Contrast between the Christianity of the New Testament and
That of the Later Centuries--Gnosticism and Allegorical
Interpretation--Testimony of Harnack and Bauer Concerning the
“Hellenization of Christianity”--Hatch on “Pagan Exegesis”--The
“Fathers” as Allegorists; Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Barnabas,
and Others--Examples: “The Red Heifer a Type of Christ”; “Spiritual
Circumcision”; “Scriptural Significance of Foods”; “The Cross in
the Old Testament”; “Why Are There One Hundred and Fifty Psalms?”
“The Phœnix a Type of the Resurrection”; “Gnostic Exposition of the
Decalogue”; “Types of Christ”; Various Examples from Augustine.
The student of history cannot fail to note the wide difference between
the Christianity of the New Testament period and that of the fourth
century. The religion which Christ taught was a direct outgrowth of
Judaism. His mission was “not to destroy but to fulfil.” This He did
by giving a higher conception and a broader view of all which Judaism
had held hitherto. He gave a new meaning to the fatherhood of God.
He explained and enforced the moral precepts of the Old Testament,
developing their deeper spiritual sense, and giving them a new
application to the inner life of men. He enlarged Judaism without
destroying it. He clarified and intensified the ten commandments. He
discarded the outward formalities of the Jews, and “reached the heart
of things” by His interpretation of the ancient Scriptures, by His new
precepts, and by His example. He developed Christianity within the
Jewish Church, making it the efflorescence of all that was best in the
ancient dispensation.
Christ presented love for God, for truth, and for man, as the
mainspring of action in all religious living. Under His teachings
Christianity arose as a new life, springing from the law of God,
written in the hearts of men. New Testament Christianity was a life
born of love, and finding expression in loving obedience. It was a
system of right living, as in the divine presence, and by the help of
the divine Spirit. Men were drawn to each other and to Christ by the
power of this love. Such was Christianity at its birth.
The earliest Christian congregations were communities for holy living,
upon the ground of a mutual faith in Christ. They expected still
greater revelations of Him, and through Him, in the near future. The
facts connected with His life and the memory of His teachings formed
the soil in which Christianity had its earliest roots. A common
hope and the struggle for holy living according to the law of God
bound these communities together. They were made up of Jews alone,
or of Jews and those Gentiles who had been converts to Judaism.
Beyond this common hope there was no settled doctrine, no formal
ecclesiastical organization. There were no written scriptures except
the Old Testament. As the history of Christianity progressed, its
enlarging spirit brought about a conflict with the narrower phases of
Judaism, and hence more or less antagonism towards certain Judaistic
interpretations of the Old Testament.
The Christianity of the third and fourth centuries presents the
strongest possible contrast when placed alongside of that which existed
during the New Testament period. The Sermon on the Mount was the
promulgation of a new law of conduct. “The Nicene Creed is a statement
partly of historical facts, and partly of dogmatic inferences.”[25]
Some adequate reason must be found for this difference. How did this
change in the central character of Christianity come to pass? By what
influences was it transformed from a system of right living to a system
of metaphysical belief; to right thinking rather than right doing?
The answer is suggested by the fact that this change in character is
contemporaneous with the transferring of Christianity from Semitic
to Greek influence. Thus we are brought to face the fact that the
religion of a given people at a given time bears certain definite
relations to the mental attitude of that time. Religion is a part of
common life which cannot be separated from its surroundings. While we
may consider religious problems as distinct from other questions, they
can never be understood except as a part of the complex life with which
they are interwoven.
We therefore must commence by inquiring after the characteristics of
the pagan world into which the infant Christianity passed when the
stream of its history left the soil of Palestine and entered the field
of Greek and Roman influences.
Gnosticism.
Long before the time of Christ the Oriental religions had developed a
system of philosophy in which were the seeds of that which in later
times was known as gnosticism. This claimed to hold within itself “the
knowledge of God and of man, of the being and the providence of the
former, and of the creation and destiny of the latter.”[26] In its
journey westward this system had mingled with Jewish thought and given
rise to the Kabbalists or Jewish Gnostics. In the Oriental religions
all external phenomena expressed a hidden meaning. Applying this
doctrine to the Scriptures, the Jewish Gnostics taught that a hidden
meaning was to be found in all laws, ceremonies, and rituals. They
invented the theory that a secret tradition had been handed down from
the time of Moses; the interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures had been
greatly perverted in this way. Gnosticism said: “Nothing is what it
seems to be; everything tangible is the symbol of something invisible.
By this means the history of the Old Testament was sublimated into a
history of the emancipation of reason from sense.”[27] This application
of the allegorical method of interpretation to the Old Testament
enabled pagan philosophers to draw from it whatever fancies they chose.
This method also favored a tendency among the early Christians to
interpret the Old Testament so as to find upon every leaf of the book
some reference to Christ and the Christian religion. Thus gnosticism
had prepared the way for the obliteration of the concrete positiveness
of the Old Testament, and destroyed its authority in a great degree.
The entire Grecian world was thoroughly permeated as to its literature
and philosophy with the spirit and practice of gnosticism. It formed
the bridge between Judaism on its intellectual side, and the Oriental,
Grecian, and Egyptian cults. When the infant Christianity came in
contact with Greek thought, gnostic influences and tendencies assailed
it on every hand. Thus, through a gnostic element already within the
Jewish Church, and the cultured, powerful gnostic influences in the
pagan world, nascent Christianity was like the traveller from Jerusalem
to Jericho who fell among thieves. The intellectual unrest of the age
favored the process of corruption which went rapidly forward.
Biblical Exegesis.
Whatever touches the Bible and its interpretation touches Christianity
at a vital point. The fundamental difference between the pagan
gnosticism and Christianity lay in the fact that Christianity was a
revealed religion, finding its beginning and end in the divine love and
life unfolded in Christ Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. On the contrary,
gnosticism found its source in human reasoning, human philosophy, and
speculations.
