YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

HISTOKY OF INTEKPEETATION.

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

EIGHT LECTURES
PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD IN
THE YEAR MDCCCLXXXV.
\ OOO s" o o
ON THE FOUNDAJ-IQN OF
THE LATE EEV. JOHN BAMPTON

BY
FEEDEEIC W. FAEEAE, D.D., F.E.S.,
Late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; Archdeacon and Canon of Westminster;
Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen.

¦ Damnamns veteres ? minime. Sed post priorum studia in domo Domini
quod possumus laboramus."— Jee. Apol. m Bufin. u. ib.

Pfa fork s
E. P. DTJTTON AND CO.,
Publishers and Impoetees, 31. West Twenty-Thied Steeet.
1886.
The Bight of Translation and Beproduetion is Reserved.

Richard Clay <fc Sons,
BKEAD STREET HILL, LONDON,
Bungay, Sitfolk,

TO
THE REV. BENJAMIN JOWETT, M.A.,
MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE,
AND
VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
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 KINDNESS.

PEEFACE.
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 and
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 of
Scriptural interpretation I am using the phrase in its
narrower and more limited meaning.
2. It is obvious that within the compass of Eight Lectures
an exhaustive treatment of so wide a subject would be
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 (t 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 Isagoge of Buddeus (1730), Schrock's
Kirchengeschichte (1768 — 1812), Rosenmiiller's Historic/, In
terpretations (1795 — 1814), Meyer's Geschichte der Schrifter-
Idarung (1803), Klausen's Hermeneutih des Neuen Testaments
(translated from the Danish 1841), Diestel's Geschichte des
Alien Testamentes (1869), Reuss' Die Geschichte der Heiligen
Bchriften (1874), Merx's Die Frophetie des Joel und ihre
Auslcger (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, Hcrmcneutik
{Germ. Tr. 1841), pp. 249-252. Werner, Gesch. d. Kath. Theol. 1866.
2 I give the dates of the editions which I have myself used.

Preface. ix
of Gratz, 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 interests
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 of
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 ti

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. 1885.

Preface. xi
ing of the Spirit of God in the domains of History and of
Science. It may be said that the Bible is the same 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 is as
impossible to interpret the Bible now by the methods of
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 Hebrew
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 moment and
placed the interpreter above the text. A spurious and
unenlightened idolatry for the letter of Scripture ignored its
simplicity and universality, and sought for enigmas and
mysteries in the plainest passages. A scholastic orthodoxy
developed elaborate systems of theology out of imaginary
emphases, and by- the aid of exorbitant 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 e'{8a>\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. History 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 Civitate Dei with the memorable
words, Divind Providentid agitur 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 verborum et
nominum se insinuarant in intellectum. " "ldola theatri innata non sunt
. . . sed ex fabulis theoriarum et perversis legibus demonstrationum plane
indita et recepta." — -Bacon, Nov. Organum. lib. i. lix. Ix.

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." z " Great men,'' says Carlyle,
" are the inspired texts of that divine book of Revelations
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 Vico, 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;"8 — 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 I
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 perhaps be asked, " How can the Bible have
been liable to agelong misapprehensions if it be a Divine
Revelation ? "

1 Fichte, Spec. Theology, p. 651. 2 Sartor Rcsartus, p. 108.
3 Acts xvii. 26-30. 4 John i. 9.
5 Heb. i. 1. 6 Heb. 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." J 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 God, 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 that to us, as to the holy
1 Chillingworth, Religion of Protestants.

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 Eccl. Pol. ii. 7, § 6.

Preface. xvii
and before Antiquity, which is the daughter of Time." 1
" Reason can, and it ought to judge, not only of the mean- i
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 are
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." * 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 ? " So spake the Lord of Glory.6
But further, this history has taught us that with Freedom,
and the fearless appeal to the reason and the conscience in
judging the separate utterances of Scripture, so 'too there
must be Progress. " Truth," says Milton, " is compared in
1 Ductor Subitantium, I. ii. § 64. 2 Light of Nature, p. 136.
3 Prov. xx. 27. * 1 John iT- 1-
6 1 Thess. v. 21. 6 Luke xii. 57. b

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 see
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."1 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 to
perform : —
i. It has been no part of my duty to lay down any theory of
Inspiration. It has indeed been impossible to avoid frequent
references to one theory — that of verbal dictation — because
1 Rivetus, Isagoge, cap. 18, § 11. b 2

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, Theol. Didact.
Polem. i. 55 ; Heidegger, Corp. Theol. 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. JET. E iii. 39 ; Orig. in Joann. tome i. p. 4
(ed. 1668) ; i. p. 383 (id.) ; Aug. Le Cons. Evang. i. 35, ii. 12, 28 ; Junilius,
Be 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.
gu. 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.
Bellarmine, 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 looso
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, Hey, Watson, Law, Tomline, Dr. J. Barrow, Dean Con5'beare[
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 shun the 6pposite 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 had 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 fingo, 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 Church
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 priori
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 Kal Havkos r\v alOC avBpomros rjv, and of St.
Augustine about St. John — •" Inspiratus a Deo, sed 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 tbe 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
bc good." — Collect for F'fth Sunday after Easter. " Come, Hoty Ghost our
souls inspire." — Veni Creator. See, too, the Homilies for Whitsun 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 "nairep ko! ttjs Aerrfflas olnoSu/xris 6 /io\i$Sivos Kavrliv. Xlobs yap to (rv^/ia
TOW \10OV jJ.£TaKlVeiTM. — Aeist. Eth. N. v. 10.

Preface. xxv
be absolutely perfect down to its minutest 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 sense 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 me by Professor Acland, who heard it from
Dr. Latham. 2 The Contemp. Rev. Dec. 1870.

xxviii Preface.
from Scripture it may have some direction and light." i 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 Boohs.
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 Eccl. 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
Church, 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."
Frederic W. Farrar.
St. Makgaret's Rectoby,
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 216.
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 & Targums, 4th and 5 th Cent.
Pseudo-Dionysius, c. 500.
Gregory I. d. 604.
Bede, d. 735.
John Damascenus, about 756.
Walafrid Strabo, 849. (Glossa Ordinaria, abridged from Rabanus
J. Scotus Erigena, d. 875. Maurus.)

xxxii Chronology Relating to
Anselm, d. 1109.
Theophylaet, about 1112.
Anselmof Laon (Glossa Intcrlinearis), d. 1117.
Rupert of Deutz, d. 1135.
Hugo de S. Victore, d. 1141.
Abelard, d. 1142.
Bernard, d. 1153.
Peter Lombard, d. 1164.
Richard de S. Victore, d. 1173.
Euthymius Zigabenus, 12 th Cent.
Spanish school of Jews— Rashi, Abenezra, Kimchi, 12th Cent.
Maimonides, d. 1204.
Aquinas' Catenae, 1250.
Hugo de St. Caro (Postilla), d. 1263.
Thomas Aquinas, d. 1274.
Bonaventura, d. 1274.
Albertus Magnus, d. 1280.
Nicolas de Lyra, d. 1340.
William of Occam, d. 1347.
Wiclif, d. 1384.
Hus, d. 1415.
Valla, d. 1465.
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 a Lapide, d. 1657.
Douai Bible, 1609.
Authorised Version, 1611.
Estius, d. 1613.
Mede, d. 1638.
Grotius, d. 1645.
S. Glass, d. 1656.
Calixt, d. 1656.
Hammond, d. 1660.
Critici Sacri, 1661. Edited by Pearson.
Poole's Synopsis Criticorum, 1669-1676.
Cocceius, d. 1669.
Lightfoot, d. 1675.
Calovius, d. 1686.

Biblical Interpretation. xxxiii
L. Cappell, d. 1658.
Spinoza, d. 1677.
Spener, d. 1705.
Patrick, d. 1707.
R. Simon, d. 1712.
Vitringa, d. 1722.
Bambach, d. about 1730.
Clericus, d. 1736.
Schcettgen, about 1750.
Ugolini's Theasurus, 1743-1745.
Bengel, d. 1752.
Wetstein, d. 1754.
Calmet, d. 1757.
Carpzov, d. 1767.
Ernesti, d. 1781.
Lessing, d. 1781.
Moses Mendelssohn, d. 1786.
Michaelis, d. 1791.
Bp. Lowth, d. 1787.
Semler, d. 1791.
Eosenmiiller, J. G. 1815.
Herder, d. 1803.
Kant, d. 1804.
Horsley, d. 1806.
Jahn, d. 1816.
De Wette, 1830.
Hegel, d. 1831.
Schleiermacher, 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 OF 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 . id.
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 . id.
Causes of non-natural Exegesis 11
Growth of alien rites . . id.
Development of religious opinions . id.
Illustrations .... . . . . . id.
II. Seven main periods of Interpretation . . . . 12
Gradual advance of knowledge . . .... 13
Supremacy of the Bible ... . id.
What we may learn from the past . . . 14
Sufficiency of Scripture . . . 15
Gains of Exegesis  . . .id.
Unshaken influence of Scripture . . . 16
III. Perils of misinterpretation . . .... 17
Baseless Hermeneutic rules . . . . .... 18
1. Rabbinism. The seven rules of Hillel . .19
Abuses to which they led  . 20 — 22
2. Alexandrianism. The rules of Philo  22
Their futility  .23

xxxvi Table of Contents.

3. Rules of Tichonius . . . .
4. Mistaken views in later epochs .
IV. The task of the Expositor 
Erroneous views of Inspiration 
Need for their correction . .
V. False results of Exegesis
Whole books misunderstood
The Book of Ecclesiastes .
w The Song of Solomon . ....
Misinterpretations of the first verse of the Bible .
i. In the Talmud and other Jewish writings
ii. In Philo .
iii. In the Fathers 
iv.- Exegesis very fallible . . .
v. Terrible results of misinterpretation . .
Perversions of Scripture . . .
True sacredness and right use of Scripture

PAGE

23-

-26

26,

27

27

28

29,

30

30

31
32
32,
. 33 L-
34
34-
-37
37
38
id.
38-
-41
42
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 the Scribes .... 50
I. How the change was brought about ... . .51
Ezea, 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  . §3
Rabbinic casuistry  .  g4
Sacrifice of the spirit to the letter . . .... id.
III. Chiefs of the schools   g5
1. Hillel. His life and work  ^
Hillel contrasted with Christ  ... . 06
Table of Contents. xxxvii PAOE
2. Shammai. A narrow formalist  67
3. Johanan ben Zakkai  68
His mildness and his services .......  69
Restoration of an impossible religion  70
i. Aqiba  70 —78
His exorbitant method  71
Legends of his life  .72
His exegetic system  73, 74
Mystic kabbalism  74
Letter worship  . . . . ?5
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 Midbashim  . . 
The four methods, PaRDeS  95
The Qabbala  96
Its baselessness  97
Its rules   <d-
i. Gematria  98
Illustrations  98—100
" Architectonic " and " figurative " Gematria . . . 100
ii. Notarikon  101
iii. Temoorah  ¦ ¦ 1°2
Specimens of Athbash, &c, in the Bible . . . . 103
Attach. Prov. xxix. 21  104
Arbitrary changes of reading  104, 105

xxxviii Table of Contents. TAGE
VII. Saddening results  .105
Effects of Talmudism  "06
Christ's judgment respecting it  107

LECTURE III.
ALEXANDRIAN EXEGESIS, pp. 111—158.
Divergent tendencies of Palestinian and Alexandrian exegesLs  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 ; Nab. i. 9 . . . . .124
Jon. iii. 4  ^25
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 tho Jews . . . 129
ii. That Greek philosophy is to be found in the Penta
teuch  130
IV. Causes of the allegoric method  131  ^35
•/ It rose from the contact of Greek with Jewish thought . . . 131 v
A Jewish Renaissance  _ 132
1/ Eclectic tendencies  133 ^
Illustrations  . , . 134

Table of Contents.

V. The Allegoric method borrowed from the Stoics . .
Homer allegorically explained 
Development of the method by the Alexandrians
VI. Philo  ...
Three exegetic schools
Philo's eclecticism
u His views on the literal sense
U His perversion of Scripture . .
Travesties of Scripture Histories
Philo's theology
VII. On the Allegories of the Sacred Laws .
Specimens of Philonian allegory 
^ Variable symbols ...
Exegetic nullity
Philo's views of Inspiration . ...
Flexibility of the theory
VIII. Scriptural arguments in favour of his methods
1. Stoic rules for excluding the literal sense .
2. Rules for including the allegorical sense
3. Alterations of tbe text . . .
4. Inferences from synonyms
5. Plays on words
6. Emphasis of particles, &c.
Results of his system
Merits of Philo .
Falseness of his methods ... ...
Emptiness of results .... . .
Necessary futility of such systems . .
What led him to adopt allegory
Legacy of Alexandrianism . .
IX. A divine progress in the midst of error

PAGE
. . 134 —
. . 135
. . 136
136—157 . . 137
137, 138
. . 139"
. 140^
. . 141
. 142
143, 144
. . 145
. . 146 1-
147

148149"
149, 150"
. . 150"
. . id. '¦
151 L
id.id.L
152 L
id. "
153 u
. . 154
. 155 id. •-'
156
157, 158

LECTURE IV.
PATRISTIC EXEGESIS, pp. 161—242.
The Promise of the Spirit 
The obvious limitations 
Value of the Fathers 
Scornful language objectionable . . . ...
Difficulties of the Fathers ...
Their inevitable deficiencies . . ....
I. The Apostolic Fathers ....
1. St. Clement of Rome 
2. The Epistle of Barnabas ....

. . 161
. . 162
. 163
. 163164 165
165—170 . . 166
. . 167

xJ

Table of Contents.

His Christian Kabbalism .
His strange fancies ....
His "gnosis" 
3. Hermas and others ...
4. St. Justin Martyr 
His arbitrary applications . .
His exegesis artificial
5. St. Iren-SUS 
His excellent remarks 
His "tradition" proved valueless
--" II. Three exegetical schools 
1. Tertullian 
His characteristics .
His aiTogant dogmatism
His appeal to ' ' tradition " ...
2. St. Cyprian 
His strange method of argument
His way of treating Scripture .
III. The School of Alexandria . .
Clement op Alexandria .
Characteristics of his system
His allegoric fancies . .
Views about " accommodation "
IV. Origen 
His misfortunes .
His greatness . . .
Survival of error ....
His mistaken assumptions
His difficulties ....
His theories of exegesis .
His views about the literal sense
His untenable arguments . .
— His allegoric system
" Probable inventor of " the threefold sense '
His arbitrariness 
Illustrations of his exegesis ....
Allegory applied to the New Testament .
v V. Immense influence of Origen .
VI. St. Hilary 
Specimens of his exegesis . . * . . . .
VII. St. Ambrose 
VIII. Dionysius of Alexandria . .
Julius Afbioanus 
IX. Reaction against Allegory 
Nepos and others . 
Ephraem Syrus 

PAGE
. . 168
169
. 170
. 171
. 172—174 . . 173
. . 174
. 174—177
. . 175
. .176 177-
177—180 178179180
180—182 181182
. 182—203
. 183—187 . 185 136187
187—203 187
. 188189
... 190
191, 192
... 193
194 195
. . 196^
. 197 u
198
. . 199
. . 200
201—203 203
. . 204
. 205
. . 206207
. 208
. 209
• . id.

Table of Contents.

xii

X. The School of Antioch ....
Their rejection of allegory
1. Diodorus of Tarsus
2. Theodore of Mopsuestia
His defects .
His greatness . . .
His special views .
His opinion as to Inspiration . .
His opinion about Prophecy
3. Theodoret  . -.
4. The Cappadocian triumvirate .
5. St. Chrysostom  . .
His eminence as an Expositor
His practical aims ...
XI. St. Jerome . . .
His greatness .
i. The Vulgate 
ii. His views about the Canon
iii. His regard for the literal sense
His defects 
tt. His haste . . .
b. His want of originality
c. His bitter prejudices
d. His vacillations 
iv. Differences between his theory and practice
v. His views of inspiration . . .
vi. His views about allegory
XII. St. Augustine ...
His excellent theories ...
His versatile genius ...
His defects- ....
His methods untenable .
His use of allegory ....
Dangers of the allegoric method .
Triumph of the allegorists .
High services rendered by the Fathers

PAGE

. 210-

-219

211

212
. 213-
-219
214
215
216
217
218
219
id.
. 220-
-222
221
222
. 222-
-234
223
. 223-
-225
225
id.
225
sgq.
, .
226
227
. 227
228
229
230
230
, 231
. 231-
-234
. 234-
-239
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
, 242
LECTURE V.
SCHOLASTIC EXEGESIS, pp. 245—303.
The Dark Ages 
Decadence of knowledge . .
Deepening misinterpretation
Beds 
245246247 248
xiii

Table of Contents.

PAGE
Specimens of his exegesis ... .  249
Alcuin  . . . -id.
Compilations . . . , • 250
The Glosses .... . , ... 251
Exegetic nullity . . . . 252
Johannes Scotus Erigena . . . 253
His views ... ... . 254
Beginnings of Scholasticism ...... . 255
St. Bernard ... ........ . . . id.
Mysticism . .... . . .256
Monastic theology . . .... 257
Hugo and Richard of St. Victor ... . 258
Aeelard .  . . . 259
His views of inspiration ... .... 260
Peter Lombard .... ... . . . 261
The " Liber Sententiarum" ...  262
Aristotle's works .... ... 263
Influence of Aristotle . .... ... 264
Work of the Schoolmen . . . . 265
Peculiarity of their studies . . ... . , , . 266
Alisertus 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 . . 1^274
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
S. " Vermieulate questions " . . . .  291

Table of Contents.

xliii

' Vaniloquium" . ...
Frivolous disputes . .
9. The "multiple sense" of Scripture
The fourfold sense .
10. Specimens of mediaeval exegesis . .
Indifference of the laity 
Interests of the Papacy . . .
The views of the English Reformers .
Lives and examples of the great Schoolmen
Divine vitality of Scripture .

PAGE
... 292
... 293
< 2941 295
296—298
... 298
. . 299
. 299, 300
. 301, 302

303

.-

LECTURE VI.
THE REFORMERS, pp. 307—354.

" Protestantism " a phase of a great movement
What the Reformation was .
Services and degeneracy of the Papacy
Decadence of religious institutions . .
Early Reformers .
1. Loeenzo Valla
2. Fabek Stapulensis .
3. Reuchlin .
4. Erasmus .
His work . .
His originality ....
His opinions about Scripture
His courage .... .
His Paraphrases and Annotations
His independence
A pioneer of the Reformation . .
5. Luther 
Greatness of his services
Stages of his religious growth .
His principles .
i. Final authority of Scripture
ii. Sufficiency of Scripture
iii. Maintenance of the literal sense
iv. Rejection of allegory ...
v. Perspicuity of Scripture . .
vi. Right of private judgment . .
His rules of Scripture interpretation
1. Necessity for spiritual illumination .
2. Analogia fidet .
3. Reference of all Scripture to Christ

308, 310,

314-816-

322—.' 324,
325- 325.

328,
329-332-
. 332,
, 333,

307] 308309311312313314 316
¦322 317 id.
318 319320321 322
341323 325
331326327 id.^
328329 331334
332333334

xliv Table 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. Melanchthon, 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 Reformers . . . 352
Truth and Freedom  353
Churches need many Pentecosts  354

LECTURE VII. i
POST-REFORMATION EPOCH, pp. 357— 3P4.
Arrest of the impulse given to Exegesis  . . J0fi
I. A cheerless epoch   , . 35s
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.
Flacius Illyeicus . .  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 " Com/municatio Idiomatum''  367  369
5. Biblical supernaturalism  369 370

Table of Contents. xlv

6. Scriptural infallibility . , .

PAGE
. 370—372

Rathmann . . .

. 372

Advancing Bibliolatry

. 373

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 Spener

380, 381

Other Pietists .

381, 382

3. Tolerance and culture. Georg Calixt

382, 383

4. Modern Philosophy. Descartes, Spinoza

383, 384

5. Mysticism. Jacob Bohme 

384

6. Cocceianism. John Koch

385 \
386 )

Cocceian Exegetes

7. Modern criticism

. 386—388

Louis Cappel ... . ,

387

The Buxtorffs and others .

. 388

III. Increase of knowledge . .

388, 389

i. Count ZlNZENDORF . .

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
Reimaeus and Barhdt 400
Feebleness of the apologists . 401
Gellert . id.
Haller . 402
Euler . .  . . . id.
The critical school — Miohaelis, Ernesti, Eichhorn, Paulus . . 402
Semler . . . . 402 — 405
Views of Semler . . . . ... 403
Abuse of "accommodation" . j« . 404

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

Schleiermacher

409—411

His influence on theology

. 410

His followers . . .

. . 411

Hegel

. id.

His followers

412

Strauss

413

Ferd. Chr. Baur and the School of Tiibingen

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.

 437

Table of Contents. xlvii

NOTES.
NOTES TO LECTURE II
PAGE
Note I. — Self-glorification of the Rabbis , 441
Some of their titles 442
Note II. — The Targums and Midrashim 442—444
Note III. — Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai . 444
Note IV. — Exegetic and Symbolic Kabbalism . 44,j — 448
1. Gematria . .445
2. Notarikon . . 446
3. Inferences from changing the reading id.
4. Importance attached to letters . . 447 ;
5. Inferences from the repetition of words -id. \
6. Inferences from impersonal verbs 448
7. Inferences from plurals . . id. (
Miscellaneous icLJ
Note V— The Karaites 449, 450
Note VI.— The Massora . . .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 . 453 — 455
Note IV. — Philo's plirases for the literal and allegoric sense 455, 456
Note V. — Philo and Messianic Hopes . 457, 458

NOTE TO LECTURE IV.
Patristic reasons for adopting Allegory  459, 460
NOTES TO LECTURE V.
Note I. — Mediaeval Jewish commentators  461 — 464
R. Saadia Gaon  . . ... 461
Rashi .   462
Rashbam   .id.
Juda Ha-Levi   . . id.
Ibn Ezra .  .id.
Maimonides  ¦ ¦ 463

PAGE

464

id.

id.
id.
465
466-
-468
468
469
469
470
470
xlviii Table of Contents.
The Qimchis
Joseph Albo
Abrabanel Elias Levita
Note II. — Titles of the Schoolmen
Note III. — Origin of Scholasticism
Note IV. — The Sic et non of Abelard
Note V. — The abuse of " Parallel passages "
Note VI. — Opinions on Scholasticism
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 THB LATE
EEV. 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 be yearly chosen by the Heads
d

1 Extract from Canon Bampton's 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 Bampton's Will. Ii
" 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 same person shall never preach the Divinity
" Lecture Sermons twice."

"Tractatio Scripturae aprimissaeculis Novi Testamenti ad hodiemum
usque diem diversas liabuit aetates. Prima possit dici nativa ; secunda
moralis ; tertia, arida; quarta, rediviva ; quinta, polemica, dogmatica,
topica ; sexta, critica, polyglotta, antiquaria, homiletica. Adhuc igitur
non ea Scripturae viguit experientia et intelligentia in Ecclesia, quae in
ipsa Scriptura offertur. Evincunt hoc opinionum luxuriantes dis-
crepantiae et caligantes in prophetis oculi nostri. Plus ultra vocamur
ad earn in Scripturis facultatem quae est virilis et regalis, perfectionique
Scripturae satis prope respondeat. Sed per adversa excoquendi erunt
homines prius. Earum aetatum liistoria et descriptio justum atque
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 bear witness of Mb ; and ye will
not come to Me that ye may have life." — John v. 39, 40.

HISTOEY OF INTEEPEETATION.
LECTURE I.
SUCCESS AND FAILURE OF EXEGESIS.
" Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns." ' — Jer. iv. 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
phrases 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. veiio-are kavrots iredfiara.
Comp. Hos. x. 12 ¦ Matt. xiii. 7.
B 2

4 Qualification of the Exegete.
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.2 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 iroAvfiepus real irohvTpthras. Heb. i. 1.
2 D18 ^3 |1E>^3 mm n~3H. See Hirschfeld, Halachische Exegese,
p. 142 ; Derenbourg, Palestine, p. 392.
" The myths and parables of the primal years,
Whose letter kills, by Thee interpreted,
Take healthful meanings fitted to our needs ;
And in the soul's vernacular express
The common law of simple righteousness." — Whittier.
3 Aug. De Doctr. Christ, i. 1. " Duae res quibus nititur omnis tradatio
Scripturae, modus inveniendi quae intelligenda sunt, ct modus proferendi quae
intcllecta sunt." Ernesti, Inst. Intcrpr. " Est intcrpretatio facultas docendi
quae cujusque orationi subjecta sit, seu efficiendi ut alter cogitet eadem cum
scriptore quoque." 4 ' ' Willst den Dichter Du verstehen ?
Musst in Dichter's Lande gehen." — Goethe.
"Intelligere acriptorem is dicendus est qui idem quod file dum scribebat
cogitavit, legens cogitat." — Kitenen, Critica Lineamcnta.

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 Patmos
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 Septuagint 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
large 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 promised, saying, Yet once more will I
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, 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
1 Of the LXX. I shall speak infra. Tbe most striking instance of sup
posed bias in Luther's version is in Rom. iii. 28 ("vox 'sola' tot clamoribus
lapidata"), but " alone " had appeared in the Genoese Bible (1476), and the
Nuremberg Bible (1483). For the English version, see among other passages,
1 Sam. iii. 15 ; 2 Sam. viii. 18 ; Acts ii. 47 ; 1 Cor. xi. 27 ; Gal. i. 18 ; Heb.
vi. 6 ; x. 38, although there is not in any single passage any intentional
mala fides.
2 Heb. xii. 25, 26.

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 pao-es.
No less than ten such works — by Nathan, Shemaiah, Gad,
1 The word Bible represents not to fri&Mov but to. 0i/3\ta, a term which
began to be used in the fifth century. The Scriptures were also called Biblio-
theca. Jer. Ep. 6 ; Durandus, Rational, i. 27 ; Du Cange, s.v.

Manifoldness of Scripture. 7
Iddo, Ahijah, Hosai, Jehu son of Hanani, Isaiah, and others
who are 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
ness 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 giveth understanding
to the simple."3 The humblest Christian may claim his
share in the illumination promised to all God's children, and
1 Eph. iii. 10. ii ixoXv-ii-oIkiKos aorpla rov ®eov. Vulg. Multiformis, comp.
Eur. Iph. T. 1150.
2 De Div. Nat. iv. 5. " Est enim multiplex et infinitus divinornm eloqui-
orum intellectus. Siquidem in penna pavonis una eademque mirabilis ac
pulchra innumerabilium coloram varietas conspicitur in uno eodemque loco
ejusdem pennae portiunculae." 3 Ps. cxix. 130.

e>

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.
He 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 which the interpretation of
Scripture has been dominated by unprpven 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 tho 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, Rel. of Protestants, iv. 16.
2 See Q. Curtius, iv. 14 ; Diod. Sic. xvii. 41. " Hinc Tyrii, superstitione
inducti, catenis aureis simulacrum Apollinis in basi devinxere, impedituri,
ut persuasum habebant, Dei ex ivrbe migrationem. "

Tests of Exegesis. 9
mented at each stage by the superaddition of fresh theories
no less mistaken. Exegesis has often darkened the tine
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, we 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 Tlie 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
Reformed. 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 exegetical. Hence the old rule
-131? 13t -\2~V rP&n |'K 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 Yoma, f. 83, 2 ; Yebamoth, f. 64, 1, quoted bv Mr Hershon,
Genesis, pp. 131, 293.
2 See John v. 36-40, with the remarkable comment of Canon "West
cott.

Causes of Aberration. 11
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," x 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 intercourse with other nations. The Jews
learnt much from their contact with Chaldaeans, 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 nteFI, of which seven are attributed to Ezra. See on the subject, "Wogue,
Hist, de Bible, p. 170.
2 This was the original name of the party which developed into Pharisaism.
1 Mace. ii. 42, vii. 13 17 ; 2 Mace. xiv. 6. The word is rendered "saints" in
Ps. Ixxix 2, xlvii. 10, &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 Pantacnus (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. 60. The rule 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 reaction
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 Lange, Grundriss d. bibl. Herm. xxi. -xxiv.

14 Objects of the Survey.
God, written for our learning that we through endurance and
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 by 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 may be allowed to play a part, 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 — ¦
" There is a book who runs may read,
"Which heavenly truth imparts ;
And all the lore its scholars need
Pure eyes 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
hermeneutic 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 tbe white
ashes of ceremonial discussion, yet in preserving the text of the
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 ldse 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 Scripture.
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 ; 2 in vain did the English priesthood 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. 2 Euseb. H. E. viii. 2.
3 Motley, Rise 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 the
stone has been rolled away from the door of the sepulchre,
and the enemies of the Bible can never shake its divine
1 See his monition in Collier, Eccl. Hist. iv. 61 ; ix. 84.
2 Bossuet.
3 " The Church is safer and the Faith healthier when it is not bound
by the fetters of a too curiously-articulated creed."— Bishop Jeremy Taylor
(Dissuasive from Popery, bk. 1, § 4, passim). C

18 Hermeneutic 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 (JIITD) are found in Tosefta Sanhedrin, u. 7, at the end of
Sifra ; and in Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, c. xxxvii. See Derenbourg, Palestine,
p. 187 ; Hamburger, Talm. Worterb. ii. s.vv. Exegese and Hillel (pp. 209,
405). ' ,
2 These rules in their briefest form are : 1. " Light and heavy " ("lOini 7p),
i.e. a minori ad majus and vice versa. 2. "Equivalence" 3. Deduction

Hillel '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." ' 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 Rabbi
Ishmael into thirteen, and by R. Eleazar into thirty-two, and subsequently to
forty-nine, see Trenel, Vie de Hillel, p. 34 ; Crenius, Fascie. TJusol. iv. ; Jost,
Judenthum, i. 257 ; Dcrenbourg, p. 384-401 ; Merx, Eine Rede vom Auslcgen,
pp. 44, 45 ; Barclay, Talmud, 40-44 ; Ginsburg, s.vv. Midrash, Hillel, and
Ishmael ben Elisha in Kitto's Cyclopaedia ; Weber, Altsyn. Theol. 106-113 ;
Chiarini, Theorie du, Judaisme, i. 64-68. On the relation between Hillel's
and Ishmael's rules, see Grate, iv. 429. The thirteen rules (Shelosh Esreh
Middoth ha-Thorah) are found in the Jewish Prayer-book. The additions of
It. 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 semukin
(fOIDD). For specimens see Berakhoth, f. 10, 1 ; Weber, Altsyn. Theol. 120.
3 It had been applied long before Hillel by Simeon ben Shetach in a
question relating to the punishment of false witnesses. See Derenbourg,
p. 106.
4 Analogy ; of David and the Shewbread, Matt. xii. 5. A fortiori (w6sa
liarWov) ; of the sparrows and man, Matt. ^.. 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

, . £ 27, 1.
Id. ib. In Sanhedrin, f. 106, 2, the word "weigher" (A. T. "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 nits' CPU- Thus it was inferred that
the brother-in-law's right shoe was to be pulied 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 Hillel's Rules. 21
and the wife of Job ; and Lot, contrary to the express testi
mony of Scripture, is represented as a monster of iniquity,1
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 Deut. 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 Hillel'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.
2 Namely, in Gen. xxxix. 7 ; Judg. xiv. 3 ; Gen. xxxiv. 2 ; Hos. ii. 5.
Also the same word 033) is used of " the plain " of Jordan, and. "a piece '•
of bread in Prov. vi. 26.
3 Qiddushin, f. 22, 1. Merx, Eine Rede vom Auslegen, p. 46.

V<s

22 Alexandrian Hermeneutic.
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 ! x
2. We pass to the second epoch, and find that_^tee-
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, Renau, and many
others. See further in Lect. II. Hillel's 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 Immutabilis, 11 ; De Somniis, i. 40. For the details as
found in the book, De Legis Allegoriis, and Philo's other treatises, see
Siegfried Philo, pp. 160-197. Some illustrations are given infra, Lect. III.

An Art of Misinterpretation. 23
to Philo, but are found no less in the Midrashim, and
were adopted by Origen. 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 ; x nor
does " Let him die the death " mean " Let him die in the
next world as well as in this." The Septuagint word,
iyKpvipia<;, for " cakes " in Gen. xviii. 6 does not imply the
duty of esoteric teaching ; 2 nor because the word icoo-fios 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.8 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, § 39, 56. Philo, De
Gigant. 8. 2 De Sacrif. Ab. et Cain. 15.
3 "Wisd. xviii. 24. Philo, De Vit. Mos. iii. 14. De profug. 20. De Migr.
Abr. 18.
4 The identification of Rachel with contemplative, Leah with practical
virtue, adopted by Gregory (Homil. in Ezech. ii. 2), and immortalised by
Dante (Purgat. xxvii. 101-105), partly depends on the derivation of Rachel
from Vn IISO Zpatris Pepri\i&o-eus (De congr. erud. grat. § 6) ; though, in
another aspect Rachel stands for things wholly different— e.g. the source of
temptations (De poster. Cain. 40) and of earthly hopes (Leg. Albegg. ii. 13).
6 The chief hermeneutic manuals in the Patristic epoch are —
Diodorus, ris Siorpopa ectopias real aXKriyoplas (no longer extant).
Adrianus, Eio-ayayh (a.d. 433. It is printed in the Critici Sacri.
vol. ix., 1600, and was edited by D. Hoeschel, 1602. [Eucherius

24 The Rules of Tichonius.
an influence on the 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 Spiritalis Intelligentiae, shows the
lengths to which allegory had been developed before the
fifth century. In this dull and desultory dictionary of
metaphors everything is reduced to generalities and abstrac-
I tions.2 It is argued that all Scripture must be allegorically
I 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 intelligentiae
(a.d. 440 ; Bibl. Patr. Colon, vol. v. 1 ; Migne vol. 50).
Tichonius, De Septem Regulis (Bibl. Max. Patr. Lugdun. vol. vi.
p. 839).
Hieronymus, De optima genere interpretandi (Ep. ad Pammaehium).
id. De studio scripturarum (Ep. ad Paulinum Presbyterum).
Junilius, De partibus legis divinae (circ. A.D. 550, Bibl. Max. Patr.
Lugdun. vol. x. p. 340).
Cassiodorus, Institutiones (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 K\e\s of Melito of Sardis, but, as Steitz has proved, a mediaeval Latin
work (Stud. u. Krit. 1857).
1 De 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 avayay)), 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. Trcpl
•jratrns yparpr/s . . . if rots tya\/j.o'ts yiypairrat &>s £v irapafio\ri eipij/ievois. He
proves his point from isolated passages like Ps. lxxviii. 2 ; 1. Cor. ii. 6 ;
Matt. x. 27 ; Mark iv. 34, &c. (Strom, vi. 15, § 125.)
4 The Psalm itself (Ps. lxxviii.) bears no resemblance to what we call "a
parable," nor does 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
et 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 lucem et formare ilium in prudential apply not
to Christ but to the Church. And in Is. lxi. 10, Sicut sponso
imposuit mihi mitrarn, applies to Christ, but the following
clause, et 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 Gennadius cites them as being meant " ad investigandam et inveniendam
intelligentiam scripturarum. "
2 Is. liii. 4.
3 Is. lxi. 16. Vulg. "Induit me vestimentis salutis . , . quasi sponsum
decoratum corona, et quasi sponsam ornatam monilibus suis."
4 It is also called "De spiritu et literd," " De gratid et mandato."
5 E.g. in Is. xiv. 3. Quomodo cecidisti de coelo applies to the devil ; eorruisti
in terram to the ungodly.

26 Other False Rules.
rules are perfectly arbitrary ; but Augustine in three different
passages, and after him Cassiodorus 1 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
I 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, De Script. Eccl.
18 ; Trithemius, De Script. Eccl. 92. Cave, Hist. Lit. p. 275 ; Migne, Patrolog.
vol. 50 ; Tillemont, vi. 81 ; Neander, iii. 280 ; Klausen, Herman, p. 133 ;
Semler, Diss. Hist, de vii. regulis Tichonii, Halae, 1756 ; A. Vogel in Herzog.
vol. xvi.
2 Tichonius said, "Quarum si ratio . . . accepta fuerit, clausa quaeque
patefient et obscura dilucidabuntur." Augustine says, "Non parum adjuvant
ad penetranda quae tecta sunt." De Doctr. Christ, iii. 4, § 30. Retractt. ii.
18. Contra Epist. Parmeniani, i. See too Jer. Devirr. illustr. 18.
3 Augustine vaguely saw in them a Donatist taint : " quae sicut Donatista
loquitur," De Doctr. Christ, iii. § 43. They are still referred to by Hugo of
St. Victor (Erud. Did. v. 4) ; and Perez of Valentia (f 1490). Incomparably
superior was the Elo-ayay^ els ras Seias yparpas of Adrianus. He says that
three things are to be considered, the Suivoia, the r\er)ts, and the trivBeiris,
through which we arrive at Oeaipla. His book belongs to the school of
Antioch, 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 Roman Catholics Santes 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 this day men repeat the vague and extravagant
assertions of seventeenth century divines, which furnish no
assistance and solve no difficult}', 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
ease 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 Quenstedt in calling Scripture a perpetua
norma fidei ac vitae in universd ecclesid without explaining the wide difference
between the spirit of Judaism and 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
of the "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 Rome forbids us to interpret " contra unanimem
consensum Patrum," though exegetieally there is no such thing ; and the
dogmas of verbal dictation and infallibility still find defenders in spite of the
facts that (1) they must be useless to millious who cannot read the original ;
that (2) the Vulgate of the Latin Church, the Septuagint of the Greek Churoh,
and the various Protestant versions teem with errors ; that (3) alike the
original text and its true meaning are in many passages entirely uncertain ;
and that (4) the hermeneutic rules adopted by different branches of the
Church 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
., l " Xt is impossible rightly to comprehend Scripture if we read it as we read
the Koran, as though it were in all its parts of equal authority, all composed
at one time, and all addressed to persons similarly situated. "—De 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 beginning 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 word it is because there is no light in them." John vi. 39. The
Jewish Midrash was very elaborate, but it did not lead to Christ. A Scotch
divine has wisely said, " If we find even in the Bible anything which confuses
our sense of right 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 we are not to bow down to it as God's
revelation to us since it does not meet the need of the earlier and more sacred
revelation He has given us in our own spirit and conscience, which testify of
Him."

30 False Views.
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 ; " a till we give up the
late and humanly invented theories which with 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,
Qtiicqnid 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. i It might be
1 Lekach Tob. (quoted in Ersch und Griiber, s.v. Inspiration).
2 Aug. c. Ep. Parmeniani, ii. § 31.
'* Ep. ad Paulin. 7.
4 The word "Testament" is derived from Matt. xxvi. 28. 2 Cor. iii.
14, &c. (comp. Jer. xxxi. 31.) St. Jerome rendered IVIS, "covenant," by
foedus or pactum, but it had 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 botb words (De
Civ. Dei. xx. 4). Luther adopted Testament in 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. JV")3 never means anything
but covenant ; and in the New Testament SiaS-jj/oj 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 et 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. l
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. 13. See
Ginsburg, Coheleth, p. 1 5. Wogue, Hist, de la Bible, p. 61. It narrowly
escaped ejection from the canon by the school of Shammai because of (1) its
contradictions and (2) its supposed epicureanism (Midrash Koheleth on Eccl.
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. 1 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 eat 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. Munk, Palestine, p. 450. The Jews for
bade any one to read it before the age of thirty, and anathematised its literal
interpretation. Sanhedrin, iii. 1.

Song of Solomon. 33
presents, say the Commentators, the love of the Lord
for the congregation of Israel ; x 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 ; 4
it represents the union of the divine soul with the earthly
body;6 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 ; 8 it is historico-prophetical ; °
it is Solomon's thanksgiving for a happy reign ; 10 it is a
love-song unworthy of any place in the sacred canon ; n 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 ; u it is the seven days
epitJialamium on the marriage of Solomon with the daughter
of Pharaoh ; 15 it is a magazine for direction and consolation
under every condition ; 18 it treats in hieroglyphics of the
sepulchre of the Saviour, His death, and the Old Testament
saints;17 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
1 The Targum. 2 R. Saadia Gaon. 3 Rashi. ¦» Ibn Ezra.
6 Joseph Ibn Caspe. 6 Ibn Tibbon. 7 Abravanel. 8 Origen, and
the mass of Christian expositors, except Theodore of Mopsuestia, the school of
Antioch, and most modem scholars. 8 Nicolas of Lyra. I0 Luther, Brenz.
11 Castellio, Dr. Noyes. 12 Ainsworth. 13 Cocceius.
14 Hennischius. 15 Bossuet. 16 Durham. 17 Puil'endorf.
18 Hug. 19 Many Roman Catholic Commentators.
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.
21 To this view the way was led by Grotius, Bossuet, Lowth, Herder,
Jacobi, &e. It is adopted by Ewald, Hirzel, Umbreit, Meier, Friederich,
Hitzig, and most of tbe best modern commentators. See the admirable
summary given by Dr. Ginsburg, and by Zockler in Lange's Bibelwerk.
Luther might well say, "Quodsi erro veniam meretur primus labor, nam
aliorum cogitationes longe plus 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 beginning 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 Bereshith, lest the Greeks
should make the mistake of supposing that Bereshith 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 Megilla, 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 eesh-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 anagram3 Bereshith
can be read Bethishri, 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
two K"OJV Qirbx, 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
(nWi) 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
from Gen. i. 1, because acrostically the word K13 " He
created " involves the initial letters of Father, Son, and

1 Chagiga, f. 12, 1.
2 Chiarini, Theoria du Judaisme, n. 216.
3 Known to the Jews by the name Themoorah. See Lect. II.
4 This process was known as Notarikon. See Lect. II.
5 See Geicer, nmJEJHS, Ein Beitrag zur Gesch. der Bibel-Exegese.
D 2

36 Kabbalism.
Spirit (3X. J3, nn) ; x 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 Tseennah Ureennah, or " Go ye and see," compiled by the
Rabbi 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 Berakhah
" 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 ()3S) which the builders rejected" he saw the Father
and the Son ()3 3K), and out of " Righteousness " (D'if">K ptX, Dan. ix. 24)
he gets by Gematria, Messiah Jehovah (miT PICD). See Ginsburg, The
Kabala, p. 62 ; "Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. i. 9.
2 See Sixt. Senens. Bibl. Samct. p. 173. He calls this hermeneutic folly
" luculentissimum 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
(t 1637) ; Henry More (t 1687) ; and others. See Ginsburg, The Eabbala,
p. 124.
4 n^?>1 n?,s$y. 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 ; 1 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, and 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 astonishine;
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 unseen."5 This gave room for the pretence that

* Midrash Bereschit Rabba, Parascha. i. ("Wiinsche, Bibl. Rabbinica).
2 He derives this view from Gen. i. 31. God praises all that He has made
(rb. IoutoD T€X"iKa epya), but He does not praise matter (tV SnfuovpyriSeTo-av
Bat)!/), which is lifeless, corruptible, heterogeneous, discordant. Quis Rer. Div.
Haer. 32.
3 Siegfried, Philo, pp. 230-235. Philo gives the same epithet, airoios, alike
to chaos and to God. See Ewald, Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott, pp. 238-241.
Philo's Scriptural proofs (?) of the airoios xai a/xoprpos vXn are very characteristic.
They are derived (1) from the fact that in Gen. xxxi. 32-42 Laban (\evKao-/xbs)
has the unmarked cattle, which shows that matter has no properties (De
Profug. 2), and acquires its seal, or stamp, from the Logos (De Somn. ii. 6) ;
(2) from Deut. xxiii. 1, because the TeBXao-fievos is excluded from the Church
of God ; and (3) from Gen. xv. 10, which is applied to "the cutter-word"
dividing material and immaterial things !
4 There are similar speculations in that part of the Qabbala which deals
with the work of creation (JTtWO PlSfUO).
B % 5e 77) ?)v a6paros real aKarao-KeuaffTos.

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, De Opif. Mundi, 7. Philo's favourite comparisons for creation
are drawn from building and planting. Philo seems to contradict these
his normal views in De Somn. i. 13, where he says, 6 debs rh irdvra
yevirr)rras oh [i6vov eis rb 4fupaves r^yayev a\\a real a tcporspov ovk r)v iiroinrTev,
ov finfiiovpybs fiSvov a.\Ka Kal ktIo-ttis avrbs &v. On the self-contradictions of
Philo, see Gfrorer, Philo, ii. 2. Apparent contradiction rises from his use of
ra firi ovra to imply the chaos. Gfrorer, i. 330.
2 Aristo Pellaeus (ap. Routh, Rel. Sacr. i. 91). " Plerique existimant,"
says Jerome (referring also to Tertullian and Hilary) . . . "in Hebraeo
haberi In Filio Deus coelum et terram : quod falsum esse ipsius rei Veritas
comprobat." See Ambrose, Hexacm. i. 4. Basil, Hexaem. Horn. i. Ter
tullian, C. Praxeam. Petavius, De Off. Sex. Dierum. i. § 16,
3 Heb. i. 2 ; John i. 3 ; Col. i. 16 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6. 4 St. Augustine.

Crimes of Misinterpreters. 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 plots against them, by a
Ravaillac, a Jacques Clement, a Balthazar Gerard, an Antony
Babington, an Everard Digby, were preposterously justified by
the examples of Ehud and Jael.3 The Crusaders, thinking that
they did God service by wading bridle- deep in the blood of
infidels who were often morally superior to themselves, justified

lies, ii. 17.
2 Matt. v. 21-43 (comp. xv. 1-9 ; xxiii. 1-23) ; Mark ii. 18-28 ; vii. 2-23 ;
x. 2-12 ; Luke ix. 51-56 ; xhi. 11-17 ; John viii. 1-11.
3 See Suarez, De Fide, vi. 4 ; Mariana, De Rege, p. 69. There can be little
doubt, if any, that Pius V. sanctioned attempts on the life of Elizabeth. For
the blasphemies of Pope Sixtus V. after the murder of Henry III. by Clement,
see De Thou as quoted by Lecky, Rationalism, ii. 178 ; Hallam, Hist, of Europ.
Lit. ii. 39-46. The impudent claim to a right of deposition led naturally to
tyrannicide, and Suarez says that when St. Paul wrote, " Let every soul be
subject to the higher powers," he did not include the excommunicated ! The
last attempt to murder the Emperor of Germany (1884) was calmly defended
by the murderer from Old Testament examples ! See 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
ef 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 ofCitea,ux 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 beenhanged 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 (Michelet's La Sorciire, 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
et Pacis.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, De Rege et Regis Institutione, 1599.
See the authorities quoted in Hallam, Middle Ages, ii. 26, 29. Words
worth, Miscellanies, ii. 18.
5 Muratori, Script. Rer. 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." 1 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 gladium,
munus a Deo. In the days of her persecution the Fathers of
the Church had taught mankind that "force is hateful to God;"8
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.
2 " In conclusion tho Emperor ordered the Inquisition to make it known
that they were not doing their own work, but tbe 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 (Div. Inst. vi. 19). The old rule was
Bta ix^pby 0e<£.
4 Lord Bacon attributes the paralysis of science chiefly to the incubus of
the theological system. See Novum Organum, i. § lxv., and there is a similar
remark by Kepler in De Martis Stelld.

or,

42 Wresting the Scriptures.
hackneyed lines — hackneyed from their fatal truthful
ness — "The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose " 1
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 ? "
or " 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 wherebv 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 dogmas 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 highest and its final teaching.
On that point at least, amid multitudes of imperfections,
the greatest and holiest interpreters have ever been at one.
" Scripturae scopus est," says St. Augustine, " dilectio Dei et

True Use of Scripture. 43
vn, or dine ad Deum aliorum hominum." x " 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 Literam.
2 Bonaventura, Breviloq. Prooem. So Abelard says that the object of the
study of Scripture is '• morum instructio ; " and John of Salisbury, " ut homo
seipso melior jugiter fiat. " (Polycrat. vii. 10.)
3 Jer. Taylor, Holy Living, iv.

Atari Rat vfiets 7rapa(SatveTe ttjv evToKrjv tov 0€ot» Sta rr)v irapa&oaw vu.a>v ;
O yap Qeos cveTciXaro \iya>v . . . 'Y/xeis" Se Xe'yere . . . Knl r)Kvpwo~a.T6 tt)v
evToXfjv tov GfoO Sia tt)v Trapaboaiv vficov. — Matt. it. 3 — 6.
B\4tt€T€ fir) tls iffias eorat 6 crv*hay(oy<ov Sta . . . K€vr}$ diraTrjs Kara ttjv
irapahovw raw dv0pa)7r<w. — Col. ii. 8.

LECTURE II.

RABBINIC EXEGESIS.

" Not giving heed to Jewish fables, aud commandments of men who turn
away from the truth." J — Tit. i. 14.
A BOOK needs for the most part but little explana
tion in the age to which it is addressed. It may be
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
depth and sacredness. Schools of expositors were soon needed
to explain the Vedas 2 and the Koran.3 Chairs were founded
to comment upon the Divina Gommedia 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 oil irpoff^xovTss 'lovSaiKols fivdots real evroXais avQp&irojv airoffTpetpofj.4vo}V ryv
a\-fi0eiav. Comp. verse 10. Eiol yap iroWol . . . fiaraio\6yoi Kal rppevairarai,
H<k\io~Ta ol e/c irepirofjiTJs.
2 See Muir, Sanscrit Texts, iii. pp. 138-179.
3 The Koran has its schools of expositors. The mystics (Karmathai) ; the
Rationalists (Muatasiliten) ; the scholastic students (MutekellcmHn). Like tbe
Sopherim, the Sunnites maintain the existence of Tradition (Sunna) ; and,
like the Karaites, the Schiites deny it. See Etheridge, Hebr. Lit. p. 295.
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
mino;led feelings of amazement and remorse.2
Yet though we do not find in the Old Testament anything
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 2 Kings xxii. 8-15; xxiii. 1-3.
2 Nehem. viii. ix. xiii.
3 Is. lxiii. 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. Judenthttms (Zeitschr. f. alttest. Wissensh.
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 for 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 filled 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." i " To what pur
pose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me ? saith the
Lord," is the message of Isaiah.6 " 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 ? " s "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 not
live," 9 was the bold utterance which, however interpreted,
almost cost the prophet Ezekiel his place in the Jewish
canon.10 Such thoughts were the most direct antithesis to
the views and methods of the Scribes.
1 See Is. xxviii. 7, 8 ; lvi. 10, 11 ; Jer. iii. 16 ; v. 13 ; vi. 13 ; vii. 21, 22 ;
viii. 10 ; xii. 10 ; xxiii. 11 ; Ezek. xxii. 25, 26 ; Hos. vi. 9 ; Zeph. iii.
3, 4 ; Mai. ii. 1-10, &c.
2 Acts xv. 10. 3 1 Sam. xv. 22. * Ps. Ii. 16.
5 Is. i. 11. e Amos v. 21, 22. 7 Jer. vii. 22, 23.
8 Mic. vi. 6 -9. 9 Ezek. xx. 25.
10 See Jer. Ep. ad Paulin. Zxinz, Gottesd. Vortr. c. ix. L. "Wogue, Hist.
de la Bible, p. 34. "Revere the memory of Chananiah ben Chizkiyah, for
had it not been for him the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed
because of the contradictions it offers to the word of the law. By the help of
300 bottles of oil . . . he prolonged his studies till be succeeded in reconciling
all the discrepancies. "— Shabeath, f. 13, 2. See too Menachoth, f. 45, and
E

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." i It therefore became a frequent
question among them, " which was the first and great com
mandment ? " In the tract Shabbath 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 passages of the Talmud cited by Hamburger s.v. Jechezkel ; Hershon,
Talm. Miscell. 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. Kal el-irei/ avr$ 6 ypafipaTtirs KaAais, SiSaV/caXe, k.t.A..
3 Shabbath, f. 31, 1. It must be borne in mind that "neighbour" usually
meant "Jew." Baba Qamma. f. 38, 1, Amsterd. ed. Hershon, Genesis,
p. 370.
4 This was deduced from Gematria, because mm = 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 own 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 by Gematria (see infra, p. 98), because the numerical value of Tsitsith
("fringes") is 600, and this with the eight threads and the five 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 are four fringes, and if 10 men of the 70 nations
seize bold of them, 70 X 10 X 4 = 2,800. See Hershon, Talm. Miscellany,
p. 260.
2 Weill, Le Judaisme, 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. Isracliten, iii. Ewald (Hist, of Isr. v. 53) prefers the
term Hagiocracy, i.e. the belief in a Holy Land, a Holy People, &c.
4 See Ezra vii. 10 ; Ecclus. 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 "
(S»33D Spy D3n, Baba Bathra, f. 12, 1). In Sanhedrin, 11, the Shekhiuah,
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 Bathra, 18 c. After the
death of Malachi the Jews had only the rare and dubious " Daughter of a
Voice" (Bath 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 See the Talmudic references in Herzfeld, Gesch. d. V. Isr. i. 126. The
Rabbis derived sopherim from sophar, " to number, " because they numbered
the letters of the sacred books. Qiddushin, f. 30, 1. This is a mistake
(Jost, Gesch. d. Isr. iii. 119), though stated by Elias Levita. The Scribes did,
however, number the letters, and found that the 1 in Lev. ix. 42 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
Targum;4 he who was the traditional propounder of the
decisions which form the earliest nucleus of the Mishna ;
the first author of liturgical forms ; 6 the first authoriser
of local synagogues ; r 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, aud the JJ in Ps. 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, Neut. Zeitgesch. 464 ; "Weber, 122.
2 "The wise " are called " Priests," though most of them were laymen, in
Nedariui, 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. Judenthum, 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
Halakoth le-Mosheh mi-Sinai certainly came from the school of Ezra.
Herzfeld, i. 3.
6 Berakhoth, f. 33 ; Megilla, f. 10 ; Maimonides, Yad Hachazaka, L. i. art.
iv. ; Weill (i. 69) mentions the actual prayers.
7 See Herzfeld, i. 127.
8 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. 21-46), and the Talmud says that he
and the men of the Great Synagogue "wrote " the Old Testament.
9 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 Tanaim, 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 Seboraim, 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 Milhni-
corum, pp, 13-32 ; Herzog, s.v. Rabbinismus. Gratz 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 Just.
The Chakhamim, b.c. 323 to a.d. 13. From Simon to the death of
Hillel.
The Tanaim, a.d. 13 to a.d. 190. From Hillel to the death of
Rabbi.
The Amokaim, a.d. 190 to a.d. 498. From Rabbi to R. Ashi.
The Seboraim, a.d. 498 to a.d. 689. From Jose to Rav Shishana.
The Gaonin, a.d. 689 to a.d. 900.
The Gaonim of Sora were contemporary with the Rabbanim of Pumbaditha.
The most celebrated Gaon was R. Saadiah, a.d. 928.
2 The Rabbinic schools in the East were closed in 1040. Under the Sopherim
Mosaism was renewed ; schools were founded ; Targums began ; the scholar
became powerful. Under the Chakhamim tradition was developed, and there
grew up tbe rival schools of Pharisees and Sadducees. The Tanaim ended
their labours by the publication of the Mishna. The Amoraim completed the
Gemara. 3 Sanhedrin, f. 22 ; Tosefta, 4, ib. ; Jer. Megilla, i. 9 ; Weill, LeJudaisme,
i. The proof itself depends on the futile Hillelite methods of " equivalence."
Moses "ascended" to receive the law (Ex. xiv. 3); Ezra "ascended" from
Babylon (Ezra vii. 6). Therefore the one was as worthy 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 ; 4 Esdras viii. 20 ;
x. 57-59 ; xiv. 9 ; Koran, Sura. ix. 31 ; Ewald, Hist, of Isr. vi. 164 ; 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, &c. David the
darling hero of the nation was the near descendant of a Moabitess, and the
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 proseucbae. Vit. Mos. p. 168 (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.
5 Weill, i. 97. In Megilla, f. 12, the words of Moses (Lev. xxvi. 44) are
thus explained : " I 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 Boethuslm.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,
The badge of shame, and the felon's place ;
The branding tool, and the bloody whip,
And the summons to Christian fellowship I "
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 Ildom* — they endured an almost unbroken martyrdom
but again and again has Judaism emerged from the deluge
of calamities, and again and again has the Oral 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
Haman's day, when He gave us Mordecai and Esther ; I will not annihilate
them, 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-nast) and the wise of succeeding
generations. 1 The Maccabaean struggle was neither for political freedom, nor pro aris et
focis, but for the Law. 1 Mace. ii. 27 ; iii. 21 ; vi. 59 ; 'I Mace. vii. 2, 23,
30, 37. Antiochus was especially eager to get the fiifrxla rov v6/j.ov. 1 Mace.
i. 56-58. ' T
2 See the story of Eleazar the Pharisee and John Hyrcanus, Jos. Antt. xm.
10, § 5, and the quarrel of the Pharisees with Alexander Jannaeus, Antt. xiii.
13, § 5 ; and for this section of history, see Derenbourg, 70-205. The Sad
ducees rejected the Oral Law, and all traditional developments, but 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"JX= Dl"l).

56 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 See Weill, Le Judaisme, i. 170 ; Griitz, iv. 1.
2 See 2 Chr. xxxvi. 16 ; 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
one last expiring gleam of nobleness flashed from the fading
prophetic fire of Zechariah or 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 founded 3 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,4 " Ezra established a fast day
1 "Weber quotes Moed Qaton, f. 17, 1 ; Meuachoth, f. 13 ; Berakhoth, f. 19,
1 ; 20, 1 ; Chagiga, f. 16 ; AvodaZara, f. 17, 1 ; Sota, f. 7, 1, &c.
2 See the weighty remarks of Ewald, Hist, of Isr. v. 63.
3 Krocbmal identifies the Great Synagogue with the Assembly of Notables
in Neh. x. 1-27. See Aboth, i. 1 ; Aboth of R. Nathan, 1 ; Megilla, 17.
Simon the Just was its last member (Aboth, i. 2 ; Jos. Antt. xii. 2, § 5). Jost
defines them as "alle die bis zum Simon an der Spitze der Gesetzlehre in
Judiia standen" (Gesch. i. 42). See the Excursus in Taylor, Sayings of the
Jewish Fathers, pp. 124, 125.
• Yoma, f. 67 ; Weill, i. 72.

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 flaming 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 fierh aicpifftias Qnyeio-Qai rh v6uiua. Jos.
Antt. xviii. 2, § 4 ; B. J. ii. 8, § 14.
3 The rn-IDX. of God was looked upon only as an rOlCN. 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 Psalms and Prophets is Nehemiah's
legalistic prayer that God would remember his gond deeds ! "The last pure
glow of the long day of the Old Testament sun " died out in Malachi (Ewald,
v. 176), and with him perished " the loftiest and most characteristic activity
which the Law had permitted in ancient times."
6 1 Mace. vii. 12. mivayuyi) ypa/xixariav. 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 hypocritical3 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, and in Weill, i. 95, fg.
3 See Excursus 1. Self-glorification of the Rabbis (Waehner, ii. 785, 786,
793 ; Hershon, Gen. 152, 439 ; Luke xi. 52 ; Matt, xxiii. 2 ; Weber, 126,
Miracles ; Chiarini, i. 377).
4 They spoke of these as "laymen," Hediots (i'SiStch) and "boors"
Amharatsim. The Hediot (IDTHn) is merely a man who has never become
one of " tbe "Wise." He may become an Associate (chaber) but not a
Wise-man, because he does not devote his life exclusively to the Law.
Shabbath, f. 11, 1. The Ignoramus (Ecclus. xxxix. xxxviii. 24-34, "whose
talk is of bullocks"), or "people of the land," am-ha-arets, (ptfn DI?)
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.
xxvi. 14. "The dead live not, the shades (Rephaim) arise not." Rabbi
refused them corn in a famine (Baba Bathra, f. 8, 2). They are treated as
liars and rogues (Pesachim, f. 49, 2) ; and it was lawful to rend an Am-ha-arets
like a fish (ib.). They applied Jer. xxxi. 37, Prov. xxiv. 20, to amharatsim.
See Weber, 45-48 ; MeCaul, Old Paths, pp. 458-464. Thus the Pharisees
were " Separatists " (Perushim) in the worst sense.

60 Claiming too much.
Tenakh,1 that is the Torah, the Nebiim, 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 normaia). 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
effrontery.6 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 Sanhedrin. 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.6 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
orthodoxy." 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. "pil. See Bretsehneider, Dogmatik d. apocr.
Schriften, 64-67.
2 See the Book of Baruch, ii. 27-34 ; iii. 37 ; iv. 1, and 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 Rab. 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 modifie, 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. 61
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.2 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 sterner 4 shattered the tem
poral 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,7 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 good as
if he had all three." " Be circumspect in justice," said the
men of the Great Synagogue, "get many pupils, and make a
1 rD'DD. See too Aboth, iii. 8 ; iv. 13.
2 Berakhoth, f. 27, 2. See Etheridge, 56, 57; Jost, Gesch. d. Israel,
iii. 120.
3 Nesipha ; niddui.
4 Chereni ; Shematta.
6 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 " Let thy house be a house of assembly for the wise, and dust thyself
with the dust of their feet, and drink their words with thirst."
6 See Ecclus. xxiv. ; Baruch iv. 1 ; Bereshith Rabba, u. 17. In Jalqut on
Gen. i. 26, God says to the Thora, ""We will make men." Aboth, vi. 10 ;
viii. 22. For many passages of the Talmud see Weber, 16, 17. For a
list of the terms of eulogy heaped on the Law— fire, light, dawn, milk, balm,
pearls, &c, Waehner, Antt. Ebr. ii. 793 ; Weber, p. 55.
7 muff, Temple-service. Aboth, i. 2.

62 Self-exaltation.
hedge (j«d) about the Law." 1 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 ; WTeill,
i. 96.2 Lev. xviii. 30. "Make a mishmereth to my mishmereth. " Ye.bamoth,
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 " ( Thora shebeal
Pt) was based on perversions of Deut. xvii. 8-12 ; xviii. 15-20, just as the
Papal tyranny was based on a perversion of Matt. xvi. 19. See the preface to
the Yad Hachazaka 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 ! Tho term, " Law on the Mouth," i.e. Oral Law, is found
very early. Zunz, Gottesd. Vortrdgc, 45.
6 To prove this they quoted Scripture for their purpose. Thus in Eccles.
xii. 12 they altered DHBD, "books," into DHB'lD, "scribes," and Ji-!?,
"study," into iV7, "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 tbe other hand, as Rashi says, the punishment of
death is not threatened to many of tbe 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 are 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 nnocent ;
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.6
J Sopherim, f. 15, 2. Comp. Vayikra Rabba, c. 36.
2 Chagiga, f. 10, 1.
3 'Erubin, f. 21, 2. The very world would be in danger if the Mishnas
only were consulted in legal decisions. Sota, f. 21, 1 ; Baba Metzia, f. 33, 1.
See" these and other quotations in Weber, I. c. 102-106 ; Weill, i. 91 ; Chia-
rini, TMorie du Judaisme, i. 202-206.
4 TO. Sota, f. 22, 1. 5 Berakhoth, f. i. 7.
6 Sanhedrin, f. 55, 56. "Whoever says that Reuben, the sons of Samuel,
David, and Solomon, have sinned is decidedly in error." Sanhedrin, f.
55, 56. See all the original passages of the Talmud quoted in Weber, Altsyn.
Theol. 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 irpbs 0ouAfj (irpeo-&vTepwv). 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
time 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 II. s.v. Prosbul. It was nothing more than praevaricatio— a
collusive agreement.
2 Lev. xxv. 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 (de Juvent. i. 38),
" Omnes leges ad commodum reip. referri oportet, et eas ex utilitate communi,
non ex scrip tione, quae in literis est, interpretari. "
4 Sanhedrin, f. 64, 2 ; Chiarini, ii. 229.

Chiefs of the Schools. 65
ness of creeping things." 1 '' No one is appointed a member
of tbe 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 'Erubin, f. 13, 2.
2 Sanhedrin, f. 17, 1. Quoted in Hershon's Genesis, p. 54.
3 This latter quotation is from the post-Talmudic tract, Sopherim, c. 16 ;
and it is proved (!) from Cant. ii. 4, because in that verse (by Gematria) the
word tall = 49. See Pesikhta Rabbathi, f. 23, 1 ; Eisenmenger, Enid. Jud.
i. 454 ; Deyling, Obs. Sacr. iii. 140.
4 tOtM (r/yovfievos). »
5 Bitsa, f. 20, 1. Hillel and Shammai were the last of the " couples "
(Zougoth) who succeeded to the leadership of the schools after the death of
Simon the Just. The previous couple, Shemaia and Abtalion, were the first to
receive the title of "Exegete" (Darshan).
6 On this see Tob. iv. 16 ; Jost, Judenth. i. 259. F

66 Hillel.
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. ,T ,
2 The patriarchs of the house of Hillel were, according to Hamburger (s.v.
Nassi) : 1. Hillel. 2. Rabban Simeon. 3. Rabban Gamaliel I. 4. Rabban
Simeon II. 5. Rabban Gamaliel II. of Jabne. 6. Rabban Simeon III. of
Sepphoris. 7. Rabbi(Judah Hakkodesh). 8. R. Gamaliel III. 9. R. Judah II.
IOT 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 ; Griitz,
iii. 172-178, 186-205 ; Derenbourg, 176-193 ; Jost, Gesch. d. Isr. iii. 112-
118 ; Jost, Judenthum, 254-270 ; Weber, Altsyn. Theol. passim ; Friedlander,
Geschiehtsbilder, 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 Furst, Kuliur 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 Sevrepiirreis suas, Legis praecepta dissipaverint atque
mutaverint ; et has esse duas domos quae Salvatorem non receperint." Jer.
ad loc.
5 "Jesus . . . war ein Pharisaer der auch in den Wegen Hillel's ging." —
Geiger, Das Judenth. i. 117. " Hillel soheint sein Vorbild und Musterbild
gewesen zu seyn." — Friedlander, Geschiehtsbilder, p. 32. "Hillel fut le
vrai maitre de Jesus." — Renan, Vie de 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 Halakha and 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 See especially the right rendering of Mark vii. 19.
2 On this question see Delitzsch, Jesus und Hillel ; Ewald, Gesch. v. 12-48 ;
Keim, Jesu von Nazara, i. 268-272.
3 Sanhedrin, f. 96, 2, but see Jost, Gesch. d. Isr. iii. 150. So the mediaeval
theologian, Joseph Albo, denies that Messianism is a Jewish dogma, otherwise
the Soteriology of Law would bc injured. Here we have the fundamental
opposition between Judaism and Christianity.
F 2

68 Johanan Ben Zdkhai.
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 ; Gesch. 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,
Geschiehtsbilder, 26, sq.
2 Sukka, f. 28,1 ; Baba Bathra, f. 134, 1 ; Tosefta Joma, 4 ; Derenbourg, p.
276; Friedlander, Geschiehtsbilder, 28.
3 Is. x. 34; Midrash Koheleth, 64 ; Gittin, f. 56 ; Aboth Rabbi Nathan, 4 ;
Gratz, iv. 13.
4 Jabne, 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 Jost, Judenth. i. 6. Fiirst says that the canon was developed between
B.C. 585-300 ; tradition and Jewish theology between B.C. 300-32. He/placed
the most direct influence of Babylonish studies (Hillel, Chija, Nathan) between
B.C. 32 and a.d. 68.
2 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 hatred of tbe 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 indelibilis as
respectively the friends and the enemies of God. The world becomes "the
kingdom of wickedness " (ntfEnn JVD7D), and every Pagan a, " suspect "
(T)B>n), mere straw and chaff. Samuel the Little introduced a curse against
heathens, Christians, &c. (Minim = heretics) into tbe "18 Benedictions"
(Shemone Esre). See Jer. Berakhoth, iv. 3 ; Weber, 148, 64-72 ; Zunz, Gottesd.
Vortrdge, 367 ; Derenbourg, 345. The large-heartedness of R. Johanan to the
heathen appears from his explanation of Prov. xiv. 10 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. s jost> Judenthum, ii. 72.
4 Griitz, iv. 19 ; R. Eliezer ben Jose developed the thirty-two rules for the
Haggada. 6 On the great work of R. Johanan, see Griitz, iv. 10-27, 322-324 ; Deren-
bourg, 276-302 ; Etheridge, 55 ; Weill, i. 86-89 ; Jost, Judenthum, 13-25 ;
Hamburger II. s.v. Jochanan Sohn Sakai ; Friedlander, Geschiehtsbilder, 36-
44. It is said that Titus spared the life of Gamaliel II. at his request. In

Aqiba. 71
4. The greatest of the TanaitesS x who carried on the work
of Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, was the famous Rabbi Aqiba
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 written
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 severity,
the work of consolation he was aided by R. Joshua, who dissuaded his fellow
Rabbis from giving up meat and wine, and devoted himself to raise their
courage. "See," he said, "my brothers, Abel was persecuted by Cain, Noah
by his contemporaries, Abraham by Nimrod, Isaac by the Philistines, Jacob
by Esau, Joseph by his brethren, Moses by Pharaoh, David by Saul, Israel by
many nations — and the Merciful God ever chose the persecuted ! "
1 Learners. D'Sjn is the Chaldaic form of D,J1B'.
2 The Mishna of Rabbi Aqiba is no longer extant, though it was known
to Epiphanius. The Jews distinguished it as a new Mishna (M. 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 cannot become priests," &c, &c. See Pirke Aboth v. and
Aboth of R. Nathan, xviii.

72 Legends of Aqiba.
"how long wilt thou make the face of the Shekhinah
profane ? " 1 R. Ishmael, especially, the author of the thirteen
rules of interpretation, was firmly opposed to the method of
Aqiba. 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-arets) 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
put the Messiah on a level with God was to render the Shekhinah profane.
See Hershon, Genesis, p. 22.
2 He recognised that the language of /Scripture is sometimes hyperbolical
(KOnj), as in Deut. i. 28. He expressed the rule thus : \\\ih mill rt"QT
'ton. The latter seems to be the Greek word l)$aia, and the rule means that
sometimes a passage is not literally true.
3 Aqiba confessed to his disciples that in his am hoards 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."
Shabbath, f. 25, 2.
4 The Talmud abounds in references to Aqiba. Pesachim, f. 49, 2, &c,
quoted by Gratz, 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. Shabbath, 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 spark's, 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 every 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)," n is that he slew three animals besides. If it is written
1 They said that he was the only Rabbi 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 ; Gratz, iv. 177. According to Bux-
torf (Synag. c. 5) this is why the Jews, in reciting the Shema, often dwell on
the last f of IPIX for half a minute.
2 They combined it with the more logical system of his friendly rival, R.
Ishmael, who only allowed three passages in which eth was significant. San
hedrin, f. 51, 1 ; Gratz, iv. 61 ; Jost, Judenth. ii. 74. Of the other Rabbis of
this period, Gamaliel II. was an organiser, Eliezer a pure traditionalist, and
R. Joshua a via media scholar.
3 See Jer. xxiii. 29. This Rabbinic fiction of a multiplex sensus dominated
throughout the Middle Ages, and down to very recent times. It led, among
other mischievous results, to what was known in the Post-Reformation epoch
as the emphatic style of exegesis. Sanhedrin, f. 34, 1. In the tract Sopherim
it is said that with the Law God gave to Moses ninety-eight ways of explaining
it. (In the Machser for Pentecost, p. 69, ap. Hershon, Talmudic Miscell. 11.)
See Ecclus. xxiv. 29.
4 riD'CD H*D NXV KIpDrt JW. Shabbath, f. 63, 1. The Rabbis
maintain that the application of the thirteen rules does not make the Law go
"out of the grasp of simplicity" (see Chiarini, i. 54), though it could be
explained in forty-nine, or even seventy ways (ilTin? D'JB *V). Low, p. 65.
5 P|N. 6 DJ. 7 flfit.
8 Megilla, f. 19, 2. This rule is called *m, or "Inclusion." See Dr.
Ginsburg, s.v. Midrash in Kitto's Cyclopaedia.
9 ng oa 10 d|. n 'm -nix »m.

74 Tittle-worship.
that God visited Sarah, 1 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 eth 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 eth implied the fear due also to " the pupils
of the wise " ! s 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 7 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 n-jl^-n^. 2 DWD. 3 T|N or p\ * to.
5 TmX. Deut. x. 20. Mystic significance was attached to the particle
DU, 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. Theol. 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 {n-epiTrbir 'ovojxa ouSeV, De Prof.
458), only he applied to ethics and philosophy what Aqiba applied to the
Halakha. See Gratz, iv. 458 ; Hershon, Genesis, p. 280. When the pupils of
R. Nehemiah asked what beeame 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 rtepaiai are such little horns and tips of letters as distinguish
~\ from 1, 3 from 3, n from n. The Jews said, If any one, in Deut. vi. 4,
changes -j into 1, he shakes the universe, for he makes God false (TTIK) instead
of One. If in Lev. xxii. 32 he changes n into n, he shakes the universe, for he
says, " Ye shall not praise " (l??nnn) 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'TTO, apices, virgulae
supra litcras notatae. Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. 1111); "points" (jTflpJ) and
" thorns " (D'Slp). 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 ih'pSJ'h, " and he kissed
him ; " the points are explained to mean that in kissing him he tried to bite
hiin, 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 attachino-
crowns (Dnm) 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." x 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 (uhrbn
rniVlp) were explained to mean that from every " thorn" (yip),
or letter-point, whole " mountains " (|»v»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 T$»i ("and He formed," Gen. ii. 7)
blunted (Wiinsche, Bereschith Rabbi, p. 383 ; Aboth of R. Nathan, c. 34).
In Gen. xix. 33, the 1 in ffiO-lpll 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 incredibile." See another instance in Gen. xviii. 9 (Hershon,
p. 309). 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 deliverest the law
by me ! " and is bidden to be silent because such was God's will. Requesting
to see Aqiba'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 ! " " Be silent," is the answer : " it is my will." See Weil, iii. 268 ;
Hc.'1'sTiori (rGTbssiiS i
2 Midrash, Shir Hasshirim, x. 11 (Wiinsche, p. 139) ; 'Erubin, f. 21, 2.
s Hirschfeld, Halach. Exegese, § 312 ; Weber, Altsyn. Theol. 117
4 Waehner, Antiqq. Ebr. i. 105.
5 Qiddushin, f. 30, 1 ; Buxtorf, Tiberias, i. 18, pp. 42-45. In Lev. xi. 42,
the larger 1 in the word pPO indicates that it is the middle letter of the Pen
tateuch, and the suspended S of "WD in Ps. lxxx. 14, that 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," (rmD), 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 "
(l33Sl), 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 (j).6 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," tho Talmud
gets " He created them with the letters n and t '' (the two

1 Yetser ha-rd and Yetser hattob, Berachoth, f. 61, 1. Other Rabbis ex
plained the two yods 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 farther
instances, see Sanhedrin, f. 103, 2 ; Baba Bathra, f. 109, 2 ; Dopke's Her-
meneutik. 5 Probably the verse is accidentally lost, for in the LXX. there is a verse
which would in Hebrew begin with J. 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."

