yet clear enough to make us absolutely refuse to allow early tradition to impose on us interpretations of Scripture. In fact, if a man gives a far-fetched interpretation of Scripture we are not bound to receive it because it is a long time ago since he did it, and because a great many people have repeated it after him. I am quite satisfied to take as illustrating my principles the texts which Cardinal Newman (Development, p. 324) instances as brought forward by Nicene and ante-Nicene writers as palmary proofs of our Lord's Divinity. The first is the beginning of the 45th Psalm, of which the Septuagint translation is Ἐξηρεύξατο ἡ καρδία μου λόγον ἀγαθόν. If hermeneutic tradition is entitled to impose an interpretation on us, we are certainly bound to understand this passage as referring to the Eternal Generation of the Divine Logos. But I observe that the late revisers of the Old Testament have not materially altered the old rendering, 'My heart is inditing a good matter'; and certainly I should feel much embarrassed in controversially maintaining the views I hold concerning our Lord's Divinity if I had no better proof of them than this passage. Newman's second example is the passage (Prov. viii. 22), κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ. Orthodox and Arian interpreters agreed that these words related to our Blessed Lord, their only point of difference being how the word rendered ekrɩσe was to be understood. But looking on hermeneutic tradition as a guide, but not as an infallible guide, I feel myself free to decline to accept some Messianic interpretations which are supported by a very strong consensus of early opinion. If, however, without insisting on details, we look to the general spirit of the early Patristical interpretation of the Old Testament, we find what I think may be granted to be an Apostolic tradition; I mean the principle that the Old Testament is not contrary to the New-the principle that it was Jesus of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write-He whom in a thousand types the Mosaic institutions, nay, the Old Testament history, was in God's providence ordained to foreshadow. Here it is quite possible for a Christian reader to recognize types that he could not urge in controversy against a Jew or a Socinian. In the investiga x.] ALEXANDRIAN AND SYRIAN SCHOOLS. 161 tions of last Term I found, in many cases, that there were verbal coincidences between the language of very early writers and that of our Gospels, which left no doubt on my own mind that these writers had used the Gospels; and yet, it was not possible to demonstrate that anyone was wrong who might choose to say that the coincidence was only accidental. There is nothing illogical in this method of proceeding. If we have independent evidence that a book was in circulation, or that a doctrine was current, at the time when a particular author wrote, then a very slight casual allusion might suffice to convince us that he had read the book, or that he held the doctrine, though, without independent confirmation, the evidence might not be at all conclusive. So, if we have independent evidence that our Lord was such as no other man was, and that He came to do a work such as no other man did or could have done, then it becomes more probable than not that He did not burst on the world without having His coming prepared for; and if we believe in the Divine inspiration of the Old Testament Prophets, we are at once ready to believe that they were commissioned to speak of Him. That this was the attitude of mind in which the Apostles had trained the Churches which they founded is, I think, demonstrated by the general tone of the Old Testament interpretation of the early Church: and in establishing this point hermeneutic tradition does us valuable service. And if we are compelled to acknowledge that the disciples often outran their masters, and pushed their principles to indefensible extremes, we are not obliged to follow to those extremes guides whom we do not consider infallible; yet the evidence remains unshaken of the Apostolic character of that tradition of the dignity of Christ's person and work which lies at the foundation of these interpretations. We might, indeed, use the early hermeneutical tradition to draw a doctrinal conclusion of a negative character. As the early Church saw Christ everywhere in the Bible, so the modern Church of Rome sees the Virgin Mary everywhere. One example I mentioned incidentally just now. Well, I think it is a very significant fact that early Patristical interpretation is altogether blind to indications of the dignity of M the Blessed Virgin. In the Book of Revelation, the woman clothed with the sun, and with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars, who brought forth the man child, and then was made to flee into the wilderness (chap. xii.), in which description modern Romanists find a prediction of the glory of the Virgin, is by the ancient commentators, with absolute unanimity, understood of the Church.