B'Fx 
 
 
Cornell University Library 
 BR45 .B21 1885 
 
 History of interpretation : eight lectur 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 181 655 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis bool< is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029181655 
 
HISTOEY OF INTERPEETATION. 
 
HISTOEY OF INTERPRETATION 
 
 EIGHT LECTURES 
 
 PREACHED BEFORE THE UmYIVERSITY OF OXFORD IN 
 THE TEAR MDCCCLXXXV. 
 
 ON THE rOUNDATIOX OF 
 
 THE LATE REV. JOHN BAMPTON 
 
 BY 
 
 FREDERIC AV. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S., 
 
 Late Fdhnc of Trimly College, Cambridge ; Archdeacon and Canon of Westmimter ; 
 Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen. 
 
 '■ Damnamus veteres 1 minime. Sed post priorum studia in domo Domini 
 quod possumus laboramus."— Jer. Apol. in Rufin. ii. 25. 
 
 Honton : 
 ilACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 1886 
 
 The Sight of Trmulation and Eeproduclion is Reserved. 
 
TlicHARD Clay & Sons, 
 
 BREAD STREET HILL, LONDON, 
 Bungay, S-u^olk. 
 
TO 
 
 THE REV. BENJAMIN JOWETT, M.A., 
 
 MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, 
 
 AND 
 
 VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. 
 
 .^1 Jlcbicafc tksc Cttturcs, 
 
 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 hierhest 
 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 briet, 
 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 m 
 the following pages because their writings produced no 
 change in the dominant conceptions. The remark applies 
 especially to the great Komanist 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.^ 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 ef)och-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 Biiddeus (1730), Schrock's 
 Kirclwngescliivhte (1768 — 1812), Rosenmiiller's Historia In- 
 terpretationis (1795 — 1814), Meyer's Geschichte der Schrfter- 
 Mdruvg (1803), Klausen's Eermeneiitik des Neucn Testaments 
 (translated from the Danish 1841), Diestel's Geschichte des 
 Alien Tcstamcntes (1869), Reuss' Die Geschichte der HcUigen 
 Schriften (1874), Merx's Die Prophetie des Joel und ihre 
 Ausleger (1879),^ 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 aiooimt of these Commentators, see Klausen, EermeneiotHc 
 (Germ. Tr. 1841), pp. 249-252. Werner, Gesch. d. Kaih. Thiol. 1866. 
 '^ I give the dates of the editions which I hare 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 waj's. 
 
 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 ta 
 
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." ^ 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- 
 
 ' 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 thau 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, unexercised, 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 
 sit^nificance. 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 eihaiXa — " ignorant well-meanings, credulous suspicions, 
 and fond conceits " — these fleeting images born of confusions 
 of language, false theories, and perverse demonstrations,^ — 
 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 summai-y of the De, Civitate Dei with the memorable 
 words, Divind Providcntid agitur mundus et hovio. It was 
 from the same point of view that Bossuet composed his 
 History. "History," said Vice, "is a Civil theology of 
 the Divine Providence." "The History of the World," 
 said Wilhelm von Humboldt, " is not intelligible apart from a 
 
 ^ " Jdola fori omnium molestissima sunt ; quae ex foedere verborum et 
 nominum se insinuarunt in intellectum. " "Jdola thcatri iTmata non sunt 
 , . . sed ex fabnlis theoriarum et perversis legibus demonstvationum 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 whicli 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." ^ " 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." ^ 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;"^ — 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 ; * — 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 ; " ^ 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." ^ 
 
 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. Tlwology, p. 651. - Sartor Eesartus, p. 108. 
 
 3 Acta xvii. 26-30. ■" John i. 9. 
 
 ^ Heb. i. 1. '■ Heb. xii. 27. 
 
xiy 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 progi-essively 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." ^ 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 
 
 ' 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."^ 
 
 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 
 
 ^ Cliilliiigworth, Religion, of ProtcstaiUs. 
 
xvi Preface. 
 
 men of old, the Spirit still utters the Uving 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 behef 
 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 abihties .... 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 voicoo ? 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.^ 
 
 " 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."^ 
 " Reason can, and it ought to judge, not only of the mean- 
 ing, but also of the morality and evidence of revelation." 
 So spake one whom we still profess to revere — Bishop 
 Butler.2 
 
 " No apology can be required for applying to the Bible 
 the principles of reason and learning ; for if the Bible could 
 not stand the test of reason and learning it could not be 
 what it is — a work of divine wisdom. The Bible therefore 
 must be examined by the same laws of criticism which are 
 applied to other writings of antiquity." So wrote Bishop 
 Herbert Marsh. 
 
 Do we need yet higher authority to show us that we 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." ^ " 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.^ 
 
 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 .^ 
 
 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 Peogeess. " Truth," says Milton, " is compared in 
 
 1 Budor Subitantium, i. ii. § 64. ' LigJit of Nature, p. 136. 
 
 3 Prov. XX. 27. ^ 1 John iy. 1. 
 
 6 1 Thess. T. 21. ° Luke xii. 57. 
 
 b 
 
xviii Preface. 
 
 Scripture to a streaming fountain ; if lier 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_veri- 
 ture to place the authority of Copernicus abgve^ 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." ^ 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 
 
 ' 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.^ It confessedly traverses 
 all ih& 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.^ But while we shun the falsehood of 
 
 1 Tholuok, 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 Spu'it, not merely in its religious, but in its entire, contents, 
 and not merely in its contents, but in its very /orm, 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, Sysiema, 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. H. E. iii. 39 ; Orig. in Joann. tome i. p. 4 
 (ed. 1668) ; i. p. 383 (id.) ; Aug. De Cons. Evang. i. 35, ii. 12, 28 ; Junilius, 
 De partihus Div. Leg. i. 8, and to many passages of Jerome. He also 
 quotes Agobard, adv. Fredegis, o. 12, and St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, i. 
 qu. 32, art. 4 ; Abelard, Sic et Non, p. 11 (ed. Cousin). Many Roman 
 Catholic theologians admit minor eiTors, discrepancies, &c. , in the Bible, e.g. 
 Bellarmine, Bonfrfere, Cornelius k 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 Helvetic!. See Tholuck, I.e. 
 
 ^ Among theologians who have indirectly or explicitly rejected the theory 
 of verbal dictation and infallibility (though some of them at times used loose 
 popular and general language entirely inconsistent with their own admissions) 
 may be mentioned among English writers Hooker, Howe, Chillincworth 
 Bishop Williams, Burnet, Baxter, Tillotson, Horsley, Doddridge, Warburton 
 Paley, Lowth, Hey, "Watson, Law, Tomline, Dr. J. BaiTow, Dean Conybeare^ 
 Bishop Hinds, Bishop Daniel Wilson, Bishops Van Mildert and Blomfieltl' 
 Archbishop Whately, Bishops Hampden, Thirlwall, and Heber, Dean Alford 
 
Pi-eface. xxi 
 
 this extreme we equally shun the opposite falsehood of treat- 
 ing Scripture as though it did not contain a divine revelation. 
 If we accept the Inspiration of Scripture, without attempting 
 to define it, we only follow the example of the Universal 
 Church. Neither the Catholic creeds, nor the Anglican 
 articles, nor the Lutheran symbols, nor the Tridentine decrees 
 define it. In modern times especially, bishops and theo- 
 logians of every school have been singularly unanimous in 
 repudiating every attempt to determine exactly what In- 
 spiration means.i " 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. 
 
 ' " I was in nowise called upon to attempt any definition of Inspii'ation," 
 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 Insjjiratiou of Holy Scriptui'e " 
 (p. 107 ; see, too. Charges, i. p. 295). 
 
 "If you ask nie," says Dr. Cotton, Bishop of Calcutta, "for a precise 
 theory of Inspiration, I confess that I can only urge you to repudiate all 
 theories, to apply to theology the maxim which guided Newton in philosophy, 
 hypotheses non Jingo, and to rest your teaching upon the facts which God has 
 made known to us " [Charge of 1863, p. 69). 
 
 " It must be borne in mind," says the Quarterly Review, "that the 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.^ 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.^ 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 
 nov/ise 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 KOI IlaOXos ?jv aW' dvdpcoTro<; fjv, and of St. 
 Augustine about St. John — " Inspirahis 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 
 
 ' ' ' 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 q^uite rudimentary (Is. xxviii. 24-29) ; to Balaam Gideon 
 Othniel, Jephtha, Samson, David, Jonah, &e., though full of imperfections. 
 
 2 " Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His 
 Spirit." — Art. xiii. " Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration 
 of thy Holy Spirit."— CoZfeci in the Communion Service. "BeseechinK Thee 
 to inspire continually the Universal Church."— Prayer /or the Church Militant. 
 "Grant . . . that by Thy Holy inspiration we may think those things that 
 be good."— CoUeet for Fifth Sunday after Easter. " Come, Holy 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 Ifarsh 
 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.^ It may be merely 
 intended as an argumentum ad liominem ; 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 
 
 ^ Gal. iv. 21 27. 
 
xxiv Preface. 
 
 in Jeremiah authorises an unlimited application of the 
 
 method of Notarikon.i 
 
 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 ^ 
 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. 
 
 ' "flffircp Koi Trjs Acff/Sfos oiKoSu/^^s i /ioXv^Sivos Kavciv. Uphs yap rh axhl"' 
 ToC Kidov fieraKive'iTM. — AfilST. Mh. N. v. 10. 
 
Preface. xxv 
 
 be absolutely perfect dowa to its ininutest 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 Masoi'etic points, so far from being 
 " inspired," were comparatively modern. They used the 
 whole system of mediaeval Catholicism, or of Lutheran and 
 Keformed 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 I When Dean Stanley was visiting the foremost 
 of modern exegetes, a New Testament which was lyino- on 
 
Preface. xxvii 
 
 the table accidentally fell to the ground. " la 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 
 liand 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 ? " ^ " 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 ? " ^ 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. ' The Gontemp. Bev. Deo. 1870. 
 
xxviii Preface. 
 
 from Scripture it may Lave some direction and light. No 
 man would endorse more heartily than I the words of our 
 translators of 1611, " If we be ignorant, the Scriptures will 
 instruct us ; if out of the way, they will bring us home ; if out 
 of order, they will reform us ; if in heaviness, comfort us ; if 
 dull, quicken us ; if cold, inflame us. Tolle, lege. Tolle, lege" 
 Yet, while we echo all these glowing eulogies and many more, 
 we do not forget the warning of the great and pre-eminently 
 "judicious" theologian whom I have just quoted, "Whatsoever 
 is spoken of God, or things pertaining to God, otherwise than 
 as the truth is, though it seem an honour, it is an injury." ^ 
 
 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 Boolis. 
 
 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 
 > Eccl. Fol. 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 Eev. 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. 
 
 DO ' 
 
 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." 
 
 Fredekic W. Farrae. 
 
 St. Makgakbt's Eeotokt, 
 IVestminsUr, July 1885. 
 
CHRONOLOGY 
 RELATING TO BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 
 
 Ezra, B.C. 457 
 
 The Sepiniagint, 277. 
 
 Aristobiilus about 100. 
 
 Hillel, d. A.D. 8 
 
 Philo, (1. 40. 
 
 Aqiba, d. 135. 
 
 Clement of Eome, about 95 A.D. 
 
 Pseudo-Barnabas, about 100. 
 
 Josephus, d. 100. 
 
 Justin Maityr, 164. 
 
 "P.abbi,"d. 200. 
 
 Irenaeus, d. 202. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, d. about 216. 
 
 TertuUian, d. about 220. 
 
 Origen, d. 254. 
 
 Cyprian, d. 258. 
 
 Eusebius of Caesarea, d. 340. 
 
 Athanasius, d. 373. 
 
 Ephraem Syrua, d. 378. 
 
 Basil, d. 379. 
 
 Ambrose, d. 397. 
 
 Cbrysostom, d. 407. 
 
 Jerome, d. 420. 
 
 Eabbi Asbi, d. 427. 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, d. 429. 
 
 Augustine, d. 430. 
 
 Theodoret, d. 457. 
 
 Talmud & Targums, 4th and 5 th Cent. 
 
 Pseudo-Dionysius, o. 500. 
 
 Gregory I. d. 604. 
 
 Bede, d. 735. 
 
 John Damascenus, about 756. 
 
 "Walafrid Strabo, 849. (Qlossa Ordinaria, abridged from Eabanna 
 
 J. Sootns Erigena, d. 875. Maurus.) 
 
XXXll 
 
 Chronology Relating to 
 
 Anselm, d. 1109. 
 
 Theophylaot, about 1112. 
 
 Anselm of Laon {Glossa Jnterlinearis), d. 1117. 
 
 Eupert of Deutz, d. 1135. 
 
 Hugo de S. Yiotore, d. 1141. 
 
 Abelard, d. 1142. 
 
 Bernard, d. 1153. 
 
 Peter Lomhard, d. 1164. 
 
 Eichard de S. Victore, d. 1173. 
 
 Euthymius Zigabenus, 12tli Cent. 
 
 Spanish school of Jews— Rashi, Abenezra, Zimohi, 12th Cent. 
 
 Maimonides, d. 1204. 
 
 Aquinas' Catenae, 1250. 
 
 Hugo de St. Caro {Postilla), d. 1263. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas, d. 1274. 
 
 BonaTentura, d. 1274. 
 
 Albertus Magnus, d. 1280. 
 
 Nicolas de Lyra, d. 1340. 
 
 William of Occam, d. 1347. 
 
 "Wiolif, d. 1384. 
 
 Hus, d. 1415. 
 
 Valla, d. 1465. 
 
 Ximenes, d. 1517. 
 
 Keuohlin, 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 k Lapide, d. 1657. 
 
 Douai Bible, 1609. 
 
 Authorised Version, 1611. 
 
 Estius, d. 1613. 
 
 Mede, d. 1638. 
 
 Qrotius, d. 1645. 
 
 S. Glass, d. 1656. 
 
 Calixt, d. 1656. 
 
 Hammond, d. 1660. 
 
 Gritici Saeri, 1661. Edited by Pearson. 
 
 Poole's Synopsis Criticorum, 1669-1676. 
 
 Cocceius, d. 1669. 
 
 Lightfoot, d. 1675. 
 
 Calovius, d. 1686. 
 
Biblical Interpretation. 
 
 L. Cappell, d. 1658. 
 
 Spinoza, d. 1677. 
 
 Spener, d. 1705. 
 
 Patrick, d. 1707. 
 
 E. Simon, d. 1712. 
 
 Vitringa, d. 1722. 
 
 Eambach, d. about 1730. 
 
 Clericus, d. 1736. 
 
 Schoettgen, about 1750. 
 
 Ugolini'a Theasurus, 1743-1745. 
 
 Bengel, d. 1752. ' 
 
 Wetstein, d. 1754r^~'"v 
 
 Calraet, 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. Eosenmiiller, 1835. 
 
 Neander, d. 1850. ^ 
 
 Ferd. Chr. Baur, d. 1861. 
 
 Strauss, d. 1874. 
 
 Ewald, d. 1875. 
 
 XXXIU 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTUKE I. 
 SUOCUSS 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 Exegesu 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 
 
 i^ 1. Eabbinism. The seven rales of Hillel 19 
 
 Abuses to which they led 20 — 22 
 
 1^ 2. Alexandrianism. The rules of Philo 22 
 
 Their futiKty 23 
 
 C 2 
 
xxxvi Table of Contents. 
 
 PAQB 
 
 3. Kules of Tichoniua 23—26 
 
 4. Mistalcen views in later epochs 26, 27 
 
 IV. The task of the Expositor 27 
 
 Erroneous views of Inspiration 28 
 
 Need for their correction 29, 30 
 
 l^ V. False results of Exegesis 30 
 
 Whole books misunderstood 31 
 
 The Book of Ecclesiastes 32 
 
 The Song of Solomon 32, 33 
 
 Misinterpretations of the first verse of the Bible 34 
 
 i. In the Talmud and other Jewish writings 34—37 
 
 ii. In Philo 37 
 
 iii. In the Fathers 38 
 
 iv. Exegesis very fallible id. 
 
 V. Terrible results of misinterpretation 38 — 41 
 
 Perversions of Scripture , . 42 
 
 True sacredness and right use of Scripture 42, 43 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 RABBima EXEOESIS, 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 
 
 EzKA, the founder of Judaism proper 51 — 53 
 
 Inferiority of Ezra to the Prophets 53 
 
 Permanence of Ezra's work 54 — 56 
 
 I I. The birth of ceremonialism 56, 67 
 
 A new idolatry 57 
 
 Servile legalism 68 
 
 The commandments of men 59 
 
 The Law deified and superseded 60 
 
 Tyranny of Eabbinism ii. 
 
 Glorification of the Law 61 
 
 Subordinated to Tradition 62, 63 
 
 Scripture History explaiued away 63 
 
 Eabbinic casuistry 64 
 
 Sacrifice of the spirit to the letter a, 
 
 / III. Chiefs of the schools 65 
 
 1. HiLLBL. His life and work j(j, 
 
 Hillel contra-sted with Christ 66 
 
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 exegetio system 73, 74 
 
 Mystic kabbalism 74 
 
 Letter worship 75 
 
 Fantastic explanations 76 
 
 Rebellion of Barkokhba 77 
 
 Fate of Aqiba 78 
 
 1^ 5. Rabbi Juda the Holt 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 Mideashim 
 
 The four methods, PaEDeS 95 
 
 The Qabbala 96 
 
 Its baselessness 97 
 
 Its rules id. 
 
 i. Gematria 98 
 
 Illustrations 98—100 
 
 "Architectonic" and " figurative " Gematria 100 
 
 ii. Notarikon 101 
 
 iii. Temoorah 102 
 
 Specimens of Athbash, &c., in the Bible 103 
 
 Atbach. Prov. xxix. 21 104 
 
 Arbitrary changes of reading 104, 105 
 
xxxviii Table of Contents. 
 
 VII. Saddening results 
 
 PAOE 
 
 105 
 106 
 
 Effects of Talmudism 
 
 Christ's judgment respecting it ■'"' 
 
 LECTUKE III. 
 ^ ALEXANDRIAN EXEGESIS, pp. 111—158. 
 
 Divergent tendencies of Palestinian and Alexandrian exegesis Ill 
 
 I. Providential aim of the Dispersion 112 
 
 Widened sympathies of the Jews 113 
 
 Alexandria 114 
 
 Privileges of Alexandrian Jews 115 
 
 Desire for a translation of the Law 116 
 
 II. The Septuagint 116 — 125 
 
 Its good effects 116 
 
 Its influence on Christians 117 
 
 Necessary defects of a translation . . . id. 
 
 Jewish dislike of the LXX 118 
 
 Other versions 119 
 
 Variations of the LXX. from the Hebrew id. 
 
 Dislike of anthropomorphism 120 
 
 Deliberate alterations 121 
 
 Mistakes 122 
 
 Belief in its inspired character id. 
 
 Errors into which it led the Fathers 123,124 
 
 Jer. xi 19 ; xvii. 9 ; Ps. xcvi. 10 ; Hab. ii. 11 123 
 
 Hab. iii. 2 ; Ps. xcii. 12 ; Nab. i. 9 124 
 
 Jon. iii. 4 125 
 
 Qeren Happuk id. 
 
 The Book of Wisdom 126 
 
 Semi-ethnic Jewish writings id. 
 
 Josephus and other writers 127 
 
 III. The allegorical method id. 
 
 i. Pseudo-Aristeas 128 
 
 ii. Aristobulus id. 
 
 Two false views — 
 
 i. That Greek philosophers learnt from the Jews ... 129 
 ii. That Greek philosophy is to be found in the Penta- 
 teuch 130 
 
 IV. Causes of the aUegorio method Igj ]^3(j 
 
 It rose from the contact of Greek with Jewish thought ... 131 
 
 A Jewish Renaissance -^32 
 
 Eclectic tendencies ^33 
 
 Illustrations 23^ 
 
Table of Contents. xxxix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 V. The AUegorio method borrowed from the Stoics i34 
 
 Homer allegorically explained I35 
 
 Development of the method by the Alexandrians 136 
 
 ^'I- Philo 136-157 
 
 Three exegetic schools I37 
 
 Philo's eclecticism I37 133 
 
 His views on the literal sense I39 
 
 His perversion of Scripture 140 
 
 Travesties of Scripture Histories 141 
 
 Philo's theology ;[42 
 
 VII. On the Allegories of the Sacred Laws 143,144 
 
 Specimens of Philoniau allegory 145 
 
 Variable symbols 146 
 
 Exegetic nullity I47 
 
 Philo's views of Inspiration id. 
 
 Flexibility of the theory 148 
 
 VIII. Scriptural arguments in favour of his methods 149 
 
 1. Stoic rules for excluding the literal sense 149, 150 
 
 2. Rules for including the allegorical sense 150 
 
 3. Alterations of the text {4, 
 
 4. Inferences from synonyms I5I 
 
 5. Plays on words id, 
 
 6. Emphasis of particles, &o id. 
 
 Results of his system 152 
 
 Merits of Philo id, 
 
 Falseness of his methods I53 
 
 Emptiness of results 154 
 
 Necessary futility of such systems 155 
 
 What led him to adopt allegory id. 
 
 Legacy of Alexandrianism 166 
 
 IX. A divine progress in the midst of error 157, 158 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 ^ PATBISTIC EXEGESIS, pp. 161—242. 
 
 The Promise of the Spirit 161 
 
 The obvious limitations 162 
 
 Value of the Fathers 163 
 
 Scornful language objectionable 163 
 
 Difficulties of the Fathers 164 
 
 Their inevitable deficiencies 165 
 
 I. The Apostolic Fathers 165 — 170 
 
 1. St. Clement of Rome 166 
 
 2. The Epistle of Barnabas 167 
 
xl Table of Contents. 
 
 PAQB 
 
 His Christian Eabbalism 1^8 
 
 His strange fancies 1°^ 
 
 His "gnosis" ■'''' 
 
 3. Hekmas and others I'l 
 
 4. St. Justin Maktyk 172—174 
 
 His arbitrary applications 173 
 
 His exegesis artificial ■ 174 
 
 5. St. Iren^us 174 — 177 
 
 His excellent remarks 175 
 
 His " tradition " proved valueless 17C 
 
 II. Three exegetical schools 177 
 
 1. Tekthllian 177—180 
 
 His characteristics 178 
 
 His arrogant dogmatism 179 
 
 His appeal to "tradition" 180 
 
 2. St. Ctpeian 180—182 
 
 His strange method of argument 181 
 
 His way of treating Scripture 182 
 
 III. The School op Alexandria 182—203 
 
 Clement of Alexandria 183—187 
 
 Characteristics of his system . .' 185 
 
 His allegoric fancies 186 
 
 Views about "accommodation" 187 
 
 IV. Origen 187—203 
 
 His misfortunes 187 
 
 His greatness 188 
 
 Survival of error 1811 
 
 His mistaken assumptions 190 
 
 His difficulties 191, 192 
 
 His theories of exegesis 193 
 
 His views about the literal sense 194 
 
 His untenable arguments 195 
 
 His allegoric system 196 
 
 Probable inventor of " the thi'eefold sense " 197 
 
 His arbitrariness 198 
 
 Illustrations of his exegesis 199 
 
 Allegory applied to the New Testament 200 
 
 V. Immense influence of Origen 201 — 203 
 
 VI. St. Hilary 203 
 
 Specimens of his exegesis 204 
 
 VII. St. Ambrose 205 
 
 VIII. Diontsius of Alexandria 206 
 
 Julius Africanus 207 
 
 IX. Reaction against Allegory 208 
 
 Nepos and others 209 
 
 Ephraem Strus iij^_ 
 
Table of Contents. xli 
 
 PAGE 
 
 X. The School op Antiooh 210^219 
 
 Their rejection of allegory 211 
 
 1. DioDOBTjs of Tarsus 212 
 
 2. Theodoke oe Mopsuestia 213 219 
 
 Hie defects 214 
 
 His greatness 215 
 
 His special views 216 
 
 His opinion as to Inspiration 217 
 
 His opinion about Prophecy 218 
 
 3. Theodoeet 219 
 
 4. The Cappadocian triumvirate id. 
 
 5. St. Chetsostom 220 — 222 
 
 His eminence as an Expositor 221 
 
 His practical aims 222 
 
 XI. St. Jerome 222 — 234 
 
 His greatness 223 
 
 i. The Vulgate 223—225 
 
 ii. His views about the Canon 225 
 
 iii. His regard for the literal sense id. 
 
 His defects 225, sqq. 
 
 a. His haste 226 
 
 5. His want of originality • ... 227 
 
 c. His bitter prejudices 227, 228 
 
 d. His vacillations 229 
 
 iv. Differences between his theory and practice 230 
 
 V. His views of inspiration 230, 231 
 
 vi. His views about allegory 231 — 234 
 
 XII. St. Augustine 234—239 
 
 His excellent theories 234 
 
 His versatile genius 235 
 
 His defects 236 
 
 His methods untenable 237 
 
 His use of allegory 238 
 
 Dangers of the allegoric method 239 
 
 Triumph of the allegorists 240 
 
 High services rendered by the Fathers 241, 242 
 
 LECTUKE V. 
 
 SCHOLASTIC EXEaESIS, pp. 245—303. 
 
 The Dark Ages 245 
 
 Decadence of knowledge 246 
 
 Deepening misinterpretation 247 
 
 Bede 248 
 
xlii Table of Contents. 
 
 PAOE 
 
 Specimens of his exegesis 249 
 
 Alouin i'i- 
 
 Compilations 250 
 
 The Glosses 261 
 
 Exegetio nullity 252 
 
 Johannes Scotus Erigena 253 
 
 His views . . . , .■ 254 
 
 Beginnings of Scholasticism 255 
 
 St. Bernard id. 
 
 Mysticism 256 
 
 Monastic theology 257 
 
 Hugo and Riohaed of St. Victor 258 
 
 Abelard 259 
 
 His views of inspiration 260 
 
 Peter Lombard , . , 261 
 
 The " Liher Sentcntiarum" 262 
 
 Aristotle's works 263 
 
 Influence of Aristotle 264 
 
 Work of the Schoolmen 265 
 
 Peculiarity of their studies 266 
 
 Albertus Magnus 267 
 
 His weakness as an excgete 268 
 
 St. Thomas Aquinas ■ ... 269 
 
 His "Catena" 270 
 
 Mistaken ingenuity 271 
 
 St. Bonaventuea 272 
 
 His exegesis 273 
 
 Nicolas of Lyra 274 
 
 He learnt from Jewish exegetes 275 
 
 His merits 276 
 
 His originality 277 
 
 Ptetrograde 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. Yague views of inspiration j(j. 
 
 2. Servility of Scholasticism 284 
 
 3. Lack of due eiiuipment 285 
 
 i. Neglect of Philology 286 
 
 5. Dependence on false parallels 287 
 
 6. Abuse of dialectics 288 289 
 
 7. Barbarous terminology 290 
 
 8. " Vermiculate questions " qgi 
 
Tahh of Contents. xliii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ' Vaniloquium" 292 
 
 Frivolous disputes 293 
 
 9. The " multiple sense " of Scripture 294 
 
 The fourfold sense 295 
 
 10. Specimens of mediaeval exegesis 296 — 298 
 
 Indiflference of the laity 298 
 
 Interests of the Papacy 299 
 
 The views of the English Reformers 299, 300 
 
 Lives and examples of the great Schoolmen 301, 302 
 
 Divine vitality of Scripture 303 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 ^TBE EEFOEMEES, pp. 307—354. 
 
 " Protestantism " a phase of a great movement 307 
 
 What the Reformation was 308 
 
 Services and degeneracy of the Papacy 308, 309 
 
 Decadence of religious institutions 310, 311 
 
 Early Reformers 312 
 
 1. Lorenzo Valla ; 313 
 
 2. FabEK STAPULEXStS 314 
 
 3. Rbtohlin 314—316 
 
 4. Ekasmus 316—322 
 
 His work 317 
 
 His originality id. 
 
 His opinions about Scripture 318 
 
 His courage 319 
 
 His Paraphrases and Annotations . . '. 320 
 
 His independence 321 
 
 A pioneer of the Reformation 322 
 
 5. Luther 322—341 
 
 Greatness of his services 323 
 
 Stages of his religious growth 324, 325 
 
 His principles 325—331 
 
 i. Final authority of Scripture 325, 326 
 
 ii. Sufficiency of Scripture 327 
 
 iii. Maintenance of the literal sense id. 
 
 iv. Rejection of allegory 328 
 
 V. Perspicuity of Scripture 328, 329 
 
 vi. Right of private judgment 329 — 331 
 
 His rales of Scripture interpretation 332 — 334 
 
 1. Necessity for spiritual illumination 332 
 
 2. Analogia fidei 332, 333 
 
 3. Reference of all Scripture to Christ 333, 334 
 
xliv Table of Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Independence of Luther's attitude towards Scripture 335 
 
 Remarks on the Canon 236 
 
 Spiritual confidence of Luther 337 
 
 Strength of his faith 338 
 
 His general principles 'id^. 
 
 I. The " Word of God " not identical with Scripture ... 339 
 
 IL " Inspiration " not " verbal " id. 
 
 III. " Inspiration " not confined to Scripture 340 
 
 6. Melanchthon, Zwingli, and others 341, 342 
 
 7. Calvin 342—362 
 
 i. His greatness as an exegete 342 — 344 
 
 ii. Contempt for exegetic frivolity 344, 345 
 
 iii. Abhon-ence 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. 
 
 POST-REFORMATION EPOCE, pp. 357— 3P4. 
 
 A.rrest of the impulse given to Exegesis 357 
 
 I. A cheerless epoch 358 
 
 A threefold evU 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. 
 
 Flaoius Illtkious 354 
 
 Abraham Calov 3g4 355 
 
 Abuse of " proof- texts " 355 
 
 Extravagant letter-worship 3gg 
 
 ^ 4. Two special controversies j^ 
 
 i. The Calvinistic controversy 3gg 357 
 
 ii. The " Communicaiio Idiomatum " 357 359 
 
 5. Bibbc^l supernaturalism ggg g^Q 
 
Table of Contents. xlv 
 
 P/GT5 
 
 6. Scriptural infallibility 370 — 372 
 
 Eathmann 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 37S 
 
 1. Arminianism 379 
 
 2. Pietism 380—382 
 
 Philip James Speneu 380, 381 
 
 Other Pietists 381, 382 
 
 3. Tolerance and culture. Geoeg Calixt 382,383 
 
 4. Modern Philosophy. Desoartes, Spinoza 383, 384 
 
 5. Mysticism. Jacob Bohme 384 
 
 6. Cocceianism. John Koch 385 
 
 Cocceian Exegetes 386 
 
 7. Modern criticism 386—388 
 
 Loiris Cappel 387 
 
 The BuXTOEEES and others 388 
 
 III. Increase of knowledge 388, 389 
 
 i. Count ZiNZENDOKP 389, 390 
 
 ii. John James "Wetstein 391 
 
 iii. Bengel 392—394 
 
 His greatness 392 
 
 His views of Scripture 393 
 
 His death 394 
 
 LECTURE YIII. 
 
 MODERN EXEGESIS, pp. 397—437. 
 
 Difficulties of the subject 397 
 
 Disruption of Protestant Scholasticism id. 
 
 Leibnitz and Wolff 398 
 
 Lessinq 399 
 
 Reimakus and Baehdt 400 
 
 Feebleness of the apologists 401 
 
 Gellert id. 
 
 Haller 402 
 
 EULER id. 
 
 The critical school — Michaelis, Ernesti, Eichhom, Paulus 402 
 
 Semler 402—405 
 
 Views of Semler 403 
 
 Abuse of "accommodation" 404 
 
xlvi Table of Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Herder ^05-407 
 
 His Humanism ^^ 
 
 His views of Scripture ^^ 
 
 His work imperfect *"' 
 
 Kant 407,408 
 
 FiCHTE ^C9 
 
 SOHLEIERMAOHER 409—411 
 
 His influence on theology 410 
 
 His followers 411 
 
 Hegel id. 
 
 His followers 412-. 
 
 Strauss 413 
 
 Febd. Chr. Baur and the School of Tiibingen 414 
 
 Neandbr 414, 416 
 
 Failure of Strauss and Baur 415, 416 
 
 The orthodox reaction ' 417 
 
 Enlarged views , 418 
 
 Biblical studies. Tholuok, &c 419 
 
 Great German Exegetes and Theologians 420 
 
 English Theologians and Exegetes 120, 421 
 
 Views of Inspiration 421 
 
 Samuel Taylor Coleridge 422 
 
 Extent of his influence 423 
 
 Teachers whom he influenced 423, 424 
 
 Eesults 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 435 
 
 Porro unum necessarium , id. 
 
 Last words 43^ 
 
Table of Contents. xlvii 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 NOTES TO LECTURE II 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Note I. — Self-glorification of the Eabbis 441 
 
 Some of their titles 442 
 
 Note II. — The Targums and Midrashim -.442 — 444 
 
 Note III. — Eabbi Johanan ben Zakkai 444 
 
 Note IV. — Exegetio and Symbolic Kabbalisni 443 — 448 
 
 1. Gematria 445 
 
 2. Notarikon 446 
 
 3. Inferences from changing the reading id. 
 
 i. Importance attached to letters 447 
 
 5. Inferences from the repetition of words wl. 
 
 6. Inferences from impersonal verbs 448 
 
 7. Inferences from plurals id. 
 
 Miscellaneous id. 
 
 NuTE 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 Septuagiat 452 
 
 Note II. — The ezegetical principles of Josephus 452, 453 
 
 Note III. — The Septuagint Version 453 — 455 
 
 Note IV. — Philo's phrases 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 
 
 E. Saadia Gaon 461 
 
 Rashi 462 
 
 Eashbam id. 
 
 Juda Ha-Levi id. 
 
 Ibn Ezra id. 
 
 Maimonides 463 
 
xlviii Table of Contents. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 The Qimchis 464 
 
 Joseph Albo id, 
 
 Abrabanel id, 
 
 Elias Levita ji^_ 
 
 Note II. — Titles of the Schoolmen 405 
 
 Note III. — Origin of Scholasticism 466—468 
 
 Note IV. — The <?!<; e< wore of Abelard 468 469 
 
 Note v. — The abuse of " Parallel passages " 469 470 
 
 Note VI. — Opinions on Scholasticism ^yo 
 
 NOTES TO LECTURE VI. 
 
 Note I. — Remarks of Luther on the Fathers 47I 
 
 Note II. — Calvin's notes on Messianic Passages 472 
 
 NOTE TO LECTURE VIII. 
 Some Exegetic rules and principles 473—476 
 
 P.IBLIOGRAPHY 479—489 
 
EXTEACT 
 
 FROM THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT 
 
 OF THE LATE 
 
 REY. JOHN BAMPTON, 
 
 CANON OF SALISBURY. 
 
 " I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to tlie 
 
 " 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 Bamjyton'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 ajDpoint, 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 Bamjifon's Will. , li 
 
 "Sermons; and the Preacher shall not be paid, nor be 
 "entitled to the revenue, before they are printed. 
 
 "Also I direct and appoint, that no jDerson shall be 
 " qualified to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless 
 " he hath taken the degree of J^laster 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 a priniis saeculis Novi Testamenti ad liodiemuni 
 usque diem diversas liabnit aetates. Prima possit dici nativa ; secunda 
 vioralis ; tertia, arula; quarta, rediciva ; quinta, polemica, dogmatica, 
 topica ; sexta., critica, polyglotta, antiquaria, homiletica. Adliuc 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 historia 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 Me ; and ye will 
 not come to Me that ye may have life." — John v. 39, 40. 
 
 (- S 
 
HISTOEY OF INTEEPKETATION. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 SUCCESS AND FAILUEE OF EXEGESIS. 
 " Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns." ' — Jee. 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. 
 
 ^ Lit. "Fallow for you a fallow gi'ound." LXX. ve^iiaare kavrols vrtdiixara, 
 Comp. Hos. X. 12 • Matt, xiii. 7. 
 
 E 2 
 
4 Qualification of the Excgete. 
 
 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.^ 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 Eabbi Ishmael, 
 which was so often on the lips of Maimonides, the Law speaks 
 in the tongue of the sons of men} 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.^ 
 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.* 
 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 
 
 ^ no\ufj.€pais Kal ttoA uTptjTrcos. Heb. i. 1. 
 
 2 mX *J3 I1E^'?3 mm n~an. See HirschfeU, Ealachische Bxegese, 
 ji. 142 ; Derenljourg, 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." — "Whittiek. 
 
 ' Aug. Be Doctr. Christ, i. 1. " Duae res quibus nititur omnis iractalio 
 Scripturae, modus invcniciidi quae intellicjenda sunt, ct modus profcrendi guae 
 intcllecta sunt." Ernesti, /ii.ti. Inlcrpr. " Est interprctatio facultas doceaidi 
 quae eujusqtte orationi subjecta sit, sen efficiendi ut alter cogitet eadem cum 
 scriptore quoque." 
 
 ■■ " Willst den Dichter Du verstehen ? 
 
 Musst in Dichter's Lande geheu." — Goethe. 
 
 "Intelligere scriptorem is dicendus est qui idem quod ille dum scribebat 
 cogitavit, legens cogitat." — Kuf.nen, Critica Lincamcnta. 
 
Tlte Authority of Scrijyturc. 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.i 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 ciitics, 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." ^ Many beliefs have been shaken to the very 
 dust which were once erroneously deemed essential to the 
 
 ' Of the LXX. I shall speak infra. The most striking instance of sup- 
 posed bias in Luther's version is in Rom. iii. 28 ("vox 'sola' tot clamoribus 
 lapidata"), but " alone " had appe.ared 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 Jidcs. 
 
 ■' Heb. xii. 2.5, 26. 
 
6 Sinccritij Essential. 
 
 maiatenance of our belief in Scripture. Witli 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."^ It is not a book but a library. It contains 
 the fragments of a national literature, and the fragments only. 
 Many books which have now perished are quoted in its pages. 
 No less than ten such works — by Nathan, Shemaiah, Gad, 
 
 1 The word Bible represents not ri Si0\iov but ra /3iBAia, a tenn which 
 began to be used in the iifth century. The Scripture.s were also called Biblio- 
 iheca. Jer. lip. 6 ; Durnndus, Hational. 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," ^ and which made Erigena compare the meanings 
 of Scripture to the glancing hues on a peacock's feather.^ 
 But "the revelation of God's words giveth understanding 
 to the simple."^ The humblest Christian may claim his 
 share in the illumination promised to all God's children, and 
 
 ' Eph. iii. 10. Ti -KoKvuoiKiKos aoipia toS Qeov. Tulg. Multiformis, corap. 
 Eur. Iph. T. 1150. 
 
 ''■ -De Div. Nat. iv. 5. ' ' Est eiiim multiplex et inflnitus divinorum eloqui- 
 ornm intellectu.s. Siquidem in penna pavonis una eademque niiiabilis ac 
 pulckra inimmerabilium colorum varietas conspioitur in uno eodemque loco 
 ejusdem pennae portiuuculat." ^ Ps. cxix. 130. 
 
S Danger of Idolism. 
 
 may therefore refuse to resign into the hands of usurpers, 
 however venerable, the indeieasible rights of the human 
 Reason and the indefeasible duty of the human Conscience. 
 He must not confuse revealed facts with theological notions.^ 
 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 arbitrai-y 
 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.^ 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 jjower 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 unproven theories, and 
 overladen by untenable results. We shall see that these 
 theories have often been affiliated to each other, and aus- 
 
 1 "This presumptuoii.i imposing of the senses of men upon the words of 
 Ood, the special senses of men upon the general words of God ; this deifying 
 our own opinions and tyrannous enforcing them upon others ; this restrain- 
 ing of the Word of God from that latitude and generality, and the under- 
 standmgs of men from that liberty in which Christ and the Apostles left 
 then], 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, lid. of Protestants, iv. 16. 
 
 ' See Q. Curtius, iv. 14 ; Diod. Sic. xvii. 41. " Hinc Tyrii, superstitionc 
 inducti, catenis aureis simulacrum ApoUinis in hasi devinxere, impedituri, 
 ut persnasum habebant, Dei ex urbo migrationera." 
 
Tests of Exegesis. 9 
 
 mented at each stage by the superaddition of fresh theories 
 no less mistaken. Exegesis has often darkened the time 
 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,^ 
 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, Archssology, 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 
 
 ' It is a significant and beautiful fact that the Hebrew canon places 
 the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings among the 
 Prophets. 
 
10 The Lesson of History. 
 
 meaniugs assigned by those methods to book after book 
 and verse after verse of the sacred Avritings. 
 
 If this be the lesson of History, as I believe it is, then tu 
 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 
 Eeformed. 
 
 Take by way of instance the entire Talmud. It iucludes 
 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.-^ 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.^ 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 avov:cdly allusive rather than exigetical. Hence the old rale 
 "1217 IDT 1217 n''Nn ]'N DN, which Wogue renders, "Si (cet passage) 
 ne prouve pas la chose it pout scrrir du mains a la rappcUr." Hist, de la 
 Bilik, p. 168. See Yoma, f. 83, 2 ; Yebanioth, f. 64, 1, quoted by Mr Hershon, 
 Genesis, pp. 131, 293. 
 
 ^ See John v. 36-40, with the remarkable comment of Canon "West- 
 eott. 
 
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," ^ 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 " ^ 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.^ 
 
 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- 
 
 ' ni3i5R, of which seven are attributed to Ezra. See on the subject, "Wogue, 
 
 Hint, da Bible, p. 170. 
 
 '' 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 isrendered "saints " in 
 Ps. Ixxix 2, xlvii. 10, ka. 
 
 ^ The Rabbis said, " Turn the law again and again, for everything is in ii." 
 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.^ 
 
 II. There are seven main periods and systems of Biblical 
 interjDretation. The EaVbinic, lasting, roughly speaking, for 
 1000 jrears, from the days of Ezra (B.C. 4.5 7J to those of Eab 
 Abina (f a.d. 498) ; ^ 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 Pieriiis; 
 the Patristic, which in various channels prevailed from the 
 days of Clement of Pi-ome (a.d. 95) through the Dark Ages 
 to the Glossa Interlinearis of Anselm of Laon (tlll7); the 
 Scholastic, from the days of Abelard (j" 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. c.xix. 26, and explained it to mean, " If it is oijportuno 
 to act for Jehovah, one may violate the Law." Bsrakhoth, ad fin. ; Gittiii, 
 f. CO. The rule admits of a true though very limited application (Matt. xii. 
 4), but is wholly inconsistent with the Inspiration dogmas of the RabLis 
 and of Protestant scholasticism. 
 
 ^ Rab Abiua 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 princiioles 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.i 
 
 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 
 
 ^ See Lange, Gruvdriss d. hiil. Hcrm. xxi.-xxiv. 
 
] 4 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 fidfilment, 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." ^ 
 
 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 1 " 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." ^ 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 
 
 ' Dr. Newman, Tracts for the Times, JTo. 87. 
 ^ Jer. Apol. in llufin. 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 
 suflBcient 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, andr 
 suffocated the warmth and light of Scripture under the 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 lose their importance. The age of the 
 Schoolmen, amid its masses of unprofitable subtlety and 
 endless systematisation, left its legacy of exhaustive and 
 philosophic thought. The age of the Reformation revived 
 
16 The Power of 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 ; ^ in vain did Diocletian endeavour to suppress the New 
 Testament ; " 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 ; ^ in vain 
 
 ' 1 Mace. i. 54-57. 2 Euget. H. E. \in. 2. 
 
 ^ Motley, liisc of the Dutch Ecpablic, i. 73, 'I'M. 
 
Peril of Misinterpretation. 17 
 
 did Tunstall buy up and burn the editions of Tyndale's 
 traDslatioa.i The keen wit of the Greek, the haughty scorn 
 of the Eoman, 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.^ 
 
 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.^ 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 
 
 ^ See his monition in Collier, Ecel. E-ist. iv. 61 ; ix. 84. 
 
 ^ Bossuet. 
 
 ' " 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 
 (bissuasvoe from Popery, bk. 1, § 4, passim). 
 
 C 
 
18 Hermeneutlc 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 he 
 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.-' That great and estimable 
 Rabbi — one perhaps of the doctors who as they sat in the 
 temple v/ere 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 ; hut 
 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 (DITD) are found in Tosefta Sanhedrin, c. 7, at the end of 
 Sifra ; and in Aboth of Eabbi Nathan, c. xxxvii. See Derenbourg, Palestim, 
 p. 187 ; Hamburger, Talm. Worterb. ii. s.vv. Exegese and Hillel (pp. 209, 
 40.5). ^ ^ , 
 
 - These rules in their briefest fonn are : 1. " Light and heavy " (^D1^1 ?P), 
 i.e. a minori ad majus and vica 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.^ 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.* 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, Faseic. Tlieol. iv. ; Jost, 
 Judenthmn, i. 257 ; Dcrenbourg, p. 384-401 ; Merx, Eine Rede voni Auslegcn, 
 pp. 44, 45 ; Barclay, Talmud, 40-44 ; Ginsburg, s.vv. Midrash, Hillel, and 
 Ishmael ben Elisha in Kitto's Cyclopaedia ; Weber, AUsyn. Theol. 106-113 ; 
 Chiarini, Theorie dii Judaisnw, i. 64-68. On the relation between Hillel's 
 and Ishmael's rules, see Gratz, iv. 429. The thirteen rules {Shelosh Esreh 
 Middoth ha-Thorah) we found in the Jewish Prayer-book. The additions of 
 R. Eleazar were chiefly Haggadistic. See Schwab, Berakhoth, Introd. p. liri. 
 
 ^ The Jews observed that this rule is found in Num. xii. 14. 
 
 ^ The relation established between two passages was called semukiti 
 (t'DIOD). for specimens stu Berakhoth, f. 10, 1 ; Weber, AUsyn. Theol. 120. 
 
 ^ It had been applied long before Hillel by Simeon ben Shetacli in a 
 question relating to the punishment of false witnesses. See Derenbourg, 
 p. 106. 
 
 ' A-nalogy ; of David and the Shewbread, Matt. xii. 5. A fortiori (■it6to> 
 IxaWov) ; of the sparrows and man. Matt. x. 29. The whole Epistle to the 
 Hebrews is an a fortiori argument. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 Aiuse of HillcVs 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 ? ^ 
 R. Simon ben Lakisb 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 ?- 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 ofhcamn 
 He made thee to hear His voice," the verbal contradiction is 
 reconciled by Ex. xx. 22, " Ye have seen that I have talked 
 with yoa 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.^ 
 Thus it is argued that Job married Dinah because the word 
 " a foolish woman" is applied alike to the daughter of Jacob 
 
 1 Chagiga, f. 27, 1. 
 
 ' Id. ib. In Sanhedrin, f. 106, 2, the word "weigher" (A. V. "receiver") 
 in Is. xxxiii. 18, is explained to mean "one who weighed aU the a fortiori 
 arguments of the Law." 
 
 ^ The technical name of this rule is niC mT3- Thus it was inferred that 
 the brother-in-law's right shoe was to be pulled off by a widow, from a com- 
 parison of Deut. xxT. 9, with Lev. xiv. 25. It is infen-ed 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 teslS- 
 mony of Scripture, is represented as a monster of iniquity,' 
 because it is said that " Lot lifted up his eyes and saw all the 
 plain of Jordan that it was well watered," and the separate 
 phrases of this sentence are elsewhere used of Potiphar's 
 wife, of Samson, of the son of Hamor, and of other offenders.^ 
 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." ^ 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 
 
 ' Rabbi Jochanan (Nazir. f. 23, 1), Hershon, Genesis, p. 264. 
 
 ^ Namely, in Gen. xxxix. 7 ; Judg. xiT. 3 ; Gen. xxxiv. 2 ; Hos. ii. 5. 
 Also the same word (133) is used of " the plain " of Jordan, and " a piece ' 
 of bread in Pro v. tI. 26. 
 
 ' Qiddushin, f. 22, 1. Merx, Eine Bede voni Auslegen, p. 46. 
 
22 Alexandrian Hcrmcneutic. 
 
 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 Eabbi ; 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 ! ^ 
 
 2. We pass to the second epoch, and find that Alex- 
 andrianism also has left us its hermeneutic principles. Those 
 principles are given by Philo in his books on dreams, and 
 on the unchangeableness of God,^ 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. Fositivcly 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, Kenan, and many 
 others. See further in Lect. II. Hillel's iiile, " 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. 
 
 - Quod Deus Immiitdbilis, 11 ; Be 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. 111. 
 
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 ; ^ nor 
 does "Let him die the death" mean "Let him die in the 
 next world as well as in this." The Septuagint word, 
 iyKpv(f>£a<;, for " cakes " in Gen. xviii. 6 does not imply the 
 duty of esoteric teaching ; ^ nor because the word Koa/j.o'i 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.2 Such explanations, or applications, or half- 
 applications, often deduced from the falsest etymologies,* 
 may be found in thousands in exegetical literature, from the 
 days of Philo down to those of the Eeformation, 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.^ 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 
 Gigani. 8. ^ De Saerif. Ai. et Cain. 15. 
 
 ' Wisd. xviii. 24. Philo, Dc Vit. Mos. iii. 14. be profug. 20. Dc Sligr. 
 Air. 18. 
 
 * The identification of Eachel with contemplative, Leah with practical 
 virtue, adopted by Gregory [Homil. in E:ecli. ii. 2), and immortalised by 
 Dante {Purgat. xxvii. 101-105), partly depends on the derivation of Eachel 
 from ?n nST Spcuris ^e^-nXdaeas (Dc 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). 
 ° The chief henneneutic manuals in the Patristic epoch are — 
 
 Diodorus, t(s Siotpopa 0ea>plas khI aWTiyopias (no longer extant). 
 Adrianus, I,lirayo>-yl\ (a.d. 433. It is printed in the Critici Sacri. 
 vol. ix., 1660, and was edited by D. Hoeschel, 1602. 
 
 [Eucheiius 
 
2-1. 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.^ 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 Intelligentiac, 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- 
 tions.^ It is argued that all Scripture must be allegorically 
 interpreted because David says, " I will open my mouth in 
 parables, loquar in aenigmate antiqua." ^ 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.* The rules of Tichonius had apparently been 
 
 Eucherius Lugduneasis, Liber formularum spiritalis intelligentiae 
 
 {a.d. 440 ; Bibl. Pair. Colon, vol. v. 1 ; Migue vol. 50). 
 Tichonius, De Septem Regulis (Bill. Max. Pair. Lugdun. vol. vi. 
 
 p. 839). 
 Hieronymus, De optima genere interpretandi {Ep. ad Pammachium). 
 
 id. De studio scripturarum (Ep. ad Paulinwm Presiyterum). 
 JunOius, De partibus legis divinae (circ. A.D. 550, Sibl. Max. Pair, 
 
 Lugdun. vol. X. p. 340). 
 Cassiodorus, Institutiones (circ. a.d. 660). [Opp. ed. Caret., 1679, 
 Migne, vol. 69.) 
 I do not add the so-called Clavis of Melito, hecause it is not a translation 
 of the KAels of Melito of Sardis, but, as Steitz has proved, a mediaeval Latin 
 work (Stud. u. KrU. 1857). 
 1 De doctr. Christ, iii. 30-37. 
 
 ^ 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 hvayu'/^, to imply the reference of Scriptural passages to 
 the New Jerusalem. The Libellv^ deformulis has been edited by Franc Pauly. 
 ' The remark is borrowed from Clem. Alex., Strom, v. 12, § 81. «pl 
 trdffTis ypatpris . . . 4v rots ^l/aXfj-ois yeypaiTTai its 4v irapa^oX^ eipTjfievois. He 
 proves his point from isolated passages like Ps. Ixxviii. 2 ; 1. Cor. ii. 6 ; 
 Matt. X. 27 ; Mark iv. 34, &c. (Strom, vi. 15, § 125.) 
 
 * The Psalm itself (Ps. Ixxviii.) bears no resemblance to what we call "a 
 parable," nor does it contain anything enigmatic. 
 
The Rides 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.^ The first is " About the Lord and His 
 mystic body," namely the Church. Thus in the same 
 passage one clause, such as, dolores nostras ipse portavit, 
 applies to Christ, but following clauses, such as Deiis mdt, 
 ostendere illi lucem et formare ilium in prudentia,^ ^-Pplj iiot 
 to Christ but to the Church. And in Is. Ixi. 10, Sicut sponso 
 imposuit mihi mitram, applies to Christ, but the following 
 clause, et sicut sponsam donavit me amictu, applies only to the 
 Church.^ 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.* 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.^ These 
 
 ' Gennadius cites them as being meant " ad investigandam et invcniendam 
 intelHgentiam scriplurarum. " 
 
 2 Is. liii. 4. 
 
 ^ Is. Ixi. 16. Vulg. " Induit me vestimentia salutis . . . quasi sponsum 
 decoratum coron^, et qnasi sponsam omatam monilibus suis." 
 
 ' It is also called " De spiritu et literd," " De gratid et mandato." 
 
 ' 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 Cassiodorusi and Isidore of Seville 
 refer to them with marked praise, and consider that they 
 throw no small light on the hidden senses of Scripture.^ 
 Partly owing to Augustine's approval they became for a 
 thousand years the fountain-head of unnumbered misin- 
 terpretations.^ 
 
 4. It will not be needful here to do more than allude to 
 the erroneous principles of the other epochs. Throughout the 
 whole of the scholastic epoch (4) dominated the pure fiction 
 of the miiUiplex intelligentia, or " fourfold sense," which fills 
 volumes of elaborate commentary,* 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 
 
 ^ Casaiodorus, Instill, i. 10. On Tichonius see Gennadins, Dc Script. Ecd. 
 18 ; Trithemius, Do Script. Enl. 92. Cave, Hist. Lit. p. 275 ; Migne, Patrolog. 
 vol. 50 ; Tillemont, vi. 81 ; Neander, iii. 280 ; Klausen, Hermen, p. 133 ; 
 Semler, Diss. Hist, de vii. regulis Tichonii, Halae, 1756 ; A. Vogel in Bersog. 
 vol. xvi. 
 
 - Tichonius said, "Quamm si ratio . . . accepta fuerit, clausa quaeque 
 patefient et obscura dilucidabuntur." Augustine .?ays, "Non parum adjuvant 
 ad penetianda quae tecta sunt." De Doctr. Christ, iii. 4, § 30. Retractt. ii. 
 18. Contra Eirist. Parmeniani, i. See too Jer. i5e mrr. illustr. 18. 
 
 8 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 
 .'^t. Victor (Erud. Did. v. 4) ; and Perez of Valentia (+ 1490). Incomparably 
 superior was the Eiiro;7iu77) eis ras Betas ypatpas of Adrianus. He says that 
 three things are to be considered, the Sidivoia, the Ae'fiy, and the amems, 
 through which we arrive at Bei^pla. 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. 
 
 •" The first traces of the fourfold sense occur in Eucherius (t 450) ; of the 
 threefold sense in Origen. 
 
Taslc of the Ex2)osltor. 27 
 
 systems. To this day men repeat the vague and extravagant 
 assertions of seventeenth century divines, which furnish no 
 assistance and solve no difficulty, and which can only be main- 
 tained in detail by an accumulation of special pleas.i 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- 
 aicious 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 
 
 ^ Thus they repeat HoUaz and Quenstetlt in calling Scripture a perpetua 
 norma jidei ac vitae in univcr^d ccclesid without explaining the wide difference 
 hetween the spirit of Judaism and that of Cliristianity, 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 unaviinem 
 coTisensum Patrum," thougli 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 millions who cannot read the original ; 
 that (2) the Vulgate of the Latin Church, the Septuagint of the Greek Church, 
 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 hermeneutio rules adopted by dilFerent 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 audor primarivs 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.-' Yet this dogma 
 prevailed for ages. If such a view of inspiration were 
 alone orthodox or admissible no man of unwarped intelli- 
 gence would have any refuge save in heterodoxy. So far 
 as this age has advanced beyond the exegetic principles 
 of the Talmud or the Schoolmen, it has been by 
 naturalness, by independence, by fearless allegiance to 
 truth, by searching Scripture not merely to "improve" it 
 into moral commonplaces, or to torture it into the utterance 
 
 1 " It is impossible rightly to comprehend Scripture if we read it as we read 
 the Koran, as though it were in all its parts of equal authority, all composed 
 at one time, and all addressed to persons similarly situated. " — De. Aenold. 
 
Perversion of Texts. 29 
 
 of sectarian shibboleths but to discover what the -writers 
 really meant and really said. The Kabbis, 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.-' 
 
 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 foUow 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 
 
 ^ Is. viii. 20 : "To the law and the testimony. If they speak not accovd- 
 iQg 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 how 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 Vieivs. 
 
 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 ; " ^ 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 Eabbinism 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, Qiwd 
 volumus sanctum est;''' and in the sarcasm of St. Jerome, 
 Qiiicquid dixerint hoc legem Dei putant ; ^ 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. * It might be 
 
 1 Lekaeh Tob. (quoted in Ersch und Griiber, s.v. Inspiration). 
 
 ^ Aug. c. Ep. Parmeniani, ii. § 31. 
 
 ^ Ep. ad Paulin. 7. 
 
 ■t The word "Testament" is derived from Matt. xxvi. 28. 2 Cor. iii. 
 14, &c. (comp. Jer. xxxi. 31.) St. Jerome rendered n'''13 " covenant," by 
 foedus OT pactum, but it had been rendered testamentuvi in older Latin versions. 
 Tertullian prefers instrumentum, but adopts testamentum as being in common 
 use (e. Mair. iv. 1, 2 ; De Piidic. 12). Augustine also uses both words {de 
 Oiv. 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 Eoman customs. nn3 never means anything 
 but covenant ; and in the New Testament SmOiiKTi 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 BooJcs. 31 
 
 shown by taking any single book and proving, chapter by 
 
 chapter, the impossibihty 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 
 
 Londurus est multa d prope omnia de caritate ; and Calvin 
 
 nothing better than Sparsim docendo et exhaiiando varius est ? 
 
 Let us, however, take the more striking case of one of the 
 
 Books of the Old Testament, the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 Even the name of it, both in Greek and Hebrew, is of 
 
 disputed meaning ; and, difficult as the book is, Luther 
 
 said that it is almost more difficult to clear the author 
 
 from the fancies palmed upon him than to develop his 
 
 meaning. Some of the Rabbis attacked it as being not 
 
 only apocryphal in authorship, but heretical in tendency. ^ 
 
 These conclusions were only escaped by a liberal use of 
 
 allegory. Even in the fifteenth century R. Isaac ben Aramah 
 
 complains that some expounded it with far-fetched literalism, 
 
 others philosophically, others traditionally, and that all alike 
 
 had altered its meaning into palatable sentiments, while none 
 
 of them had " drawn sweetness from this flint." ^ St. Jerome 
 
 and St. Augustine by extreme applications of the allegoric 
 
 ' Megilla, f. 7, 1 ; Shabbath, f. 30, 2. " Solomon, where is thy wisdom ? 
 . . . Thy words not only contradict those of David thy father ; but they 
 contradict themselves." Vayikra Eabba. f. 161, 2. Jer. in Eccl. xii. 13. See 
 Ginsbnrg, Coheleth, p. 15. "Wogue, Hist, de la Biile, 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). 
 
 ^ See Ginsburg, p. 66. 
 
32 Ecdesiastes. 
 
 method explain it as alluding to Christ and the sacraments, 
 and are followed by the Schoolmen. ^ 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." ^ 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,^ 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. * It re- 
 
 ^ e.g. Ch. iv. 8. " The eye is not satufied loith seeing." " Christ is always 
 desiring and seeking our salvation." ii. 24. " There is nothing better far 
 a man than that he should eat and drink, " It is good to partake of the 
 Lord's Supper. Jer. x. 16, " JFoe to thee, land, whsn thy king is a child," 
 Eoclesiastes 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 s/iall flourish " " The almond tree is Christ — the rind, the 
 shell, and the kernel correspond to the fiesh, the mind, and His Divinity."— 
 Peter Lombard. 
 
 2 Delitzsch, Eccl. p. 183 (E. Tr.) 
 
 ^ ' ' 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 difi- 
 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/or the Times, To\. V. " Creed and Canon compared. " Tie 
 name of the King of Persia occurs in Esther 187 times. 
 
 « See Shabbath, f. 30. 2 ; Aboth of Rabbi Nathan ; Yadaim, iii. 2, and 
 Maimonides, ad loe. 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 ; ^ it relates the history 
 of the Jews from the Exodus to the Messiah ;2 it is 
 a consolation to afflicted Israel ; ' it is an occult history ; ^ 
 it represents the union of the divine soul with the earthly 
 body ; ^ or of the material with the active intellect;^ it is 
 the conversation of Solomon and Wisdom ; ' it describes the 
 love of Christ to His Church ; * it is historico-prophetical ; ^ 
 it is Solomon's thanksgiving for a happy reign ; ^^ it is a 
 love-song unworthy of any place in the sacred canon ; ^^ it 
 treats of man's reconciliation to God ; ^- it is a prophecy of 
 the Church from the Crucifixion till after the Reformation ; ^^ 
 it is an anticipation of the Apocalypse ; ^^ it is the seven days 
 cpithalammm on the marriage of Solomon with the daughter 
 of Pharaoh ; ^^ it is a magazine for direction and consolation 
 under every condition ; ^^ it treats in hieroglyphics of the 
 sepulchre of the Saviour, His death, and the Old Testament 
 saints ;^^ it refers to Hezekiah and the ten tribes;^* it is 
 written in glorification of the Virgin Mary, i^ Such were 
 the impossible and divergent interpretations of what many 
 regarded as the very Word of God ! ^^ 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.^^ 
 
 ' The Targum. * R. Saadia Gaon. ^ Rashi. « Ibn Ezra. 
 
 * Joseph Ibn Caspe. * Ibn Tibbon. ^ Abraranel. ^ Origen, and 
 
 the mass of Christian expositors, except Theodore of Mopsuestia, the school of 
 Antioch, and most modem scholars. ' Nicolas of Lyra. '" Lnther, Brenz. 
 
 '^ Castellio, Dr. Noyes. '^ Ainswurth. " Cocceius. 
 
 ^' Hennischius. ^= Bossuet. '^ Durham. '' PnfTendorf. 
 
 '* Hug. •" Many Roman Catholic Commentators. 
 
 '" 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. 
 
 ^' To this view the way was led bj' Grotius, Bossuet, Lowth, Herder, 
 Jacohi, &c. It i^ adopted by Ewald, Hirzel, Umbreit, Meier, Friederich, 
 Hitzig, and iuost of the best modern commentators. See the admirable 
 summary given by Dr. Ginsburg, and by Zockler in Lange's Bibelwerlc. 
 Luther might well say, "Quodsi erro veniam meretur primus labor, nam 
 aliorum cogitatixmes longe plus absurditatis habeni." 
 
 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.' 
 It also tells us ^ that the Septuagint translators, apparently in 
 copying out the law in Greek letters for Ptolemy, transposed 
 the words, and put Mohim before BeresMth, lest the Greeks 
 should make the mistake of supposing that BeresMth was the 
 name of a God who created Eiohim ! 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 
 Kabbis decided that the heaven and the earth were both 
 created at the same time.^ They tell us, moreover, that 
 Shamayim, "heaven," is derived from eesh-mayim, "fire-water," 
 because in the firmament, God mingled those two elements.^ 
 This however does not nearly exhaust the spurious infer- 
 ences deduced by various forms of Kabbalism from the 
 first word of Scripture. Since by anagram ^ Bercshith 
 can be read Bethishri, it was inferred that the world was 
 created in September (Tisri) ; since, acrostically,^ 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 
 tysia N"i3n'' DTi^S, 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 Parshandatha, or the " Exegete of the Law," ^ 
 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 leginning 
 (n'EJ'xn) 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 snn " He 
 created " involves the initial letters of Father, Son, and 
 
 1 Chagiga, f. 12, 1. 
 
 ^ Chiarini, Thiorie du Judalime, ii. 216. 
 ' Known to the Jews by the name Themoorah. See Lect. II. 
 ■* This process was known as Notarikon. See Lect. II. 
 ' See Geiger, nrnJClQ, Ein Beitrag zur Gesch. der Biiel-Exegese. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 Kahhalism. 
 
 Spirit (nx, p. nn);i and Pico of Mirandola (who is 
 quoted with rapturous approval by Sixtus Senensis even as 
 late as 1593)^ 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." ^ Pico thus persuaded himself that in the Qabbala, there 
 was more Christianity than Judaism. Lastly, if we might 
 have hoped that these fantastic vanities could not possibly 
 have survived the Middle Ages we are undeceived by open- 
 ing one of the most popular of modern Jewish commentaries, 
 the Tse^nnah Ure^nnah, or " Go ye and see," compiled by the 
 Eabbi Jacob at Frankfort in 1693, but reprinted at Wilna as 
 recently as 1877, and in daily use among the Polish Jews.* 
 It opens with the remark that the Torah begins with 
 the letter Beth because that is the first letter of BerakJiah 
 " 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 ; ^ for the sake 
 of the sacrifices which were offered in the Temple, which is 
 called " Beginning " and was created before the world ; ^ and 
 for the sake of tithes which are also called " Beginning {ie. 
 first fruits) of corn." '' You will perhaps wonder that I should 
 
 '■ So in "the stone (px) which the builders rejected " he saw the Father 
 
 and the Son (p 3X), and out of " Eighteousness " (D'H^X pnS, Dan. ix. 2i) 
 he gets by Gematria, Messiah Jehovah (mn' ilCD). See Ginsburg, Tk 
 Kabala, p. 62 ; Wolf, Bibl. Ecbr. i. 9. 
 
 = See Sixt. Senens. Biil. Sand. p. 173. He calls this hermeneutic folly 
 " luculentissimum excmplum." 
 
 8 Among Christian Kabbalists, all of whom more or less approved of suet 
 methods, may be mentioned, besides Picus of Mirandola (t 1494), Raymond 
 LuUy (t 1522) ; Cornelius Agiippa (t 1535) ; Van Helmont (t 1464) ; Fludd 
 (t 1637) ; Henry More (t 1687) ; and others. See Ginsburg, The Kabbah, 
 p. 124. 
 
 * nr^>l i^yjV- 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. 
 
 8 Jer. xvii. 12. See Hershon's Talmvdic Miscellany, 104, 4. 
 
 ' Dent, 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 
 mil see that they are but a few specimens out of many ; i 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.^ 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.^ It is needless to dwell on the astonishing 
 methods by which he extracts from the Bible the views of 
 the Stoic cosmogony ; ^ but he was partly influenced by the 
 LXX., which translates " The earth was without form," by 
 " The earth was unseen."^ This gave room for the pretence that 
 
 ' Midrasli Bereschit Eabba, Parascha. i. ("Wiinsche, Bill. Sahbinwa). 
 
 ^ He derives this view from Gen. i. 81. God praises all that He has made 
 (t^ eavTov rex^^f^^ ^P7^)j but He does not praise matter (r^v dTjfiioupjTjdeLtraf 
 uKriv), which is lifeless, coiTuptible, heterogeneous, discordant. Quis Her. Div. 
 Bacr. 32. 
 
 ^ Siegfried, Philo, pp. 230-235. Philo gives the same epithet, uttoios, alike 
 to chaos and to God. See Ewald, Die Lehre der Sibel mn Gott, pp. 238-241. 
 Philo's Scriptural proofs (?) of the &ttoios kcX i/xopcpos vKri are very characteristic. 
 They are derived (1) from the fact that in Gen. xxxi. S2-i2 Laban [Xevicaaixhs] 
 has the unmarked cattle, which shows that matter has no properties {Se 
 Profug. 2), and acquires its seal, or stamp, from the Logos (De Somn. ii. 6) ; 
 (2) fromDeut. xxiii. 1, because the reOKarriiivos is excluded from the Church 
 of God; and (3) from Gen. xv. 10, which is applied to "the cutter-word" 
 dividing niaterial and immaterial things ! 
 
 •" There are similar speculations in that part of the Qabbala which deals 
 with the work of creation (D'EJ'Nna ne'VO). 
 
 ^ ^ 5e 77} ?iv cl,6paT0S Kol aKaraffKevatTTOs. 
 
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.' 
 
 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." ^ Here indeed there was no heresy, for so we are 
 expressly taught in other parts of Scripture.^ 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 ; " *■ but " by giving it a wrong sense," says Bishop 
 
 ^ Philo, De Opif. Mundi, 7. Philo's favourite comparisons for creation 
 are drawn from building and planting. Philo seems to contradict these 
 Ms normal views in Dc Somn. i. 13, where he says, 6 9e!)i ri ■wi.vrii. 
 y^vv^aas ov ^vov eis t6 4^(pavks ijyayev a\Aa Kol a irfiinpov ouk ^v ^noirjirfv, 
 oh SrifjLtovpyhs ^6vov aKKk kclL KrlaTrjs aitrhs S>v. On the self-contradictions of 
 Philo, see Gfrorer, Philo, ii. 2. Apjjarent contradiction rises from his use of 
 TO. fiii ov-ra to imply the chaos. Gfrorer, i. 330. 
 
 - Aristo Pellaeus (ap. Eouth, Uel. Sacr. i. 91). " Plerique existimant," 
 says Jerome (referring also to Tertullian and Hilary) . . . "in Hebraeo 
 haberi In Filio Deiis coelum et torram : quod falaum esse ipsius rei Veritas 
 comprobat." See Ambrose, Hexaem. i. 4. Basil, Eexaem. Hom. i. Ter- 
 tullian, C Praxeam. Petavius, Dc Off. Sex. Dierum. i. § 16. 
 
 3 Heb. i. 2 ; John i. 3 ; Col. i. 16 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6. * St. Augustine. 
 
Crimes of Mlsiiiterpreters. 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." ^ 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 moralit}^^ 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 
 RavaiUac, a Jacques Clement, a Balthazar Gerard, an Antony 
 Babington, an Everard Digby, were preposterously justified by 
 the examples of Ehud and Jael.' 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 
 
 1 Miscellanies, ii. 17. 
 
 " Matt. V. 21-43 (comp. xv. 1-9 ; xxiii. 1-23) ; Mark ii. 18-28 ; vii. 2-23 ; 
 X. 2-12 ; Luke ix. 61-56 ; xiii. 11-17 ; John viii. 1-11. 
 
 ^ See Suarez, De Fide, vi. 4 ; Mariana, De Eege, 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 efifects 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.^ A crime so atrocious as 
 the massacre of St. Bartholomew was hailed by Pope Gregory 
 XIII. with acclamation, and paralleled by the zeal for God 
 of ancient heroes. Texts were used to crush the efforts of 
 national liberty, and to buttress the tyrannies of immoral 
 despotism.^ The murder of kings and passive obedience 
 to them were alike defended by texts.^ 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 ; ^ 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.^ When 
 Innocent III. wasgiving to the Abbot ofCiteaxix 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 Mallens Malejicarum, was appointed Inquisitor 
 liy Innocent VIII. in 1484. Sir Matthew Hale, as every one knows, in 1665 
 sent two witches to be executed on Scripture authority ; and iive are said to 
 have been hanged at Northampton as late as 1712 (Parr's Works, iv. 182) ; and 
 in Spain as late as 1781 (Buckle, Eist. ofCivilis. 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, Kist. of Rationalism, i. 1-150. 
 
 2 Passive obedience was taught by theologians for centmies from the days of 
 the early Fathers down to the seventeenth century. Grotius, De Jure Belh 
 e,t Pacts, 1. 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. 
 
 " See especially Mariana, De Eegc et Reyis Institntione, 1599. 
 
 * See the authorities quoted in Hallam, Middle Ages, ii. 26 29. "Words- 
 worth, MiH-cllanies, ii. 18. ' 
 
 5 Muratori, Script. Eer. Ital. iii. 448. Decret. Greg. ix. lib. i. tit. 33. 
 
Text-defended Crimes. 41 
 
 treating him ivith a wise dissimulation, that the other 
 heretics may be more easily destroyed." ^ Even the Spanish 
 Inquisition — that infamy of Christendom — appealed to Scrip- 
 tural warrant for the right to immolate its holocausts of 
 victims,^ and the blood-stained Alva received from the Pope 
 a jewelled sword with the inscription, Accipe sanctum gladiimi, 
 munus a Deo. In the days of her persecution the Fathers of 
 the Church had taught mankind that " force is hateful to God ; " ^ 
 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 go.spel 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 
 
 ' " It is remarkable that when the Roman pontiffs, especially Gregory VII. t|- 
 and Innocent III., had any pernicious design to recommend, they were lavish I 
 in their appeals to Scripture." — Taylor. 
 
 ^ " In conclusion the Emperor ordered the Inquisition to make it known 
 that they were not doing their own work, but the work of Christ." What 
 nameless horror this " work of Christ ' ' involved may be read in Motley s ' 
 Dutch Republic, i. 288. 
 
 ^ "Nee religimiis est cogere religionem." TertuUian {Ad Seajndain, 2), 
 Eeligio cogi non potest. Lactantius {Div. Inst. vi. 19). The old rule was 
 
 * Lord Bacon attributes the paralysis of science chiefly to the incubus of }r 
 the theological system. See Novum Orgamtm, i. § Ixv., and there is a similar 
 remark by Kepler in De Martis Stelld. 
 
42 Wresting the Scriptures. 
 
 hackneyed linos — hackneyed from their fatal truthful- 
 ness — 
 
 ' • The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose " : 
 
 1 
 
 or, 
 
 or 
 
 or, 
 
 " In religion 
 What damned eiTor but some sober brow 
 Will bless it and approve it vrith a text, 
 Hiding the gi-ossness with fair ornament ? " 
 
 " Having waste ground enough. 
 Shall we desire to raze the sanctuary, 
 And pitch our evils there ? " 
 
 " Crime was ne'er so black 
 As ghostly cheer and pious thanks to lack. 
 Satan is modest. At Heaven's door he lays 
 His evil oifspring, and in Scripture phrases 
 And saintly posture gives to God the praise 
 And honour of his monstrous progeny " ? 
 
 How then is it possible better to maintain the divine 
 authority of the Holy Scriptures than by pointing out, and by 
 forsaking, the errors whereby men have so often wrested 
 them alike to their own destruction and to the ruin and 
 misery of their fellow men ? How can we better prove their 
 sacredness and majesty than by showing that in spite of sucli 
 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 
 v/e 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, " diledio Dei et 
 
True Use of Scripture. 43 
 
 tnordine ad Beam aliorum Jiominuin." ^ "The fruit of sacred 
 Scripture," said Bonaventura, " is fulness of felicity." ^ " 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." ^ — And this may God grant us all for 
 His Son's sake ! 
 
 Aug. De Gen. ad Litcrcim. 
 
 Bouaventura, Breviloq. Prooem. So Abelard says that the object of the 
 study of Scripture is '•moram instructio ;" and Johu of Salisbury, "ut homo 
 {Polijcrat. vii. 10.) 
 iv. 
 
 seipso melior jugiter fiat. " {T 
 ' Jer. Taylor, Holy Living, 
 
AtoTt Kat vixcls 7rapa(3aLV€Te ttjv ivToXrjV tov Oeov fita ttjv napdbocnv Vfxa>v ; 
 O yap Bfos eVeTctXaro Xe'-yo)!' . . . 'Yfxels he \ey€T€ . . . Kai riKvpaicraT€Tr]v 
 evToXrjv Toii Qecv bia rrjv jrapaboaLv vfxuiv. — MatT. XV. 3—6. 
 
 BXeTTere jxt] tls vfias earai 6 avXaycaycov dia . . . Kfvrjs OTraT-r/? Kara ttjv 
 irapdboaiv Tmv avBooiiroiv. — CoL. ii. 8. 
 
LECTUEE II. 
 
 RABBINIC EXEGESIS. 
 
 " Sot giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn 
 away from the trath. " ' — Tit. i. 14. 
 
 A BOOK needs for the most part but little explana- 
 tiou 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 ^ and the Koran.^ Chairs were founded 
 to comment upon the Divina Gommedia of Dante as early as 
 fifty years after his death,* 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 
 
 oh irpoff^xovres ^lovdatKo7s fj.v6ois Koi ii/ToXaiS avdpuiroiv awo(rrpecj>ofx4vwi' T7]y 
 aX-fiQetaf. Comp. verse 10. Eiol yap ttoWoI . . . fiaraio\6yoi koI {ppsvairdrat, 
 fidXurra ol 4k TrepiTO/i^y. 
 
 - See Muir, Sanscrit Texts, iii. pp. 138-179. 
 
 ^ The Koran has its schools of expositors. The mystics (Karmathai) ; tlie 
 Rationalists (Muotasiliten) ; the scholastic students (MutekcllcmAn). Like the 
 Sopherim, the Sunnites maintain the existence of Tradition (Sunna) ; anil, 
 like tlie Karaites, the Schiites deny it. See Etheridge, Br.hr. Lit. p. 295. 
 
 * 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.^ During the Exile it again fell into com- 
 plete abeyance. In the days of Nehemiah its main provisions 
 were so little observed that their simple rehearsal woke 
 mingled feelings of amazement and remorse.^ 
 
 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.^ 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 
 ofiicial 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 
 
 ' 2Kmg8xxii. 8-15; xxiii. ]-3. 
 
 " Nehem. viii. ix. xiii. 
 
 3 Is. Ixiii. 12 ; Jer. xv. 1 ; Mai. iv. 4. It is only in the third passage that 
 "the law of Moses" is mentioned. Other allusions to "the law of the Lord" 
 are general, as Amos ii. 4, Hos. iv. 6, viii, 1 ; Jer. ix. 13, &c., Zeph. iii. 4. 
 A written law is referred to in Hos. viii. 12, Jer. viii. S. See on the whole 
 subject Smend, Ueler die Genesis d. Judcnthums {Zeitschr. /. alttest. JVissemh. 
 1882). 
 
spirit of the Prophets. 49 
 
 and unmeasured invective.^ But what is most remarkable 
 is their varied and. magnificent protest against the spirit of 
 legahsm, which substitutes outward ordinances for genuine 
 holiness. In urging this theme Samuel, David, Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah, Amos, Micah, Hosea. Habakkuk, use laniTuaa:e 
 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 j'oke 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." ^ " Thou 
 desirest not sacrifice," says David, " else would I give it thee ; 
 but thou delightest not in burnt offerings." * " To what pur- 
 pose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me ? saith the 
 Lord," is the message of Isaiah.* " I hate, I despise your feast- 
 days," is the word of the Lord through Amos.^ " I spake 
 not unto your fathers concerning burnt oilerings and 
 sacrifices," says the word of the Lord in Jeremiah ; " but 
 this thing I commanded them, saying. Obey my voice."'' 
 "What doth the Lord require of thee," asks Micah, "but 
 to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with 
 thy God ? " * "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," ^ was the bold utterance which, however interpreted, 
 almost cost the prophet Ezekiel his place in the Jewish 
 canon,^" Such thoughts were the most direct antithesis to ■ 
 the views and methods of the Scribes. 
 
 ^ See Is. xxviii. 7, 8 ; Ivi 10, 11 ; Jer. iii, 16 ; v. 13 ; Ti. 13 ; vii. 21, 22 ; 
 viii. 10 ; xii. 10 ; xxiii. 11 ; Jizek. xxii. 25, 26 ; Hos. vi. 9 ; Zeph. iii. 
 3, 4 ; iral. ii. 1-10, &c. 
 
 2 Acts XV. 10. 5 1 Sam. xv. 22. * Ps. li. 16. 
 
 ' Is. i. 11. « Amos v. 21, 22. >■ Jer. vii. 22, 23. 
 
 * Mic. vi. 6-9. ^ Ezelt. xx. 25. 
 
 " See Jer. E'p. ad PauHii. Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. c. ix. L. Wogue, Hist, 
 de la Bible, p. 34. "Revere the memory of Chananiah ben Ciiizkij'ah, for 
 liad it not been for him the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed 
 liecause of the contradictions it offers to the word of the law. By tlie Iielp of 
 300 bottles of oil . . . he prolonged his studies till he succeeded in reconciling 
 all the discrepancies." — Shaebatii, 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.' 
 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 in.sight of 
 the answer.^ Nay, if there be not a wilful falsification in the 
 Talmudic records — if the later Eabbis 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." ^ 
 
 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 j)recepts, of which some were "light" 
 and some were "heavy."* It therefore became a frequent 
 question among them, " which was the first and great com- 
 mandment ? " In the tract Shahbath we are told that the 
 most important law was the one about fringes, so that, on one 
 occasion, R. Rabba, having accidentally stepped on and torn 
 his fringe while mounting a ladder, would not move until it 
 had been mended. How little the Jews are ashamed of a 
 judgment so diametrically opposed to the opinions of their 
 mightiest Prophets is shown by the fact that no less a person 
 than Rashi, even in the twelfth century, is still bold enough 
 to repeat that the Law about fringes is the first and great 
 
 other passages of the Talmud cited bj- Hamburger . 9. d. Jeohezkel ; Hershoii, 
 Talm. Miscdl. p. 226. The difficult verse, Ez. xx. 25, is alluded to in McgilU 
 f. 32. 1. 
 
 1 Deut. X, 12. 
 
 ^ Mark xii. 32-34. koI ftinv avT$ b ypaufxaTeiis Ka\Sis, SiSdiTKaKe, k.t.X. 
 
 ' Shabbath, f. 31, 1. It must be borne in mind that " neighbour" usually 
 meant "Jew." Baba Qamma. f. 38, 1, Amsterd. ed. 'Rershoa, Oenesis, 
 p. 370. 
 
 * This was deduced from Gematria, because min = 611, which with "I 
 am" and "thou shalt have no other" = 613. Makkoth, f. 23, 2. 
 
The Founder of Judaism. 51 
 
 commandment.! 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. 
 \''ast revolutions are usually brought about by the genius of 
 one man who concentrates in his own person the energy of 
 Bome 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;^ he 
 who transformed the theocracy into a nomocracy ; ^ 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;* he who based the 
 influence of the Scribe ' on so strong a foundation that it 
 
 ^ Eashi on Num. xv. 39 (following the Talmud, Shevuoth, f. 29, 1) proved 
 his point by Gematria (see infra, p. 98), because the numerical valua 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 (Pesachini, f. 113, 2) 
 and regarded as a churl (am Iia-arets, Berakhoth, f. 47, 2), since he transgi'cssed 
 live positive commands (Menachoth, f. 44, 1). Any one who wore them would 
 have 2,800 slaves to wait on him (Shabbath, f. 32, 2). Eashi proves this from 
 Zech. viii. 23, because there are four fringes, and if 10 men of the 70 nations 
 seize hold of them, 70 X 10 X 4 = 2,800. See Hershon, Talm. Miscellany, 
 p. 260. 
 
 ^ Weill, Lc Judalsmc, i. 58. 
 
 * TrVeber, Altnyn. Thcol. 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, GescJi. d. Israclitcn, Hi. Ewald {Hi^t. of Jsr. v. 53) prefers the 
 term Hagiocracy, i. e. the belief in a Holy Land, a Holy People, &c. 
 
 * 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 " 
 (NUJD fjny D^2^, Baba Bathra, f. 12, 1). In Sanhedrin, 11, the Sliekhinah, 
 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 \\'ise. 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. 
 
 * See the Talmudic references in Herzfeld, Gesch. d. V. hr. i. 126. The 
 Fabbis derived sophcriin from sophar, "to number," because they numbered 
 the letters of the sacred books. Qiddushin, f. 30, 1. This is a mistake 
 (Jost, Gcsch. d. Jsr. iii. 119), though stated by Ellas Levita. The Scribes did, 
 however, number the letters, and found that the 1 in Lev. ix. 42 is the middle 
 
 E -2 
 
52 E::ira. 
 
 overshadowed tlie authority of Prmces,i and caused even the 
 influence of Priests to dwindle into gradual insignificance ; ^ 
 he who was the first to inaugurate the Midrash.s and the 
 Targum;* he who was the traditional propounder of the 
 decisions which form the earliest nucleus of the Mishna;^ 
 the first author of liturgical forms ; ^ the first authoriser 
 of local synagogues ; '' the first collector and editor of the 
 Canon ; ^ 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.' 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.^" The Sopherim, or Scribes, lasted for 138 years, 
 and were succeeded by the ChaJMinim, or the Wise 
 
 letter of the Pentateuch, and the ]1 in Ps. b:xx. 11 the middle letter of the 
 Psalms. 
 
 1 Hillel was the first Eabbi to be called a Prince (Nasi) ; Shabbath, f. 34, 
 1. Comp. Berakhoth, f. 28, 1 ; Schiirer, Ncut. Zeitcjcsdi . 464 ; Weber, 122. 
 
 ^ "The wise " are. called " Priests," though most of them were laymen, in 
 Nedarim, 40. See Shemoth Eabba. 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 ; ISTeh. viii. 4, 9, &c. 
 
 ^ Neliem. viii. 7 ; Ezra vii. 6, 25. The verb daranh, in the sense of "to 
 explain," i.s first found in Ezra vii. 10 ; Nederam, f. ii. 37 ; Weill, i. 69. 
 
 * Weliem. viii. 8 ; xiii. 24. 
 
 ^ Ten ordinances of a trivial nature are attributed to Ezra in Baba 
 Qamma, f. 82, ]. See Waehner, Antiq. Mr. ii. 689. Some of the so-called 
 Halakoth le-Mosheh mi-Sinai certainly came from the school of Ezra. 
 Herzfcld, i. 3. 
 
 " Berakhoth, f. 33 ; Megilla, f. 1 ; Maimonides, Fad Haduizalca, L. i. art. 
 iv. ; Weill (i. 69) mentions the actual prayers. 
 
 ' See Herzfeld, i. 127. 
 
 ■^ 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 Esdra.s, xiv. 21-46), and the Talmud says that he 
 and the men of the Great Synagogue "wrote " tlie Old Testament. 
 
 " 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 Levitio Law. It has been thought that 1 Kings, viii. 1-4, compared ^ith 
 the LXX. , shows traces of Levitic glosses. 
 
 " 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 Sehoraim, or Investigators, and Gaonim, or " Excellent/' 
 for another 400 years, down to the thirteenth century of our 
 era.'- Throughout every one of these Rabbinic bodies, from 
 the foundation of legalism to the close of the schools of the 
 East and West,'^ 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." ^ Legends 
 soon began to cling about his name like clouds about a 
 mountain peak,* 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 
 
 ' See Etheridge, Hebrew Lit. passim ; Otho, Sistoria Dodorum Mithni- 
 corum, pp. 13-32 ; Herzog, s.v. Eabbinismus. Gratz divides the epoclis some- 
 wliat differently (Gesch. d. Juden, iv. 9) : 
 
 The SoPHEKiM, B.C. 458 to E. o. 320. From Ezi-ato the death of Simon 
 
 the Just. 
 The Chakhamim, b.c. 323 toA.n. 13. From Siii'on to tlie death of 
 
 Hillei. 
 The T.VN.Mii, AD. 13 to a.d. 190. From Hillei to the death of 
 
 Rabbi. 
 The Amokaim, a.d. 190 to a.d. 498. From Eabbi to R. Ashi. 
 The Seeokaim, a.d. 498 to a.d. 689. From Jose to Eav 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 E. Saadiah, a.d. 928. 
 
 ^ The Eabbinio schools in the East were dosed in 1040. Under the Sopheiim 
 Mosaism was renewed ; schools were founded ; Targums began ; the scholar 
 became powerful. Under the Chakhamim tradition was developed, and there 
 grew ujj the rival schools of Pharisees and Sadducees. The Tanaim ended 
 their labours by the publication of the Mishna. The Amoraim completed the 
 Geijiara. 
 
 * Sanhedrin, f. 22 ; Tosefta, 4, ib. ; Jer. Megilla, i. 9 ; Weill, LnJudaisme, 
 i. The proof itself depends on the futile Hillelite methods of " equivalence." 
 Moses ^* ascended" to receive the law (Es. xiv. 3); Ezra ^^asccvded" from 
 liabylon (Ezra vii. 6). Therefore the one was as worthy as the other. 
 
 * In the Targum, on Mai. i. 1, and in Megilla, f. 15, 1, he is identified 
 with Malaclii. For other legends, see the books of Esdras ; 4 Esdras viii. 20 ; 
 X. 67-59 ; xiv. 9 ; Koran, Sura. ix. 31 ; Ewald, Bist. of Isr. vi. 164 ; D'Her- 
 belot, Bill. Orient, s.v. Ozair, iii. 89. 
 
51 The Oral Law. 
 
 from the Halaklia; 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,^ 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.^ 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.' 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.* 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 destinies ^ amid the rivalries of Seleucids and 
 
 ' Circvimstances like that mentioned in Ezra iii. 4, can only be accounted 
 for by the fact that Hebrew had practically become a dead language. 
 
 ^ 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 Etliiopian wife of Moses, the marriage of Salmon with Kahali, 
 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. 
 
 ^ Jost, Ocsch. d. Israel., iii. 51. 
 
 * Acts XV. 28. Philo speaks in terms of warm praise of the synagogues 
 and proseuchae. Vil. Mos. p. IfiS (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. 
 
 * Weill, i. 97. In Megilla, f. 12, the words of Moses (Lev. xxvi. 44) are 
 thus explained : " / will not reject them in the Babylonish captivity, wheu 
 
Vitality of Judaism. 55 
 
 Ptolemies.! It defied the bloody persecution of Antiochus. 
 It prevented the Maccabees from overshadowing the Pharisees 
 by a secular dynasty.^ It resisted the subtle fascination of 
 Greece, and could not be crushed even by the iron arm of 
 Rome. It abased the pride of the Herods and the splendour 
 of the Boethusim.^ 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 ofBarkokhba. 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 plagne, 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 ; " 
 
 The Jews were not exterminated by the fanaticism of the 
 Crusades, nor by the proscriptions and massacres of the In- 
 quisition. For 1700 years aft«r the Third Captivity — the 
 Galuth Udom* — 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 alhor them in 
 Hainan's day, when He gave us Mordecai and E.sther ; / will not annihilal. 
 ihem^ under Antiochus Epiphanes, when He gave the Maccabees ; / iinll not 
 break my covena-nt with them in the captivity of Edom {i.e. Rome), when He 
 gave us the house of Kabbi {Judah ha-ncosi) and the wise of succeeding 
 generations. 
 
 ^ The Maccabaean struggle was neither for political freedom, hot pro aris H 
 focis, but for the Law. 1 Maec. ii. 27 ; iii. 21 ; vi. 59 ; 2 Mace. vii. 2, 2'i, 
 30, 37. Antiochus was especially eager to get the fii^xia toC v6ij.ov. 1 Mace. 
 i. 56-58. 
 
 " See the story of Eleazar the Pharisee and John Hyrcanus, Jos. Antt. xiii. 
 10, § 5, and the quarrel of the Pharisees wdth Alexander Jaunaeiis, 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 ; 5. J. 
 ii. 12. 
 
 ' Herod married a daughter of Simon, son of Boetbos, and was in close 
 alliance with the hierarchic families. Jos. AntA. xv. 9, § 3. 
 
 * " Edom " was used in the Talmud as a cypher for Rome (DnN= Dll). 
 
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.' 
 
 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 Proj)hets who had taught them truths which would 
 have made them free — should be followed by a lower order 
 of men ; by Scribes, Pharisees, Eabbis, 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 ynth evil. It produced nothing great in genius, 
 nothing intense in inspiration, nothing profound in tliought, 
 nothing beautiful or noble in literature. One thrilling note 
 
 ' See Wfill, Le JudaUinc, 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 Neiv Idolatry. 57 
 
 of David's harp, one passionate appieal 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.^ What else coidd 
 he expected when " dazzling externalities " had once been 
 substituted for eternal truths ! ^ 
 
 The so-called "Great Synagogue" which Ezra is said to 
 have founded ^ 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,* " Ezra established a fast day 
 
 ' "Weber quotes Moed Qatoa, f. 17, 1 ; Meuachoth, f. 13 ; Beraklioth, f. 19, 
 1 ;^20, 1 ; Chagiga, f. 16 ; Avoda Zara, f. 3 7, 1 ; Sota, f. 7, 1, &c. 
 
 " See the weighty remarks of Ewald, Hist, of Jsr. v. 63. 
 
 ' Krochmal identifies the Great Synagogue with the Assembly of Kotab!es 
 in Neh. x. 1-27. See Aboth, i. l"; 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" {Gcsch. i. 42). See the Excursus in Taylor, Sayings of tlie 
 Ji'tvixh Fathers, pp. 124, 125. 
 
 - Yoma, f. 67 ; AVlUI, 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 tljem 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.^ 
 
 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 whiclr professed to 
 defend it — became the centre of an abject servility.^ 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.' For prophecy there was only the miser- 
 able substitute of the " Daughter of a Voice ; " * for faith the 
 sense of merit acquired by legal exactitude.* The "pious" 
 were hopelessly identified with the party of the Scribes. 
 The Synagogues became schools.* Ethics were sub- 
 
 1 See another curious legend on the same page of Yoma. 
 
 ^ Their one professed object was /ietk aKptfleias i^riyeiaeai tk i'6/iifLa. Jos. 
 Antt. xviii. 2, § i ; B. J. ii. 8, § 14. 
 
 3 The nj-IDK, of God was looked upon only as an HJCX. In thus putting 
 the conception of a Covenant into the forefront, Ezra' anticipated Cocceius 
 by 2,000 years. Ezra ix. 9, 19, 27, 28, 34. 
 
 * The Bath Qol. 
 
 5 How unlike the general tone of the Psalms and Prophets is Kehcmiah's 
 legalistic prayer that God would remember his good deeds ! " The last pure 
 glow of the long day of the Old Testament sun " died out in Mslachi (Ewald, 
 V. 176), and with him perished " the loftiest and most chai-acteristic activity 
 which the Law had permitted in ancient times." 
 
 " 1 Mace. vii. 12. uvvayoiy'ti jpanfj.aTioiv. Comp. 1 C'hron. ii. 55 ; Well- 
 hausen. Die Plutrisdcr u. Hadd. 12. 
 
Pharisaism. 59 
 
 ordinated to Liturgiology.i Messianism was debased 
 into an unmeaning phrase or a materialised fable. ^ The 
 pride of pedantry, despising moral nobleness, and revel- 
 ling in an hypocrisy so profound as hardly to recognise 
 that it was hypocritical," 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.'* 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. 
 
 ^ See Talmudio quototioDS in Weber, 122, and in "Weill, i. 95, fg. 
 
 ' See Excursus 1, Self-glorification of the Kabbis (Waehner, ii. 785, 786, 
 793; Hershon, Gen. 152, 439; Luke xi. 52; Matt, xxiii. 2; Weber, 126, 
 Miracles ; Chiarini, i. 377). 
 
 * They spoke of these as "laymen," Hediots (iSiaJTai) and "boors" 
 Amharatsim. The Hediot (tDVTn) is merely a man who has never become 
 one of " the Wise." He may become an Associate (chaher) 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 buUoeks"), or "people of the land," am-ha-arets, (|'"lXn QV) 
 wis spoken of by the Eabbis 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 (Rcpliaim) arise not." Kabbi 
 refused them corn in a famine (Baba Bathra, f. 8, 2). They are treated as 
 Hars and rogues (J'enaehim, 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 aiaharatsim. 
 See Weber, 45-48 ; McCaul, Old Paths, pp. 458-464. Thus the Pharisees 
 were " Separatists " [Perushim) in the worst sense. 
 
CO Claiming too much. 
 
 Tenakli.i that is the Torah, the Nebiim, and the Khethubim, 
 the Law was practically made to include all the rest.^ It 
 was regarded as eternal^ God himself was supjDOsed to 
 spend three hours daily in its study.* Its mere words and 
 letters were potent as magic formulae. But it was at the 
 same time pretended that the rule (nm-ma 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.^ Claiming too much for the Law the Eabbis 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 Eabbinism 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.^ 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 
 
 ^ Buxtorf, Be Abbrev. s.v. "|3n. See Bretsohneider, Dogmatik d. apocr. 
 Schriften, 64-67. 
 
 ■' See the Book of Baruch, ii. 27-34 ; iii. 37 ; iv. 1, anipasdm, 4 ; Mace. i. 
 16 ; Ecclus. XV. 1 ; xvii. 9. 
 
 3 Wisd. xviii. i ■ Tob. i 6 ; 2 Mace. vi. 23 ; 3 Esd. ix. 39, ka. All sects 
 alike claimed Scripture as their authority. Hamburger, s.v. Bihel. 
 
 ■i So Eabbi Juda asserted in the name of Eab. Avoda Zara, f. 3, 2, 
 
 ' Weill (i. 62) says that the new exegesis which received its impulse from 
 the days of Ezra established "liberty of interpretation," "qui modifle, qui 
 transforme, qui tourne, qui retourne, qui remue le texte biblique." 
 
 ^ The Targum on Judg. v 9 interpolates a pompous eulogy on the Scribes 
 into the song of Deborah 1 The Scribes made it a high misdemeanom- to reject 
 theii' 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" ■^ of the 
 Kabbis made them oracles for every subject and every action, 
 from the cleaning of the teeth to the last prayer in which, 
 the dying commended their souls to God. If any one gave a 
 rule which he had not heard from them the Shekinah de- 
 parted from Israel.^ Their coercion was made yet more terrible 
 by maledictions. " The whole range of action permitted to 
 the Jewish mind was included in the mazes of a vaulted 
 labyrinth from which there was no outlet but through the 
 terrible gate of excommunication," of which the milder forms^ 
 blasted the reputation, and the sterner'' 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.^ 
 
 It was the professed object of the Scribes to exalt and 
 glorify the Law." " The world," says Simon the Just, " stands 
 on three things — the Law, Ritual,'' and Well-doing-," and the 
 Law is significantly put first. " There are three crowns," 
 says the Talmud, " the crown of Royalty, the crown of Priest- 
 hood, and the Crown of the Law, but the latter is of more 
 worth than both the others, and he who has it is as good as 
 if he had all three." " Be circumspect in justice," said the 
 men of the Great Synagogue, " get many pupils, and make a 
 
 ' T^yaO. See tooAboth, iii. 8 ; iv. 13. 
 
 ^ Bei-akhoth, f. 27, 2. See Etheridge, 56, 57; Jost, Gesch. d. Israel, 
 iii. 120. 
 
 •' Ncsipha; niddui. 
 
 ^ dwrem ; Shematta. 
 
 ' 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." 
 
 ^ See Ecclus. sxiv. ; Baruch iv. 1 ; Bereshith Jiabba, c. 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. Mr. ii. 793 ; Weber, p. 55. 
 
 ' mur, Temple-service. Aboth, i. 2. 
 
62 Self-exaltation. 
 
 hedge (j"d) about the Law." i The hedge was made ; its con- 
 struction was regarded as the main function of Rabbinism ; ^ it 
 excluded all light from without and all egress from within ; but 
 it was so carefully cultivated that the shrine itself was totally 
 disregarded.^ The Oral Law was first exalted as a necessary 
 supplement to the Written Law; then substituted in the 
 place of it ; * 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.^ " The voice of the Rabbi is as the 
 voice of God." ^ " He who transgresses the words of the 
 Scribes throws away his life." " Scripture is like water, 
 the Mishna like wine; the Gemara like spiced wine.' 
 
 1 Siphri, 40, a. ; Aboth, iv. 17 ; Yoma, f. 72 ; Weber, Alt. Theol. 39 ; Weill, 
 i. 96. 
 
 - Lev. xviii. 30. "Make a mishmercth to nry mishmereth." Yebamotl 
 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." 
 
 " 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. 
 
 * The divinity of the Oral Law, or " Law upon the Mouth " ( Thora shebeal 
 Pi) 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 Saehazaka of Maimonides, and his comment on Sanhedriii, c. 10. 
 The word "mouth" (A.V. "tenor") in Ex. xx.xiv. 27 was explained to 
 refer to the Oral Law. Aboth, i. 1 ; Weill, iii. 262-266. In Ex. xxiv. 
 12, they say that the five clauses refer to (1) The Decalogue, (2) The Thora, (3) 
 The Mishna, (4) The Khethubin, (5) The Gemara, which were all taught to 
 Moses on Sinai ! The term, " Law on the Jlouth," i.e. Oral Law, is fouiid 
 very early. Zunz, Gottesd. Vortrdge, 45. 
 
 * To prove this they quoted Scripture for their purpose. Thus in Ecoles. 
 xii. 12 they altered DnSp, "books," into DnS'lD, "scribes," and Jn?, 
 "study," into vh, "derision." 'Erubin, f. 21, 2. In Eccl. x. 8, we find 
 " whoso breaketh a hedge, a serpent shall bite him." Now the words of 
 the wise are a hedge to the law, and the bite of a serpent is incurable. 
 Shabbath, f. 110, 1. On the other hand, as Rashi says, the punishment ol 
 death is not threatened to many of the commands and prohibitions of the 
 law. Comp. Berakhoth, f. 4, 1. Aqiba was ready to die of thirst rather thaii 
 to neglect " the words of the wise " by not washing his hands before eating. 
 
 « 'Erubin, i. 21. 
 
Fetish-worshi]^ becomes Casuistry. 63 
 
 "The Scripture is as salt, the Miahna as pepper, the 
 Gemara as spice." ^ " 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." ^ " 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.' * " Words of Scribes," said Rabbi 
 Johanan, " are akin to words of the Law, and more beloved." * 
 It will be seen how easy was the stop 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 untU 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 Israehtes, 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.^ 
 
 ' Sopherim, f. 15, 2. Comp. Vayikra Eabba, c. 36. 
 
 ' Chagiga, f. 10, 1. 
 
 ' '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. 
 tiee these and other quotations in "Weber, I. c. 102-106 ; ^Yeill, i. 91 ; Cliia- 
 rini, Theorie du Judmsmc, i. 202-206. 
 
 * in. Sota, f. 22, 1. 5 Berakhoth, f. i. 7. 
 
 " Sanhedrin, f. 55, 56. "WhoeTer says that Reuben, the sons of Samuel, 
 David, and Solomon, have sinned is decidedly in en-or." Sanhedrin, f. 
 55, 56. See all the original passages of the Talmud quoted in Weber, Altsyn. 
 Theel. 55, 56. 
 
64 Eabhinie Casuistry. 
 
 Nor is this all : the exegesis of the Scribes not only re- 
 versed the history oi Scripture, but, as our Lord said, deliber- 
 ately set aside the plain meaning of the laws which they 
 professed to deify. We have ab-eady 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," ^ found it easy 
 to nullify the fundamental ilosaic provision of the Sabbatic 
 year. "He did it," saj-s 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.^ 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 whict 
 they pretended all the while to regard as infi.nitely sacred, was 
 an encouragement to the grossest hypocrisy, and can only be 
 classed with the transparent frauds of an ignorant Paganism.^ 
 
 Even where the Rabbinic misinterpretations were only 
 theoretical they were marked by the same sacrifice of the 
 sf)irit 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."* "There was," says 
 the Talmud, " an unimpeachable discijile at Jabne who could 
 adduce a hundred and fifty arguments in favour of the clean- 
 
 ^ Gittin, V. ,5. Derived from Trpls ^ov\r\ {irpec^vrepaiv). 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 
 Edersheira, 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 receim 
 it ! It utterly nullified Deut. xv. 2. Even the Rabbis were startled by this 
 sacrifice of the Mosaic law to convenience. Jost, Judcnlh. i. 266. See 
 Hamburger II. s.v. FrosTml. It was nothing more than praevaricatio—i 
 collusive agreement. 
 
 2 Lev. XXV. 29, 30 ; Erachin. ix. 4. See Derenbourg, p. 189. 
 
 2 Luzzato not only admits that the Rabbinic scholars did violence to the 
 natural sense, but even says that this was done on the principle of "preferring 
 general utility to exegetic verity." He quotes Cicero {dc Jumnt. i. 38), 
 " Omnes leges ad commodum reip. referri oportet, et eas ex utilitate communi, 
 non ex scriptione, quae in Uteris est, interpretari. " 
 
 * Sanhedrin, f. 64, 2 ; Chiarini, ii. 229. 
 
Chiefs of the Schools. 05 
 
 neSs of creeping things?." i " No one is appointed a member 
 of the Sanhedrin who is not ingenious enough to prove from 
 the Law that a creejDing thing is ceremonially clean." - " God 
 so gave the Law to Moses that a thing may be pronounced 
 clean or unclean in forty-nine different ways." ^ 
 
 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 ; * 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 ; ^ his famous summary of the whole law under 
 the rule of love to our neighbour .^ 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 develoj)ments of the Oral Law. Hence, 
 
 ^ 'Enibin, f. 13, 2. 
 
 - Sanhedrin, f. 17, 1. Quoted inHershon's Genesis, p. 54. 
 ' Tliis latter quotation is from the post-Talmudic tract, Sopherim, o. 16 ; 
 and it is proved (!) from Cant. ii. 4, because in that verse (hy Gematria) the 
 
 word 173ni = 49. See Pesikhta Rabbathi, f. 23, 1 ; Eisenmenger, Eiiid. Jud. 
 i. 454 ; Deyling, Ols. Sacr. iii. 140. 
 
 "* N^C*J {Tiyovfiivos). 
 
 ° Bitsa, f. 20, 1. Hillel and Slianimai 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" (Damhan). 
 
 * On this see Tob. iv. 16 ; Jost, Judcnth. i. 259. 
 
 F 
 
66 Hillel. 
 
 like Ezra, he is called a restorer of the Law,i 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,^ and he must be regarded as the earliest founder 
 of the Talmudic system.^ The Jews themselves deplored the 
 bitter and sterile confusion which began in his school and 
 that of Shammai* 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." ^ 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 Suklca, 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 remarkahle story 
 of his elevation to the presidency of the schools is related in Pesachim, f. 66, 
 1 (Hershon, Genesis, p. 327). The Sanliedrin is first mentioned under 
 Hyrcanus II. (Jos. Antt. xiv. 9), hut may be referred to in 2 Maco. i. 8, 10; 
 iy. a ; xi. 27. 
 
 ^ The patriarchs of the house of Hillel were, according to Hamburger {s.v. 
 Nassi) : 1. Hillel. 2. Eabban Simeon. 3. Eabban Gamaliel I. 4. Rabbau 
 Simeon II. 5. Rabban Gamaliel II. of Jabne. 6. Eabban Simeon III. of 
 Sepphoris. 7. Ealibi(Judah Hakkodesh). 8. E.Gamaliel III. 9. R. Judah II. 
 10. ]!. Gamaliel IV. 11. R. Judah III. 12. E. Hillel 11. 13. E. Gamaliel V. 
 14. E. Judah IV. 1.5. Gamaliel VI. He is called Bat rem., "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. 
 
 ^ On the life and work of Hillel, see Budaeus, Philos. Sbr. 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, 
 Gcschichtsbildcr, 19-29. The chief Talmudic passages about his life and 
 doings are Berakhotli, 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 Eabba, c. 33, 98. See Fiirst, EuUur und Lit. pp. 11-15. 
 The schools of Hillel and Shammai only produced two books, the Megillatli 
 Taanith, and a book about the Maccabees (M. Beth Hasmonaim) no longer 
 extant. 
 
 * The Kazarenes applied Is. viii. 14, "He shall be ... for a stone of 
 .stumbling to loth the houses of Israel," to the schools of Hillel and Shammai, 
 "quod, per traditiones et S6t;T€pci(reij suas, Legis praecepta dissipaverint atque 
 mutaverint ; et has esse duas domes quae Salvatorem non receperint." Jer. 
 ad loc. 
 
 ■' "Jesus . . . war ein Pharisaer der auch in den Wegen Hillcl's ging."— 
 Gciger, Bas Juelenlh. i. 117. "Hillel soheint seiu Vo'rbild und Musterbild 
 gewesen zu seyn." — Friedlander, GeschichUbilder, p. 32. "Hillel fut le 
 vrai maitre de Jesus." — Eenan, Vie de Jesus, p. 35. 
 
Shamniai. 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.i 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.^ 
 
 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 
 
 ' See especially the right rendering of Mark vii, 19. 
 
 ' On this question see Delitzsch, Jesus und SiUcl; Ewald, Gesch. v, 12— 13 ; 
 Keim, Jesu von Nazara, i. 268-272. 
 
 ' 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 he injured. Here we have the fundamental 
 opposition hetween Judaism and Chiistianity. 
 
 F 2 
 
68 Johanan Ben Zakhai. 
 
 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.^ The very principles at stake between the two 
 schools Avere 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 Bex Zakkai were more 
 practical and real .2 He was one of the greatest of the piipils 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 viay devour thy ecdars' " ^ 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,* that they were inaugurating a power which should 
 
 1 On tMs paragraph see Jost, Judcntlium, i. 260 ; Gesch. d. Isr. iii. 118 ; 
 Yom tob, f. 63 ; Jer. Shaljbath, f. 61 ; f. 17, 1 ; f . 33 ; 'Erubin, f. 13, 2 ; 
 Sukka, f. 28, 1 : Maimonides on Abotli, 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, GcschieMshiUcr, 28. 
 
 3 Is. s. 34; Midi-ash Koheleth, 64 ; Gittin, f. 56 ; Aboth Rabbi Kathan, 4; 
 Gratz, iv. 13. 
 
 * .labne, the ancient Jabueel, 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 Johcumn. 69 
 
 long outli-s'e 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.^ Johanan, like Jeremiah after the destruction 
 of the First Temple, liad 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 imconsumed. 
 
 The study of the Law became once more a rallying ground 
 for the race. Seated on his high chair with his " Associates " ^ 
 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." ^ In- 
 flexible in the midst of crushing disaster, formed on the best 
 teachings of Hillel,* Johanan became the Gains 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." ^ He said that the reason why no iron instrument 
 
 ^ Jost, Judcnth, i. 6. Fiirst says that the canon was developed hetween 
 B.C. 585-300 ; tradition and Jewish theology between B.C. 300-32. Heplaced 
 the most direct influence of Babylonish studies (Hillel, Chija, Nathan) between 
 B.C. 32 and a.d. 68. 
 
 ^ Cliaberim. ^ Isaac Disraeli. 
 
 * See Aboth, i. 12-14 ; ii. 5-7. 
 
 * Aboth of Eabbi Nathan, 4 ; Gittin, f. 56, 1. It was natural that from 
 this time should date the intense hatred of the Jews to heathendom, which 
 was repaid with a hatred equalh' intense. Henceforth the Jews and the 
 Pagans each acquired in the Jewish schools their cliaraeter indelibilis as 
 respectively the friends and the enemies of God. The world becomes "the 
 kingdom of wickedness" (iirti'in mo^D), and every Pagan a "suspect" 
 (TlK'n), mere straw and chaff. Samuel the Little introduced a curse against 
 heathens. Christians, &c. (Minim = heretics) into the "18 Benedictions" 
 (Shemone Esre). See Jer. Bcrakhoth, iv. 3 ; Weber, 148, 64-72 ; Zuuz, Gottesd. 
 Vortrage, 367 ; Derenbom'g, 345. The large-heartedness of E. Johanan to the 
 heathen appears from his explanation of Prov. xiv. 10 to mean that mercy is 
 the saciiiioe 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 ; " '^ 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." ^ 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.^ He largely developed a style of teaching which 
 was more adapted than the Halakha for the consolation 
 needed by such troublous days.* 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 daj's 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 eood works were 
 an atonement dearer to the Eternal than the sacrifices which 
 they could no longer offer.^ 
 
 1 Beth Hammidrash. Specimens of Johanan's exegesis are given in Qiddn- 
 shin, p. 22, &c. See Friedlander, Gesch. p. 39. 
 
 ^ Zech. ii. 5. s jygj^ Judenthum, ii. 72. 
 
 * Griitz, iv. 19 ; R. Eliezer ben Jose developed the thirty- two rules for the 
 Haggada. 
 
 ° On the great work of R. Johanan, see Gratz, iv. 10-27, 322-324 ; Deren- 
 hourg, 276-302; Etheridge, 55; Weill, i. 86-89; Jost, Judcnthnm, 13-25 1 
 Hamburger II. s.v. Jochanan Sohn Sakai ; Friedlander, Geschichtshilder, 36- 
 44. It is said that Titus spared the life of Gamaliel II. at his reijuest. In 
 
Aqiba. 71 
 
 4. The greatest of the Tanaites ^ 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 f)lain meanino- 
 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.^ His chief master. Rabbi 
 EKezer, 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. 1 2, " 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, 
 " stiU 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 tliis arbitrary fashion ? " 
 " Aqiba," exclaimed R. Jose with still more bitter severity, 
 
 the work of consolation lie was aided by R. Joshua, who dissuaded his fellow 
 Eabbis 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 Kimrod, Isaac by the Philistines, Jacob 
 by Esau, Joseph by his brethren, Jloses by Pharaoh, Daviii Viy Saul, Israel by 
 many nations — and the Jlerciful God ever chose the persecuted ! " 
 
 ^ Learners. □'N3n is the Chaldaic form of D'JItJ'. 
 
 ^ The Mishna of Rabbi Aijiba is no longer extant, though it was known 
 to E]iiphanius. The Jews distinguished it as a new Mishna (31, acharona) 
 as distinguished from the older Mixhna rishona. Among other helps to 
 memory he arranged things in numbers. " Four sins deserve death ; " " Five 
 classes of men cannot become priests," cStc, &c. See Pirke Aboth v. and 
 Aboth of E. Nathan, xviii. 
 
72 Legends of Aqiha. 
 
 " liow long wilt thou make the face of the Shekhinah 
 profane ? " ^ 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 
 languao-e," and that its terms are not to be literally pressed.^ 
 
 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 Proseljrte, 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 ; ^ 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 i^ity in the days when she wept to pick the chaff from 
 liis 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." * 
 
 When he died by heroic martyrdom, with the prolonged 
 word One (inn) from the Daily Prayer on his lips, a " Daughter 
 
 ' 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 E. Jose, to 
 ])ut the Messiah on a level with God was to render the Shekhinah profane. 
 See Hershoii, Gejiesis, p. 22, 
 
 ^ He recognised that the language of .Scripture is sometimes hyperbolical 
 
 (SDtlJ), asin Deut. i. 28. He expressed the rule thus : ]wh mifl 11131 
 'Snn. The latter seems to be the Greek word T)Baii, and the rule means that 
 sometimes a passage is not literally true. 
 
 ^ Aqiba confessed to his disciples that in his am haarets days he would 
 gladly have torn a Rabbi with his teeth ! That he was grateful to Kachel 
 appears from his saying that "he is rich who has a wife full of good works." 
 Shabbath, f. 25, 2. 
 
 '' The T.ilmud abounds in references to Aqiba. Pesaohim, f. 49, 2, fee, 
 quoted by Gratz, Jost, &e. Hershon, Genesis, pp. 274, 275. The legends 
 and facts of his life may be gathered from Nedarim, f. 50, 1 ; Aboth of K. 
 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.-*- 
 
 But they paid him the yet higher compliment of adopting 
 the whole of his amazing system.^ He taught them, and 
 even Christians appear to have sanctioned his views, — that " as 
 a hammer di-vides fire into many sparks, so every verse of 
 Scripture has many explanations." ^ 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." * 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 " * or " also," ® or sign of case,^ 
 these are always to be specially interpreted.* 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 ^ the lion, also -"* 
 the bear," the meaning (by the rule of " inclusion after inclu- 
 sion)" 11 is that he slew three animals besides. If it is written 
 
 ^ They said that he "was the only Rabbi "who succeeded in entering Paradise 
 ahve. Menachoth, f. 29, 2. On his martyrdom by having his flesh torn 
 a-way 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 T of inH for half a minute. 
 
 - They combined it with the more logical system of his friendly rival, E. 
 Ishmael, who only allowed three passages in which etJi was significant. San- 
 hedrin, f. 51, 1 ; Gratz, iv. 61 ; Jost, Judenth. ii. 74. Of the other Eabbis of 
 this period, Gamaliel II. was an organiser, Eliezer a pure traditionalist, and 
 K. Joshua a via media scholar. 
 
