To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
THe most part of writers are wont to deuide the interpretation of the scripture into a litteral sēse and into a spiritual sense. Againe, they deuide the spiritual, into a tropological, allegoricall and ana∣gogical sense.
They cal that literal, which is vnderstande ac¦cording to the Grammatical sense and the proper signification of the words.
This maner of interpreting must alwaies be first sought out, and frō
it, it is not lawful to swarue in waighty disputacions.
The knowledge therof commeth out of the rules of Grammer, Lo∣gicke, and Rhethoricke, and also of the knowledge of the Phrases, and of customed speeches of the scriptures. And this litterall sense is called properly, the text.
That is called a spiritual interpretation, when an other thing is sig∣nified, than the words do simply importe.
Tropologia (which hath the first place in spiritual interpretation) is that in which are noted such things that pertain to maners, & to the fra¦ming of mans life, and it is called a moral sense. An example. Out of the story of Loth being dronke, it is gathered, how much to be detested dron¦kennes and surfets are in al ages, but chiefly in old age, and also what hor¦rible wickednes doth follow dronkennes, for she is neuer alone, without some enormity following.
Allegoria, is that, in which actes or sentences are otherwise vnder∣stoode, than the wordes do sound, and be applied and conferred wyth o∣ther things, which haue a certaine similitude or analogie with them, but specially with those things which concern Christ the head, or the church his body. Of this sorte the most part of those thinges, which in times past were done of the holy fathers, are applied to these things, which long af∣ter were accomplished in the Gospel by Christ, or by the Church, and it is manifest, that both these do wel agree together.
* 1.1The coniunction of man and woman is declared, to conteine a great sacrament of the loue, wherwith Christ loueth the church.
Anagoge, is a maner of expounding the scripture, wherin, bisides the signification of the words, some thing is affirmed, pertaining to the hea¦uenly glory to be looked for after this life, & pertaining to the misteries of the Trinitie, or of the diuine nature As if one would saye: The City of Hierusalem represented vnto vs the kingdom of heauen How apt these definitions and this diuision are, I wyl declare hereafter. But firste I wil euidently shew, wherof they, which made these distinct intepretations, haue taken occasion of this partition.
The fathers, aswel Greekes as Latines, haue somewhat intreated of spiritual interpretation, which things these diuiders, reading wythout iudgemēt, either haue not wel vnderstand them, or els vnfaithfully haue abused those things that wer faithfully and wel spoken.
* 1.2Eusebius declareth, that ther wer certain men called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, suppliantes, which were wholy occupied in the perpetuall contem∣plation of diuine thinges, and that they did so interprete the scriptures, that they gaue them selues wholy to allegorical expositiō. For the whole law (sayth he) semed to them to be like to a liuing beast, consisting of bo∣dye
and soule: so in this law they called the letter it selfe, and those things that were signified by the letter, the body: but the spirituall, secrete and inuisible sense, hidden in the letter, they call it the soule. Thus much Eu∣sebius·
But what maner of making of Allegories was at that time, it is eui∣dently inough shewed in diuers woorkes of Philon,* 1.3 and chiefelye in the two bookes of the Allegories of the law.
And so are certayne things read of Anagoge in Dionysius (if at the least it were Dionysius woorke) which thinges are applied to the inter∣pretation of the ceremonies, which were than vsed in the administration of the sacraments.
Origen iudged, that euery thing in the scripture might aptly be ex∣pounded by an Allegorye and Anagogicallye, and hee brought into the scholes and churches a marueilous boldnes, for other men so to doo He writeth most plainly of this in his commentaries, whom certayne other Greke writers did imitate and follow.
Among the latine authours, Hierome tooke the like out of the Greci∣ans storehouse, as it appeareth in diuers places of his workes. For he wri¦ting vpon Amos, sayth: Debemus scripturam sanctam,* 1.4 primum secun∣dum litteram intelligere. &c. That is: VVe must vnderstande the holye scriptures, first according to the letter, doing what thinges so euer are commaunded, pertayning to manners, secondly, per allegoriam, that is, spirituall vnderstanding, and thirdly, per anagogen, that is, pertayning to the blessednes of things to come.
Agayne he writeth, praecipitur nobis Salomone dicente. &c. It is com¦maunded vnto vs (Salomon speaking it.)* 1.5 But write thou three times in counsel and knowledge, that thou mayest aunswer the word of truth to them which propound vnto thee. &c. There is (saith Hierome) a trip¦ple description and rule of the scriptures in our hartes.
The first is, that we vnderstand them according to the History, the second, according to the Tropologie, the third, according to the spiritual vnderstanding.
In the History, the order of those thynges whych are written, is ob∣serued.
In the Tropologie we rise from the letter, to greater thynges, and what so euer hathe bene carnallye done in the former people, wee doo in∣terpreate it morallye, and doo turne it to the wealth of our soules.
In the spirituall contemplation, we passe ouer to higher thynges, we leaue earthlye thynges, and we dispute of the blessednesse of thynges to
come, and of heauenlye thynges, that the meditation of the life pre∣sent, may be a signification of the blessednes to come. Thus muche sayth Hierome.
* 1.6But Augustine writeth otherwise. For he declareth, that the scrip∣ture is expounded foure maner of wayes.
* 1.7The first, according to the history, that is, when it is taught what is written, and what is done, what hath not bene done, but onely hath bene written, as though it had bene done. As for example, when Christ alled∣geth out of Samuell, that Dauid did eate the shew bread.
The second is secundum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when it is declared, for what cause any thing was sayd or done. As for example, Christ prohibiting the di∣uorce of the wife, vnlesse it be for fornication, sheweth prudentlye the cause, why the libell of diuorce was before permitted to the Iewes. He sayd, Moses permisit enim vobis propter duritiam cordis vestri, That is:* 1.8 Moses suffered you to haue a byll of diuorce, for the hardnes of your hartes.
The third he calleth secundum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the which the congruency of both the testaments is shewed.
