The confessions of S. Augustine

Preface

TO THE

CONFESSIONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

Tue general objects of the “ Library of the Fathers,” have been already summarily stated". It may however be well, before entering on the particular work with which the series is commenced, to make a few observations with reference to such misapprehensions, or errors, as are not unlikely to arise. For though certainly it should seem, that the writings of men, ever venerated by the Church on whom they were bestowed, ought to be received with thankfulness; yet, in the present state of things, some will perhaps rather be suspicious of the gift, through want of familiarity with the Fathers themselves, and the principles of our Church, with regard to their value. A few words then may here be said, for the sake of such as are honestly in doubt on the subject. More will be avoided, lest we should seem to wish to be heard ourselves, when our only wish is to obtain a hearing for those ancient witnesses of Catholic truth, and ourselves also to listen to them. At the same time, it must be said in the outset, that “ authority” is not put forth as the use of the Fathers; it is dwelt upon thus prominently, only because it is an use, about which many misapprehensions exist.

These misconceptions may be referred to three heads. 1. The amount of authority claimed: 2. For whom: and, 3. For what that authority is claimed. For it seems by some to be thought, that, 1. The authority of the Fathers will interfere with the paramount authority of Holy Scripture. 2. That it

‘s 2 Prospectus. See end of the vol.

b ii PREFACE.

involves ascribing undue authority to men fallible like ourselves, and exalting the dicta of one or the other Father, which may be erroneous. 8. That the appeal to the Fathers entails a disparagement of the authority of our own Church, and innovations upon her discipline or doctrine.

They, who so think, are of course right to be jealous for these things,—if only they be careful that they are jealous for the authority of Holy Scripture and of our Church, not for their own constructions of either ;—every Churchman should be careful that he place not any private authority, whether of ancient or modern, Father or recent teacher, domestic authority or foreign, Churchman or Sectarian, above that of his Church, or put any human authority on a par with Holy Scripture. Our Church, however, once, solemnly met, did ascribe considerable authority to the Fathers, and it will be plain, both from the circumstances, and from the tenor of the words which she used, that she therein neither derogated from her own legitimate authority, nor from the supreme authority of Holy Scripture. It is plain from the circumstances, because it was the act of the Convocation of A.D. 1571, the same Convocation, which enforced Subscription to our Articles,— an act certainly evidencing their sense of the power of a particular Church, and one involving the claim of considerable authority; and those Articles decidedly recognizing Holy Scripture, as the sole ultimate source of authority. In this very Convocation, in which she exerted her own authority, she secured also the legitimate authority of the Fathers. She then enacted,

CLERGY SHALL BE CAREFUL NEVER TO TEACH ANY THING FROM THE PULPIT, TO BE RELIGIOUSLY HELD AND BELIEVED BY THE PEOPLE, BUT WHAT IS AGREEABLE TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE OLD oR NEW TESTAMENT, AND COLLECTED OUT OF THAT SAME DOCTRINE BY THE CATHOLIC FATHERS, AND ANCIENT BisHops.

Thus at the same time that she was, by enforcing subscription to the Articles, fencing herself round, as a particular

PREFACE. iii

Church, she formally maintained her connection with the Church Catholic, and made provision that her Ministers should not narrow her teaching, but retain it as co-extensive with that of the Universal Church.

The very language of this Canon itself shews, that the rightful authority of the Fathers interferes neither with that of Holy Scripture, nor with her own.

First then, there is no semblance of “ contrasting Scripture and the Fathers, as coordinate authority.” Scripture is reverenced as paramount; the “ rine of the Old or New Testament” is the source; the * Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops” have but the office of “ collecting out of that same doctrine ;” the Old and New Testaments are the fountain ; the Catholic Fathers, the channel, through which it has flowed down to us. The contrast, then, in point of authority, is not between Holy Scripture and the Fathers, but between the Fathers and us; not between the Book interpreted and the interpreters, but betweent one class of interpreters and another; between ancient Catholic truth and modern private opinions ; not between the word of God and the word of man, but between varying modes of understanding the word of God. Scripture is the depositary of the will of our Heavenly Father, His will, His covenant; but since every thing conveyed in the language of men will be liable to be by men differently interpreted, it would, of course, be a merciful provision of Almighty God, if He has been pleased to give us, within certain limits, rules for understanding that word. Now any one would acknowledge, in any man’s testament, that if the father, when yet with his children, had explained to them the meaning of his testament, (whether formally reading it to them, or conveying to them its substance in other words,) such an exposition would be of great authority in ascertaining the meaning of the general tenor of that testament, or of any portion of it which might otherwise seem capable of two interpretations. And if such children, when their father was no longer present here, were, when asked, without any wrong bias, to explain

b2 v PREFACE.

