his own image, in a figurative or metaphorical sense: that God made woman, we believe literally; but out of the rib of man, most interpret allegorically: God planted a Garden or Paradise; here commentators are endlessly divided between letter and allegory; some will have it to be in heaven, some on earth, others in a middle region between both. Again: the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, we understand literally; but this subtle creature no sooner accosts Eve, than he becomes an allegorical beast, the old serpent, the old deceiver, Satan. Lastly, as to the punishment denounced on the offenders, I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel; it is all allegory, all mystery.

"Now is it not more rational to follow one uniform, consistent way of interpretation, than to jump at every step so arbitrarily from letter to allegory? And if the letter be found in fact con-trary to reason and the notions we have of God, what is there left but to recur to allegory? for which we have the authority of most of the Primitive Fathers, and the best Jewish writers: and the allegorical way of expounding was so far from giving scandal in former ages of the Church, that, on the contrary, to slight it was looked upon as heretical, and full of dangerous consequences.*

Philo, the most learned and orthodox defender of the Jewish Religion, treats this very history of the Creation and Fall of Man as wholly allegorical. By Paradise, says he, we may sup-. pose enigmatically signified the governing part of the soul, full of various opinions, like so many plants; by the tree of life, piety towards God, the greatest of virtues, by which the soul is made immortal; by the tree of knowledge of good and evil, our common understanding, by which we distinguish things contrary to cach other in nature, &c. And when he comes to the story of the serpent, he gives the same allegorical interpretation of the whole as I have done.

* Propter has, &c.-" For these reasons, the interpreters whom we have mentioned, understanding spiritually all that is said of Paradise, affirmed, that divers heresies originated with certain persons who understood what is said of God and Paradise in a carnal manner." Again: Sunt, &c.-" There are some of the heretics, who maintain, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament ought not to be understood mystically, or otherwise than of the identical things mentioned." Biblioth. Patrum per Marg. De la Bigue, Paris, 1589, tom. i. p. 270, and p. 409, c. 3.

Clement of Alexandria tells us, that all writers whether Barbarians or Greeks, who have ever treated of Theology, have industriously obscured the beginning and origin of things, by delivering the truth in enigmas, symbols, allegories, metaphors, and such like figures. And in another place, that the whole Scripture is written in the Parabolical stylet; for which he gives several reasons. "Eusebius shews, that Moses' history of the Creation of Paradise and the Fall of Man, was delivered by him in this recondite and symbolical way of learning; and that Plato, changing only the names, as of Paradise into the Garden of Jupiter, &c. has copied the whole story, and allegorized it just as Moses had done before him; of which he gives likewise some other examples.§;

"And that the primitive writers in general esteemed the symbolical or figurative interpretation of Scripture, to be on many occasions the only method of vindicating it, is very certain and undeniable for instance, the Mosaic laws about animals clean and unclean were considered by them as wholly allegorical, full of a hidden and mystical meaning. The Law, says Philo, accounts the camel an unclean beast, because, though he chews the cud, he does not divide the hoof: now if we consider this according to the outward letter, it is hard to say, what sense there is in it; but if according to the inward meaning, there is a most clear and necessary one, &c. which he goes on to explain.||

"When Moses told the people, says Barnabas, that they were to abstain from such and such animals; the command of God does not import a real prohibition to eat; but Moses spoke spiritually, and by prohibiting swine's flesh he meant only to say, thou shalt not keep company, or join thyself to such men, as in their manners are like swine, &c.¶

Clemens of Alexandria, Eusebius, Lactantius, &c. follow Barnabas's interpretation: Tertullian goes further, and says, that nothing is so contemptible as the Mosaic laws about the distinction and prohibition of animal food: and Origen, still more freely, that if we take them literally, they are unworthy of God,

+ Ib. 1. vi. p. 803.

* Strom. 1. v. tom. ii. p. 658, Ed. Potter. + Præp Ev. p. 348. Ed. R. Steph. § As it is not probable, that Plato knew any thing of the writings of Moses, the fact that there are in his works passages resembling parts of the beginning of Genesis, corroborates the assertion of E. S. that the beginning of Genesis was taken by Moses from a more Ancient Word. De Agric. p. 206. 1 S. Barn. Ex. c. x. p. 30. Ed. Cot.

and less rational than the laws of men, as of the Romans, Athenians, Lacedæmonians; nay, that some of them are contrary to reason, and impossible to be observed.*

"Thus far, then," concludes Dr. M., you must needs allow me to be orthodox; clear of any attempt either against the authority of Moses or in favour of Infidelity; unless you will involve in the same crime with me the most pious and learned Fathers of the Church, and the ablest Defenders of Christianity in all ages."