The fourth is (sayth he) secundum allegoriam, when it is taught, that those thinges which are written, are not to bee taken according to the letter, but are figuratiuely to be vnderstand (as for example) Saynt Paule declareth,* 1.9 that the history of Exodus was an allegorie of the chri∣stian people, and that all thynges happened to the Fathers in a figure.
Hereby it came to passe, that some men haue taken in hande whole histories, yea whole bookes to be expounded after these diuers wayes.
Ruffinus, (as witnesseth Genadius) expounded the benediction of Iacob vpon the Patriarches, in three maner of senses, that is, historicall, moral, and misticall.
But after that time, boldnes to expound the scriptures diuerse waies grew more and more. For some men shamelesly attempted to interpret by allegories and anagogies what thing so euer is written in the sacred scrip¦tures: and not onely the histories (in which it is often times done wyth a grace) but also the preachings and disputations of the Prophetes and A∣postles, the preceptes also and promises, in the which there can be no di∣gression (without perill) from the simple grammatical sense.
But now I wyll shew, what ought to be iudged of these diuers formes of interpretations, and wyl also declare, how the sayinges of the holy fa∣thers are to be vnderstand. I wyl intreate orderly of euery one, and first of the litterall sense, next of the tropologicall, then of anagogicall, and last of the allegorical.
The literal sense (which otherwise is called historical or Grāmatical) ought first to be sought out as ye most noblest & chefest sense, forasmuch as it alone bringeth forth perspicuous & euident sentences It is only apt to frame argumentes by which the doctrines of religion are confirmed, it alone geueth necessary probations, where out of the allegoricall and a∣nagogicall senses onely probable and apparant assertions are brought.
It is not lawfull at any time to leaue the simple and natiue sense of the wordes, vnlesse there be figures in the wordes, or the sentence it self ta∣ken grammaticallye, do signifie some absurditie, for the which cause it is nedefull to flye to the allegoricall interpretation, wherof I wyll speake hereafter.
VVherfore I would gladly haue men to iudge, that he doth well and wisely, which exerciseth himself diligently in labouring to attaine the li∣terall and grammaticall sense.
That maner of interpreting which Augustine woulde haue to bee done per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ought vtterly to be referred to thys kynde: for in it there is no digression made from the Grammaticall sense, but onely the cause of the dede, or of the woorde being expounded, the sentence is made more plaine and open.
For in all interpretation of euery kinde of writing, the same is most necessary to be done: for oftentimes it is expedient, that we set before our eyes the intent of the writer, and to be shewed as it were with pointing of the finger, to what end the oration tendeth, why it is ordayned, and how great weight euery part hath.
Furthermore the other kind of intepreting which Augustine calleth secundum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, can not be separated from the Grammaticall inter∣pretation, for it is not like vnto an allegorie (as some do suppose.) For analogia, is none other thing than a certaine collation and conference, wherin what soeuer haue bene eyther done or sayd in the old Testament, are compared with those things that are found to be spokē or done in the newe Testament. Of which sort this is. If any man reasoning of Iudas be∣traying his Maister vnto his enemies with a kisse, which is a simbole or signe of amitie and frendship, doth saye, that he did the same which once did Ioab, who killed Amaza, while he feyned to kisse him.
Likewise if any man doth shewe, that the woordes of Christ or of the Apostle doe in all things agree with the wordes of Moyses or of some o∣ther holy Prophet or worthy man.
Euery mā vnderstandeth, that when this is done, nothing is chaūged in the Grāmatical sense, but yt only a comparison being made, and examples shewed to teach with al, ther is added an ornament and euidency to the sentence, after such a sort as the Rhetoriciās somtimes are wont to ioyn
the actes of the Greeks or forayne nations, vnto gestes of the Romanes.
* 1.10VVhich thing we see Plutarch and Valerius Maximus haue done ve¦ry elegantly. Therfore we may wel call the intreating of these maner of examples in the holy scriptures argumentationem a typo.
To be short, euery exposition deduced out of Rhethorick or Logick, when it leadeth not from the simple sense or meaning of the woords, it is iudged most aptly to pertaine to the literal or Grammatical sense.
Tropologicall exposition is not far from that sense, which the wordes of the sentence doo bring forth, but is an applying of that which is signi∣fied by the words, to the framing of mās life & maners. As for an exam∣ple, when we reade the history of Loth being dronken, it is wel gathered per tropologiam, that we learne by it, that dronkēnes ought to be by all meanes detested and shunned.
Likewise, it is no hard thing to gather out of holye histories and ser∣mons, those things which induce vs to seeke after vertues, and to auoide vices.
Vvhosoeuer wyl fruitfully reade holy histories or sermons, it is nede∣ful that he gather vp al the best sayings and doings to the framing of his own priuate life, which thing Titus Liuius wisely monished in hys pre∣face to the history of the actes of the Romanes.
Vvherfore this maner of interpretation is more rightly called moralis or Ethica, than Tropologica, For although this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greke sig¦nifieth not onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is a figuratiue speache, but also the life and maners of man▪ yet by a very long vsed custome it representeth vnto the hearers a figuratiue speche, that by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they maye vn∣derstand the sentence, in the which a woorde is declined from the natiue signification.
How be it, the Apostle Paul had leuer haue those thinges which are gathered to the ordering of life and maners to be noted with the names of institution and correction. For he saith: Vtilis est scriptura ad instituti∣onem et correctionem, That is. The scripture is profitable to teache and to correct. And I pray you, why do we not heare and follow Paul, who is the best maister to teach, and to interprete diuine matters, rather than other men, which somtime dote in their interpretations?
Anagoge semeth to be of more difficulty, but if we doo well expende and weygh it, Anagogicall interpretation vtterly agreeth wyth the Al∣legoricall interpretation, neither they are distinct, which to bee true I wyll proue both by the discription of them both, and also by the iudge∣ment and sayinges of the Fathers.
