Finally, there is a place where the literal and mystical senses exist simultaneously. 3° If the matter is viewed generally, the literal sense suffices for the instruction and edification of the simple. 4° Yet the letter often contains in itself things false, absurd, mutually contradictory, impossible, and others of this kind, from which errors almost infinite have been born. 5° The mystical or allegorical sense rests upon the authority of the New Testament A and is entirely necessary, so that the truth of the Scriptures may remain safe from adversaries, and the Scriptures themselves may be rendered worthy of God. 6° It is most difficult, not to say impossible, to grasp the mystical senses which Scripture embraces within itself. 7° Nevertheless, the following rules may aid in attaining them: First, if the ceremonial law is considered so full of figures that individual passages of Scripture referring to it are to be understood, not one excepted, not literally but only mystically; then, whenever there is mention of Jerusalem, Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, and other earthly places, everything is to be referred to celestial places, which are the dwelling places of souls; and finally, that one must flee to the mystical sense and abandon the letter whenever the letter is seen to be false, useless, and unworthy of God. This is the compendium of the Origenian system for interpreting Sacred Scripture. Now, it must be explained more clearly and established by the explicit testimonies of Adamantius.
ARTICLE I. ACCORDING TO ORIGEN, THERE IS A TRIPLE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE
"Sacred Scripture," he says (Homily 5 on Leviticus, no. 1), "must be believed to consist of visible and invisible things, just as if it were a body—namely, the letter which is seen; and a soul—the sense that is discovered within it; and a spirit—according to that which also contains within itself certain celestial things, as the Apostle says, because they 'serve the example and shadow of heavenly things' (Hebr. viii, 5)." Here, body and soul signify one and the same sense, namely, the literal. For the letter by itself, divorced and abstracted from the sense it contains, can signify nothing else than the mere sounds and words, without regard to the meaning attributed to them by usage. From this, therefore, one might conclude that only a double sense is admitted by Origen, the literal and the mystical, had he not corrected himself in other places. A little later in the same homily, no. 5, he speaks thus: "We have often said there is a triple mode of understanding in the divine Scriptures: historical, moral, and mystical: whence we have understood that a body, a soul, and a spirit are within it." Here you see that by body and soul, not one and the same sense is designated, as above, but a double and entirely distinct sense, namely, the literal and the moral. B Nor did he follow another division in *De Principiis*, Book IV, p. 168, where he says: "Therefore, the meanings are to be described in the mind of the holy Scriptures in a threefold way: the simpler sense from the very flesh of Scripture, as it were, which we call the obvious sense; that which is attained by one who ascends somewhat, as its soul; and the perfect person... is edified by the spiritual law which 'has a shadow of good things to come' (Hebr. x, 1). For just as a man consists of body, soul, and spirit, so does the Scripture which has been given by divine dispensation for the salvation of men." Read also, if you have the leisure, what is stated there subsequently, nos. 12 and 13.
