fable. So much for the mode of interpreting Scripture, in avoidance of gnostic objections. But there remained a rather more difficult task, imposed by the same gnostic sentimentality, which was that of reconciling the gnostic notion of the divine nature, as pure and wise, with the constitution of the animal creation. Now this task was connected with the interpretation of Scripture, by the means of allegorizing disquisitions upon the mosaic account of the six days' work. It was not indeed that the lion, the tiger, the crocodile, the adder, the vulture, the shark, could be spoken of as other than they are; but yet, while a thousand gay conceits concerning the 'spiritual meaning' couched under these untoward natures, could be held before the mind, something was done, and a respite was obtained from the tormenting pressure of the theosophic conception of the Deity.

Ample and amusing illustrations of what I am now affirming, may be met with by referring to the Hexaëmeron of Ambrose; where the forms, qualities, habits, of fishes, reptiles, birds, and beasts, are convincingly shown to adumbrate all points of theology and morals. And to what lengths did this irresistible infatuation carry so respectable a writer! To what use, for instance, does he dare to convert the (misunderstood) natural history of the vulture? Let the reader look to the twentieth chapter of the fifth book, and amidst his amazement and disgust, acknowledge the proof he there and elsewhere finds, of the presence of a motive powerful enough to overthrow all soundness of judgment, and to violate all religious decorum. Nonne advertimus quod Dominus ex ipsa natura plurima exempla ante præmisit, quibus susceptæ incarnationis decorem probaret, et adstrueret veritatem?' Basil makes the same offensive use of the same ridiculous fable; and throughout his Hexaëmeron employs a rich invention in what he and others considered as the laudable endeavour, not so much to derive lessons of piety from the natural world, as to obviate, or supersede, the terrible gnostic objection to the mundane system, as impure and sanguinary. But we must return for a moment to the mythic interpretation of the Old Testament history, and see in what way Origen opens up to us the real motive of this practice.

The principle of allegorical interpretation which he adopted, is

*

stated and defended, as well incidentally as formally, in many parts of his writings; and, among the reasons adduced in behalf of it is this, that it aids us in understanding passages, which, if literally interpreted, would either involve contradictions, or be offensive, and tend to encourage sentiments and practices elsewhere explicitly condemned. He formally assumes a license for considering as allegory, whatever, even in the plainest narrations, does not seem to consist with certain received notions of what was fitting in the divine dispensations, or in the conduct of the patriarchs. That this principle of interpretation sprung, not merely from the wish to obviate gnostic objections, but from a latent admission of their force, appears clearly enough from the tenor of the following passage; especially when compared with the places in which the rule of allegorical exposition is actually applied to particular instances. Origen, having established the inspiration of the Scriptures, states the necessity of laying down such a rule of interpretation, as shall exclude the cavils and false assumptions of Jews and heretics.

"These latter, when they read such texts as these 'a fire is kindled by my wrath,' &c. . . . and a thousand things of the like kind, have not indeed dared to deny that these scriptures are from a god; but then they suppose them to have proceeded from the Demiurge whom the Jews worship, an imperfect, and not benevolent being; and they affirm that the Saviour has come to announce to mankind a more perfect Deity, whom they deny to be the same as the Demiurge, or creator of this world. Having once strayed from the truth, they have adopted various opinions, at the suggestion of their fancy, and have embraced notions concerning the visible and the invisible worlds, as attributed to different creators. There are moreover, even within the pale of the Church, some of the simpler sort, and who mainly hold to the true theology, and who yet (in consequence of their adherence to the literal sense of Scripture) think of the true God in the most unworthy manner. Now the sole cause of all the errors above referred to, whether of the impious, or of the simple-minded,

See the Fragment on Galatians, tom. i. p. 41. Benedictine, and more at length, in the De Principiis, lib. iv.

is the habit of understanding Scripture not in the spiritual (or mystic) but in the naked and literal sense." Our author then proceeds, at great length, to expound and to recommend his own remedial system of interpretation; which, as he thinks, will enable us to evade every difficulty, and to preserve, unimpaired, those just and elevated notions of the divine purity, justice, and benevolence, which the Gospel conveys.

It is manifest then, and other passages might be cited to the same effect, that with Origen, who was the author, or great promoter of the mythic mode of interpretation, the primary motive for its adoption was a tacit admission of the gnostic sentiment and doctrine. This system of exegesis, violent as it was, and shocking to common sense, and precarious too, for it could not be applied to all cases, even to those the most needing it, has often, by modern writers, been attributed merely to a 'false taste,' or to an 'ambition of ingenuity,' or to an oriental exuberance of the imagination. But we see that it had a much deeper and more serious meaning, and that it is the indication of a gnostic feeling, strong in the minds even of those who were the most decided opponents of the gnostic heresies. The broad expression of this same feeling we have found under another form-the doctrine and practice of abstractive asceticism and celibacy, and have thus obtained incidental and yet conclusive proof of the oneness and consistency of that system which, in the nicene age, had come into the place of apostolic christianity.

