1 searches after in his commentaries, ingeniously indeed, but perversely, and generally to the entire neglect and contempt of especially Philo. To these may be added other causes. He hoped, by means of his allegories, more easily to convince the Jews, to confute the Gnostics, and to silence the objections of both. This he himself tells us, de Principis, 1. viii. c. 8. p. 164, &c. But we must not forget his attachment to that system of philosophy which he embraced. This philosophy could not be reconciled with the Scriptures, except by a resort to allegories; and, therefore, the Scriptures must be interpreted allegorically, that they might not contradict his philosophy. The Platonic idea of a twofold world, a visible and an invisible, and the one emblematic of the other, led him to search for a figurative description of the invisible world, in the biblical history of the nations of the earth. He also believed that it was doing honour to the Holy Scriptures, to consider them as diverse from all human compositions, and as containing hidden mysteries. See his Homil. xv. on Genesis, Opp. tom. ii. p. 99; and Homil. on Exod. Opp. tom. ii. p. 129. And finally, he thought that many of the objections of the enemies of religion could not be fully answered without recurrence to allegories. His general principles for the interpretation of the sacred volume, resolve themselves into the following positions. 1. The Scriptures resemble man. As a man consists of three parts, a rational mind, a sensitive soul, and a visible body; so the Scriptures have a threefold sense, a literal sense, corresponding with the body, a moral sense, analogous to the soul, and a mystical or spiritual sense, analogous to the rational mind. Homil. v. on Levit. § 5, Opp. tom. ii. p. 209. 2. As the body is the baser part of man, so the literal is the less worthy sense of Scripture. And as the body often betrays good men into sin, so the literal sense often leads us into error. Stromata, 1. x. quoted by Jerome, b. iii. Comment, on Galat. ch. iii. Opp. tom. i. p. 41. 3. Yet the literal sense is not wholly useless. De Principiis, 1. iv. § 12, p. 169, and § 14, p. 173. 4. They who would see further into the Scriptures than the common people, must search out the moral sense. 5. And the perfect, or those who have attained to the highest degree of blessedness, must also investigate the spiritual sense. De Prin cipiis, 1. iv. § 2, p. 168. 6. The moral sense of Scripture instructs us relative to the changes in the mind of man, and gives rules for regulating the heart and life. 7. The spiritual sense acquaints us with the nature and state and history of the spiritual world. For, besides this material world, there is a spiritual world, composed of two parts, the heavenly and the earthly. The earthly, mystical or spiritual world, is the Christian church on earth. The heavenly, mystical world is above; and corresponds in all its parts with the lower world, which was formed after its model. 8. As the Scripture contains the history of this twofold mystic world, so there is a twofold mystic sense of Scripture, an allegorical and an anagogical. 9. The mystic sense is diffused throughout the Holy Scriptures. 10. Yet we do not always meet with both the allegorical sense and the anagogical, in every passage. 11. The moral sense likewise pervades the whole Bible. But the literal sense does not occur every where for many passages have no literal meaning. 13. Some passages have only two senses; namely, a moral and a mystical [the mystical being either allegorical or anagogical, rarely both]; other passages have three senses [the moral, the mystical, and the literal]. 14. The literal sense is perceived by every attentive reader. The moral sense is somewhat more difficult to be discovered. 15. But the mystic sense none can discover with certainty, unless they are wise men, and also taught of God. Neither can even such men hope to fathom all the mysteries of the sacred volume. 17. In searching for the anagogical sense, especially, a person must proceed with peculiar care and caution. 12. 16. Schl.-Dr. Mosheim states the following as Origen's general rule for determining when a passage of Scripture may be taken literally, and when not viz. Whenever the words, if understood literally, will afford a valuable meaning, one that is worthy of God, useful to men, and accordant with truth and correct reason, then the literal meaning is to be retained but whenever the words, if understood literally, will express what is absurd, or false, or contrary to correct reason, or useless, or unworthy of God, then the literal sense is to be discarded, and the literal meaning.8 This remote sense he moreover divides into the moral and the mystical or spiritual; the former containing instructions relative to the internal state of the soul and our external actions, and the latter acquainting us with the nature, the history, and the laws of the spiritual or mystical world. He fancied that this mystical world was also twofold, partly superior or celestial, and partly inferior and terrestrial, that is, the church: and hence he divided the mystical sense of Scripture into the terrene or allegorical, and the celestial or anagogical. This mode of interpreting Scripture, which was sanctioned by Jewish practice, was current