ARTICLE II. THIS TRIPLE SENSE IS NOT FOUND EVERYWHERE IN SCRIPTURE
"Since," he says (*De Principiis*, Book IV, no. 12), "there are some Scriptures which have nothing corporeal, in some places only the soul and spirit are to be sought." However, in his eleventh homily on Numbers, where he treats of the law that commands the first fruits to be offered, he opens his mind more clearly with these words: "I think it necessary, therefore, to observe this law even according to the letter, just as also some other things. For there are some mandates of the law which the disciples of the New Testament also observe by necessary practice. And, if it seems good, let us first discuss those very things which are written in the law but are nevertheless to be observed in the Gospels; and when these have become clear, then we shall inquire what should also be understood spiritually in them; for there are those who say that if something must be observed according to the letter, why should not everything be observed? If, however, one must refer them to the spiritual understanding which the law contains, nothing at all should be discerned according to the letter, but all things ought to be discerned spiritually. C But we, tempering the insolence of both assertions, will attempt to bring forward from the authority of the divine Scriptures the rule that ought to be observed in the pronouncements of such a law." The rule he brings forward rests upon the following distinction: Whatever is expressed by the terms of law, precept, testimony, mandate, justice, judgment, etc., all these are not to be confused with one another. For although they are indiscriminately signified by the name of 'law,' yet one thing is law, another is a mandate, etc. The Apostle indeed teaches that the law is "a shadow of good things to come," but not so the mandate, etc. Hence, Origen infers that whatever is expressed under the name of 'law' in the Mosaic books is to be explained entirely in the mystical sense; but that whatever is declared by the terms of mandate, testimony, justice, judgment, etc., is to be understood otherwise. "These individual things, therefore," he says in the same homily, "which the Apostle says are by no means to be observed according to the letter, you will find all, or almost all, designated under the title of 'law' in Moses. But if, in what he says: 'Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal' (Exod. xx, 13, etc.), and other things of this kind, you do not find that he has prefixed the title of 'law' to them, but rather these appear to be mandates, and therefore this Scripture is not rendered void among the disciples of the Gospel, but is fulfilled, because, as I said, it is not the mandate but the 'law' that is said to have 'a shadow of good things to come.' And therefore these things are to be observed by us according to the letter. What need is there to seek an allegory in these, D when the edifi-
- A cation of the letter is sufficient? We have shown, then, that there are certain things that are not to be observed according to the letter of the law at all, and there are some things that are allegories that must not be changed in the least, and in the same way, that there are things in Scripture concerning these matters that must be observed. Now I do not ask if there are some things that can indeed stand according to the letter, though it is necessary to seek the allegory in them. The argument for this is both that which is said concerning marriage, and is referred by the Apostle to Jesus and the Church, as well as the history of Ishmael and Isaac, Hagar and Sarah, which is explained allegorically by the same Apostle; then he adds: We have shown, as I think, by the authority of Divine Scripture, that from among those things written in the Law, some things are to be utterly avoided and shunned, and not observed by the disciples of the Gospel according to the letter; while some are to be maintained exactly as they are written; but others, while indeed possessing a truth according to the letter, yet also admit and necessarily require a spiritual sense. The wise scribe who is instructed in the kingdom of God will be such as to know how to bring forth from his treasures things both new and old, and to know how in each particular passage of Scripture one should either entirely reject the killing letter, or confirm and approve the doctrine of the letter as being in every way useful and necessary; or, while the history remains, to introduce the mystical sense in a fitting and becoming manner. After these few things have been interposed: If those who are studious in the Divine Scriptures, out of these things that we have set forth, will be able to collect with ease the distinctions of the rest. For a wise man, if he hears a word, he says, will not only praise it, but will add to it. What shall he add? That he may examine and discern in each individual chapter where the letter of the law is to be shunned, and where the narrative of the history agrees with the mystical exposition. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, not that he has redeemed us from the curse of the commandment, nor from the curse of the testimony, nor from the curse of the judgments, but from the curse of the law; that is, that we should not be subject to the circumcision of the flesh, nor to the observance of the Sabbath, and other things similar to these, which are not contained in the commandments, but in the regulations that are to be learned. In the sequence of these principles Origen, whenever he wishes to have an accurate discussion on the mystical sense, uses very restrictive language, as when in the fifth homily on Leviticus he says that Scripture B "contains certain heavenly things," and in book iv of *De Principiis*, "that it indicates certain mystical dispensations by the Scriptures."
ARTICLE III. ON THE USEFULNESS AND EXCELLENCE OF THE LITERAL SENSE.
