ha'U&nc^

Mh

¦',-J /.,

nx

LETTER.

8fc.

l?tl

LONDON :
OILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS,
ST. John's square.

LETTER

TO A FRIEND,

TRACT FOR THE TIMES,

No. 89.

UEV. S. R. MAITLAND,
LIBRARIAN TO Ills GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

LONDON:
PRINTED FOR J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON,
ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD,
AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL.
1841.

I

LETTER,
SfC.

My Dear Friend,
Perhaps, like the rest of the world, you are so en
grossed by No. 90, that you have paid little or no
attention to No. 89. I do not know how long it has
been published, but I presume it must have preceded
the other, though it is only within a few days that it
has fallen into my hands ; and, not having seen it
noticed in any quarter, I cannot but fear that what
seems to me a very injurious publication, may be
quietly stealing into circulation, while everybody is
looking another way. If, however, you have seen it,
you may very naturally expect to hear from me,
whether I am led to recant opinions which have so
often formed the subject of our conversation ; and
having maintained those opinions so long, and so
publicly, before the Oxford Tracts were in existence,

6

I have little fear of being suspected of personal hos
tility, or of thrusting myself hastily into controversy,
if I address you through the press, rather than by any
more private method.
I am sorry that the author of the Tract has
joined together, in one class, all those who have any
fault to find with what has been, he tells us, im
pugned under the name of " ancient mysticism ;" and
still more sorry that he should view them all as
" assailants of primitive antiquity," and persons dis
posed to rationalize. As far as my own observation
enables me to judge, he has no right to assume that
all those who object to any one of the three " heads
of ancient mysticism," which he specifies, objects to
them all, and are to be held up as persons led by
" the Evil Spirit to decry the relics of Christian an
tiquity." I believe that greater knowledge of men
would have taught him to distinguish, and would
have saved him from injustice, of which I believe
that he would not be advisedly guilty. He says :
" (5.) What now are the particulars of the Fathers' im
puted Mysticism ? i. e. in what respects would they be
commonly charged with an undue anxiety to make out
supernatural meanings and interferences ? The following
heads would seem to comprehend the greater part of their
supposed delinquencies in this kind : —
1. Their interpretations of Scripture are said to be far
fetched and extravagant ; extracting figurative, theological
allusions out of the most irrelevant or insignificant details
of language or history.

2. Correspondent to this is their mode of treating
natural objects, and the truths of philosophy and coramon
life ; fancying every where indications of that system, on
which their own hearts were set.
3. They were mystics in their notions of providential
interference, whether in the way of judgment, deliverance,
or warning. To which head may be referred whatever
they state of the exercise of the gift of prophecy in then-
times ; as also their accounts of reputed miracles, and of
the sensible agency of evil spirits, and of their own and
others' warfare with them.
4. Finally, they are blamed for Mysticism, properly so
called, in their moral and devotional rules ; i. e. for dweUing
too much on counsels of perfection, tending (as is affirmed)
to contemplation rather than action, to monastic rather
than social and practical virtue.
These are the sort of imputations on which the changes
have been rung, for the two last centuries, by those who
have wished to evade the testimony of the Fathers, without
setting them down distinctly as deliberate impostors." p. 6.
I can imagine that, in the course of two centuries,
some of all the persons who for one reason or other
have " wished to evade the testimony of the Fathers,"
may have charged them with all this, and a great deal
more ; but if there be any who unite all these evil
thoughts of the early Fathers, I need not tell you
that I am not one of them, and offer no apology for
them. For instance, and to take the distinction
which meets us at the outset, I see no connexion
between the practice of the Fathers in making alle
gorical interpretations, and their belief in super-

8

natural interferences ; and I do not understand how
the author of the Tract can do it, unless he considers
their allegorical interpretations as the fruit of divine
inspiration — an opinion which may be hinted in the
otherwise obscure phrase, "supernatural meanings,"
but which I would not charge upon him without fur
ther and plainer evidence. It is to the former of
these points, without in any way mixing it with the
latter, that I desire at present to call your attention.
Let me also premise that in what I am about to say,
I am not laying hold of the words or principles of the
author of the Tract, and applying them to some ex
treme case, picked out by myself; but only taking
that which he has himself selected, and placed in the
forefront of his work. Indeed I believe that you will
not find in this letter a single allusion to anything in
the Tract which is not contained within its first two
and twenty pages.
After some pages of preparatory matter, the author
says, " under such impressions, we may safely ap
proach the first head, of Mysticism imputed to the
Fathers, viz. their mode of interpreting Holy Scrip
ture ;" and his second section is thus headed :
" § ii. Specimen of Ancient Mysticism in interpreting Scrip
ture."
And after stating the matter of fact, that the
early Christian writers did use an allegorical way of
interpreting Scripture, he proceeds :
" (2.) Let it then be taken for granted, that a mode of