among Christians before the times of Origen. But as he gave determinate rules for it, and brought it into a systematic form, he is commonly regarded as its originator. § 6. Innumerable expositors in this and the following centuries pursued the method of Origen, though with some diversity; nor could the few who pursued a better method, make much head against them. The commentaries of Hippolytus, which have reached us, show that this holy man went entirely into Origen's method. And no better, probably, were the expositions of some books of the Old and New Testaments, composed by Victorinus, but which are now lost. But the Paraphrase on the book of Ecclesiastes, by Gregory Thaumaturgus, which remains, is not liable to the same objection, although its author was a great admirer of Origen. Methodius the moral and mystical alone to be re garded. This rule he applies to every part both of the Old Test. and the New. And he assigns two reasons why fables and literal absurdities are admitted into the sacred volume. The first is, that if the literal meaning were always rational and good, the reader would be apt to rest in it, and not look after the moral and mystical sense. The second is, that fabulous and incongruous representations often afford moral and mystical instruction, which could not so well be conveyed by sober facts and representations. De Principiis, 1. iv. § 15, 16, tom. x. Comment. in Joh. Tr.] s Origen, in his Stromata, 1. x. cited by Ch. de la Rue, Opp. tom. i. p. 41, says Multorum malorum occasio est, si quis in carne Scripturæ maneat. Qua qui fecerint, regnum Dei non consequentur. Quamobrem spiritum Scripturæ fructus que quæramus, qui non dicuntur mani- explained the book of Genesis, and the Canticles; but his labours have not reached us. Ammonius composed a Harmony of the Gospels. § 7. Origen, in his last work entitled Stromata, and in his four books de Principiis, explained most of the doctrines of Christianity, or, to speak more correctly, deformed them with philosophical speculations. And these his books de Principiis were the first compendium of scholastic, or, if you please, philosophic theology. Something similar was attempted by Theognostus, in his seven books of Hypotyposes; for a knowledge of which we are indebted to Photius, who says that they were the work of a man infected with the opinions of Origen. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in his Expositio Fidei, gave a brief summary of Christian doctrines. Certain points of the Christian faith were taken up by various individuals, in reply to the enemies or the corrupters of Christianity. Tracts on the Deity, the resurrection, antichrist, and the end of the world, were composed by Hippolytus. Methodius wrote on free-will; and Lucian on the creed. But as most of these treatises are no longer extant, their characters are little known. § 8. Among the writers on moral subjects (or practical theology), passing by Tertullian, who was mentioned under the preceding century, the first place belongs perhaps to Cyprian. From the pen of this extraordinary man we have treatises on the advantages of patience, on mortality, on alms and good works, and an exhortation to martyrdom. In these works there are many excellent thoughts, but they are not arranged neatly and happily, nor sustained by solid arguments.1 Origen wrote among other works of a practical nature, an exhortation to martyrdom; a topic discussed by many in that age, with different degrees of eloquence and perspicacity. Methodius treated of chastity, but in a confused manner, in his Feast of Virgins. Dionysius of Alexandria, wrote on penance and on temptations. To mention other writers in this department would be needless. 9 § 9. Of polemic writers a host might be mentioned. The [Photius, Biblioth. cod. cvi. p. 279. Photius represents him as erring, with Origen, in regard to the character of the Son of God. But G. Bull defends him against this charge, in his Defensio Fidei Nicana, sec. 2, c. 10, § 7, p. 135. -See concerning him, Fabricius, Biblioth. Gr. 1. v. c. 1, vol. v. p. 276, and 1. v. c. 88, vol. ix. p. 408. Schl.] See J. Barbeyrac, de la Morale des Pères, c. viii. p. 104, &c. idolaters were assailed by Minucius 'Felix, in his dialogue entitled Octavius; by Origen, in his eight books against Celsus; by Arnobius, in his eight books against the Gentiles; and by Cyprian, in his tract on the Vanity of Idols. The Chronicon of Hippolytus, written against the Gentiles; and the work of Methodius in opposition to Porphyry, who attacked Christianity, are lost. We may also place among polemic writers, both those who wrote against the phslosophers, as Hippolytus, who wrote against Plato, and those who treated of fate, of freewill, and of the origin of evil, as Hippolytus, Methodius, and others. Against the Jews, Hippolytus attempted something, which has not reached us; but the Testimonies [from Scripture] against the Jews, by Cyprian, are still extant. Against all the sectarians and heretics, assaults were made by Origen, Victorinus, and Hippolytus, but nothing of these works has come down to us. It would be superfluous here to enumerate those who wrote against individual heretics. § 10. But it must by no means pass unnoticed, that the discussions instituted against the opposers of Christianity in this