They call that an anagogicall interpretation when a sentence of the Scripture is so expounded, that by going a litle from the first significati∣on of the wordes, there may be something gathered to be meant of the ce∣lestiall glory to be looked for after this life, or els some thing to be meant of the mystery of ye Trinitie, and so a passing to be made from things vi∣sible, to inuisible things, from a darke speach (as Paule sayth) to ye cleere sight of God. As Iohn disputing of baptisme,* 1.11 procedeth from water to the spirit. The Apostle also speaking of our resurrection with Christ, biddeth vs to looke onely vpon heauenly things, affirming that our life and con∣uersation is in heauen. But you shall finde this kinde of interpretation to be very seldome, and rare in the Scriptures VVhat is an allegoricall in∣terpretation, but that in which a deede or a sentence is expounded by a new sense, being somewhat remoued frō ye literall words? But in such sort yt somthing may be gathered of Christ or of the church, eyther of ye law or els of the gospell, or els of the offices of fayth or of charitie?
Therfore it is manifest concerning the knowledge and maner of inter∣preting, that an allegorie and anagogie in all pointes do agree. And as touching the matter, there is a very small difference.
Notwithstanding it is no more necessary to put a difference betwene them, than it is nede to make a difference betwene an allegoricall inter∣pretation, which is made of Christ, or of the glory of the celestiall citie of God, and betwene yt interpretation which is made of mā or of the church which is the earthly citie of God, or of any other matter.
But let vs weigh the sayings of the fathers. Dionisius after he had de∣scribed the rites of baptisme addeth,* 1.12 yt he would expound them secundū anagogen. And yet that which he there writeth, sauoureth an allegorye, and ought simply to be reduced to the order of an allegory, which thyng euery meane learned man may iudge.
Augustine plainly ioyneth and mingleth an allegorie with anagoge. for he sayth. Quis sit modus interpretandae allegoriae. &c. VVhat is the way and maner to interprete an allegorie, which is beleued to be spoken by wysedome in the holy Ghost: whether it be sufficient to fetch it from the elder visible thynges vnto the latter visible thinges, or ells vnto the affections and nature of the soule, or els vnto vnchaungeable eternitie?
In which words the two latter members do importe anagoge: yet ne∣uertheles they are comprehended vnder an allegorie, when he affirmeth, that he speaketh of interpreting an allegorie.
Hierome knowledgeth but three maners of interpreting, that is,* 1.13 Hi∣storicall, Tropologicall, and Theoricall, or iuxta intelligentiā spiritualē: for he vnderstode and allegorie and anagoge in like sort, which he iudged not to be distincte.
He also in his commentaries expoundeth some things, as it were per anagogen, which (if we wil narrowly vew them) we shall finde them to be intreated per allegoriam.
* 1.14I wil bring forth one or two examples, Cognouit bos possessorem suum, et Asinus praesepe domini sui. That is. The Oxe knoweth his ow∣ner, and the Asse knoweth his maisters crib. Hierome sayth: Bos iuxta A¦nagogen refertur ad Israel, qui legis portauit iugum, et mundum animal est: Asinus peccatorum onere praegrauatus, gentium populus accipitur. That is: That Oxe per anagogen, is referred to Israel, which caried the yoke of the law, and it is a cleane beast: the Asse being oppressed wyth burthen of sinnes, is taken for the Gentiles.
* 1.15Agayne, vpon the wordes of the Prophet, Derelinquetur filia Sion, si∣cut vmbracula in vinea. That is: The daughter of Sion shall be forsaken, as the shadow in the vineyard. Hierome saith: Iuxta anagogē, vinea dei et pomorum paradisus homo appellari potest, cui si mens praefuerit. &c. That is, The vineyard of God, and the pleasaunt garden of fruit may be called man, in whom if the spirit and mind doth rule, he hath God for the keeper af the spirite and minde, but if sinne and vices doo take a praye of vs, as it were of certain wilde beastes, we are forsaken of God being our keeper, and we shalbe all left desolate.
He declareth, that these interpretations are made secundum anago∣gen, which if ye wyll diligently examine, ye shall perceiue that nothing is spoken of the life to come, or of the misterye of the Trinitye, but of the life present, of the church, & of holy mens exercises. Therfore ye se that the allegorical sense is ther onely simply to be considered, and no other diuers sense.
It were an easy thing to bring foorth more examples out of Origene, whom Hierome semeth to haue diligently followed.
By these examples therfore it is euident, that Anagoge, and Allego∣ria be all one. And as much as it is, so euery man may perceiue, that ther be not foure senses of the scripture, but onelye three, according to Hie∣roms iudgement, and the censure of other holy fathers, that is to say, the first is litteral, which is otherwyse called Grammaticall or Historicall, the second is Tropological (which some haue leauer cal morall) but the Apostle doth more rightly terme it, institutionem & correctionem, & the third is Allegoricall, whych they call spirituall, misticall, and specu∣latiue.
But a worde or two more agaynst our aduersaries, concernyng the li∣terall sense.
I do greatly dissent from the opiniō of them which iudge, that we may
attayne to the misticall sense without the vnderstandyng of the simple letter, They do leane to this authoritie saying. Litera occidit, spiritus ve∣ro viuificat, that is, the letter killeth, but the spirit quickneth, wheras no letter killeth, but that onely whiche is peruersly vnderstood and violent∣ly wrested, to that whiche is farre straunge, from that whiche God the author meaneth. As for exāple. The phariseis wrested the good worckes whiche God commaunded in the old Testament, vnto vayne ceremonies. For when God had geuen the commaundementes of the law by Moses, at the lenght he inferred this. Ligabis ea in manu tua,* 1.16 & erunt immota an∣te oculos tuos. that is. Thou shalt binde thē in thy handes, and they shal∣be alwayes set before thine eyes, of which wordes this is the meaning. Let my preceptes be in thine handes that they may be accomplished in your worckes. Let them be before thine eyes, that thou mayest remember thē day and night.
The pharisies misunderstanding this, wrote the tene commaundemēts of the law in parchment, & to the end they might alwayes haue them in sight, they wrapte thē vp in a garland, and bound them vpon their fore∣heades Here the letter killed, because the pharisies corrupted the mea∣ning of God. But if the letter be well vnderstood, there is meant an other thyng, And we shall perceyue a great congruencie betwene the misticall worde and the letter of the law. VVhich thing I proue thus.
