 
 Calvin's  letter  to  Fare!  (Feb.  1546),  " Sivenerit,  modo  valeat  mca auctoritas 
 vivum  aire  non  patiar,"  shows  him  at  his  very  worst. 
 
 -    In  a  letter  dated  Oct.   22,   1548. 
 
 3  The  utterances  of  Information  theology  on  this  important  Bubjecl  are  quite 
 unsatisfactory,  and  merely  swim  in  the  air.  Quenstedt  talks  of  the  Old 
 Testament  as  a  "perpetua  norma  fidei  at  vitae  in  universd  Eeeleina,"  and 
 Holla/,  and  the  Formula  0  vaguely  extol  the  Old  Testament,  and 
 
 irrelevantly  quote  Ps.   cxix.   105 ;  Gal.   i.   8.     Sec  Ilase,  p.  670. 
 
352  The  Old  Testament. 
 
 confused  notions  about  the  Old  Testament.  Calvin  would 
 hardly  have  fallen  into  this  error,  for  he  had  no  esteem  for 
 the  Levitic  law ;  but  unfortunately  he  could  not  see  that  the 
 actions  of  Gideon,  and  Jael,  and  even  David,  furnish  no  fit  ideals 
 for  the  Christian  moralist.  Intolerance  has  been  the  curse 
 and  the  ruin  of  Calvinism,  and  has  drowned  its  dogmas  in 
 the  general  abhorrence  of  mankind.  It  is  at  once  a  blunder 
 and  a  crime  : — a  blunder,  for  as  Luther  said,  "  Heresy  is  a 
 spiritual  thing  which  cannot  be  hewn  with  any  axe,  or 
 burned  with  any  fire,  or  drowned  with  any  water  "  : — a  crime, 
 because  as  the  Emperor  Maximilian  says,  it  attempts  to  storm 
 the  conscience  of  man,  which  is  the  very  citadel  of  heaven. 
 The  humble  minister  in  Old  Mortality  spoke  deeper  wisdom 
 than  the  world-famous  Reformer.  "  By  what  law,"  says 
 Henry  Morton  to  Balfour  of  Burley,  "  would  you  justify  the 
 atrocity  you  would  commit  ?  "  "  If  thou  art  ignorant  of  it," 
 replied  Burley,  "  thy  companion  is  well  aware  of  the  law 
 which  wave  the  men  of  Jericho  to  the  sword  of  Joshua  the 
 son  of  Nun."  "  Yes,  but  we,"  answered  the  divine,  "  live 
 under  a  better  dispensation,  which  instructeth  us  to  return 
 good  for  evil,  and  to  pray  for  those  who  despitefully  use  us 
 and  persecute  us."  Even  Augustine — in  his  later  years  the 
 fatal  patron  of  religious  persecution,  and  thereby  the  cause 
 of  unnumbered  miseries  to  the  Church  of  God — even 
 Augustine  said — though  neither  he  nor  any  other  interpreter 
 for  a  thousand  years  rightly  applied  the  force  of  the  remark 
 — "  Distingue  tempera  et  concordabis  Scripturas."  1 
 
 8.  But  whatever  may  have  been  the  faults  and  limitations  of 
 the  expositors  of  the  Reformation,  their  very  enemies  could 
 not  deny  that  they  had  made  a  greater  advance  in  the  inter- 
 pretation of  Scripture  than  had  been  made  during  many 
 previous  centuries.  "Merciful  God  !"  exclaimed  Flacius,  "  I 
 say  it  with  grief  and  groaning,  almost  from  the  very  times  of 
 Christ  down  to  this  age  of  ours  how  has  nothing  less  been 
 
 1  The  indifference  to  hermeneutics  is  one  chief  source  of  Calvin's  weakness. 
 He  says  "that  it  does  not  much  matter  when  Jonah  or  Obadiah  laved,  "which 
 1 1 1 :  i  v  be  true  enough  for  the  homilist,  but  is  singularly  false  for  the  exegete. 
 See  Merx,  Joel,  428-444. 
 
Freedom  and  Truth.  353 
 
 the  .-vim  of  theologians  than  the  clear  explanation  of  the  very 
 word,  sense,  and  text  of  the  sacred  writings!"1     "We  may 
 
 most  truly  declare,"  says  Calvin,  "that  we  have  brought  more 
 light  to  bear  on  the  understanding  of  Scripture  than  all  the 
 authors  who  have  spruDg  up  amongst  Christians  since  the 
 rise  of  the  Papacy;  nor  do  they  themselves  venture  to  rob 
 us  of  this  praise."  2 
 
 Yes  !  to  the  Reformers  was  fulfilled  once  more  the  old 
 promise,  "  Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make 
 you  free."  Fragments  of  the  Bible  had  been  used  to  shut 
 men  in  the  prison-house  of  human  dogmas,  and  to  bind  their 
 souls  in  the  chains  of  religious  despotism.  In  the  true 
 knowledge  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  lay  the  force  which 
 delivered  them.  It  was  the  Voice'' of  the  Living  Spirit  of 
 God  speaking  to  them  in  Scripture,  and  in  the  heart,  which 
 enabled  men  to  burst  the  gates  of  brass,  and  smite  the  bars 
 of  iron  in  sunder.  So  it  has  been ;  so  it  will  ever  be.  Chris- 
 tianity has  been  perpetuated,  far  less  through  the  letter  of 
 its  records  than  through  "the  Apostolic  succession  of  inspired 
 personalities;"3    of  Prophets  who  have    stood,  if   need   be, 
 
 1  Calvin,  Antid.  in  Cone.  Trident,  sess.  iv.  Bacon  says  of  English  tlieolo" 
 giana  that  "if  the  choice  and  best  observations  which  have  been  made  dis- 
 (tersedly  in  our  English  sermons  .  .  had  been  set  down  in  a  continuance,  i* 
 would  be  the  best  work  in  divinity  that  hath  been  written  Bince  the  Apostles' 
 times."  The  licence  of  allegorising  seems  to  be  somewhat  alien  from  the 
 ]>i:ietieal  {food  sense  of  the  English  character,  for  it  has  never  been  found 
 divines.  They  are  content  to  admit  its  theoretical  validity 
 (as  even  Locke  does  on  Rom.  iii.  25;  v.  14).  Such  books  as  Bibliotheca 
 Biblica  of  Parker  (1720),  Vertue's  Parallels,  Reach's  Sacred  Typology,  &c, 
 have  never  been  accepted  as  having  any  authority.  Even  Jeremy  Taylor  says, 
 "Of  these  things  there  is  no  beginning  and  no  end,  no  certain  principles,  and 
 no  good  conclusion."  Sermon  on  Ministerial  Duties.  "This  (the  work  of 
 drawing  oul  mystic  meanings),  to  speak  freely  my  opinion,"  says  Waterland, 
 "appears  to  be  a  work  of  such  a  kind  as  scarce  one  in  a  thousand  will  be  tit 
 to  be  trusted  with"  (Pref.  to  Scripture  Vindicated). 
 
 '-'  Comm.  in  Joel,  iii.  1.  See  some  remarks  on  the  subjeel  in  Mocker,  Eccl. 
 Pol.  III.  viii.  §§  16  18.  How  strikingly  this  was  the1  case  with  Dean  Colet, 
 may  he  seen  in  Mr.  Lupton's,  editions  of  his  Commentaries,  and  in  Seebohm's 
 Oxford  Refornu  rs,  ch.  ii. 
 
 3  "The  form  in  which  the  Divine  Spirit  accomplishes  every  important 
 Change  in  the  world  is  that  of  gifted  men,  by  whom  He  diffuses  His  own 
 ideas  and  works  them  out .  And  thus  the  gifted  man  becomes  the  mediator  ol 
 the  Divine  Spirit,  in  behalf  of  those  who  are  no!  served  at  first-hand  by  these 
 
 ideas.     He  knows  himself  to  be  this  by  two  signs  ;  th le  bis  consciousness 
 
 of  self-sacriliein<_c  enthusiasm:  the  other  his  eonseiousness  of  originative 
 power." — J.  H.  Elchte,  Spck.  Theol.,    p.  655. 
 
 A    A 
 
354  New  Pcntecosts. 
 
 alone  against  priests,  and  against  the  world  ;  of  men  who 
 have  flashed  into  dead  generations  the  electric  spark  of 
 truth.  Churches  need  many  Pentecosts,  and  many  Resur- 
 rections. And  God  grants  them.  Sooner  or  later  He 
 shakes  down  from  their  flimsy  pedestals  the  gilded  idols 
 which  men  set  up  for  themselves  to  worship,  and  delivers 
 His  children  from  the  burning  fiery  furnaces  kindled  for 
 them  by  those  who  would  slay  them  in  His  name.  Sooner 
 or  later  He  bids  His  lightnings  stab  through  the  dim  but 
 irreligious  light  of  voluntary  illusion,  with  which  men  swathe 
 their  own  imaginations.  He  did  so  in  the  sixteenth  century. 
 He  did  so  in  the  eighteenth  century.  He  will  do  so  again  in 
 the  nineteenth,  or  in  the  twentieth,  and  if  need  be  again  and  yet 
 again.  He  will  raise  new  Prophets  when  the  old  have  been 
 slain  or  silenced  ;  and  those  new  Prophets  shall,  like  the 
 Reformers,  lead  us  back  once  more  to  simplicity  from 
 artificiality,  to  truth  from  tradition,  to  the  Word  of  God  from 
 the  inventions  of  men. 
 
"  Man  nimml  fremde  Glossen  aus  der  Heiligen  Sclirift  class  es  zu 
 erbarmen  ist." — Tattler. 
 
 "  Majestas  theologica  quam  multi  pluris  faciunt  quam  Christum." — 
 Erasmus  t<>  Luther  (Epp.  i.  427). 
 
 "  We  should  not  interpret  the  Scriptures  by  the  Creeds,  hut  the 
 1  breeds  by  the  Scriptures." — Spener,  Bedenken,  iii.  478. 
 
 "  Tous  lea  sch<  ilastieismes  me  reudent  douteux  de  ce  qu'ils  d£montren1 , 
 parce  qu'au  lieu  de  chercher  ils  affirment  des  le  debut.  Leur  objet  est 
 de  constroire  Les  retranchementa  autour  d'un  prejuge,  etnon  dedecouvrir 
 la  vt'ritr." — AmIEL,  Journal  1 1, time,  ii.  136. 
 
 A    A    2 
 
LECTURE  VII. 
 
 POST-REFOKMATION    EPOCH. 
 
 "Questionings  and  disputes  of  words,  whereof  cometh  envy,  strife,  railings, 
 evil  surmisings,  wranglings." — 1  Tim.  vi.  4. 
 
 If  the  slow  but  general  and  permanent  adoption  of  prin- 
 ciples by  the  ( Ihristian  world  be  any  proof  of  their  correctness, 
 it  must  be  admitted  that  the  Reformers  gave  a  mighty 
 impulse  to  the  science  of  Scriptural  interpretation.  They 
 made  the  Bible  accessible  to  all;  they  tore  away  and 
 scattered  to  the  winds  the  dense  cobwebs  of  arbitrary  tradi- 
 tion which  had  been  spun  for  so  many  centuries  over  every 
 book,  and  every  text  of  it;  they  put  the  Apocrypha  on  an 
 altogether  lower  level  than  the  sacred  books ;  they  carefully 
 studied  the  original  languages;  they  developed  the  plain, 
 literal  sense;  they  used  it  for  the  strengthening  and  refreshing 
 of  the  spiritual  life. 
 
 "  Thus  truth  was  multiplied  on  truth  ;  the  world 
 
 Like  our  greal  garden  showed. 
 And  through  the  wreaths  of  floating  dark  upcurled 
 
 Rare  Bunrise  Sowed. 
 And  Freedom  reared  in  that  august  sunrise 
 
 Her  beautiful  bold  brow, 
 When  riles  and  forms  before  her  burning  eyes 
 
 Mi  Lted  like  mow." 
 
 We  might  have  hoped  that  the  splendid  progress  would 
 have  been  continuous, but,  alas,  the  experience  of  mankind  has 
 made  us  only  too  familiar  with  the  spectacle  of  arrest  and  of 
 retrogression  in  the  history  of  thought,  [mperfection  and 
 failure  are  stamped  mi  all  human  efforts,  on  all  human 
 institutions.      Toilsome    and    incomplete    is   all    that    men 
 
358  A  Cheerless  Period. 
 
 accomplish.  The  Epigoni  of  the  Reformation  were  far 
 feebler  and  less  large-hearted  than  their  mighty  predecessors. 
 During  the  space  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  the  torch 
 burned  dim,  and  it  was  only  rekindled  into  brightness  by 
 those  who  were  at  first  denounced  as  renegades  and  heretics, 
 but  who,  in  the  increasing  purpose  of  the  ages,  were  the 
 true  heirs  of  Erasmus  and  of  Luther. 
 
 I.  In  spite  of  much  theological  labour  and  activity,1 '  the 
 period  at  which  we  are  about  to  glance  in  the  history  of 
 exegesis  is  very  cheerless.  It  was  a  period  in  which  liberty 
 was  exchanged  for  bondage  ;  universal  principles  for  beggarly 
 elements  ;  truth  for  dogmatism ;  independence  for  tradition ; 
 religion  for  system.  A  living  reverence  for  Scripture  was 
 superseded  by  a  dead  theory  of  inspiration.  Genial  orthodoxy 
 gave  place  to  iron  uniformity,  and  living  thought  to  contro- 
 versial dialectics.2  The  Reformation  had  broken  the  leaden 
 sceptre  of  the  old  Scholasticism,  but  the  Protestant  Churches 
 introduced  a  new  Scholasticism  whose  rod  was  of  iron.  Tlio 
 Sentences  of  Peter  Lombard  and  the  Summa  of  Thomas 
 Aquinas  were  built  on  the  Bible,  Tradition,  and  the  Fathers . 
 The  Bible  only  was  the  professed  basis  of  the  Loci  Communes 
 of  Chemnitz,  the  Loci  Thcologici  of  Gerhard,  the  Thcologia 
 Didactico-polemica  of  Quenstedt,  and  the  Systema  locorum  of 
 Calovius.  The  Reformed  dogmatists  vainly  fancied  that  their 
 building  would  be  eternal,  but  it  was  built  on  party  Creeds, 
 not  on  Christ,  and  therefore  it  has  crumbled  into  the  dust. 
 The  Protestant  Churches  bit  and  devoured  one  another,  and 
 suffered  terribly  in  consequence.  "  The  Reformation  soon 
 parted  company  with  free  learning,  turned  its  back  upon 
 culture,  held  out  no  hand  to  awaking  science,3  and  lost  itself 
 in  a  maze  of  theological  controversies." 
 
 1  For  an  account  of  the  German  universities  and  their  celebrated  scholars 
 at  this  epoch,  see  Tholuck's  Das  Akadem.  Leben,  ii.  15-202,  and  a  useful 
 summary  in  Dorner,  Hist,  of  Trot.  Thcol.  ii.  103-108. 
 
 -  Romberg,  Die  Lehre  Luther,  p.  18,  "  Man  war  aus  der  Region  der  Lelnms- 
 warmen  und  seines  Heil-Lringenden  Glaubens,  in  die  Eisregion  des  Verstaiides 
 getreten  .  .  .  des  schematisirenden  und  reflectirenden  Verstandes." 
 
 3  "Witness  the  attacks  on  Kepler  and  Descartes,  and  Calovius'a  declaration 
 that  the  revolution  of  the  earth  round  the  sun  was  "contrary  to  Scripture  " — 
 
Creed-worsMp.  359 
 
 The  whole  of  this  epoch  was  retarded,  and  its  labour 
 vitiated,  by  a  threefold  curse :  the  curse  of  tyrannous  con- 
 fessionalism ;  the  curse  of  exorbitant  systems;  the  curse  of 
 contentious  bitterness. 
 
 1.  It  was  the  age  oi'Creeds, Symbols,  ( Confessions, theological 
 systems,  rigid  formulae.  At  one  time  almost  every  important 
 city  or  principality  had  its  own  favourite  creed.  There  was 
 the  Corpus  Pomeranieum,  the  Corpus  Prutenicum,  Brandebur- 
 gicum,  and  so  forth.  Even  Liineburg  had  its  Corpus  Wil- 
 helminum,  and  Brunswick'- Wblfenbiittel  its  Corpus  Julium. 
 Besides  these  minor  statements  of  belief,  there  were,  among 
 many  others,  in  1">2!>,  the  Articles  of  Marburg;  in  1530.  the 
 Confessio  Tetrapolitana  and  the  Confession  of  Augsburg; 
 in  1536,  the  Wittenberg  Concord;  in  1537,  the  Articles  of 
 Schmalkald ;  in  1566,  the  Confessio  Helvetica  Posterior;  in 
 L580,  the  triumph  of  rigid  Lutheranism  in  the  Formula 
 Concordiae;  in  1562,  the  Thirty-nine  Articles;  in  1643,  the 
 Westminster  Confession.1  Men  fell  into  the  error  of  supposing 
 that  unity  could  be  secured  by  a  nominal  uniformity,  or  con- 
 troversies precluded — instead  of  created  and  multiplied — by 
 the  minuteness  of  doctrinal  formulae.2  These  symbols  differ 
 toio  coclo  from  the  early  professions  of  faith — the  Apostles' 
 Creed  and  the  Nicene  Creed — which,  in  spite  of  all  contro- 
 v  rsies,  amply  sufficed  for  the  first  eight  centuries  of  Christia  as. 
 They  fill  many  dreary  and  often  highly  disputable  pages. 
 The  Consensus  repetitus  formally  repudiated  the  "heresy"  of 
 supposing  that  the  Apostles'  Creed  contained  everything  neces- 
 sary for  salvation,  or  that  the  Trinity  was  not  clearly  revealed 
 in  the  Old  Testament.     Now  the  Vine  of  the  Church  cannot 
 
 i  phrase  which  ha-,  been  applied  to  almost  every  scientific  discovery  in  turn. 
 See  Brewster's  Martyrs  of  Science,  pp.  -J,  52,  7n',  193. 
 
 1  There  were  also  the  Confessio  Belgica,  Gallicana,  Hafnica,  Ma/rchica, 
 •c,  ami  Scotica. 
 
 -  The  prates!  of  Milton  is  characteristic  in  its  energy  and  manliness.  He 
 apeaks  in  tin'  dreopagitiea  (1644)  of  "  planting  one  faith  now  in  the  Convoca- 
 tion House,  and  another  while  in  the  Chapel  at  Westminster;  where  all  the 
 faith  ami  religion  which  shall  there  !"■  canonised  is  not  sufficient  withonl 
 plain  convincemenl  ami  the  charity  of  patienl  instruction,  to  supple  tin'  least 
 braise  of  conscience,  to  edify  the  meanest  Christian  who  d<  sires  t « •  walk  in 
 i  he  Bpirit  ami  not  in  the  letter  of  human  trust,  for  all  the  number  of  voices 
 that  ran  be  their  made." 
 
300  Protestant  Scholasticism. 
 
 gr<  >w  in   tlie  dusty  and  blighting  soil  of  acrimonious  theology. 
 God  has  left  many  truths  in  the  penumbra  which  alone  suits 
 our  finite  capacities.    The  Post-Reformation  Churches  refused 
 to  recognise  how  large  a  part  of  theological  definition  belongs 
 solely  to  the  uncertain  and  unessential.     Their  dogmas  were 
 based  not  upon  secure  evidence,  but  on  dominant  authority, 
 and  it  was  therefore  necessary  to  enforce  them  by  anathema 
 and  banishment,  yes,  even  by  axe  and  stake.1     This  terrorism 
 of   Formulae    prevailed  throughout  all  the   Churches.     The 
 Formula   Concordiae    swayed    the    Lutherans ;    the    Synod 
 of  Dort  was  supposed  to  have  uttered  the  last  word  for  the 
 Reformed  Churches ;  the   Council   of  Trent  for  Romanists ; 
 even  for  Socinians   the    Racovian  Catechism.      These  were 
 more  or  less  imposed  upon  men's  consciences  with  the  syllo- 
 gism of  violence.     The  world  forgot  the  memorable  saying  of 
 Luther  that  "  thoughts  are  toll-free."     The  consequence  was 
 a  total  loss  of  originality,  a  complete  arrest  of  progress,  the 
 crushing  of  spontaneous  thought  under  the  dead  weight  of 
 petrified    dogmas.      Sterile   repetition,   narrow    scrupulosity, 
 burning  recriminations,  religious  factiousness  everywhere  pre- 
 vailed.    The  very  names  which  different  writers  have  given 
 to  this  period  indicate  the  impression  left  upon   the  mind 
 by  its  dreary   history.     It  has  been  called  by  no  less  than 
 seven    different    historians   the    age    of    "  Symbololatry,"    of 
 "  creed-bondage,"    of   "  Lutheran  patristics,"    of   "  Protestant 
 scholasticism,"  of  "  Dogmatic  traditionalism,"  of  "  dead  ortho- 
 doxy," of  "  theorising  system,"  of  "  ecclesiastico-confessional," 
 or    "  polemico-dogmatic    interpretation." 2      The   Council  of 
 Trent  practically  reduces  exegesis  to  a  register  of  non-existent 
 unanimity.     It   puts   forth    no    authorised   commentary,  nor 
 even  any  hermeneutic  theory,  and  it  relies  upon  a  version 
 which  is  full  of  errors.     The  Greek  Church,  laying  down  the 
 rule  that  those  only  can  interpret  who  can  enter  into  "  the 
 
 1  There  is  a  touch  of  quite  unconscious  humour  in  the  Abbe"  Glaire's remark 
 about  Calvin,  "II  fit  bruler  Michael  Servet  parce  qu'il  enseignait  d'autrcs 
 erreurs  que  les  sicnnes"  (Diciionnaire,  i.  377). 
 
 2  These  names  are  applied  to  it  by  Klausen,  Dorner,  Hagenbach,  Landerer, 
 Fritzsche,  Reuss,  Kurz.  The  old  rules,  "Nihil  contra  Scripturas "  and  "Nihil 
 contra  Ecclesiam,"  became  "Nihil  contra  Symbolos." 
 
Theological  Folios.  361 
 
 depths  of  the  Spirit,"  refers  to  the  faulty  LXX.,  and  specially 
 forbids  the  reading  of  certain  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.1 
 Protestant  Schoolmen  practically  bound  themselves  by  the 
 limits  of  their  current  confessions.  Each  Church  of  Chris- 
 tendom had  its  own  Version,  and  its  own  Canon,  and  its  own 
 exegetic  rules,  and  not  one  of  them  lays  down  any  test  of  the 
 differences  between  the  value  of  the  Old  and  of  the  ^N'ew 
 Testament,  or  furnishes  any  intelligible  hint  as  to  how  we 
 are  to  distinguish  between  relative  and  absolute  truths. 
 The  Protestant  theologians  reasoned  upon  a  "priori  assump- 
 tions, and  proved  once  more  that  "Men  only  need  to  bring 
 to  the  Bible  sufficiently  strong  prepossessions,  sufficiently 
 fixed  opinions,  to  have  them  reflected  back  in  all  the  glamour 
 of  infallible  authority." 2 
 
 2.  As  a  consequence  of  the  bondage  to  Formulae  this  was 
 also  the  age  of  huge  books  of  theology,  which  were  produced 
 in  astonishing  numbers,  and  of  which  the  majority  now  sleep 
 in  the  dust  of  oblivion.  These  system-building  folios,  to 
 which  the  Summa  is  light  reading,  seemed  ever  to  grow  in 
 size.  For  some  time  they  followed  what  is  called  the  local  or 
 porismatic  method,  that  is,  they  began  by  the  statement  of 
 loi  i  or  theological  commonplaces,  which  were  inordinately 
 expanded  with  precise  definitions  and  harmonisations  into 
 symmetrical  completeness.3  Melanchthon's  Loci  were  the 
 development  of  Lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
 Luther  characteristically  said  that  they  were  "worthy  of  aplace 
 in  the  ('anon  of  Scripture,"  and  Cochlaeus  sarcastically  called 
 them  "the  Alkoran  of  Lutheranism."  They  kept  growing 
 from  1521  to  1543.  (ill  theymore  and  more  resembled  a  book 
 of  the  Schoolmen.4     Calvin's  Institutio  began   in  1536  with 
 
 1    Vosiihti  Covfessio,    Qu.    1    (Kimmel),  Mov.uw.enta  Fidei  Eccles.    Orient. 
 
 3  Beard,  Eibbert  Lectures,  p.  192. 
 
 :i  The  "  porismatic  "  method  consisted  in  the  abstraction  of  dogmatic  results. 
 Thus  in  Baldwin's  Commentary  on  the  Pauline  Epistles,  "Multipliers  com- 
 monefactionee  e  textu  i  ruuntur."  This  method  was  superseded  by  the  analytic 
 after  the  example  Bet  by  <  lalixtus. 
 
 •'  I!.  Simon  Bays,  a  little  too  severely,  of  Melanchthon's  exegesis,  "On  n'y 
 roil  ■  j  ui*  dee  disputes.  .  .  II  faul  lire  beaucoup  ponr  trouver  quelque  -.-hose 
 qui  regarde  l'auteur  qu'il  fait  profession  d'interpr^ter"  \JI.  QrUiqw  .  .  . 
 /'.  T.). 
 
:*  02  Controversies. 
 
 six  chapters,  and  ended  in  1559  with  eighty.  The  Loci  of 
 John  Gerhard  (1610-1622),  which  are  regarded  as  the  palmary 
 work  of  Lutheran  theology,  originally  occupied  nine  quarto 
 volumes,  and  were  developed  into  twenty  by  later  writers. 
 Quenstedt,  "  the  book-keeper  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy,''  Hiitter, 
 the  most  slavish  upholder  of  symbolical  traditionalism, 
 Calovius  (1655-1677),  in  the  twelve  quarto  volumes  of  his 
 Systcma,  Dannhauer  in  his  Hodosophia,  Baier  in  his  Com- 
 pendium Theologiae,  and  hosts  of  other  writers,  all  base  their 
 labours  on  the  assumption  that  the  scheme  of  salvation  can 
 be  set  forth  in  its  minutest  details  with  Aristotelian  dialectics. 
 They  started  with  a  belief  falsified  by  the  whole  history  of 
 the  Jewish  and  Christian  Churches  alike,  that  the  Bible 
 contains  a  consistent  and  symmetrical  system  of  doctrine, 
 which  is  complete  and  necessary  and  self-evident,  and  can 
 be  extracted  from  it  by  ordinary  reasoning. 
 
 3.  As  regards  the  third  great  curse  of  this  period, 
 dogmatic  inflexibility,  unsoftened  by  Christian  love,  led 
 to  contentiousness,  which  regarded  trifling  matters  as  im- 
 portant, and  too  often  esteemed  the  weightiest  as  trifles. 
 The  air  was  full  of  burning  questions  which  have  long 
 ago  "  burnt  themselves  out."  x  There  was  the  Lutheran  and 
 Reformed  controversy,  the  Flacianist  and  Philippist  contro- 
 versy, the  Antinomian  controversy,  the  Osiandrian  contro- 
 versy, the  Majorist  controversy,  the  Ubiquitarian  controversy, 
 the  Synergistic  controversy,  the  Adiaphoristic  controversy,  the 
 Crypto-Calvinistic  controversy,  the  Arminian  and  Gomarist 
 controversy,  the  Calixtine  or  Syncretistic  controversy,  the 
 Kenotic  controversy,  the  Rathmann  controversy,  the  Pietist 
 controversy,  the  Amyraldian  controversy,  the  Karg  controversy, 
 the  Huber  controversy,  and  many  more.'2  In  the  French 
 Church    there    were    the    discussions    about   Pajonism    and 
 
 1  Dorner,  ii.  1. 
 
 2  A  brief  sketch  of  these  controversies  which  so  unprofitably  occupied  the 
 last  half  of  the  sixteenth  century  is  given  by  Knrz,  Eiat  of  the  Christian 
 Church,  pp.  112-121  (E.  T.).  See  too  Schltisselberg,  Haeretieorvm  Gatalogus 
 (Frankfort,  1597-1599),  which  Frank  calls  "Das  Arsenal  zu  diesen  nachre- 
 formatorischeD  Streitigkeiten." 
 
Religious  Factiousness.  363 
 
 Jansenism  and  Quietism;  in  the  English  Church  about 
 Quakerism  and  Semi-Socinianism ;  in  the  Dutch  and  Swiss 
 Churches  about  Calvinism  and  Arminianism;  in  the  Lutheran 
 
 Churches  about  Mysticism  and  Humanism.1  Many  of  these 
 controversies  were  waged  with  a  fierceness  in  proportion  to 
 the  entire  doubtfulness  of  the  question  at  stake.2  An  age  of 
 egoism,  of  party  spirit — of  what  St.  Paul  calls  epideia — must 
 always  produce  false  interpretation.  There  never  was  an 
 epoch  in  which  men  were  so  much  occupied  in  discovering 
 each  other's  errors,  or  in  which  they  called  each  other  by  so 
 many  opprobrious  names.  Deutschmann  of  Halle  (1695) 
 charged  the  gentle  and  holy  Spener  with  264  errors,  and  the 
 Wittenberg  Faculty  charged  him  with  283.3  Carpzov  called 
 him  a  "procella  eeclesiae"  and  Fecht  all  but  denied  his  salva- 
 tion.4 Loscher  in  Dresden  published  an  anti-pietistic  journal  in 
 thirty-one  volumes.  The  University  of  Wittenberg  in  1655 
 endeavoured  to  carry  a  Consensu*  repetitus  Jidi  i  m  >■■ 
 Lutheranae,  which  enumerated  eighty-eight  errors  of  Calixtus 
 and  the  Syncretists.  Religion  was  cast  by  some  evil  spirit 
 into  a,  paroxysm  of  theological  condemnations.5  John  Arndt, 
 "  the  Fenelon  of  Lutheranism,"  ';  was  accused  by  his  colleague 
 Denecke,  and  other  Lutheran  zealots,  of  "  Papistry,  Monkery, 
 Calvinism,  Pelngianism,  Osiandrianism,  Flacianism,  Schwenk- 
 feldianism,  Weigelianism,  Paracelsism,  Alchemy,"  and  other 
 enormities.7  Men  were  separatists  (Stopi£bvTe?)  and  Pharisees, 
 and  therefore  they  could  not  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in 
 tin-  bond  of  peace.     They  read  the  Bible  by  the  unnatural 
 
 1  Rom.  ii.  8  ;  Lange,  Qrund/riss,  p.  3. 
 
 -  Allcs  verzerrt  aich  in  eine  kleinliche  Polemik;  die  ganze  theologische 
 Literatur  dienl  ihrem  rnteresse,  iiberaU  ein  lauernder  Verdachl  deraufjedes 
 unbedachte  Worl  fahndet,  &c.  Frank,  Gesch.  d.  prot.  Med.  i.  92.  See  too 
 Witii\  Memoriae  Theologorwm  (1<'>7  1>. 
 
 ::  In  the  Ghristlutherisehe  Vorsfallwng.  Happily  Spener  was  able  \"  sa] 
 thai  "  tie'  atlaeks  of  Ins  enemies  had  never  given  him  a  sleepless  night." 
 
 4  Fecht,  De  Beatitudine  Mortuorv/m. 
 
 5  "  I'd  ilcs  cdtes  les  plus  faux  de  cette  scolastique,  c'e"tai1  de  chercher  et  de 
 trouver  partoul  'lis  erreurs.  Nous  avona  de  ces  Enumerations  d'erreurs  qui 
 remplissenl  des  volumes,  el  Bouvenl  parmi  ces  pratendues  erreurs  condanu 
 
 il  y  a  de  tres  bonnes  choses  "    Renan,  /.-  Judalsme). 
 ■  Author  of  Wahres  Christenthum. 
 7  Kurz,  ii.  107  ;  *<'e  Wildenhahn,  ./.  Arndt,  ■  :<i  Zeitbild,  1S-47. 
 
3C4  Calov. 
 
 glare  of  theological  hatred.1  They  "  imposed  the  senses  of  men 
 upon  the  words  of  God,  the  special  senses  of  men  upon  the 
 general  words  of  God,  and  forced  them  upon  men's  consciences 
 together  under  the  equal  penalty  of  death  and  damnation." 
 Flacius  Illyricus,  a  passionate  and  determined  controver- 
 sialist, became  a  very  thorn  in  the  side  of  Melanchthon,  and,  in 
 spite  of  the  merits  of  his  Clavis,  his  Catalogus  testium,  and  his 
 share  in  the  Magdeburg  centuries,  we  can  hardly  except  him 
 from  the  blame  of  bitter  uncharitableness.2  Of  another 
 theologian  of  this  epoch — Osiander — Tholuck  says  "  that  the 
 Holy  Spirit  seems  to  have  appeared  to  him  in  the  form 
 lather  of  a  raven  than  of  a  dove ;  "  and  of  another — Myslenta — 
 that  he  was  "a  volcano  constantly  vomiting  rlre  and  mud."  Both 
 remarks  are  applicable  to  Abraham  Calov  (t  1686),  in  whose 
 person  the  seventeenth  century  produced  a  man  of  stupendous 
 diligence  and  wide  learning,  but  the  very  type  of  a  bitter 
 dogmatist.  He  is  said  to  have  daily  uttered  the  perverse 
 prayer,  Imple  me,  Deus,  odio  Jiaereticorum.  Alas  !  the  bale- 
 fires of  religious  animosity  need  not  to  be  fanned  into  fiercer 
 flame  by  the  pure  breath  of  prayer.  If  the  stoiy  be  true, 
 the  spirit  of  hatred  was  granted  him  by  way  of  punish- 
 ment, and  the  hatred  was  often  poured  out  upon  men  ten 
 times  less  heretical  than  himself.  He  was  a  born  heresy- 
 hunter,  one  of  those  other  people's  bishops  (aWoTpLoeu  lo-koitol) 
 who  think  it  their  special  mission  to  take  in  charge  the 
 orthodoxy  of  all  their  fellow  men.  He  flew  to  the  attack  of 
 everybody  who  differed  from  his  own  confessional  standard. 
 Luther  was  his  "  Megalander "  and  the  Lutheran  sym- 
 bols his  standard  of  infallibility.  He  wrote  no  less  than 
 twenty-eight  controversial  pamphlets.  The  very  titles  of  his 
 books,  Matacologia  pcqnstica,  Socinianismus  profligatus,  Theses 
 de  LaJiadisrno,  An.ti-Boelnnius,  Discussio  coTbtroversmrum,  are 
 
 1  See  a  disgraceful  scene  described  at  Schliisselberg's  examination  for  his 
 M.A.  degree,  which  ended  in  the  sentence  "  Ktinc  anathema  pronuntiamus 
 <ic  te  tarnquam  diaboli  vixum  organum  to/ is pedoribus  exsecramur."  Guttinann, 
 Annal.  </.  Universitat  zu  Wittenberg,  i.  153-155. 
 
 2  The  judgment  pronounced  on  him  by  Camerarins  ( Vit.  Melanchth.  clxxxii.) 
 is  very  severe.  See  too  Planck,  Prut.  Lclirbegriff,  and  llaitlaud's  Letters  to 
 King, 
 
Polemical  Fur//.  365 
 
 menacing  with  antagonism.  His  Systema,  in  twelve  quarto 
 volumes,  is  "a  ponderous  engine  of  war  against  Calixtus." 
 His  B'dilia  illustrata,  in  four  volumes  (1672),  turned  the 
 sacred  book  into  a  heap  of  controversial  missiles  against 
 Grotins,  and  its  very  title  was  a  challenge.1  This  fury  for 
 polemics  is  the  invariable  result  of  a  dead  and  formal  theology. 
 It  defends  Christianity  in  the  spirit  of  Antichrist,  and 
 turns  the  words  of  Eternal  Life  into  an  excuse  for  eternal 
 Litigation.  During  this  prevalence  of  sectarian  contentious- 
 ness, the  Universities  of  North  Germany  showed  few  signs 
 of  vitality  and  none  of  progress.2  The  Gospel  of  Peace 
 became  in  such  hands  a  war  of  words.  Dogmas  were 
 orthodox,  but  spirituality  was  extinguished.  Theology  was 
 triumphant,  but  love  was  quenched.3  Science  was  reduced 
 to  impotence.  The  "Analogy  of  Faith,"  and  the  "  Analogy 
 of  Scripture,"  were  made  the  pretext  for  regarding  the  Bible 
 as  a  sort  of  quartz-bed,  in  which  was  to  be  found  the  occasional 
 gold  of  a  proof-text.  Those  passages  were  chiefly  dwelt 
 upon  which  could  be  most  usefully  applied  or  misapplied 
 for  controversial  purposes.  The  Creeds  were  demonstrated, 
 the  Christ  was  forgotten.4  Sometimes  the  theologic  system 
 is  deduced  from  the  whole  Old  Testament,  sometimes  by 
 strange  perversions  it  was  read  in  its  entirety  between  the 
 
 1  "  Biblia  Illustrata,  in  quibus  Grolianaedepravationesetxf/evdep/iriveiatjiisto 
 examine  sistuntur  et  explodunticr."  Calov'a  hatred  for  Grotius,  whom  he 
 considers  to  be  "nullius  religionis"  and  "deterior  .1  ml, iris,"  amounted  \<> 
 fanaticism.  Ii  Bometimes  makes  him  almost  witty,  as  when  he  ae< 
 Grotius  of  implying  that  the  Cherubim  were  "aliquod  bituminis  genus!" 
 His  own  commentary  is  a  perfect  hotbed  of  violent  errors,  on  which  he  insists 
 as  the  onlj  orthodoxy.  He  often  leaves  important  passages  unexplained,  hut 
 never  omits  an  opportunity  of  attacking  "heretics."  But  Grotius  is  still 
 valued  and  Calov  is  forgotten.     Exegesis  which  is  mainly  controversial  stands 
 
 self-eondeinie  d. 
 
 -  Mullinger,  ii.  10G  ;  Dbllinger,  Die  Unirersitatcn  sonst  und  jetst  (1871). 
 
 3  "  Was  auch  als  Wahreit  oder  Fabel 
 lu  tausend  Biichern  dir  erscheint, 
 I  >as  Alios  ist  ein  Thurm  /u  Bahel 
 Wenn  es  die  Liebe  oicht  vereint." — Goethk,  Xenien. 
 
 1  "The  Bible  is  not  a  collection  of  aphorisms  designed  to  serve  as  proof- 
 texts  for  Dogmatics.     The  anxiety  of  dogma  to  quote   Biblical  proofs  may 
 
 easily  betray  theologians  into  an  atomistic,  mode  of  procedure  which  tears 
 passages  out  of  the  context  and  makes  them  isolated  groups  for  isolated 
 theses"  (J.  Midler  in  Ilerzog,  s.v.  Dogmatics). 
 
36(5  Mechanical  Infallibility. 
 
 lines  of  some  single  book.  The  excesses  of  this  view  arc 
 almost  inconceivable.  In  Calov,  Quenstedt,  Hollaz,  and  even 
 in  Gerhard,  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  becomes  mainly 
 an  inward  assurance  that  their  private  opinions  about  Holy 
 Scripture  are  irrefragably  true.1  In  Wernsdorf  the  work  of  the 
 Spirit  is  degraded  into  a  recalling  to  memory  of  the  texts 
 which  prove  our  judgment  about  doctrines;  and  our  judg- 
 ment must  itself  be  based  on  the  fact  that  we  hold  true 
 doctrine  !  Scripture  was  declared  to  be  not  "  an  inanimate 
 instrument,"  but  a  sort  of  oracular  teraph,  a  self-efficacious 
 organism,  which  had  the  inherent  power  of  emanating  true 
 theology.2  This  mechanical  infallibility  was  so  far  attributed 
 to  the  symbolic  books  that  Calovius  and  his  followers  speak 
 of  them  also  as  possessing  a  normative  power  and  a  mediate 
 inspiration.  The  bad  rule,  Conscquentiae  aequipollent  revelaiis, 
 was  everywhere  prevalent,  and  the  endeavour  to  establish 
 unnatural  emphases  destroyed  the  bases  of  true  interpretation. 
 Controversy  tried  (so  to  speak)  to  underline  every  word  from 
 which  an  argument  could  be  extracted.3  Men  were  harassed 
 by  dubious  texts  "blown  backwards  and  forwards  at  the 
 opening  of  opposite  windows."  Thus  did  the  dogmatists  set 
 up  their  idols  in  their  heart,  and  put  the  stumbling-block  of 
 their  opinionativeness  before  their  face. 
 
 4.  Two  controversies  which  wasted  the  energies  and  evoked 
 the  mutual  anathemas  of  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran 
 Churches  will  serve  to  illustrate  how  grave  is  the  misuse  of 
 Scripture  when  it  is  applied  to  the  polemic  elaboration  of 
 minute  and  sectarian  dogma. 
 
 i.  One  is  the  dispute,  or  rather  the  series  of  disputes, 
 which  arose  out  of  Calvinism.  The  Church  has  loner  since 
 shown   a   practical  determination  to  cease  prying  into   the 
 
 1  Dorner,  ii.  123-127,  who  quotes  Gerhard,  Loci,  pt.  ii.  §§  20,  36,  44  ; 
 Quenstedt,  pt.  i.  p.  07,  iii.  569  ;  Hollatius,  i.   136,  &c. 
 
 2  Dorner,  ii.  132-141. 
 
 3  For  instance,  Rambach  says,  "Merito  vocibua  tanta  significationia  am- 
 plitudo,  tantumque  pondus  assignatur,  quantum  per  rei  substratae  naturam 
 Bustinere  possunt;"  and  Pfeiffer  still  more  precisely,  "  Tanta  cuilibct  rod 
 tribuenda  est  emphasis  quanta  potest"  (see  Zockler,  Handb.  d.  Theol.  Wisscn- 
 schaften,  p.  658). 
 
Do<J})l<tfixht.  367 
 
 councils  of  God,  and  has  remained  content  with  the  double 
 certainty  on  the  one  hand  of  God's  love,  on  the  other  of  man's 
 freedom.  She  rightly  refuses  to  follow  the  example  of  Milton's 
 fallen  angels  who  reasoned  high 
 
 K  Of  providence,  foreknowledge,  will  and  fate, 
 Fixed  fate,  free  will,  foreknowledge  absolute, 
 And  found  mi  end,  in  wandering  mazes  li»t.;' 
 
 In  the  seventeenth  century  it  was  otherwise.  Men  sincerely 
 imagined  that  they  could  find  certain  warrant  in  Holy  Scrip- 
 ture to  decide  not  only  that  God  had  passed  upon  millions  of 
 miserable  men  a  "  horrible  decree  "  of  eternal  and  inevitable 
 reprobation,  but  also  whether  He  had  passed  that  decree 
 upon  man  after  he  had  fallen  or  before.  Such  was  the  con- 
 troversy of  the  Sublapsarians  with  the  Supralapsarians. 
 Could  there  be  a  stronger  indication  that  nothing  is  too 
 sacred  for  the  dogmatic  passion  to  touch,  too  difficult  for  it 
 to  attempt  to  resolve?  Could  there  be  a  more  instructive 
 proof  of  the  folly  of  attempting  to  fly  up  into  the  secrets 
 of  the  Deity  on  the  waxen  wings  of  the  understanding  ? 
 
 ii.  Yet  dogmatism  intruded  with  bold  step  and  unabashed 
 forehead  into  matters  yet  more  inscrutably  mysterious. 
 Every  Christian  must  deplore  the  bitter  and  interminable 
 disputes  about  the  double  nature  of  Christ — disputes  into 
 which  the  New  Testament  never  enters,  because  it  was  only 
 the  mission  of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  to  reveal  what 
 was  necessary  for  man's  deliverance,  and  within  the  reach  of 
 his  finite  comprehension.  The  Church  for  300  years  remained 
 content  with  the  plain  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  that 
 I  'hrist  was  both  Divine  and  Human,  at  once  God  and  Man. 
 When  the  Arian,  Apollinarian,  Nestorian,  and  Eutychian 
 heresies  arose,  she  was  content,  after  fierce  disputings  and 
 many  evil  surmises,  with  the  four  words  of  definition  which 
 ahe  had  accepted  at  four  great  oecumenieal  Councils — 
 dXijOws,    reXeo)?,    dStatpeTft)?,    davy^vrdx; — that    Chlisl    was 
 
 truly  Cod,  perfectly  .Man.  indivisibly  God-Man.  and  distinctly 
 God  and  Man.  The  refining  and  speculating  genius  of 
 Creek  theologians  had  ventured  further  to  define  the  relation 
 
368  Theosopfaj. 
 
 of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  by  the  word  7repcs(iopr)cn^,  which 
 was  translated  into  Latin  by  eireuminscssio,  and  was  treated 
 of  by  the  Schoolmen  as  the- communicatio  idiomatum.1  Luther 
 in  his  early  days  was  not  fond  of  these  scholastic  terms.  He 
 pointed  out  that  not  only  Homoousion  but  even  Trinitas  are 
 post-scriptural  expressions.2  In  his  catechism  he  speaks  of 
 the  Trinity  "  oeconomically "  as  corresponding  to  creation. 
 redemption  and  sanctification.  He  said  emphatically  "the 
 simplicity  of  Scripture  is  to  be  observed,  nor  let  men  jDresume 
 to  speak  more  clearly  or  more  simply  than  God  Himself  has 
 spoken."  So,  in  Melanchthon's  early  editions  of  the  Loci, 
 there  was  no  attempt  at  Theosophy.  It  is  only  in  later 
 editions  that  he  tries  to  achieve  a  speculative  construction  of 
 the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  "  as  the  eternal  necessary  process 
 of  the  divine  self-consciousness,  in  which  God,  Whose  thoughts 
 are  realities,  eternally  sets  Himself  over  against  Himself,  but 
 also  again  unites  with  Himself."  Luther,  too,  was  led  to 
 speculate,  in  a  manner  closely  bordering  upon  Gnosticism, 
 about  the  Divinity  concealing  or  withholding  itself  in  Christ's 
 Passion.  But  this  is  nothing  to  the  developments  of  the 
 later  Protestant  scholastics.  In  Chemnitz  and  Calov  not  even 
 the  communicatio  idiomatum  is  enough.  It  becomes  some- 
 thing threefold — the  genus  idiomaticum,  genus  ajpotelesmaticum . 
 and  genus  av^fiart/cbv  or  majestaticum.3  As  though  "  a  sort 
 of  a  something"  by  way  of  meaning  could  in  any  way  be 
 attached  to  such  aerial  and  wholly  unscriptural  speculations  ! 
 Yet  even  on  this  subject  arose  furious  quarrels  between 
 Mentzer  and  the  theologians  of  Marburg  and  Giessen  on  the 
 one  side,  and  Osiander  and  those  of  Tubingen  on  the  other ; — 
 the  former  maintaining  that  Christ's  incarnation  was  a  Kevwo-iq 
 or  emptying  of  omnipotence  and  omnipresence,  and  the  latter 
 that  it  was  only  a  /cpt-v^i?  or  concealment.  Thus  was  it  assumed 
 that  not  only  the  whole  of  Christianity,  with  all  its  aspirations. 
 
 1  Form.  Concordiae  (1580).  The  favourite  rost-hYforniation  illustration  of 
 the.  7repix^P7?<m  is  the  burning  bush  (see  Calov,  ad  loc). 
 
 'J  Trerke,  xi.  1547,  xiii.  2031.  Tpias  is  first  found  in  Theophilus  of  Antioch, 
 Trinitas  in  Tertullian.  'O^oovaiov  was  originally  borrowed  from  Neo-Platonists. 
 
 3  Calovius,  Systema,  636  ;  Form.  Cone.  sol.  2,  decl.  viii.  36  ;  Doruer,  ii. 
 148  ;  Baur,  Drcieinigkcit,  iii.  pt.  i.  c.  8. 
 
Biblical  Snpernaturali8m.  '  369 
 
 .itul  spiritual  insight  into  things  which  surpass  man's  under- 
 standing and  elude  the  feeble  powers  of  man's  expression,  but 
 even  the  most  secret  things  of  God,  and  what  took  place,  to 
 use  the  bad  phrase  of  some  theologians,  "  in  the  innermost 
 council-chambers  of  the  Trinity,"  could  be  stated  like  a 
 geometrical  proposition,  labelled  with  theological  technicalities, 
 and  enforced  in  the  belief  of  others  with  abuse  and  violence  ! 
 "  Vain  wisdom  all  and  false  philosophy  !  " 
 
 It  was  ,-ni  idle  attempt  to  know  Christ  by  subtle  definitions, 
 whereas  He  is  only  to  be  known  by  sympathy,  by  spiritual 
 feeling,  by  spiritual  responsiveness,  by  mystic  union.  Is  it 
 possible  to  doubt  that  St.  Paul,  had  he  read  or  heard  such 
 speculations,  would  have  exclaimed,  I  marvel  that  ye  are  so 
 soon  corrupted  from  the  simplicity  that  is  towards  Christ 
 Jesus  ? x 
 
 5.  The  irponov  tyevSos  of  the  whole  unprofitable  develop- 
 ment was — once  again — Biblical  Supernaturalism  ;  an  irre- 
 verent identification  of  "  inspiration  "  with  "  verbal  dictation." 
 Whoever  was  the  first  dogmatist  to  make  the  terms  "the 
 Bible  "  and  "  the  Word  of  God  "  synonymous,  rendered  to  the 
 cause  of  truth  and  of  religion  an  immense  disservice.  The 
 phrase  in  that  sense  has  no  shadow  of  Scriptural  authority. 
 It  occurs  from  three  to  four  hundred  times  in  the  Old 
 restament,  and  about  a  hundred  times  in  the  New;  and  in 
 not  one  of  all  those  instances  is  it  applied  to  the  Scriptures.2 
 Archbishop  Agobard  of  Lyons  even  in  the  ninth  century  had 
 argued  againsl  the  absurdity  of  reducing  the  Prophets  to  a 
 level  no  higher  than  that  of  the  dumb  ass.3  The  formula 
 of  the  Reformation  in  its  best  days,  like  that  of  the  Church 
 of  England,  was  not  "Scriptnra  est  Verbum  Dei,"  but 
 " Scriptura  convplectitur  Verbum  Dei."4   Had  inspiration  been 
 
 1  sec  2  Cor.  xi.  3  :  Gal.  i.  6. 
 -  See  Bishop  Thirlwall,  Charges,  i.  71. 
 ■'  (juodsi  tta  Bentitia  quanta  abaurditaa  sequatur  quia  dinumerare  poterii  ? 
 .  .  .   Restal  ergo  ul  sicul  miniaterio  angelico  vox  articulate  formate  est  in  ore 
 asinae  L1  Formari  in  ore  prophetarum  "  (Agobard). 
 
 1  See  Art.  \  i. ,  "  E0I3  Scripture  containetft  all  things  necessary  to  salvation." 
 And  in  the  services  for  the  ordering  of  Priests  and  Bishops,  "Are  yon  per- 
 suaded thai  the  Boly  Scriptures  contain  sufficiently  all  doctrine  required  of 
 
 B    Ii 
 
370  Infallible  Oracles. 
 
 capable  of  definition  as  a  supernatural  verbal  dictation 
 which  secured  infallibility  to  the  inspired  writers,  nothing 
 would  have  been  easier  than  so  to  define  it.  The  Church 
 has  never  laid  down  any  such  definition  of  it,  or  indeed  any 
 theory  or  definition  of  it  whatever. 
 
 The  meaning  of  Inspiration,  as  indicated  by  all  the  greatest 
 writers  of  theology,  and  by  the  decisive  usage  of  our  own 
 Church,1  does  not  imply  an  exclusive  Tkeopncustia  for  the 
 sacred  writers,  and  still  less  for  every  word  which  they 
 uttered  or  recorded.  It  meant  the  influence  of  the  Hoty 
 Spirit  of  God  revealing  Himself  in  every  great  thought  and 
 utterance  of  the  soul  of  man ;  given  in  the  bestowal  of  "  every 
 good  and  every  perfect  gift." 
 
 6.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  doctrine  arose.  Papal  infallibility 
 had  been  set  aside.  In  the  perplexity  of  opinions  men 
 yearned  to  substitute  some  objective  authority  in  the  place 
 of  it,  and  so  to  acquire,  or  to  imagine  that  there  could  exist, 
 respecting  every  conceivable  detail  of  theological  speculation,  a 
 certitude  which,  as  regards  such  details,  is  nothing  but 
 an  idle  dream.  The  Eeformed  and  Lutheran  Churches  having 
 gained — often  by  heroic  struggles  and  through  seas  of  blood 
 — the  undisturbed  possession,  not  only  of  certain  Christian 
 verities,  but  also  each  of  its  own  special  theories ;  and,  being 
 compelled  to  maintain  this  heritage  of  opinion  against 
 Anabaptists,  against  Socinians,  against  Romanists,  wanted 
 something  to  which  they  could  appeal  as  a  decisive  oracle.2 
 
 necessity  for  eternal  salvation?"  And  again  in  the  Homilies,  "Unto  a 
 Christian  man  there  can  he  nothing  more  necessary  than  the  knowledge  of 
 Holy  Scripture,  forasmuch  as  in  it  is  contained  God's  true  Word." 
 
 1  The  word  "  Inspiration  "  occurs  five  or  six  times  in  the  Prayer-hook  and 
 Homilies  of  the  ordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  are  wholly  apart  from 
 infallibility. 
 
 2  They  rejected  the  three  princijdes  insisted  on  (later)  by  the  Council  of 
 Trent,  namely  (1)  the  authority  of  Ecclesiastical  tradition  ;  (2)  the  canon  and 
 authority  of  the  A7ulgate  ;  (3)  the  necessity  of  conforming  interpretation  to 
 Church  authority  and  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers.  They  said 
 that  tradition  was  invalid  ;  that  the  Vulgate  is  full  of  errors  and  its  canon 
 untenable  ;  and  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  consent  of  the  Fathers  nor 
 would  it  be  decisive  if  there  were  (see  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old  Test,  in  the 
 Jewish  Church).  On  the  other  hand,  they  extravagantly  and  unscripturally 
 exaggerate  the  affectiones  Scripturae,  on  which  see  Quenstedt,  Thcoi.  i.  59. 
 They  are  (1)  dirina  aucioritas ;  (2)  perfectio ;  (3)  pcrspicuitas ;  (4)  semct 
 interpretandi  facultas. 
 
Assumptions.  871 
 
 They  made  the  Holy  Scriptures  such  an  oracle,  but  they 
 made  the  oracle  answer  them  according-  to  their  own  idols. 
 They  substituted  for  its  interpretation  their  own  ready-made 
 thcoli  >gv.  They  assumed  that  the  Bible  formed  a  homogeneous, 
 self-interpreting,  and  verbally  dictated  whole,  and  that  the 
 inferences  drawn  from  it  by  dialectics  and  compacted  into 
 a  technical  system  were  as  certain  and  as  sacred  as  itself.1 
 In  this  way  a  difference  of  exegetical  opinion  became,  not 
 only  an  intellectual  error,  but  a  civil  crime.  Step  by  step 
 we  mark  the  full  imposition  of  this  dogma.  It  was  not 
 itself  discussed.  There  was  no  attempt  to  place  it  on  a 
 scientific  basis.  It  was  an  a  priori  assumption  which  was 
 pushed  into  the  utmost  extreme  of  unreasonable  fanaticism,2 
 and  which  directly  contradicted  the  principle  of  the  Apostle 
 that  "  he  that  is  spiritual  judgeth  all  things  and  he  himself  is 
 judged  of  no  man."  3  It  was  based,  not  on  exact  principles, 
 but  on  vague  assertions  which  floated  in  the  air.  The  great 
 Reformers,  as  we  have  seen,  never  attempted  to  bind  them- 
 selves by  the  only  possible  consequences  of  such  a  doctrine. 
 They  used  current  phrases,  but  practically  they  left  them- 
 selves a  wide  liberty  to  criticise  not  only  the  separate  utter- 
 
 1  Rambach's  Jnstilulionr.t  ffermen.  Saerae,  1723,  is  a  learned  book,  and 
 characteristic  of  the  epoch  in  its  attacks  on  Grotius  and  Arminian  exegesis; 
 its  irrelevances  and  digressions  ;  its  scholastic  formalism  ;  and  the  superstition 
 with  which  it  claims  an  inward  enlightenment  apart  from  other  gifts  in  mere 
 matters  of  interpretation  (see  Klausen,  pp.  272-276).  All  these  theologians 
 Bet  up  their  personal  impressions  as  the  common  measure  of  truth,  and  s.> 
 made  them  an  instrument  of  aggression    on  the  rights  of  conscience.     See 
 
 V  Bishop  Thirlwall'a  Charges,  i.  274. 
 
 2  Gerhard  makes  do  difference  between  Revelation  and  the  record  of  it,  and 
 Hollaz,  arguing  throughout  on  the  rule  that  "Whatever  Scripture  teaches  is 
 infallibly  certain,"  transfers  the  same  infallible  certainty  to  all  his  own  con- 
 clusions. The  dogma  was  more  and  more  strongly  asserted  but  never  prov<  d. 
 Qnenstedl  borrows  the  had  phrase,  "  Scripturae  auctoritas  est  tanta,  quanta 
 Dei,"  and  Bays,  "  Inviete  eonelvdimus  omnem  et  toiam  Seripturam  Sacram 
 nulla  ejus  vel  minimd  parte  exceptd,  esse  8eoirvfv<rT6v''  (System  Theol. 
 i.  69).  So  too  Hollaz,  Lange,  Calov,  Carpzov,  Baler,  Buxtorf,  &c.  And 
 yet  tliey  ] n 'act ie;il ly  abrogated  not  a  few  "Cod  saids,"  beginning  with  the 
 decree  of  the  Firs!  Council  al  Jerusalem  (Acts  w.  9),  to  say  nothing  of 
 the  whole  Levitic  Law.  It  is  Christian  practice  merely  which  hasdrawn  a 
 distinction  between  the  Universal  and  the  Partial,  the  Temporary  and  the 
 Permanent. 
 
 3  l  Cor.  ii.  15.  Corn,  a  Lapide  draws  from  tins  verse  the  conclusion  that 
 "the  spiritual  man"  will  have  recourse  to  the  better  judgmenl  of  "the 
 Church  " 
 
 B    B    2 
 
372  Rathmann. 
 
 ances  of  individual  writers,  bat  even  the  very  composition  of 
 the  canon.  They  preferred  to  be  inconsequent  rather  than 
 to  be  fettered,  and  gave  to  Faith  an  authority  co-ordinate  with 
 that  of  Scripture.  But  their  successors  regarded  Faith  as 
 the  exclusive  product  of  Scripture,  and  dependent  for  its 
 authority  on  Scripture  only.1  They  turned  the  inspiration- 
 dogma  into  "  an  iron  formula,  a  painful  juridical  fetter  of  con- 
 science to  be  imposed  on  Christians  to  the  detriment  of  fresh 
 religious  life  and  the  destruction  of  a  just  appreciation  of 
 the  Bible."  2  And  thus  they  directly  impaired  the  authority 
 of  Scripture.  For  "  as  incredible  praises  given  to  men," 
 says  Hooker,3  "  do  often  abate  and  impair  the  credit  of  the 
 deserved  commendation,  so  we  must  likewise  take  great 
 heed  lest  by  attributing  to  Scripture  more  than  it  can  have, 
 the  incredibility  of  that  do  cause  even  those  things  which  it 
 hath  abundantly  to  be  less  reverently  esteemed  !  "  "  It  is," 
 says  Richard  Baxter,  "  the  Devil's  last  method  to  undo  by 
 over-doing,  and  so  to  destroy  the  authority  of  the  Apostles  by 
 over-magnifying." 
 
 Rathmann  of  Liibeck  (1612 — 1628)  tried  to  make  a 
 stand  against  these  errors.  He  argued  that  to  restrict  all 
 real  communication  with  God  to  a  study  of  the  Scriptures, 
 to  confine  to  them  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to 
 endow  them  with  the  living  powers  of  the  Deity  was  to  dis- 
 honour Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  put  fellowship 
 with  an  impersonal  thing  in  the  place  of  fellowship  with  a 
 living  Saviour.  He  called  the  Scriptures  "  a  passive  instrument, 
 the  light  of  an  object,  instrumental,  historical."  But  his  truer 
 views  were  indignantly  rejected.  The  theological  faculties 
 of  six  universities,4  ascribing  to  Scripture  an  inherent  efficacy 
 for  salvation,  condemned  him  as  a  Calvinist,  as  a  despiser  of 
 
 1  The  commentators  of  the  Reformed  Churches  (Calvin,  Beza,  Zwingli, 
 Bueer,  Mercer,  &c),  were  more  independently  exegetical  than  the  Lutheran 
 commentators  (Musculus,  Chytraens,  Brentius,  Bugenhagen,  Bullinger,  &c), 
 who  proved  Lutheran  dogmatics  by  digressions  (see,  Gobel,  Die  Eel.  Eigen- 
 thiimlichlceit  d.  Erf.  umlLulh.  Kirche,  Bonn,  1837  ;  Tholuck,  Verm.  Schriftcn, 
 ii.  330). 
 
 2  Hagenbach,  Hist,  of  Erf.  i.  161. 
 ■■  Ecel.  Pol.  bk.  ii.  c.  8,  §  1. 
 
 1  Wittenberg,  Konigsberg,  Ilelmstiult,  Dantzig,  Jena,  Leipzig. 
 
Bibliolatry.  373 
 
 the  external  word,  as  a  sympathiser  with  Schwenckfeld  and 
 with  mystic  fanaticism.  In  their  system  the  sole  work  of  the 
 Holy  Ghost  is  to  give  us  assurance  that  the  doctrines  of 
 Scripture  are  true.  Chemnitz  seems  to  deny  the  possibility 
 of  faith  in  Christ  unless  it  be  preceded  by  faith  in  the  whole 
 ni'  Scripture  as  undoubted  truth.  We  soon  arrive  at  such 
 superstitious  phrases  as  that  the  writers  of  Scripture  arc 
 "  amanwnses  of  God,  hands  of  Christ,  Scribes  and  notaries  of 
 the  Holy  Spirit  ;  " 1  not  even  instrumental  authors,  but  only 
 "  living  and  writing  pens."  2  Holy  Scripture  is  described,  not 
 as  the  record  of  revelation  but  as  revelation  itself.  Christianity, 
 which  existed  so  many  years  before  a  single  Gospel  or 
 Epistle  had  been  written,  was  robbed  of  its  power.  In 
 defiance  of  every  historic  fact  the  inspiration  of  the  Apostles 
 was  regarded  as  the  annihilation  of  their  proper  individuality. 
 This  sort  of  dogmatism  became  more  and  more  pernicious. 
 God's  presence  and  providence  in  the  history  of  the  world 
 were  practically  ignored.  The  Bible  was  spoken  of  as  "a 
 divine  effluence,"  "a  part  of  God."  Nitzsche  even  seriously 
 discussed  whether  Holy  Scripture  could  be  called  a  creature, 
 and  decided  that  it  could  not.  The  Old  and  New  Testa- 
 ments were  treated  as  one  book,  of  which  all  the  words  and 
 every  word  were  immediately  dictated.3  The  view  fell  far 
 below  that  of  the  wiser  Rabbis,  who  at  least  distinguished 
 between  different  grades  of  inspiration.  It  was  a  revival 
 of  the  worst  form  of  that  Talmudic  <f>\vap(a  koI  ficnaioTT)*;,4 
 which  said  thai  Jehovah  had  dictated  every  letter  of  the  Torah 
 from  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,"  down  to  "Timnath  was  the 
 concubine  of  Eliphaz."  Men  like  Maimonides,  Abarbanel, 
 Qimchi,  had  long  seen  that  such  inventions  can  only  be 
 maintained  by  degrading  casuistry. 
 
 1  So  Gerhard.  Quenstedl  Bays,  "  Scriptura  est  infallibilis  veritatis  ferns, 
 omnisque  erroris  ezpers,  omnia  el  singula  stml  verissima  .  .  .  sive  dogmatics, 
 sive  moralia,  sive  historica,  &c." 
 
 '-'  "Calami  Spiritus sacridictantis."    Gregory  the  Greal  seems  to  have  bo  n 
 the  firal  to  give  currency  to  this  had  phrase.     So  Calovius,  Systema,  t.  cap,  4, 
 ii.  cap.  1,  and  passim.     Compare  EEoflaz,  Exa/m.  Theol.  p.  78;  Calov.  S\ 
 i.   .v.u  ;  Quenstedt,    Theol.    Didact,   i.    55.     Differences  of  Btyle,   &c,   were 
 "accommodations"  of  the  Spirit  [id.  i.  76). 
 
 :t  llollaz.  •'  Gregory  of  N; 
 
374  Extravagant  Vieivs. 
 
 And  thus  the  old  ecclesiastical  authority,  which  Luther 
 had  so  decidedly  rejected,  was  brought  back.  Even  the 
 impius  orthodoxies  was  supposed  to  be  illuminated  ex  opere 
 operato  by  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures.1  Questions  about 
 genuineness  and  integrity  were  held  to  be  irrelevant  because, 
 according  to  Calov,  the  Church  had  decided,  or,  according  to 
 Quenstedt,  because  each  book  sufficiently  proves  its  own 
 canonicity.2  "  To  correct  even  acknowledged  errors  in  Luther's 
 translation  was  regarded  as  '  dangerous ; '  nay,  the  very  typo- 
 graphical errors  of  his  editions  were  to  be  left  intact — a  sure 
 sign  of  what  kind  of  faith  was  being  set  up."  3  Although 
 Jerome  had  so  freely  pointed  out  the  cilicisms  of  St.  Paul, 
 Quenstedt,  Hollaz,  Calov,  and  the  Wittenberg  faculty  in  1638 
 decreed  that  to  speak  of  barbarisms  and  soloecisms  in  the 
 Greek  of  the  New  Testament  would  be  a  blasphemy  against 
 the  writers  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  against  the  Holy  Ghost.4 
 Orthodox  purists  thought  that  the  very  doctrine  of  inspiration 
 was  imperilled  unless  the  inspiration  was  conveyed  in  perfect 
 Greek.  Hebraisms  were  only  the  desire  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
 assimilate  the  style  of  the  Old  Testament  to  that  of  the 
 New.  Hellenistic  Greek,  according  to  Pfeiffer,  is  simply  Holy 
 Greek — a  form  of  speech  peculiar  to  God.5  The  Formula 
 Consensus  Helvetica  (drawn  up  in  1675  by  F.  Heidegger  and 
 
 1  Dorner  (ii.  134),  to  whom  I  am  here  chiefly  indebted,  refers  to  Tholuck, 
 Das  Kirchl.  Lcben,  i.  65. 
 
 2  Protests  against  this  confusion  came  specially  from  the  mystics.  "The 
 external  word  is  the  human  voice,  in  which  there  is  included  no  divine 
 virtue"  (Schwenkenfeld,  Ep.  79).  "If  thou  sayest  among  the  inexperienced 
 that  the  letter  is  God's  word,  thou  art  ...  a  deceiver"  (Weigel,  Postills,  i.). 
 But  as  far  back  as  the  eightli  century  the  eminently  orthodox  Father,  St. 
 John  of  Damascus,  had  said,  "  We  apply  not  to  the  written  word  of  Scripture 
 the  title  due  to  the  incarnate  Word  of  God."  He  says  that  when  the  Scriptures 
 are  called  Xoyia  ®eov,  the  phrase  is  only  figurative.  Disput.  Christiani  et 
 Saraceni  (see  Lupton,  St  John  of  Damasc.  p.  95). 
 
 3  Thus  Luther — under  his  current  title  of  Megalander— was  erected  into 
 a  sort  of  Pope,  while  the  Lutherans  were  diverging  most  widely  from  the 
 spirit  of  his  writings. 
 
 4  Quenstedt  censures  Beza  for  not  having  held  this  view  {System,  i.  84). 
 
 5  Pfeiffer,  Hermcncutica  Sacra,  c.  8  ;  Dubia  Vcxata,  pp.  457,  sq.  The 
 same  views  were  maintained  by  Walther  (Harmon.  Biblica),  Buxtorf  (Antu 
 critiea),  Wasmuth  ( Vindiciae),  Calov,  &c.  (see  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  SchrifterM. 
 iii.  295),  and  by  Samuel  Clark  in  his  Divine  Authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
 1699  ;  and  John  Owen.  They  were  rejected  by  Ussher,  Voss,  Hody,  Casaubon, 
 Grotius,  Bellarmine,  Clericus,  &c. 
 
Scholasticism.  375 
 
 Turretin l)  laid  it  down  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  that  the 
 very  vowel  points  and  accents  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  were  divinely 
 inspired.2  The  Holy  Spirit,  it  was  seriously  maintained,  had 
 altogether  abdicated  His  agency  to  the  written  word.3  Such 
 were  the  prevalent  views  of  the  current  opinion  which  called 
 itself  "orthodox"  in  France,  in  Holland,  and  in  Germany, 
 both  among  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Churches.  We 
 can  now  scarcely  repeat  such  statements  without  an  apology  for 
 irreverence.  And  yet  for  the  correctness  of  these  serious  mis- 
 applications appeal  was  made  to  the  inner  testimony  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit — an  appeal  which  often  sounds  "like  a  horrible 
 irony." 4  Even  among  the  Romanists — as  was  proved  by  the 
 able  and  learned  works  of  Richard  Simon,  of  Calmet 
 even  of  Bellarmine — freer  views  had  begun  to  prevail — views 
 less  burdensome  to  the  consciences' of  men,  less  dishonouring 
 to  the  majesty  of  God.5  Thus  did  the  Post-Reformat  ion 
 Theologians  repeat  the  old  error  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees. 
 They  were  not  faithful  enough  to  believe  that  the  Divine 
 Revelation  could  stand  without  the  dense  hedge  of  human 
 dogmas  which  they  erected  in  its  defence.  They  idolised  the 
 record  to  such  an  extent  as  wholly  to  miss  its  essential 
 meaning.  They  strangled  all  spiritual  life,  or  at  any  rate 
 impeded  all  spiritual  growth,  by  the  tight-wound  swaddling- 
 bands  of  polemic  orthodoxy.  They  turned  Christianity  into 
 a,  theology  and  forgot  that  it  was  a  life.  They  wrote  folios 
 full  of  theological  hatred  about  problems  as  to  which  Christ 
 
 1    Kmz,  ii.  204. 
 
 '-'  Bleek,  Einleit.  126.  Calovius,  who  has  the  melancholy  honour  of  having 
 made  most  dogmatic  statements  of  this  epoch  in  their  most  absurd  and 
 objectionable  form,  Baid  "It  is  impious  ami  profane  audacity  to  change  a 
 single  point  in  tin'  Word  of  God,  ami  to  substitute  a  smooth  breathing  for  a 
 r  •  1 1 ■  - 1 1  or  a  rough  for  a  smooth.'' 
 
 :;  As,  for  instance,  in  Seb.  Schmidt's  Collegium  Biblicum  Prius  (V.  T.)  ct 
 Posterius  (X.  T.),  1670. 
 
 *  Reuas,  Qesch.  d.  Weil,  Schriften,  ii.  295. 
 
 ■  We  may  be  thankful  for  tin'  gulf  of  difference  between  tin-  truthful 
 moderation  of  our  Vlth  Article,  " Holy  Scripture  eontaineth  all  things  neces- 
 sary to  salvation,"  and  the  wild  extravagance  of  the  Form.  Consensus  //>/- 
 .  "Hebraeus  codex  turn  c|iioa<l  ronsonas,  turn  quoad  vocalia,  sive 
 puncta  ipsa,  sive  punctorum  saltern  potestatem,  @toirvevaT6s."  The  oldex 
 reformed  confessions  ',''-."■  Conf.  <•'<'//.  art.  5,  "compleciens  quicquid  .  .  . 
 rripiirahir  ;  Co,//.  ]:<i<i.  art.  7,  "iiedimus  .  .  .  Scripturam  .  .  .  omnem 
 Dei  voluntatem  complecti),  contrast  favourably  in  tin--  respect  with  the  later. 
 
376  Fettered  Exegesis. 
 
 was  silent ;  they  persecuted  as  heretics  those  whom  He  would 
 most  have  loved. 
 
 Of  course  under  such  a  system  true  exegesis  became  impos- 
 sible.1 The  tone  of  it  became  petty,  jealous,  unspiritual,  and 
 it  was  perpetually  hunting  after  "  emphases  "  which  were  purely 
 imaginary.  Some  fragments  of  former  truth  were  indeed 
 preserved  in  Hermeneutic  treatises  ;  but  they  were  repeated 
 without  being  utilised.2  In  historic,  archaeological,  and  lin- 
 guistic researches,  amid  much  that  was  absurd  and  irrelevant, 
 there  was  some  accumulation  of  materials  for  the  understand- 
 ing of  Scripture.  But  a  fettered  and  suspicious  exegesis  is 
 always  sterile,  and  the  living  power  of  Scripture,  together 
 with  all  progress  in  its  comprehension,  ceases  when  it  is 
 turned  into  an  idol.  The  only  works,  and  the  only  com- 
 mentaries of  this  epoch  which  still  retain  any  vitality  are, 
 with  all  their  faults,  the  works  of  men  like  the  Arminians, 
 Grotius,  Le  Clerc,  and  Spencer ;  the  Cocceians,  Lampe, 
 Vitringa,  and  Van  Til ;  the  Pietist  Bengel,  and  the  freer 
 critics  like  J.  J.  Wetstein  and  G.  A.  Turretin,  by  whom 
 orthodox  theology  felt  itself  injured,  and  against  some  of 
 whom  it  directed  its  most  indignant  anathemas. 
 
 English  Christians  were  happily  insulated  from  the  incessant 
 bickerings  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches.  The 
 active  intercourse  with  the  Continent  in  the  days  of 
 Luther  and  Calvin — the  days  when  Beza,  Bucer,  and  Peter 
 Martyr  had  exercised  so  large  an  influence  in  England — 
 were  followed  by  a  period  of  isolation,  in  which  the  English 
 Church  was  almost  exclusively  occupied  with  her  own 
 concerns.  Jewel  had  died  in  1571,  and  Hooker  in  1600;  but 
 she  produced  during  the  seventeenth  century  and  the  first  half 
 
 1  "Die  eingeschiichterte  Wissenschaft  .  .  .  tractirte  geringfiigige  Dinge 
 mit  dem  lacherlichen  Apparat  einer  pedantischen  Gelehrsamkeit "  (Reuss, 
 Gesch.  d.  Heil.  Schrift.  ii.  296)."  "  If  the  enquiry  is  to  be  free,  it  is  impos- 
 sible consistently  to  prescribe  its  results."     Thirlwall,  Charges,  i.  61. 
 
 2  Such  treatises  were  very  numerous.  Among  them  were  Gerhard,  De  Interpr. 
 S.  Script.  1610 ;  Glassius,  Philolog.  Sacr.  1623  ;  Rivetus,  Isagoge,  1627  ; 
 Pfeiffer,  Ilerm.  Sacr.  1684  ;  Dannhauer,  Idea  Boni  Interprets,  1642  ;  L. 
 Meyer,  Philosophia  Scripturac  Interpres.  1666  (by  a  friend  of  Spinoza); 
 Francke,  Praelectiones  Hrrmeneuticac,  1717  ;  Rambach,  Inst.  Hcrmcn.  1720. 
 
English  Theology.  377 
 
 ut'  the  eighteenth  many  eminent  theologians  and  scholars, 
 such  as  Bull  (t  1710),  Pearson  (t  1686),  Ussher  (t  1656  , 
 Selden  (t  1654),  Beveridge  (t  1708),  Cave  (t  1713),  and 
 Bingham  (t  1733).  Among  those  who  rendered  the  highest 
 services  to  criticism  and  history  may  be  mentioned  Bryan 
 Walton,  whose  Polyglott  appeared  in  1657;  the  Arabic 
 scholar  Pococke  (t  1691),  Castell,  Hyde,  Spencer,  Shucklbrd, 
 Prideaux,  and  especially  Lightfoot  (t  1675)  whose  Talmudic 
 annotations  still  retain  their  value.  Bishop  Lowth  in  his 
 De  Sacra  Po<*i  ffebraeorum  (1753)  and  his  Isaiah  (1779) 
 rendered  to  the  English  Church  some  of  the  services  for 
 which  Europe  was  afterwards  indebted  to  the  works  of 
 Herder.  The  Novum  Testamentum  of  Mill  laid  the  founda- 
 tions of  New  Testament  criticism.  Whittaker,  Hammond 
 and  Whitby  wrote  commentaries  which  contain  much  that  is 
 of  permanent  interest.  Men  like  Fowler,  Leighton,  Tillotson, 
 and  Burnet,  adorned  the  pulpit.  Among  the  nonconformist 
 communities  Baxter,  Bunyan,  Owen,  Howe,  and  Isaac  Watts 
 helped  to  keep  alive  the  flame  of  spiritual  life,  while  Hales 
 and  Chillingworth,  Locke  and  Cudworth,  Smith  and  Which- 
 cote  the  Cambridge  Platonists  and  other  "moderate  divines 
 almsivelv  called  Latitudinarians,"  showed  how  large  a  share 
 must  always  be  contributed  to  the  development  of  truth  by 
 wide  sympathies  and  unfettered  thought.  The  work  of 
 Tindal  called  forth  Butler's  Analogy;  that  of  Morgan  was 
 answered  in  Warburton's  Divine  Legation.  Wesley  and  Whit- 
 field did  for  England  what  Pietism  effected  for  Germany. 
 By  such  men — each  in  his  own  way  and  measure,  each 
 according  to  the  proportion  of  his  faith — it  may  be  fairly 
 said  that  all  which  was  anti-Christian  and  perilous  in  the 
 writings  of  the  English  deists  was  defeated  all  along  the  line. 
 II.  And  Btep  by  step,  in  every  Protestant  country  of  the 
 Continent,  the  unbending  system  of  creed-bondage,  with  its 
 idolatrous  letter-worship,  was  gradually  broken  down. 
 Freer  movements  of  all  kinds  began.  These,  even  when 
 they  were  purely  spiritual,  were  opposed  by  the  dominant 
 orthodoxy  with  every  weapon  in  their  power; — but  they  were 
 
378  The  Deliverance. 
 
 opposed  in  vain.  The  true  exposition  of  the  Bible  which 
 had  freed  men  from  the  tyrannies  of  a  decadent  Romanism 
 was  powerful  enough  to  free  them  once  more  from  the 
 renewed  tyrannies  of  orthodox  scholasticism. 
 
 And  the  deliverance  came,  as  it  always  comes,  not  from 
 majorities,  but  from  the  few ;  not  from  multitudes,  but  from 
 individuals  ;  not  from  the  favourites  of  erring  Churches,  but 
 from  rebels  against  their  formalism  and  their  tyranny;  not 
 from  the  smooth  adherents  of  conventional  religionism,  but 
 from  its  inspired  martyrs  and  heroic  revolutionists.  In  other 
 words  the  deliverance  comes  always  from  the  prophets  and 
 the  children  of  the  prophets :  spiritually,  from  an  Antony,  a 
 Benedict,  a  Francis  ;  socially  and  morally  from  a  Howard,  a 
 Clarkson,  a  Wilberforce ;  doctrinally,  from  an  Athanasius,  a 
 Wiclif,  a  Hus,  a  Luther,  a  Wesley.  And  so  it  came  to  the 
 "  ghastly  smooth  life,  dead  at  heart "  of  this  age  of  disputatious 
 dogma  and  loveless  religionism.  And  so  it  always  will  come. 
 It  will  come,  not  always  from  men  whom  Churches  bless,  bat 
 from  those  whom  they  anathematise :  not  only  from  those 
 whom  churchmen  praise,  but  from  those  whom  they  call 
 Beelzebub  ;  not  always  from  those  whom  Bishops  have  or- 
 dained, but  from  men  who  have  heard  voices  which  others 
 cannot  hear,  and  have  felt  upon  their  heads  the  hands  of 
 an  unrecognised  and  invisible  consecration.  In  such  condi- 
 tions it  has  been  said  men  become  electric.  They  flash 
 in  upon  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  others  something  of 
 their  own  enthusiasm.  Even  in  the  deadest  ages  there  are 
 always  more  persons  than  we  suppose  who  revolt  against  the 
 prevailing  fashions,  who  take  courage  from  one  another,  and 
 support  one  another,  until  communities  are  led  into  higher 
 moral  principles  and  purer  intellectual  beliefs.  As  their  num- 
 bers multiply  they  catch  fire  with  a  common  idea  and  a  common 
 indignation,  and  ultimately  burst  out  into  open  war  with  the 
 falsities  that  surround  them.  So  it  was  in  the  days  of  Elijah 
 and  in  the  days  of  Jeremiah.  So  it  was  also  in  the  days  of  the 
 Son  of  Man.  So  it  was  in  the  last  century.  Seven  influences 
 helped  one  by  one  to  redeem  the  age  from  its  false  develop- 
 
The  Arminians.  379 
 
 merit ;  and  those  seven  movements  were  mainly  due  to  seven 
 men — Arminius,  Spener,  Calixtus,  Descartes,  Bolmie,  Cappell, 
 and  Cucceius.  All  the  movements  were  not  equally  pure  and 
 spiritual,  but  all  were  wholesome  in  their  effects,  and  through 
 them,  to  quote  the  words  of  St.  Augustine,  "  Christ  appeared 
 to  the  men  of  a  decrepit  age,  that  they  might  receive  a  new 
 and  youthful  life." 
 
 1.  About  the  year  1600  Holland  succeeded  Geneva  in  the 
 Hegemony  of  Calvinism.  But  although  the  views  of  Zwingli 
 had  been  silenced  they  were  not  wholly  repressed.  The 
 hedge  of  flourishing  Dutch  universities,1  reared  by  the  new 
 Pharisaism,  could  not  exclude  the  milder  theology  of 
 Arminius  (t  1G09).  Refusing  to  explain  the  Bible  by  creeds, 
 he  found  rigid  ( 'alvinism  to  be  Scripturally  untenable.  Even 
 the  ful 1 1 1 i n.it ions  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  (1018-1019)  were 
 ineffectual  against  so  splendid  a  succession  of  Arminian  theo- 
 logians as  Episcopius  (t  1G13),2  Grotius  (t  1045),  Limborch 
 (t  1711),3  Clericus  (t  1736),4  (t  1045)  Wetstein  (t  1754), 
 Many  of  these  theologians  were  not  afraid  to  agree  with 
 Romanists  and  Socinians  who  alike  rejected  the  idol  of 
 verbal  infallibility.      Although    the    works   of   Grotius  were 
 
 '    Dutch  universities  and  their  theologians  :  — 
 Fkanecker  :    Lydius,    Drusius,    Macuovius,    Amesius,    Amama,    Cocceius, 
 
 Vitringa,  Witsius,  Giirtler. 
 Utrecht  :  Yoctius,    1 1 oornheek,  Lcydeeker,  Lampe. 
 
 Groningen  :  c ins,  Maresius,  .1.  II.  andJac.  Alting. 
 
 hi  \  den  :  Junius,  de  Dieu,  Rivet,  the  Spanheims,  G.  J.  Voss,  Erpenius,  Bur- 
 
 mann,  Witlich. 
 For  details  Bee  Dorner,  ii.  9-12. 
 
 :  in  1610  Episcopius  drew  up  the  Remonstrance  in  five  articles  against  the 
 GomaristB,  who  charged  the  Arminian  school  with  Pelagianisni.  Hence  the 
 name  "  Remonstrants. " 
 
 :;  Limborch  was  author  of  the  Throhif/in  Christ  ianx.  He  opposed  an  extra- 
 vagant allegorising  and  typology,  and  is  consequently  censured  l>y  Haiiihach, 
 ,'/         neutica  Sacra,  155,  sq, 
 
 1  Le  Clerc  (Ars  Critica,Z  7ola.  1696  ;  Dissertatio  de  Opt.  Gen.  Interprelum, 
 1693  carried  too  far  his  theory  of  accommodation,  and  is  severely  dealt  with 
 l>\  Rambach,  Ee  represents  the  strong  reaction  againsl  the  extravagances  of 
 the  Cocceian  Bchool,  as  also  do  Turretin,  Werenfels,  &c.  Turretin  (; 
 was  a  Professor  at  Geneva.  He  protests  againsl  the  assumption  thai  "an 
 inner  Light,"  which  was  able  to  discover  indefinite  meanings  in  Scripture,  was 
 of  value,  and  iii  his  Tractatus  de  S.  Scr.  infcrprelandaemethodo  he  laysdown 
 the  rule  that  the  interpreter  requires  "animus  vacui  .  .  instar  tabulae 
 nt  genuinum  Bensum  percipiat."  He  was  a  friend  of  Burnet,  Tillotson, 
 and  Wake,  and  endeavoured  to  unite  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  I  'lunches. 
 
380  Spener. 
 
 received  with  a  storm  of  disapprobation,  his  classical 
 learning,  his  masterly  good  sense,  his  brevity,  independence, 
 and  incomparable  lucidity  make  his  annotations  more  valu- 
 able than  those  of  any  one  of  his  immediate  contemporaries.1 
 In  the  writings  of  Le  Clerc  and  Spencer  there  was  a  mis- 
 placed ingenuity  and  an  extravagant  utilitarianism,  but  even 
 these  faults  have  not  robbed  their  learning  of  all  its 
 value,  and  their  works  exercised  a  permanent  influence 
 equally  removed  from  disputatious  dogma  and  intolerant 
 self-satisfaction. 2 
 
 2.  Another  breath  of  fresh  life  came  from  the  Pietists.  To 
 the  icy  stiffness  of  orthodoxy  not  only  the  dreams  of  Bohine, 
 but  even  the  glowing  holiness  of  Arndt  had  been  offensive. 
 But  the  influence  of  Arndt  was  revived  by  Philip  James 
 Spener,  a  man  at  once  learned,  profound,  and  tolerant. 
 He  was  chosen  minister,  at  Frankfort  in  1GGG,  at  the  age  of 
 thirty-one.  He  became  court  preacher  at  Dresden  in  1686, 
 and  provost  at  Berlin  in  1691.  He  had  read  the  works  of 
 Baxter,  and  translated  into  German  two  books  of  Molinos. 
 A  faithful  Lutheran,  he  yet  could  not  help  seeing  that  living 
 holiness  was  being  buried  under  dead  formalism  and  a  sterile 
 theology  of   words.3     "The    Lord    mercifully  keep    us,"    he 
 
 1  On  Grotius,  see  Bayle  ;  Simon,  Hist.  Crit,  dit,  V.  T.  p.  443  ;  l)cs  Comment, 
 du  N.  T.  p.  803  :  Buddeus,  Isag.  1517  :  Herder,  Briefed,  st ml.  Theol.  p,  357  ; 
 Meyer,  Gesch.  der  Schrifterklarung,  iii.  435.  Grotius  was  largely  followed 
 by  Hammond  in  his  Paraphrase  and  Annotations,  1675  ;  Psalms  and  Pro- 
 verbs,  1684.  There  was  a  current  saying  "Grotium  nusquam  iii  sacris  litteris 
 invenire  Christum,  Cocceium  ubique."  It  is  not  true.  OnPs.  xv.  10  Grotius 
 says,  "  Latet  sensus  mysticus  .  .  ut  in  pier isquc  P salmis."  Some  of  his  freer 
 views  may  be  seen  in  the  notes  on  Gen.  i.  26  ;  iii.  15  ;  Ps.  ii.  ;  xvi.  ;  Is.  vii 
 14  ;  ix.  6  ;  xi.  1  ;  Mic.  v.  1  ;  Matt.  i.  22  ;  iii.  15  ;  vi.  13,  &c.  Grotius  was 
 called  a  Papist  because  he  would  not  call  the  whole  Roman  priesthood 
 "ministers  of  Antichrist"  ;  a  Socinian,  though  he  refuted  Socinus  ;  and  (by 
 Calov)  an  atheist,  though  lie  was  the  author  of  the  De  Veritate.  In  the 
 learning  and  good  sense  of  his  notes  he  has  in  multitudes  of  instances  antici- 
 pated the  conclusions  of  modern  exegesis.  His  view  of  inspiration  was  "A 
 Spiritu  Sanctu  dictari  historias  non  fuit  opus.  Satis  fuit  Scriptorem 
 memoria  valere."      Vot.  pi'o  pac.   Eccles. 
 
 2  Bahr  says  (Symbol ik.  i.  41)  that  in  their  system  "God  appears  as  a 
 Jesuit  using  bad  means  for  a  good  end." 
 
 3  The  Lutheran  Churches  had  produced  nothing  of  first-rate  importance  in 
 exegesis  since  the  death  of  Flacius  in  1575.  The  most  important  Lutheran 
 Theologians  of  the  17th  century  were  Gerhard,  S.  Class,  Dannhauer,  A. 
 Pfeiffer,  Camerarius,  Chemnitz,  Chytraus,  Hunnius,  Tarnov,  and  G.  Calizt. 
 The  chief  exegetes   of  the   Reformed    Churches   were  Arminius,    Episcopius, 
 
Pietism.  381 
 
 prayed,  "from  interpreting  Scripture  solely  from  our  creeds, 
 and  so  erecting  the  genuine  popedom  in  the  midst  of  our 
 Church."  He  desired  to  add  an  inward  life  to  the  outward 
 profession,  and  in  his  Pia  Desideria  (1675),  and  Spiritual 
 Priesthood  (1677)  he  pointed  out  with  touching  humility  the 
 necessity  for  reform.  He  recalled  the  forgotten  doctrine  of  the 
 priesthood  of  every  Christian  believer,  and  by  his  Collegia  indatis 
 or,  as  we  should  call  them,  Bible  classes  and  prayer  meetings: 
 he  revived  a  sincere  religion  in  many  hearts.  He  was  no  separ- 
 atist ;  but  Pietism  was  passionate  for  the  holiness  about  which 
 orthodoxy  was  indifferent,  and  indifferent  about  the  formulae 
 for  which  orthodoxy  was  passionate.  Spener  early  despaired  of 
 doing  more  than  to  found  ecclesiolam  in  eccksid,  and  to  lead  back 
 Christian  doctrine  from  the  head  to  the  heart.  Part  of  the 
 great  and  good  work  which  he  effected  was  the  revival  of  that 
 gift  of  preaching  which  is  known  in  the  New  Testament  by 
 the  name  of  "  prophecy."  Even  preaching  had  withered  into 
 inanition  amid  the  combats  of  theology.  It  had  become 
 almost  exclusively  dogmatic,  controversial,  and  scholastic  in 
 its  spirit,  and  it  therefore  failed  to  elevate  the  life  or  to 
 touch  the  heart.  It  followed  various  methods  known 
 by  the  barbarous  and  pedantic  titles  of  Pancratian, 
 Porismatic,  Hoppnerian,  Zetetic,  and  TJrsinian,1  and  was 
 in  fact  everything  except  edifying  and  spiritual.  But 
 Spcner's  example  helped  to  sweep  away  this  mass  of  artificial 
 rules,  and  by  reintroducing  the  genuine  Homily  he  gave  a 
 fresh  impulse  to  the  careful  study  of  Scriptural  thoughts.  The 
 views  of  Spener  were  adopted  by  three  young  Masters  of  Arts. 
 A.  H.  Francke,  Anton,  and  Schade,  who  held  Bible  meet- 
 ings at  Leipzig.'2  They  tried  to  do  at  Leipzig  exactly  what 
 the  Wesleys  tried  to  do  at  Oxford.  Even  so  pure  and  spiritual  a 
 movement  as  this8  was  violently  denounced  by  all  who  mistook 
 
 '•■r,  six).  Amama.  Grotiua,  A.  Rivet,  Drnsius,  r,.  de  Dieu,  Gomarus, 
 Cappellus,  Cocceius,  Lipsins,  Bochart.  Among  the  Socinians,  F.  Socinus  (+ 
 1562)  Crell,  Schlichting.  '  See  Herzog,  Art.  Eh).  Homiletik. 
 
 '-'  'III  '   philobiblica   resembled    those   of   Wesley   and  the  young 
 
 Methodists  at  Oxford. 
 :i  Pietism  was  defined  as  follows  : 
 
 '•Wasist  cin  Pietis!  I  der  Gottes  Worl  Btudirt 
 l'n'1  uach  dumselbcn  aueh  ein  heilic  Leben  fuhrt." 
 
382  Calixt. 
 
 for  temples  the  whitened  sepulchres  of  their  own  formalism. 
 Spener  was  compelled  to  leave  Dresden.  Francke  and  his 
 friends  were  driven  from  Leipzig  by  the  theological  faculty 
 headed  by  J.  B.  Carpzov.  But  though  many  States  prohibited 
 these  religious  meetings,  Pietism  found  a  home  at  the  new 
 University  of  Halle,  and  became  a  powerful  factor  in  German 
 life.2  A  Church,  as  Calvin  said,  "  has  need  of  many  resurrec- 
 tions," and  the  need  is  never  greater  than  in  the  days  when 
 genuine  piety  is  an  object  of  suspicion,  and  Enthusiasm 
 becomes  the  "  red  spectre  "  of  orthodoxies  which  have  only  a 
 name  to  live  when  they  are  dead. 
 
 3.  A  third  powerful  protest  against  the  ossification  of 
 religion  by  theological  Scholasticism  came  in  the  direction  of 
 tolerance  and  culture.  Geoeg  Calixtus  (tlG56)  for  forty- 
 two  years  professor  at  Helinstiidt,  had  lived  through  the  fury 
 of  the  Thirty  Years'  War  ;  he  had  received  a  Humanist  train- 
 ing, and  in  his  early  travels  had  lived  among  Lutherans, 
 among  Roman  Catholics,  and  in  the  Reformed  Churches.  In 
 England  he  had  shared  the  enlightened  wisdom  of  Casaubon 
 and  Thuanus.  In  these  travels  he  had  learned  to  see  "  that 
 faith  and  love  are  not  the  exclusive  possession  of  any  party," 
 and  to  say  with  Jerome  that "  Christ  is  not  so  poor  as  to  have 
 a  Church  only  in  Sardinia."  3  His  watchwords  were  concord 
 and  tolerance,  and  he  thought  that  they  might  be  found  by 
 returning  to  early  Church  history,  and  leaving  the  confused 
 whirl  of  contemporary  controversies.  He  was  one  of  the  last 
 to  cherish  some  hope  of  a  reunion  with  Romanism  on  neutral 
 
 1  Spener  was  attacked  by  Schelwig,  Carpzov,  Albert  i,  Deutschmann,  and 
 the  faculty  of  Wittenberg.  Francke  by  Mayer,  and  the  University  of  Leip- 
 zig. If  my  remark  seems  severe,  it  is  not  more  so  than  that  of  "Domer. 
 Speaking  of  the  opponents  of  Pietism,  he  says  (ii.  205)  "Trusting  in  'cor- 
 rectness of  doctrine'  they  surrendered  themselves  to  a  security  which  pleased 
 itself  with  dreams  of  a  florcntissimus  status  ecclesiae,  and  ignored  the  fact 
 that  they  had  themselves  adulterated  the  Gospel  into  a  law  of  dogma  and  a 
 doctrinal  codex,  confused  nature  and  grace,  and  frittered  away  the  ideas  of 
 faith  and  regeneration." 
 