* You know what meaning the phrase the Virgin Mother' would bear in a modern book: in an ancient writer it would as certainly mean the Church,† and he would not seem to dream that any other meaning could be put on his words. We cannot help inferring that the Virgin Mary did not fill the place in the thoughts of men of those days that she has come to fill in recent times. The examples I have given will show that, while we hold ourselves perfectly free to criticize very ancient interpretations of Scripture, and so hold what is called hermeneutic tradition to be as far as possible from being an infallible guide, yet the study of these interpretations may throw most important light on the doctrinal principles of the ancient Church. I must not pass from this subject of Patristical interpretation without adding a little to a few words I said last Term about the two great schools of interpretation, the Alexandrian and the Syrian. Alexandria was the home of the allegorical method. It had flourished there from pre-Christian times. Homer was the Bible of the Greeks: yet, as culture advanced, the stories told of the gods, both by the great poet and by other authorities who had gained popular belief, were felt to be such as could not be reconciled with the honour of the divinities. Then apologists invoked the aid of allegory: Jupiter only meant the upper air, Poseidon was the sea, Apollo the sun. We were not to suppose that Apollo descended in person to shoot his arrows for seven days; what was intended was that the sun beat with his rays on the damp ground, and so caused a pestilence which was destruc See, for example, Hippolytus, On Christ and Antichrist, § 61. + See the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons (Euseb. H. E. v. I.). x.] AMBROSE, AUGUSTINE, AND JEROME. 163 tive to the Grecian host; and in like manner other myths apparently degrading to the character of the Gods were explained away, as mere modes of expressing certain physical facts. Thus the Jewish apologists found the method of allegory ready to their hands when cavils were made by the heathen philosophers of Alexandria against statements in the Jewish sacred books. The great Alexandrian Jew, Philo, whose works largely remain, freely had recourse to allegorical explanations when objections were made to the morality. of parts of the Mosaic narrative-so freely, that the historic character of the narrative was in danger of disappearing. In this school were brought up some of the greatest ornaments of the Alexandrian school of Christian philosophy. Clement was a careful student and a warm admirer of Philo. Clement's successor, Origen, carried to still greater lengths the allegorical method. The spiritual meaning was the soul; the literal, only the body; and in his hands the literal meaning often ran the risk of being quite evaporated away. If ever the literal sense presented a difficulty, or what looked like a contradiction, allegory afforded an immediate solution of it. If hermeneutic tradition had a right to force interpretations on our acceptance, it would be in the case of some of those allegorical interpretations of the Alexandrian school; so early was their origin, so wide was the acceptance they gained, so generally were their principles adopted. I look upon St. Ambrose as one of the chief agents in naturalizing many of these expositions in the West. From being a heathen magistrate he was made a bishop; but he was an able man and a good Greek scholar, and he speedily laid some of the most celebrated Greek theologians under contribution for his sermons and treatises. From Origen he drew much, both directly and indirectly; and what he drew he passed on to his pupil St. Augustine, and through him to the Western Church generally. St. Augustine constantly adopts the principle that an apparent contradiction between two texts of Scripture is to be regarded as an index pointing out that allegorical interpretation must be resorted to. If I were to think of giving you examples of interpretations of this school, in which all regard to the context or to the circumstances of the sacred writer is lost sight of, specimens are so abundant that there is great difficulty in selection. Here is an explanation from St. Jerome of a difficult passage in Ecclesiastes (xi. 2) of which we should certainly be glad to welcome a good explanation. The text is: 'Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth.' St. Jerome's explanation is: The number seven denotes the Old Testament, because of the Sabbath therein enjoined to be celebrated on the seventh day; the number eight denotes the New Testament, because the Saviour rose on the eighth day. The text, then, directs us not to restrict our faith, as the Jews do, to the Old Testament; nor, as do the Marcionites, Manichees, and other heretics, to the New. We must believe both Testaments, for "we know not what evil shall be upon the earth"; that is to say, we cannot comprehend now the merited tortures and punishments reserved for those who are upon earth, namely, for the Jews and heretics who deny either Testament.' This book of Ecclesiastes does not strike us as the most Messianic of Old Testament books: but Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome find Christ and the Gospel in every line. Thus, 'There is one alone, and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother; yet is there no end of all his labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither saith he, For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This is also vanity' (Eccles. iv. 8). Here is the commentary: This is Christ; for He is one, and there is not a second, for He came to save the world without any companion. He has not a brother; for, though many sons of God are by adoption brethren of Christ, none could be joined with Him in the work of Redemption. Of His labour and suffering for our sins. there is no end; man cannot comprehend the greatness thereof.' "The eye is not satisfied," &c., means that Christ is never weary in seeking our salvation. The text goes on, "Two are better than one"; that is to say, it is better to have Christ with us than to be alone, open to the snares of the enemy. "If two lie together, they shall have heat; but how can one be warm alone?" that is, if any should lie in the grave, yet, if he have Christ with him, he shall be warmed, |