the end of such idealism would be a subversion of the plain truths of the Gospel,1 and that a dangerous use might be made of the determination to know Christ after the flesh no more.2 The danger was illustrated by the way in which Origen explained the words spoken by Christ in His agony,3 "Let this cup pass from me." His gloss upon them was that Christ desired a cup yet more bitter.

The Egyptian Bishop NEPOS wrote a Refutation of the Allegorists, and a different school of Scriptural study arose in Syria. Even this school-it should not be forgottenowed its impulse to the many-sided genius of Origen. If he exercised an unfortunate influence by his exaggerated allegories, he yet gave its main stimulus to the critical and philological labours of the best school of ancient exegetes. One of the forerunners of this school was the martyr LUCIAN, whose revision of the Septuagint was known as the Kowý, and was used in Constantinople, Asia Minor, and Antioch." The presbyter DOROTHEUS was not only a student of classic literature, but acquired the rare accomplishment of being able to read the Old Testament in the Hebrew original. Eusebius heard him expound the Hebrew text with moderation at Antioch.?

The best representative of the Syrian school of Edessa was EPHRAEM SYRUS, a man of singular personal sweetness, and a laborious commentator, who died A.D. 381. Adopting to a great extent the views of Origen, he abounds in allegories of which a single specimen may stand for multitudes. Com

1 See the admirable remarks of Neander, Ch. Hist. ii. 295-302.

2 Orig. Hom. in Matt. xv. § 3, ed. Huet.

* In his treatise on Martyrdom, 29. (ἀλλὰ δὲ τάχα βαρύτερον αἰτεῖν λεληθότως.)

4 Ελεγχος τῶν ̓Αλληγοριστῶν. It was written in the interest of the Chiliasts (Euseb. H. E. vii. 24), and was answered by Dionysius the Great in his two books περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν.

The martyr Pamphilus, the ardent admirer and champion of Origen, founded a great library and a theological school at Caesarea. Euseb. H. E.

vii. 32.

His MSS. were called Aovkiaveîa, Jer. Catal. 77. See Routh, Rel. Sacr. iv. 3; Westcott on the Canon, p. 392; Westc. and Hort, Greek Test. ii. 138; De Broglie, L'Eglise et l'Empire, i. 375; Newman, Arians, p. 414.

7 Enseb. H. E. vii. 32; Neander, ii. 528; Gieseler, i. 247.

Р

menting on the wisdom through which Rahab let down the spies (Josh. ii. 15), he says that it represents the mystery of the freedom of the mind uncorrupted by the darkness of sin, which receives the teachers of spiritual mysteries, and then cautiously sends them away to the God of the Universe, while it hopes that they will return in due time! But Ephraem's worst error is the mingling and confusion of the historic and mystic sense, which serve to show that for centuries together exegesis was drifting hither and thither on the open sea of fancy, with no compass of true principle to guide its course. In one and the same passage, even in one and the same verse, he takes one phrase literally, and the next mystically, after the aimless fashion afterwards systematised by Tichonius. Thus on Is. ix. 7 he remarks that part of it refers to Hezekiah, and another part cannot possibly apply to him. The first verses of that chapter refer, he says, to Christ, the third and fourth verses to Hezekiah or to Christ, the fifth and sixth verses to Christ only, except that the epithets "Prince" and "Father" "Prince" and "Father" may also refer to Hezekiah, whereas the first clause of the next verse can refer to Christ alone! 2

X. The third great school, the SCHOOL OF ANTIOCH, possessed a deeper insight into the true method of exegesis than any which preceded or succeeded it during a thousand years. We are not here speaking of theological questions, nor am I concerned to enter into the bitter disputes of the fourth century, or to inquire how far the Antiochene interpreters have been ignorantly misrepresented. All that I here affirm is that their system of Biblical interpretation approached more nearly than any other to that which is now adopted by the Reformed Churches throughout the world, and that if they had not been too uncharitably anathematised by the angry tongue, and crushed by the

1 For Ephraem's acquaintance with the Jewish Midrash, see Delitzsch, Genesis, p. 62.

2 On the merits and defects of Ephraem Syrus, see the admirable monograph of Caesar v. Lengerke, De Ephr. Syri arte hermeneutica, especially pp. 160 sq. and pp. 168 sq. (Königsb. 1831.) See too Cave, i. 231, Fabricius, viii. 217.