Dr. SCHAFF describes its influence when he says:
“It exaggerates the Pauline view of the distinction of Christianity
from Judaism, sunders Christianity from its historical basis,
resolves the real humanity of the Saviour into a doketistic
illusion, and perverts the freedom of the Gospel into Antinomian
licentiousness. The author or first representative of this baptized
heathenism, according to the uniform testimony of Christian
antiquity, is Simon Magus, who unquestionably adulterated
Christianity with pagan ideas and practices, and gave himself out, in
pantheistic style, for an emanation of God. Plain traces of [of the
existence of] this error appear in the later epistles of Paul to the
Colossians, to Timothy, and to Titus, the second epistle of Peter,
and the first two epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the
messages of the Apocalypse to the seven churches.”[28]
This rapid survey of the field shows us that gnostic influences
represent what Professor HARNACK calls “_The acute vulgarization of
Christianity, or its Hellenization_.” We are therefore prepared to
accept his testimony relative to the influence of the Gnostics as
formulators of Christian doctrine. The following are his words:
“Under this view the Gnostics should be given their place in the
history of dogmas as has not been done hitherto. They are simply
the theologians of the first century; they were the first to
transform Christianity into a system of doctrines. They were the
first to elaborate tradition systematically; they undertook to prove
Christianity to be the absolute religion, and by it to hunt down
all other religions, including Judaism; but to them the absolute
religion, so far as its content was concerned, was identical with
the results of religious philosophy, for which a revelation was to
be sought as a foundation. Thus they became Christians who tried by
quick measures to win Christianity for the Hellenic culture, and the
Hellenic culture for Christianity. To this end they would surrender
the Old Testament that they might make it more easy to establish
the union between the two powers, and to gain the possibility of
proclaiming the absoluteness of Christianity....
“We may also consider the majority of the gnostic efforts as efforts
to transform Christianity into a theosophy, or, so to say, into a
system of revealed metaphysics, with a complete disregard for the
Jewish Old Testament foundation, on which it originated, and by the
use of the Pauline ideas. We can also compare later writers, such
as Barnabas and Ignatius, with the so-called Gnostics, by which the
latter will be seen to possess a well formulated theory, and the
former to be in possession of fragments which bear a remarkable
likeness to said theory.”[29]
BAUER, a careful student of gnosticism, gives a description of
its mission and methods which shows how it was prepared to exert
such a controlling influence on the history of early Christianity,
and how destructive that influence was in the matter of biblical
interpretation. He says:
“_Gnosis_ and allegory are essentially allied conceptions; and this
affords us a very marked indication of the path which will really
lead us to the origin of gnosticism; for we shall find that allegory
plays an important part in most of its systems, especially in those
which exhibit its original form.
“It is well known that allegory is the soul of the Alexandrian
religious philosophy. Nothing else, indeed, can enable us to
understand the rise of the latter, so closely is allegory interwoven
with its very nature. Allegory is in general the mediator between
philosophy and the religion which rests upon positive tradition.
Wherever it is seen on a large scale, we notice that philosophical
views have arisen side by side with, and independently of, the
existing religion; and that the need has arisen to bring the ideas
and doctrines of philosophy into harmony with the contents of the
religious belief. In such circumstances, allegory appears in the
character of mediator. It brings about the desired conformity by
simply interpreting the belief in the sense of the philosophy.
Religious ideas and narratives are thus clothed with a figurative
sense, which is entirely different from their literal meaning. It
was thus that allegory arose before the Christian time among the
Greeks. The desire was felt first by Plato, and afterward still more
strongly by the Stoics, to turn the myths of the popular religion
to account on behalf of their philosophical ideas, and so to bridge
over the gulf between the philosophical and the popular mind; and
with this view they struck out the path of allegory, of allegorical
interpretation of the myths. It is well known what extensive use the
Stoics made of allegory when they wished to trace their own ideas
of the philosophy of nature in the gods of popular belief, and the
narratives concerning them.
“But in Alexandria, this mode of interpretation assumed still greater
importance. Here it had to solve the weighty problem, how the new
ideas that had forced their way into the mind and consciousness of
the Jew, were to be reconciled with his belief in the authority
of his sacred religious books. Allegory alone made it possible to
him, on the one hand, to admire the philosophy of the Greeks, and
in particular of Plato, and to make its ideas his own; and, on the
other, to reverence the Scripture of the Old Testament as the one
source of divinely revealed truth. The sacred books needed but to be
explained allegorically, and then all that was wished for, even the
boldest speculative ideas of the Greek mind, could be found in the
books themselves. How widely this method was practised in Alexandria,
may be judged from the writings of Philo, in which we see the most
extensive use made of allegorical interpretation, and find the
contents of the Old Testament blended intimately with everything that
the systems of Greek philosophy could offer. But it would be quite
erroneous to think that it was nothing but caprice and the unchecked
play of fancy, that called forth this allegorical explanation of
the Scriptures, which came to exercise such influence. For to the
Alexandrian Jew, at the stage of scriptural development which he had
now reached, with his consciousness divided between his ancestral
Hebraism and modern Hellenism, this allegorizing was a necessary form
of consciousness; and so little did he dream that the artificial link
by which he bound together such diverse elements was a thing he had
himself created, that all the truth which he accepted in the systems
of Greek philosophy seemed to him to be nothing but an emanation from
the Old Testament revelation.
“Now the gnostic systems also, for the most part, make very free
use of the allegorical method of interpretation; and this is enough
to apprise us that we must regard them under the same aspect as the
Alexandrian religious philosophy. As far as we are acquainted with
the writings of the Gnostics, we see them to have been full of
allegorical interpretations, not indeed referring, as with Philo, to
the books of the Old Testament (for their attitude toward the Old
Testament was entirely different from his); but to those of the New,
which were for the Gnostics what the books of the Old Testament were
for Philo.
“In order to give their own ideas a Christian stamp, they applied
the allegorical method, as much as possible, to the persons and
events of the Gospel history, and especially to the numbers that
occur in it. Thus for the Valentinians the number thirty in the New
Testament, especially in the life of Jesus, was made to signify the
number of their æons; the lost wandering sheep was for them their
Achamoth; and even the utterances of Jesus, which contain a perfectly
simple religious truth, received from them a sense referring to the
doctrines of their system.
“The lately discovered _Philosophoumena_ of the pseudo-Origen who
undertook the task of refuting all the heresies show us even more
clearly than before what an extensive use the Gnostics made of
allegory.
“They applied it not merely to the books of the Old and New
Testaments, but even the products of Greek literature, for instance,
to the Homeric poems; their whole mode of view was entirely
allegorical.