Barkokhba. 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
i 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 Menachoth, f. 29, 2 ; Hershon, Genesis, p. 92.
2 See 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 (") ; in the Liturgy of the Karaites it is written with three
letters (*V).
3 The five precepts which he gave to R. Simon ben 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 high authorities for unpleasant decisions).
2. Teaeh your son from books which do not require correction. 3. Do not
marry a widow. 4. Unite good work with personal profit. 5. Combine grati
fication with purity. Pesachim, f. 112, 1. For four of his sayings see Aboth,
iii. 10-13.
4 He followed Hillel, for instance, into the extreme of laxity in interpreting
the famous ervath dabar ("matter of uncleanness," Deut. xxiv. 1). Hillel
had said that a man might divorce his wife if she burned his food ; Aqiba in
extreme antagonism to Christianity, said "even if he saw some woman who
pleased him better. " Gittin, f. 90, 1. Modern Jews explain away this passage.
Jost, Judenthum, i. 264. Aqiba's scrupulosity about ablutions, and insistence
on the unity of God, even with his dying breath, probably had 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,
Judenth. 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.
2 Bleeripa, Euseb. H. E. iv. 6. Now Better 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 ; Derenbonrg, c. xxiv. ; Munk, Palestine, 605-606 ;
Etheridge, Hebr. Lit. 66-76; Hamburger II. s.v. Bar Kochba ; Milman,
Hist, of the Jews, ii. bk. xviii. ; Friedlander, Geschiehtsbilder, pp. 68-81 ;
Frankel, Zeitschr. iii. &c. ; and the numerous interesting particulars of his
life in Mr. Hersbon'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.
4Ecc. i. 5 ; Qiddusbin, f. 72. 2. The assertion is not historically trne, but
represents the idea of the Rabbinic succession.

Rabbi Juda. 79
conferred ordination on successors who retired to TJssa.
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. 166 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 Chija was known as
Megillath Setharim, 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 See Gratz, iv. 193, 195, 237, 470. Symmachos, the Greek translator, was
one of his pupils.
2 Josephus and Philo refer to it as irapdSorns ayparpos, and rasv iraripav
iiaSoxh- In Matt. xv. 2-6 the Oral Law is called irapaSSais rav irpuryfrvripuv
(comp. Mark vii. 3-13). St. Paul pointedly speaks of " the tradition of men, "
Col. ii. 8 (nuxn rlTlDO).
3 Gittin, f. 60, 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 this 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
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 (Gittin, f. 6.0) 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 Berakhoth, 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 (Seurepao-is, Epiphan.) is derived from 'OK', not from HJK', "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 (Sedarim), 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 " (DnOlK D'TnN). SeeWaehner,
i. 283. The additional collections of R. Chija, Bar Kappara, &c, were called
Tosefta, 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.
2 Thus there is an entire treatise of the Mishna about 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. Ginsburg, s.v. Jehudah, Diet, 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 work of Rabbi, see Gratz, 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 Jerushalmi represents traditionalism rather than development, and
hence is less valued. With the Targums of Onqelos and Ben Uzziel, the
Mishna, Tosephta, Mekhiltha, Siphra, Siphri, and Pesikhtha, together with
traces in Ecclesiasticus, 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 Babll of
which the Jews speak with such enthusiastic affection — was
completed and systematised mainly by Rabbi AshI, who died
in A.D. 427.2 The Talmud was finally closed in A.D. 490, by
Rabbina Abina, the last of the Amoraim. It contains the
lono- studies and discussions of the Jewish schools, " the fierce
lightnings which shook the rafters " of Nehardea, Sora, and
Pumbeditha.8 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 Saborairn (a.d. 500-650), and the Gaonim ;5 or
to follow the devious stream of mediaeval Rabbinism.6 What
ever may have been the special services to Jewish theology

1 Talmud, "Learning," or "Teaching." See Bartolocci, Bibl. Rabb. iii.
359. The commonest edition of the Talmud is that of Bomberg (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 Babll 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.
3 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 Siphrl, and died in 243. Pumbe
ditha means " the mouth of the canal." On these schools and their teachers,
see Fiirst, Kultur-gesch. pp. 63-197.
4 Zech. v. 1-4 ; Pref. to Berakhoth ; see Chiarini, ii. 41.
6 Saborairn, "investigators," from Sa bar, "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 Gratz 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;1 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 ; 6 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 Abbreviaiuris, p. 170. " Parshandatha, " was explained
to mean " interpreter of the law." He died a.d. 1102. He commented on
the entire Old Testament. His comments on grammar, and the literal
sense were full of value, but he follows the Talmud and the Midrashim.
2 Ibn Ezra, born at Toledo, a.d. 1092, died in Rome, 1167. 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 Moreh Nevochim and Yad Hacha-
zaka are full of exegetical remarks. His comparatively free attitude towards
the Talmud offended many Jews. " He was tbe speculative parent of Spinoza
and of Mendelssohn." Milman, iii. 151.
4 Author of the Jalqut Shimeoni, a Midrashic commentary on the Old
Testament. 6 David Qimchi's comments are chiefly grammatical. The grammar of
Moses Qimchi (Darki Leshon Hakkodesh, Way to the Holy Language) was of
great use to the early Humanists and Reformers. The Jews said of David's
labours, "No law without the miller" (gucmach), playing on the name
Qimchi. 6 Don Isaac Abrabanel, born 1436, died 1507.
7 They are said to date from the days of Shemaia, 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 of 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 halakh, 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 Levita, pp. 101,
102, 120, 121. They applied to it Cant. iii. 8 (it was regarded as a sword to
defend the law). Comp. Rashi, ad loc. and Aboth, iii. 13. For lists of the
words written with majuscular letters, see Ginsburg's Elias Levita, 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 DSB'!?. In Aramaic it is Hilkheta (Xn3?n),
which in Baal Aruc is defined as "res quae it et venit ab initio usque adfinem."
Buxtorf defines Halakha as " constitutio juris, sententia, decisio, traduio
decisa, . . . secundum quam incedendum et vivendum." Lex. Talm. s.v.
!"p?n, where he renders it Ein Endurtheil. 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.6 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,"
(fidxai vofuieal, Tit. iii. 9), and " word-fightings " (Xoyojudxtat,
1 Tim. vi. 4), about which St. Paul speaks, furnish us with
1 Deut. xxv. 11-14.
2 See Chiarini, i. 54, quoting Shabbath, f. 63, 1.
3 Sanhedrin, f. 68, 1.
4 See Sanhedrin, f. 106, 2, referring to Is. xxxiii. 18, " Where is he who
counted the towers ? " See Rashi, ad loc.
5 Megilla, f. 3, 1 ; f. 9, 1. , ,
9 This was called the "O'DD tlWn? rD?n, Halakha le-Moshesh Missinai,
>Qiddushin, f. 49, 1.
7 Yebamoth, f. 96, 2. See Rashi on Eccl. ix. 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 Rabbinic modifications of special laws see
Castelli, La Legge (1884) ; Salschutz, Der mosaische 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 Bammidbar Rabba, c. 19. Stories
still more shocking to our views are found in Shemoth Rabba, cc. 30 and 43.
Vayyikra 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, IpTl, which is explained to be a mnemonic form for
"the Tishbite (Elijah) 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 be like 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 eveu
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 Jost
Gesch. d. Isr. iii. 118).
1 Sanhedrin, f. 88, 2. They applied the phrase "a rock of offence to both
the houses of Israel," to the schools of Hillel and Shammai. See Jer.
Comment, in Isaiam, ad loc.
2 They openly declared that without their interpretations the Law was a
mass of unintelligible signs. Bammidbar Rabba, § 14. They first made the
OraLLaw as sacred as the Written ; then " the Words of the Wise," and " ot
the Scribes ; " and then made these last more sacred than all.
3 There were millions of possible Halakhoth. " Eveiy word of the Thora
can be explained in seventy ways." Bammidbar Rabba, § 13. R. Eliezer has
300 Halakhoth about one case of leprosy. Sanhedrin, f. 25, 2. 3,000 Halakhoth
were forgotten in the mourning for Moses. Temoorah, f. 15, 2.
4 Or only figuratively, like Prov. iii. 3.
* Ex. xiii. 9.
0 Berakheth (Schwab, p. 241).

€8 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.*
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 JVV'V. 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'ismc, 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 BUza.
4 Similarly a^boundless 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;" Tanichada, "a
certain Rabbi has taught ; " " Another has taught ; " " We have a tradition ; "
" It is a Mishna," &c. " The scribes say," Mark ix. 11.
6 mJK is the Aramaic form for the Hebrew mjn, and it is derived from
*|J3, 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 thsologicus de aliquo loco Scripturae jucundus, anvmwm
lectoris attrahcns. "

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. Tho stricter

1 Schwab (Berakhoth, xv.) refers to Jer. Ped. ii. § 4 ; Shabbath, xvi. § 1 ;
and to the opinions of Maimonides, Juda Halevi, Ibn Ezra, &c. See too the
numerous quotations in Klein, Le Judaisme pp. 23 — 28.
2 The Halakha, for instance, contains nothing so spiritual as R. Simlai's
reduction of the 613 precepts to one. Gratz, iv. 265.
3 ihn D'3Mfi iTIJK n3T Chiarini, i. 63. " Quaedam ex illis, " says
Ibn Ezra, " sunt aenigmata, arcana, et parabolae sublimes usque ad aethera.
Aliae inserviunt ad refocillanda corda defatigata. Aliae . . . similes sunt cor-
poribus ; allegoriae autem sunt veluti vestimenta corpori adhaerentia. Aliae
snnt subfiles instar serici, aliae crassae veluti succus."
4 Aboth of R. Nathan, e. 29. I have pointed out elsewhere that St. Paul
was an Haggadist, 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.
Talmudists 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, Hebr. Lit. p. 183.
2 Chiarini, ii. 44. " Rabbi ben Levi said, " He who 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, R.
Chaneenah bar Pappa taught (Deut. v. 4), "The Lord talked with you faces
to faces (C0S3 Witt). 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 ; Griitz, 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 Bathra, f. 9 ; Midrash Tehillin, 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 other 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 Haggadoth 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
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 Officiorum of all its ceremonial.3
1 See Herder, Brief e iiber das Studium der Theologie.
2 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. Tbe Rabbis sometimes
expressed truth in a striking way. "Fear God even as ye fear men," said R.
Jochanan ben Zakkai, on his deathbed. His disciples were astonished.
"When you are going to do wrong," he said, "you look round to discover if
any man sees you ; take heed that God's all-seeing eye does not see 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 les suppositions les 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 Judaisme 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 ; Milman, Hist, cf the 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, Gratz, Steinschneider, &c. See Low, Praktische Einleit. pp.
84-89. 3 The language of the Talmud has been philologically 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, Hebr. 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 dicendum et sciendum, non omnia quae imperitis
talia videntur, esse talia. " Buxtorf.
2 No one will take his estimate of the Talmud from such wholly uncritical
collections as those of Raymond Martin's Pugio Fidei, or Eisenmenger's
Entdecktes Judenthum (see Weber, xxxiii.). Even such valuable works as
those of Lightfoot, Schottgen, Meuschen, and Wetstein, are vitiated by the
uncritical promiscuousness of the quotations collected. But after every
allowance is made the Talmud is one of the dreariest of books.
8 Deutsch, Remains, 1-58, 135-145. See Bartolocci, Bibl. Rabb. iii. 359 sq.
Gratz, iv. 410-412 ; Etheridge, Hebr. Lit. 185. Buxtorf admits that there
are in the Talmud " inutiles quasi paleae et rnulti furfures" but also "utilia
quandoque esse grana et puram similam."

94 Evils of Talmudism.
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 pools
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. 226.

" Pardes." 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
Remez, or hint, the development of latent meanings.3
Darush, or homiletics,4 including allegory and all kinds of
illustration.
S6d, or mystery.5
Exegeticaily the Peshat is alone of real value.6 The Remez
was chiefly devoted to the development of Halakha; the
Darush to the Haggada, and the SSd to the Qabbala.
It was in the development of the Sod, or mystery, that the
Kabbalists found the chief sphere of their labours. The
1 See Dr. Ginsburg in Kitto's Cyclopaedia, s.v. Midrashim ; and in Koheleth
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
(ItD'B'Q HID N¥V tnpD ^H), but no one practically attended to it.
3 An assonance, a change of letters, &c. " Gott als Verfasser konne mit
einem Worte, mit der einfachen und natiirlichen Bedeutnng, noch eine andere
verkniipft haben und Mehreres mit einem Male lehren. . . . Dieses heisst
im Talmud ftiO rvyDB' 'JIT/I, Beides entnehme ich daraus. " Hirschfeld,
Halach. Exegese, § 104. See too § 112 ; Weber, 115.
4 From Km, "to search."
" The Derek ha-kabbala. See Etheridge, Hebr. Lit. p. 404.
6 Critical Jews distinguish between popular commentaries like the Midra
shim, and scientific commentaries (Perushim). The writers of the Midrash
were neither Paraphrasts ( Targumists), nor, properly speaking, commentators
(Hiphreshim). The latter begin properly with Saadja in the tenth century, and
include the great names of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, the Qimchis, and
Abrabanel. Asaria di Rossi distinguishes between hyperbolical (guzma),
haggadistic, and " exhaustive " Midrash. The latter, like what Sixtus Senensis
calls the Pandesiae method, explained Scripture in all possible ways.

96 The Qabbala.
word Qabbala means " a thing received," but it was used for
" scholastic lore," x 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 te 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 Bereshith, or Work of the Crea
tion, and the Maaseh Merkaba, or Work of the Chariot, which
derived its name from the Vision of Ezekiel. The Maaseh
Bereshith entered into endless speculations about the Creation,
the ten spheres, the four worlds, the En Soph, 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 Merkaba 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. Qabbala means the actof giving,
while Massora, from Masar, ' ' to transmit, " means the act of receiving. See
Ginsburg, The Kabbala, p. 4.
2 The Qabbala, or "secret wisdom" (nTTIDJ nD3IT), — called also from the
initials of these two words, |l"l, "grace," — may be divided as follows :—
Qabbala
I ^
Eeal. Symbolic.
I I

I 1 I | I
Theoretical. Practical (Magic Thauraa- Gematria. Notarikon. Temoorah.
turgy, &.c).  | 
I 1
.Arithmetic. Figurative. Architectonic.

I  1
Creation The Chariot I  , "| "~ j ~ !
(Maaseh (Maaseh Athbash. Albam. Albach. Aaiacheehar. 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. der Miligen 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 Hammephorash — might be em
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 Kabbalistie book, Sepher ha Babir, attributed to Nechonja
ben Hakana, a contemporary of Hillel, 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,touchingapparently on thaumaturgist natural science,
is mentioned in Sanhedrin, c. 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 (Setroth) and the twenty-two letters (othwth) as "thirty-two wondrous
ways of wisdom," in which God created the universe. The Zohar ( splen
dour"), attributed to R. Simon Ben Jochai, but probably the work of a. Spanish
Jew (Moses de Leon) in the thirteenth century (Gratz, vu. ; Ginsburg, pp.
78-89), is a mystic commentary on the Pentateuch. This branch ot the
Qabbala lies wholly outside the region of exegesis. _ See Reuchlm, De Arte
Cabbalistim ; Franck, Systeme de la Kabbale ; Dr. Ginsburg, The KaUala ;
Jelinek, Die Kdbbala, 1844; Etheridge, Heir. Lit pp. 297-353. Two important
Kabbalistic books are the "Lily of Secrets (Shoshan Sodoth) )hj Ramban
(tl260), and "Garden of Nuts" (Genath Egoz), by Jos. Karmtol (bee
Etheridge, p. 359). H

98 Gematria.
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 Geomctria, one of the many
Greek words which are naturalised in Talmudic Hebrew.2 The
chief branch of this method resembled the Greek isopse-
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 Tsem,ach, "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.6 In Gen. xlix.
10, " Shiloh come " (n'^B' xt) is equivalent to 358, and that is
also the numerical value of Mashiach (TOD). 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 Buxtorf, De Abbreviaturis, s.v. njj. Klein, Le Judaisme, pp. 32-35.
2 XHtDDJ, yeafierpia. Dr. Ginsburg derives it from ypa/x/iaTeln. The
actual numbering is called "reckoning" (|12tJTI). Bammidbar Rabba, c.
25. (Comp. Ecc. vii. 25, 27.) Weber, Altsyn. Theol. 118.
3 " He shall be called a Nazarene," Matt. ii. 23. This is probably an allusion
to Netser, "a branch." Comp. Is. xi. 1. Sinai and Hagar, Gal. iv. 25.
Claudius = S rcarexav, qui Claudit, 2 Thess. ii. 7.
4 Rather " the sprout. " Comp. Jer. xxiii. 5.
s Sanhedrin, f. 98, 2. ^ = 90 ; O = 40 ; n = 8 = 138.
O - 40' ; 3 = 50- ; PI = 8 ; D = 40 = 138.
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 " (WK/K) have the value of 707, which is the
equivalent of the words K>P_] K>K, " 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 purely 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. Ixviii. 21, gives the number
903 (niXViri).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 " (n»rr) 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 (tall) ; or again, that the
Law had 613 precepts because the word for " incense" (mop)
gives 61 3.4 Sometimes the inference even acquires for the
1 In a curious passage of De praescriptione haereticorum, c. 50, Tertullian
speaks of Gematria. "Marcus quidam et Colarbasus novam haeresim ex
Graecorum alphabeta componentes. Negant enim veritatem sine istis posse
litteris inveniri, immo totam plenitudinem et perfectionem veritatis in istis
litteris esse dispositam." He says they founded the doctrine on "I am a
and a?." Thus because irepirrnpa = 801 — AD., they said that the Logos
was joined to Jesus at Baptism (Iren. Haer. i. 14, § 6). Going through
the alphabet in a reverse order, ' ' Computant ogdoadas et decadas, ita ut
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 itj (= 18) being the first letters of the name of
Jesus— as early as the Epistle of Barnabas (c. ix.).
2 Sanhedrin, f. 97, 2.
3 See Berakhoth, f. 8, 1.
4 If by Athbash P is changed into T ! See Buxtorf, De Abbreviaturis,
p. 57. But Thorah gives tbe same result : n = 400 ; 1 = 6; "1 = 200 ; H =
5 = 611, which, with the Shema and the first commandment = 613.
H 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 (|ts'B>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 '' (^^n»¦rlS,). 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 Ezekiel ; 3
and the Figurative 4 (already alluded to), which speculated
on the sizes and shapes of letters. Thus since the ~\ in
the word ins, and the v in the word vow, " 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 (l = 4) ;
and (iii.) because 5? and ~\ make up the word 11?, " 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.6
1 Yoma, f. 20, 1.
2 Rev. xiii. 18. 666 = "IDp p"0. Nero Caesar ; Iren. Haer. v. 30 ;
Sulp. Sev. H. S. ii. 29 ; Orac. Sibyll. i. 325. 'Irja-oCs = 888.
3 Etheridge refers to Shichard's Bechinatn Happerushim, p. 65, for some
curious particulars. Hebr. Lit. p. 354.
4 This figurative Gematria is called 1VHX. 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).
6 Jos. B. J. vi. 6, § 4. The "desolating wing (&]33) of abomination"
was rendered "corner of abomination." Comp. Philo, Fit. Mos. p. 142;
Hausrath, i. 123.

Notarikon. 101
ii. Notarikon was another Kabbalistic method. The name
is borrowed from Notarius, '' 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 t'^v? 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 Rabba, § 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 Emeth, " 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 " (rpru) 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, 0 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. Talm. s.v. flp'HtiJ. Rabbi Nathan defines it as being
practised " when one letter is made to stand for an entire thing." The name
Naphtali is thus made to mean " My prayer is here accepted before the Lord,"
and anoki, " I " is made to stand for " I myself wrote and gave it."
2 'lnrrovs Xpirrrbs ©eoO Tibs ~2,ur4\p. The Greeks were, as Plutarch says,
familiar with these anju'ia iv f}pax*o-i rivois iroXKav ypafj.ji.arav fiuva/uv
eXovra. 3 Shabbath, xii. 5.
4 Nishmatb Chajim, f. 152, 2. Similarly the soul of Cain passed into
those of Jethro (i), Korah (p), and the Mizraim- ite (O) whom Moses slew.
Yalqut Reubeni. Another notarikon applied to the name said that it stood for
Dust, Blood, Bitterness ("I5«, DI, iTJD). The use of Notarikon continued,
even among the Fathers ; as when 'ASd/j. is said to imply the four quarters of
tbe world, 'ApKr6s, fiiffis, avaro\f), fieo-vfi-Ppia.
6 D'dj, D"n, d\ rmn.
6 For other instances, see Budaeus, Philos. Ebraeorum, p. 323 ; Buxtorf,
De Abbreviaturis, p. 58 ; Reuchlin, De Cabbala, iii. ; Chiarini, i. 57 ; Ham
burger, Realwort. s.v. Schrift.
? Because in one passage of the Talmud "133 (" a man") is used for "a
cock ".

102 Temoorah.
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 Ghathak, " 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." 2
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
n»{5« (shall rejoice) into Mashiach. In Ex. xxiii. 23, " my
angel" (*?x?10) is transposed into Michael, as also is the name
Malachi ! 3 " Gherem," " 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 (mBW) gives the name Jehovah, and the letter e>,
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 m&D? *|7 V!V Ht. The name of this angel is also given by the final
letters of "|T nN nniB, " 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 Abrabanel),
who translated the Jetsira into Latin ; and Jacob Frank, who took with him
some thousands of his followers. Beer, Gesch. d. rel. Scctcn d. Juden, ii. 309
2 Called by some *]ian, "inversion."
3 See Nachmanides in Kitto's Cyclop.
4 The name Jesus is however WIK" in Hebrew.
o ^>3 p?j>.

Athbash. 103
word Armageddon may be meant for Harmagedol, i.e. Roma
Haggedolah, Rome the Great. The names are also iso-
psephic, for by 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.2 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,
" them that dwell in the midst of them that rise up against me,"
becomes luminous if for leb-kamai 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. Ephraim, Syria, and the
son of Remaliah there take evil counsel to attack Judah
and set up as king " the son of Tdbeal." Who was this
Tabeal whose name never occurs elsewhere ? Mr. Cheyne
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 fax®) we
get s"?di, which may well be the same as Remaliah, either
used by Isaiah as a scornful variation, or because it may
¦ Hausrath, New Test. Times, i. 117.
2 Thus in Athbash for a.b.g.d., &c, are substituted the corresponding
letters at the opposite end of the alphabet, namely th, sh, b, &c. In Albam,
a.b.g.d., &c, are exchanged withL.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. 26, li. 41, is due not to Jeremiah, but to the Babylonian
editor of his book. Propheten 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
anagrammatic 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 ]»0, rendered "son,"
occurs here only. Some suppose it to mean " refractory," or
" ungrateful," and Luther happily renders it " so will er
darnach ein Junker seyn." But by applying another Kabbalistic
alphabet (Atbach) 2 we get for mdnon the word !rIn#, gnehdah,
" 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 ! Hence the incessant Rab
binic formula, " Bead not so, but so." 4 Maimonides says that
1 Sukka, 52, 2 ; Ginsburg, Elias Levita, p. 191, ands.u Midrash in Kitto ;
and Kabbalah, p. 54 ; Hamburger I. s.v. Schrift.
2 For Atbach see Buxtorf, De Abbreviaturis, and Dr. Ginsburg in Kitto, s.v.
3 As when the initial words of N13 were made to stand for 3N nil 13
TT T , - I ¦-,
(Father, Spirit, Son,) and so used as an argument in favour of the Trinity ; or
as when the Jews said that the world was created on the first of Tisri, because
the first word of Genesis, Bereshith, can be transposed into Bethisri. See
Glassius, Philolog. Sacr. 425, 438.
4 p X?K T3 i"lpn ?H. Hirschfeld says, "Mankonnte etwas conjiciren
und verdndern, indem 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 cf," by reading HKQ » a high place," for
f$3, " wherein/' 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.
It 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
umstellt so giebt es einem Sinn und eine Bedeutung ab, die genau iiberein,
stimmt mit dem was man in der Bibel erwartete ! " Halach. Exegese, 164.
1 Moreh Nerochim, iii. 43. See Eisenmenger, Enid. Judenth. i. c. 8.
2 Berakhoth, f. 14, 1. , , , ,
3 In Is. lvi. 2, by reading 1? ?nD for ITJrtO. In tbe same verse by
reading Enos for "the man," they argue that even an idolater (Gen. iv. 26)
shall be 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."
Ginsburg, Coheleth, p 30.

106 Futile Results.
the Bible which it nominally worshipped. The long
labours and discussions of Sopherim, Tanaim, Amoraim,
Saborairn, 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 with
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 Judaeorum.
P- 12).
3 Towards the close of the fifteenth century many Christians like Mirandola
and Reuchlin 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 tbe 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 Massorcth 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 clays 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 1 " 1 It was " Ye have
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." 4
1 Matt. xv. 3. 2 Matt. xv. 6.
3 Matt. xv. 9. 4 John v. 39, 40.

" There was a flute in the Temple preserved from the days of Moses,
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." — Irbn.
E£ oi \$i\£ivos) oipiai Ka\ 7ras 6 dWrjyopiKos iv 'EKicXna-ia Aoyos eVyev
apxr)v elrrpvrjvai. — PHOTIUS, Cod. cv.
"roiiro o-vp.nav rb e'kA€k™coi> .... (prj/jii." — CLEM. Alex. Strom. 1 c. 7,
§37. SyeSov yap ra wdvra % to. irXfiora rr)t vofioSeo-ias aKXriyopeirat. — 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, and 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 Targums, 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 a 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 ; Griitz, 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 baraila of R. 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, Jesu von Nazara, i. 205. 2 D Wn D»"IBD.
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 Gratz. Philo talks of THJ.erepa 'A\ei;avb'peia. Leg. ad Gaium, § 22.
2 " 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, Prakt. Einl. 129. Many eminent
Rabbis bore Greek names (Alexander, Antigonus, Trypho, Aristobulos,
Euthunes, &c. ). Three chests in Herod's temple were marked a, j8, y.
4 On the civilising and cosmopolitan mission of Alexander, see Plutarch,
De Alex. Virt. § 16 ; Oehler, s.v. Volk. Gottes (Herzog). On Alexandria
generally, see Strabo, xvii. 1 ; Diodorus, xvii. 52 ; Pliny, H. N. v. 10, &c.
All that is important as bearing on our subject may be seen in Hausrath,
Neut. Zeitg. Die Zeit d. Apostel, i. 124, sq.
5 For an amusing sketch of Alexandrian lecture-rooms, see Philo, De Cong.
Erud. 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
growing 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
sat in an unequalled Synagogue " on golden seats frequent
and full."7
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 mathematici. See too Matter, Hist, de V Ecole d'Alex.
15-23, and passim; M. J. Denis, La Philos. de Orig. p. 2.
2 B.o. 332 ; Jos. C. Ap. ii. 4 ; B. J. ii. 16, § 4 ; 18, § 7 ; Philo, C. Place.
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 (e. c. 285) released more than 100,000 Jewish
slaves. It is certain that after the Battle of Ipsus (b.c. 301) thousands of
Jews settled in Alexandria (Jos. C. Apion, i. 22), and Josephus said of Onias
and Dositheus that Philometor intrusted to the Jews rijv BaaiXsiav '6\nv.
C. Ap. iv. 5.
4 Philo, in Flacc. § 8. 5 Philo. in Flacc. § 6.
6 Jos. Antt. xiv. 4, §§ 1-4 ; vii. 2. On the ill-understood title, see
Gesenius, s.v. in Ersch and Gruber, and Forcellini, s.v. Arabarches.
7 Gratz, iii. 20. Of the Temple of Onias not much can be said. It never
possessed any great importance. Kuenen, iii. 183. " Whoever has not seen
the Great Synagogue of Alexandria has not seen the glory of Israel. Each of
the seventy-one chairs was worth no less than twenty-one myriad talents
of gold ! A flag had. to be waved to show the people when to say Amen ! "
Sukkah, f. 51, 2. 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 Christianityj 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 Philo, Fit. Mos. ii. § 7.
3 Hausrath, I.e. p. 129.
4 On the Septuagint, see Clem. Strom. 1, 9, § 45 ; Euseb. Pracp. Ev. ix. 6,
xiii. 12 ; Aristeae Historia LXXII. ; Interpr.; Philo, Vit. Mos. ii. §§5-8. Jos. Antt.
Prol. § 3, xii. 2 ; C. Ap. ii. 4 ; Hody, De Bibl. Text. Orientalibus, Oxf. 1705;
Frankel, Vorstudien ; Gratz, iii. 26-45, 429-446. Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes
Israels, ii. 534-556 ; Dahne, Religionsphil. 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 different 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 yalaos (Josh. viii. 18) on the
date sceHody, De Bibl. Text; Wogue, Hist, de la Bible, pp. 1 36-143 ubisupra.
1 Jos. Antt. xii. 2, §§ 2-14 ; Philo, Vit. Mos. ii. § 7.
2 Just. Mart. Apol. 13 ; Ambros. inPs. 43. No. 74. See Klansen, Augustinus,
pp. 74-79. The name Septuagint may, as Hitzig thinks (Gesch. Volkes Isr.
341), be due to the sanction of the version by the Alexandrian Sanhedrin. The
date of its earlier portions is about B.C. 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 37
in which the LXX. differs materially from the Hebrew.
4 Philo, Vit. Mos. ii. 6, 7, where he mentions the annual festival (eoprrj
real iravfiyvpis) in honour of the event in the island of Pharos.
5 Iron. Haer. iii. 25 ; Clem. Alex. Strom. 1, 9, §43; Epiphan. De Pond.
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 mendaeio
suo exstruxerit.'' Cf. Praef. in Paralip.

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 ; J
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 /jberavoetTe 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 language.
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 Aquila 5 and of the Judaising heretics,
1 ob yap to-oriuvafiei avrd.
2 Prol. to Ecclus. ov fuxpav <?xe' TV Statpopdv. Jesus Ben Sirach came to
Egypt in B.C. 132.
3 The rendering S>pv£av, in Ps. xxi. 16 (Aquila, ijaxwav), and the non-
acceptance of the Jewish reading KaarX, " like a lion,'' is one striking disproof
of the charge.
4 Sopherim, i. 7 ; Gratz, iii. 429 ; Zunz, Gottesd. Vort. 95.
* (piKoTifiinpov ireiTi<TTzvp.tvos irapir. 'lovSaiovs Tipp.nvevKevai t^v ypa<p4)v,
Orig. Ep. ad African. Aquilae secunda editio quam Hebraei Kar aKpifieiav
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 Symmachus. 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 Scriptures 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.6 They show
repeated traces of the influence both of Jewish casuistry 6
1 E.g. in Gen. i. 1. Aquila has 'Ev KerpaXalif %Kiroei 6 fobs avv rbv ovpavbv
real abv r^v yriv. Origen naturally speaks of him as SovXziwv rij 'Ej8pai7cjj
A<?|ei (Ad African. § 2). So in India the Koran was regarded as too good
to be translated, and now the interlinear versions in Persian and Urdoo are
too literal to be intelligible. Muir, The Cordn, p. 48.
2 'E&pairciiv Se SiaXeKrov axpiiSas eiaiv i\rrKi\f.evoi, Epiphan. Haer. xxix. 7.
3 " Qui scripturam nunc audent peBepunveieiv, perperam interpretari."
Iren. Haer. iii. 24 ; Epiphan. De Pond. c. 13 ; Euseb. HE. V. §1. " Judaeus
et judaizantes haeretici qui multa mysteria salvatoris subdola interpretatione
celarunt ; " Jer. Praef. in Job. Aquila's translation, as a counterpoise to the
.Septuagint, was so highly valued that R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos applied to
him Ps. xlv. 2.
4 evpov ov fiucpas iraiSelas atp6fiotov, Prol.
" Cellarius, De Septuag. Interpp. § 20 ; ap. Havernick, Einleit. § 70.
6 Jewish casuistry ; the Halakha, Lev. xix. 19, rbv afiireXavd nov ; xxiv. 7,
Frankincense and salt ; Gen. ix. 4, rcpeas iv a'l/iari xjrvxvs ; xxxii. 32, ob p)i
tpdyaxri ; Deut. xxvi. 12, rb Seirrepov iirtSercaTov, &c. Herzfeld disputes many
of the references which Frankel regards as Halakhic (Gesch. d. V. Isr. ii.
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 Rabbis. 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.3
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 (Sierptivno-ev), and they were seen in theplace of God,"
a singularly daring falsification. See Ex. iv. 16, 24, v. 3 ; Num. xii. 8 ;
xiv. 14 ; Job xix. 26, 27 ; xxxv. 14 ; Ps. 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, Vorstudien, passim. Siegfried, Philo. 18; Maqom, -riiros, "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. Beresh. Rabba, % 68 : Alrbs 6 ®ebs rcaXelrai r6vos. Philo, De Somn.
i. 575 ; Aboth, ii. 17 ; iii. 5, 6.
3 A-riXams real 'AXi)deia. Aelian, Far. Hist. xiv. 34 : «ai ircaXelro rb ayaXpa.
'Ax-i)6eia. Philo, Vit. Mos. iii. 11 ; Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Five Books
of Moses, c. vi.
4 Deut. xxxii. 8 ; xxxiii. 2.
6 3 Esdr. viii. 5, &c.
6 Such as aprdpTi, Is. v. 10 (Herod, i. 192) ; 10is, Lev. xii. 17 ; oxo'ivos, Jer.
xviii. 15 ; Orig. ad loc. and Herod, ii. 6 ; iraarorpope'iov, 1 Chron. ix. 26 ;
<jiov0oiirpavhx, Gen. xii. 45. See Hody, De 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 " (Saavirovt;) not by
\a>yd>s, 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 (aladrjr6<;) and the ideal
world (k6ct/j,o<; vot]t6<;) ; 6 and that in Is. ix. 6, in accord-
1 Megilla, f. 9, i. On the traces of Alexandrian philosophy in the Septuagint,
see Dahne, ii. 1-72, who, however, makes the case appear much stronger than
it really is.
2 Ex. ix. 20 : iirl ra viro£Ayia.
3 Num. xvi. 15 : i-mBifiriiM. In this passage they may have read IDn for
"11Dn. But we find the same tendency in Zech. ix. 9, where they use irwXos ;
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 that the ass is not in the East a
despised animal. Jos. C. Apian,, ii. 10 ; Tac. Hist. v. 3. Comp. Minuc. Fcl.
Oct. 9 ; Tert. Apol. 16, and the note in Life of Christ, ii. 197. So Josephus
substitutes kttjvos and Jiriros 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 5a<ru7rous is a common
name for the hare. There must be some strange blunder in Megilla (f. 9, 1),
where it is said that they rendered Arneveth, "hare," by "short-footed,"
because Arneveth was the name of Ptolemy's mother. Arneveth bears no re
semblance to Berenice, and she was Ptolemy's wife. Aquila uses Xayi&s.
5 See Stanley, Jew. Ch. iii. 261.
6 aioaros real aKararTKeiao-ros. See Philo, De 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 onlv as a translation, but as a corrected edition (SiopOcotjis),
almost as a running commentary, which freely manipulates
the text in accordance with the exegetical traditions of the
day.1 The translators never scruple 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. Ix. 17 the Seventy render " I will give thy rulers in
peace, and thine overseers in righteousness." 4 St. Clement of
Rome, quoting from memory, gives the words ''EiirtaKO-jrov;
and Ata/covovs in this passage, and applies it as an ancient
prophecy about the appointment of Bishops and Deacons.5
Irenaeus also makes it a prophecy concerning Presbyters.6
rendered it Kivoipa real ovBiv ; Symmachus, apybv real aSidrtpirov ; Theodotion,
Kevbv Kal ovdev.
1 Jerome, among other disparaging remarks, says, "Septuaginta quod
nesciebant dubiis protnlere sententiis," and "conjicio noluisse tunc temporis
Septuaginta interpretes fidei suae sacramenta Ethnicis prodere " (in Rufinum,
ii.). In Ep. 134, after a careful examination of the Psalter in the Septuagint
he says, " Longum est revolvere quanta Septuaginta de suo addiderint, quanta
dimiserunt quae in exemplaribus ecclesiae obelis asteriscisque distincta sint."
2 Nah. iii. 5, rb. o-rrlrra crov. Is. iii. 17, rb ax^f-"- avrwv. Job xxxi. 10,
raireivaBetn, &c. 1 Sam. xxiv. 3, irapacrKeodrrao-Bai. 1 Sam. xvi. 23 ; xix. 9,
omission of Elohim and Jehovah.
3 Ex. ii. 1, rwv Qvyarepuv Aei/t (comp. Lev. xviii. 2) ; iv. 6, airrel xl&v
("leprous" omitted) ; vi. 12, aXoyos (of uncircumcised lips) ; vi. 15, 6 ire rrjs
^oivtcrrrvs, vi. 30 ; Irxx^orp^vis ; 1 Sam. xv. 12, iirearpe-tye to apfia ; 1 Sam. i.
1 4, iraitidpiov. They omit Ex. xxxii. 9.
4 LXX, Stbcru robs apxovrds o~ov iv elp-ijvr) Kal robs i-rrio'K6irovs crov iv hiKaioff-irvri.
B Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. § 42. 6 Iren. Haer. 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." s 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 eognoscet ipsum ? 10 It was
nothing more than a mistake, yet the Fathers inferred from
it the unknowable 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
in 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 «ai/0apo?.12 Some critics have altered the reading
into KavOov, KavaBov, Kav&tjpiov, &c, but probably it merely
1 Vulg., Ponam visitationem tuam, pacem, et praepositos tuos justitiam.
2 Jer. ad loc.
3 Septuag., 4fL0dXw/j.ev tfiXov els rbv iprov. v.l. rpdxnXov. Vulg., Mittamus
lignum, in panem ejus.
4 Dial. p. 298. ^ C. Jud. 10 ; C. Marc. iii. 19.
6 Test. adv. Jud. ii. 15. 7 Instt. iv. 19.
8 Horn. x. in Jer.
9 Theodoret, ad loc.
10 Jer. xvii. 9, flaBeia t] KapSla vapa irdvra Kal avBpa>ir-6s ion (Vulg. inscrutabile)
Kal ris yvctio-erai avr6v ',
11 Iren. Haer. iii. 20 ; iv. 66. Tert. C. Jud. 10. Cyprian Test. ii. 10.
Lnctant. Instt. iv. 13. Aug. C. Faustum, xiii. 8.
12 Hab. ii. 11, Kal rcdvBapos iK £irXov <p8ey£eTai aiird.

124 Followed by the Fathers.
means a knot in the wood.1 Some Latin versions rendered
it " scarabaeus," 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 £a>a 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
<poivt,l;, " 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 aedificiorum est (tie-beam).
2 On Luke xxiii. We find elsewhere "bonus scarabaeus" applied to our
Lord. 3 Irenaeus (Haer. iii. 10). Eusebius (Dem. En. vi. 15) and Theodoret
read (aSiv for C^tov, and interpreted it "two lives."
4 Tert. C. Marc. iv. 22, &c. See Whitby, De S. Script. Interpret, p. 137.
5 Seethe passages quoted by Whitby, I.e. p. 85.
6 Nah. i. 9, oiik ircSiKtSaeis Sis els avr6. Cod. Al. oi/K iKSiK^rrei Sis M'rb
abr6. Vulg., Non consurget duplex tribulatio.

Supposed 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 ipsum!' 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 bo 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 Ught 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 De Doctr. Christ, ii. 15 ; Ep. 28, c. 2 ; Qu. in Gen. 169 ; De Civ. Dei,
xviii. 42. Epiphanius regarded the Seventy translators as prophets De mens.
et pond. Justinian ordered the Jews to use the Septuagint irpocpnTiKijs
Sitrirep xdpiros irepiXau.^duns avrovs (Novel. Diatax. 146).
2 LXX. %ti rpels -rjfiepai, k.t.X.
3 De Cons. Ev. ii. 66 ; De Doctr. Christ, iv. 15. See Trench, Sermon on
the Mount, p. 18.
* "Horn of Stibium." Job xiii. 14. LXX., 'A/iaXBeias Kepas, Vulg.,
Cornu Stibii.
5 The following instances are adduced by Franck, Frankel, Dahne, &c. :
Gen.i. 2,-ri Seyij -Ijv a6paros : Gen. ii. 4, 5, i-rrolriae . . . irav x^oipbv ay pov ir pb
rov yeveaBai iirl ttjs yrjs : Is. xl. 26, rlsKareSei^e toCto : Is. xlv. 18, 6 KaraSeii^as
tV" yv". These are supposed to bear on the Platonic idealism and the creation
of an ideal before the real world. Is. xl. 26, iKcpipuiv kot' apiB/j.bv rbv Kiafrnv
oirrou (Pythagorean notion of numbers) ; Is. xiii. 13, i Bebs rav Swd/ieav
(the logoi or intermediate potencies of Philo) ; Ps. ex. 3, irpb 'Eincr(p6pov
iyevvnerd ire (a Pre-existent Logos) ; Is. ix. 5, //.eyaXris $ovXijs ayyeXos (the
Logos), &c. Their views are combated by Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Israel,
ii. 411-414.

126 The Book 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 allegory 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 jd. xi. 17.
4 Id. i. 4 ; viii. 20. 5 if, vii. 22-24.
6 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 age. 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, and
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
Aristobulus 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. Praep. Evang. ix.
17-39 ; Clem. Alex. Strom, i. c. 15 § 72 ; Jos. Antt. i. 15 ; C. Ap. i. 23 ; Gratz,
Gesch. d. Juden, iii. 483 ; Delitzsch, Gesch. 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 Vit. 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. Patr. ii. 771.
3 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
{airay opevriKSis) but didactically (ivSetKTiKus).
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 cineri 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 Eusebius (H E. vii. 32) says that he wrote Bi0Xovs irl-riynriKas toB
Muvrreuis v6fiov. Fragments are preserved in Euseb. Praep. Ev. vii. 13, 14 ;
viii. 9, 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 Decal. 4. My references to Philo will almost
invariably be to tbe sections, which are numbered in all editions. I have chiefly
used Mangey and the Leipzig editions.
3 See Justin Mart. Apol. i. 59 ; Cohort. 26, 30-33 ; Euseb. Praep. Ev. vii. 14 ;
Clem. Alex. Strom, i. c. 22. § 150. 'Api(rr6$ovXos S'e . . . ypdrpei KarnKoXovBriKe
Se 6 HXdrwv rrj KaB' i]fj.as vofJioBerrla . . KaBibs Kal UvBay6pas iroXXa ratv Trap1
7]ijitv /xereveyKas els r))v eavrov Soyfiaroiroiiav. Comp. Strom. V. c. 14. § 98 ;
Dahne, De Clement. Alex, yviio-ei. Leips. 1831.
4 See Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 20.
5 Philo, in his dearth of the historic sense, borrows this thesis, and thinks
that Socrates and Heraclitus and Zeno either did borrow from Moses, or might
have done so. The same opinions lasted till the Middle Ages. Reuchlin
maintains the thesis in the second book of bis De Verba Mirifieo (comp. id. i,
cap, 13, 14), asserting that Plato's Absolute Being (rb Avrus %v) is borrowed
from " I am that I am," and the Tetraktys of Pythagoras from the Tetragram-
maton. See Philo, Quis rer. div. haer. 43 ; Quod omn. prob. liber. 16 ; De

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
Pythagoras. 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 ; Vit,. Mos. i. 1 ; ii. 4 ; De poster. Caini, 39 ;
Quaestiones (Aucher, ii. 83, 178, 359, 373, 503) ; Jos. C.'Ap. ii. 6 ; Franck,
Die Kabbala, pp. 8, 9.
1 See Euseb, Praep. Ev. i. 10 ; Bochart, Phalcq. p. 776 ; Ewald, Gesch.
ii. 494.
2 In quoting Homer, Od. v. 262, Aristobulus substituted e&Sopiov for
rhparov. Gratiger says outright "Judaeorum est mentiri," Ad Chronol.
Euseb. p. 405. On this subject of forgery see R. Simon, Hist. crit. du V. T. ii.
187 ; Dahne, i. 82; ii. 214-236. But we must not judge ancient pseudepigraphy
by the moral standard of the nineteenth century.
3 Euseb. Praep. Ev. viii. 10.
4 So too Philo. God does not speak — airaye, p.i\T' eis vovv iror eXBrj rbv
%p.irepov. Decal. § 9.

Its Causes. 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
it 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 Rabbmicj
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
it was the veil of all gnosis.2 Ezra and the Pharisees were
the 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. 2 The LXX. use yvuais to render fl^H.
K 2

132 Alexandrianism.
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 " 1 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 N1H W»s6 mjDD^K. Rappoport, Erech Millin. p. 102, quoted by
Siegfried, Philo, 6.
2 Philo, De Cherub. 30 ; De Agric. 3, 4 ; De Congress. 34 ; De Somn.
i. 35.

Alexandrianism. 133
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 ? 1
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 the
philosophers. He regarded the Jews as priests of mankind,
and compared divine wisdom to Sarah the princess, and
human wisdom to IJagajLJthe. 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 was sacred and eternal; Greek philosophy was7
inspiring, noble, irresistible. There must, he fancied, be' some
middle term by which the two could be united.4 Such a j
middle term could not be found in the trivial and hair
splitting casuistry of the Palestinian schools. He felt himself
driven 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 l
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. 99, 2 : Derenbourg, 361.
2 Philo energetically repudiates all renegades from Judaism. He tells us
how one such "atheist " hung himself, " that the foul blasphemer might not
even end by a pure death" (De Nom. mutat. § 8), because he had sneered at
the splendid present of a single letter which God had made to Abraham and
Sarah. 3 De Abr. 19 ; De Congr. quaer. 1-5.
4 De Migr. Abr. § 16 ; De Plant. Noe, §§ 8, 17.
5 See Neander, Ch. Hist. i. 72, 73 ; Herzfeld, ii. 515.
6 " Ce qui soufflait dans Alexandrie e'etait le vent de la conciliation, et s'il
y avail danger e'etait moins d'etre trop exclusif, que d'etre tente d'associer
ensemble des choses incompatibles." Denis, p. 7.

134 Borrowed from the Stoics.
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 Zwinglians, 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-
rmonising 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,
I 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 Franck, Die Kabbala, 31. 2 See Reuss, Gesch. § 503.

Homer Allegorised. 135
applied by contemporary thinkers to the poems of Homer^j
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^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
gods, and to make Stoics of the ancient poets. Diogenes
of Babylon in his book on Minerva allegorised physiologically
the story of her birth.5 The best extant specimen of these
1 Mangey in his Preface (Philonis, i. v.) says, " Magis interpretationem
Allegoricam invaluisse probabile est ex mythologkorum seriptorum inter
Etlmieos fama qui tunc temporis coeperant fabulas suas propudiosas et impias
mysticas umbris vel obducere vel defendere. " On this subject see Lobeck,
Aglacphamus, 1829.
2 De Rep. ii. passim. But Plato, too, allegorises Homer.
3 See Tatian, Or. ad Graccos, 21 : " Metrodorus of Lampsacus, in his
treatise concerning Homer, has argued very foolishly, turning everything into
allegory." 4 Diog. Laert. ii. 11, SoKel irpuros tV 'OwpiK^v irolnaiv a-rrotp-fivao-Bat irepl
rxperris Kal SiKaiorrvv-qs.
6 Cic. De Nat. Deor. i. 15. See Creuzer, Synbolik, i. ch. vi.

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 Ponticus was printed by Heyne in his edition
of the Iliad.
2 See some excellent criticisms on this method in Cic. De Nat Deor ii 18
3 Jos. C. Ap. i. 21 ; ii. 3, § 5 ; B. J. ii. 18, §§ 7, 8.
It is m the fourth Book of Maccabees, erroneously ascribed to Josephus
that we nnd the earliest meeting-point of Jewish and Greek methods.

Three Schools. 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 Allegorists.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
of 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.7 Of the
Halakha 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, and
1 Philo, De Vit. Contempt. § 3, errri ffvyypdixfiara iraXai&v avSpwv ol . .
iroXXa pivn/xela ttjs iv rois aXXnyopov^evois iSeas airiXiirov.
2 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 Mut. Norn. § 29).
4 He expresses himself emphatically on the need of retaining Jewish insti
tutions in De Migr. Abr. § 16, eirrl ydp rives ol robs pvrovs vofxovs rjv^oXa
vonrwv n-payfidritiv imoXapfSdvovres rb. jxev ^7<xy t]KpL&wo-av rSiv Se p%8vfj.a>s
raXiydipr)ffav, oils fie/j.tyai/j.T]v av eywye ttjs evxepeias.
5 Almost all that is personally known of Philo may be found in his Leg. ad
Gaium, 22-28 ; C. Flaccum, passim ; De Spec. legg. ii. § 1 ; De Provid.
(Aucher, ii. 187. Euseb. Praep. Ev. viii. 14 ; Mangey, ii. 646, 673) ; De
Congr. § 14 ; Fragments (Richter, vi. 200, 236) ; Jos. Antt. xviii. 8, § 1 ;
xx. 5, § 2 ; Euseb. Praep. Ev. viii. 13 ; H. E. ii. § 4 : and in the notices
of him by Jerome, Isidore Pelusiota, Photius (Bibl. Cod. cv.), and Suidas,
§ v., $iXuv. The date of his birth and death are unknown, but as he was an
old man (i.e. 56, see Aboth, v. 21) when he went as an ambassador to Gaius
(Caligula, a.d. 39), he may have been born B.C. 10-20. A good sketch is given
by Ewald, vii. 194 ig., and I have collected the main facts in Early Days of
Christianity, i. 264-279.
6 Euseb. Praep. Ev. viii. 14.
7 He does however refer to " the tradition of the elders " Fragm. ap.
Euseb. Praep. Ev. viii. 7. See Bern. Ritter, Philo und die Halacha, Halle,
1879.

138 Philo's 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 Heraklitus," Parmenides, Empedokles,
Zeno, Kleanthes and the Pythagoreans. From the latter he
borrows the symbolism of numbers, and from Aristotle the
distinction between Swa/w? and eVreXe^eia.2 If ho 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 ; De Incorrupt. Mund. § 61 ; see Siegfried, p. 138.
2 Quod Omn. prob. lib. § 1 ; De Incorrupt. Mundi, § 3 ; Quacst. § 16 ; De
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, 156-159.
4 Ap. Euseb. Praep. Ev. viii. 13.
^ Jos. Antt. xviii., 8 § 4. xx. 5, § 2. Another of Philo's nephews (?)
the Alabarch Alexander wrote a book to prove that animals are endowed
with reason. Philo answered him in his De Divinations. 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
theory. 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_j
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

b^

1 He generally rationalises it (see Opp. i. 146), but sometimes refers to it as
fi iv rpavepq Kal rrpbs robs iroXXobs airoSoais ; De Abr. 29, i) fart) real tpavepa
air6Soms or Kara. Xiyov (like the Midrasbic ItStPB ill). For his other phrases
see note. So the Mishnic doctors distinguished between the letter which they
called the body (NQ1J), and the mystic sense which was as the soul (NnDEO).
2 De SomfC. i. § 16.
3 De Joseph. § 6 ; De Spec. legg. § 32.
4 See Vacherot, Hist, de VEcole d'Alex- i. 165 ; Bollinger, Judenth. u. Heidm.
x. iii. § 5. Philo's favourite mode of address to his reader is " Ye initiated "
(3 iiirtri-ai). £ See Baur, Die Christliche Gnosis, 234-240.

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
I 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 He says that his soul was frequently filled with inspirations (BeoXnitre'i-
oBai) and exercised divination (fiavreieo-Bai) De Chsrubim, § 9 ; rb iu.avrov vdBos
o p.vpidicis iraBbv o'lSa. De Migr. Abr. §§ 7-35 ; See Gfrorer, Philo, i. 58.
2 See Quaestiones. (Aucher, ii. pp. 83, 89, 859, 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 J
arriving at a certain place where the sun sets becomes
Wisdom acquired by training, coming 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 (raTreivov) — 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 (rpt\oaco/j,aTo<i Kal (ptXoTraOr)^
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 ; Qund Deus immut. § 24 ; Leg. Allegg. i. § 63. I have
given some specimens of Philo's allegories in Early Days of Christianity i. t>
269. '  "
3 He calls him bmrisraros Kal BeorpiXeararos riiv TTi&irore yevoaevoiv. '0
lepiraros, 6 lepotpavrvs bpyioiv, Kal SiSdffKaXos rav Beliav (Vit. 3Ios. iii. § 24;
De 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 the 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 6 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, elire ris rZv irdXai irpotprfrSiv. He never mentions
Ezekiel, or Daniel, or quotes as Scripture Esther, Ecclesiates, or Canticles (see
Frankel, Vorstudien zu d. Septuaginta, 29. De Wette, Einleit. 26). He
acquired, however, a special predilection for Jeremiah, perhaps from traditions
of his stay in Egypt. De Cherub, li. Siegfried, p. 161. He makes very little
use of Job.
2 Suidas ; Jer. Catal. 11 ; Ep. 83.
3 J. G. Miiller, Des Juden Philo Buch d. Weltschbpfung, 1841 ; Dahne, i.
188, fg. Fragm. ap. Euseb. Praep. Ev. vii. 22 ; viii. 13. St. John emphatically
repudiates the Philonian dualism. John i. 3.
4 Dc Opif. Mundi, 24.
5 Dc Prorid. ii. 42 ; Quis rer. div. haer. 33. See a. brief summary of his
theological views in Zeller, iii. 214.
6 DlpD. De Somn. 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 goodness.
He can never be known in the How, only in the That (on io-ri oix 3j onroios).
Hence he calls God airoios. His whole being is in the four mysterious letters,
the Tetragrammaton JHVH. Deproem. etpoen. § 7; Keim, Jesu, i. 286 (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 shed 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 pheidomai " I spare," 4 and means prudence, and being
1 Comp. Aristobulus (ap. Euseb. Praep. Ev. xiii. 12), Si' efrSondSuv Si Kal
•7ms 6 k6o-[j.os KvKXeirai.
2 On Philo's fancies about masculine and feminine numbers, see De Mut.
Norn. § 35. De Opif. Mund. § 3. Jost, Judenth. i. 321. Clement of Alexandria
(Strom, i. 15, § 72) calls him a Pythagorean (r^v nap' avro'is epiXoaotplav
iyypanrov yevou.evnv irpoKardpl^ai rrjs irap "EXXno-i cpiXorrorpias Sta. iroXXuv 6
Tlv$ay6peios vnoSe'iKwai ilXav). His notions are half Pythagorean, half
Kabbalistic. Ewald thinks that the allusion of Clemens must be to the elder
Pliilo (vii. 206 E.T.). On his Stoic affinities see Zeller, Phil. d. Griechen,
iii. 346-352.
3 He says that to understand literally the statements about Paradise is folly,
iroXXi) Kal SvrrBepdirevros 7) evi\Beia (De plant. Noe, 8). For similar expressions
see Leg. Allegg. m..1;De Mundi Opific. 3, and note.
4 It does not seem to strike Philo as strange that ancient 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 Latin
they derived Mavors from "qui magna vertit, Saturnus quia se saturat annis,
Minerva quia minuit," &c. (Cic. De Nat. Dear. 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 " ! 1
The death of Er is explained as follows : — Er means
" leather," in other words " that leathern mass which covers
us," namely, the body 1 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 about the literal sense when
there are none except in his own confusions of thought is shown by his com
ment upon the Mosaic rule for punishing an immodest woman, and also by
his absurd remark about the punishment of cutting off the hand of a son who
has struck father or mother (De parent, col. published by Angelo Mai). The
naive confession of St. Jerome, "Allegorice interpretatus sum Obadiam cujus
historiam nesciebam," might have been made by other Allegorists.
2 Vit. Mos. iii. § 22. L

146 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, and 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-
James 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 Heliojiolis, Gen. xii. 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 narratiyes„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
J Dc Profugis, % 31 ; Quod Deus immut. § 21.
- ob rtepl yvvaiKuv x6yos aXXa. Siavomv, De Congr. erud. 1-6, and passim.
Philo says (6) that Zilpah means "a mouth going forth, " and Bilhah " a
swallowing. "
» For Joseph see Leg. allegg. i. § 63 ; iii. §§ 85, 86. For Japhet see De
on" q- 12' and (iuacst in Gm- "• 8°; aud generally Siegfried, Philo,

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 " she 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 irov el ; " Where art thou f "
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." 8 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 Deut. xvi. 21. The verse means " Thou shalt not set up an Asherah (or
phallic emblem of the nature-goddess) of any wood."
2 Philo, even if he had more than a smattering of Hebrew, yet speaks of
the Greek as "our dialect," and of "us Greeks" as distinguished from the
Hebrews. De Conf. Ling. 26 ; De Congr. erud. 8 ; and of " our Alexan
dria " (Leg. ad Gaium, 22).
3 xpn<r/*ol, X6yia, lepa. QiBXos, lepdirarov ypd/jifia, S iepbs or dews x6yos, or
d bpBbs x6yos. De Mut. Norn. 8 ; Quis. res. div. 53 ; Vit. Mos. iii. 23 ; 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

148 Views of Inspiration.
this subject than was used by Philo. Yet his theory of
inspiration was a mere nasus cereus. 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 De Somn. i. § 10, oux 'Iva us irapa rrvyyparperas IffropiKov fmBrafiev. De Congr.
§ 8, obx itTropiK-r) yeveaXoyia ravr' errriv.
3 See Ewald, vi. 276-378 ; Siegfried in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1873.
4 Vit. Mos. ii. 6, 7. On Philo's ignorance of Hebrew see Jost, Judenth.
i. 352.
5 Vit. Mos. iii. § 3 ; Quis. Rer. Div. haer. § 52 ; De Praem. § 9.
6 Vit. Mos. iii. § 23. He uses the words iiriBelarrai, ivBovaimv, KarairvevtrBels.
But it must be remembered that he by no means confines his theory of super
natural inspiration to the sacred writers ; for be takes the conception from
Plato and the Greek philosophers (Ion 34 B &c), and extends it to
heathens and to himself (see Gfrorer, i. 51 ff.). 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 bare 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 rock 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 BeS-rrvevtrros (2 Tim. iii. 16) is a far vaguer adjective
than "a Deo inspiratus" (Vulg.) or " Von Gott eingegeben" (Luther).
1 Philo, Quod Deus im.mut. § 11 ; De Somn. i. § 40. See Gfrorer, Philo, i.
68-113 ; Dahne, i. 49 ; Hirschfeld, Hagad. Exegesc, 156; Siegfried, 162-197.
2 De Migr. Abrah. § 16.
3 De Abr. §§ 29, 36 : De Plant. § 9 ; De Cherub. §§ 7, 8, and passim; De
Somn. i. 33.
4 See De Somn. ii. 2, 20 ; i. §3 13-17 ; De Abr. § 15 ; Leg. Allegg. i. § 18 ;
De Cherub. §, 7-9 ; Quis Rer. Div. § 57.
6 The extraordinary notion that Scripture, of which they regarded every
word as being supernaturally 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
unscriptural theory not only leads to allegory in one direction, but pleads
as a reason for the necessity of allegory, assertions which, if true, at once
disprove 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 simtdtaneotis 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 body.4
If there be an apparent tautology, as when we 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
there is a change in the expression, as from vr) to ou, 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 may be explained apart from their punctua-
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, Uepirrbv bvou.a obSev rlBnaiv
6 v6ixos (De Profug. 10). (Gen. ii. 17, LXX. 0p-i<rei ipdyri ; Gen. xv. 5, LXX.
i^yayev abrbv e£or.)
4 Leg. Allegg i. 81.
5 Leg. Allegg. 13. So. in ewei ou iari ,rb xpvrrlov (Gen. ii. 11) tbe o3 is made
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
(eirolrjcrev), and in Gen. ii. 8 He " moulded " man (eTrkacrev),
the first word implies the earthly, and the second the
heavenly, man. If in Gen. xvi. 2 we have vwrj/covo-e, and
in Gen. xxviii. 7 elar/Kovae, 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 ovo<s resembles Trovot
and Trpr'fiaTov is derived from Trpofiatveiv, 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
6. 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 eg avrrj1; means " from
her," in Gen. xvii. 16, 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 De Migr. Abr. § 29. 2 Bereshith Rabba, c. 65.
3 De Abr. § 31. 4 De Somn. i. § 32.
5 For many instances see Siegfried, 172, 173.
6 De Congr. erud. grat. § 13.
7 Ex. xiii. 13.
8 A.V. "thou shalt break his neck." LXX. iav Se /it] dXXdtys Xvrpiixrri
avr6. 9 So the use of iyKpvrplas ("cakes concealed in ashes to be baked") implies
that we must not reveal mysteries. Dc Sacr. Ab. et Cain, § 15.

152 The Work of Philo.
killed Abel, airenreivev avrov is meant also to imply that
aireicreivev avrov, — 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 De Somn. ii. § 41. Comp. De Migr. Abr. 14.
2 Unfortunately the etymologies on which Philo relied, and led the Fathers
to rely, are ofien of the most absolutely uncritical character. A collection of
his etymologies was once current. Euseb. H. E. ii. 18, § 7. See Ewald,
vi. 267.
3 See Quod det. pot. §§ 32-37 ; De Mut. Norn. § 23. Laughter is S ivSia-
Beros vl6s. We get a very favourable view of Philo from the fine 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 j
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. Philo'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 ofl
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 allegory.
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
the 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 Herud 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 Hillel seems to have thought that Hezekiah was the
Messiah. Others thought that there were two Messiahs — Messiah bra 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.
2 Philo no less than the Rabbis thought that the Levitic institutions would
be eternal. Vit. Mos. ii. § 3 ; De Monarch, ii. § 3.
3 Jowett, St. Paul and Philo, Ep. to the TJiessalonians, i. 363. See the
wise remarks of Ewald, vii. 202 (E. T.).

A Futile Eclecticism. 155
ness, but the cold stone of the philosophic Memnon 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;1 of a system which placed true wisdom
in asceticism and ecstasy ; of a reformation which knew
nothing of the real evils of the world, and 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 educationj
1 The same epithet airoios is given both to God and to Chaos.
2 Philo, De Cherub. toSto, S> fiirrrai, KeKaBapfievoi ra Sira as lepa ivra-s
p.vrrr-r)pia . . . irapaSexerrBe, K.r.X.
3 Keim, I.e. " It was equally 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 barriers which Christianity removed ; it abandoned the con
flict which Christianity carries out to victory." "Its tendency was to exalt
knowledge in place of action ; its home 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 a Gospel for the world." "Westcott, Introd. 77.

156 The Legacy of Alexandrianism.
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 passages
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 Rome (Euseb. H. E. ii. 17 ;
Jer. Catal. 11), and that he had even embraced Christianity (Photius, Cod.
cv. Suidas s.v. QiXuv) may be dismissed without further notice ; as well as
rhe 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 De Vit. contemplativa.
2 Allusions to Philo by the Fathers may he seen in Justin Cohort, pp. 10,
11, 14. Clem. Alex. Strom, i. p. 333, 360, 413. Orig. C. CeU. iv. p. 369,
vi. p. 289. Euseb. H. E. ii. 4, 5, 16-18. Praep. Ev. vii. 12, viii. 5, &e.
Ainbros., Dc Farad. 4, Jer. Catal. Prarf. 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, had still
high truths to teach. In reading their best aspirations we
are, as it were, " fanned 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 extemalism 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.

" Eeliqui Scripturas quidem confitentur, interpretatione vero conver
tunt." — Iren. Adv. Haer. iii. 12.
" Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus quantum et corruptor
stylus."— Teet. Apol. 17.
" Sunt enim multa verba in Scripturis divinis quae possunt trahi 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 suam Scripturam trahere 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 Monarchia, iii.

LECTURE IV.
PATRISTIC EXEGESIS.
" That your faith should not staud 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 1 — 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
truths 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 we
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,
that the orthodoxy which prevails at any one time is equivalent with pure
Christianity ? " Chalybaus, History of Special Philosophic, p. 419, etc.
2 John xvi. 13. M

162 The Fathers.
logic of circumstance, the clear verdict of history, is decisive
against a priori 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 Chillingworth, 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
inconveniency, and lastly the impiety of these gay Testimonies
1 Compare Grotius, De Studiis instit. (1635), p. 238. " Patres et Patrum
eruditionem . . . maximi facio, sed tamen tibi autor non sim ut illos hac
quidem aetate legas sed differas . . Nam multa habent non solum fluxa,
ambigua, futilia, et superstitiosa, sed etiam quaedam non usquequaque proba et
sana." He goes on to add that they are often unorthodox. I need only allude
to Daille, Traiti de VEmploi des Saints Peres, 1632 (answered by W. Reeves,
The Apologie of the Fathers (1709), and the Rev. Prof. Blunt, On the Right Use
of the Fathers (1857), and Barbeyrac, Traiti de la Morale des Fires.
2 Middleton, Free Enquiry, 1729. Among others who have spoken very
slightingly of the Fathers might be mentioned Simon Episcopius. See him
quoted by Dr. Pusey, Tract No. 57, p. 10. Coleridge said of Luther,
Melanchthon, Calvin, that " the least of them was not inferior to St. Augustine
and worth a brigade of Cyprians, Firmilians, and the like " (Remains, iii. 270).
M 2

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 defined. 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 final 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, aud 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 illi dixerint, neque ex libris sacris aut ratione aliqua satis idonea confirm-
averint, perinde mihi erit ac si quis alius e vulgo dixisset." — Defens. c. 4.

Their Exegesis. 165
writings or the method by which they should be 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
Philo, 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 1 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. Barndb. u. ix. and passim. Bede on 1 Sam. i. 1, 2.
2 For some remarks on the Fathers see Hare, Vindication of Luther, p. 81.
3 The dissemination of the New Testament writings was not of course in
stantaneous. It took some time for them all to become known, and also to
be recognised as being of coordinate authority with the Jewish Scriptures.
The epistle of Clement is to a great extent a cento of phrases. He makes
large use both of some of St. Paul's Epistles and of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
but says nothing about their inspiration. According to Funk (Patrcs
Apostolici, i. 566-578) Clement quotes 157 times from the Old Testament, tbe
Apocrypha, and the Assumption of Moses ; 158 times from the New Testament
but with only 3 direct quotations.

166 Clement of Rome.
they 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
Apostles, 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). Nao. 17, iyi> Se elfi.iarp.ls
airb xvBpas 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
(H.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. Test. extr. can. i. 99, and Bishop
Lightfoot's note).
4 Ep. ad Cor. 12, bpare, ayairnrol, ov u.6vov irlaris aXXa irporpnrela iv tt)
yvvaiKl yeyove. The same specimen of exegetic gnosis is adopted by Justin
Martyr Dial. Ill ; Iren. Haer. iv. 20 ; Origen in Matt, xxvii. 28 ; Ambrose
De Fide, 4 ; Paulinus, Carm. 23 ; Aug. in Ps. lxxxvi. 4 ; and many others.
See the note of Cotelerius in loc. (i. p. 155).

Barnabas. 167
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
quite irreconcilable. He appears to suppose that part of the
Old Testament was meant for the Jews and part for the
Christians, 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.3 He believes that Judaism
1 Arnobius (Adv. Gentes, iv. 33, v. 32 — 45) energetically repudiates the
principle of allegory as applied by the Gentile philosophers to the fables about
their gods. He asks a very pertinent question, "Quod cum ita se habeat,
qui potestis res certas rebus a dubiis sumere, atque unam adjungere significa-
tionem dicto, quod per modos videtis innumeros expositionum varietate
deduci ? " (v. 34).
2 Ep. Barnab. 4. 14. I should have thought it hardly worth saying that
the writer of this Epistle could not have been the Apostle Barnabas, if Prof.
Milligan had not thought it probable (Diet, of Christ. Biog. p. 261).
3 Ep. Barnab. 9. So Ignatius (Ad Magnes. 10) calls Judaism rj KaKr\ {vp.-r\.

168 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 IHcroO?, 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. Voter, 37 fg. ; Reuss, Thiol. Chret. ii.
1 He quotes Is. xlv. 1, as follows, " The Lord said to my Christ the Lord "
apparently confusing Kipai with Kvp'itp, 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 virep irarrav hjiaprlav
avopuoripovs. c. v. (See however Diet, of Christian Biog. I.e.)
2 Ep. Barnab. 9. In this he is followed by Clemens Alex. [Strom, vi. 11 ; § 84) ;
Ambrose, De Fide, i. ; Aug. Quaest. in Jud. 37 ; Hilary, De 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
Prudentius says we must fight our vices with 318 servants, i.e. figwrd mysticd ;
Praef. in Psychomachiam.
3 Gematria, see ante, p. 98 ; Temoorah, see p. 102.
* See Cotelerius ad loc.

Barnabas. 169
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 ! : 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 explain 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 lamprey,
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 seat of the
seorners," 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 also 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. Tertullian goes so far as to say " Quid tarn eontem-
tibile quam ciborum exceptio ? " and explains it as " sapientia in occulto," C.
Marc. v. 5 ; Origen, Horn, in Levit. makes a similar remark, and De Princ. iv.
1 ; C. Cels. iv. 93.
2 Ep. Barnab. c. 10. The passage is extremely obscure and confused ; but
this seems to be 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." x 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 Hermas,
and the Epistles of Clement and Polycarp, it was even read
in many churches in public worship.5
1 Id. 12 (2 Esdr. v. 5). 2 Ep. Barn. 6.
3 Ep. Barn. 15 (Gen. ii. 2 ; Ps. xc. 4) ; Iren. Haer. v. 28, 29 ; Hippo
lytus, ap. Phot. cod. cii. ; Lactant. Instt. vii. 25 ; -Jer. Ep. 139, &o. See
Cotelerius, i. 44.
4 Diet, of Christian Antiquities, s.v. Barnabas.
5 Into the theology of the early Fathers I do not enter. Jerome admits
that before Arius arose like a demon of the noonday, ' ' innocenter quaedam
et minus caute locuti sunt, et quae non possint perversorum hominum calum-
niam declinare." Apol. adv. Rufin. ii. No one would blame them for
this, but it shows that they cannot be regarded as authorities. See Petavius,
De Trin. i. v. 7 ; Newman, Ess. on Development, 12 — 15.

The Apologists. 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 \oyo? 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 Him ivas nothing made which was made,"
he says, that " nothing " means an idol, because the Apostle
|ays, " 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
' Matt. xxii. 14, in Vision, ii. 2. The same quotation occurs in Barnabas,
«. 4, and something like it in 4 Esdras. The scriptural parallels to passages
of Hermas are given by Funk, i. 575. Origen regarded "the shepherd" as
divinely inspired (Comm. on Rom. x. 31), but Tertullian despises it (De
Pudir;. 20).
2 No specially distinctive exegetic data are to be derived from Papias, or the
Ep. to Diognetus (which ignores the Old Testament).
3 Euseb. H. E. V. 13, irpo^XnuArmv fiiPxiov.
4 The translator of the Armenian version of the commentary on Tatian's
Diatessaron, by Ephraem Syrus, published by the Mechitarist Fathers at Venice,
happily proves that Tatian, a, pupil of Justin, used the Gospel of St. John as
well as the Synoptists. 5 Apol. 9.
6 Quaest. ad Aulolyc. ii. 9. He also quotes the Sibylline oracles as inspired
(id. ii. 9). The word Tpias first occurs in this book, and Trinitas in Tert.
C. Prax. 4. Jerome speaks slightingly of his commentaries, but does not
seem to feel sure of their genuineness. That on the Gospels would be the
earliest extant commentary if genuine. R. Simon, Hist. Crit. der Comment.
p. 5. 7 Id. ii. 29.
8 Thus in Ps. xlv. 1, " Eructavit cor meum Verbum bonum i.e. Christum."
6 Jer. Ep. ad Algas. 151, qu. 6. Had the Key (Kheis) of Melito of Sardis

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 prophetic
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 Tbe 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 Eaye, 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 but slightly to the Old Testament. In the Epistle of Ignatius
the practice of relying exclusively on the Old Testament is blamed (Ep. ad
Philad. 8).
3 Justin is however most unfavourable to the Jewish Law. Dial. 19, 23,
27, &o.
* Apol. i. 20, 44 ; Cohort, ad Graecos, § 37 (if this work be genuine). Comp.
Tert. ad Natt. ii. 12, &c.
6 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 mau
conquering power"). Dial. 125. See Siegfried, Philo, 269. 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 recitandis scripturis inconstantia," and
" ineredibilis 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 be
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
grew.9 Justin's whole system of interpretation depends on
1 Dial. 27.
2 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 render
ing of l"'??^ by veavis instead of irapBevos in Is. vii. 14 (Dial. 43), and says
that the Jewish corruption of the Scriptures was a, worse crime than even
Moloch-worship. Dial. 73.
3 Dial. 86, 134, 141. 4 Dial. 57, 137, 140.
6 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.
6 Is. xxxiii. 16 ; Dial. 78.
7 Gen. xlix. 10 ; Apol. i. 32.
8 See Dial. 88, 103 ; Apol. i. 35.
9 Dial. 131. aAAa Kal to rav veurepav avvvilave.