 2  See  Kurz,  ii.  207  ;  J.  IT.  and  C.  B.  Michaelis  and  their  pupil  Rambach 
 belong  to  Halle,  and  6000  theological  students  had  been  educated  at  Halle, 
 before  Francke  died. 
 
 3  He  wrote  De  tolcrantia  Reformatorum  and  Dcsidcrium  Concordiae  Eccl. 
 sarciendae,  1650. 
 
Modern  Philosophy.  383 
 
 grounds,  a  hope  defeated  as  much  by  the  sectarianism  of 
 the  Jesuits  as  by  the  vehemence  of  the  Lutherans.  His 
 Syncretism  as  it  was  derisively  called,1  was  partly  dependent 
 on  a  return  to  a  truer  estimate  of  Scripture.  Abandoning  the 
 extravagant  aberrations  of  prevalent  bibliolatry  he  recalled 
 the  old  distinction  between  revelatio  and  assistcntia  divina.2 
 He  did  not  Avholly  extinguish  the  co-ordinate  authority  of 
 Faith,  and  regarding  inspiration  as  a  grace  of  superintendency 
 he  mitigated  "the  more  than  Alexandrian  asperities"  of  the 
 pre  vailing  view.3 
 
 4.  Again,  the  dawning  philosophy  of  modern  days  was  not 
 without  its  liberating  influence.  Descartes  (t  1650)  was  not 
 thinking  only  of  philosophers  when  in  his  discourse  on  Method 
 he  spoke  of  "speculations  of  which  men  are  more  vain  the 
 more  remote  they  are  from  common  sense,  because  they  will 
 then  have  been  forced  to  employ  more  ingenious  subtlety  to 
 render  them  plausible."  His  views  were  vehemently  opposed 
 by  Voetius,  a  theological  professor  at  Utrecht,  who  secured 
 from  the  States  a  prohibition  of  his  philosophy.  Calixt 
 died  in  the  very  year  (1656)  in  which  SPINOZA  was  excom- 
 municated with  the  most  awful  curses  by  his  enraged 
 co-religionists.  No  one  can  read  the  works  of  that  virtuous 
 and  keen-sighted  thinker  without  feeling  that  he  was  at  any 
 rate  "  almost  a  Christian."  His  pantheism  resulted  from 
 philosophic    reaction    against    the    crude    anthropomorphic 
 
 1  Because  Calixtus,  like  the  Cretans,  entered  into  unscrupulous  alliances' 
 This  derivation  is  given  by  Plutarch,  DeFrat.  Amore.  I  do  not  know  on  what 
 authority  Littre  and  others  derive  it  from  <rbv  nepav.  In  modern  times,  the 
 use  of  the  ward  had  been  revived  by  Erasmus  in  a  letter  to  Melanchthon. 
 The  anonymous  Historic,  SyncrHistira  of  Calov  was  answered  by  F.  U.  Calixt 
 in  liis  Via  ad  Pacem,  1700.  Syncretism,  says  Gass,  "means  the  overthrow 
 of  all  ecclesiastical  exelusiveness  by  a  deeper  conception  of  the  doctrines  in 
 question." 
 
 -  In  this  he  was   followed   by  Grotius,  Clericus,   &c.     See   the  valuable 
 article  by  Tholuck  on  Inspiration  in  Herzog.     I  have  not  specially  noticed  the 
 exegesis  <>f  the  Socinians  because  it  was  so  utterly  and  inexcusahlv  had.     See 
 .  ;;  556  ;  Diestel,  pp.  887-534,/^. 
 
 ripture  is  not  called  divine  because  everything  which  is  contained  in  it 
 ought  to  be  imputed  to  a  Bpecial  divine  revelation."  Respons.  thes.  I'l.  Pro- 
 fe&sor  Ladd    Doeti  .   ii.   212  214)  shows  that  the  views  of 
 
 Calixt   resembled  those  of  Baxter,    Doddridge,  ami  Lowth.     Monographs  on 
 Calixt  ami  the  Syncretism  have  been  written  by  Schmid,  II cuke,  and  t rasa, 
 
384  Bohme. 
 
 views  in  which  he  had  been  trained.  He  is  the  intellectual 
 successor  of  Moses  Maimonides,  the  intellectual  precursor  of 
 Moses  Mendelssohn,  and  he  anticipated  many  of  the  critical 
 and  hermeneutic  views  which  are  now  widely  accepted. 
 Lessing  reverenced  him  ;  Goethe  named  him  with  Shak- 
 speare  and  Linnaeus  as  one  of  the  masters  of  his  mind  ; 
 Fichte  and  Hegel  were  deeply  influenced  by  his  method 
 and  his  thoughts.  It  was  not  till  a  century  later  that  his 
 influence  was  felt  in  exegesis,  but  when  it  was  felt  men 
 remembered  his  saying,  that  "  though  it  was  not  wholly 
 necessary  to  know  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  it  was  necessary 
 to  know  that  Eternal  Son  of  God,  that  is  the  Eternal  Wisdom 
 of  God,  which  has  manifested  itself  in  all  things,  especially  in 
 the  mind  of  man,  and  far  most  of  all  in  Christ  Jesus.  .  . 
 And  because  the  wisdom  was  chiefly  manifested  by  Jesus 
 Christ,  therefore  his  disciples  preached  it,  so  far  as  it  had 
 been  revealed  by  Him  to  them."  It  may  at  least  be  hoped 
 that  he  who  wrote  this,  and  who  also  lived  a  life  of  singular 
 moral  nobleness  and  beauty, — -whatever  may  have  been  his 
 errors, — was  "  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'' l 
 
 5.  The  liberation  of  the  Church  was  further  helped  on, 
 fifthly,  by  mysticism.  Though  few  now  read  the  works  of 
 J.  BOhme,  "  the  mighty  cobbler  of  Gorlitz  "  (t  1624),  his  in- 
 fluence was  widely  felt.  His  Aurora  odcr  Morgen/rothe  im 
 Aufgang,  was  a  sort  of  commentary  on  the  Book  of  Genesis, 
 rich  in  poetic  feeling  and  profound  speculation.  In  England 
 he  was  reverently  studied  by  William  Law.  In  Germany  the 
 "philosophies  teutonicus  "  as  he  was  called,  prepared  the  way 
 for  a  revival  of  spirituality,  and  of  that  "  enthusiasm  "  which 
 to  a  formal  religion  was  a  favourite  object  of  denunciation. 
 How  touching  is  the  story  of  his  death  !     "  Do  you  hear  that 
 
 1  Spinoza  derived  his  views  of  interpretation  in  part  from  Ibn  Ezra  and 
 Maimonides.  He  held  that  Scripture  was  its  own  host  interpreter.  Novalis 
 calls  him  "a  God-intoxicated  man."  Schleiermacher  did  not  hesitate  to  write 
 of  him,  "  Offer  reverently  with  me  a  lock  to  the  Manes  of  holy  rejected 
 Spinoza.  .  .  In  holy  innocence  and  deep  humility  he  beheld  His  image  in  the 
 eternal  world.  .  .  He  was  full  of  religion  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  He 
 influenced  Lessing,  Goethe,  Schelling,  Hegel,  and  foreshadowed  the  views  on 
 the  one  hand  of  Sender  and  Eichhorn,  on  the  other  of  Strauss,  Haur,  and 
 Kenan.     (For  his  critical  views  see  especially  Capp.  viii.-x.  of  his  Trartatus.) 
 
Cocceius.  385 
 
 sweet  harmonious  music  ?  "  he  asked  of  his  son.  "  No," 
 replied  the  youth.  "  Open  the  door,"  said  Bohine,  "  that  you 
 may  the  better  hear  it."  It  would  have  been  well  for  the 
 Church  of  Osiander  and  of  Calov,  had  it  opened  the  door  a 
 little  more  widely  to  hear  the  heavenly  music  which  southed 
 the  deathbed  of  Jacob  Bohme. 
 
 0.  Two  other  powerful  movements  yet  remain  to  be 
 characterised — the  influence  of  Cocceius,  and  the  growth  of 
 criticism. 
 
 John  Koch,  Professor  at  Leyden  (t  1GG9),  profoundly 
 affected  the  religious  tendencies  of  his  day.1  Few  theologians 
 have  succeeded  in  doing  at  once  so  much  good  and  so 
 much  harm  by  their  special  opinions.2  On  the  one  hand  his 
 "  Federal  Theology,"  the  conception  of  a  double  covenant, — 
 one  of  nature  and  works  with  Adam  in  innocence,  the  other  of 
 grace  and  faith  in  Christ, — helped  once  more  to  lead  men 
 back  to  the  Bible.  His  theology  became  in  fact  a  soteriology, 
 a  history  of  Redemption.  He  gave  predominance  to  the 
 guidance  rather  than  to  the  election  of  grace,  and  almost  for 
 the  first  time  developed  the  correct  and  fruitful  conception  of 
 the  progressiveness  of  Revelation  as  the  ruling  principle  of 
 theological  inquiry.  Being  independent,  he  was,  after  the 
 fashion  of  his  day,  charged  with  Judaism,  Chiliasm 
 Pelagianism,  and  all  imaginable  heresies ;  but  he  helped  to 
 expel  the  Aristotelian  dogmatics  which  passed  for  orthodoxy, 
 revived  the  original  investigation  of  Scripture,  and  in  his 
 beautiful  little  book,  Summa  Doctrinae  de  Foedere,  taught  his 
 contemporaries  to  study  the  structure  of  the  Bible,  and 
 to  abandon  the  unfruitful  method  of  splitting  it  into  isolated 
 texts.3     Unhappily,  however,  the  good  which  Cocceius  did  in 
 
 1  Coereius  was  horn  in  1602.  He  was  a  professor  first  at  Bremen,  then  at 
 Franecker  (1636-1650\  ami  then  at  Leyden.  As  a  youth  he  bad  been 
 influenced  by  tin'  orthodoxy  of  Maeeovius,  the  Puritanism  of  Ames,  and  the 
 scholarship  of  Amama, 
 
 B  Pfaff,  Hist.  Lit.  Throl.  i.  14;  Alb.  v.  d.  Flier,/)/'/.  Coccrioand- 
 srhnl'is'ieo,  1859;  Schriick,  viii.  344,  sq.  ;  Gesenius  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's 
 Encykl.  i.  18  j  and  Ebrard  in  Eferzog.  .1.  II.  Majus  said  of  him,  "Animom 
 imprimis  ad  fontes  intendit,  el  nulli  n  mancipaikt." 
 
 :1  The  dispensation  of  Grace  after  the  Fall  was  treated  under  three  divisions  : 
 1.  Before  the  Law.     2.   Under  the  Law.     3.    L'nder  the  Gospel.     He  thought 
 
 C    C 
 
38G  Cocceius. 
 
 one  direction  he  undid  in  another.  He  emancipated  exegesis 
 from  a  dull  tyranny,  but  subjected  it  to  an  extravagant 
 typology.1  He  was  the  first  to  sanction  a  system  of  parallels 
 between  the  Old  and  New  Testament  of  which  many  were 
 purely  fanciful.2  His  flexible  axiom  that  the  words  of 
 Scripture  signify  all  that  they  can  be  made  to  signify3 
 introduced  a  false  plurality  of  meanings,  by  a  fatal  confusion 
 between  the  actual  sense  and  all  possible  applications.  Under 
 this  system  passages  in  Isaiah  became  actual  prophecies  of  the 
 dispute  between  the  successors  of  Constantine,4  the  history 
 of  Karl  the  Great,5  and  the  death  of  Gustavus  Adolphus.0 
 In  reading  Gurtler's  Systcma  Theologiae,  we  can  see  why 
 Cocceianism  became  proverbial  for  artificiality  and  caprice." 
 The  movement  begun  by  Cocceius,  like  almost  every 
 other  movement  during  this  epoch,  seems  by  some 
 fatality  to  have  been  cursed  by  the  falsehood  of  extremes. 
 Fortunately,  however,  Cocceius  had  successors  like  F.  Bur- 
 mann,  Witsius,  Van  Til,  Vitringa,  and  Lampe,  who  toned  down 
 the  exuberance  of  his  system,  and  made  important  contribu- 
 tions to  Scriptural  interpretation.8 
 
 7.  The  growth  of  criticism  helped  still  more  completely 
 to  break  down  the  hard  superstition  on  which  the  whole 
 system  of  Protestant  Scholasticism  was  based.  First  among 
 the  names  of  the  critics  who  rendered  this  service  stands 
 that  of  Ludovicus  Cappellus  (tl722).    His  Gritica  Sacra,  pub- 
 
 that  the  Old  Testament  provides  a  praeter-mission  (irape<m)  but  not  a  remis- 
 sion (£</>e<m)  of  sins.     Rom.  iii.  25. 
 
 1  The  current  phrase  of  the  day  was  "  Grotinm  nusquam  in  sacris  Uteris 
 inveuire  Christum,  Cocceium  unique."     See  p.  380,  n.  i. 
 
 2  Sec  Vitringa,  Typus  Doctrinae  Propheticae  ;  Venema,  Mcthodus  Prophctica, 
 /•Praef.  1775  ;  Lampe,  De  Scala  Jaeobi  ;  Cremer,  Antiquitatcs  Theol.  T% 
 
 V    Kurz,   ii.  ;  Oehler,   Old  Test.    Theol.  i.  42  ;  Klausen,  Eermen.   282  ;  Dorner, 
 ii.  35,  sq.   Gass,  Gc.^h.  d.  Prot.  Dogmatik,  ii.  319. 
 
 3  "  Id  significant  verba  quod  significare  possunt  in  Integra  oratione  sic  ut 
 omnino  inter  se  conveniaiit  "  (ap.  Roman.  §  35).  So  too  Turretin,  De  Interpr. 
 Sacr.  p.  126. 
 
 4  Is.  xix.  2.  5  Is.  xxiii.  11. 
 
 6  Is.  xxxiiii.  7. 
 
 7  I  have  already  quoted  his  unwise  principle  that  every  prophetic  applica- 
 tion attached  to  a  passage  was  foreseen,  and  therefore  was  intended. 
 
 I  8  Vitringa  (t  1722)  tried  to  unite  the  methods  of  Grotius  and  Cocceius. 
 Some  of  the  Cocceians  were  much  influenced  by  Cartesianism.  Meyer  in  his 
 Philusophia  S.  Scripturae  called  Cartesianism  the  only  key  to  Scripture. 
 
Growth  of  Criticism.  387 
 
 lished  in  1650,  marked  an  epoch.1  Among  the  extravagances 
 of  reformed  theology  had  been  an  assertion  as  to  the  miracu- 
 lously perfect  integrity  of  the  text.  Gerhard  had  maintained 
 that  it  had  neither  been  corrupted  by  the  malice  of  the  Jews 
 nor  by  the  carelessness  of  copyists.  Cappcllus  admitted  that 
 there  had  been  no  wilful  corruption ;  but  from  parallel 
 passages,  from  the  differences  in  numbers,  from  New  Testa- 
 ment quotations,  from  references  in  Philo,  Josephus,  and  the 
 Fathers,  from  the  Keri  and  Kethib,  from  the  readings  of  Ben 
 Asher  and  Ben  N  aphtha  li,  from  the  Jewish  and  Samaritan 
 MSS.,  and  from  the  variations  of  the  LXX.  and  the  Para- 
 phrasts,  he  proved  that  the  Masoretic  text  furnishes  number- 
 less examples  of  the  infirmity,  somnolence,  and  ignorance  of 
 Scribes.2  After  the  publication  of  his  book  no  reasonable 
 man  could  doubt  that  the  Jewish  notion  of  a  correspondence 
 of  the  Holy  Books  with  the  supposed  autographs  of  Moses  or 
 Ezra  down  to  the  very  apices  of  the  letters,  was  a  preposterous 
 fiction.  Robert  Stephens  said  that  he  had  found  2,384 
 variations  in  the  oldest  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament.  It 
 was  admitted  on  all  sides  that  these  variations  did  not  affect 
 a  single  matter  of  faith,  and  scholars  like  Sixtinus  Amama, 
 Grotius,  Brian  Walton,  Bochart,  Ussher,  Voss,  Hody,  and 
 others,  at  once  accepted  the  conclusion  of  Cappellus.  But 
 since  these  facts  tended  to  show  how  untenable  was  the 
 theory  of  verbal  dictation,  they  were  met  with  strange 
 absurdities.  Pfeiffer,  with  unconscious  irreverence,  argued 
 that  the  Holy  Ghost  used  paronomasias  for  our  delight 
 and  advantage ;  that  He  showed  His  freedom  by  altering 
 proper  names  ;  that,  for  instance,  by  omitting  some  letters  in 
 
 1  The  Exercitaliones  Biblicae  of  J.  Morinus  (1633)  were  much  cruder.  But 
 it  is  remarkable  that,  whilst  Protestants  vehemently  opposed  the  publication 
 of  the  Critica  Sacra,  the  Catholics  Morinus  and  Petavius  procured  the  royal 
 imprimatur  for  it.  In  the  controversy  raised  by  the  book  the  Buztorffs,  with 
 all  their  learning,  were  absolutely  defeated,  because  their  views  on  biblical 
 dictation  Led  them  to  hold  that  the  Masoretic  punctuation  originated  with 
 Moses,  or  at  least  with  Ezra. 
 
 -  "  Nobis  jam  satis  est  utcumque  probasse  argumentis  noti  omnino  contem- 
 uendis,  puncta  ilia  lulu, lira  a  Masorethis  esse  excogitata,  et  teztui  sacro 
 addita,  circa  Christi  Ann.  500,  et  saltern  post  40u "  (Cappellus,  Oritiea 
 Sacra,   ii.  28,  p.  790).      ■ 
 
 c  c  2 
 
388  Growth  of  Criticism. 
 
 the  acrostic  Psalms  He  meant  to  indicate  some  pause  in 
 music,  or  to  call  attention  to  some  hidden  mystery. 
 
 a  Sicplacuit  Domino  dicere  plura  nefas.'" l 
 The  two  Buxtorffs  tried  to  prove  that  even  the  vowel 
 points  were  inspired,  and  that  to  hold  this  was  necessitated 
 by  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  inspiration.2  That  Hebrew  was 
 a  divine  and  primaeval  language,  and  that  the  present  square 
 character  was  at  least  as  old  as  Ezra,  were  equally  maintained 
 with  unavailing  casuistry.3  As  the  labours  of  Jewish  scholars 
 like  Joseph  Albo  and  Elias  Levita  became  known,  and  were 
 adopted  by  all  the  most  eminent  scholars  of  Europe,  these 
 masses  of  obscurantism  were  scattered  like  mist  before  the 
 sun.  It  soon  became  a  matter  of  certainty  that  the  text  of 
 the  Bible  had  suffered  from  exactly  the  same  causes  as  those 
 which  have  affected  the  text  of  every  other  ancient  writing 
 in  the  world.4 
 
 III.  These  seven  movements  then,  each  in  its  own  way, 
 corrected  the  false  dip  of  the  balance,  and  contributed  to  the 
 advancement  of  sound  learning  and  true  religion.  We  may 
 thank  God  that,  though  many  a  separate  wave  seems  to 
 retreat,  the  great  tide  of  truth  slowly  advances  through 
 the  centuries ; — 
 
 For  while  the  tired  waves,  vainly  breaking, 
 Seem  here  no  painful  inch  to  gain, 
 Far  back  through  creeks  and  inlets  making 
 Comes  silent,  flooding  in,  the  main. 
 
 We  may  thank  God  also  that  no  age  is  ever  entirely 
 barren,  that  no  honest  human  labour  is  ever  wholly  lost. 
 Even  when  the  sway  of  cb  priori  dogma  was  least  resisted,  the 
 
 1  On  the  bad  principle  of  inventing  mysteries  to  account  for  variations,  it 
 was  said  that  the  Yod  in  ''"IXD,  as  read  in  Ps.  xxii.  17,  wasamft  diminvMvum, 
 and  stood  for  1230,  the  years  between  the  writing  of  the  Psalm  and  the 
 Crucifixion  !  (Diestel,  p.  328). 
 
 2  Heidegger  (Loci,  ii.  §  58)  proved  it  by  the  command  to  Moses  to  write  the 
 words  on  stones  plainly  I 
 
 3  E.g.  by  Hugh!  Broughton,  Buxtorff,  Fuller,  Bayle,  Dilherr,  Kircher, 
 Leusden,  Morinus,  Loscher,  Carpzov,  &c.  (Diestel,  p.  384). 
 
 4  Kennicott  came  to  the  conclusion  that  we  have  no  Hebrew  MS.  of  the 
 Old  Testament  older  than  A.r>.  1100,  and  that  tin;  oldest  are  full  of  clerical 
 errors.     Bengel  was  perhaps  the  first  to  attempt  the  classification  of  MSS. 
 
Increase  of  Knowledge.  389 
 
 Church  was  gaining  wisdom  from  the  toils  of  the  learned  and 
 the  meditations  of  the  good.  Such  well-known  works  on 
 various  branches  of  Scriptural  chronology,  archaeology,  geo- 
 graphy, natural  history,  history,  and  general  illustration, 
 as  those  of  Schultens,  the  Buxtorffs,  Castell,  Hottinger, 
 Heidegger,  Celsius,  Bochart,  Reland,  Vitringa,  Glass,  Schroder, 
 Ussher,  Spannheim,  Selden,  Buddeus,  Pfeiffer,  Prideaux, 
 Deyling,  Wahner,  Scaliger,  Petavius,  Goodwin,  Lightfoot, 
 Schbttgen,  and  many  others,  were  storehouses  of  valuable 
 material  which  were  not  affected  by  current  quarrels,  or  "  the 
 rage  of  theologians,"  from  which  Melanchthon  had  yearned 
 to  be  delivered.1  And  when  tendencies  and  movements 
 proved  themselves  to  be  inefficient,  because  of  a  large  inter- 
 mixture of  error,  or  because  they  spent  their  force  and  had  to 
 be  carried  on  by  weaker  agencies,  they  left  their  legacy  to 
 men  who  availed  themselves  of  all  their  elements  of  truth  and 
 goodness.  Mysticism  in  the  followers  of  Bohme  degenerated 
 into  a  self-deceiving  claim  of  illumination.  Pietism,  so  pure 
 and  hopeful  in  its  origin,  withered  into  an  inquisitorial 
 hypocrisy.  Cocceianism  deteriorated  into  arbitrary  super- 
 stition. The  Syncretistic  movement  split  into  sections  by 
 which  Romanism  and  Indifferentism  alike  profited.  Free 
 criticism,  looked  on  by  orthodoxy  with  a  jealous  eye,  was  too 
 apt  to  ally  itself  with  an  unspiritual  philosophy.  But  though 
 every  one  of  these  influences  which  had  endeavoured  to 
 strike  life  into  the  decay  of  religion  had  gradually  dwindled, 
 they  produced  men  of  vast  erudition,  of  conspicuous  wisdom, 
 and  of  exemplary  holiness.  Their  combined  value  was  seen 
 in  some  whose  names  will  stand  recorded  for  ever  among 
 those  whom  the  Church  honours  and  loves.  Among  these 
 I  will  here  select  three :  Count  Zinzendorf,  John  Jam  i:s 
 Wetstein,  and  John  Albert  Bkngel. 
 
 i.  In  ZiNZENDORF,  and  his  Moravian  brotherhoods,  we  see 
 the  undying  force  of  Practical  Christianity.     He  was  born  in 
 
 1  See  Reuss,  §  566  ;  Diestel,  §§  458  ff.  Tin  Criiiea  Sacra  were  published 
 in  London,  1660,  and  Poole'a  Synopsis  in  1669.  Both  books  were  highly 
 creditable  to  English  industry  and  scholarship. 
 
390  Zinzendorf. 
 
 1700,  and  as  a  child  had  received  the  blessing  and  happy 
 prophecy  of  his  aged  godfather  Philip  Spener.  Even  as  a 
 schoolboy  under  Francke,  at  the  High  School  of  Halle,  he 
 had  founded  among  his  schoolfellows  "  the  order  of  the  grain 
 of  mustard  seed,"  of  which  the  token  was  a  gold  ring  in- 
 scribed with  the  words  "  No  man  liveth  to  himself."  Im- 
 pressed by  an  Ecce  Homo  at  Diisseldorf  under  which  was  the 
 
 inscription : — 
 
 "  I  did  all  this  for  thee, 
 What  hast  thou  done  for  me  1 "  l 
 
 — impressed  also  during  his  travels  with  "  the  splendid  misery 
 
 of  a  world  dying  of  envy  amid  its  own  pitiable  littlenesses," 
 
 he  determined  to  devote  his  life  to  the  cause  of  Christ.2    "  I 
 
 have  but  one  passion,"  he  said,  "  and  it  is  He,  only  He."    Like 
 
 every   good    man   he    was   abused    and    misrepresented    by 
 
 sectarian  bigotry.     So  busy  was  calumny  with  his  pure  name 
 
 that  Frederick  William  of  Prussia  said  of  him  that  "  all  the 
 
 devils  in  hell  could  not  lie  worse  than  he  had  been  bed   to 
 
 about  Zinzendorf."     But  his  pious  journeys  did    much    to 
 
 bring  back  to  the  Church  the  love  of  Unity,  and  the  colonics 
 
 which  he  planted  from  Greenland  to  Ethiopia,  from  Persia  to 
 
 New  Guinea,  from  Russia  to  the  huts  of  the  Hottentots,  not 
 
 only  renewed  the  lost  ideal  of  missionary  activity,  but  showed 
 
 to  the  world  the  power  of  spiritual  holiness. 3     If  we  would 
 
 estimate  the  extent  and  blessedness  of  his  work,  let  us  not 
 
 forget  that  the  deep  practical  piety  of   John   Wesley   was 
 
 matured  in  a  Moravian  brotherhood  ;  and  that  Schleiermacher 
 
 wrote  from  a  Moravian  colony  in  1802,  "  Here  it  was  that  for 
 
 the  first  time  I  woke  to  the  consciousness  of  the  relations  of 
 
 man  to  a  higher  world.  .  .  After  all  that  I  have  passed  through 
 
 I  have  become  a  Moravian  again,  only  of  a  higher  order."  4 
 
 1   "  Hoc  feci  pro  te, 
 
 Quid  facis  pro  me  ? " 
 
 2  In  founding  the  community  of  Herrnhut  he  was  deeply  influenced  by  the 
 Ratio  disciplinac  of  the  Bohemian  Bishop,  Amos  Comenius. 
 
 3  Perhaps  his  most  characteristic  thoughts  are  to  be  found  in  his  Gcdanlccn 
 ilber  Evangclische  Wahrhcitcn,  Gnadau,  1840.  His  best-known  hymns  are 
 "Jesu,  geh'  voran,"  and  "Christi  Blut  und  Gerechtigkeit,"  (Jesu,  Thy  blood 
 and  righteousness). 
 
 4  On  Zinzendorf,  see  Bishop  E.  de  Sehweinitz,  in  Herzog's  Encykl. ;  Tholuck, 
 Verm.  Sehriftcn,  i.  6  ;  V.  von  Ense,  Lcbcn  Zinzcndorfs,  1846  ;  Bonet,  Lc  Comtc 
 
Wetstein.  391 
 
 ii.  In  John  James  Wetstein,  Professor  at  Basle  (t  1754), 
 we  see  all  that  is  best  in  this  epoch  on  the  side  of  learning 
 and  criticism.  In  his  Libelli  ad  Crisin  atque  Interprctationem 
 Nov.  Tcstamcnti,  he  dwelt  on  the  necessity  for  considering  the 
 New  Testament  on  its  human  side  as  an  historical  and  literary 
 product,  and  of  devoting  to  it  a  free  and  unprejudiced  study.1 
 The  same  rules  hold,  he  says,  for  the  interpretation  of 
 Scripture  as  for  that  of  other  books.  The  sense  of  its  words 
 and  phrases  must  be  learnt  by  studying  the  usage  of  the 
 writers  and  of  their  contemporaries.  Its  language  is  in- 
 fluenced by  the  times  in  which  it  was  written  and  the  needs, 
 peculiarities,  and  habits  of  thought  of  the  persons  to  whom 
 it  is  addressed.  Wetstein' s  invaluable  labours  on  the  text 
 and  meaning  illustrate  the  remark  of  Goethe,  that  "the 
 Bible  becomes  more  beautiful  the  more  we  study  it, — that  is 
 the  more  clearly  we  see  that  every  word  has  received  a  certain 
 distinct  character  according  to  the  separate  conditions  of  time 
 and  place  when  it  was  given."  He  was  one  of  the  ablest 
 pioneers  in  the  renewed  and  more  sober  Scriptural  labours  of 
 the  eighteenth  century.  His  New  Testament  was  only 
 published  in  1751,  four  years  before  his  death.  But  he  had 
 devoted  to  its  preparation  a  life  of  study.2  He  was,  as  a 
 matter  of  course,  like  all  the  best  workers  in  this  field, 
 accused  of  heresy,  and  was  compelled  to  give  up  his 
 Professorship  at  Basle  for  one  in  the  Remonstrants'  College  at 
 Amsterdam.3  There  he  carried  on  and  improved  the  best 
 labours  of  Grotius.  His  commentary  is  one  of  the  richest 
 repositories  of  classical  and  Rabbinic  illustration,  and  has,  to 
 an  extent  almost  incredible,  been  rifled  again  and  again  by 
 his  successors.     It  is  one  of  the  very  few  produced  in  the 
 
 </■   Zinzendorf,   1860;    Hagenbach,    Oerm.    Ratim  '•    158  (E.    T.); 
 
 Kniv,    ii.    941,    sq.  ;    Donirr,    ii.   245-248;   Kalinis,  pp.  100    105. 
 
 1  Some  characteristic  quotations  from  his  Libelli  ad  Crisin  arc  given  in 
 ii,  Werrm  n.  298. 
 
 '-'  Among  other  things  he  was  condemned  for  Arianism  and  Socinianism  in 
 1730,  because  he  followed  the  now  all  but  universally  accepted  reading,  is  for 
 tfeos  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.     Sec  Herzog,  Bible  Texts. 
 
 '■'■  lie  succccilrd  <  lli  ricus. 
 
392  Bengel. 
 
 seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  which  are  still  indis- 
 pensable to  the  student  of  Scripture. x 
 
 iii.  Still  greater  and  more  blessed,  as  well  as  somewhat 
 earlier,  was  the  work  of  the  illustrious  Bengel  (t  1752). 2 
 He  was  the  heir  and  continuator  of  all  that  was  best  in  Pietism 
 and  Mysticism,  without  either  the  gloom  of  the  one  or  the 
 sentimentality  of  the  other.  Orthodox  with  none  of  the  narrow 
 blindness,  obstinate  creed- worship,  and  uninquiring  dulness 
 of  passive  traditionalism  ;  exquisitely  open-minded  ;  a  friend 
 to  science  ;  a  friend  to  freedom ;  the  first  great  German  critic 
 of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament ;  3  profoundly  humble  yet 
 thoroughly  original,  he  towers  above  all  the  scholars  and 
 theologians  of  the  Lutheran  Church.4  He  entirely  abandoned 
 the  notion  of  mechanical  Inspiration,  which  then  erected  a 
 barrier  against  all  spiritual  progress,  and  recognised  the 
 distinct  individualities  and  manifold  differences  of  the  sacred 
 writers.  He  regarded  Piety  not  as  the  loveless  personal 
 pride  into  which  Pietism  had  degenerated,  but  as  an  appre- 
 hension of  the  sweetness,  gentleness,  and  grace  of  the  Divine 
 mysteries.  He  regarded  Orthodoxy,  not  as  a  bristling 
 antagonism  to  every  slight  deviation  from  current  confessions, 
 but  as  a  faithful  adherence  to  all  primary  truths. 
 
 1  See  Glbckner,  Intcrprctandi  ratio  a  J.  J.  Wetstcino  adhibita,  1754,  and 
 the  Prolegomena  tolas  New  Testament,  published  anonymously  in  1730.  He 
 was  the  first  to  distinguish  uncial  MSS.  by  capitals,  and  cursives  by  Arabic 
 figures. 
 
 2  See  Burk,  BengeVs  Lebcn  und  Werhe,  1831  :  "Wachter,  J.  A.  Bengel, 
 Lebensabriss,  &c.  Bengel  was  born  in  1687  at  Winnenden,  near  Stuttgart. 
 In  1731  he  became  tutor  at  Denkendorf.  In  1741  he  was  made  Bishop 
 of  Herbrechtingen.  His  Gnomon  was  first  published  in  1742  :  his  Apparatus 
 Critims  and  New  Testament  in  1734. 
 
 3  He  collected  twenty-four  Greek  MSS.  and  some  Latin  ones,  as  enumerated 
 in  his  Apparatus  Criticus.  He  boldly  pronounced  the  Doxology  in  Matt.  vi. 
 13  to  be  spurious.  His  excellent  rule  was  "  But  nothing  into  the  Scriptures, 
 but  draw  out  of  them,  and  suffer  nothing  that  is  in  them  to  remain  hid." 
 
 His  remarks  (Praefatio)  on  the  uselessness  of  reading  and  refuting  a  multi- 
 tude of  baseless  exegetical  conjectures,  or  of  refuting  all  the  views  from 
 which  we  differ,  would  have  helped,  if  attended  to,  to  clear  modern  commen- 
 taries of  much  useless  matter. 
 
 4  The  least  fortunate  part  of  his  influence  was  the  exaggerated  devotion  to 
 the  "  futurist"  speculations  of  Apocalyptic  students.  But,  as  Principal  Ed- 
 wards says,  "His  marvellous  felicities  must  ever  remain  inimitable  and  he 
 is  mighty  to  quicken  thought. "     On  1  Cor.  p.  xxxv. 
 
His  Greatness.  393 
 
 "  As  to  things  indifferent,"  he  said,  "  I  am  not  fond  of 
 them,  but  the  cord  has  been  too  tightly  drawn."  He  opposed 
 all  too  stringent  subscriptions.  "  It  is  easy,"  he  said,  "  for  all 
 who  are  content  to  live  on  like  the  rest  of  the  world,  to  be 
 orthodox.  They  believe  what  was  believed  before  them,  and 
 never  trouble  themselves  with  testing  it.  But  when  a  soul  is 
 anxious  about  truth,  then  things  are  not  quite  so  easy.  How 
 wrong  is  it  then  to  rush  in  upon  just  such  sensitive  souls,  to 
 cross-question,  to  gag,  and  stun  them,  when  we  ought  on  the 
 contrary,  to  give  them  liberty  of  speech  that  they  may  gain 
 confidence,  and  suffer  themselves  to  be  led  aright."  The 
 fundamental  virtue  of  Bengel  was  perfect  conscientiousness,1 
 and  his  fundamental  merit  as  an  exegete  was  that  while  he 
 was  diligent  about  minute  points  of  textual  criticism  and 
 Greek  philology,  he  could  also,  like  Chrysostom  and  like 
 Luther,  enter  into  the  very  soul  of  the  sacred  writers,  and 
 reproduce  for  others  the  melodies  which  once  rang  in  their 
 hearts. 2  Bengel  regarded  Scripture  not  as  a  dead  Oracle, 
 but  as  a  living  organism — "  as  an  incomparable  narrative  of 
 the  divine  government  of  the  human  race  throughout  all 
 ages  of  the  world,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  all 
 things."  Independent  though  perfectly  faithful,  it  was  his 
 not  uncommon  lot  to  be  frowned  upon  by  professional 
 theologians  and  the  clerical  order  in  general;  but,  as  he 
 himself  ventured  to  predict,  the  Church  has  at  last  learnt 
 to  estimate  aright  the  value  of  his  labours.  His 
 Gnomon  is  a  mine  of  priceless  gems.3     It  contains  sentence 
 
 1  See  K.ilniis,  E.  T.  p.  105.  Fresenius  in  his  funeral  sermon  called  Bengel 
 "An  angel  of  peace  who  was  as  pious  as  he  was  laborious,  as  child-like  as 
 he  was  Learned,  as  rich  in  spiril  as  he  was  acute  in  mind,  as  humble  as  be 
 was  great." 
 
 '-'  The  uecessity  !*<>r  a  psychological  element  in  the  highest  exegesis  was 
 pointed  out  by  Schleiermacher.  It  was  recognised  also  in  the  Greek  Church. 
 Dosithci  Con/*     •>,  Qu.  i.  Khnmcl,  Monv/menta  Fidei,  i.  465. 
 
 3  Gnomon  N.T.  in  quo  ex  nativa  verborv/m  vi  simplicitas,  profunditas,  con- 
 einrvitas,  8alubritas  sensuum  eoelestium  indicator.  Tub.  1742.  Its  merits  are 
 gratefully  acknowledged  \<\  John  Wesley  in  his  Notes  /<>//<•  Neva  Testament, 
 1755.  Even  the  Apocalyptic  studies  to  which  Bengel  was  led  by  mystic  and 
 Pietist  influences  giye  proofs  of  his  power  and  insight.  See  Hartmann,  Art. 
 "  Bengel  "  in  Berzog.  In  Ms  case  at  any  rate  "the  path  t<>  the  New  Jerusalem 
 did  not  lie  near  the  madhouse." 
 
394  Death  of  Bengel. 
 
 after  sentence  exquisitely  terse  and  finished,  and  throbbing 
 with  spiritual  light.  Few  writers  have  so  admirably  succeeded 
 in  expressing  in  a  few  words  the  inmost  purpose  of  each  of 
 the  Epistles.  A  generation  crowded  with  writers  whose 
 theology  abounded  in  mutual  anathemas  is  yet  redeemed 
 from  the  charge  of  sterility  which  has  produced  such  a 
 theologian  as  Bengel.  His  work  must  continue  to  have  its 
 value  so  long  as  men  can  recognise  the  richest  fruits  of  a 
 noble  intellect,  a  pure  spirit,  and  a  blameless  life.-1  "  Lord 
 Jesus,  unto  Thee  I  live,  unto  Thee  I  suffer,  unto  Thee  I  die  ; 
 Thine  I  am,  living  or  dying."  These  words  were  repeated  to 
 him  in  his  last  moments,  and  on  hearing  them  he  pointed 
 with  his  right  hand  to  his  heart,  and  fell  asleep  in  peace.2 
 
 1  In  the  Preface  to  the  third  edition  of  the  Gnomon,  his  son  gives  ns  some 
 biographical  particulars  of  him.  Oetinger  beautifully  describes  his  death 
 which  he  had  always  wished  to  be  "as  if  one  is  incidentally  called  out 
 of  doors  from  amidst  the  dust  of  his  daily  labours." 
 
 2  I  have  not  touched  in  this  Lecture  either  on  the  Puritan  or  the  Roman 
 Catholic  expositors,  not  only  because  I  had  no  space  at  command,  but  because, 
 apart  from  their  theology,  they  added  no  new  impulse  and  contributed  no 
 specially  original  element  to  Scripture  interpretation.  The  greatest  Puritan 
 expositor  is  perhaps  Owen  (especially  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Hcbreivs).  The 
 best  Roman  Catholic  expositors  are  Estius  (f  1613)  and  Corn,  a  Lapide  (t  1637) 
 
"  Deus  scientiarum  Dominus  est,  et  ipsi  praeparantur  cogitationes.' 
 — 1  Sam.  ii.  3. 
 
 "  Res  Dei,  Ratio." — Tert.  De  Poenitent.  I. 
 
 "  Christianity  is  all  for  practice,  and  so  much  time  as  is  spent  in 
 fpiarrels  about  it  is  a  diminution  to  its  interest.  Men  inquire  so  much 
 what  it  is,  that  they  have  but  little  time  left  to  be  Christians.  I  re- 
 member a  saying  of  Erasmus,  '  that  when  he  first  read  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, with  fear  and  a  good  mind,  with  a  purpose  to  understand  it  and 
 obey  it,  he  found  it  very  useful  and  very  pleasant  ;  but  when,  after- 
 wan  Is,  he  fell  on  reading  the  vast  differences  of  commentaries,  then  he 
 understood  it  less  than  he  did  before,  then  he  began  not  to  understand 
 it  : '  for,  indeed,  the  truths  of  God  are  best  dressed  in  the  plain  culture 
 and  simplicity  of  the  Spirit  ;  but  the  truths  that  men  commonly  teach 
 are  like  the  reflections  of  a  multiplying-glass.  For  one  piece  of  good 
 money  you  shall  have  forty  that  are  fantastical."- — Jeremy  Taylor, 
 Via  Intelligentiae. 
 
 "  Let  none  so  superstitiously  go  back  to  former  ages  as  to  be  angry 
 with  new  opinions  and  displayings  of  light,  either  in  reason  or  religion. 
 Who  dare  oppose  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  if  He  shall  enamour 
 the  world  with  the  beauty  of  some  pearls  and  jewels  which  in  former 
 days  have  been  hid  or  trampled  on  ;  if  He  shall  discover  some  more 
 lighl  upon  earth,  as  He  hath  let  some  new  stars  be  found  in  the 
 heavens  ? " — Culverwell,  Light  of  Nature,  p.  136. 
 
 "  I  am  persuaded  that  the  Lord  hath  more  truths  yet  to  come  for  us 
 ■  ait  of  His  Holy  word.  Neither  Luther  nor  Calvin  have  penetrated 
 into  the  whole  Council  of  God." — John  Robinson,  Farewell  Address  to 
 the  Pilgrim  Fathers. 
 
 "The  Gospel  itself  rests  on  an  immovable  rock,  while  human  systems 
 of  theology  are  everywhere  undergoing  a  purifying  process.  We  live 
 in  the  time  of  a  great  crisis.-'— Neander. 
 
LECTURE   VIII. 
 
 MODERN     EXEGESIS. 
 
 "It  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day  that  the  light  shall  not  >be  clear,  nor 
 dark  .  .  .  but  it  shall  come  to  pass  at  evening  time  it  shall  be  light." — 
 Zecii.  xiv.  6,  7. 
 
 There  are  three  reasons  which  give  peculiar  difficulty  to 
 the  treatment  of  the  final  phases  of  Scripture  interpretation. 
 One  is  their  complexity,  and  the  multiplication  of  their 
 literary  memorials;  a  second  is  the  rapidity  with  which 
 they  vary  from  decade  to  decade  in  consequence  of  that  sus- 
 ceptibility to  surrounding  influences  which  marks  a  literary 
 age  ;  a  third  is  the  impossibility  of  forming  a  final  impression 
 of  movements  which  have  not  yet  attained  their  full 
 development. 
 
 The  disruption  of  Protestant  Scholasticism  was  hastened 
 and  completed  by  philosophic  inquiries.  The  malady  of 
 scepticism  had  been  rendered  more  acute  by  the  un- 
 skilful violence  of  a  self-styled  orthodoxy.  Such  books  as 
 Voltaire's  La  Bible  enfin  Expliqute  were  the  natural  Nemesis  of 
 such  books  as  Calov'siwV///"  Illustrata.  The  furious  squabbles 
 of  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches  about  the  arcana  of 
 Theology  had  paved  the  way  for  English  deists,  French 
 infidels,  and  German  neologians.1  The  gravity  and  gentleness 
 of  Spinoza's  manner,  no  less   than  his  keen   sagacity,  had 
 
 1  "So  long  as  I  see  that  one  of  the  chief  of  Christ's  commandments,  to 
 love  our  enemies,  is  not  better  observed  than  it  is,  so  long  sliall  I  donbt 
 whether  those  who  give  themselves  out  as  Christians  are  really  such " 
 (Lessing). 
 
398  Wolf. 
 
 given  weight  to  the  criticisms  of  his  Tractatus  Theologico- 
 Politicus,  and,  crude  as  some  of  them  were,  he  rendered  a  real 
 service  by  enforcing  attention  to  that  human  element  of 
 Scripture,  which  he  had  probably  been  taught  to  recognise  by 
 the  writings  of  Maimonides.  His  "  Pantheism  "  was  opposed 
 by  Leibnitz  (t  1716),  who  substituted  for  it  the  theory  of 
 self-subsisting  monads  held  in  union  by  a  pre-established 
 harmony.  Leibnitz  was  a  hearty  friend  to  Christianity,  and 
 he  so  strongly  desired  to  bring  theology  into  the  circle  of  the 
 exact  sciences,  that  in  his  Thcodicaea  he  pledged  himself  to 
 prove,  if  not  the  objective  certainty,  yet  at  least  the  possibility 
 of  the  deepest  Christian  mysteries — even  of  the  Trinity,  the 
 Incarnation,  the  Eucharist. x  Wolff  (t  1754),  systema- 
 tising  the  methods  of  Leibnitz  in  a  mathematical  form,2 
 aimed  at  deducing  the  truths  of  revelation  from  the  abstract 
 ideas  of  the  mind.  In  spite  of  his  pedantic  formalism,  he 
 roused  enthusiasm  among  the  students  of  Halle.  He  was 
 angrily  opposed  by  the  Pietists,  who  saw  in  his  doctrines 
 a  fatalistic  tendency  which  would  destroy  all  interest  in 
 revealed  religion.  They  were  right  in  their  instinctive 
 conviction  that  Christianity  has  nothing  to  gain  from 
 precarious  arguments  in  favour  of  its  abstract  possibility. 
 An  address  in  which  Wolff  had  extravagantly  eulogised 
 the  moral  teachings  of  Confucius  was  made  the  pretext 
 for  his  banishment  on  pain  of  the  gibbet  from  Halle  and 
 from  the  whole  kingdom  of  Prussia.     Thus  failed  the  earliest 
 
 1  Leibnitz  added  "  the  principle  of  the  sufficient  reason"  as  a  criterion  of 
 truth  to  Aristotle's  "principle  of  contradiction."  "The  great  foundation  of 
 mathematics,"  he  says  in  his  correspondence  with  Dr.  Clarke,  "  is  the  prin- 
 ciple of  contradiction  or  identity ;  i.e.  that  a  proposition  cannot  be  true  and 
 false  at  the  same  time.  But  in  order  to  proceed  from  Mathematics  to  treat 
 Philosophy  another  principle  is  requisite  (as  I  have  observed  in  my  Theodicaea), 
 I  mean  the  principle  of  the  sufficient  reason,  or  in  other  words,  that  nothing 
 happens  without  a  reason  why  it  should  be  so  rather  than  otherwise.  Now 
 by  this  single  principle  can  be  demonstrated  the  Being  of  a  God,"  &c. 
 
 2  Wolff's  chief  works  were  Vcrnii.nftige  Gcdanken  von  Gott,  der  Welt, 
 und  der  Scale  (1719),  and  V.  G.  von  der  Menschen  Thun  und  Lassen  (1721). 
 He  studied  mathematics,  melhodi  gratia,  in  order  to  give  diligence  to  reduce 
 theology  to  incontrovertible  certainty.  Even  his  opponent,  Lange,  had  a 
 similar  notion,  and  just  at  this  period  there  arose  an  unprofitable  fashion  of 
 "hairsplitting  analysis  and  dreary  tabulation."  Wolff's  banishment  was 
 hastened  by  stupid  jests  as  to  "  prae-established  harmony,"  at  Frederic 
 William's  "  tobacco-Parliament." 
 
Leasing.  399 
 
 attempt  to  reconcile  a  nascent  philosophy  with  an  old 
 religion.  But  the  expulsion  of  Wolff,  and  his  subsequent 
 triumphant  recall,  practically  became  the  death-blow  of 
 Pietism  which  had  outlived  its  functions,  and  had  sunk  into 
 a  system  of  morbid  fanaticism  maintained  by  inquisitorial 
 forms. 
 
 Meanwhile  many  movements  arose,  which,  in  the  dearth  of 
 a  free  and  spiritual  holiness,  developed  destructive  tendencies. 
 Mankind  can  never  long  be  satisfied  with  vague  eudaemonism 
 and   half-hearted   compromise.      Lessing  (t    1781)   was   as 
 little  hostile  to  Christianity  as  Leibnitz  and  Wolff  had  been, 
 but  in  the  then  condition  of  Scriptural  studies  he  seems  to 
 have  held  the  opinion  of  St.  Jerome,  that  almost  anything 
 may  be  said  if  it  be  only  said  tentatively.     He   gave   an 
 impulse  to  thought  rather  than  a  direction.     He  was  "  the 
 versatile  Proteus"  of  his  age.     His  Nathan  der   Weise,  ex- 
 quisite in  its  spirit  of  tolerance,  was  weak  in  its  indifferentism, 
 and  hardly   accords  with  his   own  fruitful  view  of  God   as 
 the  educator  of  the  human  race.    He  was  opposed  to  Spinoza's 
 inert  eternity  of   substance.     He  wanted  something   better 
 than  the  demonstrations   of   Wolff  and  his   followers,  that 
 Christianity  contained  nothing  against  the  principium  con- 
 t n/d irtionis,   and  the  principium  rationis  sujficientis.     There 
 were  germs  of  truth  in  his  belief  in  a  primitive  oral  Gospel ; 
 in  his  separation  of  Christianity  from  the  weak  evidences  by 
 which  it  is  often  supported  ;  in  the  distinction  which  he  drew 
 between  the  Christianity  of  the  heart  and  the  Christianity  of 
 theologians,  and  even  between  the  Christian   religion   and 
 the  religion  of  Christ.     His  quick  susceptibility  enabled  him 
 to  grasp  truths  akin  to  those  held  alike  by  Mendelssohn  and 
 Kant  and  Herder ;  and  if,  no  less  than  they,  he  lacked  the 
 vivifying  power  of  personal  and  intellectual  union  with  the 
 divine   humanity  of  Christ,  the  theology  of  his  day  must 
 share  the  Manic     Protestant  divines  could   not  expect  the 
 world  to  sympathise  with  them  in  their  attempts  to  hunt   up 
 heresies   in    each    other's    sermons.      L<  ssing   was    himself 
 conscious  of  an  unsatisfied  want.     He  despised  the  popular 
 
400  Reimarus. 
 
 incredulity  as  "  a  botch  work  of  ignoramuses."  "  It  is  not  since 
 yesterday  only,"  he  wrote  to  Mendelssohn,  "  that  I  have  felt 
 anxious,  lest  in  casting  off  many  prejudices  I  may  not  also 
 have  cast  away  much  which  I  may  have  again  to  fetch  back. 
 If  I  have  not  done  so  already  it  is  because  I  fear  to  drag 
 back  as  well  all  the  trash  into  the  house  again." 
 
 Lessing  did  not  himself  agree  with  the  Wolfenbuttel  frag- 
 ments of  Reimarus,1  but  his  publication  of  them  in  1774  pro- 
 duced a  profound  sensation.  It  was  from  the  absence  of 
 adequate  answers  to  the  crude  negations  of  the  Fragmentist 
 that  they  disseminated  far  and  wide  a  spirit  of  disbelief.  This 
 disbelief  found  its  expression  in  the  so-called  "  enlightenment- 
 period,"  which  resulted  from  the  influences  of  French  and 
 English  deism.  In  one  respect  Reimarus  sank  even  lower  than 
 the  French  deists.  Not  only  Rousseau,  but  even  Voltaire,  still 
 preserved  an  overwhelming  sense  of  awe  before  the  personality 
 of  Christ.  Reimarus  does  not  scruple  to  lay  profane  hands 
 upon  His  holiness,  and  to  accuse  His  Apostles  of  sheer  deceit. 
 Such  views  could  never  long  prevail.  The  worst  harm  done 
 by  Reimarus  was  the  way  in  which  he  jxunted  out  the 
 variations  in  the  Gospel  narrative  of  the  Resurrection,  of 
 which  the  post-Reformation  system  had  neither  prepared  men 
 to  see  the  reconciliation,  nor  to  estimate  the  non-importance. 
 Unhappily,  since  Scholasticism  and  Pietism  were  alike  dead, 
 and  no  force  had  risen  to  replace  them,  the  epoch  of  a 
 dreary  illuminism  was  only  met  on  the  other  side  by  timid 
 concessions.  But  this  phase  of  opinion  was  short-lived.  It 
 was  specially  discredited  by  the  miserable  failure  and 
 degradation  of  F.  A.  Bahrdt.  Though  "  smitten,"  as  he 
 himself  confesses,  "  with  the  disease  of  levity,"  he  proclaimed 
 himself  an  instrument  of  Providence  for  the  welfare  of  men, 
 
 1  "  The  Bible  is  not  the  Spirit,  and  the  Bible  is  not  religion.  Consequently 
 objections  against  the  latter,  as  well  as  against  the  Bible,  are  not  precisely 
 objections  against  the  Spirit  and  religion.  For  the  Bible  evidently  contains 
 more  than  belongs  to  religion,  and  it  is  a  mere  supposition  that  in  the  ad- 
 ditional matter  it  must  be  equally  infallible.  Moreover,  religion  existed 
 before  there  was  a  Bible,  and  Christianity  before  Evangelists  and  Apostles 
 had  written."  Lessing,  IVcrkc,  x.  10,  ed.  Lachmann.  "What  others,  even 
 good  Lutherans,  have  asserted  of  whole  books  of  the  Bible,  we  may  surely  assert 
 of  single  facts  "  (id.  p.  137). 
 
Feeble  Apologists.  401 
 
 together   with    Moses,   Confucius,  Socrates,  and  One  whose 
 
 Divine  Name  I  will  not  degrade  by  mentioning  it  in  connection 
 with   such  claims.     This  would-be  regenerator  of  the  human 
 race  lived  a  life  of  pollution,  and  died  in  an  ale-house  after 
 hiving  been  imprisoned  as  a  writer  of  scurrilous  lampoons. 
 The   tendency  to  crude  infidelity,  which  was  now  fostered 
 for  the  first  time  by  periodical  literature,1  was  only  influential 
 through  the  feebleness  of  the  opposition  which  was  offered  to 
 it.    The  work  of  Spener  and  Francke  had  spent  its  beneficent 
 force.2     Of  the  clergy,  some  shut  themselves  up  in  a  sullen 
 dogmatic  obstinacy.     Others  in  alarm  were  willing  to  reduce 
 religion  to  a  system  of  utilitarianism  and  sentimentality,  and 
 acted,  says  Tholuck,  like  a  man  who,  crying  that  his  house 
 is  on  fire,  throws  his  best  mirrors  out  of  the  window  in  order 
 to  save  them.     The  truest  defence  of  the  Church  was  to  be 
 found  in  the  sincere  holiness  of  men  like  Stelling,  Oberlin, 
 Claudius,  and  Lavater.     Preachers  were  living,  among  whom 
 the   teaching  of  the   early  Pietists  still  <;  lingered  like  the 
 fragrance   of  a  flower."       Lavater   especially,    the   friend  of 
 men  like   Goethe  and  Fichte,  maintained   in  the  most  ad- 
 vanced and  polished  circles  a  profound  respect  for  the  religion 
 of  which  he  was  not  ashamed.     In  the  words  of  Goethe,  he 
 still  raised  the  clear  crystal  to  his  lips,  and,  as  he  quaffed  the 
 ■divine  draught,  even  let  it  pour  profusely  over  the  sides  of 
 the  goblet.     In  that  age,  too,  as  in  many  others, 
 
 "  Piety  hath  found 
 I'm  mis  in  the  friends  of  science,  ami  true  prayer 
 Hath  Bowed  from  lips  wet  with  Castalian  dews." 
 
 If  the  clergy  produced  but  little  to  stem  the  rising  tide  of 
 infidelity,  a  poet,  a  physiologist,  a  mathematician,  showed 
 openly  that  they  were  not  ashamed  of  Christ  or  of  His 
 Gospel.  The  hymns  of  Gellert — the  Watts  of  Germany — 
 still    kept   alive   the    spirit    of   the    older    strains    which   had 
 
 1   E.g.   the  ■<     Deutsche  Bibliothek  of  Nicolai  and   Lessing.     The 
 
 work  of  Mendelssohn  in  the  Jewish  community  was  analogous  to  thai  of 
 Lessing  in  the  Church.  His  followers  were  called  Biuristic  ("11K3,  "Illu- 
 mination "). 
 
 -  Even  Zinzendorf  spoke  of  the  Halle  Pietists aa  "those  miserable  Christians 
 whom  no  one  tails  Pietists  l>ut  themselves." 
 
 D    D 
 
402  Early  Rationalists. 
 
 glowed  in  the  Lyra  Germanica.  Haller,  one  of  the  founders 
 of  modern  physiology  (t  1777),  with  the  whole  strength  of  his 
 genius  made  a  stand  against  the  growth  of  materialism. 
 ErjLER  (t  1763),  one  of  the  greatest  mathematicians  of  his 
 age,  ventured  even  in  Berlin,  and  surrounded  by  the  sceptics 
 who  formed  the  court  of  Frederic  the  Great,  to  publish  in 
 1747  his  Defence  of  Revelation  against  the  Attacks  of  Free- 
 thinkers. 
 
 Turning  to  works  which  bore  directly  on  exegesis  we  notice 
 how  cold  was  the  orthodoxy  which  succeeded  the  best 
 days  of  Pietism.  Amid  the  shallowness  of  the  current 
 philosophic  views,  all  men  felt  the  necessity  of  recurring  to 
 the  solid  ground  of  history.  But  even  these  historic  re- 
 searches partook  of  the  character  of  the  age.  They  lacked 
 enthusiasm,  spontaneity,  and  faith.  The  critical  learning  and 
 moderate  rationalism  of  Michaelis  (f  1791)  and  Ernesti 
 (t  1781)  represent  the  chief  efforts  to  elucidate  the  Old 
 and  New  Testaments  on  principles  of  formal  philology. 
 Michaelis  reduces  Moses  to  a  clever  statesman  who  gave  to 
 utility  a  religious  sanction.1  He  was  followed  by  Eichhorn 
 and  Paulus  who,  with  all  their  learning,  could  find  no  better 
 explanation  for  the  supernatural  element  in  both  dispensations 
 than  a  theory  of  mistake,  hyperbole,  and  ignorance.  The 
 naturalism  of  Paulus  received  its  death-blow  from  the  mordant 
 sarcasm  of  Strauss.  Ernesti  was,  perhaps,  the  first  to  formu- 
 late with  perfect  clearness  the  principle  which  has  been  much 
 discussed  in  our  own  day,  "  that  the  verbal  sense  of  Scripture 
 must  be  determined  in  the  same  way  in  which  we  ascertain 
 that  of  other  books."  He  found  a  pupil  greater  than  himself 
 in  the  earnest-minded  and  learned  Semler.2 
 
 Semler  (t  1791)  marks  a  distinct  epoch.     He  was  neither 
 
 1  See  Hengstenberg,  Peitvbatmich,  I.  xiii.  It  is  said  that  the  term  "ration- 
 alism "  first  occurs  in  the  Theologia  Nai/wralis  of  Amos  Comenius,  1661. 
 ' '  Supernal  uralism  "  was  first  used  as  the  antithesis  to  "  Rationalism  "  by  Gabler 
 (Hcngsb.  Theol.  Journ.  1801).  Descartes  in  1650  had  formulated  his  pro- 
 position, Dp  omnibus  dubitandum  est. 
 
 2  Dr.  A.  S.  Farrar  in  his  learned  Bampton  Lectures  (p.  311)  points  out  that 
 Leipzig  was  the  chief  home  of  the  dogmatic  school ;  Gbttingen  of  the  critical  ; 
 Tiibinffen  and  Halle  of  the  Pietist  and  Scholastic. 
 
Scmler.  403 
 
 a  prophet  like  Herder,  nor  an  originator  like  Schleiermaeher. 
 
 but  by  bis  171  books  be  gave  an  impulse  to  exegetic  study. 
 which  is  still  far  from  exhausted.  Trained  among  the  Pietists 
 who  had  taught  him  the  difference  between  theology  and 
 religion,  he  united  to  marked  liberality  and  independence 
 a  sincere  and  pious  orthodoxy.  His  spiritual  experiences, 
 and  the  vast  reading  wbich  revealed  to  him  the  divergences 
 of  theological  opinions,  had  convinced  him  that  men  mus1 
 often  separate  as  it  were  for  themselves  a  religion  which  meets 
 their  own  needs.  He  lived  in  what  has  been  called  "  the 
 epoch  of  subjectivity " — the  epoch  in  which  men  had  con- 
 vinced themselves  that  "every  man  must  see  with  his  own 
 eyes,  and  examine  with  his  own  judgment,  and  comprehend 
 with  his  own  understanding,  all  things  in  the  political,  lit- 
 erary and  religious  world."1  He  regarded  it  as  a  part  of 
 his  religious  duty  to  discriminate  between  those  elements 
 of  the  Bible  which  are  temporary  and  Judaic,  and  that  part 
 which  is  of  eternal  validity.2  The  teaching  of  Ernesti, 
 the  study  of  R.  Simon,  of  Spinoza,  and  of  Michaelis,  had  led 
 him  to  view  the  Bible  on  its  human,  external,  and  historical 
 side  ;  to  consider  it  in  its  diversity  rather  than  in  its  unity  ; 
 in  its  fragmentary  divisions  and  various  methods  rather  than 
 as  an  organic  whole.  He  examined  the  Canon  as  indepen- 
 dently as  Luther  had  done,  and  on  much  the  same  principle. 
 He  pointed  out  the  distinction  between  Judaising  and  Pauline 
 theology,  which  is  the  germ  of  the  criticisms  of  the  school 
 of  Tubingen.  He  gave  to  exegesis  a  new  direction.  In  the 
 early  Church  its  method  had  been  typical ;  among  most  of  the 
 Fathers  allegorical;  in  the  middle  ages  dogmatic;  after  the 
 
 1  Something  of  this  tendency  is  expressed  by  the  doctrine  of  Frederic  th< 
 Great   thai   "every  man  must  be  left  to  get  to  heaven  in  his  own  way.'' 
 
 "Sender  did  all  lie  could  to  take  oil'  tin-  halo  which  rested  on  the  first  reiitu- 
 
 Kahnis),  and  "uttered  the  magic  word   which   emancipated   thi 
 from  the  fetters  of  tradition"  (Reuss).  See  Myers,  Catholic  Thoughts,  p.  286 
 
 2  "  II  is  inconceivable  how  thonghl  lul  I  Ihristians  confound  the  sacred  S 
 ture  of  the  dews  and  the  Word  of  God  which  is  here  and  there  contained  and 
 enveloped  therein."    S«mler,  dbhandl.  v.  freier  Untersttchen  d.  Kanons,  i.  18 
 (■1  vols.  1771   1775).     He  also  wrote  a  special  book,  Der  Unterschied  d.   H 
 Sehrift  und  des  Wortes  Oottcs.     See  many  passages  from  his  writings  qui 
 
 bv  Sonntag  /'■  Doctrina  Tnspirationis,  pp.  162,  fg.),  who  points  out  the  im- 
 portance of  his  distinction  between  "  inspiration  "  and  "  revelation." 
 
 D   I)    -2 
 
404  Vieivs  of  Semler. 
 
 Reformation  confessional ;  in  the  Renaissance,  and  recently 
 again  under  the  influence  of  Ernesti,  it  had  become  pre- 
 dominantly grammatical.  Semler  added,  or  greatly  developed, 
 the  historic  method,  which  lays  predominant  stress  on  the 
 circumstances  and  conditions  by  which  the  original  writers 
 had  been  surrounded.1  But  he  was  rather  the  .child  of  his 
 epoch  than  its  leader,  and,  in  his  later  years,  having  laid  but 
 a  bewildered  hand  on  the  sacred  harp,  he 
 
 "  Back  recoiled,  he  knew  not  why, 
 E'en  at  the  sound  himself  had  made."  2 
 
 The  worst  feature  of  his  system  was  the  extent  to  which  he 
 allowed  the  principle  of  "  accommodation."  That  there  is 
 such  a  thing  as  the  '  oeconomy '  (oi/covo/j,ca)  or  '  condescen- 
 sion '  (avyKardftacrK;)  of  which  Origen  and  the  Fathers  had 
 spoken  is  admitted.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  necessity.3  Anthropo- 
 morphism is  itself  a  concession  to  finite  capacities.  Only  by 
 some  sort  of  condescension  to  our  infirmities  can  the  Infinite 
 be  revealed.  Nor  again  can  it  be  denied  that  something  which 
 may  be  called  "  accommodation  "  is  implied  by  the  progres- 
 siveness  of  revelation.4  There  were  times  of  ignorance  which 
 "  God  winked  at."  Some  things,  as  our  Lord  said,  had  been 
 permitted  by  Moses,  not  because  of  their  intrinsic  desirability 
 but  because  of  the  hardness  of  men's  hearts.5  But  Sender 
 gave  to  this  principle  an  abnormal  and  even  a  repulsive 
 development.  He  pushed  it  to  an  extent  which  seemed, 
 at  least,  to  make  Him  who  is  "  the  Truth  "  responsible  for  a 
 suppression  of  truth  which  is  hardly  distinguishable  from 
 a  suggestion  of  falsehood.6      No  such    system   is  consistent 
 
 1  "  Le  trait  caracteristique  du  19me  siecle  est  d'avoir  substitue"  la  methode 
 historique  a  la  methode  dogmatique,  dans  toutes  les  Etudes  relatives  a  l'esprit 
 humain."  Renan,  Averroes,  p.  vi.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  Semler  was  the 
 subject  of  fierce  attacks.  The  Nova  Bibl.  Ecclesiastica called  him  "homo  im 
 pius,  et  Judaeis  pejor." 
 
 2  He  died,  Kurz  says,  "brokenhearted,"  at  the  height  of  the  controversy 
 raised  by  the  Wolfenbuttel  Fragments.  See  Semler's  Beantwortung  dcr 
 Fragmente  cines  Ungenannten,  1779. 
 
 s  See  Colct's  Letters  to  Radulphus,  p.  28  (ed.  Lupton). 
 
 4  It  is  defined  as  "  oeconoinicum  dicendi  genus."    See  Carus,  Hist,  antiquior 
 Sent.  Ecel.  Graec.  de  Accommodations,  1793. 
 Ezek.  xx.  25.     Matt.  xix.  8. 
 
 6  Each  system  of  interpretation  has  generally  appealed  to  a  favourite  dictum 
 probans.     That  of  Semler  was  i\d\ei  avToh  rbv  \6yov  Kadws  riSvvavTo  aKovsiv, 
 
Under.  405 
 
 with  a  living  Christianity.  If  the  words  even  of  the  Master 
 rested  on  illusion  and  compromise,  then 
 
 "  The  solid  firmament  is  rottenness. 
 
 And  earth's  base  built  on  stubble."  ' 
 
 But  there  could  be  no  permanent  life  in  principles  of 
 exegesis  which  Avere  lacking  in  positive  elements.2  "  Men 
 thought  too  much  about  the  Jews  and  knew  too  little  of 
 Christ."3  Their  interpretation  Avas  " humilis  et  demissa"  to 
 an  extent  far  greater  than  that  of  the  School  of  Antioch. 
 From  so  dead  an  historical  analysis  the  Church  was  saved  by 
 the  genial  influence  of  Herder  (tl803).  "In  Herder  all  the 
 blossoms  of  Humanism  ripened;  in  him  the  palms  of  the 
 East,  the  olives  of  Greece,  the  oaks  of  the  North  are  all 
 thriving.  In  him  Ave  find  the  shady  Avalks  of  philosophy, 
 the  great  perspective  of  history,  the  serene  temple-path  of  a 
 religion  of  Humanism."4  Herder  no  less  than  Semler  was 
 able  to  see  the  human  side  and  progressive  revelation  of 
 Scripture,  but  he  infused  into  the  lifeless  learning  of  his  day 
 the  glowing  heat  of  a  poetic  soul.  He  used  the  Scriptures 
 to  elevate  his  conception  of  humanity,  not  to  dwarf  his  sense 
 of  the  divine.  "Poetry,  philosophy,  history,  are,"  he 
 said,  "  in  my  opinion,  the  three  lights  Avhich  illuminate  the 
 peoples,  the  sects,  and  the  generations — a  holy  triangle."  In 
 Scripture,  "he  saw  alike  vivid  poetry,  a  practical  history, 
 and  an  eternal  philosophy."  "Christianity,"  he  said,  and 
 this  is  the  keynote  of  his  system,  "commands  the  purest 
 humanity  in  the  purest  way."     And  thus  he  met  illuminism 
 
 Mark  iv.  83.  It  was  no  less  misapplied  than  the  Kara  tV  ava^oyiav  rijs 
 •xlarews  |  [torn.  xii.  6)  of  the  Reformation  epoi  b,  and  the  rb  ypan^a  avoKrelvet 
 (2  Cor.  iii.  6  of  the  Fathers  and  Schoolmen,  or  "the  love  of  Christ"  which 
 was  used  by  the  Pietists  as  a  plea  for  holy  ignorance. 
 
 '  Perhaps  the  extreme  outcome  of  SemL  r's  tendencies  maybe  Been  in  Teller's 
 W&rterbuch  d  i  X.T.  1772,  which  reduces  Christianity  to  commonplace 
 morals. 
 
 -  On  the  importanl  influence  of  Semler,  see  his  own  autobiography  1781)  ; 
 H.  Schmid,  Die  Theologie  Semlers,  1858  ;  Tholuck,  Veryn.  Schriften,  ii.  89  ; 
 N. I--,  It.  Do  .1.  S.  Semkro  (Rigae,  1 7 '. > l' i .  and  the  notices  of  him  in  Dorner 
 Diestel,  Meyer,  Kahnis,  rlagenbach,  &c. 
 
 ;  :;,  ass,  Eeil.  Schrift,  ii. 
 
 4  Kahnis,  Germ.  Protestantism,  E.  T.  p.  70.  "Morepoel  than  theologian, 
 and  for  that  reason  only  the  more  Lovely.      Reuss,  §  578. 
 
406  Services  of  Herder. 
 
 with  its  own  weapons.  Christ  in  his  view  was  divinest 
 in  His  divine  humanity,  and  under  His  own  chosen  title 
 as  the  Son  of  God  who  called  Himself  "  the  Son  of  Man."1 
 At  the  very  time  when  men  like  Nicolai  and  Bahrdt  were 
 sneering  at  the  Bible  as  "  an  obsolete,  incomprehensible 
 book,  an  arsenal  of  old  prejudices,"  Herder,  whom  the  most 
 illuminated  among  them  could  not  venture  to  depreciate, 
 was  labouring,  as  Luther  did,  to  place  it  as  the  candle 
 in  the  centre  of  the  sanctuary.2  While  they  were  attempt- 
 ing to  put  Homer  and  Plato  on  a  level  with  Isaiah  and 
 St.  John,  Herder,  who  valued  the  great  Greek  writers  as 
 highly  and  knew  them  better,  said  that  in  comparison  with 
 the  prophets  and  poets  of  the  Old  Testament  the  greatest  of 
 them  were  but  as  a  drop  to  the  ocean.3  "  The  Bible,"  so  he 
 wrote  in  his  letters  on  the  study  of  theology,  "  must  be  read 
 in  a  human  manner,  for  it  is  a  book  written  by  men  for  men. 
 The  best  reading  of  this  divine  book  is  human.  The  more 
 humanly  we  read  the  Word  of  God,  the  nearer  we  come  to 
 the  design  of  its  Author,  who  created  man  in  His  image,  and 
 acts  humanly  in  all  the  deeds  and  mercies,  wherein  He 
 manifests  Himself  as  our  God."  Thus  he  rescued  the 
 Bible  from  the  hands  which  only  tore  and  tangled  the  rich 
 threads  of  its  poetry  and  life.  He  dealt  but  little  with 
 "  the  theological  metaphysics  which  neither  teach  how  to 
 live  or  die,  but  only  how  to  quarrel  scientifically."  He 
 always  tried  to  find  the  Revelation  of  God  centred  in  the  per- 
 son of  Christ,  and  not  in  minute  and  unscriptural  formulae 
 concerning  Him.  Large  tolerance,  a  loving  spirit,  gladness  of 
 heart,  sympathy  with  the  East,  literary  insight,  noble  and 
 melodious  language,  the  ideal  colouring  which  he  shed  over 
 all  that  he  taught — these  were  Herder's  special  gifts.  They 
 helped  him  in  counteracting  the  utilitarianism  of  pulpit 
 teaching,  the  conceit  of  French  infidelity,  and  the  incapacity 
 of  the  prevailing  criticism.     He  left  upon   the  Church  the 
 
 1  Herder,  Yom  Erloser  d.  Menschen,  1796  ;   Von  Gottcs  Sohn,  1797. 
 
 2  Hagenbach,  Germ.  Rationalism,  p.  191. 
 
 3  Zur  Schdnen  Literatur  und  Kunst,  p.  67  (1769). 
 
Kant.  407 
 
 impress  which  she  then  most  needed.1  Perhaps  no  small 
 part  of  his  depth  and  spirituality  were  due  to  his  loving 
 study  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  "It  is,"  he  said,  "a  still 
 deep  sea  in  which  the  heavens  with  the  sun  and  stars  are 
 mirrored.  If  there  are  eternal  truths  for  the  human  race, 
 (and  such  there  are,)  they  are  to  be  found  in  the  Gospel  of 
 St.  John."  2 
 
 But  it  seems  3  as  if  all  human  services  must  inevitably  be 
 imperfect  and  liable  to  abuse.  The  magical  garden  of  Herder 
 was  but  a  labyrinth.  His  romanticism  had  fulfilled  a  necessary 
 function,  but  sterner  elements  were  required  for  the  regenera- 
 tion of  theology.  The  opinions  of  the  age  had  been  sent 
 drifting  upon  the  open  sea  of  doubt,  and  men  were  still 
 searching  for  some  anchor  of  the  soul,  by  which  they 
 could  moor  in  a  safe  harbour  the  faith  which  had  long 
 been  rolling  like  a  dismantled  hulk  on  stormy  and  turbid 
 waves. 
 
 For  a  time  it  seemed  as  if  rest  was  to  be  found  in  the  new 
 attempt  of  Kant  (fl804)to  form  a  union  between  philosophy 
 and  religion.4  But  so  far  as  religion  is  concerned,  the 
 sole  service  of  Kant  was  to  establish  against  utilitarian 
 morals  the  awful  supremacy  of  conscience.  With  in- 
 comparable distinctness,  he,  "  like  a  philosophic  Moses, 
 proclaimed  once  more  the  supernatural  majesty  of  the  moral 
 law."  ■•  Had  this  been  all  it  would  have  been  Avell;  but  Kant's 
 system,  in  vindicating  against  Lutheranism  the  grandeur  of 
 human  freedom,  unhappily  denied   the   necessity  of  divine 
 
 1  Tin.'  besl  exegetical  works  collected  in  Herder's  twelve  volumes  of  Theolog. 
 Wtrke  were  .'*  Ueste  Urkunde  des  M<  nschengeschlcchts,  1774  ;  Lieder  der  I 
 1778;  Maran   dtha,   177'.»:   Vom   Geiste  d.  Hebr.  Poesic,   17S2  ;   Brief e  das 
 Studium  d.  Theologv  betr  fend,  1780. 
 
 '-'  In  this  sketch  of  Herder  I  have  been  much  helped  by  Hagenbach, 
 who  speaks  of  him  with  greal  enthusiasm  and  fulness.  Oe-rm.  Rationalism, 
 pp,  168  212.  See  too  the  singularly  glowing  estimate  of  Liicke,  Qrundriss, 
 p.    7.'.. 
 
 :|  Eahnis,  p.  78. 
 
 4  "  To  seek  fur  thenloLjy  in  ] »hil< isi i] ill y  is  to  seek  fur  the  living  among  the 
 dead;  to  seek  for  philosophy  in  theology  is  to  seek  for  the  dead  amonj 
 living."     Bacon. 
 
 ■  Dorner,  ii.  22.  See  Archer  Butler,  Development  of  Christian  Doctrine, 
 p.  87.  In  Kant's  system  <i<nl  is  revealed  by  the  Law  of  duty,  and  the  freedom 
 and  immortality  of  the  soul  are  postulates  of  the  idea  of 
 
408  Idealism. 
 
 grace.  Religion  became  as  it  were  but  an  adjunct  to  morals; 
 and  since  it  was  branded  as  venality  to  do  what  is  right  for  God's 
 sake,  God  became  little  more  than  "  a  stream  of  tendency," 
 and  Christ  not  an  historic  Person,  but  that  "divine  idea  of 
 man  which  expiates  our  sinful  mortality."  It  is  true  that, 
 recognising  the  enslavement  of  the  Practical  Reason  by 
 an  enigmatic  selfishness,  Kant  postulates  the  necessity  for 
 an  ideal  Church,  which  presupposes  an  ideal  Founder.1 
 But  the  supernatural  ism  for  which  Kant,  as  it  were  by 
 an  afterthought,  found  room  in  his  system,  was  obviously 
 superfluous  if  it  offered  to  the  reason  nothing  more  than  its 
 own  contents.  We  cannot  therefore  be  surprised  that  in  the 
 Idealism  to  which  Kant  paved  the  way  from  the  older 
 Rationalism,  God  became  as  distant  from  man  as  the  Stoic 
 "Providence."  To  exegesis  he  only  contributed  the  ration- 
 alising suggestion  that  it,  or  its  application,  should  be  purely 
 allegorical  and  moral ; 2  and  since  he  too,  like  Sender,  had 
 allowed  the  free  use  of  "  accommodation,"  Paulus  applied  his 
 system  in  a  truly  ludicrous  explanation  of  the  New  Testament 
 miracles.  In  this  system,  as  Dorner  says,  "the  miraculous 
 power  is  transferred  to  the  exegete,  who  does  not  indeed 
 make  something  out  of  nothing,  but  who  manages  to  change 
 something  into  nothing,  and  then  gives  out  this  nothing  as 
 something,  throwing  away  the  kernel  of  the  history  in  order 
 only  to  retain  the  shell."  Under  the  impulse  which  Kant 
 had  given,  Christianity  was  replaced  by  vague  religionism, 
 which  gave  way  to  bare  morality,  which  in  its  turn  was 
 replaced  once  more  by  the  very  eudaemoriism  which  Kant 
 most  disliked.3 
 
 1  The  language  of  Kant,  as  of  many  of  even  the  most  advanced  sceptics, 
 was  profoundly  reverential  towards  Christ.  He  rebuked  Borowski  for  mention- 
 ing his  name  in  any  nearness  to  that  of  Christ.  "  Namen  davon  der  eine 
 geneiligt,  der  andere  aber  eines  armen  Ihn  nach  Vermogen  auslegenden 
 Stiimper's  ist."      W&rke,  xi.  131. 
 
 2  Here  we  have  once  more  an  illustration  of  the  fact  that  Allegory  is  in 
 reality  the  offspring  of  Rationalism. 
 
 3  Dorner,  ii.  328.  Among  theologians  Wegseheider  specially  represents  the 
 views  of  Kant.  "The  Kantian  rationalism  pretended  to  commemorate  the 
 mysteries  of  Christianity  from  behind  the  veil  of  its  terminology  in  a  clearer  and 
 glorified  light."     Chalybaus,  Lect.  17. 
 
Fichte.  409 
 
 Tt  is  not  here  necessary  to  dwell  on  the  successors  of 
 Kant,  Kant  had  recognised  the  objective  reality  of  the 
 "  thing  in  itself."  Fichte  tried  to  get  rid  of  this  Kantian 
 dualism,  by  treating  the  Non-Ego  as  a  mere  postulate  of 
 Ego;  by  making  the  Ego  to  be  everything,  even  God; 
 or  by  saying  that  the  Ego  has  no  existence  at  all,  and 
 that  there  is  nothing  but  God  1 — a  God,  however,  who,  as 
 far  as  Fichte's  philosophy  was  concerned,  was  without  person- 
 ality and  without  self-consciousness.  If  Kant's  categorical 
 imperative  could  bear  no  living  fruits,  neither  could  this 
 resolution  of  everything  into  self  or  into  the  absolute. 
 Jacobi,  among  his  constant  oscillations,  at  least  saw  dis- 
 tinctly that  we  cannot  pray  to  a  God  which  we  simply  pos- 
 sess as  the  Ego,  or  even  to  a  God  who  is  "the  moral  order 
 of  the  world,"  but  to  a  God  who  can  say  to  us,  "  I  am  that  I 
 am."  The  system  of  Fichte  might  serve  for  an  unanswerable 
 philosophy,  it  is  useless  for  every  purpose  of  personal  religion. 
 That  could  only  be  derived,  as  it  was  by  Fichte  himself,  from 
 far  different  sources.2  Philosophy  had  served  no  other  re- 
 ligious purpose  than  to  help  Protestantism  to  shake  off  the 
 tyranny  of  narrow  dogmas.  It  could  offer  nothing  substantial 
 in  their  place. 
 
 The  more  constructive  movement  of  the  new  epoch  began 
 with  SCHLEIERMACHER  (1*1834),  the  Origen  of  Germany,  who 
 exercised  a  profound  influence  alike  on  religion  and  on 
 biblical  interpretation.  He  is  the  founder  of  what  maybe 
 called  the  psychological  school  of  exegesis.  Like  Lessing, 
 Sender,  and  Herder,  he  was  a  man  of  deep  piety,  but  lie  had 
 a   clearer   insight  and  a  profounder  faith   than  any  of  the 
 
 1  The  .V'  ■■  to  Fichte,  has  no  reality  without  us.  but  is  pro- 
 
 i  by  the  activity  and  unconscious  intuition  of  the  Ego  :  and  this  ci 
 Ej^oisnot  the  individual  but  the  absolute  Ego. 
 >  "God  is  infinite,  therefore  beyond  the  reach  of  our  set  rice,  but  no1  beyond 
 itli."     Fichte,  SittenUhre.     Claudius  compared  an  ideal  religion  withoul 
 historical    bai  i  to    a   painted   horse,  which  you   can  admire   bul    nol    ride. 
 Hagenbach,  0  i  m.  Rat.  p.  296. 
 
 :;  Fichte,  Spekulativ  ,  1846.     If  is  a  characteristic  fact  that 
 
 Fichte  and  Schelling  dwelt  on  the  primary  importance  of  the  Gospel  of  St, 
 tt's  St.  John,  j>.  jccvL). 
 
410  Schlewrmacher. 
 
 three.1  He  saw  as  distinctly  as  they  the  difference  between 
 religion  and  dogma,  between  the  Church  and  the  school  of 
 theology,  between  the  Scriptures  as  a  whole  and  the  collec- 
 tions of  "proof-texts"  which  had  been  drawn  from  them. 
 But,  because  Piety  had  been,  as  he  says,  the  womb  in  whose 
 holy  darkness  his  young  life  was  nourished,2  he  also  saw,  as 
 they  had  not  done,  the  power  and  the  function  of  Faith,  and 
 the  need  for  the  redemptive  work  of  Christ.  It  was  through 
 this  apprehension  of  Christ  that  he  was  able  to  under- 
 stand the  New  Testament,3  and  while  rising  above  sectarian 
 bigotry  to  feel  the  necessity  for  something  beyond  the 
 philosophical  probabilities  of  Leibnitz,  the  historical  in- 
 quiries of  Semler,  and  the  poetic  sympathies  of  Herder. 
 His  Monologues,  published  in  1800,  were  the  fitting  com- 
 mencement of  an  influence  which  was  to  affect  so  power- 
 fully the  new  century.4  His  main  work  was  to  vindicate  for 
 Christianity  its  place  in  the  emotions,  and  not  to  treat 
 it  either  as  a  series  of  dogmas,  a  philosophical  problem,  or  a 
 system  of  morals.  The  Rationalists  called  him  a  mystic 
 because  he  was  a  sincere  believer ;  the  orthodox  called 
 him  a  Rationalist  because  he  claimed  the  right  to  the  free 
 criticism  which  since  the  days  of  Luther  had  scarcely  dared 
 to  breathe  or  whisper.  He  belonged  to  neither  party;  he 
 was  greater  than  them  both.  Uniting  the  deepest  prin- 
 ciples of  Syncretism  and  Pietism,  he  was  the  Luther,  the 
 Calixt,  the  Spener,  and  the  Semler  of  a  new  and  philosophic 
 theology  based  on  religious  consciousness.     "  Speculation  and 
 
 1  "Not  even  Herder,"  says  Strauss,  "so  distinctly  and  emphatically 
 asserted  the  divinity  of  Christ  as  he  did."  New  Life  of  Jesus,  introd.  §  5. 
 He  gave  a  greater  impulse  to  exegesis  than  any  one  since  Calvin. 
 
 2  As  a  boy  of  fifteen  he  had  been  sent  to  the  Moravian  school  of  Niesky, 
 and  he  afterwards  entered  the  Moravian  College  at  Barby.  He  went  to  Halle 
 at  the  age  of  nineteen  in  1787. 
 
 3  He  contributed  little  or  nothing  to  the  understanding  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment, He  wished  to  unite  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches,  and  said, 
 "Christ  is  the  quickening  centre  of  the  Church;  from  Him  all  comes,  to 
 1 1 hn  all  returns."  In  his  last  moments  he  celebrated  the  Holy  Communion 
 with  his  family,  and  solemnly  expressed  his  faith  in  Christ  his  Saviour,  and  in 
 the  atoning  merits  of  His  death. 
 
 4  They  were  the  moral  completion  of  the  llcden  iiber  die  Religion,  published 
 in  1799,  which  were  addressed  rather  to  the  bigoted  than  to  the  indifferent. 
 
His  School.  411 
 
 faith,"  says  W.  von  Humboldt,  "  are  often  regarded  as  being 
 hostile  to  each  other;  but  it  was  peculiar  to  this  man  that  he 
 united  both  most  intimately,  without  doing  injustice  to  the 
 freedom  and  depth  of  the  one,  or  to  the  simplicity  of  the 
 other."  The  consequence  was  that  if  he  did  not  become 
 the  founder  of  a  school,  he  yet  inspired  many  who  were 
 more  or  less  his  followers.  Most  of  those  followers  worked 
 in  the  field  of  exegesis.  Among  them  we  may  number 
 men  of  very  different  schools :  men  of  strict  orthodoxy  like 
 Twesten,  Nitzsch,  and  J.  Miiller;  men  with  a  leaning  to 
 rationalism  like  De  Wette,1  Bleek,  and  Gieseler;  men  who 
 occupied  an  intermediate  position  like  Olshausen,  Tholuck, 
 Richm,  Weiss,  Hagenbach,  Uhllorn,  Liicke,  Neander,  Umbreit, 
 rihnann,  Dorner,  and  other  writers,  at  whose  feet  the 
 theologians  of  England,  though  they  too  have  done  a 
 great  and  lasting  work,  have  been  content  for  many  years  to 
 sit  and  learn.  The  first  work  of  the  ablest  prelate  of  modern 
 days,  the  late  Bishop  Thirlwall  of  St.  David's,  was  a  trans- 
 lation of  Schleiermacher's  Introduction  to  Si.  Luke. 
 
 But  in  spite  of  Schleiermacher's  powerful  and,  on  the 
 whole,  healthy  influence  the  conflict  was  by  no  means  over. 
 Its  most  acute  crisis  was  yet  to  come.  Hegel  was  born  in 
 I77i»,  two  years  later  than  Schleiermacher.  In  his  system 
 the  world  has  probably  seen  the  last  attempt  to  make 
 religion  a  phase  of  philosophy.  Schleiermacher  had  en- 
 deavoured to  establish  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of  Chris- 
 tianity by  finding  it  psychologically  in  its  adaj^tation  to 
 human  needs,  and  its  satisfaction  of  human  aspirations. 
 Sehelling  had  ascribed  the  power  to  grasp  the  ideal  of  God 
 to  "intellectual  intuition;"  Jacobi  to  a  mixture  of  feeling 
 and  intuition.  Hegel  once  more  revived  the  tendency  to 
 ideology,  and  treated  religious  dogma  as  the  explanation  of 
 
 1  Sir  Schwarz,  Qesch.  d.  newest.  Theol.  p.  27.  Schleiermacher  no1  only  in- 
 fluenced !)'•  Wette,  bul  even  gave  to  the  Tubingen  school  some  im] 
 by  lii-.  letter  to  Gasa  on  the  Pastoral  Epistles  (1817),  and  liis  introduction  to 
 St.  Luke  [1824).  His  chirr  book,  Der  Ohristliche  Qlaube  •_'  vols.  1821) 
 bore  the  same  relation  to  modern  German  theology  as  Calvin's  Institrutio  to 
 thai  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  Schleiermacher  never  entered  into  current 
 controversies. 
 
412  Hegel. 
 
 a  priori  principles.1  Thus  Hegel's  Trinity — which  consists 
 of  an  unconditioned  subtraction,  a  conditioned  reality,  and 
 the  identity  of  the  two — is  indefinitely  far  removed  from  that 
 of  Athanasius,  and  still  farther  from  that  of  Scripture.  Hegel's 
 Christ  is  neither  the  Christ  of  scholastic  dogma,  nor  Kant's 
 Ideal  of  Humanity,  nor  the  historic  Christ  of  Schleiermacher, 
 nor  the  Redeeming  Saviour  of  Spener  and  Francke,  but  only 
 a  speculative  Christ,  a  sort  of  identity  between  the  known 
 and  the  knowing.  The  Holy  Spirit  of  Hegel  is  not  the  Holy 
 Ghost  the  Comforter,  but  "  that  which  brings  the  Father  and 
 the  Son  in  the  essence  of  God  to  a  unity  of  consciousness." 2 
 The  knowledge  of  such  a  Trinity  is  not  life,  but  a  mere 
 logical  notion,  a  mere  etherealised  shadow  of  arbitrary 
 thought.3 
 
 It  is  not  for  us  to  ask  how  far  Hegel  was  in  earnest  with 
 this  strange  orthodoxy,  or  how  far  his  orthodoxy  was  mere 
 self-delusion,  and  that  of  his  followers  the  mistaking  of  words 
 for  realities.4  But  though  some  of  them  certainly,  like 
 Daub  and  Marheinecke  (t  1846),  were  perfectly  sincere,  the 
 natural  results  of  his  system  appeared  very  rapidly,  on  the 
 one  hand,  in  Strauss,  Bruno  Bauer,  and  Feuerbach,  on  the 
 
 1  "  Like  the  ancient  Gnosticism,  the  Hegelian  philosophy  believed  in  dog- 
 matic Christianity,  because  it  descended  from  an  a  prioi  i  principle,  in  which 
 it  found  the  explanation  of  it"  (Dr.  A.  S.  Farrar,  Free  Tkought,  p.  373). 
 "  Der  Grundgedanke  seiner  Philosophic  ist  daher;  das  Absolute  ist  Process, 
 ist  die  Selbstentwiekelung  der  Substanz  zum  Subject  "  (Schwarz,  p.  15).  "The 
 existence  of  a  personal  God  is  admitted  neither  within  nor  without  the  Universe, 
 hut  is  reduced  simply  to  the  knowledge  of  the  human  being.  The  hope  of 
 conscious  immortality  is  scoffed  at  as  a  sensuously  selfish  illusion ;  and  the 
 antagonism  of  good  and  evil  is  suppressed,  evil  being  regarded  as  necessary, 
 and  good  as  only  relative,  while  both  may  relapse  into  each  other"  (ChalybauS, 
 Lect.  18). 
 
 2  ' '  Tbe  Universality  can  be  regarded  as  the  absolute  essence  (the  Father) 
 which  by  the  world's  reality  (the  Son,  as  the  momentum  of  particularity) 
 mediates  itself  into  the  identity  (the  Holy  Ghost),"  Chalybaus,  Lect.  16. 
 
 3  The  influence  of  Hegel  is  clearly  seen  in  Wilhelm  Vatke,  who  applied 
 Hegel's  method  to  Old  Testament  criticism.  See  Dr.  Geldardt,  in  Mod. 
 Review,  1884. 
 
 4  Hegel's  Rcligionsphilosophie  was  only  published  after  his  death,  in  1832. 
 Of  the  Christliche  Qlaubenslehre  of  Strauss,  it  has  been  said  that  "itresembles 
 a  theology  in  the  same  way  that  a  cemetery  resembles  a  city."  A  letter  in 
 the  life  of  Vatke  (September,  182S)  gives  a  curious  picture  of  the  theological 
 currents  in  Berlin  when  Schleiermacher,  Neander,  and  Marheinecke  were 
 Professors. 
 
Strauss.  4 1 3 
 
 other,    in    Ferdinand    Christian    Baur,    and    the    school    of 
 Tubingen.1 
 
 Hegel  had  not  been  four  years  in  his  grave  before  the 
 appearance,  in  1835,  of  a  book  by  one  who  had  been 
 his  pupil,  which  produced  in  theology  the  sensation  of  an 
 earthquake.  That  book  was  Strauss's  Life  of  Jestis.  It 
 illustrated  the  danger  which  Claus  Harms  had  prophesied 
 in  his  theses  of  1817,  that  "  Lutheranism  would  be  pro- 
 gressively reformed  back  into  heathenism."  It  did  not 
 so  much  make  an  epoch  as  cause  a  crisis ;  it  did  not  so 
 much  constitute  a  beginning  as  a  close.2  It  was  the  rcductio 
 ad  horribile  of  current  scepticism.  Kant  had  seen  in  the 
 existence  of  the  Church  a  proof  of  the  existence  of  its  Founder. 
 Strauss  inverted  the  relation,  and  saw  in  the  idea  of  Christ 
 an  invention  of  the  already  existing  Church.  The  ability  of 
 the  book,  its  clearness,  its  mastery  of  the  critical  studies 
 which  Hegel  had  despised,  its  union  of  Hegelian  construc- 
 tiveness  with  ruthless  criticism,  its  adoption  of  the  historic 
 method  which  was  peculiarly  suited  to  the  tendencies  of 
 the  century,  all  increased  the  shock  which  the  Lcben  Jcsu 
 caused  in  the  minds  of  Christians.3  The  theory  of  the  book 
 was  as  original  as  it  was  audacious.  There  was  little  or  no 
 attempt  at  flimsy  and  fantastic  ideology.  With  great  acute- 
 ness  Strauss  marshalled  and  magnified  the  difficulties 
 and  discrepancies  which,  though  they  are  innocuous  to 
 any  reasonable  view  of  truthful  testimony,  fell  with  fatal 
 force  on  the  hollow  idol  of  the  dictation  dogma  which 
 had  so  long  been  enthroned  on  the  pedestal  of  a  false 
 orthodoxy.  And  when,  on  these  grounds,  he  had  denied  the 
 genuineness  and  credibility  of  the  Gospels,  he  proceeded 
 to   account  for  their  existence  by  the  theory  of  myths ;    in 
 
 1  See  Hegel's  Philosophy  of  Eistory  (E.  T.J.  Sibrce,  1857) ;  Vera,  PhiUmphit 
 ETigelienne,   ami    Tntrod.   a  la  Philosophic  dc  Hegel. 
 