“The whole field of ancient mythology, astronomy, and physics, was
laid under contribution to support their views. They thought that the
ideas that were the highest objects of their thought and knowledge
were to be found expressed everywhere.”[30]
HATCH offers important testimony as to the pagan elements in early
exegesis, in these words:
“The earliest methods of Christian exegesis were continuations of the
methods which were common at the time to both Greek and Græco-Judæan
writers. They were employed on the same subject-matter. Just as
the Greek philosophers had found their philosophy in Homer, so
Christian writers found in him Christian theology. When he represents
Odysseus as saying,[31] ‘The rule of many is not good; let there be
one ruler,’ he means to indicate that there should be but one God;
and his whole poem is designed to show the mischief that comes of
having many gods.[32] When he tells us that Hephæstus represented
on the shield of Achilles ‘the earth, the heaven, the sea, the sun
that rests not, and the moon full-orbed,’[33] he is teaching the
divine order of creation which he learned in Egypt from the books
of Moses.[34] So Clement of Alexandria interprets the withdrawal of
Oceanus and Tethys from each other to mean the separation of land and
sea.[35] And he holds that Homer when he makes Apollo ask Achilles,
‘Why fruitlessly pursue him, a god,’ meant to show that the divinity
cannot be apprehended by the bodily powers.[36]
“Some of the philosophical schools which hung upon the skirts of
Christianity mingled such interpretations of Greek mythology
with similar interpretations of the Old Testament. For example,
the writer to whom the name Simon Magus is given, is said to have
‘interpreted in whatever way he wished both the writings of Moses and
also those of the Greek poets’[37]; and the Ophite writer, Justin,
evolves an elaborate cosmogony from a story of Herakles narrated in
Herodotus,[38] combined with the story of the Garden of Eden.[39]...
“A large part of such interpretation was inherited. The coincidences
of mystical interpretation between Philo and the _Epistle of
Barnabas_ show that such interpretation were becoming the common
property of Jews and Judæo-Christians. But the method was soon
applied to new data. Exegesis became apologetic. Whereas Philo and
his school had dealt mainly with the Pentateuch, the early Christian
writers came to deal mainly with the prophets and poetical books;
and whereas Philo was mainly concerned to show that the writings of
Moses contained Greek philosophy, the Christian writers endeavored to
show that the writings of the Hebrew preachers and poets contained
Christianity; and whereas Philo had been content to speak of the
writers of the Old Testament, as Dio Chrysostom spoke of the Greek
poets, as having been stirred by a divine enthusiasm, the Christian
writers soon came to construct an elaborate theory that the poets
and preachers were but as the flutes through which the breath of God
flowed in divine music into the soul.”[40]
The Fathers as Allegorists.
Beginning with Justin, the leaders of thought in the Church, from the
middle of the second century, were men who had been brought up as pagan
philosophers, or educated under pagan influence. It was therefore
unavoidable that this corrupting system of exegesis should be applied
to the books of the New Testament. This was done by the Gnostics,
according to their theory that the true meaning of all writings was
hidden. Christ’s life presented many difficulties to the philosophers.
To explain its seeming contradiction, they resolved the mission of
Christ into a series of superhuman movements, and the New Testament
into a sort of hieroglyphic record of those movements. Instance:
Simeon, taking the young Christ in his arms in the temple,
“was a type of the Demiurge, who, on the arrival of the Saviour,
learned his own change of place, and gave thanks to Bythus. They also
assert that by Anna, who is spoken of in the Gospel as a prophetess,
and who, after living seven years with her husband, passed all
the rest of her life in widowhood until she saw the Saviour, and
recognized Him, and spoke of Him to all, was most plainly indicated
Achamoth, who, having for a little while looked upon the Saviour
with his associates, and dwelling all the rest of the time in the
intermediate place, waited for Him till He should come again and
restore her to her proper consort. Her name, too, was indicated by
the Saviour when he said, ‘Yet wisdom is justified by her children.’
This, too, was done by Paul in these words, ‘But we speak wisdom
among them that are perfect.’ They declare also that Paul has
referred to the conjunctions within the Pleroma, showing them forth
by means of one; for, when writing of the conjugal union in this
life, he expressed himself thus: ‘This is a great mystery, but I
speak concerning Christ and the Church.’”[41]
Another instance is found in the interpretation which they made of the
raising of Jairus’ daughter:
“They maintain further, that that girl of twelve years old, the
daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, whom the Lord approached
and raised from the dead, was a type of Achamoth, to whom their
Christ, by extending himself, imparted shape, and whom he led anew
to the perception of that light which had forsaken her. And that
the Saviour appeared to her when she lay outside of the Pleroma
as a kind of abortion, they affirm Paul to have declared in his
_Epistle to the Corinthians_ (in these words): ‘And last of all, He
appeared to me also, as to one born out of due time.’ Again, the
coming of the Saviour with His attendants, to Achamoth is declared
in like manner by him in the same epistle, when he says: ‘A woman
ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels.’ Now that
Achamoth, when the Saviour came to her, drew a veil over herself
through modesty, Moses rendered manifest when he put a veil upon his
face. Then, also, they say that the passions which she endured were
indicated by the Lord upon the cross. Thus, when He said, ‘My God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ he simply showed that Sophia
was deserted by the light, and was restrained by Horos from making
any advance forward. Her anguish again was indicated when He said,
‘My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death’; her fear by the
words, ‘Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me’; and
her perplexity, too, when He said, ‘And what I shall say, I know
not.’”[42]
This Method Opposed by Some.
Some of the early Fathers, those who were least tinctured with Greek
thought, especially Tertullian, opposed this method at the first.
He declared that it was one of the arts of Satan, against which
Christians must wrestle. But the system was too deep-seated in all the
prevailing currents of influence to be displaced. Even while Tertullian
was opposing it, it was tightening its grasp upon the Christian
communities; a grasp which is by no means yet removed. Starting first
at Alexandria and strengthened by the union of Greek philosophy and
Hebrew theology, it gathered force like an increasing tide, and
overwhelmed all other forms of exegesis. A pertinent example is found
in Clement of Alexandria, in a philippic against the Sophists:
“Look to the tongue and to the words of the glozing man,
But you look on no work that has been done;
But each one of you walks in the steps of a fox,
And in all of you is an empty mind.”
CLEMENT of Alexandria comments on this as follows:
“This, I think, is signified by the utterance of the Saviour, ‘The
foxes have holes, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.’