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, " Tlie Lord rained upon Sodom brimstone and fire
from the Lord " (Gen. xix. 24), to prove the divinity of Christ.6
Philo uses analogous modes of argument, and Philo as we
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 irapaKeKaXvu.p.evws iv u.vo~T-r}pirp.
2 Dial. 134, 140.
3 Dial. 79. ra p.ev rod &eov ayid irrriv al Se vp.erepai i^nyr^rreis rerexvarr-
pievai. 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. C. Cels. ii. 30. irape^iipe Se 6 KeXrros rovro- ®ebv Se Kal rov &eov
vlbv ovSels eK toiovtoiv irapaKov(Tfj.drojv ou5' e| ovras ayevvoiv reKfxnpirav ffvv-
iarnrriv. 5 Dial. 56. A similar use was made of the text in Iren. Haer. iii. 6 ; Tert.
Adv. Praxean. 13 ; Euseb. Dem. Evang. v. 23 ; Ambros. De Fide, i. 2 (see
Feuardent in loc. Iren.) and see infra. The Council of Sirmium anathema
tised any one who understood the verse dilferently. Hilar. De Synod, p. 373.
A similar interpretation was given to 2 Tim. i. 1 8.
6 Cohort, ad Graec. 9. He calls him and Josephus oi Gorprbraroi. Renan says
of him, " Justin n'etait un grand esprit ; il manquait a la fois de philosophie
et de la critique ; son exegese surtout passerait aujourd'hui pour tres defectu-
euse . . . il avait cette espece de credulite mediocre qui permet de raisonner
sensement sur des premisses pueriles et de s'arrfiter a temps de facon a n'etre
qu'a moitie absurde." — L'Eglisc Chritienne, 356.
7 Cohort, ad Graec. 8.
8 " Constat Polycarpi . . hunc fuisse discipulum." Jer. Catal. s.v.

His Views. 175
application of hermeneutic methods.1 He, too, relied simply on
the Septuagint and regarded all who preferred other readings
as vere impudicos et 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 I
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,6 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 Haer. iii. 21, § 2. He is the earliest Father who quotes as largely from
the New Testament as from the Old, and in his fourth book he proves against
Marcion the unity of the two covenants. The edition of Irenaeus to which I
refer is Massuet's, 1710.
2 For his quotations see Stieren, i. 996-1005.
7) Siivaftts rrjs irapaS6rreQJS fiia Kal r] avrr). Haer. i. 10, § 2. tj airb rrjs
ircKXrirrlas Kvovrro-Ofievri aX-t)8eia, i. 9, § 5. Comp. v. 20, § 2 ; iii. 3, § 1-4. By
tradition he sometimes appears to mean the shorter form of the old Roman
creed ; but he also appeals to tradition for special facts (see Routh, Rel. Sacrae,
42—65, ed. 1814).
4 Haer. i. 8, § 1, rotavrns Se ttjs viroBeo-eots avrwv oiravs r)v otrre Uporpr)rai
iKijpv^av, oijre 6 Kbpios iSiSa^ev afire ,Air6aroXoi irapiSwKav rrjv irepl ra>v oXwv
avxovrrt irXeiov rasv aXXaiv iyvwKevai, e£ aypdrpoiv avayiyvwrrKovres, Kal rb Sr]
Xey6pevov e'£ ap.fi.ov rrxoivla irXeKeiv iirirnSebovres (comp. id. ii. 10, § 1).
5 Haer. i. 9, § 4, Xe^eis Kal bv6p.ara o-iropdSvv Keip.eva rruXXeyovres
perarpepovm. Comp. Jer. Ep. liii. § 7 " Quasi non legerimus Homerocentonas
et Virgiliocentonas ! "
6 Haer. i. 8, § 1, Svirep rp&rrov el ris . . . ire'iBoi on avrn j) rxairoa ttis
aXuireKos ISea eKelvn irrriv r) KaXij rov [3ao-iXews eiKriiv. He gives us some
specimens of Valentinian allegory, and preserves a comment of Ptolemaeus
on the Prologue of St. John (§ 5).
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.6
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 7
— 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 Haer. iii. 11, § 8.
2 Haer. i. 3, § 3 ; ii. 24, §§ 1-6, where many instances are given.
3 See supra, p. 101.
4 Haer. ii. 24, § 2. The initials of tbe word W may be made by Notarikon
to stand for Fehovah, jShamarm, Ke-ha-arets. Nothing can be made of
the present reading, ' ' Terra autem iterum sura user dicitur. "
6 Judg. vi. 37 (Haer. iii. 17, § 3) ; Jon. ii. 1 (Haer. iii. 20, § 1) ; Dan. ii.
34 (Haer. iii. 21, § 7), referred to by Lipsius Diet, of Christian Biogr. ii. 270.
In each instance the allegories are adopted by Augustine, Jerome, &c. See
Diestel, pp. 56-60.
6 Haer. 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
be 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 Haer. ii. 22, § 5. The passage is quoted by Eusebius H. E. iii. 25, irdvres
ol irperxfivrepoi u.aprvpovm, ol Kara rr)v *Aryiav, ^loidvvr) . . . (Tvu.^e^XnK6res
irapaSeSaKevai [toSto] rbv '\wdvvr\v, 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 Haer. iii. 7, § 1, Irenaeus makes the true remark that St. Paul sometimes
uses hyperbala "propter velocitatem sermonum suorum ;" but his application of
the figure to 2 Cor. iv. 2 is unfortunate. He refers to a book of his own
"On the peculiarities of the style of St. Paul."

Three Schools. 177
Polycarp a most improbable story about St. John and
Cerinthus, 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 exegetical 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 Cerinthus and the Bath (see Epiphan. Haer. lxxviii. 14 ;
Lampe, Proleg. p. 69). I have pointed out elsewhere the grounds on which
I doubt the truth of the story (Early Days of Christianity, i. 163).
2 See, for instance, the wild passage about the Millennial grapes, which he
tells on the authority of the weak and credulous Papias, who professes to
have heard it from Polycarp (Haer. v. 33, § 3 ; Euseb. H. E. iii. ad fin.;
Routh, Rel. Sacr. p. 9). When such authority is cited for such a Rabbinic
absurdity, we cannot estimate very highly the boasted " tradition " on which
Irenaeus relies. For other instances see Routh, Rel. Sacrae, i. pp. 46-68,
95-101 (Rahab's cord, iv apxfl = iv A6yrp, &c).
3 Apol. 18.
4 De Pudic. 17, " Hanc aegualitatem Spiritus Sancti qui observaverit, ab
Ipso deducetur in sensus ejus." He makes Ps. i. 1 a prophecy of Joseph of
Arimathaea (De spectac. 3).
6 De Anim. 1,2; C. Hermog. 39, 40. He quotes from all the New Testament
except 2 Pet., James, and 3 John, and held that the Old Testament belongs
specially to Christians (Apol. 21). He knew no Hebrew, and relies on the
"inspiration" of the Seventy (Apol. 18). N

178 Tertullian.
be equally claimed for the Book of Enoch, and " the Sibyl
who lies not." x 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 ; 7 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 De Idol. 15 ; De Cult. Fern. i. 3 ; ad Natt. ii 12, " Ilia scilicet Sibylla
veri vera vates. "
2 De 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 tho actual autographs of the
Apostles (Haer. 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.
6 De Cor. Mit. 2 ; De Monogam. 4, " Negat scriptura quod non notat."
6 De Resurr. Carnis, 19, " Non omnia sunt imagines sed et veritates ; nee
omnia umbrae sed et corpora." Comp. too id. ib. 20-33, De Praescr. 39 ; C.
Hermog. 34, &c.
7 C. Marc. iv. 13. See too De Orat. 4, C. Prax. 7, De Baptismo, iii. ix. and
passim.

His Arrogance. 179
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 beheve anything further."6 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 stiU 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.8 And yet
1 Athenag. Legat. 33, 6 Sevrepos ydfios evirp6irf)s irxri pioixeta, comp. Orig.
Horn, in Luc. xvii. ; Theophil. ad Autolyc. iii. 15 ; Iren. Haer. iii. 17} §.2.
2 1 Tim. v. 14 ; De Monogam. 8. '
3 De Resurr. Garnis, 35, 47. 1 Cor. xv. 37. He calls those who disagree
with him "lucifugae isti seripturarum." Comp. Iren. Haer. v. xii. § 3.
4 De Praescr. 4.
6 De Praescr. 7, "Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum,
nee inquisitione post evangelium."
6 De Praescr. 14, " Fides in regula posita est . . . cedateuriositasfidei." 17,
" Quid promovebis, exercitatissime Seripturarum, cum si quid defenderis
negetur ex adverso, si quid negaveris defendatur ? " The sentiment was
finally crystallised in the " Tenendum quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab
omnibus creditum est " of Vincentius Lerinensis, Commonitor. i. 3.
7 De Praescr. 8. " Whatever answer Tertullian had ready for other objectors,
these he could silence with a dashing peremptory interpretation of our Lord's
words. ... I find it hard to stifle my indignation at such trifling with the
Divine precept." — Maurice, Eccl. Hist. p. 279.
8 "Ego sum haeres apostolorum " (De Praescr. 37). This is the argument
N 2

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 Protestant 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 maintainer of tradition became the
champion of a schism. The malleus haereticorum died a heretic.6
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? But he was a man of less impetuous
of the whole De Praescr. Haereticorum, and Tertullian states it more for
mally than Irenaeus. Praeseriptio 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 e3t, non consuetudo" (De Virg. vel. 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, And.
Hist. ii. 54 ; Neander, Ch. Eist. i. 683 ; Newman, Tracts, p. 119 ; Renan,
Marc. Aurcl. 456, "un melange inou'i 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. Hist. p. 334.
6 Jer. Catal. s.v. Tert. A certain Paulus, who had known Cyprian, told
Jerome "Nunquam Cyprianum absque Tertulliani lectione unam diem
praeteriisse."

Cyprian. 181
genius, 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
defiled is one ; " 3 and fdorn 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 wine 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 themselves liable to the very same com
plaints which they make against the heretics. Tert. Praescr. 38. "Alius
(MaTcion) manuscripturas, alius (Valentinus) sensus expositione intervertit.
. . . Valentinus . . . materiam ad Scripturas excogitavit . . . adjiciens
dispositiones non comparentium rerum." Epiphan Opp. i. 396, Kexpnvrai
iraXairJ Kal vea SiaBr)icri Kara rbv vovv rbv iSiov p.erairoiovp.evoi. Euseb. H. E.
iv. 29, X9<i°VTai evayyeXiois \Sias (Reuss, § 504).
2 Ex. xii. 46. 3 Cant, vi 9. 4 Josh. ii. 18.
6 Ep. 63, ad Caecil. 6 Is. Ixiii. 2. 7 Ps. xxiii. 5.
8 It practically said " However you may interpret Scripture, Truth is with
us." " Quod apud multos unum invenitur, " says Tertullian, ' ' non est erratum
sed traditum." De Praescr. 28. See this subject excellently treated by Baur,
Church History, E. T. ii. 8-14. This side of Tertullian's and Cyprian's
opinions is most fully developed by Cardinal Newman's Tracts for the Times,
No. 85. He makes the remark, which would indeed be disastrous if it should
be proved, that ' ' all persons, with very few exceptions, who try to go by Scripture
i only fall away from the Church and her doctrines," p. 2.

182 Cyprian's Method.
priori. If we are warned against eating and drinking the
sacramental elements " unworthily',' 1 that is supposed to
prove the necessity of formal penance and absolution.2 If cur
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." 6
III. It was in the great catechetical school of Alexandria,
founded, as tradition says, by St. Mark,6 that there sprang
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: "Valentinus non ad materiam Scripturas, sed
materiam ad Scripturas excogitavit. " De Praescr. Haer. 8, De Anima, 18.
But do not the Fathers do the same ?
4 Bohringer, ii. 1037.
5 " Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est." The chief exponent of
traditionalism in interpretation, is St. Vincent of Lerins, who makes every
decision turn on ecclesiasticae intelligentiae auctoritas. See Vincent. Ler. C.
Haer. ii. iv. xii. and passim.
6 Euseb. H. E. v. 10 ; vi. 3 ; Jer. Catal. 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. De 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.6 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 propounded 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. " (De turbatd per recentiores Eccles.
1767, pp. 118 sq.)
4 De Praescr. 7, "Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis 1 Quid Academiae el
Ecclesiae ? Nostra institutio est de porticu Salomonis qui et ipse tradiderat
Dominum in simplieitate cordis esse quaerendum. Viderint qui Stoicum et
Platonicum et dialecticum Christianismum protulerunt. "
6 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. §§ 66-90,
167-179. Comp. vi. 42, 44, 47,159. Tertullian on the other hand called
the philosophers "the patriarchs of heretics."
6 Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, i. 375-383 ; Jer. Catal. 36. He must have
favoured the allegoric method, for he applied to the Church what is written of
Paradise. See Redepenning, Origenes, i. 63. 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."1
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.6 " 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 Apocryphal
1 Is. vii. 9 ; LXX. eav p.rj irirxrevrrnre ovSe y)j rrwr\re. 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 ; Markiv. 34 ; 1 Cor. ii. 6, see Strom, v. §§ 25, 26 ;
vi. §§ 115-118. So as Neander says (Ch. Hist. 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
vjholly 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 rpvamt the sense of " causes men to think great and
true thoughts " 1 Strom, vii. § 104.
6 Strom, vii. § 94. The distinction between the philosophic Christian (the
"true Gnostic") and the ordinary Christian runs all through the Stromateis,
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 Barnabas 3 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." 6
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 /car
olxovofiiav.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." n 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.
2 Strom, i. § 182 ; vi. §§ 39, 48, 128.
3 Strom, ii. § 31. He also quotes the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Strom, ii. § 45.
4 Strom, i. §§ 124, 148.
6 Paed. ii. § 27 ; iii. § 15 ; Strom, i. § 108 ; v. § 13 ; vi. § 43. In Strom.
vi. § 42, St. Paul is made to quote the Sibyl and Hystaspes, Kaye, p. 406.
8 Strom, i. § 10, 'O XlXdrav piovivovxi irporpnrevosv ttjv awrnpiov oiKovopfiav.
h i\ 'Eppaiav tbix6a-orpos UXdrav. Strom i. § 150, ri yap irxri TlXarav r)
yiuvaris arTiKi£wv. Paed. iii. § 54, 6 -rravra apioros XlXdrwv . . o\ov Beorpopovp.evos.
Comp. Strom, i. §§ 28-32, where Heathen Philosophy is treated as a source
of sacred truth.
7 Clem. Hypotyp. ap. Euseb. HE. ii. 1, § 2 ; Strom, i. §§ 11, 96 ; vi.
§§ 61, 68, 125 ; vii. §§ 94, 107 ; Orig. C. Gels. vi. § 279.
8 He instances not very appositely St. Paul's circumcision of Timothy. See
Kaye's Writings of Tert. p. 399. His Scriptural references are sometimes
inaccurate. 9 Strom, vii. § 97. For reference to the "canon of tradition," see Strom.
i. §§ 11, 88, 179 ; vii. § 94. Hypot. vii. (ap. Euseb. H. E. ii. 1, § 2).
lu See Kaye, p. 366. u Strom, vii. § 106.

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 " (rmv rptSsv pterpmv),
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.8 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 Rosenmiiller, Hist. Interp. i. 219. Kaye, pp. 374-403.
2 Gen. xxii. 8.
3 Strom, v. § 52 ; vii. § 109. Comp. Iren. Haer. 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." x 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 inflate a spiritual pride.2
IV. Of Origen, 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 see, besides the books here quoted, Bishop Reinken's De
Clcmente Presbytero Alexandrino, 1851 ; and Abbe1 Freppel, Clement d'Alex-
andrie, 1860.
2 This is the least pleasing aspect of the teaching of the school of Alex
andria. Clemens is the first Father who uses olKovofiia in the sense of
"accommodation." " Condescension " (rrvyKardtiao-is) occurs m CEry-S. homT
in Tit. ni. 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,
tovt6 Sia rrporriroinrr\s ayvoias oiKovoaei (Ep. 84). The doctrine was first
borrowed from Plato (De Rep. iii.) bfPhuo~(Quod Deus sit immut.). Clement
approves of circuitous modes of stating truth (o-vu.irepirpep6u.evoi, Kara rrv/iirepi-
rpopdv). Origen says that a man "who is obliged to speak falsely (!) should be
very careful " (Orig. Strom, vi. ; ap. Jer. Apol. I. in Rufin. 18). For a practical
instance see C. Cels. iii. 159. On the esoteric doctrines of these Fathers see
C. Cels. i.7;De Princ. 1, vi. § 1 ; Horn, in Lev. ix. Synesius adopted these
views to the full (Ep. 105). See Schrbckh, E.G. x. 380-395; Daille,
De Usu Patrum, vi.
3 Jerome, who so often spoke bitterly of him, called him an Arian, and
argued that he approved of telling lies, talks of his "immortale ingenium."
Catal. s. v. Origen.
4 Jeremie, Hist, of Second and Third Cent. p. 93.

188 Greatness of Origen.
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 ail
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
great extent, built up the fabric of Biblical interpretation." 2
1 See Huet, Origeniana, iii. 2, p. 238 ; Westcott in Contemp. Rev. vol.
xxxv. p. 337. His Scholia (or 2,nu.eirl>aeis) are mostly lost ; his Homilies are,
for the most part, preserved in the Latin translations of Jerome and Rufinus,
which, unhappily, cannot be relied on, since the translators thought fit to
modify and tamper with them. They fill three folios, though much is lost.
His Commentaries (r6u.oi) extended over the whole Old Testament, except
Ruth, Esther, and Ecclesiastes ; and the whole New Testament except Mart,
1 and 2 Cor., 1 and 2 Pet., 1, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse.
See Rufin. Invect. in Hieron. ii.
2 On Galatians, p. 217. For the use made of Origen by Hilary and Vic-
torinus, see Jer. Ep. 41, ad Pammach. Some of his commentaries (e.g. that
on 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 his 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
solecisms and errors.3 He appeals to Apocryphal books
1 See for full information Huet, Origeniana, passim.
2 See Westcott, Gospel of St. John (Speaker's Commentary, p. xcv.).
3 Philokal. p. 33 ; Comm. in Oseam (Huet, i. p. 201). Like Plato he often
contrasts rb pirrtv, rb aapjariKo'v k.t.A. with rb airopp'riT6v, 7) aXXnyopia, r)
avaywy-r), TVevfiariK^] Siiiynms, Bewpta K.r.X.

190 False Views.
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 before 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 Js^hroughou±_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 De Princ. iv. irepl rov Beoirvevarov Tijs Bdas yparpys. His hermeneutics
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 Origen, 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.
b. 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. Origen 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 Philo the notion that it is unworthy to speak of God
planting trees, or walking in the garden. Philokal. 12. No one has ever
stated more frankly and fully than Dr. Newman the fact that the whole
phenomena of the Bible as it stands are primd facie entirely opposed to the
doctrine of plenary and verbal inspiration. See Tracts for the Times, No.
85, pp. 30, sq.; and that the reader may see all that can be said and best
said for schemes of mystic interpretation see id. ib. No. 87, pp. 21, sq.

192 False Views.
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
e. 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 (rparye\a$o<;),
a creature which has no existence — showed, he said, by their
very impossibility that they could not have been Hterally
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, SiKaiiip.ara ov KaXa, but said that mystically
understood (irpbs Sidvoiav) the commandments were good. C. Cels. vii. 20.
He speaks of the ffKavSaXa Kal irpoo-K6pu.ara Kal aSivara in the literal sense
of Scripture. "Unde vilitas literae ad preciositatem nos spiritualis remittit
intelligentiae." In Num. Horn. xii. 1.
3 Gen. xvii. 14 ; De Princ. iv. 17. One of the Chapters of the Philokalia
is irepl tov Selv tov Qeov a^iov vovv iv toiovtois ^nreiv.
4 Ex. xvi. 29.
6 De Princ. iv. 18 ; troXXol rb aXoyov ip.rpalvovo-1, erepoi Se rb aSvvar6v.
^vvvrpvvev t) ypacpij rr} iryropla rb p.)} yev6u.evov. irrj p.ev p.)] bvvarbv yeverrBai try
Se Svvarbv p.ev yeverrBai ob p.ijv yeyevr\u.evov (id. 15). See C.'Cels. iv. 44 ; Philo
kal. 12; In Levit. Horn. vii. 5.
6 De Princ. iv. 16 (Matt. v. 39 ; Luke x. 2, &c). After touching on these
passages he adds, irXrj<rla>s Se rovrois Kal aXXa pvpia everrri rbv aKpi/Sovvra

False Inferences. 193
/. He said that in the Evangelists there were many things
which, taken literally, involved not 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 Origen'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 (rrpoX^is:) 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 Rationalism which owed its birth
to the heathen theories of Plato.3 It deserved its name, for
rnprjrxai virep rov avyKaraBeaBai rals Kara, rb j>-qrbv yeyevrifievais irrropiais
erepa p.)\ rjvp^e^nK6ra.
1 He also speaks of the solecisms in John, and says 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.
2 Horn, in Jerem. viii. Origen's chief exegetic views are scattered through the
3rd and 4th books of the De Principiis.
3 See the very pertinent remark of Mosheim De turbata, &c. p. 211. It will
of course be clear that I am not here deprecating the value of teaching
professedly allegoric (see Trench on the Parables, pp. 12, 13), but only the dis
tortion of plain narratives into allegories which have no connexion with the
O
/'

194 Assumptions.
it made Scripture say something else (aXKo cuyopevetv) than
it really me ant. 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 u, 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 i Testament, and then exegesis could bring forth out of those books the
ideas which tbe 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, opa biroia u.a.XXov Svvarai iiriarpe^ai real avr6Bev robs
rxKovovras k.t.X.
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 roiavra viroXafx^dvovm itepl rov ®eov biroia ovSe irepl tov o>u.ot-]
drov Kal aSiKtardrov avBprxmov alria Se iram rois irpoeipnp.evois yj/evSoSo£i£>v Kal
ctrrefieicov ?i iSitariKwv irepl ®eov x6ymv ovk aXXv ris elvai SoKei ij t\ yparpfy Kara tce
irvevu-ariKh p.% vevonp-evn aXX' ris irpbs rb tytXbv ypdp.u.a i^eiXnpi/ievri . 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.
Horn, in Gen. vi., Horn, in Levit. vii.

Fantastic Proofs. 195
Lord shone with dazzling lustre, so, he 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, bid 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 1 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. He also refers to 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7 ; ix. 9, 10 (which is simply
a merciful analogy, not an explanation) ; and to 1 Tim. 1, 8 ; Eph. v. 32,
which are nihil ad rem (C. Cels. iv. p. 197 ed. 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, ap. Jer. and many other Fathers.
4 St. Paul probably means, as Theodoret and Chrysostom interpret him,
that the written Law of Moses was a law which threatens death, and that the
grace of the Spirit was life.
5 Eph. v. 31.
6 We constantly find in the Fathers this radically vicious method of giving
universal application to isolated passages. Commenting on the words, " I will
open my mouth in a parable," Jerome says, " Ex qua intelligimus universa
quae scripta sunt (!) parabolice sentienda, nee manifestam tantum sonare
literam, sed abscondita sacramenta." One very intelligible limitation of
Allegory and Typology has been adopted by some English divines, viz. that
we should only admit them when actually sanctioned in Scripture. This is
the view of Bishops Marsh and Van Mildert, Bampt. Lect. p. 239, and
Macknight, St. Paul's Epistles, iv. 439.
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 were —
if, such a method be supposed to furnish any proofs — 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 litferal,"a/moral and
1 See Iren. i. 3, 8 ; ii. 24. \  ) [^~-^_s>
2 Dr. Maitland (Dark Ages, p. 174) speaks mucTTTnore 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. 8, 11, 12, 14, 19 ; Horn. inLevit. v. ; Redepenning,
Origenes, 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
avaywyf\ of explanations which are simply allegories. Thus he gives an
allegoric sense to Matt. xiv. 13. and says p.err\ rb pnrbv Kal rcara avaywyi)V
rbv r6irov i^eracrreov.

Threefold Sense. 197
a rustic) meaning analogous to the body, to the soul, to the
spirit. This conclusion also he supported by quoting whatj
seems to be a mere mistake of the Septuagint.1 In Prov.
xxii. 20 " Have I not written unto thee excellent things
(DWB>) in wisdom and in knowledge," the LXX. has Kal av
Be diroypailrai avra Tptcrcra)?, and the Vulgate, Ecce descripsi
tibi iripliciter? 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 Chaldee 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 Hagiographa. 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 Origen
apply it to the literal, tropologic, and anagogic sense.
2 Orig. Philokal. 8 ; De Princ. iv. 11.
3 He disparagingly compares it to the earth, the body ; and yet with curious
literalism he argues that the stars are living beings from Job xxv. 5 (De
Princ. i. 7). For passages which depreciate the literal sense see G. Cels. 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. Thus he comments on
" Joseph died, and the children of Israel multiplied," by saying that if Joseph
died in us, i.e. if we carry in our bodies the death of Christ, our spiritual
graces will grow and multiply. Horn, in Exod. i.
5 Thus on John i. 20, he says Siairep iirifidBpa xpr\rrdu.evoi ttj toropla rh
Ixvr) tt)s aXnBeias farovvres iv ypdu.pM.rt.
6 See this amply proved by Origen's remarks, Horn, in Gen. iii. 4-6 ; vii.
5 ; x. 1 ; Horn, in Levit. vi. 3 ; Horn, in Num. xxiii. 5. See these and other
passages quoted in Denis, p. 41.

198 Arbitrary Fancies.
simple narrative becomes too commonplace for him ; he 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 " Hoe 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 parallelisrn
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 ; " 6 and
that the expression " Rebecca was a virgin, neither had any
1 Ex. xii. 8, ook &u.r\v ovv fipwreov t)\v rrdpKa tov rxpivov Sierrrep iroiovrriv ol
rrjs Xe£eo)S SovXoi rpSirov aX6ya:v £6u>v k.t.A..
2 Horn, in Num. xxv. 3, " Non tam reges quam vitiorum nomina
quae regnant in hominibus." Horn, in Jos. i. 7, "Intra nos enim sunt
omnes gentes istae vitiorum." Horn, in Gen. x. 4, "In his non historiac
narrantur, sed mysteria contexuntur. "
3 See Bbhringer, iii. 366-373. " Allegorical interpretation amounted, in
practice, only to a species of aphoristical philosophy on the occasion of Bible
passages," Ueberweg, i. 319.
4 Porphyry Kara. Xpirrriavuv iii. (ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 19), Aivlypara rh
irapa. Mwvcre? rpavepcas Xey6u.eva elvai Kopnrdrravres Kal iiriBeidaavres as Beeirlffpara
irX-hpn Kpvrplav avrrrripiuiv. He goes on to charge him with Hellenising, and
clothing Hellenic thoughts in Jewish myths. He says that Origen borrowed
the principles of Plato, Numenius, the Stoics, Chaeremon and Cornutus,
— irap' wv rbv p-eTaXnirriKhv rSiv trap' "EXXvm p.varripia>v yvobs rp6irov rois
'lovSaiKals irporrrj^e yparfals. 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 "Historiam
omnino non tetigit, et more suo in allegoriae interpretatione versatas est, "
6 Horn, in Exod. xiii. 2.
6 Ex. iii. 16 ; Hem. in Joann. ii. § 16.

Errors of Origen. 199
man known her " (Gen. xxiv. 16), 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
ordinary 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 Septuagint says
that the three men stood above Abraham,3 and this is interpreted
to 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 Horn, in Rom. vii. § 8 (De la Rue, iv. 604). It need hardly be said that
the tautology is only due to the descriptive fulness of Hebrew style, just as
" I am a widow woman, and my husband is dead," 2 Sam. xiv. 5.
2 Ex. i. 21, iiroirjo-av eavrals o'tKias, LXX.
3 Gen xviii. 2, etar^Keiaav iirdvai avrov, 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 ixerdjBacn<; et? aXXo yevo^. 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 Huet,
Origeniana, II. 2 Ger. 13 ; (De la Rue iv. App. 240-244).
3 Horn, in Joann. vi. § 18 (De la Rue, iv. p. 136). The passage is long
and difficult. Ei Se p.vrrriKbs 6 irepl to>v viroSi]p.druv rSiros ovSh rovrov rrapeX-
Belv &£iov. oip.ai rolvvv ri]v p.ev ivuvBpdirno-iv '6re rrdpKa Kal aTp.a avaXau.&dvei 6
rov Qeov vibs rb erepov elvai roiv viroSvp-druv, r))v Se els %Sov Kardfiarriv, oans
ttotc irrriv 6 edSns, k.t.X.

Influence of Origen. 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 are
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 Greek commentators " (i. 232) ; he might have added, and for
most Latin ones also.
2 See his only extant work, the Symposium, or irepl ayveias. It is printed
in Migne, vol. xviii.
3 That Hippolytus explained Scripture by the same methods we. see from
his comment on Gen. xlix. 12 in his book 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 Christ,
which are white like milk. He still more clearly shows the basis of his
system in his book on Daniel. Explaining the Story of Susanna as forming
part of the Book of Daniel, he says that Susanna represents the Church ; her
husband Joacim is Christ ; 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 ; and the two handmaids are Love to God and Faith in Christ.
4 In Cant. vi. 7 Methodius says that the 60 queens are royal souls like
those of Enoch, Seth ; and the concubines, the souls of the Prophets after the
Deluge. In Judg. ix. he explains the trees who went to choose a king to be
sinful souls before the Incarnation which now implore the mercy of God (see
Photius, Cod. 234-237 ; Schrock, K. G. iv. 427, sq. ; Rosenmiiller, Hist.
Intcrpr. iii. 187, sq.).
6 Euseb. H. E. vi. 46 ; Steph. Gobar. ap. Phot. Cod. 232 ; Guerike, De
Schol. Alex. 67.

202 Influence of Origen.
Thaumaturgus,1 the martyr Pamphilus,2 Athanasius,3
Didymus the Blind,4 Pierius,5 Theognostus,6 Hierax of
Leontopolis,7 Eusebius of Vercellae,8 Eusebius of Cesarea,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 Rufinus to make him known
in the West. The great Cappadocian Fathers adopted
many of his views.12 Gregory of Nyssa, the brother of
Basil, was the most Origenising 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 inipuisable de
lumieres. In spite of the unjust and sweeping condemnation
1 See his Apology for Origen in De La Rue's edition, vol. iv.
2 Euseb. H. E. vi. 53 ; vii. 32 ; Jer. Catal. 75 ; Routh, Rel. Sacr. iii.
491-512 ; Bbhringer, iii. 578 ; Schrbck, K. G. xii.. 93, sq.
3 See Rosenmiiller, 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. Ruf. ; 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. H. E. vi. 53 ; Photius, Cod. 118. He was greater as a scholar
and historian than as an exegete. Fragments of his commentaries have been
published by Mai, Nov. Patr. Bibl. iv. and Migne, vi. His ZvayyeXlwv
Siarptcvia is unfortunately lost.
10 Euseb. H. E. vi. 27. " Jer. En. lxv. 2
12 Niceph. H. E. xi. 17; Schrock, K. G. xiv.; R. Simon, "Hist. Crit.
(N. T.), p. Ill, sq. ; Buddeus, Isag. 1385, sq.
13 See Rupp, Greg. v. Nyssa, pp. 243-262 ; Schaff, Ch. Hist. ii. 907. For
Gregory's exegetical preference of allegory see Prooem. in Cant. Basil, how
ever, though not free from it, has some strong and wise protests against it
(Hexaem. ii. 2 ; iii. 9 ; ix. 1 ; Horn. I. in § 9, c. 2).
14 Tillemont, iii. 266.

Hilary. 203
of his theology, he 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 Athanasius 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, " Infinem intellectus David," and infers that Psalms
headed " in finem " 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. 'apiyevrjs. wXetcrra Kal
avapiBfinra eKXeXoiirev ws e| iKelvov irdvras robs u-eTeireira iKKXnrrlas
SiSaaKaXovs Kal acpopu.as eiXr}rpivai, ws 6 BeoX6yos rpdrjKei Yp-r]y6pios, 'Clpiyevns
7} irdvroiv i)u.G)V aKovri.
2 Jerome calls him " a Rhone of eloquence. " Dorner's estimate of his
theology is very high.
3 On Hilary see Schrock, xii. 252, sq. ; Rosenmiiller, Hist. Interp.
301, sq. ; Buddeus, Isagoge, 1388, sq. Both Ambrose and Hilary speak of
the contradictions of Scripture from which we can only escape by allegory
(Diestel, pp. 80 ff.).
4 Jer. Catal. 100, "Quos de Graeco Origenisin sensum transtulit. '' 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
(Graecorum literarum quamdam aurulam. ceperat), and was assisted in under
standing Origen by the Presbyter Heliodorus (Ep. ad Marcell. and ad Paullin.
De Inst. Monach.).
6 irk ^3t5»p njyp^.
7 LXX. els rb reXos. The remark is borrowed from Eusebius, who also
refers the superscription rPRJUT?!' irepl Xnvaiv, LXX. (Pro toreularibus, Vulg.)
of Ps. 8 to Christian altars and the wine of the Eucharist (Diestel, p. 119).
Hilary says that Pro toreularibus shows the Psalm to be about tbe new fruits
prepared out of men by God's Spirit. The inscription probably means "iu
the manner of Gath."

b

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 Aurea, 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;1 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. 38-22, " 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. Zebedee, 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," &e.

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 Cata-
1 "Haec ita intelligere non dicam erroris sed irreligiositatis est" (Hil.
in Ps. 146).
2 Hil. De Trin. ii. There is a monograph by Reinken, Hilarius von
Poictiers, 1864.
3 See Siegfried, Philo, pp. 371-391.
4 Tract, de Obit. Valent. ii. 12.
6 Jerome says, ' ' Nuper Ambrosius sic illius (Origenis) Hexaemeron com-
pilavit ut magis Hippolyti sententiam Basiliique sequeretur " (Ep. 84, 7) ;
" Ante paucos dies quorumdam in Matthaeum et Lucam commentarios vos
legisse dixistis e quibus alter et sensibus hebes esset, et alter in verbis luderet,
in sententiis dormitaret " (Rufinus, Inv. in Hieron. ii. 22-29). Augustine,
on the other hand, always speaks of him with high respect (see Aug. Conf.
vi. 4).
6 On Ambrose see Schrock, xiv. 148, sq. ; Rosenm. iii. 313, sq. ; Buddeus,
Isag. 1306. Bbhringer (iv. 66) says that in his numerous exegetic writings,
"Von Beachtung des Wortstandes, von grammatisch-historischen Auslegung

206 Dionysius.
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),6
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 nirgends eine Spur ; das Meiste ist allegorisirend rdoch fehlt er nicht
an sinnigen Bemerkungen." Ambrose says (De Fide) " Historia simplex sed
alta mysteria . . . quia lateralis sensus 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 had some personal dislike to Ambrose in connexion with his
sudden departure from Aquileia, Ep. 3, 3. Zockler, p. 40.
2 Praef. in xxxix. Horn. Origenis in Lucam ap. Rufinum ; Invcct. ii. adv.
Hieron. § 21. " Oscinem corvum audiam crocitantem et minim in modum de
cunctarum avium ridere coloribus, cum totus ipse tenebrosus sit. " In § 23
Rufiuus defends Ambrose, and calls him "omnium Ecclesiarum columna
quaedam. "
3 De Offic. I. i. 4. Heinz, in his severe criticism on this book (Walch,
Patrologia, p. 668), complains especially of "Schlechte Auslegungen der
Schriftsteller A. und N. T. die gewaltsam angezogen werden und niohts
beweisen." 4 Rev. J. LI. Davies in 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."
0 He earned the title of " the Great " (Euseb. H. E. vi. 46, vii. 1 ; Basil,
Ep. ad Amphiloch. Steph. Gobar, ap. Phot. Cod. 232 ; Guerike, De Schol.
Alex., p. 67, and Schrbck, E.G. iv. 169).

Julius Africanus. 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 discussionwith 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. But the fragment must be read at length by any
who would do it justice. Canon Westcott (s.v. in Smith and Wace) says
that this criticism "is perhaps unique among early writers for clearness and
scholastic precision." For a full account of it see Liicke, Einl. in die
Offenbarung (Bonn, 1852), pp. 605-621.
2 See Euseb. H. E. vi. 31 ; Jer. Catal. 63 ; Photius, Cod. 34 ; Suidas, s.v.
'ArppUavos ; Nicephorus, H. E. v. 21 ; Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii. 225. The
letter was edited by Wetstein, with notes, in 1674 ; and in De la Rue's

3 M); Sb Kparoli) ovros 6 x6yos iv 'EKKXno-ia Xpiarov Sri \jrevSos rxvyKeirai eis
alvov Kal So£oXoylav Xpiirrov (Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii.).

208 Julius Africanus.
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
protests against his method of exegesis.4 Clemens gives the
name of " ignorant brawlers " 5 to those who repudiated 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, Rel. Sacr. ii. 228 ; Euseb. ad Steph. Qu. 4
(Mai, Script. Nov. Coll. i.) ; Aug. Retr. ii. 7 ; Mill, Mythical Interpr. p. 201 ;
F. Spitta, Der Brief des Jul. Afric. an Aristid. kritiseh untersucht unci
hcrgestellt (Halle, 1877).
2 Euseb. H. E. vi. 11.
3 Jer. Ep. ad Magnum, 83 ; Socr. H. E. ii. 35. If the Kerxroi 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, rpiirov a.x6ymv (dwv
Kal airoreBnpioipevrov irpbs robs aXvBws XoyiKOvs Sib. rov ryvvievai QovXerjBai rb.
ir-vevujariKd ; in Horn, in Gen. xiii. § 3 he compares himself to Isaac, who dug
wells which the Philistines came and disputed.
5 'Au.aBres iporpaSe7s. 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 chooses, which ought not to be done." Other protests are
to be found in Theophilus, Pasch. i. ; Epiphan. Ep. ad Joan. Jerosol. 2 ;
Haer. 64, § 4 ; Jer. Ep. 61 ; Basil, Hcxaem. 9 ; Aug. De Civ. Dei, xiii. 21,
&c. (Huet, Origeniana, qu. 13). The language of the Clementine Homilies (iii.
9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 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 tabernaculum suum in sole " (Ps. xix. 4), which
they interpreted to mean that He had left in the sun His mortal dwelling
(o-K-rivau.a), i.e. His body.

Ephraem 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.6 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 Koivtf, and was
used in Constantinople, Asia Minor, and Antioch.6 The
presbyter Dorotheus was not only a student of classic
literature, but acquired the 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. 381. 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.
2 In his treatise on Martyrdom, 29. (&W& Se rdxa ISapirepov airetv
Xe\i\B6ras. )
4 "EXeyxos r&v 'AXX-qyopirrriov. It was written in the interest of the
Chiliasts (Euseb. H. E. vii. 24), and was answered by Dionysius the Great in
his two books rrepl iirayyeXirav.
6 The martyr Pamphilus, the ardent admirer and champion of Origen,
founded a great library and a theological school at Caesarea. Euseb. H. E.
vii. 32.
6 His MSS. were called AovKiaveia, Jer. Catal. 77. See Routh, Rel. Sacr,
iv. 3 ; Westcott on the Canon, p. 392 ; Westc. and Hort, Greek Test. ii. 138 ;
De Broglie, L'figlisc et VEmpire, i. 375 ; Newman, Arians, p. 414.
7 Euseb. H. E. vii. 32 ; Neander, ii. 528 ; Gieseler, i. 247. P

210 School of Antioch.
menting on tho 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 ! x 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 passagej
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 Anttochene 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 merits and defects of Ephraem Syrus, see the admirable mono
graph of Caesar v. Lengerke, De Ephr. Syri arte hermeneutica, especially
pp. 160 sq. and pp. 168 sq. (Kbnigsb. 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 mystic;il 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 establishing
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. 9-11, by Cyril of Alexandria (t 444).
The "palanquin" is 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 Ginsburg, Song
of Songs, p. 67. It is astonishing that any one should support such theories of
the meaning of 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
element 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 to the sacred word, but pre
conceived and pre-established as a divine one by themselves, thus foisting
into the Bible what was not really there," iv. 11. p 2

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 theory
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 (f 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 Thus Irenaeus attributes St. Paul's hyperbata to the vehemence of his
spirit (Haer. iii. 7). Tertullian supposes a growth of restraint and knowledge
in the mind of St. Paul (Paulus adhuc in gratia rudis, ferventer ut adhuc
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
("Ut homo, et adhuc vasculo elausus infirmo"). Even Augustine speaks of
the Evangelists writing ' ' Ut quisque meminerat vel ut cuique cordi fuerat. "
Neander, iv. 10-13.
2 " Si quis Faciamus homincm 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. ; Harduin, i. 702. See Rosenmiiller, Hist. Interp.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 Ncstorius. See Schaff, Ch.
Hist. ii. 816. To this school belong Ephraem Syrus, Eusebius of Emesa (on
whom there are monographs by Augusti and Thilo), Chrysostom, Severianus,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret.
4 Theodoret, HE. v. i.

Theodore of Mopsuestia. 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.6 In his theory of types
1 The anathemas are not in the genuine Acts of the Council. He is
defended by Facundus 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.
2 Socrates, H. E. vi. 3. Ai6Sapos Se . . . iroXXa fiifixla (rvveypa\f/e i^iXy
rip ypdp.piaTt tuv Beiwv Karexoiv yparp&v, ttjs Bewptas avrrav iKrpeir6uevos.
Sozomen, H. E. viii. 2. Ai6Swpos tv iirv86u.nv iSlcav rjvyypau.u.draiv iroXKas
KaraXi-tretv fiifiXovs, irepl Se rb [nrrbv rrav lepuv x6yuv ras i\ny-haeis iroi4io~ary-
Bai ttjs Beap'ias airorpvy6vra. Jer. Catal. 119.
3 rls Siarpopa Beapias nal aXXnyoplas. Suidas, s.v. Ai6S. By 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. 43, comp.
Amos V. 26) rparrl Se rbv '¥.a>o-<p6pov ovrai Kara, rotv 'Efipalwv KaXeirrBat
yKwrrav. Any Jew could have told him that the word is not Hebrew at all
but Egyptian.
5 The name Qeren Happuk is rendered Cornustibium in the Vulg., and
Gregory the Great derives it from cornu and tibia! See Merx, Joel, p. 101.
Theodori Ep. Mops, in, Epp. B. Pauli Commentarii, ed. H. B. Swete, Cambr.
1880. Some of Theodore's commentaries were long attributed by mistake to
Ambrose, and to Hilary of Poictiers, writers to whom he has not the least
resemblance. Dr. Hort's discovery of the true authorship, given in Journ.
of Class, and Sacr. Philol. iv. 302, is mentioned in Bishop Lightfoot's Gala
tians, p. 219.
6 In Habak. ii. 11, where the LXX. has the curious word KdvBapos, which
misled so many commentators, Theodore contents himself with saying that

214 Theodore of Mopsuestia.
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 Thus on Eph. iv. 1 0 (6 KaraQas avr6s irxriv Kal S ava/ias) he denies that
this is true literally ; and on Col. i. 13 persuades himself that Christ's
"adoption" of manhood is involved in ttjs ayairr)s, that iv avrtp 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 rpparpta for rrarpid. In Eph. ii. 22 he comments
on arpr) not olKoSoprj.
3 Photius, Cod. 4, but he calls him rals Siavoiais real rois iirixeipr)p.affi Xlav
r.\iKv6s, Kal rals yparpiKais apirrra irXovruv p.aprvpiats.
4 Swetc, p. lxv.

"The Exegete." 215
Exegete " of the early Church, as Theodoret is the Annotator
and Chrysostom 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 x 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 (lStcojj.ara) 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 Epistles 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
about Tarshish, B:>thrus (LXX. for "Vp Am. ix. 7), &c, he flings aside as
irepirrr] axpi&oXoyia.
2 Ambrose says that Origen was " longe minor in Novo Testamento," but in
spite of prolixity he is in fact better as a New Testament than as an Old Tes
tament exegete, and his notes on the use of words (John i. 3 ; iv. 35, 44, &e.)
are often excellent. See Dr. Sanday in Expositor, xi. 371.
3 Questions as to
"Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auspiciis, cur, quomodo, quando."

216 School of Antioch.
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 " (evBoKia), 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 (dvola<! t?)? e'o-%aT?7<j) to
1 See the excellent remarks of Sieffert, Theod. Mops. V. T. sobrie interpre-
tandi vindex, 1827, and Munter, De Schola Antiochena, 1811. The monograph
of Fritzsche, De Theod. Mops. Vita et Scriptis (1836), is printed in Migne's
Patrologia, vol. Ixvi.
2 Facundus of Hermiane (Def. 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 Ezechiam retulit, tribus tantum [viii. xlv. ex.] ad Dominum 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,
though once used by St. Paul by way of passing illustration, is
unknown to the other Apostles, and is never sanctioned by
Christ.1 But Christ 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 between parabolic
teaching and allegorical interpretation.

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
Plistory 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
(Kr/Se/jtovla) 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 (oIkovojxIcC) the facts were themselves
a dim revelation of the future, and that the Prophets were
led by divine inspiration to express what they saw in larger
terms (vTrepftoXucoorepop) 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 rpavraalav
riva roiV u.eXX6vrwv.
2 The phrases he uses closely resemble those of Calvin. If Calvin says that
the sacred writers " apply " this or that passage to Christ, "pid deflectionc,"
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 aria to
rxaifia (u.eraXXa^as ovv avrrjv as iK irpoo-rinrov rov Xptffrov raiirri rpnmv avrl rov
utrla, aa>u.a). He uses the words o-vyxpycBai, Karaxprto-Bai, 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.

Theodoret. 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 Aphraates,
Eusebius o'f Emesa, and possibly Adrianus : among his successors his younger
brother Polychronius Bishop of Apamea (t 430) and Severianus Bishop of
Gabala (see Schrbck, x. 458, Cave, i. 375).
2 On Theodoret see Schrbck, xviii. 398 sq. ; Rosenmiiller, iv. 93 ; Merx,
Joel, p. 147, fg. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 226. There is a monograph by
Richter, De Theodoreto Ep. Paulin. interprete, 1822 ; and another by Specht,
Der exegetische Standpunkt Theodor's und Theodoret s.
On Theodore's writings, of which we now possess some complete works in
the original, see Fritzsche, De Theod. Mops. Vita et scriptis, Halae, 1836.
Ernesti, Opusc. Theol. 502 ; Sieffert, Theod. Mops. V. Test, sobrie intcrpretandi
vindex, 1827; Diestel, pp. 129-133 ; Merx, Joel, pp. 110-141 ; and the excellent
introduction of the Rev. H. B. Swete to the edition of his Commentaries on
IU Epistles of St. Paul. The savage attack on him by Leontius may be read in
Gallandi, Bibl. Patr. xii. 686 (Libidinose pro sua et mente et lingua merctricia
ivterpretatus, sua supra modum incredibili audacia ex libris sacris abscidit,"
&c). The style of the theological criticism of partisans was as violent aud
vulgar then as it has always been. It is to be feared, however, that Theodore
in part provoked it by his own stinging expressions. For notices of the writers
of the Antiochene School in general, see Rosenmiiller, iii. 250. The merits
of Theodore have been fully admitted by Merx (Joel, pp. 110-141), Bishop
Lightfoot (Galatians, p. 220), and Dr. Sanday (Expositor, vol. xi.).
3 Reuss, Gesch. § 521.

220 The Cappadocians.
Nazianzus, followed in exegesis a via media. Their profound
admiration of Origen is proved by the publication of the
Philokalia, 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 Homilist, 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, mueh like those who profess to interpret
dreams ; " and that " some have tried by I know not what allurements and
figures of speech to get the Scriptures credit for a kind of dignity which is in
fact of their own devising," and " under the show of interpretation to introduce
matters of their own." — Hexaem. ix. 1.
2 See Forster, Chrysostomus in seinen Verhaltniss zur Antiochenischer
Schule, 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 struggle,
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,6 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." 7
" Natan profeta l'metropolitano
Crisostomo ed Anselmo."
1 He was dependent mainly on the Seventy, but sometimes refers (without
name) to Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila.
2 He makes however excellent grammatical remarks on John xii. 39 ; 2 Cor.
iii. 17 ; Gal. i. 18, iv. 5, v. 15 ; Eph. i. 10. See Dr. Sanday in The Expositor,
xii. 134 fT.
3 He recognises allegory in theory (Horn, in 1 Cor. xxxix.) but for the most
part avoids it in practice (see Fbrster, Chrysost. in seinen Verhaltniss, &c.
p. 21 ; Diestel, p. 135.)
4 In Isai. v. 3 and vi.
6 " 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
ful illustrations from the notes of the Catena Aurea, on the narrative of the
Transfiguration. 6 See his notes on Ps. lxiv. and Horn, 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 tbe 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,6 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
1 He gives his via media theory on Ps. xlvi. rd re ala-Brjrb. voovvres Kal ri
vonra eKSexb'p.evoi, and on Ps. cix. rer, p.ev irpoolp.ia els erepov, ra Se Xeiiripeva
els aXXov Xey6p.evd eariv. This indefiniteness is at any rate better than base
less fancies.
2 See Horn, in Matt. 26 ; Bbhringer, Chrysost. p. 158.
3 rriv aKoXovBiav rrav elpnp.evwv.
4 " Er hat's," said Luther, who admired him more than any of the Fathers,
" sensus literalis, der thut's, da ist Leben, Kraft, und Wahreit drinnen."
5 Horn, in Gen. xvii.
6 Apol. c. Rufin. iii. 6. "Ego philosophus, rhetor, grammaticus, dialecti-
cus, Hebraeus, 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.8 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 Eustochium, Catal. 135. " Cui jugis
adversus malos pugna, perpetuumque certamen," says Sulp. Severus, who
stayed six months with him at Bethlehem (Dial. i. 4). He adds "Totus
semper in lectione, totus in libris est ; non die, non nocte requiescit ; aut
legit aliquid semper, aut scribit."
2 In Jerome and in Tertullian may be found a fire which is wanting even in
Cicero. See Erasmus, Epp. v. 19 ; Ozanam (Hist, de la Civilisat. chret. ii. 100)
calls him " Le maitre de la prose chretienne pour tous lessiecles suivans." See
Zockler, Hieron. pp. 323-340.
3 On the Vulgate translation and its high importance see Hody, De Text.
Bibl. ; Routh (quoted in Expositor, xii. 217). The articles on the Vulgate by
Westcott in Smith's Dictionary, and Fritzsche in Herzog, xvii. 422, are of
great value.
4 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, Diet, 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 noeturnum habui doctorem ;
timebat enim Judaeos et mihi alterum exhibebat Nicodemum." Rufinus,
Apol. ii. 12. " Barabbam, ejus de Synagoga magistrum." He also alludes
to a Rabbi at Lydda, whose teaching was very expensive, and another from
Tiberias. Praef. in Osee ; Praef. in Chron.; in Esaiam, xiii. 10 ; xxii. 1, &c.
It is from the Haggada that he gets tbe rendering, "in igne Chaldaeorum,"
for "in XJr of the Chaldees," Gen. xi. 28.
3 His " pius labor sed perieulosa praesumptio" was undertaken at the
request of Damasus (t 384). See Clericus, Quaest. Hieron. (1700).
4 Reuss, Gesch. d. N. T. §§ 449, 453. Engelstoft, Hieronymus (1797) ;
Schrbck, 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 auetor 70 cellulas Alexandriae mendacio suoextruxerit." Comm.
in Mich. ii. 9. ' ' Interpretatio LXX. (si tamen LXX. est, Josephus enim
scribit quinque tantum libros ab eis translates). " Praef. in Paralip. "70
cellulas quae vulgo sine auctore jactantur." See too Praef. in Dan. lib. ii. ;
in Rufin. 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 " encurbita," 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
he absolutely, and even contemptuously, rejected the extra-
canonical Christian writings which had sometimes been
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 he
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 serious
drawbacks of overhaste, second-handness, vehement prejudice,
and incessant vacillation.
a. Of his own haste he has given us repeated proofs, which
take the form of excuses.4 In his various prefaces he tells us
§ 35; Klausen, Augustinus, 84. Augustine says, "Latinorum interpretum
infinita varietas." De Doctr. Christ, ii. 2.
1 In point of fact, however, he made large use of the Septuagint, as well
as of the version of Symmachus and others. 2 Morinus, Exerc. Bibl. vi. 12.
3 See his remarks on 4 Esdras in his letter to Vigilantius.
4 These excuses occur very frequently in his letters. He would have done
better to follow the rule of Marcus Aurelius, who tells us that he had learnt
Q

226 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 fr actus. 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 dictare quodcunque in buccam veneritf 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.6
from the Platonist Alexander "never to sayin aletter that I have no leisure,"
1. . 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 debes imputare sed tibi, et imperitae
notariorum librariorumque incuriae. "
1 He calls it " commaticum interpretandi genus." The 244 verses of Tobit,
the 339 of Judith, occupied him but a single day. " Hieronymus laborantissi-
mus et desudatissimus. " Notker, Virr. ill.
2 Ep. 73, ad Evangelum, c. 10 ; Praef. in Matthczum.
3 Praef. in libb. Salom. At the close of his letter to Fabiola (Ixiv. De
Veste sacerdotali) he says (§ 23), "Satis intelligens magis me loquendi impetu,
quam judicio scribentis fiuere, et more torrentis turbidum proferre ser-
rnonem." 4 See Zockler, 377.
6 Ep. 84, ad Pammach. et Ocean. § 3. "Nostrum marsupium chartae
Alexandrinae evacuarunt. "

His Defects. 227
b. It was partly due to this want of reflexion and this hurried
volummousness of production that Jerome's method is too
much that of a compiler. He tells us x 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 Didymus (whom, in allusion to his
blindness, he calls Videntem menm), 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 Une of his controversial writings,
in which, with the vain excuse that there was a difference
between saying a thing doctrinally (807/iaTtKoj?) and saying it
controversially (yv/jtvaa-rticayf;), 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 style of interpretation which he theoretically repudiates.4
Nothing, for instance, can be more grossly sophistical than his
way of distorting 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
seen in his Ep. 57, ad Pammachium ("Libellus de optimo genere interpre-
tandi scripturas ") and in his answer to Rufinus. They are not so good as
those of Augustine, though he surpassed Augustine as a commentator.
2 Ep. 73, ad Evangelum, § 2 ; Ep. 119, ad Minerv. et Ales. ; Ep. 70, ad
Magnum, §§ 4, 5, where he quotes thirty-three Greek and eight Latin Fathers.
Zbckler, 154. An immense mass of ancient exegetical matter has perished.
See Diestel, 110. In his Prooem. in Matt. Jerome says that he had no time to
read the older writers.
3 Donaldson, Apostol. Fathers, ii. 19.
4 Thus he constantly violates the admirable rule which he lays down in his
letter to Paulinus "not to distort expressions and wrest reluctant Scripture
into agreement with one's own fancies." Ep. 53, § 7. Comp. Ep. 48, § 15.
(I refer throughout to Vallarsi's 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,
when 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
great measure the outcome of these other faults, is his total
lack of exegetic decision. He shows again and again, both
1 C. Jovin. i. 16.
2 C. Jovin. i. 26.
3 Pet. Damian. De perfect. Monach. (Zockler, p. 201).
4 Ep. 118, § 4, ad Julian. Cum reti cam et navicula dereliquit.
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, Rufinus, 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 disciplinary " for " Adorate
Filium" in Psalm ii. 12,1 and in Psalm cxxvii. 4 "filii
excussorum" for "filii juvenhttis'' the meaning accepted by
Aquila, 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 says
that " we are- not in this place to think of the heavenly
Jerusalem as many persons ridiculously suppose." 6 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." 6
1 Adv. Rufinum, lib. i. 19 ; " Quid igitur peccavi, qui in commentariolis,
ubi libertas est disserendi, dixeram 'adorate filium,' in ipso corporene violentus
viderer interpres et Judaicae calumniae locum darem ' adorate pure, sive electe,'
quod Aquila quoque et Symmachus transtulerunt ? " See Zockler, p. 363, n.
2 A.V. " children of the youth," i.e. sons of early married life, LXX.
oi viol rS>v iKrerivayu-evaiv. Ep. 34, ad Marcellum, § 3, "Ubi nos habemus
sicut filii excussorum," &c. Aquila " filii pubertatum." Symm. Theodot.
filii juventutis. On this subject see R. Simon, Hist. Crit. des Versions du
N.T. cap. vii. ; Erasmi Schol. in lib. Hicr. adv. Helvid., and Zockler, p. 123.
3 Rufinus says that Jerome had translated more than seventy homiletic
books of Origen. See his Epp. 62, ad Tranquil!,., and 33, ad Paulam. Jerome
says "In Origene miramur scientiam Seripturarum, et tamen dogmatum non
recipimus falsitatem, " c. Buf. iii. 27.
4 Ep. ad Heliodor. 60, § 3, " Et visa sunt in coelesti Jerusalem." Origen,
Eusebius, and Hilary were of this opinion.
5 Ep. 46, §7. "Nee statim Hierosolyma coelestis, sicut plerique ridicule
arbitrantur, in hoc loco intelligitur. "
6 Comm. in Matt. x. 23 ; for some of his mistakes and self-contradictions
see Daille, bk. ii. c. 4, and Gilly's Vigilantius, pp. 25P-270. To take an
instance with which we are familiar in modern days : — when a Bishop dis
agrees with you "Nihil interest inter Presbyterum et Episcopum ; " but when
he agrees with you " Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent."

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.8 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.6 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 absolve the guilty " quum apud Deum
non sententia sacerdotum sed reorum vita quaeratur."
2 Comm. in Ezech. xi. ; in Jer. xxi. 2 ; Ep. 21, § 13. " Haec si secundum
literam intelligimus, 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. See Tholuck translated in
Journ. sacr. Lit. July 1863. Neander, Hist, of Doctrines, i. 280.
4 See Ep. 72, § 5. " Quid enim prodest haerere in litera et vel scriptoris
errorem vel annorum seriem calumniari quum manifestissime scribatur Litera
occidit ? "
5 On Mark i. 2 ; ii. 25 ; Matt, xxvii. 9 ; Ep. 57, ad Pammach. §§ 7-9.
6 Ep. 121, ad Algas. 7-11 ; Comm. in Acts xxvi. 6 ; Gal. iii. 1 ; iv. 24 ;

His Self-Contradiction. 231
Hebrew the plural of " seed " has a totally different sense from
the singular,1 and that berith never means " will." 2 He comes
to the extraordinary conclusion that, the Galatians being
foolish, St. Paul makes himself foolish by way of accommoda
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.6 He does not make the smallest attempt to co
ordinate his lax expressions with his orthodox assertions. The
latter 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 scripturae verba singida sacramenta
sunt." 7 In many places he entirely disparages allegory as mere

vi. 2 ; Eph. iii. 3, 8 ; Zockler, 429-431. He says that St. Paul sometimes
wrote sermone trivii. See Ep. 120, ad Hedib. qu. 11 ; Ep. ad Algas.
qu. 10.
1 Comm. in Gal. iv. 24. z Comm. in Gal. iii. 15.
3 Nothing is so grossly offensive among Jerome's many faults as his
belief in the permissibility of ifalsiias dispensativa which he betrayed in the
shocking theory that the scene between St. Paul and St. Peter at Antioch was
collusive "ut hypocrisis conceptionis hypocrisi emendaretur." He says of
St. Paul, " quam artifex, quam prudens, quam dissimulator sit ejus quod
agit." See his letter to Pammachius in defence of his treatise against Jovinian ;
and the fine criticism of Augustine Ep. ad Hieron. de reprehenso Petro. On
the harm done by this doctrine of "accommodation" see Ribof, De Economia
Patrum, and Coleridge, The Friend, Ess. v.
4 In Gal. v. 12. " Nee mirum esse si apostolus, ut homo, et adhuc vasculo
clausus infirmo, vidensque aliam legem in corpore suo . . . semel fuerit hoc
locutus, &c." And again, "In vernaculo sermone doctissimus, profundos
sensus aliena lingua exprimere non valebat." Comm. in Tit.
6 In Matt. xxi. 4. " Ubi materia vel turpitudinem habeat vel impossibilitatem
adaltioratransmittimur." Comp. Comm. in Gal. v. 12.
6 Comm. in Eph. iii. 9 ; in Mich. vii. 7 ; Ep. 27, 1 ; in Esaiam, 29 ; ad
Marcell. Ep. 46/4 ; ad Mareell. in Matt. xiii.
7 Prol. in Es. v. 10 ; ad Ps. xci. ; 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.6 And yet,
after repeated remarks of this kind, he talks of the turpitudo
litterae, 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 Jer. 27. "Delirat allegoricus in-
terpres." . . " Nos qui ista con temnimus quasi pro brutis habent animalibus
et vocant irnXovmaTas." Comp. Ep. ad Pammach. 84, § 9.
2 Comm. in Ezech. c. 16, init.
3 Praef. 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 literae dormitanti."
6 Ep. 120, § 12, ad Hedibiam; 1 Ep. 64, § 9 ; adv. Lueif 27, &c; Ep. 121,
ad Algas. § 2. He quotes Prov. xxii. 20, " descripsi ea tripliciter," and refers
it to History, Tropology and the spiritual sense.
7 Praef. lib. vi. in Esai. ; Ep. 64, ad Fabiolam; Comm. in Osee, c. 10, &c.
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," are
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 Charybdis of literalism,
whereas in reality his " multiple senses " and " whole forests
of spiritual meanings " are not worth one verse of the original.4
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.' Ep. 52, adNepotian.
§ 2 ; yet he takes it literally, c. Jovin. i. 24. He calls Deut. xxi. 12, 13
" ridiculous " if taken literally. Tamar, Rahab, Delilah, Bathsheba, are all
allegorised. 2 On Ecc. iv. 1, " If two sleep together they will be warm," he thinks it
necessary to refer to Elisha raising the son of the Shunamite ! In his Ep. 21
ad Damas. § 6, "He divided unto them his living" becomes "He gave
them free will."
3 Eph. iv. 26.
4 What Du Pin says of Paulinus is even more true of Jerome. "He
interlaced his discourses with endless texts and often gave them a forced
meaning." Ann. Eccl. iii. 449. 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 Mbhler, 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 o-reater 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.6 But when we 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.Rufin.l. " Commentarii quid operis habent ? Alterius dicta edisserunt,
multorum sententias replicant," Prooem. in Gal. "Legi haec omnia, et in
mente mea plurima eoacervans acpito notario vel mea vel aliena dictavi."
Prooem. in Matt. " Omnes legere qui in Evangelia scripserunt, deinde, adhi-
bito jndicio, quae optima sunt excerpere, " and Prooem. in Eph. see Praef. lib.
i. Comm. in Jer em., where he answers the objections of Grynaeus (as he rudely
calls Rufinus) and "indoctus calumniator" (Pelagius). R. Simon, Comment.
du N. T. 230 ; Clericus, Quaest. Hieron. p. 493. On St. Jerome's life and
works see Engelstoft, Hieronymus ; Amed^e Thierry, St. Jerome, 1867 ; Zockler,
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. o. 19, Trench,
p. 15.
3 De Civ. Dei, xiii. 21.
4 De Ver. Rel. 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.-xvil, where he speaks of seven periods, of
which the creative week was a type. This is the first attempt to treat Old
Testament theology. Oehler, Theol. of Old Testament, i. 26-30 (E. T.).
6 His De Doctr. Christ, is practically an exegetical treatise (praecepta trac-
tandarum Seripturarum).
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. Patr. 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 G. Adim. iii. 4. He corrects the " nulla quae illis veteribus libris desint "
into "paene nulla" in tbe Retract, i. 22, § 2 ; comp. Tert. O. Marc. iv. Such

His Versatility. 235
He actually 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 aud 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 insight, 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, De Doctr. Christ, ii. § 22.
2 Thus, as Liebner points out, Hugo of St. Victor who first united and
reconciled the principles of scholasticism and mysticism, was called Lingua
Augustini, and Alter Augustinus (see Trench, p. xii.).
3 " Scrip tura sacra . . . omnibus accessibilis quamvis paucissimis pene-
trabilis." Ep. 137, §18. " Ut exciperet omnes populari sinu." Conf. vi. 5,§8.
4 See proofs of these facts in Owen, Evenings with the Sceptics, 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 panharmonic,
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. 181 ; Flottes, Eludes 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, and gave it up.
2 De Doctr, Christ, iii. 10 : "Scriptura non asserit nisi fidem catholicam."
Perhaps the most startling instance of the crude eeclesiasticism, which in
creased as Augustine grew older, is his remark, "Ego vero Evangclio non
erederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoverit auctoritas." Ep. c. 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 a? the way 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 flow as it may find the vessel that is brought to be capable of."
4 C. Adimant. xiv. § 2 : " Istorum fraus qui particulas quasdam e Scripturis
eligunt quibus decipiant imperitos, non connectentes quae supra et infra
scripta sunt, ex quibus voluntas et intentio scriptoris possit intelligi. " 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 of 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
of 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
books 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 "Inspiratus a Deo sed tamen homo," in Joann. tract. 1, § 1.
2 Conf. vii. 21, De Gen. ad Litt. v. 8 ; see Trench, p. 50.
3 De Doctr. Christ, iii. § 37, whence it passed into the Summa of St. Thomas
i. Qu. 1, Art. 10.
4 De Doctr. Christ, iii. § 14 : " Quidquid in sermone divino neque ad morum
honestatem neque ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest figuratum esse
cognoscas." 5 He adopts the unfortunate notion that all sorts of explanations must be
admissible, because the Holy Spirit must have foreseen them (id. ib. 32). The
heretics might have urged the same 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 knoiueth his going
down " becomes Christ, who was aware of His own death ;
"the beasts that get them aivay together " become persecutors
who dare not show themselves in the days of Christ's prosperity.
If the Psalmist says, " I laid me down, and slept, and rose up
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 ! 4 Even the Gospels are not safe from this faithless
invasion of predetermined dogmatism.6 " No sober person,"
says one writer; " can believe that our Lord really had his feet
anointed by a -jfg'man 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. 2 In Ps. cxxxvi. 3.
3 De 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 acproprio literae sensu
ad extortas 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 Peccat. Remiss, i. 19.
6 "Aliud dicitur ut (!) aliud intelligatur. " See De Doctr. Christ, iii.
§§ 32-40. 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 allegorists, in spite of protest,2
were completely victorious. The School of Antioch was
who from the words " in meridie " (" at noon ") in Cant. i. 7, argued that the
Church was only in the south, and defended the rebaptising of heretics from
the strange mistranslation of the Vulg. in Ps. cxli. 5. But his own allegories
are quite as baseless. >
1 On Augustine's work as a commentator see Klausen, Aurel. Augustinus,
S. S. interpres. Abp. Trench, Aug. as an interpreter of Scripture (Sermon on
the Mount) ; Breithaupt, Institutio hermen. ex Aug. libris conquisita ; Kilon,
1605. His theoretical rules were excellent, if he had but been faithful to
them. Thus he says : 1. Scripturae scopus est dilectio Dei. 2. Codices emcn-
dandi sunt. 3. We must decide whether the sense is literal or mystic. 4.
We must consider tbe context. 5. Obscura per apertiora explicanda. 6.
Geography, &c, must be studied. 7. The original is important (but the LXX.
is to be preferred even to the Hebrew !). 8. Distingue tempora ei concordabis
Scripturas, <fa
2 See Rosenmiiller, iii. 147.

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 Euxherius,2 to the secondhandness of
Cassiodorus (t 562), and the interminable tedium of Gregory
the Great (t 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
homiletic 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 Ru
finus. 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 Julian of Eclane to Theodore of Mopsuestia, but as their opinions
were condemned as heretical their exegesis had little influence. Liicke,
Grundriss, p. 45 ; Walch, Ketzereyen, iv. 51 9.
2 Eucherius, Liber formularum spiritualis intelligentiae.
3 See some severe remarks on the Moralia in Hampden, Bampt; Lect. 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) &c. &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
tKeirswhole being with the inspired words. Their whole soul
is stirredsand 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 ra> 6em Trdvrojv eve/ca 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
R

242 The Fathers.
men whose names are in the Book of Life." 1 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 gre'at family of God.
1 See the fine passage quoted by Bishop Jeremy Taylor, " Via Intelligentiae,"
adfin.

6 yap aXXu pev dyopevav rpoiros, erepa 8e &v Xeyei rrr]palva>v, eiravvpais
'AXXnyopm KaXelrai. — Heraclides Posticus, Allegg. Homer.
Hv ore f/Kpa^e ra rjperepa Kal KaXSs el^ev, rjvUa to phi irepirrbv rovro ml
KareykaTTio-pevov rrjs deoXoyias Kal evrexv°v oiSe irapoSov el\ev els ras
Beias avkas. — Greg. Kaz. Orat. xxi.
" Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis." — Aug.
De Gen. ad lit. c. v.
" Philosophia 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 haec Scholastica, quanta quanta est, magis Ethnica quam
Christiana est, non ex S. Literis hausta, sed ex Aristotelis Metaphysica
consuta et conflata ; quae multo plus habet rixarum philosophicarum
quam Christianae pietatis. " — Grotius, De studiis instituendis (1645),
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 l'on s'imagine savoir ce qu'on ne sait pas." — Arnauld, Logique de
Port Boyal.
" Eine Speculation auf diirrer Heide, eine Dialektik ohne das erforder-
liche Materiale der Kenntniss, ein Formalismus ohne Fiille des Inhaltes
und ohne Freiheit der Bewegvmgen."- — Klausen, Hermen. p. 190.

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
say 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 rrxoXao-TiKbs is first found in a letter of Theophrastus, ap. Diog.
Laert. v. 20 ; Scholasticus in Petronius. In the 'Aareia of the Pseudo-
Hierocles it is surrounded with grotesque associations. But it is perhaps
simplest to derive the word " scholasticism " from the schools of Charlemagne.
See Haureau, Philos. Scholastique, i. 7 ; Brucker, Hist. Phil. iii. 710. In
Art. 13 the Schoolmen are called "the School Authors." On the connection
between Patristic and Scholastic systems, see Ueberwcg, Hist, of Philos.
i. 262.

246 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 Fortuhatus (t 609), though a leading poet
1 Homiletics 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 misinterpreteTS. 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. ¦ Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. Prooem. Compare Lupus, Ep. 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 Grammati-
cam quibusdam exponere ! . . . Quam grave nefandumque ! " Greg. M. Epp.
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. 247
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 pensie modeme."
Then it was that the teaching of the Trivium and the
Quadrivium 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 ; wheu 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 as being "in actual progress," and 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 Buch ")
thinks it "unworthy to bind the heavenly utterances by the rules of
Donatus." He says, "Primum quidem fundamenta Historiae ponirnus ;
deinde per significatorem typicam in arcem fidei fabric-am mentis erigimus ;
ad extremum quoque per moralitatis gratiam quasi superducto aedificium
colore vestimus." Ep. ad Leandrum.
1 Hist. Lit. de France, ii. For the facts mentioned in the foregoing para
graphs see Haureau, Hist, de la Philos. Scholastique, i. 1-16. Hallam,
Middle Ages, iii. 418. Bouquet, Rer. Gallic. Script, vol. v. Even Alcuin
grew up to disparage as "polluting" the study of Virgil. Vita (Migue) ;
Maitland, Dark Ages, p. 179.
2 The three arts of grammar, dialectics, and rhetoric, aud the four sciences
of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. See J. Bass Mullinger, The
Schools of Charles the Great (1877). Brucker, iii. 957. Haureau (i. 21)
attributes the classification to Martianus Capella, but it is as old as Augustine
(De Ordine, 13). See J. Gow, Short Hist, of Greek Mathematics, p. 72 (1884).
Leon Maitre, I,es ffccoles de V Occident ; Monnier, Alcuin et son influence.
Manset, Art. Logic. Rudimenta, p. 28.

248 The Venerable Bede.
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 (ae'ipai, rrvXXoyal, epprpieiuv iiriTopat), like those of
Cassiodorus, Primasius, Sedulius, Florus 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 iu commenting on "Liber generationis Jesu
Christi" he tells us "liber" also means "free," and " the bark of the tree ; "
and he derives panis from irav. "Scripturi maxime quae in Patrum exemplis
invenimus hinc inde collecta ponere curabimus, sed et nonnulla propria ubi
opportunum videbitur interponemus " (Prol. in Marc).
2 Bede, Hist. Eccl. Introd. Ou John Damascene's commentaries see Lupton,
pp. 156 sq.
3 William of Malmesbury.
4 As he shows, especially in his Retractationes.
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. B. 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
ginning of Samuel the Vulgate has Fuit vir unus, et nomen
ejus Elcana. Bede makes a mystery of the units, 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 ? 1 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 temeritas, and their ingeniolum, 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
Interrogations with which he is occupied are often as idle as
1 Such remarks show that allegory was the daughter of rationalism. So
Sixtus Senensis asks ' ' Quid juvat scire antiquorum Judaeorum bella et sedi-
tiones ? " and makes this a potent argument for allegorising. Bibl. Sanct.
[De duplici sensu).
2 " Si quis eundem allegorice novit interpretari quantum poma foliis tantum
interiorem ejus sensum videt simplicitati literae praestare."
3 Bede was himself reckoned afterwards among the Fathers. William of
Conches says, "Non est fas Bedae vel aliaui alii sanctorum Patrum contra-
diccre " (ap. Cousin, CEuvres Ined. d'Abel. p. 673).