From Origen’s book iv *De Principiis*, numb. 12, he testifies that the literal sense even in itself is useful to the multitude who have believed simply and ingenuously. In the same place, towards the end of number 14, after he has narrated individually in what the literal sense consists, he concludes: For this was the intention, that it might be useful even to the many who are capable of it, to make them better. In almost the same way, he refutes the slanders of Celsus in book iv against that impudent Epicurean, num. 49: "What if one were to read," he says, "our Scriptures with a calm mind, he would not have said that they could not endure allegory. For it is not the history itself, but the prophecies in which histories are told, that require one to know what things are historical, which were written to that end that they might be explained by allegories: which was most wisely provided, so that they might be useful to the simple multitude, and to those who might wish or be able to scrutinize the matter more deeply and prudently." And in book one, num. 18: "Come, Celsus, bring into the middle the poems of Orpheus, Musaeus, and Linus, and the history of Pherecydes. Compare these writings with the laws of Moses, their histories with his histories, the rules of those with his precepts. Consider whether they are any better at turning their hearers away from vices through their reading, or whether they are more capable of hardening them in wickedness. And think with yourself that those writers of yours had almost no regard for the common reader, but wrote their so-called philosophy for those alone who knew how to interpret it allegorically. Moses, however, being no less than a strenuous orator, while he contemplated no figure of speech that could not have a double sense, observed the same rule in his five books, so that he neither gave to the multitude of the Jews who were ruled by his laws reasons for sinning in their morals; nor did he lack material for the more sagacious readers, who are C few, desiring to inquire into the will of the lawgiver." And again in book iv, num. 50: "They are most foolish," he says, "or rather impious, the things which the Greeks have fabled. But our accounts are also adapted to the simpler multitude: but they have not concerned themselves to accommodate them to the comprehension of this group, these authors of Greek fables. Whence not without reason Plato banished such fables and poems from his republic."
ARTICLE IV. ON FALSE, ABSURD, AND IMPOSSIBLE THINGS WHICH SCRIPTURE CONTAINS IN ITSELF.
This is the most astonishing of all Origen’s principles, that he brings a greater danger along with it. Indiscriminately he extends it to all Scripture, that is, to both Testaments and to every part of either Testament, to the precepts, and to the historical narratives, and even to the prophecies themselves. Because this article requires a prolix investigation, we shall divide it into several paragraphs.
§ 1. Because Scripture, both of the New and the Old Testament, understood according to the literal sense, contains many things that are false, absurd, and impossible.
He proposes this paradox to us in book iv *De Principiis*, num. 15 and 16, in these words: "Because if the usefulness of the law and the series of history, delighting the reader, were everywhere present, we would by no means have believed that D any other..."
thing beyond what is obvious could be understood in the Scriptures; therefore the Word of God took care to interpose certain stumbling blocks and impossible things in the law and history, so that, by not being lulled to sleep by a diction having nothing beyond a superficial charm, and by not departing from things worthy of God, or clinging entirely to the naked letter, we might perceive nothing divine. This, moreover, is to be known: since the Word of God particularly aims that it might keep the sequence of spiritual understanding in things done and to be done, where according to history it discovers things that could be accommodated to these mysteries, it uses them, with many hidden and abstruse meanings; but where it was not fitting to explain to them that spiritual connection, it interjected into the history of the Scripture things that did not happen, or even sometimes things that could not happen; and when it was possible for them to happen, yet they did not happen. It also happens that certain things are added that are inconsistent with the truth of the diction, or with the appearance of the body. And there are many such things. The same judgment must be brought against the law, where often something is found to be useful and convenient for the times of the law; at other times, no usefulness appears. Nay, truly, at times impossible things are commanded, and that indeed with the intent that those more sagacious and more keen in the inquiry of things, giving themselves to the consideration and investigation of the Scriptures, might especially persuade themselves that a meaning worthy of God must be sought in those matters. Not only did the Holy Spirit provide this concerning those things which preceded the advent of Christ, but, as the same Spirit, He did the same in the Gospels and the writings of the apostles; so that neither, according to the bodily sense, do they have entirely sincere history of those things which are woven together, and yet did not happen; nor do the laws and precepts have consistent reason. He then attempts to strengthen his opinion. The same book, num. 8 and 9, after he had placed as a foundation this truth which is beyond controversy, from ignorance of the way which we strive to reach for the understanding of the Scriptures, he brings in as an example the Jews born into infinite errors, and some Christians of his own time, that he might prove false this way which leads to the precipice. 