For on the believer alone, who is separated entirely from the rest,
who by the Scripture are called wild beasts, rests the head of the
universe, the kind and gentle Word, ‘Who taketh the wise in their
own craftiness. For the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that
they are vain’; the Scripture calling those the wise (σοφοὺς) who are
skilled in words and arts, sophists (σοφιστὰς).”[43]
In another place the story of the feeding of the multitude by Christ is
explained in these words:
“And the Lord fed the multitude of those that reclined on the grass
opposite to Tiberias with the two fishes and the five barley loaves,
indicating the preparatory training of the Greeks and Jews previous
to the divine grain, which is the food cultivated by the law. For
barley is sooner ripe for the harvest than wheat; and the fishes
signified the Hellenic philosophy that was produced and moved in the
midst of the Gentile billow, given, as they were, for copious food to
those lying on the ground, increasing no more, like the fragments of
the loaves, but having partaken of the Lord’s blessing, had breathed
into them the resurrection of God-head through the power of the Word.
But if you are curious, understand one of the fishes to mean the
curriculum of study, and the other the philosophy which supervenes.
The gatherings point out the word of the Lord.”[44]
Christianity, according to the New Testament, could not be developed
under such exegesis. These pagano-Christian leaders had still greater
love for the allegorical method because it enabled them to “explain
away” the difficulties which they found in considering Christianity--as
they conceived of it--to be the product of the Old Testament. From
the first they had identified the God of the Old Testament with the
Demiurge, the creator of the world and of matter, in which was only
evil. They claimed that Jehovah could not make a revelation for all
time, nor one worthy of their confidence. Hatch, speaking of the Old
Testament, says:
“An important section of the Christian world rejected its authority
altogether; it was the work, not of God, but of His rival, the god
of this world; the contrast between the Old Testament and the New
was part of the larger contrast between matter and spirit, darkness
and light, evil and good. This was the contention of Marcion, whose
influence upon the Christian world was far larger than is commonly
supposed.”[45]
Further Examples.
Still further examples of the fanciful perversions of the Scriptures,
by the Fathers, are presented in order that the reader may be left
without a doubt as to the ruinous effects which the pagan allegorizing
methods produced upon the infant Church.
_The Epistle of Barnabas_, falsely attributed to the companion of Paul,
is a notable example of unmeaning allegories which totally pervert the
Scriptures. Take the following examples:
“THE RED HEIFER A TYPE OF CHRIST.[46]
“Now what do you suppose this to be a type of, that a command was
given to Israel, that men of the greatest wickedness should offer
a heifer, and slay and burn it, and that then boys should take the
ashes, and put these into vessels, and bind round a stick purple wool
along with hyssop, and that thus the boys should sprinkle the people
one by one, in order that they might be purified from their sins?
Consider how he speaks to you with simplicity. The calf is Jesus; the
sinful men offering it are those who led Him to the slaughter. But
now the men are no longer guilty, are no longer regarded as sinners.
And the boys that sprinkle are those that have proclaimed to us
the remission of sins and purification of heart. To these He gave
authority to preach the gospel, being twelve in number, corresponding
to the twelve tribes of Israel. But why are there three boys that
sprinkle? To correspond to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, because
these were great with God. And why was the wool [placed] upon the
wood? Because by wood Jesus holds His kingdom, so that [through the
cross] those believing on Him shall live forever. But why was hyssop
joined with the wool? Because in His kingdom the days will be evil
and polluted in which we shall be saved, [and] because he who suffers
in body is cured through the cleansing efficacy of hyssop. And on
this account the things which stand thus are clear to us, but obscure
to them, because they did not hear the voice of the Lord.”[47]
Chapter ix. discusses the spiritual meaning of circumcision. The
closing portion of the chapter is as follows:
“Yea, the Egyptians also practise circumcision. Learn then, my
children, concerning all things richly, that Abraham, the first who
enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practised
that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For
[the Scripture] saith, ‘And Abraham circumcised ten and eight and
three hundred men of his household.’ What then was the knowledge
given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three
hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted--ten by I, and eight
by H. You have [the initials of] Jesus, and because the cross was
to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter T, he says
also, ‘three hundred.’ He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters,
and the cross by one. He knows this, who has put within us the
engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a
more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are
worthy.”[48]
The tenth chapter, which treats of the _Spiritual Significance of
the Precepts of Moses Respecting Different Kinds of Food_, can be
quoted only in part; portions of it are unfit for the public eye, and
yet these portions, gross as they are, are solemnly set forth as an
exegesis of Scripture. The chapter follows here, except the grosser
sentences:
“Now, wherefore did Moses say, ‘Thou shalt not eat the swine, nor
the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the raven, nor any fish which is not
possessed of scales?’ He embraced three doctrines in his mind [in
doing so]. Moreover, the Lord saith to them in Deuteronomy, ‘And I
will establish my ordinances among this people.’ Is there then not
a command of God that they should not eat [these things]? There is;
but Moses spoke with a spiritual reference. For this reason he named
the swine, as much as to say, ‘Thou shalt not join thyself to men who
resemble swine,’ for when they live in pleasure they forget their
Lord; but when they come to want they acknowledge the Lord. And [in
like manner] the swine, when it has eaten, does not recognize its
master; but when hungry it cries out, and on receiving food is quiet
again. ‘Neither shalt thou eat,’ says he, ‘the eagle, nor the hawk,
nor the kite, nor the raven.’ ‘Thou shalt not join thyself,’ he
means, ‘to such men as know not how to procure food for themselves by
labor and sweat, but seize on that of others in their iniquity, and,
although wearing an aspect of simplicity, are on the watch to plunder
others.’ So these birds, while they sit idle, inquire how they may
devour the flesh of others, proving themselves pests [to all] by
their wickedness. ‘And thou shalt not eat,’ he says, ‘the lamprey,
or the polypus, or the cuttle-fish.’ He means, ‘Thou shalt not join
thyself or be like to such men as are ungodly to the end, and are
condemned to death.’ In like manner as those fishes above accursed,
float in the deep, not swimming [on the surface] like the rest, but
make their abode in the mud which lies at the bottom....
