the world, four winds, and four cherubic forms.1 He blames the Gnostics for drawing arguments from numbers, letters, and syllables,2 yet even in a matter so important as an explanation of the name Jesus he adopts the Rabbinic method of Notarikon. He says that in Hebrew the word consists of two and a half letters and implies that Jesus is Lord of Heaven and earth. He appeals to tradition against the Gnostics, but he frequently uses the same methods, of which, in their case, he repudiates the application.5

In theology Irenaeus is the first who, if he be rightly interpreted, suggests the disastrous view that Christ's ransom of our race was paid to Satan -a notion which recurs in the writings of theologians almost unquestioned till the days of Anselm. Even as regards events which were then recent Irenaeus is a most unsafe authority. He quotes the evidence of " elders who received it from the Apostles" for the assertion that our Lord at His death was more than forty years of age 7 -an opinion rejected by the whole Christian world. He makes the highly questionable statement that the Apocalypse was not written till the reign of Domitian. He repeats after

1 Haer. iii. 11, § 8.

2 Haer. i. 3, § 3; ii. 24, §§ 1-6, where many instances are given.

3 See supra, p. 101.

Haer. ii. 24, § 2. The initials of the word may be made by Notarikon to stand for Yehovah, Shamaîm, Ve-ha-arets. Nothing can be made of the present reading, "Terra autem iterum sura user dicitur."

5 Judg. vi. 37 (Haer. iii. 17, § 3); Jon. ii. 1 (Hacr. iii. 20, § 1); Dan. ii. 34 (Haer. iii. 21, § 7), referred to by Lipsius Dict. of Christian Biogr. ii, 270. In each instance the allegories are adopted by Augustine, Jerome, &c. See Diestel, pp. 56-60.

Haer. v. 1, § 1. Athanasius furnishes a brilliant exception to this error. Archdeacon Norris understands Irenaeus differently (Rudiments of Theology, p. 274), but Origen and many others certainly held this view. It must not be forgotten that even in Theology the Fathers are not always safe guides. Cardinal Newman remarks that out of some thirty authors cited by Bishop Bull, he has to explain nearly twenty (Ess on Development, p. 158).

7 Haer. ii. 22, § 5. The passage is quoted by Eusebius H. E. iii. 25, wártes οἱ πρεσβύτεροι μαρτυροῦσι, οἱ κατὰ τὴν ̓Ασίαν, Ἰωάννῃ συμβεβληκότες παραδεδωκέναι [ταῦτα] τὸν Ἰωάννην, and for other mistakes see fii. 21, §§ 1-10. The mistake about the age of Jesus is the more strange because a little before he had pointed out the Passovers in the Gospels to disprove the "one-year" theory.

8 In Haer. iii. 7, § 1, Irenaeus makes the true remark that St. Paul sometimes uses hyperbata "propter velocitatem sermonum suorum;" but his application of the figure to 2 Cor. iv. 2 is unfortunate. He refers to a book of his own "On the peculiarities of the style of St. Paul."

Polycarp a most improbable story about St. John and Cerinthus, which is so unworthy of the Apostle that we can only hope that it is without foundation.1 These examples sufficiently prove that if we are to judge the value of tradition even from such early writings as those of Irenæus we shall find that neither in theology, nor in exegesis, nor in the simplest matters of fact, does it establish any claim to our reverent acceptance.2

II. The Fathers of the third and later centuries may be divided into three exegetical schools. Those schools are the LITERAL and REALISTIC as represented predominantly by Tertullian; the ALLEGORICAL, of which Origen is the foremost exponent; and the HISTORIC and GRAMMATICAL, which flourished chiefly in Antioch, and of which Theodore of Mopsuestia was the acknowledged chief.

1. TERTULLIAN, like other Fathers, always speaks of Scripture as uttered by God, and dictated by the Holy Ghost.3 He will not allow to Valentinian that there are any varying degrees of inspiration, nor to Marcion that Paul's insight was any deeper than that of other Apostles. Like the Rabbis, he placed all the Scriptures exactly on the same level. He held that they contained all truth; that they had no contradictory elements; and that their cosmogony, chronology, anthropology, and history, were infallibly inspired. If his views on this question are to be regarded as authoritative they must

1 The story of Cerinthus and the Bath (see Epiphan. Haer. lxxviii. 14 ; Lampe, Proleg. p. 69). I have pointed out elsewhere the grounds on which I doubt the truth of the story (Early Days of Christianity, i. 163).