250 Maurus.
the Eesponsioncs are valueless, and he, too, most humbly
prostrates his intellect at the feet of the Fathers — Cautissimo
stylo providens ne quid contrarium Patrum sensibus ponerem.
The works of Haymo of Halberstadt, and Rabanus Maurus
(t 856) are equally servile, and the latter unconsciously
exposed the futility of the allegoric method by the alphabetic
register (Liber Allegoriarum), in which he tried to reduce it
to system.1 He tells us that he compilsd his commentary
on the Epistles from eleven Latin and three Greek Fathers
(Prol. inMatih.). Paschasius Radbertus (t 865) 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 suficiat tibi,
in Marco pedissequo Matthaei Baeda pedissequus 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 praeceptor,"
not as an Exegete.
2 A distinction must be made between glosses (glossae, Postillac, iiriropal,
rrvXXoyal, rrvvaywyal eppnveiZov, i£wyi}a-eis avXXeyelo-ai, &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 Caten.
New Testament.
3 The Quaestiones of Photius (t 890), and the compilations of Procopius of
Gaza (sixth century), of Oecumenius (tenth century, chiefly from Chrysostom),

The Closses. 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
Rectruda, daughters of Charlemagne, wrote to ask Alcuin for
a commentary on St. John, they never dreamed of asking for
anything original but said " Collige multorum margaritas."
Yet the Glossa ordinaria of Walafrid Strabo (f 849) acquired
such extraordinary popularity that it was called Lingita
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), and Euthymius Zigaebenus (twelfth cen
tury), in the Greek Church have a higher value. See Fabricius, Bibl. Graec.
vii. 727 ; Buddeus, Isag. p. 1422 ; Walch, Bibl. Med. iv. 192 fg. ; Elster,
De Med. Aevi Theolog. 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, hinc atque
hinc eonsareinatis 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 vel scripta sunt ab inopia judicii scribunt et referunt ;
proponunt enim omnia quia nesciunt praef erre meliora," &c. Metalog. ii. 7.
For a more favourable view see Newman's Pref. to the Catena Aurea, and
Ancient Saints, chap. v.
1 See Glossen and Exeget. Sammlungen 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 ! See too Hieron. Magius, De mundi
exustione (1562), p. 9. Milton, even in his day, complains of the use made
by the clergy of " interlinearies . . . and other loitering gear." There were
nine editions of the Glossa between 1472 and 1634.
2 Contemporary with Walafrid was his teacher, Rabanus Maurus (t 856),
the author of the Liber Allegoriarum. He speaks of himself as " Col-
lectarius quidam," and in his Prologue to St. Matthew tells us that his com
mentary is composed of extracts from eleven Latin and three Greek 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 manufacture was easy. See too Hist. Lit. de France, v. 62. The Douay
edition of the Glossa Ordinaria says that all succeeding writers used to consult
it " tamquam cffici-aam ecclesiasticorum 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 Pethuel" 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 Eruditio 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 (t 1489) when tired of the iteration of
the Summistae used to cross the Rhine and read tbe MSS. of Rupert in the
Abbey of Deutz.
2 Erudit. 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 agaiust 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. Fredegisii, xii. 277). The passage is quoted by Mr.
Poole (Med. Thought, 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 Keuter (Rel. Auferkldrung im Mittelalter, i. 24) calls him
"the clearest head of the ninth century." On this period see R. Simon,
Hist, des Comment, pp. 422-468 ; Buddeus, Isagoge, lib. ii. cap. 8.

Erigena. 253
masses 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 Scottjs Erigena.
Scholasticism practically sprang 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 Rosceiin 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 written tradition, and
henceforth there is a uniform invariable character as well as substance of
Scripture interpretation." Pref. to Catena Aurea, p. ii. The lexicographers
Hesyehius, Suidas, Phavorinus, Zonaras, &c, are not exegetes but furnish
good materials.
2 Scholasticism may be divided into three epochs. 1. From Anselm (t 1109)
to Peter Lombard (t 1164). 2. From Peter Lombard to the death of Albertus
Magnus (t 1280). 3. From the beginning of the thirteenth century to Gabriel
Biel (t 1495). Haureau divides it, 1. From Alcuin to the end of the twelfth
century. 2. From Alexander of Hales (t 1245) to John Gerson (t 1429).
Ueberweg'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
and (2) commencing emancipation of philosophy (Cours de Vhist. de la philos.
Lecon ix.).
3 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 Amalric of Bene. John Scotus was the first who
adopted a systematically syllogistic form of argument.

254 Erigena.
of right contemplation teaches. 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 Neoplatonist whose works were attributed
to Dionysius the Areopagite.* 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 De Div. Nat. i. 66, 68, 71, iv. 9 ; Diestel, p. 159. He asserts the identity
of Philosophy and Religion, not the vassalage of the former to the latter.
TJeberweg, i. 357. So too Berengar. adv. Lanfranc., Lib. posterior, p. 105.
2 De Div. Nat. iv. 16.
3 De Div. Nat. iv. 5. This truly great work was condemned by the Synod
of Valence (855) as a commentum 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, De Dionysii et Mysticorum Doctrina,
1845 ; Montet, Des Livres du Pseudo-Dionysius ; Dean Colet on the Celestial
Hierarchies of Dionysius (ed. Lupton) ; Westcott on Dionys. the Areop.,
Contemp. Rev. 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, Lot. Christ, iv. 334. " Proclus and Dionysius ploughed
with one and the same Neoplatonic heifer " (Fabric. Marini Prodi Vita, p.
xii. ). The books of Dionysius were translated by J. Scotus Erigena, and in
the twelfth century by Saracenus ; but even in 757 his writings had been
given by Paul I. to Pippin. They were favourites with the mystics, as also
with Ficino 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 th' empyreal sphere
To the first good, first perfect, and first fair ;
Or tread the mazy round his 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 (pvyr) jmovov 77-/305
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
bhnd, 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 Mellifluus, 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 Ps. Dionysius, "His walls are
inlaid with Plotinian mosaic. " Dante expresses the high estimate of him in
the Mediaeval Church (Par. x. 112 ; xxviii. 121).
2 " Nisi poterit homo dicere secum Ego solus et Deus in niundo sum non
habebit requiem" (Colet).
3 " Credo ut Intel] igam " (Anselm, Prol.).
4 The remarks of Rupert (Prol. in Joann. ) in favour of the view that com
mentators were still possible though Augustine had written, were thought
unusually bold. On the transcendent authority of Augustine, which even
Berengarius said it was " ne fas quidem contradicere," see Werner, Schol. d.
Mittelalt. i. 1-3.
5 See Stockl, Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelallers, 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 The Song of Solomon.
" Quid nobis Qum generibus et speciebus ? " expressed 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 Hergenrother, K. G. i. 953. St. Bernard speaks (Sermons, ed. Martene,
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 Book of Canticles was given to Israel ; for all the
Scriptures are holy, but the Book of Canticles is the Holy of Holies"
(Vaddaim, c. iii.).
3 Sanhedrin, f. 101, i. . . . " Whoever recites a verse of the Song of Solomon
as a secular song . . . causes evil to come upon the world. "

Monasticism. 257
of the 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 Homilies 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, sed vita volenti ;
Per claustri sedem coeli mercaberis Eden."
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 Ep. ad Virg. Paracl. " Ne sub carnalibus verbis nuptiarum spiritualium,
epithalamium non intelligens vulneretur" (Opp. ed. Cousin, i. 227).
2 Here are a few of St. Bernard's explanations : Meliora sunt libera tua
vino. Though addressed to the Bride, he refers them to Christ, and says that
they mean His patience and His clemency (which he proves at great length' by
"parallel passages"). Propterea adolescentulae te dilexerunt nimis. The
adolescentulae are the Angels, and this gives Bernard an opportunity to
expatiate at length on the nine orders of Angels, &c.
3 Ep. ad Lactam.
4 Hugo, Erudit. Didascal. iii. 13. John of Salisbury had said, " Claustrales
rectissime et tutissime philosophantur " (Polycrat. viii. 13, 21). Bacon says,
" Quemadmodum corpora eorum in cellis coenobiorum, sic animus in uno
Aristotele conclusus fuit " (De Augm. Scient. i. 16) ; see Haureau, i. 507.
Even Bede complains of the " innumera monasticae 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 ! 2 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. Didascal. i. 12. See Haureau, Hugues 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 book which, if a man will keep close to, he will quite ruin the
Catholic faith."
3 Erud. Didasc. i. 9. R. de Sto Victore said, "In tantum Deus cognoscitur
in quantum amatur. "
4 De Contemplatione et ejus Speciebus (published in Haureau's H. de St.
Victor) • "ubi caritas ibi claritas " (De 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 prrxelationem.
6 See Vaughan, St. Thomas Aquin. i. 252. Hergenrother rightly says that
in the hands of these writers Scholasticism and Mysticism were "nur
verschiedene Auffassungs- und Darstellungsweisen der Dogmen " (K. G. p. 952).
6 Tauler complains that " Man nimmt fremde Glossen aus der H. Schrift
dass es zu erbarmen ist." See Bbhringer, xvii. German mystics Tauler
(t 1361), Suso (t 1365), Rusbroek (t 1381), and the author of a " German
Theology " (see Pfeiffer's Deutsche Mysliker, and Ullmann, Reformatoren vor
der Reformation).

Abelard. 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, but salutifera3
¦ — 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 TJeberweg, Hist, 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.
Bonaventura, Breviloq., ad init. 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
reason) dies that Benjamin (ecstasy) may be born. It is here that Holy
Scripture comes in (like Moses and Elias at the Transfiguration) to prevent
self-deception or Satanic delusion.
6 " Ce qui est certain c'est que la scholastique . . . ne cite point de plus
grand nom, et consent a dater de lui " (Remusat, Abelard, i. 272).
6 The universally accepted phrase " Philosophia aneilla Theologiae '" seems
to come from Didymus (who makes Sara a symbol of theology, Hagar of
Dialectics) through John Damascene (Dial. i. 1) — see Remusat, Abelard,
ii. 144.
7 He does not scruple to head his sections " Quod non sit Deus singularis et
contra ;" "Quod sit Deus tripartitus et contra ; " " Quod sit finis sine prin
ciple et contra;" "Quod omnia sciat Deus et non," &c. Yet Abelard was
rather an inquirer than a sceptic, and his Sic 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 majorum, ecclesiae praeeepta, quaestiones scholasticae,
&c. (Tholuck, De Thorn. Aquin. et 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 et 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 et Non see S. Bernard, Ep. 326 ; Trad, de
Erroribus Abaelardi, i. ; Opp. i. 532, 1055 (Migne), Vaughan, Life of St.
Thomas Aquinas, i. 168, sq. ; Maurice, Med. Philos. pp. 138-141. In
Abelard's book On the Trinity there is said to have been the remark, "Nee
quia Deus id dixerat creditur, sed quia hoc sic esse convincitur, recipitur."
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 Correctoria Biblica 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 Majus, iii. 1). Hugo 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. 261
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 " Odiosum 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 (fll64), 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 Helms., Opp. p. 308. 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 Augustinus adest sufficit ipse tibi, "
and Rupert shows courage in the manly and beautiful passage of the preface
to his commentary on St. John, in which he claims that though the eagle-
wings of Augustine overshadow the Gospel, he did not exhaust the right of
all Christians to handle the Gospel.
2 Bernardi, Ep. xi. ad Innocent. " Nihil videt per speculum et in aenigmate,
sed facie ad faciem omnia intuetur " is the mystic's characteristic complaint
of the logician (Ep. 192). Abelard's Comments on the Hexaemeron (Martene
and Durand, Thes. Nov. Anecd. ) is chiefly remarkable for its curious scientific (?)
speculations. 3 " Sicut inonstruosi sunt nominis sic etiam monstruosi dogmatis." W. de
St. Thierry^
4 Haureau, p. 384.

262 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 iya> rofyapovv
i/xbv ovhev, had been translated by order of Pope Eugenius.3
It is only in the form of his Liber sententiarum, 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 be regarded as the Father of Scholas
ticism^ for in his Uny^ yvdo-eois he was " the first to apply Aristotelian
dialectics to traditional theology."
4 Dante, in the lines
" L'altro che appresso adorna il nostro coro
Quel Pietro fu, che con la poverella
Offerse 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."
6 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. Lift, 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. 263
convenient handbook, which, with the Summa 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
professedlyj:evolting 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
strange. 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 ! " i But the
works of the great Stagirite crept into the Church imper
ceptibly, and in spite of her opposition. At first only his
Organon 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 As even Roger Bacon complains, Opus Minus (ed. Brewer), p. 329.
2 Bacon, Advancement of Learning.
3 De Fide, 21, 5 ; comp. Serm. xxii. in Ps. 118.
4 Gregory of Nazianzus says that " the Christians knew nothing of the
craftiness of Aristotle's craft." Orat. xxvi. St. Vincent Ferrer was glad to
quote the assertion of Jerome : " Quod Aristoteles et Plato in inferno sunt."
Mullinger, i. 122. Roger Bacon said : "Had I the power, I would have all
the works of Aristotle burnt, as it is but waste time . . . ¦. .to study them,"
Opus Minus (ed. Brewer), pp. 322-330. Grotius observes that many Platonists
(Clemens, Origen, &c.) became Christians, but none —or very few — of the
Aristotelians. De Stud. Instit. (1645), p. 221.

264 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, proprium 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) all 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'etouffa." V. Cousin, Fragments Philos. p. 82.
Sec, too, J. B. Mullinger, Hist, of Cambr. pp. 50-54 ; Bain's Mental and Moral
Science, App. A.
2 Johann. Sarisb. Polyerat. vii. 12.
3 Through Avicenna 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, Recherches critiques ; Prantl, Gesch. d. Logik,
iii. 3. Up till 1100 only the Logic of Aristotle was known, and that only
partially. Mullinger, Hist, of Cambr. i. 29.
4 In 1209, 1215, and 1231, by Gregory IX. (See Landerer s.v. Scholasticism
in Herzog. ) A Provincial council ordered that Masters of Arts should not
philosophise but '.' satagant fieri Theododacti " 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." "Nee libri Aristotelis nee commenta legantur." Cone. Paris.
a.d. 1209. The prohibition was withdrawn by Urban V. in 1366.

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." 3 Aristotle was
called the " praecursor Christi in naturalibus!' 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 systematised it,
furnished it with an apparatus of scientific nomenclature,
and transferred it from the Church to the School.6 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 Doctor Theologus rogatus de Decalogo, negabat se ejusmodi
librum in Bibliotheca umquam habuisse." Ridderus, De Eruditione (1680),
p. 40.
3 Erasm. Schol. p. 258.
4 See Liebner, Hugo von S. Victore, p. 128 ; Praenott. Elucid. 5.
5 He is the first who definitely quotes Averroes, and the first commentator
on the Sentences. See Renan, Averroes, p. 176 ; Haureau, i. 402 ; Ueberweg,
i. 407, and on the Arabs generally, Munk, Melanges, p. 313, sq. Owing to
Arabian influences Aristotle " passed from the consulship to the Dictatorship
of Philosophy. " Aristoteles was made into the anagram, iste sol erat. In
1629 the Sorbonne decreed that to contradict Aristotle was to contradict
the Church.
6 Card. Hergenrother defines scholasticism as " dialektisch geordnete, system-
atische Theologie, die an die Philosophie sich anlehnte und die Dogmen theils
als vernunftgemass, theils als iiber jede verniinftige Einsprache erhaben zu
begriinden suchte." Kirchcngeschichie, i. 952 ; compare Ueberweg, i. 355.

266 Scholasticism.
practised the dialectic method, and thought that they 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 " (ro StaTroprjo-at «:aX.&j?) 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 apparent 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." " Dubitando ad inquisitionem venimus, inquirendo veritalem pereip-
imus." Sic et Non, p. 16, ed. Cousin. This resembles the remark of
Diderot : " Le Sceptieisme est done le premier pas vers la veriteV' 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, De varia Aristotelis fortuna in Acad.
Paris. Hampden, Bampt. Lect. p. 63. In 1516, Luther wrote to J. Lange,
' ' Nihil ita ardet animus quam histrionem ilium qui tarn vere graced larvd
Ecclesiam lusit, multis revelare ignominiamque ejus cunctis ostendere "
(Briefe, i. 15), and in 1517 " Aristoteles descendit 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. " Haec aetas " he says
" languet et asininat 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 Metalogieus and Polycraticus, "Quae vis
Litera sordescit, logica sola placet." — id. Enthcticus.
I have not touched on Anselm, who was rather a theologian than an exegete.
See Remusat, St. Anselm, p. 478.

Albertus Magnus. 267
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
hot 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 ? B 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 piii vicino
Frate e maestro fummi ; ed esso Alberto
Si 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 Universalis does not seem to have known either Greek, Arabic,
or Hebrew, and was very feeble in history and philology. See Sttickl, ii. 358.
Prantl calls him a mere compiler and " ein unklarer Kopf, und nicht befahigt
irgend eine grundsatzliche Auffassung hinauszudenken " (Gesch. d. Logik,
iii. 189). He says, " Alles durchweg Alles was er schreibt ist nur fremdes
Gut." His real greatness was in science, in which he was very eminent.
2 See Rosenmiiller, Hist. Int. v. 250.
3 Ps. xxxvi. ii.
4 This takes us back to the region of pure Rabbinism.
5 See by way of specimen his comment on Ps. xxxi. 9-12. His notes are
chiefly glosses, burdened with unsifted parallel passages.

268 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 shall flow with milk." 4 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 be 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. 369. 2 Joel i. 4.
8 Joel ii. 32. 4 Joel iii. 18.
6 Joel ii. 16. We find the same explanations with only slight differences
of detail in Hugo of St. Victor, Remigius, Rupert of Deutz, the Glossa Ordi
naria, &c. The exegesis of Albertus Magnus like that of Peter Lombard is
chiefly derived third or fourth hand from the Catenae and glosses. See R.
Simon, Hist, des Comment, pp. 468, sq.

Thomas Aquinas. 269
womb" The explanation, which is as old as the Clavis 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 i
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 Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. iii. 75, ap. Merx, Joel, p. 377.
2 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. 46.
3 Tholuck in his monograph De Thoma Aquinate et Abaelardo interpretibus
N. T. says " Quantum ad interpretandi dogmaticum genus attinet hie ei campus
laudum, hie meriti corona. Est argumenti dogmatici interpres diligens, in-
defessus qui ne voculam quidem praeterit quin exeutiat." Erasmus said of
him (on Rom. i. 2), " Meo quidem animo nullus est recentiorum theologorum
cuiparsit diligentia, cuisanius ingenium, cui solidior eruditio." On his work
as an exegete see Vaughan, Life of St. TJiomas, ii. 567, sqq. The present
Pope (Leo XIII.) is the fourteenth who has loaded St. Thomas with eulogies.
In his Encyclical Aeterni Patris (Aug. 4, 1879), while not vouching for over-
subtlety or over rashness, or what 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
and the science of man, he is likened to the sun, for he warmed the whole
earth with the fire of his holiness, and filled the whole earth with the splen
dour of his teaching. " According to Natalis he found Philosophy wandering
like Agar in the wilderness, and sent her back to be a bondslave in the tent of
Abraham. Bucer said, " Tolle Thomam et Eccl. Romanam subvertam." Ven
tura says, "II n'y a aucune erreur qu'il n'ait prevue, refutee, pulverisee
d'avance" (La Raison philosophique, ii. 129). Catena Aurea is a later name.
He himself in his Dedication calls it continua expositio, and in older editions
it is called glossa continua.

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. Senens. -Bs'&Z. iv. 308.
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.
Chrysostom 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 Zeitschr.fur Philos. xlvi. points
out. his influence on Scholasticism, and especially on Albertus. For the
influence of Averroes see Renan, 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
Hillel, 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 " a 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 he
has read the multitudinous pages to which the index refers ?
In Divinity, as Bacon says, there cannot be this perfection and

1 See the fifth Index to the Summa (Migne, i. De Antilogiis).
2 His doctorial lecture on Ps. cv. 13 (see Vaughan's Life, ii. 113) gives a
good specimen of his manner. For his views about allegory, tropology, and
anagogy, see Summ. I. i. art. x.
8 See Opp. vi. 3 (Venet. 1745).
4 " II ne peut etre question de progres dans un tel ordre d'exposition. . . .
Partout ce sont les memes textes decoup^s et se'pares de ce qui les explique,
les meme syllogismes triomphants, mais posant sur le vide, les memes defauts
de critique historique, provenant de la confusion des dates et des milieux. "
Eenan, 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 insignificance 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 Bona ventura (t 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 eorum quae vidi." Prooem. De Vit. S. Thorn.
Aqitin. 2 Corderius says that he derives almost all his theology from Dionysius
(Migne, i. 96).
3 He gives his views of exegesis in Principium S. Scripturae. See Isagoge
in Script. Sacr. 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
an 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. The Fathers took the same position as the Mishna,
and allegory as the Qabbala. From Rabbis and Alexandrians
1 Bonaventura has been highly praised for his method of "explaining
•Scripture by Scripture." But in the first place the method is not in the least
degree peculiar to 'him, and in the next the indiscriminate use of "parallel"
passages, which have nothing "parallel" in them, leads in all the Schoolmen
to mere confusion.
2 Prooem. in Breviloquium. Comp. Hugo, Erudit. Didasc. iv. 1 ; Johann.
Sarisb. Polycrat. vii. 12. 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."
3 Bonaventura himself prefers to regard the Bible as a book with seven
seals, and not content even with the fourfold sense, he adds to it three more
senses— the symbolic, the synekdochic, and the hyperbolic 1 T

274 Nicolas of Lyra.
the Christian teachers had taken without examination an
unscriptural 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 1340) — 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
Since 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 (tl260),
who in his Correctoria 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 Bacon.
2 So called from his birthplace, Lyra, in Normandy. Sixtus Senensis
says: "Natione Anglus vel  ex Lyra Brabaniiae 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.
3 Merx, Eine Rede vom Auslcgen.

Jeivish Exegetes. 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 Light 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 Simia 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 folly 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.
2 On the Jewish mediaeval interpreters see Schrbck, K. G. xxv. 391 ;
Rosenmiiller, Hist. Interp. v. 211, sq. ; Meyer, i. 85-93 ; Merx, Joel, 207-
296 ; Siegfried " Ueber Rashi's Einfluss " (Merx, Archiv, i. 431). In the latter
paper is shown the extent of Rashi's influence over Luther as well as over
Nicolas of Lyra.
3 Rashi is the abbreviated name-of Rabbi Solomon Jizchaki. It was prob
ably from Rashi that Lyra learnt the admirable old rule which he renders
" Scriptura loquitur secundum modum nostrum loquendi" (note on Gen. viii.
1, " Recordatus est "). Nicolas says, " Intendo non solum doctorum catholi-
corum sed etiam Hebroiorum explanationes, maxime R. Salomon, qui inter
doctores Hebraeos locutus est rationabilius ad declarationem sensus literalis
(12B-S)."
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 principalis 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 inepta ; 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, ratione individui,
but not ratione speeiei.
2 Thorn. Aquin. Summa, 1, Qu. 1, art. 10. Nicolas says, "Habetille
liber hoc speciale, quod una litera continet plures sensus."
3 To him are attributed the lines —
" Littera gesta docet, quae credas Allegoria,
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
literalem sensum insistere, et paucas valde et breves expositiones mysticas ali-
quando interponere ; licet raw." Prol. 2.
5 "Cum ex solo sensu literali et non ex mystico posset argumentum fieri
ad probandum." He wrote eighty-five books of Postills, of which fifty were
literal and thirty-five moralitates. 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, " Creavit eoelum."
becomes "He made the New Testament;" both Testaments are coelum,
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 opere plumario. " Pluma est acus, acus vero Christus,
perforatus in passione, punget in secundo sicut acus," &c, &c.

His Originality. 277
the literal and the mystic, and he 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 bhnd belief in the bad method of many centuries. The
old proverb Si Lyra non lyrasset, 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 nimis quae quondam obscura jacebat,
Omnes per partes clara labore meo 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, " Exponunt de Christi pas-
sione sed ista expositio videtur mihi magis mystica quam literalis." He
refuses to see any allusion to the Trinity in Gen. xviii. 1.
2 He modestly says that he has only written Scholastiee et in modum exercitii,
and subjects his views to the correction sanctae matris ecclesiae et cujuslibet
sapientis. The vigour of his independence is well shown in his comment on
Ezek. xl.-xlviii. (on which see Hengstenberg, Christologie, ii. 595 ; Merx,
Joel, 331-335). He examines the views of Rashi, Jerome, Gregory, Richard,
and Hugo of St. Victor, and differs from them all for the better.
8 Luther said, "Ego Lyranum ideo amo et inter optimos pono quodubique
diligenter retinet et persequitur historiam, quamquam auctoritate Patrum se,
vinci patitur et nonnunquam eorum exemplo deflectit ... ad ineptas alle-
gorias." Flacius (Catal. xviii. 809) speaks of him no less highly. In Luther's
comment on Genesis (as Siegfried has proved) Lyra is traceable in almost
every verse. Luther adds little to him except polemical and dogmatic bibli-
cism. R. Simon, iii. 432.
4 On Nicolas of Lyra see Fabric. Bibl. Lat. v. 114 sq. ; Le Long, Bibl. Sacr.
iii. 357, sq. ; Rosenmiiller, Hist. Int. v. 280 ; Flacius, Catal. test. Verit. xviii. ;
Buddeus, Isagoge, 1420, sq. ; Meyer, Gesch. d. Schrifterkl. i. 109-121 ;
Diestel, pp. 198-201 ; Merx, Joel, 305-335 ; Klausen, Hermeneutik,. p. 210 ;
Griitz, Gesch. d. Jud. vii. 513 &c.

278 Retrogression.
oblivion, he had no adequate followers.1 The converted Jew,
Solomon Levita, known as Paulus of Burgos (f 1435),
published Additiones to Nicolas of Lyra, which were purely
reactionary,2 and deserved the Correctorium corruptoris 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 Angelo Rocca (Bibl.
Theol. 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 Replieae defensivae. See Buddeus, Isag. p. 1433.
4 "Sensus literalis non debet dici ille qui repugnat ecclesiae auctoritati. "
Prol. in Additiones. So too Gerson, "Sensus literalis judicandus est proat
ecclesia . . . determinavit. " Propp. de sens. lit. 3.
5 This dangerous notion is first found in Augustine, and is repeated by
Cocceius, " Impossibile est aliquid fieri in mundo de quo verba Spiritus Sancti
usurpari possunt, ut id non intuitus sit Spiritus S. . . et non voluerit
legentem ea verba ei rei accommodare."

Other Exegetes. 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 Propositiones de sensu literati 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. Picus 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 1468)
blindly followed the old traditional lines. The Jewish convert,
Jacob Perez of Valentia (t 1492), mixed them up with the
poorest lees of Rabbinism.6 John Wessel — Lux Mundi — who
1 Trialog. i. 8. On his views see Vaughan, ii. 315. Wiclif is allegorical
and dialectical in his own methods, but he said that " all things necessary in
Scripture are contained in its proper literal and historic sense. "
2 Savonarola's sermons are full of the fourfold sense (see Villari, i. 114,
E. T.).
3 See Propp. iii. vi. vii. Opp. 1, 3, ed. Du Pin.
4 See Pic. Mirand. Opp. p. 71, and Cudworth, Intellect. Syst. 301, sq. ;
Archangelus, Artis Kabbal. Scriptores, 1587.
5 Such as, Was Adam wiser than Solomon 1 Did he name the fish which
could not be brought to him ? If God ceased to create after the six days, how
come creatures to be formed out of putrefaction ? &c. In the New Testament,
Was it fit that the Virgin should be married ? AVhy did not Joseph ask her,
quomodo conceperit ? Quid faciebant parentes videntes earn praegnantem ? &c.
On Matt. iii. 25, Quomodo movebatur ista columba ? ... Si fuit vera
columba potuit moveri multipliciter. Uno modo a vento, &c, &c. ! Seven
folios were devoted 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 Testament may be estimated by the fact that he argues from the
Vulgate. Hence his glaring errors about the word irapaSeiypario-ai and prjpa
(Matt. i. 19 ; iv. 4).
6 Not content with the seven rules of Tichonius he adds three more of the
same kind. In Ps. xxii. 12 he makes the "garments" the letter and the
mystic sense of the Old Testament. He makes the four-cornered Psaltery a
type of the four Evangelists ; the ten strings are the ten mysteries. The tri
angular harp indicates the three virtues, and the three marks of holiness (visio,
lentatio, fruitio). The timbrel, which is beaten, is a type of Christ's sufferings.

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 quodlibets — 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 Haure'au calls his system
" Spinozism before Spinoza." He also, as well as Raymond
Lulli (+ 1315), helped 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, &e. 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. Lat. iv. 102 ;
Meyer, i. 322 sq. (who quotes some deplorable specimens). The " sensus mere
literalis" is to him always " inutilis."
1 See Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation. For the views of Anton
de Nebrissa I can simply refer to Meyer, i. 332-339.
2 "Nuper cum in hunc codicem incidissem, minimum abfuit qwin risu
dissilirem." Erasm. Oolloq. 561. The author of the book was Joannes
Marchesinus. For a kindly remark about him see Hallam, Lit. of Europe,
i. 286». See too Sixtus Senensis, p. 273.
8 See Hergenrother, i. 953.

William of Occam. 281
he 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 incirmmscriptibilitates, 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 Invisibilia 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
deductively from truths assumed to be certainly known.
The earlier Nominalists had been crushed by accusations
of heresy. Roscelin had been charged with Tritheism ;
Abelard with Sabellianism. Occam by arguing that uni
versals were names, words, flatus vocis, which had their
exclusive birth in the human reason,2 snapped the link
between theology and philosophy. His two axioms, Entia
non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem and Frustra fit
per plura quod fieri 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 Haureau, 351-353.
2 Universalia post rem. See Hampden, Bampt. Led. p. 71.
8 "Le caractere propre du nominalisme c'est la simplicite." — Haureau.
The name Doctor Invineibilis was given him by Pope John xxii.
4 See Landerer, s.v. Scholasticism, in Herzog's Encykl. and Occam und
Luther (Theolog. Stud. u. Krit. 1839). These extravagances chiefly occur in
Occam's Quodlibeta and Cenlilogium.

282 Platonic Studies.
words " Tu me dcfende gladio, ego te defendant calamo ; " 1 and
when in his Epistola 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 " doctrinis
Platonicorum imbutus." i 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 " Academia Platonis Ecclesiae velut vesti-
buhim," says Baronius. 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 Heusden,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 Paeis.
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 De dogmate Platonis of Apuleius. Ueberweg, i. 367.
4 Summ. i. qu. 84, art. 5.
c Valorius, Laurentii Medici Vita, p. 18.
6 See Aug. De Civ. Dei, viii. 12 ; c. Academ. iii. 19, "In multis quae ad
philosophiam pertinent Augustinus utitur opinionibus Platonis." Thorn. Aq.
Summ. 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 was " to nullify
the use of Scripture 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 the Word of God into the verbal elements by
which it was signified." 3 A false and extravagant system of
1 See Mosheim, De turbatdper recentiores Platonicos Eccl. 1677 ; Brucker,
Miscell. Hist. Philos. 1748 ; Delacluze, Florence et Ses Vicissitudes, 1837.
2 On the growth of the universities see Cardinal Hergenrother, K. G. 946-
952. He attributes the fall of Scholasticism to an " hocbgetriebene Sucht nach
Spitzfindigkeiten, innere Zerwiirfnisse, und das Ueberwiegen der humanistischen
Studien." See too Ueberweg, Hist, of Philos. ii. 34, 461.
3 Hampden, Bampt. Led. pp. 88- 92. The Fathers, the Church canons, and
the forged decretals of Isidore were also treated as more or less "inspired."

284 Downfall of Scholasticism.
interpretation has 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 Theologiae, but Philosophia in servitutem theologiae
papeae redacta.2 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 Damian 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 qui docendi
gratiam acceperint aperire " (Can. 64):
2 Heumann, Prol. to Tribbechovius, De doctr. Schol. et Corrupta per cos div.
hum. rerum Seientia, 1665.
3 Ueberweg, 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 aud 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 Catena Aurea 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 that
Empedocles and Anaxagoras were Italians. See Elster, De Med. Aevi Theol.
exeget. p. 39.
2 The helplessness with which the reader is left to choose between "six
days" (Matt. xvii. 1) and "eight 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 verv__jmp£rikni_transla-
|ion ; and often with no better aid than heterogeneous glosses
from the Fathers, and those not unfrequently from poor
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 expressius quam in canone." 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 universi continentiam " 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 Calendarium Etymologicum (Hilarius = altus ares. Ignatius =
ignem patius, &c.) Brucker, iii. 854. Roger Bacon derives irapao-Kev^ from
parari cocnam. Hervaeus Dolensis .derives epistola from epi and stola, and
says that they were so called because they were sent over and above tbe
Gospels. Hugo of St. Victor derives 8710s from a and yrj. Thomas
Aquinas, terra — quia teritur pedibus ; tenebras — quasi tcnens umbram ; abyssus
from a and byssus, or a and basis. Albertus derives Endymion from en and
dymion, "intellect ; " Durandus Alleluia from Alle salvum, leu, me, and ja,
foe ; Hervaeus Dolensis says that Timotheus means " beneficial " and that the
Epistle to the Hebrews was written to those who had crossed over from worldli
ness. See Tribbechovius De Doctoribus Scholasticis (1719), pp, 212 sqq., or a
curious later specimen, see Colet's Letters to Radulphus (ed. Lupton), p. 81.
A very wonderful list might be made of the inferences drawn from absurd
etymologies and sheer mistakes. In the Glossa Ordinaria Amram (= pater
exechus) 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
indeed ill-prepared. In Heb. ii. 9 Thomas Aquinas, following
Primasius, mistakes gratia Dei (xaptrt, ®eov) 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
we do not enquire with what 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 the Passion (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
he tries to show that the meaning of the word " substance " is
fourfold — a matter which has nothing to do with his text —
comes Moses (!) who is the spiritual law ; and Aaron the clergy. For other
etymologies see Binder,. Scholastica 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 tho
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 vigilantem ego video. Unhappily,
however, for this curious piece of perverted exegesis, the
word for "rod," in Isaiah xi. 1, is choter ("^n) ; in Numbers
xvii. 8, xx. 11, is matteh (n£D) ; and in Jer. i. 11, is maqqeel
(7i?.£>) and means " an early or wakeful tree " (A.V. " rod of
an almond tree," LXX. /3aicrr]piav Kapvlvrjv). 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 officiosum
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 dialectically,
1 1. Earthly goods (Gen. xiii. 6). 2. Stability of life. 3. Virtue (Prov.
xiii. 11, sua est substantia cui non est peccatum in conscientia). 4. All
nature. 3 Thorn. Aquin. Summ. II. 2 ; ex. 2 and 4. Petavius admits ryorpioTiitM and
ipio-riK^i 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. J<-
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 fines. Hasselbach wrote
twenty-four books on the first chapter of Isaiah,6 and an
indefinitely truer conception of its meaning could be fur
nished 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." Versohnungslehre, p. 147.
2 Ampere, Hist. Lit. de France, iii. 333.
3 Erasm. Encom. Mor. p. 193 (ed. 1696).
4 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 of
nature or time, spun laborious webs of learning which are extant in their
books." 5 Lud. Vives, De Corrupt. Art. I.; ap. Tribbechovius, De Doctor. Schol. p. 24.
Some accuse Abelard (Trithemius, Cat. S. E. p. 97), others Peter Lombard
(Aventinus Annal. vi. Baur, Dogmengcsch. p. 159), some Duns Scotus
(Seat. iii. dist. 24, qu. 1. See Brucker, ii. 875), and some Albertus (see
Vaughan, Life of St. Thomas, i. 248) of thus "introducing Aristotle into
Christianity. "
6 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 fill 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." x 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 circitminsessio, and communicatio idiomatum, in other
words, the relation to each other of the two Natures in the
Person of Christ, is defined as " Subsistentis in subsistente
realiter distincto mutua praesentialitis assistentia in eadem
essentia." The Hypostatic union is " Relatio disquiparentiae
realis quidem in uno extremo cui in altero nulla realis relatio
respondet." 6 These are but slight specimens 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. Metalog. ii. 9.
2 Duns Scot. Opp. ii. 175.
3 See Maurice, Med. Philosophy, p. 154.
4 Erasm, Dc Rat. Ver. Theol. 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
mvolutis 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 ? " x
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 ¦' quodlibetarii " were worse offenders in this matter
than .the " Sententiarii" or " Summistae." They abounded
in what Calvin calls the " wandering speculations that ravish
unto them light spirits." 3
St. Paul's one word, /laraioXoyia, sums up folios of the
scholastic quodlibets. 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 quaestiunctdae, 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, Rashis Einfluss iiber Nic. v. Lyra und Luther (Merx, Arehiv. , i.
431). The one man to whom, besides St. John, the Church has allowed the
title of "the Divine," Gregory of Nazianzus, bewails the growth of theolo
gical technicalities. Aidirrve puoi ivffrdaets Kal ras avriBeaeis rijs veas evae^eias
Kal t)}v fiiKpoXSyov fforptav . . . ev SiSaffKe rpo^elo-dai p.6vov, rb Xiietv r)\v iriffriv
iv rois o-orplo-p.atriv. Orat. xxiii.
2 Sixtus Senensis who, like Luther, was educated in Scholasticism, speaks of
it with equal disfavour (Bibl. Sanet. p. 218). He says that the five methods
of the Schoolmen were, 1. Divisio, applied to the shortest clauses. 2. Dis-
tindio, applied to nearly every word. 3. Allegatio, the reference to endless
authorities, &c. See his sketch of a scholastic sermon, with its references to
material, formal, efficient, and final causes ; its Prooems, Tractatio, Mysteries,
Narratio, questions from Albert, Alexander, &c, and illustrations from the
Manipulus Florum and Polyanthea.
3 " La premiere fois que Casaubon vint en Sorbonne . . . on lui dit ' Voila
une salle oi\ il y a quatre cents ans qu'on dispute : ' il dit ' Qu' a-t-on decide ? ' "
Menagiana, ii. 387 (Pattison's Casaubon, p. 479).
u 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 XeirroXerj^ia, 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 "ut 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 nacltscottischen 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. (Works, 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. " drum plus conveniat
Deo non posse facere impossibile, quam impossibilia non posse fieri a Deo ?
Utrum unio sit entitas aut relatio ? Utrum corpus V. Marine fuerit exposiium
infiuentiis stellarum 1 Utrum Christus est tardus in una parva 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-
ruminate." 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.3 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, "portentosae et latrantes quaestiones"
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 quam litigare de inccrtis " ? 4
1 En'com. Mor. p. 114. Gregory of Nazianzus compares such language to
jugglery, ravrbv -r)v il/yrpols re iral£etv ri)v ijipiv KXeirrovaais ry ra.-x.ei ttjs
fieraBeffeas i) Karopxelrrdai rSiv Qearwv iravroiois Kal avdpoyvvois Xvyirrpiaaiv Kal
irepl 9eov Xeyeiv real aKoieiv Kaiv6rep6v ri Kal irepiepyov. Oral. xxi. It is to
such discussions that Pope alludes in the lines about Paradise Lost:
"In quibbles angels and archangels join.
And God the Father turns a School Divine."
2 Brulifer (t 1483), who, among many others (Bonaventura, Alexander of
Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Marsilius, Paulus of Burgos, Durandus, &c), dis
cusses the question, draws distinctions between alvus, uterus, and venter ;
between trajicere and projicerein ventrem; between edere and vorare ; between
the mouse as made of earth, and as made of water, &c. In Sent. iv. dist. 13,
qu. 5.
3 As to this miserable controversy, the natural outcome of unspiritual
superstition, see Schaff, Med. Christianity, ii. 552.
4 On this subject nothing can be added to the wise remarks of Bacon,
Advancement of Learning, and the valuable note of Erasmus on Con-

294 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 intelligentia. Some teachers, as John of Salisbury
said, declared in true Rabbinic style, " singuli apices divinis
pleni sunt sacramentis" and " litera inutilis est nee curandum
quid loquatur." x 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 frivolis
nugis sine fine digladiantes," andsays 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 scolastique e'itait de ehercher et de trouver par-
tout des erreurs. Nous avons de ces enumerations d'erreurs qui remplissent
des volumes, et souvent parmi ces pre"tendues erreurs condamnees, 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 puerilibus Aeademici senes; omnem dictarum exeutiunt syllabam
immo et literam, dubitantes ad omnia, quaerentes semper sed nunquam ad
scientiam pervenientes," Metalog. 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 tbe multiplex sensus was D'DUD nttS (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. Delrkzsch, De inspir. S. Script. Leipzig, 1872) ;
and no less an author than Tholuck X©ie Inspirationslehre, 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 faitliful 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 .1
" 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 winds ; 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" 8 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 irubutus tentabis grandia tutus,"
where he explains the parva to be all that elucidates the literal sense.
Erudit. Didasc. v. 2. Bonaventura says that even in a single letter the
Scripture begets a multiform wisdom, but that "sub cortice literae occult-
atur mystica et profunda intelligentia. " An anonymous monk of St.
Victor falls back, however, on the old remark of the Rabbis, Origen, Augus
tine, and Jerome, that the letter of Scripture, without allegory, has many
things "falsa, inepta, inutilia, impcditiva ad aeternam vitam." Diestel,
p. 188.
1 Eucherius, Spiritualcs Formulae, referring to Gen. i. 9 (literal) ; Ps. lxv.
12 j Prov. xviii. 4 ; John iv. 14 (tropological) ; 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 water it usually
means water.
1 Prol. in Gen. Durandus (t 1296), the Doctor resolutissimus, author of
the Rationale div. officiorum, says that the beam from which church bells
hang represents the Cross, and the rope the Scriptures; and "as the rope
consists of three strands, 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
mystery in the mouth of the preacher " !
3 Prov. ix. 1, 2. Bishop Longland also defended the fourfold sense in a
sermon in Westminster Abbey, November 27, 1527. "Si sola grammatica

296 The Fourfold Sense.
that Wisdom had set forth in her Scriptural banquet the
four courses of History, 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 Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum may scarcely have been
exaggerating when he says that he had attended unam
lectionem in poetria where he had heard Ovid expounded
naturaliter, literaliter, historialiter, et spiritualiter.2 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," he says, "esset grammaticae peritus factus illico consummatus
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 Rosenmiiller, 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 11.67)
allegorised the whole history of Mneas, whom he made the symbol of the
,soul (see Johann. Sarisb. Metalog. iii. 4), and his Qlossules may be taken "as
r good argumenlum ad absurdum for the entire method of allegorising."
Poole, Med. 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 and 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 Bellarmiue (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," x the Levitical system was adduced in
absolute defiance of the whole idea of the New Testament to
shew that Christian presbyters were sacrificial priests.*
" Domini sunt cardines 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 far back
as the ninth century Rabanus Maurus (f 856) in his De
Clericorum Institutione had found chorepiscopi 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.
2 Hervaeus Dolensis on Matt. ix. 18-26.
3 Compare similar interpretations of Job i. 1 4, in Neale's Mediaeval Preachers,
p. xxx. , where this style of exegesis is defended.
4 Cardinal Cusanus admits that Rome made the sense of Scripture vary
with her own practice. Opp. p. 833.
6 Annates, i. 154. The rebuke of Casaubon is "Hoccine est Divina oracula
cum timore tractare, humana figmenta sacris narrationibus ex suo semper iin-
misoere 2 " (Exercitationes, p. 439, ap. Thirlwall, Charges, i. 150).

298 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 burn them." " 0 temerariam impudentiam"
exclaims Luther of this and similar allegories, " et scelestam
ambitionem ! " 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. Decret. 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 Dottor magni
Son derelitti, e solo ai Decretali
Si studia si che parea a' lor vigagni.
A questo intende il Papa e i Cardinali :
Non vanno i lor pensieri a Nazzaretto
La dove Gabbriello aperse l'ali." — Dante, Farad, ix.
133-138. Comp. id. Dc Monarchia, iii. p. 137.
3 See Milman, Lot. 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 Sa?nson's Hair, an Eminent Representation 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, Grundriss, p. 4.
2 Salmeron on 2 Cor. iii.
3 E. Jones Trevecka (quoted by the Rev. Prof. Conybeare in his Bampton
Lectures, 1824).

3Q0 English Theology.
simihtudes or allegories from the Scriptures," 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!' 1 " 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 explications of Scripture, but there is but 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" in Obedience of a
Christian Man.
2 Dispute on Holy Scripture, p. 409 (Parker 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 thing 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 Sacred
Philosophic of the Holy Scriptures (1635, p. 165), compares David's cutting off
the lapof 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 meauing 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. "
Bampton 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 ; x — 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 Great preferring his position of a humble monk to the
Bishopric of Ratisbon which he resigned ; — of Thomas of
Aquino in his profound humility, his rapturous visions, his
glorious daily prayer, Da mihi Domine cor nobile quod nulla
ad terram detrahat terrena affectio, his holy answer to the
Vision " Bene scripsisti de me, Thoma ; quam mercedem a me
accipies ? " Non aliam nisi te, Domine ; — 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 at the age of thirty-four ; 2 — of the iron
1 Sigebert, De Script. Eccles. 68. Bcde's version of St. John is the first
extant specimen of English prose.
2 Milman, Latin Christianity, bk. xiv. 3.

302 Their Example.
logic and dauntless courage with which Occam, the Doctor
Invincibilis, "the demagogue of scholasticism," braved in
defence of civil liberty the excommunication of the Pope,
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 hves 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." 1 1 Is. xxxv. 7, 8.

"Proinde volo liber esse." — Luther.
" So wird diese Geschichte nicht allein Geschichte der Knsterniss
und der Verringungen ; sie wird aueb. eine Geschichte der Dammerung,
der Morgenrothe, und des endlich angebrochenen hellen Tages werden."
— G. W. Meyer, Gesch. d. Schrifterklarung, i. 6.
" Unless — what whispers me of times to come 1
What if it be the mission of that age
My death will usher into life, to shake
This torpor of assurance from our creed,
As we broke up that old faith of the world
Have we, next age, to break up thus the new —
Faith in the thing grown faith in the report; —
Whence need to bravely disbelieve report
Through increased faith in thing reports belie 1 "
—Tbe Pope in The Ring and the Book (Browning).

X

LECTURE VI.
THE REFORMERS.
" He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What hath tho
straw to do 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 the watershed of many divergent influences. If in the
one direction he is to be held responsible for the teaching of
Denck and Miintzer, and in another of Lessing and Strauss ;
assuredly he was also the cause of a marked improvement in
the Romish Church, of the energy of her counter-Reforma
tion, and of the improvement in morality and discipline
within her pale.
1 It should however be observed that the Protest of Spiers, if negative
against particular doctrines, was positive in its assertion of the liberty cf
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 was " 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." 1
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 Comte 2 and Mazzini s as by De
Lamennais4 and Le Maistre.6 But
" The old order change th, 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, Hibbert Lectures, p. 2. Perhaps rather "Religion infused into the
Renaissance." "What the Renaissance was without the Reformation >may be
seen in such men as Leo X., Bembo, Bibbiena, Panormita, Filelfo, Politian,
Pomponatius, &c. (see Gieseler, v. 181-184).
2 Cours de Politique Positive.
3 See the very powerful and eloquent testimony of Mazzini in the Fortnightly
Review, 1870, p. 731.
4 Eisai sur V Indifference, 1817.
5 Du Pape, 1819/

The Papacy. 3(1
An even more tremendous indictment against the decadent
morality of Rome and her 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. Pietro 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 hues 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 IL, 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 tbe 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 his
successor, Innocent VIII., amid his life of criminal luxury
to let loose, unquestioned, a man like Sprenger, whose
Malleus Maleficarum has well been called "a monstrous
1 See proofs only too overwhelming in Gieseler, v. § 139.
2 See Dorner, Hist, of Prot. Theol. i. 35, E. I. The most extravagant
statement of Papal claims may be found in Augustin Trionfo, De Pote.-tate
Ecclesiae, who says that "worship, equal to that due to the saints, greater
than that to the angels, belongs to the Pope " (Trionfo, ix. 72). Papal claims
were supported by such exegesis as this : Quod Papa sit Devs Imperatons
juxta illud " Ecce constitui te Deum Pharaonis." Gerson (De Potest. Eccl. 1 ;
Considerat. 10), 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
intellecta — 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 turn materia non sacrae literae et Scripturae divinae erant,
sedquaedam obseurae etspinosae intricataeque quaestiones, quarum nugatoria
subtilitate exercebantur et defatigabantur ingenia" (Camerarius, Vit. Me-
lanchth. c. iii.).
2 See a very fine passage of Erasmus (Annolt. in 1 Tim. i. 6), which is too
long to quote, but is full of indignant eloquence against the slothful and
corrupt priesthood — " Metuebant tyrannidi suae, si mundus resipisceret "
(Opp. ix. 490). But perhaps some may be more open to conviction if I

Decadence of Religion. 311
by 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
Church — 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
easier 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 bhnd 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 of what was sacred.
no scholarship, in short almost no religion." 2
The necessary deliverance came through the study of the
Holy Scriptures. Long before the days of Luther some, at
summon a Pope as witness. Pope Adrian VI., at the Diet of Nurnberg,
which was convened to suppress Lutheranism, declared through the Bishop of
Fabriane that " these disorders had sprung . . . m.ore especially from the sins
of priests and prelates; even in the Holy Chair many horrible crimes have
been committed."
1 See Hampden, Bampton Lectures, p. 3?,
2 See Dorner, 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, Constantine, of 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 1489), in his. Farrago Rerum
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." s
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
(f 1465). Valla, a Canon of St. John Lateran, was not a
1 See Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation. Gieseler, v. 172-177.
2 " If I had read Wessel first, mine adversaries might have imagined that I
had taken everything from Wessel — adeo spiritus utriusque concordat." —
Werke, xiv. 220, ed. Walch (Pref. to Wessel). Wessel, in his Mare Magnum,
borrowed largely from Rupert of Deutz.
8 Briefe, ed. De Wette, p. 425 ; Beard, Hibbert 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 TJlric 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 Vero Bono, can have the least sympathy with him as a man ; but
this must not blind us to his real services. On Valla see Oudin, Script. Eccl.
p. 2439 ; Fabric, Bibl. Lat. vi. 282 ; Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifterklar. i. 155.
2 "Quem (Remigium) et item Thomam Aquinatem . . . ignaros omnino
linguae Graecae, mirorausos commentari Paulum Graece loquentem " (Annott.
in 1 Cor. ix. 26).
3 " Peream nisi id commenticium, nam cur cum Paulus non admonuit
erratorum suorum, cum ob alia turn de ignorantia, linguae graecae " (Annott. in
1 Cor. ix. 13 ; comp. in Acts xiii. 9.)
4 Dante (Infern. xix. 115. Parad. xx. 55, De Monarch, ii. ad fin.) ; Wiclif,
(Trialog., Tracts and Treatises, ed. Vaughan, p. 17 4),. and Ariosto (Orl. Furioso,
xxviv. st. 80) alike protested against the effects of the Donation of Constantine.
Aeneas Sylvius (Pius II.) had even in 1443 expressed doubts of its authenticity
(Pez, Thes. Anecd. iv. 316), as also did Bishop Pecock and Cardinal de Cusa
(Brown, Fascic. i. 57). But Valla went further. See Diillinger, Fables of the
Popes, pp. 107-176. After Baronius gave up the "Donation" no one had a
word more to say.
5 Annott. in Acts xvii. 34. Grocyn after beginning to lecture on the
Celestial Hierarchies about 1500, and severely censuring Valla, confessed after
a few weeks that he had come round to Valla's opinion, that the works were
spurious. See Erasm. Annot. in Acts xvii. 34 (ed. 1519).
6 Annott. in John xviii. 28.
7 Annott. in Mark x. 49, Luke ii. 14, John x. 29, &c. The low state of
critical knowledge led him into frequent errors, e.g. in his notes on Matt. vi. 1
and John xviii. 1. But his remarks helped to show the extreme importance
of philology and criticism.

314 Faber Stapulensis.
Testament, in which, though they have little rehgious 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 being 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 Stapulensis, 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's remark that these are " the earliest specimens of explanations
founded on the original language" (Lit. of Europe, i. 147) requires qualifica
tion. 2 " Collatis aliquot vetustis atque emendatis Graecorum. exemplaribus"
(Erasm. Ep. ciii.).
3 When Cornelius Aurotinus called Valla " eorvus crociians,'' Erasmus
said that he ought rather to have called him suadae medulla.
4 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. x In one characteristic
sentence he gives us the secret of his great services : "Novum
Testamentum graece lego, Vctus hebraice, in cujus expositione
malo confidere meo quam alterius 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 Rudimenta
Linguae Hehraicae was preceded by the imperfect book of
Pellican, he had a right to conclude it with the verse, " Exegi
monumenhtm acre 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 Kabbalism, 6 and this had
the further ill effect of exposing him to the fury of the
priests, theologians, Dominicans, and Inquisitors. They were
already 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
to do so secretly. The collision with Pfefferkorn 6 and Hoog-
1 Beard, p. 43 ; see Geiger, Johann Reuchlin, 1871. Chairs for Oriental
languages, with a view to missionary work, had been formed in 1311, but till
Reuehlin's time they bad not produced much fruit.
2 " Univcrsalem stipem quam discendo impendi, docendo acquisivi"
Praef. [ad fratrem). His desire to find the literal sense is emphasised in his
De Accentibus.
3 The first edition was published at Pforzheim in 1506.
4 When reproved for doing so he replied, " Quamquam Hieronynum veneror
ut angelum et Lyram colo ut magistrum, tamen . . . veritatem adoro ut
Deum" (Praef. Rudim. Hebr. lib. iii.).
6 De Verbo Mirifico, 1495 ; De Arte Kabbalistiea, 1515. Erasmus wrote
to the Archbishop of Mainz, "Cabbala et Thalmud, quidquid hoc est, meo
animo numpuam arrisit" (Ep. 477). Luther spoke of his Jewish Alfanzcrei.
6 Pfefferkorn, an apostate Jew, wanted to have the copies of the Talmud
searched out and burnt. The Talmud has been almost as much persecuted as

316 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 princeps 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 1288 ;
Julius III. in 1555 ; Paul IV. iu 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. Viennensi,
p. 277). Reuchlin said that to burn the book was a mere Bacchanten-argu-
ment. "On brulait le Talmud et quelquefois le Juif avec le Talmud " (Vict.
le Olerc, Disc, sur VHist. Lii. de France).
1 There was a story current, and by no means impossible, of a priest who
thought that Greek and tbe New Testament were two recent heresies.
2 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. 373 ; Milman, Lot. Chri
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 are 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 of 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 Erasmus edited many of the Fathers 3 he helped to
break down the extravagant belief in their authority. He
freely and forcibly exposes the mistakes and ignorance of the
1 Praef. inParaphr. Matth. How rapidly and thoroughly his hopes were
fulfilled may be seen by the complaint of Cochlaeus (De Act. et Script. M.
Lutheri, ad ann. 1522), that even cobblers and women, quilibet idiotae, knew
the New Testament by heart, and carried it in their pockets.
2 The Complutensian Polyglot was printed in 1514, but not published till
1520. The second edition of Erasmus's New Testament was published in
1518. In later editions (1522, 1527, 1535) he consulted the Complutensian.
3 Irenaeus, 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 phrases 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 lines,
" 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 tbe pudendus lapsus of the Master of the Sentences
(irapaSeiyaario-ai — rem habere cum sponsa) in Matt. i. 19 (see his notes on Rom.
i. 4 ; 1 Cor. i. 10 ; 1 Cor. vii. 42 ; 1 Tim. ii. 21, v. 18, &c).
3 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 et sancti, citra
personae contumeliam veritati 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 religious 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 has
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 show 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, who, as is
common with that class, had not even read the books which
they so vehemently denounced.3 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 He bravely took Luther's part for some time (Ep. 513), as even Luther
admitted (De Wette, i. 241, 396.) Erasmus urged his schoolfellow Pope
Adrian VI. to mildness and concessions, and he says, "Roniae me faciunt
Lutheranum, " Ep. 667.
2 " Videor mini fere omnia docuisse quae docet Lutherus, nisi quod non tarn
atrociter, quodque abstinui et quibusdam aenigmatibus et parodoxis."
Erasmus to Zwingli (Milman, Essays, p. 127).
3 See Ep. 417 (ad Campegium), A D. 1519.

320 His Paraphrases.
on the same day, he 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. In 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.13 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-3 the Church had accepted it, is a specimen of
common a priori reasoning. Erasmus in his reply said, " V ou follow in the
steps of those vulgar divines who attribute ecclesiastical authority to whatever
creeps 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. 3 Dedicat. Paraphr. in Ep. ad Rom. Herder said that his Paraphrases were
worth their weight in gold. Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Tregelles do justice
to his merits.
4. 1 John v. 7.
0 Annott. in Luke xxii. 36 ; John ii. 19, 20, &c.

His Independence. 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 J
he vacillates. It is not indeed often that he countenances it I
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 errare suos Christus etiam post acceptum Paracletum sed non
usque ad fidei periculum. See Drummond, Erasmus, i. 307. Compare the
remark in his Ratio Verae Theologiae, and on Colet's views, in Opp. iii. 459.
2 Yet he allegorises the raising of Jairus' daughter. Eccles. ed. 1730, pp. 70,
sqq. We may be proud of the influence of Colet over Erasmus.
3 Enchirid. Mil. Christ, ed. 1523, leaf g. 2. In this passage the " mysterium
in literis omnibus" is insisted on. See too De Copiarerum (ed. 1545, p. 165) ;
Dc tedio et pavore Christi (ed. 1515, p. 128) ; Praef. in Annott. (ed. 1535) ;
Ennarratio in Ps. lxxxvi. (ed. 1652, p. 19). Yet he ridicules the abuse of
allegory in Encom. Moriae and Instit. Principis Christiani (ed. 1628, p. 121).
For these references I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. J. H.
Lupton. 4 Bellarmine, De Rom. Pontif. iv. 12. Melanchthon says, " Itali dicunt
'Bonus est grammaticus ; ergo est haereticus'" (Postill. iii. 660). Erasmus
has excellent philological notes on Acts i. 4 ; Rom. v. 12, ix. 5 ; 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 him as
"a foe to all religion and a thorough sham," yet estimated him highly as a
grammarian (Ep. ad Spalat. 1518 ; Briefe, iv. 507 ; Tischreden, ii. 402, 419).
y

322 A Pioneer.
of the Sentences, the sophist Aristotle, and the Mahometan
Averroes." 1
The work then which Erasmus achieved, and achieved with
briUiant 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 rehgious
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 play 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, ch. ii.
2 Erasmus said, ' ' Ego peperi ovum gallinaceum, Lutherus exclusit pullum
longe dissimillimum. " (Epp. iii. p. 840) ; " Videor mihi fere omnia docuisse
quae docet Lutherus " (Letter to Zwingli) ; " Quid mihi cum causa Capnionis et
Lutheri?" (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 dehcate 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 veritatem evangelicam pro virili defen-
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 SeeI)'6llmger,XirchcundKirchenthum, 386 ; Dorner, Prot. Theol. i.81-125.
2 1519. Re-edited in 1524, and 1535. Luther says "Es ist Dolmetschen
nicht einer jeglichen Kunst ; es gehbrt dazu ein recht from, treu, fleisig,
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 Sententiarii. 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 by faith."
2. For ten years more (1509-1517), though he lectured on
furchtsam, christlich, gelehrt,- erfahren, geiibt Herz " (Sensdchr. vom
Dolmetschen). 1 The eases in which he shewed dogmatic bias (2 Sam. xxiii. 1 ; Ps. Ixviii.
12, 19 ; Rom. v. 28 (allein durch den Glauben), Eph. iv. 16 (und das alles) axe
honourably few (see Reuss, Gesch. d. N. T. p. 449). Luther, born 1483 ;
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.
2 " Diu 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 Leben, i. 487. "Von dreissig Jahren war die Bibel
unbekannt. . . Da ieh zwanzig Jahr alt war hatte ich noch keine gesehen.
Ich meinete es waren keine Evangelia noch Episteln mehr denn die. in den Pos-
tillen sind. Endlich fand ich in der Liberei in Erfurt eine Bibel, die las ich
oft mit grosser Verviunderung Dr. Staupitzen. " Tischreden, iii. 229. See too
Mathesius, Leben d. M. Luther Erste Pred. 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 by burning. 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 fierdvota, 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 1
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 corifused mass, and that he should go to Fathers and
Schoolmen (Tisehreden, lxxii. 108, Erlang.). He became a Doctor in 1512.
In 1516, he wrote to J. Lange, " Pars cruris meae vel maxima est quod videre
cogor fratrum ingenia ' in istis coenis ' (Aristotle, &c. ) vitam agere et operam
perdere." In his theses in defence iof Attgustinianism (1517) the 41st was
" Totafere Aristotelis ethica pessima gratiae inimica."
2 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 Weisz'acker in Herzog.
8 Brief e, i. 116 (ed. De Wette). Tip to that time he says that he had dis
liked Nicolas of Lyra, because of his attention to the literal sense ; "sed nunc
banc ipsam ob commendationem omnibus fere Scripturae interpretibus eum
antepono." Opp. Exeget. Lat. ii. 320.
4 To this period belong his Operationes in Psalmos, "the first scientifically
exegetic book of the Reformation."
5 He began to translate the N.T. in 1521, using Erasmus's edition and the
Vulgate (Briefe, ii. 123-176).:™ His invaluable Prefaces may be read in the lxiii.
vol. of his works (ed. Erlangen).

326 Supremacy of Scripture.
ment 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 are 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 Vine. Ler. Commonitor, Ep. 2; " Interpretationis linea secundum ecelesias-
tici et catholici sensus normam dirigatur." The rule was formally reaffirmed
by the Council of Trent (Sess. iv.), and had been again and again repeated
from the days of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian downwards. Comp. Bel
larmine, De Verb. Dei, iii. 3. " Hie in genere dicimus judicem veri sensus
Scripturae et 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. Lutheri, i. 120. Kbstlin, Luther's Theologie,
i. 272-278. Bellarmine said, " Summum judicium esse summiPontificis." De
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." 1
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 propria cerebro) 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 iinum, simplicem, germanum, et certum
sensum literalem." " 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 " Salvis reverentiis Patrum ego praefero auctoritatem Scripturae." For
Luther's opinion on the Fathers see infra. Bishop Jewel is one of the many
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."
2 Unfortunately however, Luther opened the postern door for the re-intru
sion of artificial dogmas by saying too unguardedly, " Grammatica non debet
regere res sed servire rebus." " Grammaticam decet Theologiae cedere." Praef.
in Cant. ; and on Gen. xvi.
3 De Rhetorica, ii. "Fit enim incerta oratio in tot sententias discerpta.
Nos meminerimus unam quandam ac certam et simplicem sententiam ubique

328 Rejection of Allegory.
pretence of a multiplex intelligentia 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 > 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 seductiye_
to idle men." "To allegorise is to juggle with Scripture."
" Allegorising may degenerate into a mere monkey-game '
(Affenspiel)." "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 (SchmucJc und schone
Spangen), 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 habet unam ac simplicem sententiam
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 Comm. in Gen. iii., xv., xxx.
See Fabricius, Loc. 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." 1 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
ford 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 sententiae. We can only say with Chry
sostom, rravra to avay/cata 8r)\a.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 reUgion. 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 Kbstlin, Luther's Theol. ii. 58, 284.
2 Chrys. in 2 Thess. The "perspicuity " of Scripture must certainly be
limited. Luther insisted on the literal sense ; Erasmus_s.aya that those com
mentators were to be preferred who were farthest 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 eveiy 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
lepeix; with the Christian minister, was, in Luther's opinion
a defiance alike of the whole letter and spirit of the New
Testament. Thejrord 0f_ God was a word- not .to. the _clerisy,
and not for the sole interpretation of the clerisy,.but_a_jwofa
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 lepebs 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
should 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 Zwingh, in
the political controversies the Anabaptists, in the controversy
about free-will Erasmus, in other controversies Campanus and
Emser and Carlstadt and the Zwickau prophets, 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 falhbility 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 donum 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.
2 1520. "Leges interpretandi verbnm Dei non patior." See Kbstlin,
Luther's Theologie, ii. 63. Bunsen, God in History, iii. 199-201.
3 Calvin, Inst. iv. 9, § 13. The only test of a " true" Bishop would have
been one who accepted the views of Calvin.
4 Werke, xxviii. 339 (Erl. ed.). He founded the right on Matt. vii. 15 ;
John x. 4, 5 ; 1 John iv. 1 ; 1 Thess. v. 21 ; 1 Cor. ii. 15 ; iii. 22. So too
Flacius, Clavis, i. 472. "De interpretatione lis est, penes quern ea potestas
sit? Responsio est unumquemque piorum . . 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 fidei — 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
itself, 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 rehgious teaching — we ought severally
to exercise it Kara, r-hv avaXoylav ri)<; iriureax;, 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 Analogue, 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
legitimus 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 of
thought, is the most current cause of going wrong."
2 S. Thorn. Aquin., Summ. Ima. qu. i. art. 10. "Cum Veritas unius
Scripturae ostenditur veritati alterius non repugnare." In old writers "the
analogy of faith " was used as a practical synonym for the " regula fidei."
Iren. Haer. ii. 47 ; Aug. De Cons. Ev. i. 1 ; De Civ. Dei, ii. 13 ; c. Faustin.
ii. 6 ; Tert. Enchirid. 56.
3 The first trace of this rule is found in Origen, De Princip. iv. 26. Its
most distinct assertor was Vincent of Lerins. Commonitor. Ep. 2. See Cone.
Trident. Sess. iv.
4 Auch ist das der rechte Priifestein alle Biicher zu tadeln, wenn man siehet
ob sie Christum treiben oder nieht," Werke, lxiii. 157. On this rule see
Flacius, Clavis S. Script, p. 7, and Schleiermacher, Hexmeneutik, § 13.
5 "Wir erleuchten die alte Heilige 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 nx 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 swaddling-
clothes, but dear is Christ the treasure that lies in them." Pref. 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.
Robertson). ,
2 He renders the words DTv^rmN "sjpnrn*, "ambulavit Deum," and finds
in it the communicatio idiomatum, but not by the Understanding, which is only
Rauchloch und Sehlaffenlande. See his explanation of the last words of
David, 1543.
8 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 prejugfe 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 Einfluss, &c. (Merx, Archiv, i. 432). Yet Luther praised Hilary's
rule ' ' Optimus interpres hie est qui sensum e Scriptura potius retulerit quam
attulerit nee cogat hoc in dictu contentum videri quod ante intelligentiam
docere praesumserit. " Fabricius, i. 72.

Luther's Independence. 335
towards the Bible which made him " the most radical critic
of the Church of the Reformation." x 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 Eeim, Jesu von Nazara, i. 142 (E. T.). On this subject see Eostlin,
Luther's Theologie, ii. 258-285.
2 " Die rechten gewissen Hauptbucher des N.T."
3 "Ich bin dem Buche (2 Mace.) und Esther so feind dass ich wollte sie
waren gar nicht vorhanden, denn sie judenzen zu sehr und haben viel heidn-
ischer Unart." See Werke, lxiii. 93-104.
4 He only regarded the Books of Kings as "a Jewish Calendar." Tisch-
reden, iv. 405.
5 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 modum 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 if. "Like the comedies of Terence," Tischreden, iii. 130.
2 He was the first to make the brilliant and 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 Siindern," 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.
3 ' ' 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 Rabbis. 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 being
troubled by minor details. " The eagle that soars near the
sun does not worry 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 rationahsm but from its very
opposite — the sovereign supremacy of a faith which read the
Bible with fresh unbiassed eyes, and felt the closeness of the
immediate 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 See Kostlin, ii. 78, sq., 258, sq.; Diestel, pp. 250, 251. _
2 He expresses his indifference to small points of variation in the Gospels
( Werke, xliv. 174).
3 We may refer generally to his remarks on Heb. ii. 13 ; Gal. iv.
22, &c.
4 The charge is first found in Krause, Opiisc. 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
ao-ainst 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 bringest 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 alte Frau Wettermacherin) ; "a devil's bride ;"
"a beautiful strumpet;" "a mangy, leprous harlot," &c, Werke, 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 mus,t be refuted out of
Scripture or " evidentissimis rationibus." But by "reason" he sometimes
meant the purely psychical " understanding."

Luther's Principles. 339
I. One of these is that the Word of God is not to be regarded
as identical and coextensive with the Holy Scriptures} He in
dubitably admitted " a difference between the Word of God
and the Holy Scriptures, not merely in reference to the form,
but also in reference to the subject-matter." 2 He made a
distinction between author and author. He set one book far
above another in value. Christ, and Christ alone, was to him
without all error — was alone the essential Word of God.3 '
II. His view of Inspiration was not verlal} 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 Bible with the Word of
God (of course be means after the Reformation) is first found in G. Major, De
Origine VerbiDei, 1550. See Heppe, Alt. Prot. Dogmntik, i. 257.
3 Dorner, i. 244. He did not regard all the Bible as one equally divine
Book, but as a living organism. See his remarks on John v. 39, and Romberg.
Die Lchre Lullier's von den heil. Schrift (Wittenb. 1868), p. 5.
3 Werke. xxii. 654, Erlang. " Gesetz und Evangeliuin sind zwei ganz
widerwartige Dinge die sich mit oder neben einander nicht leiden oder ver-
tragen kbnnen." He spoke of some parts of the ceremonial law as "gleich
narrisch und vergeblieh anzusehen." He recognises in the living whole of
scripture " edlerc und minder edle Glieder, fundamentale und nicht funda-
mentale Glaubenslehren, " Romberg, p. 15.
4 Hence he even speaks of Ecclesiasticus as " Holy Scripture " written by-
some poet or prophet " a,us dem Heiligen Gcist" (Vorreien zu den Bibl. Bikhern).
" Luther die gbttliche offenbarung nicht als mechanische Mittheilung iibernatui-
licher Erkenntniss sondern als dynamische Lebensentwicklungauffasst," Rom
berg, 27.
6 From this strong recognition of the human element, he speaks of Joel as
" ein giitigcr und sanfter Mann ; " and says of Amos, " Er ist aber auch heftig
und Schilt das Volk Israel fast durch das ganze Buch aus . . dasserwchl
mag hcissen Amos, d. i. eine Last, oder der schwer und verdriesslich ist"
z 2

340 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
Zwingli 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 delirae." 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 "D'l and bripia 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, De Augm. Scient. (ed. Spedding, i. 149).
3 Zwingli, Opp. ii. p. 250 (ed. Schuler and Schulthess) ap. Dorner, i. 290.
" Piety is a fact and an experience, 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
traditional commentary.
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 Mtintzer 5 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
led, 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 Dienste an heiliger Schrift, Berlin, 1860. G.
T. Strobel, Hist. Litt. Nachricht von Phil. Melanchthon 's Verdiensten um die
heilige Schrift, Altdorf, 1773. Galle, Versuch. einer Charakteristik Melanch-
thons, Halle, 1840. Melanchthon's most important services as an exegete
were philological and theological. He says, "Ignavus in grammatica est
ignavus in theologia." Postill. iv. 428.
2 See his Libellus de Canonicis Seripturis, Augsb. 1520 ; Domer, i. 126-132.
3 "To the devout," he said, "all is an open book, wherein he learns
more from the creatures and work of God than a godless man out of all
Bibles." "Antichrist, who is now tired of the Pope . . will put on another
disguise, and . . be more learned in Scripture than we. . . Many are making
an idol of Scripture." "The Scriptures axe only the shell, cradle, sheath,
lantern, court, letter, veil, and surrounding of the Word of God, which is tbe
kernel, infantry sword, light, sanctuary, spirit and life, fulness and reality."
Id. i. 193. He regarded all history as a Bible, and distinguished between the
written and the unwritten word.
4 "He regarded the world as the great word of God, and individuals as
letters of the word." Id. i. 191. "I esteem the Holy Scriptures," he said,
" above all human treasures ; bnt not so highly as the Word of God, which is
living, powerful, eternal, free and independent of all elements of this world ;
spirit, and not letter, written without pen and paper." See Hase, Seb. Franck.
5 Dorner, i. 135-139.

342 Other Reformers.
tural instruction1 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 (tl581),
Bucer (+1551), Brenz (+1570), Bugenhagen (+1558), Muscu-
lus (+1563), Camerarius(+1574), Bullinger (tl 575), Chemnitz
(+1586), and Beza (+1605). 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 estabhshed 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, Praef. 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. Klansen (Hermcn.
237-241) 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, Chytraeuu, 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 doctorem sum
imitatus." The opinions of Beza bad great weight with our English reformers,

Calvin. 343
a hving 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 rehgious
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 1611 have preferred his
readings to those of Stephen, Erasmus, the Vulgate, and the Complutensian.
From his Latin version they adopted some of their worst marginal renderings
(Mark i. 34 ; Luke iv. 41 ; Acts i. 8 ; Rom. 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.
14, &c.
1 This is illustrated by their translation into English and republication very
recently. Poole, in the preface to his Synopsis, excuses himself for not referring
more frequently to Calvin on the ground that others have borrowed from him
si> largely that to quote them is -to quote him ! See Bayle's notice of him,
and further, Klausen, Hermeneutik, pp. -227 /o-. ; Meyer, Gesch. d. Schrifterkl.
ii. 448-475 ; Diestel, pp. 241 sq. ; Reuss, Gesch. d. Heilig. Schrift. § 569 ;
Beard, Hibbert Lectures, 258 fg. ; Tholuck, Die Verdienste Calvin's als Aus-
leger der Heiligen Schrift ( Verm. Schriftan. ii. 330-360) ; Merx, Joel, pp 428-
444 ; Haag, La France Protestante, Art. Calvin.
2 G. W. Meyer, Gesch. d. Schrifterkldrung, ii. 450. See Simon's Hist. Grit.
des Comment, du N. T. p. 747. Simon is unjust in his depreciation of
Calvin's learning. He had received a classic training, his first book was an
edition of Seneca, De dementia, and in his Commentaries he quotes Plato,
Plutarch, Polybius, Cicero, Ovid, Quintilian, Aulus Gellius, &c.
3 In a commentary on St. John we are shocked to stumble very soon on
such a sentence as " Servelus, superbissirnus ex gente Hispanica nebula."
4 He speaks of tradition and of the Fathers more respectfully than Luther
does. See Praef .in Rom. and Praef. in Inst.

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
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"
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 possum," he says,
" ab amore compendii."
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, Pref. ii. 8.
2 See Praef. in Rom. 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 gliickliche Ausiibung der Kunst (des Auslegens) beruht auf dem
Sprachtalent und dem Talent der einzelnen Menschenkenntniss " (Hermeneutik,
§ 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 accipi
haec verba eonvenit quasi Deus fuerit pellifex. Crcdibile est . . necessitate
coaeios mactasse aliqua (animalia) quorum 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, Nngae ! 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
has no foundation, and is hable 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." in? 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 Chrysostom to show that " allegory "
is here used in an improper sense (Karaxprnrriicas), and that Moses meant the j
history only in a literal sense. He calls it a " commentum Satanae, to 1
annihilate the dignity of Scripture." He says that allegories are "puerile " >
and "farfetched," and that "he gladly abstains from them because there is
in them nothing firm and solid." " Affirms saerilegio audacia est Scripturas
. temere hue illuc versare et quasi in re lusoHa lascivire. " Praef. in Rom.
2 Peter Martyr in his Loci Communes Theol. dwells on the imprudence of
using a method which Anabaptists used, " ad paradoxa sua imperitis compro-
banda." 3 Matt, xxvii. 9 ; Acts vii. 16 ("hie locus corrigendus est").

