O N

Allegorical Interpretation, etc.

I

T is a principle conftantly laid down by all the Expofitors of Sacred Writ, that every part of it must be expounded in fuch a manner, as to render it confiftent with reason, and the known attributes of the Deity; and whatever will not admit of that interpretation, cannot be received, as of divine authority. If this be true, it follows, that our notion of God and his Attributes, is not to be drawn originally from the Scriptures, but from nature and reafon, previously to our ftudy of Scriptures, which otherwife would be apt to lead us into dangerous errors. He who cometh to God, fays the Apoftle, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently feek him [1]. It would be abfurd, to make the divine Attributes the rule of interpreting Scripture, and yet to take our notion of thofe Attributes from the fame Scripture: for that would confound the rule, with the thing to be tried by it and like travelling in a circle, inftead of carrying us forward, would bring us onely to the point, from which we fet out. The want of attention to this maxim, and the rafhnefs of interpreting [1] Heb. xi. 6.

the

the Sacred books, without any juft conception of the Deity, has given birth to all thofe fenfelefs doctrines and Hærefies, which have difturbed and difgraced the Chriftian Church in all ages.

For example; the literal acceptation of the Mofaic History of the Creation and fall of man, by its feeming inconfiftency with the characters of the divine wisdom and goodness, induced certain Hæretics of the Primitive Church, to affert the existence of two Gods, or independent principles; the one evil, the Creator of the world, and God of the Old Testament; the other good, the fupreme God and Father of Jefus [1]; while the fame method of interpreting induced other fimpler Chriftians alfo, as Origen tells us, who honored the Creator, and thought nothing fuperior to him, to afcribe fuch things to him, as they would not believe of the most cruel and unjust of men [2]. But neither thofe early Hæretics, nor fimple Chriftians, could have fallen into fuch grofs errors, if they had previously conceived and fixed in their minds, any rational notion of the nature of God. And in truth, there is not any part of the holy Scriptures, that has fo much exercised the wit and invention of the Commentators, as this very Hiftory of the Creation, by the difficulty of reconciling it to the allowed attributes of the Creator.

I fhall not enter into a particular examination

[1] Iren. 1. i. c. 28, 29. Origen. Philocal. c. i. p. 6, 7, 21. Tertull. Præfcr. Hæret. 40. [2] Orig. ibid. p. 7.

of

of all their various expofitions: fome of them will fall in our way in the courfe of this argument. All that I propofe at prefent, is, to compare onely in general, the feveral merits of the two principal and rival kinds of interpretation, the one according to the Letter, the other to Allegory, which have each of them been approved and preferred in their turns, in different ages of the Church.

By the Letter, I mean the Historical acceptation of the text, as a plain narrative of facts, fuppofed to have been tranfacted in the very manner and order in which they are there related by Allegory, I mean that latent and more refined way of delivering truth, under the drefs of fiction, or fable, which was practifed chiefly in ancient times, and by the Sages of the Eaftern world.

Clemens of Alexandria, one of the most learned and inquifitive of all the Primitive Fathers, declares, "that all, who treat of Theology, whe

ther Greeks or Barbarians, have ever indu"ftriously involved the beginnings of things, by delivering the truth in enigma's, fymbols, "and allegories. That this fymbolical manner "of inftruction was in particular esteem with "the Hebrews as well as the Ægyptians, and that "the Greeks borrowed it from Moses. That

truth, under this veil of allegory, carries a "more awful and majeftic form. And that this "kind of interpretation was of all others the

most useful to true Theology, and piety, and

"the

"the fure proof of a superior wisdom and understanding [1]."

Eufebius obferves, "that the Jews were of "two forts, the learned and unlearned that the "latter of thefe, or the multitude, were fubject"ed by Mofes to the literal observation of his "laws, as delivered in words: but the men of ftronger minds were freed from that fubjection, and trained to a more divine philofophy, and to penetrate into the hidden meaning. Agreeably to which distinction, he fays, "that they had public readers, or interpreters, " called Deuterota, who explaned the recondite "and ænigmatical fenfe, not promiscuously to

66

all, but to fuch onely as were qualified to re"ceive it." All which he confirms by the authority of Philo and Ariftobulus, and the conftant practice of the Effenes, who followed this figurative manner of expounding, which, even in those days, was called ancient [2].

On the other hand, it is certain, that the literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genefis, has been a perpetual fource of doubts and difficulties to the best Commentators; and of raillery and ridicule to the enemies of revealed religion in all ages. Celfus, the old adversary of the Gofpel, laughs at the ftory of Adam's formation,

[1] Stromat. 1. v. p. 658, 673, 679. it, 1. ii. 429, &c. Edit. Oxon.

Ariftobulus is fuppofed to be the fame perfon, who is praifed in the 2d book of the Mac

[2] Præpar. Evangel. 1. cabees, c. 1, X. viii. x. XI. it. 1. xi. v. This

and