VVe read in the old law, that Pharaos magicall men, when Moses & Aaron wrought miracles before their faces, (God working by thē) said. Vere digitus dei est hic. Indede, this is ye fingar of god.* 1.17 we read also in the gospel, that christ said. Ego in digito dei eiicio demonia. that is, I cast out deuils by the fingar of God. VVhat other thing can we vnderstand in the olde and newe lawes here by the fingar of God, than the holy ghost and the power of God? as Saint Basill interpreteth, beside many other lear∣ned fathers.
Likewise as it is sayd before, where Christ commaundeth,* 1.18 in the Gos∣pell to cut of and cast away eye, hande and foote, if they offende vs.
Saint Hierome saith, that they be mistically signified, which are ioy∣ned vnto vs in kindred, familiaritie and frendship, who all in respect of loue toward Christ, are to be reiected and contemned.
How could any misterie here be gathered, excepte Christ had signi∣fied the same in the better by a parable?
Origene gathered out of these wordes an higher mysterie, interpre∣ting by the eye to be vnderstande the Bishop and Priest in the Churche, who ought to haue respect to saluation of all persons, by the hand he vn∣derstandeth the deacon, because he is a minister, by the foote the people.
And all these ought to be cast of, if they behaue not them selues rightly in matters of fayth.
For asmuch then as the mysticall sense is builded vpon the letter as vpon a foundation the letter is not to be reiected. Notwithstanding there be infinite places in the holy Scriptures, which if they be drawē to misti∣call senses, they do rather kill than edifie, as for example, this sentence. Ecce virgo concipiet & pariet filiū, & vocabitur nomen eius Emanuel, that is, beholde, a virgine shall conceaue and bring forth a sonne, and his name shalbe called Emanuell. These wordes ought to be none otherwise vnderstand, but as the letter speaketh: yet Saint Hierome maketh re∣cord of one, who did interprete this place, mystically saying, that the vir∣gine betokened the soule, beyng corrupt with no spotte of sinne. This vir∣gine bryngeth foorth Emanuel, yt is, the worde of God. This sense is as fondly sought out as it is farre fetched.
Let vs therfore take the literall sense for the foundation, vpon whiche euery doctrine ought to be builte (whiche I spake by a similitude) vn∣lesse any wilbe so foolishe, as to thincke, that we ought to cast awaye the rudiments and alphabeticall letters, that we may the sooner come to the study and knowledge of Philosophie.
The law and the letter is called of the holy and learned fathers some∣tymes a type, sometyme a figure. Ergo. &c.
I graunt this to be most true, yea and I will say also, that it is some∣tyme called Vmbra, a shadow. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a Greeke word, whiche signifieth the forme of some one thing, that is called in Latin Figura, a figure.
Nowe let vs vewe to what persons and things types and figures in the law do pertayne. Saint Hierome, Origene, and all other holy fathers do affirme, the godly man Iob to be a type and figure of Christ, partly for his other excellent vertues, but specially for his great patience, wher∣with he did most constantly resiste the deuill.
I pray you, what will you say of this type and figure? is it not a forme and representation of Christ him selfe?
To be short, this word Litera, in this sentence, Litera occidit, doth not signifie the literall sense,* 1.19 as many ignorauntly and peruersly haue taken it, wherof hath ensued this pernicious errour, that they thought the rea∣ding of the scriptures, to be both vaine, and hurtfull, vnles euery sentēce almost of the scripture were drawne to an allegorie. And the more bolde that any man hath bene in this kynde of interpretation, he hath ben coū∣pted the more excellent. And so haue played with the sacred worde of God, as one would play and tosse to and fro, a tennisse balle.
By this occasiō also heretiques haue wōderfully troubled the Church, for when it was lawfull for them (as they thought) & when they vsed to make Ex quolibet quidlibet, there was no doctrine so absurde and so pro∣digious, whiche they would not induce, and bring forth by some colour of an allegorie.
To end, Litera,* 1.20 in this place (as the most of the writers do expounde it) doth signifie the law, by the whiche law (as Saint Paule sayth) com∣meth the knowledge of sinne. Paule in that chapter doth teach that the Gospell was not writtē in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the hart, not written with incke, but with the spirite of ye liuyng God, & then he sayth, the letter killeth but the spirite geueth life.* 1.21 To make the matter playne. In the law whosoeuer offendeth, is punished: but in the new Testa¦ment the offender and sinner is made iust by faith. VVho being iustified, is deliuered from the death of sinne, and doth liue. If the law take hand-fast of a murtherer, it killeth him, but if grace take holde of him, it doth illuminate and geue him life by faith. The law maketh of a liuyng man a dead man, the Gospell maketh of a dead man a liuyng man.* 1.22 Come to me (saith Christ) all ye that labour and are laden, and I will refreshe you. He doth not say, Puniam, I will punishe, but Reficiam, I will refresh.
Other learned men do expounde this sentence after this sort. The let∣ter killeth, but the spirite geueth life, that is, The worde of God if it be onely spoken with mouth, and heard onely with eare, it is the cause of death, but when it is receyued and embraced in hart, then it geueth life.
Thus hauyng playnely and sufficiently entreated of the literall and Tropologicall sense, I will now speake of the allegoricall.
The intreating of allegories pertayneth not to euery common sorte of people, neither it must be handled rashly and in euery place. VVher∣fore a great diligence must be bestowed in the declaration of them, I will orderly discusse the matter.
First I wil shew what an allegory is. Secondly how it differeth from a type. Thirdly where and when it is conuenient to adde allegoricall in∣terpretations. Fourthly whiche is the most aptest waye to gather such interpretations. Fiftly and finally I will declare what is the vse of them, and how farre they are to be admitted.