'Hard of heart,' he says, 'and foolish, and those who are under circumcision, believing that they must follow the diction of the prophecies which speak about Christ, and not believing in our Savior; and since they did not perceive in a sensible way the predicted remission to the captives, nor that He had built the city of God as they believe, nor that He had exterminated the chariots of Ephraim, and the horse of Jerusalem, and that they had eaten butter and honey, and that before they knew or chose evil, they had chosen good; that it was predicted that the wild animal [would pasture] with the lamb, the leopard would be stalled with the kid; the calf, the bull, and the lion would graze together and be led by a boy; the ox and the bear would partake of the same fodder, their young ones being reared together; the lion also would eat hay like the ox; none of these things having been visibly perceived in Him whom we believe to be Christ, in the advent of our Lord Jesus—they therefore, not having received Him, so that He might preach Christ against the Law itself, they nailed Him to the cross.' The heretics, however, reading: *The fire has burned out of My [wrath]*; and: *I am a jealous God, rendering the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation*; and: *I have not anointed Saul as king*; and: *I am the Lord who makes peace and creates evils*; and in another place: *There is no evil in the city which the Lord has not done*; and this moreover: *Evils have descended from the Lord to the gates of Jerusalem*; and: *An evil spirit from God was stifling Saul*; and others like these, almost infinite, have not dared to say indeed that they are not of the Scriptures, but they believe them to be those which the Jews cultivate, as if the Creator of them were imperfect and not a good founder, having judged that the Savior had arrived to announce a more perfect God, whom they say is not the maker of the world, and they are carried away by various opinions; and after they have defected from the Creator who alone is unborn, they cling to fictions, imagining fictitious hypotheses according to which they think visible things were made, and certain other invisible things, which they have fashioned for themselves in their minds. Moreover, some simpler ones, who boast that they are of the Church, think that the Creator is indeed not the greatest, but they embrace that same opinion; and they suspect things of Him which it is not right to think even of a man, however cruel and unjust. To them all, there seems to be no other cause for false opinions, for no impiety and stupidity in speaking about God, than that the Scripture is not understood according to the spiritual sense, but accepted according to the literal."
A § II. From Origen, in the Mosaic law there are many things which, if accepted in the literal sense, have no order, no consequence, but are rather impossible, contrary to reason, unworthy of God, and merely of human laws.
In book VII *Against Celsus*, num. 20 and 21, to the objections made by this Epicurean against the Mosaic law, he responds in no other way than by repudiating the literal sense. "I say, therefore," he says, "that the law is twofold, one literal, another spiritual, as some before us have taught. The letter is not as God Himself, speaking in the law and the prophets, calls judgments 'not good,' precepts 'not good'; the spiritual, however, is called by the same prophet 'good judgments' and 'good precepts' by God. Certainly the prophet does not say that they are fighting with themselves in that place. And Paul also agrees with them when he says that the letter, which is the same as the literal sense, kills."
gives life. Therefore, one can find in Paul things similar to those which seem to be contradictory in the prophet. For just as Ezekiel says, on the one hand: I gave them statutes that were not good and judgments in which they would not live; but on the other: I gave them good judgments and good statutes in which they will live; so Paul, when he wants to disparage the literal law, says: "But if the ministration of death, written in letters on stones, was in glory, so that the children of Israel could not look into the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance which is passed away; how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather in glory?" But where he admires and approves the law, he calls it spiritual: "We know," he says, "that the law is spiritual." He also approves of it in this place: "Therefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Now if the words of the law promise riches to the just, let Celsus, having followed the killing letter, understand the promise to refer to these blind riches; we say that it pertains to those riches which sharpen the eyes of the mind, and by which one becomes rich in every word and in every knowledge. Nor does he declare his mind on this matter less openly in his homily 11 on Exodus in these words: "If there is anyone who, while reading Moses, murmurs against him, and is displeased with the law which is written according to the letter, because in many things it does not seem to preserve consistency, let Moses show him the rock, which is Christ, and lead him to it, that he may drink therefrom and refresh his thirst." But behold, from the seventh homily on Leviticus, another passage of far greater boldness: "If we sit by the letter," he says, "and accept what is written in the law according to this, either according to what the Jews believe, or what is commonly perceived, I am ashamed to say and confess that God gave such laws. For the laws of men, for instance, of the Romans, or the Athenians, or the Lacedaemonians, will seem more elegant and reasonable."
