Mosheim himself tells us how Origen determined when a passage should be interpreted literally and when allegorically: “Whenever the words, if understood literally, will afford a valuable meaning, one that is worthy of God, useful to men, and accordant with truth and correct reason, _then the literal meaning is to be retained_; but whenever the words, if understood literally, will express what is absurd, _or false, or contrary to correct reason, or useless, or unworthy of God_, then the literal sense is to be discarded, and the moral and mystical alone to be regarded. This rule he applies to every part both of the Old Testament and the New.” This reasoning is sufficiently strong for any of our modern _higher critics_. If it led directly to the removal of the Word of God from the common people of the Middle Ages, because teachers adjudged no minds but their own capable of determining whether a certain passage should be interpreted literally or allegorically, to what will the same treatment of the Scriptures now lead? And if the disciples of Origen lacking the caution of the great teacher, were led into the gross licentiousness of the heathen, how much of the wickedness of modern society should be attributed to the spirit of higher criticism, echoed from the pulpit, and breathed from the schoolroom? [Sidenote: Minds prepared for the papacy] Mosheim continues: “He [Origen] assigns two reasons why fables and literal absurdities are admitted into the Sacred Volume. The first is, that if the literal meaning were always rational and good, the reader would be apt to rest in it, and not look after the moral and mystical sense. The second is, that fabulous and incongruous representations often afford moral and mystical instructions which could not so well be conveyed by sober facts and representations.” Perhaps this is enough to show that scholasticism, or a philosophical interpretation of the Scriptures had its origin in the Christian schools. By this it is plain why these youth became papists, instead of followers of the meek and lowly Galilean. There was no other theory which could, so effectually as this, have stamped out faith. No other teaching than this same higher criticism could have more truly developed that power which “speaketh great words against the Most High, and thinketh to change times and laws.” It formed the beast in the third century; it is forming the image to the beast in the present century. Students under such instruction had received ample preparation for a belief in the right of the church to interpret Scripture, and a belief in the infallibility of the pope. [Sidenote: Scholasticism and higher criticism]