An allegory generally is defined (as testifieth Augustine) to be a trope, where out of one thyng is vnderstand an other thing,* 1.23 as in this example of Paul. Itaque non dormiamus sicut & caeteri, sed vigilemus & sobrii si mus, nam, qui dormiunt, nocte dormiunt, & qui inebriantur nocte sunt ebrii, at nos qui sum{us} diei, sobrii sumus, that is. Therfore let vs not slepe as others do, but let vs wake and be sober, for they which slepe, do slepe
in the night, and they that are droncken, are droncken in the night, but we whiche be of the day, let vs be sober.
This sentence is to be taken allegoricall.
Hierome saith, that an allegory doth portend one thing in wordes, and signifieth another thing in sense. The bookes of Oratours and Poetes are full. The holy Scripture also hath in it many allegories.
But after this sorte an allegorie extendeth it selfe more largely, for as much as this definitiō may be applied to cōparisons, similitudes, darcke speaches, apophthegmes, parables, apologos, and ironies.
Therfore it is requisite to define an allegorie more straytly, and to di∣stinguish it from the other.
Allegoria, is an interpretation of the Scriptures fetched somewhat farre of, and is adioyned either for vtilitie, or els for necessitie vnto the Grammaticall and morall interpretation. And although it be somewhat farre from the meaning of the wordes, yet it kepeth a mete similitude of those thinges whiche be compared together, and it is alwayes proportio∣ned to the doctrine of faith, and applied to the instruction of the hearers.
The ecclesiasticall writers haue many exāples of this interpretation.
VVe se the fabulouse narrations of Poetes (which wer ye diuines of the heathen) to be so expounded, that vnder them may seme to be hidden the knowledge of great matters, and also that much doctrine may be gathe∣red out of them, as of the natures of thinges, the framyng of life, the de∣crees of Religion. &c.
These formes and kindes of interpretation Palephatus, hath elegant∣ly written of, and also Fulgentius, and Saint Basile.
Euery one of those interpretatiōs if we weigh thē wel, is plaine allego∣ricall, and no man can deny, but there is in them great vtilitie & profit.
After this sorte therfore many places of the holy Scriptures are ex∣poūded allegorically and with great fruite, specially when it is manifest, that the holy Scripture, is fuller of misteries than can be spokē, and that it geueth most plentifull matter of spirituall goodnes to the whole vse of man, aswell of life as of knowledge.
By this it may appeare, what is properly meant by an allegory.
Likewise it is sayd in the Prophet Hieremie. Bibite & inebriamini, vomite & cadite. Drincke and be droncken, spew and fall.
Here is taken a similitude and maner of speaking out of the manners of droncken men, and are noted incredible troubles and great slaughters to follow, of such kyndes of sentences, Saint Augustine geueth a rule say∣ing: An allegory must be aduisedly distinguished from a type. For we se many men to confounde types & allegories together, & where there is a type in any writer, they falsly affirme it to be an allegory. As for exam∣ple.
VVhere Paul saith. Patres nostros fuisse omnes sub nube, & omnes per mare transisse. &c. That is, that all our fathers were vnder ye cloude, and that they passed all through the sea, and that they were all baptized in Moses in the cloude and in the sea. &c. they suppose this to be an alle∣gory, but they are deceyued, for it is onely a type, or rather an example, for the Apostle proueth by euident examples, that those men should not escape vnpunished, whiche after they had vsed the Sacramentes godly instituted by Christ, returned agayne to their former sinnes.
I will therfore shew you a difference betwene a type and an allegory.
A type or figure is, when any thyng is brought out of the old Testa∣ment, and is shewed to haue foresignified, or to haue figured some thyng done or to be done in the new Testament.
An allegorie is when some thing either out of the old Testament or out of the new is expoūded with a new sense, and is applyed to spirituall doc∣trine, or els to the gouernement of mans life.
A type consisteth in the comparison of actes and dedes, and is wholly hystoricall.
An allegory is occupyed not so much in actes, as in orations, sermons, or sentences.
A type intreateth almost of none other thing than of Christ, and the Churche, and of the law and the Gospell, neither is it in all places applied to our tyme and persons.
An allegory intreateth of all things & is very much applied to our per¦sons which be egged forward, & taught by it vnto ye offices of godlines.
In summa, Types are straitly applied vnto certayne thynges, as of the person of Christ, of the Churche, of the law, and of the Gospell.
Allegories do largely extend thē selues, and are dispersed into al mat∣ters. VVherby it may happen in one and the selfe same history a type may be marked in one place, and an allegory in another place, as interpretati∣ons greatly different one from another.
For if the history of Dauid, fighting with Goliath, did signifie the strife of Christ with the deuil whom Christ ouercame and vanquished, it is expounded as a type to vs. But if it do signifie the conflict of the spirit with the flesh, whiche euery one of vs feleth in him selfe, than it is an al∣legoricall exposition
It is no great nor hard matter to gather such like examples. You shall read many typicall expositions in many places of the new Testament. Io∣nas being deuoured of the whale, and cast out agayne,* 1.24 is described in Ma∣thew to be a type or figure of Christ buried thre dayes, and rising agayne from death.
The brasen Serpent was a figure of Christ crucified.* 1.25
The Paschall Lambe, whose bones were not broken, was a type and figure of Christ.* 1.26
The two sonnes of Abrahā in Paul do beare a type of the two testamēts.
In whiche place although the Apostle declareth, that they were spo∣ken by an allegorie: yet they may be well sayd, that they were spoken not by an allegorie, but rather by a type, (as Chrisostome hath well noted) saying,* 1.27 Allegoriae vocabulum ibi pro typo vsurpatur, that is. This worde Allegorie is vsed there for a type, for beyng a very learned interpreter of the Scriptures, he perceyued that an allegorie and a type differed much. Albeit it cannot be denied, but that an allegorie also is there inter mingled, where the Apostle interpreteth Hierusalem to be our mother, meanyng vndoubtedly the Churche gathered by the Gentiles, whiche was alwayes counted baren, but after was made more fruitfull than the Synagoge of the Iewes.