2 See, for instance, the wild passage about the Millennial grapes, which he tells on the authority of the weak and credulous Papias, who professes to have heard it from Polycarp (Haer. v. 33, § 3; Euseb. H. E. iii. ad fin.; Routh, Rel. Sacr. p. 9). When such authority is cited for such a Rabbinic absurdity, we cannot estimate very highly the boasted "tradition on which Irenaeus relies. For other instances see Routh, Rel. Sacrae, i. pp. 46-68, 95-101 (Rahab's cord, èv àpx? = èv Aóy¥, &c.).

3 Apol. 18.

De Pudic. 17, "Hanc aequalitatem Spiritus Sancti qui observaverit, ab Ipso deducetur in sensus ejus." He makes Ps. i. 1 a prophecy of Joseph of Arimathaea (De spectac. 3).

5 De Anim. 1, 2; C. Hermog. 39, 40. He quotes from all the New Testament except 2 Pet., James, and 3 John, and held that the Old Testament belongs specially to Christians (Apol. 21). He knew no Hebrew, and relies on the "inspiration" of the Seventy (Apol. 18).

N

be equally claimed for the Book of Enoch, and "the Sibyl who lies not." He mixes up different quotations, refers to them inaccurately, and relies for proof on verses which do not occur in Scripture at all. He thinks that Noah may have received the Book of Enoch from his grandfather, or that, if the Book was lost in the Deluge, he might have restored it by immediate revelation, as Ezra reproduced the whole Scriptures. How can such opinions be appealed to as having any weight? Before a scientific exegesis many of Tertullian's statements, so far from being a part of the Christian verity, vanish like mist before the sun.* He protests against literalism, except when time, manner, and circumstance are taken into consideration, yet he believes in a corporeal God, and accepts literally such metaphors as "the hand of God," and the "drop of water" in the Parable of Dives, and thinks that everything is forbidden which is not in Scripture expressly permitted. He rightly blames the Gnostics for their abuse of allegory. Yet he does not hesitate to allegorise whenever it suits him. Orthodoxy was accepted as a sufficient warrant for exegetic extravagance. He finds a symbol of the Twelve Apostles in the twelve wells of Elim, in the twelve gems on the High Priest's breast, in the twelve stones taken from Jordan;7 and he thinks that literal prohibitions about clean and unclean kinds of food would be quite contemptible. The eloquent, fiery, uncompromising African practically makes Scripture say

1 De Idol. 15; De Cult. Fem. i. 3; ad Natt. ii. 12, "Illa scilicet Sibylla veri vera vates.

2 De Cult. Fem. i. 2, 3. See Bishop Kaye, Writings of Tertullian, p. 320; Porson, Letters to Travis, p. 273. Tertullian is too reckless a controversialist to be accepted as authoritative in his appeals to the actual autographs of the Apostles (Haer. v. 30, 31), or the census of Augustus (C. Marc. v. 7), or the supposed letter of Tiberius to the Senate about the divinity of Christ (Apol. 5), or the official report of the Crucifixion by Pilate (Apol. 21),

3 He borrows this Jewish fable from 2 Esdras, xiv. 21-44.

4 See Böhringer, iii. 787-790.

5 De Cor. Mit. 2; De Monogam. 4, "Negat scriptura quod non notat."

6 De Resurr. Carnis, 19, "Non omnia sunt imagines sed et veritates; nec omnia umbrae sed et corpora." Comp. too id. ib. 20-33, De Praeser. 39; C. Hermog. 34, &c.

7 C. Marc. iv. 13. Sce too De Orat. 4, C. Prax. 7, De Baptismo, iii. ix. and passim.

exactly what he himself chooses. When, like Athenagoras,1 he condemns second marriage as "specious adultery," he has no manner of doubt that he is expressing the opinion of St. Paul, though St. Paul says the exact opposite.2 If in spite of St. Paul's express disclaimer he insists on the resurrection of the identical flesh, he asserts that St. Paul does so likewise.3 At one time Scripture has no meaning for him unless it coincides with what he recognises as tradition, and at another time tradition is valueless if it does not correspond with his individual convictions. Thus he sometimes speaks the language of Luther, and sometimes that of the Council of Trent. If heretics appeal to the text, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good," he loftily replies that "we" have no need of curiosity, and that "when we believe, we do not desire to believe anything further."5 While he is in this mood he is so far carried away by his own sophistry as to speak with something like contempt of Biblical studies, as springing from curiosity, and tending to vainglory; and by way of criticising our Lord's promise, "Seek and ye shall find," he implies that it was only applicable to the beginning of His teaching, while it was still doubted whether He was the Christ. He contemptuously says that in arguing with heretics it is useless to appeal to Scriptural arguments, in which there is either an uncertain victory, or none at all, but that the appeal must be to Apostolic tradition. And yet