§ III. The same principles are applied by Origen to many precepts of the Old Testament.
The fourth homily on the sixth chapter of Leviticus, explaining these words: "Whoever touches consecrated things shall himself be sanctified," says: "We must return to the evangelical and apostolic expositions, so that the law may be understood. For unless the Gospel removes the veil from the face of Moses, his face cannot be seen, nor his meaning understood. See, therefore, how the disciples of the apostles are present in the Church to those things which Moses wrote, and defend them in that they can both be fulfilled reasonably and were written reasonably; but the teachers of the Jews both make these things impossible and irrational, by following the letter." The homily proceeds even further in the following one: "All these things," he says, "unless we accept them in a different sense than the text of the letter, as we have already said, when they are recited in the Church, will provide more of an obstacle and a subversion to the Christian religion than reason and edification." Likewise, in book IV of *De Principiis*, no. 17, he reports other precepts of the law which he thinks should not, or cannot, be observed according to the letter. "If we come even to the Mosaic laws," he says, "many, if they are to be observed according to the letter, are absurd; others prescribe the impossible. It is absurd that the eating of vultures is forbidden, since no one, even when urged by extreme hunger, could be induced to resort to that animal. Infants of eight days old are ordered to be exterminated from their race if they are not circumcised, when rather, if something had to be decreed about keeping these to the letter, it ought to have been prescribed that their parents or their guardians be put to death. But now Scripture says: 'Every male who is uncircumcised and is not circumcised on the eighth day shall perish from his people.' But if you wish to know the impossibilities that are prescribed by the law, let us observe that the tragelaph is among those animals which cannot exist in the nature of things: which Moses nevertheless commands us to offer as clean. It has never been heard that a griffin was caught by man: which the legislator nevertheless forbids to be eaten. But also the most celebrated Sabbath, to one who has accurately weighed these words: 'Let everyone remain in his home, let no one go out from his place on the seventh day,' will seem impossible to be observed to the letter, since no animal can remain motionless for the whole day."
§ IV. According to Origen's mind, some things are narrated in the Old Testament as having happened, which nevertheless never occurred; others are false as they are reported, and therefore are not to be accepted in the literal sense.
The first proof will be that which the sixth homily on Genesis noted concerning the history of Sarah and Abimelech. "What edification," he says, "will it be for us readers, that Abraham, such a great patriarch, not only lied to king Abimelech, but also surrendered the chastity of his wife? What does the wife of such a great patriarch edify in us, if she is thought to have been exposed to defilements through marital connivance? Let the Jews think these things, and whoever are friends of the letter with them, not of the spirit." The history of Rebekah, which homily 10 on the same book of Genesis reports, he concludes with this interrogation to the audience: "Do you think these are fables, and that the Holy Spirit narrates histories in the Scriptures? ... I have often said that in these things histories are not narrated, but mysteries are woven together." The same paradox is pressed in the first homily on Exodus: "None of these things," he says, "were written for us as history, nor should it be thought that the divine books narrate the deeds of the Egyptians. But the things that were written were written for our instruction." And in the second homily on the same book, where there is a discourse about the Egyptian midwives: "If," he says, "the things that were written were to be accepted according to the narration of history, this which Scripture says, that the midwives did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, seems not to be able to stand."