I wish especially, on this occasion, to point out the slightness and fallaciousness of the mode in which modern writers have allowed themselves to allude, with an incurious and affected scorn, to the characteristic features of ancient christianity. 'Monkery and asceticism'-they were the 'follies of the age;' superstitious notions and practices'-the human mind had then 'become enfeebled;'-'the mystic interpretation of Scripture'-' the fathers were men of more imagination than judgment;' and, in a word, we, better taught as we are, may just glance at these errors, and pass on.' This frivolous style, unsatisfactory and unphilosophical as it is, might have passed as sufficient in the times that are gone, or that are going by; but it is now becoming not simply obsolete and inappropriate, but seriously delusive and

dangerous; inasmuch as it favours the supposition that ancient christianity, although disfigured by some blemishes, was yet, as compared with the romanism of later times, pure and sound.

A more exact, and indeed, a more philosophical analysis of the ancient church system, will, I am fully persuaded, serve to convince all unprejudiced minds that these trivial imperfections, or follies,' as we have been taught to call them, were, in truth, the several symptoms of one and the same deep-seated disease; and that, for instance, things so seemingly unconnected and independent as we may think the profession of virginity, and the mythic interpretation of Scripture, both sprang, in no circuitous manner, from ONE PRINCIPLE, and that principle nothing else but the rudiment of the asiatic theosophy. But then, this same sovereign cause gave law to every thing else, or to every thing which distinguishes the nicene from the apostolic church. Hence the danger of borrowing notions, rites, and practices, from a system which had come under the tyrannous control of a foreign and fatal influence.

But there are peculiarities attaching to the ancient mode of expounding Scripture which demand to be noticed as illustrating our present position, that the great nicene writers were, in a very low degree, conscious of those truths which protestants regard as constituting the glory and peculiarity of the Gospel.

I have already mentioned that omission of the most vividly evangelic portions of Scripture, which appears when we examine the indices of texts cited by the fathers. But when we open what professes to be a consecutive exposition of an epistle fraught with the most animating passages, we feel as if, now at least, we must discover what was the feeling of the writers; for how can they avoid what stands directly in their path, and in a path chosen by themselves? How avoid such evangelic passages? Sometimes by neatly leaping over them! Of which several instances may be found in Chrysostom's exposition of the Pauline epistles. These serious lacunæ in certain noted ancient expositions, would, if the continuity of the discourse did not preclude the supposition, make one think that a leaf, here and there, had been torn from the manuscript. But if passages of the kind now referred to are not actually passed over, they are too often

expounded in a style that is dry and cold, or ambiguous, or positively erroneous.

In support of this representation I must confine myself to one or two instances, but they will be such as to carry the inference appended to them. Chrysostom's mode of exposition is characterized by its diffuseness, and prolixity; and we may say, in a sense, its comprehensiveness. He stands moreover, by general suffrage, at the head of the nicene divines, and is surely second to none of them, as an expositor-all qualities taken together. We may safely therefore bring him forward as an authoritative instance.

The seventh homily on the epistle to the Romans contains a diffuse exposition of the latter portion of the third chapter; and it is such as would probably satisfy many modern readers, clearly affirming as it does, that salvation is God's free gift: a gift received by faith, and not to be obtained by the observance of the jewish law. So far all is well; and one is happy too to meet with so much of truth; but yet no such distinction is observed as warrants our supposing that Chrysostom had in his mind the important difference between the making just,' and the justifying, or declaring just, in a forensic sense; nor does he kindle upon the theme, nor take the occasion to awaken the hearts of his hearers, as a modern preacher would not fail to do; but he slides off immediately into ethical disquisitions, which, proper as they may be in themselves, yet, in the connexion in which they come, must have tended to cherish rather the legal than the evangelic feeling of those whom he addressed. The phrase ἐξαίφνης δικαίους ποιεῖν, might suggest the belief that justification by faith, in the protestant sense, was intended; but when we turn to the places where the same writer declares his opinion of the justifying efficacy of baptism, it becomes but too evident that such an expression, and much besides which might by itself seem unexceptionable, really meant a far different doctrine; how different, let those say who have read and considered the two exhortations addressed to the candidates for baptism.* Although a man should be foul with every human vice, the blackest that can be named, yet should

*

See especially the passage, tom. ii. p. 269.