 ^ See Jer. xxiii. 29. This Rabbinic fiction of a TmiUiplex senuus dominated 
 throughout the Middle Ages, and down to very recent times. It led, among 
 other mischievous results, to what was known in the Post-Eeformation epoch 
 as the empAoiic 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 explainiug 
 it. (In the Machser for Pentecost, p. 69, ap. Hershon, Talmudic Miscell. 11.) 
 See Ecclus. ixiv. 29. 
 
 * nO'C'B n'» KVV Knpon ]"<». Shabbath, f. 63, 1. The Eabbis 
 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 (min? D'3Q 'IJ). Low, p. 65. 
 
 * MegiUa, f. 19, 2. This rule is called ♦13"l, or " Iiiclusion." See Dr. 
 Ginshurg, s.v. Midiash in Kitto's Cyclopcsdia, 
 
 " T)<$ D^ 1" Q|. " *m -inN •'in. 
 
74 Tittle-worship. 
 
 that God visited Sarah, ^ it means that with her He visited 
 other barren women. Analogous explanations by the rule of 
 " exclusion " ^ were attached to every superfluous " only " ' 
 and "from."* 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," * gave up Aqiba's theory, 
 because in this phrase nothing else but God could be imphed. 
 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 " ! '^ Thus in the system of the Tanaites " nought 
 is everything and everything is nought." 
 
 But Aqiba went still farther. He not only explained every 
 particle and copula, but said that there was a mystic meaning 
 in every letter of Scripture, and in every horn ' and letter- 
 flourish of every letter, "just as in every fibre of an ant'.s 
 foot or a gnat's wing." ^ The Eabbis delighted to tell how 
 
 1 nX'-ni*. 2 tDWD. 3 •qN or \>-\. * ip. 
 
 ^ 'n"nx. Deut. X. 20. Mystic significance was attached to the particle 
 nX, because the two letters are the a and to of the Hebrew alphabet. Dr. 
 Ginsburg refers to Eashi on Num. vi. 13. 
 
 ^ Pesachim, f. 22, 1. For other instances, see AYeber, AUsyn. Theol. 119. 
 Aqiba is said to have borrowed the notion of this " emphatic " style of inter- 
 pretation from his teacher, K. Nahura of Giniso. Jost, Judcnthtim, ii. 69. 
 Practically the same rule is followed by Philo {TrepiTTiiv ivoixa ouSeV, De Prof 
 4,58), only he applied to ethics and philosophy what Aqiba applied to the 
 Halakha. See Gratz, iv. 458; Her.shou, &'cii(!Sis, p. 280. When the pupils of 
 Pi,. Nehemiah asked what became of all his other explanations of the case-sign 
 if the theory was to be abandoned, he said, " As 1 have secured a reward by 
 the expositions, so shall I by their abandonment." The story is sometimes 
 attributed to a R. Simon. 
 
 ' These rcepami are such little horns and tips of letters as distinguish 
 1 from ^, 3 from 3, n from n. The Jews said. If any one, in Iieut. vi. 4, 
 changes -\ into -|, he shakes the universe, for he makes God false ("inS) instead 
 of One. If in Lev. xxii. 32 he changes PI into n, he shakes the universe, for lie 
 
 says, " Ye shall not praise " (177nnn) for " Ye shall not profane ("bhrWi) tlie 
 name of the Lord." Vaj'yikra Kabba, f. 162, 1. 
 
 8 These signs on letters are called "crowns" (D'in3, apicex, virgulae 
 supra litoras notatae. Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. 1111); "points" (nnp3) and 
 •'thorns " (O'Vlp). These are purely graphic signs. Some words are "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 Vn'pb'l, " and he kissed 
 him ; " the points are explained to mean that in kissing him he tried to bite 
 him, but Jacob's neck was changed into marble, so that Esau's teeth were 
 
Aqiha and Moses. 75 
 
 "many rules unknown to Moses were declared by Aqiba." 
 In one Rabbinic legend Moses sees tbe Holy One attaching 
 crowns (o^nns) to the letters of tbe 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." ^ 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) tbe words {chrbn 
 Vnwp) were explained to mean that from every " thorn" (flp), 
 or letter-point, whole "mountains" (I'b'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 ! ^ In this region of futile and fantastic 
 illusion Aqiba reigned supreme.^ 
 
 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 Babbis for mystic meanings.* 
 The two Yodss in nV"'^- ("and He formed," Gen. ii. 7) 
 
 blnnted ("Wiinsclie, Sereschith Sahbi, p. 383 ; Aboth of R. Nathan, c. 34). 
 In Gen. xix, S3, the 1 in nD1p3-1 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 incrediUle." See another instance in Gen. xviii. 9 (Hershon, 
 p. 309). See the introduction to Olshausen on the Psalms. 
 
 ^ 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 wiD. Eeqnesting 
 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 ; 
 Hershon, Genesis, i. 
 
 ^ Midrash, &'hir SassTiirim, x. 11 (Wiinsche, p. 139) ; 'Erubin, f. 21, 2. 
 
 ' Hirschfeld, HalaeTi. Exegese, § 312 ; "Weber, AUsyn. Theol. 117 
 
 ' "Waehner, Antiqq. Elr. i. 105. 
 
 ^ Qiddushin, f. 30, 1 ; Buxtorf, Tiberias, i. 18, pp. 42-45. In Lev. xi. 42, 
 the larger 1 in the word JIPI^ indicates that it is the middle letter of the Pen- 
 tateuch, and the suspended ]1 of ^U'D in Ps. Ixxx. 14^ that it is the middle 
 letter of the Psalms. 
 
76 Fantastic Exegesis. 
 
 where one ^vould have sufficed, indicate the two impulses 
 — the good and evil impulses in man.^ The word " the in- 
 crease," (naiD), in Is. ix. 6, is, by the scribe's inadvertence, 
 written with a closed or final Mem, and this is explained to 
 mean that God meant to make Hezekiah into the Messiah, and 
 Sennacherib into Gog and Magog ; but the Attribute of Judg- 
 ment pleaded that this would be unfair to David, and so the 
 counsel was closed.^ In Haggai i. 8, " and I will be glorified " 
 (na3Nl), 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 TJrim and 
 Thummim, the sacred fire, and the Spirit of Prophecy — would 
 be wanting to the second Temple.^ 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.* The Rabbis are concerned to explain the fact that 
 io one of the alphabetic Psalms (Ps. cxlv.) there is no verse 
 which begins with the letter n (j).^ The reason is, said 
 Rabbi Johanan, because there is a verse in Amos (v. 2) 
 which begins with this letter, and predicts the irretrievable 
 fall of Israel ! Sometimes a fantastic change of reading was 
 made the basis of a mystic explanation. Thus, in Gen. ii. 4, 
 by a slight change, for "when they were created," the Talmud 
 gets " He created them with the letters n and » " (the two 
 
 1 Ye.tscr ha-rd and Vdser hatlob, Berachoth, f. 61, 1. Other Eabbis ex- 
 jilained the two yods to refer to Adam and Eve ; to earth and heaven ; to this 
 world and the next. Bereshith Kahba 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. 
 
 ^ Sanhedrin, f. 94, 1. Probably the closed D was due to a mere clerical 
 error. 
 
 " Yoma, f. 21, 2 ; Waehner, ii. 645 ; Prideaux, Connection, i. 162-178. 
 
 * Shahlath, f. 88, 1 ; Aboda Zara, f. 3, 1 ; Hershon, p. 77. For fm'tlier 
 instances, see Sanhedrin, f. 103, 2 ; Bdba Bathra, f. 109, 2 ; Dopke's Ecr- 
 mcneutilc. 
 
 ' Probably the verse is accidentally lost, for in the LXX. there is a verse 
 which would in Hebrew begin with 3. This verse in Amos was so disagreeable 
 to the Rabbis that in reciting it they substituted " the foil [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." 
 
Barlcohliha. 77 
 
 letters of His name, Jah), and proceeds to explain that tbe 
 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.i The world to come was formed with the little letter 
 ' to show how few should be saved. ^ 
 
 In exegesis of this kind indefinitely multiplied, the great 
 Rabbi spent his days.^ 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.'' 
 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 
 
 J Menachoth, f. 29, 2 ; Hersbon, Genesis, p. 92. 
 
 - See Is. xxvi. 4, (rendered), " For with ,Tah Jehovah formed the world." 
 In the modem Jewish Liturgy the Ineffable Kama is usually written 
 with two Ycds (*') ; in the Liturgy of the Karaites it is written with three 
 letters ('V). 
 
 ^ The five precepts which he gave to E. Simon hen Jcchai 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. Teach yonr 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. 
 
 ' Ho 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, i. QQ, 1. Modern Jews explain away this passage. 
 Jost, Judenthurn, 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, Judenthurn, ii. 62. 
 
78 Fate of Aqiba. 
 
 the strange Elias of a ferocious and nameless rebel.i Ho 
 hailed Barkokhba as the Star of Balaam's vision, as the pro- 
 raised 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 Bether^ 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." ^ 
 
 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." * Before the 
 ten martyr Rabbis of the rebellion had died they had 
 
 ^ Jewish revolts of the most sanguinary character had broken out in 
 Cyprus, Egypt, Gyrene, and Babylonia, and it has been conjectured that 
 Aqiha's extensive travels may have had something to do with them. Joat, 
 Judenth. ii. 66. On Barkokhba's rebellion see Dion Cass. Ixix. 12-14 ; 
 Gratz, iv. 157-197. His name was Simon, and if Bar Koziba was his real 
 name it may mean that lie was born at Kezib. 
 
 2 Bf99jjpa, Euseh. H. E. iv. 6. Now BrAUr six miles S.S.W. of Jerusalem. 
 William's Holy City, i. 209. 
 
 3 On Aqilm and his work, see Gratz, iv. 53-66, 148-166, 427-431 ; Jost, 
 Judentlmm, ii. 69-83 ; Derenbourg, e. xxiv. ; Munk, Palestine, 605-606 ; 
 Etheridge, Eelr. Lit. 66-76 ; Hamburger II. s.nj. Bar Eochha ; Milman, 
 Hist, of the Jews, ii. bk. xviii. ; Friudlauder, GeschieTitshilder, pp. 68-81; 
 Fraukel, Zeitsehr. iii. &c. ; and the numerous interesting particulars of Hs 
 life in Mr. Hershon's Genesis, and other Talmudic collections. His anticipa- 
 tion of the Mishna is mentioned by Epiphanius and he is alluded to by 
 Jerome, In Ecd. iv. 13. 
 
 ""Ecc. i. 5 ; Qiddushin, f. 72. 2. The assertion is not historically true, tat 
 represents the idea of the Rabbinic succession. 
 
Rabhi Juda. 79 
 
 conferred ordination on sviccessors who retired to Usfsa. 
 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/ 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, E. 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 
 Mcijillath Sdharim, or " secret roll." ^ It had been a rule of 
 the Rabbis that what had been delivered orally was only to 
 he 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.* By 
 this time, however, it had become an impossibiKty 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, arran<red under the six 
 
 ' See Gratz, iv. 193, 195, 257, 470. Symmachos, the Greek translator, was 
 one of his pupils. 
 
 Josephu.s and PMlo refer to it as TrapaSotris &ypa(pos, and tccv iraT^pwv 
 5m5ox<i. In Matt. xv. 2-6 the Oral Law is called irapaSiais tSiv TrpeafivTepaiv 
 (comp. Mark vii. 3-13). St. Paul pointedly speaks of "the tradition of men," 
 
 Col. ii. 8 (niaxn miDD). 
 
 ' Gittin, f. 60, 2. These written notes were meant to be mere private 
 memoranda for the teacher's own use. 
 * Hurwitz. For the rale see Luw, 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.^ 
 
 His compilation was called " The Mishna," " learning," or 
 " Repetition," from Shanah {tana), " to learn," or " repeat." 
 It acquired an iniluence truly secular. It summed up the 
 labours of four centuries.^ The Oral Law ^ 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 ; * 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, Eabbenu, Rabbi Eabba. Although Rabbi's viola- 
 tion of the accepted rule {Gittin, f. 60) is quite defensible, the same cannot 
 be said of the distorted exegesis by which it was defended. This was by 
 making Ps. cxix. 126 (" It is time for thee. Lord, to lay to thine hand, for they 
 haye destroyed thy law") mean "When we work for God we may break His 
 law." See BeraTchoth, 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. 
 
 " Mishna (SeuTepojcris, Epiphan.) is derived from ''3C, not from rUK*, "the 
 repeated." Thus Deuteronomy is called " Mish-nah Thorah." The names 
 Mikra (what is read) for scripture and Mishna for .tradition are ancient. See 
 Griitz, iv. 419-422 ; Deutsch, Ecmains, p. 17. 
 
 ' First collected by E. Aqiba, enlarged by his pupil, R. Meir, and finally 
 published by Rabbi (see Epijihan. JSaer. i. 2, 9). It consists of Hillel's sii 
 orders (Sedarim), sixty-three tractates (Massildoth), and 524 chapters. Eabbi 
 unfairly suppressed the names of E. Nathan and R. Meir, because they once 
 tried to undermine the haughty authority of Rabbi's father, E. Simeon 111. 
 R. Nathan is quoted by the formula "some say," and Meir's decisions 
 are alluded to by the formula " others say " (D'lDIN D'lriN). See Waehner, 
 i. 283. The additional collections of R. Chija, Bar Kappara, &c., were called 
 Toacfta, which consists of fifty-two treatises and 383 chapters. Low, p. 77. 
 
 ■• In his famous thirteen rules. See Friedliinder, I.e. pp. 76-79. 
 
The WorJc of Rahbi. 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 Eenaissance, nor the Eefor- 
 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.i 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.^ 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.* The 
 
 ^ Pea, ii, h ; Yaddaim, iv. 3 ; Aboth, ad init. 
 
 = 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 measiu'ements 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. 
 
 ' 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" (phakam) nor Deputy 
 [Ah BUh Dtn) under him, but was " the first spiritual autocrat." 
 
 * The Jerushalmi represents traditionalism rather than development, and 
 hence is less valued. With the Targums of Onqelos and Ben Uzziel, the 
 Mishna, Tosephta, MekhUtha, Siphra, Siphri, and Pesikhtha, together with 
 traces in Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, it forms 
 the Primary Ti-adition. 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 Babit 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 
 Ions studies and discussions of the Jewish schools, " the fierce 
 lightnings which shook the rafters " of Nehardea, Sora, and 
 Pumbeditha.3 In the work of the Palestinian and Baby- 
 lonian academies, Edzard sees the fulfilment of Zechariah's 
 vision of the flying roll.* The Gentiles possessed the Law in 
 Greek, but in the Mishna and Gemara the Jews boasted that 
 they possessed the secret, without which the Law was value- 
 less. They openly made more use of the Talmud than of 
 the Bible, preferring their broken cisterns to the waters that 
 spring from the living rock. 
 
 7. It is no part of my purpose to glance at the farther 
 labours of the Saboraim (A.D. 500-650), and the Gaonim ;^ or 
 to follow the devious stream of mediaeval Rabbinism." What- 
 ever may have been the special services to Jewish theology 
 
 1 Talmud, "Learning," or "Teaching." See Bartolocci, Bibl. Bdbb. iii. 
 359. The commonest edition of the Talmud is that of Bomherg (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 Babl! 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. 
 
 ' 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 (E. 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 teachera, 
 see Fiii-st, EuUur-gescJi. pp. 63-197. 
 
 •* Zech. v. 1-4 ; Pref. to Berakhoth ; see Chiarini, ii. 41. 
 
 ^ Saboraim, "investigators," from iSctiar, "to observe." Gaonim, "excel- 
 lent," was the title taken by the heads of the college at Sora, and Eabbanim 
 by those at Pumbeditha. See Maimonides, Pref. to Yad Hachazaka. 
 
 « Griitz divides this period into that of scientific Rabbinism in Spain (1040- 
 1230), and one-sided Rabbinism down to Moses Mendelssohn (1230-1780). 
 See the Excursus. 
 
3Iediaeval Rabbis. 83 
 
 of Rashi the " Exegete;" of Ibn Ezra ;1 of Maimonides, " the 
 Eagle of the Rabbis," ^ and "the Light of the West;"^ 
 of Simeon Haddaeshan ; * of the Qimchis, David and 
 Moses ; * of Abrabanel ; <= and of others — these all of them 
 continue the essential principles of Rabbinic exegesis, al- 
 though in forms more scientific and philosophical. Maimo- 
 nides may indeed be regarded as the founder of Jewish 
 Rationalism, the first who strove to harmonise science 
 with religion. As such he was anathematised by his 
 stricter countrymen. But it is not till the days of Moses 
 Mendelssohn that a breath of true renovation begins to 
 pass over the valley in which for so long a period the 
 bones had been so dry. Nor again will it be possible here to 
 speak of the Karaites ^ — 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.^ 
 
 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) ? 
 
 ^ See Buxtorf, De Abbrematuris, p. 170. "Parshandatha," was explained 
 to mean " intei'preter of the law." He died A.D. 1102. He commented on 
 the entire Old Testament. His comments on gi'ammar, and the literal 
 sense were full of value, hut he follows the Talmud and the Midi'ashim. 
 
 - Ibn Ezra, born at Toledo, A.D. 1092, died in Rome, 1107. He is a Tal- 
 mudist, but ^rith some Karaite leanings. 
 
 ' Eambam. E. Moses ben Maimon, bom 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 ofi'ended many Jews. " He was the speculative parent of Spinoza 
 and of Mendelssohn." Milman, iii. 151. 
 
 ' Author of the Jalqut SMinemii, a Midrashic commentary on the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 ' David Qimchi's comments are chiefly grammatical. The grammar of 
 Moses Qimchi (Darki LesJicn Bakkodesh, Way to the Holy Language) was of 
 great use to the early Humanists and Eeformers. The Jews said of David's 
 labours, "No law without the miller" (qibemadi), playing on the name 
 Qimchi. 8 Don Isaac Abrabanel, bom 1436, died 1507. 
 
 ' They are said to date from the days of Shemaia, the colleague of Abtalion. 
 Gratz, iv. 5. * See Excursus on the Karaites. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 Th& Halakha. 
 
 Setting aside the valuable services of the Massorets to 
 textual criticism,! 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- 
 tiire 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 iised 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.^ 
 
 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 imtenable ; nay, in many essential instances 
 subversive of the most sacred principles of the Mosaic 
 legislation. Nothing is more . certain than that the mass 
 
 ^ On the Massorali, see Etheridge, 205 : Ginsburg, Elicts Lcvita, pp. 101, 
 102, 120, 121. They applied to it Cant. iii. 8 (it was regarded as a sword to 
 defend the law). Comp. Rashi, acl loo. and Aboth, iii. 13. For lists of the 
 words written with majuseular letters, see Ginsburg's Elias Levita, p. 230. He 
 does not admit Mr. Black's theory that they fomr a chronogram. 
 
 ^ In Ex. .xxi. 1, the Targums, both of Ouqelos and Jou. ben tTzzieljUse theword 
 HalnTclia, as the equivalent of DSfJ'p. In Aramaic it is Hiltheta (NDD^n), 
 which in Baal Ar-uc is defined as "res quae it etvcnit ab initio usque ad finem." 
 Bu.xtorf defines Halakha as " constitutio juris, sententia, decisio, tradilio 
 decim, . . . secundum quam incedendum et vivcndum." Lex, Talm. s.v. 
 npbn, where he renders it Sin Endurtheil. For a classification of Halakhoth, 
 see Maimonides, Pref. to the explanation of the Mishna ; Ohiarini, i. 174 ; 
 Etheridge, 178. The Mishna consists of: 1. Halakhoth. 2. Midrash— the 
 development of Halakhoth by exegetic rales. 3. Talmud in narrower sense- 
 fresh, argumentative applications. It has 625 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.'^ The Rabbis themselves, in their more sober moods, 
 admitted this.^ 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,^ 
 and there were 300 undisputed Halakhoth about "the tower 
 that floats in the air." * Nay, even Onqelos and the Septua- 
 gint translators are admitted to have made both additions 
 and alterations.^ 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.^ 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.' 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," 
 (fid-)(ai vofiiKoX, Tit. iii. 9), and " word-fightings " (Xoyo/u.d'y^iai, 
 1 Tim. vi. 4), about which St. Paul speaks, furnish us with 
 
 ^ Deut. XXV. 11-14. 
 
 ^ See Chkrini, i. 54, quoting Sliabbath, f. 63, 1. 
 
 5 Sanhedrin, f. 68, 1. 
 
 * See Sanhedrin, f. 106, 2, referring to Is. rxxiii. 18, "Where is he who 
 counted the towers ? " See Easlii, ad loe. 
 
 ■' Megilla, f. 3, 1 ; f. 9, 1. . , 
 
 ' This was called the ''TOO nC'tD? ilDpn, Halakha le-Moshcsh Missirmi, 
 Qiddushin, f. 49, 1. 
 
 ' Yebamoth, f. 96, 2. See RashL 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 ; ^ 
 though God Himself is represented as repeating them in the 
 names of the Kabhis from whom they had emanated ; ^ 
 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 ojDposite 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 tip hill, and even an utterance of the Bath Qol, 
 are sufficient to establish a " decision " against the majority 
 of the Rabbis ; ^ though the most tremendous curses are pro- 
 nounced against those who resist such a decision,* 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.^ Yet the Talmudists themselves 
 
 1 Baba Metsi'a, f. 331. In Gittiu, f. 60, 2, this is argued from Ex. xxxiv. 
 27. " For after the tenor (lit. ' xipon (he mouth ') of these words have I made 
 a covenant with Israel." On Kabbinic modiiications of special laws see 
 Gastelli, La Legge (1884) ; Salschutz, Der inosaischc Rechi, and Edersheim, 
 Proph. and Hist. pp. 384-391. 
 
 ^ 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 mnem.onic form for 
 "the Tishbite (Elijah) will settle doubts ; " — and in other ways, for which see 
 Buxtorf, Lrx. 2,588. 
 
 * Megilla, f. 28, 2 ; Buxtorf, Lex. p. 612. 
 
 ' In favour of this view they quoted Ex. xx. 1 ; Eccl. xii. 11 ; Chagigah, 
 f. 3, 2 : Gittin, f. 6, 2 ; Yebamoth, f. 1.5, 2 (where R. Joshua thinks that to 
 decide between them would be like crushing his bead between two great moun- 
 tains). They dispute which was created first— earth or heaven, TamU. i. 
 31, 2 ; about divorce (Gittin, f. 90, 1— a dispute of which we find traces even 
 in the Gospels, Matt. v. 31, 32 ; xix. 3-12) ; about the cleanness of wine and 
 oil {Shabbath, f. 17, 1) ; about the order in which blessings were to be given 
 (Succah, f. 56, 1) ; and about numberless other subjects. Sometimes the 
 
Phylacteries. 87 
 
 confess that " as the disciples of Hillel and Shammai multi- 
 phed, 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." ^ 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.' 
 
 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.^ 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.* The Karaites have 
 always rejected them.^ 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 ? ^ The same remark applies even more 
 
 scholars even came to blows and bloodshed (see the authorities quoted in Jo.st 
 Gesch. d. Isr. iii. 118). 
 
 ^ SanheJrin, 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. 
 OomTTicnt. in Isaiam, ad loc. 
 
 ^ They openly declared that without their interpretations the Law was a 
 mass of unintelligible signs. Bammidbar Kabba, § 14. They first made the 
 Oral Law as sacred as the Written ; then "the Words of the Wise," and " of 
 the Scribes ; " and then made these last more sacred than all. 
 
 ' There vieie millions of possible Halakhoth. "Every word of the Thora 
 can he explained in seventy ways." Bammidbar Eabba, § 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. 
 
 ■* Or only figuratively, like Prov. iii. 3. 
 
 ' Ex. xiii. ['. 
 
 « Berakhoth (Schwab, p. 241). 
 
88 Precedent. 
 
 forcibly to the elaborate regulations about fringes ^ and 
 ablutions, and the endless disputations about the Sabbath 
 and the major and minor prohibitions with which the Jews 
 surrounded it.^ One whole treatise of the Mishna, that known 
 as " The Egg," ^ 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 Benl 
 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.^ 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,'' although it had its own feebleness and 
 
 ' n*VV. 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 Judaisme, pp. 12-17. 
 
 - On Phylacteries, Fringes, Sabbath rules, see a paper by the present writer 
 in the Expositor, v. 216, sq. The major and derivative prohibitions (aioth 
 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. 
 
 * 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 Tanw Sahbanan, "our Rabbis have taught ;" Taniehada, "a 
 certain Rabbi has taught ; " " Another has taught ; " " "We have a tradition ; " 
 " It is a Mishna," &c. " The scribes say," Mark ix. 11. 
 
 <* mjN is the Aramaic form for the Hebrew mjn, and it is derived from 
 T::, narrcmit, of which Haggada is the Hiphel form (Hamburger, s.v.). 
 Buxtorf defines it as " Narratio, cnarratio, historia juminda et suUilis, dis- 
 cursus historicus aut theologiciis de aliquo loco Scripturae juamdus, animvm 
 lectoris attrahens." 
 
The Haggada. 89 
 
 its own absurdities, was, on the whole, a nobler and more 
 human development of teaching. The word may be rendered 
 by " story " or legend. In its practical usage it corresponds 
 to our " homiletics," but its admonitions were mingled with 
 fables and apologues. It was never supposed to possess any 
 legal authority.^ " 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.^ 
 " The words of the Haggada," said the Jewish proverb, " at- 
 tract the mind." ^ It dealt largely with moral theses, and the 
 wisest Kabbis felt that the Halakha and the Haggada should 
 be combined. " Whoever," says Eabbi 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." * " 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." ^ 
 
 The Haggada sprung into importance in the days of 
 Eabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, when the stricken hearts of 
 the Jews were most in need of consolation. The stricter 
 
 ' Schwab (Berakhoth, xv.) refers to Jer. Fed. ii. § 4 ; Shabbath, xvi. § 1 ; 
 and to the opinions of Maimonides, Juda Halevi, Ibn Ezra, &c. See too the 
 numerous quotations in Klein, Le JudaiSTne pp. 23 — 28. 
 
 " The Halakha, for instance, eontaius nothing so spiritual as E. Simlai's 
 reduction of the 613 precepts to one. Gratz, iv. 265. 
 
 ' :br\ D'DB'ID max nan. Chiaiini, 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 eor- 
 poribus ; allegoriae autem sunt veluti vestimenta corpori adhaerentia. Aliae 
 sunt subtiles instar serici, aliae crassae veluti succus." 
 
 * Aboth of R. Nathan, c. 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. 
 
 ' Remains, p. 145. 
 
90 The Haggacla. 
 
 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.i R. Leiri, in the Maaseroth, curses all writings 
 that contain the Haggada.^ 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 v/ounded 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.^ But its value and neces- 
 sity were more and more recognised as time went on. 
 The fieople 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 ; * it is called one of the wonders 
 of God, and the honour and glory of the wise.^ 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.'' 
 
 ^ Ethciidge, Hehr. Lit. p. 183. 
 
 " Chiarini, ii. 44. " Kabbi ben Levi said, " He who writes an Haggada has 
 no portion in the world to oome. ... 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 (Dout. v. 4), " The Lord talked with you faces 
 to faces (D''J23 D'JD). This must mean at least four faces ; for Scripture a 
 face for fear ; for Mishna a moderate face ; smiling for the Talmud, and 
 friendly for the Haggada." Sopherim, c. xvi. 
 
 3 Sota, f. 40 ; Weill, i. 126 ; Gratz, iv. 896. For a specimen see "Weill, i. 
 154-162, and the Yalqut on Zeehariah translated by Dr. King (Cambr. 
 1883). 
 
 " Chagiga, f. 14. 
 
 5 Baba Bathra, f. 9 ; Midrash Tehillin, on Prov. 25 ; Weill, i. 125. 
 
 " Prov. XXX. 11. Maimonides, Pref. to Moreh Nevochim. Griitz 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 dose translation of the lesson from the 
 Law (the Parasha) by the Methurgerman, and the freer rendering of that 
 from the Prophets (the Haphtara) is analogous to the use of the Halakha in 
 developing the Law, and of the Haggada as applied to ether parts of Scripture. 
 
The Talmud. 91 
 
 And tlius 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.^ 
 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.^ 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 Officiomm of all its ceremonial.^ 
 
 ^ See Herder, Briefe ilber das St-udmm der Thcologie. 
 
 ^ 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 E. Jose says that he saw in Sepphoris 180,000 
 streets of pasti'ycooks (Yalqut on Zech. ii. 2). Many such remarks were only 
 meant to rouse the attention of somnolent hearers. The Rabbis someturies 
 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." 
 
 _' See Zunz, p. 42 ; Deutseh, p. 17 ; Weber, p. 94. " On y rapporte, on y 
 discute toutes les suppositions les morns 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 bistory, 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.^ The Jew might say of 
 his beloved Babli, 
 
 " Quicqiiid agunt hoEiines, votum, timor, ira, voluptas, 
 Gaudia, discursus, nostri est farrago libelli." 
 
 The work of luindreds of learned men of different ages, 
 countries, and conditions, it forms a wonderful monument of 
 human industr}', human wisdom, and human folly.^ 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.^ 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.* Such 
 being its origin it naturally teems with errors, exaggerations, 
 
 ^ Rabhi Jehudi Hallevy makes some excellent remarks to this effect in 
 Cusarl pt. iii. 73, see Klein Lc Judalsme p. 40-46, who also quotes Ibn Ezra, 
 E. Serira Gaon, Luzzatto and others, as well as such authorities as Buxtorf, 
 AYngenseil, Seldi'u, etc. 
 
 - Hurwitz ; Milman, Eist. of the Jews, iii. 5. The method of dispute in 
 the Eabbinic schools was called " PiVpwl," 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 Eappoport, Zunz, Jost, Erochmal, Frankel, 
 Geiger, Luzzato, Gratz, Steinschneider, &c. See Low, Praktische MinUit. pp. 
 84-89. 
 
 ^ The language of the Talmud has been philologically handled by Geiger, 
 Leyisohn, 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- 
 liition by Dr. Moise Schwab seems likely to become complete. 
 
 " See Etheridge, Eebr. Lit. 175. 
 
The " Sea of the Talmud!' 93 
 
 and even obscenities ; with strange superstitions of Eastern 
 demonology ; with wild Aiabian 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,^ but of which the majority were 
 understood by the multitude in their literal absurdity.^ 
 
 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 
 
 ^ "Sed hoc interim etiam dieendum et sciendum, non omnia quae imperitis 
 talia videutur, esse talia. " Buxtorf. 
 
 ^ 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 
 Entdeclctes Jvdenthum (see Weber, xxxiii.). Even such valuable works as 
 those of Lightfoot, Schbttgen, 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. 
 
 ' Deutsch, Remains, 1-58, 135-145. See Bartolocci, Bibl. Rahb. iii. 359 sq. 
 Gratz, iv. 410-412 ; Etheridge, Eebr. Lit. 185. Buxtorf admits that there 
 are in the Talmud " inutiles quasi paleae et multi furfures " but also " utilia 
 quandoque esse grana etpuram similam." 
 
94 Evils of Talmudlsm. 
 
 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.^ 
 
 ' For an instance see Chiarini, ii. 226. 
 
" Pardes." 95 
 
 VI. What has been said of the Talmud applies in general 
 to all the Eabbinic writings and to the whole collection of 
 Midrashim, of which the most celebrated are nothing but 
 catenae of Talmudic passages.^ 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 aj)plied 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.^ 
 Remez, or hint, the development of latent meanings.^ 
 Danish, or homiletics,* including allegory and all kinds of 
 
 illustration. 
 SSd, or mystery.^ 
 Exegeticaily the Peshat is alone of real value. ^ 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 
 Kabhalists found the chief sphere of their labours. The 
 
 ' See Dr. Ginsburgin Kitto'a Cyclopaedia, s.v. Midrashim ; and in Eoheleth 
 p. 30. It is a haggadistic collection, half homiletic, half exegetical in 
 character. 
 
 ^ 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 
 ClC'jjiQ TiQ xw NIpD pN), but no one practically attended to it. 
 ^ An assonance, a change of letters, &c. " Gott ah Vcrfasser konne mit 
 einem "Worte, mit der einfachen und natiirlichen Bedeutung, noch eine andere 
 yerkniipft haben und Mehreres mit cinem Male lehren. . . . Dieses heisst 
 im Talmud nJO n'UCitS' Tlin, Beides entnehme ich daraus. " Hiischfeld, 
 Halach. Bxegese, § 104. See too § 112 ; Weber, 115. 
 
 ' FromB'-n, "to search." 
 
 ' The Derek ha-kahbala. See Etheridge, Heir. Lit. p. 404. 
 
 * Critical Jews distinguish between popular commentaries like the Midi'a- 
 shim, and scientific commentaries (Perushim). The ^vriters of the Midrash 
 were neither Paraphrasts { Targumists), nor, properly speaking, commentators 
 (Biphreshim). The latter begin properly with Saadja in the tenth centm-y, and 
 include the great names of Rashi, Ibu Ezra, Maimonides, the Qimchis, and 
 Abrabanel. Aaaria di Eossi distinguishes between hyperbolical (guzina), 
 haggadistic, and " exhaustive " Midrash. The latter, like what Sixtus Senensis 
 calls the Pandesiac method, explained Scripture in all possible ways. 
 
96 The Qabbala. 
 
 word Qabbala means " a thing received," but it was used for 
 " scholastic lore," ^ and it was asserted that the Qabbala was 
 of equal sacredness with the Law, and had been received by 
 Moses on Sinai. The germs of the Qabbala, in some of its 
 branches, must be of early date, for it is referred to in the 
 Mishna.- 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 Bcrcshith, or Work of the Crea- 
 tion, and the Maaseh Mcrlvtba, or Work of the Chariot, which 
 derived its name from the Vision of Ezekiel. The Maaseh 
 Bcreshith entered into endless speculations about the Creation, 
 the ten spheres, the four worlds, the En Soph, or " Infinite," 
 Memra or the Word, Adam Kadmon the Primeval Man, the 
 mysteries of numbers, and so forth.^ It sought to explain 
 the transition from the Infinite to the Finite, from Mind 
 to Matter. The Maaseh Mcrkaha plunged into inquiries 
 respecting the abstract nature of God, and was surrounded 
 
 ^ Ewald, Hist, of Israel, v. 190, E. Tr. Heuce the word is even used for 
 "an amulet." See Buxtorf, Lex. p. 1953. Qabbala means the act of giving, 
 while Massora, from Masar, " to transmit," UKans the act of receiving. See 
 Ginsburg, The Kabbala, p. 4. 
 
 ^ Tlie Qabbala, or "secret wisdom" (mnD3 nD3n), — called also from tlie 
 initials of these two words, p, "grace," — may be divided as follows : — 
 
 Qabbala 
 
 / ^ 
 
 Real. Symbolic. 
 
 I I i I 
 
 Practical (Masic Tliauina- Gematria. Notarikon. Temoorah. 
 
 turgy, (Sic). \ | 
 
 I I 
 
 Arithmetic. Figurative. Architectonic. 
 
 1 I 
 
 Creatioa The Chariot \ i j j "^ 1 
 
 (Maaseh (Maaseh Athbash. Albain. Albach. Aaiachechar. Tashrak, te. 
 
 Bereshith). Meikaba.) 
 
 2 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." Eeuss, Gesch. der lieiligen Sohriften Neuen Testaments, 
 p. 503, 
 
Kabbalism. 97 
 
 witli a veil of terror and mystery. Practical Kabbalism 
 instructed the neophj-te 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 Eabbi 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.^ 
 
 But if these branches of Kabbalistic lore, which were 
 largely influenced by Persian and other sources, touch eyen 
 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 Scrijjture 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 e^'erj' letter, the transposition, the substitution, 
 had a special, even a supernatural power." These rules were 
 summed up under the three divisions of Gematria, Xotarikon 
 and Themoorah, indicated, in the usual Rabbinic way, by the 
 
 - The earliest Katbalistic book, Sepher ha Bahir, attributed to Xechonja 
 ben Hatana, a contemporary of Hillel, is no longer extant. It is mentioned 
 in the Chagiga, but the book published under that title in 16-11 is a forgerj-. 
 SinularlT a Sepher Jetsira,toucliingapparently on thaumaturgist natural science, 
 is mentioned in Saidic-di-in, 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 {otMoth) as " thirty-h^-o 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) iu the thirteenth century (Griitz, vii. ; Ginsburg, pp. 
 7S-Sy!, is a mystic commentary on the Pentateuch. This branch of the 
 Qabbala lies wholly outside the region of exegesis. See Eeuchlin, lie Arte 
 Cabhalistica: Franck, Systime de la Kabbah; Dr. Ginsburg, The Eabbala; 
 Jelinek, Die KaU'ila, lS4-t; Etheridge, Eebr. Lit. pp. 207-353. Two important 
 Kabbalistic books are the " Lilv oi Bacti^W' IShoshan Sodoth), hj 'R&mba.ii 
 (tl260), and '"'Garden of Nuts" (Genath E-jo-], by Jos. Eamitol ^See 
 Etheridge, p. 359). 
 
 H 
 
98 Gematria. 
 
 initial letters of the words, as GeNeTH.^ These methods 
 play so large a part in Rabbinic exegesis that we must pause 
 to explain their character. 
 
 i. Gemateia is a corruption of Gcomctria, one of the many 
 Greek words which are naturalised in Talrnudic Hebrew.^ The 
 chief branch of this method resembled the Greek isopsc- 
 phism and consisted in establishing mystic relations between 
 different conceptions, based on the mimerical 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 
 Nev^ Testament there are three instances of deep significance 
 attached to the sound of names.^ 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." * Now the Hebrew 
 letters of Tsemach, " a sprout," are equivalent in value to 138 ; 
 and this is also the value of the letters of " Menahem," or 
 "Consoler" (Lam. i. IG), and consequently Menahem is 
 reckoned among the names of the Messiah.* In Gen. xlix. 
 10, " Shiloh come " (n^'K' Nn^ is equivalent to o-58, and that is 
 also the niimerical value of Mashiach (rr'E^'n), Shiloh is there- 
 fore identified with the Messiah.^' 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, Dc Abbreviaturis, s.v. njj. Klein, Le Jvrlninmc, rp. 3--3.^. 
 
 ^ NntD?33, yeajxfTpia. Dr. Ginsburg derives it from ypafj.iiaTiia. The 
 actual numbering is called "reckoning" ([IDBTI). Bammidbar Rabb.i, c. 
 25. (Comp. Eco. fii. 25, 27.) "Weber, AUsyn. Thcol 118. 
 
 ^ " He shall be called a Nazarene," Matt. ii. 23. This is probably an allusion 
 to Nelscr, "a br.anch." Comp. Is. xi. 1. Sinai and Hagar, Gal. iv. 25. 
 Claudius = i Karexoiv, qui Clniidit, 2 Thess. ii. 7. 
 
 ■♦ Rather "the sprout." Comp. Jcr. xxiii. 5. 
 
 = Sanhedvin, f. 98, 2. ij' = 90 ; O = 40 ; n = 8 = 138. 
 
 D-40;2 = 50;n = 8;D = 40 = 13£. 
 This identification continues down to modern days. 
 
Gematria. 99 
 
 writings.i We may here be content with one more speci- 
 men. In Gen. xxv. 21, the letters of the Hebrew word for 
 " his wife " (Wt^'S) have the value of 707, which is the 
 equivalent of the words G'i^) K's, " 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." ^ 
 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" (ib) 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 (nixsin).^ 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*n') 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 (i'?jni) ; or again, that the 
 Law had 613 precepts because the word for " incense" (mtip) 
 gives 613.* Sometimes the inference even acquires for the 
 
 ' In a curious passage of Be praescriptionc haereticomm, c. 50, Tertullian 
 speaks of Gematria. "Marcus quidam et Colarbasus novam haeresim ex 
 Graecorum alphaheta componentes. Negant enim veritatem sine istis posse 
 litteris inveniri, immo totam plenitudinem et perfectionem Teritatis in istis 
 lltteiis esse dispositam." He says they founded the doctrine on "I am a. 
 and 01." Thus because Trepttrreph = 801 = An, 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 illorura omnes vanitates et ineptum sit et otiosum." But it was not 
 only Gnosticism which eagerly availed itself of Eabbalistic exegesis. Thus we 
 find the mystic explanation of Abraham's 318 servants as a type of Christ, — 
 T (= 300) being the Cross, and it; (= 18) being the first letters of the name of 
 Jesus —as early as the Epistle of Barnabas (c. ix. ). 
 
 2 Sanhedrin, f. 97, 2. 
 
 ' See Berakhoth, f. 8, 1. 
 
 ' If by Athbash P is changed into 1 ! See Buxtorf, De Alhreviaturis, 
 p. 57. But Thorah gives the same result r fl = 400 ; 1 = 6 ; T = 200 ; n = 
 5 = 611, which, with the Shema and the first commandment = 613. 
 
 H 2 
 
100 Gematria. 
 
 Jewisli 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 (tob'n) gives only 364.i 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 " (riNiiD'nQ'). We find 
 this kind of Gematria used cryptographically by St. John in 
 the AjDocalypse to indicate the name of Nero, as it is used in 
 the Sibylline verses to indicate the name of Jesus.^ 
 
 There were two other branches of Gematria, the Architec- 
 tonic, which concerned itself with calculations respecting the 
 Tabernacle, the Temple, and the ideal Temple of Ezekiol ; ' 
 and the Figurative^ (already alluded to), which speculated 
 on the sizes and shapes of letters. Thus since the n in 
 the word nns, and the i; in the word udc, " 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 (t = 4) ; 
 and (iii.) because y and n make up the word ii?, " a witness." 
 We find a curious instance of architectonic Gematria in 
 Josephus, who, in referring to Dan. ix. 27, alludes to the 
 Jewish belief that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed 
 whenever it was made rectangular, because 4 being the 
 signature of the world contradicts the idea of the sanctuary. 
 Now the Temple became rectangular when the Zealots 
 destroyed the tower of Antonia.' 
 
 1 Yoma, f. 20, 1. 
 
 2 Eev. xiii. IS. 666 = IDp tnj. Ngj-Q Caesar ; Iren. Eaer. v. 30 ; 
 Sulp. Sev. E. S. ii. 29 ; Orac. Sibyll. i. 325. 'Irjtrols = 888. 
 
 ^Etheridge refers to Shichard's Bechinatn, Happeniskim, p. 65, for some 
 curious particulars. Hcbr. Lit. p. 354. 
 
 * This figurative Gemati-ia is called n""lV. 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). 
 
 = Jos. £. J. vi. 6, § 4. The "desolating wing (^132) of abomination" 
 was rendered "corner of abomination." Comp. Philo, Vit. Mos. p. 142; 
 Hausrath, i. 123. 
 
Notarikon. 101 
 
 ii. NOTAEIKON was another Kabbalistic method. The name 
 is borrowed from Notarius, " a shorthand writer," because 
 these writers used letters to stand for words.'' 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 I'^Ov'; is an 
 instance of a word thus interpreted,^ 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.^ A few specimens will 
 suffice. In Gen. ii. 3 the letters of EloMM 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.* 
 In Ps. Ixxvii. 21, the word " Thou leddest " (n^nj) is made 
 to stand for Wonder, Life, Sea, Law,^ 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, Lord ? " (Ex. xv. 11).^ 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," ^ and the head of 
 
 ' See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. s.v. |1p'"l!33. Eabbi Nathan defiBes 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 anokt, " I " is made to stand for " I myself wrote and gave it." 
 
 * 'l7)(ToBj Xpiffrhs 0€oD tlhs SoiT^jp. The Greeks were, as Plutarch says, 
 familiar with these ff-qfxua iv jSpaxec* tuttois TroWuv ypafiiidruv Svva^Lv 
 
 iXOVTCL. 
 
 ' Shabbath, xii. 5. 
 
 ■* Kishmath Chajiin, f. 152, 2. Similarly the soul of Cain pa.ssed into 
 those of Jethro ('), Korah (p), and the Mizi'aim- ite (0) whom Moses slew. 
 Yalqut Reuheni. Another notarikon applied to the name said that it stood for 
 Dust, Blood, Bitterness (IQN, D"!^ ^y?.)- The use of Notarikon continued, 
 even among the Fathers ; as when 'ASi/j, is said to imply the four quarters of 
 tlie world, *Apkt6s, Sixris, avaToXTj, fxeari^^pia, 
 
 ^ D'D3, D"n, u\ min. 
 
 ' For other instances, see Budaeus, Philos. Ubraeorum, p. 323 ; Buxtorf, 
 Be Abhreviaturis, p. 58 ; Eeuchlin, De CcMala, iii. ; Chiarini, i. 57 ; Ham- 
 burger, Mealwort. s.v. Scjirift. 
 
 ' Because in one passage of the Talmud 133 (" a man") is iised 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 (nnn). The 
 word is still more surrounded by mystic associations, because 
 by Gematria it yields the number 428, which is also furnished 
 by the Hebrew words, " This shall be an atonement for 
 thee." 1 
 
 iii. The word TemoorAH, or " change," ^ 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, Lord," refers to " the Messiah " by transposing 
 nw\ (shall rejoice) into Mashiach. In Ex. xxiii. 23, " my 
 angel" (*?¥?P) is transposed into Michael, as also is the name 
 Malachi ! ' " Cherevi," " a ban," becomes by Temoorah 
 racham, " pity," implying that there is always room for 
 repentance ; or into raniach, 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 (niK'n'') gives the name Jehovah, and the letter c, 
 which stands for " fire," and is a symbol of the Logos.^ Often 
 the method becomes one of simple anagram, as when the 
 names Balaam Balak are turned into " Yalley of Confusion.''* 
 It is possible that the New Testament furnishes us with an 
 instance of Temoorah in Rev. xvi. 16, where the mysterious 
 
 1 m337 1? Vn' nt. The name of this angel is also given by itnafirud 
 letters of "IT HN nniQ, "Thou openest tliine hand," Ps. clxv. 16. I take 
 this modem instance, which shows the extraordinary vitality of these methods, 
 from Hershon's Treasures of tlie Talmud, \). 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 Eicci, Otto, Rittengal (a grandson of Abrabanel), 
 who translated the Jetsti'a into Latin ; and Jacob Frank, who took with him 
 some thousands of his followers. Beer, Gesch. d. rel. Seoten d. Juden, ii. 309 
 
 ' Called by some "|13n, "inversion." 
 
 5 See Nachmanides in Kltto's Cyclop. 
 
 * The name Jesus is however TIB'* in Hebrew. 
 
 6 %\>2 p:::;. 
 
Athbash. 103 
 
 word Armageddon may be meant for Harmagedol, i.e. Eoma 
 Haggedolah, Eome the Great. The names are also iso- 
 psephic, for by Gematria they are both equivalent to S04.i 
 
 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.' 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-l'amai we substitute by Athbash 
 the word Kasdini, or Chaldeans (see v. 35).^ Similarly 
 an ajDplication of the cipher Albam explains an otherwise 
 mysterious name in Is. vii. 6. Ephraim, Syria, and the 
 son of Eemaliah there take evil counsel to attack Judah 
 and set up as king " the son of Tabeal." 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 (73x0) we 
 get X7m, 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. 
 
 ^ Thus in Athbash for a.b.g.d., &c., are substituted the corresponding 
 letters at the opposite end of the alphabet, namely xn, sii, K, &c. In Albam, 
 A.B.G.D., &o., are exchanged with l.m.n.s., &c. E. 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. 
 
 " Ewald may be right in supposing that the use of these Kabbalistic 
 methods in Jer. xxt. 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. 
 
 liave 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.^ Thus, in 
 Prov. ixix. 21, where it is said that " a petted slave will at 
 last become a man's son," the word H^'?, rendered "son," 
 occurs here only. Some suppose it to mean " refractory," or 
 " ungrateful," and Luther happily renders it " so will er 
 darnacli ein Jtmiker seyn." But by applying another Kabbalistic 
 alphabet (Athach) ^ we get for mdnon the word '^I'^V., gnehdah, 
 " testimony,' ' and the verse may be rendered " Jle who satisfies 
 his desire in this wm'ld 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.^ 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 1 Hence the incessant Eab- 
 binic formula, "Bead not so, hut so."* Maimonides says that 
 
 1 Sukka, 52, 2 ; Ginsburg, Elias Levita, p. 191, and s.v. Midrash in Kitto ; 
 and Kabbalah, p. 54 ; Hamburger I. s.v. Sehrift. 
 
 " For Atbach see Buxtorf, De Jlbrfviaturis, and Dr. Ginsburg in Kitto, s.v. 
 
 ' As when the initial words of {<'13 wure made to stand for DN n-1"i [3, 
 (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 
 Qlassius, Philolog. Sacr. 425, 438. 
 
 ■* j3 NTN f3 '"Ipn ?X. Hirschfeld says, "Mankonnte etwas covjieiren 
 ■and verandern, indem man sagte, Wenn man die Worto verandert oder 
 
Degraded Bibliolatry. 105 
 
 the intention was not' to destroy the Biblical reading, but to 
 add to it a poetic (!) figure.^ Thus, in Is. ii. 22, " for wherein 
 is he to be accounted of," by reading iT??, " a high place," for 
 n^3, " wherein,'' they get the deduction that whoever salutes 
 his neighbour before prayer makes him as it were a high 
 place ! ^ And if they desire to glorify the Sabbath they 
 read, " Blessed is the man that keepeth the Sabbath, and he 
 shall he pardoned," instead of "that keepeth the Sabbath 
 from polluting it." ^ 
 
 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.* 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 
 Habbinism, 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 extemalism 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 Bedetitung ab, die genau iiberein, 
 stimmt mit dem was man in der Bibel erwartete ! " Halaeh. Exegese, 164. 
 
 ' Moreh Nerochim, iii. 43. See Eisenmenger, Entd. Judenth. i. c. 8. 
 
 « Berakhoth, f. 14, 1. , , , , 
 
 ' In Is, Ivi. 2, by reading r> 7710 for 'mTVO. In the 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. 
 
 * " The rules for this exegesis afforded as great a facility for introducing 
 iTito the text, 3S for deducing from it, any and every imaginable conceit." 
 Oiasburg, Cohcleth, p 30. 
 
106 Futile Results. 
 
 the Bible which it nomiDally worshipped. The long 
 labours and discussions of Sopherim, Tanaim, Amoraim, 
 Saboraim, and Gaonim have left but a minimum of valuable 
 result. The Halakha was void of all spiritual significance. 
 Ceremonialism flourished under its auspices, but morality 
 decayed.! The sepulchre glistened white, but within it 
 was full of dead men's bones. The Haggada, thougJi it 
 bad nobler elements, lost itself in monstrous combinations, 
 and buried the natural simplicity of the Scripture narrative 
 under masses of legendarj'- 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.^ 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 paj^ng to Talraudism too high a compliment, 
 were we to say that it is like 
 
 ' ' The pleached bower, 
 Wliere 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. 
 
 ^ See Psalm. Solomon, iv. 3, 4 ; viii. 9-11 (Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorwm. 
 V- 12). 
 
 2 Towards the close of the fifteenth century many Christians like Mirandola 
 and Eeuchlin were eager to study the Qabbala, and Elias Levita was patron- 
 ised by Cardinal Egidius de V'iterbo. Mirandola thought that he found 
 " more Christianity than Judaism in the Qabbala— the Trinity, Incarnation, 
 original sin, redemption, Angelology, Purgatory," &o., " in fact the same 
 gospel which we find in St. Paul, Dionysius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine." 
 Pope Sixtus IV. wished the Kabbalistic writings to be rendered into Latin. 
 See Ginsburg, TJu Massoreth Ha Ma&iorr.th of Elias Levita, Introd. p. 12. If 
 there be anything distinctively Christian in Kablalism, it is historically 
 derivable from Christianity itself. 
 
The Judgment of Christ. 107 
 
 To the Jewish scholars we owe indeed the boon of a text 
 preserved to the utmost of their power : we owe the priceless 
 labour of the earlier Massorets, and the philological know- 
 ledge of those mediaeval Rabbis who furnished the grammars 
 and lexicons on which, after fifteen centuries of Christianity, 
 a sounder exegetic method was gradually built. Indirectly 
 too they have preserved for us in their writings many tradi- 
 tional facts of an interest and importance greater than have 
 yet been fully understood. But even the most favourable 
 estimate must reluctantly admit that their writings are 
 principally valuable to the historian, the archaeologist, and 
 the student of psychology, and that it is indirectly far more 
 than directly that, from the days of Ezra to the days of 
 Maimonides, they have furnished us with anything of intrinsic 
 value for the right apprehension of Holy Writ. 
 
 Is that a harsh judgment? Nay, it is the judgment of 
 Himself Even in the days of the Son of Man the exegetic 
 principles which find their full development in the Talmud 
 and the Midrash formed the main elements of the popular 
 religionism. And Christ's judgment of those principles was 
 luminous and emphatic. It was " Why do ye transgress the 
 commandment of God by your tradition ? " i It was " Ye have 
 made void the Law of God because of your tradition." ^ It 
 was " In vain do they worship Me, teaching as their doctrine 
 the precepts of men." ^ It was " Ye read the Scriptures and 
 ye will not come unto Me." ^ 
 
 1 Matt. XV. 3. * Matt. xv. 6. 
 
 ' Matt. zv. 9. ■" John v. 39, 40. 
 
" There was a flate in tte Temple preserved from tlie days of Moses, 
 emootli, 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 miseetur." — Iken. 
 
 E^ ov (OKSiiios) nlfxaL kcu ttus 6 aWrjyopiKos kv 'EKKKriiria Xoyos eu\ev 
 ipXV" etirpvrivm. — Photius, God. cv. 
 
 "tovto iTvjinav to iKk(KrLKOv .... (prjfii." — CleM. AlbX. Strom. 1 c. 7, 
 §37. 
 
 S^feooK yap Tandi/ra rj ra TrXeiOTa rrjt vopLoBicrlas aXXj/yopEirai. — PhiLO, 
 Be Josepho, § 6. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 ALEXANDBIAN EXEGESIS. 
 
 " In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land 
 of Egypt, and a jjillar 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 
 PhJlo. 
 
 1. The Dispersion of the Chosen People, which familiarised 
 the world Vvith a purer morality and a monotheistic faith, 
 was one of the metiiods 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 Eabbinism to secure. 
 If outside the range of Rabbinism " the hedge about the law" 
 had not been broken into and trampled down iu 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 Jemsalem 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,! j^^^^j j^gg^ opposed by the milder Hillehtes, 
 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 Esieh ; 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. Jlegilla, f. 17, 2. Samuel the Little took special pw' 
 in them. Berakhoth, f. 27, 2. These ordinances, to which the Mishna only 
 alludes, are found in a baraita of It. Simeon ben Jochai in the second centurj'. 
 They consist of prohibitions which rendered all intercourse between Pagan 
 and orthodox Jews impossible. See Life of St. Faul, i. 129. 
 
Widening Sympathies. 113 
 
 vaded by a different and less noble sjjirit 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.^ 
 
 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 coiild 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 
 
 ^ Eeim, Jesu von Nazara, i. 205. '' D'31'S*n D*"lSD. 
 
 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.^ 
 
 The conquests of Alexander were not like those which merely 
 disturbed for a moment the dreams of the brooding East.^ 
 They produced on the shores of the Mediterranean a cordial 
 interchange of Greek and Eastern ideas.^ By the founding 
 of Alexandria, " the great Emathian Conqueror " left his 
 deepest mark upon human history.* 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,^ the free toleration 
 accorded to Oriental theosophy, to Greek culture, to Jewish 
 faith, made it a hotbed of intellectual excitement. In 
 
 ^ Gratz. Philo talks of rineTipa ' AAe^aySpela. Leg. ad Gaium, § 22. 
 ^ " The East bowed low before the blast, 
 
 In patient, deep disdain ; 
 She let the legions thunder past. 
 Then plunged in thought again." 
 
 — JIatthew 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 emment 
 Rabbis bore Greek names (Alexander, Antigonus, Trypho, Aristobulos, 
 Euthunes, &c.). Three chests in Herod's temple were marked a, /8, 7. 
 
 ' On the civilising and cosmopolitan mission of Alexander, see Plutarch, 
 De Alex. Virt. % 16 ; Oehler, .i.v. Voile. Gottes (Herzog). On Alexandria 
 generally, see Sti-abo, xvii. 1 ; Diodorus, xvii. 52 ; Pliny, S. 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 Cm}. 
 Erud. Grca. % 13 ; Dahne, i. 9. 
 
The Jeivs 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.i 
 
 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 
 growi"ng 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. ^ Before 
 the Christian era they had increased to a million souls. They 
 occupied two of the five districts of Alexandria,* 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.^ Their Alabarch 
 became a person of great distinction,^ and their Sanhedrin 
 sat in an unequalled Synagogue " on golden seats frequent 
 and full." 7 
 
 ^ See the remarkable letter of the Emperor Adrian to Severianus, in which 
 he says (with great exaggeration) that tlie Christians and the worshippers of 
 Serapis were hardly to be distinguibhed from each other, and that alike these 
 and the Jews were all mathematici. See too Matter, Hist, dc V£colc d'Alcrr. 
 15-23, RTiA passim ; M. J. Denis, La Philos. de Orig. p. 2. 
 
 2 B.C. 332 ; Jos. C. Ap. ii. i ; B. J. ii. 16, § 4 ; 18, § 7 ; Philo, G. Place. 
 passim ; Herzfeld, iii. 430, sq. ; Griitz, iii. 256, sq. ; Jost, i. 351 sq. ; 
 Ewald, iv. 308, sq. ; vi. 233, sq. AVas this settlement of the nature of a 
 "deportation"? If so, it was very humanely carried out (Strabo, ap. Jos. 
 Antt. xiv. 7, § 2). 
 
 ^ Jos. Antt. xii. 1. According to the highlj- exaggerated statement of Pseudo- 
 Aristeas, Ptolemy Philadelphus (B.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. 0. Apion, i. 22), and Josephus said of Onias 
 and Dositheus that Philometor intrusted to the JeM'S tV BairiKdav oKriv. 
 C. Ap. iv. 5. 
 
 * Philo, m Place. § 8. = Philo. in Place. § 6. 
 
 * Jos. Antt. xiv. i, §§ 1-4 ; vii. 2. On the ill-understood title, see 
 Gesenius, s.v. in Ersch and Gruber, and Forcellini, s.v. Arab-arches. 
 
 ' Griitz, 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-ono 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 Scptuagint. 
 
 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 Kabbis 
 kept an annual fast became the richest blessing of their 
 fellow-countrymen throughout the world. 
 
 This is not the f>lace 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." ^ As regards Judaism, it kept 
 millions in the faith of their fathers, so that they neither 
 became Macedonians in Philippi nor Spaniards in Gades.^ As 
 regards Christianity, it exercised a jDowerful influence over 
 the language, and therefore also inevitably over the thoughts, 
 of the Apostles and the Evangelists.* Further than this its 
 
 1 As regards the LXX. the Talmud is self-contradictory. See Woguc, 
 p. 136. 
 
 ■^ See Philo, Vit. Mos. ii. § 7. 
 
 3 H.ausrath, I.e. p. 129. 
 
 * On the Septuagint, see filem. Strom. 1, 9, § 45 ; Euseb. Praep. Ev. ix. 6, 
 xiii. 12 ; Aiiste3.eHi.storiaLXXn. ; 7)ifer/)r.;Pliilo, Vil. Mos. ii. §S 5-8. Jos. Ariit. 
 Prol. § 3, xii. 2 ; O. Ap. ii. 4 ; Plody, !)'■ Bihl. T,:d. Orienlalibtis, Oxf. 1705; 
 Frankcl, Vorstudicn ; Gratz, iii. 26-45, 429-446. Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes 
 Israels, ii. 534-556 ; Diihne, Beligionsphil. ii. 1-72 ; Stanlej-, Jewish CImrch, 
 
The Scptnaglnt. 117 
 
 effects upon the exegesis of Christendom can harcily'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/ the credulity with which 
 Justin Martyr-, followed by many of the Fathers, accepted the 
 inventions of the Alexandrian guides aboux the seventy cells," 
 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,^ and it furnished them ^\'ith not a 
 few of the technical terms of Christian Theology. It was 
 pai-tly on this account that the belief in its inspiration, asserted 
 by Philo* 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.^ 
 
 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 7010-0$ (Josh. viii. 18) on the 
 date sceHody, De BiU. Text ; Wogue, Eist. de la Bible, pp. 1 36-143 wJisitpra. 
 
 1 Jos. Antt. xii. 2, §§ 2-14 ; Philo, Vit. Mos. ii. § 7. 
 
 - Just. Mart. Apol. 13 ; Ambros. inPs. 43. No. 74. See Klausen, Augmtinus, 
 pp. 74-79. The name Septuagint may, as Hitzig thinks {Gesch. Volkes Jsr. 
 341), be due to the sanction of the version by the Alexandrian Sanhedrin. The 
 date of its earlier portions is about e.g. 270-250. The work of some fifteen 
 hands at least may be recognised in it, and the different translators were 
 differently endowed. 
 
 ' Out of 27.5 passages quoted from the 0. T. in the New, there are 37 
 in which the LXX. differs materially from the Hebrew. 
 
 ■* Philo, Fit. Mos. ii, 6, 7, where he mentions the annual festival (eoprit 
 /ml Travfiyupis) in honour of the event in the island of Pharos. 
 
 ^ Iron, ffasr. iii. 25 ; Clem. Alex. Stro-m. 1, 9, §43; Epiphan. I>e Pmid. 
 iii- 6, 9-11 ; Aug. Be Boctr. Christ, ii. 15 ; Be Civ. Dei, xviii. 42 ; Jer. 
 Praeif. in Pent. " Nescio quis primus auctor cellulas Alcxandriae mendacio 
 suo exstraxerit. " Cf. Praef. in Paralip. 
 
118 Dislilce of the Septuagint. 
 
 remark that " the same things uttered iu Hebrew and trans- 
 lated in another tongue have not the same force in them ; ' 
 and not only these things, but the Law itself, and the 
 prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference 
 when they are spoken in their own language." " St. Jerome, 
 for instance, had not been guilty of any intentional unfaith- 
 fulness in rendering /ieravoetTe by " 2MC7iitentia7n 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,^ 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.* 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 ^ and of the Judaising heretics, 
 
 ^ oh yap IffoSvfa/jLU avrd. 
 
 ^ Prol. to Ecclus. oit fxiKpav ex^i tV Stai^opa;'. Ji-.sus Beu Sirach came to 
 Egypt in B.C. 132. 
 
 * The rendering &pv^av, in Ps. xxi. 16 (.Vquila, rjirxui'ai'), and the non- 
 acceptance of the Jewish reading Kanrt, "like a lion,'' is one striking disproof 
 of the charge. 
 
 * Sopherim, i. 7 ; Gratz, iii. 429 ; Zuuz, Gottesd. Tort. 9'.. 
 
 ^ (piKoTifx&Tepov TreTntTTevixeyos -naph 'Ioy5a(ous T)pfj.fivevKivat r^r ypatpijVj 
 Orig. Sp. ad African. AquUae seciinda editio quam Hebraei kut' aKfiSiinr 
 iiominant, Jer. ad Ezecli. c. 3; If the current of the times had not run too 
 strongly against them, Aqiba and other Piabbis 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 
 hy <jvv} His version was vaunted as the sole accurate 
 rendering of Holy Writ. All three translators are charged 
 with using their undoubted knowledge of Hebrew - to esta- 
 blish anti-Christian interpretations.^ 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 faultj^ 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 * 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.^ They show 
 repeated traces of the influence both of Jewish casuistry * 
 
 ^ E.g. in Gen. i. 1, Aquila has '^.v KetpaXaicfi fKiroet d Oehs avv riiv ovpavhv 
 Kal aiiv T^iv yriv. Origen naturally speaks of him as SovXeiaiv tt) 'EySpai/cTJ 
 Ae'|fi [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. 
 
 " ''E.^pa'iKT]v Se Sid\eKTov aKfufHtts eltriv i)aKrijx^voi, Epiphan. Han\ xsix. 7. 
 
 ' "Qui scripturam nunc audent ixeBspirnvfiav, jierjieram interpretari." 
 Iren. Boer. iii. 24 ; Epiphan. Dc Pond. c. 13 ; Euseb. E.E. T. §1. " Judaeus 
 et judaizantes haeretici qui multa mysteria salvatoris suhdola inferpretatione 
 celarunt ; " Jer. Fracf. 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. 
 
 fihpov oil ixlKpas traiSeias h<p6fXOlov, Prol. 
 
 ^ Cellarius, De Septuag. Interpp. § 20 ; ap. Havernick, EinUit. § 70. 
 
 ^ Jewish casuistry ; the Halakha, Lev. xix. 19, tIv i.)nveKS>va aov ; xxiv. 7, 
 Frankincense and salt : Gen. ix. 4, Kpeas 4v al/xari i|/iix5)S ; xxxii. 32, ou i^i) 
 (jiiywiTi ; Deut. xxvi. 12, -rh Seirepoy iTriSeKaroy, &c. Herzfeld disputes many 
 of the references which Frankel regards as Halakhic (Gesch. d. V. Isr. ii. 
 542 fg.). 
 
120 Divergences. 
 
 and Jewish legend.' 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.- They oc- 
 casionally suggest a parallel between Je\vish 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.' 
 They introduce their Angelology where it has no sanction in 
 the existing text."* They call the Nethinim by the title 
 Hierodouloi.^ They indulge freely in Egyptian technicalities." 
 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 
 
 ^ The Haggada, or Jewish legendary lore. Deutr. xxxii. 8, guardian angels 
 of nations ; Josh. xxiv. 30, Hint 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. 
 
 " Ex. xxiv. 10, " They saw «Ae pface where God stood. . . Of the Elders of 
 Israel not even one perished (St€(f)ccv7}iTev), and they were seen in theplcccc 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, Ursehrift, 318, fg. 
 Erankel, Vorstxidien, passim. Siegfried, P7w7o. 18; Maqom, t6itos, "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. Rahba, § 68 : Auris 6 ©ejis KaAurat totos. Philo, Dc Somn. 
 i. 575 ; Aboth, ii. 17 ; iii. 5, 6. 
 
 ^ A-tiXaia-is Kal 'A\rte€ta. Aelian, Var. Hist. xiv. 34 : ko! ^koAcito ri iya\fi.ti 
 'AAriSim. FhUo, Vtt. Mos. iii. 11 ; Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Five Booh 
 of Moses, c. vi. 
 
 * Deut. xxxii. 8 ; xxxiii. 2. 
 
 ^ 3 Esdr. viii. 5, &c. 
 
 " Such as apT<i/37j, Is. v. 10 (Herod, i. 192) ; rflis. Lev. xii. 17 ; <rxo'"'os, Jer- 
 xviii. 15 ; Orig. ad loc. and Herod, ii. 6 ; Tra(TTo<pop(iov, 1 Ghi'on. ix. 26 ; 
 r\ioveoiJi<f>ci.vT\x, *^^ii- xii- 45- Sue Hody, Dc Bibl. Text. p. 114. 
 
Alteratiotis. 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.i 
 Five, however, of the alterations mentioned are aJcin 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," ^ and instead of " I have 
 not taken one ass from them," they read " an object of desire." ^ 
 They translated " hare " by " shaggy-foot " (Saavirov^) not by 
 Xayw';, 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.'' Jlore remarkable was the 
 interpolation of the word " not " to remove the apparent mis- 
 take of classing the hare among ruminants.'' 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 (aicr6rjT6<i) and the ideal 
 world (K6crfj,o<; votjto';) ; '^ and that in Is. ix. 6, in accord- 
 
 ' Megilla, f. 9, i. On the traces of Alexandrian philosoijhy in tlie Septuagint, 
 see Dahne, ii. 1-72, "who, however, makes the case appear much stronger than 
 it really is. 
 
 * Ex. ix. 20 ; eirl to inro(ivyia. 
 
 ' Num. XYi. 15 : iTrMijn\ij.n. In this passage they may have read TDH for 
 "lion. But we find the same tendency in Zech. ix. 9, where they use ttwAos ; 
 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. Apion. ii. 10 ; Tac. Bist. v. 3. Comp. Minuc. i'el. 
 Oct. 9 ; Tert. Apol. 16, and the note in Life of Christ, ii. 197. So Josephus 
 substitutes kttivos and "ttttos for "ass.'' 
 
 ' Lev. xi. 6 ; Deut. xiv. 7. Cobet doubts this, and points out that Lagos 
 meansnot "hare," but "leader of the people," and that Sao-iivrous 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 .,4 rJMiiett was the name of Ptolemy's mother. Arneveth bears no n- 
 semblance to Berenice, and she was Ptolemy's wife. Aquila uses Xaydis. 
 
 * See Stanley, Jew. Oh. iii. 261. 
 
 * aijouTos K.a\ aKaraa-Kevaaros. See Philo, De Opif. JIund. § 10. Aquila 
 
1-22 Mistal-es. 
 
 ance with the Alexandrian theosophy, they substitute "an 
 Angel of mighty counsel " for " the mighty God." 
 
 The version of the Seventy must therefore be regarded 
 not only as a translation, but as a corrected edition {Siopdaa-isi), 
 almost as a ranning commentary, which freely manipulates 
 the text in accordance with the exegetical traditions of the 
 day.^ The translators never scruple to introduce their 
 favourite euphemisms,^ 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." * St. Clement of 
 Eome, quoting from memory, gives the words 'ETrtcrKOTrou? 
 and AioKovovi in this passage, and applies it as an ancient 
 prophecy about the appointment of Bishops and Deacons.' 
 Irenaeus also makes it a prophecy concerning Presbyters.* 
 
 rendered it Kevai/xa koI oiidiv ; Symmachus, apy}iy koI aSidxpiTof ; Theodotion, 
 
 ^ Jerome, among other disparaging remarks, says, "Septuaginta quod 
 nesciebant dubiis protulere sententiis, " and "conjicio noluisse tunc tcmporis 
 Septuaginta interpretes iidei 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." 
 
 ^ Nah. iii. 5, to oirlaa (tov. Is. iii. 17, rb axnt^ avToiv. Job xxxi. 10, 
 TaTTiivw&eiri, &c. 1 Sam. xxiv. 3, ■KapaijK£va.<Ta(j(iai. 1 Sam. xvi. 23 ; xix. 9, 
 omission of Elohim and Jehovah. 
 
 ^ Ex. ii. 1, Toiv 6vyar4poii/ Aeui" (comp. Lev. xviii. 2) ; iv. 6, wtrel x"^** 
 ("leprous" omitted) ; vi. 12, &\oyos (of uncircumcised lips) ; vi. 15, 6 ^kt^j 
 •toii/iVo-ijs, vi. 30 ; laxvo^xoifSs ; 1 Sam. xv. 12, ^7re'(rT))€i|/e rh ap/jia ; 1 Sam. i. 
 14, •jraiSapioj'. They omit Ex. xxxii. 9. 
 
 ** LXX, 6(*j(rw rovs &pxovTas (Tou h elprjurj koI tovs inKXKSTrovs crov iv SlKatoffivri- 
 
 " Clem. Eom. Bp. ad Cor. § 42. ' « Iren. ffaer. iv. 44. 
 
Followed by the Fathers. 123 
 
 Jerome does indeed alter the translation,^ but in his usual 
 timid and vacillating way talks of the admirable majestjr of 
 Holy Scripture in giving the name of " Bishops " to the 
 future rulers of the Church ! ^ 
 
 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." ^ 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,^ Tertullian,^ C3rprian,'' Lactantius,^ 
 even Origan ^ and Theodoret^ 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 cognoscet ipsum ? ^^ 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.^^^ In this instance, also, the better know- 
 ledge of Jerome pointed out that the argument was " bono 
 qaidem voio sed non secimduvi 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 TertuUian. 
 
 In Hab. ii. 11, the Seventy render the word " beam" by the 
 curious word Ka,v0apo<;}^ Some critics have altered the reading 
 into Kavdov, Kava^ov, Kavdtjpiov, &c., but probably it merely 
 
 Vulg., Ponam visitaiioncm iitam pacem, et praepositos iwos justitiam. 
 ^ Jer. ad he. 
 Septuag., Efj.^(iKu>^€v ^vkov els rhv &prov. v.l. rpaxv^ov. Vulg., Mittamus 
 lignum in panem ejiis. 
 * Dial. p. 298. = 0. Jud. 10 ; C. Marc. iii. 19. 
 
 Test. adv. Jud. ii. 15. " histt. iv. 19. 
 
 " Hmi. X. in .Trr. 
 ' Theodoret, ad loc. 
 
 Jer. xvii. 9, jSad^ia 7} KapSia ■napa iravTa Ka\ &vdponr6s iffri (Vulg. inscnttahilc) 
 Kal TLS yvdo-frai avr^v ; 
 
 " Iren. Hacr. iii. 20 ; iv. 66. Tert. C. Jud. 10. Cyprian Test. ii. 10. 
 Lnctant. Imtt. iv. 13. Aug. G. Faustum, xiii. 8. 
 
 Hao. ii. 11, /col Kiivdapos e/c ^uKov (pOey^eTai avra. 
 
124 FoUoived by the Fathers. 
 
 means a knot in the wood.^ Some Latin versions rendered 
 it " scarabacus," beetle, and this led to some singular com- 
 ments. Thus St. Ambrose (Be Obitu Theodosii) speaks of 
 " Him who, like a beetle, called to his persecutors," and says 
 " He was the good beetle who called from the wood." ^ 
 
 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.^ In the two fwo. Origen 
 sees the Son and the Spirit ; TertuUian sees Moses and Ehas ; 
 other interpretations were Angels and men, Cherabim 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.* 
 
 The misinterpretation of a Greek word in Ps. xcii. 12, 
 " The righteous shall flourish as a palm-tree," led the Fathers 
 into an unfortunate argument. They mistook the word 
 (j}o2vi^, " 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," " 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 
 
 J Vulg., Lignum quod inter jutictivas acdificiorum est (tie-beam). 
 
 - On Luke xxiii. "VVe find elsewhere "bonus scarabaeus" applied to our 
 Lord. 
 
 3 L-enaeus [Hacr. iii. 10). Eusebius (Dem. Ev. vi. 15) and Theodoret 
 read (aiHv for (ii<t>v, and interpreted it " two lives." 
 
 •» Tert. C. Marc. iv. 22, &c. See Whitby, De S. Script. Interpret, p. 137. 
 
 6 Seethe passages quoted by Whitby, I.e. p. 85. 
 
 6 N"ah. i. 9, oiiK eVSiK-ijo-eis Slj eij aiircj. Cod. Al. ovk 4K5uc-fi<Tet 5b M rh 
 avT6. Vulg., Non consurget duplex tribulatio. 
 
Sup2)0secl Inspiration. 125 
 
 Canon of [?] Basil, for a crime unto death), he was to be de- 
 posed but not excommunicated, " non cnim vindicahis his 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.^ He seems to have doubted whether even 
 the errors were not of divine origin, and when in Jon. iii. 4 
 the Seventy read " Yet three days and Nineveh shall be de- 
 stroyed," 2 he argues as if the " three " were prophetically 
 significant of the time between the Death and the Resur- 
 rection of our Lord.5 
 
 We are surprised to find similar notions prevalent even in 
 the school of Antioch. Yet no less a commentator than 
 Theodore of Mopsuetia relies almost exclusively upon the 
 Septuagint, and not only does not consult the Hebrew, but 
 even fails to make use of the Syriac version, which would 
 have often thrown light upon the difficulties of the Greek. 
 It is astonishing that he should accept the unhappy rendering 
 " Amalthaea's horn " as an equivalent of Qeren Happiuk, * 
 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,^ it does not 
 
 \_pe Doetr. Christ, ii. 15 ; Ep. 28, o. 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 TrpoiprjTiKri! 
 SffTrep x^tp'Tos TrepLXafi^^dfTTis avrous {Novel. Diatcix. 146). 
 
 LXX. €T£ TpetS 7}fl4pat, K.T.\. 
 
 ' De Cons. Ev. ii. 66 ; De Doetr. Christ, iv. 15. See Trench, Sermon on 
 the Mount, p. 18. 
 
 * "Horn of Stibium." Job xlii. 14. LXX., '^jiaKSelas Kepas, Vulg., 
 Corim Stibii. 
 
 ' The following instances are adduced by Franck, Franliel, Dahne, &c. : 
 Gen. 1. 2,7] Seyrj ^v atjparos ; Gen. ii. 4, 5, 4nolT](re . . . irav x^^P^^^'ypovir ph 
 Tov yeviaBm inl rris yTJs : Is. xl. 26, Tis KartSei^e ravTa: Is. xlv. 18, 6 KaraSei^as 
 riiiiyTjv. These are supposed to bear on the Platonic idealism and the creation 
 of an ideal before the real world. Is. xl. 26, cKcpepaiv kot' apiSfihy rhy Kia)t.ov 
 ouTou (Pythagorean notion of numbers) ; Is. xlii. 13, 5 fleij twv Swd/iewv 
 (the logoi or intermediate potencies of Philo) ; Ps. ex. 3, irph 'Ea!<r(j)6pov 
 iyefVTicrii ae (a Pre-existent Logos) ; Is. ix. 5, ^eya\r}s /SouAijs &yy€\os (the 
 Logos), &c. Their views are combated by Herzfeld, Geseh. des Volkes Israel, 
 ii. 411-414. 
 
126 The Booh of Wisdom. 
 
 show any symptoms of that which was the special tendency 
 of Alexandrian exegesis, namely, the method of allegory. Its 
 references to ritual and to legend, and its avoidance of anthro- 
 pomorphism, are Palestinian no less than Hellenistic,^ and too 
 gi-eat 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 ; ^ 
 the coeval existence of formless matter ; ' and the view that 
 the body is the seat of all sin.* From the Stoics he had 
 learnt about the Four Cardinal Virtues and the Intelligential 
 Spirit which pervades the world.'' 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." 
 
 In the semi-ethnic Jewish writings of this epoch we have 
 another indication of the widesiDread desire on tlie 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 jja/^mm 
 of Japheth with the tallitli of Shem." 
 
 Jason of Gyrene 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 e.xplanations. Antt. iii. 7. § 7. &c. See Diet, of Christian 
 Biogr. ii. 452-458. 
 
 2 Wisd. viii. 19. 3 /^. xi. 17. 
 
 ' Id. i. 4 ; viii. 20. 5 j^_ ^j;. 22-24. 
 
 ^ Id. xviii. 24. 
 
Jewish-Greek Writers. 127 
 
 that the Jews had felt the charm of Greek romance, find 
 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 
 Uterary form of these productions, and which led the writers 
 to bon'ow, 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.^ 
 
 i. Of the letter of the Pseudo-Aeisteas, we need say 
 but little. Though accepted by Josephus and Philo,^ 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.s 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.* 
 
 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.^ The genuineness of 
 these works was impugned by Hody and defended by 
 Valcknaer. Recently it has been impugned by Kuenen 
 though defended by Gfrorer.^ In the sphere of Alexandrian 
 
 1 See Miiller, Fmgmenta Hist. Gr. iii. 207-230 ; Euseb. Pracp. Evang. ix. 
 17-39 ; Clem. Alex. Strom, i. c. 15 § 72 ; Jos. Antt. i. 15 ; C. Ap. i. 23 ; Grate, 
 Gesch. d. Juden, iii. 483 ; Delitzsch, Gcsck. d. Jud. Poesie, 211 ; Herzfeld, 
 iii. 517 ; Philippson, Ezcchiel und Philo. 1836. The Palestinian Jews looked 
 very unfavourably on all autborsliip. Jest, Judenth. i. 367, 373. 
 
 2 Jos. Antt. xii. 2 ; PhUo Fit. Mos. ii. § 6, Fabric. Bibl. Graec. iii. 660. 
 Jost, Judenth. i. 372. Hody demonstrated the spuriousness of the letter. It 
 is printed in Gallandi, Bihl. Pair. ii. 771. 
 
 ^ The real Aristeas was an officer of Ptolemy Philadelphus. 
 
 ' 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 difierenoe 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 
 (aTra7opeuTi/cws)but didactically {^v^mzTtKOis). 
 
 5 See Clem. Alex. Strom, i. Euseb. Primp. Ex. vii. 13, viii. 9, ix. 6, 
 xiii. 12. 
 
 ^ 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, PJiilo. 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.^ He is one of the ' 
 precursors whom Philo used though he did not name,^ 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;* 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.* 
 
 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 afterw^ards adds Socrates, had largely 
 borrowed from them.^ Similarly we find an attempt else- 
 
 ^ Eusebius (K. E. vii. 32) says that he wrote Bt^Aous i^rfyririKas toD 
 Muiiicreais v6y,ov. Fragments are preserved in Euseb. Praep. Ev. vii. 13, 14 ; 
 viii. 9, 10 ; xiii. 12, of which some are given by Clement in his Siromateis 
 (i.^§25; V. §20; vi. § 37). 
 
 " lie Abrah. ii. 15 ; De Joseph, ii. 63 ; De Spec. Legg. ii. § 2 (Mangcy, ii. 
 329) ; Leg. Allegg. i. 55, and Dc Decal. i. My references to Philo will almost 
 invariably be to the sections, which arc numbered in all editions. 1 have chiefly 
 used Mangey and the Leipzig editions. 
 
 ^ ^ See Justin Mart. Apol. i. 59 ; Cohort. 26, 30-33 ; Euseb. Praep. Ev. vii. 14 ; 
 Clem, Alex. Strom, i. e. 22. § 150. 'ApiaT6l3ovAosSi . . . ypd<pei KarTjKoAoiieijKe 
 5e 6 nXaToiv T7J Ka6' Tjfj.a.s vo^oOeala . . . KaSdis Kal nu6ay6pas TroAAa Tuiv Trap' 
 vulv fiereveyKas eis T-i]v eavTou Soy/j-moirodav. Comp. Strom. V. c. 14. § 98 ; 
 Dahne, De C'lernent. Alex, yndaei. Leips. 1831. 
 
 * See Clem, Alex. Strom, v, 20, 
 
 ° 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. Keuchlin 
 maintains the thesis in the second book of his De Verio Mirifico (comp. id. i, 
 cap. 13, 14), asserting that Plato's Absolute Being {tI optois hv) is borrowed 
 from "I am that I am," and the Tetraktysof Pythagoras from the Tetragram- 
 maton. See Philo, Quis rer. div. Aaer. 43 ; Quod omn. proh. liber. 16 ; Dc 
 
 K 
 
130 The Allegorising Method. 
 
 where to identify Gideon (Jerubbaal) with the priest 
 Hierombalos who furnished information to Sanchoniatho 
 the Berytian;! and the Prophet Ezekiel with Nazaratus 
 the Assyrian who is spolien 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.^ 
 
 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 
 
 proviil. i. 77, 79; ii. 42, 48; Vit. Mos. i. 1 ; ii. 4 ; De poster. C'aini, 39; 
 Quaestiones (Aucher, ii. 83, 178, 359, 373, 503) ; Jos. 0. Ap. ii. 6 ; Franck, 
 Ilie Kabbala, pp. 8, 9. 
 
 ^ See Euseb, Praep. Ev. i. 10 ; Bochart, Phalra. p. 776 ; Ewald, Gexk 
 ii. 494. 
 
 2 In quoting Homer, Od. v. 262, Aristobulus substituted €/35ofwi' for 
 rhpaTov. Gratiger says outright "Judaeorum est meutiri," Ad Chronol 
 Euseb. p. 405. Ou this subject of forgery see R. Simon, Hixt. 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. 
 
 ^ Euseb. Fmrp. Ev. viii. 10. 
 
 *^ So too Philo. God does not speak— S7ra7€, ^7'(t' cis vovv ttot ikir) fii' 
 7}niT€pQv. Decal. § 9. 
 
Its Causes. 131 
 
 nothing external. The six days' creation merely implies 
 continuous development. The seventh day indicates the cycle 
 of hehdomads 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.^ 
 
 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 w e 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 Rabbinic 
 casuists were spinning cobwebs of ceremonial inferences out 
 of the letter of the Law, allegory was used by the Hellenists 
 for the totally different object of developing out of Moses the 
 attenuated semblance of an alien philosophy. To the Rabbis 
 the Pentateuch was the germ of all ritualism, to the Hellenists 
 it was the veil of all gnosis.' 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 
 
 ' Jewish Church, iii. 282. ^ The LXX. use yvSiais to render n^'l. 
 
 K 2 
 
132 Alexandriamsm. 
 
 from the Law, the Haphtara from the Prophets — were read 
 ahke in the synagogues of Jerusalem and of AJexandria, 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, famihar 
 with all the literary treasures of Greek thought, to live 
 like a Palestinian Eabbi " within the four corners of the 
 Halakha," or to think that life could be profitably spent 
 in janglings over the microscoiDic details of an abrogated 
 Levitism. We are not surprised to learn that the Eahbis 
 of Jerusalem branded a man as " a genuine Alexandrian " ^ if 
 he showed any of the independence which sprang from his 
 sujDerior 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 - — no gifted Jew 
 could remain spell-bound in the narrow self-assertion oTTiis 
 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 Eome." 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 Kin TliDX^ mjDo'pN. Eappoport, Urech Millin. p. 102, quoted by 
 Siegfried, Philo, 6. 
 
 '^ Philo, De Cherub. 30 ; De Agric. 3, i ; De Congress. 34 ; De Sonn. 
 i. 33. 
 
Alexandrianism. 133 
 
 of Japliet. 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 ? ^ 
 
 On the other hand an Alexandrian of the school of Philo " 
 had no desire to apostatise.^ 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 Hagar the concubine.^ 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 was 
 inspiring, noble, irresistible. There must, he fancied, be some 
 middle term by which the two could be united.* Such a 
 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,* by 
 harmonising the dogmas of divine revelation with the - 
 discoveries of speculative thought.'' 
 
 A similar necessity has occurred again and again in the 
 rehgious history of mankind. It has drivenjbe Brahmins to 
 provide a mystical interpretation for the Vedas. It has com- 
 
 1 Menachoth, f. 99, 2 : Derenbourg, 361. 
 
 " 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 JS'om. mulat. § 8), because he had sneered at 
 the splendid present of a single letter which God had made to Abraham and 
 Sar.ih. 
 
 ' De Ahr. 19 ; Dc Concjr. quaer. 1-5. 
 
 ■* De Micjr. Ahr. § 16 ; De Plant. Noe, §§ 8, 17. 
 
 '^ See Neander, Ch. Hist. i. 72, 73 ; Herzfeld, ii. 515. 
 
 " "Ce qui soufBait dans Alexandrie c'etait le vent de la conciliation, et s'il 
 y avait danger c'etait moins d'etre trop exclusif, que d'etre tente d'associer 
 en.semble des choses inoompatibles. " Denis, p. 7. 
 
 ^ 
 
134 Borrowed from the Stoics. 
 
 pelled the Sofi to find hidden senses in the Koran.i 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 Keformers, 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- 
 monising them with current opinions. Now the only possible 
 method for thus making ancient documents of felt authority 
 express throughout their whole extent the thoughts of 
 advancing ages is the method of finding in them a mystic 
 sense which lies below the surface — in one word, the method 
 of allegory. In the schools of Palestine the impulse of a 
 patriotic particularism engrained the details of the law into 
 the life of the people ; in Alexandria by an exegetical art of 
 turning everything into parable, the meaning of the Law was 
 altogether volatilised in order to conceal an inward and 
 unconscious apostasy from its menacing letter.^ 
 
 V. The Alexandrian Jews were not, however, driven to 
 invent this method for themselves. They found it ready to 
 their hands. There is no more curious page in the history of 
 exegesis than the undoubted fact — a fact recognised alike by 
 Mangey one of the best early editors of Philo and by Siegfried 
 the profoundest recent student of his writings — that the 
 Apocryphal writers and Aristeas, and Aristobulus, and Philo, 
 did but adapt to Scripture a method which had been de- 
 veloped by their heathen neighbours, — a method which had 
 long been applied, and was under their own eyes being 
 . ^ See Franck, Die Knbhala, 31. « See Eeuss, Gesch. § 503. 
 
Homer Allegorised. 135 
 
 applied by contemporary thinkers to the poems of Horner.^ 
 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 f)hilosophic convictions and therefore with daring- 
 consistency he banished the ]Doets from his ideal republic — 
 banished them with decision, though with all honourable 
 circumstance." 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." * Chrysippus, says 
 Cicero, wished to accommodate the fables of Oi-pheus, 
 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.^ The best extant specimen of these 
 
 ' Mangey in his Preface (Philonis, i. v. ) says, ' ' Magis interpretationem 
 AUegoricam invaluisse probabile est ex mytliologicorum scriptorum inter 
 Etiinicos fama qui tunc temporis coeperant fabulas suas propudiosas et impias 
 niystioas umbris vel obducere vel defendere." On this subject see Lobeck, 
 Aglacphamus, 1829. 
 
 '' De Rep. ii. passim. But Plato, too, allegorises Homer. 
 
 ' See Tatian, Or. ad Graccos, 21 : " Metrodorus of Lampsacus, in his 
 treatise concerning Homer, has argued very foolishly, turning everything into 
 allegory." 
 
 * Diog. Laert. ii. 11, So/cet npwros t^v 'OfJ-TlpiK^v iroitlffiv aTro(p'f]vaffdai nepl 
 apfrfis Kol SiitaiOiTvVTis. 
 
 ' Cic. X)c A'ai. Deor. i. 15. See Creuzer, Synholilc, i. eh. vi. 
 
136 Homeric AUdjorks. 
 
 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.i 
 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.^ By these means there 
 \ was no sort of difficulty in making Homer speak the language 
 V 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.^ 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.^ 
 
 VI. In Philo the Greek method is rigidly systematised 
 j and brought to its completion, though he was by no means 
 
 1 The treatise of Herakleides Ponticns was printed by Hevne in his edition 
 of the Iliad. ■' 
 
 2 See some excellent criticisms on this method in Cic. Dc Nat Dsor ii. 18. 
 
 3 Jos. C. Ap. i. 21 ; ii. 3, § 5 ; B. J. ii. 18, S§ 7, 8. 
 
 ■> It is in the fourth Book of Maccabees, erroneously ascribed to Josephus 
 that we find the earliest meeting-point of Jewish and Greek methods. 
 
Three Schools. 137 
 
 the first Jew who adopted it.^ He found three exegetic i 
 schools existing among his countrymen. There were j 
 Literalists, of whom he speaks with lofty superiority ; i 
 Kationalists who apostatised from Judaism altogether and 
 whom he regards with sorrow and indignation ; " and 
 Allegorists, who had already learnt the secret how to I 
 reconcile Judaic institutions with Hellenic culture.^ Philo's 
 works are the epitome and the development of the principles 
 of the Allegorists.* To them — though not by name — he ' 
 constantly refers ; and on allegory tlie whole Pliilonian 
 philosophy entirely depends.* Eclecticism without originality 
 usually has a chilling influence upon belief, but by the aid 1 
 of allegory Philo was able to regard himself as a Stoic j 
 philosopher and yet at the same time as a faithful Jew.'' I 
 
 He was very little imbued with Rabbinic culture." 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 
 
 ■^ PMlo. De Vit. Contcmpl . § 3, etm (Tvyypdf^fiara -KaXaioiv avSpwv ol . . . 
 TToWa livriixela t7\s il> rots aKK-i]yopovfj.4lfOis i5e'as air4\nrov, 
 
 ■ Be Migr. Abrah. § 39 ; De Hut. Norn. § 8. 
 
 ' 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 Mid. Nam. S 29). 
 
 * He expresses himself emphatically on the need of retaining Jewish insti- 
 tutions in De Migr. Abr. § 16, elirl yap rivss oi Tobs f>7]Toijs vojjloms av^^oXa. 
 vorjTwv irpayndrui' inroKa^HiivovTes ra ^ev dyav 7}Kpi^(si(7a,v tuv Se pc^dvixtas 
 utXLyujprtffav^ ot/s fx^fx\\ia'i^t)v Uv eyoiye ttjs evx^p^ioLS. 
 
 ^ 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. Do. viii. 14 ; Mangey, ii. 646, 673) ; De 
 iJmgr. § 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 (Bihl. Cod. cv. ), and Suidas, 
 § v., ii\a>v. 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 Gains 
 (Caligula, a.d. 39), he may have been born B.C. 10-20. A good sketch is given 
 by Ewald, vii. 194 f.g., and I have collected the main facts in Early Days of 
 Christianity, i. 264-279. 
 
 ° Euseb. Praep. Ev. ^^ii. 14. 
 
 ' He does however refer to " the tradition of the elders " Fragm. ap. 
 Eiiseb. Praep. Ev. viii. 7. See Bern. Ritter, PliUo 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. ■■• 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 hiivafjn^ and ivreXex^ta-^ 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 
 jthe literal sense," as Philo calls them, had good grounds for 
 /looking with susjjicion 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- 
 23lained 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.^ Philo could still visit Jerusalem and 
 practise the precepts of the law,* but his powerful nephew, 
 the Procurator Tiberius Alexander became an open apostate 
 from the religion of his fathers/" 
 
 1 Se Leg. Allegg. i. § 33 ; De Incorrupt. Mund. § 61 ; see Siegfried, p. 138. 
 
 2 Quod Omn. prob. lib. %1 ; Dc liicorr wpt. Mwndi, § 3 ; Quacst. § IS; De 
 muTid. opif. § 4 ; Leg. Allegg. 1, 64 ; Dc Koin. Mutal. §35. See the quotations 
 refci-red to in Siegfried, Philo, 138-140 ; Zeller, iii. 352, fa-. 
 
 3 See Siegfried, 156-159. 
 
 '' Ap. Euseb. Pracjt. Ev. viii. 13. 
 
 ^ Jos. Antt. xviii., 8 § 4. xx. 5, §2. Anotlier of Philo's nephews (!) 
 the Alabarch Alexander wrote a book to prove that animals are endowed 
 with reason. Philo answered him in his De Dkinatione. Aucher, i. 124-1/" 
 
The Literal Sense. 139 
 
 Philo professes to respect the literal sense. ^ 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 tlie soul. The 
 passages which he refracts through the distorting medium of 
 his exegetic system may be counted by hundreds, whereas it is 
 very rarely that he abides by the plain meaning of even the 
 simplest narratives. Thus he cannot leave untouched even 
 the humane command of Moses about the restoration at 
 nightfill of a pledged garment, and the pledged garment 
 is forced into a symbol of tlie gift of speech ! ^ " For," 
 lie 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.^ 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,* 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.* 
 
 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 
 
 ' He generally rationalises it (see 0pp. i. 146), but sometimes refers to it as 
 7j iv ^av^p^ Koi Tvphs Tous woWovs airoSoats ; De Ahr. 29, t) firir^ /cai <pavepa. 
 OTr(fSo(ris or Kara Xfi^oi' {like the Midrasbic ItOt^'D HT). For liis other phrases 
 see note. So the Jlishnic doctors distinguished between the letter which tliej' 
 called the body (ND13), and the mystic sense which was as the soul (NHDCJ). 
 
 - De Somn. i. § 16. 
 
 ' De Joseph. ^6 ; De Spec, lecjg. § 32. 
 
 ■* See Vacherot, Ni'st. de I'i'eole d'Alnx- i. 165 ; Bollinger, Judcnth. u. Heidni. 
 X. iii. § 5. Philo's favourite mode of address to his reader is "Ye initiated " 
 (3 uiicTai). ^ See Baur, Die Christlicfie Gnosis, 234-240. 
 
140 Perversions of Scr'rptiirc. 
 
 that he even believed himself to be inspired.^ The immeasur- 
 able differences which separate tlie 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 
 moraUty, 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 sti-aightforward 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 
 
 "> He says that his soul was frequently filled with inspirations (9Eo\7)irTeT- 
 (T9ai) anil exerciseil diviuation {fj.afTevetreai) J)-- Cherubim, § 9 ; ri ijxavTov Tota 
 i livpia-cis iraBlbv olSa. De Mirjr. Abr. §§ 7-35 ; See Ofrorer, Philo, i. 53. 
 
 - See QuacstioTies. (Aucher, ii. pp. 83, 89, 359, 373, &c.) 
 
Perversions of Scripture. 141 
 
 father of sound ; " in other words he attains to a knowledge 
 of God and marries Sarah or abstract Wisdom. Jacob 
 arriving at a certain place where the sun sets becomes 
 Wisdom acquired by training, 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 {jaireivov) — quite unworthy of the lofty under- 
 standing of a philosophic allegorist — to understand the state- 
 ment literally. Jordan means " baseness ; " the staff means 
 " disciphne ; " 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 entu'ely 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. ^ 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 ((^iXocraJ/iaro? Kal cjjiXoTraOrj'; 
 vov<i), and of one wise in his own conceit, ^ though in another 
 aspect he is the victorious overcoraer 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.^ 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 
 
 J Be Ebri,:t. § 23. 
 
 - Be Somn. ii. 14 ; Qund Deun immut. § 24 ; Leq. Allcgg. i. § 63. I have 
 given some specimens of Philo's allegories in Early Days uf Christianity, i. 
 269. 
 
 He calls him bcTidiraros Kal QeoipiKeararos rav irajTrore y€VOjj.fVcuv. 'O 
 iepdtTaros, 6 lepo(pdvT7is opyiuiv, Kal SiSciffKaKos tuv B^iwv (Kit. Mos. iii. § 24 ; 
 Be 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.i 
 
 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." ^ His dualism, his belief in the eternity of 
 matter,^ his assertion of the incognisable nature of God, his 
 " intermediate Words," his Platonic idealism, his theory of 
 the primeval androgyne,* 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." ' He only 
 read his opinions into the Pentateuch ^ 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, eiire ns tZv Trd\ai 7rpo0T)TcSv. He neTer mentions 
 Ezekiel, or Daniel, or quotes as Scripture Esther, Ecclesiates, or Canticles (see 
 Frankel, Vorshidien zu d. Scptuayinta, 29. De Wette, Einleit. 26). He 
 acq uircd, however, a special predilection for Jeremiah, perhaps from traditions 
 of his stay in Egypt. Be Cherub. 14. Siegfried, p. 161. He makes veryhttle 
 use of Job. 
 
 " Suidas ; Jer. Catal. 11 ; Ep. 8.3. 
 
 3 J. G. Miiller, Ijes Juden Philo Buch d. WcUschopfung, 1841 ; Dahne, i. 
 188, fg. Fragm. ap. Euseh. Pracp. JBo. vii. 22 ; viii. 13. St. John emphatically 
 repudiates the Philonian dualism. John i. 3. 
 
 * De Cpif. 3Iundi, 24. 
 
 5 De Provid. ii. 42 ; Qui3 rer. div. haer. 33. See a brief summary of tis 
 theological views in Zeller, iii. 214. 
 
 « DlpO. De Somn. i. § 11. This term is also used by the Pabbis. 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 (3ti icrn oix Ssoriroiosl. 
 Hence he calls God Sttoios. 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.i 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 a.ccording 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." ^ 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 geneiic goodness. 
 
 Its four heads are the cardinal virtues. Pheison is derived 
 
 irom plieidomai "I spare,"* and means prudence, and being 
 
 ' Comp. Aristobulus (ap. Euseb. Pracp. Ev. xiii. 12), Si' €0So^a.S<i>i> Si koI 
 irSs d k6it/ios KuKXe'iTat. 
 
 ^ On Philo's fancies about masculine and feminine numbers, see Se Mnt. 
 Nom. % 35. De Opif. ilund. § 3. Jost, Judenth. i. 321. Clement of Alexandria 
 {Strom, i. 15, § 72) calls him a Pythagorean {r^v Trap' aiiro^s (jxiXoaoiptav 
 eyypanrov y€voii4vT}v TrpoKardp^ai tti$ irap' EWtj(Ti (pi\o(TO(pLas Sia ttoWoiv 6 
 Uviayipeios vroSeiKvvffi ^i\aiv). His notions are half Pythagorean, half 
 Kabbalistie. Ewald thinks tljat the allusion of Clemens must be to tlie elder 
 Pliilo (vii. 206 E.T.). On his Stoic affinities see Zeller, Phil d. &rieclicv, 
 iii. 346-352. 
 
 ' He says that to understand literally the statements about Paradise is folly, 
 TO\\jj Kai SvaBepi.TrevTos 7] ev-fi9eia {De plant. Noe, 8). For similar expressions 
 see Leg, Allegg. iii. 2 ; Dc Mundi Opific. 3, and note. 
 
 •" 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 
 
Hi 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 witL 
 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 
 imattainable, 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 j)leasure, 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.i 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. Dc Nat. Deor. ii. 18). 
 ' 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 " ! ^ 
 
 The death of Er is explained as follows : — Er means 
 "leather," in other words "that leathern mass which covers 
 us," namely, the body ! Elohim, and not Jehovah, is said to 
 slay Er ; and the meaning is that goodness condemns the 
 dead body to death. The touching incident of the blessing 
 of the two sons of Joseph is made to signify that Jacob, the 
 supplanter of the passions and practiser of virtue, gives his 
 right hand to Ephraim, who stands for prolific memory, and 
 his left to Manasseh, who stands for recollection aroused from 
 forgetfulness. The Messianic promise, which Philo renders 
 "He shall watch thy head and thou shalt watch his heel," is 
 explained to mean that God says to pleasure " the mind shall 
 watch your predominant and principal doctrine, and you shall 
 watch the traces of the mind itself, and the foundation of the 
 things which are pleasing to it, to which the heel has very 
 naturally been likened." In the passage about Sihon and 
 Heshbon (Numb. xxi. 28-30), Sihon is interpreted to mean the 
 man who destroys the sound rule of truth ; Heshbon " soph- 
 istical riddles ; " and Debon " adjudication." Philo's comment 
 on the budding of Aaron's rod is a tedious attempt to prove 
 that " the nut signifies consummate virtue." ^ 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- 
 
 ' The way in which Philo creates ilifiiculties about the literal sense when 
 there are none except in his own confusions of thought is shown by his com- 
 iiient upon the llosaio 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 cul. published by Angelo Mai). The 
 naive confession of St. Jerome, ' ' AUegorice interpretatus sum Obadiam evjus 
 fiistor'tam ncscicl)am" might have been made by other AUegorists. 
 
 ^ Vit. Mas. iii. S 22. 
 
146 Variable Symbols. 
 
 plative life.i 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.^ And 
 unhappily these counters, of which the significance is often 
 made to depend on a wild etymology, are interchangeable — 
 so that they may sometimes stand for one thing and some- 
 times for another thing which is entirely different. Japhet for 
 instance is in one sense permissible enjoyment; in another he 
 is insatiable desire.^ The sun is sometimes the understanding 
 (which is the reason why Joseph marries the daughter of the 
 priest of Heliopolis, Gen. xli. 45) ; sometimes the bodily sense, 
 '(so that the sun begins to rise when Jacob no longer sees 
 God, Gen. xxxii. 32) ; sometimes the Word of God ; sometimes 
 God Himself And thus the whole Bible becomes an insipid 
 philosophical romance of which the interpretation floats in 
 the air, and which can only be understood by the uncertain 
 aid of a dictionary of metaphors. 
 
 This kind of exegesis is not improved but rendered 
 still more valueless by the futile methods adopted to 
 sublimate these pale generalities out of narratives which 
 thrill with life, and are rich with the lessons of experience. 
 For instance, the parallel passages which are introduced 
 have nothing but the most distant verbal connection 
 with the passage explained. When we are told that 
 "God planted a garden in Eden," it is worse than super- 
 fluous to explain to us that the reason why Moses said 
 
 J De rrofugli, § 31 ; Qitod Deus immut. § 21. 
 
 ^ oil Ttepl yvvaiRav xiyos aWa Siai/oiui,, De Congr. crud. 1-6, and 'passim. 
 Philo says (6) that Zilpah means "a mouth going forth, " and Bilhah " a 
 swallowing. " 
 
 3 For Joseph see Leg. allegg. i. § 63 ; iii. §§ 85, 86. For Japhet see De 
 Sobnet. § 12; and Qimest. in Gen. ii. 80: and senerallv Siealried, PAi'«i 
 190-196. * JO. 
 
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.i 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 ttov el ; " Where art thoti ? " 
 in the Greek version may mean " Thou art somewhere ; " 
 and then to build an argument on both phrases.^ Philo's 
 method was equally ahen 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 
 Eabbinic 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." ^ 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 
 
 ' Deut. xvi. 21. The verse means "Thou sh,^lt not set up an Asherah (oi- 
 phallic emblem of the nature-goddess) of any wood. " 
 
 ^ 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 ; Do Congr. crud, 8 ; and of " our Alexan- 
 dria" (Leg. ad Gaium, 22). 
 
 ^ XP'Jo'juoi, \6-yia, Upa &i0Kos, UpuiraTov yp<i/xfj.a, 6 Uphs or de^os A6yo5, or 
 i opShs \6yos. Ve Mut. Norn. 8 ; Quis. res. div. 53 ; Vit. Mas. 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! (Vii. Mos. iii. 39). 
 
 L 2 
 
1 48 Views of Inspiration. 
 
 this subject than was used by Philo. Yet his theory of 
 inspiration was a mere nasios ccrcus. His Bible practically con- 
 sisted of the Pentateuch alone, and parts even of that he ex- 
 plains as mystical.! 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.^ 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 be also re- 
 verences as inspired ; and treats them in a manner purely 
 arbitrary, derived from his own individual genius.^ 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.* Thus alone can we account for 
 the singular phenomena of an acceptance of the most 
 mechanical theory of inspiration,^ combined with the 
 acquiescence in a translation which constantly diverges from 
 the inspired original.'' 
 
 ^ He classed the contents of the I'laitatench nnder the heads of (1) oracles, 
 (2) responses given to Jloses, and (3) revelations given to him in a state of 
 ecstasy. 
 
 '' De Somn. i. § 10, ovx "cadis trapa <rvyypa<pfas la-ropiicov fidOaiiiev. De Congr. 
 § 8, ohx iCTTopiK'^ yeveahoyia toSt* iariv. 
 
 3 See Ewald, vi. 276-378 ; Siegfried in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1873. 
 
 ■* Fit. Mos. ii, 6, 7. On Philo 's ignorance of Hebrew see Jost, Jtuknth. 
 i. 352. 
 
 •'> Vit. Mos. iii. § 3 ; Quis. lier. Div. hasr. § 52 ; De Pmem. § 9. 
 
 ' Vit. Mos. iii. § 23. He uses the words eViflei'ao-ai, ivBovaiaiv, KaTamewBeh. 
 But it must be remembered that he by no means confines his theory of super- 
 natural inspiration to the sacred writers'; for he takes the conception from 
 Plato and the Greek philosophers {Ion 34 B &c. ), and extends it to 
 heathens and to himself (see Gfrorer, i. 51 ff). Heathen Philosophy, not 
 Scriirture, was the source of such dogmas. The views of Josephus were less 
 
PMlo's Rules. r 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 iare 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.^ , 
 The former is the body of Scripture, the latter the soul, which j 
 like a fine fluid pervades the whole law." 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.^ j 
 These illuminated persons cover the living rock with accretions 
 which they refuse to share with any but their own followers, 
 and become so proud of the incrustation that they cease to be 
 conscious that there is a reck at all, and that it was meant for 
 the use of all mankind. 
 
 All this " madness " is reduced to " method "' by a set of 
 rules, half Haggadistic, half Stoic, but entirely inapplicable. 
 By some of them the literal sense is positively excluded ; by 
 others, the allegoric sense is indicated as existing with the 
 literal side by side. 
 
 1. The rules by which the literal sense is excluded are / 
 chiefly Stoic* 
 
 It is excluded when the statement is unworthy of God ; '' / 
 when there is any contradiction ; when the allegory is 
 
 exfa'avagant, but he too extends inspiration to himself and to others besides 
 the Biblical writers {B. J. i. 2, % S ; iii. 8, § 3 ; iv.lO, § 7). Ewald (vii. 203) 
 well points ont that Se6TTveviTros (2 Tim. iii. 16) is a far vaguer adjective 
 than "a Deo inspiratus" (Vulg. ) or " Von Gott cingajeben" (Lutlier). 
 
 ' Philo, Quod Deus iw/rmit. § 11 ; De Somn. i. § 40. See Gfrorer, Philo, i, 
 68-113 ; Diihne, i. 49 ; Hirschfeld, Hagacl. Exegcse, 156 ; Siegfried, 162-197. 
 
 ■^ De Migr. Ahrah. § 16. 
 
 ' De Ahr. §§ 29, 36 : De Plant. § 9 ; Jl« Cherub. §§ 7, 8, and passim ; De 
 Somn. i. 33. 
 
 ' See De Somn. ii. 2, 20 ; i. §3 13-17 ; Z)c ^6r. § 15 ; Leg. Allegg. i. § 18 ; 
 De_ Cherub. §.? 7-9 ; Quia Rer. Div. S 57. 
 
 ° The extraordinary notion that Scripture, of which they regarded every 
 word as being supernaturally inspired, is full of pa.<:sages which in their obvious 
 si'nse are indecent, unbecoming, or derogatory to God is repeated after Philo 
 by centuries of Patristic and Christian expositors. Thus an extravagant and 
 uuscriptural 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 Phtlo's Rules. 
 
 obvious. If Scripture says that Adam "hid himself from 
 God," the expression dishonours God who sees all things, — and 
 therefore it must be allegory. If we are told that Jacob sends 
 Joseph to look after his brethren when he had so many 
 servants, — or that Cain had a wife or built a city, — or that 
 Potiphar had a wife,— or that Israel is an " inheritance of 
 God ; " 1 — or if Abraham be called " the father " instead of 
 grand-father of Jacob — those are "contradictions," and, there- 
 fore, the passages in which they occur must be allegorised. 
 
 2. The rules which prove the simultaneous existence of the 
 allegorical with the literal sense are mainly Rabbinic.^ 
 
 Thus if an expression be repeated as in "Abraham 
 Abraham," the double name expresses first affectio^n, then 
 warning. Again, if a word be superfluous,^ 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.* 
 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.^ If 
 there is a change in the expression, as from vrj to ov, in the oath 
 "by the health of Pharaoh," it not only indicates the waver- 
 ing character of Joseph, but implies the difference between 
 the discipline of Egypt and the discipline of home. 
 I 3. Again, words may be explained apart from their punctua- 
 
 ' Ex. XV. 17. 
 
 ^ 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 arhitrary anil 
 allegorical (see Low, p. 133). He interprets some passages in an anti-Rabbinii; 
 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 1.578), who calls him "Jedidiah the Alexandrian," and doubts his 
 orthodoxy, which Rappoport defends. 
 
 ^ Ex. xxi. 15. The rule is like that of Aqiba, riepiTTbc Sco^a otiBev TiSir"" 
 i v6ij.os (De Profug. 10). (Gen. ii. 17, LXX. /Spcoo-ei (piyri ; Gen. xv. 5, LXX, 
 ^^i]yayev abrhv ^^u). ) 
 
 * Leg. Allcgg. i. 31. 
 
 ^ Leg. Allegg. 13. So in ^Ke! ov f(TTi,Ti XP^'^'"'' (Gfen. ii. 11) the o5 is niafle 
 to mean that "prudence" (gold) belongs to God. For many instances of this 
 baseless kind of interpretation see Siegfried, 168, fg. 
 
Philo's Ridcft. 151 
 
 tion.i 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 ; " - and Philo says that Zoar both is and is not 
 little ; ^ and that Jacob's words at Bethel mean " This is 7iot 
 the case, that the Lord is in this place " — since God is 
 nowhere.^ 
 
 4. Again, if synonyms are used, something allegorical is 
 intended.^ Thus if, in Gen. i. 27, God " made " man 
 {eTToiTjcrev), and in Gen. ii. 8 He " moulded " man (eTr\aaev)> 
 the first word implies the earthly, and the second the 
 heavenly, man. If in Gen. xvi. 2 we have inrrj/covae, and 
 in Gen. xxviii. 7 ela^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.^ Thus, if the Law bids redeem the firstling of 
 an ass with a lamb,'' then since wo? resembles ttovo'; 
 and Trpo'/Saroi/ is derived from irpo^alveiv, 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," ^ the 
 meaning is " leave off thy work, if thou makest no ad- 
 vance " ' ^ 
 
 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 e'f avrrj^ 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, hut so." Thus when Cain 
 
 • Or, Migr. Abr. § 29. = Bereshith Rabba, c. 65. 
 
 ^ De Abr. § 31. ■* De Somn. i. § 32. 
 
 ' For many instances see Siegfrierl, 172, 173. 
 
 " De Congr, erud. grat. § 13. 
 
 ' Ex. xiii. 13. 
 
 ' A.V. "thou shalt break his neck." LXX. tav 5e |ni) aWairis Kvrpciffri 
 
 " So the use of lyKpv<t>las ("cikes concealed in ashes to be baked ") implies 
 that we must not reveal mysteries. Dc Sacr. Ah. ct Cain, § 15. 
 
152 The Work of Philo. 
 
 killed. Abel, aTrenTeivev avrov is meant also to imply that 
 aireicTecvev avrov, — i.e. by the same blow he spiritually killed 
 himself. An umisual 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.^ 
 
 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.^ Undoubtedly, 
 
 ' De Somn. ii. § 41. Comp. Deilirjr. Ahr. 14. 
 
 '^ Unfortunately the etymologies on which Philo relied, and led the Fathers 
 to rely, are often 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 Qxwd Act. pot. §§ 32-37 ; Be Miit. Nom. § 23. Laughter is b Mii- 
 Beros v!6s. We get a very favourable view of Philo from the line autobiogra- 
 phical passage in De Spec. Lcgg. ad init. 
 
Exegetic Nullity. 133 
 
 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 
 futihty becomes still more obvious when we find the same 
 text used for quite different purposes, and the same symbol 
 appUed to entirely dissimilar things. Had the age of Philo 
 possessed in any measure the critical, literary, or historic sense, 
 — had it at all realised the exquisite human force, beauty, and 
 simplicity of the sacred narratives — the Alexandrians could 
 never have gone astray after such meteor-lights as these. 
 Whatever may be said of Philo's other merits as the Cicero 
 of Alexandrianism, his exegesis is radically false. It darkens 
 what is simple and fails to explain what is obscure. It 
 neglects the important and lays stress upon the insignificant. 
 It sometimes does injustice to what is loftiest and deteriorates 
 what is best. While it looks microscopically at words it 
 neglects entire passages, and gives us no conception of the 
 significance of whole books. Fhilo's system is one of vault- 
 ing ambition, which overleaps itself and falls on the other 1 
 side. It fails in consequence of its vain contempt of 
 grammar, of logic, of history, of archaeology, and of the most 
 ordinary canons of literary expression, and by the substitution 
 for them of arbitrary rules in the supposed interest of a 
 recklessly-invented theory of mechanical inspiration. That 
 theory led, as it always does, to two results equally 
 deplorable. It produced the slavish literalism of the Kabbis, 
 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 Kabbis and 
 the Alexandrians, the living inspiring hope of a personal 
 
154 Exegetic Nullity. 
 
 ilessiah.i 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.- 
 
 " 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 supernaturaUy 
 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." ^ In snatching at shadows 
 the Alexandrians, no less than the Rabbis, lost the substance. 
 The Rabbis gained a crushingiy 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- 
 
 ^ On Philo's Messianic hopes, which were in no sense soteriological, but 
 only of a national and temporal character, see l)e Eyccrat. § 4 ; (Mangey 
 ii. 435). (Mangey, ii. 421-425. Ewald, vii. 2.31-235 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 Rahbis some of 
 them took Herod for a Messiah, and others Barkokhba. Some say that 
 the Jews have forfeited him ; others curse all who try to calculate his 
 return. The school of Hillel seems to have thought that Hezekiah was tlic 
 Messiah. Others thought that there were two Me,ssiahs — Messiah hen Joseph 
 the Sufferer, and ben David the Victor. For the views of Josephus, who 
 regarded Vespasian as a sort of Messiah, sec B. J. vi. 5. § 4 • Anil. iv. 6, 
 § 5 ; Gerlach, Weissag. d. A. T. 86-89. 
 
 - Philo no less than the Rabbis thought that the Levitio institutions would 
 be eternal. Vit. Mos. ii. § 3 ; Dc Monarch, ii. § 3. 
 