School of Antioch.

211

iron hand of a dominant orthodoxy, the study of their com mentaries, and the adoption of their exegetic system, might have saved Church commentaries from centuries of futility and error. Cardinal Newman has talked about "the connexion of heterodoxy with Biblical criticism," and has said that by their contemporary appearance in some of the teachers of Antioch "it may be almost laid down as an historic fact that the mystical interpretation and orthodoxy will stand or fall together." A more fatal admission could hardly be made. If it were true, it could only mean that ecclesiastical orthodoxy shrinks from the light of knowledge, and that its exegesis is an arbitrary fiction. The mystical interpretation has had every opportunity of establishing itself during a thousand years. It has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. It consists of application, not of explication. It ignores the human element which Scripture shows on every page. While professing to reverence the Bible it detracts from its authority, and substitutes in its place a hollow, gilded idol, which totters upon its flimsy pedestal. It foists into the Bible its own. fancies which are not there. It approaches the Bible in the interests of a system pre-conceived and pre-established.1 It was repudiated by the ablest interpreters of Scripture in its own day and since. It was by rejecting it that Theodore of Mopsuestia attained an exegetic skill which had been previously unknown. Chrysostom, the ablest of Christian homilists, and one of the best of Christian men, uses language entirely inconsistent with the theory of inspiration on

1 Here is a comment on Cant. iii. 9-11, by Cyril of Alexandria († 444). The "palanquin" is the Cross; its "silver legs" the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas; its purple cushion the scarlet robe with which Christ was mocked; the "nuptial crown" is the crown of thorns! See Ginsburg, Song of Songs, p. 67. It is astonishing that any one should support such theories of the meaning of the poem in the face of such passages as vii. 2, 3, 7, 8. Neander wisely and truly says that "those who would not admit any human element in Scripture and arbitrarily got rid of it by pretended mysteries under the idea of showing special respect to the Bible, undesignedly detracted from its authority. because they explained the whole as a single production in a way foreign indeed to the sacred word, but preconceived and pre-established as a divine one by themselves, thus foisting into the Bible what was not really there," iv. 11.

which it is based; and even Irenaeus, Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine, in the midst of their undefined and wavering views, are betrayed into phrases which show that the theory of homogeneous supernaturalism broke down under the force of facts.1 Happily, in his assertion of a necessary connexion between orthodoxy and exegetic wilfulness, Cardinal Newman stands alone. Even Roman Catholic historians like Cardinal Hergenröther have done justice to the School of Antioch. If it were indeed true that sound faith cannot co-exist with Biblical criticism, this could only mean that the Bible is not consistent with ecclesiastical tradition. The attempt to enforce private interpretations by Church anathemas has led to the melancholy spectacle of Councils-as for instance that of Sirmium-denouncing as heretical the refusal to accept certain specimens of exegesis which are no longer deemed tenable by any ordinary Christian man.2

1. DIODORUS OF TARSUS († 393) must be regarded as the true founder of the School of Antioch. He was a man of eminent learning and of undisputed piety. He was the teacher of Chrysostom and of Theodore of Mopsuestia. In the days of Valens he saved the Church of his province from being submerged by the waves of misbelief. He commented

1 Thus Irenaeus attributes St. Paul's hyperbata to the vehemence of his spirit (Haer. iii. 7). Tertullian supposes a growth of restraint and knowledge in the mind of St. Paul (Paulus adhuc in gratia rudis, ferventer ut adhuc neophytus, adversus Judaismum. C. Mare. i. 20, and De Pudic. 5). See Chrysostom, Hom. in Matt. i. ed. Field, i. pp. 4, 5, 7 (where he admits in the Gospels discrepancies in minor matters); Jerome on Gal. v. 12, where he speaks of St. Paul being carried away by the vehemence of his feelings (Ut homo, et adhuc vasculo clausus infirmo"). Even Augustine speaks of the Evangelists writing "Ut quisque meminerat vel ut cuique cordi fuerat." Neander, iv. 10-13.