such will in one and the same way, and to declare that their father had told them that it was so to be understood, we should yield unhesitating assent to this testimony. Nor again would our value for that testimony be weakened, if, instead of the immediate children, the children’s children should be the witnesses, especially had they been separated from each other in different countries, yet all agreed in the meaning which they had learnt from their several parents was to be attached to the will of their common father. All such illustrations as this must indeed fall short of the truth, because such reference to the things of men can furnish no adequate parallel to those of God. ‘Thus, this illustration omits, that Holy Seripture is not a formal document, written for the purpose of conveying systematic, precise, statements; or, again, that God did not leave the meaning of His word to be collected any how, or ever did employ it without living guardians and expounders, and the like. It suffices, however, for the purpose for which it is here used. It gives an instance, how in the case of such agreement as to the meaning of a document, no one would doubt about it; (the testimony of the sons of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, was valid testimony as to that which their father commanded them;) nor, in the case of a written document, would any one say that these witnesses were regarded as equal in authority to that to whose meaning they bore testimony, since the very fact of appealing to, and expounding an original document, implies that i¢ is the ultimate source of authority; it is not, as men say, its independence, but ours, which is denied; 7% is the independent source of authority; but we, to be satisfied of its meaning, are not independent, (as some would wish to be,) but depend upon the testimony of others. These points then are plain; 1. The paramount authority of the document appealed to. 2. The au~ thority of concurring testimony to its meaning, if it is to be had from those to whom its meaning was originally explained, or their descendants. Now this is just what is claimed by our Church for the Fathers, 7. e. for the ancient Church, in what-

PREFACE. v ever way its testimony is to be collected; whether they had themselves occasion to deposit it once for all, as at the General Councils (truly so called), or whether, though not collected by themselves, it is still capable of being collected from them. They are witnesses, and in whatever cases agreement is to be had, they are valid witnesses, as to the sense in which God willed His Scripture to be understood. Thus, we are assured at once, without further scruple, that the Nicene Creed contains the Scriptural Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, not only in case any can prove it to themselves to be such, (for as to some of its Articles many might find much difficulty in so doing,) but because we have the witness of the whole Church that it is so. We believe that it “may be proved by most certain warrant of Holy Scripture,” (Art. VIII.) because it was so proved, and the Church Universal bore witness that such was the meaning of Holy Scripture on these awful truths, and that such was the interpretation which they had received from their fathers, and so from the Apostles. It is our privilege, that questions so decided are closed—not against us, but for us—or, if we so will, for us against ourselves. We have ground to be satisfied that the results so gained are true, and may benefit by them, without the labour of further questioning. We are satisfied to “ receive them as agreeable to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testaments,” even because “ the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have gathered it out of that very Doctrine,” for us as well as for themselves. The Fathers, then, are not, as some mistakenly suppose, equalled, much less preferred, to Holy Scripture, but only to ourselves, i.e. the ancient to the modern, the waters near the fountain to the troubled estuary rolled backward and forward by the varying tide of human opinion, and rendered brackish by the continued contact with the bitter waters of this world, unity to disunion, the knowledge of the near successors of the Apostles to that of these latter times. __ The same will be the case as to any other truths, ** consen- - taneous to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament,”

vi PREFACE.

which the Fathers had not occasion to collect, but which still may be collected from their existing works. The Creeds, indeed, happily contain the great mass of Doctrine, although even as to these, (as is apparent from the very expositions of the Creeds, e.g. Bp. Pearson’s,) a further enquiry is necessary to ascertain what is the precise meaning of these compendious statements in some of their Articles. The process in such cases may be longer, but the result the same. We become assured that we know what was the Apostolic doctrine, when we have the agreement of early and independent witnesses as to that Doctrine.

2. There can be no notion of “ appealing to fallible men, as of ultimate authority, or setting up unduly the authority of one or other of the Fathers.” The appeal of our Church is not to the Fathers, individually, or as individuals, but as witnesses ; not to this or that Father, but to the whole body, and agreement of ** Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops.” ‘The appeal is not to St. Athanasius, or St. Cyprian, or St. Basil, much as we have reason to venerate those blessed servants of God, but to “ the Church Universal throughout the world,” to whose belief these are eminent, but still single, witnesses. We could not tell, from any single Father, unless where he directly avers it, whether any sentiment or statement of doctrine be peculiar to himself or his own Church, or to some particular Churches, or whether, finally, it belong to the belief of the Holy Church Universal. It may be, that any given Father, on some particular point, is not speaking as a witness at all, but expressing only his own individual sentiments, as an enlightened Christian of the present day might. ‘Not but that he would even then be to be regarded with deference by individuals, (unless indeed he should be at variance with the majority of the ancients,) but it would be, in part, in a different capacity. We should regard him then with respect, in that he lived in holier and more self-denying times, before the Church was divided, while the memory of the truths first delivered was fresher, and men’s perception of the “analogy of the Faith”