9

expounding, which would seem to most men fanciful and
strained, generally prevails in the Christian writers of the
first centuries. The great point will be, to account in
some measure for this fact. In order to which it may be
expedient, not by way of proof but of illustration, if we
take some one remarkable instance, and trace it as we may
through the writings of some of the most eminent and
earliest Fathers. And, not to give them any undue ad
vantage, it may be well to select one of those subjects,
their treatment of which is commonly considered most
extravagant ; a subject, which has attracted towards them
in no common degree the contemptuous wonder of modern
critics and philosophers : I mean, their discovering the
tokens of our Lord's Passion, and more especially the
Sign of the Cross, in innumerable places of the Old Testa
ment, which neither are so expounded in the New, nor to
common eyes betray of themselves any such allusion." —
p. 15.Then having selected as a specimen the epistle
which is ascribed to St. Barnabas, and made some
remarks on its date and character, and its fitness to
be selected for such a purpose, he adds :
" (4.) As concerning the Passion and Cross of our Lokd
in particular, (to say nothing of the sacrifice of Isaac, the
typical nature whereof, as it seems, no age of Christians
has ever denied, notwithstanding the silence of Scripture,)
St. Barnabas has the following passage ' : " Israel being
attacked by the aliens, with a view, amongst other things,
of signifying to the people, that their transgressions were
the cause of their being given over to death, the Spirit
' C. xii.

10

speaks inwardly to Moses, to form a type of the Cross, and
of Him who was to suffer : that if men refuse to trust in
Him, they will have no peace for ever. Moses therefore
places one shield on another in the middle of the mound ;
and being thus posted high above all, he stretches out his
hands, and so Israel began again to be victorious : after
wards, when on the contrary he let down his hands, again
they were slaughtered. Wherefore? That men might
know there is no chance of salvation, except they put their
trust in Him. And in another Prophet he says, ' All the
day long I have stretched forth my hands to a disobedient
and gainsaying people.'" p. 17.
On this I may briefly remark that here we have —
perhaps in rather a small way, but yet worthy of
notice for the sake of illustration — one of those in
jurious effects which I have long observed to flow
from this allegoricail mode of interpretation. It leads
men to tamper with the Word of God ; and either by
addition, suppression, or some tortuous proceeding or
other, to make it agree with their imagination.
" People little know what they do," says the author
of the Tract, " when they deal contemptuously with
any thing, be it in Scripture or in common life, under
the notion that it is too slight or insignificant for the
ordering of the Most High." To this I heartily sub
scribe. Let me add my belief that the Scripture
narratives were so given by inspiration, that people
little know what they do when they add to them
circumstances which may appear minute and trivial.
It may perhaps be said that St. Barnabas (allow me

11

so to speak for the sake of brevity, without prejudice
to the question whether the Apostle was really the
author of the Epistle) knew by inspiration, or had
learned by tradition, or had imagined in the lawful
use of his poetical gift, that Moses placed one shield
on another, though nothing of the kind is intimated
in the book of Exodus. Well and good ; if it is a
new revelation, let him tell us so ; if it is tradition,
let him give it as such ; if it is poetry, let there be
some mark by which people may know it, for it looks
like a mere statement of fact. But observe, I entreat
you, that it is not brought before us under any such
character ; we are not talking about revelations, or
traditions, or poetry, but of the interpretation of Scrip
ture — and this, whatever it may be, gently slides in
to take its place as Scripture, and to be interpreted
with the rest. It is however, as I have said, a minor
instance, and it is not worth while to dwell upon it.
The author of the Tract proceeds :
" What is very observable, the Author next goes on to
mention, with just the same tone of confidence, and no
more, the typical meaning of the Brasen Serpent ; observ
ing, with his usual piety, " Thou hast in this also the
glory of Jesus ; that in Him, and to Him, are all things."
It does ml seem " very observable " that St. Bar
nabas should express no more confidence in this in
terpretation than in the other. Can it be accounted
for, except by supposing him to have seen (what
appears obvious enough) that our Lord's words gave

12

no authority for his mode of interpreting? Would
he have disdained the sanction of our Lord, if he had
thought that it was given ? Perhaps he did not con
sider our Lord's illustration and his own interpreta
tion as quite the same thing, though the author of
the Tract appears to do so, for he goes on to say :
" Had it seemed good to God's providence, that the dis
course of our Lord to Nicodemus should have been lost,
as so many other of His divine words were, would not the
Christian interpretation of this latter miracle have seemed
to many forced and fanciful, just as that of the former
may perhaps seem now ? And ought not this single con
sideration to stop the mouths of all, who have any reve
rence in their hearts, when they find themselves tempted
to join in hasty censure or scorn of such interpretations ?
For aught they know, they may he scorning or censuring
the very lessons of our Divine Master Himself."
I should like to know more particularly whether
the author really means to say, that if the words,
" As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of Man be lifted up : that who
soever believeth in him should not perish but have
eternal life," had been uttered by any uninspired
person who knew the fact that our Lord should really
be lifted up to save the suffering race of man, they
could have seemed forced or fanciful ? May I add
that it is, so far as I have seen, very much the habit
of the writers of the Tracts to inculcate profound
reverence for all that is sacred, and to profess them-