 1  Schwarz,  Qesch,  </.  neuest.  Thiol,  p.  3.  Strauss,  then  .i  Repetent  in 
 Theology,  had  gone  from  Tubingen  to  Berlin  in  1831  on  purpose  to  hear 
 Schleiennacher'a  lectures  on  the  Life  of  Christ,  and  "Sic  gaben  ihm  den 
 Btarksten  An  toss  zn  Beinem  Zerstorungswerk,"  p.  29. 
 
 :<  It  was  translated  into  French  by  Littre,  1839  ;  into  English  anonymousl} 
 by  Miss  Evans,  1846. 
 
414  Baiir. 
 
 other  words,  he  treated  the  facts  narrated  in  the  Gospels  as 
 stories  evolved  out  of  the  idea.  For  Christ  he  substituted 
 mankind  in  general  as  the  only  incarnation  of  God,  and  in 
 his  subsequent  work,  the  Glaubenskhre,  he  declared  the 
 absolute  irreconcilability  of  Christianity  with  modern  cul- 
 ture.1 Strauss  was  rapidly  followed  by  men  who  showed 
 whither  his  teaching  led.  Bruno  Bauer  spoke  of  the  Gospels 
 with  ridicule,  and  declared  them  to  be  due  to  conscious 
 fiction ;  Feuerbach  argued  that  it  is  man  only  who 
 exists  and  not  God,  and  that  every  positive  religion  is  due 
 to  nothing  but  the  self-delusion  of  mankind. 
 
 At  such  an  epoch  the  hearts  of  many  began  to  fail  them 
 for  fear,  and  still  more  when  Ferdinard  Baur  endeavoured 
 (to  use  his  own  language)  to  take  by  regular  siege  the 
 fortress  which  Strauss  had  thought  to  surprise  by  storm. 
 Baur  was  a  man  deserving  of  all  respect.  His  intellect  was 
 keen,  his  learning  immense,  his  industry  inexhaustible,  his 
 heart  sincere.  In  his  powerful  answer  to  Mohler's  Symbolik 
 he  had  already  proved  himself  to  be  a  great  theologian,  and 
 the  cause  of  Christian  Apologetics  seemed  to  be  seriously 
 imperilled  when  he  attacked  the  genuineness  of  the  greater 
 part  of  the  New  Testament.  Supplementing  Strauss's  view 
 of  the  Gospel  history  by  a  close  criticism  of  the  GosjdcIs 
 themselves,  he  endeavoured  to  undermine  their  authority 
 by  emphasising  into  contradictoriness  the  different  points  of 
 view  in  the  Synoptists  and  St.  John. 
 
 But  true  Christianity  has  nothing  to  fear  at  any  time. 
 The  strength  and  consummate  equipment  of  these  attacks 
 has  but  rendered  more  evident  the  impregnability  of  the 
 sacred  citadel.  Neander  showed  the  calmness  of  his  own 
 courageous  convictions  when  he  withstood  the  proposal  of 
 the  Prussian  Government  to  prohibit  the  introduction  into 
 Prussia  of  Strauss's  books.  The  Lebcn  Jesti,  which  seemed 
 likely  to  be  so  fatal,  was  but  one  more  of  the  many  waves 
 which  have  dashed  themselves  in  vain  upon  the  rock,  and 
 
 1  Strauss  wrote  to  Vatke  :  "  Schleiermacher  has  stirred  me  deeply  .  .  . 
 hut  he  does  not  say  the  last  word.     This  word  I  will  utter." 
 
Neander.  415 
 
 been  scattered  into  mist  upon  the  wind  and  scum  upon 
 the  shore.  It  called  forth  a  multitude  of  answers  equal 
 to  it  in  ability  and  learning,  infinitely  superior  to  it  in 
 } lower  and  depth.  It  was  Neander,  more  than  any  man, 
 — Neander,  that  "  saint  of  Protestantism,"  that  last  of 
 the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  as  he  has  been  affectionately 
 called, — Neander,  with  his  fanaticism  of  mildness  and  in- 
 tolerance of  intolerance,  who  stemmed  the  rising  tide  of 
 infidelity.  His  motto  was  pectus  facit  theologum,  and  many 
 sneered  at  his  followers  as  pectoralists,  but  he  relied  on  deep 
 learning  quite  as»much  as  on  pious  emotion.  Those  who 
 have  read  such  lives  of  Christ  as  were  written  in  answer  to 
 Strauss  by  Neander,  Ullmann,  Tholuck,  Lange,  Ewald,  Riggen- 
 bach,  and  many  others — those  who  have  since  studied  the  pro- 
 found and  powerful  works  of  Weiss  and  Keim — will  see,  even 
 amid  some  concessions  which  they  may  regret,  how  jejune  and 
 transitory  was  the  work  of  Strauss.  The  feelings  with  which 
 it  was  read  even  by  Christians  of  moderate  erudition  were 
 well  expressed  by  the  earnest  and  eloquent  Lacordaire. 
 Studying  the  book  paragraph  by  paragraph,  and  then  opening- 
 tin  ■  Gospels  to  read  the  texts  which  had  been  criticised, 
 he  says  that,  in  spite  of  a  sort  of  involuntary  terror  inspired 
 by  the  writer's  erudition,  "it  never  needed  more  than  ten 
 minutes  to  dissipate  the  charm  of  a  vain  science,  and  to 
 enable  me  to  smile  inwardly  at  the  impotence  to  which  God 
 has  condemned  error."  : 
 
 As  Strauss  had  laughed  out  of  the  field  the  naturalism  of 
 Paulus,  so  it  was  Baur  who  showed  the  radical  weakness  of 
 the  mythical  theory  of  Strauss.  Neither  he,  nor  the  able 
 writers  who  followed  him,  could  fall  into  the  extreme  folly  of 
 denying  the  historical  existence  of  Jesus,  or  the  fact  that  the 
 faith  in  Him  sprang  from  His  own  transcendent  personality. 
 Even  the  ingenuity  of  Baur  could  not  put  the  date  of  the 
 Gospels  low  enough  to  allow  for  the  evolution  of  myths,  nor 
 could  his  candour  deny  the  certain  genuineness  of  &\  least  the 
 
 1    Confi'ranrs  (1846),  ]'■  155. 
 
41G  Failure  of  Strati**. 
 
 Apocalypse  and  the  four  greatest  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.1  Many 
 of  his  arguments  for  the  spuriousness  of  the  New  Testament 
 were  strangely  futile,  and  his  own  school  has  had  to  admit  the 
 genuineness  of  books  which  he  declared  to  be  apocryphal. 
 But  meanwhile  if  the  main  results  of  his  criticism  had 
 been  successful,  enough  would  have  remained  even  in  the 
 Apocalypse  and  the  four  Epistles  to  prove  the  truth  of  the 
 historic  Gospel.  Baur,  in  fact,  rendered  a  threefold  service. 
 The  germ  of  his  tendency-theory,  founded  on  an  hostility 
 between  the  Judaic  and  Pauline  elements  in  the  Church, 
 was  true  and  full  of  suggestiveness,  though  his  developments 
 of  this  view  were  utterly  extravagant.  His  criticisms  led  to 
 a  yet  closer  and  more  thorough  examination  of  the  Canon, 
 which  has  tended  to  establish  every  book  of  it,  with  very  few 
 exceptions,  on  an  even  more  certain  basis  than  before.2  And 
 meanwhile  he  had  shown,  not  to  the  world  only,  but  even  to 
 Strauss  himself,  that  the  book  which  was  to  have  convulsed 
 Christianity  to  its  foundations  was  but  an  idle  dream.  In  subse- 
 quent editions  Strauss  undid  his  own  work  by  making  an  un- 
 availing attempt  to  remodel  his  theory  on  the  views  of  Baur 
 and  Feuerbach,3  allotting  more  space  to  conscious  and  inten- 
 tional fiction.  The  argument  failed  as  egregiously  as  before. 
 The  inherent  simplicity  and  truthfulness  of  the  Gospels 
 defeats  every  attempt  to  brand  them  with  intentional 
 imposture.  Twenty-five  years  after  the  Leben  Jesu  had 
 been  published,  its  author,  with  ill-concealed  chagrin, 
 alluded  to  the  fact  that  it  was  already  beginning  to  be 
 foi'gotten  and  overlooked. 
 
 And  in  many  other  ways  God  brought  good  out  of  evil, 
 and  mercifully  vindicated  His  truth  to  man.  These  attempts 
 to  represent  the  Saviour  of  the  World  as  one  who  could  stoop 
 
 1  Such  discoveries  as  the  lost  "  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles"  and  the 
 inscription  on  the  tomh  of  Abereius,  Bishop  of  Hieropolis,  found  last  year 
 by  Mr.  Ramsay  in  Phrygia,  are  alone  sufficient — apart  from  the  certain  date 
 of  some  of  the  canonical  writings — to  shake  to  the  dust  the  whole  mythic 
 theory  which  once  seemed  to  loom  so  large. 
 
 2  Baur  has  been  followed  by  Schwegler,  Hilgenfeld,  Zeller,  Volkmar,  &c, 
 and  opposed  by  Thiersch,  Dorner,  Ewald,  Bleek,  &c. 
 
 3  Leben  Jcsufilr  das  Deutsche  Volk  bearbeitet,  p.  158  (1864). 
 
Orthodox  Reaction.  417 
 
 to  deceit  horrified  the  feelings  of  all  Christendom.  So 
 far  from  convincing  they  repelled.  The  work  of  Strauss  had  an 
 effect  very  different  from  that  which  he  had  intended.  It 
 was  tin.'  dissolution  not  of  Christianity,  but  of  the  preten- 
 tious philosophy  which  had  posed  at  first  as  its  protector.1 
 It  gave  an  impulse  to  the  concentration,  the  revival,  even 
 the  enlightenment  of  Christian  life.  It  is  true  that  the 
 orthodox  reaction  evoked  by  his  Life  of  Jesus  contained  some 
 unworthy  elements.  In  the  hands  of  domineering  partisans 
 it  sought  to  maintain  itself  by  the  terrorism  of  anonymous 
 journalism,  aided  by  majorities  and  denunciations,  by 
 protests  and  depositions.  It  invoked  the  anti-Christian 
 bitterness  of  religious  partisanship  to  secure  the  prosperity 
 of  the  clericalism  which  it  perniciously  identified  with 
 Christianity.  Had  this  been  its  only  result  the  brief 
 revival  would  have  been  doomed  to  swift  and  more  over- 
 u  Induing  catastrophe.2  But  the  deadly  attack  of 
 Strauss  upon  the  centre  of  Christian  faith  stimulated 
 in  a  far  healthier  way  than  this  the  negligences  of  the 
 Christian  life.  The  pulpits  rang  once  more  with  vital  truth 
 and  manly  eloquence.  The  clergy  saw  the  necessity  for 
 something  beyond  official  studies,  and  found  that  the 
 rusty  armour  of  scholastic  orthodoxy  was  useless  against 
 tlic  cannon  of  modern  warfare.  The  laity  began  to  re- 
 member that  they  too,  no  less  than  the  clergy,  were  a 
 spiritual  priesthood  called  to  the  duty  of  good  works. 
 Missions  became   more  active   and   more   earnest;  education 
 
 1  See  Kahilis,  p.  249. 
 
 -  The  failure  of  Hengstenberg  and  hia  short-lived  school  of  reaction  into 
 "confessional  orthodoxy  "  was  due  to  the  fatal  attempt  to  stake  the  whole  of 
 divine  revelation  on   the  weakness  of  any  particular  link,  and  also  to  the 
 Snarling  party-newspaiier  style  of  eonti'nversy  and  the   eeelesiastiea]  terrorism 
 on  which  it  relied.     Hengstenberg  was  the  Calov  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
 and  the  Evang        '■   Kirchcnzeitung,  during  the  period  of  its  influence  (1835 
 1848)  occupied   the  same  nnhappj  position  as  the  Record  did  twenty  years 
 Bui  do  heresj  hunting,   do  religious  espionage,  do  hounding  of  theo- 
 logical hatred  Rgainsl  unpopular  Dames  could  give  life  to  a  school  of  retri 
 sion  animated  bj  unscrupulous  and  bitter  animosities.     It  was  soon  seen  that 
 the  strange   Devi    orthodoxy  of  an  Evangelical   Loyola  or  Torquemada,  using 
 evil  means  thai   supposed  good  mighl  come,  was  a  complete  anachronism 
 Schwarz,   pp.  58  92,    Km/,    p.   299).     So  retrogressive  was  Hengsteu 
 commentary  on  the  Canticles,  thai  Bunsen  called  it  a"  disgrace  to  Germany. 
 
 E  E 
 
418  Enlarged  Views. 
 
 more  thorough  and  religious.  Above  all  faith  was  deepened, 
 and  was  restored  to  its  due  supremacy  in  the  economy  of  the 
 Christian  life.  The  whole  Christian  world  had  learnt  to  see 
 that  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  there  are  many  unsolved  diffi- 
 culties, many  unreconciled  antinomies.  They  saw  that  the 
 soul  could  not  be  sustained  in  its  convictions  exclusively  by 
 the  biblical  supernaturalism  which  had  not  come  unscathed 
 out  of  the  assaults  of  so  many  writers  from  Spinoza  down  to 
 Baur.  They  saw  that  questions  like  the  genuineness  of 
 this  or  that  particular  book,  could  never  alone  become  so 
 certain  that  upon  them  could  be  built  the  majestic  super- 
 structure of  a  Christian's  faith.  They  realised  that  there 
 was  something  both  radically  unscriptural  and  profoundly 
 irreverent  in  questions  as  to  whether  a  book  was  written  by  a 
 man  or  by  "  the  pen  of  the  Triune  God."  They  remembered 
 that  the  spiritual  life  of  many  a  hero  and  patriarch  had  been 
 sustained  and  inspired  by  a  Word  of  God  which  was  not  the 
 written  word,  but  of  Whom  the  written  word  is  to  us  a 
 revelation  ;  and  that  the  earliest  Christians,  who  had  been 
 Christians  indeed,  were  heirs  of  the  new  covenant,  though 
 not  a  line  of  the  New  Testament  had  yet  been  penned. 
 They  returned,  says  the  ablest  and  deepest  historian  of  this 
 epoch  to  "  the  power  and  certainty  of  the  material  principle 
 of  the  Faith — whence  critical  operations  may  be  contemplated 
 with  serenity,  nay,  actively  shared  in  without  anxiety."  l 
 
 On  a  Faith  thus  strengthened — on  a  Faith  which  had 
 attained  to  a  deeper  certainty  than  historical  criticism  could 
 either  bestow  or  shake — all  subsequent  storms  fell  in  vain. 
 "  We  older  men,"  says  Meyer,  in  the  Preface  to  his  fourth 
 edition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  "  have  seen  the  day 
 when  Dr.  Paulus  and  his  devices  were  in  vogue ;  he  died 
 without  leaving  a  disciple  behind  him.  We  passed  through 
 the  tempest  raised  by  Strauss,  and  with  what  a  sense  of 
 solitariness  might  its  author  now  celebrate  his  jubilee  !  We 
 saw  the  constellation  of  Tubingen  arise,  and  even  before 
 Baur  departed  its  lustre  had  waned.  A  firmer  basis  and 
 1  Doracr,  ii.  397. 
 
Increased  Knowledge.  419 
 
 a  more  complete  apprehension  of  the  truth  were  the 
 hlessings  which  these  waves  left  behind  them.'"  Christian 
 students  availed  themselves  of  many  important  lessons 
 which  critics  had  brought  into  prominence  while  they  re- 
 jected their  more  extravagant  conclusions.  Renan's  Vie  de 
 Jdms  failed  to  shake  a  general  conviction.  It  was  accepted 
 as  a  picture — in  its  better  aspect  a  pathetic  picture — 
 of  the  life  of  Christ  in  its  purely  external  features 
 while  no  one  whose  faith  had  not  been  previously  shaken 
 felt  anything  but  regret  and  pity  for  its  negation  of  the 
 supernatural  at  the  expense  of  the  truthfulness  of  Christ. 
 And  meanwhile  the  literature  of  a  strong  and  wise  theology 
 was  being  yearly  enriched  by  the  labours  of  men  whose 
 Learning  and  diligence  were  unsurpassed.  Winer  for  the 
 first  time  produced  a  thorough  grammar  of  the  Hellenistic 
 dialect.  Tholuck,  outliving  the  times  in  which  his  house 
 was  attacked  and  his  person  insulted  because  he  reverenced 
 the  Bible,  outliving,  too,  the  day  when  he  could  only  find  one 
 of  his  theological  students  who  read  the  Bible  for  devotional 
 purposes,  began  a  new  epoch  by  his  Commentary  on  the 
 Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  once  more  taught  men  to  regard 
 the  whole  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  as  being  in  its 
 essence  one  great  and  unassailable  prophecy.  From  schools 
 of  orthodox  reaction,  more  or  less  rigidly  Lutheran  or 
 reformed,  came  such  works  as  those  of  Keil,  and  Haver- 
 nick,  of  Stier,  Olshausen,  and  Lange.  From  the  so-called 
 "  Mediating  Theology  " — a  school  of  freer  spirit,  but  not 
 untouched  by  the  scepticism  of  the  age,  came  the  works 
 of  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Delitzsch,  Huther,  De  Wette.1 
 N  eandeh  shed  over  Church  history  the  glow  of  his  ripe 
 learning  and  large-hearted  piety.  MEYER  published  his 
 critical  and  luminous  edition  of  the  New  Testament. 
 DORNER  in  his  Ghristology  produced  a  book  which  for  its 
 speculative  depth  ami   historic  erudition  was  worthy  to  take 
 
 1  Very  touching  were  the  words  used  bj  I''1  Wette  shortly  before  his  death 
 in  1848  :  "I  fell  into 'a  time  of  confusion  ;  the  unity  of  faith  was  destroyed. 
 I  too  mixed  myself  np  with  this  struggL — in  vain  I     I  have  not  settled  it." 
 
 E    E   2 
 
420  Great  Excgetcs. 
 
 its  place  beside  the  very  greatest  works  of  Christian  orthodoxy. 
 Ewald,  at  once  a  prophet  and  a  critic,  combining  in  an 
 unusual  degree  the  gifts  of  learning,  originality,  and 
 eloquence,  stood  haughtily  alone  on  a  peculiar  eminence,  and 
 flung  over  every  part  of  Scripture  the  meteoric  gleam  of  his 
 stormy  genius. x  In  every  Protestant  Church  of  Europe  was 
 felt  the  stirring  of  a  new  life.  In  France  there  have  been 
 such  labourers  in  various  fields  as  Vinet.  Monod,  Bersier, 
 Bungener,  Naville,  Reuss,  Godet,  De  PressensE".  In 
 German  Switzerland,  Hagenbach,  Auberlen,  Stahelin, 
 Riggenbach,  Immer,  and  Keim.  In  Holland,  Kuenen, 
 Scholten,  Van  Oosterzee.  In  Sweden  and  Denmark  such 
 men  as  Klausen  and  Martensen.  And  there  is  scarcely 
 one  among  all  these  theologians,  and  a  multitude  of  the 
 highest  merit  who  are  here  left  unnamed,  who  does  not 
 combine  the  deepest  reverence  for  the  divine  authority  of 
 the  Holy  Scriptures  with  an  entire  rejection  of  that 
 dogma  of  mechanical  inspiration,  which,  in  addition  to 
 many  other  evils  has,  age  after  age,  introduced  so  much 
 of  weakness  and  of  confusion  into  the  whole  system  of 
 interpretation  of  those  by  whom  it  has  been  maintained. 
 
 The  English  Church,  since  the  days  of  Bede  and  Alcuin, 
 has  rarely,  perhaps  never,  been  in  the  forefront  of  Scriptural 
 studies.  She  has  produced  many  masters  of  theology,  such 
 as  Hooker,  Andrewes,  Chillingworth,  Whichcote,  Leighton, 
 Pearson,  Barrow,  Bull,  Beveridge,  Waterland,  and  Butler. 
 She  has  had  unequalled  preachers,  like  Latimer,  Donne, 
 Henry  More,  Barrow,  Jeremy  Taylor,  South,  Burnet,  and 
 Tillotson.  She  has  had  true  saints  of  God,  like  Bishop 
 Ken,  and  Bishop  Wilson,  and  Bishop  Berkeley.  She 
 has  had  great  scholars  and  critics,  like  Selden,  Brian 
 Walton,  Pocock,  Lightfoot,  Bentley,  Mill,  and  Archbishop 
 Lawrence.  She  has  had  incomparable  translators,  like 
 Wiclif,    William     Tyndale,    Miles      Coverdale,    and    those 
 
 1  Kurz  says  of  his  Jahrbilcher  that  "in  them  he  held  a  yearly  auto- 
 da-fd  over  the  collected  theological  aud  biblical  literature  of  the  departed 
 year." 
 
English  Exegctes.  421 
 
 of  1G11.  She  has  had  laborious  students  in  various 
 branches  of  biblical  study,  like  Ussher,  Prideaux,  Matthew 
 Poole,  Lardner,  and  the  editors  of  the  Critici  Sacri ;  but, 
 with  the  exception  of  Colet  and  one  or  two  others,  she  has 
 had  but  few  great  exegetes  till  present  times.  She  has  had 
 indeed  Hammond,  Whitby,  Leighton,  Patrick,  Horslcy ;  but 
 is  there  a  single  English  commentary  before  the  last  genera- 
 tion, except  the  Isaiah  of  Bishop  Lowth,  of  which  any  one 
 could  say  without  extravagance  that  it  struck  out  a  new 
 line  or  marked  a  new  epoch  ?  Can  there  be  a  better  proof 
 of  the  stagnation  of  fifty  years  ago  than  that  the  popular 
 commentary  was  the  "variorum"  mediocrity  of  D'Oyly  and 
 Maut? 
 
 The  views  of  our  theologians  down  to  very  recent  times 
 have  been  conservative,  with  a  caution  which  has  not  seldom 
 proved  itself  to  be  retrogressive.  The  dogma,  which  had 
 so  long  maintained  the  absolute,  supernatural,  homogeneous 
 infallibility  of  every  word  and  letter  contained  in  the 
 Bible,  had  been  weighed  for  centuries  in  the  balances,  and 
 never  without  being  found  wanting.  Every  argument  and 
 principle  on  which  it  had  staked  its  existence  had  been 
 exploded  by  deeper  investigation.  No  conception  more 
 subversive  of  Scriptural  authority  has  ever  been  devised  than 
 the  assertion,  that  in  the  Bible  we  must  accept  everything 
 or  nothing.  That  notion,  which  so  irremediably  confounds 
 the  truth  of  God  with  the  theological  notions  of  men, 
 has  been  responsible  for  crimes  and  errors  innumerable. 
 The  canon  which  it  maintained  was  indefensible;  its 
 science  has  been  proved  to  be  childish;  its  ethics  are  tainted 
 with  hatred  and  intolerance;  its  history  and  chronology 
 are  obsolete;  its  harmonistic  methods  are  casuistical  to  dis- 
 honesty; its  views  about  the  inspiration  of  the  vowel-points, 
 and  the  perfeel  accuracy  of  the  text  have  been  covered 
 with  confusion;  its  whole  method  of  interpretation  has 
 been  discredited  and  abandoned.  Wherever  the  systems 
 built  upon  this  dogma  have  been  rejected,  the  Bible  lias 
 I  ecome  more  dear  and  more  widely  understood.     And  yet  for 
 
422  Coleridge. 
 
 a  considerable  period  the  main  body  of  the  English  Church, 
 ignoring  the  philosophy  and  the  history  of  the  Continent, 
 clung  with  tenacity  to  obsolete  conceptions,  and  failed  not 
 only  to  further  the  progress  of  Scriptural  study,  but  even 
 to  avail  themselves  of  the  sources  of  knowledge  which 
 other  Churches  so  largely  used. 
 
 Fifty  years  ago  the  Shibboleth  of  popular  orthodoxy  was 
 the  indiscriminate  anathema  of  "  German  theology."  If 
 in  later  days  the  Church  of  England  has  made  an  immense 
 advance,  the  progress  is  perhaps  more  due  to  Samuel  Taylor 
 Coleridge  than  to  any  ordained  or  professional  theologian.1 
 He  helped  to  deliver  English  Churchmen  from  their  ignorance 
 of  German  literature,  and  their  terror  of  German  specula- 
 tion. In  his  Aids  to  Reflection  he  sketched  out  a  philo- 
 sophy of  religion  in  which  he  combined  the  highest 
 teaching  of  the  best  English  theologians — of  men  like 
 Hooker,  and  Jeremy  Taylor,  and  Archbishop  Leighton — with 
 influences  derived  from  the  Neoplatonic  studies  of  his  youth, 
 and  with  truths  which  he  had  learnt  from  Kant  and  Schelling 
 in  his  maturer  years.  In  his  Confessions  of  an  Inquiri/></ 
 Spirit  he  was  the  first  to  show  his  fellow  countrymen2  with 
 convincing  illustrations  and  impassioned  eloquence  that  the 
 Rabbinic,  mediaeval  and  post-Reformation  dogma  of  inspira- 
 tion could  only  lead  to  irreverence  or  casuistry.  He  taught 
 them  to  acquire  their  estimate  of  Scripture  from  the 
 contents  and  from  the  claims  of  Scripture  itself,  not  from 
 the  theories  and  inventions  of  men  respecting  it.  He  proved 
 how  clearly  a  Christian  thinker  could  see  that  the  various 
 books  of  the  Bible  greatly  differ  from  each  other  in  value, 
 and  could  yet  honour  the  Bible  as   deeply  as   the  Apostles 
 
 1  In  his  later  years  (1816-1834)  Coleridge  more  or  less  entirely  abandoned 
 poetry  for  philosophy  and  theology.  His  Confessions  of  an  Inquiring  Spi rit 
 were  not  published  till  1840,  six  years  after  his  death. 
 
 2  Archdeacon  Hare,  Professor  Maurice,  Sterling,  and  Cardinal  Newman  all 
 testify  to  the  influence  of  Coleridge,  nor  will  their  estimate  he  weakened  by  the 
 characteristically  splenetic  sneers  of  Carlyle  (see  J.  S.  Mill's  Dissertations ; 
 Dr.  Hort  in  Cambridge  Essays  for  1856  ;  Eemusat,  Rev.  des  Deux  Mondes, 
 October,  1856  ;  Dr.  A.  S.  Farrar's  Bampton  Lectures,  pp.  475  479  ;  Rigg's  Mod. 
 Anglican  Theol.  1857  ;  Principal  Tulloch  on  Coleridge  as  a  Thinker  in  the 
 Nineteenth  Century  for  January,  1885). 
 
Influence  of  Coleridge.  423 
 
 themselves.  He  showed  how  possible  it  was  to  love  the 
 Bible  as  a  book  which  contains  the  word  of  God,  and  yet 
 to  read  it — as  one  of  the  most  unimpeachably  orthodox  of 
 German  theologians  says  that  it  should  be  read — "as  a  book 
 which,  with  all  its  Divinity,  with  its  divine  origin  and  divine 
 ends,  is  still  written  by  human  hands  for  human  beings,  for  a 
 human  eye/ a  human  heart,  a  human  understanding;  as  a 
 book  which,  though  written  for  all  times,  even  for  eternity, 
 still  refers  to  certain  times  and  occasions,  and  must  from 
 these  given  times  and  occasions  be  interpreted."  1  It  was  for 
 every  reason  which  made  him  prize  and  revere  the  Scriptures 
 — prize,  revere,  and  love  them  beyond  all  other  books — that 
 he  rejected  as  no  longer  tenable  a  theory  which  falsified  the 
 whole  hotly  of  their  harmonies  and  symmetrical  gradations, 
 and  "turned  their  breathing  organism  into  a  colossal 
 Memnon's  head  with  a  hollow  passage  for  a  voice." 
 
 It  was  this  spirit  which  animated  many  great  English 
 teachers  in  modern  days.  To  it  were  due  the  sermons  of 
 Arnold  and  of  Robertson,  of  Whately  and  Thirlwall,  of  Hare 
 and  Kingsley,  which  have  been  so  rich  in  the  noblest  influences 
 alike  upon  the  young  and  the  old.  It  was  in  this  spirit  that 
 one  whom  the  foremost  of  living  statesmen  has  rightly  called 
 "a  spiritual  splendour"  —  Frederic  Denison  Maurice — ■ 
 laboured  for  years  amid  religious  obloquy  and  opposition, 
 leaving  to  the  English  Church  the  legacy  not  only  of  writings 
 full  of  thought,  beauty,  and  tenderness,  but  also  of  a  stainless 
 example  and  a  holy  life.  It  was  this  spirit  which  has  given 
 us  in  the  Greek  Testament  of  Alford,  in  the  dictionaries  of 
 the  Bible  and  of  Christian  biography,  and  in  some  recti  it 
 commentaries,  worthy  monuments  of  English  candour  and 
 erudition.  It  was  this  spirit  which  shorn-  forth  in  Milman's 
 History  of  ///<■  Jews  and  History  of  Christianity.  It  was 
 this  spirit  which  enabled  the  vivid  historic  genius  of 
 Arthur  Penrhyn  Stanley  to  recall  before  us  the  stately  and 
 heroic  figures,  the  stirring  and  memorable  scenes,  of  Scripture 
 history,  till  the  pages  of  Genesis,  Exodus,  Judges,  and  the 
 1   Qogenbach,  Ocrm.  Rationalism,  p.  192. 
 
424  Faith  and  Freedom. 
 
 Kings,  once  more  thrilled  with  the  life  and  teemed  with  the 
 instructiveness  of  which  they  had  been  deprived  by  an 
 irrational  conventionality.  These  men  during  all  their  days 
 had  the  honour  to  endure  the  beatitude  of  malediction. 
 They  were  pursued  by  the  attacks  of  no  small  portion 
 of  the  clergy,  and  of  those  who  called  themselves  the  religious 
 world.  But  they  handed  on  the  torch  of  sincerity  and  truth. 
 If  their  works  were  received  at  the  time  of  their  appearance 
 with  vehement  dislike  and  strong  denunciation,  as  regards 
 the  dead  at  any  rate  the  opposition  is  silenced,  the  denuncia- 
 tion has  rolled  away  into  idle  echoes.  They  have  taken  their 
 place  among  the  acknowledged  worthies  of  their  Church  and 
 nation,  and  in  spite  of  derision  and  reproach,  "  how  are  they 
 numbered  among  the  children  of  God  and  their  lot  among 
 the  saints  !  " 
 
 And  so  far  from  being  disturbed  or  shaken  by  their  free, 
 glad,  and  earnest  investigations,  it  is  by  means  of  those  very 
 investigations  that  the  Bible  has  triumphed  over  keen 
 ridicule,  over  charges  of  fiction,  over  naturalist  explanations, 
 over  mythical  theories,  over  destructive  criticism.  By  the 
 combined  labours  of  many  learned  men,  the  spirit  not  of  fear 
 but  of  love,  and  a  sound  mind,  has  given  us  a  Revised  Version, 
 which — after  having  been  received  as  once  the  Septuagint,  and 
 the  Vulgate,  and  Luther's  version,  and  our  own  Authorised 
 Version  were  received,  with  dislike  and  suspicion — is  quietly 
 but  surely  winning  its  way  into  honour  and  reverence.  Our 
 own  day  has  given  us  comments  on  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and  on 
 the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  St.  John,  superior  in  some  respects 
 to  any  which  have  yet  been  produced  in  any  age  or  any  branch 
 of  the  church  of  Christ.  The  history  which  we  have  been 
 considering  is  not  exclusively  a  history  of  darkness  and  of 
 mistake ;  it  is  a  history  also  of  the  triumph  of  light  over 
 darkness,  of  truth  over  error,  of  faith  and  freedom  over  tyranny 
 and  persecution.  It  is  a  history  of  the  dawning  light  and  of 
 the  broadening  day.  By  the  grace  of  God  the  majority  have 
 not  been  too  obstinate  to  unlearn  the  errors,  or  to  pluck  up 
 the    deeply-rooted    prejudices  of   the    past,  and   hence  in   a 
 
Progress.  425 
 
 <  Iburch  as  courageous,  as  active,  as  rich  in  all  good  works  as 
 in  any  age  of  the  past,  we  can  still  say  with  thankful  hearts, 
 Munct  in) inula  Fiiles. 
 
 In  that  Church  a  living  piety  was  kindled  once  more  by  the 
 Evangelical  revival;  the  spirit  of  reverence,  and  the  sense  of 
 historic  continuity  were  renewed  by  the  Oxford  movement; 
 and  the  connexion  with  all  that  was  progressive  in  the 
 learning,  science,  and  culture  of  the  age,  was  maintained 
 in  other  schools  of  large  tolerance  and  comprehensive  charity. 
 The  mercy  of  God  has  given  us  many  outpourings  of  the 
 Pentecost.  Unless  it  be  through  our  own  guilt,  our  blind- 
 ness, our  formalism,  our  religious  factions,  our  retrogression 
 along  the  steps  of  our  Exodus  from  the  land  of  intellectual 
 darkness  and  spiritual  thraldom  we  may  trust  that  the  golden 
 candlestick  of  our  ( Jhurch  in  England  will  never  be  removed. 
 
 But  that  we  may  dare  to  encourage  such  a  hope,  something 
 more  is  needful  than  that  we  learn  to  despise  the  wrangling 
 pettiness  of  party  spirit,  the  spurious  and  dishonest  criticism 
 of  party  journalism,  and  the  idle  reiteration  of  party  shib- 
 boleths. We  shall  never  rightly  understand  the  Holy 
 Scriptures  unless  we  keep  alive  among  us  the  Spirit  of 
 Freedom  and  the  Spirit  of  Progress.  It  is  necessary  that 
 we  should  read  the  handwriting  of  God  written  upon  the 
 |iil. ice- walls  of  all  tyrannies,  whether  secular  or  sacerdotal. 
 It  is  necessary  that  we  should  learn  that  "there  is  nothing 
 so  dangerous,  because  there  is  nothing  so  revolutionary  and 
 convulsive,  as  the  strain  to  keep  things  fixed,  when  all  the 
 world  is  by  the  very  law  of  its  creation  in  eternal  pro- 
 gress." It  is  necessary  that  we  should  read  in  God's  Bible 
 of  History  that  "the  cause  of  all  the  evil  in  the  world 
 may  be  traced  to  thai  deadly  error  of  human  indolence 
 and  corruption,  that  it  is  our  duty  to  preserve,  and  not 
 to  improve."3  It  is  above  all  essential  that  we  should 
 seethe  hand  o\  God  in  current  events,  and  understand  the 
 thoughts  which  He  is  expressing  by  the  movements  in  the 
 midst  of  which- we   live.     Since   the  days   of    the    fathers 
 
 1  Dr.  Arnold. 
 
426  Science. 
 
 and  the  Schoolmen  every  sphere  of  knowledge  has  been 
 almost  immeasurably  dilated,  and  many  conceptions  regarded 
 as  irrefragable  have  been  utterly  revolutionised.  Again  and 
 again  have  God's  other  revelations  flashed  upon  the  sacred 
 page  a  light  which  has  convicted  its  most  positive  interpreters 
 of  fundamental  errors.  Nine  years  before  the  Confession  of 
 Augsburg  (1530)  Magellan  had  sailed  round  the  world  ;  three 
 years  before  the  death  of  Luther  (1546)  Copernicus  had  pub- 
 lished his  De  Rcvolutionibus  Orbium  Coeleshum.  The  Synod 
 of  Dort  was  sitting,  and  Gerhard  was  elaborating  his  Loci  during 
 the  very  years  in  which  Galileo  and  Kepler  were  making  their 
 discoveries.  Newton  was  discovering  the  law  of  gravitation 
 while  Calovius  was  writing  his  Biblia  Illustrata.  Since  the 
 phases  of  Venus  were  revealed  to  the  telescope  of  Galileo 
 we  have  learnt  the  existence  of  infinite  space  thronged  with 
 innumerable  worlds.  Since  fossil  bones  were  submitted 
 to  the  prophetic  eye  of  Cuvier  we  have  learnt  that  infinite 
 time  has  been  peopled  with  innumerable  existences.  The 
 search  into  caves  and  river-beds  has  shown  us  the  immemorial 
 relics  and  flint  implements  of  primeval  man.  The  discoveries 
 of  philology  have  laid  open  to  us  the  earliest  records  of  his 
 language.  A  scientific  observer,  second  perhaps  to  none 
 since  the  days  of  Newton,  after  having  been  treated  all  his 
 life  long  as  an  enemy  to  religion,  was  laid,  but  three  years 
 ago,  in  his  honoured  grave  in  Westminster  Abbey.  His 
 theories,  which  have  been  scores  of  times  denounced  from  this 
 very  pulpit,  are  now  not  only  accepted  by  the  great  majority 
 of  scientific  men  throughout  the  world,  but  have  been 
 admitted  by  many  leading  theologians  to  be  in  no  sense 
 irreconcilable  with  sacred  truths.  Entirely  apart  from  his 
 central,  and  as  yet  unproven  hypothesis,  he  has  illustrated  the 
 necessity  for  scientific  methods,  and  has  furnished  us  with 
 new  and  startling  conceptions  of  the  order,  development, 
 and  maintenance  of  living  organisms.  It  would  be  idle  to 
 suppose  that  discoveries  so  vast  and  hypotheses  so  splendid 
 should  have  no  effect  on  the  deepest  beliefs  of  men. 
 The   students  of  science  have  exercised  a  mighty  influence 
 
Science  and  Religion.  427 
 
 over  theology,  were  it  only  that  by  their  linear  progress 
 and  magnificent  achievements  they  have  stimulated  thai 
 spirit  of  inquiry  which  for  many  centuries  had  only  gyrated 
 within  limits  prescribed  too  often  by  the  ignorance  of  priests. 
 What  should  be  the  attitude  of  religion  towards  those  who 
 have  enriched  the  life  of  man  by  these  superb  contributions 
 of  advancing  knowledge?  We  know  what  it  has  been.  It 
 has  boon  an  attitude  first  of  fierce  persecution,  then  of 
 timid  compromise,  lastly,  of  thankless  and  inevitable  accept- 
 ance. Although  some  great  discoverers  have  belonged,  like 
 Roger  Bacon  and  Copernicus,  to  the  ranks  of  the  clergy, 
 there  is  scarcely  a  nascent  science  which  the  accredited 
 defenders  of  religion  have  not  in  their  ignorance  striven  to 
 overwhelm;  scarcely  a  great  discovery  which,  in  the  first 
 instance,  they  did  not  denounce  as  heretical  or  blasphemous. 
 Such  an  attitude  deserved  the  defeats  which  it  has 
 received — defeats,  not  of  religion,  not  of  Christianity,  not  of 
 the  very  smallest  fraction  of  the  truths  of  God,  but 
 defeats  of  the  obstructiveness,  the  obscurantism,  or  at 
 best  the  arrogant  imperfection  of  those  who  misinterpreted 
 the  requirements  of  true  religion,  and  mistook  for  its 
 oracles  the  echoes  of  their  own  prejudice  and  pride.1 
 Five  hundred  years  of  mistaken  opposition,  from  the  days 
 of  Roger  Bacon  down  to  those  of  Darwin,  may,  it  is  to  be 
 hoped,  have  convinced  theologians  that  all  their  teachings 
 are  neither  infallible  nor  divine.  It  is  only  the  foundation  of 
 God  that  remaineth  sure,  and  on  that  foundation  have  been 
 built  also  the  irrefragable  conclusions  of  science.  We  are  not, 
 indeed,  called  upon  to  accept  at  once  every  unproven  hypo- 
 thesis, or  to  mistake  for  science  mere  assertions  about  that 
 which  is  unknowable,  or  that  which  can  only  be  spiritu- 
 ally discerned.  It  is  quite  true  that  the  votaries  of  science 
 have  often  had  as  little  right  to  speak  in  the  name  of  science 
 as  the  theologians  have  had  little  right  to  speak  in  the  name 
 
 1  The  lives  of  Virgilius,  Roger  Bacon,  Copernicus,  Campanella,  Columbus, 
 Vesalius,  Galileo,  Kepler,  Descartes,  and  very  many  more  are  full  of  warnings 
 against  the  rash  abuse  of  Scripture  texts. 
 
428  Biblical  Criticism. 
 
 of  God.  Nevertheless  it  remains  certain  that  true  science 
 and  true  religion  are  twin  sisters,  each  studying  her  own 
 sacred  book  of  God,  and  nothing  but  disaster  has  arisen  from 
 the  petulant  scorn  of  the  one  and  the  false  fear  and  cruel 
 tyrannies  of  the  other.  Let  them  study  in  mutual  love  and 
 honour  side  by  side,  and  each  pronounce  respecting  those 
 things  which  alone  she  knows. 
 
 But  the  advance  of  the  human  intellect  has  not  lain  solely 
 in  the  realm  of  natural  science.  Philosophy  and  psychology 
 — the  labours  of  Descartes,  Spinoza,  Leibnitz,  Wolff,  Kant, 
 Fichte,  Jacobi,  Schelling,  Hegel,  and  of  their  successors — 
 have  turned  men's  thoughts  inwards,  and  have  shown  the 
 necessary  limitations  of  human  knowledge,  while  they  have 
 failed  to  shake  the  fundamentals  of  faith. 
 
 The  study  of  comparative  religion,  a  study  of  yesterday, 
 and  mainly  founded  by  students  who  still  live  and  work 
 in  the  midst  of  us,  has  shown  how  many  are  the  religious 
 books  of  Humanity,  and  how  they  too — though  they  stand  so 
 immeasurably  below  the  Scriptures  in  worth  and  sacredness — 
 have  suffered  from  the  analogous  misinterpretations  of  an 
 ill-directed  superstition. 
 
 Nor  while  physical  science  and  metaphysical  inquiry  were 
 thus  advancing  by  leaps  and  springs  was  it  likely  that  criticism 
 should  remain  stationary.  The  demonstration  of  the  forgery 
 of  the  Donation  of  Constantine  and  the  Decretals  of  Isidore 
 on  which  had  been  built  the  great  fabric  of  papal  supremacy 
 over  the  national  Churches  ; *  the  examination  by  Daillc  of 
 the  Ignatian  Epistles  (1GG0);  the  letters  of  Bentley  on  the 
 Epistles  of  Phalaris  (1699);  the  theory  of  Wolf  as  to  the 
 origin  of  the  Homeric  poems ;  the  rejection  of  the  genuineness 
 of  the  so-called  works  of  Dionysius  the  Areopagite ; 2  and 
 many  similar  discoveries,  awoke  the  minds  of  men  during  the 
 course  of  two  centuries  to  the  fact  that  pseudepigraphy 
 was  a  common  phenomenon  alike  of  Jewish,  heathen,  and 
 
 1  Valla's  discourse,  De  Potest.  Imp.  et  Eccl.  was  written  in  1440. 
 By  Valla,  who  is  followed   by  Erasmus,  Annott.    in  Acts  xviii.  34.     See 
 Ussher,  Dissert.  de  He  rip!  is  Dion-i/sio  Suppositix,  1090. 
 
Widening  Knowledge.  429 
 
 ( 'hristian  literature,  and  showed  them  the  decisive  character 
 of  internal  evidence.  Niebuhr  applied  the  solvent  of  criti- 
 cism to  the  series  of  legends  which  passed  for  Roman  history, 
 and  a  in  altitude  of  successors  in  his  school  has  proved  the 
 futility  of  much  which  had  once  received  unquestioned 
 credence. 
 
 Amid  this  outburst  of  new  and  varied  knowledge  which  has 
 enlarged  in  so  many  directions  our  comprehension  of  God's 
 dealings  with  our  race,  it  would  be  disheartening  indeed, 
 and  it  would  be  a  contradiction  to  the  whole  course  of  history, 
 if  we  had  made  no  advance  in  our  knowledge  of  Scripture. 
 It  would  have  been  shameful  if  we  had  remained  content 
 with  the  exegesis  of  the  Rabbis,  who  were  children  of  an 
 imperfect  and  abrogated  dispensation,  or  the  Fathers  who 
 "  lived  among  the  falling  and  fallen  leaves  of  the  old 
 world,"  or  the  Schoolmen  in  the  ages  of  an  all  but  uni- 
 versal ignorance.  It  was  inevitable,  nay,  it  was  most 
 necessary,  nay,  more,  the  sacredness  of  truth — which  "  is 
 as  impossible  to  be  soiled  by  any  outward  touch  as  the 
 sunbeam  " — made  it  imperative  that  new  principles  of  in- 
 quiry and  modern  methods  of  criticism  should  be  extended  to 
 those  records  of  revelation  in  which  it  was  certain  that  nothing 
 could  suffer  which  was  intrinsically  truthful  or  divine.  Even 
 in  the  dawn  of  the  Reformation  a  Cajetan  no  less  than  a 
 Luther,  and  in  the  next  age  a  Simon  no  less  than  a  Spinoza, 
 had  recognised  the  freedom  of  Scriptural  criticism.  The 
 Reformers  had  struck  the  Apocrypha  out  of  the  Canon,  and 
 gone  far  to  place  some  books  of  the  Bible — as  had  been 
 done  centuries  earlier  by  some  of  the  Rabbis,  and  by  some 
 of  the  Fathers — in  the  ranks  of  deutero-canonicity.  In  the 
 year  17">:>  the  French  physician,  Astruc,  discovered  the  don  ble 
 stratum  of  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  elements  in  the  Book  of 
 Genesis.  Since  his  day  criticism,  both  historic  and  philo- 
 logical, has  been  applied  to  every  narrative  and  every  section 
 of  Script  me  Many  of  its  results  have  taken  their  place 
 among  valued  truths;  many  of  its  assertions  have  been 
 triumphantly  refuted.    It  has  overthrown  false  human  theories, 
 
430  Fearlessness. 
 
 it  has  not  shaken  so  much  as  the  fringe  of  a  single  truth. 
 But  the  notion  of  verbal  infallibility  could  not  possibly  sur- 
 vive the  birth  of  historic  inquiry,  which  showed  in  Scrip- 
 ture as  elsewhere  an  organic  growth,  and  therefore  a  necessary 
 period  of  immature  development.  And  meanwhile  we  have 
 been  taught  of  God  a  fearlessness  which  enables  us  to  ex- 
 amine every  critical  question  with  tolerance  and  candour. 
 We  have  learnt  to  see,  not  only  that  everything  is  not  lost, 
 but  even  that  nothing  is  lost  if  criticism  succeeds  in  proving 
 that  the  Pentateuch  is  composed  of  different  elements,  and 
 the  Book  of  Chronicles  a  late  and  one-sided  narrative,  or  that 
 there  were  two  Isaiahs,  and  two  Zechariahs,  or  that  the  old 
 Antilegomena  must  still  be  regarded  as  of  dubious  genuine- 
 ness. Nay,  more,  all  is  not  lost  if  we  were  even  compelled  to 
 make  the  extravagant  admission  that  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
 were  pseudonymous,  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  not  written  by 
 St.  John.  Where  the  Spirit  of  God  is  there  is  liberty.  All 
 these  questions  have  been  under  discussion  for  many  years  ; 
 yet  to  multitudes  of  those  who  on  these  questions  have  come 
 to  decisions  which  are  in  opposition  to  the  current  opinions, 
 the  Bible  is  still  the  divinest  of  all  books  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
 Christ  is  still  the  Son  of  God,  the  Saviour  of  the  World. 
 
 And  if  any  man  ask,  "  How  are  we  to  discriminate  between 
 that  which  in  the  Bible  ought  to  be  to  us  the  immediate 
 word  of  God,  and  that  which,  having  been  but  relative  and 
 transient,  is  not  His  word  to  us  ? " — I  answer  that  not  only 
 is  there  not  the  slightest  practical  difficulty  in  doing  so,  but 
 that  the  question  shows,  surely,  a  strange  and  unworthy 
 timidity.  In  the  first  place,  no  theory  which  can  be  invented 
 will  give  the  certitude  which  is  claimed  for  every  petty 
 detail  of  sectarian  dissidence  or  theological  terminology  ;  nor 
 can  any  pretence  of  an  infallible  decision  ever  give  infalli- 
 bility to  hosts  of  fallible  and  varying  interpretations.  But 
 for  all  essential  truths,  have  we  nothing  to  guide  us  into  cer- 
 tainty ?  Have  we  no  reason  "  lighted  by  God,  and  lighting 
 to  God,  res  illuminata,  illuminans  "  ?  Have  we  within  us 
 no  voice  of  Conscience,  "  that  aboriginal  Vicar  of  Christ,  a 
 
Revelation.  431 
 
 Prophet  in  its  informations,  a  Monarch  in  its  peremptoriness, 
 a  Priest  in  its  blessings  aDd  anathemas "  ?  Have  we  no 
 Spirit  of  God  to  guide  us,  or  has  He  abdicated  His  office 
 since  the  days  of  St.  John,  or,  at  any  rate,  since  the 
 days  of  St.  Augustine  ?  Is  it  not  enough  that,  to  us,  the 
 test  of  God's  word  is  the  teaching  of  Him  who  is  the  Word 
 of  God  ?  Is  it  not  an  absolutely  plain  and  simple  rule  that 
 anything  in  the  Bible  which  teaches  or  seems  to  teach  any- 
 thing which  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  love,  the  gentle- 
 ness, the  truthfulness,  the  purity  of  Christ's  gospel,  is  not 
 God's  word  to  us,  however  clearly  it  stands  on  the  Bible 
 page  ? 1  The  Bible,  as  I  have  already  said,  has  been  quoted  to 
 sanction  despotism,  tyrannicide,  priestly  usurpation,  poly- 
 gamy, slavery,  running,  assassination,  cruel  superstitions,  re- 
 morseless  intolerance,  exterminating  war.  It  has  been 
 quoted  to  slander  the  Apostle,  to  crush  the  reformer,  to 
 discourage  the  student,  to  break  the  hearts  of  the  saints 
 of  God.  Such  applications  of  Holy  Writ,  even  though  an 
 Angel  from  heaven  utter  them,  are  not  and  cannot  be  to  us 
 the  word  of  God.  We  shall  find  in  Scripture  all  that  is 
 necessary  for  the  salvation  of  our  souls;  we  shall  find  in  it 
 the  few  great  moral  principles  which  suffice  for  the  guidance 
 of  our  life.  Whenever  we  are  quoting  it  to  stimulate  the 
 energy,  to  alleviate  the  misery,  to  promote  the  happiness  of 
 mankind — whenever  we  are  able  to  use  its  words  as  arrows  of 
 lightning  to  slay  the  Python  of  corruption,  or  to  shatter 
 the  strongholds  of  oppression,  robbery,  and  wrong, — then  we 
 are  using  it  in  accordance  with  Christ's  spirit, — then  we  are 
 indubitably  and  indisputably  right.  But  when  we  use  it  to 
 oppose  science,  to  stimulate  hatred,  to  check  progress,  to 
 crush  independence,  to  buttress  tyranny,  then  we  are  using 
 it  for  the  injury  of  mankind,  and  therefore  not  to  promote, 
 bu1  to  hinder  the  will  of  Him  Who  spake  in  times  past  unto 
 the  fathers  by  the  Prophets,  but  hath  in  these  last  days 
 spoken  unto  us  by  His  Son. 
 
 In  the  name  of  that  Son  of  God  is  the  secret  of  our  progress, 
 1  See  the  remarks  of  Luther  quoted  by  K&stlin,  ii.  260. 
 
432  The  One  Foundation. 
 
 of  our  security,  of  our  freedom,  of  our  strength.1  If  we  build 
 upon  Him,  we  build  on  the  one  Foundation.  It  is  because 
 they  put  themselves  in  place  of  Him,  that  hierarchies  have 
 fallen  into  corruption  and  ruin.  It  is  because  they  failed  to 
 comprehend  His  nature  that  philosophies  have  passed  away. 
 It  is  because  they  thrust  the  dead  letter  in  the  place 
 of  His  living  Spirit,  that  religious  movements  have  ended 
 in  hatred  and  obstructiveness.  It  is  because  they 
 have  mistaken  the  dawn  for  a  conflagration  that  theolo- 
 gians have  so  often  been  the  foes  of  light.2  It  is  because 
 they  have  appealed  to  self-deceiving  intuitions  as  infallible 
 proofs  of  their  own  human  interpretations,  that  their  cherished 
 conclusions  have  so  often  been  overthrown.  But  no  Church, 
 and  no  system,  and  no  man  who  has  been  rooted  and 
 grounded  in  Him  in  love  has  ever  failed  to  increase  with  the 
 increase  of  God.  Amid  the  tyrannies  of  priestcraft,  amid  the 
 aberrations  of  theology,  amid  the  doubts  and  difficulties  of 
 criticism,  the  Bible  has  continued  to  be  the  inalienable  pos- 
 session of  the  Christian  Church.  No  attempt  to  keep  the 
 sacred  writings  as  a  seven-sealed  book  in  the  hands  of  the 
 clergy,  no  insuperable  difficulties  created  by  dogmas  about 
 inspiration,  no  false  systems  of  interpretation  built  upon 
 those  dogmas,  have  been  able  to  snatch  the  Bible  wholly 
 from  the  hands  of  the  vast  unknown  multitude  whom  God 
 has  known  for  His,  and  who  have  departed  from  iniquity. 
 To  them — the  simple  and  the  unselfish  and  the  pure  in 
 heart — it  has  ever  been  as  still  it  is  a  guide  to  the  feet  and  a 
 lamp  to  the  path,  and  in  the  quaint  language  of  our  Transla- 
 tors' Preface  "a  granary  of  wholesome  food  against  fenowed 
 traditions."  For  them  there  has  always  been  that  pure  exe- 
 gesis of  the  heart  which  to  the  pride  of  an  anathematising 
 theology  has  often  been  unknown.      Reading  the  Scriptures 
 
 1  "All  the  seeming  contradictions  of  Scripture  are  reconciled  in  Jesus 
 Christ  "  (rascal,  Pennies  II.  ix.  §  13). 
 
 '-'  When  John  Owen  (  Wor Tcs,  xix.  310)  said  that  Newton's  discoveries  wire 
 "built  on  fallible  phenomena,  and  advanced  by  many  arbitrary  presumptions 
 <i<iitiiis/  eeiili  ill  testimonies  of  Scripture"  his  sentences  may  stand  as  bn1  one 
 specimen  of  hundreds  and  thousands  of  the  obscurantist  utterances  of 
 theologians  who  attribute  infallibility  to  their  own  exegetical  errors. 
 
The  Scrijftitns.  4:>:> 
 
 not  with  the  eyes  of  partisanship,  of  suspicion,  or  of  self- 
 interest,  but  with  the  eyes  of  love,  and  "into  the  soul's 
 vernacular,"  they  have  found  it  rich  in  blessing  and  con- 
 solation. The  secret  of  the  Lord  has  been  with  them 
 that  fear  Him,  and  He  has  shown  them  His  covenant. 
 For  more  than  1700  years  party  theologians,  who  have 
 sought  mainly  for  proof-texts  to  confound  the  heresies  of 
 others  and  to  build  up  despotism  for  themselves,  have  gone 
 astray;  but  also  for  more  than  1700  years,  with  no  more 
 need  than  the  early  Christians  had  for  dialectic  definitions 
 or  elaborate  theories,  the  simple  have  learned  Avisdom. 
 Unencumbered  by  ponderous  learning,  uncrushed  by  a  vast 
 apparatus  of  systems,  unterrified  by  difficulties,  indifferent 
 to  wranglings,  unperverted  by  aberrations,  they  have 
 not  been  seduced  from  the  simplicity  which  is  in  Christ 
 Jesus  into  pathless  labyrinths  of  allegory  and  dogma.  They 
 have  not  seen  but  have  yet  believed,  and  have  never  been 
 disappointed  of  their  hope.1  Bengel  in  his  brief  summary 
 of  the  epochs  of  exegesis  calls  the  first  Nativa,  and  that — 
 without  its  Judaic  and  Rabbinic  weakness — all  true  Christians 
 however  humble  have  always  enjoyed.  The  saving  know- 
 ledge of  Holy  Scripture  "  is  a  science,"  as  Pascal  said,  "  not 
 of  the  intellect,  but  of  the  heart."  2  And  therefore  in  this 
 respect  also  the  history  at  which  we  have  glanced  is  full 
 of  encouragement.  The  supremacy  of  the  Scriptures  is 
 assured  when  they  are  seen  to  be  human  as  well  as  divine, 
 and  are  not  regarded  as  the  sole  source  of  revelation,  but 
 rather  as  the  record  of  its  progressive  development.  They 
 are  indeed  the  witness  to  evangelic  truth,  but  for  that  truth 
 when  once  attained  we  have  the  yet  surer  witness  of  Faith 
 When  the  Church  has  forgotten  this  co-ordinate  claim  of  Faith. 
 when  she  has  rested  content  in  slothful  bondage,  when  she  has 
 
 1  "  The  unlearned  multitude  have  obtained  more  good  from  the  Bible  than 
 
 the     learned    srhonls,   lieeallse,    following    the    hcnilellellt  ies     of    llatlll'e,    the\     ij. 
 
 nol  attempt  to  enjoy  it  all  at  once.  For  that  is  beyond  human  power.  For 
 every  day  its  care,  fur  every  time  its  text  ;  there  are  texts  for  all  times.  The 
 devout  heart  finds  it  out  from  amidst  the  mass,  and  with  Lta meaning  consoles 
 itself  for  th<'  rest."     Reuss,  p.  599,  E.  T. 
 
 -   Pascal,  I'ai.scrs,  ii.  17,  S  100. 
 
 V    Y 
 
434  Christ  the  Interpreter. 
 
 thrust  a  book,  even  the  most  sacred,  between  herself  and  the 
 living  continuous  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God, — 
 when  she  has  confounded  theology  with  religion  and  the  clergy 
 with  the  Church — then,  by  salutary  discipline,  by  needful 
 epochs  of  defeats  and  apathy,  God  has  led  her  back  from  her 
 wanderings,  and  once  more  turned  her  gaze  to  the  Sun  of 
 Righteousness,  and  set  her  feet  on  the  one  Rock  against 
 which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail. 
 
 And  lastly,  if  we  need  for  the  understanding  of  Holy 
 Scripture  a  Guide  who  cannot  fail,  if  we  would  learn  such 
 principles  of  interpretation  as  shall  secure  us  not  indeed 
 against  literary  errors  of  criticism  and  theory,  which 
 must  always  be  incident  to  our  fallible  natures,  but  against 
 every  error  which  could  be  pernicious  to  mankind  or  perilous 
 to  our  own  souls,  we  need  but  to  study  the  method  of  the 
 Lord  Christ  Himself.  He  is  the  one  Divine  Angclus 
 Interpres  et  Divinae  veritatis  internuntius.  1  The  errors  of 
 which  we  have  been  unwilling  witnesses  could  never 
 have  arisen  if  men  had  followed,  instead  of  reversing, 
 the  methods  which  He  taught  by  His  precepts  and 
 illustrated  by  His  example.  By  no  word  that  He  uttered 
 did  He  sanction  that  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration  which 
 "is  at  variance  with  the  whole  form  and  fashion  of  the 
 Bible,  and  is  destructive  of  all  that  is  holiest  in  man  and 
 highest  in  religion."  2  When  He  lived  on  earth  a  system  of 
 interpretation  had  already  attained  to  its  full  proportions,  to 
 which  His  own  was  so  entirely  opposed,  that  one  of  the  first 
 things  which  the  multitudes  observed  respecting  Him  was 
 that  He  condemned  it  by  His  example.  That  system  was 
 the  Rabbinic,  the  Pharisaic,  the  method  of  the  Scribes — a 
 system  servile,  secondhand,  traditional,  superstitious,  self- 
 interested,  denunciative,  fantastic — and  its  main  features 
 have  been  continued  by  direct  affiliation  through  the 
 Christian  centuries  down  to  our  own.  ~  What  was  His  atti- 
 
 1  Buddeus,  Praef.  ad  Rambach,  Instt.  JLrm. ,  ad  fin.  Comp.  Merx,  Mnc 
 Rede  vom  Atislegen,  p.  43  ;  "  Wann  wird  dan  Thcma  bearbeitct  werden  :  Jesus 
 Veteris  Testamenti  interpres  primarius  ?  " 
 
 3  Westcott,  Introd.  to  the  Gospels,  p.  5. 
 
Christ  the  Interpreter.  435 
 
 tude  towards  that  system  ?  There  is  not  one  of  its 
 erroneous  principles  which  He  did  not  tacitly  discounten- 
 ance or  expressly  condemn.  The  Scribes  relied  on  precedent ; 
 He  taught  with  authority.  They  overlaid  the  Law  with 
 inferences ;  He  told  them  that  they  set  the  Word  of  God 
 at  naught  by  their  traditions.  They  claimed  the  power  to 
 shut  out  all  except  their  adherents  from  the  Kingdom  of 
 Heaven ;  He  Hung  open  its  gates  to  all  the  world.  They 
 clutched  in  their  own  hands  the  key  of  knowledge ;  He 
 wrenched  it  from  their  grasp  and  gave  it  to  fishermen  and 
 publicans.  They  with  false  reverence  had  counted  the  very 
 letters  of  their  Bible ;  He  told  them  that  they  were 
 ignorant  of  its  most  essential  principles.  They  explained 
 Scripture  theologically,  scientifically,  with  infinite  and  elab- 
 orate subtlety;  He  seized  the  one  essential  message  of  its 
 spiritual  teaching.1  They  insisted  on  dogmas  and  minutiae  ; 
 He  broadened  the  significance  of  Scripture  into  that  of  its 
 central  truths.  They  were  ready  to  stone  a  man  for  blasphemy 
 against  Moses  if,  in  spite  of  the  progressing  ages,  he  treated  any 
 utterance  of  the  Pentateuch  as  being  other  than  eternally 
 valid  and  supernaturally  divine  ;  He  taught  that  some  of  the 
 Mosaic  regulations,  in  themselves  intrinsically  imperfect,  were 
 only  a  concession  to  the  hardness  of  men's  hearts.  They, 
 lastly,  were  ever  extracting  from  the  Scriptures  some  pretext 
 for  condemning  Him,  for  condemning  His  disciples,  for  con- 
 demning the  great  mass  of  mankind  except  themselves;  His 
 favourite  and  thrice-repeated  quotation — condemning  the 
 spirit  of  hatred,  condemning  the  spirit  of  letter-worship,  con- 
 demning the  bondage  of  formalism — was  "Go  ye  and  learn 
 u  bat  that  meaneth,  I  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice."  It 
 was  thus  that  Christ  supported  the  Divine  authority  of  the 
 Holy  Scriptures.  Schemes  of  i n t erj  >retation,  whether  Rabbinic, 
 Kabbalistic,  Alexandrian,  Patristic,  Scholastic,  Dogmatic, 
 Philosophical,  Psychological,  or  Practical,  may  follow  false 
 developments  and  abound  in  erroneous  details  ;2  and  so  far  as 
 
 See  Matt.  xxii.  29  82;  Maris  xii.  24-27;  Lake  \\.  34-38. 
 -  fitiiT}Xovs  Ktvcxpuivias,  1  Tim.  vi.  20  ;  2  Tun.  ii.  lti. 
 
 F   F   2 
 
4:>(i  One  Thing  Needful. 
 
 those  who  apply  them  are  dominated  by  the  spirit  of  pride, 
 jealousy,  hatred,  or  partisanship  their  oppressive  narrowness 
 may  inflict  immeasurable  wrongs  on  the  heart  and  intellect 
 of  man. 1  But  no  such  schemes  receive  any  sanction  from 
 the  approval  or  practice  of  our  Lord.  He  has  but  one 
 principle,  which  is  to  go  to  the  very  heart  of  the  central 
 idea,  and  to  fill  it  with  the  large  liberality  of  love.  God  is 
 righteous.  If  we  be  sons  of  God  we  must  hate  falsity  and 
 injustice  and  all  "lying  for  God"  with  a  perfect  hatred. 
 God  is  a  Spirit.  If  we  be  in  living  communion  with  God 
 we  must  not  only  believe  in  the  continuous  inspiration  of 
 His  Spirit,  but  we  must  speak  with  tongues  and  must 
 interpret.  God  is  Love.  We  shall  never  go  far  astray  in  the 
 interpretation  of  Scripture  even  though  we  be  but  wayfaring- 
 men  and  fools,  if  we  strive  by  our  theology  to  regulate  our 
 life,  and  to  sway  the  whole  movement  of  our  intellect  by  the 
 spirit  which  Christ  manifested  and  by  the  Divine  example 
 which  He  set;2 — by  the  golden  rule  which  it  may  be  that  He 
 clothed  in  these  very  words,  "Never  be  joyful  save  when 
 ye  look  upon  the  face   of  your  brother  in  love."3 
 
 Porro  unum  necessariitm.  Let  me,  as  my  last  word,  leave 
 with  you  the  hexameters  of  a  poet  of  the  fourth  century  : — 
 
 "  Discussi  fateor  sectas  attentius  omnes, 
 Plurima  quaesivi,  per  singula  quaeque  cucurri, 
 Nee  quicquam  inveni  melius  quam  credere  Christo."  4 
 
 1  "  Out  upon  you  that  will  read  Scripture  only  to  copy  those  things  which 
 arc  held  out  to  us  as  warnings,  not  as  examples." — Kenilworth.  Take  two 
 instances  of  age-long  crimes — persecution  and  slavery.  Of  persecution  sup- 
 ported by  Scripture  texts  I  have  said  enough.  For  slavery  one  quotation  out 
 of  I  housands  may  suffice.  "  From  its  inherent  nature, "  said  Bishop  Hopkins 
 of  Vermont,  "slavery  has  been  a  curse  and  blight  wherever  it  exists  :  yet  it  is 
 warranted  by  the  Bible.  Therefore,  as  slavery  is  recognised  by  the  Bible, 
 every  man  has  a  right  to  own  slaves,  provided  they  are  not  treated  with 
 unnecessary  cruelty." 
 
 2  Quisquis  .  .  talem  inde  sententiam  duxerit  ut  .  .  aedificandae  caritati 
 sit  utilis  .  .  non  perniciose  fallitur,  nee  omnino  mentitur."  Aug.  Be  Doctr. 
 Christ,  iii. 
 
 :i  "  Et  nunquam,  inquit,  laeti  sitis,  nisi  quum  fratrem  vestrum  videritis  in 
 caritate."  Quoted  by  Jerome  from  the  "Gospel  of  the  Hebrews."  Jer.  in 
 Eph.  v.  3. 
 
 4  Antonius. 
 
One  Thing  Needful.  437 
 
 I  too  have  examined  many  sects ;  I  have  considered  many 
 phases  of  teaching ;  I  have  found  nothing  better  than  to 
 believe  in  Christ.  We  may  differ  about  many  things,  and  the 
 less  Christian  be  our  disposition  the  more  bitter  will  be  our 
 religious  differences  ;  but  though  there  may  be  many  readers 
 who  will  disagree  with  me  in  much  that  I  have  said,  I  trust 
 that  they  will  all  agree  with  me,  heart  and  soul,  in  believing 
 that  the  one  end  of  all  Scriptural  study,  the  one  object  of  all 
 Christian  life,  the  one  thing  needful  to  be  desired  in  all  the 
 world,  is  this :  to  find  Christ,  and  to  be  found  in  Him,  not 
 having  a  righteousness  of  our  own,  even  that  which  is  of 
 the  Law,  but  that  which  is  through  faith  in  Christ,  the 
 righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith. 
 
NOTES. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 LECTURE  II. 
 
 NOTE  I. 
 
 SELF-GLORIFICATION   OF   THE    RABBIS. 
 
 Rashi  on  Dent.  xvii.  11,  says,  "The  Rabbis  are  to  be  believed  even 
 when  they  Bay  that  right  is  left,  and  left  is  right." 
 
 "He  that  quarrels  with  bis  Rabbi  quarrels  as  it  were  with  the 
 Shekinah."     See  Sanhedrin,  f.  110,  1 ;  Num.  xxvi.  9. 
 
 "  The  curse  of  a  Rabbi  comes  to  pass  even  when  it  is  without  cause/' 
 Sanhedrin,  f.  20,  2  (  a  flat  contradiction  of  Prov.  xxvi.  2). 
 
 "Even  the  conditional  curse  of  a  Rabbi  is  certain  to  come  to  pass." 
 Makkoth,  f.  Ill,  1. 
 
 "When  the  Rabbis  look  at  a  man  in  displeasure,  be  dies  or  becomes 
 poor."    Chagiga,  f.  5,  6. 
 
 "  A  Rabbi  is  greater  than  a  prophet." 
 
 "A  man  should  respect  his  Rabbi  more  than  his  father." 
 
 "At  the  death  of  Rabbi,  meekness  and  fear  of  sin  were  at  an  end. 
 '  Say  not  meekness,' exclaimed  Rav  .Joseph,  '  for  I  ain  still  here.'  'Say 
 ie it  tear  of  sin,'  exclaimed  Rav  Nachman,  'for  I  am  still  here.'"  Sota, 
 f.  49,  2. 
 
 The  Rabbis,  like  the  Schoolmen,  rejoiced  in  bestowing  pompous 
 titles  upon  each  other,  such  as  : 
 
 Hill. >]  the  Nasi.  "The  Modest,   the   Patient,  the  Elder, 
 
 the  Great," 
 R.  Johanan  ben  Zakkai.         "Upright   Pillar,"   or   "Mighty   ll.nn- 
 
 mer." » 
 R.  Meir.  "The   Brilliant"    (Meir)  -    and    "Baal 
 
 nes,  Lord  of  Wonders." 
 
 '   Berafchoth,  f.  28,  2. 
 
 '-'  His  real  name  was  ffehoraii.     'Erubin,  f.  13,  2. 
 
442  Notes. 
 
 R.  Eleazar  ben  Hyrkanos.     "  A  closed  cistern." 
 
 R.  Judah.  "  The  Holy,  the  Prince,  Our  Rabbi." 
 
 R.  Tarphon.  "  A  pile  of  nuts." 
 
 R.  Ishmael.  "  A  handy  store." 
 
 R.  Aqiba.  "  A  well-stocked  storehouse." 
 
 R.  Eliezer  ben  Jacob.  "A  Kab,  but  clean." 
 
 R.  Jose.  "  Always  ready." 
 
 R.  Johanan  ben  Nuri.  "A  heap  of  Halakhoth." 
 
 Rabbah.  "  Rooter  up  of  mountains."  l 
 
 R.  Jose  the  Galilean.  "  A  beautiful  compiler." 2 
 
 R.  Eleazar  ben  Arak.  "  A  welling  spring." 
 
 R.  Joseph.  "  Sinai." 
 
 R.  Joshua  ben  Chananiah.     "  The  liuht  of  the  world."  3 
 
 NOTE  II. 
 
 THE   TARGUMS   AND   MIDRASHIM. 
 
 The  word  Targum  is  of  uncertain  derivation,  and  is  used  for  the 
 Aramaic  versions  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  first  trace  of  such  a  ver- 
 nacular (oral)  rendering  is  in  Heb.  viii.  8,  where  the  word  Mephorash 
 (A.  V.  "  distinctly  ")  is  in  the  Talmud  (Megilla,  3,  1  ;  Nedarim,  37,  2) 
 explained  to  mean  "  with  a  Targum."  In  Sanhedrin,  f.  212,  we  are  told 
 that  Ezra  introduced  the  Targum,  and  the  square  character  of  the 
 Hebrew  letters. 
 
 The  chief  Targums  are  those  of  Onqelos,  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel, 
 Pseudo-Jonathan  and  the  Targum  Jerushalmi.  Full  accounts  of  them 
 will  be  found  in  Deutsch's  Remains,  pp.  319-403.  Wogue,  Hist,  de  la 
 Bible,  pp.  145-157  ;  and  Weber,  Alt.-Synag.  Theologie,  viii.-xix. 
 
 THE   MIDRASH. 
 
 Jewish  literature  is,  1.  Halakhic  and  Haggadic  :  the  Mishna  ;  the 
 Talmuds. 
 
 2.  Expository  in  a  wider  sense  :  the  Midrashim  and  (incidentally)  the 
 Targums. 
 
 3.  Massoretic,  the  great  and  little  Massora. 
 
 1  Berakhoth,  f.  64,  1  ;  Horaioth,  f.  14,  1. 
 
 2  R.  Tarphon  also  called  him  "the  horned  ram,"  and  applied  Dan.  viii. 
 3-7  to  him,  from  his  skill  in  relmtting  the  arguments  of  R.  Aqiba.  These 
 and  other  titles  are  given  in  Gittin,  f.  67,  1,  and  the  Aboth  of  R.  Nathan, 
 xviii.     I  am  indebted  for  these  references  to  Mr.  P.  J.  Hershon. 
 
 3  Aboth,  ii.  10,  "Happy  is  she  that  bare  him."  The  title  "Lux  mundi" 
 was  given  in  the  Middle  Ages  to  John  Wessel. 
 
Notes.  443 
 
 4.  Historical,  Chananiah,  The  Books  of  Maccabees,  Josephus, 
 Josippon,  &c. 
 
 5.  Philosophic  (Alexandrian). 
 
 The  Midrash  of  the  schools  was  mainly  Halakhic  ;  that  of  the  syna- 
 gogues mostly  Haggadic. 
 
 The  word  "  Midrash  "  first  occurs  in  2  Chron.  xiii.  22  ;  "  the  Midrash 
 of  the  prophet  Iddo,"  xxiv.  24 ;  "  the  Midrash  of  the  Book  of 
 Kings." 
 
 The  epochs  of  the  Midrashim  are  three. 
 
 1.  Its    development    from    B.C.   30 — a.d.  400.      From  Hillel   to 
 
 Gamaliel  V. 
 
 2.  Its  collection  from  a.d.  400-750.     From  Gamaliel  V.  to  R.  Anan 
 
 the  Karaite. 
 
 3.  Its  decline  from  a.d.  750-900.     From  death  of  Anan  to  R.  Aron 
 
 ben  Asher  in  Tiberias. 
 
 The  Midrash  is  founded  on  extravagant  application  of  the  two 
 principles  that 
 
 i.  Nothing  in  Scripture  is  indifferent  or  accidental, 
 ii.  All  Scripture  is  capable  of  indefinite  interpretations  (some  said 
 49,  and  some  70). 
 
 The  chief  M  idrashim  are,  in  the  first  epoch  during  which  the  Halakha 
 is  predominant, 
 
 1.  Mekhilta'i  ("  Tenor  ")  An  Halakhic  commentary  on  parts  of  Exodus, 
 
 based  on  the  methods  of  R.  Aqiba. 
 
 2.  Siphra  ("  The  Book")  or  Torath  Kohanim,  on  Leviticus.     It  origi- 
 
 nated in  the  school  of  Rab  in  Sara  (3~l    "TH    N~lDD). 
 
 3.  Siphri  ("Books")  on  Numbers  and  Deuteronomy. 
 
 In  the  second  epoch  the  Haggada  was  greatly  developed,  and  the 
 following  works  belong  to  it : — 
 
 !.    I'i -sikhla.     On  sections  or  selections  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 
 
 by  Rab.  Kahana. 
 5.    Midrash  Rabba  :  one  of   the  catenae   collected    in    the   thirteenth 
 
 century.     It  consists  of 
 
 Bereshith  Rabba,  on  Genesis.  ' 
 
 She tli  Rabba,  on  Exodus. 
 
 V.ijiki.i  Rabba,  on  Leviticus. 
 Bamidbai  Rabba,  on  Numbers. 
 
 Debarim  Rabba,  on  Deuteronomy. 
 
 1  This  is  the  best  and  oldest.  It  is  Palestinian  of  the  6th  century.  It 
 resembles,  and  quotes  the  Jerusalem  Gemara. 
 
444  Notes. 
 
 and  of  the  five  Megilloth  ("  Rolls  ")■ 
 
 Schir  Rabba  on  Canticles. 
 Midrasb  Ruth. 
 
 ,,      Esther. 
 
 ,,      Koheleth. 
 Echa  Rabbathi  on  Lamentations. 
 
 6.  Tanchuma  ;    on  the  Pentateuch.      It  is  sometimes  called  Yelamdenu 
 
 from  its  formula,  "  Our  Rabbis  have  taught  us."1 
 
 During  the  third  epoch  the  Halakha  became  absolutely  lifeless,  and 
 R.  Anan  the  Karaite  demanded  a  return  to  the  natural  and  rational 
 method  of  interpreting  Scripture  :  but  Haggadic  catenae  continued  to 
 be  produced. 
 
 7.  Jalqut  Shimeoni  ;  on  the  Old  Testament.     This  was  drawn  up  by 
 
 R.  Simeon  in  the  thirteenth  century,  and  resembles  the  Patristic 
 catenae. 
 
 8.  Jalqut  Chadash.     It  was  compiled  out  of  the  Book   Zohar  in  the 
 
 Middle  Ages. 
 
 Halakhic  traditions  outside  the  Mishna  are  called  "  extraneous " 
 (Boraitoth  2),  and  are  collected  in  the  Tosephta.3  The  additions  to  the 
 Mishna  are  called  Tosephtoth  ;  those  to  the  Gemara  are  called  Tosaphoth. 
 
 NOTE   III. 
 
 RABBI   JOHANAN   BEN   ZAKKAI. 
 
 It  was  the  happy  method  of  R.  Johanan  to  propose  a  subject  for  dis- 
 cussion, to  listen  to  the  opinions  given  by  all  his  associates,  and  finally 
 to  give  his  own  judgment.  Thus  on  one  occasion  he  told  his  disciples 
 to  consider  "  which  was  the  good  way  in  which  men  should  wallet  They 
 defended  their  several  views  as  follows  : 
 
 R.  El'iezer.     He  should  have  a  kindly  eye. 
 
 R.  Joshua.     He  should  gain  a  sure  friend. 
 
 R.  Jose.     He  should  strive  to  win  a  good  neighbour. 
 
 R.  Simon.     He  should  always  consider  the  consequences. 
 
 R.  Eleazar.     He  should  have  a  good  heart. 
 
 2  Baria,  "exterior." 
 
 :i  From  yasaph,  "to  add."  The  Tosephta  was  drawn  up  bv  R.  Chjja  bar 
 Abba,  a  Tanaite,  who  also  drew  up  a  collection  of  Boraitoth. 
 
Notes.  445 
 
 R.  Johanan  summed  up  the  discussion  by  saying,  "The  best  answer 
 has  been  given  by  R.  Eleazar,  for  the  blessing  which  he  has  mentioned 
 comprises  all  the  others." 
 
 On  another  occasion  he  proposed  for  discussion  Prov.  xiv.  34,  which 
 was  rendered,  "Righteousness  exalteth  a  nation,  but  the  mercy  ("Oni) 
 of  nations  is  sin." 
 
 R.  Eliezer.     Righteousness  exalteth   Israel,   but   any  good  deeds 
 
 done  by  the  Gentiles  are  only  sin. 
 R.  Joshua.     (To  the  same  effect  with  different  proofs.) 
 Rabbon  Gamaliel  II.  (who  was  still  a  disciple).    (To  the  same  effect 
 
 with  other  proofs,  and  an  expression  of  uncertainty.) 
 R.  Eliezer.     (Still  the  same,  with  fresh  proofs.) 
 R.   Nechuvjah.     Righteousness    and  mercy   exalt   Israel,    but    sin 
 
 degrades  the  nations. 
 7?.  Johanan.     Righteousness  atones  for  the  nations  of  the  world, 
 
 just  as  a  sin-offering  does  for  Israel.1 
 
 This  view  showed  at  least  the  kindness  of  his  heart  (comp.  Acts  x. 
 34,  35)  ;  but  he  afterwards  accepted  R.  Nechunjah's  in  preference.2 
 
 Specimens  of  the  admirable  sayings  and  parables  of  R.  Eliezer  are 
 given  by  Low  (Praktische  Einleitung,  95,  103). 
 
 NOTE  IV. 
 
 FURTHER   INSTANCES   OF   EXE6ETIC   AND   SYMBOLIC   KABBALISM. 
 
 I.  Gematria. 
 
 Is.  xxx.  8.  "Blessed  are  all  those  that  wait  upon  Him"(l7). 
 The  value  of  1?  is  36,  so  Abaii  said  that  there  are  36  in  every 
 generation  who  receive  the  presence  of  the  Shekhinah.  Sanhedrin, 
 f.  97,  2. 
 
 Is.  xx.  1.  This  is  made  a  prophecy  of  Habakkuk  (comp.  Hab. 
 ii.  1)  because  "lion"  =  216  =  Habakkuk  (see  Rashi,  Kimchi,  and 
 Ibn  Ezra,  ad  loc). 
 
 Gen.  xi.  1.  All  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  were  of  one  lan- 
 guage. Here  nnt*  =  409,  and  is  equivalent  to  EHJ9H  =  409 
 whence  it  was  assumed  that  Hebrew  was  the  primeval  tongue. 
 
 1  The  word  TDn  usually  means  "mercy  "  or  "  piety,"  and  taking  it  in  this 
 sense  Scluiltens  and  CJrotius  practically  agree  with  R.  Johanan,  and  make  the 
 verse  mean  "piety  is  an  atonement  for  the  people."  I'.ut  TDI1  is  rendered 
 uvaBos  by  the  I, XX.  in  Lev.  xx.  17  (A.V.  "ungodliness;"  K.V.  "a  shame- 
 ful thing  ").     Kalisdh  thinks  that  it  gets  this  sense  by  antiphrasis. 
 
 -  Baba  Bathra,  f.  10,  2. 
 
446  Notes. 
 
 Gen.  xviii.  2.  "  And  lo  !  these  men  "  =  by  Gematria,  "  These 
 are  Michael,  Gabriel,  and  Raphael." 
 
 Jacob's  ladder  (D?D)  is  identified  with  Sinai  (^D),  because  both 
 words  =  130. 
 
 Gen.  xlii.  2.  "  Go  down  "  (111)  =  210,  therefore  the  Egyptian 
 bondage  was  to  last  210  years. 
 
 Lev.  xvi.  3.  "  Thus  shall  Aaron  come  into  the  Holy  Place." 
 nXT2,  "thus,"  =  410  =  2  +  7  +  1  +  400,  therefore  the  first 
 temple  was  to  last  410  years. 
 
 Deut.  xxxiii.  27.  God  is  often  described  as  "  the  Place " 
 (maqom),  because  maqom  =  186,  and  Jehovah  =  102  +  52  +  62  +  52. 
 
 On  the  tomb  of  Emmanuel  Deutsch  in  the  Jewish  cemetery  at 
 Alexandria,  the  Hebrew  inscription,  written  by  Dr.  Hermann 
 Adler,  says  that  he  "died  in  the  year  '  Arise,  shine,  for  thy  light  is 
 come.' "  It  is  a  sort  of  chronogram.  The  text  quoted  gives  the 
 number  1873,  the  year  in  which  the  brilliant  scholar  died. 
 
 For  other  instances  see  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Chald.  s.v.  N'HDttJ  ;  Bud- 
 deus,  Philos.  Ehr.  p.  323. 
 
 2.  Notarihon. 
 
 Each  letter  of  the  words  "  a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made 
 thee  "  is  made  significant.     Shabbath,  f.  105,  1. 
 
 From  Gen.  xxxvii.  3  it  is  inferred  that  the  "  coat  of  many 
 colours  "  was  the  source  of  all  Joseph's  troubles,  because  the  letters 
 of  DBS  stand  for  the  initials  of  the  Hebrew  words  for  "Potiphar, 
 merchants,  Ishmaelites,  Midianites." 
 
 Deut.  xxx.  12,  "  Who  will  go  up  for  us  1 "  In  the  Hebrew  the 
 initials  of  these  words  give  n?D,  "  circumcision,"  and  the  final 
 letters  nii"l>,  "Jehovah."  Hence  it  is  inferred  that  circumcision  is 
 the  way  to  Heaven.  (See  further  Ginsburg,  The  Kabbalah,  pp. 
 12,  50  ;  Eccles.  p.  30.) 
 
 3.  Inferences  from  changing  the  reading. 
 
 ("  Read  not  so  but  so.")     p    &6«    p    npn      K. 
 
 Gen.  xxv.  23.  "  Two  nations  are  in  thy  womb."  Read  not  WW, 
 "  nations,"  but  DMJ,  "  men "  (as  the  Massora  reads).  The  two 
 men  are  Rabbi  (Judah  the  Holy),  the  compiler  of  the  Mishna,  and 
 his  friend  Antoninus  the  Emperor. 
 
 Deut.  xxxiii.  4.  "  Moses  commanded  us  a  law,  the  inheritance 
 of  the  congregation  of  Jacob."  Read  not  HEHIO,  "  inheritance," 
 but  HDTlXD,  "espoused,"  which  shows  that  the  Law  is  as  a  bride. 
 Pesachim,  f.  42,  2. 
 
 Gen.  xlix.  22.  "Joseph  is  ...  a  fruitful  bough  by  a  well." 
 Read   not   \'V   "bv,   "by   a  well,"  but  py   'hw,  "above  the  eye" 
 
Notes.  447 
 
 which  shows  that  Joseph  and  his  descendants  are  not  affects  1  l.\ 
 the  evil  eye.     Berakhoth,  f.  55,  2. 
 
 Eccl.  xi.  1.  "Cast  thy  bread  upon  the  waters,  and  thou  shall 
 find  it  after  many  days."  Read  not  D*E>n  2V\2,  "  upon  the  waters," 
 but  DVO'n  31T3,  "in  much  water."  (This  was  illustrated  bj 
 stories  of  R.  Aqiba's  escape  from  sliipwreck.)  Aboth  of  R.  Nathan, 
 ch.  iii. 
 
 Ex.  xxxii.  16.  "Graven  upon  the  tables."  Read  not  Win, 
 "graven,"  but  JVnn  "freedom  ;"  for  only  students  of  the  law  are 
 free.     Aboth,  ch.  vi. 
 
 Cant  iv.  3.  "Thy  temples  are  like  a  piece  of  pomegranate.'' 
 Read  not  "  thy  temples,"  but  "  thy  empty  ones,"  to  show  that  even 
 transgressors  of  Israel  are  as  full  of  good  works  as  a  pomegranate 
 of  pips.     Chagiga,  f.  27,  1. 
 
 Cant.  i.  In  Yadaim  iii.  the  first  chapter  of  Canticles  is  explained 
 by  R.  ( lhasdah,  and  in  Shabbath,  f.  88,  2,  by  other  Rabbis.  The 
 explanation  turns  on  incessant  changes  of  words.  (See  Dr.  Gins- 
 burg,  Song  of  Songs,  p.  28.) 
 
 Importance  attached  to  letters. 
 
 Ex.  iii.  15.  The  name  of  Jehovah  must  not  be  altered  because 
 u7V?  "  for  ever "  is  here  written  without  1,  and  therefore  means 
 "to  hide."     Qiddushin,  f.  71. 
 
 Gen.  i.  31.  Why  the  superfluous  article  in  "  the  sixth "  day 
 CL''L*'n)  ?  Because  H  =  5,  and  it  means  that  if  Israel  does  not  re- 
 ceive the  five  books  of  the  Law,  the  world  shall  return  to  chaos. 
 Shabbath,  f.  88,  i.  a. 
 
 "Job  said,  Perhaps  a  storm  wind  changed  by  name  from  Job 
 (3VK)  to  '  enemy  '  (3M^)."    Baba  Bathra,  f.  16,  1. 
 
 Gen.  xlvii.  12.  The  worded  is  dotted  to  show  that  they  meant  to 
 feed  not  the  flock  but  themselves.     Aboth  of  R.  Nathan,  34. 
 
 Inferences   (com  the  rc/tetition  of  words. 
 
 A  Sadducee  once  said  to  Rabbi  Iddith,  "It  is  written  (Ex.  xxiv. 
 I),  'And  Guil  said  unto  Moses,  Come  up  unto  the  Lord.'  Should  it 
 not  be  'Come  up  unto  Me  '  ?"  "  No,"  said  the  Rabbi,  "  fifetatron  is 
 here  called  by  (he  name  of  the  Lord."    Sanhedrin,  f.  38,  2. 
 
 The  child  of  R.  Simeon  ben  Lakish  asked  Rabbi  why  the  verb 
 was  repeated  in  '  Tithing  thou  shalt  tithe'  (Dent.  xiv.  22).  The 
 Rabbi  said,  "  ( live  I  ithea  thai  thou  mayesl  become  rich  "  (DL"!'  has 
 both  meanings).     Taanith,  £  9,  1. 
 
 2  Sam.  vi.  2.  "The  Ark  upon  which  the  name,  the  name  of  the 
 Lord  is  called."  "Name"  is  repeated  tosho\i  thai  the  broken  tables 
 also  were  deposited  in  the  Ark.    Baba  Bathra,  f.  1  I,  2. 
 
448  Notes. 
 
 Gen.  xix.  24.  "  The  Lord  rained  .  .  .  fire  from  the  Lord."  A 
 Sadducee  remarked  that  it  should  be  "  from  Himself."  A  washer- 
 man who  was  present,  obtaining  leave  to  answer  him,  referred 
 to  Gen.  iv.  23  ;  Lamech  said,  "  Hear  my  voice,  ye  wives  of  Lamech." 
 Sanhedrin,  f.  38,  2.  The  perfectly  sensible  remark  that  it  was  only 
 a  peculiarity  of  speech  was  given  by  R.  Meir  ;  yet  this  text  is  used 
 by  Fathers  and  Schoolmen  to  prove  the  Divinity  of  Christ. 
 
 6.  Inferences  from  Impersonal  verbs. 
 
 Esth.  vi.  1.  "And  he  commanded  to  bring  the  books  of  the 
 chronicles,  and  they  were  read."  It  means  they  were  read  of  them- 
 selves (by  no  visible  agent).  "  And  it  was  found  written."  It  means 
 that  Shimsai  (?  Ezra  iv.  8)  kept  erasing  the  words,  and  Gabriel 
 wrote  them  afresh.     Megilla,  f.  15,  2. 
 
 7.  Inferences  from  Plurals. 
 
 Ex.  xxiv.  6.  "  Long-sufferings."  Why  in  the  plural  ?  Because 
 it  extends  both  to  the  righteous  and  to  the  wicked.  'Erubin, 
 f.  22,  1. 
 
 Gen.  xlv.  16.  "  Benjamin's  necks."  Had  Benjamin  two  necks  1 
 No,  he  wept  for  the  destruction  of  the  two  Temples.  Megilla, 
 f.  16,  2. 
 
 Gen.  iv.  10.  "  Thy  brother's  bloods."  It  means  that  his  blood  was 
 scattered  on  trees  and  stones.     Sanhedrin,  f.  37,  1. 
 
 Dan.  vii.  9.  "  The  thrones  were  placed."  R.  Jose.  "  One  throne 
 for  justice,  one  for  mercy."  R.  Eleazar.  "  One  for  a  throne,  the 
 other  for  a  footstool."  R.  Aqiba.  "  One  for  Himself,  one  for  the 
 Messiah."     Sanhedrin,  f.  38,  2. 
 
 8.  Miscellaneous. 
 
 Gen.  xiv.  3.  As  a  reward  for  refusing  a  thread  and  a  shoe- 
 latchet  which  were  not  his,  Abraham's  children  received  two 
 profitable  commandments,  to  have  a  sky-blue  thread  in  the  fringes, 
 and  a  leathern  strap  to  the  phylacteries.     Sota,  f.  17,  1. 
 
 Gen.  xix.  2.  "  The  cry  of  Sodom  is  great."  Since  H21  in 
 Talmudic  Hebrew  also  means  "a  girl,"  they  had  a  story  of  a 
 girl  in  Sodom  who  for  giving  a  piece  of  bread  to  a  poor  man  was 
 smeared  with  honey  and  stung  to  death  by  bees.  Sanhedrin,  f 
 109,  2. 
 
 Rabbi  Jehudah  says,  "  He  that  renders  a  verse  literally  says  what 
 is  not  true  ;  and  he  who  adds  to  it  is  a  blasphemer,"  Qiddnshin,  f.  49, 
 1.  (Rashi  adds  that  the  additions  in  the  Targums  of  Onqelos  were 
 derived  from  Moses.) 
 
 Cant.  viii.  10.  "  I  am  a  wall,"  i.e.  the  Law  ;  "  and  my  breasts 
 like  towers,"  i.e.  the  Pupils  of  the  Wise.     Baba  Bathra,  f.  8,  1. 
 
Notes.  449 
 
 NOTE  V. 
 
 THE   KARAITES. 
 
 The  Karaites — whom  I  have  called  the  Protestants  of  Judaism— date 
 their  distinct  position  from  the  days  of  the  Khalif  Almanzor  (753-774) 
 in  Bagdad.  Just  as  the  Mohammedan  Schiites  reject,  and  the  Sunnites 
 accept,  "  tradition "  apart  from  the  Koran,  so  the  Karaites  reject  the 
 tradition  of  the  Rabbinists,  and  acknowledge  only  the  authority  of 
 Scripture  (Bent  Mihra).  A  learned  Karaite  in  the  fifteenth  century, 
 Kaleb  Afendopulo,  says  that  the  Karaites  differed  from  Talmudists  : 
 1.  In  rejecting  the  oral  law.  2.  In  rejecting  traditional  exegesis,  and 
 maintaining  (like  the  Reformers)  the  "perspicuity"  of  Scripture.  3. 
 In  denying  all  right  to  add  to,  or  take  from,  the  Law. 
 