2Si quis Faciamus hominem non Patrem ad Filium dixisse dicat. . . anathema sit. . . Si quis cum Jacobo non Filium quasi hominem colluctatum . . . dicat, anathema sit... . Si quis Pluit Dominus a Domino (Gen. xix. 24) non de Filio et Patre intelligat. anathema sit." Conc. Sirm. (A.D. 357; Canons xiv.-xvii.; Harduin, i. 702. See Rosenmüller, Hist. Interp. iv. 291). 3 The "school" of Antioch was not like that of Alexandria, a succession of connected teachers. It was rather a theological tendency which continued at Nisibis and Edessa after the condemnation of Nestorius. See Schaff, Ch. Hist. ii. 816. To this school belong Ephraem Syrus, Eusebius of Emesa (on whom there are monographs by Augusti and Thilo), Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret.

4 Theodoret, H. E. v. 4.

Theodore of Mopsuestia.

213

upon a large part of both Testaments with special reference to the literal sense. His works were unhappily destroyed by the Arians whom he had so successfully refuted, and he was also anathematised by the Eutychians, though not, as was commonly but erroneously asserted, by the Fifth Oecumenical Council.1 His books were devoted to an exposition of Scripture in its literal sense,2 and he wrote a treatise, now unhappily lost, "on the difference between allegory and spiritual insight.'

3

2. But the ablest, the most decided, and the most logical representative of the School of Antioch was THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (+428). That clear-minded and original thinker stands out like “a rock in the morass of ancient exegesis." He was not, indeed, a Hebrew scholar. This is shown somewhat disastrously in his criticism on Job. He regarded it as a very imperfect tragedy on a Jewish theme, and inferred that the writer was a heathen because one of Job's daughters was called "Amalthaea's horn"15 He even neglected the Peshito version which might have stood him in such good stead, and he relies, like most other Fathers, on the "inspired" LXX. In his theory of types.

The anathemas are not in the genuine Acts of the Council. He is defended by Facundus Hermianensis. "Should not the merits of St. Chrysostom seem rather to justify Diodorus than the errors of Theodore to condemn him?" See Neander, iv. 209.

2 Socrates, H. E. vi. 3. Aódwpos dè . . πολλὰ βιβλία συνέγραψε ψιλῷ τῷ γράμματι τῶν θείων κατέχων γραφῶν, τῆς θεωρίας αὐτῶν ἐκτρεπόμενος. Sozomen, H. F. viii. 2. Διόδωρος ὃν ἐπυθόμην ἰδίων συγγραμμάτων πολλὰς καταλιπεῖν βίβλους, περὶ δὲ τὸ ῥητὸν τῶν ἱερῶν λόγων τὰς ἐξηγήσεις ποιήσασ θαι τῆς θεωρίας ἀποφυγόντα. Jer. Catal. 119.

3 τίς διαφορὰ θεωρίας καὶ ἀλληγορίας. Suidas, s. v. Διόδ. By Theoria is meant spiritual insight which is not content with the letter only.

This appears from his remark on the word Remphan (Acts vii. 43, comp. Amos v. 26) φασὶ δὲ τὸν Ἑωσφόρον οὕτω κατὰ τῶν Ἑβραίων καλεῖσθαι γλώτταν. Any Jew could have told him that the word is not Hebrew at all but Egyptian.

5 The name Qeren Happuk is rendered Cornustibium in the Vulg., and Gregory the Great derives it from cornu and tibia! See Merx, Joel, p. 101. Theodori Ep. Mops. in Epp. B. Pauli Commentarii, ed. H. B. Swete, Cambr. 1880. Some of Theodore's commentaries were long attributed by mistake to Ambrose, and to Hilary of Poictiers, writers to whom he has not the least resemblance. Dr. Hort's discovery of the true authorship, given in Journ. of Class, and Saer. Philol. iv. 302, is mentioned in Bishop Lightfoot's Galatians, p. 219.

6 In Habak. ii. 11, where the LXX. has the curious word káv@apos, which misled so many commentators, Theodore contents himself with saying that