iii. 23. which are sufficiently answered, by supposing him to deny, that this or that turn of expression was designed to be taken literally. Nay, even according to his unfriendly editor's statement, if he were not sufficiently aware of the distinction between phrases mystical and merely metaphorical, he was very likely to mean the milder assertion, i. e. that the figurative expression was designedly made paradoxical, when he seems to advance the stronger, i. e. that it wanted the foundation of literal truth.

For these and other like reasons, even though the school of Origen were a fair specimen of the old ecclesiastical interpretation, it would not follow that that interpretation could be charged with denying the letter, except in rare and difficult cases, where, as he has himself said, we miss altogether the historical meaning: "defectum patitur historialis intelligentia '."

(23.) But the matter is thrown out of all doubt, when we add to what has been said, the fact that the Church has virtually disowned all responsibility for the peculiar opinions of this renowned Father; partly by the sentence of a general Council, partly by the deliberate judgment of some of her chief lights of later days. It is in some respects unfortunate, that that portion of the fifth general Council, which contained the proceedings against those called Origenists, has not come down to our time: but in the decisions of the Council, it is to be observed, that no mention is made of the denial of the letter of Scripture, as one of the supposed errors of Origen. The errors which were maintained in his name, most of which may be described as mere conjectures, expressed as conjectures by him, and afterwards advanced to the rank of tenets, philosophical or theological, by speculators who made the most of so high a sanction; such as the pre-existence of souls, the manner in which the merits of the Redeemer may be applied to angelic natures, the supposed universal renovation, and the like:-these errors are enumerated in fifteen articles'; but the alleged abandonment of the literal sense of the Bible does not appear among them. However, the whole affair, coming as it does at the conclusion of three centuries of 1 Hom. in Gen, vii. 5, t. ii. 80. B.

Vid. Harduin. Concil. t. ii. p. 286-288.

dispute, shows that there was no such blind deference to § iii. 24. his authority, then or at any former time, as may render the Church liable, on his account, to the charge of disparaging the letter of Holy Scripture.

(24.) The opinions of the most celebrated Fathers are collected by the Benedictine editor, in his preface to the second volume1. Such as the sentiment of St. Basil, in a passage quoted above 2: “I know the laws of allegory, though not by my own invention, yet by acquaintance with the labours of others: according to which, they who will not receive the ordinary sense of what is written, in the account of the Creation for example, affirm water not to mean water, but some other nature; and plants and fishes they expound at their own pleasure; and the formation of creeping things, and of wild beasts, they pervert according to inventions of their own, much like those who profess to interpret dreams." St. Chrysostom again, as cited by De la Rue, remarks, that the geographical situation of Paradise, "eastward in Eden," may have been purposely inserted by the Sacred Spirit, "to prevent those who are inclined to useless talk from deceiving the ears of the simple, by stating that Paradise is not in earth but in heaven, or putting about any other the like mythological dreams "."

It is to be observed, that neither these Fathers, nor St. Augustin when he expresses similar sentiments, make any mention of the name of Origen: although Augustin, in more than one passage, condemns him by name, for the same doctrinal errors which were afterwards censured in the second Council of Constantinople. But they seem to have observed a kind of tenderness towards him, which makes their express warnings the more striking, and at the same time leaves room to suppose, that, according to the view which has been taken above, they might regard him as rather leading others to deny the letter of the Bible, than as being himself guilty of such an error on any large scale.

St. Jerome and Epiphanius, as is well known, were less scrupulous in their attacks on Origen, probably (at least in part) as living among persons who were continually pushing his specu2 Hexaem. Hom. ix. § i. 3 In Gen. Hom. xiii. t. i. p. 80.

! P. xxiii.

§ iii. 25. lations into heresy. Nothing can be more express than their protests against him', addressed to John, Patriarch of Jerusalem, for turning the Scriptures into mere allegory, as far as the history before the fall was concerned.

Yet, as is often sarcastically alleged by the detractors of the Ancients, not even Origen himself abounds more in mystical and figurative interpretations than did these two distinguished Fathers, St. Jerome and St. Augustin. Are we to conclude that such men wrote at random, and did not know their own mind on such a very serious point, as a rule of interpretation extending through the whole Scriptures? Must we not rather conclude, that their censure of Origen as an allegorist, which, generally speaking, we may accept as the censure of the Church, went thus far, and no further? viz. to blame him for supposing that the literal sense would ever entirely vanish, however impossible it may be for us at times to ascertain it, and however inferior it may generally or always be, in comparison with the mystical sense to blame him, again, for objecting to it, as he sometimes occasionally does, (contrary however to his own declared rule) on grounds not flowing from the analogy of the faith as held and interpreted by the Church, but such as we should call rationalistic; such as a thing being to our minds inconsistent with the majesty of the Deity. Lastly, and perhaps prin cipally, we may understand them to blame him for too great boldness and luxuriance, in advancing interpretations, not in any way received by tradition, but devised by his own thoughts. But not in any sense can they be said to condemn him simply for maintaining the double sense of the old Scriptures, in the very way, wherein, as we have seen, the whole body of Christian writers, from St. Barnabas and St. Clement downwards, had maintained it.