“Moses then issued three doctrines concerning meats with a spiritual
significance; but they received them according to fleshly desire
as if he had merely spoken of [literal] meats. David, however,
comprehends the knowledge of the three doctrines, and speaks in like
manner: ‘Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of
the ungodly,’ even as the fishes [referred to] go in darkness to the
depths [of the sea], ‘and hath not stood in the way of sinners,’ even
as those who profess to fear the Lord, but go astray like swine; ‘and
hath not sat in the seat of the scorners’ even as those birds that
lie in wait for prey. Take a full and firm grasp of this spiritual
knowledge. But Moses says still further, ‘Ye shall eat every animal
that is cloven-footed and ruminant.’ What does he mean? [The ruminant
animal denotes him] who on receiving food recognizes Him that
nourishes him, and being satisfied by Him, is visibly made glad. Well
spake [Moses] having respect to the commandment. What then does he
mean? That we ought to join ourselves to those that fear the Lord,
those who meditate in their heart on the commandment which they have
received, those who both utter the judgments of the Lord and observe
them, those who know that meditation is a work of gladness, and who
ruminate upon the word of the Lord. But what means the cloven-footed?
That the righteous man also walks in this world, yet looks forward to
the holy state [to come]. Behold how well Moses legislated. But how
was it possible for them to understand or comprehend these things?
We then, rightly understanding his commandments, explain them as
the Lord intended. For this purpose He circumcised our ears and our
hearts, that we might understand these things.”[49]
Chapter xii. is a meaningless discussion of the cross as prefigured in
the Old Testament. A part of the chapter will suffice.
“In like manner he points to the cross of Christ in another prophet,
who saith, ‘And when shall these things be accomplished?’ And the
Lord saith, ‘When a tree shall be bent down, and again arise, and
when blood shall flow out of wood.’[50] Here again you have an
intimation concerning the cross and Him who should be crucified.
Yet again he speaks of this in Moses, when Israel was attacked by
strangers. And that He might remind them, when assailed, that it was
on account of their sins they were delivered to death, the Spirit
speaks to the heart of Moses, that he should make a figure of the
cross, and of Him about to suffer thereon; for unless they put their
trust in Him they shall be overcome forever. Moses, therefore, placed
one weapon above another in the midst of the hill, and standing upon
it, so as to be higher than all the people, he stretched forth his
hands, and thus again Israel acquired the mastery. But when again he
let down his hands, they were again destroyed. For what reason? That
they might know that they could not be saved unless they put their
trust in Him. And in another prophet he declares, ‘All day long I
have stretched forth my hands to an unbelieving people, and one that
gainsays my righteous way.’ And again Moses makes a type of Jesus
[signifying] that it was necessary for him to suffer, [and also] that
He would be the author of life [to others] whom they believed, to
have destroyed on the cross when Israel was falling.”[51]
JUSTIN MARTYR is an eminent example of one who perverted the Scriptures
while claiming to explain them. Witness the following from the account
of his conversion to Christianity:
“And when I had quoted this, I added, ‘Hear then how this man, of
whom the Scriptures declare that He will come again in glory after
His crucifixion, was symbolized both by the tree of life, which was
said to have been planted in paradise, and by those events which
should happen to all the just.’ Moses was sent with a rod to effect
the redemption of the people; and with this in his hands, at the head
of the people, he divided the sea. By this he saw the water gushing
out of the rock; and when he cast a tree into the waters of Marah,
which were bitter, he made them sweet. Jacob, by putting rods into
the water troughs, caused the sheep of his uncle to conceive, so that
he should obtain their young. With his rod the same Jacob boasts that
he had crossed the river. He said that he had seen a ladder, and the
Scripture has declared that God stood above it.
“But that this was not the Father we have proved from the Scriptures.
And Jacob having poured oil on a stone in the same place is testified
to by the very God who appeared to him, that he had anointed a pillar
to the God who appeared to him. And that the stone symbolically
proclaimed Christ, we have also proved by many Scriptures; and that
the unguent, whether it was of oil or of stacte, or of any other
compounded sweet balsams, had reference to Him we have also proved,
inasmuch as the word says, ‘Therefore God, even thy God, hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.’ For indeed
all kings and anointed persons obtained from Him their share in the
names of kings and anointed; just as he himself received from the
Father the titles of King, and Christ, and Priest, and Angel, and
such like other titles which He bears or did bear. Aaron’s rod which
blossomed, declared him to be the high priest. Isaiah prophesied
that a rod would come forth from the root of Jesse [and this was]
Christ. And David says that the righteous man is ‘like the tree that
is planted by the channels of waters, which should yield its fruit
in its season, and whose leaf should not fade.’ Again, the righteous
is said to flourish like the palm tree. God appeared from a tree to
Abraham, as it is written, near the oak in Mamre. The people found
seventy willows and twelve springs after crossing the Jordan. David
affirms that God comforted him with a rod and staff. Elisha, by
casting a stick into the river Jordan, recovered the iron part of the
axe with which the sons of the prophets had gone to cut down trees
to build the house, in which they wished to read and study the law
and commandments of God; even as our Christ, by being crucified on
the tree, and by purifying [us] with water, has redeemed us, though
plunged in the direst offences, which we have committed, and has
made [us] a house of prayer and adoration. Moreover, it was a rod
that pointed out Judah to be the father of Tamar’s sons by a great
mystery.”[52]
Still more confusing fancies, under the name of exegesis, appear near
the close of the _Dialogue_. Witness the following:
“‘You know then, sirs,’ I said, ‘that God has said in Isaiah to
Jerusalem, “I saved thee in the deluge of Noah.”[53] By this, which
God said, was meant that the mystery of saved men appeared in the
deluge. For righteous Noah, along with the other mortals at the
deluge, _i. e._, with his own wife, his three sons, and their wives,
being eight in number, were a symbol of the eighth day wherein Christ
appeared when He rose from the dead, forever the first in power. For
Christ being the first-born of every creature, became again the chief
of another race regenerated by Himself through water, and faith, and
wood, containing the mystery of the cross; even as Noah was saved by
wood when he rode over the waters with his household. Accordingly,
when the prophet says, “I saved thee in the times of Noah,” as I have
already remarked, he addresses the people who are equally faithful
to God, and possess the same signs. For when Moses had the rod in
his hands he led your nation through the sea. And you believe that