A and the spirit, which signifies the same as the spiritual sense, to give life. Therefore, with Paul, one may find things similar to those which might seem to be contrary in the prophet. For just as Ezekiel says, on the one hand: "I gave them statutes that were not good and judgments by which they should not live"; and on the other hand: "I gave them good statutes and good judgments by which they shall live"; so Paul, where he wishes to disparage the literal law, says: "But if the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance which is done away, how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?" Where, however, he admires and approves the law, he calls it spiritual: "We know," he says, "that the law is spiritual." He also approves it in this place: "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Now if the words of the law promise riches to the just, let Celsus, having followed the killing letter, understand the promise of these blind riches; we say that it pertains to those riches which sharpen the eyes of the mind, and by which someone becomes rich in every word and in every knowledge. And he declares his mind on this matter no less clearly in homily 11 on Exodus in these words: "If there is anyone who, reading Moses, murmurs against him, and the law which is written according to the letter displeases him because in many places it does not seem to preserve coherence, Moses shows him the rock, which is Christ, and leads him to it, so that he may drink from it and refresh his thirst." But look, from the seventh homily on Leviticus, another passage of much greater boldness: "If we sit by the letter," he says, "and according to this—whether that which seems to the Jews or that which seems to the common people—we accept what is written in the law, I am ashamed to say and confess that God gave such laws. For the laws of men, for instance, of the Romans, or the Athenians, or the Lacedaemonians, will seem to be more elegant and rational."
§ III. The same principles are applied by Origen to most of the precepts of the Old Testament. The fourth homily on the sixth chapter of Leviticus, explaining these words: "Whosoever shall touch the sanctified things, and he shall be sanctified," says: "We must return to the evangelical and apostolic expositions, so that the law may be understood. For unless the Gospel removes the veil from the face of Moses, his countenance cannot be seen, nor its meaning understood. See, therefore, how in the Church the disciples of the apostles are present at these things which Moses wrote, and defend them in that they can both be fulfilled rationally and be written rationally; the teachers of the Jews, however, following the letter, make these both impossible and irrational." B He proceeds even further in the following homily: "If we do not accept all these things in another sense than the text of the letter, as we have already said, when they are read in the Church, they will provide an obstacle and subversion to the Christian religion rather than reason and edification." Likewise, book IV *De principiis*, no. 17, relates other precepts of the law, which he thinks ought not or cannot be observed literally. "If we come," he says, "even to the Mosaic laws, very many, if they are to be observed according to the letter, command an absurdity; others command an impossibility. It is absurd that the eating of the vulture is forbidden, when no one, even under the pressure of extreme hunger, could be brought to turn to that animal. It is commanded that infants of eight days who are not circumcised be exterminated from their people, when, if any decree were to be made concerning observing these things to the letter, it would rather be necessary to order that their parents or their nurses be put to death. Now, however, the Scripture says: 'Every uncircumcised male who is not circumcised on the eighth day, shall perish from his people.' But if you wish to know the impossibilities which are commanded by the law, let us notice that the tragelaph is among those living creatures which cannot exist in the nature of things: which, however, Moses orders us to offer as pure. A griffin has never been heard to have been caught by a man: which the legislator nevertheless forbids to be eaten. But also the most celebrated Sabbath, to one who carefully weighs these words: 'Let everyone sit at home, let no one of you go out from his place on the seventh day,' will seem impossible to be observed to the letter, since no animal can sit motionless for the whole day."
§ IV. In Origen's opinion, some things are narrated in the Old Testament as having been done, which, however, never happened; others, which as they are referred to, are false, and therefore are not to be accepted in the literal sense. The first argument will be that which he noted in the sixth homily on Genesis concerning the history of Sarah and Abimelech. "What edification," he says, "will it be to us reading that Abraham, such a great patriarch, not only lied to King Abimelech, but also betrayed the chastity of his wife? What edification does the wife of such a great patriarch offer us, if she is thought to be exposed to contaminations through marital connivance? Let the Jews think these things, and whoever are friends of the letter with them, not of the spirit." The history of Rebekah, which homily 10 on the same book of Genesis relates, he concludes with this interrogation to the auditors: "Do you think these are fables, and that the Holy Spirit narrates histories in the Scriptures?.. I have often said that these are not histories being narrated, but mysteries being woven together." He forces the same paradox in the first homily on Exodus: "These," he says, "are not written for us as history, nor should it be thought that the divine books narrate the deeds of the Egyptians. But the things which are written were written for our instruction." And in the second homily on the same book, where the discourse is about the Egyptian midwives: "If," he says, "those things which are written were to be accepted according to the narration of history, this which Scripture says, that the midwives did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, seems not to be able to stand. C"