If any man desire to haue more examples whiche open the difference betwene an allegorie and a type, let hym read Cyrillus cōmentaries vp∣pon Leuiticus where many tymes when Sacrifices rites and ceremonies are intreated of, he first declareth, if any type of Christ, or of the Churche be had in them Secondly he addeth by an allegorie some thyng profitable for our instruction.
Let this be sufficient how much an allegorie and type do differre.
Now I will proue, where and when it is expedient to vse allegoricall interpretations, but I wll intreate of them last of all. Neither I can throughly intreate of this parte before I haue discussed first those thinges that pertaine to the Grammaticall sense, than, the thinges pertinent to the morall sense, or as the Apostle saith,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, how be it this hap∣peneth not alwayes, nor rashly, but then onely when either the necessitie of the sentence enforceth vs, or the great vtilitie of the hearers persua∣deth. I will shew how both may happen.
There be thre causes which enforceth vs by necessitie to expounde by an allegorie.
The first is, when the scriptures pretend a falsitie, vnlesse you graunt some trope to be in them. As for example: the Psalme saith of Christe. Super aspidem & basiliscum ambulabis & conculcabis leonē & draconē.* 1.28 that is. Thou shalt walke vpō the Liō & Aspe, the yong Lion and ye Dra∣gon shalt thou treade vnder feete. But for so much as we do not read ye Christ did so, there semeth to be a falsitie in ye Prophetes wordes. VVher¦fore if ye will expoūd those wordes by an allegory, of the vāquishing of ye deuill, the world, sinne, and death you haue the playne and true sense.
The second is, when the wordes of the scripture being takē in the grā∣matical sense, do bring forth an absurditie. To this place pertaineth these phrases of God, by which the affections of man are attributed to God, as
anger, repentaunce, irck sonnes, doubting, ignoraunce, and furor. &c.
Likewise this saying of Paul. Hoc faciens, carbones ignis congeres su per caput eius, that is, This doing, thou shalt heape coales of fire vpon his head. VVhere, when mention was made before of feeding, and refreshing the enemie, these wordes semed to be added agaynst the nature of amitie and frendship: but we must interprete them by an allegorie (as Austen sayth) Vt intelligas te ad beneficentiam reuocari:* 1.29 & carbones ignis esse vrentes penitentiae gemitus, quibus superbia sanatur, eius qui dolet se ini micum fuisse hominis, a quo eius miseria subuenitur that is. That thou maiest vnderstand that thou art called agayne to do good, and that the coales of fire, are the burnyng sighes of repentaunce with whiche the prides of hym is healed, who is sorie that he was an enemie to that man, whiche relieued and eased his miserie. &c.
The thyrde cause is when the Grammaticall sense repugneth with sounde doctrine, or is contrarie to good manners.* 1.30 As for example Christ biddeth to plucke out, cut awaye, and cast from vs the eye whiche is cause of offence, but for so much as this his commaundement might not be done without sinne, necessitie enforceth to seeke an Allegoricall interpreta∣tion. And therfore Chrisostome very wel doth affirme that these wordes,* 1.31 are not to be vnderstande to destroye any partes of the body, but doth say that the ill of luste and pleasure is to be reproued, and that Christ speaketh of them here, whiche be ioyned vnto vs by frendshyp and fami∣liaritie, and that plesure is to be auoided, and those frends to be eschewed whiche leade vs from pietie.
The booke called Cantica canticorum, is full of Allegories, yea it is wholly Allegoricall,* 1.32 of the whiche Augustine geueth a goodly rule say¦ing. Si quae facta leguntur a patribus etiam sanctis, that is If we read any thing to be done of ye holy father which abhorreth frō the custome of good men▪ who after the cōming of the Lord do kepe the preceptes of god, they referre the figure to the vnderstāding, that is to the mysterie, by an alle∣gorie, and do not transferre or bring the dede it selfe to the same maners.
VVhensoeuer therfore we do chaunce vpon such maner of places in the Scripture, we do necessarily flie to allegories for so much as if the Grammaticall interpretation be retained, it gendreth no small errours, for so the errour of the Anthropomorphites sprang, whiche attributed to God the liniamentes of mans body, & affections of mans minde: whē they would not vnderstand those phrases of God vsed in the Scriptures to be spoken by a trope and figure. Likewise the Euchitae erred foolishly, con∣tending that we ought to do nothing els but pray, because it is written in the Gospell, Oportet sēper orare & nun{quam} intermittere, that is. VVe must alwayes pray and neuer ceasse. It is manifest therfore that necessitie en∣forceth
sometime to interprete the Scripture by an allegorie.
Vtilitie persuadeth vs to vse allegories, as when in preceptes and ru∣les red in the lawe and the Gospell, the words onely Grammatically and literally taken, do bryng no profitable doctrine nor institution: or if any doctrine do appeare, yet it wilbe more profitable, if an allegoricall inter¦pretation be vsed.
VVhiche thing I will make manifest by an example. VVe read in the history of Iacob how he was deceyued of his father in law Laban, how he tooke to his wife Lia, thinckyng that he had gotten Rachell. How that for Rachell he had serued many yeares very hardlye, how he by a proui∣dent pollicie encreased his flocke of sheepe, laying roddes of diuerse cou∣lours into the troughes. Here seemeth to be proposed none or a very small profitable doctrine, but rather guyles, craftines, foolishe loue and gredy desire of riches. VVherfore that some fruite may be taken, it is expedient to expounde all these thynges by an allegorie. And vndoub∣tedly you shall finde a sweete tast of the spirite vnder the harde barke of the letter, and a pleasaunt mysterie, whiche is this. Lya, signifieth hu∣maine Philosophie, and Rachell may signifie diuine Philosophy, whiche to obtayne, we must employe all our labours and diligences. Neyther yet we ought to contemne and reiecte humaine Philosophie if it happen to be geuen to vs, but yet I say the ende and scope of all our studyes ought to tende to the obtayning of the knowledge of diuinitie. Neyther can the sleightes and guyles of Laban, that is of the worlde and the fleshe hyn∣der vs from enioyeng at lenght the good thinges whiche we desire.
Other perchaunce may expounde this Historie another waye more learnedly and more fruitfully.