 We  read  in  a  Jewish  periodical  that  a  Jewish  boy  once  asked  his 
 father,  "Who  are  the  Karaites?"  The  answer  was,  "They  are  Jews 
 wliu  eat  chickens  fried  in  butter."  The  boy  immediately  (according  to 
 the  common  Jewish  form  of  execration)  spat  on  the  ground  and  said, 
 "  May  their  name  and  memorial  be  blotted  out."1  The  meaning  was 
 th.it  they  violate  the  law,  "  Thou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother's 
 milk,"  because  they  reject  the  preposterous  extensions  given  by  the 
 Rabbis  to  that  precept. 
 
 The  founder  of  the  Karaites  was  Anan  ben  David  Abba,2  who  being 
 excluded  from  the  position  of  Gaon,  went  to  Jerusalem  with  his  son, 
 friends,  and  followers,  and  developed  his  opinions  undisturbed.  He 
 sin  ink  off  the  yoke  of  Rabbinism  and  tradition,  and  proclaimed  the 
 right  of  private  judgment.  He  is  still  commemorated  by  the  Karaites 
 in  their  mention  of  the  dead,  as  one  who  opened  for  them  the  gates  of 
 the  Law. 
 
 The  Karaites  claim,  however,  a  much  higher  antiquity  though  not  as  a 
 separate  sect.  In  a  Karaite  book  published  in  1834,  and  quoted  in  the 
 Jewish  World  (Jan.  27,  1882),  we  read,  "The  Jews  murdered  the  good 
 Jesus,  the  son  of  Miriam,  because  he  was  a  Karaite,  and  because  he 
 opposed  the  Mishna,  as  his  Karaite  ancestors  had  always  done."3 
 
 The  influence  of  the  Karaites  told  strongly  even  on  the  Rabbinists. 
 and  led   to  the  development   of  the   Massora.     Their  determination  to 
 
 1  The  initial  letters  of  the  words  of  this  curse  form  the  word  1"'\  "Jesus." 
 
 '-  See  Munk,  Mtlanges,  p.  4  79  sqq: 
 See  Matt.  xv.  6  ;  Mark  vii.   13  ;  John  v.  39.     The  Prophets  Isaiah  and 
 Jeremiah  certainly  express  Karaite  views  (Is.  iii.  12;  viii.  20;  ix.  16;  lvi. 
 10-12,  &c.     Jer.  ii.  13  ;  viii.  12  ;  xviii.  8-23,  &c).     Karaites  are  mentioned 
 in  the  Mishna,  Megilla,  f.  24,  2. 
 
 G  G 
 
450  Notes. 
 
 abide  by  the  literal  sense  gave  an  impulse  to  Hebrew  philology,  which 
 was  peculiarly  difficult  when  there  was  neither  grammar  nor  lexicon  in 
 existence. 
 
 The  Karaites  claim  the  right  to  constant  progress  without  regarding 
 themselves  as  unfaithful  to  their  earlier  teachers. 
 
 They  have  eight  exegetical  rules  drawn  up  by  Abu  Jakub  el  Bazir. 
 
 NOTE  VI. 
 
 THE   MASSORA. 
 
 The  word  Massora  is  derived  from  Masar,  "to  deliver,-'  and  in  its 
 original  sense  the  word  means  the  traditional  writing  of  the  Biblical 
 text  of  the  Sopherim  which  R.  Aqiba  regarded  as  "a  hedge  round  the 
 law." 
 
 The  necessity  for  the  collection  and  preservation  of  the  old  textual 
 traditions  began  with  the  decay  of  Jewish  learning  after  the  sixth  century. 
 The  most  important  part  of  this  task  was  the  system  of  punctuation  and 
 vocalisation.  The  origin  of  the  Keri  ("read")  and  Kethib  ("written")  is 
 attributed  to  the  Sopherim  (see  Wogue,  Hist,  de  la  Bible,  pp.  110-127) 
 and  the  Massoretic  material  must  have  early  existed,  for  the  germs  of  it 
 are  alluded  to  even  in  the  Mishna, 
 
 After  the  eighth  century  the  word  is  used  in  a  narrower  sense  to 
 describe  the  knowledge  of  the  words,  letters,  verses,  vowels  and  points 
 of  the  text  The  Massorets  counted  the  number  of  verses  in  each  book, 
 how  many  began  and  ended  in  the  same  way,  how  many  times  a  word 
 occurred  in  the  Bible  or  in  a  particular  book.  Many  of  these  results 
 are  preserved  in  Elias  Levita.  The  Hebrew  Bible  (if  any  one  cares  to 
 know)  contains  815,280  letters. 
 
 The  Massora  was  grammatic,  lexical,  and  exegetic.  The  exegetic  re- 
 marks, constituting  the  great  and  the  little  Massora,  are  written  in  the 
 margin.  The  Massora  was  completed  in  the  ninth  century  by  Aron  ben 
 Asher,  and  Moseh  ben  David  ben  Naphthali,  who  laboured  specially  on 
 the  text. 
 
 Before  the  invention  of  printing  the  Bibles  were  written  by  scribes, 
 "punctators"  (D^Tp^)  wno  added  the  vowel  points  andaccents,  and  cor- 
 rectors (DTT'JJD)  who  revised  the  whole.  One  of  the  most  celebrated  of 
 these  scribes  was  Samson  the  Nakdan,  who  wrote  a  book  on  the  subject 
 in  the  thirteenth  century. 
 
 The  Bible  was  early  divided  into  Lessons  from  the  Law  (nVtynS)  and 
 from  the  Prophets  (ni~lt3Qn).  Rabbi  Isaak  Nathan  in  the  fifteenth  century 
 
Notes*.  451 
 
 wrote  a  concordance,  in  which  the  Jews  first  availed  themselves  of  Hugo 
 de  St.  Caro's  division  of  the  Bible  into  verses. 
 
 See  Dillmann,  in  Herzog,  s.v.  Bible  Text.  Low,  Praktiache  Einleitung , 
 pp.  115-117,  and  especially  Dr.  Ginsburg's  translation  of  the  Massoreth 
 Ha  Massoreth  by  Elias  Levita,  1548  (London,  1867). 
 
 NOTE  VII. 
 
 TALMUDIC   CRYPTOGRAPHS. 
 
 From  want  of  space  I  must  content  myself  with  a  reference  to  my  paper 
 "ii  this  subject  in  the  Expositor  vii.  40-58,  where  several  very  important 
 instances  are  given. 
 
 Want  of  space  also  compels  me  to  omit  a  number  of  estimates  of  the 
 Talmudic  writings  both  favourable  and  unfavourable  drawn  from  many 
 writers,  mediaeval  and  modern. 
 
 a  (.  -i 
 
LECTUKE    III. 
 NOTE  I. 
 
 PHILO'S   USB   OP  THE   SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 Siegfried,  in  three  papers  contributed  to  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschrift  for 
 1873  has  carefully  examined  Philo's  use  of  the  Septuagint.  He  finds 
 from  classifying  Philo's  quotations, 
 
 1.  That  he  often  cites  from  memory  and  parenthetically. 
 
 2.  That  he  often  mixes  up  his  quotations  with  remarks  of  his  own. 
 
 3.  That  he  sometimes  varies  the  terms  of  the  same  quotation. 
 
 4.  That  some  of  his  professed  quotations  are  no  longer  extant  in  any 
 MSS. 
 
 5.  That  they  occasionally  represent  more  accurately  the  meaning  of 
 the  Hebrew. 
 
 6.  That  they  sometimes  show  traces  of  a  different  Hebrew  text. 
 
 7.  That  they  sometimes  do  not  occur  at  all  in  our  text. 
 
 8.  That  two  quotations  are  sometimes  mingled. 
 See  too  Gfrorer,  Philo,  i.  51  ;  Dahne,  ii.  2  sq. 
 
 Similar  phenomena  appear  both  in  the  quotations  made  from  the  Old 
 Testament  in  the  New,  and  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers. 
 
 NOTE  II. 
 
 THE   EXEGETICAL   PRINCIPLES   OF   JOSEPHUS. 
 
 Although  Josephus  is  primarily  a  historian,  it  was  impossible  for  him 
 to  write  a  history  of  his  people  without  giving  many  indications  of  the 
 methods  of  interpretation  which  he  adopted,  and  those  methods  were 
 chiefly  Palestinian.  Nearly  all  that  he  has  in  common  with  Philo  is 
 the  strong  desire  to  narrate  the  Bible  histories  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
 
Notes.  453 
 
 be  most  acceptable  to  his  Gentile  readers,  and  so  as  least  to  excite  their 
 sense  of  the  ridiculous. 
 
 He  professes  the  intention  of  being  perfectly  faithful  to  the  written 
 records.     But 
 
 1.  He  adopts  allegorical   explanations — as  in  his  account   of    the 
 
 Tabernacle.  He  says  that  two  parts  of  it  represented  the  land 
 and  sea  which  are  open  to  all  men ;  the  third  part  symbolised 
 the  Heaven  which  is  reserved  for  God.  The  twelve  loaves  of 
 shewbread  represent  the  twelve  months ;  the  candlestick  was 
 composed  of  seventy  pieces  to  indicate  the  constellations  ;  the 
 seven  branches  indicated  sun,  moon,  and  planets,  &c. 
 See  Antt,  Proem.  §  4  ;  i.  7,  §  1  ;  iii.  11,  §  11. 
 
 2.  He  indulges  in  Hagadoth.     Thus  in  his  account  of  Abraham  he 
 
 says  that  the  Patriarch  taught  Astrology,  Arithmetic,  &c,  to  the 
 Egyptians  from  whom  the  Greeks  learnt  those  sciences  ;  and  he 
 has  many  remarkable  legends  about  the  youth  of  Moses,  &c. 
 
 3.  He  imitates  the  Greeks  in  putting  speeches  into  the   mouth   of 
 
 Moses,  &c.  (as  Philo  also  does). 
 
 4.  He  adopts  as  often  as  possible  a  natural  explanation  of  supernatural 
 
 narratives,  as  in  his  account  of  the  Manna,  the  Passage  over  the 
 Red  Sea,  the  crossing  of  Jordan,  the  appearance  of  the  angel  to 
 the  wife  of  Manoah,  &c. 
 
 5.  Like   the  Rabbis,   he  is   fond   of    introducing   proverbs,  such   as 
 
 "Remorse  is  the  daughter  of  obstinacy  and  thoughtlessness/' 
 "  The  mob  is  always  changeable,"  "  Envy  waits  on  Prosperity," 
 &c. 
 
 6.  He  assimilates  Jewish  views  to  those  of  the  Greek  philosophers. 
 
 See  Antt.  vi.  11,  §  8  ;  viii.  4,  §  2  ;  c.  Ap.  ii.  39. 
 
 On  the  whole  we  must  regard  Josephus  as  presenting  a  strange 
 mixture  of  Rabbinic,  Pharisaic,  and  Rationalistic  notions.  He  was 
 wholly  wanting  in  the  religious  earnestness  of  Philo. 
 
 NOTE  III. 
 
 the  sKrxr.uiiNT  version. 
 
 A  translator  may  either  offer  a  free  paraphrase,  or  may  adhere  to  the 
 original  with  slavish  accuracy  ;  or  may  steer  a  middle  euursc  between 
 these  extremes.  Many  of  the  LXX.  translators  adopted  the  first  view  of 
 their  duty  ;  Aquila  the  second  ;  Theodotion  and  Symmachus  the 
 third. 
 
454  Notes. 
 
 i.  The  Seventy  sometimes  omit.     The  omission  in  some  MSS.  of  1  Sam. 
 
 xvii.  12-31,  and  55-58  is  due  to  the  desire  to  avoid  a  contradiction. 
 
 The  omission  of  Ex.  xxxii.  9  is  due  to  the  same  national  vanity 
 
 which  led  them  to  alter  "  set  on  mischief "  into  "  impetuous "  in 
 
 Ex.  xxxii  22. 
 ii.  They  make  Halakhic  additions,  as  in  Gen.  ix.  4  ;  Ex.  xii.  15,  18  ; 
 
 xiii.  16  (du-cikevra)  ;  xxii.  9  ;  Lev.  xix.  19  ;  xxiv.  7  ;  Deut.  xxvi.  12, 
 
 &c.    See  Franker,  Vorstudien,  pp.  86-92. 
 iii.  They  add  Haggadistic  particulars,  as  in  Gen.  ii.  2  ;  iv.  4  ;  Ex.  xiii . 
 
 18  ;  Num.  xxxii.    12  ;  Deut.    xxxii.  8  ;  Josh.  xiii.  22  ;    xxiv.  30  ; 
 
 1  Sam.    v.  4,  5,   10  ;  xvii.   39-43  ;   xix.  13-16  ;  xx.  30  ;  xxi.   13 ; 
 
 Eccl.  xi.  9  ;  xii.  9,  &c. 
 iv.  They  explain  and  modify  so  as  to  get  rid  of  anything  which  savoured 
 
 of  difficulty  or  unorthodoxy,  as  in  Ex.  ii.  1  ;  iv.  6  ;  vi.  12,  20  ;  xii. 
 
 40  ;  1  Sam.  xvi.  12  ;  xx.  30  ;  Eccl.  ii.  15,  17  ;  xi.  9,  &c 
 v.  They  soften  down  Anthropomorphic  and  Anthropopathic  expressions, 
 
 as  in  Gen.  xviii.  30  ;  Ex.  iii.  1  ;  iv.  16,  20,  24 ;  v.  3 ;  xv.   3  ;  xvii. 
 
 16  ;  xix.  13  ;  xxiv.  10,  11  ;  xxv.  8. 
 vi.  As  for  their  positive  mistakes,  they  arose  : 
 
 a.  From  the  use  of  an  unpunctuated  text,  as  in  Hos.   vi.   5,  Ps. 
 
 cvi.  7. 
 /3.  From  the  non-existence  of  vowel-points,  as  in 
 
 1  Sam.  xiv.  45  ;  1  Chron.  xix.  6  ;  Ps.  lxxxvii.  4,  &c,  where 
 
 they  confuse  im  "  with  "  and  am  "  people." 
 1  Sam.  ii.  16  ;  viii.  19  ;  x.  19,  &c,  confusions  of  ^  and  Y?. 
 y.  From  confusion  of  letters,  e.g.  1  with  -|  or  vice  versa,  as  in 
 
 1  Sam.  ix.  25  ;  Is.  xxix.   3 ;  comp.   1  Sam.  xvii.  8  ;  xxxi.  3. 
 Some  of  these  changes  may  be  due  to  intentional  anagram 
 &c.     See  Eccl.  i.  18  ;  ii.  3  ;  viii.  6. 
 3.  From  ignorance  of  proper  names,  as  in 
 
 Gen.  xxii.  13  ;  Is.  vii.  3,  &c. 
 e.  From  not  understanding  difficult  words,  as  in 
 
 1   Sam.  xv.   32  ;  xvi.  20  ;  xvii.  20 ;  xxvi.  5  ;  Ruth  iv.  1  ;  2 
 Kings  vi.  8.1 
 
 Aquila's  version  (a.d.  150)  is  slavishly  literal,  and  was  spoken  of  as 
 /caret  dKpijSeiav  (Jer.  in  Ezek.  iii.  15).  The  LXX.  sometimes  render  J"IN 
 by  aiiv  (e.g.  twenty-nine  times  in  Ecclesiastes  alone,  i.  14  ;  ii.  17,  &c). 
 Aquila,  in  deference  to  Aqiba's  views,  always  did  so.  See  Jer.  Ed.  ad 
 Pammach.      The    Talmud    praises    Aquila's    version    (Shabbath,    8  ; 
 
 I  have  remarked  on  some  of  these  errors  of  the  LXX.  in  the  version  of 
 1  Samuel  in  the  first  vol.  of  the  Expositor,  pp.  104-119. 
 
Notes.  455 
 
 Yuma,  f.  41,  l).1  Theodotion's  version  seems  to  have  been  necessitated 
 by  the  obscurity  of  Aquila's.  Synimachus'6  version  was  Ear  more  in- 
 telligible  and  perspicuous. 
 
 NOTE  IV. 
 
 PHILO'S   PHRASES   FOR   THE   LITERAL   AND   ALLEGORIC   SENSES. 
 
 Philo  calls  the  literal  sense  : 
 
 tu  piyra .    De  A  brah.  §  38. 
 
 to  j!>i]Tui>,  at  prjTai  Siepprjueuo-fts.      Quod  (lit.  plot.  §§  6,  46. 
 
 /)  prjTj)  tTriaK(\lns.    De  Agric.  §  30. 
 
 Tj  jji]Trj  km  npv)((ipos  Siura^is.     Quod  Deus  sit  iininut.  §  28. 
 
 at  Trpj\ttpot  UTrodoiTfis  eK  rrji  (pavtpas  twv  vopuvypacprjs. 
 
 r)  Trpu^ttpos  e'/co'o^i)  tov  Ao'you.      De  Conf.  L/i/ij.  p.  34. 
 
 17  prjTTj  8tTJyr](Tis.     De  Joseph.  §  6. 
 
 Kvpiias.     De  Opif.  Jfundi,  §  54. 
 
 rj  prjrrj  Kai  i)ctv(pa  u7ro'So<m.     De  Abrah.  §  36. 
 
 at  prjral  yp(i(f)iit.      id.  §  41. 
 
 Sometimes  his  phrases  betray  his  strong  dislike  to  literalism  ;  thus 
 
 he  calls  it 
 
 7)  Kara  tt)v  (j)pd(riv  i\jn]yopta.      Quod  del.  pot. 
 j]  (pavepa.  Kiti  npos  tovs  ttoXXovs  d7ri')duo~is.     De  A  brah.  §  29. 
 7rpus    tovs    Trjs    prjTTjs    npayparfias    o~o(pto~Tiis     Kill    Aiaj/    ran     u<ppvs 
 dveo-iraKuTin.     De  Sonui.  i.  17. 
 
 Of  the  allegorical  sense  he  speaks  as 
 
 vuputv  Upu>v  uWrjyopiat,  at  b\   vnovoiosv  anoSiJadS.    De  Abrah.  §  18. 
 
 De  Agric.  §  6. 
 
 De  Uher ub.  §  7. 
 
 De  Joseph.  §  6. 
 alviTTfadat  8V  vttovuiwv.      Quod  (let.  pot. 
 
 hilt  avpfioXuv.     Quod  Deua  sit  immut  §  27. 
 
 o-vp,io\tKo>s.     Dt  M "ml.  Opif.   §  54. 
 
 TpouKiii  djroSoerets.     De  Conf.  Ling.  §  37. 
 
 T«  ipipiuvuptva  utnj para.      Quod  dt  I.  pot.  §   Hi1.). 
 
 tu  voTjTil.      De  Abrah.  §  38. 
 
 uaroipara  Kiii  yvpva  irpdypara.    id.  §  41. 
 
 1  R,  Joshua  b.  Chananiah  applied  1'.-.  xlv.  3  to  Aquila.     Wogue,  p.  139. 
 
456  Notes. 
 
 Tu  iv  vnovolais.     De  Joseph.  §  6. 
 
 v  TpomKcorepa  dnoScxTis.    id.  §  22. 
 
 f)  ev  aWiiyopiq.  8ea>pla.     De  A  brah.  §  25. 
 
 f)  npos  Siavoiav  hriar^fit}  cpikopadrjs.     De  Sjiec.  Legg.  p.  101 
 
 f]  iv  diroKpvcpa)  koL  7rpos  okiyovs  dnodoais.    De  Abrah.  §  29. 
 
 How  complete  in  Philo's  opinion  was  the  superiority  of  this  allegoric 
 sense  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  he  calls  it  opariKols  cplXr]  dv8pdaiv,  De 
 Planted.  §  9.  He  says  that  it  is  obscure  to  the  many,  but  is  the  sense 
 held  by  the  initiated  (p-va-rai)  and  r/v  ol  ra  vonra  irpo  rav  alo-dnruiv 
 dTTo8(xdp(foi  Ka\  opav  bvvdpevoi  yvwpi^ovcriv,  De  Abrah,  §  36.  He  calls 
 Allegory  "  the  wise  architect,"  De  Somn.  ii.  §  2.  In  his  view  allegory 
 was  r)  7rpbs  to  dXrjdes  emvevovaa  686s,  and  literalism  only  tj  npos  ras 
 va>0eo-Tepa>v  86£as. 
 
 Arbitrary  as  was  Philo's  method,  it  still  was  a  method.  It  had  its 
 own  rules  (ndvoves  Ttjs  dXKrjyopias,  De  Somn.  i.  §  13  ;  De  Vict.  Offer.  §  5  ; 
 v6p.oi  rrjs  dWnyopias,  De  Abrah.  §  15).  He  quite  sincerely  believed  that 
 he  was  developing  the  true  sense  of  Scripture,  and  after  laying  down 
 the  distinctly  Platonic  doctrine  of  Ideas  says  Moxrecos  eari  86ypa  ovk 
 e'fiw,  De  Opif.  Mund.  §  6. 
 
 The  two  loci  classici  for  Philo's  conceptions  of  allegory  are  in  the 
 tracts  Quod  Deus  immutabilis,  §11,  and  De  Somn.  i.  §  40.  In  the  first 
 he  argues  from  the  apparent  contradiction  between  the  statements 
 "  God  is  not  a  man"  (Num.  xxiii.  19),  and  "  God  is  as  a  man"  (Deut.  i. 
 31)  that  God  has  two  methods  of  instruction,  one  for  "the  companions 
 of  the  soul,"  and  the  other  for  "  those  who  enter  into  agreements  and 
 alliances  with  the  body."  In  the  latter  passage  he  says  that  to  "  in- 
 corporeal souls  "  God  converses  as  a  friend,  whereas  he  trains  the  sensu- 
 ous by  condescension  and  fear.  On  the  expression  "  God  came  down  "  he 
 says,  tcivtci.  .  .  dvdp&no\oytlTai7rapaT<p  vopoderj]  nep\  rav  pi)  dvdpa>Trop.('p(pov 
 Qeov  8ui  ras  toov  Tvaihevopevatv  rjpa>v  u><pf\(ias  (De  Conf.  Ling.  §  27),  and 
 that  to  take  it  literally  would  be  xmepuiKedvLos  ko.\  peraKoo-pios  dcr«/3eia. 
 
 His  two  strongest  and  plainest  statements  on  the  subject  are  De 
 Joseph.  §  6,  2xe8ov  yap  ra  irdvra  rj  ra  nXflaT  a  ttjs  vopodeaias  dWrjyopeiTai  : 
 and  De  Spec.  Legg.  §  39,  ra  7rXeZo~ra  twv  iv  vopots  crvpfioXa  (pave pa 
 depavav  icai  prjrd  appdratv.  He  sometimes  puts  aside  the  literal  sense 
 entirely,  e.g.  writing  on  Ecc.  vii.  15,  he  says  ovde  yap  nepl  norapaiv  io-riv 
 lo-Topias  t]  ivapovo-a  uivovhr]  ntpl  8e  tuv  fticcv  k.t.X.  :  and,  speaking  of  Sarah 
 and  Hagar,  he  says  ov  yap  irep\  yvvaiicwv  £o-tov  6  Xoyos  dXXd  8iavota)v. 
 
 See  Diihne,  Alex.  Religionsphilos.  i.  49-80. 
 
 Siegfried,  Philo,  160-165. 
 
Notes.  457 
 
 NOTE  V. 
 
 PHILO   AND   MESSIANIC   HOPES. 
 
 In  the  lull  of  persecution  and  the  growth  of  prosperity  among  the 
 Alexandrian  Jews,  the  Messianic  hopes,  which  had  once  been  the  stay 
 and  inspiration  of  their  fathers,  seem  to  have  become  very  conventional 
 and  faint. 
 
 The  word  Messiah  does  not  occur  in  Philo's  writings,  nor  does  he 
 even  comment  on  the  great  Evangelical  prophecies.  When  he  alludes 
 to  those  which  occur  in  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  only  to  minimise  their 
 Messianic  significance. 
 
 Thus  in  his  Legi$  Allegoriae  (iii.  §§  63-70),  he  gives  a  truly  deplorable 
 specimen  of  exegesis  on  Gen.  iii.  15.  The  enmity  between  the  woman 
 and  the  serpent  is  the  conflict  between  pleasure  and  sense,  passion  and 
 mind.  His  extraordinary  comment  on  "  It  (avros)  shall  bruise  (rqprjo-ei) 
 thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel,"  is  that  the  expression  is  a 
 barbarism,  but  that  this  is  corrected  by  the  significance.  For  he  says 
 that  the  "  he  "  (avros)  refers  to  the  woman,  and  should  therefore  be  avrrj. 
 But,  he  says,  Moses  has  passed  from  the  woman  to  the  seed,  and  its 
 principle  which  is  "  mind  "  (vovs)  and  therefore  masculine.  The  "  mind  " 
 shall  bruise,  or  following  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  LXX. 
 "shall  observe,"  the  head  (i.e.  the  predominant  doctrine)  of  pleasure, 
 and  thou  shalt  observe  the  steps  of  the  mind,  and  the  supporter  of 
 things  which  please  it,  to  which  the  "heels"  are  naturally  likened. 
 ( loing  mi  to  comment  on  the  curious  phrase  of  the  LXX.  (rrjpi^aei) '  he 
 -ays  that  it  may  mean  either  "shall  guard"  ( 8iao-a>o-ei,  8w<puAd£ei)  or 
 "shall  watch  with  a  view  to  destruction."  The  former  applies  to  the 
 worthless  mind  which  treasures  up  pleasures,  and  the  latter  to  the 
 earnest  mind,  which  looks  out  for  the  attacks  of  pleasure,  and  tries  to 
 destroy  it :  and  then  follows  a  digressive  allegorical  illustration  about 
 Jacob.  It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  there  is  no  Messianism  here,  and 
 that  in  the  hands  of  Philo  the  passage  loses  its  profound  and  far-reaching 
 significance,  and  is  evaporated  into  moral  platitudes. 
 
 So  again  with  the  marvellous  promise  to  Abraham,  "And  in  thy  seed 
 shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  he  blessed."  This  is  what  Philo  has 
 to  say  upon  it  in  De  Somniii  (i.  §  29).  "  This  prophecy,"  he  says,  "  accords 
 with  what  is  true  both  to  a  man  individually  and  in  his  relation  to 
 others.       For  if    my    own    inward    mind    be     purified    by     perfect 
 
 1  On  the  possible  origin  and  meaning  of  this  rendering,  I  must  content 
 myself  with  a  reference  to  Bchleusner,  s.v. 
 
458  Notes. 
 
 virtue,  and  the  tribes  of  the  earthly  around  me  are  also  swept  away, 
 namely  my  natural  senses,  and  if  any  one  in  a  family,  or  city,  or 
 country,  or  nation  has  become  a  lover  of  prudences,  then  the  family,  and 
 country,  and  nation  necessarily  enjoys  a  better 'life.  For  just  as  odorous 
 substance  diffuses  its  sweet  aroma  to  all  who  come  near  it,  so  all  who  are 
 neighbours  of  the  wise  are  bettered  in  character  as  they  breathe  the 
 outpoured  fragrancy."  This  may  be  a  poetic  commonplace,  but  all  the 
 glowing  Messianic  element  of  the  most  glorious  of  the  Jewish  hopes 
 has  disappeared. 
 
 It  is  quite  clear  that  Philo  in  no  sense  identifies  the  Messiah  with  the 
 Logos.  There  is  an  allusion  to  national  victories  under  some  great 
 coming  leader  in  De  Proemiis  (§  16  ),  and  to  the  share  of  heathen 
 proselytes  in  Jewish  blessings  in  De  Execrationibus,  §  6. 
 
 Did  Philo  ever  see  Jesus?  It  is  just  possible  that  he  did,  for  he 
 tells  us  in  his  book  on  "Providence"  (Aucher,  ii.  107)  that  he  once 
 visited  Jerusalem  and  there  offered  a  sacrifice.  But  if  he  saw  Christ  he 
 knew  nothing  of  Him,  and  he  rejected  the  very  possibility  of  an  Incar- 
 nation as  a  mere  hypothetical  absurdity  which  could  hardly  be  even 
 thought  of  without  impiety.  For  in  condemning  the  insane  attempt  of 
 the  Emperor  Gaius  to  place  a  colossal  statue  of  himself  in  the  Temple 
 of  Jerusalem,  he  calls  it  "  the  gravest  impiety  "  to  liken  the  uncreated 
 and  incorruptible  God  to  the  created  and  corruptible  nature  of  men , 
 and  adds  by  way  of  scornful  parenthesis  or  rechictio  ad  absurd  urn,  Buttov 
 yap  fls  livQpasirov  Beov  t]  eh  6eov  tivBpairov  peraj3aXeiv.1 
 
 1  On  this  and  other  questions  connected  with  Philo's  theology  there  is  an 
 interesting  sermon  by  Professor  (now  Bishop)  Wordsworth  "On  Jewish  In- 
 terpretation of  Messianic  Prophecy,"  preached  hefore  the  University  of  Oxford 
 in  March,  1S80. 
 
LECTTJBE  IV. 
 
 PATRISTIC   REASONS   FOR   ADOPTING   ALLEGORY. 
 
 1.  The  asserted  un worthiness  of  the  letter. 
 
 "  Historia  simplex  sed  alta  mysteria  ;  aliud  enim  gerebatur,  aliud 
 ligurabatur;  quia  lateralis  sensus  indignus  est."    Arabr.  De  Fide. 
 
 "Ubi  materia  vel  turpitudinem  habeat  vel  impossibilitatem  ad  altiora 
 traiismittimur." — Jer.  in  Matt.  xxi.  4. 
 
 "  Quidquid  in  sermone  divino  neque  ad  morum  honestatcm,  neque  ad 
 Jidei  veritatem  proprie  referri  potest,  figuratum  esse  cognoscas."  Aug.  De 
 Doctr.  Christ,  iii.  §  13. 
 
 2.  The  unwarranted  extension  of  isolated  expressions  to  the  whole 
 Scriptures. 
 
 Jerome,  after  quoting  Ps.  lxxviii.  2,  says,  "Ex  quo  intelligimus  uni- 
 versa  quae  scripta  sunt  parabolice  sentienda,  nee  manifestum  tantum 
 sonare  litteram  sed  abscondita  sacramenta."     In  Matt.  xiii.  35. 
 
 3.  Entire  misapplication  of  the  verse,  "  The  letter  killeth,  but  the 
 Spirit  giveth  life"   2  Cor.  iii.  (i). 
 
 This  verse  is  quoted  times  without  number  by  the  Fathers  and  School- 
 men. It  is  obvious  that  if  by  "the  letter"  were  meant  "the  literal 
 sense,"  St.  Paul  would  have  been  condemning  the  literal  sense  altogether 
 as  being  of  a  fatal  tendency.  The  context  shows  the  meaning  to  be  that 
 tin'  Law  has  nothing  to  say,  but  to  threaten  death  to  transgressors:  or 
 else  that  the  Law,  taken  alone,  causes  first  sin  and  then  death  (Rom.  vii. 
 10/0.)- 
 
 4.  The  notion  that  all  senses  (within  the  limits  of  the  Christian  faith) 
 are  applicable  because  they  must  have  been  foreseen  by  the  Spirit  ;  this 
 argument  would  cover  and  justify  all  the  divergences  of  all  the 
 Christian  sects. 
 
 "  Illequippe  auctor  in  eisdem  verbis  quae  intelligere  volumus,  el  Lpsam 
 Bententiam  forsitan  vidit,  it  ccrte  Dei  Spiritus  .  .  etiam  ipsam  occursuram 
 lectori  praevidit,  immout  occurreret  .  .  sine  dubitatione  providit,"  Aug. 
 De  Doctr.  Christ,  iii.  ]>.  32. 
 
460  Notes. 
 
 This  astonishing  assumption  is  repeated  by  Cocceius  (see  the  passage 
 quoted  in  Lecture  VII.,  and  recently  by  Dr.  Pusey). 
 
 5.  The  supposed  use  of  allegory  by  St.  Paul. 
 
 6.  Passages  adduced  as  sanctioning  allegoric  interpretation.  Every 
 passage  which  can  by  any  possibility  be  pressed  into  such  a  conclusion 
 is  given  by  Sixtus  Senensis,  in  his  Bibliotheca  Sancta,  and  by  Water- 
 land,  Preface  to  Scripture  Vindicated.  In  various  passages  of  these 
 Lectures  I  have  shown  their  want  of  validity.  Sixtus  Senensis  clearly 
 shows  that  allegory  is  the  result,  not  of  loyalty  to  Scripture,  but  of 
 radical  disloyalty  to  it  as  it  is,  in  such  remarks  as  the  following.  He 
 says  that  to  take  Scripture  literally  is  inevitably  "contaminari  et  inqui- 
 nari  Judaicis  institutis  ;  "  that  it  involves  the  duty  of  keeping  the  Cere- 
 monial Law,  "  caeterasque  Hebraeorum  umbras  quae  jam  illuceseente 
 Evangelii  luce  evanuerunt."  If  we  take  the  Old  Testament  literally 
 we  shall  have  no  answer  when  men  ask,  "  Cur  Deus  dederit  tarn  absurdas 
 leges — amputare  praeputii  pelliculam,  occidere  agnum,  &c,  sanguine 
 beluino  cuncta  foedare,  gerere  paxillurn  in  balteo  et  egesta  humo  felium 
 more  proprii  corporis  excrementa  contigere,"  &c.  He  adds  the  remark- 
 able words  "  Videbuntur  nobis  omnia  insijn'da,  arjrestia,  insana,  et  prorsus 
 divina  majestate  indigna  esse,  quae  Dens  praecipit  de  agno,  de  ariete,  de 
 bove,"  &c.  "  Quid  enim  ad  salutem  juvat  scire  antiquorum  Judaeorum 
 bella  et  seditiones,  si  in  eis  nihil  aliud  quam  strages  et  effusiones 
 sanguinis  intelligimus  1 " 
 
 Thus  in  Aqiba  ;  in  Philo  ;  in  Jerome,  Augustine,  Hilary,  and  most 
 of  the  Fathers  ;  in  Bede  ;  in  Albertus,  and  most  of  the  Schoolmen  ; 
 and  even  in  writers  who,  like  Sixtus  Senensis,  wrote  late  in  the  seven- 
 teenth century  (1666),  we  see  a  repetition  of  the  same  traditional  devices 
 for  getting  rid  of  ' '  difficulties  "  which  only  originate  in  a  totally  false 
 conception  of  God's  progressive  revelation.  Allegory  was  used  to  force 
 Scripture  into  accordance  with  men's  a  priori  conceptions.  The  Bible 
 is  treated  as  a  sovereign  who,  being  declared  by  his  courtiers  to  be  of 
 divine  origin  and  supreme  authority,  is  yet  reduced  to  a  Boi  faineant, 
 and  made  at  all  costs  to  speak  their  language  and  obey  their  behests. 
 
LECTURE  V. 
 NOTE  I. 
 
 MEDIAEVAL   JEWISH   COMMENTATORS. 
 
 The  golden  age  of  Jewish  interpretation  was  between  a.d.  900-1500. 
 It  began  with  R.  Saadia  Gaon,  and  continued  till  Isaak  Abravanel. 
 The  chief  writers  on  Scripture  flourished  in  Africa,  Spain,  France, 
 Germany,  and  Italy.  The  fresh  impulse  came  from  the  Arabian 
 scholars,  as  in  former  days  it  had  come  from  the  Greek  philosophers.1 
 
 R.  Saadia  Gaon  (a.d.  892-942)  was  called  "the  pioneer  of  the 
 Exegetes,"  and  his  merits  were  so  great  that  Maimonid.es  said,  "  The 
 sense  of  the  Law  would  have  been  quite  lost  had  not  R.  Saadiah  come 
 forth  to  reveal  what  was  hidden,  and  to  establish  what  was  being  weak- 
 ened." lie  turned  his  attention  to  the  Language,  the  Interpretation, 
 and  the  Teaching  of  Scripture.  He  often  refers  to  the  Targum,  the 
 Mishna,  and  the  analogy  of  Arabic  words.  Like  Josephus  and  Philo, 
 he  endeavours  to  remove  the  more  startling  elements  of  Scripture,  and 
 explains  the  speaking  both  of  the  serpent  to  Eve,  and  of  the  ass  to 
 Balaam  metaphorically.  He  points  out  that  the  rainbow  could  not 
 have  been  first  created  after  the  Deluge,  but  merely  taken  as  a  sign. 
 He  rejected,  however,  the  naturalistic  explanation  of  miracles  suggested 
 by  his  contemporaries  Channel  and  Ha  Kalbi,  and  also  the  allegoric 
 explanations  of  the  Karaites.  He  said,  "  We  have  two  sources  of 
 knowledge,  beside  the  Bible,  namely,  the  Understanding,  and  Tradition- 
 He  found  an  acute  opponent  in  the  Karaite  Salmon  ben  Jerocham,  and 
 in  Joseph  ben  Jacob,  whose  book,  The  Great  Light,  written  in  A..D. 
 930,  is  still  valued. 
 
 Saadia  is  the  authoi  of  the  oldest  extant  Philosophy  of  Religion,  a 
 system  of  Faith  and  Morals  (nijni  nWlDK)  of  which  the  third  section 
 treats  "Of  the  Revelation  of  God's  Word,  and  the  Eternal  Validity  of 
 the  Law."  In  writing  this  work  he  set  the  excellenl  example  of 
 familiarising  himself  with  the  philosophical  writings  and   translations 
 
 1  1  have  referred  to  Wolf,  Bibl.  Webraica,  i.  887,  sq.,  iii.  599,  sq.  ;  Bud- 
 deus,  Isagoge,  p.  144'!,  sq. ;  Wogue,  Hist,  dc  la  Bible  (Paris,  1881);  Low, 
 Prakt.  Einleitung,  &c. 
 
462  Notes. 
 
 of  the  Arabians.  He  was  "a  fruit  of  the  Jewish  soil,  modified  by 
 grafts  from  the  Arabian  garden,"  1  a.d.  980. 
 
 The  grammatical  and  philosophic  gains  of  the  Jews  in  Africa  and 
 Eastern  Asia  were  introduced  into  Spain  by  the  happy  accident  of  the 
 shipwreck  of  Moses  "  clad  in  sackcloth." 2 
 
 The  first  pre-eminent  name  of  mediaeval  Jewish  exegesis  is  that  of 
 R.  Solomon  ben  Jizchak  of  Troyes,  born  in  1040,  and  best  known  as 
 Rashi.5  He  died  in  1105.  His  Midrashic  comment  on  the  Law  was 
 long  a  standard  book  among  the  Jews.  It  was  the  first  Hebrew  book 
 which  was  printed  (at  Reggio,  Feb.  5,  1470),  and  has  been  translated 
 into  German  by  L.  Dukes.  It  had  a  powerful  influence  over  Nicolas 
 of  Lyra,  and  indirectly  over  Luther. 
 
 Saadia  had  written  in  Arabic,  Rashi  wrote  in  Hebrew.  Saadia, 
 influenced  by  the  Karaites,  built  primarily  upon  the  literal  sense  ; 
 Rashi  was  untouched  by  Karaite  opinions,  and  is  not  troubled  by  the 
 divergence  of  the  Midrash  from  the  simple  sense.  Saadia  strove  to 
 remove  objections  to  the  Bible  narrative;  Rashi  absolutely  ignores 
 them.  Saadia  has  scientific  digressions  :  Rashi  abides  by  the  text,  some- 
 times furnishing  the  literal  explanation,  and  sometimes  adding  passages 
 of  the  Midrashim.  He  was  not  wholly  uninfluenced  by  the  reactions 
 in  favour  of  literal  and  grammatical  exegesis,  but  on  the  whole  he 
 adheres  to  traditional  views.4 
 
 The  commentaries  of  Rashbam  (R.  Samuel  ben  Meier,  f  1167),  the 
 grandson  of  Rashi,  show  a  great  advance  in  the  abandonment  of 
 Midrashic  lore  for  a  literal  and  grammatical  interpretation.5 
 
 Jtjda  ha-Levt,  the  author  of  the  celebrated  Khozari,  flourished 
 a.d.  1140.B  He  headed  the  reaction  against  extraneous  philosophical 
 influences. 
 
 Not  less  illustrious  than  Rashi  was  R.  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra  (Rabe), 
 born  1092,7  and  famous  for  his  scientific  discoveries  no  less  than  for  his 
 Scriptural  commentaries  on  almost  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 It  was  his  one  object  to  develop,  grammatically  and  historically,  the 
 literal  sense.     He  disliked  the  allegoric  method.     Previous  exegetes  had 
 
 1  Jost,  Judenth.  ii.  279  ;  Weill,  Le  Judalsme,  passim  ;  Munk,  Melanges, 
 477  sq.  ;  Ewald  und  Dukes,  Beitrage  zur  Gesch.  d.  dltesten  Aicslcgung  in 
 Spracherklarung  d.  Alten  Tcstamentes.     Stuttgart,  1844. 
 
 2  See  Milman,  Hist,  of  the  Jews,  iii.  147. 
 
 3  Often  incorrectly  called  Jarchi.  A  life  of  him  has  been  published  by 
 Bloch,  1840.  See  too  Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Judenthums.  His  comment  on  Genesis 
 has  been  translated  into  German  by  Haymann. 
 
 4  As,  for  instance,  in  his  commentary  on  Kobeleth.     See  Ginsburg,  p.  38. 
 
 5  Id.  p.  43.  Dr.  Ginsburg  gives  valuable  specimens  of  these  Jewish  com- 
 mentators. 
 
 6  See  Munk,  Melanges,  485  sq. 
 
 7  See  Griitz,  Gesch.  vi.  198  fg.  ;  440,  fg. 
 
Notes.  463 
 
 chosen,  he  said,  five  different  paths.1  1.  Some,  like  Saadia,  mingled 
 alien  scientilic  digressions  with  their  comments.  2.  Others,  like  Anan, 
 rejected  Tradition.  3.  Some  were  addicted  to  Allegories.  4.  Some 
 followed  the  Midrash.  5.  Some,  to  whom  he  himself  belongs,  Bought 
 the  simple  grammatical  sense.2  We  see  in  his  commentaries  that 
 difficulties  required  entirely  new  solutions,  as  allegory  was  abandoned. 
 Thus  both  in  Ibn  Ezra  and  in  the  Zohar  an  attempt  is  made  to  get  rid 
 of  the  numerous  apparent  contradictions  in  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  by 
 the  supposition  that  they  represent  the  hypothetical  or  actual  remarks  of 
 others  and  not  of  Solomon. 
 
 Maimonides.  R.  Mo?e  ben  Maimon,  born  in  1135,  belonged  to  one 
 of  the  Jewish  families  which  had  been  nominally  compelled  to  embrace 
 Mohammedanism,  and  till  the  age  of  sixteen  he  was  a  professed  Mussul- 
 man. He  attained  to  a  position  of  the  highest  honour,  and  left  a  deep 
 impress  on  the  Jewish  mind,  although  the  teachings  of  himself  and  his 
 followers  ivere  for  a  century  resisted  with  the  utmost  vehemence. 
 Fanatical  Rabbis  charged  him  with  "  selling  Holy  Scriptures  to  the 
 Greeks,"  and  even  tried  to  use  the  Inquisition  to  put  him  down.3 
 
 The  great  work  which  he  accomplished  in  his  Moreh  Nebuchim 
 (Doctor  Perplexorum)  was  to  establish  the  right  of  free  examination  as 
 against  the  absolute  principle  of  authority.  He  held  that  there  were 
 branches  of  knowledge  which  were  independent  of  faith,  and  that  in 
 passages  which  touched  on  these  the  literal  sense  of  Scripture  was  to  be 
 allegorically  explained.  To  counteract  this  view  Abraham  ben  Dior, 
 in  his  book  of  the  Qabbala,  inserted  a  list  of  all  the  eminent  teachers 
 who  had  received  the  "  tradition  "  from  the  days  of  Adam  down  to  his 
 own.1  Maimonides  assigned  to  Aristotle  unconditional  authority  in  all 
 matters  not  connected  with  religion,  and  "by  giving  prominence  to  the 
 spiritual  and  moral  ideas  of  Judaism,  he  exerted  on  all  Jewish  theology 
 a  Balutary,  and,  in  spite  of  violent  reaction,  a  permanent  influence." 
 He  died  in  1204/' 
 
 1  So  Algarrati  divided  "the  sects  of  the  faithful"  into  four  classes: — 
 i.  The  Dogmatists,  ii.  The  Allegorists  (Basttnis).  iii.  The  Philosophers,  or 
 Logicians,     iv.  The  Soufis,  or  Mystics. 
 
 -  He  was  one  of  the  first  Jewish  writers  to  adopt  Aristotelian  methods. 
 Though  unacquainted  with  the  works  of  Philo,  he  attaches  great  mystic 
 importance  to  numbers.  His  style  is  far  from  easy,  and  his  system"  has 
 recently  heen  explained  by  Krochmal.  His  admirable  commentary  on  Isaiah 
 has  been  translated  by  Fnedlander.    (Lond.  1873.) 
 
 3  On  Maimonides  see  Munk'a  edition  of  the  "Moreh  NebucMm,"  and 
 Francis  in  Viet  des  Sciences philos.  iv.  31. 
 
 1  See  Schwab,  Berachoth,  Introd.  p.  xiv. 
 
 5  "C'est  par  la  lecture  du  Guide  que  lea  plus  grands  gemes  des  Juifs 
 Blodernes,  les  Spinoza,  lea  Mendelssohn,  lea  Salomon  Maimon  el  heauooup 
 d'autres  out  etc"  mtroduits  dans  le  sanctuaire  de  la  philosophic,"  Slunk, 
 Milangcs,  -187. 
 
464  Notes. 
 
 The  Jews  partake  incontestably  with  the  Arabs  the  glory  of  having 
 preserved  and  propagated  philosophy  in  ages  of  barbarism,  and  so  of 
 having  exercised  for  a  time  a  civilising  influence  over  the  European 
 world.1 
 
 The  family  of  the  Qimchis  of  Narbonne — E.  Joseph  Qimchi  and 
 his  two  sons,  E.  David  and  E.  Moses — rendered  the  highest  services  to 
 Hebrew  philology,  and  to  the  natural  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  So 
 highly  was  the  grammar  of  David  Qimchi  valued  that  the  Jews  applied 
 to  him  a  proverb  from  the  Mishna,  "  Where  there  is  no  Qimchi,  there  is 
 no  knowledge  of  the  Law."  2 
 
 The  revival  of  Kabbalism  by  E.  Moses  ben  Nachman  (Nachmanides) 
 sometimes  called  Eamban  (born  1194)  was  partly  due  to  the  inevitable 
 reaction  against  a  cold,  historic,  and  rationalising  exegesis. 
 
 To  this  epoch,  according  to  some,  belongs  the  Zohar,  a  Kabbalistic 
 Midrash  on  the  Pentateuch,  founded  on  the  Talmud,  the  Midrashim, 
 and  the  works  of  Ibn  Gebirol,  Ibn  Ezra,  and  others. 
 
 E.  Joseph  Albo  (-)■  1444),  the  author  of  the  Sepher  Ikkarim,  is  chiefly 
 known  as  a  theologian.  He  followed  the  Midrash,  but  in  a  tasteful  and 
 philosophic  manner. 
 
 Abravanel  (Don  Isaak  ben  Judah  Abravanel),  born  in  1437  at  Lisbon, 
 was  one  of  the  Jews  who  were  banished  from  Spain  in  1492  by  the 
 brutal  and  suicidal  decree  of  Ferdinand.  He  was  eminent  as  a  com- 
 mentator, and  made  free  use  of  Christian  writings.  His  special  cha- 
 racteristics were  that :  1.  He  shook  off  the  fetters  of  Aristotelianism 
 2.  He  rejected  Kabbalism.  3.  He  returned  to  the  neglected  grammatical 
 methods  of  the  Qimchis  and  E.  Levi  ben  Gerson  (Ealbag).  4.  He 
 brought  his  wide  experience  of  life  as  a  traveller  and  statesman  to  bear 
 on  the  historical  books.  5.  Though  he  did  not  possess  the  works  of 
 E.  Tanchum,  who  had  been  the  first  to  write  a  general  introduction  to 
 the  sacred  books,  he  paid  special  attention  to  Hermeneutics.  pointing 
 out  the  times  and  circumstances  in  which  books  were  written.3 
 
 Elias  Levita  (+ 1549),  the  teacher  of  bishops  and  cardinals,  wrote 
 grammatical  treatises,  which  are  so  highly  valued  that  E.  Simon 
 urged  all  who  desired  to  know  Hebrew  to  study  them.  He  is  highly 
 praised  by  Gesenius,  and  his  book  on  the  Massora  has  been  translated 
 into  English  by  Dr.  Ginsburg. 
 
 1  Munk,  Milangcs,  511. 
 
 2  The  word  flbp  means  "meal,"  and  the  phrase  originally  meant  that 
 men  cannot  study  the  Law  when  they  are  starving.  Dr.  McCaul  lias  trans- 
 lated David  Qimchi's  Commentary  on  Zcchariah  (Lond.  1837). 
 
 3  See  Griitz,  Gesch.  viii.  334  ;  ix.  6. 
 
Notes. 
 
 465 
 
 NOTE  II. 
 
 TITLES   OP   THE  SCHOOLMEN.1 
 
 Baeda 
 
 Ansel  m  of  Laon. 
 St.  Thomas  Aquinas. 
 St.  Bonaventura. 
 Alexander  of  Hales. 
 Albertus  Magnus. 
 Franciscus  de  Mayronis. 
 Roger  Bacon. 
 William  Varro  de  Anglia. 
 Aegidius  of  Colonna. 
 
 Hugo  de  Sto.  Victore. 
 Joannes  Bacon fchorpius. 
 Durandus. 
 Peter  Lombard. 
 William  of  Champeaux. 
 St.  Bernard. 
 Nicolas  of  Lyra. 
 John  Bradwardine. 
 Petrus  Aureolis. 
 William  of  Occam. 
 
 I  >uns  Scotus. 
 Henry  of  Ghent. 
 Jean  Gerson. 
 Wiclif. 
 
 Dionysiua  of  Rickel. 
 John  Wessel. 
 
 Venerabilis. 
 
 Doctor  Scholasticus. 
 
 Doctor  Angelicus  and  Communis. 
 
 Doctor  Seraphicus. 
 
 Doctor  Irrefragabilis. 
 
 Doctor  Universalis. 
 
 Doctor  Illuminatissimus. 
 
 Doctor  Mirabilis. 
 
 Doctor  Fundatus. 
 
 Doctor  Fundatissimus  and  Princeps. 
 
 Theologorum. 
 Didascalus. 
 Doctor  Resolutus. 
 Doctor  Resolutissimus. 
 Magister  Sententiarum. 
 Columna  doctorum. 
 Doctor  Mellifluus. 
 Doctor  Planus  et  Perspicuus. 
 Doctor  Profundus. 
 Doctor  Facundus,  or  Abundans. 
 Doctor  Singularis  et  Invincibilis  and 
 
 Venerabilis  Inceptor. 
 Doctor  Subtilis. 
 Doctor  Solemnis. 
 Doctor  Christian! ssim us. 
 Doctor  Evangelicus. 
 Doctor  Ecstaticus. 
 Lux  Mundi,  and  Magister  Contra- 
 
 dictionis. 
 
 1  See  Heumann,  Act.  1'lilhn.  iii.  921  ;  Brucker,  Hwl.  Philos.   iii.  SS9.  and 
 passim. 
 
 II     II 
 
4GG  Notes. 
 
 NOTE  III. 
 
 ORIGIN   OF   SCHOLASTICISM. 
 
 The  precursor,  though  not  the  founder,  of  Scholasticism,  was 
 St.  John  of  Damascus.  His  book,  Fons  Scientiae  {7rr]yi)  yvao-ews),  con- 
 sists of  three  parts  : — 1.  Capita  Philosophica.  2.  De,  Ilaeresibus.  3. 
 Expositio  accurata  Fidei  orthodoxae.  This  third  part  is  "one  of  the 
 most  important  works  that  have  come  down  to  us  from  Christian 
 antiquity."  For  it  is  the  first  complete  "Body  of  Divinity  "  that  we 
 possess,  and  as  such  lias  had  an  influence  that  cannot  easily  he  measured 
 on  the  theology  of  the  West.  It  was  made  known  to  the  Latin  Church 
 by  the  version  of  Burgundio  of  Pisa  in  1150.  The  statement  that  Peter 
 Lombard  had  this  version  before  him  when  preparing  his  Book  of  the 
 Sentences  "thus  becomes  quite  probable.  Without,  therefore,  taking 
 account  of  Aquinas,  whose  indebtedness  to  the  work  of  Damascenus  is 
 admittedly  great,  we  have  here  a  visible  link  of  connection  between  the 
 Eastern  Church  and  the  Western."  1 
 
 "It  is  chiefly  as  a  framer  of  systems  that  we  are  indebted  to  him.  .  . 
 Making  theology  a  part  of  philosophy,  as  Aristotle  had  done  before 
 him,  he  applied  to  it  a  philosophic  method.  Taking  for  his  basis  the 
 existence  of  God  .  .  he  organises,  step  by  step,  the  whole  body  of  reli- 
 gion and  Christian  truth.  He  is  thus  the  progenitor  of  Scholasticism. 
 Though  the  proposition  has  been  disputed  as  an  exercise  of  scholastic 
 skill,  it  is  the  all  but  unanimous  verdict  that  the  great  treatise  on  the 
 '  Orthodox  Faith '  was  the  starting-point  of  the  Scholastic  system 
 which  afterwards  grew  to  such  dimensions  in  the  West."  2 
 
 There  is,  however,  no  proof  that  the  curliest  Schoolmen  were  ac- 
 quainted with  the  Fides  Orthodoxa  of  the  Damascene.  It  was  first 
 translated  by  the  order  of  Pope  Eugenius  III.  in  1143.  From  the  time 
 of  Peter  Lombard  it  became  a  favourite  authority  of  the  "school 
 authors."  3  The  Calvinists  in  later  days  reproached  Melanehthon  for 
 having  imitated  it,  and  even  Luther  said  of  him,  (t Nimium  philo- 
 sopliatur."  4 
 
 Some  date  the  beginning  of  Scholasticism  from  John  Scotus 
 Erigena.5 
 
 1  See  Lupton,  St.  John  of  Damascus,  pp.  65-88  ;  Kemusat,  Abelard, 
 ii.  158. 
 
 2  Lupton,  p.  211,  who  refers  to  Dr.  Gerando,  Hist.  Comp.  iv.  159. 
 
 3  Tribbechovius,  Be  Dod.  Schol  p.  280. 
 
 4  Buddeus,  Isag.  p.  319  ;  Lequien,  Opp.  Joann.  Damasc.   Praef.  p.  5. 
 
 5  See  R.  L.  Poole,  Mcdiaev.  Thought,  p.  76.  He  was  "the  father  of 
 Nominalism,"  and  greatly  iniiuenced  Gilbert  de  la  Porree. 
 
Xotf.t.  4  liT 
 
 Others  date  the  beginning  of  Scholasticism  from  Lanfranc  or 
 Anselm.1 
 
 Others  from  PeteT  Lombard.3 
 
 ( Ithers  from  Alexander  of  I  rales.3 
 
 Others  from  Albertus  Magnus.4 
 
 The  truesl  view  seems  to  be  that  given  in  the  text,  that  Scholasticism 
 proper  began  with  the  conflicts  between  traditionalism  and  free  inquiry. 
 Scholastic  philosophy  began  with  Roscelin,  and  Scholastic  theology 
 with  Abelard.  Such  isthe  view  of  Tribbechovius.  Trithemius  says  of 
 A  I'd  a  m1,  "AI>  hoc  tempore  philosophia  secularis  sacram  theologiam  sua 
 curiositate  inutili  foedare  coepit."6 
 
 One  secret  of  Abelard's  influence  was  his  lucidity.    John  of  Sal! 
 says,  "  Non  i-iiini  occasio  quaerenda  esl  ingerendae  difficultatis  sed  ubique 
 facilitas  generanda.     Quern  morem  secutvm  recolo  PeripatSticvm  Palatl- 
 iiiiiii  ;'<  .  .  .  rerum  intellecttii  serviebat."7 
 
 Deriving  tin-  Scholastic  philosophy  from  the  sentence  of  Porphyry 
 preserved  in  the  Latin  translation  of  Boethius,  which  stated  the  que  tii  n 
 as  to  the  nature  of  genera  (etSn),  Cousin  places  its  infancy  from  the 
 eleventh  to  the  thirteenth  century,  when  the  University  of  Paris  was 
 organised  ;  its  manhood  from  the  thirteenth  to  the  fifteenth,  when  the 
 great  Universities  and  the  religious  orders  were  flourishing;  and  its 
 decline  from  the  fifteenth  to  the  end  of  the  sixteenth.8  As  a  philosophy 
 it  turned  entirely  on  the  difference  between  realism  and  nominalism. 
 Its  theology  furnishes  the  singular  spectacle  of  a  realist  and  Platonising 
 spirit  expressing  itself  in  a  dialectic  and  Aristotelian  form.  There 
 was  nunc  real  independence  and  originality  in  Scholasticism  during  its 
 infancy,  before  all  the  works  of  Aristotle  were  translated  into  Latin, 
 than   afterwards  ;  but  in  all  its  epochs  there  was  nothing  absolutely 
 
 I  Danaeus,   Prolegom.  in  Lombardi  Sent.  ]>.  is.     Sententiae  had,  however, 
 been  written  before  bis  day  by  Gilbert  de  La  rorree,  and  others. 
 
 '-'  Calixtus,  Apparat.  p.  143;  Aventinus,  Annal.  vi.  ;  Baur,  Dogmeng 
 p,  156  ;  Kling  in  Berzoga  Encykl.  s.v. 
 '■  Chemnitz,  c.  Cone.  Trident,  p.  371. 
 
 4  "Albertus  el  similes,    qui   nediti  fuerant  doctrinae    Aristotelis,   tran*- 
 fonnare  Ecclesiae  doctrinam  in  Philosophiamcoeperunt." — Melanchthon, 
 /.nil"  //,  c.  xiii. 
 
 5  Trithemius,  De  Script.  EccUs.  p.  161  (Coloniae,  1546);  Thomasius, 
 Hist.  Sap.  et  stall,  iii.  28;  Cent.  Magdeburg,  p.  148;  Victor  Cousin,  I 
 im'il.  d'Abilard,  fntrod.  p.  iii.  "C'esl  ['invention  d'un  nonveau  systeme 
 philosophique  el  l'application  de  ce  systeme  et  en  general  de  la  jihiloso- 
 phie  a  la  theologie  .  .  .  c'esl  Abelard  qui  L'erigea  en  principe ;  e'est  done 
 ini  qui  contribua  le  plus  a  fonder  la  Bcolastique."  Cousin  rails  Descartes 
 the  destroyer  of  this  system  and  I  he  founder  of  i lern  philosophy. 
 
 II  This  is  the  naini-  which  John  of  Salisbury  repeatedly  gives  to  Abelard. 
 It  means  "  tin-  dialectician  of  Palais, '*— the  place  where  Ahelanl  was  horn. 
 
 7  Metalog.  iii.  t. 
 
 s  V.  Cousin,  Owor.  i/ntd.  d' Ah.  p.  ixv. 
 
 ii  ii  2 
 
4-63  Notes. 
 
 original.  "  Advance  is  measured  less  by  the  power  with  which  men 
 used  their  intellects,  than  by  the  skill  with  which  they  used  their 
 materials."  1 
 
 NOTE  TV. 
 
 THE    "  SIC   ET    NON  "   OF   ABELARD. 
 
 When  William  of  St.  Thierry  wrote  to  complain  to  St.  Bernard  of 
 Abelard's  theology,  he  had  only  heard  a  rumour  about  the  Sic  et  Non. 
 "Sunt  autem,"  he  says,  " ut  audio  adhuc  alia  ejus  opuscula  quorum 
 nomina  sunt  Sic  et  Non,  Scito  teipsum,  et  alia  quaedam  de  quibus  timeo 
 ne,  sicut  monstruosi  sunt  nominis,  sic  etiam  sint  monstruosi  dogmatis  ; 
 sed,  sicut  dicunt,  oderunt  lucem,  nee  etiam  quaesita  inveniuntur."  2 
 
 Such  was  the  terror  which  the  book  inspired  that  this  is  said  to  be 
 the  only  mention  of  the  Sic  et  Non  in  the  middle  ages. 
 
 Martene  and  Durand  found  a  copy  of  it  at  St.  Germain,  but  did  no 
 dare  to  publish  it  for  fear  of  scandal.  They  say  that,  in  it,  Abelard 
 "  genio  suo  indulgens  omnia  Christianae  religionis  mysteria  in  utramque 
 partem  versat,  negans  quod  asseruerat  et  asserens  quod  negaverat." 
 Their  colleague  Dachery  after  careful  study  of  it  "aeternis  tenebris 
 potius  quam  luce  dignum  existimavit."  3 
 
 Little  or  nothing  was  known  of  it  until  it  was  published  by  M. 
 Victor  Cousin  in  the  Ouvrages  inedits  d'Abelard,  1836. 
 
 It  deals  with  the  subjects  which  formed  the  basis  of  Abelard's  theology. 
 He  quotes  from  Augustine,  Jerome,  Ambrose,  Hilary,  Isidore,  Gregory, 
 and  Bede  ;  but  being  very  superficially  acquainted  with  Greek,  he 
 refers  but  little  to  Greek  Fathers  and  only  to  those  whose  works  had 
 heen  translated  into  Latin.  He  also  quotes  from  Aristotle,  Boethius, 
 Seneca,  Cicero,  and  once  from  Ovid  and  Prudentius. 
 
 Three  things  are  specially  observable  in  the  Sic  et  Non  besides  the 
 singular  boldness  of  the  general  plan. 
 
 I.  One  is  the  audacious  statement  of  the  questions  consideivl  ; 
 such  as, 
 
 Q.  6.  Quod  sit  Deus  tripartitus  ?  et  contra. 
 
 Q.  14.  Quod  sit  Filius  sine  principio  ?  et  contra. 
 
 Q.  63.    Quod  Filius   Dei    mutatus   sit    suscipiendo   carnem  ?    et 
 
 contra. 
 Q.  35.  Quod  nihil  fiat  Deo  nolente  ?  et  contra. 
 
 1  Lane,  Illustrations  of  Med.  Thought,  p.  2.       2  Ap.  S.  Bern.  Opp.  i.  301. 
 3  Praef.  ad  Thcs.  Nov.  Anecd.  t.  iv. 
 
Notes.  4G9 
 
 The  twenty-third  question,  Quod  philosophi  quoque  Trinitutem  sea 
 verbum  D<  i  crediderint?  et  non,  Indicates  the  favourable  view  of  heathen 
 philosophy  which  was  so  suspicious  to  St.  Bernard  1  who  still  shared  tin- 
 spirit  shown  by  Tertullian's  remark,  Haereticorum  patriarchae  philoso- 
 phic This  with  his  anti-realism  was  the  base  of  Bernard's  tremendous 
 indictment  of  his  theology,  "Cum  de  Trinitate  loquitur  sapit  Arium, 
 cum  de  gratia  sapit  Pelagium,  cum  de  persona  Christi  sapit  Nestorium."  3 
 Yet  John  of  Salisbury,  a  man  of  unreproached  orthodoxy,  calls  him 
 "  Abaela/)'du8  mister"  speaks  of  him  constantly  with  praise  and  affection, 
 and  adopted  his  conceptualism  ;  and  it  was  the  Sic  et  Non  which  gave 
 the  original  conception  of  the  famous  Liber  Sententiarum. 
 
 II.  The  distinct  formulation  of  Aristotle's  view,  that  doubt  leads  to 
 discussion,  and  discussion  to  truth,  " Dubitando  enim  ad  inquisitionem 
 miiiitus,  iiiqulreiido  veritatempercipimus,"  which  Abelard  very  precari- 
 ously compares  with  "Seek  and  ye  shall  find." 
 
 III.  The  anticipation  of  modern  criticism  in  the  passages  in  which  he 
 deals  with  the  difficulties  of  Scripture  interpretation,  e.g.  the  apparent 
 contradictions,  the  corruption  of  the  text,  the  number  of  spurious 
 writings,  the  ignorance  of  copyists,  the  danger  of  confusing  comments 
 with  the  text,  and  the  differences  of  sense  which  may  be  attached 
 to  the   same  word. 
 
 NOTE  V. 
 
 THE   ABUSE   OF    "  PARALLEL   PASSAGES." 
 
 The  use  of  allegory  was  largely  eked  out  by  the  juxtaposition  of 
 similar  expressions  from  different  books.  Scholastic  exegesis  consisted 
 mainly  of  "j^lossarial  annotations,  groaning  beneath  the  burden  of 
 numberless  unsifted  examples  and  parallel  passages."  We  have  already 
 -.-en  that  when  this  led  to  the  habit  of  educing  parallels  derived  only 
 from  translations  it  was  a  most  unsatisfactory  method. 
 
 The  amazing  extent  to  which  the  principle  was  used  may  be  seen  in 
 such  a  comment  as  that  of  Prosper  of  Aquitaine  on  the  Tabernacle. 
 He  says  that  the  joining  of  the  sides  indicated  that  mercy  and  truth 
 were  met  together  ;  the  goat's  hair  curtains  the  penitence  of  the  world  ; 
 and  the  fact  that  there  were  eleven  curtains  has  reference  to  the  eleventh 
 Psalm  (the  twelfth  in  our  version)  which  begins  "  Help,  Lord"  ! 4 
 
 1  En.  «,i  Papam  Innocent.  Opp.  i.  650.  -  Tert  adv.  ffermog.  8. 
 
 3  opp.  i.  155.  4  De  Promiss.  ii.  2. 
 
470  Notes. 
 
 The  custom  of  crowding  the  margin  of  "reference  Bibles"  with 
 passages  supposed  to  be  illustrative  bus  been  greatly  overdone.  In  the 
 Bible  of  1611  there  were  about  9000  ;  these  by  gradual  accretion  have 
 mounted  to  nearly  63,000.  Large  numbers  were  added  by  Dr.  Paris 
 (1768),  Dr.  Blayney  (1769),  Canne  (1747),  Crutwell  (1785),  (  larke  (1810), 
 and  Scott  (1822).  They  need  the  stringent  revision  which  they  have 
 received  in  the  Cambridge  Paragraph  Bible.  Some  cf  them  are  hope- 
 lessly wrong  ;  some  are  founded  on  sheer  mistakes  ;  others  are  misprints; 
 others  are  only  parallels  in  the  English  phrase,  but  not  in  the  Greek  or 
 Hebrew  original  ;  others  again  are  frivolous,  irrelevant,  questionable,  or 
 even  untrue,  and  in  some  of  these  instances  they  become  positively 
 misleading.  How  suggestive  and  truly  illustrative  they  may  olten  be 
 when  they  are  well  chosen,  maybe  seen  in  the  Commentary  wholly 
 J  ii  hi  teal. 
 
 For  some  very  interesting  particulars  about  the  marginal  references 
 of  our  version,  see  Dr.  Scrivener's  Authorised  Version  of  the  English 
 Bible,  (Cambr.  1884)  pp.  116-127. 
 
 NOTE  VI. 
 
 OPINION'S   ON   SCHOLASTICISM. 
 
 Favourable  judgments  of  Scholasticism  are  not  easily  to  be  found.     I 
 may  however  refer  (merely  by  way  of  example)  to — 
 
 Hooker,  Answer  to   Tracers,  16  (who  refers  to  Calvin's  Instit.  i. 
 
 16,  §  9. 
 Pearson,  Opera  Minora  (ed.  Churton,  i.  1). 
 Newman,  Lectures  on  Univ.  subjects,  p.  282. 
 Bemusat,  Abelard,  i.  289. 
 Unfavourable  views   of  Scholasticism   are  very  numerous  and  very 
 weighty.     See  by  way  of  specimens— 
 
 Lud.  Vives,  De  Corrupt.  Art.  iii. 
 
 Cornel.  Agrippa,  De  Vanitat.  Scient.  8. 
 
 Bacon,  Advancement  of  Learning. 
 
 Melanchthon,  Vit.  Lutheri,  c.  xiii. 
 
 Luther,  passim. 
 
 Tribbechovius,  De  Doctoribus  Scholasticis  (1665). 
 
 Brucker,  Hist.  Philos.  iii.  709. 
 
 Wet  stein,  Praef.  in  N.  Test.,  ed.  3. 
 
 Hallam,  Middle  Ages,  ii.  485-489. 
 
 G.  H.  Lewes,  Biogr.  Hist,  of  Philosophy,  291. 
 
 E,enan,  Souvenirs,  xiv. 
 
LECTURE  VI. 
 NOTE  I. 
 
 REMARKS  or   LUTHER   ON   THE   FATHERS. 
 
 "Respecfru  Patrum  vermis  sum;  attanien  quo  magis  illorum  scripta 
 eo  plus  offendor.  Nam  res  ipsa  clamat  eos  homines  fuisBe  <i 
 ipsorum  auctoritas  Apostolorum  scripta  oppressit.  Attamen  Papistae 
 audem  Scripturam  sacram  obscuram  blasphemare,  quasi  Patres  earn 
 declarare  debent  ;  sed  ita  declarare  est  obscurare."  Aurifaber,  Cottoqu. 
 ii.  .:v>  (ed.  ir>71). 
 
 "Observate  quaeso  quautae  tenebrae  fuerunl  apud  Patres  de  doctrina 
 fidei.  Hieronymus  supra  Matthaeum,  Galataset  ad  Titum  frigidosissime 
 scripsit.  Ambrosius  sex  libros  super  Genesim.  Quamexiguus  bominum 
 intellectus  !  Nullus  fere  commeutarius  in  Epp.  ad  Romanos  el  Galatas 
 aliquid  sincere  tradit." 
 
 On  reading  Cyprian  lie  Bighed,  "Mirabatur  tanti  viri  ineptias,  dubi- 
 tans  utruni  ille  liber  sit  Cypriani ;  sed  non  est  mirum,  nam  si  Dei 
 verbum  reUnquimus,  tune  omnibus  offendiculis  nos  involvimus." 
 
 lie  was  very  unjust  to  Chrysostom,  of  whom  lie  says,  "  Multos  splen- 
 didos  composuil  Libros,  sed  tantum  in  it  chaos  el  saccus  verborum,"  lie 
 calls  him  " seditiosus  el  garrulus,"  and  adds,  "  Ideo  Erasmo  placet,  qui 
 negligil  fidem  et  tantum  moralia  tradit."  He  quotes  the  remark  of 
 Schurfif,  who,  after  purchasing  and  reading  the  works  of  Chrysostom, 
 ■  Multa  lego,  nihil  disco." 
 
 He  Lad  a  strong  prejudice  against  Jerome.  "Scripsit  xii.  libros  Buper 
 i  lenesim,  el  tamen  \i\  dimidium  capitis  primi  pertractat."  "  Nihil  de 
 Chrifltotractal  nisi  quod  nomine utitur.  Tantum  de  \rirgmitate,jejuniis, 
 cibis  scripsit/' 
 
 Ee  remarks  generally,  "Patres  habuerunl  magnam  auctoritatem,  el 
 interim  facta  es1  injuria bibliorum.  Ambrosius,  Basilius  sunl  frigidi  et 
 <  Iregoi  iu-  Na/iaii/.anus  accusatur  quod  .  .  .  nihil  sincere  de  Deo  scrip- 
 sit.  Spixitus  Sanctua  non  patitur  ut  verbis  el  larvis  obligetur."  Colloqu. 
 ii.  U 
 
472  Notes. 
 
 NOTE  II. 
 
 calvin's  notes  on  messianic  passages. 
 
 Porphyry  in  the  third  century  had  asserted  "  that  the  Apostles 
 in  their  references  to  the  Old  Testament  had  abused  the  simplicity  and 
 ignorance  of  their  readers."  Jerome  replies  that  they  had  done  nothing 
 of  the  kind,  but  that  they  strengthened  the  facts  of  the  present  by  the 
 testimonies  of  the  past,  by  spiritually  applying  to  Christ's  first- 
 coming  the  promises  which  the  Jews  applied  carnally  to  His  second 
 coining.  But  we  find  in  few  ancient  authors  anything  like  a  clear  con- 
 ception of  the  ;<  argument  from  prophecy."  Calvin  has  expressed  him- 
 self more  boldly  on  this  subject  tban  any  other  theologian,  and  has  not 
 sufficiently  guarded  himself  by  any  adequate  statement  of  the  true 
 conception  of  the  Messianic  prophecies. 
 The  following  are  some  of  his  notes. 
 
 Matt.  ii.  15.  "  Perinde  sit  hoc  nobis  extra  controversiam  locum  (Hos. 
 xi.    1)  non  debere  ad   Christum  restringi.     Neque  tamen  a  Matthaeo 
 torquetur,  sed  scite  aptatur  ad  praesentem  causam." 
 Matt.  ii.  23.     "  Tantum  est  allusio." 
 
 Matt.  viii.  17.  "  Quod  apud  Jesaiam  (Is.  liii.  4)  de  animae  vitiis  dici 
 certum  est,  Matthaeus  ad  corporales  morbos  transfert." 
 
 John  xix.  37.  Locum  hunc  (Zech.  xii.  10),  qui  secundum  literam  de 
 Christo  exponere  conantur,  nimis  violenter  torquent.  Nee  vero  in  hunc 
 finem  ab  evangelista  citatur  ;  sed  potius  ut  ostendat  Christum  esse  deum 
 ilium,  qui  olim  conquestus  fuit  per  Zechariam,  sibi  pectus  a  Judaeis 
 transfodi." 
 
 Heb.  iv.  4.  "  Jam  locum  ilium  quem  citaverat  ex  Davide  exornare 
 incipit  ;  hactenus  eum  tractavit  secundum  litteram,  hunc  autem  expoli- 
 endo  amplificat,  ideoque  alludit  magis  ad  verba  David  is  quam  interpre- 
 tatur.     Ejusmodi  eVf^f pyaaia  est  apud  Pauluru  ad  Eom.  x.  6." 
 
 Heb.  xi.  21.  "  Quod  vulgo  receptum  erat  Apostolus  non  dubitat  suo 
 instituto  accommodare.  Judaeis  quidem  scribebat  sed  qui  .  .  .  pa- 
 triam  linguam  Graeca  mutaverant.  Scimus  autem  hac  in  parte  AposUdos 
 non  adeo/uisse  scrujmlosos." 
 
LECTURE  VIII. 
 
 SOME   EXEGETIC   RULES   AND   PRINCIPLES.1 
 
 1.  Everything  essential  in  Scripture  is  clearly  revealed. 
 
 nnvra  ra  avayKaia  8rj\a.     Chrys.  Co  mm.  in  2  Thess. 
 
 This  rule  is  our  chief  source  of  consolation  amid  the  endless 
 perplexities  of  divergent  interpretation.  If  a  truth  be  essential  to 
 salvation,  it  must  appear  clearly  on  the  pages  which  contain  a 
 Divine  Revelation  :  otherwise  the  Revelation  would  not  be  a 
 Revelation.  The  preceding  clause  of  St.  Chrysostom,  iraina  o-acprj 
 Ka\  ev6ia  ra  napa  nils  6dais  ypctfpais,  is  not  true.  It  is  belied  b\  tin- 
 whole  history  of  exegesis,  which  in  different  ages  has  come  to 
 opposite  conclusions  about  matters  of  much  importance. 
 
 2.  The  true  sense  can  only  be  decided  by  the  original. 
 
 Very  numerous  errors,  often  perpetuated  for  long  periods,  have 
 arisen  from  reliance  on  current  versions.  They  prove  the  necessity 
 for  not  depending  on  translations,  whether  the  LXX.,  the  Vulgate, 
 the  German,  the  Rheims,  and  Douay,  or  the  Anglican.  Even  when 
 a  rendering  is  literally  correct,  it  may  in  some  cases  connote  a  verj 
 different  order  of  thought  from  that  originally  intended. 
 
 "  Tmpossib'de  est  quod  proprietas  unius  linguae  servetur  in  alia" 
 Roger  Bacon  (Opus  majus,  iii.  1;  quoting  Jerome,  "si  ad  verbum 
 interpreter,  absurdum  est"). 
 
 ."'..   Every  doctrine  and  every  inference  drawn  from  any  passage  must  be 
 deduced  from  tin  literal  sense. 
 
 "Omnes  sensus  fund  antra  super  unum,  scilicet  literalem  ;  ex  que 
 solo  potest  trahi  argamentum,  aon  autem  ex  his  quae  secundum 
 allegoriam  dicuntur.  Nee  tamen  Scripturae  idcirco  aliquid  deperil 
 quia  niliil  Bub  Bpirituali  sensu  continetur  fidei  necessarium,  quod 
 
 1  The  word  " Hermeneutic"  implies  tin-  Science  and  Theory,  the  word 
 K.irysi.i  tin*  Art  and  Practice  of  Scriptural  Interpretation.  See  Liicke, 
 Qrundriss,  p.  6  ;  Wollius,  Introd.  in  Wermeneuticam,  p.  86;  Semler,  Hermen. 
 Vorbereit.  26.  The  distinction  La  merely  one  of  usage,  for  the  words  ipfivvtla 
 and  <?£?)7T)<ns  imply  no  such  difference. 
 
474  Notes. 
 
 Scripturae   non  alicubi  per  literalem  sensum  manifeste  tradant." 
 
 Tliomas  Aquinas,  Summa  I.  Qu.  2,  art.  10. 
 
 "  Si  litera  tollitur  Scriptura  quid  est  1  Lege  ergo  Scripturani  et 
 disce  primum  diligenter  quae  corporaliter  narrat."  Hugo  de  Sto 
 Victore. 
 
 This  is  incomparably  more  true  than  the  sentiment  quoted  by 
 Johannes  Sarisb.,  "  Litera  inutilis  est,  nee  curandum  quid  loquatur ': 
 (Polycrat.  vii.  12)  ;  but  it  must  be  added  that  neither  Hugo  de 
 Sto  Viet i ne  nor  many  others  who  enunciated  this  axiom  made  any 
 real  use  of  it. 
 
 It  is  true  that  John  of  Salisbury  places  the  sentence  about  the 
 uselessness  of  the  letter  among  the  '■  ineptiae  nugatorum,"  but  at 
 the  close  of  the  same  chapter  he  half  endorses  their  views. 
 
 4.  Ignorance  of  the  certain  meaning  of  many  passages  must  be  freely 
 admitted. 
 
 VJV  ^ya  lb&6  ^0?  l®h.  "Teach  thy  tongue  to  say  '  I  do 
 not  lcnowJ  " 
 
 I  do  not  remember  to  have  seen  this  Talmudic  rule  ever  pro- 
 pounded as  a  principle  of  exegesis,  but  it  seems  to  me  an  extremely 
 important  one.  "Melius  est,"  says  Augustine,  "dubitare  de 
 rebus  occultis  quam  litigare  de  ineertis"  (De  Gen.  ad  litt.  viii.  5). 
 Thus  he  frankly  confesses  that  he  does  not  know  whom  or  what 
 St.  Paul  meant  by  the  Man  of  Sin. 
 
 5.  Theological  conclusions  cannot  be  founded  on  the  language  of  metaphor 
 and  parable. 
 
 "  Theologica  parabolica  non  est  demonstrative." 
 "  Pium  quidem  posse  esse  sensum  allegoriae  seel  nunquam  para- 
 bolas et  dubiam  aenigmatum  intelligentiam  ad  auctoritatem  dogma- 
 tum  posse  proficere."     Jer.  in  Matt.  xiii. 
 
 Thi*  rule,  if  properly  attended  to,  would  have  cut  away  by  the 
 roois  a  large  number  of  the  spurious  inferences  of  which  the 
 commentaries  of  all  ages  furnish  many  specimens.  St.  Augustine 
 insisted  on  this  rule  when  arguing  against  the  Donatists,  but  he 
 often  neglects  it  himself.  "Quis  autem  nisi  impudent issime  nitatur 
 aliquid  in  allegoria  posituni  pro  se  interpretari  nisi  habeat  et  mani- 
 festo testimonia  quorum  lumiue  illustrantur  obscura  1 "  Aug.  in 
 Ep.  48,  ad  Vincent. 
 
 6.  Omnis  Scriptura  sacra  eo  spiritu  debet  legi  quo  ecripta  est.       Tliomas 
 a  Kempis. 
 
 This  resembles  the  remark  of  St.  Augustine,  That  the  true  sense 
 of  Scripture  is  Scripture,  and  no  other  sense. 
 
Notes.  4-7') 
 
 7.  Scripture  must  6<  Interpreted  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  rulesof 
 human  language. 
 
 '•The  law  speaks  in  the  tongue  of  the  sons  of  men." 
 
 "Nullci  Locutionis  genere  utitur  Scriptura  quod  in  consuetudine 
 liominum  non  Lnveniatur,  quia  utique  hominibus  loquitur."    Aug. 
 
 "  t^uaecumque  scripta  sunt  ad  nostram  doctrinam  scripta  sunl  ; 
 hinc  divinae  Litterae  sunt  humana  capacitate  humanoque  sermoni 
 accommodata."     Id.  </e  Trin.  i.  12. 
 
 This  kind  of  condescension  (o-vyKardtfairis)  points  to  the  necessity 
 for  Anthropomorphism,  Anthropopathy,  &c,  "just  as  conversing 
 with  barbarians,3  says  Chrysostom,  "we  make  use  of  their  own 
 tongue."  The  recognition  of  the  truth  that  the  language  of  Scrip- 
 ture is  ordinary  language  (lues  away  with  multitudes  of  spurious 
 inferences  in  the  Talmud,  in  Philo,  in  the  Fathers,  in  the  School- 
 men, and  in  modern  commentators. 
 
 8.  ■■  Distingue  tempora  et  concordabis  Scripturas."     Aug. 
 
 These  words  of  St.  Augustine  are  capable  of  an  application  far 
 wider  than  he  gave  to  them.  They  may  be  used  to  express  the 
 progressiveness  of  revelation,  and  the  necessity  for  interpreting 
 Scripture  with  reference  to  the  views  and  morals  of  the  age  in 
 which  its  various  books  were  written.  Commentators  of  all  epochs 
 have  keen  compared  to  the  painters  who  paint  Italian  cities  and 
 customs  as  the  background  to  Scripture  scenes,  or  surround  sacred 
 personages  with  groups  of  Dutch  burgomasters. 
 
 it.   Bias  and- party  spirit  are  frequent  and  fatal  sources  of  exegetic  error. 
 
 "  Vitiosissimum  dicendi  genus  depravare  sententias  el  ad  volun- 
 tatem  suam  Scripturam  trahere  repugnantem."  Jerome  (Ep.  ad 
 Paulinum,  liii.  7  ;  compare  Praef.  Coinm.  in  Jin  mi  ,  and  Ep.  (lxiv. 
 7,  ud  Fabiolam  . 
 
 "  I  >a-  isl  der  beste  Lehrer,  der  Beine  Meinung  nichl  in  die  Schrift, 
 sondern  aus  der  Schrift  brihgt"  Luther  {Werke}  xxxiv.  131, 
 Erlang.). 
 
 "  Absinl  praeconceptae  opiniones  el  studia  partlum  quibus  Veritas 
 
 non  potest  non  impediii."     Kiniedonc,  lh-  Hcripto  J>>t   Verbo, 
 
 p.  622. 
 
 LO.  '■  Adsii  quidt  m  pia  curiositas  et  curiosa  pietas?     Erasmus. 
 
 We  musl  welcome  lights  from  all  quarters.  ''Out  faith,  so  far  as 
 it  is  in  knowledge,  is  imperfect,  and  requires  no1  only  enlargement, 
 but  correction.  Greal  movements  oi  the  human  spirit  are  aol 
 hostile  to  theology,  bul  introduce  the  conditions  of  a  more  perfecl 
 development  of  it."  The  Reformed  religion  will  be  false  to  all  its 
 own  deepesl  principles,  it'  it  seeks  relief  from  hostile  perplexity  by 
 throwing  itself  into  the  arms  of  obsi  urantism. 
 
476  Notes. 
 
 1 1.  "  Interpret  literally  and  grammatically." 
 
 "  Illustrate  where  possible  by  reference  to  history,  topography, 
 and  antiquities." 
 
 "  Interpret  with  reference  to  the  context." 
 "  Elicit  the  full  significance  of  details." 
 
 These  four  rules  are  given  by  Bishop  Ellicott  in  Aids  to  Faith, 
 pp.  426-440,  where  they  will  be  found  expanded  and  illustrated. 
 He  adds  the  rules 
 
 "  Interpret  according  to  the  analogy  of  Scripture." 
 "  Interpret  according  to  the  analogy  of  Faith." 
 
 These  two  last  rules  may  be  reasonably  and  wisely  interpreted, 
 but  we  have  sufficiently  seen  in  the  previous  pages  that  they  have 
 been  seriously  abused  and  perverted.  The  first  has  been  misap- 
 plied to  force  upon  passages  of  Scripture  wholly  alien  from  each 
 other  in  meaning  a  deceptive  semblance  of  identity  of  purport. 
 The  other  has  been  used  to  fetter  the  freedom  of  inquiry  by  dictating 
 beforehand,  in  each  particular  branch  of  the  Church,  the  conclusion 
 at  which  the  expositor  must  arrive. 
 
 12.  One    rule   is   always    valuable  : —    Interpret   in  a   spirit   of  piety 
 and  humility. 
 
 "  Scriptura  sacra  non  temerarios  et  superbos  accusatores  sed 
 diligenteset  pios  requirit  lectores."     Aug.  c.  Adimant.  iii.  6. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY   OF    GENERAL    EXEGESIS.1 
 
 LECTURE  I. 
 
 Cave,  Scriptores  Ecclesiastici.     London.     1688. 
 
 Oudin,  De  Scriptoribns  Ecclesiae.     Leipzig.     1722. 
 
 R.  Simon.  Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Testament.     Paris.     1680. 
 
 Hist.   Crit.  des  Principaux  Commentateurs  du  If ouveau  Testament. 
 
 Rotterdam.     1693. 
 S.  Glass,  Philologia  Sacra.     Amsterdam.     1694. 
 l'l'.i!]'.  Hist.  Lit.  Theologiae.     Tubingen.     1720. 
 .1.  F.  Buddeus,  [sagoge  Bist.  Theol.     Leipzig.     17:27. 
 .!.<;.  Walch,  Bibliotheca  Theol.     Jena.     1757-1765. 
 s.  !•'.  X.   Moras,  Acroases  super  Hermeneutiea.     Leipzig.     1707-1802. 
 J.  G.  Rosenmuller,  Historia   [nterpretationis.     5  vols.     Leipzig.     1 7  *.»."">- 1  ^  l } . 
 J.  A.  Fabricius,  Bibliographia  Antiquaria.     Hamburg.     1713. 
 Schrock,  Christliche  Kirchengesehiehte.     45  vols.     1768-1812. 
 Ernesti,  [nstitutio  [nterrpretis  Novi  Test.     Leipzig.     1761. 
 Bohringer,   Die    Kirche  Cnristi  una"  ihre  Zeugen.       2te  Ausg.       Stutl 
 
 1873. 
 Sonntag,  De  Doctrina  tnspirationis.     Heidelberg.     1810. 
 Klausen,  Hermeneutik.     Germ.  Transl.     Leipzig.     1841. 
 Liicke,  Grandriss  d.  Neut.  Hermeneutik.     Gottingen.     1817. 
 .1.  I..  S.  Lutz,  lUKlisi-hc  Hermeneutik.     Berne.    1849. 
 Lange,  Grandriss  d.  Bibl.  Hermeneutik.     1874. 
 Lmmer,  Hermeneutik.     Wittenb.     1873. 
 
 Diestel,  Gesch.  <\.  Alt.  Testamentes  in  der  Christlichen  Kirche.    Jena.    1869. 
 Bishop  Wordsworth,  On  the  Interpretation  of  the  Bible.     Miscellanies  II. 
 
 1-100. 
 s.  Davidson,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.     London.     1868. 
 Reuss,    Gesch.    d.    Heiligen  Schriften    Neuen    Testaments.      Braunschweig. 
 
 1874. 
 Gesch.  <1<  r  Heiligen   Schriften  Alten   Testaments.     Braunschweig. 
 
 1882. 
 
 1  It  is  possible  thai  some  readers  may  !"•  glad  to  he  referred  to  tin'  works 
 mentioned  in  the  following  list.  I  have  not  attempted  to  make  the  Biblio- 
 graphy complete  ;  that  would  require  a  volume.  The  dates  are  often  those 
 of  editions  which  I  have  used,  and  the  titles  are  given  in  the  briefesl  Form. 
 ( Ither  works  of  a  more  special  character  are  referred  to  in  the  notes.  ••  Quibus 
 parum  vel  quibus  nimium  est  mihi  ignoscant." 
 
480  Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 
 
 Ewalcl  und  Dukes,  Beitrage  zur  Geseh.  d.  Ausleg.  A.  T.     3  vols.     1844. 
 
 L.  Wogue,  Hist,  de  la  Bible  et  de  l'Exegese  jusqu'  a  nos  Jours.     Paris.    1881. 
 
 Hamburger,   Real-Eneyklopiidie  far  Bibel  und  Talmud,  vol.  i.  s.  v.  Sclirift, 
 
 Schriften,  Sprache.  Breslau.  1870 :  vol.  ii.  s.  vv.   Bibel,   Bibeliibersetzung, 
 
 Exegese,  Halacha,  Agada,  Kabbala,  Talmud,  Text  der  Bibel,  &c.     Strelitz. 
 
 1883. 
 Herzog,  Real-Encyklopadie  fur  Prot.  Theol.  u.  Kirclie  s.  v.  Hermeneutik,  &c. 
 Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  Art.  Hermeneutics. 
 Merx,  Eine  Rede  vom  Auslegen  insbesondre    d.  Alten  Testaments.     Halle. 
 
 1879. 
 Die  Prophetie  des  Joel  und  ihre  Ausleger  von  der  aeltesten  Zeiten  bis 
 
 zu  den  Reformatoren.     Halle.     1879. 
 
 Scattered  notices  are  to  be  found  in  various  Introductions,  such  as — 
 Sixtus  Senensis,  Bibliotheca  Sancta.     Rome.     1586. 
 Hottinger,  Thesaurus  Philologicus.     Zurich.     1649. 
 Huet,  Demonstratio  Evangelica.     Rouen.     1681. 
 J.  G.  Carpzov,  Introd.  ad  Libros  Canonicos.     Leipzig.     1721. 
 Eiehhorn,  Einleitung.     Leipzig.     1780-1783. 
 Michaelis,    Introduction  to  the  New   Testament,     ed.    Marsh.     Cambridge. 
 
 1801. 
 Jahn,  Introd.  in  Libros  Sacros.     Vienna.     1804. 
 
 Zockler,  Handbuch  d.  Theologischen  Wissenschaften.     Nordlingen.     1883. 
 Ladd,  The  Doctrine  of  Sacred  Scripture.     Edinburgh.     1883. 
 
 And  in  the  works  of  Hilgenfeld,  De  "Wette,  Kurz,  Oehler,  Baur,  Neander, 
 Gieseler,  &c.  ;  and  in  the  various  Biblical  and  Theological  Dictionaries  and 
 Encyclopaedias. 
 
 LECTURE  II. 
 
 Mischna.     Surenhusius.     6  vols.  fol.     Amsterdam.     1698-1703. 
 
 Mishna  Treatises,  De  Sola  and  Raphall.     London.     1843. 
 
 The  Midrashim.     Bibliotheca  Rabbinica,  eine  Sammlung  alter  Midrashim, 
 
 iibertragen  von  Dr.  A.  Wiinsche.     Leipzig.     1882-1884. 
 Le  Talmud  de  Jerusalem.     Traduit  pour  la  premiere  fois,  par  Moi'se  Schwab. 
 
 Paris.     1871-1883. 
 Der  Jerusalemische  Talmud  in  Seinen  Haggadischen  Bestandtheilen,  iibertragen 
 
 von  Dr.  A.  Wunsche.     Zurich.     1880. 
 Etheridge,  Translation  of  the  Targums  to  the  Pentateuch.     Loudon.     1862- 
 
 1884. 
 Fl.    Josephi    Opera,     ed.    Haverkamp.      Amsterdam.     1726.      ed.    Richter. 
 
 Leipzig.     1826. 
 Maimonides,  More  Nevochim.     (Ductor  Perplexorum. )     ed.  Buxtorf.     Basle, 
 
 1629. 
 Raymond  Martin,  Pugio  Fichu.     Paris.     1651. 
 Eisenmenger,  Entdecktes  Judenthum.     luinigsberg      Ed.  1711. 
 J.  Buxtorf,  Synagoga  Judaica.     Basle.     1604. 
 
 — — De  Abbreviaturis  Hebraicis.     Basle.     1613. 
 
 Wagenseil,  Tela  Ignea  Satanae.     Amsterdam.     1681. 
 
 Ewald,  Abodah  Zarah.     Niirnberg.     1856. 
 
 Lightfoot,  Works.     Ed.  Pitman.     London.     1822-1825. 
 
 Schottgen,  Horae  Hebraicae.     Dresden.     1733. 
 
 MeuscEen,  Nov.  Test,  ex  Talmude  illustratum.     Leipzig.     1736. 
 
 J.    J.  Buxtorf,   Lexicon   Chaldaicum,    Talmudicum   et   Rabbinicum.     Basle. 
 
 1639. 
 
Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis.  481 
 
 Vitringa,  De  Synagoga  Vetere.     Franeker.     1696. 
 
 Waehner,  Antiquitatea  Ebraeorum.     Gbttingen.     1743. 
 
 J.  C.  Wolf.   Bibliotheca  Eebraea.     1715-1735. 
 
 Beer,  Gescb.  d.  religiosen  Secten  d.  Juden.     Berlin.     1822. 
 
 Furst,      Kultur-   und    Literatur-Geschichtc   dor    Juden    in   Asien.     Leipzig. 
 
 1849. 
 Fiirst,  Der  Talmud  in  Seiner  Nichtigkeit.     Warsaw.     1848. 
 Eirschfeld,  Halachische  Exegese.     Berlin.     1840. 
 
 Eagadische  Exegese.     Berlin.     1847. 
 
 Zunz,  Gottesaienstliche  Vbrtrage.     Berlin.     1832. 
 
 Synagogal.  Poesie  d.  Mittelalters.     Berlin.     1855. 
 
 Bamburger,  Real-Encykl.  fur  Bibel  und  Talmud.     Abth.  i.     Breslau.     1870. 
 