this was spoken to your nation only, or to the land. But the whole
earth, as the Scripture says, was inundated, and the water rose in
height fifteen cubits above all the mountains; so that it is evident
this was not spoken to the land, but to the people who obeyed Him,
for whom also He had before prepared a resting-place in Jerusalem, as
was previously demonstrated by all the symbols of the deluge; I mean
that by water, faith, and wood, those who are afore prepared, and who
repent of the sins which they have committed, shall escape from the
impending judgment of God.’”[54]
Another illustration of the utterly unmeaning and fanciful
interpretations of Scripture is found in _Fragments from Commentaries
on Various Books of Scripture_, by HIPPOLYTUS, Bishop of Rome. He is
explaining why there are one hundred and fifty psalms. The main reason
adduced is that fifty is a sacred number, and the Psalms, on account
of the destruction of God’s enemies, should contain not only one set
of fifty, but three such, for the name of the Father, and Son, and
Holy Spirit. The sacred character of the number fifty is explained as
follows:
“The number fifty, moreover, contains seven sevens, or a Sabbath
of Sabbaths, and also over and above these full Sabbaths, a new
beginning in the eighth, of a really new rest that remains above the
Sabbaths. And let any one who is able observe this [as it is carried
out] in the Psalms with more, indeed, than human accuracy, so as to
find out the reasons in each case, as we shall set them forth. Thus,
for instance, it is not without a purpose that the eighth Psalm
has the inscription, _on the wine presses_, as it comprehends the
perfection of fruits in the eighth; for the time for the enjoyment
of the fruits of the true vine could not be before the eighth. And
again, the second Psalm inscribed, _on the wine presses_, is the
eightieth, containing another eighth number, viz., in the tenth
multiple. The eighty-third again is made up by the union of two holy
numbers, viz., the eighth in the tenth multiple, and the three in the
first multiple. And the fiftieth Psalm is a prayer for the remission
of sins, and a confession. For, as according to the Gospel, the
fiftieth obtained remission confirming thereby that understanding of
the jubilee, so he who offers up such petitions in full confession
hopes to gain remission in no other number than the fiftieth. And
again there are also certain others which are called _songs of
degrees_, in number fifteen, as was also the number of the steps of
the temple, and which show thereby, perhaps, that the _steps_ (or
_degrees_) are comprehended within the number seven and the number
eight. And these songs of degrees begin after the one hundred and
twentieth Psalm, which is called simply a _Psalm_, as the more
accurate copies give it. And this is the number of the perfection of
the life of man. And the hundredth Psalm, which begins thus, _I will
sing of mercy and judgment, O Lord_, embraces the life of the saint
in fellowship with God. And the one hundred and fiftieth ends with
these words, _Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord_.”[55]
CLEMENT OF ROME, one of the earliest Fathers from whom anything genuine
has come to our time, presents other prominent examples of myth and
allegory, as follows:
“Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which
takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia, and the countries
round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phœnix. This
is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And
when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it
builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices,
into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as
the flesh decays, a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being
nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then
when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the
bones of its parent, and, bearing these, it passes from the land of
Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And in open day,
flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the
sun, and, having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The
priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and finds that it
has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.”[56]
Here is a pagan sun-myth gravely set forth as fact, and made to
illustrate a Christian truth; an example of what was common in the
writings and theories of those who became leaders in the Church.
The Bible, with its simple truths and plain ethical teachings, was an
insipid book to men whose tastes had become abnormal and perverted
through feeding on such pagan fancies and superstitions.
One more example from CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. It must be remembered
that the “Christian” writers who condemn gnosticism as a heresy still
claimed that there was a “true Christian gnosticism”; the difference
between them and those whom they condemned was in degree more than in
kind. The following extracts are from Clement’s _Gnostic Exposition of
the Decalogue_. It needs little to show that when the law of God was
thus expounded, its power and authority were practically destroyed.
Such expositions were part and parcel of the lawlessness which was the
unavoidable fruitage of gnosticism. Clement says:
“And the Decalogue, viewed as an image of heaven, embraces sun and
moon, stars, clouds, light, wind, water, air, darkness, fire. This is
the physical Decalogue of the heaven.
“And the representation of the earth contains men, cattle, reptiles,
wild beasts; and of the inhabitants of the water, fishes and whales;
and again of the winged tribes, those that are carnivorous, and those
that use mild food; and of plants likewise, both fruit-bearing and
barren. This is the physical Decalogue of the earth.
“And there is a ten in man himself: the five senses and the
power of speech, and that of reproduction; and the eighth is the
spiritual principle communicated at his creation; and the ninth,
the ruling faculty of the soul; and tenth, there is the distinctive
characteristic of the Holy Spirit, which comes to him through faith.
“Besides, in addition to these ten human parts, the law appears to
give its injunctions to sight and hearing, and smell and touch and
taste, and to the organs subservient to these, which are double the
hands and the feet. For such is the formation of man. And the soul
is introduced, and previous to it the ruling faculty, by which we
reason, not produced in procreation; so that without it there is made
up the number ten, of the faculties by which all the activity of man
is carried out....
“Is not man, then rightly said ‘to have been made in the image of
God’?--not in the form of his [corporeal] structure; but inasmuch
as God creates all things by the Word (λόγῳ) and the man who has
become a Gnostic performs good actions by the faculty of reason (τῷ
λογικῷ) properly therefore the two tables are also said to mean
the commandments that were given to the twofold spirits--those
communicated before the law to that which was created, and to the
ruling faculty; and the movements of the senses are both copied in
the mind, and manifested in the activity which proceeds from the
body.”[57]
Even TERTULLIAN, who inveighed so strongly against certain phases of
gnosticism, as represented in the Alexandrian schools, has given
interpretations which are no less unreliable and fanciful than those
which he condemns.
Hear him on “Types.”