VVe read also many such examples in Leuiticus, or in some other booke, of Priesthoode, of ceremonies, of Sacrifices and diuerse obseruati∣ons, After the Grammatical sense, there commeth no profite of thē vnto vs, forasmuch as they be abrogate, and pertayne nothing vnto vs.
Therfore that we may take some spirituall profite out of them, it is expedient to vse allegoricall interpretations profitablie applyed to the institution and framing of lyfe.
So after this sorte among the Grecians Origenes, Cyrillus, and Eu∣cherius did expound almost all the ceremoniall preceptes of the law, and among the Latines S. Austen doth sometyme the same.
But where the Histories be euident and playne whiche minister pro∣fitable doctrine largely enough by them selues, (as many such be in the bookes of Iosua, the Iudges, Samuell, and the kynges) it would be super∣fluous to expound them by allegories.
Likewise where bare preceptes infourmyng manners are contayned as in the Prouerbes, in Ecclesiastes, in Iob, and in the Psalmes, there nede also none allegories.
Now I will declare how Allegoricall interpretations ought to be fra∣med and made, whiche may be best learned and attayned, rather by vse and often iudging of examples intreated of other men, than by preceptes and rules. Notwithstandyng I will geue some generall notes and obser∣uations of this parte.
1. That mā may welbe noted of rashnes, which thinketh, yt the scriptures ought to be interpreted in euery place allegorically. Such boldnes emba∣seth maruelously ye authoritie of the scriptures▪ for the hearers do forth∣with thincke, that there is no certainty in ye scriptures, and that it is free for euery man to interprete any place as it pleaseth him selfe, for ye which cause Porphyrius scorned the teachers of our religion, so likewise did Iu∣lianus the Apostata most enuiously vpbrayde our writers. It behoueth vs alway to perpend and weigh, where necessitie requireth it to be done, and where vtilitie persuadeth it to be done. If in any thing, in this special∣ly we ought to be circumspect and ware.
2. If you desire to frame an allegorie, see first of al, that the sentēce of ye interpretatiō whiche you meditate, be found expressed in other places of the scriptures, plainely and wtout any figure, and so ye vayle beyng drawen away, it may correspond to the analogie of the faith. For seing that euery allegorie is ordayned to teache the hearers of matters of godlines, it is re∣quisite, that a simple doctrine of the truth may appeare in it. VVherfore it is not good to receiue all allegories yt be made by other mē, but we must examine and trie them by the rule and touch stone of Gods word.
3. VVe must take hede that allegories be kept within certaine boundes of doctrine, & that they be chiefly occupied in commun places of the Gos¦pel & of christian doctrin. He that bringeth thē out of these bounds, be∣sides that he doth iniurie to ye sacred scriptures, he also hindereth the he∣rers rather than furthereth them: and of him this prouerbe may be veri∣fied, Extra oleas currit, that is. He runneth beyond his boundes.
4. Furthermore an allegorie ought truly to agree in al things with the partes either of the sentēce or of the history which you take in hand to ex¦pound, and that it do by no meanes repugne with things goyng before or thinges following, for if your interpretation disagree and be farre fette, it ••seth all the grace of an allegorie I say not this as though it were ne∣cessarie superstitiously to discusse all the partes and circumstaunces, but that it is not mete to omitte the principal parts, and those that do chiefly commende and adourne the cause.
5. You shall not dwell nor tarie in an allegorie longer than the cause re∣quireth. VVherfore some learned men will, that allegories be briefly and pithily touched rather than thoroughly at large intreated. VVhich kinde is vsed in the sacred scriptures, & therfore oght worthily to be followed. As for example:* 1.33 Thou shalt not mussell the oxes mouth, treading out the corn. doth God care for oxen? Or whether doth he speake this for vs? It is written for vs, that he which ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he whiche treadeth out the corne in hope, ought to be partaker of his hope.
The same Apostle doth very well prosequute that matter whiche he begā concerning the institution of mariage, and of the mutuall loue of mā and woman, he expounding them of Christ and the Church, saith: Miste∣rium magnum est, verum ego loquor de Christo & Ecclesia. It is a great mysterie,* 1.34 but I speake of Christ and of the Churche.
By the whiche interpretation being but short, he greatly stirreth ma∣ried folkes to their duties, and worthily extolleth matrimonie: for he playnely sheweth, that the husbande in the house (so that it be godly or∣dered) beareth and representeth the person of Christ, and the wife the person of the Churche, in so much that in a very small familie there ap∣peareth a certaine image of Chryste and the Churche.
Our sauiour Christ bidding his disciples to beware of the doctrine of the pharisies and of the Saduces,* 1.35 vseth a brief allegorie of leuen. The hi∣storie of Moses coueryng his face is very conningly expounded by Paule of the blindnes of the Iewes
Although some may say, that it is rather a type than an allegorie, yet it may be a very apte allegorie, if we do interprete it of them whiche in our tyme cannot suffer the brightnesse of the veritie, and do preferre the traditions of men before the worde of God.
6 For so much as one and the selfe same place of the Scripture may be diuersly interpreted by an allegorie, yet we must take hede, that we make not many expositiōs therof. Or if the place doth so require, and per aduenture is founde diuersly expounded of the learneder sorte: yet that onely exposition is to be vsed whiche hath more grace and more agreeth to the purpose, and is occupyed in commune places, and is also read to be approued in other places of Scriptures Augustine hath this rule: for af∣ter he had interpreted by an allegorie this verse (and those that folowe, omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius▪ oues & boues. &c. that is. Thou hast put all thinges vnder his fete shepe and oxen. & cetera.) of the power of Christ, he added in the ende this. Non quia ista nomina isto solum modo intelligi & explicari possunt, sed pro locis nam aliud alibi significant, that is. Not because these woordes may be vnderstood and expounded
onely after this maner, but for the places, for they signifie an other thing in other places of Scriptures. And this rule is to be reteyned in all allego∣ries, that that may be considered and weighed for the meaning of the pre¦sent place, whiche is spoken by a similitude.