 ' Jowett, St. Paul and Philo, Ep. to the Tliessalonians, i. 363. Sec 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 ;i 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 ; ^ 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." ^ 
 
 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 f)ossibility of recon- 
 ciliation. Allegory in Philo's days was not an intentional 
 falsification nor a hypocritical subterfuge. It was a phase 
 of thought which seemed to be inevitable in the education 
 
 ^ The same epithet aTroios is given both to God and to Chaos. 
 
 * Philo, De Oheriih. Toura, St fjc6(nai, KeKadapfieyoi to. Sira us UpSi uuruis 
 ftvcTT^pia . . . Trc[pa5eX€£r0€, k.t. A. 
 
 ' 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 
 Ja the field or the market ; its truest disciples were visionary Therapeutae, 
 and not apostles charged with a Gospel for the world," "Wcstcott, Introd. 77. 
 
15G The Legacy of Alexaiidrlanism. 
 
 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 adojjted and practised by Christian commentators for 
 thousands of years after the high-minded Alexandrian had 
 passed away.^ 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.- 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 Eome (Euseb. IT. R ii. 17; 
 .Ter. Catal. 11), and that he had even embraced Christianity (Photius, Cod. 
 cv. Suidas s.v. i>iKa)v) may be dismissed without further notice ; as well as 
 the notions that in describing the Therapeutae (Ewald, v. 375-89) he was 
 thinking of Christians. Sueh fancies are on a par with the notion that Seneca 
 borrowed fro!n St. Paul, and Plato from Moses. They arose from eiTors about 
 the spurious Se Vit. contcm'plativa. 
 
 - Allusions to Philo by the Fathers may be seen in Justin Cohort, pp. 10, 
 11, 14. Clem. Alex. Strom, i. p. 333, 360, 413. Orig. C. Ccls. iv. p. 369, 
 vi. p. 289. Euseb. H. E. ii. 4, 5, 16-18. Trcwp. Ei\ yu. 12, viii. 5, 4c. 
 Ambros., De Pancd. 4, Jer. Oitnl. Pru-f. in Joh, &c. Aug. C. Faustxm, xii. 
 ke. See Mangey, i. pp. xxi-x.xix. 
 
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 ifc in the least necessary to 
 master the original languages in which the Scriptures were 
 written ; before th(!y 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, bxit 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. AH 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 externalism of the Rabbis, and 
 the vague allegoric philosophy of the Alexandrians ? " the 
 answer is not far to seek. It shall be given in the voice of 
 an Alexandrian : " Thou, oh God, canst show thy strength at 
 all times when thou wilt. Thou hast mercy upon all, for thou 
 canst do all things, and winkest at the sins of men because 
 they shall amend. For thou lovest all the things that are, 
 and abhorrest nothing which thou hast made. But thou 
 sjyarcst all ; for they are thine, oh Lord, Thou lover of souls" ^ 
 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. Maer. iii. 12. 
 
 " Tantnm veritati obstrepit adulter sensus quantum et corrupter 
 stylus." — Tert. A2)ol. 17. 
 
 " Sunt enim multa verba in Scripturis divinis quae possvmt tralii ad 
 eum sensum quem nibi 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 trabere repugnantem." — Jer. Ad Paul'm. ep. 
 53,7. 
 
 " Concerning tbe mystical sense it may be dbserved 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 CoK. ii. 5. 
 
 In supporting some special dogma, or private interpre- 
 tation — in asserting the infallible accuracy of some party 
 opinion which would fain claim to be that of the universal 
 Church ^ — ecclesiastical controversialists have often appealed 
 to Christ's promise of the Spirit which should lead the 
 Apostles into all truth,^ 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 
 
 ' "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?" Chalybiius, History of Special PMlosophie, p. 419, etc. 
 
 - 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 insjDiration ; 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 difSculties 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 
 ]ienalty of death and damnation.^ 
 
 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 v/ith errors — errors of method, errors 
 1 Clullingworth, c. iv. § 16. 
 
Not to he 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 hohness ; 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,^ of Chillingworth, or of Middleton.^ " 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 
 
 ' Compare Grotius, Do Sludiis inatit. (1635), p. 238. " Patres et Patram 
 erucUtionem . . . maximi facio, sed tamen tibi autor non sim ut illos hSc 
 qiiidem aetate Icgas sed differas . . . Nam luulta halient non solum fiuxa, 
 ambigna, 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 VEm'ploi dcs Saints Peres, 1632 (answered by W. Keeves, 
 The Apolorjie of the Fathers (1709), and the Rev. Prof. Blunt, On the Bight Use 
 of the Fathers (1857), and Barbeyrac, Traite de la Morale des Fires. 
 
 " 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, Traet No. 57, p. 10. Coleridge said of Luther, 
 Melanchthon, Calvin, that " the least of them was not inferior to St. Augustine 
 aud worth a brigade of Cyprians, Fii-milians, and the like " {Remains, iii. 270). 
 
 M 2 
 
IQ-ii Their Difficulties. 
 
 that their great Doctors would bring them to dote on."^ We 
 can hardly wonder at the accent of indignation which rings 
 through the words of the mighty Puritan poet,^ 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 
 
 ^ Of Prelatical Episcopacy. 
 
 ^ He speaks also of " the labyrinth of Councils and Fathers, an entangleil 
 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 thiak 
 our sage and serious poet Spenser to be a better teacher than Scotus or 
 Aquinas." — Areopagitica. It is wrong, he says, "to dote upon immeasurable, 
 innumerable, and therefore unnecessary and unmerciful volumes, choosing 
 rather to err with the specious name of the Fathers, than to take a souml 
 truth at the hands of a plain upright man, &c." — Of Reformation in EngUM. 
 " Redis ad Pati-um comraentationes, de quibus hoc summatim, accipe. Q™* 
 quid illi dixerint, neque ex libris sacris aut ratione aliqua satis idonea continii- 
 averint, perinde mihi erit ac si quis alius e vnlgo dixisset." — Defms. 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 ^ of which the specimens 
 offered are for the most part entirely untenable.^ 
 
 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 ; ^ 
 
 ' Ep. Barnah. c. ix. and passim. Bede on 1 Sam. i. 1, 2. 
 
 - For some remarks on the Fathers see Hare, 1 "indication of Luther, p. 81. 
 
 ' 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 
 Apostoiici, i. 566-578) Clement quotes 157 times from the Old Testament, the 
 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 Ticclve 
 Apostles, who makes but little use of eitlier Testament/ we 
 come to Clement of Rome. This ancient bishop quotes 
 not only from the book of Judith, but apjiarently 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 ; ^ 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.* 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 fonr 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. oiii. 10, 11 ; Jer. iii. 4, 19 ; Is. i. 18 ; Ez. xviii. 30, &c.), 
 hut Clemens of Alexandria {Pacdnr/, i. 10, § 91) quotes it from " Ezeldel." 
 It may be either from the Alexandrian poet of that name or from apociyphal 
 additions to Ezekiel. Photius says that Clement quoted from several apocry- 
 phal books "as from Scripture " {Ilibl. Cod, 126). Nac. 17, e-ya> Se ei/jnaTiAs 
 l(.nh Kvdpas 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. 
 
 ' c. 25. Clemens is not more credulous than Tacitus (Ann. vi. 28) or Pliny 
 {H.lSf. 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 trnth. 
 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). 
 
 - Bp. ad Cor. 12, ipSre, aya-Ky)Toi, ov fi6i/ov ttiVtij a\Aa irpo(J)i)Tek iv tJ 
 yvvaiKl yeyove. The same specimen of exegetic gnosis is adopted by Justin 
 Martyr Dial. Ill ; Iren. Saer. iv. 20 ; Origen in Matt, xxvii. 28 ; Ambrose 
 I),- Fide, 4 ; Paulinus, Carm. 23 ; Aug. in Ps. lx.xxvi. 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 philosojohy, so the 
 ApostoHc 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.i 
 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 sint;le 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 InterjDretation. 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, ^ 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.^ He believes that Judaism 
 
 ^ AmobiiLs {Adv. Gentes, iv. 33, v. 32 — 45) energetically repmliates 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, 
 q'U potestis res certas rebus a dubiis sumere, atque unam adjungere significa- 
 tionem dicto, quod per modes videtis innunieros expositionum varietate 
 deduci ? " (v. 34). 
 
 ° Ep. BarTuib. i. 14. I should have thought it hardly worth s:iying that 
 the writer of this Epistle could not have been the Apox/le Barnabas, if Prof. 
 MOligan had not thought it probable {Diet, of Christ. Bioj. p. •2i'>l). 
 
 ' £p. Barnab, 9. So Ignatius {Ad Mcjiics. 10) calls Judaism r; Kaxii ^ifir). 
 
168 Christian Kahhalism. 
 
 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.^ Thus, by loosely 
 mixing up two separate events, he says, that Abraham cir- 
 cumcjsed his 318 servants, and then he explains this in a 
 kabbalistic manner. The number, he says, may be expressed 
 by the letters TIH of which T stands for the cross 
 and IH for IHcroi)?, and this was the mystery which 
 Abraham meant to imply.^ " 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,^ purely Jewish and 
 wholly arbitrary, is eagerly adopted not only by Clement of 
 Alexandria, but by Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, Pauhnus. 
 Gregory, Isidore, and Bede.* 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. Ghret. ii. 
 
 ^ He quotes Is. xlv. 1, as follows, " The Lord said to my Christ the Lord" 
 npparently confusing KtJpc^ -with Ktipicf, Ep. Barnab. 12. The only dircd 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 vaaav a/iapriia 
 avofioiTepovs. c. V. (See however Xlici. of Christian Biog. I.e.) 
 
 " 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 ( Traet 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 infen-Lng that the letters IH indicated 18 aeons. (Epiphan. Hacr. ii. 14.) 
 So familiar were the early Christians with this form of the Qabbala that 
 Pradentius says we must fight our vices with 318 servants, i.e. figurd my, 
 Praef. in Psychomachiam. 
 
 ' Gematrm, see ante, p. 98 ; Tcmoorah, see p. 102. 
 
 ' See Cotelerius ad loo. 
 
Barnabas. 169 
 
 It is in Barnabas also that we find the earliest of the many> i 
 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.^ 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." ^ 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." " Se shall be as a tt^e 
 planted by the ivaters," indicates both baptism and the cross. 
 "Sis leaf also shall not wither," means that " every word pro- 
 ceeding out of your mouth in faith and love shall tend to 
 
 ^ Allegorical explanations of these wise and. practical prohibitions are found 
 in many of the Fathers. TertuUian goes so far as to say " Quid tarn contem- 
 tihile quam ciborum exceptio ? " and explains it as " sapientia in occulto," 0. 
 Marc. V. 5 ; Origen, Hmn. in Levit. makes a similar remark, and De Princ. iv. 
 1 ; a Cds. iv. 93. 
 
 ^ Ep. Barnab. c. 10. The passage is extremely obscure and confused ; but 
 this seems to be the meaning. 
 
 " Id. c. IG 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." 1 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."^ 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.^ 
 
 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."* 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 Hernias, 
 and the Epistles of Clement and Polycarp, it was even read 
 in many churches in public worship.^ 
 
 1 Id. 12 (2 Esdr. v. 5). = Ep. Barn. 6. 
 
 3 Ep. Barn. 15 (Gen. ii. 2 ; Ps. xc. 4) ; Iren. Maf,r. v. 28, 29 ; Hippo- 
 lytus, ap. Phot. cod. ax. ; Lactant. Instt. vii. 25 ; Jer. Ep. 139, &c. See 
 C'otelerius, i. 44. 
 
 ■• Diet, of Christian Antiquities, s.v. Barnabas. 
 
 ^ Into the theology of the early Fathers I do not enter. Jerome admits 
 that before Arliis arose like a demon of the noonday, ' ' innocenter quaedam 
 et minus caute locutl sunt, et quae non possint perversorum hominum calum- 
 niam declinare." Apnl. adv. liufin. ii. N"o one would blame them for 
 this, but it shows that they cannot be regarded as authorities. See Petarius, 
 Do Trin. i. v. 7 ; Newman, Ess. on Development, 12 — 15. 
 
The Apologists. 171 
 
 3. Heemas 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.! Nor do Polycarp and Ignatius indulge 
 in direct exegesis.^ Tatian wrote a book on Scripture 
 difficulties,^ 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.'' Athenagoeas 
 also held the mechanical theory of inspiration and uses the 
 allegoric method.^ He says, " that the Spirit uses the writers 
 as a flute-player might blow into his flute." •" Theophilus 
 of Antiogh 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.'' Like many of the Fathers, 
 wherever he finds \6yoq in the Old Testament he at once 
 applies the passage to Christ,^ 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, " vjitliout Him teas notlimg made ivliich was made," 
 he says, that " nothing " means an idol, because the Apostle 
 says, " we know that an idol is nothing in the world. " We 
 learn from St. Jerome, that in dealing with the parable of 
 the Unjust Steward he explained him to be St. Paul.'' 
 
 ^ llatt. xxii. 14, in Virion, ii. 2. The same quotation occurs in Baraabas, 
 c. 4, and something like it in 4 Esdrns. The scriptural parallels to passages 
 of Hennas are given by Funk, i. 575. Origen regarded "the shepherd" as 
 divinely inspired (Comm. an Rom. x. 31), but TertuUian despises it {De 
 Fud-ix. 20). 
 
 ^ No specially distinctive cxcgetic data are to be derived from Papias, or the 
 Ep. to Dioguetus (which ignores the Old Testament). 
 
 * Euseb. IT. E. v. 13, Trpo^XrifiaTtjov 0if3\iov. 
 
 * 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. ^ Jpol 9. 
 
 * Qiiaest. ad Autolyc. ii. 9. He also quotes the Sibylline oracles as inspired 
 {id. ii. 9). The word Tpiis first occurs in this book, and Trinitas in Tert. 
 C. Praz. 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. E. Simon, Hist. Crit. der CoTrmient, 
 p. 5. ^ Id. ii. 29. 
 
 ' Thus in Ps. xlv. 1, " Eructavit cor meum Vcrinm bonum i.e. Christum." 
 ° Jer. Ep. ad Algas. 151, qu. 6. Plad the Key (/tAeis) of Melito of Sardis 
 
172 Justin Martyr. 
 
 4. For the New Testament Justin Martyr not only offers 
 no exegesis,! 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.^ 
 Like Philo, he supposes that the Greek philosophers borrowed 
 their wisdom from Moses.^ He believes in verbal dictation, 
 yet quotes the Sibyl and Hystaspes as genuine prophetic 
 books* He relies exclusively \ipon the skill which he 
 supposed himself to possess as an interpreter ; * yet he was 
 ignorant of Hebrew,^ and accepted the fables of Pseudo- 
 Aiisteas about the SeptuagintJ He was entirely uncritical. 
 He appeals to the so-called Acts of Pilate.* He speaks of the 
 
 and his commentary on tiiR Apocalypse survived, tliey would have had great 
 exegetic importance. To him we owe the first Christian canon of the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 1 The only book of the New Testament which he mentions by name is the 
 Revelation of St. John (Dial. 81). He never mentions St. Paul, and has no 
 certain traces of the Acts, the Catholic Epistles, or the Hebrews. He refers 
 to the Go.spels as "Memorials" of the K^osWts (Dial. 103), but only five of 
 his references agree verbally with St. Matthew and St. Luke. On the other 
 hand, though he does not quote the New Testament as " Holy Scripture," he 
 seems to imply the inspiration of its writers (Apol. i. 39, 50 ; Dial. 119). 
 For his quotations see Otto, Corp. Apolog. ii. 579-592 ; Bishop Kaye, p. 146. 
 
 ^ 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 
 Philacl. 8). 
 
 ^ Justin is however most unfavourable to the Jewish Law. Dial. 19, 23, 
 27, kc. 
 
 * Apol. i. 20, 44 ; Cohort, ad Graecos, § 37 (if this work be genuine). Comp. 
 Tert. ad Natt. ii. 12, &c. 
 
 ^ Dial. 56, 58. Like Clement and Barnabas he regards the typical and 
 allegoric explanations as Gnosis derived from spiritual grace (x<i/"j), Dial. 112. 
 
 * He may have known by hearsay the strange derivations (?) of "Satan" 
 (ivom Sata, "apostate," and Afe-, "serpent"), and of "Israel" ("the man 
 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 recitaiidis scripturis inconstantia," and 
 ^'incrcdibilis in scribendo fcstinatio. " 
 
 ' 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. 
 
 " Apol. i. 35, 48. The name "Acts of Pilate" was sometimes given to 
 the Gospel of Nicodemus. and the passages referxed to by Justin are to bs 
 found iu that apocryph.al 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.^ He relies mainly on prophecy, and 
 chajges 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.^ 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.' 
 Thus, like Barnabas, he thinks that the Old Testament was 
 meant mainly for Christians,'' 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." ^ 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 ; ^ that the ass at Bethpbage was 
 found tied to a vine ; '' 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.* 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.' Justin's whole system of interpretation depends on 
 
 ' Dial. 27. 
 
 ^ Dial. 71-73. One of these is attributed by Irenaens (iii. 20 ; iv. 22) first 
 to Isaiah, then to Jeremiali. He unjustly charges with bad faith the render- 
 ing of "???' by viavis instead of TrapSevos in Is. yii. 14 (Dial. 43), and says 
 that the Jewish corruption of the Scriptures was a worse crime than even 
 Moloch-worship. Dial. 73. 
 
 * Dial. 86, 134, 141. ■" Dial. 57, 137, 140. 
 
 " See Dial. 86-96. The rod of Moses, the pilled wands of Jacob, his staff, 
 his ladder, Judah's wand, David's rod, the wood which Elisha threw into the 
 Jordan, &c., &c. 
 
 " Is. xxxiii. 16 ; Dinl. 78. 
 
 ' Gen. xliz. 10 ; Apol. i. 32. 
 
 ' See Dial. 88, 103 ; Jpol. i. 35. 
 Dial. 131, aWct /cal ra tup vewrepuv cvvi^vlaut. 
 
174 Irenaeus. 
 
 the assumption that the Old Testament writers always spoke 
 in mysteries, types, and symbols.^ 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.* The extent to which Justin was 
 influenced by Jewish methods may be seen by his application 
 of the verse, " The Lord rained upon Sodom brimstone and fin 
 from the Lord " (Gen. xix. 24), to prove the divinity of Christ.' 
 Philo uses analogous modes of argument, and Philo as we 
 know was an object of Justin's admiration.^ From him Justin 
 borrowed the theory of passive ecstasy as the condition of 
 pjrophetic utterance, and so far from feeling any misgiving 
 about his exegetic system, he attributes it to the possession of 
 a special grace.' 
 
 5. We might have hoped that some fragments of genuine 
 Apostolic wisdom worild have reached Irenaeus through 
 Polycarp or his aged predecessor Pothinus.* But whatever 
 may be his other gifts he shows no special wisdom in the 
 
 ^ TvapaK€Ka\vnfj.4poJS 4v fj.vffr7]pLcp, 
 
 2 Dial. 134, 140. 
 
 ^ Died. 79. ra /xhv rod &€qv ayid ^ffrtv at 5e u/ie'repai i^7^yf}aeis renx^aff- 
 fiivai. For instance ' ' Jacob served L:iban 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. Kacliel 
 stole the gods of Lahan and we have lost our paternal and maternal gods" 
 (Lird. 134). 
 
 * Orig. C. CcJs. ii. 30. irapippi^e 5e b K4\(tos toCto- Qehv 5e Koi rov 0eou 
 vlhi^ oiiSels €K ToiovTCiii' TrapaKuva'fxaTcoy ouS' i^ ovtws ayevvuv T^KixTipioiy ffvv- 
 
 L(T'77]Cri.V. 
 
 5 Dial. 56. A similar use was made of the text in Iren. Hacr. iii. 6 ; Tert 
 Adv. Praxcan. 13 ; Euseb. Dem. Evang. v. 23 ; Amhros. De Fide, i. 2 (sec 
 Feuardent in he. Iren. ) and see infra. The Council of Sirmiuni anathema- 
 tised any one who understood the verse differently. Hilar. De Synod, p. 373. 
 A similar interpretation was given to 2 Tim. i. 18. 
 
 6 Cohort, ad Grnrc. 9. He calls him and Josephus ol a-otpdraroi. Eenan says 
 of him, " Justin n'etait un grand esprit ; il mauquait k la fois de philosopliie 
 et de la critique ; son exegcse surtout passerait aujourd'hui pour tris defectu- 
 euse . . . il avait cette esptce de eredulite mediocre qui permet de raisonner 
 seusement sur des premisses pueriles et de s'arreter b, temps de fagon i n'etra 
 qu'a moitie absurde." — L'Eglise Chritieiine, 356. 
 
 ' Cohort, ad Grace. 8. 
 
 * " Constat Polycarpi , . hunc fuisse discipulum. " Jer. Catal s.v. 
 
His Vinos. 175 
 
 application of hermeneutic methods.^ He, too, relied simply on 
 the Septuagint and regarded all who preferred other readings 
 as vere impudicos et audaces.'^ He quotes the Book of Baruch 
 and Bel and the Dragon as genuine Scripture. He constantly 
 appeals to " tradition; " ^ and he says that the true exposition 
 of Scripture must be learnt by Presbyters from Bishops who 
 could claim apostolic succession, and had received therewith 
 a sure charism of truth. Nevertheless, his own exposition 
 is based on the same erroneous principles as that of his pre- 
 decessors. He was quite able to expose futile and fantastic 
 exegesis when it was used by heretics, and he compares it to 
 twisting ropes of sand."* Nothing can be more admirable than 
 his remarks on the arbitrary juxtaposition of irrelevant and i^er- 
 verted texts which in all ages has passed for scriptural proof. 
 He compares it to the centos made of Homeric verses,^ 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.^ 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.'' 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 
 
 ' Emr. iii. 21, § 2. He is the earliest. Fatlier who quotes as largely from 
 the New Testament as from the Old, and in his fourth book he pro-ws against 
 Marcion the unity of the two covenants. The edition of Irenaeus to which I 
 refer is Massuefs, 1710. 
 
 * For his quotations see Stieren, i. 996-100.'). 
 
 Tl SvvafiLs rTJs ■jraoaSeJcrews /xla Kot ri avri]. Haer. i. 10, § 2. t) hirh t^s 
 fKKXTjffias K7]pv(TtT0f^evi} aA.^0€m, i. 9, § 5. Comp. T. 20, § 2 ; iii. 3, § 1-4. By 
 tradition he sometimes appears to mean the shorter form of the old Roman 
 creed ; hut he also appeals to tradition for special facts (see Eouth, Iicl. b'acrae, 
 42-65, ed. 1814). 
 
 * Hacr. i. 8, § 1, roia.vTf)s Se ttjs virodecrecas ahruv oij(77]S ^v oijre llpo(priTaL 
 tfcTjpy^av, oijT€ 6 Kvpios eSiSa^ev oijre *A'jr6(rT0\0L irapeSctiKai' ttji' irepi Toiy oKwy 
 ^vxovart TrAetov twv &\?\.aiy eyvcjiK^vai, i^ aypdcpojv ai^ayiypwaKOPres, Kal rh Stj 
 >^iyOfj.£vov e| afif^ov crxoii'ta TrA.e'/ceij' iirLT-nSevovres (comp. id. ii. 10, § 1). 
 
 HacT. i, 9, § 4, Ae'^eiS ko.\ ovSlxara. aTropaSt]!/ K^i^sva ffvKX^yoVT^s 
 p.fTa^epov(n. Comp. Jer. Ep. liii. § 7 " Quasi nou legerimus Homerocentonas 
 et Virgiliocentonas ! " 
 
 Haer. i. 8, § 1, ovTrep rpStroy et tis . . . TreiOoi on auTrj 7) (rairoi ttjs 
 aKuTTsKos tSea iKeivq itrnv r} Ka\^ tou ^auLXiois eiKoiv. He gives us some 
 specimens of Valentiniaii allegory, and preserves a comment of Ptolemaeus 
 on the Prologue of St. John (§ 6). 
 ' Haer. ii. 10, § 2. 
 
176 His " Tradition" Valueless. 
 
 the world, four winds, and four cherubic forms.^ He blames 
 the Gnostics for drawing arguments from numbers, letters, and 
 syllables,^ yet even in a matter so important as an explana- 
 tion of the name Jesus he adopts the Rabbinic method of 
 Notarikon.^ He says that in Hebrew the word consists of two 
 and a half letters and implies that Jesus is Lord of Heaven 
 and earth.* He apjDeals to tradition against the Gnostics, 
 but he frequently uses the same methods, of which, in their 
 case, he repudiates the application.^ 
 
 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 ^ — 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 '' 
 — 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.* He repeats after 
 
 1 JIaer. iii. 11, § 8. 
 
 ^ Hacr. i. 3, § 3 ; ii. 21, §§ 1-6, where many instances are given. 
 
 ^ See supra, p. 101. 
 
 ^ Haer. ii. 24, § 2. The initials of the word IB" may be made by Notarikon 
 to stand for Kehovah, <Sliamaim, Ke-ha-arets. Nothing can be made of 
 the present reading, ' ' Terra autem iteram sura iiser dieitur. " 
 
 <> 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 Bioyr. ii. 270. 
 In each instance the allegories are adopted by Angustine, Jerome, &c; Sea 
 Diestel, pp. 56-60. 
 
 ' Hacr. V. 1, § 1. Athanasius furnishes a brilliant exception to this error. 
 Archdeacon Norris understands Irenaeus differently {Budiments of Tluiohgy, 
 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). 
 
 ' Haer. ii. 22, § 5. The passage is quoted by Eusebius H. E. iii. 25, nivm 
 01 ■jrp€(r^{ir€poi fxapTvpovtri, ot Kar^ t^v ^Aaiav, 'Iccdifvy . . . ffvix^e^KiiKSres 
 TrapaSeSojffeVai [raOra] rhv 'lo^dvi'Tii/, 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. 
 
 * In Haer. iii. 7, § 1, Irenaeus makes theti'ue remark that St. Paul sometimes 
 nses hyperiata "propter veloeitate in serraonum .suoru7n ;" 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.i These examples 
 sufficiently prove that if we are to judge the value of tradi- 
 tion even from such early writings as those of IrentEus 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." 
 
 II. The Fathers of the third and later centuries may be ■ 
 divided into three exegetical schools. Those schools are the j 
 Literal and Realistic as represented predominantly by Ter- ■ 
 tullian ; the ALLEGORICAL, of which Origen is the foremost ex- ' 
 ponent ; and the Historic and Gea^imatical, which flourished i 
 chiefly in Antioch, and of which Theodore of Mopsuestia wasi 
 the acknowledged chief 
 
 1. Tertullian, like other Fathers, always speaks of Scrip- 
 ture as uttered by God, and dictated by the Holy Ghost.^1 
 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.* He held 
 that they contained all truth; that they had no contradictory/ 
 elements ; and that their cosmogony, chronology, anthropology,! 
 and history, were infallibly inspired.^ If his views on this 
 question are to be regai'ded as authoritative they must 
 
 ' The story of Cerinthus and the Bath (see Epiphan. llaer. Ixxviii. 14 ; 
 Lampe, Proleg. p. 69). I hare pointed out elsewhere the gi-ounda on which 
 I doubt the truth of the story {Early Days of Cliristianity, i. 163). 
 
 ^ See, for instance, the wild passage about the Millennial grapes, which he 
 tells on the authority of the weak and credulous Papias, w ho professes to 
 have heard it from Polycarp (Hacr. v. 33, § 3 ; Euseb. H. M. iii. ad Jin. ; 
 Eouth, Rel. Sacr. p. 9). When such authority is cited for such a Eabbinic 
 absurdity, we cannot estimate very highly the boasted "tradition " on which 
 Irenaeus relies. For other instances see Eouth, Eel. Sacrae, i. pp. 46-68, 
 95-101 (Eahab's cord, ej/ apxfi = iy A6yij>, &c.). 
 
 ' Apol. 18. 
 
 * De Pudic. 17, " Hanc aequalilatcm Spiritus Sancti qui observaverit, ah 
 Ipso deducetur in sensus ejus." He makes Ps. i. 1 a prophecy of Joseph of 
 Arimathaea (De speetac. 3). 
 
 " De Anim. 1, 2 ; C Ilermog. 39, 40. He quotes from all the Kuw Testament 
 except 2 Pet., James, and 3 John, and held that the Old Testament belongs 
 SBecially 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." ^ He mixes up different quotations, refers to 
 them inaccurately, and relies for proof on verses which do 
 not occur in Scripture at all.^ 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.' 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.* 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 
 I 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.* He rightly 
 blames the Gnostics for their abuse of allegory.^ Yet 
 Uie does not hesitate to allegorise whenever it suits him. 
 Orthodoxy was accepted as a suflScient warrant for exegetic 
 extravagance. He finds a symbol of the Twelve Apostles 
 in the twelve wells of Elim, in the twelve g-ems on the Hisrh 
 Priest's breast, in the twelve stones taken from Jordan ; ^ and 
 he thinks that literal prohibitions about clean and unclean 
 kinds of food would be quite contemptible. The eloquent, 
 fiery, uncompromising African practically makes Scripture say 
 
 1 J>c Idol. 15 ; De Cult. Fern. i. 3 ; ad Natt. ii. 12, " Ilia scilicet Sibylla 
 veri vera vates. " 
 
 2 Be Cult. Fern. i. 2, 3. See Bishop Kaye, IVritings of Tertullian, p. 320 ; 
 Person, Letters to Travis, p. 273. Tertullian is too reckless a controversialist 
 to be accepted as authoritative in his appeals to the actual autographs of the 
 Apostles- (5aer. v. 30, 31), or the census of Augustus [0. Marc. v. 7), or the 
 supposed letter of Tiberius to the Senate about the divinity of Christ {Apol. 5), 
 or the ofiBcial report of the Crucifixion by Pilate {Apol. 21). 
 
 ' He boiTows this Jewish fable from 2 Esdras, xiv. 21-44. 
 
 ^ See Bohringer, iii. 787-790. 
 
 " De Cor. Mit. 2 ; De Monogam. 4, "Negat scriptura quod non notat." 
 
 ^ De Resurr. Carnis, 19, " Non omnia sunt imagines sed et veritates ; nee 
 omnia umbrae sed et corpora." Comp. too id. ib. 20-33, De Praeser. 39 ; C. 
 Hermog. 34, &c. 
 
 ' C. Marc. iv. 13. See too De Oral. 4, C. Prax. 7, De Baptismo, iii. a.- aoJ 
 passim. 
 
His Arrogance. 179 
 
 exactly what he himself chooses. When, like Athenagoras,^ 
 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.^ 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.^ 
 At one time Scripture has no meaning for him unless it 
 coincides with what he recognises as tradition,'' and at another 
 time tradition is valueless if it does not correspond with his 
 individual convictions. Thus he sometimes speaks the lan- 
 guage of Luther, and sometimes that of the Council of 
 Trent. If heretics appeal to the text, " Prove all things, hold 
 fast that which is good," he loftily replies that " we" have no 
 need of curiosity, and that "when we believe, we do not 
 desire to believe anything further." ^ 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 ; ^ and by 
 way of criticising our Lord's promise, " Seek and ye shall 
 find," he implies that it was only applicable to the beginning 
 of His teaching, while it was still doubted whether He was 
 the Christ.^ 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.^ And yet 
 
 ^ Athenag. Lcgat. 33, 6 Sevrepos yd^ns einrpeiTTis itrn iJ.oix^la, comp. Orig. 
 Eom. in Luc. xvii. ; Theophil. ad Autolye. iii. 15 ; Iren. Ucier. iii. 17, § 2. 
 
 ^ 1 Tim. T. 14 ; Be Monogam. 8. 
 
 ' -De Kesurr. Carnis, 35, 47- 1 Cor. xv. 37. He calls those who disagree 
 with him "lucifugae isti scripturarum. " Comp. Iren. Eaer. v. xii. § 3. 
 
 ^ De Praescr. i. 
 
 ° Se Praescr. 7, "Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum, 
 DOC inf[uisitione post evangelium. " 
 
 ^ Be Praescr. 14, "Fides in regulapositaest . . . cedatcuriositasfidei." 17, 
 " Quid promovebis, exercitatissime Scripturarum, 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. 
 
 ' Be 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." — Mauiiee, Bcel. Hist. p. 279. 
 
 " "Ego sum haeres apoatolorum " {Be 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 Eeformers, that Christ 
 
 : calls Himself Truth, not Custom/ and, claiming what he has 
 so fiercely denied to others, he maintains that private judgment 
 is a natural and inalienable right.^ 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.' 
 
 Insisting on the verse, " God hath chosen the weak things 
 of the world to confound the strong," he adopted the paradox. 
 Credo quia ahsurdum 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> 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* 
 2. Cyprian is the only other prominent writer of the school 
 of TertuUian. 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 Da Praescr. Haereticorum, and Tertullian states it more for- 
 mally than Irenaeus. Praescriptio means legally, an argument that the other 
 side ought not be heard. Tertullian charges heretics with having a different 
 canon, and with corrupting and mutilating Scripture. Heretics might cer- 
 tainly object to proofs from the Book of Enoch and from non-existent texts ; 
 but to a very large extent they adopted the very same canon as Tertullian 
 himself. 
 
 ^ "Christus Veritas est, non eonsuetudo" {De Virg. vel. 1). 
 
 2 " Humani juris et uaturalis potestatis est unicuique quod putaverit 
 colligere ; sed nee religionis est cogere religionem quae sponte suscipi debeat 
 non vi" (Ad Scap. 2). s jaur, K. G. i. 428. 
 
 ■* On the deeply interesting personality of Tertullian, see Mieliuhr, And. 
 Hist. ii. 54; ISeander, Vh. Hist. i. 683; Newman, Tracts, p. 119; Kenan, 
 Atarc. Aurel. 456, " un melange inoui de talent, de faussete d'esprit, d'elo- 
 quence, et de mauvais goiit." " Miserrimus ego," he says, "semper aeger 
 caloribus impatientiae " (De Patient. 1). 
 
 ^ " Every page almost of Tertullian would furnish temble 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, Bccl. Hist. p. 334. 
 
 * Jer. Catal. s.v. Tert. A certain Paulus, who had known Cyprian, told 
 Jerome "Nunquam Cyprianum absque Tertulliani lectione uuam diem 
 praeteriisse." 
 
Cyprian. 181 
 
 cenius, and all that is distinctive in his exegesis is 
 vitiated by the fatal fault of unreality.^ 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 ; " ^ from the sentence, " My dove, my un- 
 defiled is one ; " ^ and from the command of the spies to 
 Eahab to collect all her family into her house.* If he wants 
 to prove against the Aquarians that wine ought to be used 
 in the Eucharist,^ he does so from the verse, " I am the true 
 vine ; " fromJ^oah^s_jininkenness, which he treats as a sign 
 of the Passion ; from the hospitality of Melchizedek ; from 
 the blessing on Judali ; from the voice of wisdom in Proverbs ; 
 from the red garments of the avenger ; ^ and from the ex- 
 pression "my cup runneth over."'' 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 for 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.* Every verse is interpreted a 
 
 ' The Fathers have often rendered themselves liable to the very same com- 
 plaints which they make against the heretics. Tert. Praescr. 38. "Alius 
 (Marcion) manuscripturas, alius (Valentinus) sensus e.xpositione intervertit. 
 . . . Valentinus . . . materiam ad Seripturas excogitavit . . . adjioiens 
 dispositiones non comparentium rerura. " Epiphan Upp. i. S96, /ce'xp'iJ'Tat 
 TToAai^ KoX vea SiaQ-qKri Kara rhv vovv Thv thiov fieTanoioufiei/oi. Euseb. H. E. 
 iv. 29, xp"i'"''ai fiiayyeMois iSiais (Beuss, § 504). 
 
 - Ex. xii. 46. " Cant. vi. 9. ■* Josh. ii. 18. 
 
 ' Ep. 63, ad Caccil. " Is. Ixiii. 2. J Ps. xxiii. 5. 
 
 ' It practically said " However you may interpret Scripture, Truth is with 
 us." " Quod apud multos unum invenitur," saysTertullian, " non est erratum 
 eed traditum." De Praescr. 28. See this subject excellently treated by Baur, 
 Church History, E. T. ii. 8-14. This side of TertuUian's and Cyprian's 
 opinions is most fully developed by Cardinal Newman's Tracts for the Times, 
 No. 85. He malces the remark, which would indeed be disastrous if it should 
 be proved, that ' ' all persons, with very few exceptions, who try to go hy Scrijjtua'e 
 only fall aaayfrom the Church and her dvdrincs," p. 2. 
 
182 Cijprian's 3Iethod. 
 
 'jiriori. If we are warned against eating and drinking the 
 sacramental elements " unworthily," ^ that is supposed to 
 prove the necessity of formal penance and absolution.^ If our 
 Lord says, " He that is not with me is against me," that 
 is explained to mean that all who are not Catholic Epis- 
 copalians are Antichrists. Cyprian has no glimpse of the 
 relations of the Law to the Gospel. Whatever is said in 
 the Old Testament about sacrificial priests is applied without 
 hesitation to Christian presbyters. The remark of Optatiis 
 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." ^ His exegesis yields any result that is re- 
 quired, and, therefore, yields no result of any intrinsic worth.* 
 Yet, like TertuUian, 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." ^ 
 
 III. It was in the great catechetical school of Alexandria, 
 founded, as tradition says, by St. Mark,^ that there sprang 
 up the chief school of Christian exegesis. Its object, like 
 that of Philo, was to unite philosophy with revelation,^ and 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. xi. 27. 2 Ep_ ig, § 2. 
 
 ' Article "Cyprian" in Smith and Trace. Archbishop Benson refers to 
 Cyprian's Commcnis on Acts, ii. 38 ; Phil. i. 18 (Epp. 73, 74, 75). It was a 
 common complaint of the Fathers that the heretics q^noted Scripture in their 
 own sense. See TertuUian : " Valentinus non ad materiam Scripturas, sed 
 materiam ad Scripturas excogitavit. " De Pracscr. Eacr. 8, Do Anima, 18. 
 But do not the Fathers do the same ? 
 
 * Boliringer, ii. 1037. 
 
 ' " Consuetude sine veritate vetustas erroris est." The chief exponent of 
 traditionalism in interpretation is St. Vincent of Ijcrins, who makes everj' 
 decision turn on ecclesiastical intelligenliae aucloritas. See Vincent. Ler. C. 
 Ilaer. ii. iv. xli. and passim. 
 
 « Euseh. E. E. v. 10 ; vi. 3 ; Jer. CnM. 38 ; Sozomen, iii. 15. On tlie 
 school of Alexandria see the treatises of Guerieke, Matter, Vacherot, and 
 others mentioned in the Bibliogi-aphy. 
 
 '■ Clemens {Strom, i. § 9 ; vii. § 32) and Origen (TTom. 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. 
 
Tlie School of Alexandria. 183 
 
 thus to use the borrowed jewels of Egypt to adom the 
 sanctuary of God.^ Hence, Clemens of Alexandria and Origen 
 furnish the direct antithesis to Tertullian and Irenaeus. 
 Clement appeals to a secret tradition, Tertullian denies its 
 existence.^ 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.^ 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 ? " * Clement gives to philosophy a divine 
 origin, Tertullian thinks it incompatible with Christian 
 faith.5 
 
 1. The first teacher of the school who rose to fame was the j 
 venerable Pantaenus, a converted Stoic, of whose writings 
 only a few fragments remain.^ He was succeeded by Clement < 
 OF Alexandria who, believing in the divine origin of Greek 
 philosophy,'' openly propounded the principle that all Scrip- i 
 ture must be allegorically understood. The motto of the 
 
 ^ Origen, Fragm. Ey. ad Greg. Thaumat. 
 
 " See Kaye's Clement, 362 ; Tertullian, 31-234. 
 
 ^ Mosheim thinks that Christian Platonism defeated the Gnostics ; " verum 
 ipso morbo nocentius longe remedium erat. " (De turbatd per recentiores Ecdes. 
 1767, pp. 118 «2.) 
 
 * Be Praescr. 7, "Quid ergo Athenis et Sierosolymis t Quid Acadcmiae et 
 Ecclesiae ? Nostra institutio est de porticu Salomonii qui et ipse tradiderat 
 Dmiinum in simplieitate cordis esse quaerendum. Viderinl qui iStaicum et 
 Platcinieum et dialecticum Chriitianisinum protulerunt." 
 
 ^ 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 philoso[ihy was 
 borrowed from what he calls "the philosophy of Moses," iil. §§ 66-90, 
 167-170. Comp. vi. 42, 44, 47,159. Tertullian on the other hand called 
 the philosophers " the patriarchs of heretics." 
 
 « Koiith, Reliquiae Saarac, 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 Kedepenning, Or(;/<j?ic5, i. 63. Jerome says, " JLigis viva voce 
 ecclesiis profuit. " 
 
 ^ Slromi i, § 28 ; vii. § 6 ; Origen, JIovi. in Gen. xiv. 
 
184 Clement of Alexandria. 
 
 school was — "Unless ye believe ye will not understand." i 
 By way of proving this proposition he fell into the 
 prevalent error of giving an universal application to isolated 
 phrases.^ He interpreted of a whole literature what was 
 originally intended of a single psalm or a single circumstance.^ 
 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 Scrip)ture are not fitted for all, but only 
 for those perfect Christians who are marked out by election 
 for the true Gnosis.* 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.^ " To the Gnostics," he says {i.e. to 
 philosophic Christians), "the Scriptures have conceived."^ 
 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 .'^ His quotations are loose and paraphrastic, and 
 are sometimes attributed to a wrong author.^ He quotes 
 verses which have no existence.^ He refers to Apocryphal 
 
 ' Is. vii. 9 ; LXX. eav /lii TrKxreicrriTf ovSe yif avvT\Ti. The verse is mis- 
 translated and misapplied. On the Alexandrian contrast between "faith" 
 and "knowledge," see Strom, v. §§ 1-13 ; and for the exegetie principles of 
 Clement, specially Strom, i. § 32 ; v. § 20 ; vi. §§ 80-83, 127-132. 
 
 "- Strom, i. § 32. 
 
 * For these scriptural proofs — which have not a shadow of validity — from 
 Ps. Ixxviii. 2 ; Matt. x. 27 ; jWark iv. 34 ; 1 Cor. ii. 6, see Strom, v. §§ 25, 26 ; 
 vi. §§ 115-118. So as Neander says (CA. Jli'it. 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 
 vjhoUy inconsistent with the sense- which they had in the original." 
 
 J Strom, i. § 7 ; v. §§ 16, 21 ; vi. §§ 1, 30 ; vii. § 35. See the passages 
 quoted in Gieseler, i. 233. 
 
 * In order to get rid of the objection that "knowledge puffeth up " (1 Cor. 
 viii. 1), Clement gives to (f uo-ioi the sense of " causes men to think great and 
 true thoughts " ! Strom, vii, § 104. 
 
 " 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. 
 
 ' The story about Salome is from " the Gospel to the Egyptians." Strom. 
 iii. § 63. 
 
 8 See Kaye, p. 407. 
 
 9 Strom, ii. § 45 ; vii. § 04. 
 
" Tradition." 185 
 
 writings as though they were inspired.^ 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,^ as well as the Epistle of Barnabas^ and the 
 " Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," as having Scriptural 
 authority. He believes in the miraculous inspiration of 
 the Septuagint,* the Sibyl, and Hystaspes,^ and he calls 
 Plato " all but an evangelical prophet." ^ 
 The characteristic features of his system are as follows : — 
 a. He believes that e.soien'c teaching w&s communicated by 
 Christ, not in writing, but orally after the Resurrection to 
 James, Peter, and John, who transmitted it to the seventy 
 disciples.'' Pearls, he says, are not to be thrown before swine.. 
 Some things were, therefore, only said and done, not because 
 they were right or true in the abstract, but only kut 
 olxovofiiav.^ 
 
 h. He claims for his "ecclesiastical gnosis" the authority 
 of a tradition, to which he repeatedly appeals against the 
 perverted interpretations, of heretics,® and which he calls 
 " the Apostolic orthodoxy," " the evangelical canon," " the 
 glorious and venerable rule of tradition." i" This, he says, is 
 " the key " of the true Gnostics, while the heretics have only 
 an " anti-key." ^^ But this tradition seems, on examination, 
 to he nothing more than the method of Pantaenus and other 
 
 ' See Lardner, Crcdihility, ii. c. 22, § 13. 
 '' Strom, i. § 182 ; vi. §§ 39, 48, 128. 
 
 * Strom, ii. § 31. He also quotes the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 
 Strom, ii. § 45. 
 
 * Strom, i. §§ 124, 148. 
 
 » 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 liystaspes, Kaye, p. 406. 
 
 ^ Strom, i. § 10, 'O HKdroiV fxov6vovxi- Trpo<pyjTevuv ttiv (Tarriplou oIkovojxIclv. 
 5 ^1 'E^Spatwv (bi\6(ro(^os UKdrcoy. Strom i. § 150, ri yap eVri nhdrwu t) 
 Mojutr^s aTTiKi^icv. Pacd. iii. § 54, 5 travTo. dpiffros UKo.tchi' . . oloy deo(popoiifj.evos. 
 Comp. Strom, i. §§ 28-32, where Heathen Philosophy is treated as a source 
 of sacred troth. 
 
 ' Clem. Hypotyp. ap. Euseb. H.E. ii. 1, § 2 ; Strom, i. §§ 11, 96 ; vi. 
 §§ 61, 68, 125 ; vii. §§ 94, 107 ; Orig. 0. Gels. vi. § 279. 
 
 * He instances not vei}' appositely St. Paul's circumcision of Timothy. See 
 Kaye's Writings of I'crt. p. 399. His Scriptural references are sometimes 
 inaccurate. 
 
 " Strom, vii. § 97. For reference to the "canon of tradition," see Strom. 
 i- §§ 11, 88, 179 ; vii. § 94. Hypot. vii. {ap. Eciseb. H. E. ii. 1, § 2). 
 '" See Kaye, p. 366. " 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.^ Abraham's 
 
 lifting up his eyes on the third day and seeing the place 
 
 which God had appointed,^ 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 " {twv rpicov fierpav), 
 
 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.^ Clement even allegorises the 
 
 V Decalogue, and in the New Testament treats the miracles 
 
 ^ exactly as if they were parables. Thus, in the feeding of the 
 
 ll~ five thousand, he says that " the barley loaves " indicate the 
 
 1 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 RosenmlUler, Hist. Interp. i. 219. Kaye, pp. 374-403. 
 
 ^ Gen. xxii. 8. 
 
 " Strom. T. § 52 ; Tii. § 109. Comp. Iren. Haer. v. 8. See Kaye, pp. 220, 
 "SO. lu Is. xi. 7, Clement makes "the ox" stand for the Jews, and "the 
 bear " for the Gentiles. For other untenable interpretations see Strom, v. vL 
 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." ^ 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.^ 
 
 IV. Of Oeigbn, the greatest master of this school, it 
 would be impossible to sjDeak in any terms but those of the 
 highest admiration and respect.^ 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.* 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 
 
 ' On Clement see, besides the books here quoted. Bishop Ruinken's De 
 Clcmmte Presbytero AUxandrirw, IS.")! ; and Abbe Freppel, Clement d'Ahx- 
 andric, 1860. 
 
 ^ This is the least pleasing aspect of the teaching of the school of Alex- 
 andria. Clemens is the first Father who uses oUopoixia in the sense of 
 "accommodation.? "Condescension" {trvyKard^aiTis) occurs inChrys. Horn, 
 in Tit. iii. The Fathers attribute it not only to St. Paul, but even to our 
 Lord, of which the worst instance is in Basil's remark on Matt. xxiv. 37, 
 TOUT* 5ra Trpoa'TrotTjTrj s ayvoias oiKovofiei {J^p. 84). The doctrine was first 
 borrowed from Plato (De Rep. iii.) by Philo {Quod Deus sit immut.). Clement 
 approves of circuitous modes of stating truth {(rvfnrepi<pfp6nei'oi, Kara crvfiTrepi- 
 (popav). Origen says that a man "who is obliged to sjieak falsely (!) should be 
 very careful " (Orig. Strom, vi. ; ap. Jer. Apol. I. in Fiufin. 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 ; Mom. in Lev. ix. Synesius adopted these 
 views to the full (Ep. 105). See Schrockh, E.G. x. 380-395; DaiUe, 
 De Usu Patrum, vi. 
 
 ' Jerome, who so often spoke bitterly of him, called him an Arian, and 
 argued that he approved of telling Ues, talks of his "immortale ingenium." 
 fatal, s. V. Origen. 
 
 * Jeremie, JKsi. of Second and Third Cent. p. 9j. 
 
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 Hexapia he became the founder of all 
 textual criticism ; by his Homilies he fixed the type of a 
 popular exposition ; his Scholia were the earliest specimens 
 of marginal explanations ; his Commentaries furnished the 
 Church with her first continuous exegesis ; his book on " First 
 Principles" was "the earliest attempt at a systematic view of 
 the Christian Faith ; " i 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 hoh- 
 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." ^ 
 
 1 See Hiiet, Origcniana, iii. 2, p. 238 ; Westcott in Confcmp. Rev. vol. 
 XXXV. p. 337. His Scholia (or STj/zeitucreis) are mostly lost ; his Homilies ait, 
 for the most part, preserved in the Latin translations of Jerome and Eufiniis, 
 which, unhappilj', cannot be relied on, since the translators thouf;ht fit to 
 modify and tamper with them. They till three folios, though much is lost. 
 His Commentaries (T<i/ioi) extended over the whole Old Testament, except 
 Ruth, Esther, and Ecclesiastes ; and the whole New Testament except Mark, 
 1 and 2 Cor., 1 and 2 Pet., 1, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse. 
 See Rufin. Invect. m Hieron. ii. 
 
 2 On Galatians, p. 217. For the use made of Origen by Hilary and Vic- 
 torinus, see Jer. Ep. 41, ad Fmnmach. Some of his commentaries {e.g. tliat 
 on 1 Cor.) are much freer from allegory than others. 
 
Survival of Error. ISO 
 
 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ He apjieals to Apocryphal books 
 
 ' See for full information Huet, Origcniana, passim. 
 
 ' See Wcstcott, Gospel of St. John (Speaker's Commentary, p. xcv.). 
 
 ^ Philokal. p. 33 ; Gomm. in Oseam (Huet, i. p. 201). Like Plato he often 
 contrasts ri ^7]t6v, rh rrwfMaTiK6v k.t.K. with rb aTToplt7]T6i', rj aKKfjyopiaj t) 
 hayuyii, TrvevjxariK^ 5(T]7rj(ns, Oeojpia K.T.K. 
 
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 Eabbis and the Alexandrian theosophists.^ 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 lefore me eiwpty, and therefore He cannot 
 speak anything which is empty " ! ^ The infinite confusions 
 involved in such a proof show the chaotic condition of 
 thought which was prevalent on the question of Scripture 
 Inspiration. 
 
 The errors of the exegesis which Origen tended to 
 establish for more than a thousand years had their root in 
 the assumption that the Bible is throughout homogeneous 
 and in every particular supernaturally perfect. 
 
 He did indeed attempt a proof of this thesis.' 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 trutlis 
 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 they 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. 
 
 ^ Philokal. fragm. 
 
 ^ De Princ. iv. Trepi rov B^OTTV^varov tt)s Gqics ypacpys. Ilia hermeaeutics 
 are here theoretically stated. 
 
False Vietcs. 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,'^ such as led 
 Tertullian and the Egyptian Monks to believe exclusively in 
 a corporeal God. 
 
 I. He saw much in the Old Testament narratives which 
 seemed to him immoral and unbecoming. His system rose in 
 reahty 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 
 
 ^ 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 priind fct^ie entirely opposed to the 
 doctrine of plenary and verbal inspiration. See Tracts for the Times, Ko. 
 85, pp. 30, sy.; and that the reader may see all that can be said and best 
 said for schemes of mystic interpretation see id. ih. No. 87, pp. 21, sy. 
 
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." ^ 
 
 c. He argued that there were many things in the letter of 
 Scripture — such as the prohibition to eat vultures— which are 
 inherently absurd .^ 
 
 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.^ 
 
 c. Other commands again, such as that which bids every 
 man to abide in his place all the Sabbath day * — and other 
 prohibitions such as that to eat of the unicorn {TpayeXa(f)o<;), 
 a creature which has no existence — showed, he said, by their 
 very impossibility that they could not have been literally 
 intended.^ 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.® 
 
 ^ 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. Rom. xvi. 8, &c. 
 
 2 Deut. xiv. 5. So Jerome, In Matt. zxi. " Ubi materia vel turpitudinem 
 habeat vel impossibilitatem ad altiora transmittimur. " In supporting his 
 view Origen quoted Ezek. xx. 25, SiKciici/iaTa ov Ka\a., but said that mystically 
 understood (Trphs Sidpoiav) the commandments were good. C Gels. vii. 20. 
 He speaks of the aKavSaXa Kal irpoff/ctJ^u/iaTct koI aSiuara in the literal sense 
 of Scripture. "Uude vilitas Zifernsc ad preciositatem nos spirituaUs remittit 
 intelligentiae." In Num. Horn. xii. 1. 
 
 ' Gen. xvii. 14 ; De Frine. iv. 17. One of the Chapters of the rhilokalia 
 is Trepi rov Sclv tov deou &^iov vovv iv tqiovtois ^TiTelv 
 
 ^ Ex. xvi. 29. 
 
 ^ De Princ. iv. 18 ; toAAoI rh &\oyoi> iii(f,aivovai, irepoi Se ri i.'iiiv(ait. 
 'S,uvi<(,j)V(V 7) ypacfiii TT) laTopltf ri fx.^ yev6tievov. Trrj fxev ix)} Smarhv yiveuiai irp 
 5f SufaTiu/ fikv yevecreai ov fx^v yiyevi)iihov (id. 15). See 0.€els. iv. 44 ; TUh- 
 hit. 12 ; In Levit. Horn. vii. 5. 
 
 " De Princ. iv. 16 (Matt. v. 39 ; Luke x. 2, &e.). After touching on these 
 passages he adds, irXjiaiais 8e tovtois koI S\Aa yuupio tcfim riv kKpi^ovvm 
 
False Inferences. 193 
 
 /. He said that in the Evangelists there were many things 
 which, taken literally, involved nut only discrepancies but 
 direct contradictions ; and that many doctrines were not 
 announced by the Apostles with perfect distinctness who 
 therefore left the more precise proof and determination of 
 dogmas to " the disciples of science."^ Even a Peter and a 
 Paul saw but a fragment of the truth.^ 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 
 sHghtest application of literary criticism they vanish at a 
 touch. They are simply the birth of that openly avowed 
 presupposition (TrpoXrjijrL^) 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 ajDplying to the 
 whole of Scripture mere fragments of clauses often divorced 
 from their meaning and dissevered from their context, which, 
 m any case, can have had no further extent of application 
 than that to which they were originally aiDplied, 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.^ It deserved its name, for 
 
 TTjfniaai virep tov crvyKaTadecrdaL rah Kara ri ^trirhi' yeyevrifj.si^ais taropiais 
 eVepa /i)| (ivfi.0e07}K6Ta. 
 
 ' He also speaks of the solecisms iu 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. 
 
 " Eom. in JereTn. viii. Origen's chief exegetio views are scattered through the 
 3rd and 4th books of the De Principiis. 
 
 ' 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 
 
1 9-1 Assumptions. 
 
 it made Scripture say something else {aXKo arjopeveiv) than 
 it really meant. ^ 
 
 )Sucli being tlie 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 ; ^ 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.^ 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, F.ccJ. Sift. ii. 283. The positin argu- 
 ments of the Fathers in favour of alle,r;oiy are founded on misapplications 
 which have long been rejected as untenahle ; and they confused allegory 
 Avith typology (as in 1 Cor. v. 7, 8), and with arguments a fortiori such as 
 
 2 Cor.'iii. 7-13, 14. 
 
 ^ 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 the commentator had unconsciously ])ut 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." Gh. Hist. 1 19. 
 
 '" C Ccls. i. 18, opa bTToXa ixaKXov Zvvarai iirKTTpe^pai Kol avT^Bey rovs 
 aKoiiovras «. T.A.. 
 
 ^ He thought that neither Jews nor heretics could be convinced by the 
 literal sense, Philokal. 6. He says (id. 7) that from the Scriptiu-es, taken 
 literally, many ToiavTa v-noXa^^avovffi Trepl tov 0€oG biTQla. ouSe Trepi rov wjxot- 
 OLTOV Koi adiKoirarov avOpwirov aWia Sh Tvaai rots irpoeipriixivois ^l/evSoSo^Loiif Kttl 
 a(rel3etuv ^ tSiwTt/cwj' Trepl 0eoO \6'Yajv oiiic oA.\7j Tis ejvat 5ok6? ij r; ypa(p^ Karara 
 ■jrvevfj-aTLKa fj.^ vevoTjfx^fTi aXA* ws Trphs rh TpiKhy ypafxjxa ^^siAyjix^evT}. The most 
 remarkable expression of his opinion that the literal sense leads to immorality 
 is to be found inhis Stromala (ap. Jer. in Gal. v.). It ends with " jVIultoram 
 ergo malorum occasio est si quis in Scripturae came permaneat. " See Orig. 
 Bom. in Gen. vi., Som. in Lcvit, vii. 
 
Fantastic Proofs. 195 
 
 Lord sLone 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 Scrijjture 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,^ or in one single 
 instance gives an allegoric turn to the story of Sarah and 
 Hagar,^ Origen argues that therefore a mystical meaning 
 must have been intended throughout the whole narrative of 
 Scripture. St. Paul said " iJic letter JdlldJi, but the Sjniit giveth 
 life." ^ 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.* If St. Paul spoke of marriage as " a great mystery," ^ 
 what had this to do with the interpretation of the whole Old 
 Testament ? Or what was the bearing upon this question of 
 the remark in the Epistle to the Hebrews that Christians 
 have come not to Sinai but to Mount Sion ? ^ It is obvious 
 that such proofs are either absolutely irrelevant or are wholly 
 
 ' 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. 3-!, 
 which are niliilad ran {0. Ccls. ir. p. Ili7 ed. Spencer). 
 
 " Gal. iv. 21. 
 
 ' 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; this passage is appealed to by Greg. Nyss. I'roociii. in Cant. ; 
 Greg. Naz. Orat. 1 ; Didynms, (rp. Jer. and many other Fathers. 
 
 ■" 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 
 gi'ace of the Spirit was life. 
 
 ' Eph. ¥. 31. 
 
 ' We constantly find in the Fathers this radically vicious method of giving 
 universal application to isolated piassages. Commenting on the words, " 1 will 
 open my mouth in a parable," Jerom.e says, " Ex qua intelligimus wmtiCT-m 
 qum scripta sunt (!) parabolice sentienda, nee manifestam tantuin 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 S.iiptuie. This is 
 the view of Bishops Marsh and Tan Mildert, liumpt. Led. p. 239, and 
 Macknight, St. Paul's Epistles, iv. 439. 
 
 O 2 
 
196 Allegoric System. 
 
 inadequate to sustain the mountain-loads of inferenco 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 ojDened the door for 
 c^eadlier evils.-"- 
 J ' 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.^ 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.^ 
 
 , 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.* It has a literal, a moral, and 
 
 1 See Iren. i. 3, 8 ; ii. 24. 
 
 ^ Dr. Maitland (Dark Ages, p. 174) speaks much more strongly than I 
 have done. " If Origen's plaything -were not the -word of God we might 
 often be amused by his childish fooleries ; but when we consider what mischief 
 has been done to truth by the -way of allegorising (or as it is now called 
 spiritualising) the Bible, it cannot be looked on without disgust. " See too 
 Bishop Wordsworth's Miscellanies, ii. 17 (on the Interpretation of Scripture). 
 
 ' See Horn, in Joann. viii. 
 
 * SeeOrig. DePrindiy. i^- 8, 11, 12, 14, 19 ; TJom. in Levit. v. ; Rcdepenning, 
 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 
 j)ractically make this division (Redepenning, 1. 226). He uses the word 
 avayiayil of explanations which are simply allegories. Thus he gives an 
 allegoric sense to Matt. xiv. 13, and says /jera rb ^ririy koI /caret ai'ayc'PI'' 
 
Threefold Sense. 197 
 
 a mystic meaning analogous to the body, to the soul, to the 
 spirit. This conclusion also he supported by quoting what 
 seems to be a mere mistake of the Septuagint.^ In Prov. 
 xxii. 20 " Have I not written unto thee excellent things 
 (^□''l'.vl;'^ in wisdom and in knowledge," the LXX. has Kal aii 
 Se airo^jpa-^ai avTCL Tpccr<7(>)^, and the Yulg&te, Uccedcscripsi 
 tibi tripliciter? 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 ;^ to the lit- 
 eral sense scarcely at all.* Indeed in many passages he speaks 
 disparagingly of the literal truth of the Scripture narratives.^ 
 This constitutes his retrogressive and disastrous originality .^ 
 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 
 
 ^ 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 anagogio sense. 
 
 ^ Orig. PhUokal. 8 ; De Prine. iv. 11. 
 ^ ' 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 
 Pri-nc. i. 7). For passages which depreciate the literal sense see 0. Ceh. vi. 70 ; 
 vii. 20 J Horn, in Gen. vi. § 3 ; x. § 4 ; i)e Princ. iv. 8-28. 
 
 * 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. ITom. in Exod. i. 
 
 ' Thus on John i. 20, he says Sxnep iivi^aOpa xP't"'"-!^^'''" '''V '""rop^? tci 
 TxfT? TTfs a\7)9etas ^7]'rovvT^s ev •ypa.^fxa.ri. 
 
 ° See this amply proved by Origen's remarks, Horn, in Gen. iii. 4-6 ; vii. 
 5 ; X. 1 ; Horn, in Lci-it. vi. 3 ; Horn, in Num. xxLii. 5. See these and other 
 passages quoted in Denis, p. 41. 
 
198 Arbitrary Fancies. 
 
 simple narrative becomes too commonplace for liim ; he com- 
 pares it to the transgression of eating raw the Paschal Lamb.^ 
 Thus, like Philo, he loses much of the historic grandeur, the 
 jDoetic beauty, the human tenderness of the ScriiDtures. They 
 become to him a book of Alexandrian mysticism, into which 
 he everywhere reads the views which alone he considers to be 
 " eternal truths." ^ Arbitrary in its purport, immeasurable in 
 its extent, a great part of this allegoric comment becomes a mere 
 shuffling of subjective commonplaces.^ 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* " Hoc divinare marjis est qua7n cxplanare " was the just 
 criticism passed upon him (as he frankly tells us) even by his 
 contemporaries.* 
 
 In details Origen is constantly misled by defective literary 
 canons and imperfect linguistic knowledge. He was not 
 sufficiently acquainted with the laws of Hebrew parallelism 
 to prevent him from drawing mystic inferences from synonyms 
 and repetitions. Thus he thinks that there is a mystery in 
 the repetition of the word " God " in " I am the God of 
 Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ; " ^ and 
 that the expression " Rebecca was a virgin, neither had any 
 
 Ex. xii. 8, o\)K &ixriv ovv ^pur4ov t^v <rdpKa rod ajxvov wffirep irotuvaiv ol 
 rris \e^€ajs 5ov\oi tp6ttov a\6ywv Qwcav k.t.\. 
 
 ^ Hum. in Kwm. xxv. 3, " Nou tarn reges quam i-itiorum nomina 
 quae regnant in homiiiibus." Eotn. in Jos. i. 7, "Intra nos enim sunt 
 omnes gentes istae vitiorum." Horn, in Gen. x. 4, "In his non histm-iae 
 narrantiir, scdmystcria conte.runtur." 
 
 3 See Boliringcr, iii. 366-373. " Allegorical interpretation amounted, in 
 practice, only to a species of aphoristical philosophy on the occasion of Bible 
 passages," Ueberweg, i. 319. 
 
 * Porphyry Kara Xpitrrm^'wi/ iii. (a;). Euseb. B. E. Yi. 19). MviyfiaTa -rh 
 irapa mau(Tei<l>avep€>s Kiyin^va dyai KOfiiraa-ai'Tes koI iirideiiaavres iis BanisiJma. 
 ttA.V) Kpv<piav /xvaT-nplap. He goes on to charge him witti Hellenising, and 
 clothing Hellenic thoughts in Jewish mytlis. He says that Origen borrowed 
 the principles of Plato, Numenius, the Stoics, Chaeremon and Cornutus, 
 —Trap uv Thv ,i€Ta\vnTiKhv tUv Trap "EWrKri fivtXTT^piwv yvobs Tp6irov nh 
 lovlaiKais Trpoaii^f ypa<pa.h. 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 
 mo non tetigit, et more suo in alle"-or:' 
 
 Horn, in Exod. xiii 2. 
 
 Ex. iii. 16 ; Hem. in Joann. ii. .§ 16. 
 
 omnino non tetigit, et more suo in allegoriae interpretatione versatas est 
 ^ Horn, in Exod. xiii 2. 
 
Errors of Origen. 199 
 
 man known her " (Gen. xxiv. 16), must mean that Christ 
 is the husband of the soul wlien it is converted, and that 
 Satan becomes the husband of the soul when it falls away.^ 
 
 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 tJhcy 'made for themselves houses," ^ 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 edjove Abraham,^ 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 
 
 ' 3cm. in Mom. vii. § 8 (De la Rue, iv. 604). It need hardly be said tliat 
 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. 
 Ex. i. 21, iiToi7\(Tav kavrais otKias, LXX. 
 
 ^ Gen xviii. 2, ^l(ni)Kii(yav iirdvw 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.^ 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 soni 
 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.^ 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." ^ All such comments 
 are a /j.eTa^acn'; et? aWo yevo';. They do but weary 
 and offend us with a sense of incongruous unreality. They 
 
 ^ Orig. Comm. in Matt. (xx. 33). 
 
 - For abundant specimens of Origen's allegorising methorls see Hnet, 
 Origeniana, II. 2 Ger. 13 ; (De la Rue iv. App. '2i0-244). 
 
 * Horn, in Joann. vi. § 18 (De la Rue, iv. p. 136), The passage is lorf; 
 and difficult. Ei Se ^variKhs b irepi twv vtroh-q^dTcav t6itos ovVe rovrop irapeA- 
 Be'ii' &^wv. oJfmi Toivvv tV M^" ("^"SpdirriiTii' Sre crApKa /to! oTiUO itvaXain^ivn i 
 Tot" ©eoG m'bs rh fr^pov thai tS>v xmo&iniA-Tav, tV Se eis a'Sou Ka-ri^aaiv, SffTis 
 TTore l(TTiv b ([S-qs, k.t.K 
 
Influence of Origeu. 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,^ 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,^ commenting on Gen. 
 XV. 9, explains " the calf, the goat, and the ram of three 
 years " ^ in Abraham's sacrifices to mean his soul, his sentient 
 faculty, and his mind.* The same arbitrary mixture of 
 allegory and dogma is found in the works of Cyril. It is 
 needless and impossible to speakseparatelyof him, and many 
 others of the Fathers, and in point of fact there is no new or 
 original principle observable in their comments.^ Gregory 
 
 ^ 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. 
 
 '^ See his only extant work, the Sym2msium, or irepl kyvdas. It is printed 
 in Migne, vol. xviii. 
 
 ' 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 wliiter 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 sliows 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 Joaeim 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. 
 
 * 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 Iting to be 
 sinful souls before the Incarnation which now implore the mercy of God (see 
 Photius, Cod. 234-237 ; Schrbck, E. G. iv. 427, sq. ; Rosenmiiller, Sist. 
 Interpr. iii. 187,8?.). 
 
 ^ Euseb. B. B. vi. 46 ; Steph. Gobar. ap. Phot. Cod. 232 ; Guerike, De 
 Schol. Jlcx. 67. 
 
202 Influence of Orir/oi. 
 
 Thaumaturgus,^ the martyr Pamioliilus,^ Athanasius,=* 
 Didymus the Blind,* Pierms,^ Theognostus,^ Hierax of 
 Leontopolis,'^ Eusebius of Vercellae,^ Eusebius of Caesarea," 
 FirmUian.io Victorinus of Pettau/^ all made some con- 
 tributions to exegesis in their day, but there is nothing 
 distinctive in their special methods. Like many others 
 they openly exj)ressed 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.^^ Gregory of Nyssa, the brother oi 
 Basil, was the most Origenising of all the Fathers of the 
 Nicene age, and he adopted not only his exegetic system, hut 
 also many of his dogmatic opinions.^^ Even Tillemont " 
 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 soxirce inepuisalle de 
 lu7nieres. In spite of the unjust and sweeping condemnation 
 
 ^ See his Apology for Origeu in De La Eue's edition, vol. iv. 
 
 2 Euseb. JI. E. vi. 53; vii. 32; Jer. Gatal. 76; Eouth, Eel. Sacr. iii. 
 491-512 ; Bohringer, iii. 578 ; Schrock, K. G. xii. 93, sq. 
 
 ■* See Eosenmiiller, 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 U 
 Marcellinus on the Psalms is excellent, and it is needless to point out the high 
 value of his contributions to exegetic theologij. 
 
 * Jer. Ep. 84 ; Apol. adv. Ruf. ; Socrates, S. E. iv. 25 ; Baronius, Ann. 
 A.D. 347. 
 
 ' He was called "the young Origen" (Phot. Cod. 119 ; Jer. Catal. 76; 
 Euseb. E. E. vii. 32), 
 " He was a pupil of Origen, and was called " the Exegete. " 
 ' Epiphan. Haer. 67. 
 
 * Jerome calls him an admirer and imitator of Origen. 
 
 " Euseb. H. E. vi. 53 ; Photius, Cod. 118. He was gi-cator as a scholar 
 and historian than as an exegete. Fragments of his commentaries have been 
 published by Mai, Kov. Patr. Bibl. iv. and lligne, vi. His Ei'a77E\{aii' 
 Siatpuvta is unfortunately lost. 
 
 w Euseb. E. E. vi. 27. n Jer. Ev. Ixv, 2 
 
 12 JSTiceph. H. E. xi. 17; Schrock, K. G. xiv. ; P.. Simon, 'ffisi. Cril. 
 {JSr. T.), p. Ill, .-;<7. ; Buddeus, Isag. 1385, sq. 
 
 " See Kupp, Greg. v. Nyssa, pp. 243-262 ; SchafF, Ch. Eist. ii. 907. I'm' 
 Oregoi-y's exegctical preference of allegory see Prooem. in Cant. Basil, how- 
 ever, though not free from it, has some strong and wise protests against it 
 {Eexann. ii. 2 ; iii. 9 ; ix. 1 ; Eom. I. in § 9, e. 2). 
 
 " TiUcmont, iii. 266. 
 
Hilary. 203 
 
 of his theology, he yet was the chief teacher of even the 
 most orthodox of the Western Fathers.'- They delighted in 
 a system which still left them some semblance of originality 
 and freedom. We need only instance the names of Hilary 
 of Poictiers and of Ambrose. 
 
 VI. Hilary, " the Athanasins of Gaul," admirable as a 
 theologian, and powerful as a writer,- but commonplace as an 
 exegete, was almost entirely dependent on Origen.^ Jerome 
 says that in his Commentary on the Psalms, he imitated 
 Origen and added some things of his own, and that his com- 
 meutary on St. Matthew and bis book on Job were free trans- 
 lations of Origen.* 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.^ Writing about the inscription of the Psalms," To the 
 chief musician a Psahn of David," ^ he adopts the mistaken 
 rendering, " In finem intdlcdus David" and infers that Psalms 
 headed " in finem " '' had no relation to contemporary history, 
 but must all be exj^lained of Christ. The 50th Psalm (A.V. li.) 
 refers to foi'giveness, because its number is that of the year of 
 
 ^ See the remarkable testimony of Suidas s.v. 'npiyivns. irKf'iaTa koI 
 avapid/xriTa eKKeAonrev us e'l eKcifov irdyras tovs /ieTeVeiTa iKK\7j<jias 
 SiSaff/caXous KoX afpopfias €i\7}<p4vai, ws 6 deo\6yos <pd(7Kei rprjySpios, ^CLpLyh7}s 
 ri traVTiav rifxav aKOVT], 
 
 ^ Jerome calls him " a Rhone of eloquence. " Dorner's estimate of his 
 theology is very high. 
 
 ^ On Hilary see Schrock, xii. 252, sq. ; Eosenmiiller, Hint. Interp. 
 301, sq. ; Buddeus, Isngogc, 1388, sq. Both Ambrose and Hilary speak of 
 the contradictions of Scripture from which we can only escape by allegory 
 (Diestel, pp. 80 ff.). 
 
 * Jer. Catal. 100, "Quo!? de Graeco Origenisin sensumtranstulit." Hilarj', 
 not quite honourably, avoided acknowledging his obligations to Origen — " ul 
 Origeniani nominis mvidiam vitani" (Erasm.). 
 
 ' Jerome, perhaps unjustly, implies that he also knew but little Greek 
 (Graeconmi literarum quamdam aurulam. ceperat), and was assisted in under- 
 standing Origen by the Presbyter Heliodorus [Ep. adilarccll. and adPauUin. 
 Be Inst, ilmmcli.). 
 
 ' LXX. €ij Tb te\os. The remark is borrowed from Eusebius, who also 
 refers the superscription rTBirr^V Trep! X-nvHv, LXX. (Pro torculariius, Vulg.) 
 of Ps. 8 to Christian altars and the wine of the Eucharist (Diestel, p. 119). 
 Hilaiy says that Fro torcularihis shows the Psalm to be about the new fruits 
 prepared out of men by God's Spirit. The inscription probably means "iu 
 Ihe manner of Gath." 
 
204 Hilary. 
 
 jubilee. In Ps. li. (A.V. lii.) the Latin version has the inscription 
 " When Does 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 Eemigius 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;^ the lilies of the field are angels;^ the "grass" 
 signifies the Gentiles ; two spari-ows 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.^ 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 imdmn spirits to whom, without any trouble of their own, 
 provision of life is given by the power of the Eternal Wisdom." Eemigius, 
 with Just as much right, says, "By the birds of the air are meant the saints." 
 
 ^ Matt. vi. 31, " By the lilies are to he understood the eminences of the 
 heavenly angels. " 
 
 ^ Here are other specimens : Matt. iv. ]8-22, " 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 ' falling ' and 
 'flying'), signifies the world which passes away and the Devil who fell from 
 Heaven," &o. 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.^ 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." ^ 
 
 VII. Nor is St. Ambrose a whit behind him in the ad- 
 option of Origenistic allegory, and Philonian methods,* 
 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.'' 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.^ Jerome, 
 however, was strongly prejudiced against him.^ In his Cata- 
 
 ' "Haec ita intelligere non dicam erroris scd irreligiositatis est" (Hil. 
 in Ps. 146). 
 
 " Hil. De Trin. ii. There is a monograph by Eeinken, Hilarius roii 
 Poieliers, 1864. 
 
 " See Siegfried, Philo. pjx 371-391. 
 
 * TiYMt. dc Obit. Vahnt. ii. 12. 
 
 ' Jerome says, " ISTuper Ambrosius sic illius (Origenis) Hcxacmeron com- 
 pilavit ut magis Hippolyti sententiam BasiliiLpe seqiieretur " (Ep. 84, 7) ; 
 " Ante paucos dies quorumdam in Matthaeum et Lucam comnientaiios vos 
 legisse dixistis e quiljus alter et sensibus hebes esset, et alter in verbis luderet, 
 in sententiis dormitaret " (Rufinus, Inv. in Eieron. ii. 22-29). Augustine, 
 on the other hand, always speaks of him with high respect (see Aug. Conf. 
 vi. 4). 
 
 ' On Ambrose see Schrock, xiv. 148, sq. ; Piosenrn. iii. 313, sq. ; Buddeus, 
 Isag. 1306. Bohringer (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.^ 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 ovcr.^ 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." ^ 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." * 
 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 jjieces of Biblical criticism in this epoch. 
 One of these is the great DioNYsius OF Alexandria (f 265),^ 
 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 nirrjrnds cine Spur ; das Meiste ist allegoiisirend 'doch fehlt er nichl 
 an sinnigen Bemerkungeij." Ambrose says {De Fido) " Eistoria simplex e&i 
 alta mysteria . . . quia littcralis sensus indignus est." 
 
 ^ " Menm judiemm subtraham ne in alterutram partem aut adulatio in me 
 reprehendatur ant Veritas " (Oat. Virr. Illustr. 124). Some have conjectured 
 that Jerome had some pm-oonal dislike to Ambrose in connexion with liis 
 sudden departure from Aquileia, Sp. 3, 3. Zbckler, p. 40. 
 
 - Praef. in xxxix. JTom. Origenis in Zucain ap. Paifinum ; hrccrt. ii. ain. 
 Ilicron. § 21. " Oscincm corvnmaudiam crocitantem et mirum in modum de 
 cunctarum avium ridere coloribus, cum totus ipse tenehrosus sit." In § 23 
 Kufinns defends Ambrose, and calls him "omnium Ecclcsiarum columna 
 ([iia-dam." 
 
 ^ De Offie. I. i. 4. Hrinz, in his severe criticism on this book CWalch, 
 Patrologia, p. 668), complains espt-cially of " Schleclite Auslegungen dt-r 
 Schriftsteller A. uud N. T. die gevvaltsam angezogen werden und nichts 
 beweisen." 
 
 * Rev. J. LI. Davies in Smith and Wace. The Commentary of Ambrosiastev, 
 which used to be printed with the works of Ambrose, is of uncertain author- 
 ship, but has highmerits. Sixt. Senensis calls it "brief in words but weighty 
 in matter." 
 
 ^ He earned the title of " the Great " (Euseb. 77. E. vi. 46, vii. 1 ; Baiil, 
 Ep. ad Aviplmoch. Steph. Gobar, ap. Phot. Cod. 232 ; Guerike, De Schol. 
 Alex., p. 67, and Schrbck, K.G. iv. 169). 
 
Julius A/ricanus. 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.^ Nor 
 are the contributions of Julius Afeicanus (f c. 240) less 
 valuable. In a brief but vigorous letter to Origan he ex- 
 presses his surprise that, in a discussion with Bassus, the great 
 Alexandrian should have referred to the Story of Susanna. 
 He says that at the time, as was only fitting, he did not like 
 to make any remark ; but in his letter he points out that the 
 Story of Susanna is lacking in propriety ; that it is full of 
 improbabilities ; that it attributes to Daniel a kind of prophetic 
 insight unlike that displayed in his book ; that it formed no 
 part of the Jewish canon ; and that it has two plays on words 
 which would have been impossible in Hebrew.^ Origen's 
 answer to this letter shows signs of timidity, and appeals to 
 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 tlie 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.^ Relying on a 
 
 ^ His arguments are given by Euseb. IT. E. vii. 1'>. He argued (1) from 
 style and phraseology ; (2) from the omission by John of his name in the 
 Cfospel 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 perhapjs unique among early writers for clearness and 
 scholastic precision." For a full account of it see Liicke, Eial. in die 
 Offenbanmg (Bonn, 1852), pp. 605-621. 
 
 ^ See Euseb. H. E. vi. 31 ; Jer. Catrd. 63 ; Photius, Cod. 34 ; Suidas, s.v. 
 'Acpp'iKavos ; Nicephorus, S. E. v. 21 ; Routh, Rel Sun: ii. 225. The 
 letter was edited by AVetstein, with notes, in 1674 ; and in De la Hue's 
 Origen. 
 
 M^ 5}? Kparoirj ovros 6 \6yos iv 'E/c/cATjfria Xpiarou uTi \peD5os (XvyK^nai els 
 tUvov Kol So^oKoyiai/ XpiaToi (Routh, Kd. Sacr. ii.). 
 
208 Julius A/rlcanns. 
 
 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.^ One more service Juhus 
 rendered by his Chronology, though it was based on data 
 necessarily imperfect.^ He amply deserves his reputation as 
 one of the most learned of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,^ 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.* Clemens gives the 
 name of " ignorant brawlers " ^ 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.^ They saw, too, that 
 
 1 Euseb. ff. E.i.l; Routh, Eel. Sacr. ii. 228 ; Euseb. ad Steph. Qu. 4 
 (Mai, &'cri2]t. A'oc. CoJl. i.) ; Aug. Jiclr. ii. 7 ; Mill, Mythical Interpr. p. 201 ; 
 F. Spitta, Dcr Brief des Jul. Afric. an Aristid. kritisch untcrmcht und 
 hergeskllt (Halle, 1877). 
 
 2 Euseb. S. E. vi. 11. 
 
 3 Jer. E2J. ad Magnum, 83 ; Socr. E. E. ii. 35. If the KeVroi were really 
 by Julius they were not worthy of him ; but even if they be genuine, tliey 
 have suifered from additions and mutilations. 
 
 ^ See nom. in Lucam, xxv. ; Horn, in Joann. x. § 13, tp6ttov a\6ywy (dm 
 Kal o.'KOT5d'r)pLo)ixivoiV nphs tovs aKridais KoyLKoiis Sta tov avvifvai ^ovMfrdai th 
 ■n-veviiarma. ; in ffom. in Gen. xiii. § 3 he compares himself to Isaac, who dug 
 wells which the Philistiues came and disputed. 
 
 ^ 'A^aflis \fio<l>caSe7s. In the pseudo-Clementine Jircoguilions (x. 42) there 
 is a protest against the arbitrary distortion of gcriptuie. 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, Hexaem. 9 ; Aug. Dc Civ. Dei, xiii. 21, 
 &c. (Huet, Origeniaita, qu. 13). The language of the Clementine Homilies (iii. 
 fl, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 47) opposes the mechanical theory of inspiration, and 
 criticises the origin of the Pentateuch, &c., in a manner whi:h reminds us of 
 Kuenen and Wellhausen. 
 
 ^ Thus the Manichaeans argued that Chi'ist 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 HLs mortal dwelling 
 {/XKrivciifia), i.e. His body. 
 
Epliraem Syrus. 209 
 
 the end of such idealism would be a subversion of the plain 
 truths of the Gospel/ and that a dangerous use might be 
 made of the determination to know Christ after the flesh no 
 more.^ The danger was illustrated by the way in which 
 Origen explained the words spoken by Christ in His agony,^ 
 " 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,* 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 .^ 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 K.oivri, and was 
 used in Constantinople, Asia Minor, and Antioch.^ The 
 presbyter Doeothetjs 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.'' i 
 
 The best representative of the 'Syrian school of Edessa was 
 Epheaem Steus, a man of singular personal sweetness, and a 
 laborious commentator, who died A.D. 331. Adopting to a 
 great extent the views of Origen, he abounds in allegories of 
 which a single specimen may stand for multitudes. Com- 
 
 ' See the admirable remarks of Neander, Ch. Hist. ii. 295- 302. 
 
 ^ Orig. Eom. in Matt. xv. § 3, ed. Huet. 
 
 ^ In his treatise on Martyrdom, 29. {aWh 5e rdx" &ap{)Tepov aiTeiv 
 
 Xt\7)9(fTI<JS. ) 
 
 * 'EAeyxos Ta>v 'hW-qyopKrrSiv. It was written in the interest of the 
 Chiliasts (Euseb. R. E. vii. 24), and was answered by Dionysius the Great in 
 his two books irepl ^Trayy^Xicav. 
 
 ^ The martyr Pamphilus, the ardent admirer and champion of Origen, 
 founded a great library and a theological school at Caesarea. Euseb. E. E. 
 ■vii. 32. 
 
 ' His MSS. were called hovKiave'ia, Jer. Gatal. 77. See Routh, llcl. Saer. 
 iv. 3 ; Westcott on the Canon, p. 392 ; Westc. and Hort, Greek Test. ii. 138 ; 
 Be Broglie, Ejiglise et VEmjnre, i. 375 ; Newman, Avians, p. 414. 
 
 ' Euseb. E. E. vii. 32 ; Neander, ii, 528 ; Gieseler, i. 247. 
 
 P 
 
210 School of Antioch. 
 
 menting on the wisdom through which Kahab 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 ! ^ But Ephraem's worst error is the mingling and con- 
 fusion of the historic and mystic sense, which serve to show 
 that for centuries together exegesis was drifting hither and 
 thither on the open sea of fancy, with no compass of true 
 principle to guide its course. In one and the same passage, 
 even in one and the same verse, he takes one phrase literally, 
 and the next mystically, after the aimless fashion afterwards 
 systematised by Tichonius. Thus on Is. ix. 7 he remarks 
 that part of it refers to Hezekiah, and another part cannot 
 possibly apply to him. The first verses of that chapter refer, 
 he says, to Christ, the third and fourth verses to Hezekiah 
 or to Christ, the fifth and sixth verses to Christ only, except 
 that the epithets " Prince " and " Father " may also refer to 
 ^Hezekiah, whereas the first clause of the next verse can refer 
 to Christ alone ! ^ 
 
 X. The third great school, the School of Antioch, 
 ipossessed a deeper insight into the true method of exegesis 
 than any which preceded or succeeded it during a thousand 
 years. We are not here speaking of theological questions, 
 nor am I concerned to enter into the bitter disputes of the 
 fourth century, or to inquire how far the Antiochene in- 
 terpreters have been ignorantly misrepresented. All that 
 I here afiirm 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'a acquaintanco with the Jewish Midrash, see Delitzsch, 
 'Jenesis, p. 62. 
 
 -' On the merits and defects of Ephraem Syrus, see the admirahle mono- 
 gi'aph of Caesar v. Leiigerke, De Ephr. Syri arte hermenetitica, especially 
 pp. 160 sq. and pp. 168 sq. (Konigsb. 1S31.) See too Cave, i. 231, Fabricius, 
 viii. 217. 
 
School of Antioch. 211 
 
 iron hand of a dominant orthodoxy, the study of their com- 
 mentaries, and the adoption of their exegetic system, might 
 have saved Church commentaries from centuries of futility and 
 error. Cardinal Newman has talked about "the connexion 
 of heterodoxy with Biblical criticism," and has said that by 
 their contemporary appearance in some of the teachers of 
 Antioch "it may be almost laid down as an historic fact 
 that the mystical interpretation and orthodoxy will stand 
 or fall together." A more fatal admission could hardly be 
 made. If it were true, it could only mean that eccles- 
 iastical orthodoxy shrinks from the light of knowledge, and 
 that its exegesis is an arbitrary fiction. The mystical 
 interpretation has had every opportunity of 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. ^ 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 
 
 ^ 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 crown of thorns ! See Ginsburg, Smig 
 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.^ 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, tliis 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.^ 
 
 1. DioDOEUs OF Tarsus (t 393) must be regarded as the 
 true founder of the School of Antioch.^ He was a man of 
 eminent learning and of undisiDuted 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* He commented 
 
 1 Thus Irenaeus attributes St. Paul's hypciiirila to the vehemence of his 
 spirit {Uaer. iii. 7). Tertullian supposes a growth of restraint and knowledge 
 in the mind of St. Paul (Paulus adhuc in gratia rudts, ferventcr ut adhiic 
 ncophytus, adversus Judaismum. C SLan. i. 20, and De Padic. 5). See 
 Chrysostom, Horn, in Matt. i. ed. Fi^ld, 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 clausus infirmo"). Even Augustine speaks of 
 the Evangelists writing " Ut quisque mcminarat vel ut niique. cordi fiiercU." 
 Neander, iv. 10-13. 
 
 ^ " Si quis Facimnus homiwm. non Patrem ad Filium dixisse dicat . . . 
 anathema sit . . . Si quis cum Jacobo non Filium quasi hominem coUuctatum 
 . . . dicat, anathema sit.. . . Si quis Phiit Dominus a Domino (Gen. xix. 24) 
 non de Filio et Patre intelligat . . . anathema sit." Cone. Sirm. (A.D. 367 ; 
 Canons xiv.-xvii. ; Hardnin, i. 702. See Rosenmiiller, Hist. Interp.vr. 291). 
 
 s The " school" of Antioch was not like that of Alex.andria, a succession of 
 connected teachers. It was rather a theological tendency which continued at 
 Nisibis and Edessa after the condemnation of Ncstorius. See SchafF, Ck 
 Hist. ii. 816. To this school belong Ephraem Syrus, Eusebius of Emesa (on 
 whom there are monographs by August! and Thilo), Chrysostom, Severianus, 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret. 
 
 Theodoret, E.E. v. 4. 
 
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.^ His books were devoted to an ex- 
 position of Scripture in its literal sense,^ and he wrote a 
 treatise, now unhappily lost, " on the difference between 
 allegory and spiritual insight." ^ 
 
 2. But the ablest, the most decided, and the most logical 1 
 representative of the School of Antioch was Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia (t 428). That clear-minded and original thinker I 
 stands out like " a rock in the morass of ancient exegesis." 
 He was not, indeed, a Hebrew scholar.* 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 " ! ^ 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.^ In his theory of types , 
 
 ' The anathemas are not in the genuine Acts of the Council. He is 
 defended by Facundus Hermianensis. ". Should not the merits of St. Chiy- 
 sostom seem rather to justify Diodorus thau the errors of Theodore to con- 
 demn him ?" See Neander, iv. 209. 
 
 ^ Socrates, IT. E. vi. 3. AifJSajpos Se . , . iroWa PiPxia avv^ypa^l/e i//i\y 
 TqJ ypafi/xart riav deiuv KaT^x^^ ypa.(po}Vj ttjs 6ea)pias auratv 4ktp<et:6^^vos. 
 Hozomen, H. E. viii. 2. AioSwpos %v iirvdSfj.Tji' iSiwv (Tvyypaix^drwv iroWas 
 KaraXiiTelv ^i^Kovs, TT€p\ 5e rh ^riThv toiv l^poiv \6yoiV Tas i^riyijaeis TroiTjtracy- 
 6ai Tijs d€a>pias aTrorp<jy6i'Ta. Jer. Calal. 119. 
 
 ^ Tis hLa(popa Bewpias Kol aW-rjyopias. Suidas, s.v. Ai65. By Theoria is 
 meant spiritual insight which is not content with the letter only. 
 
 * This appears from his' remark on the word Eemphan (.4cts vii. 43, comp. 
 Amos V. 26} tpacrl 5e rhv ''E.ic<T(p6poif ovroi Kara twv 'E^paicov KaKeiaSat 
 yXurTav. Any Jew could have told him that the word is not Hebrew at all 
 but Egyptian. 
 
 ^ The name Qeren Happuk is rendered Corinistibium in the Vulg. , and 
 Gregory the Great derives it from corim and tibia/ See Mcrx, Joel, p. 101. 
 Theodori Ep. Mops, in Epp. B. Pauli Commentarii, ed, H. B. Swcte, Cimbr. 
 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 Jmirn. 
 of Class, and Saer. Philol. iv. 802, is mentioned in Bishop Lightfoot's Gala- 
 tiaTis, p. 219. 
 
 ' In Haba.k. ii. 11, where the LXX. has the curious word Kavdapos, which 
 niislcd 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 whicli 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.^ It is, further, true 
 
 that he is not eminent as a textual critic, and sometimes 
 
 chooses his readings on arbitrary principles.^ 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,^ 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." * 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 (6 (cora/Saj avris ea-rtv koI 6 a.va$as) he denies that 
 this is true literally ; and on Col. i. 13 persuades himself that Christ's 
 "adoption" of manhood is involved in ttjs ct7air^s, that iv aiiriji 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. Ixxi. 
 
 '' In Eph. iii. 15 he reads (fparpk for Tarpio. In Ejih. ii. 22 he comments 
 on a.(p^ not olKo^o^x-i). 
 
 * Photius, Cod. 4, hut he calls him rats Ziavolais koI toIs iTnx^ifkiJJUH xfai' 
 •nvKvisj Ka\ rals ypacpLKais &pt(rTa, -nXovrSiV p-aprvpiais, 
 
 * Sweto, p. ]x\. 
 
" The Exegete." 215 
 
 Exegete " of the early Church, as Theodoret is the Annotator 
 and Chrysostom the Homilist. His merits are so consiDicuous 
 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 ^ especially in commenting on the New 
 Testament.^ He pays close attention to particles, moods, ,' 
 prepositions, and to terminology in general. He points out - 
 the idiosyncrasies (l8i(6/j,aTa) 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.^ 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 j 
 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. J 
 
 But his crowning merit was the original yet unhappily 
 fruitless stand which he made against the subtle fascination 
 
 ' Linguistic, but unfortunately not historical or geographical. Questions 
 about Tarshish, Bathrus (i.XX. for Tp Am. ix. 7), &c., he flings aside as 
 TTepnrTi a-KpifioKoyia. 
 
 ^^ 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, ii, &c.) 
 are often excellent. See Dr. Sanday in Expositor, xi. 371. 
 
 ^ Questions as to 
 
 "Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auspiciis, cur, quomodo, quando." 
 
216 School of Antioch. 
 
 of Origenising allegory.^ 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.^ 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 " (evSoKia), 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. 5 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 (avot'o.? t?}? eV^ari;?) to 
 
 1 See the excellent remarks of Sieffert, Thcod. Mops. V. T. sohrie interprc- 
 tandi vindex, 1827, and JMunter, De Schola Anliochena, 1811. The monograpli 
 of Ffitzsche, De Thcod. iJojis. Vita et Seriptis (1836), is printed in iUgne's 
 ratrologia, vol. Ixvi. 
 
 ° Facundus of Hermiane {Dcf. Triun. Capit. iii. 6) cites a treatise of his, 
 De Allegoria et Historia, in five books, and mentions the odium which it 
 excited. Ebedjesu (Assemauni, iii. 34) also alludes to this. 
 
 ' Leont. Byzant. adv. Eutyeh. iii. c. 11. " Omnes psalraos judaice ad Zoro- 
 habalem et Ezechiam retulit, tribus tantum [viii. xlv. ex.] ad Doniinum 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 "viy transgrcssioivi. " He is said to 
 have written this commentary on the Psalms at the age of eighteen. 
 
Theodore of Moiysuestia. 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 Christianitj', 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.i But Christ Himself, as in the case of Jonah, and of 
 the Brazen Serpent, sanctioned the use- of types. The 
 
 ' It is surely needless to point out the absolute difference between parahoUa 
 teaching and allegorical intcrp i-etalion. 
 
218 Prophecy. 
 
 ' allegoric method triumplied from the days of Origen onwards. 
 The true grasp of typology ceased from the fifth to the 
 1 seventeenth century — fi'om the days of Theodore to those 
 i 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 ]3rogressive and providential governance of God in the 
 History of the World. He held that the essence of Old 
 Testament prophecy lay rather in an inspired hope than in 
 conscious vaticination ; that Israel was under the special care 
 (K7jSefj,ovia) 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 (oIkopo/xio) the facts were themselves 
 a dim revelation of the future, and that the Prophets were 
 1 led by divine inspiration to express what they saw in larger 
 I terms (vTrep^oXiKoiTepov) than would have been warranted 
 L by contemporary circumstances.^ 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.^ 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 
 
 ' See Theod. Mops. Pmef. in Jon. ; Merx, Jod, p. 127, fg. Delitzach on 
 Ps. xxii. He held that the Prophets did not see distinctly, but had (pavraaiav 
 Tiva. Twv fieWSpToiv. 
 
 - The phrases he uses closely resemble those of Calvin. If Calvin says that 
 the sacred writers " apply " this or that passage to Christ, "jnd dejlectionc," 
 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 uiri'a to 
 iTMfjM (jueraAAa^as odv avr^y us ^k irpoadiTrou tov XpicrroO Tavrr} (pTjfflv avrl 70V 
 wTia, aS>ixa). He uses the words avyxp^cBat, KaraxpfitrBai, of the use made 
 of Amos ix. 11, Is. xlv. 23, in Eom. xiv. 11 ; and defends such quotationson 
 the ground that what was said of the Divine nature generally might be 
 applied to the Son or the Holy Spiirit. 
 
Theodoret. 219 
 
 thought, he anticipated by fourteen hundred years many of 
 the accepted conclusions of raodern 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.^ In the Syrian Church, 
 indeed, he produced a profound impression. His views 
 were, to a certain extent, perpetuated by Theodoeet, who 
 depended almost entirely on Theodore and Chrysostom, 
 whom he calls luminaries of the world. But Theodoret 
 (t 457), though safer and more terse, drew back from the 
 advanced position of Theodore, and was wholly inferior to J 
 him in genius, courage, and literary power.^ 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." ^ 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 Beformation into regions of light 
 and day. 
 
 4. The great Cappadocian triumvirate, Basil the Great, 
 Gkegory of Nyssa, "the Theologian," and Gregory of 
 
 ' Among Theodore's predecessors might have been mentioned Aphraatcs, 
 Ensebius of Emesa, and possibly Adrianus : among liis successors his younger 
 brother Polychronius Bishop of Apamea (t 430) and Severianus Bislrop of 
 Gabala (see Schrock, x. 458, Cave, i. 375). 
 
 ^ On Theodoret see Schrock, xviii. 398 sq. ; Rosenmiiller, iv. 93 ; Merx, 
 Joel, p. 147, fg. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 226. There is a monograph by 
 Richter, De theodorelo Ep. PauUn. iiiterprete, 1822 ; and another by Specht, 
 Der exegetiscJie Stand^nmkt Theodor's und Theodorct's, 
 
 On Theodore's writings, of which we now possess some complete works in 
 the original, see Fritzsehe, Do Tlteod. Mops. Vita et srm'ptis, Halae, 1836. 
 Emesti, Ofius'i. Tlieol. 502 ; Sieffert, Thtod. iIop:i. V. Test, sobrie interpretmidi 
 nndex, 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 
 the EpMles 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 mcrctricia 
 interpretatiis, sua supra modum iucredibili audacia e.x libris sacris abscidit, " 
 ftc). The style of the theological criticism of partisans was as violent and 
 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.). 
 
 » Eeuss, Gesch. § 521. 
 
220 The Cappadocians. 
 
 Nazianzus, followed in exegesis a via media. Their profound 
 admiration of Origen is proved by the publication of the 
 Philolcalia, but they avoided as a rule the extravagances of 
 allegory.! They sought a middle term betv^een 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.^ 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,^ 
 nor was he so profound a theologian as Augustine, nor was 
 he in any sense a textual critic like Julius Africanus ; * 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 
 
 ^ Basil stoutly says, " When I hear of grass, I understand it to mean gi'ass, 
 and so of plants, and fishes, and beasts, and cattle ; all of them as ihey are 
 spoken of, so I receive." He adds that "many interjireters pervert all this 
 according to meanings of their own, much like those who profits to interpret 
 dreams;" and that "some have tiied by I know not what allurements and 
 figures of speech to get the Scriptures credit for a kind of dignity v/hich is in 
 fact of their owndcci«ing" and "under the show of interpretation to introduce 
 matters of their own." — Hccemm. ix. 1. 
 
 ^ Sue Fbrster, Chrysostomus in seincn VcrlLdltniss zur Anliocheniseher 
 ScMile, 1869. 
 
 ' Contrasii for instance the treatment of St. John's Gospel in Chrysostom's 
 homilies and Origen's comments ; see "VVestcott, St. John, p. xcv. 
 
 ^ See Dr. Sanday, Expositor, vol. xii. ; Lightfoot, Galalians, p. 218. 
 Canon Westcott says (St. John in Speaker's Comment, p. xcv.) "The reader 
 will piobably 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,^ and without even 
 a nice critical knowledge of the Greek which he wielded with 
 so much force.^ 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.' There are fewer errors and vagaries 
 ia 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,* his 
 exquisitely genial sympathy,^ his frank recognition of the 
 human element in Scripture, and of the effect produced by 
 the personality of its writers,® justly earn for him the place 
 which Dante assigns to him in the Paradise, between Nathan 
 the Seer and St. Anselm, as one who " spoke before kings 
 and was not ashamed," '' 
 
 " Natan profeta I'raetropolitano 
 Crisostomo ed Anselmo." 
 
 ^ He was dependent mainly on the Seventy, but sometimes refers (without 
 name) to Theodotion, Symmaehus, and Aqnila. 
 
 ^ 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. 13i ff. 
 
 ^ He recognises allegory in theory (Horn, in 1 Cor. xxxix. ) but for the most 
 part avoids it in practice (see Forster, Chrysost. in seinen Verhaltniss, &c. 
 p. 21 ;Diestel, p. 135.) 
 
 * In Jsai. V. 3 and vi. 
 
 ° " 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. 
 
 ' See his notes on Ps. Ixiv. and Bom, in 1 Cor. x,\ix. 
 
 ' Farad, xii. 136. 
 
2i2 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.^ He 
 held, but did not abuse, the doctrine of " accommodation," 
 and he combined his view of inspiration with a free admission 
 of obvious limitations.^ 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,^ and a regard for the 
 usage of special words.* He held that the larger part of 
 Scripture was perfectly " perspicuous," and that the only 
 aids required for its comprehension were a willing heart, the 
 guidance of the wise, and the help of the Holy Spirit of God. 
 The superiority of the Antiochene over the Alexandrian 
 method may be readily seen by comparing the sober, moral, 
 practical manner in which Chrysostom treats the subject 
 of the Fall,^ and the way in which the same topic is handled 
 by a genuine Origenist like Gregory of Nyssa. 
 
 XL 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 ; ^ but in learning 
 
 ' He gives his via media theory on Ps. xlvi. ra re aiV9))Ta voovvres xaX n 
 voTjra ^Kdex^/J-Gvoi, and on Ps. cix. t^ f/.^y irpooifiia els cTepoVy to 8e \etTT6^eva 
 els &\Kov \ey6ij.eva. icTiv. This indefiniteness is at any rate better than base- 
 less fancies. 
 
 '^ See Horn, in Matt. 26 ; Bohringer, Chrysost. p. 15S. 
 
 ® TTjr SlkoXovBIup rSjv elprifj.4vwv. 
 
 * " Er hat's," said Lutlier, who admired him more than any of the Fathers, 
 "sensus literalis, der thut's, da ist Leben, Kraft, und Wahreit drinnen." 
 
 ^ Rom. in Gen. xvii. 
 
 ' Apol. e. Eufin. iii. 6. "Ego philosophiis, rhetor, gi-ammaticus, 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,^ 
 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 Yulgate 
 translation.^ 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.* 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. 
 
 ^ He wrote daily letters to Paula and Eustochmm, 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, nou nocte requieseit ; aut 
 legit aliquid semper, aut scribit." 
 
 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 tons les siecles suivans. " See 
 Zockler, Eieron. pp. 323-340. 
 
 ' 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 Fritzsohe in Herzog, xvii. 422, are of 
 great value. 
 
 ■* It was impossible for him with the scanty appliances within his reach to 
 attain to a thoroughly critical knowledge of Hebrew. 
 
2-2-i 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ 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,* and should have dared to 
 
 1 See "Hebrew Learning" in Smith and "VTace, Did. of Christian Bio- 
 graphy. 
 
 2 One of his teachers was Hillel, brother of E. Judah II., and grandson of 
 R. Judah the Holy. His chief teacher was the learned Bar-Anina. Ep. 
 Ixxxiv. § 4. "Quo laborc, quo pretio Baraninam nocUirnum liabni doetorem: 
 timebat enim Judaeos et mihi alteram exhibebat Nicoderaum." Eufinus, 
 AiJol. a. 12. " iJrtraftiwm, ejus de Synagoga magistrum." He also alludes 
 to a Eabbi at Lydda, whose teaching was very expensive, and another from 
 Tiberias. Prarf. in Osee ; Pracf. in Chron.; in Exaiam, xiii. 10 ; xxii. 1, &c. 
 It is from the Haggada that he gets the rendering, "in igne Chaldaeorum," 
 for "in Ur of the Chaldees," Gen. xi. 28. 
 
 ' Hi.s "pills labor sed picriculosa praesumpiio" was undertaken at the 
 request of Damasus (t 384). See Clericus, Quacst. Hieroii. (1-700). 
 
 * Eeuss, Gesch. d. N. T. §§ 449, 453. Engelitoft, Eieronyinm (1797); 
 Schrock, K. G. xi. 61sqq. Hecomplainsbitterly of the abuse to which he was 
 subjected. Pracf. 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. Pmrf. in Gen. "Nescio 
 quis primus anctor 70 cellulas Alexandriae mendacio suocxtruxerit." Comin- 
 in Mir.h. ii. 9. " Interpretatio LXX. (si tamen LXX. est, Josephus enim 
 eeribit quinque tantum libros ab eis translates). " Prnrf. in Paralip. "70 
 cellulas quae vulgo sine auctore jactantur." See too Pracf. in Dan. lib. ii. ; 
 in Puufin. 33 ; Zijckler, 355. He had to suffer from incessant attacks of 
 Obscurantists, and was annoyed by the timid warnings of Augustine, and the 
 curious story about the African bishop who read "hedera" for " cucurbita," in 
 Jonah. Augustine seems to have thought that venerable error was better than 
 new truth in matters of translation, and the strange reception given to the 
 Eevised Version shows that many still share hia views. See Aug. Ep. S2. 
 
Services of Jerome. 225 
 
 translate directly from the Hebrew and not from the half- 
 deified Septnagint.^ 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.^ 
 
 ii. Another of his services was the extent to which he heljDed 
 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,^ 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, I 
 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.* In his various prefaces he tells us 
 
 § 35; Klaiisen, Augvatinvs, 84. Angustine says, "Latinormn interprctum 
 infinita varietas." He Doctr. Christ, ii. 2. 
 
 ' In point of fact, however, he made large use of the Septuagint. as well 
 as of the version of Symmaehus and others. ^ Moiinus, Exerc. JJibl. vi. 12. 
 
 ' See his remarks on i Esdras in his letter to Vigilantins. 
 
 ^ 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 Avrote, or rather dictated, his commentary ^ 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.^ He tells his correspondents that he 
 took three days to translate the three reputed books of 
 Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs,' 
 though he was at the time aegrotatione fracUos. 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 huccam vcnerit* 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.^ 
 
 from the Platonist Alexander " never to say in a letter that I have no leisure," 
 i. 12. In his letter to Paulinas 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 — " N"on mihi debes imputare sed tibi, et imperitae 
 notariorum librarwrumque inacriae." 
 
 ^ He calls it "commaticum interpretandi genus." The 244 verses of Tohit, 
 the 339 of Judith, occupied him but a single day. " Hieronymus laborantissi- 
 mus et desudatissimus. " Notker, Virr. ill. 
 
 ^ Up. 73, ad Evangelum, c. 10 ; Prarf. in MriUlicruvi. 
 
 ' Pracf. in liib. Salom. At the close of his letter to Fabiola (Ixiv. Be 
 Teste saecrdotali) he says (§ 23), "Satis intelligens magis me loquendi inipetu, 
 quam judieio scribentis iluere, et more toixentis turbidum proferre ser- 
 monem." 
 
 * See Zockler, 377. 
 
 " Ep. 84, ad Pammach. et Ocean. § 3. "Nostrum marsupium chartae 
 Alexandrinae evacuamnt. " 
 
His Defects. 227 
 
 5. It was partly due to this want of reflexion and this hurried 
 voluminousness of production that Jerome's method is too 
 much that of a compiler. He tells us ^ 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 meum), and then to dictate as fast 
 as he could what might be accepted, either as his own or not 
 his own, as the reader chose.^ He makes his humility the 
 excuse; but he had a sufficiently high and clear conception of 
 the duty of an interpreter to feel that he thus laid himself 
 open to the just criticism of his antagonist Rufinus. 
 
 c. Of the bitterness of his prejudices we need say but 
 little. It appears in every line of his controversial writings, 
 in which, with the vain excuse that there was a difference 
 between saying a thing doctrinally {SoyfiaTiKm) and saying it 
 controversially (yv/jivaaTiKo}<i), he too often " throws truth and 
 decency to the winds."^ 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 
 ia a style of interpretation which he theoretically repudiates.* 
 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. 
 
 ' Prooein. in EjiTi. Jerome's views as to the diity of an expositor may be 
 seen in his -ffy. 57, ad Patiimachium ("Libellus de optimo genere interpre- 
 taudi scripturas ") and in his answer to llufinus. They are not so good as 
 those of Augustine, though he surpassed Augustine as a commentator. 
 
 ^ Ep. 7o,'ad Evcmgclmn, § 2 ; Ep. 119, ad Mlnrrv. et Ale.i:. ; Ep. 70, ad 
 Urifimim, §§ 4, 5, where he quotes thirty-three Greelv and eight, Latin Fathers. 
 Zijcliler, 154. An immense mass of ancient exegetical matter lias perished. 
 See.Diestel, 110. In his Prooem. in Matt. Jerome says that he had no time to 
 read the older writers. 
 
 ' Donaldson, Apostol. Fathers, ii. 19. 
 
 * 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 o-ood ; " and that all the animals which entered two and 
 two into the ark were unclean.^ ^\'hen 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 " ^ (a remark which, disgracefully 
 anti-scriptural as it is, was the delight of the mediEeval 
 monks), ^ and sometimes by the impudent fable that Peter 
 left his wife with his nets and his fishing-boat.* 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.^ 
 
 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 
 
 ' C Jovin. i. 16. 
 
 2 C. Jovin. i. 26. 
 
 ' Pet. Dainian. De perfect. Monach. (Zockler, p. 201). 
 
 ■* E-p. 118, § 4, aA Julian. Cum reti cam et navicula dereliqidt. 
 
 ^ No other epithet than deplorable can be applied to Jerome's cortroversial 
 language, and his whole degrading style of abuse and Scripture misrepresenta- 
 tion in his wrangles with Joviuian, 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 vsrhich he declared to be 
 erroneous, such as " Api^rcJienditc disciplinam" for " Adorate 
 Filiwn" in Psalm ii. 12,^ and in Psalm cxxvii. 4 "filii 
 exmssorum " for "Jilii jurcniutis," the meaning accepted by 
 Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.^ 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.^ He 
 sometimes quotes the Septuagint translators as inspired 
 prophets, and sometimes all but treats them with contemjjt. 
 He speaks of the Jews sometimes with reasonable tolerance, 
 sometimes with blind hatred. In one Epistle he says that 
 at the Eesurrection many of the spirits of them that slept 
 " were seen in the heavenly Jerusalem ; " * in another he says 
 that " we are not in this jDlace to think of the heavenly 
 Jerusalem as many persons ridiculously suppose." ^ 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." ^ 
 
 ' Adv. Miifinum, lib. i. 19 ; " Quid igitur peccavi, qui in commentariolis, 
 ubilibertasestdisserendi, dixerani 'adorate filium,' in ipso corporene violentus 
 viderer interpres et Judaicae calnmniae locum darem ' adorate pure, sive electe,' 
 quod Aquila quoque et Symmachus transtuleruut ? " See Zocklei-, p. 363, n. 
 
 ^ A.V. " children of the youth," i.e. sons of early married life, LXX. 
 oi vloX Toiii eKriTivayij.hii>v. Ep. 34, aA Miircdluin, § 3, " Ubi nos habemus 
 sicut filii exmssorum, " ka. Aquila " filii piibertatum" Symm. Theodot. 
 filii juvcnlalis. On this subject see E. Simon, Hist. Crit. des J^ernons dii 
 A'.T. cap. vii. ; Erasmi ScJiol. in lib. Eicr. adv. Helvid., and Zockler, p. 123. 
 
 ^ Kufiniis says that Jerome had translated more than seventy homiletic 
 books of Origen. See 'hia Epp. 62, ad TranquilL, and 33, ad Paulam. Jerome 
 says " In Origene miramur scientiam Scripturarum, et tamen dogmatum non 
 recipimus falsitatem," c. Fuif. iii. 27. 
 
 * Ep. ad Hdiodor. 60, § 3, " Et visa sunt in coelesti Jerusalem." Origen, 
 Eusebius, and Hilaiy were of this opinion, 
 
 ^ Ep. 46, § V. "Nee statim Hierosolyma coelestis, sicut pUriquc ridicula 
 arbitrantur, in hoc loco intelligitur. " 
 
 * Comm. in Matt. x. 23 ; for some of his mistakes and self-contradictions 
 see Daille, bk. ii. o. 4, and Gilly's Vicjilantius, pp. 250-27O. 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 
 te agrees with you " Apostolorum locum Episcopi teaent." 
 
230 His Victvs. 
 
 iv. Ucfortunately, 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. ^ 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 :^ 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.^ 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.* He freely points out 
 errors in quotation and reference.^ 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.'' He points out that in Greek and 
 
 ^ See, for instance, his remark on the original identity of Preshyters 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 " quuin apud Deum 
 nan scntentia saccrdotum sed rcorum vita quaeraticr .^' 
 
 ^ Coinm. in E:xdi. xi. ; in Jer. xxi. 2 ; Ep. 21, § 13. " Haec si secimdum 
 literam intelligimus, nonne ridicula sunt ? " 
 
 ' Tliis discrepancy between nominal theories and actual practice is seen in 
 many of the greatest fathers. From Justin iilartyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, 
 Origen, Jerome, Chrysostom and Augustine, not to mention other writers, may 
 be collected not a few passages whicli 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 kUleth." 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. iSTi.'ander, Hi^t. of Doctrines, i. 280. 
 
 ■* See Ep. 72, § 5. " Quid enim prodest haerere in litera et xel scriptora 
 errorem vel annorum seriem calumniari quum manifestissime scribatur Lilera 
 oecidit ; " 
 
 ■> On Mark i. 2 ; ii. 25 ; Matt, xxvii. 9 ; Ep. 57, ad Pammach. §§ 7-9. 
 
 * Ep. 121, ad Alrjas. 7-11 ; Comm. in Acts xxvi. 6 ; Gal. iii. 1 ; iv. 24; 
 
His SeJf-Contradlction. 231 
 
 Hebrew the plural of " seed " has a totally different sense from 
 the singular,^ and that Icrith never means " will." ^ 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 be had not premised the phrase, " I speak as a 
 man." ^ Elsewhere he speaks of St. Paul as carried away 
 by his emotions, and as being unable to exjDress profound 
 thoughts in an alien tongue.* 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 ^nitten throughout by the Holy 
 Ghost.^ 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 
 beliefs 
 
 vi. Once more, he is at complete variance with himself on 
 the subject of allegory. He complains of Origen that "he 
 mistook his o'^vn subjectivity for ecclesiastical mystei'ies," yet 
 says himself, "Singula scriptu7'ao verba singula sacraincnta 
 sunt." ' In many places he entirely disparages allegory as mere 
 
 fi. 2 ; Sjjh. iii. 3, 8 ; Zbckler, 429-431. Uc- says that St. Paul sometimes 
 wrote seriiwne trivii. See iyj. 120, ad Ecdib. qu. 11 ; Jip. ad Alyas. 
 qu. 10. 
 
 ' Comm. in Gal. vr. 24. ^ Comm. in Gal. iii. 15. 
 
 ' Nothing is so grossly offensive among Jerome's many faults as his 
 belief in the permissibility of a. fahitas disprnsntkrt which he betrayed in the 
 shocking theory that the scene between St. Paul and St. Peter at Antioeh was 
 collusive "ut hypocrisis conceptionis hypocrisi emendaretur." He says of 
 St. Paul, " quain artife.\', 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 rcprehcnso Petro. On 
 the harm done l>y this doctrine of "accommodation" see liibof, De Economia 
 Patrum, and Coleridge, The Friend, Ess. v. 
 
 ^ In Gal. V. 12. " Nee mirum esse si apostolus, ut homo, et adhuc vasculo 
 clausus infirrao, vidensque aliam legem in corpore suo . . . si-mel fuerit hoc 
 locutus, &c. " And again, "In vernaculosernione doctissimus, profundos 
 sensus aliena lingua exprimere non valebat." Cumm. in Tit. 
 
 ^ In Matt. XXI. 4. " Ubi materia rcl tvrpitudineni habcat vel impossibilitatem 
 ad altioratiansmittimur. " Comp. Comm. in Gal. v. 12. 
 
 ' Comm. in Eph. iii. 9 ; in Mich. vii. 7 ; Ep. 27, 1 ; in Esaiam, 29 ; ad 
 Marcell. Ep. 46, 4 ; ad MarceU. in Blatt. xiii. 
 
 ' Prol, in Es, v. 10 ; ad Ps. xci. ; Pteuss, Gcsch. § 517. 
 
