comfiture of his enemies and that both are equally fortunate in the discovery of coincidences.159

We will conclude our view of the mode in which the early fathers interpreted the Scriptures, by a few examples of their comments upon the ceremonial law. These, like the last quotation, are also strictly and properly amphibolical; they only differ from the others in equivocating upon the sense of a sentence, instead of upon the meaning of a word. These also originated with the epistle of Barnabas, and the argument for its authenticity is, therefore, placed in this commanding position; the whole of those passages which were supposed to throw discredit upon it, we can authenticate by a host of authorities from the works of his immediate successors. Consequently the identity of no book out of the sacred canon rests upon so firm a basis of evidence as the epistle of Barnabas.

The reasons of the Mosaic precepts and prohibitions regarding animal food have formed a favourite subject of speculation both with Jewish and Christian mystics in all ages and even commentators of a graver and more solid character seem to become mystical when they approach this portion of Holy Writ. Professing the utmost regard for the general character of many admirable commentaries, which give an ethical interpretation to the eleventh of Leviticus and the fourteenth of Deuteronomy, and teach us to regard the natural habits of the animals there permitted and prohibited, as types of moral qualities

159 The fact that certain prophecies regarding the advents of our Lord have received an inchoate accomplishment at the first, and wait until his second coming for their complete fulfilment, gives no countenance whatever to these interpretations: which refer to events chronologically identical, and point out the same historical personages, as types of two different sets of actors in the same drama.

in men, the possessors of which are in like manner to be sought or avoided, I would submit, that it is by no means an ordinary mode of the divine procedure to wrap up rules and maxims which regard the ordinary conduct of life in amphibologies and enigmas. Types and figures are employed in the Bible to foreshadow future events and dispensations, not to "darken the council" of moral precepts. Another formidable difficulty also arises from the circumstance, that we have not yet ascertained the animals which many of the names employed in these passages are intended to designate: and as, until this question is set at rest, we certainly cannot decide upon the qualities which their habits are to symbolise, it must of course be conceded, even by those who maintain that such is their true meaning, that the whole subject demands further investigation; and I feel persuaded, that if the enquiry be properly conducted, it will be fully elucidated. If I may be permitted to hazard a conjecture upon a matter as yet so imperfectly known, I suspect that they merely embody the customs upon the subject of animal food which the Israelites had adopted during their long sojourn in Egypt; and that they were so sanctioned for the purpose of purifying them from the idolatrous associations with which, in that nation of animal worshippers, they were sure to be mixed up. For if we carefully

observe the mode in which the revelations of God have invariably borne upon those nations, or families of men, to whom they were immediately vouchsafed, we shall find that not only have all needless interferences with the existing customs of ordinary life been avoided, but the new dispensation has, in certain instances, been so framed as expressly to adopt and sanction them. The case before us, (should my conjecture prove correct), will furnish

:

an example of this and similar ones occur also in the Christian, as well as in the Jewish, economies.

Barnabas thus spiritualises the precepts in question: 66 Why did Moses say 'Ye shall not eat of the swine, neither the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the crow, nor any fish that has not a scale upon him ?160 I answer, that in the spiritual sense he comprehended three doctrines that were to be gathered from thence. Besides which, he says to them in the book of Deuteronomy, and I will give my statutes to this people.'161 Wherefore it is not the command of God that they should not eat these things; but Moses in the spirit spoke unto them.162 Now the sow he forbade them to eat; meaning thus much: thou shalt not join thyself unto such persons as are like unto swine: who, whilst they live in pleasure, forget their God; but when any want pinches them, then they know the Lord: as the sow when she is full knows not her master; but when she is hungry she makes a noise; and being again fed, is silent. 6 Neither,' says he shalt thou eat the hawk nor the kite, nor the crow;' that is, Thou shalt not keep company with such kind of men as know not how to labour and sweat to get themselves food: but injuriously ravish away the things of others; and watch how to lay snares for them; when, at the same time, they appear to live in perfect innocence. So these birds seek not food for themselves, but, sitting idle, seek how they may eat of the flesh

6

160 Lev. xi. 9-19. Deut. xiv. 9-19.

161 Deut. iv. 8.

162 He probably meant to say, that the part of the Mosaic writings upon which he is commenting was not inspired to the same degree as the Decalogue. This notion of degrees of inspiration originated with the Hellenising Jews, from whom Barnabas adopted this comment, and is closely allied to the error that the Scripture narratives are parables, which we have traced to the same source.

which others have provided, being destructive through their wickedness. Neither,' says he, shalt thou eat the lamprey, nor the polypus, nor the cuttle fish ;' that is, thou shalt not be like such men by using to converse with them; who are altogether wicked and adjudged to death,163 For so these fishes alone are accursed which wallow in the mire, nor swim, as other fishes, but tumble in the dirt at the bottom of the deep. Moses, therefore, speaking as concerning meats, delivered three great precepts to them in the spiritual signification of these commands: but they, according to the desires of the flesh, understood him as if he had only meant it of meats. And, therefore, David took aright the knowledge (yvos) of this three-fold command, saying in this manner, Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly;' as the fishes before mentioned in the bottom of the deep in darkness; nor stood in the way of sinners,' as they who seem to fear the Lord and yet sin as the sow. • And hath not sat in the seat of the scorners; "164 as those birds who sit and watch that they may devour. Here you have the law perfectly set forth according to the true knowledge of it. But says Moses, 'ye shall eat all that cleaveth the hoof and cheweth the cud;165 signifying thereby such a one as having taken his food, knows him that nourisheth him; and resting upon him rejoiceth in him. But why might they eat those that cleave the hoof?

163 I, for obvious reasons, omit here his comment upon the prohibitions regarding the hare, the hyæna, and the weasel :-their gross absurdity, and filthy indecency, are too well known already. Clement of Alexandria makes this passage in Barnabas the text of an extended and elaborate comment, Pæd., lib. 2. c. 10., concerning which, it may suffice to remark, that in both the qualities just specified he far surpasses his original.

164 Psa. i. 1.

165 Lev. xi. 3, &c

because the righteous liveth in this present world; but his expectation is fixed upon the other. See, brethren, how admirably Moses commanded these things."166

This comment, which is little more than the adoption and Christianization of certain philosophical speculations upon the Mosaic law by the semi-infidel Jew, Philo, 167 was both copied and imitated by the fathers of the second century. We will give a single instance.

Irenæus quotes two texts168 for the purpose of showing that men may, with propriety, be compared to beasts, and then proceeds thus:-"The law also hath figuratively predicted all these things, delineating men by animals. Those that divide the hoof and chew the cud it declares to be clean, but those that fail in either of these are unclean. Who then are clean? They who walk firmly by faith in the Father and the Son; this is the cloven hoof that imparts firmness unto them: and who meditate in the words of God day and night;"169 this is their power of ruminating. The unclean are those who have neither a cloven hoof nor ruminate, that is, who have neither faith in God nor meditate upon his word, which is the abomination of the Gentiles. By them that chew the cud but divide not the hoof,' the Jews are figuratively described; who have, indeed, the Word of God in their mouths, but do not rootedly establish themselves in the Father and the Son. On this account they are liable to stumble; for whole hoofed animals easily slip, but those that are double hoofed walk with a firmer step, because the one hoof supports the other. They also are unclean which cleave the hoof and chew not the cud ;'

166 Barn. Ep. Cath. c. 10.

167 Пepì гewpyías.

Opera, pp. 160 F. et seq.

169 Psa. i. 2. See Barnabas above.

168 Psa. xlix. 20.; Jer. v. 8. U