13

selves deeply hurt and grieved even by such slight de
partures from it as persons not intentionally irreverent
are liable to be guilty of ; and may I suggest that a
judgment on this point ought to be much influenced by
the consideration of habit, education, natural disposi
tion, or something else which certainly does produce
among men who fear God and desire to please Him,
and to treat with reverence everything belonging to
his word and service, a great diversity of notion and
feeling. I am sure that it was not so felt by the
author of the Tract; but to myself the suggestion
that men ought to listen to " such interpretations"
as those of St. Barnabas, under the impression that
" for aught they know," the interpretations were
made by our Lord himself, appears highly irreverent
and indecent. I am not claiming a right to join in
" hasty scorn or censure ;" but I suppose that a body
of members of the University of Oxford would
scarcely think it necessary to write to the clergy,
to tell them that hasty censure and scorn are things
which they should not indulge in, whatever the
subject matter may be. I presume that something
more than this is meant, though I do not pretend to
say what.
To proceed, however, to another instance of what
is called " Interpretation of Scripture," which is
much more to the purpose, and much more im
portant : —
•• (12.) I proceed to another historical type, which to

14

many may appear more extravagant. The Author is
reasoning on the history of Abraham, to prove the in
sufficiency of Jewish circumcision out of the Old Testa
ment itself. So far, as will occur to every one, he is
treading in the steps of St. Paul. After producing many
passages to that purpose, he closes the subject with the
following ' : ' Consider whether there be not abundant
instruction on this whole matter, in the account given us,
that Abraham, who first gave men circumcision, did
thereby perform a spiritual and typical action, looking
forward to the Son : and that, upon receiving certain
doctrines conveyed in three (mystical) letters. For He
saith, Abraham circumcised of his house men to the num
ber of three hundred and eighteen. What then is the
mysterious truth thus vouchsafed to him ? Observe the
eighteen first, then the three hundred. Of the two letters
which stand for 18, 10 is represented by I, 8 by H. Thou
hast here the word Jesus :' i. e., the two first letters,
which formed as it were a cypher of the sacred Name,
familiar to the eyes and thoughts of the Christians of that
generation : as was also the third of the numeral letters in
question, which the writer next goes on to explain : ^ Be
cause the Cross, which is signified to the eye by the letter
Tau, was intended to bring the grace, [to which he looked
forward ;] he adds the three hundred also,' the letter Tau
representing that number. ' By the two first letters
then the name Jesus is indicated, and by the third the
Cross.'" If in anything that I have hitherto said, you have
thought me hypercritical, yet I think you will agree
with me, that here is something at which all persons
' Ep. S. Barnab. c. ix.

15

who have any respect for truth as truth, and any
jealousy for the true interpretation of the written
word of God, ought to make a stand and a protest.
" For He saith, Abraham circumcised of his house
men to the number of three hundred and eighteen."
Who saith ? The author of the Tract leaves us in
no doubt, by printing the pronoun with a capital,
and yet he knows that the word of God says no
such thing. The simple fact, (known to the author
of the Tract,) is, that when Abraham pursued
Chedorlaomer, " he armed his trained servants, horn
in his own house, three hundred and eighteen ^"
When, more than thirteen (accotding to the com
mon chronology, fifteen) years after, he circumcised
"all the men of his house, born in the house, and
bought with money of the stranger ^ ;" and, in fact,
every male who was as much as eight days old, we
are not told what the number amounted to. Shall
we suppose (just for the sake of the interpretation)
that Abraham's family had so dwindled in this
interval, as that now all the males of his household,
trained men, slaves, and children, equalled only and
exactly the number of his warriors fifteen years
before ? Or, are we to suppose that the ancient
writer confused the two passages, and imagined that
the number mentioned in the one, had been men
tioned in the other? It is easy, and I may sin
cerely add, very agreeable to my own feelings, thus to
' Gen. xiv. 14. ^ Gen. xvii. 23. 27.