232 Allegory. 
 
 cloud and sliadow.i 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.^ 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.^ 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.* He blames Eusebius for lapsing into 
 extravagant allegories in the fashion of Origen.^ And yet, 
 after repeated remarks of this kind, he talks of the turpitudo 
 liUcrac, and fills his books with specimens of allegoric inter- 
 j)retation 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 adojjts the threefold sense almost as 
 if he had invented it,*' 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.' 
 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 geograjDhical and other difHculties.* The 
 Book of Joshua becomes mainly an allegory about the Church 
 
 1 Comm. in Gnl. iii. 3 ; i. 6 ; Comm. in Jcr. 27. "Delirat allegoricns in- 
 terpres." . . " Kos qui ista con temnimus quasi pro brutis habent animalibus 
 et vocant irriAoiKTtwTas." Comp. Up. ad Pammach. 84, § 9. 
 
 ^ Comm. in Ezech. o. 16, init. 
 
 ^ Pracf. in lib. v. Cmnm. in Eirn'am. 
 
 * Ep. 5.3, ad PauJinuiii, g 7. " Quiequid dixerint, hoc legem Dei putant." 
 ^ Comm. in Amos, 2; In Ep. ad Pammach. he says, "Hilarius non 
 
 assedit Uterae dormitanti." 
 
 « Ep. 1-20, § 12, ad HediMam; 1 Ep. 64, § 9 ; adv. Lucif. 27, &c.; Ep. 121, 
 ad Algas. § 2. He quotes Trov. xxii, 20, " descripsi ea trvpUeitcr," and refera 
 it to History, Tropology and the spiritual sense. 
 
 7 Praqf. lib. vi. in Esai. ; Ep. 64, ad Fabiolam ; Comm. in Osec. c. 10, &c. 
 See Zockler, 370. 
 
 * Be 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.^ The Ethiojoian 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 sjDCcimens of his many frivolous 
 and tasteless fancies.^ 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." ^ 
 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.* 
 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 
 
 ' 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, ad Nepotian. 
 § 2 ; yet he takes it literally, c. Jovin. i, 24. He calls Deut. xxi. 12, 13 
 " ridiculous " if taken literally. Tamar, Eahah, Delilah, Bathsheba, are all 
 allegorised. 
 
 ^ On Ecc. iv. 1, " If two sleep together they will be warm," he thinks it 
 necessai-y to refer to Elisha raising the son of the Shunamite ! In his £}}. 21 
 ad Damas. § 6, "He divided unto them his living" becomes "He gave 
 them free will. " 
 
 » Eph. iv. 26. 
 
 * 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 Catacomis, p. 229, n. ; Gilly's Vigilantius, p. 93 &c., and for 
 the more favourable views Mohler, Patrologic, p. 21. 
 
234 Augustine. 
 
 grace and a dogiBatic colouring to tlie thoughts of others, 
 than to work out his own genuine opinions with consistency 
 and courage.^ 
 
 XII. St. Augustine — " the oracle of thirteen centuries " 
 — is greater as an Apologist and as a Theologian than as 
 an interpreter of Scripture. Nothing, indeed, can be 
 theoretically better than some of the rules which he lays 
 dov/n. He dwells on the desirability of multifarious know- 
 ledge.^ He insists that allegory should be based on the 
 
 / historic sense.^ He recognises the " more excellent way " of 
 spiritual intuition derived from love. He perceived that 
 there is in revelation a progressive element,* and that there is 
 an inferiority in the degree of revelation furnished by the 
 Old Testament.^ 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.^ 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.' 
 
 *. ■* O.Riifin.\. " Commentarii quid operis habent ? AUcrius dicta edisscrunt, 
 
 mulloruiii scntcntias rrplifnid," PriMCia. in Gal. " Legi haec omnia, et in 
 
 *t mcutc mi:a plarona con arrans accito notaiio vcl mca vcl aliena dictavi." 
 
 I Prooem. in JlalL " Omnes legere qui in Evaugelia sciijiseruut, deinde, adhi- 
 
 ' bito judicio, quae optima sunt excerpere, " and Prooem. in Eplt. see Prctcf. lib. 
 
 i. Cvnim. in Jerem., where he answers the objections of Grynaeus (as he rudely 
 
 calls Rutinus) and "indoctus calumniator" (Pelagius). R. Simon, Comment. 
 
 d%(, N. T. 230 ; Clericus, Quaest. Ilicron. p. 493. On St. Jerome's life and 
 
 works see Engelstoft, Sicronyvius ; Amedee Tliierry, St. Jerome, 1867 ; Zockkr, 
 
 Bierontjinus, 186.5. 
 
 = Delhjclr. Christ, ii. 16, § 24-28, § 42 ; E-p. 137, 1. He was the first to 
 suggest something in the shape of a Biblical Dictionary, id. ii. c. 19, Trench, 
 p. 15. 
 
 3 De Civ. D-i, xiii. 21. 
 
 ^ De Ver. Bel. 17, § 34 ; Enarr. in Ps. Ixxiii. 1. See Trench, The S'ermonm 
 the Mount, p. 42. His system of "periods " was seized by tlie later Reformed 
 Theology. See Se Civ. Dei, xv.-xvii. , where bespeaks of seven periods, of 
 which the creative week was a type. This is the first attempt to treat Old 
 Testament theology Oeliler, Tln:ol. of Old Tc-hnncnt, i. 26-30 (E. T.). 
 
 ^ liis De Doetr. Christ, is practically an exegetical treatise (praecepta trac- 
 tandaruvi Seripturariim). 
 
 « Confess, i. 13, § 20 ; 14, § 23 ; xi. 3, § 5 ; De Doct;. Christ, ii. § 23; 
 De Trin. iii. 1, § 23. This is admitted even by his Ijenedictine editors, and" 
 is the subject of severe rem.irks by Walch, Bibl. Patr. 352 ; Rosenm. Hist. 
 Inlerpr. iii. 404 ; "Winer, in (Jal. p. 22 ; but see a more favourable view in 
 Trench, I.e. p. 20. His etymologies are terribly weak. 
 
 ' C. Adim. iii. 4. He corrects the "nulla quae illis veteribus libris desint " 
 into "paene nulla" iu the llelract. i. 22, § 2 ; comp. Tert. C ilaro. 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 and St. Paul at 
 Antioch was a " pious collusion," he exhibits his greatest 
 weakness in the opposition which he offered to Jerome's new 
 translation.^ 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.^ 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 Keformation by virtue of his insistence on the 
 sufficiency and perspicuity of Holy Writ.^ 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.* As the teacher of 
 
 views, as contrasted with the Ep. of Barnabas, show the strong reaction 
 against the AntiHicses of Marcion. 
 
 ' He believed in the inspiration of the Seventy, DeDoctr, Christ, ii. § 22. 
 
 ^ 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. ). 
 
 ' " Scrii)tura sacra . . . omnibus accessibilis quamvis paucissimis pene- 
 trabilis." Ep. 137, § 18. " TJt exciperet omnes populari sinu." Corif. vi. 5, § 8. 
 
 * 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 prohx 
 puerility and arbitrary perversion can be adduced from his 
 pages as from those of his least gifted predecessors.^ He 
 was warped by dogmatic prepossessions. He laid down the rule 
 that the Bible must be interjDreted with reference to Church 
 Orthodoxy,^ 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." ^ 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.* He could not fail to observe 
 the human element in Scripture,^ and he accounts for the 
 
 quotes ISTourisson, Philos. de St. Aug. ii, 181 ; Flottes, Eludes s^ir St. Aug. 
 p. 542. Tlie Si^auish 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.'' 
 
 ^ He began a commentary on the Romans, but after devoting a v:Jiole look 
 to the salutation alone, found that it would be too laborious, and gave it up. 
 
 ^ De Dodr. Christ, iii. lu : "Scriptura non asserit nisi fidem catholicam." 
 Perhaps tlie most startling instance of the crude ecclesiasticism, which in- 
 creased as Augustine grew older, is his remark, "Ego vero Evangelionon 
 crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae comnioverit auctoritas." Up. c. Mankh. 
 fi, § 6. On this false and degrading opinion see Ritter, Gesch. de Philos. vi. 
 432. " Setting forth the Church a.s the zi:ay to Christ," says Bishop Ewing, 
 "instead of setting forth Clirist as the leay to the Church, has been a fountain 
 of unnumbered evils." St. Augustine's reversal of the true order of tilings 
 was exposed before Luther's days among others by Marsilio of Padua in his 
 Defensor Pads, and by John "Wessel ("Evangelic credimus et propter 
 Evangelium Ei-elesiae, non Evangelio propter Ecclesiam"). See Owen, 
 Evenings with the Sceptics, ii. 181. 
 
 ' St. Chrysostom had explained the phrase rightly, PTom. in Pom. xii. 
 "Faith, though it is a grace, is not poured forth at raudom but . . . lettethas 
 much flow as it may find the vessel that is brought to be capable of." 
 
 ^ 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 Augastine 
 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. 
 
 ^ De Cons. Evang. ii. 12, 24, 28, 6C, &c. 
 
His Exegesis. 237 
 
 variations in the narrative of the Evangelists on ptirely human 
 principles ; ^ and yet he uses the irreverent, misleading, and 
 wholly unscriptural phrase, that the sacred writers were "pens 
 of the Holy Ghost."- He held that whatever was revealed 
 mysteriously and enigmatically in one part of Scripture was 
 revealed clearly in another pavt,^ 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.* He also opened the door to 
 arbitrary fancy .^ 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 
 
 ' "Inspiratus a Deo sed tamen homo," in Joann. tract. 1, § 1. 
 
 ' Conf. vii. 21, De Gen. ad Litt. v. 8 ; see Trench, p. 50. 
 
 ' De Doctr. Christ, iii. § 37, whence it passed into the Summaoi St. Tliomas 
 i. Qu. 1, AH. 10. 
 
 ■* Be Doctr. Christ, iii. § 14 ; " Quid quid in sennone divino neijue ad moriim 
 hmiestatem neque ad fulei veritatem proprie referri potest figuratum esse 
 cognoscas. " 
 
 ^ He adopts the unfortunate notion that all sorts of explanations must be i 
 admissible, because the Holy Spirit must have foreseen tliem {id. ib. 32). The J 
 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."^ 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.^ Poetry and prophecy are similarly handled, till 
 even Augustine's contemporaries were driven to complain.^ 
 
 Thus the exquisite beauty and lyric tenderness of Psalm civ. 
 is evaporated at a touch. " The, sun which knowcth his going 
 dmvn " becomes Christ, who was aware of His own death ; 
 "the heasts that get them airai/ to^rciAcr " become persecutors 
 who dare not show themselves in the days of Christ's prosperity. 
 If the Psalmist says, " I laid me doivn, and slept, and rose up 
 again," Augustine asks whether any one can be so senseless 
 ('//ft 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 ! * Even the Gospels are not safe from this faithless 
 invasion of predetermined dogmatism.^ " No sober person," 
 says one writer, " can believe that our Lord really had his feet 
 anointed by a woman with precious ointment, as luxurious 
 and wicked men are wont to do at feasts and the like, which 
 we detest." "^ 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 
 
 ^ Horn, in Gen. 13 § 3. '^ In Ps. cxxxvi. 3. 
 
 3 De Civ. Dei, xv, 20 ; xvi. 1. 
 
 * Euarr. in Ps. ciii. Even Sixtus vSenensis says that since Augustine knew 
 neither Hebrew nor Gii-ek, " Necesse fuit illiim a vero ao proprio literae seiisu 
 ad extortas allegorias deflectere " (Bihl. Sanct. p. 257). 
 
 ^ For a bad instance of exegesis warped by dogmatics see Augustine's 
 remarks on Christ's blessing little children in De Peccat. Ilemiss. i. 19. 
 
 ^ "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 
 axithority 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 priestty 
 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.! 
 
 Unhappily for the Church, unhappily for any real ap- 
 prehension of Scripture, the allegorists, in spite of protest,^ 
 were completely victorious. The School of Antioch was 
 
 who from the words " in mcridie " (" 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. 
 
 ' On Augustine's work as a commentator see Klausen, Aurel. Avgustinus, 
 S. S. interpres. Ahp. Trench, Aug. as an interpreter of Scripture {,Scnnon on 
 the Mount) ; Breithaupt, Institutio hermcn. ex Avg. libris cotiquisita ; Kilon, 
 1605. His theoretical rules were excellent, if he had but been faithful to 
 them. Tims he says : 1. Scr^pt^lraeseapus est dihdio Dei. 2. Codices cmen- 
 dandi sunt. 3. "We must decide whether the sense is literal or mystic. 4. 
 We must consider the 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 el coneordttbis 
 Scripturas, tt-c. 
 
 ^ See Rosenmuller, 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,-^ it received no development, 
 and we soon descend to allegorical dictionaries of the three- 
 fold sense, like that of Eucherius,^ 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 tliousand years.^ 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 suiDposed 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 
 
 ^ As in the anonymous comment on Joel printed among the works of Eu- 
 finus. Pel:i,i,'ius (whoso commentary on the Epistles is in the eleventh vohimeof 
 Vallarsi's edition of the woAs of St. Jerome) may be compared to Diodore of 
 Tarsus, and Julian of Eclane to Theodore of Mopsuestia, but as their opinions 
 '.vre condemned as heretical their exegesis had little influence. Lvicke, 
 tjriindri.ts, p. 45 ; '\\'alch, Edzcrcjien, iv. 519. 
 
 " Eucherius, Liicr formnlarum, spirittiaUn iiifdligcntiae. 
 
 ' See some severe remarks on the iluralUt in Hampden, Bampt. Led. p. 275. 
 Oregory knew neither Greek nor Hebrew, and in his allegorical expositions 
 Job represents Christ, his sons the chngy, 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. &e. 
 
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 kmdled by the substance, the pur- 
 pose, and the spirit of the sacred books." " There is," says 
 Dean Church, " in these writers a kind of living contact of 
 their whole being with the inspired words. Their whole soul 
 is stirred and penetrated with words which to them are mani- 
 festly full of the things and the spirit of God. Their reading 
 leaves them aflame with the enthusiasm of admiration, 
 delight, awe, hope, analogous in a higher degree to the feeling 
 which a glorious prospect, or a magnificent passage of poetry 
 or oratory, leaves on the mind which takes it in, and is 
 alive to its complete meaning and effect. This is the secret 
 of their excellence and value," if not "as commentators," yet 
 as that which is even higher and more important, as moral 
 and spiritual teachers of mankind. 
 
 And when we think of them personally, when we recall the 
 heroic fortitude of Justin, the ardent zeal of Cyprian, the 
 dauntless courage with which Athanasius faced the world ; 
 — when we think of Origen, banished, excommunicated, 
 racked by torture, and dragging from prison his aged frame 
 and dislocated limbs, " till the weary wheels of life stood 
 stUl ; " — 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 Tm dew Ti-dvTCDV eveKa 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." ^ We cannot 
 elevate them into idols, or accept their utterances as oracles ; 
 but we look up to them with love and reverence, as to our 
 elder brothers in the great family of God. 
 
 ^ See the fine passage quoted by Bishop Jeremy Taylor, " Via Inlellifjontiac," 
 ad fin. 
 
6 -yap aXAu /iei/ ayopevoiv rpoTTos, erepa 8e &>v Xeyet arj^-aivaVf eVffli/iJ/iajff 
 'AXXriyopia KoKelrat. — Hbraclides Ponticus, Allegg. Homer. 
 
 Hv ore TJKfia^e ra TjfXeTepa Ka\ KoKois €l)(€v, rjVLKa to pev irepLTTOv tovto Kiii 
 KareyXoiTTto'pei'OV rijs depXoyias teal ei^Tej^vov ov8e Trapohov €L)(€v (Is ras 
 Betas aiXds. — Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi. 
 
 " Melius est dubitare de occultis, quaip litigare de incertis." — Aug. 
 De Gen. ad lit. c. v. 
 
 " Pliilosophia tua te vexat." — Luther to Melanohthon. 
 
 " That wliicli by rigbt exposition bnildetb up Cliristian 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. " — Groiius, De studiis instiiueiidis (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 
 i-nlarging our creed, and making more fundamentals than God ever 
 made." — Baxter. 
 
 "L'ignorance vaut beaucoup mieux que cette fausse science. qui fait 
 que Ton s'imagiae savoir ce qu'on ne sait pas." — Arnauld, Logique de 
 Port Moyal. 
 
 " Eine Spekulation auf diirrer Heide, eine Dialektib ohne das erforder- 
 liche Materiale der Kenntniss, ein Formalismus ohne Fiille des Inhaltes 
 und ohne Freiheit der Bewegungen." — Ivlausen, Hermen. p. 190. 
 
LECTUEE V. 
 
 SCHOLASTIC EXEGESIS. 
 
 " Guard that wWch 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. 
 
 Geegory 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 fjirnished 
 a single original contribution to the explanation of the 
 Word of God.^ 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 
 
 ' The word axof^aimKhs is first found in a letter of Theophrastus, ap. Diog. 
 Laert. v. 20 ; Scholasticus in Petronius. In the 'A(rTe^a 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, PMlos. ScJwlastique, 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 Ueherweg, Hist, of PMlos. 
 i. 262. 
 
246 Decadence of Knowledye. 
 
 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.^ 
 
 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." ^ 
 When Didiev, 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 '" * Fortunatus (t 609), though a leading poet 
 
 ' 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 misiuterpreters. 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. 
 
 ■'' "Sine verecundia memorare non possumus fraternitatem tuam Grammati- 
 ca?)s quibusdam exponere ! . . . Quam grave nefandumque ! " Greg. M. J'j)?'. 
 xi. 54. So Jack Cade in Henry VI. pt. ii. act iv. sc. 7 : " Thou hast most 
 traitorously coiTupted 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.i 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 cJiarte constituante de la pcnsde moderne." 
 Then it was that the teaching of the Trivium and the 
 Quadrivium began.^ As there was no diffusion of knowledge, 
 all education became ecclesiastical, all piety monastic in type. 
 There was a monotonous and absolute ascendency of sacerdotal 
 authority. And how could there be anything but an ever- 
 deepening misinterpretation of Scripture when so few Christian 
 interpreters possessed even a smattering of Hebrew ; when 
 Greek was but little known ; when men went to Scripture, 
 not to seek truth, but to find their own dogmas; when, 
 in spite of a nominal idolatry for the sacred writings, men 
 turned them into plastic enigmas ; when the interpreter 
 
 world 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 oi Moralia ("ein schweres, ein unausdehnliehes Bueh ") 
 thinks it "unworthy to bind the heavenly utterances by the rules of 
 Donatus."' He says, "Primum quidem fundamenta Historiae ponimus ; 
 deinde per significatorem tyixieam in arcem fidei fabricarn mentis erigimns ; 
 ad extreraum quoque per moralitatis gratiam quasi superducto aedificinm 
 colore vestiraus." Ep. ad Leandrum. 
 
 ' Hist. Lit. de Fran':c, 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, Bcr. Gallic. Seript. vol. v. Even Alcuin 
 grew up to di.sparage as "polluting" the study of Virgil. Vita (Jligiie) ; 
 Maitland, Dark Ages, p. 179. 
 
 ^ The three arts of grammar, dialectics, and rhetoric, and the four sciences 
 of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. See J. Bass JInllingcr, The 
 Sefwols 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 Ordinc, 13). See J. Gow, Short Hist, of Greek Mathematics, p. 72 (1884). 
 Leon Maitre, Xcs &eoUs de I'occddent ; Monuier, Aleidn ct son influence. 
 Manset, Art. Logic. Budimenta, 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.^ 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.^ The Venerable Bede (t 735) was "a man 
 whom it is easier to admire than to extol as he deserved;"^ yet 
 though quite capable by his genius and learning of exercising 
 an independent criticism,* 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,^ 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.® 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 
 
 ^ Excerpts or Catenae (ffeipai, (rvWoyal, £f>ii.riveio>v ^irLTOfiai), like those of 
 Cassiodorus, Primasius, Sedulius, Floras Magister, Eemiglus, and in the Grei'k 
 Church those of John of Pamascus, were extremely numerous. Second- 
 hand commentaries, like those of Procopius of Gaza, Isidore of Seville, 
 Bede, Claudius Turinensis, Angelomus, and Pseudo-Haymo abounded and 
 multiplied. The commentary of Chr. Druthmar on St. Matthew is an im- 
 provement on most of these ; yet in commenting on "Liber generationis Jem 
 Christi" he tells us "liber" also means "free," and "the bark of the tree;" 
 and he derives pawis from irav. "Scriptnri maxime quae in Pati'um exemplis 
 invenimus hinc inde coUecta ponere curabimus, sed et nonnulla propria ubi 
 opportunum videbitur mter^OTwrniw " {Prol. in Afarc). 
 
 " Bede, JTist. Ecd. Introd. On John Damascene's commentaries see Luptou, 
 pp. 156 nq. 
 
 '■* William of Malmeshury. 
 
 '' As he shows, especially in his Eetractationes. 
 
 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. MuUinger, The University of Cambridge, i 
 p. 3. j\Iilman, Latin Christianity, Bk. ii. c. 4. 
 
 " 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 pursiiing 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 unu&, ct nomen 
 ejus Elcana. Bede makes a mystery of the unus, 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 ? ^ If we only draw such 
 ■' old things " as the literal sense out of Scripture, we get no 
 spiritual doctrine ; but when we ixnderstand it allegorically, 
 Elkanah is our Lord, and his two wives are the SynagogTie 
 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.^ 
 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 piisillitas 
 and their temcritas, and their ingcnioluin, and profess to write 
 only for the ruclis lector. Of the Fathers, from which they 
 so indiscriminately borrowed, they can only sfieak "with 
 bated breath and whispering humbleness." ^ 
 
 Similarly in reading Alcuin (t 804), we find that the 
 Interrogationes with which he is occupied are often as idle as 
 
 ^ Such remarks show that allegory was the daughter of rationalism. So 
 Sixtns Senensis asks " Quid juvat scire antiijuorum Judaeorum bella et sedi- 
 tiones ! " and makes this a potent argument for allegorising. Bibl. Sanct. 
 {He duplici seiis^L). 
 
 ^ "Si (juiseundem allegorice novit interpi-etari quantum poma foliis t;iutum 
 interiorem ejus sensum videt simplicitati literae praestare." 
 
 ' Bede was himself reckoned afterwards among the Fathers. "William of 
 Conches says, " Non est fas Bedae vel alicui alii sanctorum Pntrum contra- 
 dicere " {ap. Cousin, (Eiivres Jnid. d'Abcl. p. 673). 
 
250 
 
 Maurus. 
 
 the Besponsioncs are valueless, and he, too, most humbly 
 prostrates his intellect at the feet of the Fathers — Cautissimo 
 stylo providens ne quid contrarmm Patrum sensibus poncrem. 
 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 {^Liher Allegoriarum), in which he tried to reduce it 
 to system.^ He tells us that he compiled his commentary 
 on the Epistles from eleven Latin and three Greek Fathers 
 {Prol. in Matth). 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 Mattliaeo Mieronynuis sufficiat tibi, 
 in Marco pedisscqiM Matiliaei Bacda pedissequus Jlieronymi." 
 
 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 .^ 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.^ 
 
 1 llabanus Maurus is chiefly great as the "primus Germaniae praeceptor," 
 not as an Exegete. 
 
 2 A distinction must be made between glosses {glossae, Fostillae, eViTo/iol, 
 iTuXKoyaX, avvayaiyaX ep/xTjiieiuiv, ^^jiyrjaeis avWeyelffai, &c. ) and the later 
 Catenae proper, which chiefly occur from the ninth to the sixteenth centuiy. 
 See Fritzsche in Herzog, s.v. Exeget. Collections. Cramer, Pi'oef. in Caim. 
 New Testament. 
 
 ^ The Quaestiones of Photius (+ 890), and the compilations of Procopius of 
 Gaza (sixth century), of Oecumenius (tenth century, chiefly from Chrysostom), 
 
The Glosses. 251 
 
 The Glosses whether marginal like that of Walafrid Strabo 
 (t 849), or interlinear like that of Anselm of Laon (t 1117), 
 are of a still lower order of merit than the exegetic antho- 
 logies. Besides being compilations they were heaped together 
 without choice, order, or criticism, and they furnish a pro- 
 miscuous mass of literal, moral, and mystic fragments, 
 intermingled with grammatical remarks of the most 
 elementary character.^ 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 " Gollige multorum margaritas." 
 Yet the Glossa ordinaria of Walafrid Strabo (t 849) acquired 
 such extraordinary popularity that it was called Lingua 
 Scripturac, and even Peter Lombard quotes it under the title 
 of " the Authority."^ A single specimen may serve to show 
 
 of Theophylact (eleventh century), and Euthymius Zigaebenns (twelfth cen- 
 tury), in the Greek Church have a higher value. See Fabricius, Bibl. Grace. 
 vii. 727 ; Buddeus, Imci. p. 1422 ; Waloh, Bibl. Med. iv. 192 fg. ; Elster, 
 Be Mrd. Aevi Theolog. Er^'.get. p. 17 ; Bacon, AdvaTwement 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 ; " TumuUuario Studio, hinc atque 
 hinc cmisareinaiis glossnnatis." But no judgment can be severer than that of 
 the acute John of Salisbury. "Compliant omnium opiniones, et ilia qjcac 
 etiam a vilissimw dicta vel scripta sunt ab inopia judioii scribunt et referunt ; 
 propoDunt enim omnia qnia nesciunt pracferrc mcliora," &c. dletaJorf. ii. 7. 
 For a more favourable view see Newman's Pref. to the Qatena Aurea, and 
 Anciev.t Sainf.'^, chap. v. 
 
 ' See Glossen and Exeget. Sammlungen in Herzog's Encyldop. 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, Do mn-ndi 
 exustione (1562), p. 9. Milton, even in his day, complains of the use made 
 by the clergy of " interlinearies . . . and oVaeT loitering gear." There were 
 line editions of the Glossa between 1472 and 1634. 
 
 * Contemporary with Walafrid was his teacher, Eabanus Manrus (t 856), 
 the author of the Liber Allegoriarum. He speaks of himself as " Col- 
 ketariiis quidam," and in his Prologue to St. Matthew tells us that his com- 
 mentary is composed of extracts from eleven Latin and three Greek Fathcr.<i. 
 Great part even of his introduction is verbally identical with Beile's. Fabri- 
 cius says that there were hundreds of Catenae in the Koyal Library at Paris. 
 The manufacture was easy. See too Hist. Lit. de.Franee, v. 62. The Douay 
 edition of the Glossa Ordinaria says that all succeeding writers used to consult 
 it " tamquam officinam ecclesiasticorum sensuma." 
 
252 Exegetic Nullity. 
 
 its character. It might have been thought that the firs 
 verse of the Prophet Joel, " The word of the Lord that came t 
 Joel the son of Fethucl," needed Httle elucidation. In th- 
 Glossa " the word " is as a matter of course absurdly aiu 
 irreverently referred to Christ, and "quod factum est" i 
 explained to mean that Christ was " made " not as regard 
 Himself but as regards him to whom He was made. " Fadun 
 est," says Remigius, " is put for ' spoke ' " I " This word," say; 
 Rupert of Deutz, " is Christ the Son of God, whom Joel soi 
 of Phaluck signifies both by his own and by his father'i 
 name."-"- " The word," says Hugo of St. Victor, " involves th( 
 sound, the form, the meaning. The sound is here addressee 
 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 withoul 
 knowledge ; yet with such comments the mediaeval writings 
 are filled in every page. The Eruditio Didascaliae by Huge 
 of St. Victor shows that even the theory of exegesis was 
 hopelessly perverted.^ 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 oi 
 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 Eupert illustrates the possibility of subtle theological acumeu co-existiiig 
 with very weak exegesis. John Wessel (t 1489) when tired of the iteration of 
 the SuminUtae used to cross the Rhine and read the MSS. of Eupert in the 
 Abbey of Deutz. 
 
 " Erudit. Didasc. vi. In some respects there was more freedom of thougit 
 in the ninth century than in the twelfth. Claudius of Turin (t 839) and 
 Archbishop Agobard of Lyons (t 840) were both of them independent thinkers. 
 The latter argues against verbal dictation {ipsa corporalia verba) of Scripture as 
 absurd, and rightly insists that its form is human, even when the sense iJ 
 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 Eeuter {Eel. ^ Jiiferldciniiig im Mittelalter, i. 24) calls him 
 "the clearest head of the ninth century." On this period see R. Simon, 
 Hist, des Cormnent. pp. 422-468 ; Buddeus, Isagoge, lib. ii. cap. 8. 
 
Erigena. 253 
 
 nasses of exegetic nullity a total failure to grasp the simple 
 ind often obvious meaning either of books, passages, texts, or 
 3ven 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.^ 
 
 Between this earlier epoch and the zenith of Papal supre- 
 macy stands the great name of Johannes Scotus Eeigena. 
 Scholasticism practically sprang out of the brief collision 
 between Church authority and independent thought. It was 
 in part the outcome of controversies hke that between Ratram 
 and Paschasius on the Eucharist (a.d. 844) ; between Lanfranc 
 and Berengarius on the Eucharist (1047) ; between Anselm 
 and Roscelin on Universals (1092) ; between Bernard and 
 Abelard on rationalism.^ 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 his 
 books were burnt by Pope Honorius III.* 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 
 
 ' 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 lexicograpliers 
 Hesychius, Suidas, Phavorinus, Zonaras, &c., are not cxegetes but furnish 
 good materials. 
 
 ^ Scholasticism may be divided into three epochs. 1. From Anselm (tH09) 
 to Peter Lombard (t 1164). 2. From Peter Lombard to tlie death of Albertus 
 Magnus (t 1280). 3. From the beginning of the thirteenth century to Gabriel 
 Biel(tl495). Haureau divides it, 1. From Alcuiu to the end of the twelfth 
 century. 2. From Alexander of Hales (t 1245) to John Gerson (I' 1429). 
 Ifeberweg's epochs are nearly the same, and so are those adopted by Tribbe- 
 choyius and by Diestel. Philosophically, Mr. Lewes distinguishes three 
 epochs. 1. The debate on Universals. 2. The influence of Aristolle. 3. 
 Thi> proclamation of the independence of reason (Biogr. Hist, of Philos. p. 
 290). Oonsin distinguishes between the periods of (1) absolute subordination 
 and (2) commencing emancipation of philosophy (Conors de I'hist. de la philos. 
 Le9on ix.). 
 
 * 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- 
 :troTersy (1050), and by Amalrio 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,^ for the 
 Fathers often contradict each other." ^ 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,"^ 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 
 
 ' De Div. Kat. i. 66, 68, 71, iv. 9 ; Diestel, p. 159. He asserts the identUy 
 of Philosophy and Religion, not the vassalage of the former to the latter. 
 Ueberweg, i. 357. So too Bereugar. adv. Zanfranc., Lib. posterior, p. 105. 
 
 " De Div. Nat. iv. 16. 
 
 ' De lliv. Nat. iv. 6. This truly great work was condemned by the Synod 
 of Valence (855) as a commenticm diaboli ; and by Pope Honorius III. (1225) 
 as " teeming with the venom of heretical depravity ;" and placed on the 
 ludez by Gregory XIII. See Schaff, Mediaeval Christianity, ii. 543. 
 
 * 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 ApoUinaris the elder, and others to Synesius. Neither suggestion is 
 probable. See Gieseler, ii. 113 ; Meier, Da Dionysii et ifysticorum Dodrim, 
 1845 ; Montet, Des Livrcs du Pseudo-Dionysius ; Dean Colet on the Celestial 
 Hierarchies of Dionysiiis (ed. Lupton) ; Westcott on Dionys. the Areop., 
 Contcmp. Itcv. 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." iMilman, Lat. Christ, iv. 334. " Proclus and Dionysius ploughed 
 with one and the same Neoplatonic heifer " (Fabric. Marini Procli Vita, f. 
 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 Jlirandola. 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 <^vyri fiovou Trpo? 
 jMovov of Plotinus^ expresses the inmost idea of Mysticism, 
 and its influence is traceable not only in the mystics of the 
 Middle Ages but in Dean Colet,^ in the Quietists, in the 
 Molinists, and even in the memorable remark of Cardinal 
 Newman about God and the soul as being the two supremely 
 and luminously self-evident existences. 
 
 It was not till the twelfth century that the slightest breath 
 of fresh life blew over the faded fields. The era of passivity 
 ends with Erigena. Thenceforth dogma assumes the aid of 
 dialectics, and is developed into a system. Just as Alexan- 
 drian Christianity was the result of a conflict with heretical 
 gnosis, so scholasticism was elicited by the efforts of free 
 inquiry. The era begins with the attempt of Anselm (1033- 
 1109) to raise the truths of faith to scientific certainty, and 
 so to fuse faith and reason as to save the one from being 
 blind, and the other from being autocratic' The close of 
 this century is marked by the great names of Bernard (1091- 
 1153), of Abelard (1079-1142), of Kupert of Deutz (t 1135),^ 
 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.* 
 Mysticism is the natural resource of souls that cannot find sufii- 
 cient to satisfy their religious needs in the tyranny of artificial 
 systems. The calm question of the author of the Imitaiio, 
 
 ^ 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). 
 
 " " Nisi poterit homo dicere secum Ego solus et Deus in mundo sum non 
 iiabebit requiem " (Colet). 
 
 * " Credo ut intelligam " (Anselm, Prol.). 
 
 * The remarks of Eupert {Prol. in Joann.) in favour of the view that com- 
 mentators were still possible though Augustine had written, were thought 
 unusually hold. On the transcendent authority of Augustine, which even 
 Berengarius said it was "ne fas quidem contradicere, " see "Werner, Schol. d. 
 MiUelall. i. 1-3. 
 
 "^ See Stock!, Gesck. d. Pkilos. d. Mittclalte.rs, 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. 
 
 I. 
 
 I 
 
256 The Song of Solomon. 
 
 " Quid nobis cum generihus d specieMs ? " 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,^ 
 All mysticism is included in the remark of St. Bernard, 
 " Causa diligendi Dei Deus est, modus est sine modo diUgere " 
 (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 gTatified 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 Hohes of Scripture.^ 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.^ Such feelings were not transitory. 
 Abelard feared the effects which it would produce on the minds 
 
 • HeTjrenrbther, K. O. i. S.'IS. St. Bernard speaks {Sermons, ed. Mart^ne, 
 p. 21) " of Aristotelicae subtilitatis faeuncla quidem sed infecmrula loquaeitM.' 
 
 - "On the day when E. Eliezer ben Azariah was made President it was 
 decided that the books of Canticles and Keclesiastes 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" 
 (Yaddaim, c. iii. ). 
 
 ' Sanhedrin, f. 101, i. ... "Whoever recites averse of the Song of SolomoD 
 as a secular sonjj . . . causes evil to come upon the world. " 
 
Monasticism. 257 
 
 of the virgins of the Paraclete.^ 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.^ Something of 
 the same kind may be seen at the close of Hugo's treatise. 
 Be Nuptiis. Jerome had mentioned the Canticles as the 
 goal for Paulla's theological studies.^ 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.* Over its gate was the inscription — 
 
 " Claustrum nolenti viors est, scd vita volenti ; 
 Per claiostri sedem coeli mercdbcris 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- 
 
 ' E-p. oA J'irrj. Farad. "]><« sub carnaJibus veriis nvfptisirum spiritualium, 
 epithalamium non intelligens vulneretur" {Opp, ed. Cousin, i. 227). 
 
 ^ Here are a few of St. Bernard's explanations : Meliora sunt ubera tua 
 vino. Though addressed to the Bride he refers them to Christ, and says that 
 they mean His patience and His demency (which he proves at great length by 
 "parallel passages"). Fropterea adolcscentulae te dilexerunt nimis. The 
 adokscentulac are the Angels, and this gives Bernard an opportunity to 
 e.\'patiate at length on the nine orders of Angels, &c. 
 Up. ad Laetei.vi. 
 
 ' Hugo, Erudit. Didasral. iii. 13. John of Salisbury had said, " Claiistmles 
 rectissime et tutissinie philosophantur " (Folycrat. viii. 13, 21). Bacon says, 
 "Quemadmodum corpora eorum in cellis coenobiorum, sic animus in uno 
 Aristotele conelusus fuit" {De Augm. Scicnt. i. 16); see Haureau, i. 607. 
 liven Bede complains of the " innumera monasticae sermtutis retinacula " 
 
 S 
 
258 The Mystics. 
 
 cination." ^ 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 ! ^ 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.2 In his treatise on Contemplation, he tells 
 his novices to read the Scriptures for instruction in morals, 
 not for training in subtlety.* 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 3Iajor, defines and describes con- 
 templation in a manner altogether scholastic.^ 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.^ 
 
 In one sense mysticism was a protest against the bold and 
 speculative inquiries of Abelard, who is justly regai'ded as 
 
 1 Erudit. Didascal. i. 12. See Haureau, Eugues de St. Victdr. He said, 
 " Tantum de veritate quisque potest videre, quantum ipse est." 
 
 ' Erudit. Didasc. Ti. 4. An old Pope i.s reported to have said, "The 
 Scripture is a book which, if a man will keep close to, he will quite ruin the 
 Catholic faith." 
 
 ' Erud. Didasc. i. 9. E. de Sto Victore said, " In tantum Deus cognoscitur 
 in quantum amatur. " 
 
 * De Contcmplatione et ejus Speeiehiis (published in Haurdau's E. <& 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 ecclesictsticam prcuilationem. 
 
 ° See Vaughan, St. Thovias Aquin. i. 252. Hergenrother rightly says that 
 in the hands of these writers Scholasticism and Mysticism were "niir 
 verschiedene Auflfassungs- und Darstellungsweisen derDogmen " (K. G. p- 952). 
 
 * Tauler complains that " Man nimmt fremde Glossen aus der H. Schrift 
 dasB es zu erbannen ist. " See Bohringer, xvii. German mystics Tauler 
 (t 1361), Suso (tl365), Eusbroek (t 1381), and the author of a "German 
 Theology " (see Pfeiifer's Deutsche Mysiiker, and UUmann, lieformataren ixft 
 der Beformation). 
 
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.^ 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.^ Their object was to 
 make men better; to give them, not mirabilia, hut salutifera^ 
 — the grace of eternal peace, or admiration, or the highest 
 love of God.* 
 
 It may seem strange that a man who is regarded as the 
 founder of scholasticism should have been a rationalist in his 
 tendencies.^ 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.^ Abelard, by his Sio et Non, and bis 
 own standpoint of indifference, helped to break down the 
 authority of tradition,^ and even used language, which 
 
 ' See Ueberwec;, Bist. of PhilosopJiij, i. 376, E. T. 
 
 ' Hugo of St. Victor, Erud. Dida^c. v. 10. Coinp. Johann. Sarisb. Polycrat. 
 vii. 10. Augustine aud Abelard had said the same. 
 
 ^ Richard of St. Victor. 
 
 ' Bonaventura, Bramloq., ad init. In Richard of St. Victor's system there 
 are three powers of the soul — Imagination, Reason, Intelligence — to which 
 con-espond 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. 
 
 ' " Ce qui est certain c'est que la scholastiqne . . . ne cite point de plus 
 grand nom, et consent a dater de hci " (Remusat, Aiilard, i. 272). 
 
 * The universally accepted phrase " Philosophia andlla Tluologiae " seems 
 to^ come from Didymus (who makes Sara a symbol of theology, Hagar of 
 Dialectics) through John Damascene (Dial. i. 1) — see Remusat, AUlwrd, 
 ii. 144. 
 
 ' He does not scruple to head his sections " Quod non sit Deus singularia et 
 
 contra;" " Quod sit Deus tripartitus et contra ; " "Quod sit finis sine prin- 
 
 ^ cipio et contra ; " "Quod omnia sciat Deus et non," &c. Yet Abelard was 
 
 ' rather an inquirer than a sceptic, and his Sio et Non was only meant (like 
 
 s 2 
 
260 Abelard. 
 
 expressed somewhat less than the current adoration of 
 Scripture.! 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,^ if 
 in such a multitude of writings of the Holy Fathers, some 
 things seem to be erroneously propounded and -written ? " The 
 Prophets were not, be 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.' 
 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.* He rightly and 
 wisely distinguished between important and unimportant 
 elements in Scripture, and, Hke Luther, drew a distinction 
 
 the stoic paradoxes and Kant's Antinomies) to stimulate inquiry (see 
 Maurice, Mediaeval Philosophy, p. 39). Comp. Tribbechovius, p. 325. 
 
 ' 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, eccleniae praecepta, quaestiones scholasticae, 
 &c. (Tholuck, Be Thorn. Aquin. et Ahaelardo). He often makes remarks which 
 would be stigmatised as " rationalistic." For instance, he prefen-ed 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. 0pp. Ep. 326). For specunens of "discrepancies" 
 in the Gospels and Fathers see the Sic et Non, p. 7 (ed. Cousin). 
 , - " Constat et prophetas ipsos quandoque proplictiae gratid earuisse " [Sic d 
 Non, Prol.). 
 
 3 Sie et Non, Prol. On the Si^ et Non see S. Bernard, Eji. 326 ; Trcal. de 
 Erroribus Ahaelardi, i. ; 0pp. i. 532, 1055 (Migne), Vaughan, Life of St. 
 Thomas Aquinas, i. 168, sq. ; Maurice, Med. Philos. pp. 138-141. J" 
 Abelard's book On the Trinity there is said to have been the remark, " .A'« 
 quia JJeus id dixerat enrlitiir, sed quia hoc sic esse convincitur, recipitur. 
 This bold assertion of the claims of reason was hateful to the traditionalists 
 (Poole, p. 153). 
 
 * This view created no difficulty, because something like it was found in 
 Augustine and Jerome. The Correctoria Billiea of Lanfranc, Stephen Harding, 
 B. 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 {Opnis Majus, iii. 1). Hugo of St. Cher deserves special 
 mention as "the Father of Concordances" and the first Fostillator 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 
 iirst he himself said " Odiosum me mundo reddidit logica," i 
 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 ? " ^ 
 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.^ The dogmatists 
 demanded oracles of certainty ; the mystics required intuitions 
 of rapturous communion. 
 
 Peter Lombard (tll64), 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.* 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 
 
 ' Apol. ad ffelois., 0pp. p. 308. Almost the only other voices which venture 
 (more timidly) to dissent from the Fathers were those of Richard of St. Victor 
 {0pp. u. 1) aud Rupert of Deutz. There was an old rule — 
 
 " Si Angustinus adest sufflcit ipse tibi," 
 
 and Rupert shows courage in the manly and beautiful passage of the preface 
 to hia 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. 
 
 ^ Bernardi, JSp. 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). Ahelaxd's Comments on the Hexaemeron (Martene 
 and Durand, Tlies. Nov. Anecd. ) is chiefly remarkable for its curious scientific (?) 
 speculations. 
 
 ^ "Sicut monstniosi sunt nominis sic etiam monstruosi dogmatis. " W. de 
 St. Thieny. 
 
 * Haui-eau, p. 384. 
 
262 The Sentences. 
 
 St. Victor, but his commentaries are little more than a 
 compilation from Hilary, Ambrose and Augustine.^ The 
 Fathers lent themselves to bis dogmatic method far more 
 easily than the Scripture which he is too ready to explain 
 away. He only refers to Aristotle incidentally,^ 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 6701 Toiyapow 
 ifibv ovSiu, had been translated by order of Pope Eugenius.^ 
 It is only in the form of his Lihcr senUntiarum, and its 
 speculative spirit that the Lombard shows whose pupil he 
 had been.* 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.^ They were a 
 
 1 Sent. i. ; Dist. 19. 
 
 ^ Sent. ii. ; Dist. i. § 5 ; and Maurice refers specially to hia comments on 
 .John i. 9, 1 Tim. ii. 4. 
 
 ' In one sense John of Damascus may he regarded as the Father of Scholas- 
 ticism, for in his Tlriyii yviiiaews he was ' ' the first to apply Aristotelian 
 dialectics to traditional theology.'' 
 * Dante, in the lines 
 
 " L'altro che appresso adoma 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. 
 
 ' It was "the first of a long series of attempts to ohtain for the doctrines of 
 the Church a scientific system." Schwegler, Hist, of Fhilos. E. T. p. 144! 
 
 Eist. Litt. de la France, xii. 589. " Round the Sentences 
 
 the theology of the Schoolman was trained and trammelled over a rigid net- 
 work of dialectics, where the flower often lost its perfume and the fruit 
 perished." Mullinger, i. 63. 
 
Aristotle. 263 
 
 convenient handbook, which, with the Summa of Thonaas 
 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 foUow- 
 inff centuries the Summa and the Sentences were studied and 
 
 o 
 
 expounded far more than the Scriptures.-*- Ai-id without 
 professedly revolting from the hard and arid system which 
 was thus established, mysticism could take refuge in allegoris- 
 ing the Song of Songs, and in dreaming over " the Celestial 
 Hierarchy" of the supposed Areopagite. In both schools 
 Divinity was "reduced into an art, as into a cistern, and 
 the stream of doctrine derived from thence." ^ 
 
 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 Axians.^ " Wretched Aristotle," exclaims Tertullian, 
 " who trained the Valentinians in dialectics ! " * 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- 
 
 ' As even Roger Bacon complains, Opus Minus (ed. Brewer), p. 329. 
 
 ^ Bacon, Adianccrncnt of Learning, 
 
 ^ De Fide, 21, .5 ; comp. Serm. xxii. in Bs. 118. 
 
 * Gregory of Nazianzus says that "the Christians kne-w nothing of the 
 craftiness of Aristotle's craft." Orat. xxvi. St. Vincent Ferrer was glad to 
 quote the assertion of Jerome : " Qnod Aiistoteles et Plato in inferno sunt." 
 ilullinger, i. 122. Roger Bacon said : " Had I the power, I would ha-ye all 
 
 the works of Aristotle burnt, as it is but waste time to study them," 
 
 0pm Minus (ed. Brewer), pp. 322-330. Grotius observes that many Platonists 
 (Clemens, Origen, &o.) became Christians, but none— or very few — of the 
 Aristotelians. De Stud. I-nstit. (1645), p. 221. 
 
264 Study of Aristotle. 
 
 lated by Boethius.^ 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.^ 
 
 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.^ They were received with profound distrust. 
 The errors of Amalric of B^ne and David of Dinant wen; 
 attributed to the study of them, and the use of them was 
 thrice forbidden by Papal infallibility.* 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 JEthics were sometimes 
 
 ^ "Tin rayon derobe k I'antiquite la produisit ; I'antifiuitti tout entike 
 [i.e. the Revival of Letters] I'etoulTa. " V. Cousin, FragmenU Philos. p. 8'J. 
 See, too, J. B. Mullinger, Hist, of Camhr. pp. 50-54 ; Baiu's J/cretoZ and Moral 
 Science, App. A. 
 
 - Johaim. Sarisb. Pohicrat. vii. 12. 
 
 ' Through Avicenna in the East, and Averroes in the West they passed 
 from Mohammedans to Jews. Maimonides translated them into Hebrew. S«3 
 Kenan, Averroes, p. 52 ; Jourdain, Fu-cherches critiques ; Prantl, Gcsch. d. LogA; 
 iii. 3. Up till 1100 only the Logic of Aristotle was known, and that only 
 partially. Mullinger, HiM. of Cambr. i. 29. 
 
 " In 1209, 1215, and 1231, by Gregory IX. (See Landerer s.v. Scholastiemri, 
 inHerzog.) A Provincial council ordered that Masters of Arts should not 
 philosophise but ' ' satm/rintfieri Theododctcti " aud should only discuss questions 
 " quae per libros theologicos et Sanctorum Patrum tractatus valeant temiinari." 
 Lanfrane 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.^ It is certain that they were more often 
 referred to than the Decalogue,^ 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." ^ Aristotle was 
 called the " praecursor Ghristi 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.'' 
 
 How rapidly the influence of Aristotle spread may be seen 
 in the works of Alexander of Hales (t 124.5),^ Albertus 
 Magniis (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.'' They all 
 
 ^ So Melanchthon complains Apolog. A. C. 62 ; Mathesius, Kit. Luih. i. 
 712 ; Bnicker, iii. 886 ; Gabriel Biel is said to have offended in this way. 
 
 ^ "Quidam Doctor Theologus rogatus de Decalogo, negabat se ejusmodi 
 KirMm in Bibliotheca umquam habuisse." Kidderus, iJi! Mruditiono (1680), 
 p. 40. 
 
 ' Erasm. Schol. p. 258. 
 
 * See Liebner, Hugo ron S. Victore, p. 128 ; Praenott. Elueid. 5. 
 
 ^ He is the first who deiinitely quotes Averroes, and the first commentator 
 on the Sentences. See Eenan, Averroes, p. 176 ; iiaureau, i. 402 ; Ueberueg, 
 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." ^ristotefcs was made into the anagram, iste sol crat. In 
 16L9 the Sorbonne decreed that to contradict Aristotle was to contradict 
 the Church. 
 
 ° Card. Hergenrother defines scholasticism as " dialektisch geordnete, system- 
 atische Theologie, die an die Philosophic sich anlehnte und die Dogmen theils 
 als vemunftgemass, theils als iiber jede verniinftige Einsprache erhaben zu 
 begriinden suchte." Kirchcngeschichle, i. 952 ; compare Ueberweg, i. 355. 
 
266 Scholasticism. 
 
 practised the dialectic method, and thought that thej' yreve 
 estabhshing religious truth, while they were only framing a 
 technical language. Following the example of Abelard ^ they 
 fatally misapplied the maxim of Aristotle that "to frame 
 doubts well" (to hiaTroprjaat, KaXw<;) is a service to the 
 discovery of truth.^ 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.^ 
 
 . In exegesis we see the Schoolmen at their worst. Scholas- 
 7' ' ' I ticism treats the letter of Scripture, even in its plainest 
 
 t ■'',.' 1 Abelard's motto had been, Ecclus. xix. 4, "Qui cito credit levia est 
 
 ,,* * corde." *' Vuhikindo ad inquisitioneTn venimuSj inquirendo vcritalem percip- 
 
 ^ 1' imus." Sic et Non, p. 16, ed. Cousin. This resembles the remark of 
 
 ^V' , Diderot: " Le Scepticisme est done le premier pas vers la verity." Thomas 
 
 ; Aquinas says that Theology has no need of Philosophy except by way of 
 
 >j*>i illustration, because it receives its principles immediately from God. Summa, 
 
 I. qu. 1, 4, 5. 
 
 ^ Arist. Mctaph. iii. 1. See Launoy, De varia Aristotelis fortuna in Acad. 
 Parii. Hampden, Bampt. Led. p. 63. In 1516, Luther wrote to J. Lange, 
 " Nihil ita ardet animus quam histrioncm ilium qui tarn vera graecd la'fvd 
 Scclcsiam lusit, multis revelare ignomvniamque 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 Hind heathen, has replaced Christ. See further 
 extracts from his licsponsio 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." 
 
 * See Hampden, Bampt. Lectures. A lively conception of the barren dis- 
 cussion of that age may be derived from the writings of John of Balisbuiy, 
 particularly the Metalogicas and Polycraticus, 
 
 ' ' Quaevis 
 Litera sordescit, logica sola placet." — id. Enthcticus. 
 
 I have not touched on Auselm, who was rather a theologian than an exegete. 
 See Kemusat, St. Anselm, p. 478. 
 
Alhertiis Magnus. 2G7 
 
 histories, as an enigma which veils the latest after-thoughts 
 of theology. It destroys the real meaning of the Old Testa- 
 ment in the attempt to make it speak the language of Church 
 tradition. No one can doubt the greatness and goodness of 
 Albertus,'- 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 ? ^ The greatness of the Schoolmen was so 
 paralysed by vicious methods, traditional errors, and foregone 
 conclusions, that many of their comments on Scripture become 
 not only inconsequent but childish. " Let not the foot 
 of pride come against me." ^ 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 ! * Could 
 anything be less elucidatory than this distortion of the 
 simplest passages ? ^ 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." 
 Verium 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 
 
 ' " Quesfi che m'e a destra pii Ticino 
 
 Frate e maestro funimi ; ed esso Alberto 
 Jl di Cologna ; ed io Thomas d'Aquino. 
 
 — Dante, Farad, x. 97. 
 
 The works of Alhertus 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 histoiyand philology. See Stuckl, ii. 358. 
 Prantl calls him a mere compiler and " ein nnklarer Kopf, und nicht befdhigt 
 irgend eine grundsiitzliche Auffassung hinauszudenken " (GescJi. d. Locjik, 
 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. 
 
 ^ See Eosenmiiiler, Hist. Int. v. 550. 
 
 ' Ps. xxxvi. ii. 
 
 ' This takes us back to the region of pure Rabbinism. 
 
 ' See by way of specimen his comment on Ps. xxxi. 9-12. His notes are 
 chiefly glosses, burdened with unsifted parallel passages. 
 
2G8 Scholastic Exegesis. 
 
 as well as carnally he may be known to have descended from 
 so great a father." Here, omitting some useless and irrelevant 
 parallels, we have first a mere play on words ; then a passage 
 borrowed from the Glossa ; and lastly the idle Jewish fancy 
 that when a Prophet names his father, the father was also a 
 prophet.'- " That which the palmcrworm hath left hath the 
 locust eaten." ^ 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 Assyjians, 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 he deliverance" * 
 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 floio ivith milk." * The mountains, 
 he says, mean the heights of the three Persons in the Holy 
 Trinity, or even the heights of the Apostles ; and the hills, 
 that is the heights of the angels and saints, shall flow with 
 the truth of the white sweet doctrine of the Humanity of 
 Christ. "Egypt shall he a desolation and Edom a desolate 
 wilderness" — that is, spiritual and carnal sins shall be driven 
 where God and the Saints shall not be, because they have 
 shed the blood of martyrs ! This is not, exegesis but homily- 
 work of the poorest description, allegorising passages which of 
 themselves are perfectly clear. "Let the hridegroom go forth 
 of his chamier and the bride otot of her closet." ^ 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 Pee Merx, Joel, p. 369. 2 j^^j j_ ^_ 
 
 8 Joel ii. 32. *Joeliii. 18. 
 
 6 Joel ii. 16. "We find the same explanations with only slight differences 
 of detail in Hugo of St. Victor, Eemigius, Kupevt of Deutz, the Glossa Ordi- 
 naria, &c. The exegesis of Albertus Magnus like that of Peter Lombard is 
 ohiefiy derived third or fourth hand from the Calcnae and glosses. See K. 
 Simon, Sist. dcs 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.^ It illustrates not only the helpless secondhandness 
 of the mediaeval commentators, but also the absurdity to which 
 their systematic allegorising often led them. It shows still 
 more their fatal habit of looking at words without their 
 connexion, and at texts without their context. " Or," — 
 continues Pseudo-Haymo- — for the expositions of his day are 
 always liberal of their futilities — " the bridegroom " may mean 
 the divine word, and " the bride " (in the usual language of 
 mysticism) the faithful soul. Mediaeval exposition very 
 rarely explained the real meaning of the sacred writers.^ 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.^ Imbued 
 with the fatal dream of the fourfold sense of Scripture, he is 
 meagre in the explanation of the literal sense, but diffuse in 
 
 ' Pitra, Spicil. Sulesm. iii. 75, ap. Merx, Joel, p. 377. 
 
 ^ Even Abelard looked on the necessity for allegory as a proof of "inspira- 
 tion," and on this gi'ound extended it to Plato. Introd. ad Tlusol. i. 
 p. 4i5. 
 
 ^ Tholuck in his monograph De Thoma Aqtn'nate et Abaelardo interpretibus 
 N. T. says " Quantum ad interpretandi dogmatieum genus attinet hie ei campus 
 laudum, hie meriti corona. Est argument! dogmatici interpres diligens, in- 
 defessus qui ne voculam quidem praeterit quin exoutiat." Erasmus said of 
 him (on Rom. i. 2), " Meo quidem animo nullus est recontiorum theologorum 
 cuiparsit diligentia, cuisanius iiigenium, cui solidior eruditio." On his work 
 as an exegete see Vaughan, Life of St. Thomas, ii. 567, sqq. The present 
 Pope (Leo Xlll.) is the fourteenth who has loaded St. Thomas with eulogies. 
 In his Encyclical Aetsmi 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," saj's the Encyclical, "towers Thomas Aquinas, 
 their Master and Prince. Gi-eatly 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, "ToUe Thomam et Eccl. Komanam subvertam." Ven- 
 tura says, "II n'y a aucune eiTeur qu'il n'ait prevue, refutee, pulverisce 
 d'avance" (La Eaison pMlosophique, \i. 129). OateTia Am-ea ib a. la.tev name. 
 He himself in his Dedication calls it amtinua 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 loDg 
 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.-^ 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.^ "Masterly and archi- 
 tectonic " as is the skill shown in that work which is " nearly 
 perfect as a conspectus of patristic interpretations," ^ 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.* 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 
 
 ' Sixt, Senens. Bihl. iv. 308. 
 
 2 Frigerio {Vita di S. Thomas, ii. 115) speaks of his inexplicable reverence 
 for the Fathers. 
 
 2 Cardl. Newman, Pref to vol. i. of Catena Aurea, Oxford, 1811 ; and 
 Vaughan's Life of St. Thomas, ii. 547-574. The exquisite superiority of St. 
 Chrysostoni to other patristic commentators is constantly evinced in thia 
 Catena. A considerable drawback, however, to its usefulness arises from the 
 fact that so many of the extracts are from spurious books. 
 
 * See Merx, Joel, p. 354. Jaraczewsky in Zeitschr.fur Philos. xlvi. points 
 out his influence on Schola.sticism, and especially on Albertus. For the 
 influence of Averroes see Renan, Atcrroes, pp. 231-236. 
 
Futile Ingenuity. 271 
 
 of the Gentiles (Hil.). Even throughout the simijlest 
 narratives of the Gospels he allegorises incessantly. Besides 
 this he is full of contradictions.^ 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 oi 
 Hillel, he deduces systems extremely ingenious but utterly 
 without foundation. I need but mention one salient instance - 
 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 
 foUows 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 ! * 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.* 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 1 
 In Divinity, as Bacon says, there cannot be this perfection and 
 
 ' See the fifth Index to the Summa (Migne, i. De Antilogiis). 
 
 ^ His doctorial lecture on Ps. cv. 13 (see Yaughan'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. 
 
 * See 0pp. vi. 3 (Venet. 1745). 
 
 * "II ne peut §tre question de progi'fes dans un tel ordre d'exposition. . . . 
 Partout ce sont les memes textes decoupes et si5par& de ce qui les expliquc, 
 les m^me 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 inore.^ 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,^ 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 Bonaventuea (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.^ 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, johilosophy, 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 Ms friend, Brother Reginald, "Omnia quae scripsi -sidentm 
 milii paleae respectu eorum quae vidi." Pwoem. De Kit. S. Thorn. 
 Aquiii. 
 
 ^ Corderius says that he derives almost all his theology from Dionysius 
 (Migne, i. 96). 
 
 ' He gives his views of exegesis in Principium S. Scripturae. See Iscujoge 
 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.^ 
 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 inajjpreciable 
 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." ^ 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.^ 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 bad broadened and deepened in 
 the works of interjoreters 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 
 
 ^ Bonaventura has been highly praised for his method of "explaining 
 Scripture by Scripture." But in the iirst 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. 
 
 '' Prooem. in Breviloquium. Comp. Hugo, Erudit. Didase. 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. " 
 
 ' 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.-"- 
 
 But we meet at last with one green island among the 
 tideless waves of exegetic commonplace. Nicolas OF Lyra ^ 
 (t 1340) — the Doctor jplanus ei utilis — was the Jerome 
 of the fourteenth century. From him came the revival 
 which reached its fall 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- 
 i-nent, and forcing his way through the brushwood and under- 
 growth of centuries awoke the sleeper. That monk was 
 Nicolas of Lyra.^ 
 
 Since the days of Ibn Ezra (t 1167), a change hail come 
 over the spirit of the Jewish commentators. He had dis- 
 tinguished between five methods of Biblical commentary : — 
 
 ^ A word of at least passing recognition slioulii 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 gcneml. 
 His efforts were due to the hints of the greatest genius of the thirteenth 
 century, Roger Bacon. 
 
 - So called from his birthplace, Lyra, in Normandy. Sixtus Senensis 
 
 says: "Natione Anglus vel ex Lyra Brahaniiae oppido." Bilil- 
 
 Sanct. 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 ho 
 became a Franciscan. 
 
 " Mcrx, Eine Rede vom Auslcgcn. 
 
Jewish 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.^ 
 
 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. Kashi (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.^ Nicolas had studied Rashi and had often 
 followed him so closely as to be called Siviia 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 i 
 fragments ; the difference between true exposition and a 
 confused chaos of possible suggestions ; the primary duty of 
 
 ' See Sale's Koran, p. 87. 
 
 ' On the Jewish mediaeval interpreters see Schrock, K. G. xxv. 391 ; 
 Eosenmiiller, Hist. Interp. ¥. 211, sq. ; Meyer, i. 85-93 ; Mcrx, Joel, 2U7- 
 296 ; Siegfried " Ueber Eashi's Einfluss " (Merx, Archie, i. 431). In the latter 
 paper is shown the extent of Itashi's influeuce over Luther as well as over 
 Micolas of Lyra. 
 
 * Eashi is the abbreviated name of Eabbi Solomon Jizchaki. It was prob- 
 ably from Eashi that Lyra learnt the admirable old rule which he renders 
 " Hcriphira loquitur secundum modum nostrum loquendi " (note on Gen. viii. 
 1, " Reeordatus est"). Nicolas says, " Intendo uon solum doctorum catholi- 
 corum sed etiam Hebraiorum exijlanatioiies, maxinie E. Salomon, qui inter 
 (loctores Hebraeos locutus est rationabilius ad declarationem sensus literalis 
 (C£."3)." 
 
 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, i He 
 repeats the phrase that God is the cmdor 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,^ 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 (siiffocare) the 
 literal ; he says that when the mystic exposition is discrepant 
 ' from the literal it is indccens et incpta ; * he demands that the 
 literal sense alone should be used in proving doctrines.^ 
 Practically, therefore, he only admits two possible senses— 
 
 1 He ctaracteristieally 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 speciei. 
 
 - Thom. Aquin. Summa, 1, Qu. 1, art. 10. Nicolas saj's, "Habetille 
 liber hoc speciale, quod una litera continet plures aensus." 
 * To him are attributed the lines — 
 
 " Littera gesta docet, quae credas Allegoria, 
 Moralis quid agas, quo tendas Anagogia ; " 
 
 but ho only quotes them in his first preface, where he explains the four senses. 
 In his second preface he compares. Scripture to the book written mftm (the 
 mystic sense) and without (the literal sense). 
 
 ■• "Vel saltern minus decens ceteris paribus et apta," he cautiously adds. 
 Lyi'a firmly states his object in the words, " Cum Dei adjutorio intcndo drca 
 liieralem sennum ins'istere, et paucas valde et breves cxpositiones mysiicas ali- 
 quando interponere ; licet rare." Prol. 2. 
 
 5 "Cum ex solo sensu literali et non ex mystico posset arguraentum fieri 
 ad probandum." He wrote eighty-iive hooks 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 Lyi'a on Gen. i. after Hugo of St. Cher we see an immense advance, hi 
 the "allegoric" division of the fourfold sense in Hugo, " Creavit coehm, 
 becomes "He made the New Testament;" both Testaments are caelum, 
 regarded on the side of Christ's Divinity, terra on the side of His hnmanity. 
 The Old and New Testaments are symbolised by the coverings of the taber- 
 nacle (Ex. xxvi.) made opcre plumario. " Pluma est acus, acus vero Chi'istus, 
 perforatus in passione, punget in secuudo sicut acus," &c., kt. 
 
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 Eashi 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.^ While, therefore, he wrote in a tone of 
 extreme modesty, and submitted all his works to the decision 
 of the Church,^ he did more than any other writer to break 
 do-ivn the tyranny of ecclesiastical tradition, and to overthrow 
 the bhnd behef in the bad method of many centuries. The 
 old proverb Si Lyra non lyrassct, Luthcrus non saltasset may 
 only express a popular view of history; but Luther, while 
 blaming his dependence on Eashi, both made great use of 
 Lyra and expressed for him the utmost admiration.^ 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." ■* 
 
 Although the folios of Lj^ra almost immediately drove 
 other commentaries, except the Glossa ordinaria, into 
 
 ' See his note on Gen. xlix. 11, where he says, "Exponunt deChristi pns- 
 sione sed ista expositio videtur mihi magis mystica quam lateralis." He 
 lefuses to see any allusion to the Trinity in Gen. xviii. 1. 
 
 ^ He modestly says that he has only written Scholastice et in moduin cxercitii, 
 and subjects his views to the correction sanctae matris ecclcsiae et cujusUbct 
 sapierUis. The vigour of his independence is well shown in his comment on 
 Ezek. xl.-xlviii. (on which see Hengstenberg, Ghristologie, ii. 595 ; Merx, 
 Joel, 3.31-335). He examines the views of Eashi, Jerome, Gregory, Eichard, 
 and Hugo of St. Victor, and differs from them all for the better. 
 
 ' Luther said, ' ' Ego Lj'ranum ideo amo et inter optimos pono quod ubique 
 dUigenter 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. E. Simon, iii. 432. 
 
 * On Nicolas of Lyra see Fabric. Bill. Lat. v. 114 sq. ; Le Long, Bihl. Sacr, 
 iii. 357, sq. ; Eosenmiiller, Hist. Int. v. 280 ; Flacius, Catal. test. Verit. xviii. 
 Buddeus, Isagoge, 1420, sq. ; Meyer, Gesch. d. Schrifkrkl. i. 109-121 
 Diestel, pp. l'98-201 ; Merx, Joel, 305-335 ; Klausen, Betmeneutik, p. 210 
 Gratz, Gcsch. d. Jud. vii. 513 &c. 
 
278 Retrogression. 
 
 oblivion, he had no adequate followers.^ The converted Jew, 
 Solomon Levita, known as Paulus of Burgos (t 1435), 
 published Additiones to Nicolas of Lyra, which were purely 
 reactionary,^ and deserved the Corredormm corruptoris Bur- 
 gensis of Matthias Doring.^ 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." * 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 ! ^ 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 
 
 • See Paul. Burdens. Prol. Addit. In some lines by Angelo Eocca (BiU. 
 Theol. Ejiitoinc, 15'.14) he says, in a patronising way, 
 
 " yit brevis etfadlis, non est spornenda tironi, 
 Lyrensis expositio." 
 Pope in the Dimciad (i. 153) says of the hookshelves of Colley Cihher, — 
 
 " De Lyra there a dreadful front extends ; " 
 a7id 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 Harpsfleld ; if 
 so he gives a wrong date. 
 
 ^ He repeatedly retums to the unnatural glosses which Lyra's honesty and 
 good sense had rejected. 
 
 ' Doring called his book Rcplicae defeiisivae. See Buddeus, Img. p. 1433. 
 
 ^ "Sensus literalis non debet dici ille qui repugnat eoclesiae auotoritati." 
 Prol. in Additiones. So too Gerson, "Sensus literalis judicandus est proat 
 ecclesia . . . determinavit. " Prop}], desens. lit. 3. 
 
 ^ This dangerous notion is first found in Augustine, and is repeated bv 
 Cocceius, " Impossibile est aliquid fieri in mundo de quo verba Spiritus Sancti 
 nsurpari possunt, lU id non intuitihs sit Spiritus iS, . . et non voluerit 
 Icgentem, ea verla ei rei accomwodare." 
 
Other Exegetes. 279 
 
 persons, was the ignorance of grammar and logic ; " ^ and Hus ' 
 by the sobriety of his writings earned the praise of Luther, I 
 that he was "skilful and weighty in the treatment of| 
 Scripture." The value of Savonarola's comments is exclu- 
 sively practical.^ The Propositiones dc sensu litercdi 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.^ 
 
 His comments on the Canticles and the Penitential 
 Psalms, apart from their devotional remarks, are of 
 the poorest description. Picus of Mirandola (t 149-i) was 
 chiefly occupied with Platonism and Kabbalism.* Tostatus 
 (t 1454), the " Stupor munch qui scibilc cliscutit 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.^ Turrecremata (t 14G8) 
 blindly followed the old traditional lines. The Jewish convert, 
 Jacob Perez of Valentia (t 1492), mixed them up with the 
 poorest lees of Eabbinism."' John Wessel — Lux Mundi — who 
 
 ^ Trialog. i. 8. On his views see Vauglian, ii. 315. Wiclif is allefjorioal 
 and dialectical in his own methods, but he said that " all things necessary in 
 Scripture are contained in its proper literal and historic sense." 
 
 ^ Savonarola's sermons are full of the fourfold sense (see Villari, i. 114, 
 E. T.). 
 
 ^ See Fropp. iii. vi. vii. Opip- 1, 3, ed. Du Pin. 
 
 ■* See Pic. Mirand. 0pp. p. 71, and Cudworth, Intellect. Syst. 301, sq. ; 
 Archangelus, Artis Kahbal. Scriptores, 1587. 
 
 ^ Such as, AVas Adam wiser than Solomon ? 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. Jn the New Testament, 
 Was it fit that the Virgin should be married ? Why did not Joseph ask her, 
 qicomodo ooiuxperit I Quid faciebant piarentes videutes eam praegnantem ? &c. 
 On llatt. iii. 25, Quomodo movchaliir ista cohimba? ... 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 
 nn the New Testament may be estimated by the fact that he argues from tlie 
 Vulgate. Hence his glaring errors about the word TrapaSeiy^ariaat and firjfxa 
 (Matt. i. 19 ; iv. 4). 
 
 * 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, 
 Untatio, f initio). 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.i 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.^ 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.^ 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 Ids method oiquodlihets — the statement of argu- 
 ments pro and contra without any mediation — gradually dis- 
 solved the union between faith and science which Anselm had 
 endeavoured to establish. Hence Haureau calls his system 
 " Spinozism before Spinoza." He also, as well as Raymond 
 LuUi (f 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 ijjso 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 jDreface to the Sentences ; and that unless a 
 man had all the metaphysical system of Scotus in his head, 
 
 The first Psalm refutes the Stoics, Peripatetics, Avicenna, Algazel, &c. In 
 the third we see Christ's sufferings ; in the fourth His miracles ; in the fifth 
 the Pharisees ; in the sixth the Eucharist, &c. See Fabr. Bibl. Lat. iv. 102 ; 
 Meyer, i. 322 sq. (who quotes some deplorable specimens). The "sensus mere 
 literalis" is to him always " inutilis," 
 
 ^ See UUmann, Rrformern hnfo/re the Erfmmation. For the views of Anton 
 de Uebrissa I can simply refer to Meyt'V, i. 332-339. 
 
 "^ " Kiiper cum in hunc codioem incidissrin, minimum ahfuit quin risu 
 dissilirem." Erasm. Colloq. 561. The author of the book was Joannes 
 JIarchesinus. For a kindly remark about him see Hallaui, Lit. of Europ, 
 i. 286ji. See too Sixtus Senensis, p. 273. 
 
 * See Hergenrbther, i. 953. 
 
William of Occam. 281 
 
 lie could not understand one sentence of his writings." Men 
 began to perceive that years of study of these subtle techni- 
 calities only made them masters of a cumbrous and useless 
 terminology, and took them no nearer to the comprehension 
 of the incircumscripti'bilitatcs, as Scotus barbarously called 
 them, which they were supposed to elucidate.^ 
 
 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 Unimrsalia ante rem — had been 
 the band of union between theology and philosophy. The 
 Church had adopted the rule Invisihilia non deeipiunt, 
 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,- snapped the link 
 between theology and philosophy. His two axioms, Entia 
 non sunt multiplieanda praeter neecssitatcm and Frustra fit 
 per plura quod fieri potest per paueiora, cut away the ground 
 under many traditional assumptions.^ 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 unv/isely and irreverently connected 
 the Christian dogmas when regarded by themselves.* No less 
 surely did he weaken the pride of sacerdotal tyranny, when 
 he addressed to the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria the famous 
 
 ' See Haureau, 351-353. 
 
 ' Universalia post rem. See Hampden, Sampt. Led. p. 71. 
 
 ' "Le caractfere propre du nominalisme c'est la simplicite."^ — Haureau. 
 The name Doctor Invincibilis was given him by Pope John xxii. 
 
 ■* See Landerer, s.v. Scholastici.sm, in Herzog's Encykl. and Occam und 
 Luther (Theolog. Stud. u. Krit. 1839). These extravagances chiefly occur in 
 Occam's Quodlibeta and Ceniilorjiiun. 
 
282 Platonic Studies. 
 
 words " Tu mc dcfcndc glndio, ego tc dcfcndam calamo ; " ^ and 
 when in his Epistola Defensoria he became the earliest 
 defender of the Liberty of the Press.^ 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.^ 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 " dodrmis 
 Platonicormn imhutus." * 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." ^ The Fathers had 
 been Platonists.* " Academia Flatonis Ecdcsiae vclut vesti- 
 bulum," 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,' " 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.® 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 
 
 1 111 1328. 
 
 ^ Haurtiau, ii. 420. Marsilio of Padua is said tn have learnt from Occam 
 the fine conceptions of liberty which appear in his Defensor Pacts. 
 
 ^ All that was known of Plato by mediaeval scholars was derived from a 
 translation by Chalcidins of part of the Timaeu!:, references in St. Augustine, 
 and the De clogmate PlcUfmis of Apuleius. Ueberweg, i. 367. 
 
 ■■ Sximm. i. qu. 84, art. 5. 
 
 ^ Valorius, Lanrentii Metlici I'Ha, p. 18. 
 
 ^ See Aug. De Civ. Dei, viii. 12 ; c. Aeadem. iii. 19, "In multis quae ad 
 philosophiam jiertinent Augustinus utitur opinionibus Platouis." Thorn. Aij. 
 Smnm. i. qu. 77, art. 5. 
 
 ' Characterismi, p, 189. 
 
 8 Even in its most Aristotelian epoch the Church was Realist. Thomas 
 Aquin. Summa Ima. qu. xv. 1 ; xliv. 3. 
 
Vieivs 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.^ 
 Their work was powerfully aided by the develoijment of 
 Commerce, the growth of the Universities,^ 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 resnlt 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 littering 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." ^ A false and extravagant system of 
 
 ' See Mosheim, Dc tiirhntd per rccrntiores PJatonicos Ercl. 1677 : Brucker, 
 Miwell. Hist. Philos. 1748; Delacluze, Florence et Ses VicUsiludcs, 1S;I7. 
 
 ^ On the growth of the universities see Cardinal Hergenrtither, K. G. 946- 
 952. He attributes the fall of Scholasticism to an " hochgetriebene Sucht nach 
 Spitzfindigkeiten, innere Zerwiirfnisse, und das Ueberwiegen der humanistischen 
 Studien." See too Ueberweg, Hint, of Philos. ii. 34, 461. 
 
 ^ Hampden, Bampt. Led. pp. 88- 92. The Fathers, the Church canons, and 
 the forced decretals of Isidore were also treated as more or less "iuspiicd." 
 
284 Downfall of ScholaaHcism. 
 
 interpretation Las 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.^ 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 tlie 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 Thcologiae, but Philosophia in servitutem tluologiae 
 pa2xae rcdada} It was the vassalage of philosophy which 
 was forbidden to stir beyond impassable limits fixed by the 
 dogmas of the Church.^ 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. 
 
 ^ 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 lis qui docendi 
 gratiam acceperint aperire " [Oan. 64). 
 
 2 Heumann, Prol. to Tribbechovius, De doctr. Scliol. et Corrupta jicr eosdiv. 
 hum. rerum Scicntia, 1665. 
 
 = Ueberweg, Evst. Phil. i. 66. 
 
Laclc of Equijjment. 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.^ Ignorant for the most part of 
 classical literature, and therefore destitute of a training 
 which was invaluable to the greatest of the Fathers, the 
 Schoolmen were also cut off from a true knowledge of life by 
 the narrowing walls and soul-dwarfiog externalism of their 
 monastic routine. For us the history of David thrills with 
 hfe, 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.^ " 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 Aurca 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 
 
 ' 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. 
 exegct. p. 39. 
 
 ^ 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 PMIologi/. 
 
 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."^ 
 / 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.^ They philosophised and theologised 
 over what they assumed to be the supernatural accuracy 
 of largely vitiated manuscripts of a very imperfect transla- 
 tion ; and often with no better aid than heterogeneous glosses 
 from the Fathers, and those not unfrequently from 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.^ If, as Luther said, 
 
 ' OpuK Mrijiis, ii. 8. He said that they contained the articles of faith 
 "longe expressius quam in canone." Eojjer Bacon had hinted at the relative 
 freedom of non-biblical branches of knowledge, but his view was not accepted. 
 Hugo said that the Bible contains " tolius univcrsi continentiam" ani it was 
 used to settle all questions alike. 
 
 ^ Even Thomas Ai[uiuas, if he knew some Greek, "has in several instances 
 quite missed the sense of the Greek." — Isewman. 
 
 ' See the Calcndnrium Etyriiologieum (Hilarius = altus ares. Ignatius = 
 ignem patius, &e. ) Brucker, iii. 854. Eoger Bacon derives Trafiaincev)i from 
 pcirari cvenam. Hervaeua Dolensis derives epislola from epi and rJ.nla, and 
 says that they were so called because they were sent over and above the 
 Gospels. Hugo of St. Victor derives 07105 from d and 77). Thomas 
 Aquinas, terra — quia tcritur pedihus ; tenebras — quasi tr.jwns umbrnm ; abyssus 
 from a and byssus, or a and basis. Albertus derives Endymion from en and 
 dymion, " intellect ; " Durandus Alleluia from AUe salmm, leu, mo, and ja, 
 fm ; Hervaeus Dolensis says that Timotheus means " beneficial " and that the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews was written to those who had crossed over fromworldli- 
 ness. See Tribbechovius Ve Dodorihus Scholastieis (1719), pp 212 sqq., or a 
 curious later specimen, see Colet's Letters to Eadulphus (ed. Lupton), p. 81. 
 A very wonderful list might be made of the inferences drawn Irom absuid 
 etymologies and sheer mistakes. In the GJossa Ordiaaria Amiam (= 'pater 
 e.rcdous) is Christ ; Jochebed (= Dei Gr(!,lia) 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 Bci (;\;aptTi ©eou) for a nomina- 
 tive and a title of Christ. He says that the name Paul 
 cannot be of Hebrew origin because the Plebrew does not 
 possess the letter P, but it may be from a word beginning 
 with a letter like P, in wbich 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 Scripiture, 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 Ac[uinas 
 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 Ix. 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 pjerfect. 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 Mag-nus on Psalm Ixix. 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 JInses (!) who is the spiritual law ; and Aaron the clergy. For other 
 etymologies see Binder, Scholastica Ticologia, p. S4. 
 
288 False Parallels. 
 
 from the uses of the word sulstantia in the Vulgate.^ 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 j\L>scs dividing the 
 Red Sea. (2) As frudif fling, because Aaron's rod budded. 
 (3) As satiating, because the rod of Moses drew water from 
 the rock. (4) As sco^irging, because a rod was to smite the 
 corners of Moab. (5) As vxttching, because in Jer. 1. 11, we 
 read in the Vulgate Virgam rigilantcm ego xideo. Unhappily, 
 however, for this curious piece of perverted exegesis, the 
 word for "rod," in Isaiah xi. 1, is clioter 0??'^); in Numbers 
 xvii. 8, XX. 11, is mattch (n^o) ; and in Jer. i. 11, is maqqtcl 
 (''iP.^) and means " an early or wakeful tree " (A.V. " rod of 
 an almond tree," LXX. ^a-KT-qpiav 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 hght. 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.^ 
 
 The object of the Schoolmen is often far less to explain 
 the meaning of a passage than to work it up dialectically, 
 
 ] 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. 
 
 ^ Thorn. Aquin. Summ. II. 2 ; ex. 2 and 4. Petavius admits (to^kttik)) and 
 ipt<TTm^ to defeat heresy {Dogmata, Prol. 4, p. 14). 
 
Dialectics. 2S!: 
 
 under the categories of Ai-istotle, and to arrange in the 
 systematic form of endless subdivisions every possible lesson 
 which they think can be extorted from it.'- They thoughi 
 with Berengar that " God is a logician." ^ They treated theo- 
 logy geometrically, after the fashion of a proposition of Euchd 
 Spinning out of their own subjectivity by the aid of objections 
 solutions, definitions, conclusions, corollaries, propositions 
 proofs, replies, reasons, refutations, exceptions, and distinc- 
 tions,^ they weave, as Bacon said, interminable webs, "mar- 
 vellous for the tenacity of the thread and workmanship, bui 
 for any useful purpose trivial and inane." * " In divine 
 things," says Ludovicus Vives, "they divide, singularise, parti- 
 cularise, completely, incompletelj^, as though they were 
 deahng with an apple." ^ Hence follows that coaccrvatio, as 
 Sixtus Senensis calls it, which is so inexpressibly wearisome 
 A perfectly emjDty schematism led to a boundless prohxity 
 Langenstein in four large foUos had only got to the fourtl 
 chapter of Genesis, and more real elucidation of the meaning 
 could probably be given in four lines. Hasselbach wrote 
 twenty-four books on the first chapter of Isaiah," and ai 
 indefinitely truer conception of its meaning could be fur- 
 nished in two pages. It took mankind several centuries tc 
 arrive at the conviction that " it had not pleased God tc 
 
 ^ As early even as Lanfranc, the dogmatics of the day are set forth in th{ 
 scholastic manner, with syllogisms and dialectic examination of proofs anr 
 counterproofs. "They did not define doctrine," says Baur, "they refinec 
 upon it." VersohnungsUhre, p. 147. 
 
 '' Ampere, Bist. Lit. de France, iii. 333. 
 
 ' Erasm. Eneom. Uor. p. 193 (ed. 1696). 
 
 * Bacon, De Augm. Scient. i. 16. "This degenerate kind of learning wai 
 chiefly prevalent .imong the Schoolmen, who, having sharp wits, ahundan 
 leisure, small vaiiety of reading, and knowing little history, whether o: 
 nature or time, spun laborious webs of learning which are extant in theii 
 books." 
 
 ^ Lud. Vives, Ve Corrupt. Art. I.; ap. Tribbechovius, Ih- Doctor. Schol. p. 24 
 Some accuse Abelard (Trithemius, Cat. S. E. p. 97), others Peter Lombart 
 (Aventinus Annal. vi. Baur, Dogni'ngesch. p. 159), some Duns Scotu; 
 (Sent. iii. dUt. 24, qu. 1. See Brucker, ii. 875), and some Albertus (se< 
 Vaughan, Life of St. Thomas, i. 248) of thus "introducing Aristotle intc 
 Christianity. " 
 
 ' The phantom of a "multiple sense" led them yet deeper into thes( 
 quagmires of prolixity. Bede Ijoasts that a single line of Scripture is s( 
 fecund that it " will fill many pages with the sweetness of its spiritua 
 meaning. '* 
 
 U 
 
290 Barbarous Terminology. 
 
 reveal His salvation in dialectics," and that " dialectics are 
 inefficacious if unsupported by other knowledge." ^ 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-sphtting and 
 stringent dogmatism became at once servile and tyrannical.' 
 7. A fatal defect was the barbarous nature of their lan- 
 cfuage. " 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, amphations, 
 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.* That special theological mystery 
 the circuminsessio, and communicatio idiomatum, in other 
 words, the relation to each other of the two Natures in the 
 Person of Christ, is defined as " Suhsistentis in suhsistente 
 realiter distincto imdua 'pi'Mscntialitis assktentia in cadcm 
 essentia." The Hypostatic union is " Helatio disquijMrentiae 
 realis qioidem in uno extremo cui in altera nulla rcalis relaiio 
 respondet." ^ 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 aet, of which 
 so learned a scholar as Dr. Siegfried is compelled to ask, 
 " whether in any age whatever any human being whatever 
 
 ^ Johann. Sarisbur. Mdnlog. ii. 9. 
 
 ■' Duns Scot. 0pp. ii. 175. 
 
 ^ See Maurice, Med. Philosophy, p. 151. 
 
 •^ Erasm, Do Eai. Vcr. Thcol. p. 87. 
 
 ' " Hujusmodi tricarum" says Erasmus (on 1 Tim. i. 6) " apud istos plcM 
 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. 
 
Microlog]/. 291 
 
 could have possibly gained from it a single distinct con- 
 ception ? " ^ 
 
 8. Yet their barbarous phraseology was not half so perni- i 
 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.' - 
 
 Th& " quodlibctarii" 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." ^ 
 
 St. Paul's one word, fiaraioXoyia, sums up folios of the 
 scholastic quodlibds. The question how many angels could 
 dance upon the point of a pin is only an insfantia eluccscens 
 of futility, nor is it more intrinsically absurd than St. Thomas's 
 serious discussion of such quacstiunculae, as whether angels 
 could be in two places at once ; or whether many angels could 
 be in the same place at once ; or whether Adam in a state 
 of innocence could discern the essence of angels ; or whether 
 local distance has any effect on the speech of angels ; or 
 whether there is a definite number of angels, and whether 
 
 ^ Siegfried, llashis Einfluss iibcr Nic. v. Lyra und Luther (Merx, Archiv., i. 
 431). The one man to whom, besides St. John, the Church has allowed the 
 title of "the Divine," Gregory of Kazianzus, bewails the growth of theolo- 
 gical technicalities. AidirTve fxoL ivtrrdaeis ical ras ai/Tid^cr^is ttjs peas eii(r40€ias 
 Kal T^v fiLKpoK6yov ffocpiav . . , ev SihaiXKe (po^e^ffdai /j.6pov, rh \veiv r^v -rriaTiv 
 iv ToTs (TO(lil(r/iaaiv. Orat. xxiii. 
 
 ' Sixtiis Senensis who, like Luther, was educated in Scholasticism, speaks of 
 it with equal disfavour {Bibl. Sanct. p. 218). He says that the five methods 
 of the Schoolmen were, 1. Divisio, applied to the shortest clauses- 2. Dis- 
 tinetio, applied to nearly every word. 3. Allcgatio, 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, 
 Karratio, questions from Albert, Alexander, &c., and illustrations from the 
 Manipulus Florum and Pohicmthea. 
 
 ' " La premiere ibis que Casaubon vint en Sorbonne ... on lui dit ' ToilJi 
 nne 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.i 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." * 
 And this vaniloquium, this XenroXea^y^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." * 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 
 
 ' St. Thomas frequently says "lit docet Dionysius ; " and in the Celestial 
 Hierarchies there are fifteen long chapters about the distinctions, &o, of 
 Angels, arranged in a sort of feudal system. See Dante, Pamd. xxviii. 97. 
 St. Thomas's argument for the numLer of angels is derived from the fact 
 that incorruptible bodies are incomparably larger than corruptible, so that it 
 is rea.sonable to suppose that immaterial substances incomparably exceed 
 material in number (.S'wmm. i. qu. 60, art. 3). Duns held that any ns pri<yri 
 proof of the matter was impossible, but that it miglit be proved a postermi 
 " quia tot (intelligentiae) sint neccssariae ad inotus orbium " (ii. disf. 9, qu. i, 
 art. 1). 
 
 ^ See Die AngdoJorjic der nachscottiscJien ScholaMiJc, in "Werner, ii. 
 181-201. 
 
 ' 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 scliolari?," 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 Inlelligetitiac. (IVorks, viii. 384.) 
 
 ^ Lud. Vives, De Corrupt. Art. iii. Many such questions are given liy 
 Binder, De Tlicol. Sehol. p. 24 (1624). I select a few. " Utrumplus conrimiat 
 Deo non posse faecrc impossihile, quam impossibUia non posse fieri a Deo! 
 Utrum unio sit entitas aut relatio ? Ulrum corpiis V. Hariae fnerit exposiitim 
 infiucntiis stellamm 1 Utrum Ohristus est ta.ntus in una pnrra hostia siait »'" 
 uriM magna ? " and so on. Ko one could condemn the " worship of inutility" 
 in the schools more strongly than John of Salisbury. Folycrat. vii. 12. 
 
FrlfoJous Questions. 293 
 
 as to wtetlier the Father begets the Divine Essence, or 
 whether the Divine Essence begets the Son ? Whether the 
 Essence begets the Essence, or whether tlie Essence itself 
 neither begets nor is begotten ? Such questions, as Era smus 
 says, it is more learned to ignore than to know.^ 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 ? '^ Still more degrading and 
 shocking was the dispute with those who were called Ster- 
 mrianists? 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 diaiolica), 
 "an art of htigating about idle and useless speculations." 
 They are, as Bacon says, " portcntosac et latrantcs 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 
 duhitare de rehus occultis quam litigarc dc incertis " ? * 
 
 ' Encom. Mor. p. 114. Gregory of Nazianzus compares such language to 
 jugglery, raurhv ^v ^7jtpo7s re Trai^etv T^f u^tv KXeTrrovaais toj raxei rrjS 
 /i6Ta0e(T6ajs ^ KKTopx^*"'^'^^ "^^^ OeaTwtf tvavro'iots Koi avdpoyvvots Xvyiu {j.a(T iv icai 
 irepi deov Aeyeiv Kal aKov^LV KaivSrep^y Ti KOl irepUpyov. Orat. xxi. It is to 
 such discussions that Pope alludes in the lines about Paradise Lost : 
 "Jn quibbles angels and archangels join. 
 And God the Father turns a School Divine." 
 
 ^ 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 alras, uterus, and venter; 
 between trajieere and projieere in vcntrem ; between edere and vorare ; between 
 the mouse as made of earth, and as made of water, &c. In Sent. iv. dint. 1 3, 
 iu. 0. 
 
 ' As to this miserable controversy, the natural outcome of unspiritual 
 superstition, see Schaff, Med. Christianity, ii. 552. 
 
 * On this subject nothing can be added to the wise remarks of Bacon, 
 Advancement of Learning, and the valuable note of Erasmus on Con- 
 
29-i Christian Eabbiuism. 
 
 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 eveiy 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 saeramcntis," and " litcra inutilis est nee curandum 
 quid loquatur." ^ 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.^ They filtered down to the Schoolmen 
 I through the Alexandrians and the Fathers, and were un- 
 fortunately perpetuated by the authority of Jerome and 
 Augustine.^ 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 anagosric* A favourite illustration of this 
 
 ^b^a" 
 
 vertuntur in vaniloquium ; 1 Tim. i. 6. He speaks of them as " de frivolis 
 nucjis sine fine digladiantcs," and says that for ages they had in huge Tolumfs 
 discussed (" usque ad clamorem, usqiie ad convicia) quaestiunculae of which 
 some were useless, others insoluble, others ridiculous, others profane. " Un 
 des cotes les plus faux de cette scolastinue c'itait de chcrchcr et de trouver par- 
 tout dcs errcurs. Nous avons de ces enumerations d'en'eurs qui remplissent 
 des volumes, et souvent parmi ces pr^tendues errem's condanmees, il y a de 
 tr&s bonnes choses." Eenan. 
 
 ' 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 lend. 
 " Munt in interilibus Aeademici senes; (rmncin dictm'um excutiunt sylliibam 
 immo et literam, dubitantes ad omnia, qiuterentes semper sed nunquam ad 
 seientiam pervcnicntcs," Melalog. 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 ])hrase, syllable, tittle and point, ia full of a Divine sense." See 
 Cardinal Manning On the Insp. of Script. 
 
 ^ The Rabbinic phrase for the multiplex sensus was D'OytS nCD (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, JUssays 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. Delitzseh, De inspir. S. Script. Leipzig, 1872); 
 and no less an author than Tholuck (Die Imirirationslchre, 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). 
 
 ■» They all continue to say after St. Augustine that the literal sense must 
 
The Fourfold Sense. 29 
 
 supposed fourfold sense was the word " Jerusalem," whic' 
 might stand for a city, for a faithful soul, for the Churc' 
 militant, or for the Church triumphant. Another was th 
 word " water," which literally means an element ; trope 
 logically may stand for sorrow, or wisdom, or heresies, o 
 prosperity ; allegorically may refer to baptism, nations, c 
 grace ; anagogically to eternal happiness.^ " Light " wa 
 another illustrative word. Thomas Aquinas tells us tha 
 " Let there he light " may mean historically an act of creation 
 allegorically, " Let Christ be love ; " anagogically, " May w 
 be led by Christ to glory ; " and, tropologically, " May we b 
 mentally illumined by Christ." Even these instance 
 though chosen as special proofs of the fourfold sense, sho^ 
 the emptiness of the method. Hugo of St. Cher and othei 
 compare those four meanings to the four coverings of th 
 tabernacle ; the four colours of the veil of the tabernacle 
 to the four winds ; to the fourfold cherubim ; the four rivei 
 of Paradise ; the four legs of the table of the Lord.^ Bisho 
 Longland preaching before the University of Oxford in 152; 
 on " She hath also furnished her TaUc" ^ explained it to mea 
 
 come first (cf. Greg. Frarf, in Job), but they despised it, as may be ses 
 (among hundreds of other proofs) in Hugo's line — 
 
 "Farms inibutus tentabis grandia tutus," 
 
 where he explains the parva to be all that elucidates the literal sens 
 Erudit. Didasc. v. 2. Bonaventura says that even in a single letter tl 
 Scripture begets a multiform irisdom, but that "sub cortice literae occul 
 atui mystica et profunda intelligentia. " An anonymous monk of S 
 Victor falls back, however, on the old remark of the Eabbis, Origen, Augu 
 tine, and Jerome, that the letter of Scripture, without allegory, has mar 
 things "falsa, ineptOf, inutilia, impeditiva ad aeternam vitam." Dieste 
 p. 188. 
 
 ^ Eucheitius, Spirituales Formulcw, referring to Gen. i. 9 (literal) ; Ps. Ix' 
 1^ ; Prov. xviii. 4 ; John iv. 14 (tropological) ; Ezek. xx.xvi. 25 ; Rev. xvi 
 15; John vii. 38 (allegoric); Jer. ii. 13; Ps. cxlviii. 4 (anagogic). Basi 
 with infinitely more good sense, says that when the Bible says water it usual 
 means water. 
 
 ' Prol. in Gen. Durandus (t 1296), the Doctor resolutissiimis, author 
 the Rationale div. officiorum, says that the beam from which church bel 
 hang represents the Cross, and the rope the Scriptures; and "as the ro] 
 consists of three strands, so does Scripture consist of a threefold straii 
 namely history, allegory, and morality, and the descent of the rope fro: 
 the wood in the hands of the priest is the descent of Scripture from i 
 mystery in the mouth of the preacher " ! 
 
 * Prov. ix. 1, 2. Bishop Longland also defended the fourfold sense in 
 sermon in Westminster Abbey, November 27, 1527. "Si sola gramraati( 
 
296 The Fourfold Sense. 
 
 that Wisdom had set forth in her Scrii^tural 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,^ 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 Upistolae Ohscurorum Vii^orum may scarcely have been 
 exaggerating when he says that he had attended unam 
 lectioncm in podria where he had heard Ovid expounded 
 naturaliter, litcralitcr, historialitcr, d S2nritualiti:i\" 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.^ 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.* It made a standing 
 
 dogma of the " obscurity " of Scripture, which was thus kept 
 
 r safely out of the hands of the multitude.* It made the Pope 
 
 Wthe 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 
 
 suiEceret," he says, "esset grammaticae peritus factus illico consummatus 
 theologus." 
 
 1 Augelomus, "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 Eosenmiiller, ffist. Int. v. 153. 
 
 ^ Some read Vii-gil only to allegorise him. Lnpton's edition of Colet on 
 The Ooriiithkms, introd. p. xxiv. Bernard Sylvester of Chartres (t 1167) 
 allegorised tlie whole history of Mntas, whom he made the symbol of the 
 soul (see Johann. Sarisb. Mctalog. iii. 4), and his Glossuh^ may be taken "as 
 a good argujitcntum ad ahsurduvi for the entire method of allegorising." 
 Poole, iled. Thoughts, p. 119. 
 
 ^ Dr. J. M. Neale says, " If Scripture han not an undcrmrrcnt of meaning, 
 double, treble, quadruple, or even yet more manifold, all primitive and mediaeval 
 commentators from the first century to the Eeforniation .... 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." Diswrlation, p. 377. 
 
 '' Bellarmine {Be Verba Dei, iii. 3) says that exegesis needs the aid of the 
 Spirit, who is only found in a council ajiproved by the Pope. 
 
 ^ Albertus Magnus uses this argument. 
 
Perverted Texts. 20 
 
 they desired. Tropology was at the service ahke of ecclesias 
 tical dogma and priestly usurpation. Jesus raising th 
 dead before a few witnesses was used to prove the duty c 
 private confession to a priest. While Scripture narrati^-e 
 were, in the Literal sense, treated as " bare dead histories wliic 
 concern men no more," ^ the Levitical system was adduced i: 
 absolute defiance of the whole idea of the .New Testament t 
 shew that Christian presbyters were sacrificial priests 
 " Domini sunt cardines tcrrae" the Vulgate rendering of " th 
 pillars of the earth are the Lord's " (1 Sam. ii. 8), was applie 
 to the cardinals. The eighth Psalm was used by Antoniui 
 Bishop of Florence, to mean that God put all things unde 
 the feet of the Pope, — sheep, i.e., Christians ; oxen, i.e., Jew 
 and heretics ; beasts of the field, i.e., pagans ; and fishes c 
 the sea, i.e., souls in purgatory. " Thou hast broken the head 
 of the dragon in the waters " (Ps. Ixxiv. 13) proved th 
 expulsion of demons by baptism.* The celibacy of priesi 
 was supported by the comparison, in Canticles, of the cheek 
 of the beloved to doves.* The root of the tree in Daniel 
 vision (Dan. iv. 12) furnished a proof of the Immaculat 
 Conception of the Virgin. The two rods of Zechariah (xi. */ 
 are types of the Dominicans and Franciscans. The papf 
 canonisation of saints was maintained by a reference to th 
 putting of a lamp on a lampstand (Matt. v. 15). So far bae 
 as the ninth century Rabanus Maurus (f 856) in his L 
 Clericorum Institutione had found chorcpiscopi in the sevent 
 elders, " Readers " in Ezek. xxxiii. 7, and the Roman Cathol; 
 system of service generally in Mosaism and the Psalm 
 Baronius pretended to discover that our Lord put on 
 pontifical vestment for the celebration of the Lord's supper 
 Nor must it be supijosed that these were treated as passin 
 
 ' Lnther. 
 
 ^ Hervaeus Dolensis on Matt. ix. 18-26. 
 
 ' Compare similar interpretations of Job i. 14, in IKeiile's Mediaeval Preachcj 
 1>. XXX., where this style of exegesis is defended. 
 
 * C'arilinal Cusanus admits that Kome made the sense of Scripture va: 
 with her own practice. O^j^j. p. 833. 
 
 * AnnalcH, i. 154. The rebuke of Casaubonis " Hoccine est Divina oraeu 
 cam timore tractare, humana ligmenta sacris narrationibus ex suo semper ii 
 miscere? " {ExercUationes, p. 4u9, ap. Thirlwall, Charges, i. 150). 
 
298 Abuse -of Scripture. 
 
 applications. Om 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.^ 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."^ The hideous and unutterable infamies of the 
 Inquisition were defended by the words, " they gather them 
 in hu7uUes and l%i,rn them." "0 temerariam impudentiam" 
 exclaims Luther of this and similar allegories, " et scelestam 
 amlitiuncm ! " ^ 
 
 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 
 
 ' "The greater light" is the Papacy, Innocent III. Dccrct. Gregor. ix. 
 lib. i. tit. xxxiii. The two swords, Boniface VIII. Extrav. lib. i. tit. viii. 
 It was convenient to foiget the wise rule, "Theologia parabolica non est 
 demonstrativa." 
 
 ^ " VEvangelio e i Dnttor magni 
 
 Son derelitti, e solo ai Decretali 
 Si stndia si che parea a' lor vigagni. 
 A 'juesto intende il Papa e i Cardinali ; 
 Nou vanno i lor pensieri a Nazzaretto 
 LJi dove Gabbriello aperse I'ali." — Dante, parad. i-V. 
 1S3-138. Comp. id. Pc Monarcliia, iii. p. 137. 
 ^ See Milman, Lai. Christian-ity, vi. 405. 
 
The Papal Church. 299 
 
 " Speak thou to us. Let not God speak with us." " And 
 the people stood afar off." ^ i 
 
 But since the Papal Church could thus prove to her own 
 satisfaction the infallibihty 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 vsrriters ; 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 c redid eritis non intelligetis was 
 practically made to mean " Protestants despise our arguments 
 from aUegories because they are devoid of the Spirit." - The 
 vitality of such notions is astonishing. In 1777 a book was 
 published called Samson's Hair, an Eraiiicnt Eeprcscntation 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.' " ^ 
 
 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 
 
 ' Ex. XX. 19-21. See Lange, Orundriss, p. 4. 
 ^ Salmeron on 2 Cor. iii. 
 
 ' E. Jones Trevecka (quoted by the Eev. Prof. Conybeare in his Bampton 
 Lectures, 1824). 
 
300 English Theology. 
 
 similitudes 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 j)i"oveth nothing, it is a mere simile. God 
 is a Spirit, and all his words are sj)iritual, and His literal 
 sense is spiritiud!' ^ "As to those three spiritual senses," says 
 Whitaker, the opponent of Bellarmine,^ " 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 arc not therefore various senses, varirjus intcrj'jretettirms, 
 anel expliceitions of Scripture, lut there is hict one sense and 
 that the literal, which may be variously accommodated, and 
 from which various things may be collected." ^ 
 
 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 cpmpelled to study 
 
 1 See his chapter on "The Four Senses of Scripture" in Obedience of a 
 Christian Jlan. 
 
 ^ Dispute on Holy Scripture, p. 409 (Parker Society). 
 
 ° Even Dean Colet, though he admitted tlie fourfold sense, yet says that 
 the New Testament " has for the most part the sense that appears on the 
 surface ; nor is one tiling said and another meant, but the very thing is meant 
 which is said, and the sense is wlioUy literal." See further, Colet, On thu 
 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 Miiandola and Plotinus. Mr. Lupton also kindly refers me to 
 Mr. Aie.xandc-r Gill (High Master of St. Paul's), who, in his Sacred 
 Ph-iloso2}hie of the Holy Scriptures (1635, p. 165), compares David's cutting off 
 the lap of Saul's robe toPs. xxii. 18 — " They parted my fjc(rments among ihem" 
 — " For," he says, " Saul was a figure of Christ." He adds, " But, you say, 
 fJie Scripture is not to be strained, for by that mmns everie thing can be mciAe 
 (f any thing." His answer to this very natural objection is supremely invalid. 
 "At the Eeformation," 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 rarioiis senses made the meaning of Scripture altogether 
 uncertain." Criticism anddnfcrprctaJion, 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 gi-cater part, a hidden spiritual sense." 
 Bainpton Lcct. , p. 250. 
 
Scliolastic Saints. 301 
 
 and to point out the errors of the past, it should be in a 
 spirit of humiUty, 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 dihgence. 
 When we think of the blameless Hfe of the Venerable Bede, 
 devoted from the age of seven years upwards to the study of 
 Scripture in the calm retirement of Jarrow, and ended while 
 he was dictating to his young scholar the last words of his 
 comment on St. John ; ^ — of the young Bernard of Clairvaux, 
 standing neck-deep in the ice-cold stream to subdue the pas- 
 sions of the flesh, and devoting his life to saintly self-denial ; — 
 of his unhappy rival, the brilliant Abelard, hiding his shame 
 and agony in the monastery of St. Gildas de Rhuys, and 
 dying in humble peace under the gentle care of Peter of 
 Clugny; — of Bonaventura, of whom his master, Alexander 
 of Hales, used to say that "in Bonaventura Adam did not 
 sm ; " 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 ^^diite 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 Eatisbon which he resigned ; — of Thomas of 
 Aquino in his profound humility, his rapturous visions, his 
 glorious daily j^rayer. Da mihi Domine cor noMle quod nulla 
 ad terrain ddrahat tcrrcna affcctio, his holy answer to the 
 Vision " Bene scripsisti de me, Thoma ; quam mercedem a me 
 accipies ? " Non aliam nisi tc, Domine ; — of the incredible 
 diligence, sanctity, and learning of Duns Scotus, who had 
 influenced the entire theology and i^hilosophy of his day 
 before his early death at the age of thirty-four ; ^ — of the iron 
 
 ^ Ric;cl:icrl:, De Script. Ecch's. S8. Bcde's version of St. John ia the first 
 extant syjecimen of English prose. 
 ' Milman, Latin ClirwtiaMity, hi;, xiv. 3. 
 
302 Their Exam^ile. 
 
 losic and dauntless couraofe 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 dehghts 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 vitahty 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 folhes, and a pretext for enormous crimes; and 
 
Grandeur of Scripture. 803 
 
 3'-et that there is in the truths whiclr 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." -^ 
 
 ' Is. XXXV. 7, 8. 
 
"Proinde volo liber esse." — Luther. 
 
 " So wird diese Geschiohte nicht allein Geschiciite der Finsternis 
 nud der Verringungen ; sie wird auch eine Gescliichte der Dammervmg 
 der Morgenrothe, und de.s endlicli angebrocheuen bellen Tages werden. 
 — G. W. Meter, Oesch. d. Schrifterklarung, i. 6. 
 
 " Unless — what whispers me of times to come ? 
 What if it be the mission of that age 
 My death will usher into life, to shake 
 This torpor of assurance from our creed, 
 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 ? " 
 
 — The Pope in The Ring and the Book (Browning). 
 
 X 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 THE REFORM ERS. 
 
 " He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. "What hath tlj 
 straw to do with the wheat ? saith the Lord." — Jer. xxiii. 28. 
 
 The Reformation is very inadequately and negative!; 
 represented by the word " Protestantism."'^ If in its narrowe 
 aspect it was a revolt against Romanism, it was in realit; 
 but one scene in the vast drama of human progress in whicl 
 Rome herself was compelled to take her part. Her awaken 
 ment, her purification, her better line of Popes, her Cuunci 
 of Trent, her Society of Jesus, resulted in no small degre' 
 from the work which owed its personal impulse to the might; 
 passion and genius of Luther. Those who reconcile it witl 
 their sense of justice to call him the father of infidelity 
 might with just as much truth have called him the restore 
 of the Papacy. For the work of Lather, like that of Origer 
 was the watershed of many divergent influences. If in th< 
 one direction he is to be held responsible for the teaching o 
 Denck and Miintzer, and in another of Lessing and Strauss 
 assuredly he was also the cause of a marked improvement ii 
 the Romish Church, of the energy of her counter-Reforma 
 tion, and of the improvement in morality and discipliu' 
 within her pale. 
 
 ' It should however be observed that the Protest of Spiers, if negativ 
 against particular doctrines, was positive in its assertion of the liberty c 
 conscience. 
 
 X 2 
 
308 Tlie Ecformation. 
 
 But in point of fact, as history has proved again aud 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 iieroic 
 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 Renai.'3sance 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." ^ 
 
 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^ and Mazzini^ as by De 
 Laraennais* and Le Maistre.* 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. 
 
 ' Beard, Bilhert Lectures, p. 2. Perhaps rather "Religion infused into the 
 Renaissance." "What the Renaissance was without the Reformation .may he 
 seen in such men as Leo X., Bembo, Bibbiena, Panormita, Filelfo, Politian, 
 Pomponatius, &c. (see Gieseler, v. 181-184). 
 
 ^ Cours de Politique Positive. 
 
 ' See the very powerful and eloquent testimony of Mazzini in the FortnigUlU 
 Eeview, 1870, p. I'M. 
 
 * E^sai sur V Indiffirencc, 1817. 
 
 '^ Du Pape, 1819,' 
 
The Papacy. 309 
 
 An even more tremendous indictment against the decadent 
 morality of Rome and lier priesthood might be drawn from 
 the writings of Petrarch, Gerson, Machiavelli, Picus of 
 Mirandola, or Savonarola, than from those of Boccaccio and 
 the Italian novelists.'- Even in the I'aradiso 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 jDontiffs 
 as Sixtus IV., Innocent VIII., Alexander VI., Julius II., and 
 Clement VII., not to mention such a once-dissolute sophist 
 as Pius II. (Aeneas Sylvius), or such an elegant epicurean 
 as Leo X. ? How could the world tolerate on the lips of 
 simonists, nepotists, adulterers, and worse, the claim to 
 absolute dominion over religion, the claim to be sole in- 
 terpreters of Scripture, and the immediate recipients of the 
 power and authority of Christ ?- 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 Malrjicaruni has well been called "a monstrous 
 
 ' See proofs only too overwhelming in Gieseler, v. § 139. 
 
 ^ See Dorner, Kist. of Prot. Throl. i. 35, E. I. The most extravagant 
 statement of Papal claims may be found in Augustin Tiionfo, De Pote>:/at,: 
 Ecehiiae, 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 Dens 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 
 wliom 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,' 
 \which so far from reconciling faith with knowledge had but 
 deepened the chasm between the two. If John of Sahsbury 
 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 circmn male 
 intellccta — 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.^ Monasticism, itself polluted 
 
 1 " Theologiae turn materia non sacrae literae et Scripturae divinae enint, 
 sed (juaedam obscurae et spinosae intvicataeque quaestioiies, quarum nugatoria 
 .subtilitate exercebantur et defatigabantui- ingenia" (Camerariiis, Vit. Me- 
 lanchlh. c. iii. ). 
 
 - See a very fine passage of Erasmus {Annott. in 1 Tim. i. 6), which is too 
 long to quote, but is full of indignant eloquence against the slothful ami 
 corrupt priesthood — " Metuebant tyrannidi suae, si mundus resipiscerct " 
 (Op-p. ix. 490). But perhaps some may be more open to conviction if I 
 
Decadence of Religion. Sll 
 
 by confessed and countless abominations, seized upon selfish- 
 ness as the basis of rehgion, and expanded it to infinity. 
 Asceticism, darkening at once the teaching of Scripture, the 
 meaning of life, and the character of God, taught that 
 cehbacy 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 blind obedience to human traditions ; the 
 name of grace was confined to the mechanical operation of 
 perverted sacraments ; the name of truth to a mass of in- 
 fallible falsehoods ; the name of orthodoxy to the passive 
 repetition of traditional ignorance. The results were fright- 
 ful. There was mental coercion and moral disorder.^ 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." ^ 
 
 The necessary dehverance 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 Niirnberg, 
 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." 
 
 ' See Hampden, Bamplon Lectures, p. 38, 
 
 ' 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. Wichf 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.^ 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.^ 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." '^ 
 
 But there were others, who on different grounds from 
 these had in various directions contributed powerfully to the 
 Reformation, and had helped to form the views of Scripture 
 exegesis on which it so largely depended. 
 
 1. First among these we may mention Lorenzo Valla 
 (t 1465). Valla, a Canon of St. John Lateran, was not a 
 
 "^ See Ullmann, Reformers hefo-re the Efformatimi. Gieseler, v. 172-177. 
 
 2 " If 1 had read Wessel first, mine adversaries might have imagined that t 
 had taken everything from Wessel— arfco spiritus utriusque concordat."— 
 Werke, xiv. 220, ed. Walch (Pref. to Wessel). Wessel, in his Mare Magnum, 
 borrowed largely from Eupert of Deutz. 
 
 " Briefe, ed. De Wette, p. 42.5 ; Beard, EiUcrt Lectures, p. 30. 
 
Lorenzo Valla. 313 
 
 man of deep religious feelings, but he is one chief link 
 between the Kenaissance 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.^ 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.^ 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 ? " ^ Undaunted by the Papal power he showed 
 the spuriousness of the Donation of Constantino, in a 
 pamphlet repubHshed in 1517 by Ulric von Hutten.* He 
 expressed his doubts as to the genuineness of the works 
 attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite.' He denied the 
 fictions about the composition of the Apostles' Creed, j 
 He did not scruple to criticise St. Augustine '' and the I 
 Vulgate.'^ Above all he drew up Annotations on the New' 
 
 ' No one who has looked at Valla's works, especially at his disgraceful DrJ 
 Voluptate et Vera Bono, can liave the least sympathy with him as a man ; but 
 this must not blind us to his real services. On Valla see Oudin, Script. Ecd. 
 p. 2439 ; Fabric, Bibl. Led. vi. 282 ; Meyer, Gesch. dcr Schrifterkldr. i. 155. 
 
 ^ "Quern (Remigium) et item Thomam Aqninatem . . . ignaros omnino 
 linguae Graecae, miror ausos commentari Paulum Graece loquentem " {Amwtt. 
 in 1 Cor. ix. 26). 
 
 ' " Piream nisi id commenticium, nam cur eum Paulus non admonuit 
 erratormn .ncoriim, cum ob alia turn de ignorantia linguae graecae " {Amwtt. in 
 1 Cor. ix. 13 ; comp. in Acts xiii. 9.) 
 
 * Dante [In/em. xix. 115. Farad, xx. 55, De Monarch, ii. ad fin.) ; Wiclif, 
 {Trialog., Tracts and Treatise.s, ed. Vaughan, p. 174),and Ariosto(OrZ. Furioso, 
 xxviv. St. 80) alike protested against the effects of the Donation of Constantiuf. 
 Aeneas Sylvius (Pius II.) had even in 1443 expressed doubts of its authenticity 
 (Pez, Then. 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 Barouius gave up the "Donation" no one had a 
 word more to say. 
 
 " 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). 
 
 ' Annott. in John xviii. 28. 
 
 ' 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 httle rehgious or 
 spiritual interest, he recognised the supreme importance of 
 abandoning erroneous renderings and of ascertaining what the 
 
 i Apostles and Evangelists really wrote and really meant.^ 
 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,- 
 and Erasmus was so much struck with his Annotations, of 
 which he found a MS. in a monastic library at Brussels, 
 
 ^.tliat he republished them with a warm eulogy in 1.505, forty 
 years after the death of their author.^ 
 
 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.* 
 
 3. Still greater were the services of Reuchlin.^ 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 cruditio 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 ejirliest specimens of explanations 
 founded on the original language " {Lit. of Europe, i. 147) requires qualifica- 
 tion. 
 
 ^ " CoUatis aliqiwt vetusfis atque emendatis Graeconim, exemplaribus" 
 (Erasm. Ep. ciii.). 
 
 ^ When Cornelius Aurotinus called Valla " eorvus crocitans," Erasmas 
 said that he ought rather to have called him suadae medulla. 
 
 " It is anonymous, but there is little doubt that it is by him. 
 
 ° Luther wrote, " Fuisti tu sane organum consilii Dei." 
 
ReucJilhi. 315 
 
 devoted himself to the study of languages with the express 
 object of elucidating the Scriptures. ^ In one characteristic 
 sentence he gives us the secret of his great services : " Novum 
 Testamentum graece lego, Vettts hebraice, in cujus expositione 
 mala confidere meo qumn altcrius 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.^ Although his Eudimenta 
 LingiMC Hehraicae was preceded by the imperfect book of 
 Pellican, he had a right to conclude it with the verse, " Uxegi 
 monumcntum acre ■perennias!' So gxeat 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.^ His 
 grammar was mostly derived from David Qimchi, but in the 
 commentary on the seven penitential psalms he also consulted 
 the works of Eashi, Ibn Ezra, Saadia, Maimonides, Levi Ben 
 Gerson, and the Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos. * He 
 frequently corrects the Vulgate in favour of the Hehraica 
 Veritas. It is to be regretted that he should have wasted so 
 much time over the delusions of Kabbalism, ^ and this had 
 tlie 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 * and Hoog- 
 
 ' Beard, p. 43 ; see Geiger, JoJiann EnccMin, 1871. Chairs for Oriental 
 languages, with a view to laissionary work, had been formed in 1311, but till 
 Eeuchlin's time they had not produced much fruit. 
 
 ^ " Univcrsalem stipem quam discendo impendi, docendo acquisivi" 
 Praef. (ad fratrem). His desire to find the literal sense is emphasised in his 
 Se Accentibus. 
 
 ' The first edition was published at Pforzheim in 1506. 
 
 ^ When reproved for doing so he replied, '* Quamquam Hieron3mum veneror 
 nt angelum et J^yrani colo ut magistrnm, tamen . . . veritatem adoro ut 
 I)euni" {Proff. Rudim. Hcbr. lib. iii.). 
 