These notes concerning Allegories shall suffise.
Finally I will declare what is the vse of Allegories, and how farre they must be admitted. They ought to be discretly and seldome vsed, and ye must alwayes haue respect to the hearers, and specially to them that be weake: for although you do handle them rightly, yet all men do not vnderstand them in one sense. VVherfore it is very requisite, to be dili∣gent in collectyng the morall doctrine, or rather accordyng to the Apo∣stles mynde, in discussing, searching, and settyng foorth of doctrines, in reprouynges, in instructions, in corrections and comfortynges, this is the iudgement of the best part of learned men.
It chaunceth many times, that he whiche is bolde to frame oftentimes allegories, falleth into errour, & vttereth sometime that, which learned and good men do contemne, and the vnlearned and maleuolous do scorne and scoffe at, and wherewith also the weake be offended.
Origene is ill reported of the learned, althoughe he be not obscure in Allegories.
Ambrose also appeareth to be taunted of Hierome, for that he wri∣ting vpon Luke,* 1.36 laboured violently to excuse the denieng of Peter by an allegorie Hierome saith thus. Scio quosdam pii affectus erga Petrum, lo¦cum hunc interpretatos vt dicerent, Petrum non deum negasse, sed homi¦nem, & esse sensum: Nescio hominem quia sçio deum: hoc quam friuolū sit, prudens lector intelligit si sic defendunt Apostolum & deum menda∣cii reum faciunt, that is. I know, that some being godly affected toward ye Apostle Peter, so interpreted this place, yt they said Peter did not deny god but man, and yt the meaning was this. I know him not man, because I know him to be god, how vaine & friuolous an expositiō, this is, ye prudēt reader perceiueth, if they so defēd Peter, yt they cōdēne god to be a lyar.
The same Hierome accuseth and condemneth hym selfe,* 1.37 because when he was a yonge man with a youthly rashnes and boldenes he interpreted the Prophet Abdias allegorically, whose history he vnderstood not.
Yea and the hearers thē selues do oftentimes count it, to be as lawfull for thē to dally & play with allegories, as it is for the teacher. And whē it doth not succede as they would wishe it, they do bryng forth monstru∣ous opinions. As the Priscillianistes did obstinatly defende their wicked opinions, contendyng that what soeuer was spoken agaynst them,* 1.38 ought to be interpreted allegorically, by the same madnes as certayne monckes also did defende their loyteryng and idle lyfe.
Furthermore that whiche thou interpretest by an allegorie one waye,* 1.39
an other man with like boldenes will interpret ye same by an allegory after a much straunger way. VVherby it happeneth, the Anabaptistes do of∣tentymes striue among them selues in their interpretations: and those thynges that they obiect agaynst vs, we, chaungyng a litle the intepre∣tation, do returne them againe to them, as it were buckler players. Ther∣fore you must accustome your selues to vse allegories opēly, but seldome, and with anaduised counsell.
It is not to be allowed to procede at no tyme and in no place, no further than the Grāmatical sense. But it is much more to be disalowed, to runne at euery light trifling occasion to allegoricall interpretations.
Allegories ought to be receiued, first, whē it is manifest, yt they are made for a iust cause: that is, either for necessitie, or els for some notable vtility.
Secōdly, they ought to be admitted when they shalbe framed after such a maner, as we see thē to haue ben vsed of learned writers and teachers.
Thirdly, they may be receiued, so that they be ordeined and applied for ye instruction and correctiō of life: not for the cōprobation of any doctrine of faith, for out of Allegories necessarie argumēts are not to be brought, but onely probable & persuading argumētatiōs, as Austē well affirmeth.
Fourthly, if an allegorie be brought for the confirmation of doctrine, it shall haue the last place, that is, it shalbe brought after all other argu∣mentes brought out of the Scriptures, which arguments euidently with∣out figures and obscurities do confirme and establishe that whiche is the principall and chief assertion by necessary consequentes and conclusions.
By these conditions allegories may take place, and it is certayne, that they beyng thus made, shall not onely not do hurte, but also bring some no small commoditie.
Now to conclude, Allegories do delight, teache, and set foorth a very riche plentifulnes of the Scriptures.
And in deede it cannot be, but the auditours may get some fruite by sondry interpretations made with iudgement.
That whiche sauoureth not to one mans mouth, wilbe pleasaunt to an other mans mouth.
Some men were greatly delighted with heauenly Manna, but other mens stomackes did loth it. Euen so in a greate multitude, there bee some whom the sondry and manifolde exposition of the Scriptures doo please, but there be other whom it displeaseth.
That thyng pleaseth euery man most wherwith he is affectioned. But vnderstand this of the puritie of sincere doctrine. For the doctrine which is vnpure and corrupte of it selfe, how can it profite, any wayes? nay it doth great hurt.
Eph. 5.
Eccle. hist. li. 2. Cap. 17.
Eccles. hier. 2.
In Amos. 4.
Prouerb. 2.
Lib de vtili. credendi. c. 3.
Lib. imperfe. de genes. ad literam. c. 2. 2. Samuel. 21. Math. 12
Math. 19.
1. Cor. 10.
Plutar. in. Paral.
Iohn. 3. Coloss. 2.
Eccl. hier. c. 2.
ad Hedibia.
Esay. 1.
Esay. 1.
Deut. 6.
Exod. 8 Luk. 11.
Math. 5.
2. Cor 3
Gal. 3.
2. Cor. 3.
Math. 11.
De trinitate lib. 15. cap. 9. 1. Thess, ca. 5,
Math. 12.
Ioan. 3.
Ioan. 19. Gala. 4
Comment. in Epist. Gal.
Psal. 91.
De doctrin. chri. li. 3. c. ••6.
Math. 5.
hom. 7
lib. de doctr. christ. 3. c. 22.
1. Cor. 9▪
Ephe. 5.
Math. 16. Exod 34 2. Cor. 3.
In. Commen. Math. 26.
In. prefat ad Abdiam.
August. in ca¦talogo herae.
Idem in li de opere mona.