16

acquit the writer of the epistle of anything bearing
even the appearance of fraud in what lies at the
root of his interpretation; for it must be remem
bered that it rests entirely on the union of the
number 318 with the act of circumcision; but our
business at present is rather with the modern
apologist, who seems to be very far from imagining
that there has been (perhaps I ought to say that
there could be) any mistake in the case, or any
thing which should make us hesitate to receive this
" genuine exposition," as one " not private, but
ecclesiastical ;" as a mystery, for the reality of which
the writer might, with " no fanaticism, but with
a great deal of sober piety and charity," appeal to
Him " ' from whom we' Christians or Christian
teachers, ' derive the ingrafted gift of that teaching
which is properly his'.' " Let me ask your attention
to what he says of it : —
" On this commentary, which as well as the former has
been adopted by multitudes of the early interpreters'",
several remarks occur, which it may be well to put down,
as they will each of them apply to a whole class of exam
ples, and to difficulties which are certain to arise in many
of our minds, though we were never so resolutely on our
guard against prejudices of mere taste and association.
(13.) First, it may be observed that the several circum-
' P. 22.
^ For example, St. Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. 84 ; S. Ambr. de
Fide, i. init. and § 121 ; S. Aug. Qusest. in Jud. 37 ; S. Hill.
de Synod. 86.

17

stances, which may appear at first sight startling in this
exposition, though not perhaps united in any one Scrip
tural example, have yet, each severally, undoubted sanction
of Scripture. Thus, the use of the numeral letters as a
cypher, to convey some mysterious truth, has a well-
known precedent in the Book of Revelation." p. 18.
Surely you cannot but see in this an instance of
what we have so often observed, as one of the worst
effects of this allegorizing system. Those who habi
tually employ their minds in the study and gene
ration of what is imaginary, are but too likely to
lose sight of the real nature and just value of truth ;
and when they come to anything like argument, they
betray the oddest notions imaginable. Precedent
does for proof, and anything does for precedent. If
they cannot find just what they want, it is quite, or
seems to be quite enough for them that there is
something like it somewhere. It is stated in a
confessedly enigmatic prophecy, that a person shall
be distinguished by the fact, that the number of his
name shall be 666. I know not what theory the
writer of the Tract holds on this obscure subject, but
I no more believe that this is using " the numeral
letters as a cypher," than I believe that if they were
indisputably so used in that prophecy, it would give
" undoubted Scripture sanction" to our finding out
a great mystery in the number of Abraham's armed
men, occurring in what seems to be a simple nar
rative of facts. But the author proceeds : —
" Again, the passage in St. Barnabas is an instance of the
B

18

combination of texts apparently remote, but really bearing
on the same subject : for the number, three hundred and
eio-hteen, is not mentioned in the account of the circum-
cision of Abraham's family, but is borrowed from the pre
vious enumeration occasioned by the war with Chedor
laomer '. Now, this sort of combination of remote texts
appears to be warranted, in one instance at least, by our
blessed Lord Himself. ' Is it not written. My house
shall be called of all nations the house of prayer?' So
far is taken from Isaiah, but the conclusion of the sentence,
' Ye have made it a den of thieves,' was addressed by
Jeremiah to a subsequent generation '.
" Now whether the fact were really so or not, (if it were,
it was surely by special providence,) that Abraham's house
hold at the time of circumcision was exactly the same
number as before : still the argument of St. Barnabas will
stand. As thus : circumcision had from the beginning a
reference to our Saviour, as in other respects, so in this ;
that the mystical number, which is the cypher of Jesus
crucified, was the number of the first circumcised house
hold, in the strength of which Abraham prevailed against
the powers of the world. So St. Clement of Alexandria %
as cited by Fell * : ' It is commonly supposed that we
have here an indication of a correspondency between the
case of Abraham's household and the method of salvation :
of the victory obtained by those who have betaken them
selves to the Holy Sign and Name, over those who led
them captive, and the innumerable tribes of unbelievers,
who follow in their train.' "

' Compare Gen. xvii. 27 ; xiv. 14.
^ See Isai. Ivi. 7; Jer. vii. 11. ' Strom, vi. 11.
¦" In loc. S. Barn.

19
Now what are we to say to this ? Can we say less
than that " the passage in St. Barnabas," is not a
" combination of texts apparently remote, but really
bearing on the same subject." They do not bear 07i the
same subject. The one has no more to do with Ched
orlaomer, than the other has to do with Circumcision.
The one text is pregnant with contradiction of the
interpretation which is attempted of the other ; and
the only " combination," is the picking a number out
of one, and inserting it in the other. And " this sort
of combination of remote texts" appears to be war
ranted " by our blessed Lord Himself;" because He
quoted a passage from the prophecy of Isaiah, and
added a declaration, in language probably suggested
by the prophecy of Jeremiah.
And it matters not to the argument, " whether the
fact were really so or not."
And this is the mode of interpretation which the
Author of the Tract would teach us. If it be the
true one, may God enable us to receive it with
humility and gratitude — if not, may we steadily banish
and drive it away. Yours, very faithfully,
S. R. MAITLAND.