 ^ Dc Verba ilirifico, 1495; De ArU Kahbalistim, 1515. Erasmus wrote 
 to the Archbishop of Mainz, "Cabbala et Thalmud, quidquid }ioc est, meo 
 animo numiuam arrisit" {Ep. 477). Luther spoke of his Jewish Alfamzerei. 
 
 ^ 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 Eeuchlin'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 Fjnstolae Ohscurorum 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. ■"■ 
 
 4. But more than any man except Luther it was Desiderius 
 
 I Erasmus of Rotterdam, who in widening the knowledge of 
 
 1 Scripture advanced the cause of the Reformation. In the 
 
 I person of this brilliant humanist and admirable theologian 
 
 j " Greece rose from the dead with the New Testament in her 
 
 Lhand." There is no one whose writings show a more distinct 
 
 and decided emancipation from untenable traditions. His 
 
 cditio 2^i'i'>iccps of the New Testament (1516) " formed a 
 
 great epoch in the history of Western Ghristendijm, and 
 
 was a gift of incalculable value to the Church." ^ It was 
 
 to it that the English martyr Bilney owed his conversion. 
 
 TjTidale 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 hfe, 
 
 ere many years I will cause the boy that driveth the 
 
 I 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 155.5 ; Paul IV. in 1559 ; Pius V. in 1566 ; Clement VIII. in 
 1599. In 1307 Clement V. had shown greater wisdom by founding professor- 
 ships of Oriental languages in Paris, Salamanca, Bologna, and Oxford, in order 
 to learn what the Talmud really was (Constl. dementis V. in Cone. Fiennensi, 
 p. 277). lleuchlin said that to burn the book was a mere Bacehanten-argu- 
 raent. "On briilait le Talmud et quelquefois le Juif avec le Talmud " (Vict, 
 le Clere, Disc, sur I'Hist. Lit. de France). 
 
 ^ There was a story current, and by no means impossible, of a priest who 
 thought that Greek and the New Testament were two recent heresies. 
 
 = See AVestcott, 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 (HaUam, Lit. of Eur. i. 373 ; Milman, Lat Christ 
 vi, 439). 
 
Services of Erasmus. 817 
 
 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 comjDlete 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. ^ 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 arc consummate 
 Eabbis " ; 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." ^ 
 
 Erasmus had some right, then, to reject the taunt of 
 Stunica, Erasiaus luthcrissat, and to answer that in truth 
 lAitlunis erasmissat. The fame of his ability, the brilliancy 
 of his wit, the force of his learning, the vivacity and 
 manhness 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 ^ he helped to 
 break down the extravagant belief in their authority. He 
 freely and forcibly exposes the mistakes and ignorance of the 
 
 ' Praef. in Paraphr. Jf'ittJi. How rapidly and thoroughly his hopes were 
 fulfilled may be seen by the complaint of Oochlaeus {Be Act. et Script. M. 
 Lutheri, ad ami. 1522), that even cobblers and women, quilibet idiotae, knew 
 the New Testament by heart, and carried it in their pockets. 
 
 ^ The Complutensiau Polyglot was printed in 1514, but not published till 
 1620. The second edition of Erasmus's New Testament was published iu 
 1518. In later editions (1522, 1527, 1535) he consulted the Complutensian. 
 
 ' Ireuaeus, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom 
 and others. 
 
318 Services of Erasmus. 
 
 Schoolmen.! 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 ^ and 
 Aquinas ^ made serious mistakes ; that Hugo of St, Cher was 
 full of grotesque misinterpretations ; * 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 huma.n and full of glaring imperfections.^ 
 Nor is this all. He expressly repudiates the exegetic in- 
 fallibility not only of the Pope but even of Churches.^ He 
 never hesitates to reject a so-called " Scripture proof" when 
 it seemed to him to be misapplied or untenable, ' nor to 
 retain a Scripture phrase even though it might seem liable 
 to abuse. * 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, 
 
 ' 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." 
 
 " See his note on the pudcndus lapsus of the Master of the Sentences 
 {TrapaSnyixaTiaai -rem habere cum sponsa) in Matt. i. 19 (see his notes onEom. 
 i. 4 ; 1 Cor. i. 10 ; 1 Cor. vii. 42 ; 1 Tim. ii. 21, v. 18, &c.). 
 
 ' He blames the confidence with which Ac^uinas " 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 Sutnma weakened Erasmus's original 
 estimate of Aquinas. See Seebohm, Os-f. Reformers, p. 110. 
 
 " 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, "Eatenns 
 debetur Sanctis viris reverentia, ut siquid errarint, nam errant ct sarwti, citia 
 personae contumeliam veritati patrocinemur. " 
 
 " Anrwtt in 1 Cor. vii. 39 ; 2 Cor. x. 8 ; 1 Tim. i. 7. 
 
 ' See on Matt. ii. 5 ; Rom. v. 12 ; Phil. ii. 6 ; 1 Tim. i. 17 ; 1 John v. 7, 20. 
 
 '^ See his note on Matt. xxiv. 36. 
 
His Courage. r>19 
 
 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 lest 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.^ 
 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.- 
 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 wiUingly 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.^ 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- 
 mg of recognised truth, because, after hearing two preachers 
 
 ^ He bravely took Lutlier's part for some time {Ep, 513), as even Luther 
 admitted (De Wette, i. 241, 396.) Erasmus ui'ged his schoolfellow Pope 
 Adrian VI. to mildness and concessions, and he says, "Romae me faciunt 
 Lutheranum," Ep. 667. 
 
 ^ " Videor mihi 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). 
 
 ' See Ep. in (ad Campegium), A D. 1519. 
 
"20 His Paraphrases. 
 
 on the same day, he had remarked that neither of them 
 understood his subject.^ His Colloquies were burnt in Spain 
 and put on the Index at Eome. He was censured by the 
 Theological Faculty of Paris, and among the many who 
 attacked him was Caranza, who published a book called, The 
 Jjlasphcmics and Impkiics of Erasmus? 
 
 Erasmus may be regarded as the chief founder of modem 
 textual and Biblical criticism. He must always hold an 
 honoured place among the interpreters of Scripture. Tn his 
 Paraphrases, which Luther bitterly called Para'phroneses, 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.^ 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.* 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 possibihty 
 of trivial errors and discrepancies in the sacred writers.^ He 
 usefully illustrates the form into which our Lord sometimes 
 threw His teaching. He did not confuse inspiration with 
 
 ' Ep. vi. p. 344, and xxii. Ep. 31 ; Rosenmiiller, v. 432. 
 
 ^ The letter of Dorpius to Erasmus, in which he argues that the Vulgate 
 must be free from error becausa the Church had accepted it, is a specimen of 
 common a priori reasoning. Erasmus in his reply said, " You follow in the 
 steps of those inilgar divines who attribute ecdrsiastical authority to whakxiT 
 creepn 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. 
 
 ^ Dedieat. Paraphr. in Ep. ad Bom. Herder said thath's Paraphrases vteie 
 worth their weight in gold. Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Tregelles do justice 
 to his merils. 
 
 * 1 John V. 7. 
 
 ' Annotl. in Luke xxii. 36 ; John ii. 19, 20, &c. 
 
His IndejKiidencc. 321 
 
 supernatural infallibility in expressions and details.^ " Christ 
 alone," he said, " is called the Truth. He alone was free from 
 all error." He allowed for the human element in Scripture. 
 His views on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 on St. James, and on the Apocalypse, have found wide 
 acceptance among recent scholars. In the matter of allegory 
 he vacillates. It is not indeed often that he countenances it 
 by his example,^ but he made the two unfortunate observations , 
 that without a mystic sense the Book of Kings would be no; 
 more profitable than Livy,^ 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."* Robert Stephens, in his Apologia, (\\\otes 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 
 
 ' Passus est errare suos Christus etiam post acceptum Paracletum sed non 
 usque ad iidei perieuhiin. See Drummond, Erasmus, i. 307. Compare the 
 remark in his Ratio Verae Theologiue, and on Colet's views, in Opji. iii. 459. 
 
 - Yet he allegorises the raising of Jairus' daughter. EaJes. ed. 1730, pp. 70, 
 sqg. We may be proud of the influence of C'olet over Erasmus. 
 
 ' Eiichirid. Mil. Christ, ed. 1523, leaf rj. 2. In this passage the " mysterium 
 in Uteris omnibus" is insisted on. See too De Cupia rerum (ed. 1545, p. 165) ; 
 Ik tedio et parore Christi (ed. 1515, p. 128) ; Frarf. m Annott. (ed. 1535) ; 
 Ennarratio in. Ps. Ixxxvi. (ed. 1652, p. 19). Yet he ridicules the ahusc of 
 allegory in ^Mom. Moriae and Instit. Principis Cliristiani (ed. 1628, p. 121). 
 For these references I am indebted to the kindness of the Kev. J. H. 
 Lupton. 
 
 * Bellarmine, De Bum. Poniif. iv. 12. Melanchthon says, " Itali cUatiit 
 'Bonus est grammatieus ; ergo est fiaercticus '" (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," vet estimated him highly as a 
 grammarian (Ep. ad Spalat. 1518 ; Brirfc, iv. 507 ; Tisthrcdcn, ii. 402, 419). 
 
 T 
 
322 A Pioneer. 
 
 of the Sentences, the soiDhist Aristotle, and the Mahometan 
 Averroes." ^ 
 
 The work then which Erasmus achieved, and achieved with 
 brilliant ability and no mean courage, was the work of a 
 pioneer. He had no desire to break wholly with the past. 
 He was a man of cosmopolitan sympathies ; a theologian, yet 
 the prince of Humanists ; a pitiless exposer of 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 Moriac. "Erasmus est homo pro se" is the 
 definition given of him in the Epistolae obscurorum virorwrn. 
 " Words without deeds," " Verba non res," was Luther's severe 
 judgment of him. But "words" are often the most powerful 
 of deeds, and Erasmus was fully entitled to the praise 
 that he had made the path easy for all who followed him. 
 " We by our diligence," he says, " have smoothed a road which 
 previously was rugged and troublesome, but in which hence- 
 forth great theologians may ride more easily with steeds and 
 chariots. We have levelled the soil of the arena, in which, 
 with fewer obstacles, they may now display those splendid 
 processions of their wisdom. We have cleansed with harrows 
 the fallow land which heretofore was impeded with briars and 
 burs. We have swept away the impediments, and opened a 
 field wherein they who may hereafter wish to explain the 
 secrets of Scripture may either j)lay together with greater 
 freedom, or join battle with more convenience." 
 
 5. God endows His chosen instruments with such gifts as 
 they specially need. It required a personality far different 
 from that of Erasmus to bring about that emancipation of 
 Christendom from sacerdotal tyranny and false exegesis which 
 was the essence of the Reformation.^ Revolutions have 
 
 1 See similar remarks quoted in Seebohm, Oxford Efformers, ch. ii. 
 
 '■^ Erasmus said, "Ego peperi ovum gallinaceum, LutJienis cxdusit pulhm 
 longe dissimilUmwm." {Epp. iii. p. 840) ; " Videor mihi fere omnia docuisse 
 quae docrt Luilwrus " (Letter to Zwingli) ; " Qtdd mihi eum causa Gapnionis ti 
 Lvihcrif" (Ep. 477) ; see Beard, Hibhcrt Lectures, p. 69. In 1520 Erasmus 
 writes to Leo X., " Lutherum non novi, nee libros illius umquam legi, nisi 
 forte d.ecan aut d,uodccim ixigdlas, casque eaptiin." Could this be true? 
 
Inither. 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 Luthee. 
 
 Luther was the "intensified self" of the German nation.i 
 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 7 
 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 evangdicam 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,^ yet that single work would have proved to be a 
 
 ^ &&tD'6\\mg&T,KirchcundKirchmthum,ZiQ ; Corner, Proi. TAeoZ. i. 81-125. 
 
 "- 1519. Ee-edited in 1524, and 1535. Luther say.s " F.s ist Dolmetscheu 
 
 nicht einer jeglichen Kunst ; es gehort dazu ein recht from, ti'eu, fleisig, 
 
 T 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/ and in 
 his Prefaces and in all his other works he enunciated rules to 
 which the complete revolution of exegetic methods in modem 
 times has been principally due. 
 
 There are four well-marked stages of his religious 
 advance — 
 
 1. Till the age of twenty-six (A.D. 1508) he studied 
 scholasticism, and the Scntentiarii. He could almost repeat 
 Gabriel Biel and Peter of Alliacum by heart and was an 
 eager student of Occam;" but he knew no Greek and no 
 Hebrew, and had read no more of the Bible than the 
 Church lessons.8 His incessant study of the Vulgate, which 
 he found in the library of his monastery at Erfurt, caused him 
 even then to be suspected of heterodoxy; but he was still 
 imprisoned in the bonds of ecclesiastical tradition, was 
 content with the secondhand fancies of the Glossa Ordinaria, 
 and had only begun to grasp the importance of the verse 
 which influenced his life, " The just shall live hy faith." 
 
 2. For ten years more (1509-1517), though he lectured on 
 
 furchtsam, christlich, gelehrt, erfahren, gelibt Herz" (Sensdchr. vom 
 Dohnetschcn). 
 
 ' The cases in which he shewed dogmatic bias (2 Sam. xxiii. 1 ; Ps. Ixviii. 
 12, 19 ; Rom. v. 28 (allein inich den Glauben), Eph. iv. 16 {wnd das allcs) are 
 honourably few (see Reuss, Gcsch. 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 ; maiTiage, 1525 ; Augsburg confession, 1530 ; Articles of Smalcald, 
 1537 ; death, 1546. 
 
 - " 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. 
 
 ' See Jurgens, Luther's Lcben, i. 487. " Von dreissig Jahren war die Bibel 
 unbekannt. . . Da ich zwanzig Jahr alt war hatte ich noch keine geselien. 
 Ich meinete es waren keine Evangelia noch Episteln mehr dcnn dU in den Poa- 
 tillcn sind. Endlioh fand ich in der Liberei in Erfurt eine Bibel, die las ich 
 oft mit grosser Vervmndcrung Dr. Staupitzen." Tischreden, iii. 229. See too 
 Mathesius, Leien d. M. Luther Erste Fred. p. 6. In spite of what Dr. Maitland 
 says (Darh 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 
 u-hich deserved death hy 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 {Antiharb. BUI. 
 ii. 7) and of Linacre in Balaeus, Cent. 8. 
 
His Grotvth. 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."- 
 
 '3. The next four years (1518-1521) were marked by a 
 great advance.^ 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 /Merdvoia, and meant something much 
 more than, and very different from penaTice, brought home to 
 him with a tumult of joy and conviction the indispensable 
 necessity of reverting to the original languages of Scripture.^ 
 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. 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.^ 
 
 What are those principles ? 
 vi. First among them was the supreme and final authority 
 of Scripture itself, apart from all ecclesiastical authority 
 or interference. This was with Luther a HauptfuTida- 
 
 ' See Werke, xxxv. 24 (Erlang.). The Erfurt monks told Mm that Scrip- 
 ture was an obscure confused mass, and that he should go to Fathers and 
 Schoolmen {Tischreden, Ixxii. 108, Erlang.). He became a Doctor in 1512. 
 In 1516, he wrote to J. Lange, " Pars crucis meae vel maxima est quod videre 
 cogor fratnun ingenia ' m istis coenis ' (Aristotle, &c. ) vitam agere et operam 
 perdere." In his theses in defence of Augustinianism (1517) the 41st was 
 *' Totafere Aristotelis ethica pessima gratiae iniviica." 
 
 ^ 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 Eeformation principles. See "Weiszacker in Herzog. 
 ^ ' Briefe, i. 116 (ed. De Wette). Up to that time he says that he had dis- 
 liked Nicolas of Lyra, because of his attention to the literal sense ; " sed nunc 
 hanc ipsam ob commendationem omnibus fere Scripturae interpretibus eum 
 antepono." 0pp. Exeget. Lat. ii. 320. 
 
 * To this period belong his Operationes in Psahnos, "the first scientifically 
 exegetic book of the Eeformation." 
 
 ' He began to translate the N.T. in 1521, using Erasmus's edition and the 
 Ynlgate {Briefe, ii. 123-176).:^ His invaluable Prefaces may be read m the Ixiii. 
 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 iirst 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.^ 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." ^ 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 
 Verhum sed fit Verio." 
 
 ' Vine. Ler. Commonitor, Ep. 2 ; " Interprctationis linea secundum ecelesim- 
 lici et catholici scnsiis iwrmam dirigatur." The rule was formally reafErmeJ 
 by tte 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 sensHS 
 Scripturaeet omnium coritroversiarum 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 Kewton, 
 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. 
 
 "- See Fabricius, Loci Commun. M. iMtheri, i. 120, Kostlin, Luther's TheoUgie, 
 i. 272-278. BeUarmine said, "Summiim judicium esse summiPontificis." De 
 Verb. Dei, iv. 1. 
 
The Literal Sense. 327 
 
 ii. Secondly he asserted not only the supreme authority u 
 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." ^ 
 
 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." ^ 
 "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 weU-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 ummi, simplicem, gcrmanum, ct certtim 
 sensum litercdem." " 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 ^ that the 
 
 ' " Salvia 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 " ijuod semper, 
 quod nhique," &c., that " it is hardly available now." 
 
 ^ 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." Pmef. 
 in Cani. ; and on Gen. xvi. 
 
 ' 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 inteUigeniia destroyed the whole mean- 
 ing of Scripture and deprived it of any certain sense at all, 
 I while it left room for the most extravagant perversions, and 
 I became a subtle method for transferring to human fallibility 
 ]^ what belonged exclusively to the domain of revelation. 
 I iv. It need hardly be said, therefore, that Luther, like most 
 ! of the Keformers, rejected the validity of allegory .^ He 
 1 totally denied its claim to be regarded as a spiritual 
 ' interpretation. "An interpreter," he said, "must as mucli 
 as possible avoid allegoiy, that he may not wander in 
 idle dreams." " Origen's allegories are not worth so 
 much dirt." " Allegories are empty speculations, and as 
 it were the scum of Holy Scripture." "Allegory is a sort 
 of beautiful harlot, who proves herself specially seductive 
 to idle men." " To allegorise is to j uggle with Scripture." 
 " Allegorising may degenerate into a mere monkey-game 
 (Affensjnel)." "Allegories are awkward, absurd, invented, 
 •obsolete, loose rags." ^ Since Paul, after furnishing a proof, 
 had borrowed an illustration from allegory, we may use them 
 as mere spangles and pretty ornaments {Schmuch und schone 
 Spangen), but nothing more.^ 
 1 V. Luther also maintained the pierspicvAty of Scripture, that 
 is, its pcrspicuitas finalis in the chief matters which pertain to 
 / the Law and Gospel. He sometimes came near to the modem 
 remark that, " the Bible is to be interpreted like any other 
 
 quaerendam esse. Nam oratio quae iion liahet uiiam ac siinplicem sententiam 
 nihil docct." Elsewhere he .says that it produces a prodigiosa metamor- 
 phosis in tlie meaning of Scripture. For other quotations see Flacius, Olmis 
 Sacr. Scripturac (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 seventeentli 
 by J. and L. Cappellus, L. de Dieu, Liglitfoot, Arminius, Grotius, Episcopins, 
 Clericus, and many others. Even Cajetan (t 1534) avoids allegory and 
 m^oymdiS juxta sensum literalem. Dedic. ad Carol, v. 
 
 '- He speaks more temperately in his TaMe Talk (see Hazlitt's Transl. pp. 
 326-328. See too Beza on Gal. iv. 22-31). 
 
 5 These remarks are chiefly found in Luther's Comm. in Gen. iii., xv., xxx. 
 See Fabricius, Loe. Comm., i. 73, sq. and Ojip. Lat. vii. 37. He is least true to 
 his own principle in the comments on Job, I'salms, and Canticles, and is by no 
 means always consistent. 
 
Pers2ncuity 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." ^ 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 
 mahce and pravity, or with Melanchthon to " mere petulance 
 and diabohcal 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 sententiac. We can only say with Chry- 
 sostom, irdvTa ra avajKata S-^Xa.^ 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 lorivate 
 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- - 
 fill religion. He felt that the Christian especially is not 
 peiTaitted 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 
 
 ' Answer to Emser. See Kostlin, 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 says that those com- 
 mentators were to be preferred who were farthest removed from the literal sense. 
 Jeremy Taylor (Liberty of Prophesyimj, IVorks, 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.^ 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 
 lepexx; with the Christian minister, was, in Luther's opinion 
 a defiance alike of the whole letter and spirit of the New 
 Testament. The word of God was a word not to the clerisy, 
 and not for the sole interpretation of the clerisy, but a word 
 to all.2 He held that the Holy Spirit was given to all 
 Christians, and therefore that the laity had a higher function 
 than merely to register the decrees and interpretations of a 
 ministerial class. 
 
 There was nothing which Luther found it more difficult to 
 maintain with unflinching faithfulness than this indefeasible 
 right to private judgment. He was sorely tried by the 
 excesses of individual opinion. The doctrine of tolerance was 
 
 ^ It is needless to repeat that Upeiis is never used in the New Testament of 
 Christian ministers, hut 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). 
 
 - 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 Zwingli, 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 difiBculty by 
 "a consensus of pious men," i which was only another way of 
 re-enthroning the fallibihty of councils, and of restoring 
 that external dictation of the sense of Scripture which Luther 
 in his letter to the Pope had expressly repudiated.^ Calvin, 
 too naturally dictatorial to admit the right of individual 
 judgment, talked with futility about a " synod of true 
 Bishops."^ But Luther, like a true man, held fast to the 
 claim of Christian Uberty. 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 
 um-easoning 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." * 
 
 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 
 
 ' " Interpretatio est donum piorum " Melanchthon's Loci Ccrnifmrnts, p. 369. 
 Unless " interpretatio " be confined to the appreliension of spiritual truths, 
 which is a totally different thing from the exegesis of a very large part of the 
 Old, and even of the New Testament, the remark is absolutely untrue. 
 
 ^ 1520. "Leges interpretandi verbum Dei non patior." See Kostlin, 
 Luther's Theologie, ii. 63. Bunsen, God in Eistory, iii. 199-201. 
 
 ' Calvin, Inst. iv. 9, § 13. The only test of a " true " Bishop would have 
 beeo one who accepted the views of Calvin. 
 
 * 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 
 Hacius, Clavis, i. 472. " De interpretatione lis est, penes quem ea potet,tas 
 sit! 'Resyonsio est unu'mq^iemque piorum . . habere jus interpretandi. " 
 
332 Rules of Interpretatiori. 
 
 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 enhght- 
 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 infalhble authority for the interpretation of the Bible, and 
 in the face of the age-long mistakes of even the hohest men 
 it is nothing short of sj)iritual arrogance to put forth such a 
 claim. It requires faith, it requires the aid of the Holy 
 Spirit, so to read the Holy Scriptures as to attain that best 
 end which the reading of them serves — namely, to become 
 thereby wise unto salvation. But when we speak of the whole 
 Bible we speak of the national literature of many hundreds 
 of years, and throughout by far the largest part of the sacred 
 writings the decision of what the authors say and mean, apart 
 from its personal application, pertains far less to piety than to 
 grammar, intelligence, unbiassed candour, historical knowledge 
 and literary tact. 
 
 (2) Analogia fidci — the proportion of faith- — is a watch- 
 word which occurs hundreds of times in the writings of the 
 Reformers.^ As is the case with nine out of every ten 
 
 ' 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 misappUcation 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 Kai-a ttjv dvaXoyiav ttj<; Triarew;, 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.^ This phrase was first , 
 inaccurately used to mean Analogia Scrijjiurae — the rule J 
 that we ought to explain Scripture in accordance with 
 Scripture.^ 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 i^ 
 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.^ Homiletically 
 indeed the rule is true. The end of the law is Christ. He 
 is the hid treasure and the pearl of great price.^ 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. 
 ' 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 
 A thought, is the most cuiTent cause of going wrong." 
 
 I- ^ S. Thorn. Aquin., Summ. Ima. qu. i. art. 10. "Cum Veritas unius 
 
 r Scripturae ostenditur veritati alterius non repugnare." In old writers "the 
 
 analogy of faith " was used as a practical synonym for the " regula fidei." 
 
 Iren. Baer. ii. 47 ; Aug. Be Cons. Ev. i. 1 ; De Civ. Dei, ii. 13 ; e. Fauslin. 
 ; ii. 6 ; Tert. Enchirid. 56. 
 
 ' 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 C'vnc. 
 
 Trident. Sess. iv. 
 ^ Auch ist das der rechte Priifestein alle Biicher zu tadeln, wenn man siehet 
 
 ob sie Christum treiben oder nicht," Wcrlce, Ixiii. 157. On this rule see 
 * Flacius, Clavis S. Script, p. 7, andSchleiermacher, Hcrmeneutik, § 13. 
 % 5 "■\yij. erleuchten die alte Heilige Schrift durch das Evangelium," IVcrlc, 
 
 ' iv. 1728. " Here (in the O.T.) shalt thou find the swaddling-clothes and the' 
 i 
 
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.i When 
 Luther reads the doctrines of the Trinity, and the Incarna- 
 tion, and Justification by Faith, and Eeformation dogmatics 
 and polemics, into passages written more than a thousand 
 years before the Christian era — when, in a spirit worthy of 
 
 ' B,. Aqiba himself, he infers the Divinity of the Messiah and 
 the " Communication of Idioms " from the particle nx in 
 Gen. V. 22,^ 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.^ 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. Pocrr and of little value are the swaddliiig- 
 clothes, but dear is Christ the treasure that lies in them." Pref. to O.T. of 
 1523. "Externa variant, interna trument." In Ps. xx. " Quodsi adversarii 
 Scripturam urserintcontra Christum, nos urgemus Christum contra Scriptu- 
 ram." 
 
 ^ " There is nothing more miserable as specimens of perverted ingenuity than 
 the attempts of certain commentators and preachers to iind remote and re- 
 condite and intended aUusions 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). , 
 
 - He renders the words D'H^XnTIN 'n.?nri*, " amhilavit Deum," a.nA. imis 
 in it the eommimicatio idiomatum, but not by the Understanding, which is only 
 FMUchloch und Schlaffenlande. See his explanation of the last words of 
 David, 1543. 
 
 ^ 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). 
 ■ ■• Lyra and Eashi are traceable throughout, and in his polemical remarks on 
 iv. 11 ; V. 22 ; xv. 7, &o., Simon says, "U. n'a le plus souvent consulte que 
 les prejuges dont il etait rempli." See Luther's notes on Gen. i. 26 ; ii. 7, 
 14 ; iii. 21 ; iv. 1 ; xi. 7-9 ; Num. vi. 22 ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, &c. Siegfried, 
 Bashi's Einfluss, &c. (Merx, Archiv, i. 432). Yet Luther praised Hilary's 
 rule ' ' Optirrms 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 Indep&ndencv . 335 
 
 towards the Bible which made him " the most radical critic 
 of the Church of the Reformation." ^ We cannot find the 
 New Testament in the ordinary historic narratives of the Old 
 mthout large recourse to some form or other of the figurative 
 interpretation which Luther had so decisively rejected. He j 
 drew a deep distinction between this method of making 1 
 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." ^ He has little 
 to say of the Book of Esther.^ He saw the complete historic 
 inferiority of the Books of Chronicles as compared with the 
 Books of Kings.* 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.^ 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- 
 
 ^ Keim, Jem von Nazara, i. 142 (E. T.). On this subject see Kostlin, 
 Uither's Theologie, ii. 258-285. 
 
 ■ " Die rechten gewissen Hauptbiiclier des N.T." 
 
 ' "Ich bin dem Buche (2 Maoo.) und Esther so feind dass ich wollte sie 
 wiiren gar nicht vorhanden, denn sie judenzen zu sehr und haben viel heidn- 
 ischer IJnart." See TKcrfe, Ixiii. 93-104. 
 
 * He only regarded the Books of Kings as "a Jewish Calendar." Tisch- 
 rcden, iv. 405. 
 
 » Wcrke, Ixui. 35-41. 
 
336 The Canon. 
 
 plexed by the story of Jonah. He regarded the Book of 
 Job as a drama in glorification of resignation.^ 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." ^ He believed the Epistle of St. Jude to be un- . 
 necessary, second-hand, and non-apostolic.^ He called the 
 Epistle of St. James a right strawy epistle and one which 
 flatly (stracls) contradicted St. Paul, and he did not believe 
 it to be viritten by an Apostle at all.* 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." ' 
 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, " rairum in modum csther- 
 issat ct mardocJdssat." 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 
 U]D 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 
 
 ^ IVcrkc, Ixiii. 25 jf. "Like the comedies of Terence," Tusuhreden, iii. 130. 
 ^ He was the first to make tlie brilliant and now commonly-accepted con- 
 jecture that it was written by Apollos. He thought it a hardknot that this 
 Epistle " stracks verneinet und versagt die Busse den Sfiudern," and that 
 Heb. xii. 17, " wie es lauter scheinet, wider alle Evangelia und Epistein S. 
 Pauli zii seyn." See Knstlin, LutJier's Tlieol. ii. 272. 
 
 ' " Eine unnotliige Epistel unter die Hauptbiicher zu rechnen." 
 * " Denn sie doch keine evangelische Art an ihr hat " (Kostlin, ii. 257.) 
 '' In some of these views he was preceded by C'arlstadt, and followed by 
 Melanchthon, Flacius(CfaBi's, ii. 46), Calvin, the Magdeburg Centuriators, and 
 even Cajetan. But criticism of the canon is as old as the Eabbis. Some of 
 them had doubts about Job, Esther, Ezekiel (Shabbath, f. 1.3, 2), and the Song 
 of Solomon (Yadaim, Iii. 5 ). 
 
Spiritual Confidence. 337 
 
 Christians." i " When a contradiction occurs in Holy Scrip- 
 ture," he says, " so let it go." ^ 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." ^ 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 Auajustine. 
 
 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 io 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.^ They arose not from rationalism 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 Mj-sticism 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 tod 
 trivial for their acceptance. Luther had little need for such 
 expedients. With him faith and the Scrijjtures were not 
 
 ' See Kostlin, ii. 78, sq., 2,58, sq.\ Diestel, pp. 2.50, 2.51. 
 
 ^ He expresses his indifference to small points of variation in the Gospels 
 (Werkc, xliv. 174). 
 
 'We may refer generally to his remarks on Heh. ii. 13; Gal. iv. 
 22, &c. 
 
 * The charge is first found in Erause, Opusc. p. 199. 
 
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.^ No one 
 has used stronger language than this so-called rationahst 
 against the unwarranted and exclusive reliance on the human 
 understanding.^ 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 ihoti, brinr/est out of them ivhai h 
 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 laave 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 
 equahse 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 advancingf noon of 
 knowledge, must certainly depend. 
 
 1 Dorner, i. 250. 
 
 ^ He calls Reason " a poisonous beast with many dragon's heads ; " "old 
 Madam Weather- witch " {rlic alte Frau TFcUcrjiiachcn'ii.) ; "a devil's bride;" 
 "a beautiful strumpet;" "a mangy, leprous harlot," &c., IFcrh:, viii. 
 294 ; xii. 1530, 1533, 1537 (Beard, p. 156). It did not strike him that such 
 language is absurd. Even at Worms he saw that he must be refuted out of 
 Scripture or " cvidentissimis rationibus." But by "reason" he sometimes 
 meant the purely psychical "understanding." 
 
Luther's Principles. 339 
 
 I. One of these is that the Word of Gud is not to he regarded 
 as identical and eocxtcnsiiv with the Holy Scriptures} He m- 
 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.^ 
 
 II. His view of Inspiration was not vcrlal^ The Bible was 1 
 not to him a stereotj'ped 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, Ijut that His illumination produced in the * 
 minds of their writers the knowledge of salvation, so that 1 
 divine truth had been expressed in human form, and the j 
 knowledge of God had become a j^ersonal possession of man. j 
 The actual writing was a human not a supernatural act.^ It 
 had been accomplished in full human consciousness, and not 
 as the Alexandrians taught, in a spasm of self-annihilating 
 ecstasy. Tlie 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 
 
 ' Biestel (p. 2S3) says that the idnilificnlion of the Bible with the Word of 
 God (of course he means afttr the Keformation) is fiist found in G. Majjr, iJc 
 Origine VcrbiDci, IS.oO. t^ee lieppe, Alt. Prot. Dogmatilc, i. 257. 
 
 - Dorner, i. 244. He did not regard all the Bible as one ecjually divine 
 Book, hut as a living organism. See liis remarks on Jolin v. 311, and Eomberg, 
 Vic Lclm Luthfr's ton den hcil. Schrifl (Wittenb. 1S6S), p. 5. 
 
 ^ H'erkr.. xxii. 654, Erlang. " Gesetz und Evangelium sind zwei gauz 
 widerwartige Dinge die sich mit odtr nebea einander nicht leiden oder vi v- 
 tragen kcinnen." He spoke of some parts of the ceremonial law as "gleich 
 niirrisch und vergeblich anzusehen." He recognises in the living whole of 
 scripture " edlere und minder edle Glieder, fundamentale und nicht funda- 
 mentale Glaubenslehrcn," Romberg, p. 15. 
 
 * Hence he even speaks of Eeclesiasticus as "Holy Scripture" written Ijy 
 some poet or prophet " aus (lc>/i Heiliffcn Grist" ( I'orrGirn zu den Bibl. Biirherji). 
 " Luther die gottliche offenharung nicht als mrclinni.'xJm Mittlwilung iibernatui - 
 lieher Erkenntniss sondern als dynamische Lebensentwicklungauffassi," Rom- 
 berg, 27. 
 
 * From this strong recognition of the human clement, he speaks of Joel as 
 "ein gutiger und sanfter Mann ; " and says of .\mos, " Er ist aber auch heftig 
 und schilt das Volk Israel fast durch das ganze Buch aus . . dass er wchl 
 mag hcissen Amos, d. i. eine Last, oder der schwer und verdriesslich ist" 
 
 z 2 
 
040 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 aberrations, so the same 
 Spirit may dilate and illumine the faculties of a writer while 
 it left him in all respects a human writer still.^ 
 
 / III. Once more, he held that the Wonl of God is not in the 
 Scrijifiircs 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 foi-gotten that He speaks 
 to them still, though neither then nor now does He raise the 
 finite to the caiaacities 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. A.': 
 Zwingli said, " He who is born of the Spirit is no longer 
 solely dependent on a book." ^ 
 
 ^ Hence he admits the existence of (imiraportant) chronological and historic 
 errors. Komberg, p. 16 ; Dorner, i. 2.55. " Jumh}j<i ddirac." See Kostlin, ii. 257. 
 
 - "In the deepest meaning of the essential and only truth . . all things 
 in the world are only variously-embodied vords of the Creator, inasmuch as 
 by this mighty word alone they are ujiheld in being. Hence "13^ and ^ij/na in 
 Scripture signify both word and thing." — Stier, Hoards of the Lord Jems, 
 i. .38. Raymond of Sabieude (1430) was one of the first to recognise (in his 
 7'lirvlotjia NatuTu.lis] that Xature is a Book of Ciod. See the thought 
 developed in Bacon, De Augm. S'ciciit. (ed. Spcdding, i. 149). 
 
 ' Zwingli, 0pp. ii. p. 2.50 ('if. Schuler and .'^chultliess) np. Dorner, i. 290. 
 " I'iety is a fact and an experience, not a doctrine or a science." O^fp. iii. iOt 
 
Other Reformers. 34-1 
 
 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 limg results of Christian time, and they 
 furnished to the principles of manly Christian exegesis a 
 more vahiable 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." -^ Carlstadt," 
 Seh. Franck,^ Denck,'' even theunhai^py Miintzer^ helped for- 
 ward the cause of a truer interpretation. ZwiNGLi, with ' 
 absolute independence, had arrived at i ipinions on this subject 
 which in all essential j^articulars 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- 
 
 ' See Thilo, Melanchthon im Ilicvsfr an hciligrr Sdirift, Berlin, 1860. fi. 
 T. Strobel, Hist. Lilt. Nnchrirjit von Phil. Milunchthon's i'mlicnstcn um die 
 hcilige Schrift, Altdorf, 1773. (t:i11c, Versuch. eincr Charnldiristik Mclanch- 
 Ihiins, Halle, 1840. Melanchthon's most impnrtant services as an exegete 
 were philological and theological. He says, " Ignavus in grammatica est 
 ignavus in theologia." J'lidili. iv. 428. 
 
 ^ See his Lihcllus de Ormmicis Scripturii, Augsb. 1520 ; Dorner, i. 126-132. 
 
 ' "To the devout," he said, "all is an open book, wherein he lenrns 
 more from the creatures and work of God than a godless man out of all 
 Bibles." "Antichrist, who is nowtiredof the Pope . . will jiut on another 
 disguise, and . . be more learned in Scripture than we. . . Many are making 
 an idol of Scripture." "The Scripturr.s ate onlj' the shell, cradle, sheath, 
 lantern, court, letter, veil, and surrounding of the IVurd of (Jnd, which is the 
 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. 
 
 ^ "He regarded the world as the great word of God, and individuals as 
 letters of the word." Id. i. 191. "I estwrn the Holy Scriptures," he said, 
 "above all human treasures ; but 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, iSch. Franck. 
 
 ^ Dorner, i. 135-139. 
 
M2 Other Refonnirs. 
 
 tural instruction! A host of Eeformation expositors en- 
 deavoured to spread the truths to which they had been led 
 by the German and Swiss Reformers. It will be sufScient 
 here merely to mention the names of Oecolampadius (tl581), 
 Bucer (tl551), Brenz (tl570), Bugenhagen (tlooS), Muscu- 
 lus (11563), Camerarius (11574), Bulhnger (t]575), Chemnitz 
 (tl586), and Beza (tl605). 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 aUegory ;- 
 a study of the origmal languages ; a close attention to the 
 literal sense ; a belief in the perspicuity and sufficiency of 
 Scripture ; the study of Scrijiture as a whole, and the refer- 
 ence of its total contents to Christ. These i^rinciples were 
 followed in many writings and commentaries, and found their 
 clearest statement and most systematic development in the 
 C'lavis Scripturae Sacrac of Flacius Illyricus.^ 
 
 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 inspiretl 
 natural horror. They dislike the tyranny of theocratic sacer- 
 dotalism which he established at Geneva. Nevertheless his 
 Commentaries, almost alone among those ui his epoch,^ are still 
 
 ^ Corner, i. 2S7 290 "The Scriptures are in his view chiefly the revelation 
 or mnnoruil of the will of Gorl." 
 
 ^ Flacius, Glai-is, Prarf, Matthias Flacius Illyricus (t 1575) was-oue of 
 the most learned theologians among the early Lutherans, and his Clavis 
 Scripturae Sacrasis, full of learning and vigour. In the dedication there is a 
 hiief hut clear sketch of the previous epochs of exi'gp.sis. Klan.sen (ifi.'/T«''». 
 ■2;17-241) gives an outline of its general principles. Du-stel (p. 953), who says 
 that they are little more than a mixture of Jerome, Augustine, and Luther, 
 hardly does him justice. 
 
 ^ The Reformation period produced hosts of commentators — Luther, ildinnh- 
 thon, Zwiugli, Musculns, Pellicanus, Ohytraeu.1, Brenz, Bii^enliagen, 
 IJuUinger, Beza, Bucer, Mercer, Camerarius, and many more. Calvin was 
 more indebted to Bucer than any one else. In his Dedication to the ffospf? 
 Harmony he says, " Bucernm piaesertim . . eximium Fcdesiae dcctnrcin sum 
 imitatii.s." The opinions of Beza iuid gieat weight with our English refornicis, 
 
Calvin. 343 
 
 a living force.^ Tliey 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 iuconsecjuent and iu jiart retrogressive view 
 of inspiration, the manner in which he explains away 
 every passage which runs counter to his dogmatic pre- 
 possessions ^ — in spite, too, of his "hard expressions and 
 injurious declamations — " ^ 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.* The neatness, precision, and lucidity of his 
 style, his classic training and wide knowledge, his methodical 
 accuracy of procedure, his manly independence, his avoidance 
 of needless and commonplace homiletics, his deep religious 
 feehng, his careful attention to the entire scope and context of 
 every passage, and the fact that he has commented on almost 
 
 wJio regarded him as the greatest theologian of his day. Out of 252 pas- 
 sages Dr. Scrivener has shown that our translators of 1011 have preferred his 
 readings to those of Stephen, Krasmus, 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 ; Kom. ii. 7 ; v. 16 ; xi. 32 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 2 ; James, ii. 
 14, &c. 
 
 ' This is illustrated hy 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, Hermnir.utik, pp. -227/(7. ; Meyer, Gcsch. d. Schrifterkl. 
 ii. 448-47.0 ; Diestel, pp. 241 sq. ; Keuss, ijcscli. d. Heilig. Sckrifl. § 569 ; 
 Beard, Hihbrrt Lectures, 25Sfg. ; Tholuck, Die Fr.rdienste Call-in's als Aus- 
 kger dcr Beiligen A'chrift {I'erm. Schriften. ii. 330-360); Merx, Joel, pp 428- 
 444 ; Haag, La France Frotcslrnite, Art. Calvin. 
 
 ^ G. W. Meyer, Gcscli. d. iScliriflri'k'Idniiirj, ii. 450. See Simon's iZ"is<. Crit. 
 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, 
 Hutarch, Polybius, Cicero, Ovid, Quintilian, Aulus C.ellius, &c. 
 
 ' In a commentary on St. John we are shocked to stumble very soon on 
 such a sentence as " Servettis, superbissimtos ex gente JUs-panica nebulo." 
 
 * He speaks of tradition and of the Fathers more respectfully than Luther 
 does. See Pracf. in Horn, and Prarf. in Inst. 
 
Sii His Commentaries. 
 
 the whole of the Bible, make him tower above the great 
 majority of those who have written on Holy Scripture.^ 
 Nothing can furnish a greater contrast to many helpless 
 commentaries, with their congeries of vacillating ra riorum 
 annotations heaped together in aimless multiplicity, than the 
 terse and decisive notes of the great Genevan theologian. 
 He was a foe to all vagueness, jirolixity, and digression. 
 "I hold," he Avrote to his friend Grynaeus, "that the chief 
 excellence of an Expositor consists in clearness and 
 brevity." ^ 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 weaiy reader through a bewildering mass of opinions, of 
 which some are absurd, the majority impossible, and of which 
 all but one must be wrong. " Dimovcri non 2ycsmm," he says, 
 " ah 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.^ 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 to(.) must have been a 
 
 ^ lie 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. 
 Plooker, in a MS. note quoted by Keble, says that "the sense of Scripture 
 ■which Calvin alloweth," was held to he 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, Fnf. ii. 8. 
 
 2 See Fmif. in Bom. In this preface, and in his letter to Viret (May 19, 
 1540), he gives us his conception of the duty of an expositor. Srhleiermacher 
 says, " Die gliickliche Ausuliung der Kunst (des Auslegens) beruht auf deDi 
 Spraoh talent und dem Talent der einzelnen Menscheukenutniss " {HermcvaUik, 
 § 10). Calvin had both, and the latter enabled him to enter into the feelings 
 of the sacred writers. 
 
 ^ See his notes on John i. 3 ; Heb. xi. 13 ; Gen. iii. 21 (" Non swamp 
 linn: verba conivnit quasi Dims fue.ril pellifrx. Orcdibilr est . . necessitatt 
 coacioj mactasse aliqua (animalia) quorum se corio Legcrent "). 
 
His Sinceriti/. 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." ]S[(jr 
 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 " Vcrlum Dei 
 o^oA factum est ad Joel," into a sign of the Incarnation, as 
 though it impHed 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, Nuyac ! 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.-' He saw more clearly than Luther that the method 
 has no foundation, and is liable to gross error.^ He will not 
 give a mystic significance even to the Levitic law, because, 
 he says, " It is better to confess ignorance than to play with 
 frivolous guesses." 
 
 iii. A characteristic feature of Calvin's exegesis is its 
 abhon-ence 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 reffards as an oversight or mistake in the 
 sacred writers.^ He scorns to supp< >rt a gi lod 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 fr)rce of 
 arguments in favour of the Trinity drawn from the plural 
 
 ' See his note on Gal. iv. 22. He quote.? Chrysostom to show that "allegory " 
 is here used in an improper sense (/caraxpio'Tiiciij), and that Moses meant the 
 history only in a literal sense. He calls it a " ennunrntiiiii Snhinae, to 
 annihilate tjie dignity of Scripture." He says that allegories are "puerile " 
 and "farfetched," and that "he gladly abstains from them beeause there is 
 in them nothing firm and solid." " Affhiis sncrilrijio nodacia est Srri'plarns 
 temerc hue illiu; vcrsnre ct 'juasi in re lusoria /riscirire." Pivrf. in lanii. 
 
 '' Peter Martyr- in his Loci Coinmuvrn Tlieol. dwells on the imprudence of 
 using a method which Analsaptists used, " ad fnnuloxa siia imperiiis eumpro- 
 ianda." 
 
 ^ Matt, xxvii. 9 ; Acts vii. 16 ("hie locus corrigendus est"). 
 
346 His Boldness. 
 
 " let us make," nor from the three angels who aj^peared t(D 
 Abraham, nor from the Trisagion.i He will not with Luther 
 see a sign of the Incarnation in the Burning Bush.^ He sets 
 aside many of the untenable arguments drawn from passages 
 in Isaiah in favour of the Divinity of Christ,^ which, he says, 
 would only appear ludicrous to Jews. In saying that it is 
 absurd to interpret the " stone cut without hands " of the 
 virgin birth of t'hrist he rejects an interpretation common to 
 the Fathers.* 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 indejDendent in his views on the New 
 Testament.' 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.'' Walch said " he expounded oracles about the 
 Trinity and the Messiah in accordance with Jewish and 
 Socinian views."' The Roman Catholics called him a 
 Mohammedan,^ and the Protestant Hunnius, in his Calvinus 
 Judaisans, said that he had corrupted ScrijDture in a detest- 
 able manner, and that he ought to have been burnt.' 
 
 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 
 
 ' See his notes on Gen. xviii. 2; Is. vi. 8. 
 
 ^ Note on Ex. iii. 2. 
 
 ' See notes on Is. iv. 9 ; xlviii. 16. 
 
 " Justin, Tertullian, Orit;en, Basil, Jerome, Augustine, all apply it to Christ. 
 See Eosi-nmiiller, ii. 917. KeLiardentiusc;illcd Calvin's view " Jiikaicavi plane 
 impidafrm.'* 
 
 ■• See his notes en Matt. xi. 11 ; xvi. 18 (where, in opposition to Luther, he 
 TQukes the lioek to be Peter as the representative of all believers) ; John x. 
 :;0 (which he applies to the 'will of Christ, not to the Jlumomisian) ; Jolini. 
 51 ; V. 31, 32 : 2 C.r. xii. 7 ; 1 Pet. iii. 19, &c. 
 
 « Orig. Ecd. i. 310. 
 
 7 ^V■alch, Bill. Throl. iv. 413. 
 
 8 Limborch, Thoh Christ, p. 34. 
 
 " A. 11. 1593. Hunnius was answered by Parens in hie Orlhodoxus Calvinm, 
 who, with e(|ual amenity, assigned the work of Hunjiius to the authorship of 
 the devil. See Buddeus, Imgoge, pp. 1062 xg. ; Limborch, Theol. p. 34. 
 Calvin might reply as Faeundus did for Theodore of Jlopsuestia. — " Conse- 
 quens non est ut evacuet omnes in Christum factas prophetias ipui aUqua 
 mystice in eum dicta moralitcr quoque tractaverit, " 
 
Vieics of Prophecj). 347 
 
 but demanil " germinant and springing developments," were \ 
 yet primarily applicable to the events and circumstances of 
 their own days. The use made of them by Evangehsts 
 and Apostles he regarded as i-TTe^epyucriac ; as illustrative 
 references ; as skilful adaptations ; as admissible trans- 
 ferences ; as metaphoric allusions ; as fair accommodations ; 
 as pious deflections.^ It must not be supposed for a moment 
 that he denied the reality of Messianic prcjphecy, 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 Dehverer, with 
 minute vaticinations, which, torn from their context, would 
 have had no significance for those to whom the propihets 
 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 ±\e\v 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 jaurpose whole." 
 
 In his Preface to the Ri.imans Calvin laid down the golden 
 rule, that " it is the first business of an interpreter to let his 
 author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him 
 what we think he ought to say." Multitudes of previous 
 writers^even Hilary — had said something of the same kind, 
 yet scarcely one among them all had been able to withstand 
 the sway of dogmatic preposses.sions. Nor was Calvin any 
 exception.^ He had been taught much by the experience of 
 hfe. It is tills which makes his Commentary on the Psalms a 
 
 ' See note infra, p. 472. 
 
 - See his notes on John i. 12, whpiv he makes it,oviTiav mean "dignity," and 
 the shocking note on " Lead us not into temptation " in Luke xi. i. 
 
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 C'alvin 
 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." ^ 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 mcamvhile God often threatens us coiv- 
 dltionaUy, and the condition must be understood though it 
 is not exjDressed. But when Gud is appeased, and relaxes for 
 us the punishment which had heen cdrendy in some rcqieds 
 {guodanimodo') decreed to us as far as outward 'words are conecrHcel 
 {secii/iidwm exte^rnun verliwm), then He is said to be influenced 
 by reijentance." 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. (3n the very next page Calvin writes, " Scm-us 
 iraiii Dei grassari u.^quc ad, ipsos infcriitcs!' But if God's 
 decrees sometimes depend on unexpressed conditions ^vithout 
 any hint to us that they do so — if the outward utterance is to 
 
 ^ Luther said that he had learnt from Ps. 118 that three things tauglit 
 theologj' — oratio, mcditatlo, tcrnptatio. 
 
Vieifs of Intipiirdion. 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 " dcvnium horribile" 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 progressiveuess of revelation and the external 
 circumstances of age and relative knowledge bj^ which it is 
 conditioned.-'- 
 
 Such comments jDrepare us for the fact that in spite of his 
 logical intellect, Calvin is in some respects more kn.isc and 
 inconsequent in his views of inspiration than even Luther 
 was. Like all the Reformers he sj)eaks 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.- The Reformed Churches admitted no such ques- 
 tions about canonicity as those which Luther had discussed, 
 for in their forms of confession they enumerate the books 
 which form the Canon.^ Calvin neither insists as Luther 
 did on the relative independence of Christian truth ; 
 nor does he follow Zwangli 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,^ he gives us no 
 explanation of his own admission of inaccuracies in Scrip- 
 ture,^ of his free tone of criticism,^ of his almost contemptuous 
 
 ' See Merx, Joel, 433-435. = hn^lit. i. 7, §§ 1-4. 
 
 " Conf. Belg. 9, ii.-iv. ; Gallic, ii. 5 ; Helvet. i. 2 ; Westmr. C'ouf. i. § 2, 
 art. vi. ; Dorner, i. 391. 
 
 * Instit. i. 7, § 5. 
 
 " i^ee his notes on Matt, xxvii. 9 ; Acts vii. Ifi, &c. 
 
 " See his remarks on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, and John viii. 1 ; 
 1 John ii. 14 ; v. 7. 
 
350 His Intolerance. 
 
 i\-jection 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 uf 
 the Mercy Seat was " a crass figment," from which even a, 
 David and a Hezekiah were not free ? So far as any philo- 
 siiphical view is concerned of the relations between the Old 
 and the New Testament ( !alvin must be regarded as distinctly 
 retroOTessive, and bis defective views led him into stranap 
 and miserable quagmires. The intolerance which stains his 
 name is directly traceable to this strange mixture of letter- 
 worship with independence. Free in historical criticism, he 
 is as rigorous as Melanchthon in the dogmatic treatment of 
 the Old Testament. It would have been a less harmful 
 error if Calvin had allegorised the whole Mosaic law than that 
 he should have accepted the imperfect morality of the days 
 of ignorance as a rule for Christian men. But he stood far 
 below Luther in making no distinction between different 
 parts of the Bible. When Rene, Duchess of Fcrrara, daughter 
 of Louis XII., had in a letter made the wise remark that 
 David's example in hating his enemies is not apjDlicable to us, 
 Calvin curtly and sternly answered that " such a gloss would 
 upset all Scripture," that even in his hatred David is an 
 e.'jample 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 
 reconcihng Christ's plain words with the idolatry of his 
 dogmatic theorjr. Theologians in all ages have been skilful in 
 letting in through the narrow wicket of a text the evil notions 
 
 1 Calvin said that tho only tlifforence between the Old .md the ICew Te-stamen 
 was ad modmn (idminislrniionix, not ad subsUtntiam. Inxtit. ii. 11. This 
 became the ordinary post-Beformation view. Bcllarmine called tlie doctrine 
 of the Old Testament inclwatr, not perfect ; but Gerhard replied, "Doctrina 
 Vet. Test, nenuaquam est imperfecta siiiuideni cosih-rn fundanientales fldei 
 artieulos tradit quos Christ.us et Apostoli repchml I " See Oehler Old Testa- 
 ment Theology, i. 41 (E. T. ). ' 
 
u 
 
 His Intolerance. 851 
 
 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 Si.Tvetus,'^ recom- 
 mended persecution to the Protector Somerset,^ and raised no 
 voice to aid the miserable and exiled congregation of John 
 a Lasco. Dogma reacts on character, and Grotius rightly 
 said that Calvinists for the most part were as severe as they 
 imagined God to be to the greater part of the human race, fj 
 Not in the Inquisition only, but no less in the acerbities of 
 Puritanism, in. the ruthle,?sness of the Pilgrim FathtTs, in 
 the perennial ferocity of sects, in the constant recrudescence 
 of intolerance and persecution, in the unscrupulous malice, i 
 factions, and intrigues of living partisans, and in the injuries j 
 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.' Neither ]\Ielanchthon, nor 
 even Luther, tViough he was averse to employing f^rce in tlie 
 cause of religion, had learnt the chasm which separates the 
 EHjah-spirit and the Christ-spirit. The worst stain upon 
 their names — the concession to the bigamous marriage of 
 Philip of Hesse — arose, not from want of courage, but from 
 
 ' It is usual to defend tliis disgraceful and grossly illegal act bytlie sanction 
 of Melanchthon, but Beza tells us (Vita- Calvini, a.d. 1.550) that even in hi.s 
 own day it was widely and severely condemned. Martinus Bellius in lii.s 
 Farrago showed that not only the best Eeformers, but even the Fathers hail 
 opposed the capital punishment of heretics. The sentence about Servetus in 
 Calvin's letter to Farel (Feb. 1546), " Si rcnerit, mudo valeat mea auctorihv; 
 vivum exire non patiar," shows him at his very worst. 
 
 ^ In a letter dated Oct. 22, 1548. 
 
 " 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 " prrprfua, norma fidei ac vitae in unimrsd EccleMn" ami 
 HoUaz, and the Formula Concordiae vaguely extol the Old Testament, and 
 irrelevantly quote Ps. cxix. 105 ; Gal. i. 8. See Hase, p. 670. 
 
:352 The Old Testament. 
 
 confused notions about the Old Testament. Calvin would 
 hardly have fallen into this error, for he had no esteem for 
 the Levitic law ; but unfortunately he could not see that the 
 actions of Gideon, and Jael, and even David, furnish no fit ideals 
 for the Christian morahst. 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 
 sj^iritual 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 tliou art ignorant of it," 
 replied Burley, " thy comf>anion is well aware of the law 
 A\'hich gave the men of Jeiicho to the sword of Joshua the 
 .son of Nun." " Yes, but we," answered the divine, " hve 
 under a better dispensation, which instructeth us to return 
 good for evil, and to pray for those who dospitefuUy use us 
 and persecute us." Even Augustine — in his later years the 
 fatal jjatron of religious persecution, and thereby the cause 
 of unnumbered miseries to the Church of God — even 
 jVugustine said — though neither he nor any other interpreter 
 for a thousand years rightly applied the force of the remark 
 — " Distill (jur tciitpora ct concordabis Scripturas"'^ 
 
 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 gi-oaning, almost from the very times of 
 Christ down to this age of ours how has nothing less been 
 
 ' The indiffereni^e to henneneutics is one chief source of Calvin's weakness. 
 He says "that it does not much matter when .Jonah or Ohadiah liveil, "which 
 may be true enough for the homilist, but is singularly false for the exegete. 
 .'^ee Mtrx, 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 ! " ^ " 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." '' 
 
 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 ; " ^ of Prophets who have stood, if need be, 
 
 ' Calvin, Antid. in Cone. Trident, sess. iv. Bacon says of English tlieolo" 
 gians that "if the choice and best observations which have been made dis- 
 jiersedly in our English sermons , . had been set down in a continuance, it 
 would be the best work in divinity that hath been written since 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 iheoretical validity 
 (as even Locke does on Rom. iii. 2.5 ; v. 14). Such books as Bihliotheca 
 Biblica of Parker (1720), Vertue's Parallels, \\.es.cVs Sacred Typology, &c., 
 have never been accepted as having any authority. Even Jeremy Taylor says, 
 "Of these things there is no beginning and no end, no certain principles, and 
 no good conclusion." Sermon on Ministerial Duties. "This (the work of 
 drawing 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 Vindieated). 
 
 ^ Comm. in Joel, iii. 1. See some remarks on the subject in Hooker, Heel. 
 Pol. III. viii. §§ 16-18. How strikingly this was the case with Dean Colet, 
 may be seen in Mr. Lupton's editions of his Covivicniarics, and in Seebohra's 
 Oxford Reformers, ch. ii. 
 
 ' " 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 one his consciousness 
 of self-sacrificing enthusiasm ; the other his consciousness of originative 
 liower."— J. H. Fichte, Spek. TMol, p. 655. 
 
 A A 
 
354 Neto 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 Kesur- 
 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." — 
 Erasmdb to Luther {Epp. i. 427). 
 
 "We should not interpret the Scriptures by the Creeds, but the 
 Greeds by the Scriptures." — Spbner, Bedenhen, iii. 478. 
 
 " Tous les scholasticismes me rendent douteux de ce qu'ils ddmontrent, 
 parce qu'au lieu de chercher ils affirm ent d^s le d^but. Leur objet est 
 <le constniire les retranchements autour d'un prejug^, et non de decouvrir 
 la v^ritii." — Amiel, Journal Intime, ii. 136. 
 
 A A 2 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 POST-REFORMATION EPOCH. 
 
 " Questionings and disputes of words, whereof Cometh envy, strife, railing 
 eril surmisings, wranglings." — 1 Tim. vi. 4, 
 
 If the slow but general and permanent adoption of prii 
 ciples by the Christian world be any proof of their correctnes 
 it must be admitted that the Reformers gave a might 
 impulse to the science of Scriptural interpretation. The 
 made the Bible accessible to all ; they tore away an 
 scattered to the winds the dense cobwebs of arbitrary trad: 
 tion which had been spun for so many centuries over ever 
 book, and every text of it; they put the Apocrypha on a 
 altogether lower level than the sacred books ; they carefuU 
 studied the original languages ; they developed the plaii 
 Uteral sense ; they used it for the strengthening and refreshin 
 of the spiritual life. 
 
 " Tlius 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 heautiful bold brow. 
 When rites and forms before her burning eyes 
 
 Melted like snow." 
 
 We might have hoped that the splendid progress woul 
 have been continuous, but, alas, the experience of mankind ha 
 made us only too familiar with the spectacle of arrest and c 
 retrogression in the history of thought. Imperfection an^ 
 failure are stamped on all human efforts, on all huma: 
 institutions. Toilsome and incomplete is all that me 
 
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,^ the 
 period at which we are about to glance in the history of 
 exegesis is veiy 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.^ 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 Svmma 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 
 Duhxctico-polcmica of Quenstedt, and the Sy.4cma locorum of 
 Galovius. The Beformed 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,^ and lost itself 
 in a maze of theological controversies." 
 
 • 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 Corner, Rist. of Prot. Theol. ii. 103-108. 
 
 2 Romberg, Die Lehre Luther, p. 18, " Man war aus der Eegion der Lebens- 
 warmen und seines Heil-bringenden Glaubens, in die Eisregion des Verstandes 
 getreten ... des schematisirenden und reflectirenden Verstandes." 
 
 ' "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 Pomcranicum, the Corpus Pndcnicum, Brandelmr- 
 gicum, and so forth. Even Llineburg had its Corpus Wil- 
 helminuiii, a,nd Brunswick- Wolfenbiittel its Corpiis Julium. 
 Besides these minor statements of belief, there were, among 
 many others, in 1529, the Articles of Marburg ; in 1530, the 
 Oonfessio Tetrapolitana and the Confession of Augsburg ; 
 in 1536, the Wittenberg Concord; in 1537, the Articles of 
 Schmalkald ; in 1566, the Confifisio Eelvcticn Posterior; in 
 1580, the triumph of rigid Lutheranism in the Formula 
 Goncordiac ; in 1562, the Thirty-nine Articles; in 164<3, the 
 Westminster Confession.^ 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.^ These symbols differ 
 toto coelo from the early professions of faith — the Apostles' 
 Greed 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 repditus 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 whi(^ has been applied to almost every scientific discovery in turn. 
 See Brewster's Martyrs of Science, pp. 2, 52, 76, 193. 
 
 ^ There were also the Oonfessio Belgica, ■ GalUcana, Eafnica, Marehica, 
 Saxoniea, and Scotica. 
 
 " 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 he canonised is not sufiBcient without 
 plain couvincement and the charity of patient instruction, to supple the least 
 braise 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. 
 
 glow 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.^ This terrorism 
 of Formulae prevailed throughout all the Churches. The 
 Formula Concordiac 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." ^ The Council of 
 Trent practically reduces exegesis to a register of non-existent 
 unanimity. It puts forth no authorised commentary, nor 
 even any hermeneutic theory, and it relies upon a version 
 which is full of errors. The Greek Church, laying down the 
 rule that those only can interpret who can enter into " the 
 
 ' There is a touch of quite unconscious humour in the Abbe Glaire's remark 
 about Calvin, " II fit brfller Michael Servet pane qu'il etiseignait d'autres 
 erreurs que les sienncs" (Dietionnairc, i. 377). 
 
 2 These names are applied to it by Klausen, Domer, Hagenbach, Laudercr, 
 Fritzsche, T.puss, Kurz. The old rules, "Nihil contra Scripturas" and "Nihil 
 contra Ecclesiam," became " Nihil contra Syuibolos." 
 
Theological Folios. 361 
 
 depths of the Spirit," refers to the faulty LXX., and specially 
 forbids the reading of certain parts of the Old Testament.^ 
 Protestant Schoolmen practically bound themselves by the 
 hmits 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 a priori assump- 
 tions, and proved once more that " Men only need to bring 
 to the Bible sufficiently strong prepossessions, sufficiently 
 fixed opinions, to have them reflected back in all the glamour 
 of infallible authority." ^ 
 
 2. 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.^ 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.* Calvin's Institutio began in 1536 with 
 
 ' Dosithei Confcssio, Qu. 1 (Kiromel), Mcmuraenta Fidei Ecdcs. Orient. 
 i. 465. 2 Beard, Hihhert Lrdure^, p. 192. 
 
 ' The "porismatic" method consisted in the abstraction of dogmatic results. 
 Thus in Baldwin's Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, " Multiplices com- 
 monefactiones e texttt eruunttir. " This roethod was superseded by the analytic 
 after the example set by Galixtus. 
 
 * K. Simon says, a little too severely, of Melanchthon's exegesis, " On n'y 
 Toit que des disputes. . . II faut lire beaucoup pour trouver quelque chose 
 qui regarde I'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 traditionahsm, 
 Calovius (1655-1677), in the twelve quarto volumes of his 
 Systema, Dannhauer in his Hocloso'pliia, Baier in his Gom- 
 pendmm Theologiae, and hosts of other writers, all base their 
 labours on the assumption that the scheme of salvation can 
 be set forth in its minutest details with Aristotelian dialectics. 
 They started with a behef 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." ^ There was the Lutheran and 
 Reformed controversy, the Flacianist and Phihppist contro- 
 versy, the Antinomian controversy, the Osiandrian contro- 
 versy, the Majorist controversy, the Ubiquitarian controversy, 
 the Synergistic controversy, the Adiaphoristic controversy, the 
 Crypto-Calvinistic controversy, the Arminian and Gomarist 
 controversy, the 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.^ In the French 
 Church there were the discussions about Pajonism and 
 
 ^ Dorner, ii. 1. 
 
 ^ A brief sketch of these controversies which so unprofitably occupied the 
 last half of the sixteenth century is given by Kurz, Eist. of the Christian 
 Church, pp. 112-121 (E. T.). See too Srhlusselberg, Eaereticorwm, Calalogui 
 (Frankfort, 1597-1599), which Frank calls "Das Arsenal zu diesen nachre- 
 formatorischen Streitigkeiten. " 
 
Religious Factiousriess. 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.^ Many of these 
 controversies were waged with a fierceness in proportion to 
 the entire doubtfulness of the question at stake.^ An age of 
 egoism, of party spirit — of what St. Paul calls ipiOeia — 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 26-i errors, and the 
 Wittenberg Faculty charged him with 283.^ Carpzov called 
 him a "procclla ecclesiae," and Fecht all but denied his salva- 
 tion.* Loscher in Dresden published an anti-pietistic journal in 
 thirty-one volumes. The University of Wittenberg in 1655 
 endeavoured to carry a Consensus rcpctitus fidei vere 
 Lutheranac, which enumerated eighty-eight errors of Calixtus 
 and the Syncretists. Religion was cast by some evil spirit 
 into a paroxysm of theological condemnations.^ John Arndt, 
 " the Fen^lon of Lutheranism," ^ 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.^ Men were separatists {Siopi^ovTe<i) 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 
 
 '■ Rom. ii. 8 ; Lange, Grundriss, p. 3. 
 
 '^ AUes verzerrt sich in eiiie kleinliche Polemik; die gauze theologisclie 
 literatar dient ihrem Interesse, iiberall ein lauernder Verdacht der auf jedes 
 unbedachte Wort fahndet, &c. Frank, Gesch. d. prot. Mod. i. 92. See too 
 Witte, Memoriae Theologorum (1674). 
 
 ' In the Christlutherische Vorstellung. Happily Spener was able to say 
 that "the attacks of his enemies had never given him asleepless night." 
 
 * Fecht, De Beatihcdine MortuoruTn. 
 
 ^ "Un des cotes les plus faux de cette seolastique, c'etait de chercher et de 
 trouver partout des erreurs. Nous avons de ces Enumerations d'erreurs qui 
 rempUssent des volumes, et souvent parmi ces pretendues erreurs condamnees, 
 il y a de trhs bonnes choses " (Eenan, Le Judaisme). 
 
 * Author of Wahrcs Ohristenthum. 
 
 ' Kurz, ii. 107 ; see Wildenhahn, J. Arndt, ein Zeitbild, 1847. 
 
364 Calov. 
 
 glare of theological hatred.^ 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 Illyeicus, a passionate and determined controver- 
 sialist, became a very thorn in the side of Melanchthon, and, in 
 spite of the merits of his Clai;is,'his Catalogus testium, and his 
 share in the Magdeburg centuries, we can hardly except him 
 from the blame of bitter uncharitableness.^ Of another 
 theologian of this epoch — Osiander — Tholuck says "that the 
 Holy Spirit seems to have appeared to him in the form 
 
 i rather of a raven than of a dove ; " and of another — Myslenta — 
 
 : that he was "a volcano constantly vomiting tire 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 
 jDrayer, Imple mc, Deus, odio hacrdiconim. Alas ! the bale- 
 
 I fires of religious animosity need not to be fanned into fiercer 
 tlame 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 (aWorpioeTriaKO-iroi,) 
 \ who think it their S23ecial mission to take in charge the 
 I 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, Matacologinpapistica, Socinianismus profligatus, Theses 
 cle Laludismo, Anti-Boehmius, Discussio controversianim, are 
 
 ^ See a disgraceful scene described at Sdiliisselberg's examination for his 
 M. A. degree, which ended in the sentence " Nunc anathema pronuntiamus 
 ac te tamquam diaboli vhumorganumtotispectoribus exsecramur." Guttmann, 
 Aiinal. d. Universitdt zu Wiltenherg, i. L^S-ISS. 
 
 2 The judgment pronounced on him by Camerarius ( Tii. Melanchth. clxxxii.) 
 is very severe. See too Planck, Prot. Lehrlegrif, and Maitland's Letters to 
 King. 
 
Polemical Fury. 365 
 
 menacing with antagonism. His Systema, in twelve quai'to 
 volumes, is " a ponderous engine of war against Calixtus." 
 His Bihlia illustrata, in four volumes (1672), turned the 
 sacred book into a heap of controversial missiles against 
 Grotius, and its very title was a challenge.^ 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 
 Utigation. During this prevalence of sectarian contentious- 
 ness, the Universities of North Germany showed few signs 
 of vitality and none of progress.^ 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.^ 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.* Sometimes the theologic system 
 is deduced from the whole Old Testament, sometimes by 
 strange perversions it was read in its entirety between the 
 
 ' " Biblia Illustrata, in quihus GrotiaTiae depraijaliones ct t^evSepiiTiveiai justo I 
 examine sistuntur et explodunttir." Calov's, hatred forGro tius, whom he i 
 considers to be '■' nullius religionis" and " deterior JuUaets," amounteH' to 
 fanaticism. TIT sometimes makes him almost witty, as when he accuses 
 Grotius of implying that the Cherubim were "aliqimd hituminis 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. 
 
 ^ Mullinger, ii. 106 ; Dollinger, Die Universitaten sonst und jetst (1871). 
 
 ' " Was auch als Wahreit oder Fabel 
 In tausend Biichem dir erscheint, 
 Das AUes ist ein Thurm zu Babel 
 "Wenn es die Liebe nicht vereint." — Goethe, Xenien. 
 
 * " 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 arc 
 almost inconceivable. In Calov, Quenstedt, Hollaz, and even 
 \m Gerhard, the testimony of the Holy Spirit becomes mainly 
 I an inward assurance that their private opinions about Holy 
 ! Scripture are irrefragably true.^ 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.^ 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, Consequenticte aequipolUnt 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.^ 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 Domer, ii. 123-127, who quotes Gerhard, Lod, pt. ii. §§ 20, 36, 44 ; 
 Quenstedt, pt. i. p. 97, iii. 569 ; HoUatius, i. 136, &c. 
 
 ^ Dorner, ii. 132-141. 
 
 ' For instance, Rarabach says, " Merito vocibus tanta signifieationis am- 
 plitudo, tantumque pondus assignatur, quantum per rei substratae natui'am 
 sustinere possunt;" and Pfeiffer still more precisely, " Tanta cuiliiet i!od 
 tribuenda est emphasis quanta potest" (see Zbckler, Eaiidl). d. Theol. Wisseii- 
 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.'' 
 
 In the seventeenth century it was otherwise. Men sincerely 
 imagined that they could find certain warrant in Holy Scrip- 
 ture to decide not only that God had passed upon millions of 
 miserable men a " horrible decree " of eternal and inevitable 
 reprobation, but also whether He had passed that decree 
 upon man after he had fallen or before. Such was the con- 
 troversy of the Sublapsarians with the Supralapsarians. 
 Could there be a stronger indication that nothing is too 
 sacred for the dogmatic passion to touch, too difficult for it 
 to attempt to resolve ? Could there be a more instructive 
 proof of the folly of attempting to fly up into the secrets 
 of the Deity on the waxen wings of the understanding 1 
 
 u. Yet dogmatism intruded with bold step and unabashed 
 forehead into matters yet more inscrutably mysterious. 
 Eveiy 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 Evangehsts to reveal what 
 was necessary for man's dehverance, 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, ApoUinarian, 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 — ■ 
 aXrjOSi'i, TeXe'o)?, aStatperft)?, aa-V7%i;T<u9 — that 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 Theosophij. 
 
 of the two natures in Christ by the word irepixwpTja-i,';, which 
 was translated into Latin by circuminscssio, and was treated 
 of by the Schoolmen as the commmvicatio idiomaturn} Luther 
 in his early days was not fond of these scliolastic terms. He 
 pointed out that not only Homoousion but even Trinitas are 
 post-scriptural expressions.'-^ 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 presunie 
 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 conceahng or mthholding itself in Christ's 
 Passion. But this is nothing to the developments of the 
 later Protestant scholastics. In Chemnitz and Calov not even 
 the commimicatio idiomaturn is enough. It becomes some- 
 thing threefold — the genus id iomaticum, gemos apoteh&matimm, 
 and genus av-^rj/j,aTiKov or majcstaiicioiii. ^ 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 e\'en on this subject arose furious quarrels between 
 Mentzer and the theologians of Marburg and Giessen on the 
 one side, and Osiander and those of Ttibingen on the other ; — 
 the former maintaining that Christ's incarnation was a /cei/tuo-j? 
 or emptying of omnipotence and omnipresence, and the latter 
 that it was only a /cpv-yp-K; or concealment. Thus was it assumed 
 that not only the whole of Christianity, with all its aspirations, 
 
 1 For7n. Concordiae (1580). The favourite Post-Reformation ilhistration of 
 the 7r6pixwp?)(ris is the burning bush (see Calov, ad loc). 
 
 2 JVerhe,^ xi. 1547, xiii. 2631. Tpihs is first found in Theophilus of Antiocb, 
 Trinitas in TertuUian. 'O/xoovclov was originally boiTowed from Neo-Platonists. 
 
 ^ Calovius, Systcma, 636 ; Form. Cone. sol. 2, decl. viii. 36 ; Dorner, ii. 
 148 ; Baur, DreieinigJccit, iii. pt. i. c. 8. 
 
Biblical Stijyernatural i»in. 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 technicalities, 
 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 
 feehng, by sp»iritual 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 simphcity that is towards Christ 
 Jesus ? ^ 
 
 5. The irpwTov yjrevSo<i of the whole unprofitable develop- 
 ment was — once again — Bibhcal 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.^ 
 Archbishop Agobard of Lyons even in the ninth century had 
 argued against the absurdity of reducing the Prophets to a 
 level no higher than that of the dumb ass.^ The formula 
 of the Eeformation in its best days, like that of the Church 
 of England, was not " Scriptura est Verbum Dei," but 
 "Scriptura complectitur V^erbum Dei."'' Had inspiration been 
 
 ' See 'i. Cor. xi. 3 ; Gal. i. 6. 
 
 ^ See Bishop Thirlwall, Charges, i. 71. 
 
 ' " (juodsi ita sentitis quanta absurdita.s sequatur quis dinumerare poterit ? 
 • . . Eestat ergo ut siout ministerio angelico vox articidata formata est in ore 
 asinae ita dicatis formari in ore prophetarum " (Agobard). 
 
 ' See Art. vi., " Holy Scripture cojifaiJieiA 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 rerpiired of 
 
 B B 
 
370 Infallible Oracles. 
 
 capable of definition as a supernatural verbal dictation 
 which secured infallibiHty 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,! does not imply an exclusive Thcopncustia 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 infallibUity 
 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 bvit 
 an idle dream. The Eeformed and Lutheran Churches having 
 gained— often by heroic struggles and through seas of blood 
 — the undisturbed possession, not only of certain Christian 
 verities, but also each of its own special theories ; and, being 
 compelled to maintain this heritage of opinion against 
 Anabaptists, against Socinians, against Romanists, wanted 
 something to which they could appeal as a decisive oracle.^ 
 
 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 m it is contained God's true "Word." 
 
 ^ The word " Inspiration " occurs five or six times in the Prayer-book and 
 Homilies of the ordinary gifts of the Holy Spii'it which are wholly apart from 
 infallibility. 
 
 ^ 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 nor 
 would it be decisive if there were (see Robertson Smith, The Old Test, in the 
 Jewish Church). On the other hand, they extravagantly and unscripturally 
 exaggerate the ajfeetiones Scripturae, on which see Quenstedt, Theol. i. 59. 
 They are (1) divina auctoritas ; (1) perfcetio ; (3) perspicuilas ; (4) semet 
 interprctandi f'jcMltas. 
 
Assiim2-)tions. 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 ^ 
 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,^ 
 and which directly contradicted the iDrinciple of the Apostle 
 that " he that is spiritual judgeth all things and he himself is 
 judged of no man." ^ It was based, not on exact principles, 
 but on vague assertions which floated in the air. The great 
 Keformers, as we have seen, never attempted to bind them- 
 selves by the only possible consequences of such a doctrine. 
 They used current phrases, but practically they left them- 
 selves a wide liberty to criticise not only the separate utter- 
 
 ^ Eamhach's Institutiones Hermcn. S'ncrar, 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 
 aft 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. 
 
 * 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, " Seripturae auctoritas est tanfn, qnania 
 Dei " a.nA says, " Inviete eondudimus omnem et Mam Scripturam Sacrmn 
 nulld ejus vel minimd parte cxeeptd, esse SfoTTvevaT6v' {System T}icol. 
 i. 69). So too Hollaz, Lange, Calov, Carpzov, Baier, Buxtorf, &c. -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. 
 
 ' 1 Cor. ii. 15. Com. 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 Ratlimann. 
 
 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 
 tha^t of Scripture. But their successors regarded Faith as 
 the exclusive product of Scripture, and dependent for its 
 authority on Scripture only.^ 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." - And thus they directly impaired the authority 
 of Scripture. For " as incredible praises given to men," 
 says Hooker,^ " 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." 
 
 Hathmann 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 inslrumcnt, 
 the light of an olijcct, insfni mental, MstorieaU' But his truer 
 views were indignantly rejected. The theological faculties 
 of six universities,"* ascribing to Scripture an inherent efficacy 
 for salvation, condemned him as a Calvinist, as a despiser of 
 
 ' The commentators of the Eeformed Churches (Calvin, Beza, Zwingli, 
 Bucer, Mercer, &c.), were more independently exegetical than the Lutheran 
 commentators (Musculus, Chytraeus, Brentius, Bngenhagen, BuUinger, &c.), 
 who proved Lutheran dogmatics by digressions (see Gobel, Die Eel. Eigen- 
 thumh'chkeit d. Erf. nnclLuth. Kirche, Bonn, 1837 ; Tholuck, Ferm. Sohrifteii, 
 ii. 330). 
 
 '^ Hagenbach, Bist. of Eef. i. 161. 
 
 ' Eccl. Pol. bk. ii. c. 8, § 1. 
 
 * Wittenberg, Konigsberg, Ilelmsfadt, 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, Scrihes and notaries of 
 the Eoly Spirit ;"'^ not even instrumental authors, but only 
 " lidng and ivriting pens." ^ Holy Scripture is described, not 
 as the rccnrd 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.^ 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 fonn of that Talmudic (f>\vapta koI fiaraiOTrj';,'^ 
 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. 
 
 ' So Gerhard. Qnenstedt says, "Scriptiira est infallibilis veritatis fans, 
 omnisque en'oris expers, omnia et singula sunt verissima . . . sive dogmatica, 
 sive moralia, sive histoiica, kc." 
 
 ^ "Calami Spiritus xmyri diclnntis." Gregory the Great seems to have been 
 the first to give currency to this bad phrase. So C'alovius, Systemia, i. cap, 4, 
 ii. cap. ], 3,nA passim. Comjiare HoWaz, Exam. Tlicol. p. 73 ; Calov. System. 
 i- 594 ; Quenstedt, Thcol. Didact. i. 55. DiiTerences of style, &c., were 
 "accommodations" of the Spirit {id. i. 76). 
 
 ^ HoUaz. ■* Gregory of Nyssa. 
 
t) 
 
 374 Extravagant Views. 
 
 And thus the old ecclesiastical authority, which Luther 
 had so decidedly rejected, was brought back. Even the 
 impms orthodox-US was supposed to be illuminated ex O'ptre 
 operate by the reading of the Scriptures.^ 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.^ " 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."'^ Although 
 Jerome had so freely pointed out the cilicisms of St. Paul, 
 Quenstedt, Hollaz, Calov, and the Wittenberg faculty in 1638 
 decreed that to sjDeak of barbarisms and soloecisms in the 
 Greek of the New Testament would be a llasphemy against 
 the writers of Holy Scripture, and against the Holy Ghost.* 
 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.^ The Formula 
 Consensus Helvetica (drawn up in 1675 by F. Heidegger and 
 
 ' Dorner (ii. 134), to whom I am here chiefly indebted, refers to Tholuck, 
 Da^ EircM. Lchen, i. 65. 
 
 ^ 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, E2J. 79). " If thou sayest among the inexperienced 
 that the letter is God's word, thou art ... a deceiver" (Weigel, Postilh, 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 A07/C1 @eov, the phrase is only figurative. DismU. Ohristiani et 
 Saraceni (see Lupton, St. John of Damasc. p. 95). 
 
 2 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. 
 
 ■• Quenstedt censures Beza for not having held this view {System, i. 84,). 
 
 = Pfeiffer, Hermeneutica Saora, c. 8 ; JDubia Vexala, ]ip. 457, sq. The 
 same views were maintained hy Walther (Sarmore. BibJica), Buxtorf (Jmtt- 
 critiea), Wasmuth ( Vindiciae), Calov, &c. (see Meyer, Gesch. d. Schriftcrkl 
 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, 
 GrotiuB, Bellarmine, Clericus, &c. 
 
Scholasticism. 375 
 
 Turretin i) laid it down as the doctrine of the Church that the 
 very vowel points and accents of the Hebrew Bible were divinely 
 inspired.^ The Holy Spirit, it was seriously maintained, had 
 altogether abdicated His agency to the written word.^ 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." * 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 dishonourino- 
 to the majesty of God.* 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 
 
 ' Kurz, ii. 264. 
 
 " Bleek, Einlcit. 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. " 
 
 ' As, for instance, in Seb. Schmidt's Colhgium Biblicum Prius (V. T.) ct 
 Postcrias (N- T.), 1670. 
 
 ■■ Eeuss, Gesch. d. Scil. Schriften, ii. 295. 
 
 ■'' We may be thankful for the gulf of difi'erence between the truthful 
 moderation of our Vlth Article, " Holy Scripture oontaineth all things ncccs- 
 sarj/ to salvation, " and the wild extravagance of the Form. Conscn-ius Hel- 
 retim, ' ' Hebraeus codex turn quoad consonas, tum quoad vocalia, sive 
 pnncta ipsa, sive punctorum saltern potestatem, eeoTr^/eutrTcis." The older 
 reformed confessions {e.g. Cunf. Gall. art. 5, " complcacns quicquid . . . 
 requiratur ; Conf. Bclg. art. 7, " Credimus . . . Scripturam . . . omnem 
 Dei voluntatem comjilecti), 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.! 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.^ In historic, archaeological, and lin- 
 guistic researches, amid much that was absurd and irrelevant, 
 there was some accumulation of materuds 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 occu2)ied 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 geringffigige Dinge 
 mit dem lacherlichen Apparat einer pedantisohen Gelehrsamkeit " (Reu.ss, 
 Gesoh. d. Ileil. Schrift. ii. 296)." "If thu enquiry is to be free, it is impos- 
 sible consistently to prescribe its results." Thirlwall, Charges, i. 61. 
 
 ^ Such treatises were very numerous. Among them were Gerhard, De Interpr. 
 S. Script. 1610 ; Glassius, Philolog. Sacr. 1623 ; Rivetus, Isagoge, 1627 ; 
 Pfeiffer, Harm. Sacr. 1684; Dannhauer, Idea Boni Interprets, 1642; Ii. 
 Meyer, Philosophia Scripturae Interpres. 1666 (by a friend of Spinoza) ; 
 Francke, Pradediones He.rmcnculicac, 1717 ; Rambach, Iiist. Hermen. 1720. 
 
English Theology. 377 
 
 of the eighteenth many eminent theologians and scholars, 
 such as Bull (t 1710), Pearson (t 1686), Ussher (t 1656), 
 Selden (t 1654), Beveridge (t 1708), Cave (t 1713), and 
 Bingham (t 1733). Among those who rendered the highest 
 services to criticism and historj'' may be mentioned Bryan 
 Walton, whose Polyglott appeared in 1657 ; the Arabic 
 scholar Pococke (t 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 JIebraeoni.m (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 Tcstamcnturn 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 
 conrmunities Baxter, Bunyan, Owen, Howe, and Isaac Watts 
 helped to keep alive the flame of sjDiritual 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 develojament 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. AVesley 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 Anniu'ians. 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 
 Lad been silenced they were not wholly repressed. The 
 hedge of flourishing Dutch universities,^ reared by the new 
 Pharisaism, could not exclude the milder theology of 
 Aeminius (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),8 Clericus (t 1736),* (t 1645) Wetstein (t 1754), 
 Many of these theologians were not afraid to agree with 
 Eomanists and Socinians who alike rejected the idol of 
 verbal infallibility. Although the works of Grotius were 
 
 ' Dutch universities and their theologians : — 
 Fraheckee : Lydius, Drusius, Maccovius, Amesius, Amama, Cocceius, 
 
 Vitringa, Witsius, Gurtler. 
 Utrecht : Voetius, Hoombeck, Leydecker, Lampe. 
 Grokingen : Gomarus, Maresius, J. H. and Jac. Alting. 
 Leyden : Junius, de Dieu, Eivet, the Spanheinis, G. J. Voss, Erpenius, Bur- 
 
 mann, Witlich. 
 For details see Dorner, ii. 9-12. 
 
 ^ in 1610 Episcopius drew up the Eemonstrance in five articles against the 
 Gomarists, who charged tlie Arminian school with Pelagianism. Hence tlie 
 name "Remonstrants." 
 
 ' Limborch was author of the Thcologia Christiana. He opposed an extra- 
 vagant allegorising and typology, and is consequently censured by Kambach, 
 Eerme-neutica Sacra, 155, sq, 
 
 * Le Clere (Ars CHtica, 3 vols. 1696 ; Dissertatio de Opt. Gen. Inicrpretum, 
 169-3) carried too far his theory of accommodation, and is severely dt-alt with 
 by Rambach. He represents the strong reaction against the extravagances of 
 the Cocceian 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 indeiinite meanings in Scripture, was 
 of value, and in his Tractatus de S. Scr. intcrpretandac 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.^ 
 In the writings of Le Clerc and Spencer there was a mis- 
 placed ingenuity and an extravagant utilitarianism, but even 
 these faults have not r<.bbed their learning of aU its 
 value, and their works exereised a permanent influence 
 equally removed from disputatious dogma and intolerant 
 self-satisfaction. ^ 
 
 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 Amdt 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 ItJGG, 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.^ " The Lord mercifully keep us," he 
 
 ' On Grotins, see Bayle ; Simon, Hist. Cril. du V. T. p. 443 ; Des Commc-nt. 
 du N. T. p. 803 ; Buddeus, hag. 1517 : Herder, Briefed. Stud. Tiicol. p. 357 ; 
 Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifierklarung, iii. 435. Grotius was largely folIoWL-d 
 by Hammond in his Paraphrase and Annotations, 1675 ; P.-Mtms and Fro- 
 verbs, 1684. There was a current saying " Grotium nusquam in sacris litteris 
 invenlre Christum, Coireiuiii ubique." It is not true. OnPs. xv. 10 Grotius 
 say.s, " Latet sensiis mysticus . . ut in pUrisque 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 ; Mie. v. 1 ; itfatt. 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 Sociuian, though he refuted Socinus ; and (by 
 Oalov) an atheist, though be was the author of the De Vcritate. 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 
 Spiritn Sanctu dictari historias non fuit opus. Satis fuit Scriptorem 
 memoria valere." Vof. pro pa.e. Eeoles. 
 
 ^ Bahr saj's (SymboUk. i. 41) that in their system "God appears as a 
 Jesuit using bad means for a good end." 
 
 ' The Lutheran Churches had produced nothing of first-rate importance in 
 exegesis since the death of Flacius in 1575. The most important Lutheran 
 Theologians of the 17th century were Gerliard, S. Glass, Dannhaner, A. 
 Pfeiffer, Camerarius, Chemnitz, C'hytiiius, Hunniiis, Tarnov, and G. Caliit. 
 The chief exegetes of the Reformed Churches were Avminius, Episcopius, 
 
Pietism. S81 
 
 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 Fia Dcsidcria (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 CoUcgiapietatis 
 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 ccclesiolam in ccdesid, 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 therelbre failed to elevate the life or to 
 touch the heart. It followed various methods known 
 by the barbarous and pedantic titles of Pancratiau, 
 Porismatic, Hoppnerian, Zetetic, and TJrsinian,i and was 
 in fact everything except edifying and spiritual. But 
 Spener's example helped to sweejj 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 Leipjzig.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 ^ was violently denounced by all who mistook 
 
 Clianiiei-, Sixt. Amama. Grotius, A. Rivet, Dnisius, L. de Dieu, Gomarus, 
 Cappellus, Cncceius, Lip.sius, Bochart. Among the Sociiiians, F. Socinus (t 
 1562) Crell, Schliohtirs;. ' See Herzog, Art. Ev. Eomiletik. 
 
 ^ These mllegia philobibUai resembled those of "Wesley and the young 
 Methodists at Oxford. 
 ' Pietism was defined as follows : 
 
 '• Was ist ein Pietist ? der Gottes "Wort sfudirt 
 XJnd nach demselbcn a\ich ein heilig Leben fiihrt." 
 
382 CaUxt. 
 
 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 meetintrs, 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 Cathohcs, and in the Reformed Churches. In 
 England he had shared the enlightened wdsdom 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." ^ 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 
 
 ^ Spener was attacked liy Schelwig, Carpzov, Alberti, Dentschmann, 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 florcntissimus status ecclesine, and ignored the fact 
 tha,t 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 Eamhach 
 belong to Halle, and 6000 theological students had been educated at Halle, 
 before Francke died. 
 
 * He wrote Be. tolerantia Eeformatorum and Dcsiderimn Concordiae Ecd. 
 sarciendae, 1650. 
 
Modern Philosojtht/. 383 
 
 grounds, a hope defeated as much hy the sectarianism of 
 the Jesuits as by the vehemence of the Lutherans. His 
 Syncretism as it was derisively called/ 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 rcvelatio and assistentia divina.^ 
 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.^ 
 
 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. Galixt 
 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 virti:ous 
 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 
 
 '^ Because Calixtus, like the Crrtrrnx, entered into unscrupulous alliances ! 
 This derivation is given by Plutarch, DeFraf. Amore. I do not know on what 
 authority Littre and others derive it from avv Kep^y. In modern times, the 
 use of the word had been revived by Erasmus m a letter to Melanchthon. 
 The anonymous Sutoria Syncretistica of Calov was answered by F. U. C'alixt 
 m his Via ad Pacem, 1700. S3'ncretisni, says Gass, "means the overthrow 
 of all ecclesiastical exclusiveness by a deeper conception of the doctrines in 
 question. " 
 
 ''^ In this he was followed by Grotiiis, 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 
 B«uss, § 556; Diestel, pp. 387-534, /?. 
 
 ' Scripture is not called divine because everything which is contained in it 
 ought to be imputed to a special divine revelation." liespons. thes. 72. Pro- 
 fessor Ladd (Doc^rires 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 m-itten by Sehmid, 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 hernieneutic 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." ■' 
 
 5. The liberation of the Church was further helped on, 
 fifthly, by mysticism. Though few now read the works of 
 J, BOHME, " the mighty cobbler of Gorlitz" (t 1624), his in- 
 fluence was widely felt. His Aurora odcr Monjcnrothe im 
 Aufjang, 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 
 " pliilosophus 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 
 
 ^ Spinoza derived his views of interpretation in part from Ibn Ezra and 
 Maimonides. He held that Scripture was its own best interpreter, Novali) 
 calls him " a God-intoxicated man." Schleierniacher 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 I.essing, Goethe, Schelling, Hegel, and foreshadowed the views on 
 the one hand of Semler and Eichhorn, on the other of Strauss, Baur, and 
 Eenan. (For his critical views see especially Capp. viii.-x. of his Tractaius.) 
 
Cocceins. 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.* Few theologians 
 have succeeded in doing at once so much good and so 
 much harm by their special opinions." 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 
 gi'ace 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, Chilia.sm 
 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 Dodrinac clc Foedcrc, 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, tlie good which Cocceius did in 
 
 ' 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 hud been 
 influenced by the orthodoxy of Maccovius, the Puritanism of Ames, and the 
 scholarship of Amama. 
 
 ^ See PfafF, His/. Lit. Theol. i. 14 ; Alb. v. d. Flier, I)r J. Cocccio anti- 
 seholastico, 1859 ; Schrock, viii. 344, sq. ; Gesenius in Ersch und Grilber's 
 £ncyM. i. 18 ; and Ebrard in Herzog. J. H. Majua said of him, " Animum 
 imprimis ad fontes intendit, et nulli se maneipavit." 
 
 ' The dispensation of Grace after the Fall ivas treated under three divisions : 
 1. Before the Law. 2. Under the Law. 3. Under the Gospel. He thought 
 
 C C 
 
38G Cocceiits. 
 
 one direction he undid in another. He emancipated exegesis 
 from a dull tyranny, but subjected it to an extravagant 
 typology.i He was the first to sanction a system of parallels 
 between the Old and New Testament of which many were 
 purely fanciful.^ His flexible axiom that the words of 
 Scripture signify all that they can be made to signify^ 
 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,* the history 
 of Karl the Great,' and the death of Gustavus Adolphus.' 
 In reading Giirtler's Systema Theologiae, we can see why 
 Cocceianism became proverbial for artificiality and caprice.' 
 The movement begun by Cocceius, like almost every 
 other movement during this epoch, seems by some 
 fatality to have been cursed by the falsehood of extremes. 
 Fortunately, however, Cocceius had successors like F. Bur- 
 mann, Witsius, Van Til, Vitringa, and Lampe, who toned down 
 the exuberance of his system, and made important contribu- 
 tions to Scriptural interpretation.^ 
 
 7. The growth of criticism helped stiU 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 proTides a praeter -mission (irap^ais) but not a remis- 
 sion {&<t>€ais) of sins. Rom. iii. 25. 
 
 ' The ourrent phrase of the day was " Grotiiim nusqiiam in sacris literis 
 invenire Christum, Cocceium ubique." See p. 380, n. i. 
 
 * See Vitringa, Typiif: Doctrinae Prophetieae ; Venema, Mcthodtts Prophetica, 
 Praef. 1775 ; Lampe, De Smia Jacobi ; Cremer, Antiquitates Theol. Typicae; 
 Knrz, ii. ; Oehler, Old Test. Thr.ol. i. 42 ; Klausen, Hcrmen. 282 ; Dorner, 
 ii. 35, sq. Gass, Gcf:i;li. d. Prot. DogmatAk, ii. 319. 
 
 ' " Id significant verba quod significare possunt in Integra oratione sic ut 
 omnino inter se conveniant " (ap. Roman. § 35). So too Turretin, Dc Inkrpr. 
 Sacr. p. 126. 
 
 ' Is. xix. 2. 6 jg_ xxiii, 11. 
 
 ' Is. xxxiiii. 7. 
 
 ' I have airead)' quoted his unwise principle that every prophetic applica- 
 tion attached to a passage was foreseen, and therefore wns intended. 
 
 8 Vitringa (t 17;2) tried to unite the methods of Grotius and Cocceius. 
 Some of the Cocoeians wore much influenced by Cartesianism. Meyer in his 
 Fhihsophia S. Scripturae called Cartesianism the only key to Scripture. 
 
Growth of Criticism. 387 
 
 listed in 1650, marked an epoch.i 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 KetJiib, 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.^ 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 
 
 ' The Bxercitationes Bihlicae 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 Buxtorfi's, with 
 all their learning, were absolutely defeated, because their views on biblical 
 dictation led them to hold that the JIasoretic punctuation originated with 
 Moses, or at least with Ezra. 
 
 " " Nobis jam satis est utcumque probasse argumentis non oranino contem- 
 nendis, puncta ilia hebraica a Masorethis esse excogitata, et textui sacio 
 addita, circa Christ! Ann. 500, et saltem post 400" (Cappellus, Critica 
 Sacra, ii. 28, p. 790)- 
 
 C G 2 
 
388 Growth of Criticism. 
 
 the acrostic Psalms He meant to indicate some pause in 
 music, or to call attention to some hidden mystery. 
 
 " Sicplacuit Domino dicere plura nefas."'^ 
 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.^ 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.^ 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.* 
 
 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 breakinc,', 
 Srem 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 a 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 *nN3, as read in Ps. xxii. 17, was a i'«m diminutimm, 
 and stood for 1230, the years between the writing of the Psalm and the 
 Crucifixion ! (Diestel, p. 328). 
 
 2 Heidegger {Loci, u. § 58) proved it by the command to Moses to write the 
 words on stones plainly I 
 
 '' E.g. by Hugh ' Brough ton, Buxtorfif, Fuller, Bayle, Dilherr, Kircher, 
 Leusden, Morinus, Loscher, Carpzov, &e. (Diestel, p. 384). 
 
 '' Kennicott came to the conclusion that we have no Hebrew MS. of the 
 Old Testament older than A.n. 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 
 
 Cliurch 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, Hettinger, 
 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.^ 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 Bolime degenerated 
 into a self-deceiving claim of illumination. Pietism, so pure 
 and hopeful in its origin, withered into an inquisitorial 
 hypocrisy. Cocceianism deteriorated into arbitrary super- 
 stition. The Syncretistic movement split into sections by 
 which Romanism and Indifferentism alike profited. Free 
 criticism, looked on by orthodoxy with a jealous eye, was too 
 apt to ally itself with an unspiritual philosophy. But though 
 every one of these influences which had endeavoured to 
 strike life into the decay of religion had gradually dwindled, 
 they produced men of vast erudition, of conspicuous wisdom, 
 and of exemplary holiness. Their combined value was seen 
 in some whose names will stand recorded for ever among 
 those whom the Church honours and loves. Among these 
 I win here select three : Count Zinzendoef, John James 
 Wetstein, and John Albert Bkngel. 
 
 i. In Zinzendorf, and his Moravian brotherhoods, we see 
 the undying force of Practical Christianity. He was born in 
 
 ' 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 indnatry and scholarship. 
 
390 Ziinendorf. 
 
 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 Eccc Homo at Diisseldorf under which was the 
 
 inscription : — 
 
 " I did all this for thee. 
 What hast thou done for me ? " ' 
 
 — impressed also during his travels with " the splendid miseiy 
 of a world dying of envy amid its ovm pitiable littlenesses," 
 he determined to devote his life to the cause of Christ.^ " I 
 have but one passion," he said, " and it is He, only He." Like 
 every good man he was abused and misrepresented by 
 sectarian bigotry. So busy was calumny with his pure name 
 that Frederick William of Prussia said of him that " all the 
 devils in hell could not lie worse than he had been bed to 
 about Zinzendorf" But his pious journeys did much to 
 bring back to the Church the love of Unity, and the 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 hoUness. ^ 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." * 
 
 ' " Hoc feci pro te. 
 
 Quid facis pro me ? " 
 
 ^ In founding the community of HeiTnhut he was deeply influenced by the 
 Ratio disciplinac of the Bohemian Bishop, Amos Comenius. 
 
 ' Perhaps his most characteristic thoughts are to be found in his Gedanhen 
 iller Evangelische WalirhrAten, Gnadau, 1840. His best-known hymns are 
 "Jesu, geh' voran," and "Christi Blut und Gerechtigkeit, " (Jesu, Thy blood 
 and righteousness). 
 
 ■* On Zinzendorf, see Bishop E. de Schweinitz, in Herzog's EncyTcl.; Tholuck, 
 Verm. Schriftcn, i. 6 ; V. vou Ense, Lcben Zinzendorf s, 1846 ; Bonet, Le Cmnts 
 
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 Lihelli ad Orism utque Interpretationem 
 Nov. Tcstmncnti, he dwelt on the necessity for considering the 
 New Testament on its human side as an historical and hterary 
 product, and of devoting to it a free and unprejudiced study.^ 
 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, 
 pecuharities, 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 
 pubhshed in 1751, four years before his death. But he had 
 devoted to its preparation a life of study .^ He was, as a 
 matter of course, like all the best workers in this field, 
 accused of heresy, and was compelled to give up his 
 Professorship at Basle for one in the Remonstrants' College at 
 Amsterdam. ^ 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 
 
 dc Zinzendorf, 1860; Hagenbach, Germ. Rationalism, 128-153 (E. T.); 
 Kurz, ii. 941, sq. ; Dorner, ii. 245-248; Kahnis, pp. 100 105. 
 
 1 Some characteristic quotations from his Libelli ad GHsin are given m 
 Klausen, Hermen. 298. .... 
 
 2 Among other things he was condemned for Arianism and bocmiamsm in 
 1730, because he followed the now all but universally accepted reading, &j tor 
 eeis in 1 Tim. iii. 16. See Herzog, Bible Texts. 
 
 ^ He succeeded Clericus. 
 
392 Bengel. 
 
 seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which are still indis- 
 pensable to the student of Scripture. ^ 
 
 iii. Still greater and more blessed, as well as somewhat 
 earher, was the work of the illustrious Bengel (t 1752). ^ 
 He was the heir and continuator of all that was best in Pietism 
 and Mysticism, without either the gloom of the one or the 
 sentimentahty of the other. Orthodox with none of the narrow 
 bhndness, 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 ; ^ profoundly humble yet 
 thoroughly original, he towers above all the scholars and 
 theologians of the Lutheran Church.* 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 shght deviation from current confessions, 
 but as a faithful adherence to all primary truths. 
 
 1 See Gloekner, Interpretandi ratio a J. J, WcMcino 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. 
 
 ^ See Burk, BengeVs Leben und JFerke, 1831 : Wiichter, J. A. Bengel, 
 Leheiisahriss, &c. Bengel was bom in 1687 at Winnenden, near Stuttgart. 
 In 1731 be became tutor at Denkendorf. In 1741 he was made Bishop 
 of Herbrechtingen. His (??iomo» was first published in 1742 ; his Apparatus 
 Critieus and New Testament in 1734. 
 
 ' Hf coUecti-J twenty-four Greek MSS. and some Latin ones, as enumerated 
 in his Apparatus Critieus. He boldly prononnccd 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 {I'raefatio) on the uselessuess 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. 
 
 * 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 c^uicken 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 
 -ftTong is it then to rush in upon just such sensitive souls, to 
 cross-question, to gag, and stun them, when we ought on the 
 contrarjr, 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,^ 
 and his fundamental merit as an exegete was that while he 
 was dihgent about minute points of textual criticism and 
 Greek philology, he could also, like Chrysostom and like 
 Luther, enter into the very soul of the sacred writers, and 
 reproduce for others the melodies which once rang in their 
 hearts. ^ 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.^ It contains sentence 
 
 ^ See Kaknis, E. T. p. 105. Fresenius in Ms funeral sermon called Bengel 
 "An angel of peace who was as pious as he was laborious, as chilil-like as 
 he was learned, as rich in spirit as he was acute in mind, as humble as he 
 was great." 
 
 ' The necessity for a psychological element in the highest exegesis was 
 pointed out by Schleiermacher. It was recognised also in tlie Greek Church. 
 Dosithei Confcssio, Qu. i. Kimmel, Momimenta Fidei, i. 465. 
 
 ' Gnomon N. T. in quo ex nathri verhorum vi simplicitns, profunditas, con- 
 cinnitas,salubritas sen^uum coclcHium indicat'ur. Tub. 1742. Its merits are 
 gratefully acknowledged by John Wesley in his Notes to the A'nv Testament, 
 1755. Even the Apocalyptic studies to which Bengel 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. ^ " Lord 
 Jesus, unto Thee I live, unto Thee I suffer, unto Thee I die ; 
 Thine I am, living or dying." These words were repeated to . 
 him in his last moments, and on hearing them he pointed 
 with his right hand to his heart, and fell asleep in peace.^ 
 
 1 In the Preface to the third edition of the Gnomon, his son gives us some 
 biographical ]iarticulars 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 Eoman 
 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 (t 1613) and Corn, k Lapide(t 1637) 
 
" Dens scientiarum Dominus est, et ipsi praeparantur cogitationes.' 
 —1 Sam. ii. 3. 
 
 "Ees 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 Christiana. 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 ?" — Cdlverwbll, 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 Eobinson, Farewell Address to 
 the Pilgrim Fathers. 
 
 "The Gospel itself rests on an immovable rock, while human systems 
 of theology are everywhere undergoing a purifying process. We live 
 in the time of a great crisis." — Neahder. 
 
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 pecuUar difficulty to 
 the treatment of the final phases of Scripture interpretation. 
 One is their complexity, and the multiplication of their 
 hterary 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 Eoypliquh were the natural Nemesis of 
 such books as Calov'si?iWiff. 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.^ The gravity and gentleness 
 of Spinoza's manner, no less than his keen sagacity, had 
 
 ^ " 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 " 
 (Leasing). 
 
398 Wolff. 
 
 given weight to the criticisms of his Tradatus Theologico- 
 Politicus, and, crude as some of them were, he rendered a real 
 service by enforcing attention to that human element of 
 Scripture, which he had probably been taught to recognise by 
 the writings of Maimonides. His " Pantheism " was opposed 
 by Leibnitz (t 1716), who substituted for it the theory of 
 self-subsisting monads held in union by a pre-estabhshed 
 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 possibility 
 of the deepest Christian mysteries — even of the Trinity, the 
 Incarnation, the Eucharist. ^ WoLFF (t 1754), systema- 
 tising the methods of Leibnitz in a mathematical form,^ 
 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 rehgion. 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 earhest 
 
 ' Leibnitz added " the principle of the sufficient reason " as a criteriou 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 he true and 
 false at the same time. But in order to proceed from Mathematics to treat 
 Philosophy another principle is requisite (as 1 have observed in my Theodicam], 
 1 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. 
 
 - Wolif's chief works were Vcrniinftige Gcdanken von Oott, der Welt, 
 lend der Sccle (1719), and V. O. von der Menschen Tlmn 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. 899 
 
 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 bad 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 sjairitual 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 bad 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 jprincipiuvi con- 
 tradictionis, and the ]principium rationis sufficientis. There 
 were germs of truth in bis 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 n.ttempts to hunt up 
 heresies in each other's sermons. Lessing was himself 
 conscious of an unsatisfied want. He desjoised 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,! 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 personahty 
 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 Spu-it 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, ITcr/cc, 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 Aj)ologists. 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,^ was only influential 
 through the feebleness of the op]30sition which was offered to 
 it. The work of Spener and Francke had spent its beneficent 
 force.^ Of the clergy, some shut themselves up in a sullen 
 dogmatic obstinacy. Others in alarm were willing to reduce 
 religion to a system of utilitarianism and sentimentality, and 
 acted, says Tholuck, like a man who, crying that his house 
 is on fire, throws his best mirrors out of the window in order 
 to save them. The truest defence of the Church was to be 
 found in the sincere holiness of men like Stelling, Oberlin, 
 Claudius, and Lavater, Preachers were living, among whom 
 the teaching of the early Pietists still " lingered like the 
 fragrance of a flower." Lavater especially, the friend of 
 men like Goethe and Fichte, maintained in the most ad- 
 vanced and polished circles a profound respect for the religion 
 of which he was not ashamed. In the words of Goethe, he 
 ; stiU raised the clear crystal to his lips, and, as he quaffed the 
 divine draught, even let it pour profusely over the sides of 
 the goblet. In that age, too, as in many others, 
 
 ; " Piety hath found 
 
 I I'riends 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 
 
 infidehty, 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 — 
 
 4; sciU kept alive the spirit of the older strains which had 
 
 ^ 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 Biuristio ("llND, "lUu- 
 ^' luination "). 
 
 *f ^ Even Zinzendorf spoke of the Halle Pietists as "those miserable Christians 
 
 ': whom no one calls Pietists but themselves." 
 
 D D 
 
402 Earli/ Rationalists. 
 
 glowed in the Ltira Germanica. Haller, one of the founders 
 of modern physiology (t 1777), with the whole strength of his 
 genins made a stand against the growth of materiahsm. 
 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 ar/ainst the Attnel's 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 rationahsm 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.^ He was followed by Eichhorn 
 and Paulus who, with all their learning, could find no better 
 explanation for the supernatural element in both dispensations 
 than a theory of mistake, hyperbole, and ignorance. The 
 naturalism of Paulus received its death-blow from the mordant 
 sarcasm of Strauss. Ernesti was, perhaps, the first to formu- 
 late with perfect clearness the principle which has been much 
 discussed in our own day, " that the verbal sense of Scripture 
 must be determined in the same way in which we ascertain 
 that of other books." He found a pupil greater than himself 
 in the earnest-minded and learned Semler.^ 
 
 Semler (t 1791) marks a distinct epoch. He was neither 
 
 1 See Hengstenberg, Penlatmc.h, I. xiii. It is said that the term "ration- 
 alism " first occurs in the Theologia Naiuralis of Amos Comenius, 1661. 
 ' ' Supernaturalism " was first used as the antithesis to " Rationalism " by Gabler 
 (Rengst. Thcol. Journ. J801). Descartes in 1650 had formulated his pro- 
 position, De ovmibui dubitandmn est. 
 
 - Dr. A. 8. Farrar in his learned Bamptou Lectures (p. 311) points out that 
 L(!ipzig was the chief home of the dogmatic school ; Gottingen of the critical ; 
 Tubingen and Halle of the Pietist and Scholastic. 
 
Semle7\ 403 
 
 a prophet like Herder, nor an originator like Schleiermacher, 
 but by bis l7l 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 
 rehgion, 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." ^ He regarded it as a part of 
 his rehgious duty to discriminate between those elements 
 of the Bible which are temporary and Judaic, and that part 
 which is of eternal validity.^ The teaching of Ernesti, 
 the study of E. 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 
 
 ^ 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 the magic word which emancipated theology 
 from the fetters of tradition " (Renss). See Myers, Catholic Thoughts, p. 288. 
 
 ' " It is inconceivable how thoughtful Christians confound the sacred Scrip-. 
 tnre of the Jews and the Word of God which is here and there contained and 
 enveloped therein." Snmler, Abhmidl. v. freicr U-nti'r.ni-clirn d. Kanons, i. 48 
 (4 vols. 1771-177.5). He also wrote a special book, Dcr Untersehicd d. Heil. 
 Sehrift und des iVortes Gottes. See many passages from his writings quoted 
 hv Sonntag {De Boctrina Iiispirationis, pp. 162, fg. ), who points out the im- 
 portance of his distinction between " inspiration " and "revelation." 
 
 D D 2 
 
404 Vieim 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.^ 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." ^ 
 
 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 ' (olKovo/ioa) or ' condescen- 
 sion ' ((7vyKaTd^a(ri<;) of which Origen and the Fathers had 
 spoken is admitted. It is, in fact, a necessity.^ 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.^ 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. •' 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.^ No such system is consistent 
 
 1 "Le trait caraoteristique du 19me sifeele est d'avoir snhstitu^ la method e 
 historique k la methode dograatique, dans toutes les etudes relatives k I'esprit 
 humain." Renan, Averroes, p. vi. It ia needless to say that Semler was the 
 subject of fierce attacks. The Nova Bibl. Ecdesiastica called him ' ' homo im- 
 phts, et Judaeis pejor." 
 
 2 He died, Kurz says, "brokenhearted," at the height of the controversy 
 raised by the "Wolfenbiittel Fragments. See Semler's Beantwortung der 
 Fragmente eines Ungenannten, 1779. 
 
 ' See Colet's Letters to Radulphus, p. 28 (ed. Lupton). 
 
 ■* It is defined as "oeconomicum dicendi genus." See Carus, Hist, antiquiar 
 Sent. Eccl. Braw. de Accommodations, 1793. 
 Ezek. XX. 25. Matt. xix. 8. 
 
 ' Each system of interpretation has generally appealed to a favourite dictum 
 probans. That of Semler was i\i.\ii avrois -rhv \6yov KaBais ijSiiiavTO aKoveir, 
 
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." ' 
 
 But there could be no permanent life in principles of 
 exegesis which were lacking in positive elements.^ "Men 
 thought too much about the Jews and knew too little of 
 Christ."^ Their interpretation was " humilis ct 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 (11803). "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." * 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. 33. It was no less misapplied than the Kara Trjf ma\oylav rrjs 
 vi(TT€(as (Rom. xii. 6) of the Reformation epoch, and the rh ypa^fxa aTroKrelvn 
 (2 Cor. iii. 6) of the Fathers and Schoolmen, or "the love of Christ" which 
 was used by the Pietists as a plea for holy ignorance. 
 
 ' Perhaps the extreme outcome of Semler's tendencies may be seen in Teller's 
 JForterbuch dcs K. T. 1772, which reduces Christianity to commonplace 
 morals. 
 
 ^ On the im])ortant influence of Semler, see his own autobiography (1781) ; 
 H. Schmid, Die Theologie Semlers, 1858 ; Tholuck, Verm, Schriften, ii. 39 ; 
 Nbsselt, De J. S. Semlero (Rigae, 1792), and the notices of him in Domer 
 Diestel, Meyer, Kahnis, Hagenbach, &c. 
 
 ' Eeuss, Heil. Schrift, ii. 323. 
 
 * Kahnis, Germ. Protestantism, E. T. p. 70. " More poet than theologian, 
 and for that reason only the more lovely." Keuss, § 578. 
 
406 Services of Herder. 
 
 with its own weapons. Christ in his view was divinest 
 ia His divine humanity, and under His own chosen title 
 as the Son of God who called Himself " the Son of Man."' 
 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 .^ 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.^ " 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 ErloMr d. Mcnschyn, 1796 ; Von Gottrs Sohn, 1797. 
 
 ^ Hagenbach, Germ, nationalism, p. 191. 
 
 ' Zur Schonen Literatur und Kum-f,, p. 67 (1769). 
 
Kant. 407 
 
 impress which she then most needed.^ Perhajos no small 
 part of his depth and spirituality were diie 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 ^ 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 (tl804)to form a union between philosophy 
 and rehgion.* 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 
 
 ^ The best exegetioal works collected in Herder's twelve volumes of Theolog. 
 Werke were Aelteste Urlcunde des MenscMngeschlechts, 1774 ; Liecler der Liebe, 
 1778; Maran ACha, 1779; Vom Geiste d. Hebr. Poesie, 1782; Briefe das 
 Studium d. Theologie betreffend, 1780. 
 
 ^ In this sketch of Herder I have heen 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 Liicke, Grundriss, 
 p. 75. 
 
 ^ Kahnis, p. 78. 
 
 * " 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. 
 
 ° 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. 
 
 grace. Religion became as it were but an adjunct to morals ; 
 and since it was branded as venality to do what is right for God's 
 sake, God became little more than " a stream of tendency," 
 and Christ not an historic Person, but that " divine idea of 
 man which expiates our sinful mortality." It is true that, 
 recognising the enslavement of the Practical Reason by 
 an enigmatic selfishness, Kant postulates the necessity for 
 an ideal Church, which presupposes an ideal Founder.^ 
 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 
 alleEforical and moral ; ^ 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 Corner 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.* 
 
 ^ The language of Kant, as of many of even the most advanced sceptics, 
 was profoundly revereutlal towards Christ. He rebuked Borowski for mention- 
 ing his name in any nearness to that of Christ. " Namen davon der eine 
 geheiligt, di-r andere aber eines armen Ihn nach Vermogen auslegenden 
 Stiimper's ist. " iFcrlce, xi. 131. 
 
 - Here we have once more an illustration of the fact that Allegory is in 
 reality the offspring of Rationalism. 
 
 ' 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. 
 
Ficlite. 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 ^ — 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.^ 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 ScHLEiERJiACHER (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 profounder faith than any of the 
 
 ' The Kon-Ecjo, according to Fichte, has no reality without iis, hut is pro- 
 duced by the activity and unconscious intuition of the Ego ; and this creative 
 Ego is not the individual but the absolute Ego. 
 
 ' " God is infinite, therefore beyond the reach of our sciener, but not beyond 
 our faith." Fichte, SUtniUhre. "Claudius compared an ideal religion without 
 historical basis to a painted horse, which you can admire but not ride. 
 Hagenbach, Germ. Rat. p. 296. 
 