PREFACE. vii more vivid. ‘There would be greater likelihood that he would be in the right, as an individual, in that the tone of his mind would be more likely to be in entire accordance with that of the Holy Spirit, that he would have larger measures of that Spirit, and have no opposing prejudices to disturb His influence. There would be a greater likelihood also of his being a witness, in that the statement, which he was delivering, may very probably have been affected or produced by the body of Catholic truth then floating in the Church, but which has not arrived orally down to us, or for which we have, through later circumstances, a less keen perception. Still, we have thus far only a probability that he was herein speaking the truth, and it might be that he was under some secret bias of his own, as St. Augustine has generally been held to be with regard to some part of his controversy with the Pelagians. The words then of an individual Father may be only those of an enlightened man; it is only by their harmony or unity with others, that we ascertain them to be part of the Catholic Verities. By comparing them with those of other members of his Church, (who have ever been quoted as of eminence in each Church,) we should ascertain them to be the doctrines of that Church; by comparison with other Churches, to be part of the teaching of the Church Catholic. Each Father is, in the first instance, probably a witness for the doctrine of his own Church, and indirectly, and ultimately, through his Church, of the Church Catholic, if so be his Church herein agree with the other Churches. For, some things we find in the African, some in the Latin Church, peculiar to those Churches ; some things, again, in two or more Churches, which yet we have no proof that they were ever Catholic. Things so held, or practices so received, (such as the re-baptizing of heretics, held in the Churches of Africa proper, Egypt, Asia Minor,) would, of course, be entitled to their degree of weight, in that they were so entertained in ancient or Apostolic Churches, and would claim the more respect, if it should appear that there was no positive evidence on the other side, (as in case other Churches viii PREFACE.

knew not of them, but knew of no authority positively opposed to them ;)—still they would be to be regarded very differently from what was universally received. It is this only, which, according to Vincentius’ invaluable rule, was received “ by all, in all Churches, and at all times,” (i. e. that, whose beginning cannot be traced, so that it should appear that the Church ever knew not of it, and in the evidence of whose reception there are no flaws, as if it should appear not to have been held either by distinct Churches, or by eminent individuals in each Church,) which has the degree of evidence, upon which we can undoubtingly pronounce that it is Apostolic.

3. Our Church being a sound member of the Church Catholic, “ there is no notion of innovating upon her doctrine or practice,” but rather of bringing out more fully how Catholic that doctrine and practice are, to determine in many cases what the meaning of her teaching is, to shew that to be Catholic and Primitive, and so Apostolic, which people, because they have only seen it in our Church, think to be human. Thus, much doctrine is contained in our Collects, much in our Sacramental Services, which, as belonging to high antiquity, can only be fully understood by means of that antiquity, whence it is derived; and which, so understood, will appear in its real character, as part of those primitive ordinances or teaching, which the Apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit to establish or impart in the Churches, which they severally founded. ‘Thus, as far as any appeal is made to antiquity, as in the other case, it is made, not to the disparagement of Scripture, (God forbid !) but against modern interpretations of Scripture, so here it is made, not against our own Church, or as wishing to superadd any thing to it, but against modern misinterpretations of her meaning. ‘The great object of practical and reverential men, must be, for a long time, confined to bringing out her existing system, in its depth, beauty, and fulness: if it should please God, that these should be ever fully and generally appreciated and felt in the Church, not with the patronizing pretensions of ‘ friends of the Church,”

PREFACE. ix but with the dutiful devotion of sons, they, whose minds shall have been so purified and enlightened, will doubtless be guided to do what is best for their parent; our office is not to amend her, but respectfully to learn her real character ourselves, and convey it to those who wish to know it. Rather, the office of the present generation is to restore her sons to her; and she, when she shall again be raised from the dust, and have put on her jewels, like a bride, will be led by the Spirit of the Church, to do what is best for her children. What is done for the Church, as a whole, must be done by the Church, as a whole.