age, departed far from the primitive simplicity, and the correct method of controversy. For the Christian doctors, who were in part educated in the schools of rhetoricians and sophists, inconsiderately transferred the arts of these teachers to the cause of Christianity; and therefore considered it of no importance whether an antagonist were confounded by artifice or solid argument. Thus that mode of disputing, which the ancients called economical 2, and which had victory rather than truth for its object, was almost universally approved. And the Platonists contributed to the currency of the practice, by asserting that it was no sin in a person to employ falsehood and fallacies for the support of truth, when it was in danger of being borne down. Any one ignorant of these facts will be but a poor judge of the arguments of Origen in his book against Celsus, and of the others who wrote against the worshippers of idols. Tertullian's method of confuting heretics, namely by prescription, was not perhaps altogether unsuitable 2 Souverain, Platonisme dévoilé, p. 244. J. Daillé, de vero Usu Patrum, 1. i. p. 160. J. C. Wolfii Casauboniana, p. 100. On the phrase to do a thing, κατ' oikovoμíav, Tho. Gataker treated largely, in his notes on M. An has toninus, 1. xi. p. 330, &c. [It signifies to do a thing artfully and dexterously, or with cunning and sagacity, as a shrewd manager of a household (oikovóμos) controls those under him. Tr.] し in that age. But they who think it always proper to reason in this manner, must have little knowledge of the difference which time and change of circumstances produce.3 § 11. This vicious disposition to circumvent and confound an adversary, rather than confute him with sound argument, produced also a multitude of books falsely bearing on their fronts the names of certain distinguished men. For a great part of mankind being influenced more by authorities, than by reasons and divine declarations, individuals endeavoured to stifle opposition, by pretending to derive their opinions from the most venerable sources. Hence those Canons which were falsely ascribed to the apostles: hence those Apostolic Constitutions which Clemens Romanus was reputed to have collected": hence, too, the Recognitions of Clement, as they are called, en 3 See Fred. Spanheim, Diss. de Præscriptione in Rebus Fidei, Opp. tom. iii. p. 1079.-[Tertullian's book was titled de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, or Præscriptionibus adversus Hæreticos; which might be translated, on the Presumption in regard to heretics, or Presumptions against them. The author attempts to confute all the heretics at once, and by means of historical arguments. He maintains that the orthodox churches were founded by the apostles and their approved assistants, who ordained the first pastors of these churches, and established in them all one and the same faith, which must of course be genuine Christianity; and that this faith, having been handed down pure and uncorrupted, is now contained in the creeds and inculcated in the assemblies of these churches. But that not one of these things can be said of the heretical churches, which had not such an origin, and embraced various differing creeds, and creeds derived from other sources. Being bred an advocate, and familiar with the proceedings of courts, he gives a forensic form to his argument, not only by using the law ¦ term Præscriptio, but by maintaining that the orthodox were, and had always been, in right and lawful possession of that invaluable treasure, truc Christianity; and that, of course, the heretics, who were never in possession of it, in vain attempt now to oust them of what they thus hold by legal prescription. Tr.] [The Apostolic Canons are eightyfive ecclesiastical laws or rules, professedly enacted by the apostles, and collected and preserved by Clemens Romanus. The matter of them is ancient; for they describe the customs and institutions of Christians, particularly of the Greek and Oriental churches, in the second and third centuries. But the phraseology indicates a compiler living in the third century. See W. Beveridge's notes on these Canons, and his Codex Canonum Eccles. Primativæ vindicatus et illustrat. London, 1678, 4to. Schl.] 5 [The Apostolic Constitutions fill eight books. They prescribe the constitution, organization, discipline, and worship of the church, with great particularity; and avowedly are the work of the apostles themselves. But they are supposed to have been compiled in the eastern or Greek church, in the latter part of the third, or beginning of the fourth century. Some place them in the fourth or fifth century. They bear marks of an Arian hand. As describing the form, discipline, and ceremonies of the church about the year 300, they are of some value. They may be seen in Cotelerü Patres Apostolici, tom. ii. Tr.] 6 [The Recognitions, of which we have only the Latin translation of Rufinus, compose ten books, and describe the travels of the apostle Peter, and his contests with Simon Magus. The work is a pleasant one to read, and helps us to understand the doctrines of the Gnostics. Dr. Mosheim (Diss. de turbata per recentiores Platonicos Ecclesia, §34) conjectures, with much probability, that it was composed by an Alexandrian Jew, who was opposed to the Gnostics, |