 ' Fichte, Spd:ulnlivr Theologie, 1846. It is a characteristic fact that both 
 Fichte and S.helling dwelt on the primary importance of the Gospel of St. 
 John (see Westcott's St. John, p. xevi.). 
 
410 Schlclcrmacher. 
 
 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,^ 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,^ 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.* 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 Eationalist 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 
 
 '■ "Not even Herder," says Strauss, "so distinctly and emphatically 
 asserted the divinity of Christ as he did. " New Life of Jems, introd. § 6. 
 He gave a greater impulse to exegesis than any one since Calvin. 
 
 - 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. 
 
 ^ He contributed little or nothing to the understanding of the Old Testa- 
 ment. He wished to unite the Lutheran and Reformed Chm-ches, 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. 
 
 •• They were the moral completion of the Reden iihcr die Ikligion, published 
 in 1799, which were addressed rather to the bigoted than to the indiflerent. 
 
His School. 411 
 
 faith," says W. von Humboldt, " are often regarded as beifag 
 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 veiy different schools : men of strict orthodoxy like 
 Twesten, Nitzsch, and J. Miiller ; men with a leaning to 
 rationalism like De Wette,-*- Bleek, and Gieseler; men who 
 occupied an intermediate f>osition like Olshausen, Tholuck, 
 Riehm, Weiss, Hagenbach, Uhllorn, Lilcke, Neander, Umbreit, 
 TJllmann, 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 Introdtidion to St. Liih'. 
 
 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. 
 Schelhng had ascribed the power to grasp the ideal of God 
 to " intellectual intuition ; " Jacobi to a mixture of feehng 
 f and intuition. Hegel once more revived the tendency to 
 ideology, and treated religious dogma as the explanation of 
 
 ^ See Snhwnrz, Ge.ich. d. nntcst. Theol. p. 27. Schleiermacher not only in- 
 fluenced De ffette, but even gave to the Tiibingen .scliool some impulse 
 by his letter to Gass on the Pastoral Epistles (1817), and his introduction to 
 St. Luke (1824). His chief book, Der Ohrintluhe Ghiube (2 vols. 1821) 
 bore the same relation to modern German theology as Calvin's Institutio to 
 that of the Reformed Churches. Schleiermacher never entered into current 
 controversies. 
 
412 Hegel. 
 
 a priori principles.^ 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 whicb brings the Father and 
 the Son in the essence of God to a unity of consciousness." ^ 
 The knowledge of such a Trinity is not life, but a mere 
 logical notion, a mere etherealised shadow of arbitrary 
 thought.^ 
 
 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.* 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 band, in Strauss, Bruno Bauer, and Feuerbach, on the 
 
 ^ " Like the ancifint Gnosticism, the Hegelian philosophy helieved in dog- 
 matic Christianity, because it descended from an a priori principle, in whicli 
 it found the explanation of it" (Dr. A. S. Farrar, Free Thcnujlil, p. 373). 
 " Dcr Grundgedanke seiner Philosophic ist daher ; das Absolute ist Process, 
 ist die Selbstentwickelung der Substanz zuni Subject " (Schwarz, p. 15). " The 
 existence of a personal God is admitted neither within nor without the Uniwrse, 
 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 evil 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. 
 
 ' The influence of Hegel is clearly seen in Wilhelm Vatke, who applied 
 Hegel's method to Old Testament criticism. See Dr. Geldardt, in Mod. 
 Revieiv, 1884. 
 
 * Hegel's ReligionspMlosophic was only published after his death, in 1832. 
 Of the Cliristliche GlaubensUhre oi 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. 
 
8t}-auss. 413 
 
 other, in Ferdinand Christian Baur, and the school of 
 Tubingen.^ 
 
 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 Zife of Jesus. It 
 illustrated the danger which Glaus 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.- 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 Lehen Jesu 
 caused in the minds of Christians.^ 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 
 
 ' See Hegel's Philosophy of History (E. T. J. Sibree, 1857) ; Vera, Philosophic 
 Segelienne, and Introd. a la Philosophic de Hegel. 
 
 ' Schwarz, Gesch. d. neuest. Thcol. p. 3. Strauss, then a Repetent m 
 Theology, had gone from Tubingen to Berlin in 1831 on purpose to hear 
 Sohleiermacher's lectures on the Life of Christ, and "Sie gaben ihm den 
 starksten Anstoss zu seinem Zerstorungswerk," p. 29. 
 
 ' It was translated into French by Littre, 1839 ; into English anonymously 
 by Miss Evans, 1846. 
 
414 Bcmr. 
 
 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 Glauhcnslehrc, he declared the 
 absolute irreconcilability of Christianity with modern cul- 
 ture.i 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 Ferdinaed 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 Lehen Jesio, 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 lie does not say the last word. This word I will utter. " 
 
Neandcr. 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 ilieologum, and many 
 sneered at his followers as pedoralists, 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 mayregret, 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 inspii'ed 
 by the writer's erudition, " it never needed more than ten 
 minutes to dissipate the charm of a vain science, and to 
 enable me to smile inwardly at the impotence to which God 
 has condemned error." '^ 
 
 As Strauss had laughed out of the field the naturalism of 
 Paulus, so it was Baur who showed the radical weakness of 
 the mythical theory of Strauss. Neither he, nor the able 
 writers who followed him, could fall into the extreme folly of 
 denying the historical existence of Jesus, or the fact that the 
 faith in Him sprang from His own transcendent personality. 
 Even the ingenuity of Baur could not put the date of the 
 Gospels low enough to allow for the evolution of myths, nor 
 could his candour deny the certain genuineness of at least the 
 
 1 Conferences (1846), p. 155. 
 
416 Failure of Strauss. 
 
 Apocalypse and the four greatest Epistles of St. Paul> 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.^ 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,^ allotting more sjjace 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 thn 
 inscription on the tomb of Abercius, Bishop of Hieropolis, found last jcar 
 by Mr. Ramsay in Phrygia, are alone sufiBcient — 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, &e., 
 and opposed by Thiersch, Dorner, Ewald, Bleek, &c. 
 
 ^ Lcben Jesu fur das Deutsche Folk 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.^ 
 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. ^ 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 modem 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 
 difine 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 Evangelisehe Kirchcnzcifung, during the period of its influence (1835- 
 1848) occupied the same unhappy position as the Mecord 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, usmg 
 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 rehgious. Above all faith was deepened, 
 and was restored to its due supremacy in the economy of the 
 Christian life. The whole ^Christian world had learnt to see 
 that in the Holy Scriptures there are many unsolved diffi- 
 culties, many unreconciled antinomies. They saw that the 
 soul could not be sustained in its convictions exclusively by 
 the biblical supernaturalism which had not come unscathed 
 out of the assaults of so many writers from Spinoza down to 
 Baur. They saw that questions like the genuineness of 
 this or that particular book, could never alone become so 
 certain that upon them could be built the majestic super- 
 structure of a Christian's faith. They realised that there 
 was something both radically unscriptural and profoundly 
 irreverent in questions as to whether a book was written by a 
 man or by " the pen of the Triune God." They remembered 
 that the spiritual life of many a hero and patriarch had been 
 sustained and inspired by a Word of God which was not the 
 written word, but of Whom the written word is to us a 
 revelation ; and that the earliest Christians, who had been 
 Christians indeed, were heirs of the new covenant, though 
 not a line of the New Testament had yet been penned. 
 They returned, says the ablest and deepest historian of this 
 epoch to " the power and certainty of the material principle 
 of the Faith — whence critical operations may be contemplated 
 with serenity, nay, actively shared in without anxiety." ^ 
 
 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 full in vain. 
 " We older men," says Meyer, in the Preface to his fourth 
 edition of the Ejoistle 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 
 
 ^ 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 hfe of Christ in its purely external features 
 while no one whose faith had not been previously shaken 
 felt anything but regret and pity for its negation of the 
 supernatural at the expense of the truthfulness of Christ. 
 And meanwhile the literature of a strong and wise theology 
 was being yearly enriched by the labours of men whose 
 learning and diligence were unsurpassed. Winer for the 
 first time produced a thorough grammar of the Hellenistic 
 dialect. Tholuck, outliving the times in which his house 
 was attacked and his person insulted because he reverenced 
 the Bible, outliving, too, the day when he could only find one 
 of his theological students who read the Bible for devotional 
 purposes, began a new epoch by his Commentary on the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, and once more taught men to regard 
 the whole religion of the Old Testament as being in its 
 essence one great and unassailable prophecy. From schools 
 of orthodox reaction, more or less rigidly Lutheran or 
 reformed, came such works as those of Keil, and Haver- 
 nick, of Stier, Olshausen, and Lange. From the so-called 
 "Mediating Theology" — a school of freer spirit, but not 
 untouched by the scepticism of the age, came the works 
 of Gesenius, Hitzig, Delitzsch, Huther, De Wette.^ 
 Neander shed over Church history the glow of his ripe 
 learning and large-hearted piety. Meyer published his 
 critical and luminous edition of the New Testament. 
 Corner in his Ghristology produced a book which for its 
 speculative depth and historic enidition 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. ^ 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 Pressens^. In 
 German Switzerland, Hagenbach, Auberlen, Stahelin, 
 EiGGENBACH, 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 
 
 ' Kurz says of Ms JaJtrbiicher that " in them he held a yearly a«fo- 
 do.-fi 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 Avhich 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 underst(iod. 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.^ 
 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 ©f the best English theologians — of men like 
 Hooker, and Jeremy Taylor, and Archbishop Leighton — witli 
 influences derived from the Neoplatonic studies of his youth, 
 and with truths which he had learnt from Kant and ScheUing 
 in his maturer years. In his Govfcssions of an Inquirinc/ 
 Spirit he was the first to show his fellow countrymen^ with 
 C(jnviucing illustiations 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 Covfessions of an Inquiring Spirit 
 were not published till 1840, six years after his death. 
 
 2 Archdeacon Hare, Professor Maurice, Sterling, and Cardinal Kewman all 
 testify to the influence of Coleridge, nor will their estimate be weakened by the 
 characteristieally splenetic sneers of Carlyle (see J. S. Mill's Dissertations; 
 Dr. Hort in Cambridge Essays for 1856 ; Bemusat, Ikv. des Deux Monies, 
 October, 1856 ; Dr. A. S. Farrar's Bampton Lectures, pp. 475-479 ; Rigg's J/orf. 
 Anglican Tlieol. L857 ; Principal Tulloch on Coleridge as a Thinker in the 
 Nineteenth Century for January, 1885). 
 
Influence of Coleridge. 423 
 
 themselves. He stowed 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." ^ 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 
 ahke 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 Afford, in the dictionaries of 
 the Bible and of Christian biography, and in some recent 
 commentaries, worthy monuments of EngUsh candour and 
 erudition. It was this spirit which shone forth in Milmau'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 
 histoiy, till the pages of Genesis, Exodus, Judges, and the 
 
 ' Hagenbaoh, Oerm. nationalism, 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 reUgious 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." ^ It is above all essential that we should 
 see the hand of God in current events, and understand the 
 tiioughts 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 (154G) Copernicus had pub- 
 lished his Be Bcvolutionibus OrMuiii Codestium. 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 telescoiDe of Galileo 
 we have learnt the existence of infinite space thronged with 
 innumerable worlds. Since fossil bones were submitted 
 to the proiihetic eye of Cuvier we have learnt that infinite 
 time has been peojaled with innumerable existences. The 
 search into caves and river-beds has shown us the immemorial 
 relics and flint imiDlements of ]Drimeval 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 efi'ect 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 
 Eoger 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 tlhristianity, not of 
 the very smallest fraction of the truths of Uod, 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. ^ 
 Five hundred years of mistaken opiDosition, 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 
 
 ^ 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, Sjoinoza, 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 religiou.s 
 books of Humanity, and how they too — though they stand so 
 immeasurably below the Scriptures in worth and sacredness — 
 have suffered from the analogous misinterjDretations of an 
 ill-directed superstition. 
 
 Nor while physical science and metaphj^sical inquiry were 
 thus advancing by leajjs and springs was it likely that criticism 
 should remain stationary. The demonstration of the foigery 
 of the Donation of Constantine and the Decretals of Isidore 
 on which had been built the great fabric of papal supremacy 
 over the national Churches ; ^ the examination by DaiJle 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 ; ^ 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 
 
 ' Valla's discourse, De Potest. Imp. et Ecd. was written in 1440. 
 By Valla, who is followed by Erasmus, Annott. in Acts xviii. 34. See 
 
 Ussher, Dis.-:crt. de Hcriptu Dionysio Suirpositu, 1690. 
 
Widening Knoivlcdge. 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 sbaken so much as the fringe of a single truth. 
 But the notion of verbal infallibility could not possibly sur- 
 vive the birth of historic inquiry, which showed in Scrip- 
 ture as elsewhere an organic growth, and therefore a necessary 
 period of immature development. And meanwhile we have 
 been taught of God a fearlessness which enables us to ex- 
 amine every critical question with tolerance and candour. 
 We have learnt to see, not only that everything is not lost, 
 but even that nothing is lost if criticism succeeds in proving 
 that the Pentateuch is composed of different elements, and 
 the Book of Chronicles a late and one-sided narrative, or that 
 there were two Isaiahs, and two Zechariahs, or that the old 
 Antilegomena must still be regarded as of dubious genuine- 
 ness. Nay, more, all is not lost if we were even compelled to 
 make the extravagant admission that the Pastoral Epistles 
 were pseudonymous, and the Fourth Gospel was not written by 
 St. John. Where the Spirit of God is there is liberty. All 
 these questions have been under discussion for many years ; 
 yet to multitudes of those who on these questions have come 
 to decisions which are in opposition to the current opinions, 
 the Bible is still the divinest of all books and the Lord Jesus 
 Christ is still the Son of God, the Saviour of the World. 
 
 And if any man ask, " How are we to discriminate between 
 that which in the Bible ought to be to us the immediate 
 word of God, and that which, having been but relative and 
 transient, is not His word to us ? " — I answer that not only 
 is there not the slightest practical difficulty in doing so, but 
 that the question shows, surely, a strange and unworthy 
 timidity. In the first place, no theory which can be invented 
 will give the certitude which is claimed for every petty 
 detail of sectarian dissidence or theological terminology ; nor 
 can any pretence of an infallible decision ever give infalli- 
 bility to hosts of fallible and varying interpretations. But 
 for all essential truths, have we nothing to guide us into cer- 
 tainty ? Have we no reason " lighted by God, and lighting 
 to God, res illuminata, illuminans " ? Have we within us 
 no voice of Conscience, " that aboriginal Vicar of Christ, a 
 
Revelation. 431 
 
 Prophet in its informations, a Monarch in its peremptoriness, 
 a Priest in its blessings 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 wlio 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, 
 
 ^ See the remarks of Luther c^uoted by Kostlin, ii. 260. 
 
432 The One Foundation. 
 
 of our security, of our freedom, of our strength.^ 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.^ 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, Pemies II. ix. § 13). 
 f 2 yiieu joiin Owen ( WorTcs, xi.T, 310) said that Newton's discoveries were 
 
 ' ' huilt on fallible phenomena, and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions 
 I against evident testimonies of Scripture," his sentences may stand as hut one 
 
 specimen of hundreds and thousands of the obscurantist utterances of 
 
 theologians who attribute infallibility to their own cxegetical eri'ors. 
 
Tlie ScripfHirs. 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 difficidties, 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.'- 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." ^ And therefore in this 
 respect also the history at which we have glanced is full 
 of encouragement. The supremacy of the Scriptures is 
 assured when they are seen to be human as well as divine, 
 and are not regarded as the sole source of revelation, but 
 rather as the record of its progressive development. Thej- 
 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 
 
 ' " 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. 
 
 ■ Pascal, Petisees, ii. 17, § 106. 
 
 F F 
 
434 Christ the Interpreter. 
 
 thrust a book, eveu 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 
 Intcrpre& et Divinae vcritatis internuntivs. ^ 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." ^ 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. arf Rambaoh, Instt. Serm., ad fin. Comp. Merx, Mnt 
 Eede vom Auslegen, p. 43 ; " }Fann wird das Thema bearbeitet werden : Jesvs 
 Veteris Testamenti interpres primarms ? " 
 
 ' Westcott, Introd. to the Gospels, p. 5. 
 
Christ the Interpreter. 4<o^> 
 
 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.'^ 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 
 vahd 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 Kabbinic, 
 Kabbalistic, Alexandrian, Patristic, Scholastic, Dogmatic, 
 Philosophical, Psychological, or Practical, may follow false 
 developments and abound in erroneous details ; ^ and so far as 
 
 1 See Matt. xxii. 29-32 ; Mark xii. 24-27 ; Luke xx. 34-38. 
 - ^e^^Aovs Kevo(f>icvias, 1 Tim. vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. ii. 16. 
 
 F F 
 
 i) 
 
43(3 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. ^ But no such schemes receive any sanction from 
 the approval or practice of our Lord. He has but one 
 principle, which is to go to the very heart of the central 
 idea, and to fill it with the large liberality of love. God is 
 righteous. If we be sons of God we must hate falsity and 
 injustice and all " lying for God " with a perfect hatred. 
 God is a Spirit. If we be in living communion with God 
 we must not only believe in the continuous inspiration of 
 His Spirit, but we must speak with tongues and must 
 interpret. God is Love. We shall never go far astray in the 
 interpretation of Scripture even though we be but wayfaring 
 men and fools, if we strive by our theology to regulate our 
 life, and to sway the whole movement of our intellect by the 
 spirit which Christ manifested and by the Divine example 
 which He set;^ — 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."^ 
 
 Potto v,nivm neccssaTium. 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, " slawry has been a curse and Might wherever it exists : yet it is 
 warranted hy 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 cnielty. " 
 
 - Quisquis . . talem inde sententiam dnxerit ut . . aedificandae caritati 
 sit utilis . . non pcrniciose fallitur, nee oranino mentitur." Aug. X)e Doetr. 
 Christ, iii. 
 
 '■' " 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. 
 
 ^ 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 tha.t I have said, I trust 
 that they will all agree with me, heart and soul, in believing 
 that the one end of all Scriptural stiidy, the one object of all 
 Christian life, the one thing needful to be desired in all the 
 world, is this : to find Christ, and to be found in Him, not 
 having a righteousness of our own, even that which is of 
 the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the 
 righteousness which is of God by faith. 
 
NOTES. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 NOTE I. 
 
 SELF-GLORIFICATION OF THE RABBIS. 
 
 Rashi on Deut. svii. 11, says, "The Rabbis are to be believed even 
 when they say that right is left, and left is right." 
 
 "He that quarrels Tvith 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 withoiit cause." 
 Sanhedrin, f 20, 2 ( a flat contradiction of Prov. x.^vi. 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 Nasi. "The Modest, the Patient, the Elder, 
 
 the Great." 
 
 R. Johanan ben Zakkai. " Upright Pillar," or " Mighty Ham- 
 mer." 1 
 
 R. Meir. "The Brilliant" (Meir) = and "Baal 
 
 nes, Lord of Wonders." 
 
 1 Berakhoth, f. 28, 2. 
 
 - His real name was Nehoraii. 'Erubin, f. 13, 2. 
 
442 Notes. 
 
 "R. Eleazar ben H.yrkanos. " 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 Kah, but clean." 
 
 R. Jose. " Always ready." 
 
 R. Johanan ben Nuri. "A heap of Halakhoth." 
 
 Rabbah. " Rooter up of mountains." ^ 
 
 B. 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." ^ 
 
 NOTE II. 
 
 THE TARGUMS AND MIDEASHIM. 
 
 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 Mepliorash 
 (A. V. " distinctly ") is in the Talmud (Megilla, 3, 1 ; Nedarim, 37, 2) 
 explained to mean " with a Targum." In Sanhedrin, f. 212, we are told 
 that Ezra introduced the Targum, and the square character of the 
 Hebrew letters. 
 
 The chief Targums are those of Onqelos, Jonathan Ben Uzziel, 
 Pseudo-Jonathan and the Targum Jerushalmi. Full accounts of them 
 will be found in Deutsch's Remains, pp. 319-403. Wogue, Rist. de la 
 Bible, pp. 145-15'? ; and Weber, Alt.-Synarj. Theologie, viii.-xix. 
 
 THE MIDRASH. 
 
 Jewish literature is, 1. Halakhic and Haggadic : the Mishna ; the 
 Talmuds. 
 
 2. Expository in a wider sense : the ^Midrashim and (incidentally) the 
 Targvims. 
 
 3. Massoretic, the great and little Massora. 
 
 1 Berakhoth, f. 64, 1 ; Horaioth, f. 14, 1. 
 
 '^ K. Tarphon also called him "the horned ram," and applied Dan. viii. 
 3-7 to him, from Ms skill in rebutting the arguments of R. Aqiba. These 
 and other titles are given in Gittin, f. 67, 1, and the Aboth of R. Nathan, 
 xviii. I am indebted for these references to Mr. P. J. Hrrshon. 
 
 * Aboth, ii. 10, " Happy is she that bare him." The title "Luxmundi" 
 was given in the Middle Ages to John Wessel. 
 
Notes. 443 
 
 4. Historical, Chananiali, 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. Mekhiltal (" Tenor ") An Halakhic commentary on parts of Exodus, 
 
 based on the methods of R. A^iba. 
 
 2. Siphra ("The Book") or Torath Kohanim, on Leviticus. It origi- 
 
 nated in the school of Rab in Sara (31 'm X"ISD). 
 
 3. Siphri (" Books ") on Numbers and Deuteronomy. 
 
 In the second epoch the Haggada was greatly developed, and the 
 foUowing works belong to it : — 
 
 4. Pesikhta. On sections or selections of the Law and the Prophets 
 
 by Rab. Kahana. 
 
 5. Midrash Babba : one of the catenae collected in the thirteenth 
 
 century. It consists of 
 
 Bereshitb Rabba, on Genesis. ^ 
 Shemoth Rabba, on Exodus. 
 Vajikra Rabba, on Leviticus. 
 Bamidbar Rabba, on Numbers. 
 Debarim Rabba, on Deuteronomy. 
 
 ^ 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. 
 
 G. Tanchuma ; on the Pentateuch. It is sometimes called Yelamdeoui 
 from its formula, " Our Rabbis have taught us."^ 
 
 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. Jalqxtt 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 Jlishna are called "extraneous" 
 (Bora'itoth-), and are collected in the Tosephta.' The additions to the 
 Mishna are called Tosephtoth ; those to the Gemara are called Tosaphoth. 
 
 NOTE III. 
 
 RABBI JOHANAN BEN ZAKKAI. 
 
 It was the happy method of R. Johanan to propose a subject for dis- 
 cussion, to listen to the opinions given by all his associates, and finally 
 to give his own judgment. Thus on one occasion he told his disciples 
 to consider " wJiich was the good vxiy 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. 
 
 B. Jose. He should strive to win a good neighbour. 
 
 B. Simon. He should always consider the consequences. 
 
 B. Eleazar. He should have a good heart. 
 
 1 !m mo"?*. 
 
 ^ Baria^ "exterior." 
 
 ' From yasaph, "to add." The Toseplita was drawn up by R. Chija bar 
 Abba, a Tanaite, who also drew up a collection of BoraJtoth. 
 
Notes. 445 
 
 R. Johanan summed up the discussion by saying, " The best answer 
 has been given by R. Eleazar, for the blessing which be 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 ("IDni) 
 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.) 
 Rahhon 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.^ 
 
 This view showed at least the kindness of bis heart (comp. Acts x. 
 34, 35) ; but be afterwards accepted R. Necbunjah's in preferences^ 
 
 Specimens of the admirable sayings and parables of R. Eliezer are 
 given by Low {Praktische Einleitung, 95, 103). 
 
 NOTE IV. 
 
 FURTHER INSTANCES OP EXEGETIO AND SYMBOLIC KABBALISM. 
 
 1. Oematria. 
 
 Is. XXX. 8. "Blessed are all those that wait upon Him"(l7). 
 The value of 1? is 36, so Abaii said that there are 36 in every 
 generation who receive the presence of the Shekbinab. Sanhedrin, 
 f. 97, 2. 
 
 Is. XX. 1. This is made a prophecy of Habakknk (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 nn^ = 409, and is equivalent to ti'li^n = 409 
 whence it was assumed that Hebrew was the primeval tongue. 
 
 ^ The word TDn usually means "mercy " or "piety," and taking it in this 
 sense Schultens and Grotius practically agree with E. Johanan, and make the 
 verse mean "piety is an atonement for the people." But IDn is rendered 
 oraSoj 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. 
 
 ^ 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 (*J»D), because both 
 words = 130. 
 
 Gen. xlii. 2. " Go doion " (ITl) = 210, therefore the Egyptian 
 bondage was to last 210 years. 
 
 Lev. xvi. 3. " Thus shall Aaron come into the Holy Place." 
 nNT3, "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 = 10* + 5- + 6* + 51 
 
 On the tomb of Emmanuel Deutsch in the Jewish cemetery at 
 Alexandria, the Hebrew inscription, WTitten 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'"IDJ3J ; Bud- 
 deus, Philos. Ebr. p. 323. 
 
 2. NotariJcon. 
 
 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 DD3 stand for the initials of the Hebrew words for "Potiphar, 
 merchants, Islimaelites, INIidianites." 
 
 Deut. XXX. 12, "Who will go up for us ? " In the Hebrew the 
 initials of these words give Tw'O, " circumcision," and the final 
 letters mrr, " 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 i6ii p npn X. 
 
 Gen. XXV. 23. "Two nations are in thy womb." Read not D'13, 
 " nations," but D"J, " men " (as the Massora reads). The two 
 men are Rabbi (Judah the Holy), the compiler of the Mishna, and 
 his friend Antoninus the Emperor. 
 
 Deut. xxxiii. 4. "Moses commanded us a law, the inheritance 
 of the congregation of Jacob." Read not HB'TlD, " inheritance," 
 but riDIIND, " 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 ]']} ''bv, "by a well," but fV »l?li;, "above the eye" 
 
Notes. 447 
 
 whichi 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 31"13, " upon the waters," 
 but D*D'n 3113, "in much water." (This was illustrated by 
 stories of R. Aqiba's escape from shipwreck.) Aboth of R. Nathan, 
 oh. iii. 
 
 Ex. xxxii. 16. " Graven upon the tables." Read not H-nn, 
 " graven," but ri-nrij " freedom ; " for only students of the law are 
 free. Aboth, ch. vi. 
 
 Cant. iv. 3. " Thy temples are like a piece of pomegranate." 
 Read not " thy temples," but " thy empty ones," to show that even 
 transgressors of Israel are as full of good works as a pomegranate 
 of pips. Chagiga, f. 27, 1. 
 
 Cant. i. In Yadaim iii. the first chapter of Canticles is explained 
 by R. 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.) 
 
 Importance attached to letters. 
 
 Ex. iii. 15. The name of Jehovah must not be altered because 
 D?JJ? " for ever " is here written without 1, and therefore means 
 " to hide." Qiddushin, f. 71. 
 
 Gen. i. 31. Why the superfluous article in " the sixth " day 
 ('K'tr'n) ? Because H = 5, and it means that if Israel does not re- 
 ceive the five books of the Law, the world shall return to chaos. 
 Shabbath, f. 88, i. a. 
 
 " Job said, Perhaps a storm wind changed by name from Job 
 (nrS) to ' enemy ' (3»1}<)-" ^aba Bathra, f. 16, 1. 
 
 Gen. xlvii. 12. The word ethis dotted to show that they meant to 
 feed not tlie flock but themselves. Aboth of R. Nathan, 34. 
 
 Inferences from the repetition of words. 
 
 A Sadducee once said to Rabbi Iddith, "It is written (Ex. xxiv. 
 1), ' 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' (Dent. xiv. 22). The 
 Rabbi said, " Give tithes that thou mayest become rich " (Dt^J? 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 Tvho was present, obtaining leave to answer him, referred 
 to Gen. iv. 33 ; Lameoh 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 E. Meir ; yet this text is used 
 by Fathers and Schoolmen to prove the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 ti. Inferences fromi 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 Elurals. 
 
 Ex. xxiv. 6. " Long-suflferings." Why in the plural ? Because 
 it extends both to the righteous and to the wicked. 'Erubin, 
 f. 22, 1. 
 
 Gen. xlv. 16. "Benjamin's neclcs." Had Benjamin two necks? 
 No, he wept for the destruction of the two Temples. Megilla, 
 f. 16, 2. 
 
 Gen. iv. 10. "Thy brother's hloods." It means that his blood was 
 scattered on trees and stones. Sanhedrin, £ 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" K. 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 v/ere 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 n3"l in 
 Talmudio Hebrew also means "a girl," they had a story of a 
 girl in Sodom who for giving a piece of bread to a poor man was 
 smeared with honey and stung to death by bees. Sanhedrin, f 
 109, 2. 
 
 Rabbi Jehudah says, " He that renders a verse literally says what 
 is not true ; and he who adds to it is a blasphemer," Qiddnshin, i. 49, 
 1. (Rashi adds that the additions ia the Targums of Onqelos were 
 derived from Moses.) 
 
 Cant. vui. 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 Bi^dad. Just as the Mohammedan Schiites reject, and the Sunnites 
 accept, " tradition " apart from the Koran, so the Karaites reject the 
 tradition of the Rabhinists, 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 
 maintaiuing (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.'" 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 
 Eabbis to that precept. 
 
 The founder of the Karaites was Anan ben David Abba,- 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 \ 
 Jeaus, the son of Miriam, because he was a Karaite, and because he ' 
 opposed the Mishna, as his Karaite ancestors had always done." ^ 
 
 The influence of the Karaites told strongly even on the Rabbinists, 
 md led to the development of the Massora. Their determination to 
 
 ^ The initial letters of the words of this curse form the word IB'*, " Jesus.' 
 
 ^ See Munk, Melanges, p. 479 sqq. 
 See Matt. xv. 6 ; Mark vii. 13 ; John v. 39. The Prophets Isaiah and 
 eremiah certainly express Karaite views (la. iii. 12 ; viii. 20 ; ix. 16 ; Ivi. 
 0-12, &c. Jar. ii. 13 ; viii. 12 ; xviii. 8-23, &c.). Karaites are mentioned 
 Q the Mishna, Megilla, f. 24, 2. 
 
 a 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 
 tradition.s 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 EJias 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 *ritten by scribes, 
 " punctators" ( ) who added the vowel points andaccents, and cor- 
 
 rectors (D^iT'JD) 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 (HVtJ'IS) and 
 from the Prophets (nntjan). 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 Dillmana, ia Herzog, s.v. Bible Text. Low, Praktische Einleitung, 
 pp. 115-117, and especially Dr. Ginsbnrg's translation of the Massoreth 
 HaMassoreth 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 modem. 
 
 G G 
 
LECTURE III. 
 NOTE I. 
 
 PHILO'S USE OP THE SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 Siegfried, in three papers contributed to Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift for 
 1873 haa carefully examined PhUo's use of the Septuagint He finds 
 from classifying Philo's quotations, 
 
 1. That he often cites from memory and parenthetically. 
 
 2. That he often mixes up his quotations with remarks of his own. 
 
 3. That he sometimes varies the terms of the same quotation. 
 
 4. That some of his professed quotations are no longer extant in any 
 MSS. 
 
 5. That they occasionally represent more accurately the meaning of 
 the Hebrew. 
 
 6. That they sometimes show traces of a different Hebrew text. 
 
 7. That they sometimes do not occur at all in our text. 
 
 8. That two quotations are sometimes mingled. 
 See too Gfrorer, Philo, i. 51 ; Dahne, ii. 2 eq. 
 
 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 OP JOSEPHUS. 
 
 Although Josephus is primarily a historian, it was impossible for him 
 to write a history of his people without giving many indications of the 
 methods of interpretation which he adopted, and those methods were 
 chiefly Palestinian. Nearly all that he has in common with PhUo is 
 the strong desire to narrate the Bible histories in such a manner as to 
 
Notes. 453 
 
 be most acceptable to Ms Gentile readers, and so as least to excite tlieir 
 sense of the ridiculous. 
 
 He professes the intention of being perfectly faithful to the -written 
 records. But 
 
 1. He adopts allegorical explanations — as in his account of the 
 
 Tabernacle. He says that two parts of it represented the land 
 and sea which are open to all men ; the third part symbolised 
 the Heaven which is reserved for God. The twelve loaves of 
 shewbread represent the twelve months; the candlestick was 
 composed of seventy pieces to indicate the constellations ; the 
 seven branches indicated sun, moon, and planets, &c. 
 See Antt., Proem. § 4 ; i. 7, § 1 ; iiL 11, § 11. 
 
 2. He indulges in Hagadoth. Thus in his account of Abraham he 
 
 says that the Patriarch taught Astrology, Arithmetic, &o., to the 
 Egyptians from whom the Greeks learnt those sciences ; and he 
 has many remarkable legends about the youth of Moses, &c. 
 
 3. He imitates the Greeks in putting speeches into the mouth of 
 
 Moses, &c. (as PhUo also does). 
 
 4. He adopts as often as possible a natural explanation of supernatural 
 
 narratives, as in his account of the Manna, the Passage over the 
 Red Sea, the crossing of Jordan, the appearance of the angel to 
 the wife of Manoah, &c. 
 
 5. Like the Rabbis, he is fond of introducing proverbs, such as 
 
 "Remorse is the daughter of obstinacy and thoughtlessness," 
 " The mob is always changeable," " Envy waits on Prosperity," 
 &c. 
 
 6. He assimilates Jewish views to those of the Greek philosophers. 
 
 See Antt. vi 11, § 8 ; viii. 4, § 2 ; c. Ap. ii. 39. 
 
 On the whole we must regard Josephus as presenting a strange 
 mixture of Rabbinic, Pharisaic, and Rationalistic notions. He was 
 wholly wanting in the religious earnestness of PhUo. 
 
 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. 
 
 xviL 12-31, and 55-58 is due to the desire to avoid a contradiction. 
 
 The omission of Ex. xxxii. 9 is due to the same national vanity 
 
 which led them to alter " set on mischief " into " impetuous " in 
 
 Ex. xxxiL 22. 
 ii. They make Halakhic additions, as in Gen. ix. 4 ; Ex. xii. 15, 18 ; 
 
 xiii. 16 (do-oXevra) ; xxii. 9 ; Lev. xix. 19 ; xxiv. 7 ; Deut. xxvL 12, 
 
 &c. See Franker, Vorstudien, pp. 86-92. 
 iii. They add Haggadistio particulars, as in Gen. iL 2 ; iv. 4 ; Ex. xiii. 
 
 18 ; Num. xxxii. 12 ; Deut. xxxii. 8 ; Josh. xiii. 22 ; xxiv. 30 ; 
 
 1 Sam. V. 4, 5, 10; xvii. 39-43; xix. 13-16; xx. 30; xxi. 13; 
 
 Eccl. xi. 9 ; xii. 9, &c. 
 iv. They explain and modify so as to get rid of anything which savoured 
 
 of difficulty or unorthodoxy, as in Ex. ii. 1 ; iv. 6 ; vL 12, 20 ; xii. 
 
 40 ; 1 Sam. xvi. 12 ; xx. 30 ; Eccl. ii. 15, 17 ; xi. 9, &c. 
 V. They soften down Anthropomorphic and Anthropopathic expressions, 
 
 as in Gen. xviii. 30 ; Ex. iii 1 ; iv. 16, 20, 24 ; v. 3 ; xv. 3 ; xvii. 
 
 16 ; xix. 13 ; xxiv. 10, 11 ; xxv. 8. 
 vi. As for their positive mistakes, they arose : 
 
 a. From the use of an unpunctuated text, as lq Hos. vi. 5, Pi;. 
 
 cvi. 7. 
 p. From the non-existence of vowel-points, as in 
 
 1 Sam. xiv. 45 ; 1 Chron. xix. 6 ; Ps. Ixxxvii. 4, &c., where 
 
 they confuse im " with " and am " people." 
 1 Sam. ii. 16 ; viii. 19 ; x. 19, &c., confusions of ^^ and 1^. 
 y. From confusion of letters, e.g. -\ with 1 or vice versa, as in 
 
 1 Sam. ix. 25 ; Is. xxix. 3 ; comp. 1 Sam. xvii, 8 ; xxxi. .3. 
 Some of these changes may be due to intentional anagram 
 &c. See Eccl. i. 18 ; iL 3 ; viii. 6. 
 S. From ignorance of proper names, as in 
 
 Gen. xxii. 13 ; Is. vii. 3, &c. 
 €. From not understanding difficult words, as in 
 
 1 Sam. XV. 32 ; xvi 20 ; xvii 20 ; xxvi. 5 ; Euth iv. 1 ; 2 
 Kings vi. 8.^ 
 
 Aquila's version (a.d. 150) is slavishly literal, and was spoken of as 
 Kara aKpi^etav (Jer. in Bzek. iii. 15). The LXX sometimes render ns 
 by o-iv {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 LX5. in the version of 
 1 Samuel in the first vol. of the Expositor, pp. 104-119. 
 
Notes. 455 
 
 Yoma, f. 41, l).i Theodotion's version seems to have been necessitated 
 by tbe obscurity of Aquila's. Symmacbus's version was far more in- 
 telligible and perspicuous. 
 
 NOTE IV. 
 
 PHILO'S PHRASES FOE THE LITERAL AND ALLEGORIC SENSES. 
 
 Pliilo calls tbe literal sense : 
 
 ra p-qra. De Ahrah. § 38. 
 
 TO prjTov, ai prjTol biepfirjveua-en. Quod clet. pot. §§ 6, 46. 
 
 T] prjTTj iiT'i(TKf^is. De Agric. § 30. 
 
 fj prjT^ Kol TTpu)(ei.pos Bidra^is. Quod Deus sit immut. § 28. 
 
 at Trpo^eipoi airobotrets eK ttj^ tpavepai tcov i'6p.oiv ypatprjs. 
 
 Tj npo^^eipos eKdo^rj tov \6yov. De Conf. Ling. p. 34. 
 
 T] prjTTj hir^yrfins. De Joseph. § 6. 
 
 KvpiiDs. De Opif. Mundi, § 54. 
 
 r) prjTTj KOL diavepa aTrodoa-it. De Ahrah. § 36. 
 
 at prjTOL ypafpal. id. § 41. 
 
 Sometimes his phrases betray his strong dislike to literalism ; thus 
 he calls it 
 
 r] KaTa ttjv <f)pd(riif v-^-qyopia. Quod det. pot. 
 J] (^avepa Kai npos rous noWovs dTTodoats. De Ahrah. § 29. 
 Kpos Tovs Trjs prjTrjs TipaypoTeias trucpicTTas KaX \iav ras ticfipvs 
 dveaTTaKoras. De Somn. i. 17. 
 
 Of the allegorical sense he speaks as 
 
 pdfiav UpSiv aWrjyoplai, ai St virovoiav ctTToloaets. De Ahrah. § 18. 
 
 De Agric. § 6. 
 
 De Cheruh. § 7. 
 
 De Joseph. § 6. 
 aiv'tTTfordat hC virovotav. Quod det. pot. 
 Sia (Tvp^oXav. Quod Deus sit immut. § 27. 
 a-vpl3oXixa>s. De Mund. Opif. § 54. 
 TponiKat airoboatts. De Conf. Ling. § 3i. 
 Ta ip.(j)ai.pop.eva vorjp,aTa. Quod det. pot. § 169. 
 TO vorjTo. De A brah. § 38. 
 da-apxiTa Kal yvpva npayp-ara. id. § 41. 
 
 ' R. Joshuiv b. Chananiah applied Ps. xlv. 3 to Ac^uila. Wogue, p. 139. 
 
456 Notes. 
 
 TO. iv inrovoiais. De Joseph. § 6. 
 
 fl TpomKoiTepa anoSoats. id. § 22. 
 
 ij iv iWrjyopia Qeapia. De A brah. § 25. 
 
 i) Trpos biavoiav inKTTrjpr) <piXop.ae^s. De 8peC. Legg. p. 191 
 
 IJ (V diroKpCrpa koi irpos oKlyovs anoSotris. De Ahrah. § 29. 
 
 How complete in Philo's opinion was the superiority of this allegoric 
 sense is seen in the fact that he calls it opariKois <I>CKj) avSpdaiv, De 
 Plantat. § 9. He says that it is obscure to the many, but is the sense 
 held by the initiated (p.vaTai) and rlv ol to. vorjra. irpo twv aia-SriTmu 
 an-oSexo/^f"' *"■' ^P"" Svvdfievoi yvoipi^ova-iv, De Abrah. § 36. He calls 
 Allegory " the wise architect," De Somn. ii. § 2. In his view allegory 
 was 17 TTpos TO ciKrjdh imvevovaa oSor, and literalism only ^ n-pos to? 
 vcodearepcov 56^as. 
 
 Arbitrary as was Philo's method, it still was a method. It had its 
 own rules (Kauoves Trjs dXXrjyoplai, De Somn. i. § 13 ; De Vict. Offer. § 5 ; 
 vofiot TTjs dXkriyoplas, De Abrah. § 15). He quite sincerely believed that 
 he was developing the true sense of Scripture, and after laying down 
 the distinctly Platonic doctrine of Ideas says Maxrias ea-n Soypa ovk 
 ep-civ, De Opif. Mund. § 6. 
 
 The two loci classici for Philo's conceptions of allegory are in the 
 tracts Quod Deus immutabilis, § 11, and De Somn. i. § 40. In the first 
 he argues from the apparent contradiction between the statements 
 " God is not a man" (Num. xxiii. 19), and " God is as a man" (Deut. i 
 31) that God has two methods of instruction, one for " the companions 
 of the soul," and the other for " those who enter into agreements and 
 alliances with the body." In the latter passage he says that to "ia- 
 corporeal souls " God converses as a friend, whereas he trains the sensu- 
 ous by condescension and fear. On the expression " God came down " he 
 says, Tavra. . . ai/^paoTroXoyctTatTrapaTW vo/zo^eT?/ TTept Tou/A^dv^pojTro/iopc^ou 
 eeoC 81a Tas tSk Tvaibcvofievav fjiiaiv ox^fXeias (De Conf. Ling. § 27), and 
 that to take it literally would be virepcoKeavios icai fuTaKoaiii-os dacfieia. 
 
 His two strongest and plainest statements on the subject are De 
 Joseph. § 6, Sx^Soi' yap to. iravra tj to. TrXciora ttjs vop.o6f<TLas aXXj/yopetTm : 
 and De Spec. Legg. § 39, ra TrKflara tS>v ev vop-ois (rxiji^oXa ipavepa 
 d(j)avS)v Koi prjra dppt}Ta>v. He sometimes puts aside the literal sense 
 entirely, e.g. writing on Ecc. viL 15, he says oifie yap ncpl noranmv iarw 
 icTTOplas f) Trapova-a tnrovSri jrepl Sc tS>v fiiav k.t.\. : and, speaking of Sarah 
 and Hagar, he says ov ydp irepl yvvaiKoiv iurov X({yor SKKo. huivomv. 
 
 See Dahne, Alex. ReligionspMlos. i. 49-80. 
 
 Siegfried, Philo, 160-165. 
 
Notes. 457 
 
 NOTE V. 
 
 PHILO AND MESSIANIC HOPES. 
 
 In the lull of persecution and the growth of prosperity among the 
 Alexandrian Jews, the Messianic hopes, which had once been the stay 
 and inspiration of their fathers, seem to have become very conventional 
 and faint. 
 
 The word Messiah does not occur in Philo's writings, nor does he 
 even comment on the great Evangelical prophecies. When he alludes 
 to those which occur in the Pentateuch, it is only to minimise their 
 Messianic significance. 
 
 Thus inhis 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, passion and 
 mind. His extraordinary comment on " It (aires) shall bruise (pjpTjo-ei) 
 thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel," is that the expression is a 
 barbarism, but that this is corrected by the significance. For he says 
 that the " he " (airbs) refers to the woman, and should therefore be airij. 
 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. (rj/pija-ei) ^ he 
 says that it may mean either "shall guard" {Sia<Ta>crei, Sia^uXafei) or 
 " shall watch with a view to destruction." The former applies to the 
 worthless mind which treasures up pleasures, and the latter to the 
 earnest mind, which looks out for the attacks of pleasure, and tries to 
 destroy it : and then follows a digressive allegorical illustration about 
 Jacob. It will be seen at once that there is no Messianism here, and 
 that in the hands of Philo the passage loses its profound and far-reaching 
 significance, and is evaporated into moral platitudes. 
 
 So again with the marvellous promise to Abraham, " And in thy seed 
 shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." This is what Philo has 
 to say upon it in De Somniis (i. § 29). " This prophecy," he says, " accords 
 with what is true both to a man individually and in his relation to 
 others. For if my own inward mind be purified by perfect 
 
 ^ Ou 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 senses, and if any one in a family, or city, or 
 country, or nation has become a lover of prudences, then the family, and 
 country, and nation necessarily enjoys a better life. For just as odorous 
 substance diffuses its sweet aroma to all who come near it, so all who are 
 neighbours of the wise are bettered in character as they breathe the 
 outpoured fragrancy." This may be a poetic commonplace, but all the 
 glowing Messianic element of the most glorious of the Jewish hopes 
 has disappeared. 
 
 It is quite clear that Philo in no sense identifies the Messiah with the 
 Logos. There is an allusion to national victories under some great 
 coming leader in De Proeriiiis (§ 16 ), and to the share of heathen 
 proselytes in Jewish blessings in De Execrationibus, § 6. 
 
 Did PhUo ever see Jesus? It is just possible that he did, for he 
 tells us in his book on "Providence" (Aucher, ii. 107) that he once 
 visited Jerusalem and there offered a sacrifice. But if he saw Christ he 
 knew nothing of Him, and he rejected the very possibility of an Incar- 
 nation as a mere hypothetical absurdity which could hardly be even 
 thought of without impiety. For in condemning the insane attempt of 
 the Emperor Gaius to place a colossal statue of himself in the Temple 
 of Jerusalem, he calls it " the gravest impiety '' to liken the uncreated 
 and incorruptible God to the created and corruptible nature of men, 
 and adds by way of scornful parenthesis or reductio ad ahsurdum, Buttov 
 yap els avBpanov Seov rj eh 6e6v avOpmiTOv p.eTa^dkeLV.^ 
 
 ^ 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. 
 
LECTUEE IV. 
 
 PATKISTIO EEASONS FOR ADOPTING ALI;EGORY. 
 
 1. The asserted unwortMiiess of the letter. 
 
 " Historia simplex sed alta mysteria ; aliud enim gerebatur, aliud 
 figurabatur; quia liUeralis sensus indignus est." Ambr. De Fide. 
 
 "Ubi materia vel turpitudinem habeat vel impossibilitatem ad altiora 
 transmittimiir." — Jer. in Matt. xxi. 4. 
 
 " Quidquid in sermone divino neque ad morum honestatem, neque ad 
 fidei veritatem proprie referri potest, flguratum esse cognoscas." Aug. De 
 Doctr. Christ. iiL § 13. 
 
 2. The unwarranted extension of isolated expressions to the whole 
 Scriptures. 
 
 Jerome, after quoting Ps. Ixxviii. 2, says, '' E:c quo intelligimus uni- 
 versa quae scripta sunt parabolioe sentienda, nee manifestum tantum 
 sonare litteram sed abscondita sacramenta." I71 Matt. xiii. 35. 
 
 3. Entire misapplication of the verse, " The letter hilleth, but the 
 Spirit giveth life " 2 Cor. iii. G). 
 
 This verse is quoted times without nximber 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 transgressors : or 
 else that the Law, taken alone, causes first sin and then death (Eom. vii. 
 Wfg.). 
 
 4. The notion that all senses (within the limits of the Christian faith) 
 are applicable because they must have been foreseen by the Spirit ; this 
 argument would cover and justify all the divergences of all the 
 Christian sects. 
 
 " Ille quippe auctor in eisdem verbis quae intelligere volumus, et ipsam 
 sententiam forsitan vidit, et certe Dei Spiritus . . etiam ipsam occursuram 
 lectori praevidit, immo ut occurreret . . sine dubitatione providit." Aug. 
 De Doctr. Christ, iii. p. 32. 
 
462 Notes. 
 
 of the Arabians. He was "a fruit of the Jewish soil, modified by 
 grafts from the Arabian garden," ^ a.d. 980, 
 
 The grammatical and philosophic gains of the Jews in Africa and 
 Eastern Asia were introduced into Spain by the happy accident of the 
 shipwreck of Moses " clad in sackcloth." - 
 
 The first pre-eminent name of mediaeval Jewish exegesis is that of 
 E. Solomon ben Jizchak of Troyes, born in 1040, and best known as 
 Eashi.' He died in 1105. His Midrashio 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 
 tliem. 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.'' 
 
 The commentaries of Rashbam (R. Samuel ben Meier, f 1167), the 
 grandson of Rashi, show a great advance in the abandonment of 
 Midrashic lore for a literal and grammatical interpretation.^ 
 
 JuDA ha-Levi, the author of the celebrated Khozari, flourished 
 A.D. 1140." He headed the reaction against extraneous philosophical 
 influences. 
 
 Not less illustrious than Rashi was R. Abraham Ibn Ezba (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 
 
 ^ Jost, Judenth. ii. 279 ; "Weill, Le Judalsme, passim ; Munk, iUlanges, 
 477 sq. ; Ewald und Dukes, Bcitrage zur Gesch. d. aUesten AusUgung in 
 Spraelierlclarung d. Alten TestamenUs. Stuttgart, 1844. 
 
 - See Milman, Jlist. of tlic Jews, iii. 147. 
 
 5 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. 
 
 * As, for instance, in his commentary on Koheleth. See Ginsburg, p. 38. 
 
 ^ Id. p. 43. Dr. Ginsburg gives valuable specimens of these Jewish com- 
 mentators. 
 
 " See Munk, SJelnnges, 485 sq. 
 
 '' See Gratz, Gesch. Vi. 19S fg. ; iiO,fg. 
 
Notes. 463 
 
 chosen, he said, five different patha.i 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.^ 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. Mo3e 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 trere 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.' 
 
 The great work which he accomplished in his Moreh NehucMm 
 [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 
 o'sra.'' Maimonides assigned to Aristotle unconditional authority in all 
 matters not connected with religion, and "by giving prominence to the 
 epiiitual 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.^ 
 
 ' So Algarrati divided "the sects of the faithful" into four classes: — 
 i. The Dogmatists, ii. The Allegorists (Basttnts). iii. The Philosophers, or 
 Logicians, iv. The Soufis, or Mystics. 
 
 * He was one of the first Jewish writers to adopt Aristotelian methods. 
 Though unacquainted with the works of Philo, he attaches great mystic 
 importance to numbers. His style is far from easy, and his system has 
 recently been explained by Krochmal. His admirable commentary on Isaiah 
 has been translated bv Friedliinder. (Lond. 1873.) 
 
 ' On Maimonides see Munk's edition of the "Moreh NeiucMm," and 
 Franck in Diet, des Sciences philos. iv. 31. 
 
 * See Schwab, Berackoth, Introd. p. xiv. 
 
 ' "Cast par la lecture du Guide que les plus grands genies des Juifa 
 Modemes, les Spinoza, les Mendelssohn, les Salomon Maimon et beaucoup 
 d'autres ont ete introduits dans le sanctuaire de la philosophic." Munk, 
 Melanges, 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 iniiuence over the European 
 world. 1 
 
 The family of the Qimchis of Narbonne — R. Joseph Qimchi and 
 his two sons, E. 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 Qimchi valued that the Jews applied 
 to him a proverb from the Mishna, " Where there is no Qimchi, there is 
 no knowledge of the Law." ^ 
 
 The revival of Kabbalism by R. Moses ben Nachman (Nachmanides) 
 sometimes called Eamban (bom 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 Ihharim, is chiefly 
 known as a theologian. He followed the Midrash, but in a tasteful and 
 philosophic manner. 
 
 Abravanel (Don Isaak ben Judah Abravanel), bom 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.^ 
 
 Elias Levita (+ 1549), the 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. 
 
 ^ Munk, MUanges, 511. 
 
 ^ The word flDp 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 Oommentary on Zechariah (Lend. 1837). 
 
 ' See Gratz, Geseh. viii. 334 ; ix. 6. 
 
Notes. 
 
 465 
 
 NOTE II. 
 
 TITLES OP THE SCHOOLMEN.' 
 
 Baeda. 
 
 Anselm of Laon. 
 
 St. Thomas Aquinas. 
 
 St. Bonaventura. 
 
 Alexander of Hales. 
 
 Albertus Magnus. 
 
 Francisous 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 Qerson. 
 
 Wiclif. 
 
 Dionysius of Eickel. 
 
 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. 
 
 Tlieologorum. 
 Didascalus. 
 Doctor Pi.esolutus. 
 Doctor Eesolutissiraus. 
 Magister Sententiarum. 
 Columna doctorum. 
 Doctor Mellifluus. 
 Doctor Planus at Perspicuus. 
 Doctor Profundus. 
 Doctor Facundus, or Abundans. 
 Doctor Singularis et Invincibilis and 
 
 Venerabilis Inceptor. 
 Doctor Subtilis. 
 Doctor Solemnis. 
 Doctor Christianissimus. 
 Doctor Evangelicus. 
 Doctor Ecstaticus. 
 Lux Mundi, and Magister Contra- 
 
 dictionis. 
 
 1 See Heumann, Act. Philos. iii. 921 ; Brucker, Hi;:!. Philos. iii. 889, and 
 passim. 
 
 n H 
 
466 Notes. 
 
 NOTE III. 
 
 ORIGIN OF SCHOLASTICISM. 
 
 The precursor, thougli not the founder, of Scholasticism, was 
 St. John of Damascus. His book, Fons lic'ient'uie (irriyri yj/ma-emf), con- 
 sists of three parts : — 1. Capita Philosopliica. 2. De Haercsibus. 3. 
 Erpositio accurata Fidei orthodn.rae. This third part is "one of the 
 most important works that liave come down to us from Christian 
 antiquity." For it is the first complete "Body of Divinity " that we 
 possess, and as such has liad 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 him when preparing; his Book of the 
 Sentences "thus becomes quite probable. Without, therefore, taking 
 account of Aquinas, whose indebtedness to the work of Damascenus is 
 admittedly great, we have here a visible link of connection between the 
 Eastern Church and the Western." ^ 
 
 " 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 SLliolasticism, 
 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." ^ 
 
 There is, however, no proof that the earliest Schoolmen were ac- 
 quainted with the Fides Ortlioilo.ra 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." ^ The Calvinists in later days reproached Melanchthon for 
 having imitated it, and even Luther said of him, " Nimium pliilo- 
 sopJiatur." * 
 
 Some date the beginning of Scholasticism from John Scotus 
 Erigena.'^ 
 
 1 See Lupton, St. John of Damascus, pp. 65-88 : Pu'musat, AMlard, 
 ii. 158. 
 
 2 Lupton, p. 211, who refers to Dr. G(5rando, Rist. Comp. iv. 159 
 2 Tribbechovius, JDc Doct. Scliol. p. 280. 
 
 ■■ Buddeus, Isag. p. 319 ; Lequien, 0pp. Joann. Damasc. Praef. p. 5. 
 " See K. L. Poole, McrUurv. Thought, p. 76. He was "the father of 
 S"oaiinalism," and greatly influenced Gilbert de la Porree. 
 
Notes. 467 
 
 Others date the beginning of Scholasticism from Lanfranc or 
 Anselm.i 
 
 Otliers from Peter Lombard." 
 
 Others from Alexander of Hales.' 
 
 Others from Alhertus Magnus.* 
 
 The truest view seems to be that given in the text, that Scholasticism 
 proper began with the conflicts between traditionalism and free inquiry. 
 Scholastic philosophy began with Roscelin, and Scholastic theology 
 with Abelard. Such is the view of Tribbechovius. Trithemius says of 
 Abelard, " Ab hoc tempore philosophia secularis saeram theologiam sua 
 curiositate inutili foedare coepit." ^ 
 
 One secret of Abelard's influence was his lucidity. John of Salisbury 
 says, " Xon enim occasio quaerenda est ingerendae difficultatis sed ubique 
 facilitas generanda. Quetii morem serutum recolo Pcnpatdkinii Palat'i- 
 num ;^ . . . rerum intellectui serviebat." ' 
 
 Deriving the Scholastic philosophy from the sentence of Porphyry 
 preserved in the Latin translation of Boethius, v^hich stated the question 
 as to the nature of genera (fl'Sr;), Cousin places its infancy from tlie 
 eleventh to the thirteenth century, when the University of Paris was 
 organised; its ??irtH/ioorf from the thirteenth to the fifteenth, when the 
 great Universities and the religious orders were flourishing ; and its 
 ilecline from the fifteenth to the end of the sixteenth.^ As a pMlowjili y 
 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 
 
 ' Dauaeus, Prolcgom. in LonibrmJi Sent. p. 18. SenteiMcus had, however, 
 been written before his day by Gilbert de la Porree, and others. 
 
 " Calixtus, Appnrat. p. 143 ; Aventinus, Amial. vi. ; Baur, Dog)iiengesch. 
 p- 156 ; Kling in Herzog's.£'//c//^^/. s.v. 
 
 ■' Chemnitz, c. Cone. Trident, p. 371. 
 
 * "Albertus et similes, qui (iediti fuerant doctrinae Aristotelis, trans- 
 fonnare Ecclesiae doctrinam iuPhilosophiameoeperuut." — Melanchthon, Vit. 
 LtiJheri, c. xiii. 
 
 ■' Trithemius, De Seri'pt. EerTm. p. 161 (Coloniae, 1.546) ; Thomasius, 
 Sist. Self, ct Stiill. iii. 23 ; Cent. Magdeburg, p. 148 ; Victor Cousin, Oiirr. 
 ined. d'Abilnrd, Introd. p. iii " C'est rinvention d'un uouveau systeme 
 philosophique et rapplication de ce systfeme et en general de ]a philoso- 
 phie a la theologie . . . c'est Alxdard qui I'drigea en piinci]ie ; c'est done 
 lui qui contribua le plus k fonder la scolastique. " Consin calls Descartes 
 the destroyer of this system and the founder of modern pliilcsophy. 
 
 " This is the name which John of Salisbury repeatedly gives to ./Vbelard. 
 It means " the dialectician of Palais," — the place where Abelard was born. 
 
 ^ Metalog. iii. 1. 
 
 ' V. Cousin, Ouvr. ined. d'Ah. p. Ixv. 
 
 H H 2 
 
468 Notes. 
 
 oi-iginal. " Advance is measra-ed less by the power vitli which men 
 used their intellects, than by the skill with which they used their 
 materials."' 
 
 NOTE IV. 
 
 THE " SIC ET NUN " OF ABELARD. 
 
 AVhen William of St. Thierry wrote to complain to St. Bernard of 
 Abelard's theology, he had only heard a rumour about the Sic et Noii. 
 " Sunt autem," he says, " ut audio adhuc alia ejus opuscula quorum 
 nomina sunt Sic et Nun, Scito teipsuin, et alia quaedam de quibus timeu 
 ne, sicut monstruosi sunt nominis, sic etiam sint nionstruosi dogmatis ; 
 se(], sicut <lii;unt, oderunt lucem, nee etiam quaesita inccniantur."- 
 
 Such was the ternir which the book inspired that this is said to be 
 the only mention of the tiic et Non in the middle ages. 
 
 Martfene 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 Cliristianae religionis mysteria in utramque 
 partem versat, negans quod asseruerat et asserens quod negaverat." 
 Their colleague Dachery after careful study of it '■'aeteruis tenebrin 
 potius quam luce dignum existimavit." ' 
 
 Little or nothing was known of it until it was published by M. 
 Victor Cousin in the Ourrages im-dits d\ihelard, 1836. 
 
 It deals with the subjects which formed the 1 lasis of Aljelard'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 hiic et Xon 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 ? et contra. 
 
 Q. 14. Quod sit Filius sine principio 1 et contra. 
 
 Q. 63. Quod Filius Dei mutatus sit suscipiendo carnem 1 et 
 
 contra. 
 Q. 35. Quod nihil flat Deo nolente 1 et contra. 
 
 ' Lane, Illustrations of Med. Tliuwjht, p. 2. ^ jp g_ Bem Qpp^ ^ 301, 
 ^ Praef. ad Thes. Nov. Aiiccd. t. iv. 
 
Notes. 469 
 
 The twenty-tliird question, (Jiiad philnsophi qiioque Trinilatem sen 
 verhuvi Dei creiUthrint ? et non, indicates the favourable view of heathen 
 philosophy which was so suspicious to St. Bernard i who still shared the 
 spirit shown hy Tertullian's remark, Haereticorum jxitriairhae jihilono- 
 jilii} This with his anti-realism was the base of Bernard's tremendous 
 indictment of his theology, "Cum de Trinitate loquitur sapit Arium^ 
 dim de gratia sapit Pelagium, cum de persona Christi sapit Nestorinm." •' 
 Yet John of Salisliury, a man of unreproached orthodoxy, calls him 
 " Ahaelardus noxtcr" speaks of him constantly with praise and ah'ection, 
 and adopted his conceptualism ; and it was the Sic et Nan which gave 
 the original conccjition of the famous Liher ^enientlarum. 
 
 II. The distinct formulation of Aristotle's view, that doubt leads to 
 discussion, and discussion to truth, " Duhitundn enim ad hiqulsitionein. 
 renimus, inquirendo irritafem peycij}hnus," which Abelard very precari- 
 ously compares with "Seek and ye shall find." 
 
 III. The anticipation of njodern criticism in the passages inwhicb he 
 deals with the difficulties of Scripture interpretation, e.fj. the apparent 
 contradictions, the corruption of the text, the numlier of spurious 
 writings, the ignorance of copyists, the danger of confusing comments 
 with the text, and the diflerences of sense which may be attached 
 to the same wurd. 
 
 NOTE V. 
 
 TH3 ABUSE OF " PARALLEL PASSAGES." 
 
 The use of allegory was largely eked out by the juxtaposition of 
 similar expressions from difierent 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 savs 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" 
 
 ' I 4 
 
 Fp. ad Papam Innoocnt. 0pp. i. 650. = Tert^ adr. ff.n,wg. 8. 
 
 0pp. 1. Ii50. 
 
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 (178.5), Clarke (1810), 
 and Scdtt (182^;). They need the stringent revision which tliey have 
 received in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Some of them are hope- 
 lessly wrong ; ?ome are founded on sheer mistakes ; (jthersare 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 
 wlien 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. 
 
 OPIXIO.XS ON SCHOLASTICIijJr. 
 
 Favourable judgments of Scholasticism are not easily to be found. I 
 may however refer (merely by way of example) to — 
 
 Hooker, Answer to Tracers, 16 (who refers to Calvin's Instit. i. 
 
 16, § 9. 
 Pearson, Opera Minora (ed. Churton, i. 1). 
 Newman, Lectures on Univ. subjects, p. 282. 
 Puhuusat, Abclard, 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, ^a.s.s-(«j. 
 
 Tribbechovius, De Doctoribus Scholasticis (1665). 
 
 Brucker, Hist. Philos. iii. 709. 
 
 Wetstein, Praef. in N. Test., ed. 3. 
 
 Hallara, Middle Ages, ii. 48.0-489. 
 
 G. H. Lewes, Biogr. Hist, of Philosophy, 291. 
 
 Eenan, Suurenirs, xiv. 
 
LECTUKE VI. 
 NOTE I. 
 
 REMARKS OF LUTHER OS THE FATHERS. 
 
 " Eespeotu Patrum vermis sum ; attamen quo magis illorum scripta 
 lego CO plus offendor. Xam res ipsa clamat eos homines fuisse c-t 
 ipsorum auctoritas Apostolorum scripta oppressit. Attamen Papistae 
 audent Scripturam saoram obscnram blasphemare, quasi Patres eam 
 ileclaiare debeiit ; sed ita declarare est obscurare." Aurifaber, Colloqu. 
 ii. 235 (ed. 1571). 
 
 " Obserrate quaeso quantae tenebrae fuerunt apud Patres de doctrina 
 fidei. Hie roil ijimis supra Matthaeum, Galataset ad Titum i'rigidosigsime 
 scripsit. Amhroshis sex libros sviper Genesim. Quani exigvius liominum 
 intellectus ! Nullus fere commentarius in Epp. ad Romanes et Galatas 
 aliquid sincere tradit." 
 
 On reading Cyprian he sighed, " Mirabatur tanti vivi 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 Chryaostom, of whom he says, " Multos splen- 
 didos composuit liliros, sed tantum fuit chaos et saccus verborum." He 
 Calls him "seditiosus et garrulus," and adds, " Ideo Erasmo planet, qui 
 negligit fidem et tantum moralia tradit." He c^uotes 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." " Kihil 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 et larvis obligetur." Colloqu. 
 ii. 159. 
 
472 Notes. 
 
 NOTE II. 
 Calvin's notes on messianic passages. 
 
 Porpli.yry in the third century had asserted " that the Apostles 
 in their references to tlie Old Testament had abused the simplicity and 
 3;,'norance 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. 1.5. " Perinde sit hoc nobis extra controversiam locum (Hos. 
 xi. 1) non debere ad Christum restringi. Neque tamen a Matthaeo 
 torquetnr, sed scHe (ipiatur 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 transferl." 
 
 John xix. 37. Locum hunc (Zech. sii. 10), qui secundum literam de 
 Christo exponere conantur, nimis violenter torqtient. Nee vero in hunc 
 tinem ab evangelista citatur ; sed potius ut ostendat Christum esse deum 
 ilium, qui olim conquestus fuit per Zeehariam, sibi pectus a Judaeis 
 transfodi." 
 
 Heb. iv. 4. " Jam locum ilium quern citaverat ex Davide exornare 
 incipit ; hactenus enm tractavit secundum litteram, hunc autem expoli- 
 endo amplificat, ideoque alhidit magis ad verba Daridiit quam interpre- 
 tatur. Ejusmodi ine^epyaa-ia est apud Paulum ad Rom. x. 6." 
 
 Heb. xi. 21. " Quod vulgo receptum erat Apostolus non dubitat suo 
 instituto accommodare. Judaeis quidem scribebat sed qui . . . pa- 
 triam linguam Graeca mutaverant. ticrmus autem hac in parte Apostnlos 
 11011 adeofuisse scrupmlosos." 
 
lecthee VIII. 
 
 SOME EXEGBTIC RULES AND PRINCIPLES.^ 
 
 1. Ereri/tliinf/ essential in Ser'qiture is rlerirhj rerealerl. 
 
 TTCLvra ra duayKala SijXa. Chrys. Coni/ii, in. 2 Tliess. 
 
 This rule is our cliief source of consolation amid the endless 
 perplexities of divergent interpretation. If a truth be essential to 
 salvation, it must appear clearly on the pages ivhicli contain a 
 Divine Revelation : other-^vise the Revelation would not be a 
 Revelation. The preceding clause of St. Chrysostnm, wavTa cratpi} 
 Km ev6ea Ta napa ruis BeioLs ypafpah, 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 ean onhi he eleeiiled by the nriijinnl. 
 
 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 Eheims, 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. 
 
 '^ Inijiiissihile est quod projjrietas unius linr/uae sen/etvr in. etl'm." 
 Roger Bacon {Opus majus, iii. 1 ; quoting Jerome, " si ad verbum 
 interpreter, absurdum est"). 
 
 3. Ererij doctrine and every inference drawn from any passage must he 
 deduced from the literal sense. 
 
 " Omnes sensus fundantur super unum, scilicet literalem ; ex qvo 
 solo jxitest trahi argumentum, non autem ex his quae secundum 
 allegoriam dicuntur. Nee tamen Scripturae idcirco aliquid deperit 
 quia nihil sub spiritual! sensu continetur fidei necessarium, quod 
 
 ' The word " Hcrmi'nfutic" implies the Science anil Theory, the word 
 E.rrgmi.^ the Art and Practice of Scriptural Interpretation. See Liieke, 
 Grundriss, p. 6 ; VfoUms, In/ rod. in I/crnirncutieani, p. 36 ; Semler, Hcrmen. 
 Vorbereit. 26. The distinction is merely one of usage, for the words ep/iTji'eia 
 and 4^-fiyijiTis imply no such difference. 
 
■ili Notes. 
 
 Scripturae non alicubi per literalem sensum manifeste traJaiit." 
 Thomas Aquinas, iSumma I. Qu. 2, art. 10. 
 
 " Si litera tollitur Scriptura quid est ? Lege ergo Scripturara et 
 disce primum diligenter quae corporaliter narrat." Hugo de Sto 
 Victore. 
 
 This is incomparably more true than tlie sentiment quoted hy 
 Johannes Sarisb., " Litera inutilis est, nee curandum quid loquatur " 
 (Poli/rral. vii. 12) ; but it must be added that neither Hugo de 
 Sto Victore nor many others who enunciated tliis axiom made any 
 real use of it. 
 
 It is true that John of Salisbury places the sentence about the 
 uselessness of the letter among the '■ ineptiae nugatorum," but at 
 the close uf the same chapter he half endorses their views. 
 
 4. Iipiorance of the certain meaning of many passages must he freely 
 admitted. 
 
 nV ''3.3'N -i^vh ^y1E^'^ ni?^. '' Teach thy tongue to say 'I do 
 not liioir.' '' ..■ . , 
 
 I do not remember to have seen this Talmudio rule ever pro- 
 pounded as a principle of exegesis, but it seems to me an extremely 
 imxjortant one. " Jlelius est," says Augustine, " dubitare de 
 ri'bus occultis quam litigare de incertis" (De Gen, ad till. viii. 5). 
 Thus he frankly confesses that he does not know whom or what 
 St. Paul meant by the Man of Sin. 
 
 5. Thenlogicdl conclusions cannot he founded on the language of metaphor 
 and partible. 
 
 " Tlieologica parabolica non est demon strativa." 
 " Pium quideni posse esse sensum allegoriae sed nunquam para- 
 bolas et dubiam aenigmatum intelligentiam ad auctoritatem dogma- 
 turn posse proficere." Jer. in J!att. 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 
 alic|uid in allegoria prisitum pro se interpretari nisi habeat et mani- 
 festa testimonia quorum luniine illustrantur obscura ? " Aug. in 
 £p. 48, ad Vincent. 
 
 6. Omnis Scrqdura sacra eo spiritu debet legi quo scripta est. Thomas 
 il Ivempis. 
 
 This resembles the remark of St. Augustine, That the true sense 
 of Scripture is Scripture, and no other sense. 
 
Xofes. 475 
 
 V. Scripture must be niterpreted in accordance u:ith the ordinary rules of 
 human language. 
 
 "The law speaks in the toii^ne of the sons of men." 
 
 " N^ullo locutionis genere utitnr Sci-iptura quod in consnetiicliin' 
 hominum non inveniatur, quia utique hominibus loquitur." Aug. 
 
 " Quaecumque scripta sunt ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt ; 
 liinc di^iuae litterae sunt humana capacitate humanoque sermoui 
 accommodata." Id. de Trin. i. 12. 
 
 This kind of condescension [crvyKaTiifiacni) 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 Scn'iituras." Aug. 
 
 These words of St. AugUNtme are capable of an application far 
 wider than he gave to them. They may be used to express the 
 progressivencss 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. 
 
 " Vitiosissimura dicendi genus depravare sententias et ad volnn- 
 tatem suam Scripturam trahere repugnantem." Jerome {Ep. ad 
 Faulinum, liii 7 ; compare Fraef. C'onun. in Joann., and Ep. (Ixiv. 
 7, ad Fabiolam). 
 
 " Das ist der beste Lehrer, der seine Meinung nicht in die Schrift, 
 sondern aus der Schrift bringt." Luther (Werle, x,\xiv. 131, 
 Erlang.). 
 
 " Absint praeconceptae opiniones et studia partlum quibus Veritas 
 
 non potest non impediri." Kimedonc, De ^cripto Dei Verba, 
 
 p. 622. 
 
 10. " Ad.'iit quidem piia curiosHas et curxosa 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 Xofrs. 
 
 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 Ai(^s to Faith, 
 pp. 426-440, where they will be found expanded and illustrated. 
 He adds the rules 
 
 '■ Interpret according to the analog}' 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 
 fither 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 liumilitji. 
 
 " Scriptura sacra non temerarios et superbos accusatores sed 
 diligentes et pios requirit lectores." Aug. c. Adimant. iii. 6. 
 
BIBLIOGEAPHY. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GENERAL EXEGESIS.^ 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 Care, Scriptores Ecclcsiastici. London. 1688. 
 
 Oudin, Ue Scriptoribiis Ecclesiae. Leipzig. 1722. 
 
 R. Simon, Histoire Critique du Vicnx Te.stampnt. Paris. 1680. 
 
 Hist. Crit. des Principaux ('ommeutateurs du Xouveau Testament. 
 
 Rotterdam. 1693. 
 S. Glass, Philologia Sacra. Amsterdam. 1694. 
 Pfaff, Hist. Lit. Theolosiae. Tiilniigcn. 1720. 
 J. F. Buddeus, Isagoge Hist. Theol. Leipzig. 1727. 
 J. G. Walch, Bibliotiieca Theol. Jena. 17.57-1765. 
 S. F. N. Morus, Acroases super Hcrmeneutica. Lei|izig. 1797-1802. 
 J. 6. Rosenraiiller, Historia Jnterprctationis. 5 vols. Leipzig. 1795-1814. 
 J. A. Faliricius, Bibliographia Antiquaria. Hamburg. 1713. 
 Sclirock, Christliche Kirchenge.schiehte. 45 vols. 1768-1812. 
 Ernesti, Institutio Interpretis Xovi Test. I^eipzig. 1761. 
 Bohringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen. 2te Ausg. Stuttgart. 
 
 1873. 
 Sonntag, De Doctrina Inspirationis. Heidelberg. 1810. 
 Klausen, Hermeneutik. Germ. Transl. Liipzig. 1841. 
 Liicke, Grundriss d. Xcut. Hermeneutik. Gortingen. 1817. 
 J. L. S. Lutz, Biblisehe Hermeneutik. Berne. 1849. 
 Lange, Grundriss d. Bibl. Hi'rnieneutik. 1874. 
 Immer, Hermeneutik. Wittenli. 1S73. 
 
 Diestel, Gesch. d. Alt. Testam?ntes in der C'liristlichen Kirclie. Jena. 1869. 
 Bishop Wordsworth, On the Interpretation of the Bible. Sliscellanies II. 
 
 1-100. 
 S. Davidson, Introduction to the New Testament. London. 1868. 
 Eeuss, Gesch. d. Heiligeu Schriften Xeuen Testaments. Braunschweig. 
 
 1874. 
 Gesch. der Heiligen Schriften Alien Testaments. Braunschweig. 
 
 1SS2. 
 
 ' It is possible that some re.iders 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 forin. 
 Other works of a more special charncter are referred to in the notes. " Quibus 
 panim vel quibus nimium est mihi ignoscant." 
 
■180 Bibliography of General E.rcgesh. 
 
 Ewald und Dukes, Beitriige zur Gcs.h. d. Ausleg. A. T. 3 vols. 1844. 
 
 L. Wogue, Hist, de la Bible et de I'Exegese jusiju' a nos Jours.. Paris. 1881. 
 
 Hamburger, Real-Encyklopadie fiir Bibel und Talmud, vol. i. s. v. Schrift, 
 
 Sohriften, Sprachi.-. Breslau. 1870: vol. ii. s. tv. Bibel, Bibeliiborsetzung, 
 
 Exegese, Halauha, Agada, Kabbala, Talmud, Te.Kt dor Bibel, &c. Strtlitz. 
 
 LS83. 
 Herzog, Real-Eucyklopadic- fiir Prot. Theol. u. Kirche s. v. Hcrmeneutik, ie. 
 Encyclopaedia Britannica, .i//. Hermeneutics. 
 Merx, Eine Rode vom Auslegen iusbesondre d. Alten Testaments. Halle, 
 
 1879. 
 Die Prophetie des Joel und ihre Ausliger vonder aeltesten Zeiten bis 
 
 zu deu Reformatoren. Halle. 1879. 
 
 Scattered notices are to be found in various Introductions, such as — 
 Si.xtus Senensis, Bibliotheca Sancta. Rome. 1586. 
 Hottiuger, Thesaurus Philologicus. Ziirich. 1649. 
 Huet, Demonstratio Evangelica. Rouen. 1681. 
 J. G. Carpzov, Introd. ad Libros Canonicos. Leipzig. 1721. 
 Eiclihorn, Einleitung. Leipzig. 1780-1783. 
 Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, ed. Marsh. Cambrid'^e. 
 
 1801. ° 
 
 Jahn, Introd. in Libros Sacros. Vienna. 1804. 
 
 Zdckler, Handbuch d. Theologischen AVissensehaftcn. Niirdlingen. 1883. 
 Ladd, The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture. Edinburgh. 1883. 
 
 And in the works of Hilgenfrld, De Wette, Kurz, Oehler, Baur, Neander, 
 (lieseler, &c. ; and in the various Biblical and Theological Dictionaries and 
 Encyclopaedias. 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 Jlisohna. Surenhusius. 6 vols. fol. Amsterdam. 1698-1703. 
 
 llishna Treatises, De Sola and Raphall. London. 1S43. 
 
 The Midrashim. Bibliotheca Rabbinica, eine Sammlung alter llidrashim, 
 
 iibertragen von Dr. A. Wiinsche. Lei|isig. 1S82-18S4, 
 Le Talmud de Jerusalem. Traduit pour la premiere fois, par Jloi'se Schwab, 
 
 Paris. 1871-1883. 
 Der Jerusalemische Talmud in Seincn Haggadischen Bestandtheilen, iibertrageu 
 
 von Dr. A. AViinscho. Ziirich. 1880. 
 Etheridge, Translation of the Targums to tlie Pentateuch. London. 18C2- 
 
 1884. 
 Fl. Josephi Opera, ed. Haverkamp. Amsterdam. 1726. ed. Eichter. 
 
 Leipzig. 1S26. 
 Maimonides, More Nevoehim. (Ductor Perplexorum. ) ed. Buxtorf. BasL', 
 
 1629. 
 Raymond Martin, Pugio Fidei. Paris. 1651. 
 Eisenuiengor, Entdecktes Judenthum. Eonigsberg Ed. 1711. 
 J. Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica. Basle. 1604. 
 
 De Abbreviaturis Hcbraicis. Basle. 1613. 
 
 Wagenseil, Tela Ignea Satanae. Amsterdam. 1681.' 
 
 Ewald, Abodah Zarah. Niirnberg. 1856. 
 
 Lightfoot, Works. Ed. Pitman. Loudon. 1822-1825. 
 
 Schottgen, Horae Hebraicae. Dresden. 1733. 
 
 Meuschen, Nov. Test, ex Talmude illustratum. Leipzig. 1736. 
 
 J. J. Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudicum et Rabbiuicum. Basle. 
 
 1639. 
 
Bibliography of General Exegesis. 481 
 
 Vitringa, De Synagoga Vetere. Franeker. 1696. 
 
 Waehner, Antiquitates Ebraeorum. Gottingen. 1743. 
 
 J. C. "Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea. 1715-1735. 
 
 Beer, Gesch. d. religiosen Secten d. Juden. Berlin. 1822. 
 
 Fiiist, Kultur- und Literatur-Geschiclite der Juden in Asien. Leipzig. 
 
 1849. 
 Fiirst, Der Talmud in Seiner Nichtigkeit. Warsaw. 1848. 
 Hirsclifeld, Halaehisclie Exegese. Berlin. 1840. 
 
 Hagadisclie Exegese. Berlin. 1847. 
 
 Zunz, Gottesdienstlicbe Vortrage. Berlin. 1832. 
 
 Synagogal. Poesie d. Mittelalters. Berlin. 1855. 
 
 Hamburger, Roal-Encykl. fiir Bibel und Talmud. Abth. i. Breslau. 1870. 
 
 Abth. ii. Strelitz. 1883. 
 L. Wogue. Hist, de la Bible et I'Exegtse Biblique jusqu'Ji nos Jours. Paris. 
 
 1881. 
 Low nnSDn . Praktische Einleitung und Gesch. d. Schriftauslegung. 
 
 Gross-Kanisclia. 1855. 
 Chiarini, Theorie du Judaisme. Paris. 1830. 
 ■\Veber. System der Altsynagogalen Theologie. Leipzig. 1880. 
 Talmudische Studien, R. Joshua ben H'anania. Berlin. No date. 
 Friedlander, Geschichtsbilder aus der Zeit der Tanaiten und Amoraer. Briinn. 
 
 1879. 
 Weill, Le Judaisme, ses Dogmes et sa Mission. Paris. 1866. 
 Kevue des fitudes Juives. Paris. 1885. 
 Eacycl. d. Sciences religieuses. Art. Talmud. 
 
 Dsrenbourg, Hist, de la Palestine d'aprts les Talmuds. Paris. 1867. 
 Neubauer, La Geographic du Talmud. Paris. 1868. 
 Wellhausen, Die Pharisaer und die Sadduciier. 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. 
 
 MUman, Hist, of the Jews, vols. ii. and iii. London. 1863. 
 
 Eisenlohr, Das Volk Israel. Leipzig. 1856. 
 
 Sehiirer, Neutest Zeitgescliicbte. Leipzig. 1874. 
 
 Kuenen, The Religion of Israel. E. Tr. Edinburgh. 1874. 
 
 Stein Schneider, Jewish Literature. London. 1857. A translation of the 
 
 Article in Erseh und Gniber. 
 L. Dukes, Eabbinische 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, Modem Judaism. London. 1830. 
 
 Margoliouth, Modem Judaism. 1843. 
 
 Hershon, Talmudic Miscellany. London. 1880. 
 
 Genesis with a Talmudic Commentary. London. 1883.^ 
 
 ' 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. 
 
 Duschak, Flavins Josephus u. die Tradition. Wien. 1864. 
 
 BOOKS OS THE QABBALA. 
 
 Reuchlin, De Verbo Mirilico. Basle. 149-1. 
 
 De Arte Cabbalistica. Hagenau. 1517. 
 
 Raymond LuUy, De Auditu Cabbalistico. Strasb. 1651. 
 
 Kircher, CEdipus ^gyptiacus. Rome. 1635. 
 
 Jellinek, Beitrage zur Gesch. d. Kabbalah. Leipzig. 1852. 
 
 Frauck, La Kabbale. Paris. 1843. Uebersetzt vom A. Jellinek. Leipzig. 
 
 1844. 
 Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, its Doctrines, Development, and Literature. London. 
 
 1865. 
 
 Coheleth, London. 1861. 
 
 Munk, Melanges de Philos. Juive et Arabe. Paris. 1859. 
 
 LECTUEE 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 Inedjta. Leipzig. 1868. 
 Planck, De Principiis et Causis Interpretationis Philoniacae Allegoricae. 
 
 Gottingen. 1806. 
 Delaunay, Philon d'Alexandrie. Paris. 1867. 
 Grossmann, Quaestiones Philoneae. Leipzig. 1829. 
 Siegfried, Philo vou Alexandria. Jena. 1875. 
 
 On Philo's use of the LXX. in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift. 1873. 
 
 Gfrorer, Pliilo und die Alexandr. Theosophie. Stuttgart. 1831. 
 
 Dahne, Gesch. Darstellung der Judisch- Alexandrinischen ReUgions-Philosophie. 
 
 Halle. 1834. 
 Fiirst, Bibl. Judaica. Leipzig. 1849-1863. 
 Bartolocoi, Bibl. Rabbinica. Rome. 1693. 
 Munk, Palestine. Paris. Wo date. 
 Guericke, De Schola Alexandrina. Halae. 1824-1825. 
 Jowett, Epistles to the Thessalonians, &c., i. 363-417. London. 1855. 
 J. G. Miiller, Des Juden Philo Buch von d. Weltschopfung. Berlin. 
 
 1841. 
 Matter, Essai Historique sur Vkaole d'Alexandrie. Paris. 1820. 
 Drummond, Philo : Principles of the Jewish Alexandrian Philosophy . 
 
 London. 1877. 
 Neander, Oh. History (E. T.), i. 65-93. Edinburgh. 1851. 
 Hausrath, Neutest Zeitg. Die Zeit d. Apostel, i. 123-171. Heidelberg. 1879. 
 DoUinger, Judenthum u. Heidenthum. Regensbvirg. 1857. 
 Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur Gr. Uebersetzung. Leipzig. 1863. 
 Wellhausen, Text der Biicher Samuel. Gottingen. 1871. 
 
Bibliography of General Exegesis. 483 
 
 Hollenberg, Der Cliarakter d. Alex. Uebersetzung. Moers. 1876. 
 
 Dbpke, Hei-meneiitik d. Neutest. Schriftst. Leipzig. 1829. 
 
 Reuss, Theologie Chretienne. 3rd cd. Paris. 1864. 
 
 Grinfield, Apology for the Septuagint. London. 1850. 
 
 Herzog's Cyclopaedia, s. vv. Hellenism, Philo. 
 
 Lipsius, Alex. Religions-Pliilosophie. Sclienkel, Bibel Lexicon, i. 87. 
 
 Dr. Deutscli, s. v. "Dispersion" in Kitto's Cyclopaedia. 
 
 Canon Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. Revised edition. 
 
 1867. 
 Kuenen, Eel. of Israel, iii. 162-223. E. Tr. London. 1875. 
 Keim, Jesu von Nazara. i. 208-225. Ziirich. 1867. 
 Jost, Gesch. d. Israeliten. iii. 174-181. Berlin. 1822. 
 
 Gesch. d. Judeuthums und seiner Sektcn. Leipzig. 1857. i. 368- 
 
 402. 
 
 Griitz, Gesch. d. Juden, iii. 296-308. Leipzig. 1863. 
 
 Dahne in Ersch und Gruber, s. v. Philo. 
 
 Zbckler in Herzog, s. v. Philo. 
 
 Kingsley, Alexandria and lier Schools. Cambridge. 1854. 
 
 Vacherot, Hist, dc I'ficole d'^Vlexandrie. Paris. 1846. 
 
 Ueberweg, Hist, of Philos i. 222-231. E. Tr. 3rd ed, London. 1880. 
 
 15wald, Gesch, d. Volkes Isr. vi. 257-312. Gottingen. 1868. 
 
 OMausen, Ein Wort iiber tiefern Schriftsinn. Konigsberg. 1824. 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 For Patristic methods of interpretation, see 
 
 Origen, De Principiis. Lib. iv. 
 
 Adrianus, Eiaayayii eis tAs Betas ypa<j>a,s (Critici Sacri, viii. 11). Ed. Hoschel. 
 
 Wien. 1602. 
 Eucherius, Liber formularum. Bibl. Max. Patr., vi. 522. 
 Tichonius, De Septem Kegulis. Bibl. Max. Patr., vi. 49. Gallaudi, viii. 
 
 107. 
 Hieronymus, De Optimo Genera Interpretandi. Ep. 101, ad Pammach. 
 Augustinus, Do Doctrina Christiana, iii. iv. 0pp. Ed. Bened., t. iii. 
 Junilius, De Partibus Legis Divinae. Bibl. Max. Patr., x. 339. Ed. Kihn. 
 
 Frihurg. 1880. 
 Isidore of Pelusium, Epistolae de Interpret. Div. Script. Bibl. Max. Patr. 
 
 vii. 
 Oassiodorus, De Institutione Div. Literarum. 0pp. ii. 509 sq. Migne, Lxx. 
 
 1105. 
 Whitby, Dissert de Sac. Script. Intei-pretatione. London. 1714. 
 Cave, Lives of the Fathers. Ed. Cary. Oxon. 1850. 
 J. G. "Walch, Bibliotheca Patristica. Ed. Dauz. 1834. 
 Flacius, Clavis Script. Sacr., pp. 134-14.5. Basle. 1609. 
 Bbhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeiigen, 2te Auflage. Stuttgart. 
 
 1873. 
 Ewald, Gesch, d. Volkes Israel, vii. Gottingen. 3rd ed. 1868. 
 Huber, Die Philosophic der Kirchenvater. Munich. 1859. 
 
 ^ The literature on the subject of this Lecture is immense. I only indicate 
 a few of the books and editions whicli will be found most useful. 
 
 .1x2 
 
484 Bibliography of General Exegesis. 
 
 Barbej-rac, Traite de la Morale des Peres. 1728. 
 
 Mtihler, Patrologie, ed. Eiethmayer. Eegensb. 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 lieilige Schriften u. ihre Interpretation durch die h. Vater. 
 
 Augsb. 1836. 
 Cotelerius, Patres Apostolici. Amsterdam. 1724. 
 Lightfoot, Epistles of Clement. Cambridge. 1869-1877. 
 
 Ignatius and Polycarp. London. 1885. 
 
 J. Temple Chevalier, Clement of Rome, &c. , with Introduction. Cambridge. 
 
 1833. 
 Philotheos Bryamios, rod KX-fjfjLevTos. At 5vo irphs KopivBiovs 4irt(Tro\al, 
 
 Constant. 1875. 
 Irenaeus, ed. Stieren. Leipzig. 1853. 
 
 ed. Harvey. Cambridge. 1857. 
 
 Hilgenfeld, Hormae Pastor. Liiipzig. 1881. 
 
 C. H. Hoole, The Shepherd of Hermas. London. 1870. 
 
 Otto, Corpus Apologetarum. Jena. 1847. 
 
 Semisch, Justin der Martyrer. Breslau. 1842. 
 
 M. von Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justins d. Martyr. Erlangen. 1878. 
 
 Bishop Kaye, Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr. 
 
 Cambridge. 3rd edition. 1853. 
 Freppel, Des Apologistes Chretiens du lie Siecle. Paris. 1860. 
 
 E. de Pressense, Hist, des trois premiers Siicles. Paris. 1870. 
 Renan, Les Bvaugiles. Paris. 1877. 
 
 L'i)glise Chretienne. Paris. 1879. 
 
 Keim, Rom nnd das Christenthum. Berlin. 1881. 
 Origenis Opera ed. De La Rue. Paris. 1759. 
 
 ed. Huet. Rouen. 1668. 
 
 Huet, Origeniaua. Colon. 1685. 
 
 Eedepenning, Origenes. Bonn. 1846. 
 
 Erne.sti, De Origene. Opusc, p. 288 sq. 1776. 
 
 Guericke, De Schola quae Alexandriae floruit Catechetica. Halle, 2 parte. 
 
 1824-1825. 
 M. J. Denis, De la Philosophie d'Origene. Paris. 1884. 
 TertuUiani quae supersunt omnia. Ed. Oehler. Leipzig. 1853. 
 Hauck, TertuUian's Leben und Schriften. Erlangen. 1877. 
 Eonsch, Das Ifeue Testament Tertullians. Leipzig. 1871. 
 Bishop Kaye, Writings of Tertullian. 3rd edition. London. 1845. 
 H. Weiss, Die Grossen Kappadokier als Exegeten. Braunsberg. 1872. 
 Rnpp, Gregorius von Nyssa. Leipzig. 1834. 
 UUmann, Gregorius von Nazianz. Darmstadt. 1825. 
 
 F. Liicke, Quaestiones Didymianae. Gottingen. 1829. 
 
 Daille, On the Eight 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 k I'Hist. Ecol. des Six Premiers Siecles. 
 
 Paris. 1712. 
 E. Simon, Hist. Critique du Vieux Testament. Amsterdam. 1685. 
 
 Des Versions du N. Testament. Rotterdam. 1690. 
 
 Du Texte du N. Testament. Rotterdam. 1689. 
 
 Des Principaux Commentateurs du N. Testament. Rotterdam. 
 
 1693. 
 
 Nouvelles Observations. Paris. 1695. 
 
 BauT, 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. 
 Hergenrbther, Handb. d. allgeiu. Kirchengeschichte. Freiburg. 2nd edition 
 1879. 
 
 D. Conybeare, Analyt. Exam, of the Writings of the Christian Fathers. 
 Bampton Lectures. 1839. 
 
 Estlauder, De Usu S.S. in Eccl, Cath. duobus primis i)ost Christum Seculis 
 Helsingf. 1829. 
 
 Ebert, Gesch. d. Literat. d. lateinischen Mittelalters im Abendlande, Leiiizie. 
 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.) 
 
 fteppel, St. Cyprien. 2nd edition. Paris. 1873. 
 
 dementis Alex. Opera, ed. Potter. Oxon. 1715. 
 
 Freppel, Clement d'Alexandrie. Paris. Revised edition. 1873. 
 
 Miinter, De Seliola Antiochena. 1814. 
 
 Hergenrbther, Die Antioch. Schule. ^¥"^irzburg. 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. 
 
 Forster, Chrysastomus. Gotha. 1869. 
 
 W. A. Stephens, Life and Times of St. Chrysostom. London. 1872. 
 
 E. Binder, fltudes snr 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. 
 
 Zbokler, Hieronymus. Gotha. 1865. 
 
 A. Thierry, St. Jerome. Paris. 1867. 
 
 Cutts, St. Jerome. London. 1877. 
 
 Ti'ench, Augustine as an Interpr. of Scrij)ture. The Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 London. 1851. 
 Bindemann, Der Heilige Augustinus. Berlin. 1844-1869. 
 Nourisson, La Philos. de St. Augustiu. 2nd ed. Paris. 1866. 
 Flottes, fitudes sur St. Augnstin. Paris. 1861. 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 SOME OEIGINAL AUTHOKITIES. 
 
 J. Scotus Erigena, De Divisione Naturae, Migne, t. 122. 
 
 Job. Sarisburiensis, Opera. Migne, t. 199. 
 
 Eupertus Tuitensis, Praef. in Comment, in Joann. Opera. Venice, 1748-1750. 
 
 HugodeSto. Victore, Opera. Migne, tt. 176-177. 
 
 Bonaventurae Opera, Ed. Peltier. Paris. 1861. 
 
 St. Thomas Aquinas, Praef. in Psalmos, Praef. in Hiob. 
 
 Snmma. Cap. de Scripturis. 
 
 Petri Abaelardi, Sic et Non. 
 
 V. Cousin, CEuvres inedits d'Ab(51ard. Paris. 1836. 
 
 Petr. Lombardi, 11. iv. Sententiarum. Migne, t. 192. 
 
486 Bibliography of General Exegesis. 
 
 Bernard! Opera. Ed. Mabillon. Paris. 1719- 
 
 Nicolai Lyrani Prologi. 
 
 Gerson, Propositiones de Sensu Literali. Opera. Ed. Du Piu. Antwerp. 
 
 1706. 
 Herolt, Sermones et Exempla. 
 
 Vitalius a Fumo, Speculum Morale. Lyons. 1513. 
 Radius Ascensius, AUegoriarum Bibliorum. 1520. 
 Coppenstein, Dispositio Sermonum ad Sens. Literalem et saepe My.sticum de 
 
 Aquinate et lionaventura. 
 Whitaker, Disputation on Holy Scripture. Parker Society. 1849. 
 Goldast, Monarchia. Frankfort. 1640. 
 
 SOME GEXEF.AL HISTORIES. 
 
 Brucker, Historia Grit. Philosophiie, t. iii. Leipzig. 1743. 
 
 Ampere, Hist. Lit. de la France avant ]e Douzieme Siecle. Paris. 1839. 
 
 Bouquet, Eerum Gallic, et Francic. Scriptores. Paris. 1752. 
 
 Herman Eeuter, Geseli. der Eel. Aufklarang in Mittelalter. Berlin. 1875. 
 
 S. E. JIaitland, The Dark Ages. London. 1844. 
 
 Hampden, Bampton Lectures. Oxford. 1832. 
 
 Life of Thomas Aquinas. Eno. IMetropol. 1848. 
 
 Kaulich, Gesch. d. Scholast. Philosophic. Prag. 1853. 
 Stbckl, Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalters. Mayence. 1866. 
 Prantl, Gesch. d. Logik. Leipzig. 1867. 
 Guizot, Hist, de la Civilisation en France. 
 Haureau, De la PMlos. Scolastique. Paris. 1850. 
 Leon Maitre, Les fieoles de I'Occident. 
 Hallam, liliddle Ages. London. 1855. 
 
 Hist, of European Literature. London. 1856. 
 
 Saisset, Essais de la Philosophic 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. Wim. 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. 186! 
 
 Figuier, Vie des Savants lUustres. Paris. 1867. 
 
 J. Bass MuUinger, The University of Cambridge. 1873. 
 
 SOME MONOGUAPHS. 
 
 Binder, De Schol. Theol. Tubingen. 1624. 
 
 Lud. Vivos, De Causis Corrapt. Artium. Antwerp. 1531. 
 
 Thomasius, Theologia Scholastica et ejus Initium. Hist. Sap. et Stult., iii. 
 
 p. 225 sq. Halae. 1693. 
 Danaeus, Prolegom. in Lombardi Sent. Genevae. 1580. 
 Tribbechovius, De Doctoribus Scholasticis. Ed. Heumann. Jena. 1719. 
 Ittigius, De Bibliothecis et Catenis Patrum. Leipzig. 1708. 
 Noesselt, De Catenis Patnim Graecorum. Halae. 1762. 
 Elster, De Med. Aevi Theol. Exegetica. Gbttingen. 1865. 
 De Launoy, De Varia Aristotelis Fortuna in Acad. Parisiensi. 1653. 
 Huber, Joannes Scotus Erigena, Mimioh. 1861. 
 Christlieb, Leben nnd Lehre d. J. Scotus. Gotha. 1860. 
 Hundeshagen, De Agobardi Vita et Scriptis. Giessen. 1831. 
 V. Cousin, (Euvres Inedits d'Abelard. Paris. 1836. 
 Cours de Philosophic. Paris. 1829. 
 
Bibliograjjhy of General Exegesis. 487 
 
 Kemnsat, Abelard. Paris. 1845. 
 
 Guizot, Lettres d' Abelard. Paris. 1839. 
 
 M. Deutsch, Peter Abalard, ein Kritischer Theolog. d. Zwolften Jahrliunderts. 
 
 1883. 
 Jourdain, Eecherclies sur- I'Age des Traductions Lat. d'Aristote. Paris. 
 
 1819. 
 
 La Philos. de Thomas d'Aqiiin. 
 
 Liebner, Hugo de Sto Victore. Leipzig. 1836. 
 
 EngeDiardt, Richard v. St. Victor. Erlaugen. 1838. 
 
 Hollenberg, Studien zu Bonaventura. Berlin. 1862. 
 
 Schaarschmidt, Johannes Sarisburiensis. Leipzig. 1862. 
 
 J. Cotter Morison, Life and Times of St. Bernard. London. 1863. 
 
 Kenan, Averroes. Paris. 1851. 
 
 Munb, Melanges de Philosophic Juive et Arabe. Paris. 1859. 
 
 F. C. Baur, Christliche Kirche des Mittelalters. Tubingen. 1861. 
 
 Gorres, Die Christliche Mystik. Kegensb. 1838-1842. 
 
 Vaughan, Life of St. Thomas Aquinas. London. 1871. 
 
 Tholuck, De Thoma Aq. et Abaelardo S.S. interpretibus. Halle. 1842. 
 
 K. 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 OEIGINAL AUTHOEITIES. 
 
 Erasmus, Ratio sen Methodus perveniendi ad Ver. Theologiam. 1522. 
 Luther, Tractat. vom Dohnetschen. Werke, ed. "Walch., iv. 170. 
 
 ■ Sendbriefe vom Dohnetschen. 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. 
 
 Bellai-minus, De Verbo Dei, 11. iv. Opera. Cologne. 1620. 
 
 J. Gerhard, De Legitima S.S. Interpretatione. Jena. 1610. 
 
 Canoues et Decreta Cone. Trident. Sess. iv. 
 
 P. Melanchthon, Vita Martini Lutheri. Ed. Neander. Berlin. 1841. 
 
 J. Camerarius, Vita Philippi Melanchthonis. Ed. Neander. BerKn. 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. ReucUin imd Seine Zeit. Berlia. 1830. 
 
 Fabricius, Loci Communes D. Mart. Luther. 1651. 
 
 Jortin, Life of Erasmus. London. 1806. 
 
 Drummond, Erasmus, his Life and Character. London. 1873. 
 
 KostHn, 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. 
 
 UUmanu, 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. 
 
 Domer, 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. 
 DoUinger, Die Reformation. 1848. 
 Seebohm, Oxford Reformers. London. 1869. 
 Tulloch, Leaders of the Reformation. Edinburgh. 1859. 
 
 SOME MONOGRAPHS. 
 
 Graf, Essai sur la Vie et les ifecrits de Lefevre d'Btaples. 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 lUyricus und Seine Zeit. Erlangen. 1861. 
 Ceroid, Luther Consider^ comme Exegfcte. Strasbourg. 1866. 
 Tliilo, Melanchthon im Dienste an heil. Schrifteu. 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 AUTHOEITIES. 
 
 Arminius, De Sensu et Interpr. S. Script. 1683. 
 Calixtus, Apparatus Theologicus. Helmstiidt. 1628. 
 Calovius, Biblia Illustrata. Frankfort. 1672. 
 Quenstedt, Systema Theologioum. Wittenb. 1696. 
 
Bibliography of General Exegesis. 489 
 
 J. Gerhard, De Legit. S.S. Interpretations. Jena. 1610. 
 
 S. Glassius, I'hilologia Sacra. Amsterdam. 1694. 
 
 Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-politicus. Hamb. 1670. 
 
 Sixtiuus Amama, Anti-Barbanis. Amsterd. 1628. 
 
 Dannhauer, Hermeneutica Sacra. Strasburg. 1684. 
 
 Pfeiffer, Herm. Sacra. Enlarged by Carpzov. 1690. 
 
 Waterland, Scripture Vindicated. 
 
 L. Meyer, Philosophia Scripturae luterpres. 1666. 
 
 Bp. WiMns, 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. 
 
 Kambach, Instt. Hermen. Jena. 1723. 
 
 Beansobre, Eemarques sur le N. T. La Haye. 1742. 
 
 Werenfels, Lectiones Hermeneuticae. Opera. Basle. 1782. 
 
 J. A. Bengal, Gnomon, Praefatio. Ed. 2. Tiibingen. 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 Protestautismus. Marburg. 1857. 
 
 PfafF, Introd. in Historiam Theol. Lit. Tiibingen. 1724. 
 
 Lilienthal, Biblischer Archivarius. 1746. 
 
 Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifterklarung. Gbttingen. 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. 
 
 Domer, History of Prot. Theology. E. Tr. Edinburgh. 1871. 
 
 S. Franck, Gesch. d. Prote.st. Theologie. 1862. 
 
 Kahnis, Gesch. d. Deutschen Protestautismus. 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 MONOGEAPHS. 
 
 Henke, Georg Calixt und Seine Zeit. Halle. 1853. 
 
 Hossbach, Spener und Seine Zeit. 1853. 
 
 H. Schmid, Gesch. des Pietismus. Nordlingen. 1863. 
 
 Wachter, J. A. Bengel, Lebensabriss, Character, Briefe, und Aussprache. 
 
 1865. 
 Bilfinger, De Spinosae Methodo Explicandi S. Scr. 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 Bibliographi/ of Gemral Exegesis. 
 
 LECTUEE VIII. 
 
 The Hcrmeneutic and indirectly exegetio treatises of this^ epoch may be 
 eounted by scores. The follo\¥ing are only a few of them, chiefly bearing on 
 theory. 
 
 SOME ORIGINAL AUTHOKITIBS. 
 
 Emesti, Institutio Interpretis. Leipzig. 1761. 
 
 Semler, Vorhereitung zur Theol. Hermeneutik. Halle. 1760. 
 
 Wetstein, Libelli ad Crisin atque Interpret. N. T., ed. Semler. Halle. 1766. 
 
 Wolfenbtittler Fragmente. (Lcssing, Beitriige, 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. Konigsberg. 
 
 1794. 
 Seller, Bibl. Henn. Erlangen. 1800. 
 Herder, Theol. A¥erke. Weimar. 
 Jahn, Hermeneutica. Vienna. 1812. 
 De Wette, Einleituug. Berlin. 1819. 
 Hengstenijerg, Pentateuch, &c. Berlin. 1831-1861. 
 Ewald, Gesch. d. Voltes Israel, &c. Gbttingen. 1849-1868. 
 Baur, Dogmengeschichte. Tubingen. 1845-1863. 
 Tollner, Gnindriss einer Hermeneutik. Frankfort. 1765. 
 Schleiermacher, Darstellung d. theol. Studiums. Berlin, 1811. 
 
 Glaubenslehre. 1821. 
 
 Hei-meneutik. Lucke. 1838. 
 
 Liioke, Grundriss d. Neutest. Hermen. Bonn. 1817. 
 
 Olshausen, Ein Wort riber tieferen Schriftsum. 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 MONOGEAPHS. 
 
 J. V. Voorst, De J. A. Emestio 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 Scriptui'ae interpret, admitti possit ? 
 Vit. 1795. 
 
Bibliography of General Exegesis. 491 
 
 Stahelin, De Wette naoh Seiner Theolog. "Wirksamkeit. Basle. 1880. 
 Bachmann, Hengstenberg nach s. Leben u. Wii'ken. Giitersloh. 1879. 
 Kenan, (Euvres. 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. 8. Farrar, Critical History of Free Thought. Bampton Lectures. 
 
 London. 1862. 
 Lecky, History of Rationalism. I^ondon. 1866. 
 Hagenbacli, German Rationalism. E. Tr. Edinburgh. 1865. 
 Dorner, Hist, of Prot. Theology. E. Tr. Edinburgh. 1871. 
 Hundeshagen, Der Deutsche Protestantismus. Darmstadt. 1850. 
 Tholuck, Gesch. d. Eationalismus. Berlin. 1865: and Vermischte Schriften, 
 
 ii. Hamljurg. 1839. 
 0. 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. Tiibingen. 1853. E. Tr. London, 
 
 1879. 
 
INDEX. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 AbSlaed, his work and influence in 
 seliolastic exegesis, 259 ; by his Sic 
 d 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 M. ; 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 
 
 Abrayanel, 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 »., 319 re. 
 
 Aeneas, 296 n. 
 
 Agobard of Lyons, Archbishop, an in- 
 dependent mediaeval thinker, 252 n. ; 
 he protests against the duel and 
 ordeal, 252 re. ; and against silencing 
 the Prophets, 369 and re. 
 
 Aiijah, 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 re. ; his 
 exegesis chiefly derived at third or 
 fom-th hand from the CatiiMe or 
 glosses, 268 re. ; his self-denial, 301 
 
 •Albo, Joseph, denies that Messianism is 
 a Jewish doctrine, 67 re. 
 
 Alciati, 349 
 
 Algaze], 280 re. 
 
 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 re. 
 
 Alexander, the Alabarch, wrote a book 
 to prove that animals are endowed 
 with reason, 138 re. 
 
 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 ^^. ; 
 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 re. ; 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 acq. See 
 also under Aristeas, AKiSTOBULtrs, 
 and Philo. 
 
 Alexandrian Judaism, its contributions 
 to the history of exegesis, 125 et scq. ; 
 nature of an Alexandrian of the 
 school of Philo, 133 ; voice of an 
 Alexandrian, 158; theory of inspira- 
 tion, 217 
 
 Alexandrianism, expounders of the 
 philosophy and exegesis of, 111-158 ; 
 the legacy of, 156 ; a Divine progress 
 observable in, 157 
 
 Allegory, use made of, in Alexandrian 
 and Patristic exegesis, 22-26 ; appli- 
 cation of the principles of, to tlie 
 Book of Ecclesiastes, 31, 32 ; the 
 most essential contribution of Alex- 
 andrian Judaism to the history of 
 exegesis is the method of, 126 et scq. ; 
 influence of the writings of Aristeas 
 and Aristobulus on the method of, 
 128 et scq. ; how the method of, 
 arose, 131 ; the Alexandrian Jews 
 find this method ready to their hands, 
 134 ; the Jews imperatively driven 
 to, 136 ; Philo's works, the epitome 
 and development of the principles of, 
 137 ; Philo's mode of dealing with, 
 142-146 ; nature of Philo's system of, 
 155 ; Arnobius on the, of the Gentile 
 philosophers, 167 n. \ allegory the 
 child of Rationalism, 193 ; general re- 
 marks on, 193?!,. ; Baur points out the 
 origin of the system of interpretation 
 by, 194 n. ; Origen's system of, 194 
 etseq. ; limitation of typology and, 
 by some English divines, 195 //. ; 
 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 ; ^dews 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 ». 
 
 Amharatsim, or boors, 59 n. 
 
 Amoraira, or commentators, origin of 
 the, 80 ; the labours of, produce the 
 Jerusalem Talmud, 81 ; Rabbina 
 Abina, the last of the, 82 
 
 Amos, 339 n. 
 
 Amos V. 2, Rabbinical explana.tion of, 
 76 and n. 
 
 di/ayoiy^, Eucherius's use of the word, 
 24 ». 
 
 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 stud}' to a nominally 
 so-called, 26 
 
 Anaxagoras, 285 n. 
 
 Angels, views of Schoolmen regarding, 
 292 and ii. 
 
 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 ii. ; founder 
 and leading teachers of, 212 n. etscq. 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, Ids destruction 
 of the books of the Law, 16 
 
 Antoninus, 436, 446 
 
 Antonius L. Vems, 81 
 
 Apocalypse, Luther's opinion of the, 
 336 
 
 Apologia, Stephens's, 321 
 
 Apollo, what the worshippers of, did 
 when Tyi-e was besieged, 8 
 
 ApoUos, 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 n. ; 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 aHve, 73 n. ; examples of 
 his system of exegesis, 73-79 ; the 
 five precepts which he gave to Rabbi 
 Simon Ben Jochai, 77 ». ; his death, 
 78 ; authorities on Aqiba and his 
 work, 78 n. ; opposed to the use of 
 any translation of the Old Testament, 
 119 ; reference to, 294 
 
 Aquila's version of the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, 118 and n., 119 and n. 
 
Index. 
 
 497 
 
 Aquinas, Thomas, 22 ; his influence 
 on scholastic exegesis, 269 ; authori- 
 ties on his works and teaching, 26 y ; 
 Us system of exegesis, 269-272 ; 
 Tholuck on, 269 n. ; Erasmus on, 
 269 n. ; Pope Leo XIII. on, 269 n. : 
 Xatalis, Bucer, and Ventura on, 
 269 n. ; Eenan on, 271 n. ; his re- 
 mark on Augustine, 282 ; on the 
 phrase, "Let there be light," 295; 
 character of, 301 
 
 Aristeas, account of the letter of the 
 Pseudo-, 127 and n. 
 
 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 Stanle}' 
 on, 131 
 
 Aristotle, influence of his works on 
 the mediaeval Church, 263 ; twenty 
 of the Fathers speak disparagingly of 
 him, 263 ; Gregory of Nazianzus's 
 opinion of him, 263 n. ; Jerome's, 
 263 n. ; Roger Bacon's, 263 n. ; 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 n. ; references to, 282, 289 n. 
 
 Arndt, John, accusations brought 
 against, 363 
 
 Amobius on the allegory of the Gentile 
 philosophers, 167 n. 
 
 Arnold, Dr., on rightly comprehending 
 Scripture, 28 n. 
 
 Articles, the Thirty-nine, on the Holy 
 Scriptures, Art. vi. , 369 n. 
 
 Ashi, Rabbi, completes and systematises 
 the Gemai'a, 82 
 
 Assassinations of princes justified by 
 Scripture example, 39 
 
 Astruc, 429 
 
 -ithenagoras, and his work, 171 and n. 
 
 " 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 Tiehonius, 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 Ecelesiastes, 31, 
 32; on the teaching of the Holy 
 Scriptures, 42 ; his partiality for the 
 
 Septnagint, 125 ; his warnings to 
 Jerome, 224 n. ; 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 ^vorks on theology, 
 the Church, and the world, 235 ; he 
 believed in the inspiration of the 
 Seventy, 235 n. ; defects of his 
 system of exegesis, 236 ; his use of 
 allegory, 237, 238 ; authorities on 
 his work as a commentator, 239 n. ; 
 injury done to interpretation by the 
 allegoric method, 238, 239 ; remark 
 of Rupert of Deutz on, 261 n. ; and 
 of Thomas Aquinas, 282 ; the wise 
 caution of, 293 
 Aulus Gellius, 343 n. 
 
 Authors qtjotkd oi; refehred to : — 
 AniiLARr, 29, 43 »., 253-256 and 
 
 7is., 259 n., 261 and n., 266 and 
 
 n., 269 »., 281, 281( '«. 
 Abravauel, Don Isaac, 33 /i., 83, 461, 
 
 464 
 Abtalion, 83 n. 
 Acacius, 227 
 
 Adler, Dr. Hermann, 446 
 Adrianus, 23 »., 26 n., 219 u. 
 Aelian, 120 n. 
 Aeneas Sylvius, 309, 313 n. 
 Aeschylus, 13s 
 Agatharcides, 127 
 Agobard, 252 »., 369 and n. 
 Agrippa, Cornelius, 36 n. 
 Ainsworth, 33 n. 
 Albert, 22 
 
 Alljert, Archbi,shop, 324 
 Albertus Magnus, 253 u. , 265, 268 )(., 
 
 28.'5-287 and »,«., 289 ■»., 291 w., 
 
 296 •«., 301, 460 
 Albo, Joseph, 67 n., 388, 464 
 Alcuin, 247 m., 251, 253 «., 420 
 Alexander, 114 and n., 115, 129 
 Alexander, the Alabarch, 138 n. 
 Alexander of Hales, 253 n., 265, 
 
 291 «,., 293 H., 301 
 Algarrati, 463 
 Amalric, 253 n., 264 n. 
 Amaraa, 379 
 Ambrose, 38 m., 117 v., 124, 166 »., 
 
 168 n., 174 n., 189, 203 and «.. 
 
 205 and «., 206 and n., 213 n., 
 
 215 n., 222, 241, 247, 248, 262, 
 
 263, 317 «. 
 Ambrose, Antpert, 247 
 Amesius, 379 
 
 K K 
 
498 
 
 Index. 
 
 Authors continued — 
 
 Amiel, 355 
 
 Ampere, 247, 289 n. 
 
 Anan, R., 443, 444 
 
 Anaxagoras, 135, 136 
 
 Andrewes, Bishop, 243 
 
 Angelomus, 296 /(. 
 
 Anselm, 176, 221, 253 and n., 255 
 and n., 261, 280 
 
 Anselm of Laon, 12, 250 
 
 Anton de Nebrissa, 280 n. 
 
 Antonius, Bishop, 297 
 
 Aphraates, 219 n. 
 
 Apollinaris, 227, 254 n. 
 
 Apollonius Molo, 127 
 
 Apuleius, 282 n. 
 
 Aqiba, Rabbi, 65, 72-75, 80, 118 n., 
 119, 134, 442, 443, 448, 450, 454, 
 460 
 
 Aquila, 118, 119, 120, 221, 229 
 
 Aquinas, Thomas, 22, 164«.., 237 ?i., 
 257, 265, 266 «., 269 n., 276 and 
 n., 282 and n., 285-288 n,, 291, 293 
 n., 295, 301, 313, 318 and ii., 358 
 
 Aramah, Rabbi Isaac ben, 31 
 
 Archangelus, 279 n. 
 
 Arekka, R. Abba, 82 
 
 Ariosto, 313 n. 
 
 Aristeas, 116 n., 117 n., 127, 134 
 
 Aristides, 207 
 
 Aristo Pellaeus, 38 n. 
 
 Aristobulus, 127-131, 134, 140, 143 
 m., 169 
 
 Aristotle, 129, 138, 156, 247, 253 
 n., 261-266 and ns., 466, 468, 469 
 
 Arius, 170 m. 
 
 Arminius, 328, 379 
 
 Arnauld, 243 
 
 Arndt, John, 363 
 
 Arnobius, 167 n. 
 
 Arnold, Dr., 28, 42 
 
 Arnold, Matthew, 114 n. 
 
 Aron R., 443 
 
 Artapanus, 127 
 
 Arteraon, 263 
 
 Athanasius, 176 n., 202 and n., 241 
 
 Athenagoras, 171, 179 and n. 
 