 Al.th.  ii.     Strelitz.    1883. 
 L.  Wogue.     Hist,  de  la  Bible  et  l'Exegese  Biblique  jusqu'a  nos  Jours.     Paris. 
 
 1881. 
 Low   nnSBH  .      Praktische    Einleitung    und    Gescb.    d.     Sebriftauslegung. 
 
 Gross-Kaniscba.     1855. 
 Cbiarini,  Thebrie  du  Judaisme.     Paris.     1830. 
 Welier.     System  der  Altsynagogalen  Theologie.     Leipzig.     1880. 
 Talmudische  Studien,  R.  Joshua  ben  H'anania.     Berlin.     No  date. 
 Friedlander,  GescMchtsbilder  aus  der  Zeit  derTanaiten  und  Amoraer.   Briinn. 
 
 1879. 
 Weill,  Le  Judaisme,  ses  Dogmes  et  sa  Mission.    Paris.     1866. 
 Kevue  des  Etudes  Juivea.     Paris.     1885. 
 Encycl.  d.  Scienees  religieuses.     Art.  Talmud. 
 
 Derenbourg,   Eist.  de  la  Palestine  d'apres  lea  Talmuds.     Paris.     1867. 
 Neubauer,  La  Geographic  dn  Talmud.     Paris.     1868. 
 Wellhausen,  Die  Pharisaer  und  die  Sadducaer.     Greifwald.     1874. 
 
 Gescbicbte  Israels.     Berlin.     1878. 
 
 Ginsburg,  The  Massorah  Ea  Massoreth  of  Elias  Levita.     London.     1867. 
 
 Trenel,  Vie  de  Hillel.     1867. 
 
 Delitzscb,  Jesus  und  Hillel.     Erlangen.     3rd  edition.     1879. 
 
 Jost,  Geschichte  des  Judenthums.     Leipzig.     1859. 
 
 Griitz,  Gescbicbte  der  Juden.     Leipzig.     1871. 
 
 Herzfeld,  Gescbicbte  des  Volkes  Israel.     Leipzig.     1863. 
 
 Geiger,  Das  Judentbum  und  seine  Gescbicbte.    Breslau.    2nd  edition.    1865. 
 
 Jalm,  Arcbaeologia  Biblica.     Ed.  Upbam.     Oxford.     1836. 
 
 Munter,  Der  Judiscbe  Krieg  unter  d.  Kaisern  Trajan  und  Hadrian.     1821. 
 
 Bwald,  Gescb.  d.  Volkes  Israel,  vol.  v.     3rd  ed.     Gottingen.     1867. 
 
 Milinan,  Hist,  of  tbu  Jews,  vols.  ii.  and  iii.     London.     1863. 
 
 Eisenlobr,  Das  Volk  Israel.     Leipzig.     1856. 
 
 Schiirer,  Neutest  Zeitgescbicbte.     Leipzig.     1874. 
 
 Kuenen,  The  Religion  of  Israel.     E.  Tr.     Edinburgh.     1874. 
 
 Steinscbneider,  Jewish   Literature.      London.      1857.     A  translation  of  the 
 
 Aii Lcle  in  Erscb  und  < tonber. 
 L.  Dukes,  Rabbiniscbe  Blumenlese.     Leipzig.     1844. 
 W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old  Testamenl  in  the  Jewish  Church.     Edinburgh. 
 
 1881. 
 
 Lectures  on  the  Old  Testament.     Edinburgh.    1884. 
 
 Dr.  MeCaul,  Old  Paths.     London.     1854. 
 
 Barclay,  The  Talmud.     London.     1878. 
 
 Allen,  Modern  Judaism.      London.      1830. 
 
 Mat  eoliout  h,  Modern  Judaism.     1 8  !•">. 
 
 Eerahon,  Talmud ie  Miscidlany.     liondon.     1880. 
 
 Genesis  with  a  Talmudic  I  'ommentary.     London,     l  s~::. ' 
 
 1  My  references  td  this  hook  will  not  always  exactly  coincide  with  those 
 published  volume,  because  I  used  an  unpublished 
 
 I  I 
 
482  Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 
 
 Hershon,  Treasures  of  the  Talmud.     London.     1882. 
 
 Etheridge,  Hebrew  Literature.     London.     1856. 
 
 Deutsch,  Lit.  Remains.     London.     1874. 
 
 C.  Taylor,  Sayings  of  the  Jewish  Fathers.     Cambridge.     1877. 
 
 Edersheim,  Temple  Services.     London.     1874. 
 
 Dusehak,  Flavius  Josephus  u.  die  Tradition.     Wien.     1864. 
 
 BOOKS   ON   THE   QABBALA. 
 
 Reuchlin,  De  Verbo  Miriiico.     Basle.     1494. 
 
 De  Arte  Cabbalistica.     Hagenau.     1517. 
 
 Raymond  Lully,  De  Auditu  Cabbalistico.     Strasb.     1651. 
 
 Kircher,  (Edipus  ^Egyptiacus.     Rome.     1635. 
 
 Jelliaek,  Beitrage  zur  Gesch.  d.  Kabbalah.     Leipzig.     1852. 
 
 Franck,  La  Kabbale.     Paris.  ■  1843.     Uebersetzt  vom  A.  Jellinek.     Leipzig. 
 
 1844. 
 Ginsburg,  The  Kabbalah,  its  Doctrines,  Development,  and  Literature.  London. 
 
 1865. 
 
 - — Coheleth,  London.     1861. 
 
 Munk,  Melanges  de  Philos.  Juive  et  Arabe.     Paris.     1859. 
 
 LECTURE  III. 
 
 Hody,  De  Bibl.  Text.  Originalibus.     Oxon.     1715. 
 
 Frankel,  Vorstudien  zu  d.  Septuaginta.     Leipzig.     1841. 
 
 Philonis  Opera,  ed.  Richter.     1828-1830  [containing  the  Fragments  discovered 
 
 by  Mai  and  Aucher]. 
 Philonis  Opera,  ed.  Mangey.     2  vols.     London.     1742. 
 Tischendorf,  Philonea  Inedita.     Leipzig.     1868. 
 Planck,  De    Principiis    et    Causis    Interpretationis    Philoniacaj    Allegoricae. 
 
 Gottingen.     1806. 
 Delaunay,  Philon  d'Alexandrie.     Paris.     1867. 
 Grossmann,  Quaestiones  Philoneae.     Leipzig.     1829. 
 Siegfried,  Philo  von  Alexandria.     Jena.     1875. 
 
 ■ On  Philo's  use  of  the  LXX.  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschrift.     1873. 
 
 Gfrorer,  Philo  und  die  Alexandr.  Theosophie.     Stuttgart.     1831. 
 
 Dahne,  Gesch.  Darstellung  der  Judisch- Alexandrinischen  Religions-Philosophic 
 
 Halle.     1834. 
 Furst,  Bibl.  Judaica.     Leipzig.     1849-1863. 
 Bartolocci,  Bibl.  Rabbinica.     Rome.     1693. 
 Munk,  Palestine.     Paris.     No  date. 
 Guericke,  De  Schola  Alexandria.     Halae.     1824-1825. 
 Jowett,  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  &c,  i.  363-417.     London.     1855. 
 J.    G.   Miiller,    Des  Juden    Philo    Buch    von    d.    Weltschopfung.      Berlin. 
 
 1841. 
 Matter,  Essai  Historique  sur  l'Ecole  d'Alexandrie.     Paris.     1820. 
 Drummond,    Philo  :    Principles    of    the    Jewish    Alexandrian     Philosophy . 
 
 London.     1877. 
 Neander,  Ch.  History  (E.  T.),  i.  65-93.     Edinburgh.     1851. 
 Hausrath,  Neutest  Zeitg.     DieZeit  d.  Apostel,  i.  123-171.    Heidelberg.    1879. 
 Dollinger,  Judenthum  u.  Heidenthum.     Regensburg.     1857. 
 Lagarde,  Anmerkungen  zur  Gr.  Uebersetzung.     Leipzig.     1863. 
 "Wellhausen,  Text  der  Bucher  Samuel.     Gottingen.     1871. 
 
Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis.  483 
 
 Sollenberg,  Der  Charakter  d.  Alez.  CTebersetzung.     Moers.     1S76. 
 
 Dopke,  Bermeneutik  d.  Neutest.  Schriftst.     Leipzig.     1829. 
 
 Eteuss,  Thiologie  Chretienne.     3rd  ed.     Paris.     1864. 
 
 Grinfieldj  Apology  for  the  Septuagint.     London.     1850. 
 
 Eerzog's  Cyclopaedia,  a.  w.  Hellenism,  Philo. 
 
 Lipsius,  Alez.  Beligions-Fhilosophie.     Schenkel,  Lihel  Lexicon,  i.  87. 
 
 Dr.  Deutseh,  s.  v.  "Dispersion  '  in  Eatto's  Cyclopaedia. 
 
 i  laiitiii  Westeott,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels.     Revised  edition. 
 
 1867. 
 Kuenen,  Rel  of  Israel,  iii.  162-223.     E.  Tr.    London.     1875. 
 Iveim,  Jesu  von  Nazara.     i.  208-225.     Zurich.     1867. 
 Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Israelites     iii.  174-181.     Berlin.     1822. 
 Gesch.  d.  Judenthums  und  seinef  Sekten.     Leipzig.     1857.      i.  368- 
 
 402. 
 Gratz,  Gesch.  d.  Juden,  iii.  296-308.     Leipzig.     1863. 
 Dahne  in  Ersch  und  Grnber,  8.  v.  Philo. 
 Zockler  in  Herzog,  8.  v.  Philo. 
 
 Bongsley,  Alexandria  and  her  Schools.     Cambridge.     1854. 
 Vacherot,  Hist,  de  l'Ecole  d'AIexandrie.      Paris.     1846. 
 
 rweg,  Hist,  of  Philos    i.  222-231.     E.  Tr.     3rd  ed.     London.     1880. 
 Ewald,  Gesch.  d.  Volkes  Isr.  vi.  257-312.     Gottingen.     1868. 
 •  ilshausen,  Ein  Wort  iiber  tiefern  Schriffcsinn.     Konigsberg.     1824. 
 
 LECTURE  IV. 
 
 For  Patristic  methods  of  interpretation,  see 
 
 1  h  i\  en,  De  Principiis.     Lib.  iv. 
 
 Adrianus,  Elaaywy))  eis  ras  deias  ypacpds  (Critici  Sacri,  viii.  11).    Ed.  Hum  lei. 
 
 Wien.     1602. 
 Eucherius,  Liber  formularum.     Bibl.  Max.  Patr.,  vi.  522. 
 Tichonius,  De  Septem   Etegulis.     BibL  Max.  Patr.,  vi.  49.     Gallandi,   viii. 
 
 107. 
 Hieronymus,  De  Optimo  Genere  [nterpretandi.     Ep.  101,  ad  Pammach. 
 August  inns.  De  Doctrina  Christiana,  iii.  iv.     Opp.     Ed.  Bened.,  t.  i;i. 
 Junilius,  De  Divinae.     I !il >1.  Max.  Patr.,  x.  339.    Ed.  Kihn. 
 
 Friburg.     1880. 
 Isidore  of  Pelnsinm,  Epistolae  de    Interpret.  Div.  Script.     Bihl.  Max.  Patr. 
 
 vii. 
 Cassiodorus,  De  Institutione  Div.   Literarum.     Opp.  ii.  509  so.     Mhrne,  Izz. 
 
 1105. 
 Whitby,  Disserl  de  Sac.  Script,    Interpretatione,     London.     171-i. 
 
 Lives  of  the  Fathers.     Ed.  Cary.     Ozon.     1850. 
 .1.  G.  Walch,  Bibliotheca  Patristica.     Ed.  Danz.     1834. 
 Flacius,  Claris  Script.  Sacr.,  pp.  134-145.     Basle.    1609. 
 Bohringer,   Die  Kirch  and   ihre  Zeugen,  2te  Anflage.     Stuttgart. 
 
 Ewald,  (lesch.  .1.  V.dkes  Israel,  vii.     Gottingen.     3rd  ed.     1868. 
 Huber,  Die  Philosophie  der  Kirchenvater.     Munich.     1859. 
 
 1  The  literature  on  the  Bubjecl  of  this  Lecture  is  iimneu.se.     I  only  indicate 
 a  few  of  the  books  and  editions  which  will  lie  found  most  useful. 
 
 I  I   2 
 
484  Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 
 
 Barbeyrac,  Traite  de  la  Morale  des  Peres.     1728. 
 
 Mohler,  Patrologie,  ed.  Riethmayer.     Regensb.     1840. 
 
 Bishop    Kaye.      Some  Account  of  the  Writings  and  Opinions  of  Clement  of 
 
 Alexandria.     London.     1835. 
 Neander,  Antignosticus,  or  Spirit  of  Tertullian.     E.  Tr.     London.     1864. 
 Donaldson,  The  Apostolical  Fathers.     London.     1874. 
 F.   Vogl,  Die  heilige  Schriften  u.    ihre  Interpretation  durch  die   h.    Vater. 
 
 Augsb.  1836. 
 Cotelerius,  Patres  Apostolici.     Amsterdam.     1724. 
 Lightfoot,  Epistles  of  Clement.     Cambridge.     1869-1877. 
 
 Ignatius  and  Polycarp.     London.     1885. 
 
 J.  Temple  Chevalier,  Clement  of  Rome,  &c. ,  with  Introduction.      Cambridge. 
 
 1833. 
 Philotheos    Bryarnios,    rov    KX^/ievros.       hi    5vo    irpbs    KopivQlovs     eiriffToAai. 
 
 Constant.   1875. 
 Irenaeus,  ed.  Stieren.     Leipzig.     1853. 
 
 ed.  Harvey.     Cambridge.     1857. 
 
 Hilgenfeld,  Hermae  Pastor.     Leipzig.     1881. 
 
 C.  H.  Hoole,  The  Shepherd  of  Hennas.     London.     1870. 
 
 Otto,  Corpus  Apologetarum.     Jena.     1847. 
 
 Semisch,  Justin  der  Martyrer.     Breslau.     1842. 
 
 M.  von  Engelhardt,  Das  Christenthum  Justins  d.  Martyr.     Erlangen.     1878. 
 
 Bishop  Kaye,  Some   Account  of  the  Writings  and  Opinions  of  Justin  Martyr. 
 
 Cambridge.     3rd  edition.     1853. 
 Freppel,  Des  Apologistes  Chretiens  du  He  Siecle.     Paris.     1860. 
 E.  de  Pressense,  Hist,  des  trois  premiers  Siecles.     Paris.     1870. 
 Renan,  Les  Evangiles.     Paris.     1877. 
 
 L'Eglise  Chretienne.     Paris.     1879. 
 
 Keim,  Rom  und  das  Christenthum.     Berlin.     1881. 
 Origenis  Opera  ed.  De  La  Rue.     Paris.     1759. 
 
 ed.  Huet.     Rouen.     1668. 
 
 Huet,  Origeniana.     Colon.     1685. 
 
 Redepenning,  Origenes.     Bonn.     1846. 
 
 Ernesti,  De  Origene.     Opusc,  p.  288  sq.     1776. 
 
 Guericke,  De  Schola  quae  Alexandriae  floruit   Catechetica.     Halle.     2  parts. 
 
 1824-1825. 
 M.  J.  Denis,  De  la  Philosophic  d'Origene.     Paris.     1884. 
 Tertulliani  quae  supersunt  omnia.     Ed.  Oehler.     Leipzig.     1853. 
 Hauck,  Tertullian's  Leben  und  Schriften.     Erlangen.     1877. 
 Ronsch,  Das  Neue  Testament  Tertullians.     Leipzig.     1871. 
 Bishop  Kaye,  Writings  of  Tertullian.     3rd  edition.     London.     1845. 
 H.  Weiss,  Die  Grossen  Kappadokier  als  Exegeten.     Braunsberg.     1872. 
 Rupp,  Gregorius  von  Nyssa.     Leipzig.     1834. 
 Ullmann,  Gregorius  von  Nazianz.     Darmstadt.     1825. 
 F.  Liicke,  Quaestiones  Didymianae.     Gottingen.     1829. 
 Daille,  On  the  Right  Use  of  the  Fathers.     E.  Tr.     London.     1841. 
 J.  J.  Blunt,  The  Right  Use  of  the  Early  Fathers.     London.     1857. 
 Smith  and  Wace,  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography.     London.     1877-1882. 
 Tillemont,   Memoires  pour   servir  a  l'Hist.   Eccl.   des   Six  Premiers  Siecles. 
 
 Paris.     1712. 
 R.  Simon,  Hist.  Critique  du  Vieux  Testament.     Amsterdam.     1685. 
 
 Des  Versions  du  N.  Testament.     Rotterdam.     1690. 
 
 Du  Texte  du  N.  Testament.     Rotterdam.     1689. 
 
 Des  Principaux  Commentateurs  du  N.   Testament.        Rotterdam. 
 
 1693. 
 
 Nouvelles  Observations.     Paris.     1695. 
 
 Baur,  Church  History.     E.  Tr.     London.     1878. 
 
 Alb.  de  Broglie,  L'Eglise  et  l'empire  romain  au  4me  siecle.     4th  ed.     Paris. 
 1868. 
 
Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis.  485 
 
 Schaff,  History  of  the  Christian  Church.     Edinburgh.     1884. 
 Hergenrbther,  Handb.  d.  allgem.  Kirchengeschichte.    Freiburg.     2nd  edition. 
 1879. 
 
 D.  Couybeare,  Analyt.  Exam,  of  the  Writings  of  the  Christian  Fathers. 
 Bampton  Lectures.     1839. 
 
 Estlander,  De  Usu  S.S.  in  Eccl.  Cath.  duobus  primia  post  Christum  Seeulis. 
 Helsingf.     1829. 
 
 Ebert,  Gesch.  d.  Literat.  d.  lateinischen  Mittelalters  im  Abendlande,  Leipzig. 
 1874.     Vol.  ii.  1880. 
 
 H.  A.  Woodliam,  Tert.  Ldber  Apologet.  with  Notes  and  Introduction.  Cam- 
 bridge.    1850. 
 
 Cypriani  Opera,  ed.  Hart  el.     (Corpus  Scrip.  Eccles.  Latin.) 
 
 Freppel,  St.  Cyprien.     2nd  edition.     Paris.     1873. 
 
 dementis  Alex.  Opera,  ed.  Potter.     Oxon.     1715. 
 
 Freppel,  Clement  d'Alexandrie.     Paris.     Revised  edition.     1873. 
 
 Miiuter,  De  Schola  Antiochcna.     1814. 
 
 Hergenrbther,  Die  Antioeh.  Schule.     Wurzburg.     1866. 
 
 Sieffert,  Theod.  Mopsuestenus  Vet.  Test,  sobrie  interpret.  Vindex.  Regensb. 
 1827. 
 
 II.  B.  Swete,  Theod.  Ep.  Mops,  in  Epp.  B.  Pauli  Commentarii.  Cambridge. 
 1882. 
 
 Kilin,  Die  BedeutUDg  d.  antioeh.  Schule.     Weissenburg.     1856. 
 
 S.  Chrysostomi  Opera.     Ed.  Bern,  de  Montfaucon.     Paris.     1718 — 1738. 
 
 Forster,  Chrysostomus.     Gotha.     1869. 
 
 W.  A.  Stephens,  Life  and  Times  of  St.  Chrysostom.     London.     1S72. 
 
 E.  Binder,  Etudes  sur  Theodoret.      Geneva.      1844. 
 
 C.  V.  Lengerke,  De  Ephraemi  Syri  Arte  Henneneutica.  Regiom.     1831. 
 
 Hieronymi  Opera,  ed.  Vallarsi.     Verona.     1734-1742. 
 
 Clericus,  Quaest.  Hieronymianae.     Amstelod.     1700. 
 
 Engelstoft,  Eieronymus  Stridonensis.     Havre.     1797. 
 
 Zbckler,  Hieronymus.     Gotha.     1865. 
 
 A.  Thierry,  St.  Jerome.     Paris.     1867. 
 
 Cutts,  St.  Jerome.     London.     1877. 
 
 Trench,  Augustine  as  an  Interpr.  of  Scripture.     The  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
 
 London.      1851. 
 Bin  iimaun,  Der  Heilige  Augustinus.     Berlin.     1S44-1869. 
 ftourisson,  La  Philos.  de  St.  Augustin.     2nd  ed.     Paris.     1866. 
 Flottes,  Etudes  sur  St.  August  in.     Paris.     1861. 
 
 LECTURE  Vt 
 
 SOME   ORIGIN  LL   AUTHORITIES. 
 
 .1.  Scotus  Erigena,  1>i  Divisione  Naturae      Migne,  t.  122. 
 
 Job.  Sarisbunensis,  Opera.     Migne,  t.  199. 
 
 Rupertus  Tuitensis,  Praef.  in  Comment.  inJoann.  Opera.    Venice,  1748-1750. 
 
 Hugo  de  Sto.  Victore,  Opera.     Migne,  tt.  175-177. 
 
 Bonaventurae  Opera     Ed.  Peltier.     Paris.     1861. 
 
 St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  Praef.  in  Psalmos,  Praef.  in  Hiob. 
 
 Summa.  Cap.  de  Scripturis. 
 
 Petri  Abaelardi,  sic  el   Nbn. 
 
 V.  Cousin,  QSuvres  ine*dits  d'Abedard.     Paris.     1836. 
 
 Petr.  Lombardi,  11.  iv.  Sentt  ntiaruin.      Migne,  t.  192. 
 
486  Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 
 
 Bemardi  Opera.     Ed.  Mabillon.     Paris.     1719. 
 
 Nicolai  Lyrani  Prologi. 
 
 Gersou,   Propositiones  de  Sensu  Literali.     Opera.    Ed.  Du   Pin.      Antwerp. 
 
 1706. 
 Herolt,  Sermoncs  et  Exempla. 
 
 Vitalius  a  Furno,  Speculum  Morale.     Lyons.     1513. 
 Badiua  Ascensius,  Allegoriarum  Bibliorum.    1520. 
 Coppenstein,  Dispositio  Senuonum  ad  Seus.  Literalem  et  saepe  Mysticum  de 
 
 Aquinate  et  Bonaventura. 
 Whitaker,  Disputation  on  Holy  Scripture.     Parker  Society.     1819. 
 Goldast,  Monaichia.     Frankfort.     1640. 
 
 SOME   GENERAL   HISTORIES. 
 
 Brucker,  Historia  Crit.  Philosophise,  t.  iii.     Leipzig.     1743. 
 
 Ampere,  Hist.  Lit.  de  la  France  avant  le  Douzieme  Siecle.    Paris.     1839. 
 
 Bouquet,  Rerum  Gallic,  et  Francic.  Scriptores.     Paris.     1752. 
 
 Herman  Reuter,  Gesch.  der  Rel.  Aufklarung  in  Mittelalter.     Berlin.     1875. 
 
 S.  R.  Maitland,  The  Dark  Ages.     London.     1844. 
 
 Hampden,  Bampton  Lectures.     Oxford.     1832. 
 
 Life  of  Thomas  Aquinas.     Enc.  Metropol.     1848. 
 
 Kaulich,  Gesch.  d.  Scholast.   Philosophic     Prag.     1853. 
 Stbckl,  Gesch.  d.  Philos.  d.  Mittelalters.     Mayence.     1866. 
 Prantl,  Gesch.  d.  Logik.     Leipzig.     1867. 
 Guizot,  Hist,  de  la  Civilisation  en  France. 
 Haureau,  De  la  Philos.  Scolastique.     Paris.     1850. 
 Leon  Maitre,  Les  Ecoles  de  l'Occident. 
 Hallam,  Middle  Ages.     Londou.     1855. 
 
 Hist,  of  European  Literature.     London.     1856. 
 
 Saisset,  Essais  de  la  Philosophie  Religieuse.     1859. 
 
 Sir  J.  Stephen,  Lectures  on  the  History  of  France.      London.     1857. 
 
 R.  A.  Vaughan,  Hours  with  the  Mystics.     London.     1680. 
 
 "Werner,  Die  Scholastik  d.  Spateren  Mittelalters.     Wirn.     1881. 
 
 Ueberweg,  Hist,  of  Philosophy.     E.  Tr.     London.     1880. 
 
 F.  D.  Maurice,  Mediaeval  Philosophy.     Encyclop.  Metropolitana.     1857. 
 
 Colet  on  the  Celestial  Hierarchies  of  Dionysius.     Ed.  Lupton.     London.   1869. 
 
 Figuier,  Vie  dcs  Savants  Illustres.     Paris.     1867. 
 
 J.  Bass  Mullinger,  The  University  of  Cambridge.     1873. 
 
 SOME   MONOGRAPHS. 
 
 Binder,  De  Schol.  Theol.     Tubingen.     1624. 
 
 Lud.  Vives,  De  Causis  Corrupt.  Artium.     Antwerp.     1531. 
 
 Thomasius,   Theologia  Scholastica  et  ejus  Initium.     Hist.  Sap.  et  Stult.,  iii. 
 
 p.  225  sq.     Halae.     1693. 
 Danaeus,  Prolegom.  in  Lombardi  Sent.     Genevae.     1580. 
 Tribbechovius,  De  Doctoribus  Scholasticis.     Ed.  Heumann.     Jena.     1719. 
 Ittigius,  De  Bibliothecis  et  Catenis  Patrum.     Leipzig.     1708. 
 Noesselt,  De  Catenis  Patrum  Graecorum.     Halae.     1762. 
 Elster,  De  Med.  Aevi  Theol.  Exegetica.     Gottingen.     1855. 
 De  Launoy,  De  Varia  Aristotelis  Fortuna  in  Acad.  Parisiensi.     1653. 
 Huber,  Joannes  Scotus  Erigena.     Munich.     1861. 
 Christliob,  Lebeu  und  Lehre  d.  J.  Scotus.     Gotha.     1860. 
 Hundeshagen,  De  Agobardi  Vita  et  Scriptis.     Giessen.     1831. 
 V.  Cousin,  (Euvres  Inedits  d'Abelard.     Paris.     1836. 
 Cours  de  Philosophie.     Paris.     1829. 
 
Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis.  487 
 
 Reniusat,  Abelard      1'aris.     1845. 
 
 Guizot,  Lettres  d'Abedard.     Paris.     1839. 
 
 M.  Deutsch,  Peter  Abalard,  ein  Kritischer  Theolog.  d.  Zwblften  Jahrhunderts. 
 
 1883. 
 Jourdain,    Reeherches  sur-1'Age   des   Traductions   Lat.    d'Aristote.       Paris 
 
 1819. 
 
 La  Philos.  de  Thomas  d'Aquin. 
 
 Liebner,  Bugo  de  Sto  Victore.     Leipzig.     1836. 
 
 ,  Richard  v.  St.  Victor.     Erlangen.     1838. 
 HoUenberg,  StudieD  zu  Bonaventura.     Berlin.     1862. 
 Sehaarschmidt,  Johannes  Sarisburiensis.      Leipzig.     1862. 
 J.  Cotter  Morison,  Life  and  Times  of  St.  Bernard.     London.     1863. 
 Renau,  Averroes.     Paris.     1851. 
 
 Munk,  Melanges  de  Philosophic  Juive  e1  Arabe.     Paris.     1859. 
 F.  C.  Baur,  Christliche  Kirehe  des  Mittelalters.     Tubingen.     1861. 
 GbiTes,  Die  Christliche  Mystik.     Regensb.     1838-1842. 
 Vaughan,  Life  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.     London.     1871. 
 Tholuck,  De 'I'liiiina  Ai[.  et  Abaelardo  S.S.  interpretibus.     Halle.     1842. 
 R.  Lane  Poole.     Illustrations  of  the  History  of  Mediaeval  Thought.     London. 
 
 1884. 
 W.  T.  Townsend,  The  Great  Schoolmen  of  the  Middle  Ages.     London.     1881. 
 J.  Owen,  Evenings  with  the  Sceptics.     London.     1881. 
 J.  B.  Mullinger,  The  Schools  of  Charles  the  Great.     London.     1877. 
 
 LECTURE  VI. 
 
 SOME   ORIGINAL   AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Erasmus,  Ratio  seu  Methodus  perveniendi  ad  Ver.  Theologiam.     1522. 
 Luther,  Tractat.  vom  Dolmetschen.     Werke,  ed.  Walch.,  iv.  170. 
 
 Sendbriefe  vom  Dolmetschen.     Id.  xxi.  309. 
 
 Melanchthon,  Libri  iii.  de  Rhetoric!     1519.     Opera.     Halle.     1834  ff. 
 
 Elementa  Rhetorices,  ii.     1536.     Opera.     Halle.     1834  fT. 
 
 Calvin,  Works.     Edinburgh.     1842-1853. 
 
 Matthias  Elacius,  Clavis  Scripturae  Sacrae.     Basle.     1567. 
 
 Bellaiminns,  De  Verbo  Dei,  11.  iv.     Opera.     Cologne.     1620. 
 
 J.  Gerhard,   De  Lcgitima  S.S.  Interpretatione.     Jena.      1610. 
 
 Canones  et  Decreta  Cone.  Trident.     Sess.  iv. 
 
 !'.  Melanchthon,  Vita  .Martini  Lutheri.     Ed.  Neander.     Berlin.     1841. 
 
 J.  Camerarius,  Vita  Philippi  Bfelanchthonis.     Ed  Neander.     Berlin.     1841. 
 
 0.  Myconius,  Vita  Snldnci  Zwinglii     Ed.  Neander.     Berlin.     1841. 
 
 Theod.  Beza,  Vita  Joh.  Calvini.     Ed.  Neander.     Berlin.     1841. 
 
 Lnther,  Werke.     Ed.  Walch     Balle.     1740-1752. 
 
 Erlangei,  ed      1826-1855. 
 
 Corpus  Reformatorum,  ed  Bretschneider.     Halle.     1834-1848. 
 Thuanus,  Hist.  Sui  Temporis,     London.     1723. 
 Grotius,  Annales.     1658. 
 
488  Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 
 
 SOME   GENERAL  HISTOKIE8,    &C. 
 
 Mayerhoff,  J.  Reuchlin  unci  Seine  Zeit.     Berlin.     1830. 
 
 Fabricius,  Loci  Comniunes  D.  Mart.  Luther.     1651. 
 
 Jortin,  Life  of  Erasmus.     London.     1806. 
 
 Brunimond,  Erasmus,  his  Life  and  Character.     London.     1873. 
 i/ Kostlin,  Life  of  Luther.     E.  Tr.     London.     1883. 
 
 Luther's  Theologie.     2te  Ausg.     Stuttgart.     1883. 
 
 Paul  Henry,  Das  Leben  Joh.   Calvins.     Hamburg.     1835-1838. 
 
 A.  Wratislaw,  John  Hus.     London.     1882. 
 /Thos.  M'Crie,  The  Early  Years  of  J.  Calvin.     London.     1880. 
 * Ullmann,  Die  Reforinatoren  vor  der  Reformation.     1842.     E.  Tr../  1855. 
 •/Ruiz,  Hist,  of  the  Christian  Church  from  the  Reformation.  E.  TiV  Edinburgh. 
 /    1864. 
 ►^  Hagenbach,  Hist,  of  the  Reformation.     2  vols.     E.  Tr.  /  Edinburgh.     1878. 
 
 Merle  d'Aubigne,  Hist,  de  la  Reformation. 
 «/Dorner,  Hist,  of  Protestant  Theology.     2  vols./  E.  Tr.     Edinburgh.     1871. 
 ^/Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom.   / 
 v/\Beard,  Hibbert  Lectures.     London.     1883. 
 *G.  P.  Fisher,  Hist,  of  the  Reformation.     New  York.     1873. 
 
 JDbllinger,  Die  Reformation.     1848. 
 ^"Seebohm,  Oxford  Reformers.     London.     1869. 
 vxulloch,  Leaders  of  the  Reformation.     Edinburgh.     1859. 
 
 SOME   MONOGRAPHS. 
 
 Graf,  Essai  sur  la  Vie  et  les  Ecrits  de  Lefevre  d'Etaples.     Strasburg.     1842. 
 Geiger,  Das  Studium  d.  hebr.  Sprache  in  16ten  Jahrhundert.   Brussels.    1870. 
 Romberg,  Die  Lehre  Luther's  von  der  heiligen  Schrift.     Wittenb.     1868. 
 Preger,  Flacius  Illyricus  und  Seine  Zeit.     Erlangen.     1861. 
 Gerold,  Luther  Considere  comme  Exegete.     Strasbourg.     1866. 
 Thilo,  Melanchthon  im  Dienste  an  heil.   Schriften.     Berlin.     I860. 
 Otto,  De  V.  Strigelio  Liberioris  Mentis  in  Eccl.  Luther.  Vindice.    Jena.  1843. 
 Tholuck,  Die  Verdienste  Calvins  als  Ausleger.     Vermischte  Schriften,  ii. 
 Aegid.  Hunnius,  Calvinus  Judaisans.     Vit.     1593. 
 
 LECTURE  VII. 
 
 The  Hermeneutic  manuals  of  this  epoch  are  very  numerous  and  represent 
 all  the  sects  and  schools  of  thought.  For  the  names  of  many  not  here  men- 
 tioned see  Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  Heil.  Schrift,  pp.  292-311  ;  Diestel,  Gesch.  d.  A. 
 T.,  pp.  555-781  ;  Kleinert,  Abriss  d.  Einleit.  zum  A.  T.  1878  ;  Hertwig, 
 Tabellen  zur  Einl.  ins  N.  T.     1872.     Winer. 
 
 SOME   ORIGINAL   AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Arminius,  De  Sensu  et  Interpr.  S.  Script.     1683. 
 Calixtus,  Apparatus  Theologicus.     Hulinstadt.     1628. 
 Calovius,  Biblia  Illustrata.     Frankfort.     1672. 
 Quensteclt,  Systema  Theologicum.     Wittenb.     1696. 
 
Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis.  489 
 
 J.  Gerhard,  De  Legit.  S.S.  interpretatione.     Jena.     1610. 
 S.  Glassius,  Philologia  Sacra.    Amsterdam.     1694. 
 Spinoza,  Tractatus  Theologico-pohticus.     Hamb.     1670. 
 Sixtinus  Ainaina,  Anti-Barbarus.     Amsterd.     1628. 
 Dannbauer,  Eermeneutica  Sacra.     Strasburg.     1684. 
 Pfeiffer,  Eerm.  Sacra.     Enlarged  by  Carpzov.     1690. 
 •  vVaterland,  Scripture  Vindicated. 
 L.  Meyer,  Philosophia  Scripturae  [nterpres.     1666. 
 
 Bp.  Wilkins,  Ecclesiastes,  p.  59.     List  of  Works  on  the  Interpret,  of  Scrip. 
 Frankc,  Manuductio  ad  Lectionem  Sa.  Scriptorae.     Halle.     1693. 
 Clericus,  Praef.  Comment,  in  Gen.     Amsterdam.     1731. 
 Rambach,  Inst t .  Mermen.     Jena.     1723. 
 Beansobre,  Remarques  sur  le  N.  T.     La  Haye.     1742. 
 Werenfels,  Lcctioncs   Hermeneutieae.     Opera.     Basle.     1782. 
 J.  A.  Bengel,  Gnomon,  Praefatio.     Ed.  2.     Tubingen.     1759. 
 
 SOME   GENERAL   HISTORIES. 
 
 T.  II.  Sehuler,  Gesch.' d.  Schrifterklarung.      Tubingen.      1787. 
 
 Weismann,  Introd.  in  Memorabilia  EccL  Hist.     1718. 
 
 Tboluck,  Das  Akad.  Leben  des  17  Jabrbunderts.     Hamburg.     1854. 
 
 Heppc,  Dogmatik  des  Dcutschen  l'rotestantismus.     Marburg.     1857. 
 
 Pfaif,  [ntrod.  in  Eistoriam  TheoL  Lit.     Tubingen.     1724. 
 
 Lilientbal,  Biblischer  Archivarius.     1746. 
 
 Meyer,  Gescb.  der  Scbrifterklarung.     Gottingen.     1802. 
 •^Dr.  Cunningham,  The  Reformers  and  the  Theology  of  the  Reformation. 
 i/Kurz,  Bistoiy  of  the  Christian  Church.     E.  Tr.     Edinburgh.     1864. 
 
 G.  J.  Plank,  Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Theol.     Gottingen.     1831. 
 ^/•Donier,  History  of  Prot.  Theology.     E.  Tr.     Edinburgh.     1871. 
 
 S.  Franck,  Gesch.  d.  Protest.  Theologie.     1862. 
 /^Kahnis,  Gesch.  d.  Deutschen  Protestantismus.     E.  Tr.     Edinburgh.     1856. 
 
 Werner,    Gesch.    der    Kath.    Theol.    seit    deiu    Trienter   Concil.       Miinehen. 
 1866. 
 
 l'usey.     Historical  Enquiry.     London.     1828. 
 
 Wall  h,  Religionsstreit.  innerhalb  der  Lutherischen  Kirche.     1730-1739. 
 
 SOME   MONOGRAPHS. 
 
 II   like,  Georg  Calixt  und  Seine  Zeit.     Halle.     1853. 
 
 ;  [icner  und  Seine  Zeit.     1853. 
 E.  Schmid,  Gesch.  des  Pietismus.     Nbrdlingen.     1863. 
 Wachter,  .1.  A.    Bengel,    Lebensabriss,  character,    Briefe,   und  Aussprache. 
 
 1865. 
 Bilfinger,  De  Spinosae  Methodo  Explicandi  S.  Scr.     Jen.     1739. 
 Segaar,  De  Grotio  X.  T.  Interprete.     Traj.     1785. 
 enberg,  idea  Fidei  Fratrum.     Barby.     1782. 
 Glbckner,  tnterpretandi  Ratio  a  J.  J.  Wetsteino  adhibita.     Leipzig.     1754. 
 
490  Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis. 
 
 LECTURE  VIII. 
 
 The  Hermcneutic  and  indirectly  exegetic  treatises  of  this  epoch  may  be 
 counted  by  scores.  The  following  are  only  a  few  of  them,  chiefly  bearing  on 
 theory. 
 
 SOME    ORIGINAL   AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Ernesti,  Institutio  Interpretis.     Leipzig.     1761. 
 
 Semler,  Vorbereitung  zur  Theol.  Hermeneutik.     Halle.     1760. 
 
 Wetstein,  Libelli  ad  Crisin  atque  Interpret.  N.  T.,  ed.  Semler.     Halle.     1766. 
 
 Wolfentrattler  Fragmente.     (Lessing,  Beitrage,  iii.  iv.)     1774-1777. 
 
 J.  E.  Pfeiffer,  lust.  Herm.     Erlangen.     1771. 
 
 J.  G.  Carpzov,  Introd.  ad  11.  canon.  V.  T.     Leipzig.     1857. 
 
 J.  A.  Turretin,  De  S.  S.  Interpret.     Utrecht.     1728. 
 
 Kant,  Die  Religion  iunerhalb  der  Grenzen  d.  blossen  Vernunft.     Kbnigsberg. 
 
 1794. 
 Seiler,  Bibl.  Herm.     Erlangen.     1800. 
 Herder,  Theol.  Werke.     Weimar. 
 Jahn,  Hermeneutica.     Vienna.     1812. 
 De  Wette,  Einleitung.     Berlin.     1819. 
 Hengstenberg,  Pentateuch,  &c.     Berlin.     1831-1861. 
 Ewald,  Gesch.  d.  Volkes  Israel,  &c.     Gottingen.     1849-1868. 
 Baur,  Dogmengeschichte.     Tubingen.     1845-1853. 
 Tollner,  Grundriss  einer  Hermeneutik.     Frankfort.     1765. 
 Schleiermacher,  Darstellung  d.  theol.  Studiums.     Berlin.     1811. 
 
 Glaubenslehre.     1821. 
 
 Hermeneutik.       Liicke.     1838. 
 
 Liicke,  Grundriss  d.  Neutest.  Hermen.     Bonn.     1817. 
 Olshausen,  Ein  Wort  iiber  tieferen  Schriftsinn.     Erlangen.     1824. 
 Stier,  Andeutungen.     Leipzig.     1828. 
 Strauss,  Streitschriften.     Tubingen.     1838. 
 Tholuck,  Das  A.  T.  im  Neuen.     1836. 
 Klausen,  Hermeneutik.     Leipzig.     1841. 
 \/Coleridge,  Confessions  of  an  Enquiring  Spirit. 
 Lutz,  Bibl.  Hermen.     Berne.     1849. 
 
 Reuss,  Die  Gesch.  d.  heil.  Schriften.     Braunschweig.     1882. 
 Cellerier,  Manuel  d'Hermeneutique.     Geneve.     1852. 
 J.  P.  Lange,  Grundriss  der  Bibl.  Hermeneutik.     Heidelberg.     1878. 
 S.  Davidson,  Sacred  Hermeneutics.     Edinburgh.     1843. 
 
 SOME   MONOGRAPHS. 
 
 J.  V.  Voorst,  De  J.  A.  Ernestio  Interprete.    Leyden.     1804. 
 Semler,  Lebensbesehreibung.     Halle.     1781. 
 Noesselt,  De  Semlero  ejusque  Ingenio.     Rigae.     1792. 
 Strauss,  H.  S.  Reimarus  und  Seine  Schutz-schrift.     Leipzig.     1861. 
 W.  A.  Teller,  Ernesti's  Verdienste  um  Theologie  u.  Religion.    Leipzig.     1783. 
 A.  C.  Stauss,  Utruni  Philosophia  Kantii  Scripturae  interpret,  admitti  possit  ? 
 Vit.     1795. 
 
A 
 
 Bibliography  of  General  Exegesis.  491 
 
 Stahelin,  De  Wette  nach  Seiner  Theolog.  Wirksamkeit.     Basle.     1880. 
 Bachmann,  Eengatenberg  nach  s.  Leben  u.  Wirken.     Giitersloh.     1879. 
 Kenan,  CEnvres.     1863-1883. 
 Hurt's  Essay  on  Coleridge.     Camb.  Essays.     1856. 
 
 Many  other  treatises  will  be  referred  to  in  the  notes. 
 
 SOME   GENERAL   histories. 
 
 iXDr.    A.   S.    I'arrar,    Critical    History  of  Free  Thought.     Bampton   Lectures. 
 
 London.     1862. 
 •/  Lecky,  History  of  nationalism.     London.     1866. 
 t/Hagenbach,  German   Rationalism.     E.  Tr.     Edinburgli.     1865. 
 Dorner.  Hist,  of  Prot.  Theology.     E.  Tr.     Edinburgh.     1871. 
 Hnndeshagen,  Der  Deutsche  Protestantismus.     Darmstadt.     1850. 
 Tholuck,  Gesch.  d.  Rationalismns.    Berlin.    1865:  and  Vermischte  Schriften, 
 
 ii.     Hamburg.     1839. 
 C.  Schwarz.  Zur  Gescb.  d.  Neuesten  Theologie.    1856.     4th  edition.     Leipzig. 
 
 1869. 
 Roseunmller.    Handbuch     fur   die   Litterat.    d.    Bibl.    Kritik    und  Exegese. 
 Gottingen.     1800. 
 </Maiisrl.  Bampton   Lectures.      London.     1858. 
 
 F.  C.  Baur,  Kirchengesch.  d.  19ten  Jahrh.  Tiibingen.    1853.    E.  Tr.  London. 
 1879. 
 
INDEX. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Am:  lard,  his  work  and  influence  in 
 scholastic  exegesis,  259  ;  by  his  Sic 
 ct  Non  he  helped  to  break  down  the 
 authority  of  tradition,  259  ;  Kemu- 
 remark  regarding,  259  n.  ;  he 
 heads  his  sections  boldly,  259?*.  ;  he 
 writes  like  a  man  of  genius,  260  ;  his 
 works,  and  authorities  on  them, 
 260  ns.  ;  the  scholastic  method  of 
 dialectics  mainly  due  to  him,  261  ; 
 his  motto,  266  n.  ;  retires  into  the 
 monastery  of  St.  Gildaa  de  Rhuys, 
 301  ;  his  share  in  the  origin  of  schol- 
 asticism, 467  ;  account  of  the  Sic  ct 
 Non  of,  468 
 
 Abravanel,  his  merits  as  a  Jewish  com- 
 mentator, 464 
 
 Accommodation,  the  doctrine  of  the 
 Alexandrian  teachers  as  to,  187  and  n. 
 
 Adrian,  115  n. 
 
 Adrian  VI.,  311 ».,  319w. 
 
 Aem  i  .  296  n. 
 
 Agobard  of  Lyons,  Archbi  hop,  an  in- 
 dependenl  mediaeval  thinker,  252  n. ; 
 lie  protests  againsl  the  duel  and 
 ordeal,  252  n.  ;  and  against  silencing 
 the  Prophets,  869  ana  n. 
 
 Ahijah,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost  sacred 
 books,  7 
 
 Albam,  103 
 
 Albertns,  his  system  of  scholastic  exe- 
 gesis, 267  :  the  extent  of  his  works, 
 and   remarks  on    tie  m,   267  n. 
 
 esis  i  hi.  il y  derived  al  third  or 
 fourth  hand  from  the  Catenae  or 
 glosses,  268n.  ;  his  s.  [f-denial,  301 
 
 Albo,  Joseph, denies  thai  Messianismis 
 a  Jewish  doctrine,  67  n. 
 i,  349 
 1,  280  n. 
 
 Aleph  and  Beth,  remarks  on  the  Hebrew 
 letters,  36 
 
 Alexander,  what  the  worshippers  of 
 Apollo  did  when  Tyre  was  besieged 
 by,  8  ;  the  Jews  pacify  the  wrath  of, 
 54  ;  effects  of  the  conquests  of,  114  ; 
 benefit  conferred  on  the  world  by 
 the  founding  of  Alexandria  by,  114  ; 
 authorities  on  the  civilising  mission 
 of,  114». 
 
 Alexander,  the  Alabarch,  wrote  a  book 
 to  prove  that  animals  are  endowed 
 with  reason,  138  n. 
 
 Alexander  VI.,  Pope,  309,  312 
 
 Alexandria,  fusion  of  Greek  philosophy 
 and  Jewish  religion  took  place  in, 
 114  ;  benefit  conferred  on  the  world 
 by  Alexander  in  founding,  114  : 
 opinions  of  various  authors  on,  114  ?i. ; 
 position  and  commercial  advantages 
 of,  114  ;  its  literary  and  other  at- 
 tractions, 114,  115  ;  number  and 
 influence  of  the  .lews  in,  115  ;  gran- 
 deur of  the  Cieat  Synagogue  of,  115 
 and  //.  ;  becomes  the  .-rat  of  the 
 wealth  and  intellect  of  t  he  Mast,  115  ; 
 influence  of  Greek  surroundings  on 
 the  Jews  of,  132 ;  the  exegetical 
 school  of,  and  its  object,  182  ;  its 
 leading  teachers — Clement  of,  183- 
 187  ;  and  Origen,  183-203 
 
 Alexandrian  exegesis,  nature  and  origin 
 of,  11  ;  period  during  which  Li  1 
 12  ;  hermeneutic  principles  of,  22  ; 
 influence  of  Philo  in,  22  :  its  influ- 
 ence on  the  Biblical  studies  of  the 
 ( Ihristian  I  Shurch,  ill;  tie  w  i 
 of  Philo  its  chief  monument,   in. 
 
 tin'  rise,  progress,  and  influen 1, 
 
 111  ei  s.</.  ;  the  Septuaginl    and  its 
 influences,     116-128 ;  iding 
 
 founders  and  expounders.   128 
 
496 
 
 Index. 
 
 Aristeas,  128  ;  Aristobulus,  128-136  ; 
 Philo,  136-158  ;  three  schools  of,  137; 
 nature  and  influence  of  Philo's  sys- 
 tem, 136-158  ;  summary  and  result 
 of  the  system  of,  153  ct  scq.  Sec 
 also  under  Aristeas,  Akistobulis, 
 and  Philo. 
 
 Alexandrian  Judaism,  its  contributions 
 to  the  history  of  exegesis,  125  ct  scq. ; 
 nature  of  an  Alexandrian  of  the 
 school  of  Philo,  133  ;  voice  of  an 
 Alexandrian,  158  ;  theory  of  inspira- 
 tion, 217 
 
 Alexandrianism,  expounders  of  the 
 philosophy  and  exegesis  of,  111-158  ; 
 the  legacy  of,  156  ;  a  Divine  progress 
 observable  in,  157 
 
 Allegory,  use  made  of,  in  Alexandrian 
 and  Patristic  exegesis,  22-26  ;  appli- 
 cation of  the  principles  of,  to  the 
 Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  31,  32  ;  the 
 most  essential  contribution  of  Alex- 
 andrian Judaism  to  the  history  of 
 exegesis  is  the  method  of,  126  ct  scq.  ; 
 influence  of  the  writings  of  Aristeas 
 and  Aristobulus  on  the  method  of, 
 128  ct  scq.  ;  how  the  method  of, 
 arose,  131  ;  the  Alexandrian  Jews 
 find  this  method  ready  to  their  hands, 
 134  ;  the  Jews  imperatively  driven 
 to,  136  ;  Philo's  works,  the  epitome 
 and  development  of  the  principles  of, 
 137 ;  Philo's  mode  of  dealing  with, 
 142-146  ;  nature  of  Philo's  system  of, 
 155  ;  Arnobius  on  the,  of  the  Gentile 
 philosophers,  167  11.  ;  allegory  the 
 child  of  Rationalism,  193  ;  general  re- 
 marks on,  193  ii.  ;  Baur  points  out  the 
 origin  of  the  system  of  interpretation 
 by,  194  n.  ;  Origen's  system  of,  194 
 etscq.  ;  limitation  of  typology  and, 
 by  some  English  divines,  195  n.  ; 
 Basil  the  Great's  opposition  to,  220 
 n.  ;  Rationalism  the  origin  of,  230  n. ; 
 Jerome's  views  on,  231-234 ;  St. 
 Augustine's  use  of,  237  ;  injury  done 
 to  the  sense  of  Scripture  by  the 
 method  of,  237,  238  ;  prevalence  of, 
 among  the  Fathers  generally,  239- 
 242  ;  tbe  daughter  of  Rationalism, 
 249  ii.  ;  the  Venerable  Bede  adopts 
 a  system  of,  248,  249  ;  views  of  the 
 Schoolmen  generally  on,  249-303 ; 
 of  Tyndale  on,  300  ;  of  Erasmus  on , 
 321  ;  Luther  rejects  the  validity  of, 
 328  ;  Calvin's  view  of,  345  ;  English 
 theologians  opposed  to,  353  n.  ; 
 Patristic  reasons  for  adopting,  459 
 
 "  Amalthaea's  horn,"  125 
 
 Am-ha-arets,  meaning  of  the  term, 
 59  n. 
 
 Amharatsim,  or  boors,  59  n. 
 
 Amoraim,  or  commentators,  origin  of 
 the,  80  ;  the  labours  of,  produce  the 
 Jerusalem  Talmud,  81  ;  Rabbiua 
 Abina,  the  last  of  the,  82 
 
 Amos,  339  n. 
 
 Amos  v.  2,  Rabbinical  explanation  of, 
 76  and  n. 
 
 dvaywyr),  Eueherius's  use  of  the  word, 
 24  n. 
 
 Analogia  fidei,  meaning  of,  as  used  by 
 the  Reformers,  332 
 
 "Analogy  of  faith,"  misapplied  use  of 
 the  expression,  13 
 
 "Analogy  of  Scripture,"  subordination 
 of  Scriptural  study  to  a  nominally 
 so-called,  26 
 
 Anaxagoras,  285  ii. 
 
 Angels,  views  of  Schoolmen  regarding, 
 292  and  n. 
 
 Anselm  of  Laon,  and  his  interlinear 
 glosses,  251 
 
 Antioch,  the  School  of,  system  of  exe- 
 gesis of,  210-212  ;  Cardinal  Newman 
 on,  211  ;  nature  of,  212  11.  ;  founder 
 and  leading  teachers  of,  212  11.  ctscq. 
 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes,  his  destruction 
 of  the  books  of  the  Law,  16 
 
 Antoninus,  436,  446 
 
 Antonius  L.  Verus,  81 
 
 Apocalypse,  Luther's  opinion  of  the, 
 336 
 
 Apologia,  Stephens's,  321 
 
 Apollo,  what  the  worshippers  of,  did 
 when  Tyre  was  besieged,  8 
 
 Apollos,  Lather  the  first  to  make  the 
 now  commonly  accepted  conjecture 
 that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was 
 written  by,  336  n. 
 
 Aqiba,  Rabbi,  his  strict  adherence  to 
 the  Oral  Law,  62  ii.  ;  account  of  his 
 life  and  doctrines,  71-79 ;  nature  of 
 his  extravagant  and  fantastic  exegesis, 
 71  ;  remonstrances  of  certain  Rabbis 
 regarding  it,  71  ;  account  of  his 
 courtship  of  his  wife  Rachel,  72 ;  said 
 to  be  the  only  Rabbi  who  entered 
 Paradise  alive,  73  n.  ;  examples  of 
 his  system  of  exegesis,  73-79  ;  the 
 five  precepts  which  he  gave  to  Rabbi 
 Simon  Ben  Jochai,  77  11.  ;  his  death, 
 78  ;  authorities  on  Aqiba  and  his 
 work,  78  11.  ;  opposed  to  the  use  of 
 any  translation  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 119  ;    reference  to,  294 
 
 Aquila's  version  of  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 
 tures, 118  and  n.,  119  and  n. 
 
Index. 
 
 497 
 
 Aquinas,  Thomas,  22  ;  his  influence 
 on  scholastic  exegesis,  269  :  authori- 
 ties on  bis  works  and  teaching,  269  : 
 his  system  df  exegesis,  269-272  ; 
 Tholuck  on,  269  ii.  ;  Erasmus  on, 
 269  re.  ;  Tope  Leo  XIII.  on,  269  re.  ; 
 Natalia,  Bucer,  ami  Ventura  on, 
 269  a.  ;  Renai]  on,  -71  />..  ;  liis  re- 
 mark on  A.ugustine,  282  ;  en  tin 
 phrase,  "Lei  there  be  light,"  295; 
 character  of,  301 
 
 Aristeas,  account  of  the  letter  of  the 
 Pseudo-,  127  and  re. 
 
 Aristobulus,  nature  and  influence  of  bis 
 writings,  125-131;  examination  of  his 
 statements — that  Greek  philosophy 
 is  borrowed  from  the  Old  Testament, 
 129  ;  that  the  tenets  of  the  Greek 
 pbilosophersare  to  be  found  in  Moses 
 ami  the  Prophets,  130  ;  Dean  Stanley 
 on,  131 
 
 Aristotle,  influence  of  his  works  on 
 the  mediaeval  Church,  263;  twenty 
 
 of  the'  Fathers  Speak  disparagingly  of 
 him,  '263  ;  Gregory  of  Nazianzus's 
 opinion  of  him,  263  re.  ;  Jerome's. 
 263  re.  ;  Roger  Bacon's,  263  re.  ;  his 
 works  become  known  through  the 
 medium  of  Spanish  .lews,  264  ;  and 
 bis  influence  rapidly  spreads,  265  ; 
 in  the  Sorhonne  it  was  decreed  thai 
 to  contradict  Aristotle  was  to  con- 
 tradict the  Church,  265  ;  Luther  on, 
 266  n.  ;  references  to,  282,  289  n. 
 
 Arndt,  John,  accusations  brought 
 ilnst,  363 
 
 Arnobius  mi  the  allegory  of  the  Gentile 
 philosophers,  167  a. 
 
 Arnold,  Dr., on  rightly  comprehending 
 Scripture,  28  ". 
 
 Articles,  the  Thirty-nine,  on  the  Holy 
 Scriptures,  Ait.  vi.,  369  n. 
 
 Ashi,  Rabbi,  completes  and  systematises 
 the  Gemara,  82 
 
 Assassinations  of  princes  justified  by 
 Scripture  example,  39 
 
 A  st  rue,  429 
 
 Athenagoras,  ami  his  work,  171  and  //. 
 
 ••  Atonement  of  the  I  lock,"  a  en  tom  of 
 
 the    Polish    .leWS,    101 
 
 Augustine,   his    influence    on    rari  a 
 modes  of  exegesis,  24  :  endorses  the 
 seven  rules  of  Tichonius,  24,  26  ;  his 
 
 reproach  to  the  I  fonatists,  80  ;  his 
 mistaken  view  of  the  First  Epistle  of 
 St.  John,  31  ;  his  application  of  the 
 method  to  Le.i,  )ia  t. .-.  3 1 . 
 32;  on  the  teaching  of  the  Holy 
 Scriptures,  -12  ;  bis  partiality  for  the 
 
 Septuagint,    125 ;    his  warnings  to 
 
 Jerome,  :.''_'  I  n .  ;  has  been  termeil 
 "the  oracle  of  thirteen  centuries," 
 234  ;  he  is  greater  as  an  apologisl 
 and  theologian  I  ban  as  an  interpreter 
 of  Scripture,  234  ;  his  natural  and 
 acquired  capabilities,  234  ;  effect  of 
 bis  character  and  works  on  theology, 
 the  Church,  and  the  world,  235;  he 
 believed  in  the  inspiration  of  the 
 Seventy,  235  re.  ;  defects  of  his 
 system  of  exegesis,  236  ;  his  use  of 
 allegory,  237,  238  ;  authorities  on 
 bis  work  as  a  commentator,  239  n.  ; 
 injury  done  to  interpretation  by  tin 
 allegoric  method,  238,  23ii  ;  remark 
 of  Rupert  of  Deutz  on,  261  re.  ;  and 
 of  Thomas  Aquinas,  282  ;  the  wise 
 caution  of,  293 
 Aulus  Gellius,  343  ,>. 
 
 Authors  quoted  or  referred  to: — 
 
 ABELARD,   29,    43    re.,    253-256  and 
 
 ns.,  259  u.,  261  and  a.,  266  and 
 
 n.,  269  t?..,  281,  28!'  a. 
 Abravanel,  Dou  Isaac,  33  it.,  83,  461, 
 
 464 
 Abtalion,  83  n. 
 A  i  acius,  227 
 
 Adler,  Dr.  Hermann,  446 
 Adrianus,  23  re.,  26  n.,  219  re. 
 Aelian,  120  re. 
 Aeneas  Sylvius,  309,  313 n. 
 Aeschylus, 
 Ag  it  ban  ides,  127 
 Agobard,  252  n.,  369  and  a. 
 Ag]  Lppa,  I  '"i  nelius,  36  a. 
 Ainsworth,  33  //. 
 Albert,  22 
 
 Albert,  Archbishop,  324 
 Albert  us  Magnus,  253  a.,  265,  268  re., 
 
 2*5-287    and   ns.,   2S9   v.,    291     (1 
 
 296  re.,  301,  460 
 Albo,  Joseph.  67  a.,  388,  464 
 Alcuin,  247  a.,  251,  253  a.,  420 
 Alexander,  111  and  //.,  115,  129 
 aider,  the  Alabarch,  138  n. 
 Alexander   ol    Hales,    253    a.,    - 
 
 291  a.,  293  a.',  301 
 Algarrati, 
 
 Amalt  ic,  253  ».,  26  I  a. 
 Amama,  :;7'.' 
 Ambrose,  38  a.,  117  /-..  124,  166 
 
 168  n.,   171  a.,    189,   203  ai  d   n  . 
 
 205  ami  a.,   206  and   n..   218  n., 
 
 215  //..   222,   2  11,   247,  248,   262, 
 
 263,  317     - 
 Ambrose,  Antpert,  2  17 
 AmesiuSj  379 
 
 K   K 
 
49S 
 
 Index. 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 Amiel,  355 
 Ampere,  247,  289  n. 
 Aiian,  R.,  443,  444 
 Anaxagoras,  135,  136 
 Andrewes,  Bishop,  243 
 Angelomus,  206  n. 
 Anselm,  176,  221,  253  and  n.,  255 
 
 and  7i.,  261,  280 
 Anselm  of  Laon,  12,  250 
 Anton  de  Nebrissa,  280  n. 
 Antonius,  Bishop,  297 
 Aphraates,  219  n. 
 Apollinaris,  227,  254  n. 
 Apollonius  Molo,  127 
 Apuleius,  282  n. 
 
 Aqiba,  Rabbi,  65,  72-75,  80,  118  v., 
 119,  134,  442,  443,  448,  450,  454, 
 460 
 Aquila,  118,  119,  120,  221,  229 
 Aquinas,  Thomas,  22,  164  to.,  237  n., 
 257,  265,  266  n.,  269  n.,  276  and 
 n.,  282  and  to.,  285-288  n.,  291,  293 
 to.,  295,  301,  313,  318  and  n.,  358 
 Aramah,  Rabbi  Isaac  ben,  31 
 Archangelus,  279  n. 
 Arekka,  R.  Abba,  82 
 Ariosto,  313  n. 
 
 Aristeas,  116  to.,  117  n.,  127,  134 
 Aristides,  207 
 Aristo  Pellaeus,  38  n. 
 Aristobulus,  127-131,  134,  140,  143 
 
 n.,  169 
 Aristotle,    129,    138,  156,   247,    253 
 ».,  261-266  and  ns.,  466,  468,  469 
 Arius,  170  n. 
 Arminius,  328,  379 
 Arnauld,  243 
 Arndt,  John,  363 
 Arnobius,  167  n. 
 Arnold,  Dr.,  28,  42 
 Arnold,  Matthew,  114  ?i. 
 Aron  R.,  443 
 Artapanus,  127 
 Artemon,  263 
 
 Athanasius,  176  n.,  202  and  to.,  241 
 Athenagoras,  171,  179  and  n. 
 Atling,  Jac,  379 
 Atling,  J.  H.,  379 
 Aucher,  130  n.,  137  «.,  138  «.,  140 
 Augustine,  22,  24,  26  and  n.,  30  n,, 
 31,  32  n.,   38  n.,  42,  43  n.,  117, 
 124,    125,    163   to.,    166   n.,    168 
 and  n.,  176  n.,  189,  205  n.,  208 
 and  n.,  212  and  n.,   220-222,  224 
 n.,  227  n,,  230  n.,  231  n.,  241,  243, 
 246-248,  255  n.,   259  n.,   260  n., 
 262,  270,  278  7i.,  282  and  n.,  290, 
 293-295  ii.,  312,  313,  317  n.,  318, 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 
 337,  342  7i.,  346  n.,  352,  459,  460, 
 
 468,  476 
 Aurotinus,  Cornelius,  314  n. 
 Aventinus,  289  n, 
 
 Bacox,  Lord,  41  n.,  251  n.,  257  7?., 
 
 263  ii.,  271,  284,  289  and  n.,  291, 
 
 293  and  n.,  353  11.,  407,  427,  465, 
 
 470 
 Bacou,  Roger,  274  7i.,286and7!.,  310, 
 
 340  n. 
 Bahr,  380 
 
 Bahrdt,  F.  A  ,  400,  406 
 Baier,  264  n.,  362,  371 
 Baldwin,  361  n. 
 Barbeyrac,  163  n. 
 Barclay,  19  n. 
 
 Barnabas,  169,  170,  172  ii.,  189,  191 
 Baronius,  202  to.,  313  n. 
 Bartolocci,  82,  93 
 Basil,   38  n.,    187  t?.,   202   and  n., 
 
 206  7i.,  220  7i.,    295  n.,    317  n., 
 
 346  n. 
 Bassus,  207 
 Baur,  139  n.,  168  to.,  181  n.,  194  v., 
 
 289  n.,  368  n.,  384,  412,  414-416, 
 
 418,  467 
 Baxter,  243,  377,  380,  383 
 Bayle,  343  n.,  380,  388 
 Beard,  308  n.,  312  ».,  315  n.,  322, 
 
 338  7i.,  343  71.,  361  n. 
 Bede,   165  n.,  168,  248  and  n.,  249 
 
 and 7i.,  251 7t.,  257  n.,  274,269  n., 
 
 301  and  n.,  420,  460,  468 
 Bellarmine,   296   to.,   300,    311,   314, 
 
 321,  326,  350,  374,  375 
 Bembo,  308  n. 
 Bengel,  388,  392-394 
 Benson,  Archbishop,  182  and  n. 
 Bentley,  428 ' 
 
 Berengarius,    253-255  and  ns. 
 Bernard,  St.,33  7i.,  253,  255-257 and 
 
 ns.,  260  11.,  261  n. 
 Bernard  Sylvester  of  Chartres,  296  7?.. 
 Beveridge,  377 
 Beza,  328,  342  and  n.,  351  to.,  372. 
 
 376 
 Bibbiena,  308  to. 
 Binder,  287  n.,  292  n. 
 Bingham,  377 
 Black,  Mr.,  84 
 Ulayney,  Dr.,  470 
 Bleek,  375,  411,  416 
 Blunt,  Rev.  Prof.,  163  to. 
 Boccaccio,  309 
 Bochart,  130  n.,  389 
 Boethius,  264,  468 
 Bohme,  Jacob,  379,  384,  385 
 
Index. 
 
 499 
 
 Authors  continued— 
 
 Bohringer,   178  m.,   182  m.,  198  m,, 
 
 202  n.,  205  n.,  222 
 Bolingbroke,  17 
 
 Bonaventura,   43  and  n.,   259,    273 
 andm.,  292,  293w.,  295  n.,  296,  301 
 Bonet,  390 
 Bonn,  207  n.,  372 
 Bossuet,  17  n.,  33  n. 
 Bouquet,  247  »- 
 Bredtbaupt,  239  n. 
 Brentius,  32,  372 
 Brenz,  342  and  n. 
 Bretsehneider,  60  //. 
 Brewster,  359  n. 
 Broughton,  Hugh,  388 
 Brown,  :H3  n. 
 Browning,  305 
 Brucker,    245  m.,    247   n.,    265    n., 
 
 283  7i.,  289  n.,  470 
 Bryan,  377 
 
 Bucer,  328,  342  and  n.,  372,  376 
 Buckle,  40  n. 
 Buddeus,  66  ».,  101,  202  n.,  203  n., 
 
 205  n.,    251  n.,    252  n.,    277  n., 
 
 27S  «.,  346  n.,  380,389,  434,  446, 
 
 461,  466 
 Bngenhagen,  342  and  n. ,  372 
 Bull,  Bishop,  176  n.,  377 
 Bnllinger,  342  and  n.,  372 
 Bunaen,  417 
 
 Bunyan,  John,  324,  377 
 llmk,   392 
 Bnrmann,  379,  386 
 Burnet,  377 
 I '.in  ton,  194  n. 
 Butler,  377 
 Butler,  Archer,  407  m. 
 Muxtorf,   60  n.,   74,  83,   86,  88,  92, 
 
 93,   96,    98  «.,  99,   101,  104,  371, 
 
 374,  388,  389,  446 
 
 Calixt,  328,  383,  361  n.,  363,  365, 
 
 879,  383,  467 
 Calovius,  22,  358  and  n.,  362,  364- 
 
 3C6,  368  and  n.,  371,    373,    374, 
 
 383,  397,  426 
 Calvin,   163  n.,    1S2,     216,    218  m., 
 
 291,  322,   328,  331,  336,  342  353 
 
 and   ,/s.,    360  n.,    361,   372,    376, 
 
 882,  472 
 Camararius,  310  w.,  328,  342  and  «., 
 
 364  n. 
 <  lampanns,  331 
 Canne,  I7'i 
 Cappell,  379 
 Cappellus,  .1..  828  ti. 
 Cappellus  Ludovicue,  328  ».,  386,387 
 Caranza,  320 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 
 Carlstadt,  324,  331,  336,  341 
 
 Carpenter,  Prof.,  52  n. 
 
 Carpzov,  363,  371,  382,  388 
 
 Cams,  404 
 
 ( laaaubon,  374 
 
 ( laspe,  Joseph  Ibn,  33  n. 
 
 Cassiodorus,  24  n.,  26  and  n.,  240 
 
 Castell,  33  n.,  86,  377,  389 
 
 Cave,  210  m.,  254  n.,  377 
 
 Cellarius,  119  n 
 
 Celsius,  389 
 
 Cclsus,  17,  174 
 
 Cerinthus,  177  anil  /;. 
 
 Chaeremon,  127,  196  n. 
 
 Chalcidius,  282  m. 
 
 Chalybaus,  161  n.,  412 
 
 Chauaniah  ben  Chizkiyah,  49  n. 
 
 Ch.-mnitz,  328,  342,  358,  368,  467 
 
 Cheyne,  Mr.  103 
 
 Chiarini,    19m.,  35  n.,  59  n.,  63  n., 
 
 64  n.,  73,   82,  84,  85,  89,  90,  92, 
 
 94,  101 
 Chillingworth,  162  n.,  163,  377 
 Chrvsippus,  135,  140,  187  n.,  195  n., 
 
 202,     211-215,    220-222,     230  »., 
 
 236  n.,  242,  270  n. 
 Chrvsostom,  317  n.,  329,   333,  471, 
 
 475 
 Chytraeus,  342  n.,  372 
 Cicero,  64  n.,  135,  136,  144,  468 
 Clark,  Samuel,  374 
 Clarke,  Dr.,  398,  470 
 Clement  of  Alexandria,  24  m.,  109, 
 
 116».,  117,  12Sm.,  129  71.,  143«., 
 
 165m.,  166  m.,  168  and  m.,  172 m., 
 
 182-187  and  ns.,  189,  208,  263  n. 
 Clement  of  Rome,  13,  122 
 Clericus,    224  m.,   234  m.,    328,  374, 
 
 379,  383 
 Cobet,  121  m. 
 Cocceius,  33  7i.,   58  m.,    278  m.,  379, 
 
 385,  386,  460 
 Cochlaeus,  317  /(.,  361 
 <  loleridge,  Hi:i  n.,  -I'-W  n. 
 Colet,  Dean,  •!:,  1  a.,  255  andm.,  282. 
 
 286  m.,     296  v.,     300  //.,    318  n., 
 
 321,  334,  853  ».,  404 
 .    Collier,  Jeremy,  17  m. 
 ( lomenins,  Amos,  390 
 Comte,  308 
 I  -i  niitiis,  198  /'. 
 Conybeare,  299  n. 
 Copernicus,  126,  427 
 Cotalerius,  170  ». 
 Cousin,  21'.'  ».,  258,   260  n„   26  I 
 
 266  ».,   167,   163 
 Coverdale,  816 
 Cramer,  250  <'. 
 
 K    K    '2 
 
500 
 
 Index. 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 Cremer,  386  n. 
 Crenius,  19  n. 
 Creuzer,  135  n.,  255  n. 
 Crutwell,  470 
 Cudworth,  279ti.,  377 
 Cusa,  Cardinal  de,  313  n. 
 Cusanus,  297  %. 
 Cuvier,  426 
 Cyprian,   123,  180-182  and  vs.,  216, 
 
 241,  317  5i.,  326 
 Cyril,  201,  263 
 
 Dahne,  104m.,  116».,  121  n.,  125»., 
 
 129  n,  130  n.,   142  n.,  149,  452, 
 
 456 
 Daille,  163  n.,  187  n.,  229  «.,  428 
 Damasus,  224  n. 
 Damian,  Peter,  228  n.,  284 
 Danaeus,  467 
 Dannhauer,  362,  376 
 Dante,  23  n.,  47,  221,  262,  267,  292, 
 
 298,  312,  313  n. 
 Darwin,  427 
 David  of  Dinant,  264 
 Davies,  Eev.  J.  LI.,  206  n. 
 De  Broglie,  209  n. 
 De  Dieu,  379 
 Delacluze,  283  n. 
 De  Lamennais,  3,  308 
 De  la   Hue,   199  ?i.,  200  n.,  202  «., 
 
 207  n. 
 Delitzsch,  32  and  ??..  67  n  ,  128  n., 
 
 210,  218  ?i  ,  224,  2J4 
 Democritus,  135 
 Denck,  307 
 Deuecke,  363 
 
 Denis,  M.  J.,  115  n  ,  133  n.,  197  n. 
 Derenbourg,  18  n.,  19  n.,  55  n.,  64  n. , 
 
 66  n.,  68  n.,  69,  78,  133  n. 
 Descartes,  379,  383,  402,  427,  428 
 De  Thou,  39  n. 
 Deutsch,  Dr.,  80,  89,  91,  93,  94,  120, 
 
 442 
 Deutschmann,  363 
 Deutz,  Rupert  of,  312  n. 
 De  Wette,  32,  142  n.,   312  n.,  319, 
 
 325,  411,  419 
 Deyling,  65  n.,  389 
 D'Herbelot,  5:3  n. 
 Diderot,  266  n. 
 Didier,  246 
 
 Didymus,  195  n.,  202,  227,  259  n. 
 Diestel,  176  ».,  203 n.,  219  n.,  221  «., 
 
 227  v.,    253  n.,    254  n.,    277  v., 
 
 295  it.,    337  n.,  339  n.,    342   v., 
 
 343?i.,  383,  389,  405 
 Dim,  I,,  de,  328 
 DilheiT,  388 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 
 Dillman,  451 
 
 Diodore  of  Tarsus,  220,  227,  240  n. 
 
 Diodorus,  23  ».,  114  71.,  213 
 
 Diog.  Laert.,  135  n. 
 
 Diogenes  of  Babylon,  135 
 
 Dionysius,  254 
 
 Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  206,  209  //. 
 
 Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  313 
 
 Disraeli,  Isaac,  69 
 
 Doddridge,  383 
 
 Dbllinger,  139  «...  313  n.,  323,  365 
 
 Donaldson,  227  n. 
 
 Donne,  294  n.  ■ 
 
 Dopkes,  76 
 
 Doring,  278  and  n. 
 
 Dorner,  203?*.,  309,  311,  323,  338- 
 342  ns.,  349  n.,  358  n.,  360  v., 
 362  n.,  366  n.,  368  n.,  374,  379, 
 382,  386,  391,  405,  407,  408,  411, 
 416 
 
 Dorotheus,  209 
 
 Dorpius,  320  n. 
 
 Dositheus,  115  n.,  361  ».,  393 
 
 Doucin,  202 
 
 Drummond,  321 
 
 Drusius,  328,  379 
 
 Duns  Scotus,  280,  281,  289  n.,  290 
 and  n,,  292  n.,  301 
 
 Du  Pin,  233  n. 
 
 Durandus,  261  n.,  286  n.;  293  n.. 
 295  ii. 
 
 Durham,  33  n. 
 
 Durham,  Bishop  of,  188 
 
 Ebraed,  383  7i. 
 
 Edersheim,  64  n.,  86 
 
 Edwards,  Principal;  392 
 
 Eisenmenger,  65  n.,  93,  105 
 
 Eldad, 166  n. 
 
 Eleazar,  Rabbi,  19  n. 
 
 Eliezer,  R.,  70,  86,  87,  119  n.,  445 
 
 Ellicott,  Bishop,  476 
 
 Elster,  251  n.,  283  n. 
 
 Empedokles,  135,  138,  285  n, 
 
 Emser,  329,  331 
 
 Engelstoft,  224  n.,  234  n. 
 
 Ense,  V.  von,  390 
 
 Epiphaniiis,  117,  119,  125  n.,  177  n., 
 181  n,,  202  71.,  208  n. 
 
 Episcopius,  Simon,  163  7?,.,  328,  379 
 
 Erasmus,  203  n.,  223  n.,  229  n., 
 251  7i.,  260  n.,  265  and  n.,  269  n., 
 280  and  n.,  284,  289  ?(.,  290  and 
 n.,  293  and  «,,  299,  310?;-.,  313 n., 
 314  and  n.,  315  n.,  321,  322,  325, 
 328,  343k,,  355,  358,  42S,  475 
 
 Erlangen,  325 
 
Index. 
 
 501 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 Ernesti,  219  a. 
 Erpenius,  379 
 
 Ersch,  30  re.,  115  re.,  385  re. 
 Etheridge,    17,  53  n.,  6]  ».,  70,  78, 
 
 84,  90,  92,  93,  95,  97,  100 
 Eucherius  Lugduensis,  24,  26  re.,  240, 
 
 295  a. 
 Eupolemos,  127 
 Euripides,  7  ».,  138 
 Eusebius,  16  n.,  116  ».,  119  ».,  124 
 
 128,  129».,  130  ».,  137  ».,  14-2  ». 
 
 1  13  ,i.,    171   //.,    171  ,/.,    176  a. 
 
 177   a.,    181  a.,    182  re.,    185  re. 
 
 198  ».,  201  re.,  202  and  ».,  203  ?i. 
 
 206  //.,  207  ".,  209  and  ».,  229  ». 
 
 •J:! -J 
 Euscliins  of  i  'ar    nva,  227 
 Eusebius  of  Emesa,  219  n.,  227 
 Eustathius  of  Antioch,  227 
 Eustochium,  257 
 
 Evans,  -Miss  ("  George  Eliot  "),  413 
 Ewald,  33  re.,  38  n.,  51  n.,  53  n., 
 
 .".7  ».,   67  ».,  103,   115  re.,  130  re., 
 
 137  re.,  143  re.,  149,  151,  154,  221, 
 
 230,  415,  416,  462 
 Ewing,  Bishop,  236  /'. 
 Ezra,  Ibn,  33  re.,  70,  83,  89,  92,  95, 
 
 274,  384,  445,  462-464 
 
 FA<  iM'I's  Hermianensis,    213  n., 
 
 346  //. 
 Fabricius,  128,  210  n.,  251  v.,  254  re., 
 
 277  re.,  280,  313  re.,  326,  328,  334 
 Farrar,  Dr.  A.  S.,  402,  412 
 Fecht,  363  and  a. 
 Feuardentius,  171  i>.,  316  n. 
 Feuerbach,  112,  414,  416 
 Fichte,  353  n.,  384,  401,  409 
 Filelfo,  308  re. 
 Firmilian,  202 
 Flacius  [llyricus,   Matthias,  277  »., 
 
 328,  333,  342  and  ».,  352,  364 
 Flier,  -'^'< 
 Flottes,  2:55  re. 
 Find  1.  36  n. 
 Forcellini,  1 1  •"  «. 
 Forster,  22^  ».,  221 
 Fortunatianus,  227 
 Fortunatu  •,  2  16 
 Fowler,  :'.7  7 
 
 Franck,  12:.  u,  130  ».,  1^1 
 Francke,  '.'7,  876,  382,  101,  112 
 Frank.  862  ».,  363  ■  <..  163 
 Frankel,  78,  92,  1 16  ».,   L19  ■  '.,  120 
 
 /'.,  125  ''-.  1  12  ii. 
 Franker,  i"'i 
 French,  125  /'. 
 Freppel,  Abb6,  1 87  >'. 
 
 Authors  continued  — 
 Friederich,  33  re. 
 
 Friedlander,  22  a.,  63  ;;.■>.,  7<>,  7\ 
 
 80,  81,  463 
 Frigerio,  270  n. 
 Fritzsche,   216  re.,    219  v.,   223  re., 
 
 250  re.,  360  re. 
 Fuller,  388 
 Funk,  165  re.,  171  /'. 
 Fiirst,  66  re.,  82 
 
 Gabler,  402 
 
 Gallandi,  128  ,1  ,  219  v. 
 
 Galle,  341  re. 
 
 Gaon,  1!.  Serira,  02,  461 
 
 Gass,  383,  386,  411 
 
 I  rebirol,  Ibn,  464 
 
 Geiger,  22  re.,  35  v.,  66  v.,  02,  120 
 
 n.,  315 
 Geldardt,  Dr.,  412 
 Gellert,  401 
 ( rennadius,  26  n. 
 Gerando,  Dr.,  466 
 Gerhard,  350  re.,  358,  362,  366  and 
 
 re.,  371,  373,  376,  387 
 Gerlach,  154 
 Gerson,  John,  253  re.,  278  re.,  279, 
 
 301,  330 
 Gerson,  Levi  Fen,  -".no  and  //.,  315 
 ( icsmius,  1 15  //.,  22  I 
 Gfrorer,  38  re.,  128,   140,  148,  149, 
 
 452 
 Gieseler,  184  v.,  196  ».,  201  ».,  209 
 
 n.,  254  re.,  308  ».,  309  /*.,  312  n., 
 
 324,  411 
 Gilly,  229  re.,  232  n. 
 Ginsburg,  19  n.,  31  .■-.,  33  .'..  36  &., 
 
 73,  74,  81,  84,  95-98,104-106,  446, 
 
 451,  462,  464 
 Gitten,  '''1  ».,  68  re.,  69,  79,  80,  86, 
 
 442 
 Glaire,  Abb6,  360  re, 
 Glassius,  104,  376 
 Glaukon,  135 
 
 Gobar,  Steph.,  201  n.,  206  n. 
 Gobel,  372 
 
 Goethe,  87,  365  ».,  391,  101 
 t  lomarus,  8'  9 
 
 1 1 hvin,  389 
 
 Gotteschalc,  253 
 
 (  rOW,   2  17   ii. 
 
 Gnericke,  1-2  /..  201  „.,  2< 
 
 Gurtler,  379,  886. 
 
 Gnttmann,  364  /'. 
 
 Gratiger,  I 
 
 Gratz,  1!'  ■"..  53  n,.,  56  «.,  66  /'.,  68 
 ,1..  7",  72  71.  7-  38,  B9,  91-93,  97, 
 11  l  116  ns.,  118,  12-  <.,  277. 
 462,  164 
 
502 
 
 Index. 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 Greg,  Rathbone,  246  n. 
 Gregory,   23  re.,  168,  201,    202  and 
 
 re.,  213  re.,  240  arid  re.,    246  and 
 
 re.,  247  re.,  250,  268,  270,  274,  277 
 
 re.,  295  re.,  298  re. 
 Gregory  of  Nyssa,  195  re.,  202,  222. 
 
 259,  373 
 Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  32  re.,  195  re., 
 
 226,  243,  263  n.,  291  re.,  293  re. 
 Gregory  of  Tours,  246  and  re. 
 Grocyn,  313  re. 
 Grostete,  260  re. 
 Cirotius,  33  n.,  40  re.,   163  re.,  243, 
 
 263  re.,  328,  351,  365  and  re.,  374, 
 
 376,  379,  380,  383,  387,  445 
 (i ruber,  30  re,  115  re.,  385  re. 
 Grynaeus,  234  re. 
 
 Haag,  343  re.,  351  re. 
 Haddarshan,  Simeon,  83 
 Hagenbach,  360  re.,   372,   391,   405- 
 
 407,  409,  411 
 Hales,  377 
 Hallam,   39  re.,   40  re.,  247,  258  re., 
 
 280,  314  re.,  316  re.,  470 
 Halle,  208  n. 
 Haller,  402 
 
 Hallevy,  Rabbi  Jehudi,  92 
 Hamburger,   18  re.,   50  re.,  60  re.,  64 
 
 re.,  66  re.,  101,  104 
 Hammond,  377,  380 
 Hampden,  240  re.,    266  re.,   281  re., 
 
 283  re.,  311  re. 
 Harding,  260  re. 
 Harduin,  212  re. 
 Hare,  165  re. 
 Harms,  Claus,  413 
 Hartmann,  393 
 Hase,  341  re. 
 Hasselbach,  289 
 Haureau,    245   re.,    247  re.,   253  re., 
 
 257  re.,  261  n.,  265  re.,  280,  281 
 
 ii.,  282  re. 
 Hausrath,  88,  100,  103,  114  n.,  116 
 Havernick,  119  re. 
 Haymann,  462  re. 
 Haymo,  250 
 Hazlitt,  334 
 
 Hegel,  384,  412,  413,  428 
 Heidegger,  F.,  374,  387,  389 
 Heine,  32 
 Heinz,  206  re. 
 Heliodorus,  203  re. 
 Heloise,  260  re. 
 Helvidius,  228  re. 
 
 Hengstenberg,  120  n.,  277,  402,  417 
 llcnke,  383 
 Hennischius,  33  n. 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 Heppe,  339  re. 
 Herakleides  of  Pontius,  136  ami  n.. 
 
 138,  243 
 Heraklitus,  129  re.,  138 
 Herder,    33  re.,  91,   320,   377,  380, 
 
 399,  403,  405,  406,  409,  410 
 Hergenrother,  Cardinal,  212,  256n., 
 
 258  re.,  265  re,  280  re.,  283  n. 
 Hernias,  171  and  re. 
 Herodotus,  120  n. 
 Hershon,  21  re.,  36  n.,  50  »,,  59  v., 
 
 65  re.,  66  re.,  72,  74-77,  102,  442 
 Hesiod,  127,  135,  138 
 Heumann,  284  re. 
 Hervaeus  Dolensis,  286  re.,  297  n. 
 Herzfeld,   51  re.,   52  re.,   115  re.,  110 
 
 re.,  119  re.,  125  re.,  128  re. 
 Herzog,  53  re.  114  re.,  251  re.,  281  »., 
 
 365  re.,  380,  383 
 Hierax,  202 
 
 Hierouymus,  24  re.,  234  ?t.,  251  n. 
 
 Hilary,  22,  38  re.,  168  re.,  169,  174 
 re.,  188  re.,  189,  203  and  re.,  204, 
 205  re.,  213  re.,  227,  229  re.,  262, 
 270,  286  and  re.,  317,  334,  347, 
 461,  463 
 
 Hilsenfeld,  148,  166  re.,  168  re.,  416. 
 452 
 
 Hillel,  18  and  re.,  19  re.,  21,  22  and 
 re.,  24,  50-53  and  res.,  64-69  and 
 res.,  77,  80,  134,  224,  443 
 
 Hingenfeld,  106 
 
 Hippolytus,  169,  170  n.,  201  n.,  227, 
 232 
 
 Hirsehfeld,  104,  149 
 
 Hirzel,  33  re. 
 
 Hitzig,  33  re.,  117  re. 
 
 Hody,  116  re.,  117  n.,  120  ».,  128, 
 223,  374,  387 
 
 Hoeschel,  D.,  23  re. 
 
 Hollaz,  or  Hollatius,  27  re.,  351  ?/., 
 
 366  and  re.,  371,  373 
 
 Homer,  130  re.,  135,  136,  138,  406 
 
 Hoogstraten,  315 
 
 Hooker,  243,  344  re.,  353  re.,  372,  376, 
 
 470 
 Hoorubeck,  379 
 Hopkins,  Bishop,  436 
 Host,  209  re.,  213  re. 
 Hottinger,  389 
 Howe,  377 
 Huet,  188  ft.,  189?^,  200;j.,  208  »., 
 
 209  ft. 
 Hug,  33  re. 
 Hugo,  252,  255  ?;.,  257  and  ».,  259  n., 
 
 265,  268  n.,  273  n.,  286  n.,  295  re. 
 Hugo  of  St.   Cher,  260  re.,   274  re, 
 
 276  re,  295,  31 6 
 
Index. 
 
 503 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 
 Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  26  «.,  82,  277  a.. 
 
 280  n. 
 IIiiiuNul.lt,  W.  von,  411 
 Huniiius,  346  and  //. 
 Hurwitz,  79,  92,  94 
 Hus,  John,  279,  312 
 llutten,  Ulric  von,  313 
 1 1  &tter,  362 
 Hyde,  377 
 
 Ignatius,  167  ».,  171,  172  »., 
 286  re. 
 
 Irenacus,  99,100,  109,  117 ».,  119  »., 
 122,  124,  166,  170  and  re.,  173  re., 
 174  and  n.,  176  and  n.,  177,  179 
 ».,  180  re.,  183  and  re.,  196  ».,  212 
 re.,  216,  227,  280  n.,  317  re.,  326 
 
 Isaac,  Rabbi,  120  n. 
 
 Ishmael,  Rabbi,  19  m.,  22,  72,  73 
 
 Isidore  Pelusiota,  137  /<. 
 
 Isidore,  168,  468 
 
 Jacobi,  33  n. 
 
 Jaraczewsky,  270  n. 
 
 Jason  of  Cyrene,  126 
 
 Jeremie,  187  n. 
 
 Jerome,  St.,  14».,  15,  23,  30  n.,  31, 
 78,  87,  89,  117-119,  122  re. -124, 
 1  [-2  n.,  145,  169-171  and  ns.,  171 
 •>.,  17.".  re.,  17(i  ».,  180  ?t.,  182 
 ».,  1S3  n.,  187  «.,  188  n.,  189, 
 194  7i.,  195  re.,  198  7i.,  202  t;.,  203 
 ami  re.,  205  and  re.,  206  //.,  212 
 ami  //.,  213  71.,  220,  222-221.  227- 
 230  and  ns.,  233-235,  240  n.,  241, 
 246,  248,  257,  260  n.,  263  re.,  270. 
 274,  277  7i.,  290,  294,  295  re.,  31  1. 
 317,  337,  342  re.,  345,  346  re.,  459, 
 460,  468,  475 
 
 Jesus,  s<m  cit'  Sirach,  117-119 
 
 Jewell,  Bishop,  327,  376 
 
 Jochai,  !»7  ami  //. 
 
 Joehaiiaii,   Rabbi,  21   //. 
 
 Johanan,  R.,  69,  70 
 John  of  Damascus,  248,  259  n.,  262 
 and  n. 
 
 John  of  Salisbury,  43  //.,  257  "..  259 
 re.,  264  re.,  268  re,  278  ».,  290, 
 292  re.,  ■-".'!  and  re.,  296  />.,  310 
 
 Jose,  R.,  7o,  71 
 
 Josophua  78,  1 15  /'.,  1 16  a.,  117, 
 121  a..  126  re.,  1  18,  154,  152,  153, 
 
 i  i    I,'.    7".  7"..  86,  90,  445,  455 
 •  lost.   1!»  //.,  52».,   "'I  /'.,  .'>.">  /'..  :"p7  //., 
 
 58  /'..  >;i  ,'..  6  1-68  rw.,  70,  72,  74, 
 77.   78,  92,  115  >i.,  12J 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 Jourdain,  264  n. 
 Jovinian,  227,  228  and  re.,  233 
 Jowett,  154 
 Juda,  Rabbi,  60  n.,  65 
 Julius  Africanus,  207,  208   and 
 
 220 
 Julian  of  Eelane,  240 n. 
 Junius,  379 
 Jurgens,  324 
 Justin   Martyr,   117,  123,   129,   166, 
 
 171  ».-174,  189,  191,  201  re.,  230 
 
 re.,  239,  263,  346  re. 
 Justinian,  119,  125  n.,  254  re.,  316  re. 
 Juvenal,  17 
 
 Kaiiana,  R.,  86 
 
 Kahnis,    391,    393,    403,    405,    407. 
 
 417 
 Kalisch,  445 
 Kant,  399,   L28 
 Karnitol,  97  n. 
 Kay,  Dr.,  103 
 Kaye,   Bishop,   172  re.,  178  v.,  183- 
 
 187  ami  ns. 
 Keach,  35:!  n. 
 Keble,  344  re. 
 Keim,  67  re.,  113  re.,  142  re.,  154,  334, 
 
 415 
 Ki-mpis,  Thomas  a,  474 
 Cennicott,  388 
 Kepler,  41  //. 
 Kibm,  239  /'. 
 Kimedonc,  475 
 Kimmel,  361  re.,  393  re. 
 King,  Dr.,  90 
 Kircher,  388 
 
 Kitto,   lit  a.,  73,  95,  102,  104 
 Klaus.n.  26  n.,  117  n.,  225re.,  239  «., 
 
 243,  277  re.,  342//.,  343  ».,  360/(., 
 
 371,  386,  391 
 Kleanthes,  138 
 Klein,    Grand-Rabbi,    88,    89,    91, 
 
 98  re. 
 Cling,  467 
 
 Koch,  John,  385,  sec  also  Cocceius 
 Knstlin.   326,   329,   331,   335-337  »., 
 
 840  a. 
 Krause,  337  »'. 
 Krochmal,  :•:  re.,  92,  L63n. 
 Kuenrii.  1 15  ».,  128re.,  208%. 
 Km/.   860  a.,    862  ■/.,    363  71.,    375, 
 
 382,    104,   117,  420 
 
 Lai  mi  \nv  820  re. 
 
 Lactantius,  80  re.,  41  re,,  128,  169, 
 
 170  re. 
 Ladd,  Professor,  294  ».,  888 
 Lampe,  177  //.,  376,  379, 
 
;04 
 
 Index. 
 
 Authors  continue! — 
 
 Landerer,  264  n.,  281  n.,  360  n. 
 Lane,  468 
 
 Lanfiranc,  253,  254?;.,  260??,,  264  n. 
 Lange,    33??.,    266//.,    299%.,    325, 
 
 363??.,  371,  398 
 Langenstein,  289 
 Lardner,  185  n. 
 Las  Casas,  308 
 Launoy,  266  ??. 
 Lavater,  401 
 Law,  William,  384 
 Le   Clerc,    Vict,    316  n.,    376,  379, 
 
 380 
 Lecky,  39??.,  40  n. 
 Lee,  afterwards  Arclibishop  of  York, 
 
 320  n. 
 Leibnitz,  398,  399,  410,  42S 
 Leighton,  377 
 Leiri,  R.,  90 
 
 Leller,  138%.,  142  ??.,  143,?. 
 Le  Long,  277  ??. 
 Le  Maistre,  308 
 Leon,  97 
 Leontius,  219  n. 
 Lequien,  466 
 
 Lessing,  17,  307,  400,  401,  409 
 Leusden,  388 
 Levita,   Elias,  51  v.,   106,    388,  450, 
 
 451,  464 
 Lewes,  G.  H.,  253  >;.,  470 
 Ley  decker,  379 
 Libanius,  17 
 Liebner,  265??. 
 Lightfoot,     Bishop,    93,    166,    188, 
 
 213??.,  219??,,  220??.,  328,  377 
 Limborch,  346  ??,,  379 
 Linus,  127 
 Lipsius,  176  n. 
 Littre,  413 
 Livy,  321 
 Lobeck,  135  n. 
 Locke,  290  ??,,  353??..,  377 
 Lbckler,    223  ??.,     224  ??,,     226  ??., 
 
 227  ??,,    228  ??,,     230  ??.,     232  n., 
 
 234  n. 
 Lombard,  Peter,  32  ??.,  253  ??.,  255  ??., 
 
 259,  262,  318 
 Longland,  295  and  %. 
 Lbscher,  363,  388 
 Low,   22%.,  73,   79,  92,  11  in.,  150, 
 
 294,  445,  451,  461 
 Lowth,  33??.,  377,  383 
 Liicke,    207  n.,    240  n.,    407,    411. 
 