The object then of recalling men’s attention to the Fathers, so far as relates to the establishment of doctrine or practice, is, subordinately to Scripture, to bring out the meaning of Holy Scripture, and, with respectful deference to our Church, to lead people to see the Catholic and Primitive character and meaning of the treasures which she possesses. To those, who doubt whether there be any such thing as Catholic agreement, having been accustomed to partial statements of the variations of the Fathers, it can only be said, as of old time, * Come and see ;” and we doubt not that they, who have the candour of Nathanael, will, under the guise of flesh, see Him Whom they seek, will, in His Church, see Him, Who promised to be with His Church, ‘ even to the end of the world,” pervading by His Spirit men of different temperaments, intellectual powers, learning, speech, discipline or depth or acuteness of mind, but fitting them alike, by docility and holiness, to carry on His message to the Church, and keep and transmit to us that one good thing committed unto them.

Meanwhile one or two remarks or cautions may be of use, as well to prepare the more candid of those who have misgivings about this study, to receive them, as not to receive them amiss.

It is not denied then, that there is diversity among the Fathers ; the very contrary is implied in the very distinction of what is Catholic, and what is not; since, if there were no x PREFACE.

diversity, all would be Catholic. But then, as Bp. Beveridge® well retorts the objection, “all the dissensions which have been raised among them on certain points, take nothing from their supreme authority on those points on which they agree, but rather in an eminent degree confirm it. For the fact that in other things they have differed, most plainly manifests, that those things, on which they have agreed, they have handed down, not from any compact or agreement, not from any party formed, not from any communication of design, nor, finally, from their own private opinions, but naked and unadulterated, as derived from the common and general interpretation of the Universal Church. And, indeed, although on certain less necessary points, as well of faith as of discipline, the ancient Fathers do in some little degree differ one from another, yet that very many things have been received with the fullest agreement by all, is so clear, that we may judge of it with our own eyes. For there are many things, which we see have been defined by the Universal Church in Councils truly cecumenical, many things which have been approved by the consent of several, many things by the consent of all the writers of the Church; many things, finally, concerning which there was in ancient times no controversy moved; some of this class have been mentioned by us above, to which very many others may be added; those especially, which, although not definitively prescribed in Holy Scripture, have yet been retained by our very pious and prudent reformers of the English Church.”

Any one, indeed, who would reflect how many subjects are contained in our Creeds, and how many other truths these involve, how many again in our Liturgy, and how many practices and rites are herein contained, on all which there was universal agreement in the ancient Church, will be slow to receive the vague assertions of the discordancy of her teachers,

6 In his most valuable preface to the of Lirins’ Commonitory, Oxford, 1836, Codex Canonum. The translation pre- has been employed. fixed to the Translation of Vincentius

PREFACE. xi which are wont to be made by such as have but a superficial acquaintance with Christian antiquity. For a superficial acquaintance, and a superficial view, will only see discrepancy, where to one who can see a little below the surface, all is unity and harmony. The rills are different, the spring one. Then, also, the points of disagreement (where there is such) are offshoots, so to speak, remotely connected with the trunk, not the main stem of doctrine or practice: or they are details, where agreement is in principle; or they are points, which have been left free for the human mind to expatiate upon, and on which no definite result has been communicated, or is to be looked for. Disagreement on such points does not affect agreement upon the others, unless there be no such thing as partial knowledge, or because “* we know in part,” we know nothing, and are to be sceptics, because we are not ‘as God.” As, indeed, these notions of Christian antiquity originate in an unconscious, and may, and have ended, in a conscious, scepticism.

There is, indeed, one ground, on which people rest their despair of finding agreement in Christian antiquity, (perhaps, more truly in many cases, their hope that they may find none against themselves,) which deserves respect, for the sake of the source whence it is drawn: the descriptions of early divisions and heresies, in Holy Scripture. But the inference is founded on two mistakes; 1. The divisions were not between the recognized teachers of the Church; nor arose in misapprehensions of their doctrine; but the carnal among those who were taught, “ would not endure sound doctrine ;” and so “ heaped to themselves” heretical ‘ teachers.” Thus Paul and Apollos taught the same doctrine ; it is the rivalry of heretical teachers, which St. Paul condemns; in speaking whereof, St. Paul “transfers to himself and Apollos” what others were guilty of, that they might “ learn in them,” that there was to be no private teaching or authority in the Church; no name, however high, was to be set up as being any thing individually; but all were to “ speak the xii PREFACE.