 Atling, Jac., 379 
 
 Atling, J. H,, 379 
 
 Aucher, 130 »., 137 n., 138 n., 140 
 
 Augustine, 22, 24, 26 and re., 30 /;., 
 31, 32 n., 38 n., 42, 43 n., 117, 
 124, 125, 163 n., 166 n., 168 
 and re., 176 «.., 189, 205 ?»., 208 
 and ?!., 212 and m., 220-222, 224 
 71., 227 re., 230 «., 231 a., 241, 243, 
 246-248, 255 ji., 259 v., 260 n., 
 262, 270, 278 n., 282 and «., 290, 
 293-295 a., 312, 313, 317 n., 318, 
 
 Authors continufd — 
 
 337, 342 n., 346 a., 352, 459, 460, 
 
 468, 476 
 Aurotinus, Cornelius, 314 n. 
 AventiBUS, 289 a. 
 
 Bacon, Lord, 41 a., 251 ?i., 257 ti., 
 
 263 a., 271, 284, 289 and a., 291, 
 
 293 and n., 353 »(., 407, 427, 466, 
 
 470 
 Bacon, Roger, 274a.,286anda.,310, 
 
 340 a. 
 Bahr, 380 
 
 Bahrdt, F. A , 400, 406 
 Baier, 264 a., 362, 371 
 Baldwin, 361 n. 
 Barbeyrac, 163 a. 
 Barclay, 19 a. 
 
 Barnabas, 169, 170, 172 a., 189, 191 
 Baronius, 202 a,, 313 a. 
 Bartolocci, 82, 93 
 Basil, 38 a., 187 a., 202 and n., 
 
 206 a., 220 a., 295 ?«., 317 n., 
 
 346 a. 
 Bassus, 207 
 Baur, 139 a., 168 a., 181 a., 194 «., 
 
 2S0 re., 368 a., 384, 412, 414-416, 
 
 418, 467 
 Baxter, 243, 377, 380, 383 
 Bayle, 343 a., 380, 388 
 Beard, 308 a., 312' a., 315 a., 322, 
 
 338 a., 343 re., 361 a. 
 Bede, 165 a., 168, 248 and a., 249 
 
 and a., 251 »., 257 a., 274, 289 «., 
 
 301 and a., 420, 460, 468 
 Bellarmine, 296 a., 300, 311, 314, 
 
 321, 326, 350, 374, 375 
 Bembo, 308 re. 
 Bengel, 3SS, 392-394 
 Benson, AnOibishop, 182 and a. 
 Beiitley, 428 
 
 Bereng.irius, 253-255 and ns. 
 Bernard, St., 33 n., 253, 255-257 and 
 
 as., 260 n., 2i)l n. 
 Bernard Sylvester of Chartres, 296 Ji. 
 Beveridrje, 377 
 Beza, 328, 342 and a., 351 a., 372, 
 
 376 
 Bibbiena, 308 a. 
 Binder, 287 n., 292 a. 
 Bingham, 377 
 1 Slack, Mr., 84 
 liluvney. Dr., 470 
 Bleek, 375, 411, 416 
 Blunt, Rev, Prof., 163 a. 
 Boccaccio, 309 
 Bochart, 130 /;., 389 
 Boethius, 264, 468 
 Bohme, Jacob, 379, 384, 385 
 
Index. 
 
 499 
 
 Authors continued — 
 Bohrirger, 178 n., 182 n., 198 n., 
 
 202«,., 205 «.., 222 
 Bolingbroke, 17 
 
 BonarentuTa, 43 and n., 259, 273 
 and?i.,292, 293 7s., 295 «,, 296,301 
 Bonet, 390 
 Bonn, 207 n., 372 
 Bossuet, 17 »., 33 n. 
 Bouquet, 247 n. 
 Breithaupt, 239 w. 
 Brentius, 32, 372 
 Brenz, 342 and n. 
 Bretschneider, 60 n. 
 Brewster, 359 m. 
 Broughton, Hugh, 388 
 Brown, 313 ». 
 Browning, 305 
 Brncker, 245 n., 2i7 n., 265 «.., 
 
 283 n., 289 »., 470 
 Bryan, 377 
 
 Bucer, 328, 342 and n., 372, 376 
 Buckle, 40 n. 
 Buddeus, 66 n., 101, 202 n., 203 »., 
 
 205 »., 251 »., 252 »., 277 v., 
 
 278 n., 346 »., 380, 389, 434, 446, 
 
 461, 466 
 Bugenhagen, 342 and n. , 372 
 Bull, Bishop, 176 n., 377 
 Bullinger, 342 and «., 372 
 Bunsen, 417 
 
 Bunyan, John, 324, 377 
 Burk, 392 
 Burmann, 379, 386 
 Burnet, 377 
 Burton, 194 n. 
 Butler, 377 
 Butler, Archer, 407 /(. 
 Buxtorf, 60 n., 74, 83, 86, 88, 92, 
 
 93, 96, 98 n., 99, 101, 104, 371, 
 
 374, 388, 389, 446 
 
 Calixt, 328, 383, 361 »., 363, 365, 
 
 379, 383, 467 
 Calovius, 22, 358 and »., 362, 364- 
 
 366, 368 and n., 371, 373, 374, 
 
 383, 397, 426 
 Calvin, 163 n., 182, 216, 218 «., 
 
 291, 322, 328, 331, 336, 342-353 
 
 and ns., 360 n., 361, 372, 376, 
 
 382, 472 
 Camerarius, 310 n., 328, 342 and n., 
 
 364 ». 
 Campamis, 331 
 Canne, 470 
 Cappell, 379 
 Cappellus, J., 328m. 
 Cappellus Ludovicus, 328 n., 386, 387 
 Caranza, 320 
 
 Authors continued — 
 
 Carlstadt, 324, 331, 336, 341 
 
 Carpenter, Prof., 52 n. 
 
 Carpzov, 363, 371, 382, 388 
 
 Oarus, 404 
 
 Casanbon, 374 
 
 Caspe, Joseph Ibn, 33 n. 
 
 Cassiodorus, 24 n., 26 and n., 240 
 
 Castell, 33 »., 86, 377, 389 
 
 Cave, 210 k., 254 «., 377 
 
 Cellarius, 119 n 
 
 Celsius, 389 
 
 Celsus, 17, 174 
 
 Cerinthus, 177 and ?!. 
 
 Chaeremon, 127, 198 n. 
 
 Chalcidius, 282 re. 
 
 Chalybaus, 161 re., 412 
 
 Chauaniah ben Chizkiyah, 49 n. 
 
 Chemnitz, 328, 342, 358, 368, 467 
 
 Cheyne, Mr. 103 
 
 Chiarini, 19)(., 35re., 59 re., 63 «., 
 
 64 re., 73, 82, 84, 85, 89, 90, 92, 
 
 94, 101 
 Chillingworth, 162 77., 163, 377 
 Chrysippus, 135, 140, 187 re., 195 re., 
 
 202, 211-215, 220-222, 230 re., 
 
 236 re., 242, 270 re. 
 Chrysoatom, 317 re., 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, 
 
 116»., 117, 128 re., 129 re., 143re., 
 
 165re., 166 re., 168 and re., 172 re., 
 
 182-187 andre^., 189, 208, 263 n. 
 Clement of Eome, 13, 122 
 Clerious, 224 «., 234 re., 328, 374, 
 
 379, 383 
 Cobet, 121 re. 
 Coceeius, 33 re., 58 re., 278 re., 379, 
 
 385, 386, 460 
 Cochlaeus, 317 re., 361 
 Coleridge, 163?!.., 231 7i. 
 Colet, Dean, 254 »., 255 andre., 282, 
 
 286 re., 296 re.., 300 re., 318 re., 
 
 ,321, 334, 353 re., 404 
 Collier, Jeremy, 17 re. 
 Comenius, Amos, 390 
 Comte, 308 
 Cornutus, 198 n. 
 Conybeare, 299 n. 
 Copernicus, 426, 427 
 Cotelerius, 170 re. 
 Cousin, 249 re., 253, 260 n., 264 re., 
 
 266 n., 467, 468 
 Coverdale, 316 
 Cramer, 250 re. 
 
 K K 2 
 
500 
 
 Indej 
 
 Authors continued — 
 Cremer, 386 n. 
 Crenius, 19 m. 
 Creuzer, 135 n., 255 n. 
 Crutwell, 470 
 Ciidworth, 279 n., 377 
 Cusa, Cardinal de, 313 n. 
 Ciisanus, 297 /(. 
 ('uvier, 426 
 Cyprian, 123, 180-182 and ns., 216, 
 
 241, 317 ?i., 326 
 Cyril, 201, 263 
 
 Dahne, 104)1., 116 »., 121 11., 125n.., 
 129 n , 130 «., 142 n., 149, 452, 
 
 456 
 Daille, 163 n., 187 »., 229 «., 428 
 Damasus, 224 n. 
 Damian, Pi'ter, 228 ?i., 284 
 Danaeus, 467 
 Dannhauer, 362, 376 
 Dante, 23»., 47, 221, 262, 267, 292, 
 
 298, 312, 313 n. 
 Darwin, 427 
 David of Dinant, 264 
 Davies, Rev. J. LI, 206 u. 
 De Broglie, 209 js. 
 De Dieu, 379 
 Delaeluze, 283 n. 
 De Lamenuais, 3, 308 
 De la Rue, 199 n., 200 «., 202 n., 
 
 207 n. 
 Delitzsch, 32 and 7!.. 67 m., 128)4., 
 
 210, 218 n , 224, 2J4 
 Democritus, 135 
 Denck, 307 
 Deuecke, 363 
 
 Denis, M. J., 115)1., 133 (s., 197 «. 
 Derenbourg, 18 ii., 19 n., 65 )i., 64 7(,, 
 
 66 )!., 68 )i., 69, 78, 133 ». 
 Descartes, 379, 383, 402, 427, 428 
 De Thou, 39 n. 
 Deutsch, Dr., 80, 89, 91, 93, 94, 126, 
 
 442 
 Deutschmann, 363 
 Deutz, Rupert of, 312 n. 
 De Wutte, 32, 142 /(., S12n., 319, 
 
 325, 411, 419 
 Deyling, 65 n., 389 
 D'Herbelot, 53 n. 
 Diderot, 266 n. 
 Didier, 246 
 
 Didymus, 195 n., 202, 227, 259 x. 
 Diestel, 176)i., 203)1., 219 )i., 221)!., 
 
 227 )!., 253 n., 254 v., 277 -'., 
 
 295 »., 337 n., 339 n., 342 «., 
 
 343 n., 383, 389, 405 
 Dieu, L. de, 328 
 Dilherr, 388 
 
 Authors continued — 
 Dillman, 451 
 
 Diodore of Tarsus, 220, 227, 240 n. 
 Diodorus, 23 «., llin., 213 
 Diog. Laert. , 135 )i. 
 Diogenes of Babylon, 135 
 Dionysius, 254 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria, 206, 209 u, 
 Dionysius the Areopagite, 313 
 Disraeli, Isaac, 69 
 Doddridge, 383 
 
 DoUmger, 139 n., 313 n., 323, 365 
 Donaldson, 227 /(. 
 Donne, 294 n. 
 Dopkes, 76 
 Doring, 278 and n. 
 Dorner, 203/1., 309, 311, 323, 338- 
 
 342 ».•!., 349 n., 358 )!., 360 ».. 
 
 362 n., 366 n., 368 n., 374, 37!i, 
 
 382, 386, 391, 405, 407, 408, 411, 
 
 416 
 Dorotheus, 209 
 Dorpius, 320 n. 
 Dositheus, 115 n., 361 n., 393 
 Doucin, 202 
 Drummond, 321 
 Drusius, 328, 379 
 Duns Scotus, 280, 281, 289 »., 290 
 
 and n., 292 n., 301 
 Du Pin, 233 )). 
 Durandus, 261 n., 286 n., 293 «., 
 
 295 n. 
 Durham, 33 n. 
 Durluim, Bishop of, 188 
 
 EBR.4KD, 383 n. 
 
 Edersheim, 64 n., 86 
 
 Edwards, Principal, 392 
 
 Eisenmenger, 66 n., 93, 105 
 
 Eldad, 166 n. 
 
 Eleazar, Rabbi, 19 n. 
 
 Eliezer, R., 70, 86, 87, 119 n., 445 
 
 EUicott, Bishop, 476 
 
 Elster, 251 n., 283 n. 
 
 Empedokles, 135, 138, 285 «. 
 
 Eniser, 329, 331 
 
 Engelstoft, 224 n., 234 n. 
 
 Ense, V. von, 390 
 
 Epiphanius, 117, 119, 125 /s., 177)i., 
 181 n., 202 n., 208 n. 
 
 Episcopius, Simon, 163 «., 328, 379 
 
 Erasmus, 203 n., 223 )(., 229 n., 
 251 «,., 260 n., 265 and n., 269 n., 
 280 Kadn., 284, 289 )i., 290 and 
 n., 293 and n., 299, 310 n., 313n., 
 314 and n., 315 «., 321, 322, 325, 
 328, 343)?.., 355, 358, 428, 475 
 
 Erlangen, 325 
 
Tmlo 
 
 501 
 
 Authors continued — 
 EiTiesti, 219 ». 
 Erpenius, 379 
 
 Ersch, 30?!., 115 «.., 385 »i. 
 Etheridge, 47, 53n.., 61 m., 70, 78, 
 
 84, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97, 100 
 Eucherras Lugduensis, 24, 26 k., 240. 
 
 296 n. 
 Eupolemos, 127 
 Euripides, 7 «., 138 
 Eusebias, 16 n., 116 v., 119 n., 124 
 
 128, 129«.., 130 n., 137 ?i., 142//. 
 
 143 »., 171 11., 174 w., 176 //. 
 
 177 »., 181 )!.., 182 »., 18.5 ». 
 
 198 Jt., 201-/1., 202 and )i., 203 ?i. 
 
 206 71., 207 m., 209 and n., 229 n. 
 
 232 
 Eusebius of Caesarea, 227 
 Eusebius of Emesa, 219 «., 227 
 Eustathius of Antioch, 227 
 Eustochium, 257 
 
 Evans, Miss (" George Eliot "), 413 
 Ewald, 33 n., 38 n. , 51 «., 53 n., 
 
 57 /!., 67 n., 103, 115 n., 130 «., 
 
 137 n., 143 ™., 149, 151, 154, 224, 
 
 230, 415, 416, 462 
 Ewing, Bishop, 236 n. 
 Ezra, Ibn, 33 n., 70, 83, 89, 92, 95, 
 
 274, 384, 445, 462-464 
 
 rAotJNDiTS Hebmianensis, 213 n., 
 
 346 «.. 
 Fabrioius, 128, 210?i., 251 «., 254 n., 
 
 277 n., 280, 313 »., 326, 328, 334 
 Farrar, Dr. A. S., 402, 412 
 Fecht, 363 and )i,. 
 Feuardentius, 174 »., 346 n. 
 Feuerbach, 412, 414, 416 
 Fichte, 353 n., 384, 401, 409 
 Filelfo, 308 n. 
 Firmilian, 202 
 Flacius Illyricus, Matthias, 277 n., 
 
 328, 333, 342 and »., 352, 364 
 Flier, 385 
 Flottes, 235 n. 
 Fludd, 36 n. 
 Forcellini, 115 n. 
 Fbrster, 220 n., 221 
 Fortunatianus, 227 
 Fortunatus, 246 
 Fowler, 377 
 
 Franck, 125 «., 130 «., 131 
 Francke, 97, 376, 382, 401, 412 
 Frank, 362 n., 363 «., 463 
 Frankel, 78, 92, 116 n., 119 n., 120 
 
 n., 125 n., 142 n. 
 Franker, 454 
 French, 125 n. 
 Freppel, Abbe, 187 n. 
 
 Authors contiiinnl — , 
 
 Friederich, 33 n. 
 Friedlander, 22 //., 68 ns., 70, 7S, 
 
 80, 81, 463 
 Frigerio, 270 n. 
 Fritzsche, 216 n., 219 v., 223 n., 
 
 250 71., 360 n. 
 Fuller, 388 
 Funk, 165 n., 171 «. 
 Fiirst, 66 )i., 82 
 
 (lABLEK, 402 
 
 Gallandi, 128 n , 219 7). 
 
 Galle, 341 v. 
 
 Gaon, K. Serira, 92, 461 
 
 Gass, 383, 386, 411 
 
 Gebirol, Ibn, 464 
 
 Geiger, 22 re., 35 v., 66 ii., 92, 120 
 
 n., 315 
 Geldardt, Dr., 412 
 Gellert, 401 
 Gennadius, 26 a. 
 Gerando, Dr., 466 
 Gerhard, 350 «., 358, 362, 366 and 
 
 n., 371, 373, 376, 387 
 Gerlach, 154 
 Gerson, John, 253 n., 278 n., 279, 
 
 301, 330 
 Gerson, Levi Ben, 309 and «., 315 
 Gesenius, 115 n., 224 
 Gfrorer, 38 »., 128, 140, 148, 149, 
 
 452 
 Gieseler, 184 n., 19G v., 201 «,., 209 
 
 v., 254 »., 308 //., 309 //., 312 //., 
 
 324, 411 
 Gilly, 229 n., 232 n. 
 Ginsburg, 19 »., 31 //.«., 33 n., 36 «., 
 
 73, 74, 81, 84, 95-98, 104-106, 446, 
 
 451, 462, 464 
 Gitten, 64 //., 68 m., 69, 79, 80, 86, 
 
 442 
 Glaire, Abbe, 360 //. 
 Glassius, 104, 376 
 Glaukon, 135 
 
 Gobar, Steph., 201 n., 206 n. 
 Gbbel, 372 
 
 Goethe, 87, 365 n., 391, 401 
 Gomarus, 379 
 Goodwin, 389 
 Gotteschalc, 253 
 , Gow, 247 n. 
 Guericke, 132 n., 201 »., 206 ,i. 
 Giirtler, 379, 386. 
 Guttmann, 364 n. 
 Gratiger, 130 h. 
 Gratz, 19 »., 53 n., 56 ?s., 66 n., 68 
 
 ti., 70, 72-74, 78-83, 89, 91-93, 97, 
 
 114-116 ns., 118, 128 »., 277, 
 
 462, 464 
 
502 
 
 Index. 
 
 Authors continued — 
 Greg, Eathbone, 246 «. 
 Gregory, 23 «.., 168, 201, 202 and 
 
 11., 213 n., 240 aud n., 246 and 
 
 n., 247 n., 250, 268, 270, 274, 277 
 
 n., 295 »., 298 ii. 
 Gregory of Nyssa, 195 n., 202, 222, 
 
 259, 373 
 Gregory of Nazianzus, 32 n., 195 «•., 
 
 226, 243, 263 n., 291 »., 293 n. 
 Gregory of Tours, 246 and n. 
 Grocyn, 313 n. 
 Grostete, 260 n. 
 Grotius, 33 »., 40 n., 163 n., 243, 
 
 263 n., 328, 351, 365 and n., 374, 
 
 376, 379, 380, 383, 387, 445 
 Gruber, 30 »., 115 n., 385 n. 
 Grynaeus, 234 n. 
 
 Haag, 343 11., 351 n. 
 Haddarshan, Simeon, 83 
 Hagenbach, 360 n., 372, 391, 405- 
 
 407, 409, 411 
 Hales, 377 
 Hallam, 39 »., 40 n., 247, 258 n., 
 
 280, 314 n., 316 n., 470 
 Halle, 208 n. 
 Haller, 402 
 
 Hallevy, Babbi Jehudi, 92 
 Hamburger, 18 n., 50 »., 60 n., 64 
 
 n., 66 «., 101, 104 
 Hammond, 377, 380 
 Hampden, 240 »., 266 «., 281 n., 
 
 283 n., 311 ». 
 Harding, 260 n. 
 Harduin, 212 n. 
 Hare, 165 n. 
 Harms, Glaus, 413 
 Hartmann, 393 
 Hase, 341 n. 
 Hasselbach, 289 
 Haureau, 245 n., 247 n., 253 »., 
 
 257 n., 261 n., 265 n., 280, 281 
 
 »., 282 a. 
 Hausrath, 88, 100, 103, 114 n., 116 
 Havemick, 119 n. 
 Haymann, 462 n, 
 Haymo, 250 
 Hazlitt, 334 
 
 Hegel, 384, 412, 413, 428 
 Heidegger, F., 374, 387, 389 
 Heine, 32 
 Heinz, 206 n. 
 HeUodorus, 203 n. 
 H^loise, 260 n. 
 Helvidius, 228 n. 
 
 Hengstenberg, 120 »., 277, 402, 417 
 Henke, 383 
 Hennischius, 33 n. 
 
 Authors continued — 
 Heppe, 339 n. 
 Herakleides of Pontins, 136 and n., 
 
 138, 243 
 Heraklitns, 129 »., 138 
 Herder, 33 -«., 91, 320, 377, 380, 
 
 399, 403, 405, 406, 409, 410 
 Hergenrbther, Cardinal, 212, 256)t., 
 
 258 71., 265 «.., 280 n., 283 ;(. 
 Hermas, 171 and n. 
 Herodotus, 120 n. 
 Hershon, 21 /(., 36 n., 50 n., 59 ?i., 
 
 65 «.., 66 n., 72, 74-77, 102, 442 
 Hesiod, 127, 135, 138 
 Henmann, 284 n. 
 Hervaens Dolensis, 286 n., 297 n. 
 Herzfeld, 51 n., 52 «., 115 n., 116 
 
 11., 119 n., 125 n., 128 n. 
 Herzog, 53 n. 114 ,i., 251 n., 281 n., 
 
 365 »., 380, 383 
 Hierax, 202 
 
 Hieronymus, 24 n., 234 n., 251 n. 
 
 Hilary, 22, 38 n., 168 n., 169, 174 
 «., 188 «., 189, 203 aud n., 204, 
 205 n., 213 »., 227, 229 )!., 262, 
 270, 286 and n., 317, 334, 317, 
 461, 468 
 
 Hilgenfeld, 148, 166 «., 168 «., 416, 
 452 
 
 Hillel, 1.8 and n., 19 «.., 21, 22 and 
 n., 24, 50-53 and ns., 64-69 and 
 lis., 77, 80, 134, 224, 443 
 
 Hingenfeld, 106 
 
 Hippolytus, 169, 170 n., 201 n., 227, 
 232 
 
 Hirschfeld, 104, 149 
 
 Hirzel, 33 /;.. 
 
 Hitzig, 33 11., 117 n. 
 
 Hody, 116 n., 117 n., 120 n., 128, 
 223, 374, 387 
 
 Hoeschel, D., 23 n. 
 
 Hollaz, or HoUatius, 27 n., 351 %., 
 
 366 aud n., 371, 373 
 
 Homer, 130 «., 135, 136, 138, 406 
 
 Hoogstraten, 315 
 
 Hooker, 243, 344 n., 353)1,, 372, 376, 
 
 470 
 Hoornbeck, 379 
 Hopkins, Bishop, 436 
 Host, 209 »., 213 re. 
 Hottinger, 389 
 Howe, 377 
 Huet, 188 m., 189™., 200 «., 208 »., 
 
 209 vs. 
 Hug, 33 a. 
 Hugo, 252, 255 n., 257 and n., 259 n., 
 
 265, 268 »., 273 n., 286 »., 295 n. 
 Hugo of St. Cher, 260 n., 274 n., 
 
 276)1., 295, 318 
 
Index. 
 
 50 
 
 Authors aintinued — 
 Hugo of St. Victor, 26 n., 32, 277 m. 
 
 280 m. 
 Humboldt, W. von, 411 
 Hunnius, 346 and n. 
 Hurwitz, 79, 92, 94 
 Hus, John, 279, 312 
 Hutten, Uiric von, 313 
 Hutter, 362 
 Hyde, 377 
 
 Ignatius, 167 n., 171, 172 n., 
 286 ». 
 
 Irenaeus, 99,100, 109, 117 «., 119 n 
 122, 124, 166, 170 and 7i., 173 n., 
 174 and n., 176 and n., 177, 179 
 71., 180 »., 183 and n., 196 n., 212 
 «., 216, 227, 280 «., 317 «,, 326 
 
 Isaac, Kabbi, 120 ?;.. 
 
 Ishmael, Eahbi, 19»., 22, 72, 73 
 
 Isidore Pelusiota, 137 /(. 
 
 Isidore, 168, 468 
 
 Jacobi, 33 n. 
 
 Jaraczewsky, 270 n. 
 
 Jason of Cyrene, 126 
 
 Jeremie, 187 n. 
 
 Jerome, St., 14»., 15, 23, 30 n., 31, 
 78, 87, 89, 117-119, 122 «.-124, 
 142 »., 145, 169-171 and ns., 174 
 n., 175 n., 176 n., 180 «.., 182 
 »., 183 «,., 187 n., 188 n., 189, 
 194 n., 195 n., 198 »., 202 »., 203 
 and n., 205 and n., 206 »., 212 
 and n., 213 m., 220, 222-224, 227- 
 230 and m., 233-235, 240 )i., 241, 
 246, 248, 257, 260 »., 263 n., 270, 
 274, 277 n., 290, 294, 295 n., 314, 
 317, 337, 342 n., 345, 346 »., 459, 
 460, 468, 475 
 
 Jesus, son of Sirach, 117-119 
 
 Jewell, Bishop, 327, 376 
 
 Jochai, 97 and n. 
 
 Jochanan, Eabbi, 21 n. 
 
 Johanan, E., 69, 70 
 
 John of Damascus, 248, 259 »., 262 
 and M. 
 
 John of Salisbury, 43 «., 257 «., 259 
 «., 264 n., 266 n., 273 »., 290, 
 292 «., 294 and 71., 296 n., 310 
 
 Jose, E., 70, 71 
 
 Josephus, 78, 115 n., 116 n., 117, 
 121 n., 126 n., 148, 154, 452, 453, 
 461 
 
 Joshua, E., 70, 73, 86, 90, 445, 455 
 
 Jost, 19 n., 52n., 54 m., 55 vi., 57 m., 
 58 M., 61 M., 64-68 M«., 70, 72, 74, 
 77, 78, 92, 115 a., 128 n., 143 m., 
 462 
 
 Authors continued — 
 Jourdain, 264 n. 
 Jovinian, 227, 228 andra., 233 
 Jowett, 154 
 Juda, Rabhi, 60 n., 65 
 Julius Africanus, 207, 208 and « 
 
 220 
 Julian of Eclane, 240 m. 
 Junius, 379 
 Jurgens, 324 
 Justin Martyr, 117, 123, 129, 16f 
 
 171 M.-174, 189, 191, 201 n., 23 
 
 »., 239, 263, 346 ?i. 
 Justinian, 119, 125 m., 254 m., 316 ?; 
 Juvenal, 17 
 
 Kahana, E., 86 
 
 Kahnis, 391, 393, 403, 405, 407 
 _417 
 
 Kalisch, 445 
 Kant, 399, 428 
 Karnitol, 97 n. 
 Kay, Dr., 103 
 Kaye, Bishop, 172 n., 178 m., 183 
 
 187 and as. 
 Keach, 353 «, 
 Keble, 344 m. 
 Keim, 67 «., 113 h., 142 71., 154, 334 
 
 415 
 Kempis, Thomas k, 474 
 Kennicott, 388 
 Kepler, 41 n. 
 Kilon, 239 11. 
 Kimedonc, 475 
 Kimmel, 361 ii., 393 m. 
 King, Dr., 90 
 Kircher, 388 
 
 Kitto, 19 »., 73, 95, 102, 104 
 Klausen, 26 n., 117 n., 225 n., 239 m., 
 
 243, 277 m., 342 «., 343 m., 360/1.! 
 
 371, 386, 391 
 Kleanthes, 138 
 Klein, Grand-Kabbi, 88, 89, 91, 
 
 98 m. 
 Kliug, 467 
 
 Koch, John, 385, see also Cocceius 
 Kostlin, 326, 329, 331, 335-337 m., 
 
 340 M. 
 Krause, 337 ». 
 Krochmal, 57 m., 92, 463 91. 
 Kuenen, 115 m., 128m., 208 m. 
 Kurz, 360 «., 362 m., 363 m., 375, 
 
 382, 404, 417, 420 
 
 Lachjiann, 320 M. 
 
 Lactantius, 30 m., 41 n., 123, 169, 
 
 170 II. 
 Ladd, Professor, 294 m., 383 
 Lampe, 177 ?i., 376, 379, 386 
 
SOi 
 
 Index. 
 
 Authors conlinucJ — 
 
 Landerer, 264 »., 281 »., 360 ». 
 Lane, 468 
 
 Lanfranc, 253, 254 »., 260 /i., 264 ». 
 Lange, 33)!., 266 n., 299 »., 325, 
 
 363 m., 371, 398 
 Langenstein, 289 
 Lardner, 185 ;i. 
 Las Casas, 308 
 Launoy, 266 )(. 
 Lavater, 401 
 Law, William, 384 
 Le Clerc, Vict, 316 m., 376, 379, 
 
 380 
 Lecky, 39?;., 40 w. 
 Lee, afterwards Archbisliop of York, 
 
 320 m. 
 Leibnitz, 398, 399, 410, 42S 
 Leighton, 377 
 Leiri, R., 90 
 
 Leller, 138 h., \i.1n., 143 h. 
 Le Long, 277 n. 
 Le Maistre, 308 
 Leon, 97 
 Leontius, 219 m. 
 Lequien, 466 
 
 Lessing, 17, 307, 400, 401, 409 
 Leusden, 388 
 Levita, Elias, 51 m., 106, 388, 450, 
 
 451, 464 
 Lewes, G. H., 253/i., 470 
 Leydecker, 379 
 Libanius, 17 
 Liebner, 265 m. 
 Lightfoot, Bishop, 93, 166, 188, 
 
 213m., 219»i., 220m., 328, 377 
 Limboroh, 346 m., 379 
 Linus, 127 
 Lipsius, 176 m. 
 Littre, 413 
 Livy, 321 
 Lobeck, 135 m. 
 Locke, 290??., 353 n., 377 
 Lockler, 223 n., 224 m., 226 m., 
 
 227 m., 228 n., 230 n., 232 );., 
 
 234 m. 
 Lombard, Peter, 32 m., 253 n., 255n., 
 
 259, 262, 318 
 I;ongland, 295 and m. 
 Loscher, 363, 388 
 Low, 22 m., 73, 79, 92, 114m., 150, 
 
 294, 445, 451, 461 
 Lowth, 33 m., 377, 383 
 Liicke, 207 n., 240 m., 407, 411. 
 
 473 
 Lully, Raymond, 36 m., 280 
 Lupton, 248 a., 296m., 300m., 321, 
 
 334, 353m., 466 
 Lupus, 246 n. 
 
 Authors continued — 
 
 Luther, 30-33 and «.s., 104, 118, 134, 
 163, 179 and m., 184 n., 222 n., 
 236 m., 243, 260, 2G5, 266 n., 27.'. 
 m., 277 and m., 279 and m., 280, 
 284, 286, 291 »., 293, 297-299, 
 305, 307, 308, 311, 312, 314-317, 
 319-328, 330, 333, 337, 338, 340- 
 343 and m-s\, 345, 346 and n., 348 
 and:?!., 349, 351, 362, 355, 358, 
 360,' 361, 364, 368, 376, 393, 403, 
 426, 462, 470, 475 
 
 Luzzato, 64 m., 92 
 
 Lydius, 379 
 
 Lysimachus, 127 
 
 Maccoyitjs, 379 
 Machiavelli, 309 
 JIackuight, 195 m. 
 Mai, 145, 202m., 208 n. 
 Maimonides, 82, 84, 89-91, 95, 104, 
 
 275, 315. 384, 462, 463 
 :\Iaitland,Dr., 196m., 232m., 247m., 
 
 324, 364 m. 
 Maitre, 247 m. 
 JIagius, 251 n. 
 Major, G., 339 m. 
 Majus, J. H. , 385 
 Jlauetho, 127 
 
 Mangey, 129)!., 134, 135m., 1.37m.,141 
 Manning, 294 7i. 
 Manset, 247 m. 
 
 Marchesinus, Joannes, 280 n. 
 Marcellinus, 202 m. 
 Marcion, 17, 29, 175, 177, 181 n., 
 
 235 m., 308, 351 
 Maresius, 379 
 Mariana, 39 m., 40 m. 
 Marsh, Bishop, 195 m., 300)!. 
 Marsilio of Padua, 236 n., 282 «., 
 
 293 m. 
 Martene, 261 m. 
 Martianus, Capella, 247 m. 
 Martin, Raymond, 93 
 Martinus Bellius, 351 
 Massuet, 175 
 Mathesius, 265 n. , 324 n. 
 Matter, 115 «., 182 m. 
 Maurice, F. D., 179 n., 180 m., 260 
 
 n., 262 m., 429 
 Mazzini, 308 and n. 
 McCaul, Dr., 59 m., 464 
 Medad, 166 m. 
 
 Jieier, 33 m., 80, 254 m., 448 
 Melanchthon, 32, 163 m., 243, 265 n., 
 
 321, 322, 327-329, 331, 336, 341 
 
 and m., 342 n., 345, 350, 351 and 
 
 ,1., 361 and m., 364, 368, 383, 466, 
 
 467, 470 
 
Iud> 
 
 ex. 
 
 505 
 
 Authors continued — 
 Mfilito, 32 n., 171 n. 
 Mendelssohn, 3S4, 399-401 
 Mentzer, 368 
 Mercer, 342 n., 372 
 Merx, 19 »., 21 n., 213 n., 218 «.., 
 
 219 »., 268 »., 269 n,., 270 »., 
 
 274 »., 275 »., 277 ?i., 291 «., 
 
 343 »., 349 /(., 352 n. 
 Methodius, 201, 201 n. 
 Metrodorus, 135 
 Meturgemans, 116 
 Menschen, 93 
 Meyer, 275 n., 277 n., 280 »., 305, 
 
 313 «., 343 ra., 374, 376, 380, 386, 
 
 403, 405, 418 
 Michelet, 40 n. 
 Middleton, 163, 173 
 Migne, 24 n., 26 n., 201 n., 202 »., 
 
 216 n., 246 n., 247 n., 260 «., 
 
 271?s.,272». 
 MUdert, van, Bishop, 195 n., 300 n. 
 Mill, 208 n. 
 
 MiUigan, Prof., 167 n., 169 
 Mllman, 78, 83, 92, 248 n., 254 n., 
 
 298 n., 301 «.., 316 n., 319 n., 
 
 462 
 Milton, 163, 164 n., 251 K., 359 )i., 
 
 367 
 Minucius Felix, 121 n. 
 MoUer, 233 w. 
 Monnier, 247 n 
 Montacute, 346 
 Montet, 254 n. 
 More, Henry, 36 n. 
 More, SirT., 320 u. 
 Morgan, 377 
 
 Morinus, J., 225 n., 387, 388 
 Mosheim, 183 n., 188, 193 n. 283 n. 
 Motley, 41 n. 
 Muir, 47, 119 
 
 Miiller, J., 128, 142 »., 365 n., 411 
 Mullinger, 247 n., 248 n., 262-264 
 
 ns., 365 n. 
 Munk, 32 71., 78, 265 »., 449, 462, 
 
 463 
 Munter, 216 n. 
 Miintzer, 307, 341 
 Muratori, 40 n. 
 Musculus, 342 and n., 372 
 Musaeus, 135 
 Myslenta, 364 
 
 Nachmanides, 102 
 
 Nahum, R.., 74, 75, 80, 442, 447 
 
 Nathan, Rabbi, 18 n., 32 n., 35, 
 
 57 n., 68 »., 89 
 Nathan, Rabbi Isaak, 450 
 Neale, J. M., Dr., 296 m., 297 n. 
 
 11., 
 236 
 
 462 
 
 Authors continued — 
 
 Neander, 26 n., 133 m., 180 
 184 «.., 209 n., 211-213 ns., 
 n., 411, 414, 415 
 
 Newman, Cardinal, 14 »., 170 
 176 n., 180 n., 181 v., 191 
 209 n., 211, 212, 221 »., 251 
 253 ».., 254 7t., 270 7J., 286 
 327, 470 
 
 Nicephorus, 202 n., 207 n. 
 
 Nicolai, 401, 406, 462 
 
 Nicolas of Lyra, 318, 334 and?;.., 
 
 Niebuhr, 180 n. 
 
 Nitzsch, 411 
 
 Notker, 226 n. 
 
 Norris, Archdeacon, 176 n. 
 
 Nosselt, 405 
 
 Nourisson, 236 n. 
 
 Noyes, Dr., 33 n. 
 
 Numenius, 198 n. 
 
 Obeelin, 401 
 
 Occam, William of, 281, 282, 302 
 
 Oecolampadius, 342 
 
 Oehler, 114 »,., 234 n., 350 «., 386 
 
 Olshausen, 411 
 
 Olympiodorus, 32 
 
 Onias, 115 n. 
 
 Onqelos, 119, 315 
 
 Oporin, Joachim, 31 
 
 Optatus, 182 
 
 Origeu, 15, 23, 26 n., 33 «.., 115, 
 118 n., 119 n., 120 n., 123, 124 
 131, 134, 166 «., 168 »., 171 ?s. 
 174)!., 176 »., 177, 179 m., 182 «., 
 183 and n., 185 n., 187-191, 193- 
 203 and ns., 207-209 n., 215-217, 
 220 and n., 223, 226, 227, 229- 
 232, 239-241, 263 »., 286, 294, 
 295 n., 307, 333, 337, 346 n. 
 
 Orpheus, 135 
 
 Osiander, 328, 364, 368 
 
 Otho, 53 n. 
 
 Otto, 172 91. 
 
 Oudin, 313 n. 
 
 Ovid, 296, 343 )*., 468 
 
 Owen, John, 374, 377, 432 
 
 Ozanam, 223 n. 
 
 Pamphilus, 202, 209 n. 
 Panormita, 308 >i. 
 Pantaenus, 183, 185 
 Papias, 171 »., 177 ra. 
 Pareus, 346 n. 
 Paris, Dr., 470 
 Parker, 353 n. 
 Parmenian, 182 
 Parmenides, 138 
 Pascal, 432, 433 
 
506 
 
 Index. 
 
 Authors continued — 
 
 Pasohasius Radbertus, 250, 253 n. 
 
 Pattison, 291 n. 
 
 Paulinus, 166 ii., 168, 232 n., 226 
 
 Paulla, 257 
 
 Paulus, Dr., 418 
 
 Paulus of Burgos (Solomon Levita), 
 
 278 and n., 293 n. 
 Peacock, Bishop, 313 n. 
 Pearson, 377, 470 
 Pelagius, 234 n., 240 n. 
 PelKcanus, 315, 342 n. 
 Perez of Valentia, Jacob, 26 «., 279 
 Petavius, 38 «., 170 n., 288 
 Peter Lombard, 289 n., 344 n., 358 
 Peter Martyr, 345 n. 
 Petrarch, 309 
 Petronius, 245 n. 
 Pfaff, 385 n. 
 Pfefferkorn, 315 and n. 
 Pfeiffer, 258 v., 366 «., 374, 389 
 Pforzheim, 315 n. 
 Philippsou, 128 n. 
 Philo, 12, 22and?s., 23, 37, 38 m., 
 
 54 re., 79, 100, 109, 111, 114-117, 
 
 120-122, 125-134, 136-156, 158, 
 
 172, 173, 182, 186, 187 re., 189, 
 
 191 and re., 194, 198, 201, 452, 
 
 453, 455-458, 460, 463 
 Philo [the elder], 126, 143 re. 
 Photius, 109, 137, 166 »,., 170 s., 
 
 201 re., 202 re., 206 re., 207 re., 214 
 
 and re., 250 »., 254 re. 
 Picus of Mirandola, 279 and re., 282, 
 
 300 »., 309 
 Pierius, 202 
 Pindar, 138 
 Pinner, Dr. Moses, 92 
 Pitra, 269 re. 
 Planck, 364 /;. 
 Plato, 126, 129, 131, 133, 135, 136, 
 
 138, 140, 142, 148, 154, 185- 
 
 187 »., 189 re., 193, 196, 198 w., 
 
 217, 263, 269 re., 406 
 Pliny, 114 re., 166 n. 
 Plotinus, 255 and n. 
 Plutarch, 101, 114 re., 383 
 Pococke, 377 
 Politian, 308 re. 
 Poole, 252 re., 260 re., 296 »., 343 re., 
 
 389, 466 
 Pope, 254 re., 278 «.., 293 re., 318 n. 
 Polycarp, 171, 172 »., 174, 177 and re. 
 Polychronius, 219 re. 
 Pomponatius, 308 re. 
 Porphyry, 17, 198, 198 re., 282 
 Porr^e, Gilbert de la, 466, 467 
 Porson, 178 re. 
 Posidonius of Apamea, 127 
 
 Authors contimicd — 
 Pothinus, 174 
 Prantl, 264 re., 267 n. 
 Prideaux, 76, 377 
 Primasius, 287 
 Proclus, 254 re. 
 Prudentius, 168 re., 468 
 Pseudo-Aristeas, 115 re., 116, \i% 
 Pseudo-Haymo, 268 
 Ptolemaeus, 175 n. 
 Putfendorf, 33 n. 
 Pusey, Dr., 163, 168 n., 460 
 Pythagoras, 129, 135, 136 
 
 QiMOHi, David, 83, 315, 464 
 Qimchi, R. Joseph, 464 
 Qimchi, R. Moses, 464 
 Quensted, 27 re., 333, 351 re., 358, 
 362, 366 and;!,, 370, 373 
 
 RAB.A.NUS Matjkus, 204, 250 and ». 
 
 261 n., 285, 297 
 Eabba, Rabbi, 50 
 Rabelais, 292 
 
 Rambach, 366 re., 371, 376, 379, 434 
 Rambam, R., 83, 97 
 Rappoport, 92, 132 re., 150 
 Eashi(Rabhi Solomon jizchaki), 33)1., 
 
 50, 62 re., 85, 95, 275 and re., 277 
 
 and n., 315, 334, 445, 462 
 Eathmann of Liibeck, 372 
 Ratram, 253 
 
 Raymond of Sabiende, 340 re. 
 Redepenning, 196 re. 
 Reeves, 163 re. 
 Reimarus, 400 
 Reinken, Bishop, 187, 205 re. 
 Reland, 389 
 Remigius, 204 and re., 252, 268 n., 
 
 270 
 Remusat, 259 re., 266 re,, 466, 470 
 Renan, 22 re., 66 re., 174 re., 180 n., 
 
 264 n., 265 «., 270 n., 271 »., 
 
 294 re., 363 re., 375, 376, 383, 384, 
 
 404, 419, 470 
 Reuchlin, 35, 97, 101, 129 n. 
 Eeuss, 96, 134, 168 re., 181 )(,, 219 »., 
 
 224 re., 231 re., 343 re., 360 re., 389, 
 
 403, 405, 433 
 Eeuter, 252 re. 
 Ribof, 231 re. 
 Richard of St. Victor, 258 re., 259 n., 
 
 277 re. 
 Richter, 137 re., 219 re. 
 Ridderus, 265 re. 
 Riehm, 411 
 Eiggenbach, 415 
 Ritter, Bernard, 137 re., 236 re. 
 Rivet, 376, 37y 
 
Index. 
 
 507 
 
 Authors continued — 
 Kocca, Angelo, 278 n. 
 Romberg, 339 »., 340 ii., 358 n. 
 Roscelin, 253, 281 
 Robertson, F. W., 334 
 RosenmuUer, 186 n., 201-203 m., 
 
 205 n., 212 n., 219 n., 234 «., 
 
 239 '«., 267 «.., 275 n., 277 »., 
 
 296 n., 346 ?r., 320 ?i. 
 Rousseau, 400 
 Routh, 38 »., 175 n., 177 »., 183 «., 
 
 202 n., 207-209 m., 223 n. 
 Rufinus, 183, 202, 205 «,., 206 n., 
 
 224 »., 227-229 and m., 240 »,. 
 Rupert of Deutz, 255, 261 «., 268 m. 
 
 312 m. 
 Eupp, 202 n. 
 Rusbroek, 258 n. 
 
 Saadia, E., 53 n., 315, 461-463 
 
 Sale, 275 n. 
 
 Salmeron, 299 n. 
 
 iSalschutz, 86 
 
 Sanday, 215 n., 219-221 ns. 
 
 Savonarola, 279 and n., 309 
 
 Scaliger, 328, 389 
 
 Schatf, 202 n., 212 n., 254, 293 ??. 
 
 Sohleiermacher, 344 n., 412, 413 
 
 Schleusner, 457 
 
 ScUtisselberg, 362 n., 364 n. 
 
 Sehmid, H., 383, 405 
 
 Sohottgen, 93, 389 
 
 Schrock, 187 n., 201-203 ns., 205m., 
 
 206 m., 219 n., 224 n., 275, 385, 
 
 389 
 Schultens, 389, 445 
 Sehiirer, 52 n. 
 Schwab, 19 m., 91, 92, 463 
 Schwarz, 411, 413, 417 
 Schwegler, 262 m., 416 
 Schweinitz, Bishop E. de, 390 
 Schwenkenfeld, 374 
 Scott, 470 
 Scotus, 164 m., 253 
 ScriYener (Dr.), 343 m. 
 Seebohm, 318 m., 322, 353 m. 
 Selden, 377, 389 
 Semler, 26 n., 92, 230, 402, 403, 409, 
 
 410, 473 
 Seneca, 343 m., 468 
 Shakespeare, 246 
 Shammai, 65-67 and ;?.s., 134 
 Shemaia, 83 
 
 Shetach, Simeon ben, 19 m. 
 Shichard, 100 n. 
 Shucklbrd, 377 
 Sieffert, 216 m., 219 n. 
 Siegfried, 22 n.., 37 m., 120 m., 132, 
 
 134, 138 m., 142 n., 148-151, 172 
 
 Authors continued — 
 
 ?(., 205 n., 275 m., 277 n., 290, 
 
 291 m., 334, 452, 456 
 Sigebert, 301 n. 
 Simon, R., 74, 77, 130m., 171, 202m.., 
 
 223, 229m., 234 n., 252 m.,268?s., 
 
 277 II., 334, 343 n., 361 n., 375, 444 
 Simon ilagnus, 172 n. 
 Sixtns Senensis, 206 n., 238 n., 
 
 249 m., 270 m., 274m., 280 m., 289, 
 
 291 m., 460 
 Sniend, 48 ». 
 Smith, 182 u., 206 m., 207 m., 224, 
 
 377 
 Smith, Robertson, 370 
 Socrates, 129, 188, 202 n., 208 m., 
 
 213 m., 401 
 Solon, 138 
 Sonntag, 403 
 Sophocles, 138 
 Sozomen, 182 m., 212 m. 
 Spannheim, 389 
 Specht, 219 m. 
 Spener, Phillip, 390 
 Spenser, 164 m., 355, 363 and n., 
 
 376, 377, 401, 412 
 Spinoza, 17, 83, 280, 383, 384, 397, 
 
 403, 418, 428 
 Spitta, F., 208 m. 
 Sprenger, 40 and n., 309 
 Stanley, A. P., 116 n., 121m., 131, 423 
 Staupitz, John, 312 
 Steinschneider, 92 
 Steitz, 24 
 StelUng, 401 
 Stephen, 343 m. 
 Stephens, Robert, 321 
 Stesimbrotus, 135 
 Stier, 340 m. 
 Stieren, 175 n. 
 Stockl, 255 m., 267 m. 
 Strabo, 114 n., 115 
 Strauss, 307, 384, 402, 410, 412- 
 
 417 
 Strobel, T., 341 m. 
 Stunioa, 317 
 Suidas, 137 m., 142 «., 203, 207 m., 
 
 213 n. 
 Suso, 258 m. 
 Swete, 213 m., 214 n. 
 Symmachus, 221 m. 229 
 Synesius, 187 m., 254 n. 
 Syrus, Ephraem, 171 m., 209, 210 
 Szinessy, Dr. Schiller, 82 
 
 Tacitos, 17, 121 m., 166 m. 
 Tanchum, R., 464 
 Tarphon, R., 70 
 Tatian, 135 m., 171 and n. 
 
508 
 
 lade 
 
 Authors continued — 
 Tauler, 258 n., 355 
 Taylor, Jeremj', 17 »., 41 /'., 43 »., 
 
 57 11., 62 n., 2i2n., 292 n., 329, 
 
 353 n. 
 Teller, 405 
 TertuUiau, 30 n., 38 n., 99, 121 n., 
 
 123, 124, leg, 169 n., 171 »., 
 
 172 ?!,, 174 n., 177-183 and ns., 
 
 191, 212 and 9!.., 216, 223/1., 230 
 
 n., 234 re., 263, 326, 346 »., 368 ?7. 
 Thaumaturgus, 202 
 Theagenes, 135 
 Theodekte.s, 116 
 Theodore of Heraklea, 227 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 33 n., 125, 
 
 211, 212, 222, 240 n., 346 n. 
 Theodoret, 123, 124 n., 195 »., 
 
 212 m., 215, 219, 240 
 Theodosius, 66 n. 
 Theodotioji, 221 n., 224 re., 229 
 Theodotus, 126, 263 
 Theognis, 138 
 Theognostus, 202 
 Theophilus of Antioch, 171, 179 re., 
 
 208 re., 227, 368 n. 
 Theophrastus, 245 re. 
 Theopompus, 116 
 Thierry, 234 re., 261 re. 
 Thiersch, 416 
 Thilo, 341 re. 
 Thirlby, 172 re. 
 Thirlwall, Bishop, 297 re., 369, 371, 
 
 376, 411 
 Tholuck, 230 re., 260 re., 269 re., 
 
 294 »., 343 re., 358 re., 364, 372, 
 
 374, 383, 390, 401, 405, 411 
 Thomasius, 255 re. 
 Tibbon, Ibn, 33 re. 
 Tichonius, 24, 26 re., 210, 237, 24S 
 Tillemont, 26 re , 202 and re. 
 Tillotson, Archbishop, 348, 377 
 Tindal, 377 
 Tischendorf, 320 re. 
 Tostatus, 279 
 Tregelles, 320 re. 
 Trench, 193 re,, 234 re., 235 re , 
 
 237 n., 239 re. 
 Trenel, 19 re. 
 
 Trevecka, E. Jones, 299 ?;. 
 TribbechoTius, 260 re., 284 n., 286 re., 
 
 289 «., 466, 470 
 Trionfo, Augustin, 309 re. 
 Trithemius, 26 n., 2R9it., 467 
 Trypho, 174 
 Turrecremata, 279 
 Tnrretin, G. A., 376 
 Tuustall, 17 
 Tyndale, 17, 300, 316 
 
 Authors co)itinu-yd — 
 
 Ueberweo, 198 re., 245 n., 254 re., 
 
 259 re., 2(i5 /(., 282 re., 283 re. 
 Uhllorn, 411 
 Ulfilla, Bishop, 40 
 Ullmann, 258 «., 280 «., 312 re., 411, 
 
 415 
 Umbreit, 33 )i.., 411 
 Ussher, 374, 377, 387, 428 
 
 Vacherot, 139 )!., 182 n. 
 
 Valcknaer, 128 
 
 Valens, 212 
 
 Yalentinian, 168 re., 177 
 
 Valentiuus, 181 «., 308 
 
 Valla, Lorenzo, 284, 312-314, 428 
 
 Vallarsi, 240 re. 
 
 Valorius, 282 re. 
 
 Van Helniont, 36 re. 
 
 Van Heusden, 282 
 
 Van Til, 376, 386 
 
 Vatke, 412, 414 
 
 Vaughan, 258 n., 260 ?i., 269-271 m., 
 
 279 re., 289 n., 313 re. 
 Venema, 386 
 Vertne, 353 re. 
 
 Victorinus, 188, 196, 202, 227 
 Vigilantius, 228 and re. 
 Villari, 279 re. 
 Vincentin.s Lerinensis, 179 re., 182 a. 
 
 326 
 Virgil, 247 re. 
 Virgilius, 427 
 
 Vitringa, 376, 379, 386, 389 
 Vives Ludovicus, 289 and n., 292 re., 
 
 470 
 Voetins, 379 
 Vogel, A., 26 re. 
 Volkmar, 416 
 Voltaire, 17, 397, 400 
 Voss, 374, 379, 387 
 
 VfAOE, 182 re., 206 re., 207 re., 224 
 
 "Wachner, 52 »., 59 re., 61 re., 76, 80 
 
 Wagenseil, 92 
 
 Wahner, 389 
 
 Walafrid Strabo, 251 and re. 
 
 Walch, 206 re,, 234 re., 240 re., 251 )s., 
 
 312 re., 346 re. 
 Walther, 374 
 Walton, 377 
 Warburton, 377 
 Wasmuth, 374 
 Waterland, 353 re., 400 
 Watta, Isaac, 377 
 Weber, 19 re., 51 re., 57 re., 59 re., 61- 
 
 63 «^., 66 re., 69, 74, 91, 93, 95, 
 
 98, 442 
 Wegscheider, 408 
 
ludr.r. 
 
 509 
 
 Authors continued — 
 Weigel, 374 
 Weill, 51-54 «.'., 56 n., 57 »., 50, 
 
 62 71., 63 n., 70, 90, 462 
 AVeiss, 411, 415 
 Weisziicker, 325 
 Wellhausen, 58 «., 208 n. 
 Werenfels, 30 
 Werner, 255 n., 292 ii. 
 AVernsdorf, 366 
 
 Wesley, John, 40ji., 324, 390, 393 
 Wessel, John, 236 n., 312 and n., 
 
 314 
 Westcott, 155 )!., 186, 188 «., 189 
 
 «.., 207 n., 209 n., 220 n., 223 »., 
 
 254 n., 316 »., 409 
 Wetstein, 93, 207 »., 280, 376, 379, 
 
 470 
 Whichcote, 377 
 Whitaker, 300, 377 
 Whitby, 124 n., 377 
 Whitfield, 377 
 Wiclif, 312, 313 n. 
 Wildenhahn, 363 k. 
 Williams, 78 
 Winer, 234 n. 
 Witsius, 379 »., 386 
 Witte, 363 n. 
 Wittich, 379 
 Wogue, 10, 11 H., 31m., 32n., 49/?., 
 
 116 »., 117 n., 442, 450, 455, 461 
 WoliT, 398, 399, 423, 461 
 Wollius, 473 !!. 
 Wordsworth, Bishop, 196 n. 
 Wordsworth, Prol'essor, 458 
 
 Xenophanes, 127 
 
 Zakkai, liabbi Johanan ben, 65 
 
 Zeller, 416 
 
 Zeno, 129 n, 136, 138 
 
 Zi.ckler, 33 n., 366 n. 
 
 Zunz, 49«., 62 m., 69, 91, 92. 97. 
 
 118 
 ZwingU, 319 «., 322, 328, 331, 340- 
 
 343, 349, 372 
 
 Avicenna, 280 ?i. 
 
 B. 
 
 Babyloniax Gcmara, completed by Eab 
 Abina, 12 n. 
 
 Bacon, Lord, attributes the paralysis of 
 science to theology, 41 ». , his re- 
 marks on theological compilations 
 and glosses, 251 n. ; on monastic 
 mysticism, 257 n. ; on the learning 
 of the Schoolmen, 289 n. ; on their 
 useless speculations, 293 and n. ; on 
 English theologians, 353 n. 
 
 Bacon, Roger, on the impossibility of a 
 translation to convey the exact sense 
 of the original, 260 «. ; on the works 
 of Aristotle, 263 n. ; his hostility to 
 Aristotle and the Fathers, 266 n. ; 
 his views on non-Biblical branches of 
 knowledge, 286 n. ; 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 11. 
 
 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 71 ; analysis of the Epistle and of 
 its allegorical and mystical method , 
 167-170 
 
 Barouius, 282, 297 
 
 Basil the Great, one of the leaders of 
 the School of Antioeh, 219; he stoutly 
 opposes allegory, 220 n.. 
 
 Baur, Ferdinand, his account of the 
 origin of the allegoric system of 
 interpretation, 194 n, ; his attacks 
 on Christianity, notice of, 414- 
 416 
 
 Baxter, on the over-magnifying of the 
 Bible, 372 
 
 Bede, the Venerable, his works, influ- 
 ence, and system of exegesis, 218 ; is 
 reckoned among the Fathers, 249 n. ; 
 his life, 301 
 
 Bellarmine on exegesis, 296 n. ; on the 
 Papacy before the Reformation, 311 ; 
 on the prejudice against gi'ammati- 
 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 77. ; 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 Canticles, 257 
 and n. ; 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 
 Seformation, 342 ; regarded by the 
 English Reformers as the greatest 
 theologian of the day, 342 n. 
 
 Bible, stands alone among sacred books 
 as the record of a progressive revela- 
 tion, 4 ; qualifications required of 
 translators and interpreters of the, 
 4, 5 ; the Genoese, 5 n. ; the Nurem- 
 berg, 5 n. ; assailed by modem critics, 
 5 ; tendency and result of modern 
 criticism, 5-8 ; nature, authors, and 
 object of the, 6-8 ; meaning of the 
 word, 6 n. ; necessity for distinguish- 
 ing between the letter and the spirit 
 of the, 7, 8 ; list of lost books referred 
 to in the, 6, 7 ; power of the, on the 
 minds of believers, 7, 8 ; duty of the 
 believer in interpreting the, 8 ; con- 
 tains the Word of God, 8 ; how it 
 must be treated, 8 ; origin and nature 
 of various modes of exegesis of the, 
 8-11 ; seven main periods and sys- 
 tems of interpretation of the, 12 ; 
 misinterpretation of the, among the 
 Jews, elevated into a sacred prin- 
 ciple, 12 n. ; origin of the methods 
 adopted during these periods, 13 ; 
 the power and grandeur of the, still 
 maintained, notwithstanding all ad- 
 verse criticism, 13, 14 ; what the 
 different schools of exegesis have 
 done for the, 15 ; its enemies in all 
 ages impotent to weaken or destroy 
 the influence of the, 16 ; enumera- 
 tion of the greatest enemies of the, 
 17 ; injury done to the, from mis- 
 interpretations, 17 ; seven epochs of 
 criticism as applied to the, \% et seq. ; 
 the seven rules of Hillel as applicable 
 to the, 18». ; wilful distortion of the 
 language of the, 26, 27 and ». ; "Word 
 of God " cannot be applied indiscrim- 
 inately to all the books of the, 28 ; 
 Dr. Arnold on rightly comprehend- 
 ing the, 28 n. ; the word Testament 
 applied to the two divisions of the, a 
 mistranslation and a mistake, 30 ; mis- 
 taken conception for seventeen cen- 
 turies of the design of the First Epistle 
 of St, John, 31 ; early doubts regarding 
 the authenticity of the 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 the first chapter of the, 
 34-38 ; the mistaken interpretation 
 of this verse responsible for positive 
 
 heresy, 37 ; importance to mankind 
 of mistaken interpretation of the, 
 38 ct seq. ; explanatiou of the fact 
 that the, has met with an infinitude 
 of varying and opposite interpreta- 
 tions, 134 ; the eclecticism, literalism, 
 and rationalising of Philo results in 
 a complete perversion of the mean- 
 ing of the, 137-142 and m. ; Philo's 
 views on the inspiration of the, 146, 
 147 ; extraordinary notion of Philo 
 and others regarding the, 149 andn. ; 
 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 ct 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 n. ; views of Abelard and Peti-r 
 Lombard on the, 259-263 ; ofAlber- 
 tus and of Thomas of Aquino, 267- 
 272 ; of Bonaventura, 272 ; of 
 Nicolas of Lyra, 274-278 ; and of 
 Schoolmen generally, 278-300 ; ser- 
 vices of Lorenzo Valla, of Jacques 
 Le Fevre, of Reuchlin, and of Eras- 
 mus to the, 312-322 ; above all, of 
 Luther, 323 et seq. ; list of those 
 who maintained the single sense of 
 in the 16th century, 32S n. ; views 
 of Melanchthon and Zwingh, 
 341 ; of Calvin, 342 et seq. ; of 
 some of the divines of the post- 
 Reformation period, 367 ct 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 Cappellu,s, 386 ; ofWetstein, 391 ; 
 of Bengel, 392 ; of Lessing, 399 ; 
 of Eeimarus, 400 ; of Scmler, 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 
 
 Bielj Gabriel, 265 »., 282 
 
 Bilney, martyr, 316 
 
 Binder, on the useless questions of the 
 Schoolmen, 292 n. 
 
 Bishops and Presbyters, Jerome on the 
 original identity of, 230 n. 
 
 Bbhme, Jacob, influence of his mysti- 
 cism, in liberating the Church, 384 ; 
 touching incident at his death, 384 
 
 Bolingbroke, 17 
 
 Bologna, 316 n. 
 
 Bonaventura, on the fruit of sacred 
 Scriptxire, 43 ; influence of, on schol- 
 astic exegesis, 272 ; his system of 
 exegesis, 273 ; the character of, 301 
 
 Boniface VIII., 298 and n. 
 
 Books which have become sacred, 
 exegesis a matter of necessity for, 3 
 
 Books quoted or eefeeked to — 
 
 AsiiiARD (Remusat's Life of), 259 
 ;i »., 466, 470 
 
 Abhandl. v, freier Untersuchen d. 
 
 Kanons, 403 
 Aboda Z.ira, 76 
 Aboth, 18 n., 22 n., 32 n., 57 ft., 61 
 
 n., 68 n. 
 Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, 57 k., 68 ii. 
 Additiones, 278 and n. 
 Advancement of Learning, 251 h. , 
 
 263 »., 289 n., 293)1., 470 
 Ad. Chronol. Euseb., 130 n. 
 Ad. Ezech. (Jerome), 118 n. 
 Adv. Gentes (Arnobius), 167 n. 
 Ad. Magnes. (Ignatius), 167 n. 
 Adv, Praxean (TertuUian) 174 n. 
 Adv. Rufinum (Jerome), 229 n. 
 Ad. Scapulam (Cyprian), 41 /(., 180 it. 
 Aeltestij Urkunde des IVIenscheugo 
 
 schlcfhts, 407 n. 
 Aglaophamus, 135 n. 
 Aids to Faith, 476 
 Alcuin, 247 n. 
 Alex. Religionsphilos, 456 
 Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek, 401 
 Allegg. Homer, 243 
 Alter Augustinus, 235 n. 
 Alt. Prot. Dogmatik, 339 n. 
 Altsyn. Theol., 19 n., 62 n., 63 «., 
 
 66 n., 74 «., 98 n., 442 
 Analogy, 377 
 Anct. Hist. 180 )?. 
 Ancient Saints, 221 «., 251 n. 
 Annales, 166 )(.., 289 n., 297 n., 467 
 
 Books continued — 
 
 Anual. d. Universitiit 2u Wittenberg, 
 
 364 k. 
 Ann. Eccl. 232 n. 
 Annott. in 1 Tim. i. 6 (Erasmus's) 
 
 310 n., 313 n., 318 n., 320 and re., 
 
 428 
 Anselm, 266 n. 
 
 Answer to Travers (Hooker), 470 
 Autibarb. Bibl. 324 
 Anti-Boehmius, 364 
 Anticritica, 374 
 
 Antid. in Cone. Trident., 353 n. 
 Antiquitates Theol. Typicae, 386 
 Antt. (Josephus's), 51 ». , 52 n., 55 
 
 u., 57»., 61?i,., 66 n,., 115-117 ns., 
 
 126 »., 128 «.., 137 »., 138 re. 
 Antiq. Ebr., 52 re. 
 Antitheses, 235, 351 
 Apocalypse, 176, 206, 247 
 Apol. (Athenagoras), 171 re. 
 Apol. (Jus. Martyr), 117 «., 129 v. 
 Apol. (Melanchthon), 265 re. 
 Apologia (Robert Stephens's), 321 
 Apol. (TertuUian), 121 re., 178 re. 
 Apol. ad. Helois (Abelard), 261 re. 
 Apol. c. Eufin. (Jerome), 170 re., 
 
 187 re., 202 n., 222, 224 re. 
 Apologie of the Fathers, the, 163 re. 
 Apostol. Fathers, 227 n. 
 Apparat. (Calixtus's), 467 
 Apparatus Criticus, 392 
 Areopagitica, 164 re., 359 re. 
 Arians, 209 n. 
 Art. Ev. Homiletik, 38i 
 Art. Logic. Eudimenta, 247 re. 
 Augustinus, 117 re., 225 n. 
 Aurel. Augustinus, 239 n. 
 Autolyc, 179 re. 
 Averroes, 264 re., 265 and re., 270 n.. 
 
 404 
 Avoda Zara, 57 n., 60 re. 
 
 Baba. Metzia, 63 n. 
 BabaBathra, 51/(., 59 re., 66 re., 68 ». 
 Bamniidbar Rabha, 86 re., 87 re. 
 Bampton Lectures, 19.0 re., 240 re., 
 
 266 re., 281 re., 283 «,., 299 «., 
 
 300 re. 
 Barnab. Ep., 165, 167-170 and res., 
 
 235 re. 
 Beantwortung der Fragmente eines 
 
 Ungenannten, 404 re. 
 Bechinath Happerushim, 100 n. 
 Bedenken, 355 
 Beresh. Kabba, 120 re. 
 Beitrage zur Gesch. d. iiltesten Ausle- 
 
 gung in Spracherkltirung d. Alten 
 
 Testamentes, 462 
 
512 
 
 Index. 
 
 Boots continued — 
 
 Bel. J. (Josephus), 115 )i., 136 ?i. 
 
 Berachoth Introil., 463 
 
 Berakhoth, 12 «., 19 n., 51 n., 52 
 »., 61-63 ns., 66 n. 
 
 Bereshith Rabba, 61 n., 66 n. 
 
 Bibelwerk, 33 n. 
 
 Bible, La, enfiu Explique, 397 
 
 Bibliotheca Biblica, 353 n. 
 
 Bibl. Cod., 137 «., 166 
 
 Bibl. Graec, 128 n., 251 n. 
 
 Bibl. Hebraica, 461 
 
 Biblia lUustrata, 365, 397, 426 
 
 Bibliography, 182 /i. 
 
 Bibl. Hebr.; 36 ». 
 
 Bibl. Lat., 277 «.., 280 n., 313 n. 
 
 Bibl. Med., 251 n. 
 
 Bibl. Orient. 53 n. 
 
 Bibl. Max. Patristica, 24 n. 
 
 Bibl. Patristica, 24 m., 128 «., 219, 
 234 ?i. 
 
 Bibl. Eabb., 82, 93 
 
 Bibl. Sacr., 277 n. 
 
 Bibl. Sanet., 36 n., 238 »., 249 n., 
 274 71., 291 )i. 
 
 Bibliotheca Sancta, 460 
 
 Bibl. Theol. Epitome, 278 «., 346 n. 
 
 Biogr. Hist, of Philosophj', 253 n., 
 291 
 
 Bitsa, 65 n. 
 
 Brandeburgicum, 359 
 
 Breviloq. Prooem., 43 n. 
 
 Breviloq., 259 n. 
 
 Briefe das Studium d. Theologie 
 betreft'end, 321, 325, 380, 407 
 
 Briefe tiber das Studium der Theo- 
 logie, 91 
 
 C'ALEXDARirM Etymologicum, 286 Ji. 
 
 Calvinus Judaisans, 346 
 
 Carm. (Paulinus), 166 n. 
 
 Cant. 181 //., 239 n. 
 
 Catal. (.Jerome's), 142, 174 %., 180 
 
 »., 182 n., 183 11., 187 n., 202 «., 
 
 203 »., 205, 207 H., 209 ».. 213 
 
 n., 223 n. 
 Cat. S. E., (Trithemius), 289 n. 
 Catal. test. Verit, 277 '«., 364 n. 
 Cat. Virr. Illustr., 206 n. 
 Catena Aurea, 204, 221 «., 251 n., 
 
 253, 269 II., 270 n. 
 Caten. Praef. in, 250 n. 
 Catholic Thoughts, 403 
 Celestial Hierarchies, 254 n., 313 ». 
 Centilogium, 281 n. 
 Chagiga, 20 n., 35»., 57»., 63 ?i. 477 
 Characterismi, 282 m. 
 Charges (Bishop Thiilwall's), 297 m., 
 
 369, 371, 376 
 
 Books continued — 
 Christian Biogr., 81 
 Christi Blut und Gerechtigkeit, 390 
 C'liristliche Glaubenslehre, 412 
 Christologie, 277 n., 418 
 Christlutlierische ^'orstellung, 363 n. 
 Chron. Praef in, 224 n. 
 Chrysostomus, 220-222 ns. 
 Chuiin, 81 n. 
 Church Hist. (Neander), 133 n., 
 
 180 n., 181 n., 184 n., 194 »,., 
 
 202 n., 209 »., 212 n. 
 Church of the Catacombs, 232 n. 
 C'lavis Scripturae Sacrae, 24 n., 328, 
 
 333, 342 and re., 364 
 Clement d'Alexandrie, 187 n. 
 Cod. (Photius), 100, 201 n., 202 n., 
 
 206 n., 207 n., 214 n., 254 n. 
 Cod. Al., 124 n. 
 Coll.iquies (Erasmus's), 280 n., 320, 
 
 322 
 Cohort. (Justin Martyr-), 129 n., 15ii, 
 
 172 71., 174 re. 
 Coheleth, 31 «., 105 
 Commentaries, 353 n. 
 Comm. in Acts (Jerome), 230 n. 
 Comm. in Amos (Jerome), 232 ?!. 
 Comm. in Eph. (Jerome), 231 n., 
 
 232 re. 
 Comm. in Esaiam (Jerome), 231 n., 
 
 232 n. 
 Comm. in Ezech. (Jerome), 230 n.. 
 
 232 n. 
 Comm. in Gal. (Jerome), 231 «.. 
 
 232 re. 
 Comm. in Gen. (Jerome), 328 
 Comm. in Isaiam. (Jerome), 87 
 Comm. in Jer. (Jerome), 232 «., 
 
 234 n. 
 Comm. in Joel (Jerome), 353 re. 
 Comm. in Matt. (Jerome), 200 «., 
 
 229 re., 231 re. 
 Comm. in ilich. (Jerome), 224 n., 
 
 231 re. 
 Comment, du N. T. (R. Simon), 234ji. 
 Comm. ia Osee (Jerome), 232 n. 
 Comm. in Tit. (Jerome), 231 re. 
 Commentary of " Ambrosiaster, the, 
 
 206 re. 
 Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, 
 
 361 re. 
 Comm. on Rom. (Origen), 171 «■ 
 Commentary on Zacliariah, 464 
 Commonitor, 179 re., 326, 333 
 Compendium Theologiae, 362 
 Complutensian Polyglot, 317 re. 
 Cone. Trident, 333, 467 
 Confes. (Augustine's), 234 re., 236 
 
 re., 237 re. 
 
Index. 
 
 513 
 
 Books continued — 
 Confessio Belgica, 349 n., 359 n. 
 Ccnfessio Gallicana, 349 n., 359 n. 
 Confessio (of the Greek Church), 
 
 361 n., 393 
 Confessio Hafnica, 359re. 
 Confessio Helvetica Posterior, 359 
 Confessio Marchica, 359 n. 
 Confessio Saxonica, 359 n. 
 Ckmfessio Scotioa, 359 n. 
 Confessio Tetrapolitana, 359 
 Connection, 76 
 
 Consensus Repetitus, 359, 363 
 Constt. dementis Y. in Cone. Vien- 
 
 nensi, 316 ». 
 Contemp. Rev., 188 «., 254 n. 
 C. Academ. (Augustine), 2S2 n. 
 C. Adimant. (Augustine), 234, 236 
 
 n., 476 
 C. Apion (Josephus), 115 ». , 116 n., 
 
 121 »., 12S »., 130 »., 136 n. 
 C. Cels. (Origen), 169 n., 174 n., 
 
 185 H., 187 n., 194 n., 195 «.., 
 
 197 n. 
 C. Ep. Manich (Augustine), 236 
 Contra Epist. Parmeniani, 26 n. 
 C. Faustum (Augustine), 123 n. 
 C. Hermog. (Tertullian), 177 «. , 
 
 178 ». 
 C. Place. (Philo), 115 «., 137 n. 
 C. Jud. (Tertullian), 123 «. 
 C. Marc. (Tertullian), 30 «.., 123 »., 
 
 124 «,., 169 n., 178 n. 
 C. Praxeam. (Tertullian), 38 n.., 178 
 
 n. 
 Coran, the, 119 «,. 
 Corinthians, the, 296 n. 
 Corp. Apolog. , 172 w. 
 Corpus Julium, 359 
 Corpus Pomeranicum, 359 
 Corpus Prutenicum, 359 
 Corpus Wilhelminum, 359 
 Correctoria Biblica, 260 n. 
 Correctoria, 274 n. 
 Cours de I'Hist, , 253 n. 
 Cours de Politique Positive, 308 ».. 
 Credibility, 185 n. 
 Critici Sacri, 23 n., 386, 387, 389, 
 
 421 
 Criticism and Interpretation, 300 n. 
 Cyclopaedia (Kitto's), 19 «., 73, 95, 
 
 102 
 
 Dakki Leshon Hakkodesh, 83 
 Das Akadem. Leben, 358 ii. 
 Das Judenthum, 56 n. 
 Das Kirchl. Leben, 374 
 De Ahbreviaturis, 83, 98 «., 99, 101, 
 104 
 
 Books continued — , 
 
 De Abrah., 129 m,, 133 n., 139 n., 
 
 149, 151, 454, 45S 
 De Act. et Script. M. Lutheri, ad 
 
 ann., 317 n. 
 De Accentibus, 315 «,. 
 De Agric, 132 n. 
 De Alex. Tirt., 114 ». 
 De AUegoria et Historia, 216 n. 
 De Anim., 177 ?i., 1S2 /t. 
 De Antilogiis, 271 
 De Arte Kabbalistica, 97 )(., 315 n. 
 De Augm. Scient, 257 »., 289 «., 
 
 340 n. 
 De Baptismo, 178 n. 
 De Beatitudine ilortuorura, 363 n. 
 De Bihl. Text. Orientalibus, 116 »., 
 
 117 »., 120 n. 
 De Civ. Dei., SO n., 117 »., 125, 208 
 
 n., 234 «., 238 n., 282 n. 
 De Cherub., 132 n., 140 »., 142 /;., 
 
 149, 155, 455 
 De Christo et Antichristo, 201 n. 
 De Clement. Alex., 129 n. 
 De Clemente Presbytero Alexandrine, 
 
 187 H. 
 De dementia, 343 n. 
 De Clericorum Institutions, 297 
 De Conf. Ling., 147 
 De Cong. Erud. Grat., 114 »., 132 
 
 n., 137 n., 147, 151 
 De Cong. Quaer., 133 ». 
 De Cons. Ev., 125 u. 
 De Cons. Evang. 236 ;),. 
 De Copia Rerum, 321 
 De Conteiuplatione, 258 ii. 
 De Cor. Hit., 178 h. 
 De Corrupt. Art., 289 n., 292n., 470 
 De Cult. Ftm., 178 ». 
 De Dilig. Deo, 256 
 De Dionysii, 254 n. 
 De Divinatione, 138 ii. 
 De Div. Nat., 254 ». 
 De Doetr. Clirist, 26 n., 117 /'. , 
 
 125 n., 129 n., 225 ?t., 234 n., 
 
 235-238 TO., 459 
 De Doctrina Inspirationis, 403 
 De Doctoribus Scholasticis et Cor- 
 
 rupta per eos div. hum. rerum 
 
 Scientia, 284 n., 286 n., 289 »., 
 
 466 
 De Dogmate Platonic, 282 n. 
 DeEbriet., 137 «,., 141 n. 
 De Economia Patrum, 231 n. 
 Decret., 298 n. 
 De Eruditione, 265 ». 
 De Execrationibus, 154, 458 
 Defensor Pacis, 164 //., 23^ «., 282 n. 
 De Prat. Amore, 383 
 
 L L 
 
514 
 
 Index. 
 
 Books continued — 
 
 De Fide, 39 n., 166 n., 168 n., 
 
 174 n., 206 Ji., 263 n., 459 
 Def. Triun. Capit., 216 n. 
 De Gen. ad Literam, 43 «., 237 n., 
 
 243 
 De Gigant., 23 n., 141 n. 
 Diss. Hist, do vii. regulis Tichonii, 
 
 26 n. 
 De Idol., 178 ». 
 De Incorrapt. Mundi, 138 n. 
 De Institutione Div. Literanim, 24 vi. 
 Do Inst. Monach., 203 n. 
 Die Inspirationslehre, 294 n. 
 De Inspir. S. Script., 294 n. 
 DeJ. Cocceio anti-scholastioo, 385 
 De Joseph., 109, 129 a., 139 Ji., 455, 
 
 456 
 De J. S. Semler, 405 
 De Jure Belli et Pacis, 40 n. 
 De Juvent., 64 n. 
 De Legis Allegoriis, 22 n. 
 De Martis Stella, 41 n. 
 De Med. Aevi. theol. exeget., 251, 
 
 285 ra. 
 Dem. Evang., 124 »., 174 n. 
 De J.Iigr. Abr., 23 n., 133 n., 137 )(., 
 
 140)1., 149, 151, 152 
 De Monarchia, 154, 298 n., 313 /(. 
 De Monogam., 178 n., 179 n. 
 De Nom. mutat., 133 n., 137 "., 
 
 138 n., 143 »., 152 
 De Mundi exustione, 251 n. 
 De Nupliis, 257 
 
 De Nat. Deor., 135 n., 136 m., 144 n. 
 De Obitu Theodosii, 124 
 De Offic., 206 n. 
 De Off. Sex. Dieram., 38 n. 
 De Opif. Mund., 38 «., 121 «.., 138 n., 
 
 142 n., 143 M., 456 
 De Optimo Genere Interpretandi, 
 
 24 n. 
 De Ordine, 247 n. 
 De Parent. Ool., 145 
 De Plant. Noe., 133 k., 143 n., 149 
 De Origine Verbi D^i, 339 n. 
 De Partibus Legis Divinae, 24 n. 
 De Patient., 180 n. 
 DePeccat. Remiss., 238 «. 
 De Perfect. Monach., 228 n. 
 De Pond., 117 n., 119 n. 
 De Poster. Caini, 130 n. 
 De Potestate Eccleaia;, 309 »., 428 
 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 99, 
 
 178-183 ns. 
 De Princ, 169 »., 182 «.., 187 n., 
 
 190 n., 193 m., 196 »., 197 n., 333 
 De Proem, et Poen. (Philo), 142 n., 
 
 458 
 
 Books continued — 
 
 De Profug. (Philo's), 23 »., 37 n. 
 
 DePudic.,30M.,173«..,177»i.,212?;, 
 
 De Provid., 130 n., 137 n., 142 «. 
 
 De Rat. Ver. Theol., 290 n. 
 
 Der Christliche Glaube, 411 
 
 De Rege, 39 n., 40 n. 
 
 De Rhetorica, 327 
 
 De Repub., 135 «., 187 n. 
 
 De Resurr. Caruis, 278 m., 179 n, 
 
 Der mosaische Recht., 86 
 
 Der Unterschied d. Heil Schrift und 
 
 des "Wortes Gottes, 403 
 De Revolutionibus Orbium Cocl- 
 
 estium, 426 
 De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum, 377 
 De S. Script. Interpret., 124 n. 
 De Sacrif. Ab. et. Cain, 23 n., 151, 
 
 258 n. 
 De Scala Jacobi, 386 
 De Scholia Antiochena, 216 ». 
 De Sehol. Alex., 201 «., 206 n. 
 Des Comment, du N. T., 380 
 De Scripto Dei Verbo, 475 
 De Script. Eccl., 26 n., 301 n., 
 
 467 
 De Septem Regulis, 24 n. 
 De Septuag. Interpp., 119 ». 
 Des Juden Philo Buch. d. Welt- 
 
 schopfung, 142 n. 
 De Sobriet., 146 
 De Somniis, 22 n., 38 n., 120 «., 
 
 132 m., 139 m., 141m., 142»i.,149, 
 
 151, 152, 455-457 
 De Spec. Legg., 129 m., 137 n. 
 
 139 m., 152, 177 m. 
 De Studio Scriptuarum, 24 ?i. 
 De Studiis Instituendis, 243, 263 n. 
 De Synod., 168 m., 174 m. 
 De Text. Bibl., 223 n. 
 De Theod. Mops. Vita et Scriptis, 
 
 216 n., 219 n. 
 De Thom. Aquin., 260 m. 
 De Trin., 170 m., 205 n., 234 n. 
 De Turbata per Eecentiores PIatonico.s 
 
 Eccl., 283 m. 
 De Usu Patrum, 187 m. 
 Deutsche ilystiker, 258 )i. 
 De Vanitat. Scieut., 470 
 De Varia Aristotelis Fortuna, 266 ». 
 Development of Christian Doctrino, 
 
 407 
 De Verbo Dei, 296 m., 326 
 De Verbo MiriBco, 129 n., 315 ». 
 De Ver. Rel., 234 m. 
 De Vest. Sacerdotali, 226 n. 
 De Virg., 180 m. 
 De Virr. Illustr., 26 n. 
 De Vit. Contempl., 137 n. 156 
 
Index. 
 
 515 
 
 Books coiUinued — 
 De Voluptate et Vero Bono, 313 n. 
 Dial., 123 n., 166 n., 172-174 ns., 
 
 223 n., 247 n. 
 Diatribe (ieAristobulo Judaeo, 128 n. 
 Diatessaron, 171 ». 
 Dictionnaire, 360 n. 
 Diet, of Christ. Antiquities, 170 n. 
 Diet, of Christian Biogr., 126 n. 
 Diet, of Christ. Biog., 167™., 168?!., 
 
 176 «., 224 n. 
 Diet, of S. Script., 294 n. 
 Diet, des Sciences Philos., 463 
 Dictionary, Smith's, 223 n. 
 Die Angelologie der nachscottischen 
 
 Seholastik, 292 n. 
 Die apost. Vater, 168 n. 
 Die Christliche Gnosis, 139 n. 
 Die Kabbala, 130 «., 134 n. 
 Die Lehre Luther's von der heil. 
 
 Sehrift, 339 n., 358 n. 
 Die Pharisaeru. Sadd., .58 n. 
 Die Rel. Eigenthiimlichkeit d. ref. 
 
 undLuth. Kirche, 372 
 Die Theologie Semlers, 405 
 Die Universitaten sonst und jetst, 
 
 365 n. 
 Die Verdienste Calvin's als Ausleger 
 
 der Heiligen Sehrift, 343 ». 
 Disc, sur I'Hist. Lit. de France, 
 
 306 ?i. 
 Diseussio Controversiarum, 364 
 Dispute on Holy Scripture, 300 n. 
 Dissertation, 296 «,. 
 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 n. 
 
 Dogmatik d. apocr. Schriften, 60 n. 
 Dogmengesch. , 289 n., 467 
 Dubia Vexata, 374 
 Dreieinigkeit, 368 n. 
 Dunciad, 278 n. 
 Dutch Republic, 41 «. 
 
 Early Days of Christianity., 120 «., 
 
 137 »., 141 n., 177 n. 
 Ebraeorum Philos., 101 
 Eecl. Hist., 179 n., 180 «., 194 i/. 
 Eccl. Pol., 243, 344 m., 353 »., ".72 
 ficoles de I'Occident, Les, 247 n. 
 Edict of Nantes, 235 
 f)glise Chretienne, L', 174 ». 
 Eglise et rimpire, L', 209 «. 
 Egypt and the Five Books of Most-s, 
 
 120 ft. 
 
 Books continurA — 
 Eine Rede vom Auslegen, 19 k., 21 « . , 
 
 274 n. 
 Einleit. (De Wette), 142 n. 
 Einleit. (Havernick), 119 n. 
 Einl. in die Offenbarung, 207 n. 
 Eireohin, 109 
 Elias Levita, 84, 104 
 Encom. Moriae, 289 »., 293 n., 322 
 Enohirid. Mil. Christ., 321 
 Ennead, 255 n. 
 Entdecktes Judenthnm, 65 «., 93. 
 
 105 
 Ep. ad African. (Origen), 118 «., 
 
 119 TO. 
 
 Ep. ad Algas. (Jerome), 171 »., 231 n., 
 
 232 n. 
 Ep. ad Araphiloch. (BasiP., 206 n. 
 Ep. ad Coi., 122 »., 166 n. 
 Ep. ad Diognet. (Ignatius), 168 n., 
 
 nin. 
 
 Ep. ad Heliodor. (.Jerome), 229 n. 
 Ep. ad Hieron. (Augustiue), 231 n. 
 Ep. ad Innocent. (Bernardi), 261 n. 
 Ep. ad Joan. Jerosol. (Epiphauius), 
 
 208 n. 
 Ep. ad Lactam. (Jerome), 257 n. 
 Ep. ad Leandrum (Gregory of Tours), 
 
 247 n. 
 Ep. ad Magnum (Jerome), 208 n. 
 Ep. ad Marcell. (Jerome), 203 n. 
 Ep. ad Paulin. (Jerome), 30 h.. 49 n. 
 Ep. ad Pammach. (Jerome), 232 k., 
 
 454 
 Ep.ad Papam Innocent. (St. Bernard), 
 
 4B9 
 Ep. ad Philad. (Ignatius), 172 re. 
 Ep. ad Spalat (Luther), 321 
 Ep. ad Virg. Parael. (Abelard), 
 
 257 n. 
 Ep. Barnab., 165, 167-170 ns., 235 
 
 n. 
 Epi-stola 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)1., 320 re. 
 Epp. (Gregory the Great), 246*. 
 Ep. (Jerome's), 182 re., 202 re., 205 re., 
 
 206 re., 208 H., 227 re. , 230 ». 
 Erasmus (Life of), 321 
 Erasmus, Blasphemies and Impieties 
 
 of, 320 
 Ersch. und Griiber's Eucykl. , 30 » . , 
 
 115 m., 385 re. 
 'Erubiu, 62 re., 63 re., 65?!., 68n., 441 
 L L 2 
 
51G 
 
 Index. 
 
 Books continued — 
 
 Eruditis Didascaliae, 26 «., 252 
 
 and «,., 257-259 ns., 273 »., 295 ?s. 
 Essai sur I'lndifference, 308 n. 
 Esaiam, 224 h., 231 n., 232 re. 
 Essays in Divinity, 294 n. 
 Essays, Milman's, 319 n. 
 Ess. on Development, 170 ?i., 176 71. 
 Essay on Man, 254 n. 
 Essay on the Human Understanding, 
 
 290 ?i. 
 Ethical Studies, 39 n. 
 Jltudes ,sur St. Aug., 236 n. 
 Euthetiens, 266?!. 
 
 EvanR. ad Damasum, Praef. in, 224 n. 
 Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, 417 
 Evenings with the Sceptics, 235 n., 
 
 236 m. 
 Exam. Theol. 373 
 Exereitationes Biblicae, 225 «. , 297, 
 
 387 
 Exegese and Hillel, 18 n. 
 Expositor, the, 88, 215 n., 219-221 
 
 ■ns., 223 n., 451, 454 
 Ezechiel und Philo, 128?!.. 
 
 Fables of the Popes, 313 n. 
 Farrago Rerum Theologioarum, 312, 
 
 351 n. 
 Fascie. Theoh 19«., 313 ». 
 Federal Theology, 385 
 Florence et ses Vicissitudes, 283 u. 
 Fons Scientiae, 464 
 Formula Concordiae, 351 n., 359, 
 
 360, 368 »., 374 
 Fragm. Ep. ad Greg. Thaumat., 
 
 183 n. 
 Fragmenta Hist. Gr., 128?!.. 
 Fragments (PacMer), 137 n. 
 Fragments (Philo), 264 ?i. 
 France, La, Protestante, 343 n. 
 Free Enquiry, 163 n. 
 Free Thought, 412 
 Friend, the, 281 n. 
 Fortnightly Review, 308 «.. 
 
 Galatians (Lightfoot's), 188 !i., 
 
 213»i., 219 ra., 220 ™. 
 Gedanken liber Evangelisclie Wahr- 
 
 heiten, 390 
 Genesi.s, 72, 74, 77, 224 a. 
 Germ. Protestantism, 405 
 Germ. Rationalism, 391, 406, 407, 
 
 409 
 Gesch. (Ewald), 67w., 130 m. 
 Geschichte (Reuss), 134 ». 
 Gesrh. d. Heilig. Schrift., 96, 343?!., 
 
 375, 376 
 
 Books coniiniied — 
 
 Gesch. d. Israeliten, 51 n., 54 «., 
 
 61 n., 66-68 m., 87 
 Gesch. d. .Tuden., 53 n., 128 «., 
 
 277 m., 462 
 Gesch. d. Jud. Poesie, 128 m. 
 Gesch. d. Logik, 264 m., 267 »i. 
 Gesch. d. nmirst. Theoh, 411, 41:? 
 Ge.sch. d. Philos., 224 n., 231 ,i., 
 
 236 m., 255/1.. 
 Gesch. d. Prot. Dogm.atik, 386 
 Gesch. d. Prot. Med., 363 /i. 
 Gesch. d. rel. Secten d. Juden, 102 
 Gesch. d. Schrifterklarung, 277 «., 
 
 30.5, 313 m., 343 ,i., 374 
 Gesch. d. Volkes Israels, 51 n,, 
 
 116 n., 117 n., 119 9i., 125 m. 
 Geschichtsbilder, 66 m., 68)1., 70, 
 
 78 
 Glossa Ordinaria, 268 m., 277, 
 
 286 n. 
 Glossiiles, 296 m. 
 Gnomon, 392 .393 
 Gospel Harmony, 342 m. 
 Gottes d. Vortrage, 49 m., 62 /),., 69, 
 
 118 H. 
 
 Great Light, the, 461 
 Greg. V. Nyssn, 202 m. 
 Grundriss, 299 «., 240 m., 363, 407, 
 473 
 
 Haee. (Irenaeus's), 99, 100, 117 »., 
 
 119 m.., 122-124 m.9., 166 m., 168 
 n., 170 m., 174-179 ns., 182 n., 
 186 n., 202 n., 208 «,., 212 m. 
 
 Haer. (Epiphan. ), 119 m. 
 Haereticorura C'atalogus, 362 m. 
 Halach. Exegese, 105 
 Handb. d. Theol. Wissenschaften, 
 
 366 n. 
 Harmon. Bibliea, 374 
 Hagad. Exegese, 149 
 Hebraica Veritas, 315 
 Hebr. Lit., 78, 90, 92, 93, 95, 100 
 Helvet. Conf., 349 /'. 
 Henry VI.(Shakespearp's),246 and /(. 
 Hermenentica Sacra, 374, 376, 379 
 Hermen. (Klausen's), 26 n., 243, 
 
 386, 391 
 Hcrmenii'Utik (Dopke's), 76, 277 «., 
 
 342-344 na. 
 Hermen. Vorbereit., 473 
 Hexaem., 38 it., 202 n., 208 n., 
 
 220 m. 
 Herzog, 223 n., 250 m., 264 n. 
 Hihbert Lectures, 308 n., 312 n., 
 
 322, 343 «,., 361m. 
 Hieronymus, 223, 224 m. 
 Hierarchies, on the, 223, 300 n., 334 
 
Index. 
 
 51/ 
 
 Books continued — 
 Historia LXII. Interpr., 116 n. 
 Historia Doctorum Jlitlinicorum, 
 
 53 n. 
 Historia Syncretism., 383 
 Hist. (Tacitus's), 121 n. 
 Hist. Antiquior sent. Ecel. Grace 
 
 de Accommodatione, 404 
 Histoire de la Bible, 31 n., 32 n., 
 
 49»., 117 »., 442, 450, 461 
 Hist, of Cambr., 264 n. 
 Hist. Crit. der Comment., 171 n., 
 
 202 n. 
 Hist. Crit. des Comment, du N. T., 
 
 343 H. 
 Hist, des Comment., 252 /t., 26S7!,. 
 Hist. Crit. des A'ersions du N. T. 
 
 229)1. 
 Hist. Critique du VieilTest., 130 «., 
 
 361 n., 380 
 Hist, de la Civilisat. Cbret. , 223™. 
 Hist, of the Christian Churcli, 362?!.. 
 Hist, of Civilis., 40 ?t. 
 Hist. Oomp., 466 
 Hist, of Doctrines, 230 7?.. 
 History, Ecclesiastical (Eusebius), 
 
 17 7i.', 119«., 129 /(.,137 m., 181 /;., 
 
 182«,., 185?J., 198 H., 201 re., 
 
 202 «... 206-209 «A, 212 m., 213)!. 
 Hist. Eccl. introd., 248 n. 
 Histoire de rf)eole d'Alex. (Matter), 
 
 115 w. 
 Hist, de I'Ecole d'Alex. (Vacherot), 
 
 139 '/!. 
 Hist, of Eng. Bible, 316 n. 
 Hist, of Europ. , 39 n. 
 Hist. Franc, 246/!. 
 Hist. Interp., 186 -(., 201-203 ms., 
 
 212 m., 234 n., 267 m., 275 n., 
 
 ■2.11 n., 296 n. 
 Hist, of Isr., 61 H., 53m., 57 m.., 
 
 58 m., 96 
 Hist, of the .Tews, 78, 92, 462 
 Hist. Lit., 26)!. 
 Hist. Lit. de France, 247 «., 251 m., 
 
 262)1.., 289)). 
 Hist. Lit. Theol., 385 
 Hist. Litt. iS'achricht von Phil. 
 
 Melanchthon's ^'crdiensten um die 
 
 heilige Selirift, 341 /i. 
 Hist. Kat., 114)!. 
 Hist, of Rationalism, 40)^. 
 Hist, of Kef., 372 
 Hist, de la Philos., 245 m., 247 m., 
 
 259 m., 262/!., 283)!., 470 
 Hist, of Prot. Theol., 309 »., 358 n. 
 Hist. Sap. et Stult., 467 
 Hist, of Second and Third Cent., 
 
 187 m. 
 
 Books continued — 
 Hodosophia, 362 
 Holy City, 78 
 Holy Living, 43 m. 
 Hoiii. in,l Cor. (Chrysostom), 221 n. 
 Horn, in Exod. (Origeu), 197 m., 
 
 198)1. 
 Homil. in Ezech. (Gregory), 23 n. 
 Hom. in Gen. (Origen), 183)/., 
 
 194 m., 197 m., 198)!., 208)!., 
 
 222)!., 238 n. 
 Hom in Joann. viii. (Origen), 196 )i., 
 
 198)1., 200 m., 208 m. 
 Hom. X. in Jer. (Origen), 123 ?s. 
 Hom. in Jerem. (Origen), 193 )!. 
 Hom. in Levit. (Origen), 169)!., 
 
 187 m., 194 »., 196//., 197 m. 
 Hom. in Luc. (Origen), 179 m., 
 
 208 n. 
 Hom. in Matt. (Origen), 190 m., 
 
 209)!., 212)!.., 222)1.. 
 Hom. ru Num. (Origen), 197 )i., 
 
 198/1. 
 Hom. in Rom. (Origen), 199m., 
 
 236 )!. 
 Hom. in Tit. (Origen), 187 m. 
 Hom. in Jos. (Jerome), 198 /i. 
 Horaioth, 442 
 Hui,'ucs de St. Victor, 258)!., 
 
 265 //. 
 Hypotyp., IS-S (!. 
 Hystaspes, 172, 185 andm. 
 
 Idea Boni Interpretis. 376 
 Illustrations of Med. Thoughts, 
 
 468 
 Inferno, the, 313?!. 
 Inspiration of Scripture, on the, 
 
 294 II. 
 Institutiones Hermen. Sacrae, 239 m. , 
 
 371, 376 
 Institt. (Cassiodorus's), 26 m. 
 In,stt. Div. fLactantius), 30 n., 41 ))., 
 
 123/!., 170)!. 
 Institutes (Calvin's), 349 m., 350)!,, 
 
 361 
 Inst. Interpr. (Ernesti), 4)i. 
 Interpretandi Ratio a J. J. Wetsteino 
 
 adhibita, 392 
 Introd. in Hermeneuticam, 473 
 Introd. a la Philosophic de Hegel, 
 
 413 
 Introd. ad Theol., 269)/. 
 Invect. in Hieron., 18Sm., 205 m., 
 
 206 m. 
 Iphigenia in Tauris, 5 m. 
 Isagoge, 202 m., 203)!., 205 )i. 
 
 251)!., 252)!., 272)!., 277m.., 
 
 278 )!., 346 m., 376, 380, 461, 466 
 
518 
 
 Index. 
 
 Books continued — 
 Jalqut Shimeoni, 83 n. 
 J. Arndt, ein Zeitbild, 363 n. 
 Jahrbiicher, 420 
 Jerome, St. (Amedee Thieny's), 
 
 234 n. 
 Jesus und Hillel, 67 n. 
 Jesus von Nazaia, 67 n., 113 n., 
 
 142 TO., 335 
 Jetsirah, 97 
 
 Jewish Church, 116 «., 121)?., 131b. 
 Jewish World, 449 
 Joel, 213 »., 218 «., 219 n., 268 n., 
 
 270 n., 275 n., 211 n., 343 ;i., 
 
 349 «., 352 n. 
 Joma, 66 n. 
 
 Journ. of Class, aud Sacr. Philol., 
 ■ 213 n. 
 Journal Intime, 355 
 Journ. Sacr. Lit., 230 n. 
 Judaisme, Le, 6, 51 n., 53 n., 56 n., 
 
 88, 89, 92, 363, 462 
 Judenthum, 19 n., 52 «,., 64-66 ns., 
 ■ 68 n., 74, 77, 128 n., 143 «., 148, 
 
 462 
 Judenth. u. Heidenth., 139 n. 
 
 KABB.4LA, the, 36 n., 96, 97 and n., 
 
 446 
 Kethuboth, 59 n. 
 Ketzereye, 240 re. 
 Kirche und Kirehenthum, 323 
 Kirchengeschichte, 265 n. 
 Koheleth, 462 
 
 Koran, the, 28 n., 53 and »., 119 re., 
 ^ 275 re. 
 
 Kulter-gesch., 82 
 Kulter und Lit., 66 n. 
 
 Latin Christianity, 248 re., 254 n , 
 
 298 re., 301 re., 316 ». 
 La Legge, 86 
 
 Laurentii Medici Vita, 282 re. 
 Lebeud. 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 re., 240 n 
 
 266 re. 
 Lectures on Universal Subjects, 470 
 Leg. ad Gaium, 114 re., 137 re. 
 Legis Allegoriae, 129 re., 138 «., 
 
 141 re., 143 re., 146, 149, 150, 457 
 Letters to King, 364 re. 
 Letters to Eadulphus, 286 re., 404 
 Legat., 179 re. 
 Lex Chald., 446 
 Lex Talm., 74, 86, 96, 101 
 
 Books continued — ■ 
 Libelli ad Crisin, 391 
 Libellus de Canonicis Scripturis, 
 
 341 re. 
 Libellus de Formulis, 24 re. 
 Liber Formularum Spiritalis Intelli- 
 
 gentiae, 24 and re. 
 Liberty of Prophesying, 329 
 Liber Allegoriarum, 250, 251 n. 
 Lib. c. Object. Fredegisii, 252 «. 
 Lieder der Liebe, 407 
 Life of Christ, 121 re. 
 Lily of Secrets (Shoshan Sodoth), 97 
 Lingua Augustina, 235 re. 
 Lit. of Europe, 280 re., 314 re., 316 ii. 
 Literary Eemains (Dr. Deutsch's), 
 
 126 n. 
 Loci Commun. M. Lutheri, 326, 328, 
 
 331 
 Loci Communes Theol., 345 n., 358 
 Loci Theologici, 358, 361, 362, 366 )i., 
 
 368 
 Lockler, 206 re,, 229 n. 
 Logique de Port Royal, 243 
 
 Malleus Maleficarum, 40 re, 
 Manipulus Florum, 291 n. 
 Maran Atha, 407 
 Marc. Aurel., 180 re., 212 re. 
 Mare Magnum (Wessel's), 312 re. 
 Marini Procli Vita, 254 re. 
 Martyrs of Science, 359 re. 
 Massoreth Ha ilassoreth, the, 106 
 Mataeologia Papistica, 364 
 Mazarin Bible, the, the first printed 
 
 book, 314 
 Mediaeval Christianity, 254 u., 
 
 293 re. 
 
 Mediaeval Preachers, 297 re. 
 Mediaeval Philosophy, 260 and n., 
 
 290 re. 
 Mediaev. Thought, 252 re., 296 n., 
 
 466 
 Megilla, 31 re., 34 re., 50 re., 52 re., 
 
 54 »., 57 re, 
 Megillath Taanith, 66 re. 
 Melanchthon im Dienste an heiliger 
 
 Sehrift, 341 re. 
 Melanges (-Munk's), 265 re., 449, 462, 
 
 463 
 Memoriae Theologorum, 363 re. 
 Menachoth, 49 re., 51 re., 57 re. 
 Menagiana, 291 re. 
 Mental and Moral Science, 264 re. 
 Messiaa Judaeorum, 106 
 Metaphysics, 265, 266 re. 
 Metalog., 251 re., 266 re., 290 re., 
 
 294 «,., 296 re. 
 
 Methodus Prophetica Praef., 386 
 
Index. 
 
 519 
 
 Books continued — 
 Middle Ages, 40 n., 247 n., 470 
 Midrash, the, 19 n., 210 ». 
 Midrashim, 23, 37 
 Mil. Christ., 321 
 Mishna, the, 53»., 62»., 63 and ii 
 
 65 
 Miscellanies (Bishop 'Wordsworth's) 
 
 39«., 40»., 196 H.. 
 Miscell. Hist. Philos., 283 n. 
 Mod. Review, 52 n., 412 
 Monumenta Fidei Eceles. Orient 
 
 361 n., 393 
 Moralia, 240 «,., 247 re. 
 Moreh Nehuchim, 463 
 Moreh Nerochim, 105 
 Moriae and Instit. Prineipis Chris- 
 
 tiani, 321 
 Mythical Interp., 208 n. 
 
 Xathan der Weise, 399 
 
 Nazir, 21 n. 
 
 Kedarim, 52 n. 
 
 New Test. Times, 88, 103 
 
 Neut. Zeitg. die Zeit d. Apostel, 
 
 52 re., 114 m. 
 Notes to the New Testament, 393 
 Nova Bibl. Ecclesiastica, 404 
 Novel. Diatax., 125 re. 
 Novum Organum, 41 re. 
 Nov. Patr. Bibl., 202 n. 
 Novum Testamentum, 377 
 Nov. Test. extr. can., 166 
 
 Obedience of a Christian Man, 
 300 n. 
 
 Obs. Sacr., 65 n. 
 
 Occam uud Luther, 281 re. 
 
 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 
 0pp. Joann. Damasc, 466 
 Opp. (Cousin), 257 re. 
 Opus Majus, 286 re. 
 Opus Minus, 263 ?i. 
 Opusc. Theol., 219 n. 
 Orat. (Gregory of Nazianzus), 291 re., 
 
 293 re. 
 Or. ad. Graecos, 135 re. 
 Origenes, 183 re., 196 re. 
 Orig. Eccl., 346 re. 
 Origeniana, 188 re., 189 re., 200 re., 
 
 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 re. 
 
 Paedag., 166, 185 re. 
 
 Palestine, 18 re., 32 re,, 78 
 
 Pape, Du, 308 ». 
 
 Parables, on the, 193 re. 
 
 Parallels, 353 re. 
 
 Paradise Lost, 293 n. 
 
 Paradiso, the, 221 ;!,., 292 re., 298 n 
 
 309, 313 re. 
 Paraphrases, Erasmus's, 316 re., 320 
 
 and «, 
 Patres Apostolici, 165 
 Patrologie, 26 re., 206, 216 re., 233 re. 
 Pensees, 432, 433 
 Pentateuch, 402 
 Pesachim, 74 re., 446 
 Pesikhta Rabbathi, 65 re. 
 Phaleg., 130 re. 
 Philo (Siegfried's), 22 re. , 37 re. , 38 re. , 
 
 120 «,., 138 re,, 149, 456 
 Philo und die Halacha, 137 re. 
 Philokah, 189-191 njs., 194 re., 197 re., 
 
 220 
 Philolog. Sacr., 104, 376 
 Philosophic de Origen, La, 115 /(. 
 Philosophia S. Scripturae, 386 
 Philosophic Hegelieune, 413 
 Philos. Scholastique, 245 re. 
 Philos. de St. Aug., 235 u. 
 Phil. d. Griechen, 143 re. 
 Philosophy of History, 413 
 Philo. (Gfrorer), 128 re., 140 re. 
 Postills, 374 
 Polyanthea, 291 re. 
 Polycrat., 43 re., 257 re., 259 re., 264 
 
 re., 273 re., 292 re., 294 re. 
 Popery, Dissuasive from, 17 re. 
 Prayer-Book (Jewish), 19 re. 
 Praef. in Annott. (Calvin), 321 
 Praef. in Inst. (Calvin), 343 /(. 
 Praef. in Job (Gregory), 119 re., 
 
 295 re. 
 Praef in Rom. (Calvin), 343-345 re.-.. 
 
 347 
 Praef. in Paralip. (Jerome), 117 re. 
 Praef in Pent. (Jerome), 117 re. 
 Praef Rudim. Ilebr. 315 re. 
 Praktische Einleitung, 92, 114 re. , 
 
 445, 451, 461 
 Praelectiones Hermeneuticae, 376 
 Praenott. Elucid., 265 re. 
 Praep. Evang., 116 re., 128-130 res., 
 
 137 re., 138 re., 142 re., 143 re. 
 Praep. in N. Test., 470 
 
O-20 
 
 Index. 
 
 Books contifiiuil — 
 Prelatical Episcopacy, 164 n. 
 Prolegom. in Lombardi Sent., 467 
 Propheten d. Alten Bundes, 103 
 Prot. Theol., 323 
 Prophecy and History, 64 n., 86 
 Propositiones de Scnsu Literali, 
 
 278 71., 27y andn. 
 Prot. Lehrbegrilf, 364 n. 
 Prooem. in Breviloquium, 273 ». 
 Prooem. in Cant. (Gregory of Nyssa), 
 
 195 a., 202 n. 
 Prooem. in Eph. (Jerome), 227 «., 
 
 234 «. 
 Prooem. in Gal. (Jerome), 234 n. 
 Prol. in Joann. (Kupert), 255 ii. 
 Prooem. in Matt. (Jerome), 227 n., 
 
 250 
 ProoBm. de Vit. St. Thomas Aquiu., 
 
 272 n. 
 Psychomachiam, 168 n. 
 Pugio Fidei, 92 
 Purgatoria, 23 n. 
 
 QiDDUSHiN, 21 n., 51 n., 66 n. 
 Quaestiones, 130 »., 138 n., 140 w. 
 Quaest. ad Autolyc, 171 n 
 Quaest. in Gen. (Augustine), 125 «., 
 
 146 
 Quaest. Hierou. (Clericus), 224 n., 
 
 234 n. 
 Quaest. in Jud. (Augustine), 168 u. 
 Quaest. (Photius), 250 n. 
 Quodlibeta, 281 //,. 
 Quis rer. div. haer., 129 n., 142 n. 
 Quod det. pot., 152, 4.'i5 
 Quod Deus Immutabilis, 22 n., 141 
 
 n , 149, 187 n., 455 
 Quod omn. prob. liber., 129 n., 
 
 138 n. 
 
 Raison Philosophique, La, 269 n. 
 Kashi's Einfiuss iiber ISfic. v. Lyra 
 
 und Luther, 225 n., 291 n. 
 Piationale div. officiorum, 295 n. 
 Kationalism, 39 n., 40 n. 
 Katio Diseipliuae, 390 
 Katio Verae Theologiae, 321 
 Realwbrt., 101 
 Eecherches Critiques, 264 n. 
 Recognitions, 208 n. 
 Reden fiber die Religion, 410 
 Reformation in England, 164 «. 
 Reformatoren vor der Reformation, 
 
 258 ■«., 280 «.., 312 «,. 
 Eel. Sacrae, 38 »., 175 n., 177 n., 
 
 183 n., 202 n., 207-209 lis. 
 Eeligions|jhil., 116 n., 412 
 Rel. Auferklarung, 252 n. 
 
 Books eoiUiniicd — 
 
 Seplicae defensivae, 278 n. 
 
 Retractt. , 26 h. 
 
 Rer. Gallic. Script., 247 ». 
 
 Right Use of the Eatliers, on the, 
 
 163 
 Ring and the book, 305 
 Eudimenta Linguae Hobraicse, 315 
 
 Sacred Philosophie of the Holy 
 
 Scriptures, 300 n. 
 Sacred Typology, 353 n. 
 St. John (Westcott's), 189 n. 
 St. John of Damascus, 374, 466 
 St. Paul and Philo, Ep. to the 
 
 Thessalonians, 154 
 St. Thomas Aqnin., Life of, 258?!., 
 
 260 n., 270 n. 
 Samson's Hair, an Eminent Repre- 
 sentation of the Church of God, 
 
 299 
 Sanhedrin, 76, 85, 87, 97-99, 441, 
 
 442, 445, 447, 448 
 Sanhedrin, Tosefta, 18 m. 
 Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 
 
 57 »i. 
 Schaff. Herzog., 390 
 Scholastica Theologia, 287 n., 292 s. 
 Scholasticism, 264 n. 
 Scholia, 187 and n. 
 Schoh de Mittelalt., 255 n. 
 Sehol. in Lib. Hier. adv. Helvid., 
 
 229 n., 265 ». 
 Schools of Charles the Great, the, 
 
 247 ». 
 Script. EceL, 254 n., 313 n. 
 Script. Nov. Coll., 208 n. 
 Scrijjt. Rer. Ital., 40 ,i. 
 Scripture Vindicated, 353 n., 460 
 Seb. Franck, 341 n. 
 Sentences, the, 262 andre., 263, 265 
 
 n., 289 n., 263 u., 358, 467 
 Sepher Ikkarim, 464 
 Sermon on Ministerial Duties, 353 n. 
 Sermon on the Mount, 125 »., 234 ?i., 
 
 239 n. 
 Shabbath, 62 n., 68 ;(., 76, 85, 86 
 Sheb., 64 n. 
 Shelosh Esreh Middoth ha-Thorah, 
 
 19 n. 
 Shemoth Eabba, 52;(,, 86 
 Short Hist, of Greek Mathem., 247 /(, 
 Sibyl, the, 172, 178, 185 and %., 191 
 Sic et Non, 260 »., 261 n., 468 
 Sifra, 52 ». 
 Siphra, 18 »., 62 n. 
 Sittenlehre, 409 
 Socinianismus profligatus, 364 
 Song of Songs, 211 n., 226, 263 
 
Index. 
 
 521 
 
 Books continued — 
 Sopherim, 52, 63 »., 65 n. 
 Sorcieve, La, 40 n. 
 Sota, 57 »., 63 n., 66 »., 442, 448 
 Souvenirs (Keuan's), 271 «., 470 
 Speaker's Comiueiitary, 189 n., 220 ». 
 Special Philosophie, History of, 
 
 161 n. 
 Spec. Tlieol., 353 n. 
 Spekulative Theologie, 409 
 Spicil. Solesm., 269 n. 
 Spirituals Formulae, 295 re. 
 Strom. (Clemens Alexandria), 24 n., 
 
 109, 116 n., 117 n., 12S n., 129 
 
 »., 143 re., 168 re., 182-186 re.s., 
 
 194 re. 
 Studiib Instit., De, 163 n. 
 Succah, 86 
 Sukkah, 54 n., 66 »., 68 re., 104 re., 
 
 115 n. 
 Summa, 237 re., 263 «.., 266 7t., 
 
 271 re., 276 and re., 282 re., 288 /i., 
 
 292 re., 358, 361 
 Summa Doctrinae de Foedere, 385 
 Sura, 53 re, 
 
 Symbolik, 135 re., 380 
 Symposium, 201 ?i. 
 Synopsis, 343 re., 389 
 Systema Locorum, 358, 362, 365, 
 
 368 n. 
 Systema Theologiae, 371, 373, 386 
 Systeme de la Kabbale, 97 
 
 Taainth, 447 
 
 Table Talk, 328, 334 
 
 Talmud, 18, 19 «., 28, 34, 50 re., 
 
 52 re., 57, 61 and n., 63-65 and 
 
 res., 68, 315)1., 316 re. 
 Talm. Worterli., 18 n.. 
 Talmudic Jliscellany, 36 '«., 50 re. 
 Tamid, 86 
 
 Temoorah, 87, 168 re. 
 Test. adv. Jud., 123 n. 
 Theses de Labadismo, 364 
 Theodicaea, 398 
 
 Theod. Mops., V. T., 216 re., 219 «. 
 Theol. Christ., 168 »i., 346 re., 379 
 Theologia Didactico-Polemica, 358, 
 
 370 373 
 Theologia JSTaturalis, 340 re., 402 
 Thes. Nov. Anecd., 261 re., 313 re. 
 Theologil. (Luther's), 326, 329, 331, 
 
 335, 336 
 Theol. of Old Test., 234 re. 
 Theol. Journ. Hengst., 402 
 Theolog. Stud. u. Krit., 281 re. 
 Theorie du Jiidaisme, 19 re., 63 re. 
 Timaeus, the, 142, 282 re. 
 Tischi-eden, 321, 324, 325, 335, 336 
 
 Books eontinurd — 
 
 Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 398 
 Tract, de Erroribus, 260 re. 
 Tract, de Obit. Vaient., 205 n. 
 Tract 57 (Dr. Pusoys), 89, 163 n., 
 
 168 re. 
 Tracts for the Times, 32 re., 180 n. ; 
 
 Ko. 85, 181 it., 191 u. ; Xo. 87, 
 
 181 n. 
 Traite de I'Emploi des Saints Peres, 
 
 163 71. 
 Traite de la Morale des P&res, 163 n. 
 Treasures of the Talmud, 102 
 Trialog., 279 re., 313 re. 
 Trinitas, 171 re. 
 True Religion, of, 164 ». 
 Twelve Apostles, Teaching of the, 
 
 166 
 Typus Doctrinae Propheticae, 386 
 
 IIhrschkift, 120 re. 
 
 University of Cambridge, 248 re. 
 
 Vae. Hlst., 120 re. 
 
 Vayyikra Rabba, 31 re., 63 n., 86 re. 
 
 Verm. Schriften, 372, 390, 405 
 
 Yersohnuugslehre, 289 re.. 
 
 Versuch. eincr Charakteristik Mel- 
 
 anchthon'a, 341 n. 
 Vernunftige Gedanken vnn Gott, der 
 
 AYelt, und der Seele, 398 re. 
 A^ia ad Pacem, 383 
 Via Intel ligentiae, 242 n., 292 n. 
 Vie de Hillel, 19 h. 
 Vie de Jesus, 66 ii,., 419 
 A'igilantius, 229 n., 232 n. 
 Vindiciae, 374 
 Virr. Ill, 226 re. 
 Vision (Hermas), 171 re. 
 Vita Calviiii, 351 re. 
 Vit. Luth., 266 n. 
 Vit. Melanchth., 310, 364 re. 
 Vit. Mos., 23 »., 54 re., 116 v., 
 
 117 re., 120 re., 128 re., 130 n., 
 
 141 re. 
 Vita di S. Thomas, 270 «., 289 re. 
 Vernunftige Gedanken von der Jlen- 
 
 schen Thun und Lassen, 398 re. 
 Volk. Gottes, 114 re. 
 Vom Erlbser d. iMenschen, 406 
 Von Geiste d. Hrbr. Poesie, 407 
 Von Gott tiDsr^eben ( I.uther), 149 
 Von Gottes Suliii, 406 
 Vorreden zu den Bibl. Biichem, 
 
 339 re. 
 Vorstudien, 116re., 120re,, 142»., 454 
 Vulgate, 27 re., 123-125 and ;«., 
 
 196, 197, 203 re., 213 re., 229, 
 
 239 «., 249, 271, 313, 315 
 
522 
 
 Index. 
 
 Books continued — 
 
 Wahkes Christenthum, 363 n. 
 Weissagd. A. T., 154 
 "Westminster Confession, 349 »., 359 
 Words of the Lord Jesus, 340 n. 
 "VVorterbuch des N. T., 405 
 Writings of TertuUian, 178 »., 185 n. 
 
