Note A
In the text the Quaker expresses his belief “that the catechumens in the primitive Church were not taught something wholly different in kind from that which they learnt after their baptism,” “that they were not reasoned with upon those selfish motives which it must have been the object of their after initiation to cure them of.” It is probable that many passages may be produced from the Fathers to refute this opinion; to show that they did sometimes resort to selfish arguments, upon the plea that pure things are meant for the pure. Such a practice is so very plausible, so very flattering to our spiritual pride, and therefore has prevailed so much in all later ages of the Church, that one must expect to find the seeds of it in the earliest. From the excellent principle, that milk is for babes and meat for grown men, an economist might easily pass to the notion that there are some constitutions which are not even fit for milk, and that to these some liquid drawn from the muddy streams of the world, or distilled from its poisonous herbs, may be fitly administered. But that this was not the habitual and deliberate opinion of these ages, may, I think, be very clearly inferred from the short treatise of Augustine, “De catechizandis rudibus.”1 This valuable book was addressed to a Carthaginian deacon, who had complained of the difficulty which he found in preserving the cheerfulness and freedom of his own mind while he was engaged in catechizing. The remarks which St. Augustine makes upon this subject well deserve the attention of all teachers, whether in the pulpit or the school-room. It is not however for their sake, that I refer to this little work, but that the reader may see in what spirit a Bishop of the fourth century would have addressed a young heathen who was only preparing for admission into the Church.
Having stated his views respecting the method in which the historical parts of Scripture should be exhibited to the candidate and how the coming of Christ should be shewn to be the end to which they are all pointing, he goes on to say,
“Qua autem maior causa est adventus Domini, nisi ut ostenderet Deus dilectionem suam in nobis, commendans eam vehementer; quia cum adhuc inimici essemus Christus pro nobis mortuus est? Hoc autem ideo, quia finis precepti et plenitudo legis caritas est; ut et nos invicem diligamus, et quemadmodum ille pro nobis animam suam posuit, sic et nos pro fratribus animam ponamus; et ipsum Deum, quoniam prior dilexit nos, et Filio suo unico non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum, si amare pigebat, saltem nunc redamare non pigeat. Nulla est enim maior ad amorem invitatio, quam preevenire amando; et nimis durus est animus, qui dilectionem, si nolebat impendere, nolit rependere. Quod si in ipsis flagitiosis et sordidis amoribus videmus, nihil aliud eos agere qui amari vicissim volunt, nisi ut documentis quibus valent aperiant et ostendant quantum ament, eamque imaginem justitiae pretendere affectant, ut vicem sibi reddi quodam modo flagitent ab eis animis, quos illecebrare moliuntur; ipsique ardentius aestuant, cum jam moveri eodem igne etiam illas mentes quas appetunt sentiunt: si ergo et animus qui torpebat, cum se amari senserit excitatur, et qui jam fervebat cum se redamari didicerit, magis accenditur: manifestum est nullam esse maiorem causam qua vel inchoetur vel augeatur amor, quam cum amari se cognoscit qui nondum amat, aut redamari se vel posse sperat vel jam probat qui prior amat. Et si hoc etiam in turpibus amoribus, quanto plus in amicitia? Quid enim aliud cavemus in offensione amicitiae, nisi ne amicus arbitretur quod eum vel non diligimus, vel minus diligimus quam ipse nos diligit? Quod si crediderit, frigidior erit in eo amore quo invicem homines mutua familiaritate perfruuntur: et si non ita est infirmus ut haec illum offensio faciat ab omni dilectione frigescere, in ea se tenet qua non ut fruatur, sed ut consulat diligit. Operae pretium est autem animadvertere, quo modo, quamquam et superiores velint se ab inferioribus diligi, eorumque in se studioso delectentur obsequio, et quanto magis id senserint, tanto magis eos diligant, tamen quanto amore exardescat inferior, cum a superiore se diligi senserit. Ibi enim gratior amor est, ubi non aestuet indigentiae siccitate, sed ubertate beneficentiae profluit. Ille namque amor ex miseria est, iste ex misericordia. Jam vero si etiam se amari posse a superiore desperabat inferior, ineffabiliter commovebitur in amorem, si ultro ille fuerit dignatus ostendere, quantum diligat eum qui nequaquam sibi tantum bonum promittere auderet. Quid autem superius Deo judicante, et quid desperatius homine peccante? qui se tanto magis tuendum et subjugandum superbis potestatibus addixerat, quae beatificare non possunt, quanto magis desperaverat posse sui curam geri ab ea potestate quae non malitia sublimis esse vult sed bonitate sublimis est.
“Si ergo maxime propterea Christus advenit, ut cognosceret homo quantum eum diligat Deus; et ideo cognosceret ut in ejus dilectionem a quo prior dilectus est inardesceret, proximumque illo jubente et demonstrante diligeret, qui non proximum sed longe peregrinantem diligendo factus est proximus; omnisque Scriptura divina quae ante scripta est ad prenuntiandum adventum Domini scripta est; et quidquid postea mandatum est litteris et divina auctoritate firmatum, Christum narrat, et dilectionem monet: manifestum est non tantum totam Legem et Prophetas in illis duobus pendere preceptis dilectionis Dei et proximi, quae adhuc sola Scriptura sancta erat cum hoc Dominus diceret, sed etiam quaecumque posterius salubriter conscripta sunt memoriae mandataque divinarum volumina litterarum. Quapropter in veteri Testamento est occultatio novi, in novo Testamento est manifestatio veteris. Secundum illam occultationem carnaliter intelligentes carnales et tunc et nunc poenali timore subjugati sunt. Secundum hanc autem manifestationem spiritales, et tunc quibus pie pulsantibus etiam occulta patuerunt, et nunc qui non superbi quaerunt, ne etiam aperta claudantur, spiritaliter intelligentes donata caritate liberati sunt.