346 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 sign 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
nbsurd to interpret 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 Galvinus
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 " Judaicam plane
impietatem." 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 (which he applies to the will of Christ, not to the Homoousian) ; John i.
51 ; v. 31, 32 : 2 Cor. xii. 7 ; 1 Pet. iii. 19, &c.
6 Orig. Eccl. i. 310.
7 Walch, Bibl. Tliaol. iv. 413.
8 Limborch, Theol. Christ, p. 34.
9 a.d. 1593. Hunnius was answered by Pareus in his Orthodoxus Calvinus,
who, with equal amenity, assigned the work of Hunnius to the authorship of
the devil. See Buddeus, Isagoge, pp. 1062 sq. ; Limborch, Theol. p. 34.
Calvin might reply as Facundus did for Theodore of Mopsuestia. — " Conse-
quens non est ut evacuet omnes in Christum factas prophetias qui aliqua
mystice in eum dicta moraliter quoque tractaverit, "

Views of Prophecy. 347
but demand "germinant 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 iire^epydo-iat; 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 the 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 t
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.2 He had been taught much by the experience of
life. It is this which makes his Commentary on the Psalms a
1 See note infra, p. 472.
2 See his notes on John i. 12, where he makes etovaiav mean "dignity," and
the shooking note on " Lead us not 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." 1 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
(quodammodo) decreed to us as far as outward 'words are concerned
{secundum externun 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, meditatio, temptatio.

Views 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 canonioity 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,5 of his free tone of criticism,6 of his almost contemptuous
1 See Merx, Joel, 433-435. 2 Instit. i. 7, §S 1-4.
3 Conf. Belg. 9, ii.-iv. ; Gallic, ii. 5 ; Helvet. i. 2 ; Westmr. Conf. i. § 2,
art. vi. ; Dorner, i. 391.
4 Instit. i. 7, § 5.
5 See his notes on Matt, xxvii. 9 ; Acts vii. 16, &c.
6 See his 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 bis 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 ipjiorance 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 XIL, 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 his
dogmatic theory. Theologians in all ages 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 and the New Testament
was ad modum administraiionis, not ad 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 fundamentales fidei
articulos tradit quos Christus et 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 find 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
k Lasco. Dogma reacts on character, and Grotius rightly
said that Calvinists for the most part were as severe as the}7
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's Antitheses, but an.
extreme hardly less perilous.3 Neither Melanchthon, nor
even Luther, though he was averse to employing force in tin
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 inarriap-e oi
Philip of Hesse — arose, not from want of courage, but from
1 It is usual to defend this disgraceful and grossly illegal act by the sanction
of Melanchthon, but Beza tells us (Vita Calvini, a.d. 1550) that even in his
own day it was widely and severely condemned. Martinus Bellius in hi-;
Farrago showed that not only the best Reformers, but even the Fathers had
opposed the capital punishment of heretics. The sentence about Servetus in
Calvin's letter to Farel (Feb. 1546), "'Si venerit, modo valeat mea auctoritas
vivum exire non patiar," shows him at his very worst.
2 In a letter dated Oct. 22, 1548.
3 The utterances of Reformation theology on this important subject are quite
unsatisfactory, and merely swim in the air. Quenstedt talks of the Old
Testament as a " perpetua norma fidei ac vitae in universd Ecclesia," and
Hollaz, and the Formula Concordiae vaguely extol the Old Testament, and
irrelevantly quote Ps. cxix. 105 ; Gal. i. 8. See Hase, p. 570.

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 gave 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 tempora et concordabis Scripturas" x
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 lived, "which
may be true enough for the homilist, but is singularly false for the exegete.
See" Merx, Joel, 428-444.

Freedom and Truth. 353
the aim of theologians than the clear explanation of the very
word, sense, and text of the sacred writings I"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 sprung 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 theolo
gians that "if the choice and best observations which have been made dis-
persedly in our English sermons . . had been set down in a continuance, it
would be the best work in divinity that hath been written siuce the Apostles'
times." The licence of allegorising seems to be somewhat alien from the
practical good sense of the English character, for it has never been found
among our great 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, Keach'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
drawiug out 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 fit
to be trusted with " (Pref. to Scripture Vindicated).
2 Comm. in Joel, iii. 1. See some remarks on the subject in Hooker, Eccl.
Pol. 111. viii. §§ 16-18. How strikingly this was the case with Dean Colet,
may be seen in Mr. Lupton's editions of his Commentaries, and in Seebohm's
Oxford Reformers, 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 of
the Divine Spirit, in behalf of those who are not served at first-hand by these
ideas. He knows himself to be this by two signs ; the oue his consciousness
of self-sacrificing enthusiasm ; the other his consciousness of originative
power." — J. H. Fichte, Spek. Tlieol, p. 655. A A

354 New Pentecosts.
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 nimmt fremde Glossen aus der Heiligen Schrift dass es zu
erbarmen ist." — Tauler.
" Majestas theologica quam multi pluris faciunt quam Christum." —
Erasmus to Luther (Epp. i. 427).
"We should not interpret the Scriptures by the Creeds, but the
Creeds by the Scriptures." — Speneh, Bedenken, iii. 478.
" Tous les seholasticismes me rendent douteux de ce qu'ils deinontrent,
parce qu'au lieu de chercher ils affirment des le debut. Leur objet est
de construire les retranchements autour d'un prejug6, et non de decouvrir
la veriteV' — Amiel, Journal Inlime, ii. 136.

A A 2

LECTURE VII.
POST-REFORMATION 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 Christian 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 one great garden showed,
And through the wreaths of floating dark upcurled
Rare sunrise flowed.
And Freedom reared in that august sunrise
Her beautiful bold brow,
When rites and forms before her burning eyes
Melted like snow."
We might have hoped that the splendid progress would
have been continuous, but, alas, the experience of mankind has
made us only too famihar with the spectacle of arrest and of
retrogression in the history of thought. Imperfection and
failure are stamped on 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. The
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 Theologici of Gerhard, the Theologia
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 Prot. Theol. ii. 103-108.
2 Romberg, Die Lehre Luther, p. 18, " Man war aus der Region der Lebens-
warmen und seines Heil-bringenden Glaubens, in die Eisregion des Verstandes
getreten . . . des schematisirenden und reflectirenden Verstandes."
3 Witness the attacks on Kepler and Descartes, and Calovius's declaration
that the revolution of the earth round the sun was "contrary to Scripture " —

Creed-worship. 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 of 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 Pomeranicum, the Corpus Prutenicitm, Brandebur-
gicum, and so forth. Even Luneburg had its Corpus Wil-
helminum,, and Brunswick- Wolfenbiittel its Corpus Julium.
Besides these minor statements of belief, there were, among
many others, in 1529, the Articles of Marburg ; in 1530, the
Gonfessio Tetrapolitana and the Confession of Augsburg ;
in 1536, the Wittenberg Concord ; in 1537, the Articles of
Schmalkald ; in 1566, the Gonfessio Helvetica Posterior ; in
1580, the triumph of rigid Lutheranism in the Form%da
Goncordiae ; 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 coelo from the early professions of faith — the Apostles'
Creed and the Nicene Creed — which, in spite of all contro
versies, amply sufficed for the first eight centuries of Christians.
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
a phrase whicb. has been applied to almost every scientific discovery in turn.
See Brewster's Martyrs of Science, pp. 2, 52, 76, 193.
1 There were also the Confessio Belgica, ¦ Gallicana, Hafnica, Marchica,
Saxonica, and Scotiea.
2 The protest of Milton is characteristic in its energy and manliness. He
speaks in the Areopagitica (1644) of "planting one faith now in the Convoca
tion House, and another while in the Chapel at Westminster ; where all the
faith and religion which shall there be canonised is not sufficient without
plain convincement and the charity of patient instruction, to supple the least
bruise of conscience, to edify the meanest Christian who desires to walk in
the spirit and not in the letter of human trust, for all the number of voices
that can be there made."

360 Protestant Scholasticism.
grow in the 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 rehes 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'autres
erreurs que les siennes " (Dictionnaire, 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 New
Testament, or furnishes any intelligible hint as to how we
are to distinguish between relative and absolute truths.
The Protestant theologians reasoned upon c\ 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
loci 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 a place
in the Canon of Scripture," and Cochlaeus sarcastically called
them "the Alkoran of Lutheranism.'' They kept growing
from 1521 to 1543, till they more and more resembled a book
of the Schoolmen.4 Calvin's Institutio began in 1536 with
1 Dosithei Confessio, Qu,. 1 (Kimmel), Monuments, Fidei Eccles. Orient.
i. 465. 2 Beard, Hibbert Lectures, p. 192.
3 The "porismatic " method consisted in the abstraction of dogmatic results.
Thus in Baldwin's Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, " Multiplies eom-
moncfadiones e textn eruuntur." This method was superseded by the analytic
after the example set by Calixtus.
4 R. Simon says, a little too severely, of Melanchthon's exegesis, " On n'y
voit que des disputes. . . II faut lire beaucoup pour trouver quelque chose
qui regarde r'auteur qu'il fait profession d'interpreter " (H. Critique . . .
V. T.).

362 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
Systema, Dannhauer in his Hodosophia, Baier in his Com
pendium Tlieologiae, 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." 1 There was the Lutheran and
Reformed controversy, the Flacianist and Philippist contro
versy, the Antinomian controversy, the Osiandrian contro
versy, the Majorist controversy, the TJbiquitarian controversy,
the Synergistic controversy, the Adiaphoristic controversy, the
Crypto-Calvinistic controversy, the Arminian and Gomarist
controversy, the Cahxtine 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 Kurz, Hist, of the Christian
Church, pp. 112-121 (E. T.). See too Schliisselberg, Haereticorum Catalogus
(Frankfort, 1597-1599), which Frank calls "Das Arsenal zu diesen nachre-
fonnatorischen 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 epiOeia — 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 ecclesiae," 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 Consensus repetitus fidei vere
Lutheranae, which enumerated eighty-eight errors of Calixtus
and the Syncretists. Religion was cast by some evil spirit
into a paroxysm of theological condemnations.6 John Arndt,
" the F^nelon of Lutheranism," 6 was accused by his colleague
Denecke, and other Lutheran zealots, of " Papistry, Monkery,
Calvinism, Pelagianism, Osiandrianism, Flacianism, Schwenk-
feldianism, Weigelianism, Paracelsism, Alchemy," and other
enormities.7 Men were separatists (Siopl&vres) and Pharisees,
and therefore they could not keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace. They read the Bible by the unnatural
1 Rom. ii. 8 ; Lange, Grundriss, p. 3.
2 Alles verzerrt sich in eine kleinliche Polemik; die ganze theologische
Literatur dient ihrem Interesse, iiberaU ein lauernder Verdacht der auf jedes
unbedachte Wort fahndet, &c. Frank, Gesch. d. prot. Med. i. 92. See too
Witte, Memoriae Theologorum (1674).
3 In the Christlutherische Vorstollung. Happily Spener was able to say
that "the attacks of his enemies had never given him a sleepless night."
4 Fecht, De Beatitudine Mortuorum.
5 "Un des c6tes les plus faux de cette scolastique, e'etait de chercher et de
tronver partout des erreurs. Nous avons de ces enumerations d'erreurs qui
remplissent des volumes, et souvent parmi ces pretendues erreurs eondamnees,
il y a de tres bonnes choses " (Renan, Le Judaisme).
6 Author of Wahres Christenthum.
7 Kurz, ii. 107 ; see Wildenhahn, /. Arndt, ein Zeitbild, 1847.

364 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
rather of a raven than of a dove ; " and of another — Myslenta —
that he was "a volcano constantly vomiting fire 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 haereticorum. Alas ! the bale
fires of religious animosity need not to be fanned into fiercer
flame by the pure breath of prayer. If the story 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 (aXkorpioewicncoTrot)
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, Mataeologia papistica, Socinianismus profligatus, Theses
de Labadismo, Anti-Boehmius, Discussio contr 'over siar •um, are
1 See a disgraceful scene described at Schltisselberg's examination for his
M.A. degree, which ended in the sentence "Nunc anathema pronuntiamus
ac te tamquam diaboli vivum organum totis pedoribus exseeramur." Guttmann,
Annul, d. Universitat zu Wittenberg, i. 153-155.
2 The judgment pronounced on him by Camerarius ( Vit. Melanehth. olxxxii.)
is very severe. See too Planck, Prot. Lehrbcgriff, and Maitland's Letters to
King,

Polemical Fury. 365
menacing with antagonism. His Systema, in twelve quarto
volumes, is " a ponderous engine of war against Calixtus."
His Biblia ilhtstrata, in four volumes (1672), turned the
sacred book into a heap of controversial missiles against
Grotius, 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 Grolianae depravationes et ipevSepp.nve'iai justo
examine sistuntur et exploduntur." Calov's hatred for Grotius, whom he
considers to be " nullius religionis" and " deterior Judaeis," amounted to
fanaticism. It sometimes makes him almost witty, as when he accuses
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 only orthodoxy. He often leaves important passages unexplained, but
never omits an opportunity of attacking "heretics." But Grotius is still
valued and Calov is forgotten. Exegesis which is mainly controversial stands
self-condemned. 2 Mullinger, ii. 106 ; Dollinger, Die Universitaten sonst und jetst (1871).
3 " Was auch als Wahreit oder Fabel
In tausend Biichem dir erscheint,
Das Alles ist ein Thurm zu Babel
Wenn es die Liebe nicht vereint." — Goethe, Xenien.
4 " 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. Miiller in Herzog, s.v. Dogmatics).

366 Mechanical Infallibility.
lines of some single book. The excesses of this view are
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, Consequentiae aeqtdpollent revelatis,
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 long 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. 97, iii. 569 ; Hollatius, i. 136, &c.
2 Dorner, ii. 132-141.
3 For instance, Rambach says, "Merito vocibus tanta significationis am-
plitudo, tantumque pondus assignatur, quantum per rei substratae naturam
sustinere possunt;" and Pfeiffer still more precisely, " Tanta cuilibet voci
tribuenda est emphasis quanta potest" (see Zockler, Handb. d. Theol. Wisscn-
schaften, p. 658).

Dogmatism. 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
" Of providence, foreknowledge, will and fate,
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute,
And found no end, in wandering mazes lost.'1
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 miUions 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
'Christ 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
she had accepted at four great oecumenical Councils —
akr}9Si<i, TfXe'ft)?, aStatpSTW?, davyx^TC0^ — fasti Christ was
truly God, perfectly Man, indivisibly God-Man, and distinctly
God and Man. The refining and speculating genius of
Greek theologians had ventured further to define the relation

368 Theosophy.
of the two natures in Christ by the word irepixo&pwo-t,?, which
was translated into Latin by circum,insessio, and was treated
of by the Schoolmen as the oommunicatio idicmatitm.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 presume
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 gemts idiomaticum, genus apotelesmaticum,
and genus av-yr)wariKov or majestaticum. s 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 iceva)<Ti<;
or emptying of omnipotence and omnipresence, and the latter
that it was only a Kpv^n<; or concealment. Thus was it assumed
that not only the whole of Christianity, with all its aspirations,
1 Form. Concordiae (1580). The favourite Post-Reformation illustration of
the Trepixiipvrris is the burning bush (see Calov, ad loc).
2^ Werke, xi. 1547, xiii. 2631. Tpias is first found in Theophilus of Antioch,
Trinitas in Tertullian. 'Ofnoovaiov was originally borrowed from Neo-Platonists.
3 Calovius, Systema, 636 ; Form. Cone. sol. 2, decl. viii. 36 ; Dorner, ii.
148 ; Baur, Dreieinigkeit, iii. pt. i. u. 8.

Biblical Swpematuralism. 369
and 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 technicahties,
and enforced in the belief of others with abuse and violence !
" Vain wisdom all and false philosophy ! "
It was an 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 ? 2
5. The trpwrov i/reuSo? 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 \
Testament, 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
\rgued against 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 "Scriptura est Verbum Dei," but
" Scriptura complectitur Verbum Dei." 4 Had inspiration been
1 See 2 Cor. xi. 3 ; Gal. i. 6.
2 See Bishop Thirlwall, Charges, i. 71.
3 " Quodsi ita sentitis quanta absurditas sequatur quis dinumerare poterit?
. . . Restat ergo ut sicut ministerio angelico vox articulata formata est in ore
asinae ita dicatis formari in ore prophetarum " (Agobard).
4 See Art. vi., " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation."
And in the services for the ordering of Priests and Bishops, ' ' Are you per
suaded that the Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of
B B

370 Infallible Oracles.
capable of definition as a supernatural vexbal—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 Theopneustia for the
sacred writers, and still less for every word which they
uttered or recorded. It meant the influence of the Holy
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 Reformed 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 be 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-book and
Homilies of the ordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit which are wholly apart from
infallibility. 2 They rejected the three principles insisted on (later) by the Council of
Trent, namely (1) the authority of Ecclesiastical tradition ; (2) the canon and
authority of the Vulgate ; (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 not
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, Theol. i. 59.
They are (1) divina audoritas ; (2) perfectio ; (3) perspicuitas ; (4) semet
interpretandi facultas.

Assumptions. 371
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
theology. 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 practicaUy they left them
selves a wide liberty to criticise not only the separate utter-
1 Rambacb's Institutions Hermen. Sacrae, 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
set up their personal impressions as the common measure of truth, and so
made them an instrument of aggression on the rights of conscience. See
Bishop Thirlwall's Charges, i. 274.
2 Gerhard makes no 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 proved.
Quenstedt borrows the bad phrase, " Scripturae auctoritas est tanta, quanta
Dei," and says, " lnvicte concludimus omnem et totam Scripturam Sacram
nulld ejus vel minimd parte exceptd, esse vemrvevariv" (System Theol.
i. 69). So too Hollaz, Lange, Calov, Carpzov, Baier, Buxtorf, &e. And
yet they practically abrogated not a few "God saids," beginning with the
decree of the First Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 9), to say nothing of
the whole Levitic Law. It is Christian practice merely which has drawn a
distinction between the Universal and the Partial, the Temporary and the
Permanent. 8 1 Cor. ii. 15. Corn, a Lapide draws from this verse the conclusion that
"the spiritual man" will have recourse to the better judgment of "the
Church."
B B 2

372 Rathmann.
ances of individual writers, but 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,
Bucer, Mercer, &c), were more independently exegetical than the Lutheran
commentators (Musculus, Chytraeus, Brentius, Bugenhagen, Bullinger, &c),
who proved Lutheran dogmatics by digressions (see Gobel, Die Rel. Figen-
thumlichkeit d. Ref. undLuth. Kirche, Bonn, 1837 ; Tholuck, Verm. Schriften,
ii. 330).
2 Hagenbaeh, Hist, of Ref. i. 161.
3 Eccl. Pol. bk. ii. c. 8, § 1.
4 Wittenberg, Konigsberg, Helmstadt, 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
of Scripture as undoubted truth. We soon arrive at such
superstitious phrases as that the writers of Scripture are
"amanuenses of God, hands of Christ, Scribes and notaries of
the Holy Spirit ; " x 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 cfrXvapia Kal fiaTat6rn<;,i
which said that 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. Quenstedt says, "Scriptura est infallibilis veritatis fons,
omnisque erroris expers, omnia et singula sunt verissima . . . sive dogmatica,
sive moralia, sive historica, &c."
2 " Calami Spiritus sacri didantis." Gregory the Great seems to have been
the first to give currency to this bad phrase. So Calovius, Systema, i. cap. 4,
ii. cap. 1, and passim. Compare Hollaz, Exam-. Theol. p. 73 ; Calov. System.
i. 594 ; Quenstedt, Theol. Didact. i. 55. Differences of style, &c, were -
"accommodations" of the Spirit (id. i. 76).
3 Hollaz. 4 Gregory of Nyssa.

374 Extravagant Views.
And thus the old ecclesiastical authority, which Luther
had so decidedly rejected, was brought back. Even the
impius orthodoxus 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.6 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. Leben, 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 eighth 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 Koyla ®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, Hermeneutica Sacra, c. 8 ; Dubia Vexala, pp. 457, sq. The
same views were maintained by Walther (Harmon. Biblica), Buxtorf (Anti-
critica), Wasmuth (Vindieiae), Calov, &c. (see Meyer, Gesch. d. Schrifterkl.
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 x) 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-Reformation
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 Eurz, ii. 264.
2 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, said "It is impious and profane audacity to change a,
single point in the Word of God, and to substitute a smooth breathing for a
rough or a rough for a smooth. "
3 As, for instance, in Seb. Schmidt's Collegium Biblicum Prius (V. T.) ct
Posterius (N. T.), 1670.
4 Reuss, Gesch. d. Heil. Schriften, ii. 295.
6 We may be thankful for the gulf of difference between the truthful
moderation of our Vlth Article, " Holy Scripture containeth all things neces
sary to salvation," and the wild extravagance of the Form. Consensus Hel
vetica, "Hebraeus codex turn quoad consonas, turn quoad ^ vocalia, sive
puncta ipsa, sive punctorum saltern potestatem, ®eo-rTvevo-T6s." The older
reformed confessions (e.g. Conf. Gall. art. 5, " compleciens quicquid . . .
requiratur ; Conf. Betg. art. 7, " Credimus . . . Scripturam . . . omnem
Dei voluntatem complecti), contrast favourably in this 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, Herm. Sacr. 1684 ; Dannhauer, Idea Boni Interpretis, 1642 ; L.'
Meyer, Philosophia Scripturae Interpres. 1666 (by a friend of Spinoza) ;
Francke, Praelediones Hermeneuticae, 1717 ; Rambach, Inst. Hermen. 1720. '

English Theology. 377
of the eighteenth many eminent theologians and scholars,
such as Bull (t 1710), Pearson (t 1686), Ussher (f 1656),
Selden (t 1654), Beveridge (f 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 (f 1691), Castell, Hyde, Spencer, Shuckford,
Prideaux, and especially Lightfoot (t 1675) whose Talmudic
annotations still retain their value. Bishop Lowth in his
De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum (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
abusively 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 step 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, but
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
ment ; and those seven movements were mainly due to seven
men — Arminius, Spener, Calixtus, Descartes, Bohme, Cappell,
and Cocceius. 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 1609). Refusing to explain the Bible by creeds,
he found rigid Calvinism to be Scripturally untenable. Even
the fulminations of the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) were
ineffectual against so splendid a succession of Arminian theo
logians as Episcopius (t 1643),2 Grotius (t 1645), Limborch
(t 1711),3 Clericus (t 1736),4 (t 1645) 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
1 Dutch universities and their theologians : —
Feaneoker : Lydius, Drusius, Maccovius, Amesius, Amama, Cocceius,
Vitringa, Witsius, Giirtler.
Utkeoht : Voetius, Hoornbeck, Leydecker, Lampe.
Geoningen : Gomarus, Maresius, J. H. and Jac. Alting.
Leyden : Junius, de Dieu, Rivet, the Spanheims, G. J. Voss, Erpenius, Bur-
mann, Witlich.
For details see Dorner, ii. 9-12.
2 In 1610 Episcopius drew up the Remonstrance in five articles against the
Gomarists, who charged the Arminian school with Pelagianism. Hence the
name "Remonstrants."
3 Limborch was author of the Theologia Christiana. He opposed an extra
vagant allegorising and typology, and is consequently censured by Rambach,
Hcrmeneutiea Sacra, 155, sq.
4 Le Clere (Ars Critica, 3 vols. 1696 ; Dissertatio de Opt. Gen. Interpretum,
1693) carried too far his theory of accommodation, and is severely dealt with
by Rambach, He represents the strong reaction against the extravagances of
the Coeeeian school, as also do Turretin, Werenfels, &c. Turretin (t 1737)
was a Professor at Geneva. He protests against the assumption that "an
inner light," which was able to discover indefinite meanings in Scripture, was
of value, and in his Tractatus de S. Ser. interprctandae methodo he lays down
the rule that the interpreter requires "animus vacuus . . instar tabulae
rasae ut genuinum sensum percipiat." He was a friend of Burnet, Tillotson,
and Wake, and endeavoured to unite the Lutheran and Reformed Churches.

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 Bohme,
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 1666, 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, du V. T. p. 443 ; Des Comment.
du N. T. p. 803 : Buddeus, Isag. 1517 : Herder, Briefed. Stud. 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 in saeris litteris
invenire Christum, Cocceium ubique." It is not true. OnPs. xv. 10 Grotius
says, " Latet sensus mysticus . . ut in plerisque Psalmis." 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 he 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. pro pac. Eccles.
2 Bahr says (Symbolik. 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 iu 1575. The most important Lutheran
Theologians of the 17th century were Gerhard, S. Glass, Dannhauer, A.
Pfeiffer, Camerarius, Chemnitz, Chytraus, Hunnius, Tarnov, and G. Calixt.
The chief exegetes of the Reformed Churches were Arminius, Episcopius,

Pietism. 881
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 pietatis
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 •eeclesiolam in ecclesid, 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 Ursinian,1 and was
in fact everything except edifying and spiritual. But
Spener'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 this 8 was violently denounced by all who mistook
Chamier, Sixt. Amama. Grotius, A. Rivet, Drusius, L. de Dieu, Gomarus,
Cappellus, Cocceius, Lipsius, Bochart. Among the Socinians, F. Socinus (t
1562) Crell, Schlichting. 1 See Herzog, Art. Ev. Homiletik.
2 These collegia philobiblica resembled those of Wesley and the young
Methodists at Oxford.
3 Pietism was defined as follows :
" Was ist ein Pietist ? der Gottes Wort studirt
Und nach dcmselbcn auch ein heilig Leben fiihrt."

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. Georg Calixtus (tl656) for forty-
two years professor at Helmstadt, 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, Alberti, 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 Dorner.
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 florentissimus 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. II. 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 tolerantia Reformatorum and Desiderium 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 assistentia divina.2
He did not wholly extinguish the co-ordinate authority of
Faith, and regarding inspiration as a grace of superintendency
he mitigated "the more than Alexandrian asperities" of the
prevailing 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, De Frat. Amore. I do not know on what
authority Littre and others derive it from avv Kep%v. In modern times, the
use of the word had been revived by Erasmus m a letter to Melanchthon.
The anonymous Historia Syncretistica of Calov was answered by F. U. Calixt
in his Via ad Pacem, 1700. Syncretism, says Gass, "means the overthrow
of all ecclesiastical exclusiveness by a deeper conception of the doctrines in
question. "
2 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 of the Socinians because it was so utterly and inexcusably bad. See
Reuss, § 556 ; Diestel, pp. 387-534, fg.
3 Scripture is not called divine because everything which is contained in it
ought to be imputed to a special divine revelation." Respons. thes. 72. Pro
fessor Ladd (Doctrine of Sacred Script, ii. 212-214) shows that the views of
Calixt resembled those of Baxter, Doddridge, and Lowth. Monographs on
Calixt and the Syncretism have been written by Schmid, Henke, and Gass.

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." 1
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 oder Morgenrothe im
Auf gang, 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
" philosophus 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 best 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 Semler and Eichhorn, on the other of Strauss, Baur, and
Renan. (For his critical views see especially Capp. viii.-x. of his Tractatus.)

Cocceius. 385
sweet harmonious music ? " he asked of his son. " No,"
replied the youth. " Open the door," said Bohme, " 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 soothed
the deathbed of Jacob Bohme.
6. Two other powerful movements yet remain to be
characterised — the influence of Cocceius, and the growth of
criticism. John Koch, Professor at Leyden (t 1669), 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 Cocceius was born in 1602. He was a professor first at Bremen, then at
Franecker (1636-1650), and then at Leyden. As a youth he had been
influenced by the orthodoxy of Maccovius, the Puritanism of Ames, and the
scholarship of Amama.
2 See Pfaff, Hist. Lit. Theol. i. 14 ; Alb. v. d. Flier, De J. Cocceio anti-
scholastico, 1859 ; Schrock, viii. 344, sq. ; Gesenius in Ersch und Griiber's
Encykl. i. 18 ; and Ebrard in Herzog. J. H. Majus said of him, " Animum
imprimis ad fontes intendit, et nulli se mancipavit."
3 The dispensation of Grace after the Fall was treated under three divisions :
1. Before the Law. 2. Under the Law. 3. Under the Gospel. He thought
C C

386 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 signify8
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,3 and the death of Gustavus Adolphus.6
In reading Giirtler's Systema Theologiae, we can see why
Cocceianism became proverbial for artificiality and caprice.7
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 Critica Sacra, pub-
that the Old Testament provides a praeter-mission (ira'pecris) but not a remis
sion (arpeais) of sins. Rom. iii. 25.
1 The current phrase of the day was " Grotium nusquam in sacris literis
invenire Christum, Cocceium ubique." See p. 380, n. i.
2 See Vitringa, Typus Dodrinae Propheticae ; Venema, Methodus Prophetica,
Praef. 1775 ; Lampe, De Scala Jacobi ; Cremer, Antiquitates Theol. Typicae ;
Kurz, ii. ; Oehler, Old Test. Theol. i. 42 ; Klausen, Hermen. 282 ; Dorner,
ii. 35, sq. Gass, Gesch. d. Prot. Dogmatik, ii. 319.
3 " Id significant verba quod siguificare possunt in integra oratione sic ut
omnino inter se conveniant " (ap. Roman. § 35). So too Turretin, De Interpr.
Sacr. p. 126.
4 Is. xix. 2. « Is. xxiii. n.
" 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.
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
Philosophia 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. Cappellus 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 Naphthali, 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 Exercitationes 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 Buxtorffs, with
all their learning, were absolutely defeated, because then views on biblical
dictation led them to hold that the Masoretic punctuation originated with
Moses, or at least with Ezra.
2 " Nobis jam satis est uteumque probasse argumentis non omniuo contem-
nendis, puncta ilia hebraica a Masorethis esse excogitata, et textui sacro
addita, circa Christi Ann. 500, et saltern post 400" (Cappellus, Critica
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.
" Sic placuit Domino dicere plura nefas." 1
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 '"lfcO, as read in Ps. xxii. 17, was a vaw diminutivum,
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, Lbscher, Carpzov, &c. (Diestel, p. 384)..
4 Kennicott came to tbe conclusion that we have no Hebrew MS. of the
Old Testament older than A.r>. 1100, and that the 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,
Schottgen, 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
stitions The Syncretistic movement split into sections by
whiA Romanism and Indifferentism alike profited. Free
^efiticism, 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 James
Wetstein, and John Albert Bengel.
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. The Critica Sacra were published
in London, 1660, and Poole's 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 ? " x
— 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 Wilham of Prussia said of him that " all the
devils in hell could not lie worse than he had been hed to
about Zinzendorf." But his pious journeys did much to
bring back to the Church the love of Unity, and the colonies
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." *
1 " Hoc feci pro te,
Quid facis pro me ? "
2 In founding the community of Herrnhut he was deeply influenced by the
Ratio disciplinae of the Bohemian Bishop, Amos Comenius.
3 Perhaps his most characteristic thoughts are to be found in his Gedanken
iiber Evangelische Wahrhciten, 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 Schweinitz, in Herzog's Encykl. ; Tholuck,
Verm. Schriften, i. 6 ; V. von Ense, Leben Zinzendorfs, 1846 ; Bonet, Le Comte

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 Interpretationem
Nov. Testamenti, 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, hke 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

de Zinzendorf , 1860; Hagenbach, Germ. Rationalism, 128-153 (E. T.);
Eurz, ii. 941, sq. ; Dorner, ii. 245-248; Kahnis, pp. 100-105.
1 Some characteristic quotations from his Libelli ad Crisin are given m
2 Among other things he was condemned for Arianism and Socinianism in
1730, because he followed the now all but universally accepted reading, %s for
6ebs in 1 Tim. iii. 16. See Herzog, Bible Texts.
3 He succeeded Clericus.

392 Bengel.
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which are still indis
pensable to the student of Scripture. 1
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 Glockner, Interpretandi ratio a J. J. Wetsteino adhibita, 1754, and
the Prolegomena to his New Testament, published anonymously in 1730. He
was the first to distinguish uncial MSS. by capitals, and cursives by Arabic
figures. 2 See Burk, Bengel's Leben und Werke, 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
Critieus and New Testament in 1734.
3 He collected twenty-four Greek MSS. and some Latin ones, as enumerated
in his Apparatus Critieus. He boldly pronounced the Doxology in Matt. vi.
13 to be spurious. His excellent rule was " Put 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 hke
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 Kahnis, 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 spirit as he was acute in mind, as humble as he
was great."
2 The necessity for a psychological element in the highest exegesis was
pointed out by Schleiermacher. It was recognised also in the Greek Church.
Dosithei Confessio, Qu. i. Kimmel, Monumenta Fidei, i. 465.
3 Gnomon N. T. m quo ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas, con-
cinnitas, salubritas scnsuum coelestium indicatur. Tub. 1742. Its merits are
gratefully acknowledged by John Wesley in his Notes to the New Testament,
1755. Even the Apocalyptic studies to which Beugel was led by mystic and
Pietist influences give proofs of his power and insight. See Hartmann, Art.
" Bengel " in Herzog. In his case at any rate "the path to the New Jerusalem
did not lie near the madhouse."

394 Death of Bengel.
after sentence exquisitely terse and finished, and throbbing
with spiritual hght. 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 sterihty 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. x " Lord
Jesus, unto Thee I live, unto Thee I suffer, unto Thee I die ;
Thine I am, Hving 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 us 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 Hebrews). 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
quarrels 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
wards, 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
light upon earth, as He hath let some new stars be found in the
heavens 1 " — Ctjlverwell, Light of Nature, p. 136.
" I am persuaded that the Lord hath more truths yet to come for us
out of His Holy word. Neither Luther nor Calvin have penetrated
into the whole Council of God."— John Robinson, FareweU 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."— NEANnER.

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. " —
Zech. 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 Expliquie were the natural Nemesis of
such books as Calov's Biblia 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 shall I doubt
whether those who give themselves out as Christians are really such"
(Lessing).

398 Wolff.
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 (f 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 Theodicaea he pledged himself to
prove, if not the objective certainty, yet at least the possibihty
of the deepest Christian mysteries — even of the Trinity, the
Incarnation, the Eucharist.1 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 Vernunftige Gedanken von Gott, der Welt,
und der Seele (1719), and V. G. von der Menschen Thun und Lassen (1721).
He studied mathematics, methodi 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."

Lessing. 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
tradictions, and the principium rationis sufflcientis. 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 blame. Protestant divines could not expect the
world to sympathise with them in their attempts to hunt up
heresies in each other's sermons. Lessing 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 Wolfenbiittel 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 pointed 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, Werke, 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
having 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 rehgion
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 bath found
Friends in the friends of science, and true prayer
Hath flowed 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 Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek of Nicolai and Lessing. The
work of Mendelssohn in the Jewish community was analogous to that of
Lessing in the Church. His followers were called Biuristic (11X3, "Illu
mination ").
2 Even Zinzendorf spoke of the Halle Pietists as " those miserable Christians
whom no one calls Pietists but 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.
Euler (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 (t 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 ElCHHORN
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, Pentateuch, I. xiii. It is said that the term "ration
alism " first occurs in the Theologia Naturalis of Amos Comenius, 1661.
' ' Supematuralism " was first used as the antithesis to " Rationalism " by Gabler
(Hengst. Theol. Journ. 1801). Descartes in 1650 had formulated his pro
position, De 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 ; Gottingen of the critical ;
Tubingen and Halle of the Pietist and Scholastic.

Semler. 403
a prophet like Herder, nor an originator like Schleiermacher,
but by his 171 books he 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 which revealed to him the divergences
of theological opinions, had convinced him that men must
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 rehgious 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 principles.
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 the
Great that " every man must be left to get to heaven in his own way."
" Semler did all he could to take off the halo which rested on the first centu
ries " (Kahnis), and. "uttered tbe magic word which emancipated theology
from the fetters of tradition " (Reuss). See Myers, Catholic Thoughts, p. 288.
2 " It is inconceivable how thoughtful Christians confound the sacred Scrip
ture of the Jews and the Word of God which is here and there contained and
enveloped therein." Semler, Abhandl. v. freier TJntersuchen d. Kanons, i. 48
(4 vols. 1771-1775). He also wrote a special book, Der XJnterschied d. Heil.
Schrift und des Wortes Gottes. See many passages from his writings quoted
by Sonntag (De Doctrina Inspirationis, pp. 162, fg.), who points out the im
portance of his distinction between "inspiration" and "revelation."
D D 2

404 Views 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 ' (pi/covofita) or ' condescen
sion ' (avyKard8aai<;) 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 Semler
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 k I'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 Juclaeis pejor."
2 He died, Kurz says, "brokenhearted," at the height of the controversy
raised by the Wolfenbiittel Fragments. See Sender's Beantwortung der
Fragmente eines Ungenannten, 1779.
3 See Colet's Letters to Radulphus, p. 28 (ed. Lupton).
4 It is defined as "oeconomicum dieendi genus." See Carus, Hist, antiquior
Sent. Eccl. 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 e\dhei avrols rbv \6yov KaB&s 7]56vavro arcoiretv,

Herder. 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." 1
But there could be no permanent life in principles of
exegesis which were lacking in positive elements.2 " Men
thought too much about the Jews and knew too little of
Christ."3 Their interpretation was " 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 we find the shady walks 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 which 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. S3. It was no less misapplied than the Kara tV ava\oylav -rijs
Trio-Teas (Rom. xii. 6) of the Reformation epoch, and the rb ypdfifia a-rrorcrelvei
(2 Cor. iii. 6) of the Fathers and Schoolmen, or "the love of Christ" which
was use*l by the Pietists as a plea for holy ignorance.
1 Perhaps the extreme outcome of Semler's tendencies may be seen in Teller's
Worterbuch des N T. 1772, which reduces Christianity to commonplace
morals. 2 On the important influence of Semler, see his own autobiography (1781) ;
H. Schmid, Die Theologie Senders, 1858 ; Tholuck, Verm. Schriften, ii. 39 ;
Nosselt, De J. S. Seml'ero (Rigae, 1 792), and the notices of him in Dorner
Diestel, Meyer, Kahnis, Hagenbach, &c.
3 Reuss, Heil. Schrift, ii. 323.
* Kahnis, Germ. Protestantism,- E. T. p. 70. " More poet 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, Tom Erloser d. Mensehen, 1796 ; Von Gottcs Sohn, 1797.
2 Hagenbach, Germ. Rationalism, p. 191.
3 Zur Schonen Literaiur 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." 5 Had this been all it would have been well ; but Kant's
system, in vindicating against Lutheranism the grandeur of
human freedom, unhappily denied the necessity of divine
1 The best exegetical works collected in Herder's twelve volumes of Theolog.
Werke were Aelteste Urkunde des Menschengeschlechts, 1774 ; Lieder der Liebe,
1778 ; Maran Atha, 1779 ; Vom Geiste d. Hebr. Poesie, 1782 ; Bricfe das
Studium d. Theologie betrefend, 1780.
2 In this sketch of Herder I have been much helped by Hagenbach,
who speaks of him with great enthusiasm and fulness. Germ. Rationalism,
pp. 166-212. See too the singularly glowing estimate of Liieke, Grundriss,
p. 75.
3 Kahnis, p. 78.
4 " To seek for theology in philosophy is to seek for the living among the
dead ; to seek for philosophy in theology is to seek for the dead among the
living." Bacon.
6 Dorner ii. 22. See Archer Butler, Development of Christian Doctrine,
p. 87. In Kant's system God is revealed by the law of duty, and the freedom
and immortality of the soul are postulates of the idea of duty.

408 Idealism.
orace. 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 supernaturalism 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 Semler, 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 eudaemonism 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
geheiligt, der andere aber eines armen Ihn nach Vermogen auslegenden
Stumper's ist." Werke, 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 Wegscheider 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
It 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 x — 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 (tl834), the Origen of Germany, who
exercised a profound influence alike on religion and on
biblical interpretation. He is the founder of what may be
called the psychological school of exegesis. Like Lessing,
Semler, and Herder, he was a man of deep piety, but he had
a clearer insight and a profound er faith than any of the

1 The Non-Ego, according to Fichte, has no reality without us, but is pro
duced by the activity and unconscious intuition of tbe Ego ; and this creative
Ego is not the individual but the absolute Ego.
2 " God is infinite, therefore beyond the reach of our science, but not beyond
our faith." Fichte, Sittenlehre. Claudius compared an ideal religion without
historical basis to a painted horse, which you can admire but not ride.
Hagenbach, Germ. Rat. p. 296.
3 Fichte, Spekulative Theologie, 1846. It is a characteristic fact that both
Fichte and Schelling dwelt on the primary importance of the Gospel of St.
John (see Westcott's St. John, p. xcvi.).

410 Schleiermacher.
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 Jems, 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
Him 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 Reden 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,
Riehm, Weiss, Hagenbach, Uhllorn, Liicke, Neander, Umbreit,
¦Ullmann, 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
1770, 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 adaptation to
human needs, and its satisfaction of human aspirations.
Schelling 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 See Schwarz, Gesch. d. neuest. Theol. p. 27. Schleiermacher not only in
fluenced De Wette, but even gave to the Tubingen school some impulse
by his letter to Gass on the Pastoral Epistles (1817), and his introduction to
St. Luke (1824). His chief book, Der Christliche -Qlaube (2 vols. 1821)
bore the same relation to modern German theology as Calvin's lnstitutio to
that 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 priori principle, in which
it found the explanation of it" (Dr. A. S. Farrar, Free Thought, p. 373).
" Der Grundgedanke seiner Philosophie ist daher ; das Absolute ist Procese,
ist die Selbstentwickelung der Substanz zum Subject " (Schwarz, p. 15). "The
existence of a personal God is admitted neither within nor without the. Universe,
but 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 eyil is suppressed, evil being regarded as necessary,
and good as only relative, while both may relapse into each other" (Chalybaus,
Lect. 18). '
2 " The 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 Religionsphilosophie was only published after his death, in 1832.
Of the Christliche Glaubenslehre of Strauss, it has been said that "it resembles
a theology in the same way that a cemetery resembles a city." A letter in
the life of Vatke (September, 1828) gives a curious picture of the theological
currents in Berlin when Schleiermacher, Neander, and Marheinecke were
Professors.

Strauss. 413
other, in Ferdinand Christian Baur, and tbe 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 Jesus. 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 reductio
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 Leben Jesu
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 History (E. T. J. Sibree, 1857) ; Vera, Philosophie
Hegelienne, and Introd. a la Philosophie dc Hegel.
2 Schwarz, Gesch. d. neuest. Theol. p. 3. Strauss, then a Repetent in
Theology, had gone from Tiibingen to Berlin in 1831 on purpose to hear
Schleiermacher's lectures on the Life of Christ, and "Sie gaben ihm den
starksten Anstoss zu seinem Zerstorungswerk," p. 29.
3 It was translated into French by Littre, 1839 ; into English anonymously
by Miss Evans, 1846,

414 Baur.
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 Glaubenslehre, 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 Gospels
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 Leben Jesu, 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 . . .
but 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
power 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
the 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." x
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 tho 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 at least the
1 Conferences (1846), p. 155.

416 Failure of Strauss.
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
forgotten 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 tomb of Abercius, 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 Jesu fur 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 the 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
whelming 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
the 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 Kahnis, p. 249.
* The failure of Hengstenberg and his 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-newspaper style of controversy and the ecclesiastical terrorism
on which it relied. Hengstenberg was the Calov of the nineteenth century,
and the Evangelische Kirchcnzeitung, during the period of its influence (1835-
1848) occupied the same unhappy position as the Record did twenty years
ago. But no heresy-hunting, no religious espionage, no hounding of theo
logical hatred against unpopular names could give life to a school of retrogres
sion animated by unscrupulous and bitter animosities. It was soon seen that
the strange new orthodoxy of an Evangelical Loyola or Torquemada, using
evil means that supposed good might come, was a complete anachronism (see
Schwarz, pp. 58-92, Kurz, p. 299). So retrogressive was Hengstenberg's
commentary on the Canticles, that 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 sChristian 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." x
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 Dorner, ii. 397.

Increased Knowledge. 419
a more complete apprehension of the truth were the
blessings 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
Jisus 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. WlNER 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
Neander shed over Church history the glow of his ripe
learning and large-hearted piety. Meyer pubhshed his
critical and luminous edition of the New Testament.
Dorner in his Ghristology produced a book which for its
speculative depth and historic erudition was worthy to take
1 Very touching were the words used by De Wette shortly before his death
in 1848 : " I fell into a time of confusion ; the unity of faith was destroyed.
I too mixed myself up with this struggle— in vain ! I have not settled it."
E E 2

420 Great Exegetes.
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. 1 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-fe" over the collected theological and biblical literature of the departed
year."

English Exegetes. 421
of 1611. 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, Horsley ; 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
Mant? 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 perfect 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 has
become 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 Inquiring
Spirit he was the first to show his fellow countrymen 2 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 Spirit
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 be weakened by the
characteristically splenetic sneers of Carlyle (see J. S. Mill's Dissertations;
Dr. Hort in Cambridge Essays for ] 856 ; Remusat, 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, 1-885).

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." J 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 body 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 recent
commentaries, worthy monuments of English candour and
erudition. It was this spirit which shone forth in Milman's
History of the 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 Hagenbach, Germ. 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
Church as courageous, as active, as rich in all good works as
in any age of the past, we can still say with thankful hearts,
Manet immota Fides.
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 rehgious 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 Church 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
palace-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 that deadly error of human indolence
and corruption, that it is our duty to preserve, and not
to improve."1 It is above all essential that we should
see the hand of 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 Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium. 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 Ilhtstrata. 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 that
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 been 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 aud the Decretals of Isidore
on which had been built the great fabric of papal supremacy
over the national Churches ; x the examination by DailM of
the Ignatian Epistles (1666) ; 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 Scriptis Dionysio Suppositis, 1690.

Widening Knowledge. 429
Christian 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 multitude 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 1753 the French physician, Astruc, discovered the double
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 Scripture. 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
wifl 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 and 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, cunning, 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,
but 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 Kostlin, 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 " (Pascal, Pensi.es II. ix. § 13).
2 When John Owen ( Works, xix. 310) said that Newton's discoveries were
"built on fallible phenomena, and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions
against evident testimonies of Scripture," his sentences may stand as but one
specimen of hundreds and thousands of the obscurantist utterances of
theologians who attribute infallibility to their own exegetical errors.

The Scriptures. 433
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 wisdom.
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 hisrory at which we have glanced is full
of encouragement. _jth.e 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 schools, because, following the hermeneutics of nature, they do
not attempt to enjoy it all at once. For that is beyond human power. For
every day its care, for every time its text ; there are texts for all times. The
devout heart finds it out from amidst the mass, and with its meaning consoles
itself for the rest." Reuss, p. 599, E. T.
2 Pascal, Pensttes, ii. 17, § 106. F F

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 Angelus
Interpres et Divinae veritatis internuntius. x 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. Herm. , ad fin. Comp. Merx, Eine
Rede vom Auslegen, p. 43 ; " Wann wird das Tliema bearbeitet werden : Jesus
Veteris Testamenti interpres primariusl"
2 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 flung 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
what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice." It
was thus that Christ supported the Divine authority of the
Holy Scriptures. Schemes of interpretation, 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
1 See Matt. xxii. 29-32 ; Mark xii. 24-27 ; Luke xx. 34-38.
2 0e0t)\ovs nevorpoivlas, 1 Tim. vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. ii. 16.
F F 2

436 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 beheve 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 necessarium. 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." *

1 " Out upon you that will read Scripture only to copy those things which
are 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 thousands 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. De Doctr.
Christ, iii.
3 " 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 THB RABBIS.
Rashi on Deut. xvii. 11, says, "The Rabbis are to be believed even
when they say that right is left, and left is right."
"He that quarrels with his 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, he 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 am still here.' ' Say
not fear 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 :
Hillel the Nasf. " The Modest, the Patient, the Elder,
the Great."
R. Johanan ben Zakkai. " Upright Pillar," or " Mighty Ham
mer." *
R. Meir. "The Brilliant" (Meir)2 and "Baal
nes, Lord of Wonders."
1 Berakhoth, f. 28, 2.
2 His real name was Nehoraii. '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 light of the world." 3

NOTE
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. Eull 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, I. Halahhic 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 B. Tarphon also called him "the horned ram," and applied Dan. viii.
3-7 to him, from his skill in rebutting the arguments of R. Aqiba. These
and other titles are given in Gittin, f. 67, 1, and the Aboth of E,. 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 Midrashim 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 (3T '3T K"IBD).
3. Siphri (" Books ") on Numbers and Deuteronomy.
In the second epoch the Haggada was greatly developed, and the
following works belong to it : —
4. Pesikhta. 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. *
Shemoth Rabba, on Exodus.
Vajikra Rabba, on Leviticus.
Bamidbar 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.
Midrash 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." J
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 "
(Boraitoih 2), and are collected in the Tosephta.3 The additions to the
Mishna are called Tosephtoth ; those to the Gemara aTe 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 walk." They
defended their several views as follows :
B. Eliezer. He should have a kindly eye.
B. 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.
B. Eleazar. He should have a good heart.
1 pan uno^.
2 Baria, "exterior."
3 From yasaph, "to add." The Tosephta was drawn up by R. Chija bar
Abba, a Tanaite, who also drew up a collection of Borai'toth.

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 pDm)
of nations is sin."
R. Eliezer. Righteousness exalteth Israel, but any good deeds
done by the Gentiles are only sin.
B. 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. Nechunjah. Righteousness and mercy exalt Israel, but sin
degrades the nations.
R. 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 (Braktische Einleitung, 95, 103).

NOTE IV.
FURTHER INSTANCES OF EXEGETIC AND SYMBOLIC KABBALISM.
1. Gematria. Is. xxx. 8. " Blessed are all those that wait upon Him " (17).
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 l"in£ = 409, and is equivalent to BHJ9H = 409
whence it was assumed that Hebrew was the primeval kmgue.
1 The word nDn usually means "mercy " or "piety," and taking it in this
seuse Schultens and Grotius practically agree with R. Johanan, and make the
verse mean "piety is an atonement for the people." But 1 DPI is rendered
SveiSos by the LXX. in Lev. xx. 17 (A.V. "ungodliness ;" R.V. "a shame
ful thing "). Kalisch thinks that it gets this sense by antiphrasis.
2 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 (wo), because both
words = 130.
Gen. xiii. 2. " Go down " (lin) = 210, therefore the Egyptian
bondage was to last 210 years.
Lev. xvi 3. " Thus shall Aaron come into the Holy Place."
, "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'HDDJ ; Bud-
deus, Philos. Ebr. p. 323.
2. Notarikon. 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 DB3 stand for the initials of the Hebrew words for " Potiphar,
merchants, Ishmaelites, Midianites."
Deut. xxx. 12, " Who will go up for us ? " In the Hebrew the
initials of these words give !"I7D, " circumcision," and the final
letters HW, "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 x"?K p npn N.
Gen. xxv. 23. " Two nations are in thy womb." Read not D^ia,
" nations," but DWJ, " men " (as the Massora reads). The two
men are Rabbi (Judah the Holy), the compiler of the Mishna, and
his friend Antoninus the Emperor.
Dent, xxxiii. 4. "Moses commanded us a law, the inheritance
of the congregation of Jacob." Read not fiESHlD, " inheritance,"
but nDniXD, " 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 J'B 'hv, "by a well," but pi? "bw, "above the eye"

Notes. 447
which shows that Joseph and his descendants are not affected by
the evil eye. Berakhoth, f. 55, 2.
Eccl. xi. 1. " Cast thy bread upon the waters, and thou shalt
find it after many days." Read not D»Dn ana, " upon the waters,"
but D'D'H ama, "in much water." (This was illustrated by
stories of R. Aqiba's escape from shipwreck.) Aboth of R. Nathan,
ch. iii.
Ex. xxxii. 16. " Graven upon the tables." Read not D-inn,
" graven," but JTinr^ " freedom ; " for only students of the law are
free. Aboth, eh. 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. Chasdah, 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.)
4. Importance attached to letters.
Ex. iii. 15. The name of Jehovah must not be altered because
DPJf? " for ever " is here written without 1, and therefore means
" to hide." Qiddushin, f. 7 1 .
Gen. i. 31. Why the superfluous article in " the sixth " day
C'B'Cn) ? 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
(aVS) to ' enemy ' (r^lK)." Baba Bathra, f. 16, 1.
Gen. xlvii. 12. The wordcttis dotted to show that they meant to
feed not tbe flock but themselves. Aboth of R. Nathan, 34.
5. Inferences from the repetition of words.
A Sadducee once said to Rabbi Iddith, " It is written (Ex. xxiv.
I), ' And God said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord.' Should it
not be ' Come up unto Me'!" " No," said the Rabbi, " Metatron is
here called by the 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' (Deut. xiv. 22). The
Rabbi said, " Give tithes that thou mayest become rich " (flW has
both meanings). Taanith, f. 9, 1.
2 Sam. vi. 2. " The Ark upon which the name, the name of the
Lord is called." " Name " is repeated to show that the broken tables
also were deposited in the Ark. Baba Bathra, f. 14, 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 ?
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 nan 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," Qiddushin, 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 (Beni Mikra). 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
who 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
that 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
shook 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 W, " Jesus. '
2 See Munk, Melanges, p. 479 sqq.
3 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,
" punetators" (o^ipj) who added the vowel points andaccents, and cor
rectors (D'iTJD) 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 (ITWnQ) and
from the Prophets (JTHtaQn). 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, Praktische Einleitung,
pp. 115-117, and especially Dr. Ginaburg's translation of the Massoreth
Ha Massoreth by Elias Levita, 1548 (London, 1867).

NOTE VIL
TALMUDIC CRYPTOGRAPHS.
From want of space I must content myself with a reference to my paper
on 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.

O G

LECTUEE III.
NOTE I.
PHILO'S USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
Siegfried, in three papers contributed to Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift for
1873 has carefully examined Philo's uae 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 hia 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 parte of it repreaented 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 waa
compoaed 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 thoae sciences ; and he
has many remarkable legenda about the youth of Moaes, &c.
3. He imitates the Greeks in putting speeches into the mouth of
Moaea, &c. (as Philo also doea).
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 ia fond of introducing proverbs, such as
" Remorse is the daughter of obstinacy and thoughtlessnesa,"
" The mob ia always changeable," " Envy waita on Prosperity,"
&c.
6. He aasimilates Jewiah views to those of the Greek philosophers.
See Antt. vi 11, § 8 ; viii. 4, § 2 ; c. Ap. ii. 39.
On the whole we muat regard Josephus as presenting a strange
mixture of Rabbinic, Pharisaic, and Rationaliatic notions. He was
wholly wanting in the religions earnestness of Philo.

NOTE III.
THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION,
A translator may either offer a free paraphrase, or may adhere to the
original with slavish accuracy ; or may steer a middle course 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 omiasion 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 (da-aXevra) ; 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 aa to get rid of anything which savoured
of difficulty or nnorthodoxy, 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 aoften 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 miatakes, they aroae :
a. From the use of an unpunctuated text, as in Hos. vi. 5, Pa.
cvi. 7.
/3. From the non-existence of vowel-pointa, as in
1 Sam. xiv. 45 ; 1 Chron. xix. 6 ; Ps. lxxxvii. 4, &e., where
they confuse im "with " and am " people."
1 Sam. ii. 16 ; viii. 19 ; x. 19, &c, confusions of ^ and ip.
y. From confusion of letters, e.g. n with n 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
&o. See Eccl. i. 18 ; ii. 3 ; viii. 6.
S. From ignorance of proper names, as in
Gen. xxii. 13 ; Is. vii. 3, &c.
t. 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 slaviahly literal, and was spoken of as
Kara arxpifieiav (Jer. in Ezek. iii. 15). The LXX. sometimes render HN
by o-irv (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
Yoma, f. 41, l).1 Theodotion's version seema to have been necesaitated
by the obscurity of Aquila's. Symmachus's version was far more in
telligible and perspicuous.

NOTE IV.
PHILO'S PHRASES FOR THE LITERAL AND ALLEGORIC SENSES.
Philo calla the literal sense :
ra p-qra. De Abrah. § 38.
to pnrbv, ai prrrai dr.epp,rjveva-eit. Quod det. pot. §§ 6, 46.
fj pr/rfj e'irio-Ke\jns. De Agric. § 30.
fj prrjrrj xal irpo^eipos fiidrafir. Quod Deus sit immut. § 28,
al 7rp6y«poi atroborreis in. rfjs (pavepas rav vofuavypacpfjs.
17 irpoxeipos ekSo^i) tov Ao'-you. De Conf. Ling. p. 34.
r\ frgrrj higyrjtjis. De Joseph. § 6.
Kvpims. De Opif. Mundi, § 54,
fj pnrr) Kal dravepa oVo'Soo-i?. De Abrah. § 36.
al p-qral yparpat. id. § 41.
Sometimes his phraaes betray his strong dislike to literalism ; thus
he calls it
fj Kara ttjv cppdrriv v^rrfyopla. Quod det. pot.
fj cpavepa. Kal rrpbs rovs 7ro\\ovs dirotoo-is. De A brah. § 29.
TTpos roits rrjs prjrfjs Trpay/iarelas rrorpirrras Kal Xiav ras nCppvs
dverjiraKoras. De Somn. i. 17.
Of the allegorical sense he speaka as
vojuhv lepav aXKnyoplat, al 6V virovoimv diroSorjeis. De Abrah. § 18.
De Agric. § 6.
De Cherub. § 7.
De Joseph. § 6,
alvirrerrBai 6V xnrovoiav. Quod det. pot.
Sia a-vji^oXav. Quod Deus sit immut. § 27.
o-vpPoXtxae. De Mund. Opif. § 54.
rponiKal aVoSoo-etj. De Conf. Ling. § 37.
ra epapaivojieva vorjp.ara. Quod det. pot. § 169.
ra vorjra. De A brah. § 38.
arrafiara Kal yopva. ivpiypara. id. § 41.
1 R. Joshua b. Chananiah appUed Ps. xlv. 3 to Aquila. Wogue, p. 139.

456 Notes.
to. iv inrovoiais. De Joseph. § 6.
fi rpomKarepa cwroSoo-ir. id. § 22.
17 iv aWrjyopia 8eapia. De A brah. § 25.
fj irpos diavolav iirujrrjprj (pCkop.a8rjs. De Spec. Legg. p. 191
fj iv diroKpv(pa> Kal irpbs oklyovs ajro'Socrif. De A brah. § 29.
How complete in Philo's opinion was the superiority of this allegoric
sense is seen in the fact that he calls it opartKols <pi\rj avfipdow, De
Plantat. § 9. He says that it is obscure to the many, but is the sense
held by the initiated (uvarai) and fjv ol ra vonra wpb rav alo-drjrav
an o8r-x.6p.evor. Kal opav bovajxevoi yvoipl^ovrriv, De Abrah. § 36. He calls
Allegory " the wise architect," De Somn. ii. § 2. In his view allegory
was 17 irpos to aXrjBes imvevovo-a ofioj, and literalism only fj irpbs ras
va>6ecTTeprj>v 86£as.
Arbitrary aa was Philo's method, it still was a method. It had its
own rules (raww ttjs dXXnyopi'as, De Somn. i. § 13 ; De Vict. Offer. § 5 ;
v'op.01 rijr rf'XXi/yopmj, De Abrah. § 15). He quite sincerely believed that
he was developing the true sense of Scripture, and after laying down
the diatinetly Platonic doctrine of Ideas says Mcotrt'cos eari boypa ovk
ip,6v, 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 ia not a man" (Num. xxiii. 19), and " God is as a man" (Deut. i.
31) that God haa two methods of inatruction, one for " the companions
of the aoul," and the other for " those who enter into agreements and
alliances with the body." In the latter pasaage he says that to " in
corporeal souls " God converses aa a friend, whereas he trains the sensu
ous by condeaeenaion and fear. On the expresaion " God came down " he
says, raOra. . . dvdpairokoyelraiiTaparai vopodery rrepl rov pfj avSpmiro/xoptpov
QeoO 81a ras rav iraihevopevav fjp.a>v a>(pe\eias (De Conf Ling. § 27), and
that to take it literally would be iirepa>Keavios Kal peraKorrp-ios a(re($eia.
Hia two strongest and plainest statements on the subject are De
Joseph. § 6, 2 yeSoi/ yap ra iravra fj ra. irXelura rrjs vopodetrias aKkrjyopeiTai :
and DeJ Spec. legg. § 39, ra irXela-ra rav iv vbpots 0-v'p.^oXa (pave pa
d<pavS>v Kal prjra dpprjroov. He sometimes puts aside the literal senae
entirely, e.g. writing on Ecc. vii 15, he saya ovSe yap rrepl irorapwv iunv
la-ropias fj irapovrra airovSfj irepl fie rav fiiaiv k.t.X. : and, speaking of Sarah
and Hagar, he aaya oi yap irepl yvvaiKcov ia-rov 6 Xoyos iXXa Siaveimv.
See Dahne, Alex. Religionsphilos. i. 49-80.
Siegfried, Philo, 160-165.

Notes. 457

NOTE V.
PHILO AND MESSIANIO HOPES.
In the lull of persecution and the growth of proaperity among the
Alexandrian Jews, the Messianio hopes, which had once been the stay
and inapiration 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 Legis 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, paaaion and
mind. His extraordinary comment on " It (avros) shall bruise (Tqpfjo-ei)
thy head, and thou ahalt bruiae his heel," is that the expression ia a
barbarism, but that this ia corrected by the aignificance. For he says
that the " he " (auros) refers to the woman, and ahould therefore be air-r].
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 o bserve the steps of the mind, and the supporter of
things which please it, to which the " heels " are naturally likened.
Going on to comment on the curious phrase of the LXX. (rnpfja-ei) i he
says that it may mean either " shall guard " ( Siao-axm, bia<pvXa%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 paasage 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 be blessed." Thia ia what Philo has
to say upon it in De Somniis {i. § 29). " This prophecy," he aays, " 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 Schleusner, s.v.

458 Notes.
virtue, and the tribes of the earthly around me are also swept away,
namely my natural senaea, and if any one in a family, or city, or
country, or nation has become a lover of prudencea, then the family, and
country, and nation necessarily enjoys a better life. For just as odorous
aubstance diffuaea 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 diaappeared.
It is quite clear that Philo in no senae identifies the Messiah with the
Logos. There is an allusion to national victoriea under some great
coming leader in De Proemiis (§ 16 ), and to the share of heathen
proaelytes in Jewiah blesainga in De Execrationibus, § 6.
Did Philo ever see Jesus 1 It is just poasible that he did, for he
tells us in his book on " Providence " (Ancher, 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 posaibility of an Incar
nation aa a mere hypothetical absurdity which could hardly be even
thought of without impiety. For in condemning the insane attempt of
the Emperor Gaiua 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 reductio ad absurdum, Surrov
yrrp els avdpwirov 8ebv fj eis 8ebv avBpomov perafiakew}
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 before the University of Oxford
in March, 1880.

LECTTJKE IV.
PATRISTIC REASONS FOR ADOPTING ALLEGORY.
1. The asserted vmworthiueas of the letter.
" Hiatoria simplex sed alta mysteria ; aliud enim gerebatur, aliud
figurabatur ; quia lateralis sensus indignus est." Ambr. De Fide.
" Ubi materia vel turpitudinem habeat vel impossibilitatem ad altiora
tranamittimur." — Jer. in Matt. xxi. 4.
" Quidquid in sermone divino neque ad morum honestatem, neque ad
fidei veritatem proprie referri potest, fignratum esse cognoacaa." Aug. De
Doctr. Christ, iii. § 13.
2. The unwarranted extension of isolated expressiona 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 abacondita aacramenta." In Matt. xiii. 35.
3. Entire miaapplication of the verae, " The letter killeth, but the
Spirit giveth life " (2 Cor. iii. 6).
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
the Law has nothing to say, but to threaten death to tranagresaors : or
else that the Law, taken alone, causes first sin and then death (Rom. vii.
W/g.). 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 juatify all the divergencea of all the
Christian aecta.
" Hie quippe auctor in eiadem verbis quae intelligere volumus, et ipsam
sententiamforsitan vidit, et certe Dei Spiritus . . etiam ipsam oceursuram
lectori praevidit, immo ut occurreret . . sine dubitatione providit." Aug.
De Doctr. Christ, iii. p. 32.

460 Notes.
This aatonishing 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 Biblioiheca Sancta, and by Water-
land, Preface to Scripture Vindicated. In various pasaages of these
Lectures I have ahown their want of validity. Sixtua Senensis clearly
shows that allegory is the result, not of loyalty to Scripture, but of
radical disloyalty to it as it ia, in such remarks as the following. He
says that to take Scripture literally is inevitably "contaminari et inqui-
nari Judaicia inatitutis ; " that it involves the duty of keeping the Cere
monial Law, " caeterasque Hebraeorum umbras quae jam ilmcescente
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 cnncta foedare, gerere paxillum in balteo et egesta humo felimn
more proprii corporis excrementa contigere," &c. He adds the remark
able words " Videbuntur nobis omnia insipida, agre.stia, insana, etprorsus
divina majestate indigna esse, quae Deus 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 ? "
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
i 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 Roi fainiant,
f 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 tbe
Exegetes," and his merits were so great that Maimonides 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." He 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 Chamiel 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 author of the oldest extant Philosophy of Religion, a
system of Faith and Morals (nijm ITOION) 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 excellent example of
familiarising himself with the philosophical writings and translations
1 I have referred to Wolf, Bibl. Eebraica, i. 337, sq., iii. 599, sq. ; Bnd-
deus, Isagoge, p. 1446, sq. ; Wogue, Eist. de la Bible (Paris, 1881); Low,
Pralct. Einleitung, he.

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 philosophie 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.3 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, + 1167), the
grandson of Rashi, show a great advance in the abandonment of
Midrashic lore for a literal and grammatical interpretation.5
Juda ha-Levi, the author of the celebrated Khozari, flourished
a.d. 1140.6 He headed the reaction against extraneous philosophical
influences. Not less illustrious than Rashi was R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (Rabe),
born 1092/ 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 Judaisme, passim ; Munk, Melanges,
477 sq. ; Ewald und Dukes, Beitrdge zur Gesch. d. altesten Auslegung in
Spracherkldrung d. Alten Testamentes. Stuttgart, 1844.
2 See Milman, Mist, 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 Koheleth. See Ginsburg, p. 38.
6 Id. p. 43. Dr. Ginsburg gives valuable specimens of these Jewish com
mentators. 6 See Munk, Melanges, 485 sq.
7 See Griitz, Gesch. vi. 198/0. ; 440, fg.

Notes. 463
chosen, he said, five different paths.1 1. Some, like Saadia, mingled
alien scientific 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, sought
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. Mose 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 tvere 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.4 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 salutary, and, in spite of violent reaction, a permanent influence."
He died in 1204.5

1 So Algarrati divided "the sects of the faithful" into four classes: —
i. The Dogmatists, ii. The Allegorists (Bastinis). iii. The Philosophers, or
Logicians, iv. The Soufis, or Mystics.
2 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 been explained by Krochmal. His admirable commentary on Isaiah
has been translated by Friedlander. (Lond. 1873.)
3 On Maimonides see Munk's edition of the "Moreh Nebuchim," and
Franck in Diet, des Sciences philos. iv. 31.
4 See Schwab, Berachoth, Introd. p. xiv.
5 "C'est par la lecture du Guide que les plus grands genies des Juifs
Modernes, les Spinoza, les Mendelssohn, les Salomon Maimon et beaucoup
d'autres ont ete introduits dans le sanctuaire de la philosophie." Munk,
Milanges, 487.

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 — R. Joseph Qimchi and
his two sons, R. David and R. Moses — rendered the highest services to
Hebrew philology, and to the natural interpretation of the Bible. So
highly was the grammar of David Qimehi 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 R. Moses ben Nachman (Nachmanides)
sometimes called Ramban (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.
R. Joseph Albo (t 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 R. Levi ben Gerson (Ralbag). 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
R. 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), tbe teacher of bishops and cardinals, wrote
grammatical treatises, which are so highly valued that R. 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, MUangcs, 511.
2 The word tV2p means "meal," and the phrase originally meant that
men cannot study the Law when they are starving. Dr. McCaul has trans
lated David Qimchi's Commentary on Zechariah (Lond. 1837).
3 See Gratz, Gesch. viii. 334 ; ix. 6.

Notes.

465

NOTE II.

titles of the schoolmen.1

Baeda.
Anselm 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 Baconthorpius.
Durandus.
Peter Lombard.
William of Champeaux.
St. Bernard.
Nicolas of Lyra.
John Bradwardine.
Petrus Aureolis.
William of Occam.
Duns Scotus.
Henry of Ghent.
Jean Gerson.
Wiclif.Dionysius 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 Melliflmis.
Doctor Planus et Perspicuus.
Doctor Profundus.
Doctor Facundus, or Abnndans.
Doctor Singularis et Invincibilis and
Venerabilis Inceptor.
Doctor Subtilis.
Doctor Solemnis.
Doctor Christianissimus.
Doctor Evangelicus.
Doctor Ecstaticus.
Lux Mundi, and Magister Contra
dictions.

1 See Heumann, Act. Philos. iii. 921 ; Brucker, Eist. Philos. iii. 889, and

H H

466 Notes.

NOTE ill.
ORIGIN OF SCHOLASTICISM.
The precursor, though not the founder, of Scholasticism, was
St. John of Damascus. His book, Fons Scientiae (irqyr) yvanreas), con
sists of three parts : — 1. Capita Philosophica. 2. De Haeresibus. 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 has had an influence that cannot easily be 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 hint 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 earliest 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 Melanchthon for
having imitated it, and even Luther said of him, " Nimium philo-
sophatur." 4
Some date the beginning of Scholasticism from John Scotus
Erigena.5 1 See Lupton, St. John of Damascus, pp. 65-88 ; Remusat, AbSlard,
ii. 158.
2 Lupton, p. 211, who refers to Dr. Gerando, Hist. Comp. iv. 159.
3 Tribbechovius, De Doct. Schol. p. 280.
4 Buddeus, Isag. p. 319 ; Lequien, Opp. Joann. Damasc. Praef. p. 5.
1 See R. L. Poole, Mediaev. Thought, p. 76. He was "the father of
Nominalism," and greatly influenced Gilbert de la Porree.

Notes. 467
Others date the beginning of Scholasticism from Lanfranc or
Anselm.1 Others from Peter Lombard.2
Others from Alexander of Hales.3
Others from Albertus Magnus.4
The truest view seems to be that given in the text, that Scholasticism ,
proper began with the conflicts between traditionalism and free inquiry. 1
Scholastic philosophy began with Roscelin, and Scholastic theology
with Abelard. Such is the view of Tribbechovius. Trithemius says of
Abelard, " Ab hoc tempore philosophia secularis sacram theologiam sua
curiositate inutili foedare coepit."5
One secret of Abelard's influence was his lucidity. John of Salisbury
says, "Non enim occasio quaerenda est ingerendae difficnltatis sed ubique
facilitas generanda. Quern morem secutum recolo Peripateticum Palati-
num /« . . . rerum intellectui serviebat." 7
Deriving the Scholastic philosophy from the sentence of Porphyry
preserved in the Latin translation of Boethius, which stated the question
as to the nature of genera (e'ISrj), 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 more 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

1 Danaeus, Prolegom. in Zombardi Sent. p. 18. Sententiac had, however,
been written before his day by Gilbert de la Porree, and others.
2 Calixtus, Apparat. p. 143 ; Aventinus, Annal. vi. ; Baur, Dogmengesch.
p. 156 ; Kling in Herzog's Encykl. s.v.
3 Chemnitz, c. Cone. Trident, p. 371.
4 "Albertus et similes, qui dediti fuerant doctrinae Aristotelis, trans-
formare Ecclesiae doctrinam in Philosophiam coeperunt. " — Melanchthon, Vit.
Lufheri, c. xiii.
6 Trithemius, De Script. Eccles. p. 161 (Coloniae, 1546); Thomasius,
Eist. Sap. et Stult. iii. 23 ; Cent. Magdeburg, p. 148 ; Victor Cousin, Ouvr.
ined. d' Abelard, Introd. p. iii. " C'est 1'invention d'un nouveau systeme
philosophique et l'application de ce systeme et en general de la philoso
phie a la theologie . . . c'est Abelard qui l'erigea en principe ; c'est done
lui qui contribua le plus k fonder la scolastique." Cousin calls Descartes
the destroyer of this system and the founder of modern philosophy.
6 This is tbe name which John of Salisbury repeatedly gives to Abelard.
It means " the dialectician of Palais," — the place where Abelard was born.
7 Metalog. iii. 1.
8 V. Cousin, Ouvr. intfd. d' Ab. p. lxv.
H H 2

468 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 IV
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
been 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 considered ;
such as,
Q. 6. Quod sit Deus tripartitus 1 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 Thes. Nov. Anecd. t. iv.

Notes. 469
The twenty-third question, Quod philosophi quoque Trinitatem seu
verbum Dei crediderint ? et non, indicates the favourable view of heathen
philosophy which was so suspicious to St. Bernard x who still shared the
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
" Abaelardus noster," speaks of him constantly with praise and affection,
and adopted his oonceptualism ; 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
venimus, inquirendo veritatem percipimus," 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 wurd.

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 "glossarial annotations, groaning beneath the burden of
numberless unsifted examples and parallel passages." We have already
seen 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
> Ep. ad Papam Innocent. Opp. i. 650. > Tert^adv He^og. 8.
3 Opp. i. 185. m rromvss- u- A-

470 Notes.
The custom of crowding the margin of " reference Bibles " with
passages supposed to be illustrative has 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), Clarke (1810),
and Scott (1822). They need the stringent revision which they have
received in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Some of 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 often be
when they are well chosen, may be seen in the Commentary wholly
Biblical. 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.
OPINIONS 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 Travers, 16 (who refers to Calvin's Instit. i.
16, § 9.
Pearson, Opera Minora (ed. Churton, i. 1).
Newman, Lectures on Univ. subjects, p. 282.
Remusat, 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.
Wetstein, Praef. in N. Test., ed. 3.
Hallam, Middle Ages, ii. 485-489.
G. H. Lewes, Biogr. Hist, of Philosophy, 291.
Renan, Souvenirs, xiv.

