Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

of interpretation, because it was employed by the Greek philosophers themselves. But, though truth is frequently conveyed in the form of an Allegory, the truth, which is thus conveyed, is moral, not historic truth. The narrative, which imparts the Moral, is itself fictitious. If therefore a narrative, professedly historical, be treated as a narrative purely allegorical, the history itself is there. by abandoned. That some moral inference may still be drawn from it, is nothing to the purpose. Moral inferences are drawn from professed fables, which are themselves a kind of allegory. But their value is confined entirely to the application of them; whereas historic facts are recorded for their own sakes, and independently of any moral use, which may afterwards be made of them. If we ascribe then the character of allegory to an historical narrative, we defeat the very purpose, for which the facts, contained in it, were recorded. Besides, if this treatment of an historical narrative is admissible in one case, it is admissible in others: and thus all history, both sacred and profane, may be diverted from its original intent. For nothing is more easy, than such a mode of treatment. We have only to look for some sort of resemblance between the fact, to which allegorical interpretation' shall be applied, and some other fact, (whether near or remote, is of little consequence,) and we obtain at once, upon these principles, the immediate and the ultimate representation of an Allegory;

we have at once an allegorical, instead of an historical narrative. In this manner was the history of our Saviour and the twelve Apostles converted a few years ago by a French writer into a mere Allegory and persons, whose existence is established by the strongest of all possible evidence, were transformed into ideal representations of the Sun and the twelve signs of the Zodiac. By a similar process were the miracles of our Saviour converted into Allegories, in the former part of the last century, by a member of this very University. Indeed this writer imagined, that he had not only the example of the Fathers, but the example also of St. Paul in his favour. And since, according to the words of our authorised version, St. Paul had made an Allegory of one fact, he thought himself at liberty to make an Allegory of another. That St. Paul did not apply the title of Allegory to any historic fact, that he afforded not even a pretext for this mode of allegorical interpretation, was fully proved in the last Lecture. But it would be difficult, if not impossible, to vindicate the conduct of the Fathers. Their mode of allegorizing Scripture was of a very different description from that, which was applied by St. Paul. For instead of applying historical facts, as types of other facts, by which the historical verity is preserved, they often applied them in such a manner, that the historical verity was destroyed. They often explained historical facts, as if real existence no more

attached to them, than to the immediate representation of an Allegory.

We have reason therefore to complain, that the early Fathers have afforded by their own conduct a pretext to modern unbelievers for such a mode of allegorical interpretation. It is true, that a mode, which is indefensible in itself, can derive no real support from the practices of those, to whom authority no more attaches, than to any modern interpreter. And whatever confidence the Church of Rome may repose in the expositions of her Fathers, we may hence learn, that such confidence is ill bestowed. Indeed the early Fathers, by their injudicious conduct in the interpretation of the Bible, not only affected many parts of its history, but placed the Bible itself in a very false and injurious light. Though they silenced, by the aid of Allegory, their immediate opponents, who argued on the same principles, yet the very circumstance, that principles, applied to the defence of the Heathen mythology, were applied also to the defence of the Bible, could produce no other effect, than that of degrading the latter to the level of the former. When a passage of the Bible, conveying professedly an historical fact, was defended against the objections of the Heathens by resolving that passage into a mere Allegory, the veil, which was thus drawn over it, served only to present it in the same dress, in which the Heathens exhibited the fables of their Gods, The latter indeed had some

[ocr errors]

cere.

excuse for their allegorical interpretations; they had reason for concealing under the veil of Allegory their ludicrous and indecorous legends. Hence Arnobius, in his treatise adversus Gentes, addresses himself to a Heathen in the following manner: Istæ omnes historiæ, quæ tibi turpes videntur, atque ad labem pertinere divinam, mysteria in se continent sancta, rationes miras atque altas, nec quas facile quivis possit ingenii vivacitate pernosNeque enim quod scriptum est, atque in primâ est positum verborum fronte, id significatur et dicitur, sed allegoricis sensibus, et subditivis intelliguntur omnia illa Secretis. But that Christian Commentators should in like manner have sought for allegorical senses and hidden meanings in the Bible, where the Sacred Writers have recorded the plain and simple words of Truth, of Truth which has no deformity to hide, and needs not the veil of Allegory, affords equal matter of surprise and of regret.

Nor is this the only evil, which has arisen from such a treatment of Scripture. If the literal or grammatical meaning of a passage may be exchanged at pleasure for an allegorical meaning, the meaning of Scripture will be involved in perfect ambiguity: it will assume as many different forms, as the fancies of interpreters are multifarious. In grammatical interpretation, which is an interpretation of words, there are certain rules of interpretation, from which we cannot depart. But al

attached to them, than to the immediate representation of an Allegory.

We have reason therefore to complain, that the early Fathers have afforded by their own conduct a pretext to modern unbelievers for such a mode of allegorical interpretation. It is true, that a mode, which is indefensible in itself, can derive no real support from the practices of those, to whom authority no more attaches, than to any modern interpreter. And whatever confidence the Church of Rome may repose in the expositions of her Fathers, we may hence learn, that such confidence is ill bestowed. Indeed the early Fathers, by their injudicious conduct in the interpretation of the Bible, not only affected many parts of its history, but placed the Bible itself in a very false and injurious light. Though they silenced, by the aid of Allegory, their immediate opponents, who argued on the same principles, yet the very circumstance, that principles, applied to the defence of the Heathen mythology, were applied also to the defence of the Bible, could produce no other effect, than that of degrading the latter to the level of the former. When a passage of the Bible, conveying professedly an historical fact, was defended against the objections of the Heathens by resolving that passage into a mere Allegory, the veil, which was thus drawn over it, served only to present it in the same dress, in which the Heathens exhibited the fables of their Gods, The latter indeed had some

[graphic]
« ÎnapoiContinuă »