 473 
 Lully,  Raymond,  36?).,  280 
 Lupton,  248??.,  296  n.,   300??.,  321, 
 
 334,  353  n.,  466 
 Lupus,  246  n. 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 
 Luther,  30-33  and  ns.,  104,  118,  134, 
 163,   179  and  n.,  184  ».,  222  n., 
 
 236  n.,  243,  260,  265,  266  n.,  27:. 
 ??.,  211  and  re.,  279  and  n.,  280, 
 284,  286,  291  ??.,  293,  297-299, 
 305,  307,  308,  311,  312,  314-317, 
 319  328,  330,  333,  337,  338,  340- 
 343  and  ns.,  345,  346  and  n.,  348 
 and:??.,  349,  351,  352,  355,  358, 
 360,"  361,  364,  368,  376,  393,  403, 
 426,  462,  470,  475 
 
 Luzzato,  64  n.,  92 
 
 Lydius,  379 
 
 Lysimachus,  127 
 
 Maccovius,  379 
 Machiayelli,  309 
 Mackuight,  195??. 
 Mai,  145,  202??,,  208  n. 
 Maimonides,  82,  84,  89-91,  95,  101, 
 
 275,  315,  384,  462,  463 
 Maitland,  Dr.,  196%.,  232??,,  247  n., 
 
 324,  364??. 
 Maitre,  247  n. 
 Magius,  251%. 
 Major,  G.,  339??. 
 Majus,  J.  H.,  385 
 Manetho,  127 
 
 Mangey,  129??,,  134, 135??.,  137??.,  141 
 Manning,  294  ??. 
 Manset,  247  ??. 
 
 Marchesinus,  Joannes,  280  ??. 
 Marcellinus,  202  n. 
 Marcion,  17,  29,   175,   177,   181  ??., 
 
 235  %.,  308,  351 
 Maresius,  379 
 Mariana,  39  ??,,  40  ??. 
 Marsh,  Bishop,  195  ??,,  300  n. 
 Marsilio  of  Padua,   236  ??.,   282   ,?., 
 
 293  ??. 
 Martene,  261  ??. 
 Martianus,  Capella,  247  ??. 
 Martin,  Raymond,  93 
 Martinus  Bellius,  351 
 Massuet,  175 
 Mathesius,  265  %. ,  324  n. 
 Matter,  115  ??,,  182  ??. 
 Maurice,  F.  D.,  179  ??,,  ISO??.,  260 
 
 ??.,  262.??.,  429 
 Mazzini,  308  and  ??. 
 McCaul,  Dr.,  59  ??,,  464 
 Medad,  166%. 
 
 Meier,  33  ??,,  80,  254  ??,,  448 
 Melanchthon,  32,  163  ??,,  243,  265  ??., 
 
 321,   322,  327-329,  331,   336,  341 
 
 and  ??,,  342  ??,,  345,  350,  351  and 
 
 ??.,  361  and  ??,,  364,  368,  383,  466, 
 
 467,  470 
 
Index. 
 
 505 
 
 Authors  continw 
 Melito,  32  a.,  171  a. 
 Mendelssohn,  384,  399-401 
 Mentzer,  368 
 Mercer,  342  a.,  372 
 Merx,  19  a.,  21  a.,  213  a.,  218  a., 
 
 219    ».,  268  a.,  269  a.,    270  a., 
 
 271  //.,   27-".  a.,    277    a.,    291   a., 
 
 343  ».,  349  a.,  352  a. 
 Methodins,  201,  201  n. 
 Metrodorus,  135 
 Meturgemans,  116 
 Menschen,  93 
 Meyer,  275  a.,  277  n.,  280  ».,  305, 
 
 313 ».,  3*3  a.,  374,  376,  380,  386, 
 
 403,  405,  418 
 Michelet,  10  a. 
 Middleton,  163,  173 
 Migne,   21  a.,  26  n.,  201  «..,  202  a., 
 
 216    a.,   246   a.,   247  a.,  260  »., 
 
 271  ra.,  272  a. 
 Mildert,  van,  Bishop,  195  a.,  300  a. 
 M  ill,  208  a. 
 
 Milligan,  Prof.,  167  ».,  169 
 Milman,  78,  83,  92,  248  ii.,  254  »., 
 
 298   ?t.,    301  a.,    316  a.,    319  »., 
 
 462 
 Milton,  163,  164  a.,  251  a.,  359  a., 
 
 367 
 Minucius  Felix,  121  n. 
 Moller,  233  a. 
 Monnier,  247  n 
 Montacnte,  346 
 Montet,  254  n. 
 More,  Henry,  36  n. 
 More,  SirT.,  320  a. 
 Morgan,  377 
 
 Morinus,  J.,  225  a.,  387,  388 
 Mosheim,  183  a.,   L88,  193  a,  283  a. 
 Motley,   11    a. 
 Muir,  17,   119 
 
 Muller,  J.,  128,  142  a.,  365  a.,  411 
 Mullinger,   2  17   a.,  248  a.,  262-264 
 
 as.,  365  a. 
 Muuk,  32  a.,   78,  265  a.,  449,  462, 
 
 463 
 Munter,  21 ,;  a. 
 Miintzer,  307,  341 
 Muratori,  40  a. 
 M  U8culus,  3  12  and  a.,  372 
 Muslims,  135 
 Myslenta,  364 
 
 N  M  MM  \MIU-.    102 
 
 Nahnm,  I.'..  74,  75,  80,  1 12,  147 
 Nathan,    Rabbi,    18  a.,   32  a.,    35, 
 
 .".7  a.,  68  a.,  89 
 Nathan,  Rabbi  Isa  ik,  l"'1' 
 Neale,  J.  M.,  Dr.,  296  a.,  297    , 
 
 A  ut  hni's  continued — 
 Neander,    26   a.,    133    n.,    180   a., 
 
 184  v.,   209   a.,  211-213  ns.,   236 
 
 a.,  411,  414,  415 
 Newman,    Cardinal,    14  a.,    170   a., 
 
 176   a.,  180  n.,    181  a.,   191  »., 
 
 209  ii.,  211,  212,  221  a.,  251  n  . 
 
 253  w.,   254  a.,  270  a.,   286  a., 
 
 327,  470 
 Nicephorus,  202  a.,  207  //. 
 Nicolai,  401,  406,  462 
 Nicolas  of  Lyra,  318,  334  and  a.,   162 
 Niebuhr,  180  n. 
 Nitzsch,  411 
 Notker,  226  n. 
 Norris,  Archdeacon,  176  n. 
 Nosselt,  405 
 Nourisson,  236  a. 
 Noyes,  Dr.,  33  a. 
 Numenius,  198  n. 
 
 Oberlin,  401 
 
 Occam,  William  of,  281,  282,  302 
 
 Oecolampaditis,  342 
 
 Oehler,  114  a.,  234  a.,  350  a.,  386 
 
 Olshausen,  1 1 1 
 
 Olympiodorus,  32 
 
 Onias,  115  a. 
 
 Onqelos,  119,  315 
 
 Oporin,  Joachim,  31 
 
 Optatns,  182 
 
 Origen,  15,  23,  26  a.,  33  a.,  115, 
 118  a.,  119  a.,  120  a.,  123,  124 
 131,  134,  166  a.,  168  ».,  171  a. 
 174a.,  176  a.,  177,  179  a.,  182  a., 
 183  and  a.,  185  ».,  187-191,  193- 
 203  and  as.,  207-209  a.,  215-217, 
 220  and  ».,  223,  226,  227,  229- 
 232,  239-241,  263  n.,  286,  294, 
 295  n.,  307,  333,  337,  346  a. 
 
 Orpheus,  135 
 
 Osiander,  328,  361,  368 
 
 Otho,  53  a. 
 
 Otto,  172  n. 
 
 Oudin,  313  a. 
 
 Ovid,  296,  343  a.,  468 
 
 Owen,  John,  374,  377,  132 
 
 Ozanam,  223  a. 
 
 Pamphiltjs,  202,  209  a. 
 Panormita,  ">||S  a. 
 Pantaenus,  183,  185 
 Papias,  1 71  ".,  177  /'. 
 Parens,  846  a. 
 Paris,   Dr.,    170 
 
 Parker,  353  a. 
 Pannenian,  I B2 
 Parmenidi  s,  I  38 
 Pascal,  182,   133 
 
506 
 
 Index. 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 
 Paschasius  Radbectus,  250,  253  n. 
 
 Pattison,  291  n. 
 
 Paulinus,  166  n.,  168,  232  n.,  226 
 
 Paulla,  257 
 
 Paulus,  Dr.,  418 
 
 Paulus  of  Burgos  (Solomon  Levita), 
 
 278  and  n.,  293  n. 
 Peacock,  Bishop,  313  n. 
 Pearson,  377,  470 
 Pelagius,  234  n.,  240  n. 
 Pellicanus,  315,  342  n. 
 Perez  of  Valeutia,  Jacob,  26  n.,  279 
 Petavius,  38  m.,  170  n.,  288 
 Peter  Lombard,  289  n.,  344  n.,  358 
 Peter  Martyr,  345  n. 
 Petrarch,  309 
 Petronius,  245  n. 
 Pfaff,  385  ». 
 Pfeft'erkorn,  315  and  n. 
 Pfeiffer,  258  n.,  366  n.,  374,  389 
 Pforzheim,  315  n. 
 Philirjpson,  128  n. 
 Philo'  12,  22  and  n.,  23,  37,  38  n., 
 
 Un.,  79,  100,  109,  111,  114-117, 
 
 120-122,   125-134,     136-156,    158, 
 
 172,  173,  182,  186,   187  n.,   189, 
 
 191  and   n.,   194,    198,   201,   452, 
 
 453,  455-458,  460,  463 
 Philo  [the  elder],  126,  143  n. 
 Photius,   109,   137,  166  n.,    170  n., 
 
 201  n.,  202m.,  206  m.,  207  n.,    214 
 
 and  n.,  250  n.,  254  n. 
 Picus  of  Mirandola,  279  and  m.,  282, 
 
 300  n.,  309 
 Pierius,  202 
 Pindar,  138 
 Pinner,  Dr.  Moses,  92 
 Pitra,  269  n. 
 Planck,  364  n. 
 Plato,  126,    129,  131,  133,  135,  136, 
 
 138,    140,    142,     148,    154,     185- 
 
 187  m.,  189  n.,  193,  196,  198  n., 
 
 217,  263,  269  m.,  406 
 Pliny,  114  n.,  166  n. 
 Plotinus,  255  and  m. 
 Plutarch,  101,  114  m.,  383 
 Pococke,  377 
 Politian,  308  m. 
 Poole,  252  m.,  260  n.,  296  n.,  343  n., 
 
 389,  466 
 Pope,  254  m.,  278  %.,  293  n.,  318  n. 
 Polycarp,  171,  172m.,  174, 177  and  m. 
 Polychronius,  219  n. 
 Pompouatius,  308  m. 
 Porphyry,  17,  198,  198  m.,  282 
 l'orrde,  Gilbert  de  la,  466,  467 
 Porson,  178  n. 
 Posidonius  of  Apamea,  127 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 Pothinus,  174 
 Piantl,  264  m.,  267  ». 
 Prideaux,  76,  377 
 Primasius,  287 
 Proclus,  254  m. 
 Prudentius,  168  n.,  468 
 Pseudo-Aristeas,  115  n.,  116,  128 
 Pseudo-Haymo,  268 
 Ptolemaeus,  175  m. 
 Putiendorf,  33  n. 
 Pusey,  Dr.,  163,  168  n.,  460 
 Pythagoras,  129,  135,  136 
 
 Qimchi,  David,  83,  315,  464 
 Qimchi,  R.  Joseph,  464 
 Qimchi,  R.  Moses,  464 
 Quensted,    27  n.,   333,  351  n.,    358, 
 362,  366  and  m.,  370,  373 
 
 Rabanus  MAur.us,  204,  250  and  «., 
 
 251  ».,  285,  297 
 Rabba,  Rabbi,  50 
 Rabelais,  292 
 
 Rambach,  366  n.,  371,  376,  379,  434 
 Rambam,  R.,  83,  97 
 Rappoport,  92,  132/;.,  150 
 Rashi(Rabbi  Solomon  Jizchaki),33  n., 
 
 50,   62  n.,  85,  95,  275  and  m.,  277 
 
 and  n,,  315,  334,  445,    462 
 Rathmann  of  Liibeck,  372 
 Ratram,  253 
 
 Raymond  of  Sabiende,  340  //. 
 Redepenning,  196  n. 
 Reeves,  163  //. 
 Reimarus,  400 
 
 Reinken,  Bishop,  187,  205  n. 
 Reland,  389 
 Pemigius,   204  and  n.,   252,  268  «., 
 
 270 
 Remusat,  259  m.,  266  n.,  466,  470 
 Reiian,  22  u.,  66  m.,  174  n.,  180  n., 
 
 264  n.,   265  m.,    270  >i.,    271   »., 
 '    294  %.,  363  n.,  375,  376,  383,  384, 
 
 404,  419,  470 
 Reuchlin,  35,  97,  101,  129  n. 
 Reuss,  96,  134,  168  n.,  181  n.,  219  n., 
 
 224  m.,  231  m,,  343  n.,  360  n.,  389, 
 
 403,  405,  433 
 Renter,  252  n. 
 Ribof,  231  n. 
 Richard  of  St.  Victor,  258  n.,  259  n., 
 
 277  m. 
 Richter,  137  n.,  219  n. 
 Ridderus,  265  n. 
 Riehm,  411 
 liiggcnbach,  415 
 hitter.  Bernard,  137  n.,  236  n. 
 Rivet,  376,  379 
 
Index. 
 
 507 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 Rouen,  Angelo,  278  n. 
 Romberg,  339  n.,  340  n.,  358  71. 
 Rosuelin,  253,  281 
 Robertson,  F.  W.,  334 
 Rosenraiiller,    186    n.,   201-203  ns., 
 
 205  «.,  212  ».,  219  n.,  284  n., 
 239  .-'.,  267  «-.,  275  w.,  277  ». 
 296  n.,  346  n.,  320  ». 
 
 ltousst'iiu,  400 
 
 Routh,  38  n.,  175  n.,  177  ».,  183?;., 
 
 2ii2  //.,  207-209  ns.,  22:;  n. 
 Rufinus,   188,   202,    205  //,,  206  »., 
 
 224  //.,  227-229  ami  ns.,  240  ». 
 Rupert  of  Deutz,  255,  26]  rt.,  268 n. 
 
 312  //. 
 Rupp,  202  v. 
 Rusbroek,  258  n. 
 
 Saadia,  R.,  53  n.,  315,  461-463 
 
 Sale,  275  11. 
 
 Salmeron,  299  n. 
 
 Salschutz,  86 
 
 San. lay,  215  /'.,  219-221  ns. 
 
 Savonarola,  279  and  //.,  309 
 
 Scaliger,  328,  389 
 
 Schaff,  202  n„  212  n.,  254,  293  v. 
 
 Schleiermacher,  344  ».,  412,  413 
 
 Schleusner,  457 
 
 Schlusselberg,  362  n.,  364  n. 
 
 Schmid,  11.,  383,  405 
 
 Schbttgen,  93,  389 
 
 Schrouk,  187  n.,  201-20:}  ns..  205»., 
 
 206  n.,  219  ».,  221  n.,   275,  385, 
 389 
 
 Schultens,  389,  445 
 
 Schiirer,  52  n. 
 
 Schwab,  L9  n.,  91,  92,  463 
 
 Schwarz,  411,  413,  417 
 
 Schwegler,  262  n.,  416 
 
 Scirweinitz,  Bishop  E.  de,  390 
 
 Schwenkenfeld,  37  1 
 
 Suott,  470 
 
 Seotus,  164  a.,  258 
 
 Scrivener  1  Dr.  i,  343  n. 
 
 Seebohm,  318  n.,  322,  353  n. 
 
 Selden,  377,  389 
 
 Sender,  26  n.,  92,  230,  402,  403,  409, 
 
 HO,  17:; 
 Seneca,  343  n„  468 
 Shakespeare,  2 16 
 Shammai,  65  67  and  //■>.,  134 
 Shemaia,  83 
 
 Shetach,  Simeon  ben,  19  n. 
 Shichard,  LOO  n, 
 Shuckford,  .".77 
 Siettert,  216  n.,  219  n. 
 Siegfried,  22  n.,  87  n.,   120  *.,   L32, 
 
 134,   138  ».,    1  12  n.,  1  18  L51,  L72 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 
 n.,    205  n.,  275  ».,  277  ».,   290, 
 
 291  ».,  334,  452,  456 
 Sigebert,  301  ». 
 Simon,  R.,  74,  77,  130  n.,  171,  20 
 
 223,  229  n.,  234  it.,  252  /<■.,  268  //., 
 
 277  n.,  334,  343  it.,  361  ».,  375,  1  M 
 Simon  Magnus,  172  n. 
 Sixtus    Senensis,    206   ».,    238  '/(., 
 
 249  ».,  270  ».,  274w.,  280//.,  289, 
 
 291  n.,  460 
 Smend,  48  ». 
 Smith,  182  n.,   206  ?i.,  207  «.,  224, 
 
 377 
 Smith,  Robertson,  370 
 Socrates,   129,   1SS,    202  n.,    208  n., 
 
 213  m.,  401 
 Solon,  138 
 Sonntag,  403 
 Sophocles,  138 
 Sozomen,  1S2  //,,  212  n. 
 Spannheim,  389 
 Specht,  219  n. 
 Spener,  Phillip,  390 
 Spenser,    164  n.,   355,  363  and    ,/.. 
 
 376,  377,  401,  412 
 Spinoza,  17,  83,  280,  383,  384,  397, 
 
 403,  418,  428 
 Spitta,  F.,  208  n. 
 Sprenger,  40  and  //.,  309 
 Stanley,  A.P.,  116  //.,  121//.,  131,423 
 Staupitz,  John,  312 
 Steinsuhneider,  92 
 Steitz,  24 
 Stelling,  401 
 Stephen,  343  n. 
 Stephens,  Robert,  321 
 Stesimbrotus,  135 
 Stier,  340  n. 
 Stieren,  175  n. 
 Stockl,  255  n.,  267  n. 
 Strabo,  114  //..  115 
 Strauss,    307,    384,    402,    410,     tl£- 
 
 417 
 Strobel,  T.,  341  n. 
 Stunica,  317 
 Suidas,  137  //..   142  n.,  203,  207  n., 
 
 2 1 3  n. 
 Suso,  258  n. 
 Swete,  213  n.,  21  l  n. 
 Symmachus,  221  n.  229 
 Bynesius,  ls7  ».,  254  n. 
 Syrus,  Ephraem,  171  //..  209,  210 
 Szinessy,  Dr.  Schiller,  s2 
 
 Tacitus,  17,  121  n.,  166  n. 
 Tanchum,  1.'..  164 
 Tarphon,  1«'.,  70 
 
 Tatian,    L35  //.,   171  and  it. 
 
508 
 
 Index. 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 Tauler,  258  n.,  355 
 Taylor,  Jeremy,  17  n.,   41  ».,   43  n., 
 
 57  n.,  62  n.,  242  m,,  292  ?i.,  329, 
 
 353  ». 
 Teller,  405 
 Tertullian,  30  n.,  38  rc.,  99,   121  n., 
 
 123,    124,    168,    169   n.,    171  w., 
 
 172  n,,   174  ».,  177-183  and  ns., 
 
 191,  212  and  w,,  216,  223  71.,  230 
 
 n.,  234k,,  263,  326,  346  n.,  368  «. 
 Thaumaturgus,  202 
 Theagenes,  135 
 Theodektes,  116 
 Theodore  of  Heraklea,  227 
 Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  33  %.,   125, 
 
 211,  212,  222,  240  n.,  346  n. 
 Theodoret,     123,     124   n.,    195    n,, 
 
 212  n.,  215,  219,  240 
 Theodosius,  66  n. 
 Theodotion,  221  n.,  224  n.,  229 
 Theodotus,  126,  263 
 Theognis,  138 
 Theognostus,  202 
 Theophilus  of  Antioch,  171,   179  n., 
 
 208  n.,  227,  368  n. 
 Theophrastus,  245  n. 
 Theopompus,  116 
 Thierry,  234  n.,  261  n. 
 Thiersch,  416 
 Thilo,  341  n. 
 Thirlby,  172  n. 
 Thirlwall,  Bishop,  297  n.,  369,  371, 
 
 376,  411 
 Tholuck,   230  n.,    260  n.,    269  n., 
 
 294  n.,  343  n.,  358  n.,  364,  372, 
 
 374,  383,  390,  401,  405,  411 
 Thomasius,  255  n. 
 Tibhon,  Ibn,  33  n. 
 Tiehonius,  24,  26  n.,  210,  237,  248 
 Tillemont,  26  n  ,  202  and  n. 
 Tillotson,  Archbishop,  348,  377 
 Tindal,  377 
 Tischendorf,  320  n. 
 Tostatus,  279 
 Tregelles,  320  n. 
 Trench,    193   n.,    234   n.,    235   n  , 
 
 237  n.,  239  n, 
 Trenel,  19  n. 
 
 Trevecka,  E.  Jones,  299  n. 
 Tribbechovius,  260  n.,  284  n.,  286  n., 
 
 289  n.,  466,  470 
 Trionfo,  August  in,  309  n. 
 Trithemius,  26  n.,  289  n.,  467 
 Trypho,  174 
 Turrecremata,  279 
 Turretin,  G.  A.,  376 
 Tunstall,  17 
 Tyndale,  17,  300,  316 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 
 Qbbekweg,  198  n.,  245  n.,  254  »., 
 
 259  n.,  265  n.,  282  n.,  283  n. 
 Uhllorn,  411 
 Ulfflla,  Bishop,  40 
 Ullmann,  258  n.,  280  n.,  312  n.,  411. 
 
 415 
 Umbreit,  33  n.,  411 
 Ussher,  374,  377,  387,  428 
 
 Vacherot,  139 n.,  \%2n. 
 
 Valcknaer,  128 
 
 Valens,  212 
 
 Valentinian,  168  n.,  177 
 
 Valentinus,  181  n.,  303 
 
 Valla,  Lorenzo,  284,  312-314,  428 
 
 Vallarsi,  240  n. 
 
 Valorius,  282  ra. 
 
 Van  Helmont,  36  n. 
 
 Van  Heusden,  282 
 
 Van  Til,  376,  386 
 
 Vatke,  412,  414 
 
 Vaughan,  258  n.,  260  n.,  269-271  ns., 
 
 279  n.,  289  n.,  313  n. 
 Venema,  386 
 Vertue,  353  n. 
 
 Victorinus,  188,  196,  202,  227 
 Vigilantius,  228  and  n. 
 Villari,  279  n. 
 Vincentius  Lerinensis,  179  n.,  182 n. 
 
 326 
 Virgil,  247  n. 
 Virgilius,  427 
 
 Vitringa,  376,  379,  386,  389 
 Vives  Ludovicus,  2S9  and  a.,  292  n., 
 
 470 
 Voetius,  379 
 Vogel,  A,,  26  n. 
 Volkmar,  416 
 Voltaire,  17,  397,  400 
 Voss,  374,  379,  3S7 
 
 Wace,  182  n.,  206  n,,  207  n.,  224 
 
 AVachner,  52  n.,  59  n.,  61  n.,  76,  SO 
 
 Wagenseil,  92 
 
 Wahner,  389 
 
 Walafrid  Strabo,  251  and  n. 
 
 Walch,  206  n.,  234  «,.,  240  n.,  251  »., 
 
 312  n.,  346  11. 
 Walther,  374 
 Walton,  377 
 AVarburton,  377 
 Wasmuth,  374 
 Waterland,  353  n.,  460 
 Watts,  Isaac,  377 
 Weber,  19  n.,  51  n.,  57??,,  59  %.,  61- 
 
 63  ns.,   66  n.,  69,  74,  91,  93,  95, 
 
 98,  442 
 Wegscheider,  408 
 
Index. 
 
 509 
 
 Authors  continued — 
 Weigel,  374 
 Weill,   51-54   n*.,  56  n.,  57  ».,  59, 
 
 62  ».,  63  ».,   70,  90,  402 
 Weiss,   111,  415 
 "Wi'isziii-ki-r,  325 
 Wellhausen,  58  «.,  208  n. 
 Werenfels,  30 
 Werner,  255  n.,  292  n. 
 WernBdorf,  366 
 
 Wesley,  John,  40  ?i.,  324,  390,  393 
 Wessel,   John,  236  n.,   312  and  «,., 
 
 314 
 Westcott,  155  ».,  186,  188  n.,  189 
 
 ?i.,  207  «.,  209  71.,  220  71.,  223  «., 
 
 254  ».,  316  ?i.,  409 
 Wetstein,  93,  207  n.,  280,  376,  379, 
 
 170 
 
 "Whiehcote,   .",77 
 
 Whitaker,  300,  -".77 
 Whithy,  124  ».,  377 
 Whitfield,  .".77 
 Wiclif,  312,  313  n. 
 Wildenhahn,  363  n. 
 Williams,  78 
 Winer,  234  n. 
 Witsius,  379  n  ,  386 
 Witte,  363  n. 
 Wittich,  379 
 
 Wogue,  10,  11  a.,  31  ,>.,  32  a..  !'.■  r.. 
 116  ,i.,  117  a.,   112,  450,  455,  461 
 Wolff,  398,  399,  428,  4G1 
 Wollius,  473  /'. 
 Wordsworth,  Bishop,  196  n. 
 Wordsworth,  Professor,  L58 
 
 Xenophanes,  127 
 
 Zakkai,  Rabbi  Johanan  ben,  65 
 
 Zeller,  lit; 
 
 Zeno,  129  n,  136,  138 
 
 Zockler,  33  n.,  3 
 
 Zunz,    lit  ,,.,  62  a.,  69,  91,  92,   '.'7 
 
 118 
 Zwingli,  "lit  ,i.,  322,  328,  331,  340- 
 
 343,  349,  372 
 A\  k(  una,  2S0  n. 
 
 B. 
 
 Babyloni  \n  Gemara, completed  byRab 
 Abina,  12  ». 
 
 Bacon,  Lord,  attributes  the  paralysis  of 
 Bcieuce  to  theology .  il  n.,  his  re- 
 marks "ii  theological  compilations 
 and  glosses,  251  n.  ;  on  monastic 
 mysticism,  257  n.  ;  on  the  learning 
 of  the  Schoolmen,  289  n.  ;  on  their 
 nseless  speculations,  298  and  n.  :  on 
 1  li  theologians,  353  n. 
 
 Bacon,  Roger,  on  the  impossibility  of  a 
 translation  to  convey  the  exacl  sense 
 of  tlic  original,  260  n.  ;  on  the  works 
 of  Aristotle,  263  n.  ;  his  hostility  to 
 Aristotle  and  the  Fathers,  266  n.  \ 
 his  views  on  non-Biblical  branches  of 
 knowledge,  2N<>  ,i.  ;  on  the  theology 
 of  the  12th  century,  310 
 
 Bahrdt,  F.  A.,  his  influence  on  unbe- 
 lief, 400 
 
 Balfour  of  Burley,  352 
 
 Hampton  Lectures,  one  of  the  founder's 
 objects  in  instituting  the,  5  ;  re- 
 ference to,  311  a. 
 
 Bartholomew,  St.,  235 
 
 Barnabas  and  his  Epistle,  estimate  of, 
 and  of  the  influence  of  his  writings  on 
 early  exegesis,  167-170  ;  number  of 
 quotations  from  the  Scriptures  in, 
 168  n  ;  analysis  of  the  Epistle  and  of 
 its  allegorical  and  mystical  method. 
 167-170 
 
 Baronius,  282,  297 
 
 Basil  the  Great,  one  of  the  leaders  of 
 the  School  of  Antioch,  219;  he  stoutly 
 0]  i] loses  allegory,  220  n. 
 
 Baur,  Ferdinand,  his  account  of  the 
 origin  of  the  allegoric  system  of 
 interpretation,  194  n.  ;  his  attacks 
 on  Christianity,  notice  of,  414- 
 416 
 
 Baxter,  on  the  over-magnifying  of  the 
 Bible,  3*2 
 
 Bede,  the  Venerable,  his  works,  influ- 
 ence, and  system  of  exegesis,  248  :  is 
 reckoned  among  the  Fathers,  249  n.  ; 
 his  life,  301 
 
 Lellarmine  on  exegesis,  296?;.  ;  on  the 
 Papacy  before  the  Reformation,  311  ; 
 on  the  prejudice  against  grammati- 
 cal studies,  :>.^il 
 
 Bengel,  1  ;  the  life  and  labours  of, 
 and  their  influence  on  the  the  Jo 
 and  exegesis  of  the  17th  century, 
 392  ;  his  merits  as  a  man  and  as  an 
 exegete,  392-394  ;  value  of  his 
 Gnomon,  393  and  n.  ;  and  of  his 
 persona]  and  critical  work,  893, 
 394 
 
 Berengar  asserts  thai  God  is  a  logician, 
 289   • 
 
 Bernard,  St.,  the  father  of  the  mediaeval 
 mystics,  his  influence  on  the  <  Ihurch 
 and  the  age.  255  :  his  Homilies  and 
 
 '  '"ii nt .1  r\    on    the  <  lanticleSj   --:.">7 
 
 ami  ;/.  ;  his  self-denial,  801 
 
 Bernardites,  motto  of  the,  -_;;*:» 
 
 Beth  and  Aleph,  remarks  on  the 
 Hebrew  letters,  36 
 
.10 
 
 Index. 
 
 Beza,  his  work  and  influence  on  the 
 Reformation,  342  ;  regarded  by  the 
 English  Reformers  as  the  greatest 
 theologian  of  the  day,  342  n. 
 
 Bible,  stands  alone  among  sacred  books 
 as  the  record  of  a  progressive  revela- 
 tion, 4  ;  qualifications  required  of 
 translators  and  interpreters  of  the, 
 4,  5  ;  the  Genoese,  5  n.  ;  the  Nurem- 
 berg, 5  n. ;  assailed  by  modern  critics, 
 5  ;  tendency  and  result  of  modern 
 criticism,  5-8  ;  nature,  authors,  and 
 object  of  the,  6-8  ;  meaning  of  the 
 word,  6n. ;  necessity  for  distinguish- 
 ing between  the  letter  and  the  spirit 
 of  the,  7,  8  ;  list  of  lost  books  referred 
 to  in  the,  6,  7  ;  power  of  the,  on  the 
 minds  of  believers,  7,  8  ;  duty  of  the 
 believer  in  interpreting  the,  8  ;  con- 
 tains the  Word  of  God,  8  ;  how  it 
 must  be  treated,  8  ;  origin  and  nature 
 of  various  modes  of  exegesis  of  the, 
 8-11  ;  seven  main  periods  and  sys- 
 tems of  interpretation  of  the,  12  ; 
 misinterpretation  of  the,  among  the 
 Jews,  elevated  into  a  sacred  prin- 
 ciple, 12  n.  ;  origin  of  the  methods 
 adopted  during  these  periods,  13  ; 
 the  power  and  grandeur  of  the,  still 
 maintained,  notwithstanding  all  ad- 
 verse criticism,  13,  14  ;  what  the 
 different  schools  of  exegesis  have 
 done  for  the,  15 ;  its  enemies  in  all 
 ages  impotent  to  weaken  or  destroy 
 the  influence  of  the,  16  ;  enumera- 
 tion of  the  greatest  enemies  of  the, 
 17  ;  injury  done  to  the,  from  mis- 
 interpretations, 17  ;  seven  epochs  of 
 criticism  as  applied  to  the,  18  ct  scq.  ; 
 the  seven  rules  of  Hillel  as  applicable 
 to  the,  18n.  ;  wilful  distortion  of  the 
 language  of  the,  26,  27  and  n. ;  "Word 
 of  God  "  cannot  be  applied  indiscrim- 
 inately to  all  the  books  of  the,  28  : 
 Dr.  Arnold  on  rightly  comprehend- 
 ing the,  28  n.  ;  the  word  Testament 
 applied  to  the  two  divisions  of  the,  a 
 mistranslation  and  a  mistake,  30  ;  mis- 
 taken conception  for  seventeen  cen- 
 turies of  the  design  of  the  First  Epistle 
 of  St.  John,  31 ;  early  doubts  regarding 
 the  authenticity  of  the  hook  of  Eccle- 
 siastes  in  the,  31  ;  various  hypotheses 
 regarding  the  design  of  the  Song  of 
 Solomon,  32,  33 ;  incompetency  of 
 early  exegesis  to  render  correctly  the 
 first  verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  the, 
 34-38  ;  the  mistaken  interpretation 
 of  this  verse  responsible  for  positive 
 
 heresy,  37  ;  importance  to  mankind 
 of  mistaken  interpretation  of  the, 
 38  ct  scq.  ;  explanation  of  the  fact 
 that  the,  has  met  with  an  infinitude 
 of  varying  and  opposite  interpreta- 
 tions, 134  ;  the  eclecticism,  literalism, 
 and  rationalising  of  Philo  results  in 
 a  complete  perversion  of  the  mean- 
 ing of  the,  137-142  and  ns.  ;  Philo's 
 views  on  the  inspiration  of  the,  146, 
 147  ;  extraordinary  notion  of  Philo 
 and  others  regarding  the,  1 49  and  n.  ; 
 the  two  finest  pieces  of  Biblical 
 criticism  in  the  third  century  pro- 
 duced by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
 and  Julius  Africanus,  206,  207 ; 
 mystical  interpretation  of  the,  and 
 its  results,  211  ;  views  of  the  founder 
 and  teachers  of  the  school  of  Antioch 
 on  the,  210  ct  scq.  ;  Jerome's  opinions 
 on  the,  222  ct  scq.  ;  St.  Augustine's 
 system  of  interpreting,  236  ct  scq.  ; 
 the  Venerable  Bede's,  248  ;  St.  Ber- 
 nard and  the  mystics  on  the,  255  ct 
 scq.  ;  an  old  Pope's  remark  on  the, 
 258  n.  ;  views  of  Abelard  and  Peter 
 Lombard  on  the,  259-263  ;  of  Alber- 
 tus  and  of  Thomas  of  Aquino,  267- 
 272  ;  of  Bonaventura,  272  ;  of 
 Nicolas  of  Lyra,  274-278  ;  and  of 
 Schoolmen  generally,  278-300  ;  ser- 
 vices of  Lorenzo  Valla,  of  Jacques 
 Le  Fevre,  of  Reuchlin,  and  of  Eras- 
 mus to  the,  312-322  ;  above  all,  of 
 Luther,  323  ct  scq.  ;  list  of  those 
 who  maintained  the  single  sense  of 
 in  the  16th  century,  328  n.  ;  views 
 of  Melanchthon  and  Zwingli, 
 341  ;  of  Calvin,  342  et  scq.  ;  of 
 some  of  the  divines  of  the  post- 
 Reformation  period,  367  et  scq.  ; 
 of  Rathmann  of  Lubeck,  372 ;  of 
 the  Dutch  divines,  379  ;  of  Spener, 
 380  ;  of  Calixtus,  382  ;  of  Spinoza, 
 383  ;  of  Bohme,  384  ;  of  Koch,  385  ; 
 of  Cappellus,  386  ;  of-Wetstein,  391  ; 
 of  Bengel,  392 ;  of  Lessing,  399  ; 
 of  Reimarus,  400  ;  of  Semler,  402  ; 
 of  Herder,  405  ;  of  Kant,  407  ;  of 
 Schleiermacher,  409  ;  of  Hegel,  412  ; 
 of  Strauss,  413  ;  of  Baur,  414  ;  of 
 Neander,  414  ;  of  divines  of  the 
 English  Church,  420  ct  scq.  ;  free- 
 dom of  modern  criticism  of  the, 
 429 
 
 Bible,  the  Mazarin,  the  first  printed 
 book,  314 
 
 Bibles  of  Humanity,  sacred  books  so 
 called,  3 
 
Index. 
 
 511 
 
 Biblical  interpretation,  seven  main 
 periods  or  systems  of,  12 
 
 Bibliolatry  of  the  Reformers,  and  the 
 controversies  it  led  to,  369-376 
 
 Biel,  Gabriel,  266  «.,  282 
 
 Bilney,  martyr,  316 
 
 Binder,  on  the  useless  questions  of  the 
 Schoolmen,  292  n. 
 
 Bishops  and  Presbyters,  Jerome  on  the 
 original  identity  of,  230  n. 
 
 Bohme,  Jacob,  influence  of  his  mysti- 
 cism, in  liberating  the  Church,  38  I  ; 
 touching  incident  at  his  death,  384 
 
 Bolingbroke,  17 
 
 Bologna,  316  n. 
 
 Bonaventura,  on  the  fruit  of  sacred 
 Scripture,  43  ;  influence  of,  on  schol- 
 astic exegesis,  272;  his  system  of 
 exegesis,  273  ;  the  character  of,  301 
 
 Boniface  VIII.,  298  and  a. 
 
 Hooks  which  have  become  sacred, 
 exegesis  a  matter  of  necessity  for,  3 
 
 Books  quoted  or  referred  to — 
 
 Abelakh   (Remusat'a  Life  of),  259 
 
 ».,  466,  470 
 Abhandl.    v.    frcier  Untersuchen  d. 
 
 Kaiions,  403 
 Ahoda  Zara,  76 
 Aboth,  18  n.,  22  n.,  32  n.,  57  ».,  61 
 
 n.,  68  n. 
 Aboth  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  57  ».,  68  n. 
 Additiones,  278  and  n. 
 Advancement  of  Learning,   "-Til    «., 
 
 263  ».,  289  n.,  293  n.,  470 
 Ad.  Clironol.  Euseb.,  130  n. 
 Ad.  Ezeeli.  (Jerome),  118  n. 
 Adv.  Gentee  (Arnobius),  167  n. 
 Ad.  -Magnes.  (Ignatius),  167  n. 
 Ail  v.   I'raxean  (Tertullian)  174  n. 
 Adv.  Rufinum  (Jerome),  '129  n. 
 Ad.  Sea  |  mi  lam  (Cyprian),  II  n.,  180  n. 
 Aelteste   CTrknnde  des   Menscl  n 
 
 schlechts,  407  "• 
 
 Aglaojiliainiis,   136  //. 
 
 Aids  to  Faith,  476 
 
 Alcuin.  '1 17  ". 
 
 Alex.  Religionsphilos,  156 
 
 Allgemeine  Deutsche  Bibliothek,  1 01 
 
 AJlegg.  Home,'.  243 
 
 Alter  August  inns.  235  ". 
 
 Alt.  I'rot.  Dogmatik,  339  /'. 
 
 Altsvu.  Theol.,   19  a.,  62  //.,  63  »., 
 
 66  7i.,  74  ».,  98  n.,  442 
 Analogy.  '.Ml 
 Anot .  Hi-it.  Iso  „. 
 Ancienl  Baints,  221  "..  251  n. 
 Annales,  Hit;  »..,  289  n.,  297  ».,  467 
 
 Books  continued — 
 
 Annal.  d.  Universitiit  zu  Wittenberg, 
 
 364  n. 
 Ann.  Eccl.  232  n. 
 Annott.  in  1  Tim.  i.   6  (Erasmus's) 
 
 310  n.,  313  n.,  318  n.,  320  and  ??., 
 
 428 
 Anselm,  266  n. 
 
 Answer  to  Travers  (Hooker),  470 
 Antibarb.  Bibl.  324 
 Anti-Boehmius,  364 
 Anticritica,  374 
 
 Antid.  in  Cone.  Trident.,  353  n. 
 Anticjuitates  Theol.  Typicac,  386 
 Antt.  (Josephus's),   51  n.,  52  «.,  ."." 
 
 n.,  57  n.,  61  n.,  66  n.,  115-117  ns., 
 
 126  n.,  128  ?i.,  137  n.,  138  n. 
 Autiq.  Ebr.,  52  n. 
 Antitheses,  235,  351 
 Apocalypse,  176,  206,  247 
 Apol.  (Athenagoras),  171  n. 
 Apol.  (Jus.  Martyr),  117  n.,  129  n. 
 Apol.  (Melanchthon),  265  n. 
 Apologia  (Robert  Stephens's),  321 
 Apol.  (Tertullian),  121  n.,  178  n. 
 Apol.  ad.  Helois  (Abelard),  -'>1  n. 
 Apol.    c.    Rutin.    (Jerome),    170   v.. 
 
 187  n.,  202  n.,  222,  224  n. 
 Apologie  of  the  Fathers,  the,  163  n. 
 Apostol.  Fathers,  227  n. 
 Apparat.  (Calixtus's),  467 
 Apparatus  Criticus,  392 
 Areopagitica,  164  n.,  359  n. 
 Arians,  209  n. 
 Art.  Ev.  Homiletik,  38  i 
 Art.  Logie.  Rudimenta,  247  v. 
 Augustinus,  117  n.,  225  n. 
 Aurel.  Augustinus,  239  n. 
 Autolyc,  179  n. 
 Averroes,  264  n.,  265  and  ?^.,  270  n., 
 
 404 
 Avoda  Zara,  57  n.,  60  n. 
 
 I'.Ai-.v  Metzia,  63  n. 
 Baba  Bathra,  51  «..,  59  7i.,  66  ti,.,  68». 
 Bammidbar  Rabba,  86  n.,  87  n. 
 Bampton  Lectures,   195  n.,  210  7?., 
 
 266  7i.,  281    7i.,    283  n.,  299   n., 
 
 300  n. 
 Barnab.  Ep.,  165,  167-170  and  ns., 
 
 235  n. 
 Beantwortnng  der  Fragmente  eines 
 
 Ungenannten,   10  1  /'. 
 Bechinath  I  [apperushim,  100  n. 
 Bedenken,  355 
 Beresh.  Rabba,  120  n. 
 Beitrage  zur  Gesch.  d.  altesten  Auale- 
 
 gnng  in  Spracherklarung  d.  Alten 
 
 Teatamentes,  162 
 
512 
 
 Index. 
 
 Books  continued — 
 
 Bel.  J.  (Josephus),  115  %.,  136  re. 
 
 Berachoth  Introd.,  463 
 
 Berakhoth,  12  re.,  19  re.,  51  re.,  52 
 re.,  61-63  us.,  66  re. 
 
 Bereshith  Rabba,  61  re.,  66  n. 
 
 Bibelwerk,  33  re. 
 
 Bible,  La,  eiifin  Explique,  397 
 
 Bibliotheca  Biblica,  353  re. 
 
 Bibl.  Cod.,  137  re.,  166 
 
 Bibl.  Graec,  128  n.,  251  re. 
 
 Bibl.  Hebraica,  461 
 
 Biblia  Illustrata,  365,  397,  426 
 
 Bibliography,  182  n. 
 
 Bibl.  Hebr.^  36  re. 
 
 Bibl.  Lat.,  277  re.,  280  re.,  313  re. 
 
 Bibl.  Med.,  251  re. 
 
 Bibl.  Orient.  53  n. 
 
 Bibl.  Max.  Patristica,  24  re. 
 
 Bibl.  Patristica,  24  re.,  128  re.,  219, 
 234  re. 
 
 Bibl.  Rabb.,  82,  93 
 
 Bibl.  Sacr.,  277  re. 
 
 Bibl.  Sanct.,  36  re.,  238  re.,  249  re., 
 274  71.,  291  n. 
 
 Bibliotheca  Sancta,  460 
 
 Bibl.  Theol.  Epitome,  278  re.,  346  re. 
 
 Biogr.  Hist,  of  Philosophy,  253  re., 
 291 
 
 Bitsa,  65  re. 
 
 Brand  eburgicum,  359 
 
 Breviloq.  Prooeni.,  43  n. 
 
 Breviloq.,  259  re. 
 
 Briefe  das  Studiurn  d.  Theologie 
 betreft'end,  321,  325_,  380,  407 
 
 Briefe  liber  das  Studiurn  der  Theo- 
 logie, 91 
 
 Calendaritjm  Etymologicum,  286  re. 
 
 Cal vinus  Judaisans,  346 
 
 Carm.  (Paulinus),  166  re. 
 
 Cant.  181  %. ,  239  n. 
 
 Catal.  (Jerome's),   142,    174  v.,  180 
 
 n.,  182  n.,  183  «.,  187  n.,  202  n., 
 
 203  n.,  205,  207  n.,  209  «...  213 
 
 n.,  223  n. 
 Cat.  S.  E.,  (Trithemius),  289  n. 
 Catal.  test.  Verit.,  277  n.,  364  n. 
 Cat.  Virr.  Illustr.,  206  n. 
 Catena  Aurca,  204,  221  n.,  251  n., 
 
 253,  269  n.,  270  n. 
 Caten.  Praef.  in,  250  n. 
 Catholic  Tboughts,  403 
 Celestial  Hierarchies,  254  n.,  313  n. 
 Centiloginni,  281  n. 
 Chagiga,  20  n.,  Z5n.,  57n.,  6Bn.  477 
 Characterisini,  282  n. 
 Charges  (Bishop  Thirlwall's),  297  n., 
 
 369,  371,  376 
 
 Books  continued — 
 Christian  Biogr.,  81 
 Christi  Blut  und  Gerechtigkeit,  390 
 Cliristliche  Glanbenslehre,  412 
 Christologie,  277  %.,  418 
 CliTisthitiierische  Arorstellung,  363  n. 
 Chron.  Praef.  in,  224  n. 
 Chrysostomus,  220-222  ns. 
 Chulin,  81  n. 
 Church    Hist.    (Neander),    133    v., 
 
 180  n.,   181   7i.,   184  n.,    194  n., 
 
 202  n.,  209  n.,  212  n. 
 Church  of  the  Catacombs,  232  n. 
 Clavis  Scripturae  Sacrae,  24  n.,  328, 
 
 333,  342  and  n.,  364 
 Clement  d'Alexandrie,  187  n. 
 Cod.  (Photius),  100,  201  n.,  202  v., 
 
 206  n.,  207  n.,  214  n.,  254  n. 
 Cod.  Ah,  124  n. 
 Collo(p:iies  (Erasmus's),  2S0  n.,  320, 
 
 322 
 Cohort.  (Justin  Martyr),  129  «.,  156, 
 
 172  n.,  174  n. 
 Coheleth,  31  n.,  105 
 Commentaries,  353  n. 
 Comm.  in  Acts  (Jerome),  230  n. 
 Comm.  in  Amos  (Jerome),  2:!^  //. 
 Comm.    in   Eph.   (Jerome),   231  %., 
 
 232  ii. 
 Comm.  in  Esaiam  (Jerome),  231  re., 
 
 232  re. 
 Comm.  in  Ezech.  (Jerome),  230  re., 
 
 232  re. 
 Comm.    in   Gal.    (Jerome),    231   re., 
 
 232  n. 
 Comm.  in  Gen.  (Jerome),  328 
 Comm.  in  Isaiam.  (Jerome),  87 
 Comm.    in    Jer.    (Jerome),   232    n., 
 
 234  re. 
 Comm.  in  Joel  (Jerome),  353  re. 
 Comm.  in  Matt.   (Jerome),    200  «., 
 
 229  re.,  231  n. 
 Comm.    in   Mich.  (Jerome),  224  «., 
 
 231  re. 
 Comment,  du  N.  T.  (R.  Simon),  234  n. 
 Comm.  in  Osee  (Jerome),  232  re. 
 Comm.  in  Tit.  (Jerome),  231  re. 
 Commentary  of  Ambrosiaster,   the, 
 
 206  re. 
 Commentary  on  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
 
 361  re. 
 Comm.  on  Rom.  (Origen),  171  n. 
 Commentary  on  Zachariah, 
 Conimonitor,  179  re.,  326,  333 
 Compendium  Theologiae,  362 
 Complutensian  Polyglot,  317  '/(. 
 Cone.  Trident,  333,  467 
 Confes.  (Augustine's),    234   n.,    236 
 
 n.,  237  n. 
 
Index. 
 
 513 
 
 Books  continued — 
 ConfesBio  Belgica,  349  n.,  359  n. 
 Confessio  GalBcana,  349  a.,  359  n. 
 Confessio    (of   the    Greek    Chinch), 
 
 361  7i.,  393 
 ( lonfessio  Hafnica,  359a. 
 Confessio  Belvetica  Posterior,  359 
 ('  mfessio  Marchica,  359  n. 
 ( lonfessio  Saxonica,  359  /'. 
 
 <  lonfessio  Scotica,  359  n. 
 Confessio  Tetrapolitana,  359 
 Connection,  76 
 
 Consensus  Repetitus,  359,  363 
 Constt.  Clementis  V.  in  Cone.  Vien- 
 
 uensi,  316  n. 
 Contemp.  Rev.,  188  «..,  254  n. 
 C.  Academ.  (Augustine),  282  n. 
 C.    Adimant.  (Augustine),  234,  236 
 
 n.,  476 
 C.  Apion  (Josephus),  115  n.,  116  a., 
 
 121  a.,  128  n.,  130  ».,  136  n. 
 C.    Cels.    (Origen),    169  n.,  171  a., 
 
 185  a.,   187   a.,   194   ».,    195  n., 
 
 197  7i. 
 ('.  Ep.  Manicl  (Augustine),  236 
 ( lontra  Epist.  Parmeniani,  26  n. 
 C.  Eaustum  (Augustine),  123  a. 
 ('.     Hermog.    (Tertullian),    177    n., 
 
 178  n. 
 C.  Flacc.  (Philo),  115  m.,  137  n. 
 C.  Jud.  (Tertullian).  123  n. 
 C.  Marc.  (Tertullian),  30  a.,  123  n., 
 
 124  a.,  169  a.,  178  n. 
 C.   Praxeam.  (Tertullian),  38  n.,  178 
 
 M. 
 
 <  loran,  the,  119  a. 
 
 <  lorinthians,  the,  296  w. 
 ( !orp.  Apolog.,  1 7-  a. 
 
 ( lorpus  Julium,  359 
 ( lorpus  Pomeranicum,  359 
 pus  Prutenicum,  359 
 pus  Wilhelminum,  359 
 ( lorrectoria  Biblica,  260  a. 
 ( 'onvetoria,  27  1  /*. 
 ( lours  de  I'l  tist.,  253  a. 
 Cours  de  Politique  Positive,  308  n. 
 ( Iredibility,  185  a. 
 Critici  Sacri,  23  ».,  386,  387,  389, 
 
 421 
 ( Iriticism  ami   [nterpretal  ton,  300   i. 
 Cyclopaedia  (Kitto's),  19  n.,  7:;,  95, 
 
 102 
 
 |)  \i:ki  Leshon  Bakkodesh,  83 
 
 I ).is  Akailrin.  Leben,  358  a. 
 Das  Judenthum,  56  a, 
 
 I  las  Kiirhl.  LcInu,  :'.7  I 
 De  VMneviaturis,  S3,  98  a.,  99,  101, 
 104 
 
 Books  continued — 
 
 De  Abrah.,  129  a.,  133  n.,  139  a., 
 
 149,  151,  454,  456 
 De  Act.  et   Script.  M.   Lutheri,    ad 
 
 ami.,  317  n. 
 De  Accentibus,  315  n. 
 I  >e  A.gric,  132  n. 
 I).-  Alex.  Virt.,  114  n. 
 De  Allegoria  et  Historia,  216  n. 
 De  Anim.,  177  n.,  182  n. 
 De  Antilogiis,  271 
 De  Arte  Kahlialistica.  97  n.,  315  a. 
 De  Augm.   Scient.,  257  ».,  289  74., 
 
 340  7i. 
 De  Baptismo,  178  ti. 
 De  Beatitudine  Sffortuorura,  363  n. 
 De  Bihl.  Text.  Orientalibus,  116  a., 
 
 117  7i.,  120  ». 
 De  Civ.  Dei.,  30  n.,  117  a.,  125,  208 
 
 ».,  234  7i.,  238  Ti,.,  282  //. 
 De  Cherub.,   132  a.,  140  ».,  142  a., 
 
 149,  155,  455 
 De  Christo  et  Antichristo,  201  n. 
 De  Clement.  Alex.,  129  a. 
 De  Clemente  Presbytero  Alexandrino, 
 
 187  n. 
 De  Clement ia,  343  a. 
 I  >e  ( 'leriivirnin   I  nsl  ii  ul  ione,  297 
 De  Conf.  Ling.,  147 
 De  Cong.  Erud.  Grat.,  114  ».,  132 
 
 ».,  137  a.,  147,  151 
 De  Cong.  Quaer.,  133  a. 
 De  Cons.  Ev.,  125  n. 
 De  Cons.  Evang.  236  a. 
 De  Copia  Rerum,  321 
 De  Coutemplatione,  258  n. 
 De  Cor.  Mil.,  178  a. 
 De  Corrupt.  Art.,  289  a.,  292  n.,  470 
 De  Cult.  Fein.,  178  n. 
 De  Dilig.  Deo,  256 
 De  Dionysii,  25  1  n. 
 De  Divinatione,  138  a. 
 De  Div.  Nat.,  254  a. 
 De   Doctr.    Christ,    26  a.,    117    a., 
 
 125  a.,  129  ».,    225  a.,    234  a., 
 
 235-238  as.,  459 
 De  Doctrina  Inspirationis,  403 
 
 1  >e    DoctoiihllS    Selmlastieis    et      <  lor- 
 
 rupta  per  ens  div.  hum.  rerum 
 Scientia,  284  n.,  286  a.,  289  n., 
 466 
 
 De  Dogmate  Platoni 
 
 De  Ebriet.,  137  a.,  Ill  a. 
 
 De  Economia  Patrum,  231  a. 
 
 Decret.,  298  a. 
 
 De  Eruditione,  265    . 
 
 De  Kxccrai  imiilms,  15  1.  458 
 
 Defensor  Pacis,  164  a.,  236  a.,  2£ 
 
 1  >e  Frat.  Aineie,  383 
 
 L   L 
 
514 
 
 I  ,d(.i . 
 
 Books  continued — 
 
 De    Tide,   39    n.,  166    n.,    168   n., 
 
 174  n.,  206  n.,  263  n.,  459 
 Def.  Triun.  Capit.,  216  n. 
 De  Gen.  ad  Literam,  43  n.,   237  n., 
 
 243 
 De  Gigant.,  23  n.,  141  n. 
 Diss.   Hist,  de  vii.  regulis  Tichonii, 
 
 26  n. 
 De  Idol.,  178  n. 
 De  Incorrupt.  Mundi,  138  n. 
 De  Institutione  Div.  Literarum,  24  -■'. 
 De  Inst.  Monach.,  203  n. 
 Die  Inspirationslehre,  294  ??. 
 De  Inspir.  S.  Script.,  294  n. 
 De  J.  Cocceio  anti-scholastico,  385 
 De  Joseph.,  109,  129  m.,  139m.,  455, 
 
 456 
 De  J.  S.  Semler,  405 
 De  Jure  Belli  et  Pacis,  40  n. 
 De  Juvent.,  64  n. 
 De  Legis  Allegoriis,  22  n. 
 De  Martis  Stella,  41  m. 
 De  Med.  Aevi.  theol.  exeget.,  251, 
 
 285  n. 
 Dem.  Evang.,  124  n.,  174  n. 
 De  Migr.  Abr.,  23  n.,  133  n.,  137  n., 
 
 140/1.,  149,  151,  152 
 De  Monarchia,  154,  298  n.,  313  n. 
 De  Monogam.,  178  n.,  179  m. 
 De  Nom.    mutat.,    133  n.,   137  n., 
 
 138  n.,  143  m.,  152 
 De  Mundi  exustione,  251  n. 
 De  Nupliis,  257 
 
 De  Nat.  Deor.,  135  n.,  136 m.,  144  n. 
 De  Obitu  Theodosii,  124 
 De  Offic,  206  n. 
 De  Off.   Sex.  Dierum.,  38  n. 
 De  Opif.  Mund.,  38  n.,  121  n.,  138  »., 
 
 142  n.,  143  re.,  456 
 De    Optimo    Genere    lnterpretandi. 
 
 24  n. 
 De  Ordine,  247  n. 
 De  Parent.  Col.,  145 
 De  Plant.  Noe.,  133  re.,  143??-.,  149 
 De  Origine  Verbi  Dei,  339  n. 
 De  Partibus  Legis  Divinae,  24  n. 
 De  Patient.,  180  ??. 
 DePeccat.  Remiss.,  238  n. 
 De  Perfect.  Monach.,   228  n. 
 De  Pond.,  117  n.,  119  n. 
 De  Poster.  Caini,  130  n. 
 De  Potestate  Eeclesiae,  309  n.,  428 
 De  Praescriptione  Haereticoium,  99, 
 
 178-183  ns. 
 De   Princ,  169  m.,  182  m.,   187  »., 
 
 W0n.,  193  n.,  196  m.,  197  re.,  333 
 De  Proem,  et  Poen.  (Philo),  142  n., 
 
 458 
 
 Books  continued — 
 
 De  Profug.  (Philo's),  23  n.,  37  n. 
 
 De  Pudic,  30  n.,  173  m.,  177 n.,  212 «. 
 
 De  Provid.,  130  n.,  137  m.,  142  a. 
 
 De  Rat.  Vcr.  Theol.,  290  n. 
 
 Der  Christliche  Glaube,  411 
 
 De  Rege,  39  n.,  40  n. 
 
 De  Rhetorica,  327 
 
 De  Repub.,  135  n.,  187  n. 
 
 De  Resurr.  Caruis,  278  n.,  179  n. 
 
 Der  mosaische  Recht.,  86 
 
 Der  Unterschied  d.  Heil  Schrift  und 
 
 des  Wortes  Gottes,  403 
 De    Revolutionibus     Orbium     Coel- 
 
 estium,  426 
 De  Sacra  Poesi  Hebraeorum,  377 
 De  S.  Script.  Interpret.,  124  n. 
 De  Sacrif.  Ab.   et.  Cain,  23  n.,  151, 
 
 258  n. 
 De  Scala  Jacobi,  386 
 De  Scholia  Antiochena,  216??,. 
 De  Schol.  Alex.,  201  n.,  206  n. 
 Des  Comment,  du  N.  T.,  380 
 De  Scripto  Dei  Verbo,  475 
 De   Script.    Eccl.,    26    n.,    301    v., 
 
 467 
 De  Septem  Regulis,  24  n. 
 De  Septuag.  Interpp.,  119  n. 
 Des   Juden    Philo    Buch.    d.    Velt- 
 
 schopfung,  142  n. 
 De  Sobriet.,  146 
 
 De  Somniis,  22  n.,    38  n.,    120  n,., 
 132  n.,  139?i.,  141??-.,  142??,,  149, 
 151.  152,  455-457 
 De    Spec.    Leyg.,     129  ??.,    137  n. 
 
 139  n.,  152,^177  n. 
 De  Studio  Scriptuarum,  24  ??.. 
 De  Studiis  Instituendis,  243,  263  n. 
 De  Synod.,  168  n.,  174  n. 
 De  Text.  Bibl.,  223  n. 
 De  Theod.  Mops.  Vita  et  Scriptis, 
 
 216  ??-.,  219  ??-. 
 De  Thorn.  Aquin.,  260  n. 
 De  Trin.,  170  ??-.,  205  ??..,  234  n. 
 De  Tm-bata  j>ur  Recentioies  Platonicos 
 
 Eccl.,  283  ??.. 
 De  Usu  Patrum,  187  ??. 
 Deutsche  Mjrstiker,  258  ??.. 
 De  Vanitat.  Scient.,  470 
 De  Varia  Aristotelis  Fortuna,  266  n. 
 Development  of  Christian  Doctrine, 
 
 407 
 De  Verbo  Dei,  296??-.,  326 
 De  Verbo  Mirifico,  129  ??.,  315  >i. 
 De  Ver.  Rel.,  234  n. 
 De  Vest.  Sacerdotali,  226  ??. 
 De  Virg.,  180  n. 
 De  Virr.  Illustr.,  26  ??,. 
 De  Vit.  Contempl.,  137  n.   156 
 
Index. 
 
 515 
 
 Books  continued — 
 De  Vbluptate  el  Win  Bono,  318  n. 
 Dial.,  123  re.,    166  re.,   172-171  ns., 
 
 223  n.,  247  re. 
 Diatribe  deAriatobulo  Judaeo,  128  n. 
 Diatessaron,  1 71  n. 
 Dictionuaire,  360  n. 
 Diet,  of  Christ.  Antiquities,  170  ». 
 Diet,  of  Christian  Biogr.,  12'i  re. 
 Diet,  of  Christ.  Biog.,  167  n.,  168//., 
 
 176  n.,  224  n. 
 Diet,  of  S.  Script.,  29  I  re. 
 Diet,  des  Sciences  Philos.,  463 
 Dictionary,  Smith's,  2-_':i  re. 
 Die  Angelologie  der  nachscottischen 
 
 Scholastik,  292  n. 
 Die  apost.  Vater,  168  n. 
 Die  Christliche  Gnosis,  139  re. 
 Die  Kabbala,  130  ».,  134  n. 
 Die   Lehre    Luther's  von    der    heil. 
 
 Schrift,  339  n.,  358  re. 
 Die  Pharisaeru.  Sadd.,  58  re. 
 Die  Rel.  Eigenthumlichkeit  d.    ref. 
 
 and  huth.  Kirehe,  372 
 Die  Theologie  Semlers,  405 
 Die  Universitiiten   sonst  und   jetst, 
 
 365  n. 
 Die  Verdienste  Calvin's  als  Ausleger 
 
 der  Heiligen  Schrift,  348  /'. 
 Disc,    sur   l'Hist.    Lit.    do   France, 
 
 306  re. 
 Discussio  Controversiarum,  364 
 Dispute  on  Holy  Scripture,  300  re. 
 I  dssertation,  296  re. 
 Dissert,  de    Scriptis   Dionysio  Sup- 
 
 positis,  428 
 Divine  Authority  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
 tures, 374 
 Divine  Legation,  377 
 Doctrine  of  Sacred  Script. ,  383 
 Dogmata,  '288  re. 
 
 Doginatik  d.  apocr.  Schriften,  60  n. 
 Dogmengesch.,  289  re.,  467 
 Duhia  Vexata,  87  1 
 Dreieinigkeit,  36 
 Dunciad,  278  n. 
 1  tatch  Republic,  41  //. 
 
 .   Kaih.v  Days  of  Christianity.,  120  //., 
 l :;7  /'.,  i  1 1  »'.,  177  //. 
 Ebraeoram  Philos.,  l"l 
 Eccl.  Hist.,  17'.»  //.,  L80  ,/..  P.'l   i. 
 EccL  PoL,  248,  :'•  1 1  ».,  353  u,  872 
 Bcoles  'I.'  l'(  lecident,  I 
 Edict  nf  Nantes,  2::.'. 
 Eglise  I  Ihx6tienne,  L',  1 7 1   i. 
 Gglise  el  L'Empire,  1.'.  209 
 
 .  pi  and  the  Five  Books  of  Moa  - 
 '  120  re. 
 
 Books  continued — 
 Eine  Rede  vom  Auslegen,  19  //.,  21  //., 
 
 274  re. 
 Einleit.  (De  Wette),  112  „. 
 Ki nl.it .  (Havernick),  1 19  n. 
 Einl.  in  die  Offenbarung,  207  re. 
 Eirechin,  109 
 Elias  Levita,  84,  104 
 Encom.  Moriae,  289  //.,  293  ».,  322 
 Enchirid.  .Mil.  Christ.,  321 
 Ennead,  255  n. 
 Entdeektes    Judenthnm,    65  re.,    93, 
 
 105 
 Ep.    ad   African.    (Origen),   Hi 
 
 119  re. 
 Ep.  ad  Algas.  (Jerome),  171  re.,  231  n., 
 
 232  re. 
 Ep.  ad  Amphiloeh.  (BasiP,  20C  n. 
 Ep.  ad  Coi.,  122  re.,  166  n. 
 Ep.   ad  Diognet.   (Ignatius),  168  re., 
 
 171  re. 
 Ep.  ad  Heliodor.  (Jerome),  229  //. 
 Ep.  ad  Hieron.  (Augustine),  231  re. 
 Ep.  ad  Innocent.  (Bernardi),  261  <*. 
 Ep.  ad  Joan.   Jerosol.  (Epiphanius), 
 
 208  re. 
 Ep.  ad  Laetam.  (Jerome),  257  re. 
 Ep.  ad  Leandrum  (Gregory  of  Tours), 
 
 247  re. 
 Ep.  ad  Magnum  (Jerome),  208  re. 
 Ep.  ad  Marcell.  (Jerome),  20 
 Ep.  ad  Paulin.  (Jerome),  30//.. 
 Ep.  ad  Pammach.  (Jerome),  232.".. 
 
 454 
 Ep.ad  Papain  Innocent.  (St.Bernar<l  , 
 
 469 
 Ep.  ad  Philad.  (Ignatius),  172  ... 
 Ep.  ad  Spalat  (Lutlier),  321 
 Ep.     ad    Virg.     Paracl.      (Abedard), 
 
 257  re. 
 Ep.  Barnab.,  165,  167-170  ns., 
 
 n. 
 Epistola  Defensoria,  282 
 Ep.  Parmeniani  (Augustine),  30    . 
 Epistolae  Obscnrorum  Virorum,  296, 
 
 316 
 Ep.  (Augustine),  221  re. 
 Ep.  i  Bernard  ,  5 
 Ep.    (Erasmus  .      114    n.,      115    //., 
 
 319  «.,  320  //. 
 Epp.  (Gregoi  v  the<  rreal  .  246  ". 
 Ep.    reroi  !05»., 
 
 206  re.,  20£    ..  227  -..  230  //. 
 Erasmus  (Life  oi 
 Erasmus,  Blasphemies  and  Impieties 
 
 of,  32ii 
 Ersch.  and  Griiber's  EncykL,  30  ».. 
 
 1 1..    ..   186  n, 
 'Erubin,  62re.,  63 re.,  65re.,  I 
 L   L    -2 
 
;ic 
 
 Index. 
 
 Books  continued — 
 
 Eruditis    Didascaliae,    26    n.,    252 
 
 and  n.,  257-259  ns.,  273  n.,  295  n. 
 Essai  sur  1' Indifference,  308  n. 
 Esaiam,  224  m.,  231  n.,  232  ?i. 
 P2ssays  in  Divinity,  294  w. 
 Essays,  Milnian's,  319  n. 
 Ess.  on  Development,  170  ?i.,  176  n. 
 Essay  on  Man,  254  n. 
 Essay  on  the  Human  Understanding, 
 
 290  n. 
 Ethical  Studies,  39  n. 
 Etudes  sur  St.  Aug.,  236  n. 
 Euthetiens,  266  n. 
 
 Evang.  ad  Damasum,  Praef.  in,  224  n. 
 Evangelisehe  Kirchenzeitung,  417 
 Evenings  with  the  Sceptics,  235  n., 
 
 236  n. 
 Exam.  Theol.  373 
 Exercitationes  Biblicae,  225  n.,  297, 
 
 387 
 Exegese  and  Hillel,  18  n. 
 Expositor,  the,  88,  215  n.,  219-221 
 
 ns.,  223  n.,  451,  454 
 Ezechiel  und  Philo,  128  n. 
 
 Fables  of  the  Popes,  313  n. 
 Farrago  Rerum  Theologicarum,  312, 
 
 351  n.      ■ 
 Fascic.  Theol.  19  ?i.,  313 n. 
 Federal  Theology,  385 
 Florence  et  ses  Vicissitudes,  283  n. 
 Fons  Scientiae,  464 
 Formula    Concordiae,    351  n.,    359, 
 
 360,  368  71..,  374 
 Fragm.    Ep.     ad   Greg.    Thaumat. , 
 
 183  n. 
 Fragmenta  Hist.  Gr.,  128  n. 
 Fragments  (Richter),  137  n. 
 Fragments  (Philo),  264  n. 
 France,  La,  Protestante,  343  n. 
 Free  Enquiry,  163  n. 
 Free  Thought,  412 
 Friend,  the,  281  n. 
 Fortnightly  Review,  308  n. 
 
 Galatians      (Lightfoot's),     188  n., 
 
 213ri.,  219  71.,  220  7?.. 
 Gedanken  iiber  Evangelische  Wain- 
 
 heiten,  390 
 Genesis,  72,  74,  77,  224  n. 
 Germ.  Protestantism,  405 
 Germ.  Rationalism,  391,  406,    407: 
 
 409 
 Gesch.  (Ewald),  67  n.,  130  n. 
 Geschichte  (Reuss),  134  n. 
 Gesch.  d.  Heilig.  Schrift.,  96,  343  n.. 
 
 375,  376 
 
 Books  continued — 
 
 Gesch.    d.    Israeliten,  51  %.,   54    ,l. 
 
 61  n.,  66-68  ns.,  87 
 Gesch.   d.    Juden.,    53   n.,    128    n., 
 
 '277  ?i,,  462 
 Gesch.  d.  Jud.  Poesie,  128  71. 
 Gesch.  d.  Logik,  264  n.,  267  n. 
 Gesch.  d.  neuest.  Theol.,  411,  413 
 Gesch.   d.  Philos.,  224   «,,    231    n., 
 
 236ti.,  255ti. 
 Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Dogmatik,  386 
 Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Med.,  363  n. 
 Gesch.  d.  rel.  Secten  d.  Juden,  102 
 Gesch.    d.    Schrifterklarung,  277  //., 
 
 305,  31377.,  343  71.,  374 
 Gesch.     d.     Volkes    Israels,     51  re., 
 
 116  k,.,  117  n.,  119/?,,  125  7!,. 
 Geschichtsbilder,    66  n.,    68  n.,     70, 
 
 78 
 Glossa     Ordinaria,      268   n.,      '2,7, 
 
 286  7?.. 
 Glossules,  296  n. 
 Gnomon,  392  .393 
 Gospel  Harmony,  342  77. 
 Gottes  d.  Vortriige,    49  n.,  62  ?(..,  69, 
 
 118  n. 
 
 Great  Light,  the,  461 
 Greg.  v.'Nyssa,  202  n. 
 Grundriss,  '299  n.,  240  n.,  363,  407, 
 473 
 
 Haer.  (Irenaeus's),  99,  100,  117  /'., 
 
 119  7i.,  122-124  71,?.,  166  n.,  16& 
 n.,  170  n.,  174-179  ns.,  182  n., 
 186  7i.,  202  n.,  208  n.,  212  n. 
 
 Haer.  (Epiphan.),  119  n. 
 Haereticorum  Catalogus,  362  n. 
 Halaoh;  lixegese,  105 
 Handb.    d.   Theol.   Wissensehaften, 
 
 366  n. 
 Harmon.  Biblica,  374 
 Hagad.  Exegese,  149 
 Hebraica  Veritas,  315 
 Hebr.  Lit.,  78,  90,  92,  93,  95,  100 
 Helvet.  Conf.,  349  n. 
 Henry  VI. (Shakespeare's'), 21 6  and  n. 
 Hermeneutica  Sacra,  374,  376,  37'.' 
 Hermen.    (Klausen's),     26  n.,     2\'<. 
 
 386,  391 
 Hermeneutik  (Dopke'.s),   76,  277  /'.; 
 
 342-344  7w?. 
 Hermen.  Vorbereit.,  473 
 Hexaem.,     3S  ?*.,     202  a.,     208  n., 
 
 220  n. 
 Herzog,  223  n.,  250  n.,  26 4  n. 
 Hibbert  Lectures,   308   n.,    312  n., 
 
 322,  343  7i.,  361??.. 
 Hieronymus,  223,  224  n. 
 Hierarchies,  on  the,  223,  300  ».,  334 
 
Index. 
 
 517 
 
 Hiatoria  LX1I.  fnterpr.,  116re. 
 Historia    Doctorum     Mithnicorum, 
 
 53  re. 
 Hiatoria  Syncretism.,  383 
 Hist.  (Tacitus's),  121  re. 
 Hist.    Antiquior  sent.    Eccl.  Grace. 
 
 de  Accommodate ,  404 
 
 Histoire  de    la  Bible,  31  re.,  32  n., 
 
 49  11.,  117  re.,  442,  450,  461 
 Hist,  of  <  lambr.,  264  re. 
 Hist.    Crit.  der    Comment. ,  171  re., 
 
 202  re. 
 Hist.  Crit.  des  Comment,  du  N.  T., 
 
 343  re. 
 Hist,  des  Comment.,  252  ».,  26Sre. 
 Hist.  Crit.  des   Versions  du  Is'.  T. 
 
 229//. 
 Hist.  Critique  du  VieilTest.,  130  n., 
 
 361  re.,  380 
 Hist,  de  la  Civilisat.  ('lin't.,  223  re. 
 Hist,  of  the  Christian  Church,  3 
 I  list,  of  Civilis.,  40re. 
 Hist.  Comp.,  466 
 Hist,  of  Doctrines,  230  re. 
 History,    Ecclesiastical     (Eusebius), 
 
 17».,119».,  )'-".•//., i: 37  re.,  181  re., 
 
 182  re.,      185re.,      198r?,.,      201  re., 
 
 202  re.,  206-209  res.,  212  re.,  213  71. 
 I  list.  Keel,  introd.,  -JIS//. 
 
 Histoire  de  l'ficole  d'Alex.  (Matter), 
 
 115  re. 
 Hist,  de  l'Ecole  d'Alex.  (Vacherot), 
 
 139ti. 
 Hist,  of  Eng.  Bible,  316  re. 
 Hist,  of  Europ.,  39  re. 
 Hist.  Franc,  246». 
 Hist.    Interp.,    L86  re.,  201-203  res., 
 
 212  7i.,    234  7i.,    267  ».,    275  re., 
 
 277  //.,  296  7i. 
 Hist,    of    1st.,    51  //.,    53  /-.,    57  //., 
 
 58ti.,  96 
 Hist,  of  nh.  Jews,  78,  92,  162 
 I lisi.  Lit.,  -I*:.*. 
 Hist.   Lit.  de  France,  'J  17  re.,  251  re., 
 
 262//.,  289«. 
 Hist.  Lit.  'I'll..!.,  385 
 Hist.     I.itt.     Nachrichl    von     Phil. 
 
 Melanchthon's  Verdiensten  urn  « 1  i  ^  - 
 
 heilige  Schrift,  :;il  re. 
 Hist.  Nat.,    1  II  re. 
 Hist,  of  Etal ionalism,  40re. 
 Hist,  of  Ref.,  372 
 Hist,  de   la    Philos.,  245  re.,  217  »., 
 
 259  re.,  262  re.,  283  a.,    170 
 Hist,  of  IV,, i.  Theol.,  809  re.,  868n. 
 Hi  t.  Sap.  .t  SM.h.. 
 Hist,    df  Sn  ond  ami  Third   I  i 
 
 187  71. 
 
 Books  continued — 
 Hodosophia,  362 
 Holy  City,  78 
 Holy  Living,  43  n. 
 H.mi.  in4l  Cor.  (Chrvsostom),  221  re. 
 Horn,    in    Exod.    (Origen),    197  m., 
 
 198  n. 
 Homil.  in  Ezech.  (Gregory),  23  re. 
 Horn,     in     Gen.     (Origen),    183?;., 
 
 194?i.,     197  71.,     198re.,     208?/.. 
 
 222ra.,  238  re. 
 Horn  inJoann.  viii.  (Origen),  196  7/., 
 
 198ti.,  200  71.,  208  ?i. 
 Hum.  x.  in  Jer.  (Origen),  123  n. 
 limn,  in  Jerem.  (< ►rigen),  193  re. 
 Horn,   in     Levit.    (Origen),    169t>., 
 
 187  ».,  194  re..,  196  re.,   197  re. 
 Horn,     in     Luc.     (Origen),     179  7*., 
 
 208  re. 
 
 Horn,     in    Matt.     (Origen),     190  re., 
 
 209  re.,  212  re.,  222  re. 
 
 Horn,    in    Num.    (Origen),     197  7/.. 
 
 198  re. 
 Il.iii.     in    Rom.     (Origen),    199  re., 
 
 236  n. 
 Horn,  in  Tit.  (Origen),  187  re. 
 Horn,  in  Jos.  (Jerome),  198  re. 
 Horaioth,  1 12 
 Hugues     de     St.     Victor,      258 «., 
 
 265  re. 
 Hypotyp.,  185  re. 
 Hystaspes,  172,  185  and  n. 
 
 Idea  Boni  Interprel  i  .  376 
 Illustrations     ot     Med.     Thoughts, 
 
 468 
 Inferno,  the,  313ra. 
 Inspiration    of   Scripture,    on    the, 
 
 294  re. 
 Institutiones Hermen.  Sacrae,  239 re., 
 
 371,  376 
 Institt.  (Cassiodorus's),  26  re. 
 Instt.  Div.  (Lactantius),  30  n.,  41  v., 
 
 123  re.,  170  re. 
 Institutes  (Calvin's),  349  re.,  350  re., 
 
 361 
 Inst.  Interpr.  ( I'.i  oesti  I,  I  re. 
 Interpretandi  Ratio  a  J.  J.  Wetsteino 
 
 adhibita,  392 
 Introd.  in  I  Li  meneul  [cam,  173 
 Introd.   a  La  Philosophie  de  I D 
 
 413 
 Introd.  ad  Theol.,  269  re. 
 Invect.   in    1 1  ieron.,    1  B8  re.,    2< 
 
 20t;  re. 
 Iphigenia  in  Tauris, 
 Isagoge,     202».,     208*1.,     20 
 
 i2  re.,     272».,     277  re., 
 
 278  re.,  846  »., 
 
518 
 
 Index. 
 
 Books  continued — 
 
 JalqTJT  Shimeoni,  83  re. 
 
 J.  Arndt,  ein  Zeitbild,  363  re. 
 
 Jahrbiicher,  420 
 
 Jerome,     St.     (Amedee     Thierry's), 
 
 234w. 
 Jesus  und  Hillel,  67  re. 
 Jesus   von   Nazara,   67  re.,    113  %., 
 
 142  re.,  335 
 «Tctsir<ili   97 
 
 Jewish  Church,  116  re.,  121  re.,  131  re. 
 Jewish  World,  449 
 Joel,  213  re.,  218  re,,  219  re.,  268  re., 
 
 270  re.,   275  re.,    277  re.,   343  re., 
 
 349  re.,  352  re. 
 Joma,  66  re. 
 Journ.  of  Class,  aud  Sacr.   Philol., 
 
 213  n. 
 Journal  Intime,  355 
 Journ.  Sacr.  Lit.,  230  re. 
 Judaisme,  Le,  6,  51  n.,  53  re.,  56  re., 
 
 88,  89,  92,  363,  462 
 Judenthum,  19  re.,   52  n.,  64-66  res., 
 
 68  re.,  74,  77,  128  re.,  143  re.,  148, 
 
 462 
 Judenth.  u.  Heidenth.,  139  re. 
 
 Kabbala,  the,  36  re. ,  96,  97  and  re., 
 
 446 
 Kethuboth,  59  re. 
 Ketzereye,  240  re. 
 Kirche  und  Kirchenthum,  323 
 Kirchengeschichte,  265  re. 
 Koheieth,  462 
 Koran,  the,  28  re.,  53  and  n.,  119  re., 
 
 275  n. 
 Kulter-gesch.,  82 
 Kulter  und  Lit.,  66  re. 
 
 Latin  Christianity,  248  n.,  254  re., 
 
 298  n.,  301  n.,  316  71. 
 La  Legge,  86 
 
 Laurentii  Medici  Vita,  282  re. 
 Lebend.  M.  Luther,  Erste  Pred.,  324 
 Leben  Jesu,  fur  das  Deutsche  Volk 
 
 bearbeitet,  413,  414,  416 
 Leben  und  Werken  Bengels,  392 
 Leben  Zinzendorf,  390 
 Lectures,   Bampt.,   195  re.,    240  n., 
 
 266  n. 
 Lectures  on  Universal  Subjects,  470 
 Leg.  ad  Gaium,  114  n.,  137  n. 
 Legis    Allegoriae,     129  n.,    138  n., 
 
 141  ii.,  143  n.,  146,  149,  150,  457 
 Letters  to  King,  364  n. 
 Letters  to  Radulphus,  286  n.,  404 
 Legat.,  179  71. 
 Lex  Chald.,  446 
 Lex  Talm.,  74,  86,  96,  101 
 
 Books  continued — 
 Libelli  ad  Crisin,  391 
 Libollus    de     Canonicis    Scripturis, 
 
 341  n. 
 Libellus  de  Formulis,  24  n. 
 Liber  Formularum  Spiritalis  Intelii- 
 
 gentiae,  24  and  n. 
 Libert}'  of  Prophesying,  329 
 Liber  Allegoriarum,  250,  251  n. 
 Lib.  c.  Object.  Fredegisii,  252  n. 
 Lieder  der  Liebe,  407 
 Life  of  Christ,  121  n. 
 Lily  of  Secrets  (Shoshan  Sodoth),  97 
 Lingua  Augustina,  235  n. 
 Lit.  of  Europe,  280 n.,  314 n.,  316  n. 
 Literary   Remains   (Dr.    Deutsch's), 
 
 126  it. 
 Loci  Commun.  M.  Lutheri,  326,  328, 
 
 331 
 Loci  Communes  Theol.,  345  n.,  358 
 Loci  Theologici,  358,  361, 362,  366  n., 
 
 368 
 Lockler,  206  n.,  229  n. 
 Logique  de  Port  Royal,  243 
 
 Malleus  Maleficarum,  40  n. 
 Manipulus  Florum,  291  n. 
 Maran  Atha,  407 
 Marc.  Aurel.,  180  ??..,  212  n. 
 Mare  Magnum  (Wessel's),  312  n. 
 Marini  Procli  Vita,  254  n. 
 Martyrs  of  Science,  359  n. 
 Massoreth  Ha  Massoreth,  the,  106 
 Mataeologia  Papistica,  364 
 Mazarin  Bible,  the,  the  first  printed 
 
 book,  314 
 Mediaeval     Christianity,      254     n., 
 
 293  n. 
 
 Mediaeval  Preachers,  297  n. 
 Mediaeval  Philosophy,   260  and  «., 
 
 290ti. 
 Mediaev.    Thought,   252  n.,   296  »., 
 
 466 
 Megilla,   Sin.,   34  iu,   50  n.,  52  »., 
 
 54  ?;.,  57  n. 
 Megillath  Taanith,  66  n. 
 Melanehthon  im  Dienste  an  heiliger 
 
 Schrift,  341  n. 
 Melanges  (Munk's),  265  71.,  449,  462, 
 
 463 
 Memoriae  Theologorum,  363  n. 
 Menachoth,  49  «.,  51  «.,  57  n. 
 Menagiana,  291  n. 
 Mental  and  Moral  Science,  264  n. 
 Messias  Judaeorum,  106 
 Metaphysics,  265,  266  n. 
 Metalog.,   251  it.,    266  n.,   290  re., 
 
 294  n.,  296  n. 
 
 Methodus  Prophetica  Praef.,  386 
 
Index. 
 
 519 
 
 Books  continued — 
 Middle  Ages,  10  ».,  247  re.,  470 
 .Mi. hash,  the,  19  n.,  210?^ 
 Midrashim,  23,  37 
 Mil  Christ.,  321 
 Mishna,  the,  53  re.,  62re.,  63  and  re., 
 
 65 
 Miscellanies  (Bishop  Wordsworth's), 
 
 39  n.,  40//.,  L96  a. 
 MiscelL  Hist.  Philos.,  283  re. 
 Mod.  Review,  52  re.,  412 
 Monumenta    Fidel    Eecles.  Orient., 
 
 361  re.,  393 
 Moralia,  240  ».,  247  n. 
 Moreh  Nebuchim,  163 
 Moreh  Nerochirn,  105 
 Moriae  and  Instit.  Principis  Chris- 
 
 tiani,  321 
 Mythical  Interp.,  208  n. 
 
 Nathan  der  Weise,  399 
 
 Nazir,  21  n. 
 
 Nedarim,  52  re. 
 
 New  Test.  Times,  88,  103 
 
 Neut.    Zeitg.    die  Zeit  d.    Apostel, 
 
 52  re.,  114m. 
 Notes  to  the  New  Testament,  393 
 Nova  Bibl.  Ecclesiastica,  404 
 Novel.  Diatax.,  125  n. 
 Novum  Organum,  41  re. 
 Nov.  Patr.  Bibl.,  202  re. 
 Novum  Testamentum,  377 
 Nov.  Test.  extr.  can.,  166 
 
 Obedience    of    a    Christian    Man, 
 
 300  n. 
 Obs.  Sacr.,  65  re. 
 Occam  unci  Luther,  281  re. 
 
 (  lecasiolial   Notices,  82 
 
 < (dyssey,  130  re. 
 Old  Paths,  59  re. 
 Old  Mortality,  352 
 Old  Testament  Theology,  850 re.,  386 
 Old  Test.,  the,  in  the  Jewish  Church, 
 370 
 
 <  tperationes  in  Psalmos,  325 
 Opp.  Joann.  I  tamasc,  466 
 
 <  Ipp.  (Cousin  ,  _'."'7  n. 
 Opus  Majiis,  286  re. 
 Opus  Minus,  263  n. 
 Opusc.  Theol.,  219  *, 
 
 .  (Gregory  of  Na/ianzus),  291  re., 
 
 293  n. 
 Or.  ad.  Graecos,  136  n. 
 Origenes,  183  ».,  196  n. 
 Orig.  EccL,  846  a. 
 Origeniana,  188  m,  189  »,.,  200  re. 
 
 208  re. 
 
 Orlando  Furioso,  313  re. 
 
 Books  continued — 
 
 Orthodoxus  Calvinus,  346  n. 
 Ouvr.  im'd.  dAbelard,  249  re.,  467 
 Oxford  Reformers,  353  re.,  318  it. 
 Ozair,  53  and  n. 
 
 I'akdag.,  166,  185  re. 
 
 Palestine,  18  n.,  32  re.,  78 
 
 Pape,  Du,  308  n. 
 
 1 'arables,  on  the,  193  re. 
 
 Parallels,  353  re. 
 
 Paradise  Lost,  293  re. 
 
 Paradiso,  the,  221  ».,  292  re.,  298  re., 
 
 309,  313  re. 
 Paraphrases,  Erasmus's,  316  re.,  320 
 
 and  a. 
 Patres  Apostolici,  165 
 Patrologie,  26  n.,  206,  216  «.,  233  a. 
 Pensees,  432,  433 
 Pentateuch,  402 
 Pesachim,  74  re.,  446 
 Pesikhta  Rabbathi,  65  re. 
 Phaleg.,  130  re. 
 Philo  (Siegfried's),  22  re.,  37  re.,  38  re., 
 
 120  re.,  138  re.,  149,  456 
 Philo  und  die  Ilalacha,  137  re. 
 PhilokaL,  189-191  res.,  194  re.,  197  re., 
 
 220 
 Philolog.  Sacr.,  104,  376 
 Philosophic  de  Origen,  La,  115  n. 
 Philosophia  S.  Scripturae,  386 
 Philosophic  Hegelienne,  413 
 Philos.  Scholastique,  245  n. 
 Philos.  de  St.  Aug.,  235  re. 
 Phil.  d.  Griechen,  143  n. 
 Philosophy  of  History,  413 
 Philo.  (Gfrdrer),  128  re.,  140  re. 
 Postills,  374 
 Polyanthea,  291  n. 
 Polycrat.,  43  ».,  257  re.,  259  n.,  264 
 
 re.,  273  re.,  292  re.,  294  n. 
 Popery,  Dissuasive  from,  17  n. 
 Prayer-Book  (Jewish),  19  ft. 
 Praef.  in  Annott.  (Calvin  ,  321 
 Praef.  in  lust.  (Calvin),  34'!  ,i. 
 Praef.     in    Job    (Gregory),    119    //.. 
 
 295  re. 
 Praef.  in  Rom.  (Calvin),  343-345  ne., 
 
 347 
 Praef.  in  Paralip.  (Jerome),  117  n. 
 Praef.  in  Pent.    Jerome),  117  n. 
 Praef.  Rudim.  Sebr.  315  n. 
 Praktische    Einleitung,   92,    114  /<., 
 
 1  15,  451,  461 
 Praelectionea  1  lermeneuticae,  376 
 Praenott.  Eluoid.,  h2<\'>  n. 
 Praep.   Evang.,   L16  ft.,  128-130  r»., 
 
 137  ft.,  138  ft.,  1  12  a..  1  : 
 Praep.  in  X.  Test.,  470 
 
520 
 
 Index. 
 
 Books  continued — 
 
 Prelatical  Episcopacy,  164  n. 
 Prolegorn.  in  Lombardi  Sent.,  467 
 Propheten  d.  Alten  Bundes,  103 
 Prot.  Theol.,  323 
 Prophecy  and  History,  64  n.,  86 
 Propositiones     de     Sensu     Literali, 
 
 278  re.,  279  and  n. 
 Prot.  Lehrbegriff,  364  re. 
 Prooem.  in  Breviloquium,  273  n. 
 Prooem.  in  Cant.  (Gregory  of  Nyssa), 
 
 195  n.,  202  n. 
 Prooem.  in   Eph.  (Jerome),  227  »., 
 
 234  re. 
 Prooem.  in  Gal.  (Jerome),  234  n. 
 Prol.  in  Joann.  (Rupert),  255  n. 
 Prooem.  in  Matt.  (Jerome),  227  n., 
 
 250 
 Prooem.  de  Vit.  St.  Thomas  Aquin., 
 
 272  n. 
 Psychomachiam,  168  n. 
 Pugio  Fidei,  92 
 Purgatoria,  23  n. 
 
 Qiddushin,  21  n.,  51  n.,  66  re. 
 Quaestiones,  130  n.,  138  re.,  140  re. 
 Quaest.  ad  Autolyc,  171  re 
 Quaest.  in  Gen.  (Augustine),  125  re., 
 
 146 
 Quaest.   Hieron.   (Clericus),  224   re., 
 
 234  n. 
 Quaest.  in  Jud.  (Augustine),  168  n. 
 Quaest.  (Photius),  250  re. 
 Quodlibeta,  281  n. 
 Quis  rer.  div.  haer.,  129  re.,  142  re. 
 Quod  det.  pot.,  152,  455 
 Quod  Dens  Immutabilis,  22  re.,   Ill 
 
 re  ,  149,  187  re.,  455 
 Quod    omn.    prob.    liber.,    129    n., 
 
 138  re. 
 
 Raison  Philosophique,  La,  269  re. 
 Rashi's  Einfluss  liber  Nic.  v.    Lyra 
 
 und  Luther,  225  n,,  291  n. 
 Rationale  div.  olliciorum,  295  n. 
 Rationalism,  39  n.,  40  n. 
 Ratio  Disciplinae,  390 
 Ratio  Verae  Theologiae,  321 
 Real  wort.,  101 
 Recherches  Critiques,  264  n. 
 Recogiutions,  208  n. 
 Reden  iiber  die  Religion,  410 
 Reformation  in  England,  16  1  n. 
 Reformatoren  vor  der   Reformation, 
 
 258  n.,  280  n.,  312  n. 
 Rel.  Sacrae,  38  n.,  175  n.,  177  n., 
 
 183  n.,  202  n.,  207-209  ns. 
 Religionspbil.,  116  n.,  412 
 Rel.  Auferklarung,  252  n. 
 
 Books  continued — 
 
 Replicae  det'ensivae,  278  n. 
 
 Retractt.,  26  n. 
 
 Rer.  Gallic.  Script.,  217  n. 
 
 Right    Use  of  the  Fathers,  on  the, 
 
 163 
 Ring  and  the  book,  305 
 Rudimenta  Linguae  Hobraicaj,  315 
 
 Sacred    Philosophie    of    the    Holy 
 
 Scriptures,  300  n. 
 Sacred  Typology,  353  n. 
 St.  John  (Westeott's),  189  n. 
 St.  John  of  Damascus,  374,  466 
 St.     Paul    and    Philo,    Ep.    to    the 
 
 Thessalonians,  154 
 St.  Thomas  Aquin.,  Life  of,  258  n., 
 
 260  n.,  270  n. 
 Samson's  Hair,  an  Eminent  Repre- 
 sentation of   the  Church  of   God. 
 
 299 
 Sanhedrin,   76,   85,  87,  97-99,  441, 
 
 442,  445,  447,  448 
 Sanhedrin,  Tosefta,  18  n. 
 Sayings     of    the     Jewish     Fathers. 
 
 57  n. 
 Schatf.  Herzog.,  390 
 Scholastics  Theologia,  287  n.,  292  ». 
 Scholasticism,  264  n. 
 Scholia,  187  and  n. 
 Schol.  de  Mittelalt.,  255  n. 
 Schol.  in  Lib.    Hier.   adv.   Helvid., 
 
 229  n.,  265  n. 
 Schools  of  Charles   the   Great,  the, 
 
 247  n. 
 Script.  Eccl.,  254  n.,  313  n. 
 Script.  Nov.  Coll.,  208  n. 
 Script.  Rer.  Ital.,  40  n. 
 Scripture  Vindicated,  353  n.,  460 
 Seb.  Franck,  341  n. 
 Sentences,  the,  262  and  n.,  263,  265 
 
 n.,  289  7i.,  2t<3  n.,  358,  467 
 Sepher  Ikkarim,  464 
 Sermon  on  Ministerial  Duties,  353  ». 
 Sermon  on  the  Mount,  125  n.,  234  n., 
 
 239  n. 
 Shabbath,  62  n.,  68  n.,  76,  85,  86 
 Sheb.,  64  n. 
 Shelosh  Esreh   Middoth  ha-Thorah, 
 
 19  n. 
 Shemoth  Rabba,  52».,  86 
 Short  Hist,  of  Greek  Mathcm.,  247  n. 
 Sibyl,  the,  172,  178,  185  and  n.,  191 
 Sic  et  Non,  260  n.,  261  n.,  468 
 Sifra,  52  n. 
 Siphra,  18  n.,  62  n. 
 Sittenlehre,  409 
 Socinianismus  profiigatas,  364 
 Song  of  Songs,  211  n.,  226,  263 
 
Index. 
 