LECTURE VI.
NOTE I.
REMARKS OF LUTHER ON THE FATHERS.
" Respectu Patrum vermis sum ; attamen quo magis illorum scripta
lego eo plus offendor. Nam res ipsa clamat eos homines fuisse et
ipsorum auctoritas Apostolorum scripta oppressit. Attamen Papistae
audent Scripturam sacram obscuram blasphemare, quasi Patres earn
declarare debent ; sed ita declarare est obscurare." Aurifaber, Colloqu.
ii. 235 (ed. 1571).
" Observate quaeso quantae tenebrae fuerunt apud Patres de doctrina,
fidei. Hieronymus supra Matthaeum, Galatas et ad Titum frigidosissime
scripsit. Ambrosius sex libros super Genesim. Quam exiguus hominum
intellectus ! Nullus fere commentarius in Epp. ad Romanos et Galatas
aliquid sincere tradit."
On reading Cyprian he sighed, " Mirabatur tanti viii ineptias, dubi-
tans utrum ille liber sit Cypriani ; sed non est mirum, nam si Dei
verbum relinquimus, tunc omnibus offendiculis nos involvimus."
He was very unjust to Chrysostom, of whom he says, " Multos splen-
didos composuit libros, sed tantum fuit chaos et saccus verborum." He
calls him "seditiosus et garrnlus," and adds, " Ideo Erasmo placet, qui
negligit fidem et tantum moralia tradit." He quotes the remark of
Schurff, who, after purchasing and reading the works of Chrysostom,
said " Multa lego, nihil disco."
He had a strong prejudice against Jerome. " Scripsit xii. libros super
Genesim, et tamen vix dimidium capitis primi pertractat." " Nihil de
Christo tractat nisi quod nomine utitur. Tantum de virginitate, jejuniis,
cibis scripsit."
He remarks generally, " Patres habuerunt magnam auctoritatem, et
interim facta est injuria bibliorum. Ambrosius, Basilius sunt frigidi et
Gregorius Nazianzanus accusatur quod . . . nihil sincere de Deo scrip
sit. Spiritus Sanctus non patitur ut verbis etlarvis obligetur." Colloqu.
ii. 159.

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
coming. 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 than 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 eonantur, 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 quern citaverat ex Davide exornare
incipit ; hactenus eum tractavit secundum litteram, hune autem expoli-
endo amplificat, ideoque alludit magis ad verba Davidis quam interpre-
tatur. Ejusmodi iire^epyaa-ta est apud Paulum ad Rom. x! 6."
Heb. xi. 21. " Quod vulgo reeeptum erat Apostolus non dubitat suo
instituto accommodare. Judaeis quidem scribebat sed qui . . . pa-
triam linguam Graeca mutaverant. Seimus autem hac in parte Apostolos
non adeo fuisse scrupulosos."

LECTUEE VIII.
SOME EXEGETIC RULES AND PRINCIPLES.1
1. Everything essential in Scripture is clearly revealed.
iravra ra. dvaymia 8rj\a. Chrys. Comm. 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 »
Revelation. The preceding clause of St. Chrysostom, iravra carpi)
Kal evBea ra irapli rais 6elais yparpdis, is not true. It is belied by the
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 ike 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 very
different order of thought from that originally intended.
" Impossibile est quod proprietas unius linguae servetur in alia."
Roger Bacon (Opus majus, iii. 1 ; quoting Jerome, " si ad verbum
interpreter, absurdum est").
3. Every doctrine and every inference draionfrom any passage must be
deduced from the literal sense.
" Omnes sensus fundantur super unum, scilicet literalem ; ex quo
solo potest trahi argumentum, non autem ex his quae secundum
allegoriam dicuntur. Nee tamen Scripturae idcirco aliquid deperit
quia nihil sub spirituali sensu continetur fidei necessarium, quod
1 The word " ffermeneutic" implies the Science and Theory, the word
Exegesis ~the Art and Practice of Scriptural Interpretation. See Liicke,
Grundriss, p. 6 ; Wollius, Introd. in Eermeneuticam, p. 36 ; Semler, Eermen.
Vorbereit. 26. The distinction is merely one of usage, for the words epp-riveia
and 4£fiyrio-is imply no such difference.

474 Notes.
Scripturae non alicubi per literalem sensum manifeste tradant."
Thomas Aquinas, Summa I. Qu. 2, art. 10.
" Si litera tollitur Scriptura quid est 1 Lege ergo Scripturam 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 Victore nor many others who enunciated this axiom made any
real use of it.
It is true that Johri 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. V.1V Wit nb*6 *|?iE>!? IBb. " Teach thy tongue to say 'I do
not know.'"
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 incertis " (De Gen. ad Hit. 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 demonstrativa."
"Pium quidem posse esse sensum allegorise sed nnnquam para
bolas et dubiam aenigmatum intelligentiam ad auctoritatem dogma-
turn posse proficere." Jer. in Matt. xiii.
This rule, if properly attended to, would have cut away by the
roots 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 impudentissime nitatur
aliquid in allegoria positum pro se interpretari nisi habeat et mani-
festa testimonia quorum lumine illustrantur obscura ? " Aug. iu
Ep. 48, adVincent.
6. Omnis Scriptura sacra eo spiritu debet legi quo scripta est. Thomas
it Kempis. This resembles the remark of St. Augustine, That the true sense
of Scripture is Scripture, and no other sense.

Notes. 475
7. Scripture must be interpreted in accordance ivith the ordinary rules of
humrxn language.
" The law speaks in the tongue of the sons of men."
" Nullo locutionis genere utitur Scriptura quod in consuetudine
hominum non inveniatur, quia utique hominibus loquitur." Aug.
" Quaecumque scripta sunt ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt ;
hinc divinae litterae sunt humana capacitate humanoque sermoni
accommodata." Id. de Trin. i. 12.
This kind of condescension (o~uyKar6l3ams) points to the necessity
for Anthropomorphism, Anthropopathy, &c, "just as conversing
with barbarians," says Chrysostom, "we make use of their own
tongue." The recognition of the truth that the language of Scrip
ture is ordinary language does 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 been 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.
9. Bias and party spirit are frequent and fatal sources of exegetic error.
" Vitiosissimum dicendi genus depravare sententias et ad volun-
tatem suam Scripturam trahere repugnantem." Jerome (Ep. ad
Paulinum, liii. 7 ; compare Praef. Comm. in Joann., and Ep. (lxiv.
ad Fabiolam).
" Das ist der beste Lehrer, der seine Meinung nicht in die Schrift,
sondern aus der Schrift bringt." Luther (Werke, xxxiv. 131,
Erlang.). " Absint praeconceptae opiniones et studia partlum quibus Veritas
non potest non impediri." Kimedonc, De Seripto Dei Verbo,
p. 622.
10. "A dsi t quidem pia curiositas et curiosa pietas." Erasmus.
We must welcome lights from all quaiters. "Our faith, so far as
it is in knowledge, is imperfect, and requires not only enlargement,
but correction. Great movements of the human spirit are not
hostile to theology, but introduce the conditions of a more perfect
development of it." The Reformed religion will be false to all its
own deepest principles, if it seeks relief from hostile perplexity by
throwing itself into the arms of obscurantism.

476 Notes.
11. "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 superbns aecusatores sed
diligentes et pios requirit lectores." Aug. c. Adimant. iii. 6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GENERAL EXEGESIS.1

LECTURE I.
Cave, Scriptores Ecclesiastici. London. 1688.
Oudin, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiae. Leipzig. 1722.
R. Simon, Histoire Critique du Yieux Testament. Paris. 1680.
 Hist. Orit. des Principaux Commentateurs du Nouveau Testament.
Rotterdam. 1693.
S. Glass, Philologia Sacra. Amsterdam. 1694.
Pfaff, Hist. Lit. Theologiae. Tubingen. 1720.
J. F. Buddeus, Isagoge Hist. Theol. Leipzig. 1727.
J. G. Walch, Bibliotheca Theol. Jena. 1757-1765.
S. F. N. Morus, Acroases super Hermeneutica. Leipzig. 1797-1802.
J. G. Rosenmiiller, Historia Interpretationis. 5 vols. Leipzig. 1795-1814.
J. A. Fabricius, Bibliographia Antiquaria. Hamburg. 1713.
Schrbck, Christliche Kirchengeschichte. 45 vols. 1768-1812.
Ernesti, Institutio Interpretis Wovi Test. Leipzig. 1761.
Bbhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen. 2te Ausg. Stuttgart.
1873.
Sonntag, De Doctrina Inspirationis. Heidelberg. 1810.
Klausen, Hermeneutik. Germ. Transl. Leipzig. 1841.
Liicke, Grundriss d. Neut. Hermeneutik. Gottingen. 1817.
J. L. S. Lutz, Biblisehe Hermeneutik. Berne. 1849.
Lange, Grundriss d. Bibl. Hermeneutik. 1874.
Immer, Hermeneutik. Wittenb. 1873.
Diestel, Gesch. d. Alt. Testamentes in der Christliehen 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. der Heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments. Braunschweig.
1882.
1 It is possible that some readers may be glad to be referred to the 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 briefest form.
Other 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.
Ewald und Dukes, Beitrage zur Gesch. 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-Eneyklopadie fiir Bibel und Talmud, vol. i. s. v. Schrift,
Schriften, Sprache. Breslau. 1870 : vol. ii. s. vv. Bibel, Bibelubersetzung,
Exegese, Halacha, Agada, Kabbala, Talmud, Text der Bibel, &c. Strelitz.
1883.
Herzog, Real-Eneyklopadie fiir Prot. Theol. u. Kirche 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, Demonstrate Evangelica. Rouen. 1681.
,T. G. Carpzov, Introd. ad Libros Canonicos. Leipzig. 1721.
Eichhorn, 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 Rapball. London. IS 43.
The Midrashim. Bibliotheca Babbinica, eine Sammlung alter Midrashim,
ubertragen von Dr. A. Wiinsche. Leipzig. 1882-1884.
Le Talmud de J erusalem. Traduit pour la premiere fois, par Moise Schwab.
Paris. 1871-1883.
Der Jerusalemische Talmud in Seinen Haggadischen Bestandtheilen, ubertragen
von Dr. A. Wiinsche. Zurich. 1880.
Etheridge, Translation of the Targums to the Pentateuch. London. 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 Fidei. Paris. 1651.
Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum. Konigsberg 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.
Meuschen, 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, Antiqnitates Ebraeorum. Gottingen. 1743.
J. C. Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea. 1715-1735.
Beer, Gesch. d. religiosen Secten d. Juden. Berlin. 1822.
Fiirst, Kultur- und Literatur-Geschichte der Juden in Asien. Leipzig.
1849.
Fiirst, Der Talmud in Seiner Nichtigkeit. Warsaw. 1848.
Hirschfeld, Halachische Exegese. Berlin. 1840.
 — • Hagadische Exegese. Berlin. 1847.
Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrage. Berlin. 1832.
 Synagogal. Poesie d. Mittelalters. Berlin. 1855.
Hamburger, Real-Encykl. fiir Bibel und Talmud. Abth. i. Breslau. 1870.
Abth. ii. Strelitz. 1883.
L. Wogue. Hist, de la Bible et l'Exegese Biblique iusqu'a nos Jours. Paris.
1881.
Low nriSOn . Praktische Einleitung und Gesch. d. Schriftauslegung.
Gross-Kanischa. 1855.
Ohiarini, Theorie du Judaisme. Paris. 1830.
Weber. System der Altsynagogalen Theologie. Leipzig. 1880.
Talmudische Studien, R. Joshua ben H'anania. Berlin. No date.
Friedlander, Geschiehtsbilder aus der Zeit der Tanaiten und Amoriier. Biiinn.
1879.
Weill, Le Judaisme, ses Dognies et sa Mission. Paris. 1866.
Revue des feudes Juives. Paris. 1885.
Encycl. d. Sciences religieuses. Art. Talmud.
Derenbourg, Hist, de la Palestine d'apres les Talmuds. Paris. 1867.
Neubauer, La Geographie du Talmud. Paris. 1868.
Wellhausen, Die Pharisaer und die Sadducaer. Greifwald. 1874.
 ¦  Geschichte Israels. Berlin. 1878.
Ginsburg, The Massorah Ha Massoreth of Elias Levita. London. 1867.
Trenel, Vie de Hillel. 1867.
Delitzsch, Jesus und Hillel. Erlangen. 3rd edition. 1879.
Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums. Leipzig. 1859.
Gratz, Geschichte der Juden. Leipzig. 1871.
Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Leipzig. 1863.
Geiger, Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte. Breslau. 2nd edition. 1865.
Jahn, Archaeologia Biblica. Ed. Upham. Oxford. 1836.
Munter, Der Judische Krieg unter d. Kaisern Trajan und Hadrian. 1821.
Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, vol. v. 3rd ed. Gottingen. 1867.
Milman, Hist, of the Jews, vols. ii. and iii. London. 1863.
Eisenlohr, Das Volk Israel. Leipzig. 1856.
Schiirer, Neutest Zeitgeschichte. Leipzig. 1874.
Kuenen, The Religion of Israel. E. Tr. Edinburgh. 1874.
Stein Schneider, Jewish Literature. London. 1857. A translation of the
Article in Ersch und Gruber.
L. Dukes, Rabbinische Blumenlese. Leipzig. 1844.
W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church. Edinburgh.
1881.
 Lectures on the Old Testament. Edinburgh. 1884.
Dr. McCaul, Old Paths. London. 1854.
Barclay, The Talmud. London. 1878.
Allen, Modern Judaism. London. 1830.
Margoliouth, Modern Judaism. 1843.
Hershon, Talmudic Miscellany. London. 1880.
 Genesis with a Talmudic Commentary. London. 1883. x
1 My references to this book will not always exactly coincide with those
of the published volume, because I used an unpublished copy. 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 Mirifico. Basle. 1494.
 De Arte Cabbalistica. Hagenau. 1517.
Raymond Lully, De Auditu Cabbalistico. Strasb. 1651.
Kircher, CEdipus jEgyptiacus. Rome. 1635.
Jellinek, Beitrage zur Gesch. d. Kabbalah. Leipzig. 1852.
Franck, La Kabbale. Paris. 1843. ITebersetzt 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 Philoniacas 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- Alexandrmischen Religions-Philosophie.
Halle. 1834.
Fiirst, Bibl. Judaica. Leipzig. 1849-1863.
Bartolocci, Bibl. Rabbinica. Rome. 1693.
Munk, Palestine. Paris. No date.
Guericke, De Schola Alexandrina. Halae. 1824-1825.
Jowett, Epistles to the Thessalonians, &c, i. 363-417. London. 1855.
J. G. Muller, Des Juden Philo Buch von d. AVeltschopfung. Berlin.
1841.
Matter, Essai Historique sur l'Bcole 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. Die Zeit d. Apostel, i. 123-171. Heidelberg. 1879.
Dbllinger, Judenthum u. Heidenthum. Regensburg. 1857.
Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur Gr. Uebersetzung. Leipzig. 1863.
Wellhausen, Text der Biicher Samuel. Gottingen. 1871.

Bibliography of General Exegesis. 483
Hollenberg, Der Charakter d. Alex. Uebersetzung. Moers. 1876.
Dbpke, Hermeneutik d. Neutest. Schriftst. Leipzig. 1829.
Reuss, Theologie Chretienne. 3rd ed. Paris. 1864.
Grinfield, Apology for the Septuagint. London. 1850.
Herzog's Cyclopaedia, s. w. Hellenism, Philo.
Lipsius, Alex. Religions-Philosophic Schenkel, Bibel Lexicon, i. 87.
Dr. Deutsch, s. v. "Dispersion" in Kitto's Cyclopaedia.
Canon Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. Revised edition.
1867.
Kuenen, Rel. of Israel, iii. 162-223. E. Tr. London. 1875.
Keim, Jesu von Nazara. i. 208-225. Zurich. 1867.
Jost, Gesch. d. Israeliten. iii. 174-181. Berlin. 1822.
 Gesch. d. Judenthums und seiner Sekten. Leipzig. 1857. i. 368
402.
Gratz, Gesch. d. Juden, iii. 296-308. Leipzig. 1863.
Dahne in Ersch und Gruber, s. v. Philo.
Zockler in Herzog, s. v. Philo.
Kingsley, Alexandria and her Schools. Cambridge. 1854.
Vacherot, Hist, de l'Eeole d'Alexandrie. Paris. 1846.
Ueberweg, Hist, of Philos i. 222-231. E. Tr. 3rd ed. London. 1880.
Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. vi. 257-312. Gottingen. 1868.
Olshausen, Ein Wort iiber tiefern Schriftsinn. Konigsberg. 1824.

LECTURE IV.
For Patristic methods of interpretation, see
Origen, De Principiis. Lib. iv.
Adrianus, Eio-ayayb els rhs Belas yparpds (Critici Sacri, viii. 11). Ed. Hbschel.
Wien. 1602.
Eucherius, Liber formularum. Bibl. Max. Patr., vi. 522.
Tichonius, De Septem Regulis. Bibl. Max. Patr., vi. 49. Gallandi, viii.
107.
Hieronymus, De Optimo Genere Interpretandi. Ep. 101, ad Pammach.
Augustinus, De Doctrina Christiana, iii. iv. Opp. Ed. Bened., t. iii.
Junilius, De Partibus Legis Divinae. Bibl. Max. Patr., x. 339. Ed. Kihn.
Friburg. 1880.
Isidore of Pelusium, Epistolae de Interpret. Div. Script. Bibl. Max. Patr.
vii.
Cassiodorus, De Institutione Div. Literarum. Opp. ii. 509 sq. Migne, lxx.
1105.
Whitby, Dissert de Sac. Script. Interpretatione. London. 1714.
Cave, Lives of the Fathers. Ed. Cary. Oxon. 1850.
J. G. Walch, Bibliotheca Patristica. Ed. Danz. 1834.
Flacius, Clavis Script. Sacr., pp. 134-145. Basle. 1609.
Bohringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, 2te Auflage. Stuttgart.
1873.
Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, vii. Gottingen. 3rd ed. 1868.
Huber, Die Philosophie der Kirchenvater. Munich. 1859.
1 The literature on the subject of this Lecture is immense. I only indicate
a few of the books and editions which will be found most useful. I i 2

484 Bibliography of General Exegesis.
Barbeyrac, Traite de la Morale des Peres. 1728.
Mbhler, 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.
Philotheo's Bryamios, tov K\f)p.evTos. Al Siio irpbs Kopivdiovs eirirrroXai.
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 Engelbardt, 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 Philosophie d'Origene. Paris. 1884.
Tertulliani quae supersunt omnia. Ed. Oehler. Leipzig. 1853.
Hauck, Tertullian's Leben und Schriften. Erlangen. 1877.
Rbnsch, 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.
DailU, 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.

Nouvelles Observations. Paris. 1695.

- Bam-, Church History. E. Tr. London. 1878.
Alb. de Broglie, L'Eglise et I'empire romain au 4me siecle. 4th ed Paris.
1868.

Bibliography of General Exegesis. 485
Schaff, History of the Christian Church. Edinburgh. 1884.
Hergenrother, Handb. d. allgem. Kirchengeschichte. Freiburg. 2nd edition.
1879.
D. Conybeare, Analyt. Exam, of the Writings of the Christian Fathers.
Bampton Lectures. 1839.
Estlander, De Usu S.S. in Eccl. Cath. duobus primis post Christum Seculis.
Helsingf. 1829.
Ebert, Gesch. d. Literat. d. lateinischen Mittelalters im Abendlande, Leipzig.
1874. Vol. ii. 1880.
H. A. Woodham, Tert. Liber Apologet. with Notes and Introduction. Cam
bridge. 1850.
Cypriani Opera, ed. Hartel. (Corpus Scrip. Eccles. Latin.)
Freppel, St. Cyprien. 2nd edition. Paris. 1873.
Clementis Alex. Opera, ed. Potter. Oxon. 1715.
Freppel, Clement d'Alexandrie. Paris. Revised edition. 1873.
Miinter, De Schola Antiochena. 1814.
Hergenrother, Die Antioch. Schule. Wiirzburg. 1866.
Sieffert, Theod. Mopsuestenus Vet. Test, sobrie interpret. Vindex. Regensb.
1827.
H. B. Swete, Theod. Ep. Mops, in Epp. B. Pauli Commentarii. Cambridge.
1882.
Kihn, Die Bedeutung d. antioch. Schule. Weissenburg. 1856.
S. Chrysostomi Opera. Ed. Bern, de Montfaucon. Paris. 1718—1738.
Fbrster, Chrysostomus. Gotha. 1869.
W. A. Stephens, Life and Times of St. Chrysostom. London. 1872.
E. Binder, Etudes sur Theodoret. Geneva. 1844.
C. V. Lengerke, De Ephraemi Syri Arte Hermeneutica. Regiom. 1831.
Hieronymi Opera, ed. Vallarsi. Verona. 1734-1742.
Clericus, Quaest. Hieronymianae. Amstelod. 1700.
Engelstoft, Hieronymus Stridonensis. Havre. 1797.
Zockler, 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.
Bindemann, Der Heilige Augustinus. Berlin. 1844-1869.
Nourisson, La Philos. de St. Augustin. 2nd ed. Paris. 1866.
Flottes, Etudes sur St. Augustin. Paris. 1861.

LECTURE V.
SOME ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES.
J. Scotus Erigena, De Divisione Naturae. Migne, t. 122.
Joh. Sarisburiensis, Opera. Migne, t. 199. _,..,„.
Rupertus Tuitensis, Praef. in Comment, in Joann. Opera. Venice, 1/48-1/50.
fHugo de Sto. Victore, Opera. Migne, tt. 175-177.
"Bonaventurae Opera. Ed. Peltier. Paris. 1861.
* St. Thomas Aquinas, Praef. in Psalmos, Praef. m Hiob.
Summa. Cap. de Scriptuns.

' Petri Abaelardi, Sic et Non.
V. Cousin, CEuvres inedits d' Abelard. Pans. 1836.
Petr. Lombardi, 11. iv. Sententiarum. Migne, t. 192.

486 Bibliography of General Exegesis.
Bernardi Opera. Ed. Mabillon. Paris. 1719.
Nicolai Lyrani Prologi.
Gerson, Propositiones de Sensu Literali. Opera. Ed. Du Phi. Antwerp.
1706.
Herolt, Sermones et Exempla.
Vitalius a Furno, Speculum Morale. Lyons. 1513.
Badius Ascensius, Allegoriarum Bibliorum. 1520.
Coppenstein, Dispositio Sermonum ad Sens. Literalem et saepe Mysticum de
Aquinate et Bonaventura.
Whitaker, Disputation on Holy Scripture. Parker Society. 1849.
Goldast, Monarchia. 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 Beuter, 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. Philosophie. 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. London. 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 des Savants Illustres. Paris. 1867.
J. Bass Mullinger, The University of Cambridge. 1873.

SOME MONOSRAPHS.
Binder, De Schol. Theol. Tubingen. 1624.
Lud. Vives, De Causis Corrupt. Artium. Antwerp. 1531.
Thomasius, Theologia Scholastiea 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.
Christlieb, Leben und Lehre d. J. Scotus. Gotha. 1860.
Hundeshagen, De Agobardi Vita et Scriptis. Giessen. 1831.
V. Cousin, CEuvres IniSdits d' Abelard. Paris. 1836.
 Cours de Philosophie. Paris. 1829.

Bibliography of General Exegesis. 487
Remusat, Abelard. Paris. 1845.
Guizot, Lettres d' Abelard. Paris. 1839.
M. Deutsch, Peter Abalard, ein Kritischer Theolog. d. Zwblften Jahrhunderts.
1883.
Jourdain, Reeherches sur . l'Age des Traductions Lat. d'Aristote. Paris.
1819.
 La Philos. de Thomas d'Aquin.
Liebner, Hugo de Sto Victore. Leipzig. 1836.
Engelhardt, Richard v. St. Victor. Erlangen. 1838.
Hollenberg, Studien zu Bonaventura. Berlin. 1862.
Schaarschmidt, Johannes Sarisburiensis. Leipzig. 1862.
J. Cotter Morison, Life and Times of St. Bernard. London. 1863.
Renan, Averroes. Paris. 1851.
Munk, Melanges de Philosophie Juive et Arabe. Paris. 1859.
F. C. Baur, Christliche Kirche des Mittelalters. Tubingen. 1861.
Gbrres, Die Christliche Mystik. Regensb. 1838-1842.
Vaughan, Life of St. Thomas Aquinas. London. 1871.
Tholuck, DeThomaAq. 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 ff.
Calvin, Works. Edinburgh. 1842-1853.
Matthias Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae. Basle. 1567.
Bellarminus, De Verbo Dei, 11. iv. Opera. Cologne. 1620.
J. Gerhard, De Legitima S.S. Interpretatione. Jena. 1610.
Canones et Decreta Cone. Trident. Sess. iv.
P. Melanchthon, Vita Martini Lutheri. Ed. Neander. Berlin. 1841.
J. Camerarius, Vita Philippi Melanchthonis. Ed. Neander. Berlin. 1841.
0. Myconius, Vita Huldrici Zwinglii. Ed. Neander. Berlin. 1841.
Theod. Beza, Vita Joh. Calvini. Ed. Neander. Berlin. 1841.
Luther, Werke. Ed. Walch. Halle. 1740-1752.
 Erlangen 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 HISTORIES, &C.
Mayerhoff, J. Reuchlin und Seine Zeit. Berlin. 1830.
Fabricius, Loci Communes D. Mart. Luther. 1651.
Jortin, Life of Erasmus. London. 1806.
Drummond, Erasmus, his Life and Character. London. 1873.
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 Reformatoren vor der Reformation. 1842. E. Tr. 1855.
Kurz, Hist, of the Christian Church from the Reformation. E. Tr. 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.
Beard, Hibbert'Lectures. London. 1883.
G. P. Fisher, Hist, of the Reformation. New York. 1873.
Dbllinger, Die Reformation. 1848.
Seebohm, Oxford Reformers. London. 1869.
Tulloch, 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. 1860.
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. Helmstadt. 1628.
Calovius, Biblia Illustrata. Frankfort. 1672.
Quenstedt, 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-politieus. Hamb. 1670.
Sixtinus Amama, Anti-Barbarus. Amsterd. 1628.
Dannhauer, Hermeneutica Sacra. Strasburg. 1684.
Pfeiffer, Herm. Sacra. Enlarged by Carpzov. 1690.
Waterland, Scripture Vindicated.
L. Meyer, Philosophia Scripturae Interpres. 1666.
Bp. Wilkins, Ecclesiastes, p. 59. List of Works on the Interpret, of Scrip.
Franke, Manuductio ad Lectionem Sa. Scripturae. Halle. 1693.
Clericus, Praef. Comment, in Gen. Amsterdam. 1731.
Rambach, Instt. Hermen. Jena. 1723.
Beansobre, Remarques sur le N. T. La Haye. 1742.
Werenfels, Lectiones Hermeneuticae. Opera. Basle. 1782.
J. A. Bengel, Gnomon, Praefatio. Ed. 2. Tubingen. 1759.

SOME GENERAL HISTORIES.
T. H. Schuler, Gesch. d. Schrifterklarung. Tiibingen. 1787.
Weismann, Introd. in Memorabilia Eccl. Hist. 1718.
Tholuck, Das Akad. Leben des 17 Jahrhunderts. Hamburg. 1854.
Heppe, Dogmatik des Deutschen Protestantismus. Marburg. 1857.
Pfaff, Introd. in Historiam Theol. Lit. Tiibingen. 1724.
Lilienthal, Biblischer Archivarius. 1746.
Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifterklarung. Gottingen. 1802.
Dr. Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation.
Kurz, History of the Christian Church. E. Tr. Edinburgh. 1864.
G. J. Plank, Gesch. d. Prot. Theol. Gottingen. 1831.
Dorner, 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 dem Trienter Concil. Miinchen.
1866.
Pusey. Historical Enquiry. London. 1828.
Walch, Religionsstreit. innerhalb der Lutherischen Kirche. 1730-1739.

SOME MONOGRAPHS.
Henke, Georg Calixt und Seine Zeit. Halle. 1853.
Hossbach, Spener und Seine Zeit. 1853.
H. Schmid, Gesch. des Pietismus. Nbrdlingen. 1863.
Wachter, J. A. Bengel, Lebensabriss, Character, Briefe, und Aussprache.
1865.
Bilfinger, De Spinosae Methodo Explicandi S. Ser. Jen. 1739.
Segaar, De Grotio N. T. Interprete. Traj. 1785.
Spangenberg, Idea Fidei Fratrum. Barby. 1782.
Glbckner, Interpretandi Ratio a J. J. Wetsteino adhibita. Leipzig. 1754.

490 Bibliography of General Exegesis.

LECTURE VIII.
The Hermeneutic 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.
Wolfenbuttler 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 innerhalb 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.
Tbllner, 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, Lebensbeschreibung. 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, Utrum Philosophia Kantii Scriptm-ae interpret, admitti possit ?
Vit. 1795.

Bibliography of General Exegesis. 491
Stahelm, De Wette nach Seiner Theolog. Wirksamkeit. Basle. 1880.
Bachmann, Hengstenberg nach s. Leben u. Wirken. Giitersloh. 1879.
Renan, CEuvres. 1863-1883.
Hort's Essay on Coleridge. Camb. Essays. 1856.
Many other treatises will be referred to in the notes.

SOME GENERAL HISTORIES.
Dr. A. S. Farrar, Critical History of Free Thought. Bampton Lectures.
London. 1862.
Lecky, History of Rationalism. London. 1866.
Hagenbach, German Rationalism. E. Tr. Edinburgh. 1865.
Dorner, Hist, of Prot. Theology. E. Tr. Edinburgh. 1871.
Hundeshagen, Der Deutsche Protestantismus. Darmstadt. 1850.
Tholuck, Gesch. d. Rationalismus. Berlin. 1865 : and Vermischte Schriften,
ii. Hamburg. 1839.
C. Schwarz, Zur Gesch. d. Neuesten Theologie. 1856. 4th edition. Leipzig.
1869.
Rosenmiiller, Handbuch fiir die Litterat. d. Bibl. Kritik und Exegese.
Gottingen. 1800.
Mansel, Bampton Lectures. London. 1858.
F. C. Baur, Kirchengesch. d. 19ten Jahrh. Tubingen. 1853. E. Tr. London.
1879.

INDEX.

INDEX.

A.

Abelard, his work and influence in
scholastic exegesis, 259 ; by his Sic
et Non he helped to break down the
authority of tradition, 259 ; Remu-
sat's remark regarding, 259 n. ; he
heads his sections boldly, 259 n. ; 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. Gildas de Rhuys,
301 ; his share in the origin of schol
asticism, 467 ; account of the Sic et
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 ra., 319 ra.
Aeneas, 296 n.
Agobard of Lyons, Archbishop, an in
dependent mediaeval thinker, 252 n. ;
he protests against the duel and
ordeal, 252 n. ; and against silencing
the Prophets, 369 and n.
Ahijah, writer of one of the lost sacred
books, 7
Albam, 103
Albertus, his system of scholastic exe
gesis, 267 ; the extent of his works,
and remarks on them, 267 n. ; his
exegesis chiefly derived at third or
fourth hand from the Catenae or
glosses, 268 m. ; his self-denial, 301
Albo, Joseph, denies that Messianism is
a Jewish doctrine, 67 n.
Alciati, 349
Algazel, 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 n.
Alexander, the Alabarch, wrote a book
to prove that animals are endowed
with reason, 138 ra.
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 n. ;
position and commercial advantages
of, 114 ; its literary and other at
tractions, 114, 115 ; number and
influence of the Jews in, 115 ; gran
deur of the Great Synagogue of, 115
and n. ; becomes the seat of the
wealth and intellect of the East, 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 it lasted,
12 ; hermeneutic principles of, 22 ;
influence of Philo in, 22 ; its influ
ence on the Biblical studies of the
Christian Church, 111 ; the writings
of Philo its chief monument, 111 ;
the rise, progress, and influence of,
111 et seq. ; the Septuagint and its
influences, 116-128 ; its leading
founders and expounders, 128-158 ;

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 et seq. See
also under Aristeas, Aristobttltjs,
and Philo.
Alexandrian Judaism, its contributions
to the history of exegesis, 125 et seq. ;
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 tbe
Book of Ecclesiastes, 31, 32 ; the
most essential contribution of Alex
andrian Judaism to the history of
exegesis is the method of, 126 et seq. ;
influence of the writings of Aristeas
and Aristobulus on the method of,
128 et seq. ; 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 ra. ; allegory the
child of Rationalism, 193 ; general re
marks on, 193 ra. ; Baur points out the
origin of the system of interpretation
by, 194 ra. ; Origen's system of, 194
etseq. ; 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 ; the daughter of Rationalism,
249 n. ; 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 m.
Amharatsim, or boors, 59 n.
Amoraim, or commentators, origin of
the, 80 ; the labours of, produce the
Jerusalem Talmud, 81 ; Rabbina
Abina, the last of the, 82
Amos, 339 ra.
Amos v. 2, Rabbinical explanation of,
76 and n.
dvayay^i, Eucherius's use of the word,
24 ra.
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 ra.
Angels, views of Schoolmen regarding,
292 and ra.
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 n. ; founder
and leading teachers of, 212 ra. etseq.
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, Luther 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 ra. ; 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 ra. ; his death,
78 ; authorities on Aqiba and his
work, 78 ra. ; 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 ra., 119 and ra.

Index.

497

Aquinas, Thomas, 22 ; his influence
on scholastic exegesis, 269 ; authori
ties on his works and teaching, 269 ;
his system of exegesis, 269-272 ;
Tholuck on, 269 ra. ; Erasmus on,
269 ra. ; Pope Leo XIII. on, 269 n. -.
Natalis, Bucer, and Ventura on,
269 re.j_Renan on, ,.271 n. ; his re
mark on Augustine, 282 ; on the
phrase, "Let thereEe" light, " 295;
character of, 301
Aristeas, account of the letter of the
Pseudo-, 127 and ra.
Aristobulus, nature and influence of his
writings, 125-131; examination of his
statements — that Greek philosophy
is borrowed from the Old Testament,
129 ; that the tenets of the Greek
philosophers are to be found in Moses
and the Prophets, 130 ; Dean Stanley
on, 131
Aristotle, influence of his works ou
the mediaeval Church, 263 ; twenty
of the Fathers speak disparagingly of
him, 263 ; Gregory of Nazianzus's
opinion of him, 263 ra. ; Jerome's,
263 ra. ; Roger Bacon's, 263 ra. ; his
works become known through the
medium of Spanish Jews, 264 ; and
his influence rapidly spreads, 265 ;
in the Sorbonne it was decreed that
to contradict Aristotle was to con
tradict the Church, 265 ; Luther on,
266 ra. ; references to, 282, 289 ra.
Arndt, John, accusations brought
against, 363
Amobius on the allegory of the Gentile
philosophers, 167 ra.
Arnold, Dr. , on rightly comprehending
Scripture, 28 ra.
Articles, the Thirty-nine, on the Holy
Scriptures, Art. vi. , 369 ra.
Ashi, Rabbi, completes and systematises
the Gemara, 82
Assassinations of princes justified by
Scripture example, 39
Astruc, 429
Athenagoras, and his work, 171 and ra.
" Atonement of the Cock," a custom of
the Polish Jews, 101
Augustine, his influence on various
modes of exegesis, 24 ; endorses the
seven rules of Tichonius, 24, 26 ; his
reproach to the Donatists, 30 ; his
mistaken view of the First Epistle of
St. John, 31 ; his application of the
allegoric method to Ecclesiastes, 31,
32; on the teaching of the Holy
Scriptures, 42 ; his partiality for the

Septuagint, 125 ; his warnings to
Jerome, 224 ¦ ra. ; has been termed
"the oracle of thirteen centuries,"
234 ; he is greater as an apologist
and theologian than as an interpreter
of Scripture, 234 ; his natural and
acquired capabilities, 234 ; effect of
his character and works on theology,
the Church, and the world, 235 ; he
believed in the inspiration of the
Seventy, 235 ra. ; defects of his
system of exegesis, 236 ; his use of
allegory, 237, 238 ; authorities on
his work as a commentator, 239 ra. ;
injury done to interpretation by the
allegoric method, 238, 239 ; remark
of Rupert of Deutz on, 261 re. ; and
of Thomas Aquinas, 282 ; the wise
caution of, 293
Aulus Gellius, 343 ra.
Authors quoted or referred to : —
Abelard, 29, 43 ra., 253-256 and
ras., 259 n., 261 and re., 266 and
re., 269 re., 281, 289 ra.
Abravanel, Don Isaac, 33 re., 83, 461,
464
Abtalion, 83 ra.
Acacius, 227
Adler, Dr. Hermann, 446
Adrianus, 23 ra., 26 ra., 219 re.
Aelian, 120 re.
Aeneas Sylvius, 309, 313 n.
Aeschylus, 138
Agatharcides, 127
Agobard, 252 re., 369 aud re.
Agrippa, Cornelius, 36 re.
Ainsworth, 33 re.
Albert, 22
Albert, Archbishop, 324
Albertus Magnus, 253 ra., 265, 268 re.,
285-287 and ras., 289 u., 291 re.,
296 ra., 301, 460
Albo, Joseph, 67 n., 388, 464
Alcuin, 247 ra., 251, 253 ra., 420
Alexander, 114 and re., 115, 129
Alexander, the Alabarch, 138 re.
Alexander of Hales, 253 re., 265,
291 ra., 293 ra., 301
Algarrati, 463
Amalric, 253 re., 264 ra.
Amama, 379
Ambrose, 38 ra., 117 re., 124, 166 ra.,
168 ra., 174 re., 189, 203 and «.,
205 and ra., 206 and ra., 213 ra.,
215 ra., 222, 241, 247, 248, 262,
263, 317 re.
Ambrose, Antpert, 247
Amesius, 379
K K

498

Index.

Authors continued —
Amiel, 355
Ampere, 247, 289 re.
Anan, R., 443, 444
Anaxagoras, 135, 136
Andrewes, Bishop, 243
Angelomus, 296 re.
Anselm, 176, 221, 253 and re., 255
and re., 261, 280
Anselm of Laon, 12, 250
Anton de Nebrissa, 280 ra.
Antonius, Bishop, 297
Aphraates, 219 ra.
Apollinaris, 227, 254 ra.
Apollonius Molo, 127
Apuleius, 282 ra.
Aqiba, Rabbi, 65, 72-75, 80, 118 ra.,
119, 134, 442, 443, 448, 450, 454,
460
Aquila, 118, 119, 120, 221, 229
Aquinas, Thomas, 22, 164 re., 237 ra.,
257, 265, 266 ra., 269 re., 276 and
u., 282 and re., 285-288 ra., 291, 293
/(.., 295, 301, 313, 318 and ra., 358
Aramah, Rabbi Isaac ben, 31
Archangelus, 279 ra.
Arekka, R. Abba, 82
Ariosto, 313 re.
Aristeas, 116 ra., 117 re., 127, 134
Aristides, 207
Aristo Pellaeus, 38 n.
Aristobulus, 127-131, 134, 140, 143
ra., 169
Aristotle, 129, 138, 156, 247, 253
ra., 261-266 and res., 466, 468, 469
Arius, 170 ra.
Arminius, 328, 379
Arnauld, 243
Arndt, John, 363
Arnobius, 167 ra.
Arnold, Dr., 28, 42
Arnold, Matthew, 114 ra.
Aron R., 443
Artapanus, 127
Artemon, 263
Athanasius, 176 ra., 202 and ra., 241
Athenagoras, 171, 179 and ra.
Atling, Jac, 379
Atling, J. H., 379
Aucher, 130 m., 137 re., 138 ra., 140
Augustine, 22, 24, 26 and re., 30 re.,
31, 32 ra., 38 ra., 42, 43 ra., 117,
124, 125, 163 ra., 166 n., 168
and ra., 176 ra., 189, 205 ra., 208
andra., 212 and ra., 220-222, 224
ra.,227re.,230ra., 231 re., 241, 243,
246-248, 255 re., 259 re., 260 re.,
262, 270, 278 ra., 282 and ra., 290,
293-295 ra., 312, 313, 317 ra., 318,

Authors continued —
337, 342 ra., 346 ra., 352, 459, 460,
468, 476
Aurotinus, Cornelius, 314 ra.
Aventinus, 289 ra.
Bacon, Lord, 41 re., 251 ra., 257 re.,
263 ra., 271, 284, 289 and ra., 291,
293 and ra., 353 n., 407, 427, 465,
470
Bacon, Roger, 274 re., 286 andra., 310,
340 ra.
Bahr, 380
Bahrdt, F. A , 400, 406
Baier, 264 ra., 362, 371
Baldwin, 361 ra.
Barbeyrae, 163 ra.
Barclay, 19 ra.
Barnabas, 169, 170, 172 ra., 189, 191
Baronius, 202 n., 313 ra.
Bartoloeci, 82, 93
Basil, 38 re., 187 ra., 202 and re.,
206 re., 220 re., 295 re., 317 n.,
346 ra.
Bassus, 207
Baur, 139 ra., 168 ra., 181 re., 194 n.,
289 ra., 368 ra., 384, 412, 414-416,
418, 467
Baxter, 243, 377, 380, 383
Bayle, 343 ra., 380, 388
Beard, 308 re., 312 ra., 315 •«., 322,
338 re., 343 ra., 361 ra.
Bede, 165 re., 168, 248 and re., 249
andra., 251 ra., 257 ra., 274, 289 n.,
301 and ra., 420, 460, 468
s Bellarmine, 296 ra., 300, 311, 314,
321, 326, 350, 374, 375
Bembo, 308 n.
Bengel, 388, 392-394
Benson, Archbishop, 182 and re.
Bentley, 428
Berengarius, 253-255 and res.
Bernard, St.,33ra., 253, 255-257 and
ras., 260 re., 261 ra.
Bernard Sylvester of Chartres, 296 n.
Beveridge, 377
Beza, 328, 342 and «., 351 n., 372,
376
Bibbiena, 308 ra.
Binder, 287 ra., 292 ra.
Bingham, 377
Black, Mr., 84
Blayney, Dr., 470
Bleek, 375, 411, 416
Blunt, Rev. Prof., 163 ra.
Boccaccio, 309
Bochart, 130 re., 389
Boethius, 264, 468
Bohme, Jacob, 379, 384, 385

Index.

499

Authors continued —
Bohringer, 178 ra., 182 ra., 198 re.,
202 ra., 205 ra., 222
Bolingbroke, 17
Bonaventura, 43 and ra., 259, 273
andra., 292, 293 ra., 295 ra., 296, 301
Bonet, 390
Bonn, 207 ra., 372
Bossuet, 17 ra., 33 ra.
Bouquet, 247 ra.
Breithaupt, 239 ra.
Brentius, 32, 372
Brenz, 342 and ra.
Bretschneider, 60 ra.
Brewster, 359 ra.
Broughton, Hugh, 388
Brown, 313 n.
Browning, 305
Brucker, 245 ra., 247 ra., 265 rt,.,
283 ra., 289 ra., 470
Bryan, 377
Bucer, 328, 342 and ra., 372, 376
Buckle, 40 re.
Buddeus, 66 re., 101, 202 ra., 203 ».,
205 ra., 251 »., 252 re., 277 re.,
278 ra., 346 ra., 380, 389, 434, 446,
461, 466
Bugenhagen, 342 and ra. , 372
Bull, Bishop, 176 ra., 377
Bullinger, 342 and n., 372
Bunsen, 417
Bunyan, John, 324, 377
Burk, 392
Burmann, 379, 386
Burnet, 377
Burton, 194 ra.
Butler, 377
Butler, Archer, 407 n.
Buxtorf, 60 ra., 74, 83, 86, 88, 92,
93, 96, 98 re., 99, 101, 104, 371,
374, 388, 389, 446
Calixt, 328, 383, 361 ra., 363, 365,
379, 383, 467
Calovius, 22, 358 aud ra., 362, 364-
366, 368 and ra., 371, 373, 374,
383, 397, 426
Calvin, 163 re., 182, 216, 218 ra..,
291, 322, 328, 331, 336, 342-353
and ras., 360 ra., 361, 372, 376,
382, 472
Camerarius, 310 n., 328, 342 and ra.,
364 ra.
Campanus, 331
Canne, 470
Cappell, 379
Cappellus, J., 328 re.
Cappellus Ludovicus, 328 ra., 386, 387
Caranza, 320

Authors continued —
Carlstadt, 324, 331, 336, 341
Carpenter, Prof., 52 ra.
Carpzov, 363, 371, 382, 388
Cams, 404
Casaubon, 374
Caspe, Joseph Ibn, 33 re.
Cassiodorus, 24 re., 26 and n., 240
Castell, 33 re., 86, 377, 389
Cave, 210 re., 254 re., 377
Cellarius, 119 ra
Celsius, 389
Celsus, 17, 174
Cerinthus, 177 and ,/.
Chaeremon, 127, 19S n.
Chalcidius, 282 ra.
Chalybaus, 161 ra., 412
Chananiah ben Chizkiyah, 49 ra.
Chemnitz, 328, 342, 358, 368, 467
Cheyne, Mr. 103
Chiarini, 19 re., 35 n., 59 ra., 63 re.,
64 /i., 73, 82, 84, 85, 89, 90, 92,
94, 101
Chillingworth, 162 re., 163, 377
Chrysippus, 135, 140, 187 re., 195 ra.,
202, 211-215, 220-222, 230 «.,
236 ra., 242, 270 ra.
Chrysostom, 317 ra., 329, 333, 471,
475
Chytraeus, 342 re., 372
Cicero, 64 re., 135, 136, 144, 468
Clark, Samuel, 374
Clarke, Dr., 398, 470
Clement of Alexandria, 24 re. , 109,
116re., 117, 128 re., 129 re., 143 re.,
165 re., 166 re., 168 and re.., 172 re.,
182-187 and ns., 189, 208, 263 re.
Clement of Rome, 13, 122
Clericus, 224 re., 234 ra., 328, 374,
379, 383
Cobet, 121 ra.
Cocceius, 33 re., 58 re., 278 re., 379,
385, 386, 460
Cochlaeus, 317 re., 361
Coleridge, 163 re., 231 re.
Colet, Dean, 254 re., 255 andra., 282,
286 re., 296 re., 300 n., 318 re.,
321, 334, 353 ra., 404
Collier, Jeremy, l7re.
Comenius, Amos, 390
Comte, 308
Cornutus, 198 re.
Conybeare, 299 re.
Copernicus, 426, 427
Cotelerius, 170 re.
Cousin, 249 ra., 253, 260 re., 264 re.,
266 re., 467, 468
Coverdale, 316
Cramer, 250 re.
K K 2

500

Index.

Authors continued —
Cremer, 386 ra.
Crenius, 19 ra.
Creuzer, 135 re., 255 ra.
Crutwell, 470
Cudworth, 279 ra., 377
Cusa, Cardinal de, 313 n.
Cusanus, 297 ra.
Cuvier, 426
Cyprian, 123, 180-182 and ras., 216,
241, 317 ra., 326
Cyril, 201, 263
Dahne, 104 n., 116re., 121 re., 125re.,
129 re , 130 re., 142 re., 149, 452,
456
Daille, 163 ra., 187 ra., 229 re., 428
Damasus, 224 ra.
Damian, Peter; 228 ra., 284
Danaeus, 467
Dannhauer, 362, 376
Dante, 23 ra., 47, 221, 262, 267, 292,
298, 312, 313 ra.
Darwin, 427
David of Dinant, 264
Davies, Rev. J. LI., 206 re.
De Broglie, 209 re.
De Dieu, 379
Delacluze, 283 re. ••
De Lamennais, 3, 308
De la Rue, 199 n., 200 re., 202 ra.,
207 re.
Delitzsch, 32 and «.. 67 re., 128 re.,
210, 218 re, 224, 294
Democritus, 135
Denck, 307
Denecke, 363
Denis, M. J., 115 re., 133 re., 197».
Derenbourg, 18 re., 19 re., 55 ra., 64?<.,
66 re., 68 re., 69, 78, 133 re.
Descartes, 379, 383, 402, 427, 428
De Thou, 39 re.
Deutsch, Dr., 80, 89, 91, 93, 94, 126,
442
Deutschmann, 363
Deutz, Rupert of, 312 re.
De Wette, 32, 142 n., 312 ra., 319,
325, 411, 419
Deyling, 65 ra., 389
D'Herbelot, 53 re.
Diderot, 266 re.
Didier, 246
Didymus, 195 ra., 202, 227, 259 ra.
Diestel, 176ra., 203 ra., 219ra., 221 re,,
227 »., 253 ra., 254 re., 277 re.,
295 ra., 337 ra., 339 ra., 342 re.,
343 ra., 383, 389, 405
Dieu, L. de, 328
Dilherr, 388

Authors continued —
Dillman, 451
Diodore of Tarsus, 220, 227, 240 re.
Diodorus, 23 n., 114 re., 213
Diog. Laert., 135 ra.
Diogenes of Babylon, 135
Dionysius, 254
Dionysius of Alexandria, 206, 209 n.
Dionysius the Areopagite, 313
Disraeli, Isaac, 69
Doddridge, 383
Ddllinger, 139 re., 313 ra., 323, 365
Donaldson, 227 ra.
Donne, 294 re.
Dopkes, 76
Doring, 278 and ra.
Dorner, 203 re., 309, 311, 323, 338-
342 res., 349 ra., 358 ra., 360 n.,
362 re., 366 ra., 368 ra., 374, 379,
382, 386, 391, 405, 407, 408, 411,
416
Dorotheus, 209
Dorpius, 320 ra.
Dositheus, 115 ra., 361 re., 393
Doucin, 202
Drummond, 321
Drusius, 328, 379
Duns Scotus, 280, 281, 289 ra., 290
andra., 292 re., 301
Du Pin, 233 re.
Durandus, 261 ra., 286 re., 293 ra.,
295 re.
Durham, 33 re.
Durham, Bishop of, 188

Ebrard, 383 re.
Edersheim, 64 ra., 86
Edwards, Principal, 392
Eisenmenger, 65 ra., 93, 105
Eldad, 166 ra.
Eleazar, Rabbi, 19 ra.
Eliezer, R., 70, 86, 87, 119 re., 445
Ellicott, Bishop, 476
Elster, 251 ra 283 ra.
Empedokles, 135, 138, 285 re.
Emser, 329, 331
Engelstoft, 224 ra., 234 ra.
Ense, V. von, 390
Epiphanius, 117, 119, 125 ra., 177 re.,
181 re., 202 re., 208 re.
Episcopius, Simon, 163 ra., 328, 379
Erasmus, 203 re., 223 ra., 229 ».,
251 ra., 260 re., 265 and re., 269 re.,
280 and ra., 284, 289 ra., 290 and
re., 293 andra., 299, 310 ra., 313 re.,
314 and ra., 315 ra., 321, 322, 325,
328, 343ra., 355, 358, 428, 475
Erlangen, 325

Index.

501

Authors continued —
Ernesti, 219 ra.
Erpenius, 379
Ersch, 30 ra., 115 ra., 385 ra.
Etheridge, 47, 53 ra., 61 ra., 70, 78,
84, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97, 100
Eucherius Lugduensis, 24, 26 ra., 240,
295 ra.
Eupolemos, 127
Euripides, 7 ra., 138
Eusebius, 16 ra., 116 ra., 119 ra., 124,
128, 129 ra., 130 ra., 137 ra., 142 n,,
143 ra., 171 ra., 174 ra., 176 ra.,
177 ra., 181 re., 182 ra., 185 ra.,
198 ra., 201 ra., 202 and ra., 203 re.,
206 re., 207 ra., 209 and ra., 229 ra.,
232
Eusebius of Caesarea, 227
Eusebius of Emesa, 219 ra., 227
Eustathius of Antioch, 227
Eustochium, 257
Evans, Miss (" George Eliot "), 413
Ewald, 33 ra., 38 ra., 51 ra., 53 re.,
57 ra., 67 ra., 103, 115 ra., 130 ra.,
137 ra., 143 ra., 149, 151, 154, 224,
230, 415, 416, 462
Ewing, Bishop, 236 ra.
Ezra, Ibn, 33 ra., 70, 83, 89, 92, 95,
274, 384, 445, 462-464
Facundus Hermianensis, 213 re.,
346 ra.
Fabricius, 128, 210 ra., 251 ra., 254 ra.,
277 ra., 280, 313 ra., 326, 328, 334
Farrar, Dr. A. S., 402, 412
Fecht, 363 and ra.
Feuardentius, 174 ra., 346 ra.
Feuerbach, 412, 414, 416
Fichte, 353 ra., 384, 401, 409
Filelfo, 308 re.
Firmilian, 202
Flacius Illyricus, Matthias, 277 re.,
328, 333, 342 and re., 352, 364
Flier, 385
Flottes, 235 re.
Fludd, 36 re.
Forcellini, 115 re.
Forster, 220 ra., 221
Fortunatianus, 227
Fortunatus, 246
Fowler, 377
Franek, 125 re., 130 ra., 131
Francke, 97, 376, 382, 401, 412
Frank, 362 ra., 363 ra., 463
Frankel, 78, 92, 116 ra., 119 ra., 120
re., 125 ra., 142 re.
Franker, 454
French, 125 ra.
Freppel, Abbe, 187 ra.

Authors continued —
Friederich, 33 ra.
Friedlander, 22 re., 68 ras., 70, 78,
. 80, 81, 463
Frigerio, 270 ra.
Fritzsche, 216 •»., 219 re., 223 re.,
250 ra., 360 re.
Fuller, 388
Funk, 165 ra., 171 re.
Fiirst, 66 ra., 82
Gabler, 402
Gallandi, 128 re , 219 re.
Galle, 341 re.
Gaon, R. Serira, 92, 461
Gass, 383, 386, 411
Gebirol, Ibn, 464
Geiger, 22 ra., 35 ra., 66 re., 92, 120
re., 315
Geldardt, Dr., 412
Gellert, 401
Gennadius, 26 re.
Gerando, Dr., 466
Gerhard, 350 re., 358, 362, 366 and
ra., 371, 373, 376, 387
Gerlach, 154
Gerson, John, 253 ra., 278 re., 279,
301, 330
Gerson, Levi Ben, 309 and ra., 315
Gesenius, 115 ra., 224
Gfrorer, 38 re., 128, 140, 148, 149,
452
Gieseler, 184 re., 196 re., 201 ra., 209
ra., 254 ra., 308 re., 309 ra., 312 re.,
324, 411
Gilly, 229 re., 232 re.
Ginsburg, 19 re., 31 ras., 33 re., 36 re.,
73, 74, 81, 84, 95-98, 104-106, 446,
451, 462, 464
Gitten, 64 re., 68 ra., 69, 79, 80, 86,
442
Glaire, Abbe, 360 re.
Glassius, 104, 376
Glaukon, 135
Gobar, Steph., 201 ra., 206 re.
Gbbel, 372
Goethe, 87, 365 ra., 391, 401
Gomarus, 879
Goodwin, 389
Gotteschalc, 253
Gow, 247 re.
Guericke, 182 re., 201 re., 206 re.
Giirtler, 379, 386.
Guttmann, 364 re.
Gratiger, 130 ra.
Griitz, 19 re., 53 re., 56 ra., 66 re., 68
re., 70, 72-74, 78-83, 89, 91-93, 97,
114-116 res., 118, 128 re., 277,
462, 464

502

Index.

Authors continued —
Greg, Rathbone, 246 re.
Gregory, 23 ¦»., 168, 201, 202 and
re., 213 ™., 240 and ra. , 246 and
ra., 247 ra., 250, 268, 270, 274, 277
ra., 295 re., 298 ra.
Gregory of Nyssa, 195 re., 202, 222,
259, 373
Gregory of Nazianzus, 32 re., 195 re.,
226, 243, 263 re., 291 re., 293 ra.
Gregory of Tours, 246 and re.
Grocyn, 313 ra.
Grostete, 260 ra.
Grotius, 33 ra., 40 ra., 163 ra., 243,
263 re., 328, 351, 365 and re., 374,
376, 379, 380, 383, 387, 445
Gruber, 30 re., 115 re., 385 re.
Grynaeus, 234 ra.
Haag, 343 re., 351 re.
Haddarshan, Simeon, 83
Hagenbach, 360 n., 372, 391, 405-
407, 409, 411
Hales, 377
Hallam, 39 re., 40 ra., 247, 258 re.,
280, 314 re., 316 re., 470
Halle, 208 re.
Haller, 402
Hallevy, Rabbi Jehudi, 92
Hamburger, 18 re., 50 re., 60 re., 64
?i., 66 re., 101, 104
Hammond, 377, 380
Hampden, 240 re., 266 ra., 281 re.,
283 re., 311 re.
Harding, 260 ra.
Harduin, 212 ra.
Hare, 165 ra.
Harms, Claus, 413
Hartmann, 393
Hase, 341 re.
Hasselbach, 289
Haureau, 245 re., 247 ra., 253 ra.,
257 ra., 261 ra., 265 ra., 280, 281
ra., 282 re.
Hausrath, 88, 100, 103, 114 re., 116
Haverniek, 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 ra., 277, 402, 417
Henke, 383
Hennischius, 33 ra.

Authors continued —
Heppe, 339 re.
Herakleides of Pontius, 136 and re.,
1 oo 943
Heraklitus, 129 re., 138
Herder, 33 ra., 91, 320, 377, 380,
399, 403, 405, 406, 409, 410
Hergenrother, Cardinal, 212, 256re.,
258 re., 265 re., 280 re., 283 ra.
Hermas, 171 and re.
Herodotus, 120 n.
Hershon, 21 re., 36 ra., 50 ra., 59 re.,
65 re., 66 re., 72, 74-77, 102, 442
Hesiod, 127, 135, 138
Heumann, 284 n.
Hervaeus Dolensis, 286 re., 297 re.
Herzfeld, 51 re., 52 re., 115 re., 116
»., 119 re., 125 n., 128 re.
Herzog, 53 re. 114 re., 251 re., 281 re.,
365 re., 380, 383
Hierax, 202
Hieronymus, 24 ra., 234 ra., 251 ra.
Hilary, 22, 38 ra., 168 ra., 169, 174
ra., 188 re., 189, 203 and re., 204,
205 ra., 213 ra., 227, 223 ra., 262,
270, 286 and re., 317, 334, 347,
461, 468
Hilgenfeld, 148, 166 n., 168 re., 416,
452
Hillel, 18 and ra., 19 ra., 21, 22 and
re., 24, 50-53 and ras., 64-69 and
res., 77, 80, 134, 224, 443
Hingenfeld, 106
Hippolytus, 169, 170 re., 201 re., 227,
232
Hirschfeld, 104, 149
Hirzel, 33 re.
Hitzig, 33 re., 117 re.
Hody, 116 re., 117 re., 120 re., 128,
223, 374, 387
Hoeschel, D., 23 ra.
Hollaz, or Hollatius, 27 ra., 351 re.,
366 and re., 371, 373
Homer, 130 re., 135, 136, 138, 406
Hoogstraten, 315
Hooker, 243, 344 ra., 353 ra., 372, 376,
470
Hoornbeck, 379
Hopkins, Bishop, 436
Host, 209 re., 213 ra.
Hottinger, 389
Howe, 377
Huet, 188 ra., 189 ra., 200re., 208 re.,
209 ra.
Hug, 33 re.
Hugo, 252, 255 re., 257 and ra., 259 re.,
265, 268 ra., 273 re., 286 re., 295 ra.
Hugo of St. Cher, 260 ra., 274 n.,
276 ra., 295, 318

Index.

503

Authors continued —
Hugo of St. Victor, 26 re., 32, 277 ra.,
280 ra.
Humboldt, W. von, 411
Hunnius, 346 and ra.
Hurwitz, 79, 92, 94
Hus, John, 279, 312
Hutten, Ulric von, 313
Hiitter, 362
Hyde, 377
Ignatius, 167 re., 171, 172 re.,
286 ra.
Irenaeus, 99,100, 109, 117 ra., 119 ra.,
122, 124, 166, 170 and re., 173 re.,
174 and ra., 176 and ra., 177, 179
n., 180 re,, 183 and ra., 196 ra., 212
re., 216, 227, 280 re., 317 re., 326
Isaac, Rabbi, 120 ra.
Ishmael, Rabbi, 19 ra., 22, 72, 73
Isidore Pelusiota, 137 ra.
Isidore, 168, 468
Jacobi, 33 re.
Jaraczewsky, 270 re.
Jason of Cyrene, 126
Jeremie, 187 re.
Jerome, St., 14 ra., 15, 23, 30 ra., 31,
78, 87, 89, 117-119, 122 re. -124,
142 ra., 145, 169-171 and ns., 174
ra., 175 ra., 176 ra., 180 -rt,., 182
n., 183 ra., 187 ra., 188 ra., 189,
194 ra., 195 re,, 198 ra., 202 ra., 203
and ¦»., 205 and ra., 206 ra., 212
and ra., 213 re., 220, 222-224, 227-
230 and ras., 233-235, 240 ra., 241,
246, 248, 257, 260 ra., 263 ra., 270,
274, 277 ra., 290, 294, 295 re., 314,
317, 337, 342 ra., 345, 346 re., 459,
460, 468, 475
Jesus, son of Sirach, 117-119
Jewell, Bishop, 327, 376
Jochai, 97 and re.
Jochanan, Rabbi, 21 ra.
Johanan, R., 69, 70
John of Damascus, 248, 259 ra., 262
and re.
John of Salisbury, 43 ra., 257 ra., 259
ra., 264 ra., 266 re., 273 ra., 290,
292 ra., 294 and ra., 296 ra., 310
Jose, R., 70, 71
¦Obsephus, 78, 115 ra., 116 re., 117,
121 ra., 126 re., 148, 154, 452, 453,
461
Joshua, R., 70, 73, 86, 90, 445, 455
Jost, 19 re., 52 re., 54 re., 55 re., 57 re.,
58 re., 61 re., 64-68 ras., 70, 72, 74,
77, 78, 92, 115 ra., 128 ra., 143 re.,
462

Authors continued — •
Jourdain, 264 re.
Jovinian, 227, 228 andra., 233
Jowett, 154
Juda, Rabbi, 60 m., 65
Julius Africanus, 207, 208 and m.
220
Julian of Eclane, 240 ra.
Junius, 379
Jurgens, 324
Justin Martyr, 117, 123, 129, 166,
171 ra.-174, 189, 191, 201 re., 230
re., 239, 263, 346 re.
Justinian, 119, 125 re., 254 re., 316 re.
Juvenal, 17
Kahana, R., 86
Kahnis, 391, 393, 403, 405, 407.
417
Kalisch, 445
Kant, 399, 428
Karnitol, 97 re.
Kay, Dr., 103
Kaye, Bishop, 172 re., 178 re., 183-
187 and ras.
Keach, 353 re.
Keble, 344 re.
Keim, 67 re., 113 re., 142 ra., 154, 334,
415
Kempis, Thomas a, 474
Kennicott, 388
Kepler, 41 ra,
Kilon, 239 re.
Kimedonc, 475
Kimmel, 361 re., 393 re.
King, Dr., 90
Kircher, 388
Kitto, 19 re., 73, 95, 102, 104
Klausen, 26 re., 117 a., 225 re., 239 ».,
243, 277)t., 342 re., 343 re., 360 re.,
371, 386, 391
Kleanthes, 138
Klein, Grand-Rabbi, 88, 89, 91,
98 re.
Kling, 467
Koch, John, 385, see also Cocceius
Kostlin, 326, 329, 331, 335-337 ra.,
340 ra.
Krause, 337 ra.
Krochmal, 57 re., 92, 463 re.
Kuenen, 115 re., 128 re,, 208 re.
Kurz, 360 re., 362 ra., 363 ra., 375,
382, 404, 417, 420
Lachmann, 320 m.
Lactantius, 30 ra., 41 ra., 123, 169,
170 ra.
Ladd, Professor, 294 re., 383
Lampe, 177 re., 376, 379, 386

504

Index.

Authors continued —
Landerer, 264?!,, 281 re., 360 re.
Lane, 468
Lanfranc, 253, 254 re., 260 n., 264 re.
Lange, 33 re., 266 re., 299 re., 325,
363 re., 371, 398
Langenstein, 289
Lardner, 185 re.
Las Casas, 308
Launoy, 266 ra.
Lavater, 401
Law, William, 384
Le Clerc, Vict., 316 ra., 376, 379,
380
Lecky, 39 ra., 40 re.
Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York,
320 ra.
Leibnitz, 398, 399, 410, 428
Leighton, 377
Leiri, R., 90
Leller, 138 ra., 142 ra., 143 n.
Le Long, 277 ra.
Le Maistre, 308
Loon, 97
Leontius, 219 re.
Lequien, 466
Lessing, 17, 307, 400, 401, 409
Leusden, 388
Levita, Elias, 51 ra., 106, 388, 450,
451, 464
Lewes, G. H., 253 ra., 470
Leydecker, 379
Libanius, 17
Liebner, 265 ra.
Lightfoot, Bishop, 93, 166, 188,
213 ra., 219 ra., 220 ra., 328, 377
Limborch, 346 ra., 379
Linus, 127
Lipsius, 176 ra.
Littre, 413
Livy, 321
Lobeck, 135 re.
Locke, 290 re., 353 re., 377
Lbckler, 223 re., 224 re., 226 re.,
227 ra., 228 re., 230 ra., 232 re.,
234 ra.
Lombard, Peter, 32 re., 253 re., 255 re.,
259, 262, 318
Longland, 295 and re.
Lbscher, 363, 388
Low, 22 ra., 73, 79, 92, 114ra., 150,
294, 445, 451, 461
Lowth, 33 ra., 377, 383
Liicke, 207 re., 240 re., 407, 411,
473
Lully, Raymond, 36 re., 280
Lupton, 248 ra., 296 ra., 300 re., 321,
334, 353 re., 466
Lupus, 246 re.

Authors continued —
Luther, 30-33 andra*., 104, 118, 134,
163, 179 and ra., 184 re., 222 re., ¦
236 re., 243, 260, 265, 266 re., 275
re., 277 and re., 279 and ra., 280,
284, 286, 291 ra., 293, 297-299,
305, 307, 308, 311, 312, 314-317,
319-328, 330, 333, 337, 338, 340-
343 and ras., 345, 346 andra., 348
and:ra., 349, 351, 352, 355, 358,
360," 361, 364, 368, 376, 393, 403,
426, 462, 470, 475
Luzzato, 64 ra., 92
Lydius, 379
Lysimachus, 127
Maccovius, 379
Machiavelli, 309
Macknight, 195 ra.
Mai, 145, 202 ra., 208 ra.
Maimonides, 82, 84, 89-91, 95, 104,
275, 315. 384, 462, 463
Maitland,Dr., 196 ra., 232 ra., 247 re.,
324, 364 re,
Maitre, 247 ra.
Magius, 251 ra.
Major, G., 339 re.
Majus, J. H., 385
Manetho, 127
Mangey, 129re., 134, 135 re., 137re.,141
Manning, 294 ra.
Manset, 247 re.
Marchesinus, Joannes, 280 re.
Marcellinus, 202 re.
Marcion, 17, 29, 175, 177, 181 ».,
235 ra., 308, 351
Maresius, 379
Mariana, 39 re. , 40 ra.
Marsh, Bishop, 195 ra., 300 ra.
Marsilio of Padua, 236 re., 282 re,,
293 re.
Martene, 261 re.
Martianus, Capella, 247 re.
Martin, Raymond, 93
Martinus Bellius, 351
Massuet, 175
Mathesius, 265 ra. , 324 ra.
Matter, 115 ra., 182 ra.
Mam-ice, F. D., 179 ra., 180 «., 260
ra., 262 ra., 429
Mazzini, 308 and re,
McCaul, Dr., 59 re., 464
Medad, 166 re.
Meier, 33 ra., 80, 254 ra., 448
Melanchthon, 32, 163 ra., 243, 265 re.,
321, 322, 327-329, 331, 336, 341
and ra., 342 ra., 345, 350, 351 and
ra., 361 and ra., 364, 368, 383, 466,
467, 470

Index.

505

Authors continued —
Melito, 32 ra., 171 ra.
. Mendelssohn, 384, 399-401
Mentzer, 368
Mercer, 342 ra., 372
Merx, 19 «,, 21 ra,, 213 ra., 218 re.,
219 re., 268 ra., 269 re., 270 re.,
274 re., 275 ra., 277 n., 291 ra.,
343 ra., 349 ra., 352 re.
Methodius, 201, 201 re.
Metrodorus, 135
Meturgemans, 116
Meuschen, 93
Meyer, 275 re., 277 re., 280 ra., 305,
313 ra., 343 ra., 374, 376, 380, 386,
403, 405, 418
Michelet, 40 re.
Middleton, 163, 173
Migne, 24 ra., 26 re,, 201 ra., 202 ra.,
216 ra., 246 ra., 247 ra., 260 re.,
271 re., 272 ra.
Mildert, van, Bishop, 195 ra., 300 ra.
Mill, 208 ra.
Milligan, Prof., 167 re., 169
Milman, 78, 83, 92, 248 re., 254 ra.,
298 re., 301 ra., 316 ra., 319 ra.,
462
Milton, 163, 164 ra., 251 ra., 359 rt.,
367
Minucius Felix, 121 re.
Moller, 233 re.
Monnier, 247 re
Montacute, 346
Montet, 254 re,
More, Henry, 36 re.
More, Sir T., 320 ra.
Morgan, 377
Morinus, J., 225 ra., 387, 388
Moshelm, 183 ra., 188, 193 ra. 283 n.
Motley, 41 ra.
Muir, 47, 119
Miiller, J., 128, 142 ra., 365 ra., 411
Mullinger, 247 ra., 248 ra., 262-264
ras., 365 ra.
Munk, 32 ra., 78, 265 ra., 449, 462,
463
Munter, 216 re.
Muntzer, 307, 341
Muratori, 40 rt.
Musculus, 342 and re,, 372
Musaeus, 135
Myslenta, 364
Nachmanides, 102
Nahum, R., 74, 75, 80, 442, 447
Nathan, Rabbi, 18 ra., 32 re., 35,
57 re., 68 re., 89
Nathan, Rabbi Isaak, 450
Neale, J. M., Dr., 296 ra., 297 ra.

Authors continued —
Neander, 26 m., 133 ra., 180 ra.,
184 ra., 209 re., 211-213 ras., 236
ra., 411, 414, 415
Newman, Cardinal, 14 ra., 170 ra.,
176 ra., 180 re., 181 re., 191 re.,
209 /.,, 211, 212, 221 re., 251 re, ,
253 re., 254 •«,, 270 re., 286 /t.,
327, 470
Nicephorus, 202 re., 207 re.
Nicolai, 401, 406, 462
Nicolas of Lyra, 318, 334 andra., 462
Niebuhr, 180 re.
Nitzsch, 411
Notker, 226 re.
Norris, Archdeacon, 176 ra.
Nbsselt, 405
Nourisson, 236 ra.
Noyes, Dr., 33 ra.
Numenius, 198 re.
Oberlin, 401
Occam, William of, 281, 282, 302
Oecolampadius, 342
Oehler, 114 re., 234 re., 350 re., 386
Olshausen, 411
Olympiodorus, 32
Onias, 115 re.
Onqelos, 119, 315
Oporin, Joachim, 31
Optatus, 182
Origen, 15, 23, 26 ra., 33 ra., 115,
118 ra., 119 ra., 120 re., 123, 124
131, 134, 166 re., 168 ra., 171 re.
174 re., 176 re., 177, 179 ra., 182 ra.,
183 and re., 185 ra., 187-191, 193-
203 and ras., 207-209 re,, 215-217,
220 and re., 223, 226, 227, 229-
232, 239-241, 263 ra., 286, 294,
295 re., 307, 333, 337, 346 re.
Orpheus, 135
Osiander, 328, 364, 368
Otho, 53 ra.
Otto, 172 ra.
Oudin, 313 ra.
Ovid, 296, 343 re., 468
Owen, John, 374, 377, 432
Ozanam, 223 ra.
Pamphilus, 202, 209 re.
Panormita, 308 re.
Pantaenus, 183, 185
Papias, 171 re., 177 re.
Pareus, 346 re.
Paris, Dr., 470
Parker, 353 n.
Parmenian, 182
Parmenides, 138
Pascal, 432, 433

506

Index.