“_Types of the Death of Christ: Isaac, Joseph; Jacob against Simeon
and Levi; Moses praying against Amalek; the Brazen Serpent._
“On the subject of his death, I suppose you endeavor to introduce
a diversity of opinion, simply because you deny that the suffering
of the cross was predicted of the Christ of the Creator, and
because you contend, moreover, that it is not to be believed that
the Creator would expose His son to that kind of death on which He
had Himself pronounced a curse. ‘Cursed,’ says he, ‘is every one
who hangeth on a tree.’ But what is meant by this curse, worthy as
it is of the simple prediction of the cross, of which we are now
mainly inquiring, I defer to consider, because in another passage,
we have given the reason of the thing preceded by proof. First,
I shall offer a full explanation of the types. And no doubt it
was proper that this mystery should be prophetically set forth by
types, and indeed chiefly by that method; for in proportion to its
incredibility would it be a stumbling block, if it were set forth in
bare prophecy; and in proportion, too, to its grandeur, was the need
of obscuring it in shadow, that the difficulty of understanding it
might lead to prayer for the grace of God. First, then, Isaac, when
he was given up by his father, as an offering, himself carried the
wood for his own death. By this act he even then was setting forth
the death of Christ, who was destined by his Father as a sacrifice,
and carried the cross whereon he suffered. Joseph, likewise, was a
type of Christ, not, indeed, on this ground (that I may not delay my
course) that he suffered persecution for the cause of God from his
brethren, as Christ did from his brethren after the flesh, the Jews;
but when he is blessed by his father in these words, ‘His glory is
that of a bullock; his horns are the horns of a unicorn; with them
shall he push the nations to the very ends of the earth,’--he was
not, of course, designated as a mere unicorn with its one horn, or
a minotaur with two; but Christ was indicated in him--a bullock in
respect of both His characteristics; to some as severe as a judge,
to others gentle as a Saviour, whose horns were the extremities of
his cross. For of the antenna, which is a part of a cross, the ends
are called horns; while the midway stake of the whole frame is the
unicorn. By this virtue, then, of His cross, and in this manner
horned, He is both now pushing all nations through faith, bearing
them away from earth to heaven; and will then push them through
judgment, casting them down from heaven to earth. He will also,
according to another passage in the same Scripture, be a bullock
when he is spiritually interpreted to be Jacob against Simeon and
Levi, which means against the scribes and the pharisees; for it was
from them that these last derived their origin. [Like] Simeon and
Levi, they consummated their wickedness by their heresy, with which
they persecuted Christ. ‘Into their counsel let not my soul enter;
to their assembly let not my heart be united; for in their anger
they slew men,’ that is, the prophets; ‘and in their self-will they
hacked the sinews of a bullock,’ that is, of Christ. For against
Him did they wreak their fury, after they had slain His prophets,
even by affixing Him with nails to the cross. Otherwise it is an
idle thing, when, after slaying men, he inveighs against them for
the torture of a bullock. Again, in the case of Moses, wherefore did
he at that moment particularly, when Joshua was fighting Amalek,
pray in a sitting posture with outstretched hands, when in such a
conflict it would surely have been more seemly to have bent the
knee, and smitten the breast, and to have fallen on the face to the
ground, and in such prostration to have offered prayer? Wherefore,
but because in a battle fought in the name of that Lord who was one
day to fight against the devil, the shape was necessary of that very
cross through which Jesus was to win the victory? Why, once more, did
the same Moses, after prohibiting the likeness of everything, set up
the golden serpent on the pole, and, as it hung there, propose it as
an object to be looked at for a cure? Did he not here also intend
to show the power of our Lord’s cross, whereby that old serpent,
the devil, was vanquished--whereby also to every man who was bitten
by spiritual serpents, but who yet turned with an eye of faith to
it, was proclaimed a cure from the bite of sin, and health for
evermore?”[58]
The allegorizing method continued with great pertinacity. AUGUSTINE,
the master mind of the fifth century, whose influence yet abounds
in the doctrines of both Catholics and Protestants, was under its
sway. With him, as with those who preceded him, this allegorical
interpretation perverted the Scriptures and obscured truth. A single
instance must suffice:
“Hence, also, in the number of the large fishes which our Lord, after
His resurrection, showing this new life, commanded to be taken on
the right side of the ship, there is found the number fifty, three
times multiplied with the addition of three more [the symbol of the
Trinity] to make the holy mystery more apparent; and the disciples’
nets were not broken, because in that new life there shall be no
schism, caused by the disquiet of heretics. Then [in this new life]
man, made perfect and at rest, purified in body and in soul, by
the pure words of God which are like silver purged from its dross,
seven times refined, shall receive his reward, the denarius. So that
with that reward the numbers ten and seven meet in Him. For in this
number seventeen [there is found] as in other numbers representing a
combination of symbols, a wonderful mystery. Nor is it without good
reason that the seventeenth Psalm is the only one which is given
complete in the Book of Kings, because it signifies that kingdom in
which we shall have no enemy. For its title is, ‘A Psalm of David in
the day that the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies
and from the hand of Saul.’ For of whom is David the type, but of
Him who, according to the flesh, was born of the seed of David? He,
in His church, that is, in His body, still endures the malice of
enemies. Therefore the words which from heaven fell upon the ear of
that persecutor whom Jesus slew by His voice, and whom He transformed
into a part of His body (as the food which we use becomes a part
of ourselves), were these: ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?’
And when shall this His body be finally delivered from enemies?
Is it not when the last enemy, death, shall be destroyed? It is
to that time that the number of the one hundred and fifty-three
fishes pertains. For if the number seventeen itself be the side of
an arithmetical triangle, formed by placing above each other rows
of units, increasing in number from one to seventeen, the whole sum
of these units is one hundred and fifty-three: since one and two
make three; three and three, six; six and four, ten; ten and five,
fifteen; fifteen and six, twenty-one; and so on: continue this up to
seventeen, the total one hundred and fifty-three.”[59]
The foregoing examples are neither isolated nor peculiar. They
represent fully and fairly the prevailing methods of exegesis, falsely
so called. Such men shaped the faith and governed the thought of
Christianity west of Palestine after the middle of the second century.
Other fruitage of their system will be found in another chapter, in the
Antinomian and anti-Sabbath doctrines by which the authority of Jehovah
and His word were still further undermined. A careful examination of
the entire group of “Christian writings” of the first five centuries
shows that the age was uncritical and utterly wanting in the learning
and habits of thought which prepare men to interpret the Bible. It
was brought down to the level of the pagan books with which these men
were familiar, both as to its authority and as to the methods by which
its meaning was sought. Indeed, its real meaning was not sought; the
main effort was to show how it accorded with pagan books, and with
the philosophical speculations which were popular. If, in any case,
it was recognized as the supreme authority, the prevailing methods of
interpretation obscured and perverted its meaning, so that men were
not governed by what it really taught. Men who did not have clear and
correct views of the Bible could not impart them to others. The masses
did not possess copies of the Bible, and could not have interpreted it
critically had it been in their hands. KILLEN declares these Fathers to
be untrustworthy and incompetent interpreters of the Bible. These are
his words:
“Earlier writers, such as Origen or Clement of Alexandria, frequently
expounded the word of God in the way in which Neo-Platonists
explained the pagan mythology--that is, they regard it as an allegory
from which they extract whatever meaning happens to be most agreeable
to themselves--and too many continued to adopt the same system
of interpretation. But among the Fathers of the fourth century
there were some who followed sounder principles of exegesis, and
carefully investigated the literal sense of the holy oracles. Still,
comparatively few of the Christian writers even of this period are
very valuable as biblical interpreters. These authors occasionally
contradict themselves, and, without acknowledgment, copy most
slavishly from each other. Jerome argues that the great duty of an
expositor is, not so much to exhibit the mind of the Spirit, as to
set before the reader the conflicting sentiments of interpreters....