His adversary, having, however, returned to the charge, Dr. M. further defends his sentiments on this subject in "Some Remarks on a Reply to the Defence of the Letter to Dr. Waterland." He here fully justifies what he had before asserted, but without advancing much that is new. The following paragraph clearly states the difficulties and inconsistencies of the common interpretations:

"In this history of the Creation, I find the Commentators greatly divided and disagreeing among themselves in their several methods of explaining it. Some prefer the allegorical sense, others the literal: most indeed allow, that both are consistent, and may be used together: but all take a liberty of applying each arbitrarily, without any certain rule, just as their several systems or fancies incline them. So that it is not possible to draw from them all, any uniform and certain principle of true belief and interpretation. It is this I refer to, this I complain of: that those who defend religion so dogmatically, do not state and define what it is, that we Christians are obliged to believe of this story; that they do not determine the bounds of Letter and Allegory; do not fix some settled rule of applying them; but jump, as I say, arbitrarily from one to the other, as each man's whim directs him."

Having occasion to quote Sixtus Senensis, a celebrated writer. of the sixteenth century, who delivers the sentiments of Philo, Austin, Procopius, Origen, and Ambrose, in favour of allegorical interpretation, Dr. M. adds, " And if we would know this author's own opinion of allegorical interpretation, he affirms it to be by far the most useful for the establishment of our faith, and the institution of our manners: and he says further, that should the

*Vid. ibid. Cotelerii. Not. 42.

enemies of the law and the prophets object to us, and demand, for what reason God gave such absurd laws, as to practise circumcision, to kill the lamb, the goat, &c. we should have no way of defending ourselves but by the allegorical sense; without which all those things must needs appear insipid, rustic, and wholly unworthy of the Divine Majesty.* And now, have I advanced any thing like this in favour of Allegory? Yet the author who has advanced it was a man highly esteemed and celebrated in his own time, not only for his learning, which was great, but for his piety and sincere zeal for religion, which were allowed to be as great."

In vindication of Origen, who has always been decried by the sticklers for the letter, and who, though commendable for the superiority of his general principles, not having the clue afforded by the Science of Correspondences to guide him in his attempts to decypher the spiritual meaning of the, Scriptures, must frequently have fallen into errors, Dr. M. makes this statement: I will just give you a short character of him from one of the greatest men that ever lived, Erasmus, who declares, that in the exposition of the Scriptures, allowing for some particular points of faith, he would prefer one Origen to ten Orthodox.”+

66

And he concludes with delivering his own most deliberate sentiments thus: " And 1 now to give my own opinion on this question; I take the use of allegory in the history of the creation and fall of man, to be in some degree necessary, to establish the truth of the Christian religion; since all expositors who have considered with attention the general scheme of Christianity, however differing in other points, have commonly agreed in this. Calmet declares, that it is extremely difficult to expound the first chapters of Genesis literally, especially as to what regards the Fall of Man, and the story of the Serpent.-And Dr. Waterland himself, in vindicating one passage of this very history, about God's walking in the garden, says, that a man must be next to an idiot who understands it literally. As to the letter, one thing at least is certain, that we may assuredly draw this historical truth from it; that God in the beginning created the world and all things in it; and placed man in a state of bliss and happiness, from which he fell by his own sin and folly. But whether this was brought about, exactly, and literally, according to every circumstance of the Sixt. Senens, Biblioth, 1, iii. p. 141. + In Gal. ii. 11.

3

Mosaic account, with all the form and machinery of six days labour, a Paradise, &c. as it is not, in my judgment, material to inquire, so I shall not take upon me to determine. All that I need say further on it is, first, that I never meant to reject the letter of Scripture absolutely, in any case, but where it is found inconsistent with reason and the attributes of God; and there all divines whatsoever must agree with me in rejecting it: Secondly, that had I absolutely rejected it in some cases, I had yet done no more than what several Apologists for Christianity, in all ages, had done before me, whose piety and zeal for religion were never called in question on that account."

I here close my extracts from Dr. Middleton on this subject. In what has been given, if there are some things with which the member of the New Church cannot entirely agree, there is much of which he may make good use. The necessity of relinquishing the literal sense in the early chapters of Genesis, and of admitting a spiritual sense both there and in other places, is powerfully shewn by reason, and the practice of doing so vindicated by the most esteemed authorities. And the want of a regular rule of interpretation, such as the New Church possesses, is strikingly pointed out.*

I am, Gentleman, yours, &c.

A LOVER OF THE WORD.

* The value of the arguments, and the weight of the authorities, thus offered by Dr. Middleton, must be precisely the same, whatever was the character of that author or his design in producing them: were it therefore true, as has been charged against him, that he was an enemy to Divine Revelation in his heart, this would not really affect the validity of what he has here offered. Truth is truth, whether it comes from an enemy or a friend. But after a pretty extensive investigation, I cannot help thinking that the charge against Dr. M. is unjust. The member of the New Church well knows what unfounded reproaches are often made by uncandid theological disputants against their opponents. In the above paper, if Dr. M. uses freedom in his exposure of the untenableness of the common interpretations of the history of the creation and fall, the allegorical explanation which he offers himself, has every appearance of being recommended by him with sincerity and good faith. But surely the following declaration of his sentiments is as full as can be desired, and ought entirely to exonerate him from the imputation of being an intentional enemy to Revelation: it forms the paragraph which immediately follows the last extract given above:

"I shall now," he says, " in the last place, give a distinct account of my