Authors continued —
Paschasius Radbertus, 250, 253 re.
Pattison, 291 ™.
Paulinus, 166 ra,, 168, 232 ra., 226
Paulla, 257
Paulus, Dr., 418
Paulus of Burgos (Solomon Levita),
278 and ra., 293 n.
Peacock, Bishop, 313 ra.
Pearson, 377, 470
Pelagius, 234 re., 240 re.
Pellicanus, 315, 342 ra.
Perez of Valentia, Jacob, 26 re., 279
Petavius, 38 re., 170 re., 288
Peter Lombard, 289 ra., 344 ra., 358
Peter Martyr, 345 re,
Petrarch, 309
Petronius, 245 re.
Pfaff, 385 ra.
Pfefferkorn, 315 and re.
Pfeiffer, 258 ra., 366 re., 374, 389
Pforzheim, 315 re.
PliibVopson, 128 re.
Philo^ 12, 22 and re., 23, 37, 38 re.,
54 ra., 79, 100, 109, 111, 114-117,
120-122, 125-134, 136-156, 158,
172, 173, 182, 186, 187 re., 189,
191 and ra., 194, 198, 201, 452,
453, 455-458, 460, 463
Philo [the elder], 126, 143 ra.
Photius, 109, 137, 166 ra., 170 ra.,
201 ra., 202 ra., 206 ra., 207 ra., 214
and ra., 250 ra., 254 ra.
Picus of Mirandola, 279 and ra., 282,
300 ra., 309
Pierius, 202
Pindar, 138
Pinner, Dr. Moses, 92
Pitra, 269 re,
Planck, 364 re.
Plato, 126, 129, 131, 133, 135, 136,
138, 140, 142, 148, 154, 185-
187 ra., 189 «., 193, 196, 198 ¦».,
217, 263, 269 re., 406
Pliny, 114 ra., 166 ra.
Plotinus, 255 and re.
Plutarch, 101, 114 ra., 383
Pococke, 377
Politian, 308 ra.
Poole, 252 ra., 260 ra., 296 ra., 343 ra/,
389, 466
Pope, 254 ra., 278 re., 293 re., 318 re.
Polycarp, 171, 172 re., 174, 177 and ra.
Polychronius, 219 ra.
Pomponatius, 308 ra.
Porphyry, 17, 198, 198 re., 282
Porr^e, Gilbert de la, 466, 467
Porson, 178 re.
Posidonius of Apamea, 127

Authors continued —
Pothinus, 174
Prantl, 264 re., 267 ra.
Prideaux, 76, 377
Primasius, 287
Proclus, 254 ra.
Prudentius, 168 re., 468
Pseudo-Aristeas, 115 re,, 116, 128
Pseudo-Haymo, 268
Ptolemaeus, 175 n.
Putfendorf, 33 re.
Pusey, Dr., 163, 168 re., 460
Pythagoras, 129, 135, 136
Qimchi, David, 83, 315, 464
Qimchi, R. Joseph, 464
Qimchi, R. Moses, 464
Quensted, 27 ra., 333, 351 ¦«., 358,
362, 366 andra., 370, 373
Rabanus Maurus, 204, 250 and re.,
251 re., 285, 297
Rabba, Rabbi, 50
Rabelais, 292
Rambach, 366 re., 371, 376, 379, 434
Rambam, R., 83, 97
Rappoport, 92, 132 ra., 150
Rashi(Rabbi S ol onion Jizchaki), 33 re. ,
50, 62 re,, 85, 95, 275 and re., 277
and re., 315, 334, 445, 462
Rathmann of Liibeck, 372
Ratram, 253
Raymond of Sabiende, 340 re.
Redepenning, 196 ra.
Reeves, 163 ra.
Reimarus, 400
Reinken, Bishop, 187, 205 re.
Reland, 389
Remigius, 204 and re., 252, 268 re.,
270
Remusat, 259 ra., 266 re,, 466, 470
Renan, 22 ra., 66 re., 174 re., 180 •/<..,
264 re., 265 re., 270 re., 271 ».,
294 ra., 363 re., 375, 376, 383, 384,
404, 419, 470
Reuchlin, 35, 97, 101, 129 re.
Reuss, 96, 134, 168 ra., 181 ra., 219 ra.,
224 ra., 231 n., 343 ra., 360 ra., 389,
403, 405, 433
Reuter, 252 ra.
Ribof, 231 ra.
Richard of St. Victor, 258 ra., 259 re.,
277 re.
Richter, 137 ra., 219 re.
Ridderus, 265 ra.
Riehm, 411
Riggenbach, 415
Ritter, Bernard, 137 re., 236 re.
Rivet, 376, 379

Index.

507

Authors continued —
Rocca, Angelo, 278 re.
Romberg, 339 re., 340 re., 358 ra.
Roscelin, 253, 281
Robertson, F. W., 334
Rosenmiiller, 186 ra., 201-203 ras.,
205 ra., 212 ir,., 219 ra., 234 ra.,
239 re., 267 re., 275 ra., 277 ra.,
296 ra., 346 ra., 320 ra.
Rousseau, 400
Routh, 38 ra., 175 ra., 177 ra., 183 re.,
202 ra., 207-209 res., 223 re.
Rufinus, 188, 202, 205 re,, 206 ra.,
224 re., 227-229 and res., 240 re.
Rupert of Deutz, 255, 261 re., 268 re.
312 re.
Rupp, 202 re.
Rusbroek, 258 ra.
Saadia, R., 53 ra., 315, 461-463
Sale, 275 ra.
Salmeron, 299 re.
Salschutz, 86
Sanday, 215 re., 219-221 ras.
Savonarola, 279 andra., 309
Scaliger, 328, 389
Schaff, 202 ra., 212 ra., 254, 293 re.
Schleiermacher, 344 re., 412, 413
Schleusner, 457
Schlusselberg, 362 ra., 364 re.
Schmid, H., 383, 405
Schbttgen, 93, 389
Schrbck, 187 re,, 201-203 res., 205 re.,
206 re., 219 ra., 224 ra., 275, 385,
389
Schultens, 389, 445
Schurer, 52 re,
Schwab, 19 re., 91, 92, 463
Schwarz, 411, 413, 417
Schwegler, 262 ra., 416
Schweinitz, Bishop E. de, 390
Schwenkenfeld, 374
Scott, 470
Scotus, 164 ra., 253
Scrivener (Dr.), 343 ra.
Seebohm, 318 re,, 322, 353 ra.
Selden, 377, 389
Semler, 26 n., 92, 230, 402, 403, 409,
410, 473
Seneca, 343 ra., 468
Shakespeare, 246
Shammai, 65-67 and ras., 134
Shemaia, 83
Shetach, Simeon ben, 19 ra.
Shichard, 100 re,
Shuckford, 377
Sieft'ert, 216 re., 219 ra.
Siegfried, 22 ra., 37 ra., 120 ra., 132,
134, 138 ra., 142 re,, 148-151, 172

Authors continued —
re., 205 re., 275 vi., 277 re., 290,
291 re., 334, 452, 456
Sigebert, 301 re.
Simon, R., 74, 77, 130 »., 171, 202 re.,
223, 229 n., 234 ra., 252 re., 268 re.,
277 re., 334, 343 re., 361 n., 375, 444
Simon Magnus, 172 re.
Sixtus Senensis, 206 re., 238 re.,
249 ra., 270 ra., 274 ra., 280 ra., 289,
291 re,, 460
Smend, 48 re.
Smith, 182 re., 206 re., 207 re., 224,
377
Smith, Robertson, 370
Socrates, 129, 188, 202 re,, 208 re.,
213 re,, 401
Solon, 138
Sonntag, 403
Sophocles, 138
Sozomen, 182 re., 212 re.
Spannheim, 389
Specht, 219 re.
Spener, Phillip, 390
Spenser, 164 re., 355, 363 and re.,
376, 377, 401, 412
Spinoza, 17, 83, 280, 383, 384, 397,
403, 418, 428
Spitta, F., 208 re.
Sprenger, 40 and n., 309
Stanley, A. P., 116 re,, 121 re., 131, 423
Staupitz, John, 312
Steinschneider, 92
Steitz, 24
Stelling, 401
Stephen, 343 re.
Stephens, Robert, 321
Stesimbrotus, 135
Stier, 340 n.
Stieren, 175 re.
Stbckl, 255 ra., 267 re,
Strabo, 114 re,, 115
Strauss, 307, 384, 402, 410, 412-
417
Strobel, T., 341 re.
Stunica, 317
Suidas, 137 7i., 142 re., 203, 207 re.,
213 ra.
Suso, 258 ra.
Swete, 213 ra., 214 ra.
Symmachus, 221 n. 229
Synesius, 187 ra., 254 ra.
Syrus, Ephraem, 171 re., 209, 210
Szinessy, Dr. Schiller, 82
Tacitus, 17, 121 re., 166 re.
Tanchum, R., 464
Tarphon, R., 70
Tatian, 135 re., 171 and re.

508

Index.

Authors continued —
Tauler, 258 ra., 355
Taylor, Jeremy, 17 n., 41 ra., 43 ra.:
57 %., 62 7i., 242 ra., 292 ra., 329,
353 ra.
Teller, 405
Tertullian, 30 re., 38 ra., 99, 121 ra.,
123, 124, 168, 169 ra., 171 ra.,
172 ra., 174 ra., 177-183 and ras.,
191, 212 andra., 216, 223 ra., 230
re., 234ra., 263, 326, 346 ra., 368 ra.
Thaumaturgus, 202
Theagenes, 135
Theodektes, 116
Theodore of Heraklea, 227
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 33 ra., 125,
211, 212, 222, 240 ra., 346 ra.
Theodoret, 123, 124 ra., 195 re,,
212 ra., 215, 219, 240
Theodosius, 66 n.
Theodotion, 221 ra., 224 ra., 229
Theodotus, 126, 263
Theognis, 138
Theognostus, 202
Theophilus of Antioch, 171, 179 re.,
208 ra., 227, 368 re,
Theophrastus, 245 ra.
Theopompus, 116
Thierry, 234 ra., 261 ra.
Thiersch, 416
Thilo, 341 ra.
Thirlby, 172 ra.
Thirlwall, Bishop, 297 ra., 369, 371,
376, 411
Tholuck, 230 ra., 260 •«., 269 ra.,
294 ra., 343 ra., 358 ra., 364, 372,
374, 383, 390, 401, 405, 411
Thomasius, 255 ra.
Tibbon, Ibn, 33 ra.
Tichonius, 24, 26 ra., 210, 237, 248
Tillemont, 26 ra , 202 and re.
Tillotson, Archbishop, 348, 377
Tindal, 377
Tischendorf, 320 re.
Tostatus, 279
Tregelles, 320 re.
Trench, 193 re., 234 ra., 235 ra ,
237 re., 239 re.
Trenel, 19 re,
Trevecka, E. Jones, 299 re.
Tribbechovius, 260 ra., 284 re., 286 ra.,
289 re., 466, 470
Trionfo, Augustin, 309 re.
Trithemius, 26 re., 289 re., 467
Trypho, 174
Turrecremata, 279
Turretin, G. A., 376
Tunstall, 17
Tyndale, 17, 300, 316

Authors continued —
Ueberweg, 198 re., 245 ra., 254 ra.,
259 ra., 265 ra., 282 re., 283 re.
Uhllorn, 411
Ulfilla, Bishop, 40
Ullmann, 258 7!,, 280 re., 312 re., 411,
415
Umbreit, 33 re., 411
Ussher, 374, 377, 387, 428
Vacherot, 139 re., 182 71.
Valcknaer, 128
Valens, 212
Valentinian, 168 ra., 177
Valentinus, 181 re., 308
Valla, Lorenzo, 284, 312-314, 428
Vallarsi, 240 re.
Valorius, 282 re.
Van Helmont, 36 n.
Van Heusden, 282
Van Til, 376, 386
Vatke, 412, 414
Vaughan, 258 re., 260 re., 269-271 res.,
279 re., 289 re,, 313 re.
Venema, 386
Vertue, 353 re,
Victorinus, 188, 196, 202, 227
Vigilantius, 228 and ra.
Villari, 279 ra.
Vincentius Lerinensis, 179 ra., 182re.
326
Virgil, 247 ra.
Virgilius, 427
Vitringa, 376, 379, 386, 389
Vives Ludovicus, 289 and re., 292 re.,
470
Voetius, 379
Vogel, A., 26 ra.
Volkmar, 416
Voltaire, 17, 397, 400
Voss, 374, 379, 387
Wace, 182 ra., 206 re., 207 re., 224
Wachner, 52 ra., 59 re., 61 ra., 76, 80
Wagenseil, 92
Warmer, 389
Walafrid Strabo, 251 and re.
Walch, 206 re., 234 re., 240 re., 251 ra.,
312 ra., 346 re.
Walther, 374
Walton, 377
Warburton, 377
Wasmuth, 374
Wateriand, 353 ra., 460
Watts, Isaac, 377
Weber, 19 ra., 51 ra., 57 ra., 59 re., 61-
63 ras., 66 re., 69, 74, 91, 93, 95,
98, 442
Wegscheider, 408

Index.

509

Authors continued —
Weigel, 374
Weill, 51-54 ns., 56 ra., 57 ra., 59,
62 re., 63 ra., 70, 60, 462
Weiss, 411, 415
Weiszacker, 325
Wellhausen, 58 ra., 208 re.
Werenfels, 30
Werner, 255 ra., 292 re.
Wernsdorf, 366
Wesley, John, 40 re., 324, 390, 393
Wessel, John, 236 re., 312 and re.,
314
Westcott, 155 re., 186, 188 re., 189
re., 207 re., 209 re., 220 ra., 223 re,,
254 re., 316 ra., 409
Wetstein, 93, 207 ra,, 280, 376, 379,
470
Whichcote, 377
Whitaker, 300, 377
Whitby, 124 ra., 377
Whitfield, 377
Wiclif, 312, 313 ra.
Wildenhahn, 363 ra.
Williams, 78
Winer, 234 ra.
Witsius, 379 ra., 386
Witte, 363 re.
Wittich, 379
Wogue, 10, lira., 31 re., 32 re., 49 re.,
116 ra., 117 71., 442, 450, 455, 461
Wolff, 398, 399, 428, 461
Wollius, 473 re.
Wordsworth, Bishop, 196 ra.
Wordsworth, Professor, 458
Xenophanes, 127
Zakkai, Rabbi Johanan ben, 65
Zeller, 416
Zeno, 129 ra, 136, 138
Zockler, 33 ra., 366 m.
Zunz, 49 re., 62 re., 69, 91, 92, 97,
118
Zwingli, 319 re., 322, 328, 331, 340-
343, 349, 372
Avicenna, 280 ra. B.
Babylonian Gemara, completed by Rab
Abina, 12 re.
Bacon, Lord, attributes the paralysis of
science to theology, 41 ra., his re
marks on theological compilations
and glosses, 251 ra. ; on monastic
mysticism, 257 ra. ; on the learning
of the Schoolmen, 289 ra. ; on their
useless speculations, 293 and ra. ; on
English theologians, 353 re.

Bacon, Roger, on the impossibility of a
translation to convey the exact sense
of the original, 260 re. ; on the works
of Aristotle, 263 ra. ; his hostility to
Aristotle and the Fathers, 266 ra. ;
his views on non-Biblical branches of
knowledge, 286 ra. ; on the theology
of the 12th century, 310
Bahrdt, F. A., his influence on unbe
lief, 400
Balfour of Burley, 352
Bampton Lectures, one of the founder's
objects in instituting the, 5 ; re
ference to, 311 re.
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 re ; analysis of the Epistle and of
its allegorical and mystical method ,
167-.170
Baronius, 282, 297
Basil the Great, one of the leaders of
tbe School of Antioch, 219; he stoutly
opposes allegory, 220 re.
Baur, Ferdinand, his account of the
origin of the allegoric system of
interpretation, 194 ra. ; his attacks
on Christianity, notice of, 414-
416
Baxter, on the over-magnifying of the
Bible, 372
Bede, the Venerable, his works, influ
ence, and system of exegesis, 248 ; is
reckoned among the Fathers, 249 re. ;
his life, 301
Bellarmine on exegesis, 296 re. ; on the
Papacy before the Reformation, 311 ;
on the prejudice against grammati
cal studies, 321
Bengel, 1 ; the life and labours of,
and their influence on the theology
and exegesis of the 17th century,
392 ; his merits as a man and as an
exegete, 392-394 ; value of his
Gnomon, 393 and re. ; and of his
personal and critical work, 393,
394
Berengar asserts that God is a logician,
289
Bernard, St., the father of the mediaeval
mystics, his influence on the Church
and the age, 255 ; his Homilies and
Commentary on the Cauticles, 257
and ra. ; his self-denial, 301
Bernardites, motto of the, 299
Beth and Aleph, remarks on the
Hebrew letters, 36

510

Index.

Beza, his work and influence on the
Reformation, 342 ; regarded by the
English Reformers as the greatest
theologian of the day, 342 re,
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 ra. ; the Nurem
berg, 5 re. ; 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, 6 re. ; necessity for distinguish
ing between the letter and the spirit
of the, 7,8; list of lost books refez'red
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 et seq. ¦
the seven rules of Hillel as applicable
to the, I871. ; wilful distortion of the
language of the, 26, 27 andra. ; "Word
of God " cannot be applied indiscrim
inately to all the books of the, 28 ;
Dr. Arnold on rightly comprehend
ing the, 28 ra. ; the word Testament
applied to the two divisions of the, a
mistranslation andamistake, 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 book 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 tbe 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 et seq. ; 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 meani
ing of the, 137-142 and res. ; Philo's
views on the inspiration of the, 146,
147 ; extraordinary notion of Philo
and others regarding the, 149 and re. ;
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 et seq. ; Jerome's opinions
on the, 222 et seq. ; St. Augustine's
system of interpreting, 236 et seq. ;
the Venerable Bede's, 248 ; St. Ber
nard and the mystics on the, 255 et
seq. ; an old Pope's remark on the,
258 ra. ; 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, aud of Eras
mus to the, 312-322 ; above all, of
Luther, 323 et seq. ; list of those
who maintained the single sense of
in the 16th century, 328 re. ; views
of Melanchthon and Zwingli,
341 ; of Calvin, 342 et seq. ; of
some of the divines of the post-
Reformation period, 367 et seq. ;
of Rathmann of Liibeck, 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 et seq. ; 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, 265 re., 282
Bilney, martyr, 316
Binder, on the useless questions of the
Schoolmen, 292 re.
Bishops and Presbyters, Jerome on the
original identity of, 230 re.
Bohme, Jacob, influence of his mysti
cism, in liberating the Church, 384 ;
touching incident at his death, 384
Bolingbroke, 17
Bologna, 316 re.
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 ra.
Books which have become sacred,
exegesis a matter of necessity for, 3
Books quoted or referred to —
Abelard (Remusat's Life of), 259
ra., 466, 470
Abhandl. v. freier Untersuchen d.
Kanons, 403
Aboda Zara, 76
Aboth, 18 ra., 22 ra., 32 ra., 57 ra., 61
ra., 68 ra.
Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, 57 ra., 68 ra.
Additiones, 278 and ra.
Advancement of Learning, 251 re.,
263 re., 289 re., 293 ra., 470
Ad. Chronol. Euseb., 130 ra.
Ad. Ezech. (Jerome), 118 re.
Adv. Gentes (Arnobius), 167 ra.
Ad. Magnes. (Ignatius), 167 ra.
Adv. Praxean (Tertullian) 174 ra.
Adv. Rufinum (Jerome), 229 ra.
Ad. Scapulam (Cyprian), 41 ra., 180 ».
Aelteste Urkunde des Menschenge-
schlechts, 407 ra.
Aglaophamus, 135 ra.
Aids to Faith, 476
Alcuin, 247 re,
Alex. Religinnsphilos, 456
Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek, 401
Allegg. Homer, 243
Alter Augustinus, 235 ra.
Alt. Prot. Dogmatik, 339 ra.
Altsyn. Theol., 19 ra., 62 re., 63 n.,
66 n., 74 re., 98 re., 442
Analogy, 377
Anct. Hist. 180 re.
Ancient Saints, 221 re., 251 ra.
Annales, 166 n., 289 re., 297 ra., 467

Books continued —
Annal. d. Universitat zu Wittenberg,
364 ra.
Ann. Eccl. 232 ra.
Annott. in 1 Tim. i. 6 (Erasmus's)
310 ra., 313 re., 318 re., 320 and re.,
428
Anselm, 266 re.
Answer to Travers (Hooker), 470
Antibarb. Bibl. 324
Anti-Boehmius, 364
Anticritica, 374
Antid. in Cone. Trident., 353 re.
Antiquitates Theol. Typicae, 386
Antt. (Josephus's), 51 re., 52 re., 55
re., 57 re., 61 re., 66 re., 115-117 res.,
126 re,, 128 re., 137 ra., 138 ra.
Antiq. Ebr., 52 re,
Antitheses, 235, 351
Apocalypse, 176, 206, 247
Apol. (Athenagoras), 171 re.
Apol. (Jus. Martyr), 117 re,, 129 re.
Apol. (Melanchthon), 265 re.
Apologia (Robert Stephens's), 321
Apol. (Tertullian), 121 re., 178 re.
Apol. ad. Helois (Abelard), 261 re.
Apol. c. Rutin. (Jerome), 170 7?,,
187 re., 202 re., 222, 224 re.
Apologie of the Fathers, the, 163 n.
Apostol. Fathers, 227 re.
Apparat. (Calixtus's), 467
Apparatus Critieus, 392
Areopagitica, 164 re., 359 re.
Arians, 209 ra.
Art. Ev. Homiletik, 351
Art. Logic. Rudimenta, 247 re,
Augustinus, 117 re., 225 ra.
Aurel. Augustinus, 239 ra.
Autolyc, 179 re.
Averroes, 264 re., 265 and ra., 270 n.,
404
Avoda Zara, 57 re., 60 re.
Baba Metzia, 63 re.
Baba Bathra, 51 re., 59 re., 66 re., 68 ra.
Bammidbar Rabba, 86 re., 87 re.
Bampton Lectures, 195 re., 240 re.,
266 ra., 281 «,, 283 ra., 299 re.,
300 n.
Barnab. Ep., 165, 167-170 and res.,
235 re.
Beantwortung der Fragmente eines
Ungenannten, 404 re.
Bechinath Happerushim, 100 re.
Bedenken, 355
Beresh. Rabba, 120 re.
Beitrage zur Gesch. d. altesten Ausle-
gung in Spracherklarung d. Alten
Testamentes, 462

512

Index.

Books continued —
Bel. J. (Josephus), 115 ra., 136 ra.
Berachoth Introd., 463
Berakhoth, 12 ra., 19 ra., 51 ra., 52
re., 61-63 ns., 66 re.
Bereshith Rabba, 61 ra., 66 ra.
Bibelwerk, 33 ra.
Bible, La, enfin Explique, 397 '
Bibliotheca Biblica, 353 ra.
Bibl. Cod., 137 ra., 166
Bibl. Graec, 128 ra., 251 ra.
Bibl. Hebraiea, 461
Biblia Illustrata, 365, 397, 426
Bibliography, 182 ra.
Bibl. Hebr., 36 ra.
Bibl. Lat., 277 ra., 280 ra., 313 ra.
Bibl. Med., 251 ra.
Bibl. Orient. 53 re.
Bibl. Max. Patristica, 24 re.
Bibl. Patristica, 24 re., 128 n., 219,
234 re.
Bibl. Rabb., 82, 93
Bibl. Sacr., 277 re.
Bibl. Sanct., 36 n., 238 ra., 249 ra.,
274 ra., 291 ra.
Bibliotheca Sancta, 460
Bibl. Theol. Epitome, 278 re., 346 re.
Biogr. Hist, of Philosophy, 253 re.,
291
Bitsa, 65 ra.
Brandeburgicum, 359
Breviloq. Prooem., 43 re.
Breviloq., 259 ra.
Briefe das Studium d. Theologie
betrefl'end, 321, 325, 380, 407
Briefe iiber das Studium der Theo
logie, 91
Calendarium Etymologicum, 286 re.
Calvinus Judaisans, 346
Carm. (Paulinus), 166 re.
Cant. 181 ra., 239 ra.
Catal. (Jerome's), 142, 174 ra., 180
ra., 182 re., 183 re., 187 re., 202 re.,
203 re., 205, 207 re., 209 ¦».. 213
re., 223 ra.
Cat. S. E., (Trithemius), 289 ra.
Catal. test. Verit., 277 ra., 364 ra.
Cat. Virr. Illustr., 206 ra.
Catena Aurea, 204, 221 ra., 251 n.,
253, 269 ra., 270 re.
Caten. Praef. in, 250 re.
Catholic Thoughts, 403
Celestial Hierarchies, 254 re., 313 n.
Centilogium, 281 ra.
Chagiga, 20 ra., 35 re., 57ra., 63 re. 477
Characterismi, 282 re.
Charges (Bishop ThiiiwaU's), 297 re.,
369, 371, 376

Books continued —
Christian Biogr., 81
Christi Blutund Gerechtigkeit, 390
Christliche Glaubenslehre, 412
Christologie, 277 ra., 418
Christlutherische Vorstellung, 363 ra.
Chron. Praef. in, 224 ra.
Chrysostomus, 220-222 ns.
Chulin, 81 ra.
Church Hist. (Neander), 133 ra.,
180 ra., 181 ra., 184 ra., 194 n.,
202 ra., 209 ra., 212 ra.
Church of the Catacombs, 232 re.
Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, 24 ¦»., 328,
333, 342 and re., 364
Clement d'Alexandrie, 187 re. *
Cod. (Photius), 100, 201 re., 202 ra.,
206 ra., 207 m., 214 re., 254 re.
Cod. Al., 124 ¦«,.
Colloquies (Erasmus's), 280 re., 320,
322
Cohort. (Justin Martyr), 129 re., 156,
172 re,, 174 re.
Coheleth, 31 •»., 105
Commentaries, 353 re.
Comm. in Acts (Jerome), 230 re.
Comm. in Amos (Jerome), 232 re.
Comm. in Eph. (Jerome), 231 ra.,
232 ra.
Comm. in Esaiam (Jerome), 231 re.,
232 ra.
Comm. in Ezech. (Jerome), 230 re.,
232 re.
Comm. in Gal. (Jerome), 231 re.,
232 re.
Comm. in Gen. (Jerome), 328
Comm. in Isaiam. (Jerome), 87
Comm. in Jer. (Jerome), 232 re.,
234 re.
Comm. in Joel (Jerome), 353 re.
Comm. in Matt. (Jerome), 200 re.,
229 re., 231 ra.
Comm. in Mich. (Jerome), 224 n.,
231 re.
Comment. duN. T. (R. Simon), 234 re.
Comm. in Osee (Jerome), 232 re.
Comm. in Tit. (Jerome), 231 re.
Commentary of Ambrosiaster, the,
206 ra.
Commentary on the Pauline Epistles,
361 ra.
Comm. on Rom. (Origen), 171 ra.
Commentary on Zachariah, 464
Commonitor, 179 n., 326, 333
Compendium Theologiae, 362
Complutensian Polyglot, 317 ra.
Cone. Trident, 333, 467
Confes. (Augustine's), 234 re., 236
ra., 237 7i.

Index.

513

Books continued —
Confessio Belgica, 349 re., 359 re.
Confessio Gallicana, 349 n., 359 re.
Confessio (of the Greek Church),
361 re., 393
Confessio Hafnica, 359re.
Confessio Helvetica Posterior, 359
Confessio Marehica, 359 re.
Coufessio Saxonica, 359 re.
Confessio Scotica, 359 ra.
Confessio Tetrapolitana, 359
Connection, 76
Consensus Repetitus, 359, 363
Constt. Clementis V. in Cone. Vien-
nensi, 316 ra.
Contemp. Rev., 188 ra., 254 ra.
C. Academ. (Augustine), 282 re.
C. Adimant. (Augustine), 234, 236
re., 476
C. Apion (Josephus), 115 ra., 116 ra.,
121 re., 128 ra., 130 ra., 136 re.
C. Cels. (Origen), 169 ra., 174 ra.,
185 ra., 187 ra., 194 n., 195 ra.,
197 ra.
C. Ep. Manich (Augustine), 236
Contra Epist. Parmeniani, 26 re.
C. Faustum (Augustine), 123 re.
C. Hermog. (Tertullian), 177 ra.,
178 ra.
C. Flacc. (Philo), 115 re., 137 re.
C. Jud. (Tertullian), 123 re.
C. Marc. (Tertullian), 30 ra., 123 ra.,
124 ra., 169 re,, 178 re.
C. Praxeam. (Tertullian), 38 re., 178
re.
Coran, the, 119 ra.
Corinthians, the, 296 ra.
Corp. Apolog., 172 re.
Corpus Julium, 359
Corpus Pomeranicum, 359
Corpus Prutenicum, 359
Corpus Wilhelminum, 359
Correctoria Biblica, 260 re.
Correctoria, 274 re.
Cours de l'Hist., 253 re.
Cours de Politique Positive, 308 re.
Credibility, 185 re.
Critici Sacri, 23 ra., 386, 387, 389,
421
Criticism and Interpretation, 300 ra.
Cyclopaedia (Kitto's), 19 ra., 73, 95,
102
Darki Leshon Hakkodesh, 83
Das Akadem. Leben, 358 ra.
Das Judenthum, 56 ra.
Das Kirchl. Leben, 374
De Abbreviaturis, 83, 98 ra., 99, 101,
104

Books continued —
De Abrah., 129 n., 133 •»., 139 re.,
149, 151, 454, 456
De Act. et Script. M. Lutheri, ad
ann., 317 ra.
De Accentibus, 315 re.
De Agric, 132 re.
De Alex. Virt., 114 re.
De Allegoria et Historia, 216 re.
De Anim., 177 re,, 182 re.
De Antilogiis, 271
De Arte Kabbalistica, 97 ra., 315 re.
De Augm. Scient, 257 ra., 289 ra.,
340 re.
De Baptismo, 178 ra.
De Beatitudine Mortuorum, 363 ra.
De Bibl. Text. Orientalibus, 116 re.,
117 re., 120 ra.
De Civ. Dei., 30 re., 117 re., 125, 208
re., 234 ra., 238 ra., 282 ra.
De Cherub., 132 re., 140 re., 142 ra.,
149, 155, 455
De Christo et Antichristo, 201 ra.
De Clement. Alex., 129 ra.
De Clemente Presbytero Alexandrino,
187 ra.
De dementia, 343 ra.
De Clericorum Institutione, 297
De Conf. Ling., 147
De Cong. Erud. Grat., 114 ra., 132
¦«,., 137 re,, 147, 151
De Cong. Quaer., 133 re.
De Cons. Ev., 125 re.
De Cons. Evang. 236 re.
De Copia Rerum, 321
De Contemplatione, 258 ra.
De Cor. Mit., 178 ra.
De Corrupt. Art., 289 ra., 292 re., 470
De Cult. Fem., 178 re.
De Dilig. Deo, 256
De Dionysii, 254 re.
De Divinatione, 138 re.
De Div. Nat., 254 re,
De Doctr. Christ, 26 re., 117 re.,
125 re., 129 re., 225 n., 234 re.,
235-238 ras., 459
De Doctrina Inspirationis, 403
De Doctoribus Scholasticis et Cor-
rupta per eos div. hum. rerum
Scientia, 284 re., 286 re., 289 -«.,
466
De Dogmate Platonis, 282 re.
De Ebriet., 137 ra., 141 ra.
De Economia Patrum, 231 ra.
Decret., 298 ra.
De Eruditione, 265 ra.
De Execrationibus, 154, 458
Defensor Pads, 164 ra., 236 ra., 282 ra.
De Frat. Amore, 383
L L

514

Index.

Books continued —
De Fide, 39 re., 166 ra., 168 n,.,
174 ra., 206 ra., 263 ra., 459
Def. Triun. Capit., 216 re.
De Gen. ad Literam, 43 re., 237 re.,
243
De Gigant., 23 re., 141 re.
Diss. Hist, de vii. regulis Tiehonii,
26 re.
De Idol., 178 re.
De Incorrupt. Mundi, 138 're.
De Institutione Div. Literarum, 24 re.
De Inst. Monach., 203 ra.
Die Inspirationslehre, 294 ra.
De Inspir. S. Script., 294 ra.
DeJ. Cocceio anti-scholastico, 385
De Joseph., 109, 129 ra., 139 ra., 455,
456
De J. S. Semler, 405
De Jure Belli et Pacis, 40 re.
De Juvent., 64 re.
De Legis Allegoriis, 22 re.
De Martis Stella, 41 re.
De Med. Aevi. theol. exeget., 251,
285 ra.
Dem. Evang., 124 ra., 174 re.
De Migr. Abr., 23 ra., 133 ra., 137 ra.,
140 re., 149, 151, 152
De Monarchia, 154, 298 re., 313 re.
De Monogam., 178 ra., 179 ra.
De Nom. mutat., 133 ra., 137 ra.,
138 ra., 143 ra., 152
De Mundi exustione, 251 ra.
De Nupliis, 257
De Nat. Deor., 135 ra., 136 ra., 144 re.
De Obitu Theodosii, 124
De Offic, 206 re.
De Off. Sex. Dierum., 38 re.
De Opif. Mund., 38 re., 121 re., 138 re.,
142 re., 143 re., 456
De Optimo Genere Interpretandi,
24 ra.
De Ordine, 247 re.
De Parent. Col., 145
De Plant. Noe., 133 ra., 143 ra., 149
De Origine Verbi Dei, 339 ra.
De Partibus Legis Divinae, 24 ra.
De Patient., 180 ra.
DePeccat. Remiss., 238 re.
De Perfect. Monach., 228 ra.
De Pond., 117 ra., 119 re.
De Poster. Caini, 130 ra.
De Potestate Ecclesias, 309 ra., 428
De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 99,
178-183 ras.
De Princ, 169 re., 182 re., 187 re.,
190 ra., 193 re., 196 ra., 197 ra., 333
De Proem, et Poen. (Philo), 142 ra.,
458

Books continued —
De Profug. (Philo's), 23 ra., 37 ra.
De Pudic, 30 ra., 173 ra., 177 re., 212 n.
De Provid., 130 ra., 137 ra., 142 ra.
De Rat. Ver. Theol., 290 re.
Der Christliche Glaube, 411
De Rege, 39 re., 40 re.
De Rhetorica, 327
De Repub., 135 ra., 187 re.
De Resurr. Carnis, 278 ra., 179 re.
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 re.
De Sacrif. Ab. et. Cain, 23 re., 151,
258 ra.
De Scala Jacobi, 386
De Scholia Antiochena, 216 re.
De Schol. Alex., 201 re., 206 ra.
Des Comment, du N. T., 380
De Scripto Dei Verbo, 475
De Script. Eccl., 26 ra., 301 n.,
467
De Septem Regulis, 24 ra.
De Septuag. Interpp., 119 re.
Des Juden Philo Buch. d. Welt-
schbpfung, 142 re.
De Sobriet., 146
De Somniis, 22 ra., 38 re., 120 re.,
132 ra., 139 ra., 141 ra., 142 re., 149,
151, 152, 455-457
De Spec. Legg., 129 re., 137 re.
139 ra., 152, 177 re.
De Studio Scriptuarum, 24 ra.
De Studiis Instituendis, 243, 263 n.
De Synod., 168 ra., 174 ra.
De Text. Bibl., 223 re.
De Theod. Mops. Vita et Scriptis,
216 re., 219 re.
De Thorn. Aquin., 260 re,
De Trim, 170 re., 205 ra., 234 re.
De Turbata per Recentiores Platonicos
Eccl., 283 ra.
De Usu Patrum, 187 re.
Deutsche Mystiker, 258 ra.
De Vanitat. Scient., 470
De Varia Aristotelis Fortuna, 266 re.
Development of Christian Doctrine,
407
De Verbo Dei, 296 re., 326
De Verbo Mirifico, 129 ra., 315 re.
De Ver. Rel,, 234 ra.
De Vest. Sacerdotali, 226 re.
De Virg., 180 ra.
De Virr. Illustr., 26 ra.
De Vit. Contempl., 137 re. 158,

Index.

515

Books continued —
De Voluptate et Vero Bono, 313 re.
Dial., 123 re., 166 «,, 172-174 res.,
223 re., 247 re.
Diatribe deAristobulo Judaeo, 128 re.
Diatessaron, 171 re.
Dictionnaire, 360 re.
Diet, of Christ. Antiquities, 170 re.
Diet, of Christian Biogr., 126 re.
Diet, of Christ. Biog., 167 re., 168 re.,
176 re., 224 re.
Diet, of S. Script., 294 ra.
Diet, des Sciences Philos., 463
Dictionary, Smith's, 223 n.
Die Angelologie der nachscottischen
Scholastik, 292 ra.
Die apost. Vater, 168 ra.
Die Christliche Gnosis, 139 ra.
Die Kabbala, 130 ra., 134 ra.
Die Lehre Luther's von der heil.
Schrift, 339 re., 358 n.
Die Pharisaeru. Sadd., 58 re.
Die Rel. Eigenthiimliehkeit d. ref.
undLuth. Kirche, 372
Die Theologie Semlers, 405
Die Universitaten sonst und jetst,
365 re.
Die Verdienste Calvin's als Ausleger
der Heiligen Schrift, 343 re.
Disc, sur l'Hist. Lit. de France,
306 re.
Discussio Controversiarum, 364
Dispute on Holy Scripture, 300 re.
Dissertation, 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.
Dogmatik d. apocr. Schriften, 60 re.
Dogmengesch., 289 re., 467
Dubia Vexata, 374
Dreieinigkeit, 368 ra.
Dunciad, 278 re.
Dutch Republic, 41 re.
Early Days of Christianity., 120 re.,
137 ra., 141 ra., 177 ra.
Ebraeorum Philos., 101
Eccl. Hist., 179 ra., 180 re,, 194 ra.
Eccl. Pol., 243, 344 ra., 353 re., 372
Ecoles de l'Occident, Les, 247 re.
Edict of Nantes, 235
Eglise Chretienne, L', 174 re.
Eglise et l'Empire, L', 209 re.
Egypt and the Five Books of Moses,
120 re.

Books continued —
Eine Rede vom Auslegen, 19 re. , 21 re. ,
274 re.
Einleit. (De Wette), 142 re.
Einleit. (Havernick), 119 re.
Einl. in die Offenbarung, 207 re.
Eirechin, 109
Elias Levita, 84, 104
Encom. Moriae, 289 ra., 293 ra., 322
Enchirid. Mil. Christ., 321
Ennead, 255 re.
Entdecktes Judenthnm, 65 ra., 93,
105
Ep. ad African. (Origen), 118 ¦«,,
119 ra.
Ep. adAIgas. (Jerome), 171 ra., 231 n.,
232 re.
Ep. ad Amphiloch. (BasiB, 206 ra.
Ep. ad Coi., 122 ra., 166 re.
Ep. ad Diognet. (Ignatius), 168 ra.,
171 re.
Ep. ad Heliodor. (Jerome), 229 re,
Ep. ad Hieron. (Augustine), 231 re.
Ep. ad Innocent. (Bernardi), 261 re.
Ep. ad'Joan. Jerosol. (Epiphanius),
208 re.
Ep. ad Laetam. (Jerome), 257 ra.
Ep. ad Leandrum (Gregory of Tours),
247 re.
Ep. ad Magnum (Jerome), 208 re.
Ep. ad Marcell. (Jerome), 203 ra.
Ep. ad Paulin. (Jerome), 30 ra., 49 ra.
Ep. ad Pammach. (Jerome), 232 re. ,
454
Ep. ad Papam Innocent. (St. Bernard),
469
Ep. ad Philad. (Ignatius), 172 re.
Ep. ad Spalat (Luther), 321
Ep. ad Virg. Paracl. (Abelard),
257 ra.
Ep. Barnab., 165, 167-170 ras., 235
ra.
Epistola Defensoria, 282
Ep. Parmeniani (Augustine), 30 re.
Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum, 296,
316
Ep. (Augustine), 224 re.
Ep. (Bernard), 260 re.
Ep. (Erasmus), 314 re., 315- n.,
319 ra., 320 re,
Epp. (Gregory the Great), 246 ra.
Ep. (Jerome's), 182 re., 202 re., 205 ra.,
206 ra., 208 ra., 227 ra., 230 n.
Erasmus (Life of), 321
Erasmus, Blasphemies and Impieties
of, 320
Ersch. und Griiber's Encykl., 30 re.,
115 ra., 385 ra.
'Erubin, 62 re., 63 re., 65 re., 68 ra., 441
L L 2

516

Index.

Books continued —
Eruditis Didascaliae, 26 ra., 252
and ra., 257-259 res., 273 re., 295 re.
Essai sur l'lndifference, 308 re.
Esaiam, 224 re., 231 re., 232 re.
Essays in Divinity, 294 ra.
Essays, Milman's, 319 ra.
Ess. on Development, 170 ra., 176 re.
Essay on Man, 254 re.
Essay on the Human Understanding,
290 re.
Ethical Studies, 39 re.
Fjtudes sur St. Aug., 236 re.
Euthetiens, 266 re.
Evang. ad Damasuin, Praef. in, 224 re.
Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, 417
Evenings with the Sceptics, 235 re. ,
236 re.
Exam. Theol. 373
Exercitationes Biblicae, 225 re., 297,
387
Exegese and Hillel, 18 re.
Expositor, the, 88, 215 re., 219-221
res., 223 re., 451, 454
Ezechiel und Philo, 128 re,
Fables of the Popes, 313 re.
Farrago Rerum Theologicarum, 312,
351 re. ¦
Fascic. Theol. 19 re., 313 re.
Federal Theology, 385
Florence et ses Vicissitudes, 283 ra.
Fons Scientiae, 464
Formula Concordiae, 351 ra., 359,
360, 368 ra., 374
Fragm. Ep. ad Greg. Thaumat.,
183 ra.
Fragmenta Hist. Gr., 128 re.
Fragments (Richter), 137 re.
Fragments (Philo), 264 re.
France, La, Protestante, 343 ra.
Free Enquiry, 163 re.
Free Thought, 412
Friend, the, 281 re.
Fortnightly Review, 308 re.

Galatians (Lightfoot's), 188 re.,
213 re., 219 ra., 220 re.
Gedanken fiber Evangelische Wahr-
heiten, 390
Genesis, 72, 74, 77, 224 re.
Germ. Protestantism, 405
Germ. Rationalism, 391, 406, 407,
409
Gesch. (Ewald), 67 ra., 130 re.
Geschichte (Reuss), 134 re.
Gesch. d. Heilig. Schrift., 96, 343 n.,
375, 376

Books continued —
Gesch. d. Israeliten, 51 ¦«., 54 re.,
61 ra., 66-68 ras., 87
Gesch. d. Juden., 53 ra., 128 n.,
277 ra., 462
Gesch. d. Jud. Poesie, 128 re.
Gesch. d. Logik, 264 ra., 267 ra.
Gesch. d. neuest. Theol., 411, 413
Gesch. d. Philos., 224 ra., 231 ra.,
236 ra., 255 ra.
Gesch. d. Prot. Dogmatik, 386
Gesch. d. Prot. Med., 363 re.
Gesch. d. rel. Secten d. Juden, 102
Gesch. d. Schrifterklarung, 277 re.,
305, 313re., 343ra., 374
Gesch. d. Volkes Israels, 51 re.,
116re., 117 ra., 119ra., 125 ra.
Geschiehtsbilder, 66 ra., 68 ra., 70,
'78
Glossa Ordinaria, 268 ra., 277,
286 re,
Glossules, 296 re.
Gnomon, 392 .393
Gospel Harmony, 342 re.
Gottes d. Vortrage, 49 re., 62 re., 69,
118 re.
Great Light, the, 461
Greg. v. Nyssa, 202 ra.
Grundriss, 299 ra., 240 ra., 363, 407,
473
Haer. (Irenaeus's), 99, 100, 117 n.,
119 ra., 122-124 ras., 166 ra., 168
ra., 170 re., 174-179 ras., 182 ».,
186 ra., 202 re., 208 re., 212 re.
Haer. (Epiphan.), 119 re.
Haereticorum Catalogus, 362 re.
Halach. Exegese, 105
Handb. d. Theol. Wissenschaften,
366 re.
Harmon. Biblica, 374
Hagad. Exegese, 149
Hebraica Veritas, 315
Hebr. Lit., 78, 90, 92, 93, 95, 100
Helvet. Conf., 349 re.
Henry VI. (Shakespeare's), 246 andra.
Hermeneutica Sacra, 374, 376, 379
Hermen. (Klausen's), 26 re., 243,
386, 391
Hermeneutik (Dopke's), 76, 277 re.,
342-344 res.
Hermen. Vorbereit., 473
Hexaem., 38 re., 202 re., 208 n.,
220 ra.
Herzog, 223 ra., 250 re., 264 re.
Hibbert Lectures, 308 re., 312 ra.,
322, 343 ra., 361 re.
Hieronymus, 223, 224 re.
Hierarchies, on the,_223, 300 ra., 334

Index.

517

Books continued —
Historia LXII. Interpr., 116 re.
Historia Doctorum Mithnicorum,
53 re.
Historia Syncretism., 383
Hist. (Tacitus's), 121 ra.
Hist. Antiquior sent. Eccl. Grace.
de Accommodatione, 404
Histoire de la Bible, 31 ra., 32 n.,
49ti., 117 ra., 442, 450, 461
Hist, of Cambr., 264 re.
Hist. Crit. der Comment., 171 re.,
202 ra.
Hist. Crit. des Comment, du N. T.,
343 ra.
Hist, des Comment., 252 re., 268 ra.
Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T.
229 ra.
Hist. Critique du VieilTest., 130 ra.,
361 ra., 380
Hist, de la Civilisat. Chret., 223 ra.
Hist, of the Christian Church, 362 re.
Hist, of Civilis., 40 re.
Hist. Comp., 466
Hist, of Doctrines, 230 re.
History, Ecclesiastical (Eusebius),
17ra.,119ra., 129ra.,137ra., 181 ra.,
182 ra., 185 ra., 198 re., 201 re.,
202 re., 206-209 ras., 212 re., 213 re.
Hist. Eccl. introd., 248 ra.
Histoire de l'Ecole d'Alex. (Matter),
115 re.
Hist, de l'Ecole d'Alex. (Vacherot),
139 re.
Hist, of Eng. Bible, 316 ra.
Hist, of Europ., 39 ra.
Hist. Franc, 246 ra.
Hist. Interp., 186 ra., 201-203 ns.,
212 ra., 234 ra., 267 re., 275 ra.,
277 re., 296 ra.
Hist, of Isr., 51 ra., 53ra., 57 ra.,
58 re., 96
Hist, of the Jews, 78, 92, 462
Hist. Lit., 26 re.
Hist. Lit. de France, 247 re., 251 ra.,
262 ra., 289 ra.
Hist. Lit. Theol., 385
Hist. Litt. Nachricht von Phil.
Melanchthon's Verdiensten um die
heilige Schrift, 341 ra.
Hist. Nat., 114 re,
Hist, of Rationalism, 40 re.
Hist, of Ref., 372
Hist, de la Philos., 245 re., 247 ra.,
259 ra., 262 re., 283 re., 470
Hist, of Prot. Theol., 309 ra., 358 n.
Hist. Sap. et Stult., 467
Hist, of Second and Third Cent.,
187 re.

Books continued —
Hodosophia, 362
Holy City, 78
Holy Living, 43 ra.
Horn. in,l Cor. (Chrysostom), 221 ra.
Horn, in Exod. (Origen), 197 re.,
198 re.
Homil. in Ezech. (Gregory), 23 ra.
Horn, in Gen. (Origen), 183 re.,
194 re., 197 ra., 198 re., 208 ra.,
222 re., 238 re.
Horn in Joann. viii. (Origen), 196 re.,
198 ra., 200 ra., 208 ra.
Horn. x. in Jer. (Origen), 123 ra.
Horn, in Jerem. (Origen), 193 ra.
Horn, in Levit. (Origen), 169 ra.,
187 re., 194 ra., 196 ra., 197 ra.
Horn, in Luc. (Origen), 179 ra.,
208 re.
Horn, in Matt. (Origen), 190 re.,
209 re., 212 re., 222 re.
Horn, in Num. (Origen), 197 ».,
198 ra.
Horn, in Rom. (Origen), 199 re.,
236 ra.
Horn, in Tit. (Origen), 187 ra.
Horn, in Jos. (Jerome), 198 ra.
Horaioth, 442
Hugues de St. Victor, 258 re.,
265 re.
Hypotyp., 185 re,
Hystaspes, 172, 185 andra.
Idea Boni Interpretis, 376
Illustrations of Med. Thoughts,
468
Inferno, the, 313 ra.
Inspiration of Scripture, on the,
294 ra.
Institutiones Hermen. Sacrae, 239 ra. ,
371, 376
Institt. (Cassiodorus's), 26 re.
Instt. Div. (Lactantius), 30 ra., 41 ra.,
123 ra., 170 re.
Institutes (Calvin's), 349 ra., 350 re.,
361
Inst. Interpr. (Ernesti), 4 re.
Interpretandi Ratio a J. J. Wetsteino
adhibita, 392
Introd. in Hermeneuticam, 473
Introd. a la Philosophie de Hegel,
413
Introd. ad Theol., 269 re.
Invect. in Hieron., 188 re., 205 ra.,
206 ra.
Iphigenia in Tauris, 5 re.
Isagoge, 202 ra., 203 ra., 205 re.
251 re., 252 ra., 272 ra., 277 ra.,
278 ra., 346 ra., 376, 380, 461, 466

518

Index.

Books continued —
Jalqut Shimeoni, 83 ra.
J. Arndt, ein Zeitbild, 363 ra.
Jahrbiicher, 420
Jerome, St. (Amedee Thierry's),
234 re.
Jesus und Hillel, 67 re.
Jesus von Nazara, 67 n., 113 re.,
142 re., 335
Jetsirah, 97
Jewish Church, 116 re., 121 re., 131 re.
Jewish World, 449
Joel, 213 ra., 218 re., 219 re., 268 ra.,
270 ra., 275 it,., 277 ra., 343 m.,
349 ra., 352 ra.
Joma, 66 re.
Journ. of Class, and Sacr. Philol.,
213 re.
Journal Intime, 355
Journ. Sacr. Lit., 230 ra.
Judaisme, Le, 6, 51 ra., 53 ra., 56 re.,
88, 89, 92, 363, 462
Judenthum, 19 re., 52 re., 64-66 res.,
68 ra., 74, 77, 128 ra., 143 ra., 148,
462
Judenth. u. Heidenth., 139 ra.
KabbalA, the, 36 ra., 96, 97 and ra.,
446
Kethuboth, 59 ra.
Ketzereye, 240 re,
Kirche und Kirchenthum, 323
Kirchengeschichte, 265 re.
Koheleth, 462
Koran, the, 28 ra., 53 and ra., 119 ra.,
275 ra.
Kulter-gesch. , 82
Kulter und Lit., 66 re.
Latin Christianity, 248 ra., 254 ra.,
298 ra., 301 ra., 316 ra.
La Legge, 86
Laurentii Medici Vita, 282 n.
Leben d. M. Luther, Erste Pred., 324
Leben Jesu, fiir das Deutsche Volk
bearbeitet, 413, 414, 416
Leben und Werken Bengels, 392
Leben Zinzendorf, 390
Lectures, Bampt., 195 ra., 240 re.,
266 re.
Lectures on Universal Subjects, 470
Leg. ad Gaium, 114 re., 137 re.
Legis Allegoriae, 129 re., 138 re,,
141 ra., 143 ra., 146, 149, 150, 457
Letters to King, 364 ra.
Letters to Radulphus, 286. ra., 404
Legat.,179ra. Lex Chald., 446
Lex Talm., 74, 86, 96, 101

Books continued — ¦
Libelli ad Crisin, 391
Libellus de Canonieis Scripturis,
341 ra.
Libellus de Formulis, 24 re.
Liber Formularum Spiritalis Intelli
gentiae, 24 and re.
Liberty of Prophesying, 329
Liber Allegoriarum, 250, 251 re.
Lib. k. Object. Fredegisii, 252 re.
Lieder der Liebe, 407
Life of Christ, 121 •«.
Lily of Secrets (Shoshan Sodoth), 97
Lingua Augustina, 235 ra.
Lit. of Europe, 280 ra., 314ra., 316ra.
Literary Remains (Dr. Deutsch's),
129 ra.
Loci Commun. M. Lutheri, 326, 328,
331
Loci Communes Theol., 345 ra., 358
Loci Theologici, 358, 361, 362, 366 ra.,
368
Lbckler, 206 ra., 229 ra,
Logique de Port Royal, 243
Malleus Maleficarum, 40 re.
Manipulus Florum, 291 re.
Maran Atha, 407
Marc. Aurel., 180 ra., 212?!,
Mare Magnum (Wessel's), 312 ra.
Marini Procli Vita, 254 ra.
Martyrs of Science, 359 re.
Massoreth Ha Massoreth, the, 106
Mataeologia Papistica, 364
Mazarin Bible, the, the first printed
book, 314
Mediaeval Christianity, 254 ra.,
293 re.
Mediaeval Preachers, 297 ra.
Mediaeval Philosophy, 260 and re.,
290 ra,
Mediaev, Thought, 252 ra., 296 re.,
466
Megilla, 31 ¦»., 34 ra., 50 ra., 52 ra.,
54 ra., 57 ra.
Megillath Taanith, 66 ra.
Melanchthon im Dienste an heiliger
Schrift, 341 ra.
Melanges (Munk's), 265 ra., 449, 462,
463
Memoriae Theologorum, 363 ra.
Menachoth, 49 ra., 51 re,, 57 re.
Menagiana, 291 ra.
Mental and Moral Science, 264 ra.
Messias Judaeorum, 106
Metaphysics, 265, 266 ra,
Metaiog., 251 ra., 266 ra., 290 ra.,
294 7i., 296 ra.
Methodus Prophetica Praef., 386

Index.

519

Books continued —
Middle Ages, 40 ra., 247 ra., 470
Midrash, the, 19 ra., 210 ra,
Midrashim, 23, 37
MU. Christ, 321
Mishna, the, 53 re,, 62ra., 63 andra.,
65
Miscellanies (Bishop Wordsworth's),
39 ra., 40)i., 196 ra.
Miscall. Hist. Philos., 283 re.
Mod. Review, 52 re., 412
Monumenta Fidei Eccles. Orient.,
361 re., 393
Moralia, 240 a., 247 re.
Moreh Nebuchim, 463
Moreh Nerochim, 105
Moriae and Instit. Principis Chris-
tiani, 321
Mythical Interp., 208 re.
Nathan der Weise, 399
Nazir, 21 re.
Nedarim, 52 re.
New Test. Times, 88, 103
Neut. Zeitg. die Zeit d. Apostel,
52 ra., 114 re,
Notes to the New Testament, 393
Nova Bibl. Ecclesiastica, 404
Novel. Diatax., 125 n.
Novum Organum, 41 n.
Nov. Patr. Bibl., 202 re.
Novum Testamentum, 377
Nov. Test. extr. can., 166
Obedience of a Christian Man,
300 ra.
Obs. Sacr., 65 re.
Occam und Luther, 281 ra.
Occasional Notices, 82
Odyssey, 130 re.
Old Paths, 59 re.
Old Mortality, 352
Old Testament Theology, 350 re., 386
Old Test., the, in the Jewish Church,
370
Operationes in Psalmos, 325
Opp. Joann. Damasc, 466
Opp. (Cousin), 257 re.
Opus Majus, 286 re.
Opus Minus, 263 re.
Opusc. Theol., 219 ra.
Orat. (Gregory of Nazianzus), 291 ra.,
293 re.
Or. ad. Graecos, 135 ra.
Origenes, 183 ra., 196 ra.
Orig. Eccl., 346 ra.
Origeniana, 188 re., 189 ra., 200 n. .
208 re.
Orlando Furioso, 313 re.

Books continued —
Orthodoxus Calvinus, 346 re,
Ouvr. ined. d' Abelard, 249 re., 467
Oxford Reformers, 353 re., 318 re.
Ozair, 53 and ra.
Paedag., 166, 185 ra.
Palestine, 18 re., 32 re., 78.
Pape, Du, 308 ra.
Parables, on the, 193 ra.
Parallels, 353 ra.
Paradise Lost, 293 ra.
Paradiso, the, 221 ra., 292 re., 298 ra.,
309, 313 re.
Paraphrases, Erasmus's, 316 re., 320
and re.
Patres Apostolici, 165
Patrologie, 26 re., 206, 216 re., 233 ra.
Pensees, 432, 433
Pentateuch, 402
Pesachim, 74 n. , 446
Pesikhta Rabbathi, 65 ra.
Phaleg., 130 ra.
Philo (Siegfried's), 22 ra., 37 re., 38 re.,
120 re., 138 re., 149, 456
Philo und die Halacha, 137 ra.
Philokal., 189-191 res., 194 ra., 197 ra.,
220
Philolog. Sacr., 104, 376
Philosophie de Origen, La, 115 re.
Philosophia S. Scripturae, 386
Philosophie Hegelienne, 413
Philos. Scholastique, 245 re.
Philos. de St. Aug., 235 ra.
Phil. d. Griechen, 143 ra.
Philosophy of History, 413
Philo. (Gfrorer), 128 ra., 140 ra.
Postills, 374
Polyanthea, 291 re.
Polycrat., 43 re., 257 re., 259 re., 264
7i., 273 re., 292 ra., 294 re.
Popery, Dissuasive from, 17 re.
Prayer-Book (Jewish), 19 re.
Praef. in Annott. (Calvin), 321
Praef. in Inst. (Calvin), 343 re.
Praef. in Job (Gregory), 119 ra.,
295 ra.
Praef. in Rom. (Calvin), 343-345 ne..
347
Praef. in Paralip. (Jerome), 117 re.
Praef. in Pent. (Jerome), 117 ra.
Praef. Rudim. Hebr. 315 ra.
Praktische Einleitung, 92, 114 re.,
445, 451, 461
Praelectioues Hermeneuticae, 376
Praenott. Elucid., 265 re,
Praep. Evang., 116 re., 128-130 ns.,
137 re., 138 re., 142 re., 143 re.
Praep. in N. Test., 470

520

Index.

Books continued —
Prelatical Episcopacy, 164 re,
Prolegom. in Lombardi Sent., 467
Propheten d. Alten Bundes, 103
Prot. Theol., 323
Prophecy and History, 64 re., 86
Propositiones de Sensu Literali,
278 ra., 279 andra.
Prot. Lehrbegriff, 364 re.
Prooem. in Breviloquium, 273 re.
Prooem. in Cant. (Gregory of Nyssa),
195 re., 202 re.
Prooem. in Eph. (Jerome), 227 re.,
234 re.
Prooem. in Gal. (Jerome), 234 re.
Prol. in Joann. (Rupert), 255 re.
Prooem. in Matt. (Jerome), 227 re.,
250
Prooem. de Vit. St. Thomas Aquin.,
272 n.
Psychomachiam, 168 re.
Pugio Fidei, 92
Purgatoria, 23 re.
Qiddushin, 21 re., 51 ra., 66 ra.
Quaestiones, 130 re., 138 ra., 140 re.
Quaest. ad Autolyc, 171 ra
Quaest. in Gen. (Augustine), 125 ra.,
146
Quaest. Hieron. (Clericus), 224 ra.,
234 re.
Quaest. in Jud. (Augustine), 168 re.
Quaest. (Photius), 250 re.
Quodlibeta, 281 re.
Quis rer. div. haer., 129 re., 142 re.
Quod det. pot., 152, 455
Quod Deus Immutabilis, 22 ra., 141
ra , 149, 187 ra., 455
Quod omn. prob. liber., 129 re.,
138 re.
Raison Philosophique, La, 269 re.
Rashi's Einfluss fiber Nic. v. Lyra
und Luther, 225 ra., 291 ra.
Rationale div. officiorum, 295 re.
Rationalism, 39 re., 40 re.
Ratio Disciplinae, 390
Ratio Verae Theologiae, 321
Realwbrt.,'101
Recherches Critiques, 264 re.
Recognitions, 208 re.
Reden fiber die Religion, 410
Reformation in England, 164 re.
Reformatoren vor der Reformation,
258 ra., 280 re., 312 ra.
Rel. Sacrae, 38 ra., 175 ra., 177 ra.,
. 183 ra., 202 ra., 207-209 res.
Religionsphil. , 116 re., 412
Rel. Auferklarung, 252 re.

Books continued — ¦
Replicae defensivae, 278 re.
Retractt. , 26 ra.
Rer. Gallic. Script., 247 ra.
Right Use of the Fathers, on the,
163
Ring and the book, 305
Rudimenta Linguae Hebraicae, 315
Sacred Philosophie of the Holy
Scriptures, 300 ra.
Sacred Typology, 353 ra.
St. John (Westcott's), 189 re.
St. John of Damascus, 374, 466
St. Paul and Philo, Ep. to the
Thessalonians, 154
St. Thomas Aquin., Life of, 258 re.,
260 re., 270 re.
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 ra.
Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,
57 re.
Schaff. Herzog., 390
Scholastica Theol ogia, 287 re., 292 re.
Scholasticism, 264 ra.
Scholia, 187 and ra.
Schol. de Mittelalt., 255 ra.
Schol. in Lib. Hier. adv. Helvid.,
229 ra., 265 re,
Schools of Charles the Great, the,
247 ra.
Script. Eccl., 254 re., 313 re.
Script. Nov. Coll., 208 ra.
Script. Rer. Ital., 40 ra.
Scripture Vindicated, 353 re., 460
Seb. Franck, 341 re.
Sentences, the, 262 and ra., 263, 265
¦it,., 289 re., 293 re., 358, 467
Sepher Ikkarim, 464
Sermon on Ministerial Duties, 353 re.
Sermon on the Mount, 125 re., 234 re.,
239 re.
Shabbath, 62 re., 68 ra., 76, 85, 86
Sheb., 64 re.
Shelosh Esreh Middoth ha-Thorah,
19 re.
Shemoth Rabba, 52re., 86
Short Hist, of Greek Mathem., 247 re.
Sibyl, the, 172, 178, 185 and ra., 191
Sic et Non, 260 ra., 261 ra., 468
Sifra, 52 ra.
Siphra, 18 re., 62 ra.
Sittenlehre, 409
Socinianismus profligatus, 364
Song of Songs, 211 re., 226, 263

Index.

521

Books continued —
Sopherim, 52, 63 re., 65 re.
Sorciere, La, 40 n.
Sota, 57 ra., 63 ra., 66 re., 442, 448
Souvenirs (Renan's), 271 ra., 470
Speaker's Commentary, 189 ra., 220 ra.
Special Philosophie, History of,
161 ra.
Spec. Theol., 353 re.
Spekulative Theologie, 409
Spicil. Solesm., 269 re.
Spirituales Formulae, 295 ra.
Strom. (Clemens Alexandria), 24 re.,
109, 116 re., 117 7i., 128 ra., 129
ra., 143 ra., 168 re., 182-186 res.,
194 ra.
Studiis Instit., De, 163 re,
Suceah, 86
Sukkah, 54 ra., 66 re., 68 re., 104 re.,
115 re.
Summa, 237 re,, 263 ra., 266 -».,
271 ra., 276 andra., 282 ra., 288 re.,
292 ra., 358, 361
Summa Doctrinae de Foedere, 385
Sura, 53 re.
Symbolik, 135 ra., 380
Symposium, 201 ra.
Synopsis, 343 re., 389
Systema Locorum, 358, 362, 365,
368 ra.
Systema Theologiae, 371, 373, 386
Systeme de la Kabbale, 97
Taainth, 447
Table Talk, 328, 334
Talmud, 18, 19 re,, 28, 34, 50 re.,
52 re., 57, 61 and re., 63-65 and
res., 68, 315 ra., 316 n.
Talm. Worterb., 18 ra.
Talmudic Miscellany, 36 ra., 50 ra.
Tamid, 86
Temoorah, 87, 168 ra.
Test. adv. Jud., 123 re.
Theses de Labadismo, 364
Theodicaea, 398
Theod. Mops., V. T., 216 re., 219 re.
Theol. Christ., 168 ra., 346 ra., 379
Theologia Didactico-Polemica, 358,
370, 373
Theologia Naturalis, 340 ra., 402
Thes. Nov. Anecd., 261 ra., 313 ra.
Theologil. (Luther's), 326, 329, 331,
335, 336
Theol. of Old Test., 234 ra.
Theol. Journ. Hengst, 402
Theolog. Stud. u. Krit., 281 ra.
Theorie du Judaisme, 19 ra., 63 re.
Timaeus, the, 142, 282 ra.
Tisehreden, 321, 324, 325, 335, 336

Books continued —
Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 398
Tract, de Erroribus, 260 re.
Tract, de Obit. Valent., 205 re.
Tract 57 (Dr. Pusey's), 89, 163 re.,
168 re.
Tracts for the Times, 32 re., 180 re. ;
No. 85, 181 re., 191 re. ; No. 87,
181 re.
Traite de l'Emploi des Saints Peres,
163 re.
Traite de la Morale des Peres, 163 ra.
Treasures of the Talmud, 102
Trialog., 279 ra., 313 re.
Trinitas, 171 re.
True Religion, of, 164 re.
Twelve Apostles, Teaching of the,
166
Typus Doctrinae Propheticae, 386
Uhrschrift, 120 re.
University of Cambridge, 248 re.
Var. Hist., 120 re.
Vayyikra Rabba, 31 re., 63 re., 86 re.
Verm. Schriften, 372, 390, 405
Versohnungslehre, 289 re.
Versueh. einer Charakteristik Mel-
anchthon's, 341 re.
Verniinftige Gedanken von Gott, der
Welt, und der Seele, 398 re.
Via ad Pacem, 383
Via Intelligentiae, 242 re., 292 re.
Vie de Hillel, 19 ra.
Vie de Jesus, 66 ra., 419
Vigilantius, 229 re., 232 ra.
Vindiciae, 374
Virr. 111. , 226 re.
Vision (Hermas), 171 ra.
Vita Calvini, 351 ra.
Vit. Luth., 265 n.
Vit. Melanchth., 310, 364 ra.
Vit. Mos., 23 n., 54 re., 116 re.,
117 re., 120 re., 128 ra., 130 n.,
141 ra.
Vita di S. Thomas, 270 ra., 289 ra.
Verniinftige Gedanken von der Men-
schen Thun und Lassen, 398 re.
Volk. Gottes, 114 re.
Vom Erloser d. Menschen, 406
Von Geiste d. Hebr. Poesie, 407
Von Gott eingegeben (Luther), 149
Von Gottes Sohn, 406
Vorreden zu den Bibl. Biichern,
339 ra.
Vorstudien, 116m., 120ra., 142 re., 454
Vulgate, 27 re., 123-125 and ns.,
196, 197, 203 re., 213 re., 229,
239 ra., 249, 271, 313, 315

522

Index.

Books continued —
Wahres Christenthum, 363 ra.
Weissag d. A. T., 154
Westminster Confession, 349 ra., 359
Words of the Lord Jesus, 340 re,
Wbrterbuch des N. T., 405
Writings of Tertullian, 178 re., 185 ra.
Yadaim, 88, 336
Yad Hachazaka, 52 ra.
Yoma, 51 ra., 57 ra., 58 ra,, 62 re.
Zeitschr., 78, 148
Zeitschr. fiir Philos., 270 re.
Zinzendorf, Le Comte de, 390
Zohar, 97
Zcugoth, 65 re.
Zur Schbien Literatnr 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 re.

C.

Cade, Jack, and Gregory the Great, on
the teaching of grammar, 246 and re,
Cajetan, Cardinal, Luther's conference
with, 325 re.
Caligula, 137 ra.
Calixtus, Georg, his influence as an
advocate for tolerance and concord,
382 ; and on the exegesis of the
17th century, 382 and ra.
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 ra. ; 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 ; 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
troversy regarding, 366
Camerarius on the theology of the
12th century, 310 ra.
Canon, the Hebrew, places the his
torical books among the Prophets,
9 ra. ; Jerome's views on the, 225 ;
Luther's, 335, 336 ; criticism of the,
as old as the Rabbis, 336 ra.
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
Caracalla, 81 re.
Carlstadt, one of the helpers of the
Reformation, 341 ; his book on the
canon of Scripture, 341 ra.
Carpenter, Prof. J. E., 52 ra."
Casaubon, Isaac, his remark about the
disputes of the Sorbonne, 291 ra. ;
his rebuke of Baronius, 297 ra.
Case-sign in Hebrew, Rabbinical dis
pute regarding the, 74 and ra.
Cassiodorus, 24 ra., 26 and re.
Catenae or excerpts, nature and number
of, 248 and re,, 250 re. ; difference
between glosses and, 250 ra., 251
Celsus, 17
Chakamim, or Wise, 52
Charles I., apotheosis of, in the Church
of England after the Restoration,
40 ra.
Charles V., 324
Chasidim, the original name of the
Pharisees, 11 andra. ; meaning of the
term, lire,
Chatack, mystic associations of the
Hebrew word, 102 and re.
Chillingworth on the interpretation of
the Scriptures, 8 re.
Christ, the work of, nameless horror
which it sometimes involved, 41
and ra. ; difference between the work
of Hillel and that of, 66, 67 ; the
ransom of, supposed by Irenaeus to
be paid to Satan, 176 ; mistake made
by Irenaeus as to the age of, 176
and ra, ; danger arising from Luther's
rule of finding Christ everywhere in
Scripture, 333 ; observations of F. W.

Index.

523

Robertson on this rule, 334 ra. ; post-
Reformation dispute regarding the
double nature of, 367-369 ; Lessing
on observing the commandments of,
397 ra. ; reverence of Kant for, 408 re.
Christian Kabbalists and their methods,
36 re.
Christianity and orthodoxy, Chalybaus
on, 161 re.
Christians, true and false, 25
Chronicles, the Books of, nature of,
52 ra.
Church and the Gospel, the, Luther's
decision as to, 326
Church, Dean, on the character of the
Fathers, 241
Church, Tichonius's first rule as to the,
25
Churches, types of, 25
Chrysostom, the Homilist, of the School
' of Antioch, 220 ; his character, in
fluence, and writings, 220, 221 ;
Dante assigns him a place in Para
dise, 221 ; Cardinal Newman's opinion
of, 221 ra. ; his opinion of Scripture
and of the importance of studying
it, 222 ; Luther's opinion of, 222 re. ;
saying of, regarding the Fathers, 242
Cibber, Colley, 278 ra.
Cicero, quotation from his De Juvent. ,
64 re. ; on the fables of the ancient
poets, 135
Claudius, 98 n., 401
Clement of Alexandria, estimate of, and
of his writings, 184-187 ; character
istic features of his system, 185-187 ;
his doctrine of accommodation, 187
and ra.
Clement of Rome, estimate of, and of
his work, and of his influence on early
exegesis, 166, 167, and ras. ; on the
quotations from the Scriptures in,
166 res.
Clement V., Pope, 316 ra.
Clement VII., Pope, 309
Clement VIII., Pope, 316 re.
Clerc, Le, his theory of accommodation,
379 ra.
Cocceius and Cocccianism, influence of,
on the theology and exegesis of the
17th century, 385, 386
Coleridge, his comparison of the leading
Reformers with the Fathers, 163 re.,
influence of his works in originating
anew school of thought, 422 ; authori.
ties and works on, 422 n.
Colet, Dean, on God and the soul,
255 ra. ; on the sense of Scripture,
300 re.

Colon, 24 ra.
Collier, Jeremy, 17 re.
Columbus, 427
Commentators of the Reformation
period, 342 ra. ; mediaeval Jewish 461
Commentators of the Reformed and
Lutheran Church, characteristics of,
372 ra.
Confessions, list of the leading, of the
post-Reformation period, 359 ; Mil
ton's protest against, 359 ra. ; in
fluence of, on the age, 360
Controversies, mediaeval, account of
the chief, 253 ; and of those of the
post-Reformation period, 362, 366
et seq. ; Renan on controversies
regarding errors, 363
Constantine, on the Donation of, to
the Church, 298, 312, 313 and re.
Council of Trent, 307
Council of Constance, 310
"Counsels of perfection," meaning of
the phrase, 11
Cousin on the periods of scholasticism,
253 ra.
Covenant, Ezra's conception of a, 58
and ra.
Creeds, the age of, 359
Creeping things, the Talmud on the
cleanness of, 64
Critica Sacra, Cappellus's, controversy
raised by the publication of, 387 ra. ;
extract from, 387 re.
Crowns, the three, of the Talmud, 61
Crowns on Hebrew letters, explanation
of their use, 74 and ra. ; Rabbinical
legend regarding Moses and the, 75
anil ra.
Crusaders, the, justify their deeds by
Scripture, 39
Cryptographs, Talmudic, 450
Culverwell on new opinions, 395
Cyril of Alexandria, his comment on
Cant. iii. 9-11, 211 ra.
Cyprian, estimate of, and of his
writings, 180-182 D.
Dante, his reference to the name of
Rachel, 23 ra. ; chairs founded to
comment on his Divina Commedia,
47 ; his opinion concerning the
mystical sense, 159 ; assigns to
Chrysostom a place in Paradise, 221 ;
his estimate of Dionysius the Areo-
pagite, 255 ra. ; alludes to the Pro
logue to the Sentences of Peter-
Lombard, 262 ; and to Albertus and.

524

Index.

Thomas of Aquino, 267 ra. ; on the
power of the Papacy, 298 re. ; on
the donation of Constantine to the
Church, 312, 313 ra.
Darwin and his discoveries, result of,
426
Darwinian principle, reference to the, 9
David, the Scribes absolve him from
all sin, 63 and ra.
Davies, Rev. J. LI., on St. Ambrose,
206 re.
Deception, Jerome's belief in the per
missibility of, 231 ra.
Delitzsch on the Book of Ecclesiastes,
32
Densk, one of the helpers of the Re
formation, 341 ; his view of what
constitutes the Word of God, 341 re.
Denis on Alexandrianism, 133 re.
Derenbourg, 4 re.
Descartes, on vain speculation, 284, 358
ra., 383
Deutsch, Dr., on the Halakha and the
Haggada, 89 ; and on the Law, 89
De Wette, his view of the Book of
Ecclesiastes, 32
Deyling, 65 ra.
Dialectic method, abuse of the, by the
Schoolmen, 288-291
Diderot, his remark on scepticism being
the first step to truth, 266 ra.
Diet of Niirnberg, the, 311 ra.
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 ra.
Dionysius the Areopagite, on the influ
ence of the writings of, 254 and res.
Disraeli, Isaac, on Judaism, 69
Divina Commedia, 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 re.
Domitian, 176, 310
Donation of Constantine to the Church,
on the, 312, 313 ra.
Donne, on the language of the Kabba-
lists, 294 ra.

Dorner on the opponents of Pietism,
382 ra. ; 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 ra.
Double nature of Christ, dispute re
garding the, 367-369
Du Cange, 6 ra.
Duns Scotus, his negative style of
exegesis, 280 ; character of, 301
Du Pin's remark on Paulinus applicable
to Jerome, 233 ra.
Duraudus, on the threefold sense of
Scripture, 6 ra., 295 n.
Durham, 33 ra.
Dutch theologians and universities of
the 17th century, 379 and re. ; their
influence in reviving a better system
of exegesis, 379 E.
Ecclesiastes, early doubts regarding
the 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 ra.
"Egg, the," notice of the treatise of
the Mishna so-called, 88
eyKpvtpias, reference to the Septuagint
word, 23
Ego and the Non-Ego, Fichte's system
of the, 409
Eichhorn, critical labours of, 402
Eliezer, Rabbi, his remark regarding
Shammai, 68 ; and Aqiba, 71 ; is a
pure traditionalist, 73 re.
Elizabeth, Queen, 39 re.
English Church, freedom of, from the
controversies of the post- Reformation
period, 376 ; its labours in the field
of Scriptural studies, 420 et seq. ;
leaders of the theology of the, 420 ;
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 re. ; next
to Luther, he rendered the greatest
service to the Reformation, 316 ; his

Index.