 Yadaim, 88, 336 
 
 Yad Hachazaka, 52«.. 
 
 Yoma, 51 »., 57 n., 58 n., 62 n. 
 
 Zbitschk., 78, 148 
 Zeitschr. fiir Philos., 270 n. 
 Ziuzendorf, Le Oomte de, 390 
 Zohar, 97 
 Zougoth, 65 n. 
 
 Ziir Schonen Literatur und Kunst, 
 406 
 
 Borgia, 311 
 
 Brentius, his estimate of the Book of 
 
 Ecclesiastes, 32 
 Brethren of the Common Life, the, 312 
 Browning's Ming and the Book, extract 
 
 from, 305 
 Brussels, 314 
 
 Bucer on Thomas AquLoas, 289 n. 
 Budaeus, 66 n. 
 
 C. 
 
 Cade, Jack, and Gregory the Great, on 
 the teaching of grammar, 246 and ». 
 
 Cajetan, Cardinal, Luther's conference 
 with, 325 n. 
 
 Caligula, 137 n. 
 
 Calixtus, Georg, his influence as an 
 advocate for tolerance and concord, 
 382 ; and on the exegesis of the 
 17th century, 382 and n. 
 
 Calov, Abraham, character of, 364 ; his 
 hatred for Grotius, 365 n. ; his 
 worship of the Word of God, 375 n. 
 
 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 n. ; character- 
 istic features of his exegesis an abhor- 
 rence of hollow orthodoxy, 345 ; he 
 anticipated moderu 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 n. 
 
 Canon, the Hebrew, places the his- 
 torical books among the Prophets, 
 9 n. ; Jerome's views on the, 225 ; 
 Luther's, 335, 336 ; criticism of the, 
 as old as the Rabbis, 336 n. 
 
 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 17 th century, 386 ; the publica- 
 tion of his Critica Sacra marks an 
 epoch, 387 
 
 Caracalla, 81 n. 
 
 Carlstadt, one of the helpers of the 
 Reformation, 341 ; his book on the 
 canon of Scripture, 341 n. 
 
 Carpenter, Prof J. E., 52 n.' 
 
 Casaubon, Isaac, his remark about the 
 disputes of the Sorbonne, 291 n. ; 
 his rebuke of Baronius, 297 n. 
 
 Case-sign in Hebrew, Rabbinical dis- 
 pute regarding the, 74 and n. 
 
 Cassiodorus, 24 n., 26 and n. 
 
 Catenae or excerpts, nature and number 
 of, 248 and n., 250 n. ; diS'erence 
 between glosses and, 250 n., 251 
 
 Celsus, 17 
 
 Chakamim, or Wise, 52 
 
 Charles I. , apotheosis of, in the Church 
 of England after the Restoration, 
 40 n. 
 
 Charles V., 324 
 
 Chasidim, the original name of the 
 Pharisees, 11 andm. ; meaning of the 
 term, 11 n. 
 
 Chatack, mystic associations of the 
 Hebrew word, 102 a.ndn. 
 
 Chillingworth on the interpretation of 
 the Scriptures, 8 n. 
 
 Christ, the work of, nameless horror 
 which it sometimes involved, 41 
 and n. ; diS'erence 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 
 andra, ; danger arising from Luther's 
 rule of finding Christ everywhere in 
 Scripture, 333 ; observations of F. W. 
 
Index. 
 
 Robertson on this rule, 334 n. ; post- 
 Keformatiou dispute regarding the 
 double nature of, 367-369 ; Lessing 
 on observing the commandments of, 
 397 n. ; reverence of Kant for, 408 n. 
 
 Christian Kabbalists and their methods 
 36 71. ' 
 
 Christianity and orthodoxy, Chalybaus 
 on, 161 n. 
 
 Christians, true and false, 25 
 
 Chronicles, the Books of, nature of 
 52 ». 
 
 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- 
 disc, 221 ; Cardinal jSTewmau's opinion 
 of, 221 n. ; his opinion of Scripture 
 and of the importance of studying 
 it, 222 ; Luther's opinion of, 222 )!. ; 
 saying of, regarding the Fathers, 242 
 
 Cibber, CoUey, 278 n. 
 
 Cicero, t^uotation fi-om his De Juvent., 
 64 n. ; 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 n. 
 
 Clement of Rome, estimate of, and of 
 his work, and of his influence on early 
 exegesis, 166, 167, and ns. ; on the 
 quotations from the Scriptures in, 
 166 m. 
 Clement v.. Pope, 316 n. 
 Clement VII., Pope, 309 
 Clement VIII., Pope, 316 a. 
 Clerc, Le, his theory of accommodation, 
 
 379 ». 
 Cocceius and Cocceianism, influence of, 
 on the theology and exegesis of the 
 17th century, 385, 386 
 Coleridge, his comparison of the leading 
 
 Reformers with the Fathers, 163 »., 
 
 influence of his works in originating 
 
 anew school of thought, 422 ; authori- 
 ties and works on, 422 n. 
 Colet, Dean, on God and the sou], 
 
 255 n. ; on the sense of Scripture, 
 
 300 «.. 
 
 Colon, 24 ?i. 
 Collier, Jeremy, 17 n. 
 Columbus, 427 
 
 Commentators of the Reformation 
 period, 342 n. ; mediaevaljewish461 
 Commentators of the Reformed and 
 Lutheran Church, characteristics of, 
 372 n. 
 Confessions, list of the leading, of the 
 post-Reformation period, 359 ; Mil- 
 ton's protest against, 359 n. ; in- 
 fluence of, on the age, 360 
 Controversies, mediaeval, account of 
 the chief, 253 ; and of those of the 
 post-Reformation period, 362, 366 
 et seq. ; Renau ou controversies 
 regarding errors, 363 
 Constantino, on the Donation of, to 
 
 the Church, 298, 312, 313 and n. 
 Council of Trent, 307 
 Council of Constance, 310 
 " Coun.sels of perfection," meaning of 
 
 the phrase, 11 
 Cousin on the periods of scholasticism, 
 
 253 n. 
 Covenant, Ezra's conception of a, 58 
 
 and ?i. 
 Creeds, the age of, 359 
 Creeping things, the Talmud on the 
 
 cleanness of, 64 
 Crilica Sacra, Oappellus's, controversy 
 raised by the publication of, 387 n. ; 
 extract from, 387 n. 
 Crowns, the three, of the Talmud, 61 
 Crowns on Hebrew letters, explanation 
 of their use, 74 and n. ; Rabbinical 
 legend regarding Moses and the, 75 
 anil n. 
 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 ». 
 Cyprian, estimate of, and of his 
 writings, 180-182 
 
 D. 
 
 Dante, his reference to the name of 
 Rachel, 23 n. ; chairs founded to 
 comment on his Divina Commedia, 
 47 ; his opinion concerning the 
 mystical sense, 159 ; assigns to 
 Chrysostom a place in Paradise, 221 ; 
 his estimate of Dionysius the Areo- 
 pagite, 255 n. ; alludes to the Pro- 
 logue to the Sentences of Peter 
 Lombard, 262 ; and to Albertus and 
 
524 
 
 Index. 
 
 Thomas of Aquino, 267 n. ; on the 
 power of the I'apaiy, 298 n. ; on 
 the donation of roiistantine to the 
 Church, 312, SI 3 n. 
 
 Darwin and his discoveries, result of, 
 426 
 
 Darwinian principle, reference to the, 9 
 
 David, the Scribes absolve him from 
 all sin, 63 and n. 
 
 Davies, Rev. J. LI., on St. Ambrose, 
 206 n. 
 
 Deception, Jerome's belief in the per- 
 missibility of, 'lol n. 
 
 Delitzsch on the Book of Ecclosiastes, 
 32 
 
 Densk, one of the helpers of the Re- 
 formation, 341 ; his view of what 
 constitutes the Word of God, 341 n. 
 
 Danis on Alexandrianisrn, 133 ii. 
 
 Derenbourg, 4 n. 
 
 Descartes, on vain speculation, 284, 358 
 )!.., 383 
 
 Deutsch, Dr., on the Halakha and the 
 Haggada, 89 ; and on the Liw, 89 
 
 De Wette, his view of the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes, 32 
 
 Day ling, 6.5 n. 
 
 Dialectic method, abuse of the, by the 
 Schoolmen, 288-291 
 
 Diderot, his remark on scepticism being 
 the first step to truth, 266 a. 
 
 Diet of Xiirnberg, the, 311 /;. 
 
 Digby, Everard, 39 
 
 Diocletian endeavours to suppress the 
 STew Testament, 16 
 
 Diodorua 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 «. 
 
 Dionysius the Areopagite, on the influ- 
 ence of the writings of, 254 and ns. 
 
 Disraeli, ls:iac, on Judaism, 69 
 
 Diviiut C'u/it/ii':dtn, 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 Hiliel and Aqiba on, 
 77 
 
 Dogmatism, on theology, the age of, 
 362 ; and the Bible, 365 n. 
 
 Domitian, 176, 310 
 
 Donation of Constantine to the Church, 
 
 on the, 312, 313 ?t. 
 Donne, on the language of the Kabba- 
 lists, 294 ,0. 
 
 Dorner on the opponents of Pietism, 
 382 ». ; his ChrUtoloyy ranks with 
 the greatest works of Christian 
 orthodoxy, 419 
 
 Dorotheus, the presbyter, 209 
 
 Dorpius, Erasmus's reply to, on eccle- 
 siastical authority, 320 n. 
 
 Double nature of Christ, dispute re- 
 garding the, 367-369 
 
 Du Cange, 6 ». 
 
 Duns Scotus, his negative style of 
 exegesis, 280 ; character of, 301 
 
 Du Pin's remark on Paulinus applicable 
 to Jerome, 233 n. 
 
 Durandus, on the thi'cefold sense of 
 Scripture, 6 n.j 295 n. 
 
 Durham, 33 n. 
 
 Dutch theologians and universities of 
 the 17th century, 379 and n. ; their 
 influence in reviving a better system 
 of exegesis, 379 
 
 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 n, 
 
 "Egg, the," notice of the treatise of 
 the Mishna so-called, 88 
 
 iyKpiKpias, 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 n. 
 
 Elizabeth, Queen, 39 n. 
 
 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 <.Tcrtiian 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 «. ; next 
 to Luther, he rendered the greatest 
 service to the Reformation, 316 ; his 
 
Index. 
 
 525 
 
 editio priiKeps of tlie New Testament 
 formed an epoch in the histoiy 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 n. ; 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 n. ; his 
 philological knowledge, 321 n. ; esti- 
 mate of the work which he did, 320- 
 322 
 
 Ephraem Syms, see Syrus Ephraem 
 
 Eiachim, 64 n. 
 
 Erigena, Johannes Scotus, his oom- 
 pai'ison of the meanings of Scripture, 
 7 ; his work and influence on medi- 
 aeval controversy and exegesis, 253, 
 254; his great work, DeDiv. Nat., 
 is condemned by the Council of 
 Valence, and by two Popes, 254 n. 
 
 Ernesti, 4 n. ; critical labours of, 402 
 
 'Ernbin, 62 7M., 63 m. , 65 m. , 68 n. 
 
 Esther, early doubts regarding the 
 Book of, 32 and n. 
 
 Etheridge, 47 n., 53 »., 61 n. 
 
 Etymology of the Schoolmen, speci- 
 mens of J;he, 286 n. 
 
 Eucharist, controversy between Ratram 
 and Pasohasius on, and between 
 Lanfrauc 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 HpiritaUs IntcUi- 
 gentiae, 24 
 
 Euclid, 289 
 
 Eugenius, Pope, 262 
 
 Euler, his De/enee of Eerrlation 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 and it., 250 and n. 
 
 Exegesis, Stjccbss and Failtjee 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 en'ors 
 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 maimals 
 in use during the Patristic epoch of, 
 23)!. ; 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 
 mles of Tichonius, 24-26 ; erroneous 
 principles of other epochs of, 26 ; 
 Locke on the abuse of words in cer- 
 tain lands of, 27 ; pernicious influence 
 of unfounded principles of, 27 et scq. ; 
 remarks of a Scotch divine on, 29 n. ; 
 misapplication of the principles of, 
 to First Epistle of St. John, 31 ; to 
 Ecclesiastes, 31 ; to the Song of 
 Solomon, 32, 33 ; incompetency of 
 early, to render correctly the first 
 verse of the first chapter of Genesis, 
 34-38 ; this the cause of positive 
 heresy, 37 ; importance to mankind 
 of mistaken, 38 et seq. 
 
 Rabbikio 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 exeges's, 52, 
 53 and n. ; the direct and in- 
 direct consequences of Ezra's sys- 
 tem fatal to the Jews, 56 ; it was 
 built on superstition and 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, 66- 
 67 ; Shammai, the rival of Hillel, 67, 
 
o26 
 
 Index. 
 
 Exegesis continued — 
 
 68 ; Johanan Ben Zalckai, 68-70 ; 
 Eabbi Aqilia, 71-78 ; Rabbi Juda, 
 79-81 ; Aqiba's extravagances of fan- 
 tastic exegesis, 71 ; origin of what 
 was known in tlie post-Reformation 
 epoch as tlie emphatic style of, 
 73 n. ; summary of the result of 
 centuries of Rabbinic, 83 et seq. ; 
 the Halakha, the Haggada, and the 
 Qabbala, the main sources of Rab- 
 binic, 84 ; the ])rincipal 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 Temoorab, 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 yeirs, 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 ; Fhilo'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 systi'm of, reduced to six 
 rules, 149-i;i2 ; 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 
 
 PatrlsticExegesis,161— 242; gene- 
 ral view of the exegesis of the Fathers, 
 162 et seq. ; opinions of Milton, 
 Grotius, Coleridge, and others, re- 
 garding the, 162, 163 and ns. ; the 
 Septuagint the only Bible used by 
 the, 165 ; Clement of Rome and his 
 writings, 166 ; the Epistle of Bar- 
 
 Exegesis continued — 
 
 nabas, 167-170 ; the Apologists— 
 Hermas, Polyoarp, Ignatius, Tatian, 
 Athenagoras, and Theophilus of An- 
 tioch, 171 and ns. ; Justin Martyr 
 and his system, 170-174 and ns. ; 
 Irenaeus and his views, 174-177 ; the 
 Fathers of the third and later centu- 
 ries divided into three schools, 177 ; 
 literal and realistic, represented hy 
 Tei-tuUian, 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-lSO 
 and ns. ; of Cyprian and his method, 
 180-182 and ns. ; the school of Alex- 
 andria, 1S2, 183 ; of Clement of 
 Alexandria, the first great teacher of 
 this school, 183-187 and ns. ; the 
 characteristic features of his system, 
 185-187 and ?is. ; the theory of ac- 
 commodation, 187 and n. ; of Origen, 
 the greatest master of the school, 
 187-203 ; his greatness, and the 
 nature and influence of his teaching;. 
 188 et seq. ; his false theory and false 
 system, 191 ct seq. ; his errors, 198- 
 201 ; his special influence, 201-203 ; 
 of Hilary, and his system of exegesis, 
 203-205 ; specimens of his allegoric 
 method, 204 and n. ; of St. Ambrose, 
 
 205 ; of Dionysius of Alexandria, 
 
 206 ; of Julius Africanus, 207-209 ; 
 Bishop Nepos refutes the AUegorists, 
 209 ; the martyr Lucian revises the 
 Septuagint, 209 ; the Presbyter 
 Dorotheus, 209 ; Ephraem Syrus, 
 and his method of exegesis, 209 ; 
 Diodorus of Tarsus, the founder of 
 the school of Tarsus, 212 ; nature of 
 his works, 213 ; Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia, the ablest representative of 
 the school, 213 ; the merits and 
 defects of his system of exegesis, 
 213, 214 ; his faults, 214 ; instances 
 of his erroneous renderings of Scrip- 
 ture, 213, 214 and n-s. ; 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. 
 
 521 
 
 Exegesis continued — 
 and Gregory of Nazianzus — followed 
 a via media in exegesis, 220 ; they 
 aToid the extravagances of allegorj', 
 220 ; in the last epoch of Patristic 
 exegesis, three names tower above all 
 others, 220 ; Chrysostora, 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, 
 2'25 ; 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 
 AUegorists, 239 ; remarks on the 
 system of exegesis of the Fathers, 
 240-242 
 
 Scholastic Exegesis, 245 — 303 ; 
 derivation of the term scholasticism, 
 245 n. ; darkness of mediaeval times 
 against our system of enlightened 
 exegesis, 245 ; effects of the Papal 
 system and the inroads of the bar- 
 barians on, 246 ; saying of Gregory 
 of Tours regarding these times, 246 ; 
 excuses for this in his beliefs, 246 n. ; 
 homiletics have ever been to an in 
 credible extent the Phylloxera Vasta- 
 trix of, 246 n. ; Charlemagne endea- 
 vours to revive learning, 247 ; but all 
 knowledge becomes ecclesiastical, 
 247 ; teaching of the Trivium and the 
 Qimdrivium begins, 247 ; explanation 
 of these, 247 n. ; the mediaeval 
 divines merely compilers, 248 ; list 
 of compilers and compilations, 248 n. ; 
 the teaching of the Latin Church 
 rests on the authority of three 
 Fathers — Ambrose, Jerome, and 
 Augustine, 248 n. ; the Venerable 
 Bede and his work, 247 ; his systeni 
 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, Eabanus 
 Maurus, and Paschasius Eadbertus 
 
 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 ns. ; 
 specimen of the Glossa ordinaria of 
 Walafrid Strabo, 251, 252 ; and of 
 the comment of Hugo of St. Victor on 
 "the word," 252; notwithstanding 
 a certain freedom of thought, medi- 
 aeval exegesis is null and naught, 
 253 ; scholasticism divided into three 
 epochs, 253 n. ; it originated in con- 
 troversies between the Church and 
 independent thought, 253 ; influence 
 on, of Johannes Scotus Erigena, 253 ; 
 his work and its result, 253, 254 and 
 ns. ; St. Bernard, "the last of the 
 Fathers," his influence on ecclesias- 
 tical rule and mediaeval mysticism, 
 255, 256 ; influence of mysticism on 
 mediaeval exegesis, 256 ;■ difference 
 between scholasticism and mysticism, 
 256 ; the Song of Solomon the chief 
 text-book, 256, 257 and iis. ; Hugo 
 and Richard of St. Victor nn 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 Scittcnces, 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 Kefoimation, 278 ; sketch of the 
 labours of Wiclif, Hus, Savonarola, 
 Gerson, Pieus of Mirandola, and 
 Tostatus, 278, 279 ; of Turrecremata, 
 Jacob Perez of Yalentia, John 
 Wessid, 279 ; with Duns Scotus and 
 Raymond LuUi 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 concejition of 
 inspiration, 283 ; 2. being Papal, 
 sacerdotal, and monkish, it necessarily 
 fell with the Reformation, 284 ; 3. 
 the lack of due eq^uipment in the 
 writers, 284, 285 ; 4. their neglect of 
 philolog)', 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 n. ; 9. their 
 assumption that every part of Scrip- 
 ture admitted of a mwUiphx intclli- 
 gcntia, 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 
 
 PiEFOP.MEES, THE,AXD THEIR SYSTEM 
 
 OE, 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 conHniicd — 
 
 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 
 Fcvre 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 modem 
 textual and Biblical criticism, 320 ; 
 estimate of the nature and value of 
 the work of Erasmus, 320-322 ; in- 
 fluence of the stupendous personality 
 of Luther on the false exegesis of the 
 pre-Reformation period, 322, 323 ; 
 the "intensified self" of the German 
 nation, he gave them 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 giasp 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 rules of Scripture interpretation, 
 332-338 ; his views on various hooks 
 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 Reformatiou, 341 ; 
 Zwingli's work and influence, 341 • 
 Oecolampadius, Bucer, Brenz, Bu- 
 genliagen, Musculus, Camerarius, 
 Biillinger, Chemnitz, and Beza, all 
 agreed with Luther in principle, 
 342 ; statement of these, 342 ; list of 
 the principal commentators of the 
 period, 342 n. ; the greatest exegete 
 and theologian of the Reformation 
 was Calvin, 342 ; estimate of his work 
 andofitsinfluenoe,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 ; bis 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- 
 tmued, 357 ; characteristics of the 
 present period, 358 ; an age of a dead 
 theory of inspiration, and of contro- 
 versial dialectics of an iron uniformity, 
 
 358 ; the work of the whole 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 ; 
 then- 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, 3/5 ; 
 under such a system a true exegesis 
 becomes impossible, 376 ; the Eng- 
 lish Church comparatively untouched 
 by these controversies, 376 ; aids in 
 overthrowing the system, 377 ; which 
 gradually disappears from every Pro- 
 testant country on the Continent, 
 377 ; how the deliverance came, 378 ; 
 nature and influence of Dutch theo- 
 logy in the matter, 379 ; Dutch uni- 
 versities and their theologians, 379 n. ; 
 influence of the Pietists in the re- 
 generation, 380-382 ; of the spirit of 
 tolerance and culture, 382 ; the dawn- 
 ing of modern philosophy had also a 
 liberatiug 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 Bengal, 
 392-394; whose gentle spirit fitly 
 closes this troubled epoch, 393, 394 
 
 Modern ExBGEsis,397— 437; difiicul- 
 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 Wolfl', 398 ; 
 of Lessing, 399 ; nature of his work, 
 
 399 ; influence of the Wolfenbuttel 
 fragments of Reimarus in the spread 
 of unbelief, 400 ; extent of the injury 
 done by Reimarus and E. 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 Miehaelis, 
 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 ; Fiohte ti-ies 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 
 Str-auss 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 e< seq. ; leaders 
 of English theology, 420 ; depress- 
 ing effect of German theology on the 
 English mind, 422 ; influence of 
 Coleridge in causing a reaction 
 against this, 422 ; he creates a new 
 school of English teachers, 423 ; 
 whose influence is daily growing, 
 
 424 ; a living piety kindled by their 
 labours, 425 ; effects on the human 
 mind of the increase of knowledge, 
 
 425 ; conflict between religion and 
 science, 426 j 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 Eabbis 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- 
 ftising the teaching of, 10 
 
 Expositor, qualifications of the perfect, 
 4, 27 ; Jerome's riews as to the duty 
 of an, 227 n. ; Calvin's conception 
 of the duties of an, 344 n. 
 
 Expositors, the greatest Puritan and 
 the best Roman Catholic, of the post- 
 Reformation period, 394 n. 
 
 Ezra, seven "counsels of perfection" 
 attributed to, 11 »., 12 ; the founder 
 of Judaism and of the Oral Law, 51, 
 52 ; his influence and labours, 51, 52 
 and /(.v. ; estimation in which he was 
 held, and legends regarding him, 53 ; 
 the gulf that separates him from the 
 great prophets of his race, 53 ; his 
 immense influence and what it pro- 
 duced, 54-56 ; a Scribe, 56 ; his con- 
 ception of a covenant, 58 and n. 
 
 Ezekiel, the prophet passes into the 
 Scribe in, 52 
 
 Faebe Stapulensis, 284 
 
 Fabiola, extract from Jerome's letter to, 
 226 n. 
 
 Fabriane, the Bishop of, 311 /(. 
 
 Facundus, his defence of Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia, 216 n. 
 
 "Faith, the analogy of," St. Augus- 
 tine's and St. Chrysostom's explana- 
 tion of, 236 and n. 
 
 Farel, 351 n. 
 
 Farrar, Dr. A. S., and the German 
 schools of thought, 402 n. 
 
 Fathers, mistaken interpretation of 
 Genesis i. 1 by some of the, 3f 
 allusion to Philo in the, 156 «, 
 general view of the, 162 et seq. 
 Milton's estimate of the, 162, 163 
 and n. ; Grotius's, 162 n. ; Cole- 
 ridge's, 162 n. ; the Septuagint the 
 only Bible used by the, 165 ; influ- 
 ence on early exegesis of Clement of 
 Rome, 166 ; of Barnabas, 167-170 ; 
 of the Apologists, 171 ; of Justin 
 Martyr, 172-174 ; of Irenaeua, 174- 
 177 ; the Fathers of the third and 
 later centuries divided into three 
 schools, 177 ; the Literal and Real- 
 istic, represented by TertuUian, 177 ; 
 the Allegorical, by Origen, 177 ; the 
 Historical and Grammatical, by 
 
Index. 
 
 531 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 177 ; esti- 
 mate of TertuUiau 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 Africauus, 207 ; of Bishop 
 Nepos, 209 ; of the martyr Lueian, 
 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 ct scq. ; 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 n. ; Luther rejects the 
 authority of the, 326 ; remarks of 
 Luther on the, 471 
 
 Pichte, J. H. , on the office of gifted 
 men, 353 n. ; estimate of, and his 
 system of philosophj', 409 
 
 Mcino, 282 
 
 Fludd, 36 n. 
 
 Fourfold sense of Scripture, views of 
 the Schoolmen on the, 294 ct seq. and 
 ns. ; receives its deathblow from the 
 Reformers, 299 ; Luther rejects the, 
 327 
 
 Franck, Seb. , one of the helpers of the 
 Reformation, 341 ; his opinion of the 
 Bible, 341 
 
 Fringes, opinions as to the Jewish law 
 of, 50, 87, 88 and i\s. 
 
 Furst on the development of the canon, 
 tradition, and Jewish theology, 66 
 n., 69 n. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gad, writer of one of the lost sacred 
 books, 6 
 
 Gaius, Emperor, 458 
 
 Galileo, 426, 427 
 
 Gaonim, or excellent, 53 and n. 
 
 Gellert, the hymns of, and their in- 
 fluence on the German mind, 401 
 
 Gemara, the Babylonian, 12 n. ; im- 
 , portance attached by the Kabbis 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 »., 51 a., 65 n. ; explana- 
 tion of the Rabbinical principle of, 
 98-100 ; derivation of the word, 
 98 n. ; Tertullian on, 99 ». ; 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 «. , 26 n. 
 
 Genoese Bible, the, 5 n. 
 
 Genus and species, Tichonius's rule as 
 to, 25 
 
 German Bible, Luther's, remarks on, 
 323 ct secq. 
 
 Gerard, Balthazar, 22, 39 
 
 Germany, Emperor William of, last 
 attempt to assassinate the, defended 
 from Scriptm'e examples, 39 ii. 
 
 Gerson, Jean, death-bed of, 301 
 
 Gibbon, his remark on the freer latitude 
 of faith and practice allowed to the 
 disciples of the Messiah, 252 n. 
 
 Gideon, 362 
 
 Gifted men, J. H. Fiehte on the office 
 of, 353 n. 
 
 Gill, Mr. A., on the rendering of the 
 sense of Scripture, 300 n. 
 
 Gitten, 12 n., 64 n., 68 n. 
 
 Glosses, difference between, and Cate- 
 nae, 250 n. ; marginal and inter- 
 linear, mediaeval, nature and uses 
 of, 251 ; remarks of various authors 
 on their uses and abuses, 251 n. 
 
 Gnomon, value of Bengel's, 393 and'm. 
 
 Gospel of love and peace, how it has 
 been desecrated by ignorance and 
 fanaticism, 41 and «. 
 
 Griitz on Eabbinism, 82 n. ; on various 
 Jewish books, 90 n. 
 
 Greek philosophy, and the tenets of 
 the Greek philosophers, to be found 
 in Moses and the Prophets, 128-131 
 and iss. ; views of Clement of Alex- 
 andria on the relation of Christianity 
 to, 183 n. 
 
 Greeks, the poems of Homer become to 
 the, a sacred book, 135 ; Philo con- 
 siders himself and his countrymen 
 as, 147 n. 
 
 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 n. ; is opposed 
 
 M M 2 
 
Indtx. 
 
 to teaching grammar, 246 ; in this 
 resembles Jack Cade, 246 and n. ; 
 references to, 287, 303 
 Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the 
 leaders of the School of Antioch, 
 
 219 ; follows a via media in exegesis, 
 
 220 ; bewails the gi-owth of theologi- 
 cal technicalities, 291 n. ; on the 
 qnibbling language of certain theo- 
 logians, 293 n. 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa, the most Origenising 
 of all the Fathers, 202 ; one of the 
 leaders of the School of Antioch, 
 219 ; his system of exegesis, 220 
 
 Gregory of Tours, saying of, regarding 
 the dark ages, 246 
 
 Gregory IX., Pope, 264 n. 
 
 Gregory XITI., Pope, 254 n. 
 
 Grotius, his opinion of the Fathers, 
 163 n. ; hatred of Calov for, 365 n. ; 
 remarks of his enemies and others 
 on, 380 n. 
 
 Grynaeus, 234 n., 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 n. ; specimens of its 
 exaggerations, 91 n. ; buried Scrip- 
 ture under masses of legendary dis- 
 tortion, 106 
 
 Haggadoth, the, nature and uses of, 89 
 
 Halakha, the, 63 ; origin and nature of, 
 84 and n. ; Buxtorf's definition of, 
 84 re. ; opinions of the Rabbis regard- 
 ing, 85 ; the object of the, 87 ; void 
 of all spiritual significance, 106 
 
 Halakhoth, "decisions," 18 ; the, 
 nature and number of, 87 and n., 89 
 
 Hale, Sir Matthew, 40 n. 
 
 Haller, made a stand against material- 
 ism, 402 
 
 Hamor, 21 
 
 Harpsfield, 278 n. 
 
 Haymo of Halberstadt, a mediaeval 
 compiler, notice of, 250 
 
 Heathendom, hatred of the Jews to, 
 69 «. 
 
 Hebrew, the Scriptures always read in 
 Jewish public worship in, 119 ; 
 Buxtorf and Kennicott on, 388 and 
 n. 
 
 Hebrew canon places the historical 
 books among the Prophets, 9 n. 
 
 Hebrews, the whole Epistle to the, an 
 a /ortiori argument, 19 re. 
 
 Hediots, the common people regarded 
 by the Pharisees as, 59 n. 
 
 Hegel and his philosophical system, 
 account of, 411-413 and tis. 
 
 Hegelian principle, reference to the, 9 
 
 Heidelberg, 315 
 
 Heine on the Book of Ecclesiastes, 32 
 
 Heinz on St. Ambrose, 206 n. 
 
 Hellenistic writers and their influence 
 on the sacred books, 125 et seq. ; 
 they are superior to the Rabbis, 
 131 
 
 Hengstenberg and hisschool of reaction, 
 notice of, 417 re. 
 
 Henry III., 39 re. 
 
 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 re. 
 
 Hermas, only one quotation from the 
 Holy Scriptures in, 171 and re. 
 
 Hermeneutic manuals, list of the chief, 
 during the Patristic period, 23 n. ; 
 treatises of the post-Reformation 
 period, 376 re. 
 
 Hermeneutic rules and principles, some, 
 473-476 
 
 Hermolaus Barbarus, 284 
 
 Hezekiah, 350 
 
 Hibbert Lectures, 308 a., 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 n. ; 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," 61 re. ; after the 
 death of the last prophet the She- 
 kinah rested on, 51 re. ; he is the first 
 Rabbi to be called a prince, 52 n. ; 
 his legal fiction of "the Prosbol," 
 
 64 ; sketch of his origin and work, 
 65-67 and ns. ; classification and 
 hermeneutics were his cliief services, 
 
 65 ; Shammai and Hillel the last of 
 the " couples " who led the schools, 
 65 n. ; listof the patriarchs of the house 
 of, 66 re. ; authorities on the life and 
 work of, 66 re. ; difference between 
 the work of Christ and that of, 66, 
 67 ; Geiger, Friedliiuder, and Eenan 
 on, 66 re. 
 
Index. 
 
 533 
 
 Hirsclifeld, i n. 
 
 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 ». 
 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, iirflnence of, on interpreta- 
 tion, 14 ; have been to an incredible 
 extent the Phylloxera Vastalrix 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 vt. 
 
 Holy Scriptures, controversies caused 
 by the mistaken view of the Pieformers 
 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«. , 66 m. 
 
 I. 
 
 Ibdo, writer of one of the lost sacred 
 books, 7 
 
 "XSCi, the famous symbol, 101 and n. 
 
 Ignatius, 171 
 
 lUyiicus, Matthias Flacius, his exposi- 
 tion of the principles which guided 
 the Reformers, 342 and n. ; Camer- 
 arius's judgment on, 364 and n. 
 
 Innocent III., Pope, 298 and n. 
 
 Innocent VIII. , Pope, 309 
 
 Inquisition, Spanish, justified by Scrrp- 
 ture warrant, 41 and n. 
 
 Inspiration, Philo's views on, 146, 147 ; 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia's, 217 ; the 
 Alexandrian theory of, 217 ; Jerome's, 
 230 ; Luther's, 337, 339 ; meanmg 
 of, as understood by the greatest 
 
 theologians and by the Chnrch of 
 England, 369 ; the Prayer Book and 
 Homilies on, 370 n. 
 
 Interpreter, aim and qualifications of 
 the perfect, 4, 5 ; Luther as an, 5 and 
 n. ; various qualities with which an 
 ideal, must be endowed, 27 ; Calvin's 
 views as to the duties of an, 344, 347 
 
 Interpretation, see Exegesis 
 
 Intolerance, the, of Calvin and the 
 Puritans, 350-352 
 
 Irenaeus, estimate of, and of his method 
 of exegesis, 174-177 and ns. ; child- 
 ish stories in, 175 and n. ; 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 
 
 Jabne, Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakkai 
 founds a school at, 68 and n. ; be- 
 comes the heiress of Jerusalem, 70 
 
 Jacques Le Fevre d'f]taples, his writ- 
 ings contribute to the Reformation, 
 314 
 
 Jael, 352 
 
 Jannaeus, Alexander, 55'H.. 
 
 Jehovah, disappearance of the true 
 pronunciation of, 62 n. 
 
 Jehu, writer of one of the lost sacred 
 books, 7 
 
 Jerome, St. , sarcasm of, in reference to 
 erroneous interpretation, 30 ; his 
 rendering of the word Testament, 
 30 m. ; his rendering of lieravoelrc, 
 118 ; remarks of, on the Septuagint, 
 122 71. ; on Eusebius of Vercellae, 
 202 ». ; on Hilary, 203 and ■)(. ; his 
 remark regarding allegories, 145 n. : 
 on St. Ambrose, 205 and n. ; one of 
 the glories of the School of Antioch, 
 222° the Or-igen of the "Western 
 Church, 222 ; his character, 223 ; 
 his Vulgate translation, 223 ; Sul- 
 picius Severus's account of him, 
 223 «. ; Ozanam's opinion of him, 
 223 m. ; his teachers, 224 n. ; his 
 abandonment of the Seventy, 224 
 and n., 225 ; his views respectrngthe 
 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 hitter prejudices, 227 ; his 
 lack of exegetic decision, 228 ; his 
 views on marriage, 228 ; his views on 
 inspiration, 230 ; his remark on the 
 original identity of Presbyters and 
 Bishops, 230 n. ; discrepancy between 
 his theory and practice, 230 n. ; his 
 belief in the permissibility of decep- 
 tion, 231 n. ; his views on allegory, 
 231-234 
 
 Jerushalmi, the, or Jerusalem Talmud, 
 
 nature of, 81, 82 and -ns. 
 •Jesus described as a Rabbi of the school 
 of Hillel, 66 and n. 
 
 Jesus, Society of, 307 
 
 Jews, love of the, for the Oral Law 
 saves them from national obliteration, 
 54-56 and iw. ; hatred of the, to 
 heathendom, 69?!. ; their love for 
 their religion, and their interminable 
 wrangling about the trifles of it, 70 ; 
 revolts of the, 76 m. ; 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 n. ; grandeur of their Great 
 Synagogue there, 115 and n. ; wide- 
 spread desire of the, to share in the 
 glories of Greek literature, 126 ; list 
 of Jewish-Greek writers, 126, 127 ; 
 observation of the Son of Sirach on 
 the culture of the, of Alexandria, 
 119 ; contact of the, with Greek life 
 the parent of Saduceeism, 139 
 
 Jewish-Greek writers, their works and 
 influence, 125 ct seq. 
 
 Jewish mediaeval interpreters, 274, 
 275 and «.s. ; and commentators, 461- 
 464 
 
 Jewish myths and genealogies, 93 
 
 Jewish scholars, what modern exegesis 
 owes to early, 107 
 
 Joel, 240 71., 267, 339 n. 
 
 Johanan Ben Zakkai, Rabbi, one of the 
 pupils of Hillel, account of, 68-70 ; 
 authorities on the work of, 70 n. 
 
 John k Lasco, 351 
 
 John of Damascus, his commentaries 
 on the Eastern Church, 248 and n. ; 
 may in a sense be regarded as the 
 father of scholasticism, 262 «. 
 
 John of SaUsbuiy on mediaeval theo- 
 logical compilations and glosses, 251 
 n. ; on the multiplex intelligentia of 
 Scripture, 294 ; on logicians, 294 
 n. ; on the theology of the 12th 
 century, 310 
 
 Jonah, 352 n. 
 
 Jose, Rabbi, expostulates with Acjiba 
 regarding the written word, 71 
 
 Josephus, his views on inspiration, 148 
 n. ; the exegetical principles of, 452 
 
 Joshua, Rabbi, raises the courage of 
 his fellow rabbis, 71 n. ; is & via 
 incdia scholar, 73 re. 
 
 Juda, Rabbi, commits the Oral Law to 
 writing, 79; his compilation was 
 called The ili-ilina, 80 ; derivation 
 of the name, 80 n. ; it becomes the 
 bond of Jewish nationality, 80 ; 
 almost entirely supersedes the Scrip- 
 tures, 81 ; death of, 81 ; authorities 
 on the Ufe and work of, 81 n. ; his 
 remarks on rendering a verse of 
 Scripture, 85 
 
 Judaism, Ezra the founder of, 51 ; pre- 
 served from destruction by the Oral 
 Law, 54, 55 ; inferior nature of the, 
 which Ezra established, 56 ; Isaac 
 Disraeli on, 69 ; Alexandrian, tinged 
 with Hellenic culture, 114 
 
 Judgment, Luther maintains the right 
 of private, 329 ; Gerson protested 
 against the right of, 330 n. ; op- 
 position of the other Reformers to, 
 331 
 
 Julian, the Emperor, 17 
 
 Julius Africanus, estimate of, and of 
 his method of exegesis, 207 
 
 Julius IL, Pope, 309 
 
 Julius III., Pope, 316 »i. 
 
 Junilius, 24 n. 
 
 Justin Martyr and his writings, esti- 
 mate of, and of his mode of exegesis, 
 172-174 and ns. ; his quotations and 
 their sources, 172-174 and ns. ; Re- 
 nan's opinion of, 174 n, 
 
 Juvenal, 17 
 
 K. 
 
 Kaebala, views of the, on cosmogony, 
 34-37 and ns. 
 
 Kabbalism, in numbers, 25 ; the 
 various forms and methods of, 35 ; 
 Christian, and its methods, 36 ti. ; 
 nature of practical, 97 ; the writings 
 of the Rabbis abound in symbolical, 
 97 ; the three rules in, of Gematria, 
 
Index. 
 
 535 
 
 97-100 ; of NotarLkon, 101 ; and of 
 Temoorah, 102 ; further instances 
 of exegetic and symbolic, 445 
 
 Kabbalistic book, notice of the earliest, 
 97 n. ; and of others, 97 n. ; alpha- 
 bets and ciphers, use made of, 102- 
 104 
 
 KabbaUsts, Christian, and their me- 
 thods, 36 n. ; many Jewish, became 
 Christians, 102 n. ; Donne on the 
 language of the, 294 n. 
 
 Kant, and his system of philosophy, 
 influence of, on his age, 407 
 
 Karaites, the, principles aud influence 
 of, 83 and n. ; origin and history of, 
 449 ; the founder "of the, 449 
 
 Karl the Great, 386 
 
 Keim on Philo's system of exegesis, 
 155 n. 
 
 Kepler, 326, 358 »., 426, 427 
 
 Ketliubim, the, 60, 62 n. 
 
 Kcpaiai, explanation of the term, 74 n. 
 
 Keys, Jerome on the power of the, 
 230 js. 
 
 Kid, on seething a, in its mother's 
 milk, Eabbinical view of, 88 n. 
 
 K\eij of Melito of Sardis, 24 n. 
 
 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 n. ; how Ezra 
 appears in the, 53 ; regarded in 
 India as too good to be translated, 
 119 n. ; the Sofi driven to find mys- 
 tical meanings in the, 134 
 
 k6(tiios, reference to the Septuagint 
 word, 23 
 
 Kuenen, 4 >i. 
 
 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 n. 
 
 Lanfranc, 289 n. 
 
 Language, barbarous, of the Schoolmen, 
 290 
 
 Latiu 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 
 Kabbinism, 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 ct seq. ; eflects of the, on the 
 Jews, 52 ct seq. ; servUity 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 raUying- 
 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 tlie Oral, 
 85 ; disputes of the Kabbis regarding 
 the, 85-87 ; phylacteries and fringes, 
 whether the, regarding was ever 
 intended to be taken literally, 87 , 
 88 and ns. 
 
 Le Clerc, his theory of accommodation , 
 379 m. 
 
 Lectures, Hibbert, 308 n., 312 n. ; the 
 Bampton, 311 ii. 
 
 Legalism, protest of the Prophets 
 against the spirit of, 49 
 
 Leibnitz, his work on behalf of Chris- 
 tianity, 398 and n. 
 
 Leo X., Pope, 308 n., 309, 322 
 
 Leo XllL, on Thomas Aquinas, 269 n. 
 
 Lessing, 17 ; nature and influence of 
 his works on the theology of the 
 17th century, 399 ; his remarks on 
 the Bible, 400 n. 
 
 Letters and words, Rabbinical belief in 
 certain mystical or supernatural 
 powers in, 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 aud «. 
 
 Levitism, the ritual of, symbolical of 
 higher truths, 126 /(. 
 
 Lewis, Mr., distinguishes philosophic- 
 ally three epochs in scholasticism, 
 253 11. 
 
 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 alludes to the Prologue to 
 the Sentences, 262 n. ; remarks of 
 Mullinger on the Sentences, 262 n. ; 
 the Summa of Aquinas and the 
 Senteiices of, studied more than the 
 Bible, 263 
 
 Lorenzo de Medici, 282 
 
 Louis XII., 350 
 
 Lucian, 17 
 
 Lucian, the martyr, his revision of the 
 Septuagint, 209 
 
 Ludovicus Vives on divine things, 289 
 
 Luke, St., 205, 208 
 
 Luther, his temptation as an interpre- 
 ter, 5 ; instance of his supposed bias 
 as a translator, 5 n. ; adopts the 
 word Testament, 30 «. ; his estimate 
 of the Book of Ecclesiastes, 32 ; and 
 remark on the various commentaries 
 on, 33 n. ; effect on the mind of, on 
 discovering that a certain word in 
 the original Greek me&ntrepent, 118 ; 
 Keander's remark regarding a preva- 
 lent error which appears in the trans- 
 lation of the Bible, 184 n. ; on 
 Chrysostom, 222 n. ; on Aristotle, 
 266 n. ; on Nicolas of Lyi'a, 277 n. ; 
 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 n. ; 
 antagonism of, to Erasmus, 319 ; in- 
 fluence of the stupendous personality 
 of, on the false exegesis of the pre- 
 Reformation period, 322, 323 ; the 
 " intensified self " of the German 
 nation, he gave them everything that 
 has made them great, 323 ; chrono- 
 logy of his career, 324 n. ;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 ; 
 difliculty 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 n. ; 
 he set forth three views on which the 
 future of the Christian faith must 
 depend, 338 ; 1. the Word of God 
 is not to be regarded as identical and 
 co-extensive mth the Holy Scriptures, 
 339 ; 2. his view of inspiration was 
 not verbal, 339 ; and 3. that the 
 Word of God is not in the Scriptures 
 alone, 340 ; observations on the im- 
 portance of these views, 341 ; re- 
 marks of Luther on the Fathers, 471 
 
 Lutheran Churches and theologians, 
 370, 376, 380 n. 
 
 Luzzatto on the exegesis of the Rab- 
 binic scholars, 64 n. 
 
 Jil. 
 
 Macoabban struggle, nature of the 
 
 55 n. 
 Maccabees, the earliest meeting-point 
 
 of Jewish and Greek methods of 
 
 exegesis to be found in the Fourth 
 
 Book of, 136 n. 
 Magellan, 426 
 Maimouides, Moses, 4 ; the fotmder 
 
 of Jewish rationalism, 83 and n. ; 
 
 on the Haggadoth, 90 ; on trans- 
 posing or altering words, ,104; his 
 
 system of exegesis, 275 ; Spinoza 
 
 the intellectual successor of, 384 ; 
 
 account of, and of his work, 463 
 Mainz, 314 ; the Archbishop of, 315 n. 
 Maitland, Dr., on Origen's method of 
 
 allegory, 196 n. 
 Malachi, the last pure glow of the Old 
 
 Testament sun dies out with, 58 n. 
 Mammothrectus, a mediaeval work on 
 
 exegesis, 280 
 Manichaeans, the, on the human nature 
 
 of Christ, 208 «. 
 Marcus Aurelius, his rigid adherence to 
 
 truth, 225 n. 
 Marriages, Ezra's annulment of, 54 and 
 
 n. ; Jerome on, 227, 228 
 Marsh, Bishop, on the sense of 
 
 Scripture, 300 n. 
 Mary, Virgin, 273, 279 n., 288, 297 
 Massorah, the, the Rabbis believed was 
 
 delivered to Moses on Sinai, 97 ; 
 
 history and derivation of the word, 
 
 450 
 Massorets, services of the, to textual 
 
 criticism, 84 and n. 
 
Index. 
 
 bS7 
 
 Maurice, Professor F. D., on Tertullian, 
 179 n., 180 n. ; his work for the 
 English Church, 429 
 Maximilian, Emperor, 352 
 
 Mediaeval controversies, account of the 
 chief, 253 
 
 Mediaeval Jewish commentators, 461 
 
 Medici, Lorenzo de, on Plato, 282 
 
 Megilla, 31 n., 34 n., 50 n., 52-54 
 ns., 57 11. 
 
 Megillath Taanith, 66 js. 
 
 Melanchthon, his estimate of the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes, 32 ; his work and 
 
 . influence on the Reformation, 34 
 and n. ; his Loci, and Luther's re- 
 mark on, 361 ; R. Simon's remark 
 on the exegesis of, 361 n. 
 
 Menachoth, 49 n., 51 n., 57 n. 
 
 Mendelssohn, Moses, begins a new era 
 of exegesis, 83 and n. ; Spinoza the 
 intellectual precursor of, 384 
 
 Messianic hopes, nature of Philo's and 
 others', 154 n. ; Psalms, Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia on certain, 216 ; prophe- 
 cies, Calvin's views on the, 346, 
 472 ; Philo and, 457 
 
 Messianism, debasement of, 59 ; denied 
 by Joseph Albo to be a Jewish doc- 
 trine, 67 n. 
 
 Misyer, his edition of the New Testa- 
 ment, 419 
 
 Miohaelis, critical labours of, 402 
 
 Midrash Koheleth, 31 n., 68 n. 
 
 Midrash, puerilities of the, 37 
 
 Midrasbim, 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 n. 
 
 Millennial grapes, TertuUian's wild 
 story of the, 177 n. 
 
 MiUigan, Professor, on perverted prin- 
 ciples of interpretation, 170 
 
 MUman, Dean, on the influence of the 
 writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, 
 254 n. ; extract from his Essays of a 
 reply of Erasmus to Zwingli, 319 re. 
 
 Milton, his opinion of the Fathers, 163, 
 164 and ns. ; of theological compila- 
 tions and glosses, 251 n. ; his protest 
 against confessions, 359 n. 
 
 Mirandola, finds more Christianity than 
 Judaism in the Qabbala, 106 n. 
 
 Mishna, importance attached by the 
 Rabbis to the teachings of the, 62, 
 63 ; origin and nature of the, 84 
 
 et seq. ; derivation of the word, 84 m. ; 
 and contents of the, 84 n. ; the 
 treatise of the, known as " The Egg," 
 88 
 
 Mishna, the, of Rabbi Aqiba, 71 n. 
 
 Mishna, the, of Rabbi Juda, 80 ; deri- 
 vation of the name, 80 n. ; labours 
 of the various Rabbis in perfecting 
 it, 80 ; it became the bond of Jewish 
 nationality, 80 
 
 Misinterpretation of the Bible, among 
 the Jews elevated into a saered 
 principle, 12 ». ; misinterpretation 
 of Scripture among the gravest cala- 
 mities of Christendom, 39 
 
 " Mixtures," the Pharisaic rule of, 64 
 
 Modern Exegesis, 397-437 
 
 Moed Qaton, 57 n. 
 
 Monastery of St. Victor, the chief home 
 of mediaeval mysticism, 257 
 
 Monasticism, the whole theory of, 257 
 
 Monotheism, Genesis i. 1, the basis of 
 all, 34 
 
 Moravian brotherhood, influence of, 
 for good in the 17th century, 389 
 
 More, Henry, 36 n. 
 
 Morton, Henry, 352 
 
 Mosaic law, devices of the Scribes for 
 evading certain provisions of the, 64 
 and n. 
 
 Moses, Rabbinic legend regarding, and 
 the crowns attached to Hebrew letters, 
 75 and n. ; Luther's opinion of, 335, 
 336 
 
 Mosheim, his estimate of Origen, 188 
 
 Mount Sinai, 20 
 
 Multiplex intelUgentia, sci^us, &c., of 
 Scripture, on the views of the School- 
 men as to the, 294 ct seq. 
 
 Multiplex sensus, the Rabbinic fiction 
 of, 73 n. 
 
 Mysteries of numbers in the Qabbala, 
 96 71. 
 
 Mystic meanings asserted to be in every 
 letter of Scripture, 74-77 ; "Waterland 
 on, 353 n. 
 
 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 n. 
 
 Mystics, the works of Dionysius the 
 Areopagite favourites with the, 
 254 /(. ; mediaeval and German, 254 
 et seq. ; protest of the, against con- 
 founding Scripture with the Word of 
 God, 374 n. 
 
538 
 
 Index. 
 
 N. 
 
 0. 
 
 Natalis on Thomas Aquinas, 269 n. 
 
 Nathan, writer of one of the lost 
 sacred books, 6 
 
 Nathan the Seer, 221 
 
 Neale, Dr. J. M., on an undercurrent 
 of meaning in Scripture, 296 n. 
 
 Neander, his remark on a prevalent 
 error which appears in Luther's trans- 
 lation of the Bible, 184 n. ; on the 
 mystical interpretation of the Bible, 
 211 n. ; on the immortality of the 
 Gospel, 395 ; influence of his personal 
 character and work on the exegesis 
 and unbelief of his time, 414 
 
 Nehemiah's legalistic prayer, 58 n. 
 
 Neoplatonic schools of Athens and 
 Edessa, 253 and ns. 
 
 Neoplatonism and its expounders, 253 
 and 7W. 
 
 Nero, 310, 311 
 
 New Testament, difference betwixt the, 
 and the Old, 350 and n. ; variations 
 in the MSS. of the, 387 
 
 New Testament writings, on the dis- 
 semination of the, 165 n. 
 
 Newman, Cardinal, on the principles 
 of exegesis of the School of Antioch, 
 211 ; on Chrysostom, 221 n. ; on me- 
 diaeval exegesis, 253 n. ; remark 
 of, regarding God and the soul, 
 255 
 
 Newton, 326, 426, 432 
 
 Nepos, Bishop, his Refutation of the 
 Allegorists, 209 
 
 Nicholas V., Pope, 314 
 
 Nicolas of Lyra, the Jerome of the 
 14th century, his origin, 274 n. ; 
 revives an improved system of exe- 
 gesis, 274 ; influence of his work, 
 274-278 ; specimens of his style, and 
 remarks on them, 276-278 ; Luther's 
 estimate of, 277 n. ; Pope on, 278 
 n. 
 
 Nominalism, its nature, and influence 
 on scholasticism, 281, 282 ; Haureau 
 on the character of, 281 n. 
 
 Notarikon, explanation of the Eab- 
 hinical principle of, 101, 446 
 
 Notker of St. Gall, a mediaeval com- 
 piler, remark of, 250 
 
 Novalis on Spinoza, 384 n. 
 
 Numbers, mysteries of, in the Qabbala, 
 96 n. ; Philo's fancies about masculine 
 and feminine numbers, 143 and n. ; 
 Barnabas on, 168 and n. 
 
 Nuremberg Bible, the, 5 n. 
 
 Niirnberg, the Diet of, 311 n. 
 
 Obadiah, 352 n. 
 
 Occam, William of, see William of 
 Occam 
 
 Old Mortality, extract from Scott's, 352 
 
 Old Testament, difference betwixt the, 
 and the New, 350 and n. 
 
 Olympiodorus, his opinion of the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes, 32 
 
 Oral Law, Ezra the founder of the, 51, 
 52 ; effects of the, on the Jews, 54- 
 56 ; love of the, saves the Jews from 
 national obliteration, 54-56 and ns. ; 
 good and evil largely mixed in the, 56, 
 57 ; references of Josephus, Philo, and 
 St. Paul to the, 79 ?i. ; the, committed 
 to writing by Eabbi Juda, 79 ; and 
 is called the Mishna, 80 ; importance 
 of the, 80 ; derivation of the name, 
 80 ». ; what it consisted of, 80 ». 
 
 Origen,the greatest master of the School 
 of Alexandria, estimate of his life, 
 teaching, and influence, 187-203 ; 
 Mosheim's opinion of, 188 ; Bishop 
 Lightfoot's, 188, 189 ; number and 
 nature of his works, 188 n. ; his false 
 views and inferences, 189-194 ; his 
 allegoric system, 196-200 ; his three- 
 fold sense, 196, 197 ; his arbitrary 
 fancies and errors, 198, 199 ; immense 
 influence of, 201 ; Fathers who ad- 
 mired or imitated him, 201, 202 
 
 Oxford movement, effects of, on the 
 English Church, 425 
 
 Ozanam, his opinion on Jerome, 223 n. 
 
 Paine, 17 
 
 Palestinian method of exegesis, origin 
 and nature of, 11 
 
 Pamphilus, the martyr, founds a theo- 
 logical school at Caesarea, 209 n. 
 
 Pantaenus, 12 
 
 Papacy, testimonies to the services ren- 
 dered by the, to civilisation and 
 humanity, 308 ; corruption of the, 
 308-312 ; Pope Adrian VL on the 
 corruption of the, 311 n. 
 
 Papal power, the scholastic system 
 favourable to, 296 ; statement of 
 Papal claims, 309 and n. 
 
 Parallel passages, the abuse of, 469 
 
 Paris, the Theological Faculty of, 320 
 
 Paschal Lamb, B.abbinical dispute re- 
 garding the offering of the, 88 
 
 Paschasius Eadbertus, a mediaeval 
 compiler, notice of, 250 
 
Index. 
 
 539 
 
 Passive obedience, the doctrine of, jus- 
 tified by Scripture, 40 and n. 
 
 Patriarchs of the house of Hillel, names 
 and number of, 66 to. 
 
 Patristic Exegesis, 161, 242 
 
 Patristic reasons for adoptinff allegory 
 459 f & b J, 
 
 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 ; listof chief hermeneutic manuals 
 in use during the, 23, 24 n. 
 Paul, St., 166 n., 171, 185 »., 187 »., 
 195 n., 196, 282, 287, 290, 291, 
 348, 363 
 PaulIV., Pope, 316 n. 
 Paulinus, Jerome's letter to, 226, 
 227 ns. ; what Du Pin said of, 233 n. 
 Paulus, 180 n. 
 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 Eabbis, 131 
 Tepl TTKo-T/s ypadris, etc., extract from 
 
 Clemens Alexan., 24 n. 
 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., 186, 204, 205, 208 n., 340, 
 
 346 ». 
 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 
 PhiHp of Hesse, 361 
 Philo, 12 ; his principles of interpreta- 
 tion, 22, 23 ; reference to various 
 treatises of, 22 »., 23 n. ; his treat- 
 ment of Genesis i. 1, 37, 38 and 
 ns. ; the writings of, the chief monu- 
 ment of Alexandrian exegesis. 111 ; 
 the method of allegory in exegesis 
 culminates in the writings of, 127 ; 
 thinks the Greek philosophers bor- 
 rowed from Moses, 129 «. ; nature of 
 an Alexandrian of the school of, 133 ; 
 
 all renegades from Judaism repudi- 
 ated by, 133 «. ; 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 n. ; list of works in 
 which all that is personally known 
 of him may ibe found, 137 n. ; his 
 eclecticism, 138 ; his literalism, 139 ; 
 his rationalising, 139 ; results in a 
 complete perversion of Scripture, 
 139, 140 ; his favourite mode of ad- 
 dress to his reader, 139 ; believes 
 himself to be inspired, 139, 140 and 
 n. ; nature of his theology, 142 and 
 7is. ; 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». ; his ex- 
 traordinary notion regarding Scrip- 
 ture, 149 n. ; his rules of exegesis, 
 149-152 ; his exegetic principles 
 differ from those of the Talmud in 
 five respects, 150 ?i. ; result of liis 
 system, 162 et seq. ; unreliable 
 nature of his etymologies, 152 n. ; 
 his Messianic hopes, 154 n. ; his 
 futile eclecticism, 155 ; fables re- 
 garding, 156 n. ; allusions to, in the 
 works of the Fathers, 156 n. ; sum- 
 mary and estimate of his system, 
 154-157 ; notwithstanding its errors, 
 there is a Divine progress observable 
 throughout, 157 ; his use of the 
 Septuagiut, 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 n. ; Erasmus's knowledge 
 of, 321 n. 
 Phylacteries and fringes, dispute as to 
 
 the law regarding, 87, 88 and ns. 
 Picus of Mirandola, his interpretation of 
 Genesis i. 1, 36 ; his Platonism and 
 Kabbalism, 279 
 Pierius, 12, 202 
 
 Pietism, definition of, 381 n. ; its in- 
 fluence on German life, 382 ; Dorner 
 on the opponents of, 382 ». 
 Pietists, influence of the, in reviving a 
 healthy system of exegesis in the 
 17th century, 380 
 
540 
 
 Index. 
 
 ' ' Pilpul, " explanation of the term, 
 
 92 n. 
 Pius II., Pope, 309, 313 ,i. 
 Pius v.. Pope, 316 n. 
 Plato, banishes the poets from his 
 
 ideal republic, 135 ; effects of the 
 
 revival of the study of, on scholasti- 
 cism, 282; Lorenzo de Medici on, 282; 
 
 mediaeval students of, 282 ; reference 
 
 to, 343 n. 
 Platonic studies, the revival of, in the 
 
 15th century leads to the downfall of 
 
 scholasticism, 282 
 Plotinus, influence of the 8vyi] /xSvov 
 
 Trphs ix6vov on mysticism, 255 and n. ; 
 
 references to, 282, 300 n. 
 Plutarch, 343 n. 
 Poets, protest of the greatest, against 
 
 the misapplication of Scripture, 41 
 Polybius, 343 n. 
 Poly carp, 171 
 Pope, quotation from, 254 ii. ; on the 
 
 quibbling language 6f the Schoolmen, 
 
 293 ». 
 Popes, claims of the, to depose 
 
 sovereigns, 39 n. ; the atrocious 
 
 deeds of the, justified by Scripture, 
 
 40, 41 and -/(. ; the power of the, 
 
 upheld by perversions of Scripture, 
 
 296 et scq. ; corruption of the, 309 
 Popes — 
 
 Adrian VI., 311 n., 319 n. 
 
 Alexander VI., 309, 312 
 
 Clement V., 316 n. 
 
 Clement VII., 309 
 
 Clement VIII., 316 n. 
 
 Eugenius III., 262, 465 
 
 Gregory IX., 264 w. 
 
 Gregory XIII., 254 n, 
 
 Houorius III., 253, 254 n. 
 
 Innocent VIII., 309 
 
 Julius II., 309 
 
 Julius III., 316 n. 
 
 Leo X., 308 n., 309, 322 
 
 Leo XIII., 269 n. 
 
 Nicholas V., 314 
 
 Paul IV., 316 n. 
 
 Pius II. (Aeneas Sylvius), 309, 313 m. 
 
 Pius v., 316 n. 
 
 Sixtus IV., 106, 309 
 
 Urban V., 264 n. 
 Porismatic method of theology, 361 
 Porphyry, 17 
 
 Post-Reformation Epoch, 357-394 
 Post-Reformation exegesis or interpreta- 
 tion, 16 
 Potiphar's wife, 21 
 Practice, discrepancy between nominal 
 
 theory and actual, 230 n. 
 
 Predestination, the Post-Reformation 
 view regarding, 366 
 
 Presbyters and Bishops, Jerome on the 
 original identity of, 230 a. 
 
 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 7i. ; 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 h. 
 
 Pseudo-Aristeas, see Aristeas 
 
 Ptolemy, 34, 172 n. 
 
 Ptolemy Euergetes, 128 
 
 Ptolemy Philadelphus, 115 »., 128 /(. 
 
 Q. 
 
 Qabbala, the, origin and nature of 
 the, 95, 96 ; division of the, 96 n. ; a 
 system of arbitrary mysticism, 106 ; 
 at the close of the 15th century many 
 Christians were eager to study the, 
 106 n. 
 
 Qeren Happuk, remarks on the name, 
 125, 213 )(. 
 
 Qiddushiu, 21 ?i., 51 n. 
 
 Qimchis, the family of the, their 
 sei-vices to Hebrew philology, 464 
 
 Quintilian, 343 «. 
 
 R. 
 
 Rabanus Matjetjs, and his compiled 
 commentary on the Epistles, account 
 of, 250, 251 and 7is. ; finds Roman- 
 ism in iloses and the Psalms, 297 
 
 Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, one of the 
 greatest of mediaeval commentator's, 
 462 
 
 Rabbi Abuhu on the Halakha, 90 
 
 Rabbi Anau Ben David Abba, the 
 founder of the Karaites, 449 
 
 Rabbi ben Levi on the Haggada, 90 
 and ii. 
 
 Rabbi Chaneenah bar Pappa on Scrip- 
 ture, the Mishna, the Talmud, and 
 the Haggada, 90 n. 
 
 Rabbi Chija, 90 
 
Index. 
 
 541 
 
 Kabbi Eleazar, 19»., 20 
 
 Rabbi Gamaliel II., 70, 79, 445 
 
 Rabbi Gamaliel V., 443 
 
 Rabbi Isaac ben Pinchas on the Hag- 
 gada, 89 
 
 Rabbi Ishmael, 4, 19 m., 22 
 
 Rabbi Jacob, his iuteriiretation of 
 Genesis i. 1, 36 
 
 Rabbi Jochanan, 21 n. 
 
 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 n. 
 
 Eabbina Abina, 12 and n. ; closes the 
 Talmud, 82 
 
 Rabbinic bodies, number and duration 
 of, 52, 53 and ?i. 
 
 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 scq. \ Ezra the 
 originator of it, 52 ; names and dura- 
 tion of the various schools of, 52, 53, 
 and n. ; 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 BTotarikon, 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 scq. 
 
 Rabbinic fiction of multiplex sensus, 
 the, 73 and n. 
 
 Rabbinic schools, number, duration, 
 and influence of, 52, 53 and ». 
 
 Kabbinism, 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 71. ; on the interpretation of 
 Genesis i. 2, 34, 35 ; on the teachings 
 of the Prophets, 60 ; number of pre- 
 
 cepts proclaimed by the, 50.; injuri- 
 ous effects of the teachings of the, 
 66-58 ; their estimate and treatment 
 of the common people, 59 n. ; exact- 
 ing nature of the yoke of the, 60 ; 
 effects of the " ordination " of 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, 66 ; HUlel, 65-67 ; Sham- 
 mai, 67, 68 ; Johanan Ben Zakkai, 
 68-70; Eabbi Aqiba, 71-79; Kabbi 
 Juda, 79 ; list of those who remon- 
 strated with Rabbi Aqiba, 71, 72 ; 
 Aqiba and the, assert that there is a 
 mystic meaning in every letter of 
 Scripture, 74-77 ; their explanation 
 of the two yods, 75, 76 and n. ; 
 Rabbis that succeeded Aqiba, 78 ; 
 names and labours of mediaeval, 82, 
 83 ; opinions of the, regarding the 
 Halakha, 85 ; disputes of the, in the 
 Jevrish schools, 86 ; trifling nature of 
 the subjects of these disputes, 86 and 
 Tis. ; on the Halakha and the Hag- 
 gada, 90 ; the writings of the, abound 
 in symbolical Kabbalism, 97 ; notice 
 of some mediaeval, 274-276 and tu. ; 
 self-glorification of the, 441 ; notices 
 of some mediaeval, 449, 461 
 
 Rachel, disputed etymology of the 
 name, 23 n. 
 
 Rachel, the wife of Eabbi Aqiba, 
 account of his love for her, 72 
 and n. 
 
 Rambach's Institutiones Ecrmen. 
 Sacrae, notice of, 371 n. 
 
 Rashi, his interpretation of the first 
 verse of the first chapter of Genesis, 
 35 ; his opinion as to the importance 
 of the law about fringes, 50, 51 n. ; 
 his remark on the commands and 
 prohibitions of the Law, 62 n. ; refer- 
 ence to, 83 ; becomes the master of 
 Nicolas of Lyra, 275 and «. ; his 
 merits as an exegete, 462 
 
 Rathmann of Lubeck olTfhe nature 
 and functions of the Holy Scriptures, 
 372 
 
 Rationalism, controversy between Ber- 
 nard and Abelard on, 253 
 
 Raymond LuUi, helps to precipitate 
 
 the fall of scholasticism, 280 
 "Read not so, but so," a celebrated 
 Rabbinic formula, 104 and n. 
 
 Reason, Alexander's book to prove that 
 animals are endowed with, 138 n. ; 
 
542 
 
 Index. 
 
 Erigenaon the power of, 253; Luther's 
 opinion of, 338 n. 
 
 Recapitulation, Tichonius's rule as to, 
 25 
 
 Reformation era, period during which 
 the exegesis of the, lasted, 12 ; and 
 of the exegesis of the post-, 12 ; re- 
 vived the studies which promoted a 
 sound interpretation, 16 ; effects ot 
 the, on exegesis, 16 
 
 Reformation, the, 307, 308 and n., 311- 
 313 
 
 Reformers, the, 307-354 
 
 Reimarus, influence of, on disbelief, 
 400 
 
 Renaissance, the, 308 re. , 313 
 
 Renaissance and the Reformation, 
 Beard on the, 308 re. 
 
 Renan, his estimate of Justin Martyr, 
 174 re. ; and of the system of Thomas 
 Aquinas, 271 re. ; on the trivialities 
 of the Schoolmen, 294 n. ; on disputes 
 regarding errors, 363 ; on the methods 
 of the 19th century in exegesis, 
 404 re. ; Vi; cle Jesus does little harm, 
 419 
 
 Rene, Duchess of Ferrara, 350 
 
 Reuchlin, endeavours to prove the 
 Trinity from the first verse of the 
 first chapter of Genesis, 35 ; his ser- 
 vices in bringing about the Reforma- 
 tion, 314 ; he did for the study of 
 the Old Testament what Erasmus 
 did for the New, 314 ; incurs the 
 enmity of the Church, 315, 316 
 
 Richard of St. Victor on contempla- 
 tion, 258 
 
 Ritual bondage, contempt of the pro- 
 phets for the Jewish yoke of, 49 
 
 Robertson, F. W. , his observation on 
 Luther's rule of finding Christ every- 
 where in Scripture, 334 n. 
 
 Rome, corruption of Papal, 307-311 
 
 Rupert of Deutz, his remark on St. 
 Augustine, 261 re. 
 
 Sacked 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 expgesis, 205 ; his opinion 
 of Origen, 215 re. 
 
 St. Bartiiolomew, 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, eiToneous 
 conception for seventeen centuries of 
 the design of, 31 
 
 St. John Lateran, 312 
 
 St. Paul, his epithet on Scripture truth, 
 7 ; a Haggadist, 89 re. ; opinion of 
 some of the Fathers on the super- 
 naturalism of, 212 n. ; Jerome on, 
 231 and re. 
 
 Saint Pietro Damiano, 309 
 
 Salome, 184 re. 
 
 Sanhedr-in, 18 n., 20 re., 32 re., 34 re., 
 51 re., 62-66 and ns. ; reference of 
 the, to a mode of violating the 
 Mosaic Law, 64 ; reference to, 256 n. 
 
 Salamance, 316 re. 
 
 Samson's Hair, extract from a book so 
 called, 299 
 
 Savonarola as a commentator, 279 
 and re. 
 
 Schleiermacher on Spinoza, 384 re. ; 
 begins a new constructive movement 
 in exegetics, 409 ; nature and influ- 
 ence of his work, 409-411 
 
 Scholastic epoch of exegesis, character- 
 istics of the, 26 
 
 Scholastic Exegesis, 245-303 
 
 Scholasticism divided into three epochs, 
 253 re. ; Cardinal Hergenrother's 
 deflnition of, 265 ji. ; 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 '/(.. ; 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 n. 
 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. 
 
 54^ 
 
 by some of the, 50 ; influence and 
 teaching of the, 56 ct seq. ; declared 
 to he the successors of Moses, 60 ; 
 the professed object of the, to exalt 
 and glorify the law, 61 ; eulogy of 
 the in the Targum, 60 n. ; teaching 
 of the, deemed superior to that of 
 Scripture, 62, 63 ; they substitute 
 fiction for Scripture history, 63 ; 
 and set aside the plain meaning 
 of the laws they professed to deify, 
 64 ; their device for evading the 
 Mosaic provision of the Sabbatic 
 year, and of the law of the remission 
 of debt, 64 n. 
 
 ScKlPTUKE, threefold and fourfold sense 
 of, 26 n. ; the Vulgate, the Septua- 
 gint, and the various Protestant ver- 
 sions teem with errors, 27 n. ; " Word 
 of God " not applicable indiscrimin- 
 ately to all the books of, 28 ; when 
 so applied is the deathblow to all 
 honest interpretation of the, 28 ; 
 testimony of a Scotch divine in refer- 
 ence to the interpretation of, 28 n. ; 
 proof texts of, in common use, mis- 
 taken accommodations, 29 ; effects 
 of the allegorical method as applied 
 to various books of, 31, 32; on the 
 importance of the true sense of, being 
 made known, 38 et 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, 
 m 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 ot, 
 146, 147 ; extraordinary notion of 
 Phiio and others regarding, 148 and 
 
 n. ; what I Scripture claims for itself, 
 161-163 ; Barnabas's views as to the 
 teaching of the, 167 el seq. ; views of 
 Theophilus of Antioch as to the, 
 171 ; of Justin Martyr-, 172-174; 
 of Irenaeus, 174-177 ; of TertulUan, 
 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 11. ; 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, 2.'i.''i et seq. ; an old Pope's 
 remark on the, 258 n. ; views of 
 Abelard and Peter Lombard on the, 
 259-263 ; of Albertus and of Thomas 
 of Aquino, 267-272 ; of 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 Eeuchlin, 
 and of Erasmus, to the, 312-322 ; 
 above all, of Luther, 323 ct seq. : list 
 of those who maintained the single 
 sense of, in the 16th century, 
 328 n, ; views of Melanchthon and 
 Zwingli, 341 ; of Calvin, 342 et 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 Bbhme, 384 ; of Koch, 385 ; of 
 Cappellus, 386 ; of Wetstein, 391 ; of 
 Bengel, 392 ; of Lessiug, 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 ct seq. 
 
 SCKIPTTJRB, PASSAGES OF, QUOTED OK 
 EEFEREED TO : — 
 
 Acts! 8 343?i 
 
 — ii. 47 5»i 
 
 — ii. 41 34391 
 
 — vii. 16 345n 
 
544 
 
 Index 
 
 Scripture continund— 
 
 
 Scripture continued — 
 
 Acts vii. 16 
 
 349«, 
 
 2 Cor. iv. 2 
 
 — xiii. 20 
 
 5B™ 
 
 — X. 8 
 
 — xiii. 9 
 
 313ra 
 
 — xi. 3 
 
 — XV. 9 
 
 371 
 
 — xi. 23 
 
 — XV. 10 
 
 49rs 
 
 — xii. 7 
 
 — XV. 20 
 
 27» 
 
 
 — XV. 28 
 
 Un 
 
 Dan. ii. 34 
 
 — xvii. 34 
 
 313TC 
 
 — iv. 12 
 
 — xxii. 16 
 
 287 
 
 — vii. 9 
 
 — xxvii. 12 ... 
 
 318JI 
 
 — ix. 24 
 
 — ix. 27 
 
 Amos ii. 4 
 
 48m 
 
 
 — 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. 65 
 
 58™ 
 
 — xvii. 8-12 
 
 — viii. 10 
 
 448 
 
 — xviii. 15-20 
 
 — ix. 26 
 
 120?i 
 
 — 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 ... 
 
 56«. 
 
 — xxvi. 12 
 
 — XXX. 12 
 
 Col. i. 13 
 
 214TC 
 
 — xxxii. 8 ... 
 
 — i. 16 
 
 38» 
 
 
 — ii. 8 
 
 45 
 
 — xxxiii. 2 ... 
 
 — xxxiii. 4, 27 
 
 1 Cor. i. 10 ... 
 
 318'/s 
 
 
 — ii. 5 
 
 161 
 
 Eccl. i. 18, 14 
 
 — ii. 6 
 
 184)1 
 
 — ii. 3, 17 
 
 
 24» 
 
 — ii. 15, 17 
 
 — ii. 6, 7 
 
 195re 
 
 — iv. 1 
 
 — ii. 15 
 
 371 
 
 — iv. 8 
 
 -V. 7, 8 
 
 194» 
 
 — ii. 24 
 
 — vi. 11 
 
 287 
 
 — vii. 25 
 
 — vii. 39 
 
 318» 
 
 — viii. 6 
 
 — vii. 42 
 
 318?!, 
 
 — X. 8 
 
 — viii. 1 
 
 184« 
 
 — xi. 1 
 
 — viii. 6 
 
 38re 
 
 — xi. 9 
 
 — ix. 9, 10 ... 
 
 195re 
 
 — xii. 9 
 
 — ix. 13 
 
 313» 
 
 — xii. 12 
 
 — x. 1 
 
 195?i 
 
 — X. 8 
 
 — xi. 27 
 
 5a 
 
 — XV. 1 
 
 
 182«. 
 
 — xvii. 9 ... 
 
 — xiii. 2 
 
 343)1 
 
 — xxiv. ... 
 
 — xiv. 11 
 
 318JI 
 
 — xxviii. 24, 34 
 
 — XV. 37 
 
 179» 
 
 — xxxix. 24, 34 
 
 — xxxix. 2 
 
 2 Cor. iii. 6 ... 
 
 195™ 
 
 
 
 459 
 
 Ephes. i. 10 
 
 — iii. 7-13, 14... 
 
 194™ 
 
 — iii. 8 
 
 — iii. 14 
 
 30™ 
 
 — iii. 15 
 
 — iii. 17 
 
 22l™ 
 
 — iv. 10 
 
Index. 
 
 i45 
 
 Scripture coiitimicd— 
 Jiphes. 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 
 
 — \\. 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 
 
 Ezrk. xii. 25, 26 
 
 — xviii. 30 
 . —XX. 25 
 
 ' —XX. 25 
 
 232)!. 
 
 199 
 
 199» 
 
 122rt, 
 
 454 
 
 346/t 
 
 447 
 
 122ft 
 
 454 
 
 454 
 
 454 
 
 122ft 
 
 122ft 
 
 454 
 
 122ff, 
 
 121» 
 
 198ft 
 
 454 
 
 121 
 
 454 
 
 181ft 
 
 87 
 454 
 454 
 
 5371 
 454 
 101 
 150 
 454 
 454 
 
 20 
 299ft 
 
 20 
 
 84 
 
 21 
 150 
 144ft 
 454 
 102 
 447 
 448 
 454 
 428 
 . 454 
 
 276«, 
 , 100 
 122ft 
 454 
 . 454 
 
 62ra 
 
 49» 
 
 . 166ft 
 
 49» 
 
 50ft. 
 
 404 
 
 Scripture rcnifliiucd — 
 Ezek. xxxiii. 7 
 
 — xxxvi. 25 
 
 Ezra iii. 4 
 
 — vii. 6, 25 ; 11 ; 10 
 
 — vii. 10 
 
 — ix. 10 
 
 — ix. 9, 19, 27, 28, 34 
 
 — X. 7, 8 
 
 Gal. i 
 — i. 
 
 i. 6 
 8 .. 
 18.. 
 
 — iii 
 
 . 1.. 
 
 — iv. 
 
 — iv. 
 
 — iv. 
 
 5 
 21 
 
 — IV. 22 
 
 — iv. 24 
 
 — iv. 24 
 
 — V. 15 
 
 — vi. 2 
 
 Ccn. i. 1 
 
 — i. 2 
 
 — i. 9 
 -1. 26 
 
 — i. 26 
 
 — i. 31 
 
 — i. 31 
 
 — ii. 2 
 
 — ii. 2 
 
 — ii. 3 
 
 — ii. 4, 5 
 
 — iii. 15 
 
 — iii. 15 
 
 — iii. 21 
 
 — iv. 4 
 
 — iv. 10-23 
 
 — iv. 26 
 
 — viii. 1 
 
 — ix. 4 
 
 — ix. 13 
 
 — xi. 1 
 
 — xi. 28 
 
 — xiii. 6 
 
 — XV. 9 
 
 — XV. 10 
 
 — .wiii. 1 
 
 — xviii. 2 
 
 — xviii. 2 
 
 — xviii. 2 
 
 — xviii. 6 
 
 — xviii. 9 
 
 — xviii. 30 
 
 — xix. 24 
 
 297 
 295n, 
 
 54 ft 
 5 2 ft 
 63ft 
 51ft 
 bin 
 58 ft 
 51m 
 
 369 
 351ft 
 6n 
 221ft 
 230ft 
 221'ft 
 195)1 
 337ft 
 345ft 
 2?.0ft 
 300ft 
 221JJ 
 230)1 
 
 35 
 125™ 
 295)1 
 380 
 
 61ft 
 
 37ft 
 447 
 170ft 
 454 
 101 
 125n 
 345 
 380 
 344ft 
 454 
 448 
 105 
 275/i 
 464 
 251ft 
 445 
 224«. 
 2S8ft 
 , 201 
 
 37m 
 277rt 
 199 
 346)1 
 446 
 , 23 
 
 75 
 454 
 174 
 
 N N 
 
543 
 
 Index. 
 
 Scripture continuv! — 
 
 
 Scripture enntinucd — 
 
 Gen. xix. '21 
 
 ... 443 
 
 Isa. ix. 6 
 
 — xix-. 33 ... . ... 
 
 7 .5 
 
 — ix. 7 
 
 — xxii. 8 
 
 ... 186)1 
 
 — X. 34 
 
 — .xxii. 13 
 
 ... 454 
 
 — xi. 1 
 
 — xxii. 1 1 
 
 ... 23 «, 
 
 
 -- xxiv. 16 
 
 ■ ... ll-iil 
 
 — xi. 7 ... 
 
 — XXV. 21 
 
 ... 99 
 
 — xiv. 3 
 
 — XXV. -23 
 
 ... 446 
 
 — xiv. 23 
 
 — xxxiv. 2 
 
 ... 21ft 
 
 — xvi. 1 
 
 — xxxvii. 3 
 
 ... 446 
 
 — xix. 2 
 
 — xxKi.-;. 7 
 
 ... 21 
 
 XX. 1 
 
 — xlii. 2. 22 
 
 ... 446 
 
 — xxvi. 4 
 
 — xlv. 16 
 
 ... 448 
 
 — xxvi. 14 
 
 — xli.x. 10 
 
 ... 173» 
 
 — xxviii. 7, S ... 
 
 — xlix. 11, 277 11. ... 
 
 ... 287 
 
 — xxix. 3 ... 
 
 — xlix. 12 
 
 ... 201rt 
 
 XXX. ... 
 
 — xxxiii. 7 ... 
 
 Hab. i. 1 
 
 ... in 
 
 — xxxiii. 16 ... 
 
 — i. 2 
 
 ... 3871 
 
 — xxxiii. 18 ... 
 
 — ii. 11 
 
 ... 123 
 
 — xxxv. 7, 8 
 
 — iii. 2 
 
 ... 124 
 
 — xxxviii. 11 ... 
 
 — xl. 26 
 
 Hcb. ii. 9 
 
 ... 2^7 
 
 — xliii. 13 
 
 — ii. 13 
 
 ... 337 » 
 
 — xliv. 3 
 
 — ii. 15 
 
 ... 2l7l 
 
 — xlv. 18 
 
 — iv. 4 
 
 ... 472 
 
 — xMii. 16 
 
 — iv. 6, 1, 12 
 
 ... iSn 
 
 — liii. 4 
 
 — vi. 6 
 
 ... 5,1 
 
 — Ivi. 2 
 
 — ix. 1-7 
 
 ... 30» 
 
 — Ix. 1 
 
 — X. 5 
 
 ... 21 8». 
 
 — Ix. 17 
 
 — X. 38 
 
 5;( 
 
 — Ixi. 10 
 
 — xi. 13 
 
 ... 344)! 
 
 — Ixiii. 2 
 
 — xi. 21 
 
 ... 472 
 
 — Ixiii. 12 
 
 — xi. 37 
 
 ... 318ft 
 
 
 — xii. 2,j, 26 
 
 ... 5ft 
 
 James ii. 14 
 
 — V. 14 
 
 Hos. vi. 5 
 
 ... 454 
 
 
 — vi. 9 
 
 ... 49,1 
 
 ■Tor. i. 11 
 
 — viii. 1, 12 
 
 ... 48 
 
 — ii. 3 
 
 -ix. 7 
 
 ... 56ft 
 
 — ii. 13 
 
 — ix. 9 
 
 ... 49ft 
 
 — iii. 4, 19 
 
 — X. 12 
 
 ... 3» 
 
 — iii. 16 
 
 — iv. 3 . 
 
 Isa. i. 17 
 
 ... 172ft 
 
 — V. 13 
 
 — i. 18 
 
 ... 166 
 
 — vi. 13 
 
 — i. 22 
 
 ... 49ft 
 
 — viii. 10 
 
 — ii. 22 
 
 ... in.-, 
 
 — ™. 21, 22 
 
 — iii. 17 
 
 ... 122ft 
 
 — vii. 22, 23 
 
 — iv. 9 
 
 ... 346?i. 
 
 — viii. 8 
 
 — vi. 3 
 
 .. 34R/( 
 
 — ix. 13 
 
 — vii. 3 
 
 ... 454 
 
 — X. 16 
 
 — vii. 9 
 
 ... 184ft 
 
 — xi. 19 
 
 — vii. 14 
 
 ... 173ft 
 
 — xii. 10 
 
 — vii. 14 
 
 ... 380 
 
 — ■ XV. 1 
 
 — viii. 14 
 
 ... 66ft 
 
 — xvii. 9 
 
 — viii. 20 
 
 ... 29 
 
 — xvii. 9 ... 
 
 — ix. 5 
 
 ... 125ft 
 
 — xvii. 12 
 
 — ix. 6 
 
 ... 121 
 
 — xviii. 15 
 
Index. 
 
 54"; 
 
 Scripture conJintird- 
 Jur. xxiii. 5 
 
 — xxiii. 2'2 
 
 — xxiii. 28 
 
 — x.xiii. 29 
 
 — xxiii. 29 
 
 — XXV. 26 
 
 — xxvi. 1 
 
 ' — xxxi. 31 
 
 — xxxi. 37 
 
 Johi. 14 
 
 — xix. 26, 27 .. 
 
 — XXT. 5 
 
 — xxix. IS 
 
 — xxxi. 10 
 
 — XXXY. 14 
 
 — xlii. 14 
 
 Jneli. 1 
 
 — ii. 13 
 
 Jnhii i. 3 
 
 — i. 3 
 
 — i. 3 
 
 — i. 3 
 
 — i. 9 
 
 — i. 12 
 
 — i. 20 
 
 — i. 51 
 
 — ii. 19, 20 ... 
 
 — iii. 5... 
 
 — iv. 14 
 
 — V. 2 
 
 — v. 2 
 
 — V. 31, 32 ... 
 
 — V. 39 
 
 — V. 39 
 
 — V. 39, 40 ... 
 
 — V. 39, 4U 
 
 — vi. 39 
 
 — vii. 38 
 
 — vii. .52 
 
 — viii. 1 
 
 — Tiii. 1-11 ... 
 
 — X. 29 
 
 — X. 30 
 
 — xii. 39 
 
 — xiii. 5 
 
 — xvi. IS 
 
 — xyiii. 1 
 
 ■ — xviii. 20 
 
 — xviii. 28 
 
 — xix. 37 
 
 — XX. 16 
 
 1 Jolmii. 14 
 
 — V. 7, 20 
 
 ~v. 7 
 
 
 Scripture continucd- 
 
 98 
 
 1 Johu V. 7 
 
 49 
 
 
 3ii7 
 
 Jonah ii. 1 
 
 20 
 
 — iii. iv. 
 
 103 
 
 .Toshua ii. 15 ... 
 
 34 
 
 — ii. 18 
 
 "itn 
 
 — Xlii. 22 
 
 fi9« 
 
 — xxiv. 30 
 
 207,1 
 
 .Tuili^p.s V. 9 
 
 120« 
 
 — vi. 37 
 
 197« 
 
 — xiii. :i 
 
 Ifii;,, 
 
 — xiv. 3 
 
 122« 
 
 
 120h 
 
 1 T\ings \\. 8 ... 
 
 12UH 
 
 — viii. 1-4 
 
 344 
 
 2 Kin^R xxii. 8-1; 
 
 348 
 
 — .xxiii. 1-3 
 
 142n 
 
 Lev. xi. 6 
 
 38 /I 
 
 — xii. 17 
 
 171 
 
 — xiv. 25 
 
 344h. 
 
 — xvi. 3 
 
 2fi2>i 
 
 — xviii. 2 
 
 347,1 
 
 — - xviii. 1) 
 
 197,1 
 
 — xviii. 30 
 
 34671, 
 
 — xix. 19 
 
 :'.20» 
 
 — XX. :7 
 
 
 
 172« 
 
 XXIV. , 
 
 295?i 
 
 — XXV. 29, 30... 
 
 26i, 
 
 — .xxvi. 44 
 
 31S» 
 
 
 346,1. 
 
 Luke ii. 14 
 
 339« 
 
 — ii. 35 
 
 449), 
 
 — iii. 23 
 
 22tt 
 
 — iv. 24 
 
 107 
 
 — iv. 41 
 
 29,1 
 
 — vii. 38 
 
 29:'.,, 
 
 — ix. 2S 
 
 5(in 
 
 — ix. 51-56 ... 
 
 349)1 
 
 
 39n 
 
 — xi. 4 
 
 313?i 
 
 — xi. 52 
 
 346» 
 
 — xiii. 11 
 
 221» 
 
 — XX. 'ii. 38 ... 
 
 287 
 
 — xxii. 3r, 
 
 161/! 
 
 — x-xiii. 
 
 3i:!„ 
 
 — xxiii. 
 
 343« 
 
 
 313,1 
 
 Mai. i. 1 
 
 472 
 
 — ii. 1-10 
 
 51,1 
 
 — iv.4 
 
 349r,. 
 
 Mark i. 2 
 
 31 8« 
 
 — i. 34 
 
 32074 
 
 — ii. 18-28 ... 
 
 349,, 
 
 17H„ 
 125 
 
 210 
 181j,, 
 4.= 4 
 454 
 
 60)1 
 
 176,, 
 
 26,1, 
 
 21 „ 
 
 454 
 
 . 48 
 . 43 
 
 , 121 » 
 
 , 120,, 
 2071 
 , 446 
 122,1 
 23)1 
 62jt 
 . 454 
 . 445 
 . 454 
 . 64,1 
 . 54?i 
 
 . 313,). 
 
 , 318h 
 
 56), 
 
 56„ 
 
 34--!,) 
 
 287 
 
 2S''„ 
 
 17 
 
 39,, 
 
 347» 
 
 59„ 
 
 39 „. 
 
 435 
 
 320,, 
 
 5i'.„ 
 
 ' 124,, 
 
 53„ 
 49„ 
 48,)- 
 
 230,), 
 
 343n 
 
 39)), 
 
 N X i: 
 
5 is Index. 
 
 Scrij.ture continued— Scripture continui-d — 
 
 Mark ii. 2i 23ri/i. Matt. xix. 20 -'jll/i 
 
 — iv. 34 24)1 — xxi. i J5S 
 
 18477. — xxii. 14 ; liiS/s 
 
 ._yii, 1-4 83 — xxii. 14 171/1 
 
 — vii. 2-23 3977 — xxii. 2'.i, 32 -I3.T 
 
 — vii. 13 449 — xxiii. 2 i'-lii. 
 
 — vii. 19 67?7 — -xxiii. 7,8 :>\}i 
 
 ix. 11 83 — xxiv. 36 31S;j 
 
 — X. 2-12 39/7 — xxiv. 37 lS7/( 
 
 — X. 49 313/1 — xxvi. 28 30/( 
 
 _ X. 51 f>ln — xxvii. 9 34'i/( 
 
 — xii. 32-34 5077 341'// 
 
 — xii. 24, 27 435 — xxvii. 28 ltiS/7 
 
 il^'-"- i: 19 ?79)7 Micahi. 9 124 
 
 — iii. 5 122// 
 
 19 318?i 
 
 ■ i. 22 880 
 
 1. 23 343-/7 
 
 -ii. 5 31871 
 
 411/1 
 
 . ji ]^5 472 Nehem. viii. 4. 9 ; 7, 8 ... 5,'// 
 
 — ii!23 '.'.'. !!! ''' 98 ^x.1-27 fu, 
 
 _ ii. 23 472 — xm. 24 o2/i 
 
 — iii. 15 380 
 
 — iii. 25 27977 Num. vi. 5 99 
 
 — iv. 4 27977 —.xii. 8 li»n 
 
 — iv. 18-24 204/!, —xii. 14 19/7 
 
 — V. 15 297 _ xiv. 14 12(1/1 
 
 — V. 16 260 —xiv. 19 100 
 
 — V. 16 318/1 — xv. 39 51/7 
 
 — V. 24, 43 39/7 _xvi. 15 121/s 
 
 — vL 1 31377 — xvii. 8 2S8 
 
 — vi. 13 380 — XX. 11 28S 
 
 — vi. 26, 27 20977 — xxiii. 19 l.'irt 
 
 — vi. 31 20477 _ xxvi. 9 441 
 
 — viii. 17 472 — .x.xxii. 12 454 
 
 — viii. 28 204/!. 
 
 — i-'^-13 !??«■ Saint Paul 3iJ8 
 
 lS-2!; 297/1 
 
 312, 313, 3211 
 
 ^^•-'' 1^1" hisF.i/istles 314 
 
 — ■^'- '-' 24/7 pgj^j. 309 
 
 — x. 29 19m 
 
 — xi-11 3*6j7 1 Pet ii. 24 . ... 2mi, 
 
 — ^"•4 l-« — ii. 24 318« 
 
 — ^"■5 19/7 —iii. 19 34fi/! 
 
 — xu. 19 230/7 
 
 — -^i'i-' 3'7 
 
 — xiii. 35 458 "^ ^ "* '"■ " 
 
 — xiii. 'u ... ... ... 56/7 
 
 ^ XV. 3-6 45 Piiil. ii. 6 318« 
 
 — xv. 3 107 
 
 — XV. 6 107 Prov. vi. 26 21 
 
 — XV. 6 449 — viii. 22 3li/i 
 
 — XV. 9 107 — ix. 1, 2 2'.'5/t 
 
 — xvi. 18 34677 —xii. 211 197 
 
 — xvi. 19 62/!. —xiii. 11 281/i 
 
 — xvii. 1 ... ... ... 285/t — xviii. 4 ... ... ... 295/i 
 
 — xix. 8 404 —xxiv. 20 50/i 
 
 — xix. 12 318)7 — xxix. 21 104 
 
Index, 
 
 549 
 
 Scripture continuM- 
 Fs. i. 1 
 
 — ii. 12 
 
 — NV. 10 
 
 — xvi. 2 
 
 — xvii. 15 
 
 — xix. 4 
 
 — xix. 4 
 
 — xxi. 2 
 
 — xxi. 9-12 ... 
 ■ — xxii. 1 2 
 
 — xxii. 18 
 
 — xxiii. .5 
 
 — xxxiii. 27 
 
 — xlv. 1 
 
 — xlv. 3 
 
 — xlvii. 10 ... 
 
 — li. 16 
 
 — Ixv. 12 
 
 — Ixviii. 21 ... 
 
 — Ixix. 3 
 
 — Ix.xiv. 13 ... 
 
 — Ixxviii. 2 ... 
 
 — lxx\'iii. 2 ... 
 
 — Ixxix. 2 
 
 — Ixxx. 11 
 
 — Ixxxvi. 4 
 
 — lxxx\di. 4 ... 
 
 — Ixxx'i'iii. 2 ... 
 
 — xc. 1 
 
 — xc. 4 
 
 — xc. 12 
 
 — xcii. 12 
 
 — xc.-id. 10 
 
 — ciii. 10, 11 . . 
 
 — cvi. 7 
 
 — ex. 3 
 
 — cxviii. 
 
 — cxix. 26 
 
 — cxix. 10.5 
 
 — cxix. 130 ... 
 ■ — cxxvii. 
 
 — cxxxvi. 
 
 — cxli. 5 
 
 — cxlviii. 4 
 
 — clxv. 16 
 
 Kev. xiii. 18 ... 
 
 — - xwi. 16 
 
 — xvii. 15 
 
 Horn. i. 2 
 
 — i. 4 
 
 — ii. 8 
 
 — ii. 17 
 
 — iii. 2.T 
 
 — iii. 25 
 
 — V. 12 
 
 
 Scripture rmit 
 
 inur.il- 
 
 177/( 
 
 l!om. V. 14 
 
 
 229 
 
 — V. 16 
 
 
 3 SO 
 
 — xi. 17 
 
 
 267)t 
 
 — xi. 32 
 
 
 120/t 
 
 
 
 208,1. 
 
 Euth iv. 1, 
 
 2 ... 
 
 2SS 
 
 
 
 102 
 
 1 Sam. i. 2 
 
 
 207 
 
 — i. 11 
 
 
 297// 
 
 — i. 14 
 
 
 300// 
 
 — ii. S 
 
 
 181/1. 
 
 — ii. 16 
 
 
 120//. 
 
 — iii. 15 
 
 
 117//, 
 
 — V. 4, 5, 
 
 10 '.'.'. 
 
 4.-.5 
 
 — vi. 2 
 
 
 lire 
 
 — viii. 19 
 
 
 49/( 
 
 — ix. 25 
 
 
 29.i//. 
 
 — X. 19 
 
 
 99 
 
 — xiv. 45 
 
 
 101 
 
 — XV. 12 
 
 
 287 
 
 — XV. 22 
 
 
 297 
 
 — XV. 32 
 
 
 184//. 
 
 — xvi. 12 
 
 
 24//. 
 
 - xvi. 20 
 
 
 ll/i 
 
 — xvi. 23 
 
 
 52// 
 
 — xvii. 8 
 
 
 16tf/t 
 
 — xvii. 39-43 ... 
 
 454 
 
 — xix. 9 
 
 
 459 
 
 — xix. 13- 
 
 16 '.'.'. 
 
 120)1 
 
 - XX. 30 
 
 
 170jt 
 
 - xxi 13 
 
 
 166)i 
 
 — xxiv. 3 
 
 
 124 
 
 — xxvi. 5 
 
 
 123 
 
 — xxxi. 3 
 
 
 166/;. 
 
 
 
 454 
 
 2 Sam. xiv, 
 
 . 5 ... 
 
 125/t 
 
 
 
 348/) 
 
 2 Thess. ii. 
 
 7 ... 
 
 12/1 
 
 
 
 351?J 
 
 1 Tim. i. 6 
 
 
 71//. 
 
 
 
 229 
 
 
 
 288JI 
 
 -i. 7 
 
 
 239/). 
 
 — i. 8 
 
 
 2957t 
 
 — i. 17 
 
 
 102 
 
 — i. 18 
 
 — ii. 4 
 
 
 100 
 
 — ii. 15 
 
 
 102 
 
 — ii. 21 
 
 
 295re 
 
 — iv. 4 
 
 — V. 14 
 
 
 269ft 
 
 — V. 18 
 
 
 318/1 
 
 — V. 20 
 
 
 363)1. 
 
 — vi. 20 
 
 
 343)J 
 
 
 
 353,) 
 
 2 Tim. i. 18 .. 
 
 380 
 
 — ii. 16 
 
 
 318)1 
 
 — iii. 2 
 
 
 343// 
 343/) 
 
 454 
 
 165 
 20/, 
 
 122/1. 
 
 •.■97 
 
 454 
 5,) 
 
 454 
 
 447 
 
 454 
 
 454 
 
 454 
 
 454 
 
 122/, 
 49 „ 
 
 454 
 
 454 
 
 454 
 
 122)), 
 
 4. '4 
 
 454 
 
 122,1, 
 . 454 
 
 454 
 
 454 
 
 122,) 
 . 454 
 . 454 
 
 . 199)1 
 
 98)], 
 
 . 290)1 
 294)) 
 310)i 
 . 318)i 
 . 195)) 
 . 31S)) 
 . 318)1 
 202)) 
 . 2f,l)) 
 . 318)) 
 . :-'i57 
 . 179)1 
 . 318)1 
 . 435 
 . 215 
 
 . 174/) 
 
 .' 818/) 
 
550 
 
 Index. 
 
 Scripture continued — 
 
 Titus i. 7 
 
 — i. 14 
 
 — iv. 4 
 
 ... 31fn 
 
 ... 47 
 ... 357 
 
 Zech. iii. 8 
 
 — X. 9 
 
 — xi. 7 
 
 ... 98 
 ... 121» 
 
 ... 297 
 
 Zeph. iii. 4 
 
 — iii, 3, 4 
 
 ... 48'/!. 
 ... 49ft 
 
 Ai'OciiYpiiAL Eeference.s — 
 Baruch ii. 27-34 ; iii. 37 ; 
 
 1 and pa^ai 
 
 ■»!, 
 
 4 
 
 60ft 
 
 — iv. 1 
 
 
 
 61« 
 
 1 Esilras viii. 
 
 9; 
 
 xiv. 21 27 ... 
 
 54ft 
 
 2 Esdras xir. 
 
 21- 
 
 ■45 
 
 52ft 
 
 3 Esdias viii. 
 
 'o 
 
 
 120JJ 
 
 — IX. 39 
 
 
 
 60ft 
 
 4 Esdras viii. 
 
 20 
 
 ;x. 57-59 ''^. 
 
 53ft 
 
 1 Mac,-, i. 56-58; 
 
 ii. 27 ; iii. 21 
 
 
 vi. 59 
 
 
 
 55ft, 
 
 — vi. 23 
 
 
 
 60ft 
 
 2 Mace. i. 8, 
 
 lb" 
 
 
 66 ft 
 
 — i. 10 
 
 
 
 128 
 
 — i. 16 
 
 
 
 160ft 
 
 — vii. 2, 23, 
 
 30, 
 
 ,37 ... 
 
 55 ft 
 
 — idi. 12 
 
 
 
 58ft 
 
 4 Mace. 
 
 
 
 136ft 
 
 Tobit i. 6 
 
 
 
 60ft 
 
 — ix. 16 
 
 
 
 65ft 
 
 Wisd. i. 4 
 
 
 
 , 126)1 
 
 — vii. 22-14 
 
 
 
 , 12B?» 
 
 — viii. 19 
 
 
 
 , 12(:ft 
 
 — viii. 20 
 
 
 
 . 1 2671 
 
 — xi. 17 
 
 
 
 12671 
 
 — xviii. 4 
 
 
 
 , 60ft 
 
 — xviii. 24 
 
 
 
 , 23)1. 
 
 — xviii, 24 
 
 
 
 , 126ft 
 
 "Scripture, Analogy of," a nominally 
 so-called, 26 
 
 "Scripture, perspicuity of," the so- 
 called, 26, 27 71. 
 
 Seething a kid in its mother's milk, 
 Eabbinieal view of, 88 n. 
 
 Semler, marks an ojioch in German 
 exegetie study, 402 ; nature and 
 influence of his work, 403 
 
 Septuagint, references to the, 3 7)., 5 
 n. ; theological bias in the trans- 
 latois of, 5 ; its origin, and influence 
 on the Jews and on Christianity, 
 
 116 ; list of authors and woi'k.'^ 
 treating of the, 116, 117 ns. ; 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, 
 111) and 7i.v, ; traces of Jewish legen- 
 dary lore found in the, 120 and ns. ; 
 instances of mistranslations and 
 perversions, 120 ct scq. ; on traces of 
 Alexandrian philosophy in the, 121 
 n. ; the translatnrs of the, afraid of 
 the word "ass," 121 and n, ; im- 
 mense e fleet 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 ; tlie 
 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 
 \\ii\\ errors, 27 ft. 
 
 Scrvetus, 235 ; on the burning of, 351 
 and n. ; the Abbe Glaire's remark 
 on, 360 7i. ; references to, 351 and 
 n., 360 n. 
 
 Sevinianus, 115 ft., 219 n. 
 
 Shabbath, extract from, on Ezekiel, 
 49 n. ; declares the most important 
 law the one about fringes, 50 
 
 Shamuiai, liabbi, the rival of Hillel, 
 account of, G7 
 
 Shekhinah, Aqiba rebuked for ap- 
 pearing to render the, profane, 72 
 and 7). 
 
 Shemaiah, writer of one of the lost 
 sacred books, 6 
 
 iSic ct Non of Abelard, account of the, 
 468 
 
 Si^isniund, the Emperor, 310 
 
 Simeon ben Shctach, 19 n. 
 
 Simon the Just, the last member of the 
 Great Synagogue, 57 n. ; the three 
 things he asserts the world stands 
 on, 61 
 
 Si|dira, 18 v., 62 n. 
 
 Sirniium, 212 
 
 Sixtus Senensis, on the five methods 
 of the Schoolmen, 291 n. 
 
Index. 
 
 551 
 
 Slavery and the Bible, Bishop Hopkins 
 of Vermont on, 436 n. 
 
 Society of Jesus, 307 
 
 Socrates, 285 n. 
 
 Somerset, the Protector, 351 
 
 Solomon Levita, see Paulus of Burgos 
 
 Soug of Solomon, various hypotheses 
 regarding the, 32 ; list and views of 
 various expositors of, 32 ». ; a favour- 
 ite field for mystical interpretation 
 with the Tanaim, and others, 75 ; 
 influence of on mediaeval mysticism 
 and exegesis, 256, 257 and ns. 
 
 Sorbonne, Casaubon's remark on the 
 disputes of the, 291 n. 
 
 Speculative thought, the difiiculty 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 
 
 Spciier, 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 n. ; estimate of 
 him by various writers, 384 and n. ; 
 effects of his labours, 307 
 
 Stanley, Dean, on .Aristobulus, 131 ;hi3 
 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 
 
 Stiiics, views of the, 126, 135, 136 ; 
 best specimens of the method of the, 
 to be found in the Homeric Alhyo- 
 rifs, 136; references to, 142, 144 n. 
 
 Strauss's Life of Jcsim, its influence on 
 the spread of unbelief, 413, 417 ; 
 Lacordaire on, 415 
 
 Symbols, or Symbololatry, the age of, 
 369, 360 
 
 Synagogue, the Great, founded by Ezra, 
 67 and n. ; its last member, 67 n. 
 
 Synis, Ephraem, of the School of 
 Edessa, illustration of the allegorical 
 style of, 209 
 
 Tacitos, 17, 121 »., 166 n. 
 Tiilnmd, of little value as an authority 
 in exegesis, 10 and n. , the edifice of 
 
 the, rests on the rules of Hill^l, 18, 
 22 ; its inter[iretation 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 Aqiha, 
 12 n. ; the Jerusalem Talmud, 81 
 andm. ; the Babylonian, 82 and n. ; 
 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 n. ; the Mishna and the 
 Gem.ara 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 ii. ; 
 the language of the, 92 n. ; trans- 
 lations of the, 92 n. ; varied and 
 extraordinary nature of the contents 
 of the, 91 et scq. ; estimates of, by 
 various authors, 93 n. ; 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 n. ; the exegetio prinriiiles 
 of Philo diflfer in five respects from 
 those of the, 150 n. ; persecution of 
 the, by Emperors and Popes, 315, 
 316 n. ; Erasmus on the, 315 n. 
 
 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 n. ; meaning 
 of "nought" in the system of the, 
 74 ; end of the, 80 
 
 Targum, the, and the Scribes, 60 n. ; 
 derivation of the word, and list of 
 the chief Targums, 442 
 
 Tarphon, Rabbi, his remark to Aqiba, 
 71 
 
 Tauler on mysticism, 258 and n. 
 
 Taylor, Isaac, on the Roman PontiflTs 
 appealing to Scripture to justify 
 their evil deeds, 41 n. 
 
 Taylor, Jeremy, on the hearing and 
 reading of the Holy Scriptures, 43 ; 
 on allegorising, 353 n. ; 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 n. ; 
 antique instrumeuts in the, 109 
 
 Tertullian, estimate of, and of his 
 writings, 177-180 ; Professor Mau- 
 rice's opinion of, 179 n., 180 «. 
 
 Testament, the word a mistranslation 
 and a mistake, 30 ; various render- 
 ings of, 30 n. ; difference betwixt the 
 Old and the New, 350 andw. 
 
 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 lis. ; original nature of his exe- 
 gesis, 215 ; he makes a bold stand 
 against Origcnising 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 ; bis views on inspiration, 217 ; 
 and on prophecy, 217, 218 ; list of 
 his predecessors and successors, 
 219 k. ; authorities on his writings, 
 219 n. ; his influence in the Western 
 Church destroyed by the charge of 
 Nestorianism, 219 ; his chief influ- 
 ence confined to the Church of the 
 Nestorians, 240 
 
 Theodoret, of the School of Antioch, 
 perpetuates the views of Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia, 219 ; influence of his 
 allegorical method confined to the 
 Church of the Nestorians, 240 
 
 Theologians, Bacon on English, 353 n. ; 
 the leading Knglish, during the post- 
 Eeformation period, 376 
 
 Theology, state of, in the 12th century, 
 310 ; John of Salisbury's and Roger 
 Bacon's opinion of, 310 ; Camera- 
 rius's view of, 310 n.; three things 
 which Luther said taught, 348 n. ; 
 the age of huge books of, 361 ; and 
 of dogmatism in, 362 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch, and his writings, 
 estimate of, 171 and n. 
 
 Theory, discrepancy between nominal, 
 and actual practice, 230 n. 
 
 Thierry, W.de St., on Sic et Kon, 261 n. 
 
 Tholuek on Thomas Aquinas, 269 n. ; 
 on the view of the ancient Church as 
 to the language of Scripture, 294)!.. ; 
 influence of Iris work on the exegesis 
 of his time, 419 
 
 Threefold sense of Scripture, views of 
 the Schoolmen on the, 294 et seq. and i 
 ns. I 
 
 Tiberias, disputes of the Piabbis in the 
 school of, 85, 86 
 
 Tiberius, 273 
 
 Tiberius Alexander, Procurator, 138 
 
 Tichonins, the seven rules of, as to. 
 Scriptural interpretation, 24-26 ; ap- 
 proval of, by Augustine, Cassiodoru.s, 
 and Isidore of Seville, 26 and n. ; 
 reference to, 276, 279 n. 
 
 Titus, 70 
 
 Tobit, 226 
 
 Tosefta Sanhedrin, 18 n. 
 
 Tostatus, his work as a commentator, 
 279 
 
 Toulouse, Count of, advice of Innocent 
 III. as to dealing with, 40 
 
 Tradition, Oral, Ezra the founder of, 
 54-56 ; good and evil largely mixed -. 
 in the, 56, 57 
 
 Translators, theological bias and errors 
 of, 5 and n. 
 
 Trent, Council of, 307 ; and exegesis 
 360 ; the Reformed and Lutheran 
 Churches reject the three principles . 
 of, 370 n. 
 
 Trinity, Reuchlin endeavours to prove . 
 the, from Genesis i. 1, 35 
 
 Tunstall, his enmity to Tyndale's trans- 
 lation of the Scriptures, 17 
 
 Turretin, his protest against the power 
 of "an inner light" in interpreting 
 Scripture, 379 n. ' 
 
 Tyndale on the allegorical method of; 
 exegesis, 299, ?00 
 
 Tyre, incident in the siege of, by; 
 Alexander, 8 
 
 U. 
 
 IIeberweg on allegoi-ical interpreta-^ 
 
 tion, 198 n. 
 Universals, controversy between An-" 
 
 sclm and Roscolin on, 253 
 Universities, Dutch, and divines, their 
 
 inlluence on the exegesis of the Ifitli 
 
 and 17th centuries, 379 and n. 
 Urban V., Pope, 264 n. 
 
 V. 
 
 Valla, Lorenzo, influence of his 
 
 labours in contributing to the Ke- 
 
 formation, 312 ; remarks on his 
 works, 313 and tis. 
 
Index. 
 
 553 
 
 Van Heusden on Plato, 2S2 
 
 Vayyikra Rabba, 31 n., 63 a., 86 n. 
 
 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 n. 
 
 Vespasian, 6S n. 
 
 Vire.t, 341 n. 
 
 Virgil, 247 n., 296 n. 
 
 Virginity, Jerome on, 227, 228, 257 
 
 Voltahe; 17, 397, 400 
 
 Vulgate, theological bias in the transla- 
 tors of the, 5 ; reference to the, 7 n. ; 
 quotations from, 24 and n.., teems 
 with errors, 27 n. ; Jerome's transla- 
 tion of the, 223, 229 
 
 W. 
 
 AValafrid Strabo, and his Gloam 
 Ordinaria, account of, 251, 252 and 
 
 "Wartburg, legend of Luther at the, 5 
 
 Watevland on mystic meanings, 353 n. 
 
 Weill on the new exegesis, 60 n. 
 
 Werenfels, famous epigram of, in 
 reference to interpretation, 30 
 
 Wesley, justifies his belief in witch- 
 craft by the Bible, 40 «. 
 
 Wessel, John, 279 ; identity of thought 
 between Luther and, 312 
 
 Testcott, Canon, his comment on 
 John V. 36-40, 10 n. ; his remark on 
 Dionysius of Alexandria's criticism 
 on the EeTelation, 207 n. ; on Chrys- 
 ostom, 220 n. 
 
 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 
 
 AVhittier, i n. 
 
 "Wiclif, heresy to possess the Bible of, 
 16 ; on mediaeval exegesis, 278, 279 
 n. 
 
 Wife, Hillel and Aqiba on divorcing a, 
 77 11 
 
 William of Conches reckons the Vener- 
 able Bede among the Fathers, 249 n. 
 
 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 n. 
 
 Winer, his Hellenistic gi-ammar, 419 
 
 Wisdom, the Book of, effect of (hvek 
 influence on the writer of. 126 ; de- 
 rives his leading ideas from Plato 
 and the Stoics, 126 
 
 Wise, the, greater than the prophets, 
 51 n. ; they are called priests, 52 ii. 
 
 Wifrhi'rift, Scripture cited as the i 
 authority for the believers in, 40 \ 
 and n. ' 
 
 Witches, the burning of, justified by a i 
 text in Leviticus, 40 and n. I 
 
 Wngue, references to his HMoire rl' Ja ' 
 isnilr. 10, 11 71.9. 
 
 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 si'q. ; and in new 
 meanings on altering them by trans- 
 position. 104 
 
 Wordsworth, Bishop, on tlie importance 
 of the true sense of Scripture being 
 made known, 38 
 
 World, the, stands on three things, 61 
 
 Yerushalmi, nature of tlie, 82 ?;.. 
 Yods, tfie two. Rabbinical explanation 
 of, 75, 76 and n. 
 
 ZiNZEXDORF, Count, influence of, .ind 
 of his Moravian brotherhoods on the 
 practical Christianity of the 17tli 
 century, 389, 390 
 
 Zwingli, his works and their influence 
 on the Reformation, 341 
 
 THE END 
 
RiCHABD Clay & Soyg, 
 
 ER[;AD street hill, LONDO>f. 
 
 Bungay^ SiiJfoV:. 
 
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOE. 
 
 SERMONS AND ADDRESSES DELIVERED IN 
 
 AMERICA. With an Introduction by Phillips Brooks, D. D. Crown 
 8vo. 7.S. 6d. 
 
 MERCY AND JUDGMENT. A Few Last Words on 
 
 Christian Eschatology with reference to Dr. Pusey's " Wliat is of Fiiitli ? " 
 Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 EPHPHATHA : or, The Amelioration of the World. 
 
 Sermons preached at Westminster Ahbey, 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 8 vo. 6s. 
 
 [ Twenty-fourth Thousav d. 
 
 SAINTLY WORKERS. Lent Lectures delivered at 
 
 St. Andrew's, Holborn. March and April, 1878. New Edition. Crown 
 8to. 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 j^larlborough 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 Ihv. 
 
 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 theso 
 sermons combined in a very unusual degree." — British Quarterly Eeviiw. 
 
 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 am 
 full i.f passages of great eloquence and beauty." — Gxiardian. 
 
 THE SILENCE AND VOICES OF GOD. Univensity 
 
 and other Sermons. Sixth Edition. Crown Svo. 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 tlie use 
 
 of Harrow School. Eighteenth Edition. 8vo. Is. 6rf. 
 *^'' Xow in use in Harrow School, Marlborough College, Rossall School, 
 Tppingham School, Charterhouse Schdol, &c. 
 
 A BRIEF GREEK SYNTAX AND HINTS ON 
 
 GREEK AC'CIDEXi'E ; with some reference to Comparative Philology, 
 and with Illustrations from various Modern Languages. Tenth Edition. 
 12mo. is. 6d. 
 "Mr. Farrar's volume surpasses all the Greek Grammars we have seen." — 
 JSdifcatioii.al Tim-i:^. 
 
 " 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 liis class at Hari'ow has given him a familiarity with tlie 
 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 
 a]id 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. The 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 Ga-ette. 
 
 London : LONGMANS S, GREEN, & CO. 
 
 THE EARLY DAYS OF CHRISTIANITY. Ninth 
 
 Thousand. Two Yols. 2is. 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. Svo. Price 24s. Illustrated Edition, cloth, 21.^. ; 
 calf or morocco, £2 2s. Popular Edition, 6s. Bijou Edition, 10s. 6rf. 
 
 MY OBJECT IN LIFE. (Heart Chords Series.) Is. 
 London : CASSELL & COMPANY, Limited. 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. Fcap. Svo. 4s. U. 
 
 (Cambridge Bible for Schools. ) 
 
 London : THE CAMBRIDGE WAREHOUSE. ^ 
 

 
 
 .1 V -^^f ''wssMrii^^^HIB^^H 
 
 
 m 
 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B 
 
 
 
 ^^SSdTc 
 
 :5''-' , ''^V- 
 
 
 ^~ 
 
 P^...^. 
 
 
 
 '^^^H 
 
 'S''*^ '^-'Vj/ 
 
 <^i^' 
 
 v 
 
 ^^^?9H 
 
 ■sl^v, ^ 
 
 0-. :p 
 
 
 1 
 
 w ^.^ 
 
 9' ^.- 
 
 . I^";^ 
 
 
 ' "' ^-V'K 
 
 "■'^fnr£®^ 
 
 "^> '^<i 
 
 
 
 -if 
 
 . '"Mr 
 
 
 1 
 
 cP^ 
 
 A f • -■■'!■ 
 
 * = 1 ■■ 
 
 
 
 >:'% 
 
 x#ap^ ,^^ 
 
 
 
 %-,:. %^ 
 
 
 
 ' -#^ 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 
 y^ 
 
 
 
 B^"" ^ 
 
 -, %,. 
 
 i'c 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 "Qj - 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 b' '"-'' 
 
 
 4^^ 
 
 
 iiM| 
 
 1