 521 
 
 Books  continued — 
 Sopherim,  52,  63  ".,  65  n. 
 Son -ii  iv.  La,  40  n. 
 Sota,  57  ».,  63  ».,  66  ».,  442,  448 
 Sou\  enira  I  Kenan's),  271  a.,  470 
 Speaker's  Commentary,  189  n.,  220  n. 
 Special      Philosophie,     History    of, 
 
 161  //. 
 Spec.  Theol.,  353  n. 
 Spekulative  Theologie,  409 
 Spicil.  Solesm.,  269  n. 
 Spirituales  Formulae,  295  n. 
 Strom.  (Clemens  Alexandria),  21  n., 
 
 109,  116  M.,   117  n.,  128  «.,   129 
 
 n.,   143  7i.,   168  7i.,    182-186   m., 
 
 194  n. 
 Studiis  tnstit.,  De,  163  ». 
 Succah,  86 
 Sukkah,  54  n.,  66  7i.,  68  /t.,  104  n., 
 
 115  ». 
 Suimiia,     237  7i.,    263  ti.,    260   n., 
 
 271  //.,  276andn'.,  282  n.,  288  ?t., 
 
 292  7i.,  358,  361 
 Summa   Doctrinae  de  Foedere,  385 
 Sura, 
 
 Symbolik,  135  n.,  380 
 Symposium,  201  //. 
 Synopsis,  343  w.,  389 
 Systema   Locorum,  358,   362,    365, 
 
 368  n. 
 Systema  Theologiae,  371,  373,  386 
 Mic  de  \:i  Kabbale,  97 
 
 Taainth,  447 
 
 Table  Talk,  328,334 
 
 Talmud,    18,   19  n.,  28,   34,  50  n., 
 
 52  7i.,  57,  61  and  n.,   63-65  and 
 
 ns.,  (18,  315  71.,  316  ii. 
 Talni.  Worterb.,  18  n. 
 Tabnudic  Miscellany,  36  n.,  50  n. 
 Tamid,  86 
 
 Temoorah,  87,  168  n. 
 Test.  adv.  Jud.,  123  //. 
 Thrscs  i\r  Liliadi.Miio,  30  1 
 Tbeodica   i,  398 
 
 Theod.  Mops.,  V.  T.,  216  ».,  219  n. 
 Theol.  Christ.,  168  n.,  346  n.,  379 
 Theologia    Didactico-Polemica,   358, 
 
 370,  373 
 Theologia  Naturalis,  340  //.,  402 
 T!ms.  Nov.  Anecd.,  261  n.,  313  //. 
 Theologil.  (Luther's),  826,  329,  331, 
 
 :::;:,,  836 
 Theol.  of  old  Test.,  234  n. 
 Theol.  Journ.   Qengst.,  402 
 Theolog.  Stud.  u.  Kiit.,  281  n. 
 TWorie  'In  Judaisme,  1'.'  //.,  68  n. 
 Tin  aeus,  the,  I  12.  282  //. 
 Tischreden,  321,  324,  825,  335,  336 
 
 Books  continued — 
 Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus,  398 
 Tract,  de  Erroribus,  260  n. 
 Tract,  de  Obit,  talent,  205  n. 
 Tract  57   (Dr.  Pusey  s),  89,   163  »., 
 
 168  n. 
 Tracts  for  the  Times,  32  n.,  180  n.  ; 
 
 No.   85,   181  7i.,   191  n.  ;  No.  87, 
 
 LSI  n. 
 Traite  do  l'Emploi  des  Saints  Peres, 
 
 163  //. 
 Traite"  de  la  Morale  des  Peres,  163  /'. 
 Treasures  of  the  Talmud,  102 
 Trialog.,  279  n.,  313  n. 
 Trinitas,  171  n. 
 True  Religion,  of,   164  //. 
 Twelve    Apostles,  Teaching  of   the, 
 
 166 
 Typus  Doctrinae  Propheticae,  386 
 
 Uhrscheift,  120  n. 
 
 University  of  Cambridge,   24S  n. 
 
 VAR.  Hist.,  120  n. 
 
 Vayyikra  Rabba,  31  n.,  63  n.,  86  n. 
 
 Verm.  Schrifti  d,  372,  390,  405 
 
 Versohnungslehre,  289  n. 
 
 Versuch.   einer  Charakteristik   Mel- 
 
 anchthon's,  341  n. 
 Verniinftige  Gedanken  vonGott,  der 
 
 WClt,  und  der  Seele,  398  n. 
 Via  ad  Pacem,  383 
 Via  [ntelligentiae,  242  n.,  292  n. 
 Vie  de  Hillel,  19  n. 
 Vie  de  Jesus,  66  n.,  419 
 Vigilant  ins,  229  ».,  232  n. 
 Vindiciae,  374 
 Virr.  111.,  226  n. 
 Vision  (Hennas),  171  n. 
 Vita  I  al\  ini,  351  n. 
 Vit.  Luth.,  205  n. 
 Vit.  Melanchth.,  310,  364». 
 Vit.    Mos.,    23    n.,    51    ».,    116  n., 
 
 117    //.,    120  7i.,    12S  n.,    130  a., 
 
 141  ,/. 
 Vita  di  s.  Thomas,  270  n.,  2 
 VernunfJ  ige  I  redanken  von  di  r  Men- 
 
 schen  Thim  und  I .  i      a,  398  n. 
 V  Ik.  Gottes,  lii». 
 Vom  Erloser  d.  M<  aschen,  406 
 
 \  ■  > 1 1  < feiste  'I.  I [ebr.  I' lie,  407 
 
 Von  Ciott  eingegeben  ,  Luther),  149 
 
 Von  Gottes  Sohn,   106 
 
 Yon, (l,n    zu    den    Bibl.     Buchern, 
 
 839 
 Vorstudien,  116».,  120».,1  12//.,  154 
 Vulgate,    27    //.,    123-125   and    //-., 
 
 196,    I-.  218    //.,    2 
 
 2:;.'  //..   u  ;•.»,   271,  313,  315 
 
522 
 
 Index. 
 
 Books  continued — 
 
 Wahres  Christenthum,  363  n. 
 Weissagd.  A.  T.,  154 
 Westminster  Confession,  349  re.,  359 
 Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  340  n. 
 Worterbuch  des  N.   T.,   405 
 Writings  of  Tertullian,  178  n.,  185  re. 
 
 Yapaim,  88,  336 
 
 Yad  Hachazaka,  52  n. 
 
 Yoma,  51  n.,  57  n.,  58  n.,  62  n. 
 
 Zeitschr.,  78,  148 
 Zeitschr.  fur  Fkilos.,  270  n. 
 Zinzendorf,  Le  Comte  de,  390 
 Zohar,  97 
 Zougoth,   65  n. 
 
 Zur  Schbnen  Literatur  und    Kunst, 
 406 
 
 Borgia,  311 
 
 Brentius,  his  estimate  of  the  Book  of 
 
 Ecclesiastes,  32 
 Brethren  of  the  Common  Life,  the,  312 
 Browning's  Ring  and  the  Book,  extract 
 
 from,  305 
 Brussels,  314 
 
 Bucer  on  Thomas  Aquinas,  289  re. 
 Budaeus,  66  n. 
 
 C. 
 
 Cade,  Jack,  and  Gregory  the  Great,  on 
 the  teaching  of  grammar,  246  and  re. 
 
 Cajetan,  Cardinal,  Luther's  conference 
 with,  325  n. 
 
 Caligula,  137  re. 
 
 Calixtus,  Georg,  his  influence  as  au 
 advocate  for  tolerance  and  concord, 
 382 ;  and  on  the  exegesis  of  the 
 17th  century,  382  and  re. 
 
 Calov,  Abraham,  character  of,  364  ;  his 
 hatred  for  Grotius,  365  re.  ;  his 
 worship  of  the  Word  of  God,  375  re. 
 
 Calvin,  the  greatest  exegete  and  theo- 
 logian of  the  Reformation,  343  ;  es- 
 timate of  his  work  and  of  its  influence, 
 343-345  ;  his  Commentaries  still  a 
 living  force,  342  ;  authorities  on  him 
 and  on  his  works,  343  re.  ;  character- 
 istic features  of  his  exegesis  an  abhor- 
 rence of  hollow  orthodoxy,  345  ;  he 
 anticipated  modern  criticisms  in  his 
 views  about  the  Messianic  prophecies, 
 346  ;  his  opinion  as  to  the  business 
 of  an  interpreter,  347;  examples  of  his 
 comments,  347,  348  ;  he  upholds  the 
 supreme  and  final  authority  of  Scrip- 
 ture, 349  j  moral  aspect  of  his  exe- 
 
 gesis, 350,  351 ;  his  spirit  of  in- 
 tolerance, 351  ;  reflections  on  the 
 work  of,  351-353 ;  his  notes  on 
 Messianic  passages,  472 
 
 Calvinism,  the  post-Reformation  con- 
 trovers}r  regarding,  366 
 
 Camerarius  on  the  theology  of  the 
 12  th  century,  310  n. 
 
 Canon,  the  Hebrew,  places  the  his- 
 torical books  among  the  Prophets, 
 9  re.  ;  Jerome's  views  on  the,  225  ; 
 Luther's,  335,  336  ;  criticism  of  the, 
 as  old  as  the  Rabbis,  336  re. 
 
 Cappadocian  triumvirate,  the, — Basil 
 the  Great,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and 
 Gregory  of  Nazianzus, — notice  of, 
 219 
 
 Cappellus,  Ludovicus,  his  influence  as  a 
 critic  on  the  theology  and  exegesis  of 
 the  17th  century,  386  ;  the  publica- 
 tion of  his  Critica  Sacra  marks  an 
 epoch,  387 
 
 Caracal]  a,  81  re. 
 
 Carlstadt,  one  of  the  helpers  of  the 
 Reformation,  341  ;  his  book  on  the 
 canon  of  Scripture,  341  re. 
 
 Carpenter,  Prof.  J.  E.,  52  re." 
 
 Casaubon,  Isaac,  his  remark  about  the 
 disputes  of  the  Sorbonne,  291  re.  ; 
 his  rebuke  of  Baronius,  297  n. 
 
 Case-sign  in  Hebrew,  Rabbinical  dis- 
 pute regarding  the,  74  and  re. 
 
 Cassiodorus,  24  n.,  26  and  re. 
 
 Catenae  or  excerpts,  nature  and  number 
 of,  248  and  re.,  250  n.  ;  difference 
 between  glosses  and,  250  n.,  251 
 
 Celsus,  17 
 
 Chakamim,  or  Wise,  52 
 
 Charles  I.,  apotheosis  of,  in  the  Church 
 of  England,  after  the  Restoration, 
 40  re. 
 
 Charles  V.,  324 
 
 Chasidim,  the  original  name  of  the 
 Pharisees,  11  and  re.  ;  meaning  of  the 
 term,  lire. 
 
 Chatack,  mystic  associations  of  the 
 Hebrew  word,  102  and  re. 
 
 Chillingworth  on  the  interpretation  of 
 the  Scriptures,  8  n. 
 
 Christ,  the  work  of,  nameless  horror 
 which  it  sometimes  involved,  41 
 and  n.  ;  difference  between  the  work 
 of  Hillel  and  that  of,  66,  67  ;  the 
 ransom  of,  supposed  by  Ireuaeus  to 
 be  paid  to  Satan,  176  ;  mistake  made 
 by  Irenaeus  as  to  the  age  of,  176 
 and  re.  ;  danger  arising  from  Luther's 
 rule  of  finding  Christ  everywhere  in 
 Scripture,  333  ;  observations  of  F.  W. 
 
Index. 
 
 523 
 
 Robertson od  this  rule,  334  n.  ;  post- 
 Reformation  dispute  regarding  the 
 double  nature  of,  367-3(59  ;  Lessing 
 on  observing  the  commandments  of, 
 397  /'.  ;  reverence  of  Kant  for,  408  n. 
 
 I  In  istian  Kabbalistsand  their  methods, 
 36  n. 
 
 Christianity  and  orthodox}-,  Chalybiius 
 on,  161  n. 
 
 Christians,  true  and  false,  25 
 
 Chronicles,  the  Books  of,  nature  of, 
 62  n. 
 
 Church  and  the  Gospel,  the,  Luther's 
 decision  as  to,  326 
 
 Church,  Dean,  on  the  character  of  the 
 Fathers,  241 
 
 ( Ihurch,  Tichonius's  first  rule  as  to  the, 
 25 
 
 Churches,  types  of,  25 
 
 Chrysostom,  the  Qomilist,  of  the  School 
 of  Antioch,  220  ;  his  character,  in- 
 fluence, and  writings,  220,  221  ; 
 Dante  assigns  him  a  place  in  Para- 
 dise, 221  ;  <  iardina]  Newman's  opinion 
 of,  221  n.  ;  his  opinion  of  Scripture 
 and  of  the  importance  of  studying 
 it,  222  ;  Luther's  opinion  of,  222  n.  ; 
 saying  of,  regarding  the  Fathers,  242 
 
 Cibber,  Colley,  278  n. 
 
 Cicero,  quotation  from  his  De  Juvent., 
 64  n.  ;  on  the  fables  of  the  ancient 
 1 Is,  135 
 
 Claudius,  98  n.,  401 
 
 ( lenient  of  Alexandria,  estimate  of,  and 
 of  his  writings,  184-187  ;  character- 
 istic features  of  bis  system,  185-187  ; 
 his  doctrine  of  accommodation,  187 
 and  n. 
 
 Clement  of  Rome,  estimate  of,  and  of 
 
 his  work,  and  of  bis  influence  on  early 
 
 .   166,    167,  and   us.  ;  on  the 
 
 ([notations   from    tlie   Scriptures    in, 
 
 166  /«. 
 
 Clement  V.,  Pope,  316  n. 
 
 Clement  VII.,  Pope,  309 
 
 ('Inn- lit  VI  ||.,  Pope,  316». 
 
 Clerc,  l.e,  bis  theorj  of  accommodation, 
 379  7t. 
 
 mis  and  Cocceianism,  influence  of, 
 on  the  theology  and  of  the 
 
 17th  century,  885,  386 
 
 ( loleridgo,  bis  comparison  of  the  leading 
 
 Reformers  with  the  Fathers,  163  n., 
 
 influence  of  bis  works  in  originating 
 
 a  new  school  of  thought,  122  ;  authon- 
 
 &nd  works  on,  122  n. 
 
 i  !ol<  t.  Dean,  on  God  and  the  soul, 
 255  //.  ;  on  the  souse  of  Scripture, 
 300  a. 
 
 Colon,  24  n. 
 
 r,  Jeremy,  17  n. 
 
 Columbus,  427 
 
 Commentators  of  the  Reformation 
 period,  342  n.  ;  mediaeval  Jewish  461 
 
 Commentators  of  the  Reformed  and 
 Lutheran  Church,  characteristics  of, 
 372  n. 
 
 Confessions,  list  of  the  leading,  of  the 
 post-Reformation  period,  359;  .Mil- 
 ton's protest  against,  359  n.  ;  in- 
 fluence of,  on  the  age,  360 
 
 Controversies,  mediaeval,  account  of 
 the  chief,  253  ;  and  of  those  of  the 
 post-Reformation  period,  362,  366 
 ct  scq.  ;  Renan  on  controversies 
 regarding  errors,  363 
 
 Constantine,  on  the  Donation  of,  to 
 the  Church,  298,  312,  313  and  n. 
 
 Council  of  Trent,  307 
 
 Council  of  Constance,  310 
 
 "Counsels  of  perfection,"  meaning  of 
 the  phrase,  11 
 
 Cousin  on  the  periods  of  scholasticism, 
 253  n. 
 
 Covenant,  Ezra's  conception  of  a,  58 
 and  n. 
 
 Creeds,  the  age  of,  359 
 
 Creeping  things,  the  Talmud  on  the 
 cleanness  of,  64 
 
 Crilica  Sacra,  Cappellus's,  controversy 
 raised  by  the  publication  of,  387  n.  ; 
 extract  from,  387  n. 
 
 Crowns,  the  three,  of  the  Talmud,  61 
 
 Crowns  on  Hebrew  letters,  explanation 
 of  their  use,  74  and  //,.  ;  Rabbinical 
 legend  regarding  Moses  and  the,  75 
 and  n. 
 
 ders,  the,  justify  their  deeds  by 
 Scripture,  39 
 
 Cryptographs,  Talmudic,  450 
 
 Culverwvll  on  new  opinions,  395 
 
 Cyril  of  Alexandria,  his  comment  on 
 Cant.  iii.  9-11,  211  n. 
 
 Cyprian,    estimate     of,     and    of    his 
 'writings,  180-182 
 
 D. 
 
 DANTE,  his  reference  to  the  name  of 
 Rachel,  23  n.  ;  chairs  founded  to 
 comment  on  his  Divina  Commedia, 
 47  ;  his  opinion  concerning  the 
 mystical  Benae,  l">!*  ;  assigns  to 
 Chrysostom  a  place  in  Paradise,  221  ; 
 his  estimate  of  Dionysiua  the  Areo- 
 pagite,   255  ".;  alludes  to  the  Pro- 
 
 ie     to     1 1 1 :  ol 
 
 Lombard,  202  ;  and  to  Albcrtus  and 
 
524 
 
 Index. 
 
 Thomas  of  Aquino,   267  n.  ;  on  the 
 power  of  the   Papacy,  298   n.  ;    on 
 the  donation  of  Constantine  to  the 
 Church,  312,  313  n. 
 Darwin  and  his  discoveries,  result  of, 
 
 426 
 Darwinian  principle,  reference  to  the,  9 
 David,   the  Scribes  absolve  him  from 
 
 all  sin,  63  and  n. 
 Davies,  Rev.   J.  LI.,  on  St.  Ambrose, 
 
 206  n. 
 Deception,  Jerome's  belief  in  the  per- 
 missibility of,  231  n. 
 Delitzsuh  on  the  Book  of  Eeclesiastes, 
 
 32 
 Densk,  one  of  the  helpers  of  the  Re- 
 formation,  341  :    his    view    of    what 
 constitutes  the  Word  of  Goil,  341  n. 
 Denis  on  Alexandrianism,  133  n. 
 Derenbourg,  4  n. 
 Descartes,  on  vain  speculation,  284,  358 
 
 n.,  383 
 Deutsch,  Dr.,  on  the  Halakha  and  the 
 
 Haggada,  89  ;  and  on  the  Law,  89 
 De  Wette,    his    view  of  the  Book   of 
 
 Eeclesiastes,  32 
 Deyling,  65  n. 
 Dialectic  method,  abuse  of  the,  by  the 
 
 Schoolmen,  288-291 
 Diderot,  his  remark  on  scepticism  being 
 
 the  first  step  to  truth,  266  n. 
 Diet  of  Nurnberg,  the,  311  n. 
 Digby,  Everard,  39 
 Diocletian  endeavours  to  suppress  the 
 
 New  Testament,  16 
 Diodorus   of    Tarsus,    founder   of    the 
 School    of  Antioch,    212  ;  nature  of 
 his  works,  213 
 Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  estimate  of. 
 and  of  his  criticism  on  the  Revela- 
 tion, 206,  207  and  n. 
 Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  on  the  influ- 
 ence of  the  writings  of,  254  and  ns. 
 Disraeli,  Isaac,  on  Judaism,  69 
 Dii-ina   Coin/media,   chairs   founded  to 
 
 comment  on  the,  47 
 Divine  progress  observable  everywhere, 
 
 157 
 Divine  Spirit,  the,  works  on  the  world 
 
 through  gifted  men,  353 
 Divorce,  views  of  Hillel  and  Aqiba  on, 
 
 77 
 Dogmatism,   on   theology,  the  age  of, 
 
 362  ;  and  the  Bible,  365  n. 
 Domitian,  176,  310 
 1  >onation  of  Constantine  to  the  Church, 
 
 on  the,  312,  313  n. 
 Donne,  on  the  language  of  the  K abba- 
 lists,  294  5i. 
 
 Dorner  on  the  opponents  of  Pietism. 
 382  n.  ;  his  Christology  ranks  with 
 the  greatest  works  of  Christian 
 orthodoxy,  419 
 
 Dorotheus,  the  presbyter,  209 
 
 Dorpius,  Erasmus's  reply  to,  on  eccle- 
 siastical authority,  320  n. 
 
 Double  nature  of  Christ,  dispute  re- 
 garding the,  367-369 
 
 Du  Cange,  6  n. 
 
 Duns  Scotus,  his  negative  style  of 
 exegesis,  280  ;  character  of,  301 
 
 Du  Pin's  remark  on  Paulinus  applicable 
 to  Jerome,  233  n. 
 
 Duraudus,  on  the  threefold  sense  of 
 Scripture,  6  n.,  295  n. 
 
 Durham,  33  n. 
 
 Dutch  theologians  and  universities  of 
 the  17th  century,  379  and  n.  ;  their 
 influence  in  reviving  a  better  system 
 of  exegesis,  379 
 
 E. 
 
 Ecclesiastes,  early  doubts  regarding 
 he  authenticity  of  the  Book  of,  31  ; 
 judgment  of  the  Rabbis  on,  31  ;  of  St. 
 Jerome  and  Augustine,  31  ;  of  the 
 Schoolmen,  32  ;  of  Olympiodorus 
 and  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  32 ;  of 
 Brentius  and  Luther,  32  ;  of  Mel- 
 anchthon,  32  ;  of  De  Wette,  Heine, 
 and  Delitzsch,  32 
 
 Edersheim,  64  n. 
 
 "  Egg,  the,"  notice  of  the  treatise  of 
 the  Mishna  so-called,  88 
 
 ijKpvcpias,  reference  to  the  Septuagint 
 word,  23 
 
 Ego  and  the  Non-Ego,  Fichte's  s)Tstem 
 of  the,  409 
 
 Eichhorn,  critical  labours  of,  402 
 
 Eliezer,  Rabbi,  his  remark  regarding 
 Shammai,  68 ;  and  Aqiba,  71  ;  is  a 
 pure  traditionalist,  73  n. 
 
 Elizabeth,  Queen,  '■'■'.>  n. 
 
 English  Church,  freedom  of,  from  the 
 controversies  of  the  post-Reformation 
 period,  376  ;  its  labours  in  the  field 
 of  Scriptural  studies,  420  et  scq.  ; 
 leaders  of  the  theology  of  the,  42t>; 
 effects  of  German  theology  on  the, 
 422  ;  influence  of  Coleridge  in  creat- 
 ing a  new  school  of  teachers  in,  423- 
 425 
 
 Erasmus,  on  the  barbarous  language  of 
 the  Schoolmen,  290  ;  and  on  their 
 useless  questions,  293  and  n.  ;  next 
 to  Luther,  he  rendered  the  greatest 
 service  to  the  Reformation,  316  j  his 
 
Index. 
 
 525 
 
 editio  prineepa  of  the  New  Testament 
 formed  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
 Western  Christendom,  316;  he  pro- 
 claimed it  to  be  the  i ighl  of  all  to 
 read  the  messages  of  the  Gospel  for 
 themselves,  .",17  ;  his  scholarship  and 
 exegetic  labours,  317-320;  rope's 
 lines  on,  318  n.  ;  antagonism  between 
 Luther  and,  319  ;  incurs  the  enmity  of 
 the  Chnrch,  319  ;  is  t  be  chief  founder 
 of  modern  textual  and  Biblical  criti- 
 cism, :;-J0  ;  his  reply  to  Dorpius  on 
 ecclesiastical  authority,  320  n.  ;  his 
 philological  knowledge,  321  n.  ;  esti- 
 mate of  the  work  which  he  did,  320- 
 322 
 
 Ephraem  Syrus,  see  Syrus  Ephraem 
 
 Evachim,  6  I  n. 
 
 Erigena,  Johannes  Scotus,  his  com- 
 parison of  the  meanings  of  Scripture, 
 7  ;  his  work  ami  influence  on  medi- 
 aeval controversy  and  exegesis,  253, 
 254;  his  greal  work,  J)c  JJiv.  Am'., 
 is  condemned  by  the  Council  of 
 Valence,  and  by  two  Popes,  25-1  n. 
 
 Ernesti,  4  n.  ;  critical  labours  of,  402 
 
 'Eruhin,  62  ns.,  63  n.,  65  n. ,  68  n.    ' 
 
 I  ther,  early  doubts  regarding  the 
 Book  of,  32  and  n. 
 
 Etheridge,  47  n.,  53  re.,  61  re. 
 
 Ktymology  of  the  Schoolmen,  speci- 
 mens of  the,  286  /'. 
 
 Eucharist,  controversy  between  Rat  ram 
 and  Paschasius  on,  and  between 
 Lanfranc  and  Berengarius  on,  253 
 
 Eucherius,  Bishop  of  Treves,  lengths 
 to  which  he  carried  allegory  in  exe- 
 gesis, 24  ;  nature  of  his  work  called 
 Lib  r  Formulorwm  tipvritalis  Intelli- 
 gentiat  .  24 
 
 Kuel id,  289 
 
 Kuevnius,  Tope,  262 
 
 Kuler,  bis  Defenc  oj  Revelation  against 
 the  Attacks  of  Freethinkers,  102 
 
 Evil  impulse,  the  Jews  desire  to  anni- 
 hilate the,  58 
 
 Excerpts  or  Catenae,  nature  and  num- 
 ber of,  248  and  //.,  250  and  n. 
 
 Exegesis,  Success  and  Failure  of, 
 
 1 — 4:! ;  Exegesis,  a.  matter  of  necessity 
 fori ks  immortalised  by  the  rever- 
 ence of  generations,  8  ;  importance 
 of,  in  reference  to  the  Bible,  I  ;  cen- 
 turies of  mistaken,  8,  9  ;  result  of, 
 when  tested  by  the  I  darwinian  prin- 
 ciple, 0  ;  and  hy  the  Hegelian,  9  ; 
 gradual  developmenl  of  a  proper 
 theory  of,   9;    the  Talmud  and   the 
 
 Exegesis  continued — 
 comments  of  the  Schoolmen  of  no 
 authority  in,  10  ;  two  reasons  why 
 exegesis  tend-  to  become  non-natural, 
 11  ;  the  Rabbinic  and  Alexandrian, 
 originated  in  a  union  of  these  two 
 causes,  11  ;  the  Christian  expositors 
 inherited  this  fatal  legacy,  11  ;  seven 
 main  periods  and  systems  of,  12  ; 
 nature  and  origin  of  the  methods 
 adopted  during  these  periods,  13  ; 
 j lower  and  grandeur  of  the  Bible  still 
 maintained,  notwithstanding  adverse 
 and  mistaken  methods  of,  13  ;  object 
 of  this  survey  of  the  history  of,  14  ; 
 review  of  the  various  kinds  and  errors 
 of,  15  ;  influence  of  the  various  ages 
 of,  on  the  Scriptures,  15,  16  ;  el 
 of  false  methods  of,  17,  18  ;  prin- 
 ciples of  the  Rabbinic  age  of,  18-22  ; 
 influence  of  Alexandrianism  on,  22  : 
 list  of  chief  hermeneutic  manuals 
 in  use  during  the  Patristic  epoch  of, 
 23  n.\  principles  of  the  Patristic  epoch 
 of,  23-26  ;  influence  of  Augustine  on 
 various  modes  of,  24  ;  of  Eucherius, 
 Bishop  of  Treves,  24  ;  of  the  seven 
 rules  of  Tichonius,  24-26  ;  erroneous 
 principles  of  other  epochs  of,  26  ; 
 Locke  on  the  abuse  of  words  in  oer- 
 tain  kinds  of,  27  ;  pernicious  influence 
 of  unfounded  principles  of,  27  etseq.  ; 
 remarks  of  a  Scotch  divine  on,  29  n.  ; 
 misapplication  of  the  principles  of, 
 to  First  Epistle  of  St.  John,  31  ;  to 
 Ecclesiastes,  31  ;  to  the  Song  of 
 Solomon,  32,  33  ;  incompetency  of 
 early,  to  render  correctly  the  first 
 verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
 34-38;  this  the  cause  of  positive 
 heresy,  37  ;  importance  to  mankind 
 of  mistaken,  38  et  seq. 
 
 Rabbinic  System  of  Exegesis,  47 
 
 — 107;  how  it  arose,  51  ;  Ezra  the 
 originator  of  it,  52  ;  aa1  are  of  his 
 work,  and  its  immense  influence 
 on  the  Jewish  nation,  51  et  seq.  ; 
 names  and  duration  of  the  various 
 Rabbinic  schools  of  exegesis,  52, 
 53  and  n.  ;  the  direct  and  in- 
 direct consequences  of  Ezra's  sys- 
 tem fatal  to  the  Jews,  56  ;  it  was 
 built  on  superstition  and  excluaive- 
 ness,  6(1  ;  and  set  aside  the  meaning 
 of  Holy  Writ,   63  :    accounl  of  the 
 
 leading   builders  Of  this   system,  65 
 
 81  ;  the  sweel  and  noble  FTillel,  65- 
 07  ;  Shammed,  the  rival  of  Hillel,  or, 
 
526 
 
 Index. 
 
 Exegesis  continued — 
 
 68  ;  Johanan  Ben  Zakkai,  68-70  ; 
 Rabbi  Aqiba,  71-78 ;  Rabbi  Juda, 
 79-81  ;  Aqiba's  extravagances  of  fan- 
 tastic exegesis,  71  ;  origin  of  what 
 was  known  in  the  post-Reformation 
 epoch  as  the  emphatic  style  of, 
 73  n.  ;  summary  of  the  result  of 
 centuries  of  Rabbinic,  83  et  seq.  ; 
 the  Halakha,  the  Haggada,  and  the 
 Qabbala,  the  main  sources  of  Rab- 
 binic, 84  ;  the  principal  contributions 
 of  Rabbinic  exegesis  of  the.  Old  Tes- 
 tament are  in  the  Targums,  the 
 Talmud,  and  in  the  Midrashim,  84  ; 
 Jewish  exegesis  as  applied  in  the 
 Midrashim  founded  on  four  methods, 
 95  ;  account  of  the  part  played  in 
 Rabbinic,  by  Gematria,  97  -  100  ; 
 Notarikon,  1 00  ;  and  Temoorah,  102 ; 
 a  mode  of,  which  consisted  in  alter- 
 ing the  words  of  the  text  into  others 
 resembling  them,  104  ;  summary  of 
 the  results  of  Rabbinic,  for  nearly 
 2,000  years,  105;  method  of  Rab- 
 binic, 111 
 
 Alexandrian  School  of,  111 — 158 ; 
 its  influence  on  the  Biblical  studies  of 
 the  Christian  Church,  111  ;  history 
 of  Alexandrian,  111-158  ;  the  method 
 of  allegorical,  126  ctseq.  ;  influence  of 
 the  writings  of  Aristeas  and  Aristo- 
 bulus  on  this  method,  128  et  seq.  ; 
 how  this  method  arose,  131  ;  the 
 Alexandrian  Jews  find  this  method 
 ready  to  their  hand,  134  ;  Philo's 
 works  the  epitome  and  development 
 of  the  allegorical  method  of,  137  ; 
 effect  of  his  eclecticism,  literalism, 
 and  rationalising  on  the  principles 
 of,  137-139  ;  his  method  of,  results 
 in  a  complete  perversion  of  Scripture, 
 139,  140  ;  frivolity  of  Philo's,  146, 
 147  ;  his  system  of,  reduced  to  six 
 rules,  149-152  ;  nullity  of  his  system 
 of,  153,  154  ;  result  of  his  system  of, 
 155  ;  legacy  of  Alexandrian,  156  ;  a 
 Divine  progress  observable  through- 
 out it,  157 
 
 Patristic  Exegesis,161 — 242;  gene- 
 ral view  of  the  exegesis  of  the  Fathers, 
 162  et  seq.  ;  opinions  of  Milton, 
 Grotius,  Coleridge,  and  others,  re- 
 garding the,  162,  163  and  ns.  ;  the 
 Septuagint  the  only  Bible  used  by 
 the,  165  ;  Clement  of  Rome  and  his 
 writings,    166  ;  the  Epistle  of   Bar- 
 
 Exegesis  continued — 
 
 nabas,  167-170;  the- Apologists  — 
 Hernias,  Polycarp,  Ignatius,  Tatian, 
 Athenagoras,  and  Theophilus  of  An- 
 tioch,  171  and  ns.  ;  Justin  Martyr 
 and  his  system,  170-174  and  ns.  ; 
 Irenaeus  and  his  views,  174-177  ;  the 
 Fathers  of  the  third  and  later  centu- 
 ries divided  into  three  schools,  177  ; 
 literal  and  realistic,  represented  by 
 Tertullian,  177  ;  the  allegorical,  by 
 Origen,  177 ;  the  historical  and 
 grammatical,  by  Theodore  of  Mop- 
 suestia,  177  ;  estimate  of  Tertullian 
 and  his  method  of  exegesis,  177-180 
 and  ns.  ;  of  Cyprian  and  his  method, 
 180-182  and  ns.  ;  the  school  of  Alex- 
 andria, 182,  183  ;  of  Clement  of 
 Alexandria,  the  first  great  teacher  of 
 this  school,  183-187  and  ns.  ;  the 
 characteristic  features  of  his  system, 
 185-187  and  ns.  ;  the  theory  of  ac- 
 commodation, 187  and  n.  ;  of  Origen. 
 the  greatest  master  of  the  school, 
 187-203  ;  his  greatness,  and  tin' 
 nature  and  influence  of  his  teaching, 
 188  et  seq.  ;  his  false  theory  and  false 
 system,  191  et  seq.  ;  his  errors,  198- 
 201  ;  his  special  influence,  201-203  ; 
 of  Hilary,  and  his  system  of  exegesis, 
 203-205  ;  specimens  of  his  allegoric 
 method,  204  and  n. ;  of  St.  Ambrose, 
 
 205  ;    of   Dionysius   of  Alexandria, 
 
 206  ;  of  Julius  Africanus,  207-209  ; 
 Bishop  Nepos  refutes  the  Allegorists, 
 209  ;  the  martyr  Lucian  revises  the 
 Septuagint,  209  ;  the  Presbyter 
 Dorotheus,  209  ;  Ephraem  Syrus, 
 and  his  method  of  exegesis,  209  ; 
 Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  the  founder  of 
 the  school  of  Tarsus,  212  ;  nature  of 
 his  works,  213  ;  Theodore  of  Mop- 
 suestia,  the  ablest  representative  of 
 the  school,  213  ;  the  merits  ami 
 defects  of  his  system  of  exegesis, 
 213,  214  ;  his  faults,  214  ;  instance! 
 of  his  erroneous  renderings  of  Scrip- 
 ture, 213,  214  and  ns.  ;  original 
 nature  of  his  exegesis,  215  ;  his 
 opposition  to  Origenising  allegory, 
 216  ;  his  independent  mode  of  dealing 
 with  Scripture,  216  ;  his  views  on 
 inspiration  and  prophecy,  217,  218  ; 
 his  influence  on  the  Western  Church 
 destroyed  by  the  charge  of  Nestorian  - 
 ism,  219  ;  he  is  succeeded  by  Theo- 
 doret,  who  upholds  his  views,  219  ; 
 the  great  Cappadocian  triumvirate 
 —  Basil  the  Great,  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
 
Index. 
 
 527 
 
 Exegesis  continued — 
 and  Gregory  of  Nazianzus — followed 
 a  via  mill  in  in  exegesis,  220;  they 
 avoid  the  extravagances  of  allegory, 
 220  ;  in  the  last  epoch  of  Patristic 
 exegesis,  three  names  tower  above  all 
 others,  220  ;  Chrysostom,  220  ; 
 estimate  of  his  character  and  writ- 
 ings, 220-222  ;  Jerome,  the  Origen 
 of  the  Western  Church,  222  ;  his 
 character  and  writings,  223,  224; 
 value  of  his  Vulgate  translation,  223  ; 
 his  services,  223-225  ;  his  serious 
 defects,  225  ct  seq.  ;  bis  baste, 
 225  ;  his  want  of  reflection,  227  ; 
 his  prejudices,  227  ;  his  lack  of 
 exegetic  decision,  228  ;  his  waver- 
 ing, 230  ;  his  views  on  inspiration, 
 230  ;  his  self-contradiction  on  the 
 subject  of  allegory,  231  ;  St.  Augus- 
 tine's system  of  exegesis,  234  ;  his 
 versatility,  235  ;  defects  of  his 
 system,  236  ;  his  use  and  ahusc  of 
 allegory,  236-238 ;  success  of  the 
 Allegorists,  230  ;  remarks  on  the 
 system  of  exegesis  of  the  Fathers, 
 240-242 
 
 Scholastic  Exegesis,  245—303; 
 derivation  of  the  term  scholasticism, 
 245  n.  ;  darkness  of  mediaeval  times 
 against  our  system  of  enlightened 
 exegesis,  245  ;  effects  of  the  Papal 
 system  and  the  inroads  of  the  bar- 
 barians on,  246  ;  saying  of  Gregory 
 of  Tours  regarding  these  times,  246  ; 
 excuses  for  this  in  his  beliefs,  246  n.  ; 
 homiletics  have  ever  been  to  an  in 
 credible  extent  the  Phylloxera  Vasta- 
 trix  of,  246  n.  ;  Charlemagne  endea- 
 vours to  revive  learning,  247  ;  but  all 
 knowledge  becomes  ecclesiastical, 
 247  ;  teaching  ofthe  Trivi/wm  and  the 
 (Juttilrii'iuiii  begins,  217  ;  explanation 
 of  these,  247  n.  ;  the  mediaeval 
 divines  merely  compilers,  248  ;  list 
 of  compilers  and  compilations,  248  v. ; 
 the  teaching  of  the  Latin  Church 
 rests  on  the  authority  of  three 
 Fathers — Ambrose,  Jerome,  and 
 Lugusfine,  248  n.  ;  the  7enerable 
 Bede  and  his  work,  247  ;  his  system 
 of  exegesis,  249  :  is  unr.-l \  the  sedi- 
 ment of  I'.iti i-t ic  exposil ion,  249  ; 
 the  compilations  of  Alcuiii  and 
 others,  249,  250;  uselessness  of  such 
 filiations,  250  ;  the  works  of 
 llaymo  of  Halbertstadt,  Rabanua 
 Mauros,   and  Paschasius   Radbertua 
 
 Exegesis  continued — 
 
 are  all  equally  servile,  2">0  ;  signifi- 
 cance of  Notker  of  St.  Gail's  remark, 
 250  ;  account  of  the  glosses  that  pre 
 vailed,  251  ;  remarks  of  various 
 authors  on  the  mediaeval  compila- 
 tions and  glossaries,  250,  251  and  us.  ; 
 specimen  of  the  Glossa  ordinaria  of 
 Walafrid  Strabo,  251,  252  ;  and  of 
 the  comment  of  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  on 
 "the  word,"  252;  notwithstanding 
 a  certain  freedom  of  thought,  medi- 
 aeval exegesis  is  null  and  naught, 
 253  ;  scholasticism  divided  into  three 
 epochs,  253  n.  ;  it  originated  in  con- 
 troversies between  the  Church  and 
 independent  thought,  253  ;  influence 
 on,  of  Johannes  Scotus  Erigena,  253  ; 
 his  work  and  its  result,  253,  254  and 
 ns.  ;  St.  Bernard,  "the  last  of  the 
 Fathers,"  his  influence  on  ecclesias- 
 tical rule  and  mediaeval  mysticism, 
 255,  256  ;  influence  of  mysticism  on 
 mediaeval  exegesis,  256  ;■  difference 
 between  scholasticism  and  mysticism, 
 256  ;  the  Song  of  Solomon  the  chief 
 text-book,  256,  257  and  ns.  ;  Hugo 
 and  Richard  of  St.  Victor  on  mysti- 
 cism, 257,  258  ;  mysticism  a  protest 
 against  the  speculative  inquiries  of 
 Abelard,  258  ;  Abelard,  the  chief 
 founder  of  scholasticism  proper,  259  ; 
 work  and  influence  of,  in  breaking 
 down  tradition  and  superstition, 
 259  ;  authorities  and  remarks  on  his 
 works,  259-261  ;  influence  of  Peter 
 Lombard  and  his  Sentences,  261  ; 
 they  become  the  text-book  of  scholas 
 ticism,  262  ;  the  Summa  of  Aquinas 
 and  the  Sentences  more  studied  and 
 expounded  than  the  Scriptures,  263  ; 
 fortunes  of  Aristotle  in  the  mediai 
 Church,  263  ;  his  works  became 
 known  through  the  medium  of 
 Spanish  Jews,  and  his  influence 
 rapidly  spread,  264,  265  ;  definition 
 of  scholastic  theology,  265  ;  in  exe 
 gesis  the  Schoolmen  are  a!  their 
 worst,  266  ;  Albeit  us  and  his  >; 
 of  exegesis,  267-269;  the 
 of  the  Schoolmen  paralysed  b\ 
 vicious  methods,  267;  Thou 
 Aquino,  and  his  method  of  e» 
 269-272  ;  influence  of  the  schol 
 cisni  and  mysticism  of  Bonaventura, 
 272;  his  system  of  explaining  S 
 tore  by  Scripture,  278  ;  Nicolas  of 
 Lyra,  the  Jerome  of  the  14th  century, 
 revives  the  tin. 
 
528 
 
 Index. 
 
 Exegesis  continued — 
 
 274  ;  his  work  and  its  influence  for 
 good,  274-278  ;  specimens  of  his 
 style,  and  remarks  on  them,  276- 
 278  and  ns.  ;  after  the  death  of  Lyra 
 no  improvement  till  the  dawn  of 
 the  Reformation,  278  ;  sketch  of  the 
 labours  of  Wiclif,  Hus,  Savonarola, 
 Gerson,  Picus  of  Mirandola,  and 
 Tostatus,  278,  279  ;  of  Turrecremata, 
 Jacob  Perez  of  Valentia,  John 
 "Wessel,  279  ;  with  Duns  Scotus  and 
 Raymond  Lulli  begins  the  decay  of 
 scholasticism,  280  ;  William  of 
 Occam  precipitates  its  dissolution, 
 281  ;  the  revival  of  Platonic  studies 
 also  aided,  282  ;  causes  of  the  defects 
 of  scholastic  exegesis,  283  ;  1.  a 
 vague  and  traditional  conception  of 
 inspiration,  283 ;  2.  being  Papal, 
 sacerdotal,  and  monkish, it  necessarily 
 fell  with  the  Reformation,  284  ;  3. 
 the  lack  of  due  equipment  in  the 
 writers,  284,  285  ;  4.  their  neglect  of 
 philology,  286  ;  5.  the  result  of  these 
 defects  rendered  their  exegesis  almost 
 useless,  287  ;  6.  their  abuse  of  the 
 dialectic  method,  288  ;  7.  the  bar- 
 barous   nature    of    their    language, 
 
 290  ;  8.  their  micrological  subtlety, 
 
 291  ;  summary  of  the  exegesis  of 
 scholasticism,  21'2  n.  ;  9.  their 
 assumption  that  every  part  of  Scrip- 
 ture admitted  of  a  multiplex  intclli- 
 gentia,  294  ;  10.  the  result  of  this 
 system  was  favourable  to  hierarchic 
 usurpation,  296  ;  reflections  on  the 
 system  and  on  the  great  masters  of 
 it,  298-303 
 
 1!  UEORMERS,  THE,AND  THEIR  SYSTEM 
 
 of,  307 — 354  ;  origin  of  the  Reforma- 
 tion, and  the  part  Luther  played  in 
 it,  307  ;  he  is  riot  to  be  held  respon- 
 sible for  the  evils  that  sprung  out  of 
 it,  307,  308  ;  the  Papacy  had  rendered 
 services  to  civilisation  and  humanity, 
 308  ;  but  in  the  16th  century  the 
 whole  system  had  become  corrupt, 
 308  ;  the  nature  and  extent  of  that 
 corruption,  309-311  ;  protest  of 
 mediaeval  literature  against  that 
 corruption,  309  ;  influence  of  the 
 Popes  in  debasing  the  Papacy,  309  ; 
 and  of  the  priesthood,  310,  311  ;  de- 
 liverance from  this  state  of  things 
 arose  from  the  study  of  the  Holy 
 Scriptures,  311,  312;  other  influences 
 which  contributed  to  this,  312  ;  1. 
 
 Exegesis  continued — 
 
 the  labours  of  Lorenzo  Valla,  312  ; 
 his  sound  system  of  exi  gesis  and  free 
 textual  criticism  were  of  great  value, 
 313,  314  ;  2.  the  labours  of  Jacques  le 
 Fevre  d'  taples,  314  ;  3.  still  greater 
 were  the  services  of  Reuchlin,  314  ; 
 he  effected  for  the  study  of  the  Old 
 Testament  what  Erasmus  did  for 
 the  New,  314  ;  4.  but  Desiderius 
 Erasmus  ranks  next  to  Luther  in  the 
 contest  with  ignorance  and  corrup- 
 tion, 316  ;  his  editio  princeps  of  the 
 New  Testament  formed  a  great  epoch 
 in  the  history  of  AVestern  Christen- 
 dom, 316  ;  he  proclaimed  it  to  be  the 
 right  of  all  to  read  the  messages  of 
 the  Gospel  for  themselves,  317  ;  his 
 scholarship  and  exegetic  labours,  317- 
 320  ;  is  the  chief  founder  of  modem 
 textual  and  Biblical  criticism,  320  ; 
 estimate  of  the  nature  and  value  of 
 the  work  of  Erasmus,  320-322  ;  in- 
 fluence of  the  stupendous  personality 
 of  Luther  on  the  false  exegesis  of  the 
 pre-Reformation  period,  322,  323  ; 
 the  "intensified  self"  of  the  German 
 nation,  he  gave  them  every  tiling  that 
 has  made  them  great,  323  ;  four  well- 
 marked  stages  in  his  religious  ad- 
 vance, 324,  325  ;  in  his  fourth  stage 
 he  obtained  a  clear  grasp  of  the  true 
 principles  of  Scripture  interpretation, 
 325  ;  1.  the  supreme  authority  of 
 Scripture-  itself,  325  ;  2.  the  suffi- 
 ciency of  Scripture,  327;  3.  rejects 
 the  fourfold  sense,  327  ;  4.  rejects  the 
 validity  of  allegory,  328  ;  5.  the 
 perspicuity  of  Scripture,  328;  6.  the 
 right  of  private  judgment,  329  ; 
 dilliculty  he  found  in  maintaining 
 this  last  principle,  330  ;  in  accord- 
 ance with  these  rules  he  lays  down  the 
 true  rules  of  Scripture  interpretation, 
 332-338  ;  his  views  on  various  books 
 of  Scripture,  335,  336 ;  although 
 some  of  his  views  were  rash,  they 
 were  founded  on  a  sound  basis,  337  ; 
 he  set  forth  those  views  on  which  the 
 future  of  the  Christian  faith  must 
 depend,  338  ;  1.  the  Word  of  God  is 
 not  to  be  regarded  as  identical  and  co- 
 extensive with  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
 339  ;  2.  his  view  of  inspiration  was 
 not  verbal,  339  ;  and  3.  that  the 
 Word  of  God  is  not  in  the  Scriptures 
 alone,  340  ;  remarks  on  the  import- 
 ance of  these  views,  341  ;  if  Luther 
 was  the  prophet,   Melanchthon  was 
 
Index. 
 
 529 
 
 Exegesis  continued — 
 the  teacher,  of  the  Reformation,  341  ; 
 Zwingli'a  work  and  influence,  341  ; 
 Oecolampadius,  Bueer,  Brenz,  Bu- 
 genhagen,  Musculus,  Cameraxius, 
 Bullinger,  Chemnitz,  and  Beza,  all 
 agreed  with  Luther  in  principle, 
 342  ;  statement  of  these,  342  ;  list  of 
 the  principal  commentators  of  the 
 period,  342  n.  ;  the  greatest  exegete 
 and  theologian  of  the  Reformation 
 was  Calvin,  342  ;  estimate  of  his  work 
 and  of  its  influence, 342-345;  his  Com- 
 mentaries still  a  living  force,  342  ;  a 
 characteristic  feature  of  his  exegesis  is 
 an  abhorrence  of  hollow  orthodoxy, 
 345  ;  he  anticipated  modern  criticism 
 in  his  views  about  the  Messianic 
 prophecies,  346  ;  his  opinion  as  to 
 the  business  of  an  interpreter,  347  ; 
 examples  of  his  comments,  347,  348  ; 
 he  speaks  incessantly  of  the  supreme 
 and  final  authority  of  Scripture,  349  ; 
 moral  aspect  of  his  exegesis,  350, 
 351 ;  his  spirit  of  intolerance,  351  ; 
 advance  made  by  the  Reformers  in 
 exegesis,  352  ;  reflections  on  the  great 
 results  that  sprang  from  the  Reforma- 
 tion, 353,  354 
 
 Post-Reformation  Period,  357 — 
 394  ;  the  great  work  of  the  Reformers, 
 
 357  ;  the  advance  they  made  not  con- 
 tinued, 357  ;  characteristics  of  the 
 present  period,  358  ;  an  age  of  a  dead 
 theory  of  inspiration,  and  of  contro- 
 versial dialectics  of  an  iron  uniformity, 
 
 358  ;  the  work  of  the  whole  epoi  li 
 was  retarded  by  a  double  curse,  359  ; 
 tyrannous  eonfessionalism  and  con- 
 tentious bitterness,  359  ;  the  Creeds 
 ami  (  'onfcssioiisof  the  period,  and  the 
 
 influence  they  exerted,  359-861;  its 
 
 huge  books  of  theology,  361;  now 
 buried  in  the  dust  of  oblivion,  361  ; 
 controversies  of  the  age,  362-366; 
 their  number,  nature,  ami  results, 
 362-366;  the  two  chief  controversies 
 of  the  age,  3ii6-376  ;  on  Calvinism, 
 or  the  doctrine  of  predestination, 
 366  ;  on  the  double  nature  of  •  Ihrist, 
 367-369;  on  confounding  "inspira- 
 t ion  "  with  "  verbal  dictation,"  369  ; 
 "the  Bible "  and  "  the  Word  of 
 God  "  not  synonymous,  S69  ;  on  the 
 meaning  of  inspiration  as  denned  by 
 the  greatest  theologians,  370  ;  how 
 the  doctrine  of  Bibliolatry  arose, 
 370  ;  universality  and  power  of  this 
 
 Exegesis  continued — 
 dogma  of  the  deification  of  the 
 Scriptures,  370  et  scq.  ;  it  strangled 
 all  spiritual  life  and  growth,  375  ; 
 under  such  a  system  a  true  exegesis 
 becomes  impossible,  376  ;  the  Eng- 
 lish Church  comparatively  untouched 
 by  these  controversies,  376  ;  aids  in 
 overthrowing  the  system,  377  ;  which 
 gradually  disappears  from  every  Pro- 
 testant country  on  the  Continent, 
 377  ;  how  the  deliverance  came,  378  ; 
 nature  and  influence  of  Dutch  theo- 
 logy in  the  matter,  379  ;  Dutch  uni- 
 versities and  their  theologians,  379  n. ; 
 influence  of  the  Pietists  in  the  re- 
 generation, 380-382  ;  of  the  spirit  of 
 tolerance  and  culture,  382  ;  the  dawn- 
 ing of  modern  philosophy  had  also  a 
 liberating  influence,  383  ;  mysticism 
 also  contributed  to  the  lifting  up  of 
 day,  384  ;  the  influence  of  Cocceius, 
 385  ;  and  the  growth  of  criticism, 
 were  also  factors,  386  ;  result  of  these 
 movements,  388  ;  they  produced  men 
 whose  names  will  stand  for  ever 
 among  the  great  and  good,  389  ;  in 
 Zinzendorf  and  the  Moravian  brother- 
 hoods may  be  seen  the  undying  force 
 of  practical  Christianity,  389,  390  ; 
 in  John  James  Wetstein,  Professor  at 
 Basle,  is  to  be  seen  all  that  is  best  in 
 the  epoch  in  learning  and  criticism, 
 391 ;  still  greater  and  more  blessed  was 
 the  work  of  the  illustrious  Bengel, 
 392-394 ;  whose  gentle  spirit  fitly 
 closes  this  troubled  epoch,  393,  394 
 
 Modern  Exegesh,S97— 487; difficul- 
 ty of  giving  an  adequate  idea  of,  397  ; 
 the  furious  squabbles  of  the  Lutheran 
 and  Reformed  Churches  paved  the 
 way  for  doubt  and  infidelity,  397  ; 
 labours  of  Leibnitz  and  Wolff,  398  ; 
 of  Lessing,  399  ;  nature  of  his  work, 
 399  ;  influence  of  the  Wolfenbuttel 
 fragments  of  Reimarus  in  the  spread 
 of  unbelief,  400  ;  extent  of  the  injury 
 done  by  Reimarus  and  F.  A.  Bahrdt 
 400;  conflict  between  religion  and 
 unbelief,  401  ;  stand  made  by  Ilaller 
 and  Euler  against  unbelief,  402  ;  cold 
 nature  of  the  exegetical  labours  of 
 the  time,  402  ;  of  those  of  Michaelis, 
 Ernesti,  Eichhorn,  and  Paulas,  402  ; 
 Sender  marks  a  distinct  epoch,  402  ; 
 nature  and  influence  of  his  work, 
 403-40f>  ;  he  is  succeeded  by  the 
 genial  influence  of  Herder,  -10;*'  ;  he 
 M    M 
 
530 
 
 Index. 
 
 Exegesis  continued — 
 infused  the  glowing  heat  of  a  poetic 
 soul  into  the  lifeless  learning  of  his  day, 
 405-407  ;  the  attempt  of  Kant  to  form 
 a  union  between  philosophy  and  re- 
 ligion, 407  ;  nature  of  Kant's  system, 
 408 ;  Fichte  tries  to  get  rid  of  the 
 Kantian  dualism,  409  ;  the  construc- 
 tive movement  of  the  new  epoch 
 begun  with  Schleiermacher,  409  ;  his 
 works  produce  a  powerful  and  healthy 
 influence,  409-411  ;  he  was  the 
 founder  of  the  psychological  school 
 of  exegesis,  409 ;  succeeded  by  Hegel, 
 who  attempts  to  make  religion  a 
 phase  of  philosophy,  411  ;  principle 
 of  the  Hegelian  philosophy,  412 ; 
 influence  of  Strauss's  Life  of  Jesus, 
 413  ;  and  of  the  works  of  Baur,  on 
 the  unbelief  of  the  age,  414 ;  but 
 Neander  stems  the  rising  tide,  414  ; 
 nature  and  effects  of  the  works  of 
 Strauss  and  Baur,  415,  416  ;  orthodox 
 reaction  caused  by,  417  ;  the  leading 
 German  labourers  in  the  field  of  faith, 
 419  ;  and  French,  420  ;  labours  and 
 influence  of  the  English  Church  in 
 Scriptural  studies,  420  et  seq.  ;  leaders 
 of  English  theology,  420  ;  depress- 
 ing effect  of  German  theology  on  the 
 English  mind,  422 ;  influence  of 
 Coleridge  in  causing  a  reaction 
 against  this,  422  ;  he  creates  a  new 
 school  of  English  teachers,  423  ; 
 whose   influence  is    daily    growing, 
 
 424  ;  a  living  piety  kindled  by  their 
 labours,  425  ;  effects  on  the  human 
 mind  of  the  increase  of  knowledge, 
 
 425  ;  conflict  between  religion  and 
 science,  426 ;  what  should  be  the 
 attitude  of  religion  to  science,  427  ; 
 advance  of  the  human  intellect  in  all 
 branches  of  knowledge,  428  ;  in  the 
 knowledge  of  Scripture,  429  ;  how 
 best  to  apply  this  knowledge  for  the 
 good  of  all,  430  ;  the  secret  of  all 
 our  progress  and  success  is  building 
 on  the  Son  of  God,  431  ;  it  is  because 
 all  past  systems  have  not  done  this 
 that  they  have  failed,  432  ;  for  cen- 
 turies the  truth  of  God  has  been 
 obscured  or  hidden  by  the  wilful 
 perversions  of  men,  433  ;  if  a  Guide 
 is  needed  for  the  understanding  of 
 Scripture,  the  Lord  Christ  Himself 
 is  the  only  one,  434  ;  as  He  taught 
 the  Rabbis  and  Pharisees  of  His  own 
 days,  so  will  He  teach  us  the  true 
 mode  of  dealing  with  Scripture,  435  ; 
 
 Exegesis  continued — 
 
 and  nothing  better  can  be  found  than 
 belief  in  Christ,  437 
 
 Exegetes,  faults  incidental  to,  5 
 
 Experience,  advancing,  danger  of  re- 
 fusing the  teaching  of,  10 
 
 Expositor,  qualifications  of  the  perfect, 
 4,  27  ;  Jerome's  views  as  to  the  duty 
 of  an,  227  n.  ;  Calvin's  conception 
 of  the  duties  of  an,  344  n. 
 
 Expositors,  the  greatest  Puritan  and 
 the  best  Roman  Catholic,  of  the  post- 
 Reformation  period,  394  n. 
 
 Ezra,  seven  "counsels  of  perfection" 
 attributed  to,  11  n.,  12  ;  the  founder 
 of  Judaism  and  of  the  Oral  Law,  51, 
 52  ;  his  influence  and  labours,  51.  52 
 and  lis.  ;  estimation  in  which  he  was 
 held,  and  legends  regarding  him,  53  ; 
 the  gulf  that  separates  him  from  the 
 great  prophets  of  his  race,  53  ;  his 
 immense  influence  and  what  it  pro- 
 duced, 54-56  ;  a  Scribe,  56  ;  his  con- 
 ception of  a  covenant,  58  and  n. 
 
 Ezekiel,  the  prophet  passes  into  the 
 Scribe  in,  52 
 
 Faber  Stapulensis,  284 
 
 Fabiola,  extract  from  Jerome's  letter  to, 
 226  n. 
 
 Fabriane,  the  Bishop  of,  311  n. 
 
 Facundus,  his  defence  of  Theodore  of 
 Mopsuestia,  216  n. 
 
 "Faith,  the  analogy  of,"  St.  Augus- 
 tine's and  St.  Chrysostom's  explana- 
 tion of,  236  and  n. 
 
 Farel,  351  n. 
 
 Farrar,  Dr.  A.  S.,  and  the  German 
 schools  of  thought,  402  n. 
 
 Fathers,  mistaken  interpretation  of 
 Genesis  i.  1  by  some  of  the,  38  ; 
 allusion  to  Philo  in  the,  156  k.  ; 
 general  view  of  the,  162  ct  seq.  ; 
 Milton's  estimate  of  the,  162,  163 
 and  n.  ;  Grotius's,  162  ?t.  ;  Cole- 
 ridge's, 162  n.  ;  the  Septuagint  the 
 only  Bible  used  by  the,  165  ;  influ- 
 ence on  early  exegesis  of  Clement  of 
 Rome,  166  ;  of  Barnabas,  167-170  ; 
 of  the  Apologists,  171  ;  of  Justin 
 Martyr,  172-174  ;  of  Irenaeus,  174- 
 177  ;  the  Fathers  of  the  third  and 
 later  centuries  divided  into  three 
 schools,  177  ;  the  Literal  and  Real- 
 istic, represented  by  Tertullian,  177  ; 
 the  Allegorical,  by  Origen,  177  ;  the 
 Historical     and     Grammatical,     bv 
 
Index. 
 
 531 
 
 Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  177  ;  esti- 
 mate of  Tertullian  and  his  system  of 
 exegesis,  177-180;  of  Cyprian,  180- 
 182;  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  183- 
 187  ;  of  Origen,  187-203  ;  of  Hilary, 
 203  ;  of  St.  Ambrose,  205  ;  of 
 Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  206  ;  of 
 Julias  Africanus,  207  ;  of  Bishop 
 Nepos,  209  ;  of  the  martyr  Lueian, 
 209  ;  of  the  presbyter  Dorotheus, 
 209  ;  of  Ephraem  Syrus,  209  ;  of 
 Diodorns  of  Tarsus,  212  ;  of  Theo- 
 dore of  Mopsuestia,  213  ;  of  Theo- 
 doret,  219  ;  of  Basil  the  Great,  219  ; 
 of  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  219;  of  Gre- 
 gory of  Nazianzus,  220  ;  of  Chrysos- 
 tom,  220  ;  of  Jerome,  222  ;  of  St. 
 Augustine,  '1'W  et  .s<tj.  ;  prevalence  of 
 allegory  in  exegesis  among  the 
 Fathers  generally,  240,  241  ;  errors 
 of  the,  in  exegesis,  241  ;  Dean 
 Church  on  the  character  of  the,  241 ; 
 general  estimate  of  the,  and  of  their 
 wisdom,  their  zeal,  and  their  forti- 
 tude, 241  ;  the  saying  of  St.  Chrysos- 
 tom  regarding  the,  242  ;  the  Vener- 
 able Bede   reckoned    amongst    the, 
 
 .  249  and  re.  ;  Luther  rejects  the 
 authority  of  the,  326  ;  remarks  of 
 Luther  on  the,  471 
 
 Fichte,  J.  H.,  on  the  office  of  gifted 
 men,  353  re.  ;  estimate  of,  and  his 
 system  of  philosophy,  409 
 
 Ficino,  282 
 
 Flu. Id,  36  re. 
 
 Fourfold  sense  of  Scripture,  views  of 
 the  Schoolmen  on  the,  294  et  scq.  and 
 ns.  ;  receives  its  deathblow  from  the 
 Reformers,  299  ;  Luther  rejects  the, 
 327 
 
 Franck,  Seb.,  one  of  the  helpers  of  the 
 Reformation,  341  ;  his  opinion  of  the 
 Bible,  341 
 
 Fringes,  opinions  as  to  the  Jewish  law 
 of,  50,  87,  88  and  ns. 
 
 Furs!  on  I  be  development  of  the  canon, 
 tradition,  and  Jewish  theology,  66 
 n.,  69  //. 
 
 <;. 
 
 I  rAD,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost  saeivd 
 books,  6 
 
 Cains,  Emperor,  458 
 
 Galileo,  426.    I  J 7 
 
 Gaonim,  or  excellent,  53  and  re. 
 
 Gell(  it.  the  hymns  of,  and  their  in- 
 fluence on  the  I  ferman  mind,  401 
 
 i  lemara,  the  Babylonian,  L2  n.  ;  im- 
 portance  attached  bj  the  Rabbis  to 
 
 the  teachings  of  the,  62,  63  ;  formed 
 a  part  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud, 
 82  ;  value  the  .Tews  set  upon  the,  82; 
 abounds  with  the  Haggada,  90 
 
 Gematria,  50  //.,  51  n.,  65  ,/.  ■  explana- 
 tion of  the  Rabbinical  principle  of, 
 98-100;  derivation  of  the  word, 
 98  n.  ;  Tertullian  on,  99  re.  ;  other 
 two  branches  of  the,  100  ;  further 
 instances  of,  445 
 
 Genesis,  incompetency  of  early  exegesis 
 to  render  correctly  the  first  verse  of 
 the  first  chapter  of,  34-38  ;  import- 
 ance of  its  teaching  to  mankind,  34 
 
 Gennadius,  25  n.,  26  n. 
 
 Genoese  Bible,  the,  5  n. 
 
 Genus  and  species,  Tichonius's  rule  as 
 to,  25 
 
 German  Bible,  Luther's,  remarks  on, 
 323  et  8<  7. 
 
 Gerard,  Balthazar,  22,  39 
 
 Germany,  Emperor  William  of,  last 
 attempt  to  assassinate  the,  defended 
 from  Scripture  examples,  39  n. 
 
 Gerson,  Jean,  death-bed  of,  301 
 
 Gibbon,  his  remark  on  the  freer  latitude 
 of  faith  and  practice  allowed  to  the 
 disciples  of  the  Messiah,  252  n. 
 
 Gideon,  352 
 
 Gifted  men,  J.  II.  Fichte  on  the  office 
 of,  353  /'. 
 
 Gill,  Mr.  A.,  on  the  rendering  of  the 
 sense  of  Scripture,  30u  re. 
 
 Gitten,  12  re.,  64  re.,  68  re. 
 
 Glosses,  difference  between,  and  Cate- 
 nae, 250  re.  ;  marginal  and  inter- 
 linear, mediaeval,  nature  and  uses 
 of,  251  ;  remarks  of  various  authors 
 on  their  uses  and  abuses,  251  re. 
 
 diiiiiiion,   value  of  lieiigel's,  393  ami//. 
 
 Gospel  of  love  and  peace,  how  it  has 
 been  desecrated  by  .ignorance  and 
 fanaticism,  11  and  n. 
 
 Grata  on  Rabbinism,  S2  re.  ;  on  various 
 Jewish  books,  90  re. 
 
 Greek  philosophy,  and  the  tenets  of 
 the  Greek  philosophers,  to  be  found 
 in  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  128-131 
 and  ns.  :  views  of  clement  of  Alex- 
 andria on  the  relation  of  I  'liristianit  \ 
 to,  183  re. 
 
 Greeks,  the  poems  of  Homer  become  to 
 the,  a  sacred  book,  L35  ;  Philo  con- 
 siders himself  and  bis  countrymen 
 as,  117  n. 
 
 Gregory  the  Great,  estimation  in  which 
 his  thirty-five  books  of  Moralia  on 
 the  Boob  of  Job  were  held  during  the 
 
 Middle  Age-.  -J  10  and  //.  ;  is  opposed 
 M  M   - 
 
532 
 
 Index. 
 
 to  teaching  grammar,  246  ;   in  this 
 resembles  Jack  Cade,  246   and   n.  ; 
 references  to,  287,  303 
 Gregory   of    Nazianzus,    one     of    the 
 leaders   of  the   School   of  Antioch, 
 
 219  ;  follows  a  via  media  in  exegesis, 
 
 220  ;  bewails  the  growth  of  theologi- 
 cal technicalities,  291  n.  ;  on  the 
 quibbling  language  of  certain  theo- 
 logians, 293  n. 
 
 Gregory  of  Nyssa,  the  most  Origenising 
 of  all  the  Fathers,  202  ;  one  of  the 
 leaders  of  the  School  of  Antioch, 
 219  ;  his  system  of  exegesis,  220 
 
 Gregory  of  Tours,  saying  of,  regarding 
 the  dark  ages,  246 
 
 Gregory  IX.,  Pope,  264  n. 
 
 Gregory  XIII.,  Pope,  254  n. 
 
 Grotius,  his  opinion  of  the  Fathers, 
 163  n.  ;  hatred  of  Calov  for,  365  n.  ; 
 remarks  of  his  enemies  and  others 
 on,  380  ii. 
 
 Grynaeus,  234  n.,  344 
 
 Gutenberg,  314 
 
 II. 
 
 Haggada,  nature,  contents,  and  uses 
 of  the,  88-90  ;  opinions  of  the  Rabbis 
 as  to  the  value  of,  89,  90  ;  influence 
 of  the,  91  and  n.  ;  specimens  of  its 
 exaggerations,  91  n.  ;  buried  Scrip- 
 ture under  masses  of  legendary  dis- 
 tortion, 106 
 
 Haggadoth,  the,  nature  and  uses  of,  89 
 
 Halakha,  the,  63  ;  origin  and  nature  of, 
 84  and  n.  ;  Buxtorf's  definition  of, 
 84  n.  ;  opinions  of  the  Rabbis  regard- 
 ing, 85  ;  the  object  of  the,  87  ;  void 
 of  all  spiritual  significance,  106 
 
 Halakhoth,  "decisions,"  18  ;  the, 
 nature  and  number  of,  87  and  n.,  89 
 
 Hale,  Sir  Matthew,  40  n. 
 
 Haller,  made  a  stand  against  material- 
 ism, 402 
 
 Hamor,  21 
 
 Harpsfield,  278  n. 
 
 Haymo  of  Halberstadt,  a  mediaeval 
 compiler,  notice  of,  250 
 
 Heathendom,  hatred  of  the  Jews  to, 
 69  n. 
 
 Hebrew,  the  Scriptures  always  read  in 
 Jewish  public  worship  in,  119  ; 
 Buxtorf  and  Kennicott  on,  388  and 
 n. 
 
 Hebrew  canon  places  the  historical 
 books  among  the  Prophets,  9  n. 
 
 Hebrews,  the  whole  Epistle  to  the,  an 
 a  fortiori  argument,  19  n. 
 
 Hediots,  the  common  people  regarded 
 by  the  Pharisees  as,  59  n. 
 
 Hegel  and  his  philosophical  system, 
 account  of,  411-413  and  ns. 
 
 Hegelian  principle,  reference  to  the,  9 
 
 Heidelberg,  315 
 
 Heine  on  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  32 
 
 Heinz  on  St.  Ambrose,  206  n. 
 
 Hellenistic  writers  and  their  influence 
 on  the  sacred  books,  125  et  seq.  ; 
 they  are  superior  to  the  Rabbis, 
 131 
 
 Hengstenberg  and  his  school  of  reaction, 
 notice  of,  417  n. 
 
 Henry  III.,  39 ». 
 
 Herder,  services  rendered  to  the  Church 
 by  the  influence  of,  405  ;  nature  of 
 his  work,  405-407 
 
 Hergenrother,  Cardinal,  on  the  School 
 of  Antioch,  212  ;  on  the  growth  of 
 universities  and  the  fall  of  scholasti- 
 cism, 283  n. 
 
 Hennas,  only  one  quotation  from  the 
 Holy  Scriptures  in,  171  and  n. 
 
 Hermeneutic  manuals,  list  of  the  chief, 
 during  the  Patristic  period,  23  n.  ; 
 treatises  of  the  post-Reformation 
 period,  376  n. 
 
 Hermeneutic  rules  and  principles,  some, 
 473-476 
 
 Hermolaus  Barbaras,  284 
 
 Hezekiah,  350 
 
 Hibbert  Lectures,  308  n.,  312  n. 
 
 Hilary,  22  ;  estimate  of,  and  of  his 
 method  of  exegesis,  203 
 
 Hilkiah,  the  priest,  48 
 
 Hillel,  seven  rules  of  interpretation  of, 
 18-22  ;  abstract  of  the,  18,  19  ii.  ;  by 
 his  seven  rules  he  became  the  founder 
 of  Talmudism,  22  ;  his  rule  of 
 "  equivalence  "  as  applied  to  Genesis  i. 
 2,  34  ;  his  opinion  as  to  the  Law,  50  ; 
 highest  honour  of,  to  be  called  a 
 "scholar  of  Ezra,"  51  n.  ;  after  the 
 death  of  the  last  prophet  the  She- 
 kinah  rested  on,  51  ?i.  ;  he  is  the  first 
 Rabbi  to  be  called  a  prince,  52  n.  ; 
 his  legal  fiction  of  "the  Prosbol," 
 
 64  ;  sketch  of  his  origin  and  work, 
 65-67  and  ns.  ;  classification  and 
 hermeneutics  were  his  chief  services, 
 
 65  ;  Shammai  and  Hillel  the  last  of 
 the  "  couples  "  who  led  the  schools, 
 65  n. ;  list  of  the  patriarchs  of  the  house 
 of,  66  n.  ;  authorities  on  the  life  and 
 work  of,  66  n.  ;  difference  between 
 the  work  of  Christ  and  that  of,  66, 
 67  ;  Geiger,  Friedlander,  and  Renan 
 on,  66  ii. 
 
Index. 
 
 ,33 
 
 Hirschfeld,  4  n. 
 
 History,  the  objective  development  of 
 the  Idea,  9  ;  secular,  a  revelation, 
 10  ;  Vico'a  estimate  of,  10 
 
 Hugo  of  St.  Cher,  his  textual  and  prac- 
 tical labours  on  the  Bible,  274  n. 
 
 Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  his  estimate  of  the 
 Book  of  Kccli'siastcs,  :;-j  ;  liis  remarks 
 on  the  Word,  2.">2  ;  his  theory  of 
 exegesis  hopelessly  perverted,  252  ; 
 his  exposition  of  mysticism  and  con- 
 templation, 257 
 
 Homiletics,  inlluence  of,  on  interpreta- 
 tion, 14  ;  have  been  to  an  incredible 
 extent  the  Phylloxera  Vastalrir  of 
 exegesis,  246 
 
 Homer,  the  poems  of,  become  to  the 
 Greeks  a  sacred  book,  135  ;  Plato, 
 unable  to  harmonise  the,  crudities  of, 
 banishes  the  poets  from  his  ideal  re- 
 public, 135  ;  how  the  Stoic  Allegor- 
 ists  ileal  with,  136 
 
 Honorius  III.,  Tope,  253,  254  n. 
 
 Holy  Scriptures,  controversies  caused 
 by  the  mistaken  view  of  the  Reformers 
 as  to  the,  369  et  seq. 
 
 Holy  Spirit,  the,  and  the  written  word, 
 controversies  regarding,  370  et  seq. 
 
 Hooker  on  the  over-magnifying  the 
 Scriptures,  372 
 
 Hosai,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost  sacred 
 books,  7 
 
 Humanity,  Bibles  of,  sacred  books  so 
 called,  1 
 
 Hus  is  praised  by  Luther  for  his  exe- 
 is,  279;  Luther  held  and  taught 
 i  he  doctrines  of,  312 
 
 I ! 3 1.  amis,  John,  55  /'.,  66 n. 
 
 I. 
 
 I  Dm  i,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost  sacred 
 1 ks,  7 
 
 »X<?5s,  the    I ussymbol,  101  and  n. 
 
 Ignatius,  1  71 
 
 lllyricus,  Matthias  Flacius,  his  exposi- 
 i ion  i'f  the  principles  which  guided 
 tin'  Reformers,  342  and  //.  ;  •  lamer- 
 arius's  judgmi  m  on,  36 1  ami  //. 
 
 I  mioeeiit    III.,    Pope,  298  ami  n. 
 
 Inline,  nt  VIII.,  rope,  809 
 
 Inquisition,  Spanish,  justified  byScrip- 
 t  are  warrant,  1 1  and  n. 
 
 Inspiration,  Philo's  views  on,  1  It's  1  17  ; 
 Theodore  of  Mopsuestia's,  217  j  I  be 
 Alexandrian  theory  of, 217  ;  Jerome's, 
 230  ;  Luther's,   887,   389  :    meaning 
 
 of,    as    understood     by    the    greatest 
 
 theologians  and  by  the  Church  of 
 England,  369  ;  the  Prayer  Hook  and 
 Homilies  on,  370  n. 
 
 Interpreter,  aim  and  qualifications  of 
 the  perfect,  4,  5  ;  Luther  as  an,  5  and 
 n.  ;  various  qualities  with  which  an 
 ideal,  must  be  endowed,  27  ;  Calvin's 
 views  as  to  the  duties  of  an,  344,  347 
 
 Interpretation,  see  Exegesis 
 
 Intolerance,  the,  of  Calvin  and  the 
 Puritans,  350-352 
 
 Irenaeus,  estimate  of,  and  of  his  method 
 of  exegesis,  174-177  and  rag.  ;  child- 
 ish stories  in,  175  and  n.  ;  he  is 
 the  first  wdio  suggests  the  view  that 
 Christ's  ransom  was  paid  to  Satan, 
 176 
 
 Isaiah,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost  sacred 
 books,  7 
 
 [shmael,  Rabbi,  opposed  to  the  method 
 of  Arpiba,  72 
 
 Isidore,  the  Decretals  of,  312 
 
 Jahne,  Rabbi  Johanan  Pen  Zakkai 
 founds  a  school  at,  68  and  n.  ;  be- 
 comes the  heiress  of  Jerusalem,  70 
 
 Jacques  Le  Fevre  d'Etaples,  his  writ- 
 ings contribute  to  the  Reformation, 
 314 
 
 Jael,  352 
 
 Jannaens,  Alexander,  55  n. 
 
 Jehovah,  disappearance  of  the  true 
 pronunciation  of,  62  n. 
 
 Jehu,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost  sacred 
 books,  7 
 
 Jerome,  St.,  sarcasm  of.  in  reference  to 
 erroneous  interpretation,  30;  his 
 rendering  of  the  wmd  Testament, 
 30/1.  :  his  rendering  of  /neravoeTTe, 
 118  ;  remarks  of,  on  the  Septuagint, 
 122/'.  :  on  Eusebius  of  Vercellae, 
 202//.  :  on  Hilary,  203  and  n.  :  his 
 remark  regarding  allegories,   1 4r>  //.  ; 
 
 on  St.  Ambrose,  205    and  ii.   :   one  of 
 
 the  ghn  ies  of  I  be  School  of  Antioch, 
 222;  the  Origen  of  the  Westen 
 Church,  222  ;  his  character,  223  ; 
 his  Vulgate  translation,  223;  Sul- 
 picius  Severus's  ace, nut  of  him, 
 223//.  ;  Ozanam's  opinion  of  him, 
 223//.  ;  his  teachers,  224  «.  | 
 abandonmenl  of  the  Seventy,  224 
 and  //..  •J'.'."'  :  liis  views  respecting  the 
 
 ca ,  225  ;  the  care  w it li  which  be 
 
 developed   the   literal    and    historic 
 sense,  225;  his  detects,  225  et  seq.  ; 
 
534 
 
 1 H<h ':r. 
 
 his  haste,  225  ;  his  want  of  reflection, 
 227  ;  his  bitter  prejudices,  227  ;  his 
 lack  of  exegetic  decision,  228  ;  his 
 views  on  marriage,  228  ;  his  views  on 
 inspiration,  230  ;  his  remark  on  the 
 original  identity  of  Presbyters  and 
 Bishops,  230  n. ;  discrepancy  between 
 his  theory  and  practice,  230  n.  ;  his 
 belief  in  the  permissibility  of  decep- 
 tion, 231  n.  ;  his  views  on  allegory, 
 231-234 
 
 Jerushalmi,  the,  or  Jerusalem  Talmud, 
 nature  of,  81,  82  and  ns. 
 
 Jesus  described  as  a  Rabbi  of  the  school 
 of  Hillel,  66  and  n. 
 
 Jesus,  Society  of,  307 
 
 Jews,  love  of  the,  for  the  Oral  Law 
 saves  them  from  national  obliteration, 
 54-56  and  ns.  ;  hatred  of  the,  to 
 heathendom,  69  n.  ;  their  love  for 
 their  religion,  and  their  interminable 
 wrangling  about  the  trifles  of  it,  70  ; 
 revolts  of  the,  76  n.  ;  pride  of  the, 
 in  the  Mislma  and  Gemara,  82  ;  the, 
 philologically  "  analogists, "  98  ;  be- 
 lief of  the,  in  the  mystic  value  and 
 importance  of  names,  98;  "atone- 
 ment of  the  cock,"  a  custom  of  the 
 Polish,  101  ;  influence  of  Greek 
 literature  on  the,  of  the  Dispersion, 
 113  ;  Egypt  a  school  of  wisdom  for 
 the,  114  ;  number,  influence,  and 
 wealth  of  the,  in  Alexandria,  115 
 and  n.  ;  grandeur  of  their  Great 
 Synagogue  there,  115  and  n.  ;  wide- 
 spread desire  of  the,  to  share  in  the 
 glories  of  Greek  literature,  126  ;  list 
 of  Jewish-Greek  writers,  126,  127  ; 
 observation  of  the  Son  of  Sirach  on 
 the  culture  of  the,  of  Alexandria, 
 119  ;  contact  of  the,  with  Greek  life 
 the  parent  of  Saduceeism,  139 
 
 Jewish-Greek  writers,  their  works  and 
 influence,  125  ct  seq. 
 
 Jewish  mediaeval  interpreters,  274, 
 275  and  ns. ;  and  commentators,  461- 
 464 
 
 Jewish  myths  and  genealogies,  93 
 
 Jewish  scholars,  what  modern  exegesis 
 owes  to  early,  107 
 
 Joel,  240  n.,  267,  339  n. 
 
 Johanan  Ben  Zakkai,  Rabbi,  one  of  the 
 pupils  of  Hillel,  account  of,  68-70  ; 
 authorities  on  the  work  of,  70  n. 
 
 John  a  Lasco,  351 
 
 John  of  Damascus,  his  commentaries 
 on  the  Eastern  Church,  248  and  n.  ; 
 may  in  a  sense  be  regarded  as  the 
 father  of  scholasticism,  262  n. 
 
 John  of  Salisbury  on  mediaeval  theo- 
 logical compilations  and  glosses,  251 
 ii.  ;  on  the  multiplex  iiitclligcntia  of 
 Scripture,  294  ;  on  logicians,  294 
 ii.  ;  on  the  theology  of  the  12th 
 century,  310 
 
 Jonah,  352  n. 
 
 Jose,  Rabbi,  expostulates  with  Aqiba 
 regarding  the  written  word,  71 
 
 Josephus,  his  views  on  inspiration,  148 
 n.  ;  the  exegetical  principles  of,  452 
 
 Joshua,  Rabbi,  raises  the  courage  ol 
 his  fellow  rabbis,  71  n.  ;  is  a  via 
 media  scholar,  73  n. 
 
 Juda,  Rabbi,  commits  the  Oral  Law  to 
 writing,  79 ;  his  compilation  was 
 called  Tlie  Mislma,  80  ;  derivation 
 of  the  name,  80  n.  ;  it  becomes  the 
 bond  of  Jewish  nationality,  80  ; 
 almost  entirely  supersedes  the  Scrip- 
 tures, 81  ;  death  of,  81  ;  authorities 
 on  the  life  and  work  of,  81  n.  ;  his 
 remarks  on  rendering  a  verse  of 
 Scripture,   85 
 
 Judaism,  Ezra  the  founder  of,  51  ;  pre- 
 served from  destruction  by  the  Oral 
 Law,  54,  55  ;  inferior  nature  of  the, 
 which  Ezra  established,  56 ;  Isaac 
 Disraeli  on,  69  ;  Alexandrian,  tinged 
 with  Hellenic  culture,  114 
 
 Judgment,  Luther  maintains  the  right 
 of  private,  329  ;  Gerson  protested 
 against  the  right  of,  330  n.  ;  op- 
 position of  the  other  Reformers  to, 
 331 
 
 Julian,  the  Emperor,  17 
 
 Julius  Africanus,  estimate  of,  and  of 
 his  method  of  exegesis,  207 
 
 Julius  II.,  Pope,  309 
 
 Julius  III.,  Pope,  316  n. 
 
 Junilius,  24  n. 
 
 Justin  Martyr  and  his  writings,  esti- 
 mate, of,  and  of  his  mode  of  exegesis, 
 172-174  and  ns.  ;  his  cpuotations  and 
 their  sources,  172-174  and  ns.  ;  Re- 
 nan's  opinion  of,  174  n. 
 
 Juvenal,  17 
 
 KABBALA,  views  of  the,  on  cosmogony, 
 34-37  and  ns. 
 
 Kabbalism,  in  numbers,  25  ;  the 
 various  forms  and  methods  of,  35  ; 
 Christian,  and  its  methods,  36  n.  ; 
 nature  of  practical,  97  ;  the  writings 
 of  the  Rabbis  abound  in  symbolical, 
 97  ;  the  three  rules  in,  of  Gematria, 
 
ln(U.r. 
 
 535 
 
 97-100 ;  of  Notarikon,  101  ;  and  of 
 Temoorah,  102  ;  further  instances 
 of  exegetic  and  symbolic,  445 
 
 Kabbalistic  hook,  notice  of  the  earliest, 
 97  v.  ;  ami  of  others,  97  n.  ;  alpha- 
 bets and  ciphers,  use  made  of,  102- 
 104 
 
 Kahbalists,  Christian,  and  their  me- 
 thods, 36  n.  ;  many  Jewish,  became 
 Christians,  102  n.  ;  Donne  on  the 
 language  of  the,  294  n. 
 
 Kant,  and  his  system  of  philosophy, 
 influence  of,  on  his  age,  407 
 
 Karaites,  the,  principles  and  influence 
 of,  83  and  n.  ;  origin  and  history  of, 
 449  ;  the  founder  of  the,  449 
 
 Karl  the  Great,  386 
 
 Keim  on  Philo's  system  of  exegesis, 
 155  n. 
 
 Kepler,  326,  358  ».,  426,  427 
 
 Kethubim,  the,  60,  62  n. 
 
 KepaLai,  explanation  of  the  term,  74  n. 
 
 Keys,  Jerome  on  the  power  of  the, 
 230  n. 
 
 Kid,  on  seething  a,  in  its  mother's 
 milk,  Rabbinical  view  of,  88  n. 
 
 KAets  of  Melito  of  Sardis,  24  n. 
 
 Koch,  John,  influence  of  his  works  on 
 the  theology  and  exegesis  of  the 
 1  7th  century,  385 
 
 Koran,  Scripture  not  to  be  read  as  we 
 read  the,  28  ;  its  various  schools  of 
 expositors,  47  and  n.  ;  how  Ezra 
 appears  in  the,  53  ;  regarded  in 
 India  as  too  good  to  be  translated, 
 119  n.  ;  the  Soft  driven  to  find  mys- 
 tical meanings  in  the,  134 
 
 K6ff/xos,  reference  to  the  Septuagint 
 word,  23 
 
 Kuelien,  4  71. 
 
 Lafayette,  308 
 
 Lagos,  tin  house  of,  policy  of  the,  to 
 the  Alexandrian  Jews,  115;  the 
 translators  of  the  Septuagint  and 
 the,  121  ;  etymology  of  the  name, 
 121  n. 
 
 Lanfranc,  289  n. 
 
 La  inmate,  I'M  I  I  inn  His,  of  the  School  null, 
 290 
 
 Latin  Church,  teaching  of  the,  rests  on 
 three     Fathers    Ambrose,    Jerome, 
 
 and   Augustine,    248   /'. 
 
 Law,  difference  betwixt  the  Oral  and 
 the  "Written,  11  ;  injury  done  to  the 
 fundamental   principles  of  tin-,    by 
 
 li'abbinism,   20,   21  ;  opinions  of  tie 
 
 Prophets  and  the  Rabbis  as  to  the, 
 49,  50  ;  number  of  precepts  of  the, 
 50 ;  Ezra  the  founder  of  the  Oral, 
 51  ct  scq.  ;  effects  of  the,  on  the 
 Jews,  52  ct  scq.  ;  servility  of  tin- 
 Jews  to  the,  when  distorted  by  tra- 
 dition, 56  et  scq.  ;  the  Scribes  endea- 
 vour to  nullify  the,  61  et  scq.  ; 
 creeping  things  and  the,  64,  65  ; 
 Hilled  called  a  restorer  of  the,  66  ; 
 the  work  of  Christ  and  Hillel  as  to 
 the,  67  ;  the  study  ol  the,  a  rallying- 
 ground  for  the  Jewish  race,  69  ; 
 Aqiba's  casuistry  as  to  the  meaning 
 of  the  Written,  71  ct  scq.  ;  the  Hala- 
 khoth,  said  to  be  a  part  of  the  Oral, 
 85  ;  disputes  of  the  Rabbis  regarding 
 the,  85-87  ;  phylacteries  and  fringes, 
 whether  the,  regarding  was  ever- 
 intended  to  be  taken  literally,  87 , 
 88  and  ns. 
 
 Le  Clerc,  his  theory  of  accommodation  , 
 379  n. 
 
 Lectures,  Hibbcrt,  308  n.,  312  n.  ;  the 
 Hampton,  311  it. 
 
 Legalism,  protest  of  the  Prophets 
 against   the  spirit  of,  49 
 
 Leibnitz,  his  work  on  behalf  of  Chris- 
 tianity, 398  and  n. 
 
 Leo  X.,  Pope,  308  n.,  309,  322 
 
 Leo  XIII. ,  on  Thomas  Aquinas,  269  n. 
 
 Lessing,  17  ;  nature  and  influence  of 
 his  works  on  the  theology  of  the 
 17th  century,  399  ;  his  remarks  on 
 the  Bible,  400  n. 
 
 Letters  and  words,  Rabbinical  belief  in 
 certain  mystical  or  supernatural 
 powers  in,  ;i?  et  scq. 
 
 Levita,  Elias,  his  merits  as  a  Jewish 
 commentator,  464 
 
 Leviticus,  a  text  in,  is  taken  to  justify 
 the  burning  of  witches,   10  and  n. 
 
 Levitism,  the  ritual  of,  symbolical  of 
 higher  truths,  126  n. 
 
 Lewis,  Mr.,  distinguishes  philosophic- 
 ally three  epoch-  in  scholasticism, 
 253  n. 
 
 Lewis  of  Bavaria,  Emperor,  281 
 
 Libanius,  17 
 
 Lightfoot,  Bishop,  his  estimate  of 
 l  Irigen,  188,  189 
 
 I  loans,  Jacol  i  Jehiel,  315 
 
 Locke  on  the  erroneous  meanings 
 attached  to  words  in  interpretation, 
 27 
 
 Logos,  applied  by  Theophilus  and 
 others  of  the  Fathers  to  <  Ihrist,  171 
 
 Lombard,  Peter,  "  Master  of  the  Sen- 
 tences," influence  of  his  work  on  tin- 
 
536 
 
 Index. 
 
 Church  and  the  age,  262  ;  it  becomes 
 the  text-book  of  scholasticism,  262  ; 
 Dante  alludes  to  the  Prologue  to 
 the  Sentences,  262  n.  ;  remarks  of 
 Mullinger  on  the  Sentences,  262  n.  ; 
 the  Summa  of  Aquinas  and  the 
 Sentences  of,  studied  more  than  the 
 Bible,  263 
 
 Lorenzo  de  Medici,  282 
 
 Louis  XII. ,  350 
 
 Lucian,  17 
 
 Lucian,  the  martyr,  his  revision  of  the 
 Septuagint,  209 
 
 Ludovicus  Vives  on  divine  things,  289 
 
 Luke,  St.,  205,  208 
 
 Luther,  his  temptation  as  an  interpre- 
 ter, 5  ;  instance  of  his  supposed  bias 
 as  a  translator,  5  n.  ;  adopts  the 
 word  Testament,  30  n.  ;  his  estimate 
 of  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  32  ;  and 
 remark  on  the  various  commentaries 
 on,  33  n.  ;  effect  on  the  mind  of,  on 
 discovering  that  a  certain  word  in 
 the  original  Greek  meant  repent,  118  ; 
 Neander's  remark  regarding  a  preva- 
 lent error  which  appears  in  the  trans- 
 lation of  the  Bible,  184  n.  ;  on 
 Chrysostom,  222  n.  ;  on  Aristotle, 
 266  n.  ;  on  Nicolas  of  Lyra,  277  n.  ; 
 on  Hus,  279  ;  on  the  useless  specu- 
 lations of  the  Schoolmen,  293  ;  in- 
 fluence of,  in  the  Keformation,  307 
 et  seq.  ;  his  identity  of  thought  with 
 John  Wessel  and  Hus,  312  and  n.  ; 
 
 -  antagonism  of,  to  Erasmus,  319  ;  in- 
 fluence of  the  stupendous  personality 
 of,  on  the  false  exegesis  of  the  pre- 
 Reformation  period,  322,  323  ;  the 
 "  intensified  self "  of  the  German 
 nation,  he  gave  them  everything  that 
 has  made  them  great,  323 ;  chrono- 
 logy of  his  career,  324  n.  yioux  well- 
 marked    stages  in   his  religious  ad- 
 
 x  vance,  324,  325  ;  in  his  first  stage 
 he  obtained  a  clear  grasp  of  the  true 
 principles  of  Scripture  interpretation, 
 325  ;  1.  the  supreme  authority  of 
 Scripture  itself,  325 ;  2.  the  suffi- 
 ciency of  Scripture,  327  ;  3.  rejects 
 the  fourfold  sense,  327  ;  4.  rejects 
 the  validity  of  allegory,  328  ;  5.  the 
 perspicuity  of  Scripture,  328  ;  6.  the 
 right  of  private  judgment,  329  ; 
 difficulty  he  found    in   maintaining 
 
 N  this  last  principle,  330  ;  in  accord- 
 ance with  these  rules,  he  lays  down 
 the  true  principles  of  Scripture  inter- 
 pretation, 332-338  ;  his  views  on  the 
 various  books  of  Scripture,  335,  336  ; 
 
 although  some  of  his  views  were  rash, 
 they  were  founded  on  a  sound  basis, 
 337  ;  his  opinion  of  reason,  338  n.  ; 
 he  set  forth  three  views  on  which  the 
 future  of  the  Christian  faith  must 
 depend,  338  ;  1.  the  Word  of  God 
 is  not  to  be  regarded  as  identical  and 
 co-extensive  with  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
 339  ;  2.  his  view  of  inspiration  was 
 not  verbal,  339  ;  and  3.  that  the 
 Word  of  God  is  not  in  the  Scriptures 
 alone,  340  ;  observations  on  the  im- 
 portance of  these  views,  341  ;  re- 
 marks of  Luther  on  the  Fathers,  471 
 
 Lutheran  Churches  and  theologians, 
 370,  376,  380  n. 
 
 Luzzatto  on  the  exegesis  of  the  Rab- 
 binic scholars,  64  n. 
 
 M. 
 
 Maccabean  struggle,  nature  of  the 
 55  n. 
 
 Maccabees,  the  earliest  meeting-point 
 of  Jewish  and  Greek  methods  of 
 exegesis  to  be  found  in  the  Fourth 
 Book  of,  136  n. 
 
 Magellan,  426 
 
 Maimonides,  Moses,  4 ;  the  founder 
 of  Jewish  rationalism,  83  and  n.  ; 
 on  the  Haggadoth,  90 ;  on  trans- 
 posing or  altering  words,  104;  his 
 system  of  exegesis,  275  ;  Spinoza 
 the  intellectual  successor  of,  384  : 
 account  of,  and  of  his  work,  463 
 
 Mainz,  314  ;  the  Archbishop  of,  315  u. 
 
 Maitland,  Dr.,  on  Origen's  method  of 
 allegory,  196  n. 
 
 Malachi,  the  last  pure  glow  of  the  Old 
 Testament  sun  dies  out  with,  58  n. 
 
 Mammotlirectus,  a  mediaeval  work  on 
 exegesis,  280 
 
 Manichaeans,  the,  on  the  human  nature 
 of  Christ,  208  n. 
 
 Marcus  Aurelius,  his  rigid  adherence  to 
 truth,  225  n. 
 
 Marriages,  Ezra's  annulment  of,  54  ami 
 n.  ;  Jerome  on,  227,  228 
 
 Marsh,  lii.shop,  on  the  sense  of 
 Scripture,  300  n. 
 
 Mary,  Virgin,  273,  279  n.,  288,  297 
 
 Massorah,  the,  the  Rabbis  believed  was 
 delivered  to  Moses  on  Sinai,  97  ; 
 history  and  derivation  of  the  word, 
 450 
 
 Massorets,  services  of  the,  to  textual 
 criticism,  84  and  n. 
 
Iwfr.r. 
 