“Quia ergo caritati nihil adversius quam invidentia; mater autem invidentis superbia est; idem Dominus Jesus Christus, Deus homo, et divinus in nos dilectionis indicium est, et humanus apud nos humilitatis exemplum, ut magnus tumor noster majore contrarie medicina sanaretur. Magna est enim miseria superbus homo: sed maior misericordia, humilis Deus. Hac Ergo Dilectione Tibi Tamquam Fine Proposito Quo Referas Omnia QUÆ Dicis, Quidquid Narras Ita Narra Ut Ille Cui Loqueris Audiendo Credat, Credendo Speret, Sperando Amet.”
These last words are tolerably decisive as to the opinion of Augustine, respecting the manner in which the character and purpose of God, and the object of the Gospel, should be set before those who have not yet been received into His covenant. In this point of view his remarks would seem to me chiefly important to missionaries, who are acting directly upon the minds and consciences of heathens. I should never have dreamed of arguing the question at all in reference to those who have been brought up in a Christian country; who believe that they are struggling for a higher idea of Christianity than that which prevails among their countrymen generally, whose fathers did actually, as I think, maintain a fundamental Church principle which was in great hazard of being forgotten, and have transmitted to their descendants at least the form of that principle, with much, I allow, of its strength and vitality gone out of it, but on the other hand hallowed by feelings of old association and reverence. To deal with such men as if they stood upon the same ground with heathens, because they have not been baptized, seems to me a wilful denial of the effects which God’s covenant has produced upon a society which it has encompassed for a thousand years, under pretence of doing honour to the sign of that covenant. In quoting then St. Augustine, I mean merely to prove, that even upon this hypothesis we are not warranted by the practice of antiquity, in treating Quakers as if they must receive baptism, before we can speak with them respecting the principles and end of the Gospel. Whoever produces the maxim ἅγια ἁγίοις in opposition to the mode of reasoning which I have adopted with the Quaker, is not attacking me but St. Augustine.
Nor will he make his case better, if he should plead that the heretic who adopts parts of the Gospel and rejects the rest, and who lives under the shadow of the Catholic Church, is really in a worse condition than the heathen, and must be treated as one who has sinfully sacrificed all his powers of spiritual apprehension, and can only be appealed to by arguments addressed to his sensible experience. For then we shall produce the two books of Augustine, ‘De Moribus Ecclesiæ Catholicæ’ et ‘De Moribus Manichæorum;’2 books written for the express purpose of convincing those who had been seduced, by what St. Augustine knew from his own experience to be the most fatal of all heresies. I allude to this work the rather, because there are many passages in it, which might lead one to suppose that he would in this particular case have adopted the maxim against which I am contending. For instance, in one place he says, speaking of the manner in which the Manichæans treated the Old Testament,
“Dicendum est vobis, Non est vestrum ista intelligere. Non parum mihi cogniti estis. Crassas omnino mentes et corporeorum simulacrorum pestifero pastu morbidas ad divina judicanda defertis, quæ multo altiora sunt quam putatis.” And again, “Poteram pro mea mediocritate discutere singula, et eruere ac demonstrare quæ accepi, in quorum excellentia et altitudine plerumque verba deficiunt: sed quamdiu latratis, non est faciendum. Non enim frustra dictum est, Nolite sanctum dare canibus. Ne succenseatis. Et ego latravi et canis fui, quando mecum jure non docendi cibo sed refellendi fustibus agebatur. Si autem in vobis esset caritas, de qua nunc agitur, vel etiam si fuerit aliquando, quantam cognoscendæ veritatis magnitudo desiderat, aderit Deus qui ostendat vobis neque apud Manichæos esse Christianam fidem, quæ ad summum apicem sapientiæ veritatisque perducit, qua perfrui nihil est aliud nisi beate vivere, neque esse uspiam, nisi in catholica disciplina.” And again, “Unde illud exoritur, quod ab initio satagimus, nihil in Ecclesia catholica salubrius fieri, quam ut rationem præcedat auctoritas.”
From these passages one might easily infer that Augustine would appeal only to such low hopes as these low minds could reach, would give nothing but fleshless bones to these barking dogs, would insist upon their submitting to the authority of the Church, before he treated them as capable of hearing any reason. How stands the case? He declares at the outset of his treatise, (c. 2.) that he will appeal only to those scriptures which they themselves recognise, and will try the Church by those moral signs which they hold to be sound: (c. 3.) that though according to the true order of nature, authority ought to precede reason, he should nevertheless call upon them to receive nothing, for which he did not produce a reason. Adding, “Delectat enim me imitari quantum valeo mansuetudinem Domini mei Jesu Christi, qui etiam ipsius mortis malo, quo nos exuere vellet, indutus est.” And to what kind of reasons does he appeal? He inquires what the Summum Bonum is, he shows what an appetite there is in man after it, he proves that God must be the good, and that the knowledge and love of God must be the eternal life, which men are craving. These are the principles from which he starts, and to which all that he says about the Scriptures, and the Church, is referred. And he does not speak of these matters in a cold dry spirit, as if he were addressing men before whom he was afraid of exhibiting any deeper emotions; his words often rise almost into a rapture, though he never for a moment loses his intellectual clearness, or his human affection.3
I think then that in abandoning the argument from safety, and in appealing to the principles which are still acknowledged by those who have wandered the farthest from what I believe to be the order of the Catholic Church, I am acting in the spirit of these passages. The other method seems to me to be formed from an incongruous combination of the hardest maxims and precedents of the early times, with the most vulgar of our own. It is an attempt to graft Paley upon Chrysostom, to establish ancient Christianity by the help of the Stock Exchange.