"The Jewish Rabbins (as d Mai"monides tells us) were mightily delight"ed with Allegories, and made fre

quent use of them; not that they "were of Opinion, that the Allegorical "Interpretation was the true Sense of "the Scripture, but because it had fomething Enigmatical in it, that was very pleasant and entertaining." e Philo the few was a great Artist of this kind, and the firft indeed, according to the Opinion of Photius (the great Critick of the Ancients) who taught the Chriftians the way of Allegorizing the Scriptures. Clement of Alexandria greatly cultivated this myftick Art in his Writings; and 'tis certain he deriv'd it from Plato, because he not only imitates, but transcribes him very largely, in feveral Places of his Works. Now it is very well known that Clement was Origen's Mafter, and therefore it is no wonder, that his Example and Inftitutions, falling in with a Temper naturally delighted with the Platonick way, fhould give an Allegorical Turn to his Thoughts; nor is it at all ftrange, that fuch a Perfon, as Origen, who, by his vast, but irregular Wit, was peculiarly fuited to the Nature of myftical Expofition, and, by his

uncom

Mcr. Nevoch. p. 437. Bp. Smallroke's Vind. P. 94.

uncommon Learning, knew fo well how to fupport the moft lively, tho' frequently ill-grounded Imaginations, in a Path fo pleasant and fo popular, fhould have many Followers.

fo

It is to be obferv'd farther, that pub- why enlick Expofitions of Scripture were, at couraged. this time, the only Sermons in use; fand therefore the Fathers, willing, on these Occafions, to excite in the People a Spirit of Piety and Devotion, did not confine themselves to the bare Letter, but endeavour'd, upon the Letter, to raise Spiritual Meanings, and to allegorize upon them, by way of moral Application. They obferv'd too, & that fuch Expofitions gave an agreeable Entertainment to popular Auditories, and warmly affected their Imaginations; and thereupon were encourag'd to pursue them, not only in regard to the Miracles of our Saviour, but almost all the Hiftorical Facts, either in the old or new Teftament. Great Care however was taken to inform their Hearers, that thefe myftical Expo. fitions did not vacate the literal Senfe of the Scriptures; that the reality of Facts ftill ftood firm; nay, that it was the proper Foundation, upon which they raised their Allegories, and without which,

N 3

Bp. Giblon's firft Paft. Lett. p. 28. Bp. Smallbroke's Vindic, p. 115.

Even Ori

fen ac

know

leges the

literal

Sf of

Miracles.

་

h

which, they muft neceffarily degenerate into Trifles, or rather vanish into nothing. And therefore they never imagin'd, that their Expofitions should be fo far abus'd, as to patronize a Separation of their Allegories from the Things they allegoriz'd, and, much less, to favour the Subftitution of their Allegories in the very room of the Facts, which, for good and wholfome Purposes, they thus explain'd.

Origen (as we faid before) was one of the first, and moft noted Writers in this way, and, in fome Places, he seems to give a manifest Preference of the mystical to the literal Interpretation, and well he might, in that it fuited his Genius better: i but fo far is he from not believing, and allowing the Miracles, and other Actions of our Saviour's Life, in a literal Senfe, that, in many Parts of his Book againft Celfus, (which confifts not of popular Difcourfes, but of juft and fober Reasonings) he directly argues from them in Defence of Chriftianity. Thus, in answer to Celfus's Boaftings of the Precepts and Discipline of the Greeks, he urges, that Chriflianity has a more divine Demonftration, which the Apoftle calls the Demonftration of the Spirit and of

h

?

Bp. Smallbroke's Vind. p. 119. Bp. Gibson's

firft Paft. Letter, p. 29.

of Power; and he explains Power to be the Miracles of Chrift, which, fays he, kwe believ'd to have been wrought, as from many other Arguments, fo particularly from this, that the Footsteps of the fame Power do ftill appear. To this purpose he takes Notice, that both Mofes and Jefus did wonderful Works, and fuch as exceeded humane Power; and then expoftulates with the Jews, for believing the Things which Mofes wrought, though recorded fingly by himself, and rejecting the Miracles of Chrift, upon the Teftimony of his Difciples. In like Manner, m fpeaking of Mofes and Chrift, he obferves, that Chrift was to overthrow the Customs, in which the People had been Educated, and to deal with a Nation, that had been taught to require Signs and Wonders, and therefore had at least as great need to fhew them in order to gain Belief, as Mofes, who had not thofe Difficulties to overcome: And laftly, prove that Jefus was the Son of God, he urges his healing the Lame, and the Blind, according to the Prophecy conN 4 cerning

L. 1. p. 5. Edit. Spenc.

'L. I. p. 34.

L. 2. p. 91, 92.

L. 2. p. 87, 88.

n to

cerning him; he fhews the reality of what the Evangelifts relate, of his raifing Perfons from the dead, and why he raised no more; and then adds, that his Miracles were intended not only to be Figures and Symbols, but alfo the Means of converting Multitudes to the Chriftian Faith; whereby he plainly acknowledges the literal, as well as the allegorical meaning of them.

Nay, had ILeifure to gratify the Curious, I might fhew out of his other Works, that are not written with the like Exactness,that, in talking of our Saviour's Miracles, he adheres to their literal, as well as figurative Meaning: "For, P "if all the forts of Difeafes, fays he, "which our Saviour cured among the "People, bear any Relation and Ana"logy to the various Diseases of the "Soul, it is very reasonable to appre“ hend, that, by the Paralyticks in the

:

Gofpel, thofe Perfons are intimated, "who have a moral fort of Palfy in their "Souls" and therefore he affirms, "that, whatever cures Jefus is faid "to perform among the People,efpecially thofe, that are mentioned by the E"vangelifts,were then wrought,that those “ Perfons

Orig. Comment. in Matth, c. 17. 1 Ibid, in Matth, c. 15.