 537 
 
 Maurice,  Professor  F.  D.,  on  Tertullian, 
 179  7i.,  180  n.  ;  his  work  for  the 
 English  Church,  429 
 
 Maximilian,  Emperor,  352 
 
 Mediaeval  controversies,  account  of  the 
 chief,  253 
 
 Mediaeval  Jewish  commentators,  461 
 
 Medici,  Lorenzo  de,  on  Plato,  282 
 
 Megilla,  SI  n.,  34  n.,  50  n.,  52-54 
 ns.,  57  n. 
 
 Megillath  Taanith,   66  n. 
 
 Melanchthon,  his  estimate  of  the  Hook 
 of  Ecclesiastes,  32  ;  his  work  and 
 influence  on  the  Reformation,  34 
 and  n.  ;  his  Loci,  and  Luther's  re- 
 mark on,  361  ;  R.  Simon's  remark 
 on  the  exegesis  of,  361  n. 
 
 Menachoth,  49  n.,  51  «,.,  57  n. 
 
 Mendelssohn,  Moses,  begins  a  new  era 
 of  exegesis,  83  and  n.  ;  Spinoza  the 
 intellectual  precursor  of,  384 
 
 Messianic  hopes,  nature  of  Philo's  and 
 others',  154  n.  ;  Psalms,  Theodore  of 
 Mopsuestia  on  certain,  216  ;  prophe- 
 cies, Calvin's  views  on  the,  346, 
 472  ;  Philo  and,  457 
 
 Messianism,  debasement  of,  59;  denied 
 by  Joseph  Albo  to  be  a  Jewish  doc- 
 trine, 67  ". 
 
 Meyer,  his  edition  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, 419 
 
 Michaelis,  critical  labours  of,  402 
 
 Midi-ash  Koheleth,  31  «.,  68  n. 
 
 Midraahj  puerilities  of  the,  37 
 
 Midrashim,  origin  and  nature  of,  95, 
 96  ;  Jewish  exegesis  as  applied  to 
 the,  founded  on  four  methods,  95  ; 
 the  writers  of  the,  95 
 
 Midrashim,  account  of  the,  and  list  of 
 the  chief,  442-444 
 
 Mildert,  l.ishop  van,  on  the  sense  of 
 Scripture,  300  n. 
 
 Millennia]  grapes,  Tertullian's  wild 
 story  of  the,   177   n. 
 
 Milligan,  Professor,  on  perverted  prin- 
 ciples of  interpretation,  170 
 
 Milman,  Dean,  on  the  influence  of  the 
 writings  of  Dionysius  t  lie  Areopagite, 
 •j.">  t ,/.  ;  extract  from  his  Essays  of  a 
 reply  of  Erasmus  to  Zwingli,  319  a. 
 
 Milton,  his  opinion  of  the  Fathers,  163, 
 164  and  ns.  ;  of  theological  compila- 
 tions and  glosses,  251  /'.  ;  his  protest 
 against  confessions,  359  n, 
 
 Mirandola,  finds  more  Christianity  than 
 Judaism  in  the  Qabbala,  106  n. 
 
 Mishna,  importance  attached  by  the 
 Rabbis  to  the  teachings  of  the,  62, 
 63;  origin  and   nature    of  Hie,    84 
 
 et  seq.  ;  derivation  of  the  word,  84  n.  ; 
 and  contents  of  the,  84  n.  ;  the 
 treatise  of  the,  known  as  "  The  Egg," 
 88 
 
 Mishna,  the,  of  Rabbi  Aqiba,  71  n. 
 
 Mishna,  the,  of  Rabbi  Juda,  80  ;  deri- 
 vation of  the  name,  80  n.  ;  labours 
 of  the  various  Rabbis  in  perfecting 
 it,  80  ;  it  became  the  bond  of  Jewish 
 nationality,  80 
 
 Misinterpretation  of  the  Bible,  among 
 the  Jews  elevated  into  a  sacred 
 principle,  12  n.  ;  misinterpretation 
 of  Scripture  among  the  gravest  cala- 
 mities of  Christendom,  39 
 
 "  Mixtures,"  the  Pharisaic  rule  of,  64 
 
 Modern  Exegesis,  397-437 
 
 Moed  Qaton,  57  n. 
 
 Monastery  of  St.  Victor,  the  chief  home 
 of  mediaeval  mysticism,  257 
 
 Monasticism,  the  whole  theory  of,  257 
 
 Monotheism,  Genesis  i.  1,  the  basis  of 
 all,  34 
 
 Moravian  brotherhood,  influence  of, 
 for  good  in  the  17th  century,  389 
 
 More,  Henry,  36  n. 
 
 Morton,  Henry,  352 
 
 Mosaic  law,  devices  of  the  Scribes  for 
 evading  certain  provisions  of  the,  64 
 and  n. 
 
 Moses,  Rabbinic  legend  regarding,  and 
 the  crowns  attached  to  Hebrew  letters, 
 75  and  n.  ;  Luther's  opinion  of,  335, 
 336 
 
 Mosheim,  his  estimate  of  Origen,  188 
 
 .Mount  Sinai,  20 
 
 Mttl/i/)/<.<-  inli ■//it'/mtia,  scimis,  &c. ,  of 
 Scripture,  on  the  views  of  the  School- 
 men as  to  the,  294  et  Si  q. 
 
 Multiplex  senstes,  the  Rabbinic  fiction 
 of,  73  n. 
 
 Mysteries  of  numbers  in  the  Qabbala, 
 96n. 
 
 Mystie  meanings  asserted  to  be  in  every 
 letter  of  Scripture,  74-77  ;  Waterland 
 on,  35:i  n. 
 
 Mysticism,  mediaeval,  254  et  seq.  ;  in- 
 troduced iido  the  monastery  of  St. 
 Victor  by  William  of  Champeaux, 
 259  ;  in  Richard  of  St.  Victors  sys- 
 tem of,  there  are  three  powers  of  the 
 soul,  259  ii. 
 
 Mystics,  the  works  of  Dionysius  the 
 Areopagite  favourites  with  the. 
 254ti.  ;  mediaeval  and  German,  254 
 etseq.  ;  protest  of  the,  against  con- 
 fonnding  Scripture  with  the  Word  of 
 God,  374  a. 
 
538 
 
 Index. 
 
 N. 
 
 Natalis  on  Thomas  Aquinas,  269  n. 
 
 Nathan,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost 
 sacred  books,  6 
 
 Nathan  the  Seer,  221 
 
 Neale,  Dr.  J.  M.,  on  an  undercurrent 
 of  meaning  in  Scripture,  296  n. 
 
 Neander,  his  remark  on  a  prevalent 
 error  which  appears  in  Luther's  trans- 
 lation of  the  Bible,  184  n.  ;  on  the 
 mystical  interpretation  of  the  Bible, 
 211  n.  ;  on  the  immortality  of  the 
 Gospel,  395  ;  influence  of  his  personal 
 character  and  work  on  the  exegesis 
 and  unbelief  of  his  time,  414 
 
 Nehemiah's  legalistic  prayer,  58  n. 
 
 Neoplatonic  schools  of  Athens  and 
 Edessa,  253  and  ns. 
 
 Neoplatonism  and  its  expounders,  253 
 and  lis. 
 
 Nero,  310,  311 
 
 New  Testament,  difference  betwixt  the, 
 and  the  Old,  350  and  n.  ;  variations 
 in  the  MSS.  of  the,  387 
 
 New  Testament  writings,  on  the  dis- 
 semination of  the,  165  n. 
 
 Newman,  Cardinal,  on  the  principles 
 of  exegesis  of  the  School  of  Antioch, 
 211  ;  on  Chrysostom,  221  n.  ;  on  me- 
 diaeval exegesis,  253  n.  ;  remark 
 of,  regarding  God  and  the  soul, 
 255 
 
 Newton,  326,  426,  432 
 
 Nepos,  Bishop,  his  Refutation  of  the 
 Allegorists,  209 
 
 Nicholas  V.,  Pope,  314 
 
 Nicolas  of  Lyra,  the  Jerome  of  the 
 14th  century,  his  origin,  274  n.  ; 
 revives  an  improved  system  of  exe- 
 gesis, 274  ;  influence  of  his  work, 
 274-278  ;  specimens  of  his  style,  and 
 remarks  on  them,  276-278  ;  Luther's 
 estimate  of,  277  n.  ;  Pope  on,  278 
 n. 
 
 Nominalism,  its  nature,  and  influence 
 on  scholasticism,  281,  282  ;  Haureau 
 on  the  character  of,  281  n. 
 
 Notarikon,  explanation  of  the  Rab- 
 binical principle  of,  101,  446 
 
 Notker  of  St.  Gall,  a  mediaeval  com- 
 piler, remark  of,  250 
 
 Novalis  on  Spinoza,  384  n. 
 
 Numbers,  mysteries  of,  in  the  Qabbala, 
 96  n.  ;  Philo's  fancies  about  masculine 
 and  feminine  numbers,  143  and  n.  ; 
 Barnabas  on,  168  and  n. 
 
 Nuremberg  Bible,  the,  5  n. 
 
 Niirnberg,  the  Diet  of,  311  v. 
 
 O. 
 
 Oradiah,  352  n. 
 
 Occam,  "William  of,  sec  William  of 
 Occam 
 
 Old  Mortality,  extract  from  Scott's,  352 
 
 Old  Testament,  difference  betwixt  the, 
 and  the  New,  350  and  n. 
 
 Olympiodorus,  his  opinion  of  the  Book 
 of  Ecclesiastes,  32 
 
 Oral  Law,  Ezra  the  founder  of  the,  51, 
 52  ;  effects  of  the,  on  the  Jews,  54- 
 56  ;  love  of  the,  saves  the  Jews  from 
 national  obliteration,  54-56  and  ns.  ; 
 good  and  evil  largely  mixed  in  the,  56, 
 57 ;  references  of  Josephus,  Philo,  and 
 St.  Paul  to  the,  79  n. ;  the,  committed 
 to  writing  by  Rabbi  Juda,  79  ;  and 
 is  called  the  Mishna,  80  ;  importance 
 of  the,  80  ;  derivation  of  the  name, 
 80  n.  ;  what  it  consisted  of,  80  n. 
 
 Origen,the  greatest  master  of  the  School 
 of  Alexandria,  estimate  of  his  life, 
 teaching,  and  influence,  187-203  ; 
 Mosheim's  opinion  of,  188  ;  Bishop 
 Lightfoot's,  188,  189  ;  number  and 
 nature  of  his  works,  188  n.  ;  his  false 
 views  and  inferences,  189-194  ;  his 
 allegoric  system,  196-200  ;  his  three- 
 fold sense,  196,  197  ;  his  arbitrary 
 fancies  and  errors,  198,  199  ;  immense 
 influence  of,  201  ;  Fathers  who  ad- 
 mired or  imitated  him,  201,  202 
 
 Oxford  movement,  effects  of,  on  the 
 English  Church,  425 
 
 Ozanam,  his  opinion  on  Jerome,  223  n. 
 
 Paine,  17 
 
 Palestinian  method  of  exegesis,  origin 
 and  nature  of,  11 
 
 Pamphilus,  the  martyr,  founds  a  theo- 
 logical school  at  Caesarea,  209  n. 
 
 Pantaenus,  12 
 
 Papacy,  testimonies  to  the  services  ren- 
 dered by  the,  to  civilisation  and 
 humanity,  308  ;  corruption  of  the, 
 308-312  ;  Pope  Adrian  VI.  on  the 
 corruption  of  the,  311  n. 
 
 Papal  power,  the  scholastic  system 
 favourable  to,  296  ;  statement  of 
 Papal  claims,  309  and  n. 
 
 Parallel  passages,  the  abuse  of,  469 
 
 Paris,  the  Theological  Faculty  of,  320 
 
 Paschal  Lamb,  Rabbinical  dispute  re- 
 garding the  offering  of  the,  88 
 
 Paschasius  Radbertus,  a  mediaeval 
 compiler,  notice  of,  250 
 
liulr.)'. 
 
 539 
 
 Passive  obedience,  the  doctrine  of,  jus- 
 tified by  Scripture,  40  and  n. 
 
 Patriarchs  of  the  house  of  Hillel,  names 
 aud  number  of,  66  n. 
 
 Patristic  Exegesis,  161,  242 
 
 Patristic  reasons  for  adopting  allegory, 
 459 
 
 Patristic  system  of  exegesis,  period 
 during  which  it  lasted,  12  ;  influence 
 of  Augustine  during  the,  24  ;  and 
 use  made  of  allegory,  24  ;  rules  of 
 Tichonius  as  applicable  to  the,  24- 
 26  ;  list  of  chief  hermeneutic  manuals 
 in  use  during  the,  23,  24  n. 
 
 Paul,  St.,  166  ».,  171,  185  ?*.,  187  n., 
 195  n.,  196,  282,  287,  290,  291, 
 348,  363 
 
 Paul  IV.,  Pope,  316  n. 
 
 Paulinus,  Jerome's  letter  to,  226, 
 227  ns.  :  what  I)u  I  'in  said  of,  233  n. 
 
 Paulus,  180  «. 
 
 Paulus  of  Burgos,  his  views  on  the 
 literal  sense,  278 
 
 Pentateuch,  the,  to  be  regarded  as  an 
 allegory,  35  ;  its  injunctions  often 
 perverted,  39  ;  is  disparaged  by  the 
 Rabbis  in  comparison  with  the 
 Mishna,  62  ;  on  extracting  Greek 
 philosophy  from  the,  130  ;  what  the, 
 was  to  the  Rabbis,  131 
 
 irepl  Traarjs  ypadrjs,  etc.,  extract  from 
 ( Siemens  Alexan.,  24  n. 
 
 Persecution  for  dilfeivnee  of  opinion  in 
 religion,  view  of  Calvin  and  the 
 Puritan  divines  on,  350-352 
 
 Perspicuity  of  Scripture,  Luther's  views 
 on  the,  328 
 
 Peter  of  Clugny,  301 
 
 Peter,  St.,  185,  204,  205,  208  ».,  340, 
 346  ,i. 
 
 Pharisaism)  nature  of,  in  the  days  of  the 
 Second  Temple,  11  ;  its  mode  of 
 dealing  with  the  Written  Law,  11,  56 
 et  seq.  ;  it  reigned  supreme  in  the 
 days  of  our  Lord,  59  ;  it-  rule  of 
 '■  Mixtures,"  64 
 
 Philip,  the  inquisitors  of,  16 
 
 Philip  of  He  Be,  351 
 
 Philo,  12  ;  bis  principli  -  of  interpreta- 
 tion, 22,  23  ;  reference  to  various 
 treatise,  of,  22  ".,  2:5  n.  ;  his  treat- 
 ment of  Genesis  i.  1,  37,  38  and 
 ns.  ;the  writings  of,  the  chief  monu- 
 ment of  Alexandrian  exegesis,  111  ; 
 
 the  method  of  allegory  in  exegesis 
 culminates  in    the   writings  of,   l'J7  ; 
 
 think-  the  I  rreek  philosophers  bor- 
 rowed from  Mo  ies,  L29  n.  ;  nature  of 
 an  Alexandrian  of  the  school  of,  133  ; 
 
 all  renegades  from  Judaism  repudi- 
 ated by,  133  n.  ;  the  (I reek  method  of 
 exegesis  brought  to  completion  by, 
 136  ;  the  works  of,  the  epitome  and 
 development  of  the  Allegorists,  137  ; 
 nature  and  extent  of  his  culture,  137, 
 138  ;  freedom  of  his  practice  in  every- 
 day life,  137  u.  ;  list  of  works  in 
 which  all  that  is  personally  known 
 of  him  may  ,be  found,  137  n.  ;  his 
 eclecticism,  138  ;  his  literalism,  139  ; 
 his  rationalising,  139  ;  results  in  a 
 complete  perversion  of  Scripture, 
 139,  140  ;  his  favourite  mode  of  ad- 
 dress to  his  reader,  139;  believes 
 himself  to  be  inspired,  139,  140  and 
 n.  ;  nature  of  his  theology,  142  and 
 ns.  ;  account  of  his  allegories,  142- 
 146  ;  his  fancies  about  masculine 
 and  feminine  numbers,  143 ;  his 
 variable  symbols  and  exegetic  fri- 
 volity, 146,  147  ;  his  views  on 
 inspiration,  147,  148  and  n.  ;  his  ex- 
 traordinary notion  regarding  Scrip- 
 ture, 149  n.  ;  his  rules  of  exegesis, 
 149-152  ;  his  exegetic  principles 
 differ  from  those  of  the  Talmud  in 
 five  respects,  150  n. ;  result  of  his 
 system,  152  ct  scq.  ;  unreliable 
 nature  of  his  etymologies,  152  n.  ; 
 his  Messianic  hopes,  154  n.  ;  his 
 futile  eclecticism,  155;  fables  re- 
 garding, 156  n.  ;  allusions  to,  in  the 
 works  of  the  Fathers,  156  n.  ;  sum- 
 mary and  estimate  of  his  system, 
 154-157  ;  notwithstanding  its  errors, 
 there  is  a  Divine  progress  observable 
 throughout,  157  ;  his  use  of  the 
 Septuagint,  152  ;  his  phrases  for  the 
 literal  and  allegoric  senses,  455  ; 
 Messianic  hopes  and,  457  ;  the 
 .Messiah  does  not  occur  in  his  writ- 
 ings, 457  ;  a  deplorable  specimen  of 
 
 his  exegesis,   457 
 
 Philology,  of  the  Schoolmen,  specimens 
 of  the,  286  n,  ;  Erasmus's  knowledge 
 of,  321  n. 
 
 Phylacteries  and   fringes,  dispute  as  to 
 
 the  law  regarding,  87,  88  and  ns. 
 Picus  of  Mirandola,  bis  interpretation  of 
 Genesis  L  1,  86  ;  his  Platonism  and 
 
 Kahlialism,   279 
 
 Pierius,  12,   202 
 
 Pietism,  definition  of,  381  n.  ;  its  in- 
 fluence on  German  life,  382  ;  Dorner 
 on  the  opponents  of,  882  ■■■ 
 
 Pietists,  influence  of  the,  in  reviving  a 
 healthy  system  of  e\e-esi-  in  the 
 17th  century,  380 
 
540 
 
 Index. 
 
 "Pilpul,"   explanation    of    the    term, 
 
 92  n. 
 Pius  II.,  Pope,  309,  313  n. 
 Pius  V.,  Pope,  316  n. 
 Plato,    banishes   the    poets    from    his 
 
 ideal   republic,    135  ;   effects   of  the 
 
 revival  of  the  study  of,  on  scholasti- 
 cism, 282;  Lorenzo  de  Medici  on,  282; 
 
 mediaeval  students  of,  282  ;  reference 
 
 to,  343  n. 
 Platonic  studies,  the  revival  of,  in  the 
 
 15th  century  leads  to  the  downfall  of 
 
 scholasticism,  282 
 Plotinus,   influence  of  the   dvyri  jx6vov 
 
 wphs  /j.6vov  on  mysticism,  255  and  n.  ; 
 
 references  to,  282,  300  n. 
 Plutarch,  343  n. 
 Poets,  protest  of  the  greatest,  against 
 
 the  misapplication  of  Scripture,  41 
 Polybius,  343  n. 
 Polycarp,  171 
 Pope,  quotation  from,  254  n.  ;  on  the 
 
 quibbling  language  of  the  Schoolmen, 
 
 293  n. 
 Popes,    claims     of     the,     to     depose 
 
 sovereigns,    39    n.  ;     the     atrocious 
 
 deeds  of  the,  justified  by  Scripture, 
 
 40,    41   and  n.  ;  the   power   of  the, 
 
 upheld  by  perversions  of  Scripture, 
 
 296  ct  seq.  ;  corruption  of  the,  309 
 Popes— 
 
 Adrian  VI.,  311  n.,  319  11. 
 
 Alexander  VI.,  309,  312 
 
 Clement  V.,  316  n. 
 
 Clement  VII.,  309 
 
 Clement  VIII.,  316  n. 
 
 Eugenius  III.,  262,  465 
 
 Gregory  IX.,  264  n. 
 
 Gregory  XIII. ,  254  n. 
 
 Honorius  III.,  253,  254  n. 
 
 Innocent  VIII.,  309 
 
 Julius  II.,  309 
 
 Julius  III.,  316  n. 
 
 Leo  X.,  308  n.,  309,  322 
 
 Leo  XIII.,  269  n. 
 
 Nicholas  V.,  314 
 
 Paul  IV.,  316  n. 
 
 Pius  II.  (Aeneas  Sylvius),  309,  313  n. 
 
 Pius  V.,  316  n. 
 
 Sixtus  IV.,  106,  309 
 
 Urban  V.,  264  n. 
 Porismatic  method  of  theology,  361 
 Porphyry,  17 
 
 Post-Reformation  Epoch,  357-394 
 Post-Reformation  exegesis  or  interpreta- 
 tion, 16 
 Potiphar's  wife,  21 
 Practice,  discrepancy  between  nominal 
 
 theory  and  actual,  230  n. 
 
 Predestination,  the  Post- Reformation 
 view  regarding,  366 
 
 Presbyters  and  Bishops,  Jerome  on  the 
 original  identity  of,  230  n. 
 
 Princes,  assassinations  of,  justified  by 
 Scripture  example,  39 
 
 Private  judgment,  the  right  of,  Luther's 
 view  of,  329  ;  Gerson  protests  against 
 the  right  of,  330  n.  ;  opposition  of 
 the  other  Reformers  to,  331 
 
 Prophecy,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia's 
 views  on,  217,  218 
 
 Prophets,  their  protest  against  the 
 spirit  of  legalism,  49  ;  and  their 
 contempt  for  the  yoke  of  ritual 
 bondage,  49  ;  teachings  of  the, 
 admitted  theoretically,  50  ;  difference 
 between  the  spirit  of  the,  and  of  the 
 Rabbis,  51 
 
 "Prosbol,  the,"  derivation  and  ex- 
 planation of  the  term,  64  and  n. 
 
 Pseudo-Aristeas,  sec  Aristeas 
 
 Ptolemy,  34,  172  n. 
 
 Ptolemy  Euergetes,  128 
 
 Ptolemy  Philadelphia,  115  n.,  128  n. 
 
 Qabbala,  the,  origin  and  nature  of 
 the,  95,  96  ;  division  of  the,  96  n.  ;  a 
 system  of  arbitrary  mysticism,  106  ; 
 at  the  close  of  the  15th  century  many 
 Christians  were  eager  to  study  the, 
 106  n. 
 
 Qeren  Happuk,  remarks  on  the  name. 
 125,  213  n. 
 
 Qiddushin,  21  n.,  51  n. 
 
 Qimchis,  the  family  of  the,  their 
 services  to  Hebrew  philology,  464 
 
 Quintilian,  343  n. 
 
 R. 
 
 Rabanus  Maueus,  and  his  compiled 
 commentary  on  the  Epistles,  account 
 of,  250,  251  and  ns.  ;  finds  Roman- 
 ism in  Moses  and  the  Psalms,  297 
 
 Rabbi  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra,  one  of  the 
 greatest  of  mediaeval  commentators, 
 462 
 
 Rabbi  Abuhu  on  the  Halakha,  90 
 
 Rabbi  Anan  Ben  David  Abba,  the 
 founder  of  the  Karaites,  449 
 
 Rabbi  ben  Levi  on  the  Haggada,  90 
 and  7i. 
 
 Rabbi  Chaneenah  bar  Pappa  on  Scrip- 
 ture, the  Mishna,  the  Talmud,  and 
 the  Haggada,  90  n. 
 
 Rabbi  Chija,  90 
 
Index. 
 
 Al 
 
 Rabbi  Eleazar,  19  n.,  20 
 
 Rabbi  Gamaliel  II.,  70,  79,  445 
 
 Rabbi  Gamaliel  V.,  443 
 
 Rabbi  Isaac  li.ii  I'imhas  on  tho  Hag- 
 gada,  89 
 
 Rabbi  Ishmael,  1,  19  n.,  22 
 
 Rabbi  Jacob,  bis  interpretation  of 
 Genesis  i.  1,  36 
 
 Rabin  Jochanan,  21  n. 
 
 Rabbi  Johanan  Hen  Zakkai,  and  the 
 subjects  he  proposed  for  discussion, 
 444 
 
 Rabbi  Saadia  Kami,  the  greatest  medi- 
 aeval exegete,  461 
 
 Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Meier,  a  mediaeval 
 commentator,  462 
 
 Rablii  Simon  ben  Lakish,  20 n. 
 
 Rabbi  Simon's  remarks  on  the  exe- 
 gesis of  Melanchthon,  361  v. 
 
 Rabbina  Abina,  12  and  n.  ;  closes  the 
 Talmud,  82 
 
 Rabbinic  bodies,  number  and  duration 
 of,  52,  53  and  n. 
 
 Rabbinic  exegesis,  origin  and  nature  of, 
 
 11  ;  period  during  which  it  lasted, 
 
 12  ;  services  rendered  to  Scripture  by 
 the,  15  ;  nature  and  principles  of, 
 fully  explained,  47  et  seq.  ;  Ezra  the 
 originator  of  it,  52  ;  nanus  and  dura- 
 tion of  the  various  schools  of,  52,  53, 
 and  a.  ;  nature  and  effect  of  Ezra's 
 system  of,  56-63  ;  the  leading  build- 
 ers of  the  system,  65-81  ;  summary 
 of  the  result  of  centuries  of,  83  et 
 seq.  ;  the  Halakha,  the  Haggada, 
 and  the  Qabbala  the  main  sources 
 of,  84  ;  the  Targums,  the  Talmud, 
 and  the  Midrashim  contain  the 
 chief  contributions  of,  84  ;  ex- 
 planation of  the  part  played  by 
 Gematria  in,  97-100  ;  two  branches 
 of  it — Architectonic  and  Figurative, 
 100  ;  by  Notarikon,  101  ;  by  Temoo- 
 rah,  102;  by  another  method,  104  ; 
 summary  of  the  results  of,  for  2,000 
 years,  105-107  ;  further  instances  of, 
 
 115  it  si i/. 
 Rabbinic    liction    of  multiplex  sensus, 
 
 the,  73  and  n. 
 Rabbinic   schools,    number,   duration, 
 
 ami  intlucnce  of,  52,  53  and  n. 
 
 Rabbinism,  buill  on  superstition  and 
 exclusiveness,  60  :  nature  of,  61  ; 
 the  hedge  about  the  Law  tha  main 
 function  of,  62 
 
 Rabbis,  the.  on  the  importance  of  the 
 Law,  11  n.  ;  on  the  interpretation  of 
 Genesis  i.  2,  34,  35  ;  on  the  teachings 
 of  the  Prophets,  50  ;  number  of  pre- 
 
 cepts proclaimed  by  the,  50  ;  injuri- 
 ous effects  of  the  teachings  of  the, 
 56-58  ;  their  estimate  and  treatment 
 of  the  common  people,  59  n.  ;  exact- 
 ing nature  of  the  yoke  of  the,  60  ; 
 effects  of  the  "ordination"  of  t lie, 
 61  ;  the  voice  of  the,  reckoned  as 
 the  voice  of  God,  62  ;  importance  of 
 the  teaching  of  the,  63  ;  account  of 
 the  five  chief,  who  followed  Ezra  as 
 the  creators  and  expounders  of  the 
 Oral  Law,  65  ;  Hillel,  65-67  ;  Sham- 
 mai,  67,  68  ;  Johanan  Ben  Zakkai, 
 68-70;  Rabbi  Aqiba,  71-79;  Rabbi 
 Juda,  79 ;  list  of  those  who  remon- 
 strated  with  Rabbi  Aqiba,  71,  72  ; 
 Aqiba  and  the,  assert  that  there  is  a 
 mystic  meaning  in  every  letter  of 
 Scripture,  74-77  ;  their  explanation 
 of  the  two  yods,  75,  76  and  n.  ; 
 Rabbis  that  succeeded  Aqiba,  78  ; 
 names  and  labours  of  mediaeval,  82, 
 83  ;  opinions  of  the,  regarding  the 
 Halakha,  85  ;  disputes  of  the,  in  the 
 Jewish  schools,  86  ;  trifling  nature  of 
 the  subjects  of  these  disputes,  86  and 
 ns.  ;  on  the  Halakha  and  the  Hag- 
 gada, 90  ;  the  writings  of  the,  abound 
 in  symbolical  Kalilialism,  97;  notice 
 of  some  mediaeval,  '21  \--7<>  and  ns.  ; 
 self-glorification  of  the,  441 ;  notices 
 of  some  mediaeval,  449,  461 
 
 Rachel,  disputed  etymology  of  the 
 name,  23  n. 
 
 Rachel,  the  wife  of  Rabbi  Aqiba, 
 account  of  his  love  for  her,  72 
 ami  //. 
 
 Ram  bach's  Institutiones  Hcrmcn. 
 Sacrae,  notice  of,  371  n. 
 
 Rashi,  his  interpretation  of  the  first 
 verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
 35  ;  his  opinion  as  to  the  importance 
 of  the  law  about  fringes,  50,  51  n.  ; 
 his  remark  on  the  commands  ami 
 prohibitions  of  the  Law,  62  n.  :  refer- 
 ence  to,  83 ;  becomes  the  master  of 
 Nicolas  of  Lyra,  '_'7.">  and  n.  ;  his 
 merits  as  an  exegete,  162 
 
 Rathmann  of  Lubeck  on  the  nature 
 and  functions  of  the  Eoly Scriptures, 
 372 
 
 Rationalism,  controversy  between  Ber- 
 nard and  Al»  laid  oil.  253 
 
 Raymond  I.ulli.  helps  to  precipitate 
 (he  fall  of  scholasticism,  '_\s<> 
 
 "  Read  not  so,  hut  so,"  a  celebrated 
 Kahliiiiie  formula,  1  II  I  and  n. 
 
 Reason,  Alexander's  l k  to  prove  that 
 
 animals  are   endowed    with,    188  ".  : 
 
542 
 
 Index. 
 
 Erigenaon  the  power  of,  253;  Luther's 
 opinion  of,  338  re. 
 
 Recapitulation,  Tichonius's  rule  as  to, 
 25 
 
 Reformation  era,  period  during  which 
 the  exegesis  of  the,  lasted,  12  ;  and 
 of  the  exegesis  of  the  post-,  12  ;  re- 
 vived the  studies  which  promoted  a 
 sound  interpretation,  16  ;  effects  ot 
 the,  on  exegesis,  16 
 
 Reformation,  the,  307,  308  and  re.,  311- 
 313 
 
 Reformers,  the,  307-354 
 
 Reimarus,  influence  of,  on  disbelief, 
 400 
 
 Renaissance,  the,  308  re.,  313 
 
 Renaissance  and  the  Reformation, 
 Beard  on  the,  308  re. 
 
 Renan,  his  estimate  of  Justin  Martyr, 
 174  re.  ;  and  of  the  system  of  Thomas 
 Aquinas,  271  re.  ;  on  the  trivialities 
 of  the  Schoolmen,  294  re. ;  on  disputes 
 regarding  errors,  363  ;  on  the  methods 
 of  the  19th  century  in  exegesis, 
 404  re.  ;  Vis  do  Jesus  does  little  harm, 
 419 
 
 Rene,  Duchess  of  Ferrara,  350 
 
 Reuchlin,  endeavours  to  prove  the 
 Trinity  from  the  first  verse  of  the 
 first  chapter  of  Genesis,  35  ;  his  ser- 
 vices in  bringing  about  the  Reforma- 
 tion, 314  ;  he  did  for  the  study  of 
 the  Old  Testament  what  Erasmus 
 did  for  the  New,  314  ;  incurs  the 
 enmity  of  the  Church,  315,  316 
 
 Richard  of  St.  Victor  on  contempla- 
 tion, 258 
 
 Ritual  bondage,  contempt  of  the  pro- 
 phets for  the  Jewish  yoke  of,  49 
 
 Robertson,  F.  W.,  his  observation  on 
 Luther's  rule  of  finding  Christ  every- 
 where in  Scripture,  334  re. 
 
 Rome,  corruption  of  Papal,  307-311 
 
 Rupert  of  Deutz,  his  remark  on  St. 
 Augustine,  261  re. 
 
 Sacred  books,  whence  their  authority 
 is  derived,  and  the  changes  they 
 undergo  in  the  course  of  ages,  1  ; 
 the  Bible  stands  alone  among,  2 
 
 Sadoletus,  284 
 
 St.  Ambrose,  estimate  of,  and  of  his 
 metbod  of  exegesis,  205  ;  his  opinion 
 of  Origen,  215  re. 
 
 St.  Bartholomew,  the  massacre  of,  ex- 
 ulted in,  40 
 
 St.  Bernard,  his  eighty-six  sermons  on 
 the  Song  of  Solomon,  32  re. 
 
 St.  John,  First  Epistle  of,  erroneous 
 conception  for  seventeen  centuries  of 
 the  design  of,  31 
 
 St.  John  Lateran,  312 
 
 St.  Paul,  his  epithet  on  Scripture  truth, 
 7  ;  a  Haggadist,  89  re.  ;  opinion  of 
 some  of  the  Fathers  on  the  super- 
 naturalism  of,  212  n.  ;  Jerome  on. 
 231  and  re. 
 
 Saint  Pietro  Damiano,  309 
 
 Salome,  184  re. 
 
 Sanhedrin,  18  re.,  20  re.,  32  re.,  34)1., 
 51  re.,  62-66  and  res.  ;  reference  of 
 the,  to  a  mode  of  violating  the 
 Mosaic  Law,  64  ;  reference  to,  256  n. 
 
 Salamance,  316  n. 
 
 Samson's  Hair,  extract  from  a  book  so 
 called,  299 
 
 Savonarola  as  a  commentator,  279 
 and  re. 
 
 Schleiermacher  on  Spinoza,  384  re.  ; 
 begins  a  new  constructive  movement 
 in  exegetics,  409  ;  nature  and  influ- 
 ence of  his  work,  409-411 
 
 Scholastic  epoch  of  exegesis,  character- 
 istics of  the,  26 
 
 Scholastic  Exegesis,  245-303 
 
 Scholasticism  divided  into  three  epochs, 
 253  re.  ;  Cardinal  Hergenrother's 
 definition  of,  265  re.  ;  history  of  the 
 origin  of,  466  ;  opinions  on  by  various 
 authors,  470 
 
 Schoolmen,  futility  of  their  mode  of 
 exegesis,  10  ;  various  Platonic  and 
 Aristotelian  views  among  the,  11  ; 
 period  during  which  their  mode  of 
 exegesis  lasted,  12  ;  its  nature  and 
 influence,  26 ;  their  allegorical  method 
 of  interpreting  the  Book  of  Eccle- 
 siastes,  32  and  re.  ;  estimate  of  the 
 character  of,  300-303  ;  distinguish- 
 ing titles  of  the,  465.  For  the  whole 
 system  of  the,  see  under  Scholastic 
 Exegesis 
 
 Science,  paralysed  by  the  misinterpre- 
 tation of  Scripture,  41  and  re. ;  attacks 
 on  by  the  Reformers,  358  n.  :  the  dis- 
 coveries of,  and  the  Church,  426-429 
 
 Scribe,  a  title  of  more  honour  than 
 priest,  52  re. 
 
 Scribes,  the,  their  influence  and  teach- 
 ing, 56  ct  scq. 
 
 Scribes,  the  writings  of  the  prophets 
 the  direct  antithesis  to  the  views 
 and  methods  of  the,  49  ;  the  answer 
 of  Christ  as  to  the  two  great  com- 
 mandments of  the  law,  appreciated 
 
Index. 
 
 543 
 
 by  some  of  the,  50  ;  influence  and 
 teaching  of  the,  56  ct  scq.  ;  declared 
 to  be  the  successors  of  Moses,  60  ; 
 the  professed  object  of  the,  to  exalt 
 and  glorify  the  law,  61  ;  eulogy  of 
 the  in  the  Targum,  60  n.  ;  teaching 
 of  the,  deemed  superior  to  that  of 
 Scripture,  62,  63  ;  they  substitute 
 fiction  for  Scripture  history,  63  ; 
 and  set  aside  the  plain  meaning 
 of  the  laws  they  professed  to  deify, 
 64  ;  their  device  for  evading  the 
 Mosaic  provision  of  the  Sabbatic 
 year,  and  of  the  law  of  the  remission 
 of  debt,  64  n. 
 
 Scripture,  threefold  and  fourfold  sense 
 of,  26  n.  ;  the  Vulgate,  the  Septua- 
 gint,  and  the  various  Protestant  ver- 
 sions teem  with  errors,  27  n.  ;  "Word 
 of  God  "  not  applicable  indiscrimin- 
 ately to  all  the  books  of,  28  ;  when 
 so  applied  is  the  deathblow  to  all 
 honest  interpretation  of  the,  28  ; 
 testimony  of  a  Scotch  divine  in  refer- 
 ence to  the  interpretation  of,  28  n.  ; 
 proof  texts  of,  in  common  use,  mis- 
 taken accommodations,  29  ;  effects 
 of  the  allegorical  method  as  applied 
 to  various  books  of,  31,  32;  on  the 
 importance  of  the  true  sense  of,  being 
 made  known,  38  et  scq.  ;  the  dreadful 
 results  of  the  misinterpretation  of, 
 38-43  ;  the  greatest  service  that  can 
 be  rendered  to,  is  to  free  it  from  false 
 dogma,  42,  43  ;  testimony  of  various 
 divines  as  to  the  spiritual  value  of 
 the  teaching  of,  42,  43  ;  teachings  of 
 the  prophets  as  to  the  spirit  of  the, 
 49  et  scq.  ;  division  of  the  books  of, 
 in  tin!  days  of  Ezra,  59  ;  the  Mishna 
 ami  tin-  ( lemara  valued  by  the  Kabbis 
 above  the,  62,  63  ;  the  Scribes  sub- 
 stitute fictions  for  the  teachings  of, 
 63  ;  Aqiba  asserts  that  there  is  a 
 mystical  meaning  in  every  letter  of 
 Scripture,  74-77  ;  mistranslations 
 and  perversions  of,  in  the  Septuagint, 
 119  et  scq.  ;  Aristobulus  asserts 
 Scripture  is  not  to  be  literally  under- 
 stood, 130  ;  explanation  of  the  fact 
 that  the,  has  met  with  an  infinitude 
 of  varying  and  opposite  interpreta- 
 tions, 134  ;  1'liiio's  eclecticism, 
 literalism,  and  rationalising  results 
 in  a  complete  perversion  of,  140-142  ; 
 l'liilo's  views  on  the  inspiration  of, 
 146,  147  ;  extraordinary  notion  of 
 l'hilo  and  others  regarding,  148  and 
 
 n.  ;  what. Script u iv  claims  for  itself, 
 161-163  ;  Barnabas's  views  as  to  the 
 teaching  of  the,  167  et  scq.  ;  views  of 
 Theophilus  of  Antioch  as  to  the, 
 171  ;  of  Justin  Martyr,  172-174; 
 of  Irenaeus,  174-177  ;  of  Tertullian, 
 177  ct  scq.  ;  of  Cyprian,  180-182  ;  of 
 Clement  of  Alexandria,  184-187  ;  of 
 Origen,  187-203  ;  his  views  on  the 
 trivialities  and  immoralities  of,  191, 
 192  ;  Hippolytus's  system  of  explain- 
 ing, 201  n.  ;  Methodius's,  201  ; 
 Hilary's,  203  ;  St.  Ambrose's,  205  ; 
 Dionysius  of  Alexandria's,  206  ; 
 Julius  Africanus's,  207  ;  on  the  mys- 
 tical interpretation  of,  210,  211  ; 
 views  of  the  founder  and  leading 
 teachers  of  the  school  of  Antioch  as 
 to  the  interpretation  of,  210  ctseq.  ; 
 St.  Augustine's  mode  of  interpreting. 
 236  et  seq. ;  the  Venerable  Bede's, 
 248  ;  St.  Bernard  and  the  mediaeval 
 mystics  on,  255  et  seq.  ;  an  old  Pope's 
 remark  on  the,  258  n.  ;  views  of 
 Abelard  and  Peter  Lombard  on  the, 
 259-263  ;  of  Albertus  and  of  Thomas 
 of  Aquino,  267-272  ;  of  Bona ventura, 
 272  ;  of  Nicolas  of  Lyra,  274-278  ; 
 views  of  Schoolmen  generally  on  the, 
 278-300  ;  services  of  Lorenzo  Valla, 
 of  Jacques  Le  Fevre,  of  Beuchlin, 
 and  of  Erasmus,  to  the,  312-322  ; 
 above  all,  of  Luther,  323  et  scq.  :  list 
 of  those  who  maintained  the  single 
 sense  of,  in  the  16th  century. 
 328  n.  ;  views  of  Melanchthon  and 
 Zwingli,  341  ;  of  Calvin,  342  ct  scq.  ; 
 of  some  of  the  divines  of  the  post- 
 Reformation  period,  367  ct  seq.  ;  of 
 Rathmann  of  LtLbeck,  372";  of  tin- 
 Dutch  divines,  379  ;  of  Spener,  380  : 
 of  Calixtus,  382  ;  of  Spinoza,  383  : 
 of  Bbhme,  384  ;  of  Koch,  385  ;  of 
 Cappellus,  386  ;  of  Wetstein,  391  ;  of 
 Bengel,  392 ;  of  Lessing,  399  ;  of 
 Eteimarus,  400  ;  of  Sender,  402 ; 
 of  Herder,  405  ;  of  Kant,  407  ;  of 
 Schleiermacher,  109  ;  of  II'  gel,  112  : 
 of  Strauss,  413;  of  Baur,  414 ;  of 
 Neander,  tit  ;  of  divines  of  the 
 English  church,  120  etseq.  ;  freedom 
 of  modern  criticism  of,  429  et  seq. 
 
 SCBIPTTJBB,    PASSAGES    OF,    QUOTED   "l: 
 REFERRED  TO  : — 
 Actsi.  8  S48« 
 
 —  ii.   17  ...  5n 
 
 —  ii.  41  343» 
 
 —  vii.  16  
 
544 
 
 Index 
 
 Scripture  continucd- 
 Acts  vii.  16 
 
 —  xiii.  20 
 
 —  xiii.  9 
 
 —  xv.  9     ...     ... 
 
 —  xv.  10 
 
 —  xv.  20 
 
 —  xv.  28 
 
 —  xvii.  34 
 
 —  xxii.  16 
 
 —  xxvii.  12 
 
 Amos  ii.  4 
 
 —  v.  21,  22      ... 
 
 —  ix.  11 
 
 Cant.  ii.  iv 
 
 —  iv.  3 
 
 —  v.  12 
 
 1  Chron.  ii.  55 
 
 —  viii.  10 
 
 —  ix.  26 
 
 —  xix.  6 
 
 2  Chron.  xiii.  22 
 
 —  xxviii.  7 
 
 —  xxxvi.  16     ... 
 
 Col.  i.  13 
 
 —  i.  16 
 
 —  ii.  8  
 
 1  Cor.  i.  10      ... 
 
 —  ii.  5 
 
 —  ii.  6  
 
 —  ii.  6,  7 
 
 —  ii.  15 
 
 —  v.  7,  8 
 
 —  vi.  11 
 
 —  vii.  39 
 
 —  vii.  42 
 
 —  viii.  1 
 
 —  viii.  6 
 
 —  ix.  9,  10      ... 
 
 —  ix.  13 
 
 —  x.  1 
 
 —  xi.  27 
 
 - —  xiii.  2 
 
 —  xiv.  11 
 
 —  xv.  37 
 
 2  Cor.  iii.  6      ... 
 
 —  iii.  7-13,  14... 
 
 —  iii.  14 
 
 —  iii.  17 
 
 Scripture  continucd- 
 
 349m 
 
 2  Cor.  iv.  2 
 
 56m 
 
 —  x.  8 
 
 313m 
 
 —  xi.  3 
 
 371 
 
 —  xi.  23 
 
 49m 
 
 —  xii.  7 
 
 27m 
 
 54?t 
 
 Dan.  ii.  34 
 
 313m 
 
 —  iv.  12 
 
 287 
 
 —  vii.  9 
 
 318k, 
 
 —  ix.  24 
 
 —  ix.  27 
 
 48m 
 
 49rc 
 
 Deut.  i.  31 
 
 218 
 
 —  iv.  36 
 
 —  x.  12 
 
 65m 
 
 —  x.  20 
 
 447 
 
 —  xiv.  7 
 
 287 
 
 —  xv.  2 
 
 —  xvi.  21 
 
 58m 
 
 —  xvii.  8-12     ... 
 
 448 
 
 —  xviii.  15-20... 
 
 120m 
 
 —  xviii.  4 
 
 454 
 
 —  xxi.  12,  13  ... 
 
 —  xxiii.  1 
 
 443 
 
 —  xxv.  9 
 
 103 
 
 —  xxv.  11-14  ... 
 
 56m 
 
 —  xxvi.  12 
 
 —  xxx.  12 
 
 214m 
 
 —  xxxii.  8 
 
 38m 
 
 45 
 
 —  xxxiii.  2 
 
 —  xxxiii.  4,  27 
 
 318m 
 
 161 
 
 Eccl.  i.  18,  14... 
 
 184m 
 
 —  ii.  3,  17 
 
 24m 
 
 —  ii.  15,  17      ... 
 
 195m, 
 
 —  iv.  1 
 
 371 
 
 —  iv.  8 
 
 194m 
 
 —  ii.  24 
 
 287 
 
 —  vii.  25 
 
 318m 
 
 —  viii.  6 
 
 318m 
 
 —  x.  8 
 
 184m 
 
 —  xi.  1 
 
 38m 
 
 —  xi.  9 
 
 195m 
 
 —  xii.  9 
 
 313m 
 
 —  xii.  12 
 
 195m 
 
 —  x.  8 
 
 5  m 
 
 XV.    1 
 
 182m 
 
 —  xvii.  9 
 
 343m 
 
 —  xxiv. 
 
 318m 
 
 —  xxviii.  24,  34 
 
 179m 
 
 —  xxxix.  24,  34 
 
 —  xxxix.  2 
 
 195m 
 
 459 
 
 Ephes.  i.  10      ... 
 
 194m 
 
 —  iii.  8 
 
 30m 
 
 —  iii.  15 
 
 221m 
 
 —  iv.  10 
 
 176m 
 
 318m 
 
 369 
 
 251m 
 
 346m 
 
 176m 
 297 
 448 
 36m 
 100 
 
 456 
 20m 
 50m 
 73 
 
 121m 
 64m 
 
 147 
 62m 
 62m 
 36m 
 
 232m 
 37m 
 20m 
 85 
 
 454 
 
 446 
 
 120m 
 
 454 
 
 120m 
 
 446 
 
 454 
 454 
 454 
 232m 
 32m 
 32m 
 98m 
 454 
 
 2n 
 447 
 454 
 454 
 62m 
 62m 
 60m 
 60m 
 61m 
 59m 
 59m 
 51m 
 
 221m 
 230m 
 214m 
 214m 
 
Index. 
 
 545 
 
 Scripture  continued— 
 Ephes.  iv.  26   ... 
 
 Ex.  i.  5 
 
 —  i.  21 
 
 —  ii.  1  
 
 —  iii.  1 
 
 lii.  2 
 
 —  iii.  15 
 
 iv.  6 
 
 .  —  iv.  16,  20,  21 
 
 —  v.  3 
 
 —  vi.  12 
 
 —  vi   i:> 
 
 vi.  12,  20     ... 
 vi.  :',n 
 ix.  20 
 
 —  xii.  8 
 
 xii.  15-18     ... 
 --  xii.  40 
 
 - —  xii.  46 
 
 —  xiii.  9 
 
 —  xiii.  16 
 
 —  xiii.  18 
 
 —  xiv.  :; 
 xv.  3 
 
 —  xv.  11 
 
 —  xv.  17 
 
 —  xvii.  16 
 six.  13 
 xix.  26 
 
 —  xx.  19-21     ... 
 xx.  22 
 
 xxi.  1 
 
 —  xxi.  5 
 
 —  xxi.  15 
 
 \ii.  2 
 -  xxii.  9 
 
 —  xxiii.  23 
 xxiv.  1 
 \.\iv.  ii 
 xxiv.  L0,  11 
 xxiv.   12 
 
 —  xxv.  8 
 xxvi. 
 
 —  xxxii.  8 
 xxxii.  9 
 
 —  xxxii.  22       ... 
 
 —  xxxiv.  27      ... 
 
 Ezi'k.  xii.  25,  26 
 xviii.  30 
 
 —  xx.  25 
 xx.  25 
 
 232/1 
 
 Scripture  continued- 
 Ezek.  xxxiii.    7 
 —  xxxvi.  25     ... 
 
 109 
 
 199ti 
 
 122//. 
 
 Ezra  iii.  4 
 
 —  vii.  6,  25  ; 
 
 11  ;  10 
 
 454 
 
 346ti 
 
 —  vii.  10 
 
 147 
 122« 
 
 —  ix.  10 
 
 —  ix.  9,  19,  27,  28,  34 
 
 454 
 
 —  x.  7,  8 
 
 454 
 
 154 
 
 Gal.  i.  6 
 
 —  i.  8   ... 
 
 —  i.  18... 
 
 122n 
 122n 
 
 t54 
 
 —  iii.  1... 
 
 —  iv.   5 
 
 —  iv.   21 
 
 122// 
 
 121// 
 
 L98n 
 
 154 
 
 —   iv.   22 
 
 lL'1 
 
 45  I 
 
 —  iv.  22 
 
 —  iv.    24 
 
 181/1 
 
 —  iv.  24 
 
 87 
 
 —  v.   15 
 
 454 
 
 —  vi.   2 
 
 154 
 
 53n 
 
 Gen.  i.   1 
 
 —  i.   2 
 
 —  i.   9 
 
 454 
 
 TH 
 
 1 50 
 
 —  i.   26 
 
 154 
 
 —  i.  26 
 
 154 
 
 —  i.  31 
 
 20 
 
 —  i.  31 
 
 —  ii.  2 
 
 —  ii.  2 
 
 —  ii.  3 
 
 299k 
 
 20 
 
 84 
 
 21 
 
 —  ii.  4,  5  . 
 
 150 
 144ti 
 
 —  in.  15 
 
 —  iii.  15 
 
 154 
 
 —  iii.  21 
 
 1 02 
 
 —  iv.  4 
 
 I  17 
 
 iv.   in  23 
 
 448 
 
 —  iv.  26 
 
 154 
 
 \  iii.  1 
 
 128 
 
 —  ix.  4 
 
 l.M 
 
 —  ix.  13 
 
 27671 
 
 —  xi.  1 
 
 100 
 
 —  xi.  28 
 
 122ra 
 
 —  xiii.  6 
 
 15  1 
 
 XV.    '.1 
 
 15  1 
 
 —  xv.  L0 
 
 6271 
 
 —  xviii.  1 
 
 —  xviii.  •_' 
 xviii.  2 
 
 49a 
 
 —  xviii.  2 
 
 L6671 
 
 —  xviii.  6 
 
 49ti 
 
 —  xviii.  9 
 
 50ti 
 
 —  xviii.  30 
 
 1"! 
 
 -  xix.  24 
 
 297 
 295n 
 
 54/i 
 52» 
 53ti 
 
 5171 
 
 5  I  n 
 58  n 
 
 51ft 
 
 369 
 35l7i 
 
 5ti 
 22171 
 230n 
 22l7i 
 19571 
 337n 
 34571 
 23071 
 30071 
 221// 
 23071 
 
 35 
 125n 
 29571 
 
 380 
 61ri 
 37™ 
 
 447 
 
 17074 
 
 ,   454 
 .   101 
 
 125,/, 
 .   345 
 .  380 
 ,   34471 
 .   454 
 .  448 
 .    106 
 .  275m 
 .    15  1 
 .  25l7» 
 .    1 15 
 .  22471 
 .  28871 
 .  201 
 .     37ti 
 .  277/i 
 .    199 
 .  346n 
 .    I  ii; 
 .     23 
 .      75 
 .    154 
 .   174 
 
 N    N 
 
48 
 
 Index. 
 
 Scripture  continWid*— 
 
 Scripture  continued- 
 
 (Irii.  xix.  24 
 
 ...   4-18 
 
 Isa.  ix.  6 
 
 —  xix.  33         
 
 75 
 
 —  ix.  7 
 
 —  xxii.  8 
 
 ...  18671 
 
 —  x.  34 
 
 —  xxii.  13         
 
 ...   454 
 
 —  xi.  1 
 
 —  xxii.  11         
 
 ...     23* 
 
 -  -  xxiv.  1<5 
 
 ...  199 
 
 —  xi.  7 
 
 —  xxv.  21         
 
 ...     99 
 
 —  xiv.  3 
 
 —  xxv.  23 
 
 ...  446 
 
 —  xiv.  23 
 
 —  xxxiv.  2 
 
 ...     21m 
 
 —  xvi.  1 
 
 —  xxxvii.  3 
 
 ...  446 
 
 —  xix.  2 
 
 —  xxxix.  7 
 
 ...     21 
 
 XX.    1 
 
 —  xlii.  2,  22    
 
 ...  446 
 
 —  xxvi.  4 
 
 —  xlv.   16         
 
 ...  448 
 
 — ■  xxvi.  14 
 
 —  xlix.  10        
 
 ...  I73n 
 
 —  xx viii.  7,  8  ... 
 
 —  xlix.  11,  277  n. 
 
 ...  287 
 
 —  xxix.  3 
 
 —  xlix.  12        
 
 ...  201/i 
 
 XXX. 
 
 —  xxxiii.  7 
 
 Hab.  i.  1          
 
 4>i 
 
 — ■  xxxiii.  16     ... 
 
 —  i.  2               
 
 ...     38n 
 
 —  xxxiii.  18     ... 
 
 —  ii.  11             
 
 ...   123 
 
 —  xxxv.  7,  S    ... 
 
 —  iii.  2              
 
 ...   124 
 
 —  xxxviii.  11   ... 
 
 —  xl.  26 
 
 Heb.  ii.  9          
 
 ...   2S7 
 
 —  xliii.  13 
 
 —  ii.  13            
 
 ...  337)? 
 
 —  xliv.  3 
 
 —  ii.  15            
 
 ...     21  n 
 
 —  xlv.  18 
 
 —  iv.  4 
 
 ...   472 
 
 —  xlviii.  16 
 
 —  iv.  6,  1,  12 
 
 ...     48/i 
 
 —  liii.  4 
 
 —  vi.  6              
 
 5m 
 
 —  lvi.  2 
 
 —  ix.  1-7         
 
 ...       3077. 
 
 —  Ix.  1 
 
 —  x.  5              
 
 ...  218« 
 
 —  Ix.  17 
 
 —  x.  3S            
 
 5m 
 
 —  Ixi.  10 
 
 —  xi.  13           
 
 ...  SUn 
 
 —  lxiii.  2 
 
 —  xi.  21            
 
 ...  472 
 
 —  Ixiii.  12 
 
 —  xi.  37           
 
 ...   318m 
 
 —  xii.  25,  26 
 
 5m 
 
 James  ii.  14 
 —  v.  14 
 
 Hos.  vi.  5 
 
 ...  454 
 
 —  vi.  9             
 
 ...     49m 
 
 Jot.  i.  11 
 
 —  viii.  1,  12    
 
 ...     48 
 
 —  ii.  3 
 
 —  ix.  7              
 
 ...     56m 
 
 —  ii.  13 
 
 —  ix.  9              
 
 ...     49m 
 
 —  iii.  4,  19       ... 
 
 —  x.  12             
 
 ...       3m 
 
 —  iii.  1(3 
 
 —  iv.  3 
 
 Is.i.  i.  17 
 
 ...   172;; 
 
 —  v.  13 
 
 —  i.  18             
 
 ...   166 
 
 —  vi.  13 
 
 —  i.  22              
 
 ...      19» 
 
 —  viii.  10 
 
 —  ii.  22             
 
 ...   105 
 
 —  vii.  21,  22    ... 
 
 —  iii.  17 
 
 ...   122m 
 
 —  vii.  22,  23    ... 
 
 —  iv.  9             
 
 ...  346n 
 
 —  viii.  8 
 
 —  vi.  3              
 
 ..  346m 
 
 —  ix.  13 
 
 —  vii.  3 
 
 ...    I.vi 
 
 —  x.  16 
 
 —  vii.  9            
 
 ...   184m 
 
 —  xi.  19 
 
 —  vii.  ]  1 
 
 ...  173m 
 
 —  xii.  10 
 
 —  vii.  14 
 
 ...  380 
 
 —  XV.   1 
 
 —  viii.  14 
 
 ...     66m 
 
 —  xvii.  9 
 
 —  viii.  20         
 
 ...     29 
 
 - —  xvii.  9 
 
 —  ix.   5 
 
 ...  125m 
 
 —  xvii.  12 
 
 —  ix.   6             
 
 ...  121 
 
 —  xviii.  15 
 
Index. 
 
 547 
 
 Scripture  continued— 
 
 Scripture  continued— 
 
 Jer.  \.\iii.  5 
 
 ...     98 
 
 1  Joint  v.  7 
 
 ...  3497! 
 
 —  xxiii.  '22 
 
 ...     49 
 
 —  xxiii.  28 
 
 ...  307 
 
 Jonah  ii.  1 
 
 ...    1767! 
 
 —  xxiii.  29 
 
 ...      20 
 
 —  iii.  iv. 
 
 ...    125 
 
 —  xxiii.  29 
 
 ...     7:; 
 
 -  xxv.  21) 
 
 ...   108 
 
 Joshua  ii.  15 
 
 ...    210 
 
 —  xxvi.   1 
 
 ...     34 
 
 —  ii.   18            
 
 ...  181?? 
 
 —  xxxi.  31 
 
 ...     80n 
 
 —  xiii.   22         
 
 ...  in 
 
 —  xxxi.  87 
 
 ...     59m 
 
 —  xxiv.  ;;n 
 
 ...  454 
 
 Job  i.  14 
 
 ...  297?? 
 
 J tulc^s  v.  9 
 
 ...       607! 
 
 —  xix.  26,  27  ... 
 
 ...   120?? 
 
 —  vi.  37           
 
 ...   17<i/i 
 
 —  xxv.  5 
 
 :..  ip7ti 
 
 —  x  i  i  i .  5 
 
 ...      20??. 
 
 —  xxix.  18 
 
 ...  !<>•;,) 
 
 —  xiv.  3            
 
 ...     21// 
 
 —  xxxi.  10 
 
 ...   122/i 
 
 —  XXXV.  1-1 
 
 ...   12071 
 
 1  Kings  vi.  8    ... 
 
 ...   47,1 
 
 —  xlii.  14 
 
 ...   12571 
 
 ■ —  viii.  1-4 
 
 ...      52// 
 
 Joel  i.  1 
 
 ...   344 
 
 2  Kings  xxii.  8-15 
 
 ...      48 
 
 —  ii.  13 
 
 ...   348 
 
 —  xxiii.  1-3 
 
 ...     48 
 
 John  i.  3 
 
 ...   142?? 
 
 Lev.  xi.  6 
 
 ...     121/! 
 
 —  i.  3 
 
 ...     38ti 
 
 —  xii.  17          
 
 ...   120.. 
 
 —  i.  3 
 
 ...  171 
 
 —  xiv.  25 
 
 ...     20r? 
 
 —  i.  3 
 
 ...  34471 
 
 —  xvi.  3           
 
 ...   446 
 
 —  i.  9 
 
 ...  2627! 
 
 —  xviii.  2 
 
 ...   122// 
 
 —  i.  12 
 
 ...   347?!. 
 
 —  xviii.  6 
 
 ...     23?i 
 
 —  i.  20 
 
 ...    197// 
 
 —  xviii.  30      
 
 ...     62?? 
 
 -  i.  61 
 
 ...   346ti 
 
 —  xix.  19         
 
 ...  454 
 
 —  ii.  19,20       ... 
 
 ...   320??, 
 
 —  xx.  J7          
 
 ...     1  15 
 
 —  iii.  5... 
 
 ...  17271 
 
 —  xxiv.  7 
 
 ...   454 
 
 —  iv.  14 
 
 ...  295?? 
 
 —  xxv.  29,  30 
 
 ...       647! 
 
 —  v.  2 
 
 ...     267t 
 
 —  xxvi.  41 
 
 ...     54ti 
 
 —  v.  2 
 
 ...  31871 
 
 —  v.  31,  32      ... 
 
 ...   346ti 
 
 Luke  ii.  14 
 
 ...  313?? 
 
 —  v.  39 
 
 ...  339?? 
 
 —  ii.  35            
 
 ...  318// 
 
 —  v.  39 
 
 ...    449// 
 
 —  iii.  2:;            
 
 ...     56?i 
 
 -  v.  39,  40      ... 
 
 ...     22?? 
 
 —  iv.  24           
 
 ...    5';-' 
 
 —  v.  39,  40      ... 
 
 107 
 
 —  iv.  41            
 
 ...   343/1 
 
 —  vi.  39 
 
 . . .     29?? 
 
 —  vii.  38           
 
 ...  287 
 
 —  vii.  38 
 
 ...    29.",// 
 
 —  ix.  2s            
 
 ...   28571 
 
 —  vii.  52 
 
 6671 
 
 —  ix.  51-56       
 
 ...     17 
 
 —  viii.  1 
 
 ...  84971 
 
 :;«i// 
 
 \iii.  1-11      ... 
 
 ...     8971 
 
 —  xi.  4 
 
 ...  317// 
 
 —  x.  29 
 
 ...   81371 
 
 —  xi.  52            
 
 ...       .V.',/ 
 
 —  x.  30 
 
 ...  34671 
 
 —  xiii.  11          
 
 ...       3i>71 
 
 ■  xii.  39 
 
 ...   221// 
 
 —  xx.  34,  38 
 
 ...  485 
 
 —  xiii.  5 
 
 ...  287 
 
 —  xxii.  36 
 
 ...  3207! 
 
 —  xvi.  13 
 
 ...    161H 
 
 —  xxiii. 
 
 ... 
 
 —  xviii.  1 
 
 ...  31371 
 
 —  xxiii. 
 
 ...   12!// 
 
 —  xviii.  20 
 
 ...  84871 
 
 —  xviii.  28 
 
 ...  813n 
 
 Mai.  i.  1             
 
 ...     53,/ 
 
 —  xix.  37 
 
 ...    172 
 
 —  ii.  1-10         
 
 ...     4971 
 
 —  XX.    It} 
 
 ...     51/i 
 
 —  iv.4 
 
 ...      I- 
 
 1  Johnii.  11     ...     .    . 
 
 ...  849« 
 
 Mark  i.  2           
 
 ...  230?/ 
 
 —  v.  7,  20 
 
 ...  318n 
 
 —  i.  34 
 
 ...  34::// 
 
 —  v.  7 
 
 ...  32071 
 
 —  ii.  1S-28       
 
 ...     39// 
 
 N  N  2 
 
518  Index. 
 
 Scripture  continued —  Scripture  continued  — 
 
 Mark  ii.  25  230ra  Matt.  xix.  20 260n 
 
 —  iv.  34  24m  —   x.vi.  4           458 
 
 184??.  —  xxii.   14       I68n 
 
 —  vii.  1-4  88  —xxii.  14        I71n 
 
 —  vii.  2-23  39m  —  xxii.  29,   32 435 
 
 —  vii.  13  449  —  xxiii.  2         59fl 
 
 —  vii.  19  ...         ...         ...     67m  — xxiii.  7,  8  ...         ...         ...  :>]n 
 
 —  ix.  11  88  —  xxiv.  36       318/i 
 
 —  x.  2-12  39m  —  xxiv.  37       187« 
 
 -  x.  49  ...  313m  —  xxvi.  28       30« 
 
 —  x.  51  ...         ...         ...     51/i  — xxvii.  9  ...          ...         ...  345n 
 
 —  xii.  32-34 50m  349n 
 
 —  xii.  24,  27 435  —  xxvii.  2S      166« 
 
 ^"■i-  19  ?79m  Micahi.  9         124 
 
 —  i.   19 318m 
 
 122w 
 
 ~l2'i ^?  —  vi.  6-9  49n 
 
 —  i.  23 343m 
 
 —  ii.  5 318/1 
 
 ii.  15  472  Nehem.  viii.  4,  9  ;  7,  8         ...     52n 
 
 —  ii. 
 
 98  —  x-  1-27         *>7 
 
 ii.  123  472  —  xiii.  24  52n 
 
 —  iii.  15  380 
 
 -iii.  25  279m  Num.  vi.  5  99 
 
 —  iv.  4  279??.  —xii.  8  120« 
 
 -iv.  18-24  204;t  —  xii.  14  19« 
 
 —  v.  15  297  —  xiv.  14  120n 
 
 —  v.  16  260  —xiv.  19  100 
 
 —  v.  16  318ft  —  xv.  39  51tt 
 
 —  v.  24,  43  39/i  —  xvi.  15  121m 
 
 —  vi.  1  313m  —  xvii.  8  288 
 
 —  vi.   13  380  —  xx.  11  288 
 
 —  vi.  26,  27 209m  —  xxiii.  19  456 
 
 —  vi.  31  204??,  — xxvi.  9  441 
 
 —  viii.  17  472  —  xxxii.  12  454 
 
 —  viii.  28  204m 
 
 -ix.  13  168/1  Saint  Paul  308 
 
 ix.  1S-26      297?*. 
 
 312,  313,  32ii 
 
 --•  27            184n                      his  EpistieS     314 
 
 "  *■  27             24"                     Peter        309 
 
 —  x.  29             19m. 
 
 -xi-H           346ra          1  Pet.  ii.  24      260n 
 
 —  ii.  24 318m 
 
 —  iii.  19  346n 
 
 2  Pet 349n 
 
 Phil.  ii.  6         318/1 
 
 xii.  4  12m 
 
 —  xii.  5  19m 
 
 —  xii.  19  230m 
 
 —  xiii.  7  3m 
 
 —  xiii.  35  458 
 
 —  xiii.  57  56m 
 
 —  xv.  3-6  45 
 
 —  xv.  3  107 
 
 —  xv.  6  107  Prov.  vi.  26      21 
 
 —  xv.  6  449  —  viii.  22         36m 
 
 —  xv.  9  107  —  ix.  1,2         295n 
 
 —  xvi.  18  346m,  —xii.  20  ...     ' 197 
 
 —  xvi.  19  62m  —  xiii.  11         288m 
 
 —  xvii.  1        ' 285m  —  xviii.  4         295w 
 
 —  xix.  8  404  —  xxiv.  20       59m 
 
 —  xix.  12  318m  —  xxix.  21       104 
 
Index. 
 
 549 
 
 Sci  ipture  amtinued- 
 Js.  i.  1 
 
 —  ii.  12 
 
 —  xv.  in 
 
 —  xvi.  2 
 
 —  xvii.  15 
 
 —  xix.  4 
 xix.  4 
 
 —  xxi.  '_' 
 
 \xi.  9-12      ... 
 
 —  x.xii.  12 
 
 —  x.xii.  18 
 
 —  xxiii.  5 
 
 —  xx.xiii.  27 
 
 —  xh.   1 
 
 —  xlv.  3 
 
 —  xlvii.  10       ... 
 
 —  Ii.  16 
 
 —  lxv.  12 
 
 —  Ixviii.  21      ... 
 
 —  l.xix.  3 
 
 —  lxxiv.  13      ... 
 
 —  lxxviii.   2     ... 
 
 —  lxxviii.   2     ... 
 
 —  Ixxix.  2 
 
 —  lx.xx.  11 
 
 —  lx.xx vi.  4 
 
 —  lx.xx vii.  4     ... 
 
 —  lxxxviii.   2   ... 
 
 —  xc  1 
 
 —  xc.  4 
 xc.  12 
 
 —  xiii.  12 
 
 —  xcvi.  10 
 
 —  ciii.  10,  11  .  . 
 
 —  cvi.  7 
 
 —  ex.  3 
 
 ■-.  \  iii. 
 
 —  cxix.  26 
 
 —  cxix.   105     ... 
 
 —  cxix.  130     ... 
 
 —  c.xxvii. 
 
 —  exx  xvi. 
 
 —  rxli.  5 
 
 —  cxlviii.  4 
 
 —  clxv.  10 
 
 Rev.  xiii.  18     ... 
 
 —  xvi.  16 
 
 —  xvii.  15 
 
 Rom.  i.  2 
 i.  4 
 
 —  ii.  8 
 
 —  ii.   17 
 
 —  iii.  25 
 
 —  iii.  25 
 
 —  v.   12 
 
 Scriptui'e  continued- 
 
 177/' 
 
 Horn.  v.  14 
 
 22!  i 
 
 —  v.   10 
 
 380 
 
 —  xi.  17 
 
 267« 
 
 —  xi.  32 
 
 121!/' 
 
 208n 
 
 IIulli  iv.  1,  2    ... 
 
 258 
 
 1(12 
 
 1  Sam.  i.  2 
 
 267 
 
 —  i.   11 
 
 29771 
 
 —  i.  14 
 
 300?i 
 
 —  ii.  8 
 
 18171 
 
 —  ii.  16 
 
 12(1// 
 
 —  iii.  15 
 
 117ft 
 
 —  v.  4,  5,  10    ... 
 
 455 
 
 —  vi.  2 
 
 11// 
 
 —  viii.   19 
 
 49ft 
 
 —  ix.  25 
 
 295n 
 
 —  x.  19 
 
 99 
 
 • —  xiv.  45 
 
 101 
 
 —  xv.    12 
 
 287 
 
 —  xv.  22 
 
 2'.  (7 
 
 —  xv.  32 
 
 184ft 
 
 —  xvi.   12 
 
 2  1  n 
 
 -  xvi.  20 
 
 ll/i 
 
 —  xvi.  23 
 
 52,/ 
 
 ■ —  xvii.  8 
 
 166m 
 
 —  xvii.  39-43  ... 
 
 154 
 
 —  xix.  9 
 
 459 
 
 —  xix.  1316    ... 
 
 120ft 
 
 —  xx.  30 
 
 170ft 
 
 —  xxi.  13 
 
 16671 
 
 —  xxiv.  3 
 
 124 
 
 —  xx  vi.  5 
 
 1  2.'! 
 
 —  xx.xi.  3 
 
 It;.;,, 
 
 1 5  I 
 
 2  Sam.  xiv.  5   ... 
 
 125,/ 
 
 348ft 
 
 2  Thess.  ii.  7    ... 
 
 12// 
 
 35l7i 
 
 1  Tim.  i.  6 
 
 71  // 
 
 229 
 
 23871 
 
 -  i.  7 
 
 2:;'.',/ 
 
 —  i.  8 
 
 21.':,,/ 
 
 —  i.   17 
 
 102 
 
 —  i.   18 
 
 —  ii.   1 
 
 100 
 
 —  ii.  15 
 
 102 
 
 —  ii.  21 
 
 2:  •:.// 
 
 —  iv.  4 
 
 —  v.   1  1 
 
 2697! 
 
 —  v.  18 
 
 31871 
 
 —  v.  20 
 
 36371 
 
 —  vi.  2') 
 
 34371 
 
 35371 
 
 2  Tim.  i.    18      ... 
 
 —  ii.  16 
 
 318ft 
 
 •      iii.  2 
 
 ■:,-,■:,„ 
 343ti 
 34371 
 343ti 
 
 45  1 
 
 165 
 
 20// 
 122// 
 2! '7 
 
 454 
 5n 
 
 ■154 
 417 
 454 
 454 
 
 45  1 
 
 454 
 122// 
 4!i// 
 454 
 45  1 
 454 
 122,/ 
 154 
 451 
 122// 
 45  1 
 454 
 454 
 122/' 
 454 
 454 
 
 199ft 
 
 98ft 
 
 29071 
 
 29  I" 
 31071 
 
 318ft 
 T.i.'.,/ 
 31871 
 
 26271 
 
 2.'.  I  n 
 
 :\:.7 
 17i»" 
 31871 
 185 
 
 2 1 :. 
 
 171// 
 135 
 
 318". 
 
550 
 
 Index. 
 
 Scripture  rontinir  d— 
 
 Titus  i.  7 
 
 318?* 
 
 —  i.  14 
 
 47 
 
 —  iv.  4 
 
 357 
 
 Zech.  iii.  8 
 
 98 
 
 —  x.  9 
 
 121ft 
 
 —  xi.  7 
 
 297 
 
 Zeph.  iii.  4 
 
 48/i 
 
 —  iii.  3,  4 
 
 i9n 
 
 Arocu  vrir  a  l  1!  efeb  ences — 
 
 Baruch  ii.   2 
 
 7-34  ;  iii.   37  ;  iv. 
 
 1  and  passi 
 
 in,  4 
 
 60/i 
 
 —  iv.   1 
 
 61» 
 
 1  Esdras  viii. 
 
 9  ;  xiv.  21  27  ... 
 
 54ft 
 
 2  Esdras  xiv. 
 
 21-45     ...    '      ... 
 
 52n 
 
 3  Esdras  viii. 
 
 5            
 
 120ft 
 
 —  ix.  39 
 
 60;i 
 
 4  Esdras  viii. 
 
 20  ;  x.  57-59    ... 
 
 53ft 
 
 1  Mace.  i.  56-58  ;  ii.  27  ;  iii.  21 
 
 vi.  59 
 
 55ft 
 
 —  vi.  23    ■ 
 
 60  ft 
 
 2  Mace.  i.  8, 
 
 lb        ...       ... 
 
 66ft 
 
 -  i.  10 
 
 128 
 
 —  i.  16 
 
 160ft 
 
 —  vii.  2,  23, 
 
 30,  37    ...         ... 
 
 55ft 
 
 —  vii.  12 
 
 58ft 
 
 4  Maec. 
 
 136?i 
 
 Tobit  i.  6 
 
 60ft 
 
 —  ix.  16 
 
 65ft 
 
 Wisd.  i.  4 
 
 126ft 
 
 —  vii.  22-14 
 
 126ft 
 
 —  viii.  19 
 
 126fl 
 
 —  viii.  20 
 
 12672 
 
 -  xi.  17 
 
 126ra 
 
 —  xviii.  4 
 
 60« 
 
 —  xviii.  24 
 
 —  xviii.  24 
 
 126n 
 
 "Scripture,  Analogy  of, "  a  nominally 
 so-called,  26 
 
 "Scripture,  perspicuity  of,"  the  so- 
 called,  26,  27  ft. 
 
 Seething  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk, 
 Rabbinical  view  of,  88  n. 
 
 Sender,  marks  an  epoch  in  German 
 exegetic  study,  402  ;  nature  and 
 influence  of  his  work,  403 
 
 Septuagint,  references  to  the,  3  ft.,  5 
 v.  ;  theological  bias  in  the  trans- 
 lators of,  5  ;  its  origin,  and  influence 
 on   the  Jews   and   on   Christianity, 
 
 116  ;  list  of  authors  and  works 
 treating  of  the,  116,  117  its.  ;  fables 
 regarding  its  origin,  117  ;  use  made 
 of  it  by  the  writers  of  the  New 
 Testament,  117 ;  defects  of  trans- 
 lations, 117  ;  dislike  of  the  Jews  for 
 the,  118  ;  opposition  of  the  Rabbis 
 to  the,  118,  119;  their  methods  of 
 interpretation  for  giving  their  own 
 sense  to  the,  118,  119  ;  faults  of  the, 
 119  and  ns.  ;  traces  of  Jewish  legen- 
 dary lore  found  in  the,  120  and  ns.  ; 
 instances  of  mistranslations  and 
 perversions,  120  et  scq.  ;  on  traces  of 
 Alexandrian  philosophy  in  the,  121 
 n.  ;  the  translators  of  the,  afraid  of 
 the  word  "ass,"  121  and  it.  ;  im- 
 mense effect  pi'oduced  by  the  trans- 
 lation, 122  ;  St.  Augustine's  venera- 
 tion for  the,  125  ;  Theodore  of 
 Mopsuestia  relies  almost  exclusively 
 on  the,  125  ;  it  shows  no  tendency 
 to  the  method  of  allegory,  126  ;  the 
 object  of  Aristeas's  letter  the  glori- 
 fication of  the,  128  ;  the  only  Bible 
 used  by  the  Fathers  was  the,  165  ; 
 Jerome's  opinion  of  the,  224  ;  Augus- 
 tine believes  in  the  inspiration  of 
 the,  235  ft.  ;  Philo's  use  of,  452  ; 
 account  of  the,  453,  455 
 
 Septuagint  of  the  Greek  Church  teems 
 with  errors,  27  ft. 
 
 Servetus,  235  ;  on  the  burning  of,  351 
 and  n.  ;  the  Abbe  Glaire's  remark 
 on,  360  ft.  ;  references  to,  351  and 
 n.,  360  ft. 
 
 Severianus,  115  n.,  219  n. 
 
 Shabbath,  extract  from,  on  Ezekiel, 
 49  n.  ;  declares  the  most  important 
 law  the  one  about  fringes,  50 
 
 Shammai,  Rabbi,  the  rival  of  Hillcl, 
 account  of,  67 
 
 Shekhinah,  Alpha  rebuked  for  ap- 
 pearing to  render  the,  profane,  72 
 and  n. 
 
 Shemaiah,  writer  of  one  of  the  lost 
 sacred  books,  6 
 
 Sic  et  Non  of  Abelard,  account  of  the, 
 468 
 
 Bigismund,  the  Emperor,  310 
 
 Simeon  ben  Shetach,  19  ft. 
 
 Simon  the  Just,  the  last  member  of  the 
 Great  Synagogue,  57  ft.  ;  the-  three 
 things  he  asserts  the  world  st  ids 
 on,  61 
 
 St  [  iii  in,  18  it.,  62  ft. 
 
 Sirmium,  212 
 
 Skins  Senensis,  on  the  five  methods 
 of  the  Schoolmen,  291  ft. 
 
Indcr. 
 
 551 
 
 Slavery  and  the  Bible,  Bishop  Hopkins 
 of  Vermont  on,  430  n, 
 
 Soi  iety  of  Jesus,  307 
 
 Socrates]  285  //. 
 
 Somerset,  the  Protector,  351 
 
 Solomon  Levita,  see  Paulus  of  Burgos 
 
 Sung  of  Solomon,  various  hypotheses 
 regarding  the,  32;  list  and  views  of 
 various  expositors  of,  32  n.;  a  favour- 
 ite field  for  mystical  interpretation 
 with  the  Tanaim,  and  others,  75; 
 influence  of  on  mediaeval  mysticism 
 and  exegesis,  256,  257  and  n.s. 
 
 Sorbonne,   Casaubon's  remark  on  the 
 
 disputes  of  the,  291  11. 
 
 Speculative  thought,  the  difficulty  of 
 reconciling  the  divine  dogmas  with 
 the  discoveries  of,  133,  134  and  vs.  ; 
 to  meet  this,  interpreters  driven  to 
 find  mystical  meanings  in  the  Scrip- 
 tures, the  Vedas,  and  the  Koran, 
 133,  134 
 
 Spener,  Philip  .lames,  influence  of  his 
 works  in  reviving  a  healthy  system 
 of  exegesis  in  the  17th  century,  380  ; 
 he  revives  the  gift  of  preaching,  381  ; 
 his  followers,  and  their  work,  381 
 
 Spinoza,  17  ;  nature  and  influence  of 
 his  philosophy,  383  ;  his  views  on 
 inter]  net  at  ion,  384  n.  ;  estimate  of 
 him  by  various  writers,  384  and  n.  ; 
 effects  of  his  labours,  307 
 
 Stanley,  Dean,  on  Aristobulus,  131  ;  his 
 work  for  the  Church,  423 
 
 Stephens,  Robert,  on  the  ignorance  of 
 the    New  Testament   among  the   pre- 
 
 Reformation  clergy,  321 
 
 Stercorianists,  the  dispute  with  those 
 m  ho  were  called,  293 
 
 Stoics,  views  of  the,  126,  135,  136  ; 
 best  specimens  of  the  method  of  the, 
 to  be  found  in  the  Homeric  Allego- 
 ries, 136  ;  references  to,  1  12,  1  1  i  n. 
 
 Strauss's  Life  of  Jesus,  its  influence  on 
 the  spread  of  unbelief,  413,  417  ; 
 Lacordaire  on,  415 
 
 Symbols,  or  Symbololatry,  the  age  of, 
 '  859,  360 
 
 Sj  oagogue,  the  Great,  founded  by  Ezra, 
 57  and  a.  ;  its  last  member,  57  n. 
 
 Syrus,  Ephraem,  of  the  School  of 
 Edeeaa,  illustration  of  the  allegorical 
 sty  .  of,  209 
 
 T. 
 
 Tacitus,  17,  121  ».,  166  n. 
 
 Talmud,  of  little  value  as  an  authority 
 
 ill  exegesis,  10  and   /(.  ,    the  edifice  of 
 
 the,  rests  on  the  rules  of  Hillel,  18, 
 
 22  ;  its  interpretation  of  the  first 
 verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
 34  ;  nature  of  the  narratives  with 
 which  it  abounds,  57  ;  extract  from 
 regarding  a  prayer  of  Ezra's,  57 ; 
 assertion  of  the,  regarding  the  three 
 crowns,  61  ;  on  Hillel' 8  fiction  of 
 "the  Prosbol,"  64;  and  on  the 
 cleanness  of  creeping  things,  64  ; 
 abounds  in  references  to  Aqiba, 
 72  n.  ;  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  81 
 and  a.  ;  the  Babylonian,  82  and  //.  ; 
 the,  is  finally  closed  by  Rabbina 
 Abina,  82  ;  it  is  more  used  by  the 
 •lews  than  the  Bible,  82  ;  main  con- 
 tents of  the,  82  ;  different  editions 
 of  the,  82  it.  ;  the  Mishna  and  the 
 Gemara  make  up  the,  91  ;  various 
 terms  applied  to  the,  91  ;  account  of 
 the  Babylonian,  91  ;  inlluenee.of,  and 
 nature  of  its  contents,  91  et  seq.  ; 
 four  schools  of  Talmudists,  92  //.  ; 
 the  language  of  the,  92  n.  ;  trans- 
 lations of  the,  92  n.  ;  varied  ami 
 extraordinary  nature  of  the  contents 
 of  the,  91  et  seq.  ;  estimates  of,  by 
 various  authors,  93  /;.  ;  injury  d  ne 
 by  the,  to  the  living  Oracles  of  God, 
 94  ;  flowers  of  the,  artificial  ones,  106  ; 
 inlluence  of  Greek  literature  on  the, 
 114  and  n.  ;  the  exegetio  principles 
 of  1'hilo  differ  in  five  respects  from 
 
 those  of  the,  150  n.  ;  persecuti f 
 
 the,  by  Emperors  and  Popes,  315, 
 316  n.  ;  Erasmus  on  the,  315  n. 
 
 Talmudic  cryptographs,  151 
 
 Talmudism,  the  seven  rules  of  Hillel 
 the  foundation  of,  22 
 
 Tanaites,  the  greatest  of  the,  71  ;  ety- 
 mology of  the  word,  71  //.  ;  meaning 
 of  "nought"  in  the  system  of  the, 
 74  ;  end  of  the,  80 
 
 Targum,  the,  and  the  Scribes,  60  n.  ; 
 derivation  of  the  word,  and  list  of 
 the  chief  Targums,  442 
 
 Tarphon,  Rabbi,  his  remark  to  Aqiba, 
 71 
 
 Tauler  on  mysticism,  25S  and  //. 
 
 Taylor,  Isaac,  on  the  Roman  Pontiffs 
 appealing  to  Scripture  to  justify 
 their  evil  deeds,  41  n. 
 
 Taylor,  Jeremy,  on  the  hearing  and 
 reading  of  the  I [olj  Sci ip1  ores,  43  ; 
 on  allegorising]  853  ".  :  on  <  Ihris- 
 tianit]  as  a  pracl  Lea]  religion,  395 
 
 'I',  mooroh,  explanation  of  the  Rabbini- 
 cal principle  of,  102;  various  appli- 
 cations of,  103 
 
Index. 
 
 Temple,  at  the  destruction  of  the, 
 prophecy  is  given  to  the  wise,  51  7/.  ; 
 antique  instruments  in  the,  109 
 
 Tertullian,  estimate  of,  and  of  his 
 writings,  177-180  ;  Professor  Mau- 
 rice's opinion  of,  179  n.,  180  n. 
 
 Testament,  the  word  a  mistranslation 
 and  a  mistake,  30  ;  various  render- 
 ings of,  30  n.  ;  difference  betwixt  the 
 Old  and  the  New,  350  and  n. 
 
 Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  his  partiality 
 for  the  Septuagint,  125  ;  the  ablest. 
 representative  of  the  School  of  Anti- 
 och,  213  ;  the  merits  and  defects  of 
 his  style  of  exegesis,  213,  214  ;  his 
 faults,  214  ;  instances  of  his  errone- 
 ous renderings  of  Scripture,  213,  214 
 and  ns.  ;  original  nature  of  his  exe- 
 gesis, 215  ;  he  makes  a  bold  stand 
 against  Origenising  allegory,  216  ; 
 difference  between  the  system  of  the 
 Syrian  school  and  that  of  Origen, 
 216  ;  his  independent  mode  of  deal- 
 ing with  Scripture,  216  ;  his  opinion 
 of  certain  so-called  Messianic  Psalms, 
 216  ;  his  views  on  inspiration,  217  ; 
 and  on  prophecy,  217,  218;  list  of 
 his  predecessors  and  successors, 
 219;?.  ;  authorities  on  his  writings, 
 219  n.  ;  his  influence  in  the  Western 
 Church  destroyed  by  the  charge  of 
 Nestorianism,  219  ;  his  chief  influ- 
 ence confined  to  the  Church  of  the 
 Nestorians,  240 
 
 Theodoret,  of  the  School  of  Antioch, 
 perpetuates  the  views  of  Theodore  of 
 Mopsuestia,  219  ;  influence  of  his 
 allegorical  method  confined  to  the 
 Church  of  the  Nestorians,  240 
 
 Theologians,  Bacon  on  English,  353  n.  ; 
 the  leading  English,  during  the  post- 
 Reformation  period,  376 
 
 Theology,  state  of,  in  the  12th  century, 
 310  ;  John  of  Salisbury's  and  Roger 
 Bacon's  opinion  of,  310  ;  Camera- 
 rius's  view  of,  310  n. ;  three  things 
 which  Luther  said  taught,  348  it.  ; 
 the  age  of  huge  books  of,  361  ;  and 
 of  dogmatism  in,  362 
 
 Theophilus  of  Anlioch,  and  his  writings, 
 estimate  of,  171  and  n. 
 
 Theory,  discrepancy  between  nominal, 
 and  actual  practice,  230  n. 
 
 Thierry,  W.de  St.,  on  Sic  ct  Non,  261  n. 
 
 Tholuck  on  Thomas  Aquinas,  269  n.  ; 
 on  the  view  of  the  ancient  Church  as 
 to  the  language  of  Scripture,  294  n.  ; 
 influence  of  his  work  on  the  exegesis 
 of  his  time,  419 
 
 Threefold  sense  of  Scripture,  views  of 
 the  Schoolmen  on  the,  294  ct  scq.  and 
 ns. 
 
 Tiberias,  disputes  of  the  Rabbis  in  the 
 school  of,  85,  86 
 
 Tiberius,  273 
 
 Tiberius  Alexander,  Procurator,  138 
 
 Tichonins,  the  seven  rules  of,  as  to 
 Scriptural  interpretation,  24-26  ;  ap- 
 proval of,  by  Augustine,  Cassiodorus, 
 and  Isidore  of  Seville,  26  and  n.  ; 
 reference  to,  276,  279  n. 
 
 Titus,  70 
 
 Tobit,  226 
 
 Tosefta  Sanhedrin,  18  n. 
 
 Tostatus,  his  work  as  a  commentator, 
 279 
 
 Toulouse,  Count  of,  advice  of  Innocent 
 III.  as  to  dealing  with,  40 
 
 Tradition,  Oral,  Ezra  the  founder  of, 
 54-56  ;  good  and  evil  largely  mixed 
 in  the,  56,  57 
 
 Translators,  theological  bias  and  errors 
 of,  5  and  n. 
 
 Trent,  Council  of,  307  ;  and  exegesis 
 360;  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran 
 Churches  reject  the  three  principles 
 of,  370  n. 
 
 Trinity,  Reuchlin  endeavours  to  prove 
 the,  from  Genesis  i.  1,  35 
 
 Tunstall,  his  enmity  to  Tyndale's  trans- 
 lation of  the  Scriptures,  17 
 
 Turretin,  his  protest  against  the  power 
 of  "an  inner  light"  in  interpreting 
 Scripture,  379  n. 
 
 Tyndale  on  the  allegorical  method  of 
 exegesis,  299,  300 
 
 Tyre,  incident  in  the  siege  of,  by 
 Alexander,  8 
 
 U. 
 
 Ueberweg  on  allegorical  interpreta- 
 tion, 198  n. 
 
 Universals,  controversy  between  An- 
 selin  and  Roscclin  on,  253 
 
 Universities,  Dutch,  and  divines,  their 
 influence  on  the  exegesis  of  the  16th 
 and  17th  centuries,  379  and  n. 
 
 Urban  V.,  Pope,  264  n. 
 
 VALLA,  Lorenzo,  influence  of  his 
 labours  in  contributing  to  the  Re- 
 formation, 312  ;  remarks  011  his 
 works,  313  and  ns. 
 
Index. 
 
 5.33 
 
 Van  Beusden  on  Plato,  282 
 
 Vayyikra  Rabba,  -'11  n.,  63  n.,  86  n. 
 
 Vodas,  expositors  early  needed  to  ex- 
 plain the,  47;  the  Brahmins  driven 
 to  liiul  ;i  mystical  meaning  foi  the, 
 188 
 
 Ventura  on  Thomas  Aquinas,  269  n. 
 
 Vespasian,  <5S  n. 
 
 Viret,  "'ii  /'. 
 
 Virgil,  247  ».,  296  n. 
 
 \  irginity,  Jerome  on,  227,  228,  257 
 
 Voltaire,  17,  397,  400 
 
 Vulgate,  i  heological  bias  in  the  t  ransla- 
 tors  "I  I  he,  5  ;  reference  to  the,  7  n. ; 
 quotations  from,  24  and  n.,  teems 
 with  errors,  27  "■  :  Jerome's  transla- 
 tion of  the,  223,  229 
 
 W. 
 
 Walafrid  Strabo,  and  his  Glosaa 
 Oi'dinaria,  account  of,  251,  2'>2  and 
 ns. 
 
 Wartburg,  L-lc-'ikI  of  Luther  at  the,  5 
 
 Waterland  on  mystic  meanings,  353  n. 
 
 Weill  on  the  new  exegesis,  60  n. 
 
 Werenfels,  famous  epigram  of,  in 
 reference  to  interpretation,  30 
 
 Wesley,  justifies  his  belief  in  witch- 
 craft by  the  Bible,  40  n. 
 
 Wessel,  John,  279  ;  identity  of  thought 
 between  Luther  ami,  312 
 
 Westcott,  Canon,  his  comment  on 
 John  v.  36-40,  10  n.  ;  his  remark  on 
 Dionysius  of  Alexandria's  criticism 
 mi  the  Revelation,  207  n. ;  on  Chrys- 
 ostom,  220  n. 
 
 Wetstein,  John  James,  influence  of,  on 
 the  theology  ami  exegesis  of  the 
 17th  century,  391  ;  value  (if  his 
 works,  ami  bis  sj  item  of  interpreta- 
 tion, 891 
 
 \Y Intake]-,  on  the  three  spiritual  senses 
 of  Scripture,  300 
 
 Whittier,  4  //. 
 
 Wiclif,  heresy  to  possess  the  Bible  of, 
 16;  on  mediaeval  exegesis,  278,  279 
 /'. 
 
 W'ite,  llillel  ami  Aqiba  on  divorcing  a, 
 7  7  n 
 
 William  of  Conches  reckons  (he  Vener- 
 able Bede  among  the  fathers.  249  /'. 
 
 William  of  Occam,  the  champion  of 
 Nominalism,  281  ;  his  work  and  its 
 results,  281,  282  ;  his  character,  301 
 
 Wills,  .Tews  ignorant  of,  till  the  time  of 
 the  Romans,  30  n. 
 
 Winer,  his  Hellenistic  grammar,  419 
 
 Wisdom,  the-  Book  of,  effeel  of  Greek 
 influence  on  the  writer  of,  126;  de- 
 rives his  leading  ideas  from  Plato 
 and  the  Stoics,  126 
 
 Wise,  the,  greater  than  the  prophets, 
 51  n.  ;  they  are  called  priests,  52  »/. 
 
 Witchcraft,  Scripture  cited  as  the 
 authority  for  the  believers  in,  40 
 ami  n. 
 
 Wit- lies,  the  burning  of,  justified  by  a 
 text  in  Leviticus,  40  ami  n. 
 
 Wogue,  references  to  his  Histoire  de  la 
 Bible,  in,  n  ns. 
 
 Wolfenbuttel  fragment,  effects  of  the 
 publication  of  the,  on  theology.  400 
 
 "Word  of  God,  Luther's  view  of  what 
 constituted  the,  339  ;  not  in  Scripture 
 alone,  340 
 
 Words  and  letters,  Rabbinical  belief 
 in  certain  mystical  or  supernatural 
 powers  in,  97  ct  seq.  ;  and  in  new 
 meanings  on  altering  them  by  trans- 
 position. 104 
 
 Woids  worth,  Bishop,  on  the  importance 
 of  the  true  sense  of  Scripture  being 
 made  known,  38 
 
 World,  the,  stands  on  three  things,  61 
 
 Ykim'siiai.mi,  nature  of  the,  82  n. 
 Yods,  the  two,  Rabbinical  explanation 
 of,  75,  7t>  and  ii. 
 
 ZlNZENDORF,  '  'omit,  inlluei of,  and 
 
 of  his  Moravian  brol  her  hoods  on  the 
 practical  Christianity  of  the  17tli 
 century,  389,  390 
 
 Zwingli,  his  works  and  their  influence 
 on  the  Reformation,  311 
 
 TIIK    END 
 
oy 
 
 Richaro  Clay  A  Sons, 
 
 BREAD   STREET   HILL,  LONDON, 
 
 Bungay,  Siijjoll:. 
 
DATE  DUE 
 
 1"  LiiUUi  miy 
 
 "C   i  ^    0 
 
 lynn 
 
 U17U    .  -E- 
 
 ■^p***- 
 
 7!!^*""*" 
 
 .r 
 
 ■ 
 
 ».  X3J**8"^l 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 PBINTED  IN  USA