li, etc. in Migne, vol. ix, and De
Trinitate, lib. ii, cap. ii. For Jerome's interpretation of the text
relating to the Shunamite woman, see Epist. lii, in Migne, vol. xxii,
pp. 527, 528. For Augustine's use of numbers, see the De Doctrina
Christiana, lib. ii, cap. xvi; and for the explanation of the draught of
fishes, see Augustine in, In Johan. Evangel., tractat. cxxii; and on the
twenty-five to thirty furlongs, ibid., tract. xxv, cap. 6; and for the
significance of the serpent eating dust, De Gen., lib. ii, c. 18. or the
view that the drunkenness of Noah prefigured the suffering of Christ, as
held by SS. Cyprian and Augustine, see Farrar, as above, pp. 181, 238.
For St. Gregory, see the Magna Moralia, lib. i, cap. xiv.

Thus began the vast theological structure of oracular interpretation
applied to the Bible. As we have seen, the men who prepared the
ground for it were the rabbis of Palestine and the Hellenized Jews of
Alexandria; and the four great men who laid its foundation courses were
Origen, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Gregory.

During the ten centuries following the last of these men this structure
continued to rise steadily above the plain meanings of Scripture. The
Christian world rejoiced in it, and the few great thinkers who dared
bring the truth to bear upon it were rejected. It did indeed seem at one
period in the early Church that a better system might be developed. The
School of Antioch, especially as represented by Chrysostom, appeared
likely to lead in this better way, but the dominant forces were too
strong; the passion for myth and marvel prevailed over the love of
real knowledge, and the reasonings of Chrysostom and his compeers were
neglected.(467)

(467) For the work of the School of Antioch, and especially of
Chrysostom, see the eloquent tribute to it by Farrar, as above.

In the ninth century came another effort to present the claims of right
reason. The first man prominent in this was St. Agobard, Bishop of
Lyons, whom an eminent historian has well called the clearest head
of his time. With the same insight which penetrated the fallacies and
follies of image worship, belief in witchcraft persecution, the ordeal,
and the judicial duel, he saw the futility of this vast fabric of
interpretation, protested against the idea that the Divine Spirit
extended its inspiration to the mere words of Scripture, and asked a
question which has resounded through every generation since: "I