same thing*,” as having but one Gospel to deliver, and “ with one mind, one mouth, glorify God‘.” 2. The authors of these heresies ceased to be members of the Church, “ they went out from us;” so that one must not only speak of heresies, or heretical teachers “creeping into the Church,” but of their being ejected out of it. They strove to assimilate themselves to it, but they could not; the inherent vitality of the Church separated and rejected them from it; and if they still appeared on its surface, no one could any more mistake them for the Church, than in a fair human countenance they would the foul matter, which the healthy action of the body had detached from itself. Hence St. Augustine takes blame to himself, for not having been at pains to ascertain the Church’s doctrine, and having carped at what, after all, were but his own notions of it®. So then he might have known it, had he pleased. There was a recognized body of Catholic truth, which belonged to the Church, and which whoso willed, might know to be her’s. The modern doubts as to the meaning of the Church had no place then. In truth, the existence of early heresies, so far from at all disparaging Catholic unity, the more illustrates it; there was unity within the Church, and that unity so living and so powerful, that whoso abandoned the true doctrine ceased to be a member of it; ‘ they went out from us, because they were not of us.” “ The rejection of heretics,” says St. Augustine ‘, “ makes the tenets of Thy Church and sound doctrine stand out more clearly.” Even in a less healthy state of the Church, it becomes clear in the long run, which was of the Church, which was in the Church only; no one, for instance, would mistake Hoadley for a representative of the English Church, though the Church had not strength to cast him out, but he sat in high office within her. The waters clear as they flow on; much more then, when the primitive awe of the Church was so great, and her consciousness of the sacredness of her deposit so vivid, that

PREFACE. xiii they who violated it, stood convicted as offenders and aliens, and “went away ashamed.”

And not only was the line thus distinctly drawn between the Church, and the heretical depravations of her doctrine, but, even within the bosom of the Church, Christian antiquity

_ itself stamped the peculiar opinions, even of those whom in the main it honoured. We ourselves also, in that we speak familiarly of the harshness of Tertullian, the predestinarianism of St. Austin, Origen’s speculativeness, Arnobius’ deficient acquaintance with the Gospel he defended, are witnesses that there is a tangible distinction between Catholic truth and

_ individual opinion. We discovered not these peculiarities for _ ourselves, nor that they were peculiarities; they were not discovered by any moderns, nor was it by reference to any standard of our own, that we knew them to be such; they came down to us in the stream, along with our knowledge of the writers themselves, and previous to any acquaintance of our own with them; i. e. together with the doctrines, and opinions, which are known to have been held by the Fathers of the Christian Church, there were handed down to us certain criteria, whereby to judge of them. We have not received (as many now seem to think) a confused heap of opinions, expositions, doctrines, errors, which we are to unravel as we may, but a well-ordered body of truth, digested into its several compartments, and arranged, what was accepted, what undecided, what rejected, for those who wish to see. ‘Those who will, may indeed dispute, whether Catholic truth be indeed truth, or whether it must not first be submitted to their own private judgment, to receive its stamp, and so be received, not on its own authority, but on theirs, not because it is in itself truth, but because it appears to a given individual to be such. But they who will, will have no difficulty in ascertaining what Catholic Truth is. It is plain, well-defined, uniform, consistent.

Only we must not set up an estimate of that Truth for ourselyes, and make that a criterion of it, or decide that those xiv PREFACE.

things can be no portion of it, which are contrary to our own received notions. It may be, for instance, that systems of interpretation, which are now almost universally abandoned, are true, however foreign they may be to our notions, or though to us, as being foreign, they must at first needs seem fanciful. It is a vulgar and common-place prejudice, which would measure every thing by its own habits of mind, and condemn that as fanciful, to which it is unaccustomed, simply because it, confined and contracted by treading its own matterof-fact round, cannot expand itself to receive it, or has no power to assimilate it to its own previous notions, or adapt them to it. It is the same habit, which would laugh at one, who came from a foreign clime, in a garb to which a peasanteye is unwonted. “ He who laughs first,” says Dr. Johnson, “‘is the barbarian.” A deeper philosophy sees harmony, where the unobservant sees only discord. There is a deep unity in Creation, though the Manichzeans could resolve its phenomena, only upon the theory of two opposing principles; and that unity is not the less there though he cannot see it. There is a deep unity also in the Primitive Church, God’s new Creation, although to those who reject the clue, it may become an entangled labyrinth. It were absurd for the shortsighted and unpractised to deny the existence of what themselves see not; what one of practised sight sees, is there, although such as have been inured all their lives to look on the surface of the ground close before them, see it not. The horses and chariots of fire were round about Elisha, although his servant saw them not, until, at the Prophet’s prayer, ‘ the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw” what the Seer had all along seen. The Angel of the Lord stood three times in the way to withstand Balaam, and the ass saw him, though the prophet saw not, but “smote the ass,” who saved him from being slain, until the Lord, who had opened the mouth” of the “ dumb ass, speaking with man’s voice,” to “‘ forbid the madness of the prophet,” “ opened the eyes of © 2 Kings 6, 13—17,