525

editio prineeps of the New Testament
formed an epoch in the history of
Western Christendom, 316 ; he pro
claimed it to be the right of all to
read the messages of the Gospel for
themselves, 317 ; his scholarship and
exegetic labours, 317-320 ; Pope's
lines on, 318 re. ; antagonism between
Luther and, 319 ; incurs the enmity of
the Church, 319 ; is the chief founder
of modern textual and Biblical criti
cism, 320 ; his reply to Dorpius on
ecclesiastical authority, 320 re. ; his
philological knowledge, 321 ra. ; esti
mate of the work which he did, 320-
322
Ephraem Syrus, see Syrus Ephraem
Erachim, 64 ra.
Erigena, Johannes Scotus, his com
parison of the meanings of Scripture,
7 ; his work and influence on medi
aeval controversy and exegesis, 253,
254 ; his great work, De Div. Nat. ,
is condemned by the Council of
Valence, and by two Popes, 254 ra.
Ernesti, 4 ra. ; critical labours of, 402
'Erubin, 62 ras., 63 re., 65 re., 68 ra.
Esther, early doubts regarding the
Book of, 32 and re.
Etheridge, 47 re., 53 re., 61 ra.
Etymology of the Schoolmen, speci
mens of the, 286 re.
Eucharist, controversy between Ratram
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
Liber Formularum Spiritalis Intelli
gentiae, 24
Euclid, 289
Eugenius, Pope, 262
Euler, his Defence of Revelation against
the Attacks of Freethinkers, 402
Evil impulse, the Jews desire to anni
hilate the, 58
Excerpts or Catenae, nature and num
ber of, 248 andra., 250 and ra.
Exegesis, Success and Failure of,
1 — 43 ; Exegesis, a matter of necessity
for books immortalised by the rever
ence of generations, 3 ; importance
of, in reference to the Bible, 4 ; cen
turies of mistaken, 8, 9 ; result of,
when tested by the Darwinian prin
ciple, 9 ; and by the Hegelian, 9 ;
gradual development 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 tends 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 ;
power 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 ; effects
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 ra. ; 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 cer
tain kinds of, 27 ; pernicious influence
of unfounded principles of, 27 etseq. ;
remarks of a Scotch divine on, 29 re, ;
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.
Babbinic System of Exegesis, 47
— 107 ; how it arose, 51 ; Ezra the
originator of it, 52 ; nature 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 ra. ; the direct and in
direct consequences of Ezra's sys
tem fatal to the Jews, 56 ; it was
built on superstition and exclusive-
ness, 60 ; and set aside the meaning
of Holy Writ, 63 ; account of the
leading builders of this system, 65-
81 ; the sweet and noble Hillel, 65-
67 ; Shammai, the rival of Hillel, 67,

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 re, ; 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, 100; 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 etseq. ; 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 res. ; the
Septuagint the only Bible nsed by
the, 165 ; Clement of Rome and his
writings, 166 ; the Epistle of Bar-

Exegesis continued—
nabas, 167-170; the - Apologists—
Hermas, Polycarp, Ignatius, Tatian,
Athenagoras, and Theophilus of An
tioch, 171 and ras. ; Justin Martyr
and his system, 170-174 and res. ;
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 ras. ; of Cyprian and his method,
180-182 and res. ; the school of Alex
andria, 182, 183 ; of Clement of
Alexandria, the first great teacher of
this school, 183-187 and ras. ; the
characteristic features of his system,
185-187 and res. ; the theory of ac
commodation, 187 andra. ; of Origen,
the greatest master of the school,
187-203 ; his greatness, and the
nature and influence of his teaching,
1 88 ei 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 ra. ; 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 Svrus,
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 and
defects of his system of exegesis,
213, 214 ; his faults, 214 ; instances
of his erroneous renderings of Scrip
ture, 213, 214 and res. ; 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 media 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 et seq. ; his haste,
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 abuse of
allegory, 236-238 ; success of the
Allegorists, 239 ; remarks on the
system of exegesis of the Fathers,
240-242 Scholastic Exegesis, 245 — 303 ;
derivation of the term scholasticism,
245 re. ; 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 ra. ;
homiletics have ever been to an in
credible extent the Phylloxera Vasta-
trix of, 246 ra. ; Charlemagne endea
vours to revive learning, 247 ; but all
knowledge becomes ecclesiastical,
247 ; teaching of the Trivium and the
Quadrivium begins, 247 ; explanation
of these, 247 ra. ; the mediaeval
divines merely compilers, 248 ; list
of compilers and compilations, 248 re, ;
the teaching of the Latin Church
rests on the authority of three
Fathers — Ambrose, Jerome, and
Augustine, 248 re. ; the Venerable
Bede and his work, 247 ; his system
of exegesis, 249 ; is merely the sedi
ment of Patristic exposition, 249 ;
the compilations of Alcuin and
others, 249, 250 ; uselessness of such
compilations, 250 ; the works of
Haymo of Halbertstadt, Rabanus
Maurus, and Paschasius Radbertus

Exegesis continued —
are all equally servile, 250 ; signifi
cance of Notker of St. Gall'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 ras. ;
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 re, ; 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
res. ; 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 ras. ; Hugo
a-nd 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 mediaeval
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 at their
worst, 266 ; Albertus and his system
of exegesis, 267-269 ; the greatness
of the Schoolmen paralysed by
vicious methods, 267 ; Thomas of
Aquino, and his method of exegesis,
269-272 ; influence of the scholasti
cism and mysticism of Bonaventura,
272 ; his system of explaining Scrip
ture by Scripture, . 273 ; Nicolas of
Lyra, the Jerome of the 14th century,
revives the true system of exegesis,

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. theirneglect 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, 292 •». ; 9. their
assumption that every part of Scrip
ture admitted of a multiplex intelli-
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
Reformers, the, and their System
of, 307 — 354 ; origin of the Reforma
tion, and the part Luther played in
it, 307 ; he is not 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 exegesis 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 Western 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 modern
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 everything 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. tbe 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
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's work and influence, 341 ;
Oecolampadius, Bucer, Brenz, Bu
genhagen, Musculus, Camerarius,
Bullinger, Chemnitz, and Beza, all
agreed with Luther in principle,
342 ; statement of these, 342 ; list of
the principal commentators of the
period, 342 ra. ; 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 aniron uniformity,
358 ; the work of the whole epoch
was retarded by a double curse, 359 ;
tyrannous confessionalism and con
tentious bitterness, 359 ; the Creeds
and Confessions of the period, and the
influence they exerted, 359-361; its
huge books of theology, 361 ; now
buried in the dust of oblivion, 361 ;
controversies of the age, 362-366 ;
their number, nature, and results,
362-366 ; the two chief controversies
of the age, 366-376 ; on Calvinism,
or the doctrine of predestination,
366 ; on the double nature of Christ,
367-369 ; on confounding " inspira
tion " with " verbal dictation," 369 ;
"the Bible" and "the Word of
God " not synonymous, 369 ; on the
meaning of inspiration as defined 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 seq. ; 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 w. ;
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 Exegesis, 397—437 ; 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 Wolfenbiittel
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 Haller
and Euler against unbelief, 402 ; cold
nature of the exegetical labours of
the time, 402 ; of those of Michaelis,
Ernesti, Eichhorn, and Paulus, 402 ;
Semler marks a distinct epoch, 402 ;
nature and influence of his work,
403-405 ; he is succeeded by the
genial influence of Herder, 405 ; 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 etseq. ; 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 re. ; Calvin's conception
of the duties of an, 344 ra.
Expositors, the greatest Puritan and
the best Roman Catholic, of the post-
Reformation period, 394 ra.
Ezra, seven "counsels of perfection''
attributed to, 11 re., 12 ; the founder
of Judaism and of the Oral Law, 51,
52 ; his influence and labours, 51, 52
and res. ; 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 ra.
Ezekiel, the prophet passes into the
Scribe in, 52 F.
Faber Stapulensis, 284
Fabiola, extract from Jerome's letter to,
226 ra.
Fabriane, the Bishop of, 311 re.
Facundus, his defence of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, 216 re.
"Faith, the analogy of," St. Augus
tine's and St. Chrysostom's explana
tion of, 236 and re.
Farel, 351 ra.
Farrar, Dr. A. S., and the German
schools of thought, 402 re.
Fathers, mistaken interpretation of
Genesis i. 1 by some of the, 38 ;
allusion to Philo in the, 156 re. ;
general view ' of the, 162 et seq. ;
Milton's estimate of the, 162, 163
and ra. ; Grotius's, 162 ra. ; Cole
ridge's, 162 re. ; 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, by

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
Julius Africanus, 207 ; of Bishop
Nepos, 209 ; of the martyr Lucian,
209 ; of the presbyter Dorotheus,
209 ; of Ephraem Syrus, 209 ; of
Diodorus 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, 234 et seq. ; 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 ra. ; Luther rejects the
authority of the, 326 ; remarks of
Luther on the, 471
Fichte, J. H., on the office of gifted
men, 353 ra. ; estimate of, and his
system of philosophy, 409
Ficino, 282
Fludd, 36 ra.
Fourfold sense of Scripture, views of
the Schoolmen on the, 294 et seq. and
?is. ; 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 ras.
Fiirst on the development of the canon,
tradition, and Jewish theology, 66
¦it,., 69 ra. G.
Gad, writer of one of the lost sacred
books, 6
Gaius, Emperor, 458
Galileo, 426, 427
Gaonim, or excellent, 53 and ra.
Gellert, the hymns of, and their in
fluence on the German mind, 401
Gemara, the Babylonian, 12 ra. ; im
portance attached by the Rabbis to

the teachings of the, 62, 63 ; formed
a part of the Babylonian Talmud,
82 ; value the Jews set upon the, 82;
abounds with the Haggada, 90
Gematria, 50 re., 51 ra., 65 re. ; explana
tion of the Rabbinical principle of,
98-100 ; derivation of the word,
98 71. ; Tertullian on, 99 n. ; 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 seq.
Gerard, Balthazar, 22, 39
Germany, Emperor William of, last
attempt to assassinate the, defended
from Scripture examples, 39 ra.
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 ra.
Gideon, 352
Gifted men, J. H. Fichte on the office
of, 353 ra.
Gill, Mr. A., on the rendering of the
sense of Scripture, 300 ra.
Gitten, 12 ra., 64 ra., 68 ra.
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.
Gnomon, value of Bengel's, 393 and n.
Gospel of love and peace, how it has
been desecrated by .ignorance and
fanaticism, 41 and re.
Gratz on Rabbinism, 82 re. ; on various
Jewish books, 90 ra.
Greek philosophy, and the tenets of
the Greek philosophers, to be found
in Moses and the Prophets, 128-131
and ras. ; views of Clement of Alex
andria on the relation of Christianity
to, 183 ra.
Greeks, the poems of Homer become to
the, a sacred book, 135 ; Philo con
siders himself and his countrymen
as, 147 ra.
Gregory the Great, estimation in which
his thirty-five books of Moralia on
the Book of Job were held during the
Middle Ages, 240 and re. ; is opposed
M M 2

532

Index.

to teaching grammar, 246 ; in this
resembles Jack Cade, 246 and re. ;
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 re. ; on the
quibbling language of certain theo
logians, 293 re.
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 ra.
Gregory XIII., Pope, 254 n.
Grotius, his opinion of the Fathers,
163 ra. ; hatred of Calov for, 365 ra. ;
-remarks of his enemies and others
on, 380 ra.
Grynaeus, 234 re., 344
Gutenberg, 314 H.
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 re. ; specimens of its
exaggerations, 91 ra. ; 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 re, ; Buxtorf's definition of,
84 ra. ; 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 ra., 89
Hale, Sir Matthew, 40 re.
Haller, made a stand against material
ism, 402
Hamor, 21
Harpsfield, 278 ra.
Haymo of Halberstadt, a mediaeval
compiler, notice of, 250
Heathendom, hatred of the Jews to,
69 ra.
Hebrew, the Scriptures always read in
Jewish public worship in, 119 ;
Buxtorf and Kennicott on, 388 and
ra.
Hebrew canon places the historical
books among the Prophets, 9 ra.
Hebrews, the whole Epistle to the, an
a fortiori argument, 19 ra.

Hediots, the common people regarded
by the Pharisees as, 59 ra.
Hegel and his philosophical system,
account of, 411-413 and ras.
Hegelian principle, reference to the, 9
Heidelberg, 315
Heine on the Book of Ecclesiastes, 32
Heinz on St. Ambrose, 206 ra.
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 ra.
Henry III., 39 ra.
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 ra.
Hermas, only one quotation from the
Holy Scriptures in, 171 and ra.
Hermeneutic manuals, list of the chief,
during the Patristic period, 23 ra. ;
treatises of the post-Reformation
period, 376 ra,
Hermeneutic rules and principles, some,
473-476
Hermolaus Barbaras, 284
Hezekiah, 350
Hibbert Lectures, 308 re., 312 re.
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 re. ; 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 re, ; after the
death of the last prophet the She-
kinah rested on, 51 ra. ; he is the first
Rabbi to be called a prince, 52 re. ;
his legal fiction of "the Prosbol,"
64 ; sketch of his origin and work,
65-67 and ras. ; classification and
hermeneutics were his chief services,
65 ; Shammai and Hillel the last of
the " couples " who led the schools,
65 re. ; list of the patriarchs of the house
of, 66 ra. ; authorities on the life and
work of, 66 ra. ; difference between
the work of Christ and that of, 66,
67 ; Geiger, Friedlander, and Renan
on, 66 ra.

Index.

533

Hirschfeld, 4 ra.
History, the objective development of
the Idea, 9 ; secular, a revelation,
10 ; Vico's estimate of, 10
Hugo of St. Cher, his textual and prac
tical labours on the Bible, 274 re.
Hugo of St. Victor, his estimate of the
Book of Ecclesiastes, 32 ; his remarks
on the Word, 252 ; his theory of
exegesis hopelessly perverted, 252 ;
his exposition of mysticism and con
templation, 257
Homiletics, influence of, on interpreta
tion, 14 ; have been to an incredible
extent the Phylloxera Vastatrix 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 deal with, 136
Honorius III., Pope, 253, 254 ra.
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
gesis, 279 ; Luther held and taught
the doctrines of, 312
Hyrcanus, John, 55 re., 66 re.

I.

Iddo, writer of one of the lost sacred
books, 7
iXdvs, the famous symbol, 101 and re.
Ignatius, 171
Illyricus, Matthias Flacius, his exposi
tion of the principles which guided
the Reformers, 342 and ra. ; Camer-
arius's judgment on, 364 and ra.
Innocent III., Pope, 298 and ra,
Innocent VIII., Pope, 309
Inquisition, Spanish, justified by Scrip
ture warrant, 41 and ra.
Inspiration, Philo's views on, 146, 147 ;
Theodore of Mopsuestia's, 217 ; the
Alexandrian theqixal. 217 ; Jerome's,
230 rLuthfiril337,^ 339 ; meaning
bl7~as understood by the

theologians and by the Church of
England, 369 ; the Prayer Book and
Homilies on, 370 ra.
Interpreter, aim and qualifications of
the perfect, 4, 5 ; Luther as an, 5 and
re. ; 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 res. ; child
ish stories in, 175 and ra. ; he is
the first who suggests the view that
Christ's ransom was paid to Satan,
176
Isaiah, writer of one of the lost sacred
books, 7
Ishmael, Rabbi, opposed to the method
of Aqiba, 72
Isidore, the Decretals of, 312

J.

Jabne, Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakkai
founds a school at, 68 and ra. ; be
comes the heiress of Jerusalem, 70
Jacques Le Fevre d'Etaples, his writ
ings contribute to the Reformation,
314
Jael, 352
Jannaeus, Alexander, 55 ra.
Jehovah, disappearance of the true
pronunciation of, 62 ra.
Jehu, writer of one of the lost sacred
books, 7
Jerome, St., sarcasm of, in reference to
erroneous interpretation, 30 ; his
rendering of the word Testament,
30 ra. ; his rendering of /leravoelTe,
118 ; remarks of, on the Septuagint,
122 ra. ; on Eusebius of Vereeilae,
202 re. ; on Hilary, 203 and re. ; his
remark regarding allegories, 145 re. ;
on St. Ambrose, 205 and n. ; one of
the glories of the School of Antioch,
222 ; the Origen of the Western
Church, 222 ; his character, 223 ;
his Vulgate translation, 223 ; Sul-
picius Severus's account of him,
223 ra. ; Ozanam's opinion of him,
223 re. ; his teachers, 224 re. ; his
abandonment of the Seventy, 224
and n., 225 ; his views respecting the
canon, 225 ; the care with which he
developed the- literal and historic
sense, 225 ; his defects, 225 et seq. ;

534

Index.

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 re. ; discrepancy between
his theory and practice, 230 re. ; his
belief in the permissibility of decep
tion, 231 ra. ; his views on allegory,
231-234
Jerushalmi, the, or Jerusalem Talmud,
nature of, 81, 82 and ras.
Jesus described as a Rabbi of the school
of Hillel, 66 and ra.
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 re, ; 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 Mishna 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 re. ; grandeur of their Great
Synagogue there, 115 and ra. ; 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 el 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 ra., 267, 339 ra.
Johanan Ben Zakkai, Rabbi, one of the
pupils of Hillel, account of, 68-70 ;
authorities on the work of, 70 ra.
John a Lasco, 351
John of Damascus, his commentaries
on the Eastern Church, 248 and. ra„;
may in a sense be regarded as the
father of scholasticism, 262 re.

John of Salisbury on mediaeval theo
logical compilations and glosses, 251
ra. ; on the multiplex intelligentia of
Scripture, 294 ; on logicians, 294
re. ; on the theology of the 12th
century, 310
Jonah, 352 ra.
Jose, Rabbi, expostulates with Aqiba
regarding the written word, 71
Josephus, his views on inspiration, 148
m. ; the exegetical principles of, 452
Joshua, Rabbi, raises the courage of
his fellow rabbis, 71 ra. ; is a via
media scholar, 73 ra.
Juda, Rabbi, commits the Oral Law to
writing, 79; his compilation was
called The Mishna, 80 ; derivation
of the name, 80 ra. ; 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 re. ; 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 ra. ; 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 re.
Junilius, 24 n.
Justin Martyr and his writings, esti
mate of, and of his mode of exegesis,
172-174 and ras. ; his quotations and
their sources, 172-174 and ras. ; Re
nan's opinion of, 174 ra.
Juvenal, 17

K.

Kabbala, views of the, on cosmogony,
34-37 and res.
Kabbalism, in numbers, 25 ; the
various forms and methods of, 35 ;
Christian, and its methods, 36 re. ;
nature of practical, 97 ; the writings
of the Rabbis abound in symbolical,
97 ; the three rules in, of Gematria,

Index.

535

97-100 ; of Notarikon, 101 ; and of
Temoorah, 102 ; further instances
of exegetic and symbolic, 445
Kabbalistic book, notice of the earliest,
97 ra. ; and of others, 97 ra. ; alpha
bets and ciphers, use made of, 102-
104
Kabbalists, Christian, and their me
thods, 36 re. ; many Jewish, became
Christians, 102 ra. ; Donne on the
language of the, 294 ra.
Kant, and his system of philosophy,
influence of, on his age, 407
Karaites, the, principles and influence
of, 83 and ra. ; origin and history of,
449 ; the founder of the, 449
Karl the Great, 386
Keim on Philo's system of exegesis,
155 ra.
Kepler, 326, 358 ra., 426, 427
Kethubim, the, 60, 62 ra.
xepalai, explanation of the term, 74 ra.
Keys, Jerome on the power of the,
230 ra.
Kid, on seething a, in its mother's
milk, Rabbinical view of, 88 ra.
KKels of Melito of Sardis, 24 ra.
Koch, John, influence of his works on
the theology and exegesis of the
17th century, 385
Koran, Scripture not to be read as we
read the, 28 ; its various schools of
expositors, 47 and ra. ; how Ezra
appears in the, 53 ; regarded in
India as too good to be translated,
119 re. ; the Sofi driven to find mys
tical meanings in the, 134
TS.6ap.os, reference to the Septuagint
word, 23
Kuenen, 4 re. L.
Lafayette, 308
Lagos, the house of, policy of the, to
the Alexandrian Jews, 115 ; the
translators of the Septuagint and
the, 121 ; etymology of the name,
121 re.
Lanfranc, 289 n.
Language, barbarous, of the Schoolmen,
290
Latin Church, teaching of the, rests on
three Fathers — Ambrose, Jerome,
and Augustine, 248 n.
Law, difference betwixt the Oral and
the Written, 11 ; injury done to the
fundamental principles of the, by
Rabbinism, 20, 21 ; opinions of the

Prophets and the Rabbis as to the,
49, 50 ; number of precepts of the,
50 ; Ezra the founder of the Oral,
51 et seq. ; effects of the, on the
Jews, 52 et seq. ; servility of the
Jews to the, when distorted by tra
dition, 56 et seq. ; the Scribes endea
vour to nullify the, 61 et seq. ;
creeping things and the, 64, 65 ;
Hillel called a restorer of the, 66 ;
the work of Christ and Hillel as to
the, 67 ; the study of the, a rallying-
ground for the Jewish race, 69 ;
Aqiba's casuistry as to the meaning
of the Written, 71 et seq. ; 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 res.
Le Clerc, his theory of accommodation ,
379 re.
Lectures, Hibbert, 308 ra., 312 re. ; the
Bampton, 311 re.
Legalism, protest of the Prophets
against the spirit of, 49
Leibnitz, his work on behalf of Chris
tianity, 398 and re.
Leo X., Pope, 308 re., 309, 322
Leo XIII., on Thomas Aquinas, 269 re.
Lessing, 17 ; nature and influence of
his works on the theology of the
17th century, 399 ; his remarks on
the Bible, 400 re.
Letters and words, Rabbinical belief in
certain mystical or supernatural
powers in, 97 et seq.
Levita, Elias, his merits as a Jewish
commentator, 464
Leviticus, a text in, is taken to justify
the burning of witches, 40 and ra.
Levitism, the ritual of, symbolical of
higher truths, 126 re.
Lewis, Mr., distinguishes philosophic
ally three epochs in scholasticism,
253 ra.
Lewis of Bavaria, Emperor, 281
Libanius, 17
Lightfoot, Bishop, his estimate of
Origen, 188, 189
Loans, Jacob Jehiel, 315
Locke on the erroneous meanings
attached to words in interpretation,
27
Logos, applied by Theophilus and
others of the Fathers to Christ, 171
Lombard, Peter, "Master of the Sen
tences," influence of his work on the

536

Index.

Church and the age, 262 ; it becomes
the text-book of scholasticism, 262 ;
Dante aUudes to the Prologue to
the Sentences, 262 ra. ; remarks of
Mullinger on the Sentences, 262 ra. ;
the Summa of Aquinas and the
Sentences of, studied more than the
Bible, 263
Lorenzo de Medici, 282
Louis XIL, 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 ra. ; adopts the
word Testament, 30 n. ; his estimate
of the Book of Ecclesiastes, 32 ; and
remark on the various commentaries
on, 33 ra. ; 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 re, ; on
Chrysostom, 222 ra. ; on Aristotle,
266 ra. ; on Nicolas of Lyra, 277 ra. ;
on Hus, 279 ; on the useless specu
lations of the Schoolmen, 293 ; in
fluence of, in the Reformation, 307
et seq. ; his identity of thought with
John Wessel and Hus, 312 and ra. ;
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 ra. ;rfour well-
marked stages in his religious ad
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
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 ra. ;
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 ra.
Luzzatto on the exegesis of the Rab
binic scholars, 64 n.

M.

Maccabean struggle, nature of the
55 ra.
Maccabees, the earliest meeting-point
of Jewish and Greek methods of
exegesis to be found in the Fourth
Book of, 136 ra.
Magellan, 426
Maimonides, Moses, 4 ; the founder
of Jewish rationalism, 83 and ra. ;
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 re.
Maitland, Dr., on Origen's method of
allegory, 196 re,
Malachi, the last pure glow of the Old
Testament sun dies out with, 58 ra.
Mammothrectus, a mediaeval work on
exegesis, 280
Maniehaeans, the, on the human nature
of Christ, 208 ra.
Marcus Aurelius, his rigid adherence to
truth, 225 ra.
Marriages, Ezra's annulment of, 54 and
re. ; Jerome on, 227, 228
Marsh, Bishop, on the sense of
Scripture, 300 ra.
Mary, Virgin, 273, 279 ra., 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 ra.

Index.

537

Maurice, Professor F. D., on Tertullian,
179 ra., 180 ra. ; 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, 31 ra., 34 ra., 50 ra., 52-54
ras., 57 ra.
Megillath Taanith, 66 ra.
Melanchthon, his estimate of the Book
of Ecclesiastes, 32 ; his work and
-influence on the Reformation, 34
and ra. ; his Loci, and Luther's re
mark on, 361 ; R. Simon's remark
on the exegesis of, 361 re.
Menachoth, 49 re. , 51 re. , 57 re.
Mendelssohn, Moses, begins a new era
of exegesis, 83 and ¦«, ; Spinoza the
intellectual precursor of, 384
Messianic hopes, nature of Philo's and
others', 154 re. ; 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 ra.
Meyer, his edition of the New Testa
ment, 419
Michaelis, critical labours of, 402
Midrash Koheleth, 31 ra., 68 m.
Midrash, 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, Bishop van, on the sense of
Scripture, 300 ra.
Millennial grapes, Tertullian's wild
story of the, 177 ra.
Milligan, Professor, on perverted prin
ciples of interpretation, 170
Milman, Dean, on the influence of the
writings of Dionysius the Areopagite,
254 ra. ; extract from his Essays of a
reply of Erasmus to Zwingli, 319 ra.
Milton, his opinion of the Fathers, 163,
164 and ras. ; of theological compila
tions and glosses, 251 ra. ; his protest
against confessions, 359 re.
Mirandola, finds more Christianity than
Judaism in the Qabbala, 106 ra.
Mishna, importance attached by the
Rabbis to the teachings of the, 62,
63 ; origin and nature of the, 84

et seq. ; derivation of the word, 84 ra. ;
and contents of the, 84 ra. ; the
treatise of the, known as " The Egg,"
88
Mishna, the, of Rabbi Aqiba, 71 re.
Mishna, the, of Rabbi Juda, 80 ; deri
vation of the name, 80 ra. ; 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 ra. ; misinterpretation
of Scripture among the gravest cala
mities of Christendom, 39
" Mixtures," the Pharisaic rule of, 64
Modern Exegesis, 397-437
Moed Qaton, 57 ra.
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 ra.
Morton, Henry, 352
Mosaic law, devices of the Scribes for
evading certain provisions of the, 64
and re.
Moses, Rabbinic legend regarding, and
the crowns attached to Hebrew letters,
75 and ra. ; Luther's opinion of, 335,
336
Mosheim, his estimate of Origen, 188
Mount Sinai, 20
Multiplex intelligentia, sensus, &c, of
Scripture, on the views of the School
men as to the, 294 et seq.
Multiplex sensus, the Rabbinic fiction
of, 73 ra.
Mysteries of numbers in the Qabbala,
96 ra.
Mystic meanings asserted to be in every
letter of Scripture, 74-77 ; Waterland
on, 353 re.
Mysticism, mediaeval, 254 et seq. ; in
troduced into the monastery of St.
Victor by William of Champeaux,
259 ; in Richard of St. Victor's sys
tem of, there are three powers of the
soul, 259 re.
Mystics, the works of Dionysius the
Areopagite favourites with the,
254 ra. ; mediaeval and German, 254
et seq. ; protest of the, against con
founding Scripture with the Word of
God, 374 ra.

538

Index.

N.
Natalis on Thomas Aquinas, 269 ra.
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 ra.
Neander, his remark on a prevalent
error which appears in Luther's trans
lation of the Bible, 184 ra. ; on the
mystical interpretation of the Bible,
211 ra. ; 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 re.
Neoplatonic schools of Athens and
Edessa, 253 and 7is.
Neoplatonism and its expounders, 253
and ras.
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 ra.
Newman, Cardinal, on the principles
of exegesis of the School of Antioch,
211 ; on Chrysostom, 221 ra. ; on me
diaeval exegesis, 253 ra. ; 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 ra. ;
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 ra. ; Pope on, 278
ra.
Nominalism, its nature, and influence
on scholasticism, 281, 282 ; Haureau
on the character of, 281 ra.
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 ra. ; Philo's fancies about masculine
and feminine numbers, 143 and ra. ;
Barnabas on, 168 and ra.
Nuremberg Bible, the, 5 ra.
Nurnberg, the Diet of, 311 ra.

O.
Obadiah, 352 ra.
Occam, William of, see William of
Occam
Old Mortality, extract from Scott's, 352
Old Testament, difference betwixt the,
and the New, 350 and ra.
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 ras. ;
good and evil largely mixed in the, 56,
57 ; references of Josephus, Philo, and
St. Paul to the, 79 ra. ; the, committed
to writing by Rabbi Juda, 79 ; and
is called the Mishna, 80 ; importance
of the, 80 ; derivation of the name,
80 re. ; what it consisted of, 80 ra.
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 ra. ; 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 ra.

P.
Paine, 17
Palestinian method of exegesis, origin
and nature of, 11
Pamphilus, the martyr, founds a theo
logical school at Caesarea, 209 ra.
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 ra.
Papal power, the scholastic system
favourable to, 296 ; statement of
Papal claims, 309 and ra.
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

Index.

539

Passive obedience, the doctrine of, jus
tified by Scripture, 40 and re.
Patriarchs of the house of Hillel, names
and number of, 66 ra.
Patristic Exegesis, 161, 242
Patristic reasons for adopting allegory,
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 ra.
Paul, St., 166 n., 171, 185 ra., 187 re,,
195 ra., 196, 282, 287, 290, 291,
348, 363
Paul IV., Pope, 316 ra.
Paulinus, Jerome's letter to, 226,
227 ras. ; what Du Pin said of, 233 n.
Paulus, 180 re.
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 iraans ypadrjs, etc., extract from
Clemens Alexan. , 24 re.
Persecution for difference 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 ra., 340,
346 ra.
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 ; its rule of
"Mixtures," 64
Philip, the inquisitors of, 16
Philip of Hesse, 351
Philo, 12 ; his principles of interpreta
tion, 22, 23 ; reference to various
treatises of, 22 ra., 23 ra. ; his treat
ment of Genesis i. 1, 37, 38 and
ras. ; the writings of, the chief monu
ment of Alexandrian exegesis, 111 ;
the method of allegory in exegesis
culminates in the writings of, 127 ;
thinks the Greek philosophers bor
rowed from Moses, 129 re. ; nature of
an Alexandrian of the school of, 133 ;

all renegades from Judaism repudi
ated by, 133 re. ; the Greek 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 re. ; 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
it,. ; nature of his theology, 142 and
res. ; 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 re. ; his ex
traordinary notion regarding Scrip
ture, 149 re. ; his rules of exegesis,
149-152 ; his exegetic principles
differ from those of the Talmud in
five respects, 150 re.; result of his
system, 152 et seq. ; unreliable
nature of his etymologies, 152 re. ;
his Messianic hopes, 154 re. ; his
futile eclecticism, 155 ; fables re
garding, 156 n. ; allusions to, in the
works of the Fathers, 156 re. ; 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, 452 ; 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 re. ; Erasmus's knowledge
of, 321 ra.
Phylacteries and fringes, dispute as to
the law regarding, 87, 88 and ras.
Picus of Mirandola, his interpretation of
Genesis i. 1, 36 ; his Platonism and
Kabbalism, 279
Pierius, 12, 202
Pietism, definition of, 381 ra. ; its in
fluence on German life, 382 ; Dorner
on the opponents of, 382 ra.
Pietists, influence of the, in reviving a
healthy system of exegesis in the
17th century, 380

540

Index.

"Pilpul," explanation of the term,
92 ra.
Pius II., Pope, 309, 313 ra.
Pius V., Pope, 316 ra.
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 ra.
Platonic studies, the revival of, in the
15th century leads to the downfall of
scholasticism, 282
Plotinus, influence of the 0vy)i p6vov
irpbs p.6vov on mysticism, 255 and ra. ;
references to, 282, 300 ra.
Plutarch, 343 ra.
Poets, protest of the greatest, against
the misapplication of Scripture, 41
Polybius, 343 n.
Polycarp, 171
Pope, quotation from, 254 ra. ; on the
quibbling language of the Schoolmen,
293 ra.
Popes, claims of the, to depose
sovereigns, 39 ra. ; the atrocious
deeds of the, justified by Scripture,
40, 41 and re. ; the power of the,
upheld by perversions of Scripture,
296 et seq. ; corruption of the, 309
Popes —
Adrian VI., 311 re., 319 ra.
Alexander VI., 309, 312
Clement V., 316 ra.
Clement VII., 309
Clement VIII., 316 n.
Eugenius III., 262, 465
Gregory IX., 264 ra.
Gregory XIII., 254 ra.
Honorius III., 253, 254 ra.
Innocent VIII., 309
Julius II. , 309
Julius III., 316 re.
Leo X., 308 ra., 309, 322
Leo XIII., 269 n.
Nicholas V., 314
Paul IV., 316 ra.
Pius II. (Aeneas Sylvius), 309, 313 re.
Pius V., 316 ra.
Sixtus IV., 106, 309
Urban V., 264)1.
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 ra.

Predestination, the Post-Reformation
view regarding, 366
Presbyters and Bishops, Jerome on the
original identity of, 230 ra.
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 ra.
Pseudo-Aristeas, see Aristeas
Ptolemy, 34, 172 ra.
Ptolemy Euergetes, 128
Ptolemy Philadelphus, 115 n., 128 re,
Q.
Qabbala, the, origin and nature of
the, 95, 96 ; division of the, 96 re. ; a
system of arbitrary mysticism, 106 ;
at the close of the 15th century many
Christians were eager to study the,
106 ra.
Qeren Happuk, remarks on the name,
125, 213 ra.
Qiddushin, 21 ra., 51 ra.
Qimchis, the family of the, their
services to Hebrew philology, 464
Quintilian, 343 ra. R.
Rabanus Maurus, and his compiled
commentary on the Epistles, account
of, 250, 251 and ras. ; 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 re,
Rabbi Chaneenah bar Pappa on Scrip
ture, the Mishna, the Talmud, and
the Haggada, 90 ra.
Rabbi Chija, 90

Index.

541

Rabbi Eleazar, 19ra., 20
Rabbi Gamaliel II. , 70, 79, 445
Rabbi Gamaliel V. , 443
Rabbi Isaac ben Pinchas on the Hag
gada, 89
Rabbi Ishmael, 4, 19 ra., 22
Rabbi Jacob, his interpretation of
Genesis i.-l, 36
Rabbi Jochanan, 21 ra.
Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakkai, and the
subjects he proposed for discussion,
444
Rabbi Saadia Gaon, the greatest medi
aeval exegete, 461
Rabbi Samuel ben Meier, a mediaeval
commentator, 462
Rabbi Simon ben Lakish, 20 n.
Rabbi Simon's remarks on the exe
gesis of Melanchthon, 361 ra.
Rabbina Abina, 12 and ra. ; closes the
Talmud, 82
Rabbinic bodies, number and duration
of, 52, 53 and re.
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 ; names and dura
tion of the various schools of, 52, 53,
and ra. ; 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,
445 et seq.
Rabbinic fiction of multiplex sensus,
the, 73 and re.
Rabbinic schools, number, duration,
and influence of, 52, 53 and ra.
Rabbinism, built 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 ra. ; 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 re. ; exact
ing nature of the yoke of the, 60 ;
effects of the " ordination " of the,
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 ra. ;
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
ras. ; on the Halakha and the Hag
gada, 90 ; the writings of the, abound
in symbolical Kabbalism, 97 ; notice
of some mediaeval, 274-276 and res. ;
self-glorification of the, 441 ; notices
of some mediaeval, 449, 461
Rachel, disputed etymology of the
name, 23 ra.
Rachel, the wife of Rabbi Aqiba,
account of his love for her, 72
and ra.
Rambach's Institutiones Hermen.
Sacrae, notice of, 371 ra.
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 ra. ;
his remark on the commands and
prohibitions of the Law, 62 re. ; refer
ence to, 83 ; becomes the master of
Nicolas of Lyra, 275 and re. ; his
merits as an exegete, 462
Rathmann of Liibeck on the nature
and functions of the Holy Scriptures,
372
Rationalism, controversy between Ber
nard and Abelard on, 253
Raymond Lulli, helps to precipitate
the faU of scholasticism, 280
"Read not so, but so," a celebrated
Rabbinic formula, 104 and ra.
Reason, Alexander's book to prove that
animals are endowed with, 138 ra. ;

542

Index.

Erigena on the power of, 253 ; Luther's
opinion of, 338 ra.
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 of
the, on exegesis, 16
Reformation, the, 307, 308 and n., 311-
313
Reformers, the, 307-354
Reimarus, influence of, on disbelief,
400
Renaissance, the, 308 ra., 313
Renaissance and the Reformation,
Beard on the, 308 n.
Renan, his estimate of Justin Martyr,
174 re, ; and of the system of Thomas
Aquinas, 271 re. ; on the trivialities
of the Schoolmen, 294 n. ; on disputes
regarding errors, 363 ; on the methods
of the 19th century in exegesis,
404 ra. ; Vie de Jisus 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 ra.
Rome, corruption of Papal, 307-311
Rupert of Deutz, his remark on St.
Augustine, 261 ra.

S.

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
method of exegesis, 205 ; his opinion
of Origen, 21 5 ra.
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 ¦«,. ; opinion of
some of the Fathers on the super-
naturalism of, 212 ?i. ; Jerome on,
231 and re,
Saint Pietro Damiano, 309
Salome, 184 re.
Sanhedrin, 18 re,, 20 ra., 32 ra., 34 ra., ¦
51 re,, 62-66 and ras. ; reference of
the, to a mode of violating the
Mosaic Law, 64 ; reference to, 256 ra.
Salamance, 316 n.
Samson's Eair, extract fl-om a book so
called, 299
Savonarola as a commentator, 279
and ra.
Schleiermacher on Spinoza, 384 ra. ;
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 dividedinto three epochs,
253 ra. ; Cardinal Hergenrother's
definition of, 265 ra. ; 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 ra. ; 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 re. : the dis
coveries of, and the Church, 426-429
Scribe, a title of more honour than
priest, 52 ra.
Scribes, the, their influence and teach
ing, 56 et seq.
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 et seq. ; 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 ra. ; 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 ra. ; the Vulgate, the Septua
gint, and the various Protestant ver
sions teem with errors, 27 ra. ; " 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 re, ;
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 seq. ; 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 seq. ; division of the books of,
in the days of Ezra, 59 ; the Mishna
and the Gemara valued by the Rabbis
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 seq. ; 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 ; Philo's eclecticism,
literalism, and rationalising results
in a complete perversion of, 140-142 ;
Philo's views on the inspiration of,
146, 147 ; extraordinary notion of
Philo and others regarding, 148 and

re. ; what iScripture claims for itself,
161-163 ; Barnabas's views as to the
teaching of the, 167 et seq. ; views of
Theophilus of Antioch as to the,
171 ; of Justin Martyr, 172-174;
of Irenaeus, 174-177 ; of Tertullian,
177 et seq. ; 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 ra. ; 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 etseq. ;
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 re. ; views of
Abelard and Peter Lombard on the,
259-263 ; of Albertus and of Thomas
of Aquino, 267-272 ; of Bonaventura,
272 ; of Nicolas of Lyra, 274-278 ;
views of Schoolmen generally on the,
278-300 ; services of Lorenzo Valla,
of Jacques Le Fevre, of Reuchlin,
and of Erasmus, to the, 312-322 ;
above all, of Luther, 323 et seq. : list
of those who maintained the single
sense of, in the 16th century,
328 re. ; views of Melanchthon and
Zwingli, 341 ; of Calvin, 342 et seq. ;
of some of the divines of the post-
Reformation period, 367 et seq. ; of
Rathmann of Lfibeck, 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 et seq. ; freedom
of modern criticism of, 429 et seq.
Scripture, passages of, quoted or
referred to : —
Actsi. 8  343ra
— ii. 47 ... ... 5ra
— ii. 41  343re
— vii. 16  345re

544

Index

Scripture continued —

Scripture continued-

Acts vii. 16

 349ra

2 Cor. iv. 2 ...

— xiii. 20

... 56ra

— x. 8 

— xiii. 9

 313re

— xi. 3 

— xv. 9 

 371

— xi. 23

— xv. 10

 49re

— xii. 7

— xv. 20

 27ra

— xv. 28

... 54re

Dan. ii. 34

— xvii. 34

 313ra

— iv. 12

— xxii. 16

 287

— vii. 9

r — xxvii. 12

 318re

— ix. 24
— ix. 27

Amos ii. 4

... 48ra

— v. 21, 22 ...

 49re

Deut. i. 31

— ix. 11

 218

— iv. 36
— x. 12

Cant. ii. iv

 65ra

— x. 20

— iv. 3 

 447

— xiv. 7

— v. 12

 287

— xv. 2
— xvi. 21

1 Chron. ii. 55

 58ra

— xvii. 8-12 ...

— viii. 10

 448

— xviii. 15-20...

— ix. 26

 120ra

— xviii. 4

— xix. 6

 454

— xxi. 12, 13 ...
— xxiii. 1

2 Chron. xiii. 22

 443

— xxv. 9

— xxviii. 7

 103

— xxv. 11-14 ...

— xxxvi. 16 ...

56ra

— xxvi. 12
— xxx. 12

Col. i. 13

 214ra

— - xxxii. 8

— i. 16 

 38ra

— ii. 8 
 45
— xxxiii. 2
— xxxiii. 4, 27
1 Cor. i. 10 ...
 318ra
— ii. 5 
 161
Eccl. i. 18, 14...
— ii. 6 
 184re
— ii. 3, 17 ...
24ra
— ii. 15, 17 ...
— ii. 6, 7
 195re
— iv. 1 
— ii. 15
 371
— iv. 8 
— v. 7, 8
 194re
— ii. 24
— vi. 11
 287
— vii. 25
— vii. 39
 318re
— viii. 6
— vii. 42
 318re
— x. 8 
— viii. 1
 184ra
— xi. 1 
— viii. 6
 38ra
— xi. 9 
— ix. 9, 10 ...
.. 195ra
— xii. 9
— ix. 13
 313re
— xii. 12
— x. 1 
 195re
— x. 8 
— xi. 27
5re
— XV. 1
182re
— xvii. 9
— xiii. 2
 343re
— xxiv.
— xiv. 11
 318ra
— xxviii. 24, 34
— xv. 37
 179re
— xxxix. 24, 34
— xxxix. 2
2 Cor. iii. 6 ...
 195re
459
Ephes. i. 10
— iii. 7-13, 14...
 194ra
— iii. 8
— iii. 14
 30ra
— iii. 15
— iii. 17
 221ra
— iv. 10
Index.

545

Scripture continued —
' Ephes. iv. 26 ...
Ex. i. 5 
, — i. 21
— ii. 1 
— iii. 1 
— iii. 2 
— iii. 15
— iv. 6...
— iv. 16, 20, 24
— v. 3 
— vi. 12
— vi 15
— vi. 12, 20 ...
— vi. 30
— ix. 20
— xii. 8
— xii. 15-18 ...
— xii. 40
— xii. 46
— xiii. 9
— xiii. 16
— xiii. 18
¦ —xiv. 3
— xv. 3
— xv. 11
— xv. 17
— xvii. 16
— xix. 13
— xix. 26
— xx. 19-21 ...
— xx. 22
— xxi. 1
— xxi. 5
— xxi. 15
— xxii. 2
— xxii. 9
— xxiii. 23
— xxiv. 1
— xxiv. 6
— xxiv. 10, 11
— xxiv. 12
— xxv. 8
— xxvi.
— xxxii. 8
— xxxii. 9
— xxxii. 22
— xxxiv. 27 ...
Ez.'k. xii. 25, 26
— xviii. 30
— xx. 25
— xx. 25

Scripture continued-
232re Ezek. xxxiii. 7
— xxxvi. 25 ...

199re

Ezra iii. 4

122ra

— vii. 6, 25 ; 11 ; 10

454

346ra

— vii. 10

447

— ix. 10

122ra

— ix. 9, 19, 27, 28, 3
— x. 7, 8

454

454

454

Gal. i. 6

122re

— i. 8 ...
— i. 18 

122re

454

— iii. 1 

122re

121re

— iv. 5
— iv. 21

198re

454

— iv. 22

121

— iv. 22

454

— iv. 24

ISIre

— iv. 24
— v. 15

87

454

— vi. 2

454 53re

Gen. i. 1
— i. 2
— i. 9

454

101

150

— i. 26

454

— i. 26

454

— i. 31

20

— i. 31
— ii. 2
— ii. 2

299ra

20

84

— ii. 3

21
150

— ii. 4, 5
— iii. 15

144ra

— iii. 15

454

— iii. 21

102447

— iv. 4
— iv. 10-23 ...

448

— iv. 26

454

— viii. 1

, 428
. 454

— ix. 4
— ix. 13

276ra
. 100

— xi. 1
— xi. 28

, 122ra

— xiii. 6

454
. 454

— xv. 9
— xv. 10
— xviii. 1

. 62ra

— xviii. 2

— xviii. 2
. 49re
— xviii. 2
. 166re
— xviii. 6
. 49re
— xviii. 9
. 50re
— xviii. 30
404
— xix. 24
297 295re 54re52)153re 51re 5 4 re
58re51re
369351re 5re
221re230n 221ra 195m.
337re
. 345re
. 230ra
. 300re
. 221ra
. 230re
. 35
. 12-rire
. 295ra
. 380
. 61re
. 37re
. 447
. 170ra
. 454
. 101
. 125ra
. 345
. 380
. 344re
.. 454
.. 448
.. 105
. 275re
.. 454
.. 251re
. 445
.. 224re
.. 288re
.. 201
.. 37re
.. 277ra
.. 199
.. 346re
.. 446
.. 23
.. 75
.. 454
.. 174
N N
548:

Index.

Scripture continued—

Scripture continued —

Gen. xix. 24 ...

... 448

Isa. ix. 6

... 380

— xix. 33 

... 75

— ix. 7 

... 210

— xxii. 8 

... 186ra

— x. 34 

... 68re

— xxii. 13

... 454

— xi. 1 

... 288

— xxii. 11

... 23re

380

— xxiv. 16

... 199

— xi. 7 

... 186m

— xxv. 21 

... 99

— xiv. 3 

... 25

— xxv. 23 

... 446

— xiv. 23 

... 218ra

— ¦ xxxiv. 2

... 21re

— xvi. 1 

... 233

— xxxvii. 3

... 446

— xix. 2

... 386

— xxxix. 7

... 21

— XX. 1

... 445

— xiii. 2, 22 

... 446

— xxvi. 4

... 77

— xlv. 16 

... 448

— xxvi. 14

59re

— xlix. 10 

... 173ra

— xxviii. 7, 8 ...

... 49re

— xlix. 11, 277 re. ...

... 287

— xxix. 3

... 454

— xlix. 12 

... 201re

— xxx.

... 445

— xxxiii. 7
... 386
Hab. i. 1 
4»
— xxxiii. 16
... 173
— i. 2 
... 38re
— xxxiii. 18
... 20re
— ii. 11 
... 123
— xxxv. 7, 8 ...
... 303
— iii. 2 
... 124
— xxxviii. 11 ...
... 120ra
— xl. 26 
... 125ti
Heb. ii. 9 
... 287
— xliii. 13 
... 125re
— ii. 13 
... 337re
— xliv. 3 
... 287
— ii. 15 
... 21re
— xlv. 18 
... 125re-
— iv. 4 
... 472
— xlviii. 16 
... 346re
— iv. 6,1, 12 
... 48re
— liii. 4 
... 25re
— vi. 6 
5re
— lvi. 2 
... 105
— ix. 1-7 
... 30re
— Ix. 1 
... 287
— x. 5 
... 218re
— Ix. 17 
... 122
— x. 38 
5re
— lxi. 10 
... 254m
— xi. 13 
... 344re
— lxiii. 2 
... 181ra
• — xi. 21
... 472
— lxiii. 12 
... 48re
— xi. 37 
... 318re
— xii. 25, 26 
5re
James ii. 14
... 343m
— v. 14 
... 27re
Hos. vi. 5
... 454
— vi. 9 
... 49re
Jer. i. 11 
... 288
— viii. 1, 12  ,
... 48
— ii. 3 
... 35
— ix. 7 
... 56re
— ii. 13 
... 295ra
— ix. 9 
... 49re
— iii. 4, 19 
... 166
r-x. 12 
3re
— iii. 16 
... 49
— iv. 3 
... 3
Isa. i. 17 
... 172re
— v. 13 
... 49
— i. 18 
... 166
— vi. 13 
... 49
— i. 22 
... 49b.
— viii. 10 
... 49
— ii. 22
... 105
— vii. 21, 22 
... 49
— iii. 17 
... 122re
— vii. 22, 23 
... 49re
— iv. 9 
... 346re
— viii. 8
... 48ra
— vi. 3 
.. 346re
— ix. 13 
... 48re
— vii. 3 
... 454
— x. 16 
... 32ra
— vii. 9 
... 184«.
— xi. 19 
... 123
— vii. 14 
... I73re
— xii. 10 
... 49
— vii. 14 
... 380
— XV. 1
... 48ra
— viii. 14
... 66re
— xvii. 9
... 123ra
— viii. 20 
... 29
— xvii. 9
... 123
— ix. 5 
... 125re
— xvii. 12
... 36re
— ix. 6
... 121
— xviii. 15
... 120»
Index.

547

Scripture continued —

Scripture continued —

Jer. xxiii. 5

... 98

1 John v. 7 

... 349ra

— xxiii. 22

... 49

— xxiii. 28
... 307
Jonah ii. 1 
... 176»
— xxiii. 29 
... 20
— iii. iv. 
... 125
— xxiii. 29
... 73
— xxv. 26 
... 103
Joshua ii. 15
... 210
- — xxvi. 1
... 34
— ii. 18 
... 1817S
— xxxi. 31
... 30ra
— xiii. 22 ...
... 454
— xxxi. 37
... 59re
— xxiv. 30 
... 454
Job i. 14 
... 297ra
Judges v. 9 
... 60ra
— xix. 26, 27 
... 120ra
— vi. 37 
... 176re
— xx v. 5
... 197a
— xiii. 5
... 20re
— xxix. 18
... 166re
— xiv. 3 
... 21ra
— xxxi. 10
... 122re
— xxxv. 14
... 120re
1 Kings vi. 8 ...
... 454
— xiii. 14 
... 125re
— viii. 1-4
... 52ra
Joel i. 1
... 344
2 Kings xxii. 8-15
... 48
— ii. 13 
... 348
— xxiii. 1-3
... 48
John i. 3
... 142ra
Lev. xi. 6 
... 12171
— i. 3 
... 38re
— xii. 17 
... 120re
— i. 3 
... 171
— xiv. 25 
... 20n
— i. 3 
... 344re
— xvi. 3
... 446
— i. 9 
... 262re
— xviii. 2
... 122ra
— i. 12 
... 347re
— xviii. 6
... 23ra
— i. 20 
... 197re
— xviii. 30 
... 62re
— i. 51 
... 346re
— xix. 19 
... 454
— ii. 19, 20 
... 320ra
— xx. 17 
... 445
— iii. 5... 
... I72ra
— xxiv. 7
... 454
— iv. 14 
... 295ra
— xxv. 29, 30 
64re
— v. 2 ...
... 26re
— xxvi. 44 
54re
— v. 2 
... 318ra
— v. 31, 32 
... 346re
Luke ii. 14
... 313re
— v. 39 
... 339re
— ii. 35 
... 318re
— v. 39 
... 449re
— iii. 23 
... 56re
— v. 39, 40 
... 22re
— iv. 24 
... 56re
— v. 39, 40 
... 107
— iv. 41 
... 343re
— vi. 39 
... 29re
— vii. 38 
... 287
— vii. 38 
... 295ra
— ix. 28 
... 28!>re
— vii. 52 
56ra
— ix. 51-56 
... 17
— viii. 1
... 349)t
39re
— viii. 1-11 
... 39re
— xi. 4 
... 347re
— x. 29 
... 313re
— xi. 52 
... 59re
— x. 30 
... 346re
— xiii. 11
... 39re
— xii. 39 ... ' ...
... 221re
— xx. 34, 38 
... 435
— xiii. 5
... 287
— xxii. 36
... 320re
— xvi. 13 
... 161re
— xxiii.
... 56»
— xviii. 1
— xviii. 20
... 313re
... 343re
— xxiii.
... 124ra
— xviii. 28 
... 313re
Mai. i. 1 
... 53ra
— xix. 37 
... 472
— ii. 1-10 
... 49ra
— xx. 16
... 51re
— iv.4 ...
... 48»
1 Johnii. 14 ...
... 349re
Mark i. 2 
... 230re
— v. 7, 20 
... 318re
— i. 34 
... 343re
— v. 7 
... 320re
— ii. 18-28 
... 39re
N N 2
548

Index.

Scripture continued —

Scripture continued —

Mark ii. 25

... 23 Ore

Matt. xix. 20 ...

 260)i

— iv. 34 

... 24re

— xxi. 4

 458

184ra

— xxii. 14

 16Sre

— vii. 1-4

... 88

— xxii. 14

 171ft

— vii. 2-23 

... 39re

— xxii. 29, 32..

 -135

— vii. 13 

... 449

— xxiii. 2

 59ft

— vii. 19 

... 67re

— xxiii. 7, 8 ...

 51?t

— ix. 11 

... 88

— xxiv. 36

 318ft

— -v. 2-12 

... 39re

— xxiv. 37

 187ft

— x. 49 

... 313»

— xxvi. 28

 30ft

— x. 51 

... Sire

— - xxvii. 9

 345/!

— xii. 32-34 

... 50re

349 »
— xii. 24, 27 
... 435
— xxvii. 28
 166ft
Matt. i. 19 
... 279re
Micah i. 9
 124
— i. 19 
— i. 22 
— i. 23 
... 318m
... 380
... 343re
— iii. 5 
— vi. 6-9
 122ft
 49«
— ii. 5 
... 318re
— ii. 15
... 472
Nehem. viii. 4, 9 ; 7
, 8 ... hiri
— ii. 23 
... 98
— x. 1-27
 57n.
— ii. 23 
... 472
— xiii. 24
 52ra
— iii. 15 
... 380
— iii. 25 
... 279re
Num. vi. 5
 99
— iv. 4
... 279ra
— xii. 8
 120re
— iv. 18-24 
... 204ra
— xii. 14
 19«
— v. 15 
... 297
— xiv. 14
 12H77.
— v. 16 
... 260
— xiv. 19
 100
— v. 16 
... 318ra
— xv. 39
 51ft
— v. 24, 43 
... 39ra
— xvi. 15
 121re
— vi. 1 
... 313ra
— xvii. 8
 288
— vi. 13 
... 380
— xx. 11
 288
. — vi. 26, 27 
... 209ra
— xxiii. 19
 456
— vi. 31 
... 204re
— xxvi. 9
 441
— viii. 17 ....
... 472
— xxxii. 12
 454
— viii. 28 
... 204re
— ix. 13
... 168m
Saint Paul
 308
— ix. 18-26 
— x. 27 
— x. 27 
... 297re
... 184re
... 24re
his Epistles
Peter
312, 313, 320
 314
 309
— x. 29
... 19re
— xi. 11  ,
... 346re
1 Pet. ii. 24 ...
 260ft
— xii. 4
... 12re
— ii. 24 
 31Sn
— xii. 5
— xii. 19 
... 19re
... 230ra
— iii. 19
 346ft
— xiii. 7 
3re
— xiii. 35
... 458
2 Pet 
 349ft
— xiii. 57 ... ....
... 56re
— xv. 3-6 
... 45
Phil. ii. 6
 318re
— xv. 3 
... 107
— xv. 6 
... 107
Prov. vi. 26 ...
 21
— xv. 6 
... 449
— viii. 22
 36re
— xv. 9 
... 107
— ix. 1,2
 295m
— xvi. 18 
... 346re
— xii. 20
 197
— xvi. 19 
62re
— xiii. 11
 288?!
— xvii. 1
... 285re
— xviii. 4
 295ft
— xix. 8
... 404
— xxiv. 20
 59ra
.— xix. 12 
... 318re
— xxix. 21
 104
S S s s
CO CO CO CO
10 -* -* -*
CO CO CO CO

«o cm cm Oi in W ¦*' ic ic o ir. oj ¦« »o w 10 in ir. o im m in m im in in

: un ir. r<i -^ »o in to im ir. m cm m in in cm w w oi

fi s fi e e a s g 8 s, e.g s =5
o^oooicoscoiNHooNfficow in- ¦*& in ao
a03HH©HrtCDlOrtinNHC0^ N « r- 1
CM CM CO CO i— I CO CO CM CM CO CO 1— I CO *tf CM M^nco

7-T M

s >

X X
\ I

A 1

0
PS

^^«"-'r

-* .J 1-H

Ci W CM CO . . CO ^ .^ .,_;
¦"! .£ i>- > > -p -p •? •? f :d .a m '* 'x £ d

>
"x a

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

«

- ? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 m

ndojI2S'||5!52m
t~ooi-i'-<^'"",oq,'-"-Hl^.• rH -rA •1-' •!-! -r-l 'rH -i-H -r-t K* K* p- t-*
I I I I I I I I I I I I

. 1-1
£'T'

45

s £ 8 S S 8 S £ £ S SSSSS SSfi £ £<¦>£££ £ £ £
WOT;0«Oio«)INHOHTi(aO)OCOffi«)NHW«DininNN!DNeiiD'aiN-*HiON01cClMfflOHNlNriNogcOHrlH^ (M H N (M H rn-*^^Hl_(rHl-(1-Hr_(-^r^co ^ CM CM CM CM r-i

o cm m
O O Ca

g g g
a> 00 co
©H?C CM CO CO

CO CO <£) OD
¦^iccch M CO CO CO

> "^CNCOiC

. p. ,y .;_] ;* M X K X M r^- ^ p^c ¦ O

~^i

2 ™ <n
rH CS1
•J «> rt :ri
X X

c^ . :3 :p!

oi '

X k X

^.S k >.d X X X 5 •"! -*¦"!. j .J . CO
.S x x x x x x x x ¦ ¦ .-S !•:"- . .
xxxxxxxxxSSSSS-?,1*, M****

xS^fex x x.3
-- o c

ti 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

^ x x
« ! I

g.J=a:

550

Index.

Scripture continued—
Titus i. 7
— i. 14
— iv. 4

... 318ra
... 47
... 357

Zech. iii. 8
— x. 9
— xi. 7

... 98
... 12171
... 297

Zeph. iii. 4
— iii. 3, 4

... 48re
... 49ft-

Apocryphal References —

Baruch ii. 27-34;
1 and passim, 4
— iv. 1
iii. 37;
iv. ... 60re
... 61ra
1 Esdras viii. 9 ; xiv. 21-27 ... 54re
2 Esdras xiv. 21-45  52re
S Esdras viii. 5  120re
— ix. 39  60re
4 Esdras viii. 20 ; x. 57-59 ... 53m
1 Mace. i. 56-58 ; ii. 27 ; iii. 21 ;
vi. 59  55re
— vi. 23  60re
2 Mace. i. 8, 10  66ra
— i. 10  128
— i. 16  160re
— vii. 2, 23, 30, 37  55ra
— vii. 12  58re
4 Mace.  ... 136re
Tobiti. 6
 60re
— ix. 16
65ra
Wisd. i. 4
,  126ra
— vii. 22-14 ...
 126ra
— viii. 19
 126re
— viii. 20
 126re
— xi. 17
 126ra
— xviii. 4
 60ft
— xviii. 24
 23ra
— xviii. 24
 126ra
"Scripture, Analogy of," a nominally-
so-called, 26
"Scripture, perspicuity of," the so-
called, 26, 27 ra.
Seething a kid in its mother's milk,
Rabbinical view of, 88. re.
(^Semler, marks an epoch in German
exegetic study, 402 ; nature and
influence of his work, 403
Septuagint, references to tbe, 3 ra., 5
re. ; 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 ras. ; 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 ras. ; traces of Jewish legen
dary lore found in the, 120 and res. ;
instances of mistranslations and
perversions, 120 et seq. ; on traces of
Alexandrian philosophy in the, 121.
re. ; the translators of the, afraid of
the word "ass," 121 and ra. ; im
mense effect produced 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 ; tlio
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 n. ; Philo's use of, 452 ;
account of the, 453, 455
Septuagint of the Greek Church teems
with errors, 27 ra.
Servetus, 235 ; on the burning of, 351
and re. ; tbe Abbe Glaire's remark
on, 360 71. ; references to, 351 and
ra., 360 re.
Severianus, 115 ra., 219 ra.
Shabbath, extract from, on Ezekiel,
49 ra. ; declares the most important
law the one about fringes, 50
Shammai, Rabbi, the rival of Hillel,
account of, 67
Shekhinah, Aqiba rebuked for ap
pearing to render the, profane, 72
and re.
Shemaiah, writer of one of the lost
sacred books, 6
Sic et Non of Abelard, account of the,
468
Sigismund, the Emperor, 310
Simeon ben Shetach, 19 re.
Simon the Just, the last member of the
Great Synagogue, 57 ra. ; the three
things he asserts the world stands
on, 61
Siphra, 18 ra., 62 ra.
Sinnium, 212
Sixtus Senensis, on the five methods
of the Schoolmen, 291 ra.
Index.

551

Slavery and the Bible, Bishop Hopkins
of Vermont on, 436 re.
Society of Jesus, 307
Socrates, 285 re.
Somerset, the Protector, 351
Solomon Levita, see Paulus of Burgos
Song of Solomon, various hypotheses
regarding the, 32 ; list and views of
various expositors of, 32 ra. ; a favour
ite field for mystical interpretation
with the Tanaim, and others, 75 ;
influence of on mediaeval mysticism
and exegesis, 256, 257 and res.
Sorbonne, Casaubon's remark on the
disputes of the, 291 ra.
Speculative thought, the difficulty of
reconciling the divine dogmas with
the discoveries of, 133, 134 and ns. ;
to meet this, interpreters driven to
find mystical meanings in the Scrip
tures, the Vedas, and the Koran,
133, 134
Spener, Philip James, 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
interpretation, 384 ra. ; estimate of
him by various writers, 384 and ra. ;
effects of his labours, 307
Stanley, Dean, ou 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
who were called, 293
Stoics, views of the, 126, 135, 136 ;
best specimens of the method of the,
to be found in the Eomeric Allego
ries, 136 ; references to, 142, 144 ra.
Strauss's Life of Jesus, its influence on
the spread of unbelief, 413, 417 ;
Lacordaire on, 415
Symbols, or Symbololatry, the age of,
359, 360
Synagogue, the Great, founded by Ezra,
57 and ra. ; its last member, 57 ra.
Syrus, Ephraem, of the School of
Edessa, illustration of the allegorical
style of, 209

Tacitus, 17, 121 ra., 166 re.
Talmud, of little value as an authority
in exegesis, 10 and n. , 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's fiction of
"the Prosbol," 64; and on the
cleanness of creeping things, 64 ;
abounds in references to Aqiba,
72 re. ; the Jerusalem Talmud, 8i
and ra. ; the Babylonian, 82 and re. ;
the, is finally closed by Rabbina
Abina, 82 ; it is more used by the
Jews than the Bible, 82 ; main con
tents of the, 82 ; different editions
of the, 82 re. ; the Mishna and the
Gemara make up the, 91 ; various
terms applied to the, 91 ; account of
the Babylonian, 91 ; influence of, and
nature of its contents, 91 et seq. ;
four schools of Talmudists, 92 re. ;
the language of the, 92 re. ; trans
lations of the, 92 re. ; varied and
extraordinary nature of the contents
of the, 91 et seq. ; estimates of, by
various authors, 93 ra. ; injury d^ne
by the, to the living Oracles of God,
94 ; flowers of the, artificial ones, 106 ;
influence of Greek literature on the,
114 and ra. ; the exegetic principles
of Philo differ in five respects from
those of the, 1-50 re. ; persecution of
the, by Emperors and Popes, 315,
316 ra. ; Erasmus on the, 315 ra.
Talmudic cryptographs, 451
Talmudism, the seven rules of Hillel
the foundation of, 22
Tanaites, the greatest of the, 71 ; ety
mology of the word, 71 ra. ; meaning
of "nought "in the system of the,
74; end of the, 80
Targum, the, and the Scribes, 60 ra. ;
derivation of the word, and list of
the chief Targums, 442
Tarphon, Rabbi, his remark to Aqiba,
71
Tauler on mysticism, 258 and ra.
Taylor, Isaac, on the Roman Pontiffs
appealing to Scripture to justify
their evil deeds, 41 ra.
Taylor, Jeremy, on tho hearing and
reading of the Holy Scriptures, 43 ;
on allegorising, 353 re. ; on Chris
tianity as a practical religion, 395
Temoorah, 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 ra. ;
antique instruments in the, 109
Tertullian, estimate of, and of his
writings, 177-180 ; Professor Mau-
• rice's opinion of, 179 ra., 180 ra.
Testament, the word a mistranslation
and a mistake, 30 ; various render
ings of, 30 re. ; difference betwixt the
Old and the New, 350 and re.
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 77.. ; authorities on his writings,
219 ra. ; 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 bis
allegorical method confined to the
Church of the Nestorians, 240
' Theologians, Bacon on English, 353 ra. ;
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-
rhjs's view of, 310 ra. ; three things
• which Luther said taught, 348 ra. ;
the agp of huge books of, 361 ; and
of dogmatism in, 362
Theophilus of Antioch, and his writings,
estimate of, 171 and re.
| Theory, discrepancy between nominal,
and actual practice, 230 ra.
: Thierry, W.de St., on Sic et Non, 261 re.
Tholuck on Thomas Aquinas, 269 re. ;
on the view of the ancient Church as
to the language of Scripture, 294 re. ;
influence of his work on the exegesis
of his time, 419

Threefold sense of Scripture, views of
the Schoolmen on the, 294 et seq, and
ras.
Tiberias, disputes of the Rabbis in the
school of, 85, 86
Tiberius, 273
Tiberius Alexander, Procurator, 138
Tichonius, the seven rules of, as to
Scriptural interpretation, 24-26 ; ap
proval of, by Augustine, Cassiodorus,
and Isidore of Seville, 26 and ra. ;
reference to, 276, 279 ra.
Titus, 70
Tobit, 226
Tosefta Sanhedrin, 18 ra.
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 ra.
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 ra.
Tyndale on the allegorical method of
exegesis, 299J_<J00^,
Tyre, incident in the siege of, by
Alexander, 8

TJ.

Ueberweg on allegorical interpreta
tion, 198 ra.
Universals, controversy between An
selm and Roscelin on, 253
Universities, Dutch, and divines, their
influence on the exegesis of the 16th
and 17th centuries, 379 and ra.
Urban V., Pope, 264 ra.

V.

Valla, Lorenzo, influence of his
labours in contributing to the Re
formation, 312 ; remarks on his
works, 313 and ns.

Index.

553

Van Heusden on Plato, 282
Vayyikra Rabba, 31 ra., 63 ra., 86 ra.
Vedas, expositors early needed to ex
plain the, 47 ; the Brahmins driven
to find a mystical meaning for the,
133
Ventura on Thomas Aquinas, 269 ra.
Vespasian, 68 ra.
Viret, 344 ra.
Virgil, 247 ra., 296 ra.
Virginitv, Jerome on, 227, 228, 257
Voltaire; 17, 397, 400
Vulgate, theological bias in the transla
tors of the, 5 ; reference to the, 7 n. ;
quotations from, 24 and ra., teems
with errors, 27 ra. ; Jerome's transla
tion of the, 223, 229
W.
Walafrid Strabo, and his Glossa
Ordinaria, account of, 251, 252 and
ns.
Wartburg, legend of Luther at the, 5
Waterland on mystic meanings, 353 ra.
Weill on the new exegesis, 60 re.
Werenfels, famous epigram of, in
reference to interpretation, 30
Wesley, justifies his belief in witch
craft by the Bible, 40 ra.
Wessel, John, 279 ; identity of thought
between Luther and, 312
Westcott, Canon, his comment on
John v. 36-40, 10 re. ; his remark on
Dionysius of Alexandria's criticism
on the Revelation, 207 re. ; on Chrys
ostom, 220 re.
Wetstein, John James, influence of, on
the theology and exegesis of the
17th century, 391 ; value of his
works, and his system of interpreta
tion, 391
//Whitaker, on the three spiritual senses
of Scripture, 300
Whittier, 4 re.
Wiclif, heresy to possess the Bible of,
16 ; on mediaeval exegesis, 278, 279
re.
Wife, Hillel and Aqiba on divorcing a,
77 re

William of Conches reckons the Vener
able Bede among the Fathers, 249 ra.
William of Occam, the champion of
Nominalism, 281 ; his work and its
results, 281, 282 ; his character, 301
Wills, Jews ignorant of, till the time of
the Romans, 30 re.
Winer, his Hellenistic grammar, 419
Wisdom, the Book of, effect 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 re. ; they are called priests, 52 ra.
Witchcraft, Scripture cited as the
authority for the believers in, 40
and re.
Witches, the burning of, justified by a
text in Leviticus. 40 and re.
Wogue, references to his Histoire dc la
Bible. 10, 11 m.
Wolfenbiittel 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 et seq. ; and in new
meanings on altering them by trans
position. 104
Wordsworth, Bishop, on the importance
of the true sense of Scripture being
made known, 38
World, the, stands on three things, 61
Y.
Yerushalmi, nature of tbe, 82 ra.
Yods, the two, Rabbinical explanation
of, 75, 76 and re. Z.
Zinzendorf, Count, influence of, and
of his Moravian brotherhoods on the
practical Christianity of the 17th.
century, 389, 390
Zwingli, his works and their influence
on the Reformation, 341

THE END

Richard Clav & Sons,
bread street hill, londox,
Bungay, Sujjol]:.

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
SERMONS AND ADDRESSES DELIVERED IN
AMERICA. With an Introduction by Phillips Brooks, D.D. Crown
8vo. 7s. 6d.
MERCY AND JUDGMENT. A Few Last Words on
Christian Eschatology with reference to Dr. Pusey's " What is of Faith ? "
Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
EPHPHATHA : or, The Amelioration of the World.
Sermons preached at Westminster Abbey, with Two Sermons preached in
St. Margaret's Church at the Opening of Parliament. Crown 8vo. 6s.
ETERNAL HOPE. Sermons in Westminster Abbey.
November and December, 1877. Crown 8vo. 6s.
[ Twenty-fourth Thousand.
SAINTLY WORKERS. Lent Lectures delivered at
St. Andrew's, Holborn. March and April, 1878. New Edition. Crown
8vo. 6s.
SEEKERS AFTER GOD. The lives of SENECA,
EPICTETUS, and MARCUS AURELIUS. With Illustrations. New
Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
"We can heartily recommend it as healthy in tone, instructive, interesting,
mentally and spiritually stimulating and nutritious. Mr. Farrar writes as a
. scholar, a thinker, an earnest Christian, a wise teacher, and a genuine artist. " —
Nonconformist.
"IN THE DAYS OF THY YOUTH." Sermons on
Practical Subjects, Preached at Marlborough College, from 1871 to 1876:
Seventh Edition. Crown 8vo. 9s.
' ' These sermons show us the high gifts — intellectual, moral, and spiritual —
of their author ; we cannot doubt they did help most powerfully to do the
work which he had so closely at heart. " — Guardian.
THE FALL OF MAN: and other Sermons. Fifth
Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
"Ability, eloquence, scholarship, and practical usefulness are in these
sermons combined in a very unusual degree." — British Quarterly Reviiw.
THE WITNESS OF HISTORY TO CHRIST.
Hulsean Lectures for 1870. Seventh Edition. Crown 8vo. 5s.
"High and earnest in tone, they show reading and thought, and they are
full cf passages of great eloquence and beauty." — Guardian.
THE SILENCE AND VOICES OF GOD. University
and other Sermons. Sixth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
"The Sermons are marked by great ability, by an honesty which does not
hesitate to acknowledge difficulties, by an earnestness which commands
respect." — Pall Mall Gazette.
MACMILLAN & CO., LONDON.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
GREEK GRAMMAR RULES, drawn up for the use
of Harrow School. Eighteenth Edition. 8vo. Is. 6rf.
\* Now in use in Harrow School, Marlborough College, Rossall School,
Uppingham School, Charterhouse School, &c.
A BRIEF GREEK SYNTAX AND HINTS ON
GREEK ACCIDENCE ; with some reference to Comparative Philology,
and with -Illustrations from various Modern Languages. Tenth Edition.
12mo. 4s. 6d.
"Mr. Farrar's volume surpasses all the Greek Grammars we have seen." —
Educational Times.
" This book is the produce of the ripest scholarship. Though his main
object is to treat of Syntax, the space he devotes to comparative philology,
and the copious illustrations he gives from various modern languages,
increase greatly the value of the book. At the same time his practical
experience in teaching his class at Harrow has given him a familiarity with the
difficulties that beset beginners, and enables him most successfully to adapt his
teaching to their wants. We can most cordially recommend the book. " — ¦
Papers for the Schoolmaster.
LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGES ; being " Chapters
on Language" and "Families of Speech." With 2 Philological Maps
and 3 Tables of Languages. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
CHAPTERS ON LANGUAGE.
" Dr. Farrar's volume contains the fruit of much learned thought, and of
much study of other learned men's studies. Tbe book is written plainly and
intelligibly, and is full of a large human interest. " — Examiner.
FAMILIES OF SPEECH.
" We fully believe that Dr. Farrar's book is by far the best account as yet
given in English, within the same compass, of the history, results, methods,
and aspirations of comparative philology or glossology. " — Pall Mall Gazette.
London : LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.

THE EARLY DAYS OF CHRISTIANITY. Ninth
Thousand. Two Vols. 24s. Popular Edition, 6s.
THE LIFE AND WORK OF ST. PAUL. Nineteenth
Thousand. Two Vols. 8vo. 24s. Illustrated Edition, 21s. Popular
Edition, 6s.
THE LIFE OF CHRIST. Thirty-first Edition. Library
Edition. Two Vols. 8vo. Price 24s. Illustrated Edition, cloth, 21*. ;
calf or morocco, £2 2s. Popular Edition, 6s. Bijou Edition, 10s. 6d.
MY OBJECT IN LIFE. (Heart Chords Series.) Is.
London : CASSELL & COMPANY, Limited.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. Fcap. 8vo. 4s. U.
(Cambridge Bible for Schools. )
London: THE CAMBRIDGE WAREHOUSE.

YALE UNIVERSITY

*39002 OOj^ff^