“But though we discover in these Fathers so many traces of human
infirmity, we must make allowance for the time in which they lived,
and for the prejudices in which they were educated. Christianity
passed through a terrible ordeal when it suddenly became the religion
of the Empire. Society was by no means prepared for so vast a change.
Already the Gospel had suffered sadly from adulteration, and now
it was more rapidly deteriorated. Many who were quite uninstructed
became pastors of the Church; pagan forms and ceremonies were
incorporated with its ritual; pagan superstitions were recognized
as principles of action; and pagan philosophy corrupted theological
science. A dense cloud of errors soon overspread the whole spiritual
firmament.”[60]
This chapter may well close with the following quotation from UHLHORN,
which shows how nearly Christianity was ruined through the prevalence
of this gnostic allegorizing system, which obscured or perverted the
meaning of the Scriptures, and destroyed their authority. He says:
“I have already called gnosticism the antipode of montanism. Such
indeed it was. If montanism was over-narrow, here we find an
all-embracing breadth. Gnosticism knew how to utilize every mental
product of the age. Elements, Oriental and Occidental, in a curious
medley, philosophy and popular superstition--all were collected and
used as materials for the building of gnostic systems. The myths of
the heathen may be found side by side with the Gospel histories,
which were only myths to the gnostic. One proof text is taken from
the Bible, and the next from Homer or Hesiod, and both alike are used
by an allegorical exegesis to support the ready-made creations of the
author’s fancy. Breadth enough, too, in morality; no trembling fear
of pollution, no anxious care to exclude the influence of heathenism.
It was no fiction inspired by the hatred of heresy, when the gnostics
were said to be very lax in their adhesion to the laws of morality.
Many of them expressly permitted flight from persecution.
“Gnosticism extended far and wide in the second century. There was
something very imposing in those mighty systems which embraced
heaven and earth. How plain and meagre in comparison seemed simple
Christianity! There was something remarkably attractive in the
breadth and liberality of gnosticism. It seemed completely to have
reconciled Christianity with culture. How narrow the Christian Church
appeared! Even noble souls might be captivated by the hope of winning
the world over to Christianity in this way; while the multitude was
attracted by the dealing in mysteries with which the gnostic sects
fortified themselves by offering mighty spells and amulets, thus
pandering to the popular taste. Finally some were no doubt drawn in
by the fact that less strictness of life was required, and that they
could thus be Christians without suffering martyrdom.
“But the victory of gnosticism would have been the ruin of
Christianity. Christianity would have split into a hundred sects, its
line of division from heathenism would have been erased, its inmost
essence would have been lost, and instead of producing something
really new, it would have become only an element of the melting mass,
an additional ingredient in the fermenting chaos of religions which
characterized the age.”[61]
When the fountain of formative Christianity was thus widely and early
corrupted, what wonder that the banks of the stream are covered with
pagan _débris_, and that the waters are yet turbid from its sediment?
FOOTNOTES:
[25] _Cf._ Hibbert Lectures for 1888, by Edwin Hatch, D.D., Lecture i.
[26] See _The Gnostics and Their Remains_, by C. W. King, M.A., p. 5,
London, 1887.
[27] See Harnack, _Dogmengeschichte_, vol. i., chap. 4.
[28] _Church History_, vol. i., p. 566, N. Y., 1882.
[29] _Dogmengeschichte_, vol. i., chap. 4.
[30] Bauer, _Church Hist._, vol. i., p. 191, London, 1878.
[31] Hom., _Il._, ii., 204.
[32] _Ps. Justin._ (probably Apollonius, see Dräseke, in the _Jahrb. f.
protestant. Theologie_, 1885, p. 144), chap. xvii.
[33] Hom., _Il._, xviii., 483.
[34] _Ps. Justin._, chap. xxviii.
[35] Hom., _Il._, xiv., 206; also Clem. Alex., _Stroma._, v., 14.
[36] _Il._, xxii., 8; Clem. Alex., _Stroma._, v., 14.
[37] Hippol., _Philosophoumena_, vi., 14.
[38] Herod., iv., 8-10.
[39] Hippol., v., 21.
[40] Hibbert Lectures for 1888, Lecture iii., pp. 69, 70, 72.
[41] Irenæus, _Against Heresies_, book i., chap. viii.
[42] Irenæus, _Against Heresies_, book i., chap. viii.
[43] _Stroma._, book i., chap. iii.
[44] _Strom._, bk. vi., ch. xi.
[45] _Influence of Greek Thought_, etc., p. 77.
[46] In quotations from the Fathers, words and clauses in brackets are
thus printed as “supplied words” in the Ante-Nicene Library of T. & T.
Clark, Edinburgh.
[47] _Epistle_, ch. viii.
[48] _Epistle_, ch. ix.
[49] _Epistle_, chap. x.
[50] This is a real or pretended quotation from some unknown
Apochryphal book.
[51] _Epistle_, chap. xii.
[52] _Dialogue with Trypho_, chap. lxxxvi.
[53] Isaiah liv., 9, may be referred to here, but there is nothing in
Isaiah or elsewhere in the Bible like what Justin here asserts.
[54] _Dialogue_, etc., chap. cxxxviii.
[55] _Ante-Nicene Library_, T. & T. Clark, vol. vi., p. 500.
[56] _Epistle of Clement_, chap. xxv.
[57] _Stromata_, bk. vi., ch. xvi.
[58] _Against Marcion_, book iii., chapter xviii.
[59] Letter lv., chapter xvii., par. 31.
[60] _The Old Catholic Church_, by W. D. Killen, D.D., pp. 99, 100,
Edinburgh, 1871.
[61] _Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism_, pp. 346, 347.