(25.) And this is true not only of Jerome and Augustin, whose love for allegory is well known, but also of the other two great names, Basil and Chrysostom, who are comparatively remarkable for reserve in such interpretations. Yet Basil, on the Psalms, repeatedly refers to our LORD expressions which would be com

1

Epiph. Epist. ad Joan. Ierosolym. ap Hieron. t. i. 247, &c.; Ed. Vailss 1766; Hieron. contra Joan. Ierosol. § 7; t. ii. 413.

monly interpreted of the Psalmist only. And Chrysostom (to say iii. 25. nothing of his practice) in the very passage which is cited from him as so decidedly condemning Origen, points out the necessity of understanding all things OɛorрETS'. "The LORD GOD θεοτρεπῶς. planted Paradise.' Consider, beloved; if we do not understand these things in a sense becoming the ALMIGHTY, we shall needs be carried over a deep precipice. For what can they say concerning this word, 'planted,' who dare to take all the words spoken concerning the DEITY in a human sense? Did GoD need tools and husbandry, and other such process, to adorn Paradise? GOD forbid. . . . Against this," as against the mere allegory, "let us stop our ears, and follow the rule of the Scripture. And when thou hearest, 'GoD planted a garden in the East,' take care to conceive of the word 'planted' in a divine sense concerning GOD, that He gave order for such a thing to be; but as to the next word, believe thou that Paradise really was formed, and in that place where the Scripture hath pointed it out. For not to believe the things set down in the divine Scripture, but rather to introduce other things of one's own mind, must, I conceive, bring extreme danger to those who venture on such a proceeding." On the other hand, in his exposition of the 47th Psalm, he says, speaking of the verse, "O clap your hands, all ye people;" "With reason might one take this Psalm according to the mystical sense, rising above the literal meaning. For though it take its beginning and prelude from things sensible, yet it guides the hearer to the things which are merely spiritual. For, as I have said before, so now I say again, some things we must take as they are said, some contrary to the letter; e. g. when it is said, the wolf shall lie down with the lamb. Some in both senses; as the sacrifice of Abraham, and the first paschal lamb." Compare this passage with the former, and it will be plain that while St. Chrysostom was earnest in condemning the too free speculations of a later age, there was nothing in his principles contrary to the mode of exposition, which, as we have seen, was adopted by the Fathers before Origen.

On the whole, we may assume that the Mysticism of the ancient 1 Hom. 13, in Gen. t. i. p. 80, lin. 29, Ed. Savile.

2 t. i. 652, 16.

§ iv. 1.

Church (whatever might be said of some individuals) was very far from interfering with the truth of the history. The next point will be to show, that neither did it interfere with moral truth, i. e. it did not, by prophetical exposition of certain questionable parts of the Patriarchs' conduct, annul or confound the judg ment of the well informed moral sense, as to the rectitude of such conduct. This however must be made matter of separate investigation.

Siv.-Mysticism as applied to the Moral Difficulties of

Scripture.

It has been endeavoured in the former sections, first, to shew distinctly what is meant, when the Fathers are charged with Mysticism, and to point out by example the need of extreme caution and reverence, whenever we approach that subject. Secondly, granting the fact that they are, generally speaking, Mystics, at least in the interpretation of Scripture, (for to that in its present stage the inquiry is limited) a reason was however adduced for believing that they were not so at random, nor in mere blind obedience to the literary fashion of the day. The reason is this, that we find them, with few and rare exceptions, careful to limit their mystical expositions, so as not to destroy the historical and literal meaning. The exceptions, chiefly drawn from the Alexandrian school, were shortly considered, and appeared in themselves less formidable than they are sometimes represented it appeared moreover, that whatever their amount, they so far tend to strengthen our argument, as they occasioned an anxious disavowal of the mere allegory, on the part of St. Basıl, St. Augustin, and others, who had the best claim to be regarded as representing the whole Church. Their verdict is correctly reported in the following passages from Cyril of Alexandria'.

"In the inspired writings those who shrink from the literal and historical meaning as unsound, are chargeable in effect with something very like shrinking from the only process, which can enable them to understand the things therein set down. For 1 In Esai. lib. i. 4; t. i. p. 113.