6

1 Athenag. Legat. 33, ὁ δεύτερος γάμος εὐπρεπής ἐστι μοιχεία, comp. Orig. Hom. in Luc. xvii.; Theophil. ad Autolyc. iii. 15; Iren. Haer. iii. 17; § 2. 21 Tim. v. 14; De Monogam. 8.

De Resurr. Carnis, 35, 47. 1 Cor. xv. 37. He calls those who disagree with him "lucifugae isti scripturarum." Comp. Iren. Haer. v. xii. § 3. De Praescr. 4.

* De Praeser. 7, "Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum, nec inquisitione post evangelium."

De Praeser. 14, "Fides in regula posita est. . . cedat curiositas fidei." 17, "Quid promovebis, exercitatissime Scripturarum, cum si quid defenderis negetur ex adverso, si quid negaveris defendatur?" The sentiment was finally crystallised in the "Tenendum quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est" of Vincentius Lerinensis, Commonitor. i. 3.

7 Le Praeser. 8.

Whatever answer Tertullian had ready for other objectors, these he could silence with a dashing peremptory interpretation of our Lord's words. I find it hard to stifle my indignation at such trifling with the

Divine precept."-Maurice, Eccl. Hist. p. 279.

Ego sum haeres apostolorum" (De Pracser. 37). This is the argument

when tradition no longer answers him according to his own idols, he insists as forcibly as the Reformers, that Christ calls Himself Truth, not Custom,1 and, claiming what he has so fiercely denied to others, he maintains that private judgment is a natural and inalienable right.2 The most inexorable of traditionalists when he is arguing against heretics, he became in his arguments against heathens the first clear asserter of the Protestant principle of freedom of faith and conscience as an inherent attribute of the conception of religion.3

Insisting on the verse, "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the strong," he adopted the paradox, Credo quia absurdum est, and the wild conclusion that the more repugnant to sound reason a statement was, it ought so much the more to be deemed worthy of God. And alas! the vehement "father of Latin orthodoxy" erred from the Catholic dogma. The maintainer of tradition became the champion of a schism. The malleus haereticorum died a heretic.5

2. CYPRIAN is the only other prominent writer of the school of Tertullian. He is said to have been so great an admirer of his writings, that when he asked for them he used to say Da magistrum. But he was a man of less impetuous.

of the whole De Praeser. Haereticorum, and Tertullian states it more formally than Irenaeus. Praescriptio means legally, an argument that the other side ought not be heard. Tertullian charges heretics with having a different canon, and with corrupting and mutilating Scripture. Heretics might certainly object to proofs from the Book of Enoch and from non-existent texts; but to a very large extent they adopted the very same canon as Tertullian himself.

1 "Christus veritas est, non consuetudo" (De Virg. vel. 1).

2 "Humani juris et naturalis potestatis est unicuique quod putaverit colligere; sed nec religionis est cogere religionem quae sponte suscipi debeat non vi" (Ad Scap. 2). 3 Baur, K. G. i. 428.

On the deeply interesting personality of Tertullian, see Niebuhr, Anct. Hist. ii. 54; Neander, Ch. Hist. i. 683; Newman, Tracts, p. 119; Renan, Marc. Aurel. 456, "un mélange inoui de talent, de fausseté d'esprit, d'éloquence, et de mauvais goût." "Miserrimus ego," he says, "semper aeger caloribus impatientiae" (De Patient. 1).

"Every page almost of Tertullian would furnish terrible instances of the irreverent torturing of Scripture to his own purposes-of a resolute determination that it shall never contradict or weaken any purpose of his-all the while that he professes to take it as his guide and judge." Maurice, Eccl. Hist. p. 334.

6 Jer. Catal. s. v. Tert.

A certain Paulus, who had known Cyprian, told Jerome "Nunquam Cyprianum absque Tertulliani lectione unam diem praeteriisse."